(July 28, 2016 at 12:05 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: What national security interest is their in Chelsea's wedding plans and Hillary's yoga class ???

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Must been some damn good yoga information on Hilary's honebrew server that isn't available in Russia. Who seriously believes it was just yoga and wedding planning? Some people apparently believe the person who said she was attacked by Bosnian snipers who trusted out to be harmless children in the video footage.

(July 28, 2016 at 7:52 am)Bella Morte Wrote: I haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that it was the Russians who hacked the emails. Julian Assange and other WikiLeaks editors are refusing to name the source.

If it was the Russians, then good for them.

(July 28, 2016 at 12:17 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Yeah, there is no evidence. Some people have speculated that it might be them. One Russian hacker has claimed some credit/blame, but there is no evidence he works for Putin. It's just people using the century old 'ooooh Russia, scary!' tactic. Russia isn't our enemy anymore. What's scary is Hillary antagonizing Russia. I'd much rather have a president who gets along with Russia.

Did you not see my post above?

(July 27, 2016 at 1:12 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Well, in this case the accusation seems justified:

Wired.com Wrote:News of the hack of the Democratic National Committee first broke in mid-June. That’s when Crowdstrike, a firm that analyzes threats to network security, revealed that the DNC had called it in to inspect the party’s servers, where it found “two separate Russian intelligence-affiliated adversaries present in the DNC network.” Crowdstrike released a comprehensive report of its findings on June 14, which accompanied a Washington Post article detailing the attacks. One of the hacking groups, Crowdstrike found, had access to the DNC servers for almost a year.

A day after that report, someone calling themselves Guccifer 2.0 (an allusion to notorious hacker Guccifer) claimed claimed responsibility for the hack in a blog post. Through the blog and an accompanying Twitter account, Guccifer 2.0 refuted Crowdstrike’s claims that this was a Russian operation, instead calling himself a “lone hacker.” He also claimed to have handed much of the DNC bounty to Wikileaks.

The following week, two cybersecurity firms, Fidelis Cybersecurity and Mandiant, independently corroborated Crowdstrike’s assessment that Russian hackers infiltrated DNC networks, having found that the two groups that hacked into the DNC used malware and methods identical to those used in other attacks attributed to the same Russian hacking groups.

But some of the most compelling evidence linking the DNC breach to Russia was found at the beginning of July by Thomas Rid, a professor at King’s College in London, who discovered an identical command-and-control address hardcoded into the DNC malware that was also found on malware used to hack the German Parliament in 2015. According to German security officials, the malware originated from Russian military intelligence. An identical SSL certificate was also found in both breaches.

https://www.wired.com/2016/07/heres-know...-dnc-hack/

No doubt Russia would prefer a Trump Presidency, given his diffidence about our NATO commitments.

Hope that helps. Read the entire article at the provided link.

You can say "there's no evidence" all you want, but that is factually incorrect.

(July 28, 2016 at 12:21 pm)Cecelia Wrote: The problem is that Donald Trump is calling on a foreign entity to interfere with the American Election Process.  As Trevor Noah pointed out, he's also already outsourcing jobs.  He didn't ask American Hackers to do this.  He specifically asked Russia.  This goes against his narrative that he'll bring jobs back to America.  He's also already said that he won't support our NATO allies.  Imagine the outrage if Hillary asked China to release the GOP emails.

Foreign governments always interfere in the American election process. They have an interest in who is the American president. Why do you think Saudi Arabia gave 20 million to the Clinton foundation? It wasn't because they are interested in charity. I could imagine Hillary doing that, she would just do it privately.

But, as was pointed out, Hillary claims there is no classified information in her emails. So what's the big deal?

(July 28, 2016 at 12:52 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(July 28, 2016 at 7:52 am)Bella Morte Wrote: I haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that it was the Russians who hacked the emails. Julian Assange and other WikiLeaks editors are refusing to name the source.

If it was the Russians, then good for them.

(July 28, 2016 at 12:17 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Yeah, there is no evidence. Some people have speculated that it might be them. One Russian hacker has claimed some credit/blame, but there is no evidence he works for Putin. It's just people using the century old 'ooooh Russia, scary!' tactic. Russia isn't our enemy anymore. What's scary is Hillary antagonizing Russia. I'd much rather have a president who gets along with Russia.

Did you not see my post above?

(July 27, 2016 at 1:12 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Well, in this case the accusation seems justified:


https://www.wired.com/2016/07/heres-know...-dnc-hack/

No doubt Russia would prefer a Trump Presidency, given his diffidence about our NATO commitments.

Hope that helps. Read the entire article at the provided link.

You can say "there's no evidence" all you want, but that is factually incorrect.

I actually read that article previously. It's about as good as the evidence that the twin towers were brought down by bombs planted by the US government. Two cyber security firms speculating that the attack originated in Russia is not evidence that Putin ordered it at the behest of Trump or vice versa. That's what is being claimed and there is no evidence for it. All that really proves is that there are hackers in Russia. Wow! What a revelation. Basically the most compelling evidence is that they used the same Malware as a Russian hack. In fact that seems to be the only evidence. I mean, once a malware is out on the internet, I could use the same one. To take that an extrapolate all of the claims being made, is crazy.

Anyway, Hillary said there is no classified information in her emails and if there were she would be distributing state secrets through a private email. So if Trump is guilty of trying to hack state secrets through a Russian operative (lol) then Hillary is guilty of distributing state secrets through a private email. If she is telling the truth about having no classified documents, then there is no classified documents to hack.

Yes, I did. But that's not any evidence.

(July 28, 2016 at 12:57 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Foreign governments always interfere in the American election process. They have an interest in who is the American president. Why do you think Saudi Arabia gave 20 million to the Clinton foundation? It wasn't because they are interested in charity. I could imagine Hillary doing that, she would just do it privately.

But, as was pointed out, Hillary claims there is no classified information in her emails. So what's the big deal?

There's a major difference between donating money to a private organization (a charity noless) and asking a foreign government to commit espionage against a former Secretary of State and current Presidential candidate.

It doesn't matter if there's any classified information in her emails or not.  Trump is asking a foreign government to hack into his political opponents emails and release them.  That's worse than anything the DNC did to Bernie Sanders.  This argument amounts to "If you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to worry about from NSA surveillance." To put it simply: He's asking someone (at all) to hack into his political opponents email server.  If he's willing to go this far in his bid for presidency in front of the entire country, what's he willing to do to his political opponents behind closed doors?

Hack ?

Are the emails still on a connected device so that they could be hacked today ?


If not, then the neo-Soviets ALREADY have them in this scenario, and releasing the 30,000 guaranteed 100% classified info free emails can damage Hillary far. . . more . . . . . . than . . . . . . . . . . . . they . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . can . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trump.





Oh,





 I understand the uproar now.



Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

(July 28, 2016 at 1:17 pm)Cecelia Wrote:

(July 28, 2016 at 12:57 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Foreign governments always interfere in the American election process. They have an interest in who is the American president. Why do you think Saudi Arabia gave 20 million to the Clinton foundation? It wasn't because they are interested in charity. I could imagine Hillary doing that, she would just do it privately.

But, as was pointed out, Hillary claims there is no classified information in her emails. So what's the big deal?

There's a major difference between donating money to a private organization (a charity noless) and asking a foreign government to commit espionage against a former Secretary of State and current Presidential candidate.

It doesn't matter if there's any classified information in her emails or not.  Trump is asking a foreign government to hack into his political opponents emails and release them.  That's worse than anything the DNC did to Bernie Sanders.  This argument amounts to "If you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to worry about from NSA surveillance." To put it simply: He's asking someone (at all) to hack into his political opponents email server.  If he's willing to go this far in his bid for presidency in front of the entire country, what's he willing to do to his political opponents behind closed doors?

Trump isn't 'asking Russia to hack into her email and release them' Here is his exact tweet, it's not a call to hack her further.

Quote: If Russia or any other country or person has Hillary Clinton's 33,000 illegally deleted emails, perhaps they should share them with the FBI!

People are predictably making way too much out of it.

Apparently you only pay attention to twitter, and not the news.

Quote:“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Mr. Trump said, in reference to the private email server Mrs. Clinton used while she was secretary of state. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

I mean how are we really supposed to take it? Trump himself has already said he wants to 'open up' libel laws. He basically wants to gut the first amendment, especially freedom of the press. Should one ignore that, when considering what he's asking of Russia?

(July 28, 2016 at 1:57 pm)Cecelia Wrote: Apparently you only pay attention to twitter, and not the news.

Quote:“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Mr. Trump said, in reference to the private email server Mrs. Clinton used while she was secretary of state. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

That's still not a 'call to hack Hillary Clinton' which as others have pointed out, wouldn't be possible unless Russia had already done it anyway. The only way you can read it that way, is if you want to. I swear, people are ready to believe anything negative said about Trump. It's like you being outraged at Russia but okay with Saudi Arabia's relationship with Hillary Clinton. Where is the moral consistency? I would imagine that no matter what Trump did, you'd read it the worst way possible and no matter what Hillary Clinton did you would read it the best way possible and make excuses. Yeah, the Saudis are just being charitable and not buying influence with our future president. Sure.