trump: oblivious moron or psychotically narcissistic oblivious moron?

Again, the "retraction" was correction of a claim that all 17 (depending on how you count them) came up with this evidence/proof. You can google yourself something about "October 7th intelligence statement" and get the original source that says in its first sentence it is representing the USIC. You can then google "US Intelligence Community" and find out it is made up of the "17 intelligence agencies" described.
Click to expand...
of course it "represents" - the others just signed off on it..they were really not part of the writing..

It's a minor point either way.
 
anatta said:
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/14/heres-the-public-evidence-russia-hacked-the-dnc-its-not-enough/

one of the best links I've found. It lays out the evidence,and point by point calls it into question.
I posed a bit of it last page..
If you are interested in in the truth -read it. I you just want confirmation the IC leadership didn't push their ownpravda -then don't
Click to expand...

Does Biddle have every bit of insight, evidence, information that has contributed to the IC's assessment?

If not, why is that even marginally relevant?

"There are some good reasons to believe Russians had something to do with the breaches into email accounts belonging to members of the Democratic party, which proved varyingly embarrassing or disruptive for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. But “good” doesn’t necessarily mean good enough to indict Russia’s head of state for sabotaging our democracy."​

He just takes on published information by private cyber-security firms. There may be some relevant points, but mostly it looks like gainsaying and point-scoring to me. Moreover, what these corporations are saying in no way reflects on the IC's assessment, your attempts at implying it does notwithstanding. So, from his limited information, Biddle concludes it isn't enough to indict Putin. That would be a finding that is about as helpful and interesting as, "The moon is far away."

Look, Greenwald was, sadly, over the last years turning into a nutcase, probably easy enough to explain biographically. Since he broke the Snowden story, he may be a target of U.S. intelligence. Still, I like he's looking into the U.S. government's shenanigans, and is debating them with vigor. To take what he's saying as gospel is ill-advised.
 
anatta said:
I'll look for it. endoresment doesn't mean anything though, as they were completely un-involved with the production.
Would I expect the Coast guard to endorse it?? Gee why not. It's not like they are gona refute something
that the major INTEL agencies concoct
Click to expand...

You forgot to cite the rightard Examiner from which you plagiarized that squawk as if you knew what you were talking about.

Okay, the part about an intelligence agency endorsing a finding being meaningless was your own idea, I think. I'm assuming it was, because I can't imagine even rightard propaganda sites saying something so silly.
 
Owl'd You're Up! said:
Look, for the last time - it isn't all that hard to understand: You post a silly, illiterate conspiracy nutcase's rant. You have to be thoroughly delusional to hope to find anyone with a lick of sense to take you and your "source" seriously. Seriously, A Nutter, get a grip.

Oh, BTW, since there were "salient points", allegedly, hidden somewhere in there: Why don't you sit down an explain what they are, and why they are salient? Posting some entry of deplorable quality from some obscure blog won't get you a pat on the head, much less a debate.
Click to expand...
Anatta is a good guy, you're not, please fuck off.

Sent from my iPhone 25S with cherries on top
 
anatta said:
I bolded a few, because the writer has an inside view. Interesting points on the make up of the classified assessment
The OTHER link goes point by point over the evidence -read that.

Here’s the Public Evidence Russia Hacked the DNC — It’s Not Enough
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/14/heres-the-public-evidence-russia-hacked-the-dnc-its-not-enough/

for someone who didn't know the NSA only had "moderate confidence' in the assessment,,,
I'm not all that concerned with your assessment
Click to expand...
Man, stop taking these arseholes seriously they are just fuckwits.

Sent from my iPhone 25S with cherries on top
 
Okay, one more time. I'm sorry to interrupt all the regurgitation and catapulting of what rightard propaganda sites told you to think. You can spin on their behalf as if your spew were something your tiny minds came up with on their own. I will point one more time to the first sentence from the original source:

The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07...omeland-security-and-office-director-national

U.S. Intelligence Community Members:

The United States Intelligence Community (IC)[SUP][1][/SUP] is a federation of 16 separate United States government agencies that work separately and together to conduct intelligence activities[SUP][vague][/SUP] considered necessary[SUP][by whom? – Discuss][/SUP] for the conduct of foreign relations and national security of the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Intelligence_Community

Everything else is no-pride squawkery.
 
Okay, a big part of it is ChlamydiaBear's prehensile lips quivering in excitement at so many new asses to kiss, and the suck-up proving he is an impotent bitch otherwise by restricting himself mostly to "groan"ing most every liberal post.
 
RickyTavy said:
You forgot to cite the rightard Examiner from which you plagiarized that squawk as if you knew what you were talking about.

Okay, the part about an intelligence agency endorsing a finding being meaningless was your own idea, I think. I'm assuming it was, because I can't imagine even rightard propaganda sites saying something so silly.
Click to expand...

CrowdStrike looked at the DNC server. No one else, wobs. To claim the Coast Guard intelligence agency or the geospatial agencies have some special savvy in this case is crazy.
 
Milagro said:
Rune is a bit simple sadly, yet is under the illusion that he's some kind of genius.

Sent from my iPhone 25S with cherries on top
Click to expand...

There is also a fair amount of Millie putting her hypocrisy and cowardice in neon by doing little but taking limp-wristed shots at people she claims to ignore from the protection of a hide from bunker she moved into because others just do insults and no substance. Wanta play Treasure Hunt? I'll give you a nickel if you can find a post of Millie doing substance.
 
yowsa said:
Didn't Il Duce (a term from his socialist origin) term that party name? When was he not a socialist?
Click to expand...

Hey, remember when I showed you Mussolini's treatise on why he hated socialism? I'm here now, yowsa. Try to remember where you're trying to sell what silliness.
 
anatta said:
of course it "represents" - the others just signed off on it..they were really not part of the writing..

It's a minor point either way.
Click to expand...

Sure, they all just sign off pro forma on whatever they are told they believe. Buncha "deep staters," prolly. Bet they were in on the BENGHAZI! cover-up also.

Oh yeah, one more thing. This mass exhibition of Deplorable intellectual bulimia began with the TrannyBoxer using rightard spin to "prove" trump didn't lie, when he said it was only three or four agencies who think Russia meddled. Guess what? trump did lie. I do know, however, that IS a "minor point" in your herd.
 
anatta said:
do some research. the NSA did not have high confidence. This was an assessment written by DNI Clapper.
The private security companies did the technical analysis.

And don't be an asshole calling me a liar because I refuse to swallow a leap to conclusion Deep State agenda
with questionable technical research, written by a "wittingly" known liar ( Clapper) , combined w/ Brenna's hostility to Trump.
It's a shaky assessment passed off as gospel, and swallowed whole by John McCain , Democrats,and Russiaphobes
Click to expand...

Ah, I understand, you're not a liar. You just mindlessly regurgitate the lies fed to you by those who tell you what to think. Which, again, falls nicely in line with your paranoid fantasies about the "deep state". As I said, "A Nutter".

Of course, amongst illiterates, reading isn't that well developed, and so big words may not be understood, and tiny words might be missed, quite understandable:

Putin Ordered Campaign To Influence US Election

We assess with high confidence that Russian
President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence
campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential
election, the consistent goals of which were to
undermine public faith in the US democratic
process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her
electability and potential presidency. We further
assess Putin and the Russian Government
developed a clear preference for President-elect
Trump. When it appeared to Moscow that
Secretary Clinton was likely to win the election, the
Russian influence campaign then focused on
undermining her expected presidency.

We also assess Putin and the Russian
Government aspired to help President-elect
Trump’s election chances when possible by
discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly
contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three
agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and
FBI have high confidence in this judgment;
NSA has moderate confidence.​

You know, A Nutter, get a grip. I mean it.
 
Owl'd You're Up! said:
Look, for the last time - it isn't all that hard to understand: You post a silly, illiterate conspiracy nutcase's rant. You have to be thoroughly delusional to hope to find anyone with a lick of sense to take you and your "source" seriously. Seriously, A Nutter, get a grip.

Oh, BTW, since there were "salient points", allegedly, hidden somewhere in there: Why don't you sit down an explain what they are, and why they are salient? Posting some entry of deplorable quality from some obscure blog won't get you a pat on the head, much less a debate.
Click to expand...

Stop being obtuse!!

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_t...nc_hack_because_it_relied_on_crowdstrike.html

Greg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top