What if it was not the Russians?

Mr D
I would suggest there is speculation and/or presumption in your saying Trump has conflict of interest. OTOH there is no speculation about Lynch having a role in deciding Hillary's illegal server /abuse of email issue. We know Lynch is the AG.

Now if you have pics of Trump meeting with Putin on a tarmac 3 days before the emails were exposed that would be a whole 'nother ball game.


We need pics of the finished fondue.
 
Horn6721 said:
We need pics of the finished fondue
Click to expand...

The pot's a little messy because we've already started eating it, but this is what the finished product looks like. We dip red bell pepper, apple, and obviously bread.

Fondue is great. It tastes wonderful, and if you're a single guy, chicks seem to be impressed by it. Not sure why. It's very easy to make. I think they just assume that if you can make something with a French name, you must be pretty smoothe. It certainly worked with Mrs. Deez.

IMG_20161230_223301.jpg
 
That is a great looking eve of New Year's Eve tradition.
Next year maybe you will make enough for all of us.
You'd need a bigger boat:smokin:
 
Horn6721 said:
That is a great looking eve of New Year's Eve tradition.
Next year maybe you will make enough for all of us.
You'd need a bigger boat:smokin:
Click to expand...

If you all went to the trouble of showing up in Germany, I'd happily host a Hornfans fondue party. In fact I'd go the extra step and do the chocolate fondue for dessert and have plenty of good wine and beer.
 
I35 said:
The Dems have proven over and over again that they don't appoint "true independents." Not sure how you don't see that.
Click to expand...

I never said they did, and I'm not sure what independent (or allegedly independent) investigator you're referring to.

I35 said:
The independent investigation isn't going to be looking at if Trump having dealings secretly with the Russians.
Click to expand...

There is no independent investigation going on yet, so this statement makes no sense.

I35 said:
Secondly, they are investigating if Russia are the ones that hacked the DNC stuff. That has nothing to do with Trump.
Click to expand...

How do you know it has nothing to do with Trump? Again, this is speculation. Let somebody independent look into it.

I35 said:
So please explain again why there is a conflict of interest with Trump and Russia? The Dems are saying dealings? What kind of dealing do you think they are talking about?
Click to expand...

I don't know about any dealings, and you don't know that there aren't any. If I did there wouldn't need to be any investigation of any kind. This is why somebody independent should look.

I35 said:
But unless it's proven that Trump and Putin were in bed with each other to help Trump win then I don't understand what conflict of interest you're talking about.
Click to expand...

You'll never find out if they were in bed together if nobody looks.

Horn6721 said:
Iwould suggest there is speculation and/or presumption in your saying Trump has conflict of interest.

Conflicts of interest are based on possibilities, not certainties. Lynch had a conflict of interest in the email controversy and should have appointed a special prosecutor. However, under your logic, she shouldn't have. There was no indication of any personal connection between her and HRC, and nothing pointed to her. The conflict was political. It was against Lynch's and Obama's political interests for HRC to get into any trouble, and sure enough, they made sure that didn't happen.

The same conflict exists with Trump. It's against his political interests to uncover any damning facts about the leak/hack. That's true, even if he isn't personally connected to it. And of course we don't know if he's personally connected to it. I35 assumes he isn't, but he has no idea. That's simply him giving Trump the benefit of the doubt. I doubt that he was, but in the event that he was, I don't want him or a subordinant of his directing the inquiry. We'd never find out the truth.

QUOTE="Horn6721, post: 1494748, member: 45279"]OTOH there is no speculation about Lynch having a role in deciding Hillary's illegal server /abuse of email issue. We know Lynch is the AG.
Click to expand...

Lynch wasn't independent. She was Obama's AG. I'm calling for independence in this matter as I did in the email controversy.
 
Deez, I was referring to what's going to happen in an investigation when it does start. We all know because that's the issue the Dems have been pushing. I think you knew that. Just being goofy?

If they try to investigate Trump with being in on a hacking then they are wasting there time. Nobody actually believes that. Dems say all the time thing that can create doubt. Just like Harry Reid suggesting Romney not paying taxes for several years trying to create doubt. That would be like if the GOP wanting an investigation on Obama to see if he has connections or terrorist ties. Can you imagine the cries by the left If the GOP actually suggested that?
 
I35 said:
We all know because that's the issue the Dems have been pushing. I think you knew that. Just being goofy?
Click to expand...

I'm not pushing anything. I'm calling for an independent investigation, and I'm willing to see where that goes. Keep in mind a few things. First, I live in Germany. Second, I don't have cable or satellite, so I don't watch American news. Third, Mrs. Deez doesn't care about politics, so I don't watch much political news of any kind. That means I don't follow what the Dems or what anybody's pushing, and frankly, I don't give a crap.

I35 said:
If they try to investigate Trump with being in on a hacking then they are wasting there time.
Click to expand...

How the hell do you know this?

I35 said:
That would be like if the GOP wanting an investigation on Obama to see if he has connections or terrorist ties. Can you imagine the cries by the left If the GOP actually suggested that?
Click to expand...

If the a terrorist organization had hacked into the RNC in order to help Obama win the Presidency, then I think an investigation of the hack and if it had any connection to Obama would be entirely reasonable.
 
DNC admitted the FBI never examined or asked to examine their servers.
The FBI used info provided by Crowd Strike.
In other cases it has been part for the course for the FBI to do their own forensic research on hacks.
www.buzzfeed.com
 
Horn6721 said:
DNC admitted the FBI never examined or asked to examine their servers.
The FBI used info provided by Crowd Strike.
In other cases it has been part for the course for the FBI to do their own forensic research on hacks.
www.buzzfeed.com
Click to expand...
That's tin foil hat conspiracy theory. Everyone knows the government doesn't stonewall or coverup wrong doing. Process is always followed according to legal guidelines and correct protocol.
 
March 2015 - http://m.jpost.com/Israel-News/US-s...0QzhBMTgzNkNBRjYyNDQ0OTBCRTZDNDIwNDM3OUJEMDQ=

July 2016 - http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/

December 2016 -

ARI SHAPIRO, HOST:

This is hardly the first time a country has tried to influence the outcome of another country's election. The U.S. has done it, too, by one expert's count, more than 80 times worldwide between 1946 and 2000. That expert is Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University. I asked him to tell me about one election where U.S. intervention likely made a difference in the outcome.

DOV LEVIN: One example of that was our intervention in Serbia, Yugoslavia in the 2000 election there. Slobodan Milosevic was running for re-election, and we didn't want him to stay in power there due to his tendency, you know, to disrupts the Balkans and his human rights violations.

So we intervened in various ways for the opposition candidate, Vojislav Kostunica. And we gave funding to the opposition, and we gave them training and campaigning aide. And according to my estimate, that assistance was crucial in enabling the opposition to win.

SHAPIRO: How often are these interventions public versus covert?

LEVIN: Well, it's - basically there's about - one-third of them are public, and two-third of them are covert. In other words, they're not known to the voters in the target before the election.

SHAPIRO: Your count does not include coups, attempts at regime change. It sounds like depending on the definitions, the tally could actually be much higher.

LEVIN: Well, you're right. I don't count and discount covert coup d'etats like the United States did in Iran in 1953 or in Guatemala in 1954. I only took when the United States is trying directly to influence an election for one of the sides. Other types of interventions - I don't discuss. But if we would include those, then of course the number could be larger, yeah.

SHAPIRO: How often do other countries like Russia, for example, try to alter the outcome of elections as compared to the United States?

LEVIN: Well, for my dataset, the United States is the most common user of this technique. Russia or the Soviet Union since 1945 has used it half as much. My estimate has been 36 cases between 1946 to 2000. We know also that the Chinese have used this technique and the Venezuelans when the late Hugo Chavez was still in power in Venezuela and other countries.

SHAPIRO: The U.S. is arguably more vocal than any other country about trying to promote democracy and democratic values around the world. Does this strike you as conflicting with that message?

LEVIN: It depends upon if we are assisting pro-democratic side - could be like in the case of Slobodan Milosevic that I talked about earlier. I believe that that could be helpful for democracy. If it helps less-nicer candidates or parties, then naturally it can be less helpful.

SHAPIRO: Obviously your examination of 20th century attempts to influence elections does not involve hacking because computers were not widespread until recently.

LEVIN: Yeah.

SHAPIRO: In your view, is technology - the way that we saw in the November election - dramatically changing the game? Or is this just the latest evolution of an effort that has always used whatever tools are available?

LEVIN: I would say it's more the latter. I mean the Russians or the Soviets before unfrequently did these type of intervention, just, you know, without the cyber-hacking tools - you know, the old style people meeting in the park in secret giving out and getting information and things like that, so to speak.

SHAPIRO: Dov Levin is with the Institute for Politics and Strategy at Carnegie Mellon University. Thanks for joining us.

LEVIN: Thank you very much.

Copyright © 2016 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.
Click to expand...
 
Believe it or not, someone from ABC asked Obama's press guy a tough question today. He was all Russia, Russia, Russia -- and the ABC guys aks why they did freak out in a similar fashion when the Chinese hacked us. I dont know why ABC waited 8 years to get tough on these folks -- maybe they figure its safe now? There can be no serious retaliation?

----------------------
JON KARL, ABC: So when the Chinese hacked OPM in 2015, 21+ million current and former government employees and contractors had their personal data stolen by the Chinese. Why did the White House do nothing publicly in reaction to that hack? Which in some ways, was even more widespread than what we saw here from the Russians?

JOSH EARNEST: These are two cyber incidents that are malicious in nature but materially different.

KARL: 20 million people had their personal data taken... fingerprints, social security numbers, background checks. This was a far-reaching act--

EARNEST: I'm not downplaying the significance of it, I'm just saying that it is different than seeking to interfere int he conduct of a U.S. national election. I can't speak to the steps that have been taken by the United States in response to that Chinese malicious cyber activity--

KARL: But nothing was announced. There was not a single step announced by the White House. '

EARNEST: It is true that there was no public announcement about our response, but I can't speak to what response may have been initiated in private.

KARL: But no diplomats expelled, no compounds shut down, no sanctions imposed, correct?

You don't do that stuff secretly.
 
Speaking of intervening in elections, back in 2015 Obama himself gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to an Israeli group, OneVoice, who then used the money to fund an anti-Benjamin Netanyahu effort during the Israeli election.

They originally said the money was as for the "Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations." They lied. OneVoice even told the State Department in an email what they were going to do with this money. It's all in a congressional report.

It's not 'hacking' but it is pretty close to directly intervening in the fair elections of another country. And this money Obama sent them was US taxpayer funds. Have we ever had a bigger hypocrite in the Oval Office?

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...dollars-to-defeat-benjamin-netanyahu-n2260711
 
The angle that we shouldn't care about Russian intervention because we've intervened ourselves is pretty self serving. Now y'all are suddenly worried about hypocrisy? Our entire foreign policy is hypocritical but as a world leader you get that benefit.
 
The intelligence leaks are getting a little ridiculous. Maybe Trump needs to look long an hard at his attempts to "disparage" (Clapper's word today) the intelligence community.

POTUS Obama was briefed today on the final findings. CNN is reporting that intelligence officials know the exact middle-men between Russia and Wikileaks in the handoff of the data. I imagine those individuals are now running for their lives to avoid any clandestine actions. Whether they are running from the CIA because of Obama (wanting to expose their efforts) or Trump (wanting to hide their efforts) they will be wanted men for a long time.
 
Seattle Husker said:
The angle that we shouldn't care about Russian intervention because we've intervened ourselves is pretty self serving. Now y'all are suddenly worried about hypocrisy? Our entire foreign policy is hypocritical but as a world leader you get that benefit.
Click to expand...

That is some of the worst analysis I have ever seen
 
Joe Fan said:
Speaking of intervening in elections, back in 2015 Obama himself gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to an Israeli group, OneVoice, who then used the money to fund an anti-Benjamin Netanyahu effort during the Israeli election.

They originally said the money was as for the "Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations." They lied. OneVoice even told the State Department in an email what they were going to do with this money. It's all in a congressional report.

It's not 'hacking' but it is pretty close to directly intervening in the fair elections of another country. And this money Obama sent them was US taxpayer funds. Have we ever had a bigger hypocrite in the Oval Office?

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...dollars-to-defeat-benjamin-netanyahu-n2260711
Click to expand...
Joe, see my post, specifically the NPR article. World powers have been meddling in other countries' elections forever. It's obvious to everyone that this is sour grapes.

Lesson learned? Don't make "password" your password. Democrats must be allergic to the concept of OPSEC.
 
Last edited:
There is an amazing amount of irony in the Russian hacking story. For instance.

1. Speculation that there may be Russian influence/tampering on the election process is said to be a threat to our democracy and must be investigated.

2. Confirmation that there was DNC influence/tampering on the election process only resulted in dismissing Wasserman-Schultz. Apparently when a political party tampers with the elections process as the DNC did, this is not a threat to our democracy.

3. Today Clapper said that espionage (gathering information) is expected, but influencing elections is not.

4. The US has initiated coups and color revolutions all over the planet. It's unacceptable for another country to try that in America, but standard operating procedure for the US.
 
The Obama administration released the report on a Friday afternoon, clearly trying to downplay its impact by limiting the media cycle. CNN has the full declassified version.
 
Is everyone still wondering what Trump knows that the intelligence agencies don't? He said he had information that they didn't have. Mr. Deez may be right...Trump should be investigated if he's withholding information from our intelligence agencies.
 
Last edited:
After reading the report, I think the Russkies stole JoeFan's playbook. At the very least, the views he expresses here are exactly what the DNI says the Russian's were trying to advance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-HOGS *
Sat, Nov 16 • 11:00 AM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top