General US Politics Discussion

[Creed Bratton]

And here we go: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-cyber-idUSKBN14S0O6

 

Even they can't ignore it anymore.

[Svip]

Yeah, I am not sure Reince Priebus is that reliable a source. And it certainly wouldn't be the first time a Trump aide have come out and said he believes something or apologises for something, for then Trump later to come out and say, no no, that's not true at all!

 

I won't believe Trump acknowledges it until he says it himself.

[Clem Fandango]

Euty might be swinging to the other extreme but I do think people are uncritically repeating the 'Russia stole the election' narrative. Also what they did was nominally legitimate (exposing corruption) so what you've got is people basically claiming politicians have a right to privacy when using government computers. "Yes that's my pot but what were you doing in my room?"

[Svip]

Definitely. The revelations were not surprising, though, but I concur their contents were legitimate, just not how it went about. Because motivation is an important aspect of a leak. I can appreciate Snowden's leaks, because he genuinely felt something was wrong and needed to be corrected. I would hardly put the Russian government's motivations at similar standards.

 

Also, I can understand - from an American point of view - that it is highly disconcerting that a foreign power is purposing these leaks (and also concerning that it wasn't a US citizen who had the courage to make these leaks public), regardless of their motivation. Generally speaking, foreign powers should be uninterested in the corruption of another power's politicians. It should be their citizens who should be concerned. And it definitely shouldn't be foreign powers that should lecture the citizens about their own politicians' corruption.[1]

 

But you are correct that it is inaccurate to say that 'Russia stole the election', we don't know that. We don't even know how much influence that leaks had on the voters' decisions. Hell, it could be Comey's letter that tipped the whole thing, and the Benghazi emails were actually without Russian involvement, that was the FBI's doing. There is far more evidence that Comey tipped the election in Trump's favour than Russia did.

 

So I am hardly surprised FBI is putting much confidence in their Russian hacking assertion.

 

[1] Yes, I know about Radio Free Europe and all those. But those were public channels, and the US made no secret about who were behind them. That is the significant difference in this. Also, those weren't leaks, just propaganda.

[sivispacem]

Euty might be swinging to the other extreme but I do think people are uncritically repeating the 'Russia stole the election' narrative.

I can only speak for the publications which I digest, which happen to typically be far more technically focused than most of the press, but I don't really see this narrative being perpetuated anywhere. I think it's perfectly reasonable to want to question what impact foreign intelligence interference in the electoral process may have had, and this is what I see being done. If there are people are "uncritically repeating the 'Russia stole the election' narrative" they're not doing it in any sphere comprused of subject matter experts, or even those moderately informed on the subject.

 

Also what they did was nominally legitimate (exposing corruption) so what you've got is people basically claiming politicians have a right to privacy when using government computers. "Yes that's my pot but what were you doing in my room?"

I don't think people take any issue with the exposing of corruption. Taking issue with selectively doing so in order to attempt to influence an election (we've now seen confirmation that the Republicans were breached and data stolen too), fabricating and manipulating documents before release (there's evidence from file timestamps that some documents were modified after being stolen) and selectively curating and releasing documents that reinforce a particular narrative (only a small proportion of the data known to have been exfiltrated has been published, either by Wikileaks or DCLeaks) is perfectly reasonable.

[Raavi]

Claims of bribery, corruption, and a bizarre affinity for having prostitutes urinate on beds have surfaced in a yet unsubstantiated report about Trump's Russian activities. The document was reportedly compiled by a former British intelligence officer.

 

Some of the claims in the document potentially amounting to treasonous acts.

 

Article:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/intelligence-chiefs-briefed-trump-and-obama-on-unconfirmed-claims-russia-has-compromising-information-on-president-elect/2017/01/10/9da3969e-d788-11e6-9a36-1d296534b31e_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trumpintel745p%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.9a0550070a87

 

As of yet unverified allegations:

 

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.html

[Happy Hunter]

Meh, even if a prostitute p*ssed in Trump's bed, that's still preferable to getting your children in a hot tub for your politician friends to "enjoy", or all that stuff about succulent hotdogs in those leaks.

 

(Mostly unverified stuff, leaked emails, etc.).

[Svip]

Why are you talking about British conservative politicians in the 1980s?

[Not A Nice Person]

 

I remember seeing somewhere that Indiana is one of the best economic states because of him.

Well, where ever you read that, it's a sh*t source. Indiana is ranked in the 30's economically. Bottom half is definitely not "one of the best".

Don't be fooled so easily next time. But, you think it was a good idea to vote for Trump, so we really shouldn't be surprised here.

 

Dude, realnews.com is totally legit, it's in the name.

 

With this whole golden showers thing I'm not surprised a bit, Tweeter-in-chief should've seen the curveball from a mile thinking he's so smart.

[dice]

Claims of bribery, corruption, and a bizarre affinity for having prostitutes urinate on beds have surfaced in a yet unsubstantiated report about Trump's Russian activities. The document was reportedly compiled by a former British intelligence officer.

 

Some of the claims in the document potentially amounting to treasonous acts.

 

Article:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/intelligence-chiefs-briefed-trump-and-obama-on-unconfirmed-claims-russia-has-compromising-information-on-president-elect/2017/01/10/9da3969e-d788-11e6-9a36-1d296534b31e_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trumpintel745p%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.9a0550070a87

 

As of yet unverified allegations:

 

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.html

This was started on 4chan which later expanded to Buzzfed and other media. If anything it exposed the state of US _journalism_ Edited January 11, 2017 by  dice

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

Meh, even if a prostitute p*ssed in Trump's bed, that's still preferable to getting your children in a hot tub for your politician friends to "enjoy", or all that stuff about succulent hotdogs in those leaks.

 

(Mostly unverified stuff, leaked emails, etc.).

But wasn't it mostly unverified detail and leaked email that ties the Russians to the DNC email leaks?

 

Sorry, but whether this is verified or not, hangs over Trump for years or not, doesn't it suggest the Russian aim in general was not to strengthen Trump, but destabilise US politics in general?

 

This is almost harking back to the bad old days of relations between the two super powers....

[El Dildo]

peace out, niqqa

 

 

he made everybody cry @ the 1 hour mark.

Michelle Obama got twice the applause that her husband received.

[Clem Fandango]

 

Euty might be swinging to the other extreme but I do think people are uncritically repeating the 'Russia stole the election' narrative.

I can only speak for the publications which I digest, which happen to typically be far more technically focused than most of the press, but I don't really see this narrative being perpetuated anywhere.[...]I don't think people take any issue with the exposing of corruption. Taking issue with selectively doing so in order to attempt to influence an election (we've now seen confirmation that the Republicans were breached and data stolen too), fabricating and manipulating documents before release (there's evidence from file timestamps that some documents were modified after being stolen) and selectively curating and releasing documents that reinforce a particular narrative (only a small proportion of the data known to have been exfiltrated has been published, either by Wikileaks or DCLeaks) is perfectly reasonable.

 

Well I don't really deny that Russia had the capabilities or the intention to influence the election. My issue is that it probably had no effect compared to false equivalencies between Trump and Clinton, the rise of the far right and Clinton generally having rubbish policy and an even worse campaign. But the post election conversation is all about Russia. You'd never guess the most extreme and dangerous political faction in the world had just taken unilateral power.

 

And I think the point stands that politicians can't ask people to support them in keeping their affairs private from the public. The fact that leaks might be a form of aggression is kind of irrelevant when the only reason the leaks hurt them is because they are nominally subverting the purpose of their position.

 

Because motivation is an important aspect of a leak.

Why? I genuinely don't understand. How is it ever helpful to defend the rights of politicians to obscure their activities?

[Creed Bratton]

If these new leaks turn out to be true, what's theoretically the most likely thing to happen? Could Pence take over as POTUS? But if Trump has been compromised wouldn't that put a shadow of doubt over his entire cabinet and every Republican politician who supported him?

[Svip]

 

Because motivation is an important aspect of a leak.

Why? I genuinely don't understand. How is it ever helpful to defend the rights of politicians to obscure their activities?

 

Because motivation is always important. There are two things at play here: 1) The leaks themselves and 2) who leaked them and why. Regardless of the contents of the leaks (see 1), the motivation behind the leaker is also important (see 2).

 

Because it relates to A) whether to suggest there are more leaks in the pipeline, B) whether the leaked material can be trusted, C) how they got about obtaining those materials and D) why they felt it necessary to leak this information.

 

Now I definitely think that the leaks in the question can be trusted (due to evidence other than the leaker itself), so B is not a concern. But A might, but C definitely. Shouldn't it be a worry for the US government how these leaks came about, because then it might concern A, insofar what leaks are to come ahead?

 

Regarding D, this will also concern the US government. But also the American public. While being presented with important and relevant information (even if damning) is good, one should always question 1) the motivation and 2) the timing. Because the context of the timing may relate to its relevance, and particularly whether the leaking party is trying to use the receiver for a malicious purpose, unknown to the receiver.

 

Essentially, even accurate and important information can be used to purpose a scheme, and the receivers become one's necessary idiots. It's the same reason why the Billy Bush tape was leaked. To damn Trump's chances. It had far less to do with revealing that Trump talked about grabbing pussies.

 

When you got something damning on an opponent, you leak it. At the right time.

[sivispacem]

This was started on 4chan

From what I understand this information has been around for months in various political circles. I'm somewhat sceptical given how it's come out but wouldn't be awfully surprised if it was all true.

 

Well I don't really deny that Russia had the capabilities or the intention to influence the election. My issue is that it probably had no effect

This is merely speculation. Even the intelligence services haven't been able to accurately assess the impact of Russian operations against the US election, so I don't think an individual assertion to that effect carries any weight.

 

But the post election conversation is all about Russia.

Sh*t, divisive politicians getting elected despite losing the popular vote isn't exactly unprecedented, whereas the Russian attacks on the US election are. And should the recent disclosures about Trump have merit, the even more scrutiny is needed as it's possible that the next president of the United States has been victim of a Russian honeypot right out of some KGB for Dummies playbook.

 

And I think the point stands that politicians can't ask people to support them in keeping their affairs private from the public.

It stands, but it's contextually irrelevant.

 

The fact that leaks might be a form of aggression is kind of irrelevant when the only reason the leaks hurt them is because they are nominally subverting the purpose of their position.

Not really, when the documents selectively leaked are designed solely to perpetuate a single narrative and may have been subject to tampering. Even if you disregard the evidence of documents bring modified after they were stolen, the narrative they present does not necessarily reflect that of reality. The harm done to the democrats is as much about the conclusions jumped to and then publicly perpetuated by critics from an evidence base that's been selectively curated for that exact purpose, as it is about any actual evidence of corrupt activities disclosed in the leaks. It's basically a repeat of the Climatic Research Unit email scandal.

[Raavi]

Meh, even if a prostitute p*ssed in Trump's bed, that's still preferable to getting your children in a hot tub for your politician friends to "enjoy", or all that stuff about succulent hotdogs in those leaks.

 

(Mostly unverified stuff, leaked emails, etc.).

 

Wait. You're not seriously referring to that whole inane conspiracy theory where an affinity for hot dogs somehow amounts to evidence of some kind of pedo-ring run from a non-existent basement underneath a Pizza place, are you? The same conspiracy that saw a nutter enter a DC pizza joint with a loaded rifle?

As for the document. I won't make any remarks relevant the actual legitimacy of the allegations. Suffices to say, however, I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if they turned out to grounded in fact. A billionaire of Trump's caliber is bound to engage in questionable escapades, notwithstanding possible criminality of said escapades.

[Eutyphro]

Not really. The sanctions which have been lifted only represent a small proportion of those actually in place, and Iran was coping pretty well as a state before then. It the total economic harm which can be inflicted on Iran by US sanctions is equal to or less than the harm inflicted on Iran by US sanctions over, say, the last ten year, then it's a total statistical irrelevance. The US has spent decades trying to "economically damage and isolate" Iran and categorically and unequivocally failed. Resuming a hostile approach isn't going to change that, and all it will serve to do is stoke further aggressive sentiments against the US in Iran and in its neighbours with sizeable Shia minorities. This have already played itself out several times in recent history.

So according to you the economic damage to Iran has been statistically negligible? Exactly what do you base that on? I could easily find articles about economic issues for Iran due to sanctions. And Iran does obviously incredibly benefit from the current deal. I don't completely disagree with you that sanctions against Iran might be counter productive for US power in the region, but it's not exactly as crystal clear as you pretend it to be. You haven't really convinced me that the US ending the Iran deal is of great benefit to Russia. Iran growing economically and increasing the budget intended to influence Middle Eastern geopolitics could benefit Russia too.

 

I've noticed you have a predisposition to starting an argument based solely on semantics

You started it by complaining about my specific wording.

 

"I can't think of a rebuttal so I'll just dismiss this as semantics even though it's a direct response to a point I'd made, and it was me who brought semantics into the discussion the first place"

No, not really. You were the one who didn't agree with how I used the word trolling. Then I further explained it to you. Then you insisted on being pedantic about it again. Then I told you it was a meaningless semantic point by you, because it was.

 

There's been plenty of mutual back-slapping going on between Dmitry Medvedev and various members of Trump's recently selected inner circle

Even if that were true, it wouldn't make what you said true. "a man who had publicly and personally praised its senior figures" is what you said, so you were talking about Trump specifically and not about his 'inner circle', and Trump has praised no other than Putin. For someone so pedantic you could be more precise.

 

Trump has made clear on several occasions his desire to abandon support for the FSA and focus entirely on fighting IS in Syria and Iraq, for one.

If you actually read what he says, all he wants to point out is that he is critical about arming potential jihadis. He doesn't rule out arming 'rebels' or 'FSA' as mainstream media call them in general. His hesitance to arms jihadis might be a positive aspect of him for Russia. But it probably doesn't really matter anyway, because by now it is already clear Assad isn't going to be overthrown.

 

On the question of defending Europe from Russian aggression, Trump has refused to answer whether or not he would defend the Balkans from an incursion. I'm pretty sure he said something more categorical on the subject of Russian spheres of infuence on his Twitter but I can't find it right now; safe to say, though, he only seem to have interest in defending NATO allies who have in some way "helped" the US. That does pretty much preclude Eastern Europe (given they represent the largest proportion of states contributing less than 2%) and demonstrate just how little he cares about the organisation. You can dismiss it as bluster all you want but he's on the public record as saying it.

He just wants to pressure them to contribute more, which is part his 'deal making' rhetoric which is essential to his populism. He also says it is about 'rich countries' specifically. It is true that many countries are not spending as much as NATO guidelines prescribe, and my country the Netherlands, a rich country not part of Eastern Europe, is one of them.

 

McCarthyist implies a witch-hunt based on nonexistent evidence, whereas quite literally the entirety of the subject matter expertise is united around the narrative being publicly perpetuated by the US intelligence apparatus. Your continued insistence on trying to describe it in such a manner does nothing other than accentuate preconceived cognitive biases which seemingly make you incapable of accepting this narrative despite the complete failure of anyone to provide a viable alternative hypothesis.

I don't specifically describe the intelligence report that way. I describe the media campaign and the partisan political reactions that way. The insistence on framing it as "interference in the election" is dishonest. Nobody has coherently argued how the leaks have "undermined US democracy" like repeatedly is claimed. How exacactly does exposing the Democratic party and the Clinton campaign for their corruption undermine democracy? I think it helps democracy. We've gained a deep understanding of the corruption of the US political system, which is a great starting point for revitalizing US democracy. There are parts of the intelligence report that I don't have absolute faith in. You are free to believe them if you want to.

 

there's evidence from file timestamps that some documents were modified after being stolen [...] Not really, when the documents selectively leaked are designed solely to perpetuate a single narrative and may have been subject to tampering. Even if you disregard the evidence of documents bring modified after they were stolen, the narrative they present does not necessarily reflect that of reality.

I found an article stating that:

"apparently edited some documents, and in some cases created new documents after the intruders were already expunged from the DNC network on June 11. A file called donors.xls, for instance, was created more than a day after the story came out, on June 15, most likely by copy-pasting an existing list into a clean document. Although so far the actual content of the leaked documents appears not to have been tampered with"

 

There's no evidence that any of the content of the emails is fake.

 

And finally, there's evidence to indicate that the most recent sh*t flinged at Trump is fake: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/michael-cohen-it-is-fake-news-meant-to-malign-mr-trump/512762/

Edited January 11, 2017 by Eutyphro

[make total destroy]

 

This was started on 4chan which later expanded to Buzzfed and other media. If anything it exposed the state of US _journalism_

 

That's what people on 4chan are claiming. There's no proof that's actually the case, though.

[Happy Hunter]

Wait. You're not seriously referring to that whole inane conspiracy theory where an affinity for hot dogs somehow amounts to evidence of some kind of pedo-ring run from a non-existent basement underneath a Pizza place, are you? The same conspiracy that saw a nutter enter a DC pizza joint with a loaded rifle?

As for the document. I won't make any remarks relevant the actual legitimacy of the allegations. Suffices to say, however, I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if they turned out to grounded in fact. A billionaire of Trump's caliber is bound to engage in questionable escapades, notwithstanding possible criminality of said escapades.

No; I'm referring to the hundreds of thousands of emails (which apparently were cleared of any wrongdoing in a couple of days) - the majority of which have nothing to do with that pizza place that the MSM focused on.

 

Besides, I'm not making any remarks as to the legitimacy of what I posted; though I wouldn't be surprised if they had truth to them.

[sivispacem]

So according to you the economic damage to Iran has been statistically negligible?

If Iran was materially affected by US sanctions one would expect to see this reflected in their national GDP and economic growth. But Iran has averaged about 4.5% growth since 1979, and with the exception of a couple of years of recession between 2012 and 2014 has grown quite consistently over the last ten years. Do you actually have any evidence to suggest that US sanctions have had significant economic impact or are you going to continue committing a negative proof fallacy by asking me to try and prove they haven't?

 

 

 

Iran growing economically and increasing the budget intended to influence Middle Eastern geopolitics could benefit Russia too.

Iran is already the second largest economy in the region and was projected to become one of the top 20 global economies during the 21st century even before sanctions were lifted. Given Iran's primary trade partners, the on area in which sanctions have a substantive effect is in frozen foreign currency. Even that is fairly irrelevant given that most of that is held in EU banks, not US ones, and EU sanctions are independent.

 

 

 

You started it by complaining about my specific wording.

If you're going to use a particular loaded term to describe something, be prepared to defend that use of the the term. If you're not prepared to, don't use it. Simple as that.

 

 

 

For someone so pedantic you could be more precise.

It's still factually accurate, whether you like how I phrases it or not.

 

 

 

If you actually read what he says, all he wants to point out is that he is critical about arming potential jihadis.

Incorrect. Trump has expressed the view that shuring up Assad is, in his opinion, the most effective way of counteracting IS, and doing so would mean ceasing support for other Syrian rebels groups.

 

 

 

He just wants to pressure them to contribute more, which is part his 'deal making' rhetoric which is essential to his populism.

So we're supposed to selectively ignore his comments as "rhetoric" when when they don't correlate with the narrative you want to perpetuate, but should take them at face value when they do? Right you are.

 

 

 

I don't specifically describe the intelligence report that way. I describe the media campaign and the partisan political reactions that way.

Which is nice and all, but irrelevant because I'm not discussing the politicised mass media, I'm discussing subject matter experts who know what they're talking about. There's very little in the world as astonishingly incompetent at expressing both intelligence issues and cybersecurity ideas as the mainstream media.

 

 

 

There are parts of the intelligence report that I don't have absolute faith in.

Which is fine, but I reserve the right to question whether that lack of faith is based on rational analysis and coherent evaluation if alternative hypothesis or just a predisposition toward dismissing or distrusting things that don't correlate with your preconceived views.

 

 

 

I found an article stating that:

 

"apparently edited some documents, and in some cases created new documents after the intruders were already expunged from the DNC network on June 11. A file called donors.xls, for instance, was created more than a day after the story came out, on June 15, most likely by copy-pasting an existing list into a clean document. Although so far the actual content of the leaked documents appears not to have been tampered with"

 

There's no evidence that any of the content of the emails is fake.

Absence of evidence =! Evidence of absence. Given that numerous documents had been edited or created after the fact, it's simply not a reasonable to assume that no document content at all was edited, because file edit or creation timestamps strongly suggest that some manipulation of document content took place.

 

Forgive the copy-paste info dump:

 

 

 

 

Looking at events temporally helped us see patterns more clearly to inform our comparative analysis.

 

> All of the documents released in Guccifer 2.0s first two dumps had file creation dates after the Washington Post article was published based on their metadata, except Big-donors-list.xls which is missing a file create timestamp. The files in the third dump had file creation dates from July 2015, more consistent with Guccifer 2.0s professed timeline but less consistent with the other files.

> Many of the files have created and modified timestamps that cluster tightly together some simultaneously. This suggests an unknown application or process likely interacted with the files and/or they were manually manipulated or timestomped.

> The dates within the file names of the first three .xlsx files are inconsistent with file create and modified dates.

> All of the .xlsx and .xls files appear to be created hours before the Guccifer 2.0 WordPress Blog was posted publicly at 2016-06-15T13:44:54+00:00.

 

 

> All .doc files are actually within Rich Text Format (RTF), a legacy, non-standard file format for an organization to consistently use, and maintain file creation and modification times that actually postdate the Guccifer 2.0 blog publish time...

 

...Questionable Integrity of Leaked Docs: Guccifer 2.0s own admission of altering watermarks on the documents is just the starting point. First and foremost, we would expect individuals in the DNC to be the ones creating and modifying documents in the metadata. We would also expect to see the word documents in a current Microsoft Office format and not a legacy format such as RTF. There are also mismatches in titles of files where the title contains a date sequence that does not match the created timestamp or the .doc files that have a sequential number naming convention.

 

Put simply the editing of documents after their theft damages the integrity of their contents. I wonder if you can produce a viable alternative hypothesis to explain this large scale editing and creation? Let's not forget, the public face of the compromise expressly admitted to modifying the content of documents. Not to mention the same attackers did forge documents alleged to originate from WADA.

 

 

 

And finally, there's evidence to indicate that the most recent sh*t flinged at Trump is fake:

That's not evidence, that's commentary from his lawyers.

 

@Happy Hunter

What, the emails that had absolutely nothing to do with what you're asserting they contained?

 

Your throwaway comment on the speed with which the emails were processed also demonstrates a significant lack of technical understanding. I could write a Python script to search structured folders containing hundreds of thousands of email files, compare them with file hashes of know emails already obtained, remove any duplicates, parse the remainder for keywords like email addresses associated with individuals, relay IP addresses etc, and dump that output to a folder, in about an hour. On an average desktop computer it would only take a couple more to run, and suddenly your "hundred thousand" emails is more like a hundred, which assuming two minutes for an analysis by a single competent analyst per email, could be manually assessed by one person in four hours, allowing time for tea breaks.

[Happy Hunter]

Incorrect. Trump has expressed the view that shuring up Assad is, in his opinion, the most effective way of counteracting IS, and doing so would mean ceasing support for other Syrian rebels groups.

Is he wrong in believing that? I mean ... Russia, America, Assad - all together - would give ISIS a pretty hard time.

 

Perhaps not from a moral standpoint - I'm sure there are rebels who aren't with ISIS - but purely from a strategic view, if you have 3 groups who all have a common enemy, the most effective way of dealing with that enemy would seem to team up.

 

 

Your throwaway comment on the speed with which the emails were processed also demonstrates a significant lack of technical understanding. I could write a Python script to search structured folders containing hundreds of thousands of email files, compare them with file hashes of know emails already obtained, remove any duplicates, parse the remainder for keywords like email addresses associated with individuals, relay IP addresses etc, and dump that output to a folder, in about an hour. On an average desktop computer it would only take a couple more to run, and suddenly your "hundred thousand" emails is more like a hundred, which assuming two minutes for an analysis by a single competent analyst per email, could be manually assessed by one person in four hours, allowing time for tea breaks.

 

In layman's terms, you can stick it in a computer and hope that does the job.

 

No thanks. I'd rather see each email, like, actually investigated. Which I can't see them doing in the time they did.

 

Hopefully (assuming Trump even makes it to become President) there'll be some further investigation into that.

 

@Happy Hunter

What, the emails that had absolutely nothing to do with what you're asserting they contained?

 

I'll wait and see until (or if?) they're properly investigated. Until then, I won't write them off.

 

Obviously, I can't say for sure that the individuals highlighted are guilty. But no more than anyone can prove Russian prostitutes p*ssed in Trump's bed.

[dice]

 

This was started on 4chan which later expanded to Buzzfed and other media. If anything it exposed the state of US _journalism_

That's what people on 4chan are claiming. There's no proof that's actually the case, though.

 

There really is no hard proof appart from some vague mentions of the incident from archived threads. But that's currently all there is

 

Edit "proof", although this is more or less speculation

https://i.redd.it/whwb2gqutz8y.png

And the archived post

https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/95568919/#95571329

Edited January 11, 2017 by  dice

[sivispacem]

Is he wrong in believing that?

That's not the question, though. The question was whether Trump's stated policy on Syria was beneficial for Russian interests, and the answer to that question is "yes".

 

In layman's terms, you can stick it in a computer and hope that does the job.

Spoken like a true luddite.

 

No thanks. I'd rather see each email, like, actually investigated. Which I can't see them doing in the time they did.

I'll try and explain this in simple layman's terms do you can understand it.

 

There were specific, legal limitations placed on what was to be investigated by the investigating parties, as is always the case with investigations if this nature. Therefore discarding anything out of scope before subjecting it to proper analysis isn't just limiting workload, it's legally required.

 

If you can identify with effectively mathematical certainty that one email is identical to another one which has already been analysed, then why analyse it again? What a tremendous waste of time and money.

 

Look, I know you're grasping at straws to try and fine some reason to vindicate your preconceived biases, but dismissing these methods used by law enforcement during investigations for decades just makes you look ignorant.

 

I'll wait and see until (or if?) they're properly investigated. Until then, I won't write them off.

So you admit there's not actually any evidence to suggest the statements you've made have any veracity? Glad we cleared that up.

[Happy Hunter]

In layman's terms, you can stick it in a computer and hope that does the job.

Spoken like a true luddite.

That's a yes, then?

 

If you can identify with effectively mathematical certainty that one email is identical to another one which has already been analysed, then why analyse it again?

Oh yeah. I'm sure there were 650,000 identical copies of the same email sent back and forth. Right.

 

So you admit there's not actually any evidence to suggest the statements you've made have any veracity? Glad we cleared that up.

Well, there's arguably a lot more evidence to suggest the statements (if you'd like to call them that) have veracity, as opposed to prostitutes p*ssing in people's beds, Russian spies everywhere hacking stuff, etc. But around a similar-ish level I guess, so you get my drift.

Edited January 11, 2017 by Happy Hunter

[Raavi]

No; I'm referring to the hundreds of thousands of emails (which apparently were cleared of any wrongdoing in a couple of days) - the majority of which have nothing to do with that pizza place that the MSM focused on.

 

Except for the fact that you weren't. Let's bring back your post, shall we?

 

Meh, even if a prostitute p*ssed in Trump's bed, that's still preferable to getting your children in a hot tub for your politician friends to "enjoy", or all that stuff about succulent hotdogs in those leaks.

 

As unfortunately, I have yet to learn how to read minds, I can only address what you typed, and that specifically referred to what is commonly linked to this pedo pizza cabal conspiracy lunacy, rather than the entirety of the hacked DNC emails, as you now, after being called out on the pizza nonsense, conveniently claim.

[sivispacem]

That's a yes, then?

Not really, no. If it made you happier you could always perform the same process by hand, which would undoubtedly take much longer to produce a result more likely to be erroneous. Which only someone entirely devoid of basic understanding would suggest was in some way preferable.

 

It's not a case of "just feed it into a computer". Well, not unless you are, as I've already suggested, a luddite. After all you've already admitted on several prior occasions you're clueless on the subject so can we just dismiss your concerns about getting a computer to perform mathematical operations as what they are- ridiculous- and try and get back to whatever point you think you're making?

 

Oh yeah. I'm sure there were 650,000 identical copies of the same email sent back and forth. Right.

Let's add general cluelessness to the various forms of cluelessness demonstrated in your last few posts.

 

I'm suggesting that the hashes from the second tranche of emails, the one all the internet f*cktards went loopy over being anslysed in two days, be compared with the emails from the earlier FBI investigation to remove any duplicates that had already been anslysed as part of an earlier investigation. Which is exactly what the FBI did.

 

Well, there's arguably a lot more evidence to suggest the statements...have

Eh? The statements you made you literally made up in this thread; there is by definition zero evidence for them (because you made them up on the spot), which is still infinitesimally lrsd than the admittedly rather crap evidence for the latest Trump debacle.

[Eutyphro]

 

And finally, there's evidence to indicate that the most recent sh*t flinged at Trump is fake:

That's not evidence, that's commentary from his lawyers.

If you'd read the article, you'd find out he can prove a number of falsehoods in the report.

[sivispacem]

Untested and unverified assertions about one's location are not proof.

[Happy Hunter]

Meh, even if a prostitute p*ssed in Trump's bed, that's still preferable to getting your children in a hot tub for your politician friends to "enjoy", or all that stuff about succulent hotdogs in those leaks.

 

As unfortunately, I have yet to learn how to read minds, I can only address what you typed, and that specifically referred to what is commonly linked to this pedo pizza cabal conspiracy lunacy, rather than the entirety of the hacked DNC emails, as you now, after being called out on the pizza nonsense, conveniently claim.

Well, you have to use a little initiative.

 

I gave a few examples to set a vibe of what kind of seediness is in the emails as a whole. Hints at pedophilia, corruption, collaboration with the mainstream media, and so on and on, are scattered in several emails (not just the ones shied away from thanks to the incident with the gunman at that pizza place).

 

Is that set-in-stone proof of anything? No. But I'd like to see those emails looked into better - and I personally find the pedophilia stuff (regardless of how controversial mentioning that is) more disturbing than vague claims and allegations of bizarre stories about people p*ssing on stuff.

 

If it made you happier you could always perform the same process by hand

So if it's not by hand, it is, in fact, by a computer? In other words; yes, they just did some automated searches for words and the like.

 

Well, not unless you are, as I've already suggested, a luddite.

Sure, I'm a pleb, a luddite, an idiot, white trash, whatever you'd like to call me. Your saying that really doesn't bother me.

 

I'm suggesting that the hashes from the second tranche of emails, the one all the internet f*cktards went loopy over being anslysed in two days, be compared with the emails from the earlier FBI investigation to remove any duplicates that had already been anslysed as part of an earlier investigation. Which is exactly what the FBI did.

 

That would still leave a pretty huge number of emails (the ones that weren't duplicates). I find it hard to believe they did a thorough investigation of those in the amount of time they supposedly did.

 

 

Well, there's arguably a lot more evidence to suggest the statements...have

Eh? The statements you made you literally made up in this thread; there is by definition zero evidence for them (because you made them up on the spot), which is still infinitesimally lrsd than the admittedly rather crap evidence for the latest Trump debacle.

 

Regardless, I've been hearing some pretty cranky stories about Trump, Russia, etc. being wheeled out - if these should be banded around with little proof, then there's no reason political opponents shouldn't do the same.

 

Which just leads to people making sh*t up and cementing opinions before things have been 100% proven, but meh ... That seems to already be par for the course.