DNC Leaks

[Juma]

If you happen to be Vlad Putin, Trump is like an angel sent from heaven, to gift you with the Baltic States (Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania). And from there? The sky's the limit!

Don't pay attention to the contents of the emails, pay attention to the illegitimate way they were released.

It is exactly like a guy who was caught cheating trying to twist the conversation to why his wife was snooping on his phone.

And why do anyone believe these emails isnt fake? There is nothing more easy to fake....

 

[Deepak]

No one from the DNC has claimed so, and the DNC CFO apologizing for his comments support their truthfulness.

That said - the veracity of the emails could be confirmed through forensics, though it's moot since the DNC has essentially owned up to it.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'll add to that the DNC is blaming Russia for having stolen the emails. Also, both Clinton and Kaine have commented on the DNC's emails.

It would seem extremely odd that the Democratic Party would choose to do those things if the emails were fake.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I'll add to that the DNC is blaming Russia for having stolen the emails. Also, both Clinton and Kaine have commented on the DNC's emails.

It would seem extremely odd that the Democratic Party would choose to do those things if the emails were fake.

Who is saying that they are fake?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'll add to that the DNC is blaming Russia for having stolen the emails. Also, both Clinton and Kaine have commented on the DNC's emails.

It would seem extremely odd that the Democratic Party would choose to do those things if the emails were fake.

The DNC has alleged there has been tampering with some emails. That said, yeah, the veracity of the emails, otherwise are not in dispute. Personally, it is disappointing, but I've been disappointed with the DNC for a while now. This doesn't change that. What bothers me, is that Russia is trying to fuck with our election, and now Trump encouraging it (or at least condoning it). I remember in 2004 when bin Laden released a tape trying to do likewise.

 

[Harry Bosch]

So far, I've only seen die hard Bernsters complaining that the election was rigged. I haven't heard of a single HRC voter claiming that they would have voted for Bernie.

You look at the END results of a corrupted system.

And like a mindless plant say all is well.

It was Bernie with nothing but his truths in a rigged game.

The truth can only do so much it seems.

Again, I think that you're being a little dramatic here. Look, most of the e-mails that I saw were after June. Well, after June, everyone knew that HRC would win. She had millions of more vote and more delegates. Maybe it is the DNC's head job to gently nudge out candidates who have no chance but could drag down the party.

 

[fromderinside]

You look at the END results of a corrupted system.

And like a mindless plant say all is well.

It was Bernie with nothing but his truths in a rigged game.

The truth can only do so much it seems.

What is a corrupted system. The system when it was formed was very corrupt. A few old men, a few cigars and wallah a presidential candidate is selected.

Now there are fifty state systems most of them quasi democratic. Usually a polling and registering to gather candidates. Some coercion to eliminate those who are wasting the people's (party's) time, then a usually restricted to party vote for the ones to get state votes, then another certification by state party shakers and a vote at a national convention.

Still somewhat corrupt what with some pros insisting on trying to manipulate whatever money and resources the state MACHINE can muster. However to suggest state party or national party officials have the power to make things come out one way or another is more than a stretch. Its pure fiction.

Bernie had no chance to be the party's nominee. Yet he got a large segment of idealists excited. They, it turns out, are the ones who see conspiracy behind every Bush and Clinton. Could it be they now see that politics is hard work? B ernie wasn't going to get there. He hadn't done his internship, paid his power dues. That he got as far as he did is remarkable.

What is disgusting is a few pouting 'idealists' demanding things run their way. If they want that then need to get involved in daily,monthly, quarterly, political activity. Hell they don't even vote on off years. What's corrupt is the idea that these anointed ones can make life tough for the committed democrat.

You had your shot. You did well. We got the message. Now get in there and negotiate with the rest of us to get things done. Or is that just too hard for you? Your precinct captain,county party, mayor, assemblyman, representative, registrar, would really appreciate it if you worked with them to get people out to the polls.

 

[Harry Bosch]

You look at the END results of a corrupted system.

And like a mindless plant say all is well.

It was Bernie with nothing but his truths in a rigged game.

The truth can only do so much it seems.

What is a corrupted system. The system when it was formed was very corrupt. A few old men, a few cigars and wallah a presidential candidate is selected.
Now there are fifty state systems most of them quasi democratic. Usually a polling and registering to gather candidates. Some coeresion to eliminate those who are wasting the people's (party's) time, then a usually restricted to party vote for the ones to get state votes, then another certification by state party shakers and a vote at a national convention. Still somewhat corrupt what with some pros insisting on trying to manipulate whatever money and resources the state MACHINE can muster. However to suggest state party or national party officials have the power to make things come out one way or another is more than a stretch. Its pure fiction.

Bernie had no chance to be the party's nominee. Yet he got a large segment of idealists excited. They are the ones who see conspiracy behind every Bush and Clinton. He wasn't going to get there. He hadn't done his internship, paid his power dues. That he got as far as he did is remarkable.

What is disgusting is a few pouting 'idealists' demanding things run their way. If they want that then need to get involved in daily,monthly, quarterly, political activity. Hell they don't even vote on off years. What's corrupt is the idea that these anointed ones can make life tough for the committed democrat.

You had your shot. You did well. We got the message. Now get in there and negotiate with the rest of us to get things done. Or is that just too hard for you?

What do you mean that "he had no shot?". Just because he had Deborah being a little mean to him? If that is all that it would take, Trump would absolutely trounce him in the general election. It's tough for an outsider to take on such a powerful incumbent as HRC. Bernie did it, did it well. He had a lot of barriers, and he almost beat them. But he fell a few million short.

 

[fromderinside]

I mean he had no shot.

In the republican party's case the party had no shot. No way one who depends on recruiting money for exposure will win when there are essentially no rules in debates and one candidate has instant access to media and who is willing to break all the rules.

Now comes the time when debate precedent and rules apply, when money and machine are important in getting out adherents, when name recognition and access are essentially equal, the one with money and organization will win.

 

[barbos]

I'll add to that the DNC is blaming Russia for having stolen the emails. Also, both Clinton and Kaine have commented on the DNC's emails.

It would seem extremely odd that the Democratic Party would choose to do those things if the emails were fake.

The DNC has alleged there has been tampering with some emails. That said, yeah, the veracity of the emails, otherwise are not in dispute. Personally, it is disappointing, but I've been disappointed with the DNC for a while now. This doesn't change that. What bothers me, is that Russia is trying to fuck with our election, and now Trump encouraging it (or at least condoning it). I remember in 2004 when bin Laden released a tape trying to do likewise.

You do realize that blaming Russians could be an attempt at damage control? Nobody knows for sure it was russians, let alone government.

 

[laughing dog]

The DNC has alleged there has been tampering with some emails. That said, yeah, the veracity of the emails, otherwise are not in dispute. Personally, it is disappointing, but I've been disappointed with the DNC for a while now. This doesn't change that. What bothers me, is that Russia is trying to fuck with our election, and now Trump encouraging it (or at least condoning it). I remember in 2004 when bin Laden released a tape trying to do likewise.

You do realize that blaming Russians could be an attempt at damage control? Nobody knows for sure it was russians, let alone government.

Of course it is damage control, because the content and volume of the emails has nothing to do with who obtained them or how they were obtained.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Democrats are trying to deflect by claiming that "experts" indicate Russia did it.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/24/politics/robby-mook-russia-dnc-emails-trump/index.html

Whether or not Russia was the hackers doesn't really matter.

Whether the leaked e-mail is real is very important--and it looks like Russia tampered with it.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/...rs-Altered-Emails-Before-Release-to-Wikileaks

 

[fromderinside]

Democrats are trying to deflect by claiming that "experts" indicate Russia did it.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/24/politics/robby-mook-russia-dnc-emails-trump/index.html

Whether or not Russia was the hackers doesn't really matter.

Whether the leaked e-mail is real is very important--and it looks like Russia tampered with it.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/...rs-Altered-Emails-Before-Release-to-Wikileaks

To laughing dog's point that who hacked isn't important. It is important to understand who hacked since the hacked material has been modified.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Democrats are trying to deflect by claiming that "experts" indicate Russia did it.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/24/politics/robby-mook-russia-dnc-emails-trump/index.html

RUSSIA NEVER DOES ANYTHING BAD.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The DNC has alleged there has been tampering with some emails. That said, yeah, the veracity of the emails, otherwise are not in dispute. Personally, it is disappointing, but I've been disappointed with the DNC for a while now. This doesn't change that. What bothers me, is that Russia is trying to fuck with our election, and now Trump encouraging it (or at least condoning it). I remember in 2004 when bin Laden released a tape trying to do likewise.

You do realize that blaming Russians could be an attempt at damage control? Nobody knows for sure it was russians, let alone government.

I would agree, except the link to Russia was made in June, before the publishing.

 

[barbos]

You do realize that blaming Russians could be an attempt at damage control? Nobody knows for sure it was russians, let alone government.

I would agree, except the link to Russia was made in June, before the publishing.

They knew it was going to be published.

 

[barbos]

Democrats are trying to deflect by claiming that "experts" indicate Russia did it.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/24/politics/robby-mook-russia-dnc-emails-trump/index.html

RUSSIA NEVER DOES ANYTHING BAD.

Never, same with US.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Democrats are trying to deflect by claiming that "experts" indicate Russia did it.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/24/politics/robby-mook-russia-dnc-emails-trump/index.html

Whether or not Russia was the hackers doesn't really matter.

Whether the leaked e-mail is real is very important--and it looks like Russia tampered with it.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/...rs-Altered-Emails-Before-Release-to-Wikileaks

from your link:

The metadata show that the Russian operators apparently edited some documents, and in some cases created new documents after the intruders were already expunged from the DNC network on June 11. A file called donors.xls, for instance, was created more than a day after the story came out, on June 15, most likely by copy-pasting an existing list into a clean document. Although so far the actual content of the leaked documents appears not to have been tampered with ...

There is no story here with alterations YET. Removing the source information/metadata is something hackers do to remove the tracks.

Also, from your link:

... The original intruders made other errors: one leaked document included hyperlink error messages in Cyrillic, the result of editing the file on a computer with Russian language settings. After this mistake became public, the intruders removed the Cyrillic information from the metadata in the next dump and carefully used made-up user names from different world regions. ...

Changing metadata is something hackers will do. None of this means that the actual hackers were Russian, though.

If it were you doing the hacking, you might very well use multiple levels of deception to obscure the original source of the hack. For example, you might make it look like it came from somebody else and then only partially remove the info to make yourself look stupid.

So, for example again, the original hackers could be a few people from Anonymous who like Bernie Sanders, but then they made it look like it came from Russian intelligence which completely distracts everyone from the original source of the hack. Some other very small leads to other possible sources may be so hard to see and the right resources won't even be put into finding them. Of course, I don't really care whether it was the Russians or the Romanians or Anonymous that much. I DO think that treating some things as foregone conclusions without understanding them deserves a little conversation but I do not expect any Clinton fans to change their minds.

So all this said, again, it doesn't matter that much. What matters more is what the DNC did. And none of the alleged metadata changes change any of the contents of what the DNC did to Senator Sanders.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Whether or not Russia was the hackers doesn't really matter.

Whether the leaked e-mail is real is very important--and it looks like Russia tampered with it.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/...rs-Altered-Emails-Before-Release-to-Wikileaks

from your link:

The metadata show that the Russian operators apparently edited some documents, and in some cases created new documents after the intruders were already expunged from the DNC network on June 11. A file called donors.xls, for instance, was created more than a day after the story came out, on June 15, most likely by copy-pasting an existing list into a clean document. Although so far the actual content of the leaked documents appears not to have been tampered with ...

There is no story here with alterations YET. Removing the source information/metadata is something hackers do to remove the tracks.

Also, from your link:

... The original intruders made other errors: one leaked document included hyperlink error messages in Cyrillic, the result of editing the file on a computer with Russian language settings. After this mistake became public, the intruders removed the Cyrillic information from the metadata in the next dump and carefully used made-up user names from different world regions. ...

Changing metadata is something hackers will do. None of this means that the actual hackers were Russian, though.

If it were you doing the hacking, you might very well use multiple levels of deception to obscure the original source of the hack. For example, you might make it look like it came from somebody else and then only partially remove the info to make yourself look stupid.

So, for example again, the original hackers could be a few people from Anonymous who like Bernie Sanders, but then they made it look like it came from Russian intelligence which completely distracts everyone from the original source of the hack. Some other very small leads to other possible sources may be so hard to see and the right resources won't even be put into finding them. Of course, I don't really care whether it was the Russians or the Romanians or Anonymous that much. I DO think that treating some things as foregone conclusions without understanding them deserves a little conversation but I do not expect any Clinton fans to change their minds.

So all this said, again, it doesn't matter that much. What matters more is what the DNC did. And none of the alleged metadata changes change any of the contents of what the DNC did to Senator Sanders.

I actually agree wiht you that the hackers probably didn't change much of the content of the leaks. Or else the e-mails would have been much more damning. Highlighting e-mails about officals discussing possibly leaking information that Bernie was an athiest after the primary was decided isn't all that juicy to me.

 

[barbos]

Whether or not Russia was the hackers doesn't really matter.

Whether the leaked e-mail is real is very important--and it looks like Russia tampered with it.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/...rs-Altered-Emails-Before-Release-to-Wikileaks

from your link:

The metadata show that the Russian operators apparently edited some documents, and in some cases created new documents after the intruders were already expunged from the DNC network on June 11. A file called donors.xls, for instance, was created more than a day after the story came out, on June 15, most likely by copy-pasting an existing list into a clean document. Although so far the actual content of the leaked documents appears not to have been tampered with ...

There is no story here with alterations YET. Removing the source information/metadata is something hackers do to remove the tracks.

Also, from your link:

... The original intruders made other errors: one leaked document included hyperlink error messages in Cyrillic, the result of editing the file on a computer with Russian language settings. After this mistake became public, the intruders removed the Cyrillic information from the metadata in the next dump and carefully used made-up user names from different world regions. ...

Changing metadata is something hackers will do. None of this means that the actual hackers were Russian, though.

If it were you doing the hacking, you might very well use multiple levels of deception to obscure the original source of the hack. For example, you might make it look like it came from somebody else and then only partially remove the info to make yourself look stupid.

So, for example again, the original hackers could be a few people from Anonymous who like Bernie Sanders, but then they made it look like it came from Russian intelligence which completely distracts everyone from the original source of the hack. Some other very small leads to other possible sources may be so hard to see and the right resources won't even be put into finding them. Of course, I don't really care whether it was the Russians or the Romanians or Anonymous that much. I DO think that treating some things as foregone conclusions without understanding them deserves a little conversation but I do not expect any Clinton fans to change their minds.

So all this said, again, it doesn't matter that much. What matters more is what the DNC did. And none of the alleged metadata changes change any of the contents of what the DNC did to Senator Sanders.

I don't understand why removing original metadata is all that important. Trying to hide the fact of the massive hack is hopeless on the part of hackers. I would have simply dumped it as it was.