Political Forums  

Go Back   Political Forums > Politicalchat.org discussion boards > Conspiracy theory corner

We appreciate your help

in keeping this site going.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old 12-13-2016, 10:51 AM
Rajoo's Avatar
Rajoo Rajoo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Sierras
Posts: 14,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by donquixote99 View Post
He won't cave this time, because he has finally lost all hope. Seems paradoxical, but isn't.
I may be willing to bet on it this time. After all what does he have to lose?
It is a certainty that that the FBI & CIA will find something to hang on Putin and this will help Obama settle a score or two. This could be very personal for Obama and besides he will have the western leaders on his side.
__________________
White Christian Nationalism:
Freedom for us, order for everyone else, and violence for those who transgress.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 12-13-2016, 10:53 AM
MrPots MrPots is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 3,554
But will it change anything?

No.

The people don't care enough to act unless it involves other peoples private parts and what they do with them.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 12-13-2016, 11:21 AM
donquixote99's Avatar
donquixote99 donquixote99 is offline
Ready
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 19,122
Even then, concern is very selective. Pussy-grabbing is fine.
__________________
If you Love Liberty, you must Hate Trump!
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 12-13-2016, 11:51 AM
whell's Avatar
whell whell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow View Post
As the Reuters article articulated, Russia's exact intent can never be ascertained with certainty unless the CIA had an undercover agent directly involved in Russian decision-making in this matter.
Probably true. Its also probably true that unless that unless they had that kind of inside info, they'll never know exactly who did this, why they did, this, and at whose behest they did this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow View Post
Your position is that there is a material difference between Russia hacking the election and releasing material only harmful to Clinton and Russia hacking the election with the intention of only releasing material harmful to Clinton. This is a distinction without a difference and intended to obfuscate the significance of what happened.
No, that's not what I'm saying, but the way you phrased the above makes it pretty clear what your focus is - probably that same focus was others who didn't care for the outcome of the recent election - and why any investigation needs to be investigated out of public view.

What we appear to disagree on is the motive, and whether or not its relevant to this discussion. Motive is critical in not only in prosecuting a criminal case, but it also is critical in the investigative process. But let's set that aside for a minute. You stated the following:

"Your position is that there is a material difference between Russia hacking the election and releasing material only harmful to Clinton and Russia hacking the election with the intention of only releasing material harmful to Clinton."

My first concern is attempting to prove who did the hacking that penetrated the DNC's email systems. The rest of the your apparent concerns - the info that was released in the breach - aren't relevant until we know who did the hacking, or at least who ordered it. We don't have that info yet, but some want to launch into an investigation of the impact that the Russian hacking had on the election, without knowing who did it, and what their motive was. Seems backwards to me, and thus I suspect any investigation by congress would serve a political outcome.

Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow View Post
Back to your original assertion of this being "fake news." Both the Times and the Post reported both the CIA's assessment and that the FBI wasn't willing to go as far in terms of provable intent (though all intelligent agencies agreed on Russian involvement (and have since the October 7 joint public release of this stuff by DHS and DNI)). This is made clear in the NYTimes article you characterized as "fake news" as well as in the Reuters article you cited.

Accordingly, there is absolutely nothing fake about this news. Meanwhile, you continue to assert that any real news that may reflect negatively on or prove inconvenient to Trump is fake. It seems to me that logic and deduction aren't exactly your strong suits.
Finn - you're Hillary-ous. Its absolutely fake news. Contrary to your assertion, the Times story that I linked to didn't state that the CIA and FBI when the headlines say one thing, yet you have to dig pretty deep into the story to find any suggestion of variance between the assessments of the CIA and FBI. Here's the link again. Point me to the section that you think "makes this clear".

In the meantime, look at the HEADLINES of both the NY Times and WaPo on 12/9/16:

NY Times: Russian Hackers Acted to Aid Trump in Election, U.S. Says
WaPo: Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House

And from there, the fake news continues to multiply like rabbits in the left wing echo chamber.

For example, WaPo: U.S. intelligence officials say Russian hacks ‘prioritized’ Democrats

The CIA assessment that Russia waged a cyber-campaign to help elect Donald Trump is based in part on intelligence suggesting that Moscow’s hacking efforts were disproportionately aimed at targets tied to the Democratic Party and its nominee, Hillary Clinton, U.S. officials said.

The lack of a corresponding Republican trove has contributed to the CIA assessment, reported by The Washington Post, that Russia was seeking to elect Trump and not merely to disrupt last month’s presidential election.

This is pretty funny because there's certainly evidence that there was an attempt to hack the RNC. But I guess since those hacks were not successful, or since the hacks of the DNC's servers were more successful, that's evidence that the Russians were trying to get Trump elected.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 12-13-2016, 01:04 PM
finnbow's Avatar
finnbow finnbow is online now
Reformed Know-Nothing
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,857
Quote:
NY Times: Russian Hackers Acted to Aid Trump in Election, U.S. Says

WaPo: Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House
Both of those are statements are factual (unlike the Comet Ping Pong story tweeted by Flynn, BTW). The first statement says hackers aided Trump - (i.e., the actions they took aided Trump). True.

The second statement says the CIA believes that the hacking was was deliberately aimed at helping Trump (and not just mucking up the election in general) - also true. The CIA did make such an assessment.

What the CIA didn't say (because it's impossible to do so) is that they can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that Russia's intent was to help Trump (the FBI standard as a law enforcement agency). They said their assessment led them to believe that Russia's intent was to help Trump (their standard as an intelligence agency).

You're caught up in this silly semantic game that basically asserts that unless it can be proven in a court of law that Russia intended only to help Trump and not just generally muck up the election, any factual reporting on the assessment of the CIA is fake news.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.

Last edited by finnbow; 12-13-2016 at 01:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 12-13-2016, 03:07 PM
whell's Avatar
whell whell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow View Post
Both of those are statements are factual (unlike the Comet Ping Pong story tweeted by Flynn, BTW). The first statement says hackers aided Trump - (i.e., the actions they took aided Trump). True.

The second statement says the CIA believes that the hacking was was deliberately aimed at helping Trump (and not just mucking up the election in general) - also true. The CIA did make such an assessment.

What the CIA didn't say (because it's impossible to do so) is that they can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that Russia's intent was to help Trump (the FBI standard as a law enforcement agency). They said their assessment led them to believe that Russia's intent was to help Trump (their standard as an intelligence agency).
No. You WANT it to be true, but it is false, and it therefore is fake news. Look at what the NYT article says:

WASHINGTON — American intelligence agencies have concluded with “high confidence” that Russia acted covertly in the latter stages of the presidential campaign to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances and promote Donald J. Trump, according to senior administration officials.

They based that conclusion, in part, on another finding — which they say was also reached with high confidence — that the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee’s computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks.


If we don't even know who the hackers actually are - other than they "have ties to Russian Intelligence" and they use methods common to groups that have worked with Russian intelligence, and we don't know who is directing them, how can we conclude "with high confidence" what their motive is? We can't. So, the CIA - whoever inside the CIA is leaking this crap to the NY Times - is inferring that since these unknown Russians hacked the RNC and the DNC, but didn't leak any RNC info, that they must have been "promoting" Trump. It states right in the NY Times article: One senior government official, who had been briefed on an F.B.I. investigation into the matter, said that while there were attempts to penetrate the Republican committee’s systems, they were not successful.

So, even through we know that attempts to penetrate the RNC's systems were attempted but not successful and thus the hackers were not successful at getting any emails, documents, whatever, we're asked to believe that the logical conclusion is a lack of info distributed from those systems by Wikileaks and others - who apparently never had it to start with - represents an effort to promote Trump? Its leaked BS from unnamed sources. BS = Fake News.

The second story from WaPo makes the same "case": that the disproportionate leaks gives the CIA high confidence that there was an effort under way to help Trump. More BS. BS = Fake news.

Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow View Post
You're caught up in this silly semantic game that basically asserts that unless it can be proven in a court of law that Russia intended only to help Trump and not just generally muck up the election, any factual reporting on the assessment of the CIA is fake news.
Nope. Never said anything about "a court of law". I'm looking at the facts presented and stating that they don't add up. I'm also looking at reporting based on reports from un-named sources and questioning the conclusions being reported.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 12-13-2016, 04:05 PM
finnbow's Avatar
finnbow finnbow is online now
Reformed Know-Nothing
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell View Post
No. You WANT it to be true, but it is false, and it therefore is fake news.
I'm tired of your semantic silliness and obfuscation. In case you actually have a genuine interest in understanding the history of the DNC hacks and the behind-the-scenes investigations used to determine the Russian culpability, here again is some real news (that you'll call fake because it doesn't implicate a 400# New Jersey teenager). It's an interesting in-depth read, but it may make your head explode as it is chock full of facts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us...ction-dnc.html

Unfortunately, I now have come to the conclusion that you aren't really interested in facts, analysis and reason, but prefer to parrot the twisted logic provided by Limbaugh and other Trump carnival barkers. Don't even bother to rebut any of the article's contents. It's far better researched than any response Limbaugh or Fox has told you to run with.

And if you really want to read about real "fake news" and its real life implications, here's the latest report on a real "fake news" story tweeted from Trump's staff.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...7db_story.html
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.

Last edited by finnbow; 12-13-2016 at 04:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 12-13-2016, 05:03 PM
whell's Avatar
whell whell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow View Post
I'm tired of your semantic silliness and obfuscation. In case you actually have a genuine interest in understanding the history of the DNC hacks and the behind-the-scenes investigations used to determine the Russian culpability, here again is some real news (that you'll call fake because it doesn't implicate a 400# New Jersey teenager). It's an interesting in-depth read, but it may make your head explode as it is chock full of facts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us...ction-dnc.html

Unfortunately, I now have come to the conclusion that you aren't really interested in facts, analysis and reason, but prefer to parrot the twisted logic provided by Limbaugh and other Trump carnival barkers. Don't even bother to rebut any of the article's contents. It's far better researched than any response Limbaugh or Fox has told you to run with.
Nice temper tantrum.

Let me refer to to the inconsistencies in the article that you linked to above.

Here I introduce you to the narrative that the media - and you - have been pushing for a while now:

It was the cryptic first sign of a cyberespionage and information-warfare campaign devised to disrupt the 2016 presidential election, the first such attempt by a foreign power in American history. What started as an information-gathering operation, intelligence officials believe, ultimately morphed into an effort to harm one candidate, Hillary Clinton, and tip the election to her opponent, Donald J. Trump.

Next paragraph:

This time, the burglary was conducted from afar, directed by the Kremlin, with spear-phishing emails and zeros and ones.

We have no proof, and there remains dispute within our own intelligence community, that any hacking efforts were intended to boost Trump. But that doesn't stop the NY Times from stating categorically that the Kremlin was "directing" the hacking efforts. The article states that the hackers are "allegedly" connected to Russian intelligence. Does that make it OK for our CIA to confirm to the media that the Krelin is "directing" these efforts? That kind of open speculation is dangerous.

The article also links to an "infographic", which states:

According to intelligence officials, the Russians were as surprised as everyone else by Mr. Trump’s victory.

Well, if the Russians were surprised by Trump's victory, how does that comport with their alleged efforts to boost Trump.

Finally, as I've said earlier, hacking was certainly an issue. I don't think that anyone is stupid enough to think that we're not hacking the Russians. Two wrongs don't make this right. However, I'd still offer that we've failed to connect the dots to the Kremlin. But, with all the crap, bad behavior, lack of ethics and poor decision-making documented in the emails - and I''m still waiting for anyone to dispute the content of the documents - this all couldn't have happened to a more deserving bunch of folks.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 12-13-2016, 05:27 PM
finnbow's Avatar
finnbow finnbow is online now
Reformed Know-Nothing
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell View Post
Nice temper tantrum.

Let me refer to to the inconsistencies in the article that you linked to above...
Your argument still does not render this article or any of the other Times or Post article "fake news." You can argue with the semantics the authors used, some conclusions drawn, but not the facts contained therein, including the fact that the CIA made an assessment that this was done to help Trump (i.e., the hack hurt Hillary, thereby helping Trump - a perfectly reasonable conclusion). Why don't you spend some time on Breitbart (Trump's news source of choice) and give me your reviews of their articles on this topic? I still don't really understand your main beef. All intelligence agencies agree the Russians were behind this, but don't fully agree on Russia's motivation (was it disruption, supporting Trump, or both as it became clear that Trump had a chance). It simply doesn't matter to anyone who cares about electoral integrity and Russia fucking with it.

Quote:
I''m still waiting for anyone to dispute the content of the documents - this all couldn't have happened to a more deserving bunch of folks.
Yet again, this point is irrelevant (and inadmissible in a court of law for you so worried about standards of evidence). These were private communications stolen by Russia with the intent of influencing/disrupting the election. Do you actually believe Paul Manafort's, Steve Bannon's, or the RNC's emails wouldn't contain similar embarrassing stuff (or much worse considering Manafort's relationship with Petro Poroshenko (Putin's puppet in Ukraine) and Bannon's connections to the White Nationalist movement)? Moreover, on what basis to these folks "deserve" to be hacked? Because they were running against Trump? It seems you and Putin share this belief.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.

Last edited by finnbow; 12-13-2016 at 05:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 12-14-2016, 08:18 AM
Dondilion's Avatar
Dondilion Dondilion is offline
Jigsawed
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell View Post

And from there, the fake news continues to multiply like rabbits in the left wing echo chamber.
Hilarious!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:30 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.