GOP congressman: Russia did ‘what the media should have done’ by leaking emails
I agree. Whether it was Wiki Leaks, Vlad the Impaler, disgruntled Republicans, doesn't matter. His statement of "it's what the media should have found out" is true, except the vast bulk of the media is clearly skewing everything the Democratic/Progressive way. I have seen probably 100 stories this year of our rights violated, clear cases of DOJ bias and manipulation, the IRS basically flipping off Congress, the EPA conducting it's own brand of eco warfare on citizens, and yet never do you see any investigation, or responsibility taken by them. The media ignores it all and focuses on people trying to get through all the lies, obfuscation and outright coverups, as " on a witch hunt" or "partisan politics". If it takes Vlads boys to do what our media won't, too bad, get over it.
There is no such thing as coincidence.
Today agents with integrity only exist in fiction.
In the Dark Center, loyalty is prized and initegrity expunged.
It was a simple spear-phishing campaign. Send a web link to 1000 people, "Did you see your pic in this article?" 500 of them fall for it, some percentage of those think "updating their Adobe Flash to better view it" sounds fine and allows the installation - and then they have you. That program dials home to the hacker's web server and dumps everything. They don't need to "hack" anything. Firewalls wouldn't matter at all.
The report said that installing antivirus, or keeping the OS updated (or using a Mac or Linux) would have prevented it.
Draw your own conclusions there, but the take-away is a group of brain-dead buffalos with the technical skill of a bunny rabbit, the common sense of a bag of hammers, and being extremely gullible.
An interesting factoid, I knew (a particularly dumb) federal contracting officer that fell for one of those on her home computer (would never work on a government one), and then she used her home computer to access the web Exchange access for her office email and the hackers gained access to her federal email account. They were in there for several months, and she was given the choice to retire or be fired for violating computer policy.
So what the people at the campaign did would have excluded them from federal employment and security clearances anyway.
I would also point out that if one looks at the modus operandi of the Hillary Clinton email server and the DNC itself (including Podesta), their IT teams were constantly being told to find ways to allow things that were operationally dangerous. I seriously doubt that these IT people didn't say "what you're doing isn't good practice" but it was also their paychecks! This was a problem caused primarily because the people involved view themselves as above the laws of others. That their own practices came back to bite them is enormously satisfying to me, personally! :)
Nevertheless, Julian Assange says the Russians did not do it. So who y'all wanna trust? Wikileaks or top government officials all beneath the Liar-In-Chief's thumb?
Hello, we're sssss from the government sssss and we are here sssss to help you.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2...
And that's just Defy Trump Phase One.
Phase Two is about how his toady lib media will all come a-hopping with mics extended to his still stickin' around Washington DC door every time The Donald so much as sneezes.
I think the mistake that Senators McCain and Graham (and many others) are making is to equate today's Russia with the the old USSR. I feel that Putin would like the respect as a world power the USSR had, but without the internal misery. To me, it looks more like he's trying to recreate the old imperial Russia, including encouraging Orthodox Christianity. Of course, when I think that I have to remember Putin joked (?) about wanting Alaska back.
As for the DNC email disclosures, I'm convinced that they originated from a DNC staffer, most likely the young man who was assassinated on the streets of DC. Anyone could have hacked that idiot Podesta, who fell for a phishing scam. No matter, justice was served.
Assange I don't think is guilty of anything, he's not subject to our laws. He may have broken others where he has lived, but I don't particularly have an opinion.
Assange has posted things that could bring great harm, embarrassment, or deaths, but he does seem diligent to redact the names, etc., though you wonder where the originals are. Those are people doing their job for their country, not screwing someone over.
But as far as I'm concerned, it is similar to the fall of Nixon; it wasn't the fact that he tried to infiltrate the Democrats to get knowledge of their strategies, it was that he lied, and tried to "cover it up" that led to his fall and ultimate resignation. Americans still believed, at that time, whole-heartedly in the fact that "no man is above the law". Nixon later said, in an interview with David Frost, that he believed nothing the president does is illegal. The beginning of the end for American democracy.
With this administration we really can't believe much of what they leak out to us any way. I am still trying to figure out just exactly when Transparency became Translucent!
In fact, every statement in your comment lacks substantiation.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...
Putin is incredibly rich but does not flaunt it:
https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com...
http://www.cfr.org/world/putin-oligar...
(remember the CFR is considered by some to be a haven for the left, and is also reputed to be part of the NWO).
http://nationalvanguard.org/2012/05/t...
Now that was just a quick search, and, as the last great head of the KGB, Vlad oversaw the collapse of the Soviet Union and it's drift into the oligarch empire, and then implemented the destruction of most of them (who would not comply or pledge allegiance to his new control) and their wealth always was "confiscated" for their "crimes".
So, yea, I would still say "Vlad is not a stellar example of honest governance", but Obama was worse.....
Have you ever heard of the economist Jeffrey Sachs? His belief that the privatization and capitalization of property in the former USSR needed to happen as quickly as possible, was the main reason for the emergence of the oligarchs. Have you ever heard of "loans for shares"? Perhaps you should educate yourself.
The newly formed Russian Federation did not have the proper legal framework in place for the protection of property that would inhibit what I call the "excesses of errant capitalism"---the market doesn't always prevent that, you know. (But then you probably don't know).
I could explain further, and maybe I will at a later date, but if it had not been for Vladimir Putin and others like him the Russian Federation would have sank back into Communism.
The involvement of the Russian government as shareholders in (especially) the energy industries is a check on possible infringement of the rights of other property holders. The US has, and had, a different approach. The Russians are learning.
You might be interested in this (The Rape of Russia):
http://thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Ot...
Because of Vladimir Putin, there has been tax reform that has resulted in Russia having one of the lowest rates on corporate profits of any country in the world. And Russia's economy came out of a steep decline---the IMF failed to make loans to Yeltsin's government, which I told him was a good thing all-in-all. Russia is nearly debt free, unlike the Ukraine.
Do you want to see the Russian Federation become Communist again? Believe me, there is a thriving Communist party in Russia, headed by Comrade Zyuganov, former Minister of Propaganda in the Soviet Union.
Your statement:
'...implemented the destruction of most of them (who would not comply or pledge allegiance to his new control) and their wealth always was "confiscated" for their "crimes" '
in the very able words of Wikipedia, "needs citations."
Mainly because you CHOSE to say that "Vlad is not a stellar example...and so on." If you want me to carry on a discussion with you, then drop the bias. End of story.
Aside from that, I do not get my information from "articles". Whether Bloomberg, CFR or the other two, that I have never heard of. Sounds pretty biased to me.
"Great One" will do just fine.