It would be extremely difficult to "prove" Russian hacking. A timeline showing for example that the first Wikileaks DNC emails leak came out less than a half hour after the "pussy" leak does not prove anything except that Julian Assange may have tried to mitigate the damage to Donald Trump.

Russia certainly did try to influence the election through propaganda, but this is nothing like "hacking" and also something that cannot be stopped without extreme restrictions on free speech. We know this just by watching a few hours of Russia Today.

The only information that would inculpate the Donald Trump administration is evidence of collusion between Russian officials and Donald Trump operatives. Based on what we have seen with Michael Flynn and Carter Page, this is worth continued investigation.

Another point: We need to separate the issue of Russian collusion from the issue of policy toward Russia as much as possible. Democrats have merged these two things so totally that the investigation of Donald Trump risks escalation of tensions.

Russia certainly did try to influence the election through propaganda,

I would like to see the list of organizations that didn't try to influence the election with propaganda...

stuff investigated for over a year is worth continued investigation

do you know how long it takes to find a solitary flag in front of a camera with nothing but flight paths and faint noises or a masked criminal with comparatively little in way of information. Not long if you are stuck in a basement on google using moms electric, just think about that if you have access to x keyscore. To think intelligence would have missed something takes a certain approach. Something to consider whilst also checking out the rosatom stuff if you haven't already.

I definitely need more than "They had an IP address East of Germany! Russia confirmed!" That has seemed to be enough evidence for the IC in some of their statements to the public, and it proves nothing.

I agree. If the hacking had an IP address in Russia that would almost certainly rule out Russia.

Isn't the first step of hacking spoofing your IP address? Why would the Russians hide their IP address with another Russian IP address?

If you're the Russian government yes. If you're a random hacker in Russia you might not give a fuck because hacking anything not located in Russia is actually legal. They only prosecute hacking inside their borders.

random hacker

opposed to a random hacker working for putin? sorry to clarify any random hacker doesn't constitute "Russian hacking"

Yeah, random as in some dude in a basement doing it for the "Lulz" or profit without ties to the Russian government.

The foundation of the Russian hacking narrative was this thing.

Professionally speaking, it is shit. Using that as a foundation for attribution is bush league and fails to point to any actual "evidence". Furthermore, the source code has been available for some time so no speculation about the spooks having tools to populate malware with patterns used by other groups is required.

Also, since the server wasn't turned over to the Gov. you're just taking the word of an opportunistic startup that is going to do what their customer pays them to do. Meanwhile, they don't have subpoena power or any ability to expand the investigation beyond the customer prem so they really have no standing to be definitive on any data point.

As a comparative example, here is a 110M PDF that details the investigation of the OPM breach. The Chinese did that one but everyone seems to have forgotten that there are other countries in this world other than Russia.

Russia could have hacked DNC and Podesta's email though. Just because there's no real evidence that says that did doesn't mean that they didn't. It could have been multiple parties involved also. The emails referenced apparently successful phishing attacks and someone putting spyware on machines in the office.

That brings us to the point, even if the Russians did "hack the election", they didn't modify the contents of the emails. We know this due to the DKIM signature that is created when the email is transferred. If anyone changed their vote due to the "election being hacked", it was due to the contents of the emails, not just the proof that the DNC was negligent to secure their data.

Nothing could convince people who don't already believe the evidence already presented. If any hard evidence comes up, they will say it's fake or doctored.

Evidence already presented?

Yes

So the crowdstrike report?

https://www.reddit.com/r/TrumpInvestigation/

Not seeing any evidence there. We have differing opinions on "evidence" or did you assume "circumstantial" would be enough for me?

Circumstantial evidence is all we have right now, especially as the invistigation is still ongoing.

Circumstancial evidence is also admissiable for a court and can be enough on its own if it's overwhelming.

Just be careful how heavily you back an idea and get caught up in the hype of it when you only have circumstantial evidence. It can be enough in court, but I can promise you a POTUS will not be taken down by circumstantial evidence. That's too serious an accusation to not have proof. I see it's simply your opinion based on the circumstances and that's okay, but I'll withhold settling on a fixed position on this issue until it rules out other assertions. Intellectual honesty is important.

True enough

I'm not saying this confrontationally, but I only bring that point up cause I've often seen your presence on this sub being solely the pushing of the Trump/Russia theory. I'm simply trying to point out that you should remain more on the fence rather than pretend to have some superior insight or knowledge of the situation. It's okay to insist people look at all of the information regarding it, but to behave as though your perception is right without recognizing a lack of proof is a dangerous line to walk. You may want it to be true due to some disdain you hold, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And you should want with all your being it to not be true, because if so, it implies much darker days ahead. The installing of a Russian puppet is grounds for war; don't swing that accusation lightly even if it is very easy to from behind a keyboard.

I didn't take it confrontationaly, but thanks anyway. I think either extreme take on it is a bit silly. People who say Trump's campaign absolutely colluded with Russia is silly, and people who say that it's nothing and that we shouldn't look into it is silly.

My personal stance is that there is enough circumstantial evidence out there that makes it important to at least to investigate it thoroughly.

Just sketchy who is in charge of the investigation. This being /conspiracy means that people are going to question IC motives. That's why you get so much pushback trying to push this idea. There's a deeper game at play; nothing goes under the radar. The truth is known. At this point it's just a game to mold public opinion of the chosen narrative that works with the actual truth. If it's ALL true, that Trump was supported to the presidency by Russia and it's been collusion all along, that's an act of war and treason. If it was just "influenced the election" then that's hardly anything that will lead to substantial charges. It warrants an investigation to claim due diligence, but there's just as much sketchy stuff pointing towards a setup as their is circumstantial stuff on that /trumpinvestigation sub. You just often come across as certain of your assessment when we all know that no one outside the highest levels of investigation have even the slightest idea. You seem reasonable now, but I've seen insistence and condescension elsewhere.

Not true! Find that server, turn it over the FBI and if they come back with Russia I would be happy to have the confirmation.

The election was stolen by removing 20 to 30 million voters from voter registration rolls since 2012 along with voter ID laws that include making it very hard to re-register and obtain one of those voter IDs.

The Comey letter and the Russian meddling were just extras.

One, hard evidence that it was Russia. Names, dates, times, IP addresses, independent verification by a neutral party.

Two, proof that it isn't misattribution using the CIA tools developed for that exact purpose.

Three, the DNC allows forensic examination of the servers they refused to allow.

Even if Russia interfered in the election (which is possible), I will only care if America can be proven to have never interfered with another country's democratic process. If America has at any time done the same thing to another country then you're being hypocrites so stfu.

This story has exposed the left as a bunch of media worshiping gullible lunatics. And before I get a thousand replies, of course the right has issues too.

How about if there was proof that the actual vote was modified in any way, and this phrase wasn't just a blatant misconstruence of the actual facts of what happened? That phrase was designed to misinform the vast majority of dipshits that only read headlines.

There has never been even the vaguest bit of evidence that the machines or the process of voting was interfered with by the Russians. The whole premise is a lie designed to prey on ignorance.

There has never been even the vaguest bit of evidence that the machines or the process of voting was interfered with by the Russians.

No one has claimed that, though? The claim is that it was a psy-op. One party's dirty laundry was aired, the other's wasn't. That gives the appearance that one side is dirty and the other is clean, when the truth is that both parties are dirty.

Hacking voting machines is not the only way to affect an election.

Because Wikileaks, the people who pubk the leaks, said it was a dnc leaker. And whistleblowers are now publishing the fact that Hillary camp made up the Russian narrative within 24 hours of losing. Even if trump and putin were lovers it would have nothing to do with the election.

Definitive proof? Start with a NATO confession of trying to frame Putin with "expansionist aggression" especially in Ukraine. Why did Russia put its country right in the middle of our new NATO base territory?

Definitive proof? Start with a NATO confession of trying to frame Putin with "expansionist aggression" especially in Ukraine. Why did Russia put its country right in the middle of our new NATO base territory?

So that's another "no" on the credible docs then?

https://www.reddit.com/r/TrumpInvestigation/