- Oct 6, 2008
- 125,001
- 60,456
I believe the point of the thread is to see if there are any morons still clinging to yesterday's lie, and haven't incorporated the latest lies into their posts.
And sure enough....here you are, dumb and proud of it!
Reliable Democrat voter, huh?
So Reuters is fake news but you're the real thing. You don't read either, you just copy and paste.
1. I am the 'real thing'....
2. I cannot quit because at this moment in time...I am too legit.
3. And...at this time, you cannot be describes as anything but 'the bottom of the barrel.'
See our difference?
4. Now...let's go over why there can never...NEVER....be any such proof of Russian involvement.
How about a lesson, a remedial, in cyber 'hacking':
"Analysts say, however, that the ability to determine who cyber attackers are, where they’re located and sometimes who ordered their operations is rarely definitive and comes in degrees of confidence.
Beyond the government’s headline assertion that Russia is to blame, “it’s important to parse the public statement pretty closely,” said Susan Hennessey, a national security fellow at the Brookings Institution. “They’re being really careful in their word choice.”
The Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security said in a statement earlier this month that “only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.”
But that statement does not mean that the U.S. has “direct evidence of senior official-level involvement,” Hennessey said.
Without more definitive statements, it’s difficult for some technical experts to take the government’s word on faith, she and others have said.
“There’s no evidence that this was done by the state itself, only evidence it was done by non-state actors that might be Russian-speaking,” said Jeffrey Carr, CEO of the cyber security consultancy firm Taia Global, referring to the evidence available to the public.
That evidence, which was released by private threat assessment companies rather than official channels, indicates hackers used Cyrillic keyboards and operated during Moscow working hours.
But indicators of identity like timestamps, language preferences and IP addresses “can be manipulated or faked rather easily,” said Juan Andres Guerrero-Saade, a senior security researcher at Kaspersky Lab."
Does the U.S. government really know who hacked Democrats' emails?
Does the U.S. government really know who hacked Democrats' emails?
Get it, you dunce???
Your link is from October 2016. You're not only fake, but six months behind everybody else.
You moron!
It doesn't matter when it was written!!!!
It proves that there will never be any such proof of who was responsible.
AND...you dunce, shortly after,
"Tech
WikiLeaks Vault 7 Part 3 Reveals CIA Tool Might Mask Hacks as Russian, Chinese, Arabic"
WikiLeaks Vault 7 Part 3 Reveals CIA Tool Might Mask Hacks as Russian, Chinese, Arabic
Anybody can fake the source, you fool!!!
Now you know why WikeLeaks released that information. It was the same thing they did during the campaign. Release real information and mix in false information. Russian bots in social media picked it up and amplified it. Then Trump-bots like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh pick it up. The purpose was to blame the CIA even though the CIA had no reason to help Trump.
I can assume, then, that you are unable to find any 'facts' to support your suggestion that "WikeLeaks released that information" that influenced our election in any way.
And, in consequence, you are merely our latest source of Greenhouse Gases.
The fact is that Bill's wife did better after the Wikileaks, whatever they were, than before.
a. The day before any leaks, wikileaks or otherwise, the RealClearPolitics had Hillary at 48%
b. The election result gave Hillary 48.08% per the election.