Russian hackers reportedly discussed how to steal Clinton's emails & transfer them to Michael Flynn


rjohnstone

macrumors 68040
Dec 28, 2007
3,483
3,399
PHX, AZ.
That's not what the article says.
It says the connection was inferred or assumed.
Names were dropped, but there is not physical evidence linking Flynn to any of them.
And since CNN is one of the cited sources of the compiled data, I'll give this the usual side eye of skepticism.
And for the last time, no one hacked Podesta's emails. He was phished and got hooked.
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Original poster
Jun 22, 2009
16,610
35,071
USA
That's not what the article says.
It says the connection was inferred or assumed.
Names were dropped, but there is not physical evidence linking Flynn to any of them.
And since CNN is one of the cited sources of the compiled data, I'll give this the usual side eye of skepticism.
And for the last time, no one hacked Podesta's emails. He was phished and got hooked.
No need to shoot the messenger - I copy/pasted the headline of the article and linked it here for people to read. I honestly have no opinion on this as of yet because there's not much there.
 

rjohnstone

macrumors 68040
Dec 28, 2007
3,483
3,399
PHX, AZ.
No need to shoot the messenger - I copy/pasted the headline of the article and linked it here for people to read. I honestly have no opinion on this as of yet because there's not much there.
Sorry. Wasn't an attempt to do so. Just clarify.

I dug into the WSJ article it referenced and it was pretty much hearsay. Still waiting for hard evidence, not he said, she said or anonymous sources says.
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
21,542
7,801
CT
That's not what the article says.
It says the connection was inferred or assumed.
Names were dropped, but there is not physical evidence linking Flynn to any of them.
And since CNN is one of the cited sources of the compiled data, I'll give this the usual side eye of skepticism.
And for the last time, no one hacked Podesta's emails. He was phished and got hooked.
Phishing scams are just an easy way to get hacked. Why do the heavy lifting if the door is opened for you. Still Podesta was dumb as bricks to fall for it.
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Original poster
Jun 22, 2009
16,610
35,071
USA
DNC, RNC...they are all politicians that need watching by us. I don't care who gets compromised, but the people are all better served by being informed.
I think if we accept that - then there should be no issue with Flynn's leaked document.

The only difference being - while exposure of corruption is important - I will never agree that a foreign country hacking ours is acceptable. Whatever the outcome is - THAT is not acceptable.
 

Gutwrench

Contributor
Jan 2, 2011
3,914
9,033
I think if we accept that - then there should be no issue with Flynn's leaked document.

The only difference being - while exposure of corruption is important - I will never agree that a foreign country hacking ours is acceptable. Whatever the outcome is - THAT is not acceptable.
Fair enough. But since the DNC's , which is a party btw, info was disclosed do you ignore what it reveals? It sounds like that's what you want to do
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrewDaHilp1

samcraig

macrumors P6
Original poster
Jun 22, 2009
16,610
35,071
USA
Maybe you should have until there was anything before you started a thread, no?

For someone who claims to not watch cnn you operate like them. ;)
There's not much that has been verified or revealed yet. That's why I haven't formed an opinion on the story as reported. However - if true, then it's not looking good for the GOP. But I think we know now to wait to see what develops. As far starting a thread - it's sharing news so we can all discuss it.

Thanks for the "dig" about CNN. I'm not a news outlet. Opening up a dialogue isn't operating like a news outlet pushing out a story.
[doublepost=1498827540][/doublepost]
Fair enough. But since the DNC's , which is a party btw, info was disclosed do you ignore what it reveals? It sounds like that's what you want to do
No. I think once it's out there - then it's out there. You can't put the genie back into the lamp. Pandora's box and all.

However - one of the things I absolutely despise about Trump is that he a) pretty much asked for the hacking during the election and b) when all intelligence pointed to the fact that the US was hacked (DNC or otherwise) - he was until almost hours ago - calling it a hoax, etc. That's not at all acceptable on many levels.

As much as I don't like him or his politics - I would have profound respect for the man if on day one of learning about the intelligence addressed it head on and said he was going to get to the bottom of it because our Democracy demands it - even if it means that my win was affected. Because the country comes first. Something along that line. And no - I can't guarantee that if Hillary won she would state the same. Or anyone. But Trump's handling of this is why "Russia" is and has been pervading the news cycles. And as I've maintained - it will haunt his entire presidency. That's karma.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rjohnstone

Gutwrench

Contributor
Jan 2, 2011
3,914
9,033
No. I think once it's out there - then it's out there. You can't put the genie back into the lamp. Pandora's box and all.
Since it's out there, what do you think ought to be done about the information particularly with respect to the DNC?
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Original poster
Jun 22, 2009
16,610
35,071
USA
Since it's out there, what do you think ought to be done about the information particularly with respect to the DNC?
Is nothing being done? If anything they did were deemed illegal - then I would think appropriate legal actions would be taken. Has not some of that happened already?

I think some of the challenge might be is that there is illegal and inappropriate. One is objective and the other subjective. One can be prosecuted - the other can't.
 

Gutwrench

Contributor
Jan 2, 2011
3,914
9,033
Is nothing being done?
That's the way it appears. The collusion between CNN and the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign is disgusting. I imagine some loyal Democrats have a profound mistrust for their party at the moment. I would think the left would want to shore up that mistrust (And actually develop an idea logical platform.)
 
Last edited:

samcraig

macrumors P6
Original poster
Jun 22, 2009
16,610
35,071
USA
That's the way it appears. The collusion between CNN and the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign is disgusting. I imagine some oil Democrats have a profound miss trust for their party at the moment. I would think the left would want to sure up that Miss trust I imagine some oil Democrats have a profound miss trust for their party at the moment. I would think the left would want to repair that. (And actually develop an idea logical platform.)
Are you referring to giving Clinton some questions ahead of time? Inappropriate - but to me - not very significant. To me. Personally. None of the questions in the debate were from left field or surprises. I don't really think the question or two she had ahead of time had any impact. It was also not illegal as far as I know/understand.

But perhaps you're referring to something else. I am sincere when I say I have moved passed the election and all the chaos involved. For everyone (all sides) it was a horrible campaign/election cycle. I am focused on the here/now/future. That's not to dismiss past transgressions. That's just me saying that the details of everything that went down are deeper in my "files" than the current stuff.
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Original poster
Jun 22, 2009
16,610
35,071
USA
You don't remember more than that? DNC, Clinton, Sanders? I hope the party leadership does.
Again I'll put it out there - is what they did ILLEGAL or just INAPPROPRIATE? Was there an ETHICS issue or a LEGAL issue?

I am not justifying actions - I am asking you what actions could or should be taken?
 

Gutwrench

Contributor
Jan 2, 2011
3,914
9,033
How about you answer mine?
If you don't have the courtesy to answer my question that started our dialogue then unfortunately we don't have a conversation.

But you even acknowledged the question you're asking by saying 'it's out there, the genie can't be put back in the bottle.'
 
Last edited:

samcraig

macrumors P6
Original poster
Jun 22, 2009
16,610
35,071
USA
If you don't have the courtesy to answer my question that started our dialogue then unfortunately we don't have a conversation.

But you even acknowledged the question you're asking by saying 'it's out there, the genie can't be put back in the bottle.'
I answered your question. You aren't answering mine. So I guess you're right - we can't have a conversation.
 

Gutwrench

Contributor
Jan 2, 2011
3,914
9,033
I answered your question. You aren't answering mine. So I guess you're right - we can't have a conversation.
Agreed. Take care.

Recapping - In light of the DNC-Clinton campaign is the DNC doing anything to help fix any mistrust?

I think if we accept that - then there should be no issue with Flynn's leaked document.

The only difference being - while exposure of corruption is important - I will never agree that a foreign country hacking ours is acceptable. Whatever the outcome is - THAT is not acceptable.
Fair enough. But since the DNC's , which is a party btw, info was disclosed do you ignore what it reveals? It sounds like that's what you want to do
No. I think once it's out there - then it's out there. You can't put the genie back into the lamp. Pandora's box and all.
Since it's out there, what do you think ought to be done about the information particularly with respect to the DNC?