Obama team expected to announce measures to punish Russia for election hacking

@nemomen posted what I thought was a pretty convincing summary here:


Just order them 4 Ubers each, let market solutions hold sway.


Like all Obama “hardline” positions I am sure this will amount to nothing. Would love to be proven wrong, but I doubt it.

Unless it is drone strikes or whistleblower beatdowns, of course.


I think this was a little clearer for laying things out as a narrative:

Since then CloudStrike found the same malware and keys used in the DNC attack were used in attacks by the GRU against Ukrainians in the Russian-Ukranian war/invasion. In that case they infected systems that were used by Ukrainian artillery units where Russia targeted infected systems with their own strikes to take out >90% of the Ukrainian units. It’s really, really hard to explain how the same malware/C&C IPs/keys could end up on the DNC servers in 2016, the Bundestag hack in 2015 (collecting intel on the German parliament), and a Russian military target in 2014 by non-state “hacktivists” or how any other state level org. could and would managed to be engaged in that sophisticated and long of a game that serves only the interests of one state: Russia. Today Trump announced plans to drop the sanctions Obama had levied in response to the Ukraine invasion and continuing occupation of Crimea. Putin won.


There’s a whole lot of evidence. The thing is since it’s forensic evidence, and the bizarre antics of some party/parties involved in the hacks dumping docs and interacting with people after the attack, all accounts are based on appearances and probabilities from that. There’s no one inside the FSB/GRU/Kremlin who is going to fess up and point to things going on from that side or anything that 100% absolute. Instead it’s analysis that makes a case that’s more like 99%+ probable. Solid enough for a really easy conviction in a court, though, if this was that kind of thing. With the evidence we have at this point in time, we have an actor who was involved in the Ukraine war aiding the Russian military who has been studied for years, engaged in attacks on the Bundestag which German intelligence is now quite confident from investigations were perpetarated by Russia, and also engaged in the DNC hacks. Those three aren’t the only ones, they’ve been a persistent attacker of various government/media targets around the globe for many years, but those three all have one smoking gun - the same crypto keys, and InfoSec analysts have many reasons to believe they’re Russia’s military intelligence/cyberwarfare division, the GRU. That actor when caught on DNC systems pretended to be a Romanian hacktivist, Guccifer 2.0, but clearly wasn’t Romanian, and dumped DNC documents that were covered in fingerprints that point to a large Russian organization cooperating on editing them. With all that you have to come up with a story. There’s a parsimonious, straightforward one that fits all the evidence and points to Russia who had a very clear motive. There’s no other parsimonious account that points to any other actor that could possibly have been involved or who had any intelligible motive. When the same malware/C&C/keys are being used by a Russian cyberwarfare division against Ukraine and later against the DNC, there’s really no other explanation that could be offered and not laughed off. FWIW, that Intercept article is sort of right (we are arguing from probabilities), though it’s also totally shameless FUD, and skipped some of the most damning evidence.



They are fourth order dictators and kleptocrats.

First Order: Liberalism
Second Order: Communism
Third Order: Fascism
Fourth Order: Duginism


That’s hardly surprising.


Of course, I see it now. Belly button logic works!

1 Like

Yes, there’s a lot of circumstantial evidence. No denying that. (Except by the people who actually KNOW where the information came from, but who believes anything Wikileaks or Assange says anymore?)

Maybe there is enough evidence for a “really easy conviction in a court”. But in the U.S. criminal cases must be proven “beyond a reasonable doubt”, while civil cases only require “the preponderance of the evidence”. The level of certainty matters.

One of the possibilities Obama is talking about is WAR (physical, “cyber”, it’s still war). Personally, I want an even higher level of certainty than “reasonable doubt” for going to war of any sort, war which could affect hundreds of millions of people, than what we use in a court of law that only affects a small handful of litigants. Have we learned nothing from past experience?

And let us not forget the glaring fact that while so many people are upset (and rightfully so, and I will be, too, should it be proven beyond allegations and circumstantial evidence) that Russian may have attempted to influence the election, and it questionable whether it had any effect at all…

… let us not forget that the DNC itself tampered with the election, and that is provable through the emails that were released and of which no one is denying the authenticity.


See there are two issues going on here. And sadly some people are ignoring what the Russians did or down playing it only because they helped their team win. Only they have no political loyalty and will probably target them in the future. It is extremely stupid and short sighted to down play their hacking as no big deal. No matter if or how it directly affected the election, Russians trying to influence it and hacking private servers is bad.

But, on the other hand, it did show the ugly underbelly of politics. Contrary to popular believe, the political parties, Republican and Democrats, have NO obligation to select the most popular candidate. They can literally put up whomever they want on the ticket. USUALLY they do the whole primary process to find the person who is most likely to win, but they aren’t beholden to it. If you want political reform, demand it before the next election.

And finally we can boil down the question to: how much did the hack and leaks of emails affect the election? Directly, not at all. It isn’t like they tampered with the voting. Indirectly I am not sure one can even measure it. I think you would need to take a large sample poll and see if the leaks either 1) made people vote for Trump or a third party when initially they were going to vote for Hillary or 2) made people stay home and not vote for Hillary. I have a feeling that SOME people are in category two, especially disenfranchised Bernie supporters. But whether that number was significant, and significant in states which would have swung the Electoral College vote is not known.

But again, even if the damage was low or nil, Russians or any foreign power interfering is a bad thing.


Well, they sure didn’t help my team win, the DNC saw to that… :wink:

Of course the DNC doesn’t have to select the most popular candidate, but they do have rules and bylaws, which they violated. Plus voter suppression and other illegal games (which they’re fast learning from the GOP, which seems to have made a science of it).

Again, I am not denying the claim about the Russians, I am all for reality-based news and actions. I’d just like to see evidence-based reality, and very high certainty evidence given that our leaders are threatening war with a nuclear power…

1 Like

No, Trump’s lawyers handled that directly.

The Russian interference isn’t the reason Trump won, but it most certainly didn’t hurt, and the fact that Donald Trump Jr. held talks with Russian diplomats right before the hacks is a weird coincidence to consider.


What sort of rules, bylaws, “illegal games” and “voter suppression” did the DNC commit and violate when they chose the far more popular candidate?


Start here:

From The Charter & Bylaws of the Democratic Party of the United States, Article 5, section 4:
“In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.”

Plus Greg Palast has done a lot of investigation into election corruption over the years…

“In Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, if you don’t say the magic words, “I want a Democratic crossover ballot,” you are automatically given a ballot without the presidential race. And ready for this, if an NPP voter asks the poll worker, “How do I get to vote in the Democratic party primary, they are instructed to say that, “NPP voters can’t get Democratic ballots.” They are ordered not to breathe a word that the voter can get a “crossover” ballot that includes the presidential race.”

Oh, and this, from Election Justice USA, based on “thousands of reports of voter registration tampering, purging, or obstruction recorded by Election Justice USA (EJUSA). Many cases in EJUSA’s database are supported by registration records, emails to and from officials, phone records, or affidavit testimony…”

Here are a couple of example cases:

“On April 19th, a judge in New York grudgingly agreed that someone may have tampered with Alba Guerrero’s voter registration. Judge Ira Margulis changed his decision from moments earlier that Guerrero would be denied the right to vote in New York’s Democratic primary, after evidence emerged that Guerrero’s signature had been forged, switching her to Republican without her knowledge or consent. Had she not been willing to take several hours to appear before a judge that day, Alba would not have been able to vote for Senator Bernie Sanders. Video evidence available online confirms the forgery.

A forged legal document cannot be attributed to an unfortunate mistake or a clerical error. Someone intentionally tampered with Alba Guerrero’s voter registration.”

“Another New York resident, Chloe Pecorino, attempted to register as a first-time voter by submitting the relevant paperwork to the Department of Motor Vehicles in Brooklyn more than a week before the March 25th, 2016 deadline. Attempts to verify her registration status online were unsuccessful. On the day of New York’s presidential primary, Chloe still had not been registered as a Democrat, despite persistent efforts, including more than a dozen calls and emails, the evidence of which spans fifteen pages in Exhibit A of Election Justice USA’s initial New York lawsuit. On the day of the primary, Chloe took several hours to appear before a judge in an attempt to vote normally. Despite ample evidence of attempts to register before the deadline in good faith, the judge denied her request. As a consequence, Chloe was forced to cast her vote for Senator Sanders using an affidavit ballot. As can be seen in Photo 2, Chloe’s affidavit ballot was declared invalid, like so many others.”

Read the full report here…

You say “far more popular candidate”… m’kay… :slight_smile:

1 Like

Ahh, got it, you’re dredging up those old memes and debunked rally photos for false comparisons, eight months later.

I’m not interested in debating with you. Thank you.


The new evidence of the same entity being involved in military operations in the Russia-Ukraine war is effectively the slam dunk, though the prior evidence when each piece was considered carefully and looked at a whole was already sufficient to make the case. The case is not 100%, but it’s certainly far beyond any reasonable doubt.

The US and Russia have been involved in ongoing cyberwarfare actions against each other for a long time. Previously this was intelligence agencies of each nation spying on the other. The US was just targeted by Russia’s cyberwarfare division who not only directly leaked the DNC’s full oppo research file on Trump, but also leaked the DCCC’s oppo research files, and other internal House political campaign plans very valuable to the GOP’s House campaigns across the country, which were leaked just at the outset of the general election. Then there was the dump of mail data to Wikileaks (which again isn’t 100% certain, but given the fact that Guccifer 2.0 stated they gave the DNC the dump, it appeared days later on Wikileaks, and Wikileaks were regular boosters of Guccifer 2.0 sharing other dumps, it’s easy to make a strong case). The Podesta situation’s more complex, since SecureWorks hasn’t shared their evidence, so we only have their word to go by that it was also perpetrated by the GRU.

The mix of leaking Dem House race campaign plans/internals to the GOP, and Clinton campaign campaign plans/internals to the GOP might not have had an influence, but it’s hard to assume it was irrelevant in shaping those campaigns since we saw how leaked data was used by the GOP very effectively through the general. Then there’s the role that Wikileaks had on poisoning the Sanders supporting left on the DNC and in general supporting the narrative of Clinton as the “corrupt” candidate. Trump took every opportunity he had to push the public towards Wikileaks in debates and on his Twitter feed. Whether this had an influence is hard to really measure, but it amounted to both significant help to the GOP campaigns and a tremendously powerful anti-DNC/anti-Clinton propaganda campaign that the GOP milked in their campaign strategies for all it was worth.

Obama was threatening retaliation in Oct. He didn’t actually retaliate. At this point he’s got weeks left and there’s little reason to assume he’d do anything. If you’re worried about US-Russia relations, there’s a whole lot to worry about, but the most serious crises will begin after Dec. 20.

The preponderance of evidence suggests that the only reason you can bring this (very questionable claim) up is due to Russia’s involvement in the US election. That it has shaped your thinking should give you pause about your prior claims about Russian hacking having any effect. Russian intelligence’s release of Kompromat had an effect on you, why not others?


So if you want to focus on one single image (and it was a joke, or did you not notice the smiley face?) instead of the text of the Charter and Bylaws of the DNC, the 96 pages of the EJUSA report and the years of research and reporting of a world-renown journalist, then I quote,

“I’m not interested in debating with you. Thank you.”

Got it… :wink:

1 Like

You do realize the FBI is backing the CIA’s report on the hacking, right? Two agencies who don’t normally like to play together, and who have the capability of dissecting the actual cyber evidence in a way that you and your partisan “news” sources don’t.

This really isn’t about the DNC at all. If the most prominent party to come between Putin and his puppet was the Libertarian party, that would have been the one that was hacked. The point was to manipulate US politics to put Trump in office, period.

Although, the fact that Hillary was particularly well suited to, and had a proven track record of being tough in international relations certainly made the DNC the best candidate for hacking, regardless of other parties.


with the uber rich and international corporations pulling the strings for their own benefit.

Two weeks ago, not two months ago…

In an interview with NPR’s Steve Inskeep that is airing Friday [December 16] on Morning Edition, Obama said, “I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections … we need to take action. 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.”

I’m sure Russia wouldn’t take it too seriously, either… no big.

Do you mean January 20? If so, absolutely. Don’t think for a moment that I’m happy with the election results.[quote=“nemomen, post:46, topic:91927”]
The preponderance of evidence suggests that the only reason you can bring this (very questionable claim) up is due to Russia’s involvement in the US election.

Again, circumstantial and allegations, but that’s a dead horse…

I could make a comment about how U.S. government/corporate propaganda and the liberal news echo chamber has shaped your thinking and had an effect on you; but as I don’t know you personally, don’t know how you seek out alternative sources, how you try to corroborate information and base your opinions on facts, how you are willing to modify your opinions and stances on issue when presented with new or better information, I won’t. :wink: