Hacking issue

Lord of Planar said:

That it is still all assumptions with no actionable facts.

Click to expand...

Or, it's the result of an accumulation of evidence.

The fact that Guccifer 2.0’s VPN is Russian is not the first indicator that Russia was involved in the attack on the DNC. The email hack leveraged the same tools, methods and command servers seen in other attacks linked to Russian intelligence, including on the German Parliament.
Evidence mounts linking DNC email hacker to Russia | TheHill

Wake up. This is not a partisan issue. This should not be treated like a partisan issue. Russia meddles with the elections of foreign nations, and they messed with the US elections. Sticking your head in the sand helps no one.

Or perhaps you'd be happy if there was a leak of Trump's tax returns, with Russian fingerprints all over it? Should Clinton have asked Russia or China to hack Trump -- or the IRS -- in order to release those returns?

Visbek said:

Or, it's the result of an accumulation of evidence.

The fact that Guccifer 2.0’s VPN is Russian is not the first indicator that Russia was involved in the attack on the DNC. The email hack leveraged the same tools, methods and command servers seen in other attacks linked to Russian intelligence, including on the German Parliament.
Evidence mounts linking DNC email hacker to Russia | TheHill

Click to expand...

What if that said "evidence mounting that Saddam has WMD" back in 2002?

Visbek said:

Wake up. This is not a partisan issue. This should not be treated like a partisan issue. Russia meddles with the elections of foreign nations, and they messed with the US elections. Sticking your head in the sand helps no one.

Click to expand...

I agree cyber-hacking is not a partisan issue. I am not making it as such. I am only pointing out that we don't know with certainty. We only have non conclusive evidence. It still night not be them.

Visbek said:

Or perhaps you'd be happy if there was a leak of Trump's tax returns, with Russian fingerprints all over it? Should Clinton have asked Russia or China to hack Trump -- or the IRS -- in order to release those returns?

Click to expand...

If Clinton asked for someone to hack Trump, that would be bad. Why are you making this a partisan issue?

I seek the truth. Not partisan BS like you are. Besides, Trump never asked for the emails to be hacked. See post 72.

Never trust the M$M's. They sensationalize things for more viewership. More viewership means they can charge more for commercials and make more money. The M$M's don't care about the truth. Same with bloggers and partisan outlets.

Lord of Planar said:

What if that said "evidence mounting that Saddam has WMD" back in 2002?

Click to expand...

So your logic is that because the Bush administration deliberately subverted the intelligence in order to accomplish a policy goal, the CIA and FBI and ODNI are doing the same... why exactly?

Are we now supposed to believe that Comey is Obama's puppet?

I agree cyber-hacking is not a partisan issue. I am not making it as such. I am only pointing out that we don't know with certainty. We only have non conclusive evidence. It still night not be them.

Click to expand...

We know it's Russia. We've known for months. We know they've hacked German politicians; they attacked Estonia's government for a month straight; they attacked Georgia; they attacked Ukraine. This is not new for them.

There's also a lot of classified data that the intelligence community has not -- and may not want -- to reveal. In theory, more information might sway some skeptics; in practice, it won't change many minds, and will just tip off hackers to the tools available to the US government.

I might add, I'm pretty skeptical of the CIA. But there are just too many agencies, including independent cyber security firms, that agree Russia was behind the hacks.

I.e. merely reminding us that it was Guccifer 2.0 not only tells us something we already know, it doesn't refute the claim that he was working for the Russians.

If Clinton asked for someone to hack Trump, that would be bad. Why are you making this a partisan issue?

Click to expand...

Because it seems like the only people who are objecting to the Russia connection are those who are devoted to the President-Elect.

I seek the truth. Not partisan BS like you are.

Click to expand...

:roll:

There are no points to be scored here by accepting that the Russians interfered with the US election.

Besides, Trump never asked for the emails to be hacked. See post 72.

Click to expand...

Who should I believe, you or my lying eyes?

Never trust the M$M's. They sensationalize things for more viewership.

Click to expand...

Were you asleep during this entire election? Trump lived off of sensationalizing everything, including the size of his... hands.

And they didn't need to *cough* trump anything up about Trump's statements to get attention. All they had to do was wait 20 minutes for him to go on another Twitter Tantrum.

So, spare me the absurd attacks on the media for reporting exactly what Trump said, as well as reporting that the FBI, CIA and ODNI believe that Russia interfered with our election.

Visbek said:

So your logic is that because the Bush administration deliberately subverted the intelligence in order to accomplish a policy goal, the CIA and FBI and ODNI are doing the same... why exactly?

Click to expand...

How are the facts related to this discussion any different?

Please show "facts" that the Bush administration deliberately subverted the intelligence. That ought to be a fine goose chase for you, because no such facts exist! Bush and the intelligence committee were going by what the CIA told them. Now the CIA et. a. say there is "stroing evidence." Not "actionable evidence" and you think this is any different than the WMD?

Wow...

I'm at a loss as to what to say from here on out. The fact that there is no fact, yet your confirmation bias makes it fact says so much about your partisan loyalty.

How much are they paying you, anyway?

Lord of Planar said:

How are the facts related to this discussion any different?

Please show "facts" that the Bush administration deliberately subverted the intelligence.

Click to expand...

Iraq war: the greatest intelligence failure in living memory - Telegraph

Bush administration pushed for proof linking Saddam, al-Qaida | McClatchy DC

Senate report slams Bush over prewar intelligence - CNN.com

Chalabi Ran the Little Con on Iraq, But Bush Ran the Bigger One - The Daily Beast

Falsity of Nuclear Accusation against Iraq Was Known before Bush's Invasion

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/colin-powell-u-n-speech-was-a-great-intelligence-failure/

That ought to be a fine goose chase for you, because no such facts exist! Bush and the intelligence committee were going by what the CIA told them.

Click to expand...

Incorrect.

The Bush administration was pushing the CIA and other intelligence agencies to tell them what they wanted to hear, and blatantly ignored what they did not want to hear. This is why the run-up to Iraq is considered a failure of intelligence -- not because they failed to predict the presence of WMDs, but because they allowed the demands of the administration to compromise their mission.

Now the CIA et. a. say there is "stroing evidence." Not "actionable evidence" and you think this is any different than the WMD?

Click to expand...

Yes.

As noted, it's not just the CIA. It's also the FBI. And ODNI (the umbrella group for numerous intelligence agencies). AND at least two independent cybersecurity firms.

These agencies have nothing to gain, and lots to lose, by playing partisan games.

And again: It is irrational to say that "the CIA was wrong once in 2002, therefore the CIA has been wrong every time since." Especially since we know they've gotten at least one major intelligence score since then, namely the location of Bin Laden.

I'm at a loss as to what to say from here on out. The fact that there is no fact, yet your confirmation bias makes it fact says so much about your partisan loyalty.

Click to expand...

No, there are LOTS of facts. You just don't want to hear them.

And yet again, my position NOT PARTISAN. Numerous Republicans, including those who usually disagree with Obama about the time of day (like Mitch McConnell), accept that the evidence points to Russia.

The only people who don't accept it are apparently Trump and his sycophants. And they don't offer proof, they just wave their hands.

How much are they paying you, anyway?

Click to expand...

When you can't argue, insult.

Thanks for playing.

Visbek said:

Incorrect.

The Bush administration was pushing the CIA and other intelligence agencies to tell them what they wanted to hear, and blatantly ignored what they did not want to hear.

Click to expand...

Not true.

They pushed for solid answers. Not one way or another.

You need to read and link actual source material instead of that of pundits.

Redress said:

It is not at Trump'a feet, unless some direct connection is found, which is unlikely. It is however important. If hacking was done by a foreign government to influence our elections, who benefited is not the issue, but that there needs to be repercussions, and improved defense.

Click to expand...

I wish I could still be amazed by that kind of reeking hypocrisy.



Russia was our "geopolitical foe" so long as Obama was in office and the right wanted to bitch about him. Now everything is cool with Russia and Democrats are supposed to be the warmongers, for taking a position the right would scream its lungs out over had this happened the other way around.

Security of confidences was so important it required seven investigations headed by the target's opposing party, and tens of millions of dollars. But now that a Republican has been elected, they only want a softball panel of friendly GOPers to "investigate" the matter.



Ultimately, this is why our system is broken. If voters are such lying partisan hacks, then lying partisan hacks is what we'll see in office.

faithful_servant said:

Can someone explain to me why this is suddenly getting laid at Trump's feet?? The standards of not allowing gov't officials to set up their own email servers is predicated on preventing this kind of thing from happening. Whether it was the Russians, Anonymous, or Bob in Wagontire, OR who hacked her mail server, the fact that it got hacked should be the issue. Trump benefiting from the hacking is a relatively minor issue compared to the fact that Clinton having this unsecured mail server is at the heart of the problem. This is all about shifting the blame from Clinton doing something wrong to making it look like it's Trump who did something wrong. At the end of the day, had Clinton not violated the rules about not having a private email server, there would never been any hacking done. It's like having a thief rob your home and then blaming the guy who bought the stolen goods and sold them at profit (not knowing they were stolen) for the crime. Yes, Trump benefited form the hacking. Yes, whoever hacked Clinton's server did it to try to keep her out of office. But that does NOT mean that Trump is guilty of anything. Until you can show that Trump was an active party in this hacking, then all this crap getting thrown around (innuendo, guilt by association, etc.) means NOTHING and Clinton's issue of setting up this private server is even more important.

Personally, I think that there's a large measure of karma in this whole issue. Clinton kept telling us that the private server was no big deal, yet it was a big part of what cost her this election. Had she followed the rules, things may have turned out differently for her.

Click to expand...

Lots of words, but not one of them devoted to the massive hypocrisy on the right.



Who said the hacking was Trump's fault? We're all wondering why Trump is so quick to dismiss the possibility of Russian involvement and why the GOP is so keen on making sure they're the only ones involved in any such investigation.

I'm allowed to refuse to consent to a search a police officer is requested, and it would be odd for that refusal not to arouse suspicion (not that it may legally be relied upon to uphold the search). But at least there, I have a reasonable privacy interest in my stuff and not having people paw through it, regardless of my innocence.

What concern has Trump, the GOP, or any poster on the right possibly have similar to such a privacy interest? None.



Bottom line: It is bizarre and suspicious that they actively want to hamper an investigation into something one can only presume they wouldn't be stupid enough to have actually had anything to do with. It's even stranger to consider what they could possibly think the political angle is here, unless this truly signals a policy not only of opposing all Democrat positions to frustrate Democrats, but to now start denying whatever parts of objective reality a Democrat might happen to mention.

faithful_servant said:

Can someone explain to me why this is suddenly getting laid at Trump's feet?? The standards of not allowing gov't officials to set up their own email servers is predicated on preventing this kind of thing from happening. Whether it was the Russians, Anonymous, or Bob in Wagontire, OR who hacked her mail server, the fact that it got hacked should be the issue. Trump benefiting from the hacking is a relatively minor issue compared to the fact that Clinton having this unsecured mail server is at the heart of the problem. This is all about shifting the blame from Clinton doing something wrong to making it look like it's Trump who did something wrong. At the end of the day, had Clinton not violated the rules about not having a private email server, there would never been any hacking done. It's like having a thief rob your home and then blaming the guy who bought the stolen goods and sold them at profit (not knowing they were stolen) for the crime. Yes, Trump benefited form the hacking. Yes, whoever hacked Clinton's server did it to try to keep her out of office. But that does NOT mean that Trump is guilty of anything. Until you can show that Trump was an active party in this hacking, then all this crap getting thrown around (innuendo, guilt by association, etc.) means NOTHING and Clinton's issue of setting up this private server is even more important.

Personally, I think that there's a large measure of karma in this whole issue. Clinton kept telling us that the private server was no big deal, yet it was a big part of what cost her this election. Had she followed the rules, things may have turned out differently for her.

Click to expand...

hacking and clintons server are different issues. what is getting laid at trumps feet is his moronic attempt to say putin wasnt behind it.

Lord of Planar said:

Not true.

They pushed for solid answers. Not one way or another.

You need to read and link actual source material instead of that of pundits.

Click to expand...

Source material? As in, the Senate report summarized in the articles?

If you mean "I should read what Curveball told the US military," then you are way behind the times, as he was shown to be lying through his teeth. German and British intelligence both knew he was full of it. Even the CIA found lots of problems with it. And yet, it still wound up in Powell's big UN address.

Assertion is not an argument. If you want me in any way to accept your claim, you need to substantiate it.

katzgar said:

hacking and clintons server are different issues. what is getting laid at trumps feet is his moronic attempt to say putin wasnt behind it.

Click to expand...

Russia hacks. China hacks. North Korea hacks. The US hacks. The US tries influencing elections. So?

Lord of Planar said:

Too bad you guys only cherry pick quotes.

Click to expand...

Using relevant quotes is not cherry picking. Try again, with less bias this time.

Slyfox696 said:

Using relevant quotes is not cherry picking. Try again, with less bias this time.

Click to expand...

Not true.

Without the full context, it can be construed as a lie.

Lord of Planar said:

Not true.

Without the full context, it can be construed as a lie.

Click to expand...

It wasn't a lie. Someone asked why the hacking issue was getting laid at Trump's feet and his own words are part of the reason.

Again, posting relevant comments is not cherry picking. Try again, with less bias.

faithful_servant said:

Can someone explain to me why this is suddenly getting laid at Trump's feet?? The standards of not allowing gov't officials to set up their own email servers is predicated on preventing this kind of thing from happening. Whether it was the Russians, Anonymous, or Bob in Wagontire, OR who hacked her mail server, the fact that it got hacked should be the issue. Trump benefiting from the hacking is a relatively minor issue compared to the fact that Clinton having this unsecured mail server is at the heart of the problem. This is all about shifting the blame from Clinton doing something wrong to making it look like it's Trump who did something wrong. At the end of the day, had Clinton not violated the rules about not having a private email server, there would never been any hacking done. It's like having a thief rob your home and then blaming the guy who bought the stolen goods and sold them at profit (not knowing they were stolen) for the crime. Yes, Trump benefited form the hacking. Yes, whoever hacked Clinton's server did it to try to keep her out of office. But that does NOT mean that Trump is guilty of anything. Until you can show that Trump was an active party in this hacking, then all this crap getting thrown around (innuendo, guilt by association, etc.) means NOTHING and Clinton's issue of setting up this private server is even more important.

Personally, I think that there's a large measure of karma in this whole issue. Clinton kept telling us that the private server was no big deal, yet it was a big part of what cost her this election. Had she followed the rules, things may have turned out differently for her.

Click to expand...

Probably because he specifically asked Russia to do it?