Senate Intelligence Report: No evidence of Russian hacking of the DNC

[Airyaman]

From the above source:

HENRY: We said that we had a high degree of confidence it was the Russian Government. And our analysts that looked at it and that had looked at these types of attacks before, many different types of attacks similar to this in different environments, certain tools that were used, certain methods by which they were moving in the environment,and looking at the types of data that was being targeted, that it was consistent with a nation-state adversary and associated with Russian intelligence.

Several witnesses testified that the Russians had been hacking sensitive government computers for years, yet the FBI never opened a serious investigation nor warned the DNC of the alleged Russian hacks until after the DNC was notified by Assange that it had sensitive information stolen from the DNC computers. When the DNC became aware of the breach they did not contact the FBI, they hired a private firm to do the secret investigation of the allegations for some reason, presumably to keep the FBI from having access to the information in their computers.

Aw, did the link break your crap article from the "Epoch Times"?

 

[CaughtInThe]

Here's the real question...


Why would the OP, an evangelical, continue to lie so much and use so many crazy sources for his lies?

 

[marke]

Which was well within the DNC's rights. If you look, historically companies, political parities, ANYBODY avoids calling in the FBI where their computer data is concerned. When Trumpets get out of diapers they MIGHT be able to discuss these topics.

I am not opposing the DNC reliance on CrowdStrike instead of the FBI. In fact, that was key to my whole point.

 

[marke]

Aw, did the link break your crap article from the "Epoch Times"?

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Your link and the Epoch Times said the same thing. That is why I used your link to support what the Epoch Times reported.

 

[jnug]

I am not opposing the DNC reliance on CrowdStrike instead of the FBI. In fact, that was key to my whole point.

I fail to see the point of the entire thread as you start with a premise that is irrelevant and ignorant of how assessments are generated and limitations of digital forensics if there are no sensors on the computers in question at the point of the hack. THIS IS AN ENTIRELY MEANINGLESS THREAD.

 

[bongsaway]

You NEVER support your narrative with anything even remotely approaching a credible source; far-right blogs, conspiracy blogs and obscure religious websites and whatever you made up on the day is about the extent of your credibility. The troubling aspect of all this is that you, an adult, actually believe that tripe, without question!

Marke is either a good troll or a rabid believer of bullcrap. Let's hope he's a troll.

 

[element94]

Leftist democrats go all out to cloud the truth as they attempt to divert attention away from the fact that the whole Russian conspiracy theory lie was invented by democrats seeking to undermine Trump for evil political advantage.

No, you're just trying to cover up the fact it's all true.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Marke is either a good troll or a rabid believer of bullcrap. Let's hope he's a troll.

he's a believer.

 

[cabse5]

Trump was bailed out of bankruptcy at least once by the "Russian Mob". So how much money does Trump owe the Russian mob? Isn't this a national security issue?

The Trump Mandate:

Not coming clean with the Americans = tax documents please! Trump is the enemy!

Anti American Radical Right Wing Agenda = Fascism
ALEC: The Voice of Corporate Special Interests in State Legislatures | Right Wing Watch

Over Throwing The USA Government
The United States of ALEC: Bill Moyers on the Secretive Corporate-Legislative Body Writing Our Laws | Democracy Now!

New Koch-Linked Political Firm Aims to Handpick “Electable” Candidates – Mother Jones

American Legislative Exchange Council Teams With Radical Fundamentalists
Secrets of the extreme religious right: Inside the frightening world of Christian Reconstructionism | Salon.com

Celebrating the John Birch Society
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/06/10/242334/john-birch-society-celebrates-koch/


Ego mania getting in the way of practical and pragmatic government and how about this "trading with the enemy"?

Placing sound foreign policy and our nations security at risk? This under Russian controlled circumstances could force the economy to tumble at the speed of light.....


Donald Trump Was Bailed Out of Bankruptcy by Russia Crime Bosses

== The facts read like a B-grade spy novel.
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/donald-trump-was-bailed-out-bankruptcy-russia-crime-bosses

You hate Trump and you're a vigilante. Aren't you a national security issue?

 

[bongsaway]

he's a believer.

Either way he's rabid.

 

[CaughtInThe]

No, you're just trying to cover up the fact it's all true.

Which is what he does.

 

[Athanasius68]

The Epoch Times? Seriously? What’s wrong, couldn’t find anything in thegatewaypundit or InfoWars to post?

A sample of what The Epoch Times is best known for;
“Facebook took down more than 600 accounts tied to the pro-Trump conspiracy website The Epoch Times for using identities created by artificial intelligence to push stories about a variety of topics including impeachment and elections.

The network was called “The BL” and was run by Vietnamese users posing as Americans, using fake photos generated by algorithms to simulate real identities. The Epoch Media group, which pushes a variety of pro-Trump conspiracy theories, spent $9.5 million on ads to spread content through the now-suspended pages and groups.

What’s new here is that this is purportedly a U.S.-based media company leveraging foreign actors posing as Americans to push political content. We’ve seen it a lot with state actors in the past,” Facebook’s head of security policy, Nathaniel Gleicher, said in an interview.”
Facebook says a pro-Trump media outlet used artificial intelligence to create fake people and push conspiracies

One doesn't need to believe the Epoch Times or the NY TIMES.
All one has to believe are people such as Yates, Page, McCabe, Lynch and Clapper who all testified under oath that during the sping, summer and fall of 2016 they saw no evidence of any conspiracy between Trump and Russia.

 

[Athanasius68]

Which was well within the DNC's rights. If you look, historically companies, political parities, ANYBODY avoids calling in the FBI where their computer data is concerned. When Trumpets get out of diapers they MIGHT be able to discuss these topics.

The allegation was that the Trump and his campaign had conspired to hack the DNC in 2016.

The DNC declined the FBI the right to examine the evidence of the allegation. Yet we have had CRIMINAL investigations launched against political opponents of the then government for this allegation without the government ever ascertaining whether there was a hack.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

One doesn't need to believe the Epoch Times or the NY TIMES.
All one has to believe are people such as Yates, Page, McCabe, Lynch and Clapper who all testified under oath that during the sping, summer and fall of 2016 they saw no evidence of any conspiracy between Trump and Russia.

Uh-huh. :roll:

Verbatim from Mueller’s report; “while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges.”
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

Note - The report did not conclude that there was no evidence of conspiracy, only insufficient evidence. Had there been no evidence, it would say so in the report.

Mueller on the subject of possible conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 presidential race, 7/24/19;
“We focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.”
Mueller refutes Trump’s ‘no collusion, no obstruction’ line – POLITICO

I know the facts are really upsetting to Trumpsters, but truth (and anti-Trump folks, including me) don’t give a damn about your feelings.

 

[marke]

I fail to see the point of the entire thread as you start with a premise that is irrelevant and ignorant of how assessments are generated and limitations of digital forensics if there are no sensors on the computers in question at the point of the hack. THIS IS AN ENTIRELY MEANINGLESS THREAD.

Baloney. You accuse me of not knowing how Brennan composed his Russian interference report of Jan 2017. That is not true. I will offer you this challenge:

1. How many different agency heads were involved in compiling the Russian report of Jan 2017? (A clue: It was nowhere near the number 17 the democrats kept saying were involved in the investigation.)
2. How many employees of government agencies were involved in the report, and were they politically biased against Trump like so many others who started the illegal Obamagate spy operation targeting Trump?
3. How many government agencies were not represented by anyone on Brennan's commission? What agencies were those and why were they not involved.

I will jump ahead a little to let you know I am aware that the one agency which should have been involved if no other agency had been was not asked to participate. There is something very wrong if that report is true.

 

[Athanasius68]

Uh-huh. :roll:

Verbatim from Mueller’s report; “while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges.”
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

Note - The report did not conclude that there was no evidence of conspiracy, only insufficient evidence. Had there been no evidence, it would say so in the report.

Mueller on the subject of possible conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 presidential race, 7/24/19;
“We focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.”
Mueller refutes Trump’s ‘no collusion, no obstruction’ line – POLITICO

I know the facts are really upsetting to Trumpsters, but truth (and anti-Trump folks, including me) don’t give a damn about your feelings.

Yep-- Mueller said Russia approached the Trump campaign and that sometimes the campaign responded.
The Senate report said that Russia targeted the campaign and took advantage of its inexperience.
The aforementioned Obama govt officials said they saw no evidence of a conspiracy.
None of this is counter-indicative.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Yep-- Mueller said Russia approached the Trump campaign and that sometimes the campaign responded.
The Senate report said that Russia targeted the campaign and took advantage of its inexperience.
The aforementioned Obama govt officials said they saw no evidence of a conspiracy.
None of this is counter-indicative.

If all of what you say was actually true, maybe. But it isn’t.

 

[Athanasius68]

If all of what you say was actually true, maybe. But it isn’t.

It's all completely true.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

It's all completely true.

I’ve proven my point with facts backed up by links to Mueller’s report and his verbatim testimony in front of Congress.

You have attempted to mislead, providing no supporting evidence and using your own biased language to obfuscate the truth.

 

[Athanasius68]

I’ve proven my point with facts backed up by links to Mueller’s report and his verbatim testimony in front of Congress.

You have attempted to mislead, providing no supporting evidence and using your own biased language to obfuscate the truth.

I have not disputed what Mueller said. After all, he concluded there was not sufficient evidence to prove a conspiracy. I have merely cited the recent Senate report and the House report which also indicates no evidence of a conspiracy to suggest the reasonable conclusion is that there was no conspiracy.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I have not disputed what Mueller said. After all, he concluded there was not sufficient evidence to prove a conspiracy. I have merely cited the recent Senate report and the House report which also indicates no evidence of a conspiracy to suggest the reasonable conclusion is that there was no conspiracy.

No, you’ve posted your interpretation of the report and various individuals testimonies. That is not the same as posting what the report or individuals actually said.

 

[Athanasius68]

No, you’ve posted your interpretation of the report and various individuals testimonies. That is not the same as posting what the report or individuals actually said.

When you review the testimony of Yates, Lynch, Clapper and McCabe, you will find they were all asked if they knew of any evidence that Trump and his campaign had conspired with Russia.
And they all said "No."

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw0N4s50FhEAZBJC23N8Bv_q

 

[RaleBulgarian]

When you review the testimony of Yates, Lynch, Clapper and McCabe, you will find they were all asked if they knew of any evidence that Trump and his campaign had conspired with Russia.
And they all said "No."

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw0N4s50FhEAZBJC23N8Bv_q

You also said

The Senate report said that Russia targeted the campaign and took advantage of its inexperience

, which attempts to make Trump’s campaign’s acceptance of Russian support seem like they were victims. An utterly absurd and intellectually insulting suggestion.

And as for your assertion that a number of named former officials all claimed that they were not aware of any conspiracy between Trump/members of his campaign and Russian government operatives, I randomly picked Yates’ testimony from the document you provided a link to and guess what wasn’t in her testimony? She didn’t make any such statement.

Maybe Yates was aware of some sort of conspiracy between Trump/his campaign and Russian government operatives, maybe she wasn’t. Your link doesn’t prove it one way or the other.

 

[Athanasius68]

You also said , which attempts to make Trump’s campaign’s acceptance of Russian support seem like they were victims. An utterly absurd and intellectually insulting suggestion.

And as for your assertion that a number of named former officials all claimed that they were not aware of any conspiracy between Trump/members of his campaign and Russian government operatives, I randomly picked Yates’ testimony from the document you provided a link to and guess what wasn’t in her testimony? She didn’t make any such statement.

Maybe Yates was aware of some sort of conspiracy between Trump/his campaign and Russian government operatives, maybe she wasn’t. Your link doesn’t prove it one way or the other.

Page 23 through page 26--- specifically page 25 and 26 of Yates testimony she is asked and answers the question.

You are free to reject the Senate conclusion that Russia targeted an inexperienced Trump campaign.
The bottom line though remains-- neither the Senate nor the House nor Mueller concluded that the Trump campaign had conspired with Russia. In light of this fact, the implication that Mueller failed because of obstruction cannot be taken seriously.