RussiaGate

[blastula]

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

Why should I think they were talking BS about anything based on that thread? You only posted a link to a political blog by some guy who doesn't appear to have any expertise in the area.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Now lets put one and one together and follow through on your statement.

 

[barbos]

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.

And this one is not credible, in fact not much CIA says could be qualified as intrinsically 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.

CIA disagree. Russia is the only country which could destroy US in the next 20 minutes. This alone is responsible for majority of their budget and salaries.

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.

That's a thing, CIA is interested in making Russia responsible, they even have fucking instruction how to do it wikileaked,

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.

Yes, it relies on bunch of CIA "agree" parrots too.

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.

What evidence? I have said it before, CIA is not supposed to provide evidence for public or even court to see, and they really did not in this case. They don't report to the public, they report to the President and government critters and they should have trust of these people not general public, but they don't even have that. CIA became a tool in presidential elections.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This is the Washington Times which is quite conservative and so not that reliable, but still...

Roger Stone, Trump confidante, spoke privately with DNC hackers prior to election: Report

Roger Stone, President Trump’s former campaign adviser, communicated privately with an entity directly involved in hacking the Democratic National Committee ahead of the 2016 White House race, The Smoking Gun reported Wednesday.

Mr. Stone, a veteran political consultant, swapped private Twitter messages last year with “Guccifer 2.0,” the website reported Wednesday citing an unnamed source. If accurate, the allegation means Mr. Trump’s longtime confidante and one-time presidential campaign manager spoke in private with a persona intimately implicated in the operation that helped dash Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s chance at the White House, and would undeniably amplify existing concerns regarding Team Trump’s alleged ties to Russia.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/9/roger-stone-trump-confidante-spoke-privately-with-/

ETA: It is my understanding that Roger Stone also wrote on Twitter publicly to Guccifer 2.0, glorifying him. So, this isn't really that unexpected and should have already been an issue of discussion as part of the RussiaGate investigations. So, even if one does not like the reliability of the article, there is still an issue here that needs resolution.

Trust me, it will soon the Podesta's time in the barrel. #CrookedHillary

7:24 AM - 21 Aug 2016

https://twitter.com/RogerJStoneJr/status/767366825743097856?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

@DailyCaller Censorship ! Gruciffer2 is a HERO.

5:29 PM - 13 Aug 2016

https://twitter.com/RogerJStoneJr/status/764619824207044608?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

John Podesta emails were made public on WikiLeaks Oct 7th (October surprise) after video of Trump talking about pussy grabbing surfaced (other October surprise).

I guess this means Roger Stone had contacts in the CIA, lol.

 

[barbos]

Guccifer 2.0 is most certainly not behind these hacks. Even CIA does no think he is.
Trump administration to a large degree consists of people like he himself - trolls, so there is no wonder they would go around and follow all kind BS.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Guccifer 2.0 is most certainly not behind these hacks. Even CIA does no think he is.

Which HACKS are you talking about? There were multiple hacks and a misinformation campaign. RussiaGate is way bigger than one person. AND yes, the CIA does think he is responsible for some things as he is mentioned in the intel report you clearly did not read.

 

[Will Wiley]

ETA: It is my understanding that Roger Stone also wrote on Twitter publicly to Guccifer 2.0, glorifying him. .

Glorifying him?.......Glorifying him? Did you get that from church?

 

[Will Wiley]

Guccifer 2.0 is most certainly not behind these hacks. Even CIA does no think he is.

Which HACKS are you talking about? There were multiple hacks and a misinformation campaign. RussiaGate is way bigger than one person. AND yes, the CIA does think he is responsible for some things as he is mentioned in the intel report you clearly did not read.

Because that's what the CIA does. They investigate all the facts. Everything that is going on. And then they just tell us the truth about what's going on.
That's why they were started!!! To find out the facts and then tell us so we know too.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

ETA: It is my understanding that Roger Stone also wrote on Twitter publicly to Guccifer 2.0, glorifying him. .

Glorifying him?.......Glorifying him? Did you get that from church?

From previous post, supplied with a link to Roger Stone's tweet:

@DailyCaller Censorship ! Gruciffer2 is a HERO.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Which HACKS are you talking about? There were multiple hacks and a misinformation campaign. RussiaGate is way bigger than one person. AND yes, the CIA does think he is responsible for some things as he is mentioned in the intel report you clearly did not read.

Because that's what the CIA does. They investigate all the facts. Everything that is going on. And then they just tell us the truth about what's going on.
That's why they were started!!! To find out the facts and then tell us so we know too.

Says the guy posting videos from RT. :0

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Roger Stone has now admitted to having the private online conversations with Guccifer 2.0:

Roger Stone, President Trump’s former campaign advisor, engaged privately last year with a persona involved in hacking the Democratic National Committee, he told The Washington Times Friday, but insisted the conversations were “completely innocuous.”

“It was so perfunctory, brief and banal I had forgotten it,” the political consultant told The Times on Friday with respect to a private Twitter exchange he had with “Guccifer 2.0,” a pseudonymous entity explicitly tied to the DNC hack.

Guccifer 2.0 appeared last summer shortly after it was revealed that the DNC’s computer network had been breached by hackers. The self-described Romanian hacktivist claimed in a June 15 blog post that he had compromised the DNC — not Russian hackers, as experts had indicated — and said he had supplied WikiLeaks with a trove of documents ultimately published by the antisecrecy website the following month.

Mr. Stone wrote an article for Breitbart News on Aug. 5 attributing the DNC breach to Guccifer 2.0, not Russia, and swapped a handful of direct messages with the persona in the weeks that followed, according to copies of the conversations provided to the Times.

In one of the messages dated Aug. 14, Mr. Stone said he was “delighted” that Twitter had reinstated Guccifer 2.0’s account following a brief suspension. Two days later, Mr. Stone again privately messaged the Twitter account and asked for it to retweet a column he had written about the prospects of the 2016 presidential election being “rigged.”
“wow. thank u for writing back, and thank u for an article about me!!!” Guccifer 2.0 wrote Mr. Stone in the interim, ...
...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/10/roger-stone-trump-confidant-acknowledges-innocuous/

Whether Guccifer was working with the Russians or not, this is not an innocuous issue. The Trump campaign gave hackers the go ahead to hack the competition then they rewarded them at a minimum with a nice article about them.

 

[Will Wiley]

Just love the conspiracy theories.

 

[Trausti]

Just love the conspiracy theories.

When Obama was elected, those on the right who could not accept his presidency sought to deligtimize him with no evidence birther conspiracies. Not to be out done, the looney left who cannot accept Trump seek to deligtimize his presidency with no evidence Russia conspiracies. Horseshoe Theory come to life.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Roger Stone has now admitted to having the private online conversations with Guccifer 2.0:

Roger Stone, President Trump’s former campaign advisor, engaged privately last year with a persona involved in hacking the Democratic National Committee, he told The Washington Times Friday, but insisted the conversations were “completely innocuous.”

“It was so perfunctory, brief and banal I had forgotten it,” the political consultant told The Times on Friday with respect to a private Twitter exchange he had with “Guccifer 2.0,” a pseudonymous entity explicitly tied to the DNC hack.

Guccifer 2.0 appeared last summer shortly after it was revealed that the DNC’s computer network had been breached by hackers. The self-described Romanian hacktivist claimed in a June 15 blog post that he had compromised the DNC — not Russian hackers, as experts had indicated — and said he had supplied WikiLeaks with a trove of documents ultimately published by the antisecrecy website the following month.

Mr. Stone wrote an article for Breitbart News on Aug. 5 attributing the DNC breach to Guccifer 2.0, not Russia, and swapped a handful of direct messages with the persona in the weeks that followed, according to copies of the conversations provided to the Times.

In one of the messages dated Aug. 14, Mr. Stone said he was “delighted” that Twitter had reinstated Guccifer 2.0’s account following a brief suspension. Two days later, Mr. Stone again privately messaged the Twitter account and asked for it to retweet a column he had written about the prospects of the 2016 presidential election being “rigged.”
“wow. thank u for writing back, and thank u for an article about me!!!” Guccifer 2.0 wrote Mr. Stone in the interim, ...
...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/10/roger-stone-trump-confidant-acknowledges-innocuous/

Whether Guccifer was working with the Russians or not, this is not an innocuous issue. The Trump campaign gave hackers the go ahead to hack the competition then they rewarded them at a minimum with a nice article about them.

The Article referring to conversations on Twitter with Guccifer (who claims to be a Romanian and not a Russian) does not logically show that anyone ‘authorised Russian Hacking of the DNC’.

QUOTE: Mr. Stone wrote an article for Breitbart News on Aug. 5 attributing the DNC breach to Guccifer 2.0, not Russia, and swapped a handful of direct messages with the persona in the weeks that followed, according to copies of the conversations provided to the Times. END OF QUOTE

And later

QUOTE: “I’m pleased to say that u r great man,” Guccifer 2.0 wrote in an Aug. 17 message to Mr. Stone. “please tell me if i can help u anyhow. it would be a great pleasure to me.”

The U.S. intelligence community later concluded with high-confidence that the Russian government directed the DNC breach, among other operations, then utilized the Guccifer 2.0 persona in order to publicly release data obtained in the hacks.

“The content of the exchange is, as you can see completely innocuous and perfunctory,” Mr. Stone told the Times of his Twitter conversation, the likes of which was limited to only three messages attributed to his own account, according to the copies he provided. END OF QUOTE

The fallacy here is that the CIA claims of high confidence means, “ A feeling or believe that someone can have faith in or rely on someone or something.” It implies also reliance on someone’s word integrity or discretion in a relationship of trust. (http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/confidence.html)

Clearly high confidence does not imply weight of evidence or proof but simply trust in someone or something at which point the accusations by the CIA collapsed at this point since proof

What we can say as a certainty is the NASA, CIA, MI6, MI5, Mossad the Russians and a legion of others are hacking 24/7.

Thus we can conclude that still remains zero evidence that the Russians somehow influenced the outcome of the elections.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Just love the conspiracy theories.

When Obama was elected, those on the right who could not accept his presidency sought to deligtimize him with no evidence birther conspiracies. Not to be out done, the looney left who cannot accept Trump seek to deligtimize his presidency with no evidence Russia conspiracies. Horseshoe Theory come to life.

Yes, the CIA, NSA, and FBI are the loony left, and the RT news never posted anything pro-Trump and anti-Clinton. Did you post that for the lulz?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Roger Stone has now admitted to having the private online conversations with Guccifer 2.0:


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/10/roger-stone-trump-confidant-acknowledges-innocuous/

Whether Guccifer was working with the Russians or not, this is not an innocuous issue. The Trump campaign gave hackers the go ahead to hack the competition then they rewarded them at a minimum with a nice article about them.

The Article referring to conversations on Twitter with Guccifer (who claims to be a Romanian and not a Russian) does not logically show that anyone ‘authorised Russian Hacking of the DNC’.

The article does not link Guccifer to the Russians nor did I imply it did! Instead, the article proves the Trump campaign was in contact with the hacker(s) and even rewarded him, just like I wrote about the article! The links to Russia and Guccifer are claimed by US intelligence and may be found in DIFFERENT articles or reports.

QUOTE: Mr. Stone wrote an article for Breitbart News on Aug. 5 attributing the DNC breach to Guccifer 2.0, not Russia, and swapped a handful of direct messages with the persona in the weeks that followed, according to copies of the conversations provided to the Times. END OF QUOTE

And later

QUOTE: “I’m pleased to say that u r great man,” Guccifer 2.0 wrote in an Aug. 17 message to Mr. Stone. “please tell me if i can help u anyhow. it would be a great pleasure to me.”

The U.S. intelligence community later concluded with high-confidence that the Russian government directed the DNC breach, among other operations, then utilized the Guccifer 2.0 persona in order to publicly release data obtained in the hacks.

“The content of the exchange is, as you can see completely innocuous and perfunctory,” Mr. Stone told the Times of his Twitter conversation, the likes of which was limited to only three messages attributed to his own account, according to the copies he provided. END OF QUOTE

The fallacy here is that the CIA claims of high confidence means, “ A feeling or believe that someone can have faith in or rely on someone or something.” It implies also reliance on someone’s word integrity or discretion in a relationship of trust. (http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/confidence.html)

Clearly high confidence does not imply weight of evidence or proof but simply trust in someone or something at which point the accusations by the CIA collapsed at this point since proof

No, that's not what high confidence means. The intelligence agencies use analytic definitions for low, moderate and high confidence that they defined a long time ago. It's not a feeling or faith. LOL.

• High confidence generally indicates judgments based on high-quality information, and/or the nature of the issue makes it possible to render a solid judgment. However, high confidence judgments still carry a risk of being wrong.[1]
• Moderate confidence generally means credibly sourced and plausible information, but not of sufficient quality or corroboration to warrant a higher level of confidence.[1]
• Low confidence generally means questionable or implausible information was used, the information is too fragmented or poorly corroborated to make solid analytic inferences, or significant concerns or problems with sources existed.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_confidence

What we can say as a certainty is the NASA, CIA, MI6, MI5, Mossad the Russians and a legion of others are hacking 24/7.

Thus we can conclude that still remains zero evidence that the Russians somehow influenced the outcome of the elections.

No, you can't conclude that because the intel report gives evidence.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Just love the conspiracy theories.

Roger Stone admitted he communicated with Guccifer and rewarded him by giving him credit in a Breitbart article.

 

[Elixir]

Just love the conspiracy theories.

Roger Stone admitted he communicated with Guccifer and rewarded him by giving him credit in a Breitbart article.

Some (right winger) people have a hard time differentiating conspiracy theories from smoking guns. That's why they attribute all the trouble that say, Flynn is in to a conspiracy, and think Obama wiretapping Cheato is a well-evidenced accusation.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The Article referring to conversations on Twitter with Guccifer (who claims to be a Romanian and not a Russian) does not logically show that anyone ‘authorised Russian Hacking of the DNC’.

The article does not link Guccifer to the Russians nor did I imply it did! Instead, the article proves the Trump campaign was in contact with the hacker(s) and even rewarded him, just like I wrote about the article! The links to Russia and Guccifer are claimed by US intelligence and may be found in DIFFERENT articles or reports.

QUOTE: Mr. Stone wrote an article for Breitbart News on Aug. 5 attributing the DNC breach to Guccifer 2.0, not Russia, and swapped a handful of direct messages with the persona in the weeks that followed, according to copies of the conversations provided to the Times. END OF QUOTE

And later

QUOTE: “I’m pleased to say that u r great man,” Guccifer 2.0 wrote in an Aug. 17 message to Mr. Stone. “please tell me if i can help u anyhow. it would be a great pleasure to me.”

The U.S. intelligence community later concluded with high-confidence that the Russian government directed the DNC breach, among other operations, then utilized the Guccifer 2.0 persona in order to publicly release data obtained in the hacks.

“The content of the exchange is, as you can see completely innocuous and perfunctory,” Mr. Stone told the Times of his Twitter conversation, the likes of which was limited to only three messages attributed to his own account, according to the copies he provided. END OF QUOTE

The fallacy here is that the CIA claims of high confidence means, “ A feeling or believe that someone can have faith in or rely on someone or something.” It implies also reliance on someone’s word integrity or discretion in a relationship of trust. (http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/confidence.html)

Clearly high confidence does not imply weight of evidence or proof but simply trust in someone or something at which point the accusations by the CIA collapsed at this point since proof

No, that's not what high confidence means. The intelligence agencies use analytic definitions for low, moderate and high confidence that they defined a long time ago. It's not a feeling or faith. LOL.

• High confidence generally indicates judgments based on high-quality information, and/or the nature of the issue makes it possible to render a solid judgment. However, high confidence judgments still carry a risk of being wrong.[1]
• Moderate confidence generally means credibly sourced and plausible information, but not of sufficient quality or corroboration to warrant a higher level of confidence.[1]
• Low confidence generally means questionable or implausible information was used, the information is too fragmented or poorly corroborated to make solid analytic inferences, or significant concerns or problems with sources existed.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_confidence

What we can say as a certainty is the NASA, CIA, MI6, MI5, Mossad the Russians and a legion of others are hacking 24/7.

Thus we can conclude that still remains zero evidence that the Russians somehow influenced the outcome of the elections.

No, you can't conclude that because the intel report gives evidence.

The problem is the High Confidence where there is nothing given to support that allegation also admits the judgement still carries a risk of being wrong. That is as nonsensical as a definite maybe.. It's not the sort of thing scientists buy or courts buy.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The problem is the High Confidence where there is nothing given to support that allegation also admits the judgement still carries a risk of being wrong. That is as nonsensical as a definite maybe.. It's not the sort of thing scientists buy or courts buy.

"High confidence" always comes with a risk of being wrong, whether it's .00001% chance of being wrong or not. I am surprised you claim not to know this.