Brazile sheds some light on the Seth Rich Murder
- Thread starter justoffal
- Start date
Let me know if you have something other than an anonymous source...
In the meantime that link absolutely does not make all the evidence of Russian hacking of various election related systems go away.
Raoul_Luke
I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
You mean unlike the unnamed "intelligence analysts" upon whose "opinion" you are suggesting constitutes "evidence?" You still have yet to explain the difference between this "intelligence estimate" and the one the neocon's used to sell Iraqi WMDS...
georgephillip
Senator
Is this an acceptable definition of "sound money?"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sound money
"Definition of sound money
money not liable to sudden appreciation or depreciation in value :stable money;specifically :a currency based on or redeemable in gold — compare paper money, soft17"
If so, how is it possible "Wall Street and capitalism parted ways when Nixon abrogated Bretton Woods" at the same time ideas like privatization, free trade, austerity, and deregulation became standard policies for both major US political parties?
Raoul_Luke
I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. All I can see is an example of good economic policies, when coupled with bad currency policies, not being destined to produce economic prosperity. And I'm not sure you are getting good information here, as you'll have to show the work behind the suggestion that we have experienced "cutbacks in social services." The whole dismal dynamic you are lamenting here is driven by the unsustainable growth in government spending that arises from an empire's inevitable quest to maintain its international power through military strength at the same time it is attempting to placate the masses with ever more (prosperity destroying) wealth redistribution. At some point in that process, sound money becomes inconsistent with the self serving goals of the messianic elites in government, who become convinced that it is THEY who are the font of all prosperity throughout the empire, rather than the private sector wealth creators whose good money they keep throwing after bad in an endless quest to prove themselves correct, thereby driving the real wealth creators to, well, create less wealth to be confiscated and squandered by the political and bureaucratic class intent on using it to promote the cruel illusion that it is they, and not the private sector, that is "creating" wealth, rather than merely "redistributing" it. Eventually, the "consuming" outstrips the "production," making it impossible to maintain the sound money peg; and, at that point, the whole crapload starts swirling around in the bowl, until economic gravity completes the economic flushing process.Is this an acceptable definition of "sound money?"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sound money
"Definition of sound money
money not liable to sudden appreciation or depreciation in value :stable money;specifically :a currency based on or redeemable in gold — compare paper money, soft17"
If so, how is it possible "Wall Street and capitalism parted ways when Nixon abrogated Bretton Woods" at the same time ideas like privatization, free trade, austerity, and deregulation became standard policies for both major US political parties?
The difference is that before the invasion of Iraq the estimates were debated by experts and while I thought the Bush administration was hyping questionable intel....I didn't know for sure until after we invaded and found no evidence. There was also the dispute between the presidents State of the Union speech and what Joseph Wilson had to say about Iraq obtaining yellowcake from Niger. As we learned about Doug Feith and Paul Wolfwitz and their "intel" operation at the Pentagon...it was clear how the intelligence they wanted to put in front of the people had been false.
Now you have the evidence of a hack by Russian sources. The analysts who work for the CIA, NSA or FBI do not need to be named. The people in charge of running those agencies are the ones who have testified before congress to the reliability of that info. You must have noticed that when the Trump appointees testified, they did so using their own names and in public.
Tyler Durden is so sure of what he writes that he uses a fake name.
Raoul_Luke
I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Yes, the "questionable intelligence" was "hyped" by the neocons (maybe the deep state is doing the same now with this "Russian hacking" BS). Perhaps you didn't know it at the time but I did (and I said so on the record). It was highly unlikely that Saddam had access to the technology required to maintain, let alone produce new, WMDs. The same sort of logic applies here, quite frankly. In light of the Clintons' "success" in making nice with the Russians (including Putin and his cronies) in the past, the notion that he cared so much about keeping Hillary out of the Oval Office that he was willing to risk starting WWIII by actually interfering with the outcome of the election is beyond incredible. There is no motive (none) for the Russians to attempt what they are being accused of here. And now that we have documentation about the fear and loathing within the DNC over Clinton's ham fisted efforts to control the primary process (not to mention the financial mismanagement), it's quite easy to conjure up a really strong motive for a disgruntled insider to have done the "hack" of the emails discrediting her, just as Julian Assange has been saying all along.
Until the government produces its "proof" of the Russians being behind it, which, frankly, if it had any the "intelligence estimate" would have NOT used weasel words like "believe" and "confidence" and would have instead simply said "we know because we have ironclad proof" (they didn't because they don't) then all we have is "hype." What they have is some Russian ips in the logs because they were no doubt conducting surveillance of the electoral process (as we do with theirs), and they are "hyping" that into the "conclusion" that the Russians hacked the email server. But absent a clear motive for the Russians to have done it, I'm putting this "conclusion" in the same category as when they "concluded" that Iraq had WMDs. That would be the BS category, in case you are wondering...
The investigation isn't over. In light of your pro-Trump views...please explain his comments
“As far as hacking, I think it was Russia,” Trump said. “Hacking’s bad, and it shouldn’t be done. But look at the things that were hacked, look at what was learned from that hacking.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-admits-to-russian-hacking-even-as-he-attacks-us-intelligence-community/2017/01/11/40941a34-d817-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html?utm_term=.4496c3aa509e
Brazile: I Found 'No Evidence' That Dem Primaries Were 'Rigged'
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...m-primaries-were-rigged/ar-AAut9bw?li=BBnb7Kz
Brazile: I Found 'No Evidence' That Dem Primaries Were 'Rigged'
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...m-primaries-were-rigged/ar-AAut9bw?li=BBnb7Kz
Raoul_Luke
I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Unlike you, I don't selectively believe Trump. I don't ever believe anything he says. But since you introduced this piece of "evidence" lets examine it. He "thinks" it was Russia. He is the CinC, so I think it's safe to assume he has seen ALL of the "evidence" right? So why doesn't he say "I agree it was the Russians?" Because the "proof" is all circumstantial evidence, as I have shown again and again and again in our conversations on this matter. And, now that we know the extent of the Clintons' "coziness" with the Russians, as evidenced by the Uranium One deal and the Trump dossier provenance, there is simply NO motive anyone can come up with (including you) for the Russians to risk starting WWIII by trying to affect the outcome of the election in Trump's favor. So a lack of a motive coupled with circumstantial evidence shouldn't convict in any court (including the court of public opinion). As for Trump's "belief" it was the Russians, I'm calling bullshit on that as well. Most likely he doesn't "believe" that at all, but simply understands that he is getting hammered day in and day out over this Russian election hacking meme, and that it's in his best interests to adopt the stance that "yeah they did it, but I wasn't involved" in an effort to get beyond it. The only one he cares about getting justice is himself, and the Russians are on their own. Frankly I'd probably do the same thing if I was in his shoes...
Would you say that is a waltz or the cha-cha?
Either way it is a dance. There is nothing for Trump to gain by admitting that he thinks it was the Russians. Remember that it isn't just the DNC email server. There are a lot of systems that showed evidence of at least an attempt.
You think their espionage could have resulted in WWIII? Why? They stole the plans for a nuclear weapon from us and we didn't declare war. Their pilots flew combat missions against us in Korea and Vietnam....and we didn't declare war. They are arming the Taliban in Afghanistan...and we still have not declared war. We armed the Afghan rebels against them and they didn't declare war on the US....are you getting the picture?
I think we are pretty early into a research project by the Russians and the goal is the ability to manipulate elections. The payoff is huge.
Raoul_Luke
I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
She describes the "rigging" and then says there's "no evidence" it was rigged. Clinton controlled the DNC throughout the primaries, including the purse strings. The idea that she didn't use that control to sew up all the "super delegates" which gave her the nomination is beyond laughable. Elizabeth Warren said it was rigged and then walked it back. The Clinton's still control much of the party apparatus. The pressure on these Democrats to back off the "rigged primary" meme is probably unfathomable...
Raoul_Luke
I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Bullshit! He gains in that the media can't use his refusal to join the "conclusion" it was the Russians as a bat to beat him over the head day in and day out with. And you say there's lots of systems that "showed evidence of at least an attempt?" I'm shocked, SHOCKED to find espionage going on around our electoral process. Of course there were "attempts" - just as I suggested - these servers' logs are probably littered with Russian ip sourced port scans (as is yours and mine). That's not "proof" they hacked the DNC/Podesta emails any more than "Clueless" Clapper's "belief" that it was. It's simply evidence of the kinds of hacking that goes on day in and day out:
http://map.norsecorp.com/#/
You "think we are pretty early into a research project by the Russians and the goal is the ability to manipulate elections" do ya? And what proof do you have? It's clear that if they had a preference in 2016 it was for Hillary, that's what is clear.
What is clear is that Trump argued against the sanctions and Hillary pledged to keep them.
Putin's hatred for Obama was obvious and he saw Clinton as a continuation.
Really? You think Trump does anything to gain favor in the media?
Raoul_Luke
I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
No one (at least not those of us in the reality based community) believes official campaign promises. The fact is Hillary opposed the sanctions and I am sure Putin wasn't as naive as you, or stupid enough to believe she couldn't be bought off (again):
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/18/hillary-clinton-sided-with-russia-on-sanctions-as-bill-made-500g-on-moscow-speech.html
Raoul_Luke
I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
It has nothing to do with "gaining favor." It has to do with taking a weapon away from your enemy.
For one thing it would help if you kept in mind there was more than one round of sanctions against Russia. Early on there was the Magnitsky bill. That was in 2010 when we still had hopes of improving relations.
https://www.snopes.com/hillary-bill-clinton-russia-sanctions-speech/
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/trump-may-lift-russia-sanctions-to-give-cooperation-a-chance.html
Like their broadcast license?
Admitting the Russians probably did hack the DNC and other systems is hardly helping his standing. He'd do better to follow your lead and discredit the information....but he can't.
