U.S. Senate Hearing on Russian Hacking - Top US Intelligence Officials Testify LIVE

a reply to: shooterbrody

I know--that link is full of good points and excerpts, I just didn't want to flood that post.

Notice that the person to whom I directed that article has simply disregarded it? They did that on another post, too, and then just keep on with their narrative that the government has proof and it was certainly Russia.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
What kind of proof are you guys looking for?

Well...just proof, not circumstantial evidence.

Proof and evidence are two different things. I've been having the time of my life trying to get that through to someone else on another related thread.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Martin75

My lies?

Ba ba ba back off kiddo.

Now I picture you like one of those Yosemite Sam mud flaps

So our government is basically saying that they are pretty sure that it might be Russia although there is no real evidence, but we should attack them anyway, on principle.

a reply to: neo96

Just to be fair and go off on a bit of a tangent, over 30 different countries now manufacture the AK-47 rifle, so I'm not so sure that they mostly come from Russia, but it could be.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Oh they do because Russia backs the Shia side of the Sunni versus Shia conflict.

That we have seen waging in Yemen,Iraq,Afghanistan,and Syria.

I'm sure.

Yeah different tangent, but on the list of things to be snipped about Russia for doing ?

The last election doesn't even rate.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Martin75

The report won't be released until next week. Thanks for showing your hand Martin.

If you would have read that link that I provided you earlier in the thread, you would see that it references the report, how many pages are in it, and information from it.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
So our government is basically saying that they are pretty sure that it might be Russia although there is no real evidence, but we should attack them anyway, on principle.

Drop the mic and walk off stage--you summed up the reality of the situation perfectly.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: stosh64

They're not talking war they're talking about making sure the message gets across to them that the US will not stand for this kind of attack.
More sanctions and shaming Putin himself will be more like it.

What attack? Would you mind pointing out some evidence of this this so called attack you mentioned?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: stosh64

Umm yeah they do.


🙊🙉🙈

Where is it?

a reply to: Alien Abduct

Filed inbetween "Iraqi WMDs" and "Al-Assad Chemical attack"

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: odzeandennz

It was basically a 2 hour tirade about why they should be allowed to control the internet.

Not sure what it had to do with Russian hacking allegations to be honest.

thank you for this summary. It was very valuable to keep me from wasting my time reading all these post.

MSM are losing their minds after this hearing.

How dare Trump question our intelligence agencies!?!?!?

He is siding with Asange rather than U.S. intelligence!

They sure as hell are ramping the rhetoric up. Reminds me of 2002-03.

Shep Smith on Fox looked like he was going to stroke out during his opening.

Interesting times we live in.

a reply to: stosh64

He is siding with Asange rather than U.S. intelligence!

That is exactly was Trump has been doing.

a reply to: windword

If given an ultimatum, I would trust Assange over our corrupt, war agenda driven 'intel'.

Remember this intel with an agenda?

a reply to: stosh64

Don't forget that this hearings are also one of the fake media outlets fuel for the propaganda of evil Russia rhetoric.

They are feeding like vampires after a blood abstinence diet.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

If a certain person were to read that report they would have to realize she who couldn't even beat an extra from Morries wigs advertisements lost not because of the dastardly pinko commie ruskies hacking the election, but because america rejected her and her agenda. Some people will just not accept america, in general, has had its fill of that sides perspective.

What make me really laugh is these people don't even care enough to put together a plausible lie. Instead of asking someone with ANY technical expertise to advance their narrative they put out a report that is easily dismissed and referred to as "terribly put-together propaganda". We are not even worthy of the effort of a decent lie.

But what do you expect from the people that gave us "what like wipe it with a cloth?"

a reply to: tridalop4

yes , they are, their pilots not so much. When they put US pilots in Russian planes and simulated combat, the russian planes won in all but one I believe. It was pretty pathetic. However, russian pilots get no where NEAR enough flight time to be comparable to our pilots.

Jaden

Great thread.

Can't wait for the Fake, er Establishment news to hit us with their best shot so as to pawn a new war on us.

I don't think we'll have to wait for Trump to drain the swamp. It will be pitchforks and torches in DC time.

Cyberwar is loved by the governments of the world. Do some research on it, you'll find many people praising it. Why? Because it's vastly unregulated. It's a war playground and the "last frontier" of modern warfare. Countries can get away with so much because there are so few laws and regulations in most countries about it.

Really think about the above. While the elections were still running I pointed out once that whomever the next president was would have to deal with this. The government wants cyberwar laws. i don't know how far that goes, national level? UN level? I don't know. I haven't looked into that.

What I think I understand is that putting the Russian face on anything related to cyberwar, real or otherwise, seems like a way to get people thinking about it. Get people calling for more security, calling for the cyberwar laws that the government already wants to enact.

See, whichever country gets to make the ground floor of the cyberwar laws is already ahead of the game if they can do it first.

Also, I can't find the source of what I'm about to say, sorry. Believe me if you wish. I saw an interview on CSPAN once a few years back with the heads of NorthCom and SouthCom. They were talking about how a lot of other countries have access to our secure networks as we do with many other foreign countries. This intrusion is not new nor is it something we don't also do, regularly. That's one of the reasons the government wants to reign it in. Get laws on the books so the world, UN, can start instituting the plans for how cyberwar can be handled. I wish I could find that hearing. If you consider how those "in the know" have talked about how Hillary knew her system was vulnerable to outside governments its because our government knows very well that our system is not secure. It's wide open for multiple governments.

a reply to: stosh64

Yes I remember when the Bush administration made up BS that the intelligence community assessments didn't agree with at the time.