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.
"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.
> 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.
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.