• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Which of the hacks were the Russians behind

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Blue_Max

Diamond Member
Jul 7, 2011
4,227
152
106
Anywhere Trump won, it was hacked.

It has to be.

HAS to be!

No way could half the country be *X-ist! [insert any or all of your favorite Progressive *ism here!]

*giggle* It's downright amusing to watch them destroy the world with their complete and utter madness.
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
22,716
5,016
136
This is a pointless argument. Contrary to what the alt-right and your talking head messiahs believe, the vast majority of left-leaning people don't believe Russia actually stole the election. I haven't seen a single credible report that voting machines were hacked, contrary to what Millenials and nouveau socialists believe.

What I do believe, however, is that Putin did order cyberattacks in an effort to influence US voters against a candidate he despised. As of now the only attacks we've been told about involve John Podesta and the DNC. As far as we know, only the DNC and Podesta attacks were successful (they probably tried to get into Clinton's email server but that was exposed to the public in a separate hack and there's no evidence Guccifer is linked to Putin.) We'll see what the declassified report contains, and whether additional attacks are disclosed.

Now given how the vote turned out, I doubt Clinton could've won whether or not the Dems were hacked. But that's not the point. The point is that a foreign power directly tried to interfere with our election process, and we're so divided that we can't even get bipartisan support (from both government and the public) for a full investigation. Instead folks are screaming "YELLOWCAKE! WMDs AGAIN!" and the President-elect is talking about scaling back our Intelligence services.

So yeah, the Left is gonna troll that Trump is illegitimate, and that Trump voters were duped by the Russkies. It makes for good lulz. But at some point we gotta get past that and agree that foreign powers hacking our democracy to influence elections is a bad thing, and a candidate who's so insecure about his legitimacy that he must remain in denial and disparage the entire intelligence community is disgraceful.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: MongGrel

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,533
13,545
136
The intelligence agencies said that the DNC hack and Podesta emails were both by the Russian government? They specifically said this?
I linked their report in post #20 of this thread. Maybe you should read it.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,533
13,545
136
What I do believe, however, is that Putin did order cyberattacks in an effort to influence US voters against a candidate he despised. As of now the only attacks we've been told about involve John Podesta and the DNC. As far as we know, only the DNC and Podesta attacks were successful (they probably tried to get into Clinton's email server but that was exposed to the public in a separate hack and there's no evidence Guccifer is linked to Putin.) We'll see what the declassified report contains, and whether additional attacks are disclosed.
Clinton's server she used as SoS has not been shown to have been hacked. Redacted contents have been released via FOIA. The Guccifer 2.0 claim of hacking the CF email system appears to be a hoax, the documents the result of the DCCC/DNC hack-


http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/299236-alleged-guccifer-20-hack-of-clinton-foundation-raises-suspicions
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
22,716
5,016
136
Clinton's server she used as SoS has not been shown to have been hacked. Redacted contents have been released via FOIA. The Guccifer 2.0 claim of hacking the CF email system appears to be a hoax, the documents the result of the DCCC/DNC hack-


http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/299236-alleged-guccifer-20-hack-of-clinton-foundation-raises-suspicions
Right, I chose my words poorly. The real Romanian Guccifer (1.0?) exposed the fact Clinton was using a private email server as SoS by hacking Sydney Blumenthal and others. He exposed emails sent to her email address but never hacked her server. Her emails were released as part of the investigation that followed as you noted. Guccifer 2.0 (supposedly a Russian hacker) claims to have hacked CF, her server, others, and promises to expose Clinton's "crimes" but a lot of that is smoke and mirrors... no idea what he's actually given to Assange and what Assange is sitting on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: MongGrel

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
10,907
1,056
126
What proof? None of them are supported and ever major cyber sec person has denounced them as a joke.

Kinda like how they tried to blame a video on benghazi.
... I believe you have your phrasing wrong, it should be blame Benghazi on a video. Unless there's some video that was made and people were saying that the city of Benghazi or the events at Benghazi were the reason a video was made.
And who is this "they" you refer to? Do you mean the mastermind of the attack who said during the attack that it was in retaliation for the video?
Or do you mean the attackers, recognized as members of a local militant group called Ansar al-Shariah, who told bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video?
Or perhaps are you referring to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence who issued a report saying that the video did indeed have some relation to the attack?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ivwshane

alcoholbob

Diamond Member
May 24, 2005
6,171
271
126
This is a pointless argument. Contrary to what the alt-right and your talking head messiahs believe, the vast majority of left-leaning people don't believe Russia actually stole the election. I haven't seen a single credible report that voting machines were hacked, contrary to what Millenials and nouveau socialists believe.

What I do believe, however, is that Putin did order cyberattacks in an effort to influence US voters against a candidate he despised. As of now the only attacks we've been told about involve John Podesta and the DNC. As far as we know, only the DNC and Podesta attacks were successful (they probably tried to get into Clinton's email server but that was exposed to the public in a separate hack and there's no evidence Guccifer is linked to Putin.) We'll see what the declassified report contains, and whether additional attacks are disclosed.

Now given how the vote turned out, I doubt Clinton could've won whether or not the Dems were hacked. But that's not the point. The point is that a foreign power directly tried to interfere with our election process, and we're so divided that we can't even get bipartisan support (from both government and the public) for a full investigation. Instead folks are screaming "YELLOWCAKE! WMDs AGAIN!" and the President-elect is talking about scaling back our Intelligence services.

So yeah, the Left is gonna troll that Trump is illegitimate, and that Trump voters were duped by the Russkies. It makes for good lulz. But at some point we gotta get past that and agree that foreign powers hacking our democracy to influence elections is a bad thing, and a candidate who's so insecure about his legitimacy that he must remain in denial and disparage the entire intelligence community is disgraceful.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Doesn't that go against the public poll that showed 52% of Democrats believe Russia directly hacked the voting machines and fixed the vote tally?
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
28,461
8,466
136
Doesn't that go against the public poll that showed 52% of Democrats believe Russia directly hacked the voting machines and fixed the vote tally?
I'm going to go out on a limb and say you probably have your polling info wrong. Would you like to prove me wrong? Oh and I will be critical of your source;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: MongGrel

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
26,989
777
126
There is a story circulating, that Trump is heavily financed by a Russian lender...to the tune of 600-700 million. How would they perfect their lien and even make it collectible, on US soil? If he defaults, as POTUS, it seems they have a lot of leverage, like a missile aimed up his butt, with a quick bivouac at Sarah Palin's house, for a break before the final conquest.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
14,903
5,095
136
So no one knows?
This is where "The Trump Interpretation" falls flat on its 400 pounds sitting-in-the-basement arse.
Define hack for me?
Read the book "The art of deception" by Kevin Mitnick and then define what a hack is again.
Smoking guns with these things are very hard things to come by.
I will say one thing. Trust your intelligence agencies. It is the best you are going to get. Dont trust them and your adversaries will run circles around you.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,897
638
126
The leaders of various intelligence agencies have been caught telling the public outright lies several times under the Obama regime. I can fully understand why the left would want to trust them in regards to the recent election. It's nice to hear what you want to hear even if in saying something they are saying nothing which is the case here.

Once Trump is in office and those clowns leading the intelligence community are shown the door and their replacements are in place I will be more inclined to believe what they tell me. I fully expect the left to show at the least the same degree of disbelief that I now have. When I don't trust the leader, the underlings can't be trusted either. I understand that sentiment.

Trump is still going to be inaugurated. If the left wants to pout, throw tantrums, denounce his presidency, not recognize it, that's fine. But screaming about the Russians shouldn't be included in all of that because it doesn't add any value and most importantly, it's not the root cause of the loss of the presidency. It's not going to bring Obama back or put Hillary in the White House either.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,799
20,205
136
The intelligence agencies said that the DNC hack and Podesta emails were both by the Russian government? They specifically said this?
Why don't you go read up on what they said yourself? Way easier than asking people here. They even made a report.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,799
20,205
136
The leaders of various intelligence agencies have been caught telling the public outright lies several times under the Obama regime. I can fully understand why the left would want to trust them in regards to the recent election. It's nice to hear what you want to hear even if in saying something they are saying nothing which is the case here.

Once Trump is in office and those clowns leading the intelligence community are shown the door and their replacements are in place I will be more inclined to believe what they tell me. I fully expect the left to show at the least the same degree of disbelief that I now have. When I don't trust the leader, the underlings can't be trusted either. I understand that sentiment.

Trump is still going to be inaugurated. If the left wants to pout, throw tantrums, denounce his presidency, not recognize it, that's fine. But screaming about the Russians shouldn't be included in all of that because it doesn't add any value and most importantly, it's not the root cause of the loss of the presidency. It's not going to bring Obama back or put Hillary in the White House either.
'The intelligence community has been politicized by the president and so I don't believe them. I will start believing them when a president I like is in there.'

Sometimes I wonder if you're a parody poster designed to make conservatives look insane and stupid.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
25,444
10,350
136
The Russians and others have just discovered that our democracy, and maybe all Western democracies, can be manipulated pretty easily with fake news and phishing expeditions (maybe a little bit and maybe a lot) and this is a dangerous thing. My own reaction is that I don't expect another country or interests therein to piously obey our laws concerning election influence. So if Chinese interests donated money to a political campaign, I regard it as self-interest on the part of the Chinese. I can hardly demand that the US be free to meddle in other nations' politics but be considered immune from similar attention.

Although, in the past we made covert and not so covert efforts to influence elections, but it is natural part of foreign policy that all nations engage in a double standard when it comes to actions they perform against others as opposed to actions others perform against them. We willfully bomb other countries that we have people we don't like. Does that mean we shouldn't be bothered, if another country decides to bombs us?
People in red states can be manipulated with fake news.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,533
13,545
136
Report says absolutely nothing about John Podesta.
Please. Your desperation is showing.

“We are approaching the point in this case where there are only two reasons for why people say there’s no good evidence,” Rid told me. “The first reason is because they don’t understand the evidence—because the don’t have the necessary technical knowledge. The second reason is they don’t want to understand the evidence.”
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/how-hackers-broke-into-john-podesta-and-colin-powells-gmail-accounts

The report doesn't have to name Podesta to talk about the hack of his email.

We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material obtained from the DNC and senior democratic officials to wikileaks.
Who else do you suppose they're talking about, anyway? Some imaginary not-Podesta?
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,307
255
126
This whole thing is way overboard on both sides of the argument.

Did Russia try to influence the election? Most certainly. Is it the first time? Nope! fuck I'm pretty sure every fucking country on the planet tries to "influence" the American election process every single time we've had an election since WWI on the national scale.

But "influencing" and actually changing the outcome is too different things. Did Russia attempted influence actually change the outcome with direct manipulations of the votes? Nope. So who the fuck cares?
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,533
13,545
136
This whole thing is way overboard on both sides of the argument.

Did Russia try to influence the election? Most certainly. Is it the first time? Nope! fuck I'm pretty sure every fucking country on the planet tries to "influence" the American election process every single time we've had an election since WWI on the national scale.

But "influencing" and actually changing the outcome is too different things. Did Russia attempted influence actually change the outcome with direct manipulations of the votes? Nope. So who the fuck cares?
Read page 15-

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/06/us/politics/document-russia-hacking-report-intelligence-agencies.html

Vlad has your number, Righties. You just don't know it.
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,941
126
This whole thing is way overboard on both sides of the argument.

Did Russia try to influence the election? Most certainly. Is it the first time? Nope! fuck I'm pretty sure every fucking country on the planet tries to "influence" the American election process every single time we've had an election since WWI on the national scale.

But "influencing" and actually changing the outcome is too different things. Did Russia attempted influence actually change the outcome with direct manipulations of the votes? Nope. So who the fuck cares?
You make a powerful assertion there at the end, right where evidence and support are most needed... and then you drop the mic. Just so you know, that's not how a mic drop works.
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
8,026
5,046
136
This whole thing is way overboard on both sides of the argument.

Did Russia try to influence the election? Most certainly. Is it the first time? Nope! fuck I'm pretty sure every fucking country on the planet tries to "influence" the American election process every single time we've had an election since WWI on the national scale.

But "influencing" and actually changing the outcome is too different things. Did Russia attempted influence actually change the outcome with direct manipulations of the votes? Nope. So who the fuck cares?
Here's the problem: even if you assume that Russia did try to influence previous elections (hard evidence, please, or drop it), it wasn't hacking major US political parties and strategically releasing info. And you don't have to compromise voting machines and ballot counters to change the income. Were there people who changed their minds based on the leaked data, especially when its significance was sometimes distorted by WikiLeaks and Russia-backed news outlets? Most likely yes. The core information is accurate as far as we know, but that doesn't give Russia a free pass.

There are a few reasons to care. First, of course, is that Russia was conspicuously interfering with the democratic process. This is never tolerable, and must be punished. The other: if we don't care, that's encouraging Russia. The report has determined that Russia considers its pro-Trump hacking campaign a success, and will likely use what it learned to skew both future American elections and those elsewhere in the world. Do you really want to reinforce that determination by pretending that the hacks didn't matter?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY