It is over’: Congress certifies Trump’s win, over last-ditch Dem objections

[Dakine10 5,452]

5 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

The did not hack the USA the hacked Email servers of the DNC. 

 

 

     They were behind all of the hacking. They being the Russians.

[Dakine10 5,452]

6 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

 

Are you upset that the DNC rigged an election ?

 

 

 

     The premise of your question is rather silly, but I will say the DNC got what they deserved. Hopefully they learn from it. America also got what it deserves. Hopefully we learn from it.

[MarkPerry 488]

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

On 1/9/2017 at 7:44 PM, Dakine10 said:

 

     They were behind all of the hacking. They being the Russians.

The trouble is, there is no way for us to know if there was actually any "hacking" going on at all.  Or much.  Why?  Because Hillary alone made it possible for many thousands of her emails to be read by her outright snubbing of US law regarding the handling of classified documents.  It will probably take years for us to realize the level of damage she allowed to happen.  Hopefully she will not continue to get away with it.  

Edited January 11, 2017 by IDWAF

[Dakine10 5,452]

1 hour ago, IDWAF said:

The trouble is, there is no way for us to know if there was actually any "hacking" going on at all.  Or much.  Why?  Because Hillary alone made it possible for many thousands of her emails to be read by her outright snubbing of US law regarding the handling of classified documents.  It will probably take years for us to realize the level of damage she allowed to happen.  Hopefully she will not continue to get away with it.  

    Clinton's private email server and the DNC hacking are two separate issues. You lack credibility if you can't get that straight.

[yuna628 9,527]

3 hours ago, IDWAF said:

The trouble is, there is no way for us to know if there was actually any "hacking" going on at all.  Or much.  Why?  Because Hillary alone made it possible for many thousands of her emails to be read by her outright snubbing of US law regarding the handling of classified documents.  It will probably take years for us to realize the level of damage she allowed to happen.  Hopefully she will not continue to get away with it.  

We know there was hacking going on. Not only hacking, but a fair bit of classic espionage. What the American public will most likely never know is the intelligence methods we used to uncover a great deal of it. We know only about the easy stuff.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Where's the plus 100 button for NB?  He deserves one today!

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

8 hours ago, Dakine10 said:

    Clinton's private email server and the DNC hacking are two separate issues. You lack credibility if you can't get that straight.

If you cannot see how one affects the other, then you know very little about conventional hacking methods.  I'll just skip the offhanded personal attack though.

[Dakine10 5,452]

3 hours ago, IDWAF said:

If you cannot see how one affects the other, then you know very little about conventional hacking methods.  I'll just skip the offhanded personal attack though.

 

  I didn't say they are not related, I said they are two different things. I'm not sure if your attempt to use the two interchangeably was purposeful or if you genuinely don't understand the difference.

 

  There is evidence the DNC was hacked. There is no evidence Hillary's server was hacked that we know of. The CIA is pursuing the DNC hacking, while the FBI cleared Hillary. What I know about conventional hacking methods is the same as you, however it doesn't change that the premise of your argument was wrong.

 

  It was bigly of you to skip the personal attack this time. I know it's not easy for you, and with Trump being what he is, you certainly don't have the best role model at the moment.

[bcking 3,157]

13 hours ago, IDWAF said:

The trouble is, there is no way for us to know if there was actually any "hacking" going on at all.  Or much.  Why?  Because Hillary alone made it possible for many thousands of her emails to be read by her outright snubbing of US law regarding the handling of classified documents.  It will probably take years for us to realize the level of damage she allowed to happen.  Hopefully she will not continue to get away with it.  

Even for Hillary's "private email server" issue - While I agree that she should have never had her emails on a private email server, her server still did have security on it. So in order to get at them there was some form of "hacking" involved (I put "hacking" in quotes because it may have been as simple as phishing which is still manipulation, but some may not consider "hacking"). 

 

It's not like she was publishing all the emails to the public. Somebody still had to "break in" to get access to them. It was just breaking into an individual's private server (though granted a lot more than most individuals have at their home I imagine) as opposed to the federal government's security.

[bcking 3,157]

5 minutes ago, Dakine10 said:

 

  I didn't say they are not related, I said they are two different things. I'm not sure if your attempt to use the two interchangeably was purposeful or if you genuinely don't understand the difference.

 

  There is evidence the DNC was hacked. There is no evidence Hillary's server was hacked that we know of. The CIA is pursuing the DNC hacking, while the FBI cleared Hillary. What I know about conventional hacking methods is the same as you, however it doesn't change that the premise of your argument was wrong.

 

  It was bigly of you to skip the personal attack this time. I know it's not easy for you, and with Trump being what he is, you certainly don't have the best role model at the moment.

I was under the impression that there has been evidence that Hillary's server was "hacked", or at least subject to attempted hacking. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Dakine10 5,452]

21 minutes ago, bcking said:

I was under the impression that there has been evidence that Hillary's server was "hacked", or at least subject to attempted hacking. Maybe I'm wrong.

  I know it was subject to attempted hacking. I wouldn't be surprised if it was, they had suggested that an individual account on the server may have been compromised. I still don't see how he arrived at his original premise that Clinton made it possible for 'thousands of emails to be read' so we 'don't know if there was any hacking going on' in regards to the DNC.

 

  As I said Clinton's server is one issue. Hacking of the DNC is another. They are certainly related but they are not the same thing. We do know that hacking was going on, and if anything, the extent is likely even more than we have been discussing. Whether the investigating agencies find out that extent conclusively or not I don't know, but it shouldn't stop them from trying to find out.

Edited January 11, 2017 by Dakine10

[bcking 3,157]

11 minutes ago, Dakine10 said:

  I know it was subject to attempted hacking. I wouldn't be surprised if it was, they had suggested that an individual account on the server may have been compromised. I still don't see how he arrived at his original premise that Clinton made it possible for 'thousands of emails to be read' so we 'don't know if there was any hacking going on' in regards to the DNC.

 

  As I said Clinton's server is one issue. Hacking of the DNC is another. They are certainly related but they are not the same thing. We do know that hacking was going on, and if anything, the extent is likely even more than we have been discussing. Whether the investigating agencies find out that extent conclusively or not I don't know, but it shouldn't stop them from trying to find out.

Agreed. I was more pointing out that even just saying "Clinton made it possible for thousands of emails to be read" without any form of hacking is also just plain false. She didn't publish them herself. They were still on a secured private email server. They may have been LESS secure, but getting access to them without the server's permission would have still involved something illegal (hacking, phishing, whatever it takes). Doesn't mean she didn't make a mistake, but also just means that abusing her mistake still involved illegal activities against a private secure server.

 

It's like if I wanted to secure medical records in a locked box in my house. It isn't the recommended way to secure records, and the hospital be mad at me. However if someone stole the files it would still be stealing. I still had them locked and secured, I just was doing it myself.

Edited January 11, 2017 by bcking

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

4 hours ago, IDWAF said:

If you cannot see how one affects the other, then you know very little about conventional hacking methods.  I'll just skip the offhanded personal attack though.

Tell me about your depth of experience with hacking methods