I need an answer to this question..

[BluesLegend]

We don't know that...but an independent investigation into the matter should help resolve these unanswered questions don't you think? Ya'll were willing to have, how many was it, 12 independent investigations into Benghazi, but not one into a foreign power trying to influence our elections?

I'm a liberal. Shove that Ya'll.

You do know it.

My most sincere apologies. I take back that "ya'll". How about "We've had something like a dozen independent investigations into Benghazi...how about at least one into Russia trying to influence our national elections?"

Better?

Unlike Benghazi where the Admin initially tried to muzzle the witnesses that defended the compounds, there was testimony and evidence. Even tho it was CNN and NOT govt agents that picked up a burned copy of the ambassor's private notes off the floor of the compound. Again THERE -- the alarm bells went off and the RESPONSE to PRESERVE the evidence did not happen.

In THIS CASE -- NO evidence appears to have been directly picked up or examined by ANY of the agencies weighing in with opinions. It's a massive FAILURE of leadership and a pattern of being lax about investigating things that blow up later on.. Evidently, the scandal has to include something about a movie. Because when a Sony MOVIE caused the hack or an obscure amateur movie "caused" Benghazi -- ALL hands are on deck..

Did the Obama administration fail to act on the hacking because it only further highlighted how inept the Democrats security was? Obama thought Hillary was going to win, I think he was just trying to run out the clock on this problem.

Probably part of the Calculus for NOT declaring an emergency when it looked like Clinton would certainly win. .That's all political. As is the decision to let the DNC examine themselves after KNOWING that another country was actively spying on the DNC and her election staff.

I'm not trying to be a wise ass by asking, are morons running our government?

 

[LoneLaugher]

HG

Which of the many Intel Agencies that are making claims about Russian hacking have EVER been granted access to the DNC servers in question?

I ASK THAT because the FBI NEVER got access to the DNC servers. Instead the DNC hire CrowdStrike. Which is almost EXCLUSIVELY funded by Google. The same Google who was on the WHouse guest login far more than any other commercial organization. And all of the analysis I've seen is largely based on THEIR opinions.

Did anyone ask the lying bastard DNI -- if they EVER got direct access to the DNC servers for forensics? If so WHEN? And was all the forensic data preserved?

Let's see...The last time the FBI did forensic analysis of computer/server data, it determined, based on what it found, that Hillary Clinton didn't intend to violate the Espionage Act. And how well was that received by various segments of the nation's populace? How well did you receive it? I don't and I'm not going to plumb your history to find out.

Now, after months of Trump denying and discrediting the USIC's credibility, why should it matter whether any of them gained access to DNC servers? Let's be real. It took Trump until late 2016 to admit that Obama was born in the U.S., that even after the man's birth certificate was released in 2011.

In these post-truth Trump times, what is seems to make no difference. At least it hasn't since June 2015. What's going to make it matter now?

Since I worked in security areas of the govt before, I already KNEW the outcome. And Comey was signaling it when he passed on indictment. I was initially mad, but his testimony in hearings drew me back to HIS side when he was specifically asked --- "What would happen to an employee in the FBI who did what Ms BillyJeff did?"

The answer is what I was telling EVERYBODY for months on USMB and elsewhere. Her clearances SHOULD HAVE been yanked PERMANENTLY (which the FBI has the power to do, but is normally done by the agency in which the crime occurred).. The person would be FIRED, demoted, transferred or sanctioned, pay docked possibly, a proclamation that they would be never be cleared again, etc.. I was telling folks that these things are handled INTERNALLY to the agency or the contractor in which they occur. Because a PUBLIC prosecution can do more damage to security details of the mess and the RULES for conducting a Super Secret trial are very complex.

So all I ever wanted was for clearances to be yanked, told she's never be eligible for new ones and a letter of sanction from her employer or Congress in this case because she was a Cabinet Member at the time of the crime.

I Believe that if you searched my content, you'd find folks laughing at me and big fanatical leftists funnying my posts. But months later -- Comey told everyone the same thing I was saying, before even the MEDIA caught on to "what appropriate punishments" are taken..

Oh boy!! You really don't like Hillary Clinton and you don't think she should have security clearance. What a revelation!

Her clearances should have been yanked as soon as Comey made the speech in "non-indictment" that she was just too naive and incompetent to understand the security implications of purposely bypassing the normal APPROVED SECURE channels of communications for that job.

Sure. Just like Powell was naive.
And....now...we have Trump. He's not naive at all. Way to go!

 

[LoneLaugher]

I'm a liberal. Shove that Ya'll.

You do know it.

My most sincere apologies. I take back that "ya'll". How about "We've had something like a dozen independent investigations into Benghazi...how about at least one into Russia trying to influence our national elections?"

Better?

Unlike Benghazi where the Admin initially tried to muzzle the witnesses that defended the compounds, there was testimony and evidence. Even tho it was CNN and NOT govt agents that picked up a burned copy of the ambassor's private notes off the floor of the compound. Again THERE -- the alarm bells went off and the RESPONSE to PRESERVE the evidence did not happen.

In THIS CASE -- NO evidence appears to have been directly picked up or examined by ANY of the agencies weighing in with opinions. It's a massive FAILURE of leadership and a pattern of being lax about investigating things that blow up later on.. Evidently, the scandal has to include something about a movie. Because when a Sony MOVIE caused the hack or an obscure amateur movie "caused" Benghazi -- ALL hands are on deck..

Did the Obama administration fail to act on the hacking because it only further highlighted how inept the Democrats security was? Obama thought Hillary was going to win, I think he was just trying to run out the clock on this problem.

Probably part of the Calculus for NOT declaring an emergency when it looked like Clinton would certainly win. .That's all political. As is the decision to let the DNC examine themselves after KNOWING that another country was actively spying on the DNC and her election staff.

I'm not trying to be a wise ass by asking, are morons running our government?

Yes.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm a liberal. Shove that Ya'll.

You do know it.

My most sincere apologies. I take back that "ya'll". How about "We've had something like a dozen independent investigations into Benghazi...how about at least one into Russia trying to influence our national elections?"

Better?

Unlike Benghazi where the Admin initially tried to muzzle the witnesses that defended the compounds, there was testimony and evidence. Even tho it was CNN and NOT govt agents that picked up a burned copy of the ambassor's private notes off the floor of the compound. Again THERE -- the alarm bells went off and the RESPONSE to PRESERVE the evidence did not happen.

In THIS CASE -- NO evidence appears to have been directly picked up or examined by ANY of the agencies weighing in with opinions. It's a massive FAILURE of leadership and a pattern of being lax about investigating things that blow up later on.. Evidently, the scandal has to include something about a movie. Because when a Sony MOVIE caused the hack or an obscure amateur movie "caused" Benghazi -- ALL hands are on deck..

Did the Obama administration fail to act on the hacking because it only further highlighted how inept the Democrats security was? Obama thought Hillary was going to win, I think he was just trying to run out the clock on this problem.

Probably part of the Calculus for NOT declaring an emergency when it looked like Clinton would certainly win. .That's all political. As is the decision to let the DNC examine themselves after KNOWING that another country was actively spying on the DNC and her election staff.

I'm not trying to be a wise ass by asking, are morons running our government?

About 500 in Congress. Need we look further? I TRIED to watch the Intel Committee "hearing" on CSPAN. It was 80% bloviating about off-topic bullshit. Couldn't take more than 20 minutes of it..

Certainly, the Admin was snoozing on this. And it's always the "political appointees" that get to answer questions. Isn't it? It's become an artform. And Congress couldn't get to the bottom of a kiddie pool anymore.

And for those Dems who THINK they're gonna pester and resist with their OWN Congressional hearings against the Trump Admin misdeeds --- bless their little naive hearts.

Accountability is pretty much dead. Because all misdeeds are EXCUSED --- if the other side did them first.
Sing so long to $2.2 Trillion a year to feed this farce.

 

[BluesLegend]

My most sincere apologies. I take back that "ya'll". How about "We've had something like a dozen independent investigations into Benghazi...how about at least one into Russia trying to influence our national elections?"

Better?

Unlike Benghazi where the Admin initially tried to muzzle the witnesses that defended the compounds, there was testimony and evidence. Even tho it was CNN and NOT govt agents that picked up a burned copy of the ambassor's private notes off the floor of the compound. Again THERE -- the alarm bells went off and the RESPONSE to PRESERVE the evidence did not happen.

In THIS CASE -- NO evidence appears to have been directly picked up or examined by ANY of the agencies weighing in with opinions. It's a massive FAILURE of leadership and a pattern of being lax about investigating things that blow up later on.. Evidently, the scandal has to include something about a movie. Because when a Sony MOVIE caused the hack or an obscure amateur movie "caused" Benghazi -- ALL hands are on deck..

Did the Obama administration fail to act on the hacking because it only further highlighted how inept the Democrats security was? Obama thought Hillary was going to win, I think he was just trying to run out the clock on this problem.

Probably part of the Calculus for NOT declaring an emergency when it looked like Clinton would certainly win. .That's all political. As is the decision to let the DNC examine themselves after KNOWING that another country was actively spying on the DNC and her election staff.

I'm not trying to be a wise ass by asking, are morons running our government?

About 500 in Congress. Need we look further? I TRIED to watch the Intel Committee "hearing" on CSPAN. It was 80% bloviating about off-topic bullshit. Couldn't take more than 20 minutes of it..

Certainly, the Admin was snoozing on this. And it's always the "political appointees" that get to answer questions. Isn't it? It's become an artform. And Congress couldn't get to the bottom of a kiddie pool anymore.

And for those Dems who THINK they're gonna pester and resist with their OWN Congressional hearings against the Trump Admin misdeeds --- bless their little naive hearts.

Accountability is pretty much dead. Because all misdeeds are EXCUSED --- if the other side did them first.
Sing so long to $2.2 Trillion a year to feed this farce.

I wonder what the founders would say after seeing what a mess the federal government has become. The federal government just spent $700,000 studying whether Neal Armstrong said, "one small step for man" or "one small step for a man" and the result of the $700,000 study was, they are not sure.

 

[Lakhota]

Nawwww... There's no POSSIBLE reason why CrowdStrike was selected by the DNC to do the forensics.

A chart of lobbyists' White House visits reveals its close ties with Google

Please stop whining. The DNC is a private entity that has every right to handle this matter as it sees fit. All the bases have been covered in the Intelligence Report.

What did the report say?
The report said Russia's actions included hacking into the email accounts of the Democratic National Committee and individual Democrats including Mrs Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta.

It said Russia had also used state-funded propaganda and paid "trolls" to make nasty comments on social media platforms:

"Moscow's influence campaign followed a Russian messaging strategy that blends covert intelligence operations — such as cyber activity — with overt efforts by Russian Government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users or 'trolls'."

The report said the Russian effort was both political and personal.

"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."

The report said Mr Putin likely wanted to discredit Mrs Clinton because he blames her for inciting mass protests against his regime in 2011 and 2012, and resents her for disparaging comments she has made about him.

It found that when it appeared Mrs Clinton might well win the election, Mr Putin turned his focus to undermining her presidency:

"Moscow's approach evolved over the course of the campaign based on Russia's understanding of the electoral prospects of the two main candidates. When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton was likely to win the election, the Russian influence campaign began to focus more on undermining her future presidency."

It said the Russian effort was the "boldest yet" intended to effect a US election.

"Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations."

The report said Republican affiliates had also been targeted but not to the same extent:

"Russia collected on some Republican-affiliated targets but did not conduct a comparable disclosure campaign."

There was no suggestion that Russia affected actual vote counting or tampered with ballot machines, the report said:

"DHS [Department of Homeland Security] assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying ... We did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election."

The report also warned of future cyber attacks:

"We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes."

What does the US intelligence report into election hacking say?

No details there that CONFIRM that ANY US Intel agency actually conducted an investigation of evidence for the DNC "breach(es)" or Podesta's phone. Russian wanting to SURVEIL a US election is NOT NEWS. It's to be expected. I suspect 14 other countries did so as well..

Yeah, but how many other countries actually hacked and publicly distributed private DNC emails and employed state-funded Russian propaganda trolls and third-party intermediaries and paid social media users to discredit Hillary and influence the election on Trump's behalf?

We don't KNOW "how many other countries" or entities hacked into the election process -- do we? Because NOBODY in govt has examined the crime scene. My bet is SEVERAL gained access to Clinton's server and that emboldened them to try HARDER to "hack into the characters involved in the election". I'm fairly certain MANY state intel agencies couldn't BELIEVE how much secret stuff was available from her security bypass system..

It's like a fucking candy store for spies around these parts lately...

Crime scene? You have lost all credibility. You're now just pathetically humorous. Hillary derangement syndrome must be painful.

 

[francoHFW]

View attachment 105639

It almost undoubtedly was the video that triggered the "terrorist" attack. Like all the others at the time. Except in Dupe World.

 

[flacaltenn]

Nawwww... There's no POSSIBLE reason why CrowdStrike was selected by the DNC to do the forensics.

A chart of lobbyists' White House visits reveals its close ties with Google

Please stop whining. The DNC is a private entity that has every right to handle this matter as it sees fit. All the bases have been covered in the Intelligence Report.

What did the report say?
The report said Russia's actions included hacking into the email accounts of the Democratic National Committee and individual Democrats including Mrs Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta.

It said Russia had also used state-funded propaganda and paid "trolls" to make nasty comments on social media platforms:

"Moscow's influence campaign followed a Russian messaging strategy that blends covert intelligence operations — such as cyber activity — with overt efforts by Russian Government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users or 'trolls'."

The report said the Russian effort was both political and personal.

"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."

The report said Mr Putin likely wanted to discredit Mrs Clinton because he blames her for inciting mass protests against his regime in 2011 and 2012, and resents her for disparaging comments she has made about him.

It found that when it appeared Mrs Clinton might well win the election, Mr Putin turned his focus to undermining her presidency:

"Moscow's approach evolved over the course of the campaign based on Russia's understanding of the electoral prospects of the two main candidates. When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton was likely to win the election, the Russian influence campaign began to focus more on undermining her future presidency."

It said the Russian effort was the "boldest yet" intended to effect a US election.

"Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations."

The report said Republican affiliates had also been targeted but not to the same extent:

"Russia collected on some Republican-affiliated targets but did not conduct a comparable disclosure campaign."

There was no suggestion that Russia affected actual vote counting or tampered with ballot machines, the report said:

"DHS [Department of Homeland Security] assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying ... We did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election."

The report also warned of future cyber attacks:

"We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes."

What does the US intelligence report into election hacking say?

No details there that CONFIRM that ANY US Intel agency actually conducted an investigation of evidence for the DNC "breach(es)" or Podesta's phone. Russian wanting to SURVEIL a US election is NOT NEWS. It's to be expected. I suspect 14 other countries did so as well..

Yeah, but how many other countries actually hacked and publicly distributed private DNC emails and employed state-funded Russian propaganda trolls and third-party intermediaries and paid social media users to discredit Hillary and influence the election on Trump's behalf?

We don't KNOW "how many other countries" or entities hacked into the election process -- do we? Because NOBODY in govt has examined the crime scene. My bet is SEVERAL gained access to Clinton's server and that emboldened them to try HARDER to "hack into the characters involved in the election". I'm fairly certain MANY state intel agencies couldn't BELIEVE how much secret stuff was available from her security bypass system..

It's like a fucking candy store for spies around these parts lately...

Crime scene? You have lost all credibility. You're now just pathetically humorous. Hillary derangement syndrome must be painful.

Was there a crime of some foreign state trying to interfere with the election or not? Why is your Dear Leader pushing sanctions and retribution if there was "no crime scene"??

You think everyone should just accept the DNC filtered version of what intrusions were found on their machines?

Of course, you will not or can not discuss this. You won't answer the questions. You'll just continue to parrot the same crap over and over again. You cannot have it BOTH ways. Either there was an IMMENSE threat to our National Security or there wasn't. If there WAS -- then YES -- there WAS a crime scene and the "cops" never showed up...

 

[flacaltenn]

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??

 

[JustAnotherNut]

I agree with the OP. These are questions that should be asked and answered. Just what good is having 17 intel agencies, if they're not going to do their jobs, but outsource such top secret national security info to private companies? How can any legal system stand without directly examining evidence without outside influence?
In any crime, doesn't the police secure a scene, confiscate all evidence to protect from being tainted, do a thorough investigation into the matter before coming to a conclusion? Why wouldn't the FBI, CIA & NSA do the same? Especially with matters of national security?
This is comparable to handing over a murder investigation to the janitor and the police just accepting what he says without checking it themselves.

To add another similar but different question.....WHY didn't those same intel agencies do their own investigations &/or get first access to those servers? Even if they did outsource to who? Cloudstrike? Why didn't they CONFIRM their findings before accepting it.

Those are just SOME of the more intelligent questions right there. And they are not being answered. Congress COULD subpoena all of the RAW CloudStrike reports to the DNC. But there's no guarantee that any WRITTEN reports are not filtered to present the image that the DNC wants to project.

And Congress SHOULD ask the question of who did the forensics on Podesta's phone as well. Have you heard that question asked and/or answered? That's why I'm in this thread. To be educated. Because I know a little bit about Intel operations and this stinks like a pig farm.

Other than this thread, nobody in DC is asking these types of questions nor will they answer them. If they did, they'd have to admit the whole damn thing is a big farce they've created as a cover up. There has to be something BIG & I mean HUGE going on that would deserve so much 'smoke & mirrors'

 

[Lakhota]

This is nothing but a propaganda thread trying to shift attention from Russia to the DNC.

Trump Aides Try To Make Campaign Hack Story About DNC, Not Russia

 

[usmbguest5318]

I agree with the OP. These are questions that should be asked and answered. Just what good is having 17 intel agencies, if they're not going to do their jobs, but outsource such top secret national security info to private companies?

What did I miss?

• Did someone find classified content in Podesta's emails?
• If not, what is so "top secret national security" about a computer/email account, or the data on it, owned and operated by John Podesta?

The man was private citizen managing a political campaign. He was not, AFAIK, a government (ex) employee in possession of, storing or discussing via his email, vital secrets of any sort, physical or informational.

 

[Clementine]

Which of the many Intel Agencies that are making claims about Russian hacking have EVER been granted access to the DNC servers in question?

I ASK THAT because the FBI NEVER got access to the DNC servers. Instead the DNC hire CrowdStrike. Which is almost EXCLUSIVELY funded by Google. The same Google who was on the WHouse guest login far more than any other commercial organization. And all of the analysis I've seen is largely based on THEIR opinions.

Did anyone ask the lying bastard DNI -- if they EVER got direct access to the DNC servers for forensics? If so WHEN? And was all the forensic data preserved?

It's suspicious that the FBI would rely on a known leftist company instead of doing their own research. That is almost never done. And, yes, the results offered were nothing but opinion and there was nothing in the way of proof offered up.

You'd think the FBI could do better or at least double check by conducting their own analysis. Simply accepting someone else's conclusion, and a weak one at that, is highly unprofessional.

No way will I take the word of the DNC and the company they paid to do this.

I wonder if they did keep the data preserved. If not, that would be even more suspicious. Maybe the FBI has nothing to look at. Even still, taking the word of a known bias company that made conclusions based on bias opinions isn't something we can rely on.

And then there's the question of why the DNC paid a private company instead of going to the FBI in the first place. Is it that they didn't trust them or just needed to have a certain conclusion and knew that someone working for them would come through? I would be interested to know if CrowdStrike and Google donated to Hillary's campaign.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Reminder: John Podesta Wasn’t Hacked, He Was Duped Just Like The DNC

I suspect the general process described in the article is accurate. I have my doubts about some of the specific points noted in it. One that strikes me as dubious at best is this:

• The campaign had been the target of dozens of similar phishing emails at the time, Delevan said, and he knew this email was one of them. He accidentally typed “legitimate” instead of “illegitimate,” a mistake he says has “plagued him.”
  
  • I don't think there was anything accidental about it. Why not?
    • Because if it were an accident, Delevan would have immediately sent a follow up or called someone on the phone, or done something to make sure the email was ignored/deleted, not clicked on.
    • "Illegitimate" doesn't start with an "L." People don't accidentally type "l"e-g-i-t-i-m-a-t-e wnen [sic] they mean to type "il"-l-e-g-i-t-i-m-a-t-e. They may hit o-, k-, j- u-, 8- or 9-legitimate. That's if they are touch typists. If they are "hunt n peckers," they are looking at the keys, so they are even less likely to omit the "il."
      
      I left the "wnen," which should have been "when," to illustrate the point...typing the "n" was the typo I made typing the paragraph above. I didn't even realize it until I looked over the sentence and noticed the red spellcheck squiggle. I started to correct it, but decided to leave it and put in the "sic" just so it was clear I am paying attention to what I'm doing.
  • I agree with her distinction about "hack" vs. "dupe," but it's a distinction without a substantive difference.

As for the phishing code, that was disclosed in the FBI and DNI's report from about a week or more ago.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

I agree with the OP. These are questions that should be asked and answered. Just what good is having 17 intel agencies, if they're not going to do their jobs, but outsource such top secret national security info to private companies?

What did I miss?

• Did someone find classified content in Podesta's emails?
• If not, what is so "top secret national security" about a computer/email account, or the data on it, owned and operated by John Podesta?

The man was private citizen managing a political campaign. He was not, AFAIK, a government (ex) employee in possession of, storing or discussing via his email, vital secrets of any sort, physical or informational.

Anytime another country & it's leader is blamed for interfering into a national election IS a national security issue. The fact that no one in Washington has been asking these types of questions (like in the OP), makes it top secret....

I never mentioned Podesta specifically, nor is he the target......but the feds intelligence agencies handling, mishandling or not handling at all, is the issue here.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I agree with the OP. These are questions that should be asked and answered. Just what good is having 17 intel agencies, if they're not going to do their jobs, but outsource such top secret national security info to private companies?

What did I miss?

• Did someone find classified content in Podesta's emails?
• If not, what is so "top secret national security" about a computer/email account, or the data on it, owned and operated by John Podesta?

The man was private citizen managing a political campaign. He was not, AFAIK, a government (ex) employee in possession of, storing or discussing via his email, vital secrets of any sort, physical or informational.

Anytime another country & it's leader is blamed for interfering into a national election IS a national security issue. The fact that no one in Washington has been asking these types of questions (like in the OP), makes it top secret....

I never mentioned Podesta specifically, nor is he the target......but the feds intelligence agencies handling, mishandling or not handling at all, is the issue here.

The Russians interfered via what was essentially a propaganda campaign. There's likely nothing on a DNC or Clinton campaign staffer's computer that's going to tell anyone why that tactic may have been effective. This and this and this, and content like it and related to it, on the other hand, may answer that question.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

I agree with the OP. These are questions that should be asked and answered. Just what good is having 17 intel agencies, if they're not going to do their jobs, but outsource such top secret national security info to private companies?

What did I miss?

• Did someone find classified content in Podesta's emails?
• If not, what is so "top secret national security" about a computer/email account, or the data on it, owned and operated by John Podesta?

The man was private citizen managing a political campaign. He was not, AFAIK, a government (ex) employee in possession of, storing or discussing via his email, vital secrets of any sort, physical or informational.

Anytime another country & it's leader is blamed for interfering into a national election IS a national security issue. The fact that no one in Washington has been asking these types of questions (like in the OP), makes it top secret....

I never mentioned Podesta specifically, nor is he the target......but the feds intelligence agencies handling, mishandling or not handling at all, is the issue here.

The Russians interfered via what was essentially a propaganda campaign. There's likely nothing on a DNC or Clinton campaign staffer's computer that's going to tell anyone why that tactic may have been effective. This and this and this, and content like it and related to it, on the other hand, may answer that question.

.......and the propaganda just won't quit.

 

[Disir]

The first person to scream Russians came out of Clinton's campaign. Boom. We're done. Everything else is simply to make sure the show goes on.

 

[usmbguest5318]

The first person to scream Russians came out of Clinton's campaign. Boom. We're done. Everything else is simply to make sure the show goes on.

Say what? The first thing I can recall was Trump imploring the Russians to hack for emails.

 

[Disir]

The first person to scream Russians came out of Clinton's campaign. Boom. We're done. Everything else is simply to make sure the show goes on.

Say what? The first thing I can recall was Trump imploring the Russians to hack for emails.

Nope. The very first person to scream Russians came from Clinton's campaign.