They also made Donna Brazile smuggle debate questions to Nhillary, as well as made Debbie Schultz rig the primaries against Bernie.

Unnamed secret sources in 17 intel agencies say Putin did it personally.

No they forced those questions on her, I saw it Hillary was all baaa-bbaaaaa-baa-baaaaa and Putin smaked her in the face and said "Bitch! Just take them!"

She was more like woof woof woof!

In Soviet Russia, they take hacking very seriously.

LMAO

It's what they offered!

Why can't you people believe Hillary did wrong AND Russia conspired against her. They aren't mutually exclusive..

You could be right. She messed up and russia may be involved. The issue I have is the news has yet to acknowledge that she may have lost because of all of the other fuck ups her and the dnc had. Yes, we may not have known if Russia didn't hack in and supposedly release the emails. However, if they didn't interfere(hey wait havent we done this before in other countries elections) then we may have never found out and they would try the same shit with the next election since it worked.

[deleted]

I mean, someone had to "hack" Podesta's email. Unless Podesta himself leaked them.

Too be fair Podesta's password was "passw0rd"

Which cracks me up. He tried to get creative and throw in a different symbol, but was still not that creative

All he needed was a special character and it would've been impenetrable!

Did you miss all the articles about it after the election?

The issue I have is the news has yet to acknowledge that she may have lost because of all of the other fuck ups her and the dnc had

You are not watching or listening to any news. There have been countless pieces about why she lost that do not involve blaming Russia. Primarily, they discuss her over confidence in the rust belt being so high that she didn't bother with campaign stops.

There are no shortage of MSM stories about the campaigns failings.

The news I have seen so far has been all about blaming Russia, and then about trump not taking daily Intel briefings. I haven't been sitting in front of the tv watching the news or online all day reading so I may have missed some of these discussions.

Well, I think part of the issue is the framing in how you seem to think "news" works.

It's not the job of news programs to run a story like "Why Hillary lost the election" because that is primarily an opinion piece. Discussions like that happen on the "talking head" shows and in op-ed articles in papers.

It is news, however, to report on Russian hacking or Trump skipping intel briefings. Because those are in fact, news. It doesn't mean Russia was to blame, but the discussion about throughout DC is a news-worthy item.

So if you primarily just tune into your local nightly news program, I wouldn't expect you to see it. But if you turn on any of the cable news networks, there have been no shortage of those discussions.

conspired

I think those "you people" would like to see some actual evidence of "Russian meddling." Is the argument, seriously, that the best Russia could come up with was releasing the DNC's own emails? No ballot box stuffing? No vote machine hacking? Just . . . releasing some of Podesta's emails? But not other folks (other than the ones in Podesta's box)? What lame hackers.

That doesn't feel like meddling. That feels like a whistleblower. Or maybe investigative journalism. But pretty weak sauce for a technically savvy nation. Also: where's the evidence? This feels like a simple repeat of Team Clinton propaganda, in an effort to flip the Electoral College. (And that's exactly what it is, btw).

There is a major push by both sides to take this away from Trump, and it will ramp up from now until the Electoral College does its thing.

That feels like a whistleblower

This is the problem with running corrupt candidates from a national security perspective. Revealing the truth becomes blackmail.

I would like to once again thank the democrats for fucking over the country by running one of the worst candidates in American history.

You got it. Hillary Clinton should have been person of the year, because only Hillary could have made Trump president. Her legacy will be making, first, an unknown black guy president, and then, making a reality TV star president.

Can't wait to see the Hillary 2020 campaign tho!

"Russia rigged the election by informing Americans of what we've been doing for the past 6 months!"

Sounds an awful lot like the DNC's attempted Trump smear when they called him out for saying the media was rigging it against him.

I remember someone (I think Colbert) satirizing him by saying "The media is rigging the election against Trump by showing clips of Trump speaking!"

When in reality a lot of the clips shown of Trump speaking were, in fact, clips and not the full argument he was making.

The difference with Hillary is that we got the full context. There were no partial emails on WL.

Lol

actual evidence

Really?

coming from a sub that champions pizzagate on the basis on contemporary art being disturbing.

Amazing how you conspiratards dismiss all conspiracies that don't fit your pre-made extreme-right wing views.

Uh, so you're "analysis" is that because some people believe that Podesta and others are involved in child porn/spirit cooking/ whatever, therefore we don't need any evidence that Russia is really behind the hacks/leaks? That's your, er, "logic"?

This is why you and Team Clinton lost. You churn out BS that falls apart under even the most tender analysis.

What's the evidence that it was Russia? Is it more than a "anonymous source" claimed by the Washington Post? Because that's pretty much . . . nothing.

Why can't it be that Russia conspired with her and against her?

Now @FoxNews is saying it just like it's true

Seriously, how dumb are people? How does saying that "Russia hacked the elections" dismiss the content of what was hacked?

What was released still altered the election. I'd like to see all the emails they got and not just Hillary's. I'm sure Trump's are tasty.

Seriously. At this point I'm wondering if a post to this sub about this sub wouldn't be appropriate. The juiciest verifiable conspiracy of our age-- Russians affected a US election and this sub is still met with "WHAT ABOUT HILLARY. WHAT ABOUT ISRAEL. What do you mean Russians wanted Trump in office? How about some skepticism?" A certain narrative seems to be promoted here.

I have no dog in this fight. So I'm interested to hear what your thoughts are on why every mainstream media outlet that has ignored all the very underhand and important stuff of late, should suddenly be believed because of an "unamed sourced"?

even the so called "source" says its "someone with connections to Russia". Hillary has connections to Russia, Buzz Aldrin his connections to Russia, Colin Powell has connections to Russia - what does that phrase even mean? This "news" itself Sounds like it's been generated/engineered in such a way as to drive a story where evidence for one does not exist.

If there was a plausible theory put forward (even without firm evidence or sources) detailing who was involved and why they might do this, I'd be all ears.

The WaPo saying "Russia did it" however does smack of sore losers.

Remember when the MSM and CIA were promoting the narrative of weapons of mass destruction?

I've got news for you: weapons of mass destruction do exist!

Remember which party was pushing that?

Yes. What's your point?

That they're the ones we can't trust...

How about we don't trust anyone, and govern our own lives based on princples of reason and logic, build communities based on our likeness rather than blindly follow the commands of another group of people who invariably seek to divide and conquer, thus abuse and exploit. Now wouldn't that be nice?

Would be nice and that's what this sub is supposed to be but it's now blindedly pro trump.

It's not. It's an amalgamation of different people with different ideas. Yours included! Mods are openly neutral and transparent. Which is why you are able to see a shift at all (rather than mods controlling a narrative so that r/conspiracy's aesthetic never changes) Given the history and the nature of governance, of course 99.9% of r/conspiracy are going to be skeptical of all government, and if one "team" promises smaller government, and the other promises bigger government, it makes sense that some, up to and including the majority of r/conspiracy might become attracted to the team promising smaller government. Especially when the leader of that team had to fight a grueling, bitter fight with a common enemy (the MSM) to get there.

If there's any blindness, I will confess, it is because the MSM have time and time again shot themselves in the foot, and I just refuse believe anything they say anymore. It will take someone like you to come up with a convincing argument (and that argument is not "he's racist, he's sexist, he's XYZ"). With regards to the MSM It's boy who cried wolf syndrome, and they're still doing it with all this Russian hacking nonsense, so no reason to believe they have changed.

It makes no sense to distrust the government but have faith in a party whose promises you believe who has never followed through on those promises. People here believe every conspiracy theory other than the Russians are trying to do what's in this book.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics

You're attacking a fictitious position. Sure some people within a large number of people are XYZ, that doesn't therefore mean everyone within that group is XYZ. Because you've picked out a single contradictory case, doesn't mean that all people have the same mindset.

And regarding the Russians, it's not a matter of belief. This is not about faith, it's about empirical data. Where is it?

Well, it's classified. John McCain and Mitch McConnell have seen it. What do they have to say? Oh, they agree with Obama for the first time in 8 years? "Doesn't look like anything to me."

Remeber when bush had the classified documents proving the WoMD?

Remember how McCain and Obama didn't see eye to eye on that report? Remember how that was republicans dping shady shit?

Remeber the saying when you own both football teams, you don't care who wins?

Careful. Sounds like you are claiming this is false news.

If only we had a plausible theory about why they would do such a thing. Like if someone spelled out their goals and this support for trump went along with it, it would be pretty damning. Wait...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics

It's not "sore losers."

It's part of an orchestrated and escalating campaign to beat Trump in the Electoral College. Not to give the win to Hillary, but to take it away from Trump, throw the election into the House, and elect Paul Ryan.

Whose office, btw, was the source of the Access Hollywood tape, in his first attempt to take down Trump.

What's the evidence that Russia hacked US?

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

http://www.threatgeek.com/2016/06/dnc_update.html

Edit: Downvoted for answering a simple request? It's clear there's a large portion of this sub's population that only believes in one subset of conspiracy theories.

Debunked, if not highly contested.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/07/nsa-whistleblower-not-so-fast-on-claims-russia-behind-dnc-email-hack.html

That link doesn't provide any evidence that Russia didn't hack the Clinton's emails. Their "whistlblower" source simply states that the "MSM" is lying about the NSA knowing who hacked the DNC. It doesn't actually debunk that Russia was behind the attacks. He basically says that they shouldn't be so certain unless they could provide proof.

You can't demand that someone prove a negative. If even the CIA doesn't really know who's behind it, then there's no way to know. But just because it could be anyone, doesn't mean it's someone very specific.

But there's evidence that points to Russia. I'm simply posting what that evidence is. Whether you believe it's strong enough is up to you. However, it does exist. I'm not demanding that anyone prove a negative. I'm simply answering a request. If there's evidence that it was anyone other than Russia, feel free to post it as well.

Julian Assange implied pretty strongly that it was Seth Rich of the DNC who "was murdered in a robbery" where nothing was taken from his persons. Assange didn't explicitly say it was Rich because of his policy, but he replied when asked if it was Seth Rich that "his sources go through great risks to leak this valuable information" and then offered a $20k reward to anyone with info on who murdered him. Makes it pretty clear to me that it was not Russia.

Yeah just take someone's (implied) word for it.

Assange runs the organization that leaked them and is one of the few people on earth that knows who the source is... so yeah. I believe him more than the people who lost an election claiming that russia interfered somehow.

More like, the Washington corrupt fear Trump might actually disempower them and they're scrambling for a way to undermine the election.

^{^} Can you prove that that's not the case? No? Oh well then i guess it's as factual as saying the russians interfered.

Obama and McCain and McConnell all saying it now. McConnell's wife is a trump appointee.

Assange also runs the organization that withheld info they have on Trump and only released stuff that was harmful towards Hillary. He isn't infallible and he has biases of his own, just like everyone else. What I'm trying to say is he could have reasons of his own for insinuating that Rich was the leaker. And honestly we don't even really know where Julian is right now, let alone if he's alive. Wikileaks has likely been compromised, and they have an agenda, as evidenced by their timing of the release of the leaks and their not leaking hacked RNC info.

When the entire intelligence community is claiming that Russia influenced the election, we should at least take it seriously and not dismiss it. The democrats don't singlehandedly control all of the intelligence agencies. And this isn't new news, they've been saying this for months. Is there a smoking gun? No. Is there sufficient evidence to say with certainty that Russia interfered? No. But there is enough to warrant an investigation.

And the Washington corrupt are going to flourish under Trump. Look at his cabinet and tell me how he's anything different than what we always get.

I agree with most of what you said... except for that he withheld information on trump. Wikileaks as an organization has never been known to withheld any info for personal motives, and assange explicitly said that nobody had leaked him any info on trump or republicans and that if they had he would have verified and published it. Wikileaks doesn't have control over who they get information on...

Also, not sure how this is turning into a discussion on trump as i only said its possible that the corrupt started this rumor because they feared him following through on draining the swamp... regardless: we found out from wikileaks that the owners of citibank picked obamas cabinet for him. You know, the same people from saudi arabia that hillary clinton took money from despite having acknowledged that they fund isis. The same people that were publicly mocking trump saying he would never be president and after he was elected told him to bow down. Not saying i agree or disagree with any of his picks... but it is definitely going to be very different from what we've seen over the bush/obama/clinton years.

But on to russian interference, i haven't heard any credible info as to how exactly they interfered other than potentially leaking the podesta emails (his email password was "password" btw... so not exactly tough to hack). To me, unless they did something more substantial then it hardly justifies retaliation or action as some are suggesting... I just don't understand how when the secretary of state takes top secret classified info off of secure government devices and uploads them on a private, illegal, unsecure server that the FBI says was hacked 5 times presumably by world powers, no one gives the slightest shit in the world and gives her a get out of jail free card.

Honestly if her and podesta weren't so careless with information vital to national security or privacy, maybe they don't deserve to be running the country?

I also agree with most of what you're saying here. I think Hillary's law-breaking, constant lying, and flat out untrustworthiness are what really killed her campaign, but the purported Russian disinformation could have really tipped the election in Trump's favor. I mean it was a pretty close election, so something like that (along with the timing of the leaks) could have wound up being a deciding factor.

But at the end of the day, it was just a propaganda campaign, I don't think it was more than that like actually altering votes or machines based off of the current info. So I don't think that any kind of extreme measures need to be taken necessarily. But there needs to be some kind of response if it's proven that Russia did interfere, diplomatically or otherwise.

Spot on about Hillary and Obama, but I don't really see Trump's reign being much different from a typical republican presidency. He's going to defer to Pence on things like policy decisions and that says it all. The guy is in over his head, though I like how he's telling China to fuck off.

As far as Assange, I also remember him saying in an interview something along the lines of "what we have on Trump wouldn't be worse than what he's saying all the time". So that kind of implied to me that they do in fact have dirt on him, along with reports that the RNC was hacked as well, with no release (though it's possible Wikileaks just didn't get those leaks from whoever hacked them).

Honestly can't say I really blame Julian though. Our government shit on him, I would want to send the country into disarray too if I was him lol.

except where assange openly said he didn't care about leaks about trump? why not?

He literally never said that... he explicitly said if anyone leaked him information on trump he would verify and publish it, but no one had done so.

Seth Rich was found alive, breathing, and conscious.

If it was indeed a hit job, wouldn't he have said something to police, medics, or his girlfriend (whom he was on the phone with when the incident happened)?

If he really was the leaker, why wouldn't Assange just state it, rather than insinuate it?

Really? He was DYING with multiple gun shot wounds point blank to his back... he wasn't alive very long CLEARLY and that doesn't mean he's in any state to start articulating what he may or may not have done to have caused that.

Wtf are you talking about? How is he going to say anything to anyone? He got ambushed and probably didn't know what was happening, why, or who was doing it.

Assassins don't walk up to you and have a conversation about how they're murdering you for leaking damning information about whoever hired them and then leave you in a state where you can tell people about it...

Assange made it very clear that they don't reveal the sources of their leaks, it would absolutely tarnish their otherwise perfect track record. The $20k reward for someone who was murdered that would otherwise have 0 connection to wikileaks makes it pretty obvious to anyone with a brain that Rich leaked info to them...

Sorry but you just sound stupid when you say someone who is dying would have admitted something like that... and EVEN in the slight chance that he did. Do you think ambulance or police would say anything after seeing this guy getting murdered for what he did? As if whoever did it is above killing them too?

But no... its gotta be russia because seth rich didn't say anything as he was gurgling up blood when trying to breathe just to stay alive.

Really? He was DYING with multiple gun shot wounds point blank to his back... he wasn't alive very long CLEARLY and that doesn't mean he's in any state to start articulating what he may or may not have done to have caused that.

Wtf are you talking about? How is he going to say anything to anyone? He got ambushed and probably didn't know what was happening, why, or who was doing it.

He was alive for like 2 hours. He died at the hospital. And you think he wouldn't know what happened, but you do? A complete stranger who wasn't actually at the scene of the crime? Got it.

Assassins don't walk up to you and have a conversation about how they're murdering you for leaking damning information about whoever hired them and then leave you in a state where you can tell people about it...

Yet, you believe that these "assasins" shot Rich, made it look like a robbery (without actually taking anything), and didn't even confirm the kill? You think this is more likely than a botched robbery at ~3am?

Assange made it very clear that they don't reveal the sources of their leaks, it would absolutely tarnish their otherwise perfect track record. The $20k reward for someone who was murdered that would otherwise have 0 connection to wikileaks makes it pretty obvious to anyone with a brain that Rich leaked info to them...

He doesn't reveal sources... except through insinuation. It wouldn't be the first time Assange has bullshitted.

Sorry but you just sound stupid when you say someone who is dying would have admitted something like that... and EVEN in the slight chance that he did. Do you think ambulance or police would say anything after seeing this guy getting murdered for what he did? As if whoever did it is above killing them too?

But no... its gotta be russia because seth rich didn't say anything as he was gurgling up blood when trying to breathe just to stay alive.

So you have no actual evidence he was the source of the leaks, other than innuendo. Got it.

Lol love how you claim my knowledge of the situation is less credible than yours because I'm a complete stranger who wasn't there. Newsflash: you are too. He was fucking shot and got his ass beat bad enough to die... but when i claim it's unreasonable for you to assume he was in a coherent enough state to talk about what may or may not have happened (as he's DYING), you respond that I'm making claims based on innuendo. Right. Back to Russia.

Yes, I'm a stranger, but that's why I concede it to the actual investigators, instead of innuendo.

Available evidence should certainly be discussed, so it's great that you posted it.

But I as well as others find the evidence weak/circumstantial/based on claims of biased parties. It is not necessary for me to prove that someone else is responsible or prove that Russia has an alibi ("it was hanging out with Finland that week, witness reindeer confirm"), merely to point out the faults in your evidence.

So your demand that someone provide "evidence that Russia didn't hack" is excessive, while your claim that Russia did hack does require proof. The logical onus is on the one making the original accusation.

But if the cia has a plant a a mole or an agent who would be at risk, then only a republican like dick cheney can say so without being a traitor.

Hmm, ok.

Russia is incompetent if they didn't hack into Hillary's email server, as is any other country where she accessed her insecure email server.

none of your links prove that russia had anything to do with it, mainly because there were no russians, the information was leaked.

There doesn't seem to be any. It's almost as if Clinton makes stuff up and the media reports it.

My understanding is that the "hack" was mostly a release of Podesta's emails - which sounds like someone guessed his idiotically password (which supposedly was p@ssw0rd).

That doesn't feel like the might of the Russian intelligence apparatus. And you can bet, given that Hillary didn't even have as much security as Podesta on her server, that the Russians really do have her emails, and that those are plenty incriminating (the FBI has said its 99% that 5 hostile agencies penetrated her server). But Hillary's emails/server contents have not been released.

Logic suggests that it was inside job, by someone with lucky and limited access. Meanwhile, unknown agencies have the contents of Hillary's "secret server." And the US media continues to disgrace itself.

What? Do you want the FBI or CIA releasing classified info to a bunch of retards on the internet regarding the proof of Russia interfering?

No, I'm mindless drone so I'll just take their word for it.

How is it verifiable? I haven't seen any conclusive evidence presented.

A certain narrative seems to be promoted here.

Exactly. There are no unbiased media sources anymore, you just get some pairs of sources that are biased in opposite directions and deduce a middle ground.

From an outsider perspective this sub has been almost completely overrun by r/t_d.

There was a fairly thorough investigation done about how the Russians have been controlling media narratives (yes, even influencing MSM). The people who conducted the research are shadowy and therefore not accountable for flaws in their work, but their explanation of their methodology should be more than enough to satisfy the people on this sub.

The point being - the Russians use, among other things, shill Reddit accounts to spread pro-Russia news and viewpoints. Don't be surprised if there are some that regularly participate on this sub.

I'm sure someone will respond "b-b-but Hillary's CTR shills!" sure, that's fine. But Hillary lost and CTR has no point now - the Russians are still around.

Review it for yourself: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Byj_1ybuSGp_NmYtRF95VTJTeUk/view

you are a schill and truly a vile creature.

I'm a "schill," says the person with an entire comment history denying Russian involvement and claiming to be a bernie "fan" while posting links from sketchy blogs. interesting.

It's amazing how much some people think 6 million dollars can stretch. I've been called a CTR shill almost as many times as I've been called Trump shill. I basically mentally disacknowledge anyone who uses the term at this point. It's an extremely lazy mental shortcut. A pejorative, really.

You're automatically a shill if you dare disagree with anyone on anything. Especially in this sub

your ability to cite fallacious arguments is impressive. go fuck yourself.

Your inability to refute what I was saying is pretty impressive too

ad hominem attacks are the best you have. be gone little person, be gone.

here you go, this is who craig murray is, he is the most respected cybersecurity person the NSA ever employed. period.

This.

yes, the more logical and likely correct one

Thank you! Seriously what it has been feeling like around here, conspiracies know no bias, Hillary is bad, this is bad too. Geopolitically speaking, this is much worse

Because, most oddly enough, only the Senate is ensuring this issue is not tackled in a partisan manner. The lay person most certainly isn't, which your comment alludes to. The lay person reads the news and finds it another opportunity to smear the President-elect.

So, rightly, fans come out and point to the idiocy of such attacks. How is this an opportunity to smear, when it was the content of what was hacked that did the damage? Sure, it's bad that Russia was able to affect American elections, but to think that this somehow diminishes Donald's accomplishment or taints his future presidency is irrational.

I was just indicting this subreddit which has been happy to build conspiracy theories against Clinton with sometimes flimsy circumstantial evidence. Here we have a lot of admitted ties between Putin and Trump and this sub is mostly silent about them. Everything you've said about the defense of trump by this sub could also have been said about Clinton for the last however many months. There's a clear bias here, to post info about Clinton's corruption and to ignore parallel information about trump.

Because the safe space kids left the donald and think they own this sub now.

Those will be leaked when Russia moves troops to the Finland border

If Trump stays in power I think they will keep those cards close for as long as they can.

And why the fuck would Russian troops want to move to Finland??

I almost guarantee they're not. Simple man who likely doesn't operate by email all that much of have anything to say even if he did.

The republican emails on the other hand... You can bet your ass the RNC saw what they did to Bernie and thought/said "we're fucking retarded, why didn't we do a better job of this ourselves..."

According to the RNC and their own intelligence agencies they weren't hacked at all. There was an interview with Sean Spicer on CNN about it. Apparently the RNC offered the NYTimes an exclusive insight on what they had and all their proof/evidence, etc. And NYTimes said fuuuuck that, it doesn't fit our narrative.

[deleted]

"Job"... They have so many RNC emails they are sitting on. Do you really think Hillary was the only one who had something to hide? I thought more of this sub but it is slowly turning into just anti Hillary.

This sub is rightly anti Hillary given the number of connections to conspiracies she has.

Id be as keen as anyone to see what the 8years dormant RNC has been up to, but to be honest, I'd not be surprised if they've done very little given how poorly organized and in disarray they seemed to be this last election cycle. I would imagine it would all be embarrassing and bitchy infighting over where allegiances fell - I'd be very interested and shocked if it were anything else.

that'll release those when Trump gets inaugurated.

Actually, it wasnt trumps emails, it was the rnc, and it wasn't the Russians, it was domestic, and they were really, really mundane business as usual emails not ones involving sacrificing chickens to moloch or bragging about how they sabotaged the change candidate.

I wish we got access to everyone's dirty laundry. I'm not convinced the emails altered the election, though. Maybe, but her campaign was run terribly without the help of emails.

He didn't use email. And they did try to find dirt on him but said nothing they found was worse than what comes out of his mouth every other day. So we've seen the worst of Trump. Trust that if they could find anything other than a tape of him saying the P word twelve years ago they would have shouted it from the rooftops. All they had was Russia, Russia, Russia and Nazi's- even though Trump is a known supporter of the Jews and its public record that Hillary has more ties to Russia than Trump with her Uranium One Deal.

Trumps campaign manager didn't fall for the phishing attempt and podesta did... This likely wasn't some major operation to hack emails, it was an attempt to get an idiot to directly hand over his password.

I read or heard somewhere, might be an anon channel that said that Wikileaks takes pay for what to release

They think the email discussion is just about whether or not she should have set up the server.

They are unaware of the content of the emails.

We are well aware of the content. We keep asking Right-wingers to provide evidence from her REAL emails of illegal acts. Nothing.

Furthermore, we keep asking Right-wingers why suddenly NOW it's fine for a Russian dictator to hack into BOTH parties' emails when just four years ago Russia was an enemy we needed to build up our military against.

From you we only get this answer: we hate Hillary.

Yeah, cowards voting me down. That's all you can do. You certainly can't come up with any answers.

We keep asking Right-wingers to provide evidence from her REAL emails of illegal acts. Nothing.

Democrat here.

You can go ahead and try and explain and justify, try to be dismissive and willfully ignorant. Im just going to leave this here for you to think about. Anyone saying there is nothing in the leaks hasnt read them and was counting on CNN or the WaPo to show you the context.

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism

Definitions of Terrorism in U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the U.S. Code, entitled "Terrorism.”

"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law; Appear to be intended
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*

This is important because it defines who a particular set of enemies of the state are.

First the Email in Question and what Assange actually said about it: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7243 (Note it was Published on 10/13/16)

At the same time we should return to plans to provide the FSA, or some group of moderate forces, with equipment that will allow them to deal with a weakened ISIL, and stepped up operations against the Syrian regime. This entire effort should be done with a low profile, avoiding the massive traditional military operations that are at best temporary solutions. While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.

Its necessary to point out that the significance of this email is not what it literally states, obviously the US would rather limit ISIS' influence in the region. The context is that the US knew that Saudi Arabia was arming ISIS when the US State Department approved $115 Billion Dollars worth of arms deals to Saudi Arabia

Cornell University sites the US Constitution defining Treason

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

ARTICLE III, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 1

You can decide that this isnt actually treasonous. But you should know that this comes as close as any Presidential Candidate has ever got to crossing that line. Chances are that if you disagree about Clinton or Kerry or Obama's culpability in this matter, you would have said Reagan and Oliver North were Traitors if you were asked 5 years ago. For more context, keep reading.

CNN reported that ISIS was armed with American Weapons in December, 2015; and if you read the actual Amnesty.org report it says (Pg. 20, 21):

It is also likely that some of the small arms in IS’ possession – such as an M4 carbine-style Bushmaster X15E2S manufactured in the USA and documented in IS’ arsenal entered Iraq with private security companies during the US occupation and found their way into Iraqi arms markets.

A few months prior The Guardian reported:

a recently declassified secret US intelligence report, written in August 2012, which uncannily predicts – and effectively welcomes – the prospect of a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria and an al-Qaida-controlled Islamic state in Syria and Iraq. In stark contrast to western claims at the time, the Defense Intelligence Agency document identifies al-Qaida in Iraq (which became Isis) and fellow Salafists as the “major forces driving the insurgency in Syria” – and states that “western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey” were supporting the opposition’s efforts to take control of eastern Syria.

Maybe you would like The Intercept to clarify a few things:

Clinton openly criticized the Saudi, Qatari, and Kuwaiti governments for failing “to stop their citizens from funding extremist organizations.” Her newly released 2014 email goes a step further, directly attributing support for ISIS to the Saudi government.

If you are a liberal ask yourself how you feel about Iran/Contra and if you want to be the one defending it for the next 50 years (The Gaurdian) because this mass migration taking place in Europe is the biggest thing to happen there since WW2 (NPR)

This brings us to The Refugee Crisis (BBC) in Europe. This is projected to cost Germany alone well north of a Trillion dollars (Express) over the next 2 decades. A cost which could conceivably be passed on to the US (WaPo) because of America's insistence of supporting terrorist states (The Gaurdian). ISIS has claimed responsibility for attacks (CBS) on Belgium when they bombed the airport at Brussels (NYT), France at Charlie Hebdo and Bataclan theater (NYT), Australia, Russia, Lebanon and others that could potentially lay financial culpability on the US.

This has had significant effect on international relationships too that threaten the longest peace in western Europe since Augustus Caeser. According to Vox "Anti-immigrant backlash is driving support for Brexit which was only exacerbated by continental Europe's refugee crisis. Rape (is) A 'Significant And Disturbing' Feature Of Syrian War according to NPR. Would the Leave Campaign been as successful if Scandinavian (NYT) and German (Reuters) women were not being raped (The Gauardian)and assaulted in the hundreds? By weakening the EU with Brexit (ABC) as a result of "xenophobic fears" Europe faces a crisis:

"At stake, purely and simply," Mr Valls added, "is the break-up of the union. We have to invent another Europe." (BBC)

The US created the Refugee Crisis in Europe by knowingly arming ISIS and is why Turkey may leave NATO (Al Jazeera); This is why Russia (CNN) may invade the rest of Ukraine. This is why Trump wants to build a wall.

In short, Assange did not over-hype the ramifications of US involvement in Syria.

And that should suffice for incriminating and substantiated things not adequately covered in the media. The left seems to think they can point a finger at Russia while not addressing anything in the emails. If all that Russia released simply amounted to a bad segment on The Today Show and had nothing of any substance to it, how would it have effected the election? How could it? Not to deflect, but Carlos Slim (the riches man in Mexico) owns the NYT. Is Mexico interfering with US politics? Or are they simply publishing truth? Anyone that thinks WL was "manipulating the election" by publishing primary sources and thinks it is okay for NYT to publish without the same degree of skepticism is being intellectually dishonest and hypocritical.

Great reply

To get from this that the US is actively helping ISIS is a very very far stretch. The US attempted to help the FSA against Assad. Many FSA members became ISIS later. That is not direct help to ISIS.

The US arms Saudi Arabia. Certain elements within the House of Saud actively support ISIS. That does not mean the US is actively supporting ISIS.

What a Democrat you are.

So you ignored the email part. OK.

No, I addressed the entire point you think you are making about that particular email. There is no admission of an intent to arm ISIS in that email.

They are aware its happening, yes?

We are aware. She lost though. Now we focus on what's actually relevant. Which, of course, is the true challenge in this sub. Focusing on the relevant.

I think you are right.

[deleted]

Trumps twitter does not contain classified information vital to national security

Trump's twitter is just Trump being a dipshit. The emails vindicate a whole lot of so-called conspiracy theorists.

LOL, this is the best comment in the thread. So spot on.

Not for anyone who understands the content of said emails.

Well he'd have to turn up to briefings first.

Nice way to change the thread topic to favor insults over substance :)

To be fair I agree w/ you, we're talking about Trump right now, not Hillary.

But the person you replied to does have a point: he should attend the briefings, that is quite literally part of his job.

No it's not, the President can decide to attend whatever he or she wants to attend. The President's job is the manage the executive branch of government, one of the key aspects of good management is effective delegation.

No it's not, the President can decide to attend whatever he or she wants to attend. The President's job is the manage the executive branch of government, one of the key aspects of good management is effective delegation.

Jesus.

I mean, technically he's correct. It's up to us as voters to do something about his fucking up at his job.

...if you say so. But it was my impression that the intelligence briefings were presidential, ie he should attend.

No they are not. For example, Obama also skips most of these

Yes, the man that said we should sneak attack Mosul definitely does not need intelligence briefings. /s

Also, good source on your little factoid that was reported by Breitbart and the numbers came from the "Government Accountability Institute". This "Institute" is co-founded by Bannon and that particular bit was found to be false. If any briefings have been missed, they are delivered in paper form to the president, not disregarded entirely as Trump is doing. I'm not necessarily a fan of Obama and wouldn't say I'm a democrat, but if you're going to make accusations, make sure they have a credible source.

Also, good source on your little factoid that was reported by Breitbart and the numbers came from the "Government Accountability Institute". This "Institute" is co-founded by Bannon and been that particular bit was found to be false.

Source?

If any briefings have been missed, they are delivered in paper form to the president

So, you're saying it's not true that he missed half of those meetings, and after that you agree that he did miss a lot of these meetings?

Huh, I see. If you can provide a good source for that (preferably primary), I will happily stand corrected!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-is-obama-skipping-more-than-half-of-his-daily-intelligence-meetings/2012/09/10/6624afe8-fb49-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_story.html

Fake news! /s

Well, I'll be damned. Thank you!

Obama even skipped these - He receives the briefings in the form of writing later either way.

I just don't understand how anyone could ever be okay with some of the stupid shit Trump has said recently. Clinton is terrible, but don't stick your head so far up your own ass about trump. He is literally acting like he wants to throw the presidency on purpose. I'm still not convinced he will ever be our president with some of the stupid shit he's said since being elected.

And keeping on topic with this sub, I'm not convinced this isn't part of the plan and he hasn't been working with Clinton this entire damn time.

To be fair I agree w/ you, we're talking about Trump right now, not Hillary.

You may want to read the title of the thread.

Threads of conversation are allowed to move from the topic of the original post.

Okay, but don't pretend like it's a discussion about Trump when the entire thread's not talking about him.

That's the language you Trumpies speak. Otherwise you don't understand.

It's the language you think we speak, and that's part of the problem

There's something you could do about that, you know.

I can change the way you think?

Start using your critical thinking skills and your common sense.

What makes you assume I haven't already?

It is obvious you haven't.

Can you explain how?

No, but this guy can:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj7u3G_K6TA

Are you trolling or just bad at arguing?

He's got a much better attendance rate than Obama.

Nor did Clinton's.

Server or Twitter?

Stop being racist!

Neither did Clintons.

I almost wish it did... not from the illegal nature of it, but more of "oh he's actually listening to the briefings and stuff"
Something like "you would not believe what SecDef told me about Iran today" would make me feel a lot better

... yet. how do I mark for half sarcasm?

Trump did not sell confidential tweets to the highest bidder through a front foundation.

Are you sure? Just because he didn't get a good price for them doesn't mean he isn't owned. It just means he is a bad negotiator.

Really, You actually believe Trump's tirades on twitter are more dangerous than selling state department policy. Are you serious?

[deleted]

Here is a good one covered by a couple of outlets to some degree but lacking in the context. You can go ahead and try and explain and justify, try to be dismissive and willfully ignorant. Im just going to leave this here for you to think about.

Anyone saying there is nothing in the leaks hasnt read them and was counting on CNN or the WaPo to show you the context

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism

Definitions of Terrorism in U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the U.S. Code, entitled "Terrorism.”

"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law; Appear to be intended
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*

This is important because it defines who a particular set of enemies of the state are.

First the Email in Question and what Assange actually said about it: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7243 (Note it was Published on 10/13/16)

At the same time we should return to plans to provide the FSA, or some group of moderate forces, with equipment that will allow them to deal with a weakened ISIL, and stepped up operations against the Syrian regime. This entire effort should be done with a low profile, avoiding the massive traditional military operations that are at best temporary solutions. While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.

Its necessary to point out that the significance of this email is not what it literally states, obviously the US would rather limit ISIS' influence in the region. The context is that the US knew that Saudi Arabia was arming ISIS when the US State Department approved $115 Billion Dollars worth of arms deals to Saudi Arabia

Cornell University sites the US Constitution defining Treason

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

ARTICLE III, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 1

You can decide that this isnt actually treasonous. But you should know that this comes as close as any Presidential Candidate has ever got to crossing that line. Chances are that if you disagree about Clinton or Kerry or Obama's culpability in this matter, you would have said Reagan and Oliver North were Traitors if you were asked 5 years ago. For more context, keep reading.

CNN reported that ISIS was armed with American Weapons in December, 2015; and if you read the actual Amnesty.org report it says (Pg. 20, 21):

It is also likely that some of the small arms in IS’ possession – such as an M4 carbine-style Bushmaster X15E2S manufactured in the USA and documented in IS’ arsenal entered Iraq with private security companies during the US occupation and found their way into Iraqi arms markets.

A few months prior The Guardian reported:

a recently declassified secret US intelligence report, written in August 2012, which uncannily predicts – and effectively welcomes – the prospect of a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria and an al-Qaida-controlled Islamic state in Syria and Iraq. In stark contrast to western claims at the time, the Defense Intelligence Agency document identifies al-Qaida in Iraq (which became Isis) and fellow Salafists as the “major forces driving the insurgency in Syria” – and states that “western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey” were supporting the opposition’s efforts to take control of eastern Syria.

Maybe you would like The Intercept to clarify a few things:

Clinton openly criticized the Saudi, Qatari, and Kuwaiti governments for failing “to stop their citizens from funding extremist organizations.” Her newly released 2014 email goes a step further, directly attributing support for ISIS to the Saudi government.

If you are a liberal ask yourself how you feel about Iran/Contra and if you want to be the one defending it for the next 50 years (The Gaurdian) because this mass migration taking place in Europe is the biggest thing to happen there since WW2 (NPR)

This brings us to The Refugee Crisis (BBC) in Europe. This is projected to cost Germany alone well north of a Trillion dollars (Express) over the next 2 decades. A cost which could conceivably be passed on to the US (WaPo) because of America's insistence of supporting terrorist states (The Gaurdian). ISIS has claimed responsibility for attacks (CBS) on Belgium when they bombed the airport at Brussels (NYT), France at Charlie Hebdo and Bataclan theater (NYT), Australia, Russia, Lebanon and others that could potentially lay financial culpability on the US.

This has had significant effect on international relationships too that threaten the longest peace in western Europe since Augustus Caeser. According to Vox "Anti-immigrant backlash is driving support for Brexit which was only exacerbated by continental Europe's refugee crisis. Rape (is) A 'Significant And Disturbing' Feature Of Syrian War according to NPR. Would the Leave Campaign been as successful if Scandinavian (NYT) and German (Reuters) women were not being raped (The Gauardian)and assaulted in the hundreds? By weakening the EU with Brexit (ABC) as a result of "xenophobic fears" Europe faces a crisis:

"At stake, purely and simply," Mr Valls added, "is the break-up of the union. We have to invent another Europe." (BBC)

The US created the Refugee Crisis in Europe by knowingly arming ISIS and is why Turkey may leave NATO (Al Jazeera); This is why Russia (CNN) may invade the rest of Ukraine. This is why Trump wants to build a wall.

In short, Assange did not over-hype the ramifications of US involvement in Syria.

And that should suffice for incriminating and substantiated things not adequately covered in the media. The left seems to think they can point a finger at Russia while not addressing anything in the emails. If all that Russia released simply amounted to a bad segment on The Today Show and had nothing of any substance to it, how would it have effected the election? How could it? Not to deflect, but Carlos Slim (the riches man in Mexico) owns the NYT. Is Mexico interfering with US politics? Or are they simply publishing truth? Anyone that thinks WL was "manipulating the election" by publishing primary sources and thinks it is okay for NYT to publish without the same degree of skepticism is being intellectually dishonest and hypocritical.

Thanks for reading,

Life Long Democrat

[deleted]

First the Email in Question and what Assange actually said about it: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7243 (Note it was Published on 10/13/16)

I literally link you to the content of the emails.

[deleted]

Its necessary to point out that the significance of this email is not what it literally states, obviously the US would rather limit ISIS' influence in the region. The context is that the US knew that Saudi Arabia was arming ISIS when the US State Department approved $115 Billion Dollars worth of arms deals to Saudi Arabia

So far all you've proved is that you have at least a 3rd grade reading level for being able to discover such a document.

So you didnt read the post at all and are challenging my reading level. Ok.

[deleted]

After months of relentless media investigations, can you name one policy or secret that was compromised by Hillary Clinton? I"ll wait. No? Maybe you should reevaluate the way you consume propaganda news.

What you are doing now is called moving the goal post. You asked to see something revealed that we shouldnt know about. I showed you something we should not know about. And gave proper context to its significance.

You realize that Hillary was Secretary of State and not Dictator, right?

She acted with executive authority. She could have killed the deal on her own at any moment in time. But chose not to. This is important and refutes your argument. This isnt blame. This is accountability. Others have culpability in this fiasco too. But you wanted to see some dirt from the emails. Here is the dirt.

[deleted]

You arent citing any sources for any of your claims. You think I am being partisan but I am the one that acknowledged fault on both sides of the aisle for 3 separate arms deals. And yes, the SoS can kill an arms deal on her own. The President can tell her to approve it but she can still say no. I pointed out exactly how this is just like Contra which was illegal and people convicted, so this clears that goalpost but the goalpost set in this conversation was you asking for policy or secret that was compromised. What I linked you to was a TS email that originated with the SoS. That is something you and I should not be able to read for obvious reasons. But here we are. Now you want to debate the significance of the email, and I welcome that discussion, but you should concede the point that addressed exactly what you were asking for.

[deleted]

I don't understand.

I know. It's ok.

The SoS can't do anything without Presidential approval. It's a cabinet position within the Executive branch.

This isnt true. The president can prevent SoS from acting in certain ways but the SoS can also pressure the President. That is why cabinet positions exist. So the President doesn't have to do everything. SoS does not run everything through the president and may also limit the things that get to the President. So if the SoS wanted to prevent a foreign government with furnishing enemies of the state with american weapons all they would have to do is not negotiate with terrorist sponsoring states.

[deleted]

And the SoS can say no to the deal. You are being incredibly ignorant.

[deleted]

Every single one of these people have mechanisms to prevent the US from arming enemies of the state. These things should be discussed publicly by MSM. But they arent and that is the problem we are discussing. If you want to decide who is to blame for arming ISIS knowingly through SA, that is fine. But you need to accept the truth that we are discussing for any of this to go further. I would love to put this at the feet of the Republican party, believe me. Like I said, Im a democrat.

5yr old account, with 5 visible posts, all in this sub in the last 10hours and all pushing "fake news/fact check false"

k

[deleted]

Maybe you can enlighten me?

i doubt it

You say Hillary pretends to be competent and concerned about the welfare of our country as if that's a good thing.

I'd rather have someone outright tell the truth so that they can be pushed back and opposed at every turn.

One huge positive that Donald has over Hillary is that we will see his every criticism, whereas Hillary would have gotten away with all the same shit that Obama did.

Are you fucking serious? Shitloads of examples, and that's just the stuff that Congress can even hear, ignoring the big stuff because of SAP protections. Did you not see any of the congressional hearings?

Shit, she even fucked up and gave concrete intel on our nuclear response times IN A FUCKING DEBATE ON LIVE TV.

Well, uh, yeah, but CNN/NBC/ABC/NYT say RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA.

[deleted]

Shitloads of examples, just none worthy of ever mentioning, right?

Again, you must have missed Comeys press release and all of those congressional hearings.

"110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification."

52 concrete examples, chump.

Ten seconds of googling debunks your only concrete claim. Are you surprised people don't blindly believe your false facts?

Not debunked. Damage controlled. She fucking spilled the beans on response times on live TV during A DEBATE. 100% FACT.

[deleted]

Twenty more seconds of googling disproves your latest fake news fetish story. Here's an article from Scientific American from 1997 detailing the timeline of the nuclear launch process. I guess now you can either become outraged at the "liberal media" for this act of treason, or admit you were wrong and that this information isn't secret or classified.

First, that's 1997. Second, that's general information and says "within a half hour". Third, she specifically gave information about the time it takes from when the pres gives the order to the launch time, which is definitively classified info.

Hillary mishandled classified information in a negligent albeit LEGAL manner, as determined by a Republican FBI Director who has been scrutinized for politicizing the process.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA Lock her up, because she's fucking guilty as shit. LEGAL my ASS.

Funny you'll believe the evidence for her wrongdoing but not the evidence that lead to not being prosecuted.

It's called basic logic.

Stay strong in your bubble, comrade, the truth will come for you sooner or later.

All the commies are at the rallies for the left, champ. Cognitive Dissonance at it's finest.

She confirmed the 4 minute launch times on live television. No investigation needed for that one.

Example?

No

but content was never the issue in this comment.

ftfy

It's hard to tell the difference between Hillary supporters and trolls, isn't it folks?

not really, hillary doesn't have any supporters

"hacked the elections" is stupid, but they certainly seem to have targeted Clinton. For some reason they wanted Trump to win, and they helped. Do we really want to just let that slide?

I'm happy to see insider info in the DNC and their corruption. But there's more facets to this than that.

For some reason they wanted Trump to win

Hillary Clinton's "Reset" policy towards Russia as Secretary of State was an absolute failure. She completely screwed the pooch when it came to diplomacy with Russia. This was during the Medvedev administration, early in Obama's presidency, well before Putin's involvement in Ukraine or Syria, and if she hadn't totally mishandled our relationship with Russia things may have turned out differently over the past 8 years.

The government should have known that it was only a matter of time before the Russians tried to attack Hillary Clinton in some way. They know full well how much she's despised in Russia, not just by the government but by the common people. So why the fuck were they so lax about cyber security when they knew that Russian hackers were a universal threat and that they had a personal grudge against Hillary in particular?

Honestly... because they're old and don't prioritize electronic security, would be my guess. That and hubris.

Thank you for saying “hubris”, you saved me from typing six letters, so as a sign of respect I used 124 to say this instead.

They want this. Trump helps.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics

That's why we went back to Defcon 5 after Trump won.

but they certainly seem to have targeted Clinton

I would be surprised if they didn't. Apparently, Clinton's private server was easy to find, and more than one foreign intelligence agency knows the secrets that it contained.

But if we're being specific, then we're discussing the leaks that actually affected the election: the DNC leaks and John Podesta's email. For the DNC leaks, Assange all but bluntly states that it was leaked (not hacked) by Seth Rich:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp7FkLBRpKg

For Podesta's email, we don't have the name of the leaker, but in the Pilger interview, Assange says that leak is from a "Washington insider". Craig Murray, an associate of Assange and a generally credible source, says as much, claiming that he has even met the leaker and that it was, again, a "Washington insider":

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/

As for the credibility of the CIA's recent claims? Consider this dose of skepticism from Glenn Greenwald:

https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/anonymous-leaks-to-the-washpost-about-the-cias-russia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence/

But if we're being specific, then we're discussing the leaks that actually affected the election: the DNC leaks and John Podesta's email. For the DNC leaks, Assange all but bluntly states that it was leaked (not hacked) by Seth Rich:

What happened to skepticism?

When faced with conflicting accounts, evaluate those accounts and how well they correspond to other known facts. And either, in theory, could be a lie. So are you suggesting that this poorly sourced story from the Washington Post and the CIA is more believable than the person who at least knows from whom he directly received the leak? Does the CIA and Washington Post have a better track record for honesty than Assange? I've chosen my answer to that question, and I'm pretty damn comfortable with it for now.

Where's assange again? Hashes start matching again?

You can inquire here: r/whereisassange.

Assange discussed these issues prior to his disappearance:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp7FkLBRpKg

https://youtu.be/_sbT3_9dJY4

Russia probably didn't want a president who thought it was ok to fund terrorist outside of Russia's border.

It is so sad that your average American would have no idea what you're saying.

Hey what country so you live in? Just curious. Because if it's the USA we've been doing this shit for decades since WW2. Idk what everyone's shock is, why is this a taboo thing to you?

doing a shitty thing just because we have been doing it for a long time doesn't mean we should continue to do it.

Is there not ample evidence that Russia does the same things, generally with a lot less finesse and more loss of civilian life? How are we to respond to their aggression? I'm not condoning our actions, but the situation has a lot of nuance and it's not as simple as "let's all get along" when the other side is definitely not going to respond in kind.

I don't think we should fight a proxy war and help fuel the destabilization of an area. If Russia wants it let them take it. The people will revolt without us selling weapons but prolonging the conflict helps no one in the area at all.

Where do you draw the line at stopping tyranny? The policy you are proposing was more or less the status quo in the US and parts of Europe in the first half of the 20th century. It didn't work out so well. The Cold War was the response, and I always laugh when people say the Cold War ended in 89/90, because it is very much still alive in Ukraine, Syria, elsewhere.

Why is it our job to stop these people when we have bigger issues here at home? Why do we have to be better than Russia. Continuing the slaughter of Syrians doesn't help us stop tyranny it just keeps Russia from being another super power.

The Russian-backed Assad forces slaughtering their own people doesn't count as tyranny? Shooting down a passenger airline passing over a conflict zone doesn't count?

it just keeps Russia from being another super power.

This would seem to be in our interest. I think there is a valid case for a non-interventionist US foreign policy. I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that other countries should not be intervening in these cases, however. I'd be perfectly happy to see us not be the world police. But large parts of the world still need policing, and especially after 2007-08 none of our allies are really in shape to beef up their military in short order. Europe is a clusterfuck right now. China and Russia are uneasy allies as are the US and China. It will take courage, intelligence, careful planning, diplomacy, and a good amount of time to remove us from the world stage in this fashion without completely demolishing the First World as we know it.

Then lets say the rebels win. Then what. We throw in our own corrupt puppet government?

How do you get shock and surprise from someone simply explaining a likely motive of another nation?

Putin and the rest of his administration are in for a rude awakening.

Nor openly discuss wanting a no fly zone and keeping the nuclear option always on the table.

they certainly seem to have targeted Clinton

Out of interest, who are "they"? What is the Russian connection other than a boogeyman? I thought a lot of these were "leaks" rather than state-sponsored attacks - does any evidence exist that leans to either?

I think after Jan 20th we'll get the answers when the Reps clear shop at the CIA/FBI/NSA.

If the FBI or CIA release hard evidence it will show Russian hacker how they are caught letting them change tactic to avoid it. Also we want to know when they hack and who so we can make misinformation during/after the attack.

In the spy game it about knowing and not letting the other side know you know and more importantly how you know.

For some reason they wanted Trump to win

Maybe because Hillary was completely open about her desire for a war with Russia. There is no way that her Syrian No Fly Zone would have resulted in anything other than war. And there is no way she wouldn't have done it, given the vast amounts the Saudis paid for that war, and her history of foreign-policy fuck-ups.

They're trying to make it sound to normies like FSB actually fucked with the voting machines. There's no specifics in the MSM narrative anymore, just "Russia hacked the election".

And people are just eating this shit up. It's infuriating. It's like they've been trained in how to turn off their own brains.

The American public is being programmed for Clinton's installation on the 19th.

That will start a civil war and the masters know it. They are profoundly, irredeemably evil, but they are not stupid and they are not suicidal; and having the Electoral College go rogue and hand HRH the crown is both of those things.

What if I told you they want a civil war.

Then I would reply that they are insane, because that is not a war they can win.

But if that's truly what they want ... okay then. Come get some.

What at this late date is making you reluctant to classify the USG as insane?

To be honest, it's differing definitions of the word "insane".

I'd be the first to tell you that the criminal Federal Establishment is insane in the sense that its institutional goals do not comport with common notions of decency and good governance, but at least they're rational in their evilness.

Deliberately starting a civil war that they cannot win, on the other hand, is insane in the sense that it is irrational and suicidal in addition to being evil.

Deliberately starting a civil war that they cannot win, on the other hand, is insane in the sense that it is irrational and suicidal in addition to being evil.

The definition of insane is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different outcome.

Why do you think the USG starting a civil war would be 'suicidal'? Why do you think the USG has been giving military hardware to our Law Enforcement organizations that's better than what our enlisted had in Iraq?

Do you understand that? Your Federal government sees YOU as more of a threat to security than anyone in the middle east.

Think about that. And you tell me if that still makes you think that our FedGov is 'suicidal'.

WARNING! WALL OF TEXT INCOMING!

Why do you think the USG starting a civil war would be 'suicidal'?

Because if it actually comes to all-out war, it's not a war they can win. If there's one thing Iraq and Afghanistan have taught us, it's that ragtag bands of goat-fuckers, armed only with AK-47s, IEDs, home-field advantage, and sheer fucking tenacity, can fight the world's most advanced military to a draw; all this on foreign land, where the people speak a different language and can be easily characterized as "other" (making it easier to convince US forces to kill them.)

On American soil, with Americans fighting Americans, the instant those orders go out, the Fedcoats lose a third to half of their enlisted forces and a smaller (but still significant) chunk of their officer corps to defection. (I am basing these numbers off of conversations I've had with friends and family who are veterans; I admit that they are anecdotal, but they're not pulled straight from my ass.)

Cops are a different ball game, because they've been trained to think with an "us against them" mentality. The average cop, if ordered to, will mow down a group of people without a second thought. A soldier, sailor, Marine, or airman might consider whether the order is lawful or not before pulling the trigger, which pretty much explains why

the USG has been giving military hardware to our Law Enforcement organizations that's better than what our enlisted had in Iraq.

It's obvious how they're going to make their move. They're going to take all the data the NSA has been gathering and come up with a list of people for the police to arrest and/or kill, in the hope that this will nip an incipient insurrection in the bud.

Your Federal government sees YOU as more of a threat to security than anyone in the middle east

I doubt they see ME, personally, as a particularly grave threat. They've obviously collected a vast amount of data on me, just like they have everyone else, but I'd be surprised if a human eye has ever looked at my file. I'm simply not important enough. And this is a good thing, since it means I probably won't be in the first wave of disappearances.

Thing of it is, once that first wave goes down, the Fedcoats start losing hearts and minds really fucking quick, and in order to keep a lid on the situation, they would need to act with more speed, competence, and brutality than I think is within their capability (at least the first two).

They'd probably be able to subdue the cities without too much trouble, but short of bombing the entire continent to smithereens, the Feds are not going to be able to crush a rebellion (or several disjointed ones) that's waging a guerrilla war from the countryside. Too much territory to cover, too many veterans familiar with current counterinsurgency tactics, too many hunters who know the terrain like the back of their hand. You know that misattributed Admiral Yamamoto quote about there being "a rifle behind every blade of grass"? There you go. They're not winning that kind of war, I don't think they can prevent it from becoming that kind of war, and I think they know it.

I haven't even touched the fact that a domestic insurrection in the United States would tank the global economy. The banksters know this. It's one thing if the insurrection pops off organically, but why on earth would they give the go-ahead for their goons to start a war themselves?

it's not a war they can win.

They don't want to "win". They want martial law. The civil war will be between brothers. Just like it always is.

On American soil, with Americans fighting Americans, the instant those orders go out, the Fedcoats lose a third to half of their enlisted forces and a smaller (but still significant) chunk of their officer corps to defection. (I am basing these numbers off of conversations I've had with friends and family who are veterans; I admit that they are anecdotal, but they're not pulled straight from my ass.)

Again, organizing an offensive isn't the point here. Creating mass chaos so moderate Americans beg for "law and order" is.

It's obvious how they're going to make their move. They're going to take all the data the NSA has been gathering and come up with a list of people for the police to arrest and/or kill, in the hope that this will nip an incipient insurrection in the bud.

And they're probably going to use Blue Helms to do it, to avoid that problem with LEO's being too destructive and jarheads trying to protect us.

Thing of it is, once that first wave goes down, the Fedcoats start losing hearts and minds really fucking quick, and in order to keep a lid on the situation, they would need to act with more speed, competence, and brutality than I think is within their capability (at least the first two).

This is why you have 'terrorists' shoot up night clubs and schools. Just change "muslim" to "conspiracy theorist" and you can yank anyone off the street in the name of security. You're staring at the framework right now, they've already built it.

the Feds are not going to be able to crush a rebellion (or several disjointed ones) that's waging a guerrilla war from the countryside.

You don't have to crush the countryside. You wait for 2/3rds to die out from starvation, and then let the rest kill each other over resources while you sit nice and safe in DUMBs.

I haven't even touched the fact that a domestic insurrection in the United States would tank the global economy. The banksters know this.

And they don't give a shit. The market correction is a mathematically inevitable event at this late date. That's why the bankers have been working hard to extract all the actual wealth (land, minerals, water) from their holdings as much as possible and secure it for themselves. Now, they're sending in the jackals in the form of Trump et. al. to get whatever crumbs are left while the American people wander around clueless in the streets chanting "let's give him a chance". They know the economy is boned, they're prepared. Are you?

extremely astute observations

Touché.

They know the economy is boned, they're prepared. Are you?

Not as well as I'd like, but as well as I can be, given the resources currently available to me. I should put my tools back in their bags. Thanks for reminding me to do that.

What if I told you they want WWIII?

What if I told you the correct nomenclature for the next mass culling is World War IV?

There is no way that will happen - California electors are trying to get out of voting for HRC now so they can put someone else in office, and there's no way Republicans are going to switch from Trump to Clinton.

It doesn't have to happen. All the Media has to do is heavily imply it is going to happen on the 19th, and the regular demagogues will do all the heavy lifting.

How does saying that dismiss the reality of Russia manipulating the election?

Why can't both be a problem?

The accusation of what Russia did is pretty benign - publicize evidence of corruption. Countries have done that to each other all the time. You can't do anything about that except cover yourself with an Iron Curtain. In fact, it's a good thing that there's more sources to publicize evidence of corruption.

The corruption is the problem. The people are unhappy. If the election can be so easily manipulated, that's the underlying problem, not the fact that a foreign government may choose to try to interfere.

You failed to answer why both aren't a problem,

So: why aren't both a problem?

If the MSM really thinks Russia hacked everyone and is influencing elections...why are they reporting said Russian propaganda? This reeks of opportunism. I mean when John McCain is out front railing on Russia, making McCarthy smile in his grave, I wouldn't expect the Dems to be the people standing behind him.

influencing elections...

How though? I still havent seen anyone in MSM speak to this. They released inconsequential nonsense emails that revealed nothing of value? They cant have it both ways. Either the emails contained information that could influence the election or it didnt.

It doesn't, but it also doesn't mean that just because one thing happened another wasn't happening along side it.

Apparently a lot more dumber than I had thought them to be. I mean I knew the average American citizen obviously doesn't think for themselves, or critically for that matter, but damn, they are just eating this shit up.

It doesn't, it just shifts focus. Don't worry, we will refocus our efforts after Russia.

You recognize that Hillary doing stupid shit, and the American people being upset about a foreign power intentionally interfering with an election are not mutually exclusive right? It'd be nice if things were that simple but they're not. You can be happy that the information was uncovered but you should still be wigged the fuck out that Russia was working deliberately to influence a US election. Unless you think they just have our best interests in mind which would be, well, a really dumb thing to think.

George Carlin was right.

Because they're saying they lost because of Russian influence when they lost because of how terrible Hilary is.

Because hacked the elections implies they hacked the voting machines, that's propaganda. What they maye did was hack the podesta and DNC servers since we can verify those emails exist. Everything else is speculation.

That's been my point the whole time. Unless Russia manufactured fake intelligence and pushed it as real or actually hacked votes to be changed to Trump, this is all a massive overreaction. If they are providing truthful intelligence, where is the foul? Why should we be upset because we better understand the truth of the matter at hand? It is willful ignorance.

A good "strawman". Russia is accused of hacking anti-Russian US politicians and the Democratic party. But continue to hand over global hegemony to the Chinese and Russians by letting your Buffoon in Chief run the show.

How does saying "Russia hacked the elections" get a pass from you Right-wingers who four years ago were supporting Romney's anti-Russian rhetoric?

Why is everything left vs right?

Because there is a real Left and there is a real Right. They take very different positions on important decisions.

Lmao, until they become predident. Please explain to me the vast differences between Bush and Obama.

Bush anti-gay. Obama not. Bush would not kill bin Laden. Obama would. Bush tax cuts for the very rich. Obama prefered infrastructure spending. Bush against health care reform. Obama for health care reform. Bush dictatorial foreign policy. Obama valued allies' input. Bush cratered the American economy. Obama averted a second Great Depression and now has unemployment lower than it was prior to the 2008 recession.

I could go all night.

Rofl remember when Obama campaigned saying he would pull out troops out of Iraq and eventually the Middle East? Remember when drew that red line? Remember when nothing of the sort happened? Foreign policy is very similar between the two. Bush cut taxes for the rich and then Obama bailed em out and gave em raises when the market crashed. Both have completely ignored national debt. And health care, have you seen the massive spike in insurance rates under Obamacare recently? Do you're ally think he didn't see that coming? Funny how it was called the AFFORDABLE care act. Presidents today say what they have to to get elected and then go to the middle of the aisle. Both supported increased surveillance, both did nothing to change the situation in Guantanamo, both were in wall street's pocket. Both have done nothing pertaining to the war on drugs/private prisons/pharmaceutical companies. Obama is all talk. Your right about their differing views on homosexuality though.

I remember when Obama said he'd defeat Al Qaeda by increasing troops in Afghanistan and when he said he'd be gradually withdrawing troops according to the agreement George W. Bush made with Iraqi president Alawi.

I remember corporations given bailouts by Obama deciding on their own to give raises to their executives and being roundly condemned for it, even by Obama himself.

I remember Republicans admitting for a time that deficit spending was necessary to get the unemployment rate down. Then beginning, like you, to complain about the federal budget deficit. That's now going down. What do you think President Trump is going to do with the national debt and the federal deficit with his pledges to cut taxes, set the feds loose on illegal immigrants, explode the military budget and pass a trillion dollar infrastructure bill? He's not going to get all that money back by cutting Social Security and Medicare (which his pledged not to touch during the campaign). Where is he going to get it.

There are less than 100 prisoners in Guantanamo.

Obama has had a Republican Congress all but 14 months of his terms. Yet he has been able to reform Federal drug policy in ways that cause people like Senator Sessions conniption fits. Sessions is going to clamp down on marijuana sales in EVERY state, by the way. That make you happy?

1. He set a time table for getting all troops out of iraq , he didn't do that.

2. Maybe the bailouts should've had some regulations or at least incentives, how Obama failed to foresee the greed of the Ceo's is beyond me, especially given the circumstances at the time.

3. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

4. Less than 100 prisoners at Gauntanamo? Then it should be been easy for Obama to keep his promise but he couldn't even do that.

5. What has Obama done about marijuana laws? Nothing.

I don't like Trump but I'm not gonna let him trick me into thinking Obama was actually a good president. The campaigns mean nothing, all presidents end up doing the same general things.

1. He did get them all out and then he had to return them there after ISIS got started.

2. Congress would not have allowed any sort of check on the "greed of CEOS" (and it wasn't just the greed of CEOs but of executives below them) in the bailout legislation. Republican votes were needed to pass it.

3. Your side's governors forbade the transfer of Guantanamo's (which I notice you can't spell) prisoners into their states, even in federal prisons.

4. He is not enforcing them in the states that chose to liberalize their marijuana laws. Your President-elect's Attorney General will most certainly go to war against these states.

You like Trump plenty. Presidents don't "end up doing the same general things." And we're already seeing the clear demonstration of this being the case with the president-elect you supported appointing corrupt tycoons and incompetents to the Cabinet.

My last post to you. It's boring to engage with people who don't know the first hint of what they're talking about.

"You like Trump plenty." Are you seriously telling me who I like and what side I'm on? Do you know anything about me? I didn't vote for trump and I'm not even a republican. You seem to like blaming republicans for things when both parties have shown massive incompetence, the democrats are indefensible. Bush sucked and so did Obama. As long as America is stuck in this "my party's right and yours is wrong" mindset we will continue to get nowhere. You are in fact the one who doesn't know what they're talking about you proved that when you claimed to know who I support and what party I'm loyal to.

Let's not forget.. by 13301 in The_Donald

[–]natetheproducer 4 points 5 days ago

I had a 12 shift in the ED the next morning and I stayed up all night in joyous celebtation. The sheer bliss of watching Hillary lose powered me through. permalink save context full comments (277) give gold

Hillary terrified me it didn't matter who she lost to. You think this proves I support Trump? Lol. I thought you were bored with me why are you going through my post history? See if you can find any other posts you can probably do better than that.

"And health care, have you seen the massive spike in insurance rates under Obamacare recently? "

What do you think they'd be now without ACA?

Right so let's replace one shitty system with another.

Okay, first off, the word "hacked" shouldn't really be used here. What should be used as an adjective instead is "influenced". It's not debatable that Russia certainly wanted to influence the election, and anyone who doesn't understand the 'why' of this isn't smart enough to even engage in conversation with. What is debatable is the extent of the influence.

Next, this issue goes beyond American politics and should be taken very seriously by both parties. The concern, at its core, has nothing to do with Hilary fucking Clinton or your lord and savior, Donald Trump, and this post proves exactly how ignorant people are. So congratulations by focusing on what really doesn't matter. Some of these people are fucking incorrigible.

This has everything to do with Hillary Clinton and her butt hurt supporters losing an election that they should have won. Instead of getting votes, though, they were too busy planning victory parties. The her magisterial drunkness couldn't even get her shit together to actually accept the results and lead her voters and followers.

Your whole argument rests upon the supposition that the American public is dumb and easily hoodwinked. That's the problem with Clinton dead enders, in that you have no respect for people who may have different opinions and feelings than you about the direction of the country. I don't agree with Trump and his ideas, but I didn't agree with Clinton either (mainly because I don't like two-faced hypocrites that try and make their hypocrisy and duplicity positive attributes).

And I say this as someone who is many standard deviations from the mean in terms of things you frankly aren't capable of understanding with your close-mindedness and intellectual bigotry. She and the system she represents got the comeuppance they deserve (well, they really deserve the gallows for the collective war crimes enabled by their cowardice, but whatevs).

I hope this Russian hyperventilation thing continues to erode public support for all neo-liberals and neo-cons, like John McCain and Lindsey Graham (and most assuredly Chelsea). Fuck the establishment, and if it is the Russians doing the fucking, I don't care. Your precious American ideals were sold out decades ago when we chose to invade a country for bullshit reasons (well, that and project paperclip giving Nazis a home in the USA after the war).

Was gilding this when I realized that this sub might not like that due to it giving money to Reddit. But the thought was there. Shithead never had a response once he got a strong answer either, which tends to be the case.

Thanks :). Your reply is as good as gold in my book.

Brilliantly written, thanks. God forbid other countries have reactions of their own.

Your whole argument rests upon the supposition that the American public is dumb

Yes?

Are you an American? If you are, then this means you're stupid too.

Actually, with logic like that you're pretty stupid.

One simple question. What did Russia do to influence the election?

I would like to know this as well.

You guys don't get out much do you.

https://np.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/5hhn4t/cia_assessment_says_russia_was_trying_to_help/db0zali/

. It's all opinion. Opinion from companies and people with a vested interest in it being Russia. Could it be that the leak was Seth Rich and clinton is just a corrupt old incompetent cunt?

Yea, I sure do trust the fucking CIA - said a fucking idiot

Typical libtard. "You idiots! You must not get out much if you didn't see this! I'm right; my propaganda says so!" Instead of memorizing a list of reputable news sources how about trying your own reasoning to evaluate the claim. Tool.

Hacked into the DNC and Podesta's emails, strategically released damaging bits and pieces at opportune times to undermine Clinton's campaign. What is unclear?

Podesta Emails leak #20. Look at what Chelsea has to say about who hacked the Clinton foundation. It ain't Russia.

Didn't the emails get exposed by using a phishing scam? That's not hacking.

Phishing is a very broad term that could include a delivery of some type of malware to the subject being phished.

Right. But that's not really hacking the way most people would think about it. The term hacking gets thrown around too much

I agree, people generally don't know what that term actually includes. But in this case, writing malware specifically to gain access to a system or to automatically crawl, scan, and id data is definitely a hack. It happens very frequently.

Link?

Right here

Cheers Edit: Bari is Obama I'm assuming?

Bari is Bari Lurie, chief of staff to Chelsea Clinton at the Clinton Foundation.

Did I say anything about the Clinton foundation? FBI and CIA both have said that it was the Russians that hacked Podesta and the DNC. And the RNC for that matter.

Alright this should be easy to settle then. You are standing by and promoting the position that Russia hacked the DNC an Podesta's gmail. What is your proof?

Outside of catching them in the act myself and getting a confession? For starters, this statement from the CIA, FBI, NSA, Army Intelligence and Security Command and pretty much every other US intelligence agency.

Outside of every US Intelligence agency, there is some corroboration from private security firms as well:

Threat researchers at Dell SecureWorks, an Atlanta-based security firm, had been tracking the Russian intelligence group for more than a year. In June, they reported that they had uncovered a critical tool in the Russian spy campaign. SecureWorks researchers found that the Russian hackers were using a popular link shortening service, called Bitly, to shorten malicious links they used to send targets fake Google login pages to bait them into submitting their email credentials.

The hackers made a critical error by leaving some of their Bitly accounts public, making it possible for SecureWorks to trace 9,000 of their links to nearly 4,000 Gmail accounts targeted between October 2015 and May 2016 with fake Google login pages and security alerts designed to trick users into turning over their passwords.

Among the list of targets were more than 100 email addresses associated with Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, including Mr. Podesta’s. By June, 20 staff members for the campaign had clicked on the short links sent by Russian spies. In June, SecureWorks disclosed that among those whose email accounts had been targeted were staff members who advised Mrs. Clinton on policy and managed her travel, communications and campaign finances.

100 out of 4,000 targets is a tiny fraction. That is not enough to state she was targeted to rig the election against her and if anything it actually discredits the notion. She wasn't singled out. Did they say whether any of Trump's campaign were targets, or did they just leave that part out?

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html

I mean come on. Thinking this isn't true - and extremely concerning - while believing multiple top government officers/agents/employees are running a child pedophilia ring out of a pizza joint is being actively ignorant. (Speaking about the subreddit in general, not specifying you)

Yet you just happened to bring that up in your argument. Hrh.

Where to start....

1) What difference does it make that it was 100 out of 4,000 or 100 out of 40,000? Russian hackers targeted the Clinton campaign. That is the only point here.

2) What difference does it make if Trump's campaign was targeted? No information about him or his campaign was leaked. Had they been targeted and infiltrated it would bolster the case for Russia trying to meddle with the election since they would have kept whatever they found quiet.

3) Why do you believe that FBI, CIA, NSA, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and every other intelligence agency would lie about this?

It seems that your mind is made up on this case.

Okay well let me ask you this. Does who leaked the emails change the content? because the content is what's in question here. Did the Clinton campaign deny the content at any point?

No, and I'm not arguing with the content or trying to defend the Clintons or the DNC. They are politicians in the most cynical sense. That being said, I have a huge problem with one of our main global rivals putting their finger directly on our Democratic process by trying to influence a Presidential election.

I moved to the U.S. from Russia when I was a kid. I can tell you with certainty that they have absolutely no respect for the democratic process (United Russia routinely wins over 100% of the vote in many Oblasts and no one really gives a shit). Our Presidential elections mean something to me -- all of the political ads and partisan bullshit aside, it makes me proud to be a part of a country that truly has free elections (even if the rest of our political system is corrupt). Russia meddling with that pisses me off.

I am not defending Russia. I am saying if they're going to blame Russia for Hillary's loss, they'd better damn well show the proof. I have shown that the Clinton Foundation source was Justin Cooper, a top Clinton aide.

Lol in a conspiracy sub you're all, "The US intelligence community would never manufacture evidence to create a situation that would lead to possible war." Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are still out there somewhere.

Did I say that? No? I didn't? Ok cool. I'm asking specifically why, in this case, you think they would lie about believing that Russia hacked Trump.

Because we have a rich history of intelligence agencies, and by extension public officials, lying to us to maintain the status quo and protect the establishment. Why are you taking their word when they've demonstrated throughout history that they're willing to lie to the public?

So they are automatically wrong about everything? While it's certainly possible that the FBI might lie, it doesn't seem likely in this case. At least, their actions have not been consistent with the notion that they were trying to get Clinton elected. If they were, why would they re-open their investigation into her emails just days before the election? And why would they sit on the information that Russia was actively trying to get Trump elected until after the election?

That's difficult to say, because you're trying to measure something inherently subjective.

Either way, I think debating the content of all of these emails is somewhat beside the point. There's no denying the content and the picture they paint of Clinton being the career nepotist she is.

What I'm personally more concerned with is whether people are willing to excuse a foreign power deliberately involving itself in our political process, especially if that power has a preferred outcome, just because they happen to support "our guy". If we're going to comb through every DNC email available, fine, transparency is good. But it needs to be balanced. Where are the RNC's emails? What do those show? I want to see everybody's dirty laundry, not just one sides.

Either way, we are doing ourselves a disservice if we willingly allow foreign involvement in our electoral process, no matter who the beneficiary is. Russia doesn't do anything for the magnanimous benefit of the US, so we should certainly appreciate their motives when analyzing this situation.

Lots of fluff. What is Russia's involvement?

What exactly was the fluff? Don't confuse opinions you don't like with senseless bullshit.

Russia's involvement is hacking both political parties emails and deciding to sit on one and release the other. We have multiple agencies telling us this. You're either saying it's no big deal, or that literally every one of these actors are in cahoots with one another to lie and pin the blame on Russia.

The fluff is that there's no proof Russia was behind the hacks. This is especially important when you take into consideration all of the people saying that our own intel agencies leaked the emails

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

In the third source, you'll find what I'm talking about roughly halfway through article

Every intelligence agency has said Russia involved itself. They might disagree on the level of involvement or what their goal was, but they're unanimous in their assertion that Russian services were actors in the election.

Do you have a source for that last bit?

Yes, I'll edit my original post to include sources in just a minute. I'd like you to return the favor by providing a source that every intelligence agency has said Russia "involved itself" because the CIA officially responded with "no comment" on the matter

Already done for me

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Did you seriously just use 'Tyler Durden' as a source?

Did you seriously not read the article? And if you only accept information from a predefined bubble, maybe you could comment on the other two sources I provided

No, I'm not going to read an article written by the fictional character tyler durden.

It's a pseudonym publisher...

Podesta Emails #20 Justin Cooper put spyware on Bill Clinton and Bari Lurie's computers.

In my mind, the public has a right to see those emails. While in a perfect world our benevolent public servants would be completely transparent, that's obviously not the reality.

Unfortunately we'll never know, but if the shoe were on the other foot, I highly doubt the same people shrieking about this would be doing the same thing. The whole "integrity of our election" thing just seems phony. Perhaps some people, such as yourself, have genuine concern, and that's fine, but I don't believe that's the case for a majority who say they are "concerned" about this.

Having said all this, there still isn't concrete proof this occurred. From my view this looks like a last ditch effort to discredit Trump and perhaps attempt to change the result before the EC votes -- the timing is just too convenient.

Fake news based on out of context email they hacked. Pizzagate-style stuff, no?

It's widely known and accepted by anyone capable of critical thinking that countries often influence other countries public elections, among other things.. What is paramount, in this specific example of "Russian hacking," is the fact that all of these revelations are intended to delegitimize the incoming POTUS in the eyes of the US public and instill a hysterically negative view of Russia into anyone that is vulnerable to this persuasion. As you would say- this is an example of an active campaign to influence the American public.. although, instead of Russia being the perpetrator, it turns out that the culprits are from the US and other Western nations. It's quite the plot twist, I know..

Speaking of Influencing the elections of other countries, for all of the sheep out there, here's an even bigger plot twist: Hillary herself has said, and I quote: "I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake...and if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win.”

Oh the irony

Corrupting another country's democracy is a terrible thing. Selling out your own is unprecedented in US history.

Selling our own is the status quo. Ever heard of lobbying?

Give me an example of the US selling its sovereignty.

Firstly? I just did. In one word.

But how about the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the installation of NAFTA, Hillary's influence peddling released during the election, and the push for TPP/TTiP? All give power to global corporations. The MSM is bought and sold and are legally allowed to lie to us. How does any of that not sound like selling out our country?

Don't forget CIA operation mocking Bird. Turn the entire MSM into propaganda tools to change public opinion. Keeping saying a lie until It becomes fact. I mean look at 2001 you couldn't find a single person to say Iraq didn't fund 9/11 and Saddam didn't have nukes stockpiled ready to roll.

To what foreign country did the us transfer its sovereignty in any of those examples?

Exactly and insanely obvious to anyone who isn't too busy crying about their student loans.

Congratulations you managed to say a whole lot of nothing in two incoherent paragraphs.

If you have a point make one and be concise with it.

I made two points. Too much for you to comprehend?

You should be more smug and even less willing to answer direct questions backing up your claims. That'll really show them and bring people over to your perspective!

Your grand point is that anyone who doesn't understand isn't on the same intelligence level as you?

You actually make no point and speak in the most condescending tone possible.

Prove to me the election was influenced or rigged by a foreign government.

I find when I can't understand someone, they are either really smart or fucking nuts.

The fact that you are getting downvotes just shows how pointless this sub has become. You'd think a conspiracy website would be pretty interested in understanding how a long standing enemy of the US is altering the domestic political landscape.

If trump morons try to turn this into partisan politics, then we really are doomed. The Russians are only able to influence our elections because about half of our population are ridiculously gullible.

Russia just tried to influence our elections. Do you understand that? It shouldn't matter who you support. This should mean war.

War?? Okay then please tell me what the crime is. If the crime is "hacking" then we should also war china, Saudi Arabia, several EU countries, and a slew of others. Countries hack one another all the time.

If the "crime" is releasing information so what? They can say whatever they want. That's not a crime. They can sit on or expose what they like. Here's a novel idea... if you don't want to get in trouble don't be a scumbag crook and liar . I am not all gung ho to send our boys in to get killed because some hysterical zealot yells for war.

Whoa buddy. Did you just assume my allegiance?

Adjective? You mean "verb."

I found the faux intellectual, guys! Look how hard he tried this time. His thesaurus must be tired.

Here I thought /r/conspiracy hated whataboutism.

Hillary is corrupt and Russia hacked stuff, both are unacceptable.

And here I thought r/conspiracy wouldn't believe CIA claims made with exactly 0 proof but here we fucking are.

There's plenty of non governmental evidence that Russia has a dedicated anti US hacking/astroturfing internet group.

For example, Wikipedia logs showing massive amounts of edits coming from the building right next to the Kremlin.

And zero proof tying any of them the email hack.

How about the Russian metadata on the files?

Russian SIGINT wouldn't leave anything like that. At best it shows that 2 or 3 generation old software that's available to anyone with TOR was used in the hack.

At best it shows that 2 or 3 generation old software that's available to anyone with TOR was used in the hack.

... by someone who speaks Russian. Unless you're telling me that the "Washington insider" who supposedly leaked them was willing to put up with software in a foreign language?

Russian SIGINT wouldn't leave anything like that.

C'mon, everyone makes mistakes. Experienced operatives have messed up at least that badly many, many times.

(And meanwhile you've got people claiming US SIGINT is so incompetent they're clearly mistaken when they claim Russia is behind this.)

Oh no, I fully believe that the information was leaked by a Russian speaker who could very well have ties to the SVR or FSB. I'm just doubtful legit proof could be provided and information like this isn't good for much other than sowing discord and mistrust without proof. We're stuck trusting the CIA which is not something I'm willing to do. Now I should clarify, I do not think this is some secret CIA plot to oust Trump. Something that not a single representative has even mentioned.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10977082/russian-government-edits-wikipedia-on-flight-mh17.html

Its not proof, but it is evidence.

Invaded by morons.

[deleted]

What? I'm referring to the comments in this thread who act like there has been proof of russians involvement and it's just accepted. It's not. Russia is a scapegoat for Clinton's cunts being caught manipulating the election then still losing.

Lol, people in this sub wholeheartedly believe Podesta bros kidnapped a kid based on some anonymous source, but want evidence when CIA claims something.

But Republican faux outrage witch-hunts on the other hand, apparently this sub believes those 100%.

Before making that claim, it would be helpful if you could point to any evidence of Russia hacking anything related to the election. Numerous whistleblowers and insiders have claimed that it was our own people who supplied the emails to Wikileaks.

Before making that claim, it would be helpful if you could point to any evidence that it was our own people who supplied the emails to Wikileaks. Numerous whistleblowers and insiders have claimed a Russian hacking group supplied the emails.

Im not even gonna respond to that guy this is the perfect retort

So no evidence then.

Good shill.

Nah it's called sarcasm.

Hell complain about whataboutism ina minute or two

Not evidence for own people, but for not coming from Russia. Though that is if you believe this interview is legit. But that also brings the question, if it is fake why would they make it so that it was denied to be Russian Government

https://www.rt.com/news/365405-assange-pilger-full-transcript/

Alas one of the people who are implied as a whistleblower ended up dead. And yes it was a "botched robbery".

This narrative lacks sources on both sides. But I would as soon trust my own gut than the venting from cia.

He didn't make any claim though. The only claims made here were that "Hillary is corrupt and Russia hacked stuff". You just made a snarky post that dismissed someone else and got upvoted because Reddit loves snark.

Here you go

Listen to his claims and then google who this guy actually is. He's not an 'anonymous source' like your supposed whistleblowers.

Edit to add: downvotes are not a rebuttal. I've posted this video several times in this thread and not one person has addressed what Dr. Pieczenik says. Cognitive dissonance at its finest

Dr. Pieczenik

This man is a fucking loon. Great job valuing the word of an idiot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Pieczenik#Controversies

And the logical fallacies continue. Nothing that you linked shows him to be a loon or an idiot. Oh no, a psychologist who received his degree from Harvard Medical School said he thinks Bush is clinically depressed! Oh the hysteria. This guy is off his rocker!

https://np.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/5hltn3/has_there_been_a_smoking_gun_linking_russia_with/db1pwqs/

Here is a better writeup than I could have written.

The most relevant bits:

To summarize, while yes we have no smoking gun, the methods used in the DNC hack are very similar to methods used by groups who are believed to have acted in the interest of the Russian government in the past. The hardest piece of evidence is that the DNC hack reused a command and control node and SSL certificate that were both used in a hack of the German government that german intelligence has linked to Russia.

Now we of course do not know exactly who is in these groups and whether they are directly part of Russian intelligence or just realted, but we do know that their actions align closely with Russian strategic interests. (hacking U.S. defense firms, hacking U.S. Government networks, hacking NATO allies). Crowdstrike, a respected cybersecurity firm, believes two Russian groups functioning independently of each other both hacked the DNC. Crowdstrike was of course hired by the DNC, but they are a respected firm with a good reputation. Two additional tech security firms hired by the DNC, Mandiant and Fidelis, confirmed Crowdstrikes conclusion.

The day after Crowdstrike released their report the Guccifer 2.0 wordpress account was created, claiming to be a lone hacker behind the hack. Though he claimed to be Romanian, he refused to speak at length in Romanian and spoke it poorly.. The meta-data in the first batch of leaked documents also indicates that they were edited by a computer using Russian language settings and who's username is a nickname for the founder of the Soviet Secret Police. After this was pointed out all subsequent leaks were edited using virtual machines with different languages and usernames from around the world.

So no technical evidence then? Just conjecture?

Thank you for supplying this. As they themselves said, they don't have a smoking gun. I did, however, provide a smoking gun in my other post, and I'll post it again here

Please read the post. I know you didn't because you replied within 4 minutes, and the very first paragraph is the poster explaining that a smoking gun would be

interception of very high level communication in Russian intelligence stating both that they were behind the hack, and that they intended the hack to help Trump.

His point being that it is nearly impossible to find a "smoking gun" in any kind of cyber security attack.

What you posted is not a smoking gun. It's a vlog. A vlog without any sources.

So if Putin were caught saying that he ordered the hacks and sent the emails to Wikileaks, you wouldn't consider that a smoking gun?

Edit to add: post a perfectly logical question....receive downvotes and no reply. Hmmmm

I think people are downvoting because you should be able to work out the difference there yourself.

Okay, let me get this straight. The former Deputy Assistant Department of State and high ranking official in four presidential administrations claims that he and others in the intelligence community leaked the emails to Wikileaks, and you're claiming there's nothing to see here?

I don't really want to go down this rabbit hole but,

A) High ranking seems like a big stretch here. The best I can gleam from wikipedia is that the man worked as a psychiatrist for the assistant secretary of state as an expert in hostage rescue. Impressive for sure, but even when he did work for the government that is not a position that would be involved with what he's claiming to do now. Certainly not remotely comparable to Vladimir Putin.

Just as a note, the deputy assistant secretary reports to the assistant secretary, who reports to the deputy secretary, who reports to the secretary. There are 35 assistant secretaries of state, who can have as many deputies as they want. At any given time there are probably 100+ people who shared his title.

B) For the last 30 years he's worked as a consultant and science fiction writer. There's no reason to think he would have access to this kind of information in the first place.

C) He hasn't provided any corroborating evidence, when doing so would be fairly easy. For instance, we know now that the attacks were done by the same computer involved in the "fancy bear" attacks on Germany. If he had simply mentioned this, then his claims could be verified, as that was not public information at the time. Even now, he could provide some kind of information on how he has access to this group, or any kind of verifiable information about this group.

All in all it seems overwhelmingly likely to me that he's saying most of this as a way to drive traffic to his youtube channel and website, where he sells his novels.

The guy is admitting to treason! You don't do that for freaking YouTube hits. I feel like logic has completely vanished in this thread. And if you do some more research on Pieczenik, you'll see that he was also in the intel community

I'm not really sure what you're suggesting. Admitting to treason is a lot safer if you haven't actually committed treason.

Obviously there is no way you could convict him of treason based solely on that youtube video. If the CIA found any evidence linking him to the hack he would likely be in jail right now. Seems like the fact that he's publicly admitting to treason and not in jail would imply that he might be lying.

Not to mention, the guy seems pretty far off his rocker. His most recent video is on the civil war being act of auto-genocide from Lincoln, committed because Lincoln was a homosexual.

Could be both, also as a psychiatrist he probably heard a lot of dark shit.

So if Putin were caught saying that he ordered the hacks and sent the emails to Wikileaks, you wouldn't consider that a smoking gun?

You're getting downvoted because you're completely misinterpreting his statements (something a lot of people in this sub are good at). They are saying that a "smoking gun" is such a high bar to set, it's unreasonable to ask for it in cases like this. What are the chances that we would find a "very high level communication" that details their attacks and motives? You're asking for too much if you want a "smoking gun" in this case. The evidence we do have, however, does point to Russia's involvement.

Okay, and would you care to comment on the evidence I provided?

What, the video? It's some attention-seeker who offers no evidence of his own. He just wants you to buy his book so you can "get the truth". It should be trivially easy for him to provide evidence of his claims.

Okay, so the former Deputy Assistant of the Department of State basically admits to treason so that he can sell a few books. I hope you see the problem with that logic. But if you want more evidence, how about a quote from a former U.K. ambassador in this Guardian article:

Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “bullshit”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.”

“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.

Look, people make outlandish claims all the time. Don't you think the government would be trying to prosecute him if he really was the source of the leaks? Think about it. I can admit to murder with impunity. You know why? Because I've never murdered anyone. You need evidence, not just a "confession" on a vlog, to make a case. There is no evidence this guy or his associates are behind the leaks. That's why he can comfortably admit to it without fear of prosecution.

And of course a "close associate of Assange" would claim that it wasn't the Russians. Again, we ask for actual evidence. Not just people who stand to gain from making unsubstantiated claims.

You're obviously not a lawyer if you think the statements of two highly credible individuals don't count as evidence.

And I'll give my opinion/conspiracy theory on why the government isn't openly attacking Pieczenik and his coconspirators. It's because the American public would support these white hats over the corrupt politicians. Thus, they need to use Russia as the scapegoat for election interference. And I'm not denying that such interference occurred. I'm simply saying it was someone else besides the Russians

You're obviously not a lawyer if you think the statements of two highly credible individuals don't count as evidence.

I never said it wasn't evidence. Just that it's not enough evidence. Again, it would be trivially easy for him to prove it.

And I'll give my opinion/conspiracy theory on why the government isn't openly attacking Pieczenik and his coconspirators. It's because the American public would support these white hats over the corrupt politicians. Thus, they need to use Russia as the scapegoat for election interference. And I'm not denying that such interference occurred. I'm simply saying it was someone else besides the Russians

Interesting theory. Here's the difference between your theory and the theory that Russia was behind the attacks: the amount and quality of evidence.

On one hand, you have various security firms, Democrats and Republicans, and government agencies that agree that the evidence points Russia being behind the attacks. On the other hand, you have a guy with a vlog and a website that links to his book and Alex Jones at the very top. A man who directly stands to benefit from having people buy into his claims (book sales, video views, etc.). A man who risks virtually nothing to reap the benefits of making these claims. Learn to apply Occam's razor.

Just like all of that evidence that led to the invasion of Iraq? They had a pretty compelling case, but it was all bullshit to push an agenda. I learned my lesson after that fiasco, and now I consider it dangerous to blindly accept what they say, especially when there's compelling evidence to not believe them

And I can't believe you told me to apply Occam's razor while also saying that an important government figure admitted to treason in order to sell some books

Yes, a lot of people believed that Iraq had WMDs. But a lot of people believed they didn't. There was actual, real-life evidence that showed there weren't. I remember because I can admit I thought there were WMDs and I would argue with people who showed me evidence to the contrary. Looking back I learned to gauge what is solid evidence, as well as to always remember people self-interested motives. There is no hard evidence that points to anyone other than Russia being the source of the leaks. There's evidence and motives it was them. You're only evidence to the contrary is a couple people denying it was the Russians. People who stand to benefit from lying. People who offer no evidence of their own, even though they would be the ones who could most easily prove their claims.

Oh, and as far as your theory about why they don't go after Pieczenik, I could bring up Edward Snowden as a counter-example. The US aggressively pursued him, even though he had the support of a large portion of the public.

Edit:

And I can't believe you told me to apply Occam's razor while also saying that an important government figure admitted to treason in order to sell some books

And you think a conspiracy between multiple organizations and people with conflicting motives is a simpler explanation than someone liking money?

So the evidence that Russia leaked the emails is more solid than the evidence used to invade Iraq? Perfect. You can provide that evidence here so that we can finally put this to rest

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

http://www.threatgeek.com/2016/06/dnc_update.html

Why are you so averse to believing this? I can get that you would hate Clinton/DNC or that you might think Trump is great. But Clinton's shittiness and/or Trumps greatness, and Russian interference are not mutually exclusive concepts. Is your confirmation bias so strong that you never change your mind?

Are people still pretending that this sub isn't another circle-jerky appendage of the_donald?

It usually isnt, TD has hijacked it

I think the main point is that the hacking of documents is because of HRCs inability to keep her act together. Thats if you believe the CIA Clinton / Bush /Obama cabal

Logic is the right way indeed. Let me fix that for you: Hillary and DMC are definitely corrupt. And Russian government maybe was behind it.

Guys. Fucking seriously. Do you believe that multiple wrongs somehow add up to be right? Hillary isn't even in the picture any more. Instead of being Russian stooges, focus on the present.

Seriously, an actual conspiracy happened, and because it was working against the candidate they didn't like, this sub doesn't give a fuck. Ridiculous.

I find not extremely dubious how pro-Trump this sub is. I can't recall a previous election where a candidate was as loved here. It's especially heinous considering the cabinet he's putting together of establishment guys like John Bolton who was there when Bush was lying about Iraq...

Ron paul was loved here, lest we not forget.

Maybe it's just my bias but Paul seems more a propos for this subreddit than Trump in his current form.

Trump during the primary when he was taking down Jeb! for his brother's part in 9/11 makes sense for conspiracy to champion.

But Trump now is a mess...

I think we can be both concerned with his Russian influences and despise Hillary's involvement in politics. Outside of the CIA's allegations, Trump has been friendly with people friendly to Russia and it seems weird the GOP (for the most part) is fine with that. It was just four years ago that Russia was considered our biggest geopolitical foe by Romney and now many Republicans don't want to talk about Russia or want to talk about Trump's potential cabinet picks with ties to Russia.

I thinkl earning why the Republicans are not as anti-Russia as they were four years ago would be interesting to say the least. Obviously the Dems are using this opportunity to scapegoat but there does seem to be something there.

Russia is not some big catch all boogey man now, you know? Heck there is more evidence supporting pizzagate, than there is linking russian involvement in the election

lol. Jesus.

You are underestimating Russia. They are in it for themselves and if they did essentially install a puppet, that is a big deal. Trump's reaction to this is what is most worrisome. He reacted like a 12 year old that got called a name instead of a statesman. I'm not a fan of the CIA just like most on this sub, but the president has to work with them.

Trump spews conspiracy theories left and right - I think he's creating or at least bolstering a relatively new breed of conspiracy theorist, a hyper-partisan variety that will not believe anything that goes against their prime directive, which I suspect in this case is not just Trump but the rise of a populist white nationalist movement. It is different in the level of cooperation and agreement that is emerging. In times past this particular type of propaganda has been effected through takeover of government run media and forceful shutdown of dissent. In the information age it's being done through targeted misinformation: complete discrediting of valid news sources that exhibit unavoidable editorial bias, selective acceptance of citizen journalism with no real sources or facts to back it up. It's like people joining a cult as opposed to a government takeover or coup: people self-select information sources and don't look at anything that contradicts their world view. So, there's some overlap with more traditional conspiracy theorists, but it has this other aspect to it that seems...novel.

No actual conspiracy happened though and if it did there isn't evidence of it

theres an investigation currently ongoing. the results have yet to be presented. didnt obama give them a deadline of when he leaves office?

fucking obviously they arent going to present the evidence yet.

and if anyone has a problem with the CIA coming out and saying that, but waiting on presenting the evidence, then I expect yall were absolutely outraged when Comey came out and said the Hillary investigation was back on, without citing any evidence, right? Im sure if I dig through yalls post histories, Ill find lots of anti-Comey pro-hillary comments in regards to him swaying the election last minute, right?

This is /r/conspiracy, and you're assuming that just because the CIA hasn't released the evidence, that evidence doesn't exist?

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Isn't this entire sub built on the belief in conspiracies without actual provided evidence?

Been considering removing this sub for a while, this post made the choice easy.

Bye. See you tomorrow.

I laughed.

I don't see how Russia isn't doing Americans a favor by exposing politicians like this. I hope they do it for every politician including trump. It's not like America hasn't been fucking with Russia for decades. If they were hacking top secret military info that put Americans directly endanger I would be worried. Releasing emails that gives us a better picture of a candidate we are voting to lead our country. I really don't see the harm in that.

Russia seems to benefit from it and apparently the majority of people are more interested in russia doing bad than imprisoning corrupt criminal politicians, officials or elites in their own government.

"Imprisoning". Yeah, that's definitely still happening now that Trump got what he wanted.

Like it did before Trump or will after Trump ?

Are you saying she should not be punished?

Where did I say that? Seriously, where dafuq did I say that?

The deeper message, since you're looking for one, is that people are being played as fools. And the fools are still being distracted by already done, over, and past events. And by being distracted they are missing the obvious "conspiracies" right in front of them.

Hillary isn't even in the picture any more. Instead of being Russian stooges, focus on the present.

Saying this you're implying that she should be ignored, also it is in line with the mainstream. You should also mention what is that so called present? Because I have no idea.

Wrong. I mean seriously, you're just wrong.

Maybe Trump will pursue Clinton, maybe she should be charged. But that is irrelevant. You're using her wrongs in the past to justify and distract from the current wrongs in the present.

You're not making sense.

If I'm not making sense to you, then that's your fault.

My fault for your lack of ability to express your thoughts clearly?

This dumbass said the same thing to me just below. Apparently we have no critical thinking skills for not just outright believing shit, the elites love morons like us, and we're dogs on leashes according to this imbecile.

Apparently, questioning material that comes your way in an ongoing war of information and propaganda is no longer acceptable on r/conspiracy and we're just supposed to believe whatever strangers tell us to.

Yup. We lack critical thinking skills.

No, it's your fault for not being able to comprehend simple, straightforward writing that every but you and few other idiots already understood?

You shouldn't be so proud of being so dumb. Change isn't bad.

So not believing claims made by the CIA without evidence makes everyone in a conspiracy thread a russian stooge? Maybe we just don't want to believe everything thrown our way from "experts". Need i remind anyone of the WMD b.s. that led us into a needless war?

Don't question anything r/conspiracy , obey or you're supporting russia.

Ps- no one cared when top secret classified info was taken off secure government devices by the secretary of state and uploaded to an illegal unsecured server which was hacked by Russia, China, and multiple other sources... and now all of a sudden russia allegedly gave us TRUE information about THE SAME PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LARGEST SECURITY BREACH IN HISTORY and there is an uproar? Wtf?

Again, you're a dog on your leash, barking for your masters, whoever they might be.

I never told you or anyone not to question anything, I told you not to use Clinton's fuck ups as an excuse.

Oh, so because I did what you told me not to do, I'm a dog on a leash?

Hmm.. do you know how fucking stupid you sound?

Do you realize how fucking stupid you must be? That's the whole fucking point.

For supposed conspiracy theorists, it shocks me how people fail to see the easy plays right in front of them. The powers that be fucking love people like you.

You make 0 sense.

that's your problem, not mine. Seriously, head to the library, work on your critical thinking skills.

Am I not allowed to dislike Hillary and Russia?

People don't seem to understand how terrible Putin really is, everyone just sees him as 'woke' and RT as more trustworthy than any of our MSM.

He is woke.

He is also a terrible person.

They are mutually exclusive. Understanding how to manipulate your fellow man to attain what you want does not mean that you actually have to commit to that hypothetical coercion. He still had a choice.

They are not mutually exclusive

Missed a word

He is a power-hungry dictator who will do anything to keep him and his cronies in charge of Russia, including interfering with foreign politics, invading neighboring countries and destabilizing the Middle East.

What does woke mean in that context?

That he is situationally and contextually aware. He understands how our civilization functions and the implications therein.

That being said though, simple understanding does not make you a better person, it's what you do with that information that matters.

I understand how dangerous putin is and that RT is the propiganda arm of the FSB, but I know hillary and the MSM are more dangerous to me than the bulshavics.

I don't see how people can't see that hillary is the most dangerous and vile human being in recent history. Didn't you read the email. That's just the tip of the ice burg. People will always censor themselves on a public medium, ,and it's still as bad as it was.

Iceberg*

Bolshevik

Shhhh... Let him have this. Accessing the Internet from his 20 person town takes days on dial up.

What would you say is terrible about him?

He's committed to the destruction of American power for one thing, which he understands Trump will achieve for him.

Dude, I'm a veteran and I want to see that happen.

We've stuck our nose where it doesn't belong far too often. Our foreign policy is a joke, we live in a constant state of war for oil and regime change, we have a history overthrowing democratically elected leaders to replace with dictatorships with western ties, and we've been subverting international law for decades.

Our turn as the sole world power has seen abject destruction become the norm. Unipolarity is an insecure system because it allowed the US to be the world's playground bully. If you are frightened that Russia will take over if we lose our sole-superpower status don't, the are in economic shambles and can not take our spot. The move will likely be back to multipolarity in a Westphalian sense.

If you want to prove Putin is a terrible person use his LGBT treatment, economic cronyism and multiple blatant assassinations of political enemies. People will claim our leaders are just as bad but in these three aspects he stands alone.

Interesting perspective, thanks.

Is that a bad thing?

This seriously this Putin's a globalist that got kicked out of "globalist club" and now holds a a grudge and a lot of resentment. He's not interested in the betterment of the world he is interested in the betterment of Russia and that's it. You're a fool if you think the situation is as easy as Alex Jones says it to be. A split in Ukraine benefits both Soros and Putin.

He seems to understand the JQ which is one of the largest red pills. I'd say he's pretty woke

JQ?

Jewish Question

Not in this cesspool no...

[deleted]

But it's very pro-anything Trump likes, such as Russia, unfounded claims, his daughter...

Why would you dislike Russia? We're trying to work together peacefully.

If emails of the RNC were hacked you better believe that they were doing everything they could to take the nomination from Trump.

[deleted]

You realize that RNC emails showing them conspiring against President Trump would have helped him.... Right? Surely you must be able to make that tiny inference.

Not to mention senior republicans were disowning him in public... They weren't even trying to hide this. They were out there saying shit like "I'd rather vote for Hillary". What could they possibly leak?!

[deleted]

Brilliant - now they've just won the gay vote...

[deleted]

I was being sarcastic, but yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if there was some talk of that, i.e. person A says to person B "C is a closet faggot..."

There's still a side to me that says these dinosaurs probably don't use email all that much.

fine with me if current republican leaders get fucked off the map

Trump has been saying some crazy shit for the past 30 years, and only a fraction of it has seen the light of day. Imagine what trump has been saying behind closed doors. I bet the Russians found some juicy stuff.

Via email? I'd be surprised. I think you're 100 x more likely to find shit he's said on a "hot mic". The stuff he spouts daily we would consider scandal 12 months ago. Now no one cares.

[deleted]

No you aren't

[deleted]

[deleted]

There is no proof that the RNC was hacked. What are you talking about?

[deleted]

[deleted]

That's not how the CIA works. They don't just release proof the moment they find it, it's classified information.

But saying they have evidence of a hack is not classified? That is....weird.

how is it weird?

When you come forward with a concrete accusation you have to back it up with information as to how you came to that conclusion. Saying it is classified but you can still level the accusation makes no sense whatsoever.

Guess you better not shitpost in your emails.

Cozy Bear/Fancy Bear (aka APT 28/APT 29) - that are "Russian-intelligence" affiliated

Any source/more info on this?

EDITS

the original post with citations

A rebuttal from a redditor on the Russian connection which I found interesting

[deleted]

Thanks, I found the other post with citations and I note that it's mainly on the political positioning rather than the evidence of a proven connection between Russia and the hackers. The connection made by DNC-employed CrowdStrike endorsed with "moderate confidence" by SecureWorks is equally rebutted by Jeffrey Carr.

Seems very circumstantial. Imagining for a moment that the Russian state was involved however, I think there are two questions of interest to me:

1) Was this aimed at destabalizing the election, or the process as a whole?

2) Why not now release the RNC stuff (if anything exists)?

For question 2 it could be that they want to have Trump as a friend who can lift sanctions on them. You don't bite the hand that feeds you. Alternatively they could use any information they have to blackmail officials.

Do you think that they were actively attempting to get an "anything but Hillary result" then?

[removed]

why would they be incentivized to do that?

Or they would want the weaker candidate to win.

http://dcleaks.com/index.php/the-united-states-republican-party/

What?! Putin wants trump to help him bring back that sweet, sweet oil money. Trumps just a puppet to Russia now. Look at the secretary of state pick and his connection to Russia

remember Geopolitics?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics

I never really had high expectations of /r/conspiracy but I feel like the reaction to this whole thing shattered any illusion that this place was interested in plausible conspiracies rather than just pro trump propaganda.

There's a legitimate chance that Russia hacked both parties' servers, and leaked one party's info so that they could blackmail members of the other party post election. Sure, they didn't force the DNC to have shady shit on their servers, but if you think for a second the RNC doesn't have some secrets they don't want getting out you've got to be insane.

The idea that this sub is laughing this off with "Of course it's those crafty Ruskies again" when the front page is 10 more articles with no new information on fucking pizzagate is actually sad. Hacks are sleeping on what could be one of the biggest conspiracies ever because it doesn't align with their partisanship.

I didn't expect this sub to be brimming with critical thinkers, but I also didn't expect it to be a nonsense circle jerk either. Can't we be interested in getting to the bottom of the bullshit going on in both sides of the aisle? This ridiculous he-said she-said back and forth is just a distraction from actually answering the important questions that fundamentally all brought us here.

Can't we be interested in getting to the bottom of the bullshit

This, exactly what you are criticizing, is being interested in "getting to the bottom of the bullshit"

Trump supporters admire Putin. Because he's masculine or tough or something like that. Never mind the fact that he's a corrupt, anti democratic dictator who has turned Russia into a corporate fascist state.

corporate fascist state

Looks around here...not much different.

With trump in power I'd have to agree with you

Meh, two dogs that both eat out of the same bowl. :/

Oh, so see Trump created the corporate fascist state, not neocons and neoliberals. ;)

That's what people truly fail to understand, when I was in China I was taken aback by some of the things they can do that we can't and vice verse a, but of course muh freedom and such

Trump supporters admire Putin.

Any evidence for that? Oh, that's right, none is needed to parrot a silly fake-news meme.

Then why do you keep siding with Russia when the facts are constantly pointing at there being foul play? Russia wants what the U.S. has. It wants to be a superpower again. Why is it so difficult for you to at least see the possibility that Russia could be fucking with the U.S. to regain geopolitical control? If that were happening wouldn't you want to stop it?

Ill agree that it is a problem. But you can not say that what Russia did was of any consequence if you think the emails were of no consequence. You actually have to report on the emails in order to convince people what Russia did was wrong in any way. But since that didnt happen...

at least see the possibility that [inane generalization about "Russia could be [against] America"]

Oh, so that's where it's at. Gotcha, now it's becoming clear.

As you have run away from my question, I'll ask it again:

Trump supporters admire Putin.

Any evidence for that? Oh, that's right, none is needed to parrot a silly fake-news meme.

I'll just leave this here.

I never thought "republicans" would side with the ruskies. Fucking sad, they're a basket of fascists.

Anything to win and preserve their tired old way of life. They're the party of non-movers. People who don't want the world to get better.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

What... /r/The_Donald has gone into full force Russia meme machine. How are you saying they don't? I mean nearly their entire front page right now is in support of Russia.

You know that's a meta level troll, right?

Poe's law.

You are now pretending that you were being sarcastic, but forgot your "/s"? You're a lying piece of shit.

No, I wasn't pretending to be sarcastic. I was talking about you.

You are lying.

The front page of /r/The_Donald (the first time I have ever looked at it) has:

• 14 posts mocking (mostly) or directly pointing out the stupidity of the "Russians hacked the election" propaganda

• 2 posts from those with direct knowledge of the DNC leaks (a report from wikileaks' Julian Assange; a report from an associate of the leaker) that directly oppose the fake-news "Ruskies Leaked" narrative.

• 1 post of a link to pretty Russian girls, entitled "Too much Russia Hate..." https://np.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5hmlx7/way_too_much_russia_hate_on_reddit_today_lets/?st=iwlu4xaw&sh=ebca8cb7

• 0 posts "in support of Russia"

and

Nothing (in the real world) even slightly related to your completely dishonest claims of

" /r/The_Donald has gone into full force Russia meme machine."

or

"nearly their entire front page right now is in support of Russia."

It's almost like their front page changes from day to day you fucking moron.

Ok, so your latest moronic outburst is, effectively:

/r/The_Donald had their entire front ... in support of Russia.

but now, 13 hours later:

/r/The_Donald hadn't their entire front ... in support of Russia, and

You are not a lying piece of shit.

OK, gotcha. That obviously makes me a "fucking moron". Right.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/4qcnll/why_do_trump_supporters_love_putin_so_much/

have you been living under a rock for the last year?

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Hmmm, that's the best you can do. OK, right.

• 0 (zero) posts saying that they love him.

• 3 posts responding with just a reason, implying but not saying that they do "love" him.

• 4 posts saying they "respect" Putin, one with 8 or so reasons why, while specifically saying they do not love him

• 3 posts saying they do not love Putin in anyway, or he is "evil"

What do you have to justify your nutty, unsupported statement? That is it?! It's well beneath the standard of response that anyone should take seriously.

Do you have anything else, anything that does not directly oppose what you are trying to prove. After all, you have not been living under a rock for the last year, have you now?

Still better than Obama

maybe when obama starts murdering his political opponents you can say that.

are you people literally 13 years old?

Obama is 100% Traitor and Anti-American.

Much worse than Putin.

Having blackmail on the RNC is a theory I hadn't considered. Nice point.

Hillary's missing state dept emails never were published. The main missing ones where Bengazi timeline stuff. Stuff that would piss people off and catch her lies to congress. All we have are some FOIA stuff on that. So that means Russia has them ( since every secret source says they did it), and didn't make them public.

So either Russia didn't want to publish her worst dirt to help get Trump elected, or they didn't want to publish her worst dirt so they could use it against her if she did get elected.

Or it wasn't particularly damning.

If it wasn't damning, then why did she not submit it all to congress? Why use bleach bit to remove it? Why, in the Podesta emails, is her team so worried about their disclosure and discussing how to delete them quickly?

If it was there, all damning evidence on her private servers were destroyed fully by the the time it was election season. The hacks or leaks would needed to have been timed before any cleaning

NSA said they have the emails she deleted.

Or literally anyone else for the same reason.

You assume there was dirt.

I couldn't have said it better myself. This sub is now just another toilet for the_donald to take a dump in. I can't stand this sub anymore. Literally everything posted here is now pro-trump/Russia and anti-shillary.

I keep seeing this about Russian Hacks being the "great conspiracy of our day" but I've yet to see anything that even suggests it. Some person supposedly with the CIA anonymously said Russia hacked the election, and only WAPO got it? We're taking about the geniuses leading the fake news witch hunt who used what equates to a fake news site as one of its sources. While I'm in full agreement this Pizzagate shit is way overblown for being barely supported with evidence, but at least those people are working at something from a basis, not just the marching call of a bad Media outlet.

If we are going to talk about the election, a better question isn't puttin, but Assange. Is he afraid of Clinton, did he strike a deal with Donald? Or is WL just publishing the only stuff it can get?

https://np.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/5hltn3/has_there_been_a_smoking_gun_linking_russia_with/db1pwqs/

This post outlines the evidence that Russia is behind the hackings, the biggest pieces being that the hackers reused a SSL certificate from an earlier attack that Germany linked to Russia, and that 3 independent Cybersecurity firms all came to the conclusion that the attack was from Russia. The evidence here is pretty hard to argue against, and it seems like there is consensus among the experts. This was also covered by nearly every news source, not just WaPo.

The new information that was leaked was that Russia also hacked the RNC but chose not to release that info for whatever reason. This would imply that it wasn't just Russia trying to dig up whatever they could to make the U.S. look bad, but rather that they were specifically trying to swing the election.

There isn't as much "hard evidence" for this, the leak was just the other day and the CIA hasn't released a report yet. However, the fact that the CIA has yet to comment on the leaks is a good indicator that they are legitimate.

Definitely an interesting read. Now I'm not a cyber expert, but the evidence relies on the fact that the Russians used a similar set of tools and servers as previous, but what prevents someone from intentionally leaving those tracks to get someone else blamed, I.e. increase tension between Russia and USA? Is there something built in that prevents this kind of fraud?

I hate to agree with Trump as well, but we are also dealing with a reality where a mountain of evidence can be perceived in a way to point to multiple conclusions (what appeared to be WMDs and Saddam bluffing,) and it's pretty important that something like this be correct this time. Additionally RNC chair claims there was no hack on RNC, aND FBI says there's no proof on it being Russians.

Ya but the really damaging emails resulting in pizzagate and spiritcooking trends came from Podesta, who's Gmail password was P@ssword and he fell for a phishing scam.

Everytime someone yells "ITS THE RUSSIANS" it's embarassing to know how utterly incompetent Hillary's camp was in email security. Russians could've done it, but then so could an 8th grader.

Until an intelligence agency is willing to come forward publicly with irrefutable evidence and have an official declaration that yes, the russians did it, I'll continue to ignore the death throws of the dnc and whining of the left who are more concerned about the 8th grader that aired their dirty laundry then they are about the contents of said laundry.

I'll continue to ignore the death throws of the dnc and whining of the left who are more concerned about the 8th grader that aired their dirty laundry then they are about the contents of said laundry.

What he said. And im a Democrat.

Or someone who wanted us to belive Russia did it. I mean this is a conspiracy sub after all. What if the CIA hacked it, then a rouge Trump supporter CIA guy sent it to Wikileaks?

rogue*

good point

I see this evidence being flogged a lot. It attempts to impress with technically credible sources, but totally ignores basic facts of the interested parties in the situation.

Guccifer 1.0 was a real "hacker" and was arrested. Guccifer 2.0 was a false flag—and a ridiculous one. Does anyone remember the supposed Clinton Foundation leaks from Guccifer 2.0, with the "Pay to Play" folder? What credibility did it have? How damaging was it for the election? What was the value there? Yet this is being pumped up as the hack source? And its effect on the election was nothing next to that of the DNC and Podesta email leaks. The "hacks" you refer to are just theater to cover up for the fact that the DNC leaks and Podesta's emails come from insiders, not Russia. Oh, and to provide an alternate theory of the DNC leaks to cover for whacking Seth Rich.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp7FkLBRpKg

Sources are leaks not hacks.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/

If you want to talk about plausible conspiracies, why don't you look at all of the insiders and whistleblowers who are saying that people from our own intel agencies leaked the emails, and it has nothing to do with Russia. You can try to degrade the users here, but many of us have read up extensively on this matter and can differentiate a conspiracy from propaganda

Look at the title of this post an tell me the guy you responded to doen't have a point. It isn't a conspiracy post, it's an anti Hillary rant. There's plenty of other places to do that.

You see an anti-Hillary rant; I see someone who thinks that Hillary might still be in this game and there's still a proxy battle happening.

Yet RT news..

What about RT?

Are you defending state owned media catered to foreign countries?

So when the divided "media collective" is privately owned and caters to groups of people who are equally divided. That's terrible, the world has gone to shit. But a state owned media source who's entire function is to target foriegn competitors for its personal interests. Those are the real patriots and truth seekers.

Are you familiar with Russia's legacy of disinformation to the point of crippling entire nations?

Are you defending state owned media catered to foreign countries?

Are you implying our own media isn't owned by the state? Maybe not on paper, but they know where their bread is buttered.

Never. But I know where my bread is buttered and its not in Russia. How about you?

Then bow down cause you've already given up. Fuck Hillary, Fuck Trump, and Fuck the MSM. Feel free to keep eating up what they feed you.

Think for yourself.

Yo, show me your dick.

Seconded. We need the evidence!

Oi. You gotta get in line homie. My name isnt /u/LookAtMyDick

You're simply deflecting here. Russian media is irrelevant to the point I made. It would be more productive if you actually addressed what I said

You didn't make a point, are you 15?

Maybe I am 15, but at least my reading comprehension level isn't that of a 6 year old. I guess I need to spell it out for you. My point was that we have insiders and whistleblowers who are claiming that they leaked the emails to Wikileaks, not the Russians. This is a much more substantial development than 'anonymous sources' claiming Russia could've influenced the election

Edward Snowden, the person responsible for our nations biggest security leak is living comfortably in Russia right now. Wikileaks has been a Russian mouth piece since 2013. Don't get me started on Rex Tillerson and the hypocrisy of that nomination.

I share your disdain for the status queue. I stand by the ideologies these individuals brought to light.

But this is Putin and your movement has been hijacked.

[deleted]

I'm on r/conspiracy because I like fantasticly different perspectives. Not presidential dick sucking contests.

Creative thinking has been hijacked on this sub. Now it teeters on dangerous behavior and well.. what i said before.

I share your disdain for the status queue.

status queue

queue

look at all of the insiders and whistleblowers who are saying that people from our own intel agencies leaked the emails,

Well, post that info - really. I and thousands of others would love to see it (not from fake news MSM: I presume you actually have something)

DO IT: post those links on /r/conspiracy

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

In the third source, look for the comments from the UK ambassador about halfway through the article

What insiders and whistleblowers?

Every Western intelligence service and multiple media investigations come to the conclusion Russia was behind it. Wake up. Donald is a Russian plant. We have had a coup of our government. Wake up.

I don't deny that a coup is underway, but I am doubting that the Russians are behind it. Here are some sources for you:

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

In the third source, look for the comments from the UK ambassador about halfway through the article

So on ones side we have Trump, some guy who knows Assange, and someone on Trumps transition team. On the other side, we have everyone else who's looking into this.

You don't think those claims are significant? I will withhold judgment until any official reports are released proving Russian involvement, but all of the evidence needs to be considered. Right now we have vague statements from some sources in the intelligence community, and we have statements from credible individuals claiming that the leaks came from people within the U.S. government. Who knows, maybe they can prove these people are Russian agents. All I'm saying is we should keep an open mind and consider all possibilities that have evidence supporting them.

I think those claims are flimsy as fuck. Some guy that knows some guy? When has every Western intelligence agency agreed on something that wasn't true?

Some guy? These people aren't your average Joe Schmoe. One is a former ambassador, one is a former NSA agent who helped develop many of the programs that Snowden exposed, and the other is the former Deputy Assistant of the Department of State who served in four presidential administrations. If you think their testimony is flimsy as fuck, then I question your ability to analyze the situation objectively.

Furthermore, you're exaggerating the claim that every Western intelligence agency agrees on this. Many of them are claiming there is evidence of Russian interference, but they are divided on how conclusive this evidence is.

Finally, did we see any dissenting voices from the intelligence community when we invaded Iraq even though they doubted the existence of WMDs? No, because they were doing their job and couldn't disclose such information. Nonetheless, the people in power fabricated and exaggerated evidence to push a hidden agenda. The CIA is also known to have lied in the past in order to support the President's objectives. Why is it so difficult to remain skeptical until more facts come to light?

There was clear evidence before and after Iraq that there was dissent within the community. Who the fuck do you think Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame are?

Yes, wake up yourself. Do you know where you are? This is r/conspiracy, not r/trusttheestablishment. Why the fuck would I give special credence to "every western intelligence service and multiple media investigations"? Waking up means learning to question exactly the sources you're citing as authority. And in this sub of all places. Hilarious.

You left out the part where you told me what whistleblowers and insiders there are? Sounds like maybe you can't.

But you trust the establishment not to be in cahoots with Russia? You trust the Russian oligarchy mafioso establishment instead? Your bullshit detector is completely broken. Wake up.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/12/11/julian-assange-associate-leak-not-hack-dnc-insider-not-russian-422765

There is other evidence that they hacked. From civilians: that aren't the media. This is one guys word that he knows someone that purports to know something.

you are so inclined to swallow. eat up!!!

You don't even know what I'm referring to and you've rejected it. Look in the mirror.

First, you're being horribly unspecific. We are arguing about the source of the leaks. Specifically, the ones that had an impact on the election. That would be the DNC leaks and Podesta's emails.

You are claiming that Russians were responsible for hacking these systems and leaking the mail, and I am saying they did not. That is the truth in question here, upon which further deductions about various agendas might depend.

And my reasons for not believing your theory, I will provide by repeating what I told someone elsewhere:

For the DNC leaks, Assange all but bluntly states that it was leaked (not hacked) by Seth Rich:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp7FkLBRpKg

For Podesta's email, we don't have the name of the leaker, but in the Pilger interview, Assange says that the leak is from a "Washington insider". Craig Murray, an associate of Assange and a generally credible source, says as much, claiming that he has even met the leaker and that it was, again, a "Washington insider":

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/

As for the credibility of the CIA's recent claims, the ones you're basing your indignation about Russian meddling on? Consider this dose of skepticism from Glenn Greenwald:

https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/anonymous-leaks-to-the-washpost-about-the-cias-russia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence/

When faced with conflicting accounts, evaluate those accounts and how well they correspond to other known facts. And acknowledge that either account here, in theory, could be a lie. So are you suggesting that this poorly sourced story from the Washington Post and the CIA is more believable than the person who at least knows from whom he directly received the leak? Do the CIA and Washington Post have a better track record for honesty than Assange? I've chosen my answer to that question, and I'm pretty damn comfortable with it for now.

You are claiming that Russians were responsible for hacking these systems and leaking the mail, and I am saying they did not.

Then who did? What evidence do you have for that? Seriously, I'm goign to lay out a case, with evidence, of why its the Russians. You should be able to do the same for whomever you think did it. Can you?

Are you aware that this is what Russia has been doing for decades now, going back to the Soviet Union? Interfering with elections is their MO. Sowing seeds of discontent using a "fountain of lies" propaganda is literally how they try and weaken their opponents. They recently did it in Ukraine. We know this about them. We also know they are mad at Obama and Clinton. Trumps statements make it clear that he is Russia's preferred leader. So given that you have to be naive to expect Russia not to try and do something just like this, like they do everywhere, What are the Russians doing if not what is being reported? Given the threat of the United State's to them, they'd have to be crazy not to do this, wouldn't they?

Throw into this Trump's bizarre praise of Putin, Trump disregarding his own intelligence services and acting in public as if he had never heard the briefings, Trump's selections of very pro-Russian cabinet picks, Trump literally reading verbatim the words of Russian media propaganda (I can't stand Obermann, but everything he says is publicly available, he just connects the dots). And that's not even all of it. The context is crystal clear to anyone willing to just spend some thinking about it. This is the conspiracy sub. Here is one that is literally laid out right in front of you. You don't even have to make any leaps of logic or faith. Its right there staring you in the face.

I'm 46 years old. I lived through the end of the cold war where we always suspected there was a decent chance we'd be incinerated in a nuclear war. Our enemy was the Soviets. They are now the Russians. Russians run the KGB playbook when it comes to foreign intelligence. Putin was a foreign intelligence KGB officer for 16 years. I am more scared of what is happening in my country than when I thought we'd might be nuked. And most of my fear is that the people that I expect to be able to sniff this stuff out are completely blind to it.

Then who did? What evidence do you have for that? Seriously, I'm goign to lay out a case, with evidence, of why its the Russians. You should be able to do the same for whomever you think did it. Can you?

Can you read? This question is answered in my post. I gave you direct quotes from the people accepting the leaked documents, and I explained why I trust those sources more than this WaPo CIA article, so ... I guess re-read that?

I am aware that Russia has hacked US government targets on multiple occasions. I also believe it's likely that they have their own copies of the contents of Hillary's private email server, which I've heard was nearly open to the world.

But after this point, you again want to argue in a very non-specific way, "The Russians have hacked us." "Putin is former KGB." A lot of your argument is simply based on anti-Russian prejudice. They aren't saints, but you're judging them by a double standard. They seek to protect national interests, as America does. I'm neither American nor Russian, but I find your faith in the CIA troubling. Have you never visited this sub before? Anyway, you said you were going to give evidence. Where is the evidence that Russia supplied the DNC and Podesta leaks, specifically? Let's do be specific as I suggested in my previous comment.

Anti-Russian prejudice? That's a joke. I didn't give two shits about Russia before this election. I knew how they operated though. You don't get to have it both ways. If they are going to protect themselves against the US, this is how they do it. Or are we not that big a threat after all?

You didn't address my question about evidence, but that's fine.

The cui bono test that you're referring to is an interesting starting point for understanding a potential conspiracy; it helps to determine whether it even makes sense. But it is not sufficient in itself to determine the nature of events, especially when interested parties have every incentive to cloak their true interests. "Russians benefited from the election of Trump. Trump won the election. Therefore, Russians are responsible for getting him elected." This is fallacious reasoning. It ignores the much more important factions within the US deep state that clearly support Trump. In case you haven't noticed, Trump has most of the FBI, the MIC, and possibly the NSA in his corner; the CIA, or elements of it, is not. If you want to know why Hillary lost the election, I suggest you consider that your own deep state was not comfortable with the particular brand of criminality that Hillary represented. The Russians are not nearly as central to the election outcome as the media, who are still serving the array of interests that Hillary represented, want you to believe.

Whoosh!

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/12/11/julian-assange-associate-leak-not-hack-dnc-insider-not-russian-422765

a legitimate chance

and

if you think for a second ... X... you've got to be insane.

and

when the front page is 10 more articles with no new information on fucking pizzagate

OK, gotcha. That's what stands for evidence amongst the conspiracy deniers.

There's a legitimate chance that Russia hacked both parties' servers

Based on?

And why does this matter exactly? Funny that Russia provides the transparency this fucking "democracy" would need in the first place.

Can you quantify how those emails vs. other factors influenced the election results? Why are you so sure Hillary would have won without the email leaks?

Also, let me remind you the importance of words and how fake news are generated and then pushed by these so called "journalists" circlejerking: Russia didn't "hack" the election. It hacked a private email server, which happens every day. Also, claiming that Russia had shit on the Republicans, which I don't doubt exist and somehow didn't publish those is a conspiracy theory in and itself.

All in all these circlejerking "journalists" who lost all their credibility during the campaign anways are trying WAY too hard to discredit Trump.

Now calling them out on this is considered "pro-Trump" somehow. I'm not a huge Trump fan but I'm a fan of unbiased political discussion, and it's actually pretty fucking clear which side is more unbiased nowadays, and which side has more media power and lies all the time, distorts news, reports fake news then never follow up (where are all those women who Trump supposedly "raped"), and so on.

Yeah, or maybe people in r/conspiracy are suspicious of unsupported claims by the CIA. Your first sentence is comical in the way it distorts reality.

I never really had high expectations of /r/conspiracy but I feel like the reaction to this whole thing shattered any illusion that this place was interested in plausible conspiracies rather than just pro trump propaganda.

Oh, you had low expectations for the sub, because it's pro-Trump? Because, if it weren't for all the Trump-bandwagoners of course the conspiracy sub would be all about taking this shitty unsubstantiated WaPo article with un-named CIA "sources" at face value. And someone here gilded this shit?

Read the following for a little bit of grown up skepticism about the horseshit you're trying to pass off as "a legitimate chance", despite the directly contradictory statements of Assange, the person who at the very least had direct contact with the leakers themselves.

https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/anonymous-leaks-to-the-washpost-about-the-cias-russia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence/

Oh, and since you have such faith in the sincerity of anonymous CIA sources in the government, maybe you can just accept this FBI report at face value, because, you know, the FBI is the agency principally involved in investigating allegations of domestic espionage.

http://archive.is/og8wu

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-russian-election-tampering-cia-fbi-20161210-story.html

Also, the testimony of Craig Murray, an associate of Assange:

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/

But no, over all the credibility of these sources, people in r/conspiracy, if they were rational by your lights, would accept the word of the WaPo as sock-puppeted by someone in the CIA. Sorry but no.

BTW: I've seen your evidence referring to the Guccifer 2.0 hacks. Not buying it. See my direct response there.

If a comment is gilded in this sub it's not from anyone who posts here.

John McCain, a friggin REPUBLICAN has said that if there is any idea that a foreign power could meddle with our elections, every American should be concerned.

It's disgusting that the microscope is not pointed at ALL people in power - just one side. The winner should be held to even higher responsibility than the loser of a major election.

The Ministry of Disinformation is already very strong, and the new President hasn't even taken office yet. We're headed into darkness.

Oh, John McCain? You mean the guy pallin' around with ISIS in these photos?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/did-john-mccain-meet-with-abu-bakral-baghdadi-the-alleged-head-of-the-islamic-state-isis-isil-daesh/5498177

Yeah, that guy knows that if the game changes, he and his whole legacy are lost. Same with Lindsey Graham.

What is that supposed to prove? The US actively supports rebel fighters in Syria. That's not news.

What IS news is Rex Tillerson, ExxonMobil CEO and supertight buddy of Putin's (he received Russia's Friendship Award) is being considered for Secretary of State. Sweet! Billionaire crony AND Russian best buddy! Nothing to see here!

The US actively supports rebel fighters in Syria. That's not news.

Nice switch, but unfortunately the fact that ISIS is sponsored by the US is news for like 99% of Americans. Or do you not know who Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Muahmmad Noor are?

Not really a Trump supporter, so I won't waste time defending his cabinet picks. Just pointing out that your initial point of "even a REPUBLICAN" is not in any way a good argument in favor of the Russia bad, bad, bad idea.

You're the one baiting and switching to a conversation on ISIS, when this WHOLE THREAD is about Russian influencing American elections and policy. Thanks for playing, though.

1. The conflict in Syria is intimately connected to the current antagonism with Russia. If you don't realize this, then you really are out of your depth here.

2. You brought up McCain, so I switched nothing in discussing him. When I brought up ISIS, you said "rebels"—thus, you did switch.

Thanks for playing.

1. So are you saying there is or is not evidence of Russian influence involved in the recent US election?

2. McCain did a lot of things, but I was referring to his support of investigation of possible influence of another country in our election process.

Try to stay on track. Your diving into another topic and being rude about it.

Not diving into another topic, as I mentioned already, you brought up McCain as if he lent some credence to your point, and I chose to address that and will stick with it, thanks. Syria and Russia are related and so is McCain, and that is why I am saying he cannot be trusted to tell you a damn thing about who possibly hacked the election.

He was part of the whole CFR regime change agenda. Donald, whether you like him or not, is going to reverse that agenda. McCain has basically committed treason (by knowingly sponsoring ISIS) to topple Assad. He is too tied in with the events in Syria. He is a cornered rat who will say and do anything to save his skin.

Where the leaks actually came from I've discussed repeatedly elsewhere so if you must engage me on the topic do it there.

Oh yes. You're clearly not a Trump supporter as you are picking fights with people who call for investigation, praise his plan to "reverse the agenda" and call his detractors rats and treasonous.

Your agenda is showing.

I'm definitely against Hillary 100%, but I'm not a Trump supporter. How could I be, when Trump was specifically chosen by Hillary as the opposing Republican candidate, the one whose obnoxious views would make him easiest to defeat in the general election, the one who her allies in the media would "elevate" as the "Pied Piper" candidate?

https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/1120 (see attachment)

There's a leaked email you won't often see Trump supporters call attention to. Feel free to use it in any arguments you may have with Trump supporters in the future. I will credit him, however, with the pleasure he gave me as an appreciator of irony, as Hillary's "Pied Piper" truly did run off with the whole village.

Don't mistake opposition to the array of interests pushing the next red scare as support for Trump.

Ok, lets assume for the sake of argument that Russia is behind the leaks. What then? The election was still legitimate and Trump is still president. He has done nothing impeachable and has no personal responsibility for the actions of a third party. What is next? Does it make any practical difference if the information came from a Russian agent or a disgruntled whistle-blower or the Washington post before it was forwarded to Wikileaks? What is anyone proposing to be done?

Gee, I wonder what possible reasons Russia could have for wanting to get the U.S. to elect a non-leader with absolutely zero experience in politics at a time when the world is at its highest point of tension in decades? A narcissistic fool falls for every single reverse psychology trick in the book and is triggered faster than a 13 year old girl on Tumblr. A man who in all likeliness owes a lot of money to Russia – money that he probably doesn't have. It couldn't be that if they succeeded in getting some type of man like that into the White House that they would have complete control over the U.S. government. And even if they did that they wouldn't use that strength to leverage themselves back to the top of the geopolitical stage while destroying us in the process. Nooooooooo that could never happen. C'maaaaaaaaaan.

i am really glad you got that off your chest but I was not asking about motive. I was asking how we proceed if we assume the russians are the source of the Wikileaks emails. The election is over and Trump won and the election itself was not compromised, the information revealed is what it is no matter who discovered it.

This is unprecedented territory. If it turns out to be true there should certainly be people losing there job or going to trail for trying to cover it up until after the election. As for who wins? I think the procedure is for Biden to take office while it's worked out.

If Russia did in fact release the info then I am inclined to believe the election has been compromised by a third party (and argueably Americas biggest enemy.). Surely most people would agree that you just cant let that stand.

That is what I thought. Just another attempt to overturn a election by the salty ones.

The election was lawful and will be certified. any delay would have been led by Obamas administration so go ahead and investigate. however there is zero constitutional allowance for a do over in elections Trump has done nothing to impeach for so we are left with what some sort of coup?

Well, that's your opinion, but don't fault anyone for thinking that you're a piece of shit. For those of us who care about more than our ego or our guy winning the ticket – those who care about our country – we're actually upset. It'd be the same if it were any other candidate.

My ego? People like you are literally advocating for a coup in The United States because your still salty about losing a fair election. Who gives a shit that your upset, you don't get a do over. The election is legit.

Nobody is asking for that.

It would appear that HRC is behind it now. Her ex campaign has asked for all electors to get a intelligence briefing by the Obama administration. Sounds like a coup to me.

With bipartisan support. It is not a coup against a party, or even against Trump himself. Why would anybody be against finding out the truth? I simply don't get why being ignorant and risking the worst is worth it. Ignorance is not always bliss.

What would be the reason for the briefing by the Obama administration except to foment a coup through the electoral college? They do not need the administrations view on anything to know how their states have told them to vote. This is the kind of thing that happens in banana republics.

Taking this into light, does Russia have their eye on expansion?

'member Cold War?

Yes I do, what is your point? That nothing or no one could get people to reject Alanticism and "liberal values" other than...what, exactly? Russian propaganda?

You are right. The alt-right is showing their true colors, subjugated pacifists. People from another generation would call those people traitors.

But I know the world is more complicated than that.

And I get it, you are still having fun in your circle jerk.

just like I expected. An irrelevant reply that literally doesn't address a single thing I brought up and instead attacks an "alt-right" boogeyman.

Or is "alt-right" anyone who isn't a neocon to pieces of work like you?

It's obvious who many of these users are. Just ignore them and let them go about earning their paycheck. They've got families to feed, and most of us can see through their BS anyway

I'm sorry am I interrupting all your free time living in your mom's basement? Are you some sort of free thinking underdog who like gets the world but the world will never get him.

If only they could break away from participating in this "world" and see the reality! Lift the veil clouding their judgment ! Oh the anguish of the disenfranchised!

You sweet summer child. I apologize for my insensitivity. I'm sure you have your own struggles to feel passionate about. I just don't care.

The fact that I can relate to neoconservatism over your head in the sand ideologies is..insane. I grew up in the Bush Era. It was terrible.

I can not wait for the pendulum to shift when these children learn a lesson or two about the realities of the world.

You can barely construct a coherent thought in your ostensibly native language. You are deep in some kind of msnbc-induced psychosis. You are a joke.

Oh noooooo im drowning in your cheap talking points and poorly constructed naratives. Am I a neocon or a liberal? The struggle is reeeeal.

I'll take either over a Russian sympathizer.

if you're human, you are truly an idiot. And you don't even know it. That makes a dangerous kind of idiot, which is why I'm starting to despise liberals as you've probably learned from reading my comments.

You are damn right I am dangerous you Putin shill.

Lol at you your ability to differentiate human from bot. Like I said. Head.. In... Sand.

With all of the actual "hacked" emails (podesta) nobody is even entertaining the thought that Podesta and anyone else that had their emails copied are actually the ones at fault here. If it was phishing it was Podesta fault, if it was a weak password it was Podesta fault, if it was poor security it was Podesta fault.

The DNC emails were likely handed over by an insider and the actions of the DNC are the reason for them to be made public.

Accountability for these things lies strictly in the hands of those that made it necessary for their communications to be brought out of the darkness.

Ah, yes, phishing

Fucking right on. I'm so sick of people saying "hacked". Nothing was fucking HACKED!!!!!

Who gives a shit what method was used...? Rather, what is the difference whether Russia used a phishing attack to obtain and disseminate information with the intent of undermining a United States Presidential Election or they hacked into his email server to accomplish the same thing? Furthermore, do you have any evidence at all to substantiate your claim that "the DNC emails were likely handed over by an insider"?

First there is no proof the Russian government did anything. The FBI has stated this. It could have been "Russians" and/or others. Second, if there was nothing incriminating to reveal then the boogeyman "Russians" wouldn't have been able to influence shit. It's like the DNC loaded up a car full of meth and left it running with the doors unlocked in the middle of a trailer park. Then acted indignant when Tuco Salamanca drove off with it. I'm just not feeling it.

The FBI (along with the CIA, NSA and many others) has also stated that they strongly believe that Russia was behind the DNC infiltration. I really don't understand the basis of your second statement. Assuming they covered their tracks well enough to not leave anything incriminating, how exactly would that preclude them from being able to influence the election by releasing harmful information? (Which was done - there's no argument about that.)

Why do you believe every US intelligence agency has a reason to lie about this? And if you do take them at their word, then setting the carelessness of Podesta and other DNC staffers aside, do you really have no issue with Russia doing this? Whether you supported Hillary or Trump, this is a global rival directly putting their finger in our Democratic process to their own calculated benefit.

I'm skeptical because I believe that the current administration is in control of those agencies to a large degree and they will say what they are told to say. The DOJ has been completely corrupted and there is absolutely no argument about that. It's not a far toss to think that the three letter agencies are much the same. The higher ups are controlled by the Obama administration, and the Obama admin is out to get Trump. So we have "Russian hackers". There are other sources who have said the leaks have been coming from internal whistle blowers.
I'm skeptical of all of them. I'm not just going to go "oh okay well some dude in a suit who works for an alphabet agency made some statement to some MSM outlet so it must be true! Now I'm going to go watch football and get fat eating wings!" Nope. Also, "strongly believe" is not evidence. It's propaganda.

I don't buy it. I need more. I'm not saying it isn't true. I'm saying I have not been convinced with evidence.

Fair enough

Because the military industrial complex wants a nice war or proxy war to make some more money. Do you not think all of our 3 letter agencies help and support the military industrial complex? If you don't you might be fucking stupid

Surely whoever fell for the phishing email is partially at fault, but so are the hackers. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

I closed the door to my house but didn't lock the door properly, someone came in and took all my stuff, then used these items to shame my family and I during a very public period of time. Is this a robbery?

Um, yes? So if a bank robber robs a bank and the safe happens to be open when he gets there making it easier to steal the money, does that somehow make it ok for them to take it and also make them no longer bank robbers?

No, they are thieves, these are robberies, and they should have consequences. Instead I'm seeing what's essentially victim-blaming for "letting it happen" and then a sort of reverse victimization where the content of the thefts makes the stolen-from party a culprit in another "crime," thus negating the theft from relevance.

All of this while DONALD TRUMP likely ran the most privately toxic campaign in modern history, which I assert based on the fact that it was incredibly toxic publicly. It hurts to even consider the larger picture.

Dude, I'm pretty sure I just agreed with you...

My tone is all over the place.

It's a burglary.

VICTIM BLAMING!!! /s

Careful, if you start using logic on r/conspiracy then people like u/thatoneguys call you a dog on a masters leash, a russian stooge, stupid, lacking in critical thinking skills, and just plain wrong. Scroll up one post if you want good examples of bad trolling.

LOL. Christ, you don't even know what "logic" is, don't try using terms you don't understand.

Good one.

What Hillary Clinton did with her private email server has absolutely nothing to do with what Russia might or might not have done with the DNC's emails.

Yeah, well, she might as well have simply copied every email she ever sent or received right straight to the whole goddamn world.

Funny how the leaks didn't have a shred of classified info or even the faintest trace of any info that could hurt the USA, despite being real and damning for the involved parties.

Kind of like they were scrubbed by people who didn't want to hurt the USA prior to release...

They didn't leak those emails- all the emails from the day Benghazi happened were gone. I thought the FBI was keeping them as classified evidence so they could prosecute her, maybe they still are but after Trump steps in. They said they were capturing the classified emails.

Edit: They didn't leak the classified emails but it's clear on important dates the emails were missing.

Yep, the missing blocks of emails surrounding important dates is the biggest red flag of all.

Exactly, because it was our own white hats who supplied the emails, and they didn't want to actually release any classified information

Please. Proven to be Russian and you haven't responded to anything above that proves it. You vlog is nothing and no sources.

"My vlog" is the personal testimony of the former Deputy Assistant of the Department of State, and was a high ranking official in four presidential administrations. If you don't consider him a source, then it's not me who is wearing the tinfoil hat

Almost definitely true. You gotta admit, it is really strange though... she's single-handedly responsible for the largest security breach in our country's history (yes, top secret classified info was hacked from her UNSECURED server by Russia, China, and other world powers) and most people don't give a shit at all. She gets a "get out of jail free" card after paying the wife of someone investigating her almost a million bucks and having her husband ex president meet with the head of the DOJ just before the trial, still no one cares. They don't care about that same security breach when she runs for President.... And now that she has lost, people are upset that russia may have hacked podesta's emails (whose password was "password" and revealed TRUE information about her and the people surrounding her, and their countless list of nefarious deeds... I just... Can't wrap my head around it. I really can't.

You are aware that the DNC hacks used a zero day python exploit worth millions of dollars on the black market, right? That wasn't the work of amateurs, they knew what they were doing.

I'm not being facetious when I ask, but what about that was relevant to what either of us had said? Maybe I'm missing something?

And do we know that for a fact? It's been very difficult to get any credible information... again not being rude i genuinely just 1. Wasn't aware of what you said or if it's factual 2. Want to learn more about what's really happening so some valid sources would be much appreciated.

You don't waste a million dollar exploit on a guy who used "password" as his password. And so far, there hasn't been any evidence revealed on exactly what kind of classified information Clinton had on her email server and whether it was compromised by state actors.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/from-russia-leet-hacks-andrew-manoske

Yeah, because she illegal bleachbitted it and smashed her devices with hammers after being subpoenaed....lol. and james comey said under oath that there was top level classified info on there, and the fbi has in fact said it was hacked in the 3 month span it was unsecured.

[removed]

So /conspiracy is conspiring with Russians?.. I know that feel bro. Welcome to the family.

[removed]

Good one. Fucking dumbass.

Rule 10, second and final warning.

The fact that you fucking morons aren't stoked a real life conspiracy is looking to be true is really kind of disheartening

I wouldn't consider this a conspiracy but rather propaganda by special interest groups that aren't happy about the election. They are the ones presenting speculation as fact.

[deleted]

Umm buddy link me to any official agency stating russia hacked the dnc? Cia official statement is no comment. Fbi official statement is russia was not involved. The only thing this is sourced from is a "secret cia source from CNN" . I mean cmon how delusional are you

The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national

I didn't know he said that. Regardless the statement is self evident in my opinion, just look around you and realize that liberal media has been trying to take him down since before the election. This is just the latest angle they can think of.

I didn't know he said that.

That makes it worse.

Making my own opinion rather than borrowing others is somehow worse, how's that individuality working out for you?

How about towing the company line so well you accidentally regurgitate Trump's own statement.

I have no interest in your parties, Trump ran third party and only decided to go repub because he learned you couldn't win otherwise. Hardly a republican but you can stick to your basic world view of politics, I wouldn't want to break your bubble.

Who said anything about parties?

You spoke of the company line and that's the way I interpreted it.

No buddy. Trump is the company now.

Collusion between the democrats and the media is no secret at this stage, even look around on reddit and you will find collusion. My statement isn't a far stretch by any means, I don't need anyones company to witness what's obvious. One trip to politics during the election to find 100% anti-Trump stories is enough to convince me.

No parrot, no parrot. You're the parrot.

hey sadsack do you understand how a CIA investigation works? obama is due all the facts by whatever deadline he gave. the investigation is still underway. literally the ONLY thing that was reported was that there is a shocking amount of evidence behind the idea that russia interfered. Wait another month and you'll get an entire report of evidence.

if you have a problem with the CIA stating that ahead of the report release/inauguration date, then I suspect you were just as vocal when Comey came out, days before the election, and swayed it by stating unsubstantiated drivel about muh server!!! or are you just another partisan blowhard?

/r/conspiracy has fallen

Seriously. It's now a battle between trumpies and shills. Both of them destroy everything they touch.

[removed]

Lol I'm not a shill dude. Check my comment history. I don't support trump or Hillary I hate them both.

You're probably a trump supporter since you defended him though.

All I'm saying is that where trump supporters go, shills follow. It's toxic, but it's not trump supporters fault it's CTR. It's just a shitty side effect.

Rule 10. Removed. 1st warning.

And the mods keep deleting tons of comments in every thread, and I can't tell if it's justifiable or not because the word shill isn't allowed. I can't tell if people are honesty personally attacking each other constantly or not.

Is /r/conspiracy making fun of a conspiracy theory? I don't understand this place anymore.

I thought if you trusted unsourced articles that felt like truth, than this was your sub? If it's not, then where the fuck is the echo chamber for people who will believe anything? (insert the name of your most hated subreddit here)

You feel like this is the truth? Well we feel differently then and that is ok. This "feels" like more complete bullshit from WaPo. Business as usual.

R/politics

Because that Fake News MSM conspiracy theory is a croc of shit.

Do you think it will still look like a fake propaganda article if you put it up against this sub reddits pre-trump posts? Seemed like this sub's wheelhouse to me.

[citations needed]

you sound mad. almost like you have an agenda. how much is your Macedonian click farm paying you, comrade?

[removed]

Rule 10. No personal attacks. Removed. 1st warning.

How is it a conspiracy when it's apparently 'confirmed' by the FBI, CIA, and MSM. It's actually a conspiracy that it WASNT the Russians.

What I found incredible and also hilarious that so many of you here believe in conspiracies regarding Hilary but so quickly denies any allegations of consipiracies about Russia and Trump?

Hmm...perhaps that too is also a conspiracy, no?

I don't know how many times it must be repeated until the message sinks in. But -- "Where is the evidence?" -- Citation is needed, what we need is a source that suggests it's true, but there isn't.

I could tell you that I'm sitting right next to Big Foot & have no evidence to show as proof and you'd still want people circulating this with no sources to cite other than my word for it.

Just like the claims that Hillary Clinton got 3 million Illegal Immigrant votes, I'm not going to believe that bullshit until a source citing evidence presents itself -- but I will suggest that if it's true, Hillary Clinton not only lost the Popular vote by 1 million votes, she lost both the Popular & Electoral. But again, I digress, there's no evidence to suggest that the allegation is true so, why must we buy in to an allegation about the possibility of Russia interfering with the election?

If Russia helped Trump win the election by interference, and that's some how an automatic disqualifier, then would you not say that Hillary Clinton is equally as disqualified because she had help with foreign aid? Hillary Clinton having foreign aid is actually a provable fact and has been exposed to be true that her campaign was influenced by foreign aid via Saudi Arabia's ties to the Clinton Foundation amongst others who payed into the Clinton Foundation in exchange for Government favors & influences.

Ooo, are we talking about needing evidence to convict Trump now, do we?

That is what I find super hilarious. Do you know how many anti Hilary conspiracies I encounter and this thread believe it all hook line and sinker without a shred of proof.

But touch Trump, wow, suddenly proof and citations needed. Just pointing out the hypocrisy, and if you did what you claim then I don't mean you.

Citation for Clinton allegations

If you can't stand sitting there watching the hour-long video documentary of evidence, that's not my fault. And that's just with out the e-mails exposing the corruption.

I watched that video. Again, mere conspiracy allegation to me.

That is fine if you believe that.

However, to call Trump's allegation regarding Russia "baseless" however sounds pretty much like double standard to me.....

Apparently to most of you here, Trump is an innocent virgin when accused with the Russian interference affair while Clinton is a dirty whore regardless of the evidence.

It's called Google, easy to fact check these things. Various articles you can click to check out if you want, though I'm certain that you're already of the opinion that everything on Clinton is fair game & that I have no complaints about Trump & that he's just the perfect little lamb or something.

Google citation

Here's a thing (just to name one) that is real that could've been talked about regarding Donald Trump but for some reason nobody wanted to pick up on it because they were too busy throwing around slandering labels. Trump University scandal & settlement.

You do realise it is ridiculously easy to write shit and post stuff about anyone nowadays? Google? How about a little critical thinking?

Look at this way, I don't believe any shit about Clinton until the a court of law convicts her in Court. Simple as. Now that Trump won, what is stopping him from trying to put her in jail via the normal way? Oh wait, he is no longer interested in doing that despite his big mouth promising to do so.

Now the same shit is stirring about Trump and what does this sub reddit says? Yep, it is all fake. All part of the MSM agenda.

Like I said, it is bloody hillariously hypocritically funny that Trump is like the Virgin Mary while Clinton is "literally satan".

Depends on how long you've been into Politics to know who Hillary Clinton was/is prior to the 2016 bid for presidency. I've known about both of these people (Trump & Clinton) since the 90's, Donald Trump has been very good at what he does (which is Entertaining, he's a very good actor), if you want to know who the real Donald Trump is, the real Donald Trump is the type of person who will hire someone for a job, and if that person doesn't do a good job then he will find someone who will do a good job & hire them. Trump is the type of person, who if you give him a role to play, then he depict that role in a believable fashion. He played the "Bad Guy" on WWE once & he depicted himself as a "Bad Guy" & he was good at it, it was entertaining. So, if you give him the role to play President, he will depict himself as a President in a Presidential fashion (more than likely). To put it bluntly, Trump is a successful Con Artist. The only person making the claim that Trump is the perfect little lamb, a "Virgin Mary", is people such as yourself who like to make it out like every argument in defense of Donald Trump is what you make it out to be.

Any thing critical of Donald Trump compared to Hillary, you know, the "Literally Hitler" slogan, based on nothing but perception & emotional projections. Didn't believe any of it. Racist, bigoted, hateful, sexist, xenophobe, homophobe, transphobe, Islamophobe, etc. These labels, the slandering, obviously doesn't work find something else such as a real argument & articulate it in a way that doesn't accuse or accentuates or projects your opinionated spun narrative. Clinton on the other hand, people cited sources, laid out the facts, & let the evidence speak for itself, it just happens the overwhelming majority who saw that evidence came to the same conclusion, where-as the big difference here between Donald Trump & Hillary Clinton is actually pretty obvious. The consensus on Clinton was generally & majority came to the same conclusion by individuals, and the conclusions about Trump were all over the place you couldn't pin them down, mostly because the definitions of all the slandering labels did not match up.

Wow such a long post justifying your position. Whatever dude. I have been following US politics since Bill was in charge too.

As far as I am concerned, I don't care whether the news is the so called "lame stream media" or google facts. I am a firm believer of innocent until proven guilty. As far as I am concerned about Trump, that too applies, despite the stench of Russian manipulation and the fact he openly has asked the Russians to interfere during his campaign.

What I find fucking hilarious about you lot here is that Clinton is guilty no matter what she does yet the Donald could be forgiven no matter the evidence. Trump is incapable of conspiracy it seems....

Like I said, Clinton is always the whore while Trump is the innocent virgin. Pathetically obvious double standard.

Citation needed, show me where I say "Donald Trump is forgiven no matter the evidence" -- Do you recognize that fallacy of such a statement? I say that there's a lack of evidence and you say that I'm denying the existence of evidence? Why? Where is the evidence, show me.

I actually saw the conference where Donald Trump spoke about encouraging Russia to "hack", but again, I can't say that that, in and of itself, is evidence that Russia was involved in any hacks. WHERE is the evidence that they were?

Donald Trump is only guilty of saying stupid & retarded things at this point.

Do you know what truth, facts, evidence, statistics, etc. are? Because that's what is missing here when you make your case in arguments against Donald Trump. Give me anything for citation. Don't just link me to an article, where all the article does is project an opinionated narrative, they make a claim, but fail to link a credible source for why they believe this or that or how & why it's evidence of any thing. You can't just make wild claims with out citation like that and expect people to believe you who are outside of confirmation bias.

Precisely. There are now growing allegations that Russia has interfered into your elections and got Trump into power, which in default, basically fucking you lot and you have given so much the benefit of the doubt to him, claiming that he is "merely guilty of saying stupid things".

However, if the same allegation involves Clinton....my god, you will probably be frothing in the mouth by now.

Hence my argument about bias and double standards.

Holy shit, someone on /r/conspiracy is asking for evidence. Never thought I'd see this day.

We are the silent majority... probably, no evidence to cite for that. (lol)

The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national

Independent evidence :

So here is the deal - you are never likely to see hard proof. The amount of info CrowdStrike was allowed to release is already miles ahead of what almost any other similar forensic investigation is allowed to make public. I've done a number of these for some very large entities, and the most I've ever been allowed to say is "we're investigating a potential incident".

I've had incidents where I was all but positive who was responsible, but the FBI would not allow us to publicly attribute it because there was still a margin of doubt. If the NSA (and many other independent researchers) are willing to say "Yes, this was Russia," you can bet your ass they have a mountain of evidence behind that.

CrowdStrike are some of the very best in the business and were the ones responding to the DNC hack. Here is the evidence they were cleared to provide publicly:

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bear-hunting-tracking-cozybear-backdoors/

(Again, keep in mind there is nothing nefarious about not sharing these details publicly. You will find very few entities that suffered a hack willing to allow responders to make even this much public.)

Additionally there is a good deal of evidence (technical, social, and circumstantial) that Guccifer 2.0 is an identity created by the Russian intelligence services to keep eyes off of them.

https://www.threatconnect.com/blog/guccifer-2-0-dnc-breach/

https://www.threatconnect.com/blog/guccifer-2-all-roads-lead-russia/

Lastly, there is this report from SecureWorks:

https://www.secureworks.com/research/threat-group-4127-targets-hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign

These are three highly respected, independent sources all arriving at the same conclusion. To date I have not been able to find any credible sources that have had access to the details of the cases that have come to any other conclusion. If every independent professional investigating the breaches comes to the same conclusion, you can be pretty certain the evidence is all but overwhelming - whether or not you are authorized to see it yourself.

https://np.reddit.com/r/AskNetsec/comments/57g0my/is_it_feasible_in_any_way_to_believe_that_russia/d8rwsdk

All of which are speculation, absolutely nothing to suggest that any of this is true with irrefutable evidence or sources cited.

We don't know who hacked the e-mails, some might even suggest (but no evidence to back this up) that the DNC staffer who suicide by shot to the back of the head, is the one who leaked the information, and for doing so, he was assassinated & it was made to look like a mugging. Now, unless we can link evidence that suggest the DNC staffer was working as a Russian secret agent, I have to throw this out as a credible source to rely on whether he was a Russian spy or just a DNC staffer who didn't like where things was going -- or he committed suicide via shot to the back of the head for the shits & giggles.

There is enough to speculate though that the reason a lot of sources remain anonymous is because there's a possible threat to their life being in danger should they out themselves. So, depending on the things that the public does not know because we're not privy with access to these kinds of information, I'm afraid that all of this is going to be nothing but unconfirmed accusations. We can demand the Freedom of Information Act, but that only gets us so far and often times doesn't lead us to any answers that we're looking for, and only confirm what was already common knowledge or speculated to begin with.

It's not speculation, it's strong assertions from 17 government agencies and at least 2 independent researchers.

If you want to believe Russia is innocent, go ahead. I can tell by your replies you're not interested in truth.

It doesn't matter whether that's true or not, because I'd rather focus on why there was even any corruption to begin with & hold them accountable.

If you woke up one morning to find your vehicle vandalized & someone had left video & photographic evidence as proof showing you who it was that did it, are you going to move Heaven & Earth to find out who it was that snitched, or are you going to press charges on the person who trashed your car?

There's a line to be drawn, of course, the question should never be "where" do we draw the line, but "when" do we draw the line. I'm not interested in the truth? I think it was pretty clear that I want evidence & sources cited that suggest it is true, what you gave me was a bunch of speculations & accusations. Assertions, eh? Tell me, what assertion is strong enough to suggest that this is real, that Russia hacked our voting machines or influenced the election results? You do realize first & foremost, the voting machines are not connected to the Internet, if someone was going to "hack" the voting machines, it's going to take some knowledge in engineering or reverse-engineering to physically tamper with the machines in person, and absolutely nobody is going to get away with something like that out in the open. if evidence exist that the voting machines was tampered with, please present a source citing this as fact.

If Russia influenced the election results, I have to disagree on the assertion based on not "not" being interested in the truth, but based on there being no strong credible evidence cited that suggests it is a proven irrefutable fact. The only thing I could say Russia may be guilty of right now that has any merit to the idea that Russia interfered with the election results, it's when Putin announced & said that a vote for Trump meant peace & a vote for Clinton meant a WW3.

Again just to reiterate, if it's a disqualifier for a foreign Nation to aid a Presidential candidate on their campaign for Presidency, and if strong evidence that suggests Donald Trump is guilty of this, then would you also agree on the assertion that Hillary Clinton too should be equally disqualified for her ties to Saudi Arabia aiding her campaign amongst other foreign aid through favors & influence being sold via the Clinton Foundation, which actually does have strong evidence to suggest that this is an irrefutably fact to be true? By the way, nobody is making the argument to say -- "so it's okay if Donald Trump/Republicans do it but if Hillary Clinton/Democrats do it it's not okay?" -- nobody is saying that.

And here's some more Russian evidence for you.

DNC/Podesta Email Hacks

Consensus is that Russia was behind it. US government has officially accused Russia:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/politics/us-formally-accuses-russia-of-stealing-dnc-emails.html

17 intelligence agencies say Russia was behind hack:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/

Guccifer 2.0:

https://motherboard.vice.com/read/guccifer-20-is-likely-a-russian-government-attempt-to-cover-up-their-own-hack

Private Security Firms:

/r/politics/comments/5edxza/activists_urge_clinton_campaign_to_challenge/dabumo4/

Julian Assange/Wikileaks:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2012/01/25/the-breathtaking-hypocrisy-of-julian-assange-kremlin-pawn/

http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/09/julian-assange-is-a-russian-front-man-not-a-freedom-fighter/

https://20committee.com/2015/08/31/wikileaks-is-a-front-for-russian-intelligence/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2016/08/12/trump-allies-wikileaks-and-russia-are-pushing-a-nonsensical-conspiracy-theory-about-the-dnc-hacks/

Russian Propaganda/Disinformation Warfare

Russian "Troll Factory":

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-real-paranoia-inducing-purpose-of-russian-hacks

Involvement in Election:

http://warontherocks.com/2016/11/trolling-for-trump-how-russia-is-trying-to-destroy-our-democracy/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-propaganda-effort-helped-spread-fake-news-during-election-experts-say/2016/11/24/793903b6-8a40-4ca9-b712-716af66098fe_story.html

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/donald-trump-twitter-army-228923

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/technology/automated-pro-trump-bots-overwhelmed-pro-clinton-messages-researchers-say.html?ref=business&_r=0

http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2016-11-18-pro-trump-camp-colonised-pro-clinton-twitter-campaign

https://heatst.com/world/how-russias-twitter-bots-and-trolls-work-with-donald-trump-campaign-accounts/

https://heatst.com/world/russian-intel-bots-are-boosting-infowars-alt-right-twitter-accounts-for-trump/

Speculation on Russian Activity on Reddit:

/r/politics/comments/58113f/study_bots_accounted_for_a_third_of_all_protrump/d8wly3j/

/r/politics/comments/5fouvj/in_todays_world_the_truth_is_losing/dalz2pn/

Previous Instances/Confirmed/Accepted to be True:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/29/world/europe/russia-sweden-disinformation.html

Ongoing/Future:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/16/can-we-interest-you-in-yet-another-russian-election-interference-russia-germany-merkel-intelligence-putin/

https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/23/the-eu-moves-to-counter-russian-disinformation-campaign-populism/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/11/29/in-wake-of-cyberattack-german-spy-chief-points-finger-at-russia-warns-of-attempts-to-disrupt-election/

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-merkel-socialbots-idUSKBN13J1V0

Analysis by /u/DownWithAssad:

/r/geopolitics/comments/50ioyi/analysis_of_russias_information_war/

Russian Connections to Trump Team

Connection between Right Wing Populism Movements & Kremlin:

http://thediplomat.com/2016/10/beyond-trump-and-putin-the-american-alt-rights-love-of-the-kremlins-policies/

Russian Support for Trump:

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-russia-hillary-clinton-united-states-europe-516895

Trump’s behavior, however, has at times concerned the Russians, leading them to revise their hacking and disinformation strategy. For example, when Trump launched into an inexplicable attack on the parents of a Muslim-American soldier who died in combat, the Kremlin assumed the Republican nominee was showing himself psychologically unfit to be president and would be forced by his party to withdraw from the race. As a result, Moscow put its hacking campaign temporarily on hold, ending the distribution of documents until Trump stabilized, both personally and in the polls, according to reports.

Note: During the public feud with the Khan family.

Trump ties to Russia:

http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/

During Campaign:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-was-told-russia-was-blame-hacks-long-debate-n663686

“A senior U.S. intelligence official assured that cybersecurity and the Russian government's attempts to interfere in the 2016 election have been briefed to, and discussed extensively with, both parties' candidates.... ‘To profess not to know at this point is willful misrepresentation,’ said the official. ‘The intelligence community has walked a very thin line in not taking sides, but both candidates have all the information they need to be crystal clear.’”

Paul Manafort (former campaign manager, current advisor):

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/us/politics/paul-manafort-ukraine-donald-trump.html

Carter Page (former foreign policy advisor):

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/the-mystery-of-trumps-man-in-moscow-214283

Mike McSherry (aide who helped lead convention strategy, worked alongside Manafort and Gatesto lobby):

https://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/ukraine-lobbying-contract-linked-to-manafort-also-involved-a?utm_term=.dfYe72DAYd#.sqAybRd7Ao

Howard Lorber (Trump economic adviser):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2016/08/10/another-trump-adviser-with-deep-ties-to-russia/

Boris Epshteyn (senior Trump adviser and surrogate):

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/boris-epshteyn-russia-crimea-trump

Richard Burt (former adviser to Trump, helped write major foreign policy speech):

http://www.usrbc.org/site/about/board

http://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trumps-russia-connections-foreign-policy-presidential-campaign/

http://www.vice.com/read/how-putins-american-fixers-keep-russian-sanctions-toothless-724

Michael Flynn (Trump's choice for National Security Advisor):

http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/29/michael-flynn-wrong-man-trumps-national-security-advisor/

https://www.yahoo.com/news/michael-flynn-key-trump-aide-sat-in-on-intel-briefings-while-advising-foreign-clients-004512931.html

Even Michael Flynn's Son:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/17/politics/kfile-michael-flynn-social-media/

Trump Jr. meeting with foreign think tank on Syria before election:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/23/donald-trump-jr-syria-russia-meeting-randa-kassis

Russia in contact with Trump "allies" during campaign:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/world/europe/trump-campaign-russia.html

Roger Stone Wikileaks Connection:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/02/trump-adviser-clinton-emails-wikileaks-roger-stone

Harry Reid on FBI investigation:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/31/heres-the-real-takeaway-from-harry-reids-letter-to-fbi-director-comey-commentary.html

House Passes Bill against Russia, limiting diplomat movement:

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/308228-house-passes-intelligence-bill-enhancing-efforts-against-russia

Trump Tower Server (Speculative/Inconclusive):

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/11/the_trump_server_evaluating_new_evidence_and_countertheories.html

FBI Investigating Trump (Speculative/Unconfirmed):

http://heatst.com/world/exclusive-fbi-granted-fisa-warrant-covering-trump-camps-ties-to-russia/

Claims of Russian Blackmail (Speculative/Unconfirmed):

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/295285-independent-candidate-trump-may-have-been-blackmailed-by

Unrelated to Trump, but Jill Stein:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpS34wgUkAEdpEB.jpg

Russian Hacking of Election Itself

Confirmed Hacks Before Election:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/intelligence-community-investigating-covert-russian-influence-operations-in-the-united-states/2016/09/04/aec27fa0-7156-11e6-8533-6b0b0ded0253_story.html

FBI issued an unprecedented warning to state election officials urging them to be on the lookout for intrusions into their election systems and to take steps to upgrade security measures across the voting process, including voter registration, voter rolls and election-related websites. The confidential “flash” alert said investigators had detected attempts to penetrate election systems in several states.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-is-investigating-foreign-hacks-of-state-election-systems/2016/08/29/6e758ff4-6e00-11e6-8365-b19e428a975e_story.html

Hacking of the Election Itself (Unconfirmed/Speculative):

https://medium.com/@jhalderm/want-to-know-if-the-election-was-hacked-look-at-the-ballots-c61a6113b0ba#.nc8nolsat

...attackers would probe election offices in advance to find ways to break into computers. Closer to election, when it was clear from polling which states would have close margins, the attackers might spread malware into machines in some of these states, rigging machines to shift a few % of the vote to favor desired candidate. This malware would likely be designed to remain inactive during preelection tests, do its dirty business during election, then erase itself when polls close. A skilled attacker’s work might leave no visible signs though the country might be surprised when results in several close states were off from preelection polls.

Latest:

/r/politics/comments/5gpygi/group_sues_to_demand_florida_election_recount/dauhdoc/

Florida voting machine vendor hack

Sorry but I'm gonna have to throw out a lot of those "sources" as most are biased left leaning or have just flat out been debunked already.

Don't cite any thing from NYT, r/politics , r/worldnews , USAToday, Forbes, Washington Post, The Federalist, New Yorker, Politico, News Week, Time, Reuters (any thing from Yahoo News is not credible source any more), Buzzfeed (especially Buzzfeed), CNN, The Guardian, The Hill, PBS, -- I have to throw out all of these immediately with out having to read them mostly because I've already read them, and nothing they've come out with was anything substantial as cited evidence that would suggest that Russia had any thing to do with the Election.

Don't need to list any thing from InfoWars, Breitbart or the famed "Alt-Media", all of those don't list any facts, statistics, or evidence. I'm a huge advocate for stating facts, evidence & statistics, laying them all out there, and letting it speak for itself rather than someone giving me their opinion & projecting the idea that it's real. I can't just have someone telling me what to believe because I'm perfectly capable of critical thinking skills & coming to a conclusion to form an opinion myself with out someone trying to force their narrative on me.

A lot of what you see in MSM today is nothing but an echo-chamber, which is just confirmation bias, which is you're not going to believe or trust any thing else if it's something that you already disagree with. I will take a look at a few of the there "sources" you cited though but don't be surprised if I don't just automatically believe & agree with it 100%.

You won't read articles from the mainstream, you won't read articles from the "alt media", you have previously ignore my links to crowd strike, an independent cyber security firm.

What on earth do you read? To be frank, I'm about finished with this exchange. Your inability to reply with any substance to any of my posts is clear and damming.

Have a nice day, da svidahnia.

Like, for instance, the Haitians. The tsunami, earthquake disasters, etc. We were told for example that we were donating to help rebuild & aid relief for the Haitians, yet there was no actual aid relief or rebuilding. Even the recent hit to Haiti, what I saw with my own eyes, were Haitians pleading with America NOT to donate to the same scam that they were exploited for. You know, there was something very telling about that, they were more concerned about Americans being scammed of these supposed "Relief Efforts", than of their own predicament. So, I believe what my own eyes & ears are telling me there.

Did Hillary Clinton vote in favor of going to war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc? My eyes & ears are telling me yes, she did.

Did Donald Trump talk about grabbing a woman by the pussy? My eyes & ears told me, yes. But did he actually do it? My eyes & ears tell me, no, he didn't.

Is Donald Trump guilty of the Trump University scandal? Well let's see, money in the bank accounts, police reports, lawsuits filed, etc. My eyes & ears are telling me, yes. And were these things settled in a court? Eyes & ears are telling me, yes.

So, if you've got evidence to cite that would suggest that Russia is responsible for any thing about this election, it better be something that my eyes & ears actually believe.

What I believe & trust are my own eyes & ears, and traditional definitions of words (as opposed to the broad-brush terms, slogans, labels & slander). I'm not going to 100% believe articles written by anybody (especially if they are click-bait titles) projecting an opinionated narrative.

Here are the independent reports, these do not use biased language it is all laid out plainly.

I'm all for skepticism when it comes to attribution, but when several of the top cybersecurity firms, and the NSA come out and say "it was Russia", I think we can accept that it's true.

Here are links to some of those reports as well as some background info. Keep in mind, these firms give the same threat actor different names for their own reasons. ex. APT28=Dukes=Bears

CrowdStrike: https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

Mandiant: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cyber-researchers-confirm-russian-government-hack-of-democratic-national-committee/2016/06/20/e7375bc0-3719-11e6-9ccd-d6005beac8b3_story.html

Fidelis: http://www.computerworld.com/article/3086314/security/russian-hackers-were-behind-dnc-breach-says-fidelis-cybersecurity.html

Dell SecureWorks: https://www.secureworks.com/research/threat-group-4127-targets-hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign

Threatconnect: https://www.threatconnect.com/blog/guccifer-2-all-roads-lead-russia/

FireEye: https://www.fireeye.com/blog/threat-research/2014/10/apt28-a-window-into-russias-cyber-espionage-operations.html

Volexity: https://www.volexity.com/blog/2016/11/09/powerduke-post-election-spear-phishing-campaigns-targeting-think-tanks-and-ngos/

I know you haven't even read this stuff, it's important you do if you want to form your own opinion.

Thanks, I'll read all of them.

Question, if it's true that Russia did hack e-mails, influence the election in some way, etc. Is that at all possibly an indication, that Clintons private e-mail servers (the deleted e-mails) were... "not secure"? Just curious, because if there's any evidence that would lead to or link Russia to being even remotely involved, then wouldn't it be possible that the evidence is some where in at least one of those deleted e-mails?

Just interesting to think about, can't really say for sure though.

None of the Wikileaks or guciffer leaks were from Clinton's server.

The leaks were podesta /dnc emails. Clinton's emails were obtained through foi requests.

Russia likely hacked the RNC too, as I linked above. The question really is not IF Russia hacked, it's why they hacked both and only released the dems emails.

And that is why this stinks of foreign meddling.

Time will tell, I only hope Obamas report comes soon I believe he wants it for Jan 20th.

CrowdStrike - Doesn't link a source

Fidelis - Doesn't link a source

Dell SecureWorkd - Doesn't link a source

Threatconnect - Doesn't link a source

FireEye - Doesn't link a source

Volexity - Doesn't link a source

It looks more like propaganda to spin a narrative to me. I mean, I see claims that two Russian agencies are involved but doesn't link a source that proves the connections exist, I can only say that they are wild claims at the moment, because with out a source showing a connection, it's more like walking right off a cliff or running a dead end.

Guccifer 2.0, sounds more like a convenient scapegoat to spin a narrative, no physical body it's more like a persona, or "Anonymous" at this point, someone innocent is likely dead right now but we'll never know because he couldn't make it to a trial.

One lone hacker trying to take claim of responsibility for the hack but it sounds more like a troll, don't even know who this person is and can't even tell if the claims can be substantiated, much less be a link proving any connection was Russia.

So, it seems like the only connection to Russia here, is apparently the "lone hacker" Guccifer 2.0 used a VPN to mask his real location by using a Russian IP address or proxy, and this is some how projected as evidence that Russia is involved?.. I don't see the connection of strong suggestion that Russia is to blame.

I think I need to give my brain a rest after reading all of that, most of it sounded like the author of these articles didn't even know what the hell he/she was talking about. It sounds like gullible people read those posts, and are going around projecting their opinionated spun narrative to say that it's factual evidence of Russia involvement, while at the same time lacking a source evidence to cite the connections with nothing but wild speculation.

Ok man, if that doesn't convince you I don't know what to say.

It is not 100% confirmed, but like the theory of evolution, it is widely accepted as fact.

That sounds like a "Listen & Believe" type think, the theory of evolution isn't 100% confirmed but is widely accepted as fact? Something about that analogy is confusing Religion with Science.

I'm done here my friend, have a nice day.

Thanks and, you too.

I know you didn't intend to assemble a damning compendium of all recent anti-Russian propaganda, but boy did you ever! Thanks.

It doesn't matter if it's true or not.

Thing is, it does.

By the way, I don't agree with your assertions on the content of the DNC leaks. There is no evidence of pay to play like you say.

There is mounting evidence a foreign power meddled in a US election by selectively leaking emails from the democratic side.

for all the people preaching how Russia did everyone a service by making information public, it's now being asserted that they also hacked the RNC but deliberately chose to withhold their data.

They based that conclusion, in part, on another finding — which they say was also reached with high confidence — that the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee’s computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

gotta wonder how much blackmail material they're currently holding over the people that now control the House, Senate, and the Presidency.

When I said "It doesn't matter if it's true or not", I was talking about the accusation that I'm some how not interested in the truth, sorry if I got that confused.

Remember when Right-wingers decided Vladimir Putin could intervene into American elections with perfect impunity? And that Putin, a killer of journalists, a persecutor of gays, a monopolizer of media, an invader of sovereign countries, a corrupt gangster who is now the richest man in Russia because of his office was actually a statesman?

I remember it.

So this is an anti-conspiracy sub now?

Depends on how you see the conspiracy here. A) CIA etc conspiring to wage a new Cold War because power & budgets. B) Vengeful madman Putin is conspiring to hire hackers to rub it into glorious America's face, just to mess with you guys.

I member.

Memberberries are awesome sometimes

No no, stop that common sense bullshit! I'm willing to give up my civil liberties in the name of fake news.

/s

Well if this is the dumb shit that this sub has turned into, time to unsubscribe.

Our whole fucking country is Russian it would seem....

Clever bastards.

Commie bastards!

Yep. Russian hackers love pizza too. Sickening.

Yes don't you get it! Russia interfered with the elections by proving that the DNC was interfering with the elections. /s

So much this. Have some Reddit gold!

https://www.etsy.com/listing/253866257/1-medium-eq-pyrite-nugget-stone-cube?ref=pla_similar_listings

Hillary's server and Russia interfering with US politics, despite being connected, are two separate issues. You can find both reprehensible without having to choose a side.

That's quite the logical fallacy you've set up there. Both events are not mutually exclusive. Hillary could have sabotaged her own election, and Russia could have supported Trump. But hey, maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion if Bernie had won the primary.

putin is everywhere

[deleted]

lol ;0

This "It's The RUSSIANS" meme has turned the Hillary Clinton crowd into holiday fruitcakes from sea to shining sea.

The CIA is the Hillary crowd now? Lol

Nobody in the CIA has stepped forward to publicly state that this even happened! It's all a 'Secret Assessment' that the FBI will not even support, not even all of the 17 intelligence agencies (!) support. It's pure propaganda, and nothing else.

an anonymous source is the CIA now?

BUT RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA!

Random question but figure someone here would know. Is correct the record still active? Because it would explain why this Russian thing is such a big story right now.

Remember when they forced Podesta to use a fucking gMail cloud account (not protected by 4th Amendment and openly read by Google bots & staff) and not turn on simple 2-factor identity verification or school him on Phishing attacks?

Not to mention how they rigged the Obamacare premiums so they would skyrocket when next year'spremiums started to arrive in early November

Or how they must have hacked her campaign plan to avoid visiting swing states late in the election. Absolute Communist Scum!

Remember when Russia provided Hillary with a lighted screen during the debates to read her answers from?

Yuppers. I'm tired of all this blaming the messenger—who may or may not be Russian—instead of those actually doing the wrongdoing.

Fucking despicable.

I think the main point is that Russia hacked both the DNC and the RNC but only released one. I'm sure if the RNC emails were released, there would have been plenty of blowback. but releasing only one shows pure intent to meddle.

The russians didn't hack anyone, the closest you get is blaming it on a group that "may be linked" to russia and not working for them. Also the republican party denies it was hacked and no evidence has been presented to prove otherwise. You are reading fake news by people with an agenda twisting words to suit their argument.

you don't know what i'm reading

I can tell from your posts it's fake news

You are regurgitating talking points that I have read myself in detail.

thats what they want you to think

They want me to listen and believe rather than present the evidence and let me draw my own conclusion which I have done because of the lack of such evidence.

plus they were LEAKS not hacks.

Another thing I don't get is why are some Americans so outraged. You guys have doing that to other countries for years now.

I say fuck the both of them but we as Americans, especially Hillary, have no right to complain about foreign powers tampering in elections.

Good point. Even if the CIA is right and Russia hacks helped Trump win, it doesn't change the fact that Hillary was anything but squeaky clean.

Personally I'm done with all that... Trump won, move on, crybabies. I'm a little more concerned with his cabinet appointments going to family, Wall Street, oil execs, intelligence people employed by foreign governments, etc. Then there was the lack of blind trust or divestment of his numerous business interests. "I'll let my kids run it and we won't talk about it." I guess I have to take the man at his word, since he's kept all his campaign promises so far.

Russia, Russia, Russia.

= Marsha, Marsha, Marsha

Rig the election she lost? O.o

Oh, that is not really a democratic election.

Craig Murray, Former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan: The CIA’s Absence of Conviction

I have watched incredulous as the CIA’s blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story – blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton’s corruption. Yes this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also.

A little simple logic demolishes the CIA’s claims. The CIA claim they “know the individuals” involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks. The anonymous source claims of “We know who it was, it was the Russians” are beneath contempt.

As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two. And it should be said again and again, that if Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie, if she had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence, if she had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people, then none of this would have happened.

Read more:- https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/

How long are TRUMP and his supporters going to cling on to Hillary?

It's like when a person cheats on their spouse, they divorce and the cheating spouse stays with the person they cheated with and all their relationship survives on is the Ex.

Sweet child I never said I was a Hillary supporter. But at what point are you going to look at facts and stop blaming her for Trump's blatant lying? Still calling anyone who opposes Trump "shills" just proves my point. Try different jokes.

Don't believe MSM. I strongly encourage the research of peer reviewed articles. And if at that point you are still calling those research backed articles "fake news" then you should lobby for the complete shutdown of our educational system. Professors are making students write papers with cited sources and those "shills" must be stopped. 😂😂

Im not a Trump supporter, and I don't buy the bullshit narrative that Russia hacked our elections. There is only speculation so far, and call me old fashioned but speculation alone isn't enough to send me frothing at the mouth wanting to declare war on a super power.

Until she goes away, she is still trying to rig the election- with her protests and the recounts and the "blame Russia" dialog. Get over it, you lost!

Is this just a pro trump sub?

At this point, yes, yes it is.

It's never been anything close to a political sub. Something happened this weekend. I'm sure it's some agency paid to post divisive content. Generally no one gives a fuck about politics in r/conspiracy

For weeks and weeks now everything about this conspiracy has been shouted or voted down. It makes no sense to believe every other conspiracy and ha e this spelled out so clearly.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics

But we never really discuss politics...clearly something fishy is going on in this sub right now

/pol/ is up in here with their agenda

Russia pressed a button and made Hillary Clinton have robot glitch before her cold chai endorsement.

They've been controlling the alt media since, with mind control subversion waves thru the internet! These waves make us question our media and government

Dang you Russia

TIL Hillary is a lizard person

remember all the shitty and questionably illegal shit that various members of the RNC did, as revealed in their leaked internal memos and emails that russia leaked along with the DNC cache? neither do i.

A 13 day old account Reposting a Top post from T_D onto /Conspiracy?

How in the world did this get to the top?

How in the world did this get to the top?

I said the same thing yesterday accounts double tappers?

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Guys guys guys... before you start with this nonsense claim of "well some people think it's Russia and we have no proof it isn't Russia and Russia has hackers blah blah blah" let's get one thing straight.

Clinton and her posse has been COMPLETELY NEGLIGENT WITH CYBER SECURITY THE ENTIRE TIME. Hillary removed classified info off of a secure government server and put it on her private, illegal, unsecured server where our TOP LEVEL CLASSIFIED INFO WAS HACKED AT LEAST 5 TIMES.

EVERYONE CRYING RUSSIA NOW, STFU!!! if you cared about our nations integrity, hillary should have been put in fucking jail for that. If she had, she never would have run and no one would have been able to release that shit on her to impact an election. Case. Fucking. Closed. Stfu.

P.s. Podestas password to his email was "password". But yeah... "the hacks really seem similar to hacks russia has done in the past". Hmmm... maybe people with top level security clearance should give a shit about that responsibility and not invite anyone with a keyboard to spy on our secrets.

Well to be fair Hillary is probably only able to stand and walk around in the first place because of machinery and handlers. So it wouldn't really be that surprising if Russia could hack her or control her actions

She is a robot built by the Russians then hacked by the Russians...she's an older model after all these years on the political circuit... So many glitches 😳

Edit: I'm laughing so hard imagining her as a robot being carried away from the podium by her minions after a rally😂😂

That's genius.

Also they framed Paul Manafort with Russian ties to pro Russian in Ukraine

I'm not pro Hillary, but what is being alleged is very serious and its not the time to be partisan. Even if you voted Trump this should concern you.

I MEMBER!

Jesus you guys are just Donald Trump shills now. This is some the_Donald shit.

Remember how both of them were monstrously terrible candidates. Remember how both of them had historic controversies going on during their campaign. Never forget that they are both shit.

Yes, and no. Trump had every MSM outlet (even fox at first) out to bring him down and make him look back, hollywood was against him, the fucking president who should have been doing his job was out campaigning for her every day, anyone that wanted to vote was called racist, deplorable, redneck, etc. Everything in the book. Clinton had the media absolutely covering her ass at every turn. They never mentioned anything damning in wikileaks that came out, they never mentioned any of her scandals ever, they never did anything but make trump look worse than he is (not he's great, but if you looked at his policies instead of believing what msm tried to spew, there's a lot of reasonable stuff..

Not defending Trump, but Hillary and co. pulled out every trick in their playbook to paint him as much worse than he is. They're still doing it now, and we should all pay very close attention to what happens up until he is sworn in and during his term (s) of presidency.

When did this sub become /r/the_dolan ?

I 'member!

When did /r/conspiracy start sounding like common sense?

I member

gahdam ruskies at it again

But the DOHS's are better ;)

I member

The Russians are planting "cheese pizza" into dissidents' computers:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/09/russia-gets-revenge-by-planting-child-porn-on-dissidents-computers/

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/aug/24/soviet-dissident-sues-crown-prosecution-service-alleging-libel

yes i do re member! lol

Remember when Trump said he won the popular vote

No, she actually poured bleach on her emails.

Great, now I have to filter /r/conspiracy ,too. Thanks assholes.

Remember when the person behind this server asked Reddit for help to scrub the "very important VIP" off the server?

Then Reddit's CEO altering posts so anything he said on Reddit can now not be used against him since it's been proven that posts can be altered.

That half-dead weasel bitch showing signs of life are proof positive of why we need to jail, try, convict and execute that traitor.

Whatever your opinion about Donald Trump, you have to recognize that he single-handedly defeated the Clinton Crime Syndicate, and brought Hillary Clinton's reign of terror to an end.

But for Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton would have defeated Jeb Bush and would currently be the president elect.

Just taking one large step back :

the act of one country using rumour and misinformation to influence global politics is literally hundreds of years old. So although the US government and media is acting by impressively butt hurt, it's not a new or particularly dramatic for them.

It would not take long to produce a list of elections around the world that were targeted by the CIA and in some notable cases, where they could not influence a vote, they planned a hit on the president.

So, perhaps more in keeping with the old spirit of this sub - we ought to be asking how this narrative of Russians influence started in the MSM back in September (in Time and CNN ) and now have magically come true - or so the CIA tell us .

Links later when I'm not mobile

I remember the private e-mail server in Trump Tower that only communicated directly to two servers in Moscow.

I 'member.

Remember when Russia hacked the 9/11 memorial and made it look like Hillary was in poor health, even though her campaign had been reassuring us for weeks that she was fit as a fiddle. And remember when Russia hacked her campaign and forced them to say she had pneumonia. Russia is good at cyber, apparently.

THANK YOU

Ha! No shit.. The Russians have mind control too.

Everything can be hacked! And everyone!

Seems like the MSM is following the script. Act I : blame Russia. I'm getting horrible 2001 flash backs. I was 17 living in NYC when 9/11 happened. I remember watching the towers burn and finally collapse from across the bay. Our entire school was on the 5th story roof of our high school watching before they sent us home. Prior to 9/11 the media and government were yelling about Iraq this, wmds, chemical weapons. Act I : blame Iraq. Act II : 9/11 attack. Now take that anyway you'd like, I for one feel it was allowed to happen. Act III : War. We're in the same process now. Russia Russia Russia even during the elections. What could be staged for act II. It needs to be terrible, something so horrific and massive that the entire world instantly jumps into conflict. I shudder to say hydrogen. Act III : end game, there are no winners in a war between nuclear super powers.

Man, that movie Wag The Dog is giving a much bigger meaning....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-FXkj-r9Mc

Oh... This has got to be the best, most intelligent response to criticism!

Donald Trump is a piece of shit? Well the lady who didn't win, and is no longer relevant, did bad stuff too!

Nanny-nanny boo boo!

How is it that you guys never see the actual conspiracy right in front of your eyes? It's much more likely that Putin is blackmailing Donald Trump.

What the fuck is going on with politics being in this sub?

I literally could not give a fuck about Hillary's emails. I believe the story I've been told by Hillary and the media because it makes sense. A lot more sense the her secretly being some mind of mastermind out to grab power at any cost for reasons that aren't clear to me.

She doesn't know how to use any phone others than a blackberry from the mid 2000s. She doesn't know how to use the internet let alone how it works. She is in her 70s and has spent the last 20 years, the years that technology and the internet became everyday, in a protected bubble of the White House and constant high pressure work. The server was already in her basement because her husbands staff used it and it was recommended to her by Colin Powell. She asked him what he did about email and he brought up the idea of a private email.

Honestly tell me which story makes more sense. Busy women with zero technical skills who only knows how to use one phone insists her staff figure out a way to let her keep using that phone or us government state department use as a front for powerful political family to trade vast sums of money and influence for favors and manipulate the whole system?

You dipshits are in denial that your cult leader is Putin's bitch.

I member

I don't think you guys realize, they've been hacking computers from a distance with sound for years upon years. This was to try and get everyone's dirty laundry out in the open to deal with it, and instead they started all selling out the nation.

Well they do have Snowden he is a leet haxor

I with the NSA would leak the RNC emails so we could compare/contrast.

and release the 31,000 "yoga" emails so sensitive they bit bleached the servers, backup servers and destroyed all the mobile devices with hammers.

also the 650,000 Weiner "life insurance" emails

Indeed, all of it! Government officials shouldn't have privacy. That should be the price they pay for so much power.

Tbh if anything, Russian interference shows that they WOULD have gone to war if Hillary was elected and put a no fly zone. Hmmm, a "rigged" election or nuclear winter on Earth? Tough choice.

And I am planning a protest at the Sandy Hook against those liers. We are going to have hot dogs and it kid friendy

those are unrelated. oh 14 day old account. keep shilling sir

Reminder that /r/conspiracy is a sub for stupid conservative bullshit and circlejerking, not conspiracies. Please do your part to keep this a safe space for Putinbots and unpaid Trump shills.

Most of us here aren't conservative, actually. Try again!

You have Corrected the Record. $.02 has been deposited into your account. Thank you for stopping fake news from spreading.

Two rubles for you, comrade Putinbot! Thank you for help ensuring the downfall of United Pigstate of Americas by misinformation propaganda-make!

Kek.

3k up votes, I hope that's for showing how retarded this is and not a bunch of retards thinking they're smart.

Dumb fucks votes for a shark, gets eaten whole and smiles. Trump supporters must've evolved from fishes, look at all these well fed sharks like trump fumbling around with a filled stomach.

If I was a shark, I could not ask for a better meal than these people.

Isn't it perfectly reasonable that there was foreign powers trying to influence the election, and Hilary Clinton/The democrats were up to some shady shit? I don't think these are mutually exclusive.

Wait I am confused. Part of this sub believes that who meddled with the election was not Russia? (Or not completely?)

Is there any evidence/source anyone could link?

Goodjob. You copied Sean Hannity on Fox News from a few days ago, acting as if you thought of this yourself? Really? Atleast write Sean Hannity wrote this, what a douche.

What about when Russia helped Laura Silsby with those "problems" in Haiti?

Hey, if Russia didn't do any of those things that means it must have not done anything else either! /s

Deflecting to other actions does not make the claims untrue.

No one has claimed the Russian actions forced the actions in your post. By writing them as if they are linked, you are seeking to minimize one action as if it never existed.

Perhaps speaking to the evidence of the claims instead would get further.

That would be possible if we'd seen the evidence. Feel free to link it here.

Prove that it didn't happen. ;)

Oh, you.

Remember Paul manafort or when Trumps daughter in the middle of campaigning took a break to vacation with Putins misstress, remember the cabinet nomines to ties with Putin and Grazpom. Get out of here with your partison rhetoric.

This is all irrelevant

I thought that server stuff was fake news.

You serious?

I don't think the word "serious" could be used in any way in relation to someone who says that they "thought that server stuff was fake news."

The word "Nascar" could be used, though.

Username checks out.

Corrupting another country's democracy is a terrible thing. Selling out your own is unprecedented in US history.

Before making that claim, it would be helpful if you could point to any evidence of Russia hacking anything related to the election. Numerous whistleblowers and insiders have claimed that it was our own people who supplied the emails to Wikileaks.

What exactly was the fluff? Don't confuse opinions you don't like with senseless bullshit.

Russia's involvement is hacking both political parties emails and deciding to sit on one and release the other. We have multiple agencies telling us this. You're either saying it's no big deal, or that literally every one of these actors are in cahoots with one another to lie and pin the blame on Russia.

Every intelligence agency has said Russia involved itself. They might disagree on the level of involvement or what their goal was, but they're unanimous in their assertion that Russian services were actors in the election.

Do you have a source for that last bit?

Cheers Edit: Bari is Obama I'm assuming?

Did you seriously just use 'Tyler Durden' as a source?

So if Putin were caught saying that he ordered the hacks and sent the emails to Wikileaks, you wouldn't consider that a smoking gun?

Edit to add: post a perfectly logical question....receive downvotes and no reply. Hmmmm

To be fair I agree w/ you, we're talking about Trump right now, not Hillary.

But the person you replied to does have a point: he should attend the briefings, that is quite literally part of his job.

And here I thought r/conspiracy wouldn't believe CIA claims made with exactly 0 proof but here we fucking are.

...if you say so. But it was my impression that the intelligence briefings were presidential, ie he should attend.

Honestly... because they're old and don't prioritize electronic security, would be my guess. That and hubris.

No it's not, the President can decide to attend whatever he or she wants to attend. The President's job is the manage the executive branch of government, one of the key aspects of good management is effective delegation.

Jesus.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-is-obama-skipping-more-than-half-of-his-daily-intelligence-meetings/2012/09/10/6624afe8-fb49-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_story.html

Trump supporters admire Putin.

Any evidence for that? Oh, that's right, none is needed to parrot a silly fake-news meme.

I'm not really sure what you're suggesting. Admitting to treason is a lot safer if you haven't actually committed treason.

Obviously there is no way you could convict him of treason based solely on that youtube video. If the CIA found any evidence linking him to the hack he would likely be in jail right now. Seems like the fact that he's publicly admitting to treason and not in jail would imply that he might be lying.

Not to mention, the guy seems pretty far off his rocker. His most recent video is on the civil war being act of auto-genocide from Lincoln, committed because Lincoln was a homosexual.

i am really glad you got that off your chest but I was not asking about motive. I was asking how we proceed if we assume the russians are the source of the Wikileaks emails. The election is over and Trump won and the election itself was not compromised, the information revealed is what it is no matter who discovered it.

Fake news! /s

Not to mention senior republicans were disowning him in public... They weren't even trying to hide this. They were out there saying shit like "I'd rather vote for Hillary". What could they possibly leak?!

For question 2 it could be that they want to have Trump as a friend who can lift sanctions on them. You don't bite the hand that feeds you. Alternatively they could use any information they have to blackmail officials.

Debunked, if not highly contested.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/07/nsa-whistleblower-not-so-fast-on-claims-russia-behind-dnc-email-hack.html

That's the language you Trumpies speak. Otherwise you don't understand.

Or it wasn't particularly damning.

How about towing the company line so well you accidentally regurgitate Trump's own statement.

corporate fascist state

Looks around here...not much different.

You assume there was dirt.

Or literally anyone else for the same reason.

Still better than Obama

"Imprisoning". Yeah, that's definitely still happening now that Trump got what he wanted.

Logic is the right way indeed. Let me fix that for you: Hillary and DMC are definitely corrupt. And Russian government maybe was behind it.

They want this. Trump helps.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics

You do realise it is ridiculously easy to write shit and post stuff about anyone nowadays? Google? How about a little critical thinking?

Look at this way, I don't believe any shit about Clinton until the a court of law convicts her in Court. Simple as. Now that Trump won, what is stopping him from trying to put her in jail via the normal way? Oh wait, he is no longer interested in doing that despite his big mouth promising to do so.

Now the same shit is stirring about Trump and what does this sub reddit says? Yep, it is all fake. All part of the MSM agenda.

Like I said, it is bloody hillariously hypocritically funny that Trump is like the Virgin Mary while Clinton is "literally satan".

First, you're being horribly unspecific. We are arguing about the source of the leaks. Specifically, the ones that had an impact on the election. That would be the DNC leaks and Podesta's emails.

You are claiming that Russians were responsible for hacking these systems and leaking the mail, and I am saying they did not. That is the truth in question here, upon which further deductions about various agendas might depend.

And my reasons for not believing your theory, I will provide by repeating what I told someone elsewhere:

For the DNC leaks, Assange all but bluntly states that it was leaked (not hacked) by Seth Rich:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp7FkLBRpKg

For Podesta's email, we don't have the name of the leaker, but in the Pilger interview, Assange says that the leak is from a "Washington insider". Craig Murray, an associate of Assange and a generally credible source, says as much, claiming that he has even met the leaker and that it was, again, a "Washington insider":

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/

As for the credibility of the CIA's recent claims, the ones you're basing your indignation about Russian meddling on? Consider this dose of skepticism from Glenn Greenwald:

https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/anonymous-leaks-to-the-washpost-about-the-cias-russia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence/

When faced with conflicting accounts, evaluate those accounts and how well they correspond to other known facts. And acknowledge that either account here, in theory, could be a lie. So are you suggesting that this poorly sourced story from the Washington Post and the CIA is more believable than the person who at least knows from whom he directly received the leak? Do the CIA and Washington Post have a better track record for honesty than Assange? I've chosen my answer to that question, and I'm pretty damn comfortable with it for now.

But it's very pro-anything Trump likes, such as Russia, unfounded claims, his daughter...

Are people still pretending that this sub isn't another circle-jerky appendage of the_donald?

I think the main point is that the hacking of documents is because of HRCs inability to keep her act together. Thats if you believe the CIA Clinton / Bush /Obama cabal

All he needed was a special character and it would've been impenetrable!

Indeed, all of it! Government officials shouldn't have privacy. That should be the price they pay for so much power.

Anything to win and preserve their tired old way of life. They're the party of non-movers. People who don't want the world to get better.

I just don't understand how anyone could ever be okay with some of the stupid shit Trump has said recently. Clinton is terrible, but don't stick your head so far up your own ass about trump. He is literally acting like he wants to throw the presidency on purpose. I'm still not convinced he will ever be our president with some of the stupid shit he's said since being elected.

And keeping on topic with this sub, I'm not convinced this isn't part of the plan and he hasn't been working with Clinton this entire damn time.

How in the world did this get to the top?

I said the same thing yesterday accounts double tappers?

Which cracks me up. He tried to get creative and throw in a different symbol, but was still not that creative

That's why we went back to Defcon 5 after Trump won.

Well, I'll be damned. Thank you!

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/12/11/julian-assange-associate-leak-not-hack-dnc-insider-not-russian-422765

The Russian-backed Assad forces slaughtering their own people doesn't count as tyranny? Shooting down a passenger airline passing over a conflict zone doesn't count?

it just keeps Russia from being another super power.

This would seem to be in our interest. I think there is a valid case for a non-interventionist US foreign policy. I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that other countries should not be intervening in these cases, however. I'd be perfectly happy to see us not be the world police. But large parts of the world still need policing, and especially after 2007-08 none of our allies are really in shape to beef up their military in short order. Europe is a clusterfuck right now. China and Russia are uneasy allies as are the US and China. It will take courage, intelligence, careful planning, diplomacy, and a good amount of time to remove us from the world stage in this fashion without completely demolishing the First World as we know it.

You are now pretending that you were being sarcastic, but forgot your "/s"? You're a lying piece of shit.

Jewish Question

Well, it's classified. John McCain and Mitch McConnell have seen it. What do they have to say? Oh, they agree with Obama for the first time in 8 years? "Doesn't look like anything to me."

The news I have seen so far has been all about blaming Russia, and then about trump not taking daily Intel briefings. I haven't been sitting in front of the tv watching the news or online all day reading so I may have missed some of these discussions.

You are aware that the DNC hacks used a zero day python exploit worth millions of dollars on the black market, right? That wasn't the work of amateurs, they knew what they were doing.

They are aware its happening, yes?

Well, I think part of the issue is the framing in how you seem to think "news" works.

It's not the job of news programs to run a story like "Why Hillary lost the election" because that is primarily an opinion piece. Discussions like that happen on the "talking head" shows and in op-ed articles in papers.

It is news, however, to report on Russian hacking or Trump skipping intel briefings. Because those are in fact, news. It doesn't mean Russia was to blame, but the discussion about throughout DC is a news-worthy item.

So if you primarily just tune into your local nightly news program, I wouldn't expect you to see it. But if you turn on any of the cable news networks, there have been no shortage of those discussions.