funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
Someone is back in full on CT mode. Wowzer.
Merged All things Trump + Russia
- Thread starter varwoche
- Start date
- Status
several people... The logic is quite interesting: WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE that I would accept THAT RUSSIA INVADED THE CRIMEA OR EASTERN UKRAINE OR TRIED TO HELP TRUMP BUT WE BELIEVE THE CIA CAN IMPLEMENT INTRICATE, EVEN BAROQUE FALSE FLAG OPERATIONS FOR NO CLEAR BENEFIT BASED ON LESS THAN CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
BobTheCoward
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2010
- Messages
- 22,789
My biggest issue is that one of the people claimed to have traveled to set this up was Michael Cohen traveling to Prague in August or September. It would be the easiest detail to confirm, but no one was able to.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
Assuming you are going with some insider leaked the emails, That version of events belongs in the CT forum unless you have some actual evidence.
I know you think because the CIA has lied they always lie, but that makes no sense in this case. Do you have evidence they are out to frame Trump or some other motive?
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
That doesn't negate all the other details.
BobTheCoward
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2010
- Messages
- 22,789
All the other details lack evidence, also.
NoahFence
Banned
Evidence that you would accept you mean.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
Your blanket dismissal is not consistent with the Raw Story link that has many many credible details.
BobTheCoward
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2010
- Messages
- 22,789
That raw story piece has no evidence supporting any of Steele's claims. It only substantiated that Steele made those claims.
The public has not been presented evidence that supports his claims.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
Drip drip drip...
BobTheCoward
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2010
- Messages
- 22,789
Having a group hypothesis requires presenting your evidence to them. If groups do not desire proving their hypothesis to me, that is their prerogative,but they will receive no benefit of the doubt in the meantime.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
You're suggesting I review all the evidence in the thread for you? I don't think so.
BobTheCoward
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2010
- Messages
- 22,789
No, I'm saying neither Steele, nor anyone who has examined the dossier, has presented their evidence supporting it's veracity. Therefore, I do not accept any claim in there as true (nor do I assume it is wrong, either).
There are other claims and other evidence In this thread. I am not commenting on that.
As a general note, the thread probably should be summarized by anyone who would want to point to the sum total of evidence contained to make a broader point, but that is just because it is good advice.
Last edited:
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
Many of us do.
Last edited:
Childlike Empress
Banned
How do you "know"? Is it from what CrowdStrike and that Steele guy who are private people payed to say what they say issue and the pre$$titute media repeat, or are there statements of people who would have to pay for knowingly signing made up junk?
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
Because the product of the hacking was then leaked to wikileaks.
Being able to imagine a conspiracy doesn't in itself lend credence to that conspiracy theory.
Childlike Empress
Banned
You have no idea how the content of the DNC mail server landed up at wikileaks. People far more knowledgable on these topics than you are, at least one even claims to be directly involved, say that it was a leak, not a hack (i.e. someone with legal access to the data "stole" it).
The junk you believe isn't signed by anyone who could suffer consequences from their lies, it's just pre$$titutes repeating big lies over and over again. Sad.
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
On the contrary, I have a very good idea.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.7172a04a864a
The security firms CrowdStrike, Mandiant, SecureWorks, and ThreatConnect are all more knowledgeable than I, and they have stated that the leaks were part of a series of cyberattacks on the DNC committed by Russian intelligence groups.
I think these agencies are very likely more knowledgeable than you as well. At the same time, I have little doubt you are aware of someone from Sputnik News, Fort Russ, or a similar source who says something different. Almost as though Russia had a long history of propaganda, was very skilled at it and is very adept at casting enough doubt that a "true-believer" will always have an alternative theory to latch onto.
The "pre$$titutes", as you call them, have a strong bias towards shallow reporting and sensationalism for ratings. They really don't have a bias towards lying.
At the same time, there are Russian propaganda outlets that do have a very strong bias towards reporting whatever lie Russia wants. These outlets include but are not limited to RT, Sputnik News, and Fort Russ.
Childlike Empress
Banned
From a Washington Pest article? That's cute. There's not much in there but "CIA claims" or the proverbial anonymous government officials. About CrowdStrike and its derivitives (it is a self-containing claim bubble in that "security" industry, with different names for the same weak guesses), read this, You have no clue what you're talking about. I am knowledgable enough to judge their claims while you are not.
- Status