Did Russia "hack" the election? Four questions.

[Mac1958]

Okay, just for the hell of it, let's try to define what the question "Did Russia Hack the Election?" actually means.

If I have this right, I don't believe anyone is saying that Russia somehow got into voting booths or hacked into voting machines or computers or servers and changed votes from Hillary to Trump. If I'm wrong on that, if you believe that, please say so and provide whatever evidence you have.

I believe that what is being said is that the Russians "hacked" into Podesta's and other DNC people's email accounts via phishing and got oodles of seriously damning shit on the Democrats, spilled the beans, and here we are. They are saying that an unfriendly foreign power found and used a method of influencing opinions on a major party presidential candidate, and it may have made enough of a difference in a close race. That's it, unless I'm missing something.

So, four reasonable questions:

1. Was Podesta, was the DNC, an easy mark for this activity, did they screw up? Yeah, it appears so.
2. Did the Russians try to hack the RNC too? Entirely possible, no one can say for sure either way.
3. Could all the shit that came out from the hacked emails been the final straw against Clinton, particularly in those rust belt states where Trump barely beat her and gained critical electoral votes? Yeah, that seems like a reasonable possibility.
   
4. And finally, if Trump had been the one whose party's emails were hacked and Hillary won critical electoral states by a hair, would his supporters be screaming right now? Of course.

So what is YOUR definition of "hacking"?
.

 

[candycorn]

Agree except for #3.

I don't think it made a difference. Hillary is a disappointing campaigner. Does anyone really remember what the content of any of those e-mails were?
Meanwhile,
Trump promised the moon, stars, and some planets that haven't been discovered yet and people were in a buying mood. I think they are in for disappointment.

Moving forward, the threshold about what is fair has been moved into cyberspace. I would expect wholesale hacking of every e-mail the Trump family sends between now and 2020.

The good thing (if you're a DEM), you know who your opponent will be in 2020 so you can start early.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

There are those of us who voted Trump that wouldn't be screaming if a foreign entity revealed accurate information about him. At no point did I fault the NY Times for releasing his '95 tax returns, even though Trump wanted to keep them private. From my perspective, as long as the information is accurate, the more information we have before making a decision, particularly one as important as the head of the executive branch of our government, the better. Period. That said, if Russia releasing private information about a presidential candidate constitutes a violative manipulation of our very election process, then why are we giving the NY Times a pass? Organizations within our country have no more business subjugating our elections than do foreign governments. Again, I don't see the release of information as a violation of electoral integrity, or, for that matter, as anything but helpful to the process, but I do think that people ought to judge the action by the nature of the action itself, and not only by the identity and presumed motives of the perpetrator.

 

[JoeB131]

So, four reasonable questions:

No, there is only one reasonable question.

Why were the Russians so keen on getting Trump elected?

This is the question you like to avoid, you want to treat the Russian Hacking like it was a big prank Yuri and Vlad came up with after a long vodka bender at the Kremlin.

Instead of being concerned that a foreign power would invest millions of dollars (or rubles) to try to get one candidate elected over another.

 

[Mac1958]

There are those of us who voted Trump that wouldn't be screaming if a foreign entity revealed accurate information about him.

You really don't think that, had Russia done this to the Republicans and Trump lost, that they would be complaining?
.

 

[NightFox]

Okay, just for the hell of it, let's try to define what the question "Did Russia Hack the Election?" actually means.

If I have this right, I don't believe anyone is saying that Russia somehow got into voting booths or hacked into voting machines or computers or servers and changed votes from Hillary to Trump. If I'm wrong on that, if you believe that, please say so and provide whatever evidence you have.

I believe that what is being said is that the Russians "hacked" into Podesta's and other DNC people's email accounts via phishing and got oodles of seriously damning shit on the Democrats, spilled the beans, and here we are. They are saying that an unfriendly foreign power found and used a method of influencing opinions on a major party presidential candidate, and it may have made enough of a difference in a close race. That's it, unless I'm missing something.

So, four reasonable questions:

1. Was Podesta, was the DNC, an easy mark for this activity, did they screw up? Yeah, it appears so.
2. Did the Russians try to hack the RNC too? Entirely possible, no one can say for sure either way.
3. Could all the shit that came out from the hacked emails been the final straw against Clinton, particularly in those rust belt states where Trump barely beat her and gained critical electoral votes? Yeah, that seems like a reasonable possibility.
   
4. And finally, if Trump had been the one whose party's emails were hacked and Hillary won critical electoral states by a hair, would his supporters be screaming right now? Of course.

So what is YOUR definition of "hacking"?
.

The "charges" the administration is making is that the Russian Government compromised Podesta's and other DNC email accounts using spear phishing malware and then released the contents to the public which unduly influenced the outcome of the election (in Trump's favor); no one has disputed the authenticity of the contents of these emails, so basically this charge amounts to "they influenced the election by telling the American Public the truth about one candidate and one party". From reading the FBI release on the evidence that the Russian Government was responsible it seems very thin (much of the release entailed general guidelines on how to improve systems security), it basically boils down to "the malware used in the attack was similar to malware that has been used by Russian intelligence operations in the past", in other words no "smoking gun" pointing at the Russian Government has been offered up for public consideration and nobody appears to be asking why the Russian Government would use an attack signature that points the finger squarely at themselves.

Further "charges" include accusing the Russian Government of distributing "fake news" which portrayed the Clinton Campaign in a negative light, again no "smoking gun" evidence has been produced just allegations; even if this is true all it does is further demonstrate what a bunch of brainless morons the electorate is comprised of and that voters are stupid enough to believe that reading headlines are all that is required as "homework" on the candidates they vote for.

Was the election "hacked", IMHO insufficient evidence of that has been offered to draw that conclusion, however I personally want to thank WHOMEVER cracked those email accounts and released the contents to the public, they did us a service since we got to get a glimpse inside the corrupt goings on inside the smoke filled back alleys inhabited by the partisan slime balls.

Personally I think it's all a bunch of President Nimrod manufactured bullshit to shift the focus off the Democrat Party's gross incompetence and dishonesty and it reminds of all of the Pre-Iraq War bullshit ginned up by the Bush Administration to justify it's actions against Iraq.... and wouldn't ya know Senator Warmonger (AZ-R) buys right into it ! just like he did with all the Iraq WMD and "Iraq is an imminent threat" bullshit, that should tell ya a lot, he'll swallow anything that makes going to war more likely.

 

[owebo]

So, four reasonable questions:

No, there is only one reasonable question.

Why were the Russians so keen on getting Trump elected?

This is the question you like to avoid, you want to treat the Russian Hacking like it was a big prank Yuri and Vlad came up with after a long vodka bender at the Kremlin.

Instead of being concerned that a foreign power would invest millions of dollars (or rubles) to try to get one candidate elected over another.

Why did the Russians hack Trumps tax returns then?

 

[Mac1958]

Okay, just for the hell of it, let's try to define what the question "Did Russia Hack the Election?" actually means.

If I have this right, I don't believe anyone is saying that Russia somehow got into voting booths or hacked into voting machines or computers or servers and changed votes from Hillary to Trump. If I'm wrong on that, if you believe that, please say so and provide whatever evidence you have.

I believe that what is being said is that the Russians "hacked" into Podesta's and other DNC people's email accounts via phishing and got oodles of seriously damning shit on the Democrats, spilled the beans, and here we are. They are saying that an unfriendly foreign power found and used a method of influencing opinions on a major party presidential candidate, and it may have made enough of a difference in a close race. That's it, unless I'm missing something.

So, four reasonable questions:

1. Was Podesta, was the DNC, an easy mark for this activity, did they screw up? Yeah, it appears so.
2. Did the Russians try to hack the RNC too? Entirely possible, no one can say for sure either way.
3. Could all the shit that came out from the hacked emails been the final straw against Clinton, particularly in those rust belt states where Trump barely beat her and gained critical electoral votes? Yeah, that seems like a reasonable possibility.
   
4. And finally, if Trump had been the one whose party's emails were hacked and Hillary won critical electoral states by a hair, would his supporters be screaming right now? Of course.

So what is YOUR definition of "hacking"?
.

The "charges" the administration is making is that the Russian Government compromised Podesta's and other DNC email accounts using spear phishing malware and then released the contents to the public which unduly influenced the outcome of the election (in Trump's favor); no one has disputed the authenticity of the contents of these emails, so basically this charge amounts to "they influenced the election by telling the American Public the truth about one candidate and one party". From reading the FBI release on the evidence that the Russian Government was responsible it seems very thin (much of the release entailed general guidelines on how to improve systems security), it basically boils down to "the malware used in the attack was similar to malware that has been used by Russian intelligence operations in the past", in other words no "smoking gun" pointing at the Russian Government has been offered up for public consideration and nobody appears to be asking why the Russian Government would use an attack signature that points the finger squarely at themselves.

Further "charges" include accusing the Russian Government of distributing "fake news" which portrayed the Clinton Campaign in a negative light, again no "smoking gun" evidence has been produced just allegations; even if this is true all it does is further demonstrate what a bunch of brainless morons the electorate is comprised of and that voters are stupid enough to believe that reading headlines are all that is required as "homework" on the candidates they vote for.

Was the election "hacked", IMHO insufficient evidence of that has been offered to draw that conclusion, however I personally want to thank WHOMEVER cracked those email accounts and released the contents to the public, they did us a service since we got to get a glimpse inside the corrupt goings on inside the smoke filled back alleys inhabited by the partisan slime balls.

Personally I think it's all a bunch of President Nimrod manufactured bullshit to shift the focus off the Democrat Parties gross incompetence and dishonesty and it reminds of all of the Pre-Iraq War bullshit ginned up by the Bush Administration to justify it's actions against Iraq.... and wouldn't ya know Senator Warmonger (AZ-R) buys right into it ! just like he did with all the Iraq WMD and "Iraq is an imminent threat" bullshit, that should tell ya a lot, he'll swallow anything that makes going to war more likely.

Okay, I like the "cracked" vs. "hacked" thing because it does provide a dividing line.

What do you think Trump supporters would be saying if this had been done to the GOP instead, and he lost?
.

 

[NightFox]

Okay, just for the hell of it, let's try to define what the question "Did Russia Hack the Election?" actually means.

If I have this right, I don't believe anyone is saying that Russia somehow got into voting booths or hacked into voting machines or computers or servers and changed votes from Hillary to Trump. If I'm wrong on that, if you believe that, please say so and provide whatever evidence you have.

I believe that what is being said is that the Russians "hacked" into Podesta's and other DNC people's email accounts via phishing and got oodles of seriously damning shit on the Democrats, spilled the beans, and here we are. They are saying that an unfriendly foreign power found and used a method of influencing opinions on a major party presidential candidate, and it may have made enough of a difference in a close race. That's it, unless I'm missing something.

So, four reasonable questions:

1. Was Podesta, was the DNC, an easy mark for this activity, did they screw up? Yeah, it appears so.
2. Did the Russians try to hack the RNC too? Entirely possible, no one can say for sure either way.
3. Could all the shit that came out from the hacked emails been the final straw against Clinton, particularly in those rust belt states where Trump barely beat her and gained critical electoral votes? Yeah, that seems like a reasonable possibility.
   
4. And finally, if Trump had been the one whose party's emails were hacked and Hillary won critical electoral states by a hair, would his supporters be screaming right now? Of course.

So what is YOUR definition of "hacking"?
.

The "charges" the administration is making is that the Russian Government compromised Podesta's and other DNC email accounts using spear phishing malware and then released the contents to the public which unduly influenced the outcome of the election (in Trump's favor); no one has disputed the authenticity of the contents of these emails, so basically this charge amounts to "they influenced the election by telling the American Public the truth about one candidate and one party". From reading the FBI release on the evidence that the Russian Government was responsible it seems very thin (much of the release entailed general guidelines on how to improve systems security), it basically boils down to "the malware used in the attack was similar to malware that has been used by Russian intelligence operations in the past", in other words no "smoking gun" pointing at the Russian Government has been offered up for public consideration and nobody appears to be asking why the Russian Government would use an attack signature that points the finger squarely at themselves.

Further "charges" include accusing the Russian Government of distributing "fake news" which portrayed the Clinton Campaign in a negative light, again no "smoking gun" evidence has been produced just allegations; even if this is true all it does is further demonstrate what a bunch of brainless morons the electorate is comprised of and that voters are stupid enough to believe that reading headlines are all that is required as "homework" on the candidates they vote for.

Was the election "hacked", IMHO insufficient evidence of that has been offered to draw that conclusion, however I personally want to thank WHOMEVER cracked those email accounts and released the contents to the public, they did us a service since we got to get a glimpse inside the corrupt goings on inside the smoke filled back alleys inhabited by the partisan slime balls.

Personally I think it's all a bunch of President Nimrod manufactured bullshit to shift the focus off the Democrat Parties gross incompetence and dishonesty and it reminds of all of the Pre-Iraq War bullshit ginned up by the Bush Administration to justify it's actions against Iraq.... and wouldn't ya know Senator Warmonger (AZ-R) buys right into it ! just like he did with all the Iraq WMD and "Iraq is an imminent threat" bullshit, that should tell ya a lot, he'll swallow anything that makes going to war more likely.

Okay, I like the "cracked" vs. "hacked" thing because it does provide a dividing line.

Yes hacked these days has a negative connotation and not the original meaning of the word (it originally meant using an inventive or innovative technique(s) to make a system do something it wasn't designed to do, in other words doing something clever), while "cracking" was the term for breaking into systems, doing something "shady".

What do you think Trump supporters would be saying if this had been done to the GOP instead, and he lost?
.

IMHO they'd be saying the same things as the Clinton supporters are now, the only difference is nobody in the Obama Administration would be talking about or taking any actions against the Russian Government.

 

[gipper]

Okay, just for the hell of it, let's try to define what the question "Did Russia Hack the Election?" actually means.

If I have this right, I don't believe anyone is saying that Russia somehow got into voting booths or hacked into voting machines or computers or servers and changed votes from Hillary to Trump. If I'm wrong on that, if you believe that, please say so and provide whatever evidence you have.

I believe that what is being said is that the Russians "hacked" into Podesta's and other DNC people's email accounts via phishing and got oodles of seriously damning shit on the Democrats, spilled the beans, and here we are. They are saying that an unfriendly foreign power found and used a method of influencing opinions on a major party presidential candidate, and it may have made enough of a difference in a close race. That's it, unless I'm missing something.

So, four reasonable questions:

1. Was Podesta, was the DNC, an easy mark for this activity, did they screw up? Yeah, it appears so.
2. Did the Russians try to hack the RNC too? Entirely possible, no one can say for sure either way.
3. Could all the shit that came out from the hacked emails been the final straw against Clinton, particularly in those rust belt states where Trump barely beat her and gained critical electoral votes? Yeah, that seems like a reasonable possibility.
   
4. And finally, if Trump had been the one whose party's emails were hacked and Hillary won critical electoral states by a hair, would his supporters be screaming right now? Of course.

So what is YOUR definition of "hacking"?
.

The "charges" the administration is making is that the Russian Government compromised Podesta's and other DNC email accounts using spear phishing malware and then released the contents to the public which unduly influenced the outcome of the election (in Trump's favor); no one has disputed the authenticity of the contents of these emails, so basically this charge amounts to "they influenced the election by telling the American Public the truth about one candidate and one party". From reading the FBI release on the evidence that the Russian Government was responsible it seems very thin (much of the release entailed general guidelines on how to improve systems security), it basically boils down to "the malware used in the attack was similar to malware that has been used by Russian intelligence operations in the past", in other words no "smoking gun" pointing at the Russian Government has been offered up for public consideration and nobody appears to be asking why the Russian Government would use an attack signature that points the finger squarely at themselves.

Further "charges" include accusing the Russian Government of distributing "fake news" which portrayed the Clinton Campaign in a negative light, again no "smoking gun" evidence has been produced just allegations; even if this is true all it does is further demonstrate what a bunch of brainless morons the electorate is comprised of and that voters are stupid enough to believe that reading headlines are all that is required as "homework" on the candidates they vote for.

Was the election "hacked", IMHO insufficient evidence of that has been offered to draw that conclusion, however I personally want to thank WHOMEVER cracked those email accounts and released the contents to the public, they did us a service since we got to get a glimpse inside the corrupt goings on inside the smoke filled back alleys inhabited by the partisan slime balls.

Personally I think it's all a bunch of President Nimrod manufactured bullshit to shift the focus off the Democrat Party's gross incompetence and dishonesty and it reminds of all of the Pre-Iraq War bullshit ginned up by the Bush Administration to justify it's actions against Iraq.... and wouldn't ya know Senator Warmonger (AZ-R) buys right into it ! just like he did with all the Iraq WMD and "Iraq is an imminent threat" bullshit, that should tell ya a lot, he'll swallow anything that makes going to war more likely.

It is much easier and acceptable (though entirely predictable) for the Ds/Big Ears to blame Russia for losing to Trump, rather than believe their failed and horrendously stupid policies were rejected by the American people.
No doubt Big Ears thinks Trump stole the election and as such, is illegitimate. The silver lining could be that the Ds double down on their stupid policies, resulting in the American people rejecting them for the foreseeable future.

 

[JoeB131]

You really don't think that, had Russia done this to the Republicans and Trump lost, that they would be complaining?

Maybe not, but someone would and rightfully so.

 

[NightFox]

No doubt Big Ears thinks Trump stole the election and as such, is illegitimate. The silver lining could be that the Ds double down on their stupid policies, resulting in the American people rejecting them for the foreseeable future.

Yep it's a huge risk since if compelling evidence is brought to light that the Russians had nothing to do with it the Democrats are going to be exposed as the lying, corrupt "ready to risk war to gain power" criminals that they really are and they'll have handed the GOP ready made campaign commercials for at least a few future election cycles.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

You really don't think that, had Russia done this to the Republicans and Trump lost, that they would be complaining?
.

I remember when the story first broke about the DNC hack, that democrat flacks were going around claiming that the only important thing that they got was the opposition research on Trump.

Well, if that information was so damaging, then why didn't the democrats release it and why didn't affect the outcome in a positive way for them?

 

[Mac1958]

You really don't think that, had Russia done this to the Republicans and Trump lost, that they would be complaining?
.

I remember when the story first broke about the DNC hack, that democrat flacks were going around claiming that the only important thing that they got was the opposition research on Trump.

Well, if that information was so damaging, then why didn't the democrats release it and why didn't affect the outcome in a positive way for them?

I think they did, and it didn't matter.

Was that opposition research provided by Russia?
.

 

[Iceweasel]

There are those of us who voted Trump that wouldn't be screaming if a foreign entity revealed accurate information about him.

You really don't think that, had Russia done this to the Republicans and Trump lost, that they would be complaining?
.

How so? The Republicans weren't the ones running a rigged campaign. The GOP wasn't paying people to go stir up shit at Hillary rallies. They weren't the ones in bed with media stacking the deck.

The party bosses didn't even want Trump so explain what revelation could have sunk his chances.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

I think they did, and it didn't matter.

Was that opposition research provided by Russia?

I don't know about any of it. Point is I remember that at the very beginning of the hack story, the democrats were "meh" about it.

But now that they lost, the only reason that they can come up with to explain why their irredeemably corrupt, lying, despicable shrew lost, is because of outside interference.

This raises the question of how you prove it.

 

[Mac1958]

I think they did, and it didn't matter.

Was that opposition research provided by Russia?

I don't know about any of it. Point is I remember that at the very beginning of the hack story, the democrats were "meh" about it.

But now that they lost, the only reason that they can come up with to explain why their irredeemably corrupt, lying, despicable shrew lost, is because of outside interference.

This raises the question of how you prove it.

Well, we have Assange saying that Russia didn't provide the material, and we have the American intelligence community saying they did.

That obviously casts doubt, but seeing Trump & Co siding with a guy like Assange against our people, yikes, that doesn't look good.
.

 

[gipper]

I think they did, and it didn't matter.

Was that opposition research provided by Russia?

I don't know about any of it. Point is I remember that at the very beginning of the hack story, the democrats were "meh" about it.

But now that they lost, the only reason that they can come up with to explain why their irredeemably corrupt, lying, despicable shrew lost, is because of outside interference.

This raises the question of how you prove it.

Amazingly this transparent effort to blame Russia, dupes useful idiot Americans.

 

[G.T.]

i think if they got the tapes tom arnold has of trump saying n1gger and retard and shit, all you fuckin dupes would feel duped or youd love it...and then mebbe 3rd pparty coulda shined.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

Well, we have Assange saying that Russia didn't provide the material, and we have the American intelligence community saying they did.

That obviously casts doubt, but seeing Trump & Co siding with a guy like Assange against our people, yikes, that doesn't look good.
.

Which "American intelligence community"?

We know the "17 agencies" talking point is bullshit. Now, the only person left claiming any of this had an affect is Clapper, and he's probably playing politics.