Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

Video: Senate report criticizes Obama administration handing of Russia election meddling

Recommended Posts

Just now, candide said:

Which means there is currently no evidence. So It's fake news.

No.  Evidence exists yet you folks still don't want to accept it.  All I'm saying is that the evidence will eventually become so substantial that folks will no longer be able to deny it's existence any longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Since Trump is claiming that election interference was coming from the Ukraine as well (which is true) the Dems/libs are using bastardized reasoning to mean that he's thereby denying Russian interference.  Twisting logic and then insisting it's true anyway even when confronted that they're wrong.

No. Trump claimed the DNC hack was made by Ukraine, not Russia. (Crowdstrike is Ukrainian, the 'server's is in Ukraine, blah blah). This  ridiculous conspiracy theory is a clear attempt to deny Russian interference.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

No.  Evidence exists yet you folks still don't want to accept it.  All I'm saying is that the evidence will eventually become so substantial that folks will no longer be able to deny it's existence any longer.

Trump's tweets? 

Keep up with news...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/justice-dept-winds-down-clinton-related-inquiry-once-championed-by-trump-it-found-nothing-of-consequence/2020/01/09/ca83932e-32f9-11ea-a053-dc6d944ba776_story.html

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/justice-department-expected-to-close-investigation-into-clinton-foundation-without-charges-report/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, candide said:

No. Trump claimed the DNC hack was made by Ukraine, not Russia. (Crowdstrike is Ukrainian, the 'server's is in Ukraine, blah blah). This  ridiculous conspiracy theory is a clear attempt to deny Russian interference.

Trump never made the claim that the DNC was hacked by Ukraine.  As far as evidence goes this is about as close as you'll come to the truth for now.

 

This link shows a reprint of the Memorandum to the President in which VIPS shows evidence that the emails could not have been hacked.

 

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

SUBJECT: Was the “Russian Hack” an Inside Job?

 

We also have Julian Assange stating that the emails were leaked and that the source was not a foreign government or entity.

 

We also have word from Obama himself, given in his final press conference on January 20, 2017.  At the 18:17 mark he goes on to state: “conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether WikiLeaks was witting or not in being the conduit through which we heard about the [Democratic National Committee] DNC e-mails that were leaked.

 

 

CrowdStrike, the outfit brought in by the DNC to examine the servers, were the ones who came up with the claim that the servers were hacked.  The FBI was denied access to the servers.  Mueller's team never bothered to perform their own forensics and, unbelievably, relied only on a redacted draft report from CrowdStrike.  Neither did team Mueller have any interest in questioning Assange himself.  To the contrary they were more than willing to attempt to implicate Assange in the hacked email conspiracy.

 

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-California) visited the Ecuadorian embassy in London in August 2017 and met with Assange.

 

“By now, everybody knows that this idea that Trump was colluding with the Russians in order to get them to do things like steal the DNC emails and then release them through WikiLeaks, the public knows that’s just total baloney,” Rohrabacher said. “I knew the one man who could prove that it was all baloney was Assange. So I went to see him in London, and he confirmed for me that the Russians did not give him the DNC emails.”

 

The entire narrative was, as I believe we will all soon find out, created out of whole cloth for a reason.  In the meanwhile keep believing what you want to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

No.  Evidence exists yet you folks still don't want to accept it. 

Now where have i heard that before.

 

You deny it for one party and defend it for another.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama should have embraced russian interference, and request it, like trump then it would be ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Chiphigh said:

It's been happening for years. But the phony story about it actually effecting the results are nonsense. So is the phony story about trump's being influenced by any Russians. 

How do you know it didnt effect the results.

 

Do you think the russians did it just for a giggle.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, candide said:

Trump in the memo summary talked about Ukrainian company, owned by an Ukrainian, said the server was in Ukraine, etc. And then he asks Z to investigate in UKRAINE. He repeated the same ridiculous claim in November on fox news: 

President Trump: “The Democrats, a lot of it had to do, they say, with Ukraine. It’s very interesting. It’s very interesting. They have this server, right? From the DNC, Democratic National Committee. The FBI went in and they told them, ‘Get out of here. You’re not getting it. We’re not giving it to you.’ They gave the server to CrowdStrike or whatever it’s called, which is a company owned by a very wealthy Ukrainian.

 

And to support this ridiculous conspiracy theory you cite an obscure website (you did not even dare to show the name), while the FBI and the DOJ have acknowledged the Russian origin of the hack. 🙂

Nice try.  You said that Trump said that the Ukrainians hacked the DNC server.  But you didn't bother correcting yourself.

 

The website link provided only the actual text of the Memorandum to the President.  No article.  I tried to find the document elsewhere but could not.  The source in this case doesn't negate the facts.  The source here merely hosted the document.  I cited the Memorandum as evidence, not the source.  And you full well know that.  Are you in interested in facts or not?  Or do you simply want to make the source rather than the facts an issue so that you don't have to deal with the facts?

 

No government ABC agency or otherwise has ever provided proof of a "Russian hack."  They don't even know how it was accomplished.  I've provided information to show how no one in the government wants to do a forensic analysis given the seriousness of the charge.  Why?  Don't you find that odd?  Is it because a true forensic analysis would prove that the servers weren't hacked?  How do explain the fact that the Mueller team was willing to accept only a redacted draft report from CrowdStrike?  Or the fact that it was CrowdStrike and not the Mueller team who determined what information they could access?  How do you explain the fact that Obama himself stated "DNC emails that were leaked"?  Why didn't you address that point?

 

I understand you are perfectly willing to believe something or someone without proof.  That's your business.  Not me, thanks.

 

Edited by Tippaporn
  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Nice try.  You said that Trump said that the Ukrainians hacked the DNC server.  But you didn't bother correcting yourself.

 

The website link provided only the actual text of the Memorandum to the President.  No article.  I tried to find the document elsewhere but could not.  The source in this case doesn't negate the facts.  The source here merely hosted the document.  I cited the Memorandum as evidence, not the source.  And you full well know that.  Are you in interested in facts or not?  Or do you simply want to make the source rather than the facts an issue so that you don't have to deal with the facts?

 

No government ABC agency or otherwise has ever provided proof of a "Russian hack."  They don't even know how it was accomplished.  I've provided information to show how no one in the government wants to do a forensic analysis given the seriousness of the charge.  Why?  Don't you find that odd?  Is it because a true forensic analysis would prove that the servers weren't hacked?  How do explain the fact that the Mueller team was willing to accept only a redacted draft report from CrowdStrike?  Or the fact that it was CrowdStrike and not the Mueller team who determined what information they could access?  How do you explain the fact that Obama himself stated "DNC emails that were leaked"?  Why didn't you address that point?

 

I understand you are perfectly willing to believe something or someone without proof.  That's your business.  Not me, thanks.

 

Trump talked about Ukrainian company owned by a rich Ukrainian, and the server in Ukraine (all fake allegations), and asks for an investigation in Ukraine. So according does not mean he alledges that Ukrainian did it? He does not mean it was not the Russians? 

 

What is in the VIP memo has not been proved, and is even not approved by all members.

If you want to have fun with this one, you can read this. Good luck!

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/a-leak-or-a-hack-a-forum-on-the-vips-memo/#independent-review

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, candide said:

Trump talked about Ukrainian company owned by a rich Ukrainian, and the server in Ukraine (all fake allegations), and asks for an investigation in Ukraine. So according does not mean he alledges that Ukrainian did it? He does not mean it was not the Russians? 

 

What is in the VIP memo has not been proved, and is even not approved by all members.

If you want to have fun with this one, you can read this. Good luck!

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/a-leak-or-a-hack-a-forum-on-the-vips-memo/#independent-review

Trump never said what you claim he said.  Come on, candide!  Are you purposely being misleading?  It's extremely difficult to not get the call text right so it makes me wonder.

 

Here's the exact text from the transcript:  "I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike ... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it."

 

No mention of CrowdStrike being a Ukrainian company.  No mention of CrowdStrike owned by a Ukrainian.

 

In my original post I stated:  "As far as evidence goes this is about as close as you'll come to the truth for now."

 

Notice the qualifier?

 

And this is from the article you linked to (bolded emphasis mine):

 

The most recent VIPS memo, released on July 24, whatever its technical merits, contributes to a much-needed critical discussion. Despite all the media coverage taking the veracity of the ICA assessment for granted, even now we have only the uncorroborated assertion of intelligence officials to go on. Indeed, this was noticed by The New York Times’s Scott Shane, who wrote the day the report appeared: “What is missing from the public report is…hard evidence to back up the agencies’ claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack…. Instead, the message from the agencies essentially amounts to ‘trust us.’”

 

You believe that Russia hacked the DNC server while being presented with zero hard evidence.  I mentioned this to you in my previous post:  I understand you are perfectly willing to believe something or someone without proof.  Would it be accurate for me to say that you trust the government's word implicitly?  As in "trust us"?  Well, I don't.

 

And where are your counterpoints for all the other points I made?  For instance, why in the h3ll would the Mueller team, tasked with investigating Russian election interference and an historic and dire charge that the President colluded with Russians, refuse to insist on performing their own forensic analysis?  Why would they simply accept a redacted draft report from CrowdStrike?  Why would they allow Crowdstrike to dictate to them what data the Mueller team could see?

 

Why has no government ABC agency or otherwise produced hard evidence?  Why do they still not know how the DNC breach was performed and how the transfer was made?

 

And the final question, how could they possibly conclude it was a Russian hack given that they obviously lacked so much hard evidence?

 

Come now, candide.  You're quick on the draw to label it all conspiracy theory.  Without ever providing hard evidence or solid reasoning to back up your claim.

 

 

 

Edited by Tippaporn
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Trump never said what you claim he said.  Come on, candide!  Are you purposely being misleading?  It's extremely difficult to not get the call text right so it makes me wonder.

 

Here's the exact text from the transcript:  "I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike ... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it."

 

No mention of CrowdStrike being a Ukrainian company.  No mention of CrowdStrike owned by a Ukrainian.

 

In my original post I stated:  "As far as evidence goes this is about as close as you'll come to the truth for now."

 

Notice the qualifier?

 

And this is from the article you linked to (bolded emphasis mine):

 

The most recent VIPS memo, released on July 24, whatever its technical merits, contributes to a much-needed critical discussion. Despite all the media coverage taking the veracity of the ICA assessment for granted, even now we have only the uncorroborated assertion of intelligence officials to go on. Indeed, this was noticed by The New York Times’s Scott Shane, who wrote the day the report appeared: “What is missing from the public report is…hard evidence to back up the agencies’ claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack…. Instead, the message from the agencies essentially amounts to ‘trust us.’”

 

You believe that Russia hacked the DNC server while being presented with zero hard evidence.  I mentioned this to you in my previous post:  I understand you are perfectly willing to believe something or someone without proof.  Would it be accurate for me to say that you trust the government's word implicitly?  As in "trust us"?  I don't.

 

And where are your counterpoints for all the other points I made?  For instance, why in the h3ll would the Mueller team, tasked with investigating Russian election interference and an historic and dire charge that the President colluded with Russians, refuse to insist on performing their own forensic analysis?  Why would they simply accept a redacted draft report from CrowdStrike?  Why would they allow Crowdstrike to dictate to them what data the Mueller team could see?

 

Why has no government ABC agency or otherwise produced hard evidence?  Why do they still not know how the DNC breach was performed and how the transfer was made?

 

And the final question, how could they possibly conclude it was a Russian hack given that they obviously lacked so much hard evidence?

 

Come now, candide.  You're quick on the draw to label it all conspiracy theory.  Without ever providing hard evidence or solid reasoning to back up your claim.

 

 

Pathetic try.

Quote from Trump's phone call to Fox & Friends in November 2019 (so much later than the call with Z and after plenty of time to get accurate information about it):

“A lot of it had to do, they say, with Ukraine,” Trump said. “It’s very interesting. They have the server, right? From the DNC, Democratic National Committee. The FBI went in, and they told them, 'Get out of here, we’re not giving it to you.' They gave the server to CrowdStrike, or whatever it’s called, which is a company owned by a very wealthy Ukrainian, and I still want to see that server. You know, the FBI has never gotten that server. That’s a big part of this whole thing. Why did they give it to a Ukrainian company?

 

So, according to you, Trump is not trying to target Ukrainians, and hence whitewash the Russians? He did not say It's a Mexican company, right? He did not call the Mexican President to investigate about it, right?

 

By the way, from which country does this conspiracy theory originates (Russia)? Who was the first to diffuse it in the US (Manafort)?

https://www.politico.eu/article/trump-ukraine-joe-biden-russian-disinformation-election-tampering/

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, candide said:

Pathetic try.

Quote from Trump's phone call to Fox & Friends in November 2019 (so much later than the call with Z and after plenty of time to get accurate information about it):

“A lot of it had to do, they say, with Ukraine,” Trump said. “It’s very interesting. They have the server, right? From the DNC, Democratic National Committee. The FBI went in, and they told them, 'Get out of here, we’re not giving it to you.' They gave the server to CrowdStrike, or whatever it’s called, which is a company owned by a very wealthy Ukrainian, and I still want to see that server. You know, the FBI has never gotten that server. That’s a big part of this whole thing. Why did they give it to a Ukrainian company?

 

So, according to you, Trump is not trying to target Ukrainians, and hence whitewash the Russians? He did not say It's a Mexican company, right? He did not call the Mexican President to investigate about it, right?

 

By the way, from which country does this conspiracy theory originates (Russia)? Who was the first to diffuse it in the US (Manafort)?

https://www.politico.eu/article/trump-ukraine-joe-biden-russian-disinformation-election-tampering/

More about the origins of the Crowdstrike ridiculous  conspiracy theory.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/22/us/politics/ukraine-russia-interference.html

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...