Report: Flynn to Implicate Trump (Holy Crap)

[_MeDotOrg]

Again, no evidence of Russians. Purely conjecture based on a pattern employed by some other phishing attempts. Which, if I were the one doing this, and particularly if I wanted people to think it was the Russians, I'd follow this same pattern. Cake.

Your argument that both that there is no evidence of Russians and that the hack could simply be made to look like Russians did it in a frame attempt. That's consistent.

Does it not then logically follow that the more evidence there is against the Russians, the more proof there is that someone is trying to frame them?

[_MeDotOrg]

https://Twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/937007674524397575

Since I can't post the images, it's a contrast between Trump's statement today that he fired Flynn because he knew he lied to the FBI with Trump's earlier tweet claiming that Flynn should ask for immunity because the investigation involving him is a witchhunt to pursued by his enemies to excuse an election loss.

here you go:

[_Jersey Girl]

(Someone one day, will surely make a book out of those tweets. Count on it.)

[Guest]

[_Chap]

Put it this way. If you brought your "evidence" into a court room and it was given a fair cross examination, no jury would find Russia guilty.

That is not the way that governments make, or should make, decisions about the way that other governments are acting. There are two reasons for that:

1. The Russian government is not a citizen of the US entitled to the protection of the law, which often prefers to see the probably guilty go free rather than see the possibly innocent punished. That provision is there in part because of the huge disparity of power between an individual citizen and the government's legal machinery. Russia, on the other hand, is another player on the world stage, of equal status with the USA. Trump's 'America First' slogan would suggest that is up to the Russian government to safeguard its own interests, while the US concentrates on its own.

2. Governments charged with protecting their national interest are obliged to act on a prudential basis, not the criminal justice basis of 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' to protect their citizens against major threats and subversion. In the same way that a business is entitled to withdraw from dealings with another company that its directors simply strongly suspect may be cheating it, even if they have no proof at all, a government may reasonably (and sometimes should) take measures against another government that it strongly suspects is acting in a way that constitutes a threat to the integrity of its political processes.

[Guest]

[_EAllusion]

Let's recap.

Because of a fault in the malware used to hack DNC, we were able to see what servers the hacks were talking to. It traces back a group(s) which is known to focus hacking of targets of interest to the Russian government including NATO, anti-Putin journalists, the investigation into the airline shot down in Ukraine etc.

The fault in the phishing attack on Podesta is that the fake google link used a URL shortening service. Looking into that shortening service gave an opportunity to see who logged into that and reverse engineer all the other shortened URL's used and uncover the network of phishing attacks. This was a minor fault that ended up exposing thousands of hacks that were not uncovered prior to this that appear to be sensitive to Russian national security interests. In fact, there are thousands of hacked targets because the attack casts a wide net and they all narrowly tie to Russian military interests.

Water Dog sees this and both says that it's no evidence of Russia and that this is the case because anyone could false flag this to make it look like it was Russia.

1) That's quite dubious and 2) A false flag attack requires there to be the appearance of guilt which is an admission that there is some evidence if you know what the word evidence means.

This isn't the only piece of evidence that it was Russia. There's actually more that ranging from Russia's relationship with Julian Assange to now exposed conversations between Russian and the Trump camp on "dirt" they were prepared to release on the Clinton camp.

But that alone is quite compelling and notice how WD waves his hands. Then you have the matter of this being the conclusion of US intelligence services. This requires him to dismiss the value of citing US intelligence services entirely, which he does by vaguely referring to situation in which the Bush admin deliberately stovepiped bad intelligence in order to justify war in Iraq.

Fantastic.

[_Maksutov]

I'm intimately familiar with the decision process, Chap. Has worked great for us in Iraq and Afghanistan. If the public saw, in context, what the intelligence community really is, they'd never trust anything they say.

But Trump doesn't have anything to compete with it. He has a long history of lies and distortions, instead. Trump can't just dismiss them, he has to show why they're wrong or shut up. Otherwise he's undermining our country's national security apparatus. If he continues to do that, he's a danger to the country, for whatever his reasons. I understand the skepticism re our agencies--we've had one s#i+show after another with the CIA from Truman on--but putting up his own unevidenced, self serving, ever changing stories should shake any thinking person's confidence in him.

We're at the very beginning of this thing. We don't really know what we know or don't know at this point.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I'm intimately familiar with the decision process, Chap. Has worked great for us in Iraq and Afghanistan. If the public saw, in context, what the intelligence community really is, they'd never trust anything they say.

That's quite the assertion you got going there, Mr. Dog. I'd ask you what you mean by that, but I'm fairly certain it's along the lines of, "I know a convicted murderer that holds a top secret clearance."

- Doc

[_Kevin Graham]

Let's recap.

Because of a fault in the malware used to hack DNC, we were able to see what servers the hacks were talking to. It traces back a group(s) which is known to focus hacking of targets of interest to the Russian government including NATO, anti-Putin journalists, the investigation into the airline shot down in Ukraine etc.

The fault in the phishing attack on Podesta is that the fake google link used a URL shortening service. Looking into that shortening service gave an opportunity to see who logged into that and reverse engineer all the other shortened URL's used and uncover the network of phishing attacks. This was a minor fault that ended up exposing thousands of hacks that were not uncovered prior to this that appear to be sensitive to Russian national security interests. In fact, there are thousands of hacked targets because the attack casts a wide net and they all narrowly tie to Russian military interests.

Water Dog sees this and both says that it's no evidence of Russia and that this is the case because anyone could false flag this to make it look like it was Russia.

1) That's quite dubious and 2) A false flag attack requires there to be the appearance of guilt which is an admission that there is some evidence if you know what the word evidence means.

This isn't the only piece of evidence that it was Russia. There's actually more that ranging from Russia's relationship with Julian Assange to now exposed conversations between Russian and the Trump camp on "dirt" they were prepared to release on the Clinton camp.

But that alone is quite compelling and notice how Water Dog waves his hands. Then you have the matter of this being the conclusion of US intelligence services. This requires him to dismiss the value of citing US intelligence services entirely, which he does by vaguely referring to situation in which the Bush admin deliberately stovepiped bad intelligence in order to justify war in Iraq.

Fantastic.

Well in all fairness, to WD, he did kinda admit to being dumb.