RussiaGate

[laughing dog]

You must not have been paying attention over the past year because the number of posters on this board who supported Trump proved that point long ago.

Proved what; that there are unconfirmed reports from both sides?

No, that
"it's bewildering that on a supposed skeptics board so many seem to have jettisoned their skepticism."

 

[barbos]

No, moderate confidence is not a disagreement as you are presenting a false dichotomy.

I will add that you claimed it was "weak" confidence and it's up to you to present your evidence. This is the second time I am asking you to present your evidence.

Moderate, weak, the point is, FBI (I think) looked at it and could make themselves to call it "high"

Please do so or retract it.

You first.

And we don't really know what "high confidence" means. Is it even higher than 50%?

Yes.

51%?

No, that's not high confidence.

What is it then?

 

[laughing dog]

US will always view Russia as a threat and act accordingly - undermining Russia at every step.

Undermining Russia from what?

 

[barbos]

It means absolutely nothing. Obama hated Russia and Putin, Trump wanted to hate Obama and it's clear in order to hate Obama well you need to "love" everything he hates. Just ask any middle schooler.
Same with Putin, he hates Obama back and has to love any Obama hater.

Trump met with the Russian ambassador but claimed he didn't.

Trump? I thought it was Sessions and Flynn.

 

[Ford]

It means absolutely nothing. Obama hated Russia and Putin, Trump wanted to hate Obama and it's clear in order to hate Obama well you need to "love" everything he hates. Just ask any middle schooler.
Same with Putin, he hates Obama back and has to love any Obama hater.

Trump met with the Russian ambassador but claimed he didn't.

This is the heart of the matter right here.

The US has a long history of meeting with Russians. And while sometimes our goals aligned (like in WWII) it was never a friendship. We met with them because we had to. Because we were trying to defeat a common enemy or defuse a situation where we were pointing tens of thousands of nukes at each other.

These meetings were above-board for the most part. The open line of communication between the White House and Kremlin during the Cold War was well known. Summits were held publicly. Reagan walking through the streets of Moscow and shaking hands with Soviet citizens, etc. George W. Bush riding around in a pickup truck with Putin in Texas and claiming he could "see into his soul."

The relationship is complex, but even at it's chummiest it was that of two big rivals competing on the world stage.

The Trump thing is like two secret lovers trying to hide a torrid affair. Russia has become not our rival, but our paramour, and Trump's team is trying very hard to hide the fact that they've been sending flowers and chocolates to the Kremlin for the better part of the last year.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Moderate, weak, the point is, FBI (I think) looked at it and could make themselves to call it "high"

Please do so or retract it.

You first.

And we don't really know what "high confidence" means. Is it even higher than 50%?

Yes.

51%?

No, that's not high confidence.

What is it then?

YOU WROTE "WEAK." THIS IS THE THIRD TIME I AM ASKING YOU TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT SOME INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES ASSESSED THIS AS "WEAK" EVIDENCE. PROVIDE EVIDENCE OR RETRACT.

I put this in all caps so I can be sure you read it.

 

[barbos]

Moderate, weak, the point is, FBI (I think) looked at it and could make themselves to call it "high"

You first.

And we don't really know what "high confidence" means. Is it even higher than 50%?

Yes.

51%?

No, that's not high confidence.

What is it then?

YOU WROTE "WEAK." THIS IS THE THIRD TIME I AM ASKING YOU TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT SOME INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES ASSESSED THIS AS "WEAK" EVIDENCE. PROVIDE EVIDENCE OR RETRACT.

I put this in all caps so I can be sure you read it.

And you and others wrote "17 agencies agreed" when in reality they have not agreed on "high confidence" at all.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Moderate, weak, the point is, FBI (I think) looked at it and could make themselves to call it "high"

You first.

And we don't really know what "high confidence" means. Is it even higher than 50%?

Yes.

51%?

No, that's not high confidence.

What is it then?

YOU WROTE "WEAK." THIS IS THE THIRD TIME I AM ASKING YOU TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT SOME INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES ASSESSED THIS AS "WEAK" EVIDENCE. PROVIDE EVIDENCE OR RETRACT.

I put this in all caps so I can be sure you read it.

And you and others wrote "17 agencies agreed" when in reality they have not agreed on "high confidence" at all.

I didn't write that. You are quoting someone else. NOW provide your evidence that some agencies had weak confidence or retract your statement. This is the 4th time I am asking you to support your claim and everyone can see you aren't doing it.

 

[barbos]

Moderate, weak, the point is, FBI (I think) looked at it and could make themselves to call it "high"

You first.

And we don't really know what "high confidence" means. Is it even higher than 50%?

Yes.

51%?

No, that's not high confidence.

What is it then?

YOU WROTE "WEAK." THIS IS THE THIRD TIME I AM ASKING YOU TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT SOME INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES ASSESSED THIS AS "WEAK" EVIDENCE. PROVIDE EVIDENCE OR RETRACT.

I put this in all caps so I can be sure you read it.

And you and others wrote "17 agencies agreed" when in reality they have not agreed on "high confidence" at all.

I didn't write that. You are quoting someone else. NOW provide your evidence that some agencies had weak confidence or retract your statement. This is the 4th time I am asking you to support your claim and everyone can see you aren't doing it.

Evidence was weak to qualify for "high" confidence.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Moderate, weak, the point is, FBI (I think) looked at it and could make themselves to call it "high"

You first.

And we don't really know what "high confidence" means. Is it even higher than 50%?

Yes.

51%?

No, that's not high confidence.

What is it then?

YOU WROTE "WEAK." THIS IS THE THIRD TIME I AM ASKING YOU TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT SOME INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES ASSESSED THIS AS "WEAK" EVIDENCE. PROVIDE EVIDENCE OR RETRACT.

I put this in all caps so I can be sure you read it.

And you and others wrote "17 agencies agreed" when in reality they have not agreed on "high confidence" at all.

I didn't write that. You are quoting someone else. NOW provide your evidence that some agencies had weak confidence or retract your statement. This is the 4th time I am asking you to support your claim and everyone can see you aren't doing it.

Evidence was weak to qualify for "high" confidence.

You wrote that some agencies didnt agree and called the confidence weak. Where is your evidence?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Moderate, weak, the point is, FBI (I think) looked at it and could make themselves to call it "high"

You first.

And we don't really know what "high confidence" means. Is it even higher than 50%?

Yes.

51%?

No, that's not high confidence.

What is it then?

YOU WROTE "WEAK." THIS IS THE THIRD TIME I AM ASKING YOU TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT SOME INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES ASSESSED THIS AS "WEAK" EVIDENCE. PROVIDE EVIDENCE OR RETRACT.

I put this in all caps so I can be sure you read it.

And you and others wrote "17 agencies agreed" when in reality they have not agreed on "high confidence" at all.

Jebus! That reads like QuestionMarks? whole 'there is no law which requires me to pay federal income taxes' line.

The agencies all agreed the Russians hacked the DNC. In fact, the agreement was so overwhelming, Trump said so as well after being briefed on the information and conclusions.

 

[barbos]

Don2 (Don1 Revised), you should be worried with lack of evidence of russian involvement.

 

[Elixir]

Don2 (Don1 Revised), you should be worried with lack of evidence of russian involvement.

Because we know that the Russians were involved? Or are you imagining that it would be a bad thing to prove that they weren't?

 

[blastula]

It isn't taken at face value. It's corroborated by other agencies, including the FBI, and by private firms. The Iraq prewar intelligence was a different situation. There were dissenting opinions, the agencies were not unanimous. In selling the war, the White House didn't talk about contrary findings or uncertainties. And since then, the CIA has made changes in their methods to prevent the same breakdown. That Iraq related mark against their reputation strongly motivates them not to have the same kind of major public failing, which this would be.

It's not just the Iraq war but essentially their entire history. I mean seriously, you cannot be ignorant of the CIA's history?

You're conflating different issues, and again aren't addressing why we should think they are lying in this case.

This is what I find most disheartening, but in their hatred of Trump, the Democrats have essentially become the CIA-loving, Russia scare-mongering party in the US. The CIA and their activities are a stain the the USAs history. And the liberals shouldn't forget that simply because they hate Trump so much. But of course, I don't think most people actually believe in those principles, they just want to get the other side.

What I see is your hobby horse of trying to equate the left and right on everything. You don't have to love the CIA to think they are reliable in certain situations. It's tinfoil thinking to dismiss them all the time.

Quite frankly, Trump is the president America deserves.

That includes you then.

In any event, when you say "corroborated by other agencies", as I stated, it's not like these other agencies did independent investigations and came to the same conclusions. They are simply saying "we agree with what the CIA says." And guess what? I don't fucking trust the CIA.

As I said, the other agencies include the FBI who are not exactly rubber stamps to the CIA.

And the private firms were hired by the political opposition to dig up dirt, and the owner is ex-CIA.

False, I'm talking about Crowdstrike and others.

Cyber researchers confirm Russian government hack of Democratic National Committee - The Washington Post

 

[barbos]

It's not just the Iraq war but essentially their entire history. I mean seriously, you cannot be ignorant of the CIA's history?

You're conflating different issues, and again aren't addressing why we should think they are lying in this case.

You seem to have very low expectations from your intelligence services. As long as they don't lie ALL the time you are OK.
OK I will play. CIA and other such agencies need a good enemy or two to justify their existence, Russia is this designated enemy which gives their existence meaning.

This is what I find most disheartening, but in their hatred of Trump, the Democrats have essentially become the CIA-loving, Russia scare-mongering party in the US. The CIA and their activities are a stain the the USAs history. And the liberals shouldn't forget that simply because they hate Trump so much. But of course, I don't think most people actually believe in those principles, they just want to get the other side.

What I see is your hobby horse of trying to equate the left and right on everything. You don't have to love the CIA to think they are reliable in certain situations. It's tinfoil thinking to dismiss them all the time.

Not on everything, just foreign policy. You could rely on CIA in Iraq WMD situation, sure.

Quite frankly, Trump is the president America deserves.

That includes you then.

In any event, when you say "corroborated by other agencies", as I stated, it's not like these other agencies did independent investigations and came to the same conclusions. They are simply saying "we agree with what the CIA says." And guess what? I don't fucking trust the CIA.

As I said, the other agencies include the FBI who are not exactly rubber stamps to the CIA.

And the private firms were hired by the political opposition to dig up dirt, and the owner is ex-CIA.

False, I'm talking about Crowdstrike and others.

Cyber researchers confirm Russian government hack of Democratic National Committee - The Washington Post

 

[tupac chopra]

False, I'm talking about Crowdstrike and others.

Cyber researchers confirm Russian government hack of Democratic National Committee - The Washington Post

Crowdstrike could be morons. Which I doubt. Or they are propagandists. How could Crowdstrike not know they were talking BS with their references to timestamps and Russian keyboards Russian malware etc? What explanation can there be for a group of professionals not understanding something so basic?

Crowdstrike were hired by the Democrats, weren't they?

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...we-know-the-CIA-may-have-hacked-the-Democrats

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

False, I'm talking about Crowdstrike and others.

Cyber researchers confirm Russian government hack of Democratic National Committee - The Washington Post

Crowdstrike could be morons. Which I doubt. Or they are propagandists. How could Crowdstrike not know they were talking BS with their references to timestamps and Russian keyboards Russian malware etc? What explanation can there be for a group of professionals not understanding something so basic?

Crowdstrike were hired by the Democrats, weren't they?

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...we-know-the-CIA-may-have-hacked-the-Democrats

I linked the Cloudstrike report a couple of pages ago. I doesn't say what you are claiming.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Don2 (Don1 Revised), you should be worried with lack of evidence of russian involvement.

It must be a terribly scary world that Trump fans live in where your government (the deep state) and the mainstream media have all turned on you and you have to go to RT news and obscure Internet sites to get the troof. If there's any consolation, WE SHALL OVERCOMB.

 

[barbos]

Don2 (Don1 Revised), you should be worried with lack of evidence of russian involvement.

It must be a terribly scary world that Trump fans live in where your government (the deep state) and the mainstream media have all turned on you and you have to go to RT news and obscure Internet sites to get the troof. If there's any consolation, WE SHALL OVERCOMB.

You and MSM in general seriously over-complicate reality. Russain media don't particularly like or care for Trump, they just hate Hillary.

 

[blastula]

You're conflating different issues, and again aren't addressing why we should think they are lying in this case.

You seem to have very low expectations from your intelligence services. As long as they don't lie ALL the time you are OK.

That's not what I said. I didn't say any lying was good or excusable. I'm just talking about whether this one claim is credible.

OK I will play. CIA and other such agencies need a good enemy or two to justify their existence, Russia is this designated enemy which gives their existence meaning.

If Russia didn't exist, they would have no reason to exist? That's weak. There are lots of real and not so real threats otherwise. And there are other reasons to be wary of Russia besides whether they hacked the DNC. It's poor risk-reward to put themselves on the line like this if it's all a lie.

What I see is your hobby horse of trying to equate the left and right on everything. You don't have to love the CIA to think they are reliable in certain situations. It's tinfoil thinking to dismiss them all the time.

Not on everything, just foreign policy. You could rely on CIA in Iraq WMD situation, sure.

As already explained more than once now, the claim doesn't rely on CIA's word alone, so time to give up this strawman.

I think it's more likely than not that Russia was behind the hack, but the evidence is obviously not beyond any reasonable doubt at this point for us, and that's why we need an independent investigation into all of this and let the chips fall where they may.