Posted on 01/07/2017 10:25:43 AM PST by Starman417
obama's intelligence heads offered up a report on the Russian hacking scandal. The report, which experts called "underwhelming", revealed little new information or it did, depending on which side of the aisle you sit. There is no question that this entire story is being ginned up by democrats solely for political purposes.
What did we get out of this report?
The Russians had an axe to grind with hillary clinton for her having meddled in their elections:
Their rocky relationships goes back to her tenure as secretary of state and as senator. At one point she accused his party of rigging an election, and Putin accused her of inciting protests against his government. Even Clinton herself has attributed a grudge toward her as the motivation for the Russian hacks.Meddle she did:
As Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov looked on, Clinton told the group the United States had "serious concern about the conduct of the elections," and called for a "full investigation" of all reports of fraud and intimidation.further:"The Russian people, like people everywhere, deserve the right to have their voices heard and their votes counted," Clinton said. "And that means they deserve free, fair, transparent elections and leaders who are accountable to them."
"When authorities fail to prosecute those who attack people for exercising their rights or exposing abuses, they subvert justice and undermine the people's confidence in their governments," Clinton said. "As the Duma elections in Russia clearly demonstrate, elections that are neither free nor fair have the same effect," Clinton said.And you know what they say about payback:
“Putin most likely wanted to discredit Secretary Clinton because he has publicly blamed her since 2011 for inciting mass protests against his regime . . . and because he holds a grudge for comments he almost certainly saw as disparaging him,” the report said.
It wasn't about getting Trump elected:
“Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.”This didn't stop the NY Times from misrepresenting the report to make Trump look bad:
No, it was aimed at discrediting her.
The Russians were engaged in actions at least as far back as 2015- before Trump was the GOP candidate.
No vote tallies were altered
"They did not change any vote tallies or anything of that sort," Clapper said under questioning from Chairman John McCain (R.-Ariz.)
There's no evidence any propaganda changed anyone's minds
I know no one who knows anyone who knows anyone who knows anyone whose vote was changed because of whatever information is supposed to have come from the Russians. Moreover:
Clapper further implicitly conceded that whatever the Russians might have done in making Democratic National Committee emails available to the public, the outcome of the U.S. presidential election nonetheless reflected "the choices" of American voters.Even the hacks at Politifact agree:
Based on the evidence, it seems highly unlikely that actions by the Russian government contributed in any decisive way to Trump’s win over Clinton.Let us not forget that the emails became available because John Podesta handed over the password to his account. He got hooked in a phishing trip. Additionally, let us note that none of the Podesta emails were forged. They accurately depicted the chicanery and dishonesty of the clinton campaign.
So the Russian efforts were about undermining hillary, but that really isn't what should be bothering you. What should be bothering you is why obama allowed it to happen and allow it to go on he did.
In 2014 the Russian hacked the White House computers which were down for "weeks." It was met by silence from the administraition:
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net ...
Yes, Podesta an idiot among idiots.
Those ginning up hysteria over unsubstantiated claims that the Russian government channeled email evidence of Clinton corruption to WikiLeaks, need to answer the following:
Was the American electorate better informed and enabled to evaluate Hillary Clinton by exposure of the Wikileak-ed emails, or if the public had been denied this information? The answer is obvious, as is the obvious conclusion: if the Russians played any role in this, they increased transparency, enlightened the electorate, and thus enhanced democracy.
Most of what they cited as ‘proof’ was not IP addresses or anything else. It was stories about Russians congratulating themselves......from 2012
The Dems are pushing this for a very real and (for them) necessary reason.
The Dems went heavier into voter fraud this election cycle than ever before. They believed they’d win across the board with all the fraud combined with their full ownership of both print and broadcast news and opinion. So, there was no viable threat that their rabid criminality would be exposed.
But, they lost. Now there’s no protection built into the system for them by their own ownership of all the federal venues of investigation.
So, there has to be someone else appointed and anointed as the source and cause of all that massive voter fraud.
And that’s why the narrative has morphed from “hacked the Clinton servers for wikileaks” to “hacked the elections”.
The DNC is not now, nor has it been for decades, anything other than an organized crime outfit. There are no innocents on the left anymore.
That question arose last night and I pondered an answer. Suppose that the Russians obtained the emails and tried to use them to blackmail Clinton. Suppose that Clinton, an arrogant ass if there ever was one, refused to cooperate. Suppose she made it clear that if they wanted anything from her administration, they would have to pay, and of course it would be her administration because she is Hillary Clinton and she deserves it.
Suppose the Russians then released the emails.
There is no evidence to prove any of this. Alternatively, there is the same amount of evidence to prove it as there is to support any other theory.
:D
I've read elsewhere that it was slightly modified: The at symbol ( @ ) substituted for the letter "a", and the number zero (0) substituted for the letter "o". e.g.: "p@ssw0rd"
(I guess he didn't think of using two dollar signs for the letter "s"es?)
Not that those modifications make that much of a difference. It would just take that 14-year old hacker a few minutes longer to crack.
Yeah, using any permutation of "password" is not a good idea. I'm surprised Yahoo Mail or whatever it was let him use it at all. Usually websites with decent security will kick back password attempts like that.
She has uttered a true statement. I'll alert the New York Times.
Yeah, using any permutation of “password” is not a good idea. I’m surprised Yahoo Mail or whatever it was let him use it at all. Usually websites with decent security will kick back password attempts like that. “
I understood it was Podesta’s gmail account that was hacked. Google likely let’s all the DNC elite do whatever they want.
I thought it was stupid of Podesta to even be using a free web account regardless of what password he used.
Yes, Podesta an idiot among idiots.
Everything from the “Russians hacked” is so ambiguous the goal is to have people assume Russians were hiding in the vote machines changing votes. Hacking an email with “password” as the password does not take any skills. Hillary’s “hacked” emails were released by the state department AFTER the FBI recovered them. Podesta fell for the stupid spam phishing emails and someone at the DNC leaked to Wikileaks. I believe Assange more than anything coming out of the current administration.
If that's what the Russians were doing, then they did a very poor job of it. All we heard 24/7 was how amazing Hillary was from every msm and how dangerous Trump was.
When has the left ever been upset about stealing information and revealing corruption?... when its a Dem’s corruption
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.