The DNC "hack" was a leak from within the US and not Russia.

[Yossarian]

In that case you will have no problem finding us statements to that effect from the CIA, FBI, NSA and foreign intelligence services.

The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process.

Joint Statement from the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security | Homeland Security

 

[CRI]

No FBI directors have 10 year terms, and have to be fired for cause, see William Sessions

Also it's not just the consensus of the CIA/FBI/NSA that Russia hacked the election, a variety of foreign intelligence services and internet security companies agree.

The only people are saying it's anyone but the Russians are Trump, Putin, Assange and Wikileaks.

And quite a few Urbanites.

 

[CRI]

Could Trump help unleash nuclear catastrophe with a single tweet?

Donald Trump’s alarming Tweet about his desire to “greatly strengthen and expand” the “nuclear capability” of the United States unleashed a frenzy of media efforts to try to divine his actual policy intentions. It forced some of his advisers into tortured claims that Trump didn’t say what he actually said, even as others simultaneously insisted that Trump did meaningfully put other countries on notice that if he deems them to be challenging our supremacy, they will face an arms race.

But perhaps the most worrisome thing about Trump’s nuclear Tweet is not the intention to break with decades of international disarmament efforts that it may have signaled, though that’s frightening enough on its own. Rather, it’s that he saw fit to Tweet about nuclear weapons at all.

As we prepare for President Trump to take near-unchecked control of our nuclear machinery, his nuclear Tweet is best seen as a window into his temperament. Trump still does not appreciate that every word he utters carries tremendous weight and could have dramatic, untold, far-reaching, unpredictable consequences — something that is especially true in the nuclear arena. Or, perhaps worse, Trump may be entirely indifferent to this fact.

 

[8den]

No, of course not, but again, it wouldn't be surprising.

I have had no faith in the 'honesty' of any government for a long time.

Riiight, Michael Foot beats Thatcher, because of internal Tory party memos leaked by the Russians? The Paras would be on the streets rounding up the shadow cabinet before the day is out.

 

[J Ed]

Joint Statement from the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security | Homeland Security

OK, fair enough, but there are a few things here that should still give us pause for thought.

1) The CIA and FBI both have a long history of political involvement, and lying. Remember that the CIA actively backed Pinochet's coup against Allende, something which they denied at the time. More recently the CIA lied to Congress about Iraq, and then again about the US' global torture programme. Similarly, the NSA lied to Congress about mass surveillance.

2) They still haven't really presented any definitive evidence.

3) Why so little attention on the content of the leaks?

 

[J Ed]

Could Trump help unleash nuclear catastrophe with a single tweet?

Donald Trump’s alarming Tweet about his desire to “greatly strengthen and expand” the “nuclear capability” of the United States unleashed a frenzy of media efforts to try to divine his actual policy intentions. It forced some of his advisers into tortured claims that Trump didn’t say what he actually said, even as others simultaneously insisted that Trump did meaningfully put other countries on notice that if he deems them to be challenging our supremacy, they will face an arms race.

But perhaps the most worrisome thing about Trump’s nuclear Tweet is not the intention to break with decades of international disarmament efforts that it may have signaled, though that’s frightening enough on its own. Rather, it’s that he saw fit to Tweet about nuclear weapons at all.

As we prepare for President Trump to take near-unchecked control of our nuclear machinery, his nuclear Tweet is best seen as a window into his temperament. Trump still does not appreciate that every word he utters carries tremendous weight and could have dramatic, untold, far-reaching, unpredictable consequences — something that is especially true in the nuclear arena. Or, perhaps worse, Trump may be entirely indifferent to this fact.

good at least you won't be able to post anymore, I welcome nuclear war for this reason alone

 

[Sasaferrato]

No FBI directors have 10 year terms, and have to be fired for cause, see William Sessions


Also it's not just the consensus of the CIA/FBI/NSA that Russia hacked the election, a variety of foreign intelligence services and internet security companies agree.

The only people are saying it's anyone but the Russians are Trump, Putin, Assange and Wikileaks.

Ah, didn't know that. Thank you.
That is quite a cabal.

 

[scifisam]

OK, fair enough, but there are a few things here that should still give us pause for thought.

1) The CIA and FBI both have a long history of political involvement, and lying. Remember that the CIA actively backed Pinochet's coup against Allende, something which they denied at the time. More recently the CIA lied to Congress about Iraq, and then again about the US' global torture programme. Similarly, the NSA lied to Congress about mass surveillance.

2) They still haven't really presented any definitive evidence.

3) Why so little attention on the content of the leaks?

The content has been completely benign and even makes Clinton look good, that's why. People just assume anything that's been leaked must be bad.

 

[J Ed]

The content has been completely benign and even makes Clinton look good, that's why. People just assume anything that's been leaked must be bad.

You think that rigging the primary against Bernie Sanders made Hillary Clinton look good? What about Chelsea Clinton using the Clinton Foundation as a slush fund? The fact that you think that it made Clinton look good suggests to me how little coverage has been devoted to the contents of the leaks.

 

[scifisam]

You think that rigging the primary against Bernie Sanders made Hillary Clinton look good?

I don't think it was the emails that suggested that - other sources did.

 

[J Ed]

I don't think it was the emails that suggested that - other sources did.

The Podesta e-mails and the DNC leaks both demonstrated that in a general sense and in specific examples that the DNC, an organisation which has to be neutral in Democratic primaries, actively conspired both for Clinton and against Sanders.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

It's interesting that the DC establishment and liberal media is so keen to get people believing that the Russians passed the Dems dirt on to Wikileaks and excited about it.

My impression was that Trump's systematic voter suppression had an decisive impact on the final result, whereas the impact of this stuff isn't at all clear.

 

[J Ed]

It's interesting that the DC establishment and liberal media is so keen to get people believing that the Russians passed the Dems dirt on to Wikileaks and excited about it.

My impression was that Trump's systematic voter suppression had an decisive impact on the final result, whereas the impact of this stuff isn't at all clear.

The focus on Russia ensures that they can continue as they did before, whereas other kinds of reflection on their failings would mean that they would be effectively doing themselves out of a job.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Systematic voter suppression by groups aligned with Trump doesn't reflect directly on Hilary or on DC insiders I'd have thought?

 

[J Ed]

Systematic voter suppression by groups aligned with Trump doesn't reflect directly on Hilary or on DC insiders I'd have thought?

To an extent yes, but there is some grey area between electoral irregularities leading to voter suppression and the total failure (and in some cases lack of existence) of a Clinton campaign get out the vote effort. They knew, or if they didn't they should have known, how bad things were in for example North Carolina yet seemingly they did nothing extra to try and get out the vote. In fact, they made far less of an effort in this direction than the Obama campaign in 2008 and 2012.

Even worse, the Clinton campaign actively undermined people from the Sanders campaign and trade unionists who saw these failings and what was coming next and in response tried to organise their own get out the vote effort.

How Clinton lost Michigan — and blew the election

Everybody could see Hillary Clinton was cooked in Iowa. So when, a week-and-a-half out, the Service Employees International Union started hearing anxiety out of Michigan, union officials decided to reroute their volunteers, giving a desperate team on the ground around Detroit some hope.

They started prepping meals and organizing hotel rooms.


SEIU — which had wanted to go to Michigan from the beginning, but been ordered not to — dialed Clinton’s top campaign aides to tell them about the new plan. According to several people familiar with the call, Brooklyn was furious.

Turn that bus around, the Clinton team ordered SEIU. Those volunteers needed to stay in Iowa to fool Donald Trump into competing there, not drive to Michigan, where the Democrat’s models projected a 5-point win through the morning of Election Day.

Michigan organizers were shocked. It was the latest case of Brooklyn ignoring on-the-ground intel and pleas for help in a race that they felt slipping away at the end.

“They believed they were more experienced, which they were. They believed they were smarter, which they weren’t,” said Donnie Fowler, who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee during the final months of the campaign. “They believed they had better information, which they didn’t.”

 

[petee]

The content has been completely benign and even makes Clinton look good, that's why. People just assume anything that's been leaked must be bad.

i don't know about making clinton look good, but...
before the election there was an army of trolls here on US sites screaming IT'S ALL IN WIKILEAKS and when i pinned one down (surprisingly) and told him (i assume) to show exactly where "it" "all" was i was referred to a single email in which podesta used a slag term for hispanics. this proved ... something. oh and the child sacrifice thing in the pizzeria, i forgot about that.

 

[CRI]

What do you mean when you refer to liberal media. Genuinely curious. Thanks.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

To an extent yes, but there is some grey area between electoral irregularities leading to voter suppression and the total failure (and in some cases lack of existence) of a Clinton campaign get out the vote effort. They knew, or if they didn't they should have known, how bad things were in for example North Carolina yet seemingly they did nothing extra to try and get out the vote. In fact, they made far less of an effort in this direction than the Obama campaign in 2008 and 2012.

Even worse, the Clinton campaign actively undermined people from the Sanders campaign and trade unionists who saw these failings and what was coming next and in response tried to organise their own get out the vote effort.

How Clinton lost Michigan — and blew the election

OK, so the claim would be something like ...

"Because Wikileaks put out all that stuff about us trying to smear Sanders, our activists didn't turn out to oppose voter suppression because they hate us for being ratfuckers, so it's Putin's fault that we let Trump in ... "

... sorta thing?

 

[J Ed]

i don't know about making clinton look good, but...
before the election there was an army of trolls here on US sites screaming IT'S ALL IN WIKILEAKS and when i pinned one down (surprisingly) and told him (i assume) to show exactly where "it" "all" was i was referred to a single email in which podesta used a slag term for hispanics. this proved ... something. oh and the child sacrifice thing in the pizzeria, i forgot about that.

This is pretty typical of lazy Clintonite thinking, not unlike the logic whereby they prove that Clinton is 'fine' on foreign policy because the Benghazi conspiracy theory peddled by the GOP is nonsense while totally ignoring, for example, Honduras.

Off the top of my head, things we know because of the Podesta e-mails:

The DNC used their influence with the media to promote a pied-piper strategy of promoting candidates like Cruz, Trump and Carson over Republicans they thought Clinton would have a harder time beating.

Chelsea Clinton used the Clinton Foundation as a slushfund, using its funds to pay for taxis and even her wedding.

Donna Brazile leaked Bernie Sanders' documents to the Clinton campaign, passed on a question that Clinton was going to be asked at a CNN debate with Sanders so that Clinton would know it in advance in violations both of the ethical requirements of her position at CNN and the DNC.

Cheryl Mills, chief of staff to Clinton when she was Secretary of State, did not want Clinton to run because she approved the use of the private e-mail server and was aware of the potential damaging implications of that both legally and politically.

 

[J Ed]

OK, so the claim would be something like ...

"Because Wikileaks put out all that stuff about us trying to smear Sanders, our activists didn't turn out to oppose voter suppression because they hate us for being ratfuckers, so it's Putin's fault that we let Trump in ... "

... sorta thing?

I suppose another factor is that, despite losing an election partly because they thought this, a lot of Democrats are still labouring under the delusion that there is a big political gulf between your typical Republican and Trump. The strategy up until, and for many including now, has been to emphasise the difference between 'moderate Republicans' and Trump. That means presenting Trump as something uniquely new and awful, rather than a natural continuation of the politics of people like Walker and McCory.

 

[squirrelp]

1. They've been found in lots of places, including enemies of Russia. And Weirdly they've never hacked any Russian Systems.

2. Notes were written in a version of Word registered in Russia.

3. The pattern of hacking suggests it mainly occurred in Russian time zones.

4. One hacker who claimed to be Romanian, was clearly typing his answers into google translation.

The FBI have a legal responsibility to provide evidence "beyond reasonable doubt" the CIA do not.

None of this tripe is evidence

As the US retired intelligence themselves guys have told us: if it was Russian hackers, the NSA would have traced the data packets and know exactly where they went, and would have the names of the people they wanted extradited to face charges.

Like, for example, as they wanted our Gary McKinnon.

This evidence doesn't exist.

Which in fact allows us to fairly conclude there was no hack whatsoever.

 

[CRI]

i don't know about making clinton look good, but...
before the election there was an army of trolls here on US sites screaming IT'S ALL IN WIKILEAKS and when i pinned one down (surprisingly) and told him (i assume) to show exactly where "it" "all" was i was referred to a single email in which podesta used a slag term for hispanics. this proved ... something. oh and the child sacrifice thing in the pizzeria, i forgot about that.

And, there's evidence many of the trolls pushing this weren't in the US, but astro-turfing from Russia and then there were the 100+ pro trump websites based in one town in Macedonia. Surely they had some influence on the direction of social media conversations. Some trolls were really crap and easy to spot with their cod home-boy lingo, but convincing enough for those who were a.) gullible and b.) hated Obama and then Clinton with a passion to swallow it.

I lurked on some social media convos of people where I came from and noticed curious shifts that swelled in the lead up to the election. What started as bog standard racist, sexist, homophobic, and pro-Christian slagging of Obama and Clinton (birtherism never died with them, Obama was Muslim, Clinton was a Lesbian, etc.) began to evolve into more comments about how great Russia and Putin were, which really made me scratch my head. Anything that vaguely whiffed of socialism was considered beyond the pale certainly by Republicans, who also slurred Obama by insisting he was trying to turn make the US Socialist/Communism. Russia was still the evil empire with new clothes on. But relatively swiftly, Putin was rehabilitated into a strong, passionate leader who put his country's interests first, was prepared to act tough and most importantly, was a Christian leader of a Christian people. So I started seeing posts about how Clinton would take America to war with Russia when they should be our allies against the ungodly Muslims. Electing Trump was the only way to peace. I saw this in posts from church ministers, encouraging their congregations to vote Trump (and of course Clinton was a baby-murderer . . .)

Something definitely shifted in the past year or so, and I can't believe it was just because of the economy, just because Americans are stupid, just because Clinton was a crap candidate, just because Trump was a really convincing one and definitely because Bernie would have wiped the floor with Trump (he woudn't have.)

 

[J Ed]

Isn't it amazing how CRI can't go more than five minutes without announcing proudly that she thinks that the majority of Americans are stupid?

 

[CRI]

OK, so the claim would be something like ...

"Because Wikileaks put out all that stuff about us trying to smear Sanders, our activists didn't turn out to oppose voter suppression because they hate us for being ratfuckers, so it's Putin's fault that we let Trump in ... "

... sorta thing?

Okay, think back a bit to the original Wikileaks/Manning/Snowden revelations in, was it 2013? I remember here, and among most left-leaning folk in the UK, the revelations about American actions was welcomed. Assange, Snowden and Manning were seen positively, even as heros for their whistle blowing. Except for a few folks on the left in the US, it wasn't seen the same way there. Most Average Joe's and Josephine's regarded them as traitors, called for their death in blogs and social media posts. For some, it was no doubt just a jingoistic knee jerk reaction. But, some made the point that revelations could compromise the safety of service personnel oversees. Lots of people in America (particularly working class people) have family in the military. Maybe they didn't have full faith in the intelligence services, but they saw the leaks as a direct attack on ordinary Americans doing their duty to their country.

But then many of these same people who posted the vicious screeds and violent memes about hanging Snowden for treason and having Assange extradited and locked up did 180 degree turns to praising Wikileaks as a beacon of freedom and Assange as a hero. Putin transformed from shadowy despot to a leadership role model and Russia became a sister nation with a shared faith.

Something happened in between.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Beyond anecdotal stuff, what's actually known about Russian (or Russia-aligned) information operations (aka 'troll-farms')?

I seem to recall reading some stuff a while back, but I'm having trouble pulling up anything that doesn't look spun-to-fuck via Google.

 

[J Ed]

Okay, think back a bit to the original Wikileaks/Manning/Snowden revelations in, was it 2013? I remember here, and among most left-leaning folk in the UK, the revelations about American actions was welcomed. Assange, Snowden and Manning were seen positively, even as heros for their whistle blowing. Except for a few folks on the left in the US, it wasn't seen the same way there. Most Average Joe's and Josephine's regarded them as traitors, called for their death in blogs and social media posts. For some, it was no doubt just a jingoistic knee jerk reaction. But, some made the point that revelations could compromise the safety of service personnel oversees. Lots of people in America (particularly working class people) have family in the military. Maybe they didn't have full faith in the intelligence services, but they saw the leaks as a direct attack on ordinary Americans doing their duty to their country.

But then many of these same people who posted the vicious screeds and violent memes about hanging Snowden for treason and having Assange extradited and locked up did 180 degree turn to praising Wikileaks as a beacon of freedom and Assange as a hero. Putin transformed from shadowy despot to a leadership role model and Russia became a sister nation with a shared faith.

Something happened in between.

 

[CRI]

Beyond anecdotal stuff, what's actually known about Russian (or Russia-aligned) information operations (aka 'troll-farms')?

I seem to recall reading some stuff a while back, but I'm having trouble pulling up anything that doesn't look spun-to-fuck via Google.

I saw stuff about the pro Trump websites in Veles, Macedonia on multiple sites, including ABC news and The Times, along with interviews from some of the people who ran them. If you search Veles + Trump, you'll find them. In one, I think there was an interview with one guy who ran several websites, which generated a tidy income in clicks. For him, it wasn't about politics - he just made more money making up stories that were pro-Trump than pro-Clinton. Said something about after the election, everyone would move on to something else to make money - probably football.

There were articles about Fancy Bear and evidence of hacking and astro turfing way back in the Spring. Maybe try a search for that.

Thing is, is it not even plausible that Russia might have done something like this, given the history of actions from their intelligence services, given the fact the embargo is crippling their economy and undermining their society, and they want that to end? Another Democrat in the White House was unlikely to make that happen. Even if you set aside the breadcrumb trail showing strong links between Trump and leaders in the USSR then Russia going back over 30 years, does this scenario REALLY seem so impossible? The vociferous way some on the right AND the left dismiss the possibility of Russian interference in the US elections, you'd think folk were pushing the idea the earth is flat!

 

[CRI]

It's interesting that the DC establishment and liberal media is so keen to get people believing that the Russians passed the Dems dirt on to Wikileaks and excited about it.

My impression was that Trump's systematic voter suppression had an decisive impact on the final result, whereas the impact of this stuff isn't at all clear.

Voter suppression DID have a massive impact as well. Meant to say that.

 

[scifisam]

This is pretty typical of lazy Clintonite thinking, not unlike the logic whereby they prove that Clinton is 'fine' on foreign policy because the Benghazi conspiracy theory peddled by the GOP is nonsense while totally ignoring, for example, Honduras.

Off the top of my head, things we know because of the Podesta e-mails:

The DNC used their influence with the media to promote a pied-piper strategy of promoting candidates like Cruz, Trump and Carson over Republicans they thought Clinton would have a harder time beating.

Chelsea Clinton used the Clinton Foundation as a slushfund, using its funds to pay for taxis and even her wedding.

Donna Brazile leaked Bernie Sanders' documents to the Clinton campaign, passed on a question that Clinton was going to be asked at a CNN debate with Sanders so that Clinton would know it in advance in violations both of the ethical requirements of her position at CNN and the DNC.

Cheryl Mills, chief of staff to Clinton when she was Secretary of State, did not want Clinton to run because she approved the use of the private e-mail server and was aware of the potential damaging implications of that both legally and politically.

Apart from the Mills and Brazile things, which tbh are so minor there's no doubt that all the campaigns were doing the same and why not, is any of that actually in the emails, or is it just wild exaggerations like the pizzagate stuff that some people actually believed?

 

[CRI]

Apart from the Mills and Brazile things, which tbh are so minor there's no doubt that all the campaigns were doing the same and why not, is any of that actually in the emails, or is it just wild exaggerations like the pizzagate stuff that some people actually believed?

There were the constant "teasers" that there was more juicy stuff to be revealed, and the FBI head made the damaging and unprecedented announcement that he was re-opening the investigation into Clinton's emails. This was just after Clinton was showing pretty strongly in polls following the surreal debates with Trump. Days before the election, he then came out with, "oh sorry, not going to bother after all, as you were . . . " but damage already done.

I can't see how anyone could look at the months leading up to the election and not see that the tiniest hint of any indiscretion by Clinton became a tidal wave of condemnation while almost daily revelations about Trump's financial impropriety, sexual assaults, shafting of other businesses, disrespect for armed forces families, bald-face lies, etc. were just waved away as if they were just school boy jolly japes of no importance.