I'm reporting what the various intelligence agencies and investigations have officially confirmed (that Russia hacked the DNC a — Michael

Without any presentation of evidence.

with a representative of the Russian government to get dirt on Clinton). — Michael

There is plenty of dirt to be found. Once it is all gathered, or that obstruction to it is conquered, then it will become apparent.

there were many many chances along the way from late 2016 to just tell the truth. Does it not bother you that the President, his son, and his staff, continually and badly lied about this meeting? — Rank Amateur

I think mistakes were made along the way. The mistakes maybe just that some of these guys did not realize they would have been safe from the outset to lay it all out.

On the other hand, it may not have been safe from a political optics, prior to election, point of view, as, at that time, the actual victims of a set up meeting would not have had all the information to show the extent of the set up.

There was always the option of not taking the meeting with Russian nationals to see what dirt they have on your opponent, and then report them to the FBI to investigate. As a method of avoiding bad optics prior to election.

IMO there is a difference between a married man lying about an affair, and the President of the US lying about members of his staff meeting with a foreign national. I can understand the motivation for the former, and the relatively little it has to do with governing the nation, not the same thing on the latter.

At some point, I hope, we as a nation get back to the point where character matters. I have a deep concern that this continual willingness to accept the lack of character in the POTUS, is sending a very poor message to the young people of this country.

Well, Trump is under constant attack which seems designed to trip him up on practically anything in order to obstruct his program,

Consequently he cannot really focus on all of it AND do the job he is supposed to be doing.

And now it’s campaign mode again,

I think in his 2nd term things will have reached beyond all these attempts to relitigate the 2016 election.

Maybe actual court cases will have been begun or processed by then, rather than these media wars.

thanks your answers. Very interested in how the loyal Trump supporters view things like this. Is there a line somewhere, is there some action, some lie, some breach of character that you think would change the view of him in supporters like yourself.

Without any presentation of evidence. — raza

Do you mean Michael did not present any evidence in his post, or that the intelligence agencies didn't present any evidence to support their claims that it was Russia who hacked and then leaked the DNC's e-mails?

Because the claim that intelligence agencies didn't put forth any evidence to back up their assertion would be a flat-out false claim.

From the Feds themselves: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

That document is not about evidence of the Trump election campaign colluding with the Russian government.

For fairness every accuser should have to face a situation of making their accusations under oath, if what we are looking at here are suggestions that Trump or his personal have done things wrong which subject them to legal scrutiny.

That document is not about evidence of the Trump election campaign colluding with the Russian government. — raza

Tin-foiled shill, you need to read accurately. You were discussing whether the Russians hacked the DNC emails. They did and Audax replied to your claim there was no evidence for this.

Ok.

The FBI were denied access to the DNC server.

Here, from that document, is all that is said with regard to an analysis that the server was hacked rather than extracted by means of a device then leaked to Wikileaks.

“We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks. Moscow most likely chose WikiLeaks because of its self- proclaimed reputation for authenticity. Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries.”

So much for “evidence”.

They are “confident” about a theory they are left with. They show nothing else other than a theory.

A theory is not factual evidence whether confident about or otherwise.

In fact it is quite pathetic that this tiny paragraph is supposed to be convincing. What it really shows is a complete lack of confidence because no detail is supplied.

Why no detail?

Because they have no detail. No server + no detail = no confidence. So we’ll just say we are confident.

That’s all the dumb public will need.

“Moscow most likely chose WikiLeaks because of its self- proclaimed reputation for authenticity”

Look at this line, “most likely”.

So we’ll just say we are confident.

That’s all the dumb public will need. — raza

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that intelligence agencies might be inclined to keep their sources private.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that intelligence agencies might be inclined to keep their sources private — ProbablyTrue

Like how intelligence agents leak to the press?

The only “source” is the supposedly “hacked” server. The server the FBI were denied access to.

So what could be alternative sources to keep private?

Guccifer 2.0?

If they knew who that is he would be locked up.

Anyway, they know who guc 2 is. It’s themselves trying to set up others to steer eyes away from the Clinton cabal network of thieves and murderers.

The FBI were denied access to the DNC server. — raza

We went over this before Mr Shill. They had an image of the server. You do know how that works right? Here's a link in case you don't. disk imaging software

Second, it's common practice not to provide access to the systems themselves because doing so would alter the records of the system. You want the image, not the access.

Third, the Dutch, UK and German intelligence agencies warned the US about the hacks. That's why they know they hacked the DNC systems already back in 2015 because the Dutch had hacked the Russian hackers and could see what they were doing in real-time. Since US-based tin-foil conspirators are so obsessed with the US only, there's not yet a story out there you can link to how all those Western agencies conspired against Trump. Go and write something about that and make some friends in the right-wing corners of the internet instead of bothering us with your Trump obsession, faulty reasoning, hypocrisy and inability to accept facts that contradict your worldview.

Why no server? Why image and not the server itself?

You are the intended audience of this nonsense.

Why no server? Why image and not the server itself?

You are the intended audience of this nonsense. — raza

I just told you. Are you unable to read comprehensively? Do you suffer from dyslexia? Have a serious case of cognitive dissonance that doesn't allow you to process facts contrary to your pre-conceived ideas of reality?

Access to the server changes the records if you go scrummaging around in it. It's like having people trample all over a crime scene. An image is better as it becomes "static" data, like having a professional forensic scientist take photographs and collect evidence at a crime scene.

So let us combine these two.

“Third, the Dutch, UK and German intelligence agencies warned the US about the hacks. That's why they know they hacked the DNC systems already back in 2015 because the Dutch had hacked the Russian hackers and could see what they were doing in real-time“


“We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks. Moscow most likely chose WikiLeaks because of its self- proclaimed reputation for authenticity. Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries“

With all the supposed resources outlined at the top, the pathetic assessment follows.

Access to the server changes the records if you go scrummaging around in it. It's like having people trample all over a crime scene. An image is better as it becomes "static" data, like having a professional forensic scientist take photographs and collect evidence at a crime scene — Benkei

Now that is stupid. Access to the server does not automatically equate with “scrummaging around in it”.

It means the FBI use the tools necessary rather than analyse the analysis of private company Crowdstrike.

It is indisputable that this is the only “evidence YOU have seen:

“We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks. Moscow most likely chose WikiLeaks because of its self- proclaimed reputation for authenticity. Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries“

Didn't I already post this?

Trump’s ‘Missing DNC Server’ Is Neither Missing Nor a Server

It is indisputable that this is the only “evidence YOU have seen: — raza

And the "evidence" that you have seen of a DNC conspiracy against Trump's campaign? Lynch met with Bill on an airport runway and both the DNC and a Russian lawyer hired the services of the same intelligence firm. It's nonsense.

And there's actually more than just that paragraph you quoted. There's Mueller's 29 page indictment. There's the SSCI assessment. There's the FBI and DHS Joint Analysis Report.

But, yes, it's far more believable that every single person on the planet other than Trump is part of a Deep State DNC-led conspiracy with secret control over domestic and foreign intelligence agencies and Congressional investigations but who somehow couldn't ensure that a woman who won the popular vote also won the Presidency. Is this underground Illuminati simultaneously some masterful shadow government and also incredibly incompetent?

I wonder if you also believe this QAnon rubbish too? I just read about it yesterday. What is wrong with people?

A presumption is a presumption. To call a presumption a false presumption is like calling a question a false question or a doubt a false doubt. — raza

False presumption. A presumption that is false. You presumed something, ignorant of whether it's true or false. It's false, as Michael's reply indicates. I'm pretty sure that that's all he meant, making your above response quite amusing.

A presumption is a presumption. To call a presumption a false presumption is like calling a question a false question or a doubt a false doubt. — raza

Really? Is this the level you're stooping to? Fine. False presumption:

Well, Trump is under constant attack which seems designed to trip him up on practically anything in order to obstruct his program. — raza

But Trump is like a fat, clumsy oaf who boasts about his tremendous stability. If he were to fall flat on his face, he would've had it coming to him, and it would be hard not to relish.

Now that is stupid. Access to the server does not automatically equate with “scrummaging around in it”. — raza

No, what's stupid is that you comment on IT issues without having any knowledge how it works. Access to the server with the purpose to investigate means scrummaging around in it, otherwise you don't need access. You wouldn't ask access for the sake of access but to use that access for another purpose. It's like asking permission to enter the building and then not ever entering it. Silly.

Again, you cannot access files without changing their records. Hence, forensic research of computer systems is done on the basis of an image, which the FBI received.

It is indisputable that this is the only “evidence YOU have seen:

“We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks. Moscow most likely chose WikiLeaks because of its self- proclaimed reputation for authenticity. Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries“ — raza

What is indisputable is that the Russians meddled in the US election.

What is indisputable is that the Russians meddled in the US election. — Benkei

Now you are sliding from what you were arguing about. Now you’re back to Facebook ads.