You were downvoted, but I’m assuming that’s from folks unaware of the context. To add to your comment…
100% there was a hack. What is not known is who did the hacking, which the Trump Campaign claims was Iran, referencing a Microsoft report that a spear phishing email went to an official in a presidential campaign back in June.
There has been no independent verification that it was Iran, and no further details (afaik) provided by the campaign that would show this to be Iran.
The news did break the story about the hack, but not about Iran being the perpetrators, because that is still unsubstantiated.
Partially agree, but your “100% hack” claim is also not substantiated anywhere that I’ve seen? I think what you meant to say is that it’s 100% sure that the campaign documents were SOMEHOW obtained by people outside the campaign. 1000 ways that could have actually happened though.
There is a very real chance that this is just a leak from the Trump campaign itself, an “oops, oh no…” moment because Vance favorability rating is tanking dramatically and he has become a literal national joke. Could be a disgruntled subject inside the campaign who didn’t like the pick (no honor among thrives) or trump/inner circle himself leaking this to make a VP change inevitable, “LOOK WHAT IRAN MADE ME DO!”
There is no 100% here, ESPECIALLY whenever trump is central - that’s their entire thing… unstable ambiguity to keep you unsure and always questioning of actual reality.
That’s fair, it could be a leak, but given the email from “Robert” (or was it Richard? Something with an R, I’d have to check) implied it was illegally obtained. An “oopsie leak” wouldn’t be a problem to publish if discovered.
But I will agree, it’s still an assumption that it was from phishing.
Sure, I think we are on the same page. I’m just reminding all (because I struggle with the barrage as well) that when we say “implied” here, what we are actually saying is “implied by trump”. Would be great if we always spelled that out deliberately, but again, the firehose/gish gallop from trump and co-conspirators makes that (intentionally) hard. They rely on us eventually seeing the word “implied” and naturally assuming, “implied by law enforcement” or some other known authority and not by a many times convicted felon (known almost exclusivity for ceaseless and unapologetic public fraud).
The “implied” part in the previous comment was the anonymous email from an AOL account which provided the information, and regarding Iran, that was implied by the Trump Campaign. Because I also used “implied” and don’t want to muddy the waters further…
Yeah, it’s ridiculous how much care can need to be taken in explaining something that should be straightforward, just due to the mess of implications and assumptions, and who it’s coming from.
Feels like the AOL email address is the oddest part - it is just so weird and stuck in the 90s that it truly feels like trump… Man, woman, camera, tv, AOL.
“News breaking”?
Trump campaign are the source. That’s not news.
You were downvoted, but I’m assuming that’s from folks unaware of the context. To add to your comment…
100% there was a hack. What is not known is who did the hacking, which the Trump Campaign claims was Iran, referencing a Microsoft report that a spear phishing email went to an official in a presidential campaign back in June.
There has been no independent verification that it was Iran, and no further details (afaik) provided by the campaign that would show this to be Iran.
The news did break the story about the hack, but not about Iran being the perpetrators, because that is still unsubstantiated.
Partially agree, but your “100% hack” claim is also not substantiated anywhere that I’ve seen? I think what you meant to say is that it’s 100% sure that the campaign documents were SOMEHOW obtained by people outside the campaign. 1000 ways that could have actually happened though.
There is a very real chance that this is just a leak from the Trump campaign itself, an “oops, oh no…” moment because Vance favorability rating is tanking dramatically and he has become a literal national joke. Could be a disgruntled subject inside the campaign who didn’t like the pick (no honor among thrives) or trump/inner circle himself leaking this to make a VP change inevitable, “LOOK WHAT IRAN MADE ME DO!”
There is no 100% here, ESPECIALLY whenever trump is central - that’s their entire thing… unstable ambiguity to keep you unsure and always questioning of actual reality.
That’s fair, it could be a leak, but given the email from “Robert” (or was it Richard? Something with an R, I’d have to check) implied it was illegally obtained. An “oopsie leak” wouldn’t be a problem to publish if discovered.
But I will agree, it’s still an assumption that it was from phishing.
Sure, I think we are on the same page. I’m just reminding all (because I struggle with the barrage as well) that when we say “implied” here, what we are actually saying is “implied by trump”. Would be great if we always spelled that out deliberately, but again, the firehose/gish gallop from trump and co-conspirators makes that (intentionally) hard. They rely on us eventually seeing the word “implied” and naturally assuming, “implied by law enforcement” or some other known authority and not by a many times convicted felon (known almost exclusivity for ceaseless and unapologetic public fraud).
The “implied” part in the previous comment was the anonymous email from an AOL account which provided the information, and regarding Iran, that was implied by the Trump Campaign. Because I also used “implied” and don’t want to muddy the waters further…
Yeah, it’s ridiculous how much care can need to be taken in explaining something that should be straightforward, just due to the mess of implications and assumptions, and who it’s coming from.
Feels like the AOL email address is the oddest part - it is just so weird and stuck in the 90s that it truly feels like trump… Man, woman, camera, tv, AOL.
[email protected] must have been taken already :)