Slashdot Mirror
White House Supports Claim Putin Directed US Election Hack (bbc.com)
The White House is suggesting that Russian President Vladimir Putin was directly involved in a hacking operation aimed at interfering with the U.S. presidential election. BBC reports: Ben Rhodes, adviser to President Barack Obama, said that Mr Putin maintains tight control on government operations, which suggests that he was aware. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest added that it was "pretty obvious" that Mr Putin was involved. "Everything we know about how Russia operates and how Putin controls that government would suggest that, again, when you're talking about a significant cyber intrusion like this, we're talking about the highest levels of government," Mr Rhodes said. "And ultimately, Vladimir Putin is the official responsible for the actions of the Russian government." NBC reported that the U.S. had evidence that Mr Putin personally directed how information hacked by Russian intelligence was leaked. The Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence also released a statement asserting Russia had orchestrated the hack, including breaches on the Democratic National Committee and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The contents of those hacks, passed to Wikileaks and posted online, were embarrassing to the Democrats and shook up the presidential campaign. The NBC report, which cited two unnamed senior officials, said the hacking campaign began as a "vendetta" against Mrs Clinton before becoming "an effort to show corruption in American politics and split off key American allies." Mr Putin is said to have been furious when Mrs Clinton, as secretary of state, questioned the integrity of 2011 parliamentary elections in Russia. He publicly accused her of encouraging street protests.
... nothing of substance here.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Why does this shit get not deleted as fake news?
Before the election. His wife is Russian and a spy. Which makes him a spy. The whole thing is so fucking funny because so many people are going to look like fools. One way or the other. And these are the fuckers who take your money. We need a whole new system. Greedy capitalism and subdued racism is not the right solution. If you are rich and you need more money then you need to be shot.
They are just inferring, where is the proof they were involved?
Putin knew. Who didn't?
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
There is absolutely no evidence of this whatsoever. Putin wasn't sitting in some dark room personally observing this. What exactly did russia "hack"? It's not like every single election system in every county is the same exact hardware/software platform. "Election fraud.... what does that even mean?"
This is obvious fake news brought to you by butthurt democrat supporters who STILL can't accept that their goddess lost. What a fucking joke.
Anonymous sources claim...
CIA Suspects...
White House believes...
None of this is evidence, let alone proof.
All I'm seeing for the past several days is sour grapes, bitterness, and misdirection. What don't they want us looking at?
Obama's options were:
A) Either his ideas and presidency were so bad that he personally drove the country to find and elect someone like Trump, or
B) The Russia-fairy hacked the election.
I'm shocked and amazed that he picked B. What's even more amazing is that all of his political appointees also picked B, while the career intelligence officers that work for them all appear to have picked A.
See that "Preview" button?
This entire argument STILL relies on third party unverified and unsourced claims.
Hey, I VOTED for Trump. But there's just no first hand sourced proof that this is at all true. And by god I WANT to know if there is proof. But then again I've wanted proof about what he's doing or has done this entire election cycle. Yet no one seems to be able to show up with ANYTHING that at matches the claims that the media keeps coming up with.
There has been no specific evidence shared publicly to confirm Mr Putin's role or knowledge of the hackings.
So the 'hack' that they are talking about is the theft and release of incriminating emails that made the dems look like fools. Shame on the hackers and let's hold them accountable. It was. It the action of releasing the emails that influenced the elections, it was the content. They have no one to blame but themselves.
MASSIVE HACK = Phishing passwords from election staff. This does not require the technical abilities of an entire nation to pull off. Saying that "because we know how their government works, Putin must of have been directly involved" is incredibly stupid. Guess what, the president knows about everything that goes on in the USA as well because they have briefings. I'm glad the internet exists! Otherwise if some 'respected news source' told me Putin lived in a secret lair under a volcano and was plotting to blow up the planet, I'd probably believe them.
It's obvious that they post a lot of "in power" propaganda and support pretty much anything that comes out of the White House's media matters. Are things going to switch when Trump gets in and disbands the current propaganda machine or harnesses it for his own use? Or is Slashdot going to follow the globalist machine outlet to wherever it goes after the official controller of the current propaganda mill moves on?
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
The Russians didn't:
- Game the DNC system against Bernie
- Keep Clinton from campaigning in the midwest
- Cause Clinton to collapse into a van
- Keep Clinton away from the press for most of the campaign
- Make Clinton call half the country rude names
- Force Clinton to set up a shitty little email server
- Tell Clinton's campaign manager that it's OK to click on "legitimate" phishing emails
Have to agree with Barack when he said, "The 1980's are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War's been over for 20 years." My money is still on a (non-Russian) pissed-off Bernie-backer as the real Wikileaks connection - most of the grey+ hats I know were quite #neverclinton.
In other news, both Wikileaks and Putin deny that Russia did any of this.
Who do we believe? And note that the US isn't showing evidence, just like they didn't show evidence for "weapons of mass destruction".
Assange said specifically that it wasn't the Russians who leaked the information, and he's in a position to know the truth and has an unblemished record. (You may disagree with what he does, but you can't legitimately say that any of his information is made up.)
Furthermore, isn't transparency a good thing? To take a random example, isn't Clinton taking $28 million from Morocco exactly the sort of thing that should be investigated by the news and discussed in public?
Or how about the DNC torpedoing Bernie Sanders' campaign. Isn't that something that's important enough to be transparent to the public?
I have to think that this isn't Russia's problem as much as it was Clinton's.
It's sort of like finding out whether the voting machinery is rigged. On the one hand, it embarrasses the country. On the other hand, transparency leads to fixes.
but don't mention anything to do with George Soros or middle eastern donations to the Clinton campaign you're playing partisan politics.
If you talk about Russia influencing the elections by releasing harmful Clinton emails but never mention the contents of those emails and what it means, you're playing partisan politics.
If you talk about everything above you're having a rational discussion, but having the typical towing the party line headline like this one you're just showing what side you're on.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
The most interesting thing about it is that no one seems to care outside of the media reporting it.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Assange denies it, and he's been reliable. Putin will say whatever is to his advantage.
The CIA/FBI may be the source, but we will not know for a while, if ever.
But the Democrats are desperate to retain power. Some believe the Right will punish them, some know how close they are to domination and permanent rule, some merely fear prison.
But they are desperate. Insanely so.
It may get worse.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Assange was on Hannity today, and again, said the leaks did not come from Russia.
Julian Assange Speaks to Hannity, Says That Russian Gov’t Was Not His Source
Today we call it a hack when a 3rd party exposes factually accurate information to the people and then get angry about it.
Meanwhile, I'm just sitting here wondering, "Didn't we used to call that journalism?" /kermit
In all seriousness, it's fun that people seem to be more upset about the "hack" and not the data contained therein. If it were enough to lose the election, doesn't that say more about the data and not it's means of acquisition?
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
I'm glad I lived to see the day that the WHITEHOUSE would complain that the KREMLIN had told the truth, and that this was UNACCEPTABLE.
What a year indeed.
Ah come on...
Some DNC operative fell for a common G-Mail Phising attack, gives up his password to some *unknown* hacker, possibly Russian based and his E-mail's start showing up on WikI Leaks and now the Russians are responsible for "hacking the election"? Seriously? I don't know, maybe I'm a bit too partisan here, but you know the DNC would be coming unglued if hacked RNC E-mails showed even a whiff of something like what was reveled.
MAYBE, just maybe, the DNC should take careful stock of what they are saying and doing in private and perhaps clean up their act a bit security wise and stop trying to blame the Russians (as in the country) for the acts of Russian (as in a location) hackers. The two are not necessarily the same thing, though I'm not hearing very many reporters making this distinction clear.
Then there are those who try to imply that the Russians deliberately did this to get Trump elected.... An idea that seems totally without reason to me. Why would they prefer Trump over Hillary? I mean we have an anti war preaching military budget cutting democrat on one side and what ever Trump is on the other. If I'm a Russian leader, I know who I'm going to pick. Perhaps I'm wrong, so does anybody have any reasonable ideas why the Russians would want Trump over Hillary?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Why is this even on Slashdot? It's a tech site. It should know the most basic information: VOTING MACHINES AREN'T CONNECTED TO THE INTARWEBNETS!
This is like the same old shit from the 80s: Every bad guy and wrong action is Russian trying to threaten democracy!
The only remotely concrete anything I can find on this topic is that the DNC had a bunch of leaks prior to the election. So... transparency in government operations especially on the election of officials, that sounds typically anti-Russian to me. And really, if that's the only argument, then the white house is basically crying "Wahhhh we tried to pull the wool over their eyes but someone had perforated the material and they could see right through into who was and how they were fucking the voter's directly in ass!
Whatever.
Oops, posted anon before..
This agitprop is hilarious to any discerning person.
Yep... and then the White House press secretary slipped up and blamed China instead of Russia too....
http://conservativetribune.com...
But I like Judge Napolitano's commentary:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion...
The DNC thinks that they can still appeal to the couple folks out there who don't know how to use the internet and whose favourite movie is Rocky IV... What they don't seem to understand is that demographic is already strongly Republican.
Before the election, Trump was screaming that the process was rigged. Obama ripped him for it and demanded to see proof.
After the election, Obama is screaming that the process was rigged, and nobody is demanding to see proof.
If the election really was rigged by a foreign power, where was the White House before the election? Why didn't they take steps to stop it, up to and including drastic measures? After all, it was to stop a second Hitler. Why not pull out all the stops?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
He[Putin] publicly accused her[Clinton] of encouraging street protests.
Considering the street protests after she lost, this seems to be the most accurate part of the article.
I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Not one mention of the damning email content.
Only that they got out.
The intelligence agencies are REFUSING to testify to Congress about this "leaked" information. Testimony that may leave them in legal trouble if they purger themselves during that testimony. Thats right, the executive branch is once again REFUSING to answer to the people about something they are claiming.
Until the intelligence agencies testify to the people, in front of Congress, under oath and give specific information showing Russia did hack the election, it is fake news.
Pics or it didn't happen.
By whom?
Could it possibly be that the submissions just happen to come from that side? All slashdot does is accept submissions. The conservatives just threw up their hands and abandoned the battle generations ago. If they can't be bothered to care enough to fight for their beliefs in the arena of public opinion molding, then it's only natural that societal direction all the way from homeowners' associations and public schools, through universities, all of the information media, up to the top of the national structure, is well and truly saturated with globalists.
People who self-identify as conservatives are only good in the echo chamber of reinforcing each other. They are absolutely ineffective at effectively arguing substance with their opponents. There is something cuck about their heart and soul. I am convinced the seeds of selfishness, moral weakness, and lack of commitment are inherent in conservatism as we know it.
I'm so tired of hearing about the evil DNC "torpedoing Bernie Sanders' campaign" and such nonsense. Why on earth was anyone surprised a political party had a candidate they favored?
Because members thought that their vote would determine the favored candidate.
Furthermore, nothing the DNC did was anywhere near enough to sink Bernie.
Early in the year Bernie got more donations than Clinton by $60 mil (Bernie) to $20 mil (Clinton). The DNC moved $60 million from down-ballot elections directly into Clinton's campaign so that Clinton could outspend Bernie.
It's well known that money spent directly translates to votes, and Bernie and Clinton got [primary[ popular votes proportional to their campaign spending, so it would appear that the $60 million influx of money *exactly* torpedord Bernie's campaign.
Incidentally, this is why the democrats lost both houses and a lot of the governorships. By taking that money away from down-ballot elections and giving it to Clinton, you got a candidate who was less likely to beat Trump and hobbled all the other campaigns for money.
Russia's influence on the recent U.S. Presidential contest further legitimized the electoral outcome. Because Russia is a potent adversary, confronting it during the campaign as a candidate made the electoral competition a better test, one more representative of the winner's subsequent and challenging work in international relations. Hillary Clinton failed that test abysmally by surrounded herself with incompetent sycophants who fell for the stupidest of phishing scams, by her having engaged in such scandalous conduct for so many years that the leaks were significantly damaging, and by relying on such a thin veil of secrecy to conceal her dishonesty; Information wants to be free and those million-dollar speeches to Wall Street bankers were getting out one way or another.
It is backwards to assert that her evident ineptitude in protecting herself from the hacking and leaks which exposed her corruption recommends her for the office of U.S. President. On the contrary, getting owned by Russia in a presidential campaign is a good indication that the United States would have lost big to Russia in any subsequent foreign relations dispute with her as President.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
we are getting kinda desperate. Trump's pick for Secretary of Treasury is literally a guy who preyed on elderly widows. His pick for Dept of Energy said the department should be closed. His pick for Education wants to end public education. These aren't exaggerations. These are things these people are on record as saying.
So far Trump's entire administration are either the worst dreks from the swamp or his incompetent buddies. Our Government, contrary to what you might believe, actually does thing for people. Good things. Like education, disaster relief, granting access to life saving health care. Barring a miracle in the electoral college we're about to hand the difficult task of governing over to people who either don't think it's possible or see it as an opportunity to enrich themselves at everyone's expense.
If you're not kinda desperate right now then you're just not paying attention. As the old saying goes, reality has a liberal bias.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Maybe for good reason, but I'd still take anything he says with a whole block's worth of salt.
As for us Dems, we're not expecting punishment. The rich one's don't fear prison because in America we don't spill the blood of kings and the poor ones know we're too poor to matter. What we _are_ expecting is the new administration to completely cock up the country and economy. And we've got plenty of reasons for it too with Trump's cabinet picks.
Seriously, as a democratic socialist (who's party won the election by popular vote by at least a 2.5% margin) I feel like I'm one of the only sane men in a land of lunatics. Jesus people, put your personal dislike of Hilary Clinton aside for a bit and actually _look_ at what you've done. Look at what Trump is actually _doing_. It's not hard. Google's right there for you. Come one already.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Anonymous sources inside the intelligence agencies tell me this is fake news. I can't give you any evidence, but you have to trust me and these anonymous sources. So I'm sure you're 100% on board with my political agenda now.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
I would call dissemination of the DNC and Podesta emails by journalists an extreme exercise of the 1st amendment rights.
The issue is not that journalists published those leaked emails, the issue is that there is growing evidence that the Russian government was involved in the leaking.
Putin "directed" the attack the same way that Obama is "directing" the drone war.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
Actually, it's more like the Pentagon Papers, which as you might remember were stolen, though they disputed the charge based on him not using them for personal gain and eventually got the charges thrown out due to illegal acts by the prosecution.
Even if we assume the DNC leak was a Russian hack despite the fact that most of the evidence boils down to what can be paraphrased as "trust our anonymous sources, they've got this, it's totally not like that time with the WMDs where we helped cause a war over nothing," the harm from these leaks were the revelations that peoples' votes for Bernie didn't matter and the media will print whatever the DNC tells them to, followed by the media carefully avoiding any actual reporting on the leaks. You saw this on Slashdot where they ignored the important, meaty submissions and posted fluffy crap like the "food groups" of VP candidates (they were sorted by race & sex, with Bernie off by himself in the special group), never mind that we had other leaks showing Tim Kaine was always going to be the VP pick in a quid pro quo arrangement and the entire exercise was a farce where they went through a dance to make it look legitimate.
I mean, just look at how pathetic the media has become:
“Because I have become a hack I will send u the whole section that pertains to u Please don’t share or tell anyone I did this Tell me if I f**ked up anything,”
- Politico reporter Glenn Thrush via the Podesta dump
Do you really expect journalism when we have pathetic hacks like this doing our reporting? I do more actual journalism than this and I have a real job and write comments whenever I'm bored or can't sleep.
...here's the most likely answer...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
When you run an operation so corrupt and dirty that it pisses off your own people, you get outed...
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
This would seem to be proof that Russia had nothing to do with it.
I've always found it curious, when someone makes a very precise statement with very specific scope, how that gets broadened as it's interpreted and repeated into something that hugely exceeds the original statement.
Original statement: "Our source is not the Russian government".
Now, let's consider just some of the things that are not included, or implied, by that statement:
1. He does not say: "Our source did not get their materials from the Russian government"
2. Nor: "Our source was not employed by an agency subcontracted to the Russian government."
3. Nor even: "We know exactly who our source was and how they got the information, and we've verified their story so we're in a position to be definitive about this."
The actual quote, much like all the quotes from the emails themselves, does not say what you're pretending it says. It does not say "it wasn't Russia". Seriously: how would he even know that?
FFS the WMD was 100% Cheney stovepipe to fit his predetermined actions. That is known, so stop regurgitating false comparisons. The CIA went out of their way to cast doubt on the "intelligence" that curveball'Ed the US into Iraq.
> FFS the WMD was 100% Cheney stovepipe to fit his predetermined actions.
So, kinda like this?
Source email from 2015-12-21 12:09
> The CIA went out of their way to cast doubt on the "intelligence" that curveball'Ed the US into Iraq.
So, something like the FBI is doing now?
Source
I bet someone is going to blame him for quietly informing Congress of his actions right before the election, but remember this is the same guy who refused to recommend prosecution of Hillary even after this hearing. Feel free to watch the full hearing if you prefer.
Hannity. Highly reliable. Google "Hannity Snowden".
Comey said that Brennan takes his orders directly from Obama. Lest us not forget, the CIA was caught spying on their own senate oversight committee.
What did those old pushrod Republicans do, about 6K RPM?
Seems their protocols are broken then.
or gtfo and stfu.
Lest ye contribute to the whole " Fake News " crisis the administration is currently all hot and bothered about.
Remember, fake news is bad unless it's supporting your team :|
The Russians didn't: - Game the DNC system against Bernie - Keep Clinton from campaigning in the midwest - Cause Clinton to collapse into a van - Keep Clinton away from the press for most of the campaign - Make Clinton call half the country rude names - Force Clinton to set up a shitty little email server - Tell Clinton's campaign manager that it's OK to click on "legitimate" phishing emails Have to agree with Barack when he said, "The 1980's are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War's been over for 20 years." My money is still on a (non-Russian) pissed-off Bernie-backer as the real Wikileaks connection - most of the grey+ hats I know were quite #neverclinton.
You're right on re: the last quote. It's great to just play it back to him. And also, Assange denies that the Russians were his source, but even assuming it for a moment, nobody denied any of the things exposed in Wikileaks. They were just pissed that they got caught, and all the things that both Bernie and Trump 'conspiracy theorists' were peddling turned out to be true
It would be 1/4th, not 1/8th. Half the country supported Trump - by the time she made that statement, almost the entire GOP had consolidated behind him, and the Never-Trumpers hardly had much going. Also, her comment had nothing to do about the eligibility of Trump voters or whether they ultimately turned out to vote, since her comment was made before the election, when all they were doing was attending his rallies whenever it was anywhere near where they live
I'm finally seeing some media questioning this CIA nonsense as well, citing many, many examples from their own tortured history as well as more recent facts.
This story is clearly planted and I, for one, do not for a moment believe these media shills or their anonymous sources nor can I give them even a shred of credibility. They could, would, and in fact have been the cheerleaders for any number of ill-advised wars, so anyone trying to reheat the Cold War based on anonymous rumors is going to be considered a warmongering shill for that very reason.
And that's ignoring those self-admitted "hacks" like Glenn Thrush who are proven shills. I mean, funny coincidence that, just look at what this "hack" is peddling:
So, Glenn, you say that Russia won this for Trump by revealing that you're a self-described hack? Please do go on...
Are you going to then explain how Russia made Donna Brazille rig the debates? Or lie about them being altered, despite the fact that we have DKIM validation to provide cryptographic non-repudiation of the message body? Or were they responsible for all the many ways the Democratic primary was a farce? Did Russia make them adopt the "pied piper" strategy to promote Trump, believing he would lose to Hillary? Did Russia keep them from holding campaign events in their "firewall" states and ignoring their own staffers? Maybe Russia planted that fake news CNN reported about it being illegal to read Wikileaks (lest one find their involvement in the aforementioned debate rigging...). Maybe next time they'll be smarter and simply publish the debate questions for everyone? Did Russia cause Hillary to collapse in the street and get thrown into a van after all that insistence that her health was just fine? Did Russia do the "bird dogging" wherein you staged violence at the Trump rallies and blamed Bernie's supporters for it? Did they hack the FEC to put the operatives on the MoveOn payroll (something my past comments have covered in significant detail)? Did Russia make Zulema tell that tale to the cops outside the Arizona rally that we have plenty of independent, video coverage for? Did Russia give Zulema credits on those "Trump Ducks" photos that only further corroborate O'Keefe's videos? Did Russia funnel all of the money from the state campaigns to Hillary's campaign to make the losses even more painful when she managed to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory?
There's a reason the DNC is fighting this so hard in so many ways. This is a fight for their own survival. By all rights, their leadership should be entirely replaced.... which makes me wonder if there are any actual plans out there to do that. We seem to live in interesting times.
There's one scenario that's in fact possible, but would also be very damaging to the DNC itself. Namely, we've all seen e-mails originating from Soros circles claiming that Hillary "is a done deal", indicating that all is being done in such way that Hillary would win, no matter real votes. Or as Stalin once said, it doesn't matter who and how he votes, but he who counts votes matter. Having so-called "Soros voting machines" installed throuout USA one could imagine that "Hillary is a done deal" may also mean that "Soros machines" were modifed, or in fact programmed (hacked?!) in such way to give desired result. In this case, votes for Hillary. If what's written above is true than only help to make things right would be either to expose DNC-Hillary-Soros conspiracy (very unlikely, as bought MSM would minimise it and start calling that it's just "conspiracy theory", etc.. Elections would go forward, Hillary would "win" and Trump would be unter tremendeaous pressure to "accept the results") OR to "unhack" said Soros voting machines. Enters Russians. If they indeed helped facilitate second scenario, to in fact un-hack Soros voting machines, so that they would calculate election results according to the choice selected by the voter (and not by any other method that would erase voter's will) then it would mean that DNC/Hillary/Obama (and finally CIA) couldn't really say that Russians hacked elections, but rather, they defended US democracy by preventing vote-faud on election day.
With a huge history of interference in the political and electoral life of other countries, if this story is true, you americans are drinking the same poison you have made others drink....
Whether they hacked the RNC or not, that they hacked either side is what's scary. If they hacked only the DNC, we should be concerned that they only went after one candidate and not the other, showing clear favor for the other. On their other hand if they hacked both and only released the DNC emails, now they possibly have dirt on the incoming president for leverage. We should be concerned about that too.
In terms of whether this would have mattered, Nate Silver at 538 points out that if the voters in swing states had swung 1% back to Clinton overall, she would have won. So the possibility that the leaks could have swayed 1 out of 100 people to vote against her is very very real.
The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
What amazes me is the hypocrisy of the Obama administration. They are mad that the Russians interfered with the US elections when the current administration actively campaigned against Netanyahu in the last Israeli election interfering with their sovereign state's internal workings. In fact Obama said he will take action against the Russians. He had better worry about the Mossad doing the same to him. Obama sent people on the ground in Israel to actively campaign and support Netanyahu's opponent. We need to clean up our own house first before we go taking action against anybody. How is our credibility doing these days? I don't understand the US military's vulnerability either. I understand the system hacked at the pentagon wasn't a highly secure part of the system, but cyber security ought to be better than that here. Pogo was right, "We have met the enemy and they are us!"
You do realize that you can't just magically 'hack' anything you want, right? It's entirely possible that BOTH sides were targeted and only one was successful.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
Putin accused of sharing facts with the world. Voters need not worry, as zero evidence of voting fraud found.
-==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!
We expect Obama, the "intelligence" community, the glitterati and everyone else pretending to care to go back to not caring who hacks the US on Tuesday. Tuesday nights are sushi nights, so we go out then. - Al Roker
Even if concrete evidence does surface which is a big if, if you're upset about Hillary emails being leaked and not the contents of them, you may want to reevaluate your moral compass. Just saying...
Actually, the word you're looking for is "leak", not "hack".
"Leak". As in, a dirty secret is revealed to the world.
They (whoever "they" are) obtained information without permission and revealed it to voters.
If that's an effective way of potentially changing the outcome of an election, what's the problem?
I mean, doesn't acquiring more information turn a "low information voter" into a "high information voter", and isn't that supposed to be a good thing?
Sure, when it's embarrassing information for about candidate, golly, what a bummer for that candidate, and those who are relying on that candidate getting elected.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
October was BEFORE the election. If the Russian hacking was so dangerous, why didn't Obama do ANYTHING about it?
Because he was never qualified to be President in the first place. He's just a community organizer and activist that became an absentee senator for just two years when he bullshitted his way into the WH. Hope and Change - what change? Didn't say. Stupid people bought it, hook line and sinker.
Here's a drinking game - Listen to BO talk. Every time he says "uh", that's a shot of whiskey. You won't know what hit you by the time he's finished.
Finally, we'll get BO out of the WH. Nightmare is almost over.