Which of the hacks were the Russians behind

[Londo_Jowo]

Worth re-iterating the point about credibility/integrity of people who accuse everyone else of what they're posterchildren for.

Yep, you're butthurt

 

[agent00f]

Yep, you're butthurt

I think it's pretty obvious who's so butthurt that they feel compelled to keep compensating with trademark empty bluster.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I think it's pretty obvious who's so butthurt that they feel compelled to keep compensating with trademark empty bluster.

LMAO!!!! You're suffering from massive butthurt syndrome.

 

[agent00f]

LMAO!!!! You're suffering from massive butthurt syndrome.

Thanks for reliably demonstrating every point I ever make about conservatives. That's why you make such a great one.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Thanks for reliably demonstrating every point I ever make about conservatives. That's why you make such a great one.

It's okay, you may grow out of it but I seriously doubt it. You'll always suffer from butthurt and self hate.

 

[agent00f]

It's okay, you may grow out of it but I seriously doubt it. You'll always suffer from butthurt and self hate.

Putin is very fortunate to have so many murican tough guys at beck and call to defend his honor.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

So you're a big supporter of Putin. I guess you became infatuated with him during the 2009 reset with Hillary huh?

 

[agent00f]

So you're a big supporter of Putin. I guess you became infatuated with him during the 2009 reset with Hillary huh?

Murican tough guy trope personified:

LMAO!!!! You're suffering from massive butthurt syndrome.

Ahhhh poor butthurt angry petulant child has nothing to offer

She looked so sad and angry just like all the other butthurt liberals over the election results.

Don't worry, you're in good company of chucky/svnla/boomerang/ and that list goes on for a while. Short on the brains but long on the bluster.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

LMAO!!! You're sad, angry, and butthurt with big dose of self hate to boot.

 

[Victorian Gray]

LMAO!!! You're sad, angry, and butthurt with big dose of self hate to boot.

Did you recently have some kind of stroke?

 

[UglyCasanova]

Kind of suspicious that professional hackers with all the resources of the entire Russian government couldn't hack into a server of which they obviously knew, with no real-time security monitoring, which didn't even have encryption for some time.

I think any reasonable minded person could only assume the Russians had access to her server. Hell im sure the Russians had access to those using "secure" emails as well. It's no shock that the NSA has access to damned near everything, why assume Russia doesn't have the same capability? But no evidence it was hacked? What evidence would their be?

 

[Jhhnn]

I think any reasonable minded person could only assume the Russians had access to her server.

With absolutely no evidence whatsoever, obviously. Which would just mean any conspiracy theorist.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I think any reasonable minded person could only assume the Russians had access to her server. Hell im sure the Russians had access to those using "secure" emails as well. It's no shock that the NSA has access to damned near everything, why assume Russia doesn't have the same capability? But no evidence it was hacked? What evidence would their be?

Russia doesn't have the same capability, but they've had a sobering boost in growing advantage because of our beloved T(ory)-Party-supporting Edward Snowden. We wouldn't be at this place, at this moment, but for Snowden creating his own "Aaron Cross-Bourne-Legacy" moment and skipping to Hong-Kong, then Moscow.

Did you ever study any kind of science? You cannot make conclusions for which there is no fact. If they had hacked Clinton's server, and if (as more than just reasonable to assume) the Russians had made an orchestrated psy-war campaign to influence the election, they would've used even more personal information from that server as part of their efforts. The fact that nothing like that has surfaced only means that Clinton's server wasn't hacked, or that there's no likelihood -- probability -that it was hacked.

Here, I'm taking the basic facts and making a logical inference. Do you ever make ANY inferences that could be considered LOGICAL?

 

[werepossum]

I think any reasonable minded person could only assume the Russians had access to her server. Hell im sure the Russians had access to those using "secure" emails as well. It's no shock that the NSA has access to damned near everything, why assume Russia doesn't have the same capability? But no evidence it was hacked? What evidence would their be?

A true state level infiltration of a server with that level of "protection" would leave no traces. On the other hand, if we accept that Russia's ability is limited to laughably transparent phishing emails and guessing passwords set by morons, then it might leave some traces. Although since Hillary destroyed the devices and wiped the servers, there would be no way to find them. If however the Podesta and DNC hacks (or more accurately, the publishing of embarrassing emails from those hacks) were truly the work of Russian state hackers, then the best evidence would be the lack of published emails.

We know from the Podesta hacks that whoever phished his account had the address of the Hillary server. Personally I find it impossible to reconcile Russia being responsible for Hillary's defeat and yet also unable to crack her server. But to those who otherwise find Hillary's defeat impossible to understand, I understand the attraction of blaming Russia.

 

[Jhhnn]

A true state level infiltration of a server with that level of "protection" would leave no traces.

I doubt you're qualified to make that assertion.

On the other hand, if we accept that Russia's ability is limited to laughably transparent phishing emails and guessing passwords set by morons, then it might leave some traces. Although since Hillary destroyed the devices and wiped the servers, there would be no way to find them.

You know the servers weren't wiped. Bleachbit does not wipe drives. We've been through this before yet you assert the same falsehoods over & over in true propagandist fashion.

If however the Podesta and DNC hacks (or more accurately, the publishing of embarrassing emails from those hacks) were truly the work of Russian state hackers, then the best evidence would be the lack of published emails.

Nice word salad, anyway. The purpose of the leaks was to discredit Hillary & the Democrats, plain & simple, per our intelligence agencies. It obviously worked as intended.

We know from the Podesta hacks that whoever phished his account had the address of the Hillary server. Personally I find it impossible to reconcile Russia being responsible for Hillary's defeat and yet also unable to crack her server. But to those who otherwise find Hillary's defeat impossible to understand, I understand the attraction of blaming Russia.

Hillary's server from her SoS days was offline & retired when Podesta's email was hacked. You know that too.

 

[mikeymikec]

I've asked several times on here but no one has given an answer, assuming these were hacks and not leaks and assuming the Russians were involved, which of the releases were they behind? There were multiple releases throughout the election season that tend to get lumped together but they were distinct and different, which if any were the Russians behind?

Trump, the undisputed source of truth for many here, now thinks the DNC hacks were by Russia apparently:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38591754

Secretary of state nominee Rex Tillerson said it was "a fair assumption" that Russian president Vladimir Putin had been behind hacks of the US Democratic party during the election campaign. Mr Trump also said for the first time "I think it was Russia"

And if anyone is interested in reading a timeline of Trump's various denials and insinuations on this topic:
https://www.wired.com/2017/01/timeline-trumps-strange-contradictory-statements-russian-hacking/

 

[agent00f]

Trump, the undisputed source of truth for many here, now thinks the DNC hacks were by Russia apparently:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38591754

And if anyone is interested in reading a timeline of Trump's various denials and insinuations on this topic:
https://www.wired.com/2017/01/timeline-trumps-strange-contradictory-statements-russian-hacking/

When I first saw that my first thought was it would be interesting how the conservatives would react. Would they throw trump or themselves under the bus first, for being so stupid as to believe US intel or to save their leader, respectively.

I must admit that at the time I hadn't considered the obvious third choice of deafening silence.

 

[mikeymikec]

I must admit that at the time I hadn't considered the obvious third choice of deafening silence.

Admitting that one is wrong about something takes a little bit of grit.

 

[rudder]

Look the same guy that swore the NSA was not spying on everyday Americans says it was the Russians. That is good enough for me.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Look the same guy that swore the NSA was not spying on everyday Americans says it was the Russians. That is good enough for me.

Still not as lame as Trump saying "See? Russia says they didn't do it! So NYAH!"

 

[werepossum]

I doubt you're qualified to make that assertion.

You know the servers weren't wiped. Bleachbit does not wipe drives. We've been through this before yet you assert the same falsehoods over & over in true propagandist fashion.



Nice word salad, anyway. The purpose of the leaks was to discredit Hillary & the Democrats, plain & simple, per our intelligence agencies. It obviously worked as intended.



Hillary's server from her SoS days was offline & retired when Podesta's email was hacked. You know that too.

Maybe. The Podesta "hack" was how we caught Hillary editing those emails that she chose to be printed out and turned over, so I assumed there was overlap. Haven't looked up the exact time line, so maybe that was an old message still on his computer.

 

[ivwshane]

Maybe. The Podesta "hack" was how we caught Hillary editing those emails that she chose to be printed out and turned over, so I assumed there was overlap. Haven't looked up the exact time line, so maybe that was an old message still on his computer.

Maybe and maybe one day you'll stop being a dishonest poster.

 

[Jhhnn]

Maybe. The Podesta "hack" was how we caught Hillary editing those emails that she chose to be printed out and turned over, so I assumed there was overlap. Haven't looked up the exact time line, so maybe that was an old message still on his computer.

Bullshit. Podesta was hacked in March 2016

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podesta_emails

Clinton's server was revealed in a hack of Sydney Blumenthal in 2013-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy#Initial_awareness

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Ah. But nobody hacked Clinton's server. They hacked Blumethal's e-mail.

I don't pretend to know everything. These are loose ends to me. What bothers me are people who think that I THINK that I know everything. People who behave like they know everything but who show that they don't, such as the President-Defect. And people who get a handful of anecdotes and use one of them to inferentially craft an argument, who think they've found the Holy Grail of the Truth.

The more you know, the less you think you know -- if you're honest. The Pig who's getting a lipstick-makeover on the 20th? He still think he knows everything.

 

[agent00f]

Look the same guy that swore the NSA was not spying on everyday Americans says it was the Russians. That is good enough for me.

When Trump admitted the intel is convincing, would you place yourself in the mentioned former category or latter?