Election results may have been hacked
What do you thibk about this? Also, what happens if they were actually rigged?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/election-results-hacked-3-states-trump-won-article-1.2884089
What do you thibk about this? Also, what happens if they were actually rigged?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/election-results-hacked-3-states-trump-won-article-1.2884089
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
Invisible · 26-30, M
I find it odd that you refute this because there is no evidence, yet you think Russia is behind wikileaks even though the only supporting info behind it is Hillary falsely claiming that intelligence agencies say so. Care to explain?
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@Invisible: We don't know for sure and probably never will but...
1) Motive. The vested interest is obvious with the well known Trump/Putin bromance and Russia's problems with NATO.
2) Means. Its well known that major powers spy on each other and attempt to hack each other. Russia could also have paid a third party.
3) Timing. The dates that the emails were released shows a clear desire to influence the US election. If it was someone else (like and inside job) they they too must have had reasons to favour Hillary over Trump. If it wasn't Russia then it must have been the Trump camp themselves or someone else who is clever, tech-savy and a Clinton enemy.
4) The US secret service have said that they suspect Russian involvement.
Like I say; this is not proof and it would probably decades later that historians are able to say definitely. I would say probably Russia though.
1) Motive. The vested interest is obvious with the well known Trump/Putin bromance and Russia's problems with NATO.
2) Means. Its well known that major powers spy on each other and attempt to hack each other. Russia could also have paid a third party.
3) Timing. The dates that the emails were released shows a clear desire to influence the US election. If it was someone else (like and inside job) they they too must have had reasons to favour Hillary over Trump. If it wasn't Russia then it must have been the Trump camp themselves or someone else who is clever, tech-savy and a Clinton enemy.
4) The US secret service have said that they suspect Russian involvement.
Like I say; this is not proof and it would probably decades later that historians are able to say definitely. I would say probably Russia though.
Invisible · 26-30, M
@Burnley123: There's no hard proof because the identities of whistleblowers must be protected, but it has been confirmed that a significant portion of the emails match gov email records. I also think that it would have been a bad idea on behalf of WL to release the information earlier because it would have forced Assange into hiding earlier than necessary, possibly preventing other information from reaching him.
It would have also given the media a better chance at burying it and claiming that it was fabricated, as their credibility has been steadily weakening over time as they clearly smeared Trump.
The secret service has said it may have been the Russians who had a hand in it, but there is no evidence of that, and even if it were true, it doesn't necessarily mean that the leaks are fake. The only reason they say so was because Putin publicly announced his support for Trump. That's no shock, as Hillary wanted to set up that no-fly-zone to instigate Russia.
Wikileaks has had a decade long history of integrity in their leaks, and it wasn't long ago that they were addressing scandals in the Bush administration. They're about as nonpartisan as it gets, if you ask me.
It would have also given the media a better chance at burying it and claiming that it was fabricated, as their credibility has been steadily weakening over time as they clearly smeared Trump.
The secret service has said it may have been the Russians who had a hand in it, but there is no evidence of that, and even if it were true, it doesn't necessarily mean that the leaks are fake. The only reason they say so was because Putin publicly announced his support for Trump. That's no shock, as Hillary wanted to set up that no-fly-zone to instigate Russia.
Wikileaks has had a decade long history of integrity in their leaks, and it wasn't long ago that they were addressing scandals in the Bush administration. They're about as nonpartisan as it gets, if you ask me.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@Invisible: I think Wikileaks are non-partisan but Russia are not and Assage got the info from somewhere. You are right that there is no proof but I am sure you see that what I said makes sense also.
TTYL
TTYL
Invisible · 26-30, M
@Burnley123: It does make sense, but so do my arguments. Whether Russia was involved is unprovable as of yet, but I don't think it's relevant as long as the leaks seem to hold water. And they do.
We can't know anything for certain other than the fact that the media obviously favors Hillary and is actively trying to hurt Trump. That's one of the biggest reasons why people are lead to accept the wikileaks dumps -- it fits so well with everything we've been seeing.
We can't know anything for certain other than the fact that the media obviously favors Hillary and is actively trying to hurt Trump. That's one of the biggest reasons why people are lead to accept the wikileaks dumps -- it fits so well with everything we've been seeing.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@Invisible: [quote]That's one of the biggest reasons why people are lead to accept the wikileaks dumps -- it fits so well with everything we've been seeing.[/quote]
I do agree. It is exactly how the establishment work.
I do agree. It is exactly how the establishment work.