RussiaGate

[untermensche]

Why do you and so many Americans want tension between America and Russia? Did you watch too many Hollywood movies?

It was called the Cold War. It was Russia that wanted problems with the US.

The Cold war was not cold at all.

In the 50's the US and Soviets actually fought over Korea.

In the 60's and 70's the US invaded and occupied South Vietnam, attacked North Vietnam and bombed civilians and dams and bombed Cambodia and Laos into the Stone Age, which was the catalyst and allowed Pol Pot's rise. And the Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia.

In the 80's Reagan created a terrorist mercenary army and used it to attack Nicaragua and the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.

 

[Will Wiley]

Who cares?

Most people in the world would prefer to avoid nuclear war. Too many stupid Americans who grew up on John Wayne movies and Stupid Hollywood films don't realize the importance.Are you in that category?

Why do you and so many Americans want tension between America and Russia? Did you watch too many Hollywood movies?

LOL to John Wayne reference. Oh yeah, he so commonly watched in pictures these days.

I said grew up watching them. You know, cowboys are good and Indians are bad. But maybe you just watched too much Bullwinkle.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi03bifJFTo[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

LOL to John Wayne reference. Oh yeah, he so commonly watched in pictures these days.

I said grew up watching them. You know, cowboys are good and Indians are bad. But maybe you just watched too much Bullwinkle.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi03bifJFTo[/YOUTUBE]

Yes Dear Leader.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

LOL to John Wayne reference. Oh yeah, he so commonly watched in pictures these days.

I said grew up watching them. You know, cowboys are good and Indians are bad. But maybe you just watched too much Bullwinkle.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi03bifJFTo[/YOUTUBE]

Personally, I don't care for tension, but I don't want our President asking the Russians to take out his electoral competition.

 

[Will Wiley]

Personally, I don't care for tension, but I don't want our President asking the Russians to take out his electoral competition.

Sure there is not the slightest hint of evidence that happened. If yiou think there is then what is that evidence?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Personally, I don't care for tension, but I don't want our President asking the Russians to take out his electoral competition.

Sure there is not the slightest hint of evidence that happened. If yiou think there is then what is that evidence?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gNa2B5zHfbQ

 

[zorq]

Personally, I don't care for tension, but I don't want our President asking the Russians to take out his electoral competition.

Sure there is not the slightest hint of evidence that happened. If yiou think there is then what is that evidence?

Here's the evidence the cyber security firm Cloudstrike found on the intrusion into the DNC servers. You asked for evidence and here it is. It isn't conclusive and it isn't proof, but it is a lot more than a "slight hint."

 

[Will Wiley]

Sure there is not the slightest hint of evidence that happened. If yiou think there is then what is that evidence?

Here's the evidence the cyber security firm Cloudstrike found on the intrusion into the DNC servers. You asked for evidence and here it is. It isn't conclusive and it isn't proof, but it is a lot more than a "slight hint."

There is not even a slight hint. Which is why you didn't name specifics. All of that could be from anywhere. Could be chinese. Could be from Israel. Could be from inside America. Some is telling you what to think, and you stopped thinking for yourself.

Could be Russian too, but you have no reason to think it is. Not even a slight hint. But with the hysteria about Russia it seems easy for people to think that that article actually has some evidence it was. It does not.

Here is a rebuttal of the couldstrike nonsense.

Did the Russians Really Hack the DNC?

On what basis did Crowdstrike attribute these breaches to Russian intelligence services? The security firm claims that the techniques used were similar to those deployed in past security hacking operations that have been attributed to the same actors, while the profile of previous victims “closely mirrors the strategic interests of the Russian government. Furthermore, it appeared that the intruders were unaware of each other’s presence in the DNC system. “While you would virtually never see Western intelligence agencies going after the same target without de-confliction for fear of compromising each other’s operations,” Crowdstrike reports, “in Russia this is not an uncommon scenario.” [1]

 

[Will Wiley]

Sure there is not the slightest hint of evidence that happened. If yiou think there is then what is that evidence?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gNa2B5zHfbQ

Don, that is not evidence. What is wrong with you guys?

 

[Will Wiley]

Apparently when the Russians hack , they deliberately leave clues

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2jD4SF9gFE[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gNa2B5zHfbQ

Don, that is not evidence. What is wrong with you guys?

Of course it is evidence. It shows exactly what I wrote: Trump asking the Russians to hack Hillary's emails. If you claim you can't see it, then you are pretending.

 

[zorq]

There is not even a slight hint. Which is why you didn't name specifics. All of that could be from anywhere. Could be chinese. Could be from Israel. Could be from inside America. Some is telling you what to think, and you stopped thinking for yourself.

Could be Russian too, but you have no reason to think it is. Not even a slight hint. But with the hysteria about Russia it seems easy for people to think that that article actually has some evidence it was. It does not.

Here is a rebuttal of the couldstrike nonsense.

Did the Russians Really Hack the DNC?

I think you are confused about the definition of the word "evidence."

That's an awful lot of rebuttal considering your claim that there isn't even a slight hint. Were the tools used to hack the DNC also tools known to be used by Russian Hackers? Yes. Was the code used to infiltrate the DNC compiled during Moscow work hours? Yes. Was the user name used to encrypt some of the malware originally written in Cyrilic characters? Yes. Did the PDF document claiming responsibility for the attack throw error codes set to Russian language? Yes. Was the IP address that some of the malware pointed to located in Russia? Yes.

Is any of this conclusive proof? No.

Is all of this evidence? Yes.

And what's with your next response in this thread?

Apparently when the Russians hack , they deliberately leave clues.

You would only believe that the Russians were responsible if there were NO clues whatsoever? Or if all the evidence pointed to some other source you would only then accept the Russians as a possible culprit? I guess when ALL of the evidence you have points in Russia's direction that's a sure sign that it's anyone except for Russia. Tell me how that makes sense.

Apparently no true Russian hacker has a lot in common with Scotsmen.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Apparently when the Russians hack , they deliberately leave clues

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2jD4SF9gFE[/YOUTUBE]

You complain about the quality of evidence then you present someone who went off the deep end years ago as evidence??

 

[whichphilosophy]

Apparently when the Russians hack , they deliberately leave clues

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2jD4SF9gFE[/YOUTUBE]

You complain about the quality of evidence then you present someone who went off the deep end years ago as evidence??

He makes logical sense regarding the language in the software and the language used in the keyboard. Whether he is speaking the truth or not the CIA/FBI are hardly credible sources. They provided nothing to date to support their vague claims

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You complain about the quality of evidence then you present someone who went off the deep end years ago as evidence??

He makes logical sense regarding the language in the software and the language used in the keyboard. Whether he is speaking the truth or not the CIA/FBI are hardly credible sources. They provided nothing to date to support their vague claims

And that statement, pretty much discounts any evidence that can be provided. How convenient for your Ruskie position

 

[Elixir]

...the CIA/FBI are hardly credible sources

Once again you conflate your ignorant and bias-driven subjective opinions (or are they just assertions for another purpose?) with actual objectively verifiable/falsifiable Trooths.

 

[Trausti]

...the CIA/FBI are hardly credible sources

Once again you conflate your ignorant and bias-driven subjective opinions (or are they just assertions for another purpose?) with actual objectively verifiable/falsifiable Trooths.

If you've got "actual objectively verifiable" evidence, now is the time to disclose it. Otherwise, this tread looks like Nurse Ratched failed to hand out medication at the asylum.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Once again you conflate your ignorant and bias-driven subjective opinions (or are they just assertions for another purpose?) with actual objectively verifiable/falsifiable Trooths.

If you've got "actual objectively verifiable" evidence, now is the time to disclose it. Otherwise, this tread looks like Nurse Ratched failed to hand out medication at the asylum.

Evidence has already been given in the thread. We have indisputable evidence that Trump asked the Russians to hack Hillary's emails, we have indisputable evidence the Russians took a pro-Trump position and provided propaganda on behalf of Trump in his election. Of course, there's plenty of less-than indisputable evidence of many other facets of RussiaGate as well, but the nominee asking for help from Russians right there is enough to to take action against him.

I will add that your side's "actual objectively verifiable" evidence standard is a joke, since anything the CIA/FBI says you laugh at by saying the Russians would never leave clues. Your side isn't scientific, it's a RELIGION.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Once again you conflate your ignorant and bias-driven subjective opinions (or are they just assertions for another purpose?) with actual objectively verifiable/falsifiable Trooths.

If you've got "actual objectively verifiable" evidence, now is the time to disclose it. Otherwise, this tread looks like Nurse Ratched failed to hand out medication at the asylum.

Agreed. The evidence isn't 100% conclusive. I'd recommend that the government appoint a completely neutral independent prosecutor. Someone who's fair and non-partisan. Like a Ken Starr!

 

[Trausti]

If you've got "actual objectively verifiable" evidence, now is the time to disclose it. Otherwise, this tread looks like Nurse Ratched failed to hand out medication at the asylum.

Evidence has already been given in the thread. We have indisputable evidence that Trump asked the Russians to hack Hillary's emails, we have indisputable evidence the Russians took a pro-Trump position and provided propaganda on behalf of Trump in his election. Of course, there's plenty of less-than indisputable evidence of many other facets of RussiaGate as well, but the nominee asking for help from Russians right there is enough to to take action against him.

I will add that your side's "actual objectively verifiable" evidence standard is a joke, since anything the CIA/FBI says you laugh at by saying the Russians would never leave clues. Your side isn't scientific, it's a RELIGION.

I'm am genuinely amazed that your impression of Trump taking a jab at Clinton's 30K missing emails is "indisputable evidence that Trump asked the Russians to hack Hillary's emails." Don't let your partisanship kill your sense of humor. It's bewildering that on a supposed skeptics board so many seem to have jettisoned their skepticism.