First Direct Evidence of Trump's Involvement in Russian Collusion

[Varvara Spiros Gelashvili]

12-year-olds know how to spell 'you're'. And you're still delusional.

Repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't stop this investigation.

[Shalcker]

Alright, let me get this straight.

First, we're going to be getting help from Russia in cyber security. Second, this unit (heh, unit) will protect against election hacking, by getting help from the people DOING the election hacking?

Well, who else do you suppose to be expert on election hacking in practice?

Third what are these "many other negative things" (which is terrible grammar as per usual) that need be guarded? Why do you guard "negative things"?

The idea always was to draw boundaries for both sides (that is, both US AND Russia) on what is allowed and what isn't allowed, as well as set measures on how various incidents could be ascertained/prevented, and go through appropriate channels to actually be stopped (rather then do things like "Obama: I said to him to cut it out, he denied them doing it.")

Set them in writing with both sides agreeing rather then "We do what we like, you do nothing please".

[Dontrike]

Well, who else do you suppose to be expert on election hacking in practice?

Let me guess, you thought the plot of Suicide Squad was great?

The idea always was to draw boundaries for both sides (that is, both US AND Russia) on what is allowed and what isn't allowed, as well as set measures on how various incidents could be ascertained/prevented, and go through appropriate channels to actually be stopped (rather then do things like "Obama: I said to him to cut it out, he denied them doing it.")

Set them in writing with both sides agreeing rather then "We do what we like, you do nothing please".

None of that answered either of the two questions of "what are they" and "why do it". So yay for you on getting nowhere near a proper response.

[stomination]

A lot of mike pence fans here.

[Mormolyce]

Fixed that for ya.

Sick burn m8.

A lot of mike pence fans here.

I guess he's the highest aspiration an incel can have in life.

- - - Updated - - -

"for having different political beliefs".... omegalul. Are you serious with this bullshit? I suggest you go re-read the texts and remove your bias goggles.

That is literally what happened in that room, yes.

There is zero evidence that Strzok's personal views on Trump (which are hardly uncommon even among Republicans, probably even in that very room lol) caused any impropriety in the investigation. So yeah, it was just a partisan shitshow for the suckers on the internet.

[Paranoid Android]

Very good thread here about the hack and DNC analytics tied to the Trump campaign.

https://twitter.com/resisterhood/sta...077541378?s=19

Something was bugging me about the September '16 hack of the DNC analytics (beyond that it would give an opponent much of what they'd need to figure out who to target & with what).

What was it? A couple weeks later, the Trump campaign abruptly & massively shifted their ad buys. https://t.co/PmiVINexHH

She links a tweet from Maggie Hbberman about Trump shifting spending from Florida to other states.

It's not uncommon for a candidate to make some changes wrt advertising targets in the final weeks of a campaign, but in my experience a ~25% shift because you've suddenly identified "new battlegrounds" is...not typical (this was Trump's senior comms adviser). https://t.co/SEvPPPWprW

Tweet from Jason Miller, Trump communication adviser tweet about over-performing markets to new battlegrounds.

Maggie Haberman and others wondered at the time (after Miller & the Trump campaign said the shift was "data driven") what data would drive so large a shift, so late, out of rural areas and into bigger markets with populous suburbs.

Maybe now we know. https://t.co/NSTFHAt1p7

Tweet from Maggie Haberman questioning where this data is coming for the abrupt change.

Dated; October 7, 2016

Trump advertised in Wisconsin the next week for the first time in the general election cycle. https://t.co/elzyx6X3cE
https://t.co/pByoqj9xvE

Bloomberg article:

Trump may be advertising in Wisconsin for first time in general election

Coincidence? Maybe, but we know:

-Russia hacked DNC analytics sometime in Sept
-Early Oct, Trump campaign abruptly redirected their ad spending, claimed changes were "data driven"
-New ad investments were heavily in states that narrowly handed Trump the electoral college

https://twitter.com/resisterhood/sta...077541378?s=19

[Dontrike]

Very good thread here about the hack and DNC analytics tied to the Trump campaign.

https://twitter.com/resisterhood/sta...077541378?s=19

She links a tweet from Maggie Hbberman about Trump shifting spending from Florida to other states.

Tweet from Jason Miller, Trump communication adviser tweet about over-performing markets to new battlegrounds.

Tweet from Maggie Haberman questioning where this data is coming for the abrupt change.

Dated; October 7, 2016

Bloomberg article:

https://twitter.com/resisterhood/sta...077541378?s=19

I'd call that some more nice evidence for Mueller to use.

[akris15]

I'd call that some more nice evidence for Mueller to use.

At this point I am sure they know. Still with all these smoking guns and people acting like they are completely guilty I am still laughing at all these "witch hunt claims". Investigations are not like the stuff you see on TV, they take time especially with its quite a large spread conspiracy such as this. If you are going to strike the king you need to make sure you don't miss. One mistake will ruin the entire probe.

[Mahourai]

Very good thread here about the hack and DNC analytics tied to the Trump campaign.

I have some issues with this read, both in the likelihood the inference here is true and whether or not it's meaningful.

I'm not sure the Trump campaign, or anyone else, actually got access to DNC proprietary analytical data. DOJ's indictment states:

In or around September 2016, the Conspirators also successfully gained access to DNC computers hosted on a third-party cloud-computing service. These computers contained test applications related to the DNC’s analytics. After conducting reconnaissance, the Conspirators gathered data by creating backups, or “snapshots,” of the DNC’s cloud-based systems using the cloud provider’s own technology.

It is unclear from this material in the indictment, unless I've missed somewhere it was elaborated on, that the DNC's actual analytical data was taken, rather than the contents of this test server which may have only contained application forms. The indictment does not state that analytical data was itself compromised.

Second, the timeline of the story as presented in the Twitter you linked contradicts itself, in a way that makes this seem less suspicious. Haberman is quoted early on as saying her "sources" indicate that Trump is cancelling ad buys in various battleground states such as Ohio, which seems odd given that these states are critical battleground states. The implication is that the stolen data let Trump know he had already won these states and that he could focus his attention elsewhere. However in actuality Trump, according to the subsequent ABC news tweet in the same Twitter discussion, was focusing his ad buys on key battleground states like Ohio. This is a much more obvious plan than the other way around. There is no need for Trump to have secret analytics data about Ohio to focus ad buys there. By August Trump was polling either even with Clinton or a slight lead. It doesn't take hacked data to figure out that you need to press a growing advantage in key battleground states, and of course Trump won the state running away. Anyone looking at the numbers might come up with this plan.

Furthermore, the DNC's secret analytics data did not project them to get buttfucked by Trump in the electoral college or they would probably have, you know, done something about it beforehand. Testimonials from the campaign indicated basically no one saw this coming - at most their data showed a tighter race than one might have assumed. The DNC's internal view was not that they were getting tanked in states like Pennsylvania and Michigan.

[lockedout]

Thread's handle on the concept of "direct evidence" is about what you'd expect.

It's so far from anything at all it's hilarious.

[shimerra]

C

"for having different political beliefs".... omegalul. Are you serious with this bullshit? I suggest you go re-read the texts and remove your bias goggles.

Why are you so militant against anti-trump anything. Does every gov employee have to achieve the sycophantic level you operate at?


Should any doctor who expressed anti-Nazi or anti White supremacy notions be not allowed to operate on a neo-Nazi or white supremacist? Cause if that’s the case it’s gonna be essentially impossible to seek medical care by your own retarded standard/world where people are unable to separate personal opinion from professional conduct. I mean just because you’re incapable doesn’t mean that you project to everyone’s else.

And let’s be honest. If the guy did the literal opposite explicitly saying he’d do all in his power to get trump off you’d be shouting his name frkm the roof top and moaning his name during sex. Biased hypocrite that you are.

[Shalcker]

None of that answered either of the two questions of "what are they" and "why do it". So yay for you on getting nowhere near a proper response.

If you want to see what exactly Russia meant, look at their 2011 proposals... which US, obviously, rejected.

https://www.cfr.org/blog/russia-gain...r-norms-debate

In 2009, Russia and a group of likeminded states began work on a proposal for a broad international treaty on information security. In their view, the set of norms that governed state behavior before the rise of the internet did not translate to state behavior in an internet age. In other words, a new digital age required new norms.

Many in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere flatly rejected the proposition on the grounds that international laws existing offline should and do constrain online behavior. The problem with this approach is that saying something exists does not make it so. International law dictates that states are prohibited from interfering in the domestic affairs of other states. Whether or not this norm is an actual norm or an aspirational norm is up for debate, though anecdotal data suggests it is more aspirational.

Nevertheless, in a 2011 letter to the United Nations General Assembly outlining a proposal for an “International Code of Conduct for Information Security”, the Russian coalition proposed a codification of this concept, stipulating that states subscribing to the Code pledge to “not use information and communications technologies and other information and communications networks to interfere with the internal affairs of other states or with the aim of undermining their political, economic and social stability.” In parallel, Russia and others have pushed to further solidify this and other proposed norms in treaty form.

[shimerra]

It's so far from anything at all it's hilarious.

COming from the forum expert on doing exactly what he thinks the op is doing. My god you can’t write people like you

[Dontrike]

If you want to see what exactly Russia meant, look at their 2011 proposals... which US, obviously, rejected.

Again, that didn't explain what these "many negative things" are nor why we need to protect them. Am I typing in Mandarin?

Trump seems to think that there are things that need to be protected from hacking, but chooses to want to do that with the people who have been hacking us. That's like asking a dingo to babysit.

[Shalcker]

Again, that didn't explain what these "many negative things" are nor why we need to protect them. Am I typing in Mandarin?

Linked pdf actually expands on those "many negative things".

Trump seems to think that there are things that need to be protected from hacking, but chooses to want to do that with the people who have been hacking us. That's like asking a dingo to babysit.

When both sides do it, how exactly do you stop only one side from doing it?

Making an agreement (for both sides) on which is allowed and which isn't is much more realistic.

[Flarelaine]

The only way Dems lose 2020, as far as I see it, is if they nominate an unpalatable candidate. Bernie Sanders would be a huge misstep. We can see the Democrat party sliding a bit further left these days with Cortez for example, but if they want a sure win in 2020 they'd be smart to nominate a candidate that represents a return to normalcy.

After Trump, that's about anyone.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I like how most of you found this absurd to even regard as a talking point and changed the subject to elections. I really hope Bernie runs, and keeps being an independent. It will steal votes from the dnc since you have to, as a candidate, publicly announce that you are a registered Democrat, agree that you will accept the Democratic nomination, and will “run and serve” as a member of the Democratic Party. Sanders does not do any of that. So I wouldn't pin your hopes on him, but you can pin your hopes on him helping whoever the democrats pick lose.

I do find it funny that pretty much every conservative voter (barring a few who were not scammed by Trump's lies) is openly hostile to the left, saying things like this, hoping to win via cheap tactics, and we even had such upstanding pillars of the conservative community like SuperTony who were issuing death threats... and then these same people are the ones who will unironically say it was the left that creates division and partisanship.

But this post does highlight one thing: Conservatives are at least aware of how unpopular Trump is, and are not already resorting to cheap tactics like heavy Gerrymandering and purging voters from the voter list in highly urban areas (i.e. more democratic areas) but also wishing that a candidate runs just to drain votes.

Here's a hint: The tone of the far left that includes Bernie, Jill, and others has been talking a bit lately. You can either immerse yourself in fox news and get the twisted warped reality that you enjoy, or you can listen to politicians themselves and direct sources. The far left may have a bone to pick with the DNC, but that bone is on the back burner. At the moment they realize that the Trump administration and the right wing in general is the biggest threat to Democracy and freedom in our country, and are throwing their weight behind the DNC for at least 2018 and 2020, possibly longer. They will only resume their disputes with the DNC once the threat of the Trump mindset has been purged from this country, and until then stand united.

People might believe that Jill Stein, Bernie and others are opposing the DNC just because there are a few disgruntled BernieBros still left out there spewing venom and bile, but that's not how the actual politicians themselves feel.

[Bullettime]

I do find it funny that pretty much every conservative voter (barring a few who were not scammed by Trump's lies) is openly hostile to the left, saying things like this, hoping to win via cheap tactics, and we even had such upstanding pillars of the conservative community like SuperTony who were issuing death threats... and then these same people are the ones who will unironically say it was the left that creates division and partisanship.

But this post does highlight one thing: Conservatives are at least aware of how unpopular Trump is, and are not already resorting to cheap tactics like heavy Gerrymandering and purging voters from the voter list in highly urban areas (i.e. more democratic areas) but also wishing that a candidate runs just to drain votes.

Here's a hint: The tone of the far left that includes Bernie, Jill, and others has been talking a bit lately. You can either immerse yourself in fox news and get the twisted warped reality that you enjoy, or you can listen to politicians themselves and direct sources. The far left may have a bone to pick with the DNC, but that bone is on the back burner. At the moment they realize that the Trump administration and the right wing in general is the biggest threat to Democracy and freedom in our country, and are throwing their weight behind the DNC for at least 2018 and 2020, possibly longer. They will only resume their disputes with the DNC once the threat of the Trump mindset has been purged from this country, and until then stand united.

People might believe that Jill Stein, Bernie and others are opposing the DNC just because there are a few disgruntled BernieBros still left out there spewing venom and bile, but that's not how the actual politicians themselves feel.

Hell Bernie himself was backing Clinton and begged his supporters to help her just to stop Trump. Pretty clear that the beef between the groups is on the back burner due to a more pressing issue.

A lot of the "divide" between the two groups is just blown out of proportion and/or being fanned into a bigger issue by Russian propaganda. Hamilton 68 has been doing a hell of a job monitoring the trends.

[Jeezy911]

Looks like five cans short of a six pack is back with another avatar inspired post.

Says the guy who thinks this will lead to impeachment. Good Luck, any day now!

- - - Updated - - -

32 people indicted.

That's 32 more than Benghazi. And 32 more than the Clinton email scandal.

Are you trying to prove the point that the FBI is corrupt for one side? Couldn't agree more.

[Noxx79]

Says the guy who thinks this will lead to impeachment. Good Luck, any day now!

- - - Updated - - -



Are you trying to prove the point that the FBI is corrupt for one side? Couldn't agree more.

You’re pretty scared now, aren’t you?

I mean it’s obvious the fbi helped trump win the election. Keeping the Russian involvement a secret while airing Clinton’s dirty laundry.