I
Remember when this very administration claimed the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous protest against some Internet video?
Yes. We. Do. I'm not a great fan of either party. I haven't seen a good president that would make my eyes pop out of my head yet--from either side. And you might as well throw Congress in to boot.
I hope that every thing I'm thinking about the Donald is wrong. Unless he changes his way, I honestly believe we're in trouble.
Don't come off like you are the only one studying this, can make my own decisions and that vague but ominous threat, you have to admit, means little. Wagging a finger today signifies what? Be specific. Anybody can say, well, you know, tomorrow bad things will be done.So you must think a sitting President is a monarch? Where does Congress fit in on all of this?
And if you thought that Obama not having a bipartisan lawmaking body to work with was bad, wait until you see what a GOP lawmaking body does to Trump. Don't believe me? Wait and see. :yes:
No, I don't.
I wasn't paying much attention to the Benghazi nonsense, as it didn't seem like there was anything close to an interesting story there.
Oh of course not. Doesn't surprise me in the least.
It shouldn't surprise you unless you are a complete idiot... so, congratulations, I guess.
As you've no doubt already figured out I'm not a RWNJ... and it just wasn't a major story to anyone else.
I quite agree. You are no RWNJ. You clearly are a LWNJ.
Sure.
So why did you bring up Benghazi with me, as if it would be meaningful in a discussion of Russian Hacking?
What point were you trying to make?
A group of retired senior intelligence officials, including the NSA whistleblower William Binney (former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA), have posted an open letter on consortiumnews.com that destroys the Obama administration's "Russian hacking" narrative. Within the letter, Binney argues that, thanks to the NSA's "extensive domestic data-collection network," any data removed remotely from Hillary Clinton or DNC servers would have passed over fiber networks and therefore would have been captured by the NSA who could have then analyzed packet data to determine the origination point and destination address of those packets. As Binney further notes, the only way the leaks could have avoided NSA detection is if they were never passed over fiber networks but rather downloaded to a thumb drive by someone with internal access to servers.
We have gone through the various claims about hacking. For us, it is child’s play to dismiss them. The email disclosures in question are the result of a leak, not a hack. Here’s the difference between leaking and hacking:
Leak: When someone physically takes data out of an organization and gives it to some other person or organization, as Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning did.
Hack: When someone in a remote location electronically penetrates operating systems, firewalls or any other cyber-protection system and then extracts data.
All signs point to leaking, not hacking. If hacking were involved, the National Security Agency would know it – and know both sender and recipient.
In short, since leaking requires physically removing data – on a thumb drive, for example – the only way such data can be copied and removed, with no electronic trace of what has left the server, is via a physical storage device.
Again, NSA is able to identify both the sender and recipient when hacking is involved. Thanks largely to the material released by Edward Snowden, we can provide a full picture of NSA’s extensive domestic data-collection network including Upstream programs like Fairview, Stormbrew and Blarney. These include at least 30 companies in the U.S. operating the fiber networks that carry the Public Switched Telephone Network as well as the World Wide Web. This gives NSA unparalleled access to data flowing within the U.S. and data going out to the rest of the world, as well as data transiting the U.S.
NSA Whistleblower Destroys Obama's Russia Narrative - "Hard Evidence Points To An Inside Leak, Not Hacking" | Zero Hedge
The point being is that this administration isn't beyond fabricating a fantasy, should it serve their political interests.
Of all those intelligence agencies, not one has rendered any evidence to backup the accusation that the Russian hacked anything. They've not even briefed the congressional intelligence oversight committee to whom they are obligated to report to. Every one of them, if I'm not mistaken, as a political appointee at the top person there.
The Russian have clearly told Obama, 'Put up or shut up', and still, no additional evidence.
In addition, there have been additional reports from ex-intelligence operatives that assert that had Russia hacked either the DNC, or spear fished Podesta's email password, that they've done so without leaving a trace (given all the fauxrage over Russian hacking the DNC or Podesta's email, you can see why).
Add to that, that WikiLeaks, Julian and the UK's ex-ambassador have all asserted, since October, since before this distracting narrative has been started, that all the materials they've posted weren't provided by the Russians but a disgruntled and disillusioned Democratic operative, I think there's more than enough reasonable doubt here to not come to a conclusion without additional evidence.
Given that WikiLeaks hasn't had to retract a single claim they've made, nor a single post of all the leaks they've posted, that's a far more reliable track record than what this administration has established.
I note that none of the Democrats in question call into question the authenticity of any of the leaked documents in question.
Boo hoo.
Their documents (DNC's Clinton campaign emails) were leaked, and it's shown them to be the corrupt, bigoted, lying, two-faced, manipulative and colluding that we should have always known them to be.
This 'The Russian hacked the election' meme (inaccurate at best, and flat out lie at worst) appears to be little more than misdirecting the media (although I'm sure they are complicit in this), as well as the weak minded, from the contents of the WikiLeaks postings, the hope apparently being as to minimize their corruption, bigotry, lying, two-faced, manipulation and colluding that those very posting documents and demonstrates for all to see.
You are free, of course, to run around with your hair on fire, shouting the sky is falling all you want. Obama, on the other hand, shouldn't be inciting a potential cyber war with Russia (who have yet to be proven the hackers of anything in this) for the sole reason as a misdirection of the masses.
Lots of unsubstantiated claims, hearsay, and conspiracy theory nonsense obviously gleaned from fake news sites. And a whole heaping slag pile of partisanship.
You trust a collection of foreign agents more than the combined leadership of the intelligence community of the nation you live in.
Your constructed reality seems nightmarish. And you refer to me "shouting the sky is falling"?:lol:
No, I want to have a greater amount of proof or substantiation from the present administration. They've lied far too often to be given the benefit of doubt, and all this 'Russian hacking' hysteria certainly counts for a diversion away from something else, perhaps the contents of the WikiLeaks documents?
When it gets right down to it, there was no hacking of election, no votes or vote counts were altered.
That's a nice story. Let me know when they finish it up with names of the people who did all of that will ya?
Facts? Truth? From that story? Try taking the same format in to a court room and watch the judge dismiss it. :roll:
CIA said they did it. Until you prove them wrong your opinion is duly noted, sir.
You may want the intelligence community to do a wholesale public dump of the evidence. But that's simply naive and it's not going to happen. It's not the way the federal government works.
Your presumption that the accusations of Russian interference in our elections was diversionary makes no sense. Otherwise we would have heard more information about it before the election, and we wouldn't be hearing about it this much now.
You're welcome to your tinfoil hat, but I'm not buying the Infowars crap that you are pushing.
No, I'm not expecting a public dump, but I'd at least expect the appropriate testimony before the appropriate congressional oversight / intelligence committee(s), and even that didn't happen.
Calling what I've presented as InfoWars is a miss-characterization of what was presented. Julian Assange of WikiLeaks has stated for months now that the materials he leaked didn't come from the Russians.
Assange and WikiLeaks have a 10 year history and good track record, yet you ignore this because it doesn't fit your 'Russians hacked the election' narrative.
You further ignore the article from ZeroHedge which has experts in the cyberwar field clearly defining what's what, i.e. leaking information isn't a hack, and you also ignore these facts as well, because it doesn't fit your 'Russians hacked the election' narrative.
Who's wearing a tinfoil hat? Doesn't seem like it's me.
Assange has revealed himself to be just another partisan hack*. I don't believe anything that comes out of his mouth.
* Pun obviously intended.
Oh? How's that? What's Assange done that shows him to be a partisan hack?
I'm going to assume that you aren't being ironic and answer what I consider to be a very ignorant question:
He chose to hack the e-mails of one American political party, and timed his release of the information in order to do maximum damage to one candidate's electoral chances. It's a textbook case of partisanship, and should have been obvious to any rational adult.
I'm going to assume that you aren't being ironic and answer what I consider to be a very ignorant question:
He chose to hack the e-mails of one American political party, and timed his release of the information in order to do maximum damage to one candidate's electoral chances. It's a textbook case of partisanship, and should have been obvious to any rational adult.
I don't believe Wikileaks hacks anything.
They publish what they are given.
How does that make it partisan?
You are probably right about wikileaks not hacking anything themselves.
I don't understand how you can't see the partisan nature of what Assange has done. He timed his release of the information in order to do maximum damage to one candidate's electoral chances. It's a textbook case of partisanship, and should have been obvious to any rational adult.
But we keep seeing people post here that the release really didn't have any damaging information in it, so what is the difference when it was released?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?