RECOUNT!

[Rams]

What I am truly amazed at is this:

Put the content of the leaked emails aside. How can it be that you guys are still worried about emails, when it's alleged that the Russians, your sworn enemy (communists) had their cyber fingers in the elections of the good old USA. Shouldn't this be the time for a united front, with a common focus? I've actually seen people on this board, basically shrugging their shoulders when asked about alleged tampering. I shudder to think what the outrage would be if the Republicans were the aggrieved party.

What did they tamper with? Emails? How could they do that? Take a guess. What else did they tamper with? I want to know. Just saying they had their "cyber fingers" in the election as accused by someone is not proof? I ain't shrugging my shoulders,, but I want proof. And don't go to the emails,, as we know why they were hacked and whose fault that was.

I used to work for Uncle Sugar (OSHA) and have been a Safety Officer/Manager for years.   In every event or accident/incident, the investigation team's mission is to go back and determine the root causes of the event and contributing factors.   It is not to distract and pull a rabbit out of a hat.   This is precisely what many are trying to do.   They don't want to admit where they went wrong or what really happened, put the blame somewhere but, not on themselves or, in this case, the candidate, the DNC and themselves.    Actually, pretty sad.  

[baldo]

What I am truly amazed at is this:

Put the content of the leaked emails aside. How can it be that you guys are still worried about emails, when it's alleged that the Russians, your sworn enemy (communists) had their cyber fingers in the elections of the good old USA. Shouldn't this be the time for a united front, with a common focus? I've actually seen people on this board, basically shrugging their shoulders when asked about alleged tampering. I shudder to think what the outrage would be if the Republicans were the aggrieved party.

What did they tamper with? Emails? How could they do that? Take a guess. What else did they tamper with? I want to know. Just saying they had their "cyber fingers" in the election as accused by someone is not proof? I ain't shrugging my shoulders,, but I want proof. And don't go to the emails,, as we know why they were hacked and whose fault that was.

I used to work for Uncle Sugar (OSHA) and have been a Safety Officer/Manager for years.   In every event or accident/incident, the investigation team's mission is to go back and determine the root causes of the event and contributing factors.   It is not to distract and pull a rabbit out of a hat.   This is precisely what many are trying to do.   They don't want to admit where they went wrong or what really happened, put the blame somewhere but, not on themselves or, in this case, the candidate, the DNC and themselves.    Actually, pretty sad.  

This will be my last comment on this never ending thread. I don't know If I'm included in the group of basically 3, with my two (?) posts, but I'm done with it. My question was about alleged Russian involvement being a non-starter for you guys, and all you want to do is yap about how terrible a candidate Clinton was and how no one wants to admit the same.

Apparently it makes you guys feel good to constantly bitch about whatever liberal shortfall you might imagine. It really gets old...

GET OVER IT, YOUR GUY WON!

[Serk]

GET OVER IT, YOUR GUY WON!

If "your side" would have accepted this, this thread never would have been started... Just saying...

[F6Dave]

The Russian attempts at hacking were well known long before the election.  So why did the dems and media wait so long to make it an issue?  Could it be that the recount angle has fizzled and this is a last, desperate attempt to hold on to power?

It's worth mentioning that the hacked emails would have been available through FOIA requests long ago, had they not been deleted from Hillary's secret server.  And come to think of it, the email leaks look a bit wimpy when compared to the media's attempts to throw the election.  Maybe there should be an investigation into why the media's coverage about Trump was overwhelmingly negative, or why Hillary was provided with debate questions in advance.

[Wizzard]

Here is a story from what some here would call a reliable source of news.
It even states that Russia was not trying to get Trump elected and was in fact surprised when he did.
It's not that Russia supported either candidate, ,but did find more dirt on one and used it to sow "discord" in the election, which it surely did.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/why-the-cia-thinks-russia-wanted-trump-to-win/ar-AAltWqy?li=BBnbfcL

[Willow]

I hate to encourage this thread as it has repeatedly denigrated to personal attacks but I have a couple of questions that some of you who do a better job of keeping up with the news might be able to answer.

The first regards reason.  With the hubub about the Russians influencing the election against Hillary Clinton the question is has anyone come up with a good reason the Russians would prefer Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton?  I can't see it if it's there.

The second is the great concern over the Russians being able to hack into a server to get those emails.  Wasn't that a private server rather than a U.S. government server?  Is there any suspicion that those Russians were able to get into a secure government server?  I would think the emphasis should be on strongly justifying that we need government officials to stay within the secure government digital environment.  

[Serk]

has anyone come up with a good reason the Russians would prefer Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3797252/Clinton-s-rebuke-Trump-tells-Ukraine-s-embattled-leader-defend-borders-wins.html

[Wizzard]

I hate to encourage this thread as it has repeatedly denigrated to personal attacks but I have a couple of questions that some of you who do a better job of keeping up with the news might be able to answer.

The first regards reason.  With the hubub about the Russians influencing the election against Hillary Clinton the question is has anyone come up with a good reason the Russians would prefer Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton?  I can't see it if it's there.

The second is the great concern over the Russians being able to hack into a server to get those emails.  Wasn't that a private server rather than a U.S. government server?  Is there any suspicion that those Russians were able to get into a secure government server?  I would think the emphasis should be on strongly justifying that we need government officials to stay within the secure government digital environment.  

You don't have to encourage it,, it took on a life of it's own,, and I hate the name calling. Some just have a general lack of respect or at least don't know how to say something respectfully. I probably do that at times unintentionally. I share your concern

[The emperor has no clothes]

has anyone come up with a good reason the Russians would prefer Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3797252/Clinton-s-rebuke-Trump-tells-Ukraine-s-embattled-leader-defend-borders-wins.html

In addition to that Trump has in so many words said Russia could have their way in Syria and Ukraine . There is also the theory that Trump is beholden to the Russians for his financing. That one is pretty hard to nail down without seeing his business records. Also Trump has called into question us upholding our NATO alliances. If I was Russian, those would seem like good reasons for me.

[Pappy!]

At this point the CIA does not have concrete proof!
According to the FBi all they (the CIA) are banking these statements on are traces of a program that many, including Russia, have used to hack with. Please read that sentence again for full understanding.
Once again what we may have is a bit of corruption going on in the CIA to sway or taint the election? Nawwww, not from the Obama Administration...nawwwwww.

Not exactly. The FBI bases its findings more towards can they support their findings in a court of law. The CIA doesn't have that restraint.

Once again you missed the point and I even told ya' to read that sentence again!
Traces of a program used by many.....that means that the program is used by hackers including but not limited to Russia. Beyond that the CIA is only guessing or using Russia as a scape goat. 

[The emperor has no clothes]

At this point the CIA does not have concrete proof!
According to the FBi all they (the CIA) are banking these statements on are traces of a program that many, including Russia, have used to hack with. Please read that sentence again for full understanding.
Once again what we may have is a bit of corruption going on in the CIA to sway or taint the election? Nawwww, not from the Obama Administration...nawwwwww.

Not exactly. The FBI bases its findings more towards can they support their findings in a court of law. The CIA doesn't have that restraint.

Once again you missed the point and I even told ya' to read that sentence again!
Traces of a program used by many.....that means that the program is used by hackers including but not limited to Russia. Beyond that the CIA is only guessing or using Russia as a scape goat. 

I will have to defer to the CIA cyber experts on this. I can barely handle my email account.

[Alpha Dog]

Both the Russians and Julian Assange have denied accusations the Russians hacked the DNC emails and the John Podesta emails.  Comey could find no evidence they hacked into Mrs Cs private server as no fingerprints were found, although he said he strongly believes multiple people or organizations did.

Now some unknown source from the CIA gave Bob Woodward at the Washington Post a story to run with.  So now the Russians are leaving fingerprints - that is interesting.   The Office Director of National Intelligence says not so fast CIA.   Their whole story is under the assumption they were out to help Trump because no RNC emails were leaked.  This Sunday on Meet the Depressed Reince Preibus blew F Chuck Todd out of the water.  ( What does the F stand for.  I will just say fraud as he is a dem. hack and propogandist who pretends to be a journalist ).  Reince told  Fraud Todd again and again the RNC was not hacked and they employed the FBI to check their site over a period of a month last summer when the Dem. emails surfaced.  Reince said they had the FBI recheck a few days ago when all this hoopla started and nothing was found.  Thus the accusation from the Washington post to date is false.

Why would the Russians want Trump instead of Mrs. C.  He and her boss made life pretty tolerable for the Russians.  First the Reset button, then Mr. O talking to Medvedev before the 2012 election, not realizing the conversation was on air, to tell old Valde to wait until after the election and then O would be more flexible to get the Russians what they wanted.    I wonder what those Ruskies wanted.  Could it have been 20 percent of our Uranium in which The C foundation received a 145 million dollar payment ( oops I mean payoff ) and Slick himself made about 750,000 fee for a really really really good 20 minute speech.  I have not heard a 750,000 dollar speech in my life so it had to be really good.  I think I will put that on my bucket list.  Before I pass I need to sit and listen to a $750,000 speech.   Did Slick learn Russian for this fee?  Maybe he really just gave them a Saxaphone mini concert.

New sources, are saying the DNC hack was an inside job by a disgruntled employee(s - who the heck knows, maybe someday we will.  I think,  it was one of our own intelligence agencies or an employee of such that hacked both the DNC and Podesta. - as good a guess as any but who knows.  Or it could have been Assange and his associates himself that did the hacking.  Heck he broke into Nasa at age 16 and has a huge grude that he has explained against Mrs. C and the democrates.  Oh by the way he hacked the Bush Administration also.

Just some food for thought --------------------  or not.

[MP]

Both via and now national intelligence agency question via conclusions.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Both via and now national intelligence agency question via conclusions.

[michaelyoung254]

Remember when conservatives were complaining because we were worried about the fact that many of the electronic voting machines were supplied by companies owned by George Soros, and that it was possible that they could be tampered with, and could possibly register a vote for a Democrat (Hildabeast) candidate instead of the Republican (Trump) candidate, and then the liberals made fun of us? I don't know about anybody else, but I distinctly remember reading (mostly written by liberal publications) that the possibility of tampering was virtually impossible, and that the electronic voting machines were VERY safe. But, that was back when the liberal candidate was all but guaranteed victory, and now that the Hildabeast lost, it HAD to be due to tampering, and it was the Russians who did it.  

BTW, has anybody else noticed that it's only the democrats, and the "NeverTrumpers" (I.E. Rhino's) who are now claiming that the "Russians" are responsible? I guess when their brilliant "Recount" idea failed, they HAD to grasp at another straw!

[old2soon]

Remember when conservatives were complaining because we were worried about the fact that many of the electronic voting machines were supplied by companies owned by George Soros, and that it was possible that they could be tampered with, and could possibly register a vote for a Democrat (Hildabeast) candidate instead of the Republican (Trump) candidate, and then the liberals made fun of us? I don't know about anybody else, but I distinctly remember reading (mostly written by liberal publications) that the possibility of tampering was virtually impossible, and that the electronic voting machines were VERY safe. But, that was back when the liberal candidate was all but guaranteed victory, and now that the Hildabeast lost, it HAD to be due to tampering, and it was the Russians who did it.  

BTW, has anybody else noticed that it's only the democrats, and the "NeverTrumpers" (I.E. Rhino's) who are now claiming that the "Russians" are responsible? I guess when their brilliant "Recount" idea failed, they HAD to grasp at another straw!

             Unless zero declares martial law-grasping at straws all da got left! RIDE SAFE.

[Wizzard]

Interesting article on the Russian hack and our intelligence network

If there’s one thing that’s certain in the intelligence business, it’s that there’s rarely any certainty.

That’s pretty much the first thing they teach you at spy school.

Back in the early days of my intelligence career, I had one instructor who explained it in a way that I’ll never forget.

“If you present your analysis as if it’s fact, instead of conjecture, the person who’s relying on your intelligence could end up making a bad decision that gets people killed.”

Intelligence is not about definitive conclusions. It’s about gathering data and coming up with plausible theories that connect the dots.

Sadly, sometimes those theories are influenced by personal or political agendas.

Back in 2002-2003, the Bush White House had a pretty clear predisposition that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs).

Miraculously, the intelligence reports conformed to that narrative.

And America went to war based on an “unassailable conclusion” from the intelligence community that Iraq had WMDs.

The facts were largely bogus, circumstantial at best. But this became the rallying cry behind every politician and media outlet’s patriotic bloodlust.

How quickly they all forget.

Here we are today with a new assertion: those dastardly Russians hacked Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

I read it in the New York Times, so it must be true.

Once again there is a chorus of condemnation from the intelligence community and political establishment based on supposed rock-solid conclusions.

Yet once again the assertions are nothing more than theories that connect some very circumstantial dots.

Here’s the actual evidence:

The hacks were executed using two types of malware known as Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear.

(Yes that’s what they’re actually called.)

Fancy Bear is malware that takes a conventional “phishing” approach.

A phishing attack is when a hacker creates a web page that’s almost an exact copy of one that you’re used to.

For example, they’ll create a website that looks like your bank’s login page.

So if you click on a malicious link in your email that takes you to the fake page, you’ll inadvertently supply a hacker with your bank username and password.

They’ll then use that information to compromise your bank account.

Fancy Bear allowed hackers to gain access to private emails… primarily because the users at the DNC got duped into providing their login credentials.

Cozy Bear is the second piece of malware that installs itself on a computer, typically after a user clicks on a malicious web link.

One installed, the Cozy Bear malware deploys Remote Access Tools (known as RATs), providing a remote hacker access to the machine and its files.

If, however, Cozy Bear finds that the machine has advanced security software that could detect the malware and cause problems for the RATs, Cozy Bear will self-terminate.

So the first thing to point out here is that the DNC (and potentially the people who were administering Hillary’s private email server) weren’t maintaining the latest security patches and updates on their systems.

Someone at the DNC clicked on a malicious web link that installed the malware, and it didn’t self-terminate because they weren’t bothering to use advanced security software.

Duh.

This is a simple competence issue, and I’m surprised it never came up in the news.

More importantly, Cozy Bear was used against the DNC as far back as summer 2015... as in just before, or right after, Donald Trump entered the race.

So it’s hard for me to believe that Vladimir Putin was actively hacking the DNC to support a candidate that had barely (or not even yet) materialized.

Most importantly, just because cybersecurity experts detected Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear doesn’t mean that the Russians were behind the attacks.

These assertions aren’t based on concrete facts; they’re just speculating that Colonel Mustard did it in the library with the candlestick.

(Apologies to our readers who are too young to have played Clue.)

But facts (or lack of facts) don’t matter.

Whenever something bad happens, the US government blames Russia… and everyone believes it without taking any time to question the evidence.

It’s as if we’re living in some lame espionage movie from the 1980s where the Russians are always the bad guys.

Look, I have absolutely zero regard for the Russian government (as is the case with just about every country’s government).

But I find it almost hilariously short-sighted how quickly everyone rushes to judgment against the Russians. Or the Chinese. Or the North Koreans.

Sure, maybe the Russians did it. And I’m happy to believe that’s the case once clear evidence is presented.

But it’s worth acknowledging right now that their assertions are nowhere near conclusive.

It’s not like this is the first time in US history that the federal government or one of its intelligence agencies could be wrong… or… <shudder> have a reason to lie.

It’s notable that last week President Obama ordered the entire intelligence community to investigate the Russian hacks.

Given the Obama administration’s numerous statements about the Russians’ complicity, and the nonstop media coverage about the “conclusive” evidence, it’s pretty clear that the outcome of the report is already pre-determined.

Just like the Iraq/WMD analysis back in 2002-2003, this investigation is biased by the boss’s predisposition that the Russians are guilty.

What I find most disturbing, though, is how they can’t let it go that the Russians influenced the election and manipulated voter sentiment.

I’m sure we can all appreciate that the hacks, no matter who perpetrated them, constitute criminal activity.

But the information that was released as a result of the hacks shined a painful and embarrassing spotlight on the inner workings of the corrupt political establishment.

So when the papers and politicians complain that the hacks influenced the election (as if the US government has never tried to influence a foreign election), they’re really just whining that voters found out the truth.

They have that little respect for your dignity.

Until tomorrow,

Simon Black

[Moonshot_1]

I thought I posted something like this earlier but it seems to have been deleted. I shall endeavor to try again.

Like the General Election, few are seeing the reality.

The reality is actually a number of possibilities.

While the "intelligence" community seems to be in agreement on the thought the Russians were responsible for hacking, we are never showed, yet anyway, what was hacked and how it affected the election.

We are told that there was NO direct hacking of the electoral process.

It would be odd to find Russian "fingerprints" on the hacking. One would think they would be smart enough to not leave any or at least leave bogus ones. This leaves me to the first actual possibility.

The Israelis did it as payback for messing in their election. No proof of course. But that is the clue. They did it and set up the Russians. That is a great plot for a novel but that might be it.

If the Russians really were behind this, everyone is wondering why would they support Trump.
Well, they weren't supporting him.

Many of the hacked emails were from the DNC.
Some points to ponder about the emails... Donna Brazille giving CNN questions ahead of the Clinton/SANDERS debate.
Wasserman-Schultz caught, as the DNC chair, blatantly supporting Clinton and bashing who? SANDERS.
Many emails came out around the DNC convention that focused on the bias against??? Who??

That's right ..SANDERS

So, the Russians were not in it to support Trump. They were in it early on to expose the DNC and Clinton corruption to blaze a path for SANDERS.

Why? Because a Sanders administration would be the least of a strategic threat to Russia and he would be a pushover.  It would set up the US for decades of domination by Russia and China too.

I do have to love the irony of the Democrat front of being affronted by the Russians exposing the Democrats assault on Democracy.

But anyway, this is about Sanders.

[Alpha Dog]

Well Moonshot that is a most interesting theory and as good as any.

Thanks for that intelligence lesson on hacking malware Mr. Wizzard.  And now that you have leaked out intelligence info. will you have to kill us all.
Yikes

[Wizzard]

Well Moonshot that is a most interesting theory and as good as any.

Thanks for that intelligence lesson on hacking malware Mr. Wizzard.  And now that you have leaked out intelligence info. will you have to kill us all.
Yikes

Yep,, when is the next ride?   

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

I thought I posted something like this earlier but it seems to have been deleted. I shall endeavor to try again.

Like the General Election, few are seeing the reality.

The reality is actually a number of possibilities.

While the "intelligence" community seems to be in agreement on the thought the Russians were responsible for hacking, we are never showed, yet anyway, what was hacked and how it affected the election.

We are told that there was NO direct hacking of the electoral process.

It would be odd to find Russian "fingerprints" on the hacking. One would think they would be smart enough to not leave any or at least leave bogus ones. This leaves me to the first actual possibility.

The Israelis did it as payback for messing in their election. No proof of course. But that is the clue. They did it and set up the Russians. That is a great plot for a novel but that might be it.

If the Russians really were behind this, everyone is wondering why would they support Trump.
Well, they weren't supporting him.

Many of the hacked emails were from the DNC.
Some points to ponder about the emails... Donna Brazille giving CNN questions ahead of the Clinton/SANDERS debate.
Wasserman-Schultz caught, as the DNC chair, blatantly supporting Clinton and bashing who? SANDERS.
Many emails came out around the DNC convention that focused on the bias against??? Who??

That's right ..SANDERS

So, the Russians were not in it to support Trump. They were in it early on to expose the DNC and Clinton corruption to blaze a path for SANDERS.

Why? Because a Sanders administration would be the least of a strategic threat to Russia and he would be a pushover.  It would set up the US for decades of domination by Russia and China too.

I do have to love the irony of the Democrat front of being affronted by the Russians exposing the Democrats assault on Democracy.

But anyway, this is about Sanders.

Best theory I've heard.

[Gavin_Sons]

I heard today there is no proof of hacking. Justthe democrats being sore losers. Smoke and mirrors.

[RP#62]

I find the whole thing very rich.  The dems are upset because their collusion with the media was exposed (among other things) which in essence was an attempt to influence the outcome of the election.  The CIA's opinion is that it was the Russians trying to influence the election by helping Trump (everyone knows its the media and the DNC's job to influence the election, not the Russians).  They ignored Hillary's meddling with Putin's election and the fact that he was really pissed about it and that maybe he thought he'd return the favor.  The CIA must be on a brief hiatus from disrupting other country's elections.  O chimed in that the whole thing should be investigated - maybe they can look in to his meddling with the Israeli election while they're at it.  All I can say is pass the popcorn.

-RP

[G-Man]

........O chimed in that the whole thing should be investigated - maybe they can look in to his meddling with the Israeli election while they're at it. ...........

-RP