Small Spill Incident Report Form: Fill & Download for Free

I think I am suffiecently entitled to answer this. I had a similar situation, not in NDA, but at IMA when I was a Captain. I was posted there as an instructor.While conducting an exam, I had my cadets seated on ground well apart on a sunny winter morning. Copying was impossible as I had ensured that they sat so far apart they could barely see other's answer books. While evaluating their answer books I found an uncannily similar error made by two cadets. They were asked to write the full form of an acronym commonly used in the Army and both of them had given absurdly, identical wrong full forms. What caught my eye was the identical error both made was really stupid.I sent for them the next day to check how they gave identically absurd wrong answer to that acronym. I said there was no chance to copy, which they readily agreed. I gave them a couple of days to come clean and tell the truth.They kept insisting that they had studied together and had prepared similar answers. They were insisting that what they had told was the truth and there was nothing more to it.Somehow I was not convinced despite their assurances.I assured them that if you tell me the truth the matter will be closed by me and no further questions asked. (Because I was the guy who had to set the ball rolling for any action). The matter rested there for the day. I had to return their evaluated answer scripts the following day.For these two cadets I deliberately added a few marks extra, than they had actually scored. After distributing the answer scripts I asked all to please verify their totals and get my records corrected if they found any totaling discrepancy. To make every thing look natural I had recorded lesser totals in a few cases.A few cadets lined up before me bringing out ‘my totaling errors’. I promptly corrected my records to the satisfaction of these boys….adding extra marks where I had gone ‘wrong’. Those two gentlemen never showed up before me to get their totals corrected…. because my ‘error’ favoured them.I asked these two cadets to stay back after all had dispersed. I said, “Do you want me to trust you with your story that you have told me regarding the copying incident?” Their reply was a very vociferous Yes Sir!“I am willing to trust you but you have to earn it. You have failed to do that. On a small matter of few extra marks that I have deliberately awarded, you both kept silent and wanted to cheat me”, I said. I added, “I know your actual scores, they are recorded with me, and I know what ‘errors ‘ I have made in your scripts. Why should I trust you?”Their jaws dropped in surprize and spilled everything. They had cultivated a contact in the Academy's printing press. They had got the paper through him.The guy lost his job and these two boys were relegated to the next junior term and sent under an entirely new set of officers to avoid prejudiced opinion of them. They went to different companies and battalions in IMA.What touched me most was they came back looking for me on a holiday. They said even though we lost a term, we have learnt an important lesson. Thank you Sir for teaching us to be honest. I could only say, “How I wish you had told me the facts when I gave chance after chance after chance”. I was not enjoying making this report, I was not being one-up. I was sad for these boys as I knew they would be relegated, but I had a duty and they had to be taught…which was why I was at IMA.

No, it’s actually very abnormal to walk around in fear.If the sight of a holstered gun on the hip of someone behaving normally makes you fearful, you need help. That help may be in the form of education - learning what the laws are, what that person had to do to be allowed to carry openly, and so on.Given open carry is quite rare, then you are perhaps imagining everyone around you has guns? All those people without a single other clue is somehow carrying a gun? You would be catastrophizing things, it so.In Texas 5% of adults have carry permits. So at most 1 out of 20 people around you are legally carrying. More in some areas, less in others. About 1 in 8 in Houston, about 1 in 70 in EL Paso, based on the rate permits were issued and populations. But if they are all concealed, how do you actually know? Imagining a gun is far different than there being one.If you are still fearful, then maybe some professional counseling is in order, as you would certainly be fearful of quite a bit more than just a concealed gun.But, but…all those mass killings! Per Mother Jones, there were exactly 22 mass shooting incidents, combined, in 2018 and 2019. 335 killed and wounded, in the whole of those 2 years. That’s about the same casualty rate as 4 days of drunk driving incidents. You should be far more afraid of being run down by a drunk!US mass shootings, 1982-2021: Data from Mother Jones’ investigationBut I hear there are hundreds of mass shooting every day!OK, now we’re getting to it. You’re reading the mass media, whose job it is to sell advertising, and advertising sells if there are readers/viewers. To get large numbers of readers/viewers, they have to sensationalize things.For example, a year ago as Covid was becoming the all-encompassing boogey-man….the CDC and others projected a certain number of dead by July. That number was 500K to 2 million. What number did the media run with - the ONLY number they ran with? 2 million, of course. We’ve just now gone over 500K. It was around 200K in July - ONE TENTH what the media was hyping. And that’s if you believe the counts. Too many deaths were counted as “from” Covid when they merely had the antibodies - they simply died “with” it. Many of the dead were so seriously ill from other diseases, they’d have died in a couple of months anyway, Covid just happened to take over from pneumonia as their actual killer. It took a while before the counting processes cleared up.Same with mass shootings. Mother Jones counts a mass shooting as 3 or more shot (killed or injured), and where there was NOT criminal activity going on at the same time, and it was NOT a domestic violence incident. When the FBI was counting mass shootings (they are now calling them active shooters), first it was 4, then they changed to 3. Otherwise the same criteria applied.So how can 22 incidents be compared to several hundred? Simple. If your agenda is to sensationalize, or in the case of anti-gun groups to maximize counts to better support their disarmament agenda, you count anything and everything. They have even been known to make up incidents out of thin air. Researchers trying to find police reports, find the incident never happened.For example… 2 cops shooting it out with 2 bad guys. In the end a cop is wounded, and the 2 bad guys are dead. 3 shot, single incident. Mass shooting! Really? Does that even begin to approach your mental image of a mass shooting?2 rival drug gangs, in a school parking lot in the wee hours of a weekend morning and doing a drug deal. School is closed, everyone else is in bed asleep. Everyone there is heavily, and illegally, armed selling and buying equally illegal drugs. Suddenly there is a noise, and they start shooting at each other. Or one side decides to double-cross the other. Either way you have armed violent gangs doing illegal sales involving a lot of money. Are you surprised violence breaks out? Did that affect innocents in the area? No - it’s why Mother Jones and the FBI don’t classify these as mass shootings. The gun control types do, it’s their raison d’etre to do that…They’d have hardly a leg to stand on complaining about 22 in 2 years, right?When you take the 60K or so deaths by gun in the US every year, remove suicides (about 41K) as suicide isn’t about guns, it’s about despair. Then you remove the drug gang numbers, as they are a class unto themselves and rarely spill out into the rest of society, you have around 4.5K intentional homicides by gun per year nationwide.There are ~~330 million people in the US. 4,500 intentional gun deaths on a rate per 100K people comes out to 1.36 per 100K. That puts us right in there with Denmark at 1.47 Ukraine and Italy are both 1.31. Switzerland and Austria are right around 3…. Gun Deaths by Country 2021To be sure, I am discounting the sort of firearm deaths the vast majority of Americans are never, ever exposed to. The reality for 99.9% of Americans is hardly the picture painted in the media.Let me be really clear - we have 330 million people and the drug gangs are closeted in small inner city neighborhoods. For one, I never see them or come anywhere in contact with them. My daily life is very peaceful.I have not, obviously, given the other countries the opportunity to cleanse their numbers of gang homicides. It doesn’t diminish my point.They don’t have a 1500 mile wide open border with a country controlled, or seriously intimidated, by drug cartels, where drugs, people (human trafficking), and guns flow unimpeded. We have to wonder why it is our leadership is so determined to leave that border open…My point is that Americans outside of those gang neighborhoods are no more at risk of death by gunfire than most any other civilized society.Let me draw a parallel example. Chicago, by count, has the most gun homicides of any US city. 690 shot, 132 killed as of this writing, March 27, 2021. Chicago Crime, Murder & Mayhem | Illustrating Chicago Values | HeyJackass! Yet by most standards Chicago comes in about 17th most dangerous city for crime in the country. How can you have the highest murder count, but be 17th in overall danger from crime? Simple - you dilute the crime numbers by 2.7 million law-abiding and good people. List of United States cities by crime rateI had a conversation with a Quora member who lived in Chicago and didn’t believe his city was that violent. Where he lived, it wasn’t!! If he lived in Garfield Park, however, his mileage would be VERY different.That’s my point here. Life in this country is NOT the average of all it’s parts.So are you afraid of average numbers spread out over all people regardless if it makes sense? If so you are afraid of mere statistics.Remember, Mark Twain said “there are lies, damned lies and statistics”. I’m trying to suss out the real-life numbers from a very generalized statistical picture.

Before discussing evidence, it’s important to be clear that the assessment of the U.S. intelligence community is unanimous: Russia interfered with the election. It happened.The FBI, CIA, NSA, and ODNI all said so when they were run by Obama appointees, and they continue to say so now that they’re run by Trump appointees. DHS says so, too.Presidents, too. Obama said it. Bush said it. Trump said it. He tries to downplay it, but he said it. And his CIA Director and Secretary of State say they aren’t going to stop.And Congress, as well. Members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees from both parties have said it.That’s two branches of government, two political parties, partisans and civil servants; Republicans, Democrats, and dedicated professionals living and breathing national security every day.Outside the U.S. government, private sector companies specializing in computer forensics have said it, even those that compete with each other and have strong incentive to prove the others wrong. More on that shortly.To be as clear as possible before moving on, the FBI, CIA, and NSA, through the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, published the following assessment:President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.So, we’re confident the Russians attempted “an influence campaign” to interfere with the 2016 U.S. election, but what form did this take?The effort was multi-pronged:Establishing contact with the Trump campaign and those receptive to Russian overtures.Hacking into Democratic servers and leaking stolen information.Organized trolling using Russian agents and bots to maximize the propaganda value of the leaked emails, spread disinformation, disrupt political discourse, foment anger and vitriol, support Trump messaging, etc.Breaching U.S. election systems, either for 2016 or to set up actions for future elections.Item #1 relates to the ongoing collusion investigation of contacts between Russia and the Trump team. That would be a whole answer on its own, and it’s not even necessary to show evidence of the Russian interference, so I’ll just offer this quick summary:At least 12 Trump associates had contacts with Russians during the campaign or transitionThere were at least 19 face-to-face interactions with Russians or Kremlin-linked figuresThere were at least 51 communications -- meetings, phone calls, email exchanges and more.This flies in the face of at least nine blanket denials from Trump world of any contacts with RussiaIf you want to read the details behind that, go ahead: By the numbers: The Trump orbit's contacts with Russians is a good start, or for a more in depth timeline: All the known times the Trump campaign met with RussiansThe majority of this answer will focus on #s 2, 3, and 4.Now that we’ve established what we know, we can move on to how we know it. That part gets a bit more complicated.Although all those U.S. government entities say so with high confidence, they can’t exactly “show their work” to the general public without telling the Russians all the ways they used to catch them. If they did, they would not only be telling them how to avoid detection in the future, but endangering the lives of human intelligence sources (our spies and assets) and the continued viability of any electronic or cyber intelligence sources, such as any vulnerabilities we’ve exploited in their systems.Usually, it’s not just the sources and methods that are kept secret but everything. Generally, the public doesn’t get told anything U.S. intelligence knows, except in serious situations, like when they discovered Russia’s previous management, the Soviet Union, was secretly installing nuclear missile sites 90 miles off the coast of Florida, a scary incident known as the Cuban Missile Crisis.In this case, when they decided to go public, they made two reports, but we only got to see the unclassified one, which leaves out the sensitive details about how we know what we know. Here’s how it’s explained in the report:“Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections” is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment that has been provided to the President and to recipients approved by the President.The Intelligence Community rarely can publicly reveal the full extent of its knowledge or the precise bases for its assessments, as the release of such information would reveal sensitive sources or methods and imperil the ability to collect critical foreign intelligence in the future.Thus, while the conclusions in the report are all reflected in the classified assessment, the declassified report does not and cannot include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence and sources and methods.Since they can’t tell us their evidence, any answer to this question on Quora will be missing the majority of the evidence.However, even without them spilling all their secrets, there’s quite a bit that’s publicly known. And the preceding two sentences taken together should underscore just how overwhelming the evidence must be.One last thing before diving in, a quick note of caution: Do not be confused by talk about “the dossier” or “the Nunes memo” as they have little to do with this.Ok, so here’s some of the evidence that’s publicly known:Democratic servers were hacked by Russians. Although the government isn’t willing to expose all their evidence for this, we have plenty.Let’s start with the strong forensic information from multiple private sector firms.The Democratic National Committee suspected something happened but wasn’t sure what, so they “called in CrowdStrike, a security firm that specializes in countering advanced network threats.”While the infiltration was very advanced, within just two hours CrowdStrike discovered reams of evidence that left little doubt that not only did the Russians hack them, but two different Russian agencies had.Knowing that this was a big claim, they published their evidence. Their report is pretty specific. It’s not that long but includes all sorts of technical details, including excerpts from the actual code, among other things. Feel free to read it if you want to get deeper into the weeds.It’s not just the company the Democrats hired saying so: “Two competing cybersecurity companies, Mandiant (part of FireEye) and Fidelis, confirmed CrowdStrike's initial findings that Russian intelligence indeed hacked the DNC.” Now, we’re up to three saying so.Then a fourth cyber security firm “examined the forensic data from the DNC hack themselves, and endorsed Crowdstrike’s conclusions.” This company you might’ve even heard of: Symantec.The U.S. government confirmed the findings as well. A separate report we’ll get into later reiterated many of the points raised by CrowdStrike, including when each of the Russian intelligence agencies they identified infiltrated the DNC (the hacks were done at different times).Part of the evidence is that CrowdStrike had seen these digital fingerprints before. They investigate 15,000 hacks every year, so when their software analyzes systems, it recognizes that certain sequences of actions taken form patterns that become a unique signature. Wired explains, “Every action at a system level on the DNC's computers was recorded and checked against CrowdStrike's bank of prior intelligence (the company processes 28 billion computer events a day).” There are “a handful of small but significant tells: data exfiltrated to an IP address associated with the hackers; a misspelled URL; and time zones related to Moscow.”In other words, the companies are familiar with these hackers and know what to look for. Here’s a little blurb about how familiar they are with their modus operandi:“Security companies can tell you much more about these groups, their code, their infrastructures, and their methods. (The Finnish security firm F-Secure has an excellent 34-page write-up of [one of the Russian intelligence agency hacker groups], and FireEye has a deep dive into [the other Russian hacker group], among many other reports by different companies.) (PDF) From analysis of the dozens of malware packages used exclusively by these hackers, researchers can tell you that…“They’re usually compiled on machines with the language set to Russian.”“Both groups operate during working hours in Russia, and take Russian holidays off.”“Their targets are radically different from those of for-profit criminals hackers in Eastern Europe or anywhere else—no banks, no retailers with credit card numbers to steal—always governments, companies, journalists, NGOs, and other targets that the Russian government would be interested in.”One part of the hack involved tricking DNC employees with phony links that were used in previous hacks tied to Russia.As good as the Russians were at hacking, they made mistakes, during and after the hack. For example, they inadvertently left Russian-language metadata in the leaked files.Oops.There’s even Russian language error messages accidentally embedded due to the way they exported the docs. Crowdsourcing spotted that, not just the cyber firm. A Twitter user who used to work for British intelligence did some great analysis."error! invalid hyperlinks" in Russian... pic.twitter.com/T9jmLnNiKF— davi (((🐧))) 德海 (@daviottenheimer) June 15, 2016They tried to play the hack off like it was an independent hacker, but they could’ve done a better job there.The hacker they claimed to be, who was supposedly Romanian, didn’t speak Romanian.That and a few other giveaways… (see #14)14) Tldr: this "lone hacker" uses many VMs, speaks Russian; username is founder of USSR secret police & likes laundering docs via Wikileaks.— Pwn All The Things (@pwnallthethings) June 15, 2016There was yet another hack, this one targeting the Clinton campaign directly.The hack used a similar technique as one of the DNC hacks used.Another private cyber security firm (we’re up to five now), this one called SecureWorks, discovered this was connected to other hacking attempts, some of which targeted NATO and the US military, and thousands more of which were aimed at Gmail accounts in Russia and neighboring countries of the former USSR. How they figured this out is explained in this NYT article: Was It a 400-Pound, 14-Year-Old Hacker, or Russia? Here’s Some of the Evidence, which also breaks down what is known about the identities of all those accounts targeted.“They found that of the targets outside the former Soviet Union, most were government or military personnel, aerospace professionals, political activists, authors and journalists.” In fact, breaking it down even further, “The journalists and authors in that group mostly wrote about Russia, Ukraine and global affairs, or were the spouses of military personnel.”“The government and military personnel in that group mostly served the United States, NATO and European countries.”To summarize: The U.S. government and five different cyber security firms all said it was Russia.If they’re wrong, either the Democrats or the “real” hackers pulled off the most amazing frame job in history. If it’s a conspiracy, it’s got to be the most massive, most successful conspiracy in history to include all the intelligence agencies (which frequently don’t get along) and five different private companies (which compete with each other).So far, we’ve reviewed the evidence from the security firms, but not the government. That’s about to change. Although the unclassified version of their report left out all info on sources and methods, there was a third report issued.That’s right, the FBI and DHS released a different report.One of the things that report said was that the phony login page used in the hacks was, as the New York Times explained, “hosted on a domain controlled by Russian intelligence services.” That’s what we call a smoking gun.The report talks about methods used by Russian hackers and includes some technical details about how they spot Russian cyber fingerprints and how to mitigate risks. Just read the summary at the beginning of the report and you’ll see they once again make clear how confident and clear they are that it is that Russia is behind it:Go ahead and read that report if you want to dive into the technical weeds.Of course, it’s not just the U.S. government and those five companies that purport to have evidence about Russian involvement:Report: Dutch spies caught Russian hackers on tapePutin’s Hackers Now Under Attack—From MicrosoftThere’s more, but this concludes the section about the hacks. Before I move on, I want to say that if you’re still skeptical, if you don’t think you’ve seen evidence, I encourage you to go see my source material and the sources they link to. Much like other technical areas of life, you have to either trust the consensus of experts in the field, or personally dive super deep in yourself, while also taking the time to educate yourself so you fully understand the information.With all that said, I recommend the following sources:Vice’s Excellent piece is a little old but more detailed than other treatments: “All Signs Point to Russia Being Behind the DNC Hack”CrowdStrike’s Report: “Intrusion into the Democratic National Committee”FBI/DHS Report detailing how Russia used cyber-espionageNYT explains that FBI/DHS report: “Was It a 400-Pound, 14-Year-Old Hacker, or Russia? Here’s Some of the Evidence”WaPo basically answers this Quora question: “Here’s the public evidence that supports the idea that Russia interfered in the 2016 election”ODNI’s FBI/CIA/NSA Report: Light on evidence per se, but offers very clear conclusions based on all the available evidence, even the Top Secret evidence we aren’t allowed to see.Daily Beast has good background on how recognizable these Russian hackers are because of their past hacks and modus operandi.Seriously, if you’re somehow still skeptical and really consider yourself open-minded, read the above sources.You got all that? Great, moving on…Timing: Selective leaks of the most damaging of the hacked information usually came at key times in the campaign, usually when Democrats were getting good coverage (their convention) or when Trump was getting bad coverage (e.g. the Access Hollywood tape).Distributors of hacked information: The U.S. intelligence community says it has high confidence that the leakers are acting on Russia’s behalf.Fake news purveyors (actually fake, not the ones Trump simply declares fake) based out of Russia, “troll factories,” are owned by a close Putin ally, posted misinformation about the election, as well as divisive comments, and retweets/posts linking to the fake news, which Americans would then repost themselves, comment on, argue about, and derail more serious/legit discourse.Just peruse some of these links to get a sense of how widespread it was, and obviously read any of interest:Russian troll describes work in the misinformation factoryInside the Russian 'troll factory' where recruits put out fake newsRussian troll factory paid US activists to help fund protests during electionHow Russia's troll army mobilized on election day in a final push to put Donald Trump in the White HouseRussian Twitter trolls exploited key election momentsTwitter says it exposed nearly 700,000 people to Russian propaganda during US electionHow to Tell if You've Liked or Followed a Russian "Fake News" Page on FacebookHere’s What We Know About Russia’s Use of American Social Media to Sway the ElectionRussia-backed Facebook posts 'reached 126m Americans' during US electionRussian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts sayEven Trump Retweeted a fake Russian account: Trump Campaign Staffers Pushed Russian Propaganda Days Before the ElectionAbout Half of the news Michigan voters were exposed to on Twitter was fake, according to a study done by Oxford University. Michigan was one of the closest and most decisive states in the election.The researchers noted that the ratio of "professional to junk news" was "roughly one-to-one," and that "46.5% of all content presented as news" the election fell under "the definition of propaganda" when all the stories traceable to Russia were included.Russia bought U.S. advertising to drive opinion:Facebook says up to 10m people saw ads bought by Russian agencyThese Are the Ads Russia Bought on Facebook in 2016Russia paid Facebook in roubles for US election adsRussia created divisive events Americans showed up to:Russian trolls created Facebook events seen by more than 300,000 usersExclusive: Russia Used Facebook Events to Organize Anti-Immigrant Rallies on U.S. SoilRussia’s state owned media operate in the U.S., put out propaganda during the election, including on TV, radio, and internetThe US Intelligence report explained: “Russia’s state-run propaganda machine—comprised of its domestic media apparatus, outlets targeting global audiences such as RT and Sputnik, and a network of quasi-government trolls—contributed to the influence campaign by serving as a platform for Kremlin messaging to Russian and international audiences.”Alexa says RT’s web site gets 8% of their traffic from the U.S.. It’s currently ranked 370th in the world, but traffic is way down from where it was last year.They mainly go by RT, not Russia Today, so not everyone is aware of what they are. Even when they list it, they don’t say “We are government propaganda.” I saw their ads on NYC phone booths for a couple years before I knew who they were (not that I was watching). It would not be surprising if many Americans were watching it and not knowing it was Russian TV. It’s not like they’re speaking Russian — they had Larry King doing their election coverage.Larry King interviewing Donald Trump on a Russian government owned propaganda station broadcast in the United States.InfoWars, a favorite “news” source of Trump and Trump voters, published more than a thousand articles straight from Russian propaganda.Infowars peddled stories from a Russian propaganda outlet for yearsRussian propaganda even made it into Trump’s speechTrump Apparently Quotes Russian Propaganda To Slam Clinton On BenghaziRussia hacked state voting systems, too, but we don’t know to what extent, partially because states are unwilling to look. We’re still figuring it out.Russian Election Hacking Efforts, Wider Than Previously Known, Draw Little ScrutinyWe learned this nearly a year after the election: Russia targeted election systems in 21 states, successfully hacking someJust last week, in February 2018, we learned it was even worse: Russians successfully hacked into U.S. voter systems, official saysRussian bots still influencing us. If you still don’t believe Russian bots could influence things much, think again. Just last month, they made #releasethememo a trending topic. They’re helping to obstruct the investigation into their 2016 actions.Russia-linked Twitter accounts are working overtime to help Devin Nunes and WikiLeaksHow Twitter bots and Russian accounts made #ReleaseTheMemo go viralHow Twitter Bots and Trump Fans Made #ReleaseTheMemo Go ViralIf you still don’t think Russian propaganda sites matter, consider that when searching for the story above, the first link I found and was momentarily fooled by, was actually an RT headline saying the Department of Homeland Security refuted that story about Russia hacking voter systems, that it was a mistake. That’s what they do, they spread doubt.I looked around some more and there are right wing sites saying similar things. Which said it first? Are the Russians giving the right wing ideas or are they repeating their ideas? I don’t know. They’re certainly amplifying the same message.Now, without getting too deep into the Trump campaign’s alleged involvement in the Russian interference, it’s worth pointing out one or two factors relevant to the above:A Trump adviser repeatedly claimed to know of upcoming WikiLeaks dumps and what they were about, and then turned out to be right. His story has changed and he denies it, offers alternate explanations, but that’s a piece of evidence to consider.Prior to the hacks being leaked, Donald Trump, Jr. was contacted about meeting with Russian government representatives to receive “sensitive information” as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” They promised them “official documents and information” that would damage Hillary and help their campaign.I wonder where all those “official documents and information” came from?Trump Jr. responded enthusiastically, “…I love it especially later in the summer. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back?”“Later in the summer” is when the leaks of the hacked emails started happeningThe meeting with the Russians took place in Trump TowerThe meeting was attended by Donald Trump’s three top people: his son, son-in-law, and campaign manager (who is now under federal indictment).We know all this because reporters discovered it, then Trump Jr. published the emails confirming it. His story changed about 7 times regarding the content of the meeting and all the people in attendance.There’s a lot more information out there on every one of these topics, but now you should have a decent sense of the evidence that Russians interfered in the U.S. election.I know this was long so I’ll just leave you with three last points relating to Russia interfering with elections — we also know:They’ve attempted to do so in other countriesFrance is latest in long list of countries that have allegedly had elections hacked by RussiaThey intend to do so again in the 2018 U.S. midterm electionsUS intel chiefs unanimous that Russia is targeting midtermsThey may have hinted at their 2016 plans before the hacksIn February 2016:A top Russian cyber official told a security conference in Moscow that Russia was working on new strategies for the “information arena” that would be equivalent to testing a nuclear bomb and would “allow us to talk to the Americans as equals.”“You think we are living in 2016. No, we are living in 1948. And do you know why? Because in 1949, the Soviet Union had its first atomic bomb test. And if until that moment, the Soviet Union was trying to reach agreement with [President Harry] Truman to ban nuclear weapons, and the Americans were not taking us seriously, in 1949 everything changed and they started talking to us on an equal footing.”Krutskikh continued, “I’m warning you: We are at the verge of having ‘something’ in the information arena, which will allow us to talk to the Americans as equals.”Source: Russia’s radical new strategy for information warfareTwo months later, the DNC was hacked.