BREAKING: U.S. Officials Have Declassified List Of Obama Officials Who Were Involved In ‘Unmasking’ General Flynn

[Coyote]

but that would pretty much be like every election before and what we do to others around the world on an all too regular basis

I always challenge this assertion. I don’t see this as a normal thing. Can you remember the last time Russia jacked with our election?

Russia (then USSR) has a long history of attempting to interfere with our democratic process (with the aim of showing that democracy is inherently inferior), but you are right - this level of interference, on a multinational platform, is unprecedented.

and other than hacking the DNC, just what did they do?

i know of facebook ads. what else?

Is hacking the DNC and Podesta, with the subsequent release of the info, not significant enough? It was a major event during the campaign.

1. Who hacked the DNC and Podesta ?

2. Who released the info or how was it released ?

3. Was the info released steeped in lies or truth ?

4. What was the response by the DNC and Podesta for it's info being hacked, and subsequently that information being released ?

5. How did the hackers or anyone know of such information ?

6. Was the information first obtained by insiders who had an ax to grind, and it's information location then given over to the hackers ?

Where is all this information or the answers to it all now ? Is there so much information out there, that the scene has been flooded, and the DNC has been enjoying the chaos in it all by assigning blame or using it politically in order to regain power somehow ?

The DNC blaming Trump for everything because they hate him, and hate him for spurious reasons unrelated, seems to be grounded in what should be called "operation political chaos" by them, where as you gather up negative information in what ever form it takes or it comes in, and then attempt to apply it politically for nefarious reasons, and/or for other reasons not pertaining to the need to get to the bottom of anything, but just use it for future outcomes in hopes to sway future elections.

All that information is in the Mueller report. Russia hacked the DNC and Podesta. Russia released the hacked information. The DNC hired CrowdStrike to clean out their network. Hackers used phishing to gain access to the network. It was not some “inside job”.

Oh so Russia just happened to know that the DNC was dirty, and so they were assured that they could gain success on hurting their chances by hacking and releasing dirt on them ? Out of thin air, the Russians targeted the DNC without any help from inside the workings of the DNC ??

Nothing dirty in the hacks, just embarrassing.
The Russians are opportunistic and have attempted to hack a great many things, often successfully.

New Russian Hacking Targeted Republican Groups, Microsoft Says (Published 2018)

Microsoft was surprised not that recent “spear phishing” attempts had occurred, but that they targeted traditional conservative think tanks. Those groups have been critical of Russia.

www.nytimes.com

Russia Targeted Election Systems in All 50 States, Report Finds (Published 2019)

A Senate panel documented an effort largely undetected by state and federal officials at the time. But its report was so heavily redacted that key lessons for 2020 were blacked out.

www.nytimes.com

Merkel cites ‘hard evidence’ Russian hackers targeted her

German chancellor says improving ties with Moscow is challenging following a hacking attempt and a murder in Berlin.

www.aljazeera.com

You are like an ostrich with it head in the sand.

The Democrats used unverified Russian propaganda (Steele Dossier) to illegally obtain a FISA warrant in order to spy on the Trump campaign and, after that, Trump's Presidential transition team. It wasn't the Russians interfering with the election, it was the DNC attempting an old fashioned coup.

How do you get from FISA warrant on Carter Page to old fashioned coup? Where’s the connection between those two things?

i'm still looking to find out other than "potentially / likely" hacking the DNC and facebook ads, what russia did to interfere in our elections and how that was so much more than "normal" interfering activity.

I think there are factors here not being considered.

1. They have always attempted this sort of mischief with the goal of creating chaos and division, so this is nothing new.

2. The tools available and the playing field are drastically different. By playingfield, I mean the audience they can now reach and tbe divides they can exploit. The number of people connected to the internet has increased exponentially, far ahead of our ability to handle the information. One example I remember reading about involved a pro_white demonstration coordinated by an online group. There was a counter demonstration also organized. Both to demonstrate in the same are. Both tracing back to Russian organizers. Sothat is on, non po,itical example....how much more is out there? Each one exploiting and magnifying our divides and our trust in our democratic institutions.

you're telling me what they could do.
you're telling me people fall for stupid crap when it pits one extreme side against another. 100% agreed.

but i want to know specifically what russia did to interfere in our election that makes you and others say this is MORE than normal?

what is normal and how is this more? we can either answer that or write long posts that talk about how people bitch at each other online OF WHICH everyone in here is already well aware.

Well, I would say for a starter, their hacking of DNC and collaboration with wikileaksto strategically releases it is one example. I would also add their attempted hacks at voter registration and state electoral software. That wasn’t successful yet, but it certainly ups the ante.

Is there an article that states all their 2016 activity? Wiki is anyone can edit so not sure that applies here.

Wiki also sources,.

I still don't get a baseline of past activity we compare to. In order to say this is more than usual, we need to define "usual"

well...Wikipedia gives us the best sense of a timeline:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections - Wikipedia

I thought Russia hacked wiki for disinformation. Now you trust them as a source?

Sources are required and if weak it's noted. You can always check the sources and decide for yourself. Do you have any other excuses for not reviewing it's timeline?

Who says I didn't review it? You are again making assumptions as to my viewpoint and what I am saying then ask me to defend shit I never said.

I simply said in one post you say Russia hacked wiki, in another post you say here look at wiki for Russian timeliness. You don't find that ironic?

Now again one of my continued issues with you is you make assumptions on how I think and feel and reply as lf those are true. How long would you tolerate my doing this to you?

What I find ironic is your constant deflecting of discussion back onto me. A timeline is provided in Wiki. You requested some sort of timeline. Now you're arguing it's not sufficient.

Provide a better one if you don't like it.

where did i say it wasn't sufficient?

again you come at me for shit i never said ASSUMING the worst so you can attack.

when you stop doing that i'll likely stop asking you to stop doing that.

Now you are just trolling. I'm done with you.

so you misquote me.
twice.

i correct you.
twice.

and i'm the troll.

you simply can't detach yourself emotionally from this and talk over the issue itself. if at one point you found me on "the other side" then to you that's where i will always be and you'll make up whatever crap you need to and attribute it to me. when i correct you, you totally ignore my telling you I DID NOT SAY THAT and keep at me as if i did.

and i'm the troll.

sigh.

If you don't want to be called a troll, stop acting like one.

We have a timeline showing some history of Russian interference. Let's stick to that.

Do you agree it shows an extensive ramping up of activity? If not - why?

 

[iceberg]

great. if you don't know then you can't say it did.

and you have still NEVER AT ANY POINT IN TIME referenced SPECIFIC actions that would have potentially altered peoples opinions of hillary.

Facebook ads? Did that do it? when they released all the ads i went and looked at around 10-15% of them and that took awhile cause there were a lot of them. 99% of the ads i saw were more EXTREME GROUP MAKES EXTREME STATEMENT TO OTHER EXTREME GROUP to play off our already existing nature to argue.

in 3 instances this am alone you refuse to go by what i have said but rather what you would like to argue against and pinning that to me as if i said it.

to be clear - i read the timelines but my questions were never about those - but about your crying RUSSIA HACKED WIKI LOOK AT WIKI HERE FOR THE TIMELINE and the vast contradiction you made in the span of i believe 4 posts. you refuse to acknowledge these things you say and keep coming at me for shit i never said.

very odd. some would say "deranged".

You are going in circles, perhaps that is an intended distraction.

You, multiple times, made a demand for something showing what Russian interference has been historically so as to make a comparison to 2016's activities. A timeline provides at least some idea.

You reject it by claiming Russia hacked Wiki (kind of bizarre to claim since it's open source for editing, doesn't need to be "hacked" and, if they did hack it I can't see why they would do it in such a way as to show themselves to be extensively hacking/interfering/etc - seems to me they'd remove a lot of that).

So you have a timeline, it links to sources, it answers your stated questions, and....now, you're busy rearranging goalposts and deflecting onto other items.

Deranged? Ya. You could be. Or just a troll.

Pick a lane. Stick to it. I'm driving in the "what has been Russia's historical norm for interfering lane) - I'm not ready to change lanes until we have exhausted this.

i'm not going in circles, i am holding my ground til you answer a very specific question. you get pissed at hell if i don't answer yours but treat my questions as stupid or optional.

then when i do answer, you make vast FUCKING INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS on my stance and then drop into attack mode for shit i never said.

you assigned me these goalposts - i never took them on. i said fine, there is your timeline but what has russia done previously to indicate this is MORE than "normal".

you and colfax simply refuse to define NORMAL and keep saying what they did in 2016 was MORE than NORMAL *OF WHICH* is not defined.

my simple action of getting you to define the normal baseline for which you make this statement has turned into a field of mental gymnastics and bullshit and accusations towards me for shit i never said.

and at no point in time did you ever tell me what russia did previously.

so we are not going in circles, you simply refuse to answer a simple fucking question and i won't move on til you do.

 

[Coyote]

but that would pretty much be like every election before and what we do to others around the world on an all too regular basis

I always challenge this assertion. I don’t see this as a normal thing. Can you remember the last time Russia jacked with our election?

Russia (then USSR) has a long history of attempting to interfere with our democratic process (with the aim of showing that democracy is inherently inferior), but you are right - this level of interference, on a multinational platform, is unprecedented.

and other than hacking the DNC, just what did they do?

i know of facebook ads. what else?

Is hacking the DNC and Podesta, with the subsequent release of the info, not significant enough? It was a major event during the campaign.

1. Who hacked the DNC and Podesta ?

2. Who released the info or how was it released ?

3. Was the info released steeped in lies or truth ?

4. What was the response by the DNC and Podesta for it's info being hacked, and subsequently that information being released ?

5. How did the hackers or anyone know of such information ?

6. Was the information first obtained by insiders who had an ax to grind, and it's information location then given over to the hackers ?

Where is all this information or the answers to it all now ? Is there so much information out there, that the scene has been flooded, and the DNC has been enjoying the chaos in it all by assigning blame or using it politically in order to regain power somehow ?

The DNC blaming Trump for everything because they hate him, and hate him for spurious reasons unrelated, seems to be grounded in what should be called "operation political chaos" by them, where as you gather up negative information in what ever form it takes or it comes in, and then attempt to apply it politically for nefarious reasons, and/or for other reasons not pertaining to the need to get to the bottom of anything, but just use it for future outcomes in hopes to sway future elections.

All that information is in the Mueller report. Russia hacked the DNC and Podesta. Russia released the hacked information. The DNC hired CrowdStrike to clean out their network. Hackers used phishing to gain access to the network. It was not some “inside job”.

Oh so Russia just happened to know that the DNC was dirty, and so they were assured that they could gain success on hurting their chances by hacking and releasing dirt on them ? Out of thin air, the Russians targeted the DNC without any help from inside the workings of the DNC ??

Nothing dirty in the hacks, just embarrassing.
The Russians are opportunistic and have attempted to hack a great many things, often successfully.

New Russian Hacking Targeted Republican Groups, Microsoft Says (Published 2018)

Microsoft was surprised not that recent “spear phishing” attempts had occurred, but that they targeted traditional conservative think tanks. Those groups have been critical of Russia.

www.nytimes.com

Russia Targeted Election Systems in All 50 States, Report Finds (Published 2019)

A Senate panel documented an effort largely undetected by state and federal officials at the time. But its report was so heavily redacted that key lessons for 2020 were blacked out.

www.nytimes.com

Merkel cites ‘hard evidence’ Russian hackers targeted her

German chancellor says improving ties with Moscow is challenging following a hacking attempt and a murder in Berlin.

www.aljazeera.com

You are like an ostrich with it head in the sand.

The Democrats used unverified Russian propaganda (Steele Dossier) to illegally obtain a FISA warrant in order to spy on the Trump campaign and, after that, Trump's Presidential transition team. It wasn't the Russians interfering with the election, it was the DNC attempting an old fashioned coup.

How do you get from FISA warrant on Carter Page to old fashioned coup? Where’s the connection between those two things?

i'm still looking to find out other than "potentially / likely" hacking the DNC and facebook ads, what russia did to interfere in our elections and how that was so much more than "normal" interfering activity.

So what crimes did Russia commit other than the totally illegal things they did to interfere in our election? That doesn’t sound like a very serious question. Read the Muller report volume one. There was a little more along the lines of troll farms and fake grassroots but the most sensational activity was hacking and dumping of emails. That’s enough. It was a major story during the campaign. Trump designed campaign strategy around the story which is why they were seeking coordination with Wikileaks.

I don’t think there is “normal” interfering. As your link pointed out, Russia really doesn’t interfere in our elections.

it's a very serious question since we keep referring to these crimes being linked to trump somehow. if we're going to ask why is one unmasking different than the other so we can get to the details, that's fine. i'm in.

but i want to know why whatever russia did was a "vast escalation" over past interferances.

what did they do before?
hacking DNC / $100k facebook ads - is this it that we're calling a mass escalation in interferance?

i want to be sure of what we are calling escalated crimes by russia before i agree they are in fact worse than past actions.

Hacking the DNC and the emails produced was headline news for weeks. It was one of the major stories during the campaign.

Yes. It was a huge escalation.

Huge escalation that didn't change not one American vote, but hey gotta use something to hide the broken Democrat party who decided that it was better to aggressively pursue policies that the American people hated and rebuked, otherwise instead of being the party of John Kennedy back in the day (ask not what your nation can do for you, but instead ask what you can do for your nation).

How do you know the release of that information didn’t change one American vote? Seems like that’s an unknowable statement. What we do know is that Trump and his team were elated at the hacking and dumping, used them as part of their campaign and it was a major story during the campaign.

Exactly - there is no quantifiable way of knowing what the effect was, but it was certainly in the news cycle big time.

If there is no way to quantify it, then stop saying their actions made a difference at all.

In case you didn’t notice, this was in response to someone claiming it had no difference.

Huge escalation that didn't change not one American vote,

This seems to be a recurring problem.

if we can't say whether or not a vote was changed, how can you say their efforts had an impact?

i swear to god we seem to be missing basic baseline math for how we approach our conclusions.

THIS WAS THE WORST YEAR FOR TORNADOS IN OKLAHOMA!!!

at least we have a past history to look at and compare to make that statement.

now WORST RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE EVER!!!

as compared to what past interference?

so fine - if it had a difference how to you quantify it? if you can't, then you can't say it made a difference. don't care what the situation is - baselines must be there to see any deviation.

A timeline was provided. If you don't like it, show us a better one.

THIRD FUCKING TIME - I NEVER AT ANY POINT IN TIME SAID I NEVER READ IT.

god damn you are intentionally dense as fuck sometimes.

I did not state, in that post you are responding to, that you did not read it.

Here is what I said: A timeline was provided. If you don't like it, show us a better one.

Can you address it? If it doesn't suit you, do you have a better one?

 

[Coyote]

great. if you don't know then you can't say it did.

and you have still NEVER AT ANY POINT IN TIME referenced SPECIFIC actions that would have potentially altered peoples opinions of hillary.

Facebook ads? Did that do it? when they released all the ads i went and looked at around 10-15% of them and that took awhile cause there were a lot of them. 99% of the ads i saw were more EXTREME GROUP MAKES EXTREME STATEMENT TO OTHER EXTREME GROUP to play off our already existing nature to argue.

in 3 instances this am alone you refuse to go by what i have said but rather what you would like to argue against and pinning that to me as if i said it.

to be clear - i read the timelines but my questions were never about those - but about your crying RUSSIA HACKED WIKI LOOK AT WIKI HERE FOR THE TIMELINE and the vast contradiction you made in the span of i believe 4 posts. you refuse to acknowledge these things you say and keep coming at me for shit i never said.

very odd. some would say "deranged".

You are going in circles, perhaps that is an intended distraction.

You, multiple times, made a demand for something showing what Russian interference has been historically so as to make a comparison to 2016's activities. A timeline provides at least some idea.

You reject it by claiming Russia hacked Wiki (kind of bizarre to claim since it's open source for editing, doesn't need to be "hacked" and, if they did hack it I can't see why they would do it in such a way as to show themselves to be extensively hacking/interfering/etc - seems to me they'd remove a lot of that).

So you have a timeline, it links to sources, it answers your stated questions, and....now, you're busy rearranging goalposts and deflecting onto other items.

Deranged? Ya. You could be. Or just a troll.

Pick a lane. Stick to it. I'm driving in the "what has been Russia's historical norm for interfering lane) - I'm not ready to change lanes until we have exhausted this.

i'm not going in circles, i am holding my ground til you answer a very specific question. you get pissed at hell if i don't answer yours but treat my questions as stupid or optional.

then when i do answer, you make vast FUCKING INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS on my stance and then drop into attack mode for shit i never said.

you assigned me these goalposts - i never took them on. i said fine, there is your timeline but what has russia done previously to indicate this is MORE than "normal".

you and colfax simply refuse to define NORMAL and keep saying what they did in 2016 was MORE than NORMAL *OF WHICH* is not defined.

my simple action of getting you to define the normal baseline for which you make this statement has turned into a field of mental gymnastics and bullshit and accusations towards me for shit i never said.

and at no point in time did you ever tell me what russia did previously.

so we are not going in circles, you simply refuse to answer a simple fucking question and i won't move on til you do.

I'm not pissed. I've just finally gotten a good read on you.

AGAIN - let's stick to ONE lane. You requested some sort of history. I provided it. Lets discuss it.

 

[iceberg]

but that would pretty much be like every election before and what we do to others around the world on an all too regular basis

I always challenge this assertion. I don’t see this as a normal thing. Can you remember the last time Russia jacked with our election?

Russia (then USSR) has a long history of attempting to interfere with our democratic process (with the aim of showing that democracy is inherently inferior), but you are right - this level of interference, on a multinational platform, is unprecedented.

and other than hacking the DNC, just what did they do?

i know of facebook ads. what else?

Is hacking the DNC and Podesta, with the subsequent release of the info, not significant enough? It was a major event during the campaign.

1. Who hacked the DNC and Podesta ?

2. Who released the info or how was it released ?

3. Was the info released steeped in lies or truth ?

4. What was the response by the DNC and Podesta for it's info being hacked, and subsequently that information being released ?

5. How did the hackers or anyone know of such information ?

6. Was the information first obtained by insiders who had an ax to grind, and it's information location then given over to the hackers ?

Where is all this information or the answers to it all now ? Is there so much information out there, that the scene has been flooded, and the DNC has been enjoying the chaos in it all by assigning blame or using it politically in order to regain power somehow ?

The DNC blaming Trump for everything because they hate him, and hate him for spurious reasons unrelated, seems to be grounded in what should be called "operation political chaos" by them, where as you gather up negative information in what ever form it takes or it comes in, and then attempt to apply it politically for nefarious reasons, and/or for other reasons not pertaining to the need to get to the bottom of anything, but just use it for future outcomes in hopes to sway future elections.

All that information is in the Mueller report. Russia hacked the DNC and Podesta. Russia released the hacked information. The DNC hired CrowdStrike to clean out their network. Hackers used phishing to gain access to the network. It was not some “inside job”.

Oh so Russia just happened to know that the DNC was dirty, and so they were assured that they could gain success on hurting their chances by hacking and releasing dirt on them ? Out of thin air, the Russians targeted the DNC without any help from inside the workings of the DNC ??

Nothing dirty in the hacks, just embarrassing.
The Russians are opportunistic and have attempted to hack a great many things, often successfully.

New Russian Hacking Targeted Republican Groups, Microsoft Says (Published 2018)

Microsoft was surprised not that recent “spear phishing” attempts had occurred, but that they targeted traditional conservative think tanks. Those groups have been critical of Russia.

www.nytimes.com

Russia Targeted Election Systems in All 50 States, Report Finds (Published 2019)

A Senate panel documented an effort largely undetected by state and federal officials at the time. But its report was so heavily redacted that key lessons for 2020 were blacked out.

www.nytimes.com

Merkel cites ‘hard evidence’ Russian hackers targeted her

German chancellor says improving ties with Moscow is challenging following a hacking attempt and a murder in Berlin.

www.aljazeera.com

You are like an ostrich with it head in the sand.

The Democrats used unverified Russian propaganda (Steele Dossier) to illegally obtain a FISA warrant in order to spy on the Trump campaign and, after that, Trump's Presidential transition team. It wasn't the Russians interfering with the election, it was the DNC attempting an old fashioned coup.

How do you get from FISA warrant on Carter Page to old fashioned coup? Where’s the connection between those two things?

i'm still looking to find out other than "potentially / likely" hacking the DNC and facebook ads, what russia did to interfere in our elections and how that was so much more than "normal" interfering activity.

I think there are factors here not being considered.

1. They have always attempted this sort of mischief with the goal of creating chaos and division, so this is nothing new.

2. The tools available and the playing field are drastically different. By playingfield, I mean the audience they can now reach and tbe divides they can exploit. The number of people connected to the internet has increased exponentially, far ahead of our ability to handle the information. One example I remember reading about involved a pro_white demonstration coordinated by an online group. There was a counter demonstration also organized. Both to demonstrate in the same are. Both tracing back to Russian organizers. Sothat is on, non po,itical example....how much more is out there? Each one exploiting and magnifying our divides and our trust in our democratic institutions.

you're telling me what they could do.
you're telling me people fall for stupid crap when it pits one extreme side against another. 100% agreed.

but i want to know specifically what russia did to interfere in our election that makes you and others say this is MORE than normal?

what is normal and how is this more? we can either answer that or write long posts that talk about how people bitch at each other online OF WHICH everyone in here is already well aware.

Well, I would say for a starter, their hacking of DNC and collaboration with wikileaksto strategically releases it is one example. I would also add their attempted hacks at voter registration and state electoral software. That wasn’t successful yet, but it certainly ups the ante.

Is there an article that states all their 2016 activity? Wiki is anyone can edit so not sure that applies here.

Wiki also sources,.

I still don't get a baseline of past activity we compare to. In order to say this is more than usual, we need to define "usual"

well...Wikipedia gives us the best sense of a timeline:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections - Wikipedia

I thought Russia hacked wiki for disinformation. Now you trust them as a source?

Sources are required and if weak it's noted. You can always check the sources and decide for yourself. Do you have any other excuses for not reviewing it's timeline?

Who says I didn't review it? You are again making assumptions as to my viewpoint and what I am saying then ask me to defend shit I never said.

I simply said in one post you say Russia hacked wiki, in another post you say here look at wiki for Russian timeliness. You don't find that ironic?

Now again one of my continued issues with you is you make assumptions on how I think and feel and reply as lf those are true. How long would you tolerate my doing this to you?

What I find ironic is your constant deflecting of discussion back onto me. A timeline is provided in Wiki. You requested some sort of timeline. Now you're arguing it's not sufficient.

Provide a better one if you don't like it.

where did i say it wasn't sufficient?

again you come at me for shit i never said ASSUMING the worst so you can attack.

when you stop doing that i'll likely stop asking you to stop doing that.

Now you are just trolling. I'm done with you.

so you misquote me.
twice.

i correct you.
twice.

and i'm the troll.

you simply can't detach yourself emotionally from this and talk over the issue itself. if at one point you found me on "the other side" then to you that's where i will always be and you'll make up whatever crap you need to and attribute it to me. when i correct you, you totally ignore my telling you I DID NOT SAY THAT and keep at me as if i did.

and i'm the troll.

sigh.

If you don't want to be called a troll, stop acting like one.

We have a timeline showing some history of Russian interference. Let's stick to that.

Do you agree it shows an extensive ramping up of activity? If not - why?

if you don't want to be called a king kamayamaya bitch, stop acting like one.

THE ENTIRE TIMELINE YOU GAVE IS FOR 2014 AND BEYOND AND DOES NOT FUCKING ADDRESS WHAT WAS DONE PREVIOUSLY TO SHOW THIS WAS AN "ESCALATION"

 

[iceberg]

great. if you don't know then you can't say it did.

and you have still NEVER AT ANY POINT IN TIME referenced SPECIFIC actions that would have potentially altered peoples opinions of hillary.

Facebook ads? Did that do it? when they released all the ads i went and looked at around 10-15% of them and that took awhile cause there were a lot of them. 99% of the ads i saw were more EXTREME GROUP MAKES EXTREME STATEMENT TO OTHER EXTREME GROUP to play off our already existing nature to argue.

in 3 instances this am alone you refuse to go by what i have said but rather what you would like to argue against and pinning that to me as if i said it.

to be clear - i read the timelines but my questions were never about those - but about your crying RUSSIA HACKED WIKI LOOK AT WIKI HERE FOR THE TIMELINE and the vast contradiction you made in the span of i believe 4 posts. you refuse to acknowledge these things you say and keep coming at me for shit i never said.

very odd. some would say "deranged".

You are going in circles, perhaps that is an intended distraction.

You, multiple times, made a demand for something showing what Russian interference has been historically so as to make a comparison to 2016's activities. A timeline provides at least some idea.

You reject it by claiming Russia hacked Wiki (kind of bizarre to claim since it's open source for editing, doesn't need to be "hacked" and, if they did hack it I can't see why they would do it in such a way as to show themselves to be extensively hacking/interfering/etc - seems to me they'd remove a lot of that).

So you have a timeline, it links to sources, it answers your stated questions, and....now, you're busy rearranging goalposts and deflecting onto other items.

Deranged? Ya. You could be. Or just a troll.

Pick a lane. Stick to it. I'm driving in the "what has been Russia's historical norm for interfering lane) - I'm not ready to change lanes until we have exhausted this.

i'm not going in circles, i am holding my ground til you answer a very specific question. you get pissed at hell if i don't answer yours but treat my questions as stupid or optional.

then when i do answer, you make vast FUCKING INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS on my stance and then drop into attack mode for shit i never said.

you assigned me these goalposts - i never took them on. i said fine, there is your timeline but what has russia done previously to indicate this is MORE than "normal".

you and colfax simply refuse to define NORMAL and keep saying what they did in 2016 was MORE than NORMAL *OF WHICH* is not defined.

my simple action of getting you to define the normal baseline for which you make this statement has turned into a field of mental gymnastics and bullshit and accusations towards me for shit i never said.

and at no point in time did you ever tell me what russia did previously.

so we are not going in circles, you simply refuse to answer a simple fucking question and i won't move on til you do.

I'm not pissed. I've just finally gotten a good read on you.

AGAIN - let's stick to ONE lane. You requested some sort of history. I provided it. Lets discuss it.

you apparently can't read or comprehend shit.

i have been after previous to 2014 activity to base your INCREASE allegation on.

how many pages later are we still stuck on this clarification?

 

[Coyote]

if you don't want to be called a king kamayamaya bitch, stop acting like one.

THE ENTIRE TIMELINE YOU GAVE IS FOR 2014 AND BEYOND AND DOES NOT FUCKING ADDRESS WHAT WAS DONE PREVIOUSLY TO SHOW THIS WAS AN "ESCALATION"

The Wiki article covers 1986 on. In addition, I posted another article, in post 232 from Politico.

 

[iceberg]

if you don't want to be called a king kamayamaya bitch, stop acting like one.

THE ENTIRE TIMELINE YOU GAVE IS FOR 2014 AND BEYOND AND DOES NOT FUCKING ADDRESS WHAT WAS DONE PREVIOUSLY TO SHOW THIS WAS AN "ESCALATION"

The Wiki article covers 1986 on. In addition, I posted another article, in post 232 from Politico.

and this link is still all about TRUMP and the elections. are you saying that trump was involved in RUSSIA interference in 1986?

i am asking point blank what RUSSIA did prior to 2014 to interfere in our elections. Not a timeline of TRUMP crap you're obsessed with. but as usual, you can't leave trump out of a single topic, can you?

THIS IS NOT ABOUT TRUMP - THIS IS ABOUT RUSSIAN HISTORY OF JACKING WITH OVERALL US ELECTIONS.

but...TRUMP is all you ever have.

done. have a day.

 

[colfax_m]

but that would pretty much be like every election before and what we do to others around the world on an all too regular basis

I always challenge this assertion. I don’t see this as a normal thing. Can you remember the last time Russia jacked with our election?

Russia (then USSR) has a long history of attempting to interfere with our democratic process (with the aim of showing that democracy is inherently inferior), but you are right - this level of interference, on a multinational platform, is unprecedented.

and other than hacking the DNC, just what did they do?

i know of facebook ads. what else?

Is hacking the DNC and Podesta, with the subsequent release of the info, not significant enough? It was a major event during the campaign.

1. Who hacked the DNC and Podesta ?

2. Who released the info or how was it released ?

3. Was the info released steeped in lies or truth ?

4. What was the response by the DNC and Podesta for it's info being hacked, and subsequently that information being released ?

5. How did the hackers or anyone know of such information ?

6. Was the information first obtained by insiders who had an ax to grind, and it's information location then given over to the hackers ?

Where is all this information or the answers to it all now ? Is there so much information out there, that the scene has been flooded, and the DNC has been enjoying the chaos in it all by assigning blame or using it politically in order to regain power somehow ?

The DNC blaming Trump for everything because they hate him, and hate him for spurious reasons unrelated, seems to be grounded in what should be called "operation political chaos" by them, where as you gather up negative information in what ever form it takes or it comes in, and then attempt to apply it politically for nefarious reasons, and/or for other reasons not pertaining to the need to get to the bottom of anything, but just use it for future outcomes in hopes to sway future elections.

All that information is in the Mueller report. Russia hacked the DNC and Podesta. Russia released the hacked information. The DNC hired CrowdStrike to clean out their network. Hackers used phishing to gain access to the network. It was not some “inside job”.

Oh so Russia just happened to know that the DNC was dirty, and so they were assured that they could gain success on hurting their chances by hacking and releasing dirt on them ? Out of thin air, the Russians targeted the DNC without any help from inside the workings of the DNC ??

Nothing dirty in the hacks, just embarrassing.
The Russians are opportunistic and have attempted to hack a great many things, often successfully.

New Russian Hacking Targeted Republican Groups, Microsoft Says (Published 2018)

Microsoft was surprised not that recent “spear phishing” attempts had occurred, but that they targeted traditional conservative think tanks. Those groups have been critical of Russia.

www.nytimes.com

Russia Targeted Election Systems in All 50 States, Report Finds (Published 2019)

A Senate panel documented an effort largely undetected by state and federal officials at the time. But its report was so heavily redacted that key lessons for 2020 were blacked out.

www.nytimes.com

Merkel cites ‘hard evidence’ Russian hackers targeted her

German chancellor says improving ties with Moscow is challenging following a hacking attempt and a murder in Berlin.

www.aljazeera.com

You are like an ostrich with it head in the sand.

The Democrats used unverified Russian propaganda (Steele Dossier) to illegally obtain a FISA warrant in order to spy on the Trump campaign and, after that, Trump's Presidential transition team. It wasn't the Russians interfering with the election, it was the DNC attempting an old fashioned coup.

How do you get from FISA warrant on Carter Page to old fashioned coup? Where’s the connection between those two things?

i'm still looking to find out other than "potentially / likely" hacking the DNC and facebook ads, what russia did to interfere in our elections and how that was so much more than "normal" interfering activity.

So what crimes did Russia commit other than the totally illegal things they did to interfere in our election? That doesn’t sound like a very serious question. Read the Muller report volume one. There was a little more along the lines of troll farms and fake grassroots but the most sensational activity was hacking and dumping of emails. That’s enough. It was a major story during the campaign. Trump designed campaign strategy around the story which is why they were seeking coordination with Wikileaks.

I don’t think there is “normal” interfering. As your link pointed out, Russia really doesn’t interfere in our elections.

it's a very serious question since we keep referring to these crimes being linked to trump somehow. if we're going to ask why is one unmasking different than the other so we can get to the details, that's fine. i'm in.

but i want to know why whatever russia did was a "vast escalation" over past interferances.

what did they do before?
hacking DNC / $100k facebook ads - is this it that we're calling a mass escalation in interferance?

i want to be sure of what we are calling escalated crimes by russia before i agree they are in fact worse than past actions.

Hacking the DNC and the emails produced was headline news for weeks. It was one of the major stories during the campaign.

Yes. It was a huge escalation.

Huge escalation that didn't change not one American vote, but hey gotta use something to hide the broken Democrat party who decided that it was better to aggressively pursue policies that the American people hated and rebuked, otherwise instead of being the party of John Kennedy back in the day (ask not what your nation can do for you, but instead ask what you can do for your nation).

How do you know the release of that information didn’t change one American vote? Seems like that’s an unknowable statement. What we do know is that Trump and his team were elated at the hacking and dumping, used them as part of their campaign and it was a major story during the campaign.

Exactly - there is no quantifiable way of knowing what the effect was, but it was certainly in the news cycle big time.

If there is no way to quantify it, then stop saying their actions made a difference at all.

In case you didn’t notice, this was in response to someone claiming it had no difference.

Huge escalation that didn't change not one American vote,

This seems to be a recurring problem.

if we can't say whether or not a vote was changed, how can you say their efforts had an impact?

i swear to god we seem to be missing basic baseline math for how we approach our conclusions.

THIS WAS THE WORST YEAR FOR TORNADOS IN OKLAHOMA!!!

at least we have a past history to look at and compare to make that statement.

now WORST RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE EVER!!!

as compared to what past interference?

so fine - if it had a difference how to you quantify it? if you can't, then you can't say it made a difference. don't care what the situation is - baselines must be there to see any deviation.

Again, you missed the point. I didn’t claim to have proof of any votes altered. But I do note your different treatment of some statements.

Some one says it affected votes, you criticize them because we don’t know for sure
Some one says it didn’t affect votes, silence.

Similarly:
I claim that Russia hasn’t interfered in our election like this before, I’m criticized because you say we don’t know that for sure.

Someone claims that Russia interferes like this every election, silence.

It just feels like your standard of evidence differs based on who is making the claim.

I am not trying to be confrontational, but I feel this is a valid criticism.

 

[iceberg]

but that would pretty much be like every election before and what we do to others around the world on an all too regular basis

I always challenge this assertion. I don’t see this as a normal thing. Can you remember the last time Russia jacked with our election?

Russia (then USSR) has a long history of attempting to interfere with our democratic process (with the aim of showing that democracy is inherently inferior), but you are right - this level of interference, on a multinational platform, is unprecedented.

and other than hacking the DNC, just what did they do?

i know of facebook ads. what else?

Is hacking the DNC and Podesta, with the subsequent release of the info, not significant enough? It was a major event during the campaign.

1. Who hacked the DNC and Podesta ?

2. Who released the info or how was it released ?

3. Was the info released steeped in lies or truth ?

4. What was the response by the DNC and Podesta for it's info being hacked, and subsequently that information being released ?

5. How did the hackers or anyone know of such information ?

6. Was the information first obtained by insiders who had an ax to grind, and it's information location then given over to the hackers ?

Where is all this information or the answers to it all now ? Is there so much information out there, that the scene has been flooded, and the DNC has been enjoying the chaos in it all by assigning blame or using it politically in order to regain power somehow ?

The DNC blaming Trump for everything because they hate him, and hate him for spurious reasons unrelated, seems to be grounded in what should be called "operation political chaos" by them, where as you gather up negative information in what ever form it takes or it comes in, and then attempt to apply it politically for nefarious reasons, and/or for other reasons not pertaining to the need to get to the bottom of anything, but just use it for future outcomes in hopes to sway future elections.

All that information is in the Mueller report. Russia hacked the DNC and Podesta. Russia released the hacked information. The DNC hired CrowdStrike to clean out their network. Hackers used phishing to gain access to the network. It was not some “inside job”.

Oh so Russia just happened to know that the DNC was dirty, and so they were assured that they could gain success on hurting their chances by hacking and releasing dirt on them ? Out of thin air, the Russians targeted the DNC without any help from inside the workings of the DNC ??

Nothing dirty in the hacks, just embarrassing.
The Russians are opportunistic and have attempted to hack a great many things, often successfully.

New Russian Hacking Targeted Republican Groups, Microsoft Says (Published 2018)

Microsoft was surprised not that recent “spear phishing” attempts had occurred, but that they targeted traditional conservative think tanks. Those groups have been critical of Russia.

www.nytimes.com

Russia Targeted Election Systems in All 50 States, Report Finds (Published 2019)

A Senate panel documented an effort largely undetected by state and federal officials at the time. But its report was so heavily redacted that key lessons for 2020 were blacked out.

www.nytimes.com

Merkel cites ‘hard evidence’ Russian hackers targeted her

German chancellor says improving ties with Moscow is challenging following a hacking attempt and a murder in Berlin.

www.aljazeera.com

You are like an ostrich with it head in the sand.

The Democrats used unverified Russian propaganda (Steele Dossier) to illegally obtain a FISA warrant in order to spy on the Trump campaign and, after that, Trump's Presidential transition team. It wasn't the Russians interfering with the election, it was the DNC attempting an old fashioned coup.

How do you get from FISA warrant on Carter Page to old fashioned coup? Where’s the connection between those two things?

i'm still looking to find out other than "potentially / likely" hacking the DNC and facebook ads, what russia did to interfere in our elections and how that was so much more than "normal" interfering activity.

So what crimes did Russia commit other than the totally illegal things they did to interfere in our election? That doesn’t sound like a very serious question. Read the Muller report volume one. There was a little more along the lines of troll farms and fake grassroots but the most sensational activity was hacking and dumping of emails. That’s enough. It was a major story during the campaign. Trump designed campaign strategy around the story which is why they were seeking coordination with Wikileaks.

I don’t think there is “normal” interfering. As your link pointed out, Russia really doesn’t interfere in our elections.

it's a very serious question since we keep referring to these crimes being linked to trump somehow. if we're going to ask why is one unmasking different than the other so we can get to the details, that's fine. i'm in.

but i want to know why whatever russia did was a "vast escalation" over past interferances.

what did they do before?
hacking DNC / $100k facebook ads - is this it that we're calling a mass escalation in interferance?

i want to be sure of what we are calling escalated crimes by russia before i agree they are in fact worse than past actions.

Hacking the DNC and the emails produced was headline news for weeks. It was one of the major stories during the campaign.

Yes. It was a huge escalation.

Huge escalation that didn't change not one American vote, but hey gotta use something to hide the broken Democrat party who decided that it was better to aggressively pursue policies that the American people hated and rebuked, otherwise instead of being the party of John Kennedy back in the day (ask not what your nation can do for you, but instead ask what you can do for your nation).

How do you know the release of that information didn’t change one American vote? Seems like that’s an unknowable statement. What we do know is that Trump and his team were elated at the hacking and dumping, used them as part of their campaign and it was a major story during the campaign.

Exactly - there is no quantifiable way of knowing what the effect was, but it was certainly in the news cycle big time.

If there is no way to quantify it, then stop saying their actions made a difference at all.

In case you didn’t notice, this was in response to someone claiming it had no difference.

Huge escalation that didn't change not one American vote,

This seems to be a recurring problem.

if we can't say whether or not a vote was changed, how can you say their efforts had an impact?

i swear to god we seem to be missing basic baseline math for how we approach our conclusions.

THIS WAS THE WORST YEAR FOR TORNADOS IN OKLAHOMA!!!

at least we have a past history to look at and compare to make that statement.

now WORST RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE EVER!!!

as compared to what past interference?

so fine - if it had a difference how to you quantify it? if you can't, then you can't say it made a difference. don't care what the situation is - baselines must be there to see any deviation.

Again, you missed the point. I didn’t claim to have proof of any votes altered. But I do note your different treatment of some statements.

Some one says it affected votes, you criticize them because we don’t know for sure
Some one says it didn’t affect votes, silence.

Similarly:
I claim that Russia hasn’t interfered in our election like this before, I’m criticized because you say we don’t know that for sure.

Someone claims that Russia interferes like this every election, silence.

It just feels like your standard of evidence differs based on who is making the claim.

I am not trying to be confrontational, but I feel this is a valid criticism.

not at all and thank you for at least *trying* to get what i am after.

remove trump. this has nothing to do with trump. but if we are to say that we saw a rise in a form of activity, then we must have a history of activity to compare it to.

examples i'll make up:
Oklahoma saw a rise in Tornado activity in 2019.

great. i can look at the history of tornados in Oklahoma prior to 2018 and see how much more than "normal" 2019 was? i have data to back up my assumption 2019 did in fact see a rise in activity.

i simply do not get nor understand how you can saw we saw a rise in russian trolling / interference activity unless we have defined what is "normal" on their part prior to the period in question.

what i have so far that they did in 2019 includes:
Potential / Likely hacking of DNC server.
Facebook ads.

Wiki is somehow involved but since that was never really established nor proven, just an emotional bag of shit for awhile, i'll leave that off.

all the other conversations that are happening back and forth make a lot of GUILTY "assumptions". to clarify these "conversations" our own FBI took improper measures to find out or "create" reason for suspicion. the left in my eyes seems quick to nail people for un-clarified statements and assume guilt but never look at the manner in which we chose at the time to collect the data as being "improper".

so these conversations to get cloudy and speculative. so i'm after the cold hard facts of - what did russia do (and the 2014 timeline was nice sure - but again is a lot of speculation tying it all together OF WHICH comey found nothing, so it was incorrect speculation at best) in 2014+ and how are we measuring it was MORE than previous activity?

simple question that has gotten way out of hand.

 

[colfax_m]

He was never unmasked.

Go with that distortion...

THe facts remain that Flynn was being spied upon by the Obama administration using the FISA system. This requires that US persons be unmasked and only a person holding that authority could do it. Enter Joe Biden... Now who leaked that information to the press? Any Guesses?

Who cares if he was unmasked? It was supposedly a totally innocent, normal routine call that no one would have any reason to lie about.

 

[iceberg]

He was never unmasked.

Go with that distortion...

THe facts remain that Flynn was being spied upon by the Obama administration using the FISA system. This requires that US persons be unmasked and only a person holding that authority could do it. Enter Joe Biden... Now who leaked that information to the press? Any Guesses?

Who cares if he was unmasked? It was supposedly a totally innocent, normal routine call that no one would have any reason to lie about.

fair enough to a point, but do you often have handwritten notes ahead of totally innocent calls saying to get him to lie to you can prosecute?

 

[Billy_Bob]

He was never unmasked.

Go with that distortion...

THe facts remain that Flynn was being spied upon by the Obama administration using the FISA system. This requires that US persons be unmasked and only a person holding that authority could do it. Enter Joe Biden... Now who leaked that information to the press? Any Guesses?

Who cares if he was unmasked? It was supposedly a totally innocent, normal routine call that no one would have any reason to lie about.

Flynn didn't lie. Read the transcript. The FBI, Strozk told president Trump that he did lie. It was the FBI who lied.

 

[colfax_m]

He was never unmasked.

Go with that distortion...

THe facts remain that Flynn was being spied upon by the Obama administration using the FISA system. This requires that US persons be unmasked and only a person holding that authority could do it. Enter Joe Biden... Now who leaked that information to the press? Any Guesses?

Who cares if he was unmasked? It was supposedly a totally innocent, normal routine call that no one would have any reason to lie about.

Flynn didn't lie. Read the transcript. The FBI, Strozk told president Trump that he did lie. It was the FBI who lied.

Flynn lied. The phone call transcript confirms it. The FBI agreed he lied. Pence agreed he lied. Trump agreed he lied.

These are facts that haven’t changed.

 

[colfax_m]

He was never unmasked.

Go with that distortion...

THe facts remain that Flynn was being spied upon by the Obama administration using the FISA system. This requires that US persons be unmasked and only a person holding that authority could do it. Enter Joe Biden... Now who leaked that information to the press? Any Guesses?

Who cares if he was unmasked? It was supposedly a totally innocent, normal routine call that no one would have any reason to lie about.

fair enough to a point, but do you often have handwritten notes ahead of totally innocent calls saying to get him to lie to you can prosecute?

Don’t know. I know that law enforcement ask people questions they already know the answer to. At the end of the day, Flynn lied on his own volition. All the FBI had to do to “get him to lie” is ask the same question that he had been lying in response to.

That’s not entrapment. That’s not a perjury trap. It’s lying to officials which is a violation of law.

 

[colfax_m]

great. i can look at the history of tornados in Oklahoma prior to 2018 and see how much more than "normal" 2019 was? i have data to back up my assumption 2019 did in fact see a rise in activity.

Sure, you could go back and tell me how many tornadoes were in 2018, but I can come back and say not every tornado is recorded so you don’t know definitively how many tornadoes actually occurred. You could just as easily say that 2019 was a decrease because we don’t know for sure the true number.

 

[iceberg]

great. i can look at the history of tornados in Oklahoma prior to 2018 and see how much more than "normal" 2019 was? i have data to back up my assumption 2019 did in fact see a rise in activity.

Sure, you could go back and tell me how many tornadoes were in 2018, but I can come back and say not every tornado is recorded so you don’t know definitively how many tornadoes actually occurred. You could just as easily say that 2019 was a decrease because we don’t know for sure the true number.

great.

but then if not every action on the russians is ever reported, is this an escalation of their activity OR the reporting of it?

you simply can't honestly say there's a rise in activity for a given action unless you have a baseline for what it would normally be. so while i agree not all of it was reported, then that brings the reporting into question now.

but i don't want to rabbit hole off into the integrity of our media so let's table that for now if you don't mind.

so we seem to be at a point where:
it is claimed that we saw an increase of russian interference in 2014 and beyond.

i'm still trying to substantiate that claim by validating the history of their interference to go by. while i think you are dead on that it is very difficult to do (and i believe you at least get what i am after so thank you for that) as we don't know how much has been reported historically to gauge by.

given that, how can we honestly say then that we saw a rise in 2014 and beyond w/o a valid baseline comparison?

it's like saying we saw a rise in water levels but have no idea what they levels were to begin with.

 

[iceberg]

He was never unmasked.

Go with that distortion...

THe facts remain that Flynn was being spied upon by the Obama administration using the FISA system. This requires that US persons be unmasked and only a person holding that authority could do it. Enter Joe Biden... Now who leaked that information to the press? Any Guesses?

Who cares if he was unmasked? It was supposedly a totally innocent, normal routine call that no one would have any reason to lie about.

fair enough to a point, but do you often have handwritten notes ahead of totally innocent calls saying to get him to lie to you can prosecute?

Don’t know. I know that law enforcement ask people questions they already know the answer to. At the end of the day, Flynn lied on his own volition. All the FBI had to do to “get him to lie” is ask the same question that he had been lying in response to.

That’s not entrapment. That’s not a perjury trap. It’s lying to officials which is a violation of law.

on a strict sense i would agree.

from a "lets back up a bit" sense, it does also come across that you have to bypass a lot of activity to get it to such a strict sense and ONLY look at said activity in question; not what led up to it.

 

[colfax_m]

He was never unmasked.

Go with that distortion...

THe facts remain that Flynn was being spied upon by the Obama administration using the FISA system. This requires that US persons be unmasked and only a person holding that authority could do it. Enter Joe Biden... Now who leaked that information to the press? Any Guesses?

Who cares if he was unmasked? It was supposedly a totally innocent, normal routine call that no one would have any reason to lie about.

fair enough to a point, but do you often have handwritten notes ahead of totally innocent calls saying to get him to lie to you can prosecute?

Don’t know. I know that law enforcement ask people questions they already know the answer to. At the end of the day, Flynn lied on his own volition. All the FBI had to do to “get him to lie” is ask the same question that he had been lying in response to.

That’s not entrapment. That’s not a perjury trap. It’s lying to officials which is a violation of law.

on a strict sense i would agree.

from a "lets back up a bit" sense, it does also come across that you have to bypass a lot of activity to get it to such a strict sense and ONLY look at said activity in question; not what led up to it.

I have no problem with the activity that led up to it either. Maybe if you take the worst possible perspective and give them zero benefit of the doubt you might have a problem but I don’t believe that’s how we should operate.

 

[colfax_m]

great. i can look at the history of tornados in Oklahoma prior to 2018 and see how much more than "normal" 2019 was? i have data to back up my assumption 2019 did in fact see a rise in activity.

Sure, you could go back and tell me how many tornadoes were in 2018, but I can come back and say not every tornado is recorded so you don’t know definitively how many tornadoes actually occurred. You could just as easily say that 2019 was a decrease because we don’t know for sure the true number.

great.

but then if not every action on the russians is ever reported, is this an escalation of their activity OR the reporting of it?

you simply can't honestly say there's a rise in activity for a given action unless you have a baseline for what it would normally be. so while i agree not all of it was reported, then that brings the reporting into question now.

but i don't want to rabbit hole off into the integrity of our media so let's table that for now if you don't mind.

so we seem to be at a point where:
it is claimed that we saw an increase of russian interference in 2014 and beyond.

i'm still trying to substantiate that claim by validating the history of their interference to go by. while i think you are dead on that it is very difficult to do (and i believe you at least get what i am after so thank you for that) as we don't know how much has been reported historically to gauge by.

given that, how can we honestly say then that we saw a rise in 2014 and beyond w/o a valid baseline comparison?

it's like saying we saw a rise in water levels but have no idea what they levels were to begin with.

You can weaponize skepticism to justify all sorts of things. I can easily say that based on all available evidence, this represents an escalation. Now you can speculate as to what exists that we have no evidence for, but that is an endless and futile effort in my mind.