Details of Russian Hacking in Leaked NSA Document

Post Reply New Topic

That's called projecting. I found the articles you couldn't, linked them, read them and quoted from them. You haven't demonstrated in this thread that you researched any of it and seem to be taking it at face value while deflecting.



As I have said many many times, tangible empirical evidence. I'd love to see Trump and Putin nailed if they're guilty. But so far there still isn't anything to nail them with. In this situation there's been tangible evidence presented against Winner but still none against Putin or Trump and Co.

The problem with you and others is that you appear too guided by biased prejudicial emotions to view the matter in a detached objective way. You apparently would make a very poor juror.

Now why don't you show some integrity and state what tangible evidence was presented in the information Winner leaked to the Insider. Where is it? Point it out to me.

Last edited by EzraS on 06 Jun 2017, 8:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I plead the Trumpth: showing evidence would weaken my hand at the negotiating table, just trust me.

You want evidence that you can touch?? How would that happen?

No one who wanted to keep a job would write that report without the records to back it up. That should be obvious. I can wait for a court to review those records. The opinion of a few agents should suffice to put the records in front of a judge. Personally, I'd like to see them, too, but I'm okay if only the court can see them in their entirety.

The supporting documents for that report are enough to take to a judge. Someone has the job of taking that step. They should do so.

When it comes to cases like Winner, or the kid who hacked the FBI and any other similar types of cases, fairly specific details of what they did and how they did it, is pretty cut and dry and there's no anonymous sources. If this were a trial and I were a juror, I'd be very frustrated that so far I've been given nothing tangible to start making a determination.

We aren't in a trial, we're in an investigation: the gathering evidence phase.

edit: also, I'm pretty sure the Russians are going to be much harder to pin down than a 24 year old intern and a 16 year old kid, they've had 300 years more experience in espionage than those two people.

You said, "maybe you would like to show a little integrity and state what evidence you would accept" And I gave you a concise direct answer.

Now I am asking you, for a second time, what actual evidence exists that I am not accepting? You indicated that either I am rejecting existing actual evidence or that I didn't do enough research to come across actual evidence.

So once again, what evidence is in existence that you are finding acceptable, point it out to me in a direct concise manner. Show me that you have done actual research into this matter and point out what I have missed. You are in the hot seat.

Am I missing something here? How can you use the argument that it is from an anonymous, unnamed source when the person who is the source of it has been arrested and charged with a crime?

You misunderstood my question. I asked what evidence you would accept, and never said there was some that you should accept. The leakers and I want the same thing: to take the intelligence behind the assessments to a judge. No one gets convicted on the basis of an unsupported claim, and that's all the leak contains. However, as I said, you cover your a$$ before making a claim like that if you have half a brain. So, I believe that the supporting documents exist. The leak makes it much harder for someone to bury them or destroy them, and more likely that a judge will see them.

The fact that they charged her adds to the credibility of the document. Trolling is not a crime. People troll reporters all the time and don't get charged with espionage.

I'm well aware of that. That's why I said if this were a trial. The thing is people have been rendering guilty verdicts for a while now, in an evidence gathering phase that so far hasn't gather any actual evidence. Not an iota.



The assertion has been that they know the Russians did it based on lots of undisclosed information and anonymous sources. There's not another hacking espionage whatever case out there that's ever been shaped like that, that I know of.

And the ironic thing in what you said is, what did take place, what is factually known, is that the methodology used resembled that of a 16 year old kid or a 24 year old intern, and not Russia's 300 more years in espionage.

Last edited by EzraS on 06 Jun 2017, 9:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Then you loose credibility and no better then most of the click-bait media people post on here, as the articles that ultimately have little or no factual information.



This is the case with media lately...



Was there a hack, most likely. But there is zero evidence that Trump colluded with Putin. If that is the case, then I want to see Trump punished.

But I would like to see Clinton punished for her crimes, so I wouldn't hold my breath for either... Also do realize the US in the past has meddled in foreign politics for our own interest, we are ultimately guilty of the same.

Perhaps I should have put a [joke][/joke] tag there so you'd get it.


True, but that's no reason to not defend one's self when it happens to them. International politics is not a fair game, it's brutal game of shifty alliances, stand-offs and even war. Would you argue we shouldn't defend ourselves from an invading army because we've been an invading army before? I think not, and this is no different, it's merely a lower tier of relations than war.

Trump publicly called on the Russians to release more hacked emails. They did. How is that not collusion? I consider it probable that people close to Trump discussed with them how he planned to change US foreign policy if he won. That's a crime. They did what they could to discredit Clinton to help him win. That's a problem.

Lax internet security at businesses which make voting equipment is a massive problem.

I am not defending ones action, I am just merely stating we done the same. Except we do it to defend world security, but mostly our allies and our self... As previously stated, there is no evidence of collusion between Trump and Putin.

As for an invasion...


I will stand for the fight, if it ever happens... Unfortunately, it has happened a few times over the years (including in my town).

The public forms all kinds of opinions based on all kinds of things unrelated to evidence, that's the nature of politics and public opinion. People can form any kind of opinion they want whether it's 'guilty' or 'not guilty' it doesn't matter, only the courts matter here because people don't render a verdict only the courts do, or Congress should it elevate to crimes against the state. Again, there has been evidence gathered, just not made public, this is a standard practice in this country. The only time a prosecutor will release evidence is when they're forced to during the 'discovery' part of a trial. If the evidence isn't sufficient the prosecutor will drop the case before it reaches that point, or the judge will drop it during 'discovery' for the same reason. Let the process play out and the facts will come out.

What we do know is that a federal grand jury has convened around Michael Flynn, Trump's former NSA, for failing to disclose two sources of income from foreign nations on his renewed security clearance form. This may or may not warrant charges, the federal grand jury will decide if the evidence warrants charges, probably within the next two months. We know the fancy-bear virus has Russian origins and was found on the DNC servers. We know wikileaks leaked information from those same servers. We know Jeff Sessions had 3 meetings with the Russians, and failed to disclose those in his confirmation hearing. We know Jared Kushner had two meetings with the Russians during the campaign, one of which he insisted on having in a secure location outside of NSA authority, and also failed to disclose those meetings. Those are the facts the public knows so far, either verified by the Trump administration itself or in the case of Michael Flynn just public knowledge that a federal grand jury was convened for that specific case.

Now, before the investigation began the public's knowledge consisted merely of the fancy-bear virus and wikileaks disclosure, as far as the public knew about Trump's administration none of his campaign had ever met with the Russians. Just a mere 2 months after the start of the investigation (evidence gathering again) we've found out that Sessions and Kushner do indeed have ties to the Russians, albeit tenuous, but ties they weren't forthcoming about. Before the investigation the most people knew about Flynn is that he was a retired (or fired if you want to be accurate) 3 star general, now we know he's been paid by the Kremlin and Turkey as recently as 2015. Again, this is evidence that has been brought to light because of the investigation.


I'm going to hold you to the same standards here as you're holding everyone else, link me the evidence please. Because I'm pretty sure a 16 year old kid and a 24 year old intern combined couldn't replicate the fancy-bear virus, even if they're savants.

Collusion would require an agreement.



How about the crimes Hilary committed? We have proof of numerous crimes, including destroying evidence... That's a problem.

Also, I figured I would post a video where Trump does publicly tells Russia to release more information for you:

I've never claimed there was collusion, I merely want to find out what the investigation finds. Too many people have a hard-on for Trump one way or the other, and the investigation is actually focused on the extent of Russian interference.



As I've stated before in threads well back: a man and his rifle are no match for aerial drones, long range missiles, and modern tanks. Guerilla warfare perhaps, but not a pitched battle. Point being, if a tank comes running into town don't think that rifle's going to protect you, it's not near enough firepower. Be smart, run, and regroup.