CNN: No one cares about Russia

[shadow]

There have been 4 federal indictments so far.

What exactly do you count as "serious"?

Indictments worth remembering. Like on Trump or his family, and for actual collusion with Russia. If they were serious and on point, you probably would have given details, instead of just giving a number.

Your ignorance of a topic makes it unimportant. This is your argument?

[Brian37]

If by "invited in" you mean some person within the DNC opened a viral attachment or inadvertently gave away their credentials, then sure. Phishing schemes aren't direct hacking attacks, but they are still pretty effective at gaining access. What the Russians did after they gained access is certainly forcible hacking. If the Russians had a person within the DNC, they wouldn't have needed the phishing scheme in the first place.


No evidence yet, but the investigation is still underway. In the absence of actual vote tampering, the question of whether the outcome of the election was changed by Russian interference is difficult, if not impossible to answer. One could argue that the release of the DNC emails irreparably damaged Clinton, that the fake news posts on Facebook and other social media helped swing votes away from her too. Without that interference, would she have clung on in more swing states? Nobody knows.


I agree, but it isn't helped by the fact that a number of close associates with Trump are being linked to Russia, so I can't say I'm surprised by the stories. Let's put it this way: if Trump didn't collude with Russia, there sure were a lot of weird connections to Russia throughout his campaign. He did however make some statements on the campaign (and after) about having a better relationship with Russia, so that might explain why. I think that's pretty much all you can say regarding collusion at this point.

1. I don't think I'd go as far to agree that what the Russians did after they gained access amounted to forcible hacking. There's a difference between forcible entry and robbing something by force and using a con scheme to rob something by deceit. They masqueraded as something trusted and took what they wanted by deception. The DNC and Hillary didn't even know they were plundered until everything showed up on WikiLeaks. While the methods were different the end result was still the same, though. One by force. The other by deceit.

2. It could also be more accurately argued that Hillary lost the election because one of the dems'  largest and once loyal voting base broke for Trump, the white blue collar working class in the rust belt and coal states. Some of those states hadn't voted for a Republican president in 30+ years. During her whole campaign she didn't even step one foot in Wisconsin, and lost it. While she focused her message on identity politics, Trump went into those areas and campaigned that he was going to bring back coal and manufacturing jobs. They felt abandoned by the democrats, and these were the same areas that helped elect barack to two terms in the White House. Even now, what message do the democrats have besides resist Trump? Their party is too divided between the far left Bernie / Warren types, the moderate Manchin / [color=#000000]Heitkamp types, and the establishment Shcumer / Pelosi types. The only thing holding them together is, resist Trump. With the economy taking off the way it is now and no real message from the dems I doubt that they're going to do as well in the mid terms as they are hoping. I think that Hillary lost the election because of her poor campaigning.

3. Yeah but, still, what we may think are weird connections doesn't prove collusion. Look at all the hype surrounding the Nunes memo about FBI abuses and the obama administration using FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign. Weird coincidences, sure. Until something's actually proven it's just an interesting set of coincidences as far as I'm concerned.... Trump isn't the first candidate / politician to say that they want to improve relations with Russia. Remember Hillary's reset button that she gave to Lavrov? It was a symbolic gesture that the obama administration wanted to improve relations with Russia.

BULLSHIT

45's behavior ALONE proves him unfit.

He invited it by his own divisive rhetoric. Russia looked at it and saw it as an opportunity to drive a wedge in even further than what 45 was doing by himself.

17 agencies AGREED Russia did interfere. Please do not try to blow smoke up my ass by trying to claim that a TRAINED former KGB THUG, now leader of Russia had no hand in it. BULLSHIT.

Putin is just as much a FUCKING ASSHOLE as Trump, both want to take their respective countries back to their "glory days".

Our species SHOULD want better global relations, but in seeking that we DON'T NEED a fucking scapegoating JACKASS who shits on everyone.

[Neo-Scholastic]

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2...sed-public

Facebook announced that Russia spent $100,000 on 3000 ads. Those are the ads I'm talking about.

Thanks for the answer. It was clearly money well-spent.

If it only takes $100,000 to swing an election away from a national candidate, said national candidate must be piss-poor to begin with. And if the advertisers are that good, both the DNC RNC should be falling all over themselves to hire them!

[The Grand Nudger]

Espionage and election sabotage is okay, because hur dur hillary was bad. Somebody play the anthem for me, I'm feeling a super american vibe in the room. Does anybody else feel all that sovereignty?

[Thumpalumpacus]

[...] said national candidate must be piss-poor to begin with.

Well, duh. There's a reason I didn't vote for her.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's as if people didn't realize that was an option....in no other situation in life would people find themselves similarly confused.  

If you sat down at a diner and the establishment said.."what will it be, shit or a shit sandwich?"..nobody in their right mind would say "Well, I mean, I guess I have to choose between those two since you say so, so I'll have the shit sandwich." Is there anybody on earth that wouldn't just walk right the hell out?

[John V]

Indictments worth remembering. Like on Trump or his family, and for actual collusion with Russia. If they were serious and on point, you probably would have given details, instead of just giving a number.

Your ignorance of a topic makes it unimportant. This is your argument?

Partially. The other part, as noted and quoted, is that he likely would have given more detail if there was something on point. As expected, my follow-up posts show that the indictments had little if anything to do with Russia tampering with the election.

[The Grand Nudger]

Conspiracy against the united states sounds like it might be relevant.  Hey, you know, maybe they just -stopped- doing that as soon as they became involved in trumps campaign.  

It could happen!

(that's obviously not what happened, lol)

You could really only be hoping here that the president surrounded himself with foreign agents on accident...because he picks the very best people. Not that this would get him off the hook for obstruction, but hey, win some lose some, right?

Speaking of foreign agents and other partisans..and the notion that this is why trump is being wrongly implicated....a notion earlier in thread...that could only be a cogent response if you considered the president and his children themselves as those foreign agents and partisans - because we don;t know what mueller knows..but we do know what trumps idiot sons released and what trump himself blunderingly admitted to on television and on his twitter shitter.

Deep State! Hitlery! Biassssss! Muellers a democrat operative!

[A Theist]

1. I don't think I'd go as far to agree that what the Russians did after they gained access amounted to forcible hacking. There's a difference between forcible entry and robbing something by force and using a con scheme to rob something by deceit. They masqueraded as something trusted and took what they wanted by deception. The DNC and Hillary didn't even know they were plundered until everything showed up on WikiLeaks. While the methods were different the end result was still the same, though. One by force. The other by deceit.

Gonna risk using an argument from authority here, but, well, I'm a hacker (the good kind). I test the security of systems by trying to hack into them. So I kinda know what I'm talking about. It's very difficult to hack directly into a network from the Internet and gain anything of value. The DNC hack either happened by someone clicking on a malicious link which downloaded and installed malware on their system, or by giving away their credentials, which the hackers then used to breach the network and install malware.

Either way, once the malware is installed, that's forcible hacking. Malware isn't passive, it's active. It purposefully scours the network looking for things to exploit, exploits them, and sends stuff back to its controller. Exploits were certainly used to gain access to the email database.

There's a better writeup on the hack by the company that investigated it: https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-m...committee/

Also, hardly any company has sufficient technology installed to detect that they have been compromised.

2. It could also be more accurately argued that Hillary lost the election because one of the dems'  largest and once loyal voting base broke for Trump, the white blue collar working class in the rust belt and coal states. Some of those states hadn't voted for a Republican president in 30+ years. During her whole campaign she didn't even step one foot in Wisconsin, and lost it. While she focused her message on identity politics, Trump went into those areas and campaigned that he was going to bring back coal and manufacturing jobs. They felt abandoned by the democrats, and these were the same areas that helped elect barack to two terms in the White House. Even now, what message do the democrats have besides resist Trump? Their party is too divided between the far left Bernie / Warren types, the moderate Manchin / [color=#000000]Heitkamp types, and the establishment Shcumer / Pelosi types. The only thing holding them together is, resist Trump. With the economy taking off the way it is now and no real message from the dems I doubt that they're going to do as well in the mid terms as they are hoping. I think that Hillary lost the election because of her poor campaigning.

3. Yeah but, still, what we may think are weird connections doesn't prove collusion. Look at all the hype surrounding the Nunes memo about FBI abuses and the obama administration using FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign. Weird coincidences, sure. Until something's actually proven it's just an interesting set of coincidences as far as I'm concerned.... Trump isn't the first candidate / politician to say that they want to improve relations with Russia. Remember Hillary's reset button that she gave to Lavrov? It was a symbolic gesture that the obama administration wanted to improve relations with Russia.

I pretty much agree with everything you said above, except I think you are wrong about the mid-terms, at least the way things have been going, Dems have been flipping Republican seats, or expanding their own margins in currently Democratic seats pretty consistently for a year now. I think the chances of a Democrat controlled House are pretty high, and I think the chances of a Democrat controlled Senate are growing (though currently I think the chances of Republicans holding the Senate are higher).

That's good info. You have everything laid out pretty good. If all of this is what happens in a Phishing scheme, what would be the difference in forcible hacking vs phishing?

I don't know, though. I know historically that the party in power usually loses seats in both houses of Congress in the mid term elections. But this time the Dems are so divided into different factions with their separate agendas and messages that I just see an uphill battle for them in the mid terms. The only thing that's loosely holding them together is their hatred for Trump. Their Party's going to have to come up with something other than resist Trump. But, mid terms are down the road a bit, so we'll see.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's as if people didn't realize that was an option....in no other situation in life would people find themselves similarly confused.  

If you sat down at a diner and the establishment said.."what will it be, shit or a shit sandwich?"..nobody in their right mind would say "Well, I mean, I guess I have to choose between those two since you say so, so I'll have the shit sandwich."  Is there anybody on earth that wouldn't just walk right the hell out?

... in my case saying, "I'm going to the small, mom & pop place across the street" ... letting them know they lost my business.