> If geocentrism really has been discredited, then quote the research that discredits it! > (I'm gonna say that another 2,000 times until you get the point)
I've made my argument and I won't make yours for you. You will not because you cannot. You don't have facts to support it with and the cognitive dissonance of trying clearly hurts your brain so much that you can't even use it for long enough to make your points.
That said, have fun pondering this paradox of leftism, how can there even be sexism any more when you can simply identify as the other sex to fix the problem?:) It's not like you have to change anything about yourself to decide to have a different identity. Sexism solved! We'll just ask people to identify as women until all things are perfectly balanced, just as Thanos intended.
> It's not opinion and the facts are not hard to find for anyone who can be bothered to look for even 20 seconds on Google
A set that doesn't include you yourself, based on revealed preference. Why should we believe you when you won't even spend 20 seconds thinking through what you're saying and who demands that their critics write their arguments for them?
Frankly, I've come to assume that anyone posting like this is a bot or paid shill. You won't argue because you can't afford to get tied down in details, you have too many accounts to run and so you just need to make your views look popular and obvious as a form of social proof. So you set things up to privilege yourself against having to do anything in an argument and let the other sock puppets, along with the legitimately deluded, agree with you.
> It's ironic that you ask for evidence of sexism in an article about a guy who was fired because he (apparently) exhibited sexism publicly. If that isn't evidence I'm not quite sure you understand the meaning of the term.
The problem is that you call him sexist rather than explaining why he's wrong. This has created a reality distortion field wherein facts that are hurtful are labeled problematic and never dealt with intellectually, because the cognitive dissonance is too much for you to handle given that you constructed your beliefs out of whatever was convenient for you rather than any set of principles that can be articulates. Which is why you have to privilege yourself from arguing to avoid losing.
> So is pretending to be ignorant as an argument tactic to pretend sexism isn't really a serious problem in the physical sciences.
One tell for ignorance is being unable to articulate one's positions, despite wasting who knows how long typing up an evidence-free post. Claiming that you don't even have to make a claim is merely an assertion that you deserve to be privileged over everyone else. Nobody but those who already agree with you are willing to grant you that privilege, especially when your own laziness is given as the only justification for it.
There are plenty of people who are awful to people based on their sex. It cuts both ways. There's no reason to assign group blame for the actions of individuals based on the genitals someone was born with, which is what the reasonable people are objecting to. The usual tactic is to deflect that by finding some unreasonable and unlikable person to associate your opponents with, but two can play that game and it's a stupid one to play.
> Sometimes, the results of the "research" is pretty overwhelming, and quoting it at length over and over again for each layperson who stumbles by is not an effective use of time.
The argument that your'e too intellectually lazy to refute weak claims is something that discredits you. You do not, because you cannot, refute the points.
> For example, it's not been that long since women could actually attend a university and get a degree in physics.
Italy: allegedly the University of Bologna, the first university in the Western world, allows women to study, earn degrees and teach since its foundation in 1088.
Part of the reason they believe this is because some time after that, Bettisia Gozzadini is lecturing there after having earned a degree from the same institution.
Now, are you going to move the goalpost and say that you wanted to claim something other than what you actually said? Or maybe you could say that the better part of one thousand years isn't "that long" in your opinion?
> But going over this again and again for people who will respond with "NUH UH!!!" is just a waste of time.
You haven't "gone over" anything at all. You've just ranted and shown us how you are too privileged to give facts in support of your assertions. Frankly, it's more a waste of time for me to do this for you than the reverse, and yet I know that the privilege you want is BS.
We have a word for people who demand to be believed without evidence: charlatans.
> I've got no reason why the New York Times thinks Russia is involved in this. It makes no sense.
Actually it makes perfect sense if someone used some Russian proxies/VPNs/etc. to comment with in order to later "uncover" the fact that Russian's commented on an open web form that invited public comment for the purpose of giving them ideas and feedback about how to proceed. Remember: this freak out was going on while comments were still open, as well.
It's about like people talking about "identity theft" on the same comment boxes, as though there weren't thousands of John Smiths and whatnot, each of which were entitled to their own opinions. My own name has a surprising number of duplicates.
> The question to how appropriate it was for him to be fired comes down to intent,
Which is largely a mind-reading exercise in this case. They had credible reasons to fire him, someone deciding that they can divine a bad motive out of that is something else entirely.
I mean that in the sense that you want no relationship with them. I certainly don't want any sort of relationship with Zeus or Krishna.
Also, I don't know if you've noticed, but there are a non-trivial number of self-described atheists who are mad at a god they don't believe in. Visiting any major atheist forum will disabuse you of any notion that they don't exist. One of the largest cohorts thereof are ex-believers who left the church as teenagers after a falling out with their parents.
I won't argue that Comey was a dirtbag, but he did everything to wrap up the investigation for Hillary, he just had to investigate further (and clean up after) Weiner's laptop with classified emails was found. That's not the same as intentionally throwing it for Trump. They also softened the announcement quite a bit to remove negligence.
That said, he was found to be insubordinate and appropriately fired--which makes it odd for Trump to be investigated over firing him, but whatever.
I think you misunderstand the nature of hell. What an atheist wants is to be apart from God, that's what they get. They just realize what they gave up with no way to get it back. As they say, hell is other people.
This conception of Heaven as a theme park to which someone denies you tickets isn't quite right. It's more like a community you include or exclude yourself from.
A paragraph summarizing the factors that led the FBI to assess that it was possible that hostile actors accessed Clinton’s server was added, and at one point referenced Clinton’s use of her private email for an exchange with then President Obama while in the territory of a foreign adversary. This reference later was changed to “another senior government official,” and ultimately was omitted.
First, Kadzik did not recognize the appearance of a conflict that he himself had created when he initiated an effort to obtain employment for his son with the Clinton campaign while he was participating in senior staff meetings where Clinton-related matters were discussed and signing letters to Congress regarding Clinton-related matters on behalf of the Department. Second, Kadzik created an appearance of a conflict when he sent Podesta the “Heads up” email that included government information about the FOIA litigation in an effort to be helpful to the Clinton campaign without knowing whether the information had yet been made public. His willingness to do so raised a reasonable question about his ability to act impartially on Clinton-related matters in connection with his official duties. Additionally, although Department leadership ultimately decided to recuse Kadzik from Clinton-related matters upon learning of Kadzik’s “Heads up” email to Podesta, Kadzik subsequently forwarded several emails communicating information related to Clinton-related matters within the Department and indicated his intent to speak with staff about those matters. We therefore concluded that Kadzik exercised poor judgment by failing to strictly adhere to his recusal.
You may want to read more than just the conclusions at the end.
> Becuase you have no evidence, other than what you want to believe.
The shoe is on the other foot. I'm asking for evidence the feds (NOT 3rd parties) have done a serious investigation here and what evidence THEY have other than their say-so. It's ironic that, so far, I'm the only one to list any of their evidence at all and that I can remember it off the top of my head because it's a very short list for what should be a serious, federal investigation (not a 3rd party report).
> You got the 3 most qualified people in the WORLD to investigate this, who did investigate it.
Who you don't bother to name. Am I supposed to just assume you mean Comey, Henry and Alperovitch or are you going to bring in someone you haven't mentioned again? I assume so, because Comey admits he didn't investigate in your own article, or he wouldn't have to rely upon 2nd hand knowledge as he does when quoted in Snopes.
And yes, my conclusion is that they haven't put forth a damned bit of evidence. You have tons and tons of rumors based on anonymous sources in the media and hardly any technical evidence to show for it. I'm not impressed by suits telling rumors to the press. I want to see hard evidence, code, etc.
Let's compare this to the last actual nation state hacking, Stuxnet. For that, we have tons of code and analysis and testing of targets. Many people have samples of the malware and can explain how it works. It relied on multiple unknown vulnerabilities which had to be researched. There is a ton of technical content describing it.
I haven't even seen that level of actual technical work put into this one or anything even close. It's obvious that the conclusions came first and the data afterward.
You're putting words in my mouth. I just said it was 'funny'. You hallucinated everything else on your own and then started arguing with your own hallucination.
You've done nothing to refute the point that the feds don't give a damn about actually investigating this, because you're once again running down the tangent that 3rd parties were paid by the DNC. You point out that the DNC paid $60k for a 3rd party investigation, but hell, the FBI can spend $90k on a damned table, so you're once again are undercutting yourself by giving us more evidence that they never really cared about this investigation for some reason. Which is weird, given how important the Russia thing is supposed to be.
Finally, once more, you did not, because you could not, respond to any of the other points I made. I'm not surprised, but yes, I will keep pointing it out.
You previously said: "The DNC hired Cloudstrike, and thus the #3 guy in the FBI to directly investigate this interference" -- when you should have said CrowdStrike.
Now you finally name who you have in mind, something not listed in your prior source (Snopes), yet the new bio you now point to says he's a "a retired executive assistant director of the FBI" (emphasis added). His name does not appear on the report, so you haven't even bothered to prove that much.
And even if he did, it wouldn't matter. That STILL doesn't answer for the lack of a real investigation by the US government (not 3rd parties or whoever else) into the actual technical details of this. You do not, because you cannot, refute any of the other points made, for which I actually gave sources. Your own sources don't even say what you claim they did. If they wanted a real investigation, they wouldn't be sending 3rd party contractors and retired people, now, would they? You do realize that hearsay is not admissible in court, right? The FBI agents have to have direct, personal knowledge of the investigation. Not "I heard it was okay from some guy who I decline to identify" type statements.
It's telling that they also bungled the Clinton email server investigation. Here's an FBI document describing how they failed to maintain the chain of custody on one of them, meaning it would be hard to use as evidence. Funny how sloppy they were on such an important national security investigation, and how they could forget stuff for months. Here, I'll transcribe the relevant part because I doubt you'll read the PDF:
As documented in ther referenced serial, on August 12, 2015 the FBI obtained a Dell Poweredge 2900, Gray Color, S/N G842PC1 from the custody of Platte River Networks and entered it into evidence as item 1B3 of the captioned investigation. The item was directly transported to the FBI Operational Technology Division (OTD) the same day. At 12:02 PM on October 20, 2015 SA [REDACTED] picked up 1B3 from OTD where he discovered the original chain of custody was missing. SA [REDACTED] transported 1B3 to the Washington Field Office and placed it into secure storage. This communication documents the loss of the original chain of custody and the creation of a new chain of custody beginning with SA [REDACTED] on October 20, 2015.
It's funny how little they care about these "important" investigations and how quickly the media changes tunes. We went from the media saying "it's not rigged, you're just losing" to "Russia rigged the election" in a heartbeat and now you guys try to get us to forget about that.
There is good cause to say that the cop who shot that guy had poor trigger discipline. It would be better if he had trusted his cover instead of shooting when the innocent guy flinched after the spotlight was put on him.
That said, but for this idiot's SWAT call, he never would have been in that situation. It's just too bad he can't be indicted for felony murder, too. Fake SWAT calls absolutely should be felonies and when someone causes another's death by committing a felony, that's 'felony murder'.
You're now complaining that your own article is irrelevant because I used it against you? Then why the hell did you try to use it to counter my point when it actually supports it?
> There are plenty of articles, and direct statements by Comey, that those Images were analyzed by the FBI, and did suffice. The DNC did contact FBI directly about the hacked server, and it was just another hack, until a year later the emails were used to attack our democracy.
So cite them and give me actual sources. The FBI is quoted in there and says it had "forensics" and the source admits having only second hand knowledge of the facts--claiming that persons unknown told them it was good enough. That's not evidence, that's hearsay.
> The DNC hired Cloudstrike
It's CrowdStrike. That's kind of an odd substitution. Does your first language not have an L/R distinction?
And who exactly are you claiming is the #3 guy in the FBI? Your article talks about 3rd party vendors and Comey (formerly the Director of the FBI, not #3), so I think you're confused. And Comey said his staff told him things, not that he investigated anything personally, or he wouldn't have to release a statement saying that persons unknown told him that things were good enough. Like every other article on this nonsense, they're reduced to hiding behind anonymous sources. This whole damned thing has been this sort of thing--"journalists" hiding behind rumors. Sources familiar with their thinking tell me they're full of crap. Also, if we're looking at staffing, isn't it funny that they picked a company founded by a Russian to investigate Russian influence?
Anyhow, as pointed out, I'm concerned about the fact that they never did a real investigation. They did a half-ass job of everything, which is pretty damned funny for how important they claim this is. Their own conduct proves that they're lying.
Giving me all these third rate second hand sources when you don't even have the names right only proves that there's no there there.
You're playing another one yourself. I don't care if they did as they were asked. I care if they made a serious attempt to actually investigate this. You're arguing an irrelevant point that I'm not making.
You might think that something like a nation state attacking our democracy would be somehow important. That people would seriously do everything in their power to go over every detail.
Yet somehow they act as if they don't give a damn about looking at the evidence. Why is that? It's funny that they just wave conclusions around and have no interest in proving them.
Now watch Mueller try to crawl out of the indictments against all of those Russians. He's trying to get them to waive their Constitutional right to a speedy trial by dumping a few TB of Russian social media nonsense on the lawyers now. It's not likely to be successful.
It's weird that you count guilty pleas of someone who was working for Podesta's firm at the time. You remember Hillary's campaign manager and his brother, right?
Of course, the firm itself was somehow allowed to retroactively file a FARA registration instead of being charged. Funny that...
And a bunch of the indictments are for people in Russia they didn't expect to show up. Some of the companies have sent lawyers to fight the charges and have demanded their right to a speedy trial. So, let's wait and see.
There are a few tricks played in that article. One, it doesn't matter whether Podesta himself did or didn't deny anything, it actually matters what analysis the FBI did and whether the FBI got anything.
Two, the FBI relied on the CrowdStrike report and doesn't appear to have done any actual analysis of them. If they have HD images, it's weird that they don't just say so ("forensics" is rather vague, though it plausibly includes such) and it's sort of odd they didn't want to inspect the hardware for tampering, given that we, in fact, know of various durable hardware rootkits via the TAO catalog. You know, something we might expect a hostile foreign government to be using, given it's the sort of stuff we use when hacking them. This would actually make sense--use an advanced rootkit to actually exfiltrate data and then hide it by doing some low-grade phishing attack to explain the leaked data. But we can be quite sure that isn't what happened given that they have had so long to allege such a thing and they haven't. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, regarding this comes out in the upcoming OIG report, though.
Also, from your own article:
Comey said the agency never got access to the machines themselves, but obtained access to the forensics from a review of the system performed by CrowdStrike, a third-party cybersecurity firm.
[...]
The DNC claimed they received no direct requests from the CIA, and the CIA did not comment.
The DNC says it cooperated with the FBI, providing information on the server through a third-party vendor.The FBI provided no comment, but then-FBI director Comey said it was an appropriate substitute.
Explain this to me: why doesn't the Obama CIA care about Russians hacking the DNC? Is it going to be like the claim that they used Stephan Halper as an informant to "protect" the Trump campaign (their words, not mine)? If they're there to "protect" them, why not put one in Hillary's campaign as "protection" after telling us over and over that she's being targeted by Russians?
> Did they ever release any actual evidence the Russians hacked the DNC?
They released the CrowdStrike report which said they think it was a Russian APT based on various signatures, such as an old copy of Ukranian malware called P.A.S. and a bunch of tor exit nodes, which they presented but failed to identify. They later retracted some of their claims. The DNC did not at any time turn over the affected servers to the FBI or anyone else, as one might expect for such a serious crime as was alleged.
Then the ODNI released the "17 agencies" report that doesn't present any technical info at all, just a few conclusions.
Somewhere in here we have that story about the "mystery server" where they think a Trump server (actually a 3rd party marketing site) is talking to a Russian bank. It turns out to be DNS traffic due to spam, but it's funny to look at now given the #Spygate allegations.
Then there were reports from Trend Micro including this one. There's a lot there about phishing and such, but not a whole lot about how to identify who this is other than "we think this is Russia."
Of course, then comes the Vault 7 leaks showing the CIA (likely among many others) has lots of tools to falsely attribute stuff to other parties. A person was later blamed for that leak, but they instead find that he's a pedophile which is... interesting. One may or may not be aware of a short-lived attempt by the "Todd & Claire" site to frame Julian Assange of that which melted under public scrutiny. There were also the infamous Guccifer 2.0 "Russian fingerprints" which seemed interesting, as he only dropped random Trump opposition research docs.
The original said Ivan or Vlad, looks like the wrong one got cut in editing, so you're not really helping in admitting the substance of the accusation.
Do you really think that's a great way to excuse bigotry? Let's just lump everyone you don't like into one giant group and hate them collectively for the actions of certain individual members. And you really think that's doesn't deserve to be called out? I mean, you seem to think that "I think that guy is Russian" is a way to discredit everyone.
> Or maybe, since you can't plausibly that claim comments denigrating a documented practice by a nation that considers the U.S. to be its biggest enemy is more than a "sloppy accusation," you thought that you needed to add a charge of racism to spice things up.
There are plenty of shills for all sorts of parties, including political ones like ShareBlue / Correct the Record, what's sloppy is to call out a particular person for working for the Russians when you have nothing in the way of evidence other than them disagreeing with you.
"Shills exist, you disagree with me and I've never seen you before, therefore you're a shill" isn't logic and it's a very weak position to take. You should have an actual rebuttal to whatever they say if you want to be heard, otherwise you're just a noisemaker.
The point is that you're just making noise, you're not presenting any thought or argument, you're just poisoning the well. This, ironically, is *exactly* the sort of discord you say the Russians are supposed to be sowing among us to begin with!
If we're going to blindly accuse people of being Russian trolls, shouldn't we start by looking at those who are helping to sow division, like you? You know, the very thing everyone seems to agree that they're doing?
Anyhow, you're free to post and say what you want, but it's pretty clear that you're just a noisy bigot. Frankly, that discredits you far more than anything I could say about you.
That said, it could be amusing to let you explain your bigotry to the bar association:) You could have fun listing them every time you appear pro hac vice...
Most people lurk as ACs for quite a while before joining, I know I was here for a good 3-4 years before making this account. He's got a point and your only rebuttal is to claim that he's a Russian agent. Lovely.
Wait, I thought Russia wanted to "destabilize" us? Isn't that what you're contributing to? So tell me, why are you trying to divide us again? Would you like to tell us why, even knowing the Russian plans, you decided to go and help them?
I don't know who decided that racism was a great rebuttal, but your comment history is completely full of racist remarks, like calling people "Ivan", the racist implication being that even if you somehow got that sloppy accusation right after making it so many times, everything they said would be unworthy of being responded to merely because of their being Russian. Well, it's not like you had any rebuttals other than that... clearly some handwavy accusations are enough for #TopMinds like you guys. Let's not even address what was said, let's just say it's clearly wrong and avoid any kind of details or rebuttals or any sort of thinking whatsoever. Heck, even the paper just claims to be tracking who gets their info from where. It doesn't appear to actually bother establishing any of their claims about the underlying facts with evidence, it simply assumes them as granted and tracks the flow of information (which is the only thing it appears to have actual facts regarding).
Slashdot Mirror
> If geocentrism really has been discredited, then quote the research that discredits it!
> (I'm gonna say that another 2,000 times until you get the point)
Easy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model
I've made my argument and I won't make yours for you. You will not because you cannot. You don't have facts to support it with and the cognitive dissonance of trying clearly hurts your brain so much that you can't even use it for long enough to make your points.
That said, have fun pondering this paradox of leftism, how can there even be sexism any more when you can simply identify as the other sex to fix the problem? :) It's not like you have to change anything about yourself to decide to have a different identity. Sexism solved! We'll just ask people to identify as women until all things are perfectly balanced, just as Thanos intended.
> It's not opinion and the facts are not hard to find for anyone who can be bothered to look for even 20 seconds on Google
A set that doesn't include you yourself, based on revealed preference. Why should we believe you when you won't even spend 20 seconds thinking through what you're saying and who demands that their critics write their arguments for them?
Frankly, I've come to assume that anyone posting like this is a bot or paid shill. You won't argue because you can't afford to get tied down in details, you have too many accounts to run and so you just need to make your views look popular and obvious as a form of social proof. So you set things up to privilege yourself against having to do anything in an argument and let the other sock puppets, along with the legitimately deluded, agree with you.
> It's ironic that you ask for evidence of sexism in an article about a guy who was fired because he (apparently) exhibited sexism publicly. If that isn't evidence I'm not quite sure you understand the meaning of the term.
The problem is that you call him sexist rather than explaining why he's wrong. This has created a reality distortion field wherein facts that are hurtful are labeled problematic and never dealt with intellectually, because the cognitive dissonance is too much for you to handle given that you constructed your beliefs out of whatever was convenient for you rather than any set of principles that can be articulates. Which is why you have to privilege yourself from arguing to avoid losing.
> So is pretending to be ignorant as an argument tactic to pretend sexism isn't really a serious problem in the physical sciences.
One tell for ignorance is being unable to articulate one's positions, despite wasting who knows how long typing up an evidence-free post. Claiming that you don't even have to make a claim is merely an assertion that you deserve to be privileged over everyone else. Nobody but those who already agree with you are willing to grant you that privilege, especially when your own laziness is given as the only justification for it.
There are plenty of people who are awful to people based on their sex. It cuts both ways. There's no reason to assign group blame for the actions of individuals based on the genitals someone was born with, which is what the reasonable people are objecting to. The usual tactic is to deflect that by finding some unreasonable and unlikable person to associate your opponents with, but two can play that game and it's a stupid one to play.
> If geocentrism really has been discredited, then quote the research that discredits it!
Easy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model
> Sometimes, the results of the "research" is pretty overwhelming, and quoting it at length over and over again for each layperson who stumbles by is not an effective use of time.
The argument that your'e too intellectually lazy to refute weak claims is something that discredits you. You do not, because you cannot, refute the points.
> For example, it's not been that long since women could actually attend a university and get a degree in physics.
If only that was something we could fact check!
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_women's_education&oldid=861933446
Part of the reason they believe this is because some time after that, Bettisia Gozzadini is lecturing there after having earned a degree from the same institution.
Now, are you going to move the goalpost and say that you wanted to claim something other than what you actually said? Or maybe you could say that the better part of one thousand years isn't "that long" in your opinion?
> But going over this again and again for people who will respond with "NUH UH!!!" is just a waste of time.
You haven't "gone over" anything at all. You've just ranted and shown us how you are too privileged to give facts in support of your assertions. Frankly, it's more a waste of time for me to do this for you than the reverse, and yet I know that the privilege you want is BS.
We have a word for people who demand to be believed without evidence: charlatans.
> I've got no reason why the New York Times thinks Russia is involved in this. It makes no sense.
Actually it makes perfect sense if someone used some Russian proxies/VPNs/etc. to comment with in order to later "uncover" the fact that Russian's commented on an open web form that invited public comment for the purpose of giving them ideas and feedback about how to proceed. Remember: this freak out was going on while comments were still open, as well.
It's about like people talking about "identity theft" on the same comment boxes, as though there weren't thousands of John Smiths and whatnot, each of which were entitled to their own opinions. My own name has a surprising number of duplicates.
> The question to how appropriate it was for him to be fired comes down to intent,
Which is largely a mind-reading exercise in this case. They had credible reasons to fire him, someone deciding that they can divine a bad motive out of that is something else entirely.
I mean that in the sense that you want no relationship with them. I certainly don't want any sort of relationship with Zeus or Krishna.
Also, I don't know if you've noticed, but there are a non-trivial number of self-described atheists who are mad at a god they don't believe in. Visiting any major atheist forum will disabuse you of any notion that they don't exist. One of the largest cohorts thereof are ex-believers who left the church as teenagers after a falling out with their parents.
I won't argue that Comey was a dirtbag, but he did everything to wrap up the investigation for Hillary, he just had to investigate further (and clean up after) Weiner's laptop with classified emails was found. That's not the same as intentionally throwing it for Trump. They also softened the announcement quite a bit to remove negligence.
That said, he was found to be insubordinate and appropriately fired--which makes it odd for Trump to be investigated over firing him, but whatever.
I think you misunderstand the nature of hell. What an atheist wants is to be apart from God, that's what they get. They just realize what they gave up with no way to get it back. As they say, hell is other people.
This conception of Heaven as a theme park to which someone denies you tickets isn't quite right. It's more like a community you include or exclude yourself from.
> That and the FBI was actually pretty pro-Trump.
Are we reading the same report?
Page 5:
Page 420 shows a text saying "we'll stop" Trump from becoming President--a text that was somehow completely omitted, rather than redacted, from previous disclosures.
Page 430 shows FBI agents getting 'gifts' from the media.
Page 461-2:
You may want to read more than just the conclusions at the end.
> Becuase you have no evidence, other than what you want to believe.
The shoe is on the other foot. I'm asking for evidence the feds (NOT 3rd parties) have done a serious investigation here and what evidence THEY have other than their say-so. It's ironic that, so far, I'm the only one to list any of their evidence at all and that I can remember it off the top of my head because it's a very short list for what should be a serious, federal investigation (not a 3rd party report).
> You got the 3 most qualified people in the WORLD to investigate this, who did investigate it.
Who you don't bother to name. Am I supposed to just assume you mean Comey, Henry and Alperovitch or are you going to bring in someone you haven't mentioned again? I assume so, because Comey admits he didn't investigate in your own article, or he wouldn't have to rely upon 2nd hand knowledge as he does when quoted in Snopes.
And yes, my conclusion is that they haven't put forth a damned bit of evidence. You have tons and tons of rumors based on anonymous sources in the media and hardly any technical evidence to show for it. I'm not impressed by suits telling rumors to the press. I want to see hard evidence, code, etc.
Let's compare this to the last actual nation state hacking, Stuxnet. For that, we have tons of code and analysis and testing of targets. Many people have samples of the malware and can explain how it works. It relied on multiple unknown vulnerabilities which had to be researched. There is a ton of technical content describing it.
I haven't even seen that level of actual technical work put into this one or anything even close. It's obvious that the conclusions came first and the data afterward.
You're putting words in my mouth. I just said it was 'funny'. You hallucinated everything else on your own and then started arguing with your own hallucination.
You've done nothing to refute the point that the feds don't give a damn about actually investigating this, because you're once again running down the tangent that 3rd parties were paid by the DNC. You point out that the DNC paid $60k for a 3rd party investigation, but hell, the FBI can spend $90k on a damned table, so you're once again are undercutting yourself by giving us more evidence that they never really cared about this investigation for some reason. Which is weird, given how important the Russia thing is supposed to be.
Finally, once more, you did not, because you could not, respond to any of the other points I made. I'm not surprised, but yes, I will keep pointing it out.
You previously said: "The DNC hired Cloudstrike, and thus the #3 guy in the FBI to directly investigate this interference" -- when you should have said CrowdStrike.
Now you finally name who you have in mind, something not listed in your prior source (Snopes), yet the new bio you now point to says he's a "a retired executive assistant director of the FBI" (emphasis added). His name does not appear on the report, so you haven't even bothered to prove that much.
And even if he did, it wouldn't matter. That STILL doesn't answer for the lack of a real investigation by the US government (not 3rd parties or whoever else) into the actual technical details of this. You do not, because you cannot, refute any of the other points made, for which I actually gave sources. Your own sources don't even say what you claim they did. If they wanted a real investigation, they wouldn't be sending 3rd party contractors and retired people, now, would they? You do realize that hearsay is not admissible in court, right? The FBI agents have to have direct, personal knowledge of the investigation. Not "I heard it was okay from some guy who I decline to identify" type statements.
It's telling that they also bungled the Clinton email server investigation. Here's an FBI document describing how they failed to maintain the chain of custody on one of them, meaning it would be hard to use as evidence. Funny how sloppy they were on such an important national security investigation, and how they could forget stuff for months. Here, I'll transcribe the relevant part because I doubt you'll read the PDF:
It's funny how little they care about these "important" investigations and how quickly the media changes tunes. We went from the media saying "it's not rigged, you're just losing" to "Russia rigged the election" in a heartbeat and now you guys try to get us to forget about that.
There is good cause to say that the cop who shot that guy had poor trigger discipline. It would be better if he had trusted his cover instead of shooting when the innocent guy flinched after the spotlight was put on him.
That said, but for this idiot's SWAT call, he never would have been in that situation. It's just too bad he can't be indicted for felony murder, too. Fake SWAT calls absolutely should be felonies and when someone causes another's death by committing a felony, that's 'felony murder'.
> That article is not written about your post
You're now complaining that your own article is irrelevant because I used it against you? Then why the hell did you try to use it to counter my point when it actually supports it?
> There are plenty of articles, and direct statements by Comey, that those Images were analyzed by the FBI, and did suffice. The DNC did contact FBI directly about the hacked server, and it was just another hack, until a year later the emails were used to attack our democracy.
So cite them and give me actual sources. The FBI is quoted in there and says it had "forensics" and the source admits having only second hand knowledge of the facts--claiming that persons unknown told them it was good enough. That's not evidence, that's hearsay.
> The DNC hired Cloudstrike
It's CrowdStrike. That's kind of an odd substitution. Does your first language not have an L/R distinction?
And who exactly are you claiming is the #3 guy in the FBI? Your article talks about 3rd party vendors and Comey (formerly the Director of the FBI, not #3), so I think you're confused. And Comey said his staff told him things, not that he investigated anything personally, or he wouldn't have to release a statement saying that persons unknown told him that things were good enough. Like every other article on this nonsense, they're reduced to hiding behind anonymous sources. This whole damned thing has been this sort of thing--"journalists" hiding behind rumors. Sources familiar with their thinking tell me they're full of crap. Also, if we're looking at staffing, isn't it funny that they picked a company founded by a Russian to investigate Russian influence?
Anyhow, as pointed out, I'm concerned about the fact that they never did a real investigation. They did a half-ass job of everything, which is pretty damned funny for how important they claim this is. Their own conduct proves that they're lying.
Giving me all these third rate second hand sources when you don't even have the names right only proves that there's no there there.
Well they can just have fun with the Hatch Act, then.
You're playing another one yourself. I don't care if they did as they were asked. I care if they made a serious attempt to actually investigate this. You're arguing an irrelevant point that I'm not making.
You might think that something like a nation state attacking our democracy would be somehow important. That people would seriously do everything in their power to go over every detail.
Yet somehow they act as if they don't give a damn about looking at the evidence. Why is that? It's funny that they just wave conclusions around and have no interest in proving them.
Now watch Mueller try to crawl out of the indictments against all of those Russians. He's trying to get them to waive their Constitutional right to a speedy trial by dumping a few TB of Russian social media nonsense on the lawyers now. It's not likely to be successful.
It's weird that you count guilty pleas of someone who was working for Podesta's firm at the time. You remember Hillary's campaign manager and his brother, right?
Of course, the firm itself was somehow allowed to retroactively file a FARA registration instead of being charged. Funny that...
And a bunch of the indictments are for people in Russia they didn't expect to show up. Some of the companies have sent lawyers to fight the charges and have demanded their right to a speedy trial. So, let's wait and see.
Is that why Comey gave his memos to his lawyer friend to give to the press and then they fought to avoid letting Congress see them?
There are a few tricks played in that article. One, it doesn't matter whether Podesta himself did or didn't deny anything, it actually matters what analysis the FBI did and whether the FBI got anything.
Two, the FBI relied on the CrowdStrike report and doesn't appear to have done any actual analysis of them. If they have HD images, it's weird that they don't just say so ("forensics" is rather vague, though it plausibly includes such) and it's sort of odd they didn't want to inspect the hardware for tampering, given that we, in fact, know of various durable hardware rootkits via the TAO catalog. You know, something we might expect a hostile foreign government to be using, given it's the sort of stuff we use when hacking them. This would actually make sense--use an advanced rootkit to actually exfiltrate data and then hide it by doing some low-grade phishing attack to explain the leaked data. But we can be quite sure that isn't what happened given that they have had so long to allege such a thing and they haven't. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, regarding this comes out in the upcoming OIG report, though.
Also, from your own article:
Explain this to me: why doesn't the Obama CIA care about Russians hacking the DNC? Is it going to be like the claim that they used Stephan Halper as an informant to "protect" the Trump campaign (their words, not mine)? If they're there to "protect" them, why not put one in Hillary's campaign as "protection" after telling us over and over that she's being targeted by Russians?
> Did they ever release any actual evidence the Russians hacked the DNC?
They released the CrowdStrike report which said they think it was a Russian APT based on various signatures, such as an old copy of Ukranian malware called P.A.S. and a bunch of tor exit nodes, which they presented but failed to identify. They later retracted some of their claims. The DNC did not at any time turn over the affected servers to the FBI or anyone else, as one might expect for such a serious crime as was alleged.
Then the ODNI released the "17 agencies" report that doesn't present any technical info at all, just a few conclusions.
Somewhere in here we have that story about the "mystery server" where they think a Trump server (actually a 3rd party marketing site) is talking to a Russian bank. It turns out to be DNS traffic due to spam, but it's funny to look at now given the #Spygate allegations.
Then there were reports from Trend Micro including this one. There's a lot there about phishing and such, but not a whole lot about how to identify who this is other than "we think this is Russia."
Of course, then comes the Vault 7 leaks showing the CIA (likely among many others) has lots of tools to falsely attribute stuff to other parties. A person was later blamed for that leak, but they instead find that he's a pedophile which is... interesting. One may or may not be aware of a short-lived attempt by the "Todd & Claire" site to frame Julian Assange of that which melted under public scrutiny. There were also the infamous Guccifer 2.0 "Russian fingerprints" which seemed interesting, as he only dropped random Trump opposition research docs.
The original said Ivan or Vlad, looks like the wrong one got cut in editing, so you're not really helping in admitting the substance of the accusation.
Guess it's a lawyer thing?
> by a nation that considers the U.S. to be its biggest enemy
I'll leave this here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bowhUWl6rxQ
> Russian is a race?
Do you really think that's a great way to excuse bigotry? Let's just lump everyone you don't like into one giant group and hate them collectively for the actions of certain individual members. And you really think that's doesn't deserve to be called out? I mean, you seem to think that "I think that guy is Russian" is a way to discredit everyone.
> Or maybe, since you can't plausibly that claim comments denigrating a documented practice by a nation that considers the U.S. to be its biggest enemy is more than a "sloppy accusation," you thought that you needed to add a charge of racism to spice things up.
There are plenty of shills for all sorts of parties, including political ones like ShareBlue / Correct the Record, what's sloppy is to call out a particular person for working for the Russians when you have nothing in the way of evidence other than them disagreeing with you.
"Shills exist, you disagree with me and I've never seen you before, therefore you're a shill" isn't logic and it's a very weak position to take. You should have an actual rebuttal to whatever they say if you want to be heard, otherwise you're just a noisemaker.
The point is that you're just making noise, you're not presenting any thought or argument, you're just poisoning the well. This, ironically, is *exactly* the sort of discord you say the Russians are supposed to be sowing among us to begin with!
If we're going to blindly accuse people of being Russian trolls, shouldn't we start by looking at those who are helping to sow division, like you? You know, the very thing everyone seems to agree that they're doing?
Anyhow, you're free to post and say what you want, but it's pretty clear that you're just a noisy bigot. Frankly, that discredits you far more than anything I could say about you.
That said, it could be amusing to let you explain your bigotry to the bar association :) You could have fun listing them every time you appear pro hac vice...
You seem to prefer to use Vlad and you have such a comment right here in this very story.
Most people lurk as ACs for quite a while before joining, I know I was here for a good 3-4 years before making this account. He's got a point and your only rebuttal is to claim that he's a Russian agent. Lovely.
Wait, I thought Russia wanted to "destabilize" us? Isn't that what you're contributing to? So tell me, why are you trying to divide us again? Would you like to tell us why, even knowing the Russian plans, you decided to go and help them?
I don't know who decided that racism was a great rebuttal, but your comment history is completely full of racist remarks, like calling people "Ivan", the racist implication being that even if you somehow got that sloppy accusation right after making it so many times, everything they said would be unworthy of being responded to merely because of their being Russian. Well, it's not like you had any rebuttals other than that... clearly some handwavy accusations are enough for #TopMinds like you guys. Let's not even address what was said, let's just say it's clearly wrong and avoid any kind of details or rebuttals or any sort of thinking whatsoever. Heck, even the paper just claims to be tracking who gets their info from where. It doesn't appear to actually bother establishing any of their claims about the underlying facts with evidence, it simply assumes them as granted and tracks the flow of information (which is the only thing it appears to have actual facts regarding).