Trump's chief of staff acknowledges that Russia was behind DNC hacks
71 replies, posted
[QUOTE]President-elect Donald Trump's incoming chief of staff accepted on Sunday that Russia was behind last year's hacking and leaking of internal emails from top officials at the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign.
In an interview on "Fox News Sunday" with Chris Wallace, Reince Priebus acknowledged that Trump "accepts the fact that this particular case was entities in Russia," but argued that the DNC should be criticized for not taking cyber security more seriously.
"I think he accepts the findings, Chris," Priebus said of Trump. "But here's the thing that everyone needs to understand. When this whole thing started, it started from the Russians 50 years ago. In other words, this is something that's been going on in our elections for many, many years. The Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians — it happens, every election period."
He added: "It started way back in 2015 before either nominee of either party was chosen. And it started, and this is declassified, as a spear phishing expedition. It just so happens that the DNC had nearly no defenses on their system. And when they were warned multiple times by the FBI, they didn't respond."
...
Even following a high-profile intelligence meeting on the subject on Friday, Trump still hedged his response.
"While Russia, China, other countries, outside groups and people are consistently trying to break through the cyber infrastructure of our governmental institutions, businesses and organizations including the Democrat National Committee, there was absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election including the fact that there was no tampering whatsoever with voting machines," Trump said in a statement.
Not all of Trump's inner circle were willing to directly acknowledge that Russia was the primary actor behind the cyber intrusions.
Asked about whether she believed Russia was behind the hacks, Trump counselor Kellyanne Conway told CNN on Sunday said that "Russia, China, and others," attempted to infiltrate networks of top American political organizations.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-reince-priebus-russia-dnc-hacks-2017-1?r=US&IR=T&IR=T[/url]
Seems like everybody except Trump has accepted that the DNC was hacked by Russia at this point. Didn't see this posted before.
They're trying to spin this whole thing into looking like the norm. Same thing they've done with every other scandal this election. (e.g "locker-room" talk)
Unfortunately it's pretty clear people are going to eat it up again.
i wouldnt call 2 factor authentication plus a full time security staff "no defenses whatsoever"
also if he does accept it, then as his fucking chief of staff please for the love of god get him to publicly acknowlege it
I at least appreciate that we have moved the goalposts from "Russia didn't do it" to "Russia did it but they do it every year so its okay".
I wonder how people on here who say the intelligence community is lying are going to react when Trump acknowledges it :v:
[QUOTE=Sableye;51642065]i wouldnt call 2 factor authentication plus a full time security staff "no defenses whatsoever"
also if he does accept it, then as his fucking chief of staff please for the love of god get him to publicly acknowlege it[/QUOTE]
John Podesta's email password was "password" lmfao
[editline]8th January 2017[/editline]
And their "full time security staff" are the idiots that told Podesta a phishing email was legitimate.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51642073]I at least appreciate that we have moved the goalposts from "Russia didn't do it" to "Russia did it but they do it every year so its okay".
I wonder how people on here who say the intelligence community is lying are going to react when Trump acknowledges it :v:[/QUOTE]
I especially like Trump's stance where he doesn't explicitly say that the DNC was hacked by Russia in this instance, but they "are consistently trying to break through the cyber infrastructure of our governmental institutions, businesses and organizations including the Democrat National Committee" - but just to make sure, he points out that it definitely didn't impact the election.
It's completely ridiculous.
[QUOTE=srobins;51642083]
And their "full time security staff" are the idiots that told Podesta a phishing email was legitimate.[/QUOTE]
[url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/14/dnc-hillary-clinton-emails-hacked-russia-aide-typo-investigation-finds] Dude accidentally wrote "legitimate" instead of "illegitimate". Dumb mistake, but one anybody could make.[/url]
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51642091]I especially like Trump's stance where he doesn't explicitly say that the DNC was hacked by Russia in this instance, but they "are consistently trying to break through the cyber infrastructure of our governmental institutions, businesses and organizations including the Democrat National Committee" - but just to make sure, he points out that it definitely didn't impact the election.
It's completely ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
Well I don't think they impacted the election either, at least not in a way that can be readily proven. I'm just happy to see more people reaching the same conclusion and I hope some of the holdouts here on FP catch up too.
[QUOTE=Super Muffin;51642099][url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/14/dnc-hillary-clinton-emails-hacked-russia-aide-typo-investigation-finds]Dude accidentally wrote "legitimate" instead of "illegitimate". It's a dumb mistake, but one anybody could have mad[/url][/QUOTE]
I don't really care to get into whether or not you want to consider that a "dumb mistake" or "fucking catastrophic", but either way the DNC's security was a total joke. When /pol/ can hack the chairman of a major presidential campaign in real-time, you fucked up.
Current PR spin step: Admit Russia was behind the hack, make it seem like something that regularly happens. (it doesn't.)
Next PR spin step: Downplay the effect of the hack and say it didn't effect the election.
Next PR spin step: Say the hack did effect the election, but not to a "reasonable extent".
[QUOTE=srobins;51642109]I don't really care to get into whether or not you want to consider that a "dumb mistake" or "fucking catastrophic", but either way the DNC's security was a total joke. When /pol/ can hack the chairman of a major presidential campaign in real-time, you fucked up.[/QUOTE]
Do you really think the GOP's security is any better though. Like sure it's absolutely terrible security, but for real.
[QUOTE=Super Muffin;51642099][url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/14/dnc-hillary-clinton-emails-hacked-russia-aide-typo-investigation-finds] Dude accidentally wrote "legitimate" instead of "illegitimate". Dumb mistake, but one anybody could make.[/url][/QUOTE]
If one individual's typo can lead to Clinton's campaign chairman being compromised then that's a failure of appropriate security.
I severely doubt it's something that only affects Democrats but the takeaway from 2016 is that a lot of people in power managing sensitive information have absolutely zero regard for what they have their hands on.
[QUOTE=srobins;51642083]John Podesta's email password was "password" lmfao[/QUOTE]
Was this ever actually proven to be true? I thought this was proven to be untrue at some point.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51642128]If one individual's typo can lead to Clinton's campaign chairman being compromised then that's a failure of appropriate security.
(...) a lot of people in power managing sensitive information have absolutely zero regard for what they have their hands on.[/QUOTE]
Yeah. There's still regular reminders to congressmen to change their passwords to things that aren't "password1".
[QUOTE=Ghost_Zero;51642130]Was this ever actually proven to be true? I thought this was proven to be untrue at some point.[/QUOTE]
[url=http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/jan/06/jesse-watters/claim-john-podestas-email-password-was-password-la/]It's untrue[/url]
The new talking point is the GOP would have been hacked too if it wasn't so awesome and secure. Those dumb Democrats couldn't keep their shit secure like us Republicans.
okay, so the russians hacked the dnc, and exposed clinton for being the pile of shit that she is. as a result, the electoral college decided that trump would be the better pick for potus.
i fail to see the problem here.
[QUOTE=Pops;51642176]okay, so the russians hacked the dnc, and exposed clinton for being the pile of shit that she is. as a result, the electoral college decided that trump would be the better pick for potus.
i fail to see the problem here.[/QUOTE]
"A foreign power hacked one of the two major political parties and released documents to influence the chances of their preferred candidate winning" yea, no problem at all.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51642146][url=http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/jan/06/jesse-watters/claim-john-podestas-email-password-was-password-la/]It's untrue[/url][/QUOTE]
If his password really was password then they wouldn't have needed spearphishing they would've caught it during the phase where they used rockyou.txt
[url]https://wiki.skullsecurity.org/index.php?title=Passwords[/url]
123456
12345
123456789
password
iloveyou
princess
1234567
rockyou
12345678
abc123
nicole
daniel
babygirl
monkey
lovely
jessica
654321
michael
It would've fallen on attempt 4.
[QUOTE=Pops;51642176]okay, so the russians hacked the dnc, and exposed clinton for being the pile of shit that she is. as a result, the electoral college decided that trump would be the better pick for potus.
i fail to see the problem here.[/QUOTE]
Seems like a big breach of security huh
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51642196]Seems like a big breach of security huh[/QUOTE]
for the democratic party, yes. however, they aren't a government institution, it's a private committee.
also, there's no direct proof the hacks had an effect on the election, especially when you also had comey clearing clinton of any wrongdoing just a few days before the election.
[QUOTE=Pops;51642176]okay, so the russians hacked the dnc, and exposed clinton for being the pile of shit that she is. as a result, the electoral college decided that trump would be the better pick for potus.
i fail to see the problem here.[/QUOTE]
They got both and chose which one they wanted to release.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51642107]Well I don't think they impacted the election either, at least not in a way that can be readily proven. I'm just happy to see more people reaching the same conclusion and I hope some of the holdouts here on FP catch up too.[/QUOTE]
It's not so much that he's saying it didn't impact the election (though with the margins he won by, I wouldn't be so sure), it's that he isn't directly acknowledging that the DNC was hacked by the Russians, but he still hedges his bets by claiming it (the thing he didn't say happened) didn't influence the election. At least that's my reading of it.
[QUOTE=Fort83;51642253]"A foreign power hacking into and interfering in our election is only okay if it helps my candidate win" - Pops[/QUOTE]
My canidate lost as a result of the corruption the DNC leaks exposed, the election was interfered with by DNC officials. The DNC was then hacked and the truth of their corruption gets exposed.
And the main story here is that "russia interfered in our election". :hammered:
edit:
If your primary concern here is that someone in russia exposed the truth and the truth affected the election i feel like your priorities are fucked.
[QUOTE=srobins;51642083]John Podesta's email password was "password" lmfao
[editline]8th January 2017[/editline]
And their "full time security staff" are the idiots that told Podesta a phishing email was legitimate.[/QUOTE]
no it was not and they were constantly recieving phishing emails like hundreds a day
[QUOTE=Pops;51642176]okay, so the russians hacked the dnc, and exposed clinton for being the pile of shit that she is. as a result, the electoral college decided that trump would be the better pick for potus.
i fail to see the problem here.[/QUOTE]
whether or not it really happened and whether it was Clinton, Trump, Sanders or whatever, you wouldn't see the problem in having Russia wanting to pick what they see as a weaker candidate for President and influence the elections in their favour?
[QUOTE=Pops;51642176]okay, so the russians hacked the dnc, and exposed clinton for being the pile of shit that she is. as a result, the electoral college decided that trump would be the better pick for potus.
i fail to see the problem here.[/QUOTE]
how far would they need to go before you did see a problem?
[QUOTE=Mattk50;51642269]My canidate lost as a result of the corruption the DNC leaks exposed, the election was interfered with by DNC officials. The DNC was then hacked and the truth of their corruption gets exposed.
And the main story here is that "russia interfered in our election". :hammered:
edit:
If your primary concern here is that someone in russia exposed the truth and the truth affected the election i feel like your priorities are fucked.[/QUOTE]
And do you think the Russians were doing it with noble intentions of exposing the DNC corruption because they are our friends? Do you think that, out of both of those alarming and terrible situations, that the DNC's unfair bias against Bernie was more urgent than the Russian interference with our election?
How about the fact that the Russians also hacked Republicans, but have yet to release anything? Does it concern you that Republicans are falling in line and defering to the Russians, who have information on the republicans too? Does it concern you that Republicans are trying to portray Russians as the lesser of two evils than Democrats and liberals?
I'm not dismissing the shitty things that the DNC did against Bernie. When the story first
came out, I even contemplated voting independent instead of Democrat just to spite the DNC. However, I came to my senses by election day and saw that the other situations were a bigger threat that first needed addressing. I agree the DNC needs an overhaul, but there is a time and a place for that. Right now, we have bigger fish to fry - we can hold the feet of the DNC to the fire later.
[QUOTE=Naught;51642283]how far would they need to go before you did see a problem?[/QUOTE]
if they had some actual effect on the voting bits (i.e. hacking machines). because realistically, this is no different than the media spinning every little trump story that ever came out to try and give clinton a bigger boost.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;51642269]My canidate lost as a result of the corruption the DNC leaks exposed, the election was interfered with by DNC officials. The DNC was then hacked and the truth of their corruption gets exposed.
And the main story here is that "russia interfered in our election". :hammered:
edit:
If your primary concern here is that someone in russia exposed the truth and the truth affected the election i feel like your priorities are fucked.[/QUOTE]
The election being "the primaries", I suppose. And who says the RNC didn't do something similar (trying to start media narratives etc.), they didn't want Trump - and we'll never know, because Russia decided it wasn't worth releasing.
[I]That's[/I] the problem. If both parties were hacked and exposed, I'm all on board, but when both parties are hacked and only one party's emails are exposed, that either means that the RNC were so squeaky clean that they had nothing to release (doubtful) at all, or that Russia tried to meddle in the election or otherwise influence the narrative. You should be concerned about that.
So we've gone from denying it to admitting its okay if someone who has no business interfering in our government is selectively exposing corruption? Mind you this is by a country that's easily more corrupt than the DNC.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.