James Comey testimony: Date, time and how to watch Trump hearing on TV and online

[Noxx79]

What they meant? Who cares what they meant, it's what they said. The headlines all read "Russia hacked our election" or something to that effect. Just because they meant "Russia hacked the DNC", or “Russia interfered” doesn’t mean that they didn’t type the words “Russia hacked election”. That’s the definition of fake news, where the title is something of a bombshell, but when you get to paragraph 35 you see that they actually mean something different.

So your admitting to be too stupid to understand reading comprehension. I'm glad we got that out of the way.

- - - Updated - - -

What they meant? Who cares what they meant, it's what they said. The headlines all read "Russia hacked our election" or something to that effect. Just because they meant "Russia hacked the DNC", or “Russia interfered” doesn’t mean that they didn’t type the words “Russia hacked election”. That’s the definition of fake news, where the title is something of a bombshell, but when you get to paragraph 35 you see that they actually mean something different.

So either you're admitting to be too stupid to understand reading comprehension or you agree that nobody said the Russians hacked any voting. Moving goalposts or being dense. I'm glad we got that out of the way.

[Thepersona]

What they meant? Who cares what they meant, it's what they said. The headlines all read "Russia hacked our election" or something to that effect. Just because they meant "Russia hacked the DNC", or “Russia interfered” doesn’t mean that they didn’t type the words “Russia hacked election”. That’s the definition of fake news, where the title is something of a bombshell, but when you get to paragraph 35 you see that they actually mean something different.

Then you're really too dumb to understand. The headlines are baity (and that is another problem), not fake news. The news tjemselves arent false.
Do you even read?

[Felya]

https://www.nytimes.com/news-event/r...ection-hacking
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/29/u...ions.html?_r=0
http://www.bostonglobe.com/section/russiahack
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/poli...woJ/story.html
https://www.cnet.com/news/how-expert...-dnc-election/

No, the MSM never used the words "Hacked the election". Seriously, this is the first 5 in a google search "Russians election hacking". If I had the time, I could probably get another 500 or so articles where the literal fucking headline included the words Russia, Election, and Hack.

Yes, Russia did hack the election in that sense, as reported by Comey. He explicitly reported that they attempted to numerous politicians, which saw a segnificant ramp up starting in summer of 2015.

At no time, anyone outside of Donald Trump, claimed that voting it self was hacked in any way. It is only Trump who claims the establishment cabal is manipulating voting directly. It is the reason he used for losing the popular vote and the rigged elections. Yes, Trump didn't claim it was Russians, but Americans who did it. But, still, the only person to claim before and after elections that voting was explicitly manipulated, was Trump...

[NYC17]

I don't really understand your post. Are you saying that nobody is claiming that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians?

This -is- a TV drama at this time. We move from one breathless headline to the next in the search of getting ratings.

Nobody actually knows what happened or what didn't happen and everyone is viewing issues through their own bias at this time. What I would prefer happen is that everyone stops speculating and waits for the Mueller investigation.

Also- back channels - http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...530-story.html - very common, arguable whether it ever occurred during transitions (on the other hand, it is common and necessary for transition teams to have discussions with foreign powers and has never been brought up as a Logan act issue before).. this being said, we've never had private transition communications leaked before either.



Again, please provide some proof apart from biased speculation. Did Flynn ask the Russians to hack Podesta?

There's a difference between people claiming evidence of collusion available to the public, and people discussing an investigation into collusion. You're conflating the two, because if you don't your counterargument is rather pointless(it is anyway, but hey, you do what you do).

Again, what was proposed by Kushner is outside the bounds of normal backchanneling. it is not debatable. Your own link makes that abundantly clear. You're arguing against yourself, but thanks for saving me the time.

Did Flynn ask? Not that we know of at this time, but Fuckface Von Clownstick certainly asked for the Russians to take on his opponent.

Woops.

Hah, man. These forums are an endless source of entertainment.

[lordsphinx]

So your admitting to be too stupid to understand reading comprehension. I'm glad we got that out of the way.

Thanks for the personal attacks by the way, real classy. I'm saying that the contents of the article are irrelevant to my argument. I'm arguing that the MSM has been labeling the whole situation a russian hack in their headlines, then later in the article, "clarifying what they meant". I get it... the articles later state that they mean "interfere", or that they were referring to the DNC servers when they said "hack". That doesn't change the fact that they ran misleading headlines for the purpose of perpetuating a fake story.

[Noxx79]

Thanks for the personal attacks by the way, real classy. I'm saying that the contents of the article are irrelevant to my argument. I'm arguing that the MSM has been labeling the whole situation a russian hack in their headlines, then later in the article, "clarifying what they meant". I get it... the articles later state that they mean "interfere", or that they were referring to the DNC servers when they said "hack". That doesn't change the fact that they ran misleading headlines for the purpose of perpetuating a fake story.

"The contents of the article are irrelevant."
So now you're changing your argument. I thought the MSM claimed Russia hacked voting results. You admit that was a lie. Glad you admit it. You deserve the attacks because you are apparently too stupid. You're welcome.

[Felya]

What they meant? Who cares what they meant, it's what they said. The headlines all read "Russia hacked our election" or something to that effect. Just because they meant "Russia hacked the DNC", or “Russia interfered” doesn’t mean that they didn’t type the words “Russia hacked election”. That’s the definition of fake news, where the title is something of a bombshell, but when you get to paragraph 35 you see that they actually mean something different.

It wasn't just DNC. As Comey reported yesterday, they attempted to infiltrate "hundreds, maybe thousands, but definitely hundreds" of American government agencies and politicians them selfs. This effort, according to Comey yesterday, intensified in the summer of 2015.

Your assertion isn't true, the effort to hack our elections is well documented and reported on by Comey yesterday. You confusing hacking elections with hacking votes, is most likely confusing Trump's claim of voting being altered for him to lose the popular vote. It has only been Trump that claimed anyone messed with the actual votes. The Russian investigation never made such claims and Trump has yet to provide evidence nor of US spying on him.

[Caolela]

Yes, Russia did hack the election in that sense, as reported by Comey. He explicitly reported that they attempted to numerous politicians, which saw a segnificant ramp up starting in summer of 2015.

At no time, anyone outside of Donald Trump, claimed that voting it self was hacked in any way. It is only Trump who claims the establishment cabal is manipulating voting directly. It is the reason he used for losing the popular vote and the rigged elections. Yes, Trump didn't claim it was Russians, but Americans who did it. But, still, the only person to claim before and after elections that voting was explicitly manipulated, was Trump...

Except there's this:

Top DHS official announces retirement amid IG investigation
POSTED 9:24 PM, MAY 1, 2017, BY CNN WIRE

http://wtvr.com/2017/05/01/top-dhs-o...investigation/

In early April, the chairs of the Senate Homeland Security Committee and the House Oversight Committee sent the inspector general a letter requesting more information about the probe. In the letter, the chairs — Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz and Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson — wrote: “Whistleblowers have expressed concern to us regarding the OIG’s responsiveness to these allegations.”

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=georgia+dh...v56-6_d&ia=web

Georgia Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, to the Department of Homeland Security questioning why someone with a DHS IP address (216.81.81.80) had attempted to hack into his state’s election database on November 15, 2016 at 8:43AM. Now, according to WSB-TV in Atlanta, we learn that Georgia’s election systems were actually the target of hacking by DHS on 10 separate occasions.

The Georgia Secretary of State’s Office now confirms 10 separate cyberattacks on its network were all traced back to U.S. Department of Homeland Security addresses.

In an exclusive interview, a visibly frustrated Secretary of State Brian Kemp confirmed the attacks of different levels on his agency’s network over the last 10 months. He says they all traced back to DHS internet provider addresses.

“We’re being told something that they think they have it figured out, yet nobody’s really showed us how this happened,” Kemp said. “We need to know…”

…The first one happened on Feb. 2, the day after Georgia’s voter registration deadline. The next one took place just days before the SEC primary. Another occurred in May, the day before the general primary, and then two more took place in November, the day before and the day of the presidential election.

Kemp has now written a letter to the Trump administration asking for a formal review after his inauguration next month.

Last week, the DHS confirmed the large Nov. 15 attack traced back to a U.S. Customs and Border Protection internet gateway. But Kemp says the DHS’ story about its source KEEPS CHANGING.

“First it was an employee in Corpus Christi, and now it’s a contractor in Georgia,” Kemp said.

Unsatisfied with the response he got from DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson this week, Kemp fired off a letter Wednesday to loop in President-elect Donald Trump.

“We just need to ask the new administration to take a look at this and make sure that we get the truth the people of Georgia are deserving to know that and really demanding it,” Kemp said.

Kemp says several of those scans came around the same time he testified before Congress about his opposition to a federal plan to classify election systems as “critical infrastructure,” like power plants and financial systems.

As we’ve said before, despite all the media attention on “Russian hackers,” this cyberattack, originated from within our own Department of Homeland Security, is the only actual confirmed case of hacking related to the 2016 election.

Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp is anxiously wondering, as are we, why someone with a Department Of Homeland Security IP address would try to hack into his State’s voter registration database. Even though DHS offered cyber security help to states prior to the election, the Wall Street Journal notes that Georgia was one of the states that specifically denied assistance.

The secretary of state of Georgia is asking the Department of Homeland Security to explain what appears to be an attempted breach of the state’s voter registration database by someone in the federal government.

In a letter to Department of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson dated Thursday, Georgia’s Secretary of State Brian Kemp said the state had discovered an unsuccessful attempt to breach the firewall of state computer systems. That attempt was linked to an IP address associated with DHS, he said.

“At no time has my office agreed to or permitted DHS to conduct penetration testing or security scans of our network,” wrote Mr. Kemp, a Republican. “Moreover, your department has not contacted my office since this unsuccessful incident to alert us of any security event that would require testing or scanning of our network.”

The alleged attempted intrusion by the federal government on a state computer system responsible for election security was detected by a third-party security firm working for the state of Georgia. The attempt was unsuccessful, according to the state. The computers also house information about company incorporations.
According to a letter written by Kemp to DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, the attempted intrusion occurred 1 week after the election on November 15, 2016 at 8:43AM and came from an IP address associated with DHS (216.81.81.80).

Of course, since the hacking a state’s election database it technically illegal, even for DHS, Kemp had some fairly pointed questions for Johnson on who authorized the scan and how many other states were scanned without authorization.

Meanwhile, the potential hacking followed threats from Jeh Johnson leading up to election day to declare election systems “critical infrastructure” which would have given the federal government more authority over state databases.

The Department of Homeland Security made a major push in advance of November’s elections to help states secure election systems against possible hacking, as fears of foreign interference in the U.S. election process reached a fever pitch in the months leading up to Election Day.

The department also considered declaring election systems “critical infrastructure,” which would have given the federal government additional authority to protect the systems. DHS didn’t take that step, however, as many states expressed concern about additional federal authority over their election systems and said the constitution provided states the right to run their own elections.

As a result of some of the concerns, the department clarified that assistance on election-related security matters was voluntary and encouraged states to take advantage of DHS resources and expertise to help secure state election systems.

“DHS assistance is strictly voluntary and does not entail regulation, binding directives, and is not offered to supersede state and local control over the process,” Mr. Johnson, the DHS chief, said in September.

Georgia was one of the states that had declined the federal government’s assistance for election security, citing state sovereignty. “Right now, we’re just demanding answers,” said David Dove, a top aide to the Georgia secretary of state. “My boss, Secretary Kemp, has been a very vocal critic of the Department of Homeland Security declaring election systems critical infrastructure.”

After all the talk about Russian hackers, wouldn’t it be just perfect if it turns out that the Obama administration was the only group to actually attempt to illegally hack into a state election database? That said, we won’t hold our breath waiting for Jill Stein and disaffected Hillary supporters to express their outrage over this incident.

So, our own wonderful Homelan' S'cur-a-teh hacking elections (certainly known by NSA and FBI), not Russians, Islamic turrurrrists, Klingons or Martians.

[Felya]

Thanks for the personal attacks by the way, real classy. I'm saying that the contents of the article are irrelevant to my argument. I'm arguing that the MSM has been labeling the whole situation a russian hack in their headlines, then later in the article, "clarifying what they meant". I get it... the articles later state that they mean "interfere", or that they were referring to the DNC servers when they said "hack". That doesn't change the fact that they ran misleading headlines for the purpose of perpetuating a fake story.

They didn't run misleading headlines. The elections were hacked by Russians, not voting. The fact that you need didn't read and made an assumption, is not their fault. Just like you waiting to read reviews of the hearing, instead of watching it your self... is not media's fault.

[Gref]

Trumps tweet is epic:
Despite so many false statements and lies, total and complete vindication...and WOW, Comey is a leaker!

[Felya]

Except there's this:

So, our own wonderful Homelan' S'cur-a-teh hacking elections (certainly known by NSA and FBI), not Russians, Islamic turrurrrists, Klingons or Martians.

Then you need to bring this up to every single intelligence personnel that reported under oath that Russia did hack elections and lead an unprecedented level of attacks starting in summer of 2015.

Edit: Even Putin said that you cannot blame Russian government for what patriotic Russians chose to do. Yeah... martians... that definitely grounds your argument in reality. Maybe Obama's microwaves?

Edit2: You know what, martians will make me too much of a sheeple. You know who hacked the election? Alternate dimension Martian space invaders. Has anyone said that before? No? Sweet... now I'm not a sheeple!!

[Caolela]

The elections were hacked by Russians, not voting.

There is no actual documentation that Russia actually hacked or influenced the 2016 elections. If you have something to prove it is so that the rest of the world is unaware of, let's see it.

This latest "Russian hack" story first published in The Intercept has been shown in this thread to be horseshit.

[Kujako]

There is no actual documentation that Russia actually hacked or influenced the 2016 elections. If you have something to prove it is so that the rest of the world is unaware of, let's see it.

This latest "Russian hack" story first published in The Intercept has been shown in this thread to be horseshit.

Hacked is a bad term to use, it over sensationalizes what happened. The Russians posted fake news to the US, people believed it and cited it as why they were voting for Trump or not voting for Hillary. But I guess the news can't say "Russia shit-posted the election!".

[Bullettime]

Hacked is a bad term to use, it over sensationalizes what happened. The Russians posted fake news to the US, people believed it and cited it as why they were voting for Trump or not voting for Hillary. But I guess the news can't say "Russia shit-posted the election!".

Yeah they hacked the DNC and recent reports of attempted intrusions into the registries which is what conflates the issue. No one is saying they infiltrated the votes or even successfully got into the registries. Just that they tried, and succeeded in the case of the DNC.

The investigation has become more of investigating a money laundering operation into the RNC through Trump's campaign to fund fake news/propaganda campaigns.

[Felya]

There is no actual documentation that Russia actually hacked or influenced the 2016 elections. If you have something to prove it is so that the rest of the world is unaware of, let's see it.

This latest "Russian hack" story first published in The Intercept has been shown in this thread to be horseshit.

The reporting of every intelligence official under oath. As in, every single one. From multiple countries. This isn't up for debate. Putin him self blamed Russian patriots. I know you cannot trust America's intelligence, but can you trust Putin?

[Thepersona]

Hacked is a bad term to use, it over sensationalizes what happened. The Russians posted fake news to the US, people believed it and cited it as why they were voting for Trump or not voting for Hillary. But I guess the news can't say "Russia shit-posted the election!".

Shit posting is a good way to say it though

[cubby]

I dunno. I can't ever attest to what other people think and feel because I don't know everybody. If somebody donated food and blood and gave to charity and helped troubled kids and volunteered at soup kitchens and a bunch of other things you'd generally think a nice person does, but then wanted to kill all jews - well that is one weird person, but I won't get mad at them.

Just so we're clear, you're ok with someone propagating genocide. I think we're done here.

- - - Updated - - -

Trumps tweet is epic:
Despite so many false statements and lies, total and complete vindication...and WOW, Comey is a leaker!

Yeah, that guy lives on his own planet.

[Felya]

Hacked is a bad term to use, it over sensationalizes what happened. The Russians posted fake news to the US, people believed it and cited it as why they were voting for Trump or not voting for Hillary. But I guess the news can't say "Russia shit-posted the election!".

I don't see it as a bad term to use. Comey reported hacking efforts intensified in summer of 2015. Britain has reported hacking attempts by Russia. So has France and former USSR states. The fact that Russia is doing this, isn't even new. The new thing here is that they succeeded in a way, that makes people question America. Think of what they did and still are doing... they successfully made people distrust the west. So, when the west is reporting on Russian actions, their propaganda buys them excuse. If you believe it, there is nothing to counter it, because the counter hinges on you not believing the propaganda.

It's a catch 22, if you believe that the west is conspiring against Russia, the evidence to that not being true, requires you to not believe the conspiracy being countered.

[Thepersona]

There is no actual documentation that Russia actually hacked or influenced the 2016 elections. If you have something to prove it is so that the rest of the world is unaware of, let's see it.

This latest "Russian hack" story first published in The Intercept has been shown in this thread to be horseshit.

Are you one of those woke independents, by chance? because you sound like one

[Caolela]

The reporting of every intelligence official under oath. As in, every single one. From multiple countries. This isn't up for debate. Putin him self blamed Russian patriots. I know you cannot trust America's intelligence, but can you trust Putin?

"Under oath" today means exactly shit, especially when we have evidence (as in the article above) that our own "security"/intel agencies are hacking their own citizens' elections. Putin did not specifically blame or name anyone as known to have hacked U.S. elections, he said the gov't is not responsible for what a Russian citizen may (or may not) have done.