• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

FBI disputes CIA's assessment of Russian hack motives

Status
Not open for further replies.

guek

Banned
the other theory is they targeted Clinton because they thought she'd win and were going to use what they stole against her.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html?_r=0



chances are they were working every angle they could and left unchecked became more and more brazen.

I could see that. It's not like either had a shortage of their own scandals but I could see how specifically attacking Hillary could help destabilize the nation's confidence in its elections as opposed to Trump whose scandals have a tendency to slide ride down his greasy back.
 
This just reeks of even more Trump land fuckery. Why would they dispute the CIA's assessment without a counter? What purpose does this even serve for the country as a whole besides digging those lines of division even deeper?

I don't know if Russian hackers wanted Trump to win or Clinton to lose but they are both the same thing. I don't understand how or why Jim Comey hasn't been brought in front of a hearing, at the very least, to explain how breach of protocol just days before the election.

I would like to know exactly what it was that was just so damaging in those leaks. It seems to me the leak itself has been pushed off on Clinton. Seemingly nothing substantial was "leaked" we were just beat over the head with nonsense non stop from the republican media machine, meanwhile Trump enjoyed a lions share of free press, the "law and order candidate" received a kick across the finish line from the "law" (FBI). There was just non stop fuckery the whole way.

Sure the Clinton campaign can shoulder some blame too in how they ran the campaign. Where they did and didn't GOTV etc. but come on, if this was flipped we'd have people in the stocks and 24/7 news coverage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom