Reply to Obama Admin under pressure to provide "hacking" proof

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Obama Admin under pressure to provide "hacking" proof"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Foreign governments attempt to hack our government all the time which makes Hilary's private server scheme all the more laughable and scary. There are also claims that the DNC hacks were an inside job. Obama needs to provide proof on serious allegations against a foreign government  like election tampering. [/quote]

True.  In light of the Democrats claiming Russian hacking is such a huge threat to America, how is that consistent with the conclusion that HRC was NOT criminally negligent?[/quote]
And back to the deflections.

I'm going to guess that Obama didn't start talking publicly about this until the intelligence was irrefutable. Now whether we get to see the evidence is another thing.[/quote]

How can such evidence be withheld? [/quote]

There is no evidence.  Read the disclaimer at the beginning of the report, top of the first page.  It specifically states that there are no warranties provided as to any of the content of the report.  They are basically telling you upfront that they are providing you with unreliable "information" which no one should use as the basis of any actions or conclusions about anything.   Obama is actually daring us to be stupid enough to believe that the report means whatever we want it to mean.[/quote]

No, that's a standard DHS disclaimer on all its reports.  It doesn't mean what you think it does.  By "warranties" it means that you can't sue DHS for what they say.  Likely they are more concerned about libel/defamation/tort claims wrt specific software etc they mention in their reports.

Still wondering why anyone believes that the public should be privy to every piece of evidence in what is no doubt a highly sensitive and top secret investigation? [/quote]

LOL.  I think it means exactly what it says.   You're foolish or self-deluded if you choose to disregard those words.[/quote]

So since it appears on everything DHS puts out, we can't actually believe anything from them.  Including the DHS reports on terrorism and immigration.  [/quote]

If what they put out is unsourced and not independently verifiable, then yes--it means exactly what it says--it's completely unreliable.  [/quote]

:roll: and the black helicopters are coming for you.

once again -- this is a disclaimer that this particular type of report, which makes cybersecurity recommendations, puts out with respect to those recommendations. It means "you can't sue us if you still get hacked" and "we are not endorsing any products we mention here."  If you are a cybersecurity expert looking for technical advice -- sure, that should  be something on your radar.  But it says nothing at all about the underlying facts -- the conclusion that the Russians hacked the election. [/quote]

LOL.  Nowhere in the report does it conclude that "the Russians hacked the election."  Prove me wrong by cut and pasting that quote.  You're completely delusional.  That's why jsteele concluded the report contains no useful information.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics