abby martin hates the alt right and she doesn't buy the Russia narrative. Even secular talk isn't buying it and he's a hardcore liberal

Nobody except the victims of MSM propaganda believe in "muhrussia".

They push the same talking points too, ugh.

That simply isn't true at all.

You are right about it not being true. There are those who come up with the propaganda in the first place.

Trumps tweets continue to confirm alot of suspicions.

How so?

"During my recent trip to the Middle East I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology. Leaders pointed to Qatar - look!" -@realdonaldtrump

Qatar gets 12 Billion arms deal. O it was negotiated under the previous President? He ran on undoing Obama's mess.

Also does an arms deal with Saudi Arabia after making comments like this ( https://youtu.be/xdKkBvA5UEk ). Starts at 1min45sec.

"I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt"

I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt

What does this confirm? I bet Rosenstein, and shortly thereafter Meuller, are going to either resign or recuse because of that single tweet. I guess it confirms that Trump knows what's going on...

Maybe if he was being persecuted needlessly he would be able to accomplish more..

Government shills from ShareBlue, what's stupid is that Russia didn't make myself or anyone else NOT vote Hillary, why on earth would any self respecting Bernie delegate like me do that after the treatment at the DNC when they pulled out all the stops to make sure our voices and ideals wouldn't be heard nor respected? Then had the gall to get mad when their bluff was called after they shoehorned Trump to become the RNC thinking no would let it happen....

Til it did and the Democrats got egg on their face. They can stomach the idea that the American people said fuck this and turn the table over, now they push "MuhRussia" on everyone.

And I believed it was the Bernie followers inciting violence when it was actually the good old DNC Hillary pigs.

Kyle Kulinksi has changed his tune on the Trump-Russia story as of late.

https://youtu.be/qfDkLg5yndk

I finally figured out that my mother is Rachel Maddox follower. In a fury she would accuse me of watching Fox News and reading breitbart like I was Satan. I don't do either. But those were her go to insults. She attacks Trump such venom and I believed it was all coming from the msm. But she has no balance at all to her trump hatred. After the shooting, I started seeing tweets and Reddit posts about what Rachel Maddow says. It finally dawned on me that my mother who accuses me of being alt right because I voted for Trump is a Rachel Maddow followers.

A 12 year old girl called me a racist for voting for Trump. A nice, well mannered 12 year old who has slept over at my house and is best friends with my daughter. Wtf! I would never, and my child would never insult someone that way. And I was driving her to dinner that I was buying because her liberal mother was too busy.

Honestly this bipartisan immaturity is more appropriate for the 12 year old than the adult anyway.

I wouldn't say you are a racist without actual proof, but if you believed that he would actually fight for the new dealism he ran on, you are an idiot for voting for him.

And I wouldn't be an idiot if I had voted for Hillary?

Depends on the reason you would have voted for her. If you voted for Trump because of you wanted a pro-life, anti-worker Supreme Court, then you made the correct choice.

And I am guessing you knew better and voted the intelligent choice, Hillary.

Nope, I wrote in Ralph Nader, Trump was going to win my state no matter what.

I voted for her because of the environment and the Supreme Court. What were reasons for your vote for Trump?

I am at the opposite end of the spectrum from you. I also voted for the Supreme Court picks. I am not a liberal. That and illegal immigration. I like legal immigration, not sub human wages for people we encourage to come here illegally.

Then you made the right call, more power to you, everyone in this country deserves the right to vote, and I will gladly fight for your right to vote, even if we don't see eye to eye.

I have now had two separate strippers ask me if I was a Nazi like it's a completely normal thing to ask. I swear on my life I have said nothing race or politics related, why the fuck would I? Not only that but a Puerto Rican cuts my hair lol. I guess if Hispanic and black people interact with white people now they have to make sure we're not Nazis first. Why would a stripper give a fuck in the first place? Propaganda works and a huge portion of the country has been brainwashed.

That's an awkward stripper intro.

Why the fuck are you talking politics with a stripper?

I wasn't. They both brought it up out of fucking nowhere.

Only the neoliberals and the media.

The Berniecrats are still out there. I don't like DJT or the administration but I do not condone the violence or vitriol.

I am also a never Clinton but I don't know what I would have done if she had run against JEB! I guess vote for him for Supreme Court picks, but my god it would have hurt.

The left is split. Many eyes were woken this election cycle. Let them keep their labels. They do not define us.

They amount of butthurt middle aged women that are still mad about the election is astronomical lol. My mom, heck, every woman in my family still have obvious salt over it..

My parents go in the other direction. There are certainly crazy extremists on both sides. I don't really get the logical Trump supporter today. I understand voting for him as a "let's see what happens" vote, but has he done anything that warrants continued approval?

I still support him. Feel free to ask me specific questions (I don't feel like answering broad shit like 'How could you...'), I would be happy to answer a few.

Has he accomplished anything you're proud of? How do you feel about the blatant lying - like his inauguration crowd size?

I'm not asking these to be combative. I'm genuinely curious.

Has he accomplished anything you're proud of?

Many, not the least of which beating the established and corrupt Hillary government, and finally removing that dynasty from political discourse.

How do you feel about the blatant lying - like his inauguration crowd size?

Inauguration size? We both know what happened there. He has marketing people that gave him false information. I don't consider it a lie, I don't think he intended to lie. Someone told him something that he repeated. I don't know of any other "blatant lying".

Can you name a handful of things he's done in office that you've liked?

Pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement and TPP. Currently he is changing welfare to require people collecting benefits to work (in some cases). I have loved the stock market since his election which is a reaction to Trump (not necessarily something he did). I like that he is un-apologetically pushing back against the legacy media which has grown into a powerful tool of propaganda and have left behind the ideals of journalism. I love how inclusive he has been towards minorities and LGBTQ groups and people. I believe in what he is doing in his continuing attempts to build a working relationship with Russia, including sharing information on possible terrorist threats. I am proud that he is negotiating with multinational corporations representing the needs of the American people as opposed to the needs of the corporations like most politicians today. I agree with the scaling back of regulation, as the bureaucracies built around the regulation of day to day business by the Federal government has become a bloated and ineffectual money hole. I totally agree with the firing of Comey. Comey should have publicly stated that Trump was not under investigation the first time there was a leak from his office that could be used to fuel rumors that he was.

I could go on all day. He represents me pretty well, and I am happy I voted for him.

Interesting. I'm not sure how he's really being inclusive of LGBTQ, but I can't really argue with the rest. I disagree with basically all of it, but that's just politics.

I imagine you don't follow a lot of the smaller press releases from the Whitehouse. As an example, he recently met with an LGBTQ teacher in the Oval Office to acknowledge him for being a good teacher.

I think my point is that the belief that he is a racist or a bigot is a fabricated personal attack being pushed by the media, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.

I like him. Anything else you want to know?

I saw the teacher photo. That's apparently part of a yearly thing, not unique to this particular teacher. I think Trump would have had a hard time saying no. Not saying he would, but I wouldn't give him points for something anyone would have done.

No other questions. If you agree with his politics, then I can't fault you for still supporting him. I personally disagree with essentially everything he's done to date, aside from the handful of things like the photo op you mentioned.

Fair enough.

The true left (the Bernie bros i guess?) don't buy it at all.

Check out r/wayofthebern.

Majorly progressive.

Don't like Trump but really hate Clinton.

Don't buy Russia whatsoever.

This is where I'm at. But I'm also at the point where I don't believe shit anymore because I can't tell who is a real person online anymore. Interesting times.

There is no way of knowing how deep that rabbit hole goes. I compare the demographics of reddit, compared to the polling of political views for politics. If that were true reddit would still be a Sanders circle jerk. The minority view (neoliberals) turned into the super majority. That information says a lot to me on just how many there are.

True af.

Love that place, keep up the fight guys !!!

Wayofthebern is seeded with the same types of propaganda articles this sub specializes in. I guess it's a good place to go if you need a safe space from the Russia stuff and plenty of alt-right/left crossover. The whole "this sub doesn't buy x or y" thing is absurd.

I actually noticed there's this one guy who will find every crazy alt-right article he can find and post it to here, wayofthebern, hillaryforprison, and uncensorednews.

I've seen similar things. I think naming names on reddit is a bit shitty to do but there are a few notable users with histories of spamming pro-Sanders subs with 10 Hillary corruption/conspiracy articles per day, rarely commenting at all, just farming the post karma that rolls in. It's a pretty smart move if your goal is to continue to divide "the left" and try to lure them towards the "enemy" of the mainstream/the "non-establishment" guy (Trump). When you see somebody peddling the exact same narrative as an Alt Right spammer, well...

r/wayofthebern isnt a genuine bernie sub

I suggest that you make a post that goes against him. Bc they Brigaded the fuck outta me.

That's because if they admit it then they'd admit that Bernie lost because of actual reasons.

Reasons like cheating, sure.

Reasons like he lost by millions. And this is coming from someone who voted and donated to him.

He didn't go all out from the start and it doomed him.

Yea but he didnt.

Look it up.

He literally did though

Yeah no.

He really didn't.

Check the exit polls

Popular vote 16,914,722 13,206,428

That's millions that Bernie lost by.

That's not even a number.

But let's say it's a misprint on your part (accountants do that).

We know that in the states where no election fraud occurred, he won.

We have eyewitnesses to the issues on several states, notably California, where some poll workers estimated fully half the voters were forced to vote provisional- votes which were largely not Counted.

Anyway I think you're just making stuff up now, so I'm bowing out of this conversation.

It is a number, there's a space. First number was Hillary primary votes, second is Bernie.

Copy and pasted from a simple google search for DNC primary final vote totals.

But let's say it's a misprint on your part (accountants do that).

It's not.

We have eyewitnesses to the issues on several states, notably California, where some poll workers estimated fully half the voters were forced to vote provisional- votes which were largely not Counted.

But no hard proof that happened nor that the votes weren't counted. People registered to vote correctly could vote. Even people not stated as Democrats could vote in their primary.

If there was any hard proof I'd change my mind but I have yet to see any.

And you're referencing one primary which is different from the overall vote totals. You'd have to prove that nearly 3 million Californians tried to vote but couldn't.

Bernie didn't know the movement he'd have when he started. Hillary had been preparing to go all out for the nomination since 2008. It's basically a miracle Bernie, a 70 year old socialist Jew was so close.

I'm curious, what is hard proof?

Eyewitnesses make us believe the holocaust happened.

Why would the current California election workers not be good enough?

When they witnessed It?

Trump says he witnessed Muslims out in the streets in NYC cheering 9/11. Eye witnesses are notoriously incorrect as any criminal lawyer will tell you.

And your holocaust example is inherently flawed, we have ledgers and photo accounts of it happening. You're comparing a mountain of evidence to a couple people making a claim that they haven't backed up.

So what's the number of provisional ballots that weren't counted? How do you know they were only or even a majority of Bernie voters?

And your other proof is exit polling in an election where polling was consistently off across all sides.

Lastly, you're only referencing California when the original topic was the primaries as a whole. So you're ignoring 49 states.

So you're making a claim, where's the hard evidence to back it up?

I said Hillary got more votes overall. I've provided proof and the hard numbers.

What's a ledger and what does it prove?

I'm over this.

Nobody agrees with you as you're wrong every time you post.

I'm out.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Ledger

You're free to disagree with me. However so far I've provided evidence, you've provided none.

I would continue to argue but you are a confirmed fake point-switcher over days.

Not feeling like dealing with a bunch of BS.

I haven't switched points at all. I said that Hillary got more votes. My evidence is the vote totals.

So do you have proof that she didn't get more votes? Actual proof. Let's see a link to some ballot counts or something.

You switch all your points and everyone who reads your comments knows it.

Please, go ahead and show me where I changed my point. I'd love to see it.

I don't feel like it. Let people read an decide for themselves.

Over a period of days, you change what you said.

It's easy for everyone to see.

Done here.

You didn't Answer my question, what about the provisional vote?

No point in arguing with MessisTaxAccountant. I was arguing with him because he was arguing with a previous poster over the meaning of the OPs post. This guy kept claiming that OP was stating the literal opposite of what he said. So I asked him to show me how he's getting the opposite message from the text and where in the text he sees that message. After that, he stopped trying to argue and would say "I already said so earlier." On top of it, he said I was stalking him. Which is funny because his comments are all public and viewable on his profile, so it's not hard to catch him in a lie.

Here are links to my comments where I call him out and prove he's a liar, and he still claims my post "only proves him right." You can decide for yourself if someone this adamant at being wrong is worth your time.

So literally your situation. He just makes something up and claims this is what you said and meant. He totally will ignore everything else.

Anyways thought I'd at least give you the heads up.

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.

It's excellent (for us, not them) how they are pushing it, though. They are putting on a massive display of how the MSM tries to shape a false narrative through the Goebbels-inspired technique of constant repetition of a lie. It's sort of like they are showing their playbook in such a way that even the idiots can't fail to understand it.

Never underestimate idiots.

Tom Pool is alt right. He had a whole segment on how the Proud Boys are good.

Nice retort!

Why? Are my pesky facts upsetting your narrative?

Nowhere did Tim Pool advocate for the Proud Boys saying that they are good. His coverage expressed a tone of indifference ending by saying "whatever you want to think about them, you've at least heard it from them to some degree and make up your own mind about whatever it is they do and how you feel about it..." That doesn't make him alt-right especially considering how many other times he's expressed his views and distaste for their views.

This episode is called "celebrating with the proud boys". Are you really going to pretend he doesn't show a bias?

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

Show me where he has been critical of them please?

Covering their celebration or "celebrating with" is not the same as celebrating the Proud Boys. I think it's disingenuous to extrapolate that much from an ambiguous title. I can't think of an example where he has been explicitly critical of the Proud Boys but still that is not evidence that Tim Pool is in any way alt-right. But the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

This video if you watch it, really doesn't show bias and this one video doesn't support that Tim has a bias for the alt-right. Tim if anything has expressed a disdain for labels but has said he has always leaned left/liberal. He has explicitly numerous times clarified his opinions on the alt-right and why he doesn't feel they are a useful or productive group or one to associate with. I've watched a fair amount of his content from even back to Standing Rock and the Occupy Protests and I don't believe you can say he's firmly alt-right. I think you are trying to make this into something much greater than it actually is. I'll ask pretty much the same can you show where Tim has been approving of alt right beliefs or identifies with them?

Covering their celebration or "celebrating with" is not the same as celebrating the Proud Boys. I think it's disingenuous to extrapolate that much from an ambiguous title.

Clearly you didn't watch the video. Watch it and tell me if you think he doesn't like the Proud Boys.

I can't think of an example where he has been explicitly critical of the Proud Boys but still that is not evidence that Tim Pool is in any way alt-right. But the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

This seems to directly fly in the front of your earlier claim that:

considering how many other times he's expressed his opinion and distaste for their views.

So in this case, I will take absence of evidence as evidence of you making something up earlier.

If you have watched his coverage, than you have seen about the same things I have, a man playing a liberal concern troll. If you want ask me for evidence on Monday when it's not the weekend and i'll watch some tim pool to send you.

Hey would you look at that his video today addresses this very topic! You are making some very hasty assumptions about Tim. Guilt by association is not a healthy way to peg people, especially journalists. He flat out does not identify with the people he covers.

Check out this at least if you have 10 or so min. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T8rODzp2UI&t=329s

Do you even know who Tim Pool is? He is a liberal, worked for Vice and started his career covering the Occupy Movement. He isn't even white, lol, and here you are accusing him of being some sort of neo-nazi alt-righter. I mean... Come on.

My own family thought I voted for Trump/became a conservative because I want to wait for evidence before I make a judgement. And when I tell them I'm not, it's like their brains glitch out and they don't know what to say. My own mom said "you're just biased!", so I ask what my bias is and she couldn't even give an answer. There just must be some sort of bias simply because I don't buy into it.

People don't understand why you would question this scandal without being a Trump supporter.

The "liberal media" is run by pedophiles--at least the deep state are leaking what's going on in the Political realm. Agree, but I would be interested to know how true this is.

Rule 10 only applies to other users of this sub.

Sure you were 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

This is the crux to Shareblue's attempt at divide and conquer on this sub. People have to realize there are many out there who aren't Trump supporters who don't buy the MSM's attempt at a red scare. You can question the media without being a Trump supporter, don't let the shills and useful idiots fool you into believing otherwise.

The easiest way to understand it is this. The majority of posters here mocked the MSM and were worried about the globalists intentions for the average American long before Trump became a political figure. Just because he took office, doesn't mean conspiracy posters should suddenly start believing what the MSM is selling.

The alt-right grouping is part of the zionist divide-and-conquer strategy. They have always done this throughout history. They can only fight an opponent that is grouped together in identity, so they can attack that identity with libel and slander to break the morale of people within the group. But they cannot fight a group of anonymous and independent people that are grouped together solely because of a similar idea. Because the only way to fight back against this is to fight the idea itself in which the strongest idea and arguments will win. They know they cannot win this war.

There is no proof that Russians were the hackers of:

DNC servers - only seen/investigated by Crowdstrike

DCCC servers - only seen/investigated by Crowdstrike

jonh.podesta@gmail.com - simple phishing hack by random fake google phish change password.

Let me ask you this question. Why wouldnt the Russians, who must be phenominal hackers, get or at least try to get access to the following campaign emails too:

Trump Sanders Rubio Jeb Bush Cruz Kasich Carson Christie

Why not play both sides like any foreign goverment would in this election to have blackmail or influence over any campaign?

A: Because the Russians didn't hack anything

ALL of the hacks were INSIDE JOBS!

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/30/politics/senate-intelligence-committee-hearing-russia/index.html

"Former members of my presidential campaign team who had access to the internal information of my presidential campaign were targeted by IP addresses with an unknown location within Russia," Rubio said Thursday. "That effort was unsuccessful. I would also inform the committee within the last 24 hours, at 10:45 a.m. yesterday, a second attempt was made, again, against former members of my presidential campaign team who had access to our internal information -- again targeted from an IP address from an unknown location in Russia. And that effort was also unsuccessful."

I know, it's CNN, but it's a quote. I know the Russian IP address doesn't necessarily mean anything, but there were attempts to hack Rubio's people.

1. Marco Rubio/CNN. That is a good point. But here's the thing. When you just have a unsuccessful attack there's not much in the way of server based information you can detect. A targeted attack from IP addresses really doesn't tell you much because so many of these are launched using VPN's anyway and if unsuccessful you can't do forensics on the activity of the hackers while in the servers.
   

targeted by IP addresses with an unknown location within Russia,"

Have you ever had a wordpress site? There are literally millions of Russia based IP address attacks daily.

Here's one article about specifically targeting emails:

6 Million Password Attacks in 16 Hours and How to Block Them

Here's the thing. Any good server admin running internal use only environments like DNC/DCCC will BLOCK entire country wide IPs from even having ability to have any access at all. SO they would have used a VPN from another country if in fact it was Russian govt. based hackers.

2.Comey. He did not have any forensic evidence reviewed by FBI hacking experts or engineers. Totally discount his testimony because he used PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY to promote the Russia hack. What does that mean? By having a private company do the investigation, he can not compel them to testify or give up to the public through FOIA requests any findings. Brilliant! but totally deceptive and unreliable.

1. Graham - His "vendor was hacked" ok so what? That doesn't mean his server/email was.

2. The Chicago Tribune piece is a total false. No Republican emails were hacked or released to the public or wikileaks.

Ask yourself. Why did these emails wind up in the hands of wikileaks anyway? Wouldn't the Russian Govt rather have kept them secret and use the info for blackmail purposes against Hillary.

And why hasn't the Weiner laptop been hacked or leaked either if the Russians got into the DNC/DCCC servers? Wouldn't they also have been able to hack Hillary's "home brew" server just as easily.

Why didn't The Russians release the 650,000 Hillary Sever emails on Weiner's laptop assuming they were able to hack Hillary's server since it was much less secure than the DNC or DCCC?????

The Chicago Tribune piece is a total false. No Republican emails were hacked or released to the public or wikileaks.

There were Republican emails released through DCleaks.

https://archive.fo/jmZse

1. Marco Rubio/CNN. That is a good point. But here's the thing. When you just have a unsuccessful attack there's not much in the way of server based information you can detect. A targeted attack from IP addresses really doesn't tell you much because so many of these are launched using VPN's anyway and if unsuccessful you can't do forensics on the activity of the hackers while in the servers.
   

targeted by IP addresses with an unknown location within Russia,"

Have you ever had a wordpress site? There are literally millions of Russia based IP address attacks daily.

Here's one article about specifically targeting emails:

6 Million Password Attacks in 16 Hours and How to Block Them

Here's the thing. Any good server admin running internal use only environments like DNC/DCCC will BLOCK entire country wide IPs from even having ability to have any access at all. SO they would have used a VPN from another country if in fact it was Russian govt. based hackers.

Look dude I'm just saying Republicans were targeted by cyber attackers. I don't know if they're Russian, but according to Rubio and Graham, someone tried to illegitimately gain access to their info.

2.Comey. He did not have any forensic evidence reviewed by FBI hacking experts or engineers. Totally discount his testimony because he used PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY to promote the Russia hack. What does that mean? By having a private company do the investigation, he can not compel them to testify or give up to the public through FOIA requests any findings. Brilliant! but totally deceptive and unreliable.

1. Graham - His "vendor was hacked" ok so what? That doesn't mean his server/email was.

He was a Republican that was targeted. That's why I brought him up.

1. The Chicago Tribune piece is a total false. No Republican emails were hacked or released to the public or wikileaks.

That isn't the claim of the article lol

Ask yourself. Why did these emails wind up in the hands of wikileaks anyway? Wouldn't the Russian Govt rather have kept them secret and use the info for blackmail purposes against Hillary.

There wasn't even anything blackmail worthy in the emails.

Remember how you were talking about crowdstrike being unaccountable? Wikileaks is similarly unaccountable. You can't place sanctions on Wikileaks.

And why hasn't the Weiner laptop been hacked or leaked either if the Russians got into the DNC/DCCC servers? Wouldn't they also have been able to hack Hillary's "home brew" server just as easily.

Why didn't The Russians release the 650,000 Hillary Sever emails on Weiner's laptop assuming they were able to hack Hillary's server since it was much less secure than the DNC or DCCC?????

Look dude I can't answer all of those questions, who the fuck knows. Maybe the Russians did get into all of those things and chose not to release the emails on Weiners computer. Maybe they did hack the home brew server.

Shit, maybe those are the emails they're holding for blackmail.

Crowdstrike is a legitimate organization and one of the few orgs certified by the NSA to carry out this sort of service:

https://www.crowdstrike.com/resources/crowdstrike-accredited-by-nsa-for-cyber-incident-response-services/

There's nothing wrong with relying on a private company for analysis the feds do it all the time, it's not uncommon.

The FBI has confidence that the russians have meddled in the election on a number of fronts via sophisticated methods. This is not a single hack this is a mosaic of many attacks targeting many organizations. The post by /u/feedmesources mentions attacks against republican servers, there's also the NSA report detailing hacking attempts / success against local election officials right before the election.

Much has been said to try to discredit crowdstrike's analysis since the FBI did not do the first-level analysis of the system. However every piece of information coming out since that has only corroborated and strengthened crowdstrike's conclusion. This is not a partisan issue. Russia meddled in the 2016 election including targeted cyberattacks. This isn't really up for debate anymore we see new evidence of this all the time.

Lol at using crowdstrike.com and the NSA, confirmed liars, to claim that crowdstrike is a legitimate organization.

The certification is something that can be independently verified you can just google it it's listed on the government website as well. BTW this is pretty much true for any certification anywhere so you don't seem to be very well versed on this subject.

For someone so well versed on the subject you conveniently ignore the fact that the NSA isn't exactly the pinnacle of honesty and integrity and that's putting it lightly.

If you don't trust the NSA OR the FBI OR an independent security company that all came to the same conclusion independently by analyzing different hacking campaigns then there's literally no evidence at all that can convince you otherwise. These are the professionals that act as the intrusion detection of the USA, and they are all alerting on this threat. If you're plugging your ears that's your problem.

Crowdstrike is a legitimate organization and one of the few orgs certified by the NSA to carry out this sort of service: https://www.crowdstrike.com/resources/crowdstrike-accredited-by-nsa-for-cyber-incident-response-services/

I see. But they also aren't 100% perfect so why keep the servers away from the FBI??? Doesn't make any sense.

Also, what is Crowdstrikes rebbuttal to Assange who said he did not get the emails from the Russian Govt?

Thanks for this post, good to know Im not the only one out there that doesn't buy this shit. Leaving out buzzwords like deep state, conspiracy can be a good way to get people to question beliefs. I like to compare to the buildup of the Iraq war to bridge the gap with some people. Unfortunately I am called a Trump shill, or a Putin bot or other bullshit. The Seth Rich threads from a month or two ago I was shouted down as a bot, trump supporter, alt-right, of which I am none of. Crazy times we live in...

oh and the hardest part is watching my family look at me with raised eyebrows when I question the narrative, because they were both big Hillary fans, and refuse to question or take a look from above what is happening today. Tough when politics pulls you apart

I know several very liberal people who don't buy it, either. I think the people who were paying attention during the campaign for war in Iraq, and during the whole Snoden mass surveillance and the lying to the American people are mostly the same as those who are currently skeptical of the Russia conspiracy.

Does anyone know the real origin of this Russia narrative? Was it the Clinton loss? I have heard that, but I thought we were hearing it before that? Anyway, I'm really fucking sick of it. This country has gone insane. The other day some jackhole said some insulting things for no reason at all, because he was sure I was pro Trump. I'm not. I proceeded to say not everyone is black or white, and the asshole still attacked me for not just loving Clinton. It's fucking insane. The american people were not given a choice!

Does anyone know the real origin of this Russia narrative? Was it the Clinton loss? I have heard that, but I thought we were hearing it before that

It was dialed up to 11 following her loss. Would have been buried if she had won, because as we can see, discussion of this is aimed at tainting the validity of the incoming administration.

The best treatment of this is a documentary series called 'A Very Heavy Agenda'. This clip provides a nice summary of what this is really about.

https://youtu.be/MXpIfZqg8zA?t=2m59s

http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/14/media/huffpost-vocativ-media-layoffs/index.html

The mass media are dying. As advertising dollars dry up, expect governments, and NGO's to step in and increase funding. This will cause a shift of propaganda content.

But Ze Russians are comink for us!

It's doesn't matter who "buys" it. The evidence and the facts speak and will speak for themselves. The truth is truth and it doesn't require anyone's belief.

Unless of course you don't believe in Muh Russia, then you are shouted down everywhere you go. "Doesn't require belief, but if you don't believe it you will be vilified". Get the fuck out of here. There haven't been any "facts" released. It is all speculation, anonymous sources and innuendo.

The head of the FBI has expressed in no uncertain terms that it's happened. The NSA has released independend evidence of Russia hacking attempts for local elections officials. Prior to all of this an independent 3rd party company said Russia hacked the DNC, and they have been maligned by the right ever since. However, every other piece of evidence that comes to light from the 3 letter agencies agrees with their original conclusion.

Yeah at this point, there is evidence, and it points to the Russian government. For some people that's not a convenient narrative, for others it is, whatever. The fact remains that's where the evidence points.

Any links to this evidence? Have you read it?

First off here's what Comey said about it directly:

“There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did it with purpose. They did it with sophistication. They did it with overwhelming technical efforts. And it was an active-measures campaign driven from the top of that government. There is no fuzz on that.”

The crowdstrike report is here: https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

The more recent NSA report is linked from this intercept article summarizing it: https://theintercept.com/2017/06/05/top-secret-nsa-report-details-russian-hacking-effort-days-before-2016-election/

I read everything that is released on this particular topic yeah. I also see the evidence that has been released completely mischaracterized in this sub and elsewhere by non-experts, I happen to have a some background in this and so it's a bugbear when I see that.

A U.S. intelligence officer who declined to be identified cautioned against drawing too big a conclusion from the document because a single analysis is not necessarily definitive.

The report indicates that Russian hacking *may have *

There's zero evidence presented.

The CrowdStrike report has never been independently verified by the FBI and the public information is tech mumbo jumbo used to overwhelm anyone without knowledge into thinking that it must be legitimate.

Don't draw too big a conclusion off of one report != no evidence. No evidence is a tired trope and is a completely invalid talking point at this stage of the game. If we're playing at home we're not drawing conclusions off of one report here there are now several reports and statements from the head of the FBI who surely has seen more than we have.

The FBI is able to read the Crowdstrike report along with any evidence they had collected. The crowdstrike report is not all tech mumbo jumbo you are just an amateur that is unable to verify this informatin yourself. In that case you should trust the experts, such as the head of the FBI that has done this analysis. If there were DNA evidence would you try to fumble through this verification yourself as well? It's a silly thing a the face of it.

You do understand that this a /r/conspiracy right?

"Believe the DNC and the Federal government and don't question anything" isn't a valid argument. 😂🤣

"I don't understand this evidence therefore there is no evidence" is also not valid. Go study information security and make zillions of dollars and come back at me. In the meantime your ignorance is not equal to my knowledge.

Do you understand it? O, you studied information security and make zillions of dollars then? Or are you wilfully championing your own ignorance of the subject and subsequent reliance on the government and MSM media narrative while on a conspiracy forum?

Come back at me with proof.

Tangible. Proof. There's apparently classified information we both haven't seen so let's release it. Prove me wrong.

The DNC was hacked. The DNC hired CrowdStrike to give an assessment. The DNC refused to let the FBI and government to independently verify the hack. The FBI relied on the findings of an entity, CrowdStrike, that was paid by the DNC. That doesn't look good.

Haha I do understand it, of course. And yeah I'm an expert in the field and I do make a shitload of money doing it, which is nice. I wouldn't be wading out so far on this topic if those things weren't true, as I see you're quite comfortable doing. I don't give a shit about what the MSM promotes I care about the truth.

The FBI relied on the findings of an entity, CrowdStrike, that was paid by the DNC. That doesn't look good.

This is actually common. I understand that you'd feel better that the FBI did the analysis directly but they work with other private third parties all the time. The FBI does not have a monopoly on competent hackers, far from it you make more in the private sector, just like any other industry.

In the world of attribution the type of tangible proof that I suspect you are looking for doesn't exist. The crowdstrike report speaks to the sophistication of the attackers, the tradecraft they describe already narrows the field of suspects to a few state actors, the tools they used and the specific way they operated within the systems narrows that field further. This is how attribution is done. You don't find a jpg of Putin with a note saying "I did it." Anyone that is still skeptical is likely to stay that way because amateurs don't understand how it works and often have an expectation that is very different from reality.

Okay expert, you'd know then it's near impossible to ever be sure where a certain attack originated from and that oftentimes state actors spoof origins. The report states that ip addresses originated from within Russian territory. You are telling me the Russian government is going to leave breadcrumbs like that around? Or in fact couldn't other actors—even the United States government—have been the perpetrators and framed Russia?

Of course you'd agree with me there but then a but would come after.

Your evidence isn't evidence. You aren't in the government and haven't seen the actual report—not the public summary you linked to—and classified evidence.

You are a person on a conspiracy sub pushing the government and MSM narrative.

The crowdstrike report actually doesn't say that and their analysis is based on the behavior and sophistication of the attackers along with the tools that these groups use to infiltrate targets, and operation handoff details also consistent with this group. False attribution is a thing but magic isn't real and there are limitations of when and how that's possible but that's a long convoluted post all by itself.

It's evidence; You don't want it to be and you can't understand it so you just say it's not evidence, but it is. You have no background or knowledge to even make such a distinction so the fact that you would just dismiss it exposes your bias for all to see. You don't care about the evidence you care about maintaining your worldview.

I'm interested in the truth I don't care about the narrative, that's your focus, not mine.

The head of the FBI has expressed in no uncertain terms that Russia meddled in the election on many fronts

I don't believe him. He is a liar.

The NSA has released independent evidence of Russia hacking attempts

Except they haven't. They've released statements alluding to it, but no evidence.

an independent 3rd party company said Russia hacked the DNC

Independent company who donated to the Clinton campaign... What does it take to not be considered "independent"?

Yeah at this point, there is evidence, and it points to the Russian government.

You haven't seen any evidence though. None. Neither have I.

The fact remains that's where the evidence points.

It points nowhere because we don't have any...

I am very left wing and I don't believe most of this "Russia hacked the election" nonsense.

Think about the type of individual who does buy it though. What sad, pathetic little weasels.

The one who believes that Marussia F1 team isn't going to not finish in the last 18th's of the correct race isn't wrong.

There is no way of knowing how deep that rabbit hole goes. I compare the demographics of reddit, compared to the polling of political views for politics. If that were true reddit would still be a Sanders circle jerk. The minority view (neoliberals) turned into the super majority. That information says a lot to me on just how many there are.

Covering their celebration or "celebrating with" is not the same as celebrating the Proud Boys. I think it's disingenuous to extrapolate that much from an ambiguous title.

Clearly you didn't watch the video. Watch it and tell me if you think he doesn't like the Proud Boys.

I can't think of an example where he has been explicitly critical of the Proud Boys but still that is not evidence that Tim Pool is in any way alt-right. But the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

This seems to directly fly in the front of your earlier claim that:

considering how many other times he's expressed his opinion and distaste for their views.

So in this case, I will take absence of evidence as evidence of you making something up earlier.

If you have watched his coverage, than you have seen about the same things I have, a man playing a liberal concern troll. If you want ask me for evidence on Monday when it's not the weekend and i'll watch some tim pool to send you.

1. Marco Rubio/CNN. That is a good point. But here's the thing. When you just have a unsuccessful attack there's not much in the way of server based information you can detect. A targeted attack from IP addresses really doesn't tell you much because so many of these are launched using VPN's anyway and if unsuccessful you can't do forensics on the activity of the hackers while in the servers.
   

targeted by IP addresses with an unknown location within Russia,"

Have you ever had a wordpress site? There are literally millions of Russia based IP address attacks daily.

Here's one article about specifically targeting emails:

6 Million Password Attacks in 16 Hours and How to Block Them

Here's the thing. Any good server admin running internal use only environments like DNC/DCCC will BLOCK entire country wide IPs from even having ability to have any access at all. SO they would have used a VPN from another country if in fact it was Russian govt. based hackers.

2.Comey. He did not have any forensic evidence reviewed by FBI hacking experts or engineers. Totally discount his testimony because he used PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY to promote the Russia hack. What does that mean? By having a private company do the investigation, he can not compel them to testify or give up to the public through FOIA requests any findings. Brilliant! but totally deceptive and unreliable.

1. Graham - His "vendor was hacked" ok so what? That doesn't mean his server/email was.

2. The Chicago Tribune piece is a total false. No Republican emails were hacked or released to the public or wikileaks.

Ask yourself. Why did these emails wind up in the hands of wikileaks anyway? Wouldn't the Russian Govt rather have kept them secret and use the info for blackmail purposes against Hillary.

And why hasn't the Weiner laptop been hacked or leaked either if the Russians got into the DNC/DCCC servers? Wouldn't they also have been able to hack Hillary's "home brew" server just as easily.

Why didn't The Russians release the 650,000 Hillary Sever emails on Weiner's laptop assuming they were able to hack Hillary's server since it was much less secure than the DNC or DCCC?????

The head of the FBI has expressed in no uncertain terms that it's happened. The NSA has released independend evidence of Russia hacking attempts for local elections officials. Prior to all of this an independent 3rd party company said Russia hacked the DNC, and they have been maligned by the right ever since. However, every other piece of evidence that comes to light from the 3 letter agencies agrees with their original conclusion.

Yeah at this point, there is evidence, and it points to the Russian government. For some people that's not a convenient narrative, for others it is, whatever. The fact remains that's where the evidence points.

Any links to this evidence? Have you read it?

A U.S. intelligence officer who declined to be identified cautioned against drawing too big a conclusion from the document because a single analysis is not necessarily definitive.

The report indicates that Russian hacking *may have *

There's zero evidence presented.

The CrowdStrike report has never been independently verified by the FBI and the public information is tech mumbo jumbo used to overwhelm anyone without knowledge into thinking that it must be legitimate.

True af.

The head of the FBI has expressed in no uncertain terms that Russia meddled in the election on many fronts

I don't believe him. He is a liar.

The NSA has released independent evidence of Russia hacking attempts

Except they haven't. They've released statements alluding to it, but no evidence.

an independent 3rd party company said Russia hacked the DNC

Independent company who donated to the Clinton campaign... What does it take to not be considered "independent"?

Yeah at this point, there is evidence, and it points to the Russian government.

You haven't seen any evidence though. None. Neither have I.

The fact remains that's where the evidence points.

It points nowhere because we don't have any...

Reasons like cheating, sure.

He literally did though