Russian Hack Conspiracy Theory Unraveling

[Okeefenokee]

McAfee calls this the biggest propaganda perpetrated on the American people.




This fake news story is collapsing fast.

This is fucking amateur hour.

[Alexander PhiAlipson]

“If you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday to get back at you.”
Chucky Cheese Schumer accidentally tells the truth.
Swampy!

[Fife]

“If you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday to get back at you.”
Chucky Cheese Schumer accidentally tells the truth.
Swampy!

Really dumb!

Very upset!

[ssu]

You should all clearly believe what the Russian intelligence services tell you, instead. After all, anyone who doesn't or didn't support Hillary, is an ally....

But they do, because they hate Rachel Maddow.

It's the CIA shills! All those Trump hating sore loser democrats. Poor Russia! Totally innocent here.

[Fife]

Rachel Maddow

Who's that?

[Martin Hash]

You should all clearly believe what the Russian intelligence services tell you, instead. After all, anyone who doesn't or didn't support Hillary, is an ally....

But they do, because they hate Rachel Maddow.

It's the CIA shills! All those Trump hating sore loser democrats. Poor Russia! Totally innocent here.

Both of you guys, since it is basically a choice between Julian Assange's denial of it being Russians vs. the U.S. Intelligence community, you need to discredit Assange's story. (The U.S. Intelligence community version has already been thoroughly examined.) Possibilities?
1. Assange in lying.
2. Assange has been tricked (greatest World hacker ever, and BTW McAfee was tricked too).
3. Your explanation...?

[Okeefenokee]

“If you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday to get back at you.”
Chucky Cheese Schumer accidentally tells the truth.
Swampy!

Revoke their charter on day one. Bye bye CIA, NSA.

[BjornP]

Ok Bjorn. The report the intelligence community released said nothing about how they came to the conclusion that Russia is at fault. They started with the premise that Russia was behind it, and drew conclusions from there. They plagiarized an article from 2012 about RT and threw it into the report as chaff, to paint Russia in the worst light possible. They have proven nothing.

If they would show what they did and how they came to the conclusions they are asserting, I would believe them. But they have not. They have only been saying "It was Russia! It was Russia! Here's why they would do it!"

I am not saying that Russia didn't do it. But if I recall correctly, you are innocent until proven guilty. Assertions are not proof enough for a conviction, Bjorn.

They're not obligated to give you any evidence. The public has absolutely no "right" to be told anything when it comes to national intelligence, be it military intelligence or diplomatic secrets. "Painting Russia in the worst light possible"? Uh-huh. It is "painting Russia in the worst light possible" that they're doing what they've been doing for over a decade, only this time they had some, moderate success at it? Russia is the victim of white privilege or something? You subscribing to the old, the US can only do wrong-line of thinking? I get that your pro-Hillary media are unintelligent fuckwads, and turn into hysterical panic monkeys when they're sore losers... and even that they're blowing this thing way out of proportion (it's not the start of WW3 to have a foreign country that wants gain to power at your expense hack data) but pretending that Russia hasn't engaged in trying to undermine the US internationally and domestically for well over a decade, most efficiently following the launch of RT, is ridiculous. Yet, for most of Bush and Obama's presidency, it was mostly far left (in Europe) and far right (in the US) conspiracy nutters who relied on RT as a - what they considered - a reliable source of news.

As for "proven guilty"? Dude... this isn't law. It's international politics. And asking for proof from Russia.... dude. Remember Crimea? They invaded and annexed parts of a neighbouring country, yet even when their soldiers live tweeted messages from the front, their leaders simply kept claiming that it was only "little green men" operating in Crimea. It's a brilliant tactic, tbh. It's not even lying. It's just making the truth irrelevant.

[Smitty-48]

If the IC asserts itself as a political proxy for the Democrat party and associated Cucks, then yes, at that point, they are bound to provide all the evidence, if its so secret that sources and methods are in peril, then you don't say anything at all, as soon as the IC started shilling for MSNBC and CNN, they put their sources and methods into the mix, can't have it both ways, either you're political shills, or you're quiet professionals, if they wanted to be quiet professionals who guard their sources and methods, should have kept their mouths shut, instead of come out shrieking on behalf of the Losercrats and Cucks, as part of their spurrious campiagn to delegitimize the duly and democratically elected Commander-in-Chief to be.

The source and method has already been outed in any case, by Eddie Snowden, they're using XKEYSCORE, we know all about it now, and so do the Russians.

[ssu]

Both of you guys, since it is basically a choice between Julian Assange's denial of it being Russians vs. the U.S. Intelligence community, you need to discredit Assange's story. (The U.S. Intelligence community version has already been thoroughly examined.)
1. Assange in lying.
2. Assange has been tricked (greatest World hacker ever, and BTW McAfee was tricked too).
3. Your explanation...?

Why would Assange say it's not the Russians? Hmmm.... might be it that it would hurt his credibilitY? No?

As even now Assange is pretty close to Russia:

First, Assange had an own show in Russia Today, the Kremlin lead propaganda channel.

In January 2011, the Kremlin issued Mr. Assange a visa, and one Russian official suggested that he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. Then, in April 2012, with WikiLeaks’ funding drying up — under American pressure, Visa and MasterCard had stopped accepting donations — Russia Today began broadcasting a show called “The World Tomorrow” with Mr. Assange as the host. How much he or WikiLeaks was paid for the 12 episodes remains unclear. In a written statement, Sunshine Press, which works as his spokesman, said Russia Today “was among a dozen broadcasters that purchased a broadcasting license for his show.” Assange was unable to continue his show once he had to seek refuge at Ecuador's embassy, but ever since, WikiLeaks's work hasn't just targeted the U.S. but they also avoid releasing anything that is damaging to Putin.

See here

And Assange has stated that he advised Snowden to seek refuge in Russia. (See here)

And quite ironically, Assange was critical about the "Panama Papers" coming to light (see here), which showed Putin's investments of 2 billion. A bit odd from somebody that wants to expose corruption. But while living in an embassy and trying to keep your organization afloat, somebody has to pay the bills. Money talks and bullshit walks. Just follow the money, Martin. When the lone Superpower is hunting you, you don't have many friends. And with those you have to be in good terms. No free lunches, you know.

And if you really think it was somebody else, the 14-year old or the 400 pound guy on a bed, look at the whole picture here. What Russian officials said. What Russian diplomats said. How RT and Sputnik covered the elections. How Russian trolls were used. The goddam whole information campaign, not just the hacking part of it.

the influence campaign aspired to help President-elect Trump’s chances of victory when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to the President-elect. When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton was likely to win the presidency the Russian influence campaign focused more on undercutting Secretary Clinton’s legitimacy and crippling her presidency from its start, including by impugning the fairness of the election.

Before the election, Russian diplomats had publicly denounced the US electoral process and were prepared to publicly call into question the validity of the results. ProKremlin bloggers had prepared a Twitter campaign, #DemocracyRIP, on election night in anticipation of Secretary Clinton’s victory, judging from their social media activity.

Russian Campaign Was Multifaceted

Moscow’s use of disclosures during the US election was unprecedented, but its influence campaign otherwise followed a longstanding Russian messaging strategy that blends covert intelligence operations—such as cyber activity—with overt efforts by Russian Government agencies, statefunded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users or “trolls.” We assess that influence campaigns are approved at the highest levels of the Russian Government—particularly those that would be politically sensitive. Moscow’s campaign aimed at the US election reflected years of investment in its capabilities, which Moscow has honed in the former Soviet states.

Russia’s state-run propaganda machine—comprised of its domestic media apparatus, outlets targeting global audiences such as RT and Sputnik, and a network of quasi-government trolls—contributed to the influence campaign by serving as a platform for Kremlin messaging to Russian and international audiences. State-owned Russian media made increasingly favorable comments about Presidentelect Trump as the 2016 US general and primary election campaigns progressed while consistently offering negative coverage of Secretary Clinton. Starting in March 2016, Russian Government– linked actors began openly supporting President-elect Trump’s candidacy in media aimed at English-speaking audiences. RT and Sputnik—another government-funded outlet producing pro-Kremlin radio and online content in a variety of languages for international audiences—consistently cast President-elect Trump as the target of unfair coverage from traditional US media outlets that they claimed were subservient to a corrupt political establishment.

From the ODNI report that I've given you guys many times, that you think... or simply know to be a totally fabricated piece by loser Democrats and the evil Intelligence Services portraying totally innocent Russia as a culprit.
