SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the all-your-email-are-belong-to-us dept.
From NPR:
President Obama has ordered the intelligence community to conduct a "full review" of "malicious cyber activity" timed to U.S. elections, the White House said Friday.
The review will go all the way back to the 2008 campaign when China was found to have hacked both the Obama and McCain campaigns, White House spokesman Eric Schultz said at a Friday press briefing.
In the 2016 election, U.S. intelligence officials charged that Russia had interfered. In early October, they released a strongly worded statement saying they were "confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations." The statement went on to say "these thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the U.S. election process."
Shortly after that, WikiLeaks began posting emails hacked from Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta's Gmail account. The slow drip of those emails, including transcripts of Clinton's remarks to Goldman Sachs, hung over the campaign in its closing weeks and proved embarrassing at times. Podesta said he spoke to the FBI about the hacking, and intelligence experts blamed Russia for that as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 11 2016, @03:55PM
> It's a sneaky and indirect way of disputing it, sure, but you could hear the FUD repeated by Podesta and others in interviews.
What "interviews?"
I never watch MSNBC or look at their website and this is the first I've heard of any of this. That dailynewsbin site looks like a bottom of the barrel kind of thing.
So MSNBC spends a 10 or 20 minutes on this, sends a few tweets and it all disappears into the ether.
It certainly was not a denial that got any traction.
Apparently you never heard any of those denials either since you keep telling us that dbv pointed this story out to you.
What I did hear constantly was clinton surrogates deflecting discussion of wikileaks by saying they were stolen and then changing the subject. Just the typical deflection tactics that you hear any time a reporter asks a politician a question they don't want to answer.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Sunday December 11 2016, @04:14PM
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/oct/23/are-clinton-wikileaks-emails-doctored-or-are-they-/ [politifact.com]
https://twitter.com/johnpodesta/status/784539553281355776 [twitter.com]
"I’m not happy about being hacked by the Russians in their quest to throw the election to Donald Trump, [I] don’t have time to figure out which docs are real and which are faked."
I remember other Clinton surrogates saying something similar, casting doubt on the authenticity of the emails in the weeks leading up to the election.
dbv pointed out The Intercept's article, which I linked.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 11 2016, @05:11PM
"I’m not happy about being hacked by the Russians in their quest to throw the election to Donald Trump, [I] don’t have time to figure out which docs are real and which are faked."
That's a far cry from saying they are faked. Maybe you are a just a political naif, but that's just generic deflection. You give it more importance than anyone on that show did.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 11 2016, @06:19PM
Lets game this out.
If some clintonian does say the emails are legit and one of them turns out to be fake, what do you think is going to happen?
Whatever that faked one says has now been endorsed by the clinton team.
The only rational thing for them to do is to say what they said - that the emails are unreliable because they came from an unreliable source and that they aren't going to validate them for anyone.
That's not anything close to saying a particular email was forged. Its simply not giving anyone leverage to harm them further.