Russian Hacking

[toobfreak]

That's the declassified report. So you think that a Nation State using paid internet trolls, fake news sites, stolen and hacked documents to target one party's candidate is okay? If it were your candidate that was targeted would you still be okay with it?

That report wasn't shit. My best friend is an IT for the FBI. Declassified report my ass. That is just more Hilary-Watch public propaganda. Do you really believe the gov went through all of the trouble to produce a legitimate report giving all of the rightful conclusions while redacting all of the supporting evidence? Not one piece of evidence is declassified? Not one detail of a SPECIFIC thing being done by SPECIFIC people in a SPECIFIC way on a SPECIFIC date with a SPECIFIC outcome?

Officer! Officer! Little Billy did it! I can't prove it to you, just take my word!

If the democrats put half the effort into solving world issues as they have into trying to explain/justify Hillary's loss, we would be to Mars by now and all driving flying cars.

 

[Zander]

Poor LWNJ's.....They really are mindless drones.

 

[toobfreak]

BTW, I've already time-lined the entire process of how and where this whole Russian Hacking excuse came from:

The "Big Lie" That Became A Secret Trump Investigation To Save A Party

 

[forkup]

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?

Oh like for instance claiming the president of the united states was born in Kenya? Is that an example of trying to delegitimize a president? As for there being no evidence of Russian hacking. The former head of the CIA, FBI and a bunch of other acronyms disagree. The fact that you don't accept their assessments don't make them any less true.Former CIA Chief Says Intelligence Warrants FBI's Trump-Russia Investigation | HuffPost

"Oh like for instance claiming the president of the united states was born in Kenya? Is that an example of trying to delegitimize a president?"
Yes it was and it was wrong then just like it is wrong now.

I am well aware that the Russians did hack into the DNC, that is not the issue and you know it. The issue is whether anyone from the Trump campaign colluded with the hacking or subsequent release of DNC information. Worrying about why is YOUR strawman.

Why is it a strawman? In my view, and I'm well aware that this is me putting out an opinion, why is the most important thing. If you go by the reasonable assumption that Russia had something to gain from getting Trump elected. It would follow that that something more than likely wouldn't be in the best interest of the United States. That fact alone should give serious pause to those preferring Trump. As to me delegitimizing Trump voters. Most of my in laws voted for Trump. I don't consider them stupid. I do consider them scared and as you pointed out mad at the establishment. I understand the appeal of just saying fuck you to all things political. On the other hand voting for Trump as an answer to political clientelism and globalisation. Is hiring a fox to look over a hen house

Might have been a personal thing with Putin against Hillary as opposed to them liking Trump more than her. Frankly I think the Russians believed like everyone else did that Hillary was going to win and so this hacking wasn't an attempt to influence our election. It was instead a shot across the bows at Clinton for attacking Putin. The Donald might not be the only thin-skinned political leader out there.

If it isn't supposed to work why do it? There are plenty of ways to say to Clinton don't mess with me. Ways that are more effective to convey that message than hacking her campaign manager? It's a theory, but it only fits if you accept that Putin is irrational. Something I haven't seen any evidence of. If anything Putin seems to be both highly rational not to mention ruthless,when it comes to furthering his political agenda.

 

[task0778]

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?

Oh like for instance claiming the president of the united states was born in Kenya? Is that an example of trying to delegitimize a president? As for there being no evidence of Russian hacking. The former head of the CIA, FBI and a bunch of other acronyms disagree. The fact that you don't accept their assessments don't make them any less true.Former CIA Chief Says Intelligence Warrants FBI's Trump-Russia Investigation | HuffPost

"Oh like for instance claiming the president of the united states was born in Kenya? Is that an example of trying to delegitimize a president?"
Yes it was and it was wrong then just like it is wrong now.

I am well aware that the Russians did hack into the DNC, that is not the issue and you know it. The issue is whether anyone from the Trump campaign colluded with the hacking or subsequent release of DNC information. Worrying about why is YOUR strawman.

Why is it a strawman? In my view, and I'm well aware that this is me putting out an opinion, why is the most important thing. If you go by the reasonable assumption that Russia had something to gain from getting Trump elected. It would follow that that something more than likely wouldn't be in the best interest of the United States. That fact alone should give serious pause to those preferring Trump. As to me delegitimizing Trump voters. Most of my in laws voted for Trump. I don't consider them stupid. I do consider them scared and as you pointed out mad at the establishment. I understand the appeal of just saying fuck you to all things political. On the other hand voting for Trump as an answer to political clientelism and globalisation. Is hiring a fox to look over a hen house

Might have been a personal thing with Putin against Hillary as opposed to them liking Trump more than her. Frankly I think the Russians believed like everyone else did that Hillary was going to win and so this hacking wasn't an attempt to influence our election. It was instead a shot across the bows at Clinton for attacking Putin. The Donald might not be the only thin-skinned political leader out there.

If it isn't supposed to work why do it? There are plenty of ways to say to Clinton don't mess with me. Ways that are more effective to convey that message than hacking her campaign manager? It's a theory, but it only fits if you accept that Putin is irrational. Something I haven't seen any evidence of. If anything Putin seems to be both highly rational not to mention ruthless,when it comes to furthering his political agenda.

I got no comment on how irrational Putin is, but I'm convinced that he believed along with everyone else that Clinton was going to win. So, as you say why do it if the election doesn't flip? If you're trying to say Putin thought he could make that happen, I think that's quite a stretch. More likely IMHO is that he wanted to piss in her cornflakes, and that he and the Russians should be respected a little more than Clinton had been showing in the last year or 2.

 

[forkup]

Oh like for instance claiming the president of the united states was born in Kenya? Is that an example of trying to delegitimize a president? As for there being no evidence of Russian hacking. The former head of the CIA, FBI and a bunch of other acronyms disagree. The fact that you don't accept their assessments don't make them any less true.Former CIA Chief Says Intelligence Warrants FBI's Trump-Russia Investigation | HuffPost

"Oh like for instance claiming the president of the united states was born in Kenya? Is that an example of trying to delegitimize a president?"
Yes it was and it was wrong then just like it is wrong now.

I am well aware that the Russians did hack into the DNC, that is not the issue and you know it. The issue is whether anyone from the Trump campaign colluded with the hacking or subsequent release of DNC information. Worrying about why is YOUR strawman.

Why is it a strawman? In my view, and I'm well aware that this is me putting out an opinion, why is the most important thing. If you go by the reasonable assumption that Russia had something to gain from getting Trump elected. It would follow that that something more than likely wouldn't be in the best interest of the United States. That fact alone should give serious pause to those preferring Trump. As to me delegitimizing Trump voters. Most of my in laws voted for Trump. I don't consider them stupid. I do consider them scared and as you pointed out mad at the establishment. I understand the appeal of just saying fuck you to all things political. On the other hand voting for Trump as an answer to political clientelism and globalisation. Is hiring a fox to look over a hen house

Might have been a personal thing with Putin against Hillary as opposed to them liking Trump more than her. Frankly I think the Russians believed like everyone else did that Hillary was going to win and so this hacking wasn't an attempt to influence our election. It was instead a shot across the bows at Clinton for attacking Putin. The Donald might not be the only thin-skinned political leader out there.

If it isn't supposed to work why do it? There are plenty of ways to say to Clinton don't mess with me. Ways that are more effective to convey that message than hacking her campaign manager? It's a theory, but it only fits if you accept that Putin is irrational. Something I haven't seen any evidence of. If anything Putin seems to be both highly rational not to mention ruthless,when it comes to furthering his political agenda.

I got no comment on how irrational Putin is, but I'm convinced that he believed along with everyone else that Clinton was going to win. So, as you say why do it if the election doesn't flip? If you're trying to say Putin thought he could make that happen, I think that's quite a stretch. More likely IMHO is that he wanted to piss in her cornflakes, and that he and the Russians should be respected a little more than Clinton had been showing in the last year or 2.

I'm going to rap this up for tonight. I'll repeat one of my points of the previous post. There are more effective ways to piss in Clinton's cornflakes as you so colorfully put it. Especially if you think she will be president. Ways that are less likely to have severe diplomatic consequences. But as you say these are just opinions. I want to thank you for offering an honest conversation. To few of these happen to me on this board. Most fall into rhetoric and name calling, you did neither. Goodnight

 

[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?

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

Next question.

But they didn't fail. They succeeded in hacking and weaponizing those hacks. Whether the weapons were effective or not is irrelevant. They still "shot at us".

 

[Indeependent]

Orange hair!

 

[toobfreak]

Check out all the OP's on wikileaks during the campaign. That constitutes a concerted campaign to discredit Hillary,doesn't it?

Not if you were against her! What happened to freedom of speech? But if you are talking about REAL collusion, we already had the IRS scandal where Lois Lerner blocked all kinds of conservative organizations from operating getting the ant-Obama, Pro-Romney word out, definitely affecting the election outcome in Obama's favor, and he WON. But that investigation has been quietly forgotten about.

There are all kinds of people on here day and night trying to discredit Trump. Democrats calling for impeachment. So what's your point? It's only an issue when it doesn't work in the democrat's favor?

 

[toobfreak]

So besides that obscure Russian TV station nobody reported on wikileaks, or put out fake news stories.Or put out any negative information about Clinton. I seem to recall stuff like piizzagate, actually accusing Clinton of running a pedofile ring. Or Fox news as current as a few weeks ago claiming that one of the people on her campaign got assasinated. My point is that the Russians did at the very least try to influence the election. And that fact coupled with, and lets not forget that ,Trumps actions point to something at the very least pretty suspicious, or have you ever heard of any previous president not just firing somebody who is investigating your campaign but than subsequently both inviting the other party under investigation and then doing what you were accused of in the first place,(namely collusion with the Russians). Hilary was deemed to be not worthy of the presidency for objectively less reason.

Man, I really have to start watching more news! And I thought 4 hours a day was good enough. Pizzagate? Never heard of it. Pedophile ring? Never heard of it. Clinton assassination? You mean one Hillary wasn't involved in herself? Never heard of it. Bottom line: None of this crap influenced me, and had I heard it all, it STILL wouldn't have influence me. Only an idiot would believe such stuff and if I was already thinking of voting for Hillary, a pizza, a pedo or another murder (making it 99) associated with the Clintons, if I could live with the TEN-THOUSAND known things already in Hillary's closet and still be willing to vote for her, nothing you've mentioned could possibly change my mind.

How effective can such crap really be anyway? Look at the tons of crap, an avalanche that has been thrown at Trump AND HE STILL WON!!!

 

[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.

That's the declassified report. So you think that a Nation State using paid internet trolls, fake news sites, stolen and hacked documents to target one party's candidate is okay? If it were your candidate that was targeted would you still be okay with it?

So as far as you know there is no direct evidence the Russian government committed no illegal acts in connection with the election, but you choose to believe it did anyway. How do you decide which unsubstantiated rumors you will believe and which you will reject?

What I do know for certain is that Leaders in both parties have the classified information. We peons do not.

I found this last election too much like the time the South Park Cows had to change their names........

So again, as far as you know there is no direct evidence of the Russian government committing any illegal acts to influence the election and no one who would have access to classified evidence on the subject has stated that there is direct evidence. Some people who have access to classified evidence say they believe Russia committed such acts, but no one claims to have direct evidence to that effect.

 

[BlindBoo]

e already had the IRS scandal where Lois Lerner blocked all kinds of conservative organizations from operating

Pure fantasy. Not only did they continue to operate but their tax status was not effected by that verification process.

 

[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.

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.

That's the declassified report. So you think that a Nation State using paid internet trolls, fake news sites, stolen and hacked documents to target one party's candidate is okay? If it were your candidate that was targeted would you still be okay with it?

So as far as you know there is no direct evidence the Russian government committed no illegal acts in connection with the election, but you choose to believe it did anyway. How do you decide which unsubstantiated rumors you will believe and which you will reject?

What I do know for certain is that Leaders in both parties have the classified information. We peons do not.

I found this last election too much like the time the South Park Cows had to change their names........

So again, as far as you know there is no direct evidence of the Russian government committing any illegal acts to influence the election and no one who would have access to classified evidence on the subject has stated that there is direct evidence. Some people who have access to classified evidence say they believe Russia committed such acts, but no one claims to have direct evidence to that effect.

The real question becomes, can you impeach a president on classified data?

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

That's the declassified report. So you think that a Nation State using paid internet trolls, fake news sites, stolen and hacked documents to target one party's candidate is okay? If it were your candidate that was targeted would you still be okay with it?

So as far as you know there is no direct evidence the Russian government committed no illegal acts in connection with the election, but you choose to believe it did anyway. How do you decide which unsubstantiated rumors you will believe and which you will reject?

What I do know for certain is that Leaders in both parties have the classified information. We peons do not.

I found this last election too much like the time the South Park Cows had to change their names........

So again, as far as you know there is no direct evidence of the Russian government committing any illegal acts to influence the election and no one who would have access to classified evidence on the subject has stated that there is direct evidence. Some people who have access to classified evidence say they believe Russia committed such acts, but no one claims to have direct evidence to that effect.

The real question becomes, can you impeach a president on classified data?

Which is to say you don't care if any of the allegations are true or not.

 

[DOTR]

Alrighty then...let's agree that the Election wasn't hacked. People in all fifty states voted (in Chicago even dead people bless them) and elected electors to the electoral college. The electoral college selected Trump for President.
No interference from Russians detected in the process.

 

[DOTR]

And, I might add, this in spite of A compliant media which attempted to sway the election to Bill Clintons wife. For Trump this was always an uphill battle.

 

[BlindBoo]

That's the declassified report. So you think that a Nation State using paid internet trolls, fake news sites, stolen and hacked documents to target one party's candidate is okay? If it were your candidate that was targeted would you still be okay with it?

So as far as you know there is no direct evidence the Russian government committed no illegal acts in connection with the election, but you choose to believe it did anyway. How do you decide which unsubstantiated rumors you will believe and which you will reject?

What I do know for certain is that Leaders in both parties have the classified information. We peons do not.

I found this last election too much like the time the South Park Cows had to change their names........

So again, as far as you know there is no direct evidence of the Russian government committing any illegal acts to influence the election and no one who would have access to classified evidence on the subject has stated that there is direct evidence. Some people who have access to classified evidence say they believe Russia committed such acts, but no one claims to have direct evidence to that effect.

The real question becomes, can you impeach a president on classified data?

Which is to say you don't care if any of the allegations are true or not.

A mind reader you are not.

 

[Defiant1]

e already had the IRS scandal where Lois Lerner blocked all kinds of conservative organizations from operating

Pure fantasy. Not only did they continue to operate but their tax status was not effected by that verification process.

Impeach for what?

Even if Trump had spoken to Putin 3 times a day every day during the campaign.
What law would that break?

 

[radical right]

That report wasn't shit. My best friend is an IT for the FBI. Declassified report my ass. That is just more Hilary-Watch public propaganda. Do you really believe the gov went through all of the trouble to produce a legitimate report giving all of the rightful conclusions while redacting all of the supporting evidence? Not one piece of evidence is declassified? Not one detail of a SPECIFIC thing being done by SPECIFIC people in a SPECIFIC way on a SPECIFIC date with a SPECIFIC outcome?.

The people with security clearances agree the supporting evidence.proves the conclusion.

If you don't like reading reports with the evidence redacted out, get a high enough security clearance to be trusted with classified sources and methods.

 

[DOTR]

That report wasn't shit. My best friend is an IT for the FBI. Declassified report my ass. That is just more Hilary-Watch public propaganda. Do you really believe the gov went through all of the trouble to produce a legitimate report giving all of the rightful conclusions while redacting all of the supporting evidence? Not one piece of evidence is declassified? Not one detail of a SPECIFIC thing being done by SPECIFIC people in a SPECIFIC way on a SPECIFIC date with a SPECIFIC outcome?.

The people with security clearances agree the supporting evidence.proves the conclusion.

If you don't like reading reports with the evidence redacted out, get a high enough security clearance to be trusted with classified sources and methods.

No they don't. An election "hacked" is not a secret if it were true and would require no clearance.
They anonomously "suggest" that Russians tried to "manipulate opinion "...like MSNBC and CNN...which isn't a crime or a hack.
Oh they "secretly" know something? Sorry not gonna work.
I asked for one example. And didn't get one. The election occurred, went off without a hitch, votes counted, Trump sworn in. Not one part of that chain was compromised except insofar as Democrats refused basic safeguards like showing ID to vote.