Why didn't Putin also hack and publish RNC emails?

[idb]

Putin has all the blackmail material he needs from hacking the RNC.
Trump is his bitch.

Tell us Einstein what info could they possibly be that trump didn't already say himself?


.

That's a point.
His supporters just don't care.
There's no treasonous or illegal act he could do that would put them off him.
He knows his supporters...he's bragged that he could do anything and they'd still cheer for him.

 

[boedicca]

I ask this question in response to those who say there is no "evidence" that Putin was trying to swing the election to Trump. In my opinion, the fact that he didn't also hack and publish any RNC emails proves that he was in fact trying to swing the election to Trump. Tension was running high between Trump and the RNC during the campaign process - so does anyone doubt there would have been some damaging emails between the Trump camp and the RNC? Does anyone believe that Putin did hack the RNC - but Julian Assange (Wikileaks) refused to publish them? I would love to hear opposing arguments.

Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy. The RNC didn't have a Stupid John Podesta equivalent who got scammed by a phishing attempt.

 

[eflatminor]

If you paid attention, the hackers tried to hack into the RNC but couldn't break through the defenses. The intruders got through the DNC with simple phishing. Podesta gave the hackers his password.

This^

Laky's been hitting that big bowl of vodka and old paint chips again I see.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Still hasn't even been proven that there was hacks let alone Russian hacks. In fact, the reports are that insider Dems sick of the corruption handed over literal copies of the emails.

 

[kaz]

I ask this question in response to those who say there is no "evidence" that Putin was trying to swing the election to Trump. In my opinion, the fact that he didn't also hack and publish any RNC emails proves that he was in fact trying to swing the election to Trump. Tension was running high between Trump and the RNC during the campaign process - so does anyone doubt there would have been some damaging emails between the Trump camp and the RNC? Does anyone believe that Putin did hack the RNC - but Julian Assange (Wikileaks) refused to publish them? I would love to hear opposing arguments.

Don't follow the news, do you Sparky? He tried and didn't get in. Republicans are smarter than you are

 

[kaz]

Still hasn't even been proven that there was hacks let alone Russian hacks. In fact, the reports are that insider Dems sick of the corruption handed over literal copies of the emails.

Facts are racist

 

[the_human_being]

I think hacking Hillary's server was a third grade science project in a Russian school.

 

[DarkFury]

"Why didn't Putin also hack and publish RNC emails?"

Easy, really. Steal from a republican and on a good day you get your ass beat. On a bad day shot.

Steal from a democrat?
Its just a bunch of whining and sniveling.

 

[kaz]

I think hacking Hillary's server was a third grade science project in a Russian school.

That's who was supporting her server

 

[Lakhota]

I ask this question in response to those who say there is no "evidence" that Putin was trying to swing the election to Trump. In my opinion, the fact that he didn't also hack and publish any RNC emails proves that he was in fact trying to swing the election to Trump. Tension was running high between Trump and the RNC during the campaign process - so does anyone doubt there would have been some damaging emails between the Trump camp and the RNC? Does anyone believe that Putin did hack the RNC - but Julian Assange (Wikileaks) refused to publish them? I would love to hear opposing arguments.

Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy. The RNC didn't have a Stupid John Podesta equivalent who got scammed by a phishing attempt.

Actually, John Podesta wasn't "scammed" - he acted on a typo from a Clinton staffer.

In March, Podesta received a phishing email that warned him of someone trying to access his account. It instructed him to reset his password by following a hyperlink to a page hosted on myaccount.google.com-securitysettingpage.tk/security. While it might appear that he was visiting google.com, he (or a staffer who managed his email) went to com-securitysettingpage.tk.

Before doing so, however, a Clinton staffer checked to see if the email was legitimate; basic security stuff. She got a response back from another staffer, Charles Delavan, who wrote “This is a legitimate email. John needs to change his password immediately, and ensure that two-factor authentication is turned on his account.” He also explicitly directed them to a site on google.com.

The only problem is that Delavan meant to call the email “illegitimate.” From a new report in the New York Times:

Mr. Delavan, in an interview, said that his bad advice was a result of a typo: He knew this was a phishing attack, as the campaign was getting dozens of them. He said he had meant to type that it was an “illegitimate” email, an error that he said has plagued him ever since.
​

John Podesta Got Hacked Because of a Typo - New York Magazine

 

[kaz]

I ask this question in response to those who say there is no "evidence" that Putin was trying to swing the election to Trump. In my opinion, the fact that he didn't also hack and publish any RNC emails proves that he was in fact trying to swing the election to Trump. Tension was running high between Trump and the RNC during the campaign process - so does anyone doubt there would have been some damaging emails between the Trump camp and the RNC? Does anyone believe that Putin did hack the RNC - but Julian Assange (Wikileaks) refused to publish them? I would love to hear opposing arguments.

Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy. The RNC didn't have a Stupid John Podesta equivalent who got scammed by a phishing attempt.

Actually, John Podesta wasn't "scammed" - he acted on a typo from a Clinton staffer.

In March, Podesta received a phishing email that warned him of someone trying to access his account. It instructed him to reset his password by following a hyperlink to a page hosted on myaccount.google.com-securitysettingpage.tk/security. While it might appear that he was visiting google.com, he (or a staffer who managed his email) went to com-securitysettingpage.tk.

Before doing so, however, a Clinton staffer checked to see if the email was legitimate; basic security stuff. She got a response back from another staffer, Charles Delavan, who wrote “This is a legitimate email. John needs to change his password immediately, and ensure that two-factor authentication is turned on his account.” He also explicitly directed them to a site on google.com.

The only problem is that Delavan meant to call the email “illegitimate.” From a new report in the New York Times:

Mr. Delavan, in an interview, said that his bad advice was a result of a typo: He knew this was a phishing attack, as the campaign was getting dozens of them. He said he had meant to type that it was an “illegitimate” email, an error that he said has plagued him ever since.
​

John Podesta Got Hacked Because of a Typo - New York Magazine

His story later

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

More fake news.

Putin didn't publish the Hillary and DNC emails, Wikileaks did.

 

[Lakhota]

I think hacking Hillary's server was a third grade science project in a Russian school.

That's who was supporting her server

There is no evidence that Hillary's "private server" was ever hacked.

 

[boedicca]

I ask this question in response to those who say there is no "evidence" that Putin was trying to swing the election to Trump. In my opinion, the fact that he didn't also hack and publish any RNC emails proves that he was in fact trying to swing the election to Trump. Tension was running high between Trump and the RNC during the campaign process - so does anyone doubt there would have been some damaging emails between the Trump camp and the RNC? Does anyone believe that Putin did hack the RNC - but Julian Assange (Wikileaks) refused to publish them? I would love to hear opposing arguments.

Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy. The RNC didn't have a Stupid John Podesta equivalent who got scammed by a phishing attempt.

Actually, John Podesta wasn't "scammed" - he acted on a typo from a Clinton staffer.

In March, Podesta received a phishing email that warned him of someone trying to access his account. It instructed him to reset his password by following a hyperlink to a page hosted on myaccount.google.com-securitysettingpage.tk/security. While it might appear that he was visiting google.com, he (or a staffer who managed his email) went to com-securitysettingpage.tk.

Before doing so, however, a Clinton staffer checked to see if the email was legitimate; basic security stuff. She got a response back from another staffer, Charles Delavan, who wrote “This is a legitimate email. John needs to change his password immediately, and ensure that two-factor authentication is turned on his account.” He also explicitly directed them to a site on google.com.

The only problem is that Delavan meant to call the email “illegitimate.” From a new report in the New York Times:

Mr. Delavan, in an interview, said that his bad advice was a result of a typo: He knew this was a phishing attack, as the campaign was getting dozens of them. He said he had meant to type that it was an “illegitimate” email, an error that he said has plagued him ever since.
​

John Podesta Got Hacked Because of a Typo - New York Magazine

OMIGAWD!!!!!

A Typo caused the Fall of the House of Clinton!

Do you all conduct focus groups to see how you can come up with the Lamest Excuse in all of known history?

 

[Tehon]

I think hacking Hillary's server was a third grade science project in a Russian school.

That's who was supporting her server

There is no evidence that Hillary's "private server" was ever hacked.

You're too dim witted to grasp the irony of that statement.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

There is no evidence that Hillary's "private server" was ever hacked.

Mmmm, Kool Aid nummy!

 

[Lakhota]

I think hacking Hillary's server was a third grade science project in a Russian school.

That's who was supporting her server

There is no evidence that Hillary's "private server" was ever hacked.

You're too dim witted to grasp the irony.

What irony? Please explain.

 

[Google]

I ask this question in response to those who say there is no "evidence" that Putin was trying to swing the election to Trump. In my opinion, the fact that he didn't also hack and publish any RNC emails proves that he was in fact trying to swing the election to Trump. Tension was running high between Trump and the RNC during the campaign process - so does anyone doubt there would have been some damaging emails between the Trump camp and the RNC? Does anyone believe that Putin did hack the RNC - but Julian Assange (Wikileaks) refused to publish them? I would love to hear opposing arguments.

From all accounts the DNC's servers were compromised by an employee opening a malicious email phishing scheme. And there is evidence that there was an attempt to hack the RNC, but they were not as dumb as the DNC staffers.

Which begs the question, why aren't these employees who supposedly compromised the integrity of an American presidential election being held accountable?

 

[WillowTree]

If you paid attention, the hackers tried to hack into the RNC but couldn't break through the defenses. The intruders got through the DNC with simple phishing. Podesta gave the hackers his password.

Just like a damn democrat! Remember when they bashed Palin when her computer was hacked. Old lady KARMA has been busy!

 

[Tehon]

I think hacking Hillary's server was a third grade science project in a Russian school.

That's who was supporting her server

There is no evidence that Hillary's "private server" was ever hacked.

You're too dim witted to grasp the irony.

What irony? Please explain.

There is no evidence that Hillary's server was hacked. Please present the evidence that Putin was involved in the DNC hack.

I repeat myself, you're dimwitted.