Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So either there was nothing terribly damaging in what they got, or (insert conspiratorial tone) they chose not to release it so as to help the GOP. Which seems odd. Why bother in the first place?
To give the appearance of an "equal" attack on both sides?
That... makes no sense. Ignoring the silliness of you contriving an impossible to disprove condition, but it would also depend on the hackers assuming they were going to get caught, assuming a political narrative associated to their actions which would have been impossible to predict, and then proactively taking action to tie into that narrative. Sorry. I'm going to go with the far more simple explanation that they're going to attempt to hack pretty much anyone and everyone, and then take action based on what they get. Cause that makes far more sense, and doesn't require a monocle and a Persian cat level of insanity.
Quote:
gbaji wrote:
They were doing what they did, not to try to help Trump win the election, but to damage Clinton's presidency.
From the very link you posted:
gbaji's CNN link wrote:
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told the Senate committee, examining the cyber breaches, that the intelligence community concluded with "high confidence" that Russia hacked the election to "denigrate" Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and contrast her unfavorably to Republican Donald Trump.
PRIOR to the election. If you want to wish away that this was in NO WAY designed to push the vote toward Trump, you are welcome to do so.
It was not designed to push the vote toward Trump (certainly not enough to affect the outcome anyway), but to weaken the assumed future Clinton presidency. I'll also point out that the only quoted terms are "high confidence" and "denigrate", the term "hacked the election" is nonsensical and I'm going to assume that Clapper didn't actually say anything of the sort (so a bit of rhetoric from the author of the piece presumably). It also doesn't restrict things to the actual hacking (which is what I was responding to). The leaks of data from the hacking of the DNC servers primarily served to propagate the idea that Clinton and the DNC colluded to prevent Sanders from winning the Democratic nomination. That's it.
Which ties pretty directly into correlating to the idea of Clinton "cheating" in some way to win the presidential election as well, and is precisely how the Russians were planning on using that narrative. Which directly supports my assertion that the Russians weren't actually trying to help Trump win, but to weaken Clinton as president.
Quote:
No different than a million other things this administration has done that you're just fine with (like jailing 3 year olds).
Funny how you fall right into my predicted rhetoric. So if they don't hold the kids in the same detention facilities where they are holding the parents, they are "separating children from their parents", and it must be stopped. And if the do, then they are "jailing 3 year olds". Seriously? That's what passes for logical discourse now? The people responsible for any 3 year old children being "jailed" are the same folks who were screaming about them being separated from their parents.
Heck. I seem to recall making the exact point that we don't normally put children in jails with their parents, but put them into some kind of CPS custody instead. Which no one seems to cry about, except, I guess, in this one case. Funny that! You get points for being predictable though.