Top-Secret NSA Report Details Russian Hacking Effort Days Before 2016 Election

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: introvert

TLDR, I went for the bold part.

I think it's important to note that your source says the news outlet that received the info were the ones to contact the "agency" to let them know what had been released.

They worked with the agency to ensure what they did release did not harm national security, for what it's worth.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: alphabetaone


Her name is WINNER?

haha...well, I'm not her daddy so I didn't name her, but yep that's the word on the street... Reality Leigh Winner. It sounds almost like a game show name more than a person.

a reply to: network dude

Yes, more people who have no clue that breaking the law is a bad thing. Perhaps instead of prison, we can put her on the border to verify documents of those wishing to enter the country. (another law that seems to not be important to some) What the # do we even have security clearances for anyway? Just put the god damn government on facebook and friend every #ing body.

Well she is going to go to prison for that. But she did get news out about something of importance to this nation right now. She took the risk to get out the truth. Illegal though it may be, I believe she did what she thought was right. How it affects the security of our nation is another matter. Did they not want the Russians to know that they knew the Russians were hacking? Why not? As long as what is released is the truth, I find no harm in that. So the Russians hacked. They released the truth about the DNC. I didn't think the Russians did the hacking. It looks like I was wrong. I am not going to get angry at the person who proved me wrong, I am going to be grateful for the knowledge.

a reply to: network dude

And more importantly, should this girl get a free pass for releasing classified documents? (I think she even had intent)

Exactly. This is what intent looks like.

In the case of the other girl whom we shall not name, there was no intent. Hence, no charges.

It's all coming full-circle.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Yeah he f'd up bad here.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: introvert

TLDR, I went for the bold part.

I think it's important to note that your source says the news outlet that received the info were the ones to contact the "agency" to let them know what had been released.

They worked with the agency to ensure what they did release did not harm national security, for what it's worth.

Which is why, after the agency asked it to not be published (which was refused), they then requested redactions, which the media granted before publication.

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: introvert

TLDR, I went for the bold part.

I think it's important to note that your source says the news outlet that received the info were the ones to contact the "agency" to let them know what had been released.

They worked with the agency to ensure what they did release did not harm national security, for what it's worth.

Which is why, after the agency asked it to not be published (which was refused), they then requested redactions, which the media granted before publication.

Freedom of the press, baby.

Perfect timing for the article !!

But no proof the docs stolen are the ones given to "The Intercept".

If all of this is as it appears, isn't the real story about the fact that the elections can be hacked?

I mean, if the Russians can do it, how hard would it be for the NSA, CIA, or FBI? If one of the US alphabet agencies hacked an election, would we even hear about it? What about other countries like Israel, Mexico, or Saudi Arabia? They certainly have an interest in who leads the US government. What about large corporations like Monsanto or the Federal Reserve?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: introvert

TLDR, I went for the bold part.

I think it's important to note that your source says the news outlet that received the info were the ones to contact the "agency" to let them know what had been released.

They worked with the agency to ensure what they did release did not harm national security, for what it's worth.

Which is why, after the agency asked it to not be published (which was refused), they then requested redactions, which the media granted before publication.

Freedom of the press, baby.

Absolutely.

But if some would have their way, the media could also be prosecuted simply for publication, or else welcome prior restraint.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Perfect timing for the article !!

But no proof the docs stolen are the ones given to "The Intercept".

I'm thinking more the line of a honeypot and Winner got caught.

We need a re-call election. "Attacked the voter registration process".

We NEED a re-call election asap.

a reply to: introvert

Tell ya what let's start with some of this circumstantial evidence...
Linky
In light of the emails made public doesn't it seem to you like that sort of collusion is just the type of game her and her team play? Seems to me we have a whole lot more to go on there than we ever did to investigate Trump like we are now. Yet I see the same people calling for Trump's investigation yet never a word mentioned about investing her over the same thing...Yet as we can see there is a lot more there in her and her teams case.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude

And more importantly, should this girl get a free pass for releasing classified documents? (I think she even had intent)

Exactly. This is what intent looks like.

In the case of the other girl whom we shall not name, there was no intent. Hence, no charges.

It's all coming full-circle.

I was actually being facetious because I happen to know that the law as written has no "intent" clause. It was humor.
But thanks for not mentioning that name.

a reply to: angeldoll

Why do we need a re-call? The only thing this shows is the Russians could have changed vote totals...Which were in her favor. However thankfully we have the electorial college!

originally posted by: angeldoll
We need a re-call election. "Attacked the voter registration process".

We NEED a re-call election asap.

So that Hillary can lose again? Oh yes please.

originally posted by: angeldoll
We need a re-call election. "Attacked the voter registration process".

We NEED a re-call election asap.

But there is, as of yet, no evidence the election was actually influenced.

It's also funny to me how when something which would be in Trump's favor is leaked the leaker is immediately arrested, however the other 99% of leaks go unpunished. Pretty telling if you ask me!

originally posted by: angeldoll
We need a re-call election. "Attacked the voter registration process".

We NEED a re-call election asap.

Trump will win even bigger lol.