Clapper and intelligence reports actually place blame on RT for propoganda. Hahahahaha. Really? Here's a nice little exercise: go to RT website or watch RT America. It will be foreign to most readers to read REAL, unbiased journalism. Now compare those news reports in RT to MSM in America. The difference in unbiased truth based reporting is staggering. All the Russians have to do is report the actual truth and sit back and watch as America tear itself apart. It's brilliant really
I wonder if they just shake their heads at the establishment that horribly runs this country and feel bad for its citizens. I'm embarrassed by the people that run this country. It's always the most unfit people that want to run the US into the ground.
Is a government funded news agency really considered unbiased? RT is funded by the Russian government, and I imagine it is hard to distinguish the actual direction of news the government does or doesn't push on RT. But I do believe one of the cornerstones of democracy is to have government free media agencies. And that being said I have seen more than one rt article that can be claimed as "propaganda". That isn't to say RT doesn't have truth to plenty of their articles, it is always good to get foreign input on how they see developments inside one country.
nyet, comrade, beautiful Russian government is most uncorrupt, true free government in world. trust I! as fellow american from Idaho, USA, I can strongly confirm complete lack of bias by glorious state run media of great American friend and Ally for 1000+ years, beautiful Russia.
My point is not to advocate, but to compare the coverage. It's night and day. All the Russians have to do is report non-biased media coverage to point out the hypocrisy of American media coverage. It's totally backwards.
Direct proof of US interference in its own US election. Hillary not only forced herself in, they also made the call to elevate Trump in the media as her opponent.
Also hypocritical are the Trump supporters saying we should never belief anonymous sources when Trump spent years spreading conspiracy theories about Obama based on sources he would never name.
Exactly. The accusations are so vague and nebulous...what the fuck is there even to debunk? I mean, how could you possibly claim that there was no Russian involvement in the US election? For example, pro-Putin media outlets tended to lean towards Trump in the 2016 election - does that constitution interference to these people? I don't even know what we're arguing about...
Certainly I have seen absolutely ZERO evidence that Russia in any way interfered improperly with the Presidential election. But I'm sure there were many in the Russian government who reached out to Trump during his Presidential campaign, just like there were probably many who reached out to Hillary, too.
This whole Russia shit is just so asinine. The very idea that people would seriously be discussing whether "Russia hacked the election" in fucking 2017 is just so god damn stupid. I can't believe it. Leftists really are useful idiots. There, I said it. These people are fucking bottomfeeder tier retarded. Fucking idiots. They will literally believe anything they see on the TEEVEE regardless of how ridiculous it is or how scant the evidence.
We are past the tipping point in our nation; the government is safe from retaliation by those of us who know because our voices are drowned out by the fucking idiot masses. I can only speak for myself, but personally, Trump is the siren song of a lost America.
Estimative language consists of two elements: judgments about the likelihood of developments or events occurring and levels of confidence in the sources and analytic reasoning supporting the judgments. Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, was well as logic, argumentation, and precedents
Moscow’s influence campaign followed a Russian messaging strategy that blends covert
intelligence operations—such as cyber activity—with overt efforts by Russian Government
agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users or “trolls.”
On the one hand, I take it for granted that the governments of the world attempt and occasionally succeed in tampering with each other's governments.
On the other hand, to make such a big deal about something that is common place makes me call into question the people making all the fuss. While I think Trump as president is an awful shame I have yet to see any evidence that our government is any worse off.
It was a corrupt mess and continues to be so.
So, evidence to me would consist of not only actually see or hearing the collaboration between trump campaign and Russia but, perhaps more importantly, the consequences of that action. "Trump as president" in and of itself sucks balls but if that is all Russia can do then it's really not worth getting worked up over.
They have found evidence that supports the idea of Russian involvement in the election. For example, computer forensics showed that the software the DNC hackers used on the hacked servers phoned-home back to the same command-and-control server that known Russian malware used.
There is certainly room to discuss whether the evidence is strong, relevant, etc. but saying there is no evidence is really pushing a false narrative.
Roger Stone, Erik Prince, and Breitbart created Pizzagate just a week or two before the election. Makes about as much sense as Russian spies beneath everyone's bed.
LoL, I'm a professional security researcher bro, this is how it works. Attackers set up public data sink in a friendly network, typically registered to some domain. It's a publicly reachable server but the identity of the owner is kept secret legally. The address for this server is hardcoded in the malware. Look it up, stuxnet used something like malaysianfootballbets.com. Once the data is inside the public server, it can be VPN'd to home base securely and without anyone finding out where the data went.
The public server that the DNC malware uploaded data to is known to be controlled to by GRU.
Hi bro, you're clearly a terrible fucking "researcher." A domain name is not an IP address, domain names are thus not necessarily static. So you cannot prove an identity of an address based on a domain name.
Just because the hacker used a Russian keyboard and that malware was used that was developed by a Russian military official is not PROOF that the Russian government hacked the DNC. Also, a hacker wouldn't be that dumb to leave those kinds of traces behind. If anything, they would leave traces behind that are meant to intentionally mislead the party that was hacked. As far as the Podesta emails, we know that was simply a phishing scam. Could've been done by anyone.
But at the end of the day, none of this is proof of anything. It's just a political tactic being used to turn the American public against the Trump administration and part of a larger plan to get him impeached and get Pence in. Because we know that Pence will protect the deep state.
When CrowdStrike investigated the DNC hacks they identified Cozy Bear (A.K.A. APT-29) as one of the actors in the hack. Cozy Bear is a group of Russian hackers who are largely suspected to be hackers associated with the Russian government.
CrowdStrike found that Cozy Bear were inside the DNC computer systems for over a year before the election. This actually provides even more possibility that the hacking group was involved in a nation-state outfit (like the Russian government) as they were sitting inside the DNC's computers with full access to internal communications for months without a trace.
You can read more about their findings in the blog they made public, here
Cozy Bear being inside the DNC is not proof that the Russian government stole all the files and gave them to Wikileaks. And far from proof that the Trump campaign coordinated directly with Putin. It's proof that Russian malware was used to hack the DNC. Now lets be clear, this only includes the DNC emails, and not the Podesta emails. The problem is the media running wild with the narrative, conflating everything, and boiling it down to "Russia hacked election, Trump not legitimate president."
Cozy Bear being inside the DNC is not proof that the Russian government stole all the files and gave them to Wikileaks
If that is what happened you will never in your lifetime have proof of it. It would mean the Russian government would have to admit to it (highly unlikely) or someone inside the Russian government leaks it (also highly unlikely and would basically be a death sentence to whoever the whistle blower was)
You are asking reddit users to give you proof to something that is imppossible to do. While at the same time using the lack of proof in your argument that Russia wasn't involved.
Not only does that ignore all of the circumstantial evidence but it's really disingenuous on your part.
Where is your proof that this is all made up by the media? How do you explain CrowdStrike's findings of hackers being in the system if this is nothing but media hype?
And far from proof that the Trump campaign coordinated directly with Putin
This is not a claim I made. Nor is it a claim /u/mjbmitch made in his comment above.
In other words, it's a strawman that you just made up.
You're right we don't have 100% proof of anything. But I don't agree that we couldn't have more proof than we already have. We have to look at what we do have and come to our own conclusions. Me and you have come to different conclusions. But ultimately what our conclusions are based on is how much we trust our government, the FBI, the CIA, NSA, and the media. You obviously trust their words and intentions more than I do. But that's fine, it's your opinion and it's valid. Discourse is a good thing. You didn't say that the Trump campaign did not coordinate with Russia, but can you really deny that this is the narrative the American media is pushing? I will not trust these organizations, especially when I see a motive/plan behind it.
You're right in a sense, this basically boils down to speculation on both our parts.
However, I do reject your assertations that the Russia connections are just inventions of the media. That, to me, is ignoring basic truths.
Multiple people within Trump's inner circle have been forced to resign over their connections to Russia.
Those are not things created by the media. They're not lies or narratives or half-truths or things that are being blown out of proportion. They're just facts.
The same goes for CrowdStrike and the other companies who investigated the DNC hacks. That blog I posted earlier is filled with code and malware they found. Can you explain how, if this is all just the media hype, those people found some of the hacker's tools in their computers?
The media operates to influence public opinion, not inform it. Sessions met with a Russian ambassador in his capacity as a US Senator as did other senators like Sen. Mary Landrieu (La.) and Sens. Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Bob Casey (Pa.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) and Claire McCaskill (Mo.). Suddenly, the day after Trump's speech to congress (after he gains some momentum) headlines appear everywhere: Jeff Sessions met with Russian Ambassdor and lied about it under oath.
Then suddenly there are calls for him to resign. Headlines calling for him to resign. It's a witch hunt. It's not as simple as "multiple people from trumps campaign resigned, facts are facts." If you can't see that then you aren't looking deep enough into the situation. Suddenly the story isn't about who he met with (which is completely normal), but it's about how he lied under oath. It's all semantics. Where was that outrage when James Clapper lied under oath about the NSA spying on American citizens? Liberal media ignored it. It was clearly a coordinated and carefully timed attack. With Flynn it was the same thing. The liberal/conservative elites are working with the media with the goal of influencing public opinion and ultimately impeaching Trump. So you are right, there are many facts. But the headlines and the way in which the media presents the information is key to controlling public perception. It happens from multiple directions. CNN, Washington Post, NYT, MSNBC, CBS, TYT, and more are on the side of the liberals. Fox News, Breitbart, Infowars, RT and more are on the side of conservatives/Trump. But each source varies from one another in certain ways. You can't get caught up in one side or the other and you must watch all of them with an open mind. I'm not a Trump supporter, and I didn't vote for him. But I am willing to defend him and call bullshit where I see it. I am seeing a lot of bullshit from these so called journalists. I am a member of the working class, not a member of the Washington elite. If you don't think that liberal/conservative media directly coordinates with Washington to influence public opinion, and they are all apart of the same club, then you are in for a rude awakening.
So do we trust Julian Assange or no? He said it wasn't a state party. Some say that he can't know who it was based on the setup of Wikileaks. I'm not sure about that.
I don't know what to make of Assange and WikiLeaks anymore.
He alluded to it all coming from insider leaks but I think that's bullshit.
Looking at some of the findings from cybersecurity companies and reading the ODNI reports there's no doubt in my eyes that there were hackers. Who the hackers were? I have no way of knowing
But if it were coming from inside leaks that would mean the insiders hacked themselves and purposely left behind code and an entire trail of bread crumbs? And they somehow posessed enough knowledge to throw off some of the best cybersecurity experts in the world and fool them into thinking the insider leaks were actually being committed by nation-state hackers on the other side of the world? I mean I like a good conspiracy and all but that just seems ridiculous
Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear are actually malware familys--not "hacker groups"--despite what the media and wikipedia has asserted. From Arstechnica.
Fancy Bear is the malware family tied to "Operation Pawn Storm" and other recent breaches targeting members of the media, US and NATO allied military organizations, government agencies, embassies, and defense contractors, as well as Russian political dissidents and opposition political parties.
Also typically installed by a phishing attack, the Cozy Bear implant is a combination of remote access backdoor, keylogger, screenshot capturer, and password stealer. It can also be used to remote-install other malware on the victim's Windows computer. If Cozy Bear captures the right credentials, it can connect to other systems and spread laterally through a network.
It fits the MO of a Russian operation, but as other security experts have noted, any significant, state-sponsored, hacking event would be almost impossible to attribute. It also doesn't make sense Russia would use keyboards and timezones within Russia (or Russian-made malware with the eponymous Bear in the name for that matter) for the attacks if they were truly responsible.
Crowd strike was hired by the dnc to investigate their problems with their servers because they didn't want the fbi to look at them. The dnc paid crowd strike to say whatever they wanted
I'm not asking you whether or not the FBI looked at DNC's computers
I'm asking you to prove CrowdStrike was hired to say what the DNC wanted them to say and that they ruined their entire reputation as a business to make up bogus claims for the DNC
It's impossible to prove unless you have written or audio evidence if that being instructed, but it looks incredibly bad. Goes vice versa with the whole cozy bear fancy bear argument.
It doesn't look bad at all. They're a cybersecurity company and got paid to investigate a cybersecurity attack. Do you understand how a business works?
But at the end of the day, none of this is proof of anything. It's just a political tactic being used to turn the American public against the Trump administration and part of a larger plan to get him impeached and get Pence in. Because we know that Pence will protect the deep state.
There is zero proof. The intel release provided no details. I do intrusion detection analysis for the government. They can give more details than they did. They didn't, because they have nothing.
The supposed evidence you speak of was provided by a single firm, Crowdstrike. Financed $100 million by Google Captial, owned by Alphabet Inc. who's chairman is Eric Schmidt, who is a vocal Clinton supporter.
There has been no real evidence of any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
You posted this comment word for word yesterday, I gave you a link showing you why it's wrong and you said you'd look into it: why are you repeating it with seemingly no notice?
As I told you yesterday:
the malware revealed by the FBI assessment was freeware Ukrainian malware, that you can download off a site
the IP range used by the malware corresponds to a block notoriously used by common malware
You actually can't download the malware used for attribution, things like SeaDuke and X-agent are what were used to identify the attackers, anyone talking about PAS is trying to mislead people because it is irrelevant.
You should write a proper explanation, because this explains pretty convincingly why PAS is relevant and you're simply stating it isn't without any reasoning.
PAS isn't what was used for attribution, the unique malware was. Crowdstrike mentioned PAS in their indicators of compromise just because they need to list every piece of malware used there. In their report they don't mention PAS as evidence for attribution.
I read the link plenty of times as I've refuted it like 10 times on this sub now. The malware used for attribution was not available to the public, PAS is irrelevant.
If you actually read the reports you would know it's SeaDuke, x-agent, etc. that are being used to identify the attacker. Bringing up PAS is just misinformation, again, it isn't used for attribution.
No pal, this disruption tactic won't work. You made an objective mistake: thinking this analysis was about the Crowdstrike report. The honest thing to do is admit to it and move on, not try to pivot to a different topic and pretend nothing happened. This discussion won't go anywhere until you show this elementary bit of honesty. Until then, cheerio.
It's okay that you don't understand how attribution works, let me try to make it easy. These groups have specific malware only used by them, so when it's time to attribute attacks we are able to do so by seeing this unique malware. In all of the reports the unique malware is used for attribution, PAS is never mentioned because it is widely available so it can't be used for attribution.
Acting like the malware was old or widely available just because PAS was is misleading because PAS is never mentioned as evidence it was the Russians.
The more comments you make avoiding the issue of your Crowdstrike mistake, the deeper you dig the hole of your evident dishonesty. I will waste no more time on you, good luck with your shilling.
ten year old php malware pointing to a russian server that could easily have been a bought vpn from the cia is not actually proof
like you should trust cloud strike as showing evidence.. they couldn't even stop guccifer 2.0 from hacking it after they knew about him -- if you buy the guccifer 2.0 story
The XAgent app is fully functional malware. After being installed on iOS 7, the app’s icon is hidden and it runs in the background immediately. When we try to terminate it by killing the process, it will restart almost immediately.
Installing the malware into an iOS 8 device yields different results. The icon is not hidden and it also cannot restart automatically. This suggests that the malware was designed prior to the release of iOS 8 last September 2014.
Performing attribution in a serious,
scientific manner is a hard problem that is out of scope
of ESET’s mission.
As security researchers,
what we call
“the Sednit group” is merely a set of software
and the related network infrastructure,
which we can hardly correlate with any
specific
organization.
From page 79 of the report:
Here, we describe a special downloader named
Downdelph
.
The key points described in this third installment are the following:
•
Downdelph
was used only seven times over the past two years,
according to our telemetry
data: we believe this to be a deliberate strategy formulated in order to avoid attracting
attention
•
Downdelph
has been deployed on a few occasions with a never-previously-documented
Windows bootkit,
which shares some code with the infamous BlackEnergy malware
•
Downdelph
has been deployed on a few occasions with a previously undocumented
Windows rootkit
Apt 28 and 29 are Russian intelligence, better known as fancy and cozy bear. The unique malware only ever used by these groups such as x-agent and SeaDuke support this.
x-agent is not unique. You have no evidence that 'apt 28 and 29' are Russian Intelligence. Even the report you linked states:
The Sednit group
— also known as
APT28, Fancy Bear and Sofacy
— is a group of attackers
operating since 2004 if not earlier and whose main objective is to steal confidential information
from specific targets.
Mind you without providing any evidence that it a unified group.
Lmao no that is not the same x-agent, that's part of this suite:
XQual provides a free test management application that handles the complete life-cycle of your QA/testing project from A to Z:users, requirements, specifications, SUTs, tests, tesplans, test reports, test campaigns and linkages to defects.Using a MySQL database as principal storage, XStudio allows to schedule or run instantly fully automated or manual test campaigns.Installing XAgent (a free program running in background as a windows service) on several hosts will allow you to run the test campaigns on these PCs remotely.
uhuh...and even if that proves to be true (which it hasn't), the "logic" of that is "Russian hackers 'influenced' the election with factual information about the Clintons, media and the DNC!"
The XAgent app is fully functional malware. After being installed on iOS 7, the app’s icon is hidden and it runs in the background immediately. When we try to terminate it by killing the process, it will restart almost immediately.
Installing the malware into an iOS 8 device yields different results. The icon is not hidden and it also cannot restart automatically. This suggests that the malware was designed prior to the release of iOS 8 last September 2014.
On the 'command and control server bulshit:
Here are the IP's from Crowdstrike:
185.100.84.134 is a Romanian broadband server.
58.49.58.58 is a Chinese broadband server.
218.1.98.203 is another Chinese broadband server.
187.33.33.8 is a Brazil broadband server.
185.86.148.227 is a Swedish server
45.32.129.185 is from Choopa LLC in San Jose, California
23.227.196.217 is a corporate server associated with Swiftway Communications from Wilmington Delaware
So... where is the evidence that these are only used by Russian intelligence?
Here is the WordFence analysis of the malware from the Joint Report:
The PHP malware sample they have provided appears to be P.A.S. version 3.1.0 which is commonly available and the website that claims to have authored it says they are Ukrainian.
Mind you Crowdstrike is the same company which blamed the Sony hack on North Korea.
PAS isn't what was used for attribution, the unique malware only used by these 2 groups in the past was, I really don't see the point in talking about PAS when it's never been used for attribution just shown as an indicator of compromise.
Please show evidence that only 2 groups used this 'unique' malware in the past. What are we going do to just take the word that it is what the welivesecurity telemetry data showed?
What group? There is no evidence that connects Apt 28 and 29 to Russian Intelligence. The claim that the use of xagent is a unique identifier has no evidence for it. On top of this we have Crowd...Sony was Hacked by North Korea...Strike claiming it compromised Ukrainian Military, which they themselves deny. We have allegations of attribution, no actual evidence. So please provide some.
Maybe you should look into their campaigns a little more, there is a reason every security firm attributes apt 28 & 29 to Russian Intel and have for years, this isn't a new thing.
Yes, x agent is a unique identifier for this group, can you find me an example of it being used by any other group?
What does the Ukraine thing have to do with the topic?
Honestly it's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about, I mean seriously, you thought you could get x-agent on CNET? lmao
Maybe you should look into their campaigns a little more, there is a reason every security firm attributes apt 28 & 29 to Russian Intel and have for years, this isn't a new thing.
Here is a MicroTrend analysis of Pawn Storm. Read the report. No attribution to groups like apt 28 or 29 and certainly no claims that it was Russian Intelligence.
Look at the distribution of time. UTC +4 or Moscow time starts at 3 UTC, but no Malware is compiled then. If we wonder how many have been compiled at UTC +3, where the business day starts at 7 we get the exact same amount. Look at the frequency of compilation:
For all we know this could be compiled in Ukraine in the summer time giving us safe margin for UTC +3. The time zone argument is so vast it offers very weak support that it was compiled in Russia, and no support that it was compiled by Russian Intelligence.
The third point that this report makes is that the phishing attacks are consistent with targets that Russia would be interest in. So US arm dealers, NATO websites, etc. This is the strongest evidence of Russian government involvement, and it is no evidence at all.
So to repeat, do you have evidence that APT 28 or 29 are Russian Intelligence?
What do you want, Russia saying hey yeah those groups are us?
Besides that your attempts to refute the article are pretty poor. Not as bad as you thinking you can get x-agent from CNET, but still like that post showing you're biased or just have no idea what you're talking about.
No, I want evidence of which you are yet to provide any other than insertions like Apt 28 is Russian Intelligence. I want to make my bias clear. I don't think Russians hacked the DNC and I don't think you provided any evidence for it. But there is a lot of BS like trying to pass of Ukranian Malware as Russian, or claiming Guciffer 2.0 is Russian, etc. So far there is plenty of evidence that evidence provided for the Russia hacked narrative is fraudulent, and zero evidence that APT is connected to Russian Intelligence.
There is no evidence of it being a fraud first of all...
And yes, there is plenty of evidence that apt 28 & 29 are Russian. You don't have to accept it, I don't care if you do. But the evidence is out there, I've already linked one report on them and anyone reading this can Google and clearly see the truth.
But hey, you're the expert, I mean you did manage to find private state sponsored malware on CNET lol
You can look at all the coincidences, all the connections in Trump's organization with Russia, the fact they've been caught several times lying about those connections, the fact they've taken a very soft tone on Ukraine, and think these connections are real.
Honestly, it's stupid to think Trump and the Russians aren't connected. Really stupid.
How much you care about that obvious fact is up to you, but, at this point, denying it is retarded.
I can say all this and not want war and still passionately hating Clinton.
You can think Trump is a corrupt buffoon, and be staunchly antiwar.
I don't want war at all, and if that's gonna be the result of this, I'd rather Trump stay in power. But you have no real evidence that this will lead to war.
You literally made a post in r/conspiracy arguing that the biggest conspiracy right now fake, despite overwhelming coincidences pointing to it being real.
I didn't accuse you of anything I just think it's irresponsible to leap to war with Russia when there is no evidence or proof whatsoever of Russian involvement in the elections.
Russia itself is waiting for evidence.. They are still waiting.. Since December.. For evidence.. But there is none.......
It's sad to see you defend such asinine ideas of slaughtering Russian citizens
Trump, himself, says Russia hacked the DNC.
There's evidence Flynn spoke to the Russians about sanctions. He stepped down.
Manafort worked for a known Russian puppet. This info got out, and he stepped down.
Sessions met with the Russian Ambassador during the campaign. He lied about it under oath. Why would he lie about it?
He then recused himself from the investigation. Why would he recuse himself?
The GOP changed their policy on Ukraine right after Sessions met the embassador. That's an odd coincidence.
Is that enough evidence to convict? No, but any reasonable person can see something's up. And the investigation is ongoing. Stuff is gonna keep coming out.
What evidence do you want? It'll probably be released soon.
The real question here is not whether or not Russia helped Trump, it's whether or not it you are Okay with the CIA going after a democratically elected president, even if he's clearly on Russia's cock.
What evidence do you have this scandal will lead to a war?
That's a very inflammatory thing to say with no evidence.
I didn't bring up anything based on anonymous sources. I didn't even bring up the dossier.
Literally nothing I've said is controversial, and nearly all of the things I've brought up were admitted by those involved.
What did I say you don't believe? If you want a source, I'll provide one, but you should have researched this stuff before making this post.
Or should we focus on the fact that Hilary fucked Bernie Sanders over as well as tried to rig the election in her favor.
Yes. This is important and we should focus on this as well, but it should not be used to deflect from Trump's issues, and it's not the subject of this post.
But, yes. Fuck Hillary Clinton.
Or that there is no need to go to war with Russia over some stupid bullshit with no evidence at all
The fact you don't grasp the irony here is hilarious. You say there will be war with Russia, something you have no evidence of, while complaining about a lack of evidence in this instance.
What evidence d you have this will lead to war with Russia?
By the way, the only comments I have in the Donald are in relation to a crop circle thread. Not even politically related at all but I can see your desire to try to undermine what I'm trying to say.
What do you think pursuing all this Russia nonsense leads to? Patty cake? War, numskull! By skipping over due process right to the part where we accuse and act against a foreign state, IS advocating escalation (war). We played that game with Iraq, already. Let's learn from our hasty decisions and use caution this next time, eh?
Also, have you not noticed the idea that US wants to make Russia the bad guy because Russia isn't playing with US's monopoly money, and teaming up with other countries to follow suite? And what a surprise, US is in conflict with all those other countries (Lybia, Syria, Iraq...)
Do you always put words in people's mouths?
How much you care about that obvious fact...
Now you're planting words and conclusions in peoples' minds. If it's an "obvious fact", why do you know this but the press/goverment don't? You better hurry up and inform them of what is so obvious!!
the fact they've been caught several times lying about those connections
You mean twice, not several? One lied to his boss, not Congress or the public. The other accidentally answered a two part question in a way that was spun into "blatent lies". Neither were found of wrongdoing.
Can you link me to my Donald posts? Because as I recall I have 0 posted threads there and about 5 comments in the Donald, none of which pertain to trump and are just links to a crop circle thread.
Keep spreading fake news though, like the main stream media does.
I knew what he/she meant, but it appeared you did not, which is an odd position to be in when debating someone. Especially if you are claiming he/she admitted something. If you knew, too, why say they "admitted posting" when they clearly said they did not post?
They posted a comment on a thread. They submitted a response on a thread.
This argument is straight off of Fb and you know it. I will say that you've managed to completely distract from whatever your original post on here was.
Trump, himself, says Russia hacked the DNC.
There's evidence Flynn spoke to the Russians about sanctions. He stepped down.
Manafort worked for a known Russian puppet. This info got out, and he stepped down.
Sessions met with the Russian Ambassador during the campaign. He lied about it under oath. Why would he lie about it?
He then recused himself from the investigation. Why would he recuse himself?
The GOP changed their policy on Ukraine right after Sessions met the embassador. That's an odd coincidence.
Is that enough evidence to convict? No, but any reasonable person can see something's up. And the investigation is ongoing. Stuff is gonna keep coming out.
I'd also add, if all these anonymous sources are fake, why is Trump complaining about leaks?
Leaks mean people in the know are releasing information, not the media just inventing things. In complaining about these leaks, Trump indicates there is accurate information getting out.
I don't just bash Trump because it suits my fancy. I bash him for the same reason I bash Clinton, he's a corrupt piece of shit.
What specifically are you claiming is happening inside the Trump Administration with regard to Russia? Is Trump a Manchurian Candidate? Did Russia fund Trump's campaign from the start? Does Russia secretly control Trump?
What specifically are you claiming is happening inside the Trump Administration with regard to Russia? Is Trump a Manchurian Candidate? Did Russia fund Trump's campaign from the start? Does Russia secretly control Trump? I see a lot of "evidence" here you're citing, but I'm not sure what conclusions you are drawing from that evidence.
I'm not saying any of this. I don't know how deep it is, but I doubt Trump is a Manchurian Candidate.
What I am saying is that there are way too many coincidences for Trump and Russia not to be in bed in some way.
The DNC gets hacked by Russia, as Trump acknowledges.
Trump's inner circle seems to have all these weird connections with Russia.
Trump has taken a really soft tone on Russia, and, specifically, Ukraine.
This is basic logic. This has legs.
Say Trump's cabinet members had contact with Russian diplomats. So fucking what? Again - Obama in 2012 before he was reelected told a Russian diplomat to tell Putin he'd be "more flexible" after the election. So were you out there in 2012 screaming from the rooftops like a retarded child about how "OBAMA IS IN BED WITH DAH RUSSKIES!!!"?
This is a ridiculous comparison. We aren't just talking about Trump being nice to Russia, we're talking about Trump making a deal with Russia to hack his political opponent in exchange for lifting sanctions and taking a soft tone on Ukraine.
These are not at all the same.
That being said, I don't like Obama. I'm sure there's lots of dirt on Obama, but we aren't talking about Obama or Clinton, we're talking about Trump.
I mean, what's going on with the media and deep state is a major conspiracy, full of lies, and directed at Trump. Defending him is where the truth is at currently, because the Russian shit is made up.
The entire Russian hacking story originated from the leak of DNC emails -- from which we learned of absolute PROOF that Hillary had rigged the election process, and effectively stole the DNC primary from Bernie Sanders.
Even if Russia was involved with the American elections, "what difference does it make?"
1) The American public still voted on it. The emails weren't falsified. The Democrats cheated Sanders and the public.
2) Foreign news is still news, and you can't stop Canada from talking about American elections. Just because Canada talks about US elections, doesn't invalidate them.
So I'm not really certain where this bellongs but I wanted to float it here and see what people think:
We know with fair certainty that Hillary and camp were for sale. Throughout the election, Hillary made repeated major mistakes that are uncharicteristic of a career politician with an experienced campaign staff.
So how likely might it be that Trump paid Hillary to take the nomination then throw the election?
It does sound like the dems are completely lost trying to do anything to delegitimize the trump presidency, however I don't think it's a complete smoke screen. trump is a billionaire who has most definitely been intertwined with russian business deals. He's a billionaire, putin is a billionaire, the real scandal, and I guess it's not really that big of a surprise is that the world has already become a globalist government. The world is a playground for billionaires and only looks like a world of nations to us little people.
There is a lot of DUMB shit in this subreddit. What's the big deal if I think that white supremacists use r/conspiracy to push things like holocaust denial and stuff like that? Conspiracy is actually a really good way to spread propaganda.
honestly, noticing the push back is the thing thats kept me most interested even as the stories ebb and flow. "Users" come in loud and in numbers saying its NOT a conspiracy, which is literally the least likely thing for conspiracy fans to say (IF they didnt have an agenda). Also, whenever there is breaking news on the topic (Flynn, Sessions, Dossier etc) this place goes NUTS. Weird things start happening. Front page flooded with human trafficking busts (if you go in the thread its prostitution stings) and self posts reminding people that pizzagate is still a thing that deserves attention.
Its so fishy I love it.
Plus reading "The Agency" and other stuff about these state sponsored trolls who seek to change public opinions is fascinating.
Ooo this is why I like r/conspiracy too. It's such a strange microcosm with a super overt political/social bent, but it's constrained by what it holds itself out to be - which actually makes it a sort of honest battleground for both sides of the political spectrum. Something that's rather rare on every other subreddit
Russian shills are very real. I saw one with an entire post history going back for months just mirroring word for word Kremlin talking points and pro-Putin drivel. Claimed to be an "American" too which was pretty spicy.
Read the Agency article by Adrian Chen in the New Yorker. The troll twitter accounts that attacked him for that effort went quiet for a while, then came back as pro trump Americans. He talks about this in his episode of the Longform podcast
What I'm saying is we don't want a war and that those screaming about Russian involvement have no proof whatsoever yet feel the need to fear monger the shit out of Russia and reignite the red scare
When did they ever say stop looking? Shit all OP is saying is theres no proof yet so eat shit and for anyone else check out dat post history and tell me they aint a brockbot
Please do check out my post history. I have nothing to hide. As for calling me a shill and telling me to eat shit, both of those are against the sub rules.
I checked your post history and found no posts or comments to any of the extremely anti-Trump subs or the anti-conspiracy subs either. You're also correct that they broke the subs rules.
I think what the mod was looking for was reasonable suspicion regarding calling me a shill. Calling someone a shill is different than showing evidence of it, so if I did have a bunch of posts in the extreme anti-Trump subs it would've fit into the idea of reasonable suspicion and therefore calling me a shill wouldn't have been an attack.
I am a subscriber to this sub and Top Minds. People here can be both insightful/interesting and at other times be so full of cognitive dissonance it should be a case study.
Pretty much exactly that, except the user would still have been punished without proof you are a shill. There's no reasoning with anti-conspiracy subs though, we are the bad guys, deal with it. Thanks for trying but they won't actually see your comment in the link.
I don't really give a damn what they think though tbh.
Looking for the part where politicians or Trump himself (not minding Michael Flynn Jr. who got fired because of his tweet) latched onto Pizzagate. I was referring to politicians/the IC fabricating things. Particularly this tweet from Clinton, which was shown to be false:
When r/conspiracy is actually not ''investigating'' one of the biggest conspiracies in recent days. What the fuck has happened to the conspiracy folks? Strange looking clouds used to be enough proof.
Look at that, outsiders don't understand the community they are trying to manipulate, what a shock. I love that the counter argument, "I consider you people morons, why aren't you falling for my obvious lies?!" That worked so well last year, Brock, keep it coming.
A conspiracy theorist would also not immediately dismiss any scandal surrounding a sitting US President simply because they support that US President, but here we are with OP..
OP is dismissing it because there is no evidence, but that doesn't change anything about the obvious outsider comments suggesting that we should believe the MSM narrative about Trump and being surprised that we won't buy whatever they're selling.
Where is CNN reporting on that? And yes, there is a ridiculous amount of proof that the primary was rigged. And your are changing why I said he was an outsider. His language gives it away, not beliefs.
He didn't say "you people". And he's absolutely right. The standard for proof 'required' seems to change for some people depending entirely on the context (usually depending on whether it is positive of negative towards Trump).
Personally I find it to be much more of a conspiracy that "respected" news outlets like NYT, WaPo, and CNN would be pushing the Russia narrative without any proof.
...
Oh the proof is our Intelligence Community? Are you talking about the same IC that straight up lied to congress under oath and wouldn't think twice about lying again to advance their agenda? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwiUVUJmGjs
What the fuck has happened to the conspiracy folks?
We're still here. You're just witnessing a lot of bullshit narratives + shills have invaded this sub.
Personally I find it to be much more of a conspiracy that "respected" news outlets like NYT, WaPo, and CNN would be pushing the Russia narrative without any proof.
They push anything that get's them views. Basing a conspiracy on what the media does is only valid if what they push directly hurts the medias viewership numbers.
And while there is no definite proof there are a lot of strange coincidences surrounding the Trump administration regarding Russia. Dismissing them all is extremely strange for a sub labeled r/conspiracy. I mean Trump even gives Putin the most important thing, and that is legitimacy for the claims that the US is just as bad as Russia(which is ridiculous).
And while there is no definite proof there are a lot of strange coincidences surrounding the Trump administration regarding Russia. Dismissing them all is extremely strange for a sub labeled r/conspiracy. I mean Trump even gives Putin the most important thing, legitimacy for the claims that the US is just as bad as Russia(which is ridiculous).
Guess who had the opportunity to release that proof? Obama did! But I guess it must not have been that important to him (or they had nothing).
Your post is so irrefutably stupid it makes my head hurt.
Aside from your unnecessary need to put an apostrophe in the word "gets" you made the following statement:
"Basing a conspiracy on what the media does is only valid if what they push directly hurts the medias viewership numbers."
Besides that statement literally being a non-fact (especially given media outlets CONTRADICT ONE ANOTHER), you parlay your opinion into claiming that the USA is somehow more moral than Russia.
I'd love for you to elaborate on your idea the nation that is currently attacking half the world toppling governments including it's own and feeding its citizens nothing but leftist propaganda is somehow good or more moral than Russia.
We can also talk in German if my English is too hard for you to understand.
especially given media outlets CONTRADICT ONE ANOTHER
Because they have different audiences. Fox tried to be anti Trump but it hurt their ratings so they became pro Trump. CNN covers Trump negatively because that's what their audience wants. Fox and CNN have widely different audiences so they run with different stories.
you parlay your opinion into claiming that the USA is somehow more moral than Russia.
Obviously the US and almost every other country is morally superior to Russia.
feeding its citizens nothing but leftist propaganda is somehow good or more moral than Russia
Where did I say the US is good. I think the US is way shittier than it could be but Russia is just on another level. How is the US feeding you nothing but leftist propaganda but Fox news and Breitbart are somehow allowed to exist? Look at what Fox news did to Obama or what John Oliver does to Trump, the US and Russia are not comparable when it comes to freedom of the press.
I offered you freedom of the press because that's what you focused on, how does that not count?
The only issue I could possibly think of where both are equally bad is warmongering so feel free to name any other issue and I will try my best to educate you.
Freedom of press? Just today InfoWars was banned from Facebook and James Corbett is currently on the front page of this subreddit complaining about censorship from organizations that are SUPPOSED TO BE NONPARTISAN.
Freedom of press has nothing to do with Facebook, Facebook is a private company that can do whatever they want. Try post an anti Trump comment on Infowars and you'll get banned as well and I wouldn't even criticize them for it, it's their website(and the same is true for Facebook).
The difference is, if you try to pull infowars level shit against the Russian government in Russia you'll go to prison or get poisoned.
Like holy shit mate, you could have picked your battle and talked about something were the US might get close to Russia but you picked freedom of press of all things.
there are a lot of strange coincidences surrounding the Trump administration regarding Russia.
Like what?
Flynn's conversation was perfectly legal and sanctioned by the government (which is why they had records to listen to and ensure he didn't break any laws).
Session's meeting with the Russian Ambassador was scheduled by the Obama administration as an educational program for senators on certain issues (which is why McCaskill and others also met with the same ambassador0.
So what other 'strange coincidences' are we talking about? I'd like to have my view expanded if it can be.
Flynn's conversation was about non sanctioned topics or what I find likelier that he was ordered to talk about the sanctions but didn't disclose it officially. Trump was warned by the intelligence community that Flynn did that but Trump didn't take action until the media got wind of it.
Sessions tried to lie about the meeting. The extremely likely case that Russia tried to influence the elections. And then the circumstance that Trump goes on ridiculous Twitter tirades every time the media unveils something about Russia so that the media covers that instead.
Saying there are no indications that he has ties to Russia is ridiculous, more investigations have to be done though before we know for sure either way.
Flynn was cleared of all wrongdoing and criminal activity by the FBI after the fact - meaning whatever he said about sanctions was perfectly legal and allowed. His only crime was in not reporting everything back to Pence, which may have been inadvertent.
You cannot prove Sessions lied about anything. He attended his meeting with the Russian ambassador as a Senator on the Senate Armed Services Committee and was not involved with the Trump campaign at the time. He is being attacked on semantics and context - he took the question as whether he had met as a Trump campaign member, which the answer was 'no', but he didn't include his time as a Senator before then. That's fairly understandable, but ultimately he should have clarified or remembered. Either way - its a pretty weak reason to call for someone to resign. Their meeting was scheduled by the Obama administration - it wasn't even set up by his own people.
And then the circumstance that Trump goes on ridiculous Twitter tirades every time the media unveils something about Russia so that the media covers that instead.
If the Russia/Trump stuff is completely fabricated by the media working along with the deep state, why wouldn't he respond with outrage? Trump using twitter is no longer a valid point - we all know he uses Twitter. It doesn't mean anything, and half the time his tweets are true but the media keeps parroting lies anyways.
Saying there are no indications that he has ties to Russia is ridiculous, more investigations have to be done though before we know for sure either way.
The investigations have been done. Do you think Obama and Hillary weren't looking high and low before the election? Do you think people are sitting on evidence? It's a joke. They are making all this shit up, and they have NOTHING to substantiate it. According to Wikileaks and Julian Assange, they got the DNC hacked emails from an insider (some think Seth Rich (RIP), Guccifer has singled out Warren Flood) and not from the Russians, but hey - they're just the people who released the hack.
Have you wondered why the international community hasn't even commented on this? Because there is no proof. You cannot go to the international community without some evidence of wrong-doing, and the deep state can't come up with a single thing. That should say enough.
Like you are literally just dismissing the coincidences, Pence knew Flynn lied to him, yet they only fired him once it got leaked. And it might not be reason enough for Sessions to resign but it is a coincidence that you are just dismissing.
Obama wasn't looking, official investigations would have been leaked and helped Trump. Hillary was looking just like every other candidate before her(who often found nothing when there was something to be found). You seem way too sure that there is nothing, seems dishonest.
Have you wondered why the international community hasn't even commented on this?
Because the US is the most powerful country in the world and Trumps temper seems unstable.
Obama wasn't looking, official investigations would have been leaked and helped Trump.
Don't look at the major headlines today then... you might be in for a surprise! Obama is now being accused of spying on Trump before the election. It's almost perfect.
You seem way too sure that there is nothing, seems dishonest.
I'm going off of evidence. You are the one who's sure there is something, but you can't provide any proof of it - yet i'm the one who's dishonest???
Because the US is the most powerful country in the world and Trumps temper seems unstable.
I don't know if you can say that. China is much stronger economically than the US right now. The US is only stronger in terms of military might and influence, but a Russia/China alliance might have them beat even in that realm...
Obama is now being accused of spying on Trump before the election
Accused. I knew the headlines, but if Trump had proof we'd have seen it. And spying on Trump is not the same as looking into all prior communications.
You are the one who's sure there is something, but you can't provide any proof of it - yet i'm the one who's dishonest???
That's where you are dishonest. I never claimed there is proof, just that there are a lot of coincidences piling up and no reason to dismiss them all. You then claimed there are no coincidences and when I listed them you just dismissed them, that is dishonest.
The Director of the National Intelligence lied before congress about their ability to spy on pretty much any (and every) person in America. Why would they suddenly not have that ability now? And who are they running searches on and why? All of that is valid.
I am only arguing for the standard by which our legal system works - innocent until proven guilty. I'm not sure how a sanctioned talk between an incoming national security adviser and a Russian diplomat, and then a meeting with Sessions that was organized as a Democratic administration event is 'a bunch of coincidences piling up'? Please substantiate your words. What are these 'coincidences'?
You then claimed there are no coincidences and when I listed them you just dismissed them, that is dishonest.
Coincidence - a remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent causal connection
What was remarkable about Flynn speaking to the Russian diplomat?
What was remarkable about Sessions being signed up by Obama's admin for an educational meeting with a Russian ambassador?
Nobody is talking about Nuclear war. What Russia is doing(in the election) is fair game, cant blame them. What Trump is doing(if the allegations are true) is treason.
Nobody is talking about Nuclear war. What Russia is doing(in the election) is fair game, cant blame them. What Trump is doing(if the allegations are true) is treason.
Treason is aiding and abetting the enemy in a time of war. We are not in a war with Russia.
What are the allegations? I can't find anybody who can tell me exactly what the motives and end-game of this Trump/Russia relationship might be... What does the final picture look like if Trump & Russia win?
Either nobody knows or nobody has released the information. Some people talk about the golden shower stuff but I find it much more likely that it is a simple tit for tat. Russia releases anti hillary information and in turn Trump gives Putin some material to use as propaganda. Trump saying Russia isn't any worse than the US for example is an absolute gold mine for Putin.
Trump gives Putin some material to use as propaganda?
What is an absolute gold mine for Putin?
I can't make any sense of what you're saying. I also can't make out a single viable threat or motive. It's not like Trump and Putin can do whatever they want because he's president - if they are linked into making shady business deals, the ethics people will be on top of them like flies on shit.
The only motive I can make out for Russia to get Trump in power is purely to try to dodge a third world war that Hillary was talking up the entire campaign trail as tensions grew in Syria. I don't blame them for not wanting to start an armed conflict in their backyard over long-held assets in the middle east.
Trump saying Russia isn't any worse than the US for example is an absolute gold mine for Putin.
How does that not answer your question?
if they are linked into making shady business deals, the ethics people will be on top of them like flies on shit.
They will be over Trump, they won't be over Putin.
The only motive I can make out for Russia to get Trump in power is purely to try to dodge a third world war
Really? That is the only motive you can come up with? Like nothing about sanctions, oil prices etc. (not that I claim this to be the true motives but surely an option)?
Clinton talked about a no fly zone, that's hardly a WW(in fact the opposite). Nobody wants an actual war with Russia, Russia is already beaten in almost every way.
How is Trump saying that the US and Russia participate in similar activities a 'Gold Mine' for Putin? That makes zero sense to me, both logically and figuratively.
They will be over Trump, they won't be over Putin.
Why does Putin matter? Trump is who matters on the US side of things, no?
it would show Putins power to his people.
Putin doesn't need Trump to do that. Putin's already a pretty popular guy in Russia.
Like nothing about sanctions, oil prices etc.
The sanctions were in place over the disagreement in Syria. As soon as Trump and Putin agreed to fight ISIS together, they fell off as they should have. Now - are you going to argue that having a united front against ISIS is a bad thing? Or are you one who thinks we should arm and fund terrorists so we can get rid of the terrorists?
Clinton talked about a no fly zone, that's hardly a WW(in fact the opposite).
You don't seem to understand how geopolitics plays out. Clinton also started with no-fly zones in Libya - do you remember how that turned out?
How is Trump saying that the US and Russia participate in similar activities a 'Gold Mine' for Putin? That makes zero sense to me, both logically and figuratively.
Because that is what Putin does. Whenever a critic of him is being shot he just points at the US and says "They are bad too". It's an old soviet tactic called whataboutism. Now the President of the United states literally made the same argument. The opposition uses the US as the example of how better and democratic Russia could look, Trump saying it's just as bad is a huge blow to the opposition.
Putin doesn't need Trump to do that. Putin's already a pretty popular guy in Russia.
Indeed he is. Though that is mainly due to the annexation of Crimea and the current economical situation is eroding that jump(though more of the government as a whole). It's only so long that the patriotic fervor he inspired can make up for the ongoing recession.
Clinton also started with no-fly zones in Libya - do you remember how that turned out?
I don't remember it ending in a nuclear World War.
I personally am. If you want to see something discussed here, make threads about it and bring it up!
My biggest question is why is there collusion between Trump and Russia? I'm pretty certain it actually exists, but what is the purpose? How is Trump benefiting? I can't really believe this is all about money.
The entire Russian hacking story originated from the effort to "cover" for leak of DNC emails -- from which we learned of absolute PROOF that Hillary had rigged the election process, and effectively stole the DNC primary from Bernie Sanders.
Just like there's yet to be any proof that Hillary and a secret cabal of pedophiles are running a child slavery ring outside of a pizza shop. You can't have it both ways you know. A lack of concrete evidence means you can't claim something is 100% true, which sadly seems to fly over a lot of people's heads.
The demand for proof regarding "bad Russia" is more apt right now because the MSM start every newscast talking about it, without proof. Same with blogs, newspapers, and especially /polisucks /newzzz and the 100 new anti-trump subs this month that miraculously reach top of /all.
But you're willing to ruin lives and businesses over triangles and handkerchiefs.
"No evidence or proof" would depend on what you would accept. I think having multiple people be clearly deceptive about their contacts and dealing with Russians and then step down once they were uncovered is something I would call evidence. At least enough to take the topic seriously and want an actual investigation.
What would be acceptable evidence to you of Russian involvement to at least start an investigation?
Or DKIM verified emails involving kids in hot tubs, the open sexualization of food and children, the inexplicable wealth and importance of James Alefantis, videos of Marina explaining the spirit cooking process herself, etc.
But yeah, triangles. (Oh btw those triangles are recognized pedophile symbols) just another coincidence of course.
All the pizza shops I go to feature the owner rolling around on the floor in a dog collar, happens to me at Pizza Hut all the time.
You are literally the person who brought it up. Just because you won't accept the evidence doesn't mean there is none.
Kind of like how Hillary Clinton should be locked up and everyone knows her husband is a rapist, but nobody does anything about it.
As far as the topic at hand. The Kremlin uses typewriters and the democrats are desperate to continue war in Syria, Ukraine, Yemen etc. something Russia does not want.
I choose to side with the people helping remove ISIS From Syria (a DNC funded terrorist group) and giving the land back to their legally and democratically elected leader.
Even if they did hack those stupid fucks, it was for the good of the world and something America is guilty of tenfold.
Trump's opposition Clinton, was integral in the destruction of the country of Libya, one of the most prosperous African nations of all time. It amazes me that BLM supports her, when she clearly does not support them. They also recently took the Clinton Foundation out of Haiti, but everyone paying attention know that's because they didn't want to get busted for human trafficking ;)
Speaking of human trafficking! Did you know thats what arguing about refugees and immigrants is? Mainstream corporate human trafficking!
Shut the borders down and stop these sick fucks and the process of bombing people out of their homes and telling them where to live and assimilate. It's fucking nonsense.
Just a reminder: Trump wants to increase our nuclear arsenal and pillage the Middle East for oil, and also appointed Bannon, who wants war with China and a holy war with Islam. But sure, liberals are the war mongering ones.
Enough proof that Obama imposed sanctions, enough proof that Flynn resigned because he discussed the election meddling and sanctions with the Russian Diplomat.
What a load of crap. Well if there is nothing why doesn't Trump put out his tax returns? Why did manafort and Flynn have to step down? Why did Sessions have to lie about not meeting with any Russians?
There is something there or else trump would welcome an investigation so he can move on and put all this past him.
Your just another Donald scab trying to preach this bullshit.
There actually is proof. I would classify it as slightly more than circumstantial but significantly less than a smoking gun. Granted, the information I have looked at is all public domain so I have no idea what classified material the three letter agencies have.
So Podesta clicked a link in his email that contained a Bitly link. That Bitly link can be traced to a Bitly account used by a hacking group named Fancy Bear. It was one of almost 9,000 links that Fancy Bear created in a massive phishing scheme.
Those are facts. They are objective and you cannot argue them. However, the subjective part is the link between Fancy Bear and the Russian Government. A lot of people believe that there are strong ties to the Russian Government. I really don't have an opinion on this link.
Now I haven't done a lot of research into the DNC hack; this is just for the Podesta "hack".
Waiting for the shills to comment on this thread lol...
While I am not trying to defend Trump (we should be skeptical of ALL government and the private interests corrupting them), this MSM Russia narrative is not the thing that concerns me with this administration. Makes you wonder why they are hesitant to report on the ACTUAL worrying issues....
Absolutely the only people I've seen bringing up the concept of "WAR WITH RUSSIA!!!!" are pro-Trump talking-point repeaters and critics of those trying to figure out if the Trump campaign colluded with Russian ops and/or Assange in order to win the election. Glenn Greenwald warns of Dem hypocrisy and the potential dangers of red scare 2.0, but even he won't claim that anyone is pushing for real WMD-type war initiation. Ditto anyone from the intelligence community or any gov official. Well, besides that Putin-surrogate Russian official and Trump himself.
Also, whenever WAR WITH RUSSIA!!!! is suggested (by Trump devotees and critics of those considering/investigating conspiracy) no attempt is made to debunk the ties between Trump and co and Russian oligarchs, banks, former mobsters, etc, we just get the general refrain of NOTHING TO SEE HERE.
If Putin tried to influence the election, that's fair game as far as I'm concerned. If Team Trump played a role in it, that's collusion and/or treason, and that's what this conspiracy theory is all about.
There is a lot of DUMB shit in this subreddit. What's the big deal if I think that white supremacists use r/conspiracy to push things like holocaust denial and stuff like that? Conspiracy is actually a really good way to spread propaganda.
Trump saying Russia isn't any worse than the US for example is an absolute gold mine for Putin.
How does that not answer your question?
if they are linked into making shady business deals, the ethics people will be on top of them like flies on shit.
They will be over Trump, they won't be over Putin.
The only motive I can make out for Russia to get Trump in power is purely to try to dodge a third world war
Really? That is the only motive you can come up with? Like nothing about sanctions, oil prices etc. (not that I claim this to be the true motives but surely an option)?
Clinton talked about a no fly zone, that's hardly a WW(in fact the opposite). Nobody wants an actual war with Russia, Russia is already beaten in almost every way.
Please show evidence that only 2 groups used this 'unique' malware in the past. What are we going do to just take the word that it is what the welivesecurity telemetry data showed?
Maybe you should look into their campaigns a little more, there is a reason every security firm attributes apt 28 & 29 to Russian Intel and have for years, this isn't a new thing.
Yes, x agent is a unique identifier for this group, can you find me an example of it being used by any other group?
What does the Ukraine thing have to do with the topic?
Honestly it's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about, I mean seriously, you thought you could get x-agent on CNET? lmao
I knew what he/she meant, but it appeared you did not, which is an odd position to be in when debating someone. Especially if you are claiming he/she admitted something. If you knew, too, why say they "admitted posting" when they clearly said they did not post?
265 comments
n/a chrisplusplus 2017-03-06
Clapper and intelligence reports actually place blame on RT for propoganda. Hahahahaha. Really? Here's a nice little exercise: go to RT website or watch RT America. It will be foreign to most readers to read REAL, unbiased journalism. Now compare those news reports in RT to MSM in America. The difference in unbiased truth based reporting is staggering. All the Russians have to do is report the actual truth and sit back and watch as America tear itself apart. It's brilliant really
n/a Loud_Volume 2017-03-06
I wonder if they just shake their heads at the establishment that horribly runs this country and feel bad for its citizens. I'm embarrassed by the people that run this country. It's always the most unfit people that want to run the US into the ground.
n/a Sworts 2017-03-06
Is a government funded news agency really considered unbiased? RT is funded by the Russian government, and I imagine it is hard to distinguish the actual direction of news the government does or doesn't push on RT. But I do believe one of the cornerstones of democracy is to have government free media agencies. And that being said I have seen more than one rt article that can be claimed as "propaganda". That isn't to say RT doesn't have truth to plenty of their articles, it is always good to get foreign input on how they see developments inside one country.
n/a Traveler_215 2017-03-06
nyet, comrade, beautiful Russian government is most uncorrupt, true free government in world. trust I! as fellow american from Idaho, USA, I can strongly confirm complete lack of bias by glorious state run media of great American friend and Ally for 1000+ years, beautiful Russia.
n/a ThatsPopetastic 2017-03-06
Isn't RT America completely different media coverage than Russian RT?
n/a mki401 2017-03-06
Hahahahahaha r/conspiracy advocating a state sponsored news source, this is gold.
n/a chrisplusplus 2017-03-06
My point is not to advocate, but to compare the coverage. It's night and day. All the Russians have to do is report non-biased media coverage to point out the hypocrisy of American media coverage. It's totally backwards.
n/a mki401 2017-03-06
RT is not non-biased. Full stop. Saying as much simply shows your inherent bias.
n/a media_mathers 2017-03-06
Clapper is a liar
If he's comfortable lying before Congress about the NSA then.....
But who am I to judge
n/a codydodd 2017-03-06
While there is direct proof of US interference in countless foreign elections.
Don't get me wrong, I am not justifying it on either side, but still, the hypocrisy is astounding.
n/a Loud_Volume 2017-03-06
Oh my god thank you for reminding me of this lmao. Truly hypocritical
n/a EhrmantrautWetWork 2017-03-06
weird
n/a TheMysteriousFizzyJ 2017-03-06
lol you touched a raw nerve
they've been down voting you
n/a dashnine 2017-03-06
Direct proof of US interference in its own US election. Hillary not only forced herself in, they also made the call to elevate Trump in the media as her opponent.
n/a sether22 2017-03-06
Sitting potus was on the trail for her, something that has never been done.
n/a Th_rowAwayAccount 2017-03-06
Because her emails reveal he directly lied.
n/a ElCaminoSS396 2017-03-06
You must be new.
n/a Can_You_Feel_It_MrK 2017-03-06
She wasn't a part of the US govt at that time, neither is the DNC
n/a True_Jack_Falstaff 2017-03-06
Also hypocritical are the Trump supporters saying we should never belief anonymous sources when Trump spent years spreading conspiracy theories about Obama based on sources he would never name.
n/a NYEThrowaway_User_ 2017-03-06
Keep sharing the blue bro, you're doing awesome!
n/a True_Jack_Falstaff 2017-03-06
lmao. Thanks.
Sorry that pointing out hypocrisy is hurting your fee fees.
n/a LiberalLampshades 2017-03-06
A cursory look at your posting history shows you're a college student. This will all make more sense to you when you grow up a bit, son.
n/a aleister 2017-03-06
I would even say there's zero definition about what 'Russian interference' even means or any path in which it would have been effective.
n/a Loud_Volume 2017-03-06
Even the lame stream media doesn't know they just don't want trump in office cause he's not controlled
n/a shinebox_jimmy 2017-03-06
Exactly. The accusations are so vague and nebulous...what the fuck is there even to debunk? I mean, how could you possibly claim that there was no Russian involvement in the US election? For example, pro-Putin media outlets tended to lean towards Trump in the 2016 election - does that constitution interference to these people? I don't even know what we're arguing about...
Certainly I have seen absolutely ZERO evidence that Russia in any way interfered improperly with the Presidential election. But I'm sure there were many in the Russian government who reached out to Trump during his Presidential campaign, just like there were probably many who reached out to Hillary, too.
This whole Russia shit is just so asinine. The very idea that people would seriously be discussing whether "Russia hacked the election" in fucking 2017 is just so god damn stupid. I can't believe it. Leftists really are useful idiots. There, I said it. These people are fucking bottomfeeder tier retarded. Fucking idiots. They will literally believe anything they see on the TEEVEE regardless of how ridiculous it is or how scant the evidence.
We are past the tipping point in our nation; the government is safe from retaliation by those of us who know because our voices are drowned out by the fucking idiot masses. I can only speak for myself, but personally, Trump is the siren song of a lost America.
Give 'em hell you fucking glorious bastard.
n/a ThatsPopetastic 2017-03-06
Here's the official intelligence report. Feel free to debunk any of it
n/a williamsates 2017-03-06
Apendix B
n/a ThatsPopetastic 2017-03-06
Here's an example.
n/a williamsates 2017-03-06
They also have RT which gives a platform to third party candidates, was sympathetic to Occupy and is anti-Fracking. Damn Ruskies.
n/a TheMysteriousFizzyJ 2017-03-06
"They had a youtube tv channel that was watched by a dozen people"
n/a Edogawa1983 2017-03-06
depend on what you think proof is..
n/a honkimon 2017-03-06
Handkerchiefs and triangles.
n/a MumenRiderForJustice 2017-03-06
I once saw...get this... a circle.
n/a honkimon 2017-03-06
Dude. The new Zelda game has so many triangles in it but you won't see one neckbeard questioning it's integrity!
n/a TheMysteriousFizzyJ 2017-03-06
recognized pedophilia symbols in FBI training manuals on pizza places
n/a zippityd0dah 2017-03-06
Average person: "The government told me they did it, so..."
n/a Traveler_215 2017-03-06
and who is telling you they didn't do it? does the Trump whitehouse no longer count as the government?
n/a ChillyWillster 2017-03-06
I'd love to see the proof.
n/a ThatsPopetastic 2017-03-06
Here's the intelligence report.
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
n/a ChillyWillster 2017-03-06
I didn't read the entire report. That being said I read some of it and I didn't see any proof. Only claims made by intelligence agencies.
n/a ThatsPopetastic 2017-03-06
That's about as much as you're going to get until the investigation is over.
You either trust the government or not. If you don't trust them, then why would you trust any "proof" they give you?
n/a ChillyWillster 2017-03-06
Because I examine these things on a case by case basis as best as I can.
n/a ThatsPopetastic 2017-03-06
I mean, what kind of evidence are you even really looking for?
n/a ChillyWillster 2017-03-06
That's a good question.
On the one hand, I take it for granted that the governments of the world attempt and occasionally succeed in tampering with each other's governments.
On the other hand, to make such a big deal about something that is common place makes me call into question the people making all the fuss. While I think Trump as president is an awful shame I have yet to see any evidence that our government is any worse off.
It was a corrupt mess and continues to be so.
So, evidence to me would consist of not only actually see or hearing the collaboration between trump campaign and Russia but, perhaps more importantly, the consequences of that action. "Trump as president" in and of itself sucks balls but if that is all Russia can do then it's really not worth getting worked up over.
n/a ThatsPopetastic 2017-03-06
The intelligence report talks about why they wanted Trump, and why they have been striving to influence elections in the west in general.
n/a ChillyWillster 2017-03-06
Seems to me that Russia took advantage of our own ineptitude. The DNC had a amazing candidate and sand bagged him to their own detriment.
So if we are playing the blame game then I think we need to lay out the entire trail of events.
n/a EhrmantrautWetWork 2017-03-06
I'll trust them if they confirm (in full) my preconceived suspicions!
n/a TheMysteriousFizzyJ 2017-03-06
so, there's no proof?
literally, they said there was no proof in there
n/a ThatsPopetastic 2017-03-06
Where in that report did they say there was no proof?
n/a idontreadinbox 2017-03-06
Where in the report did they say there is proof?
n/a mjbmitch 2017-03-06
They have found evidence that supports the idea of Russian involvement in the election. For example, computer forensics showed that the software the DNC hackers used on the hacked servers phoned-home back to the same command-and-control server that known Russian malware used.
There is certainly room to discuss whether the evidence is strong, relevant, etc. but saying there is no evidence is really pushing a false narrative.
n/a secondcomingOFfex 2017-03-06
Russian hackers or vpns != Russian government
n/a TheMysteriousFizzyJ 2017-03-06
cia or china
who knows which
n/a ruleten 2017-03-06
They used a french word in their haxxors they must be from France!
n/a the_rabble_alliance 2017-03-06
Yet a random pizza handkerchief is the basis for an international child cannibalism and trafficking ring?
When did /r/conspiracy develop scruples about evidentary standards?
n/a paulie_purr 2017-03-06
Roger Stone, Erik Prince, and Breitbart created Pizzagate just a week or two before the election. Makes about as much sense as Russian spies beneath everyone's bed.
n/a lolzfeminism 2017-03-06
Did you not read the guy's comment? This place is infested with RIDF.
GRU is the CIA of Russia. GRU is known to control a server. The malware that hacked the DNC sent the stolen data to the known GRU server.
n/a secondcomingOFfex 2017-03-06
LoL, that's not how reality works bro. No one is going to launch attacks or log info from a static ip.
n/a lolzfeminism 2017-03-06
LoL, I'm a professional security researcher bro, this is how it works. Attackers set up public data sink in a friendly network, typically registered to some domain. It's a publicly reachable server but the identity of the owner is kept secret legally. The address for this server is hardcoded in the malware. Look it up, stuxnet used something like malaysianfootballbets.com. Once the data is inside the public server, it can be VPN'd to home base securely and without anyone finding out where the data went.
The public server that the DNC malware uploaded data to is known to be controlled to by GRU.
n/a secondcomingOFfex 2017-03-06
Hi bro, you're clearly a terrible fucking "researcher." A domain name is not an IP address, domain names are thus not necessarily static. So you cannot prove an identity of an address based on a domain name.
LMAO.
n/a lolzfeminism 2017-03-06
err yes, you can track which ip addresses are assigned to a domain name. lol
n/a secondcomingOFfex 2017-03-06
No shit bro. You cannot guarantee the identity of a server from a domain name though bro.
n/a undesirabledesires 2017-03-06
Check out the interview with John McAfee on this issue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dvj0v0W6yjk
Just because the hacker used a Russian keyboard and that malware was used that was developed by a Russian military official is not PROOF that the Russian government hacked the DNC. Also, a hacker wouldn't be that dumb to leave those kinds of traces behind. If anything, they would leave traces behind that are meant to intentionally mislead the party that was hacked. As far as the Podesta emails, we know that was simply a phishing scam. Could've been done by anyone.
But at the end of the day, none of this is proof of anything. It's just a political tactic being used to turn the American public against the Trump administration and part of a larger plan to get him impeached and get Pence in. Because we know that Pence will protect the deep state.
n/a isthatanexit 2017-03-06
When CrowdStrike investigated the DNC hacks they identified Cozy Bear (A.K.A. APT-29) as one of the actors in the hack. Cozy Bear is a group of Russian hackers who are largely suspected to be hackers associated with the Russian government.
CrowdStrike found that Cozy Bear were inside the DNC computer systems for over a year before the election. This actually provides even more possibility that the hacking group was involved in a nation-state outfit (like the Russian government) as they were sitting inside the DNC's computers with full access to internal communications for months without a trace.
You can read more about their findings in the blog they made public, here
And since you brought up John McAfee it's worth pointing out that the person responsible for identifying the Cozy Bear hackers at CrowdStrike is Dimitri Alperovitch, the Vice President of Threat Research at McAfee and that John McAfee has not worked at McAfee since 1994.
n/a undesirabledesires 2017-03-06
Cozy Bear being inside the DNC is not proof that the Russian government stole all the files and gave them to Wikileaks. And far from proof that the Trump campaign coordinated directly with Putin. It's proof that Russian malware was used to hack the DNC. Now lets be clear, this only includes the DNC emails, and not the Podesta emails. The problem is the media running wild with the narrative, conflating everything, and boiling it down to "Russia hacked election, Trump not legitimate president."
n/a isthatanexit 2017-03-06
If that is what happened you will never in your lifetime have proof of it. It would mean the Russian government would have to admit to it (highly unlikely) or someone inside the Russian government leaks it (also highly unlikely and would basically be a death sentence to whoever the whistle blower was)
You are asking reddit users to give you proof to something that is imppossible to do. While at the same time using the lack of proof in your argument that Russia wasn't involved.
Not only does that ignore all of the circumstantial evidence but it's really disingenuous on your part.
Where is your proof that this is all made up by the media? How do you explain CrowdStrike's findings of hackers being in the system if this is nothing but media hype?
This is not a claim I made. Nor is it a claim /u/mjbmitch made in his comment above.
In other words, it's a strawman that you just made up.
n/a undesirabledesires 2017-03-06
You're right we don't have 100% proof of anything. But I don't agree that we couldn't have more proof than we already have. We have to look at what we do have and come to our own conclusions. Me and you have come to different conclusions. But ultimately what our conclusions are based on is how much we trust our government, the FBI, the CIA, NSA, and the media. You obviously trust their words and intentions more than I do. But that's fine, it's your opinion and it's valid. Discourse is a good thing. You didn't say that the Trump campaign did not coordinate with Russia, but can you really deny that this is the narrative the American media is pushing? I will not trust these organizations, especially when I see a motive/plan behind it.
n/a isthatanexit 2017-03-06
You're right in a sense, this basically boils down to speculation on both our parts.
However, I do reject your assertations that the Russia connections are just inventions of the media. That, to me, is ignoring basic truths.
Multiple people within Trump's inner circle have been forced to resign over their connections to Russia.
Those are not things created by the media. They're not lies or narratives or half-truths or things that are being blown out of proportion. They're just facts.
The same goes for CrowdStrike and the other companies who investigated the DNC hacks. That blog I posted earlier is filled with code and malware they found. Can you explain how, if this is all just the media hype, those people found some of the hacker's tools in their computers?
n/a undesirabledesires 2017-03-06
The media operates to influence public opinion, not inform it. Sessions met with a Russian ambassador in his capacity as a US Senator as did other senators like Sen. Mary Landrieu (La.) and Sens. Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Bob Casey (Pa.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) and Claire McCaskill (Mo.). Suddenly, the day after Trump's speech to congress (after he gains some momentum) headlines appear everywhere: Jeff Sessions met with Russian Ambassdor and lied about it under oath.
Then suddenly there are calls for him to resign. Headlines calling for him to resign. It's a witch hunt. It's not as simple as "multiple people from trumps campaign resigned, facts are facts." If you can't see that then you aren't looking deep enough into the situation. Suddenly the story isn't about who he met with (which is completely normal), but it's about how he lied under oath. It's all semantics. Where was that outrage when James Clapper lied under oath about the NSA spying on American citizens? Liberal media ignored it. It was clearly a coordinated and carefully timed attack. With Flynn it was the same thing. The liberal/conservative elites are working with the media with the goal of influencing public opinion and ultimately impeaching Trump. So you are right, there are many facts. But the headlines and the way in which the media presents the information is key to controlling public perception. It happens from multiple directions. CNN, Washington Post, NYT, MSNBC, CBS, TYT, and more are on the side of the liberals. Fox News, Breitbart, Infowars, RT and more are on the side of conservatives/Trump. But each source varies from one another in certain ways. You can't get caught up in one side or the other and you must watch all of them with an open mind. I'm not a Trump supporter, and I didn't vote for him. But I am willing to defend him and call bullshit where I see it. I am seeing a lot of bullshit from these so called journalists. I am a member of the working class, not a member of the Washington elite. If you don't think that liberal/conservative media directly coordinates with Washington to influence public opinion, and they are all apart of the same club, then you are in for a rude awakening.
n/a razgriz301 2017-03-06
Very sensible statement, of which there is very little now.
n/a razgriz301 2017-03-06
Part of this whole problem is anonymous sourcing. We don't know who's leaking what, who hacked the DNC, if Trump is colluding with the Russians, etc.
n/a TheMysteriousFizzyJ 2017-03-06
now they should give those servers to the FBI for further analysis
n/a razgriz301 2017-03-06
So do we trust Julian Assange or no? He said it wasn't a state party. Some say that he can't know who it was based on the setup of Wikileaks. I'm not sure about that.
n/a isthatanexit 2017-03-06
I don't know what to make of Assange and WikiLeaks anymore.
He alluded to it all coming from insider leaks but I think that's bullshit.
Looking at some of the findings from cybersecurity companies and reading the ODNI reports there's no doubt in my eyes that there were hackers. Who the hackers were? I have no way of knowing
But if it were coming from inside leaks that would mean the insiders hacked themselves and purposely left behind code and an entire trail of bread crumbs? And they somehow posessed enough knowledge to throw off some of the best cybersecurity experts in the world and fool them into thinking the insider leaks were actually being committed by nation-state hackers on the other side of the world? I mean I like a good conspiracy and all but that just seems ridiculous
n/a razgriz301 2017-03-06
This whole thing already is ridiculous
n/a TheMysteriousFizzyJ 2017-03-06
yeah, and they told us guccifer 2.0 was a russian
they were dead wrong about that one
n/a isthatanexit 2017-03-06
No they weren't.
n/a williamsates 2017-03-06
http://g-2.space/
n/a paulie_purr 2017-03-06
The guy couldn't speak a lick of Romanian if I recall.
n/a klorptar 2017-03-06
Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear are actually malware familys--not "hacker groups"--despite what the media and wikipedia has asserted. From Arstechnica.
It fits the MO of a Russian operation, but as other security experts have noted, any significant, state-sponsored, hacking event would be almost impossible to attribute. It also doesn't make sense Russia would use keyboards and timezones within Russia (or Russian-made malware with the eponymous Bear in the name for that matter) for the attacks if they were truly responsible.
n/a realsituation 2017-03-06
Crowd strike was hired by the dnc to investigate their problems with their servers because they didn't want the fbi to look at them. The dnc paid crowd strike to say whatever they wanted
n/a isthatanexit 2017-03-06
Where is your proof for this claim?
n/a realsituation 2017-03-06
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vh03ZUcEG8c
Go to I think around 9.50
n/a isthatanexit 2017-03-06
I'm not asking you whether or not the FBI looked at DNC's computers
I'm asking you to prove CrowdStrike was hired to say what the DNC wanted them to say and that they ruined their entire reputation as a business to make up bogus claims for the DNC
n/a realsituation 2017-03-06
It's impossible to prove unless you have written or audio evidence if that being instructed, but it looks incredibly bad. Goes vice versa with the whole cozy bear fancy bear argument.
n/a isthatanexit 2017-03-06
It doesn't look bad at all. They're a cybersecurity company and got paid to investigate a cybersecurity attack. Do you understand how a business works?
n/a ansultares 2017-03-06
Certainly this seems to be the desired effect.
n/a rolltide26 2017-03-06
There is zero proof. The intel release provided no details. I do intrusion detection analysis for the government. They can give more details than they did. They didn't, because they have nothing.
The supposed evidence you speak of was provided by a single firm, Crowdstrike. Financed $100 million by Google Captial, owned by Alphabet Inc. who's chairman is Eric Schmidt, who is a vocal Clinton supporter.
There has been no real evidence of any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
n/a polisgay 2017-03-06
I see this comment nearly word for word constantly and it's been refuted so many times.
n/a G_Petronius 2017-03-06
You posted this comment word for word yesterday, I gave you a link showing you why it's wrong and you said you'd look into it: why are you repeating it with seemingly no notice?
As I told you yesterday:
the malware revealed by the FBI assessment was freeware Ukrainian malware, that you can download off a site
the IP range used by the malware corresponds to a block notoriously used by common malware
n/a MartnThaKing 2017-03-06
You actually can't download the malware used for attribution, things like SeaDuke and X-agent are what were used to identify the attackers, anyone talking about PAS is trying to mislead people because it is irrelevant.
n/a G_Petronius 2017-03-06
You should write a proper explanation, because this explains pretty convincingly why PAS is relevant and you're simply stating it isn't without any reasoning.
n/a MartnThaKing 2017-03-06
PAS isn't what was used for attribution, the unique malware was. Crowdstrike mentioned PAS in their indicators of compromise just because they need to list every piece of malware used there. In their report they don't mention PAS as evidence for attribution.
n/a G_Petronius 2017-03-06
This is an analysis of the FBI/DHS report, it has nothing to do with Crowdstrike. You didn't read the link did you?
n/a MartnThaKing 2017-03-06
I read the link plenty of times as I've refuted it like 10 times on this sub now. The malware used for attribution was not available to the public, PAS is irrelevant.
n/a G_Petronius 2017-03-06
If you had you'd know it doesn't mention Crowdstrike once, unlike your continued references.
n/a MartnThaKing 2017-03-06
If you actually read the reports you would know it's SeaDuke, x-agent, etc. that are being used to identify the attacker. Bringing up PAS is just misinformation, again, it isn't used for attribution.
n/a G_Petronius 2017-03-06
No pal, this disruption tactic won't work. You made an objective mistake: thinking this analysis was about the Crowdstrike report. The honest thing to do is admit to it and move on, not try to pivot to a different topic and pretend nothing happened. This discussion won't go anywhere until you show this elementary bit of honesty. Until then, cheerio.
n/a MartnThaKing 2017-03-06
It's okay that you don't understand how attribution works, let me try to make it easy. These groups have specific malware only used by them, so when it's time to attribute attacks we are able to do so by seeing this unique malware. In all of the reports the unique malware is used for attribution, PAS is never mentioned because it is widely available so it can't be used for attribution.
Acting like the malware was old or widely available just because PAS was is misleading because PAS is never mentioned as evidence it was the Russians.
n/a G_Petronius 2017-03-06
The more comments you make avoiding the issue of your Crowdstrike mistake, the deeper you dig the hole of your evident dishonesty. I will waste no more time on you, good luck with your shilling.
n/a MartnThaKing 2017-03-06
There's no mistake, you're spreading misinformation. PAS is irrelevant, go ask in the /r/asknetsec sub if you don't believe me.
n/a TheMysteriousFizzyJ 2017-03-06
ten year old php malware pointing to a russian server that could easily have been a bought vpn from the cia is not actually proof
like you should trust cloud strike as showing evidence.. they couldn't even stop guccifer 2.0 from hacking it after they knew about him -- if you buy the guccifer 2.0 story
n/a MartnThaKing 2017-03-06
SeaDuke and x-agent are not old, talking about PAS is just misinformation, it isn't the reason for attribution to Russian apt groups.
n/a williamsates 2017-03-06
n/a MartnThaKing 2017-03-06
Here's a more recent analysis of the sednit kit for anyone interested, done by Eset. Warning, the first is a pdf. I'll link the github too
http://www.welivesecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/eset-sednit-full.pdf
https://github.com/eset/malware-ioc/blob/master/sednit/README.adoc
n/a williamsates 2017-03-06
From page 79 of the report:
From github:
http://archive.is/wBCe0
Which are in Us and Switzerland.
From pg 102 of the report doing a 'xagent' analysis
Netherlands, Sweden, France, US, Germany and Bulgaria.
For 'tunnel'
Netherlands, France, Canada, Latvia, Germany, Switzerland and Sweden.
Which one of these is Russian Intelligence again?
n/a MartnThaKing 2017-03-06
Apt 28 and 29 are Russian intelligence, better known as fancy and cozy bear. The unique malware only ever used by these groups such as x-agent and SeaDuke support this.
n/a williamsates 2017-03-06
x-agent is not unique. You have no evidence that 'apt 28 and 29' are Russian Intelligence. Even the report you linked states:
Mind you without providing any evidence that it a unified group.
n/a MartnThaKing 2017-03-06
X agent is unique, not to this campaign but to the group...
Its widely accepted in the security community these groups work with or are Russian intelligence based on their past campaigns.
n/a williamsates 2017-03-06
You mean this XAgent published in 2011?
http://archive.is/90Ysr
CrowdStrike claimed it compromised Ukrainian Military sabotage due to it. Which the Ukranian's themselves deny:
http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/395186.html
n/a MartnThaKing 2017-03-06
Lmao no that is not the same x-agent, that's part of this suite:
n/a eupf 2017-03-06
uhuh...and even if that proves to be true (which it hasn't), the "logic" of that is "Russian hackers 'influenced' the election with factual information about the Clintons, media and the DNC!"
n/a williamsates 2017-03-06
Independent analysis of X-agent:
http://archive.is/MM6bB
On the 'command and control server bulshit:
Here are the IP's from Crowdstrike:
185.100.84.134 is a Romanian broadband server.
58.49.58.58 is a Chinese broadband server.
218.1.98.203 is another Chinese broadband server.
187.33.33.8 is a Brazil broadband server.
185.86.148.227 is a Swedish server
45.32.129.185 is from Choopa LLC in San Jose, California
23.227.196.217 is a corporate server associated with Swiftway Communications from Wilmington Delaware
So... where is the evidence that these are only used by Russian intelligence?
Here is the WordFence analysis of the malware from the Joint Report:
http://archive.is/KiX1w
The found the malware to be:
Which is produced in Ukraine:
In their concluding remarks we find this:
Mind you Crowdstrike is the same company which blamed the Sony hack on North Korea.
n/a MartnThaKing 2017-03-06
PAS isn't what was used for attribution, the unique malware only used by these 2 groups in the past was, I really don't see the point in talking about PAS when it's never been used for attribution just shown as an indicator of compromise.
n/a williamsates 2017-03-06
Please show evidence that only 2 groups used this 'unique' malware in the past. What are we going do to just take the word that it is what the welivesecurity telemetry data showed?
n/a MartnThaKing 2017-03-06
Only every security firm who's written about the topic? Can you find an example of it being used by any other group?
Its like saying Flame or Stuxnet weren't developed by the U.S.
n/a williamsates 2017-03-06
What group? There is no evidence that connects Apt 28 and 29 to Russian Intelligence. The claim that the use of xagent is a unique identifier has no evidence for it. On top of this we have Crowd...Sony was Hacked by North Korea...Strike claiming it compromised Ukrainian Military, which they themselves deny. We have allegations of attribution, no actual evidence. So please provide some.
n/a MartnThaKing 2017-03-06
Maybe you should look into their campaigns a little more, there is a reason every security firm attributes apt 28 & 29 to Russian Intel and have for years, this isn't a new thing.
Yes, x agent is a unique identifier for this group, can you find me an example of it being used by any other group?
What does the Ukraine thing have to do with the topic?
Honestly it's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about, I mean seriously, you thought you could get x-agent on CNET? lmao
n/a williamsates 2017-03-06
Here is a MicroTrend analysis of Pawn Storm. Read the report. No attribution to groups like apt 28 or 29 and certainly no claims that it was Russian Intelligence.
https://www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/us/security/news/cyber-attacks/pawn-storm-espionage-attacks-use-decoys-deliver-sednit
Read your own report by welivesecurity which does not attribute apt 28 and 29 to Russian intelligence.
So please, do provide some evidence that links these groups.
n/a MartnThaKing 2017-03-06
https://www.fireeye.com/blog/threat-research/2014/10/apt28-a-window-into-russias-cyber-espionage-operations.html
n/a williamsates 2017-03-06
From the Fireeye report we really see that the emperor has no clothes.
There are 3 points the report tries to make. One is that primary language setting of 103 pieces of malware was ' consistently' Russian:
https://i.imgur.com/IYbZkUg.png
We can see the breakdown 59 Russian, 27 US English, 16 Neutral and 1 one from Great Britain. No implication of Russian Intelligence here!
Point 2 is that supposedly 89 percent of the malware was compiled during Moscow Business hours:
https://i.imgur.com/cCjM1Au.png
Look at the distribution of time. UTC +4 or Moscow time starts at 3 UTC, but no Malware is compiled then. If we wonder how many have been compiled at UTC +3, where the business day starts at 7 we get the exact same amount. Look at the frequency of compilation:
https://i.imgur.com/TjG2R49.png
For all we know this could be compiled in Ukraine in the summer time giving us safe margin for UTC +3. The time zone argument is so vast it offers very weak support that it was compiled in Russia, and no support that it was compiled by Russian Intelligence.
The third point that this report makes is that the phishing attacks are consistent with targets that Russia would be interest in. So US arm dealers, NATO websites, etc. This is the strongest evidence of Russian government involvement, and it is no evidence at all.
So to repeat, do you have evidence that APT 28 or 29 are Russian Intelligence?
n/a MartnThaKing 2017-03-06
What do you want, Russia saying hey yeah those groups are us?
Besides that your attempts to refute the article are pretty poor. Not as bad as you thinking you can get x-agent from CNET, but still like that post showing you're biased or just have no idea what you're talking about.
n/a williamsates 2017-03-06
No, I want evidence of which you are yet to provide any other than insertions like Apt 28 is Russian Intelligence. I want to make my bias clear. I don't think Russians hacked the DNC and I don't think you provided any evidence for it. But there is a lot of BS like trying to pass of Ukranian Malware as Russian, or claiming Guciffer 2.0 is Russian, etc. So far there is plenty of evidence that evidence provided for the Russia hacked narrative is fraudulent, and zero evidence that APT is connected to Russian Intelligence.
n/a MartnThaKing 2017-03-06
There is no evidence of it being a fraud first of all...
And yes, there is plenty of evidence that apt 28 & 29 are Russian. You don't have to accept it, I don't care if you do. But the evidence is out there, I've already linked one report on them and anyone reading this can Google and clearly see the truth.
But hey, you're the expert, I mean you did manage to find private state sponsored malware on CNET lol
n/a williamsates 2017-03-06
Evidence that is out there... Malware compiled in Easter Europe with Russian language settings...
The emperor has no clothes!
n/a MR-OZ 2017-03-06
It's pure humbug..
n/a Chill_Confirmed 2017-03-06
Reading that made me feel 15 years younger
n/a Loud_Volume 2017-03-06
Exactly
n/a TheMysteriousFizzyJ 2017-03-06
"Seventeen intelligence agencies"
n/a Chill_Confirmed 2017-03-06
It's unpresidented
n/a TheSheaButterFactory 2017-03-06
This sub loves to suck Trump's cock these days.
n/a Loud_Volume 2017-03-06
No ones sucking anyone's cock we just refuse to start a war over zero evidence. It's sad to see you defend such asinine ideas
n/a TheSheaButterFactory 2017-03-06
Where did I endorse slaughtering anyone?
Where did I say a war was good?
Do you always put words in people's mouths?
You can look at all the coincidences, all the connections in Trump's organization with Russia, the fact they've been caught several times lying about those connections, the fact they've taken a very soft tone on Ukraine, and think these connections are real.
Honestly, it's stupid to think Trump and the Russians aren't connected. Really stupid.
How much you care about that obvious fact is up to you, but, at this point, denying it is retarded.
I can say all this and not want war and still passionately hating Clinton.
You can think Trump is a corrupt buffoon, and be staunchly antiwar.
I don't want war at all, and if that's gonna be the result of this, I'd rather Trump stay in power. But you have no real evidence that this will lead to war.
You literally made a post in r/conspiracy arguing that the biggest conspiracy right now fake, despite overwhelming coincidences pointing to it being real.
This is a political opinion, not a skeptical one.
n/a Loud_Volume 2017-03-06
Your wall of text has no substance just like these Russian allegations have no substance either.
n/a TheSheaButterFactory 2017-03-06
You accused me of being in favor of slaughtering people.
What do you know about substance?
n/a Loud_Volume 2017-03-06
I didn't accuse you of anything I just think it's irresponsible to leap to war with Russia when there is no evidence or proof whatsoever of Russian involvement in the elections.
Russia itself is waiting for evidence.. They are still waiting.. Since December.. For evidence.. But there is none.......
n/a TheSheaButterFactory 2017-03-06
Trump, himself, says Russia hacked the DNC.
There's evidence Flynn spoke to the Russians about sanctions. He stepped down.
Manafort worked for a known Russian puppet. This info got out, and he stepped down.
Sessions met with the Russian Ambassador during the campaign. He lied about it under oath. Why would he lie about it?
He then recused himself from the investigation. Why would he recuse himself?
The GOP changed their policy on Ukraine right after Sessions met the embassador. That's an odd coincidence.
Is that enough evidence to convict? No, but any reasonable person can see something's up. And the investigation is ongoing. Stuff is gonna keep coming out.
What evidence do you want? It'll probably be released soon.
The real question here is not whether or not Russia helped Trump, it's whether or not it you are Okay with the CIA going after a democratically elected president, even if he's clearly on Russia's cock.
What evidence do you have this scandal will lead to a war?
That's a very inflammatory thing to say with no evidence.
n/a Loud_Volume 2017-03-06
Everything you just outlined is backed up by no evidence whatsoever.
Can you please cite your sources and your claims?
Or should we focus on the fact that Hilary fucked Bernie Sanders over as well as tried to rig the election in her favor.
Or that there is no need to go to war with Russia over some stupid bullshit with no evidence at all
n/a TheSheaButterFactory 2017-03-06
What did I say that you are refuting?
I didn't bring up anything based on anonymous sources. I didn't even bring up the dossier.
Literally nothing I've said is controversial, and nearly all of the things I've brought up were admitted by those involved.
What did I say you don't believe? If you want a source, I'll provide one, but you should have researched this stuff before making this post.
Yes. This is important and we should focus on this as well, but it should not be used to deflect from Trump's issues, and it's not the subject of this post.
But, yes. Fuck Hillary Clinton.
The fact you don't grasp the irony here is hilarious. You say there will be war with Russia, something you have no evidence of, while complaining about a lack of evidence in this instance.
What evidence d you have this will lead to war with Russia?
You are just fear mongering.
n/a Loud_Volume 2017-03-06
What is the goal then of all this baseless yelling about Russia involvement?
To get trump removed because globalists are butt hurt he's in office?
n/a Supermonsters 2017-03-06
There is very obviously Russian involvement why are you trying to sweep something under the carpet in a conspiracy sub?
What is your agenda here?
n/a Loud_Volume 2017-03-06
By the way, the only comments I have in the Donald are in relation to a crop circle thread. Not even politically related at all but I can see your desire to try to undermine what I'm trying to say.
n/a Supermonsters 2017-03-06
So you admit to posting in the sub? All he said is that you have.
n/a TheSheaButterFactory 2017-03-06
You edited your comment in a really dishonest way. This was not the comment I responded to at all. That's a really grimy thing for you to do.
n/a Loud_Volume 2017-03-06
And you're spreading lies in a dishonest way.
Saying I have several posts in the Donald when that is in fact completely false.
The few comments I have there are in regards to crop circles.
Lmao m a o
n/a ThatsPopetastic 2017-03-06
How do you feel about Trump trying to instigate a war with Iran?
n/a ruleten 2017-03-06
do you ever stop with your partisan nonsense?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWAFvIT-NHs
n/a ThatsPopetastic 2017-03-06
What does that have to do with Trump's views?
He's the president now. Not Clinton.
n/a ruleten 2017-03-06
or maybe you could get over it and stop posting butthurt Anti-Trump DNC rhetoric all day with your life
n/a ThatsPopetastic 2017-03-06
What if I just like debating?
n/a idontreadinbox 2017-03-06
What do you think pursuing all this Russia nonsense leads to? Patty cake? War, numskull! By skipping over due process right to the part where we accuse and act against a foreign state, IS advocating escalation (war). We played that game with Iraq, already. Let's learn from our hasty decisions and use caution this next time, eh?
Also, have you not noticed the idea that US wants to make Russia the bad guy because Russia isn't playing with US's monopoly money, and teaming up with other countries to follow suite? And what a surprise, US is in conflict with all those other countries (Lybia, Syria, Iraq...)
Now you're planting words and conclusions in peoples' minds. If it's an "obvious fact", why do you know this but the press/goverment don't? You better hurry up and inform them of what is so obvious!!
You mean twice, not several? One lied to his boss, not Congress or the public. The other accidentally answered a two part question in a way that was spun into "blatent lies". Neither were found of wrongdoing.
n/a Kind_Of_A_Dick 2017-03-06
Who's slaughtering citizens? Who's calling for a war with Russia? Why are you trying so hard for straw man here?
n/a Loud_Volume 2017-03-06
No straw men here but the sad excuse for war with Russia from the main stream medias agenda with no evidence whatsoever
n/a LowFructose 2017-03-06
Your many t_d posts indicate you have quite an agenda too.
n/a Loud_Volume 2017-03-06
Can you link me to my Donald posts? Because as I recall I have 0 posted threads there and about 5 comments in the Donald, none of which pertain to trump and are just links to a crop circle thread.
Keep spreading fake news though, like the main stream media does.
n/a Supermonsters 2017-03-06
You admitted to posting in that sub
n/a idontreadinbox 2017-03-06
posting and commenting are not the same thing. You just illustrated exactly what /r/polisucks and MSM do, intentionally misconstrue the facts.
n/a Supermonsters 2017-03-06
You're splitting hairs, everyone knew what he ment in context.
n/a idontreadinbox 2017-03-06
I knew what he/she meant, but it appeared you did not, which is an odd position to be in when debating someone. Especially if you are claiming he/she admitted something. If you knew, too, why say they "admitted posting" when they clearly said they did not post?
n/a Supermonsters 2017-03-06
They posted a comment on a thread. They submitted a response on a thread.
This argument is straight off of Fb and you know it. I will say that you've managed to completely distract from whatever your original post on here was.
n/a Supermonsters 2017-03-06
Ah you deleted the silly thread anyways
n/a TheAtlantanian 2017-03-06
Nice rebuttal. Really proved OP wrong there.
n/a shinebox_jimmy 2017-03-06
Where is the fucking evidence you retard, or should we all just bash Trump like /r/politics because it suits your fancy?
n/a TheSheaButterFactory 2017-03-06
I'd also add, if all these anonymous sources are fake, why is Trump complaining about leaks?
Leaks mean people in the know are releasing information, not the media just inventing things. In complaining about these leaks, Trump indicates there is accurate information getting out.
I don't just bash Trump because it suits my fancy. I bash him for the same reason I bash Clinton, he's a corrupt piece of shit.
n/a shinebox_jimmy 2017-03-06
What specifically are you claiming is happening inside the Trump Administration with regard to Russia? Is Trump a Manchurian Candidate? Did Russia fund Trump's campaign from the start? Does Russia secretly control Trump?
n/a TheSheaButterFactory 2017-03-06
I'm not saying any of this. I don't know how deep it is, but I doubt Trump is a Manchurian Candidate.
What I am saying is that there are way too many coincidences for Trump and Russia not to be in bed in some way.
The DNC gets hacked by Russia, as Trump acknowledges.
Trump's inner circle seems to have all these weird connections with Russia.
Trump has taken a really soft tone on Russia, and, specifically, Ukraine.
This is basic logic. This has legs.
This is a ridiculous comparison. We aren't just talking about Trump being nice to Russia, we're talking about Trump making a deal with Russia to hack his political opponent in exchange for lifting sanctions and taking a soft tone on Ukraine.
These are not at all the same.
That being said, I don't like Obama. I'm sure there's lots of dirt on Obama, but we aren't talking about Obama or Clinton, we're talking about Trump.
n/a ruleten 2017-03-06
Notice how none of your claims are sourced...
n/a rolltide26 2017-03-06
I mean, what's going on with the media and deep state is a major conspiracy, full of lies, and directed at Trump. Defending him is where the truth is at currently, because the Russian shit is made up.
n/a SamQuentin 2017-03-06
Dies anybody else find it grating when people conflate the words proof and evidence?
n/a Loud_Volume 2017-03-06
They are pretty similar in description I don't see a need to get my panties twisted over word choice
n/a Reedobandito 2017-03-06
Hint: It's intentional
n/a sheasie 2017-03-06
Well... that's only half the irony.
The other half:
The entire Russian hacking story originated from the leak of DNC emails -- from which we learned of absolute PROOF that Hillary had rigged the election process, and effectively stole the DNC primary from Bernie Sanders.
/uuhhh... yea, let that sink in ;)
n/a Loud_Volume 2017-03-06
Ah yes thank you for this. I'm gonna go ahead and add it to my post to remind everyone.
Thank you ❤️💜💚💙
n/a TheMysteriousFizzyJ 2017-03-06
Even if Russia was involved with the American elections, "what difference does it make?"
1) The American public still voted on it. The emails weren't falsified. The Democrats cheated Sanders and the public.
2) Foreign news is still news, and you can't stop Canada from talking about American elections. Just because Canada talks about US elections, doesn't invalidate them.
n/a newb4 2017-03-06
So I'm not really certain where this bellongs but I wanted to float it here and see what people think:
We know with fair certainty that Hillary and camp were for sale. Throughout the election, Hillary made repeated major mistakes that are uncharicteristic of a career politician with an experienced campaign staff.
So how likely might it be that Trump paid Hillary to take the nomination then throw the election?
n/a orionquest2016 2017-03-06
The legacy of Seth Rich!
n/a maluminse 2017-03-06
Amazing how hard msm is going at this assuming its truth. 1984 on steroids.
n/a StrizzMatik 2017-03-06
Thank you. Anyone buying the narrative is an easily-led fucking idiot.
n/a greyk47 2017-03-06
It does sound like the dems are completely lost trying to do anything to delegitimize the trump presidency, however I don't think it's a complete smoke screen. trump is a billionaire who has most definitely been intertwined with russian business deals. He's a billionaire, putin is a billionaire, the real scandal, and I guess it's not really that big of a surprise is that the world has already become a globalist government. The world is a playground for billionaires and only looks like a world of nations to us little people.
n/a Cuddels 2017-03-06
I would argue that just because classified info is still currently classified does not mean that it does not exist.
n/a Kancer86 2017-03-06
There never WILL be proof because it's just liberal fantasy and didn't happen
n/a Kind_Of_A_Dick 2017-03-06
Are you really telling members of a conspiracy forum "There's nothing to see here so stop looking"?
Now I'm more convinced there's something going on. I can't wait to see what comes of the investigation.
n/a Goddaqs 2017-03-06
All the pushback from the "conspiracy community" (the_D users) is really fucking questionable.
n/a TheMysteriousFizzyJ 2017-03-06
Maybe the pushback from you is questionable...
you know, with posting in r/conspiratard and this comment
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/5wjm7r/is_rconspiracy_being_divided_and_discredited_by/dec6bwa/
As u/kind_of_a_dick says, "Now I'm more convinced there's something going on". I can't wait for the investigation of Brock's groups.
n/a Goddaqs 2017-03-06
There is a lot of DUMB shit in this subreddit. What's the big deal if I think that white supremacists use r/conspiracy to push things like holocaust denial and stuff like that? Conspiracy is actually a really good way to spread propaganda.
n/a ansultares 2017-03-06
The conspiracy is the attempt to blame the Russians in the first place.
n/a PantsMcGillicuddy 2017-03-06
Then why does everyone around Trump keep lying about their Russian connections and stepping down when it's found out?
Last I knew, that's not how innocent people who are confident what they are doing is legal/ethical act.
n/a ansultares 2017-03-06
They don't know to keep lying, like a Clinton.
n/a PantsMcGillicuddy 2017-03-06
"Quick, no relevant answer! Deflect!"
n/a ansultares 2017-03-06
A deflection would have been, "Hillary should be in prison."
n/a OldeHickory 2017-03-06
That would also be a deflection. You still deflected. Why bring up Hillary at all?
n/a TheMysteriousFizzyJ 2017-03-06
There's plenty to see here. The collusion of media over someone they strongly dislike.
n/a EhrmantrautWetWork 2017-03-06
honestly, noticing the push back is the thing thats kept me most interested even as the stories ebb and flow. "Users" come in loud and in numbers saying its NOT a conspiracy, which is literally the least likely thing for conspiracy fans to say (IF they didnt have an agenda). Also, whenever there is breaking news on the topic (Flynn, Sessions, Dossier etc) this place goes NUTS. Weird things start happening. Front page flooded with human trafficking busts (if you go in the thread its prostitution stings) and self posts reminding people that pizzagate is still a thing that deserves attention.
Its so fishy I love it.
Plus reading "The Agency" and other stuff about these state sponsored trolls who seek to change public opinions is fascinating.
n/a Reedobandito 2017-03-06
Ooo this is why I like r/conspiracy too. It's such a strange microcosm with a super overt political/social bent, but it's constrained by what it holds itself out to be - which actually makes it a sort of honest battleground for both sides of the political spectrum. Something that's rather rare on every other subreddit
n/a BILLY_DA_KICKA 2017-03-06
Russian shills are very real. I saw one with an entire post history going back for months just mirroring word for word Kremlin talking points and pro-Putin drivel. Claimed to be an "American" too which was pretty spicy.
n/a EhrmantrautWetWork 2017-03-06
Read the Agency article by Adrian Chen in the New Yorker. The troll twitter accounts that attacked him for that effort went quiet for a while, then came back as pro trump Americans. He talks about this in his episode of the Longform podcast
n/a Loud_Volume 2017-03-06
What I'm saying is we don't want a war and that those screaming about Russian involvement have no proof whatsoever yet feel the need to fear monger the shit out of Russia and reignite the red scare
n/a sether22 2017-03-06
When did they ever say stop looking? Shit all OP is saying is theres no proof yet so eat shit and for anyone else check out dat post history and tell me they aint a brockbot
n/a Kind_Of_A_Dick 2017-03-06
Please do check out my post history. I have nothing to hide. As for calling me a shill and telling me to eat shit, both of those are against the sub rules.
n/a IntellisaurDinoAlien 2017-03-06
I checked your post history and found no posts or comments to any of the extremely anti-Trump subs or the anti-conspiracy subs either. You're also correct that they broke the subs rules.
n/a DiesIrae561 2017-03-06
Sorry, but even if that user had posted in purportedly "anti-Trump" subs, how would that necessarily make him a shillot?
I mean, a number of major users here are frequent posters on T_D...does that make them shills too?
n/a IntellisaurDinoAlien 2017-03-06
No, but a massive amount of posts to /r/esist or ETS might at least make it seem possible.
n/a Kind_Of_A_Dick 2017-03-06
I think what the mod was looking for was reasonable suspicion regarding calling me a shill. Calling someone a shill is different than showing evidence of it, so if I did have a bunch of posts in the extreme anti-Trump subs it would've fit into the idea of reasonable suspicion and therefore calling me a shill wouldn't have been an attack.
n/a elCheirinho 2017-03-06
I think Trump is retarded. You gonna ban me, is this a political sub?
n/a IntellisaurDinoAlien 2017-03-06
Perhaps you missed the context here, perhaps you just can't read very well. Who can say.
n/a IntellisaurDinoAlien 2017-03-06
I can say that brigaders from topminds are banned on sight though, ciao.
n/a adamdesautel 2017-03-06
I am a subscriber to this sub and Top Minds. People here can be both insightful/interesting and at other times be so full of cognitive dissonance it should be a case study.
n/a Kind_Of_A_Dick 2017-03-06
I added an edit to my post after seeing this was linked elsewhere. Hopefully I'm basically correct in how I read it.
n/a IntellisaurDinoAlien 2017-03-06
Pretty much exactly that, except the user would still have been punished without proof you are a shill. There's no reasoning with anti-conspiracy subs though, we are the bad guys, deal with it. Thanks for trying but they won't actually see your comment in the link.
I don't really give a damn what they think though tbh.
n/a yoavsnake 2017-03-06
Amazing how conspirators and trump supporters complain about 'feminazi and their safe space' but they are stuck in a bubble all the same.
n/a stylebros 2017-03-06
My guess is money and financial backing in exchange for friendly policies towards russia. Possibly a huge payout so Russia can drill oil in the artic.
Hidden in those trump tax returns is probably a bunch of donation money from putin
n/a razgriz301 2017-03-06
What if the real conspiracy is that the Russians never hacked the election and it was just fabricated to attack a political opponent?
n/a Kind_Of_A_Dick 2017-03-06
That would be a valid conspiracy theory, as would the opposite.
n/a SandpaperAsLube 2017-03-06
.
n/a razgriz301 2017-03-06
Looking for the part where politicians or Trump himself (not minding Michael Flynn Jr. who got fired because of his tweet) latched onto Pizzagate. I was referring to politicians/the IC fabricating things. Particularly this tweet from Clinton, which was shown to be false:
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/793250312119263233
Not people on reddit's r/conspiracy peddling conspiracy theories.
n/a Demarer 2017-03-06
When r/conspiracy is actually not ''investigating'' one of the biggest conspiracies in recent days. What the fuck has happened to the conspiracy folks? Strange looking clouds used to be enough proof.
n/a polisgay 2017-03-06
Look at that, outsiders don't understand the community they are trying to manipulate, what a shock. I love that the counter argument, "I consider you people morons, why aren't you falling for my obvious lies?!" That worked so well last year, Brock, keep it coming.
n/a PM_ME_YOUR_DICKS_GRL 2017-03-06
Your account is one month old. Get out of here with that "outsiders don't understand" bullshit lmao.
n/a polisgay 2017-03-06
I make new accounts frequently to prevent doxxing attempts. I've been here for years and in the conspiracy community since before reddit existed.
n/a PM_ME_YOUR_DICKS_GRL 2017-03-06
Weird. It's almost like the people you're accusing of being outsiders could be doing the same thing.
n/a polisgay 2017-03-06
Yes, a conspiracy theorist would definitely say, "funny shaped clouds used to be enough for you people."
n/a PM_ME_YOUR_DICKS_GRL 2017-03-06
A conspiracy theorist would also not immediately dismiss any scandal surrounding a sitting US President simply because they support that US President, but here we are with OP..
n/a polisgay 2017-03-06
OP is dismissing it because there is no evidence, but that doesn't change anything about the obvious outsider comments suggesting that we should believe the MSM narrative about Trump and being surprised that we won't buy whatever they're selling.
n/a PM_ME_YOUR_DICKS_GRL 2017-03-06
And yet multiple front-page posts about how Obama totally wiretapped Trump, despite the only evidence being "Trump said so."
So from your definition, it sounds like outsiders have taken over /r/conspiracy.
OP also states that there's absolute proof Clinton "rigged the election process" and yet, there isn't. So I guess OP's an outsider too.
n/a polisgay 2017-03-06
Where is CNN reporting on that? And yes, there is a ridiculous amount of proof that the primary was rigged. And your are changing why I said he was an outsider. His language gives it away, not beliefs.
n/a -Teekey- 2017-03-06
He didn't say "you people". And he's absolutely right. The standard for proof 'required' seems to change for some people depending entirely on the context (usually depending on whether it is positive of negative towards Trump).
n/a polisgay 2017-03-06
The actual words don't change that it's obviously something only an outsider would say.
n/a AdviseMyAdvice 2017-03-06
Personally I find it to be much more of a conspiracy that "respected" news outlets like NYT, WaPo, and CNN would be pushing the Russia narrative without any proof.
...
Oh the proof is our Intelligence Community? Are you talking about the same IC that straight up lied to congress under oath and wouldn't think twice about lying again to advance their agenda? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwiUVUJmGjs
We're still here. You're just witnessing a lot of bullshit narratives + shills have invaded this sub.
n/a Demarer 2017-03-06
They push anything that get's them views. Basing a conspiracy on what the media does is only valid if what they push directly hurts the medias viewership numbers.
And while there is no definite proof there are a lot of strange coincidences surrounding the Trump administration regarding Russia. Dismissing them all is extremely strange for a sub labeled r/conspiracy. I mean Trump even gives Putin the most important thing, and that is legitimacy for the claims that the US is just as bad as Russia(which is ridiculous).
n/a AdviseMyAdvice 2017-03-06
Guess who had the opportunity to release that proof? Obama did! But I guess it must not have been that important to him (or they had nothing).
n/a ruleten 2017-03-06
Your post is so irrefutably stupid it makes my head hurt.
Aside from your unnecessary need to put an apostrophe in the word "gets" you made the following statement:
"Basing a conspiracy on what the media does is only valid if what they push directly hurts the medias viewership numbers."
Besides that statement literally being a non-fact (especially given media outlets CONTRADICT ONE ANOTHER), you parlay your opinion into claiming that the USA is somehow more moral than Russia.
I'd love for you to elaborate on your idea the nation that is currently attacking half the world toppling governments including it's own and feeding its citizens nothing but leftist propaganda is somehow good or more moral than Russia.
n/a Demarer 2017-03-06
We can also talk in German if my English is too hard for you to understand.
Because they have different audiences. Fox tried to be anti Trump but it hurt their ratings so they became pro Trump. CNN covers Trump negatively because that's what their audience wants. Fox and CNN have widely different audiences so they run with different stories.
Obviously the US and almost every other country is morally superior to Russia.
Where did I say the US is good. I think the US is way shittier than it could be but Russia is just on another level. How is the US feeding you nothing but leftist propaganda but Fox news and Breitbart are somehow allowed to exist? Look at what Fox news did to Obama or what John Oliver does to Trump, the US and Russia are not comparable when it comes to freedom of the press.
n/a ruleten 2017-03-06
Notice how you offer literally no reasons that Russia is bad, let alone one that the US is not also guilty of?
n/a Demarer 2017-03-06
I offered you freedom of the press because that's what you focused on, how does that not count?
The only issue I could possibly think of where both are equally bad is warmongering so feel free to name any other issue and I will try my best to educate you.
n/a ruleten 2017-03-06
Freedom of press? Just today InfoWars was banned from Facebook and James Corbett is currently on the front page of this subreddit complaining about censorship from organizations that are SUPPOSED TO BE NONPARTISAN.
https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/838733344439422977
other things that are also true include this:
https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/838870290453114880
of course the only response is to ATTACK the source of the information, since thats about the only way to refute it.
n/a Demarer 2017-03-06
Freedom of press has nothing to do with Facebook, Facebook is a private company that can do whatever they want. Try post an anti Trump comment on Infowars and you'll get banned as well and I wouldn't even criticize them for it, it's their website(and the same is true for Facebook).
The difference is, if you try to pull infowars level shit against the Russian government in Russia you'll go to prison or get poisoned.
Like holy shit mate, you could have picked your battle and talked about something were the US might get close to Russia but you picked freedom of press of all things.
n/a ruleten 2017-03-06
I didn't realize Seth Rich's murder had been solved. My apologies.
n/a Demarer 2017-03-06
What a weak comment, have a nice day.
n/a ruleten 2017-03-06
Why because it doesnt fit your narrative?
They murdered him, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it.
Sorry to burst your ideological bubble
n/a Demarer 2017-03-06
And for every Seth Rich there are 10 similar cases in Russia. That's why your answer(even if your claim was true) is ridiculous.
n/a oneinfinitecreator 2017-03-06
Like what?
Flynn's conversation was perfectly legal and sanctioned by the government (which is why they had records to listen to and ensure he didn't break any laws).
Session's meeting with the Russian Ambassador was scheduled by the Obama administration as an educational program for senators on certain issues (which is why McCaskill and others also met with the same ambassador0.
So what other 'strange coincidences' are we talking about? I'd like to have my view expanded if it can be.
n/a Demarer 2017-03-06
Flynn's conversation was about non sanctioned topics or what I find likelier that he was ordered to talk about the sanctions but didn't disclose it officially. Trump was warned by the intelligence community that Flynn did that but Trump didn't take action until the media got wind of it.
Sessions tried to lie about the meeting. The extremely likely case that Russia tried to influence the elections. And then the circumstance that Trump goes on ridiculous Twitter tirades every time the media unveils something about Russia so that the media covers that instead.
Saying there are no indications that he has ties to Russia is ridiculous, more investigations have to be done though before we know for sure either way.
n/a oneinfinitecreator 2017-03-06
Flynn was cleared of all wrongdoing and criminal activity by the FBI after the fact - meaning whatever he said about sanctions was perfectly legal and allowed. His only crime was in not reporting everything back to Pence, which may have been inadvertent.
You cannot prove Sessions lied about anything. He attended his meeting with the Russian ambassador as a Senator on the Senate Armed Services Committee and was not involved with the Trump campaign at the time. He is being attacked on semantics and context - he took the question as whether he had met as a Trump campaign member, which the answer was 'no', but he didn't include his time as a Senator before then. That's fairly understandable, but ultimately he should have clarified or remembered. Either way - its a pretty weak reason to call for someone to resign. Their meeting was scheduled by the Obama administration - it wasn't even set up by his own people.
If the Russia/Trump stuff is completely fabricated by the media working along with the deep state, why wouldn't he respond with outrage? Trump using twitter is no longer a valid point - we all know he uses Twitter. It doesn't mean anything, and half the time his tweets are true but the media keeps parroting lies anyways.
The investigations have been done. Do you think Obama and Hillary weren't looking high and low before the election? Do you think people are sitting on evidence? It's a joke. They are making all this shit up, and they have NOTHING to substantiate it. According to Wikileaks and Julian Assange, they got the DNC hacked emails from an insider (some think Seth Rich (RIP), Guccifer has singled out Warren Flood) and not from the Russians, but hey - they're just the people who released the hack.
Have you wondered why the international community hasn't even commented on this? Because there is no proof. You cannot go to the international community without some evidence of wrong-doing, and the deep state can't come up with a single thing. That should say enough.
n/a Demarer 2017-03-06
Like you are literally just dismissing the coincidences, Pence knew Flynn lied to him, yet they only fired him once it got leaked. And it might not be reason enough for Sessions to resign but it is a coincidence that you are just dismissing.
Obama wasn't looking, official investigations would have been leaked and helped Trump. Hillary was looking just like every other candidate before her(who often found nothing when there was something to be found). You seem way too sure that there is nothing, seems dishonest.
Because the US is the most powerful country in the world and Trumps temper seems unstable.
n/a oneinfinitecreator 2017-03-06
Don't look at the major headlines today then... you might be in for a surprise! Obama is now being accused of spying on Trump before the election. It's almost perfect.
I'm going off of evidence. You are the one who's sure there is something, but you can't provide any proof of it - yet i'm the one who's dishonest???
I don't know if you can say that. China is much stronger economically than the US right now. The US is only stronger in terms of military might and influence, but a Russia/China alliance might have them beat even in that realm...
n/a Demarer 2017-03-06
Accused. I knew the headlines, but if Trump had proof we'd have seen it. And spying on Trump is not the same as looking into all prior communications.
That's where you are dishonest. I never claimed there is proof, just that there are a lot of coincidences piling up and no reason to dismiss them all. You then claimed there are no coincidences and when I listed them you just dismissed them, that is dishonest.
n/a oneinfinitecreator 2017-03-06
The Director of the National Intelligence lied before congress about their ability to spy on pretty much any (and every) person in America. Why would they suddenly not have that ability now? And who are they running searches on and why? All of that is valid.
I am only arguing for the standard by which our legal system works - innocent until proven guilty. I'm not sure how a sanctioned talk between an incoming national security adviser and a Russian diplomat, and then a meeting with Sessions that was organized as a Democratic administration event is 'a bunch of coincidences piling up'? Please substantiate your words. What are these 'coincidences'?
Coincidence - a remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent causal connection
What was remarkable about Flynn speaking to the Russian diplomat?
What was remarkable about Sessions being signed up by Obama's admin for an educational meeting with a Russian ambassador?
n/a TheMysteriousFizzyJ 2017-03-06
More like, why is the story of Russians being pushed when there is never any evidence in any reports?
That's plenty of proof and lack of it to question the narrative.
Try harder. We're going to stop you from causing us to go into nuclear war.
n/a Demarer 2017-03-06
Nobody is talking about Nuclear war. What Russia is doing(in the election) is fair game, cant blame them. What Trump is doing(if the allegations are true) is treason.
n/a williamsates 2017-03-06
Treason is aiding and abetting the enemy in a time of war. We are not in a war with Russia.
n/a oneinfinitecreator 2017-03-06
What are the allegations? I can't find anybody who can tell me exactly what the motives and end-game of this Trump/Russia relationship might be... What does the final picture look like if Trump & Russia win?
n/a Demarer 2017-03-06
Either nobody knows or nobody has released the information. Some people talk about the golden shower stuff but I find it much more likely that it is a simple tit for tat. Russia releases anti hillary information and in turn Trump gives Putin some material to use as propaganda. Trump saying Russia isn't any worse than the US for example is an absolute gold mine for Putin.
n/a oneinfinitecreator 2017-03-06
Golden shower stuff?
Trump gives Putin some material to use as propaganda?
What is an absolute gold mine for Putin?
I can't make any sense of what you're saying. I also can't make out a single viable threat or motive. It's not like Trump and Putin can do whatever they want because he's president - if they are linked into making shady business deals, the ethics people will be on top of them like flies on shit.
The only motive I can make out for Russia to get Trump in power is purely to try to dodge a third world war that Hillary was talking up the entire campaign trail as tensions grew in Syria. I don't blame them for not wanting to start an armed conflict in their backyard over long-held assets in the middle east.
n/a Demarer 2017-03-06
Not sure you read my comment.
Your question
Part of my last comment
How does that not answer your question?
They will be over Trump, they won't be over Putin.
Really? That is the only motive you can come up with? Like nothing about sanctions, oil prices etc. (not that I claim this to be the true motives but surely an option)?
Clinton talked about a no fly zone, that's hardly a WW(in fact the opposite). Nobody wants an actual war with Russia, Russia is already beaten in almost every way.
n/a oneinfinitecreator 2017-03-06
How is Trump saying that the US and Russia participate in similar activities a 'Gold Mine' for Putin? That makes zero sense to me, both logically and figuratively.
Why does Putin matter? Trump is who matters on the US side of things, no?
Putin doesn't need Trump to do that. Putin's already a pretty popular guy in Russia.
The sanctions were in place over the disagreement in Syria. As soon as Trump and Putin agreed to fight ISIS together, they fell off as they should have. Now - are you going to argue that having a united front against ISIS is a bad thing? Or are you one who thinks we should arm and fund terrorists so we can get rid of the terrorists?
You don't seem to understand how geopolitics plays out. Clinton also started with no-fly zones in Libya - do you remember how that turned out?
n/a Demarer 2017-03-06
Because that is what Putin does. Whenever a critic of him is being shot he just points at the US and says "They are bad too". It's an old soviet tactic called whataboutism. Now the President of the United states literally made the same argument. The opposition uses the US as the example of how better and democratic Russia could look, Trump saying it's just as bad is a huge blow to the opposition.
Indeed he is. Though that is mainly due to the annexation of Crimea and the current economical situation is eroding that jump(though more of the government as a whole). It's only so long that the patriotic fervor he inspired can make up for the ongoing recession.
I don't remember it ending in a nuclear World War.
n/a oneinfinitecreator 2017-03-06
never said nuclear - i don't think Putin is that dumb.
n/a vicefox 2017-03-06
I personally am. If you want to see something discussed here, make threads about it and bring it up!
My biggest question is why is there collusion between Trump and Russia? I'm pretty certain it actually exists, but what is the purpose? How is Trump benefiting? I can't really believe this is all about money.
n/a dukey 2017-03-06
If they had evidence on Trump, they would have used it by now.
n/a ansultares 2017-03-06
They wouldn't have even let him be inaugurated.
n/a ThatsPopetastic 2017-03-06
The official bipartisan investigation just started on Feb 17.
n/a ruleten 2017-03-06
he's been a celebrity in the public eye for more than 30 years lmfao.
n/a ThatsPopetastic 2017-03-06
??
n/a ansultares 2017-03-06
This is the only truth I've seen so far.
n/a ThatsPopetastic 2017-03-06
For the sake of discussion, here is the official Intelligence Report
n/a idontreadinbox 2017-03-06
That's a report, but where is the proof?
n/a DecoyKid 2017-03-06
Just like there's yet to be any proof that Hillary and a secret cabal of pedophiles are running a child slavery ring outside of a pizza shop. You can't have it both ways you know. A lack of concrete evidence means you can't claim something is 100% true, which sadly seems to fly over a lot of people's heads.
n/a megadump44 2017-03-06
His name was Seth Rich.
n/a brokenpixel 2017-03-06
You believe in Pizzagate. Can you show me PROOF for that?
n/a idontreadinbox 2017-03-06
The demand for proof regarding "bad Russia" is more apt right now because the MSM start every newscast talking about it, without proof. Same with blogs, newspapers, and especially /polisucks /newzzz and the 100 new anti-trump subs this month that miraculously reach top of /all.
n/a PantsMcGillicuddy 2017-03-06
"Please stop questioning the shady shit your government does!"
n/a Loud_Volume 2017-03-06
We never said that.
We just don't want to go to war over baseless words said by war mongering retards
n/a PantsMcGillicuddy 2017-03-06
But you're willing to ruin lives and businesses over triangles and handkerchiefs.
"No evidence or proof" would depend on what you would accept. I think having multiple people be clearly deceptive about their contacts and dealing with Russians and then step down once they were uncovered is something I would call evidence. At least enough to take the topic seriously and want an actual investigation.
What would be acceptable evidence to you of Russian involvement to at least start an investigation?
n/a ruleten 2017-03-06
Over triangles and handkerchiefs?
Or DKIM verified emails involving kids in hot tubs, the open sexualization of food and children, the inexplicable wealth and importance of James Alefantis, videos of Marina explaining the spirit cooking process herself, etc.
But yeah, triangles. (Oh btw those triangles are recognized pedophile symbols) just another coincidence of course.
All the pizza shops I go to feature the owner rolling around on the floor in a dog collar, happens to me at Pizza Hut all the time.
n/a PantsMcGillicuddy 2017-03-06
Any comment on the actual topic at hand?
n/a ruleten 2017-03-06
You are literally the person who brought it up. Just because you won't accept the evidence doesn't mean there is none.
Kind of like how Hillary Clinton should be locked up and everyone knows her husband is a rapist, but nobody does anything about it.
As far as the topic at hand. The Kremlin uses typewriters and the democrats are desperate to continue war in Syria, Ukraine, Yemen etc. something Russia does not want.
I choose to side with the people helping remove ISIS From Syria (a DNC funded terrorist group) and giving the land back to their legally and democratically elected leader.
Even if they did hack those stupid fucks, it was for the good of the world and something America is guilty of tenfold.
Trump's opposition Clinton, was integral in the destruction of the country of Libya, one of the most prosperous African nations of all time. It amazes me that BLM supports her, when she clearly does not support them. They also recently took the Clinton Foundation out of Haiti, but everyone paying attention know that's because they didn't want to get busted for human trafficking ;)
Speaking of human trafficking! Did you know thats what arguing about refugees and immigrants is? Mainstream corporate human trafficking!
Shut the borders down and stop these sick fucks and the process of bombing people out of their homes and telling them where to live and assimilate. It's fucking nonsense.
n/a Supermonsters 2017-03-06
Who is talking about war?
n/a SquareShapeCloud 2017-03-06
Just a reminder: Trump wants to increase our nuclear arsenal and pillage the Middle East for oil, and also appointed Bannon, who wants war with China and a holy war with Islam. But sure, liberals are the war mongering ones.
n/a WhyMnemosyne 2017-03-06
Enough proof that Obama imposed sanctions, enough proof that Flynn resigned because he discussed the election meddling and sanctions with the Russian Diplomat.
n/a skralogy 2017-03-06
What a load of crap. Well if there is nothing why doesn't Trump put out his tax returns? Why did manafort and Flynn have to step down? Why did Sessions have to lie about not meeting with any Russians?
There is something there or else trump would welcome an investigation so he can move on and put all this past him.
Your just another Donald scab trying to preach this bullshit.
n/a 00OO00 2017-03-06
There actually is proof. I would classify it as slightly more than circumstantial but significantly less than a smoking gun. Granted, the information I have looked at is all public domain so I have no idea what classified material the three letter agencies have.
So Podesta clicked a link in his email that contained a Bitly link. That Bitly link can be traced to a Bitly account used by a hacking group named Fancy Bear. It was one of almost 9,000 links that Fancy Bear created in a massive phishing scheme.
Those are facts. They are objective and you cannot argue them. However, the subjective part is the link between Fancy Bear and the Russian Government. A lot of people believe that there are strong ties to the Russian Government. I really don't have an opinion on this link.
Now I haven't done a lot of research into the DNC hack; this is just for the Podesta "hack".
n/a KikiCVIII 2017-03-06
Oh....so now /r/conspiracy needs concrete proof to a conspiracy to believe it? That's convenient timing.
n/a FinancialFeudalism 2017-03-06
Waiting for the shills to comment on this thread lol...
While I am not trying to defend Trump (we should be skeptical of ALL government and the private interests corrupting them), this MSM Russia narrative is not the thing that concerns me with this administration. Makes you wonder why they are hesitant to report on the ACTUAL worrying issues....
n/a alvarezg 2017-03-06
How would any of us know the status of these investigations, one way or the other?
n/a blakdart 2017-03-06
Question. What percentage of the population believes in this lie?
n/a paulie_purr 2017-03-06
Absolutely the only people I've seen bringing up the concept of "WAR WITH RUSSIA!!!!" are pro-Trump talking-point repeaters and critics of those trying to figure out if the Trump campaign colluded with Russian ops and/or Assange in order to win the election. Glenn Greenwald warns of Dem hypocrisy and the potential dangers of red scare 2.0, but even he won't claim that anyone is pushing for real WMD-type war initiation. Ditto anyone from the intelligence community or any gov official. Well, besides that Putin-surrogate Russian official and Trump himself.
Also, whenever WAR WITH RUSSIA!!!! is suggested (by Trump devotees and critics of those considering/investigating conspiracy) no attempt is made to debunk the ties between Trump and co and Russian oligarchs, banks, former mobsters, etc, we just get the general refrain of NOTHING TO SEE HERE.
If Putin tried to influence the election, that's fair game as far as I'm concerned. If Team Trump played a role in it, that's collusion and/or treason, and that's what this conspiracy theory is all about.
n/a EhrmantrautWetWork 2017-03-06
why are these threads always deleted a few days later?
n/a honkimon 2017-03-06
Dude. The new Zelda game has so many triangles in it but you won't see one neckbeard questioning it's integrity!
n/a Goddaqs 2017-03-06
There is a lot of DUMB shit in this subreddit. What's the big deal if I think that white supremacists use r/conspiracy to push things like holocaust denial and stuff like that? Conspiracy is actually a really good way to spread propaganda.
n/a ThatsPopetastic 2017-03-06
Where in that report did they say there was no proof?
n/a ruleten 2017-03-06
he's been a celebrity in the public eye for more than 30 years lmfao.
n/a mki401 2017-03-06
RT is not non-biased. Full stop. Saying as much simply shows your inherent bias.
n/a idontreadinbox 2017-03-06
posting and commenting are not the same thing. You just illustrated exactly what /r/polisucks and MSM do, intentionally misconstrue the facts.
n/a Demarer 2017-03-06
Not sure you read my comment.
Your question
Part of my last comment
How does that not answer your question?
They will be over Trump, they won't be over Putin.
Really? That is the only motive you can come up with? Like nothing about sanctions, oil prices etc. (not that I claim this to be the true motives but surely an option)?
Clinton talked about a no fly zone, that's hardly a WW(in fact the opposite). Nobody wants an actual war with Russia, Russia is already beaten in almost every way.
n/a williamsates 2017-03-06
Please show evidence that only 2 groups used this 'unique' malware in the past. What are we going do to just take the word that it is what the welivesecurity telemetry data showed?
n/a MartnThaKing 2017-03-06
Maybe you should look into their campaigns a little more, there is a reason every security firm attributes apt 28 & 29 to Russian Intel and have for years, this isn't a new thing.
Yes, x agent is a unique identifier for this group, can you find me an example of it being used by any other group?
What does the Ukraine thing have to do with the topic?
Honestly it's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about, I mean seriously, you thought you could get x-agent on CNET? lmao
n/a oneinfinitecreator 2017-03-06
never said nuclear - i don't think Putin is that dumb.
n/a IntellisaurDinoAlien 2017-03-06
Perhaps you missed the context here, perhaps you just can't read very well. Who can say.
n/a IntellisaurDinoAlien 2017-03-06
I can say that brigaders from topminds are banned on sight though, ciao.
n/a idontreadinbox 2017-03-06
I knew what he/she meant, but it appeared you did not, which is an odd position to be in when debating someone. Especially if you are claiming he/she admitted something. If you knew, too, why say they "admitted posting" when they clearly said they did not post?