Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 140

Thread: Comrade Trump

  1. #1

    Default Comrade Trump

    I say let's have dedicated thread for discussing all things Trump and Russia.


    I'll stick this article here:

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...n-hack-n696146

  2. #2
    Time to camp HuskyFreeNorthwest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Eug
    Posts
    25,478

    Default

    It is funny that the same news outlets that were so condescending at Romney 4 years ago for saying Putin was a threat are now the leading fear mongers for how much Putin wants to hurt America. If Trippet were around I'd venture a guess it is ironic.
    Get confident, stupid
    -landpoke

  3. #3
    вот так штука CardiacCoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The SLC
    Posts
    9,792

    Default

    This is going to be confusing keeping all the Trump threads straight.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CardiacCoug View Post
    This is going to be confusing keeping all the Trump threads straight.
    Excellent point. Where is the thread for #winning? That will probably be the busiest.

  5. #5
    Pre-Historic Man
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Allendale County, SC
    Posts
    10,101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HuskyFreeNorthwest View Post
    It is funny that the same news outlets that were so condescending at Romney 4 years ago for saying Putin was a threat are now the leading fear mongers for how much Putin wants to hurt America. If Trippet were around I'd venture a guess it is ironic.
    A high degree of irony, indeed.

    Realpolitik might dictate a different conclusion.
    "Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."

    Upon rejecting the Beatles, Dick Rowe told Brian Epstein of the January 1, 1962 audition for Decca, which signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.

  6. #6
    One man.....one pie Moliere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    The Republic of Tejas
    Posts
    19,403

    Default

    Not sure why that article is in this thread. It basically blames Putin's "hacking" on Clinton.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

  7. #7
    Senior Member Omaha 680's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Harlem
    Posts
    7,374

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HuskyFreeNorthwest View Post
    It is funny that the same news outlets that were so condescending at Romney 4 years ago for saying Putin was a threat are now the leading fear mongers for how much Putin wants to hurt America. If Trippet were around I'd venture a guess it is ironic.
    My uncle who is an amazing human being is basically a hippie and had a long career in journalism and is thinks the McCarthy hearings are one of the most awful things America has done. I now see him on FB calling for electors to defect because the Electoral College was meant to stop a megalomaniac like Trump "with a penchant for a foreign power". The role reversals on both sides after the election have been really interesting to watch.

  8. #8
    Adventurer Walter Sobchak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    West of House
    Posts
    1,964

    Default

    Now the U.S has solid information tying Putin to the operation, the intelligence officials say. Their use of the term "high confidence" implies that the intelligence is nearly incontrovertible.
    dickey-450.jpg
    You're actually pretty funny when you aren't being a complete a-hole....so basically like 5% of the time. --Art Vandelay

    Y'all hear that? We're using code names. --Evelle Snoats

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Omaha 680 View Post
    My uncle who is an amazing human being is basically a hippie and had a long career in journalism and is thinks the McCarthy hearings are one of the most awful things America has done. I now see him on FB calling for electors to defect because the Electoral College was meant to stop a megalomaniac like Trump "with a penchant for a foreign power". The role reversals on both sides after the election have been really interesting to watch.
    This isn't anything like the red scare aside from it involving Russia or Russians.

  10. #10
    Adventurer Walter Sobchak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    West of House
    Posts
    1,964

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frank ryan View Post
    This isn't anything like the red scare aside from it involving Russia or Russians.
    Frank demands a nuanced approach here Omaha, ergo his thread title. lolz.
    You're actually pretty funny when you aren't being a complete a-hole....so basically like 5% of the time. --Art Vandelay

    Y'all hear that? We're using code names. --Evelle Snoats

  11. #11
    Huge Member BigPiney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    4,722

    Default

    I went to russia this summer and it was awesome. They are very nationalistic there. More than any place I have ever been. Still disappointed I didn't buy that shirt I saw of Putin riding a bear, but I console myself as I drink out of my putin mug.

    Moscow is a dump,other than the Kremlin, but St Petersburg is one of the best cities I have ever visited. Simply amazing. I would go back in a second.

  12. #12
    It is NOT a monkey! creekster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Creek
    Posts
    20,072

    Default

    Here's what I don't understand: WHy is the administration in such a headlong rush to identify Russia and Putin as the perpetrators? Having done so with certainty and specificity we will be required to respond somehow and I have heard nothing about how they plan to respond. Failure to respond will only embolden Russia/Putin EVEN IF THE CLAIMS ARE UNTRUE and if they are true it will make them feel stronger and bolder still. The only answer can be becasue Obama wants to undermine Trump for some political purpose or he wants to try to tie Trump's hands to large degree in dealing with the russians. Either way it seems like a bad approach at this point.

    OTOH, Trump's refusal to acknowledge it even though he is seeing the same briefings could also have some serious ramifications in dealing with Putin., The whole thing is a mess and Obama should STFU about it other than as necessary to protect American interests. But approaching it as a post election political device is a very bad idea.
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

  13. #13
    Senior Member byu71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    22,089

    Default

    Here is why I don't think Trump and Putin will end up being so chummy. They are both major egomaniacs. They are going to have some major differences and I don't see Trump reacting well to Putin getting the better of him.

    I don't put much stock in the democrats complaints and worries. Seriously, would a Putin buddy have caved in anymore to the Russians than this administration has?

    My fear is not we are going to do to much placating of the Russians, but a worry these two might escalate things beyond where they need to go.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak View Post
    Frank demands a nuanced approach here Omaha, ergo his thread title. lolz.
    Hey, how about not always so damn condescending and snarky toward me?

  15. #15
    Senior Member byu71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    22,089

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frank ryan View Post
    Hey, how about not always so damn condescending and snarky toward me?
    Wear it as a badge of honor. I do when, I won't name names, are condescending to me.

  16. #16
    My Mic Sounds Nice falafel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Las Wegas!
    Posts
    25,997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by creekster View Post
    Here's what I don't understand: WHy is the administration in such a headlong rush to identify Russia and Putin as the perpetrators? Having done so with certainty and specificity we will be required to respond somehow and I have heard nothing about how they plan to respond. Failure to respond will only embolden Russia/Putin EVEN IF THE CLAIMS ARE UNTRUE and if they are true it will make them feel stronger and bolder still. The only answer can be becasue Obama wants to undermine Trump for some political purpose or he wants to try to tie Trump's hands to large degree in dealing with the russians. Either way it seems like a bad approach at this point.

    OTOH, Trump's refusal to acknowledge it even though he is seeing the same briefings could also have some serious ramifications in dealing with Putin., The whole thing is a mess and Obama should STFU about it other than as necessary to protect American interests. But approaching it as a post election political device is a very bad idea.
    I heard a former CIA director on the radio today (can't remember which one) suggest that only response should be a non-public one. So, according to this guy, if the U.S. does anything, we should never know about it.
    Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.

    "The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American

    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  17. #17
    It is NOT a monkey! creekster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Creek
    Posts
    20,072

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by falafel View Post
    I heard a former CIA director on the radio today (can't remember which one) suggest that only response should be a non-public one. So, according to this guy, if the U.S. does anything, we should never know about it.
    Exactly. But why talk about itlike this then? Then Putin ahs the apperanceof power even if we crack his back later, becasue no one will ever know. so why make his interference in our electoral process such a public problem?
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

  18. #18
    Time to camp HuskyFreeNorthwest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Eug
    Posts
    25,478

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by falafel View Post
    I heard a former CIA director on the radio today (can't remember which one) suggest that only response should be a non-public one. So, according to this guy, if the U.S. does anything, we should never know about it.
    That isn't going to satisfy Twitter and famous actors though.
    Get confident, stupid
    -landpoke

  19. #19
    Senior Member Eddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Davis County
    Posts
    5,667

    Default

    Maybe I'm oversimplifying things, but I just don't get it.

    So - the Russians took and leaked some emails. Allegedly.

    I can agree that some of Hillary's emails may have influenced some voters. But no one is saying that the Russians invented anything, or hacked voting machines, or forced anyone to do anything.

    Sure - be pissed that they hacked and then played us (or the DNC, whatever).

    But how is this so much different than when other secret recordings, emails, or other documents are released? Is it really different because a Russian did it instead of an American? What about if a Brit tried to influence US elections? Do guys like Piers Morgan or John Oliver count? I kinda tend to think they have big audiences AND attempted to influence the US elections.

    I'm just having a hard time getting as angry as I'm seeing others get.

    Sure - be pissed that they are hacking our political organizations and fix our systems to keep them out. But do people really think that this is the first time some one from outside the US has attempted to influence a US election?

    Heck - I'll bet our government is attempting to influence other countries' elections from time to time as well. Pretty naive to think there wouldn't be someone out there returning the favor.

  20. #20
    Senior Member byu71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    22,089

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie View Post
    Maybe I'm oversimplifying things, but I just don't get it.

    So - the Russians took and leaked some emails. Allegedly.

    I can agree that some of Hillary's emails may have influenced some voters. But no one is saying that the Russians invented anything, or hacked voting machines, or forced anyone to do anything.

    Sure - be pissed that they hacked and then played us (or the DNC, whatever).

    But how is this so much different than when other secret recordings, emails, or other documents are released? Is it really different because a Russian did it instead of an American? What about if a Brit tried to influence US elections? Do guys like Piers Morgan or John Oliver count? I kinda tend to think they have big audiences AND attempted to influence the US elections.

    I'm just having a hard time getting as angry as I'm seeing others get.

    Sure - be pissed that they are hacking our political organizations and fix our systems to keep them out. But do people really think that this is the first time some one from outside the US has attempted to influence a US election?

    Heck - I'll bet our government is attempting to influence other countries' elections from time to time as well. Pretty naive to think there wouldn't be someone out there returning the favor.
    Was the Trump video of him talking with Billy somebody indicating Trump to be a male chauvinist pig received through illegal means?

  21. #21
    Senior Member Crockett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Orygun
    Posts
    630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie View Post
    Maybe I'm oversimplifying things, but I just don't get it.

    So - the Russians took and leaked some emails. Allegedly.

    I can agree that some of Hillary's emails may have influenced some voters. But no one is saying that the Russians invented anything, or hacked voting machines, or forced anyone to do anything.

    Sure - be pissed that they hacked and then played us (or the DNC, whatever).

    But how is this so much different than when other secret recordings, emails, or other documents are released? Is it really different because a Russian did it instead of an American? What about if a Brit tried to influence US elections? Do guys like Piers Morgan or John Oliver count? I kinda tend to think they have big audiences AND attempted to influence the US elections.

    I'm just having a hard time getting as angry as I'm seeing others get.

    Sure - be pissed that they are hacking our political organizations and fix our systems to keep them out. But do people really think that this is the first time some one from outside the US has attempted to influence a US election?

    Heck - I'll bet our government is attempting to influence other countries' elections from time to time as well. Pretty naive to think there wouldn't be someone out there returning the favor.
    The story should be about how careless and inept Democrats are with sensitive information. From Hillary's self-serving home server that risked a lot of national secrets and was determined to have been repeatedly hacked by several entities to how the DNC couldn't secure it's email either. The RNC said that attempts were made to hack their email, but they were repelled. The RNC is better run. (Will also be run by a BYU grad now, btw.)

    Also:


  22. #22
    𐐐𐐄𐐢𐐆𐐤𐐝 𐐓𐐅 𐐜 𐐢𐐃𐐡𐐔 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★'s = 1
    Posts
    17,089

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie View Post
    Maybe I'm oversimplifying things, but I just don't get it.

    So - the Russians took and leaked some emails. Allegedly.

    I can agree that some of Hillary's emails may have influenced some voters. But no one is saying that the Russians invented anything, or hacked voting machines, or forced anyone to do anything.

    Sure - be pissed that they hacked and then played us (or the DNC, whatever).

    But how is this so much different than when other secret recordings, emails, or other documents are released? Is it really different because a Russian did it instead of an American? What about if a Brit tried to influence US elections? Do guys like Piers Morgan or John Oliver count? I kinda tend to think they have big audiences AND attempted to influence the US elections.

    I'm just having a hard time getting as angry as I'm seeing others get.

    Sure - be pissed that they are hacking our political organizations and fix our systems to keep them out. But do people really think that this is the first time some one from outside the US has attempted to influence a US election?

    Heck - I'll bet our government is attempting to influence other countries' elections from time to time as well. Pretty naive to think there wouldn't be someone out there returning the favor.

    Yeah, the Liberals have the long term memory of a gold fish... Remember when the "Russians" made that secret recording of RMoney talking about the "47 percent"?...



    Damn Rooskies!
    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "I never preached in Texas, but I have preached in places as wicked..." -Brigham Young.
    "If we do nothing we'll be substantially behind (other Power leagues) a decade from now." -Bob Bowlsby on Big 12 expansion.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  23. #23
    Pre-Historic Man
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Allendale County, SC
    Posts
    10,101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crockett View Post
    The story should be about how careless and inept Democrats are with sensitive information. From Hillary's self-serving home server that risked a lot of national secrets and was determined to have been repeatedly hacked by several entities to how the DNC couldn't secure it's email either. The RNC said that attempts were made to hack their email, but they were repelled. The RNC is better run. (Will also be run by a BYU grad now, btw.)

    Also:

    It is just a function of demagoguery. It doesn't matter whether what you say is true or false so long as you shout it loud enough.
    "Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."

    Upon rejecting the Beatles, Dick Rowe told Brian Epstein of the January 1, 1962 audition for Decca, which signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.

  24. #24
    Senior Member myboynoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Holy Land
    Posts
    13,870

    Default

    Finally, Obama is going to take action!

    Obama says ‘we will’ retaliate against Russia for election hacking

    President Obama said the United States will retaliate against Russia over its malicious cyberactivity during this year's election, in an interview that will air Friday on NPR.
    Russia Russia Russia

    “I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections . . . we need to take action,” the president said. “And we will — at a time and place of our own choosing. Some of it may be explicit and publicized; some of it may not be.”
    Well buddy, you only have another month, so start choosing your time and place.

    Russia is soooooo gonna get there's.
    Give 'em Hell, Cougars!!!

    For all this His anger is not turned away, but His hand is stretched out still.

    Not long ago an obituary appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune that said the recently departed had "died doing what he enjoyed most—watching BYU lose."

  25. #25
    Adventurer Walter Sobchak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    West of House
    Posts
    1,964

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frank ryan View Post
    Hey, how about not always so damn condescending and snarky toward me?
    Why should you be the exception?
    You're actually pretty funny when you aren't being a complete a-hole....so basically like 5% of the time. --Art Vandelay

    Y'all hear that? We're using code names. --Evelle Snoats

  26. #26
    Adventurer Walter Sobchak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    West of House
    Posts
    1,964

    Default

    This is probably the best (e.g least partisan) summary I've read about "what we know" with regard to the origin of the DNC and Podesta leaks.

    Spoiler alert... it's not as bad as Frank thinks it is. *shocker*

    <https://theintercept.com/2016/12/14/...ts-not-enough/>

    HERE’S THE PUBLIC EVIDENCE RUSSIA HACKED THE DNC — IT’S NOT ENOUGH

    There are some good reasons to believe Russians had something to do with the breaches into email accounts belonging to members of the Democratic party, which proved varyingly embarrassing or disruptive for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. But “good” doesn’t necessarily mean good enough to indict Russia’s head of state for sabotaging our democracy.

    There’s a lot of evidence from the attack on the table, mostly detailing how the hack was perpetrated, and possibly the language of the perpetrators. It certainly remains plausible that Russians hacked the DNC, and remains possible that Russia itself ordered it. But the refrain of Russian attribution has been repeated so regularly and so emphatically that it’s become easy to forget that no one has ever truly proven the claim. There is strong evidence indicating that Democratic email accounts were breached via phishing messages, and that specific malware was spread across DNC computers. There’s even evidence that the attackers are the same group that’s been spotted attacking other targets in the past. But again: No one has actually proven that group is the Russian government (or works for it). This remains the enormous inductive leap that’s not been reckoned with, and Americans deserve better.

    We should also bear in mind that private security firm CrowdStrike’s frequently cited findings of Russian responsibility were essentially paid for by the DNC, which contracted its services in June. It’s highly unusual for evidence of a crime to be assembled on the victim’s dime. If we’re going to blame the Russian government for disrupting our presidential election — easily construed as an act of war — we need to be damn sure of every single shred of evidence. Guesswork and assumption could be disastrous.

    The gist of the Case Against Russia goes like this: The person or people who infiltrated the DNC’s email system and the account of John Podesta left behind clues of varying technical specificity indicating they have some connection to Russia, or at least speak Russian. Guccifer 2.0, the entity that originally distributed hacked materials from the Democratic party, is a deeply suspicious figure who has made statements and decisions that indicate some Russian connection. The website DCLeaks, which began publishing a great number of DNC emails, has some apparent ties to Guccifer and possibly Russia. And then there’s WikiLeaks, which after a long, sad slide into paranoia, conspiracy theorizing, and general internet toxicity has made no attempt to mask its affection for Vladimir Putin and its crazed contempt for Hillary Clinton. (Julian Assange has been stuck indoors for a very, very long time.) If you look at all of this and sort of squint, it looks quite strong indeed, an insurmountable heap of circumstantial evidence too great in volume to dismiss as just circumstantial or mere coincidence.

    But look more closely at the above and you can’t help but notice all of the qualifying words: Possibly, appears, connects, indicates. It’s impossible (or at least dishonest) to present the evidence for Russian responsibility for hacking the Democrats without using language like this. The question, then, is this: Do we want to make major foreign policy decisions with a belligerent nuclear power based on suggestions alone, no matter how strong?

    What We Know

    So far, all of the evidence pointing to Russia’s involvement in the Democratic hacks (DNC, DCCC, Podesta, et al.) comes from either private security firms (like CrowdStrike or FireEye) who sell cyber-defense services to other companies, or independent researchers, some with university affiliations and serious credentials, and some who are basically just Guys on Twitter. Although some of these private firms groups had proprietary access to DNC computers or files from them, much of the evidence has been drawn from publicly available data like the hacked emails and documents.

    Some of the malware found on DNC computers is believed to be the same as that used by two hacking groups believed to be Russian intelligence units, codenamed APT (Advanced Persistent Threat) 28/Fancy Bear and APT 29/Cozy Bear by industry researchers who track them.

    • The attacker or attackers registered a deliberately misspelled domain name used for email phishing attacks against DNC employees, connected to an IP address associated with APT 28/Fancy Bear.
    • Malware found on the DNC computers was programmed to communicate with an IP address associated with APT 28/Fancy Bear.
    • Metadata in a file leaked by “Guccifer 2.0″ shows it was modified by a user called, in cyrillic, “Felix Edmundovich,” a reference to the founder of a Soviet-era secret police force. Another document contained cyrillic metadata indicating it had been edited on a document with Russian language settings.
    • Peculiarities in a conversation with “Guccifer 2.0″ that Motherboard published in June suggests he is not Romanian, as he originally claimed.
    • The DCLeaks.com domain was registered by a person using the same email service as the person who registered a misspelled domain used to send phishing emails to DNC employees.
    • Some of the phishing emails were sent using Yandex, a Moscow-based webmail provider.
    • A bit.ly link believed to have been used by APT 28/Fancy Bear in the past was also used against Podesta.


    Why That Isn’t Enough

    Viewed as a whole, the above evidence looks strong, and maybe even damning. But view each piece on its own, and it’s hard to feel impressed.

    For one, a lot of the so-called evidence above is no such thing. CrowdStrike, whose claims of Russian responsibility are perhaps most influential throughout the media, says APT 28/Fancy Bear “is known for its technique of registering domains that closely resemble domains of legitimate organizations they plan to target.” But this isn’t a Russian technique any more than using a computer is a Russian technique — misspelled domains are a cornerstone of phishing attacks all over the world. Is Yandex — the Russian equivalent of Google — some sort of giveaway? Anyone who claimed a hacker must be a CIA agent because they used a Gmail account would be laughed off the internet. We must also acknowledge that just because Guccifer 2.0 pretended to be Romanian, we can’t conclude he works for the Russian government — it just makes him a liar.

    Next, consider the fact that CrowdStrike describes APT 28 and 29 like this:

    Their tradecraft is superb, operational security second to none and the extensive usage of “living-off-the-land” techniques enables them to easily bypass many security solutions they encounter. In particular, we identified advanced methods consistent with nation-state level capabilities including deliberate targeting and “access management” tradecraft — both groups were constantly going back into the environment to change out their implants, modify persistent methods, move to new Command & Control channels and perform other tasks to try to stay ahead of being detected.

    Compare that description to CrowdStrike’s claim it was able to finger APT 28 and 29, described above as digital spies par excellence, because they were so incredibly sloppy. Would a group whose “tradecraft is superb” with “operational security second to none” really leave behind the name of a Soviet spy chief imprinted on a document it sent to American journalists? Would these groups really be dumb enough to leave cyrillic comments on these documents? Would these groups that “constantly [go] back into the environment to change out their implants, modify persistent methods, move to new Command & Control channels” get caught because they precisely didn’t make sure not to use IP addresses they’d been associated before? It’s very hard to buy the argument that the Democrats were hacked by one of the most sophisticated, diabolical foreign intelligence services in history, and that we know this because they screwed up over and over again.

    [...]

    Truly, the argument that “Guccifer 2.0″ is a Kremlin agent or that GRU breached John Podesta’s email only works if you presume that APT 28/Fancy Bear is a unit of the Russian government, a fact that has never been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. According to Carr, “it’s an old assumption going back years to when any attack against a non-financial target was attributed to a state actor.” Without that premise, all we can truly conclude is that some email accounts at the DNC et al. appear to have been broken into by someone, and perhaps they speak Russian. Left ignored is the mammoth difference between Russians and Russia.

    [...]

    We Need the Real Evidence, Right Now

    It must be stated plainly: The U.S. intelligence community must make its evidence against Russia public if they want us to believe their claims. The integrity of our presidential elections is vital to the country’s survival; blind trust in the CIA is not. A governmental disclosure like this is also not entirely without precedent: In 2014, the Department of Justice produced a 56-page indictment detailing their exact evidence against a team of Chinese hackers working for the People’s Liberation Army, accused of stealing American trade secrets; each member was accused by name. The 2014 trade secret theft was a crime of much lower magnitude than election meddling, but what the DOJ furnished is what we should demand today from our country’s spies.

    If the CIA does show its hand, we should demand to see the evidence that matters (which, according to Edward Snowden, the government probably has, if it exists). I asked Jeffrey Carr what he would consider undeniable evidence of Russian governmental involvement: “Captured communications between a Russian government employee and the hackers,” adding that attribution “should solely be handled by government agencies because they have the legal authorization to do what it takes to get hard evidence.”

    Claudio Guarnieri concurred:

    All in all, technical circumstantial attribution is acceptable only so far as it is to explain an attack. It most definitely isn’t for the political repercussions that we’re observing now. For that, only documental evidence that is verifiable or intercepts of Russian officials would be convincing enough, I suspect.
    Given that the U.S. routinely attempts to intercept the communications of heads of state around the world, it’s not impossible that the CIA or the NSA has exactly this kind of proof. Granted, these intelligence agencies will be loath to reveal any evidence that could compromise the method they used to gather it. But in times of extraordinary risk, with two enormous military powers placed in direct conflict over national sovereignty, we need an extraordinary disclosure. The stakes are simply too high to take anyone’s word for it.

    (Edit: Emphasis mine.)
    Last edited by Walter Sobchak; 12-16-2016 at 03:30 PM.
    You're actually pretty funny when you aren't being a complete a-hole....so basically like 5% of the time. --Art Vandelay

    Y'all hear that? We're using code names. --Evelle Snoats

  27. #27
    Trump-hating snowflake Jeff Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The heart of the UC
    Posts
    43,634

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak View Post
    Why should you be the exception?
    OK, that was funny.
    "Socialism is not bad IMHO" - byu71
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak View Post
    This is probably the best (e.g least partisan) summary I've read about "what we know" with regard to the origin of the DNC and Podesta leaks.

    Spoiler alert... it's not as bad as Frank thinks it is. *shocker*

    <https://theintercept.com/2016/12/14/...ts-not-enough/>




    (Edit: Emphasis mine.)
    Neither you nor I know the totality of the evidence that the CIA has about this. Assange is not someone's whose word is worth a damn. That he had links to the Russians isn't crazy talk- he had a show on RT and he helped arrange for Snowden's exile in Russia. RT isn't like other national broadcasting organizations, like say the BBC or CBC, it's a propaganda operation.

    I've read that some what informed the agency's opinion that the Russian has come from other Western Intel agencies.

    The Foundations of Geopolitics is required reading for members of Russia's vast intelligence apparatus and a lot of its strategy is consistent with Russia interfering in our elections.
    http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/27/...destiny-putin/

    http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.o...tins-rasputin/
    From the book: “The Eurasian Empire will be constructed on the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, the strategic control of the USA, and the refusal to allow liberal values to dominate us,”

    "It is especially important to introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics"

    Another obvious philosophical difference you and I have might speak a bit to my cynicism, but I don't think the US can find much common ground with Russia. I don't think friendship with them, under the rule of Putin, is achievable or particularly noble.

  29. #29

    Default

    The FBI shares the CIA's view that Putin intervened to help Trump get elected.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.4ad7a99adb6f

  30. #30
    Pre-Historic Man
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Allendale County, SC
    Posts
    10,101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frank ryan View Post
    The FBI shares the CIA's view that Putin intervened to help Trump get elected.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.4ad7a99adb6f
    The intelligence agencies also shared the view that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. It seems the intelligence agencies can be persuaded to have the perspective their master wants them to have.

    colin_powell_un_testify_2003_ms.jpg
    Last edited by Topper; 12-17-2016 at 07:30 AM.
    "Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."

    Upon rejecting the Beatles, Dick Rowe told Brian Epstein of the January 1, 1962 audition for Decca, which signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •