World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
Alleged Russian hacking
date
newest »
newest »
What really is alarming is Trump's need for approval. Putin as a KGB man, is always impassive. You only know that he's out to win, you just don't know how. Trump seems always to need flattery, and that is a major weakness.
One can only hope further action, like a full investigation into the outcome of the election, which will hopefully lead to it being declared null and void. This entire incident has been a tragic comedy and its time to end.
I firmly believe that the Russians, ie Putin and his minions, engaged in numerous acts of cyberwarfare against the U.S.A., but not solely to influence or disturb the American presidential elections. This time, it was more likely to discredit the American democratic system rather than to favor one candidate over another. Russia has been making such cyber attacks for years now against many targets around the World and I believe that it is high time that someone hits back at Putin and makes him understand that he can't keep doing this in impunity. That Trump seems to be ready to give Putin a pass on this and dispute the findings of his own intelligence chiefs is more than alarming: it borders treason.
Thank you Michel! It IS treasonous on Trump's part. He clearly is putting HIS wants and needs above his country's. He was unfit to be president and those that voted for him have to start believing that. The evidence will only become clearer and clearer after his Inauguration.
("Treasonous " is a little bit of a strong word to use in this case.)Basically, just like the recount, what Trump is trying to do here is to prevent or mitigate the delegitimization of his upcoming presidency. In a way, this is more important for him than the recount b/c there are influential republicans like McCain who could form a bloc in congress to oppose Trump 's initiatives. Trump's tactic now as it was during his opposition to the recount is to sow disinformation through the power of his authority.
Excuse me, Alex, but when a President-Elect passes his personal political needs ahead of the national security of the U.S.A. and favors the words of an international pariah and wanted criminal (Julian Assange) and of Vladimir Putin to dismiss what is a clear threat to American national security, while also discrediting his own intelligence agencies, that I find treasonous.
Amen Michel! Trump is dangerous for America and the world. And the Republicans in Congress would be smart to put country before party. Unfortunately I don't think that will happen until something tragic happens.
I'm afraid the day will never come when Trump voluntarily supports any investigation that has the potential to detract from the legitimacy of his election. I think it could be helpful for those in the public eye to make that rhetorical argument anyway- "surely, Mr. Trump, you want to get to the bottom of this in the interest of fairness and the integrity of democracy?"- even though it's impossible to believe Trump cares about those things.
Treason is an act--not just allegations--correct?
Alex G wrote: "Treason is an act--not just allegations--correct?"Yep, I would think so. And while I don't put it past Trump or Bannon in the slightest, there is no evidence of collusion in terms of hacking- not yet, anyway.
It's merely the fact that he refuses to agree with our own intelligence agencies that Russia was responsible that's so damn troubling to me. Treason IS a strong word, but it just kinda feels like it.
Alex G wrote: "Treason is an act--not just allegations--correct?"
Treason can also be something like verbal support or stated sympathy towards a state or entity hostile to your country. What do you think would have happened (and did happen actually) to an American stating in 1942 that he/she believed what Hitler or Tojo said over what President Roosevelt said? You would have been arrested pretty damn quick and branded a traitor. Here, you have not a simple American citizen but the President-Elect support the declarations of a pariah and criminal and of a hostile head of state over those of American intelligence officials.
Treason can also be something like verbal support or stated sympathy towards a state or entity hostile to your country. What do you think would have happened (and did happen actually) to an American stating in 1942 that he/she believed what Hitler or Tojo said over what President Roosevelt said? You would have been arrested pretty damn quick and branded a traitor. Here, you have not a simple American citizen but the President-Elect support the declarations of a pariah and criminal and of a hostile head of state over those of American intelligence officials.
TheLongWait wrote: "It's merely the fact that he refuses to agree with our own intelligence agencies that Russia was responsible that's so damn troubling to me. Treason IS a strong word, but it just kinda feels like it."The thing I wonder about is why he has tried so hard to disparage the CIA's findings. The obvious answer is that Russian interference in the election detracts from the legitimacy of his election. But I wonder if there's something more- if he really does know something 'that no one else knows', as he himself put it.
Donald Trump is certainly not helping his cause with many Republican politicians in Washington with his bizarre, illogical stance. Maybe this is a portent of things to come in the next four years. If it is, then we will indeed be living in interesting times.
As someone who hopes Trump is as ineffective at doing things he wants to do as possible, I'm a little torn. On one hand I understand outrage at his not taking intelligence reports seriously...on the other hand, I am in favor of his doing things, like seemingly siding with Putin, that will undermine his support among Republicans in Congress. The sooner that happens, the sooner there's a possibility of impeaching this monster- or at least of thwarting his proposals.
As far as I understand there are no claims that election results were hacked and they focus on hacking dem. party server and passing the info to Assange. If these are the allegations - maybe not that big a deal, as both campaigns seemed focused on smearing the correspondent rival.If there were a collusion or actual hacking of the voting counting, that would've been a totally different story.
Wonder how many times superpowers intervened in elections elsewhere? -:)
Well, according to the present DNI and many other experts, Russia is an old hand at that game. It already interfered with the elections in the Ukraine, Bulgaria, the Baltic States, France and Italy, and may be trying next Germany.
As for the U.S.A. intervening in elections in other countries, it is no white sheep. Remember the coup orchestrated by the CIA against Guatemalan President Arbenz in 1953, the one against the democratically elected President of Chile, Allende, in 1973, or the coup organized in concert with the British against Iranian Prime Minister Mossadeq in 1953, an action that came back to bite the Americans in the ass a few years later? And those were only a few actions among many by the U.S.A. to subvert the democratic process in other countries.
As for the U.S.A. intervening in elections in other countries, it is no white sheep. Remember the coup orchestrated by the CIA against Guatemalan President Arbenz in 1953, the one against the democratically elected President of Chile, Allende, in 1973, or the coup organized in concert with the British against Iranian Prime Minister Mossadeq in 1953, an action that came back to bite the Americans in the ass a few years later? And those were only a few actions among many by the U.S.A. to subvert the democratic process in other countries.
Nik wrote: "As far as I understand there are no claims that election results were hacked and they focus on hacking dem. party server and passing the info to Assange. If these are the allegations - maybe not th..."It does seem that in discussion we may be using the term "Russian hacking" to refer to two different things. The first, as you say, is the hacking of the DNC and release of e-mails...the second, a potential tampering with voting machines, hasn't been proven. I agree we should be sure to distinguish these two ideas.
The first is basically a propaganda campaign. I'm not happy about it, and I think it could lead to real catastrophe if they manage the same result against Merkel, but, I suppose, turnabout is fair play.
pretty good write-up here:http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-de...
the only thing i disagree with is the notion that trump is "deluding himself" about the reality of putin's regime. that's giving trump too much credit. i think he approves of the way putin runs russia, and would like to imitate that model as much as possible in the US.
Trump invited the Russians to hack Clinton's emails - cyber warfare - that is not an 'allegation' he did it. That is treason.
I am back on my favourite theme: evidence please. Note the following quote from the link in the first post on this thread:"The US intelligence community is up on arms at this prospect, mainly because its clandestine branches were purpose-built to confront Russia, America’s historic Cold War enemy. It is hard for them to wrench the wheel round and head in the opposite direction at the bidding of the Trump administration." Senior officials are not beyond muddying the waters. I do not want to hear that official A alleges hacking - I want to hear exactly what was hacked, and what happened next that influenced the election.
Had the Russians hacked the voting machines and altered the result, that would be effectively an act of war, but I have not heard anyone even allege that, let alone provide evidence.
The allegations I have heard all seem to involve the hacking of Dem's emails and handing them to Wikileaks. Apparently the good citizens of Florida and the other swing states must be avid readers of Wikileaks, so for the rest of us who are not, what was released? If it altered that many voters' opinions, it must be in the public domain, so release it.
Next question: who has examined the Dem's computers to try to source where the leaks occurred? Just the leakage of information means nothing, because as we saw from Weiner, the Dems were placing sensitive information in all sorts of insecure places, that just about anyone could hack. So, some specific information, please.
I suppose finally I should also point out that the US regularly hacks other countries' officials. They got caught out with Angela Merkel, and if they do it to her, surely they also do ti to some Russians? And if the US is doing it to Russia, why should Russia not return the favour?
Ian wrote: "I am back on my favourite theme: evidence please. Note the following quote from the link in the first post on this thread:"The US intelligence community is up on arms at this prospect, mainly beca..."
There is no evidence about hacking the voting machines, and there is no claim to that effect either. The claim comes in the form of Russian allegedly hacking the DNC and RNC, and then releasing the DNC records in an obvious attempt to embarrass Hillary Clinton and influence the outcome of the election. The investigation specifically avoided talking about the outcome (i.e. the votes). At no point did anyone claim they rigged the results.
And this information was already released, it was endlessly covered in the weeks leading up to the election. It was the DNC emails that painted a picture of Hillary Clinton receiving preferential treatment. Granted, ti was little more than the chairwoman of the DNC expressing her own opinion about Sanders, and it had no bearing on the actual popular support of Clinton v. Sanders, nor did it represent the opinions of the delegates. The point is, it was deliberate attempt to make it look like Clinton got the nomination unfairly.
And since the US has not attempted to influence any Russian elections through their cyberwarfare activities, this is not a "returned favor". Its unprecedented in the history of either country to infiltrate their infrastructure with the hopes of installing leaders that would be more sympathetic or cooperative to the other. And in this case, the agenda is so obvious, it hurts. In addition to his outspoken admiration for Putin, Trump's business empire also has a history of ties to Putin's own business empire.
As for the evidence, that was released quite recently - though the intelligence community has been saying for months that Kremlin-backed Russian hackers have been trying to influence the election. Here's the light version of the read:
http://documents.latimes.com/read-us-...
The LA times link is interesting. I notice the NSA only gave moderate confidence, whereas the FBI gave high confidence, yet at the same time FBI Director Comey came out with what I think was the most likely torpedo to Hillary Clinton's chances. I noticed at the time that polls I saw had her 10% ahead, and they dived to almost even as the election came closer, so if the polls mean anything, that was a serious effect.I notice also the report has a lot to say about RT. I think every man and his dog knows RT is likely to be more Moscow oriented, just as most media tend to be oriented towards the interests and feelings of their own country.
As for attempts to make it look as though Clinton beat Sanders unfairly, I thought that was going to happen weeks before the DNC, just based on information about the lead she had that was published in the US media. I would be interested to hear why, if Comey thought with a high probability that Russia was trying to torpedo Clinton, he went ahead and fired his shot. I would also be interested to hear about who examined the DNC computers.
Ian wrote: "The LA times link is interesting. I notice the NSA only gave moderate confidence, whereas the FBI gave high confidence, yet at the same time FBI Director Comey came out with what I think was the mo..."Yes, Comey did influence the election himself, which was rather telling (especially when you consider that Guiliani said the Trump campaign were in contact with him). But the punch was one-two. The DNC leak alienated potential Bernie voters from voting for Hillary, while Comey's letter alienated undecided voters.
Also, RT is a state-owned media, so whatever bias it has goes far beyond sympathies for their nation. They are literally a government propaganda organ.
And you're absolutely right, Ian. Clinton beat Sanders based on her national lead, which was why the majority of the delegates supported her candidacy. But thanks to the DNC leak, millions of Americans became convinced that Sanders should have won it and was cheated. I know, I've talked to many of them. And they all have the irrational belief that something illegal and immoral went down and it kept them home (or pushed them to vote 3rd party).
WRT the hacking of the Podesta emails. There is a specific email that demonstrates that Podesta's password on his gmail account had been compromised with a login attempt from the Ukraine in March 2016.Wikileaks: Podesta email: Compromised Password
Make of that what you will.
On a side note. Interestingly the partners section of Wikileaks has a large number of media organizations which can be viewed Wikileaks: Partners
There are a lot of large, prominent media orgs as partners.
Found this analysis kinda interesting:
http://debka.com/article/25875/Why-Tr...
Now, say Obama's convinced and it's an 'act of war'. Expulsion of 35 diplomats is significant, but still a little 'small'. Shall we expect further actions after the briefing?