Did Russia "hack" the election? Four questions.

[flacaltenn]

Wrong... the RNC said there was an attempted hack. Preibus even admitted it this morning on Fox. You can watch the video in my Trump Concedes thread. He just said that their system was good enough that it stopped the hack.

You count ATTEMPTED hacks and my internet machines got 30 or 50 a day. That's not the same thing. A foreign power WILL succeed into almost any commercial machine. FBI does it routinely. .

Attempted hacks by Russians maybe. Not hacks by the forces of the Kremlin. They don't attempt. They make it happen...

There's a difference between "russians" doing it. And the GRU or other spooky Kremlin agency doing it.

Ya I know these people are now your allies but the aren't to democrats. They hacked the dems. thats the whole story. You saying that its not Putin or the Russians but the KGB or any combination of who did and who didn't do it. is spittle coming out of the corners of your mouth. Doesn't make a fucking difference. Your supporting or denying that they did it. and you think you can twist it into something acceptable. The real fact is I believe Small Hands was Involved and I'm waiting to see if that is true and if it is , I want him out of office in front of a firing squad and you traitors that support him doing it, are the real enemy of this country. The extremist scum level of the hate party goes deeper into the gutter every day. They are down so deep now that the animals down there with them no longer have eyes.

What I'm saying is that NONE of the agencies with "opinions" ever laid hands or eyes on the primary evidence. You're leaping to conclusions that the ONLY intruders on the DNC machines were Russian Govt. The crime was never investigated by the highly paid and overstaffed agencies that keep getting bigger. But this affair was APPARENTLY not serious enough to unleash them when the trail was fresh.

You're repeating dogma. But you can't answer the questions I'm asking.

1) Which ones of the "17 intel agencies with an opinion" ever had ACCESS to the primary machines as evidence?
2) Which ones of the 17 ever inspected the Podesta phone?
3) Why did the FBI/Admin not PUSH the DNC (or RNC) for access of the affected machines?
4) Why do we HAVE 4 or 5 MAJOR counter cyber agencies and a dozen panels of wizards if we do not USE them in situations this serious? FIRE their asses. Just guess.. Like those with "opinions" are now doing.


Can you answer ANY of those? If not -- your "analysis" is worthless.

Why should anyone answer your questions , this is still under investigation and Even small hands says the Dems where hacked by the Russians.

There is no worthwhile investigation. The primary evidence is long compromised. The Fed Govt refused to act when it SHOULD have to preserve and INSPECT the evidence. No one apparently did that. So the "spittle" is all coming from YOUR direction. Because nobody is asking the RIGHT questions. And that is suspicious..

You dont KNOW who inspected the evidence on Podesta's phone. But you're CERTAIN that the El Cheeto Grande is spending $Bills. -- you're got a cart and no horse.

 

[jbander]

There are those of us who voted Trump that wouldn't be screaming if a foreign entity revealed accurate information about him.

You really don't think that, had Russia done this to the Republicans and Trump lost, that they would be complaining?
.

I thought the Intel "opinions" were that the RNC had also been hacked. In fact, the FBI tried to warn BOTH nearly simultaneously back in July or August..

RNC had better firewalls. Either that or they got hacked and there was nothing disturbing found to expose.

Well someone needs to sort this out. The RNC denies it. BUT the same "Intelligence Agencies" that are SURE the Russians did both the hacking and release of DNC documents, APPARENTLY said with HIGH CONFIDENCE, that the RNC was hacked.

Intelligence: Russians hacked RNC too, to hurt Clinton, help Trump

By DAVID E. SANGER and Scott Shane
The New York Times
WASHINGTON — U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded with “high confidence” that Russia acted covertly in the latter stages of the presidential campaign to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances and promote Donald Trump, according to senior administration officials.

They based that conclusion, in part, on another finding — which they say was also reached with high confidence — that the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee’s (RNC) computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks.


My question is -- if they got this wrong -- how HIGH is the confidence really?

Don't you feel all warm and fuzzy about the safe hands we all are in??

I'd like to know why you are so opposed to the federal intelligence agencies being right... and want them to be wrong? Not trying to be a dick... but it sure seems like you have an ax to grind.

Like their declared enimy of just two months ago Russia and Putin, now the hate party voters love them. and The letter agency that they used as support to verify their opinions yesterday , all of a sudden can't be trusted. These are people that have very small minds or and cups that are half empty. how else could a hate candidate be elected as their president.

 

[Lewdog]

Wrong... the RNC said there was an attempted hack. Preibus even admitted it this morning on Fox. You can watch the video in my Trump Concedes thread. He just said that their system was good enough that it stopped the hack.

You count ATTEMPTED hacks and my internet machines got 30 or 50 a day. That's not the same thing. A foreign power WILL succeed into almost any commercial machine. FBI does it routinely. .

Like I said... if the RNC KNOWS that the Russians attempted to hack their machine, how do they know the Russians didn't succeed at some point?

Because this Admin never it took the affair seriously enough to DEMAND access to their machines to investigate it. That's why I'm angry. NONE of these opinions are based on examination of the PRIMARY EVIDENCE.. That's the point of this thread.

But your premise is to argue that the DNC did all this and then you argued that the intelligence community wasn't reliable because they said the RNC got hacked too. You opened the door to this. So I ask again, if the RNC KNOWS there was at least an attempted hack, then how do they know they weren't actually hacked? Reminds me of the scene from The Lost World. Where the Raptors would continually hit the electric fence in different areas... testing for a weakness. So since the RNC knows there was at least an attempted hack... do you really think the Russians would quit before actually hacking the system?

You just told me you heard Priebus SAY that they were "probed" not hacked. And now you're agreeing with me that Intel pros WOULD have gotten in. Are we agreeing there is enough stink here to back up and ask some more intelligent questions before WW3 starts??

No, you said that Russia did nothing to the RNC and that Preibus even said so... and I sad that is incorrect, that the RNC admitted there was an attempted hack and Preibus even said so this morning on Fox with Chris Mathews. You then said that if it was Russian intelligence then it wouldn't have been just an attempted hack, they would have gotten in. So I asked you... how do they KNOW they didn't eventually get hacked? Just because they caught attempted hacks doesn't mean they didn't eventually get hacked... if Russia was smart, they would save any hacked RNC information as blackmail material right?

That's why I brought up the raptor scene... because that is how it works. You keep trying different spots, at different times, until you succeed.

So, your argument about the conclusion of the intelligence agencies saying the RNC was hacked would be invalid... if the RNC were hacked.

 

[Lewdog]

You count ATTEMPTED hacks and my internet machines got 30 or 50 a day. That's not the same thing. A foreign power WILL succeed into almost any commercial machine. FBI does it routinely. .

Attempted hacks by Russians maybe. Not hacks by the forces of the Kremlin. They don't attempt. They make it happen...

There's a difference between "russians" doing it. And the GRU or other spooky Kremlin agency doing it.

Ya I know these people are now your allies but the aren't to democrats. They hacked the dems. thats the whole story. You saying that its not Putin or the Russians but the KGB or any combination of who did and who didn't do it. is spittle coming out of the corners of your mouth. Doesn't make a fucking difference. Your supporting or denying that they did it. and you think you can twist it into something acceptable. The real fact is I believe Small Hands was Involved and I'm waiting to see if that is true and if it is , I want him out of office in front of a firing squad and you traitors that support him doing it, are the real enemy of this country. The extremist scum level of the hate party goes deeper into the gutter every day. They are down so deep now that the animals down there with them no longer have eyes.

What I'm saying is that NONE of the agencies with "opinions" ever laid hands or eyes on the primary evidence. You're leaping to conclusions that the ONLY intruders on the DNC machines were Russian Govt. The crime was never investigated by the highly paid and overstaffed agencies that keep getting bigger. But this affair was APPARENTLY not serious enough to unleash them when the trail was fresh.

You're repeating dogma. But you can't answer the questions I'm asking.

1) Which ones of the "17 intel agencies with an opinion" ever had ACCESS to the primary machines as evidence?
2) Which ones of the 17 ever inspected the Podesta phone?
3) Why did the FBI/Admin not PUSH the DNC (or RNC) for access of the affected machines?
4) Why do we HAVE 4 or 5 MAJOR counter cyber agencies and a dozen panels of wizards if we do not USE them in situations this serious? FIRE their asses. Just guess.. Like those with "opinions" are now doing.


Can you answer ANY of those? If not -- your "analysis" is worthless.

Why should anyone answer your questions , this is still under investigation and Even small hands says the Dems where hacked by the Russians.

There is no worthwhile investigation. The primary evidence is long compromised. The Fed Govt refused to act when it SHOULD have to preserve and INSPECT the evidence. No one apparently did that. So the "spittle" is all coming from YOUR direction. Because nobody is asking the RIGHT questions. And that is suspicious..

You dont KNOW who inspected the evidence on Podesta's phone. But you're CERTAIN that the El Cheeto Grande is spending $Bills. -- you're got a cart and no horse.

Ok, so the FBI said they didn't look at the server, how do you know none of the 17 intelligence agencies didn't? Are you privy to classified information that the rest of us aren't?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Okay, just for the hell of it, let's try to define what the question "Did Russia Hack the Election?" actually means.

If I have this right, I don't believe anyone is saying that Russia somehow got into voting booths or hacked into voting machines or computers or servers and changed votes from Hillary to Trump. If I'm wrong on that, if you believe that, please say so and provide whatever evidence you have.

I believe that what is being said is that the Russians "hacked" into Podesta's and other DNC people's email accounts via phishing and got oodles of seriously damning shit on the Democrats, spilled the beans, and here we are. They are saying that an unfriendly foreign power found and used a method of influencing opinions on a major party presidential candidate, and it may have made enough of a difference in a close race. That's it, unless I'm missing something.

So, four reasonable questions:

1. Was Podesta, was the DNC, an easy mark for this activity, did they screw up? Yeah, it appears so.
2. Did the Russians try to hack the RNC too? Entirely possible, no one can say for sure either way.
3. Could all the shit that came out from the hacked emails been the final straw against Clinton, particularly in those rust belt states where Trump barely beat her and gained critical electoral votes? Yeah, that seems like a reasonable possibility.
   
4. And finally, if Trump had been the one whose party's emails were hacked and Hillary won critical electoral states by a hair, would his supporters be screaming right now? Of course.

So what is YOUR definition of "hacking"?
.

"If I have this right, I don't believe anyone is saying that Russia somehow got into voting booths or hacked into voting machines or computers or servers and changed votes from Hillary to Trump. If I'm wrong on that, if you believe that, please say so and provide whatever evidence you have."




52% of Dims actually do believe just that.

Majority of Democrats Think Russia Tampered With Vote Tallies, Despite No Evidence

Majority of Democrats Think Russia Tampered With Vote Tallies, Despite No Evidence

Yes. If I were a democrat, I'd be embarrassed by that. Now....find ONE INFLUENTIAL LIBERAL PUBLIC FIGURE who is pushing that line on anyone.

You won't.

What you will find is Trump DENYING IT as though it's a charge being levied at him by anyone important. Why would he do that?

 

[LoneLaugher]

No the RNC didn't acknowledge it. In fact Priebus DENIED it. The FBI says "it didn't happen" , but all those intel agencies have "HIGH CONFIDENCE" that it happened without apparently ever LOOKING at the servers. The same "high confidence" they have that only Russia infiltrated the DNC machines. MORE machines they never personally analyzed.

What's wrong with that picture?

State Intel groups hardly EVER release captured information. Because of the danger of comprising their sources and methods. It IS generally used as blackmail and leverage in negotiations.

Wrong... the RNC said there was an attempted hack. Preibus even admitted it this morning on Fox. You can watch the video in my Trump Concedes thread. He just said that their system was good enough that it stopped the hack.

You count ATTEMPTED hacks and my internet machines got 30 or 50 a day. That's not the same thing. A foreign power WILL succeed into almost any commercial machine. FBI does it routinely. .

Like I said... if the RNC KNOWS that the Russians attempted to hack their machine, how do they know the Russians didn't succeed at some point?

Because this Admin never it took the affair seriously enough to DEMAND access to their machines to investigate it. That's why I'm angry. NONE of these opinions are based on examination of the PRIMARY EVIDENCE.. That's the point of this thread.

But your premise is to argue that the DNC did all this and then you argued that the intelligence community wasn't reliable because they said the RNC got hacked too. You opened the door to this. So I ask again, if the RNC KNOWS there was at least an attempted hack, then how do they know they weren't actually hacked? Reminds me of the scene from The Lost World. Where the Raptors would continually hit the electric fence in different areas... testing for a weakness. So since the RNC knows there was at least an attempted hack... do you really think the Russians would quit before actually hacking the system?

Has the RNC handed over their servers to the FBI? If not, how can the FBI know they weren't successfully hacked? Huh? Huh? Huh?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Attempted hacks by Russians maybe. Not hacks by the forces of the Kremlin. They don't attempt. They make it happen...

There's a difference between "russians" doing it. And the GRU or other spooky Kremlin agency doing it.

Ya I know these people are now your allies but the aren't to democrats. They hacked the dems. thats the whole story. You saying that its not Putin or the Russians but the KGB or any combination of who did and who didn't do it. is spittle coming out of the corners of your mouth. Doesn't make a fucking difference. Your supporting or denying that they did it. and you think you can twist it into something acceptable. The real fact is I believe Small Hands was Involved and I'm waiting to see if that is true and if it is , I want him out of office in front of a firing squad and you traitors that support him doing it, are the real enemy of this country. The extremist scum level of the hate party goes deeper into the gutter every day. They are down so deep now that the animals down there with them no longer have eyes.

What I'm saying is that NONE of the agencies with "opinions" ever laid hands or eyes on the primary evidence. You're leaping to conclusions that the ONLY intruders on the DNC machines were Russian Govt. The crime was never investigated by the highly paid and overstaffed agencies that keep getting bigger. But this affair was APPARENTLY not serious enough to unleash them when the trail was fresh.

You're repeating dogma. But you can't answer the questions I'm asking.

1) Which ones of the "17 intel agencies with an opinion" ever had ACCESS to the primary machines as evidence?
2) Which ones of the 17 ever inspected the Podesta phone?
3) Why did the FBI/Admin not PUSH the DNC (or RNC) for access of the affected machines?
4) Why do we HAVE 4 or 5 MAJOR counter cyber agencies and a dozen panels of wizards if we do not USE them in situations this serious? FIRE their asses. Just guess.. Like those with "opinions" are now doing.


Can you answer ANY of those? If not -- your "analysis" is worthless.

Why should anyone answer your questions , this is still under investigation and Even small hands says the Dems where hacked by the Russians.

There is no worthwhile investigation. The primary evidence is long compromised. The Fed Govt refused to act when it SHOULD have to preserve and INSPECT the evidence. No one apparently did that. So the "spittle" is all coming from YOUR direction. Because nobody is asking the RIGHT questions. And that is suspicious..

You dont KNOW who inspected the evidence on Podesta's phone. But you're CERTAIN that the El Cheeto Grande is spending $Bills. -- you're got a cart and no horse.

Ok, so the FBI said they didn't look at the server, how do you know none of the 17 intelligence agencies didn't? Are you privy to classified information that the rest of us aren't?

No. That's the point. He wants to have access to classified info...which he knows he won't get. The question will, therefore, go unanswered to his satisfaction. If he doesn't find out who had access to the server.....he will NEVER believe that the intelligence agencies could be right in their assessment.

He's set up a wall of disbelief that will never be scaled. So..he can always claim that the big bad mean government who steals from him with taxes is lying again. That is all this is about.

 

[Claudette]

Okay, just for the hell of it, let's try to define what the question "Did Russia Hack the Election?" actually means.

If I have this right, I don't believe anyone is saying that Russia somehow got into voting booths or hacked into voting machines or computers or servers and changed votes from Hillary to Trump. If I'm wrong on that, if you believe that, please say so and provide whatever evidence you have.

I believe that what is being said is that the Russians "hacked" into Podesta's and other DNC people's email accounts via phishing and got oodles of seriously damning shit on the Democrats, spilled the beans, and here we are. They are saying that an unfriendly foreign power found and used a method of influencing opinions on a major party presidential candidate, and it may have made enough of a difference in a close race. That's it, unless I'm missing something.

So, four reasonable questions:

1. Was Podesta, was the DNC, an easy mark for this activity, did they screw up? Yeah, it appears so.
2. Did the Russians try to hack the RNC too? Entirely possible, no one can say for sure either way.
3. Could all the shit that came out from the hacked emails been the final straw against Clinton, particularly in those rust belt states where Trump barely beat her and gained critical electoral votes? Yeah, that seems like a reasonable possibility.
   
4. And finally, if Trump had been the one whose party's emails were hacked and Hillary won critical electoral states by a hair, would his supporters be screaming right now? Of course.

So what is YOUR definition of "hacking"?
.

The "charges" the administration is making is that the Russian Government compromised Podesta's and other DNC email accounts using spear phishing malware and then released the contents to the public which unduly influenced the outcome of the election (in Trump's favor); no one has disputed the authenticity of the contents of these emails, so basically this charge amounts to "they influenced the election by telling the American Public the truth about one candidate and one party". From reading the FBI release on the evidence that the Russian Government was responsible it seems very thin (much of the release entailed general guidelines on how to improve systems security), it basically boils down to "the malware used in the attack was similar to malware that has been used by Russian intelligence operations in the past", in other words no "smoking gun" pointing at the Russian Government has been offered up for public consideration and nobody appears to be asking why the Russian Government would use an attack signature that points the finger squarely at themselves.

Further "charges" include accusing the Russian Government of distributing "fake news" which portrayed the Clinton Campaign in a negative light, again no "smoking gun" evidence has been produced just allegations; even if this is true all it does is further demonstrate what a bunch of brainless morons the electorate is comprised of and that voters are stupid enough to believe that reading headlines are all that is required as "homework" on the candidates they vote for.

Was the election "hacked", IMHO insufficient evidence of that has been offered to draw that conclusion, however I personally want to thank WHOMEVER cracked those email accounts and released the contents to the public, they did us a service since we got to get a glimpse inside the corrupt goings on inside the smoke filled back alleys inhabited by the partisan slime balls.

Personally I think it's all a bunch of President Nimrod manufactured bullshit to shift the focus off the Democrat Party's gross incompetence and dishonesty and it reminds of all of the Pre-Iraq War bullshit ginned up by the Bush Administration to justify it's actions against Iraq.... and wouldn't ya know Senator Warmonger (AZ-R) buys right into it ! just like he did with all the Iraq WMD and "Iraq is an imminent threat" bullshit, that should tell ya a lot, he'll swallow anything that makes going to war more likely.

Bingo. Great post and spot the fuck on.

 

[gipper]

The DEMS were hacked! The ELECTION was not hacked! YOU are the IDIOT here! Fuck off, idiot!

I think many are going by the fake news headlines. Don't expect them to understand the finer points.

Of course, it might be that the DNC wasn't hacked at all. Assange had an insider leaking info and that is far different than hacking.

Hillary's server was likely hacked numerous times and we still have no idea who has that info. While some of it was released by WikiLeaks, that doesn't mean other countries don't have the same emails. And considering that Hillary claimed none of those emails existed, it just proves she thought she had deleted all of them.

The left still ignores the content of the emails and are only angry at the whistleblowers. Hypocrites!

It sure would be funny if the insider leaking Hillary's shit was her lady friend's husband, Carlos Danger. That would be such sweet irony.

Regarding Cankle's server, it is absurd to think it was not completely hacked by several sources. She is above the law, so she can do whatever she wants including really stupid shit.

Lets think about this, what is more serious wiki leaks that don't have the needed federal stamp on them verifying their truth or a president that wants to have sex with his daughter but still says it's ok for anyone to call his daughter a piece of ass, a man who raped his ex wife and grabs women that he doesn't even know by the pussy, (that was his words anyway) So anyone of you didpshits can now come in with one of her emails that is worse than small hands fantasy of sex with his daughter. make sure the one you bring though is timed stamped and stamped by the government. This should be easy.

unhinged.

 

[Mac1958]

There are those of us who voted Trump that wouldn't be screaming if a foreign entity revealed accurate information about him.

You really don't think that, had Russia done this to the Republicans and Trump lost, that they would be complaining?
.

I thought the Intel "opinions" were that the RNC had also been hacked. In fact, the FBI tried to warn BOTH nearly simultaneously back in July or August..

The FBI report said that the Russians tried to hack other political groups, presumably the GOP, but evidently didn't get in.

Perhaps no one in the party was using "password" as a password.
.

 

[Mac1958]

There are those of us who voted Trump that wouldn't be screaming if a foreign entity revealed accurate information about him.

You really don't think that, had Russia done this to the Republicans and Trump lost, that they would be complaining?

How you figure, you can't prove that.

Because I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. An American political party certainly SHOULD complain if the Russians interfered in our elections.
.

 

[gipper]

No the RNC didn't acknowledge it. In fact Priebus DENIED it. The FBI says "it didn't happen" , but all those intel agencies have "HIGH CONFIDENCE" that it happened without apparently ever LOOKING at the servers. The same "high confidence" they have that only Russia infiltrated the DNC machines. MORE machines they never personally analyzed.

What's wrong with that picture?

State Intel groups hardly EVER release captured information. Because of the danger of comprising their sources and methods. It IS generally used as blackmail and leverage in negotiations.

Wrong... the RNC said there was an attempted hack. Preibus even admitted it this morning on Fox. You can watch the video in my Trump Concedes thread. He just said that their system was good enough that it stopped the hack.

You count ATTEMPTED hacks and my internet machines got 30 or 50 a day. That's not the same thing. A foreign power WILL succeed into almost any commercial machine. FBI does it routinely. .

Attempted hacks by Russians maybe. Not hacks by the forces of the Kremlin. They don't attempt. They make it happen...

There's a difference between "russians" doing it. And the GRU or other spooky Kremlin agency doing it.

Ya I know these people are now your allies but the aren't to democrats. They hacked the dems. thats the whole story. You saying that its not Putin or the Russians but the KGB or any combination of who did and who didn't do it. is spittle coming out of the corners of your mouth. Doesn't make a fucking difference. Your supporting or denying that they did it. and you think you can twist it into something acceptable. The real fact is I believe Small Hands was Involved and I'm waiting to see if that is true and if it is , I want him out of office in front of a firing squad and you traitors that support him doing it, are the real enemy of this country. The extremist scum level of the hate party goes deeper into the gutter every day. They are down so deep now that the animals down there with them no longer have eyes.

What I'm saying is that NONE of the agencies with "opinions" ever laid hands or eyes on the primary evidence. You're leaping to conclusions that the ONLY intruders on the DNC machines were Russian Govt. The crime was never investigated by the highly paid and overstaffed agencies that keep getting bigger. But this affair was APPARENTLY not serious enough to unleash them when the trail was fresh.

You're repeating dogma. But you can't answer the questions I'm asking.

1) Which ones of the "17 intel agencies with an opinion" ever had ACCESS to the primary machines as evidence?
2) Which ones of the 17 ever inspected the Podesta phone?
3) Why did the FBI/Admin not PUSH the DNC (or RNC) for access of the affected machines?
4) Why do we HAVE 4 or 5 MAJOR counter cyber agencies and a dozen panels of wizards if we do not USE them in situations this serious? FIRE their asses. Just guess.. Like those with "opinions" are now doing.


Can you answer ANY of those? If not -- your "analysis" is worthless.

There is no credible evidence Russia did anything to help Trump win. However, in today's America, where leftism controls the narrative, evidence is not required. The only thing that is required is, the ends justify the means...sadly useful idiots fall in line.

It is said 'the truth will set you free.' Problem is many on the Left do not want to be free, so they prefer lies.

Allegations Against Russia Less Credible Every Day
Posted on January 8, 2017 by DavidSwanson
The U.S. government has now generated numerous news stories and released multiple “reports” aimed at persuading us that Vladimir Putin is to blame for Donald Trump becoming president. U.S. media has dutifully informed us that the case has been made. What has been made is the case for writing your own news coverage. The “reports” from the “intelligence community” are no lengthier than the New York Times and Washington Post articles about them. Why not just read the reports and cut out the middle-person?

The New York Times calls the latest report “damning and surprisingly detailed” before later admitting in the same “news” article that the report “contained no information about how the agencies had collected their data or had come to their conclusions.” A quick glance at the report itself would have made clear to you that it did not pretend to present a shred of evidence that Russia hacked emails or served as a source for WikiLeaks. Yet Congresswoman Barbara Lee declared the evidence in this evidence-free report “overwhelming.” What should progressives believe, the best Congresswoman we’ve got or our own lying eyes?

Supposedly the evidence has been made public and is overwhelming, but try to find it and you’ll come up dry. Ask why, and you’ll be told that of course the evidence cannot be made public as that would risk revealing how the U.S. government came upon the information. Yet the same government feeds the U.S. media with the story that it intercepted communications of top Russian officials just after the U.S. election celebrating Trump’s victory. Did that story not run that risk? The U.S. government feeds the U.S. media (specifically the “free” press of the Washington Post whose owner makes more money from the CIA than from the Washington Post) that Russia has hacked Vermont’s electrical supply, and — because this was a claim that could be checked by an independent party — the secret methods of the CIA quickly turned out to be these: they had simply made the thing up.
⇒ Keep Reading

New York Times: American Report on Russian Hacking Has An “Absence of Any Concrete Evidence … But Rests Instead On What It Describes As Moscow’s Long Record of Trying to Influence America’s Political System”
Posted on January 7, 2017 by WashingtonsBlog
The New York Times reports today:

[T]he absence of any concrete evidence in the report of meddling by the Kremlin was met with a storm of mockery on Saturday by Russian politicians and commentators, who took to social media to ridicule the report as a potpourri of baseless conjecture.

***

The report provides no new evidence to support assertions that Moscow meddled covertly through hacking and other actions to boost the electoral chances of Donald J. Trump and undermine his rival, Hillary Clinton, but rests instead on what it describes as Moscow’s long record of trying to influence America’s political system.

That’s all they’ve got? Since the Soviet Union – which doesn’t even exist any more – was evil, Putin must be as well?

Weak … very weak.

 

[Mac1958]

Okay, just for the hell of it, let's try to define what the question "Did Russia Hack the Election?" actually means.

If I have this right, I don't believe anyone is saying that Russia somehow got into voting booths or hacked into voting machines or computers or servers and changed votes from Hillary to Trump. If I'm wrong on that, if you believe that, please say so and provide whatever evidence you have.

I believe that what is being said is that the Russians "hacked" into Podesta's and other DNC people's email accounts via phishing and got oodles of seriously damning shit on the Democrats, spilled the beans, and here we are. They are saying that an unfriendly foreign power found and used a method of influencing opinions on a major party presidential candidate, and it may have made enough of a difference in a close race. That's it, unless I'm missing something.

So, four reasonable questions:

1. Was Podesta, was the DNC, an easy mark for this activity, did they screw up? Yeah, it appears so.
2. Did the Russians try to hack the RNC too? Entirely possible, no one can say for sure either way.
3. Could all the shit that came out from the hacked emails been the final straw against Clinton, particularly in those rust belt states where Trump barely beat her and gained critical electoral votes? Yeah, that seems like a reasonable possibility.
   
4. And finally, if Trump had been the one whose party's emails were hacked and Hillary won critical electoral states by a hair, would his supporters be screaming right now? Of course.

So what is YOUR definition of "hacking"?
.

Assange said it was leaked by someone in the DNC

Yes, Assange and Putin are denying it, while American intelligence agencies and American legislators who have seen the intelligence say there is no doubt Russia did it.

Assange/Putin or Americans. I guess it depends on who you want to believe.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Okay, just for the hell of it, let's try to define what the question "Did Russia Hack the Election?" actually means.

If I have this right, I don't believe anyone is saying that Russia somehow got into voting booths or hacked into voting machines or computers or servers and changed votes from Hillary to Trump. If I'm wrong on that, if you believe that, please say so and provide whatever evidence you have.

I believe that what is being said is that the Russians "hacked" into Podesta's and other DNC people's email accounts via phishing and got oodles of seriously damning shit on the Democrats, spilled the beans, and here we are. They are saying that an unfriendly foreign power found and used a method of influencing opinions on a major party presidential candidate, and it may have made enough of a difference in a close race. That's it, unless I'm missing something.

So, four reasonable questions:

1. Was Podesta, was the DNC, an easy mark for this activity, did they screw up? Yeah, it appears so.
2. Did the Russians try to hack the RNC too? Entirely possible, no one can say for sure either way.
3. Could all the shit that came out from the hacked emails been the final straw against Clinton, particularly in those rust belt states where Trump barely beat her and gained critical electoral votes? Yeah, that seems like a reasonable possibility.
   
4. And finally, if Trump had been the one whose party's emails were hacked and Hillary won critical electoral states by a hair, would his supporters be screaming right now? Of course.

So what is YOUR definition of "hacking"?
.

The emails meant almost nothing. I can't remember any of them.

Hillary lost for one reason, and it is time for you and whomever voted for her to realize it. Hillary lost because of one thing, she is Hillary. For crying out loud could the nomination go to anyone that was a worse candidate then Trump?

How about the leaked locker room talk from Trump, what is that different then leaked emails that the voting public should know about.

This whole hacking shit has to be the worse butt balm ever created.

It would be helpful, for the sake of the country, to back away from the partisan political angle here and discuss whether we care that the Russians worked to influence an American presidential election.

I would think that both major parties would be outraged. That doesn't have anything to do with who won, nor does it mean that Trump gets kicked out or penalized or anything else. He won, and that's it.

The Russians fucked with our election, whether it was effective or not. They more than just tried, they were successful in at least pushing in one direction. That doesn't appear to bother the side that won, and I find that pretty troubling.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Okay, just for the hell of it, let's try to define what the question "Did Russia Hack the Election?" actually means.

If I have this right, I don't believe anyone is saying that Russia somehow got into voting booths or hacked into voting machines or computers or servers and changed votes from Hillary to Trump. If I'm wrong on that, if you believe that, please say so and provide whatever evidence you have.

I believe that what is being said is that the Russians "hacked" into Podesta's and other DNC people's email accounts via phishing and got oodles of seriously damning shit on the Democrats, spilled the beans, and here we are. They are saying that an unfriendly foreign power found and used a method of influencing opinions on a major party presidential candidate, and it may have made enough of a difference in a close race. That's it, unless I'm missing something.

So, four reasonable questions:

1. Was Podesta, was the DNC, an easy mark for this activity, did they screw up? Yeah, it appears so.
2. Did the Russians try to hack the RNC too? Entirely possible, no one can say for sure either way.
3. Could all the shit that came out from the hacked emails been the final straw against Clinton, particularly in those rust belt states where Trump barely beat her and gained critical electoral votes? Yeah, that seems like a reasonable possibility.
   
4. And finally, if Trump had been the one whose party's emails were hacked and Hillary won critical electoral states by a hair, would his supporters be screaming right now? Of course.

So what is YOUR definition of "hacking"?
.

"If I have this right, I don't believe anyone is saying that Russia somehow got into voting booths or hacked into voting machines or computers or servers and changed votes from Hillary to Trump. If I'm wrong on that, if you believe that, please say so and provide whatever evidence you have."




52% of Dims actually do believe just that.

Majority of Democrats Think Russia Tampered With Vote Tallies, Despite No Evidence

Majority of Democrats Think Russia Tampered With Vote Tallies, Despite No Evidence

They're wrong. But can you point to an individual, so we can get specific?
.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Okay, just for the hell of it, let's try to define what the question "Did Russia Hack the Election?" actually means.

If I have this right, I don't believe anyone is saying that Russia somehow got into voting booths or hacked into voting machines or computers or servers and changed votes from Hillary to Trump. If I'm wrong on that, if you believe that, please say so and provide whatever evidence you have.

I believe that what is being said is that the Russians "hacked" into Podesta's and other DNC people's email accounts via phishing and got oodles of seriously damning shit on the Democrats, spilled the beans, and here we are. They are saying that an unfriendly foreign power found and used a method of influencing opinions on a major party presidential candidate, and it may have made enough of a difference in a close race. That's it, unless I'm missing something.

So, four reasonable questions:

1. Was Podesta, was the DNC, an easy mark for this activity, did they screw up? Yeah, it appears so.
2. Did the Russians try to hack the RNC too? Entirely possible, no one can say for sure either way.
3. Could all the shit that came out from the hacked emails been the final straw against Clinton, particularly in those rust belt states where Trump barely beat her and gained critical electoral votes? Yeah, that seems like a reasonable possibility.
   
4. And finally, if Trump had been the one whose party's emails were hacked and Hillary won critical electoral states by a hair, would his supporters be screaming right now? Of course.

So what is YOUR definition of "hacking"?
.

"If I have this right, I don't believe anyone is saying that Russia somehow got into voting booths or hacked into voting machines or computers or servers and changed votes from Hillary to Trump. If I'm wrong on that, if you believe that, please say so and provide whatever evidence you have."




52% of Dims actually do believe just that.

Majority of Democrats Think Russia Tampered With Vote Tallies, Despite No Evidence

Majority of Democrats Think Russia Tampered With Vote Tallies, Despite No Evidence

They're wrong. But can you point to an individual, so we can get specific?
.

Thank you, Mac1958 . That is the perfect question.

 

[Iceweasel]

There are some several key points that the Russians were cheating on the American elections, according to this declassified report from the CIA, the FBI, and lastly, the National Security Agency, and their significant scope is that Russia is the only country creating this blurred line of this unprotected thing, and that is hacking.

Then we can safely dismiss everything they said. That's utter bullshit. China alone has stolen millions worth of intellectual property rights.

Listen MR dog turd ,TEll us again what China has to do with anything. Start a thread if you think it is interesting. but it just looks stupid stuck in this thread.

I explained it, Mr. Dog Turd sucker. I responded to the idiotic statement in bold.

You said something about it maybe but you surely didn't explain anything . China has nothing to do with Russia hacking the Dems . Its like arguing against Hillary by Bills sex life. It's stupid nonsense and dog turd that would be all you have.

Don't blame your dog turd brain on me. The point was hacking, if you can't understand the answer, tough shit. No wonder you're a liberal.

 

[tolumba21]

I do understand about hacking

Sent from my LG-D415 using Tapatalk

 

[Iceweasel]

The real fact is I believe Small Hands was Involved and I'm waiting to see if that is true and if it is , I want him out of office in front of a firing squad and you traitors that support him doing it, are the real enemy of this country. The extremist scum level of the hate party goes deeper into the gutter every day. They are down so deep now that the animals down there with them no longer have eyes.

You're twisted little hatefuck, aren't you? The fact you see no irony in your post proves you're insane. Fortunately, all you can do now is snivel. Liberals lost a lot of power and set back their cause big time with the Supreme Court alone. Didn't want the party corruption made public? Too bad.

 

[Iceweasel]

The RNC has admitted that there was an attempted hack. Why don't you instead worry about how the RNC knows that there was an attempted hack, but that they weren't successfully hacked? How do they know they weren't actually hacked? Because information wasn't released publicly? You ever think that maybe, just maybe the Russians did get info but they are saving it to use as blackmail? Wouldn't it make sense to get the President in that you want by releasing hacked into on the other party... and then saving the information on the party you got into power for a later date as blackmail power? I'm just spitballing common sense here...

There's nothing sensible about it. Just a lot of wild ass speculation on your part. You can't cover up Democrat corruption with your bullshit, sorry.