The consensus data coming from the intelligence community (subject to change as we learn more, obviously) is that the Russians hacked both the DNC and RNC, but only released the DNC. It’s rather unlikely that they simply forgot to open the files they got from the RNC and then threw away the single memory stick that it was on. It’s more likely that they still have this data.
Do you agree?
And in the latest news, CIA has time to leak things to WaPo - but refuses to brief Congress on its allegations until its review is complete “in the coming weeks”.
Rep. Peter King: “…it’s almost as if people in the intelligence community are carrying out a disinformation campaign against the president-elect of the United States.”
I agree with this. Certainly times have changed (good-bye Cold War), but it is a stunning reversal of long-standing political realities in this country.
NBC news has some interesting things to say about what Russia did and who was involved. Putin specifically directed the hacking and how the materials were used. He had clear cut aims, too.
These goals seem fully in line with Russia’s activities in Europe for the last decade or so. I cannot understand why anyone would NOT be concerned about what happened.
Now we have a President-elect who is packing his cabinet and his advisors with Russian sympathizers. We know that Trump himself has business ties to Russia. What about this situation seems acceptable?
What has Donald Trump already said he will give them?
Crimea and sanctions relief.
It’s payback for Ukraine and, as such, pretty amusing to the bystander.
I kind of like Putin’s sense of humour as well, he doesn’t even care who knows or how riled they get now … oh how the Law of Unintended Consequences can bite you in the arse.
Trump has not promised to do anything. All he said was that he would “take a look” which is meaningless.
Bingo. Trump won, that’s that. The Russians fucked with us, no surprise there and we should take appropriate action. Fine.
But the following things scare the shit out of me:
-Trump is dismissing it out of hand
-Trump clearly has an affinity for Putin, a scumbag who probably crushes testicles for fun
-Many of Trump’s statements about things like NATO indicate a possible sidling up to Russia
-There are enough connections between Trump’s team and the Russians to make me wonder about a quid pro quo
I completely recognize that the above doesn’t amount to proof of anything, but when something smells bad we investigate. Or we should.
Cite?
Forget it. You’ll hear how this was a joke. Or that because he asked them to hack Clinton’s email and not Podesta’s email, this is totally different.
This is incorrect. The FBI does not dispute that Russia did the hacking, they just disagree with CIA on the intentions. The FBI claims it was merely to sow discord, while the CIA says it was that plus to help Trump. It actually is mostly a non-story in terms of the disagreement between the two, but the media is playing it up as if it is a large difference. By the way, the CIA is way better at attribution and developing intelligence reports since that is their core mission. The FBI wouldn’t have nearly as much access to intelligence that helps with the attribution of an event like this.
“Consensus data”? Last I heard it was one anonymous source that told the NYT the RNC got hacked (which the RNC disputes). Has there been more evidence? Some sort of a consensus report? Anything like that?
When the DNC got hacked, they got phone calls from the FBI about it. Did the FBI call the RNC to warn them they had been hacked too?
And there are repercussions all the time. It’s not as if governments ignore it when they find out they’ve been the subject of espionage, so I’m not sure what your point is here.
So the targeted release of information to try and make mountains out of molehills for Clinton while ignoring Trump didn’t disrupt anything? The waves of fake news didn’t change anything?
Clinton’s emails were front page news precisely because the Russians stole DNC and Podesta emails, then released them to Wikileaks at opportune moments. The regular news fell down here too by falling for it. Even the NYTimes says, “Every major publication, including The Times, published multiple stories citing the D.N.C. and Podesta emails posted by WikiLeaks, becoming a de facto instrument of Russian intelligence.”
They are a private club that has the right to keep secrets, as is the Republican party last I checked.
No amount of intelligence makes computers unhackable, especially to a nation state.
There was not a single thing revealed in the emails that is actually problematic, so I’m not sure what you’re referring to. Could you give an example of something they wanted to hide? Even if so, isn’t that their right? Should we be calling for Russia to hack Trump’s tax returns? (The answer is no. He should release them, but we shouldn’t be calling for a foreign power to do it.)
My biggest concern here is that Russia conducted this operation and Trump is well on his way to thanking them for it. As Russia gets more and more aggressive both in the digital and physical worlds, our PEOTUS is apparently on their side over the side of the country he is supposed to be representing. It’s apparent in his words and his actions of appointing a pro-Russia cabinet.
This won’t make our relations better with Russia. It will make money for Trump and his compatriots like the Exxon CEO while hurting the USA in favor of Russian interests.
It is now being reported on the Washington Post that the FBI now agrees with the CIA assessment that the hacking was to help Trump.
So much for that line of conservative denial.
Not to rain on your parade, but the Washington Post reported that some unnamed sources say that the CIA Director wrote a memo to CIA employees that said:
Isn’t it just as likely that the CIA has been swung over to the FBI perspective? All we supposedly know is that “there is strong consensus among us on the … intent of Russian interference in our presidential election”. He didn’t say, ‘The FBI believes me now’. He said ‘we agree’. Why couldn’t that agreement be a consensus on the FBI’s original position?
If you read further down the story, an official is quoted as saying that there was never the discrepancy that was represented in the press. Do you assume this means that the CIA didn’t actually assess that Putin was trying to swing the election a certain way?
So the basis of this accusation is third-hand information, and two of the three people being cited are James Clapper, who spied on the American people and lied about it, and John Brennan, who assassinated people in countries with which we are not at war and lied about it.
And on the other side we have Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. You’re throwing your lot with that side, eh?
You clearly have not a fucking clue what you’re talking about. Your side’s argument is that we should trust the mainstream media citing anonymous people citing Brennan, Clapper and Comey. My side’s argument is that we should trust Wikileaks citing Hillary Clinton and the DNC. These are not Trump’s words that damn Clinton, they are Clinton’s; her own demands for a no-fly zone over Syria and her own secret admission that she knows exactly what a no-fly zone would actually entail.