Hacker News Reader

Comment by TenOhms | Hacker News Reader

Do you have a link to evidence in support of #4?

#5 was as expected, taken out of context. All Trump said was that if the Russian did hack Hillary's email, that they release the 'lost/deleted' ones, something FBI wants very much as well.

#7 that isn't very surprising considering Obama's policies are so far to the left of most Republicans and frankly so seldom make any sense.

#8 again, not surprisingly that this was taken out of context by someone. Trump correctly pointed out that NATO has serious issues that need some tough love if they're going to be resolved.

View on HN

4.) https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-hacked-emails-of-dnc-op...

In mid-June, Democratic Party suspicions about the hackers seemed to be confirmed when CrowdStrike, an outside security firm retained by the DNC, reported that it traced the hackers to two separate units linked to Russia’s security services: the FSB, Russia’s equivalent of the FBI, and GRU, the country’s military intelligence agency.

5.) Trump explicitly said "russia, if you're listening, i hope you find hillary's emails"

7.) you're ignoring the fact that putin is a dictator that has $200 billion in wealth, and has committed various heinous crimes to his people and to other countries

8.) trump's anti-NATO remark was so bad, republicans ripped up trump for it http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/trump-nato-new-york-ti...

If anyone is convinced Russia hacked the DNC, Jake Williams put together a talk[0] about the subject. If you follow him on Twitter, you'll realize quickly he wouldn't dump ice cold water on Trump were he on fire. The reality is there is just no way anyone could honestly claim with the certainty that the DNC has claimed that it was Russia.

[0]https://files.sans.org/summit/Digital_Forensics_and_Incident...

They might have hacked the DNC, they might not have. I suspect it was just a leak from someone in the DNC, but we know Russia has motive since they fear a continuation of America's foreign policy would lead to war with the West.

More concerning is apparently our leaders can now deflect proof of misconduct by making unproven allegations against Russia.

> you're ignoring the fact that putin is a dictator that has $200 billion in wealth,

As opposed to the rags to riches dynasties running the US government one after another.

> and has committed various heinous crimes to his people and to other countries

Really? You want to play that game after the US has meddled in half the world and assassinated and deposed democratically elected leaders then installed dictators?

>trump's anti-NATO remark was so bad, republicans ripped up trump for it

Of course they would, they are all interventionist NEOCONs.

Can you provide a link with evidence it wasn't? Because every article I've seen cites Russia. Applying Occam's razor and asking "Who benefits?" along with everything about Trump's campaign manager, along with proposed policies re: anti-nato and pro-Russian regional invasions, it all leads to Trump being an unwitting or witting agent of Russia. Trump wants some of that oligarch money. Anyone who doesn't see that is being willfully ignorant.

What I love most is how Obama is hated because he's a Muslim agent (despite literally zero evidence), but here's an actual agent of the former-USSR trying to steal an election and these guys are after Hillarys email management. Selective paranoia apparently.

So just to be clear, you have zero evidence to back up your assertion.

It wasn't his assertion. The user who made the assertion posted evidence that you can respond to if you like.

"Who benefits?"

The hawkish neocon establishment, as can be easily observed.

"evidence"

You mean, "code with comments in Russian"? Then I presume if the comments had been in English, it would be evidence of a British involvement? Or maybe Australian?

Just admit you hate Trump. It makes these rambling thesis' based on NO EVIDENCE easier to defend.

Apart from paranoid in one side, you seem paranoid in the other. This case is almost a complete set of emails so it's unlikely it's a hack. Most probably a whistleblower, potentially Seth Rich.

Now the question, does it matter ? If the emails are legit it is the only thing that counts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com