If Russia caused Trump to win does that mean Americans are easily led?

[Jimmy Higgins]

Elixir, FBI was not allowed to investigate these hacking attempts. And this whole "17 agencies" thing is so obviously desperate that even you should see that. CrowdStrike run by a russian (!!!) expat was hired by Clinton to investigate it. The same biased guy who made up shit against Russia before (that is actually an established and admitted by the perpetrator fact). I am sorry but fuck that piece of shit. It all smells Saddam&WMD.

Interesting analogy, seeing we had people on the ground in Iraq looking (and not finding) WMDs prior to invading. However, Hussein was holding back a bit because he wanted to at least let people think it was possible so as not to imply weakness in Iraq and give other local nations any ideas.

In the hacking case, even President Trump relented on who was responsible. The only alternative method of the emails being provided to Wikileaks is a conspiracy theory.

The Russia - Trump connection has developed since the Spring of '16 when foreign intelligence groups were picking up odd communications regarding Trump's campaign team. This "DNC Conspiracy" because they are sore from losing, started well before Trump blew everyone away when he actually won an election no one thought he'd win.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Elixir, FBI was not allowed to investigate these hacking attempts. And this whole "17 agencies" thing is so obviously desperate that even you should see that. CrowdStrike run by a russian (!!!) expat was hired by Clinton to investigate it. The same biased guy who made up shit against Russia before (that is actually an established and admitted by the perpetrator fact). I am sorry but fuck that piece of shit. It all smells Saddam&WMD.

What you are saying is an awful lot of information is required to produce proper investigation results. Leaking every line of questioning and investigation to the press is somewhat stupid. This is because at some point the investigators could lose credibility as to their objectivity.

This could well however be a case of Weapons of Mass Distraction.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Elixir, FBI was not allowed to investigate these hacking attempts. And this whole "17 agencies" thing is so obviously desperate that even you should see that. CrowdStrike run by a russian (!!!) expat was hired by Clinton to investigate it. The same biased guy who made up shit against Russia before (that is actually an established and admitted by the perpetrator fact). I am sorry but fuck that piece of shit. It all smells Saddam&WMD.

What you are saying is an awful lot of information is required to produce proper investigation results. Leaking every line of questioning and investigation to the press is somewhat stupid. This is because at some point the investigators could lose credibility as to their objectivity.

This could well however be a case of Weapons of Mass Distraction.

Or much more likely, the worst breaches in American democracy in our history.

 

[Elixir]

Elixir, FBI was not allowed to investigate these hacking attempts.

Oh? Who exactly disallowed them and on what authority? We now have an independent Counsel investigating it - and Cheato's possible collusion. All for no reason, according to you.

And this whole "17 agencies" thing is so obviously desperate that even you should see that.

Of course it's desperate. We have a foreign adversary who has succeeded in installing a moron who is bent on destroying American Democracy.
Could there possibly be a better reason for desperation?

CrowdStrike run by a russian (!!!) expat was hired by Clinton to investigate it. The same biased guy who made up shit against Russia before (that is actually an established and admitted by the perpetrator fact). I am sorry but fuck that piece of shit. It all smells Saddam&WMD.

Riiiiight ... because our resident Putin shill says so. Got it.
No evidence needed because ... it's barbos!
Barbos says there was no Russian interference, and barbos don't need no steenkin' evidence because his nose is full of Saddam and WMDs.

Ya gotta FAIL better, barbie.

 

[whichphilosophy]

What you are saying is an awful lot of information is required to produce proper investigation results. Leaking every line of questioning and investigation to the press is somewhat stupid. This is because at some point the investigators could lose credibility as to their objectivity.

This could well however be a case of Weapons of Mass Distraction.

Or much more likely, the worst breaches in American democracy in our history.

Not if it is not established. Now after reading all the posts so far, I can provide a definite Don't know as to the question of hacking and collusion.

 

[barbos]

Elixir, FBI was not allowed to investigate these hacking attempts. And this whole "17 agencies" thing is so obviously desperate that even you should see that. CrowdStrike run by a russian (!!!) expat was hired by Clinton to investigate it. The same biased guy who made up shit against Russia before (that is actually an established and admitted by the perpetrator fact). I am sorry but fuck that piece of shit. It all smells Saddam&WMD.

Interesting analogy, seeing we had people on the ground in Iraq looking (and not finding) WMDs prior to invading. However, Hussein was holding back a bit because he wanted to at least let people think it was possible so as not to imply weakness in Iraq and give other local nations any ideas.

Iraqi WMD fiasco could be traced to a single Iraqi (!!!) asshole who bullshitted germans hoping they would be nice to him.
This russian hacking fiasco inexplicably involves a russian born (!!!) expert. Why would anyone even hire a russian to investigate a russian hacking?
Reminded me another case where Hillary was screwed by a russian "expert" remember "Reset" button fiasco? I wonder if it was the same guy

In the hacking case, even President Trump relented on who was responsible. The only alternative method of the emails being provided to Wikileaks is a conspiracy theory.

The Russia - Trump connection has developed since the Spring of '16 when foreign intelligence groups were picking up odd communications regarding Trump's campaign team.

Yeah, that odd communications, which was a complete and utter fabrication.

This "DNC Conspiracy" because they are sore from losing, started well before Trump blew everyone away when he actually won an election no one thought he'd win.

 

[barbos]

Oh? Who exactly disallowed them and on what authority? We now have an independent Counsel investigating it - and Cheato's possible collusion. All for no reason, according to you.

And this whole "17 agencies" thing is so obviously desperate that even you should see that.

Of course it's desperate. We have a foreign adversary who has succeeded in installing a moron who is bent on destroying American Democracy.
Could there possibly be a better reason for desperation?

CrowdStrike run by a russian (!!!) expat was hired by Clinton to investigate it. The same biased guy who made up shit against Russia before (that is actually an established and admitted by the perpetrator fact). I am sorry but fuck that piece of shit. It all smells Saddam&WMD.

Riiiiight ... because our resident Putin shill says so. Got it.
No evidence needed because ... it's barbos!
Barbos says there was no Russian interference, and barbos don't need no steenkin' evidence because his nose is full of Saddam and WMDs.

Ya gotta FAIL better, barbie.

Dude, it was discussed here. You probably forgot it.

 

[Elixir]

Oh? Who exactly disallowed them and on what authority? We now have an independent Counsel investigating it - and Cheato's possible collusion. All for no reason, according to you.



Of course it's desperate. We have a foreign adversary who has succeeded in installing a moron who is bent on destroying American Democracy.
Could there possibly be a better reason for desperation?

CrowdStrike run by a russian (!!!) expat was hired by Clinton to investigate it. The same biased guy who made up shit against Russia before (that is actually an established and admitted by the perpetrator fact). I am sorry but fuck that piece of shit. It all smells Saddam&WMD.

Riiiiight ... because our resident Putin shill says so. Got it.
No evidence needed because ... it's barbos!
Barbos says there was no Russian interference, and barbos don't need no steenkin' evidence because his nose is full of Saddam and WMDs.

Ya gotta FAIL better, barbie.

Dude, it was discussed here. You probably forgot it.

I didn't see where you offered anything but your tired FAIL. If there was anything of substance, it would be worth re-posting.

Even your orange puppet has come around to admitting that Russia was behind the hacks (after he asked them to keep hacking...)

 

[barbos]

Oh? Who exactly disallowed them and on what authority? We now have an independent Counsel investigating it - and Cheato's possible collusion. All for no reason, according to you.



Of course it's desperate. We have a foreign adversary who has succeeded in installing a moron who is bent on destroying American Democracy.
Could there possibly be a better reason for desperation?

CrowdStrike run by a russian (!!!) expat was hired by Clinton to investigate it. The same biased guy who made up shit against Russia before (that is actually an established and admitted by the perpetrator fact). I am sorry but fuck that piece of shit. It all smells Saddam&WMD.

Riiiiight ... because our resident Putin shill says so. Got it.
No evidence needed because ... it's barbos!
Barbos says there was no Russian interference, and barbos don't need no steenkin' evidence because his nose is full of Saddam and WMDs.

Ya gotta FAIL better, barbie.

Dude, it was discussed here. You probably forgot it.

I didn't see where you offered anything but your tired FAIL. If there was anything of substance, it would be worth re-posting.

Even your orange puppet has come around to admitting that Russia was behind the hacks (after he asked them to keep hacking...)

Look, I am not a brain surgeon, so can't really help you with your problems.

 

[braces_for_impact]

What I always find interesting about these denials is the simplicity. The Iraq war being caused by "an Iraqi asshole that wanted Germans to be nice to him". The Crowdstrike guy is an ex-pat. George Soros. The hacking was done by a fat guy in his mom's basement.

What it really interesting is how some of these details are so shockingly wrong, like the insistence that Hillary's email (server) was hacked. I think the insistence on these details is somewhat telling about the minds involved in the errors, and where they are focused and how they operate logically. It reminds me a lot of when I've dealt with conspiracy theorists (again we see some of those tendencies here). I think for some people, it's a way to try and make sense of a complex situation by substituting more easily understood motivations. Motivations which are so caricature like as to be funny.

Sometimes it's amusing, like when a poster LOL's out loud at Crowdstrike, and also attempts an appeal to authority by playing the John McAfee card.

 

[whichphilosophy]

What I always find interesting about these denials is the simplicity. The Iraq war being caused by "an Iraqi asshole that wanted Germans to be nice to him". The Crowdstrike guy is an ex-pat. George Soros. The hacking was done by a fat guy in his mom's basement.

What it really interesting is how some of these details are so shockingly wrong, like the insistence that Hillary's email (server) was hacked. I think the insistence on these details is somewhat telling about the minds involved in the errors, and where they are focused and how they operate logically. It reminds me a lot of when I've dealt with conspiracy theorists (again we see some of those tendencies here). I think for some people, it's a way to try and make sense of a complex situation by substituting more easily understood motivations. Motivations which are so caricature like as to be funny.

Sometimes it's amusing, like when a poster LOL's out loud at Crowdstrike, and also attempts an appeal to authority by playing the John McAfee card.

The problem is that the investigation is still ongoing and there are no real conclusions to move forward. There are disparate arguments which are not helped by the fact that when a new line of questioning is about to start, it tends to be leaked to the Washington Post.

McAFee has his views and is an expert in his field so it may not be simply playing the McAfee card. Wikileaks also dispute the issue regarding Russian hacking claiming it was another source.

So until the investigations are completed we can't really be making any claims on this.

We know the Russians, Chinese and others (including Britain and Israel) have been trying to hack everyone. So has the USA. It's still very much not clear the Russians did actually hack Hillary's email. If it did, then there is still a problem to show collusion since there isn't anything really concrete at the moment.

This is not to say Trump or his campaign did or did not do any of the things implied in the investigation.

 

[braces_for_impact]

What I always find interesting about these denials is the simplicity. The Iraq war being caused by "an Iraqi asshole that wanted Germans to be nice to him". The Crowdstrike guy is an ex-pat. George Soros. The hacking was done by a fat guy in his mom's basement.

What it really interesting is how some of these details are so shockingly wrong, like the insistence that Hillary's email (server) was hacked. I think the insistence on these details is somewhat telling about the minds involved in the errors, and where they are focused and how they operate logically. It reminds me a lot of when I've dealt with conspiracy theorists (again we see some of those tendencies here). I think for some people, it's a way to try and make sense of a complex situation by substituting more easily understood motivations. Motivations which are so caricature like as to be funny.

Sometimes it's amusing, like when a poster LOL's out loud at Crowdstrike, and also attempts an appeal to authority by playing the John McAfee card.

The problem is that the investigation is still ongoing and there are no real conclusions to move forward. There are disparate arguments which are not helped by the fact that when a new line of questioning is about to start, it tends to be leaked to the Washington Post.

McAFee has his views and is an expert in his field so it may not be simply playing the McAfee card. Wikileaks also dispute the issue regarding Russian hacking claiming it was another source.

So until the investigations are completed we can't really be making any claims on this.

We know the Russians, Chinese and others (including Britain and Israel) have been trying to hack everyone. So has the USA. It's still very much not clear the Russians did actually hack Hillary's email. If it did, then there is still a problem to show collusion since there isn't anything really concrete at the moment.

This is not to say Trump or his campaign did or did not do any of the things implied in the investigation.

Thank you for further elucidating my point.

Also, John McAfee is a computer programmer, and is usually too busy fending off accusations of being a complete idiot to give you advice on the Russian fiasco. His BA in mathematics as well as a lot of very stupid things he's said and done over the years casts doubt on you're Claim b that has an expert.

 

[Elixir]

Look, I am not a brain surgeon, so can't really help you with your problems.

...therefore I should believe your made-up crap?
Really barbos, you need to FAIL better. Compared to the orange turd you guys put in our White House, you ARE a brain surgeon (it's a figure of speech), and even HE knows it was Russia.
You should at least be able to cite sources to support the garbage you are asking others to swallow.

 

[blastula]

But nobody has said collusion is demonstrable, it's under investigation with no conclusion yet. And all you showed about the hacking is the evidence is not declassified, which nobody has said otherwise. You are having delusional arguments with your imagination, trying to shift goalposts.

And you forgot to mention all the stuff you posted about impeachment. It shows, as many of us have told you, that impeachment proceedings are run however congress decides. It doesn't require court procedures. You are wrong. Admit it for once. Show some ethics. Or are you just a propaganda hack?

True the collusion is not demonstrable at this stage which I have also said. Hence agreed.

Yes, you brought up collusion AGAIN even though the topic was responsibility for the hack, you keep trying to divert to something else, something which you keep getting wrong too, since you are claiming that there is no evidence of collusion.

And on the actual topic, here is what your cited source Clapper happen to say just today:

"There's been a long history of Soviet interference going back to the Soviet era in our elections, but never, ever has there been a case of the aggressiveness and direct actions that the Russians took and their conduct of a multifaceted campaign to interfere with our election," he told CNN's Chris Cuomo Tuesday on "New Day."

Clapper previously testified before a Senate judiciary subcommittee that he was not aware of any evidence demonstrating collusion between President Donald Trump's campaign and Russia -- but he also said he had been unaware of an FBI investigation into the matter until former FBI Director James Comey announced it publicly at a House hearing in March.

"Are you 100% sure that Russia was behind the election meddling that you described," Cuomo asked Clapper Tuesday.

"Absolutely," Clapper responded. "The evidence, which unfortunately we could not detail in our intelligence community assessment, was, in my view, overwhelming. And that is why the assessment that we did enjoyed such a high confidence level."

Clapper: Russia 'absolutely' meddled in the 2016 election - CNNPolitics.com

Please ask someone to translate that for you if you still don't get it.

By the way, as KeepTalking pointed out, you also earlier repeated your whopper that Clinton's email server was hacked. Stop the bullshit for once. Are you honestly this inept or are you doing this on purpose? That you never admit error, gives me a hint.

Hacking: This is something which has been going on for a considerable amount of years. Since this is concerning an unsecured server this created a field day for all kinds of Hacks. That is it. We can also argue that since this was happening for a number of years, the previous US governments should have been doing something about it (but it is possible it was).

Thanks for another of your headscratching non sequiturs.

I suggest you read the procedures used in particular the Supreme Court Case Nixon v. United States (1993) This was relating to WALTER Nixon, not Richard Nixon.

I did read it. YOU need to read it. This is what YOU quoted:

The Senate countered that it had complete authority over how to fashion proceedings and that Senators' political accountability was the only check on this authority. Ultimately, the Supreme Court accepted the Senate's arguments in Nixon v. United States (1993) on the principal ground that the Senate's power to try impeachments included the nonreviewable final discretion to determine how to conduct its trials.

That is the exact opposite of what you keep claiming. If Congress wanted to, they could decide to impeach Trump because he's too unfit to walk half a mile without taking a break. Congress can vote however they want about it. Of course they should try to objectively apply suitable standards of evidence, but as your quote says it's a political process not a judicial one.

However if you can find a lawyer on the forum (there used to be a couple) he/she can give a perspective in that he may say my interpretation is correct or it is wrong. However this is really not the central issue as it relates to the methodology used.

It's not a court of course. It's a trial in the Senate presided over by the Chief Justice (in the case of the President).

Yes, go ask any lawyer who knows about impeachment. Please do so. Go play your nutty game with them instead of wasting our time here.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The problem is that the investigation is still ongoing and there are no real conclusions to move forward. There are disparate arguments which are not helped by the fact that when a new line of questioning is about to start, it tends to be leaked to the Washington Post.

McAFee has his views and is an expert in his field so it may not be simply playing the McAfee card. Wikileaks also dispute the issue regarding Russian hacking claiming it was another source.

So until the investigations are completed we can't really be making any claims on this.

We know the Russians, Chinese and others (including Britain and Israel) have been trying to hack everyone. So has the USA. It's still very much not clear the Russians did actually hack Hillary's email. If it did, then there is still a problem to show collusion since there isn't anything really concrete at the moment.

This is not to say Trump or his campaign did or did not do any of the things implied in the investigation.

Thank you for further elucidating my point.

Also, John McAfee is a computer programmer, and is usually too busy fending off accusations of being a complete idiot to give you advice on the Russian fiasco. His BA in mathematics as well as a lot of very stupid things he's said and done over the years casts doubt on you're Claim b that has an expert.

t
No you miss the point. The matter is not resolved as there is disparity.

An idiot doesn't simply produce effective and popular anti-virus programs and spyware on s global scale and employ over 6,700 staff. He knows how hacking works and about spyware. However there are perhaps other things he can be called.

He is a controversial character, not unlike some others who achieve fame and wealth.

 

[barbos]

What I always find interesting about these denials is the simplicity. The Iraq war being caused by "an Iraqi asshole that wanted Germans to be nice to him". The Crowdstrike guy is an ex-pat. George Soros. The hacking was done by a fat guy in his mom's basement.

I did not say "caused" I said "traced", And yes, these kind of fuckups often can be traced to a rather small number of failures in the system.

What it really interesting is how some of these details are so shockingly wrong, like the insistence that Hillary's email (server) was hacked. I think the insistence on these details is somewhat telling about the minds involved in the errors, and where they are focused and how they operate logically. It reminds me a lot of when I've dealt with conspiracy theorists (again we see some of those tendencies here). I think for some people, it's a way to try and make sense of a complex situation by substituting more easily understood motivations. Motivations which are so caricature like as to be funny.

Sometimes it's amusing, like when a poster LOL's out loud at Crowdstrike, and also attempts an appeal to authority by playing the John McAfee card.

I did not appeal to McAfee. But that's funny your side say that because when I don't appeal to anyone you demand I appeal to someone because you can't seem to read any argument without links.

 

[barbos]

Look, I am not a brain surgeon, so can't really help you with your problems.

...therefore I should believe your made-up crap?

Really barbos, you need to FAIL better. Compared to the orange turd you guys put in our White House, you ARE a brain surgeon (it's a figure of speech), and even HE knows it was Russia.
You should at least be able to cite sources to support the garbage you are asking others to swallow.

Sources for what exactly? Everything I mention in this thread was sourced on this damn forum and should be a common knowledge.
You can easily google it too if your brain can't hold new information for long. I just checked google search "CrowdStrike" and the third link (after first two corporate links) was about them lying. So it is literally the first thing google search says.

 

[braces_for_impact]

...therefore I should believe your made-up crap?

Really barbos, you need to FAIL better. Compared to the orange turd you guys put in our White House, you ARE a brain surgeon (it's a figure of speech), and even HE knows it was Russia.
You should at least be able to cite sources to support the garbage you are asking others to swallow.

Sources for what exactly? Everything I mention in this thread was sourced on this damn forum and should be a common knowledge.
You can easily google it too if your brain can't hold new information for long. I just checked google search "CrowdStrike" and the third link (after first two corporate links) was about them lying. So it is literally the first thing google search says.

Google's algorithms are based on YOUR preferences. You may wish to go into incognito mode and try again. Also, because contrary points of view appear on the first page doesn't mean both sides are credible. Google a couple of other things like Global Warming, Vaccinations, or Russians suck. Yes, your sources need work. Your threshold for evidence is obviously led around by the nose by your cognitive dissonance. Your response to other's links is either flippant, dodgy or to ignore it and make some way out there non-sequitur. HINT: a citation is for providing evidence, much like a footnote. The evidence should include facts that can be ascertained to negate or support a position.

Nevertheless, You have perfectly shown us all how you assess this evidence given you. You typed "Crowdstrike" into Google. You scanned the page, you saw a third link that confirmed your preconceived bias. Your "research" now being complete, you came back here to post your extensive findings on the matter. Well done sir. No wonder you like Trump so much, you have much in common, you both can't keep your mouth shut to your own detriment.

 

[barbos]

Sources for what exactly? Everything I mention in this thread was sourced on this damn forum and should be a common knowledge.
You can easily google it too if your brain can't hold new information for long. I just checked google search "CrowdStrike" and the third link (after first two corporate links) was about them lying. So it is literally the first thing google search says.

Google's algorithms are based on YOUR preferences. You may wish to go into incognito mode and try again.

Spare me your lecture. The only difference I get when I try VPN is that it gives more direct corporate links before giving the first outside link accusing CrowdStrike of making shit up.
And yes, google algorithms ability or propensity to depend on your preferences is greatly exaggerated, especially when it comes to politics.

Also, because contrary points of view appear on the first page doesn't mean both sides are credible.

You are moving goal posts here. I was accused of making shit up. When in reality I never do that and that person should know that.
Specific issue with links and everything was discussed on this damn forum, and conclusion was undeniable, CrowdStrike are assholes who made up outrageous shit up.

Google a couple of other things like Global Warming, Vaccinations, or Russians suck. Yes, your sources need work. Your threshold for evidence is obviously led around by the nose by your cognitive dissonance. Your response to other's links is either flippant, dodgy or to ignore it and make some way out there non-sequitur. HINT: a citation is for providing evidence, much like a footnote. The evidence should include facts that can be ascertained to negate or support a position. "John McAfee says so" is not a citation, but an appeal to authority.

Nevertheless, You have perfectly shown us all how you assess this evidence given you. You typed "Crowdstrike" into Google. You scanned the page, you saw a third link that confirmed your preconceived bias. Your "research" now being complete, you came back here to post your extensive findings on the matter. Well done sir. No wonder you like Trump so much, you have much in common, you both can't keep your mouth shut to your own detriment.

View attachment 11267

Bullshit!

 

[Elixir]

Bullshit!

Pizzagate?