No, I have no confidence she would make a good decision around this. She’s overcome every scandal thrown at her and her husband and I’m sure she would be resolved to talk her way out of it.
So there is no litmus test here. Its not: “She has not stepped down, so there is no more damning email”
Because it could be: “She knows there is more, but she thinks she can beat it”
Or worse it could be: “There is more and Putin is blackmailing her, and she won’t come clean”
As some of us have been saying for quite some time: this is not a normal election, and Trump is not a normal candidate.
Relying upon conventional political “wisdom” is a sure-fire path to President Trump.
This is just the reality of the dynamic. Trump supporters don’t care/don’t believe his flaws, Non-supporting republicans will vote for him in Nov anyway, because they have too many other benefits from a GOP president. And they will hypocritically criticize Clinton on lesser issues, and people will believe it. Because, well, its true. I feel like a hypocrite when I excuse Clinton for her behavior.
I don’t think we agree on what cyber warfare is, because cyber warfare is generally “actions by a nation-state to penetrate another nation’s computers or networks for the purposes of causing damage or disruption.” This is pretty textbook by what I (and the most basic sources) consider to be the common use of the term.
“Damage or disruption” is not “embarrassing a politician”. It’s destroying/disabling a power grid.
Influencing an election is not “embarrassing a politician”
And to be clear - influencing the election would a bad thing in either account, and what the DNC did is absolutely awful. I never said anything different and never will.
Sure, he ‘breaks the rules’, he’s an “outsider”, he’s “not part of the establishment”, I get all that. But I’ve lived in Trump Country, in the rural flyover area where there’s Trump signs in front of every house and on every pickup truck. I would think that hearing that their candidate’s getting support from Russia, that he works with the mob, and quite possibly raped multiple 13-year-old girls would be a bit of a turn-off. That has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with “hey, Trump’s kind of a horrible human.”
People connected to US intelligence have been arguing for a long time that both Snowden and Assange are Russian intelligence assets, and possibly always have been. By discrediting the US government, they are serving Russian interests so this is not prima facie implausible. They don’t even have to be making anything up or factually incorrect for this to be true.
The story says that: “US officials say that: ‘Russia released these documents’” Do you have any reason to believe that it is not a fact that US officials said this?
Is it wrong to report – factually – that US officials said something that they actually did say?
I just don’t understand what you’re mad about.
Assuming your goal is to convince people of your claims in an attempt to inform them, please feel free to provide the answers and your sources for them.
Assuming your goal is to feel smugly superior to all the sheeple who aren’t getting on board your particular paranoia train, maybe go play outside or something?
Well, OK, but @cepheus42 actually provided evidence and argument to back up his point, whereas you only have innuendo and speculation. If you want to convince anyone who doesn’t already agree with you, you should probably try to provide a better argument.
The problem with that is, @cepheus42 already cited some pretty hard evidence that the leak was from Russian intelligence, and many people have been arguing for years already that Assange and wikileaks are Russian intelligence assets.
I don’t really want to believe this, but the “Assange/Snowden are Russian stooges” camp have Russian crypto keys, IPs, and Cyrillic metadata. Spoofing this would be theoretically possible, but if all you’ve got backing your case is speculation, then you simply don’t have the better case.
PLEASE provide some good evidence that this is not a Russian intelligence op. I’d love to believe that! But everyone making this argument so far has been trying to use empty mockery and speculation to counter hard evidence. That’s not how rational argument works.
Do you realize the CIA has been influencing elections in Europe since it was called the OSS? It’s not even terribly secret. The American Federation of Labor was a CIA front used to funnel money to center left/center right coalitions to prevent European states from electing socialist governments.
If influencing elections is as bad as you say, then to be morally consistent you probably should be a “smash the state”-style anarchist because the US has been doing this since the start of the Cold War.
So is Gingrich, so are a bunch of the rest of 'em.
When the GOP base hears of Trump acting as the hyper-privileged bigoted scumbag that he is, their response is to hope that someday, they too might be rich and powerful enough to get away with that.
If they weren’t shitty people, they wouldn’t be Republicans.
There was a period when “decent person” and “Republican” weren’t mutually exclusive sets, but that was a long time ago. We’re not talking about the classic “loyal opposition” here; they’re the parliamentary wing of the Klan.
I’ve been saying that the Democrats’ worst line of criticism about Trump is that he’s a rich, privileged bully. To his base, those are all positives. Why wouldn’t a middle-aged middle-class white guy hope that one day he could be rich and in a position to bully people, make the rules, and only deal with the kind of people he wants to deal with? Trump has Big Balls, and boy does that ever resonate with small-testicled men.
So I guess the answer is that Republicans are simply used to their most prominent figureheads being rapists, philanderers, racists, and anti-semites?
[quote=“wysinwyg, post:108, topic:82119”]If influencing elections is as bad as you say, then to be morally consistent you probably should be a “smash the state”-style anarchist because the US has been doing this since the start of the Cold War.[/quote]You’re right, I’m a wizard
He couldn’t possibly want Trump to win if he had a lot of dirt on the d.e. via hacking her personal server.
You didn’t quote the important part and changed the context significantly.
You’re arguing that the Russian government should be held to a higher moral standard than the US government. So yes, your position seems about as ridiculous as that of the wizard in your little not especially funny comic there.
Saying “governments shouldn’t be interfering with elections” isn’t holding the Russia to a higher standard.
Being against the actions of federal intelligence agencies doesn’t mean you must be against the federal government as an institution.
My morality is not tied to this issue whatsoever.
The point is the SCIF was still used. The private email server was used for clerical emails, in the same way Colin Powell used an AOL email account for clerical emails.
That’s what has me concerned. Putin didn’t write the leaked emails.
This was a digital Watergate. Are you saying Watergate wasn’t a crime either?
I’m curious how any security company can distinguish between a private Russian hacker, a state-sponsored act, and someone somewhere else merely hacking from a Russian proxy IP. I’m curious what evidence beyond a doubt they can bring forth to convince me.
Wikileaks = Wikitools?
Asked and answered
