RussiaGate

[braces_for_impact]

A lady I liked and respected at work voted for Trump. She is the mom of a couple of kids in the military, and was convinced it would be safer for her kids if Trump were president as compared to Hillary. I simply did not understand that conclusion. I haven't spoke to her since Yemen, but I have a feeling she regrets her decision now.

Sure. I get it. Trump scared the bejusus out of people. He convinced them that the Muslim hordes are just itching for full scale invasion. One of the greatest political cons of all time.....

It wasn't really that, actually. She was convinced that Hillary was too hawkish and much more likely to send soldiers to war than Trump. I couldn't understand that, considering Trump's comments during the election about firing on foreign boats, the use of nuclear weapons, and his generally casual attitude towards armed conflict with Iran, China, etc. Not to mention his rhetoric about killing Muslims and their families. This seemed obvious to incite more violence. Add to this his gutting of the state department and total lack of qualifications of any kind concerning diplomacy, and I considered it MUCH more likely that Trump would have us involved in more armed conflicts, probably by a least an order of magnitude. If I had kids in the military, I would want a commander & chief that was at the very least, competent and understood the seriousness of sending soldiers into harms way.

 

[Elixir]

Sure. I get it. Trump scared the bejusus out of people. He convinced them that the Muslim hordes are just itching for full scale invasion. One of the greatest political cons of all time.....

It wasn't really that, actually. She was convinced that Hillary was too hawkish and much more likely to send soldiers to war than Trump. I couldn't understand that, considering Trump's comments during the election about firing on foreign boats, the use of nuclear weapons, and his generally casual attitude towards armed conflict with Iran, China, etc. Not to mention his rhetoric about killing Muslims and their families. This seemed obvious to incite more violence. Add to this his gutting of the state department and total lack of qualifications of any kind concerning diplomacy, and I considered it MUCH more likely that Trump would have us involved in more armed conflicts, probably by a least an order of magnitude. If I had kids in the military, I would want a commander & chief that was at the very least, competent and understood the seriousness of sending soldiers into harms way.

Somehow Cheato convinced a lot of people that he could stand up and beat his chest, and that would cause anyone considering harming us to crawl into a hole. So it doesn't matter if he's just an ignorant blowhard piece of shit - at least people will be afraid to attack us!

 

[Will Wiley]

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.

ok..we got our wires crossed following this..https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?10591-RussiaGate&p=391401&viewfull=1#post391401

I'm saying there is no evidence the Russians hacked DNC emails.

 

[Elixir]

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.

ok..we got our wires crossed following this..https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?10591-RussiaGate&p=391401&viewfull=1#post391401

I'm saying there is no evidence the Russians hacked DNC emails.

Yeah, 17 intelligence agencies often agree unanimously on things for which there is no evidence.
HINT: such unanimous agreement is the best evidence that we who are not part of those agencies can expect at this point, if Russia did indeed hack DNC emails.
Alternately, Cheato's insane conspiracy theories are all true. But there is no evidence at all that that is the case - not even ONE credible source is buying his nonsense.

 

[zorq]

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.

ok..we got our wires crossed following this..https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?10591-RussiaGate&p=391401&viewfull=1#post391401

I'm saying there is no evidence the Russians hacked DNC emails.

Still making that claim after I laid out several pieces of evidence? I'm convinced you don't understand the word "evidence." Please post your definition of the word "Evidence" so that we can have a meaningful discussion of your claim.

Really. Tell me what you think the word "evidence" means.

 

[Will Wiley]

ok..we got our wires crossed following this..https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?10591-RussiaGate&p=391401&viewfull=1#post391401

I'm saying there is no evidence the Russians hacked DNC emails.

Still making that claim after I laid out several pieces of evidence? I'm convinced you don't understand the word "evidence." Please post your definition of the word "Evidence" so that we can have a meaningful discussion of your claim.

Really. Tell me what you think the word "evidence" means.

Rather than liking to some nonsense, mention some evidence in your own words. Go on.

- - - Updated - - -

ok..we got our wires crossed following this..https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?10591-RussiaGate&p=391401&viewfull=1#post391401

I'm saying there is no evidence the Russians hacked DNC emails.

Yeah, 17 intelligence agencies often agree unanimously on things for which there is no evidence.
HINT: such unanimous agreement is the best evidence that we who are not part of those agencies can expect at this point, if Russia did indeed hack DNC emails.
Alternately, Cheato's insane conspiracy theories are all true. But there is no evidence at all that that is the case - not even ONE credible source is buying his nonsense.

Your intelligence agencies are known liars. And recently they have produced embarrassingly poor reports.
Can you please tell us in your own words what this evidence is.

All you are saying at present is ..."ä liar told me, so I believe it

 

[Elixir]

Still making that claim after I laid out several pieces of evidence? I'm convinced you don't understand the word "evidence." Please post your definition of the word "Evidence" so that we can have a meaningful discussion of your claim.

Really. Tell me what you think the word "evidence" means.

Rather than liking to some nonsense, mention some evidence in your own words. Go on.

- - - Updated - - -

ok..we got our wires crossed following this..https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?10591-RussiaGate&p=391401&viewfull=1#post391401

I'm saying there is no evidence the Russians hacked DNC emails.

Yeah, 17 intelligence agencies often agree unanimously on things for which there is no evidence.
HINT: such unanimous agreement is the best evidence that we who are not part of those agencies can expect at this point, if Russia did indeed hack DNC emails.
Alternately, Cheato's insane conspiracy theories are all true. But there is no evidence at all that that is the case - not even ONE credible source is buying his nonsense.

Your intelligence agencies are known liars.

Say known liars...
Can you remember the last time 17 agencies conspired on the same "lie"?
Didn't think so.
But you still think Cheato's conspiracy theories, based on absolutely nothing but the addled imaginings of a psychotic narcissist are "REAL". With no evidence. None at all. Zero, zip, nada.
Your complaints about "no evidence" are quite obviously projections of your own lamentable state.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

ok..we got our wires crossed following this..https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?10591-RussiaGate&p=391401&viewfull=1#post391401

I'm saying there is no evidence the Russians hacked DNC emails.

There is a distinction between evidence and proof. There's evidence, but you do not see it as absolute proof.

 

[Will Wiley]

Rather than liking to some nonsense, mention some evidence in your own words. Go on.

- - - Updated - - -

ok..we got our wires crossed following this..https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?10591-RussiaGate&p=391401&viewfull=1#post391401

I'm saying there is no evidence the Russians hacked DNC emails.

Yeah, 17 intelligence agencies often agree unanimously on things for which there is no evidence.
HINT: such unanimous agreement is the best evidence that we who are not part of those agencies can expect at this point, if Russia did indeed hack DNC emails.
Alternately, Cheato's insane conspiracy theories are all true. But there is no evidence at all that that is the case - not even ONE credible source is buying his nonsense.

Your intelligence agencies are known liars.

Say known liars... .

Look..I'm not bothered to report you but it is against forum rules to call me a liar. Not only that but you don't provide any evidence I have lied.
Do you see the irony here? This is what your press does. Maybe you don't see them doing it because you do it yourself?

 

[Elixir]

ok..we got our wires crossed following this..https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?10591-RussiaGate&p=391401&viewfull=1#post391401

I'm saying there is no evidence the Russians hacked DNC emails.

There is a distinction between evidence and proof. There's evidence, but you do not see it as absolute proof.

Not unlike WP or barbos, these folks see no distinction between how they "see" things and whatever the truth may be.

 

[Will Wiley]

ok..we got our wires crossed following this..https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?10591-RussiaGate&p=391401&viewfull=1#post391401

I'm saying there is no evidence the Russians hacked DNC emails.

There is a distinction between evidence and proof. There's evidence, but you do not see it as absolute proof.

Tell us in your own words what the evidence is

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So if Trump says the Russians did it, does that count?

 

[Elixir]

Rather than liking to some nonsense, mention some evidence in your own words. Go on.

- - - Updated - - -

ok..we got our wires crossed following this..https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?10591-RussiaGate&p=391401&viewfull=1#post391401

I'm saying there is no evidence the Russians hacked DNC emails.

Yeah, 17 intelligence agencies often agree unanimously on things for which there is no evidence.
HINT: such unanimous agreement is the best evidence that we who are not part of those agencies can expect at this point, if Russia did indeed hack DNC emails.
Alternately, Cheato's insane conspiracy theories are all true. But there is no evidence at all that that is the case - not even ONE credible source is buying his nonsense.

Your intelligence agencies are known liars.

Says a known liar... .

Look..I'm not bothered to report you but it is against forum rules to call me a liar. Not only that but you don't provide any evidence I have lied.
Do you see the irony here? This is what your press does. Maybe you don't see them doing it because you do it yourself?

HUH? Do you think you are alone in lying about lack of evidence? CLUE: There are a lot of people in the alt-right media and in the Russian operatives list who are just like you. I'll edit the post to say "Say known liars", Okay?

Now tell me about the last time 17 intelligence agencies conspired to agree on the same lie - or admit that your truthiness and pretense at being offended are just trumpian distractions to divert from your lies false statements.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

There is a distinction between evidence and proof. There's evidence, but you do not see it as absolute proof.

Tell us in your own words what the evidence is

There are technical clues left behind which are evidence. Two examples: Russian back-door malware and Gucifer 2.0's connections to Russia.

 

[zorq]

Still making that claim after I laid out several pieces of evidence? I'm convinced you don't understand the word "evidence." Please post your definition of the word "Evidence" so that we can have a meaningful discussion of your claim.

Really. Tell me what you think the word "evidence" means.

Rather than liking to some nonsense, mention some evidence in your own words. Go on.

Maybe you are blind instead of not understanding the word evidence because I DID that back in post #134 Go ahead and read it then give me your weird definition of "evidence."

 

[Will Wiley]

Tell us in your own words what the evidence is

There are technical clues left behind which are evidence. Two examples: Russian back-door malware and Gucifer 2.0's connections to Russia.

Come on...give us some details. What's wrong?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

There are technical clues left behind which are evidence. Two examples: Russian back-door malware and Gucifer 2.0's connections to Russia.

Come on...give us some details. What's wrong?

You asked for the evidence in my own words. I gave it to you. Now, you're claiming something is "wrong" with me because I didn't give so much detail that I might as well print a news article on the subject. So, which is it, do you want me to summarize something in my own words or give a news article on the subject? Also, what's wrong with you?

 

[Will Wiley]

Rather than liking to some nonsense, mention some evidence in your own words. Go on.

Maybe you are blind instead of not understanding the word evidence because I DID that back in post #134 Go ahead and read it then give me your weird definition of "evidence."

None of that is 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.

Are you serious?? Are you that gullible?

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7t5zbKnvQk[/YOUTUBE]

- - - Updated - - -

Come on...give us some details. What's wrong?

You asked for the evidence in my own words. I gave it to you. Now, you're claiming something is "wrong" with me because I didn't give so much detail that I might as well print a news article on the subject. So, which is it, do you want me to summarize something in my own words or give a news article on the subject? Also, what's wrong with you?

Explain why you think outdated malware probably made by a Russian shows that a Russian did it?

I guess if someone uses microsoft they must be an American?

 

[Will Wiley]

But you still think Cheato's conspiracy theories, based on absolutely nothing but the addled imaginings of a psychotic narcissist are "REAL". With no evidence. None at all. Zero, zip, nada.
.

I didn't say that.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Explain why you think outdated malware probably made by a Russian shows that a Russian did it?

I didn't say that it was outdated at the time of use, that it was probably made by an individual Russian or that those over-simplified claims implied a Russian did it.

I will add that there are various ways in which a hacker may try to cover their steps including but not limited to ip spoofing, going through multiple servers, deleting and editing logs on ip connections, timestamp editing, and deleting and editing logs with timestamps. McAfee's analysis is taking some publicly digestible media reports literally instead of logically wondering that when such reports claim a timestamp is found that it is not using some method of deconvolution to undo what the hackers did.

For example in the Crowdstrike report, they explain that the DNC hackers' malware was "resetting timestamps of files." So, if McAfee's claim is true that timestamps were used to check against business hours across Russia, then there was some counter-hack method of obtaining the true timestamps, maybe there was some vestige on the system the hackers did not notice (or even on another system where events were sent periodically unbeknownst to the malware). Likewise, for IP addresses, just because a media report discusses finding an IP address, it doesn't mean it's the apparent IP address found in obvious records as opposed to counter-hack measures to find the original, true IP address prior to spoofing and redirecting through a series of servers etc. For example, one government report mentions Canadian IP addresses that were compromised and could be used as proxies for Russian intelligence hacking. The original IP addresses may be Russian instead. Again, some reports meant for public consumption will undoubtedly not explain any of these technical levels of what constitutes an IP address or a timestamp or methods of going through various levels to get the real values.

Finally, what's up with the RT video? Did they reimburse McAfee for speaking at all? and why is he over-simplifying things?