"The Russia-Hysteria Is Bullshit "

"Not sure if there is genuine debate in this sub"

Thanks for the lol

The entire premise of the Russia-hysteria is that they "hacked" the DNC/Podesta and gave the emails to Wikileaks.

No it isn't. For example, Mike Flynn's actions have nothing to do with your misleading narrative.

So what?

Well he seemingly lied about it to several folks in the government, as well as Trump's Admin hiring him against all advice.

Plus, Flynn isn't the only connection. I just don't feel like rehashing info that is widely available on this sub already.

Look, I don't think Trump himself colluded with Russia. But it seems plausible to likely that he was a Manchurian Candidate who was helped by foreign interests. What leads me to consider this is the numerous hidden connections that high profile campaign or Admin staff had with foreign interests. Some of those folks seemingly lied under oath (like Flynn) and others have direct connections to Putin or his henchmen.

So again, it seem plausible that the Russians tried to infiltrate the Trump campaign without his knowledge, then tried to influence the election so that those assets became valuable due to blackmail or carelessness. Seems much easier to do with an inexperienced leader whose ego seems to be as big as the Sun.

Your title says otherwise. Because x isn't proven, therefore a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p can't be proven either. Is basically your entire argument.

No it's not. The basis has always been, "what has russia done to interfere in the US elections". I'm reading through all these comments and the points have been made. You have a miscontued belief that everything ties back to the DNC back when it's just clearly not the case.

Funny how the "but russia" scaremongers are backing away from the DNC hack theory.

"Hacked the DNC" is only what the media keeps yammering on about not what actually occurred.

Here is the former CIA Director's statement to the Congressional committee.

Testifying in front of the House Intelligence Committee Tuesday, Brennan said that Russia “brazenly interfered” in the 2016 elections and had been in active contact with members of the Trump campaign.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/23/politics/john-brennan-house-intelligence-committee/index.html

Gowdy asked the question.

I wouldn't bother with this guy. He will intentionally miss your points and would argue if you said that the sky is blue. I wonder why?

Well you've also got the Podesta emails. Roger Stone needs to explain how he knew Podesta's emails were going to be released months before they actually were.

The whole crux of the issue is Russia helped Trump and then Trump would help Russia. A Quid pro quo relationship. So Trump appoints a shit ton of pro Russia people to his administration.

The only change to the party platform from the Trump campaign was to oppose arming Ukraine rebels against Russia.

Flynn then did get caught promising to lift sanctions. Flynn also did appear at a dinner for RT and THEN LIED ABOUT ON OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT FORMS. This is why Flynn isn't cooperating. Providing false or concealing information on a SF-86 is a felony.

Flynn lied about those contacts and is now refusing to cooperate with the Congressional investigation.

And what about Manafort? And having Russian diplomats in the oval office for the first time, and giving them classified intel to boot?

The point that is being made is that the sketchy ties that Trump and his administration have to Russia is a problem in itself, unrelated to the DNC hack.

Haven't been watching Maddow. What I really wonder is if Trump has ties to the Russian mob. How the hell did he manage to put together a group - starting with his campaign - that is so strongly pro-Russia? I think it's possible the Russians were behind the DNC hack, but that really isn't my main concern. Even if that did happen, I think Trump would have been unaware (this is all speculation). And I say that as someone that is strongly anti-Trump.

Yes, and Trump is one of them.

But of course we can't foment hysteria for a country who openly supported the worst terrorist attacks on US soil or on various US military concerns in recent history. That would be down right un-American and would never help you get elected. But Russia, well that's a boogeyman we know and love.

That's exactly how I feel too, I dgaf what shenanigans happened during the election, as much as I'm concerned about the other russian ties he potentially has.

Well, that's why we have investigations, isn't it? But if you no longer trust the investigators, and we no longer trust the investigated, what more is there to say? We can write off every point as a lie and confirm our own biases for eternity.

How can we even talk about this productively anymore?

I don't have to trust the investigators because investigations usually uncover proof. If they had proof then it wouldn't matter if you believed then or not

Actually you have investigations AFTER a crime has been committed. In this case they are having investigations trying to find a crime and still haven't found anything.

To me it looks like parts of US society haven't got the Salem witch hunts out of their system yet.

You forgot the "if you believe it, you're an idiot"

I'm not really sure why people refuse to believe the Trump-Russia thing is more than just emails. There is loads more intertwined with a lot of people around Trump.

Don't ignore it, there was enough evidence of Russian meddling that the President imposed new sanctions against Russia for just that, meddling in the U.S. Election.

Of course Obama did. He wants to delegitimize Trump as much as anyone. That isn't actually evidence of anything.

Wow, that is impressive denial.

I mean, its a pretty silly thing to say. Because someone with a vested interest (Obama) imposed sanctions for supposed Russian meddling in our election, that is somehow evidence for Russian meddling in our election. There is no logic in that.

The sanctions involved not only the U.S but our NATO Allies, There was no pusback for the sanctions and one reason is the Russians have been meddling all over Europe as well

Your comment says, Obama imposed sanctions for vested interests.

What "vested interests?"

And where is the logic in your own comment, it is simple denial.

Russians have been meddling all over Europe as well

Such a vague claim. How has Russia been meddling in Europe?

Here is a link to a conservative view on it, liberals call this source the dailyhailer.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/30/russia-may-have-done-to-us-what-theyve-done-in-europe-for-years/

And this:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/08/russia-europe-right-putin-front-national-eu

I could post more, but I think you want to cling to your view, what is the source of you disbelief?

All I ask for is evidence, but instead I get these op-ed pieces where people make ridiculous claims without backing them up. Journalism is such shit these days.

You want to attack others over their sources but you link directly to Sean Hannity's website? You just lost any shred of credibility you thought you might have had

First, I never attacked the source. I attacked the contents of the article. And as for my source, its literally a montage of Democrats stating that there is zero evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. Thoughts?

Ok, we can disagree, I say there was enough evidence that Russia meddled to cause the U.S. President to impose additional Russian sanctions.

You say no, and I am not going to watch Hannity, it is too early in the day to visit the vomitorium.

Its not Hannity talking, don't worry. I read your articles, you wont watch a video of Democrats speaking?

I don't watch television at all and only rarely video, reading is 10 times faster and I just can't stand to watch or listen to liars of any stripe.

Ironic because the video is of Democrats and for once they are telling the truth.

A video of out of context clips, right? No thanks, and you don't like it when it is done by liberals. It is propaganda to promote a narrative, nothing else.

Way to dismiss it because it goes againt your narrative. It is literally clips of Democrats and officials in our IAs agree that there is no evidence for Trump-Russia collusion. There is nothing to take out of context. Its clear that you will cling to that narrative no matter what, so I'm done trying to convince you of what should be obvious.

I have no objection to you sticking to your beliefs, I do object to you pretending to know what I think and believe especially when I clearly state different views than you claim.

Amazing how many upvotes this bimbo gets so deep in the conversation thread! Meanwhile, your responses are far more rational, and are all at 0 or lower. Fascinating.

This post didn't reach the FP right?

Thank you. I believe that, this post reached the FP of r/conspiracy but not of r/all. I am 99% sure that there is an inauthentic element that has come down really hard on r/conspiracy of late, if you know what I mean. I've noticed the same patterns of attacks, in addition to strange vote patterns that I just didn't see before. Its really something else, I find it hard to believe that we are now subject to propaganda almost no matter where we go.

Seriously... apparently, everyone here at r/conspiracy suddenly overwhelmingly agrees with the MSM narrative talking points, and thinks anyone challenging those talking points is a Russian pro-Trump alt-right nazi shill troll bot!

I can't stand this place recently. What was once the single greatest place on the internet, and one of the last places to find real news, has turned into r/politics.

Its almost like this place is full of shills for the Establishment, isn't it? That begs the question, why would shills for the Establishment be so interested in this sub, and in particular the Seth Rich story?

I love how the Seth Rich story is "OBVIOUSLY the conspiracy theory", but Russia hacking our elections is the one portrayed as truth. Meanwhile one theory actually has evidence to support it, while the other has evidence that, typically speaking, would be deemed a "crazy conspiracy theory".

It is indeed interesting that this little corner of the internet seems to have been the target of the establishments CTR (or whatever they call themselves now) efforts.

Is there any way to fight them?

Cough shills cough cough

Careful, accusations like that against the wrong users will get you banned for a violation of rule 10!

Unless you're calling someone a T_D shill, then it's totally cool...

/s

It's almost like people with half a brain can follow a conversation! And bimbo, really?

That's not evidence

Wow, that is impressive denial.

Jesus Christ... now THAT is some impressive denial!

You're saying it's 100% unfathomable that a sitting Democratic president would impose sanctions with the specific intentions of helping to delegitimize the opponent in the upcoming elections?

Keep in mind, we're talking about the same party that instructed the MSM to PROP UP the candidates that they thought HRC would have the best chance of beating, because they knew she would lose to a real candidate like a Kasich or a Rand Paul.

The only people you have to thank for facilitating a President Trump is the god damn DNC, not Russia.

I would say we have different opinions if you are suggesting the President risked alienating our trading partners financial status just to influence the election that was OVER when he imposed the sanctions.

Could you please explain what you mean by "risked alienating our trading partners financial status"?

And the fact that the election was over further supports the hypothetical scenario I proposed in my previous post. AFTER they realized they still lost (despite the entire establishment's best efforts), they needed a way to delegitimize the victory. The Russia meddling narrative was concocted as an attempt to do just that.

Not saying I'm right or you're wrong here, just trying to explain my POV. I would like some clarification for your first point, so I can try to better understand your POV and where you're coming from.

Ok, you think it was all politics, I don't, why argue?

Wow. Seriously? Is that how you look at the world? If so, that's seriously disturbing.

Trying to understand what the otherside's POV is on any matter is the only way we can ever hope to progress as a country, let alone a species.

Your response clearly demonstrates that you're not here to learn, you're not here to be open to new ideas, you're not here looking for constructive conversations that can help to enhance the perspectives of both sides of an argument.

You're here to shout your unwavering beliefs at other people that you feel superior to, because "you're right". You're here to try and belittle others and make them feel stupid because they don't believe exactly what you believe.

why argue?

Why, indeed.

Impressive extrapolation and speculation about my thinking process based on my very simple statement.

Ok, you think it was all politics, I don't, why argue?

Your tactics are those of someone who cannot debate their arguments with logic, reason or facts. How about you address my original question rather than just deflect with straw man arguments or saying "we disagree about something, so why bother talking about it, because I'm not changing my mind ever"?

I find it far more likely that you're posting in this sub with a specific goal and agenda in mind, than the idea that you're actually just that dimwitted.

I find it far more likely that you're posting in this sub with a specific goal and agenda in mind, than the idea that you're actually just that dimwitted.

I would be interested in what you think "my agenda," is.

I never hide that I am liberal and my primary focus is propaganda more than the details of actual conspiracies. I have never pretended otherwise.

But you'll gladly pretend that the BS you're spewing isn't propoganda...

Because to you, it's only "propaganda" if you don't agree with it, it seems.

And I'll preempt your attempt to combat that with the "That's exactly what you do!" argument, by saying that I call bullshit on both sides of the isle. You've demonstrated that, in your eyes, only one side of the isle engages in propaganda tactics. Meanwhile, a large majority of the information that comes out of your side (aka the incredibly liberal biased mainstream media) is, in fact, weapons grade propaganda.

Your agenda is clear to anyone with a brain. And if you legitimately feel that you don't have an agenda and are only here to help "enlighten" fellow redditors, then you're in the wrong sub. Your MSM talking points would be much more appreciated over on one of the default subs.

Edit: Although, strangely, your MSM talking points somehow seem to be pretty popular here for some reason.

Impressive straw man. Less than impressive debate skills though.

I don't have an agenda, I just love typing my opinion in this forum in particular.

As for that MSM, it hasn't promoted a single liberal idea since the 70s.

But if you care to, go ahead and give me a list of the MSM's liberal agenda?

I think you mean I am not interested in beating dead horses.

Always this talk of evidence but none presented

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections

So this entire wiki page is completely fabricated?!?!?!

What the hell am I a fucking CIA asset?

There's 100s of pages of evidence that link to that wiki..

Yet you're fixating a single case.. Look I get it you probably just put up your Seth Rich poster in your room.. but get over it.

You're literally ignoring basic facts, because you've got some crazy fantasy that has been disproved over and over.

Okay so I should trust 4chan and Russia instead?

Come on bro, the CIA's and FBI have lied about 100s of things for 50+ years, but lets be real here. Why would the entire IC, unanimously agree, that Russians influenced the 2016 election if they didn't. What would 17 independent agencies have to gain by manufacturing 1000s of fake documents and spending 100s of hours testifying before congress..?

As far as I can tell there are three reasons for denying Russias interference:

1. You're Russian
2. You're die hard Trump support and do not care about evidence.
3. You're so unbelievably brainwashed you cannot see the reality of the situation.

I'm sure you've got your reason.. But the facts, and basically everyone else.. Thinks you sound crazy.

You posted one thing from December and 2 things form March, they aren't even up to date..

You can't really be serious can you?

You don't need updated information to come to a reasonable conclusion?

Wow man, congrats, you're definetley right.. Fucking brilliant argument.

https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/30/russian-interference-went-far-beyond-dnc-hack-senate-panel-hears/

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/dnc-hack-proof-russia-democrats

Hey, I wanna hear your answer to the guys reply too so tag me pls

I mean I get why we have to be skeptical about the lack of evidence and previous lies (Tonkin), but you also have to realize that if it is true the CIA is not going to just list all of their assets and how they got them. But revealing their evidence they would also reveal where they got it from, and since they are an intelligence agency they would have to protect them.

I skeptical as fuck about the intelligence community, but people seem to not realize that if they are telling the truth, they would not be able to show their evidence. So demanding it also seems ridiculous. Basically, we lose no matter what.

Why why WHY in the fuck do you think you should have direct and unfettered access to the evidence of an ongoing investigation that very well may result in multiple counts of treason??? That is not how the world works, the way the world works is we have qualified people at the FBI and other Intel agencies who have been cleared to work on such a case who dig up this evidence, and then the mouthpieces of tbose agencies disseminate only the basics of the investigation to the public. The basics do not include the evidence they plan on using in court, and if you cannot figure out why this is, you're even worse than a shill.

Removed. Rule 10.

Dude, all you gave in your wiki entry was 300+ citations, just 20 of them from WaPo, another dozen from CNN, a few from Business Insider, and about 30+ from New York Times (you know, the news paper with a 9-0 SCOTUS 1st amendment ruling in their favor).

That's peanuts compared to medium/@thugznkisses (Eco-socialist from outside Baltimore) and a Dec news article from consortiumnews.com that most premier of news agencies. And that Intercept piece, it was before Comey confirmed a Trump-Russia FBI investigation; but it totally must be up to date and true (even though it only references palmerreport and random Twitter users; two sources that are so much more trusted than WaPo or NYT). How dare you question the man's seriousness in this entire endeavor, my good sir!

Russia hacking the DNC

I can buy that you can be skeptical of the evidence that Russia hacked the DNC, particularly now with astroturfing and disinformatziya bubbling up about Seth Rich. That's not the same as your title though. Trump-Russia "hysteria" as you call it is far far far more than that; that's what parent is trying to discuss with you. It's a classic case of having 1 piece of evidence supporting your pet theory, 99 pieces of evidence against your theory and you clinging on to that 1 piece of evidence.

You're conflating things once again to your convenience. Russia hacking the DNC is not the only way Russia interfered with the election. Russia might have hacked DCCC, Podesta, aided in dissemination of that information, amplified through active measures in social media conspiracy theories and GOP talking points, etc. etc. How can you conveniently say that the only interference of Russia in this election was hacking the DNC?

I'm saying that was the initial claim from the media and is what kicked off this shirt storm.

Maybe in the media, but there was a lot more going on behind the scenes with the CIA and the FBI. Watch the Brennan hearing today to find out more information about that (just skip past Gowdy's partisan line of finding about leaks when we know the subject matter is Trump-Russia to save some time).

All I'm asking for is definitive evidence.

Here's the problem. You don't get to see that evidence. Try to get yourself on a grand jury or something. Or become a congressman in the right committee. 4chan screenshots are not evidence. Emails dumped out of context are not evidence. There are standards people adhere to and policies people follow. You're not going to get a smoking gun, at least not yet. I'll freely admit there might never be evidence, or if there were, it might be long shredded (remember, Ollie "my memory's shredded" North? and how there was "no evidence" that Reagan knew and ordered Iran-Contra). The bottomline is that with the enormous power of the executive, the FBI should make its moves carefully. When you're coming at the King, you best not miss is a good saying. Expect to see less or even none.

What would 17 independent agencies have to gain

SMH. You really gobbled all of that shit up, didn't you? You sound like someone that watches a lot of MSM and puts way too much stock into what the talking heads say.

It's really getting old to hear that anyone who believes Russia/Trump may have connections "watches too much MSM" or whatever other narrative is out there this week about the MSM pushing this.

I don't watch the news at all. Never. I get my news from aggregates, and try to follow sourcing. Believe it or not, many organizations do a very good job at vetting their sources, corroborating, and backing up their claims.

It's easy to pigeon hold people you disagree with, but that's not always reality.

I don't think anyone is saying Trump and Russia don't have any connections. It's odd that you assume that anyone that thinks the Russia hysteria is overblown and at times fabricated, must be a trump supporter.

Where exactly did I state that?

Go back up and read your 3 options. You take the "hundreds of sources" and "17 intelligence agencies" as all truthful. Just because something is considered true by the majority, that doesn't mean it actually is. You should know that if you're even bothering to post on this sub.

You take the "hundreds of sources" and "17 intelligence agencies" as all truthful.

I never said any of that. You may have me confused with OP or another comment.

Lol. Oops, my bad

'pigeon hole' not 'pigeon hold.'

The CIA terrorizes the American people and the world at large. I wouldn't trust a damn thing associated with them. We already know they've controlled the press since the 60's.

So if the CIA finishes their investigation tomorrow and said there was nothing to support the Trump-Russia conspiracy, you'd flip sides?

How long did it take the CIA to 'apologize' for lying to us about the WOMD in Iraq?

CIA and FBI have not provided a single shred of definitive proof of collusion. If they had any - ANY at all, the talks of impeachment wouldn't be "talks". They want Trump gone and will go to any lengths for it, but instead of monitoring him and watching for a slip, they are childishly following the same idiotic narrative, providing no proof, and essentially crying wolf for half a year now. It's pathetic, you're an idiot for thinking that anyone questioning the Russia narrative is part of 3 very constricted subgroups. How about anyone with critical thinking at all?

You can't just REEEEEEEEEEEEEE Trump supporter every time someone raises valid questions.

They want Trump gone and will go to any lengths for it, but instead of monitoring him and watching for a slip, they are childishly following the same idiotic narrative, providing no proof,

what does that mean? theyre not monitoring him?

why do you think that?

why should they make their evidence public while they investigate it?

Even if its not collusion to win the election, shady financial ties are just as interesting to me. What if russia owns tons of Trump co debt? thats VERY interesting to me

It's you again. What a shocker.

I'm saying, as objectively as I can, that they're not playing their cards right.

If I'm a deep state member that wants Trump gone, my priorities shouldn't be creating negative Trump PR and investigating ties that are not conclusive. I'd rather bide my time and catch him slipping. We all know that it's possible. Nobody is perfect. Considering all the means the CIA has at their disposal, these "anonymous sources" articles are an embarrassment and just lead more to roll their eyes. I'd much rather let the Russia narrative fizz out while pursuing better leads. Lean on tax returns not being out. What's this about Ivanka? Why'd you make a deal with Saudi Arabians when you're so against Muslims?

Let the msm do their job of nitcking - they have already been working on that, but tell then to quit on the anonymous sources leaking horseshit. People got desensitized by now. It's been nati Trump 24/7. Instead if the pull back and be more forgiving on Trump while I gather evidence, we can do a bombshell release article in about two months, where the public will be more receptive to the scandal and Trump's own PR will have a harder time to respond to something. They wouldn't be able to blame the constant msm bias since there won't be enough of it to deflect to.

More than anything, the past half a year revealed that TPTB are incredibly out of touch with their PR narratives and are not understanding of how to utilize the internet and to push narratives. They need to hire some new blood and let the shills take a breather.

Investigating ties that are not conclusive.

But wee don't know that until the investigation is... over? Right?

foreign countries intel agencies too. Why would they lie to help the US deep state? my threshold for conspiracies is how many different people, with different agendas would have to conspire for this to happen?

couple guys in a boardroom? plausible

50 guys from different countries from competing agencies? Idk.

my threshold for conspiracies is how many different people, with different agendas would have to conspire for this to happen

This is absolutely it for me. This is why you could sell me on something like a few people with foreknowledge of 9/11 allowing it to happen vs controlled demolition carried out by the government. One requires the inaction of maybe half a dozen people, the other requires months of planning on the part of many thousands of people.

You presume much in this scenario. Compartmentalization suggests not everyone in a particular agency is read in to everything going on, or has access to all of the various programs and their data. IOW, the guy in office A doesn't necessarily know what the guy in office B is doing.

5 Eyes nations have been cooperating for some time and will continue to do so.

the reason is quite simple, no one expected trump to win really. He is now in a place where he can interfere with their plans however passively. Intelligence community as any kind of power/political block runs on money and influence. Both of which are now in unstable position since Trump is clearly not impressed with the intelligence community and is focused more on "looking inward" policy which means less money flow to all those expensive intelligence gathering missions outside of US.

So, the reason is as always simple, money. It's always the money. Directly or indirectly when someone poses a threat to the money the US goes to war, cold, hot or something in between. The evidence is plentiful.

As for Trump, he might have ties to Russia. But insisting that it was russian "hacking" that put him in power is quite frankly a copout. US citizens voted for him because the idea of change, of any change was better than another 4/8 years with the "business as always" Clinton.

Your problem is you seem to think that the entire US intelligence community is on the same side.

So the alternative is to trust Russia?

I skimmed through the links and couldn't find any that have actual evidence.

There is none, they would be shouting it from the mountaintops if they had it, you wouldn't need to go looking for it

I don't think anyone really is on the emails. I'm not I don't care about that. I do think there is collusion for money laundering, blackmail, and or Trump doing shit for money though. If you are ignoring the fact that every single one of his advisors has had extensive ties to Russia, and the Russian mob, and that the fucking National Security Advisor had to resign and all the connections such as page, Manafort, Sessions, etc all had some type of connection that they lied about (sessions under fucking oath) then that's on you for ignoring this shit. I would think it's made up too? But no way alll these connections are just coincidences. No way I believe there is nothing there. Maybe Trump was too dumb to know some things were illegal, I can believe that. But the story does have teeth if you actually read through all the connections and literal millions of dollars exchanged from Russia and Trump's team for the last few years.

Like if they are innocent, why are they lying so much? And obstructing justice? Seriously imagine if Clinton was president and fired Comey for investigating her and asked multiple FBI agents to drop it.

Try something. This is what got me to see it. Replace Trumps name with Clinton, and all of his aides names with Clinton aids names including his kids and shit if you would still defend all the connections after that then fine. I just could not with a clear conscience say it's nothing there. We all want more evidence but it's probably the most high profile investigation right now, and while leaks are coming, they don't want to tip off who they are investigating and may still be gathering info. Just read through all the connections and money. It takes a while but dude I have no clue how you all say it's nothing there unless you actually never read through all of the connections and money and lies they told.

Once again I'm not buying the DNC. And please stop with the how is Russia worse angle. I can not like how politicians have connections with Saudi Arabia and with Russia. I don't think we're disagreeing much, but I think it's rich that people on this sub ignores when Trump does it because "how is it worse?" Like this sub gives Clinton shit for her connections which is perfectly fine, but ignore trumps because other people do it which I think is bullshit. He's the president. We should hold him to equal or higher standards than other people in my opinion.

are you an american? why 'the what makes russia worse than other foreign powers angle'?

That's exactly what it was in those e-mails, but was the Cluntons that were bribed and laundered money for Russian. Wake the fuck up, read the emails

You're not going to find definitive evidence of this, not ever. The evidence would have disappeared before the leak even got out. The number one goal of spying is to not leave a trail.

Where is the definitive evidence of Seth Rich, Pizzagate, Benghazi, or the million other anti-Clinton things this sub (and I'm assuming you) believe to be true?

This place is just as full of political hacks as any other sub.

Whooops, you came back to that again. Like the person above who started this thread (/u/chornu), my main issue with your post is this sentence:

The entire premise of the Russia-hysteria is that they "hacked" the DNC/Podesta and gave the emails to Wikileaks

Sure the significance of the Seth Rich angle relies on this viewpoint, but I just don't think this viewpoint is true. The potential malfeasance is not simply based on this DNC email hack-- the merits of digging deeper into Trump/Russia connections still exist even if Hillary personally pulled the trigger herself and took out Rich for sending leaks directly to Assange.

You actually correctly addressed the commenter on this claim at first, when he essentially said there appear to be dozens of other Russia ties, and you respond that those potential other ties don't amount to interference in the election. But the fact is that you don't know that.... I don't know that, nobody knows that (in the negative) yet.

Frankly I don't want Trump to be impeached. I feel like his presidency is already "lame duck" and I'd rather we brave through it than have Pence or Ryan in charge.

But I believe there are people in various positions in the security agencies and in Trump's former or current entourage who have important information that needs to see the light of day still. It ain't over.

But I'm getting a little tired of the delay. Out with it, folks. Sure premature revelations can harm an investigation, but there is also harm in all the finger-pointing with no proof. Show me.

But, while I wait for this proof, yeah it's totally valid for the media to cover what we've got hints of so far....

There is no evidence you would accept, because you are looking for some sort of contract with Trump and Putin's names signed in blood at the bottom. You will not get that evidence, the people involved are not that stupid and the world is more complicated

The only definitive evidence is that the Podesta phishing email was done by somebody with a long, traceable history of attacking opponents of Putin (including within Russia).

Coincidentally, the podesta leaks are also the only ones that can definitively be linked to the Trump campaign, since Roger stone was aware of them beforehand.

The rest is all circumstantial. The lack of exculpatory evidence is noteworthy, but not at all definitive.

Essentially yes, it is fake. Wikipedia is not a good source of information. You can find the right sources to create narrative.

lmao.

If I controlled the way you got information couldn't I make you believe anything?

isnt this how putin maintains his unbelievable approval rating?

Probably. And also how corporate media controls what you approve of

but they are different corporations owned by different groups competing for advertising dollars

All owned by 6 corporations with the same interests

How are they the same interests? CNN and MSNBC are competing

Do you mean to say rich people competing with rich people to be even richer?

I can reference things saying Russia ins't connected. That doesn't make it right. Look at the references on that page: Newsweek (lol), Washington Post (lol) CNN (LMAO) NBC News (LMAO) Daily Beast (LOL) the list goes on. Like seriously, you can cite a blog on wikipedia and it will count. Get fucking real

I love the shills upvoting you though, i know it's shills because no one on this sub would be upvoting someone saying "WIKIPEDIA IS THE SAYS ALL IN INFORMATION"

Have you actually read any of them?

Wikipedia is not a fact based website.

And the 300+ referenced citations.. all fake?!?!

I can reference things saying Russia ins't connected. That doesn't make it right. Look at the references on that page: Newsweek (lol), Washington Post (lol) CNN (LMAO) NBC News (LMAO) Daily Beast (LOL)

the list goes on. Like seriously, you can cite a blog on wikipedia and it will count. Get fucking real

that's the thing, and all of those news agencies(HAHA) cite each other, reference each other and create a kind of news backdraft where every new "voice" is just a rehash of the other ones that reinforces the effect even if they are literally reporting someone else's hot air.

LMFAO! Wikipedia...

The wiki page is bullshit. Wikipedia is hardly the beacon of truth if you stray away from the narrative.

Pretty much.

All those intel reports are bullshit with no real evidence.

All the sources are news agencies that were colluding with the DNC. These were all news agencies who were outed and have a reason to back this Russian narrative to cover-up their corruption.

It's well crafted fiction for a false narrative.

This is what propaganda looks like.

You are saying a wiki page is proof of something? Why don't you provide concrete evidence the DNC was hacked by order of the Kremlin? Oh, because there is none.

The problem with this sub isn't that it believes in conspiracies - that humans sometimes conspire is a proven fact. The problem with this sub is that it believes thousands and thousands of people who've never met can successfully conspire. You can't get 17 different intelligence agencies and all of the main-stream media to secretly collude. The reason they all agree is because there is evidence, as outlined in the Wikipedia article.

Your first mistake was referencing wikipedia as a legitimate source of information.

I would bet that of that most of those articles from the NYT, CNN or WaPo all of which cite anonymous sources wihtout providing a lick of real evidence.

Russia ran a psyops campaign that involved botnets and sharing of anti-democrat propaganda the entire election. Ex-CIA head said he has warned them about it when the primaries started.

They didn't 'hack' the election. The media keeps saying that because it's easier than telling people the russians 'tricked' them with a ton of propaganda. One implies people are idiots, the other says 'it's not your fault'. Which one makes the audience keep watching?

Some how through bots they were able to give Trump the presidency even though Hillary won the popular vote. They were able through these bots and their propaganda to convince people who voted for Obama twice to vote for Trump. They were able to turn states that haven't turned red in 20 years to do so. Some how they were able to get people to vote for Trump in states where he campaigned and Clinton ignored. Yes those pesky Russians.

Some how through bots they were able to give Trump the presidency

That's not what I said. The bots spread propaganda that stupid people believed, and instead of telling them "gullible people believed fake stories' the media claims it's hacking so they don't lose their viewers that fell for it.

And to the rest of the statements - Yes. Yes they did. People are extremely, extremely gullible and stupid.

Oh I can agree to that, people believe the Russians got Trump elected, not that Hillary was obviously worse than Trump. If you read the leaked not hacked DNC emails it shows the DNC wanted to get Trump the RNC nomination because they saw him as weak. People just want to believe that Hillary couldn't have lost without some sort of conspiracy because she was the best candidate money could buy.

People just want to believe that Hillary couldn't have lost without some sort of conspiracy because she was the best candidate money could buy.

Clinton was a bad candidate because she had been smeared for the last 20 years. The benghazi commissions (After the first couple) were only set up to try to make her look bad. They artificially created a ton of 'baggage' that would hurt her chances.

So problem 1: She had a ton of perceived baggage, real or not.

Problem 2: Bill signed NAFTA. Old folks in the midwest blame all of their problems on it. It should have been a red flag when bernie won Michigan in the primaries. MI has a very republican state government - people didn't go out and vote bernie because he was a super liberal person, because they don't vote that way at the state level (some of us did, but not enough for him to win). When Bernie lost CA (And sealed the nomination) I said she better start campaigning down south and hope to flip some of the red southern states, because she won't win the midwest. And she didn't.

Problem 3: Massive propaganda machine mostly powered by russian botnets she's fainting! She's weak! She eats children!

Problem 4: Email leaks, astroturfing by people pretending to be Bernie Supporters, the rest of the shitshow of complaints people had about the DNC, the electoral college skewing to favor lower population states

The simple fact is #1 and #2 alone made it a difficult race for her to win, everything else made it almost impossible. Even so, that doesn't make it OK for a foreign government to have manipulated our election even if it didn't matter. Trump needs to stop trying to stop the investigation that is around the election meddling (And the people he brought on who were compromised), before he gets hit with obstruction of justice (if it's not too late). The quicker the report is out and concluded, the quicker we can try to prevent our country from falling apart.

psyops campaign that involved botnets and sharing of anti-democrat propaganda the entire election

Psyops campaigns and botnets like CTR? The campaign where the dems spent millions of dollars to Correct (aka Control) The Record?

Anti-democrat propaganda like releasing their emails? The words that they themselves undeniably wrote about the fucked up shit they thought they were getting away with within their own party?

Like, I get it. BOTH SIDES engaged in this shit, sure. They'd be stupid not to. What I can't stand about the left in general is their absolute refusal to A. admit that their side was engaging in the exact same tactics, and B. continuously shouting that when the republicans did it, IT WAS ALL RUSSIA!!!!

If you actually believe the absolute nonsensical bullshit that you just posted, then I have no idea what you are doing on this sub, because you very evidently are incapable of logical reasoning or original thought.

Correct (aka Control) The Record?

Was there ever any concrete (or even anecdotal) evidence they did anything? All I ever saw was people complaining about them like they were some sort of shady boogeyman, yet no one talked about cambridge analytica, doing the same thing for the republicans with an exponentially larger budget.

Anti-democrat propaganda like releasing their emails? The words that they themselves undeniably wrote about the fucked up shit they thought they were getting away with within their own party?

I don't have evidence of who leaked the emails, so I'm not going to place blame on that. The emails themselves didn't cost the democrats the election, and I still feel like they didn't really have that much of an effect. The government keeps telling us we don't need to be worried about privacy if we have nothing to hide, I treat them the same. The emails basically confirmed the DNC was doing some of the shady shit that some of us suspected, but I don't think it did much more damage than the 'spirit cooking' BS or the 'Grab them by the pussy' comments from Trump did to steer away the evangelicals.

when the republicans did it,

The republicans explicitly wanted a chaotic transfer of power? The Russian end goal was not to get Trump elected. It was to sew chaos for Clinton and get the country to distrust her when she won the presidency. The fact that Trump won was due to the pure gullibility of people. That's why Putin finds it all so funny, because he literally has no connections with Trump, just the people in his inner circle.

If you actually believe the absolute nonsensical bullshit that you just posted, then I have no idea what you are doing on this sub, because you very evidently are incapable of logical reasoning or original thought.

Motherfucker, I've been posting in here for 6 years. I made my account to post on this sub. I went dark when the sub because a trump mouthpiece. Now that the botnets are getting turned off because the election is over, I can finally post here again.

How about the DNC's own words... Concrete enough for you?

https://www.wikileaks.com/podesta-emails/emailid/5636

The Wikileaks emails from the DNC and Podesta (IMO obviously) were the absolute nail in Hillary's coffin. At the very least, it split the democratic party into the hillary camp, and the bernie camp, and the Berners despised Hillary so much after learning what the DNC did to their candidate, that they chose not to vote than to vote for her.

Motherfucker, I've been posting in here for 6 years. I made my account to post on this sub. I went dark when the sub because a trump mouthpiece. Now that the botnets are getting turned off because the election is over, I can finally post here again.

Sure as hell doesn't look like you've been a loyal subscriber here for 6 years with the way you are vehemently towing the line of the MSM narrative! If so, then what the hell happened to you? You've become party blinded, fighting to defend your "team" and not realizing that neither one gives a fuck about YOU (as very clearly seen in the wikileaks emails).

I can 100% GUARANTEE you, the botnets are still very much running, if not more vigorously than ever. Just because you agree with them, doesn't mean all is right with this sub.

Both sides of the isle have had an equal share in ruining the fuck out of this sub. Enough with this one-sided bullshit! If you think that what you just said is even remotely accurate, then you are part of the fucking problem.

How about the DNC's own words... Concrete enough for you? https://www.wikileaks.com/podesta-emails/emailid/5636

This literally says 'here's some employees', not what they do / did. I'm asking for evidence of what they did, not whether or not they existed. St. Nick is a historical figure, that doesn't mean he's the one climbing down chimneys at christmas.

You've become party blinded, fighting to defend your "team" and not realizing that neither one gives a fuck about YOU

Sure. You know all about me. You know I'm a Roosevelt Republican who associates with Democrats because the republicans went off the deep end. but sure, I'm hyper partisan to .. the party.. that I'm not in?

http://correctrecord.org/barrier-breakers-2016-a-project-of-correct-the-record/

archive(https://web.archive.org/web/20160807045915/http://correctrecord.org/barrier-breakers-2016-a-project-of-correct-the-record/)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/21/hillary-pac-spends-1-million-to-correct-commenters-on-reddit-and-facebook

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

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/correct-the-record/

http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000154-3082-d20b-a1fc-b3e3368b0000

Here you go, since apparently Google doesn't work for you, I guess. Even the bull shit sites don't try to deny it.

For the sake of argument, lets go:

1&2: "We're going to spend money and do this" Did they? Or did they just take the money. Again, this is not evidence of anything actually happening, just them saying they plan on doing it.

1. "We're going to spend money and do this", exact same explanation, they have funding and said what they want to use it for.

2. Again, just says they exist (and offered to buy leaks on Trump), not anything they did.

3. FTA:

Unlike other independent-expenditure only super PACs, which are prohibited by the Federal Election Commission from coordinating with campaigns or political parties, Correct the Record plans to work closely with the Clinton campaign. That’s because, the group says, it does not plan to spend money to run ads. Instead, the PAC intends to use its website and social media platforms to counter claims made about Clinton.

That does put them in my shady bucket, but again, doesn't actually show anything they did.

1. This is literally the same as the first / second article.

So again, they existed, had money, and may or may not have ever done anything with it as soon as it was public there was a massive backlash and witch-hunt that every person who said anything against trump was a shill for them.

I would be that due to the backlash they never actually did anything, and that funding was eaten. That funding BTW was a fraction of the amount Republicans put into Cambridge Analytica. (Which doesn't have any 'evidence' they actually did anything either, which is why I can't blame them for the propaganda they may have spread)

Can't really argue with you there. I agree, none of that is definitive proof that they actively did that. But I'm curious, what you would consider proof of them actually doing what they said they were going to do?

Anecdotally, as a long-time subscriber to this sub, I can say with near 99.99% certainty that CTR was very much active here (and many places elsewhere on the internet) during the election, doing the exact things that they claimed to have done. The level of manipulation they thought they could get away with under the radar was astonishing.

I believe this is what led to the rise in the level of shilling that can be seen now from the other side. T_D undoubtedly uses similar tactics, but they are simply using the playbook that CTR laid out for them.

Granted, I have nothing you would consider definitive proof for this besides personal experience. But all I was trying to say in the first place was that both sides play these kinds of games. To suggest that only one side engages in trying to control the public narrative online is not only foolish, it's unrealistic.

If I were to influence an election of a country, i wouldnt do it through hard hacking, but instead through candidate funding, propaganda publishing, hiring a team to push social media and platforms, drown out alternative information with information, having a "Correct the Record" level of people in forums and message boards interacting and commenting.

it's proven you can manipulate the front page and influence a conversation through the use of a third party upvote service. you can do the same thing with twitter and YouTube accounts.

there's no need to have a heavy hand to twist a democratic election, you just need to have a loud propaganda machine.

And here Reddit thought they had the best propaganda machine.

reddit is like putting all eggs into one basket.

a propaganda machine goes for all source. web, print, talk shows, 4chan forums, hell even in CSGo livestreams chanting "build the wall". get twitter trends, Facebook trends.

You know Trumps "grab em by the pussy" leaked audio. that youtube video is still seen less than anything ablut Hillary Clinton's emails. the "grab em by the pussy" was leaked and 48 hours later the Podesta emails showed up on Wikileaks.

but instead through candidate funding,

This is illegal

propaganda publishing, hiring a team to push social media and platforms, drown out alternative information with information, having a "Correct the Record" level of people

Yes. These people are doing the overt and grey counterintelligence. You stop short one step which is digging out the information, how do you get that information to feed the propaganda?? Do you really think that they have hundreds or thousands of people posting on social media and just have the morality to not actually hack anyone? Why would almost all malware originate in Russia, why are there so many attempts to access my server from Russian IP addresses?

It was a weapon. I non physical weapon at that. Its quite impressive. People would believe the Russian conspiracy if their ego wasn't tied to it.

then it can be said that everyone "hacks" elections. These kind of techniques in fact were used before by US. Propaganda wars never ended and I am pretty sure that until recently US was winning that war but it has stepped on too many toes in the last 30 years for it to continue to do so.

And it shouldn't be normalized. That's part of why the money needs to get out of politics. The reason it's a public issue now is that it was a foreign government doing it.

And instead of cracking down on the dark money and tactics, they're going to crack down on the ability to spread information (true or not) over the internet.

yeah, I know. And really the whole political establishment needs a redo in nearly ever country, focusing more on the ability of the people to do the jobs as well instead on basically being a popularity contest and who manages to make the most promises that the most people will like. Which most of them break anyway.

For example the liberal democrats here in UK in an election promised not to raise the university fees. Well when they got elected in and made a coalition government with the Conservatives they went and did a total U turn and raised the university fees to double what they were.

no connections

Except all of the connections that have been found so far.

My point is that none of it is evidence for some grand conspiracy that Russia interfered in the 2016 election.

There is some proof that they used bots and spammers to spread fake news and comments promoting Trump and targeting Hillary. How much that "influenced" the election is another thing.

The bigger question is if Trump is in Russia's pocket, and he is now the president, who cares about the election. The ties between his administration and Russia must be vetted carefully.

By you saying "the Russian thing is bullshit" you're kind of downplaying a major influence a foreign power has over the commander and chief.

Here is how the right is working this: They find one thing and pretend it is another "Look, someone said russians hacked the election and changed votes, not true, no proof, so there there is nothing else to see about russia!"

They do it intentionally to cover up all the other questions.

Try it with pizzagate on them, THEN they suddenly don't like it ;)

Yes, ramping up the DNC leaks is just a tool to hide what certainly looks like strong Russian connections within not just Trump's campaign, but the Republican Party and their financial backers.

Interesting how nobody is talking about Saudi Arabia and Israeli links to Democrats and others. That tells me this isn't about foreign influence but instead trying to push an agenda.

This, but not just democrats, Republicans too. I dot care that Russia posted on Facebook during our election, I do care about politicians taking bribes from Saudi Arabia.

Well, we have an entirely Republican government now and they seem to be courting Saudi Arabia and Israel.

In fact Trump approved the sale of some military gear to the Saudis that Obama had nixed.

Where is the proof?

Serious question:

What would you accept as proof?

We have forensic evidence pointing to Russia/Putin. They had the motive. They had the means. All things that are lacking WRT the Seth Rich narrative. Does Putin himself have to confess before you believe it?

So what evidence would you accept to believe that Russia hacking the DNC might not be bullshit?

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

https://web.archive.org/web/20170425204404/threatgeek.com/2016/06/dnc_update.html

Look. I said the evidence exists. You can choose not to believe it. That's up to you.

Thats why I asked what evidence you would accept. Can you answer that?

I guess the answer is legitimate

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/05/cybersecurity-expert-proof-russia-behind-dnc-podesta-hacks

Interview with Eric Chien, a cybersecurity specialist at Symantec.

The binaries that were used to hack the DNC as well as Podesta’s email as well as some other Democratic campaign folks, those IOCs match binaries and also infrastructure that was used in attacks that were previously recorded by others as having Russian origin. That much we can confirm.

So if you believe other people’s—primarily government’s—attribution that those previous attacks were Russian, then these attacks are definitely connected. We’re talking about the same binaries, the same tools, the same infrastructure.

We’ve analyzed the tools, the binaries, and the infrastructure that was used in the attack, and from that we can confirm that it’s connected to a group that has two names. One is Sofacy, or “Cozy Bear,” and The Dukes, which is also known as “Fancy Bear.” From the binary analysis point of view, I can tell you that the activities of these attackers have been during Russian working hours, either centered on UTC+3 or UTC+4; they don’t work Russian holidays; they work Monday to Friday; there are language identifiers inside that are Russian; when you look at all the victim profiles they would be in interest to the Russian nation-state.

Now, could all those things be false flags? Sure.

Can you point to any other attacks conducted by the same groups—Sofacy and The Dukes? There was another attack that happened in the Ukraine. So in December, in the Ukraine, all the power went out to about 260,000 households, or customers. They basically infiltrated the power company, got access to the machines that controlled the power, they flipped the computer switches off and shut down the power, and then they began to wipe all the machines and devices—overriding the hard drives and trashing the machines so that they couldn’t be started up again, or so that the switches couldn’t come on again.

Who is Guccifer 2.0?

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36913000

Detailed analysis of the attack on the DNC by US security firm CrowdStrike suggests the organisation was actually penetrated twice - both times by hacking groups, dubbed Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, known to have links to the Russian state. These groups have successfully penetrated US federal organisations in other hack attacks.

Forensic examination of metadata in copies of documents distributed by Guccifer 2.0 suggest they were edited on a machine set up for a Russian language user.

Technical information including IP addresses extracted from messages sent by Guccifer 2.0 to journalists show a link to the Russian cyber-underground - even though many of the conversations were routed through a French VPN firm. In the past, some of the same infrastructure was used to send junk spam on behalf of Russian crime groups.

Yes. The person claiming to be the hacker has openly mocked the different analyses and repeated their assertion that they are Romanian and have no backing from the Russian state.

However, in interviews with the media, Guccifer 2.0 did not seem to speak Romanian well.

Who is Guccifer 2.0?

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/dnc-hacker-guccifer-20-full-interview-transcript

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/dnc-hacker-guccifer-20-full-interview-transcript

How did Fancybear/CozyBear hack the DNC?

https://www.cnet.com/news/how-experts-decided-russia-hacked-dnc-election/

Those clues included small fragments of code called PowerShell commands. A PowerShell command is like a Russian nesting doll in reverse. Start with the smallest doll, and that's the PowerShell code. It's only a single string of seemingly meaningless numbers and letters. Open it up, though, and out jumps a larger module that, in theory at least, "can do virtually anything on the victim system," Alperovitch wrote.

One of the PowerShell modules inside the DNC system connected to a remote server and downloaded more PowerShells, adding more nesting dolls to the DNC network. Another opened and installed MimiKatz, malicious code for stealing login information. That gave hackers a free pass to move from one part of the DNC's network to another by logging in with valid usernames and passwords. These were Cozy Bear's weapons of choice.

Fancy Bear used tools known as X-Agent and X-Tunnel to remotely access and control the DNC network, steal passwords and transfer files. Other tools let them wipe away their footprints from network logs.

CrowdStrike had seen this pattern many times before.

"You could never go into the DNC as a single event and come up with that [conclusion]," said Robert M. Lee, CEO of cybersecurity firm Dragos.

Awesome. Thanks

Fancy bear..... Panda...

Bears all the way down!

Evidence I would accept is a line of communication from the Kremlin instructing them to hack into the DNC.

I think this is unreasonable to expect in the real world.

Or multiple independent cyber-security firms examining the evidence.

But that's exactly what happened. Per your own words:

Crowdstrike’s conclusion (and the conclusions of other, private, security firms)

They agreed that the evidence points to Russia. You choose not to believe it (despite any actual evidence pointing at it not being Russia). Which is fine. You're right, fingerprints on the weapon is circumstantial and not definitive.

Thanks for answering the question.

I just wonder if you set the same standard of evidence with regards to the Seth Rich narrative... or pizzagate... Where are the "Seth Rich-Hysteria is Bullshit" and the "Pizzagate-Hysteria is Bullshit" posts at? They certainly don't meet this standard of proof.

I just wonder if you set the same standard of evidence with regards to the Seth Rich narrative... or pizzagate... Where are the "Seth Rich-Hysteria is Bullshit" and the "Pizzagate-Hysteria is Bullshit" posts at? They certainly don't meet this standard of proof.

I don't need proof for things I want to believe. For things I don't want to believe, there is not "proof" that will satisfy me.

I just wonder if you set the same standard of evidence with regards to the Seth Rich narrative... or pizzagate...

My question about other posts is an observation of what I see (or don't see) on this sub from users like you. Whether I post or not is irrelevant.

You linked to Crowdstrike? Loool

The point is that the evidence exists. You can believe that it's not enough evidence, but that's up to you. The Seth Rich-WL narrative lacks any evidence at all (or motive, means, etc), yet people still believe it.

Crowdstrike is evidence in much the same way 4chan LARPing is except at least 4channers dont get paid for it (maybe?)

Seth Rich has circumstantial evidence. No smoking gun, but people are interested and won't let it rest. I'm glad that they won't. It's always good to have people think critically rather than listening to crowdstrike.

Crowdstrike is evidence in much the same way 4chan LARPing is except at least 4channers dont get paid for it (maybe?)

You don't honestly believe this do you? They put their names/reputations on the line. It's much more than you can say about 4chan, regardless about how you feel about Crowdstrike.

Seth Rich has circumstantial evidence. No smoking gun, but people are interested and won't let it rest. I'm glad that they won't.

What circumstantial evidence? Does it come even close to the circumstantial evidence we have on Russia?

We have no evidence that he talked to WL (other than anons).

We have no evidence of what his motives were (he had just been promoted and was going to accept the offer).

We have no evidence of how he would have done it (he was not a hacker and had no special access to other people's emails).

WRT the Russia narrative, we have evidence (forensic, circumstantial, etc). We have people lying under oath. We can identify motives and means.

Do you really believe the SR narrative is stronger?

He doesn't in his heart of hearts. But it's not about the truth, it's about constructing/ignoring the facts to fit what he wants the world to be.

Really? Hillary Clinton nor John Podesta have no motive to kill Seth Rich after Podesta specifically says he wants to make an example of potential leakers? Really, neither Clinton nor Podesta don't have the means to hire assassins? You really said that? How can you take yourself seriously?

You misunderstood what I wrote.

• We have no evidence that Seth Rich leaked or talked to WL.

• We have no evidence that Seth Rich had a motive to be a leaker (he was recently promoted and was going to accept the offer).

• We have no evidence that Seth Rich had the means (he was not an administrator, hacker, nor had any other sort of special access to the DNC email server).

1. We have circumstantial evidence. We have evidence someone inside the DNC leaked and talked to WL. http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/cias-russia-hacking-claims-dismissed-as-bulls-by-former-uk-ambassador-craig-murray-35288057.html We have evidence WL values Seth Rich enough to offer a $20K reward for solving his murder. Of all the murders that happen daily around the world and of all the DNC staffers (dead or living) why would Assange mention Rich's name during an interview when asked about his sources?

2. We have evidence that Seth Rich had a strong motive to leak. He was a Bernie supporter. https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/6c4qdd/seth_rich_manifesto_from_his_now_confirmed/

3. You don't know his level of access to the data. Your claim is baseless.

You intentionally lied or obfuscated on all 3 points.

We have circumstantial evidence. We have evidence someone inside the DNC leaked and talked to WL. http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/cias-russia-hacking-claims-dismissed-as-bulls-by-former-uk-ambassador-craig-murray-35288057.html

That's just someone's accusation. No evidence presented.

We have evidence WL values Seth Rich enough to offer a $20K reward for solving his murder. Of all the murders that happen daily around the world and of all the DNC staffers (dead or living) why would Assange mention Rich's name during an interview when asked about his sources?

Because Assange doesn't reveal his sources. He's said it countless times.

• If SR is the source, and Assange "hints" it, then they are revealing their source.

• If SR is not the source, and Assange "hints" it, he is obscuring the source.

Which do you think is more likely?

We have evidence that Seth Rich had a strong motive to leak. He was a Bernie supporter.

No. He was a Clinton supporter and was going to accept a promotion to work on her campaign. There is no evidence that Pandas4Bernie (plural pandas) is SR. SR's account is Panda4Progress (singular panda). The verification numbers were also different. The only thing similar is the reference to pandas.

You don't know his level of access to the data. Your claim is baseless.

What? Are you serious? You really think he had access to all the DNC emails? How? Can you provide a single piece of evidence that indicates this?

You intentionally lied or obfuscated on all 3 points.

lol

Look at you twisting words. You're calling a named ambassador (who has no skin in the game) a liar but you trust unnamed sources within the intelligence community (with strong conflicts of interest) that gave us WMDs and Gulf of Tonkin.

Look at you trying to play reverse psychology on Assange's words. Wow, cool, you can read minds.

The verification numbers were different by 1 digit strongly suggesting both accounts were his. He was not a Clinton supporter. He hated Clinton. He was offered the position just before his death. He could leak more from within her campaign.

You don't know his level of access. He doesn't need access to all the emails.

You still obfuscating. lol

Look at you twisting words. You're calling a named ambassador (who has no skin in the game) a liar but you trust unnamed sources within the intelligence community (with strong conflicts of interest) that gave us WMDs and Gulf of Tonkin.

No. I simply asked for evidence. Of which none exists. Even if it was a leaker, no evidence points to Seth Rich.

Look at you trying to play reverse psychology on Assange's words. Wow, cool, you can read minds.

Can you read minds? Because I'm just going by Assange's own words. He says he doesn't reveal sources. I give him the benefit of the doubt that he has at least that much integrity. Why do you think he's a liar?

The verification numbers were different by 1 digit strongly suggesting both accounts were his.

What? Do you even know how phone numbers work? A difference by even 1 number means it's completely different (we only had access to the last 2 digits).

He was not a Clinton supporter. He hated Clinton. He was offered the position just before his death. He could leak more from within her campaign.

You have absolutely no proof he hated Clinton. None at all. You just keep repeating it as if that makes it true.

https://twitter.com/pandas4bernie

You don't know his level of access.

Can you prove you don't have that level of access?? The onus is on the accuser to provide proof.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof#Proving_a_negative

He doesn't need access to all the emails.

What? He doesn't need access to all the emails in order to then leak them to WL? Do you even logic?

Look at you gaslighting. Julian Assange mentions Seth Rich in an interview where he didn't have to name anyone at all in order to NOT suggest Seth Rich. Wow. Mind blown.

Assange explicitly said his source is a leak, not a hack.

You have no evidence the Russia theory and you have Assange directly contradicting your Russia claim. I have circumstantial evidence for the Seth Rich theory. My story is logically consistent.

Look at you gaslighting. Julian Assange mentions Seth Rich in an interview where he didn't have to name anyone at all in order to NOT suggest Seth Rich. Wow. Mind blown.

"I don't reveal my sources... except this time."

Got it.

Assange explicitly said his source is a leak, not a hack.

Prove he did. Quote? Video? Anything at all. You have literally not provided any proof to any of your claims.

You have no evidence the Russia theory and you have Assange directly contradicting your Russia claim. I have circumstantial evidence for the Seth Rich theory. My story is logically consistent.

I dismantled all of your evidence. You don't even address the Clinton BS anymore because you have no legs to stand on. I'm checking out of this conversation. Your arguments are too weak to even continue.

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

I'll prove you wrong one last time.

Hannity: That's such a good point. Let me ask you about Craig Murray, former British Ambassador to Uzbekestan. An associate of yours, he was quoted in the Daily Mail that he flew to Washington DC for the emails. He claimed he had a clandestine handoff in a wooded area near American University with one of the email sources, and the leakers motivation was "disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the Primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders" and he said the source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not from hacks.

• Assange: Yea, we don't comment on sourcing. Craig Murray is a former UK Ambassador. He is a friend of mine. He is not authorized to speak on behalf of Wikileaks.

Hannity: Are you angry that he gave this interview?

• Assange: Uhh. I just don't wanna go anywhere near that.

Hannity: Okay. That's fine, but, can I ask the question in a roundabout way without being annoying, I'm not trying to be annoying here. Is it much more likely THAT would've happened versus the Russian's?

• Assange: I don't want to be drawn on this. We have to protect our sources. Im sorry, I can't be drawn on it.

Hey, cherry picker, you forgot where the first 1 minute of the video.

He never denies it being a hack.

How much does it cost to buy a soul?

lol... So this is what your argument has devolved into? It's actually kind of sad.

you have quite the penchant for the artful smear

You could say that about anyone. Especially in politics.

Hillary Clinton nor John Podesta have no motive to kill Seth Rich after Podesta specifically says he wants to make an example of potential leakers?

There is so much myth making and speculation in here. For starters you have no evidence Seth Rich was a potential leaker. You should start there before claiming Hillary and Podesta had a motive to kill him. And motive means a little more than "Anyone who might not like anyone else"

Really, neither Clinton nor Podesta don't have the means to hire assassins

Step out of your fantasy world. Everyone has the means to hire assassins. This is pure speculative fiction unless you provide evidence. Of which there is none. But as has been pointed out, if you applied the same standards to the Trump-Russia affair you'd be calling for Trump to be jailed for life.

Thoughts on marble?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-31/wikileaks-reveals-marble-proof-cia-disguises-their-hacks-russian-chinese-arabic

Not being cheeky, I'm not in cybersec and don't claim to have a real understanding of this stuff

The cognitive dissonance is real.

Every piece of 'evidence' for russiagate is based on 'anonymous sources' and imaginary memos. On financial dealings with Russia by people related to Trump (not illegal). On meetings between people associated with Trump (not illegal).

None of the above is evidence of wrongdoing or even suspicion of wrongdoing, other than MUH RUSSIA IS EVIL AND WANTS TO DESTROY AMERICA.

Whereas there is all sorts of odd things revolving around pizzagate. From the symbolisim to the "artwork", to the odd language, to the direct voice comparisons/analysis between Podesta's voice and the voice on the "skippy" video.

All of the above is evidence. Not anonymous sources or imaginary documents.

Lol anonymous sources. Do trump supporters and right wingers not know how news agencies work, or are you guys just too young and never read a newspaper before? The news has been operating on anonymous sources forever. If you reveal your sour email, you lose it. Reporters depend on tips from whistle blowers to get insider information. Now right wingers don't trust anonymous sources because they don't like what's being leaked about the trump administration. It's been fun seeing conservatives with their heads in the sand though. Maybe soon you'll wake up and realize this isn't a Dem conspiracy, but an FBI criminal investigation.

What you have to realize is that you could make those claims about nearly any administration. Do you think people in Obama's administration didn't meet with the Russian ambassador, etc? I think its telling that people are so vague about it. If something was definitely done wrong, people would be identifying it and not letting up.

They didn't meet with the same Russian ambassador that the National Security Advisor was fired for lying about talking sanctions with. They also didn't try to hide the ambassadors attendance in meetings in the Oval Office(excluding US press but not Russias) held at the request of Putin where Obama exposed classified information.

What do you feel Flynn did that was illegal? I am open to the option that he may have, considering all the fuss about it, but I'm curious to hear your take?

• Failing to register as a foreign agent - lobbying for Turkey
• Lying in a security clearance review saying his trip to Moscow was funded by US companies when he was really getting paid by RT

They didn't meet with the same Russian ambassador that the National Security Advisor was fired for lying about talking sanctions with.

Russian Ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak appeared on Obama White House visitor logs at least 22 times between 2009 and 2016.

source

The visitor logs that the Trump White house is now keeping hidden.

Which one of those visits came right after a top security official was fired for conversations with Kislyak? Thats my point

Isn't a big part of it that they (Trump administration) lied about it? If it wasn't done wrong, why lie?

What you have to realize is that you could make those claims about nearly any administration. Do you think people in Obama's administration didn't meet with the Russian ambassador, etc?

It's deeply odd and clearly inappropriate that he was meeting with Kislyak to talk lifting sanctions just then imposed on them before Trump had even won, keeping in mind that the sanctions were imposed because of Russian espionage that strongly appeared to have been engineered to assist Trump.

This is not normal.

Has it ever occurred to you that those sanctions were bullshit because there was no out of the ordinary "Russian espionage?"

Has it ever occurred to you that those sanctions were bullshit because there was no out of the ordinary "Russian espionage?"

Has it occurred to you that there was "out of the ordinary" Russian espionage?

But whatever, that's actually irrelevant - it wasn't normal. Doing it in the context of universal agreement by all US IC, and the vast majority of the international cybersecurity community (that Russia interfered through hacks and using the spoils as psy-ops targeted at Clinton) just looks downright suspicious.

Trying to compare it to standard interstate diplomacy is absurd.

No evidence has been provided to show that it was anything out of the ordinary. Russia is just a scapegoat.

Why should it be surprising that people in the US at the highest levels of business and government also have connections to people in Russia at the highest levels of business and government?

You could have taken the same fine tooth comb to the Obama administration, or Bush, or Clinton and found the exact same kinds of connections.

We live in a global, connected world and despite the fantasy world you are led to believe exist, the "movie version of life", the reality is that Russia and the US are extremely similar and connected in millions of ways.

Why is this entire premise based also based around the fact that "Russians are evil" and anyone with connections to them must be "up to no good".

Should I be worried if an administration had a lot of connections to Spain?

Or Australia?

or Brazil? Etc....

I have spent the last 10 years traveling the world extensively and once you leave the Western bubble, you come to realize certain things. "The evil Russians" is part of an elaborate fantasy and once you realize that, it becomes much easier to see why the government needs a "boogey-man} in their back pocket to pull out whenever they need people to believe their latest magic-trick.

Russia is no more good or evil than any other superpower in the world. And once again, Washington DC and the people at every high level of business has been connected to their counterparts in Russia for decades now. It is only currently being paraded around as part of a larger bullshit narrative. And it obviously works. Look how people eat it up.

This is how propaganda has always worked: lets focus on something that has been completely normal for generations and act like it is a new thing by showing evidence of it. People, in masses, have no attention span or long-term memory and the few people who actually see through the bullshit will simply be marginalized.

How many of them have blatantly lied under oath and were fired 24 days into their job because of it?

"blatantly lied under oath"

Amazing how many armchair redditors suddenly become experts in law directly after a sensationalist headline triggers them into having their next "aha, I reached this conclusion all on my own" moment.

If you say, "No, I did not have those meetings" while under oath, and it turns out those meetings did happen, you just lied under oath. That's a pretty basic concept.

So I guess you have read the full court transcripts right?

Oh wait, no, you read an opinion piece.

"You're saying facts I don't like, so I'm going to write a lot of assumptions about you".

When you can't properly respond to something without making it a personal attack, you completely discredit yourself.

You have stated no facts.

Fact - Flynn lied about his ties to Russia.

Fact - Flynn was fired 24 days into his job, for lying about his ties to Russia.

Are those not facts?

Ties to Russia.

??

Flynn misled the VP about one of his 30 calls to forigen ambassadors. If 'ties" is doing his job as National Security Adviser then he certainly has many of them.

misled the VP

You buy that story?

Can you speculate on what really happened?

How exactly am I making a "personal attack"?

Do you not see a problem with thousands of anonymous online commenters using their own interpretation of laws they know nothing about? After learning about "the facts" from media organizations that present none and fill article with yet more personal interpretations of what they believe happened.

You're still completely missing the point.

When "the point" is being shoved down my throat without evidence then I am happy to let it miss me.

? the transcripts of the hearings​ are public record, we all have them.

So then it shouldn't be hard to show solid evidence of "lying under oath". Was he charged with lying under oath or is that only a claim being made? If he wasn't charged with lying under oath, why not? Etc...

"Politifact" constantly uses their own interpretation of the evidence to point out lies and truth.

So the question is, who is decided whether he lied under oath. A media organization and their "official sources" or an actual judge who would be able to prove that the crime of "perjury" was committed.

You seem to be confused. He purjured himself in front of a senate confirmation hearing, not a court. Sitting Senators are accusing him of perjury:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/03/07/politics/al-franken-jeff-sessions-perjury/index.html

Accusing... got it.

Ha, what? Franken is the senator who's question caused Sessions to lie under oath. Frankens is the opinion that matters here. The Senate would need to vote to find Sessions in contempt, which is obviously political. But, we have on video Sessions lying, we have a statement from the Senator he was lying to saying indeed it seems he was lying. It doesn't get any clearer.

Franken is the senator who's question caused Sessions to lie under oath.

So how exactly does that make Franken unbiased here?

The Senate would need to vote to find Sessions in contempt

Have they yet? Because what Franken "believes" doesn't make it so.

But, we have on video Sessions lying,

No, we have a video of Sessions saying something that, in Franken's opinion, is a lie.

we have a statement from the Senator he was lying

Again, currently meaningless.

The only thing clear here is that you don't understand what actual evidence is.

what actual evidence is.

I am pretty sure direct video of someone doing something un front of a room full of people is pretty much the highest standard of evidence you could ask for. But, if it makes you more comfortable I guess we'll all wait for the Senate to vote that we did indeed see what we all watched.

I'm not really sure why people refuse to believe the Trump-Russia thing is more than just emails.

It's also people who know Trump talking to Russians in their lifetimes, and anonymous sources!

Because they are trying to give people tunnel vision on the investigation so they can focus all their efforts into casting doubt on that element; the DNC server element.

Why didn't the DNC turned the allegedly hacked computers to the FBI, and chose to go with a shady company called Crowdstrike, which coincidentally has ties to the Clintons?

Because they're corrupt as fuck? I'm not denying that, I don't like the DNC, but I'm saying there's a lot more to the situation than just the emails.

Hell, I hacked my friend years ago just to get ops in an IRC channel.

If the means are known, easy, and relatively low-risk or carry little possibility of consequence, they'd be stupid not to try.

Upvote for not mentioning Seth Rich and actually remembering the Gulf of Tonkin story.

If you're a real theorist you MUST remember the Gulf of Tonkin Story, it's as real as it gets!

Remember the Maine...

About as "real" as "WMDs" in Iraq!

Not sure what your inferring? What I was saying and maybe should have been more straight is that the Gulf of Tonkin is as real as a conspiracy gets! Of course the attack wasn't real but getting us into the war was the point!

I realized my response was too ambiguous after I posted it. I've edited it to show my support.

Too many "air quotes" for my own good!

The only real WMDs in Iraq was all the depleted Uranium ordinance we used to destroy that country.

Well, that and the soldiers we sent there

REMEMBER THE MAINE! Let's not forget the first admitted false flag in US History, the sinking of the USS Maine that brought us into the Spanish American War.

The man presiding over that? The Doors front man Jim Morrison's father.

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

It's ALL connected!

A surprisingly large number of 60's hippy/drugs rock stars of the 60's had intel/mil connections. Jim, Frank Zappa, Mama's and Papa's, Buffalo Springfield, Crosby Stills and Nash. The list goes on.

They had a large influence over the population. What did they encourage? turn on/tune in/ drop out. Get stoned (by cia created LSD)-fuck-live on a commune. Just as the populace were getting politicized, along came these guys saying 'nah, just get stoned and fuck'.

Google 'Inside The LC: The Strange but Mostly True Story of Laurel Canyon and the Birth of the Hippie Generation'

Add a pdf to that search and you will get more than an article. The author Dave McGowan has since passed away sadly.

Should be a test to keep the shills out.

Downvoting for use of insults. Can we not return to respectful debate od information? Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them stupid. If you have evidence of the contrary, present it and have respectful conversation. You do not change hearts, minds, or the world by using insulting banter.

To be clear, I believe the Russia hysteria to be bullshit also. Use your language properly and change the planet.

I understand the anger. I feel it too. We must get our point across correctly, though. People react negatively to insults, especially whwn their views are a challenged. We must get our point across to as many as possible and to do that, we must remain respectful, use our evidence, and never let up. Good luck in your future ventures.

Ya but your human so I don't see the problem. The paid shills use much nastier etiquette and are much more dirty with their tactics, so at this point it's only natural that we are gonna get fed up time to time and drop the polite facade and get real. I for one welcome it as long as the landscape of this sub looks the way it does. Can't expect people to say please and thank you in the middle of a gun fight.

But the shills aren't the ones who will change their opinions, it is the average person. And the average person will automatically reject your argument when dealt insults.

Russia hacked the election for hillary clinton.

What are you even saying? What does it mean to "hack the election" ? Do you know?

I mean, you can't deny that Hillary has had some shady dealings with Russia.

I don't believe the Russia Trump narrative, either.

How do you Explain Flynn's appointment to National Security Adviser after Pence, Priebus and Trump were warned of his Russian contacts?

I explain it by reminding you that Trump doesn't trust Obama or any of his people. He thinks Obama was wire tapping him. He probably just didn't believe the intelligence. Let's not forget Trump isn't the smartest cookie.

And Pence, and Priebus?

Same deal? Trump is their boss. The Russians wanted him to win, but they didn't interfere in the election. Entanglements between political operatives and foreign nations is reprehensible and shouldn't be allowed, but it's far from rare. Would we be having a conversation right now about Podestas ties to the Saudis if Hillary had won the election? The media cannot be trusted anymore. I saw them for what they were after their treatment of Bernie Sanders. Half of what they say these days turns out to be false. The entire country has entered Chicken Little mode and its scary to think we might decide to impeach over the media making shit up. I don't want that kind of precedent in our democracy.

Ok, you are looking but are being led by the propaganda you pretend to identify and dismiss.

I don't understand your sentence structure there, but I will state that I have followed the media quite closely and they consistently fail to show other sides of the argument, or if they do allow dissenting opinions create straw men or invite on the dumbest people they can find to disagree with them. If anyone has been manipulating our elections, it is the media. They will never have my trust again.

And I still don't understand your view which media, special conservative media or all of it?

Both sides lie like crazy. I am under no illusions that the conservative or "alt right" media can be taken at face value, but they get it right sometimes. In general it is almost impossible to get real news these days. There is none.

I agree, but I find nothing believable from conservative propaganda but sometimes they inadvertently reveal things not previously known to promote a lie about something else and that is also true of the MSM. When something is revealed it more likely an accident.

I am under no illusions that the conservative or "alt right" media can be taken at face value, but they get it right sometimes.

Yes, but significantly less than reputable mainstream media like Reuters, the Economist, the AP, etc.

That's debatable. Also the mainstream press is held to a higher standard than the alt right, simply because they are supposed to have a good reputation.

That's "debatable," how is that debatable. Are you seriously implying that the ASSOCIATED PRESS is less reputable than propaganda outlets like Fox News and Breitbart? Come on man, just come on.

I am stating outright that the associated press is just as guilty of blatant political propaganda as all of the other players here. At least you expect this sort of thing from Breitbart. One could argue the AP is much worse, in the same way you'd find a kindergarten teacher especially abhorrent if they were found guilty of molesting children.

Top keks mate, everyone is equally bad is my favorite right wing narrative. I mean ofc, all news is equally biased, just like all people are equally biased, and equally everything. Everything is the same, the world is black and white, blah blah blah.

One could argue the AP is much worse

Oh, of course you would. Also, for someone who says that everything is equally bad and shouldn't be trusted, you seem to somehow established pretty strong beliefs in that haze of lies and falsehoods.

K

Because you are reading fan-fiction being written by media.

No the media keeps carrying the distraction and lie, DNC leaks.

Which part of that wasn't true?

He wasn't actually fired, that was all media manipulation.

What are you talking about? Trump fired him

'I fired him because of what he said to Mike Pence.' -Donald Trump, Feb 16, 2017

was joke

It has no bearing on whether Russia hacked the election which is what started this whole thing. OP states that Russian backing is sketchy which it is, but it doesn't equate to 'Russia hacking Democracy' which we are distinctly being led to believe took place.

Whats concerning is that Russia may have influence over the highest levels of our government. The means of which that influence is being welded is secondary to the mounting evidence that there is influence!

And it is a known fact that israel and saudi arabia already had this influence. And since we know saudis supported the terrorists on 911 where is the fkn outrage????? Thats right people need to be told what to be angry about

Is it the same way you explain Crooked Clinton running for POTUS while under investigation?

Thanks for that whataboutism.

Since most of the topics discussed on this sub lately and in general by everyone were hand picked and pushed out via controlled Media as misdirection we should practically be drowning in Whataboutisms.

What about 9/11 What about Habeas Corpus What about our secret political prisons What about Syrian false flag chem attack What about the COUNTLESS other things that should have our attention but instead everyone is bickering about Russia

Thanks for that but honestly I don't know what your point is?

You used Whataboutism in a negative context.

My point is that with all of the misdirection and red herrings everywhere we should be using Whataboutisms all the time and there is nothing wrong with that because our focus is being deliberately shepherded away from important matters.

That is what whataboutism is, shifting focus form the topic.

I don't' think it is good. What you are referring to is distraction, they are not the same.

The media is using distraction, we as consumers of information could use (among many other potential techniques no doubt) Whataboutism's to get the focus back on track to the best of our ability.

Uhm, you do realize that Trump was also under investigation, Comey just didn't publicly disclose it (to Trump's IMMENSE benefit). Maybe try not getting all your news from The_Dumbass.

Yeah? No.

• Before being fired, Comey told Congress that Russian probe targets didn't include Trump

• Grassley Strongly Implies That Comey Told Him Trump Isn’t Under Investigation

• Trump not personally under investigation, top senators say

Oh, so that you believe, but when the same Senators and Comey say that Russia hacked the DNC, then they're lying.

Of course. Their reporting on direct conversations with people they met versus reporting on tenuous findings by the various agencies of IC.

But it's conversations with the same people who made the reports.... and I like how you slipped in the word "tenuous" which absolutely no one uses. Comey said, under oath, that Russia hacked the DNC, and that according to Trump supporters is a lie, BUT you're trying to say that Comey should be trusted when he said Trump wasn't under investigation.

Do you REALLY not see a contradiction?

Crowdstrike
Trump Dossier
Seth Rich leaking

Do you really not see the tenuous nature of the intelligence communities assessment?

Anyhoo what impetus would Democrat Dianne Feinstein have to lie about Trump not being under investigation? Oh you didn't read the article did you

Sigh, I read the article, all me to quote it, and maybe you will see my point.

Congressional officials were told by FBI Director James Comey before he was fired that there are just a small number of Americans who are targets of the criminal or counterintelligence probes involving Russia and that none were President Trump or his top aides, Circa has confirmed.

Want to try again?

Do you really not see the tenuous nature of the intelligence communities assessment?

No, I don't. I also don't see any evidence of a Seth Rich leaking. If the Russian interference info is tenuous, then what is the Seth Rich info?

I read the article,

Apparently not.

Mrs. Feinstein agreed with that.

http://archive.is/v8K7r

No, I don't.

Sad.

what is the Seth Rich info?

We won't know until it's investigated.

Holy fuck I got so many ads clicking that garbage, but again it says that Diane Feinstein is getting info from Comey. If Comey is lying about one thing, why is he not lying about another thing. I want YOU to tell me how you can justify the contradiction. What are you not understanding about this?

We won't know until it's investigated.

Funny, this sub seems to have made up it's mind already, so has that other sub you visit!

archive.is lol What r u talking about?

Comey is lying about one thing, why is he not lying about another thing.

Has he ever told the truth at all?!!!

Funny, this sub seems to have made up it's mind already, so has that other sub you visit!

Just your opinion.

Good thing our POTUS wasn't under criminal investigation until after he was elected. Whew, what a relief /s

Trump isn't under criminal investigation.

• Before being fired, Comey told Congress that Russian probe targets didn't include Trump

• Grassley Strongly Implies That Comey Told Him Trump Isn’t Under Investigation

• Trump not personally under investigation, top senators say

Is now forbidden to have contacts in Russia?

Is merely having contacts with Russia the problem?

That seems to be your problem.

That seems to be a very limited view.

But Israel Trump narrative is pretty realistic

And Saudi Arabia. Trump registered 8 companies in SA during the campaign - http://www.dailywire.com/news/10978/report-trump-registered-eight-companies-saudi-joshua-yasmeh#exit-modal

But shut them down after the election - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/09/donald-trump-closes-companies-after-election-saudi-arabia

Also, why isn't anyone mentioning that Russia is a client of the Podesta Lobby Group? They are/were lobbying the US gov to have sanctions lifted. that was going on during the election campaign.

Trump just has slumber parties with Putin. but theres nothing going on.

just like Podestas obsession with bizzare kiddy art and pizza. nothing going on either.

Cool another fuckin post telling us not to pay any mind to the Russia Trump connection. We get at least 5 of these a day. If Trump and all of the cronies he had to fire are innocent, then they will be vindicated in the end. But it's odd that Mike Flynn is avoiding his subpoena and will plead the 5th over this shit. It's odd that all these reports are coming out of Trump telling everyone to back off the investigation. It's a little strange that he fired the guy heading the investigation. Why don't we wait to see what else comes out before we jump to conclusions? Yet I continue to see 5-10 posts a day on here telling me I'm crazy and stupid for following this story. Seems like people are worried. If they weren't, they wouldn't constantly be posting about it and telling me what to think.

You made it clear in your post that you do believe there is a Russian connection to trump but these people seem to have completely missed that part

Are you joking. This entire sub is swarmed bi-hourly with posts and comments calling everyone "the Donald 2.0" and trying to bring the "Evil Russians and Trump" circlejerk into everyone's mind, just like the other 99% of reddit, and just like 99% of the current mainstream media.

You aren't being marginalized or persecuted, it is the exact opposite. Your narrative NEVER stops being pushed and pushed and pushed and all some of us have been asking for, since the beginning, was a shred of evidence that wasn't hearsay, anonymous sources, or a sensationalized half-truth.

And after MONTHS of asking for this evidence, we have still been shown nothing. All the while the populace circlejerk keeps repeating the same tired alarmist talking points over and over as if by simply repeating them (and downvoting anyone who challenges them) will suddenly make them true.

The only people constantly telling everyone what to think are the people on your side.

Investigations take a long time. Watergate took 2 years. I'm not pushing a narrative or telling people what to think. You guys are. Costantly posting about how all this Russia stuff is bullshit. You seem incredibley worried. I just want to see the investigation play out. You can think whatever you want. If Trump and his cronies are innocent then you can shove it in people's faces when the time comes. If he's so innocent, you have nothing to worry about in a throuroug investigation.

People are worried in the same way they were worried while watching the idiot population get convinced about WMD's, also without evidence.

We clearly aren't going to go to war with Russia, even if they did interfere with out election. Even if Trump got impeached and Pence got in, we wouldn't be going to war with Russia. Not sure why you'd be worried about that.

Wow, you must be able to see the future. Thanks anonymous internet person!

They are looking into whether or not Flynn and/or Kushner made a deal with them. It's certainly possible that they offered a relief from sanctions or something else in exchange for the help in getting elected. They certainly were in contact with the russians often during the campaign and after. Flynn got fired after he lied to Pence about speaking with the Russians about sanctions. We don't know yet.

And that Syria bombing was a joke. They just moved the rest of the planes at that base to a Russian controlled base. We aren't going to bomb any russians there. Trump warned them to get out before we bombed them. There's not gonna be another cold war.

Okay. Let's be proper conspiracy theorists, and lets apply critical thinking. The two sides of the coin, the media, who some believe in on a conspiracy to distract/control the public with a false story claiming that Russia and Trump are colluding, vs Trump and his campaign, who some believe to be colluding.

First method of discerning the truth, Occam's Razor. Party A says Party B did something illegal. Party B says all of Party A is tied up in a propaganda/conspiracy stunt. Party A's story holds up better under the Razor. But that's a really, really dumb way of determining the truth, and is effectively irrelevant to this sub.

Second method, motivations.

What does each party have to lose? Plenty of the media is widely believed to be trustworthy, if Comey turns around and says all of this stuff from anonymous sources is false, they lose a ton of trust-ability. That's a huge loss to them. Trump. If his lies are wrong here, they'll be added to the pile. I think we can all agree he's a serial liar.

What does each party have to gain? The media would gain increased views. And, according to the crazier theories, 'their viewers wouldn't become smart and escape from the trap of mainstream media'. Trump, on the other hand, is profiting in profits and by being the most powerful man on Earth. That's huge.

The way I see it, Trump has nothing to lose, and everything to gain. The media has much to lose, and not much to gain.

And, since this is my first real post here, a message to y'all. I like this sub. I thought I wouldn't, but I like it. Although, almost by definition, there will be plenty of logical fallacies or just plain misinformation here, the community looks great. It feels, so far, like people that legitimately want to find truth, unlike plenty of other subs, where it feels like self-confirmation bias confirming.

You realize the whole hacking thing is only part of the equation right?

Even if it's proven Seth Rich was the leaker, that doesn't mean Russia didn't interfere with our election and collided with Trump campaign

Massive propaganda campaigns in social media while pretending they are Americans.

It's the exact same shit we hate CTR and Shareblue shills for.

I'm not sure why you are defending shilling.

It's impossible to know how much they influenced the election, but their massive propaganda efforts was staggering.

I think they are just as prevalent on reddit as CTR or Shareblue is, which is why I talk about it.

Here's the thing, Hillary was supposed to win and if she lost it can't possibly be her fault. And if the leaks didn't come from Russia then it must be something else Russia or the alt right did to ruin her shot at becoming president.

Just in case anyone forgets, this is the second time she had tried to run for president and lost. I wonder what the Russians to to make Hillary lose in 2008

I could give a shit about Hillary. She was a terrible candidate who somehow managed to lose to a even worse person.

If you think anything in the DNC emails was real corruption then I can't even imagine what you'd think if you came across REAL political corruption. You'd probably die of shock.

Any evidence for this? Sounds like projection. Just because CTR/Shareblue do it, doesn't mean the Russians do it on American forums. And if they do, do you really think they would be successful? And finally, if they do, what do you propose? That is completely legal afaik.

Russia Web Brigades.

Cool, a Wikipedia article that has nothing to do with the 2016 election...

Here's a report from the DNI that discusses their involvement in the 2016 election.

Oh god, yes I'm aware of that report. That is the Deep State in action, right there. And notice how they don't give any evidence, they basically say "we think this looks like something Russia would do!" More lies from the same people who got us into the Iraq War. Its disgusting.

If you watch the hearings, they go into detail about how they do it

I've listened to all of their arguments, I didn't find any of them convincing at all. Just vague accusations hidden under jargon.

You know how I know you haven't watched it?

For everyone else reading this thread, I urge to you watch the intelligence hearings.

Well I did. Did you?

Maybe you need to watch this: http://www.hannity.com/articles/election-493995/watch-heres-a-montage-of-democrats-15852024/

Flirting with Rule 10 here man.

Sorry. Didn't mean to.

"Massive propaganda campaigns in social media"

Do tell?

Allcott and Gentzkow concluded, “Our data suggest that social media were not the most important source of election news, and even the most widely circulated fake news stories were seen by only a small fraction of Americans.

Stanford Study Finds Fake News Didn’t Tip Election Against Clinton Ironically, the most widely believed fake news stories were those that benefited her

Paper

Thanks for the study.

This doesn't disprove that there was a massive propaganda campaign from Russia.

CTR shilling is bad.

Russia shilling is bad.

seen by only a small fraction of Americans.

This doesn't disprove that there was a massive propaganda campaign from Russia. CTR shilling is bad. Russia shilling is bad.

seen by only a small fraction of Americans.

Is shilling by anyone bad or only when CTR does it?

DNC shilling is bad.

MSM shilling is bad.

Deep state shilling is bad.

Is Russia shilling bad?

GOAL POSTS

Strawmen

How does it feel to watch the last 8- months of your life go up in smoke?

It hasn't and won't? Why would it?

https://psychcentral.com/lib/the-5-stages-of-loss-and-grief/

What's your point?

RIP TrumpRusConspiracy

It makes it even more of a baseless accusation. Once people learn that Russia didn't actually "meddle in our election," people aren't going to believe any more of the Trump-Russia conspiracy.

So is that the goal? Not to find out the truth about Seth Rich, but to disprove the Russian conspiracy?

The goal is to find the truth. I really enjoy that pursuit (in fact it is part of my job), and I trust my judgement very much. I am of the opinion that the Russia did not have any meaningful role in our election. I also doubt that Trump has any corrupt ties to Russia, but I have an open mind and I would certainly look at any valid evidence that suggests as much. Finally, I think that there is a definite possibility that Seth was the leaker, but the jury is still out.

TrumpRusConspiracy

This random guy on the internet made an account dedicated to the Russo-Trump conspiracy—the most popular conspiracy theory pushed by the mainstream media since the 9/11 Arab hijackers.

Yep. What about it?

Kinda says it all.

What does?

This random guy on the internet made an account dedicated to the Russo-Trump conspiracy—the most popular conspiracy theory pushed by the mainstream media since the 9/11 Arab hijackers.

Yes, so? What does that say?

It says it all.

No, it says TrumpRusConspiracy

Kinda says all we need to know.

Trump seems to be feeding the military industrial complex on his own though.

The Saudi weapons deal, bombing of Syria and such.

And increased military budget, 34 billion dollars. But I still agree with OP

A republican president and overwhelming majority which increases military budget? Weow, who'd have guessed

Looking forward to everyone's new pro-war views when Trump invades North Korea.

To be fair NK sort of needs more than just a tap on the wrist with how increasingly aggressive they've been getting. I wouldn't necessarily call it pro-war, just anti-appeasement.

The norks need to bow to the rest of the world. Not vice versa.

I doubt we will be sending freedom bombs there anytime soon.

https://imgur.com/gallery/ZsrxT

Well, that is true, the US have no incentive to gift them the power of "democracy".

But it's sort of an odd pseudo-cold war situation. Either the norks really lose their shit and nuke SK or Japan or nothing happens and it's endless tension.

It's been the latter since 1953 or so. Natural resources have nothing to do with it. The only thing that matters is the intersection of NK's nuke capabilities and the mental health of their dictator. Odds are, the military will end him before they allow themselves to lose China's protection and get annihilated by superior forces.

Freedom bombs lmao

Bad numbers Bob.

To be clear, the incentive is to install a central bank in the country. Just as it was in Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Saudis have plenty of Oil. Kuwaitis have plenty of oil. They will probably not ever be "liberated" because they already have a rothschild central bank.

See? It's already started.

Says the 11 day old troll account dedicated to debunking Seth Rich's murder investigation.

Debunking? Kid, I fucking killed him myself. I've been waiting for someone to pick up on the fact that I keep bragging about it.

So edgy and hilarious, wow! You could totally write for SNL bro!

Ugh, your jokes are lame.

Amazing name

Removed. Rule 10.

Just report or send us a modmail next time. This user's been banned.

The poster of the comment you deleted was banned, or ikilledsethrich was banned?

The latter.

Can I ask what for? Not trying to start shit, I just didn't see any comment of theirs deleted/breaking rules

Trolling. User was claiming, as can be guessed from his username, that he killed Seth Rich.

Word

When someone starts their counterpoint with "To be fair..." you know you're in for some doozy apologist rhetoric.

To be fair, that's not always true :P

How about we just stay where we are and be impenetrable?

how increasingly aggressive they've been getting.

what have they done that's more aggressive?

Wow.

Yes thousands of North Koreans deserve to die because a leader has indoctrinated them so he can control his populace. So he can control his nation. Which he cannot uphold or better because of economic sanctions produced by the west. Which he cannot compete with because they'll only stop if he allows them to install a central bank in the country. Which he won't allow because he refuses to pander to globalists.

we invade, they nuke South Korea and Japan

Are you willing to be on the front lines in NK?

Do you have any kids, cousins, brothers or sisters you're willing to send over there for War?

If not, please shut the fuck up.

I'm still looking forward to Trump slamming Erdogan's actions on American soil. I assume I will still be waiting during the next election.

LOL this subreddit is all over the place!

Im glad it is. I thought trumpets had taken over when i read the title of this post.

It's a mixture of hardcore liberal progressives and hardcore conservative republicans.

There really isn't a "middle ground" like me in this subreddit.

I just find it hilarious to see one side mock the other side, just to see the same side do the same exact thing they were mocking the other for. It happens to both sides. Quite funny to watch on this subreddit because I feel like I'm witnessing a sitcom.

I just peek in from time to time. Always happy to see reasonable people in the mix.

I mean if it gets them to stop and puts their snuke plans back ten years.. would it be the worst thing?

"WTF, I love war now!" - Reddit

As someone who's been in an unnecessary war, you know threats exist. Lets say Kim nukes the US, do you think anyone is going to have a problem then? The half the country that's still left would ask why the fuck the US didn't act sooner to resolve things peacefully.

The only way a NK could nuke anyone is if it was allowed to happen.

I imagine we have tools in place to prevent such things but as secluded as they are, I wouldn't be surprised if they would prepare for counter measures and adjust appropriately. Nobody has been stopping them from testing recent missiles.

Are you volunteering to be on the front lines of combat?

If a draft is in place then yes, but I don't think it would come down to that. Best outcome is they resolve it peacefully.

I've never been against taking that crazy fat bastard out.

Can you be the president of the united states with an R next to your name and not feed it though? Seems like a good way to have everyone on your side quickly turn against you. Repub's love the military

Same with D buddy

As the president, that's your #1 job. Or else you end up with an extra hole in your head and nothing gets done.

Not excusing it, but it's not surprising. Especially not when it comes to the Saudis, who also simultaneously support our economy with the petrodollar.

Ain't nothing different about that though

Yeah, and look at his budget today, yet another care package for the MIC. Anyone who thinks Trump isn't just another politician like all the others are kidding themselves.

Is Russia involved? Who the fuck knows.

But what we do know is Trump has proven himself to be a hypocrite, and idiot who is woefully unprepared for the job, and 100% in bed with special interest and the military. If people are still failing to see this they are being willfully ignorant to what's right in front of their faces.

If this were any other politician people would be up in arms. But somehow they've convinced themselves this is some kind of 3D chess when it's closer to a game of checkers between a 5 year old with the atrention span of a goldfish and ADD riddled baboon.

Agreed, Russia is fake, but Trump is still a puppet.

Why can't these two things co-exist?

I appreciate the edits you made to clear things up. Thank you. ✌️

Yeah, well, if Trump is feeling pressure from the powers that be, maybe he isn't making all these decisions on his own.

I'm not saying he isn't likely to back track on his campaign promises, but I think someone behind the scenes is breaking him.

Also, not a Trump supporter. Just someone who appreciates a sane approach to this topic.

The only "Russian intereference" is simply backroom diplomacy and business deals. Nothing new under the sun, we see the same stuff with Turkey and Saudi Arabia as we speak.

Russia did not interfere with the election.

So true. I feel the things Trump and company did were things that have been done in the past and will be done in the future.

I'm gonn a have to wait and see, on that. Investigations are pending.

We can't be expected to wait forever, though. I'm getting impatient.

the thing is even if it really wanted it didn't need to. Pretty much the same result can be achieved by simple rumours like now. Look at what is happening, the USA political establishment is in chaos. There no political or even inter-party unity. And considering it was the democrats who cast the first stone by screaming "russians are hacking us" then they did worse than any kind of russian interference in US politics.

There really is no need to expend all that effort to put someone in power when the establishment itself is ready to tear itself into pieces on simple rumours. And it has been clear that it was going to happen sooner or later for anyone who has watched american politics over the last few years, they have been increasingly more combative and the general stance is that if you vote for the other party you are stupid.

So yeah, Russia didn't interfere because there was no real reason to even want to. US politicians do it better on their own.

If you believe "Russia-hacked-the-election" you are an idiot.

Who the fuck is even saying this? I'm sure they're out there but I've yet to hear a single reputable person seriously alleged that "Russian hacked the election" in any literal sense. And I keep hearing this over and over again that "OMG RUSSIA DIDN'T HACK THE ELECTION YOUR IDIOTS" when no one is even accusing them of such. It's such a ridiculous strawman and it's so tiring to reiterate over and over again that that isn't the controversy.

OP, I think you are confusing dialog and narrative control propaganda for information.

Conservative media are who focuses on the DNC leaks, not this liberal or even Democratic as a whole.

This liberal sees evidence that not only the current Administration was playing footsie with the Russians, some of our Congress critters are as well.

The DNC wikileaks did not affect Democratic voters in the negative way the MSM and conservative media keeps positing.

The real problem with the very fake, very controlled election was successful voter suppression and what now looks like a conspiracy to dump NATO, EU and align the U.S. with Russia, no one really mentions that.

Can you explain why Flynn needed to be an inside the White House, but unofficial, backdoor to Russia contacts? Because his Russian connections were ignored by Pence, Priebus, and Trump?

http://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/05/18/flynns-job-was-to-set-up-back-channel-access-between-putin-and-trump/

The "media," do you mean the constant denial that Russia meddled and that certain Congressional elected seem to have already had connections mostly via their financial backers.

//washingtonmonthly.com/2017/05/18/flynns-job-was-to-set-up-back-channel-access-between-putin-and-trump/

If it was such a public policy why the secrecy and denial about Flynn?

"Hacking," No hacking, leaks, and it is conservatives who keep using Russia Hacked.

Leaks, not a hack.

I have never claimed the DNC was hacked, not here, not anywhere.

If I lean any direction on the DNC leaks, I would suggest Rich was a conservative mole of his own creation.

Like this.

Pretend this is Rich,

I support Bernie, I hate Hillary, I will harm Hillary . . . but it all went bad, I don't think he was a strong ideologue, but a very self misdirected young man.

And if I were pressed, I would suggest he was therefore not "reliable," as a source and had to be eliminated to hide the source of the leak.

I also believe there were actual moles in Hillary's campaign, from U.S. sources and I base that on a few really horrific, "miss-steps," made by Hillary and her campaign, that were so lame and damaging I can't imagine any Democratic, moderate or not would have used or deployed.

The most memorable and glaring, "deplorables," positively sickened me when I saw it and against everything the Democratic party has ever stood for. There were others, like her backing down on the minimum wage increase and supporting more EITC.

I don't pay any attention to much if anything said by ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN or Fox and not much to NYTimes or WaPo. However a daily scan of all the noise says it is conservative providers who keep insisting on using the word "hacked," about the DNC emails, because it is a false narrative and can be attacked as such.

The false dialog is this: Democratic claim Russia hacked the DNC, there is no evidence of that, therefore the Democratic are liars.

It seems to be working for your conclusions, yes?

The propaganda pushed that not the party or candidates. But fine, we can agree to disagree.

there is no evidence for the hacking of the DNC. If you have evidence than post it here.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/all-signs-point-to-russia-being-behind-the-dnc-hack

The forensic evidence linking the DNC breach to known Russian operations is very strong. On June 20, two competing cybersecurity companies, Mandiant (part of FireEye) and Fidelis, confirmed CrowdStrike’s initial findings that Russian intelligence indeed hacked the DNC. The forensic evidence that links network breaches to known groups is solid: used and reused tools, methods, infrastructure, even unique encryption keys. For example: in late March the attackers registered a domain with a typo—misdepatrment[.]com—to look suspiciously like the company hired by the DNC to manage its network, MIS Department. They then linked this deceptive domain to a long-known APT 28 so-called X-Tunnel command-and-control IP address, 45.32.129[.]185.

And:

One of the strongest pieces of evidence linking GRU to the DNC hack is the equivalent of identical fingerprints found in two burglarized buildings: a reused command-and-control address—176.31.112[.]10—that was hard coded in a piece of malware found both in the German parliament as well as on the DNC’s servers. Russian military intelligence was identified by the German domestic security agency BfV as the actor responsible for the Bundestag breach. The infrastructure behind the fake MIS Department domain was also linked to the Berlin intrusion through at least one other element, a shared SSL certificate.

There's a shitload of 'evidence' out there (IT forensics conducted and corroborated by multiple independent cybersecurity firms), but you'll keep crying "where's the evidence?"

That is confirmation bias.

Whatever it is, it's not "no evidence", as you state.

That is confirmation bias.

Ironic. Deeply ironic - you certainly aren't applying the same standards toward the evidence for Russian hacks as you are for evidence of the Rich 'leaks'.

[removed]

FireEye deliberately excluded many targets of APT28 for being “not particularly indicative of a specific sponsor’s interests.”

Trivial stuff bro. Those cases are not as interesting or unusual as the ones examined in that particular paper. The ones examined demonstrate clearly an exclusive geopolitical agenda that is broadly consistent with only one plausible culprit: Russia.

That the others were excluded from this very brief outline does not detract from this premise.

the DNC was breached by a Russian-speaking hacker who is not employed by the Russian intelligence services but has access to the APT28 malware... Or   the DNC was breached by a Russian hacker who does contract work for the FSB when he isn’t running his own hacker-for-hire business for Russian oligarchs and Swiss lawyers... Or   the DNC was breached by a Russian hacker who does contract work for the FSB when he isn’t running his own hacker-for-hire business for Russian oligarchs and Swiss lawyers...

Yeah, if <overly elaborate hypothesis not supported by any sound logical explanation>.

The pattern is clear enough - the fingerprints and methods used in hacks that were almost certainly done to benefit the Russian state in its own backyard (i.e. in Georgia and Ukraine, for pro-Russian goals) were found in a prolonged cyber attack on the Democratic party in the US. That's where the evidence points with the highest probability, and you've done nothing to change that fact.

You can bring-up 'Russian oligarchs' and 'Swiss lawyers' all you want ... where's your evidence, eh?

To say that this is evidence which points unequivocally to the Kremlin is naive.

Who said that? The US IC concludes with "high confidence", and few in the tech community view the evidence as conclusive.

This is a theory, an inference to the best explanation, based upon the available evidence of multiple independent cyber-forensic investigations, which all points in only one direction. Rather than follow the evidence where it goes, you've decided to work backwards from your conclusion (not Russia!).

The Intelligence Community says it has classified information which proves the hacking narrative, proof that is apparently unrelated to these cyber-security firms. They should present that information to the public.

Any such information would absolutely be of the very highest classification, and the NSA/CIA/etc aren't going to burn their best sources on a dangerous adversary by making it all public. Are you fucken kidding? Be reasonable man.

Even if they did, you wouldn't accept it anyway - you've made that much clear. Important Republican representatives have access to this stuff, and so does the Whitehouse - Trump is the about only person in government who still doesn't seem to agree. Weird, huh?

OP, I think you are confusing dialog and narrative control propaganda for information.

Thats not confusion its pushing a narrative exactly the way they intended

Oh god we all know... It's so frustrating. I've never seen censorship, like actual political silencing, and it sucks. Took my favorite place away.

Yea. I didn't think society would reach this point so quickly. Seeing Reddit change so drastically from a place where you could have open, genuine political discussions, to a place where shills will attack anything that goes against their narrative, is truly disturbing. I can't imagine how bad it is going to be in the future. There may not be any places left for us to discuss things like this.

I wonder if everyone knows, of if we're a dying breed. I think they hope we're a dying breed, but then again Trump did win despite their very vocally trying to make us feel as though we were alone. Not that I like Trump, but just that Hillary personified everything that is now, ironically, taking over and I think everyone feels that, which resulted in us analogously choosing to gnaw off our own leg to avoid the trapper by voting for Trump over the NWO/Illuminati/(((Them)))/whatever your flavor of dishonest conspirators with access to the keys to power, no morals, and no desire to see good be done.

I'm with you, though.. I don't even like to talk about it because I feel like I have to be hopeful to inspire hope in others, but I feel less and less of a connection to this place every day. They've pretty much taken it over.

The front page is a smattering of obvious social engineering (disproportionate and forced praise of minorities and currently trending social groups, often times with a distinct lack of quality); ads; forced talking points; contrived creativity; and beneath it all, an ocean of distrust.

I choose to believe that we are beaten down, but that they can't break our spirit. Maybe that's all I have.

I hear you. Its sort of like the Matrix, once you see what is going, you can't unsee it. And you start to see it everywhere. Its pretty frustrating that more people don't see it and sometimes I feel a bit hopeless, too. I think the best thing to do is to lead by example and discuss this sort of stuff with people who aren't aware in little, bite-sized tidbits.

I do worry about the future, though. They already have so much control over what the average person is exposed to, and I imagine that it can only feel worse. But at the same time, I think more and more people are becoming "red pilled." I know I have only recently begun to notice the extent of the propaganda, and honestly, despite his flaws, some of that is due to Trump.

I agree that being hopeless and pessimistic is the worst thing we can do. I think we have to try our best to be successful and explain why we feel the way we do to people in a patient, understanding, and kind way.

Every time I hear "... Russia's interference in the 2016 election" I just think to myself "What the fuck does that even mean?" What are they trying to push that happened? Do they even know themselves?

They don't. They are merely cable news parrots.

Trump literally admitted that Trump interfered with the election.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-cyber-idUSKBN14S0O6

The FBI, CIA, and NSA all stated that they are confident it was the Russians. The question isn't whether Russia interfered with the election, it's whether Trump officials knew about it, and more importantly, whether any of them colluded with the Russians to help Trump win. You should probably refrain from calling people idiots when you don't know what you're talking about.

So my reuters article didn't convince you? If the Trump team is admitting it then pretty much has to be true.

So let me get this straight. The FBI, CIA, NSA, and the Trump team are all saying the Russians hacked the DNC. What reason do you have to deny it?

I've already explained why they can't present evidence. If you don't want to trust the intelligence communities that's fine but the fact that the Trump team admitted it and you still won't accept it is beyond me.

Why do we have to side with either the "Trump team" or intelligence agencies? How about the option that they're all fucking liars?

If you can give me a reason why the Trump team would lie about Russia hacking the DNC I will concede. They have literally every reason to drive the narrative in the opposite direction.

Maybe they don't want an all out war with intelligence agencies. Doing so would basically mean america would have to decide who was telling the truth- treading a dangerously fine line of civil war.

Maybe they're compromised in some way. I'm not sure. It's not hard to imagine though

Occam's razor. The Russians hacked the DNC. I feel like you know I'm right at this point but are coming up with baseless theories to continue to deny the evidence laid right out in front of us.

Repeating baseless assertions doesn't make them true. There is no evidence. You went from asserting something, to saying "you already explained why there couldn't be evidence presented", to saying that I'm denying the evidence presented.

I'm getting the sneaking suspicion that you're being paid to do this, but I'm just going to assume you don't know what you're talking about and are mindlessly believing whatever you're told

Christ, you're impossible. The Trump team literally admitted it. You have provided no reason to disbelieve the Trump team or the CIA or the FBI or the NSA other than meaningless conjecture. It must be nice to be able to convince yourself that anyone who disagrees with you is a paid shill but the fact of the matter is you've given nothing to dispute me.

No, I don't think you're a shill, yet. I'm saying the way you're talking is supicious.

1. You haven't presented any evidence. You keep asserting that the Russians hacked the DNC. But you keep changing your story as to why you can't show any evidence. Without evidence, I'm not believing shit. This is just like the WMD situation with Iraq.

2. The fact is these agencies have lied many times to start wars in the past.

3. Trump, also, is a liar. And seems hungry to prove himself.

4. The military industrial complex is a thing. Both of the aforementioned parties have plenty of reasons to try and increase defense spending.

Look, I really, truly get it. I think that America probably should aggressively assert it's dominance on the world stage. Lying to try and come up with a valid (moral) reason to do this is necessary to keep the public pacified and the empire running smoothly. But some people prefer to search for truth rather than believing any propaganda put in front of them.

You haven't presented any evidence. You keep asserting that the Russians hacked the DNC. But you keep changing your story as to why you can't show any evidence. Without evidence, I'm not believing shit. This is just like the WMD situation with Iraq.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-admits-to-russian-hacking-even-as-he-attacks-us-intelligence-community/2017/01/11/40941a34-d817-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html?utm_term=.852a6f4759d0

"“As far as hacking, I think it was Russia,” Trump said. “Hacking’s bad, and it shouldn’t be done. But look at the things that were hacked, look at what was learned from that hacking.”"

Right there. He freaking says it

The thing you're missing is that Trump has literally no reason to lie and say it was the Russians. It absolutely hurts him, and the fact that he admits it is enough to assume that the Russians are guilty of hacking the DNC. There has been no evidence that suggests otherwise.

Trump saying something isn't fucking evidence dude. And I already explained that Trump has plenty of conceivable reasons to do so it barely takes any imagination to come up with some. Quit talking in circles, this is ridiculous

I think we're done here. You can LARP all you want but the fact that the NSA, FBI, CIA, and Trump himself are all saying the same thing ways more than whatever half assed theories you can come up with.

Can you atleast explain how Trump benefits from Conceding that the Russians meddled in our election?

If he denied it outright, it may have been seen as too bold. It would be the president directly in conflict with the intelligence agencies at an early stage of his presidency. Maybe he's trying to avoid that.

Or maybe he cut a deal with the establishment and is going to eventually push the war agenda forwards. Who knows

So your only evidence is "Trump said so"?

ALong with the FBI, CIA, and NSA, yes. If anything he would've denied that Russia was involved if he was going to lie.

Just making sure

or maybe theyre right? i mean, its their job to know this stuff. if you have to do this much mental gymnastics to refute their claims, maybe youre wrong?

Thats cause you only ever hear about their screw ups. So it makes them seem untrustworthy. They are not going to gloat about all the success they have had. So we are only every aware of their failures.

So how do you explain Flynn and sessions? Isn't that proof of something going down?

I say I have a 12 inch penis. I'm not going to show you the proof, because national security. I'm glad you believe me.

So why is the Trump team lying about it?

I don't read minds, but you do apparently...

You're going out of the way to deny the truth. Trump literally admitted it. Until you provide any evidence that he is lying we should assume he is telling the truth, because if he was going to lie he would have said the opposite.

Every group you named has a shitty track record as far as being honest with the public. If not for your fourth sentence I would have totally thought you were being sarcastic. Soooo, big fat F- for that "argument". File that one in the oops folder and keep trying.

Seth Rich leaked the DNC emails to wikileaks after discovering election fraud that stole the primary from Bernie. Russia was not involved--it is a ruse to divert attention from the election fraud.

A ruse that Trump is in on? He admitted it.

The FBI, CIA, NSA, and the Trump team

you're in r/conspiracy and you think we believe any of them?

I think trump has no reason to admit it unless it was true, and that should be enough to convince you of its probability.

Fuck no a Reuters article shouldn't convince me ne anyone else with half a brain cell.

He literally said it man. There are a million sources.

Well it isnt all about that single connection you cant find. Collusion can mean many things. Funds being laundered thru conservative pacs for instance.

But Brennans testimony just kinda blew what you said out of the water. He just said he saw evidence of collusion between US persons related to the trump campaign and moscow. Compound that with their obvious russian friendly policies and cabinet picks, its hard to see why anyone would doubt this is true. Seth Rich and Pizzagate have far far less evidence and they get more stock on this sub for some reason.

Can you show the errors with the crowdstrike article?

"Trump literally admitted" is such a load of out-of-context crap.

Here is the full transcript so people can see the full context.

REINCE PRIEBUS, INCOMING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: Good morning, Chris.

The nation’s intel chiefs laid out the full classified report to President-elect Trump and others in his team, including you that Russian president Vladimir Putin ordered a cyber attack to interfere with the election and eventually came to try to help Donald Trump.

Simple question: does the president-elect accept the findings and the evidence of the intelligence community?

PRIEBUS: Well, I think he accepts the findings, Chris. But here's the thing that I think everyone needs to understand -- when this whole thing started, it started from the Russians 50 years ago. In other words, this is something that's been going on in our elections for many, many years, both the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians. It happens every election period.

Now, in this particular case, it started way back in 2015 before either nominee of either party was chosen, and it started, and this is declassified, as a spear phishing exhibition over many different institutions. It just so happened that the DNC had nearly no defenses on their system, and when they were warned multiple times by the FBI, they didn't respond.

And so, suddenly, you have a major political party, one of the biggest political parties in the world, that by their own admission lacked defenses, lacked training, and allowed a foreign government into their entire email system without responding to the FBI.

So, yes, we have bad actors around the world. We have had bad actors, including the Russians. But we also have a problem when we have a major political institution that allows foreign governments into their system with hardly any defenses or training. That's a huge story, and that's what people aren’t talking about as well.

WALLACE: That's a fair point. And it’s also, we should point out, there is no evidence that the Russians in any way were able to get into the electoral system and tamper with the vote count.

But on Friday, hours before he had the briefing, Donald Trump said that this was, quote, "a political witch hunt".

So, I just want to be very clear on two political points. Does he now accepts -- but you say, well, this has been going on for years, never to this extent, never the hacking and dissemination of emails, and you could argue as to whether they were in some way were complicit in it because of their weaknesses, that we’ve never had this kind of dissemination before. Does he accept that the Russians were behind this hacking campaign? Yes or no?

PRIEBUS: Well, sure. I mean, he's not denying that entities in Russia were behind this particular campaign. But let me just -- can you -- let me respond to your point, though. You say never have we had such a massive -- yes, but here's what we have. We have the DNC as a sitting duck.

So, if you have a person -- wait a second, because it matters to your point. It matters because if the DNC allows any foreign entity into their system, says, here is 50,000 emails, you can have them. Well, voila! Now, you have the biggest dissemination of emails that we’ve ever seen in the history of America because we have a revolving door at the DNC.

WALLACE: Who do you blame more for this? Who do you blame more for this, Reince? Do you blame Putin and the Kremlin? Or do you blame the DNC? Who is the primary actor here?

PRIEBUS: Well, listen, the primary actor is the foreign entity that’s perpetrating the crime to begin with, no doubt about it.

WALLACE: Which was? Which was?

PRIEBUS: I’m not denying that.

WALLACE: Which was?

PRIEBUS: I’m not denying that. I’m not denying that.

WALLACE: And what was that foreign entity?

PRIEBUS: The thing is -- Russia.

But what I’m telling you is that we also have a situation where you have people at the DNC -- let me ask you this. Anyone listening out there, if you had multiple calls from the FBI and you said, "By the way, Chris, this is the FBI, I think someone is in your system and stealing all of your emails", and you ignore multiple, multiple calls.

They attempted to attack the RNC in the same way. They didn’t get into our system because number one, we had our head straight and we had defenses at the RNC. But number two, when the FBI called the RNC and said, we’ve got a hacking situation, we brought them in immediately.

And so, granted we have bad actors around the world, and cyber attacks have been happening for years, but we also have an entity that's allowed through a wide open door a foreign government into their system.

WALLACE: I get that.

One other question.

PRIEBUS: Go ahead.

WALLACE: Does President-elect Trump accept the evidence that he heard, does he find it persuasive, that Putin's interest towards the end of the campaign was to help Trump by discrediting Clinton?

PRIEBUS: I haven't asked him about that, Chris. I mean, he accepts the fact that Russia and other entities engaged in cyber attacks on the United States all day long. He accepts the fact that this particular case was entities in Russia. So, that's not the issue.

But -- and if you look at his statement, after he commends the intelligence community in the very first paragraph, he talks about the particular hack. He talks about the fact that the DNC was a sitting duck while at the RNC had its act together. He then says in the first 90 days of his administration, he is going to order a full report as to what we can do to be better.

But one of the things we can do to be better is when the FBI calls you and says you have a problem, you return the phone call.

WALLACE: Well, I want to ask about that, because he said yesterday in which he said that we want to have better relations with Russia. I mean, if he accepts the fact that they, in an unprecedented way, tried to interfere with our election, does that mean he is not going to respond, he's not going to take action against Russia?

PRIEBUS: He very well, he's going to order the intelligence community to make recommendations, and whatever those recommendations are will be discussed and actions may be taken, but I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to have a good relationship with Russia and other countries around the world. And that's what the president is saying, that he is going to have good relationships around the world that will put America first, bring jobs back and make a safer across the globe. That's what he wants to do and I think that's what he will do.

WALLACE: I want to consider the question of the president-elect's relations, not with Russia, but with the intelligence community. Because here was a tweet that he put out on Tuesday. "The, quote, ‘intelligence’ briefly on the so-called, quote, ‘Russian hacking’ was delayed until Friday. Perhaps more time needed to build a case. Very strange."

I just read the entire transcript and I fail to see your point. It seems like Priebus directly admits that Russian interfence is real.

Yes, he admits that many countries are constantly trying to cyberattack for intelligence. Anyone with a brain knows that. And anyone with a brain knows the US is also currently doing it. So how is this news?

Simple question: does the president-elect accept the findings and the evidence of the intelligence community?

PRIEBUS: Well, I think he accepts the findings, Chris. But here's the thing that I think everyone needs to understand -- when this whole thing started, it started from the Russians 50 years ago. In other words, this is something that's been going on in our elections for many, many years, both the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians. It happens every election period.

So he accepts that the Russians are behind the hacks. Everything else is deflection from this fact.

Obviously he doesn't. He is just acknowledge the existence of international cyber espionage. Don't de so dense.

Well, I think he accepts the findings.

How could it possibly be any clearer. According to Priebus, Trump accepts the findings of the intelligence community that the Russians are the ones who hacked the DNC. What about this aren't you getting?

You are trying to make a huge deal out of nothing, just like this whole anti Russia story. I am done with this particular branch of the conversation because it is worthless.

So are you still denying that Russia hacked the DNC?

Of course. It is the most ridiculous history ever. Made specifically to dupe dumb gullible Americans.

So why is the Trump team admitting it?

Dunno bro. I check out trumps twitter and it doesn't look hee feels the way you say he feels about this russia bullsht.

The Trump team publicly admitted it. Trump is intentionally vague on his twitter. I don't know what more evidence you could possibly need other than the article I linked earlier.

No man. I won't concede they admited this, because they didn't. For obvious reasons.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-admits-to-russian-hacking-even-as-he-attacks-us-intelligence-community/2017/01/11/40941a34-d817-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html?utm_term=.eed1a96846af

“As far as hacking, I think it was Russia,” Trump said. “Hacking’s bad, and it shouldn’t be done. But look at the things that were hacked, look at what was learned from that hacking.”

Are you kidding me?

That's different from admitting that russians hacked something in collussion with trump team. Furthermore, Russian hacking didn't happen, so not sure what is the point of this conversation.

Yes I'm not accusing Trump of collusion at the moment. I am accusing Russia of hacking the DNC, which is what this whole thread is denying.

Yes, and using trump as an authoritative source as to whether this happened or not. That looks more like desperation to me.

Desperation? Come on man this is the blatant example of Occam's razor ever. The FBI, CIA, and NSA all said that Russia hacked the DNC. Trump, who has every reason to say the opposite admitted that it was the Russians. So either there is some extremely convuluted reason why the intelligence agencies are all out to get Trump and Trump would lie against hsi own interests, the default stance should be that Russia hacked the election. I don't trust Trump for shit but I don't expect him to lie when lying goes against his self interests.

There is nothing convoluted at saying the IC agencies are out to get Trump.

He may have conceded he thought the Russians hacked the DNC for many reasons, including trying to disassociate from that story. He changes his stance very often, so it's funny you are trying to use that as proof of something.

He may have conceded he thought the Russians hacked the DNC for many reasons, including trying to disassociate from that story.

What???? Saying the Russians are guilty would do anything but dissasociate the story. You're trying so hard to come up with reasons why he would lie when it's so much more likely that he was admitting the truth. Occam's razor.

So you are saying he would "admit the truth", making a statement against interest for what reason exactly?

I am saying that if he wouldn't lie against his own interests. Trump lying against his own interests is just about the only thing less likely than Trump telling the truth in my eyes.

So you are saying he is saying the truth against his own interest. Why would he do that?

Because the intelligence agencies have overwhelming evidence and he knows the truth is going to come out so he is saving face. If he denied what the FBI, CIA, and NSA are all saying he is going to get fucked when evidence starts getting released. It's exactly why it was a mistake for Hillary to lie when she said that she didn't send classified information on her server.

Or, more liklely, it wasn't an admission against interest at all. Occam razor.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Ain't that convenient?

Are you accusing me of pretending to not understand what you're trying to say?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-admits-to-russian-hacking-even-as-he-attacks-us-intelligence-community/2017/01/11/40941a34-d817-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html?utm_term=.ae33851284cd

Trump on video saying it was the Russians behind the hack.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-admits-to-russian-hacking-even-as-he-attacks-us-intelligence-community/2017/01/11/40941a34-d817-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html?utm_term=.ae33851284cd

Here's video of Trump saying he believes it was Russia.

/u/aaaaa2222 is presenting a strawman.

Here's Trump on video saying he thinks it was Russia. BTFO.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-admits-to-russian-hacking-even-as-he-attacks-us-intelligence-community/2017/01/11/40941a34-d817-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html?utm_term=.ae33851284cd

You know, I think they won't impeach Trump. They got him right by the balls now. Look at NK shit, Syria bombing and now sauria

In my opinion this is a media/deep state campaign to impeach Trump, to feed the military-industrial complex and manufacture consent for further escalation with Russia directly/through proxy wars like Syria, and to divert attention away from the corruption of the DNC.

Why would they want to remove the candidate who ran on massive increases in defense spending? A man who as president directly attacked a Syrian government airfield and has shown great deference to the military? Finally, why would the predominantly right leaning, realpolitik loving intelligence community give half a shit about the DNC bumping off the peacenik Bernie Sanders?

Basically how does anything you say make any goddamn strategic sense to the actors you are describing?

He also ran on a massive military buildup, more aggressive counter terrorism, and continued domestic surveillance. Foreign policy wise Trump ran and is governing hard right on everything except Russia.

Trump has not been "unmasking the corruption of the government in a really obvious way" he has been unmasking primarily his own corruption and that's why he is in hot water. That's why everyone who wants to stay in power is turning on him and is refusing to cover up his JV level, NY real estate style corrupt machinations. That's not a conspiracy, that's our government's system to remove the unacceptable combination of excessive corruption and incompetence. Dude brought this all on himself.

I believe his foreign policy is less informed and more unpredictable than any previous president and it (justifiably) scares the shit out of careerists in the military and intel communities. These dudes don't give a shit about you and me, but they for sure care about the strength of America.

As for your hopes that this is going to make people more aware of the military/corporate power structure, let's not forget that Trump just somehow made James Comey look like the little guy.

ok genuine questions. What exactly is this system? Do you think this "government system to remove the unacceptable combination of excessive corruption and incompetence" has been working before Trump was a thing? Did Trump all of a sudden make the govt corrupt and we need to stop him? And this "system" we have in place is doing it's job now because it hasn't been needed before Trump. You can't honestly believe this can you?

When presidents try to fuck with the FBI and the intelligence agencies to cover up their corruption they get smacked down. The US has many poles of power and you can't just bash your way through. Don't get me wrong, you can get away with a lot of stuff, but you can't come directly at these agencies. Richard Nixon went down because of FBI and CIA leaks and his attempts to play the intelligence communities against each other. This has all been done before.

Do you see this as a good thing? Do you believe the FBI and intelligence agencies are free from corruption and incompetence?

That the president doesn't have unfettered control of the FBI? Yes.

Are the FBI and intelligence agencies free from corruption and incompetence?

Who is?

So what system is in place for that scenario?

Leaks -> scandal -> impeachment

So I guess I'm just confused about what's happening because there have been plenty of leaks about trump collusion but no evidence. It seems like it's been leaks > scandal > call for impeachment but there is a whole process between scandal and impeachment where actual evidence is needed but I keep hearing there is no evidence from the intelligence community. With all these leakers,it seems so obvious that there is collusion, but how has there been no evidence if all these leakers are claiming they have evidence of collusion?

we are still in the scandal phase. The part you are missing in all this is that impeachment is a fully political process. The FBI cannot arrest or prosecute the president only the legisilature can. So first there has to be a scandal that turns the public and in this case the republicans against trump. Evidence comes later when this investigation moves into the more public phases with grand juries and legitimate congressional investigations and finally impeachment proceedings. The FBI isn't about to drop their whole case to the public early to appease the few true believers who don't see the writing on the wall.

Well it seems you have your mind made up already. I'd just like to see some evidence since it's been almost a year and nothing has come out except for anonymous sources saying things that in many cases have turned out to be completely false. If the POTUS was compromised and there was evidence, he would be gone by now. Since they don't have evidence, they are going to string the public along with the investigation for the next couple years until midterm elections. It all looks like standard political theater to me, but maybe I've just been around long enough to see that politics is just a show and dems and repubs are the actors.

Dude, is "you've made up your mind already" the new strategy? The FBI leaks have not been proven false you are just spouting nonsense and disinformation. Comey wrote everything down. The memos are leaking. The FBI is doing its job. Impeachment is of course a political process and this is the scandal phase. It's been 100 days and it could take awhile. Just relax, open your eyes, and watch.

But you obviously have made up your mind that he's guilty. Comey writing everything down means absolutely nothing. He could write whatever he wants. He could have written it a year ago or 5 mins ago. Which brings me back to my point that FBI and intelligence agencies can be corrupt as well. You're assuming Comey isn't and I'm saying we have no idea. So for now, I'll just relax, open my eyes, and watch this turn into nothing like usual.

Trump and his administration have been lying and changing their stories on a daily basis. To me, it's proven liars versus your assumptions about the FBI so I feel pretty good about my predictions.

Welcome to politics. They lie and change stories all the time. No one was asking for bush or obama's impeachment and they did it all the time. You know who else lies and changes stories all the time? The media. It's almost as if they are all part of the same corrupt group. Maybe, just maybe, they are scared that Trump might not be as corrupt as they are.

Lol, when your best defense for the obvious and constant lies of the Trump admin is to rant that everyone else is a liar and they are all aligned against us, maybe you should think about where you are in your life.

Don't get caught up in the game bro, these people would never fight to defend you.

lol that's the whole point I'm making. That it's all a game and political theater. You are getting caught up in it. I voted for chaos and trump is chaos. I voted to shake up the system. I feel like you are reading what I'm saying but not comprehending it. Maybe I'm just bad with words. Probably the latter.

You're missing the point of the fact that the memos were written down. Contemporaneous notes written by an FBI director have been used in court as evidence before. Comey's paper trail might just be the most complete chronology of this whole thing so far.

No I think you're missing the point. I'm saying that there is a possibility that Comey is corrupt and full of shit. Just like there is a possibility Trump is colluding with Russians. You are assuming Trump is guilty and Comey is a good guy who would never lie. I'm saying we don't know. Does that make sense?

I don't assume that Trump is guilty and that Comey is a good guy who would never lie, and nothing that I said was to that effect. I agree with you that it is entirely possible that Comey is full of shit.

I just don't personally believe that this is the case. If you haven't already, his testimony in the John Ashcroft case is excellent viewing.

Oh I'm sure it's great theater. I'll have to check it out sometime.

Why would they want to remove the candidate who ran on massive increases in defense spending? A man who as president directly attacked a Syrian government airfield and has shown great deference to the military?

that's one of the questions you should be asking. Another question is whether or not "removal" is the (only) goal here.

Given the evidence we have seen so far the most reasonable explanation is that while the intelligence community is supportive of many of Trump's stated policy goals they know he is dangerously incompetent and corrupt. I think the leadership of the intelligence community has gotten to meet the man and view him as a genuine threat to American stability and safety.

i'm not going to disagree with any of that, but this narrative started before he even won the election and then ramped up right after.

The Russia narrative probably has something at the heart of it. Not saying it is this story we are getting pushed, but Flynn, Sessions, and Carter Page have already been shown to have stronger ties to Russia than they previously admitted to. But it hardly even matters as the Trump administration has bungled this hard enough that the Russia story is now mostly about their shoddy cover up of whatever they were initially up to.

The Russia narrative probably has something at the heart of it.

well yeah. the cold war never ended. why else would the neocons be destroying the middle east and turning it into a fundamentalist islamic training camp for jihadists?

Flynn, Sessions, and Carter Page have already been shown to have stronger ties to Russia than they previously admitted to.

i suspect that EVERYONE at that level of government has stronger ties undue influence than they would claim.

I don't really doubt that Trump himself has shady russia connections- probably organized crime and shady oligarchs. but what I DO doubt is that "the election was hacked" by russian intelligence operatives working on behalf of the russian government.

Looking at how well it worked, if the Russians weren't trying to do shit like that, they should have been.

The Russian narrative has definitely transformed from it's inception, and I think a lot of it had to do with simple phrasing. Did Russia hack anything? Maybe. It's very, very possible. You'd be a fool to think they aren't capable of something like that, especially considering what we know OUR government has to hack computers.

And by transformed, I'm talking about the daily developments of Trump and his teams collusion with Russia. And yes, it is a VERY big deal regardless of what you want to believe. He's the goddamned president! It's much much more than Russia hacked the DNC. Russia very well may have hacked Trump, and that's a fucked up thing. We don't need a puppet in the White House, and if he's so casual as to give up intel to Russians during chit chatting, who knows what he will give up, or has already?

ITM!

Every fucking day we get a post like this to the top. Mods you've been doing a great job but people posting the same shit everyday needs a bit more attention.

It will continue getting attention so long as everyone parrots NYT and CNN articles and considers themselves red pilled. Calling for censorship though, classy.

Using the censorship card though, classy.

Wikileaks said the info wasn't from Russia. And they have heavily implied it was Seth Rich. That right there should end the madness ..

Trump is great for the military-industrial complex. He just signed a 350 billion dollar arms deal and has been dropping bombs in Syria & Yemen left and right.
The DNC is under new leadership if you haven't noticed. I know you're pissed that Sanders lost but he did by about 4 million votes nationwide in state elections that the DNC had no control over. Did they tip in Hillary's favor? Yes they did. That very likely didn't impact the millions of people who voted for her as the centrist candidate for fear that Bernie was too far left for the country to accept in the general.
People are too obsessed with individuals over ideas. The ideas outlive these deities people have created.

I'd like to learn how to make money off of this corruption. I guess it has something to do with investing in Lockheed Martin & Boeing along with Haliburton at the right times.

Lockheed Contractor here, invest away. More money for me*

*yes I've compromised my beliefs, but damn man I gotta eat

"you are an idiot"

Removed. Rule 4.

Surely it isn't a coincidence that multiple leaks from the DNC campaign leaked but none from the Republicans, and then Macron's emails got leaked when he was running against Le Pen. My theory is that there is someone out there who wants the candidates with negative outlook on NATO to win. Not saying who.

American intelligence agencies - several of them - tell me that it was Russia hacked the email servers, and on the other hand Kim Dotcom and a bunch of people on message boards tell me that Seth Rich leaked those emails. Both don't show any evidence. Which one is more trustworthy? Well, Kim Dotcom wasn't wrong on Iraq, but still...

Wikileaks said the source was a DNC insider, not Russia. And they have heavily implied it was Seth Rich, even going to far as to put up money for catching his murderer. The evidence Russia was involved simply doesn't exist.

Wikileaks also has a reason to not implicate the Russians, which does give me pause. If you don't want to burn your sources of information, deny that they are your sources. I'm not entirely trusting of Wikileaks on this issue, especially given how partisan it seems to be leaning as of late.

Wikileaks also sold a russian bomb shell to get a sweet TV show for Assange

Called the Panama papers an unfair attack on daddy putin

Said the democrats were using white noise machines disguised as wi-fi extenders.

And finally said Assange would turn himself in if Manning received clemency

to feed the military-industrial complex

I don't buy this. They've already been fed, brother.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/president-trump-signs-110-billion-arms-deal-with-sa-437492/

It's pretty obvious the MSTrumpM is trying to push the narrative that the Russian involvement in the election is entirely to do with the DNC server so that if that involvement is discredited (which it hasn't been by a long shot) the entire thing is discredited. They don't want you to pay attention to the contacts/business ties between Flynn, Kushner, Manafort, Page, Sessions, and the Trump family. They don't want you to pay attention to the fact that all of these people lied blatantly about these contacts and ties and continue to do everything they can to impede the investigations into these ties. They basically think you're the kind of person who is swayed by "you're an idiot if you think" propaganda.

With the Trump timing of Comey's firing, it legitimately blows my mind that people can look at that and not go 'huh. That's pretty fishy.'

If there was nothing to hide, wouldn't Trump be thrilled to have Comey on the case? After all, it was Comey who had no fear in investigating Hillary's emails, a fact that Trump has praised. Comey would be the guy you'd want to go after every lead if you were innocent because he has a record of being thorough. That firing really was what turned me from 'this is fishy but I'll hope this isn't an actual issue' to 'Oh fuck, this has got to be something real.'

So did he do something impeachable or is this a witch-hunt? Decide soon!

No it isn't. He didn't tell Comey to stop investigating. He has the power to fire the FBI director for whatever reason he wants. "Impeachable offenses" are investigated by a special prosecutor for this very reason.

Yes he didn't tell him. He asked him to stop investigating. Then he told the Russians that he fired "the nut job" and that should take off some pressure.

No, he said he didn't think there was much of a case and didn't think Comey should waste his time on it.

Thats a lot different than saying "I don't want you to investigate, drop it." Comey's testimony on the hill reflects that no order was ever given

The timing of subpoena firing is not nearly as bad as it has been played up to be by NYT&Wapo. The shit that dropped the day after was not directly involving Trump. You should probably just accept that he may be obstructed and beaten in the next election but he won't be impeached or thrown out of office. He wanted Comey to investigate the leaks that were coming out and Comey wasn't playing ball so he canned him.

Truthfully, Mueller should absolutely not be leading the investigation as a special counsel because of his relationship with Comey. Conflict of interest much?

I'm not so concerned about how the timing was played up in opinion pieces. I'm more concerned with the fact that Trump himself said that the firing was due to the Russia investigation and that it was confirmed by Spicer that the Comey investigation was 'hindering' talks with Russia. If there's an investigation into tampering of a US election, I do not believe that the country accused of that tampering should be able to pressure us into making that go away.

Comey should have been fired years before. He's made a career of getting the Clintons off the hook.

He also caused a lot of turmoil over Hilary's emails. I wouldn't put him in the category of supporting one party over another.

He didn't cause shit. He at least partially did his job as the head of investigative bureau​ as far as making public statements and much go. He's crooked to the hilt but that's besides the point.

What I was trying to get across by the 'cause' comment was the Comey caused Hilary a lot of political trouble by doing his job in the same way as he was doing under Trump. I don't really buy that Comey was more under the Clinton's thumb than anyone else.

He opened the case to grab the laptop, give immunity out like candy & fuck the whole investigation over. Absolute stooge.

Wouldn't a better stooge just sweep the whole thing under the rug all together and not bring up reopening the case right before the election? If Comey is a Clinton stooge, hoo boy does he ever suck at it.

I guessing he needed that laptop from the NYPD before they snooped around too much.

Are you really trying to make the case that Comey is in the tank for the Clinton's?

Do you have no memory or are you watching too much tv? What timing? The investigation has been going on since July of last year. A day before Comey was fired he testified there was no evidence. What is this "timing" you are talking about?

Spicer said in a briefing that Comey was fired because 'By grandstanding and politicizing the Russia investigation, James Comey created unnecessary pressure on our ability to engage and negotiate with Russia'. The timing is not only fishy, but the White House itself is saying that he was fired over the Russia investigation.

That's fantastic if they are saying stupid shit at the white house. How is the "timing" fishy? What made the timing fishy? Comey wasn't doing a good job. What about the timing changes that he should have been fired long ago. What is the timing. What was going on that was different?

Terminating the Director of the FBI when they are investigating you and your campaign is fishy. Sure, a President has the ability to fire anyone at anytime. And yeah, maybe Comey should have been fired for what he did a few months ago. But Trump and the White House specifically said that he was fired due to the Russia Investigation after saying it was due to Hillary's emails. By getting rid of the person who was investigating him, it sure makes it seem like Comey was getting close to something. Especially since the Russia thing was actually starting to die down a little. It also seems very weird to me that Comey was fired while out of the state.

Okay, director Comey was the DIRECTOR of the FBI. He's not the lead investigator at the FBI or the FBI agent leading the investigation in to russia. Firing Comey literally had no effect on any investigations going on. There are thousand of agents that do the investigations. Comey is just the guy they report it to. Whom ever is doing the russia investigation, still knows everything they knew before Comey was fired.

You do realize firing 1 person doesn't stop the thousand and thousand of other FBI agents correct? That Comey wasn't just one guy in a room all alone with stings connecting pictures together. That FBI is the Federal Bureau of Investigation not "Comey investigates stuff PI". Why would you think that firing the guy directing the FBI would effect the work done by the agents?

I am aware that the Director of the FBI does not do all investigations, yes. He does, however, direct where funding goes to, how manpower is used and has the ultimate say regarding the work of the agents under him.

So let me get this right. Ex director Comey did a bad job handling Hillary but then is going to do a good job handling russia? That's what you are telling me? That a man that was bad at his job should keep his job because of who he is under investigation?

The new director has to be approved by the Senate. It's not like President Trump can just appoint a yes man. There is a long interview process that gets voted on.

So would you rather have a guy that we already know is bad at being the director or someone who can maybe do the job better?

I don't necessarily think he did a bad job investigating Hillary. I think he did his job, despite the political pressure that he likely faced to not look into it. Do I wish he could have been better with his timing and the amount of announcements about the emails? Sure. But I do not have an issue with him doing his job despite whoever was in office. That is why an FBI director has a ten year term, to keep politics out of the job. I would rather have had him finish out his term.

Alright buddy. Take a look at this exchange between Trey Gowdy and Comey. Tell me if he handled the Hillary case correct or if he allowed a crime to happen.

I'm not ya pal, buddy!

Anyway. The issue with the Hillary emails is that the issue of State department and White house staffers have been forwarding documents to their personal emails for years and for a really boring and stupid reason.

Their network is out of date and fussy as fuck and so is their email system. This means that it is often way easier to forward emails to personal accounts, like gmail accounts, and print them using that interface. The security on their system is also out of date and sadly, private servers often have better security than those of the US government. Add that in with the fact that Hillary could not use a PC and could only use a massively out of date BlackBerry and yeah, I honestly feel like that's the more logical reason that they used a private server.

But I'm sure we'll disagree. Can I ask what you think that Comey did badly with the Russia investigation?

It's not the use that matters as much as lying about everything and deleting stuff that makes it a crime. If Comey thought that is was okay for Clinton to lie and delete evidence. Then why would it be any different for Trump?

Oh course you may. Comey has already confirmed on 3 occasions that there in no evidence after 9 months of investigation. What rock was not looked under after that amount of time. Furthermore the FBI has never seen the DNC server to inspect it and only took the word of an independent IT company that it was hacked by "russians".

Either there is no evidence of russians or Comey is bad at his job or both.

What makes you think there is going to someday be proof russia and Trump is a thing? Why do you excuse Hillary for breaking the rules but so badly want to caught Trump doing it?

Comey also said there was no proof about Hillary's emails. But how did that turn out. Either way, this thread isn't about Hillary.

I don't want to believe that Trump colluded with Russia because that would be bad for my country. I don't want to believe that this could be a thing.

But yes, I do still think this firing was fishy.

It's not about Hillary. It's about Russian. Where you brought up Comey. So, here I am telling you why Comey was not the right man for the job. Because Hillary knew she shouldn't have that server and then when she was asked to turn it over... she deleted 33,000 emails. To which Comey said no wrong doing.

So SIR! Do you agree that if Comey let her slide on that, he might also let Trump slide on deleting 33,000 emails?

Therefore he should be fired because he might let Trump go. IF there is collusion.

Agreed?

I'm a ma'am, not a sir.

If one of Hillary's staffers, much less her National security advisor, was accused of collusion with Russia, I'd have a problem with deletion of emails, sure. If they were work emails and not personal emails, which the FBI had concluded that the deleted emails were all personal and not work emails.

Either way, Comey's firing was fishy and weird and the timing was as well.

You are looking in all the wrong places.

https://youtu.be/UkcxeJCPgz0

People need to be real. Trump cant even eat icecream without people screaming "impeach". No matter when he fired comey, people would harp on about it being "fishy"

Can you please elaborate further on why you believe I am wrong?

Less disagree more adding to what you said

If he fired Comey on day 1 both sides would have been happy. He fired Comey right after Flynn was subpoenad

thinking that firing Comey would stop any investigation

Hmmm

Trump literally confessed that he thought that it would.

Just because it was a shitty attempt doesn't mean it wasn't an attempt.

It's no secret Trump has the mental capacity of a child

did he confess that people would think so or that he hoped it would?

Where did he testify there was no evidence?

All I've seen are misattributed quotes from Clapper about his particular knowledge prior to January, and Comey's verification that a statement was representative of what Clapper said.

Here is the head of the national intelligence agency. I can't find a clip of just Comey saying it, so it's in the middle of a 5 hour video. Yet that link should be enough.

Yeah, that's the misinterpreted Clapper quote I'm referencing.

Reporter: Let me ask you this. Does intelligence exist that can definitively answer the following question -- whether there were improper contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials?

Clapper: We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say "our" -- that's NSA, FBI, and CIA, with my office, the director of national intelligence -- that had anything-- that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report.

Reporter: I understand that, but does it exist?

Clapper: ... not to my knowledge.

Reporter: If it existed, it would have been in the report?

Clapper: This could have unfolded, uh, or become, uh, uh, available in the time since I left the government. But at the time, we had no evidence of, of such collusion.

This video was recorded ~3 months ago, and Clapper's resignation from the government was effective as of mid-January 2017.

So, he is actually saying that he was not aware of any evidence of collusion as of mid-January 2017, and that no evidence was included in their report.

I suppose you are right. It seems the people that can clear his name are playing word games.

Yeah if you look around this sub r/conspiracy you can quickly learn that Seth Rich was the wikileaks connection. So that means you and I, as citizens, have no reason to believe russia colluded with Trump other than the main stream press non-stop rhymes.

The number of people on this sub claiming to believe the Russia bullshit is about equal to the number shills I'd expect there to be on this sub.

It was CIA which released the emails, to help Trump.

And yet the Seth Rich posts are at the top of this sub. Even Republicans (McCain, Graham, and McConnell just to name a few) have not denied that Russia interfered in our election, what reason would they have to feed into a conspiracy that makes their president look terrible?

If you think Russia didn't interfere in the election you're an idiot.

And McCain has been beating the drums of war for years, these guys get off on growing the military industrial complex and filling the pockets of their crooked contractor friends.

You want more names? What about Donald Fucking Trump? The only issue here is the COLLUSION, quite literally EVERYONE WITH HALF A BRAIN HAS ACCEPTED THAT RUSSIA INTERFERED IN THE ELECTION.

Reince Priebus said Trump believed Russia was behind the intrusions into the Democratic Party organizations, although Priebus did not clarify whether the president-elect agreed that the hacks were directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin. "He accepts the fact that this particular case was entities in Russia, so that's not the issue," Priebus said on "Fox News Sunday."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-cyber-idUSKBN14S0O6

Also, you failed to answer my question, why should any unbiased rational person believe there is enough evidence to justify this Seth Rich conspiracy, but ignore the MOUNTAIN of circumstantial evidence and testimony/statements from people (on both sides of the aisle) who have access to the evidence who have stated that Russia interfered in the election.

Just so everyone is clear russia hacking the election and the trump administrations connections to russia are two different things.

But do you?

obviously they don't, they would've mentioned it in their post or an edit by now.

He.....he just said it. So yeah.

Not the brightest crayon on the box are we?

whooooooooshhhhhhhhhh

Do you? You seem like you are clearly trying to conflate the two. What's happening right now with the FBI investigations and hearings is mostly looking at whether or not there was collusion. Your title says the Russian Hysteria is Bullshit, which presumably includes the collusion piece, but you don't mention it.

I think you are being a bit disingenuous here.

Collusion with Russia is based soley on the idea that they interfered in the election.

Its more complicated than that. And its more than just Russia, its Turkey too. Its banking and real estate stuff as well. That's what led to Trump's pro-Russian administration and policies. Its about having an administration that is compromised by foreign interests.

OP is def a shill or a moron, they're only focused on one part of all this.

yea but that doesn't explain why your title is click-baity and your post is one-sided...

It's been "backed away from" because Trump's NSA Advisor is taking the Fifth for (presumably) crimes which are likely unconnected with the DNC hacks. Obviously this story at this time is lowering the attention on other parts of the Russian intervention.

Your logic is poor here, because you're introducing a binary spin to a situation that has multiple moving parts.

You, or more preferably Trump, should be explaining why Flynn's actions are absolute hysteria, rather than legitimately concerning, rather than using misdirection (and leaning on FBI Directors for a pass on Flynn)...

Go back to conspiratard.

Where do you think you are right now?

I guess you come from there too.

But seriously, what sub do you think you're in right now?

You know the sub Conspiratard right?

I didn't, no. I've only heard that term used to describe this sub before.

Well those are the people who use it in here. They have nothing better to do then make fun of people into different things then themselves and now they pretend they like conspiracies while making fun of others.

Removed. Rule 10.

You're kidding right?

Read rule 10 and see if you want to ask me again.

Per the rules stating, depending on context you cannot accuse others blah blah.... and so yea I didn't accuse the OP, I was stating my views about their post/narrative. It wasn't even a reply to the OP. Meaning I didn't violate the rule.

Also did someone report that comment or am I just being moderated at random by you?

OP is def a shill or a moron

This is a clear accusation.

It wasn't even a reply to the OP. Meaning I didn't violate the rule.

This is not a defense, but you can appeal the decision in modmail if you want. Also, I didn't give you a warning, I just removed the comment.

Also did someone report that comment or am I just being moderated at random by you?

I don't really remember because I was reading this thread last night, but I'd assume someone reported it.

So you just peruse comments and remove stuff that breaks the rules in your own opinion, without running it past other mods or basing it on a report? Great to know the censorship on Reddit is still alive even in this sub.

And I'm good on mod mail, the team is rude and rarely replies so I'll just keep this convo public and on record.

You telling me my defense is futile is absurd, the rules literally reference context mattering. Can one not make observations about a post or the user who submitted it? Seems a bit overreaching for you guys to monitor and remove.

So you just peruse comments and remove stuff that breaks the rules in your own opinion

Yes, this is called moderation. If we ran every decision past the other mods we'd never get anything done.

Can one not make observations about a post or the user who submitted it?

Yes, but you cannot attack users by accusing them of being shills.

Other subs/mods don't treat their users like children though, they let conversations happen. Stop acting like dictators.

Yes, but you cannot attack users by accusing them of being shills.

Did not attack, mentioned a user was being something to another user.

Define attack please.

Accusing another user of being a troll or shill can be viewed as an attack, depending on context

Wow. Great communication from a mod explaining the rules.

In what context is it not an attack then if I say someone is being a shill or a purposeful moron? Since apparently all context from my POV is wrong....

I would say most contexts where you're trying to insinuate a user's argument should not be paid attention to because you think they are a shill would be an attack. Again, you can always send a modmail to get a second opinion, or usermention a couple of the other mods if you really want it public (though I doubt anyone's reading this far in a buried thread).

You're insufferable, and you act like a dictator. This is fruitless too because you'll just refer to the rules again and then tell me to modmail so that other mods can berate me for my POV. It's like a never ending cycle of eating bad food and getting diarrhea with you mods.

Can't wait for you to censor me some more and remove this comment too.

Colluding means to work together. Whether hacking or spamming social media with "trolls" or bribes to get certain policies enacted or stacking your cabinet with people with financial ties to Russia or refusal to disclose your Foreign business dealings or lying about it. There is some evidence for all of that and you don't get to pretend it's just one hack on the DNC. That's dishonest.

What does the media mean by collusion then?

Hard to tell if OP is willfully ignorant or just ignorant, but I don't find any of his follow up comments to indicate that he has any real idea what he's talking about.

Who discredited the dossier?

That's not what discredited means.

No. it just can't be corroborated by you. But neither can the vast majority of your beliefs. You just want an excuse to treat your biases as fact.

There have been several posts today on the front page of this sub with disingenuous titles

Every day.

Russian shills trying to push back the narrative

True, I guess I usually cannot participate in every thread. I was being a pos at work yesterday and actually read through a lot

He does, but you don't.

The entire premise of the Russia-hysteria is that they "hacked" the DNC/Podesta and gave the emails to Wikileaks.

No, it's not. The investigation is about the Trump administrations ties to Russia. You're deliberately spreading the disinformation that the only premise for an investigation into Russia-Trump admin is the hacking of the DNC - and if that didn't happen then there's no basis.

You're the one saying the entire "Russia-Hysteria is bullshit". And then making sure you frame all the investigations through one focal point - "The entire premise of the Russia-hysteria is that they "hacked" the DNC/Podesta".

I've seen this line peddled a lot recently- that the investigation into the Russian connection is centred around one thing and one thing only - the hack - so if the hack is false then it proves there is zero connections between the Trump admin and Russia. It's a popular Sean Hannity point and it's a line that's being pushed increasingly hard over the past few weeks. And here we are again.

You're not really making sense. One hand you're saying the Russia-hysteria is bullshit and then on the other you're saying Trump should be investigated. If the hysteria is bullshit, what should he be investigated for?

Two different things, but both equally bullshit.

I don't understand how people can be so dismissive about the possibility that Russia helped Trump win the election in some way. Do people honestly believe that Russia wouldn't try to influence the US election in some way of they could? If they had one candidate trying to start a war with them and another candidate looking to work with them in some way...just seems like common sense. The US influences elections around the world all the time for this same reason, and I'm sure Russia does the same.

It's quite possible the Trump himself didn't even realize that Russia was influencing the election...perhaps Russia was smart about it and had Trump surrogates on the inside helping them out without involving the president directly in order to avoid linking directly back to him. So maybe Trump legitimately was not aware of Russian involvement, but perhaps had suspicions which is why he started sweating an investigation and began firing people.

To be dismissive just because it's a theory being tossed around by MSM and the left is just as ridiculous as buying into the Russia narrative 100%. Best to keep an open mind and leave open different possibilities.

Every large foreign power in the world influenced the election. They influence EVERY major US election. Hillary not only accepted foreign donations, she actively solicited them on more than a dozen occasions: https://sunlightfoundation.com/2016/03/17/hillary-clinton-campaign-totals-13-fundraisers-in-foreign-countries/ . That's influencing our election. It's also (probably unless they did something shady) completely legal.

The thing we're dismissive of is that Trump's team did something ILLEGAL. There is no evidence a LAW was broken. If Vlad Putin HIMSELF read everything Trump said at every campaign rally and speech directly into an earpiece and Trump did nothing but repeat it, THAT'S STILL COMPLETELY LEGAL.

But Maxine Waters said that Trump needs to be impeached for saying 'crooked Hillary'!

/u/sniper_fox

The thing we're dismissive of is that Trump's team did something ILLEGAL. There is no evidence a LAW was broken. If Vlad Putin HIMSELF read everything Trump said at every campaign rally and speech directly into an earpiece and Trump did nothing but repeat it, THAT'S STILL COMPLETELY LEGAL.

In other words, "if Donald Trump is 100% controlled by Putin, it's legal and I dismiss any criticism of Trump on that basis!"

Spoken like a true patriot. God, I would love just one peak into the alternate universe where Hillary Clinton won with the help of the Russians.

You can't call for the impeachment of someone who didn't commit a crime, which is exactly what Maxine and the rest of the hysterical left are doing. They're so desperate that they're willing to yell "ZOMG IMPEACH" even though they can't show a crime.

That's what OP was talking about, the Russia-Hysteria.

Trying to phrase my argument that he didn't do anything illegal to mean "I dismiss any criticism of Trump" is a strawman. You should know better if you're posting in this sub.

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

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

Thank you, patriot, for that link. You're clearly fine with Donald Trump being controlled by the Russians (re-read your comment if this statement surprises you).

Btw, while you were trying to lecture me, you used a strawman. Keep up the good work, patriot.

You can't call for the impeachment of someone who didn't commit a crime

Obstruction of justice isn't a crime now?

Please link to proof of obstruction of justice. Before you do, here's Comey testifying under oath that no one has ever asked him to end an investigation.

"Has it happened?"

"Not in my experience."

Your move!

Hirono: So if the AG or senior officials at the DOJ opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that investigation?

Comey: In theory, yes

Hirono: Has it happened?

Comey: Not in my experience.

So tell me, what position does Trump hold in the DOJ again? Or is he AG now? Because if it's not either one of those things, this clip is a non-sequitur.

Your move!

That's some serious mental gymnastics you have going on there. Keep on watching CNN and WashPo for today's narrative!

I didn't realize I could be so wrong. What position does Trump hold in the DOJ?

Sorry, I didn't realize you weren't a US native or were and hadn't passed a 4th grade level civics class.

The President of the United States is the leader of the executive branch of government. The Dept of Justice reports up to him/her and is lead by the Attorney General, who is appointed by the President.

Sorry, I didn't realize you weren't a US native or were and hadn't passed a 4th grade level civics class

Keep the snark to yourself, especially when you're objectively and verifiably wrong.

https://www.justice.gov/agencies/chart

Show me on that flowchart where Trump is. You can't, because he's not a member of the DOJ, full stop.

So saying "what position does Trump hold in the DOJ" is like asking "What position does the CEO of this company hold in the accounting department".

No, it's not. Trump is not a member of the DOJ. He is not a member of the FBI. He is not a member of the IRS, CIA, or your local rotary club. Saying "no one in the DOJ attempted to stop the investigation" by no means precludes from having tried to stop it.

According to Comey, Trump did say about the investigation "let it go", more than once. Comey refused, and was fired (and this is important) because of his refusal to terminate the investigation, by Trump's own admission.

fired (and this is important) because of his refusal to terminate the investigation, by Trump's own admission.

This is a lie repeated by the media, which is why you were unable to source it. Trump has NEVER said he fired Comey for refusing to terminate the "muh Russia" witch hunt. Also, firing the director of the FBI had 0 effect on any investigations. Investigations don't just go away because the FBI director was fired.

In fact, the Attny General and Dept Attny General both provided a written recommendation to fire Comey (see pages 3 and 4). Trump pulled the trigger after Comey was caught lying to a Congressional inquiry.

Here's a DOJ org chart. Notice the top is "Office of Attorney General". Guess who that person is hired by, can be dismissed by, and reports to? YEP, the President of the United States. No amount of mental gymnastics will make the President of the United States NOT the leader of the entire executive branch, so you can keep "but.. but... I need a chart!"

Trump has NEVER said he fired Comey for refusing to terminate the "muh Russia" witch hunt.

Well Trump himself disagrees with you.

"But regardless of [the] recommendation, I was going to fire Comey. Knowing there was no good time to do it!

Trump: And in fact when I decided to just do it I said to myself, I said, “You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.”

Must be hard to defend someone who so openly admits his wrongdoings.

In fact, the Attny General and Dept Attny General both provided a written recommendation to fire Comey

Yet again, here's Trump:

“What I did is I was going to fire Comey, my decision,” Trump said during an interview Thursday with NBC News’ Lester Holt. “I was going to fire regardless of recommendation. He made a recommendation. He’s highly respected. Very good guy, very smart guy, the Democrats like him, the Republicans like him, he made a recommendation. But regardless of recommendation, I was going to fire Comey.”

.

Here's a DOJ org chart

Great! Is "POTUS" on there? No? Of course not, because he's not a member of the DOJ.

Guess who that person is hired by, can be dismissed by, and reports to? YEP, the President of the United States

You're absolutely right. But Trump is not part of the DOJ. You can keep skirting around it, but that is objective fact.

so you can keep "but.. but... I need a chart!"

The chart shows who is in the DOJ and who isn't. Trump isn't.

I think you mean "according to an anonymously sourced memo supposedly written by Comey from his memory of a conversation and no one has actually seen the memo or questioned Comey about it under oath", right?

No, I mean the memo that Comey wrote and sent out to other top members of the IC, some of which read it to the New York Times. The same memo that the White House was questioned on, which they refused to admit existed. The same memo that has been corroborated by nearly every news agency of note.

If by serious mental gymnastic you mean that words mean things. Sure.

spez - If you want to know of an "alternate universe" where Hillary was helped by Russian interests, search "Clinton Cash" and the "Russian Uranium" deal. The Clintion Foundation got millions.

Clinton Cash was garbage. The deal was between two private companies, the State Department was one of nearly a dozen agencies that had to sign off on it (none of which had veto power), and the Russian guy who donated to Clinton's charity had been doing so for years prior.

The point is, if there was nothing illegal, then there really is nothing to investigate. Are the Israelis looking into Obama for donating US funds, and trying to influence, the Israeli election against Benjamin Netanyahu?

Besides, I've always wondered why Russians wpuld support Trump over Clinton. Clinton, afterall, not only hit the reset button with Russia, but also accepted around 1/2 million dollars through their fund just prior to Hillary Clinton's approval of selling 20% of the company that controls US uranium. It seems to me that being able to buy influence of the president would be a much more important criteria than supporting a non-politition that they don't know what they're going to do.

Perhaps Russia saw Trump as being somewhat unfit/inexperienced for role as president and knew his election would cause some chaos in the US political realm (which it has). Maybe they're just doing whatever they can to knock the US down a peg, since that would in turn make Russia more powerful on the world stage.

It's possible they saw Clinton's rhetoric on Syria as more of a threat to them than Trump. There are many possible reasons they could favor Trump over Clinton...but it's all speculation and none of us can know the full reality of the situation. Which is why I'm suggesting we keep an open mind rather than be 100% dismissive or accepting of any particular theory.

But this is the problem. All the people with access to the investigation at this point has said there is nothing illegal. From high ranking Dems to Repubs to the intelligence community. I suspect that if nothing is found after another 3 years of time and our money wasted, and there's still nothing found, you'll be saying let's keep investigating, there still might be something.

All the people with access to the investigation at this point has said there is nothing illegal.

That is an out and out lie.

Nope. Video evidence:

https://youtu.be/GLcMBnz9GWk

Nope. That was Clapper saying there was no evidence of it in the report they published. Just like there's no evidence in this comment I'm publishing. That doesn't mean there's no evidence.

Wow. Short attention span, can't get past the first 30 seconds. Flapper, Comey, Maxine Waters, Feinstein, Manchin, there's someone I don't know in there all saying "there's no evidence of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign." So, I was wrong, it had nothing to with legalities, it's straight up collusion whether legal or illegal.

"there's no evidence of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign."

Literally no one said that. A few people said they didn't know of any evidence, but none of them fall under this purview

All the people with access to the investigation at this point

so again, you're out and out lying.

Besides, I've always wondered why Russians wpuld support Trump over Clinton.

Because she wouldn't kowtow to them like Trump.

but also accepted around 1/2 million dollars through their fund just prior to Hillary Clinton's approval of selling 20% of the company that controls US uranium.

That's complete bullshit. It was a private sale between two companies, that had to be signed off on by 10-11 federal departments, none of which had veto power.

It seems to me that being able to buy influence of the president

That's the thing, they can do that with Trump, but not with Clinton.

It does nothing for Trump to receive more money. He won't be bought. Clinton however, made all of her money selling influence and the US interest to anyone who would pay.

According to many sources (including his own sons), he already owes Russia money, as they're the only ones who would loan him money after all his bankruptcies.

Clinton however, made all of her money selling influence and the US interest to anyone who would pay.

Source for that? Because I though she made her money on the paid speaking circuit.

That's the thing, they can do that with Trump, but not with Clinton.

How do you figure?

According to many sources (including Trump's own sons), Russia holds a substantial amount of Trump's business debt, as American banks are unlikely to lend him money after his many bankruptcies (and the means by which he handled those bankruptcies).

Clinton on the other hand, has no purported business ties to Russia, and has no need for their money, not to mention the fact she probably couldn't get it anyway considering just about every report on the matter states the icy relationship between her and Putin.

prior to Hillary Clinton's approval of selling 20% of the company that controls US uranium.

LOLOLOL. This point shows me you don't know what you're talking about

Lol. This shows me you don't know shit.

No you're right. Clinton invaded 10 different agencies to approve the sale. Get your head out of your ass and learn the facts.

Yep. And it's amazing it didn't get her approval, which was the last one, until just after receiving her money, er, his money for speech he usually received less then half of what he did. So many coincidences yet there's no proof of anything to the Russian narrative that we are so going after because the Dems are controlling the narrative. If you're fair, you'd see that there's more meat on the Clinton thing than on the Trump Russian thing, but I'm sure that you can't see that.

So they what...paid her to approve a deal that she didn't have the power to veto? OK buddy

Are you really that naive to think she didn't hold any sway in the Obama office?

if they wanted to help him why not donate to his campaign? China and Saudi Arabia donated to Hillary and nobody said a word about it being wrong.

That's because that never happened.

Nice try but The Washington Post even reported on this.

No they didn't. Because neither China, nor SA contributed to her campaign.

I call bullshit on Saudi Arabia.

It's not true for either. Campaign finance laws prohibit foreign donations.

And Hillary is known for never breaking or bending laws ever.

Come on, that can't possibly be your only evidence.

Well if she's broken so many campaign finance laws and gotten so many campaign donations from SA or China, surely you have even a shred of evidence, right?

I obviously don't. I was saying I didn't believe your post with no evidence, not saying I had evidence of the contrary.

I was saying I didn't believe your post with no evidence

There was no evidence for me to provide. OP lied about Clinton receiving campaign donations from SA and China, and I called them out on it.

Fair enough to call bullshit originally I suppose.

Pretty much everyone is aware of this except the snowflakes at the_cuck trying to discredit anyone that brings up russia

[removed]

Yep. Most people that believe Trump/Russia ties knows that Russia didn't give the election to Trump or "hack" it. But Trump is in deep with Russia and that is enough for me to be concerned and paying attention to what's unfolding.

The way I see it, Russia probably did hack the emails and use 3rd parties to pass them to WL. Theres no doubt they had motive to sink Clinton. But, and its an important one, that doesn't mean they gave Trump the election or that the leaks aren't authentic. It also doesn't mean he doesn't have other concerning ties to Russia. This isn't a black and white situation like people want it to be its very complex with a lot of important nuance.

I'm with you. A big issue is the fact that Trump was actively encouraging these activities as they were happening while denying it was Russia, as was Roger Stone, and their team was meeting with Russian officials (which they still deny) at the time. He continues to float the DNC not letting the FBI physically examine the server too, which helps refute the greater Russian influence operation.

Basically, Trump can't ever admit that he was doing all that as a campaign strategy, or that he ended up benefiting bigly from the whole thing, because that would put a dent in the purity of his victory (assuming there was no coordination). So you have a situation where all the US IC, the entire Obama admin, and all these experts at the hearings are saying one thing and he can't agree, and that makes him look shitty (assuming, again, that he's innocent).

The difference in the end was small enough that any single thing, including the leaks, could be truthfully blamed for giving Trump the office of the presidency.

Also note that our intelligence community uses the word "influence" not "hack". They're certain that Russia influenced the election, as far as I know they haven't come down and said anything 100% related to hacking.

And by "influence" I think they mean, "released information that exposed a candidate as corrupt so that people refrained from voting for said candidate." It's the same argument against Manning or Wikileaks: "They obtained info by breaking the rules/laws, but never mind that the info itself is damning."

It could also mean misinformation campaigns, but I'll withhold judgment until this all ends up in the spotlight.

Very true. But, the DNC couldn't deny the content of what was leaked from the emails, could they?

true, but how does that make foreign interference in elections okay?

No, but that content could be spun eight ways from Sunday to make it seem like there was massive corruption when it was really just a couple of vaguely mean emails.

Except a lot of it was used to create disinformation and propoganda. See Pizzagate.

no its more than that. And the intelligence community knows because they "interfere" with democratic elections all around the world as well.

They may have reported on information, but technically wikileaks released the information. Do you believe that Julian Assange is working for the Russia's? Er do they just have aligning goals?

That's part of it, but there are also allegations of blackmail against the RNC and individual Republicans.

RNC were also hacked, but Comey said it was "old stuff" and not leaked, and that there was no evidence that Trump/RNC were "successfully" hacked. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/comey-republicans-hacked-russia/index.html Puzzling, that. Were the FBI actually invited to forensically inspect the RNC servers? Or did the RNC insist on paying for a private audit like the DNC? If the RNC didn't submit to an FBI inspection, then where did the FBI get their info?

They declared RussiaToday airing a debate between the official third party Presidential candidates because the MSM refused to let anyone but Republicans and Democrats on as proof of Russia influencing the election.

They have literally no credibility.

Potentially illegal financial contributions are a possibility as well.

I hadn't seen that part. (Granted, I've become burned out on the whole "The Ruskies are coming" hype.)

exposed a candidate as corrupt

Trump isn't exactly squeaky clean either

Oh, no doubt, but they didn't throw anything out about him (yet).

Everyone on Earth who said ANYTHING about the election "influenced" it to one degree or another. The entire Russian narrative is full of shit period. Nothing new under the sun going on there.

If there is an active campaign to disrupt our elections by a foreign government, that's hostility, not just something our own government will turn a blind eye to.

Yeah. It's one thing to voice your opinion online on your own time, and another to get paid to set up botnets to control online conversations to your favor.

Unless Trump has connections with Russia, so Russia really wanted Trump to get elected and they hacked Podesta's email to get Trump elected. In which case the two cases are connected.

and both are bullshit fake news.

Exactly. It's pretty well established that Russia acted to aggressively influence the election. There is, however, NO indication that Trump colluded with that aggression.

I think the biggest tell all that this is a bullshit propaganda story is that at the end of the day if they DID give wikileaks information then all they did was reveal VERIFIED emails that exposed the democrats true feelings and intentions. As a former Democrat (Bernie supporter) myself, if they can say we have no say in who they push as our candidate as the DNC is a private company, then a hack to them is not something the govt should concern themselves with anyway. I thought we love transparency

Look man people want to believe because they hate Trump and for some reason they are afraid of Russia. I can understand why baby boomers are afraid of Russia I do not understand why anyone else is. Just use logic to battle the hysteria.

If the Russians used bots to spread propaganda to make people not vote for Clinton why did she win the popular vote? In the DNC emails they talk about how THEY (DNC) want to prop up Trump to win the nomination because they saw him as weak. Trump won in states where he campaigned and Clinton didn't. Clinton was a terrible horrible candidate and people just refuse to accept that because they see Trump as worse than her.

To a lot of people they see Russia and Putin as a dictatorship who imprisons dissenters and goes to war with his neighbors over territory. I don't understand why they don't see that our government supports dictatorships around the world when it benefits us, Saudi Arabia. They stone women to death for being raped. They are committing a genocide in Yemen with our weapons. They financed and carried out 9/11 yet people are afraid of Russia.

Then people start screaming about Flynn this and Flynn that. Its as though they haven't known that people in our government lobby for other countries around the world and have done for a very long time. Look at AIPAC most people don't even know what that is let alone that we have dual citizenship people working in our government where we don't even know which country their loyalties are to.

People are afraid of Trumps business ties with Russia and that people in his cabinet are talking to the Russians. I will never ever understand why people think it is a bad thing to talk to other major powers. Everyone needs to understand that the Cold War is OVER. The Russia hysteria is being fueled by people in our government who do not want to face the future of the world. China and other Asian countries are starting a new trade partnership called the New Silk Road, we will be left behind in trade do you all understand that? If we do not get into this trading partnership like Obama didn't want to do and Trump does want to do we will slowly lose the trade war, and everyone will only then understand why we need Russia and China as allies. This isn't the 1950s anymore.

If the whole Trump/Russia thing is being manufactured by the media, Democrats, and the US IC, then why is Trump acting guilty as fuck? If he were innocent, why fire Comey on a trumped up excuse?

And why ask Comey to stop the investigation? I mean seriously I don't like mainstream narratives, especially when we've been lied to many times before. Though it really seems Trumps administration was in contact with Russia. Anyone whose read Foundations of Geopolitics by Alexandsr Dugin would know that Russian intelligence has been planning this for years:

Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics.

Though the most interesting part is the last sentence, to support isolationist tendencies in American politics. Well Trump is that isolationist.

There was no crime. There is no evidence of a crime that didn't happen. The investigation should have been closed long ago.

Comey is a self-serving douchebag that would try to drag out the investigation to keep his job. He has been pro-Clinton for decades, and has kept her out of jail multiple times. Can't be trusted.

The only propoganda campaign I see is people like the OP saying "Ignore EVERYTHING, Trump is good, there is no Russian story. It's all a conspiracy!!"

Yeah, it is a conspiracy, just like Watergate, just like the pentagon papers, just like MKULTRA, Just like the other amazing and legitimate conspiracies that seemed too crazy to be true but unfolded in front of us.

If trump were ACTUALLY doing anything to 'drain the swamp' then I could see SOME level of plausibility to there being an orchestrated smear campaign, but there isn't. At all. He's the swampiest most 'establishment' shit I've ever seen.

I feel the Russia conspiracy is the most real, most apparent of all, and it has the biggest impact on the United States government. No matter how this plays out, we are literally living through a VERY important time in American History. If Trump and team are found guilty or not, it will set a precedent for all presidents to come. For that reason alone, I hope that this whole Russia story doesn't go up in smoke. We need to hold our leaders accountable for their actions.

In my opinion this is a media/deep state campaign to impeach Trump,

He is giving enough reason for impeachment on his own. If it was any other president in history, they would have started the proceedings. The only reason why the impeachment process hasn't started is because it is a Republican controlled government. Firing the head of the FBI while he is currently under investigation by the FBI? That should SCREAM "fire" to any citizen of the United States.

to feed the military-industrial complex

The government doesn't need to an excuse to do this. They've been doing it more and more every year since World War II. Military contractors are treated like kings and queens while your basic grunt gets sent to war zones wearing gear built by the lowest bidder and being paid just above the poverty level.

and manufacture consent for further escalation with Russia directly/through proxy wars like Syria,

From my perspective, the US doesn't want to go to ACTUAL war with Russia out of fear it going nuclear (literally). This was the entire Cold War. If anything, they probably want to push a second Cold War. The first was great for the US economy and right now the US makes a LOT of money by overusing its military.

and to divert attention away from the corruption of the DNC.

Please... the Republicans are just as corrupt as the DNC. They just do a crappier job of hiding it. Or they're just bolder about it.

I'm sure if there are facts they will come out if/when an impeachment ever occurs, and no sooner. Why would they play their hand potentially too early? That's how good investigations go, the don't leak like a sieve similar to the White House.

He has no ties to Russia. Some of the people on his campaign may have had some connection to Russia.

However, I haven't seen any amount of connection or evidence of Russian influence that is in the same ballpark as the amount of foreign money going to the Clinton Foundation.

suddenly a guy on r/conspiracy needs evidence?

Public and demand in the sane sentence LOL we are dumb ass idiots as a whole the last thing anyone is gonna do is demand anything of our leaders.

Best you can hope for is people share some "prayers for Paris" type bullshit and make themselves feel left they did their duty as citizens. It's pathetic.

I dont think anyone with any credibility is saying that the Russia hacking claims are in fact 100% true. There are indicators it was Russia, and the media is running with that because they rely on sensationalist headlines to stay relevant. I find it hilarious that everyone thinks every sensationalist article is somehow a deep state psy op. Guess what, many news organizations are hurting for cash and have turned to clickbait and shitty articles in order to gain ad revenue. It is that simple. 90% of that shit is because they rely on stupid people to read their shit and lose their minds over it. It is pure $ and every conspiracy theory should first look at where the money is. remember, if it bleeds it leads.

Not a Trump supporter either. But your words mirror my feelings. I was always raised to always defend people when they are wrongly accused, even if they are your enemy. And to never falsely accuse anyone of a wrong they didn't commit, just because they did some other wrong and this would get them out of the way. Trump has not led in the way he said he would. He is not accomplishing hardly anything he said he would. You can make several cases for why you think he should be removed, but the Russia thing is not one of them

    Trump has not led in the way he said he would. He is not accomplishing hardly anything he said he would.

I think it is fair to say that he has done much of what he promised regarding EOs, but this scandal has diminished his ability to fully implement policy.

When he was elected, part of me was hopeful. I wanted full repeal (not replace) of the ACA, and a huge restructuring of our tax and spend policy. He seemed like a legitimate option for that. In fact, I almost voted for him because of that. However, this GOP health bill is an abortion of a bill and barely can be considered a change to Obamacare, let alone a repeal. I know it's not 100% Trumps bill, it's the house republicans. But he's running with it. And as far as spending and taxation goes? All we get is pretty much "we'll, maybe next year". Seriously, republicans? You guys have the executive branch and both wings of the legislature. You guys should be mowing down regulations and taxes like an overgrown yard. I'd like to blame Trump but that wouldn't be realistic. This is probably the most incompetent congress we've ever had.

I am totally with you. I couldn't be any more sick of the two party bullshit we have in DC. I would love to see it all burn.

The Russia thing is what stuck that is why we are seening it. Trump hate and Russia is all the DNC has left. Never mind that people should be watching the DNC trial going on right now where thier own lawyer said we are under no obligation to listen to the people and can pick whoever we want.

Israel hacked the election! They control DNC and RNC and congress!

agrred, I've said it before but it's the perfect story to sell to further two objectives of the deep state. 1) It undermines Trump, who is a nationalist and is working against their globalist agenda, and 2) It further presents Russia as the bogeyman du jour, thus making it ok to back the Syrian "rebels" in overthrowing Assad (who is aligned with russia). Oh, and happy coincidence, once the new west-friendly Syrian regime is in place, maybe Qatar will be allowed to build it's natural gas pipeline through syria into turkey to serve Europe.

ITT: shills repeating MSM talking points. Please go to /r/politics. This is the sub that rejects the MSM narrative.

And here is a shill repeating Russian talking points two can play at that game

Removed. Rule 10.

This post is bullshit.

In the over 7,500+ topic of Tulsi Gabbard.

"This topic is at 93%. It's been downvoted by T_D!"

This topic, at 63%.

"Nothing to see here. Certainly no shilling or brigading."

They'll need more than propaganda to impeach a US president no matter how hated he is.

I don't like how pushed the Russian hacking view is by the MSM. Actually I don't like a lot of things pushed by the MSM since Trump won the primaries. 20+ year old lude recording, women suing over sexual assalt, Putin's puppet, President Bannon, Kushner is actually running the show...geez, there are too many to list.

I don't like Trump, if I were in the US I would have probably have voted Stein. But the amount of hate spewed at this man seems really unfair and just too much. Articles have called him a bigot, racist, stupid...etc. They even attack the size of his hands, like that is something he has control over or can change. They've attacked his wife, daughters, sons, grandchildren...I mean how do they not come off as hate mongerers?

I forget the name for it, but targeting someone through the media like that is against the law.

What's up with all those women who were suing him? I've never heard another peep from anyone.

We'll never know the full details of Trump/Russia but if he goes down it will be for obstructing justice for his shitty agent-for-hire buddy Flynn

I remember a few months back earlier this year when the CIA claimed they had "proof that Russia rigged the election and was connected to Donald Trump".

I still haven't seen that proof at all.

I just heard about all of the Clinton Foundation and illegal stuff from Hillary like not disclosing the Russian donations before becoming the SoS.

The whole thing was tailor made specifically to dupe dumb gullible Americans.

Right, so that is why Flynn is pleading the fifth amendment over the Russia collusion. I am sure I remember Trump saying that people who plead the fifth are guilty. Nothing to see here, move along or post some more bullshit stories about Seth Rich or Pizzagate.

I'm just an open thinker but could that have been a setup for this? Using that as a thing? In optimal settings there would really be nothing there but to fake people out and make them watch that hand your other hand could do a lot and for pre-planning like that your plan is pretty much working right? Theoretically.

And in English?

A false flag type thing if you will. Smoke but no fire. Make it seem like there's something big and juicy. Wave it around. Make it look sexy. But really there's nothing there? Useful as a distraction for the REAL stuff, among other things. Or just as a general fake out to make people waste time. Or certain people. I can see it killing someone's credibility in the end. Lots of avenues.

Okay that is all needed to say. And why are you posting in the style of bad Montgomery Burns parody?

Lol sorry that's how I thought it.

My speculation is that it's done by globalists.

The liberals are actually trying to reach out to middle eastern, Chinese, and Russian youth so they can have a base population to start coups and such.

This has nothing to do with the US at all, dude.

Just think about it. Trump an incompetent dictator who is actually a puppet for a superpower (russia). Someone who is oppressive, hates gay people, hates jews, and hates women. His only interests is stripping rights off his citizens such as freedom of speech, and to steal money from US citizens.

The globalists manufactured this entire thing.

Now the military industrial complex can rise to new heights as there are pockets of youth who are brainwashed by US propaganda that are willing to riot and protest in their country, maybe even engage in civil conflict. They push for Americanism and adjust the ideals of liberal US society in their own communities.

If anything, the deep state as you described chose trump so they can become successful

But Michael Flynn, Carter Page, Paul Manafort. Trump and the Lester Holt interview.

If you voted for Trump, thought Barack Obama was a Kenyan born Muslim with a fraudulent Birth Certificate, with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and thought he should be impeached because of Benghazi after a Republican held Congress cut funding to the embassy and you are still doing back flips to support this guy despite his ranting in his twitter account contradicting what Sean Spicer said hours earlier; then you are a fucking partisan ego inflated piece of shit.

Absolutely...and the only substance to the admin collusion w/ Russian govt seems to center on the exxon-rosneft stuff. Which, hey, if people want to dig into multinational energy corporation connections and corruption more power to you. The idea that Russian spies are now controlling US policy, which yes there are certain media who are selling that idea, is incredibly idiotic on so many levels it's hard to even begin.

But the brainwashing machine that is mainstream media is right about one thing: we're now in a "post truth era" (they forget to mention it began long ago and they made it that way but that's another story). This is the key myth of the Cold War 2.0 narrative and it's here to stay for who knows how long. Now would be a good time to start analyzing the previous chapter of the Cold War and intel agencies both to better understand and before certain important information gets memory-holed.

Yep. 'Hack the election' is a purposeful misnomer in order to create doubt of the validity of Trump's win in the minds of the public. Clinton was the anticipated next president since her primary loss to Obama and Donald's win upset A LOT of the globalist's plans. They are basically still running campaign smear ads and hoping something sticks. Once this charade is over I believe the special investigator will conclude that Russia favored Trump but did not influence the outcome of the election & perhaps a few people in Trump's campaign may have over stepped some bounds when dealing with foreign entities but they were acting independently and not with the consent of Trump or Pence.

Regarding the Time piece last week.

"By raising doubts about the validity of the 2016 vote and the vulnerability of future elections, Russia has achieved its most important objective: undermining the credibility of American democracy." - Time Magazine

My comment: Pure propaganda right there. It's not been Russia doing that; it's been CNN, ABC, NBC, PBS, TIME, etc. etc.

I was down voted for suggesting that the Democrat's and establishments' red scare conspiracy theory is illegitimate.

All politics is bullshit, if you believe any of it, etc..etc..

I don't think "hacking the election" is what they are looking into, but whatever.

I have found it oh so amusing that your standard liberal has joined me in entertaining conspiracy theory, and yet they get so offended when you call it a conspiracy theory. It's not even a good conspiracy theory, can't come up with anything better y'all? There's no evidence of this alleged Russia collusion, but they are all ready to scream "science!" in everybody's face.

Of course if I type or say anything of the above, I must be a trump supporter, which I absolutely am not. I hate all parts of the centralized authoritarian fraud government equally, thank you. Plus the way he got "elected" is probably a way more interesting conspiracy than some simple-minded Manchurian candidate scenario.

Thank you u/cobalt2113, you wrote out how I've felt for a very long long time. The whole "Trump-Russia" theory is utter horseshit, and it's really got to stop. It's getting beyond ridiculous, as it's at a point now where insanity is taking over.

I agree the Russia angle is complete BS. That being said I think you are 100% wrong with the intent of the Russia angle.

I believe the Russian angle is a unified distraction to further the illusion of two sides. Pushing Russia keep us plebs distracted while TPTB continue to fleece us.

You are a DUMB ASS of you don't see how Trump already has his nuts clamped by the same bankers, military neocon sociopaths, Saudi Arabia wahhabists, and the rest of the Deep State crew. He is a half-witted narcissist child who can be easily pushed around by the big boys on the room.

The main question is not about any vote/media manipulation of the elections. It comes down to how beholden the entire Trump campaign and lackeys are to foreign powers, and why they tried to fucking hide it from view. You are a DUMB ASS of you don't see Trump is actively trying to cover up the investigation into side dealings all across his organization.

I believe that making the topic of Russia radioactive was a Hillary/DNC strategy against Trump. And they're still using it because it's a good strategy.

It seems like there's more, though. The fuck Russia campaign, as I like to call it, first appeared when Russian separatists took over South Osetia and the subsequent Russian annexation of Georgian territory. In my opinion, I think the US is playing a long game to secure the supply of natural gas to the EU by making Russia toxic and then swooping in and taking Russia's main source of revenue.

They say if you're wrong on the internet, you will immediately be corrected so gimme some of that brutal feedback of my opinion.

It's an interesting idea and one that I hadn't thought of. However, I think it's more likely that the 'Fuck Russia' mindset has to do with a mix of fear, dislike of their social policies (domestic violence is totally cool, LGBT people don't get rights, dissidents getting poisoned) and the remnant of good ol' Cold War Red Scare feelings.

Really though, good point on the economics side.

I've got more on the economics side of the propaganda war. If I can find it, there's a white paper on the"Russia hates gays" narrative which actually links their policy to an attempt to economically bruise Hollywood.

Since the Russian anti gay law states that homosexuality can't be portrayed in public (amongst children I think,) think of how much American media that bans. On top of that, Hollywood makes more money in the international box office than the domestic one, and Russians (it may no longer be true, the white paper is a couple years old) love Hollywood movies.

Of course, however, in Russia the mindset toward homosexuality is very conservative. But maybe it could also be a subtle "well fuck you too," to American media.

That's certainly possible. I'm more inclined to think that it's being used as a wedge issue to keep conservative voters liking Putin and with him. It also gives them a easy scapegoat and 'villain' to go after.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3254239-Russia-Hacking-report.html

Thoughts?

Russian hacking... no way, made up and it's total bullshit.

Russian interference... possible but very unlikely.

Trump having interests in Russia, like business or something... possible.

Trump is just not savy enough to coordinate the hacking of the DNC. If he were actually coordinating with Russia, he would have likely got them to hack the Clinton email server and release the classified emails she sent.

Paul Manafort, Carter Page, Mike Flynn all fired for russian ties. Flynn was an agent of Turkey. Sessions lied about his talks with the ambassador under oath. THe mysterious sale of Rosneft and the republicans changing their platform around the time of the convention to relax sanctions on Russia after they fucked over Ukraine.....

And you really think this is all a deep-state conspiracy to get rid of Trump to further the military industrial complex? Seriously? After that arms deal with the Saudis and general sabre-rattling they have done since being in office.. People come to really weird conclusions.....

Way to leave out the clarification about the Trump Admin having Russia connections and being legit compared to the Leaks/Hacks with the DNC.

Trump troll.

I'm enjoying them implode

We need to hear this said more: "The american ppl are the ones who coluded against Hillary. They talked with there friends, family and neighbors and through there own research, faith, desires and wish made Trump the next president not Russia."

538 comments in 12 minutes? What the fuck

what proof do you have? Russian links were implicated in the dnc hack before it was a political issue.

It's totally bullshit!!!

And everyone anyone tries to call it out, they are condemned as a blithering Trump supporter.

They'll go away eventually. Don't let repetition ingrain bullshit into your brain because that's what's being attempted. Remember the internet is just as new to tptb as it is to us, we are intelligent and capable of more than they are because their minds are closed.

They'll berate and try to label away, but that type of power flex only works on people who are mentally slaves. And the slaves won't do anything, they're just keeping power in place by being good consumers and media watchers. They're scared of people's minds opening more because once your mind is open, you realize the system is a game to be played, not a game to be played by.

Well sure why not deny the U.S. intelligence community.

Testifying in front of the House Intelligence Committee Tuesday, Brennan said that Russia “brazenly interfered” in the 2016 elections and had been in active contact with members of the Trump campaign.

Brennan was careful to avoid explicitly saying that the two sides colluded, and said the Trump aides may not have even known the Russians were spies.

Then he dropped the hammer.

"Frequently, people who go along a treasonous path do not know they are on a treasonous path until it is too late,” he said.

He is giving the campaign and others who may be complicit a chance to come forward and openly discuss this, instead there are continued denials.

The entire premise of the Russia-hysteria is that they "hacked" the DNC/Podesta and gave the emails to Wikileaks.

No, it's not. So either you are spouting off about things that you haven't bothered to understand first, or you're intentionally pushing a false narrative.

I remember seeing an interview of putin stating they caught a hacker with files from hillary's emails. This was like a year ago and I can't find the video anymore. Russia may not have hacked her email but if my memory is right they ended up with the files just the same. I also remember Julian saying how easy it would have been to hack Hillary's server. Russia may not have released anything from those documents but to say Russia had nothing to do with the hack is saying Russia isn't spying on America's politics.

I do think this sub is being heavily shilled. It used to be pretty non-partisan. Now, anything that isn't dogging on Trump or skeptical of the Russia thing means you're alt-right. It's pathetic and the mods don't seem to police it much.

Side note, I made a video on the Trump/Russia thing as far as Podesta is concerned. With all the ways Podesta could have compromised himself, and if Seth Rich turns out to be the source of the other leaks, that means the entire media establishment and many senior, career politicians have been openly, and knowingly lying their asses off with regard to geopolitics with another nuclear power. They're hysterical because they'd all be toast.

you also shouldn't be afraid to say who you support, having to quote that you mostly read independent/progressive articles so you don't get labeled a (what is it called now? alt-right Nazi or some shit?) I support our president, I don't always like how he says shit but people need to grow some thick skin and stop getting so pissed at everything, I don't support everything trump, but its grammar level knowledge to not want to bring in people without knowing who the fuck they are, its also very reasonable to want immigration crack downs, yeah, that Mexican person may run on hard times now, but the American farmer who can make a profit by having his job back will be thankful he can eat and feed his family tonight, my family are immigrants from some not so nice places in the world and it sickens me were expected to just bend over and take it because political correctness? nuh uh. I have a right to live like every person in the world, I don't want to spend it in pieces. so yeah, tl;dr I like our president, don't always agree with him, but not respecting the democratic process and using underhanded tactics to try to hurt the president makes these people bigger nazi's than what they claim trump supporters are

Why did Flynn resign and ask for immunity, Sessions recused, Manafort, Carter fired. Maybe the hacking is bullshit but there is a reason to look into links between this admin and russia.

If one starts a post with, if you believe_____ you're​ an idiot. It's probably the other way around. You lose anyone you're trying to convince and is encouraging a circle jerk.

And this is supposed to be r/conspiracy? Lol. Russia hacking the DNC and the election should be a prime conspiracy for thi sub to talk about, yet everyday I see people trying to shut this story down. It's almost like this isn't a sub to discuss all conspiracies anymore, just ones that are bad for the DNC. Fucking lol

Evidence goes a long way in here

If the MSM is pushing it, you know something's wrong.

Like Fox News pushing the Seth Rich story?

The thing about the Seth Rich story is that Wikileaks and KimDotCom both made statements and 'confirmed' it somehow. Since r/conspiracy 'trusts' Assange and friends, they're with the story and won't let the conspiracy go until there's '#JusticeForSethRich'.

This thread perfectly explains that the Russians indeed did hack Podesta and give the e-mails over to WikiLeaks.

https://twitter.com/pwnallthethings/status/816621553643294720

Well it's a nice opinion but completely invalid.

Then you should be pissed about Trump visiting Israel and Saudi Arabia cause wether you release it or not they are far more responsible for influencing our election.

As a child of the Cold War I don't want us to have a rekindled dispute with the Russians. The military industrial complex is terrible for all Americans.

Can't believe how many up votes your solitary opinion has, backed up by other opinionated links. If there is nothing to this, then let it be investigated independently

62% upvoted. Shills hitting this thread hard. Hackles up high. FUCK TBTB and FUCK reddit shillbots. Keep the pressure on.

Actually, there was evidence presented (when they looked at the malware...Russian comments, timestamps, etc.) but they were the equivalent of finding the driver's license at the murder scene. At some point, you gotta ask yourself "why the fuck is the trail of evidence so in-your-face obvious to the point of being ridiculous, and consider the possibility that if the evidence looks like it was planted, it probably was.

Wow 10/10 post. First line calling everyone idiots. Great content. Much wow. Such critical thought.

The two pieces of evidence I feel point most toward Russia was that the files had Cyrillic metadata and the hacker Guccifer claimed to be Romanian but couldn't actually speak Romanian at all and his speech patterns were heavily Russian based.

Combined with the fact that Russia has engaged in this same action against most other Western countries and it definitely points toward them.

Anyone saying that clearly Russia wasn't involved is lying because we can't rule that out. Anyone saying it's definitely Russia is lying because we can't prove prove that completely either.

And, it's debatable that we ever will see it since they'll clearly classify that info

Russia did hack part of the election, they were part of the DNC leaks.

Thats not the issue Trump is facing currently. Its amazing that so many people don't know this.

During the campaign he and his people allegedly were in contact with Russia, and did not state they were in contact, which is illegal during the election.

The FBI is going after Trump and his people for this AND Trump trying to obstruct the investigation, which is a felony. That is why its big news. Obstruction of justice is worse than what Nixon did in the eyes of the courts.

Totally separate from the Russian hacks. The media is also using Trump's own Twitter feed against the hypocrite for every decision he makes. /r/conspiracy isnt the_donald, go there if you want to be a Trump shill, this subreddit is for conspiracies like Antartica and JFK.

But it's OK for Saudi Arabia and Israel to not only interfere but be given huge war chests. The level of disinformation and propaganda coming from MSM is blatantly outrageous. That the US citizenry cares more about where the MSM leads them instead of asking any questions such as why we're even in Afganistan which is the longest war in US history, or exactly how our involvement in Syria has any humanitarian effect, or why we are supporting a Saudi led war in Yemen. I find it completely disheartening to watch the US populace be led by the pied piper like it were Nazi Germany.

HOW RUSSIA HACKED THE USA

"Apologies on calling people idiots"

That's cool but just don't try telling us you were wrong.

This sub has two different standards of evidence: The Anti-Trump standard, and the Anti-Clinton standard.

What I don't understand is.. What exactly is the problem with Russia and the United States being more cooperative and on better terms? Why would you want to keep Russia as an enemy?

Every super power has done bad shit - Russia, China, United States etc. To think that it's a bad idea to improve relations because of the Ukraine fiasco or other events is really petty considering how many countries the United States has 'liberated'.

Im all for Trump getting the United States on better terms with Russia. Russia are not inherently bad or evil, no more than any other super power.

The Clintons are just trying to stay out of jail.

You are allowed to change your opinion based on new evidence u/cobalt2113

If you can't read through this thread and all the measured, detailed responses and not realise that maybe you have taken a biased position on this without really examining the evidence carefully....then I don't know what to say to you. Next stop lizards on Mars with a brain laser!

It's bullshit, but there's a strong possibility IMO that Russia will end up having to invade the US. So it's another thing that's complete fantasy that the Deep State will force into reality. They seem to enjoy doing that.

The narrative is bogus but your presentation as to why it is bogus is lacking.

I already have. No one gave a damn about my threads here. 😂

O, I had a lengthy post using media citations and went through the entire narrative almost, minus the BS Steele dossier. No one gave a damn. You get hundreds of upvotes though. Lol

I've honestly become burnt out and don't care much any more. The sheep will be sheep.

Very true. Never hurts to try. 👌

Whatever gets the discussion going.

I tell you what, if Trump showed us his tax returns and it was not instantly obvious the Russians are shoving money into his face, then you can come back and I'll listen to your story. Right now T isn't trying very hard to look innocent. In fact, he's trying really hard to do everything he can to look like he's got a lot to hide. Weird technique, and it doesn't work on me. Innocent people try hard to continue to look that way, and then when challenged, proceed to easily provide the evidence they have available.

You guys believed that Hillary Clinton ran a child sex ring in the basement of a Pizza place but not this. With all the evidence that we have. Interesting.

Podesta made up the Trump Russia BS. It's in his emails.

Why are Trump and his associates acting so guilty and shady about the whole thing?

I don't want Trump impeached over the Russia collusion story, I want him impeached on his blatant disregard for the emoluments clause of the constitution.

Ok, so do you believe Russia has no influence on our commander and chief's decisions?

They aren't either. You should probably take a werk and read about the cold war era and what has happened since the 90s...

In my opinion this is a media/deep state campaign to impeach Trump, to feed the military-industrial complex and manufacture consent for further escalation with Russia directly/through proxy wars like Syria, and to divert attention away from the corruption of the DNC.>

This.

How Did The Trump Campaign Collude With The Russian Government To Hack Into The DNC When the Hack Itself Occured Way Before Trump Had Any Even Won The Republican Nomination?

?

What if he had lost to Cruz or Rubio? The emails would have been released either way.

The hack started in summer 2015. You are telling me Putin had the foresight to bet it all on Trump winning not only the Republican nomination but the election itself?

And what does "collusion" even mean? What, Russia needs help from the Trump campaign to hack into DNC servers? What, the Trump campaign had secret hackers somewhere?

1) The corruption in Russian is akin to the mob era in our country. We know Putin is ruthless and a former intelligence officer. Why wouldn't the country trying to reclaim it's superpower-status try to promote someone who's loaning Russian money, rather than someone who would have increased sanctions and likely gone into Syria and Crimea for war?

2) The demand for evidence by this sub lately, during an ONGOING investigation, is entitled and ignorant. We still don't have evidence from JFK...

3) I think we are going to see evidence of voter fraud come out of this investigation. The DNC leak hurt Clinton, yes, but I think we're going to see she had suppressed votes.

4) The real issue here is about Clinton and the DNC overthrowing Bernie. He would have gutted Trump, got the indecisive votes and changed the US banking system and financial ties with questionable governments, in a fuckin heartbeat.

In my opinion this is a media/deep state campaign to impeach Trump, to feed the military-industrial complex and manufacture consent for further escalation with Russia directly/through proxy wars like Syria, and to divert attention away from the corruption of the DNC.

Yep, its why they want Pence as president.

What are you even saying? What does it mean to "hack the election" ? Do you know?

Yes, ramping up the DNC leaks is just a tool to hide what certainly looks like strong Russian connections within not just Trump's campaign, but the Republican Party and their financial backers.

Ok, you are looking but are being led by the propaganda you pretend to identify and dismiss.

How many of them have blatantly lied under oath and were fired 24 days into their job because of it?

Russians have been meddling all over Europe as well

Such a vague claim. How has Russia been meddling in Europe?

You posted one thing from December and 2 things form March, they aren't even up to date..

You can't really be serious can you?

The cognitive dissonance is real.

Every piece of 'evidence' for russiagate is based on 'anonymous sources' and imaginary memos. On financial dealings with Russia by people related to Trump (not illegal). On meetings between people associated with Trump (not illegal).

None of the above is evidence of wrongdoing or even suspicion of wrongdoing, other than MUH RUSSIA IS EVIL AND WANTS TO DESTROY AMERICA.

Whereas there is all sorts of odd things revolving around pizzagate. From the symbolisim to the "artwork", to the odd language, to the direct voice comparisons/analysis between Podesta's voice and the voice on the "skippy" video.

All of the above is evidence. Not anonymous sources or imaginary documents.

You don't need updated information to come to a reasonable conclusion?

Wow man, congrats, you're definetley right.. Fucking brilliant argument.

I mean I get why we have to be skeptical about the lack of evidence and previous lies (Tonkin), but you also have to realize that if it is true the CIA is not going to just list all of their assets and how they got them. But revealing their evidence they would also reveal where they got it from, and since they are an intelligence agency they would have to protect them.

I skeptical as fuck about the intelligence community, but people seem to not realize that if they are telling the truth, they would not be able to show their evidence. So demanding it also seems ridiculous. Basically, we lose no matter what.

Fact - Flynn lied about his ties to Russia.

Fact - Flynn was fired 24 days into his job, for lying about his ties to Russia.

Are those not facts?

Can you speculate on what really happened?

So let me get this straight. The FBI, CIA, NSA, and the Trump team are all saying the Russians hacked the DNC. What reason do you have to deny it?

Crowdstrike is evidence in much the same way 4chan LARPing is except at least 4channers dont get paid for it (maybe?)

You don't honestly believe this do you? They put their names/reputations on the line. It's much more than you can say about 4chan, regardless about how you feel about Crowdstrike.

Seth Rich has circumstantial evidence. No smoking gun, but people are interested and won't let it rest. I'm glad that they won't.

What circumstantial evidence? Does it come even close to the circumstantial evidence we have on Russia?

We have no evidence that he talked to WL (other than anons).

We have no evidence of what his motives were (he had just been promoted and was going to accept the offer).

We have no evidence of how he would have done it (he was not a hacker and had no special access to other people's emails).

WRT the Russia narrative, we have evidence (forensic, circumstantial, etc). We have people lying under oath. We can identify motives and means.

Do you really believe the SR narrative is stronger?

Oh I can agree to that, people believe the Russians got Trump elected, not that Hillary was obviously worse than Trump. If you read the leaked not hacked DNC emails it shows the DNC wanted to get Trump the RNC nomination because they saw him as weak. People just want to believe that Hillary couldn't have lost without some sort of conspiracy because she was the best candidate money could buy.

Impressive extrapolation and speculation about my thinking process based on my very simple statement.

Ok, you think it was all politics, I don't, why argue?

1. We have circumstantial evidence. We have evidence someone inside the DNC leaked and talked to WL. http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/cias-russia-hacking-claims-dismissed-as-bulls-by-former-uk-ambassador-craig-murray-35288057.html We have evidence WL values Seth Rich enough to offer a $20K reward for solving his murder. Of all the murders that happen daily around the world and of all the DNC staffers (dead or living) why would Assange mention Rich's name during an interview when asked about his sources?

2. We have evidence that Seth Rich had a strong motive to leak. He was a Bernie supporter. https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/6c4qdd/seth_rich_manifesto_from_his_now_confirmed/

3. You don't know his level of access to the data. Your claim is baseless.

You intentionally lied or obfuscated on all 3 points.

Your tactics are those of someone who cannot debate their arguments with logic, reason or facts. How about you address my original question rather than just deflect with straw man arguments or saying "we disagree about something, so why bother talking about it, because I'm not changing my mind ever"?

I find it far more likely that you're posting in this sub with a specific goal and agenda in mind, than the idea that you're actually just that dimwitted.

I believe his foreign policy is less informed and more unpredictable than any previous president and it (justifiably) scares the shit out of careerists in the military and intel communities. These dudes don't give a shit about you and me, but they for sure care about the strength of America.

As for your hopes that this is going to make people more aware of the military/corporate power structure, let's not forget that Trump just somehow made James Comey look like the little guy.

I think you mean I am not interested in beating dead horses.

Is Russia shilling bad?

No man. I won't concede they admited this, because they didn't. For obvious reasons.

There is nothing convoluted at saying the IC agencies are out to get Trump.

He may have conceded he thought the Russians hacked the DNC for many reasons, including trying to disassociate from that story. He changes his stance very often, so it's funny you are trying to use that as proof of something.

But do you?

Do you? You seem like you are clearly trying to conflate the two. What's happening right now with the FBI investigations and hearings is mostly looking at whether or not there was collusion. Your title says the Russian Hysteria is Bullshit, which presumably includes the collusion piece, but you don't mention it.

I think you are being a bit disingenuous here.

Why why WHY in the fuck do you think you should have direct and unfettered access to the evidence of an ongoing investigation that very well may result in multiple counts of treason??? That is not how the world works, the way the world works is we have qualified people at the FBI and other Intel agencies who have been cleared to work on such a case who dig up this evidence, and then the mouthpieces of tbose agencies disseminate only the basics of the investigation to the public. The basics do not include the evidence they plan on using in court, and if you cannot figure out why this is, you're even worse than a shill.

What I was trying to get across by the 'cause' comment was the Comey caused Hilary a lot of political trouble by doing his job in the same way as he was doing under Trump. I don't really buy that Comey was more under the Clinton's thumb than anyone else.

Awesome. Thanks

Yeah. It's one thing to voice your opinion online on your own time, and another to get paid to set up botnets to control online conversations to your favor.

Fancy bear..... Panda...

Bears all the way down!

Nice try but The Washington Post even reported on this.

A republican president and overwhelming majority which increases military budget? Weow, who'd have guessed

Well if she's broken so many campaign finance laws and gotten so many campaign donations from SA or China, surely you have even a shred of evidence, right?

He does, but you don't.

The entire premise of the Russia-hysteria is that they "hacked" the DNC/Podesta and gave the emails to Wikileaks.

No, it's not. The investigation is about the Trump administrations ties to Russia. You're deliberately spreading the disinformation that the only premise for an investigation into Russia-Trump admin is the hacking of the DNC - and if that didn't happen then there's no basis.

Lol sorry that's how I thought it.

FireEye deliberately excluded many targets of APT28 for being “not particularly indicative of a specific sponsor’s interests.”

Trivial stuff bro. Those cases are not as interesting or unusual as the ones examined in that particular paper. The ones examined demonstrate clearly an exclusive geopolitical agenda that is broadly consistent with only one plausible culprit: Russia.

That the others were excluded from this very brief outline does not detract from this premise.

the DNC was breached by a Russian-speaking hacker who is not employed by the Russian intelligence services but has access to the APT28 malware... Or   the DNC was breached by a Russian hacker who does contract work for the FSB when he isn’t running his own hacker-for-hire business for Russian oligarchs and Swiss lawyers... Or   the DNC was breached by a Russian hacker who does contract work for the FSB when he isn’t running his own hacker-for-hire business for Russian oligarchs and Swiss lawyers...

Yeah, if <overly elaborate hypothesis not supported by any sound logical explanation>.

The pattern is clear enough - the fingerprints and methods used in hacks that were almost certainly done to benefit the Russian state in its own backyard (i.e. in Georgia and Ukraine, for pro-Russian goals) were found in a prolonged cyber attack on the Democratic party in the US. That's where the evidence points with the highest probability, and you've done nothing to change that fact.

You can bring-up 'Russian oligarchs' and 'Swiss lawyers' all you want ... where's your evidence, eh?

To say that this is evidence which points unequivocally to the Kremlin is naive.

Who said that? The US IC concludes with "high confidence", and few in the tech community view the evidence as conclusive.

This is a theory, an inference to the best explanation, based upon the available evidence of multiple independent cyber-forensic investigations, which all points in only one direction. Rather than follow the evidence where it goes, you've decided to work backwards from your conclusion (not Russia!).

The Intelligence Community says it has classified information which proves the hacking narrative, proof that is apparently unrelated to these cyber-security firms. They should present that information to the public.

Any such information would absolutely be of the very highest classification, and the NSA/CIA/etc aren't going to burn their best sources on a dangerous adversary by making it all public. Are you fucken kidding? Be reasonable man.

Even if they did, you wouldn't accept it anyway - you've made that much clear. Important Republican representatives have access to this stuff, and so does the Whitehouse - Trump is the about only person in government who still doesn't seem to agree. Weird, huh?

I would say most contexts where you're trying to insinuate a user's argument should not be paid attention to because you think they are a shill would be an attack. Again, you can always send a modmail to get a second opinion, or usermention a couple of the other mods if you really want it public (though I doubt anyone's reading this far in a buried thread).