The Hillary Thread II

[Animavore]

The Whataboutism Thread.

[Tero]

..he Steele dossier is the only possible evidence of Trump-Russian collusion, and we now know that it was composed of unsubstantiated allegations by unaccountable sources in and around the Kremlin

Bullshit. There is plenty of other evidence supporting many of the claims. Only pee pee tapes remain at the KGB Christamas party. A good show every year.

[Forty Two]

..he Steele dossier is the only possible evidence of Trump-Russian collusion, and we now know that it was composed of unsubstantiated allegations by unaccountable sources in and around the Kremlin

Bullshit. There is plenty of other evidence supporting many of the claims. Only pee pee tapes remain at the KGB Christamas party. A good show every year.

Strange how that evidence doesn't seem to make it to this forum. But, if you'd like to share it, please, by all means do.

[Forty Two]

The Whataboutism Thread.

Trump is not the only relevant person to talk about.

[Tero]

FBI has confirmed hacking.The FBI does not issue reports for the public.

[L'Emmerdeur]

... we now know that [the Steele dossier] was composed of unsubstantiated allegations ...

Conrad Black, the author of the National Review piece may believe he knows that, but 'we' know no such thing.

Long before any public revelations, the dossier alleged that Russia was engaged in an online campaign against Clinton. The allegation has been confirmed: We now know that there were many Facebook accounts operated by the Internet Research Agency at St. Petersburg (popularly known as the 'Russian troll farm') as well as Facebook ads bought by that same entity. It's also been learned that there were hundreds of Russian twitter bots producing pro-Trump/anti-Clinton tweets, some of which Trump himself retweeted.

The dossier alleged that there was a Russian effort to arrange meetings with campaign officials for the nominal purpose of delivering stolen information considered detrimental to Clinton. It has been confirmed that at least one such meeting took place in Trump Tower. The dossier specifically alleged that Carter Page worked as an intermediary with Russia for the Trump campaign. Despite previously denying he had any contact at all with Russian officials, Page has now admitted otherwise. His email to J.D. Gordon (who managed the Trump campaign's national security team) touting 'incredible insights and outreach' from 'Russian legislators and senior members of the presidential administration' tends to support the allegation in the dossier. Then there's the Papadopoulos affair.

The dossier alleged that Mikhail Kalugin was a Russian intelligence operative posing as a diplomat in Washington who was heavily involved in Russian efforts to influence the election, and that he was withdrawn by Moscow because it was feared that his identity would be exposed. It has been confirmed that Kalugin is indeed an intelligence operative, not a diplomat.

The dossier alleged that there was an agreement by the Trump campaign to 'sideline' the issue of Russia's ham-handed involvement in the Ukraine. The Trump team did indeed weaken the Republican platform's stance on the Ukraine. As far as I know this is the only part of the Republican platform that the Trump campaign intervened to change.

The dossier alleged that there was an online Russian effort to exacerbate the aversion felt by Sanders supporters against Clinton. This has been confirmed.

I expect that there are other allegations made in the Steele dossier that have been confirmed, either publicly or by US intelligence agencies, but the above shows that any blanket dismissal of the Steele dossier as 'unsubstantiated,' 'bogus,' 'dodgy,' etc. is unfounded.

[pErvinalia]

One of the dirtiest tricks in American political history -- https://www.wsj.com/articles/lifting-th ... 1510274070

....and we now know that it was composed of unsubstantiated allegations...

Do we?

[Forty Two]

FBI has confirmed hacking.The FBI does not issue reports for the public.

Haven't. As stated in the article by the Nation, they most certainly have not "confirmed hacking." Please cite your source. https://www.thenation.com/article/why-w ... nst-trump/

[Forty Two]

One of the dirtiest tricks in American political history -- https://www.wsj.com/articles/lifting-th ... 1510274070

....and we now know that it was composed of unsubstantiated allegations...

Do we?

We do, because the allegations have not been substantiated. Or, if you have the substantiation available for citation, please link.

[Tero]

You are correct in that no hackers were arrested. The hackers were not here. Podesta was hacked by a gmail trap.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_De ... email_leak

[Forty Two]

You are correct in that no hackers were arrested. The hackers were not here. Podesta was hacked by a gmail trap.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_De ... email_leak

Nobody proved it was a hack to begin with. The FBI wanted to review the DNC servers so they could confirm that it was a hack, but the DNC did not permit the FBI to have the servers to do a forensic analysis.

An interesting bit of analysis includes the analysis of the download speeds and locations - The Nation articles recount how the amount of data downloaded and the time in which it occurred could not feasibly have happened from Romania, and that the way it could happen is if it was downloaded to a device.

But, I can't say how it happened. Neither can you. What is accurate, however, is that the FBI did NOT confirm that it was a hack. The report in which the "US intelligence agencies" said they thought it was the Russians provided zero proof, and specifically disclaimed that there was any implication to be taken that they even had any proof. They were going by who they thought had the motive and means, and they said that the "methods used were consistent with" certain hackers that were previously associated with persons who were previously associated with the Russian government, and that if it was the Russians it would be something ordered from the highest levels. What they didn't say is that the methods used were consistent with the methods used by any number of hackers from all over the world. So, we're left with no evidence, and no statement that they have evidence which they haven't shared, and all the intelligence folks who testified to Congress all said there is no evidence that the Trump administration or campaign had any involvement at all.

[Tero]

Podesta was using his gmail account. Somebody found the address, sent him a phishing email. He was dumb, followed the link. Usualky they warn you of a “security risk” with your account somewhere. He went there, got the virus.

[L'Emmerdeur]

As noted in the article from The Hill which I've already linked to here:

The article [in The Nation], penned by reporter Patrick Lawrence and published in early August, hinged on technical claims roundly disputed by technical experts — including the expert brought in by The Nation in its review of the article.

The document 'Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution' states the findings of the US intelligence agencies unequivocally.

We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks.

...

The Kremlin’s campaign aimed at the US election featured disclosures of data obtained through Russian cyber operations; intrusions into US state and local electoral boards; and overt propaganda. Russian intelligence collection both informed and enabled the influence campaign.

...

We assess Russian intelligence services collected against the US primary campaigns, think tanks, and lobbying groups they viewed as likely to shape future US policies. In July 2015, Russian intelligence gained access to Democratic National
Committee (DNC) networks and maintained that access until at least June 2016.

...

The General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) probably began cyber operations aimed at the US election by March 2016. We assess that the GRU operations resulted in the compromise of the personal e-mail accounts of Democratic Party officials and political figures. By May, the GRU had exfiltrated large volumes of data from the DNC.

[Note that 'probably' refers to the date the intelligence agencies believed cyber operations were initiated by the GRU, as is clear from the context--the document doesn't say 'By May, the GRU had probably exfiltrated large volumes of data from the DNC.' That statement is not hedged in any way.]

...

We assess with high confidence that the GRU used the Guccifer 2.0 persona, DCLeaks.com, and WikiLeaks to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets.

...

Content that we assess was taken from e-mail accounts targeted by the GRU in March 2016 appeared on DCLeaks.com starting in June.

...

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 selfproclaimed reputation for authenticity. Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries.

Regarding the meaning of 'high confidence,' the intelligence agencies make clear that no higher level of certainty is used in documents such as this. As seen in the scale provided in Annex B (page 23 of the PDF], 'high confidence' would equate to anything from 'Very likely' to 'Nearly certain.' Absolute certainty is not presented as an option in regard to this sort of intelligence assessment.

Confidence levels provide assessments of the quality and quantity of the source information that supports judgments. Consequently, we ascribe high, moderate, or low levels of confidence to assessments.

High confidence generally indicates that judgments are based on high-quality information from multiple sources. High confidence in a judgment does not imply that the assessment is a fact or a certainty; such judgments might be wrong.

At the beginning of the document it is explicitly stated that the intelligence agencies have evidence which is not publicly presented.

The Intelligence Community rarely can publicly reveal the full extent of its knowledge or the precise bases for its assessments, as the release of such information would reveal sensitive sources or methods and imperil the ability to collect critical foreign intelligence in the future.

Thus, while the conclusions in the report are all reflected in the classified assessment, the declassified report does not and cannot include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence and sources and methods.

[Tero]

"That statement," Smith said, "is inaccurate in a number of ways."

It may have been jarring to hear for the most loyal Fox News viewers, who for weeks have heard the network's anchors and commentators breathlessly hype the uranium deal as a scandal of Watergate proportions -- and a story that the liberal mainstream media refused to touch.
Tucker Carlson has taken to calling it "the real Russia scandal." On Tuesday night, hours after Smith's debunking, Sean Hannity stood in front of an elaborate chart on the screen as he promised to "untangle the giant web of Clinton scandals and corruption."
"We know laws were broken. We know crimes were committed," Hannity said. "The evidence is overwhelming. It's incontrovertible."

Without naming his colleagues on the opinion side of the network, Smith delivered a powerful rebuttal to those claims on Tuesday. He explained that the deal required approval from an inter-agency committee known as "CFIUS," made up of the heads of the nine cabinet-level departments.
"The nine department heads all approved the sale of Uranium One," Smith said. "It was unanimous, not a Hillary Clinton approval."
"We don't know definitively whether Secretary Clinton participated at all directly," he added.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/15/media/s ... index.html

[Seabass]