NBC sources - Putin personally involved in hacking

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The Guardian also had it on its front page, lets look at the wording,

Russian President Vladimir Putin was personally involved in efforts to affect the 2016 election, [b]according to a report by NBC News. The CIA announced earlier this month that Russia hacked into Democratic officials' emails and leaked information to the public to boost Don ...[text shortened]... c There is not a shred of credible news in the story, its nothing but an empty propaganda piece.[/b]

No, but I think it's a setup. Notice that Trump has gone uncharacteristically silent. I think Obama's people are trying to bait him into vehement denials. And then they will declassify what generated the assumptions. Probably in January.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra

In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and that nothing was true. ... Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly ...[text shortened]... rior tactical cleverness.

Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951)

Arendt would be horrified with Trump.

Originally posted by no1marauder
To be clear, the position of you and the other right wingers is:

A) That there was no hacking of US political parties and other political entities during the 2016 US election campaign by Russian intelligence agencies; or

B) There was such hacking but Vladimir Putin didn't know anything about it?

I don't think you understand my position at all. Infact its clear that you do not. I am not a right winger, I am an empiricist. My position is as follows.

A) There has been no evidence proffered of hacking of US political parties and other political entities during the 2016 US election campaign by Russian intelligence agencies.

B) If there was such hacking there has been no evidence proffered that Vladimir Putin knew or did not know about it.

Instead of accurate data, sources and facts we are treated to pathetic news articles like the above which insults our intelligence and attempts to persuade us with transparent conjecture and flimsy beliefs from anonymous clandestine sources that is difficult if not impossible to corroborate. If you can provide empirical evidence then please do so now.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
No, but I think it's a setup. Notice that Trump has gone uncharacteristically silent. I think Obama's people are trying to bait him into vehement denials. And then they will declassify what generated the assumptions. Probably in January.

Let us know when it happens.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Let us know when it happens.

I'm pretty sure it will be headlines.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I don't think you understand my position at all. Infact its clear that you do not. I am not a right winger, I am an empiricist. My position is as follows.

A) There has been no evidence proffered of hacking of US political parties and other political entities during the 2016 US election campaign by Russian intelligence agencies.

B) If there ...[text shortened]... if not impossible to corroborate. If you can provide empirical evidence then please do so now.

1) Is simply wrong as my post later in the page shows;

2) Is exceedingly and preposterously unlikely if 1 is true.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

that's probably why Pres. Obama ordered the report be finished in early Jan.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The first question has been answered has had the second.

The relevant question is who did the hacking and for what purpose. Another relevant question is why our supposed next President automatically dismisses any possibility of what appears to be most likely explanations while disparaging the US intelligence community (who's briefings he doesn't bother to regularly read because "He's a smart person" ). .

If you believe question one has been answered you do sowithout evidence.

The second has been answered and the information was true.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Actually, we do have evidence those what has been made public isn't conclusive, just merely strong:

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 ...[text shortened]... until you produce a link I'll assume it's some fake news you picked up from your usual sources.

For your fantasy about a dead IT guy, I find nothing on the web, so until you produce a link I'll assume it's some fake news you picked up from your usual sources.

Some IT guy connected with the DNC was found shot in the back. It was called a robbery even though nothing was missing, and it happened right after it was learned the DNC had been hacked. I said I doubt it was an inside job, so which part of this are you calling a "fantasy"? Are you suggesting it was an inside job?

Originally posted by Eladar
If you believe question one has been answered you do sowithout evidence.

The second has been answered and the information was true.

The first question you said was "Where did the information come from?" That question was answered: from the DNC and other officials.

Originally posted by no1marauder
1) Is simply wrong as my post later in the page shows;

2) Is exceedingly and preposterously unlikely if 1 is true.

You have no evidence? neither do I and neither do the Media.

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]For your fantasy about a dead IT guy, I find nothing on the web, so until you produce a link I'll assume it's some fake news you picked up from your usual sources.

Some IT guy connected with the DNC was found shot in the back. It was called a robbery even though nothing was missing, and it happened right after it was learned the DNC had been hac ...[text shortened]... which part of this are you calling a "fantasy"? Are you suggesting it was an inside job?[/b]

And you got this "information" .............................................. where?

Post the link.

EDIT: Are you referring to Seth Rich? He was killed in a high crime area of Washington about 3 am and there were bruises and other indications that there was a struggle making a botched robbery (there were several other armed robberies that same night less than a mile away) the most likely explanation. Moreover, he was a very low level staffer who's computer work was aimed at increasing voter turnout.http://heavy.com/news/2016/07/seth-rich-dnc-voter-election-fraud-democratic-national-committee-wikileaks-murdered-shot-conspiracy-washington-clinton-data-analyst-emails/

Originally posted by no1marauder
And you got this "information" .............................................. where?

Post the link.

LoL

I didn't get it from a link.
It was on a news report, then a friend came over and we talked about it. He seems to think it was an inside job.
I'll call him today so he can tell me where he saw the story... he often helps me with google searches when I have trouble finding something.

You crack me up. You don't like Hillary so you vote for Stein, who undoubtedly siphoned votes away from Hillary . You don't like Trump either, but from the progressive pov you think Trump is slightly better. You consistently defend Hillary and attack Trump, even though you don't like either one. Then suddenly the electoral college is questionable because Trump won the election...

I learned in high school that electoral college votes determine elections. Is this something you didn't know until a few weeks ago?

Edit: I don't know his name, the guy who got whacked. It could be the guy in your edit, but I don't know. By the way, what part of "I doubt it" did you not understand?

Originally posted by no1marauder
The first question you said was "Where did the information come from?" That question was answered: from the DNC and other officials.

Was it from the Russians?