Russian Hacking

[DOTR]

I'm just wondering if anybody here can give me one example of Russians hacking the US elections yet? I've asked this question a dozen times at least. No response.
One example! Is it that hard?

 

[DOTR]

Remember these gems?

 

[DOTR]

Can anyone tell me what Obama means by saying American elections are impossible to hack? I don't quite understand.

 

[BlindBoo]

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. It covers the motivation and scope of Moscow’s intentions regarding US elections and Moscow’s use of cyber tools and media campaigns to influence US public opinion. The assessment focuses on activities aimed at the 2016 US presidential election and draws on our understanding of previous Russian influence operations. When we use the term “we” it refers to an assessment by all three agencies.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Russians may have hacked the DNC, that has been acknowledged. What has also been acknowledged it that there is zero evidence the had any impact on the outcome.

 

[forkup]

Russians may have hacked the DNC, that has been acknowledged. What has also been acknowledged it that there is zero evidence the had any impact on the outcome.

I have a problem with the argument that it didn't influence the election. You use the term 'evidence'to make your point.In my view you do this for 2 reasons. First reason is simple. It is nigh on impossible to ascertain what issue swayed the elections it's a completely subjective argument. You nor I can say what made people vote for Trump over Clinton. Chances are it is collection of reasons. I can not say, the Russia thing was the deciding factor, any more that you can claim it had no influence whatsoever. So you use evidence as a strawman argument. Second reason is simple. If you can convince people that Russians didn't influence the elections in a meaningful way, it then becomes acceptable to have voted for Trump. In my view it deliberately skates past the core of the issue. Why do the Russians prefer Trump over Clinton? To such an extent that they feel it's worth it to risk all the diplomatic fallout from their actions

 

[DOTR]

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. It covers the motivation and scope of Moscow’s intentions regarding US elections and Moscow’s use of cyber tools and media campaigns to influence US public opinion. The assessment focuses on activities aimed at the 2016 US presidential election and draws on our understanding of previous Russian influence operations. When we use the term “we” it refers to an assessment by all three agencies.

Oh good God! You wasted my time with deep state nonsense like:

"RT broadcast, hosted, and advertised third-party candidate debates and ran reporting supportive of the political agenda of these candidates.The RT hosts asserted that the US two-party system does not represent the views of at least one-third of the population and is a "sham." "

You got me. But that's the last time.

 

[Seawytch]

Russians may have hacked the DNC, that has been acknowledged. What has also been acknowledged it that there is zero evidence the had any impact on the outcome.

So if I attempt to rob a bank but get away with no money, I've committed no crime?

 

[imawhosure]

I'm just wondering if anybody here can give me one example of Russians hacking the US elections yet? I've asked this question a dozen times at least. No response.
One example! Is it that hard?


View attachment 128396

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. It covers the motivation and scope of Moscow’s intentions regarding US elections and Moscow’s use of cyber tools and media campaigns to influence US public opinion. The assessment focuses on activities aimed at the 2016 US presidential election and draws on our understanding of previous Russian influence operations. When we use the term “we” it refers to an assessment by all three agencies.

I would ask the charming and delightful BlindBoo, to show us an interview with 20.............no wait 10............no wait 5 voters in Michigan, Penn, or Wisconsin that claim some Russian FAKE NEWS altered their vote to Donaldus Trump, and now realize they were mislead, and wish they could change it.

WE ARE WAITING!

INCOMPETENT LIBERALS--------> The New York Knicks tried to affect who was in the NBA playoffs this year too, lololol. Find me a team in the playoffs who think they succeeded, you phony baloneys-)

 

[BlindBoo]

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. It covers the motivation and scope of Moscow’s intentions regarding US elections and Moscow’s use of cyber tools and media campaigns to influence US public opinion. The assessment focuses on activities aimed at the 2016 US presidential election and draws on our understanding of previous Russian influence operations. When we use the term “we” it refers to an assessment by all three agencies.

Oh good God! You wasted my time with deep state nonsense like:

"RT broadcast, hosted, and advertised third-party candidate debates and ran reporting supportive of the political agenda of these candidates.The RT hosts asserted that the US two-party system does not represent the views of at least one-third of the population and is a "sham." "

You got me. But that's the last time.

Deep State?????

Go on.......

 

[Norman]

This is what CNN had to say the last time I checked:

No, the 2016 presidential election can't be hacked - CNNPolitics.com

How have the times changed... in only a few months.

 

[forkup]

I'm just wondering if anybody here can give me one example of Russians hacking the US elections yet? I've asked this question a dozen times at least. No response.
One example! Is it that hard?


View attachment 128396

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. It covers the motivation and scope of Moscow’s intentions regarding US elections and Moscow’s use of cyber tools and media campaigns to influence US public opinion. The assessment focuses on activities aimed at the 2016 US presidential election and draws on our understanding of previous Russian influence operations. When we use the term “we” it refers to an assessment by all three agencies.

I would ask the charming and delightful BlindBoo, to show us an interview with 20.............no wait 10............no wait 5 voters in Michigan, Penn, or Wisconsin that claim some Russian FAKE NEWS altered their vote to Donaldus Trump, and now realize they were mislead, and wish they could change it.

WE ARE WAITING!

INCOMPETENT LIBERALS--------> The New York Knicks tried to affect who was in the NBA playoffs this year too, lololol. Find me a team in the playoffs who think they succeeded, you phony baloneys-)

I have a problem with the argument that it didn't influence the election. You use the term 'evidence'to make your point.In my view you do this for 2 reasons. First reason is simple. It is nigh on impossible to ascertain what issue swayed the elections it's a completely subjective argument. You nor I can say what made people vote for Trump over Clinton. Chances are it is collection of reasons. I can not say, the Russia thing was the deciding factor, any more that you can claim it had no influence whatsoever. So you use evidence as a strawman argument. Second reason is simple. If you can convince people that Russians didn't influence the elections in a meaningful way, it then becomes acceptable to have voted for Trump. In my view it deliberately skates past the core of the issue. Why do the Russians prefer Trump over Clinton? To such an extent that they feel it's worth it to risk all the diplomatic fallout from their actions

 

[iceberg]

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. It covers the motivation and scope of Moscow’s intentions regarding US elections and Moscow’s use of cyber tools and media campaigns to influence US public opinion. The assessment focuses on activities aimed at the 2016 US presidential election and draws on our understanding of previous Russian influence operations. When we use the term “we” it refers to an assessment by all three agencies.

which department of ours covers our own hacking of other governments, not to mention far less covert ops like giving netenyahu's opponents tax money?

 

[DOTR]

Russians may have hacked the DNC, that has been acknowledged. What has also been acknowledged it that there is zero evidence the had any impact on the outcome.

Well not really. We don't know who hacked the DNC or Podesta. Internal staff leakers probably.
But exposing Democrats for what they really are is hardly "hacking an election". In fact it should have been the goal of the politics leading up to the elections.
It appears that the Democrats believe that beating Democrats is "Hacking". That's when they aren't swearing that it is impossible to hack an election.

And back to the culprits in the email leaks. I'll leave you with this quote from a Podesta email:

"I'm definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it. "

Re: Wash Post story -- Sorry to write this on a Saturday night - WikiLeaks

This tells us (1) they knew they had a leaker and (2) they didn't care who they had to destroy with what falsehoods to make "an example" of him.

Remember that breathtaking psychopathy when they are making their claims.

 

[DOTR]

Russians may have hacked the DNC, that has been acknowledged. What has also been acknowledged it that there is zero evidence the had any impact on the outcome.

So if I attempt to rob a bank but get away with no money, I've committed no crime?

You have failed to rob or hack the bank. No robbery has taken place.

Next question.

 

[DOTR]

This is what CNN had to say the last time I checked:

No, the 2016 presidential election can't be hacked - CNNPolitics.com

How have the times changed... in only a few months.

 

[BlindBoo]

I'm just wondering if anybody here can give me one example of Russians hacking the US elections yet? I've asked this question a dozen times at least. No response.
One example! Is it that hard?


View attachment 128396

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. It covers the motivation and scope of Moscow’s intentions regarding US elections and Moscow’s use of cyber tools and media campaigns to influence US public opinion. The assessment focuses on activities aimed at the 2016 US presidential election and draws on our understanding of previous Russian influence operations. When we use the term “we” it refers to an assessment by all three agencies.

I would ask the charming and delightful BlindBoo, to show us an interview with 20.............no wait 10............no wait 5 voters in Michigan, Penn, or Wisconsin that claim some Russian FAKE NEWS altered their vote to Donaldus Trump, and now realize they were mislead, and wish they could change it.

WE ARE WAITING!

INCOMPETENT LIBERALS--------> The New York Knicks tried to affect who was in the NBA playoffs this year too, lololol. Find me a team in the playoffs who think they succeeded, you phony baloneys-)

Man on the Street: "Sir, did you vote for Donald Trump"

Passing citizen: "Yes I did"

Man on the street: "Were you influenced in anyway by all that Russian Fake News that was floating around?"

Passing Citizen: "No of course not!"

Man on Street: "There you have it, back to you Chet!"

 

[task0778]

Russians may have hacked the DNC, that has been acknowledged. What has also been acknowledged it that there is zero evidence the had any impact on the outcome.

I have a problem with the argument that it didn't influence the election. You use the term 'evidence'to make your point.In my view you do this for 2 reasons. First reason is simple. It is nigh on impossible to ascertain what issue swayed the elections it's a completely subjective argument. You nor I can say what made people vote for Trump over Clinton. Chances are it is collection of reasons. I can not say, the Russia thing was the deciding factor, any more that you can claim it had no influence whatsoever. So you use evidence as a strawman argument. Second reason is simple. If you can convince people that Russians didn't influence the elections in a meaningful way, it then becomes acceptable to have voted for Trump. In my view it deliberately skates past the core of the issue. Why do the Russians prefer Trump over Clinton? To such an extent that they feel it's worth it to risk all the diplomatic fallout from their actions

The democrats are using the Russian hacking episode as an excuse for why Clinton lost, and they are implying if not saying it outright that it lead to Trump's win, thereby trying to de-legitimize it. So when the repubs counter by saying there is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim by the dems by any of the federal investigative agencies, that is not a strawman but actually a statement of fact that undercuts what the dems are trying to say. I think you know as well as I do that repeating an accusation enough times will create doubt even if untrue, and THAT is what the dems are doing by facing up to the truth behind why they lost.

News flash: it was always acceptable to vote for Trump whether you think the Russians were involved or not. Where do you or anyone else get off by de-legitimizing the Trump voters? I think the people who voted for Trump were going to do so anyway, this business with the Russians hacking the DNC was just a confirmation of the intense dislike there is out there with the Washington establishment. And what exactly do you think the core issue is?

 

[Defiant1]

Russians may have hacked the DNC, that has been acknowledged. What has also been acknowledged it that there is zero evidence the had any impact on the outcome.

I have a problem with the argument that it didn't influence the election. You use the term 'evidence'to make your point.In my view you do this for 2 reasons. First reason is simple. It is nigh on impossible to ascertain what issue swayed the elections it's a completely subjective argument. You nor I can say what made people vote for Trump over Clinton. Chances are it is collection of reasons. I can not say, the Russia thing was the deciding factor, any more that you can claim it had no influence whatsoever. So you use evidence as a strawman argument. Second reason is simple. If you can convince people that Russians didn't influence the elections in a meaningful way, it then becomes acceptable to have voted for Trump. In my view it deliberately skates past the core of the issue. Why do the Russians prefer Trump over Clinton? To such an extent that they feel it's worth it to risk all the diplomatic fallout from their actions

There are lots of things that influence elections. It's called campaigning and free speech.
It may leave a bad taste in our mouths when Russians or other foreigners become active in our politics, but it isn't illegal.
It is an issue for voters. If a voter doesn't like a candidate or those supporting that candidate then they get to vote.
As long as people don't break campaign finance laws, there are no crimes committed.
Unfortunately, communication via the internet has opened the door for the world to participate.

 

[toomuchtime_]

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. It covers the motivation and scope of Moscow’s intentions regarding US elections and Moscow’s use of cyber tools and media campaigns to influence US public opinion. The assessment focuses on activities aimed at the 2016 US presidential election and draws on our understanding of previous Russian influence operations. When we use the term “we” it refers to an assessment by all three agencies.

In other words there is no direct evidence of the Russian government committing any illegal acts with regard to the election but loads of theories and rumors.