Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: The Russiagate conspiracy theory  (Read 1120172 times)

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1850 on: November 30, 2017, 08:51:35 AM »
Awkkk


Steve
Too many quotes here, but I'm totally in agreement that the US is without fault in their efforts to "meddle in Hungary's domestic affairs". I also find no fault in the Globe and Mail's efforts to sway American voters to vote for Clinton, nor Hungary's or Obama's efforts to assure the failure of the Brexit vote.


What I claim is that this is BAU, and so are any efforts that Russia might have made to convince American voters to vote for the candidate that they saw as the least likely to initiate war with them.


I'm sure any of us could find hundreds of examples of this type of extra domestic campaigning with very little effort. We do it, they do it, and everyone has been doing it, probably as far back as the Althing in Iceland.
Terry

Rob Dekker

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2386
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 120
  • Likes Given: 119
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1851 on: November 30, 2017, 09:26:03 AM »
Terry, you are using the false analogy argument. The "everybody does it" argument.
I hope you may come to understand that there are differences.

Setting up a free and unbiased journalism media channel in Hungary is not the same as interfering in the elections in 27 countries, for one.


This is our planet. This is our time.
Let's not waste either.

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1852 on: November 30, 2017, 10:05:27 AM »
Terry, you are using the false analogy argument. The "everybody does it" argument.
I hope you may come to understand that there are differences.

Setting up a free and unbiased journalism media channel in Hungary is not the same as interfering in the elections in 27 countries, for one.


Surely you recognize that America has "interfered" with many more foreign elections than 27.
Terry

Jim Pettit

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1175
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1853 on: November 30, 2017, 12:48:23 PM »
It's important to always remember that the "Russiagate" investigation isn't looking into whether Putin & Comrades interfered with the 2016 US election; that's already been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. No, the investigation is into whether how closely TrumpCo worked with a hostile foreign entity to circumvent our democratic processes in order to see him elected. So, much as some might wish away the whole thing with repeated howls of, "But the US has meddled in other nation's elections!", that's practically irrelevant. Yes, the US has indeed stuck its fingers in elections held in other countries--but that in no way, shape, or form justifies or excuses the anti-American behavior and actions of Trump, Kushner, Bannon, Flynn, Junior, Manafort, Page, Stone, or others.

Hefaistos

  • Guest
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1854 on: November 30, 2017, 02:09:24 PM »
The technical evidence conflicts the theory that the DNC hack was done by the Kremlin/GRU, as has been shown by, e.g.:
http://g-2.space/
https://nef4rhc.wordpress.com/
The latter report has been received by the offices of Special Council Mueller, Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, as well as House and Senate Intelligence Committees, and the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Jeez, Hefaistos. You are really determined.
That "latter report" is from nef4rhc.wordpress.com.
Now I read that report and it is one huge pile of crap.

They don't even link to the reports that they are contesting, for one.
And for the alternative they are suggesting ("The purported July 05 2016 “hack” by Guccifer 2.0 of DNC was a purposeful “leak.”), that is BS on so many accounts. First, there is no evidence that the 'hack' was done July 5, second, there is no evidence it was done by internet entity "Guccifer 2.0", and third, there is no evidence that it was a "leak".

All we know is that the files were copied on July 5 (and that only IF the computer on which they were copied was set to real time).

And who is nef4rhc.wordpress.com anyway ? And when exactly did they post this pile of crap ?

To repeat : at this point I'm curious to know WHY you so desperately want to deny Kremlin involvement when the available evidence points exactly at that ?

My interest in this: There seems to be no 'Russia' in the 'Russiagate'. No valid evidence has been provided. The ICA report from January -17 is basically a political statement, built on no valid technical evidence whatsoever.  They do provide 'evidence' in the form of Guccifer 2.0, who later has been revealed to be a hoax, see the thorough technical discussion at http://g-2.space/#1

You say that those reports I linked to are "a pile of crap"  and "BS". What about some serious discussion?

nef4rhc.wordpress.com  is a report written by one of the IT veterans, Skip Folden. This is what he says about the ICA report: "The ICA comes across as a series of assertions, free of relevant substance. It also fails to include key disclosures. In addition, it relies upon alleged Russian historical ‘nature,’ what this or that person said once, etc. Further, It failed to follow ODNI mandated assessment procedures, and did not include full participation of any of the named agencies."
You say you read his report. Seems you didn't read to the end, where he provides the links you didn't find in the text, as well as his name, which you also didn't see.

VIPS did their forensics and concluded: "It thus appears that the purported “hack” of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 (the self-proclaimed WikiLeaks source) was not a hack by Russia or anyone else, but was rather a copy of DNC data onto an external storage device."
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/

Their findings are still debated, as compiled by The Nation:
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-leak-or-a-hack-a-forum-on-the-vips-memo/

For a full timeline see:
http://g-2.space/#1

So, again, is there any valid evidence that Russia/the Kremlin did this?
If there is, why haven't the three intelligence agencies behind ICA (NSA, CIA and FBI) provided any of it?
Surely, those omni-potent agencies must have some technical evidence to support their claims? Or are they just playing political games?
My feeling is, that there is no valid evidence.  I think someone else, pretending to be Russian , and possibly with an agenda to inflame tensions between the U.S. and Russia, did this.  There is no evidence for who it could be, although there are some suggestions mentioned in the links provided.

The question then is: Why is it a matter of faith for you that Russia is the perpetrator? You seem to want Russia to be guilty, and I wonder why?

Hefaistos

  • Guest
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1855 on: November 30, 2017, 02:15:37 PM »
It's important to always remember that the "Russiagate" investigation isn't looking into whether Putin & Comrades interfered with the 2016 US election; that's already been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Nothing has been proven, see my previous post with a reply to Rob.

Quote
No, the investigation is into whether how closely TrumpCo worked with a hostile foreign entity to circumvent our democratic processes in order to see him elected. So, much as some might wish away the whole thing with repeated howls of, "But the US has meddled in other nation's elections!", that's practically irrelevant. Yes, the US has indeed stuck its fingers in elections held in other countries--but that in no way, shape, or form justifies or excuses the anti-American behavior and actions of Trump, Kushner, Bannon, Flynn, Junior, Manafort, Page, Stone, or others.
Agreed.

Buddy

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3379
  • Go DUCKS!!
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1856 on: November 30, 2017, 02:36:43 PM »
I'm so happy to see foreigners (Sweden, Canada, Australia, etc) provide cover for Donnie.  It really warms my heart....😉😉😉

They continue to ignore dot after dot.....after dot.....after dot....that continue to multiply and grow together and fill in the spaces.

Meanwhile.....the US now looks like they will be moving the US embassy to Jerusalem.....
Meanwhile.....the US Congress is poised to pass the most REGRESSIVE tax act since at least 1986, and all of it WITHOUT ANY DEMOCRAT votes....ZERO...
Meanwhile.....the US is going head first towards war in Korea and/or Iran....
Meanwhile.....the US at the behest of Trump continues to promote fossil fuels, and do away with anything that would promote renewable energy...

I'm so thankful for those foreigners.....😉😉😉😉😉
« Last Edit: November 30, 2017, 03:54:20 PM by Buddy »
FOX (RT) News....."The Trump Channel.....where truth and journalism are dead."

crandles

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3379
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1857 on: November 30, 2017, 03:49:41 PM »
Nothing has been proven, see my previous post with a reply to Rob.

What on earth do you expect??? 'Proof'? before investigation has completed let alone any trial.

There is clearly enough suspicion to start investigations because investigations have been initiated.

Junior texting to get excuse to leave a meeting while Manafort was asleep, what was happening in such a meeting while this was happening?


Demanding proof at a stage which is clearly too early, just makes you look silly. The correct question is there reasonable suspicions? The answer is clearly yes, and consequently, investigations should continue.

SteveMDFP

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2476
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 583
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1858 on: November 30, 2017, 04:56:22 PM »

So, again, is there any valid evidence that Russia/the Kremlin did this?
If there is, why haven't the three intelligence agencies behind ICA (NSA, CIA and FBI) provided any of it?
Surely, those omni-potent agencies must have some technical evidence to support their claims? Or are they just playing political games?
My feeling is, that there is no valid evidence.  I think someone else, pretending to be Russian , and possibly with an agenda to inflame tensions between the U.S. and Russia, did this.  There is no evidence for who it could be, although there are some suggestions mentioned in the links provided.

The question then is: Why is it a matter of faith for you that Russia is the perpetrator? You seem to want Russia to be guilty, and I wonder why?

Publicly released intelligence assessments CANNOT cite specific evidence gathered by covert means--such facts are classified.  Releasing classified information is a felony.

So yes, the assessment is indeed evidence, just unsatisfying for those skeptical of published intelligence reports.  I really doubt that career civil servants would skew their analysis -- unless pressured by the White House to do so.  That definitely happened with Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction," which served White House interests.  In this case, their findings are the OPPOSITE of what the White House wants.  This makes the Assessment far more credible.

Corroboration of at least the plausibility of Russian orchestration of such efforts can be seen by the huge number of contacts between the Trump campaign and prominent Russian officials, including the Ambassador from Russia -- all of which were concealed and lied about by Trump campaign figures, including the current Attorney General.

The intelligence assessment is completely consistent with publicly-available information.

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1859 on: November 30, 2017, 04:59:02 PM »
Nothing has been proven, see my previous post with a reply to Rob.

What on earth do you expect??? 'Proof'? before investigation has completed let alone any trial.

There is clearly enough suspicion to start investigations because investigations have been initiated.

Junior texting to get excuse to leave a meeting while Manafort was asleep, what was happening in such a meeting while this was happening?


Demanding proof at a stage which is clearly too early, just makes you look silly. The correct question is there reasonable suspicions? The answer is clearly yes, and consequently, investigations should continue.
Chris
Did you believe the bolded to be true as the Whitewater investigation droned on?


Buddy
Do you not appreciate comments from those out from under the echo chamber? Don't you find it odd that so many outside the reach of your propaganda, find the story less than compelling?


Jim
While I appreciate that you hold Russia blameless, I can't agree that Russian involvement can be inferred.
I suppose you've read Putin on Brexit, the French election, even the latest Ukrainian presidential election?
Oh Jezuz, now you're going to want me to dig up links.
Follow a few of Hefaistos links and you'll find that Russian involvement is certainly not universally accepted, and recall that Assange, with a perfect record for honesty has denied the involvement of any state actor.
We're certainly not going to pillory Trump because someone used a Russian IP to send cute puppy pictures in English, are we?


Terry

SteveMDFP

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2476
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 583
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1860 on: November 30, 2017, 05:06:31 PM »
Awkkk


Steve
Too many quotes here, but I'm totally in agreement that the US is without fault in their efforts to "meddle in Hungary's domestic affairs". I also find no fault in the Globe and Mail's efforts to sway American voters to vote for Clinton, nor Hungary's or Obama's efforts to assure the failure of the Brexit vote.


What I claim is that this is BAU, and so are any efforts that Russia might have made to convince American voters to vote for the candidate that they saw as the least likely to initiate war with them.


I'm sure any of us could find hundreds of examples of this type of extra domestic campaigning with very little effort. We do it, they do it, and everyone has been doing it, probably as far back as the Althing in Iceland.
Terry

Terry, you're obfuscating the nature of the Russian meddling.
I believe in free speech, with transparency.
It is perfectly fine for any entity to publicly state opinions, even appeal for votes in another country.
It is perfectly wrong for any entity to *covertly* spread false, misleading statements, or covertly leak "opposition research" with the intent of skewing elections. 

Putin publicly praised Trump leading up to the election, that's fine.  The Kremlin also bought trolls and smear ads covertly to skew the election, interfered with voter registration records selectively, and probably released "opposition research" to WikiLeaks.  Might have funded the RNC, covertly and illegally.  That's all criminal.

Steve

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1861 on: November 30, 2017, 05:17:42 PM »

So, again, is there any valid evidence that Russia/the Kremlin did this?
If there is, why haven't the three intelligence agencies behind ICA (NSA, CIA and FBI) provided any of it?
Surely, those omni-potent agencies must have some technical evidence to support their claims? Or are they just playing political games?
My feeling is, that there is no valid evidence.  I think someone else, pretending to be Russian , and possibly with an agenda to inflame tensions between the U.S. and Russia, did this.  There is no evidence for who it could be, although there are some suggestions mentioned in the links provided.

The question then is: Why is it a matter of faith for you that Russia is the perpetrator? You seem to want Russia to be guilty, and I wonder why?

Publicly released intelligence assessments CANNOT cite specific evidence gathered by covert means--such facts are classified.  Releasing classified information is a felony.

So yes, the assessment is indeed evidence, just unsatisfying for those skeptical of published intelligence reports.  I really doubt that career civil servants would skew their analysis -- unless pressured by the White House to do so.  That definitely happened with Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction," which served White House interests.  In this case, their findings are the OPPOSITE of what the White House wants.  This makes the Assessment far more credible.

Corroboration of at least the plausibility of Russian orchestration of such efforts can be seen by the huge number of contacts between the Trump campaign and prominent Russian officials, including the Ambassador from Russia -- all of which were concealed and lied about by Trump campaign figures, including the current Attorney General.

The intelligence assessment is completely consistent with publicly-available information.


What about Bill sleeping in Putin's home, the night before that Russian bank paid him half a million for a short speech, while his wife was Secretary of State?
Goose/Gander, and all of that.
Terry
PS
Personally I wouldn't give a damn about Clinton's involvement with Russia, were it not for the present hysteria. Hillary's hawkish activities were what drove me from her camp, not Assange's E-Mail leaks involving the DNC.
The final straw was her cackling over video of Gaddafi's very brutal assassination. We came. We saw. He died. Ha Ha Ha, that killed her candidacy in my eyes.
Trump was a very flawed alternative, but he was the only alternative available.
I doubt that I was alone in that assessment.

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1862 on: November 30, 2017, 05:19:56 PM »
Awkkk


Steve
Too many quotes here, but I'm totally in agreement that the US is without fault in their efforts to "meddle in Hungary's domestic affairs". I also find no fault in the Globe and Mail's efforts to sway American voters to vote for Clinton, nor Hungary's or Obama's efforts to assure the failure of the Brexit vote.


What I claim is that this is BAU, and so are any efforts that Russia might have made to convince American voters to vote for the candidate that they saw as the least likely to initiate war with them.


I'm sure any of us could find hundreds of examples of this type of extra domestic campaigning with very little effort. We do it, they do it, and everyone has been doing it, probably as far back as the Althing in Iceland.
Terry

Terry, you're obfuscating the nature of the Russian meddling.
I believe in free speech, with transparency.
It is perfectly fine for any entity to publicly state opinions, even appeal for votes in another country.
It is perfectly wrong for any entity to *covertly* spread false, misleading statements, or covertly leak "opposition research" with the intent of skewing elections. 

Putin publicly praised Trump leading up to the election, that's fine.  The Kremlin also bought trolls and smear ads covertly to skew the election, interfered with voter registration records selectively, and probably released "opposition research" to WikiLeaks.  Might have funded the RNC, covertly and illegally.  That's all criminal.

Steve


What do you suppose the CIA does, when not engaged in more nefarious missions?
Terry

Hefaistos

  • Guest
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1863 on: November 30, 2017, 05:57:26 PM »

So, again, is there any valid evidence that Russia/the Kremlin did this?
If there is, why haven't the three intelligence agencies behind ICA (NSA, CIA and FBI) provided any of it?
Surely, those omni-potent agencies must have some technical evidence to support their claims? Or are they just playing political games?
My feeling is, that there is no valid evidence.  I think someone else, pretending to be Russian , and possibly with an agenda to inflame tensions between the U.S. and Russia, did this.  There is no evidence for who it could be, although there are some suggestions mentioned in the links provided.

The question then is: Why is it a matter of faith for you that Russia is the perpetrator? You seem to want Russia to be guilty, and I wonder why?

Publicly released intelligence assessments CANNOT cite specific evidence gathered by covert means--such facts are classified.  Releasing classified information is a felony.

So yes, the assessment is indeed evidence, just unsatisfying for those skeptical of published intelligence reports.  I really doubt that career civil servants would skew their analysis -- unless pressured by the White House to do so.  That definitely happened with Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction," which served White House interests.  In this case, their findings are the OPPOSITE of what the White House wants.  This makes the Assessment far more credible.

Corroboration of at least the plausibility of Russian orchestration of such efforts can be seen by the huge number of contacts between the Trump campaign and prominent Russian officials, including the Ambassador from Russia -- all of which were concealed and lied about by Trump campaign figures, including the current Attorney General.

The intelligence assessment is completely consistent with publicly-available information.

Another poor report by US intelligence is the so called Grizzly Steppe report.
A team of IT people at Wordfence , the guys working with IT security/firewalls at Wordpress, dug into the claims in the report. They managed to crack the psw of the hackers, and what did they find?
1. Most attacks came from IP numbers in the US
2. Malicious software was programmed in Ukraine
3. Nothing whatsoever points to Russia

"The IP addresses that DHS provided may have been used for an attack by a state actor like Russia. But they don’t appear to provide any association with Russia. They are probably used by a wide range of other malicious actors, especially the 15% of IP addresses that are Tor exit nodes.
The malware sample is old, widely used and appears to be Ukrainian. It has no apparent relationship with Russian intelligence and it would be an indicator of compromise for any website."
https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2016/12/russia-malware-ip-hack/
https://www.us-cert.gov/security-publications/GRIZZLY-STEPPE-Russian-Malicious-Cyber-Activity

Question is: Why should we believe claims in intelligence reports when the little evidence they provide, doesn't support their claims?
Why should we believe intelligence reports that are in essence political propaganda? (the ICA report)

Yes, "the assessment is indeed evidence" - for believers.

My position is that the burden of proof lies with those attempting to demonstrate a Russian plot to affect the election, which means they need to find evidence that distinguishes the Russian hacking attempt from the null scenario. In the absence of such evidence, we must assume the null hypothesis: that it was more likely any of the many non-Russian, non-governmental actors capable of such an attack,  until further evidence is presented.
If the scant evidence provided is shown by independent analysts only to strengthen the null hypothesis, the intelligence agencies would better try to strengthen their hypothesis if they want to support their credibility.

Hefaistos

  • Guest
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1864 on: November 30, 2017, 06:00:40 PM »
The Kremlin also bought trolls and smear ads covertly to skew the election, interfered with voter registration records selectively, and probably released "opposition research" to WikiLeaks.  Might have funded the RNC, covertly and illegally.  That's all criminal.

Steve

Someone bought trolls and smear ads covertly to skew the election.
Most probably not the Kremlin.

Buddy

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3379
  • Go DUCKS!!
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1865 on: November 30, 2017, 06:06:54 PM »
My memory must be failing me.  Did 9 people from Donnie's campaign lie about meeting/communicating with Russians who either worked FOR or WITH the Kremlin......OR was it people related to Mssr. Mercer?

Maybe Mssr. Rubbles from Sweden can help me out with that one.......😉
FOX (RT) News....."The Trump Channel.....where truth and journalism are dead."

Alexander555

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2503
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 185
  • Likes Given: 49
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1866 on: November 30, 2017, 06:37:52 PM »
Maybe Trump promotes coal because he's a little more realistic than you. let's assume that they can replace all coal use in the world by solar/wind/hydro... Than you still have the transport market. There are between 900 and 1500 billion barrels of oil left. From which we use 36 billion a year. If Countries like India and China keep growing, we run out of oil in 20 years. The  cars they sell today are 99 % fossil fuel cars. So let's look at the alternatives. Cars with lithium-ion batteries have the best result so far. And if you look at that giga factory from tesla, by the time it's fully operational. It will produce 500 000 electrical cars a year. And for that i needs 100 % of all the lithium that is used to produce batteries, which is 1/3 of all lithium production on this planet. So again, let's assume that they can tripple lithium production, and that they would use all of it to build electrical cars. Than this planet can build 3 million electrical cars a year. That's 60 million cars by the time that fleet of 1,2 to 1,6 billion cars runs dry, because the oil will be finisched. That global economy is going to collaps anyway. Or we had to be producing 60 million alternative cars a year by now. And at the point that car fleet runs dry, you will have to start replacing that giant park of windmills and solar panels. You can be sure they will dig out every kilo of coal to do that. And than we are not even talking about that dozens of millions of heavy duty trucks, busses, airplains....Probably you want even have 60 million electrical cars. And the same moment the economy turns into a swamp, you have millions of foreigners running in to your country. We have a population of 11 million people, and even today we have 300 000 people walking in every year. Mainly africans and arabs. And already 40 % of all people are employed (payed ) by the government. Can you imagine how this is going to look like in 20 years ? A violent swamp.

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1867 on: December 01, 2017, 12:16:17 AM »
When the time is right, maybe Mueller will be able to squeeze the truth out of Sessions:

Title: "Top Intel Dem says Sessions refused to say whether Trump asked him to hinder Russia probe"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/top-intel-dem-says-sessions-refused-to-say-whether-trump-asked-him-to-hinder-russia-probe/ar-BBFYxWs?OCID=ansmsnnews11

Extract: "The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee expressed concern Thursday after Attorney General Jeff Sessions declined to answer whether President Trump ever asked him to obstruct the ongoing investigation into Russian inference in the 2016 presidential election."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9470
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1333
  • Likes Given: 617
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1868 on: December 01, 2017, 12:18:48 AM »
Alexander555, I know there's a lot of overlap between threads, but try to stay on-topic. This thread is not about coal, EVs or immigration.
The enemy is within
Don't confuse me with him

E. Smith

Rob Dekker

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2386
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 120
  • Likes Given: 119
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1869 on: December 01, 2017, 04:58:54 AM »
I'm not going to repeat all the evidence that points at Russian/Kremlin interference in the elections. Enough of it was pointed out upward in this thread.

With any form of denial, it is more interesting to focus on the alternative.
This is what you came up with :

My feeling is, that there is no valid evidence.  I think someone else, pretending to be Russian , and possibly with an agenda to inflame tensions between the U.S. and Russia, did this.

Someone "pretending to be Russian". Yeah, that will do it.

To me this argument sounds like what we are very used to in the climate change debate.
It's not caused by humans, it is caused by "natural variability" which just happens to behave as if it was caused by humans.
This is our planet. This is our time.
Let's not waste either.

Hefaistos

  • Guest
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1870 on: December 01, 2017, 08:59:14 AM »
I'm not going to repeat all the evidence that points at Russian/Kremlin interference in the elections. Enough of it was pointed out upward in this thread.

With any form of denial, it is more interesting to focus on the alternative.
This is what you came up with :

My feeling is, that there is no valid evidence.  I think someone else, pretending to be Russian , and possibly with an agenda to inflame tensions between the U.S. and Russia, did this.

Someone "pretending to be Russian". Yeah, that will do it.

To me this argument sounds like what we are very used to in the climate change debate.
It's not caused by humans, it is caused by "natural variability" which just happens to behave as if it was caused by humans.

I'm sorry to see that you're not serious about discussing the topic. You really are a believer, and you don't worry about evidence. OK, understood.
Honestly, I think it's below the belt of you to bring in the climate change deniers into the Russiagate IT/hacking issue.  Basically you have nothing to say in the argument per se, but you can't avoid the temptation to stab me in the back with an inadequate argument, can you?

My alternative is not the speculative thought that you quote from the end of my reply to Steve's post, that thought is only implied from the null hypothesis, as stated there: The burden of proof lies with those attempting to demonstrate a Russian plot to affect the election, which means they need to find evidence that distinguishes the Russian hacking attempt from the null scenario. In the absence of such evidence, we must assume the null hypothesis: someone else did it.



Buddy

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3379
  • Go DUCKS!!
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1871 on: December 01, 2017, 11:13:30 AM »
Rubbles Hefaistos:

Why did 9 people in Donnie's administration lie about meeting with and communicating with Russians?

Do you get a Christmas bonus bonus from VEB Bank....the financial arm of the Kremlin?  The bank who's CEO met with Jarred Kushner?  Another meeting with Russians that went unreported by Jarred?

You've been exposed by others....you may want to pack up and try another website where you'll have better luck.  Maybe they will buy into the null hypothesis.  Boy...you are REALLY reaching for spaghetti or anything to stick to the wall aren't you. 😂
FOX (RT) News....."The Trump Channel.....where truth and journalism are dead."

Hefaistos

  • Guest
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1872 on: December 01, 2017, 01:30:41 PM »
Rubbles Hefaistos:

Why did 9 people in Donnie's administration lie about meeting with and communicating with Russians?

Do you get a Christmas bonus bonus from VEB Bank....the financial arm of the Kremlin?  The bank who's CEO met with Jarred Kushner?  Another meeting with Russians that went unreported by Jarred?

You've been exposed by others....you may want to pack up and try another website where you'll have better luck.  Maybe they will buy into the null hypothesis.  Boy...you are REALLY reaching for spaghetti or anything to stick to the wall aren't you. 😂

Hear, hear!
Maybe it's you who have been exposed. I try to be polite and objective and not resort to ad hominem attacks when I have no arguments in the actual debate.

Jim Pettit

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1175
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1873 on: December 01, 2017, 01:47:11 PM »
Russian, under Putin's direction, interfered with the 2016 election. Period. Believe it, or deny it; that doesn't change the fact. That's neither hearsay nor conjecture nor wishful thinking; it's just reality.

But that's not what the Russiagate investigation is about.

Many here--and in other internet fora I visit--continually try to obfuscate that fact, but it's not working. That's simply because Mueller isn't looking at whether Russians did anything; he doesn't really care, and that's not his mission even if he did. No, Mueller is looking into how deeply TrumpCo broke the law in working with the Russians. He and his team continue to strip back the coats of lies and deception, with each subsequent layer revealing deeper and more profound connections, some of which we hear about, and most of which we don't. That's the nature of investigations.

As I've said before, nothing will happen to Putin; Trump and the rank and file of the GOP are pleased as punch with Putin for helping their side, country be damned, so it's likely he'll still have his ass kissed by those he helped put in power. And I seriously doubt anything will happen to Trump; so long as the donor class gets the massive upward distribution of wealth they bought and paid for, Trump will remain a free man. Of course, Dems retaking Congress in 2018 could certainly change things, though a) with voter suppression, the loss of Net Neutrality, attacks on the press, gerrymandering, Citizens United, and so on, there's absolutely no certainty that will happen even though the majority of the electorate leans left; and b) with the aged, milquetoast bunch running the DNC--Perez, Schumer, Pelosi, etc.--there's every possibility that if the Dems do retake Washington, their very first act will be to toady up to that same donor class by announcing they intend to take no action against Trump and his cohorts for the good of the nation. Or something...

But even having said all that: we need to know the truth.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9470
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1333
  • Likes Given: 617
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1874 on: December 01, 2017, 02:30:48 PM »
Russian, under Putin's direction, interfered with the 2016 election. Period. Believe it, or deny it; that doesn't change the fact. That's neither hearsay nor conjecture nor wishful thinking; it's just reality.

It's definitely possible, but it hasn't been conclusively proven yet. Like Hefaistos says, it could've been done by the oligarchs backing Trump, or by some organisation leaving Russian fingerprints all over the place, or by a Russian company or individuals trying to make ad money, the Russian mob, etc. Or a combination of all the above. Reality is messy and rarely reads like a John Grisham or le Carré novel.

But in the meantime sanctions against Russia have been intensified, which means hardship for the Russian people, economic losses for European countries trading with Russia, and more power for Putin. At the same time there's a crackdown on foreign media sources in the US, which can easily lead to a slippery slope. Another slippery slope being companies like Google, Facebook and Twitter determining what is fake news.

As for all those people from Team Trump denying having contact with Russians, there are other possible reasons for that:

- They were doing shady business with the Russians anyhow, non-related to Russiagate, that they didn't want attention drawn to.
- Ever since the Democrats announced Russiagate as part of the Clinton campaign, there's been a frenzy. Maybe Team Trump didn't want to fan the flames.
- The Donald ordered them to lie about it, so that focus remains on the side show.

Again, if this were hard science, parallels with Climategate etc could be drawn. But it's social science at best, which is very soft, and there is no direct connection to sources (never mind the reliability of those sources), which means info can be framed or manipulated by media that have a vested interest in ratings and keeping advertisers happy.

Trump is a bad man, and Russia is a morally flexible state (like Saudi Arabia and Israel, for instance), but no one can afford a new Cold War. Except perhaps for the military industrial complex, politicians in Russia and the US, and the mainstream media.

Quote
And I seriously doubt anything will happen to Trump; so long as the donor class gets the massive upward distribution of wealth they bought and paid for, Trump will remain a free man. Of course, Dems retaking Congress in 2018 could certainly change things, though a) with voter suppression, the loss of Net Neutrality, attacks on the press, gerrymandering, Citizens United, and so on, there's absolutely no certainty that will happen even though the majority of the electorate leans left; and b) with the aged, milquetoast bunch running the DNC--Perez, Schumer, Pelosi, etc.--there's every possibility that if the Dems do retake Washington, their very first act will be to toady up to that same donor class by announcing they intend to take no action against Trump and his cohorts for the good of the nation. Or something...

Yes, that's the core issue that needs to be addressed.

I'm also not excluding that Mueller's investigation is actually a negotiation between the various oligarchic factions. If nothing comes of it, you can bet some deal has been struck.

Quote
But even having said all that: we need to know the truth.

Maybe we'll hear it 50 years from now.  ;)

Trump has removed the system's pretty mask and day by day proves that he's just as much part of the swamp as anyone else. A small group of racist idiots won't mind, but all those people that voted for Trump to give the establishment the finger, will be susceptible to voting for politicians that are genuine and offer change (real change this time). Russiagate won't move them that way as much as the real and serious issues that affect them directly do.

I don't know if the amount of attention Russiagate gets, has lessened in recent weeks, but I still think it's important that it does. I fear it is not a winning strategy.
The enemy is within
Don't confuse me with him

E. Smith

Buddy

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3379
  • Go DUCKS!!
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1875 on: December 01, 2017, 04:06:48 PM »
I guess this the time to que the "lock him up" for General Flynn. 😳

Of course....we shouldn't jump to conclusions.  We should wait for the Russian apologists to dig up a good reason for Flynn to lie.  I'm sure they can come up with something.

So many dots....they are now turning into BIG BLOBS.

Now Mueller is right outside Donnie's door.  When will Donnie be talking to Mueller.  It's coming.....

Tick....tick....tick...
FOX (RT) News....."The Trump Channel.....where truth and journalism are dead."

Buddy

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3379
  • Go DUCKS!!
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1876 on: December 01, 2017, 04:42:06 PM »
Many months ago....I said that "timing" would eventually get "interesting".  In other words...who gets charged and when....who gets charged first before others...do some people in Donnie's administration not get charged initially, but only AFTER Donnie is gone and he can't pardon them.  GULP. 😳😳

When does Jeff Sessions get charged.  When does fake Christian Pence get charged?

I have a feeling that there are going to be several VERY disappointed people in Donnie's administration over the coming year or so.....that will see their "get out of jail free card" kicked out of office or locked up before he can pardon them.  And remember...Donnie is only concerned with one person right now...himself.  And if Donnie tries to pardon them now...it makes the case against him that much better.  They are up a nasty creek without a proverbial paddle.  They are in "bigley" trouble right now.

Merry Christmas to Donnie, Mikey, and the whole crew....from Uncle Bob Mueller.  🙄🙄🙄
FOX (RT) News....."The Trump Channel.....where truth and journalism are dead."

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9470
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1333
  • Likes Given: 617
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1877 on: December 01, 2017, 04:59:51 PM »
I'm not a Russian apologist, oh exceptional ruler of the universe with the best of intentions. Please, don't nuke me with your drones.

This isn't about whether the Trump people lied or not, it's about why they lied and whether this is conclusive proof of Russiagate. In my view it isn't until we know what the exact reason was.

It could be ≠ it is.

That's all. And yes, they are corrupt. Make it about the issues, and then as a bonus add Russiagate. Not the other way round.
The enemy is within
Don't confuse me with him

E. Smith

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1878 on: December 01, 2017, 05:57:04 PM »
It could be ≠ it is.

It is worth noting that the burden of proof varies with the circumstances.  For instance, in any criminal cases that Mueller prosecutes the burden of proof is roughly: "Beyond a reasonable doubt".  However, to impeach, and then remove, Trump and/or Pence, the burden of proof is purely defined by politics in the House & Senate (respectively), which depends significantly on the mid-term election results in 2018.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

crandles

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3379
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1879 on: December 01, 2017, 07:44:03 PM »
https://twitter.com/ABC/status/936664572957741057

Quote
Michael Flynn has promised “full cooperation” in special counsel’s Russia probe and is prepared to testify that Donald Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians, initially as a way to work together to fight ISIS in Syria.

which is a bit more nuanced than

Quote
JUST IN: @BrianRoss on @ABC News Special Report: Michael Flynn promised "full cooperation to the Mueller team" and is prepared to testify that as a candidate, Donald Trump "directed him to make contact with the Russians."
https://twitter.com/ABC/status/936628560374071296

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1880 on: December 01, 2017, 08:53:47 PM »
https://twitter.com/ABC/status/936664572957741057

Quote
Michael Flynn has promised “full cooperation” in special counsel’s Russia probe and is prepared to testify that Donald Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians, initially as a way to work together to fight ISIS in Syria.

which is a bit more nuanced than

Quote
JUST IN: @BrianRoss on @ABC News Special Report: Michael Flynn promised "full cooperation to the Mueller team" and is prepared to testify that as a candidate, Donald Trump "directed him to make contact with the Russians."
https://twitter.com/ABC/status/936628560374071296


or even
Quote
At issue was the phone call between Flynn and Kislyak at the end of December 2016, after President Barack Obama ordered a number of Russian diplomats to leave the US and closed two Russian diplomatic properties.
Flynn is specifically accused of falsely claiming that he did not ask Kislyak to “refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia that same day.” He is also accused of falsely telling agents that he “did not recall the Russian ambassador subsequently telling him that Russia had chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of his request.”
Flynn also told the FBI that he “did not ask the Russian ambassador to delay the vote on or defeat a pending United Nations Security Council resolution,” according to court documents.

https://www.rt.com/usa/411591-flynn-fbi-russian-charged/

Which the portion of the charge that I have seems to agree with.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DP96tH_XkAATjXI.jpg


Our boy appears to have lied to the President, the Vice President and the FBI, claiming that he had not asked the Russians to:

“refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia that same day.”

Told the FBI that he
“did not recall the Russian ambassador subsequently telling him that Russia had chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of his request.”

and that he
“did not ask the Russian ambassador to delay the vote on or defeat a pending United Nations Security Council resolution,”

Since the phone call took place on December 29th, and the FBI interview was on January 24th, these can't have had much effect on the election which was held in November.

Terry

Buddy

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3379
  • Go DUCKS!!
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1881 on: December 01, 2017, 09:03:36 PM »
Donnie better hope to the high heavens that Florida doesn't elect a Democratic governor and Attorney General 11 months from now.....because one can imagine all the corrupt s##t that went on at Mar a Lago.

Donnie....Donnie....Donnie.... What the hell were you
thinking. 🙄🙄🙄
FOX (RT) News....."The Trump Channel.....where truth and journalism are dead."

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1882 on: December 01, 2017, 10:40:50 PM »
The linked article notes that Flynn's plea deal states: "On or about December 22, 2016, a very senior member of the Presidential Transition Team directed FLYNN to contact officials from foreign governments ..", which of course is illegal, and that technically, regarding foreign policy, only Trump and Pence were senior to Flynn on the transition team.  Further it is unusual in a legal document of this magnitude to use the term "very senior".  Hopefully, we won't have to wait too long to learn who this "very senior" member was who had authority to direct FLYNN to break the Logan Act.

Title: "Key Issue in Flynn Plea Deal"

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/key-issue-in-flynn-plea-deal
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6774
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1047
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1883 on: December 01, 2017, 10:46:52 PM »
I do not see any mention of Turkey in the Flynn indictment. So that's probably a charge Mueller is holding over Flynn to ensure continued cooperation.

sidd

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1884 on: December 01, 2017, 10:52:43 PM »
Hopefully, we won't have to wait too long to learn who this "very senior" member was who had authority to direct FLYNN to break the Logan Act.

Title: "Key Issue in Flynn Plea Deal"

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/key-issue-in-flynn-plea-deal

Per the linked article, sources say that Jared Kushner is the "very senior member" of the transition team:

Title: "Does Michael Flynn’s plea deal implicate Jared Kushner?"

https://www.salon.com/2017/12/01/will-michael-flynns-plea-deal-implicate-jared-kushner/
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1885 on: December 01, 2017, 11:28:13 PM »
I do not see any mention of Turkey in the Flynn indictment. So that's probably a charge Mueller is holding over Flynn to ensure continued cooperation.

sidd
Turkey is indeed Flynn's Achilles heel.


I don't believe the Logan act has ever been successfully prosecuted, and where would it leave Mr. Clinton if it was pulled out of the mouldering stacks and dusted off? Mr Adelson and others probably wouldn't want Mueller to wander too far in that direction either.


The FBI may have cleaned up it's act, but J. Edgar's legacy, their interactions with the Black Panthers, and their method of saving the children in Waco has left some of us leery of their modus operandi. Former Head of the FBI is not a title that earns my respect.
Terry

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1886 on: December 02, 2017, 12:18:58 AM »
I don't believe the Logan act has ever been successfully prosecuted, ...

I may have over emphasized the Logan act, w.r.t. Kushner's actions.  Nevertheless, based on the sweetheart deal that Mueller seems to have given Flynn, I speculate that Flynn must have provided Mueller with sufficient hard evidence to pin something on Kushner; otherwise, why cut such a deal?
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6774
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1047
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1887 on: December 02, 2017, 12:29:28 AM »
The indictment is at:

https://www.justice.gov/file/1015026/download

Lying to the FBI about calls to and from the Russian Ambassador during the last third of december 2016 regarding UN resolution on Israeli settlements and Russian response to US sanctions. It turned out that in the first case his efforts were unsuccessful and in the second, fruitful.

The statement of offense is more interesting:

https://www.justice.gov/file/1015126/download

He states that the calls to the Russian Ambassador were made with knowledge and direction of one or more members of Trump's transition team. He also admits that his FARA registration contained false statements in regard to his work for the Turkish government.

Logan act prosecution ? will be a first i think.

sidd


Rob Dekker

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2386
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 120
  • Likes Given: 119
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1888 on: December 02, 2017, 03:20:20 AM »
Wow. What a day. Is certainly was "Mueller Time!" again.

Even the stock market took a brief hit this morning, and gold prices spiked, after the news broke that Flynn was directed from even further up, and could testify against Trump himself :

http://www.businessinsider.com/stock-market-news-flynn-russia-trump-2017-12
« Last Edit: December 02, 2017, 03:36:02 AM by Rob Dekker »
This is our planet. This is our time.
Let's not waste either.

Rob Dekker

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2386
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 120
  • Likes Given: 119
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1889 on: December 02, 2017, 03:25:46 AM »
Logan act prosecution ? will be a first i think.

Yes. Flynn must have been aware of that, while lying to the FBI is an obvious felony.

So why did Flynn lie to the FBI ?

Was it because of a much greater sin that they were trying to hide ?
With each piece of the puzzle this story becomes more and more fascinating.
This is our planet. This is our time.
Let's not waste either.

Rob Dekker

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2386
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 120
  • Likes Given: 119
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1890 on: December 02, 2017, 06:09:24 AM »
It's definitely possible, but it hasn't been conclusively proven yet. Like Hefaistos says, it could've been done by the oligarchs backing Trump, or by some organisation leaving Russian fingerprints all over the place, or by a Russian company or individuals trying to make ad money, the Russian mob, etc. Or a combination of all the above. Reality is messy and rarely reads like a John Grisham or le Carré novel.

Neven, please. What does it take for you to accept that Russia meddled in the US elections ?
An admission by Putin ?
Ain't gonna happen.
Remember that this same discussion was there about Russian troops in Ukraine.
And the same discussion about Russia shooting down MH17.
And the same discussion about Russia annexing Crimea.

There is a HUGE amount of evidence that Russia meddled in the 2016 US elections. AND meddled in the elections of 26 other nations.
 
Please don't let me repeat it; much of it has been shown in this thread.

If you can't connect the dots by now, it's because the dots are so close together that they resemble a huge blob.

And YES. This IS similar to denying climate change, especially since the only argument I have seen disputing the fact that Russia meddled with the US elections is this :

Quote
My feeling is, that there is no valid evidence.  I think someone else, pretending to be Russian , and possibly with an agenda to inflame tensions between the U.S. and Russia, did this.

« Last Edit: December 02, 2017, 06:45:37 AM by Rob Dekker »
This is our planet. This is our time.
Let's not waste either.

Hefaistos

  • Guest
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1891 on: December 02, 2017, 06:47:41 AM »
Russian, under Putin's direction, interfered with the 2016 election. Period. Believe it, or deny it; that doesn't change the fact. That's neither hearsay nor conjecture nor wishful thinking; it's just reality.

But that's not what the Russiagate investigation is about.

Many here--and in other internet fora I visit--continually try to obfuscate that fact, but it's not working. That's simply because Mueller isn't looking at whether Russians did anything; he doesn't really care, and that's not his mission even if he did. No, Mueller is looking into how deeply TrumpCo broke the law in working with the Russians. He and his team continue to strip back the coats of lies and deception, with each subsequent layer revealing deeper and more profound connections, some of which we hear about, and most of which we don't. That's the nature of investigations.

As I've said before, nothing will happen to Putin; Trump and the rank and file of the GOP are pleased as punch with Putin for helping their side, country be damned, so it's likely he'll still have his ass kissed by those he helped put in power. And I seriously doubt anything will happen to Trump; so long as the donor class gets the massive upward distribution of wealth they bought and paid for, Trump will remain a free man. Of course, Dems retaking Congress in 2018 could certainly change things, though a) with voter suppression, the loss of Net Neutrality, attacks on the press, gerrymandering, Citizens United, and so on, there's absolutely no certainty that will happen even though the majority of the electorate leans left; and b) with the aged, milquetoast bunch running the DNC--Perez, Schumer, Pelosi, etc.--there's every possibility that if the Dems do retake Washington, their very first act will be to toady up to that same donor class by announcing they intend to take no action against Trump and his cohorts for the good of the nation. Or something...

But even having said all that: we need to know the truth.

Neven already commented the first paragraph of your post.

As regards the rest of your post, I agree, but would like to add, that this is a US-centric point of view, this is Russiagate in the US.
However, that part of Russiagate isn't as relevant for us Europeans, and the rest of the world. We have our Russiagate, and it's more about the IT/hacking/meddling part which we have been discussing above. As Neven said, this part of Russiagate has had dire consequences, but with very weak/conflicting evidence to support the policies: "But in the meantime sanctions against Russia have been intensified, which means hardship for the Russian people, economic losses for European countries trading with Russia, and more power for Putin. At the same time there's a crackdown on foreign media sources in the US, which can easily lead to a slippery slope. Another slippery slope being companies like Google, Facebook and Twitter determining what is fake news. ... Trump is a bad man, and Russia is a morally flexible state ... but no one can afford a new Cold War."
Our politicians and media seem overly intent to deepen the conflict and the negative mindset in relation to Russia, instead of reaching out and try to develop mutual understanding and cooperation. There is always a choice, and it's a minimal requirement that we build our policies on valid evidence of, e.g., alleged Russian hacking/meddling.

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6774
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1047
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1892 on: December 02, 2017, 07:28:09 AM »
For the record, i join neven and others in stating that the evidence posted thus far does not convince me that the Russian government intervened to influence the presidential election in the USA in 2016.

On another note here's something that  sheds some light on the Kaspersky-NSA malware leak allegations:

"Government officials, who would speak of the classified details of the case only on condition of anonymity, said that Mr. Pho took the classified documents home to help him rewrite his resume. But he had installed on his home computer antivirus software made by Kaspersky Lab, a top Russian software company, and Russian hackers are believed to have exploited the software to steal the documents, the officials said."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/01/us/politics/nsa-nghia-pho-classified-information-stolen-guilty.html

I think Kaspersky software found suspicious binary signature on this moron's machine, uploaded the zip archive to Kaspersky, and a human bean there found the source code (?!!!) in the archive with secret markings, just as Kaspersky admitted. Then Kaspersky states that he ordered deletion of the archive and on balance, i believe that too. What I suspect strongly is that a copy found it's way to the Russian FSB.

But at this time, Kaspersky was penetrated by a Duqu variant, (again admitted by Kaspersky) which is probably Israeli. So I also suspect strongly that the Israeli's were watching this whole fiasco and snitched to NSA.

That said, I also think Kaspersky is the best in the business and if I were an organization in the unfortunate position of needing antivirus packages, worried about general virus threats and particularly NSA/DOD/Israeli malware on a computer/network i would run the Kaspersky package. At the same time I would be careful about letting Russia related information on that computer/network.

But then I'm the kind of person that thinks that if you need an antivirus package, you are already screwed.

sidd

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6774
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1047
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1893 on: December 02, 2017, 07:52:55 AM »
Thehill reporting that Trump officials who knew,authorized and guided Flynn/Russia contacts were Kushner and McFarland:

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/362873-additional-trump-transition-official-familiar-with-flynns-russia

sidd

Rob Dekker

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2386
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 120
  • Likes Given: 119
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1894 on: December 02, 2017, 08:35:27 AM »
There are 7 ways that the Trump presidency will come to an end, according to Keith Olbermann.
To me, it now (after the Flynn testimony) looks like the first or the fourth way of the 7 ways is the most likely :


« Last Edit: December 02, 2017, 08:42:32 AM by Rob Dekker »
This is our planet. This is our time.
Let's not waste either.

Rob Dekker

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2386
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 120
  • Likes Given: 119
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1895 on: December 02, 2017, 09:02:42 AM »
I think Kaspersky software found suspicious binary signature on this moron's machine, uploaded the zip archive to Kaspersky, and a human bean there found the source code (?!!!) in the archive with secret markings, just as Kaspersky admitted. Then Kaspersky states that he ordered deletion of the archive and on balance, i believe that too. What I suspect strongly is that a copy found it's way to the Russian FSB.

Yes. That is the BIG problem with Kaspersky's software. It uploads client files to its server in Russia, where it is vulnerable to exposure to the FSB, and possibly has been working with the FSB.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-11/kaspersky-lab-has-been-working-with-russian-intelligence

Kaspersky is toast.

Quote
That said, I also think Kaspersky is the best in the business and if I were an organization in the unfortunate position of needing antivirus packages, worried about general virus threats and particularly NSA/DOD/Israeli malware on a computer/network i would run the Kaspersky package.

I'm glad you are not the IT manager at my company.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2017, 09:50:04 AM by Rob Dekker »
This is our planet. This is our time.
Let's not waste either.

Rob Dekker

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2386
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 120
  • Likes Given: 119
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1896 on: December 02, 2017, 09:12:56 AM »
For the record, i join neven and others in stating that the evidence posted thus far does not convince me that the Russian government intervened to influence the presidential election in the USA in 2016.

That would be you, Neven and Hefaistos. Possibly also Terry, although he did not claim so yet.

What baffles me about you guys is how you cannot accept the huge amount of evidence that points at Russian interference in the 2016 elections, and the absence of a real alternative.

Take the DNC hack for example.

CrowdStrike very clearly determined that there were not one, but even TWO intrusions of Russian malware on the DNC network, quite clearly pointing at FSB origin :

http://time.com/4600177/election-hack-russia-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/

Quote
CrowdStrike’s co-founder, Dmitri Alperovitch, uncovered evidence that two groups of Russian hackers he had named Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, had been behind the DNC hack. Cozy Bear used a tool called SeaDaddy that allowed it to stealthily exfiltrate information from a victim’s computer. The tool was almost identical to another exfiltration tool previously identified by Symantec as belonging to the group of Russian hackers known to have operated at the behest of Russia’s FSB, a main successor agency to the KGB.

How do you respond to that with a plausible alternative explanation ?
This is our planet. This is our time.
Let's not waste either.

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1897 on: December 02, 2017, 09:50:16 AM »
I've Seen no evidence that Russia "interfered" with the 2016 election in the US.
That said, let's define "interfered".


If I were Putin, or any aware Russian who didn't want to involve his country in war, I'd prefer the American candidate who campaigned on a promise to engage with Russia in a mutually positive way, to the candidate who promised to set up a no fly zone in Syria the moment she was in office.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/25/hillary-clinton-syria-no-fly-zones-russia-us-war


Putin did speak of his preference for Candidate Trump over Candidate Clinton, even though Bill Clinton had been a house guest of his.
You may think this trivial, but Putin's words are powerful in the Russian speaking world, and it's unusual for him to announce his preference for one candidate over another. Regarding the French election, or the Brexit vote, he evoked his normal stance which consists of declaring that he did have a preference, but he wouldn't publicize it because it should be that country's people whose vote decides the issue.


Might one or more of Putin's supporters have responded by trolling Hillary? sure. Could this have been enough to sway the election? impossible.


Hillary lost because she was a flawed candidate who ran a flawed campaign, probably abetted by Cambridge Analytica's AI cleverly campaigning for Trump. The FBI didn't do her any favors either.


Terry

Hefaistos

  • Guest
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1898 on: December 02, 2017, 10:06:27 AM »
For the record, i join neven and others in stating that the evidence posted thus far does not convince me that the Russian government intervened to influence the presidential election in the USA in 2016.

That would be you, Neven and Hefaistos. Possibly also Terry, although he did not claim so yet.

What baffles me about you guys is how you cannot accept the huge amount of evidence that points at Russian interference in the 2016 elections, and the absence of a real alternative.

Take the DNC hack for example.

CrowdStrike very clearly determined that there were not one, but even TWO intrusions of Russian malware on the DNC network, quite clearly pointing at FSB origin :

http://time.com/4600177/election-hack-russia-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/

Quote
CrowdStrike’s co-founder, Dmitri Alperovitch, uncovered evidence that two groups of Russian hackers he had named Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, had been behind the DNC hack. Cozy Bear used a tool called SeaDaddy that allowed it to stealthily exfiltrate information from a victim’s computer. The tool was almost identical to another exfiltration tool previously identified by Symantec as belonging to the group of Russian hackers known to have operated at the behest of Russia’s FSB, a main successor agency to the KGB.

How do you respond to that with a plausible alternative explanation ?

What if you actually read some of the material I mentioned above!?

It's all there, you just need to study it:

The DNC hack with a thorough analysis of CrowdStrike, Guccifer etc.
http://g-2.space/#1

Or the total debunking of the Grizzly steppe report by the WordFence team:
https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2016/12/russia-malware-ip-hack/

You can't trust the mass media like the article you refer to in Time (!). They are basically spreading the groupthink based on the propaganda invented by your intelligence agencies in the US (the ICA report as well as Grizzly steppe are excellent examples of that).

You need to go for deep, technical analysis as in the two links above.

The "plausible alternative explanation" is the null hypothesis that someone else did it. There simply is no valid evidence it was Russia/the Kremlin.

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Russiagate
« Reply #1899 on: December 02, 2017, 10:34:31 AM »
Could ABC have retracted their "Bombshell" Flynn story?
Can they unring the bell that pealed so loudly?


Inquiring minds want to know.


http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/01/media/abc-news-flynn-correction/


So much for the Logan Act.
So much for MSM's "truthiness"
So much for "anonymous sources'
Terry