Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Pretty much there is only 1 guy in all of Government who doesn't believe that there was meddling. Even the Majority Leader is telling Trump he is a fool.


It's all good looks like Congress will control Trump. Heck Trumps own Chief of Staff is admitting as much.

Quote:I mean has Wikileaks released anything that have turned out to be a fabrication so far? Compared to the government and mainstream media I think its fair to say they have a far better track record of telling the truth.


He's a wanted man because he exposes things the government does not want its citizens to know. They've even invented bogus sexual crimes to try smear him. Not really sure the direction he's going in at the moment but in general Assange has a long track record of revealing the truth.

The validity of his comments depend on whether or not you think Guccifer 2.0 is Russian or not. There are enough ties to the hacks to point to Russian involvement. John McCain and Lindsay Graham are two of several long standing Republicans who are more than convinced the intelligence of our top agencies is accurate.

Quote:The validity of his comments depend on whether or not you think Guccifer 2.0 is Russian or not. There are enough ties to the hacks to point to Russian involvement. John McCain and Lindsay Graham are two of several long standing Republicans who are more than convinced the intelligence of our top agencies is accurate.

Isn't the whole argument about if it was the Russian government or not?


I don't have a dog in the fight really but the thing that stands out the most to me is the way the media immediately jumped on "its the russians" storyline instead of talking in depth about the content of the DNC leaks.


Also while I'm not sure what his end game is I'd trust what Assange says over what the media or government say.

Here's one take on his end game..  

 

https://www.wired.com/2016/10/want-know-...ecade-ago/

Quote:The validity of his comments depend on whether or not you think Guccifer 2.0 is Russian or not. There are enough ties to the hacks to point to Russian involvement. John McCain and Lindsay Graham are two of several long standing Republicans who are more than convinced the intelligence of our top agencies is accurate.

The challenge is that Gucifer 2.0 and wiki leaks aren't the same entity. Ad range could very well have had a disgruntled source from inside the dnc/Hillary campaign.


Moreover, the accusations about Russian tampering, assange's interviews, of which there are many, the claim of 17 intelligence agencies etc. Were all brought up in the public square BEFORE the election. The American people were free to make up their own minds.


The only thing NOT in dispute is the veracity of the leaked information.

Quote:

You are aware even the Trump administration no longer is denying the hacks were an attack by Russia now right?


So now your acting petulant because you were proven wrong.

Quote:You are aware even the Trump administration no longer is denying the hacks were an attack by Russia now right?


So now your acting petulant because you were proven wrong.

Nobody cares. What you lib morons can't understand is that both parties were hacked. It only worked on the DNC because the RNC had superior security. More importantly, nobody has produced one shred of evidence that the actual election process was hacked. Votes were not changed. Counting of the votes was not changed.

 

But don't let me and facts stop you from your whine fest and crying binge.

Quote:Nobody cares. What you lib morons can't understand is that both parties were hacked. It only worked on the DNC because the RNC had superior security. More importantly, nobody has produced one shred of evidence that the actual election process was hacked. Votes were not changed. Counting of the votes was not changed.


But don't let me and facts stop you from your whine fest and crying binge.

Never said votes were changed. Irrelevant. And I am not crying as I can see Mitch and Paul are going to keep control.

Quote:Never said votes were changed. Irrelevant. And I am not crying as I can see Mitch and Paul are going to keep control.

You cry better than just about anyone around here. You could make a living of it.

It's certainly funny that they've never denied any of the information contained in the e-mails.

Quote:You are aware even the Trump administration no longer is denying the hacks were an attack by Russia now right?


So now your acting petulant because you were proven wrong.

They're also not saying that they did it. What purpose do you have to repeatedly deny it? They'll just keep saying intelligence agencies have confirmed it without showing any evidence. Meanwhile, anyone with an iota of experience in these fields say otherwise. RINOs like Graham and McCain don't prove your point, either.

Even if they did it was a positive influence so who cares?

Quote:They're also not saying that they did it. What purpose do you have to repeatedly deny it? They'll just keep saying intelligence agencies have confirmed it without showing any evidence. Meanwhile, anyone with an iota of experience in these fields say otherwise. RINOs like Graham and McCain don't prove your point, either.

Trumps chief of staff??

<a class="bbc_url" href='https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/trump-accepts-u-intelligence-russia-hacking-chief-staff-150842378.html?client=safari'>https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/trump-accepts-u-intelligence-russia-hacking-chief-staff-150842378.html?client=safari</a>

For what it's worth, here is my theory, based on the evidence so far:  The Russians were clearly hacking everything they could.  This shouldn't surprise anyone, as cyber warfare is practically mandatory for any government these days.  Israel, China, France, GB, Russia, US, etc... they are all trying to find out everything they can about opposing government's key leaders.  

 

There is pretty convincing evidence that major attacks were originating from Russia and the Ukraine.  The FBI even warned the DNC about a potential threat to their security, but they didn't take adequate measures to prevent the hacks.  Personally, I believe these attacks were standard information grabs orchestrated by the Russian government, but there is NOT evidence to support this.  However, some of the organizations known to have hacked the DNC have affiliated with Russian Intelligence in the past, so it is not a stretch of the imagination to assume there wasn't some type of collusion, especially in the instance of the DNC.

 

Shortly after code was discovered on the DNC servers, a lone-wolf hacker by the name of Guccifer 2.0 took credit for the hacks, followed soon after by WikiLeaks claiming it had stumbled onto leaked emails from the DNC and Podesta.  I am not convinced they were leaked, though it is at least probable, considering the fact the DNC was working with the Clinton campaign to undermine Sanders.  The Podesta emails were almost certainly hacked, though.  Regardless, the timing of the hacks, followed by the announcement of emails is certainly suspicious. 

 

I think the most plausible scenario is that Russian hackers, working for the government of Russia to gather intelligence, were busted by the FBI.  In order to cover their tracks, they created Guccifer 2.0 to make it seem like a stand alone hacker was the one hacking the DNC and other US agencies.  They gave the relatively benign information to WikiLeaks to keep up the ruse that it was a single attacker.  Only, instead of Assange releasing all this information immediately, he releases the information over time.  Either he was politically motivated to do so (it's well known he doesn't like Clinton), or he could milk it for more money by doing so.  Either way, I think this was an unintended action that resulted in closer scrutiny that would have occurred had Assange either released the emails right away or had Hillary won the election.  

 

Russia is a threat to the US and will continue it's course of hacking any information it can, even if they call themselves our ally.  However, there is no evidence this was orchestrated by the Russian government to undermine our election process.  There is only speculation.  

Also, if you think about it, it's a terrible plan.  The Russian government would have needed the foresight to know they could hack the DNC for starters, but for argument's sake, let's say they hatched this plan after obtaining the information.  The most damaging information from the 20,000 emails leaked was that Hillary's campaign was colluding with the media.  So Russia's plan was to leak ALL of those emails so the media could report that Hillary was colluding with them?  That seems like kind of a shot in the dark, doesn't it?  

 

Only 20 or so email chains had any potential impact.  Why release all 20k?  It would have been much easier for the average US citizen to process if it was only 20 emails released instead of 20k.  If it wasn't for a groundswell of alternative media, almost none of this would have become common knowledge.  Was that part of their plan, too?

 

Don't get me wrong... Putin is manipulative.  One would be a fool to think otherwise.  However, I think some people are giving him too much credit.  Ascribing her failure to win the Presidency due to Russian interference in our democratic process is scapegoating and reeks of desperation.  Hillary was just a bad candidate.  

Quote:Also, if you think about it, it's a terrible plan.  The Russian government would have needed the foresight to know they could hack the DNC for starters, but for argument's sake, let's say they hatched this plan after obtaining the information.  The most damaging information from the 20,000 emails leaked was that Hillary's campaign was colluding with the media.  So Russia's plan was to leak ALL of those emails so the media could report that Hillary was colluding with them?  That seems like kind of a shot in the dark, doesn't it?  

 

Only 20 or so email chains had any potential impact.  Why release all 20k?  It would have been much easier for the average US citizen to process if it was only 20 emails released instead of 20k.  If it wasn't for a groundswell of alternative media, almost none of this would have become common knowledge.  Was that part of their plan, too?

 

Don't get me wrong... Putin is manipulative.  One would be a fool to think otherwise.  However, I think some people are giving him too much credit.  Ascribing her failure to win the Presidency due to Russian interference in our democratic process is scapegoating and reeks of desperation.  Hillary was just a bad candidate.  

 

I guess my question would be this. How many people were actually influenced by the information? I would be interested to know. And something I told my husband earlier.... Liberals are all about the "well if you're not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about" mentality. Until they're caught and all hell breaks loose and they try to shift the focus to the Blame Game in the hopes that people will forget they did something wrong. Of course if the 'offending party' broke the law to get the information out then they should be dealt with, but in no way should that take away from bringing justice to the person who did wrong in the first place. 

Quote: 

 

He accepts the fact that this particular case was entities in Russia, so that's not the issue

 

I didn't see anything saying Putin or the Russian government was responsible, only that "entities" did it. That could literally be anything, and it honestly just seems like an attempt to leave the door open just in case they actually did it.

 

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anything where they blamed the government. 

Quote:I guess my question would be this. How many people were actually influenced by the information? I would be interested to know. And something I told my husband earlier.... Liberals are all about the "well if you're not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about" mentality. Until they're caught and all hell breaks loose and they try to shift the focus to the Blame Game in the hopes that people will forget they did something wrong. Of course if the 'offending party' broke the law to get the information out then they should be dealt with, but in no way should that take away from bringing justice to the person who did wrong in the first place. 

 

The legal concept is the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree, information obtained illegally cannot be considered admissible. The trouble with lawyers is that they cannot deal with real life outside the structure of the courtroom, in this case that the CONTENT of the e-mails still matter regardless of HOW the content was obtained.