FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama admin approved nuclear deal with Moscow

a reply to: spiritualzombie

Yea, no. Look in the U.S. backyard first.

foreignpolicy.com...

Russia used tech. Every other country with preferred influence used money.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: spiritualzombie

Yea, no. Look in the U.S. backyard first.

foreignpolicy.com...

Russia used tech. Every other country with preferred influence used money.

Is that a defense for Russia, a compliment to them, or both?

a reply to: JinMI

Russia used tech. Every other country with preferred influence used money.

Russia used tech...covertly. Concealing their involvement. Voice of America, not so much.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: spiritualzombie

Yea, no. Look in the U.S. backyard first.

foreignpolicy.com...

Russia used tech. Every other country with preferred influence used money.

Is that a defense for Russia, a compliment to them, or both?

It's pointing out the hypocrisy of your outrage.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: ziopower
a reply to: spiritualzombie

Trump is hostile to Russia. No way this story is true. Putin prefers Hillary AKA Obama 2.0 as president. Putin and Hillary are on friendly terms.

LOL, wow. Really... you're going to opt for full retard? Okay... educate yourself...

“We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary [Hillary] Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump,” the agencies found in a long-awaited report that stands to hang over the head of the incoming Trump administration.

The report (pdf), for weeks the subject of leaks that have incensed and vexed Trump, contradicts the contention from his transition team that Russia did not prefer him in the 2016 election, as well as Trump’s insistence that the culprits behind the hacks of Democratic political figures are fundamentally unknowable.

Source: www.theguardian.com...

And the report here:
www.dni.gov...

I suspect you never took the time to read it have you. It reports two thing one the russians hacked in to the DNC and RNC, information was released to the hill and wiki leaks. Two RT put out stories showing hillary in a bad light. To be honest this doesnt surprise me. The US did the same thing in Russia releasing documents to show the election was rigged. Remember the protests against Putins election?

So now we established they probably did but theres stilla problem where did the FBI get there information from? So lets take a look! The RNC hack an attempt was made FBi was notified sent agents to examine the hack. DNC hack FBi was denied access to servers instead they hire a company by the name of crowd strike who determines it was russia that hacked in to the server. Turns out that wasnt really the case turns out it was an email exploit. Meaning they tricked someone in to giving up their password. They didnt actually break the fire wall in both these incidents the difference was the RNC did a password change so there damage was limited. Then we find out crowd strike used rather erroneous methods to draw their conclusion. They made the claim that the software used is only used by russian hackers,it was publicly available on the web and very popular with hackers in europe. So the basis for this companies decision was wrong.Then when this was pointed out by computer techs Crowd strike came back and said they used software they designed to look for patterns of known hackers. But again heres the problem if they use the same exploits they would have the same signature,exploits are shared on hacker sights and easily downloaded.

So now number two RT gave her bad press so what CNN gives trump bad press does it prove anything? And finnally the last part Putins orders this was from an accusation made in the russian dossier. This was supossedly information a former British agent recived from a contact he had in the Kremlin. Problem is there is nothing to show this person existed,the Kremlin said it was false information and they have no reports on Trump like this. So then the company he works for refuses to speak with congress about the source or who paid for it, didnt think they would to be honest. But they could at least try to show the information to be correct. Of course they back away from it saying it was intelligence rumors,think they feared pushing it to far the Kremlin would get directly involved disproving their report. This would sink their company.

So what do we know none of this information was aquired by the FBI through FBI investigations it was given to them by third parties.Now the FbI having his information even if they cant verify has to do something. They write a report and say based off the fact Russia has done this before its a likely scenario. So what does that mean well in the intelligence community likely doesnt mean it happened. Think of it as rolling a die 6 times im likely at some point to get a six. However i could roll it 20 times and never get a 6. Likely in intel means it could have or could happen.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JinMI

Russia used tech. Every other country with preferred influence used money.

Russia used tech...covertly. Concealing their involvement. Voice of America, not so much.

What the hell are you even talking about?

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: spiritualzombie

Yea, no. Look in the U.S. backyard first.

foreignpolicy.com...

Russia used tech. Every other country with preferred influence used money.

Is that a defense for Russia, a compliment to them, or both?

It's pointing out the hypocrisy of your outrage.

Really, it's hypocritical for an American to be outraged that a foreign government used Kremlin sponsered propaganda, online accounts, trolls, and hacking to spread misinformation to sway an election to favor Trump and Russia?

a reply to: JinMI

Russia uses money too. Look at RT huge investment from the Kremlin.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

First, point out it was Kremlin sponsored.

Second, display that the hacks were misinformation.

Third, provide proof that Americans were swayed.

a reply to: Jonjonj

The post I replied to.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: JinMI

Russia uses money too. Look at RT huge investment from the Kremlin.

In the context of which I'm speaking, does it show a vested interest in Trump. As in money to his accounts?

a reply to: JinMI
Hard to say much of anything about Trump's interests. Right?

a reply to: Phage

Back to taxes? Fair enough.

I'd like to see them too. I imagine we just may be the end of the Mueller investigation.

a reply to: dragonridr

I guess we add your name to the list of people who defend Russia by saying the U.S. does it too?

Yes, I read the report... I recommend everyone on ATS read it. You'll find a lot of references to things that came up during the election. You might even remember a few ATS users who were pretty consistent in pushing what has been determined to be Russian propaganda... either knowingly or unknowingly... but consistently nonetheless...

Here's another interesting excerpt:

RT’s coverage of Secretary Clinton throughout the US presidential campaign was consistently negative and focused on her leaked e-mails and accused her of corruption, poor physical and mental health, and ties to Islamic extremism. Some Russian officials echoed Russian lines for the influence campaign that Secretary Clinton’s election could lead to a war between the United States and Russia.

I've heard a lot of people say RT is better than CNN and all the liberal mainstream news.... Makes you wonder who planted that seed of thought first. And here is the defense that's been repeated in this thread quite a bit...

Putin most likely wanted to discredit Secretary Clinton because he has publicly blamed her since 2011 for inciting mass protests against his regime in late 2011 and early 2012, and because he holds a grudge for comments he almost certainly saw as disparaging him.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JinMI

Russia used tech. Every other country with preferred influence used money.

Russia used tech...covertly. Concealing their involvement. Voice of America, not so much.

Honest question here...
Do you believe that the US doesn't use covert means to influence policy in other countries?

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: spiritualzombie

Yea, no. Look in the U.S. backyard first.

foreignpolicy.com...

Russia used tech. Every other country with preferred influence used money.

Is that a defense for Russia, a compliment to them, or both?

It's pointing out the hypocrisy of your outrage.

Really, it's hypocritical for an American to be outraged that a foreign government used Kremlin sponsered propaganda, online accounts, trolls, and hacking to spread misinformation to sway an election to favor Trump and Russia?

In a way hes right many Americans dont follow Russia so they jdont know about things like this.

themoscowtimes.com...

Or this
beta.latimes.com...

a reply to: butcherguy

I wouldn't put it past them.
Do you believe 2 wrongs make a right?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: butcherguy

I wouldn't put it past them.
Do you believe 2 wrongs make a right?

No, I just wanted to see what you meant with your statement.

a reply to: butcherguy

My statement was in response to an article in the post which I replied to.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JinMI

Russia used tech. Every other country with preferred influence used money.

Russia used tech...covertly. Concealing their involvement. Voice of America, not so much.

Honest question here...
Do you believe that the US doesn't use covert means to influence policy in other countries?

Again the Russian defense that doesn't deny, but insists the U.S. "had it coming".