Quote:Sorry, man, from our back-and-forth I thought you knew way more about computers than I did due to your work.  Maybe you know way more because you're just plain smarter than me.

 

Anyhoo...

 

All the MSM (Damn, I can't believe I just wrote that) articles and radio I've heard have really focused much more on the fact that a hostile foreign actor exerted influence on our election than an appeal for a Hillary victory.  I bolded the part of your quote because I heard an expert on the Smerconish show definitively contradict it.  The CIA is near 100% sure it was Cozy Bear.  I don't know how they got the signature - it may be on the release of the info as opposed to the acquisition side.  If you need absolute certain confirmation, I hear that doesn't really exist in the world of spooks.

 

The emails didn't really expose "widespread corruption in the DNC," but they did show some embarrassing conversations within the party.  The larger point is that the RNC, though probed by the same hackers, was not exposed.  Sean Spicer of the RNC posited it was because the RNC had better security and was not hacked.  When pressed, he had to admit that he did not know whether the RNC was hacked or not.

 

So here are your facts:

 

We know the DNC was hacked.

We are almost 100% sure the Russians hacked them.

The hacked information was released strategically (with the specific goal to bring about a result favorable to Vladimir Putin - which a logical conclusion, but not yet fact).

 

From the NYT article:

 

“There shouldn’t be any doubt in anybody’s mind,” Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency and commander of United States Cyber Command said at a postelection conference. “This was not something that was done casually, this was not something that was done by chance, this was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily,” he said. “This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect.”

 

Even Donald has backtracked on his original "The CIA sucks!" tweet, to a more conciliatory "Why the hell didn't anyone talk about this before election day?"  Which we did, and in the debates, he did.

 

This article gives a little bit of insight to the whole situation.  I also have seen other "articles" that pretty much confirm this, though I'm unable to post links to said articles.

 

The bottom line is, there is no evidence to conclude that the hacks originated from any certain country and/or from any government entity.

 

The other bottom line is the "election" wasn't hacked or rigged, the only "hack" was against the DNC.  The MSM should be focusing on what came out of those hacks and what was published rather than trying to spin the narrative that the hacks took place to change the election.  All the hacks did was expose the corruption within the DNC.

---