Earlier quoted context omitted.
> assessment of DHS and CIA, per congressional briefings. The Is that Comey's hearing? I remember listening to that. He believed that Russians hacked the DNC but he has not seen any evidence of it and he (the FBI) had no access to the servers. He says it comes from believing Crowdstrike. It seems the only solid peace of evidence comes from this one company. Crowdstrike has made up stuff before. In their report about…
Not Comey's hearing, no. There are other hearings that you can search for by copying and pasting what I wrote verbatim into Google to find. If you disagree with Crowdstrike's methodologies, then by all means let's get specific. They were the principle investigators on the case. They are well regarded. I didn't read the Ukraine link you provided because 1. I have no idea if the team was even the same and 2. it's likel…
Just pointing out the same company had made pretty large factual errors in their report were even the people on the side they supported had to publicly refute them.
Not only that but the founder of Crowdstrike might be a bit biased. He is a member of the Atlantic Council http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/about/experts/list/dmitri-alp... which traditionally is critical of Russia. That's fine, it's good thing they are but it introduces a conflict of interest. Moreover he is a donor to the Clinton Foundation to the tune of $10M. Again nothing wrong with that per se. He is free to donate, but that also is a conflict of interest. And had this been a forgotten memo or a minor incident, that's fine, but it seems a whole lot of articles, reporting, twitter messages, TV time and hearings were based on just the finding of this one company.
> I literally don't understand the words you wrote about Wikileaks. Yes, I don't believe Assange.
Sorry for being confusing. I mean to say Wikileaks have been pretty factual. They pick their stories based on their political bias or most media impact but once they say something, I have not seem them blatantly lie before. So when he said "these did not come from Russia or a another state actor" I'd have to see more evidence to say "clearly he is lying"
> I don't get your reaction to the link.
Again for for confusion. I thanked you for the link. I wasn't being facetious. I learned something new about Assange nagging on Trump Jr to leak tax documents and asking them to mention more of leaked emails.
> You want DHS to investigate the DNC hack 2 years after the fact?
I want to see more solid claims behind a year+ of wasted propaganda effort. There has to be something more credible there.
> Who ever mentioned Reddit?
I did. Because the first part of the article was talking how Trump contradicts himself. Yeah he contradicts himself. It looks like trolling to me and everyone is taking the bait so he knows how to waste everyone's time and get them to talk about his spelling mistakes and contradictions. I don't see how that is proof of collusion between him and Russia.
> Donald Trump is a liar so he is not guilty of collusion?
I say he is liar and a troll based on what I have seen. Haven't decided if he does it consciously and deliberately or it is just his personalty and he just says whatever he feels currently without thinking to match with anything he said in the past.
> You seem intent on minimizing this to the point of being gratuitously contrary. Thank you for the discussion.
Nah just trying to get to the bottom of things. I find this focus on Russia collusion pretty interesting. I've been talking about media and how PR works for a while. Personally I think it is disappointing to see this much effort wasted, because that time, energy could have been spent on something else.