Russia's Election Meddling

Unless you've been living under a rock, you probably know about Russia allegedly hacking the Democratic National Committee and possibly influencing the election. The controversy has been building post-election, and today U.S. intelligence agencies published a report detailing the situation. I also found this Wikileaks tweet that I think is pretty humorous, basically saying that leaks are only ok if they support Julian Assange's agenda.
Anyway, what are your thoughts on the affair?

 

Should Russia have done it? No.

Does Russia exposing such matters excuse the behavior of the DNC? No.

Sounds like people complaining that they got caught. I would say Hillary getting debate questions is a bigger problem than a foreign entity exposing it. I also don't understand the disportioncate response to this when you compare it to China. Its also naive to believe we don't engage in cyber warfare with these foreign entities as well.

 

Right, but how do you know it's only the DNC engaging in corruption such as that exposed by the hacks? We don't have the entire truth, just a select amount of it chosen by an entity that we now know is biased against the victim. For all we know, the GOP could be pulling the same stuff as the Dems, but hasn't had it leaked because Russia wanted them to win.
Also, I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with:

Saying that Russia exposing the partial and selective information they hacked into in what was more than likely an effort to change the outcome of the election/help Trump's odds is less important than something shady that we don't have the full context of is ludicrous. Again, for all we know, Bernie Sanders could have been given debate questions that he was asked as well, this could be a part of the entire system, we just don't know enough.

 

IIRC russia hacked both, leaked dnc.
I also think theres a limited amount of evidence for us to go off of, but acting like the intelligence community is partisan seems asinine. Especially since the dorito in chief called it bogus before he was briefed on it.

 

I don't know who to believe:

Our own government who try to cover up things

or

a Rogue website/organization that enjoys exposing scandals.

 

I don't know who to believe:

Our own nonpartisan intelligence agencies

or

A country we sanction that was biased towards the candidate who the leaks helped

 

"Our source is not the Russian government. It is not state parties." ~Julian Assange, editor-in-chief of Wikileaks

Hacker Guccifer 2.0 has claimed responsibility for the leaks. Also, Guccifer has claimed responsibility for additional political hacks. While he/she/it is a fairly new hacker/group, there is evidence pointing to the fact that they may be a cover up for the Russian government's intervention, despite their claims to be an individual Romanian hacker. Guccifer, however, is not for certain the hacker, as other directly leaked documents have been proven inconsistent.

There is also speculation that it was not the Russian government, but rather a group of Russian citizens doing so on their own. "It makes much more sense to me that the Russian government had nothing to do with this, but that Russian-speaking hackers did it on their own for fun or profit or both" ~Jeffery Carr, CEO of cybersecurity firm Taia Global

That being said, the ethicality of releasing the emails so close to election night I do not see as fair game. The scandal did potentially damage Hillary's support by as much as 34%. This, however, was a study taken from just 1,781 respondents, so reliability is far fetched.

On the other side of the argument, people seem to be forgetting, Hillary is the main cause of this problem, not hackers. This is of her own doing. May I remind you, she "may have" broken multiple federal laws with her private email server. To draw a somewhat comparable parallel, imagine a child does something they are not supposed to. Consequently, someone tells one of their parents, and the child gets in trouble. Who's at fault? The child or the tattle tale?

As for my personal stance on the matter, the American people have a right to this information, just as I believe we have a right to Trump's tax return (which still have yet to be released). Personally, I am disappointed. Not with the results or scandals, but that out of 324,118,787 people, we narrowed it down to these two. Trump is going to be president. Just as I would have in the situation of Hillary being elected, however, I will support the policies of the PEOTUS that I agree with, and will be a productive citizen. Let's pray that America will have a successful upcoming 4 years. Remember, how this goes is not a failure or success to just Trump, but to America as a nation.

 

Listen if the two major nuclear countries don't want to end each other I'm a happy Canadian

 

How about we wait for trump to end it

 

do we have a right to Trump's emails? It's entirely possible there's evidence of wrongdoings there and the hackers didn't want to show it. How about Assange's? After all, that's the one way to prove Russia's not involved.

 

That goes to the right of the people or the right of the individual at which point the line gets a bit fuzzy. On one hand, an individual's rights cannot be infringed upon. On the other, the people have a right to know. It would be very nice for us to know, but the individual's rights come first in this case. A warrant would be a nice solution to that, but until there is direct evidence pointing to their emails, I'm afraid that won't happen. A search would be unconstitutional.

To answer your question, yes we have a right to their emails provided they contain information about the DNC breach. If, however, we were to go in and not find any pertaining information, we breached their right to privacy.

 

I understand the GOP could be engaging in corruption but it is a known fact the DNC was and it was exposed. Their actions being wrongly exposed in no way legitimizes them. And given the information leaked we know Bernie didn't get any debate questions lol. The party was rigging the system against him since day one. Keep in mind the whole Bernie type leaks were partial insider leaks and not "hacks" from outside governments. I recall a DNC staffer shot dead in DC shortly after the leaks... What does that look like?

Is this the same "nonpartisan" agency that was pushed by the neocons to give false testimony and create bogus evidence as an excuse to invade Iraq? Please, if you don't think the CIA operates in a political fashion you are naive.

No, we do not have a right to Trump's emails because they are private. Just because Hilary and her staff couldn't keep her private information safe doesn't strip the rights of privacy of another person. You are in sense pardoning an offender because of some unknown truth of wrongdoing by the opposing side. If you recall the FBI hearings the director said Hillary's private server was easier to hack into than a gmail account (later it was said that the going rate to hack a gmail was about $100). That's pretty alarming in my opinion. The other problem here is that Podesta's emails were not hacked using a sophisticated method. He had his email hacked the same way a 12 year old gets their runescape account stolen with a phishing email. A "hacker" emailed Podesta with a password reset link to a site that looked like gmail, his staffer flagged it with "This is a legitimate email" instead of saying "illegitimate" and the rest is history from there. Simply put these hacks could have been carried out by ammeters and if the methods mentioned were successful they deserved it.

Also, if this woman was so "qualified" and did such a great job she wouldn't lose to a "xenophobic, homophobic, misogynist, antisemitic, racist, ultra-wealthy pumpkin colored twitter troll". She competed versus arguably the least likable candidate and she lost. That tells you something.

 

thats because people would rather complain about what they have than vote in the primaries to get a better choice. Don't blame people who voted, blame people who didn't vote.

guys... we found a hipster.

That was never the point somebody was trying to make.

 

I don't blame any individual in particular. The results are how they are. Blaming isn't going to do anything. Personally, I did not vote in the primaries because my state didn't allow it for the age of 17, but I guess I could still be to blame for that one

So being productive is outside of the mainstream culture? That's honestly sad... I'm an eagle scout, not a hipster. It has been ingrained in me to be a productive citizen since I was around age 12. Call me a hipster all you want if that is what you mean.

Honestly though, I find it kind of funny that this is what you try to argue. Lets not derail the thread. If you want to argue my hipster tendencies that bad, we can make a new discussion.

 

Obviously not, but if you had the chance to vote for who you wanted your party to nominate in the primaries and didn't you have no right to complain.

It was a joke dude, how in the hell did you think me calling you a hipster was me actually trying to make a point in an argument.

 

Thanks for the good chuckle. I really needed that.
As Kaz said, there is nothing nonpartisan about our intelligence agencies.

 

Lol I love how donald trump saying putin is a good leader to Russia hacking us.

 

Russia didn't make Hillary an establishment candidate in a anti-establishment election. Russia didn't make the DNC pick Hillary over Bernie and cheat him out of his nomination for president. Russia didn't make Hillary take money from foreign dictators to only turn around the favor and give them special U.S Government access. Russia didn't make the former DNC head Debbie Wasserman Schultzcalls call Latin people, "taco bowl voters." Russia didn't make Donna Brazile give Hillary debate questions and take questions the Hillary campaign wanted to be asked to Donald Trump. Russia didn't make nearly every talk show host and major news network line up behind Hillary, exercising there freedom of speech to lie and give a biased view against Trump. Russia didn't make Hillary store emails on a private server when she knew she wasn't supposed to. Russia didn't make Hillary contact the former Secretary of State and ask him how he, "got away with it," referencing to how he used a private email server. Russia didn't change the paper ballots in dozens of states to get Trump to win. Russia didn't nominate a candidate that was being investigated by the FBI at the time of her nomination.

When are Democrats going to come face to face with the reality that they lost because of their own choices?

The answer is simple, they nominated a low energy establishment candidate, who was being investigated by the FBI at the time, instead of a new fresh choice anti-establishment Bernie fuqqing Sanders.

Blaming Russia for everything might have worked while the cold-war was in full swing. But now, that is such an ancient argument so please, just stop.

There is no green button in the Kremlin that says, "Make Donald Trump become elected."

The Democrats didn't lose on November 8th 2016. They lost July 26th 2016 when they nominated that old hag.

 

3 national security agencies say russia most likely had a heavy influence on the election through hackings and strategic media releases but wubbit still on the meep forums for an anti democrat rampage. Things never change around here