• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Good Point About The Hacked Emails

LowDown

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,768
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
This isn't the first time documents have been released -- whether by "hacking" or old-fashioned leaking. Think back to the Pentagon Papers, which were leaked to the New York Times, and published. I don't recall anyone at the time suggesting this was a threat to democracy, and even if it was, we seem to have survived. Certainly, repeated leakings of FBI investigations during Watergate were noble moments of journalistic perfection, not threats to democracy.

Now, we have leaked files that exposed real corruption in the DNC and real conspiracies against private citizens. We're told this is an attack on our democracy. At the same time, there was an ongoing effort to lobby, coerce, even threaten electors to get them to change their votes in the Electoral College.
Click to expand...

Or, as one fellow put it, the email hacks helped the Democrats to finally follow through on their promises of transparency.

https://pjmedia.com/blog/making-sense-of-the-russian-hacking-saga//?singlepage=true

Also: What does it mean that emails were "hacked"? It means that the contents of emails were made public somehow, and computers are scary.

Podesta's emails were hacked by phishing. You don't need state sponsored hackers for this; my 7 year old nephew could do it.
 
LowDown said:
Or, as one fellow put it, the email hacks helped the Democrats to finally follow through on their promises of transparency.

https://pjmedia.com/blog/making-sense-of-the-russian-hacking-saga//?singlepage=true

Also: What does it mean that emails were "hacked"? It means that the contents of emails were made public somehow, and computers are scary.

Podesta's emails were hacked by phishing. You don't need state sponsored hackers for this; my 7 year old nephew could do it.
Click to expand...

Well then it's ok. Or is it, as I suspect, acceptable because the God-Emperor says it didn't happen.
 
LowDown said:
Or, as one fellow put it, the email hacks helped the Democrats to finally follow through on their promises of transparency.

https://pjmedia.com/blog/making-sense-of-the-russian-hacking-saga//?singlepage=true

Also: What does it mean that emails were "hacked"? It means that the contents of emails were made public somehow, and computers are scary.

Podesta's emails were hacked by phishing. You don't need state sponsored hackers for this; my 7 year old nephew could do it.
Click to expand...

If you don't see the problem with a foreign entity trying to influence an election by hacking them no one can help you. I guarantee conservatives would be throwing tantrums and blaming Clinton if the "grab em by the *****" trump comments were made public by Wikileaks and Wikileaks saying they will do whatever they can to make Trump lose. Hacking like this should be a concern for even trump supporters.
 
rocket88 said:
Well then it's ok. Or is it, as I suspect, acceptable because the God-Emperor says it didn't happen.
Click to expand...

No, if the emperor said it didn't happen, then it wasn't OK, but it didn't happen. It's like the drought in California, it's not OK, but it didn't happen because Trump said it didn't.

He's always right, you know, except when he's been misquoted by the liberal media.
 
LowDown said:
Or, as one fellow put it, the email hacks helped the Democrats to finally follow through on their promises of transparency.

https://pjmedia.com/blog/making-sense-of-the-russian-hacking-saga//?singlepage=true

Also: What does it mean that emails were "hacked"? It means that the contents of emails were made public somehow, and computers are scary.

Podesta's emails were hacked by phishing. You don't need state sponsored hackers for this; my 7 year old nephew could do it.
Click to expand...

If an American had hacked the DNC and Podesta's emails would they be in jail?
 
LowDown said:
Or, as one fellow put it, the email hacks helped the Democrats to finally follow through on their promises of transparency.

https://pjmedia.com/blog/making-sense-of-the-russian-hacking-saga//?singlepage=true

Also: What does it mean that emails were "hacked"? It means that the contents of emails were made public somehow, and computers are scary.

Podesta's emails were hacked by phishing. You don't need state sponsored hackers for this; my 7 year old nephew could do it.
Click to expand...

The "report" from DHS and FBI the other day focused on phishing which you correctly noted doesn't need a Russian spy ring to implement. I'm not claiming the Russians had no hand in it but it sure isn't evidence they did.
Two other things are still curious to me ...
1) that "report" from DHS and the FBI contained a Disclaimer from the DHS about the contents. I wondered what that was all about and it looks like others have also.
Why is there 'Disclaimer' on DHS/FBI Joint Russia Hacking Report? | Law News
Sounds like it comes down to covering one's ass.
2) Speaking of contents, why not focus on the contents of Podesta's disclosed emails, whether hacked or leaked. His campaign apparatus kept saying there was no there there and now they're saying it cost her the election.
 
LowDown said:
Or, as one fellow put it, the email hacks helped the Democrats to finally follow through on their promises of transparency.

https://pjmedia.com/blog/making-sense-of-the-russian-hacking-saga//?singlepage=true

Also: What does it mean that emails were "hacked"? It means that the contents of emails were made public somehow, and computers are scary.

Podesta's emails were hacked by phishing. You don't need state sponsored hackers for this; my 7 year old nephew could do it.
Click to expand...

That's about it. There can be no sympathy for those that didn't protect their information.

That doesn't mean making nonlinear war is acceptable.
 
My only problem with the hacking/leaks is that they were entirely one sided and clearly had partisan objectives. That said, even though these leaks were an obvious attempt to skew the election, the fact remains that if Clinton weren't such a weak, deeply flawed candidate laden in liabilities and baggage who struggled to get over her own lack of charisma and trustworthiness, they wouldn't have made a substantive difference. Ultimately the leaks, Comey and her e-mail scandal were all outgrowths of her own deep-seated issues.

In balance I'm glad that these e-mails and transcripts were released, that the Democrats were held to account, and that they have in some ways resolved and committed to improving themselves (despite considerable resistance among establishment die hards) going forward; there's definitely a great deal of upside.
 
If Obama and his administration hadn't politicized every agency and institution in our government including our intelligence agencies, (Clapper's lies, Comey's overlooking of Clinton's serious violations including the espionage act, coining it reckless while others have been sent to prison for far less acts....)

If they were so certain it was the Russians that performed the hacking months ago but refused to respond to them which would be clearly a violation to our sovereignty and waited just days before he leaves office to act and when did amounted to a slap on the wrist....

And what really frosts my flakes is why did the CIA provide information on this issue to the Washington Post and NBC but did not provide information to elected members of Congress who were asking to be briefed? The ODNI which oversees all 16 intelligence agencies said they would brief Congress when their investigation is complete. WTH? Has someone forgot that Congress oversees the activities of our Intelligence agencies?

I'm sorry but something smells real fishy.
 
LowDown said:
Or, as one fellow put it, the email hacks helped the Democrats to finally follow through on their promises of transparency.

https://pjmedia.com/blog/making-sense-of-the-russian-hacking-saga//?singlepage=true

Also: What does it mean that emails were "hacked"? It means that the contents of emails were made public somehow, and computers are scary.

Podesta's emails were hacked by phishing. You don't need state sponsored hackers for this; my 7 year old nephew could do it.
Click to expand...
Your 7 year old nephew wouldnt have been stupid enough to fall for it in the first place.
 
Dittohead not! said:
No, if the emperor said it didn't happen, then it wasn't OK, but it didn't happen. It's like the drought in California, it's not OK, but it didn't happen because Trump said it didn't.

He's always right, you know, except when he's been misquoted by the liberal media.
Click to expand...
Did you read the 13 page report released by the jont intel services alleging the hack? Was there ANYTHING in that report that offered ANY definitive proof that a government agency ordered or coordinated the attack? It is not incumbent upon others to prove something DIDNT happen. It IS incumbent on the individuals making the allegation to PROVE the allegation.

Do YOU have proof that it happened?
 
bubbabgone said:
The "report" from DHS and FBI the other day focused on phishing which you correctly noted doesn't need a Russian spy ring to implement. I'm not claiming the Russians had no hand in it but it sure isn't evidence they did.
Two other things are still curious to me ...
1) that "report" from DHS and the FBI contained a Disclaimer from the DHS about the contents. I wondered what that was all about and it looks like others have also.
Why is there 'Disclaimer' on DHS/FBI Joint Russia Hacking Report? | Law News
Sounds like it comes down to covering one's ass.
2) Speaking of contents, why not focus on the contents of Podesta's disclosed emails, whether hacked or leaked. His campaign apparatus kept saying there was no there there and now they're saying it cost her the election.
Click to expand...

Didn't notice the disclaimer. Very interesting. It reminds me of what I do when one of my agents wants me to quote a piece of equipment when not all the facts are in.

I instruct my quotations department to always include a disclaimer worded in a very similar manner as the disclaimer is worded above the DHS/FBI release.

I.E. : The following quote is provided as is, and is based on information provided and known at the time it was prepared. No additional features, functions, or capabilities are inferred or implied beyond what is contained in this quote.
 
bubbabgone said:
The "report" from DHS and FBI the other day focused on phishing which you correctly noted doesn't need a Russian spy ring to implement. I'm not claiming the Russians had no hand in it but it sure isn't evidence they did.
Two other things are still curious to me ...
1) that "report" from DHS and the FBI contained a Disclaimer from the DHS about the contents. I wondered what that was all about and it looks like others have also.
Why is there 'Disclaimer' on DHS/FBI Joint Russia Hacking Report? | Law News
Sounds like it comes down to covering one's ass.
2) Speaking of contents, why not focus on the contents of Podesta's disclosed emails, whether hacked or leaked. His campaign apparatus kept saying there was no there there and now they're saying it cost her the election.
Click to expand...

The content of the emails is precisely why the DNC started shrieking about Russia in the first place. The last thing they want to do is address what was actually released. They are so desperate for that conversation tomboy occur that they will continue to promote this phony baloney bs report. That entire 13 page report is a joke. It's 2 paragraphs of supposition and 8 straight pages of a basic internet security class.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
VanceMack said:
Did you read the 13 page report released by the jont intel services alleging the hack? Was there ANYTHING in that report that offered ANY definitive proof that a government agency ordered or coordinated the attack? It is not incumbent upon others to prove something DIDNT happen. It IS incumbent on the individuals making the allegation to PROVE the allegation.

Do YOU have proof that it happened?
Click to expand...

I don't.

But then, I'm not the CIA.
 
Praxas said:
If you don't see the problem with a foreign entity trying to influence an election by hacking them no one can help you.
Click to expand...

I stopped there because no one hacked the elections. That's a lie. Stop lying.
 
News flash people. Guccifer was arrested and we have him. He was just some Romanian dude, not a foreign government entity.
 
Dittohead not! said:
More than I trust Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump
Click to expand...
Thats like saying you would rather have cancer than a brain tumor. Its not an either or proposition. The DNC has been blaming 'The Russians' for about 5 months now trying to avoid the content oof the emails released. The FBI and CIA put out a 13 page report which in NO WAY tied Putin or the Russian government to the email leaks and spent damn near the whole report talking about basic internet security and had ZERO content which proved ANYTHING. So...WHY would you POSSIBLY believe it was Putin and the Russians? Based on WHAT?
 
LowDown said:
Or, as one fellow put it, the email hacks helped the Democrats to finally follow through on their promises of transparency.

https://pjmedia.com/blog/making-sense-of-the-russian-hacking-saga//?singlepage=true

Also: What does it mean that emails were "hacked"? It means that the contents of emails were made public somehow, and computers are scary.

Podesta's emails were hacked by phishing. You don't need state sponsored hackers for this; my 7 year old nephew could do it.
Click to expand...

And, let's not forget, none of the released information has been denied by the Dems.
 
countryboy said:
And, let's not forget, none of the released information has been denied by the Dems.
Click to expand...

Yep. None of it. Good point.

Maybe next time leftist won't be so slimy in releasing their opponent's tax returns, or a 15 yr old audio tape about "P***y," or some other thing.
 
VanceMack said:
Thats like saying you would rather have cancer than a brain tumor. Its not an either or proposition. The DNC has been blaming 'The Russians' for about 5 months now trying to avoid the content oof the emails released. The FBI and CIA put out a 13 page report which in NO WAY tied Putin or the Russian government to the email leaks and spent damn near the whole report talking about basic internet security and had ZERO content which proved ANYTHING. So...WHY would you POSSIBLY believe it was Putin and the Russians? Based on WHAT?
Click to expand...

When the CIA says X and Putin and Trump say Y, it's an either/or proposition. As Obama said, not much happens in Russia without Putin. Remember: Russia does not have the open sort of government we have in the USA, but the strong, authoritarian sort of government that the self described "conservatives" seem to favor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom