Russian Hacking

[Soggy in NOLA]

Russians may have hacked the DNC, that has been acknowledged. What has also been acknowledged it that there is zero evidence the had any impact on the outcome.

I have a problem with the argument that it didn't influence the election. You use the term 'evidence'to make your point.In my view you do this for 2 reasons. First reason is simple. It is nigh on impossible to ascertain what issue swayed the elections it's a completely subjective argument. You nor I can say what made people vote for Trump over Clinton. Chances are it is collection of reasons. I can not say, the Russia thing was the deciding factor, any more that you can claim it had no influence whatsoever. So you use evidence as a strawman argument. Second reason is simple. If you can convince people that Russians didn't influence the elections in a meaningful way, it then becomes acceptable to have voted for Trump. In my view it deliberately skates past the core of the issue. Why do the Russians prefer Trump over Clinton? To such an extent that they feel it's worth it to risk all the diplomatic fallout from their actions

What evidence do you have that the "Russians" prefered Trump over Clinton?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

<<crickets>>

 

[Sun Devil 92]

 

[radical right]

The people with security clearances agree the supporting evidence.proves the conclusion.

If you don't like reading reports with the evidence redacted out, get a high enough security clearance to be trusted with classified sources and methods.

No they don't. An election "hacked" is not a secret if it were true and would require no clearance.
They anonomously "suggest" that Russians tried to "manipulate opinion "...like MSNBC and CNN...which isn't a crime or a hack.
Oh they "secretly" know something? Sorry not gonna work..

The proof is what is being questioned. Because it can't be publically released.

If we had a spy who infiltrated the top layers of ISIS, and was giving us secret intelligence about what they were planning. You would insist the redacted section mentioning where the information came from be made public.

That's the "sources and methods" which must remain secret. Even knowing the specifics of their plans, and the bad guys will figure out how we found out what we know.

 

[DOTR]

The people with security clearances agree the supporting evidence.proves the conclusion.

If you don't like reading reports with the evidence redacted out, get a high enough security clearance to be trusted with classified sources and methods.

No they don't. An election "hacked" is not a secret if it were true and would require no clearance.
They anonomously "suggest" that Russians tried to "manipulate opinion "...like MSNBC and CNN...which isn't a crime or a hack.
Oh they "secretly" know something? Sorry not gonna work..

The proof is what is being questioned. Because it can't be publically released.

If we had a spy who infiltrated the top layers of ISIS, and was giving us secret intelligence about what they were planning. You would insist the redacted section mentioning where the information came from be made public.

That's the "sources and methods" which must remain secret. Even knowing the specifics of their plans, and the bad guys will figure out how we found out what we know.

You are starting to get irrational. Are you saying "something secret happened but we can't tell you what, or who told us, but trust us Trump has to go"?
You want to use an ISIS example? Say they set off a bomb in New York. We know it was ISIS. Perhaps the "how we know" is secret. But not the fact that a bomb was set off.

So where is the smoking hole in the election? Don't tell me who. Or how you know who if it's a secret. But at least show me where my election was compromised.
Or shut up about it.

 

[DOTR]

I want to relive election night again and again and watch the news anchors cry.
Hey wait...I can... in 2020.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I want to relive election night again and again and watch the news anchors cry.
Hey wait...I can... in 2020.

This is one my favorites:

 

[radical right]

You are starting to get irrational. Are you saying "something secret happened but we can't tell you what, or who told us, but trust us Trump has to go"?
You want to use an ISIS example? Say they set off a bomb in New York. We know it was ISIS. Perhaps the "how we know" is secret. But not the fact that a bomb was set off..

The ISIS example is a bomb goes off and blows a hole in the USS Cole. We have an undercover operative with al-Qaeda. He confirms that al-Qaeda planned and funded the attack. We conclude who did it. But we keep how we figured it out secret.

 

[toomuchtime_]

So as far as you know there is no direct evidence the Russian government committed no illegal acts in connection with the election, but you choose to believe it did anyway. How do you decide which unsubstantiated rumors you will believe and which you will reject?

What I do know for certain is that Leaders in both parties have the classified information. We peons do not.

I found this last election too much like the time the South Park Cows had to change their names........

So again, as far as you know there is no direct evidence of the Russian government committing any illegal acts to influence the election and no one who would have access to classified evidence on the subject has stated that there is direct evidence. Some people who have access to classified evidence say they believe Russia committed such acts, but no one claims to have direct evidence to that effect.

The real question becomes, can you impeach a president on classified data?

Which is to say you don't care if any of the allegations are true or not.

A mind reader you are not.

It is not necessary to read your mind. Your posts make it very clear that you don't care if the allegations are true or not and that you want this political witch hunt to continue because when it is over the Democrats who ran it will have to pay a heavy price.

 

[radical right]

It is not necessary to read your mind. Your posts make it very clear that you don't care if the allegations are true or not and that you want this political witch hunt to continue because when it is over the Democrats who ran it will have to pay a heavy price.

The whole story started with the 16 intelligence agencies finding proof of Russian interference.

 

[toomuchtime_]

It is not necessary to read your mind. Your posts make it very clear that you don't care if the allegations are true or not and that you want this political witch hunt to continue because when it is over the Democrats who ran it will have to pay a heavy price.

The whole story started with the 16 intelligence agencies finding proof of Russian interference.

lol Russian interference means what? There is no direct evidence that the Russian government committed any illegal acts to influence the election. The question is, did the Obama administration commit any illegal acts in promoting the Russia hoax to try to influence the election?

 

[DOTR]

You are starting to get irrational. Are you saying "something secret happened but we can't tell you what, or who told us, but trust us Trump has to go"?
You want to use an ISIS example? Say they set off a bomb in New York. We know it was ISIS. Perhaps the "how we know" is secret. But not the fact that a bomb was set off..

The ISIS example is a bomb goes off and blows a hole in the USS Cole. We have an undercover operative with al-Qaeda. He confirms that al-Qaeda planned and funded the attack. We conclude who did it. But we keep how we figured it out secret.

Ok. So where is the gaping hole in the election? Don't give away any secrets as to who did it. Show me the damage.

 

[DOTR]

It is not necessary to read your mind. Your posts make it very clear that you don't care if the allegations are true or not and that you want this political witch hunt to continue because when it is over the Democrats who ran it will have to pay a heavy price.

The whole story started with the 16 intelligence agencies finding proof of Russian interference.

No it didn't. It started with Hillary whining she lost because Russians. Anonymous deep state comments off the record followed. Then the DNC announced "the election was hacked".
But it wasn't. We all voted how we wanted. Nobody here or anywhere can point to an example of electoral malfeasance by a foreign government.
Give it up.

 

[forkup]

Russians may have hacked the DNC, that has been acknowledged. What has also been acknowledged it that there is zero evidence the had any impact on the outcome.

I have a problem with the argument that it didn't influence the election. You use the term 'evidence'to make your point.In my view you do this for 2 reasons. First reason is simple. It is nigh on impossible to ascertain what issue swayed the elections it's a completely subjective argument. You nor I can say what made people vote for Trump over Clinton. Chances are it is collection of reasons. I can not say, the Russia thing was the deciding factor, any more that you can claim it had no influence whatsoever. So you use evidence as a strawman argument. Second reason is simple. If you can convince people that Russians didn't influence the elections in a meaningful way, it then becomes acceptable to have voted for Trump. In my view it deliberately skates past the core of the issue. Why do the Russians prefer Trump over Clinton? To such an extent that they feel it's worth it to risk all the diplomatic fallout from their actions

What evidence do you have that the "Russians" prefered Trump over Clinton?

Maybe the evidence of that they ONLY gave the DNC emails to Assange.FBI's Comey: Republicans also hacked by Russia - CNNPolitics.com Maybe the testimony of the former CIA director, stating that there was contact between the Trump campaign and Russia. Maybe this testimony
And maybe like I pointed out before. The word 'evidence' picked by you as a strawman. 'evidence' as used in a court of law is different from 'evidence' as used by intelligence communities. They don't need to proof anything in court, the simple fact of both what we know that the Russians did, coupled with Trump's and his associates behavior during the campaign, the transition and his first few months in office, is sufficient to be highly suspect Unless you think Clinton would have ever given Russia codeword level information developed by Israel, it's a very safe assumption the Putin very much would prefer Trump over Clinton.

 

[Wyatt earp]

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. It covers the motivation and scope of Moscow’s intentions regarding US elections and Moscow’s use of cyber tools and media campaigns to influence US public opinion. The assessment focuses on activities aimed at the 2016 US presidential election and draws on our understanding of previous Russian influence operations. When we use the term “we” it refers to an assessment by all three agencies.

Translation~ Hillary and the DNC was corrupt to the core and a outside source informed the American public about it.


.

 

[Clementine]

I'm just wondering if anybody here can give me one example of Russians hacking the US elections yet? I've asked this question a dozen times at least. No response.
One example! Is it that hard?


View attachment 128396

So far, just a few supposedly second hand accounts of possible communication. Nothing concrete yet and officials will not release any info. The claim is that they have reason to investigate, which they've been doing for months now. Funny how Benghazi was solved in a day without any officials visiting the embassy (only some reporters did that) and they closed the investigation. Now they will go years with no results and keep claiming there is a smoking gun. All it's good for is keeping those sensational headlines out there to make Trump look bad.

 

[Syriusly]

I'm just wondering if anybody here can give me one example of Russians hacking the US elections yet? I've asked this question a dozen times at least. No response.H]

You do realize that you refusing to read the responses to your question is not the same thing as not having gotten any response.

Read the testimony of the FBI- and the CIA- and the rest of the intelligence community. Read the comments of Senators Graham and McCain.

The Truth is out there. But you will never look for it.

 

[Syriusly]

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. It covers the motivation and scope of Moscow’s intentions regarding US elections and Moscow’s use of cyber tools and media campaigns to influence US public opinion. The assessment focuses on activities aimed at the 2016 US presidential election and draws on our understanding of previous Russian influence operations. When we use the term “we” it refers to an assessment by all three agencies.

Translation~ Hillary and the DNC was corrupt to the core and a outside source informed the American public about it.


.

Translation- the Russians tried to hack our election- and you are okay with that.

 

[Syriusly]

I'm just wondering if anybody here can give me one example of Russians hacking the US elections yet? I've asked this question a dozen times at least. No response.
One example! Is it that hard?

Funny how Benghazi was solved in a day .

Benghazi was investigated for years- and millions was spent on the investigation- and you still didn't accept the results of the investigation.

Funny how that worked.

 

[forkup]

So besides that obscure Russian TV station nobody reported on wikileaks, or put out fake news stories.Or put out any negative information about Clinton. I seem to recall stuff like piizzagate, actually accusing Clinton of running a pedofile ring. Or Fox news as current as a few weeks ago claiming that one of the people on her campaign got assasinated. My point is that the Russians did at the very least try to influence the election. And that fact coupled with, and lets not forget that ,Trumps actions point to something at the very least pretty suspicious, or have you ever heard of any previous president not just firing somebody who is investigating your campaign but than subsequently both inviting the other party under investigation and then doing what you were accused of in the first place,(namely collusion with the Russians). Hilary was deemed to be not worthy of the presidency for objectively less reason.

Man, I really have to start watching more news! And I thought 4 hours a day was good enough. Pizzagate? Never heard of it. Pedophile ring? Never heard of it. Clinton assassination? You mean one Hillary wasn't involved in herself? Never heard of it. Bottom line: None of this crap influenced me, and had I heard it all, it STILL wouldn't have influence me. Only an idiot would believe such stuff and if I was already thinking of voting for Hillary, a pizza, a pedo or another murder (making it 99) associated with the Clintons, if I could live with the TEN-THOUSAND known things already in Hillary's closet and still be willing to vote for her, nothing you've mentioned could possibly change my mind.

How effective can such crap really be anyway? Look at the tons of crap, an avalanche that has been thrown at Trump AND HE STILL WON!!!

Where to start?I'll try to answer your arguments one by one, if I misrepresent your points feel free to correct me.
-Posting wikileaks is an expression of free speech
True on the other hand, claiming that Russia didn't influence the election while at the same time finding posting wikileaks free speech is like saying that someone who shoots a gun is not responsible for the bullet killing someone. You can't untie wikileaks from the source it came from. That source are the Russians. All of the intelligence community says so, not only that bit neither congress nor Trump himself bother denying it.
-People who believe those stories are idiots
Not necessarily, it is a simple matter of where you get information. There are plenty of people who think of people like Alex Jones as reporters. Or who think of Breitbard as a perfectly reputable news source.Breitbart News’ Worst Headlines
If these are the sole sources of information you accept, nothing would sound outrageous after a while. For the record, we know what position Breitbart's CEO has and Trump has been on Alex Jones's show a couple of times. Tereby legitimising these people, who are then surprised when this happens.
- These fringe stories aren't taken seriously.

They are taken seriously enough that Fox still comes back to it a year after it happened. They have retracted it a week later, but the fact that something this serious even makes it on the air says a lot of how willing they are to talk about anything negative about Clinton, regardless of factuality, or even believability.
- Hillary did worse
I invite you to link those 10000 reasons and I'll compare them with Trump. Lets see what's objectively worse