I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Really good.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I've become frustrated with finding out the "truth" about most anything on the internet. What is it likely Russia did?

1 Hacked and leaked actual email that Hil should have been more careful about? (still wrong but just trying to understand)
2 Made up shit and leaked it?
3 Something else?
4 Actually actively changed votes somehow?

Missed this thread.

We don't know all of what went on, but the most public intel has been released by crowdstrike, a private security operation that assisted the DNC in their forensic efforts. There is also now an FBI/DHS report out.

Both confirm that hacks have been directed against not just political organizations but also governmental organizations and private individuals. Crowdstrike identified hacked entities as including the White House, State Dept., and Joint Chiefs of Staff. Crowdstrike identifies the hackers as including two organizations that are likely Russian government affiliated, Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, that have each been active over an extended period of time. We also know that Republican party affiliates have been hacked. Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear are both well known in the security world.

So we know the hacks go beyond Podesta and the DNC. Podesta, the DNC and a few republican emails are the main ones that were the subject of orchestrated leaks, but there is likely a trove of documents that were accessed but not leaked.

The "leaked" Hillary emails didn't come from a hack; there is no evidence that the Russians ever accessed Hillary's emails. They came from emails released during the investigation that wikileaks organized (by pulling out everything referencing Iraq, for example).

As to the "made up shit", we also know that the leaked emails were interspersed with made up emails.

I haven't heard any proof of hacking to actually change votes cast on machines.

As far as what we don't know, we have no idea what the governmental hacks got them, or what they are sitting on from their Republican hacks. And while we know details of what trojan horses were planted when and where at the DNC, we don't have detail on exactly what they did in the White House, State Dept., or Joint Chief's systems.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

1 Hacked and leaked actual email that Hil should have been more careful about?

Hank, you're a smart guy, how can you be making this mistake at this point?

The hacked emails came from the DNC and Podesta's gmail. There was nothing for Hillary to be more careful about wrt to them.

But she used to have a server so "emails."

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

As to the "made up shit", we also know that the leaked emails were interspersed with made up emails.

Not sure this is true. There were some reports of it, but thing they wound up wrong/not well substantiated.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

Hank, you're a smart guy, how can you be making this mistake at this point?

The hacked emails came from the DNC and Podesta's gmail. There was nothing for Hillary to be more careful about wrt to them.

But she used to have a server so "emails."

Part of why we need a solid public investigation into this. But I'm betting the Republicans keep the investigation behind closed doors.

But expect every Trump administration statement on Russian hacking to include a reference to Hillary, no matter how irrelevant.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

Not sure this is true. There were some reports of it, but thing they wound up wrong/not well substantiated.

My understanding was that both Podesta and the DNC said emails were altered, but that they aren't releasing the unaltered ones to the general public, just the security agencies. Republicans keep telling them they should release them to the general public. Because it's always nice to see your opponent's internal communications.

But the security folks also have said altering emails is consistent with how these players have acted when they've done this elsewhere (like there was a big Turkish release).

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I've become frustrated with finding out the "truth" about most anything on the internet. What is it likely Russia did?

1 Hacked and leaked actual email that Hil should have been more careful about? (still wrong but just trying to understand)
2 Made up shit and leaked it?
3 Something else?
4 Actually actively changed votes somehow?

1. No. They never found her stuff.
2. Probably.
3. Lots of that. They hacked everything they could.
4. Yes. The hacked DNC emails detailing how the party was screwing Bernie did some serious damage. Loads of otherwise Hillary voters stayed home or voted for Johnson or Stein. (But it was probably a wash when you counter how many voters Trump lost because of the timed Access Hollwood leak.)

This far away from it, it seems a pretty fair race. On HRC's side you had WaPo/CNN/Boston Globe/Times (the usual media that lean left). On Trump's, you had Wikileaks/Fox (sort of)/Right wing blogosphere/Hackers. They just about balance each other.

I only say "pretty" fair because I can't say fully. Comey's involvement taints the whole thing.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

My understanding was that both Podesta and the DNC said emails were altered, but that they aren't releasing the unaltered ones to the general public, just the security agencies. Republicans keep telling them they should release them to the general public. Because it's always nice to see your opponent's internal communications.

But the security folks also have said altering emails is consistent with how these players have acted when they've done this elsewhere (like there was a big Turkish release).

If they could prove significant alterations, they'd release those emails.

There are some alterations, but I'd be surprised if they were of any consequence, or in any of the Wikileaks that received serious mainstream media attention.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Hank, you're a smart guy, how can you be making this mistake at this point?

The hacked emails came from the DNC and Podesta's gmail. There was nothing for Hillary to be more careful about wrt to them.

But she used to have a server so "emails."

You know what'd be a great article? One where a reporter tried to determine how many emails Hillary typically sent a day. I'll bet it's next to zero.

I'll bet of those 30k emails she deleted, 1-2 thousand were hers. And that's being generous.

She's out on the road raising money, doing events, being Secretary of State. And she's nearly 70. How many people do you know at that level, at that age, who are constantly sending out emails on their blackberries or iphones?

How many hours a day do you think she spent at a computer? Maybe ten minutes, if she was lucky?

Hillary had people to do her emailing for her, and she knew there was little to be gained, and perhaps much lost, in putting anything down in print when you're at her level, and constantly under attack.

I'll bet we already have most of those 30k emails. The hackers have probably hit enough people on enough of the chains on which Hillary was a recipient to virtually recreate everything deleted from her server.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Taibbi on the Russian hacking, or lack thereof: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...stinks-w458439

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

On HRC's side you had WaPo/CNN/Boston Globe/Times (the usual media that lean left). On Trump's, you had Wikileaks/Fox (sort of)/Right wing blogosphere/Hackers. They just about balance each other.

This may be the dumbest thing you've ever said.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

How many hours a day do you think she spent at a computer?

Well, she had a blackberry, but yeah.

TAL had a good overview of the email issue, based on a reading of all of the FBI interview summaries. Conclusion: Team Hillary was technologically incompetent, not nefarious (yeah, source).

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Taibbi on the Russian hacking, or lack thereof: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...stinks-w458439

Great. An article that cites Intercept but not Crowdstrike.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Adder

This may be the dumbest thing you've ever said.

It seems like someone says this about one of Sebastian's posts pretty much every week or two these days. I find it hard to believe that, each week, Sebastian is able to surpass the dumbness (or craziness, or whatever) of all of his previous posts ever. Nobody is that good. I guess this is a long way of saying that I recommend that we curtail the hyperbole a bit for 2017. And now, it's the first Daily Dose of 2017! A sweet 1969 cut from Lee Dorsey called "Give It Up." After the gospel-like opening piano chords, you may think to yourself that the backing band is TOTALLY ripping off some Meters riffs. And you would be right if it were not for the fact that the backing band is The Meters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh3cygQeZ1E

[Hank Chinaski]

http://www.freep.com/story/money/car...oday/96102086/

More jobs saved!