Trending on Twitter

I'm not sure how good your Dutch is*, but I'm quite sure not only Dutch but any other General Intelligence and Security Service anywhere don't "made public their absolute proof".

But according to the quoted reports, the AIVD hackers are no longer in Cozy Bear's computer network.
The Dutch espionage lasted between 1 and 2,5 years. Might well be that Dutch laws allow to publish those findings, but I doubt it.

The English version I quoted is slightly shortened compared to the original Dutch in de Volkskraant. : Alles wat je moet weten over de Russische hacks - en welke rol Nederland speelde in het ontdekken daarvan - lees je hier Obviously they think, there isn't more (Alles wat je moet weten over de Russische hacks ...)

So, no proof, but you choose to believe it?
———————————————

There IS proof of the DNC’s rigging the 2016 election. I’m sure you believe that. We have emails from Robbie Mook, Neera Tanden, John Podesta, and several members of the Clinton campaign, admitting to getting “journalists” to elevate Trump in the media in hopes that robotic, Cold Hillary might be able to beat him.

I’m certain that you’re outraged that Clinton and the DNC are proven responsible for the Trump presidency.

Me, too.

You DO know Hillary’s campaign spent a million on bots, right?

So, you approve Hillary and the DNC hiring bots?

Are you saying that DNC-controlled "journalists" were able to "elevate" Trump and give him the election? They "rigged" the election by drawing attention to an opposition candidate?? If it's that easy to rig an election I'm sure glad that Russiagate is a hoax.

Her staff said in their emails she might not be able to beat any of the other GOP candidates.

They also used bots on Twitter and Facebook to create lies about Bernie being anti-black, among other things.

You’re not going to pretend you don’t know this now, are you?

The difference between my story and yours is that I have proof.

I love that!❤️💕❤️

They rigged their own primaries to give Clinton the nomination. The same news agencies that denied Bernie coverage as part of "the fix" gave Trump millions of dollars worth of free publicity all day long, every day.

You mean, the Russians were involved there as well? Could well be, but I I didn't know it.

Can you make a photo of it?

You mean they altered the results to make it look like more people had voted for Clinton? Or they kept Sanders off the ballot? I'm trying to understand how the election was "rigged" to come up with a particular result, especially since Sanders won primaries as well.

Clinton and her allies had been preparing for her to dominate the contest for four years, maybe longer. Yup, the DNC was slanted and preferred Clinton. But the stuff you're talking about is typical behavior for politicians in hotly-contested primaries. Gee, they said something bad about Sanders. Seems to me he gave as good as he got. I can't believe you guys are still whining about this.

edgarblythe, I apologize for this characterization. I don't read you as "whining". But I do criticize the narrative which Sanders supporters have developed. It uses the language of victimization — "rigged", "stolen", "cheated" — to describe what was, after all, just another primary where incumbents and the establishment worked to ward off a surprisingly robust insurgency.

Unaware of Hillary’s trolls? Guess you can see since everybody’s got bots, possible Russia bots just aren’t a big deal.

http://investmentwatchblog.com/here-you-go-the-list-of-name-and-pay-of-every-hillary-correct-the-record-shill/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/static.theintercept.com/amp/hillary-superpac-coordination.html

In October 2015, several Clinton staffers strategized over ways to attack author Ed Klein for attributing an apparently fake quote to former President Bill Clinton in his book. “I’m sure Brock and team would love to go at him. Nick, want me to put you in touch with them?” Clinton campaign communications staffer Christina Reynolds, wrote, referring to Clinton press secretary Nick Merrill. “I can reach out to David,” volunteered Karen Finney, another Clinton staffer on the email chain.
A month later, Reynolds emailed a list of agenda items for an upcoming campaign meeting. High on the list: determining how to frame Bernie Sanders, and whether attacks on Republicans “should go through HRC, surrogates, DNC, CTR,” another reference to Correct the Record.
In December 2015, a fundraiser for multiple pro-Clinton Super PACs emailed John Podesta, the campaign’s chairman, with a suggested seating chart for an event with Super PAC donors. “John, Below is the seating chart for this evening and attached is a best of hits for both Correct the Record and American Bridge on the Presidential,” Mary Pat Bonner, the fundraiser, wrote. Campaign finance records show four donors on Bonner’s list have given $725,000 to American Bridge 21st Century, which conducts opposition research against Republicans. One donor on the list has contributed $125,000 to Correct the Record. Bonner included a document highlighting the work done by Correct the Record. The paper asserts the group may “coordinate directly and strategically with the Hillary campaign.

Walter, putting yourself in a position to defend Hillary Clinton’s ethical s is no place for any decent human being.

Paid Hillary Bots

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-clinton-digital-trolling-20160506-snap-htmlstory.html

When the Internet’s legions of Hillary hecklers steal away to chat rooms and Facebook pages to vent grievances about Clinton, express revulsion toward Clinton and launch attacks on Clinton, they now may find themselves in a surprising place – confronted by a multimillion dollar super PAC working with Clinton.

Hillary Clinton's well-heeled backers have opened a new frontier in digital campaigning, one that seems to have been inspired by some of the Internet's worst instincts. Correct the Record, a super PAC coordinating with Clinton's campaign, is spending some $1 million to find and confront social media users who post unflattering messages about the Democratic front-runner.

No, your English is failing you. Try to read it again.

I can imagine faulty English is responsible for several of those faulty pro-Hillary opinions.

I have no idea where and when I defended Hillary Clinto, be it her ethics or anything else.
I don't care what she is doing now.
I did think, however, in pre-election times that she was the much lesser of two possible evils.

And I don't think that an anti-Republican/anti-Trump opinion is a pro-Hillary Clinton opinion.

When individuals decry the possibility that trump had webbots spreading disinformation online to his benefit, and at the same time, completely ignore that Clinton is proven to have actively coordinated with an organization that provided that service for her, that individual is definitely defending Hillary Clinton.

Let's edit this for the sake of accuracy:

'When individuals decry the possibility that trump had Russian webbots spreading disinformation online to his benefit..."

There, much better.

My responses and the links I gave were about Russian bots.

You certainly can complain that the Algemene Inlichtingen- en Veiligheidsdienst (AIVD) didn't work according to your conspiracy theories.

This is a classic technique. Question an attacker's motives and you're "defending the accused". Obviously this serves to lessen the impact of any criticism. Similarly, failure to refer to the accused in sufficiently derogatory language puts you squarely in their camp. Orwell would not be pleased.