Originally published at: http://boingboing.net/2016/07/25/fbi-russia-hacked-dnc-us-off.html
…
2 Likes
It’s likely, but how will anybody ever know for sure.
2 Likes
For every leak caused by black hat hacking, there are a dozen or more caused by disgruntled employees.
All it would take would be one person with legitimate access to the DNC’s servers who was pissed off at all his/her employer’s fuckery on behalf of the dowager empress.
When a Manning or a Snowden or an Assange exposes corruption and coverup, that’s a good thing. Same rule applies here, even in the extremely remote chance that it’s the Russians.
I would almost be comforted if it’s Putin, though. He couldn’t possibly want Trump to win if he had a lot of dirt on the d.e. via hacking her personal server.
12 Likes
“FBI: Russia hacked DNC. US officials: Electing Trump, crushing Clinton was Putin’s goal.” How nauseating that you are in the bag for Hillary by going along with this “story”. Your headline alone does you in by stating the “story” as fact. By implying that the FBI has said the Russians hacked the DNC you betray your readers - (you just lost this one).
I read through quite a few of them last night, and here’s most of what I picked up.
1. Media influence:
- If you had any doubt that MSNBC was taking marching orders
from the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign, here’s your
proof that yes, they are.
- At least a couple of journalists cleared stories with the
Democratic Party before even their editor saw them. One
suppressed their story at the DNC's request.
- Reporters pursuing stories potentially hostile to Clinton or
the DNC were either not responded to at all or told to "fuck
off".
2. Not Remotely Impartial:
- The Democratic Party definitely did not want Bernie Sanders to
win, and were actively putting their thumb on the scales to
prevent that from happening. For example, organizing a plant of
somebody to ask Sanders about religion to reveal that he was an
atheist.
- There was talk of "Bernie Bros" within the DNC.
- There was some evidence buried in there that the lack of
voting places in Rhode Island (particularly in areas where
Sanders polled well) was intentionally organized by "one of
ours", and a concerted effort to cover their butts.
3. Shady funding:
- One guy accidentally put into the email system exactly how
money was getting funneled around between the Clinton campaign
and the DNC. He was reprimanded not for the funding but for
emailing information about it.
- There were all sorts of perks given out for next week's
convention depending on giving levels.
- The vetting of major donors was particularly interesting. For
example, one guy convicted of wire fraud.
4. Pettiness and stupidity:
- Hardly any of these people can spell properly, or use decent
grammar. I know, this is a minor point, but these are supposed
to be among the top minds in politics.
- Debbie Wasserman-Schultz in particular comes off as about as
mature as a typical high school cheerleading captain.
- A guy named "Pablo" was by all appearances forced out of the
organization because he made Debbie work early in the morning to
do a media interview.
One of the many consequences of all this is that the DNC is now
the target of a class action lawsuit by Sanders backers, because
the DNC is supposed to be impartial and very obviously wasn't.
You’ve lost credibility.
11 Likes
The leaked emails don’t really seem to corroborate the summary, though. There are a lot of sources digging into the content, and I’ve yet to see one that went more than skin deep and still claimed the leak revealed something so strong as “sabotage”. One analysis: https://newrepublic.com/article/135472/no-dnc-didnt-rig-primary-favor-hillary
(Don’t get me wrong, some of the emails are despicable, and more people than DWS should lose their jobs.)
2 Likes
As of today, multiple independent security agencies have determined that the source of the emails was Russian.
7 Likes
I would say that there it’s a more than remote chance.
You think Putin doesn’t want a candidate who has declared that NATO is just a suggestion?
Okay.
23 Likes
I think that if he had several times 10^4 of Hillary’s State Department e-mails in his back pocket, yep, he’d definitely want her more. The blackmail possibilities are endless.
1 Like
?I don’t know what this has to do with what you first posted and what I then responded?
4 Likes
But, of course, many of these same folks would have us believe that HRC’s private servers (including all the “missing” stuff) aren’t also in the hands of Russian intelligence. What a clusterfuck that was.
7 Likes
Trump’s existing connections to Russia are well established. And a big chunk of his campaign staff is even more tied to Putin and his various eastern block cronies. Including Paul Manafort who spent an awful lot of time working for Ukraine’s Yanukovych, the pro-Russian autocrat who’s ouster lead off the mess in Ukraine a bit back. Likewise Russia’s state controlled media, including their propaganda mouth in the west/US RT, have been for quite a while pushing for Trump as their primary angle on covering the election.
The fact of the matter is even without the (increasingly clear) possibility that Russia is behind this particular leak. Putin has gone pretty whole hog for Trump. And has for a while now. There are very particular reasons for that. Related to Trump’s financial ties to Russian business, the fact that he’s an easily manipulable maroon, and his particular brand of jingoistic isolationism is pretty well redirected to align with Russian goals.
We could be getting our own Russian Puppet leader just like all those cool countries back in the day!
24 Likes
Ok, let’s make it crystal clear.
(1) If Putin had access to lots of information from the dowager empress’ private server during her tenure as SoS, he could basically make her dance to his tune after inauguration day. Remember, if the Russians had managed to hack her private server they could have easily done so before she deleted all the classified documents, oops, yoga schedules.
(2) This would be better by far for Putin than having a loose cannon like Trump in the WH.
(3) If Putin is now leaking information that would help Trump, that’s a strong indication that (1) is not true.
(4) The less true (1) is, the better I sleep at night.
Full disclosure, I am voting for Gary Johnson.
4 Likes
If you can’t act like adult and discuss something without name calling, then I have to consider you a child.
17 Likes
I don’t think you know what SCIF rooms are and how they’re used.
2 Likes
Yes. I understood your first comment. I just don’t understand why you keep pushing a hypothetical when the original post is dealing with something concrete.
My comment about Putin’s US presidential preference is backed by his previous statements. Moreover, Trump’s has shown a willingness to forego a key strategic alliance while telling the American people that Putin is our friend.
I think that the mutual affection shown by these two is actually very scary.
22 Likes
Well the private email server pretty well circumvented any protection that would have been attained from using a SCIF, or the isolated high side network that classified information is supposed to be restricted to. (Frankly, I’m not even sure why you’re bringing up SCIFs here.)
3 Likes
Would the term “manipulable maroon” likewise constitute childish name calling? (You didn’t say it, but it was used upthread here)
3 Likes
