Global Village :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For good-natured and mutually-respectful discussions of politics and current affairs. Soap-boxing and the promotion of extremist causes motivated by hate will not be tolerated by our moderators. 
Welcome! Log InRegister
It’s literally the exact same thing.

Quote
Malcolm Nance
In 1972, President Richard Nixon, through his proxies in the White House called “The Plumbers” and in coordination with the Committee to Reelect the President (aka CREEP), sent five men into the offices of the Democratic National Committee in the offices at the luxurious Watergate Hotel in Washington, DC. The burglars had orders to install wiretaps, break into safes, and copy files to find out exactly what opposition research the Democrats had on Nixon in the months before the election. Although he won the presidential election, by August of 1973, the political scandal of covering up the crime led to Nixon being the first president to resign in disgrace.
The 2016 DNC hack conducted forty-four years later—almost to the day—was the exact same operation. However, this time there would be no security guard to detect the intrusion, and the burglars would not be caught wearing latex gloves and planting microphones. They would copy the information in a matter of seconds, their digital fingerprints would emerge long after the break-in, and discovery would occur well after the damage had been done to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign...

I know you’re still in denial. But the DNC hacks are crimes. They were committed by Russian hackers. And since you’re avoiding reality altogether on this, you’ve missed the actual target of the hack:

Quote

If an advocate of the Republican Party, a citizen hacktivist, or a malicious “Black Hat” hacker anarchist had perpetrated the intrusion, it would have been a much sloppier operation. Additionally, the perpetrators would likely have taken or destroyed the dossiers of every Republican Party candidate in a cyber version of a bonfire. Hacktivists love the anarchy of letting systems administrators know that they have been violated. On the other hand, “White Hat” hackers, internet security specialists who often win contracts by illegally entering systems, usually leave notes so they can be contacted and help fix security flaws. They generally let the administrators know by leaving “I told you that you were vulnerable” messages in high-value files. All of this would have been old hat for the DNC computer administrators and CrowdStrike protection analysts, but the target of this second hacking was peculiar. It ignored everything and everyone except one set of files: The opposition research folders on New York City billionaire Donald J. Trump. This 2016 intrusion could arguably be called Watergate 2.0, but unlike the original Watergate, this time the materials would be used in a political process to damaging effect.
[itunes.apple.com]

The DNC had lots of dirt on Trump. And they could have used it during the campaign. But Russia had the same dirt (theft), and they used it first. At some point you’re going to have to accept that there is no one in the world more susceptible to blackmail and extortion than Trump.

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
Roger Stone Is Done 758 WhoWeird 18-Feb-19 20:45
Re: Roger Stone Is Done 174 Audrey 18-Feb-19 21:16
Re: Roger Stone Is Done 156 Aine 18-Feb-19 21:49
Re: Roger Stone Is Done 140 WhoWeird 18-Feb-19 21:57
Re: Roger Stone Is Done 143 Aine 18-Feb-19 21:58
Re: Roger Stone Is Done 143 WhoWeird 19-Feb-19 00:17
Re: Roger Stone Is Done 135 Aine 19-Feb-19 15:42
Re: Roger Stone Is Done 130 WhoWeird 19-Feb-19 16:12
Just Shiny Objects 200 adequatedane 19-Feb-19 12:00
No evidence of collusion 148 drrayeye 19-Feb-19 17:14
Re: No evidence of collusion 152 WhoWeird 19-Feb-19 17:33
Re: No evidence of collusion 134 drrayeye 19-Feb-19 17:57
Re: No evidence of collusion 152 Aine 19-Feb-19 18:06
Re: No evidence of collusion 127 WhoWeird 19-Feb-19 18:27
Re: No evidence of collusion 150 Aine 19-Feb-19 18:30
Re: No evidence of collusion 133 WhoWeird 19-Feb-19 18:55
Re: No evidence of collusion 129 Aine 19-Feb-19 19:15
Re: No evidence of collusion 146 WhoWeird 19-Feb-19 19:32
Re: No evidence of collusion 145 Aine 19-Feb-19 19:35
Re: No evidence of collusion 150 WhoWeird 19-Feb-19 19:47
Hahahahaha 166 WhoWeird 04-Mar-19 19:39
Re: No evidence of collusion 142 adequatedane 20-Feb-19 12:18
Re: No evidence of collusion 161 Aine 20-Feb-19 12:24
Re: No evidence of collusion 145 adequatedane 20-Feb-19 23:10
Re: No evidence of collusion 176 Aine 20-Feb-19 23:22
Re: No evidence of collusion 133 adequatedane 21-Feb-19 15:19
Re: No evidence of collusion 144 Aine 21-Feb-19 15:26
Re: No evidence of collusion 143 WhoWeird 21-Feb-19 17:03
Re: No evidence of collusion 138 Warwick 21-Feb-19 17:10
Re: No evidence of collusion 136 Aine 21-Feb-19 17:12
Re: No evidence of collusion 145 WhoWeird 21-Feb-19 17:15
Re: No evidence of collusion 164 adequatedane 22-Feb-19 14:15
Re: No evidence of collusion 143 drrayeye 23-Feb-19 10:04
Re: No evidence of collusion 138 adequatedane 24-Feb-19 14:39
Re: No evidence of collusion 161 WhoWeird 24-Feb-19 18:33
Re: No evidence of collusion 140 adequatedane 25-Feb-19 08:46
Sorry dane 143 WhoWeird 20-Feb-19 12:46
No its not the same 136 adequatedane 20-Feb-19 23:11
Re: No its not the same 170 WhoWeird 20-Feb-19 23:20
Re: No its not the same 119 adequatedane 21-Feb-19 15:20
Never the same, but 152 drrayeye 20-Feb-19 21:54
Re: Never the same, but 125 adequatedane 20-Feb-19 23:31
Re: Never the same, but 85 drrayeye 21-Feb-19 06:19
Re: Just Shiny Objects 168 Warwick 19-Feb-19 17:53
Re: Just Shiny Objects 96 adequatedane 20-Feb-19 12:31
Re: Just Shiny Objects 88 Aine 20-Feb-19 12:51
Re: Just Shiny Objects 102 Warwick 20-Feb-19 16:49
Re: Just Shiny Objects 94 adequatedane 20-Feb-19 23:38
Re: Just Shiny Objects 94 Aine 20-Feb-19 23:45
Re: Just Shiny Objects 83 Warwick 21-Feb-19 21:37
Re: Roger Stone Is Done 156 Warwick 19-Feb-19 17:47
The Lulz 108 WhoWeird 19-Feb-19 23:57
Re: The Lulz 93 Aine 20-Feb-19 00:23
Re: The Lulz 104 adequatedane 20-Feb-19 12:33
Re: The Lulz 102 WhoWeird 20-Feb-19 12:54
Jangle jangle Jangle 88 adequatedane 20-Feb-19 23:32
Re: Jangle jangle Jangle 92 WhoWeird 20-Feb-19 23:37
Re: Jangle jangle Jangle 94 adequatedane 21-Feb-19 15:55
Re: Jangle jangle Jangle 102 WhoWeird 21-Feb-19 16:09
Re: Jangle jangle Jangle 93 Aine 21-Feb-19 16:42
Re: Jangle jangle Jangle 87 adequatedane 22-Feb-19 14:25
Pressure 92 Race Jackson 25-Feb-19 04:54
Neocons 83 drrayeye 25-Feb-19 05:56
Re: Pressure 94 WhoWeird 25-Feb-19 08:11
Re: Roger Stone Is Done 92 WhoWeird 21-Feb-19 21:20
OMG 92 WhoWeird 21-Feb-19 21:29
Couldn't Be Happier 104 WhoWeird 21-Feb-19 22:25
Re: Couldn't Be Happier 88 Aine 22-Feb-19 02:17
Re: Couldn't Be Happier 93 WhoWeird 22-Feb-19 02:33
If I may repeat myself 141 Jock 22-Feb-19 09:09
Jangle jangle Jangle 141 adequatedane 22-Feb-19 14:28


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.