Did Russia "hack" the election? Four questions.

[Redfish]

The Trumptard consensus on USMB before election day was that the hacked emails were Clinton's doom.

No offense NY, but I thought it was the DNCs doom. I was under the impression that the e-mails released by the government were Clintons doom, as all the Trump people insisted that the polls were wrong!

From mid August, all I read on here when I did come on was that the polls were wrong, and Clinton was doomed because of the C word in the e-mails. That being said, this is a small sample, with that I agree, but still and all...............the only thing that might have screwed Clinton was that the Bernie people shunned her. Now that could be!

were the polls wrong or were the pollsters lying? I think its the latter.

Well, that answer is up to you!

If you believe that the pollsters are Conservatives, then maybe they did all lie. But if you think the pollsters are mostly libs, then no, they didn't, because every pollster knew that Trump supporters were chomping at the bit to get to the polls to cast their vote, and if showing Clinton had it since many on the left did not like Clinton, that would mean they would NOT show to save America from Trump by casting a vote for Hildy because they didn't like her. They figured.....let the far left handle this election, so I can wash my hands of that corrupt bitch!

don't think so. The pollsters were almost all pro-dem. they lied in a failed attempt to suppress the Trump vote.

You have it bassackwards, ask others if you disagree---------->with what they were saying, and the unlikability of both candidates, they suppressed the Hildy vote by proclaiming she had it in the bag.

When you really want someone to win, don't you watch the game closely, root for, and do everything for them to win! Did we NOT see that with both Trump and Bernie supporters?

Now, what about Hildy supporters? Did we see her rallies? The only way to bring in MORE HILDY supporters was because they HATED TRUMP MORE than Hildy. Well guess what! They were told Hildy had it in the bag, so basically, no need to show up. Trumps ass was kicked! 370 to 400 EC votes for Hildy, don't even worry about Trump. Does that sound familiar on here, on television, on the radio, all over the internet. So, just by rally size alone, who was going to go vote for their person?

The pollsters, the TV pundits, and yes.....the USMB lefties outsmarted themselves through arrogance. Check out what most experts have to say, and you will see which side the proclamation of Hildy having it all sewed up, actually suppressed-)

we are saying the same thing in different ways. Bottom line, the dem/lib strategy failed. The complicit media and pollsters outsmarted themselves.

the media and the pollsters lost credibility and that's good for America.

 

[NightFox]

Hacking is one thing and a side issue in this case. The other side of the coin NOT being examined is an antagonistic foreign agency interfering in the election process of another country and that interference constituting a de facto act of war! That aspect is being purposefully overlooked by many..

Is that you Senator McCain? Senator Graham perhaps?

Apparently you missed the fact that the "hacking" is the whole basis for the case that "an antagonistic foreign agency interference in the election process" occurred and if anyone bothers to read the joint release by DHS and the FBI it easy to see that the case is flimsy at best and that the document and it's attached "evidence" was designed to fool a laymen but is spurious to anyone with even a modicum of an IT security background. It's nothing more than allegations made on the basis of a single malware signature (that's been in the wild for years) with no event correlation and no corroborating human or signals intelligence.

Either they have evidence they aren't releasing to the public (why would that be?) OR this is another "Trust us there are WMD's in Iraq" moment.

In either case before we start talking about going to WAR with a nuclear armed nation we need a serious public debate with ALL the facts on the table.

 

[Iceweasel]

Did they 'hack' the RNC?

Well if the RNC didn't fall for these spearfishing tactics maybe they didn't. On the other hand, one would expect a state actor to be using more advanced cracking techniques than spearfishing. Basically we don't know if they did get into the RNC or even if we've seen the extent of the DNC hacks.

I don't think it made much of a difference in terms of the outcome. If people were watching the polls they didn't move all that much with these leaks, as it didn't seem people were paying much attention.

The re-opening by Comey of the e-mail investigation late in the game, IMO, made much more of a difference. That shot her right in the ass in an observable dip in the polls in an election that was much closer than those polls showed.

It is also very possible that Hillary just sucked as a candidate and would've lost anyhow. We'll really never know at this point.

All of this kerfuffle about the Russia hacks, IMO, is simply an intentional misdirection play by the left to undercut Trump. A nefarious, foreign state installed our president, who is now a puppet and illegitimate because of that, blah, blah, blah. Total bullshit, and I think the upper tier of those in the DNC know it, but they are perfectly fine with misinformation as long as they are the ones releasing it.

I think we've already gone over the fact that the polls in this election didn't matter because there were so many people not willing to admit they were or did vote for Trump.

Or didn't think it was anybody's business but theirs. FYI I saw Trump signs all over the place outside the city, literally NONE for Hillary. When Bernie got shoved out of the way Jill Stein signs replaced his.

Those Russians are good.

Did you really see that? Or is that just what people on the Law Enforcement forum told you?

They are overwhelmingly conservative so you are doing right to stay away from a career in the LE field. You wouldn't last a week. Believe me.

Anyway, what I said it true and mirrors that of many others across the nation. I also belong to a contractor's board and hear from them as well. Also conservative too btw. So stay away from actually doing things and find a job playing with your dick and looking busy. 'bout all you will ever be good for.

 

[Redfish]

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"?
.

Hacking is one thing and a side issue in this case. The other side of the coin NOT being examined is an antagonistic foreign agency interfering in the election process of another country and that interference constituting a de facto act of war! That aspect is being purposefully overlooked by many..

Did you bring up that factor when Obama tried to manipulate the Israeli election to oust Netanyahu?

for the record, wikileaks is NOT Russia.

 

[Lewdog]

Did they 'hack' the RNC?

Well if the RNC didn't fall for these spearfishing tactics maybe they didn't. On the other hand, one would expect a state actor to be using more advanced cracking techniques than spearfishing. Basically we don't know if they did get into the RNC or even if we've seen the extent of the DNC hacks.

I don't think it made much of a difference in terms of the outcome. If people were watching the polls they didn't move all that much with these leaks, as it didn't seem people were paying much attention.

The re-opening by Comey of the e-mail investigation late in the game, IMO, made much more of a difference. That shot her right in the ass in an observable dip in the polls in an election that was much closer than those polls showed.

It is also very possible that Hillary just sucked as a candidate and would've lost anyhow. We'll really never know at this point.

All of this kerfuffle about the Russia hacks, IMO, is simply an intentional misdirection play by the left to undercut Trump. A nefarious, foreign state installed our president, who is now a puppet and illegitimate because of that, blah, blah, blah. Total bullshit, and I think the upper tier of those in the DNC know it, but they are perfectly fine with misinformation as long as they are the ones releasing it.

I think we've already gone over the fact that the polls in this election didn't matter because there were so many people not willing to admit they were or did vote for Trump.

Or didn't think it was anybody's business but theirs. FYI I saw Trump signs all over the place outside the city, literally NONE for Hillary. When Bernie got shoved out of the way Jill Stein signs replaced his.

Those Russians are good.

Did you really see that? Or is that just what people on the Law Enforcement forum told you?

They are overwhelmingly conservative so you are doing right to stay away from a career in the LE field. You wouldn't last a week. Believe me.

Anyway, what I said it true and mirrors that of many others across the nation. I also belong to a contractor's board and here from them as well. Also conservative too btw. So stay away from actually doing things and find a job playing with your dick and looking busy. 'bout all you will ever be good for.

I've already worked in the fucking corrections field. And if you think the people on the forum act like they do in real life, you are out of your damn mind. I'm also not liberal...

Your comments are pretty fucking hilarious coming from a guy who's knowledge of Law Enforcement comes from a forum. Do you know what COP is? Do you know who created the first police force? Do you know the different ideals that go into how Police Ethics are created? Do you know what committee was the first to take a serous look into Police corruption? Do you know what the type of policing during Bill Clinton's tenure as President was called?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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"?
.

Show me the proof. If Russia hacked the DNC, show me the proof. I'm not into lemming activities.

 

[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"?
.

Mac, I want to speak to your No. 4.

Let us all agree 1st that the Russians hacked the DNC for the sake of debate.

Now then, does everybody remember when Trump kept complaining that the election was rigged? That is EXACTLY why nobody did anything about the hacks, and kept insisting that the election was perfectly safe. You see, everybody including Obama, thought Hillary was going to win in a landslide. If these hacks were made into a big deal, then Trump supporters could point to the Russians as why they lost.

How you say!

Well, you know all these secret or phony baloney things that came out magically about him as the race started winding down; well there is the proof that Trump people needed.............or was the DNC going to admit that THEY pulled all of these dirty tricks, to show it really wasn't Russia?!?!?!?!?!?! Or, maybe it was Russia, and we just don't know it yet, but I doubt it-)

What we would have heard was the tax returns, Russia, the women, Russia, everything else was Russia helping the DNC! The left insisted on no excuses for their win, because they needed a mandate, so they were just going to ignore all of this since their person was going to win anyway.

It didn't work out as they expected, now did it!

And so now, they are using the exact same rhetoric Trump supporters would have used.

Finally, I would like to know what the WikiLeaks releases said badly as far as Clinton? I honestly do not remember; all I heard was about the DNC. Maybe I am wrong, but that is it. So then, if Clinton was not a party to the actions, we have seen for years on here, the left deflecting that she didn't do anything whenever other controversies arose. So, why is it different this time? She was ahead in the polls through the whole election as reported by the pollsters, and every Democrat on here as they laughed.

Want to know why ya got it wrong?

Because YOU were actually correct, but because of California and New York, but that doesn't translate into an EC victory. Your people miscounted where the votes were, not because you didn't have them, but because they didn't realize they were in the wrong places! I knew that Trump was going to win Florida easily last year in March unless a big scandal broke as I was there taking the temperature of the electorate for the primaries, and the general, and yet..........they kept saying Clinton had it in the bag. They had me convinced I WAS WRONG for almost 4months, lol. I started telling my wife, Hillary has this in the bag cause she has Florida. My wife asked me---->how did you miss the mark so badly? I had no clue, but the big pollsters said I did!

Anyway, this whole thing is politics at its finest by the Democrats. Doesn't mean Russia didn't do it, just means it is now important as their candidate lost.

In the end Mac, if it ends up magically not being the Russians, (which I doubt) look for ties to Israel who owed Obama/Clinton/Jarrett one. Now that makes far more sense to me, but this whole thing is not about sense, it is about politics, so I laugh as I read 50 threads suggesting the same thing, just worded slightly different. This thing is going to go on for as long as the Democrats can keep it going, which will certainly take from what the new President is attempting to do, which is exactly what they want anyway.

Three thoughts on this:

First, I started the thread to make sure I understood the arguments and definitions, and to (try to) put us all on the same page. If I'm seeing this correctly, I was right in that no one is claiming that anything was done outside of the successful phishing attack. So that's good to know.

Second, those final key rust belt states that buried Clinton were won by very narrow margins. So I think it's safe to ask, might all the bad stuff that came out, including Comey's last-minute letter, have played a role there? The best answer I can give is "definitely maybe possibly".

Finally, you won't find a better of example of the saying "politics makes strange bedfellows" than this case. It's troubling to me that Trump & Co are clearly putting more effort into disparaging America's intelligence system than they are in showing any discomfort with Putin.
.

 

[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"?
.

Show me the proof. If Russia hacked the DNC, show me the proof. I'm not into lemming activities.

I don't have it, and I don't claim to know, either way.

Nor can anyone else, until we have seen the proof.
.

 

[Iceweasel]

Did they 'hack' the RNC?

Well if the RNC didn't fall for these spearfishing tactics maybe they didn't. On the other hand, one would expect a state actor to be using more advanced cracking techniques than spearfishing. Basically we don't know if they did get into the RNC or even if we've seen the extent of the DNC hacks.

I don't think it made much of a difference in terms of the outcome. If people were watching the polls they didn't move all that much with these leaks, as it didn't seem people were paying much attention.

The re-opening by Comey of the e-mail investigation late in the game, IMO, made much more of a difference. That shot her right in the ass in an observable dip in the polls in an election that was much closer than those polls showed.

It is also very possible that Hillary just sucked as a candidate and would've lost anyhow. We'll really never know at this point.

All of this kerfuffle about the Russia hacks, IMO, is simply an intentional misdirection play by the left to undercut Trump. A nefarious, foreign state installed our president, who is now a puppet and illegitimate because of that, blah, blah, blah. Total bullshit, and I think the upper tier of those in the DNC know it, but they are perfectly fine with misinformation as long as they are the ones releasing it.

I think we've already gone over the fact that the polls in this election didn't matter because there were so many people not willing to admit they were or did vote for Trump.

Or didn't think it was anybody's business but theirs. FYI I saw Trump signs all over the place outside the city, literally NONE for Hillary. When Bernie got shoved out of the way Jill Stein signs replaced his.

Those Russians are good.

Did you really see that? Or is that just what people on the Law Enforcement forum told you?

They are overwhelmingly conservative so you are doing right to stay away from a career in the LE field. You wouldn't last a week. Believe me.

Anyway, what I said it true and mirrors that of many others across the nation. I also belong to a contractor's board and here from them as well. Also conservative too btw. So stay away from actually doing things and find a job playing with your dick and looking busy. 'bout all you will ever be good for.

I've already worked in the fucking corrections field. And if you think the people on the forum act like they do in real life, you are out of your damn mind. I'm also not liberal...

Your comments are pretty fucking hilarious coming from a guy who's knowledge of Law Enforcement comes from a forum. Do you know what COP is? Do you know who created the first police force? Do you know the different ideals that go into how Police Ethics are created? Do you know what committee was the first to take a serous look into Police corruption? Do you know what the type of policing during Bill Clinton's tenure as President was called?

You're a liberal unless your post here are fake. None of the history stuff matters to me but hell yes I learned a lot about policing from officer.com. A few phonies do pop up but get outted pretty quick. Cops have a nose for that. I'm not sure why you think they would fake conservationism though. To what end?

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

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"?
.

One question:

Why is it that Wikileaks keep on denying Russian hacking!?!

 

[Lewdog]

I think we've already gone over the fact that the polls in this election didn't matter because there were so many people not willing to admit they were or did vote for Trump.

Or didn't think it was anybody's business but theirs. FYI I saw Trump signs all over the place outside the city, literally NONE for Hillary. When Bernie got shoved out of the way Jill Stein signs replaced his.

Those Russians are good.

Did you really see that? Or is that just what people on the Law Enforcement forum told you?

They are overwhelmingly conservative so you are doing right to stay away from a career in the LE field. You wouldn't last a week. Believe me.

Anyway, what I said it true and mirrors that of many others across the nation. I also belong to a contractor's board and here from them as well. Also conservative too btw. So stay away from actually doing things and find a job playing with your dick and looking busy. 'bout all you will ever be good for.

I've already worked in the fucking corrections field. And if you think the people on the forum act like they do in real life, you are out of your damn mind. I'm also not liberal...

Your comments are pretty fucking hilarious coming from a guy who's knowledge of Law Enforcement comes from a forum. Do you know what COP is? Do you know who created the first police force? Do you know the different ideals that go into how Police Ethics are created? Do you know what committee was the first to take a serous look into Police corruption? Do you know what the type of policing during Bill Clinton's tenure as President was called?

You're a liberal unless your post here are fake. None of the history stuff matters to me but hell yes I learned a lot about policing from officer.com. A few phonies do pop up but get outted pretty quick. Cops have a nose for that. I'm not sure why you think they would fake conservationism though. To what end?

I don't "fake" conservatism. Are you really that fucking dense? Is everyone in this world an "Either, or?" I'm Independent. I hold views that can align with both political parties. I'm sorry you have to let other people decide your morals and values for you. Of course you don't care about history... because you don't know shit. COP isn't history. Police Ethics isn't history. Do you know who is credited with creating the modern Law Enforcement in the United States? Do you know what important things he did? If you don't think the history of something is important then you are just broadcasting your ignorance. It's hilarious that you think you learn a lot from an internet forum.

You really don't get it. I've done training in the field. I've done tactical training. I've done riot training. I've done hostage negotiation training. I've done fugitive recovery training. I've trained on how to clear rooms, buildings, and vehicles. I've done interview and interrogation training. I've gone through PR-24 training. I've gone through OC training. I've gone through CN training. This shit isn't stuff you just learn from an internet forum.

 

[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"?
.

One question:

Why is it that Wikileaks keep on denying Russian hacking!?!

It would be for the same reason that the Russians would have hacked, in this scenario: They wanted Trump in office, they hate Hillary, or some combination therein.

I'm not saying this is the case, because I can't claim to know. But that would probably be the reason.
.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

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"?
.

One question:

Why is it that Wikileaks keep on denying Russian hacking!?!

It would be for the same reason that the Russians would have hacked, in this scenario: They wanted Trump in office, they hate Hillary, or some combination therein.

I'm not saying this is the case, because I can't claim to know. But that would probably be the reason.
.

Alright, but seeing Wikileaks has been more honest than our intel community make me wonder why would Wikileaks tarnish itself by lying about where they got the information from!?!

It make no sense to me, but who knows...

 

[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"?
.

One question:

Why is it that Wikileaks keep on denying Russian hacking!?!

It would be for the same reason that the Russians would have hacked, in this scenario: They wanted Trump in office, they hate Hillary, or some combination therein.

I'm not saying this is the case, because I can't claim to know. But that would probably be the reason.
.

Alright, but seeing Wikileaks has been more honest than our intel community make me wonder why would Wikileaks tarnish itself by lying about where they got the information from!?!

It make no sense to me, but who knows...

Yeah, I've thought about that too.
.

 

[NightFox]

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"?
.

One question:

Why is it that Wikileaks keep on denying Russian hacking!?!

It would be for the same reason that the Russians would have hacked, in this scenario: They wanted Trump in office, they hate Hillary, or some combination therein.

I'm not saying this is the case, because I can't claim to know. But that would probably be the reason.
.

There's no "They" , it's Julian Assange that's making the claim and while I give him credit for developing the WikiLeaks platform and for the goals he espoused for doing it, his personal credibility is shot, not only for the misleading things he's done in the past with respect to journalists that have worked with him (i.e. The Guardian Reporters working with him on the Manning leaks) but also for the fact that he absolutely hates the U.S. Government (not a bad thing in itself) but he's demonstrated that he'll say anything true or not to discredit it.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The Russians did not hack the election. PERIOD.

 

[Correll]

So, four reasonable questions:

No, there is only one reasonable question.

Why were the Russians so keen on getting Trump elected?

This is the question you like to avoid, you want to treat the Russian Hacking like it was a big prank Yuri and Vlad came up with after a long vodka bender at the Kremlin.

Instead of being concerned that a foreign power would invest millions of dollars (or rubles) to try to get one candidate elected over another.

Because Trump knows that the Cold War is over, while Hillary is still living in the past.

 

[Care4all]

Jesus

Nope, there's no concrete evidence that he was responsible either of course I'd imagine that won't stop you left wing lunatics from trying to blame him for Hillary's loss.

They KNOW the Russians hacked American accounts etc. There's a ton of evidence.

No, what we all know is that wikileaks hacked DNC accounts. Wikileaks is not Russia.
\
What we also know is that that evidence of DNC lying and corruption MAY have cost the hildebeast some votes.

Are voters entitled to the truth?

Why are you lying? Wikileaks did not hack the DNC accounts, they simply posted the stolen emails on the net...

Wikileaks does not steal the info they post, they are the conduit that is used by the thieves, to release it...but you KNOW that...

are you paid to be a disinformation shill? if so, you deserve a raise!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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"?
.

Show me the proof. If Russia hacked the DNC, show me the proof. I'm not into lemming activities.

I don't have it, and I don't claim to know, either way.

Nor can anyone else, until we have seen the proof.
.

So, you have no proof yet ask the question anyway?

Did Russia try to influence our election via a misinformation or slander campaign? Possibly, maybe even likely. Does it matter? Not really. Americans have the tools to find the truth if they choose to do so.
Also of note:
I find the outrage at the prospect of Russia meddling to be hypocritical. The United States routinely meddles in the elections of other nations in an attempt to get a certain outcome that would be friendlier to our goals.
Not only that but I guarantee you that our government hacks other nations.

The only reason this is suddenly an issue imo, is because the power brokers (parties) feel threatened.

 

[Iceweasel]

Or didn't think it was anybody's business but theirs. FYI I saw Trump signs all over the place outside the city, literally NONE for Hillary. When Bernie got shoved out of the way Jill Stein signs replaced his.

Those Russians are good.

Did you really see that? Or is that just what people on the Law Enforcement forum told you?

They are overwhelmingly conservative so you are doing right to stay away from a career in the LE field. You wouldn't last a week. Believe me.

Anyway, what I said it true and mirrors that of many others across the nation. I also belong to a contractor's board and here from them as well. Also conservative too btw. So stay away from actually doing things and find a job playing with your dick and looking busy. 'bout all you will ever be good for.

I've already worked in the fucking corrections field. And if you think the people on the forum act like they do in real life, you are out of your damn mind. I'm also not liberal...

Your comments are pretty fucking hilarious coming from a guy who's knowledge of Law Enforcement comes from a forum. Do you know what COP is? Do you know who created the first police force? Do you know the different ideals that go into how Police Ethics are created? Do you know what committee was the first to take a serous look into Police corruption? Do you know what the type of policing during Bill Clinton's tenure as President was called?

You're a liberal unless your post here are fake. None of the history stuff matters to me but hell yes I learned a lot about policing from officer.com. A few phonies do pop up but get outted pretty quick. Cops have a nose for that. I'm not sure why you think they would fake conservationism though. To what end?

I don't "fake" conservatism. Are you really that fucking dense? Is everyone in this world an "Either, or?" I'm Independent. I hold views that can align with both political parties. I'm sorry you have to let other people decide your morals and values for you. Of course you don't care about history... because you don't know shit. COP isn't history. Police Ethics isn't history. Do you know who is credited with creating the modern Law Enforcement in the United States? Do you know what important things he did? If you don't think the history of something is important then you are just broadcasting your ignorance. It's hilarious that you think you learn a lot from an internet forum.

You really don't get it. I've done training in the field. I've done tactical training. I've done riot training. I've done hostage negotiation training. I've done fugitive recovery training. I've trained on how to clear rooms, buildings, and vehicles. I've done interview and interrogation training. I've gone through PR-24 training. I've gone through OC training. I've gone through CN training. This shit isn't stuff you just learn from an internet forum.

You can't read. When did I say you faked conservativism? What does your training have to do with anything? I have learned a lot about what cops deal with and what they think on that forum, why should I care about what you think? I can tell you many CJ students show up and get their asses handed to them. What they learned is not applicable to real life.