BREAKING: U.S. Officials Have Declassified List Of Obama Officials Who Were Involved In ‘Unmasking’ General Flynn

[Leo123]

Any day now

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.

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

The declassified documents will show that the Russians were trying to help Hillary not Trump.

That is just too funny Given 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.

i'd love to see a specific list of "evidence" that was used to make the entire RUSSIAGATE ok.

then go from there as to what was bullshit and a valid concern.

There is no such thing as "Russiagate".

So no attempt to cite actual evidence used

Your request is EXTREMELY broad. Be specific. What do you want evidence for exactly?

yea, i thought so.

No. You didn't. You didn't think at all.

You make a very broad demand for something. Narrow it down. For example - asking about evidence to support your claim of Russia wanting Clinton to win is focused.

oh trust me - i think a lot about it. i don't rationalize my emotions. i asked a base question - what "evidence" was there to say RUSSIA was a valid investigation. you won't answer it, you then ask me to narrow it down.

Ding Ding Ding!!!!!! That's it! Thank you! That was ALL I asked for considering this topic has been pretty broad. That is a concise request. And I'm happy to answer THAT.

What led up to the Russia Investigation?

Let's start at the beginning.

2014 - the Obama Administration first began receiving warnings from intelligence about possible Russian interference.

The Obama administration received multiple warnings from national security officials between 2014 and 2016 that the Kremlin was ramping up its intelligence operations and building disinformation networks it could use to disrupt the U.S. political system, according to more than half a dozen current and former officials.​

​

As early as 2014, the administration received a report that quoted a well-connected Russian source as saying that the Kremlin was building a disinformation arm that could be used to interfere in Western democracies. The report, according to an official familiar with it, included a quote from the Russian source telling U.S. officials in Moscow, "You have no idea how extensive these networks are in Europe ... and in the U.S., Russia has penetrated media organizations, lobbying firms, political parties, governments and militaries in all of these places."​

​

That report was circulated among the National Security Council, intelligence agencies and the State Department via secure email and cable in the spring of 2014 as part of a larger assessment of Russian intentions in Ukraine, the official said.​

​

There was no explicit warning of a threat to U.S. elections, but the official said some diplomats and national security officials in Moscow felt the administration was too quick to dismiss the possibility that the Kremlin incursions could reach the United States.​

2016

On Oct. 7, 2016, about a month before the election, the administration revealed, through a statement from the director of national intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security, that the U.S. government believed Russia was behind the hacks and was seeking to interfere with the election. The revelation, which many in the White House expected to be bombshell news, was largely overshadowed by the revelation that same day of an “Access Hollywood” tape in which Donald Trump made crude and sexist comments to anchor Billy Bush.​

And note - the Obama Administration has been criticized for being too cautious in reacting to this (and sex scandals as usual, capture people’s attention).

The spectre of electoral interference from Russia – whether in the form of hacking, dark money, bot armies, or a plethora of other techniques – has hung over elections and referendums from France to Ukraine, and from the USA to the UK.​

​

…The interlinked Russian attempts at influence were sophisticated and effective. The most visible of their efforts was the hacking of the email accounts of the Democratic National Committee and John Podesta, a key Hillary Clinton aide. The contents of those emails – including internal memos, infighting, and more – were later passed to WikiLeaks and published to huge media attention. The furore eventually led to the resignation of the DNC’s chairwoman on the eve of the party’s convention.​

And this was just the successful hacking attempts - many other attempts including targeting voter registration systems, were thwarted. This led to the indictment of 12 Russian Intelligence Officials.

That’s the beginning and my view, that is absolutely worth investigating down to the last detail. Public trust in the integrity of our electoral and political system is being threatened. And not just ours.

Mike Conaway, the Republican who replaced Devin Nunes as head of the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation into Russian meddling in the U.S. election, has described his mission simply: “I just want to find out what happened,” he’s said. The more urgent question elsewhere in the world, however, isn’t confined to the past. It concerns what is happening—not just in the United States but in European democracies as well.​

So let’s move to Trump and Co. Was it proper to investigate him? Let’s separate what we knew at the time vs. what we know now that it is concluded.

At least 17 Trump associates had contacts with Russians or Wikileaks, which released hacked documents, during the campaign or transition, according to an analysis of public records by the New York Times, with at least 100 face-to-face interactions, phone calls or electronic messages with Russians or Kremlin-linked figures and at least 51 individual communications.​

​

Trump aides known to have had contact with Russians include the president's son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner, his son Donald Trump Jr, former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and former personal lawyer Michael Cohen.​

In addition, initial investigations found that several of these people had lied about the extent of their contacts or that they even had contacts with Russian officials.

That frankly, given the lead up to this point - is enough reason to investigate.

Thanks for proving that Trump's transition team did nothing different than any other transition team. Also thanks for confirming that the leftist media ignored facts in favor of the "Access Hollywood" yellow journalism. Obama's 'national security officials' were, as we know now, colluding in a conspiracy to take down Trump so citing them is hardly proof of anything.

 

[Coyote]

Barr's selective release of those who requested "unmasking" (totally legal and done through proper channels) and the focus on Biden strikes me as an attempt to interfere in the elections.

The AG is supposed to be impartial.

This is yet one more indication of Barr's corruption IMO.

remove your dog from the race. stop trying to steer the river in your direction. not doing this makes you push things to where they are not in "the real world".

You remove your dog from the race and quit deflecting, because that is what you are doing. You can not acknowledge even the remote possibility that someone else might have a legitimate argument that doesn't match yours.

Why the selective release of material like this? Why the focus on Biden's name, 6 months from an election. Barr is Trump's man. Why is Barr helping the Republicans? The AG is supposed to stay out of partisan politics. Even Eric Holder, for all the criticism leveled at him, did not get involved. But hey...there can't possibly be any legitimate concerns about corruption (that only applies to Obama and Clinton in your book).

you are not getting what you perceive to be "proper", ergo THEY must be corrupt; not you potentially wrong. when you put yourself in a position where nothing will change your mind, you warp what you see to fit what you need it to be.

so maybe the AG is being impartial and what was done to Trump was wrong.

maybe.

Where did you pull that out of? Does it occur to you that you might be wrong? (Apparently not...not once in your posts....). The AG has, factually, engaged in a number of very unprededented actions, completely outside his normal scope. That is looking at AG's over a number of administrations. Those actions in fact conflict with the independent judiciary in a disturbing way. But actually - why bother to discuss with you?

I think Slade is right. You simultaneously criticize others for not seeing your point of view while insisting they are completely wrong for having a different point of view. There is no discussion to be had here because you make it about person doing the discussing, not the actual points of discussion.

well if you think slade is right then there ain't much sense in trying.

i ask some pretty simple questions, ask if we can pull back claws and talk issues, i even get specific per your request - again.

and yet again you don't follow through.

but i do find it funny you're mad at me for not considering YOUR point of view while the entire time you refuse to consider mine. also, i've said i'm wrong several times. most recently to colfax_m and he and i have our own dogfights. but when he is right he is right. he can also put the emotions down and simply talk. thats what i was trying to get back to before you decided it was more fun to slam me. so'k. that's how it's been lately but i was trying to have us both stop it.

you and slade have fun, hear?

I took a good bit of time and answered your specific question. I'm not mad you for not considering MY point of view. You don't have to. But when you bang on about how only YOUR point of view is right and mine is just "emotional" - you aren't discussing anything but people. I don't CARE how you derive your point of view. I'll hear it out. Which I did. I expect the same respect from you IF discussion is what you want. But if you answer every one of my points with "you just hate Trump" then you aren't truly interested.

the reason i do that is because when i disagree with you, you instantly go off that i am defending trump. you so far have refused to see i can disagree with you and how it applies to law or policy; not trump.

but to date you have never given me the "luxury" of disagreeing with you and NOT defending trump. in my mind trump doesn't have much to do with whether or not what is happening to him is legal or not.

Actually that isn't true. I've only done that when you start in on "you just hate Trump".

This kind of forces us both into corners wouldn't you say?

 

[iceberg]

Any day now

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.

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

The declassified documents will show that the Russians were trying to help Hillary not Trump.

That is just too funny Given 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.

Hacking and releasing the DNC email server wasn’t trying to help Trump?

recent declassified documents indicate crowdstrike never said they found evidence russia did a thing.

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 2017

justthenews.com

CrowdStrike Had No Evidence of Russians Stealing Emails From DNC, Declassified Transcript Shows

www.theepochtimes.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?

 

[iceberg]

Barr's selective release of those who requested "unmasking" (totally legal and done through proper channels) and the focus on Biden strikes me as an attempt to interfere in the elections.

The AG is supposed to be impartial.

This is yet one more indication of Barr's corruption IMO.

remove your dog from the race. stop trying to steer the river in your direction. not doing this makes you push things to where they are not in "the real world".

You remove your dog from the race and quit deflecting, because that is what you are doing. You can not acknowledge even the remote possibility that someone else might have a legitimate argument that doesn't match yours.

Why the selective release of material like this? Why the focus on Biden's name, 6 months from an election. Barr is Trump's man. Why is Barr helping the Republicans? The AG is supposed to stay out of partisan politics. Even Eric Holder, for all the criticism leveled at him, did not get involved. But hey...there can't possibly be any legitimate concerns about corruption (that only applies to Obama and Clinton in your book).

you are not getting what you perceive to be "proper", ergo THEY must be corrupt; not you potentially wrong. when you put yourself in a position where nothing will change your mind, you warp what you see to fit what you need it to be.

so maybe the AG is being impartial and what was done to Trump was wrong.

maybe.

Where did you pull that out of? Does it occur to you that you might be wrong? (Apparently not...not once in your posts....). The AG has, factually, engaged in a number of very unprededented actions, completely outside his normal scope. That is looking at AG's over a number of administrations. Those actions in fact conflict with the independent judiciary in a disturbing way. But actually - why bother to discuss with you?

I think Slade is right. You simultaneously criticize others for not seeing your point of view while insisting they are completely wrong for having a different point of view. There is no discussion to be had here because you make it about person doing the discussing, not the actual points of discussion.

well if you think slade is right then there ain't much sense in trying.

i ask some pretty simple questions, ask if we can pull back claws and talk issues, i even get specific per your request - again.

and yet again you don't follow through.

but i do find it funny you're mad at me for not considering YOUR point of view while the entire time you refuse to consider mine. also, i've said i'm wrong several times. most recently to colfax_m and he and i have our own dogfights. but when he is right he is right. he can also put the emotions down and simply talk. thats what i was trying to get back to before you decided it was more fun to slam me. so'k. that's how it's been lately but i was trying to have us both stop it.

you and slade have fun, hear?

I took a good bit of time and answered your specific question. I'm not mad you for not considering MY point of view. You don't have to. But when you bang on about how only YOUR point of view is right and mine is just "emotional" - you aren't discussing anything but people. I don't CARE how you derive your point of view. I'll hear it out. Which I did. I expect the same respect from you IF discussion is what you want. But if you answer every one of my points with "you just hate Trump" then you aren't truly interested.

the reason i do that is because when i disagree with you, you instantly go off that i am defending trump. you so far have refused to see i can disagree with you and how it applies to law or policy; not trump.

but to date you have never given me the "luxury" of disagreeing with you and NOT defending trump. in my mind trump doesn't have much to do with whether or not what is happening to him is legal or not.

Actually that isn't true. I've only done that when you start in on "you just hate Trump".

This kind of forces us both into corners wouldn't you say?

you've done it nearly every time i say you could be wrong.

when i do that your response is i'm a "trumper" or whatever and defending him. at that point yes i say you just hate trump.

i've said it a dozen times in the last month.

 

[Leo123]

Barr's selective release of those who requested "unmasking" (totally legal and done through proper channels) and the focus on Biden strikes me as an attempt to interfere in the elections.

The AG is supposed to be impartial.

This is yet one more indication of Barr's corruption IMO.

remove your dog from the race. stop trying to steer the river in your direction. not doing this makes you push things to where they are not in "the real world".

You remove your dog from the race and quit deflecting, because that is what you are doing. You can not acknowledge even the remote possibility that someone else might have a legitimate argument that doesn't match yours.

Why the selective release of material like this? Why the focus on Biden's name, 6 months from an election. Barr is Trump's man. Why is Barr helping the Republicans? The AG is supposed to stay out of partisan politics. Even Eric Holder, for all the criticism leveled at him, did not get involved. But hey...there can't possibly be any legitimate concerns about corruption (that only applies to Obama and Clinton in your book).

you are not getting what you perceive to be "proper", ergo THEY must be corrupt; not you potentially wrong. when you put yourself in a position where nothing will change your mind, you warp what you see to fit what you need it to be.

so maybe the AG is being impartial and what was done to Trump was wrong.

maybe.

Where did you pull that out of? Does it occur to you that you might be wrong? (Apparently not...not once in your posts....). The AG has, factually, engaged in a number of very unprededented actions, completely outside his normal scope. That is looking at AG's over a number of administrations. Those actions in fact conflict with the independent judiciary in a disturbing way. But actually - why bother to discuss with you?

I think Slade is right. You simultaneously criticize others for not seeing your point of view while insisting they are completely wrong for having a different point of view. There is no discussion to be had here because you make it about person doing the discussing, not the actual points of discussion.

well if you think slade is right then there ain't much sense in trying.

i ask some pretty simple questions, ask if we can pull back claws and talk issues, i even get specific per your request - again.

and yet again you don't follow through.

but i do find it funny you're mad at me for not considering YOUR point of view while the entire time you refuse to consider mine. also, i've said i'm wrong several times. most recently to colfax_m and he and i have our own dogfights. but when he is right he is right. he can also put the emotions down and simply talk. thats what i was trying to get back to before you decided it was more fun to slam me. so'k. that's how it's been lately but i was trying to have us both stop it.

you and slade have fun, hear?

I took a good bit of time and answered your specific question. I'm not mad you for not considering MY point of view. You don't have to. But when you bang on about how only YOUR point of view is right and mine is just "emotional" - you aren't discussing anything but people. I don't CARE how you derive your point of view. I'll hear it out. Which I did. I expect the same respect from you IF discussion is what you want. But if you answer every one of my points with "you just hate Trump" then you aren't truly interested.

the reason i do that is because when i disagree with you, you instantly go off that i am defending trump. you so far have refused to see i can disagree with you and how it applies to law or policy; not trump.

but to date you have never given me the "luxury" of disagreeing with you and NOT defending trump. in my mind trump doesn't have much to do with whether or not what is happening to him is legal or not.

Actually that isn't true. I've only done that when you start in on "you just hate Trump".

This kind of forces us both into corners wouldn't you say?

But Coyote, your posts show your disdain for Trump. Tell you what, say something good about Trump. Convince me you are objective in any way, shape or form.

 

[iceberg]

Any day now

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.

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

The declassified documents will show that the Russians were trying to help Hillary not Trump.

That is just too funny Given 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.

i'd love to see a specific list of "evidence" that was used to make the entire RUSSIAGATE ok.

then go from there as to what was bullshit and a valid concern.

There is no such thing as "Russiagate".

So no attempt to cite actual evidence used

Your request is EXTREMELY broad. Be specific. What do you want evidence for exactly?

yea, i thought so.

No. You didn't. You didn't think at all.

You make a very broad demand for something. Narrow it down. For example - asking about evidence to support your claim of Russia wanting Clinton to win is focused.

oh trust me - i think a lot about it. i don't rationalize my emotions. i asked a base question - what "evidence" was there to say RUSSIA was a valid investigation. you won't answer it, you then ask me to narrow it down.

Ding Ding Ding!!!!!! That's it! Thank you! That was ALL I asked for considering this topic has been pretty broad. That is a concise request. And I'm happy to answer THAT.

What led up to the Russia Investigation?

Let's start at the beginning.

2014 - the Obama Administration first began receiving warnings from intelligence about possible Russian interference.

The Obama administration received multiple warnings from national security officials between 2014 and 2016 that the Kremlin was ramping up its intelligence operations and building disinformation networks it could use to disrupt the U.S. political system, according to more than half a dozen current and former officials.​

​

As early as 2014, the administration received a report that quoted a well-connected Russian source as saying that the Kremlin was building a disinformation arm that could be used to interfere in Western democracies. The report, according to an official familiar with it, included a quote from the Russian source telling U.S. officials in Moscow, "You have no idea how extensive these networks are in Europe ... and in the U.S., Russia has penetrated media organizations, lobbying firms, political parties, governments and militaries in all of these places."​

​

That report was circulated among the National Security Council, intelligence agencies and the State Department via secure email and cable in the spring of 2014 as part of a larger assessment of Russian intentions in Ukraine, the official said.​

​

There was no explicit warning of a threat to U.S. elections, but the official said some diplomats and national security officials in Moscow felt the administration was too quick to dismiss the possibility that the Kremlin incursions could reach the United States.​

2016

On Oct. 7, 2016, about a month before the election, the administration revealed, through a statement from the director of national intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security, that the U.S. government believed Russia was behind the hacks and was seeking to interfere with the election. The revelation, which many in the White House expected to be bombshell news, was largely overshadowed by the revelation that same day of an “Access Hollywood” tape in which Donald Trump made crude and sexist comments to anchor Billy Bush.​

And note - the Obama Administration has been criticized for being too cautious in reacting to this (and sex scandals as usual, capture people’s attention).

The spectre of electoral interference from Russia – whether in the form of hacking, dark money, bot armies, or a plethora of other techniques – has hung over elections and referendums from France to Ukraine, and from the USA to the UK.​

​

…The interlinked Russian attempts at influence were sophisticated and effective. The most visible of their efforts was the hacking of the email accounts of the Democratic National Committee and John Podesta, a key Hillary Clinton aide. The contents of those emails – including internal memos, infighting, and more – were later passed to WikiLeaks and published to huge media attention. The furore eventually led to the resignation of the DNC’s chairwoman on the eve of the party’s convention.​

And this was just the successful hacking attempts - many other attempts including targeting voter registration systems, were thwarted. This led to the indictment of 12 Russian Intelligence Officials.

That’s the beginning and my view, that is absolutely worth investigating down to the last detail. Public trust in the integrity of our electoral and political system is being threatened. And not just ours.

Mike Conaway, the Republican who replaced Devin Nunes as head of the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation into Russian meddling in the U.S. election, has described his mission simply: “I just want to find out what happened,” he’s said. The more urgent question elsewhere in the world, however, isn’t confined to the past. It concerns what is happening—not just in the United States but in European democracies as well.​

So let’s move to Trump and Co. Was it proper to investigate him? Let’s separate what we knew at the time vs. what we know now that it is concluded.

At least 17 Trump associates had contacts with Russians or Wikileaks, which released hacked documents, during the campaign or transition, according to an analysis of public records by the New York Times, with at least 100 face-to-face interactions, phone calls or electronic messages with Russians or Kremlin-linked figures and at least 51 individual communications.​

​

Trump aides known to have had contact with Russians include the president's son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner, his son Donald Trump Jr, former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and former personal lawyer Michael Cohen.​

In addition, initial investigations found that several of these people had lied about the extent of their contacts or that they even had contacts with Russian officials.

That frankly, given the lead up to this point - is enough reason to investigate.

what exactly is a "disinformation" network?

what this funnels down to almost every time is something around $100k of facebook ads that were 90% just getting extreme groups to scream at each other.

now - you're counting communications with russia. if this is a valid indicator then we must do the same for hillary and everyone else. where i draw the line is when you put a standard for 1 person but will not hold yourself or others to that same standard. when i push this yes i am suddenly defending trump and you go into, what appears to me, a rage.

and these lies as we have seen them come to light are not as they appeared or for the reasons we were told.

it comes across as extremifying everything and having to make vast assumptions about their purpose or desires *all of which* you make nefarious. while those could certainly be a part of it, what they were doing could also have been just fine; but we don't present data as pure data anymore. we twist it and tell you how to feel about it.

and we all go downhill from there.

so - let's do this one a time if we're going to give this a shot.

explain the disinformation network and what "RUSSIA" was trying to do to interfere with our elections. how were they doing this?

trying to resolve more than 1 point at a time has never worked well for us so lets start here. fair enough?

 

[Coyote]

Any day now

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.

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

The declassified documents will show that the Russians were trying to help Hillary not Trump.

That is just too funny Given 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.

Hacking and releasing the DNC email server wasn’t trying to help Trump?

recent declassified documents indicate crowdstrike never said they found evidence russia did a thing.

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 2017

justthenews.com

CrowdStrike Had No Evidence of Russians Stealing Emails From DNC, Declassified Transcript Shows

www.theepochtimes.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.

 

[Coyote]

Barr's selective release of those who requested "unmasking" (totally legal and done through proper channels) and the focus on Biden strikes me as an attempt to interfere in the elections.

The AG is supposed to be impartial.

This is yet one more indication of Barr's corruption IMO.

remove your dog from the race. stop trying to steer the river in your direction. not doing this makes you push things to where they are not in "the real world".

You remove your dog from the race and quit deflecting, because that is what you are doing. You can not acknowledge even the remote possibility that someone else might have a legitimate argument that doesn't match yours.

Why the selective release of material like this? Why the focus on Biden's name, 6 months from an election. Barr is Trump's man. Why is Barr helping the Republicans? The AG is supposed to stay out of partisan politics. Even Eric Holder, for all the criticism leveled at him, did not get involved. But hey...there can't possibly be any legitimate concerns about corruption (that only applies to Obama and Clinton in your book).

you are not getting what you perceive to be "proper", ergo THEY must be corrupt; not you potentially wrong. when you put yourself in a position where nothing will change your mind, you warp what you see to fit what you need it to be.

so maybe the AG is being impartial and what was done to Trump was wrong.

maybe.

Where did you pull that out of? Does it occur to you that you might be wrong? (Apparently not...not once in your posts....). The AG has, factually, engaged in a number of very unprededented actions, completely outside his normal scope. That is looking at AG's over a number of administrations. Those actions in fact conflict with the independent judiciary in a disturbing way. But actually - why bother to discuss with you?

I think Slade is right. You simultaneously criticize others for not seeing your point of view while insisting they are completely wrong for having a different point of view. There is no discussion to be had here because you make it about person doing the discussing, not the actual points of discussion.

well if you think slade is right then there ain't much sense in trying.

i ask some pretty simple questions, ask if we can pull back claws and talk issues, i even get specific per your request - again.

and yet again you don't follow through.

but i do find it funny you're mad at me for not considering YOUR point of view while the entire time you refuse to consider mine. also, i've said i'm wrong several times. most recently to colfax_m and he and i have our own dogfights. but when he is right he is right. he can also put the emotions down and simply talk. thats what i was trying to get back to before you decided it was more fun to slam me. so'k. that's how it's been lately but i was trying to have us both stop it.

you and slade have fun, hear?

I took a good bit of time and answered your specific question. I'm not mad you for not considering MY point of view. You don't have to. But when you bang on about how only YOUR point of view is right and mine is just "emotional" - you aren't discussing anything but people. I don't CARE how you derive your point of view. I'll hear it out. Which I did. I expect the same respect from you IF discussion is what you want. But if you answer every one of my points with "you just hate Trump" then you aren't truly interested.

the reason i do that is because when i disagree with you, you instantly go off that i am defending trump. you so far have refused to see i can disagree with you and how it applies to law or policy; not trump.

but to date you have never given me the "luxury" of disagreeing with you and NOT defending trump. in my mind trump doesn't have much to do with whether or not what is happening to him is legal or not.

Actually that isn't true. I've only done that when you start in on "you just hate Trump".

This kind of forces us both into corners wouldn't you say?

But Coyote, your posts show your disdain for Trump. Tell you what, say something good about Trump. Convince me you are objective in any way, shape or form.

So? I have never claimed to be objective. And if anyone else here does they are lying.

 

[Coyote]

Barr's selective release of those who requested "unmasking" (totally legal and done through proper channels) and the focus on Biden strikes me as an attempt to interfere in the elections.

The AG is supposed to be impartial.

This is yet one more indication of Barr's corruption IMO.

remove your dog from the race. stop trying to steer the river in your direction. not doing this makes you push things to where they are not in "the real world".

You remove your dog from the race and quit deflecting, because that is what you are doing. You can not acknowledge even the remote possibility that someone else might have a legitimate argument that doesn't match yours.

Why the selective release of material like this? Why the focus on Biden's name, 6 months from an election. Barr is Trump's man. Why is Barr helping the Republicans? The AG is supposed to stay out of partisan politics. Even Eric Holder, for all the criticism leveled at him, did not get involved. But hey...there can't possibly be any legitimate concerns about corruption (that only applies to Obama and Clinton in your book).

you are not getting what you perceive to be "proper", ergo THEY must be corrupt; not you potentially wrong. when you put yourself in a position where nothing will change your mind, you warp what you see to fit what you need it to be.

so maybe the AG is being impartial and what was done to Trump was wrong.

maybe.

Where did you pull that out of? Does it occur to you that you might be wrong? (Apparently not...not once in your posts....). The AG has, factually, engaged in a number of very unprededented actions, completely outside his normal scope. That is looking at AG's over a number of administrations. Those actions in fact conflict with the independent judiciary in a disturbing way. But actually - why bother to discuss with you?

I think Slade is right. You simultaneously criticize others for not seeing your point of view while insisting they are completely wrong for having a different point of view. There is no discussion to be had here because you make it about person doing the discussing, not the actual points of discussion.

well if you think slade is right then there ain't much sense in trying.

i ask some pretty simple questions, ask if we can pull back claws and talk issues, i even get specific per your request - again.

and yet again you don't follow through.

but i do find it funny you're mad at me for not considering YOUR point of view while the entire time you refuse to consider mine. also, i've said i'm wrong several times. most recently to colfax_m and he and i have our own dogfights. but when he is right he is right. he can also put the emotions down and simply talk. thats what i was trying to get back to before you decided it was more fun to slam me. so'k. that's how it's been lately but i was trying to have us both stop it.

you and slade have fun, hear?

I took a good bit of time and answered your specific question. I'm not mad you for not considering MY point of view. You don't have to. But when you bang on about how only YOUR point of view is right and mine is just "emotional" - you aren't discussing anything but people. I don't CARE how you derive your point of view. I'll hear it out. Which I did. I expect the same respect from you IF discussion is what you want. But if you answer every one of my points with "you just hate Trump" then you aren't truly interested.

the reason i do that is because when i disagree with you, you instantly go off that i am defending trump. you so far have refused to see i can disagree with you and how it applies to law or policy; not trump.

but to date you have never given me the "luxury" of disagreeing with you and NOT defending trump. in my mind trump doesn't have much to do with whether or not what is happening to him is legal or not.

Actually that isn't true. I've only done that when you start in on "you just hate Trump".

This kind of forces us both into corners wouldn't you say?

you've done it nearly every time i say you could be wrong.

when i do that your response is i'm a "trumper" or whatever and defending him. at that point yes i say you just hate trump.

i've said it a dozen times in the last month.

I call bull on that. When we are actually discussing the issue and not each other (or you are flinging TDS) I don't call you a Trumper.

 

[iceberg]

Any day now

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.

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

The declassified documents will show that the Russians were trying to help Hillary not Trump.

That is just too funny Given 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.

Hacking and releasing the DNC email server wasn’t trying to help Trump?

recent declassified documents indicate crowdstrike never said they found evidence russia did a thing.

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 2017

justthenews.com

CrowdStrike Had No Evidence of Russians Stealing Emails From DNC, Declassified Transcript Shows

www.theepochtimes.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.

fine.

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.

 

[colfax_m]

Any day now

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.

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

The declassified documents will show that the Russians were trying to help Hillary not Trump.

That is just too funny Given 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.

Hacking and releasing the DNC email server wasn’t trying to help Trump?

recent declassified documents indicate crowdstrike never said they found evidence russia did a thing.

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 2017

justthenews.com

CrowdStrike Had No Evidence of Russians Stealing Emails From DNC, Declassified Transcript Shows

www.theepochtimes.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?

I’ve seen those reports and so I went and read the testimony. It 80 pages double spaced, not too dense.

I think these reports are cherry picking quotes from his testimony.

They don’t include this:

MR. HENRY: We said that we had a high degree of confidence it was the Russian Government. And our analysts thatl ooked at it that had looked at these types of attacks before, many different types of attacks similar to this in different environments, certain tools that were used, certain methods by which they were
movingintheenvironment,andlookingatthetypesofdatathatwasbeing targeted, that it was consistent with a nation-state adversary and associated with
Russian intelligence.

 

[iceberg]

Barr's selective release of those who requested "unmasking" (totally legal and done through proper channels) and the focus on Biden strikes me as an attempt to interfere in the elections.

The AG is supposed to be impartial.

This is yet one more indication of Barr's corruption IMO.

remove your dog from the race. stop trying to steer the river in your direction. not doing this makes you push things to where they are not in "the real world".

You remove your dog from the race and quit deflecting, because that is what you are doing. You can not acknowledge even the remote possibility that someone else might have a legitimate argument that doesn't match yours.

Why the selective release of material like this? Why the focus on Biden's name, 6 months from an election. Barr is Trump's man. Why is Barr helping the Republicans? The AG is supposed to stay out of partisan politics. Even Eric Holder, for all the criticism leveled at him, did not get involved. But hey...there can't possibly be any legitimate concerns about corruption (that only applies to Obama and Clinton in your book).

you are not getting what you perceive to be "proper", ergo THEY must be corrupt; not you potentially wrong. when you put yourself in a position where nothing will change your mind, you warp what you see to fit what you need it to be.

so maybe the AG is being impartial and what was done to Trump was wrong.

maybe.

Where did you pull that out of? Does it occur to you that you might be wrong? (Apparently not...not once in your posts....). The AG has, factually, engaged in a number of very unprededented actions, completely outside his normal scope. That is looking at AG's over a number of administrations. Those actions in fact conflict with the independent judiciary in a disturbing way. But actually - why bother to discuss with you?

I think Slade is right. You simultaneously criticize others for not seeing your point of view while insisting they are completely wrong for having a different point of view. There is no discussion to be had here because you make it about person doing the discussing, not the actual points of discussion.

well if you think slade is right then there ain't much sense in trying.

i ask some pretty simple questions, ask if we can pull back claws and talk issues, i even get specific per your request - again.

and yet again you don't follow through.

but i do find it funny you're mad at me for not considering YOUR point of view while the entire time you refuse to consider mine. also, i've said i'm wrong several times. most recently to colfax_m and he and i have our own dogfights. but when he is right he is right. he can also put the emotions down and simply talk. thats what i was trying to get back to before you decided it was more fun to slam me. so'k. that's how it's been lately but i was trying to have us both stop it.

you and slade have fun, hear?

I took a good bit of time and answered your specific question. I'm not mad you for not considering MY point of view. You don't have to. But when you bang on about how only YOUR point of view is right and mine is just "emotional" - you aren't discussing anything but people. I don't CARE how you derive your point of view. I'll hear it out. Which I did. I expect the same respect from you IF discussion is what you want. But if you answer every one of my points with "you just hate Trump" then you aren't truly interested.

the reason i do that is because when i disagree with you, you instantly go off that i am defending trump. you so far have refused to see i can disagree with you and how it applies to law or policy; not trump.

but to date you have never given me the "luxury" of disagreeing with you and NOT defending trump. in my mind trump doesn't have much to do with whether or not what is happening to him is legal or not.

Actually that isn't true. I've only done that when you start in on "you just hate Trump".

This kind of forces us both into corners wouldn't you say?

you've done it nearly every time i say you could be wrong.

when i do that your response is i'm a "trumper" or whatever and defending him. at that point yes i say you just hate trump.

i've said it a dozen times in the last month.

I call bull on that. When we are actually discussing the issue and not each other (or you are flinging TDS) I don't call you a Trumper.

feel free to go back and look. as of now i am trying hard to pull out of the attacks on each other. i am simply telling you how you come across to me and my own experiences in dealing with you. and your last statement to leo about being biased -

then what is the point of talking if you're openly biased?

i have my preferences sure. but i could be wrong. you could be right. but it will take more than rants and raves in a media i don't trust to show that to me. but my concern is far from trump anymore but much more on the willingness of far too many to destroy the basis we all live on top of so they can be "correct" - whatever that is anymore.

 

[beagle9]

Barr's selective release of those who requested "unmasking" (totally legal and done through proper channels) and the focus on Biden strikes me as an attempt to interfere in the elections.

The AG is supposed to be impartial.

This is yet one more indication of Barr's corruption IMO.

Yeah, yeah, TDS derangement is kicking in on you again, because you know good and well that the thoughts of suspicious time lines are long gone. That ship sailed 4 years ago. Everything is running concurrently now, so keep up. Quit cherry picking in order to hope for a smidget of give now by your opponents, because that ship has sailed long ago also.

 

[iceberg]

Any day now

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.

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

The declassified documents will show that the Russians were trying to help Hillary not Trump.

That is just too funny Given 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.

Hacking and releasing the DNC email server wasn’t trying to help Trump?

recent declassified documents indicate crowdstrike never said they found evidence russia did a thing.

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 2017

justthenews.com

CrowdStrike Had No Evidence of Russians Stealing Emails From DNC, Declassified Transcript Shows

www.theepochtimes.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?

I’ve seen those reports and so I went and read the testimony. It 80 pages double spaced, not too dense.

I think these reports are cherry picking quotes from his testimony.

They don’t include this:

MR. HENRY: We said that we had a high degree of confidence it was the Russian Government. And our analysts thatl ooked at it that had looked at these types of attacks before, many different types of attacks similar to this in different environments, certain tools that were used, certain methods by which they were
movingintheenvironment,andlookingatthetypesofdatathatwasbeing targeted, that it was consistent with a nation-state adversary and associated with
Russian intelligence.

lord i don't know if my ADD would let me do 80 pages.

in any event, in digging i don't find a lot of depth to it no. i can split hairs on the crowdstrike statement but that is still splitting hairs. it wouldn't surprise me at all if russia did hack it and did jack with us. but that would pretty much be like every election before and what we do to others around the world on an all too regular basis.

but this one time, in a presidential election... suddenly common activity was blown out of proportion as we tend to do these days.

 

[Coyote]

Any day now

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.

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

The declassified documents will show that the Russians were trying to help Hillary not Trump.

That is just too funny Given 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.

i'd love to see a specific list of "evidence" that was used to make the entire RUSSIAGATE ok.

then go from there as to what was bullshit and a valid concern.

There is no such thing as "Russiagate".

So no attempt to cite actual evidence used

Your request is EXTREMELY broad. Be specific. What do you want evidence for exactly?

yea, i thought so.

No. You didn't. You didn't think at all.

You make a very broad demand for something. Narrow it down. For example - asking about evidence to support your claim of Russia wanting Clinton to win is focused.

oh trust me - i think a lot about it. i don't rationalize my emotions. i asked a base question - what "evidence" was there to say RUSSIA was a valid investigation. you won't answer it, you then ask me to narrow it down.

Ding Ding Ding!!!!!! That's it! Thank you! That was ALL I asked for considering this topic has been pretty broad. That is a concise request. And I'm happy to answer THAT.

What led up to the Russia Investigation?

Let's start at the beginning.

2014 - the Obama Administration first began receiving warnings from intelligence about possible Russian interference.

The Obama administration received multiple warnings from national security officials between 2014 and 2016 that the Kremlin was ramping up its intelligence operations and building disinformation networks it could use to disrupt the U.S. political system, according to more than half a dozen current and former officials.​

​

As early as 2014, the administration received a report that quoted a well-connected Russian source as saying that the Kremlin was building a disinformation arm that could be used to interfere in Western democracies. The report, according to an official familiar with it, included a quote from the Russian source telling U.S. officials in Moscow, "You have no idea how extensive these networks are in Europe ... and in the U.S., Russia has penetrated media organizations, lobbying firms, political parties, governments and militaries in all of these places."​

​

That report was circulated among the National Security Council, intelligence agencies and the State Department via secure email and cable in the spring of 2014 as part of a larger assessment of Russian intentions in Ukraine, the official said.​

​

There was no explicit warning of a threat to U.S. elections, but the official said some diplomats and national security officials in Moscow felt the administration was too quick to dismiss the possibility that the Kremlin incursions could reach the United States.​

2016

On Oct. 7, 2016, about a month before the election, the administration revealed, through a statement from the director of national intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security, that the U.S. government believed Russia was behind the hacks and was seeking to interfere with the election. The revelation, which many in the White House expected to be bombshell news, was largely overshadowed by the revelation that same day of an “Access Hollywood” tape in which Donald Trump made crude and sexist comments to anchor Billy Bush.​

And note - the Obama Administration has been criticized for being too cautious in reacting to this (and sex scandals as usual, capture people’s attention).

The spectre of electoral interference from Russia – whether in the form of hacking, dark money, bot armies, or a plethora of other techniques – has hung over elections and referendums from France to Ukraine, and from the USA to the UK.​

​

…The interlinked Russian attempts at influence were sophisticated and effective. The most visible of their efforts was the hacking of the email accounts of the Democratic National Committee and John Podesta, a key Hillary Clinton aide. The contents of those emails – including internal memos, infighting, and more – were later passed to WikiLeaks and published to huge media attention. The furore eventually led to the resignation of the DNC’s chairwoman on the eve of the party’s convention.​

And this was just the successful hacking attempts - many other attempts including targeting voter registration systems, were thwarted. This led to the indictment of 12 Russian Intelligence Officials.

That’s the beginning and my view, that is absolutely worth investigating down to the last detail. Public trust in the integrity of our electoral and political system is being threatened. And not just ours.

Mike Conaway, the Republican who replaced Devin Nunes as head of the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation into Russian meddling in the U.S. election, has described his mission simply: “I just want to find out what happened,” he’s said. The more urgent question elsewhere in the world, however, isn’t confined to the past. It concerns what is happening—not just in the United States but in European democracies as well.​

So let’s move to Trump and Co. Was it proper to investigate him? Let’s separate what we knew at the time vs. what we know now that it is concluded.

At least 17 Trump associates had contacts with Russians or Wikileaks, which released hacked documents, during the campaign or transition, according to an analysis of public records by the New York Times, with at least 100 face-to-face interactions, phone calls or electronic messages with Russians or Kremlin-linked figures and at least 51 individual communications.​

​

Trump aides known to have had contact with Russians include the president's son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner, his son Donald Trump Jr, former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and former personal lawyer Michael Cohen.​

In addition, initial investigations found that several of these people had lied about the extent of their contacts or that they even had contacts with Russian officials.

That frankly, given the lead up to this point - is enough reason to investigate.

what exactly is a "disinformation" network?

what this funnels down to almost every time is something around $100k of facebook ads that were 90% just getting extreme groups to scream at each other.

Not exactly, in fact in the sources I quoted from they were more extensive than that including reaching into governments and media of multiple countries.

now - you're counting communications with russia. if this is a valid indicator then we must do the same for hillary and everyone else. where i draw the line is when you put a standard for 1 person but will not hold yourself or others to that same standard. when i push this yes i am suddenly defending trump and you go into, what appears to me, a rage.

Are you going to troll or discuss? Be specific. I don't want to waste my time.

My answer - what makes you think they ONLY looked at Trump? You make an assumption here that fuels your claim of "two standards".

and these lies as we have seen them come to light are not as they appeared or for the reasons we were told.

Uh no...those lies were pretty blatant. A lie is a lie.

it comes across as extremifying everything and having to make vast assumptions about their purpose or desires *all of which* you make nefarious. while those could certainly be a part of it, what they were doing could also have been just fine; but we don't present data as pure data anymore. we twist it and tell you how to feel about it.

and we all go downhill from there.

I'm not extremifying anything. I'm pointing out what led to the investigation and supporting it with sources.

so - let's do this one a time if we're going to give this a shot.

explain the disinformation network and what "RUSSIA" was trying to do to interfere with our elections. how were they doing this?

trying to resolve more than 1 point at a time has never worked well for us so lets start here. fair enough?

Some of your questions were addressed in the articles that I sourced in my reply to you on whether or not there were sufficient grounds to investigate.

 

[colfax_m]

but that would pretty much be like every election before and what we do to others around the world on an all too regular basis

I always challenge this assertion. I don’t see this as a normal thing. Can you remember the last time Russia jacked with our election?

 

[Coyote]

Any day now

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.

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

The declassified documents will show that the Russians were trying to help Hillary not Trump.

That is just too funny Given 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.

Hacking and releasing the DNC email server wasn’t trying to help Trump?

recent declassified documents indicate crowdstrike never said they found evidence russia did a thing.

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 2017

justthenews.com

CrowdStrike Had No Evidence of Russians Stealing Emails From DNC, Declassified Transcript Shows

www.theepochtimes.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.

fine.

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.

 

[Coyote]

I have to take the dogs out. I'll be back eventually.

 

[iceberg]

but that would pretty much be like every election before and what we do to others around the world on an all too regular basis

I always challenge this assertion. I don’t see this as a normal thing. Can you remember the last time Russia jacked with our election?

Russia’s Long and Mostly Unsuccessful History of Election Interference

Until Trump, presidential candidates said no thanks to accepting illicit aid.

www.politico.com

This talks about after ww2 it really started.

Need to do some reading on history this weekend. Double spaced or not.

 

[iceberg]

Any day now

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.

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

The declassified documents will show that the Russians were trying to help Hillary not Trump.

That is just too funny Given 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.

Hacking and releasing the DNC email server wasn’t trying to help Trump?

recent declassified documents indicate crowdstrike never said they found evidence russia did a thing.

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 2017

justthenews.com

CrowdStrike Had No Evidence of Russians Stealing Emails From DNC, Declassified Transcript Shows

www.theepochtimes.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.

fine.

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.

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.

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.

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.