FBI & Homeland Sec. Issue Report on Russian Hacking

[Benton]

(12-30-2016, 05:38 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Derp.... yeah, I goofed.
Totally thinking CIA.

how many elections the cia has been involved in would probably be pretty surprising. I'm going ti guess "lots".

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I'll reiterate on this subject.  No, we don't want Russia, or any nation, hacking into the systems of our political parties.  That being said, in this instance, they only released information that was confirmed as true.  They didn't fabricate anything, they didn't plant information, they just made some of the underhanded dealings of the DNC public.  Now, would they find similar goings on if they hacked the RNC?  It's very likely, maybe even probable.  However, they either didn't or, as claimed, tried and failed to do so.

Essentially Russia, if it was Russia, certainly attempted to influence the election but they did so by releasing the truth.  In this regard they are no different than the person who released the Access Hollywood video without permission in an attempt to sink Trump.  Basically, if you're ok with one you have to be ok with the other. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-30-2016, 06:33 PM)Benton Wrote: how many elections the cia has been involved in would probably be pretty surprising. I'm going ti guess "lots".

If you confined it to Latin America alone you'd probably still be underselling it.

[GMDino]

(12-30-2016, 06:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll reiterate on this subject.  No, we don't want Russia, or any nation, hacking into the systems of our political parties.  That being said, in this instance, they only released information that was confirmed as true.  They didn't fabricate anything, they didn't plant information, they just made some of the underhanded dealings of the DNC public.  Now, would they find similar goings on if they hacked the RNC?  It's very likely, maybe even probable.  However, they either didn't or, as claimed, tried and failed to do so.

Essentially Russia, if it was Russia, certainly attempted to influence the election but they did so by releasing the truth.  In this regard they are no different than the person who released the Access Hollywood video without permission in an attempt to sink Trump.  Basically, if you're ok with one you have to be ok with the other. 

Sadly even the parts that were not underhanded were perceived that way because of headlines attached to the releases versus people actually reading them.

And essentially I am OK with the truth...if it is being fully presented as the truth and not as "Clinton says she has two faces" for example.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-30-2016, 07:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: Sadly even the parts that were not underhanded were perceived that way because of headlines attached to the releases versus people actually reading them.

And essentially I am OK with the truth...if it is being fully presented as the truth and not as "Clinton says she has two faces" for example.

To quote Agent Mulder, "The truth is out there", for anyone who wanted to see it.  If your complaint is with how the information was reported by certain outlets, i.e. distorted, then your complaint is with the state of modern journalism.  The vast majority of news sources put a spin on hard news stories.  If I'm understanding you right your complaint is both with how news is reported and the fact that your typical American voter, on both sides, is under informed.  In both instances I would agree but I would also point out that neither is a new phenomena and certainly not unique to this election.

For every Trump supporter saying this is a non-story there's a Clinton supporter saying this invalidates the election and Trump's presidency.  Both people would be wrong and both people would be certain they were right.

[Belsnickel]

(12-30-2016, 12:28 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I'm just amazed it took 7 years, 11 months for Obama to grow a spine.

I know, right? Not like these sanctions are a very similar response to the one we gave to China in 2015 for hacking OPM. There is no precedent for Obama to actually do something about activity like this.

[Interceptor]

Do they have proof?

[Benton]

(12-30-2016, 07:33 PM)Interceptor Wrote: Do they have proof?

none that's likely to be released to the public. Intelligence agencies generally dont like to tell everyone how they got information because it makes whatever the method (or people involved) useless.

altnews and pro-Russian advocates know this, so they've been busy pulling out the "shows us or its not real" line. Not saying you are, just that's been the rallying cry from altnews like wnd.

[fredtoast]

(12-30-2016, 07:33 PM)Interceptor Wrote: Do they have proof?

Why read and learn anything for yourself when you can just have someone tell you what to believe.

Much easier that way, right?

[Rotobeast]

(12-30-2016, 09:25 PM)Benton Wrote: none that's likely to be released to the public. Intelligence agencies generally dont like to tell everyone how they got information because it makes whatever the method (or people involved) useless.

I just want to state again, Podesta's password was "P@ssword".

Major hacking going on there.

[JustWinBaby]

It's going to be LEGENDARY to when Trump's twitter account gets hacked....although I'm not sure how we'll be able to tell the difference :)

[Rotobeast]

(12-30-2016, 11:09 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: It's going to be LEGENDARY to when Trump's twitter account gets hacked....although I'm not sure how we'll be able to tell the difference :)

That's a fantastic thought..lol
Perhaps a thread should be made ?
"What WOULDN'T Trump Tweet ?"


My first entry would be "Barry ?, yeah I'd hit that !".

[JustWinBaby]

(12-30-2016, 11:17 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Perhaps a thread should be made ?
"What WOULDN'T Trump Tweet ?"

Aristocrates, is that you?!?!

[*bfine32*]

(12-30-2016, 09:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Why read and learn anything for yourself when you can just have someone tell you what to believe.

Much easier that way, right?

Not as easy as answering a question with a question. 

[Bengalzona]

(12-31-2016, 10:56 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Not as easy as answering a question with a question?

Fixed it for you....LOL!

[samhain]

What's going to be very interesting is seeing how the Bush admin leftovers on the Trump team advise him to deal with this situation. I've seen and read articles claiming that Cheney is advising the the Trump people extensively. Bolton is a national security advisor, and a serious hawk.

Sooner or later, there will be a reckoning between Trump's alleged passivity/affinity for the Kremlin and his team's history as literal cold warriors. I somehow doubt that his advisors with any degree of experience in geopolitics regard Putin as anything other than a threat to our national security.

I think there's about a 95% chance that Trump finds himself on the business end of Russia's games before his term is up. Gonna be real interesting.

[*bfine32*]

(12-31-2016, 02:46 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Fixed it for you....LOL!

No, you just changed the punctuation mark at the end of the statement.

WTS, maybe there is something easier than answering a question with a question. The patented "I fixed it for you" doesn't require much effort or intellect.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-31-2016, 08:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No, you just changed the punctuation mark at the end of the statement.

WTS, maybe there is something easier than answering a question with a question. The patented "I fixed it for you" doesn't require much effort or intellect.  

[Bengalzona]

(12-31-2016, 08:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No, you just changed the punctuation mark at the end of the statement.

WTS, maybe there is something easier than answering a question with a question. The patented "I fixed it for you" doesn't require much effort or intellect.  

Perhaps not, but it is still more intellectually challenging than the "grumpy old man" response.

[*bfine32*]

(12-31-2016, 10:58 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Perhaps not, but it is still more intellectually challenging than the "grumpy old man" response.

For you perhaps