By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Lucas-Rio said:
Puppyroach said:

The discussion about Russia medling came long before Trump was elected so what are you even talking about? And have you actually read these "bombshell" texts that have come out? There is nothing controversial about them at all, unless the far-right and Fox News reads them because they obviously neither understand how people who know each other text, and also that the FBI regularly inform the president on ongoing matters. 

Why is Russia "meddling' in such a low scale such a big deal suddenly , outweighting all the meddling the US has done in the past decades?

Hacking a party sever, buying ads on facebook, leaking Podesta emails. That's what is claimed against Russians.

That's much much lower than US arming rebels, giving cash to oppositions, setting up whole organizations in other countryes, bullying sanctions, trying to kill head of states and so on.

It is not "low scale" when a government tries to get acces to voter rolls in 21 states but I don´t blame Russia, they are doing what the US, UK and a whole host of other countries has done for decades upon decades. I don´t think any country should do it and I find it despicable that it happens but that is the reality and not really relevant to this matter.

What is relevant is if US citizens aided Russia in any ways or if US citizens worked with Russia in order to benefit from their meddling. Then those people are undermining the democratic system of their own country and should be properly punished for it. And ofcourse the US should enact sanctions against Russia, just as Russia should enact sanctions against the US if they were to meddle in the Russian elections.

And btw, is your argument seriously that, because the US often times do much worse things than Russia, their meddlig in the US elections shouldn´t be a big deal?



Around the Network
NightDragon83 said:

The only reason Russia is even a topic at this point is because Trump won.

If everything had went according to plan for the powers-that-be and Hillary Clinton was the one in the White House, does anyone honestly thing we'd be hearing a peep about any of this stuff?

Especially all the text messages and communications that have now come to light between the FBI, Obama's DOJ and the Clinton campaign showing a clear orchestration in monitoring and trying to get any dirt they could on the Trump campaign at the time, including colluding with foreign sources and spy agents, the very thing that they accuse Trump of doing!


The only thing the Russians did in regards to the 2016 elections was they hacked members of the DNC and released a bunch of emails via Wikileaks that basically confirmed what everyone already knew - the DNC and their buddies in the media and government were in the tank for Hillary all along, and it blew up in their faces when Trump won.

I came here to post similar stuff, but you're absolutely 100% correct. Its crazy how that happens. Every day new stuff keeps coming out about this whole situation, who needs young and the restless or as the world turns for daily soap opera, we can just go on social media or MSM news nowadays lol



NND: 0047-7271-7918 | XBL: Nights illusion | PSN: GameNChick

The Young Turk is garbage that is funded by Republican investment firms (despite railing against Democrats for superPACS) lead by a genocide denier. I cannot take them seriously as a "legitimate" Democrat platform.



(Formerly RCTjunkie)

Only lefties who are desperate to be rid of Trump are going with the russia narrative.



Wow, Cenk Uygur is such a warmonger, wanting to keep troops built up on the Russian border.



Around the Network
TargaryenVers2 said:

The Young Turk is garbage that is funded by Republican investment firms (despite railing against Democrats for superPACS) lead by a genocide denier. I cannot take them seriously as a "legitimate" Democrat platform.

I see the conspiracy theorists have a gathering here today ;).



Lucas-Rio said:

Honestly, I can't believe it has been going on for so long as a major development in american media and politics.....

What were russia involvment ? A few targeted ads on facebook that were ridiculously low in numbers compared to the money spent by the two candidates, some bots on Twitter, the hack of the democratic commitee and some mail of Podesta, which faled too dig something important.

In comparison of that, the USA has decades of history of meddling with other country politics, by military actions, by sanctions, by financing coup d'etat and other coloured revolutions. Clinton herself tried to boost up Russian opposition, and medlde in Russian politics as the US did in Ukraine.

The US got a taste of their own medicine, and on a so little scale and so little level, that it is really ridiculous to see the reactions. You reap what you sow.

Shhhhhh! Please, you are making to much sense. There is no reason we should spoil the well-blossomed rusophobia that seems to be everywhere in the west now. Yes, its racist, xenophobic and often times idiotic, but hey, thas what the average Joe want



Vote the Mayor for Mayor!

Hiku said:

This?

"Beyond the statements of the public figures above, the only real evidence comes from the analyses of private cybersecurity firms that track and defend against hackers, often in concert with the FBI, NSA and other government agencies.

One, CrowdStrike, was called in by the Democratic National Committee to analyze the hack against their computer system last April. With the DNC’s permission, CrowdStrike then posted details of what it had found. Attribution of hackers, whether by intelligence services or private firms, is a particular discipline. Much of it relies on signature methods used by the hackers, specific pieces of code, and distinguishing behavior.

CrowdStrike’s co-founder, Dmitri Alperovitch, uncovered evidence that two groups of Russian hackers he had named Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, had been behind the DNC hack. Cozy Bear used a tool called SeaDaddy that allowed it to stealthily exfiltrate information from a victim’s computer. The tool was almost identical to another exfiltration tool previously identified by Symantec as belonging to the group of Russian hackers known to have operated at the behest of Russia’s FSB, a main successor agency to the KGB.

CrowdStrike also found the other group of hackers, Fancy Bear, was sending command and control instructions from a server with an Internet Protocol (IP) address of 176.31.112.10. This was the same IP address that was linked to command and control of an attack against the German parliament in 2015. The DNC attacker also used a special program to open a communication channel with the command and control server that was identical in form and function to the one used in the German hack. Microsoft had previously identified the communication program as belonging to Fancy Bear, which Microsoft had named “Strontium” at the time.

Crowdstrike’s analysis includes other evidence of Russian connections. One of the elements of a truly advanced hack is that it opens, and keeps open, a hidden communication channel with the hacked network, allowing it to continue to avoid detection and to find and steal information in other parts of a hacked computer network. In the DNC hack, the software that opened the hidden communication channel was a piece of software known to have been used by Fancy Bear.

Subsequent analyses by other private firms found other evidence that Russia was behind the hack. And as the attacks broadened over the course of the 2016 campaign to include the DCCC and the email of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chief, John Podesta, private firms found evidence linking the new hacks back to the DNC hack.

The private firms admit their open source evidence is not conclusive, but say in the world of cyber-attribution, this is close to as good as it gets. Those familiar with the classified evidence say there is even more convincing information that has not been released. President Obama has ordered a review of the influence operation, the results of which will be released before he steps down on Jan. 20, 2017."
http://time.com/4600177/election-hack-russia-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/

There have been analyses by multiple private firms finding evidence of Russia being behind the DNC hacks. I'm guessing they're all biased against Trump?
Crowdstrike in particular are at times employed by FBI and NSA for these type of investigations. Though they did admit that their findings aren't absolutely conclusive, but "as good as it's going to get".

With all the info we do have, not to mention the info a few days ago that Russia apparently penetrated a few voting machines: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/russians-penetrated-u-s-voter-systems-says-top-u-s-n845721
(No evidence of votes being altered though)

who else is more likely to have hacked the DNC?
Both Republicans and Democrats voted to impose sanctions on Russia. But Trump refuses to implement them.
And now he's attacking and discredeting his own justice department. Whether you think Russia was behind the hacking or not, they got what they wanted.

You forgot this particular passage: "The private firms admit their open source evidence is not conclusive, but say in the world of cyber-attribution, this is close to as good as it gets. Those familiar with the classified evidence say there is even more convincing information that has not been released."

It's hard to take these firms' words for it if they don't provide the evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt. This is like saying VGChartz is the only site to provide worldwide hardware and software numbers, so therefore we should trust its numbers. Want the skeptics to shut up? Stop playing the "he said, she said" game and just show the hard cold evidence once and for all.



VGPolyglot said:
Wow, Cenk Uygur is such a warmonger, wanting to keep troops built up on the Russian border.

I have concluded Obama took the right course of action.... [bombing regime change in Libya]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEH7CW9ZDAA



Hiku said:
Aura7541 said:

You forgot this particular passage: "The private firms admit their open source evidence is not conclusive, but say in the world of cyber-attribution, this is close to as good as it gets. Those familiar with the classified evidence say there is even more convincing information that has not been released."

It's hard to take these firms' words for it if they don't provide the evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt. This is like saying VGChartz is the only site to provide worldwide hardware and software numbers, so therefore we should trust its numbers. Want the skeptics to shut up? Stop playing the "he said, she said" game and just show the hard cold evidence once and for all.

By "forgot" you mean how I included it? And also referenced it myself afterwards?
Look at the bolded.

I was very thorough about not omitting that. And I don't want skeptics to shut up. I want them to be properly informed. The person I replied to said that only one (pro-Democrat, anti-Russia) third party investigated this. I don't even know if he can even back up the biased claim, but either way there were several private firms looking into this reaching the same conclusions.

How many is "several" and how do you know that them reaching the same conclusions is not ad populum?