undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmoduspol8y ago0 comments

The intelligence agencies looked at the evidence and claim it was the Russians, and somehow tied it back to the Russian government.

The NSA leak weeks later that confirmed sophisticated and documented techniques for making hacks appear to come from somewhere else (e.g. by using existing known-Russian C&C servers) is unrelated, and it's apparently unfathomable to think anyone else would be able to use the same techniques.

Also, none of us have ever read history books, which are full of wars and witch hunts started over unverifiable claims by people in power that turned out to be mistaken (at best) or lies (at worst) to push their agenda.

So I'm not sure why you're asking for concrete evidence. They said it was the Russians trying to get Trump elected. Is that not good enough for you?

0 comments

at-fates-hands8y ago

> They said it was the Russians trying to get Trump elected. Is that not good enough for you?

Only if it made sense. At nearly every angle you look at, it doesn't.

If the Russians wanted someone they could push around, then Clinton was their candidate. She's the one who signed off on the Uranium deal, and had several large donations she received as SCOTUS from the Russians. John Podesta (her campaign chair) had financial interests in a Kremlin funded company, and was also on several of the corporate the boards of said company.

Compared to Trump (some smoke, no hard evidence, lots of "anonymous sources"), the ties between Clinton and the Russians are way stronger and have far more substance to them. If this is the case, then why would the Russians want someone they know to be a wild card and prone to being impulsive compared to someone they already made deals with, and had far deeper, established relationships with?

If they were going to influence the election and wanted a puppet, it makes 110% more sense to discredit Trump and put Hilary in office.

ItendToDisagree8y ago

Sources on any of this conjecture?

What large donations from Russia did Clinton receive? Were they comparable to Trump's MANY funding streams from Russian banks? Or multiple of his campaign advisers (not to mention his pick for NSA) having deep Russian ties?

Also wasn't Trump the guy falling all over himself to praise Putin/Russia both on Twitter and in-person? Or explicitly asking for Russia to publish more leaks during one of the presidential debates?

Seems like you have your information pretty mixed up (or simply made up).

Can you post a substantial source for any of your claims?

http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/ (details Trump's many ties to Russia and was written by a Republican to boot.)

cookiecaper8y ago

>Or multiple of his campaign advisers (not to mention his pick for NSA) having deep Russian ties?

On this note, I just want to point out that Russia is the only European country in the world's 10 most populous countries, and that Russia controls more land than any other country on earth (almost twice as much as the second-largest landholder, China).

It should be no surprise that Americans involved in international business will have substantial connections to such a significant world entity.

It's really kind of silly to hear people holding any previous dealing in Russia against anyone that has a remote connection to Donald Trump.

actsasbuffoon8y ago

You might want to double-check your sources. Try to avoid news sources with a far-right or far-left slant. They can be entertaining, but they're generally not trust-worthy: http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/

blakecallens8y ago

Vault 7 proved that "signs of Russian hacking" mean nothing.

mythrwy8y ago

"They said <some stuff>. Is that not good enough for you?"

Generic answer for all questions of that general format.

NO!

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse