RussiaGate

[barbos]

No, it's not a fact.

So go ahead and show it wasn't the Russians.

That's not how it works, mister. But I have shown that some of the alleged "facts" were in fact lies.

You did? Where?

here on this very forum.
For example Alpha bank "fact" was a lie.
A guy behind 17 agencies agreement - a liar as well.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, it's not a fact.

So go ahead and show it wasn't the Russians.

That's not how it works, mister. But I have shown that some of the alleged "facts" were in fact lies.

You did? Where?

here on this very forum.
For example Alpha bank "fact" was a lie.
A guy behind 17 agencies agreement - a liar as well.

You can feel free to cite how the Alpha bank issue was a lie.

 

[barbos]

No, it's not a fact.

So go ahead and show it wasn't the Russians.

That's not how it works, mister. But I have shown that some of the alleged "facts" were in fact lies.

You did? Where?

here on this very forum.
For example Alpha bank "fact" was a lie.
A guy behind 17 agencies agreement - a liar as well.

You can feel free to cite how the Alpha bank issue was a lie.

http://www.snopes.com/trump-server-tied-to-russian-bank/
http://fortune.com/2016/11/01/donald-trump-russia-secret-server/

 

[Opoponax]

No. At this point the burden is on you to show it wasn't Russian hackers.

That Russians hacked the U.S. elections is a fact as sure as water is wet. That issue is settled by everyone who acknowledges basic reality.

No, it's not a fact.

So go ahead and show it wasn't the Russians.

That's not how it works, mister. But I have shown that some of the alleged "facts" were in fact lies.

Yes. That is exactly how it works. The burden is on the one making the claim. The claim was that Russians hacked the U.S. elections. That has no been definitively proven.

Now, the burden shifts to you to show that reality is different than has otherwise been proven.

If you all have is crumbs of arguments about degrees, then you don't really have anything. It's like arguing that the surface of the earth is 65.7% water instead of the widely acknowledged 66% (or whatever the actual percentage is).

 

[barbos]

No, it's not a fact.

So go ahead and show it wasn't the Russians.

That's not how it works, mister. But I have shown that some of the alleged "facts" were in fact lies.

Yes. That is exactly how it works. The burden is on the one making the claim. The claim was that Russians hacked the U.S. elections. That has no been definitively proven.

Now, the burden shifts to you to show that reality is different than has otherwise been proven.

If you all have is crumbs of arguments about degrees, then you don't really have anything. It's like arguing that the surface of the earth is 65.7% water instead of the widely acknowledged 66% (or whatever the actual percentage is).

No, that's not how it works, you don;t get to repeat arguments which were debunked over and over as if nothing happened.

 

[ZiprHead]

No, it's not a fact.

So go ahead and show it wasn't the Russians.

That's not how it works, mister. But I have shown that some of the alleged "facts" were in fact lies.

You did? Where?

here on this very forum.
For example Alpha bank "fact" was a lie.
A guy behind 17 agencies agreement - a liar as well.

You can feel free to cite how the Alpha bank issue was a lie.

http://www.snopes.com/trump-server-tied-to-russian-bank/
http://fortune.com/2016/11/01/donald-trump-russia-secret-server/

Neither of your cites claim it was a "lie".

 

[Opoponax]

No, it's not a fact.

So go ahead and show it wasn't the Russians.

That's not how it works, mister. But I have shown that some of the alleged "facts" were in fact lies.

Yes. That is exactly how it works. The burden is on the one making the claim. The claim was that Russians hacked the U.S. elections. That has no been definitively proven.

Now, the burden shifts to you to show that reality is different than has otherwise been proven.

If you all have is crumbs of arguments about degrees, then you don't really have anything. It's like arguing that the surface of the earth is 65.7% water instead of the widely acknowledged 66% (or whatever the actual percentage is).

No, that's not how it works, you don;t get to repeat arguments which were debunked over and over as if nothing happened.

No, that's not how it works, you don't get to repeat arguments where were debunked over and over as if nothing happened.

 

[barbos]

No, it's not a fact.

So go ahead and show it wasn't the Russians.

That's not how it works, mister. But I have shown that some of the alleged "facts" were in fact lies.

You did? Where?

here on this very forum.
For example Alpha bank "fact" was a lie.
A guy behind 17 agencies agreement - a liar as well.

You can feel free to cite how the Alpha bank issue was a lie.

http://www.snopes.com/trump-server-tied-to-russian-bank/
http://fortune.com/2016/11/01/donald-trump-russia-secret-server/

Neither of your cites claim it was a "lie".

They call it false. And anyone with a basic understanding of IT would have to be a liar to come up with this story.
And people who did come up with this story do have basic understanding of IT.

 

[Elixir]

And anyone with a basic understanding of IT would have to be a liar to come up with this story.

You want liar? Here's LIAR:

 

[barbos]

And anyone with a basic understanding of IT would have to be a liar to come up with this story.

You want liar? Here's LIAR:
View attachment 11423

Yes, he is a total liar. Does not mean everything his "opponents" say is true or not a lie.

 

[KeepTalking]

No, it's not a fact.

So go ahead and show it wasn't the Russians.

That's not how it works, mister. But I have shown that some of the alleged "facts" were in fact lies.

You did? Where?

here on this very forum.
For example Alpha bank "fact" was a lie.
A guy behind 17 agencies agreement - a liar as well.

You can feel free to cite how the Alpha bank issue was a lie.

http://www.snopes.com/trump-server-tied-to-russian-bank/
http://fortune.com/2016/11/01/donald-trump-russia-secret-server/

Neither of your cites claim it was a "lie".

They call it false. And anyone with a basic understanding of IT would have to be a liar to come up with this story.
And people who did come up with this story do have basic understanding of IT.

Incorrect, Snopes calls it Unproven. There is a significant difference between "false" and "unproven", and you started out with "lies", which is even farther afield.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, it's not a fact.

So go ahead and show it wasn't the Russians.

That's not how it works, mister. But I have shown that some of the alleged "facts" were in fact lies.

You did? Where?

here on this very forum.
For example Alpha bank "fact" was a lie.
A guy behind 17 agencies agreement - a liar as well.

You can feel free to cite how the Alpha bank issue was a lie.

http://www.snopes.com/trump-server-tied-to-russian-bank/
http://fortune.com/2016/11/01/donald-trump-russia-secret-server/

Neither of your cites claim it was a "lie".

They call it false.

Unproven =/ false and even further from "lie".

And anyone with a basic understanding of IT would have to be a liar to come up with this story.
And people who did come up with this story do have basic understanding of IT.

What about people with an advanced understanding of IT?

 

[Elixir]

You want liar? Here's LIAR:
View attachment 11423

Yes, he is a total liar. Does not mean everything his "opponents" say is true or not a lie.

Sure it does... relatively speaking, that is.

 

[ZiprHead]

Neither of your cites claim it was a "lie".

They call it false. And anyone with a basic understanding of IT would have to be a liar to come up with this story.
And people who did come up with this story do have basic understanding of IT.

No, they didn't. Did you even read them before posting?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

They call it false. And anyone with a basic understanding of IT would have to be a liar to come up with this story.
And people who did come up with this story do have basic understanding of IT.

No, they didn't. Did you even read them before posting?

The Alpha bank thing was peculiar, however, as most of us understood, didn't prove much of anything in a bubble. If there was communication, all we'd know was there was communication, via a very suspicious manner, but we wouldn't know what it was. But with all the other circumstantial stuff that happened during the campaign and Trump's statements (and actions regarding Russia) since he won the election, it just feels wrong.

Maybe Trump did nothing wrong (now that is a statement most people are unfamiliar with), but this would have been one of the larger piles of circumstantial evidence to speak otherwise.

 

[Deepak]

The Alpha bank thing was peculiar, however, as most of us understood, didn't prove much of anything in a bubble. If there was communication, all we'd know was there was communication, via a very suspicious manner, but we wouldn't know what it was. But with all the other circumstantial stuff that happened during the campaign and Trump's statements (and actions regarding Russia) since he won the election, it just feels wrong.

Maybe Trump did nothing wrong (now that is a statement most people are unfamiliar with), but this would have been one of the larger piles of circumstantial evidence to speak otherwise.

I don't give it any merit - it's not just peculiar, it implies some clumsy home-grown solution was used which would require more effort to build than any number of free or commercial tools that wouldn't openly advertise a connection with unencrypted traffic. Most likely Alfa has a reverse-DNS lookup on incoming emails and isn't caching the lookup.

 

[barbos]

No, it's not a fact.

So go ahead and show it wasn't the Russians.

That's not how it works, mister. But I have shown that some of the alleged "facts" were in fact lies.

You did? Where?

here on this very forum.
For example Alpha bank "fact" was a lie.
A guy behind 17 agencies agreement - a liar as well.

You can feel free to cite how the Alpha bank issue was a lie.

http://www.snopes.com/trump-server-tied-to-russian-bank/
http://fortune.com/2016/11/01/donald-trump-russia-secret-server/

Neither of your cites claim it was a "lie".

They call it false.

Unproven =/ false and even further from "lie".

They never directly call it a lie. But as I said, someone was clearly lying or fakenewsing in this story.

And anyone with a basic understanding of IT would have to be a liar to come up with this story.
And people who did come up with this story do have basic understanding of IT.

What about people with an advanced understanding of IT?

That would be lie too.

 

[barbos]

No, they didn't. Did you even read them before posting?

The Alpha bank thing was peculiar, however, as most of us understood, didn't prove much of anything in a bubble. If there was communication, all we'd know was there was communication, via a very suspicious manner, but we wouldn't know what it was. But with all the other circumstantial stuff that happened during the campaign and Trump's statements (and actions regarding Russia) since he won the election, it just feels wrong.

Maybe Trump did nothing wrong (now that is a statement most people are unfamiliar with), but this would have been one of the larger piles of circumstantial evidence to speak otherwise.

Again, to anyone with a basic understanding of IT it was clear as clear sky that the story was a complete fabrication/fake news.

 

[barbos]

The Alpha bank thing was peculiar, however, as most of us understood, didn't prove much of anything in a bubble. If there was communication, all we'd know was there was communication, via a very suspicious manner, but we wouldn't know what it was. But with all the other circumstantial stuff that happened during the campaign and Trump's statements (and actions regarding Russia) since he won the election, it just feels wrong.

Maybe Trump did nothing wrong (now that is a statement most people are unfamiliar with), but this would have been one of the larger piles of circumstantial evidence to speak otherwise.

I don't give it any merit - it's not just peculiar, it implies some clumsy home-grown solution was used which would require more effort to build than any number of free or commercial tools that wouldn't openly advertise a connection with unencrypted traffic. Most likely Alfa has a reverse-DNS lookup on incoming emails and isn't caching the lookup.

You see, you have basic understanding and would have been a liar if you put forward explanation different from what you just did.

 

[Deepak]

I don't give it any merit - it's not just peculiar, it implies some clumsy home-grown solution was used which would require more effort to build than any number of free or commercial tools that wouldn't openly advertise a connection with unencrypted traffic. Most likely Alfa has a reverse-DNS lookup on incoming emails and isn't caching the lookup.

You see, you have basic understanding and would have been a liar if you put forward explanation different from what you just did.

You're much too kind.

In other news - the folks who have been listening to the closed-door testimony have resoundingly extended the sanctions on Russia, with a supermajority, and requiring Congressional approval to be able to roll them back.

https://www.theatlantic.com/news/ar...sia-sanctions-that-limit-trumps-power/530382/