Can we see some solid evidence Russia influenced/hacked anything? Or is it another- Saddam has weapons of mass destruction- type of conclusion. isis is another ball of wax. Thank allah for wikileaks.
There's certainly a significant amount of evidence that Russians have been hacking a lot of things. In some cases the extent of government involvement is an open question though. How much in general or in this particular case will be revealed to the public is also an open question. The comparison with Saddam and chemical weapons is hardly a reasonable one. Saddam had and used them at one point in time. Just prior to the war he had gotten rid of most (but not all) of them but was sending out messages both to that effect and to the effect that he still had them. He also still had a chemical weapons program underway and the capability to manufacture them in short order. Wikileaks is a clear case of Assange not being able to hit the broad side of a barn and nailing some bystanders in the process. His irrational attacks on the US got him in trouble when he was a teen and he was lucky then that he got prosecuted under Australian law. IMO he's rather like a less wealthy and less competent version of the Clintons.
President-elect Donald Trump: 10h ago Somebody hacked the DNC but why did they not have "hacking defense" like the RNC has and why have they not responded to the terrible things they did and said (like giving the questions to the debate to H). A total double standard! Media, as usual, gave them a pass. 11h ago "@FoxNews: Julian Assange on U.S. media coverage: “It’s very dishonest.” #Hannity " More dishonest than anyone knows. 11h ago Julian Assange said "a 14 year old could have hacked Podesta" - why was DNC so careless? Also said Russians did not give him the info! 23h ago The "Intelligence" briefing on so-called "Russian hacking" was delayed until Friday, perhaps more time needed to build a case. Very strange!
The RNC was never the target of a hack. It does not mean that the have a better "hacking defense." Where is Anonymous when you need them? As to "not responding to the terrible things they did..." Has anyone seen Mr. Trump's tax returns yet? http://thehill.com/policy/finance/312712-dem-bill-would-require-trump-to-release-tax-returns Guess not. I believe he said ""Our source is not a state party. So the answer -- for our interactions -- is no" Now, why include "for our interactions"? Very Strange! Unless...the information was obtained by sources associated with the Putin Government, passed along to an intermediary, who then passed it along to WikiLeaks.
Thanks LWD. You always participate and can contribute more than i. Kudos eh. The US probably does a fair amount too. What is the evidence. ..Seems like dems are upset that their corruption was exposed. Unsure what the problem with exposing corruption is- no matter how evidence is obtained. Almost like they are saying -incriminating evidence was obtained- but- the offending party was not notified their communications were monitored/breached. Therefore the evidence is not admissible. lol Liberal justice think. Hopefully, MrT will change the supreme court to truly represent/reflect the Normals of western society.
"We published several ... emails which show Podesta responding to a phishing email," Assange said during the first part of the interview, which aired on "Hannity" Tuesday night. "Podesta gave out that his password was the word ‘password’. His own staff said this email that you’ve received, this is totally legitimate. So, this is something ... a 14-year-old kid could have hacked Podesta that way." That man Podesta is an idiot (like in my password is password). Do the Americans want to be ruled by idiots? Every computer on this planet directly connected to the Internet is attacked, scanned, tested several times per minute. If the RNC was never a target it means they are not on Internet. There is no legal requirement to publish tax returns. It maybe not nice, but he didn't win by being nice. On the other hand giving the questions to the debate to Clinton was a direct effort to influence the election.
We elected Trump as President...So, I see that the answer is an unqualified "Yes." But, giving the some questions early did not break any laws either...Correct. Was it unethical? It was. The same is true for Trump and his tax returns, it broke no laws, but it was unethical. Yet, you continuously castigate Clinton, but give a pass to Trump?
OMG...The clintons- if we could only count the ways But the apprentice Trump who has not even stepped in office... Oh Lawdy. (screaming with hands in the air) Oh lawd, what has brought this hellacious man upon us...lol (cough)...i kid
You've only held a job for 8 years? What did you do with the rest of your life? You've been a slave a lot longer than you think you have been a slave...A slave to the Almighty Dollar. Well, at least you got that right...Trump is only an apprentice, and a bad one at that. What about Trump's "Draining the swamp"? He didn't drain it, he refilled it and then added a diving section.
I disagree. There have been at least a few threads where I've held off and others where your contributions were greater and/or more useful than mine. If you are talking about hacking in general yes there's quite a bit done here both by the government and individuals. We don't seem to have the problems with organized gangs like the ones that operate out of Russia and a few other countries though. Of course they were upset that their corruption was exposed. That's not the part I have a problem with. What I and most Americans I believe take issue with is a foreign government specifically hunting for dirt on one party/candidate in order to influence an election. Indeed I would be rather surprised if they didn't have similar information on many Republicans as well as Trump but didn't reveal it.
The easier question to answer would be: Why wouldn't they? Hillary has been seen as opposing a fair number of Russia/Putin activities and likely would have continued to do so (if for no other reason than it generates good press). Trump on the other hand has been complementary to both Putin and Russia, what's more there is at least the feeling in some quarters that he is fairly easy to manipulate at least on some matters.
In the end it's all whining of the losers, the man who is responsible for all this is my password is password Podesta, there were other people roaming inside the atrociously secured DNC but they kept whatever they found for themselves: The FBI never examined the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) computer servers during its investigation into Russian attempts to interfere in the election, BuzzFeed reports. “The DNC had several meetings with representatives of the FBI’s Cyber Division and its Washington (D.C.) Field Office, the Department of Justice’s National Security Division, and U.S. Attorney’s Offices, and it responded to a variety of requests for cooperation, but the FBI never requested access to the DNC’s computer servers,” DNC deputy communications director Eric Walker told BuzzFeed in an email. Instead, the official said, the bureau and other agencies have relied on analysis done by the third-party security firm CrowdStrike, which investigated the breach for the DNC.
Wrong. You are blaming the victim for being the victim. Locking the doors to your house is prudent but whether you do or don't and how good of lock you have still doesn't make you responsible for someone breaking into your house. The fact that the FBI didn't examine the servers doesn't mean that they didn't look elsewhere or that that was the only place that evidence existed. Certainly there is some whining by the losers but there's more to it than that. Your inability to look beyond the superficial is disappointing but hardly surprising based on your posting history.
No he is not a victim. He didn't observe the most elementary precautions which is the duty of each of every employee. It wasn't his house, he left wide open the door to the DNC - the formal governing body for the United States Democratic Party. And the DNC is not his, he is its mere employee. In a corporation such a person would be fired on the spot and would flip burgers till he die, because nobody would hire him. The FBI didn't look anywhere. They say: [we] have relied on analysis done by the third-party security firm CrowdStrike. Assange explained precisely how it happened: "We published several ... emails which show Podesta responding to a phishing email," "Podesta gave out that his password was the word ‘password’. His own staff said this email that you’ve received, this is totally legitimate. Assange is quite right it was a 14-year-old kid could have done. User-friendly hacking kits including sophisticating tools like the Mirai botnet are freely available on Internet, lots of kids play with them.
That doesn't mean he (and the DNC) isn't a victim. Your inability to comprehend English doesn't justify you redefining words. Possibly but that's irrelevant to my points and statements. That was in regard to the servers was it not? There is more to such an investigation than simply looking at the servers at one end of the chain. That should be obvious to anyone with even a little understanding of what's involved. All of which may be correct but is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
