#50929
Profile photo of GeorgiaSaint
GeorgiaSaint
Veteran
member9

Pro: John McAfee certainly has way above average knowledge of HOW things are done, and can quite adequately assess them. John McAfee also laid out four specific things (date/time stamp, IP address, keyboard type, and language used) that make a strong case for a NON-state actor to be at the front of the “Russian” hacking. Oh – I also forgot his allegation that the malware used was over a year old when it was used on the DNC servers, after multiple improvements (updates) had been made on it.

Con: John McAfee certainly has more than his share of “issues,” and his character would be brought into question if this ever went to a courtroom and he was called as a witness – all in an effort to show he isn’t a credible witness

Con: Ed Schultz’ credibility certainly isn’t meaningful to anyone at all right of center, to say the least. (Interestingly, that’s also a PRO: because he’s using John McAffee to attack the entire Democrat organization (DNC, Obama/administration, Clinton Inc., Podesta, you name it!). So add +1 in BOTH the Pro and Con columns on just this one factor.

Con: This was broadcast on RT, a Russian State-owned outlet, and related to the immediately preceding “Con,” Ed Schultz is working on their behalf as one of their presenters (but then again, that also qualifies as a “Pro”)..

Conclusion: Not only did the Administration/DNC/Clinton organizations get to stir up far more trouble with Russia (something they’ve been pushing for for quite a while now), they also put almost-President Donald J Trump in a nearly no-win situation just days before he “owns” it all. He’s been backing the Russians, playing up to Putin, and generally trying to set a new tone for relations with Russia. But he wasn’t briefed at the same time as Congress was briefed, despite now having the security clearance needed to know very significant information as part of the necessary transition. And the FBI only JUST acknowledged that they were not given access to the DNC servers that were instead turned over to a DNC selected private company, and the FBI was forced to use as “primary” data the stuff the private firm gathered (that’s at best, secondary data obviously). That also certainly gives some credibility (I’ll refrain from commenting on just how much) to those that would argue the DNC probably CREATED the “evidence” of hacking, and chose to get their “private” information released to Wikileaks themselves!

Given the five items outlined by McAfee (date/time stamp, IP address, keyboard type, language used, and outdated malware) –VS– McAfee’s credibility, Ed Schultz’ credibility, RT’s credibility, or our own intelligence community’s credibility (headed up by the man who admitted to lying under oath to a congressional committee!), we’re still left with some very simple-to-understand reasons why it would seem far less likely that Russia was the hacker. They just aren’t that amateurish! Oh – and we are NOT seeing this interview on NBC/CBS/CNN/FOX/NPR/ABC — why not? Let’s see what Sean Hannity has to say now! Will he have a sock stuck in his mouth, commit 2-round suicide, or somehow be allowed to follow up on his interview with this after his Julian Assange interview just last week – in prime time (not 10:00 p.m.)?

But Trump now has to deal with a Congress ready to declare war on Russia, somehow not LOOK like an idiot to the entire American public for having questioned the “Russia did it” story, and also somehow deal with Russia in a way that allows progress and reduced danger with Russia. Tall order. Brilliant gamesmanship by whoever has really done all this! Something stinks to high heaven, regardless.

GS
"Ye hear of wars in far countries, and you say that there will soon be great wars in far countries, but ye know not the hearts of men in your own land."

  • This reply was modified 1 year, 3 months ago by Profile photo of GeorgiaSaint GeorgiaSaint.