PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
you mean exonerated by the guy to testified six times that she lied under oath?......that exoneration?....oh yeah, by the guy you blame for Hiliary losing the election.......
Seymour Hersh Blasts Media for Uncritically Promoting Russian Hacking Story
- Thread starter anatta
- Start date
Then don't ever argue about abortion with me or anyone, hypocrite, when your concern for life is limited to embryos.
What does this tired old meme have to do with Abu Ghraib? Post a list of all the Dems who supported torture if you're trying to prove something.
GazzaQueen
Verified User
Obama supported slaying hundreds of thousands of muslims, you sodden baby killer. Now he's put more US boots on the ground all over the ME to kill the people he created.
Go hold a sign for baby murder.
bush started a phony war and killed thousands and thousands of Muslims, and supported the slaying of hundreds of thousands more.
Go hold a sign reading "I
torture", hypocrite.GazzaQueen
Verified User
bush started a phony war and killed thousands and thousands of Muslims, and supported the slaying of hundreds of thousands more.
Go hold a sign reading "I
I love torturing women-hating scum. Strip them naked and have American women point and laugh at them.
Why do you love murdering innocent humans?
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
I know you like to keep this as a quick cut & paste...but how is this relevant?
But as long as you're bringing it up: Bush's war - then, now & forever.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
cancel2 2022
Canceled
The essential difference is that there was a huge amount of evidence of her wrongdoing whilst I haven't actually seen one scintilla of evidence for Russian collusion with Trump.
Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
Really? A huge amount of evidence?
Someone must have been indicted then. Right? Got any names?
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Bingo.
Whether one thinks Hillary was innocent or merely escaped indictment is irrelevant.
Because at least in Hillary's instance there was some *thing* to look at and examine lol. Collusion Gate is an air ball by comparison.
trump's own top intel officer agrees there was Russian meddling in the election. The current investigation is to find out who was involved and to what extent. Sorry that's not an air ball.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...op-intel-official-Russia-hacked-the-Democrats
TY..sometimes Captain Obvious isn't enough around here..
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
Do you believe the FBI would start an investigation without "one scintilla of evidence?"
He's a guy who has been called out on his "investigative" reporting. Schlesinger called him "the most gullible investigative reporter I've ever encountered."
Coats/McMaster/Brennan/Clapper are all Russiaphobes..
It's all based on a House of Cards, and in the DNC case the "analysis" was done by Crowdstrike.
This is from SLATE: 4 days ago. posted in full
FBI Relied on a Private Firm’s Investigation of the DNC Hack—Which Makes the Agency Harder to Trust
Why wouldn’t the Democratic National Committee allow the FBI to check their servers during the investigation of the DNC breaches during the 2016 election?
The DNC maintains there’s a simple answer to this question: According to the group, the FBI never asked to see their servers. But FBI Director James Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee back in January that the FBI did, in fact, issue “multiple requests at different levels” to the DNC to gain direct access to their computer systems and conduct their own forensic analysis.
Instead, whether because they were denied access or simply never asked for it, the FBI instead used the analysis of the DNC breach conducted by security firm CrowdStrike as the basis for its investigation. Regardless of who is telling the truth about what really happened, perhaps the most astonishing thing about this probe is that a private firm’s investigation and attribution was deemed sufficient by both the DNC and the FBI.
That’s not meant as an insult to CrowdStrike, which is, undoubtedly, a first-rate security firm that does extremely sophisticated and reliable investigative work. Calling in CrowdStrike was a good move on the part of the DNC. I’ve even argued that the DNC should have been relying more heavily on private tech firms to provide its email services and security from the outset. But it’s one thing to trust tech companies to provide email servers and cloud storage and quite another to rely exclusively on them to collect and analyze evidence of a major security incident attributed to a foreign national government.
Good security companies can be invaluable when it comes to helping breach victims figure out where they went wrong and how they can better protect their systems in the future. They can certainly, at times, provide useful assistance to law enforcement investigations—but when they end up essentially doing law enforcement’s job for them, as seems to have been the case with the DNC breach, it becomes exceedingly difficult to know whom to trust and whether to take the results of that investigation at face value. In fact, the president made this point himself, in a Jan. 5 tweet about the FBI investigation, back when he apparently believed the DNC’s version of events: “
Knowing who conducted a breach investigation is particularly important when it comes to international cyber conflicts because just about everything the government tells us about those conflicts we are expected to take on faith. Consider the declassified summary of the Intelligence Community’s assessment of “Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections.”
The DNC breaches feature prominently in that summary but, more to the point, the primary rationale readers are given for why they should believe that the Russian government meddled in the U.S. election is because the FBI, CIA, and NSA believe that to be the case. We are given very little actual detail about what happened or how the incidents were traced to Russia specifically, while we are treated to numerous statements along the lines of: “We assess with high confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election” or “We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.”
Of course, there are many reasons the Intelligence Community might have decided not to reveal any actual evidence for these claims. But in the absence of that evidence, whether or not you believe their conclusions rests entirely on your confidence in the judgment and investigative abilities of the FBI, CIA, and NSA. And if the evidence that they’ve used to level major accusations at a foreign government comes not from agencies of the U.S. government or direct law enforcement investigations, but rather from private sector firms like CrowdStrike, then the “high confidence” of the government counts for very little. The DNC breach is not the only incident attributed to Russia in the Intelligence assessment summary and it’s likely that some of the others were directly investigated by the government. But even so, this conflation of government- and industry-gathered evidence without clear distinctions makes it harder to take the agencies’ assessments at face value.
Asking private firms to investigate security incidents is often beneficial—it’s possible (likely even) that CrowdStrike has resources and technical expertise that the FBI does not. But turning over an entire law enforcement investigation to the private sector is a serious mistake. Companies have very different agendas and motivations from those of law enforcement agencies—companies want to raise their own profiles, satisfy their clients, and draw new customers, while law enforcement agencies aim to identify criminals and hold them accountable. Especially when the government is going to justify an accusation by urging citizens to trust its judgment, it matters that they have actually conducted an investigation themselves and drawn their own conclusions based on a first-hand examination of the available evidence.
So if the FBI didn’t ask for access the DNC’s servers out of laziness or negligence, it certainly should have. And if the DNC denied them that access for fear of being embarrassed by what they might find, or because they had more faith in CrowdStrike than the FBI, then it served only to undermine confidence in the ultimate results of the investigation and give the impression of having something shameful to hide. Neither the DNC nor the FBI should have been satisfied with an investigation that did not involve the FBI conducting a first-hand look at the compromised systems. And all of us should be concerned about the seeming acceptance of both parties to let a private company singlehandedly carry out an investigation with such significant political consequences.
Cadillac Man
New member
As I stated in the other thread it's a good idea. The division of CrowdStrike that the FBI contracted with is headed by a former FBI agent.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
I know the media can't help themselves in conflating the two, but the Russian election investigation is separate from the collusion theory---there's some evidence of the former and a big goose egg for the latter.
That makes the latter an air ball.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
If there was no collusion, there was no collusion. We'll see what the results are.
But I don't care of you're on the right or the left, or were 100% behind Trump or Hillary: I don't for a second understand why you or anyone wouldn't want it investigated, and to know exactly what happened and how much Russia was involved in this past election.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
I wouldn't bet a big pile of money they were involved at all.
Another thing, had Hillary won the story wouldn't consume near the bandwidth. The left and the media [nearly a redundancy] push the story because it's a way to delegitimize the election---they think, anyway.
They aren't fooling anyone. Well, they are actually. But they're going to fool less and less people as time goes on.