Seen in the economist today that there is apparently 'evidence' of them being behind the hacking. Read the article further and it only said 'security officials suspect Putin may have been behind it' or some vague bullshit like that.
Is this straight up lying or is there any evidence that we know of?
>evidence
What are you, a communist spy?
>there is apparently 'evidence'
and it was discovered by 'experts'
>Is this straight up lying or is there any evidence that we know of?
What do you think? I'm still amazed that people think the media has anything to do with evidence and reporting facts, it's all about mimicking a news source so that you can use the venue to push an agenda.
There is none. Blaming the Russian bogeyman is easier than admitting that you fucked up. The DNC had to do something since the focus would have shifted on them rigging the primaries.
btw, why is everyone ignoring the romanian lone wolf who said he did it?
...
Stop shitposting, shillary
Thought they would at least have something more tangible than this 'expert' hidden away in some government office. It's laughable how bad the Economist is now.
Sayimg that, what should I expect from a paper run by Evelyn de Rothschild - donor to the clintons and friends personally, as shown by the first emails leaked. They are so shameless about it.
>Democracies
What america has is at best called Republicanism, thou before Trump it was more Oligarhy.
>What is the evidence for Russia hacking Dem emails?
Im Vladimir Putin, the president of the Russian Federation, and i admit this.
how else would you get attention off the emails?
In teh eyes of an average normie media can't lie like that, so when they see them say "evidence" and "experts" they think "oh i guess it's true it's cnn after all besides russians are bad guys so that's definitely plausible". Normies don't have time to fact check anything, they just read the biggest headlines
Someone said so, it has to be true. Why do you need additional evidence? :)
Some Romanian hacker released thoss emails and he stated in an interview that he does not like Russia and does not agree with their policies, yet the media still spun this bullshit story.
>> Trusting the economist
Check who owns this shit
Source on the Romanian? Is he legit?
I think i actually read that the evidence was that one or some of the computers behind the proxies had russian language settings. That's basically how much it takes to be "evidence" of a "government-issued hacked that was definitely commited by the fsb by putin's personal request to help trump".
Why does it even matter? Does Russia being the source excuse what the democratic party did?
There is no evidence. Talking heads on the news say "Well, they left the same footprints as other times they hacked," but they don't say what that means or show the actual evidence.
If you believe for even a second that Russia hacked the DNC servers, you're an idiot. Plain and simple. We talk about how less and less people are trusting the mainstream media, and yet they blindly swallow something like this or "W-WELL TRUMP WANTS TO RAISE MINIMUM WAGE AND HE A RACIST" up with no no problem. It irritates me.
Very serious. Trump is guilty of treason for working with Putin. The only question is "when will he be indicted?"
Literally no evidence. The media is picking it up only because the democrats said so
But putin did not intend to do this so we reccommend no charges.
Mainstream media in the US is literally a propaganda machine for the democratic party agenda for some reason. Even government agencies are protecting democrats (read: FBI). They really hate Russia, and are pushing the "look at our precious widdle DNC and hiwarwy cwinton, the big bad wussians are hurting them". It's creepy and really scary.
Mainstream media just make the left out to be helpless victims, completely ignoring the crimes and felonies committed by the party they are protecting.
Is it possible russians leaked all these e-mails? Yeah. But the wrong narrative is being pushed if that's the case. The narrative should be that russia are the good guys, showing how full of shit our government and media is. My opinion, of course.
It isn't about whether Russia did or didn't. It is about acclimating the public to the idea of the incoming war they want with Russia.
telegraph.co.uk
if Queen Hillary said then it's truth
>dirty tricks
Russia is of Evil
The same as North Korea hacking Sony's servers.
Economist gets triggered by Putin and by Islamophobia, so we can expect bias in an article that's to do with both Trump AND Putin.
There's practically no evidence as far as I know. Pretty sure the FBI "suspects" they did the same to the republicans but nothing has been leaked about them.
Yeah, the same "experts" that determined hillary was innocent.
Fucking
Big
Idiots
The FBI said pretty clearly in their press conference that Shillary was in fact guilty.
They pretty much just said to not bother trying to prosecute because it would never work, the Clintons have been doing this for a long time and know how to cover their tracks.
If anything some staffer would take the blame, go to prison and get a nice kickback when they get out from the Clinton foundation for their service.
Yes that's the big worry, I've read that old pasta about gamergate that links SJWs, internet censorship etc back to Russia and the battle over the petro dollar.
The biggest worry I think right now is why the us and even the uk are trying to provoke Russia constantly. Then they have the audacity to say trump and brexit are the real dangers.
Though I'm also not sure how trump will face the issue of Russia if they are still determined to start trading oil in gold (if there is any truth to that story). But whatever he does has to be better than inciting a new era of global conflict under Clinton.
A proffessional 190 IQ genius hacker working for GRU apparently, making innovative code breaking US defences and outsmarting its anti-cyber warfare specialists - apparently forgot to delete the comments in russian language he left in the code. Again.
CIA found "Здecь был Baня" disassambling the trojan, i bet. Same way they identify attacks from China.
>that old pasta about gamergate that links SJWs, internet censorship etc back to Russia and the battle over the petro dollar.
Do you have it?
Also, any links to articles that show there's a pattern to provoke Russia?
and the new one is Guccifer 2.0
I thought the emails were leaked by an inside man who was then "shot by a mugger"
this could have been Guccifer 2.0, just pretending to be from romania
muh Russians is just a red herring
It's a bit of a slog to read, but it adds up more and more since it was written with the continued smear campaign against Russia.
>Rothschild owned magazine says is Russia super bad
>not knowing the Rothschilds have tried to completely corner the market of the petrodollar through the IMF by slowly squeezing out all of BRICS and the SCO
>Putin killed reporters! Putin hacked things! Look at all this proof we made up! WAR NOW
Yea nah, expect more and more propaganda to try to A. demonize Russia to start a war and B. deflect all future DNC and HRC leaks by focusing on Russia instead, instead of reporting on the leaks.
They're really just flat out making stuff up now.
there is none. it's a diversion tactic. now the media gets to talk about the evil russian hackers instead of adressing the substance and implications of the 'hacked' emails content.
Let's go over the facts.
>The Economist
>owned by Economist Group
>which is owned by (((Rothschild))) among others
>unironically believe anything posted by Rothschild owned media is relevant and legit
wew lad.
How is Russia so good at computers? I thought they were all drunks in track suits
Don't any of you remember the lies leading up to the invasion of Iraq?
This is where we are today, but against Russia. WMDs of 2002 are the "hacks" of 2016.
>be china
>leave russian sentences in code when hacking america
>leave "american" traces when hacking russia
>sit back and enjoy the chaos
It was trumps son the autistic one
Nobody hacked any emails. Clinton intentionally left her email open to anyone who wanted to read it so that she could leak information to the Saudis without the Saudis getting into trouble for it. Pretty much everybody had access to her emails and now Russia blew the whistle so that they could help Trump get into presidency so he can put a stop to this madness.
I think Comey (Commie?) actually said that not in defense of Hillary but more like to save his ass from the Clinton Machine which killed over 20+ people (by accident of course).
I`m Russian, daughter of an officer, who hacked the pentagon, we live here for 50 years. We where sitting on porch having vodka for dinner and suddenly our bear came with telegraphone - Putin called and said Trump wants us to hack DNC. For this we got food coupons, release from work on nuclear mine for 4 weeks and new adidas uniforms with ceremonial red moccasins.
Yes I'm not an idiot.
I've had a subscription to this rag for probably around 8 years now. It used to be alright, a clear editorial bias against certain regimes (China particularly) but was overall a reasonable source of news.
In the last year it has become full on gonzo propaganda though. This is directly tied to the time it was taken over completely by the Rothschilds. Their stance against trump is a laughable caricature of journalism. Multiple hit pieces, cartoons and unflattering cover illustration week in week out. Same over the top hyperbole about brexit.
I'm just keeping my eye on how far they are willing to go with the bullshit. A strait up lie like this is taking their editorial bias further than usual.
> because it would never work
This is not the reason to not try and certainly not a legal reason.
At least they would have to pay this staffer. And this might end up with staffer disclosing their payment, etc.
The fact is, that they just stopped writing it for you and began to write it for someone else. Changed their target group.
And the fact is, that the audience is different, but the level of bullshit is always the same.
>no evidence
>lel Russia did it
Jesus fucking Christ. German media also went allout "Trump ask Russia to hack the Democrats !!!111"
ķėĶ
Media follows it`s fathers guidelines.
Well who are they wearing it for now?
Its target audience has generally been business men. That's why I had it to keep up with business news, new tech, and some basic political events that can affect markets.
Now it is much more political for sure, but how is that message reach people effectively if they are doing it through a business paper? Most people who have been reading it for the last few years will be able to clearly see it is going to shit.
The comments section to most of their Facebook posts is always utterly tearing into them. Seem they are generating a lot of ill will recently.
...
german media says russian language settings were used on the systems which copied the dnc files.
> Well who are they wearing it for now?
I`m not sure.
> Its target audience has generally been business men.
Business-wannabees to be exact.
Rarely the body, that declares "we do it for X" is doing it not for X-wannabees. Like science/atheism for example. They are doing it for retards, who want to be or at least to sound smart. Economist is a paper for indigents, who dream of some kind of american dream. For people, who want to be rich or at least sound like they are.
Real business has marketing, they do not need to read the press. They look into clients reactions and if they can predict it - they profit. If not - they invest in empty opportunities and go out of business. Marketing reads everything, but you see - that is different.
If people declare "we do it for X" and they are really doing it for X - they are probably some kind of retards like Russians, who think that prosperity comes from good deeds, decency and reason.
> Seem they are generating a lot of ill will recently.
They are getting what they want. They are smarter than any of us, you can see it in their rotten fruits. They are rich and globalism is on the rise, we are deep in shit and face the genocidal perspectives in the nearest future.
> they start to sound technical
Wew, i`m with whatever vehiclename now.
...
Yes your point about the marketing is good. The reports businesses create on markets and clients are much better than any business paper or tv show could give you.
Perhaps the reason the economist pads out the paper with the propaganda now. It fills in the bigger picture you don't get in the internal reports.
> Perhaps the reason the economist pads out the paper with the propaganda now.
It`s always been propaganda. They just stopped writing it for you.
They are very smart, but they are not omnipotent. They cant write in universally to cheat everyone in the world.
So if I read their earlier anti-china BS - I see that it`s absolute bollocks and this "little bias" is there only to persuade you that they have nothing else up their sleeve.
When you read their current BS - you see, where they try to manipulate their current target audience.
You can see they have made a clear change in that respect. They seem to have cooled a lot on the China vitriol. Since Cameron met and cut a trade deal with them earlier in the year, they have been replaced by Russia as the wests biggest enemy.
I see your point, but they way that the paper is written and the strength of the language used feels like it has been dialled up a notch. Could just be because they are getting desperate having seen brexit and the trump success so need to go all out to discredit opponents.
Actually, it might be funny to see how the Rothschild think and how much they're panicking right now.
Actually comey said verbatim there was no evidence they could find of any hacking. Comey playing 7d chess
They wont show how they think. Press is not about showing you anything. It`s about the reaction they wait from you.
About as much evidence as North Korea hacking Sony.
This is the cartoon from today's issue. Not even subtle anymore.