Russia Hacked Hillary's Email; Kremlin Debating Whether to Release 20K Emails

a reply to: seagull

Are you saying that Russians did? If so, what's your evidence for believing it other than your regard for Russian intelligence agencies? I'm saying that there's is no evidence that they did and lacking that proof, it's baseless speculation. Furthermore, since it's not being presented for what it is but rather as substantiated "truth" (Russia Hacked Hillary's Email; Kremlin Debating Whether to Release 20K Emails), it's essentially a hoax.

Where's the burden of proof again? I could say that there's a leprechaun riding a unicorn on my patio right now too and you can't disprove that either but then again, I'm sure you'd at least expect a picture.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I don't know that they did or that they didn't. You did notice I use the word "if" a lot, right?

I do know that historically, Russia's (Soviet Union) intelligence services are just about the best around, I see no reason to believe that they aren't still. Do you?

I have no reason to believe they did hack the server, but I've no reason to believe they aren't capable of doing so.

I'm not a big fan of blog "proof", either, so I'm right there with you. But I've also seen the evidence of just how good Russia is at getting into places they shouldn't be via their intelligence services.

a reply to: MysticPearl

As much as I want this to be true I most definitely question the sources, the gateway pundit and whatdoesitmean.com.

Would Russia release such information that would most certainly cause Clinton to drop out, possibly be prosecuted? Having classified material get into the hands of foreigners, RUSSIANS no less, is grounds for life in prison, even if you're a Clinton. Although, I'm sure she'd be in minimum security country club.

Its already been on the news that Russia hacked the
Pentagon, and even The White House, and read
Obama's emails.

The hackers, who also got deeply into the State Department’s unclassified system, do not appear to have penetrated closely guarded servers that control the message traffic from Mr. Obama’s BlackBerry, which he or an aide carries constantly.

But they obtained access to the email archives of people inside the White House, and perhaps some outside, with whom Mr. Obama regularly communicated.

www.nytimes.com...

It is absolutely not a stretch to think they hacked Clinton's emails.

We already know Guccifer hacked Sid Blumenthal's emails to Hillary.

Putin = KGB.
He'll use it anyway he thinks it will give him power.

a reply to: theantediluvian

You appear to be having an emotional reaction.

Prove what, exactly? I have no "proof" Russia actually hacked Clinton's emails, just as you have no "proof" they didn't.

Is the idea here, neither of us get to discuss the issue because neither of us works for an intelligence agency and is linking concrete proof? That's asinine.

It's just an emotional reaction to something you'd rather not hear.

If they have what they claim ,then they should release them to the whole world, just my opinion.

a reply to: seagull

I have no doubt that Russian intelligence agencies are good at what they do. I don't believe I've said anything to indicate otherwise?

I have no reason to believe they did hack the server,

Neither do I. The OP however is clearly claiming to have evidence that they did. Therefore, it seems to me that the only actual disagreement you have here is with the OP, not me.

a reply to: theantediluvian

You'll have to show where I said "I have evidence Clinton's emails were hacked".

What I did was post an article claiming Russia did indeed hack them and per ATS standards, I didn't twist the title of the linked article.

This is the general liberal argument tactic, attempt to turn the conversation into a personal attack and shift the conversation away from the subject at hand.

I remember there was a thread about Russia releasing 9/11 information. To my knowledge they didn't so I'm going to have to be skeptical.

a reply to: Tiamat384

Yep, that was disappointing. They said they had satellite proof!

Russia has called wolf too many times, so unless they back-up what they say, they've lost any credibility in my book.

a reply to: MysticPearl

Lol. Yes, that's it.

Personally, I could care a less if Hillary Clinton is arrested tomorrow. What I do care about is that you're spreading disinformation.

I have no "proof" Russia actually hacked Clinton's emails

You're right, you don't. Which begs the question, why did you make the following statements in the OP?

At the least, I expect Trump to hammer her on this over the course of the next few months but I also expect that a world power such as Russia hacking into her emails and potentially releasing thousands of them, to increase the chances of an indictment.

Crooked Hillary is an understatement.

And this is why her server was such a cause for concern and puts the American people at risk. Once hacked, it opened the Secretary of State up to blackmail, never mind what was actually found within the emails. Who knows who else hacked into her emails. I'd suggest China is also a likely candidate.

and why instead of admitting that you were had, are you trying to turn this around on me? I'm not the one who fell for some garbage I read on the Internet and is busily trying to spread disinformation.

a reply to: MysticPearl

This is the general liberal argument tactic, attempt to turn the conversation into a personal attack and shift the conversation away from the subject at hand.

What is it that you believe you're doing right now if not that exact thing? What's a "general conservative tactic?" Say things that aren't true, deny having done it and then play the victim to divert focus?

You'll have to show where I said "I have evidence Clinton's emails were hacked". What I did was post an article claiming Russia did indeed hack them and per ATS standards, I didn't twist the title of the linked article.

I know it's been a few pages but have you completely forgotten what you wrote in the OP? Is it so hard to just admit that you were making erroneous matter of fact statements based on bad information?

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: MysticPearl



and why instead of admitting that you were had, are you trying to turn this around on me? I'm not the one who fell for some garbage I read on the Internet and is busily trying to spread disinformation.

This is just emotional nonsense.

But if you want to play the game and go by your standards, we'd all love to see your concrete proof that Russia has not hacked Clinton's email.

If you're that upset about an article being posted, I'll assume you're sitting on concrete proof showing without a doubt Clinton's emails haven't ben hacked.

Please provide said evidence.

a reply to: MysticPearl

The issue is that the article claiming they're considering releasing the emails tracks back, ultimately, top Sorcha Faal. That right there shows this is a BS story.

It's entirely possible, hell I'll even say probable, that they did hack her server, or tried to. But anything coming from Sorcha Faal is a joke.

Truly, with sincere thought, one has to ask why hint at having emails and not just disclose even 1/2 of the emails to prove their intelligent abilities.

Point a: Russia does not actually have copies and they just want to screw with American politics.

Or

Point B: They may have said emails, and while it could screw with Hillary, they would like to keep some secrets by not revealing. Aka: other individuals other than Hillary, globally, can be blackmailed, but if they show all their cards for this instance...it all gets tossed! Hmm.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yet, that was only part of it.

The title related to the update, which was Judge Napolitano's claims on Fox last night and I've posted that in this thread as well.

a reply to: MysticPearl

And yet, if it were possible to track that back, it would probably come back to this same article. The only people claiming Russia is considering releasing the emails, that I've seen so far, come back to Sorcha Faal.

His quote about it is almost an exact match to the article.

a reply to: MysticPearl

Of course, another lame "conservative tactic," make outrageous claims with no proof and then in the face of opposition, try shifting the burden of proof.

I'll get right on it, right after I get done with a similarly asinine request to prove "that God doesn't exist."

You were probably doing better with the weak personal attacks.

a reply to: MysticPearl


as a famous person once said what difference does it make?

Some fun quotes from hillaryclinton.com

"Why did Clinton use her own email account?

When Clinton got to the Department, she opted to use her personal email account as a matter of convenience. It enabled her to reach people quickly and keep in regular touch with her family and friends more easily given her travel schedule.

That is the only reason she used her own account."

"Clinton said she did not use her email to send or receive classified information, but the State Department and two Inspectors General said some of these emails do contain classified information. Was her statement inaccurate?

Clinton only used her account for unclassified email. No information in Clinton's emails was marked classified at the time she sent or received them."

"Is Department of Justice conducting a criminal inquiry into Clinton’s email use?

No. As the Department of Justice and Inspectors General made clear, the IGs made a security referral. This was not criminal in nature as misreported by some in the press. The Department of Justice is now seeking assurances about the storage of materials related to Clinton’s email account."

"Did she withhold any work emails? What about the 15 emails that Sid Blumenthal provided to the Select Committee that she did not provide to the State Department?

She provided the State Department with all work and potentially work-related emails that she had, including all of her correspondence with Sid Blumenthal. We understand that Mr. Blumenthal had some emails that Clinton did not have, and Clinton had some emails that Mr. Blumenthal did not have, but it is important to note that none of those emails provide any new insights on the attack on our facilities in Benghazi."

"Was there ever an unauthorized intrusion into her email or did anyone else have access to it?

No."

So there's nothing to be concerned about.

It's just a vast "right wing conspiracy" and no laws were broken.

Nobody involved needs to invoke the Fifth Amendment.

a reply to: MysticPearl

The original source for that article you presented is from "SORCHA FAAL"

www.whatdoesitmean.com...

Sorcha faal is a well known Master Bul*sh*tter.