Evidence?

Once again, in typical fashion, not one single thing you said here is true.

Nobody is denying who won. Nobody. There is no need to search for an explanation. We already have that: gerrymandering, some votes counting more than others, voter suppression, possible collusion with a foreign enemy, just to name a few.

We all knew Hillary wasn't the best candidate. She was twice the candidate Trump was, however. She got 3 million more votes than he did, however.

Since we have a track record of Trump spouting bs about others that is actually true about him and his deplorable backers, there were probably 3 to 5 million illegal votes that went all to him. All to him. Lol. Lol.

Your entire post is made up bull**** and complete gibberish. It's all YOU'VE got.

Yes evidence. It is proven they hacked and meddled in our election you twit. If you don't want to acknowledge that, then **** right off.

Why didn't the electoral college handle this?

LOL.

You're a ****ing truther, Deuces.


Yes, in that "my clan" is the reality-based community.
The Flynn story has no real connection to the hacking thing, as in it would be a real scandal about unreported foreign influence absent any hacking or fake news, but following a ****ing story has always been hard for you when Infowars isn't there to tell you everything is the Jews fault.

Also your last paragraph there, uh, hmmm. Where was that benefit of the doubt when it came to any other politician, Deuces?

Huh? Not until the FBI gets its hands on the DNC servers. There never was evidence of hacking and there never will be. **** the corrupt DNC.


#SethRich
#Vault7

The whole Russian ties narrative started with an anonymous source from ****ing Buzzfeed. As long as they repeat the lies they don't have to talk about the truth.

The leaker worked for the DNC and he was shot like many people close to the Clinton.

At least we got some comedy out of Clinton and Comey:



On what planet do you live?

This "If the FBI had just checked the server, I'd believe it!" is such an obvious lie. You would just blame it on "Obama's deep state cronies." That's what moron conspiracy theorists ALWAYS do with information they find inconvenient.

Slandering a dead kid in a desperate attempt to deny that Russia was involved in hacking is really, really low.

You've got nothing to contribute, got it. Slandering a dead kid, riiiiight. Nothing to see here.

In his testimony yesterday, AG Sessions was asked about Russian hacking. From a transcript

He disavows that he has any specific knowledge about it, but why do you think the entire intelligence community is united in saying that Russia interfered, and why is Sessions willing to go along with that, if there is no evidence? For obvious reasons a lot of the evidence isn't publicly available (although see here for an overview from DNI, and there have been other analyses of the DNC hacks by private security companies), but if even Sessions concedes that the entire IC is united in that conclusion, on what basis do you conclude that they are lying?

Most republicans don't dispute it, and most of the people who're questioning the evidence previously in this thread have tacitly accepted it in how they've argued other points.

Nothingburger!!! lololol

You should stop spreading pathetic stupid lies about crime victims.

The Intelligence Community "says" so. The same community interested in pushing that narrative. Sessions testimony wasn't a litigation of the Russian involvement, it was a response to Comey's testimony on why he was fired - let's not read to much into his statements here.

I read the original DNC 'hacking' report. Working in IT, if I had put my name to that pile of garbage, I would have been laughed out of the room and then fired. The evidence of Russian hacking boils down to "Trust us, we're the Government".

Julian Assange seems to indicate that Seth Rich the source:
http://www.latimes.com/business/holl...htmlstory.html

Any evidence that Wikileaks has ever posted a retraction? If not, shut up about which you know nothing.

lol Jiggy believes in conspiracy theories and obamaphones and tells others to shut up cause they know nothing

Assange spread pizzagate and the spiritcooking bull****. You're one of the ones who lapped that stuff up, right?

You are humiliating yourself here.

Why do you think the IC is interested in pushing that narrative?

Now, I'll grant that I don't believe that Americans should blindly and implicitly trust any and all claims made by intelligence agencies, and if the intelligence in question were being used to support some kind of dramatic action (say, war with Russia) I'd want to have more of an ability to verify the claims before I'd assent to their truth. But I can't think of a good reason why I should think it's more likely all of these intelligence agencies are lying than that they aren't. Especially given the information that has leaked like the NSA documents on attempts to hack voting machines and officials. The idea that Russia was interested in interfering with the election is entirely plausible, and the assertion that the claims by US intelligence agencies that this happened should be dismissed are not persuasive to me.

Also, I am a professional computer programmer who unofficially learned the trade as a teenager by doing a fair amount of hacking. I've had a long interest in information security as a topic. While I don't have enough information to independently verify the conclusion that it was definitely the Russian government, I don't find your assertion that it's a "pile of garbage", nor your appeal to authority, to be particularly compelling.

Maybe you should take this awesome advice I once read:

Senate votes 97-2 to approve sanctions on Russia

Jiggy needs to go tell all his Republican buddies in the Senate to shut up and they don't know anything lmao

I thought the Left laughed at the Intelligence Community's "WMD" assertions. Now they're the good guys?

As for appealing to authority, did you read the Joint Action Report?

https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/defaul...-2016-1229.pdf. This report is amateurish at best and criminal at worst.

Well, when the media whips the establishment into a frenzy, this is the result.

23 Senate Democrats still had the spine to vote against the Iraq War, sounds like your buddies are pretty soft if that's what you think is happening here.

I alluded to the Iraq war when I mentioned that I think it's reasonable to calibrate one's level of distrust to the significance of the action upon which intelligence is based. However, there are also relevant differences between the two cases. First, there was both less consensus and less public evidence in support of the case for WMD. There was nothing like the leaked NSA documents, or the private security analyses in that case. There were not multiple intelligence agencies making public statements in support of the conclusion, there was basically only the Bush administration. Secondly, there were other legitimate sources of information that contested the conclusion, like Hans Blix and the UN inspectors.

The point about the significance of the action being argued for is still relevant, as well. In 2002, my argument was that rather than supporting an act of war, the contested intelligence supported working with the UN to send weapons inspectors back in. I would also argue now that the available evidence wouldn't support a war with Russia, but it does support further investigation. As I said, I'd want more information to be comfortable with a stronger response than that. However, we weren't arguing about what level of response is justified, we were debating your claim that there was absolutely no evidence.

I don't think it's as compelling as the CrowdStrike article, but then it is clearly intended to be an outline of security concerns and recommendations related to Russian hacking in general, rather than an analysis of the DNC hack specifically. So for example I don't think the discussion about SQL injection applies to the DNC hack, as far as I understand how that hack was performed. If you want to argue that this document isn't particularly useful that's fine with me, but I don't see how that is relevant to the question about evidence that Russians were involved in the DNC hacks, since the document doesn't provide an argument for that in the first place.

CrowdStrike's direct ties to the Democrats is well known. They are certainly not an unbiased source. The equivalent of "only coming from the Clinton campaign." - which is the deep state's only source on this matter.

The name of the report is GRIZZLY STEPPE – Russian Malicious Cyber Activity, and indicts APT28 and APT29 as definitively Russian actors. You are also aware of the Vault7 - the NSA/CIA tools capable of creating false flags and hiding the source of attacks - https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/.

Are you saying we are the only country to possess this capability? Are you suggesting Russians would be so careless as to allow themselves to fingered in such an operation?

My opinion - the Russian dodge is an excuse for an inept campaign and last minute scheme to fabricate a reason for their loss. I put more credence into Seth Rich having leaked the DNC server documents than Russians breaking into those servers. And John Podesta is an idiot and deserves what happened to him.

Finally - funny that no one is disputing the contents and shenanigans contained in those emails. Face it - Leftists have always needed to use underhanded tactics to succeed, why would this time be any different.

This would be more relevant if they hadn't actually provided the evidence their conclusions are based upon. Their intepretation of that evidence is supported by other security researchers who have looked at it.

Sure. But it's not my claim that the evidence is conclusive. Abductively speaking, the conclusion that it was Russians is stronger, on the available evidence, than the conclusion that it was some other group, but I agree that it is not certain. However, my claim is only that your assertion that there is no evidence is false. There is enough evidence to warrant an investigation. That investigation may turn out to be inconclusive, or it may find no evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, or whatever else.

These aren't mutually exclusive, and the Clinton campaign being inept has no bearing on the question of whether or not Russia hacked the DNC or tried to influence the election in other ways.

Now here is an assertion for which I've seen literally no evidence. Fox News was forced to retract the only story I've seen which made this claim.