RussiaGate

[Warpoet]

Just my opinion about this thread. We should move past whether the hacking took place or not, and if so who was responsible. We know this happened. We saw it happen in real time. The information is out there, easily accessible and it's perverse to deny this reality.

But we now live in an era of politics where shameless, ongoing denial of reality is the cornerstone of a huge chunk of the population's core political philosophy.

 

[tupac chopra]

Just my opinion about this thread. We should move past whether the hacking took place or not, and if so who was responsible. We know this happened. We saw it happen in real time. The information is out there, easily accessible and it's perverse to deny this reality.

Nothing has changed since this.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/12/the-russian-hacking-fiasco/

There’s no proof that Russia hacked the US elections.

There’s no proof that Russian officials or Russian agents colluded with members of the Trump campaign.

There’s no proof that Russia provided material support of any kind for the Trump campaign or that Russian agents hacked Hillary Clinton’s emails or that Russian officials provided Wikileaks with emails that were intended to sabotage Hillary’s chances to win the election.

So far, no one in any of the 17 US intelligence agencies has stepped forward and verified the claims of Russian meddling or produced a scintilla of hard evidence that Russia was in anyway involved in the 2016 elections.

No proof means no proof. It means that the people and organizations that are making these uncorroborated claims have no basis for legal action, no presumption of wrongdoing, and no grounds for prosecution. They have nothing. Zilch. Their claims, charges and accusations are like the soap bubbles we give to our children and grandchildren. The brightly-colored bubbles wobble across the sky for a minute or two and then, Poof, they vanish into the ether. The claims of Russia hacking are like these bubbles. They are empty, unsubstantiated rumors completely devoid of substance. Poof.

Now, THIS has surfaced. Although there's no definitive conclusion on actual vote tallies, it does show that the Russians did penetrate further than we thought and that they were responsible. Also, the leaker for this report has been arrested.

It actually shows nothing, except that some poor young woman, encouraged no doubt by the kind of morons we see on this forum will now spend years in jail.

There is no fucking evidence. You have one cherry picked report, taken by an impressionable young woman, written by one person in the NSA, and no actual evidence of anything.
We don't know how many others in the NSA disagreed with this report or whether it is reliable at all, or what conclusions others came to. And no actual evidence.

I feel sorry for that young woman who will now almost certainly spend years behind bars

 

[whichphilosophy]

Putin interviewed by NBC about alleged interference where I thought he did extremely well.

Because he didn't break down and admit it? That's a low bar.

If this was a court of law, the case against Putin would have been laughed out of court.

Simply stringing one speculation or another together isn't a proper investigation until there is corroboration and the evidence is weighed and tested.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Because he didn't break down and admit it? That's a low bar.

Talking serpent misleads Eve. Film at 11.

Dude, the serpent didn't mislead shit. God lied, so don't be talking down the serpent like that. Putin is much worse than the serpent ever was.

Anyway, here's the latest...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/12/politics/florida-election-hack/index.html

Federal investigators believe Russian hackers were behind cyberattacks on a contractor for Florida's election system that may have exposed the personal data of Florida voters, according to US officials briefed on the probe.

FBI investigators believe the the hacks and attempted intrusions of state election sites were carried out by hackers working for Russian intelligence.
The cyberattacks on election registration sites are focused on parts of the US election system that wouldn't affect the votes cast or the vote counts, according to US officials. Instead, the intruders are targeting registration systems.

Like a Circus hosting a nudist wrestling match in a battle royale format with contestants covered in glue while cannons shoot glitter all over them, and the losers are thrown into a flaming alligator pit, there's nothing to see here. Nothing at all.

The Exit polling agrees with the election results, so it is very unlikely Russia succeeded in changing the election result via computers. But that they would even dare to try. Jebus! Russia is more dangerous now than during the Cold War.

 

[Malintent]

Saying that everything is just fine because the Russians did not succeed in changing election tallies or individual votes (and ignoring the INFLUENCE that they had on individual's decision to vote one way or the other, though dishonest propaganda - Fake News) is like a bank robber claiming they have committed no crime because none of the bank customers filed bankruptcy immediately afterwards.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Putin interviewed by NBC about alleged interference where I thought he did extremely well.

Because he didn't break down and admit it? That's a low bar.

Well if you listen to the translation he chooses his words very carefully. He doesn't deny anything, he moves the goalpost and Kelly doesn't notice or doesn't care.





Also, it appears that Scientology's David Miscavage is also involved in the money laundering.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Nothing has changed since this.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/12/the-russian-hacking-fiasco/

There’s no proof that Russia hacked the US elections.

There’s no proof that Russian officials or Russian agents colluded with members of the Trump campaign.

There’s no proof that Russia provided material support of any kind for the Trump campaign or that Russian agents hacked Hillary Clinton’s emails or that Russian officials provided Wikileaks with emails that were intended to sabotage Hillary’s chances to win the election.

So far, no one in any of the 17 US intelligence agencies has stepped forward and verified the claims of Russian meddling or produced a scintilla of hard evidence that Russia was in anyway involved in the 2016 elections.

No proof means no proof. It means that the people and organizations that are making these uncorroborated claims have no basis for legal action, no presumption of wrongdoing, and no grounds for prosecution. They have nothing. Zilch. Their claims, charges and accusations are like the soap bubbles we give to our children and grandchildren. The brightly-colored bubbles wobble across the sky for a minute or two and then, Poof, they vanish into the ether. The claims of Russia hacking are like these bubbles. They are empty, unsubstantiated rumors completely devoid of substance. Poof.

Now, THIS has surfaced. Although there's no definitive conclusion on actual vote tallies, it does show that the Russians did penetrate further than we thought and that they were responsible. Also, the leaker for this report has been arrested.

It actually shows nothing, except that some poor young woman, encouraged no doubt by the kind of morons we see on this forum will now spend years in jail.

There is no fucking evidence. You have one cherry picked report, taken by an impressionable young woman, written by one person in the NSA, and no actual evidence of anything.
We don't know how many others in the NSA disagreed with this report or whether it is reliable at all, or what conclusions others came to. And no actual evidence.

I feel sorry for that young woman who will now almost certainly spend years behind bars

There are 50 pages of links going backward in this thread if you wish to look for actual evidence. Even the Wikipedia article does a pretty decent job citing sources for the claims made with regards to Russian interference in the election. The preponderance of evidence is assimilated from multiple lines, and converge to tell a compelling story. You, like the few others here in this thread, are hyper-skeptical towards any claim of the US government, and by extension Western democracies, because of your personal feelings towards the US. Instead, you believe there is a worldwide conspiracy against Russia and Donald Trump involving dozens of departments and several countries. Your view makes a much sense as any creationist thinking that the entire international scientific establishment is hell bent on propping up the theory of evolution in order to undermine the gospel of Jesus Christ. The few citations you use are bare, do not stand up to scrutiny, and are obviously biased. Your critiques of other's statements are amateurish and smell fishy, probably from all that red herring. Your bias in accepting and rejecting evidence is transparent and obvious, as you and your ilk cling desperately to a handful of statements from suspect sites, stick your fingers in your ears, and blindly chant your incantations in the hopes that others won't bother to fact-check your claims. You are not skeptical anymore than the aforementioned creationist or a "climate change skeptic" shouting about how there's no evidence carbon changes climate because he has a handful of links from oil lobbyists.

 

[Sea of red]

Nothing has changed since this.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/12/the-russian-hacking-fiasco/

Now, THIS has surfaced. Although there's no definitive conclusion on actual vote tallies, it does show that the Russians did penetrate further than we thought and that they were responsible. Also, the leaker for this report has been arrested.

It actually shows nothing, except that some poor young woman, encouraged no doubt by the kind of morons we see on this forum will now spend years in jail.

There is no fucking evidence. You have one cherry picked report, taken by an impressionable young woman, written by one person in the NSA, and no actual evidence of anything.
We don't know how many others in the NSA disagreed with this report or whether it is reliable at all, or what conclusions others came to. And no actual evidence.

I feel sorry for that young woman who will now almost certainly spend years behind bars

There are 50 pages of links going backward in this thread if you wish to look for actual evidence. Even the Wikipedia article does a pretty decent job citing sources for the claims made with regards to Russian interference in the election. The preponderance of evidence is assimilated from multiple lines, and converge to tell a compelling story. You, like the few others here in this thread, are hyper-skeptical towards any claim of the US government, and by extension Western democracies, because of your personal feelings towards the US. Instead, you believe there is a worldwide conspiracy against Russia and Donald Trump involving dozens of departments and several countries. Your view makes a much sense as any creationist thinking that the entire international scientific establishment is hell bent on propping up the theory of evolution in order to undermine the gospel of Jesus Christ. The few citations you use are bare, do not stand up to scrutiny, and are obviously biased. Your critiques of other's statements are amateurish and smell fishy, probably from all that red herring. Your bias in accepting and rejecting evidence is transparent and obvious, as you and your ilk cling desperately to a handful of statements from suspect sites, stick your fingers in your ears, and blindly chant your incantations in the hopes that others won't bother to fact-check your claims. You are not skeptical anymore than the aforementioned creationist or a "climate change skeptic" shouting about how there's no evidence carbon changes climate because he has a handful of links from oil lobbyists.

There is no evidence that will convince people like him. He simply wants to live in denial until the bitter end, accusing others of conspiracies theories when the reality is, he's the one suggesting a vast conspiracy involving the rest of the government against Trump.

 

[Malintent]

Because he didn't break down and admit it? That's a low bar.

If this was a court of law, the case against Putin would have been laughed out of court.

Simply stringing one speculation or another together isn't a proper investigation until there is corroboration and the evidence is weighed and tested.

Where do speculations come from? Evidence
How are they "strung" together? Corroboration.
What is the mechanism for achieving this? Investigation.

check, check, and check.

 

[Elixir]

If this was a court of law, the case against Putin would have been laughed out of court.

Simply stringing one speculation or another together isn't a proper investigation until there is corroboration and the evidence is weighed and tested.

Where do speculations come from? Evidence
How are they "strung" together? Corroboration.
What is the mechanism for achieving this? Investigation.

check, check, and check.

Further that that, when it comes to whether El Cheato stays or goes, the "legality" of what he has done is irrelevant. Impeachments are about failure to fulfill the duties of President, whether due to incompetence, derangement, distraction or nefarious plotting against the interests of the Nation. There is no standard of "reasonable doubt" or even "preponderance of the evidence". It's a straight up decision on the part of Congress. Period. No whining by WP or his ilk is going to make one whit of difference at that point.

 

[blastula]

Because he didn't break down and admit it? That's a low bar.

If this was a court of law, the case against Putin would have been laughed out of court.

How do you know the case against him? You don't.

Simply stringing one speculation or another together isn't a proper investigation until there is corroboration and the evidence is weighed and tested.

Putin wasn't interviewed in a court of law, so your response is a non sequitur, and your praise for the interview is hypocritical since it wasn't in court.

 

[tupac chopra]

Nothing has changed since this.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/12/the-russian-hacking-fiasco/

Now, THIS has surfaced. Although there's no definitive conclusion on actual vote tallies, it does show that the Russians did penetrate further than we thought and that they were responsible. Also, the leaker for this report has been arrested.

It actually shows nothing, except that some poor young woman, encouraged no doubt by the kind of morons we see on this forum will now spend years in jail.

There is no fucking evidence. You have one cherry picked report, taken by an impressionable young woman, written by one person in the NSA, and no actual evidence of anything.
We don't know how many others in the NSA disagreed with this report or whether it is reliable at all, or what conclusions others came to. And no actual evidence.

I feel sorry for that young woman who will now almost certainly spend years behind bars

There are 50 pages of links going backward in this thread if you wish to look for actual evidence. Even the Wikipedia article does a pretty decent job citing sources for the claims made with regards to Russian interference in the election. The preponderance of evidence is assimilated from multiple lines, and converge to tell a compelling story. You, like the few others here in this thread, are hyper-skeptical towards any claim of the US government, and by extension Western democracies, because of your personal feelings towards the US.

I love America and american people. I travel there every year.

I am skeptical of what your intelligence agencies say because they have proven themselves to liars over and over and over again.
Why do you keep believing them?
Can you explain why you believe them over and over again, and can you do it without making personal comments please. Can you just stick to the facts please.

 

[Opoponax]

If nothing else there's this, although I got a restraining order against fivethirtyeight after breaking up with it and throwing all of their shit out of the house and onto the front lawn the night of the election.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...nderstanding-how-the-midterms-are-shaping-up/

So what does the generic ballot show right now? That Democrats are in a historically strong position, with a 44 percent to 37 percent lead over Republicans.

...the generic ballot, even this early in a midterm cycle, can be quite predictive of the outcome of the following year’s House elections.

Etc.

But in true fivethirtyeight fashion, it goes on to say, "Of course we could be totally wrong about everything even though this is the bestest most greatest model ever made for predicting the outcome of elections."

Assholes.

But at least it offers some glimmer of hope that the Democrats will be able to impeach Trump. But then there's the whole thing about Democrats being such gigantic pussies ala "We shouldn't be talking about impeachment right now."

But why fucking not? The fucking Republicans were screaming "Lock her up!" when Hillary had done nothing illegal. They need to grow a huge collective pair of balls to put the GOP back in its place.

 

[bilby]

If nothing else there's this, although I got a restraining order against fivethirtyeight after breaking up with it and throwing all of their shit out of the house and onto the front lawn the night of the election.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...nderstanding-how-the-midterms-are-shaping-up/

...the generic ballot, even this early in a midterm cycle, can be quite predictive of the outcome of the following year’s House elections.

Etc.

But in true fivethirtyeight fashion, it goes on to say, "Of course we could be totally wrong about everything even though this is the bestest most greatest model ever made for predicting the outcome of elections."

Assholes.

But at least it offers some glimmer of hope that the Democrats will be able to impeach Trump. But then there's the whole thing about Democrats being such gigantic pussies ala "We shouldn't be talking about impeachment right now."

But why fucking not? The fucking Republicans were screaming "Lock her up!" when Hillary had done nothing illegal. They need to grow a huge collective pair of balls to put the GOP back in its place.

fivethirtyeight gave Trump a 28.2% chance of winning, and he won; Their predictions were also pretty good, on a state by state basis. The only problem with their forecast is that they didn't take account of the fact that most people are stupid enough to think that a candidate with a better than 1 in 4 chance is inevitably going to lose. If the election were run hundreds of times, Hillary would win fewer than 3 out of every 4; But it's only run once, and the nation got unlucky. That's not Nate Silver's fault; and it's not his fault that most people misread his prediction because people are generally very bad at grasping statistics and probabilities.

 

[Horatio Parker]

If nothing else there's this, although I got a restraining order against fivethirtyeight after breaking up with it and throwing all of their shit out of the house and onto the front lawn the night of the election.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...nderstanding-how-the-midterms-are-shaping-up/





Etc.

But in true fivethirtyeight fashion, it goes on to say, "Of course we could be totally wrong about everything even though this is the bestest most greatest model ever made for predicting the outcome of elections."

Assholes.

But at least it offers some glimmer of hope that the Democrats will be able to impeach Trump. But then there's the whole thing about Democrats being such gigantic pussies ala "We shouldn't be talking about impeachment right now."

But why fucking not? The fucking Republicans were screaming "Lock her up!" when Hillary had done nothing illegal. They need to grow a huge collective pair of balls to put the GOP back in its place.

fivethirtyeight gave Trump a 28.2% chance of winning, and he won; Their predictions were also pretty good, on a state by state basis. The only problem with their forecast is that they didn't take account of the fact that most people are stupid enough to think that a candidate with a better than 1 in 4 chance is inevitably going to lose. If the election were run hundreds of times, Hillary would win fewer than 3 out of every 4; But it's only run once, and the nation got unlucky. That's not Nate Silver's fault; and it's not his fault that most people misread his prediction because people are generally very bad at grasping statistics and probabilities.

I'm no math guy, but I noticed that there were many more undecideds in '16 than previously. That left a significant number of voters off the radar.

Another thing, again is vote distribution. Silver's and Wang's predictions look much better when you consider the popular vote.

 

[blastula]

Top intelligence official told associates Trump asked him if he could intervene with Comey on FBI Russia probe - The Washington Post

The nation’s top intelligence official told associates in March that President Trump asked him if he could intervene with then-FBI Director James B. Comey to get the bureau to back off its focus on former national security adviser Michael Flynn in its Russia probe, according to officials.

 

[tupac chopra]

Top intelligence official told associates Trump asked him if he could intervene with Comey on FBI Russia probe - The Washington Post

The nation’s top intelligence official told associates in March that President Trump asked him if he could intervene with then-FBI Director James B. Comey to get the bureau to back off its focus on former national security adviser Michael Flynn in its Russia probe, according to officials.

That's bad, and we now have two senior intelligence officials (Coats and Comey) who covered up an attempt to obstruct justice it appears, if that is what is was.

Of course it is in the WaPo so might just be bullshit

 

[blastula]

Cover it up by telling other people about it? Wow, you are desperate.

 

[Deepak]

There's no evidence that I ate your sandwich. And besides - it tasted terrible

 

[whichphilosophy]

If this was a court of law, the case against Putin would have been laughed out of court.

How do you know the case against him? You don't.

Simply stringing one speculation or another together isn't a proper investigation until there is corroboration and the evidence is weighed and tested.

Putin wasn't interviewed in a court of law, so your response is a non sequitur, and your praise for the interview is hypocritical since it wasn't in court.

A court of law is based on natural human reasoning arising out of logic. If allegations do not pass such a test whether in a court or in a pub it means they are unsupported due to a lack of conclusive evidence or sometimes even any indication what was said is borne in fact.