Court rules no collusion between Trump, Russia and Wikileaks

[Thomas Graves]

Lets keep in mind the mainstream has been aware that it is not 17 but still repeatedly make the claim anyway. I have called some of our local hacks in the SF Bay Area and the just can't bring themselves to face the facts on this . It says something about the confirmation bias

 Alsop their opinions did not work out too well on Iraq WMD's, so I will stick with GWB's rousing invective on being fooled again on this issue

It sounds to me as though even if Clapper and Clinton had said, "Well, four of our seventeen intelligence agencies believe the Russians hacked the DNC's and Podesta's emails, and the other thirteen either agree or have no opinion because the issue's out of their area of expertise," you still would have disbelieved the findings because ... gasp ... the FBI didn't take possession of the DNC's servers, and ... and ... and ... regardless, those four agencies always lie in order to advance the interests of the evil, evil, evil Deep State!

LOL

-- MWT 

[Matt Grantham]

It sounds to me as though even if Clapper and Clinton had said, "Well, four of our seventeen intelligence agencies believe the Russians hacked the DNC's and Podesta's emails, and the other thirteen either agree or have no opinion because the issue's out of their area of expertise," you still would have disbelieved the findings because ... gasp ... the FBI didn't take possession of the DNC's servers, and ... and ... and ... regardless, those four agencies always lie in order to advance the interests of the evil, evil, evil Deep State!

LOL

-- MWT 

 So when you say take possession of the DNC servers you mean investigate who hacked them? I understand it would be preferable to have a Clinton funded private company to get the result you want. If more than 3 intelligence agencies agreed then they would have been counted as agreeing. You are slipping away from a rational discussion and into the land of innuendo, memes etc. Enjoy the trip

[Thomas Graves]

So when you say take possession of the DNC servers you mean investigate who hacked them? I understand it would be preferable to have a Clinton funded private company to get the result you want. If more than 3 intelligence agencies agreed they would have been counted as agreeing. You are slipping away from a rational discussion and into the land of innuendo, memes etc. Enjoy the trip

Well, what if anything would have convinced you that the Russians were behind the hacks?

Nothing, because your mind was already made up by the likes of William Binney, Julian Assange, and that Greenwald guy?

PS  Wasn't it you who mentioned the servers earlier?

PPS  Are you a "computer guy"?

PPPS  Please translate into normal English for us your sentence, "If more than 3 intelligence agencies agreed they would have counted as agreeing."

Didn't the CIA, FBI and NSA come to independent conclusions that the Russians had done the hacking?

Or do you fervently believe that they conspired to arrive at that "wholy unsubstantiated conclusion"?

In other words, do you believe we live in an evil, evil, evil Deep State?

[Matt Grantham]

Two words, Demonstrable Evidence

[Thomas Graves]

what, specifically, wo

Two words, Demonstrable Evidence

Dear (putative?) computer guy,


1)  Please give me some examples of what you would consider to be GRU-incriminating "demonstrable evidence" in this case.


2)  What, specifically, would be required to convince you that the GRU hacked the DNC's emails?


3)  How would you know whether of not some computer-based evidence was "demonstrable" or "compelling" here?


4)  How do you know "demonstrable evidence" hasn't already been uncovered and published?


5)  What in this article, and to the articles it links to, do you disagree with, or maybe it's impossible for you to answer that question because ... you're not "a computer guy"?
https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/13/17568660/russia-dnc-hack-indictments-gru-mueller-guccifer-dcleaks


6)  Do you believe DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 were fronts for GRU agents?

If not, why not?

[Matt Grantham]

4)  How do you know "demonstrable evidence" hasn't already been uncovered and published?

 If there is, I just know you, and all the sources I have ever listened to, have not presented it.

[Thomas Graves]

If there is, I just know you, and all the sources I have ever listened to, have not presented it. [emphasis added]

Listened to?

Uh-oh.

Listened to on the radio?

On TV?

On youtube?

At the local pub?

At the barber shop?

[Matt Grantham]

 Are you suggesting a source exists with the demonstrable evidence is out there?