> I started to respond to this, claiming a DNS request is "infiltrating into whitehouse servers". This is a technology forum, do I really need to explain to you why that is complete and utter rubbish?

The assertion coming from the Clinton camp was that Donald Trump had a "server that was communicating with a Russian Bank". They were _very_ careful in their use of words talking about it on the campaign trail. It was never asserted the _content_ of those communications just that _communication occurred_.

This being a technology forum, I think we can all agree that kind of jives with how DNS works - DNS logs can show can infer the "who" but not the "what".

Knowing those things, I don't think it strains credulity to believe that a nefarious political actor could take advantage of people unfamiliar with DNS to suggest a connection that doesn't exist while still having plausible deniability.

> I think we can all agree that kind of jives with how DNS works

I don't think anyone agrees with that, either in spirt or practice.

> The assertion coming from the Clinton camp

"Whatabout the Clintons" is not an actual response to my question, it's just deflection.

> Knowing those things, I don't think it strains credulity to believe that a nefarious political actor could take advantage of people unfamiliar with DNS to suggest a connection that doesn't exist while still having plausible deniability.

Yes Tucker Carlson and Co. ran with it under the headline "Bigger than Watergate" for days. There is no bottom in terms of what lies are told for partisan political purposes. None.

Serious question: Do you really think it's whataboutism to point out what one of the parties we're talking about was publicly saying on the campaign trail at the time in question? The roles could be reversed and I'd still make the same statement.

"Please try and see the blinders you have on regarding nearly everything you've said." is something you said a few comments up. You should listen to yourself more often.

Yes, because i'm not pushing the political partisan talking points of a campaign that ended in 2016. You however are pushing political partisan talking points of a campaign that ended in 2020 (but will never go away because of a single man's ego).

In retrospect I was being too kind. This claim:

> And, as we are learning now, Hillary Clinton's team paid to infiltrate into whitehouse servers as part of efforts to delegitimize Trump's election: https://www.dailywire.com/news/bombshell-clinton-campaign-pa...

Is false. It's a lie. And giving lies equal time as the truth, to be "debated", is one of the reasons why we are in this collective mess.

First, virtually none of what appeared in the recent filing from Durham’s office is new information. Here’s a New York Times story from over four months ago with basically all of it: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/01/us/politics/trump-alfa-ba...

Second, nothing in the filing supports breathless claims technically illiterate cable hosts are making. It does not allege anyone “hacked” Trump computers, or was paid to “infiltrate” networks, or that anyone “intercepted e-mails and text messages."

You mindlessly repeat these claims hoping people aren't looking critically enough to see through them. You either don't understand these matters yourself, or you know they are lies and repeat them anyways. I personally view the second outcome as much worse.

I stand corrected, thank you. I had not seriously dug into where the word "infiltrate" came from or what it exactly meant. This would be a case where the sources I trust are likely sharing misinformation. From this article: https://lawandcrime.com/russia-investigation/the-words-infil...

While some might blur the line between “spying” and “exploit[ing] . . . access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data,” the distinction is, based on what we know right now, critical. Durham has not alleged a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the Stored Communications Act (SCA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), or the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) — all of which are major sources of law as to the prosecutions of federal computer crimes.

I still believe I am still correct that the Steel Dossier and the Russian collusion story were entirely unfounded fabrications of the Clinton team, and I still believe that what they did there was worse than what Trump did on January 6, but this latest alleged Clinton scandal might be overblown.

> I stand corrected, thank you

Big of you to say.

> I still believe I am still correct that the Steel Dossier and the Russian collusion story were entirely unfounded fabrications of the Clinton team

Then you double down on more partisan nonsense.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/18/us/politics/senate-intell...

The GOP-led bipartisan commission concluded Russia attacked the 2016 election in favor of Trump, their words. You are again to the right of your own party. Also nothing in the Steele Dossier has been disproven, and lots of it has been collaborated. If you are still interested in what is true and what isn't, please continue reading with an open mind:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-dossier-retrospective

https://www.justsecurity.org/44697/steele-dossier-knowing/

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/07/politics/dossier-two-years-la...