Xenophon wrote:[...] there is investigative evidence connecting the GRU as Guccifer 2.0/DCLeaks[...]
There have been quite a few private sector cyber security firms that have conducted their own analysis/investigations as well.
I have only read three (and understood even less), but this one from ThreatConnect goes a step further and provides some pro/con analysis for Guccifer 2.0 identity theories, and ultimately settles on likelihood that it is/was part of a Russian "D&D" (denial and deception) campaign.
"Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead." ~Charles Bukowski
Exiled wrote:The presumption about Assange must have been working for the Russians is the real question. Was he or wasn't he? This is the heart of the Russiagate narrative. This is why it is crucial to hear what Assange has to say about it. He denies it and says he has proof his sources weren't a foreign government, meaning not the Russians. How about we test this prior to heading straight to a conclusion that supports a one-sided narrative? Maybe he is a Russian agent, but the lack of wanting to question him about this very important topic and just assuming he is a Russian agent, merely to support the narrative, is highly suspect. It's malpractice. What is there to be afraid of?
We already know he was working with the GRU. Don't fret, he will be questioned. Thoroughly.
Ok, I'll bite. Exactly how do you know that Assange was working with the GRU?
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen
Considering the actual information Assange disclosed back in 2016, has any of it been shown to not be factual? If so, what? I know this is probably a small point because the messenger was supposedly Russia, but, if Russia had good evidence to show that Trump molested underage girls with his pal Epstein, would people here refuse to look at it and instead focus on the messenger?
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen
Exiled wrote:has any of it been shown to not be factual?
If you mean the emails, I suppose one could say all WikiLeaks did was release emails. Now, you may honestly believe that Podesta was invited to a dinner to worship Satan or that Hillary was advocating for telling the public one thing and then doing the exact opposite. But if so one has to ask if that's because you read the emails?
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
Exiled wrote:has any of it been shown to not be factual?
If you mean the emails, I suppose one could say all WikiLeaks did was release emails. Now, you may honestly believe that Podesta was invited to a dinner to worship Satan or that Hillary was advocating for telling the public one thing and then doing the exact opposite. But if so one has to ask if that's because you read the emails?
I read about the pied piper strategy that backfired:
Of course this was drown out by Russia did it claims because a highly unpopular candidate should have beaten Trump ....
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen
Exiled wrote:a highly unpopular candidate should have beaten Trump
You are, perhaps, referring to Clinton as "highly unpopular". If that is the case, surely it does not square very well with the fact that she won three million more of the popular votes than Trump did?
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Of course this was drown out by Russia did it claims because a highly unpopular candidate should have beaten Trump ....
I'll bite, in what specific ways did Clinton or the DNC actually "facilitate" Trump wining the Republican primary?
I get that Salon was deeply offended that Sanders didn't win the pimary but what that memo outlines is not exactly a new or different strategy on either side of the spectrum. The DNC/Clinton campaign assumed they would be able to use the extremism of Trump against him and in many ways they did (aside: the DNC and 2020 hopefuls are still using Trump's extremism against him where they can).
"If you consider what are called the virtues in mankind, you will find their growth is assisted by education and cultivation." -Xenophon of Athens
Exiled wrote:a highly unpopular candidate should have beaten Trump
You are, perhaps, referring to Clinton as "highly unpopular". If that is the case, surely it does not square very well with the fact that she won three million more of the popular votes than Trump did?
Yes, even so, she lost to Trump. Do you believe she is popular? Polls say otherwise. Trump is also unpopular, very much so. But, sadly, I guess he wasn't as unpopular in the key states where Clinton should have been campaigning. The election is governed by the electoral college and winning the popular vote doesn't always win where it counts.
Also, turnout was at a 20 year low. It was a battle of two unpopular candidates and so just because Clinton won more of the popular vote against the blowhard, narcissist Trump doesn't mean people like her. 3 million more held their noses and voted for her rather than Trump.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen
Of course this was drown out by Russia did it claims because a highly unpopular candidate should have beaten Trump ....
I'll bite, in what specific ways did Clinton or the DNC actually "facilitate" Trump wining the Republican primary?
I get that Salon was deeply offended that Sanders didn't win the pimary but what that memo outlines is not exactly a new or different strategy on either side of the spectrum. The DNC/Clinton campaign assumed they would be able to use the extremism of Trump against him and in many ways they did (aside: the DNC and 2020 hopefuls are still using Trump's extremism against him where they can).
You forget how the media colluded with Clinton to beat Sanders. CNN funneled debate questions to Clinton. Wolf Blitzer spoke of the superdelegates non-stop when Sanders looked like he might overtake Clinton at the end. Wolf even went as far as talking about superdelegates and how Clinton was a shoe-in, during the California primary, while people were still voting. Also, CNN and NBC/MSNBC gave Trump an inordinate amount of free coverage, to ensure Trump would be the supposed sacrificial lamb so Clinton could win. Sometimes whole segments about the Republican primaries would have a Trump podium in the background. I think DNC/Clinton insiders thought Trump would be the easiest to defeat and I think that calculation was probably the correct one, as shown in the pied piper memo. It was a close election and the unpopular Clinton lost to an unpopular reality TV show personality. I think she was probably the only one who could have lost to Trump.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen