Obama Admin under pressure to provide "hacking" proof

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Foreign governments attempt to hack our government all the time which makes Hilary's private server scheme all the more laughable and scary. There are also claims that the DNC hacks were an inside job. Obama needs to provide proof on serious allegations against a foreign government like election tampering.

True. In light of the Democrats claiming Russian hacking is such a huge threat to America, how is that consistent with the conclusion that HRC was NOT criminally negligent?

And back to the deflections.

I'm going to guess that Obama didn't start talking publicly about this until the intelligence was irrefutable. Now whether we get to see the evidence is another thing.

How can such evidence be withheld?

There is no evidence. Read the disclaimer at the beginning of the report, top of the first page. It specifically states that there are no warranties provided as to any of the content of the report. They are basically telling you upfront that they are providing you with unreliable "information" which no one should use as the basis of any actions or conclusions about anything. Obama is actually daring us to be stupid enough to believe that the report means whatever we want it to mean.

No, that's a standard DHS disclaimer on all its reports. It doesn't mean what you think it does. By "warranties" it means that you can't sue DHS for what they say. Likely they are more concerned about libel/defamation/tort claims wrt specific software etc they mention in their reports.

Still wondering why anyone believes that the public should be privy to every piece of evidence in what is no doubt a highly sensitive and top secret investigation?

LOL. I think it means exactly what it says. You're foolish or self-deluded if you choose to disregard those words.

So since it appears on everything DHS puts out, we can't actually believe anything from them. Including the DHS reports on terrorism and immigration.

If what they put out is unsourced and not independently verifiable, then yes--it means exactly what it says--it's completely unreliable.

and the black helicopters are coming for you.

once again -- this is a disclaimer that this particular type of report, which makes cybersecurity recommendations, puts out with respect to those recommendations. It means "you can't sue us if you still get hacked" and "we are not endorsing any products we mention here." If you are a cybersecurity expert looking for technical advice -- sure, that should be something on your radar. But it says nothing at all about the underlying facts -- the conclusion that the Russians hacked the election.

LOL. Nowhere in the report does it conclude that "the Russians hacked the election." Prove me wrong by cut and pasting that quote. You're completely delusional. That's why jsteele concluded the report contains no useful information.

It's because the report, perhaps prudently, is limited to what they could say: that the political parties were intruded on by Russians. The impacts (the chronology of the releases, the impact on the elections) is the domain of historians and political scientists, not data/cyber security specialists.

No. Wrong again. The report refers to the intrusion on a singlular "party," not "parties."

Even given the scarcity of useful information in this report, at least you could try to quote what's actually in it correctly rather than deliberately lying about what's in the content.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Foreign governments attempt to hack our government all the time which makes Hilary's private server scheme all the more laughable and scary. There are also claims that the DNC hacks were an inside job. Obama needs to provide proof on serious allegations against a foreign government like election tampering.

True. In light of the Democrats claiming Russian hacking is such a huge threat to America, how is that consistent with the conclusion that HRC was NOT criminally negligent?

And back to the deflections.

I'm going to guess that Obama didn't start talking publicly about this until the intelligence was irrefutable. Now whether we get to see the evidence is another thing.

How can such evidence be withheld?

There is no evidence. Read the disclaimer at the beginning of the report, top of the first page. It specifically states that there are no warranties provided as to any of the content of the report. They are basically telling you upfront that they are providing you with unreliable "information" which no one should use as the basis of any actions or conclusions about anything. Obama is actually daring us to be stupid enough to believe that the report means whatever we want it to mean.

No, that's a standard DHS disclaimer on all its reports. It doesn't mean what you think it does. By "warranties" it means that you can't sue DHS for what they say. Likely they are more concerned about libel/defamation/tort claims wrt specific software etc they mention in their reports.

Still wondering why anyone believes that the public should be privy to every piece of evidence in what is no doubt a highly sensitive and top secret investigation?

LOL. I think it means exactly what it says. You're foolish or self-deluded if you choose to disregard those words.

So since it appears on everything DHS puts out, we can't actually believe anything from them. Including the DHS reports on terrorism and immigration.

If what they put out is unsourced and not independently verifiable, then yes--it means exactly what it says--it's completely unreliable.

and the black helicopters are coming for you.

once again -- this is a disclaimer that this particular type of report, which makes cybersecurity recommendations, puts out with respect to those recommendations. It means "you can't sue us if you still get hacked" and "we are not endorsing any products we mention here." If you are a cybersecurity expert looking for technical advice -- sure, that should be something on your radar. But it says nothing at all about the underlying facts -- the conclusion that the Russians hacked the election.

LOL. Nowhere in the report does it conclude that "the Russians hacked the election." Prove me wrong by cut and pasting that quote. You're completely delusional. That's why jsteele concluded the report contains no useful information.

It's because the report, perhaps prudently, is limited to what they could say: that the political parties were intruded on by Russians. The impacts (the chronology of the releases, the impact on the elections) is the domain of historians and political scientists, not data/cyber security specialists.

No. Wrong again. The report refers to the intrusion on a singlular "party," not "parties."

Even given the scarcity of useful information in this report, at least you could try to quote what's actually in it correctly rather than deliberately lying about what's in the content.

Chill Matlock. It was a typo.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

jsteele wrote:Here is the joint report that details the Russian hacking:

https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296.pdf

Now that I've read the report, it is completely useless and provides no information of value. The report urges network administrators to check their logs for certain IP addresses, but then doesn't provide any addresses. The report is basically a fancy graphic and a list of best practices. It does nothing to confirm the hackers were Russian.

Jeff, it says "The U.S. Government confirms that two different RIS actors participated in the intrusion into a
U.S. political party." What else do you really expect it to say? I supposed you can just decide you don't believe it, but what's your standard for believing these sorts of documents?

I worked for eight years in a government institution where my duties included investigating hacks. I would expect a report of the type that I used to prepare. This would include a more detailed explanation of the initial exploit, details about the software that was infiltrated, how that software was used to obtain emails and exfiltrate them, information showing who controlled the software involved in the hack and how those individuals are linked to the Russian government. I have not forgotten George Tenet saying that the intelligence linking Saddam Hussein to WMDs was a "slam dunk". I'm not willing to take unsupported assertions from the US intelligence community.

The story that the hack was an inside job is being promoted and one way to counter that story is to clearly demonstrate that it was an outside job. A fancy graphic is not convincing.

Fair enough, although I personally think the fact that the Russians hacked the election (on any side, or no side at all) to be enough for grave concern, especially since it did seem to impact the election, no matter the intent.

The information released is not sufficient to establish that as fact.

Did you see the full package of indicators? https://www.us-cert.gov/security-publications/GRIZZLY-STEPPE-Russian-Malicious-Cyber-Activity

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

jsteele wrote:Here is the joint report that details the Russian hacking:

https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296.pdf

Now that I've read the report, it is completely useless and provides no information of value. The report urges network administrators to check their logs for certain IP addresses, but then doesn't provide any addresses. The report is basically a fancy graphic and a list of best practices. It does nothing to confirm the hackers were Russian.

Jeff, it says "The U.S. Government confirms that two different RIS actors participated in the intrusion into a
U.S. political party." What else do you really expect it to say? I supposed you can just decide you don't believe it, but what's your standard for believing these sorts of documents?

I worked for eight years in a government institution where my duties included investigating hacks. I would expect a report of the type that I used to prepare. This would include a more detailed explanation of the initial exploit, details about the software that was infiltrated, how that software was used to obtain emails and exfiltrate them, information showing who controlled the software involved in the hack and how those individuals are linked to the Russian government. I have not forgotten George Tenet saying that the intelligence linking Saddam Hussein to WMDs was a "slam dunk". I'm not willing to take unsupported assertions from the US intelligence community.

The story that the hack was an inside job is being promoted and one way to counter that story is to clearly demonstrate that it was an outside job. A fancy graphic is not convincing.

Fair enough, although I personally think the fact that the Russians hacked the election (on any side, or no side at all) to be enough for grave concern, especially since it did seem to impact the election, no matter the intent.

The information released is not sufficient to establish that as fact.

Did you see the full package of indicators? https://www.us-cert.gov/security-publications/GRIZZLY-STEPPE-Russian-Malicious-Cyber-Activity

Yes, did you? That would be useful for checking your own systems, but proves nothing.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Regarding the disclaimer, that is really not worth arguing about. It is standard boiler plate and simply meant as CYA incase you configure your IDSs with their rules and blow it up.

OK, putting the disclaimer aside as you suggest, then that means we need to take the content, such as it is, at face value; and unless additional info is presented via a subsequent supplemental release, that all the relevant info is contained in what we've been given.

There's nothing in there about hacking multiple political parties, just one. There's nothing in there about hacking the election or even any assertion that the hack of the political party in any way influenced the election. There's nothing in there attributing a motive to the Russians to influence the election by hacking a political party. There's nothing in there attributing a specific motive of aiding Trump to win the election. Nothing at all, and it's not even close.

And it's because this hacking wasn't specifically targeted at the election or the political parties. This was a mass spearfishing, probably of the type that goes on all the time and we are never told about. And out of 1,000 hacking targets, or spearfishing targets, it sounds like maybe less than a dozen or about one percent were foolish enough to fall victim to it.

Nothing in the report supports the Obama administration and HRC propaganda campaign against Trump w/r/t to the Russian hacking allegations.

Yet, you have posters in this thread deliberately making up "quotes" from the report that simply aren't there. The left is completely off the charts delusional. If and when we get any more info from DHS it'll be time to re-evaluate, but for now.....Dems, give it up already.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Regarding the disclaimer, that is really not worth arguing about. It is standard boiler plate and simply meant as CYA incase you configure your IDSs with their rules and blow it up.

OK, putting the disclaimer aside as you suggest, then that means we need to take the content, such as it is, at face value; and unless additional info is presented via a subsequent supplemental release, that all the relevant info is contained in what we've been given.

There's nothing in there about hacking multiple political parties, just one. There's nothing in there about hacking the election or even any assertion that the hack of the political party in any way influenced the election. There's nothing in there attributing a motive to the Russians to influence the election by hacking a political party. There's nothing in there attributing a specific motive of aiding Trump to win the election. Nothing at all, and it's not even close.

And it's because this hacking wasn't specifically targeted at the election or the political parties. This was a mass spearfishing, probably of the type that goes on all the time and we are never told about. And out of 1,000 hacking targets, or spearfishing targets, it sounds like maybe less than a dozen or about one percent were foolish enough to fall victim to it.

Nothing in the report supports the Obama administration and HRC propaganda campaign against Trump w/r/t to the Russian hacking allegations.

Yet, you have posters in this thread deliberately making up "quotes" from the report that simply aren't there. The left is completely off the charts delusional. If and when we get any more info from DHS it'll be time to re-evaluate, but for now.....Dems, give it up already.

I am part of "the left" so unless you are saying that I am delusional -- you certainly wouldn't be the first -- the left is not completely delusional. The report neither confirms nor refutes that the Russians were behind the hack. There is simply not enough information to know either way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Regarding the disclaimer, that is really not worth arguing about. It is standard boiler plate and simply meant as CYA incase you configure your IDSs with their rules and blow it up.

OK, putting the disclaimer aside as you suggest, then that means we need to take the content, such as it is, at face value; and unless additional info is presented via a subsequent supplemental release, that all the relevant info is contained in what we've been given.

There's nothing in there about hacking multiple political parties, just one. There's nothing in there about hacking the election or even any assertion that the hack of the political party in any way influenced the election. There's nothing in there attributing a motive to the Russians to influence the election by hacking a political party. There's nothing in there attributing a specific motive of aiding Trump to win the election. Nothing at all, and it's not even close.

And it's because this hacking wasn't specifically targeted at the election or the political parties. This was a mass spearfishing, probably of the type that goes on all the time and we are never told about. And out of 1,000 hacking targets, or spearfishing targets, it sounds like maybe less than a dozen or about one percent were foolish enough to fall victim to it.

Nothing in the report supports the Obama administration and HRC propaganda campaign against Trump w/r/t to the Russian hacking allegations.

Yet, you have posters in this thread deliberately making up "quotes" from the report that simply aren't there. The left is completely off the charts delusional. If and when we get any more info from DHS it'll be time to re-evaluate, but for now.....Dems, give it up already.

Correct. The jurisidiction of these guys is to say "the hacking happened." It's other people and disciplines who will either find intent, or discern intent. These guys are the cybersecurity guys. And, the hacking and leaks could impact the election -- regardless of any specific intent. That's a grave concern regardless.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Regarding the disclaimer, that is really not worth arguing about. It is standard boiler plate and simply meant as CYA incase you configure your IDSs with their rules and blow it up.

OK, putting the disclaimer aside as you suggest, then that means we need to take the content, such as it is, at face value; and unless additional info is presented via a subsequent supplemental release, that all the relevant info is contained in what we've been given.

There's nothing in there about hacking multiple political parties, just one. There's nothing in there about hacking the election or even any assertion that the hack of the political party in any way influenced the election. There's nothing in there attributing a motive to the Russians to influence the election by hacking a political party. There's nothing in there attributing a specific motive of aiding Trump to win the election. Nothing at all, and it's not even close.

And it's because this hacking wasn't specifically targeted at the election or the political parties. This was a mass spearfishing, probably of the type that goes on all the time and we are never told about. And out of 1,000 hacking targets, or spearfishing targets, it sounds like maybe less than a dozen or about one percent were foolish enough to fall victim to it.

Nothing in the report supports the Obama administration and HRC propaganda campaign against Trump w/r/t to the Russian hacking allegations.

Yet, you have posters in this thread deliberately making up "quotes" from the report that simply aren't there. The left is completely off the charts delusional. If and when we get any more info from DHS it'll be time to re-evaluate, but for now.....Dems, give it up already.

I am part of "the left" so unless you are saying that I am delusional -- you certainly wouldn't be the first -- the left is not completely delusional. The report neither confirms nor refutes that the Russians were behind the hack. There is simply not enough information to know either way.

Well to clarify: this report does state clearly that the Russians did it. You, Jeff, don't believe that. (Which is fine, totally respect your point of view.)

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Regarding the disclaimer, that is really not worth arguing about. It is standard boiler plate and simply meant as CYA incase you configure your IDSs with their rules and blow it up.

OK, putting the disclaimer aside as you suggest, then that means we need to take the content, such as it is, at face value; and unless additional info is presented via a subsequent supplemental release, that all the relevant info is contained in what we've been given.

There's nothing in there about hacking multiple political parties, just one. There's nothing in there about hacking the election or even any assertion that the hack of the political party in any way influenced the election. There's nothing in there attributing a motive to the Russians to influence the election by hacking a political party. There's nothing in there attributing a specific motive of aiding Trump to win the election. Nothing at all, and it's not even close.

And it's because this hacking wasn't specifically targeted at the election or the political parties. This was a mass spearfishing, probably of the type that goes on all the time and we are never told about. And out of 1,000 hacking targets, or spearfishing targets, it sounds like maybe less than a dozen or about one percent were foolish enough to fall victim to it.

Nothing in the report supports the Obama administration and HRC propaganda campaign against Trump w/r/t to the Russian hacking allegations.

Yet, you have posters in this thread deliberately making up "quotes" from the report that simply aren't there. The left is completely off the charts delusional. If and when we get any more info from DHS it'll be time to re-evaluate, but for now.....Dems, give it up already.

I am part of "the left" so unless you are saying that I am delusional -- you certainly wouldn't be the first -- the left is not completely delusional. The report neither confirms nor refutes that the Russians were behind the hack. There is simply not enough information to know either way.

Nope. You're in the field yourself, or were, and you as much stated as the report is so deficient to be worthless. You can't backtrack from that just because it doesn't agree with what you'd hoped it would have said based on your pre-conceived political notions.

No proof of Russian hacking of the election with the intent to aid proof means exactly that: No proof. It's not incumbent on Trump or his supporters to prove that the allegation is false when there is absolutely no evidence presented, at all, to support even making it. This report doesn't even use words like "we suspect that..." There is NO MENTION of it. At all. And you just got done saying we need to ignore the disclaimer. Consider it ignore.

You're beaten, jsteele. Admit defeat and give it up. You were wrong, you and the left were easily played by the Obama administration because of your severe leftward cognitive bias.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Regarding the disclaimer, that is really not worth arguing about. It is standard boiler plate and simply meant as CYA incase you configure your IDSs with their rules and blow it up.

OK, putting the disclaimer aside as you suggest, then that means we need to take the content, such as it is, at face value; and unless additional info is presented via a subsequent supplemental release, that all the relevant info is contained in what we've been given.

There's nothing in there about hacking multiple political parties, just one. There's nothing in there about hacking the election or even any assertion that the hack of the political party in any way influenced the election. There's nothing in there attributing a motive to the Russians to influence the election by hacking a political party. There's nothing in there attributing a specific motive of aiding Trump to win the election. Nothing at all, and it's not even close.

And it's because this hacking wasn't specifically targeted at the election or the political parties. This was a mass spearfishing, probably of the type that goes on all the time and we are never told about. And out of 1,000 hacking targets, or spearfishing targets, it sounds like maybe less than a dozen or about one percent were foolish enough to fall victim to it.

Nothing in the report supports the Obama administration and HRC propaganda campaign against Trump w/r/t to the Russian hacking allegations.

Yet, you have posters in this thread deliberately making up "quotes" from the report that simply aren't there. The left is completely off the charts delusional. If and when we get any more info from DHS it'll be time to re-evaluate, but for now.....Dems, give it up already.

I am part of "the left" so unless you are saying that I am delusional -- you certainly wouldn't be the first -- the left is not completely delusional. The report neither confirms nor refutes that the Russians were behind the hack. There is simply not enough information to know either way.

Well to clarify: this report does state clearly that the Russians did it. You, Jeff, don't believe that. (Which is fine, totally respect your point of view.)

The report states that the Russians spearfished about 1000 targets, only a few of which fell for the scam, one of which was "a political party." It doesn't say DNC but that's what I'm guessing based on what we know independent of this report.

There is no use of the word "election" anywhere in the report. There is no contention or even suspicion noted that the Russians "hacked the election," "intended to hack the election," had any "effect on the outcome of the election," nor that the motive in doing so was to aid a particular candidate.

This report is a complete repudiation of those aspects of the left's, and the Obama administration's, false claims to the contrary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The administration up until now has provided little documentation to back up its official October assessment that the Russian government was attempting to interfere in the U.S. election.

Nor has it corroborated subsequent leaks from anonymous officials contending that the CIA believes the campaign was an attempt by Russian President Vladimir Putin to ensure Donald Trump’s victory."

This is bullshit, and repeating it over and over again does not make it any more true.

You can see the evidence yourself. It has been publicized by three private companies that investigated the DNC hack.

The quote is from the link provided. If you think The Hill is lying perhaps you should read the article and provide the proof to them so they can see it.

What firms are you citing? do you have links you can post here?

I have posted the same information no fewer than five times on DCUM. This is easily obtainable information. Just google "how we know it was the russians".

But the burden of absolute proof is on our gov/Obama admin.

There is no such thing as a "burden of absolute proof". Honestly, is the DCUM community dumber than it used to be?

Since the Trumpkins/bots/Russian trolls started posting, absolutely yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama: "You wanna mess with our elections? OK, how about this ...." Boom. Expels 35 Russian diplomats from the US, shuts down 2 Russian compounds in the US, and specifically names Russian operatives and groups that are involved in cyberattacks.

Trump: "Let's just all get on with our lives."

C'mon Donnie, I thought you were a tough guy. Someone punches you, and you say "let's just all get along" ?!?!? You're about to be the man of the house in just 20 days; show some sack for chrissake.

How does expulsion of Russian diplomats, closing down 2 Russian compounds, etc., serve U.S. interests? It doesn't. It's another end of presidency temper tantrum by Obama, posturing at "acting tough," but accomplishing nothing in terms of advancing U.S. national interests.

I agree with this. His and HRC's legacy with Russia is a failure. Perhaps if Obama has listened to Romney it wouldn't be an issue

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The administration up until now has provided little documentation to back up its official October assessment that the Russian government was attempting to interfere in the U.S. election.

Nor has it corroborated subsequent leaks from anonymous officials contending that the CIA believes the campaign was an attempt by Russian President Vladimir Putin to ensure Donald Trump’s victory."

This is bullshit, and repeating it over and over again does not make it any more true.

You can see the evidence yourself. It has been publicized by three private companies that investigated the DNC hack.

The quote is from the link provided. If you think The Hill is lying perhaps you should read the article and provide the proof to them so they can see it.

What firms are you citing? do you have links you can post here?

I have posted the same information no fewer than five times on DCUM. This is easily obtainable information. Just google "how we know it was the russians".

But the burden of absolute proof is on our gov/Obama admin.

There is no such thing as a "burden of absolute proof". Honestly, is the DCUM community dumber than it used to be?

Since the Trumpkins/bots/Russian trolls started posting, absolutely yes.

Since the paid CTR shills and Hilbots have been here..yes it's much dumber

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Regarding the disclaimer, that is really not worth arguing about. It is standard boiler plate and simply meant as CYA incase you configure your IDSs with their rules and blow it up.

OK, putting the disclaimer aside as you suggest, then that means we need to take the content, such as it is, at face value; and unless additional info is presented via a subsequent supplemental release, that all the relevant info is contained in what we've been given.

There's nothing in there about hacking multiple political parties, just one. There's nothing in there about hacking the election or even any assertion that the hack of the political party in any way influenced the election. There's nothing in there attributing a motive to the Russians to influence the election by hacking a political party. There's nothing in there attributing a specific motive of aiding Trump to win the election. Nothing at all, and it's not even close.

And it's because this hacking wasn't specifically targeted at the election or the political parties. This was a mass spearfishing, probably of the type that goes on all the time and we are never told about. And out of 1,000 hacking targets, or spearfishing targets, it sounds like maybe less than a dozen or about one percent were foolish enough to fall victim to it.

Nothing in the report supports the Obama administration and HRC propaganda campaign against Trump w/r/t to the Russian hacking allegations.

Yet, you have posters in this thread deliberately making up "quotes" from the report that simply aren't there. The left is completely off the charts delusional. If and when we get any more info from DHS it'll be time to re-evaluate, but for now.....Dems, give it up already.

I am part of "the left" so unless you are saying that I am delusional -- you certainly wouldn't be the first -- the left is not completely delusional. The report neither confirms nor refutes that the Russians were behind the hack. There is simply not enough information to know either way.

Nope. You're in the field yourself, or were, and you as much stated as the report is so deficient to be worthless. You can't backtrack from that just because it doesn't agree with what you'd hoped it would have said based on your pre-conceived political notions.

No proof of Russian hacking of the election with the intent to aid proof means exactly that: No proof. It's not incumbent on Trump or his supporters to prove that the allegation is false when there is absolutely no evidence presented, at all, to support even making it. This report doesn't even use words like "we suspect that..." There is NO MENTION of it. At all. And you just got done saying we need to ignore the disclaimer. Consider it ignore.

You're beaten, jsteele. Admit defeat and give it up. You were wrong, you and the left were easily played by the Obama administration because of your severe leftward cognitive bias.

Now you are the one acting delusional. A worthless report cannot confirm guilt, but nor can it be used to exculpate. Worthless means it has no use. You are trying to use it for your own purposes (though why you are interested in declaring the Russians interesting is beyond me). This is not a game where one admits defeat or declares victory. This is a discussion about a topic of some interest. The report contains assertions that are not supported with evidence. The lack of evidence does not mean the assertions are false, but it does mean that I am unwilling to accept them at face value.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama: "You wanna mess with our elections? OK, how about this ...." Boom. Expels 35 Russian diplomats from the US, shuts down 2 Russian compounds in the US, and specifically names Russian operatives and groups that are involved in cyberattacks.

Trump: "Let's just all get on with our lives."

C'mon Donnie, I thought you were a tough guy. Someone punches you, and you say "let's just all get along" ?!?!? You're about to be the man of the house in just 20 days; show some sack for chrissake.

How does expulsion of Russian diplomats, closing down 2 Russian compounds, etc., serve U.S. interests? It doesn't. It's another end of presidency temper tantrum by Obama, posturing at "acting tough," but accomplishing nothing in terms of advancing U.S. national interests.

I agree with this. His and HRC's legacy with Russia is a failure. Perhaps if Obama has listened to Romney it wouldn't be an issue

It seems about half of the Obama critics think Romney was correct about Russia being a threat and half thinks the Russians were perfectly interest and not a threat at all. Can you all get on the same page before I sprain my neck watching the ping pong ball go back and forth?