At your link, we hear Comey say: "We did not develop any evidence that the Trump campaign or the current RNC was successfully hacked."

I probably am naive, but at least I'm not so naive as to hear anything from Comey other than CYA over his own "election-affecting" but now-forgotten Clintonian email releases.

He uses the terms "old" and "current" to describe the hacks. The "old" RNC was hacked. The "current" RNC was not. We have no idea what those terms mean or why the data collected from the "old" RNC wasn't leaked.

In my ignorance, I assumed those words meant the same thing they mean in everyday English language conversation. If one had to guess, the "old" RNC might have been the one that never imagined Trump would kick their asses to the curb, while the "current" one might be the one that Trump hired after he did that? Which would be more likely to have dirt on Trump?

As I said above, however, we're really in the dark when we're reading tea leaves of nuance in testimony about an open investigation, by an effectively independent civil servant who has given directly-misleading testimony within the last year.

I think you're missing a key part, there's a difference between being a target and actually losing valuable information.

It's entirely possible that either they failed to break in or that they failed to get any significant information.

>It's entirely possible that either they failed to break in

Comey disputes that in the linked article.

>or that they failed to get any significant information.

Or maybe it is possible that they got more significant information and it was never leaked because it is more valuable as blackmail material. Neither of us know which one of those theories is right.

What we do know is that both sides were hacked, probably by the Russians, and data from only one side was released. By wide consensus those releases were timed in order to maximize the damage they did to Clinton. That is exactly the type of action you would expect from someone motivated by politics.

> Comey disputes that in the linked article.

>> "We did not develop any evidence that the Trump campaign or the current RNC was successfully hacked." - Linked Article

Seems pretty contradictory to me. Maybe a previous admin's RNC or something, but not the current one...

Honestly, these intelligence agencies are pretty clueless. They use the same tactics to identify malware sources that they use to thwart their own identification as a malware source. I wouldn't believe anything they say about the source of malware - or anything anyone says. It's far too easy to make it look like someone else did it - use their or nearby providers, use their malware or slightly modified versions of it, copy their strings, etc. It's pretty easy stuff to do if you've got a bit of assembly skill too.

> By wide consensus those releases were timed in order to maximize the damage they did to Clinton. That is exactly the type of action you would expect from someone motivated by politics.

Or you know, just someone motivated to make impactful leaks. Despite these emails not being in my political favor, I wouldn't have done anything differently in their shoes. Would you have? and if you would have, would you honestly say that your actions weren't politically motivated?

I think _not_ releasing in this case or avoiding impact would have been more clearly politically motivated.

>Seems pretty contradictory to me. Maybe a previous admin's RNC or something, but not the current one

I mentioned this in my other post. The RNC was hacked, but we don't know the timeline due to Comey's vague terminology.

>Honestly, these intelligence agencies are pretty clueless.

This is incredibly patronizing. They have a much greater expertise on these things than two doofuses like us debating on the Internet.

>Or you know, just someone motivated to make impactful leaks. Despite these emails not being in my political favor, I wouldn't have done anything differently in their shoes. Would you have?

It isn't just the timing of the leaks, go back and read what they were saying about them. They stoked the flames of Pizzagate. Assange was quoted as saying the leaks would guarantee Clinton's arrest. Those aren't the actions of someone who is politically neutral.