9/11 done by Islamic terrorists doesn’t count. And no, even assuming they did hack the DNC/Podesta, that’s not an attack on America. The prior massive hacking attacks that were actually done on our government by the Russians and the Chinese, those didn’t make Reiner bat an eye.
Stick to directing movies Rob, it's what you do best. Provide the proof! And I'm not talking about alcohol. Shhhhh. Hear that? Nothing. Notta. There is none. Accept that your girl did not get elected and move on. You'll feel better.
(04-25-2017 10:02 PM)usmbacker Wrote: [ -> ]9/11 done by Islamic terrorists doesn’t count. And no, even assuming they did hack the DNC/Podesta, that’s not an attack on America. The prior massive hacking attacks that were actually done on our government by the Russians and the Chinese, those didn’t make Reiner bat an eye.
Demi didn't give a damn about Russian hacking until they got the idea that it cost them an election (it didn't, but that's beside the point). They sure as hell didn't give a damn about the possibility that Russians could have hacked Hillary's insecure setup (which they almost certainly did, too easy not to).
(which they almost certainly did, too easy not to).
Absolutely ZERO evidence of this mind you, but that doesn't stop you. When you actually THINK about. We have plenty of evidence they DIDN'T. The Russians hacked the DNC server and released it to wikileaks but you think they held back emails from the server then????
(04-26-2017 06:31 AM)Machiavelli Wrote: [ -> ](which they almost certainly did, too easy not to).
Absolutely ZERO evidence of this mind you, but that doesn't stop you. When you actually THINK about. We have plenty of evidence they DIDN'T. The Russians hacked the DNC server and released it to wikileaks but you think they held back emails from the server then????
Assange said a disgruntled Democrat hacked the DNC and gave him the info. They also said others were trying to hack them and they did nothing (the Republicans stepped up security when told by the FBI). Intelligence agencies also said at least 5 different groups hacked Hillary.
(04-26-2017 06:31 AM)Machiavelli Wrote: [ -> ](which they almost certainly did, too easy not to).
Absolutely ZERO evidence of this mind you, but that doesn't stop you. When you actually THINK about. We have plenty of evidence they DIDN'T. The Russians hacked the DNC server and released it to wikileaks but you think they held back emails from the server then????
First, there's plenty of evidence. We know for a fact that the Russians (and Chinese and a host of others) were actively hacking US computers for years. We know for a fact that Hillary kept classified information on a non-secure server for several years and transmitted such information over non-secure circuits, and in many cases such transmissions were to or from government networks that we know the Russians and others were at least trying to hack. Anyone monitoring any of those government networks would follow any transmission to or from Hillary to her server. Either the Russians and all the others were the most incompetent hackers in history, or they hacked her. There are no other possible alternatives. That constitutes evidence that would be admissible as such in a court of law.
You evidence that they didn't hack her is that they didn't release the information to wikileaks? Seriously? Do you think that the only use for anything gotten off Hillary's server was to leak it to wikileaks? If, hypothetically, you found out that our ambassador to Libya was making a trip to Benghazi without adequate security protection, would you leak that to wikileaks or to your friends in the Libyan resistance? Do you have any concept of how intel works? Read a little about Bletchley Park. One of the big ethical dilemmas that Churchill faced was that he had to allow certain German operations against his troops to go forward, without warning the troops, because of the fear that any warning would give away the fact that Bletchley had Enigma. If the Russians or anybody else got anything useful off Hillary's server, the very last thing in the whole world that they would do is to parade that information publicly and reveal the source.
They absolutely would not have released to wikileaks anything useful that they got off Hillary's server. The last thing they would want to do is to alert us that Hillary's server was leaking like a sieve.
Mach, I'm sorry, but you've gone around the bend on this one.
Hillary was no longer acting in any govt. capacity and the server gig was up. There would be no advantage in keeping it secret and in fact it would be the contrary. Our intelligence tells us that the Russians were actively trying to sabotage Hillary's campaign. Releasing emails from a hacked server would have been devastating to her campaign.
(04-26-2017 07:16 AM)Machiavelli Wrote: [ -> ]Complete Logic Fail.
Hillary was no longer acting in any govt. capacity and the server gig was up. There would be no advantage in keeping it secret and in fact it would be the contrary. Our intelligence tells us that the Russians were actively trying to sabotage Hillary's campaign. Releasing emails from a hacked server would have been devastating to her campaign.
Your problem is that you can't get your mind out of the political arena and look at the big picture. Whatever the Russians did over several years was not done for the sole purpose of influencing the 2016 US election. The rest of us were worried about it all along. You didn't start worrying about it until you got the (probably incorrect) notion that it somehow cost your team the 2016 election.
Let's take my hypothetical from above. Probably the single most damaging piece of information to Hillary's campaign would be a revelation that information about our ambassador's trip to Benghazi got hacked. But suppose the Russians had that and released it. What does that do? It implicates the Russians in the assassination. That would at least be under considerable heat about you had the information, to whom did you release it? Thy could also catch heat from supposed allies to whom they didn't release the info--you knew that and you didn't tell us? They don't need any of that. It's another iteration of the Bletchley Park argument. You don't release information that hurts the other side if it could hurt you more.
You really don't grasp some fundamental concepts about intel and information security.
