I've actually thought about this before. I think something like hiring some actors/actresses with the right "look" to read your copy in some youtube vids should do the trick! I believe there are web sites where you can hire someone to do that sort of thing for like 50 bucks or something.

Stop the steal! Build the wall! Send money now, before it's too late!

I think that is essentially the heart of the grift now.

The Trump family, Banon and others are using proxies to push the misinformation from friendly quarters, and then trying to vacuum up all the money that flows.

Honestly the only time I think I have seen Trump upset in this area is when others try to direct some of that grift to themselves. Brad Parscale gained his wrath for that reason. He feels this is his proprietary grift and the money should come to him exclusively.

This is from your link which you didn't want to cite directly because you're just like an octopus trying to ink up the water and escape:
Shift goalpoasts much?

This is the most definitive statement I saw. Can we all notice what it doesn't say? They are saying Russia was there but we don't think they lifted anything. I other words the DNC hack, the one that led to wikileak's possession of emails, was actually a leak from the inside.

In sworn testimony Crowdstrike admitted they had no evidence that Russia extracted anything. I think I linked to that. Do you want a link? Do you want to know the truth? Or are you just a Trumpist at heart who just happens to favor one senile old racist over another?

Most people don't make the illogical leaps that you do when reading that Russia breached the DNC server. No one else cares if in the end it was leaked somehow. No one cares if the Russians hired someone to do it or completed the breach with in-house personnel. Whatever "facts" you continue to dance around, the Russians went into private property, breached its security and later disseminated the stolen private information to the public.

I am sure you will next dispute that the Russian bot farms were actually Russian government with some other crazy logic such as their paychecks were not directly from the Russian govt and two of the employees were from Chechnya.

I'm afraid you're the one who is confused, or trying to confuse others. The statements you linked to do not provide even an assertion that Russia stole the emails. In sworn testimony the president of Crowdstrike makes it clear they have no evidence Russia took anything.

Start reading at pg. 32

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/sh21.pdf

Here is the former technical director of the NSA Bill Binney, the man who developed the programs which became the main parts of the current U.S. surveillance system, explaining why the source of DNC emails was a leak:

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/2...hack-evidence/

If admissions from crowdstrike and arguments from one of the world's foremost experts doesn't convince you then I guess it's time to admit you are just a craven sucker willing to pretend to believe lie if the authorities tell you to, that you are no better than any Trumper going around making claims about elections fraud. If you don't consider evidence then your claims are no more valid than theirs are. You're both people just saying things, saying whatever "my side" tells you to say.

So your position is that Russian agents did hack the DNC but they just decided not to do anything with the data they had access to? Because the evidence is pretty much bulletproof that via various phishing attacks Russian agents were able to access their networks and install multiple pieces of malware.

Regarding your cherry-picked quotes, the "circumstantial evidence" is akin to DNA or fingerprints at a crime scene. It's not concrete evidence of who was responsible but it has a lot more weight than you are implying and would be perfectly admissible as evidence in court.

As for your link, there are some immediate things that make very little sense. Firstly the timeline implies that all the claims about Russia were purely to obfuscate after WikiLeaks announced they had the emails. In reality Crowdstrike had been called in months previously and the entire network had been renovated before that announcement was made. This doesn't prove anything about the source of the documents but it does make a lot of the inferences in that article suspect at the very least.

Secondly the claims about the speed of transfer are just bizarre. Copying "1,976 MegaBytes of data in 87 seconds" is fast but not even close to being impossible remotely. It's a speed of <200Mb/s and it's not uncommon for residential networks to be faster than that nowadays, let alone a large data network. Conversely even USB 2, which is ancient by this point, has a transfer speed of >400Mb/s and USB 3 is over 4Gb/s. It taking 90s to transfer 2GB of data to an external hard drive would be marginally slower than expected over USB 2 and glacial over USB 3. Maybe some specific details that aren't included in the article justify the claim but on its face the claim makes no sense.

No you are I would say confused, but that word is not strong enough to cover it.

Full blown delusion is the only reasonable explanation for why someone would post something so absolutely false as the statement above.

Lets check my link for "assertions".

[X] Assertion.

[X] Assertion.

[X] Assertion.

Does CrowdStrike have evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC network?

[X] Assertion.

Your whole "argument" which isnt actually an argument, its pure sophistry, rests on qualities inherent in hacking, unless you film someone pressing print at the other end of the hack etc, you are not going to have "concrete" evidence, actual smoking gun etc, but you will be able to trace activity on the network, which is exactly what crowdstrike did.

As the private contractors explain.

From such activity they assert fully and with utmost confidence that Russian agents acted to breach DNC data storage and indexes.

Your riposte to this amounts to nothing more notable than well they did not use certain language when expressing their absolute and total and utter confidence and its a conswpiwacyyyyyyy.

Just so you are aware:

What's with the continual word games and misdirection? I would almost think someone has to be paying you to try so hard to misrepresent reality on their behalf. "do anything with the data"? They never had it. Maybe they thought they couldn't grab it without getting caught. Maybe they weren't even there. All we know that is solid is that the data came out via a leak and that there is no evidence that the leak was of Russian origin. It was likely an insider who had a conscience. Maybe if having a conscience wasn't such a foreign concept you might be able fit these rather simple puzzle pieces together.

Those were the more germane quotes in my view. If you have any others in refutation of those by all means don't keep them to yourself. No? ok.

lol at invoking DNA. You are quite the sophist in your own mind. None of the people charged will ever be tried in court because the case against them is beyond weak and would further expose you farce. They misrepresented the evidence until they were sworn in, at which point they decided to be technically honest and say there is no evidence Russia took anything. Imagine what they would be saying if they knew Russia had actually done it. Is that to hard for you to do? And lol at "admissible in court" as if that is means truthful or indicative of anything. Just stop the charade. You've got nothing backing you up, and if the underlying truth was as you say you would be standing on a mountain of evidence. Instead here you are trying to create illusions with phrases like "akin to DNA" and "perfectly admissible in court". Like who are you trying so hard for?

Just stop. He's talking about a remote hack. Are you more knowledgeable about remote hacks than the former technical director of the NSA? The reason corwdstrike had to walk back all that crap was that they were being challenged technically by experts publishing debunks of their claims and their reputation was in play. Maybe they should have hired you for some "akin to DNA" style razzle dazzle.

Why do you think anonymous sources from the intelligence community mean anything than that whatever they are saying is probably a lie?

More semantics. Maybe I should have said they didn't even assert they had proof. That doesn't change the meaning of what they said.

If you read the Intelligence Committee transcripts of the interview and come away with any other opinion than that Crowdstrike has no evidence that Russia actually stole any data then you are an utter moron beyond help. There is no hard proof. There is only circumstantial "evidence" which doesn't mean crap.

What they are saying is on the level of "had the suspect committed the murder there would have been a dead body, so what we observed was consistent with the suspect being the perpetrator". Look at how you lower yourself into pure, shameless lying. Why? Are you a fascist? I feel like we are looking at two ends of a fascist body politic between people like you and the Trumpers.

Bill Binney says it was physically impossible to have been a remote hack. He tried to warn us about the unconstitutional actions being undertaken by our government spying on us. Little did he know this country has been incubating a fresh batch of utter cowards who will volunteer to have their brains bleached by MSNBC and FOX news every night and don't care about truth or justice, only plugging into the consumer rewards feedback loops and not ever thinking. Little did he knows these sniveling little craven muppets wouldn't care in the least.

That transcript was suppressed by Schiff because he didn't want the truth to get out. If he actually thought he had the goods the evidence would be touted far and wide.

And you're trying to represent Crowdstrike as objective because they also take republican money? That's really lame on a lot of levels. It's all the same state-corporate complex.The company president was a former FBI executive assistant director (under Mueller). One of the co-founders is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. These are neoliberal scumbag liars, and they have parsed their language here. They are using language which is vague and general so it can be misinterpreted in favorable ways but at the same time has to say that they have no proof. When they say the "saw activity that we believed was consistent with activity weÂ’d seen previously and had associated with the Russian Government." That could mean anything. On the only issue that matters they had to admit they don't have the goods because so many other technologists have already made that point.

The internet really is a depressing insight into human ignorance and cognitive dissonance.

A completely non partisan professional third party technically proficient third party business expresses with utmost confidence and conviction, with a complete and utter vacuum of ambiguity that Russian agents hacked the DNC.

Instead of contrition, we get the utmost hand wavery, unbacked semantic nonsense.

Yes lets believe the completely conjectured opinion of a self confessed Trump voter Binney , who had zero access to the scene, over a non partisan third party who had full access to the scene.

Lets ignore the work of an independent journalist Duncan Campbell who exposes how Binney was influenced by the Kremlin on this issue.

Lets accuse people of being influenced by Fox news, which the exact channel Binney used to spread his obvious misinformation.

Lets ignore the fact that Binney himself later recanted his opinion and himself admitted that the files he based his opinion on where a "manipulation" and a "fabrication".

Where do these people come from?

So, we are not supposed to trust intelligence agents because they lie but we are to trust Bill Binny, an intelligence agent?

Trust Bill Binny, until he recants, then don't trust him?

Don't trust the people or third party companies tasked to do the work, but trust the guys asked to comment on that work for Fox News?

Don't trust Fox or MSNBC but trust weirdos on the internet instead. And social media click bait doesn't work for the Russians to influence an election but it provides you all your source material?

They are the same people who proclaim the most baseline, foundationless assertion of voter fraud, or Biden guilt, is legitimate based on nothing but claims of someone hearing something from someone who heard something.

I couldn't agree more. Now all the soft and smooth brains can be conducted, together, into a symphony of liars like you. We have a call and response going, you guys with your palace coup and the Trumpers with middle aged insurrection. At least the Trumpers have the balls to take some kind of action though. The pathetics on the other side think they can post and tweet the demonized other away. But the other is you my dude. Look in the mirror.

The emphasis is mine. The complete lack of reading comprehension is yours. I can't reduce it any simpler:
Why do you pretend that they proved anything when they didn't? When other experts have called them out and embarrassed them? Do you work for these people? In what way do you think you personally benefit from pretending to believe lies?


This is what I am talking about. If you can say one baseless claim about Russia why not just say anything?

Do you believe the claim made by the VP, Harris, that the Colin Kaepernick saga also traces to Russia? What about Tulsi Gabbard? another Russian masterpiece of sabotage?

What really gets to you, what really makes you mad, I can tell, is thinking about how harmonious we all were and how pristine our elections were before all this Russian interference. You are all heart and integrity.

I only just looked up anything about Bill Binney and he has literally argued that there was massive fraud in the 2020 election. It's pretty incredible (and hilarious) that Deuces' main authoritative source for his argument that the Russia investigation was as baseless as the election fraud claims actually believes the latter.

He is a whistleblower. He put himself at risk to tell us about wrongdoing our government was up to. He could have just retired ceremoniously from a lauded career. You probably could not understand that sacrifice if you've never achieved any standing among your peers. You just casually throw a great public servant under the bus because he gets in the way of master.

You need to cite this claim.

NAh you're getting it wrong again. Don't trust ex FBI in corporate security or fellows at the Atlantic Council who only care about expanding the neoliberal empire.
Do trust individuals who show a willingness to sacrifice for the greater good.

You think the documents I linked, from a the U.S. government website showing interviews of the senate intelligence committee, is actually spoofed up Russian clickbait? Or Consortium news, the only other site I linked to? You might needs some meds. Seriously, all animus aside, you are experiencing delusions.

My main source is the mainstream media which has had to debunk and walk back nearly every claim made which was leaked to them by anonymous intelligence sources. Someone here posted a list Matt Taibbi put together if you are interested in the sources.

My main source supporting that there is no evidence Russia lifted anything from the DNC is Crowdstrike itself. You can read, right?

You guys should cite these Binney claims.

What ever evidence they saw, its simple fact that they unambiguously state that Russia hacked the DNC.

To counter this you cite Binney, someone who recants his own testimony. Which btw he did because of work by the journalist Campell, so if its a baseless claim, take it up with Binney, because he did not see it that way.

The experts who you say embarrass Strike are self confessed Trump voters, who decide to recant their own testimony, but you still chose to die on the hill they themselves surrendered.

Its full blown delusional cognitive dissonance.

Hi my name is Binnen, I recant my testimony which in my own words is based on a "manipulation" and a "fabrication" but its ok because Deuces Mcmadman will keep repeating them because he saw it on Fox and Brietbart.

Brillant !
This guy defends and turn into a positive thing an attack on democracy “with balls” ?
Lol .

Hey man go live in North Korea or China if you hate democracy so much …
Wtf .

Why not praise and defend Oswald because he killed a democrat president ?
He got balls too ..
Jfc .

And the right are suppose to be the party of justice and law and order ???

This is the only explanation for his utter insanity.

+1

You keep walking into this one:
One more time for the extra slow kids. This means they don't even know that anything was taken, let alone the identity of a specific entity who took anything.

I am citing Crowdstrike itself to counter, to say there is no evidence Russia lifted anything. Binney provides a further clarification of what actually happened.

Hugely in-depth article about the whole misinformation campaign that was directly responsible for the incorrect claims in that consortiumnews link you provided.

https://www.computerweekly.com/news/...-Russian-links

And his fraud claims are all still up on his twitter and trivial to find. The most blatant one (which has about 10 different fact checking articles written about it) being this one, where he conflated registered voters with eligible voters.



This was obviously a while ago now but he was making the claims and constantly retweeting Trumpkins right through January. He seems to have pretty much stopped tweeting since then so I can't be sure of his current view but he continued believing long after it was obvious that the claims were entirely baseless.

Edit: Oh and just for good measure he had some nice Covid conspiracy stuff based on completely wrong data thrown in there too:

He is using Binney as a cite whilst being obviously totally ignorant about Guccifer 2.0.

Could not make this **** up.

I dont think you understand the English language, this is immaterial to their claims.

They claim unambiguously that Russia hacked the DNC server and that the circumstantial evidence they have gives them 100% confidence in this claim.

That is literally their absolute concrete position.

At no point do they say well we are not 100% certain because we dont have "concrete" evidence.

You can actually read ?

In what world do people keep using an obviously biased source e.g. self confessed Trump voter, who recants his own testimony after being obviously conned to the point he himself confesses as such to counter third party non partisan testimony.

You cant score a bigger self pawn own goal bigger than using Binney.