4 ms·

> Any hard evidence the US has is most definitely top secret. The problem with this logic is illustrated by the following: You stole 1 million dollars from me,

by voidr 10y ago

> Any hard evidence the US has is most definitely top secret. The problem with this logic is illustrated by the following: You stole 1 million dollars from me, I have hard evidence, but I'm not going to disclose it, because it's "top secret", I'm just going to get you arrested. > The US govt would not publicly admit such weakness unless there was a good reason It's not the US that's "weak" it's the DNC, it doesn't make the US look weak, it only antagonises Russia. > Blaming anyone and publicly admitting that your governments fundamental democracy was compromised is not to be taken lightly. Disclosing the corruption of one political party is compromising democracy? What should have happened instead? If this were to happen to any other country would you still call it "compromising democracy" or would you call it "investigative journalism". > Politically, this is a signal to Russia that if they continue to interfere there will be consequences. Yes, however it is uncertain who would be the bigger loser in this case.

asveikau 10y ago
> Disclosing the corruption of one political party is compromising democracy? The press reports say they had emails from both parties. They chose not to release the ones from the party whose candidate said he cares less about NATO. I don't think that's a coincidence and I don't believe for a minute there isn't dirt in the GOP emails.
- voidr 10y ago
  > They chose not to release the ones from the party whose candidate said he cares less about NATO. Did they actually say: "we have emails from both parties, however we will only release the democrat ones because we hate NATO"? or did someone just speculate that this is the case. I don't know how much you know about hacking. It's next to impossible to track down a skilled hacker, if he didn't make a mistake, especially one that is supported by a country. It could have been a hacker from Saudi Arabia using a Russian proxy. It could have been a Ukrainian hacker doing it from a Russian coffee shop. If US intelligence did in fact determine that it was a Russian hack without the hacker making a mistake, then I would be worried about how they did it instead.
  - asveikau 10y ago
    > I don't know how much you know about hacking That's a very condescending tone.
    - voidr 10y ago
      > That's a very condescending tone. It's writing, it has no tone, you can associate whatever tone you want with it. What I implied was that I am unsure how familiar are you with the technicalities of hacking so I will not go into too many details. If you have a very deep knowledge on the subject and want to get into it, I'm more than happy to oblige, maybe I'll learn something, however if you are not familiar with it, then there is no point for me to ask more in depth questions, because that would actually be a condescending move. Update to the downvoting mob: you are only proving me right by downvoting every comment I make instead of engaging in a discussion. You are only reinforcing the stereotype about left wingers who just want to silence people they disagree with.
nrjdhsbsid 10y ago
The first part of your comment doesn't make sense. What does diplomatic saber rattling have to do with arresting people? Besides, a government has a duty to give it's citizens a fair trial. It has no duty to protect a foreign government. So why would it release the evidence? Compromising the DNC during elections is attacking the Democratic election process. If somebody's goal was to be a whistleblower why would they strategically release information timed to disrupt an election?
- grzm 10y ago
  the Democratic election process Admittedly a nit: Do you mean the democratic (small d) election or the Democratic Party nomination process?
- voidr 10y ago
  > The first part of your comment doesn't make sense. What does diplomatic saber rattling have to do with arresting people? The point I was trying to make is that if you accept any statement without proof then they can also easily feed you any narrative they desire to advance an agenda. You could argue that the DHS would never lie to the public, for me that's a bit hard to believe after the NSA scandal. > It has no duty to protect a foreign government. So why would it release the evidence? The reason I say they need to show hard evidence is because it's virtually impossible to track down the true source of a professional hacking attempt. So far all they have shown is that some Ukrainian hacking tools were used that anybody can get. > Compromising the DNC during elections is attacking the Democratic election process. If somebody's goal was to be a whistleblower why would they strategically release information timed to disrupt an election? They did not compromise the DNC elections, they released info on what actually transpired during the DNC elections. The election itself went on undisrupted. Saying that releasing information to the public during election time is compromising democracy is kind of like saying that releasing information about a product compromises my purchasing process. If we define releasing information on parties during election a horrible act of messing with democracy, where we need to go after the perpetrators, then I need to ask: why aren't the same people going after the person who leaked the ~10 year old Trump audio tape?

by voidr 10y ago

asveikau 10y ago

> Disclosing the corruption of one political party is compromising democracy? The press reports say they had emails from both parties. They chose not to release the ones from the party whose candidate said he cares less about NATO. I don't think that's a coincidence and I don't believe for a minute there isn't dirt in the GOP emails.

voidr 10y ago
> They chose not to release the ones from the party whose candidate said he cares less about NATO. Did they actually say: "we have emails from both parties, however we will only release the democrat ones because we hate NATO"? or did someone just speculate that this is the case. I don't know how much you know about hacking. It's next to impossible to track down a skilled hacker, if he didn't make a mistake, especially one that is supported by a country. It could have been a hacker from Saudi Arabia using a Russian proxy. It could have been a Ukrainian hacker doing it from a Russian coffee shop. If US intelligence did in fact determine that it was a Russian hack without the hacker making a mistake, then I would be worried about how they did it instead.
- asveikau 10y ago
  > I don't know how much you know about hacking That's a very condescending tone.
  - voidr 10y ago
    > That's a very condescending tone. It's writing, it has no tone, you can associate whatever tone you want with it. What I implied was that I am unsure how familiar are you with the technicalities of hacking so I will not go into too many details. If you have a very deep knowledge on the subject and want to get into it, I'm more than happy to oblige, maybe I'll learn something, however if you are not familiar with it, then there is no point for me to ask more in depth questions, because that would actually be a condescending move. Update to the downvoting mob: you are only proving me right by downvoting every comment I make instead of engaging in a discussion. You are only reinforcing the stereotype about left wingers who just want to silence people they disagree with.

nrjdhsbsid 10y ago

The first part of your comment doesn't make sense. What does diplomatic saber rattling have to do with arresting people? Besides, a government has a duty to give it's citizens a fair trial. It has no duty to protect a foreign government. So why would it release the evidence? Compromising the DNC during elections is attacking the Democratic election process. If somebody's goal was to be a whistleblower why would they strategically release information timed to disrupt an election?

grzm 10y ago
the Democratic election process Admittedly a nit: Do you mean the democratic (small d) election or the Democratic Party nomination process?
voidr 10y ago
> The first part of your comment doesn't make sense. What does diplomatic saber rattling have to do with arresting people? The point I was trying to make is that if you accept any statement without proof then they can also easily feed you any narrative they desire to advance an agenda. You could argue that the DHS would never lie to the public, for me that's a bit hard to believe after the NSA scandal. > It has no duty to protect a foreign government. So why would it release the evidence? The reason I say they need to show hard evidence is because it's virtually impossible to track down the true source of a professional hacking attempt. So far all they have shown is that some Ukrainian hacking tools were used that anybody can get. > Compromising the DNC during elections is attacking the Democratic election process. If somebody's goal was to be a whistleblower why would they strategically release information timed to disrupt an election? They did not compromise the DNC elections, they released info on what actually transpired during the DNC elections. The election itself went on undisrupted. Saying that releasing information to the public during election time is compromising democracy is kind of like saying that releasing information about a product compromises my purchasing process. If we define releasing information on parties during election a horrible act of messing with democracy, where we need to go after the perpetrators, then I need to ask: why aren't the same people going after the person who leaked the ~10 year old Trump audio tape?