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

[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.

In the IT world you either DO know. Or you don't. There is no "maybe".

Cmon man, that sounds like a tag line for a commercial. It's not like they caught three Russians sneaking in the DNC headquarters. This is done remotely, through VPNs and intermediary nodes. Attribution is hard, but it definitely was the Russians.

It is a fact. There is no "maybe" in IT. Either the hackers left a trace, or they didn't. There is no maybe. Real good hackers can get in and out with no evidence.

not to say this is what happened, but governments have been known to hack using someone elses techniques to make it look like it came from elsewhere.

however, all that said i am not crowdstrike and i'm sure they know to look for that too. from what i'm reading they are saying the recent "according to XXX crowdstrike didn't find" and their page says they did find evidence.

now what is - dunno. like i said they carefully worded it for a reason. to read into that is simply speculation as most of this is i suppose.

 

[Picaro]

There is some really good, actual scholarly work on the shadow government and the Deep State, by leftist professors. In fact, the whole idea and notion of the UN-elected Deep State as a subject of study that got started on the left after the JFK assassination and the Watergate fiasco. (Not including that warning that Ike gave to nation upon his departure.)


I do have to admit, my favorite Democrats have all been chased out of the party and been retired.

No need for 'scholarly' work'; the 'deep state' has never kept their influence and policies a secret from anybody, it's all out on the open, as is their disdain for democracies and 'uppity proles' interfering with their 'global initiatives' and 'populism'. I know I'm not the only one who laughs at Democrats' sudden hypocritical whining about 'populism n stuff'. Read any issue of Foreign Affairs for instance, and find out all about what the 'deep state's' academics' and their goals and wish lists are, going back to the 1970's, along with the mass of published policy papers and editorials by its members alone every week. They're 'left wing' all right, they just work for the same old agenda for the 19th century 'Gilded Age',, socializing the costs while privatizing the profits into a few select pockets. The Upper 1% loves socialism, for themselves. They can pay all kinds of 'Libertarians' and 'right wingers to shill for them same as they buy left wingers to railroad uppity white proles into prison for defending themselves from black violence.

AS for Ike, I don't much care about what he said, since he did nothing to antagonize them while in office, and went along with the agenda; he was no hero when it came to standing up to them. He also started the tradition of raiding Social Security revenues to finance pet projects, in his case the interstate highway system.

 

[Coyote]

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.

And?

I pointed out that this has been a long time project with USSR/Russia already.

 

[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?
[/quote}

For which argument is there more evidence? The ONLY evidence you show is that Crowdstrike won't say 100%.

Do you really think that is equivalent to the evidence offered by the other side?

And, if so - why?

and what you post is fine - but that isn't "hacked" and they also say they are exploring authenticity and origin.

What do you mean it isn't "hacked"?

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.

I'm going to cut it to the quick here given your reluctance to offer proof to the contrary.

Do you have any evidence showing that it was not Russia?

 

[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.

And?

I pointed out that this has been a long time project with USSR/Russia already.

And?

was talking to colfax about looking at the history of election interference overall. nothing more, nothing less.

 

[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?
[/quote}

For which argument is there more evidence? The ONLY evidence you show is that Crowdstrike won't say 100%.

Do you really think that is equivalent to the evidence offered by the other side?

And, if so - why?

and what you post is fine - but that isn't "hacked" and they also say they are exploring authenticity and origin.

What do you mean it isn't "hacked"?

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.

I'm going to cut it to the quick here given your reluctance to offer proof to the contrary.

Do you have any evidence showing that it was not Russia?

yea, the same proof you have it was.

how fucked up is that, huh?

stop the passive attacks please.

 

[Coyote]

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 (then USSR) has a long history of attempting to interfere with our democratic process (with the aim of showing that democracy is inherently inferior), but you are right - this level of interference, on a multinational platform, is unprecedented.

 

[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 (then USSR) has a long history of attempting to interfere with our democratic process (with the aim of showing that democracy is inherently inferior), but you are right - this level of interference, on a multinational platform, is unprecedented.

and other than hacking the DNC, just what did they do?

i know of facebook ads. what else?

 

[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.

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.

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.

 

[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.

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.

you don't know what that reason is. you are guessing to suit your need.

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.

 

[Coyote]

My my weren't Obama and his minions the busy little bees, spying on Americans right up until the last hours of his Presidency!

Exactly right!

View attachment 336544

Oh how sweet. The rightwingnuts have their nooses out and ready to use.

 

[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.

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.

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.

you don't know what that reason is. you are guessing to suit your need.

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.

 

[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.

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.

you don't know what that reason is. you are guessing to suit your need.

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.

yes. 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.

and since you're hellbent on telling me what i think, i'm out for tonight.

take care.

 

[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.

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.

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.

you don't know what that reason is. you are guessing to suit your need.

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.

yes. 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.

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.

 

[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.

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.

you don't know what that reason is. you are guessing to suit your need.

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.

yes. 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.

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.

ok

 

[IM2]

The epoch times? Surely you jest!

 

[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.

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.

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.

you don't know what that reason is. you are guessing to suit your need.

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.

yes. 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.

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.

ok

TY.

 

[Coyote]

The epoch times? Surely you jest!

Ya, I know, right?

 

[skye]

My my weren't Obama and his minions the busy little bees, spying on Americans right up until the last hours of his Presidency!

Exactly right!

View attachment 336544

Oh how sweet. The rightwingnuts have their nooses out and ready to use.

Sorry but I do not like Killary Clinton. I know you are a great fan of hers, oh well one can not please everybody, right?

She can spend the rest of her days in Gitmo instead! feel better now?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

He was never unmasked.

Time to Unmask the Unmaskers!

View attachment 335006

8 of the most wanted criminals in America