"There is much about Russiagate that is ultimately unknowable. What was the nature of the polling data Manafort passed to Kilimnik?"
Rick Gates has testified under oath that this was topline polling data showing Trump's performance in surveys, provided in order to maintain his business in the region. It was him showing off about how he'd helped Trump reduce Hillary Clinton's polling lead. Do keep up.
"How much did Russia’s hack-and-leak operation and social media campaign actually influence the election results? It is unlikely we will ever get answers to such questions."
You mean the "Russian hack-and-leak" operation for which there is "no concrete evidence" in the words of Shawn Henry, CEO of Crowdstrike, the only entity to actually look at the DNC servers? On results - https://theintercept.com/2023/01/10/russia-twitter-bots-trump-election/. Do keep up.
1. Your link to the Intercept article is not about the DNC hack and leak; it’s about an NYU study on the impact of Russian tweets on the election and has nothing to do with either Crowdstrike or the DNC hack. Do try to keep up - with yourself. Furthermore, the article states: “Crucially, the [NYU] report focused only on tweets, so the possible effect of Facebook groups, Instagram posts, or, say, the spread of materials hacked from the Democratic National Committee was left unassessed. “
2. Crowdstrike’s Shawn Henry’s testimony in Dec. 2017 was summarized in a correction Crowdstrike itself issued to itwire.com, in response to an article they published claiming that Crowdstrike had “found no proof” of data exfiltration from the DNC server: “CrowdStrike Statement of Response: The suggestion that CrowdStrike ‘had no proof’ of the data being exfiltrated is incorrect. Shawn Henry clearly said in his testimony that CrowdStrike had indicators of exfiltration ( page 32 of the testimony) and circumstantial evidence (page 75) that indicated the data had been exfiltrated. Also, please note that the Senate Intelligence Committee in April 2020 issued a report (https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume4.pdf/) validating the previous conclusions of the Intelligence community that Russia was behind the DNC data breach.” (Source: https://itwire.com/business-it-news/security/crowdstrike-chief-admits-no-proof-that-russia-exfiltrated-dnc-emails.html) Crowdstrike does not share your view, so you might wish to stop referencing them.
3. As Abrams repeatedly states, his piece is principally not about these issues anyway, but about Deripaska. Do try to keep up.
Except it's not good work at all, is it? It's a bunch of credulous, disingenuous, bootlicking, and factually incorrect crap. Of course *you* are impressed though, Mr. "Disinfo Desolator".
1. I never said The Intercept article related to the DNC hack. The caveat you mention is self-justifying sop, designed to offer some narrative reinforcing 'balance' given how utterly damning the paper's findings are to the notion Twitter in any way influenced the election result, which we were endlessly told was the case for years by the media (TI staffers, including Betsy Reed, were and somehow remain hardcore Russiagaters), think tanks, and Democratic politicians. I was responding to Neil's suggestion the impact of Russia's alleged social media campaign was "unknowable". There is ample research and even officially published data on the reach and activity of purported Russian bot and troll material on social media and the internet generally. Facebook helpfully released info - https://about.fb.com/news/2017/10/hard-questions-russian-ads-delivered-to-congress/. - showing over half of the IRA's tiny spend on ads came *after* the election, and 25% of its advertisements were seen by no one.
2. The "correction" is total bullshit, and in fact *reinforces* that Crowdstrike did not and could not conclusively link the hack to Russia. The reference on page 32 is Shawn Henry citing Crowdstrike's publicly available report on the DNC 'hack' that attributes it to Russia on the basis of no concrete corroboration whatsoever, but "circumstantial evidence" - a euphemism for a bunch of speculative 'analysis' and subjective assessments of "indicators" like one of the alleged hackers using Felix Dzerzhinsky as a username. Which is precisely the kind of thing the CIA (and other Western intelligence agencies) can plant to falsely attribute hacks via Marble Framework. I'm aware the report reinforces Crowdstrike's avowedly evidence-free view - which, unsurprisingly, is based entirely on Crowdstrike's dubious analysis. Because only the heavily DNC-connected, Pelosi-invested Crowdstrike has ever actually looked at the servers. Not the FBI, or the NSA. Which is more than a bit odd.
3. Nothing to say on the polling data? I suppose it's completely unimportant that there is no reason whatsoever to believe this was anything suspicious, and under-oath testimony that it wasn't. Except it was important enough for Neil to cite it, apparently unaware of this (or perhaps aware - he's so dishonest, it's difficult to tell his duplicity from stupidity sometimes). The article is indeed about Deripaska - who has repeatedly condemned the invasion of Ukraine publicly, and recently had assets worth billions seized by the Russian state as a result.
Hilarious. First the guy tells us to check out the Crowdstrike testimony to support his point, then when that doesn't work, Crowdstrike is magically transformed into a b.s. peddler that indulges in "evidence-free", "dubious analysis" (not to mention the obligatory reference to the almighty CIA somehow having a hand in Crowdstrike's bogus methodology). Can we now at least be reassured that you will stop misrepresenting Crowdstrike's conclusions in future?
On the first point, here's your paragraph: "You mean the "Russian hack-and-leak" operation for which there is "no concrete evidence" in the words of Shawn Henry, CEO of Crowdstrike, the only entity to actually look at the DNC servers? On results - https://theintercept.com/2023/01/10/russia-twitter-bots-trump-election/. Do keep up." My grandson is a literate 10-year old, and I'm pretty sure he would read that paragraph and understand that the link is intended to relate to the previous sentence. Do you often refer readers to links that are unrelated to the point you're trying to make?
Yes, you should check Henry's testimony to see he avowedly has "no concrete proof" the emails were hacked by Russia and repeatedly states "there is not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated." All he offers - both in his testimony, and references to his testimony in that stupid statement you offered as proof he didn't say things he clearly did say - are Crowdstrike's 'analysis' it was *likely* a Russian hack, which does not rely on evidence. Because as Henry himself says over and again in that testimony, there is none.
If your grandson can't understand that "on results" alongside to a link on the non-impact of Russia's alleged "social media campaign" on the 2016 election's result, refers to...the impact of Russia's social media campaign on the 2016 election result, not the purported hack, then he's clearly as stupid as you are, yes.
I fear you may be slipping a bit, Kit. While you’ve astutely - and with your usual wit and panache - noted that Abrams, Crowdstrike, myself and my 10-year old grandson are all “stupid”, you’ve uncharacteristically failed to suss out that the 10-year old in question is also CIA. Obvious upon reflection, I know, but still you missed it. I attribute your oversight in this instance to temporary fatigue from having to deal with so many idiots in your intrepid pursuit of truth, and I’m confident that you’ll soon be back to your nimble and agile self.
In the meantime, here’s a link about penguins, which stupid people may find irrelevant to the current discussion, but your Olympian pattern-recognition skills will immediately see the Langley behind the funny little suits : https://www.worldwildlife.org/species/penguin
"There is much about Russiagate that is ultimately unknowable. What was the nature of the polling data Manafort passed to Kilimnik?"
Rick Gates has testified under oath that this was topline polling data showing Trump's performance in surveys, provided in order to maintain his business in the region. It was him showing off about how he'd helped Trump reduce Hillary Clinton's polling lead. Do keep up.
"How much did Russia’s hack-and-leak operation and social media campaign actually influence the election results? It is unlikely we will ever get answers to such questions."
You mean the "Russian hack-and-leak" operation for which there is "no concrete evidence" in the words of Shawn Henry, CEO of Crowdstrike, the only entity to actually look at the DNC servers? On results - https://theintercept.com/2023/01/10/russia-twitter-bots-trump-election/. Do keep up.
1. Your link to the Intercept article is not about the DNC hack and leak; it’s about an NYU study on the impact of Russian tweets on the election and has nothing to do with either Crowdstrike or the DNC hack. Do try to keep up - with yourself. Furthermore, the article states: “Crucially, the [NYU] report focused only on tweets, so the possible effect of Facebook groups, Instagram posts, or, say, the spread of materials hacked from the Democratic National Committee was left unassessed. “
2. Crowdstrike’s Shawn Henry’s testimony in Dec. 2017 was summarized in a correction Crowdstrike itself issued to itwire.com, in response to an article they published claiming that Crowdstrike had “found no proof” of data exfiltration from the DNC server: “CrowdStrike Statement of Response: The suggestion that CrowdStrike ‘had no proof’ of the data being exfiltrated is incorrect. Shawn Henry clearly said in his testimony that CrowdStrike had indicators of exfiltration ( page 32 of the testimony) and circumstantial evidence (page 75) that indicated the data had been exfiltrated. Also, please note that the Senate Intelligence Committee in April 2020 issued a report (https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume4.pdf/) validating the previous conclusions of the Intelligence community that Russia was behind the DNC data breach.” (Source: https://itwire.com/business-it-news/security/crowdstrike-chief-admits-no-proof-that-russia-exfiltrated-dnc-emails.html) Crowdstrike does not share your view, so you might wish to stop referencing them.
3. As Abrams repeatedly states, his piece is principally not about these issues anyway, but about Deripaska. Do try to keep up.
Lol. Good work, Kit.
Except it's not good work at all, is it? It's a bunch of credulous, disingenuous, bootlicking, and factually incorrect crap. Of course *you* are impressed though, Mr. "Disinfo Desolator".
1. I never said The Intercept article related to the DNC hack. The caveat you mention is self-justifying sop, designed to offer some narrative reinforcing 'balance' given how utterly damning the paper's findings are to the notion Twitter in any way influenced the election result, which we were endlessly told was the case for years by the media (TI staffers, including Betsy Reed, were and somehow remain hardcore Russiagaters), think tanks, and Democratic politicians. I was responding to Neil's suggestion the impact of Russia's alleged social media campaign was "unknowable". There is ample research and even officially published data on the reach and activity of purported Russian bot and troll material on social media and the internet generally. Facebook helpfully released info - https://about.fb.com/news/2017/10/hard-questions-russian-ads-delivered-to-congress/. - showing over half of the IRA's tiny spend on ads came *after* the election, and 25% of its advertisements were seen by no one.
2. The "correction" is total bullshit, and in fact *reinforces* that Crowdstrike did not and could not conclusively link the hack to Russia. The reference on page 32 is Shawn Henry citing Crowdstrike's publicly available report on the DNC 'hack' that attributes it to Russia on the basis of no concrete corroboration whatsoever, but "circumstantial evidence" - a euphemism for a bunch of speculative 'analysis' and subjective assessments of "indicators" like one of the alleged hackers using Felix Dzerzhinsky as a username. Which is precisely the kind of thing the CIA (and other Western intelligence agencies) can plant to falsely attribute hacks via Marble Framework. I'm aware the report reinforces Crowdstrike's avowedly evidence-free view - which, unsurprisingly, is based entirely on Crowdstrike's dubious analysis. Because only the heavily DNC-connected, Pelosi-invested Crowdstrike has ever actually looked at the servers. Not the FBI, or the NSA. Which is more than a bit odd.
3. Nothing to say on the polling data? I suppose it's completely unimportant that there is no reason whatsoever to believe this was anything suspicious, and under-oath testimony that it wasn't. Except it was important enough for Neil to cite it, apparently unaware of this (or perhaps aware - he's so dishonest, it's difficult to tell his duplicity from stupidity sometimes). The article is indeed about Deripaska - who has repeatedly condemned the invasion of Ukraine publicly, and recently had assets worth billions seized by the Russian state as a result.
Hilarious. First the guy tells us to check out the Crowdstrike testimony to support his point, then when that doesn't work, Crowdstrike is magically transformed into a b.s. peddler that indulges in "evidence-free", "dubious analysis" (not to mention the obligatory reference to the almighty CIA somehow having a hand in Crowdstrike's bogus methodology). Can we now at least be reassured that you will stop misrepresenting Crowdstrike's conclusions in future?
On the first point, here's your paragraph: "You mean the "Russian hack-and-leak" operation for which there is "no concrete evidence" in the words of Shawn Henry, CEO of Crowdstrike, the only entity to actually look at the DNC servers? On results - https://theintercept.com/2023/01/10/russia-twitter-bots-trump-election/. Do keep up." My grandson is a literate 10-year old, and I'm pretty sure he would read that paragraph and understand that the link is intended to relate to the previous sentence. Do you often refer readers to links that are unrelated to the point you're trying to make?
Yes, you should check Henry's testimony to see he avowedly has "no concrete proof" the emails were hacked by Russia and repeatedly states "there is not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated." All he offers - both in his testimony, and references to his testimony in that stupid statement you offered as proof he didn't say things he clearly did say - are Crowdstrike's 'analysis' it was *likely* a Russian hack, which does not rely on evidence. Because as Henry himself says over and again in that testimony, there is none.
If your grandson can't understand that "on results" alongside to a link on the non-impact of Russia's alleged "social media campaign" on the 2016 election's result, refers to...the impact of Russia's social media campaign on the 2016 election result, not the purported hack, then he's clearly as stupid as you are, yes.
I fear you may be slipping a bit, Kit. While you’ve astutely - and with your usual wit and panache - noted that Abrams, Crowdstrike, myself and my 10-year old grandson are all “stupid”, you’ve uncharacteristically failed to suss out that the 10-year old in question is also CIA. Obvious upon reflection, I know, but still you missed it. I attribute your oversight in this instance to temporary fatigue from having to deal with so many idiots in your intrepid pursuit of truth, and I’m confident that you’ll soon be back to your nimble and agile self.
In the meantime, here’s a link about penguins, which stupid people may find irrelevant to the current discussion, but your Olympian pattern-recognition skills will immediately see the Langley behind the funny little suits : https://www.worldwildlife.org/species/penguin
You are quite good at this, Rodney. Well done.
Lol
Keep posting through it, Kit. You'll get there.