How Russia pulled off a cyberwar invasion of America, according to the New York Times

Originally published at:


I have yet to see an indication that they’ve paid any price.


Interesting series of highlights from the story.

According to the NYTimes? According to 17 intelligence agencies.


Not to mention independent security firms, months and months ago.


Well, I’m assuming someone is paying for their broadband connection.


с новым годом!

1 Like

Wait, wasn’t this red-baiting McCarthyism just this morning? Have we always been at war with Eastasia?


No, see the McCarthyite attacks have become so crazy nonsensical that NYT just named themselves an unwilling argent of Russian propoganda. Liberals, amirite?

1 Like

Serious question here: how can Trump be president when there is even the slightest suspicion that he is a puppet of a hostile foreign power? How can he be president if there are serious doubts concerning his loyality?


I’m sure the people currently defending Trump were asking the same questions eight (and four) years ago.

The accusations against Trump are grounded in facts, as opposed to the ones against Obama, but facts don’t seem to matter much anymore.


Because, as with many other issues with Trump (foreign debt., business interests, running businesses engaging in fraud, etc.), we’ve never seen this arise before and don’t have the legal mechanisms in place to deal with it.


In order to fling oneself about in a truly convincing paroxysm of guilty horror, one must be willing to do oneself a little short term damage. Once their readership has had itself a good, rousing tantrum they can all get back to the business of extracting money from some level of government, even if it’s only Albany.

And if the Times manages to help ‘guide’ the pseudo-intelligentsia back away from those dirty foreign-influenced websites… so much the better.


wait there’s something wrong with the monkey’s chick’s eyes


How can he be president?

The answer lies within the literally tens of thousands of pages of what those of us interested in the workings of the country have come to call “laws.” How, then, can one know where to look in this massive volume of text? I can give you a shortcut: the ones we’re interested in for this question are not part of the enormous and confusing “United States Code”, but in an even earlier foundational document known as the “constitution” and its various “amendments”.

We can dive deep, deep into the arcane depths of this “constitution”, to areas only understood by high school civics students after the teacher has assigned each of them to do a presentation to the class about a specific article, to find a mysterious “college” of “electors” described in article 2, section 1 as well as in the 12th amendment. In theory, if these “electors” agreed with your assessment that there are “serious doubts concerning his loyalty”, they could prevent him from becoming president.

The last line of defense (looking now at article 1, section 3) is a slightly less mysterious body known as the “congress” (again, stipulating they agree with your claims) who can “impeach” the president and thereafter remove him from office.

A few might argue there is even a further defense, involving people fighting against their government in armed conflict and creating a new government afterwards, but obviously that is preposterous and has probably never been tried.

I hope this has been helpful in showing how these “laws” are used even in situations that have driven many Americans to extreme heights of emotion, and can provide solutions to even the most serious problems our nation faces.

Best regards,

Chris O

1 Like

“…and don’t have the legal mechanisms in place to deal with it.”

And, sadly, the Elected haven’t the spinal fortitude to do anything about it. Let’s all watch the party of law and order let law and order go out the window, especially as it pertains to them.


17 comments on no Nobby telling us there is no proof? Wot?


The propaganda flies thick and fast, even in the comments. But beware the boy who cried wolf, simply way to late for any of this bull puckey, you have simply been caught out to many times and nobody is listening, even if you tell the truth, most have just stopped listening, a little sickened by it, a little nauseated because it is our side spreading blatant propaganda but beyond that nothing.
Its not like you have been doing this for decades and been publicly exposed as liars. Nope back at it, keep it up, why I don’t know because it would be boring without the nonsense.

What is the road map from the exposition of the russian hacking to Trump’s win being nullified. Otherwise, none of this matters one bit.

1 Like