rigorousintuition.ca

Iamwhomiam » 10 May 2020 17:31 wrote:Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence United States Senate on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/pub ... e-measures

Reports

Volume 1 ~ https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sit ... olume1.pdf

Volume 2 ~ https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sit ... olume2.pdf

Volume 3 ~ https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sit ... olume3.pdf

Volume 4 ~ https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sit ... olume4.pdf


~ Edited to add Mueller Report ~

(Mueller) Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election

Volume 1 ~ https://www.justice.gov/storage/report_volume1.pdf

Volume 2 ~ https://www.justice.gov/storage/report_volume2.pdf

And what does this trove of documents demonstrate other than CrowdStrike's conclusions (which we all now know were based on no evidence) got the official stamp of narrative approval?

Sometimes it's good to have the documentation being criticized handy, like Volume 4, which I'm sure you haven't read.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Which portion of the heavily redacted document(s) did you find to be noteworthy? I haven't yet scanned all the links in depth to this point, but saw nothing illuminating (or new) amid the content that remains in un-redacted form.

Perhaps you saw otherwise?

It's always good to have the evidence handy, all in one place. What the fuck is the problem? There is not a more proper thread to place that material than this.

.
Yes, except you refer to these links as "evidence". I see [from the content that remains un-redacted] no such thing. I see unsubstantiated claims.

This is my last on this subject. The four page report is the Senate Intelligence Committee's Report on Russian Involvement in the 2016 election. Volume 4 contains the acceptance of such involvement as a matter of fact by Republican Senators.

The other two volume report is Mueller's FBI Report on the same topic. I thought you might have noticed the large bold print. Here, all together in one place for posterity.

.

Thanks.

Added some qualifiers in bold, within brackets, below.

Iamwhomiam » Tue May 12, 2020 7:31 pm wrote:This is my last on this subject. The four page report is the Senate Intelligence Committee's Report on [alleged, and specious, claims regarding] Russian Involvement in the 2016 election. Volume 4 contains the acceptance of such involvement as a matter of fact by Republican Senators.

The other two volume report is Mueller's FBI Report on the same topic [likewise specious and lacking in substance]. I thought you might have noticed the large bold print. Here, all together in one place for posterity.

stickdog99 wrote:But Mueller just repeated Crowdstrike's claims as 100% fact, even though these claims were based on nothing but Mook's and Podesta's spit balling? I am getting this right?

I guess it wasn't my last. I posted the entire account for stickdog to search for an answer to his question, as well.

Ok, everyone relax!

Of course deconstruction of official documents and statements, like the Mueller report, is central to understanding this mess. So those links are relevant and everyone play nice here.

stickdog99 wrote:But Mueller just repeated Crowdstrike's claims as 100% fact,

Actually, the caveats and grammatical distancing and weasel words in Crowdstrike's claims and in which the Mueller report wraps his acceptance of these claims are part of the evidence against the validity of these claims.

This guy's done the work, I'll let him explain it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5Sw7TbmfN8

.

Of course deconstruction of official documents and statements, like the Mueller report, is central to understanding this mess. So those links are relevant and everyone play nice here.

Of course. This entire thread is a process of deconstructing, and disputing, the official statements and the manner in which they've been presented (and dutifully reported without scrutiny) by most of the Press.

I do not object to sharing such content here -- I don't believe I implied such a thing.

My objection is with presenting the links as "evidence". Semantics, perhaps, but given the topic of this thread, it's important to clarify/apply context.


EDIT, as I may not have made this clear earlier, but I have read the Mueller Report some time ago. It was part of my information gathering phase while performing my own analysis of the available content pertaining to 'Guccifer' and 'Russiagate', hence the origin of this thread.

I read the entire Mueller report. There is nothing in it as far as I can tell but Mueller's blithe acceptance and endorsement of CrowdStrike's conclusions, which were based entirely on CrowdStrike's non-investigation.

I am not impressed by the witting credulity concerning this matter of Mueller, Republican Senators, or even Bernie Sanders, for that matter. Where is the evidence to support CrowdStrike's conclusions? I have seen none, certainly none in any of the official documents linked here for posterity. If there is anything relevant to actual evidence of Russiagate in the latest trove of redacted credulity, that is news to me. If I am wrong, what is the evidence? What pages of which documents can I find this evidence on?

If anyone here actually believes that "Russians" hacked the DNC servers and "interfered" with the 2016 election in any material way, I would like to know what actual evidence forms the basis for these beliefs. Show me the money, please.

stickdog99 wrote:If anyone here actually believes that "Russians" hacked the DNC servers and "interfered" with the 2016 election in any material way, I would like to know what actual evidence forms the basis for these beliefs. Show me the money, please.

"I guess you are just not a believer" —Luke Harding

I made my beliefs about this issue a very long time ago, in another thread on this subject. Too many of you project what my feelings are to fit your confirmation bias towards me. Too bad you don't recall what I then wrote, that the hackers probably originated in Virginia. But you free-thinking guys go on believing whatever you want about me. None of you know me.

Oh, and thanks Jack. Maybe a stronger warning is needed, though. I know a few have been missing their regular whipping posts and be assured I will not become a substitute. Anyway, I've always been sure this would be the outcome; I thought you and Rex did as well. Ultimately unprovable.

BS ~ I referred to it as evidence of the crimes you'd like to see mueller or the fbi hanged for.

.
IAM, to be brief: i have no clear indication of your stance on this topic (at least not until your most recent offering); If you scroll up and read my prior comments, you'll find nothing in my commentary to indicate otherwise.

I did, however, offer you an opportunity to provide your thoughts/position on the links you shared without context. Your post above is the first time you've expressed your position. I have no recollection of any of your prior musings Re: Russiagate.

You speak of 'projection', but apparently seem unaware of your own. Seeking the 'hanging' of Mueller and/or the FBI is a futile endeavor, as they are mere foot-soldiers. It would be hacking at branches rather than striking the root.

Any clear-eyed reading of my contributions here would show that i see much of these mainstream political 'events' as little more than kayfabe, offered up for those fully subscribed to the theatrics put forth by both Establishment parties, with generous assistance by State Press (though I wouldn't presume by default that anyone reading this forum would take care to develop a 'profile' of my overarching viewpoints).




Good thing i prefaced this by typing 'brief', huh..

I have no concern whatsoever for how you feel, BS. I really wish I could feel differently, but you are really too belligerent. You're always nasty to those you disagree with, and that's a shame. I'm not projecting, It's all based upon first hand experience, my interactions with you over the years. For example, why would anyone question having the complete testimony of the Senate Intelligence Committee investigating Russian involvement in our 2016 presidential election and the complete Mueller report on the same, in the same thread as this, with its focus on the findings and forensic analysis of the truthfulness of Gucciffer 2.0's claims, which has now incorporated crowdstrike into the conversation?

To be bitchy?

Be assured, just as crowdstrike cannot prove the Russians were the responsible party, we cannot prove they weren't.

I should add, BS, please discontinue your belligerence towards me. Thank you.