7 ms·

People are trying so hard to create the false equivalency on this issue, too. Nobody ever did what Trump, Cambridge Analytica (Mercers/Bannon), Russia, Wikileak

People are trying so hard to create the false equivalency on this issue, too. Nobody ever did what Trump, Cambridge Analytica (Mercers/Bannon), Russia, Wikileaks/Assange did in coordination (allegedly, for now).

norikki 9y ago
What does Wikileaks have to do with Cambridge Analytics? (other than both wanting hillary to lose)
rdtsc 9y ago
> Nobody ever did what Trump, Cambridge Analytica (Mercers/Bannon), Russia, Wikileaks/Assange Wait, how did Russia, Assange and Trump coordinate? I keep hearing people talk about it, never seen any clear explanation.
- throwaway5752 9y ago
  Russian hacked the DNC and Podesta. They coordinated on the content and messaging around cherry picked emails with the Trump campaign, and they were released through Wikileaks as an intermediary. The hacking part is me just repeating the assessment of DHS and CIA, per congressional briefings. The coordination is my suspicion based on known interactions with high level Trump campaign surrogates (Trump Jr, Stone) and Assange. The DNC/Podesta hack attribution is Crowdstrike's. https://www.factcheck.org/2018/02/words-trump-russian-meddling/ https://www.factcheck.org/2018/02/words-trump-russian-meddli... might provide you with more of the information you lack.
  - rdtsc 9y ago
    > assessment of DHS and CIA, per congressional briefings. The Is that Comey's hearing? I remember listening to that. He believed that Russians hacked the DNC but he has not seen any evidence of it and he (the FBI) had no access to the servers. He says it comes from believing Crowdstrike. It seems the only solid peace of evidence comes from this one company. Crowdstrike has made up stuff before. In their report about the war in Ukraine they published a made up number about the losses of artillery units. The Ukrainians publicly called them out on it http://www.mil.gov.ua/news/2017/01/06/informacziya-po-vtrati-u-zs-ukraini-80-gaubicz-d-30%E2%80%9D-ne-vidpovidae-dijsnosti/ http://www.mil.gov.ua/news/2017/01/06/informacziya-po-vtrati... and they were forced to update their report https://www.crowdstrike.com/resources/reports/idc-vendor-profile-crowdstrike-2/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/resources/reports/idc-vendor-pro... They put more effort into the zombie soldier from the front page than the content of the report itself. Given the thousands and thousand of hours and all the pages and books written on this topic, they'd be a lot more evidence than just the Crowdstrike's report. > they were released through Wikileaks as an intermediary. Assange denies they came from the Russians or a state actor. He could be lying, Hillary certainly wanted to "drone that guy". But as an organization, if he was speaking on behalf of Wikileaks, they have been pretty factual. They obviously pick what they report on but once they say something I have not seen them blatantly lying. > https://www.factcheck.org/2018/02/words-trump-russian-meddling/ https://www.factcheck.org/2018/02/words-trump-russian-meddli... Thanks for the link! The first part is saw is point out how Trump is contradicting himself. There is a whole sub-reddit (trump vs trump I think) and is basically just that. He is saying contradictory thing about anything, I don't see that as proof of collusion. The timeline re-iterates that the evidence came from Crowdstrike. I'd hope there'd be more evidence than that. Maybe let DHS should take a look those machines. They should be able to find someone interested enough to investigate that. Wonder why they didn't / won't do it I see what you mean by Trump Jr. coordinating with Assange on tweeting a about emails and how Assange wanted Jr to "leak" a tax report from Trump. Yeah that does look shady, agreed. One thing I still don't see is Russians colluding with Trump compared to the volume of news and articles convinced of it: "he looked at him at the G20 summit", "he congratulated him on a bogus election", "he acts like he is subservient to him", "they have a piss tape". Those are fun to listen to and pretty effective, certainly keep people clicking and retweeting, but there needs to be something more solid there I think.
    - throwaway5752 9y ago
      Not Comey's hearing, no. There are other hearings that you can search for by copying and pasting what I wrote verbatim into Google to find. If you disagree with Crowdstrike's methodologies, then by all means let's get specific. They were the principle investigators on the case. They are well regarded. I didn't read the Ukraine link you provided because 1. I have no idea if the team was even the same and 2. it's likely they've been wrong once before, so it's immaterial. I literally don't understand the words you wrote about Wikileaks. Yes, I don't believe Assange. I don't get your reaction to the link. You think they colluded, but think it's overcovered in the media? You want DHS to investigate the DNC hack 2 years after the fact? Who ever mentioned Reddit? Donald Trump is a liar so he is not guilty of collusion? You seem intent on minimizing this to the point of being gratuitously contrary. Thank you for the discussion.
      - rdtsc 9y ago
        > I didn't read the Ukraine link you provided because 1. I have no idea if the team was even the same and 2. it's likely they've been wrong once before, so it's immaterial. Just pointing out the same company had made pretty large factual errors in their report were even the people on the side they supported had to publicly refute them. Not only that but the founder of Crowdstrike might be a bit biased. He is a member of the Atlantic Council http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/about/experts/list/dmitri-alperovitch http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/about/experts/list/dmitri-alp... which traditionally is critical of Russia. That's fine, it's good thing they are but it introduces a conflict of interest. Moreover he is a donor to the Clinton Foundation to the tune of $10M. Again nothing wrong with that per se. He is free to donate, but that also is a conflict of interest. And had this been a forgotten memo or a minor incident, that's fine, but it seems a whole lot of articles, reporting, twitter messages, TV time and hearings were based on just the finding of this one company. > I literally don't understand the words you wrote about Wikileaks. Yes, I don't believe Assange. Sorry for being confusing. I mean to say Wikileaks have been pretty factual. They pick their stories based on their political bias or most media impact but once they say something, I have not seem them blatantly lie before. So when he said "these did not come from Russia or a another state actor" I'd have to see more evidence to say "clearly he is lying" > I don't get your reaction to the link. Again for for confusion. I thanked you for the link. I wasn't being facetious. I learned something new about Assange nagging on Trump Jr to leak tax documents and asking them to mention more of leaked emails. > You want DHS to investigate the DNC hack 2 years after the fact? I want to see more solid claims behind a year+ of wasted propaganda effort. There has to be something more credible there. > Who ever mentioned Reddit? I did. Because the first part of the article was talking how Trump contradicts himself. Yeah he contradicts himself. It looks like trolling to me and everyone is taking the bait so he knows how to waste everyone's time and get them to talk about his spelling mistakes and contradictions. I don't see how that is proof of collusion between him and Russia. > Donald Trump is a liar so he is not guilty of collusion? I say he is liar and a troll based on what I have seen. Haven't decided if he does it consciously and deliberately or it is just his personalty and he just says whatever he feels currently without thinking to match with anything he said in the past. > You seem intent on minimizing this to the point of being gratuitously contrary. Thank you for the discussion. Nah just trying to get to the bottom of things. I find this focus on Russia collusion pretty interesting. I've been talking about media and how PR works for a while. Personally I think it is disappointing to see this much effort wasted, because that time, energy could have been spent on something else.
- MaysonL 9y ago
  Don't you remember Trump telling the Russians or Wikileake to release some more stolen emails? The rest of the connection is not yet public, although there are lots and lots of connect-the-dots conclusions to be drawn.
  - rdtsc 9y ago
    > Trump telling the Russians or Wikileake to release some more stolen emails? That was on public TV with reporters around. I remember that, pretty sure it was a joke. Is that the only evidence of Russian collusion? To go back, it all started with Russian altering votes. As in, hiding in Wisconsin, in the bushes with laptops, giving Trump extra votes. We even had recount which both Stein and Clinton supported. People were donating towards it and everything. Then it went Putin and Trump are exchanging secret hand gestures at G20. Then some Trump people were in the same hotel at some meeting at Putin people, so that was considered "collusion". Then it was the piss "dossier". I still don't see solid evidence of collusion vis-a-vis the amount of time and energy devoted to talking about. Many articles today even start with "Given that Trump colluded with Russia...". So used as an established fact and I think it is far from it.

norikki 9y ago

What does Wikileaks have to do with Cambridge Analytics? (other than both wanting hillary to lose)

rdtsc 9y ago

> Nobody ever did what Trump, Cambridge Analytica (Mercers/Bannon), Russia, Wikileaks/Assange Wait, how did Russia, Assange and Trump coordinate? I keep hearing people talk about it, never seen any clear explanation.

throwaway5752 9y ago
Russian hacked the DNC and Podesta. They coordinated on the content and messaging around cherry picked emails with the Trump campaign, and they were released through Wikileaks as an intermediary. The hacking part is me just repeating the assessment of DHS and CIA, per congressional briefings. The coordination is my suspicion based on known interactions with high level Trump campaign surrogates (Trump Jr, Stone) and Assange. The DNC/Podesta hack attribution is Crowdstrike's. https://www.factcheck.org/2018/02/words-trump-russian-meddling/ https://www.factcheck.org/2018/02/words-trump-russian-meddli... might provide you with more of the information you lack.
- rdtsc 9y ago
  > assessment of DHS and CIA, per congressional briefings. The Is that Comey's hearing? I remember listening to that. He believed that Russians hacked the DNC but he has not seen any evidence of it and he (the FBI) had no access to the servers. He says it comes from believing Crowdstrike. It seems the only solid peace of evidence comes from this one company. Crowdstrike has made up stuff before. In their report about the war in Ukraine they published a made up number about the losses of artillery units. The Ukrainians publicly called them out on it http://www.mil.gov.ua/news/2017/01/06/informacziya-po-vtrati-u-zs-ukraini-80-gaubicz-d-30%E2%80%9D-ne-vidpovidae-dijsnosti/ http://www.mil.gov.ua/news/2017/01/06/informacziya-po-vtrati... and they were forced to update their report https://www.crowdstrike.com/resources/reports/idc-vendor-profile-crowdstrike-2/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/resources/reports/idc-vendor-pro... They put more effort into the zombie soldier from the front page than the content of the report itself. Given the thousands and thousand of hours and all the pages and books written on this topic, they'd be a lot more evidence than just the Crowdstrike's report. > they were released through Wikileaks as an intermediary. Assange denies they came from the Russians or a state actor. He could be lying, Hillary certainly wanted to "drone that guy". But as an organization, if he was speaking on behalf of Wikileaks, they have been pretty factual. They obviously pick what they report on but once they say something I have not seen them blatantly lying. > https://www.factcheck.org/2018/02/words-trump-russian-meddling/ https://www.factcheck.org/2018/02/words-trump-russian-meddli... Thanks for the link! The first part is saw is point out how Trump is contradicting himself. There is a whole sub-reddit (trump vs trump I think) and is basically just that. He is saying contradictory thing about anything, I don't see that as proof of collusion. The timeline re-iterates that the evidence came from Crowdstrike. I'd hope there'd be more evidence than that. Maybe let DHS should take a look those machines. They should be able to find someone interested enough to investigate that. Wonder why they didn't / won't do it I see what you mean by Trump Jr. coordinating with Assange on tweeting a about emails and how Assange wanted Jr to "leak" a tax report from Trump. Yeah that does look shady, agreed. One thing I still don't see is Russians colluding with Trump compared to the volume of news and articles convinced of it: "he looked at him at the G20 summit", "he congratulated him on a bogus election", "he acts like he is subservient to him", "they have a piss tape". Those are fun to listen to and pretty effective, certainly keep people clicking and retweeting, but there needs to be something more solid there I think.
  - throwaway5752 9y ago
    Not Comey's hearing, no. There are other hearings that you can search for by copying and pasting what I wrote verbatim into Google to find. If you disagree with Crowdstrike's methodologies, then by all means let's get specific. They were the principle investigators on the case. They are well regarded. I didn't read the Ukraine link you provided because 1. I have no idea if the team was even the same and 2. it's likely they've been wrong once before, so it's immaterial. I literally don't understand the words you wrote about Wikileaks. Yes, I don't believe Assange. I don't get your reaction to the link. You think they colluded, but think it's overcovered in the media? You want DHS to investigate the DNC hack 2 years after the fact? Who ever mentioned Reddit? Donald Trump is a liar so he is not guilty of collusion? You seem intent on minimizing this to the point of being gratuitously contrary. Thank you for the discussion.
    - rdtsc 9y ago
      > I didn't read the Ukraine link you provided because 1. I have no idea if the team was even the same and 2. it's likely they've been wrong once before, so it's immaterial. Just pointing out the same company had made pretty large factual errors in their report were even the people on the side they supported had to publicly refute them. Not only that but the founder of Crowdstrike might be a bit biased. He is a member of the Atlantic Council http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/about/experts/list/dmitri-alperovitch http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/about/experts/list/dmitri-alp... which traditionally is critical of Russia. That's fine, it's good thing they are but it introduces a conflict of interest. Moreover he is a donor to the Clinton Foundation to the tune of $10M. Again nothing wrong with that per se. He is free to donate, but that also is a conflict of interest. And had this been a forgotten memo or a minor incident, that's fine, but it seems a whole lot of articles, reporting, twitter messages, TV time and hearings were based on just the finding of this one company. > I literally don't understand the words you wrote about Wikileaks. Yes, I don't believe Assange. Sorry for being confusing. I mean to say Wikileaks have been pretty factual. They pick their stories based on their political bias or most media impact but once they say something, I have not seem them blatantly lie before. So when he said "these did not come from Russia or a another state actor" I'd have to see more evidence to say "clearly he is lying" > I don't get your reaction to the link. Again for for confusion. I thanked you for the link. I wasn't being facetious. I learned something new about Assange nagging on Trump Jr to leak tax documents and asking them to mention more of leaked emails. > You want DHS to investigate the DNC hack 2 years after the fact? I want to see more solid claims behind a year+ of wasted propaganda effort. There has to be something more credible there. > Who ever mentioned Reddit? I did. Because the first part of the article was talking how Trump contradicts himself. Yeah he contradicts himself. It looks like trolling to me and everyone is taking the bait so he knows how to waste everyone's time and get them to talk about his spelling mistakes and contradictions. I don't see how that is proof of collusion between him and Russia. > Donald Trump is a liar so he is not guilty of collusion? I say he is liar and a troll based on what I have seen. Haven't decided if he does it consciously and deliberately or it is just his personalty and he just says whatever he feels currently without thinking to match with anything he said in the past. > You seem intent on minimizing this to the point of being gratuitously contrary. Thank you for the discussion. Nah just trying to get to the bottom of things. I find this focus on Russia collusion pretty interesting. I've been talking about media and how PR works for a while. Personally I think it is disappointing to see this much effort wasted, because that time, energy could have been spent on something else.
MaysonL 9y ago
Don't you remember Trump telling the Russians or Wikileake to release some more stolen emails? The rest of the connection is not yet public, although there are lots and lots of connect-the-dots conclusions to be drawn.
- rdtsc 9y ago
  > Trump telling the Russians or Wikileake to release some more stolen emails? That was on public TV with reporters around. I remember that, pretty sure it was a joke. Is that the only evidence of Russian collusion? To go back, it all started with Russian altering votes. As in, hiding in Wisconsin, in the bushes with laptops, giving Trump extra votes. We even had recount which both Stein and Clinton supported. People were donating towards it and everything. Then it went Putin and Trump are exchanging secret hand gestures at G20. Then some Trump people were in the same hotel at some meeting at Putin people, so that was considered "collusion". Then it was the piss "dossier". I still don't see solid evidence of collusion vis-a-vis the amount of time and energy devoted to talking about. Many articles today even start with "Given that Trump colluded with Russia...". So used as an established fact and I think it is far from it.