So, libs, what say you to this?

[kwc57]

I picked up this article at another forum. This is the much more likely scenario than a big Russian/Trump ridiculous conspiracy theory. What do you think?

A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack

It is now a year since the Democratic National Committee’s mail system was compromised—a year since events in the spring and early summer of 2016 were identified as remote hacks and, in short order, attributed to Russians acting in behalf of Donald Trump. A great edifice has been erected during this time. President Trump, members of his family, and numerous people around him stand accused of various corruptions and extensive collusion with Russians. Half a dozen simultaneous investigations proceed into these matters. Last week news broke that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had convened a grand jury, which issued its first subpoenas on August 3. Allegations of treason are common; prominent political figures and many media cultivate a case for impeachment.

The president’s ability to conduct foreign policy, notably but not only with regard to Russia, is now crippled. Forced into a corner and having no choice, Trump just signed legislation imposing severe new sanctions on Russia and European companies working with it on pipeline projects vital to Russia’s energy sector. Striking this close to the core of another nation’s economy is customarily considered an act of war, we must not forget. In retaliation, Moscow has announced that the United States must cut its embassy staff by roughly two-thirds. All sides agree that relations between the United States and Russia are now as fragile as they were during some of the Cold War’s worst moments. To suggest that military conflict between two nuclear powers inches ever closer can no longer be dismissed as hyperbole.

All this was set in motion when the DNC’s mail server was first violated in the spring of 2016 and by subsequent assertions that Russians were behind that “hack” and another such operation, also described as a Russian hack, on July 5. These are the foundation stones of the edifice just outlined. The evolution of public discourse in the year since is worthy of scholarly study: Possibilities became allegations, and these became probabilities. Then the probabilities turned into certainties, and these evolved into what are now taken to be established truths. By my reckoning, it required a few days to a few weeks to advance from each of these stages to the next. This was accomplished via the indefensibly corrupt manipulations of language repeated incessantly in our leading media.

We are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception.

Lost in a year that often appeared to veer into our peculiarly American kind of hysteria is the absence of any credible evidence of what happened last year and who was responsible for it. It is tiresome to note, but none has been made available. Instead, we are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception. These officials profess “high confidence” in their “assessment” as to what happened in the spring and summer of last year—this standing as their authoritative judgment. Few have noticed since these evasive terms first appeared that an assessment is an opinion, nothing more, and to express high confidence is an upside-down way of admitting the absence of certain knowledge. This is how officials avoid putting their names on the assertions we are so strongly urged to accept—as the record shows many of them have done.

We come now to a moment of great gravity.

There has been a long effort to counter the official narrative we now call “Russiagate.” This effort has so far focused on the key events noted above, leaving numerous others still to be addressed. Until recently, researchers undertaking this work faced critical shortcomings, and these are to be explained. But they have achieved significant new momentum in the past several weeks, and what they have done now yields very consequential fruit. Forensic investigators, intelligence analysts, system designers, program architects, and computer scientists of long experience and strongly credentialed are now producing evidence disproving the official version of key events last year. Their work is intricate and continues at a kinetic pace as we speak. But its certain results so far are two, simply stated, and freighted with implications:

• There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the initial “hack,” as alleged, that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.

^^^ Alternative facts.

We know the DNC was not only hacked, they were hacked by Russians. We know this because former FBI Director James Comey confirmed this when he testified under oath and there had been zero evidence discovered to refute that.

BURR: Do you have any doubt that the Russian government was behind the intrusions in the DNC and the DCCC systems, and the subsequent leaks of that information?

COMEY: No, no doubt.​

There is NEW evidence according to data analysis by computer scientists, programmers, etc., that the leaks came from inside the DNC and the emails were copied to a thumb drive that was physically inserted into the computer. Lol.

You're wasting your time. Faun is told what to believe and repeat by those all knowing, disembodied, anonymous sources she prays to each day. It's a matter of faith, not factual science or evidence.

Imbecile. I quoted the former Director of the FBI. Who told me to believe him?

Hell, I'm asking that of someone who couldn't even accurately figure out I'm a guy. :eusa_duh:

I was very accurate as you are obviously a pussy. Grow a set Nancy.

 

[BULLDOG]

Quick.Send a copy of that to Mueller. I'll bet he never heard any of that, so he thinks he should continue with his investigation just like he was told to do. He'll probably buy you a popsicle for your efforts,

You do realize that Mueller's investigation can take many paths and many of those could turn towards Hillary, Wasserman Schultz and the DNC. As with most of these open ended witch hunts, they don't shut down until someone is found guilty of something even if it is only remotely tied to the original investigation.

Right now, it is following the money

And the money trail is leading right to the Trump camp. Next step, offer Flynn and Manafort immunity for turning on Trump

I understand the narrative. Now, produce your evidence. You guys will believe anything an anonymous source tells you.

Why should I produce evidence? I didn't make the accusation.

Are you rightwinger's sock? I was speaking to him, not you.....but you felt compelled to answer? But to answer the question, if the left is going to continue making accusations, they really do need to back them up. Else, they are just delusional fantasy and hopes.

You mean like with Benghazi-Benghazi-Benghazi?

 

[Faun]

I picked up this article at another forum. This is the much more likely scenario than a big Russian/Trump ridiculous conspiracy theory. What do you think?

A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack

It is now a year since the Democratic National Committee’s mail system was compromised—a year since events in the spring and early summer of 2016 were identified as remote hacks and, in short order, attributed to Russians acting in behalf of Donald Trump. A great edifice has been erected during this time. President Trump, members of his family, and numerous people around him stand accused of various corruptions and extensive collusion with Russians. Half a dozen simultaneous investigations proceed into these matters. Last week news broke that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had convened a grand jury, which issued its first subpoenas on August 3. Allegations of treason are common; prominent political figures and many media cultivate a case for impeachment.

The president’s ability to conduct foreign policy, notably but not only with regard to Russia, is now crippled. Forced into a corner and having no choice, Trump just signed legislation imposing severe new sanctions on Russia and European companies working with it on pipeline projects vital to Russia’s energy sector. Striking this close to the core of another nation’s economy is customarily considered an act of war, we must not forget. In retaliation, Moscow has announced that the United States must cut its embassy staff by roughly two-thirds. All sides agree that relations between the United States and Russia are now as fragile as they were during some of the Cold War’s worst moments. To suggest that military conflict between two nuclear powers inches ever closer can no longer be dismissed as hyperbole.

All this was set in motion when the DNC’s mail server was first violated in the spring of 2016 and by subsequent assertions that Russians were behind that “hack” and another such operation, also described as a Russian hack, on July 5. These are the foundation stones of the edifice just outlined. The evolution of public discourse in the year since is worthy of scholarly study: Possibilities became allegations, and these became probabilities. Then the probabilities turned into certainties, and these evolved into what are now taken to be established truths. By my reckoning, it required a few days to a few weeks to advance from each of these stages to the next. This was accomplished via the indefensibly corrupt manipulations of language repeated incessantly in our leading media.

We are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception.

Lost in a year that often appeared to veer into our peculiarly American kind of hysteria is the absence of any credible evidence of what happened last year and who was responsible for it. It is tiresome to note, but none has been made available. Instead, we are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception. These officials profess “high confidence” in their “assessment” as to what happened in the spring and summer of last year—this standing as their authoritative judgment. Few have noticed since these evasive terms first appeared that an assessment is an opinion, nothing more, and to express high confidence is an upside-down way of admitting the absence of certain knowledge. This is how officials avoid putting their names on the assertions we are so strongly urged to accept—as the record shows many of them have done.

We come now to a moment of great gravity.

There has been a long effort to counter the official narrative we now call “Russiagate.” This effort has so far focused on the key events noted above, leaving numerous others still to be addressed. Until recently, researchers undertaking this work faced critical shortcomings, and these are to be explained. But they have achieved significant new momentum in the past several weeks, and what they have done now yields very consequential fruit. Forensic investigators, intelligence analysts, system designers, program architects, and computer scientists of long experience and strongly credentialed are now producing evidence disproving the official version of key events last year. Their work is intricate and continues at a kinetic pace as we speak. But its certain results so far are two, simply stated, and freighted with implications:

• There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the initial “hack,” as alleged, that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.

^^^ Alternative facts.

We know the DNC was not only hacked, they were hacked by Russians. We know this because former FBI Director James Comey confirmed this when he testified under oath and there had been zero evidence discovered to refute that.

BURR: Do you have any doubt that the Russian government was behind the intrusions in the DNC and the DCCC systems, and the subsequent leaks of that information?

COMEY: No, no doubt.​

There is NEW evidence according to data analysis by computer scientists, programmers, etc., that the leaks came from inside the DNC and the emails were copied to a thumb drive that was physically inserted into the computer. Lol.

You're wasting your time. Faun is told what to believe and repeat by those all knowing, disembodied, anonymous sources she prays to each day. It's a matter of faith, not factual science or evidence.

Imbecile. I quoted the former Director of the FBI. Who told me to believe him?

Hell, I'm asking that of someone who couldn't even accurately figure out I'm a guy. :eusa_duh:

I was very accurate as you are obviously a pussy. Grow a set Nancy.

No, I was right, you're an imbecile. You idiotically claimed I am told what to believe only you can't say who told me to say I should believe Comey when he said he had no doubt Russians hacked the DNC. Equally as wrong as you were about guessing my gender; and now, just as wrong as calling me a pussy, which you only do from the safety of anonymity.