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

[tyroneweaver]

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

fake news.

 

[Tom Horn]

Putin didn't hack the DNC but even if he had...have any of you prog nitwits considered the possibility that Putin didn't want to see communists like Obama and Clinton strangle the USA? Vlad has visited the America many times and kinda digs us the way we are.

 

[Norman]

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.

First of all, this wouldn't have been bad for Trump...

But second, what makes you think they tried? Perhaps the RNC was smart enough to not have "p@ssword" as their password, and perhaps they didn't focus most of their day on clicking Russian viagra links.

And that is, if the Russians indeed were behind the leaks, and not a DNC insider tired of the corruption.

 

[beagle9]

Why didn't the RNC fuck Bernie out of the nomination

. Because they were trying to win honestly ?

 

[Yousaidwhat]

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

It was still a scam...

 

[Pop23]

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 wouldn't 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.

Better security. From what I've read and heard the DNC security was like babytown frolics.

I'm sure if there were damaging emails on the RNC released you liberals would ignore them the same way you did with the one on the DNC, right ?

Podestas emails were hacked by a decades old phishing scheme. It was so obvious that a junior high student wouldn't have fallen for it.

But here's the most interesting part of the story. In the scheme, the person in charge of Podestas security was asked if it was legitimate. Even though it was so obviously a scam, HE SAID YES!

Until the progressive left gets that through their thick skulls they will never move forward and these ARE NOT PEOPLE I WANT RUNNING NATIONAL SECURITY.

 

[12icer]

Seems to me the OP was answered in the second post but of course liberals don't want the truth. They have to be petty and childish and cry for SOME reason. It's anyone else's fault, THE DOG ATE HILLARYS VOTES IN FLORIDA AND PENNSYLVANIA

 

[Pop23]

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

It was still a scam...

What Lakota posted is complete bs. I know dozens of IT security experts that state that a response to the question would have been "do NOT RESPOND TO IT. IT IS A PHISHING SCHEME. DELETE EMAIL IMMEDIATELY"

 

[Eaglewings]

You have to be the stupidest person in the world to not see what actually happened..

Russia / Putin tampered to help his American buddies, it won't be much longer until the facts are all out.

 

[eflatminor]

You have to be the stupidest person in the world to not see what actually happened..

Russia / Putin tampered to help his American buddies, it won't be much longer until the facts are all out.

"Tampered" by showing us exactly how corrupt and bigoted is the DNC.

That's not tampering, that's a gift to the American people. Tampering would be changing votes, which didn't happen, or helping to facilitate illegal voting, which the Russians did not do. That's a Democrat thing...

Your just butthurt because it was your guys that got exposed for the idiots they are...though I suspect they were right about Chelsea Clinton being less than bright.

 

[AmericanFirst1]

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 wouldn't 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.

Better security. From what I've read and heard the DNC security was like babytown frolics.

I'm sure if there were damaging emails on the RNC released you liberals would ignore them the same way you did with the one on the DNC, right ?

Everything dimwits do is like babytown frolics.

 

[Iceweasel]

I ask this question in response to those who say there is no "evidence" that Putin was trying to swing the election to Trump.

What was there to say? It was all out in the open, which wasn't always pretty. The problem was the Democrats had a phony facade going and the emails revealed it to those that didn't know. Us righties have known for a long time though.

 

[Eaglewings]

You have to be the stupidest person in the world to not see what actually happened..

Russia / Putin tampered to help his American buddies, it won't be much longer until the facts are all out.

"Tampered" by showing us exactly how corrupt and bigoted is the DNC.

That's not tampering, that's a gift to the American people. Tampering would be changing votes, which didn't happen, or helping to facilitate illegal voting, which the Russians did not do. That's a Democrat thing...

Your just butthurt because it was your guys that got exposed for the idiots they are...though I suspect they were right about Chelsea Clinton being less than bright.

In my opinion , I feel Clinton lost because of the DNC being caught favoring Clinton and excluding Bernie..

That was the last straw for many, and his supporters probably didn't vote

 

[Lakhota]

You have to be the stupidest person in the world to not see what actually happened..

Russia / Putin tampered to help his American buddies, it won't be much longer until the facts are all out.

"Tampered" by showing us exactly how corrupt and bigoted is the DNC.

That's not tampering, that's a gift to the American people. Tampering would be changing votes, which didn't happen, or helping to facilitate illegal voting, which the Russians did not do. That's a Democrat thing...

Your just butthurt because it was your guys that got exposed for the idiots they are...though I suspect they were right about Chelsea Clinton being less than bright.

In my opinion , I feel Clinton lost because of the DNC being caught favoring Clinton and excluding Bernie..

That was the last straw for many, and his supporters probably didn't vote

Probably some truth to that - but also remember that Hillary lost in 2008 partially because of the DNC favoring Obama (Howard Dean and Donna Brazile). As for Bernie, he was a socialist running as a Democrat - and America isn't yet ready for such a heavy dose of socialism.

 

[kaz]

...there is forensic evidence the DNC was hacked by the Russians, and evidence of hacking credit card accounts with the same footprint of the hackers, and the same footprint left for the hacking of Ukraine's election and the Ukraine's power grid and same footprint left on the hacking of Podesta emails and the same Russian footprint on the hackers of the Vermont power grid...

There was no hacking of Hillary's server and no evidence left of any hacking of her server, no footprint left behind....

AND not 1 single itty bitty email from Hillary's server was ever released by any hacking/hackers.....
NOT ONE!!!

But you all want to continue to lie like rugs....about it.

you sure are people of good character, aren't cha?

Comey said her server was known by the enemy and we wouldn't have evidence.

The best case for you is that Hillary exposed our secrets to our enemies who knew about her server and for whatever reason didn't hack it.

You're defending that, and talking about our character? You're a joke

 

[kaz]

You have to be the stupidest person in the world to not see what actually happened..

Russia / Putin tampered to help his American buddies, it won't be much longer until the facts are all out.

"Tampered" by showing us exactly how corrupt and bigoted is the DNC.

That's not tampering, that's a gift to the American people. Tampering would be changing votes, which didn't happen, or helping to facilitate illegal voting, which the Russians did not do. That's a Democrat thing...

Your just butthurt because it was your guys that got exposed for the idiots they are...though I suspect they were right about Chelsea Clinton being less than bright.

In my opinion , I feel Clinton lost because of the DNC being caught favoring Clinton and excluding Bernie..

That was the last straw for many, and his supporters probably didn't vote

Probably some truth to that - but also remember that Hillary lost in 2008 partially because of the DNC favoring Obama (Howard Dean and Donna Brazile). As for Bernie, he was a socialist running as a Democrat - and America isn't yet ready for such a heavy dose of socialism.

Not possible since you said campaigns don't effect the outcome of elections since you're declaring her the winner based on popular vote which no one campaigned for.

OMG, I just realized, you lied when you said that. I did not see that coming ...

Dumb ass

 

[EverCurious]

You know what I read just this morning? Trump doesn't use email... What a silly thing, but then again, real hard to hack someone who relies on face-to-face and telephone conversations.

 

[Lakhota]

You have to be the stupidest person in the world to not see what actually happened..

Russia / Putin tampered to help his American buddies, it won't be much longer until the facts are all out.

"Tampered" by showing us exactly how corrupt and bigoted is the DNC.

That's not tampering, that's a gift to the American people. Tampering would be changing votes, which didn't happen, or helping to facilitate illegal voting, which the Russians did not do. That's a Democrat thing...

Your just butthurt because it was your guys that got exposed for the idiots they are...though I suspect they were right about Chelsea Clinton being less than bright.

In my opinion , I feel Clinton lost because of the DNC being caught favoring Clinton and excluding Bernie..

That was the last straw for many, and his supporters probably didn't vote

Probably some truth to that - but also remember that Hillary lost in 2008 partially because of the DNC favoring Obama (Howard Dean and Donna Brazile). As for Bernie, he was a socialist running as a Democrat - and America isn't yet ready for such a heavy dose of socialism.

Not possible since you said campaigns don't effect the outcome of elections since you're declaring her the winner based on popular vote which no one campaigned for.

OMG, I just realized, you lied when you said that. I did not see that coming ...

Dumb ass

I look forward to at least one non-aggressive coherent statement from you in 2017. This wasn't it.

 

[kaz]

You have to be the stupidest person in the world to not see what actually happened..

Russia / Putin tampered to help his American buddies, it won't be much longer until the facts are all out.

"Tampered" by showing us exactly how corrupt and bigoted is the DNC.

That's not tampering, that's a gift to the American people. Tampering would be changing votes, which didn't happen, or helping to facilitate illegal voting, which the Russians did not do. That's a Democrat thing...

Your just butthurt because it was your guys that got exposed for the idiots they are...though I suspect they were right about Chelsea Clinton being less than bright.

In my opinion , I feel Clinton lost because of the DNC being caught favoring Clinton and excluding Bernie..

That was the last straw for many, and his supporters probably didn't vote

Probably some truth to that - but also remember that Hillary lost in 2008 partially because of the DNC favoring Obama (Howard Dean and Donna Brazile). As for Bernie, he was a socialist running as a Democrat - and America isn't yet ready for such a heavy dose of socialism.

Not possible since you said campaigns don't effect the outcome of elections since you're declaring her the winner based on popular vote which no one campaigned for.

OMG, I just realized, you lied when you said that. I did not see that coming ...

Dumb ass

I look forward to at least one non-aggressive coherent statement from you in 2017. This wasn't it.

Read your OPs, hypocrite bitch.

And you said campaigns are irrelevant, people vote the way they are going to vote. That is the only way you can get to Hillary should be POTUS since she won the popular vote and would have if the rules were completely different.

Now you're saying they do matter. Again, you are a L-I-A-R.

When you went with that nothing effects campaigns, you lost the right to whine about Russian influence, Bernie, everything else. YOU said nothing matters

 

[Lakhota]

"Tampered" by showing us exactly how corrupt and bigoted is the DNC.

That's not tampering, that's a gift to the American people. Tampering would be changing votes, which didn't happen, or helping to facilitate illegal voting, which the Russians did not do. That's a Democrat thing...

Your just butthurt because it was your guys that got exposed for the idiots they are...though I suspect they were right about Chelsea Clinton being less than bright.

In my opinion , I feel Clinton lost because of the DNC being caught favoring Clinton and excluding Bernie..

That was the last straw for many, and his supporters probably didn't vote

Probably some truth to that - but also remember that Hillary lost in 2008 partially because of the DNC favoring Obama (Howard Dean and Donna Brazile). As for Bernie, he was a socialist running as a Democrat - and America isn't yet ready for such a heavy dose of socialism.

Not possible since you said campaigns don't effect the outcome of elections since you're declaring her the winner based on popular vote which no one campaigned for.

OMG, I just realized, you lied when you said that. I did not see that coming ...

Dumb ass

I look forward to at least one non-aggressive coherent statement from you in 2017. This wasn't it.

Read your OPs, hypocrite bitch.

And you said campaigns are irrelevant, people vote the way they are going to vote. That is the only way you can get to Hillary should be POTUS since she won the popular vote and would have if the rules were completely different.

Now you're saying they do matter. Again, you are a L-I-A-R.

When you went with that nothing effects campaigns, you lost the right to whine about Russian influence, Bernie, everything else. YOU said nothing matters

Please quote where I said "campaigns are irrelevant".