491–500 of 502 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Delete your account.
Please don't, regardless of the provocation. It just makes the thread worse. If you see an egregious comment, flag it instead. (You can flag a comment by clicking on its timestamp to go to its page, then clicking 'flag' at the top. This requires > 30 karma.)
Unfortunately for her, being "robbed like a Christian in the night" doesnt hold a candle of defence to DKIM signatures. Sorry Brazilenut, you gave multiple questions to the Hillary campaign and are guilty of conspiring to destroy the fairness of a democratically held election. Goto jail and dont come back.
We've banned this account for trolling, detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13280251 , and marked it off-topic. Please stop creating accounts to break HN's rules with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't missed that at all. It just has absolutely nothing to do with fleitz's claim that the DNC rigged the primaries. Maybe you are not an American. Do you know what the primaries are?
Does the definition of "rig" change from the primaries to the general?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Donna Brazille was fired for leaking debate questions to the HRC campaign
> Donna Brazille wasn't DNC chair until after the primaries were over, so how would she be an example of the DNC rigging the primaries for Clinton?
You know instead of the Hillary campaign saying, no no, you shouldn't appoint her, we have evidence that she is corrupt, here's the evidence.
And then after the evidence came to light the DNC was like, oh that's fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Donna Brazille wasn't DNC chair until after the primaries were over, so how would she be an example of the DNC rigging the primaries for Clinton?
Because she sent the emails to the Hillary Campaign. And then was surprise surprise, appointed to the DNC Chair. You know instead of the Hillary campaign saying, no no, you shouldn't appoint her, we have evidence that she is corrupt, here's the evidence. And then after the evidence came to light the DNC was like, oh that's fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly, why burn zero-days when you're targeting a technologically unsophisticated adversary with a huge organizational attack surface? Then how is this evidence of a 'state-sponsored actor'? And how did the narrative of this story ever get derailed from what it should have been, which was, "The DNC, and John Podesta in particular who had both his gmail and his Twitter accounts hacked, are incompetent", to "this is…
this is Russian interference in a US election Although the media and many in politics are saying this, it's plainly false. There is no serious claim that the Russians interfered in our election . The claims are that the Russians interfered in a presidential campaign . There's a huge difference between the process of campaigning, versus the election process of casting and counting votes. Sowing this confusion is usefu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because she sent the emails to the Hillary Campaign. And then was surprise surprise, appointed to the DNC Chair. You know instead of the Hillary campaign saying, no no, you shouldn't appoint her, we have evidence that she is corrupt, here's the evidence. And then after the evidence came to light the DNC was like, oh that's fine.
Once again, how is that evidence of the DNC rigging the primaries for Clinton against Sanders? Do you admit that no such evidence exists?
I hope that Hillary and the DNC are able to get their day in court so the evidence can be heard by a jury of their peers rather than the court of public opinion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand why that might superficially decrease you trust in the claims, but consider the perspective of the totalitarian trying to spin up a chemical weapons program. Wouldn't leveraging existing expertise and contractors be a good way to get the weapons you wanted? Why wouldn't a dictator hire outsiders to build weapons? Having his experts check them for traps after the construction sounds much cheaper than buil…
I'm thinking at worst our intelligence agencies were intentionally looking the other way during a time period when Saddam was in favor with the US - and at best they missed it and did not stop the weapon assembly at the time...
I do think someone was "looking the other way", but I don't think it was our spy agencies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once again, how is that evidence of the DNC rigging the primaries for Clinton against Sanders? Do you admit that no such evidence exists?
No I don't, to me the emails and the resignations are both evidence and an admission of guilt, to you it might not be. I hope that Hillary and the DNC are able to get their day in court so the evidence can be heard by a jury of their peers rather than the court of public opinion.
Be specific. Which emails are evidence of guilt? None of the emails I've seen have shown any evidence of the DNC rigging the primaries. Why would the resignations be evidence of guilt if the stated reasons for resignation are just as plausible?
Do you realize how much you sound like a conspiracy theorist?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That some people are unfamiliar with computer security is not news. I have known a fair number of big-shot executives and politicians, all of whom I'd expect would click on suspicious links in their email (if they read the email) and double-click on attachments. The news is why that particular person was targeted.
> The news is why that particular person was targeted. For which no proof is being presented. Lots of stuff about hacking tools, nothing really about identifying hackers. Lots of anonymous high level sources offering vague assurances and excuses for why we can't present info...