iceberg
Diamond Member
- May 15, 2017
- 36,788
- 14,920
- 1,600
When you get a minute, I still want to know if we have more than potentially hacking the DNC and Facebook ads.TY.okyes. but you don't know the reasons behind what they wrote. they also say they take no side and work for both and are working hard to avoid conspiracy theory talk you drag in yourself.you don't know what that reason is. you are guessing to suit your need.This is where terminology gets interesting. In your link from crowdstrike but no real details. This is 100% intentional by crowdstrike as would be anyone in their position to be fair.fine.recent declassified documents indicate crowdstrike never said they found evidence russia did a thing.Hacking and releasing the DNC email server wasn’t trying to help Trump?The declassified documents will show that the Russians were trying to help Hillary not Trump.normally i agree. but the charges on flynn bring dropped started dominos. it does sound like barr reached way back and anyone going outside of process for the purpose of inflating this "problem" is going to be held responsible.Any day now![]()
good.
until people are held accountable, and in this case kicking and screaming NO I AM RIGHT I AM RIGHT (like children do) this will only get worse. if you're upset that people who did in fact do improper / illegal things are getting punished, that's on you. trying to say BUT THE OTHER GUY DID IT when nothing was found in years of looking is simply deflection to the core.
Why would you care about accountability when Trump got away with obstruction and attempting to coerce a foreign leader for political dirt on his private rival went uncontested? This desire for "accountability" is partisan driven
That is just too funnyGiven that all the evidence to the contrary. But conspiracy theories usually ignore that.
What evidence? Every single obummer official testified under oath that there was zero evidence.
Zero evidence that the Russians were trying to interfere in the elections and they supported Trump?
There is zero evidence they were trying to help Trump. Shrilary was already bought so the evidence we do have is that pootin was trying to help her. It is not much, but it is there.
We have ZERO evidence he was trying to help Trump. That Russia has been interfering is without doubt. They have, and have been for a long time.
![]()
Declassified transcripts: CrowdStrike couldn't say for sure Russians stole DNC emails
CrowdStrike's Shawn Henry was interviewed by House Intelligence Committee members in December 2017justthenews.com
not a whole lot of mainstream reporting on it but if crowdstrike never found evidence of russian hacking, wouldn't that put a pretty big hole in the theory?
Crowdstrike couldn't say for sure - that is not the same as saying "no evidence" of Russian Hacking.
In addition, here is what Crowdstrike has to say: Our Work with the DNC: Setting the record straight
June 15, 2016 UPDATE:
CrowdStrike stands fully by its analysis and findings identifying two separate Russian intelligence-affiliated adversaries present in the DNC network in May 2016. On June 15, 2016 a blog post to a WordPress site authored by an individual using the moniker Guccifer 2.0 claimed credit for breaching the Democratic National Committee. This blog post presents documents alleged to have originated from the DNC.
Whether or not this posting is part of a Russian Intelligence disinformation campaign, we are exploring the documents’ authenticity and origin. Regardless, these claims do nothing to lessen our findings relating to the Russian government’s involvement, portions of which we have documented for the public and the greater security community.
but if *I* can't be sure, you can't be either; correct?
and what you post is fine - but that isn't "hacked" and they also say they are exploring authenticity and origin.
now - if they are still exploring then by definition it can't be a given russia hacked the DNC. maybe they did. i don't know.
but in the absence of positive proof, i am also not going to claim they did it and get upset when someone challenges that statement.
It's at this point we choose who to trust and what experts to rely upon.
For example...I have no idea how to build a nuclear bomb with a long range guidance system. There are a lot of very complicated physics theories I struggle to grasp. There are people who know about this, I'll trust their take on it.
Why do I trust their take on it?
Russia has a reputation for doing this sort of stuff - it's just easier and more damaging due to our increased reliance on the internet, and so many more people around the world attached to it.
Intelligence experts from multiple agencies (and countries) are in agreement on Russia's activities.
Our own intelligence experts are in agreement that Russia hacked the DNC server.
Wikileaks has a known connection with Russia and a known antipathy towards western democracies.
There is no actual evidence supporting anyone else hacking it.
Intentional in what way? They are combatting a lot of "conspiracy theory" crap thrown their way.
What actually happened and how I don't think has been fully determined or they'd not be so careful in their wording. So no I can't say these reports of NO PROOF OF hacking are correct, no.
Thank you.
They wrote the statement the way they did for a reason I am 100% sure. I'm also 100% sure I have no idea what that reason is.
I do.
It's the same reason scientists never say 100%. There is always room for doubt, for error. Or cover your ass.
cover your ass for what? what are they covering? i have to write things like this for where i work and there's a ton of reasons you'd write to be vaguely specific.
you guessing as to their motives doesn't make that what their motives. at least i'm honest in saying i don't know.
Actually. There is no guesswork involved if you take the time to go to the page and read it. You will see a whole lot of links provided combatting conspiracy theories. No guesswork on my part. Just reading their site.
and since you're hellbent on telling me what i think, i'm out for tonight.
take care.
Oh cut the crap. In my post, I outlined what I think.
Not everything is about you.