'I told him to cut it out' – Obama is convinced Putin's hackers swung the election for Trump Outgoing US President Barack Obama has promised to take action against Russia over its alleged interference in the presidential election campaign. American intelligence agencies have concluded that hackers linked to the Kremlin infiltrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee as well as the email account …
Maybe if people are so horrified at the contents of DNC emails that they voted for an orange monkey to be president then the DNC might want to consider that maybe the views they hold are anathema to a lot of voters.
It's a strange complaint to make - "the us voters didn't vote for us because they found out what we really think"
The attitude of some people to email security might also be on their list of things to think really hard about in future.
Speaking of beams and motes, anyone here old enough to recall that infamous Time Magazine cover from 15 July 1996 ?...
Henri
Claim that the Democrats Sordid Core Dump has nothing to do with Russia by Robert Parry:
And, even though The New York Times and other big news outlets are reporting as flat fact that Russia hacked the Democratic email accounts and gave the information to WikiLeaks, former British Ambassador Craig Murray, a close associate of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, told the London Daily Mail that he personally received the email data from a “disgusted” Democrat.
Murray said he flew from London to Washington for a clandestine handoff from one of the email sources in September, receiving the package in a wooded area near American University.
“Neither of [the leaks, from the Democratic National Committee or Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta] came from the Russians,” Murray said, adding: “the source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.”
Murray said the insider felt “disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.” Murray added that his meeting was with an intermediary for the Democratic leaker, not the leaker directly.
If Murray’s story is true, it raises several alternative scenarios: that the U.S. intelligence community’s claims about a Russian hack are false; that Russians hacked the Democrats’ emails for their own intelligence gathering without giving the material to WikiLeaks; or that Murray was deceived about the identity of the original leaker.
Truth is truth and lies are lies wherever they originate.
Another article quoting Julian Assange and Craig Murray:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/10/cia-concludes-russia-interfered-to-help-trump-win-election-report
Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “bullshit”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.”
“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.
“If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA’s statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States.
“America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it’s not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever.”
So we can all rest assured that the new "Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act” and "fake-news" filtering wont be mis-used to cover inconvenient truths.
The Daily Mail, home of the clickbait headline? along with the express, the guardian, the telegraph, the bbc, sky news, fox news, the NYT....
In fact I don't think its possible to read a newspaper that isn't unashamed opinion and spin over a flimsy carcase of 'interpretable events'.
Dog bites man.
It was Russian dog.
It was too hot as a result of climate change
It was too cold as a result of climate change
It was being fed non organic processed dog food.
Its hard right owner trained it that way.
Its owner was a liberal pussy and hadn't trained it at all.
It has a deep seated Islamophobic temperament.
Its been repressed for years as part of a cultural attack on Dog Kind.
Its owner runs Linux...
"Claim that the Democrats Sordid Core Dump has nothing to do with Russia by Robert Parry:
Making Russia ‘The Enemy’"
OK Mr. Smartypants, answer me this: When did Russia become such buddies with the United States that the mere possibility of their inferring with internal domestic affairs is utterly dismissed by the right wing??
Maybe, if you were ever capable of stopping your own backpatting and gloating in self-assurances, you'd find the answer to that question...disturbing.
".....When did Russia become such buddies with the United States that the mere possibility of their inferring with internal domestic affairs is utterly dismissed by the right wing??...." No-one on the Right is saying that the neo-Soviets wouldn't or couldn't "hack" the election (they probably hacked Shrillary's private email server years ago), they are simply pointing out that the evidence says that, in this case, it was a leak by a disgruntled/disgusted insider. In the face of which, Obambi's claim rings very hollow given that he has presented zero evidence for the latest excuse for the Dummicrats' defeat. I have no doubt Pootie's hackers are busy every day trying to hack US stuff, it's what he pays them to do, just as we pay our hackers to hack Pootie and his buddies, but trying to hang their election defeat on Pootie is just more Dummicrats denial.
In a close election, EVERYTHING can tip it 1 direction or another!
People keep forgetting that! Do not obsess over just 1 topic!
Popular polls were surprisingly accurate. Furthermore, the margin of error is 3% and as it approaches a 50/50 split the margin of error increases to 5-8%. After recounts, the polls are now less than 0.5% off; extremely good.
Hillary was a weak canditate. Russians were involved. Hillary likely upset Putin which motivated retaliation. Computer voting owned by republicans. Minority voter harassment highest in decades. Incompetent media. FAKE NEWS (beyond fox news.) FBI blatantly violating the law. Angry red necks. Angry white people. Ignorant public (xenophobia. automation cost more jobs.) Politics reduced to crass Reality Show TV - why are they surprised?
Media backlash against trump after realizing they created him, only made the game seem more rigged for Hillary (when it was supposed to be rigged for Jeb Bush.)
Close. The set up was meant to be Hillary vs Jeb and Jeb would lose - a creditable second. Meanwhile on this side of the pond, Remain would win. The 'trade treaties' TTP and TTIP would be put into place, locking almost the entire first world into a single agreement run by banks and global companies . Bilderberg group heaven. Agenda 21 for all. Hence the desperate attempts of the remoaners and the never Trumpers with apparently unlimited funds, trying to get their nuts back out of the fire. They do not realize the strength of feeling of "We The Peop6" .
Do you have a therapy plan for all the conspiracy nonsense, or is the tin-foil hat working well enough to put that off ?
BTW, the most blatant violation of the law was the FBI refusing to recommend the prosecution of Hillary Clinton. The relevant statutes specifically have no requirement for intent and the FBI evidence is perfectly clear that she violated those laws. Of course the FBI doesn't normally recommend anything, it gathers the evidence and hands that over to the Justice Department; but thanks to the "impromptu": airfield tarmac meeting Justice sought to hand this hot potato over to Comey, which he flubbed.
Well all of the emails are available to read on Wikileaks so I would say that yes, found out what they really thought is fair. Fairer than the amount of misinformation about Trump, that's for sure. Got passed this little read yesterday. Worth the time:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/
@CM - Just a minor heads-up re the title of your thread: You've incorrectly alluded to Mathew 7:4: in the King James version of what is probably the most widely read work of fiction so far created.
"Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?"
My big problem with some of this crap is that if the Russian government didn't hack the Dems, why don't they want an investigation? A major investigation of the hack, if it showed that the Russian government did not do it, it would clear the Republicans and Trump. This who issue stinks of the Republican investigation of Hillery's so called Benghazi problem, and the so called illegal email server; both investigations were dropped 2 seconds after the election!!! Right now, the Federal Government stinks so bad that the whole bunch of the elected politicians need to be replaced.
"The email server investigation was dropped before the election wasn't it? I thought the head of the FBI had declared that they weren't going to prosecute."
I see that you get your information from Russia Today and the Russian Troll Brigade morning briefings.
There was Hillary Clinton's private e-mail server that she used while SecState, never breached. No charges, no laws violated, really ancient news.
There was the DNC e-mail server that was breached, using TTP's associated with known Russian actors, who just so happen to be very timely in their "criminal activities" when Russia has a military operation in, say South Ossetia or other area that the Russian government is interested in, as in timely to the minute to drop a network to coincide with military operations.
I'll not go into server logs that I've reviewed that had troll traffic straight out of St Petersburg and I'm not speaking of just a few IP's, but hundreds of IP's.
So wrong it's not even funny. The private eMails erver used by Clinton did breach a number of laws dealing with security issues. There was special compartmentalized data in eMails that is never supposed to go outside of the air-gapped systems put in place for it; Clinton had her Maid (according to her own evidence given to the FBI) go into the secure facility to print off data and bring it to her. That maid had NO security clearance and was utterly forbidden to access such data.
You're right about no charges, but that was entirely predictable from the moment the investigation started; Clinton was fireproof and there was no evidence that could be gained that would have been sufficient to persuade the "Justice" department to prosecute her.
Face it, Clinton is provably guilty of several serious crimes that should carry hefty prison terms but she'll never do time. Laws work differently for people like Hillary, you on the other hand would be dealt with severely for exactly the same behaviour. I can't see why you prefer that sort of state of affairs, but apparently you do.
The crimes by the way, Perjury, for swearing on oath before a Federal Judge that she had released all eMails relating to an FOI request regarding her time at State; the FBI evidence is absolutely clear that this is untrue and knowingly untrue. Obstruction of Justice for the deletion of emails in late March following a subpoena issued on 3 March for the retention of those emails; again absolutely no dispute about the fact that this happened as it is very clearly documented. And security violations, too numerous to list every one, but none require intent, just negligence, and Clinton was negligent in spades.
"I thought the head of the FBI had declared that they weren't going to prosecute."
That's true. But Trump was claiming that Hillary would be in jail after he was President. Then when he won, suddenly he as forgive and forget, conciliation etc. I think that's what the OP was referring to.
Obama has his appointed yes men to jump on the "Vlad did it" train, but they aren't actually providing facts to back up his charges. We are expected to just trust the heads of the CIA and FBI.
Um, when did this happen? Weren't those agencies supposed to be pretty unsavoury? I find it interesting that a lot of people are now willing to cheer those guys as truth tellers of the first water. I bet such people will be singing a different tune the moment Trump replaces those toadies...
The trouble is, WE don't know. We are being asked to trust without any evidence. And they have a motive to lie, and face no risks doing so because they are about to lose their jobs anyway.
Yes, the field agents and such have lots of experience, but they don't get to speak their minds. Instead, they are voiceless and are assumed to be backing the head of their orgs, when that head may well be lying to assist the Democrat Party in de-legitimizing Trump's presidency.
It's transparent garbage, yet the corporate press swallows it anyway. Well, after the last year we kinda found out what they were so it's no big surprise.
when someone has decades of experience in a special field they do know what they are talking about.
Another model based assumption totally at odds with the facts.
How many people who have been using computers for decades still really only have a hazy idea what an operating system is, and have almost no idea of security at all?
President Obama's proposed “proportional” reprisals for the alleged meddling need to happen before the Democrat leaves office on January 20 – because, clearly, Trump is not interested in causing trouble for Vlad.Exactly how America will exact revenge is unclear.
Exponential is a ratio.
NUKES! NUKES! NUKES!
"Gee, Donald, you're right. We have nukes, so let's use them! You won the election, so preside over the ash heap."
Seriously, anything Obama does would be undone by Trump, if it's something like sanctions. As for information, we all know they're crooks on the take, so what does it matter if we get a spread sheet detailing what they've been up to?
You're pretty rich with the 'nukes' thing when it's Hillary and Obama stoking the flames of war-anger against Russia, over something Hillary made up during the heat of political battle.
My, how the roles have reversed for the Democrats. Weren't the Republicans supposed to be the war party?
"You're pretty rich with the 'nukes' thing when it's Hillary and Obama stoking the flames of war-anger against Russia, over something Hillary made up during the heat of political battle."
Odd, when did Hillary Clinton become a CIA analyst?
I'll take the CIA's word over yours, comrade.
But you're taking an anonymously leaked word with a highly partisan bias as gospel.
I'll wait for the book, thanks. And BTW, if gaining access via a "your email is compromised, please click here to change your password" is said to be the height of Russian ingenuity then I'm not sure I trust the CIA's analysis.
proposed “proportional” for Russians apparently influencing USA elections. That should be USA trying to rig Russian elections. If so, that is not a reprise - it is business as usual. They have not stopped doing it for the last two decades.
The whole affair, especially the ridiculous Clinton whining at the moment shows the depth to which both Obama and Clinton fail to understand basic Slavic modus operandi (of which Russian is just one example).
1. There is no posturing, threating, showing off lawyers and missiles. There is a raised eyebrow, sometimes a minimal warning (for westerners only). Until you cross the line. Once the line is crossed there is a reprisal. Offenses are cumulative too - you collect the bill over time, you pay it with interest at the end.
2. The reprisal is to ensure you do not ever dare doing it again. It is not "proportional reprisal". The ridiculous idea of "proportional response" does not exist anywhere in the world except in the rather twisted brain of USA and UK politicos. Your response is to ensure that there are no infractions of such sort ever again. If you cannot do it today, you do it tomorrow, revenge is better served cold.
I cannot fathom how a daft turd with such lack of basic understanding of how other nations (especially ones with nuclear ICBMs) think could be a secretary of state. She has accumulated the mother of all bills by meddling both in Russia internal affairs and in affairs of states on its periphery in a way specifically geared towards hurting Russia and decreasing its power and influence (the personal spat with Putin was just a minor episode). What a F*** did the dumb turd expect? That the Russians will not make her pay the bill when they have a chance? Fat chance. They did. And they enjoyed it too.
"She has accumulated the mother of all bills by meddling both in Russia internal affairs and in affairs of states on its periphery in a way specifically geared towards hurting Russia and decreasing its power and influence (the personal spat with Putin was just a minor episode)."
In shorter terms, our protecting our friends in the Ukraine is interfering with Russia's internal affairs.
Frankly, dropping Gazpom sounds more and more attractive.
"Exactly how America will exact revenge is unclear."
Personally, I can think of dozens of ways, both via network centric warfare and sanctions that could get the point across that the US is rather upset.
Perhaps, targeting a Gazpom distribution facility in winter.
Releasing the names and addresses of known Russian government affiliated hackers.
Releasing the duty rosters of Russian government affiliated trolls, with their names and addresses.
Prohibiting the import of more Russian firearm components into the US.
Fast tracking a replacement for Russian space launch equipment.
Note the conspicuous lack of a nuclear response.
Although, parking a half dozen or more boomers in the Kola peninsula would also express some significant irritation, the chances of escalation would be far too great.
You quoted "President Obama's proposed “proportional” reprisals" and that start going on about exponential reprisals. Either you need to quote more to show where that word "exponential" comes from or you don't know the difference between proportional and exponential.
Ok, the posturing is getting a bit long in the tooth now. None of this is new and was squawked about for quite some time before the election. Somehow it was cute and meaningless then but now that Hillary lost it's reached crisis levels. Sure, it's going to play to the DNC base but the red camp doesn't care and we third party folks are going to look and say "huh, now you've gotten a very tiny taste of what we've been living for decades so cry me a river."
Most hilarious write to file under "You can't explain this Barry guy on his way out with a Nobel Peace Prize around his neck"
Obama: Election Hacks Stopped in September After I Told Putin to ‘Cut It Out’
Obama once again provided no evidence of Russia’s involvement in the hacks, starting once again with the assumption that Russia did what he conceded was a “not particularly sophisticated” hacking attack, and then drew the conclusion that because Putin has a lot of pull in Russia, he must’ve been directly involved.
The most curious aspect of Obama’s narrative, however, is that he claims the hacking attacks stopped entirely in early September after a single direct warning to Putin. Obama claimed to have spoken directly to Putin in early September, when both were in China, and told him to “cut it out.”
Obama insisted after this single warning “we did not see further tampering of the election process” by anyone afterwards. This doesn’t at all fit into the previously provided storyline, which claimed repeated and serious efforts to hack the election.
It also doesn’t make a lot of sense that the US kept making public threats to Russia through the week of the election itself. Obama’s comments would suggest the administration kept hyping the matter and making additional public threats for no reason, despite having obviously handled the matter months ago.
If the hacking stopped way back in September, it also doesn’t make sense that officials continue to hype the hacks as an ongoing thing, nor does it make sense that the story has gained so much more attention in the past week, despite being long over.
Plus all the comments about there's no evidence of hacking made by Obama; and Clinton saying not accepting the results of the elections is a threat to democracy.
What do we see now? CIA saying Russia interfering with elections, with no evidence! Clinton supporting Jill Stein recount efforts. Results? MSM quiet, while other sources report increases for Trump, evidence of fraud mostly benefiting Clinton (my guess, since it was in Detroit and they're Dems and after being called out they said, first numbers/results apply)
FBI saying one thing first then the other (like with the emails, Comey mentioned all the reasons how Clinton should be prosecuted and sent to jail and at the end, nothing) And a week before, again, new evidence, and then nothing. FBI the same as the MSM lost credibility because of an election that was supposed to be easily won by Clinton.
Now about Pizzagate, there's this rumour circulating that the people involved are going to cry Russians planted child porn in their computers, how are they going to do that? Because now that the CIA without having to present evidence can determine Russians interfered with the elections, pedophiles are going to be able to say, since they don't have any evidence the Russians did it, it must have been them, they leave no trace. But it was them, for sure.
"CIA saying Russia interfering with elections, with no evidence!"
Selected, cleared leaders in Congress received a written report, with citations and evidence.
I did notice one trend during the election and even after, largely Russian trolls were the primary ones going on about the fictional "Pizzagate".
There is no such thing as not leaving a trace on a computer, one just requires the proper forensic tools.
"This doesn’t at all fit into the previously provided storyline, which claimed repeated and serious efforts to hack the election."
When one is dealing with intelligence services and senior leaders of governments combined, very little will ever fit clearly into the previously provided storyline.
Well, unless you've the appropriate clearance and need to know, then the fuller storyline is available.
According to an ABC affiliate in Atlanta, Department of Homeland (In)Security tried to hack Georgia (US state) voting databases, etc. (http://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/more-states-confirm-cyber-attacks-sourced-to-dhs/476227320). And apparently Georgia was not the only state attacked. So who was doing the hacking? It appears the only proven group was the ferals not some crazy Ivans.
I'm still finding this interesting and there are many questions unanswered.
As for the FBI's reluctance.. as I recall the head of the FBI is Republican which might explain his not jumping up and down and all over this?
If there was a hack on the RNC, why wasn't this discovered earlier and reported then?
As for the "arrogance"... it's been there for a long time and not just with Dems. The Repubs have their arrogant ones also.
I don't expect, but yet I and probably many others would like to see a clear-cut, non-political review and explanation of what went on.
I may not like Trump or Clinton, but I sure as hell care about my country and if the election was manipulated, there should be something done. Not sure exactly what as tit-for-tat goes no where. If the election had went the other way, I would still want to know and still expect some response.
The rumor mill and some of the MSM has picked up on that the German government and candidates for their election are also getting hit by hackers with similarities to the what hit the US. If Russia is stirring the pot in upcoming German elections, this is not a good sign for any country anywhere.
If there was a hack on the RNC, why wasn't this discovered earlier and reported then?
It's reported that they did (link), but didn't get in.
I've read conflicting reports as to when, what, and how the RNC reported the hack attempts to the FBI, and how seriously the FBI took the reports.
From what I can see, it looks like the hackers knocked on both doors (I don't know about independent candidates like the Greens, but I assume they'd try that, as well), didn't get past the RNC front door but did get past the DNC front door, and once inside, went rooting around.
The term "election hacking" is a bit of a misnomer, though. There are people who seem to think that this means that the voting machines or the government election apparatus was compromised, and that's not what's being reported.
What's happened is that the political parties were hacked, and their dirty laundry was made public. A serious issue, but not the same thing.
What's happened is that the political parties were hacked, and their dirty laundry was made public. A serious issue, but not the same thing.However, the airing of dirty laundry does influence election outcomes. An example was when the CIA used entrapment to discredit Labor politicians in the Whitlam government. That's almost certainly what led to the following electoral loss.
Funnily enough, those pointing the finger were called conspiracy theorists at the time. Thirty odd years later, retired CIA agents were only too willing to spill the beans on Australian radio.
IOW, don't expect any sympathy from Australia. Some outside inluence on your election outcomes? Ah diddums!
Why no RNC leaks scandal? Because they waged open war against Trump, and he won anyway. If Sanders had won the Democrat primary, we wouldn't be talking about the DNC emails.
BOTH establishment parties delegitimized the election, failed anyway, and will remain illegitimate until their corruption is purged.
"...didn't get past the RNC front door but did get past the DNC front door, and once inside, went rooting around."
Given that this theory rests on thin aire, I'll stick with the much more plausible idea that some DNC staffers were outraged by how Bernie was treated by the party and wanted to spill the party's dirty laundry to get even. Hacking is not required to explain events in this case. Also remember that one of those staffers was murdered not too long after in a supposed robbery where nothing was taken. Coincidence? Maybe.
But this revenge theory, reasonable as it is, doesn't serve to harm Trump and it highlights the despicable behavior of the DNC, so it's a non-starter in the leftist press.
All elections are manipulated. The barrage of faux news from all sides that comprises the hustings, is manipulation.
As are the revelations, the legal actions the general fog of disinformation.
And at more local levels, one hopes, the direct frauds of non-existent people voting, or deliberate invalidation of voting slips.
This is not really an issue.
What is an issue is that when all that fails to deliver the results that rich and powerful people want, they seek to supplant the democratic process itself.
Leaving no option but armed insurrection to achieve 'regime change'.
"Massive" irregularities, in both directions, adding a net total of around 550 Clinton votes in all of Wayne county MI (where Detroit is) That's carelessness, not fraud, and even if that sort of thing is happening everywhere it doesn't add up to even a fraction of the 2.5 million votes Clinton "won" the popular vote by.
This is a perfect example of how alt right media twists things. They took a legitimate story about counts being wrong in over half the precincts in Wayne county, with the errors (averaging less than 5 votes per precinct) going in Clinton's favor more often than not, and twist the wording and use sensational headlines for low information readers who don't go past the headlines to believe it equates to massive fraud, or at least to attempted voter fraud in favor of Hillary.
The headlines scream about more votes counted than people who were at the polls. What really happened is that ballot scanners don't always read ballots correctly, so they feed them through more than once in a few occasions which results in the counter on the machine to not equal the number of people who were given ballots. They're supposed to keep track of how often they do this, but by the end of the day they're probably tired and just want to go home and forget details like that.
As for recounts lowering Hillary's net total in the county by 550 votes or whatever it was, in precincts where 90% of the vote of going to one candidate, any errors due to carelessness or poor processes are more likely to go in favor that candidate than the one with 10%.
This is EXACTLY why republicans shouldn't have tried to stand in the way of recounts, and in fact should have encouraged them. If there's fraud, get it out in the open. If there is carelessness or mishandling of ballots that leads to incorrect counting, let's find out about it so things can be improved. If you never audit your counting process, how do you know you are counting correctly? It should be required that a certain sample of votes in every state be recounted, so you can learn where problems exist and fix them, and institute a mandatory full statewide recount if the random sample indicates an error ratio over a certain threshold.
If republicans really cared about learning whether voter fraud exists and fixing it, instead of just assuming it does and passing laws to suppress the vote in the name of preventing voter fraud, they'd be all in favor of recounts, and reviewing all ballot challenges to see how many people were legitimate voters and how many were correctly challenged. That they don't is telling. Of course democrats were only interesting in "lending support" to these recounts because they lost. If they'd won they'd be the ones in court filing suit trying to stop the recounts, so they are no better.
@DougS
Do not forget that Michigan's vote recount rules only allow recounts when the number of ballots in the ballot box equals the number of votes tallied by the voting machine. Approx. one-third of the districts in Wayne County (Detroit) could not be recounted.
As neither a staunch Republican or Democrat ( Independent in the sense that I switch parties in the primaries to try to influence the results for a candidate I like or against a candidate I don't) Wayne County is predominantly Democratic. And local politicians do control the voting districts, de facto not de juro.
I do believe that all voting machines need to haver a paper record. And even more importantly, the results of the elections should be audited in each precinct in each state. Thie audit cannnot be done in time to affect the Electoral College ( it is hard enough to get a simple recount done in that time period) so that the entire voting system can be improved.
It is important to fix the voting process, starting with having standardised voting machines that have been audited by many different parties to ensure that votes will be counted consistently across the USA. There are many other parts of the voting process that need to be addresses but this would be a good start.
Not sure I agree with having a single standardized voting machine for the whole US, because no matter how tightly audited they are there's no guarantee that an exploit would be impossible. The stakes to find such an exploit would be huge as you could swing a national election. We could live to regret doing that.
They need to set standards, and allow competition to create different machines. I think states should probably choose one or two models for their entire state though, rather than letting cities go their own their way. There needs to be some standardization, just not on a national level. It should be required that both hardware and software be open to security researchers under NDA, and they should be allowed to publish their findings after a reasonable period to allow vendors to correct deficiencies.
Agree 100% on the paper trail and auditing like I said in my previous post. This isn't a partisan issue, this is an issue of insuring our elections are fair. Standardization would also help minimize irregularities like Wayne county's, and the audits would inspire confidence that even where irregularities exist that can't be entirely eliminated that no fraud had occurred.
>The release of the messages was likely designed to cast doubt on the legitimacy of US political processes and its leaders in general.
Making Russia 'the tyranny of low expectations'?
In the other direction:
'Any excuse will serve a tyrant'.
What is called for is disclosure of the proof. A data dump. And some quiet time to let it be fact-checked. Otherwise, there's an in-group (intel community) telling the out-group (the public) it, the in-group, has decided on a version of reality, and that, on the basis of that shared reality, they'll be throwing a snit and taking unspecified clandestine tradecraft actions, on a tight timetable, against a well-armed state. The public might, or might not, eventually be told what those actions were. And the next administration in the White House will be left to decide whether or not to rebuild above-ground. Adult?
a distinction between «hacking» and «leaking», which el Reg readers, if not necessarily Mr Obama et consortes should be able to appreciate....
Henri
You know there is something seriously wrong in the World when you have to upvote Henri! I cannot believe Obambi agreed to put his name to this evidence-free allegations, which fly in the face of actual evidence of it being a leak. Obambi's usually so set on polishing his "legacy" that I find it bizarre he'd get caught up in this silliness. Is it a last and desperate attempt to influence the Electoral College voters, hoping they will not vote for Trump (as their constituents clearly directed them to)? If so then it is an even less moral attempt to influence the outcome of the election than what they have accused Pootie of doing!
I'm not at all happy about a Trump presidency - but it seems to me that the US has been sticking its nose into other countries business for so long, formenting regime change, that it was only a matter of time before it got a dose of its own medicine.
There's not a lot of doubt in my mind that Russia is behind this but, given America's history of meddling in Russian politics, I can't really blame them.
Perhaps, when Trumps time in office is over, the US won't be quite so quick to meddle in future.
And why Russia? Not China not North Korea since they successfully hacked Sony, nobody believed it first, why not Iran? You say it's because Trump seems "sympathetic" towards Putin? Then it could have been Taiwan or the Philippines, remember the I love you worm?
Or is it because the CIA and the media tells you? Do you have another source that verifies it's Russia?
@The little voice inside my head
Is it because the CIA and the media tells you? I know, I know, though I deny it, I'm getting old and a little old fashioned. But yes. Because the media tells me - and, when I say 'The Media' I mean Reuters, The BBC and similar. We've tried the untrustworthy mouthpieces of the alt-right like Fox News, Murdoch's empire, The Express and The Mail, blow-hards on Twitter and Facebook and it didn't work out too well, so I fall back on organisations which are so balanced that they get accused of being biased by both sides.
As for the CIA, the FBI seems to agree. So how about that - trusting the CIA and the FBI. Both have gotten up to some seriously bad shit in the past but, until I have solid evidence to the contrary, I have no reason to disbelieve them at the moment. It's down to who has the most to gain. Russia gains from a Trump Presidency. China will likely lose out, so will Iran. Taiwan might gain a little, as (maybe) might North Korea. But Russia will gain most - so yes, balance of probability, Russia. And who can blame them?
Because some people, including commentards believe what they read in Wikileaks, instead of the author of the source material miss-attributed to Blumenthal in an email modified after it was hacked from Podesta.
I rarely read wikileaks but I do read a lot of mainstream and alternative sources so that I can make my own mind up.
From the article you linked to ; “Moscow appears to use monetary support in combination with other tools of Russian statecraft, including propaganda in local media, direct lobbying by the Russian Government, economic pressure, and military intimidation,” the letter says. “Russian trolls and other cyber actors post comments on the Internet, maintain blogs, challenge ‘pro-Western’ journalists and media narratives, and spread pro-Russian information on social media.”
If you transpose Moscow, Russia etc for Washington, America and so on it would be equally as accurate, since both sides play the same silly games, supporting either one as being in the right merely means you have bought in to their particular hype.
When was the last time the US kept it's nose out of any election in another sovereign state of interest to it? Probably before you were born.
"....When was the last time the US kept it's nose out of any election in another sovereign state of interest to it?...." Obambi's interference in the Brexit referendum does spring to mind.
".... I want to upvote you and sometimes do...." Thanks but do you really think I'm at all bothered by the ratio of upvotes to downvotes? Indeed, it's often quite fun imagining some of the forum members mashing the downvote button in helpless rage as they find another post to which they cannot actually formulate a reasoned counter.
PS: I also do upvote your posts sometimes.
."And so what are you gonna do about it, Barry?"
For starters, the USA could un-friend Russia on FaceBook. I understand their relationship status has been "it's complicated" for some time now anyway.
.Still waiting for anything of substance as for now there is only heavy breahting, innuendo and outlandish claims by brain-challenged churnalists
Especially as we know that three-letter agencies have had form during the last 4 presidencies of subverting, disrupting, arresting, inciting and spying on completely harmless citizen under the guise of "counterterrorism".with extreme claims of clear and present danger being served cold. Claims that then collapsed and were never heard of again.
"Still waiting for anything of substance....." Been much like that throughout Barry's whole two administrations, TBH. Quite ironic that Michelle Obama is now claiming "Americans don't have hope", after it's two cycles of her hubby's promising to deliver "hope and change" that left the electorate so desperate for change they put their hopes in someone like Donald Trump! I suppose the TLAs think that going with this baloney will get them some more cyber funding.
> "The Reg is looking more and more like the Huffington Post..."
No so. These political articles are click bait, yes, but the real reason for them is to segregate us political junkies so that the real tech threads are kept clean and cerebral.
Okay, right now there are some comments on those threads that are rather political, but that's just spillover due to the passions of the election. Soon those threads will return to boring normality.
And during the rest of the year they run Linux distro and Microsoft articles for the same reason.
For some articles, it's only the trolls I have respect for in the comments. Having lived in redder and bluer parts of TX and CA respectively, all I can say is that crazy doesn't discriminate. Atleast the nuts in the bay area are going to be too busy protesting Trump to mess with as many of the meaningful bits of local politics. Just let them have their resolutions and perhaps someone can finally fix a few potholes without weeks of community meetings.
Look, it true that most of the readers here are left-leaning, but that's no reason to complain about it. 'Twas always thus. If you don't like it, try to persuade people over to your side of things. That's what I do, and I like to think there are a few I've influenced here and there. Can't do that by bad-mouthing the entire site.
Besides, El Reg is lightyears ahead of any other site when it comes to the comments, even now with all the election craziness. You want to give it up and imbibe that knuckle-dragger sewage pouring from the other sites? Not me!
I'll bet anything if the US did the same thing to Russia/Putin then the US would have hell to pay.
Putin is a world bully along with the likes of the 'leaders' of North Korea, China and Syria. Putin is a rich entitled asshole who thinks the world is there for him to do with as he pleases. He chooses to use all of his wealth and power for evil instead of good.
And now the US has a bully ready to take over power, Trump.
Key world countries are being taken over by bullies.
You mean completely unlike the tiny handed oompa loompa who berates anyone who doesn't worship him.
Accusing reporters of being visited by Aunt Flo for asking tough question, and not accepting the mealy-mouthed answers provided?
Trying to discredit an entire magazine for giving one of his restaurants an unfavourable review?
Making completely unfounded remarks about people on tw@tter because they questioned the veracity of his claims.
Yes, both sides make up lies about the other, but "the right" seems to have more than its fair share of crazies who cannot take criticism. Which is to be expected, afterall, firmly believing in something that does not exist is clinically a form of psychosis.
"Which is to be expected, afterall, firmly believing in something that does not exist is clinically a form of psychosis."
So all those Christians, Hindus, Jews, Bhuddists, Muslims, etc who believe in god (or gods) are suffering from a form of psychosis? I can believe that of Catholics and Muslims, but not so easily all of the other sects........
In which case our total sense of reality is a form of psychosis, as Quantum physics clearly demonstrates it's not 'really there' in the sense with which our 'psychotic fantasies' regard it as being.
The real issue, (to be revealed in my next paper 'metaphysics for a post-truth world') is which psychotic delusion you chose to pick.
And that in a nutshell, is what has happened with Brexit and with Trump. Substantial groups of people have decided not to adhere to the standard issue psychosis, and have picked - according to you lights - either a more, or a less, delusional and dysfunctional one.
And of course the key point of my paper, is not which is more true, but which in the end is sustainable and for how long. Boffing your enemies and ruling the world works, until you run out of enemies, when its sometimes tempting to invent them instead. If you like bossing biffing and ruling and strutting about.
(And for sure the Left does. More than the Right does).
Its a sea change in public consciousness. Get used to it. We have had 50 years of Leftism, and people are simply bored with it. Its past is sell by date. One look at Hillaries cadaver like visage and resurrected hairdo is enough to see that.
Of COURSE we will get fooled again. But for the time being is a blissful respite from moaning whining politically correct social justice warriors, and a strong clean smell of honest corruption openly declared, self interest and a rare and candid moment of almost honesty.
"....Contrast with Mrs. Clinton who proactively squashed Bernie using secret inside leverage over the Democrat Party....." Which is hilarious after she complained about the way some members of the DNC backed Obambi in their very dirty infighting in 2008! Quick, The Huff must be Russian cyber spies that tried to "influence" the election! Or, looking at the "lies" he spread about Obambi in 2008, maybe Bill Clinton was a "Russian spy influencing the election"! ROFL!
"Mr Putin is well aware of my feelings about this"
Poor, poor baby Barry. Were your sensitive "snowflake" widdle feelings HURT ??? Awwww....
Stupid "feely" Demorats, jumping all over Trump before the election for even *hinting* he might not "accept the results". And here THEY are, in obvious hypocrisy, blaming Russia for THEIR loss.
What's Barry gonna do, start a WAR so he can "stay president" because it's too important to transition power 'right now'? Everyone knows Barry carries a WIMPY STICK, and makes idle "don't do that" 'threats' ALL the time! He's like every OTHER bully, a WIMP at heart. And Putin KNOWS it.
So as the Demo-Rats can't claim some RACIST or NAME-YOUR-PHOBE did it, they'll pick on Putin because he's there, it's Russia, and they need a scapegoat.
Nevermind the real reason: It was because Trump *WON*, and Mrs. Clinton was *REJECTED*. Had there been no electoral college, Trump would've campaigned differently, and the results would PROBABLY have been President Trump.
"Get Over It", Demo-Rats!
Ignoring the fact that the Democrats were appalled a mere two months ago at the idea of Trump even so much as questioning the results of the election... Ignoring the fact that Putin would definitely rather have Clinton in office because getting her to change a position or even sell the whole country is as easy as wiring a few bucks to her foundation... Ignoring the fact that many of those ballots were on paper and therefore somewhat difficult to hack from a computer in Moscow... Ignoring the fact that there were people on the Democratic side caught on video laughing about how they were busing people around to vote multiple times in multiple locations and machines shown to select Clinton when someone ticked someone else...
I just want this election to be over. They need to stop trying to tear us further apart with this sore loser's tantrum. Clinton was up against the most dismal candidate possible who didn't even seem to be trying to win, because of her experience and connections it was rigged in her favor practically if not literally and all indications are that the economy is doing fine under her Democratic predecessor. If she couldn't win in an electoral and popular landslide under those conditions, it's simply not in her fate to be the president.
It seems to me that the simple explanation is that the Democrats are in total denial that their election machine failed to deliver a candidate who could win. If Sanders had been the candidate and lost, the Republicans could have argued that the public had rejected any move to the left. But the public were never given the choice; they had a choice of right wing orange huckster versus slightly more progressive shark lawyer; they detected that the Republicans didn't much like Trump; and they went for the candidate who seemed less in debt to the big donors and the party machines in sufficient numbers to swing the election due to the rules, if not in terms of numbers of votes.
Blaming the Russians is pure deflection. The Dems need to go through a Labour Party moment and start to consider whether machine politicians at national level really represent their electorate.
It cannot be just over until justice is done where it needs to apply and that is the corruption rampant at least with Clinton and her illegal email server, that is an IT angle, therefore it pertains to this site and the elections too, so here I am. I don't want double standards and don't like people telling me that's the way the world is. It needs real fixing then, why don't you start by making a change and enforcing the freaking rules the industry comes with? Like having security/stability in mind first, deploying/selling alphas later?
"all indications are that the economy is doing fine under her Democratic predecessor."
Don't send me no more postcards, no
Not unless you send them from
Desolation Row"
Try saying that in the rustbelts, to the mom and pop stores going under, to millions of people in flyover country who are NOT in well paid middle class jobs on the coastal strips.
Hillary was a loser. I don't see how one can say she is any more of a sore loser than all the others; probably it is sexism. All the losers talk about what cost them the win and have some blame etc they also accept some of the blame themselves (they are politicians after all...) She's not been any worse.
The reality is this is NOT the same election as in the past; it's ignorant to think nothing has been slowly changing or that this last election wasn't a surreal nightmare out of Black Mirror.
Russia did work against Clinton; Putin was known to really hate her; that was BEFORE she ran. She was involved in messing around with Russian politics -- the USA messes with other country's voting (rigged or not) and we even spy on our allies! (remember?) So Russia was just returning the favor in a bigger way than they did in the past (if at all.) People seem to forget that the State Dept official email server was hacked as well. It really didn't matter where email went.
Russia used whatever budget they had quite effectively on multiple fronts and have learned what works and what does not-- and they will use it against all other democracies that get in their way going forward. Their success guarantees that even if they actually had no actual influence at the outcome they will BELIEVE they did because the got what they wanted. It's future failed attempts that will prove if their efforts do not work.
Cry wolf too many times, and claims of "high confidence" mean precisely jack shit. People can see through the evil Russian puppeteer propaganda, and the increasingly desperate temper tantrums of a dying administration.
Not a fan of Trump btw, but that doesn't mean I swallow the other sides bullshit any easier.
Question: WHAT THE FCUCK IS GOING ON IN THAT US FUNHOUSE!
Answer: Neocon Panic and Agony (warning: written by "The Saker")
It is pretty obvious that the Neocon reign is coming to an end in a climax of incompetence, hysterical finger-pointing, futile attempts at preventing the inevitable and a desperate scramble to conceal the magnitude of the abject failure which Neocon-inspired policies have resulted in. Obama will go down in history as the worst and most incompetent President in US history. As for Hillary, she will be remembered as both the worst US Secretary of State the US and the most inept Presidential candidate ever.
In light of the fact that the Neocons always failed at everything they attempted, I am inclined to believe that they will probably also fail at preventing Donald Trump from being sworn in. But until January 20th, 2017 I will be holding my breath in fear of what else these truly demented people could come up with.
It would make sense for Russia to interfere when Trump's declared stance is to soften US attitude to Russia.
And remember that not only are covert operations undertaken in "total deniability" mode, but also, independent of the state, groups or individuals may operate on their own initiative in the expectation that an outcome favourable to the state will be rewarded.
That means the allegations of official sanction are unlikely to be proved either way.
It will be interesting to see Trump's attitude to Russia once he's in office.
If it is one of appeasement and the Russian sphere of influence continues to expend - either through puppet states as some of the 'stans are and Syria and Turkey may be becoming or by invasion as in Ukraine and Georgia (and coming soon Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) then at best Trump and the US look weak. In that case whether Russian interference is true or not is irrelevant. What will matter is that the convergence of the allegations and the reality that the outcome of the election proves favourable to Russia will make Trump look like Putin's puppet in popular perception - whether true or not.
Putin is popular in Russia because he's seen as making Russia strong. Trump is angling for popularity in US by making US weak. Putin has the advantage of control of the media and censorship of internet feeds, criticism of his rule can have extreme consequences. Trump has the disadvantage of a much freer media and few critics need fear for their lives.
Reducing sanctions against Russia will be a double whammy. Not only giving Russia license to continue its expansionist policies but also strengthening the economy and so giving them the resources for those policies.
Another indicator that Russia may have been interfering is the attention some European states are now taking to strengthen the defense of their electoral processes. Why would they do that if they didn't perceive an increased risk?
Apparently, she and her staff forgot or didn't know how our elections actually work....popular vote doesn't mean jack. Its funny to me, the system worked exactly as it was designed and yet they cry foul...after all she had more votes, so obviously its Russians. It wasn't the Russians who called people deplorable, or implied they were all racists, xenophobic, etc, etc.
Nope, it was millions of people who were sick of the nation going toward very vocal fringe groups while forgetting jobs, and middle-class Americans in the middle part of the country who feel like they have been forgotten for years. I find it laughable when it was nearly a 50/50 statistical vote that many feel their 50% should overrule the other 50% who won based on our system as it is. Maybe if Clinton had actually tried to win these 5 or so middle America battleground states instead of catering to the coasts she would have won.
I didn't like either of the major party clowns, I can't believe in a nation of 300 million that's who we came down to were these idiots. Watching the left meltdown in the aftermath though makes me wish I had voted for Trump, they just look pathetic with their arguments and cry baby attitudes. I know a few people in my circle who didn't vote for either of them and most would have went for Trump over Hillary anyday that women was just that hated.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
