Thievery, most foul?
-
wrote on 30 Oct 2020, 15:00 last edited by
Not exactly above board, is it?
-
wrote on 30 Oct 2020, 15:02 last edited by
@Mik said in Thievery, most foul?:
Not exactly above board, is it?
The documents? No. But clearly some jackass at UPS tried to sabotage the package, almost certainly without knowing its contents.
-
wrote on 30 Oct 2020, 15:09 last edited by
They've certainly managed to concoct a news story out of a bunch of stuff they don't feel comfortable airing.
-
They've certainly managed to concoct a news story out of a bunch of stuff they don't feel comfortable airing.
wrote on 30 Oct 2020, 15:13 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in Thievery, most foul?:
They've certainly managed to concoct a news story out of a bunch of stuff they don't feel comfortable airing.
Carlson and his team didn't know the contents of the stuff until after they received them; Carlson was dealing with the Bobulinski story at the time, not this.
I'm not trying to defend the guy, just saying that the package story seems legit. UPS backs up the claims.
-
wrote on 30 Oct 2020, 16:01 last edited by
Follow the money, where were the plumbers?
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Thievery, most foul?:
They've certainly managed to concoct a news story out of a bunch of stuff they don't feel comfortable airing.
Carlson and his team didn't know the contents of the stuff until after they received them; Carlson was dealing with the Bobulinski story at the time, not this.
I'm not trying to defend the guy, just saying that the package story seems legit. UPS backs up the claims.
wrote on 30 Oct 2020, 16:43 last edited by@Aqua-Letifer said in Thievery, most foul?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Thievery, most foul?:
They've certainly managed to concoct a news story out of a bunch of stuff they don't feel comfortable airing.
Carlson and his team didn't know the contents of the stuff until after they received them; Carlson was dealing with the Bobulinski story at the time, not this.
I'm not trying to defend the guy, just saying that the package story seems legit. UPS backs up the claims.
Agreed. I just don't know that there is anything we need to see nor that there is a conspiracy. The idea that the DNC had the ins at UPS to make this happen seems a bit far fetched.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Thievery, most foul?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Thievery, most foul?:
They've certainly managed to concoct a news story out of a bunch of stuff they don't feel comfortable airing.
Carlson and his team didn't know the contents of the stuff until after they received them; Carlson was dealing with the Bobulinski story at the time, not this.
I'm not trying to defend the guy, just saying that the package story seems legit. UPS backs up the claims.
Agreed. I just don't know that there is anything we need to see nor that there is a conspiracy. The idea that the DNC had the ins at UPS to make this happen seems a bit far fetched.
wrote on 30 Oct 2020, 17:10 last edited by@Mik said in Thievery, most foul?:
The idea that the DNC had the ins at UPS to make this happen seems a bit far fetched.
I don't think it was that. (To Carlson's credit, he didn't insinuate such, either.) UPS doesn't even know how it happened. Likely it was just some douchebag who works in a sorting facility acting on his own.
As for the contents of the documents, it's tautologically true that they aren't important enough to report on.
-
He's not smart enough to use an ftp site or dropbox to transfer files.
Honestly - they mail this stuff on USB sticks? LOLz.
wrote on 30 Oct 2020, 17:26 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in Thievery, most foul?:
He's not smart enough to use an ftp site or dropbox to transfer files.
Honestly - they mail this stuff on USB sticks? LOLz.
Dear of hacking?
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Thievery, most foul?:
He's not smart enough to use an ftp site or dropbox to transfer files.
Honestly - they mail this stuff on USB sticks? LOLz.
Dear of hacking?
wrote on 30 Oct 2020, 18:01 last edited by Doctor Phibes@Jolly said in Thievery, most foul?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Thievery, most foul?:
He's not smart enough to use an ftp site or dropbox to transfer files.
Honestly - they mail this stuff on USB sticks? LOLz.
Dear of hacking?
According to Tucker's original video, the files were sent to a Fox producer, and he was sending them to Tucker as he was working remotely in California.
Now, I don't know about you, but I deal with highly confidential documents on a daily basis as part of my job, and we would never, ever, send them on a stick via a courier or via snail-mail. We have encryption processes set up, and internal networking that allows us to access these documents immediately.
As a matter of fact, our laptops are locked to prevent us from putting anything on a USB stick, due to security concerns.
If we had to send all our files via the mail, we'd never get anything done. And clearly, if you believe this story, the courier is a long way from being secure.
There's something about this whole story that doesn't make sense.
-
@Jolly said in Thievery, most foul?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Thievery, most foul?:
He's not smart enough to use an ftp site or dropbox to transfer files.
Honestly - they mail this stuff on USB sticks? LOLz.
Dear of hacking?
According to Tucker's original video, the files were sent to a Fox producer, and he was sending them to Tucker as he was working remotely in California.
Now, I don't know about you, but I deal with highly confidential documents on a daily basis as part of my job, and we would never, ever, send them on a stick via a courier or via snail-mail. We have encryption processes set up, and internal networking that allows us to access these documents immediately.
As a matter of fact, our laptops are locked to prevent us from putting anything on a USB stick, due to security concerns.
If we had to send all our files via the mail, we'd never get anything done. And clearly, if you believe this story, the courier is a long way from being secure.
There's something about this whole story that doesn't make sense.
wrote on 30 Oct 2020, 18:23 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in Thievery, most foul?:
@Jolly said in Thievery, most foul?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Thievery, most foul?:
He's not smart enough to use an ftp site or dropbox to transfer files.
Honestly - they mail this stuff on USB sticks? LOLz.
Dear of hacking?
According to Tucker's original video, the files were sent to a Fox producer, and he was sending them to Tucker as he was working remotely in California.
Now, I don't know about you, but I deal with highly confidential documents on a daily basis as part of my job, and we would never, ever, send them on a stick via a courier or via snail-mail. We have encryption processes set up, and internal networking that allows us to access these documents immediately.
As a matter of fact, our laptops are locked to prevent us from putting anything on a USB stick, due to security concerns.
If we had to send all our files via the mail, we'd never get anything done. And clearly, if you believe this story, the courier is a long way from being secure.
There's something about this whole story that doesn't make sense.
Doing it this way makes chain of custody a hell of a lot easier to follow. You can't go around giving everyone and their mother access to materials you're going to report on, because as soon as someone cries "tampering," you're going to have to walk back the entire history of the document: who had access, when manipulation happened if it occurred, who was accessing which version, etc. For reporting, it's got to be as linear as possible.
-
wrote on 30 Oct 2020, 18:25 last edited by
Then I’m not sure UPS is the way to go.
-
wrote on 30 Oct 2020, 18:29 last edited by
@Mik said in Thievery, most foul?:
Then I’m not sure UPS is the way to go.
Remember, they didn't know what they were receiving.
I'm not saying this is a DNC conspiracy. I'm saying the UPS thing happened. UPS confirms it and it would be better for them if they didn't have to. They reluctantly had to admit publicly that items were removed from the package under their care.
Whatever this means I dunno. Like I said probably some jackass tampered with it, end of story. But the handling of the material isn't that weird considering this was a news outlet.
-
wrote on 30 Oct 2020, 18:32 last edited by
I agree with your assessment. Just not sure that a commercial carrier qualifies for chain of custody.
-
I agree with your assessment. Just not sure that a commercial carrier qualifies for chain of custody.
wrote on 30 Oct 2020, 18:33 last edited by@Mik said in Thievery, most foul?:
I agree with your assessment. Just not sure that a commercial carrier qualifies for chain of custody.
No idea why they went with UPS. I mean FFS, did they not have FedEx in California?
-
wrote on 30 Oct 2020, 18:44 last edited by
It would have been funnier if they'd gone with USPS. They could have claimed it was sabotaged by Deep State postmen.
-
It would have been funnier if they'd gone with USPS. They could have claimed it was sabotaged by Deep State postmen.
wrote on 30 Oct 2020, 18:46 last edited by -
@Jolly said in Thievery, most foul?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Thievery, most foul?:
He's not smart enough to use an ftp site or dropbox to transfer files.
Honestly - they mail this stuff on USB sticks? LOLz.
Dear of hacking?
According to Tucker's original video, the files were sent to a Fox producer, and he was sending them to Tucker as he was working remotely in California.
Now, I don't know about you, but I deal with highly confidential documents on a daily basis as part of my job, and we would never, ever, send them on a stick via a courier or via snail-mail. We have encryption processes set up, and internal networking that allows us to access these documents immediately.
As a matter of fact, our laptops are locked to prevent us from putting anything on a USB stick, due to security concerns.
If we had to send all our files via the mail, we'd never get anything done. And clearly, if you believe this story, the courier is a long way from being secure.
There's something about this whole story that doesn't make sense.
wrote on 30 Oct 2020, 19:34 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in Thievery, most foul?:
We have encryption processes set up, and internal networking that allows us to access these documents immediately.
Then what if you have a document you want to leak and you want to offer it as bait to a UPS dupe?
-
wrote on 30 Oct 2020, 20:04 last edited by
It's interesting how some people conjure up things, talk about what Tucker said or did, but have not watched Tucker's explanation of what happened from the outset. As usual, it's based upon what another news source says he said, instead of WATCHING WHAT THE FRUCK HE ACTUALLY SAID!
That's what I like about Aqua. I don't always agree with him, but he cuts through the bullshit by assessing what is factual, and what is nonsense or politically biased. Amidst all the implications of what something means or doesn't mean in this thread, he avoids doing so most of the time. He should be a writer or something, it would be a gooder job than whatever he's doing now.
So, there are only three outstanding world-champion geniouses on this forum: Me, Aqua, and of course, Ax.
The rest of you can join at any time, the smartest objective thinkers are already on the consideration list.BTW - pinch and hold your tongue and say "Tucker" over and over. If you do that, you too are a geniouse.
Bwaahaa555588hahabwahaha447775!!!!
-
wrote on 30 Oct 2020, 20:10 last edited by
Tucker said what we say he said.
This is tncr.
Get with it.
-
They've certainly managed to concoct a news story out of a bunch of stuff they don't feel comfortable airing.
wrote on 30 Oct 2020, 20:26 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in Thievery, most foul?:
They've certainly managed to concoct a news story out of a bunch of stuff they don't feel comfortable airing.
No, there's some stuff that Tucker won't air. Their are allegations of some photos on Hunter's laptop that indicate pedophilia or at the least seriously inappropriate behavior. There are also photos of drug use.
Neither has much bearing on the influence peddling story...
