I expect any foreign government to look out for its best interest, which includes gathering intel on other foreign governments, even if they are allies. I expect nothing less of Russia. {IF} Russia was directly behind any of the intrusions, I am not going to act all shocked and surprised they actually did the alleged crimes. What I am tick off is political parties engaging in unethical behavior against its own political process. This type of behavior I do not condone. I am not surprised at all that said political party shills are more angered about being exposed than the actual behavior. Hillarys email scandal? Oh that was just a witch hunt and another RNC attempt to slander Hillarys good name. What she did was not that bad and everyone else did it. InfoSec is not that important .... because we expect our foreign adversaries to be much much more ethical than our own party. ZOMG! How dare the Russians compromise our networks! Just maybe the DNC networks were compromised because every person who deals in cyber security knows the DNC does not take cyber security seriously. Including the shill im responding to.
You believe the government agencies w/out question because its fits your narrative. I am skeptical for many reasons. The first and foremost is the utter lack of proof other than 'because we said so'. Our government agencies are notorious for lying to everyone, including their own. Secondly, the compromises were not sophisticated. It was dumb luck and the attacks are as common as your spam box filled with attempts to get your passwords for all your online systems. Third, if I am going to attempt to do illegal activity online, I am not going to do it at home on my network and on my crappy MacBook Pro. I would be using foreign proxies that would not be subjected to warrants....like Russia.
Whatever fits your internal narrative, dude. I'm not tired of the topic or tired of the back and forth, I'm simply tired of repeating myself. It is like trying to have a conversation with a wall that has a keyboard placed in front of it.
Deckard....I gotta ask if you think I'm off base with my questions and thoughts in my post on the prior page. You've been around awhile and you know that intelligence and govt agency statements can't always be taken as the gospel. Am I off base with thinking those are valid questions? Also, I'm not excusing any foreign intervention if it happened, but you know we are not innocent actors on the international stage with our spying, covert operations and overt military operations. It has been commonplace in modern American history for us to meddle in the politics of other societies. It is also commonplace for our govt to run propaganda campaigns in America as well. I don't think I'm crazy to question things when things don't seem to completely make sense. What do you think?
There was anger among Bernie bros and other libs during the election cycle. Bit revisionist to misremember the "lack of outrage" when it happened, especially when exit polls showed millennials and people in the Bernie demographic sitting at home at voting day knee deep in their self important outrage.
Of course the Bernie supporters were. I will repeat this again, with a caveat; I did not vote for Trump in any of the election process. However, if I had a chance to recast my vote, I would reconsider voting for Trump over Johnson. That said, I was pretty annoyed with many people on the right trying to find ways to throw Trump off the ticket after he won nomination. I didn't like the guy, but I certainly did not like the RNC trying to find ways to replace him on the ticket and screw him in the convention. However at least the RNC was very open about it.
I don't know what actions should be taken. At the bare minimum immediately bringing all of this evidence to the UN and putting it on full display for the world to see would be a decent start. Actions could be pursued from there in the UN. Blatant interference in our elections by a foreign country is close to a declaration of war against us if it truly happened. Obama said he knew about this interference months ago and simply said to "cut it out". He didn't seem to think these actions warranted any greater action than a simple admonishment behind closed doors. The incongruence of the charges brought by Obama and the Democrats against Russia and the actions taken by Obama are puzzling to say the least. Obama seemed to imply he saw some sort of intelligence that implicated Putin in this attack on our elections as well. I'd expect some kind of much stronger actions if a foreign country and head of state was truly trying to subvert our republic. Am I off base with this line of thinking?
First of all, last thing he should do is put all the evidence for all to see because that would expose our own secrets on how we detected them and only help them evolve. He said that the U.S. would strike back at a time and way of its own choosing. The UN isn't going to do anything against Russia (because it has veto power). The right course is to continue to let intelligence agencies investigate and come up with options for a counterstrike. That's how we did it with North Korea a few years back. At the end of the day we are more vulnerable to a cyber war because we have a lot more to lose - Russia isn't as dependent on technology yet. But the last thing we need is a President-elect who is going to just turn a blind eye to cyber security and let the Russian embed themselves deeply into our networks.
What do I think? Here's some meat to chew on: Will Russia’s 'act of war' against American democracy bring Donald Trump down? Rupert Cornwell Saturday 17 December 2016 By making nice with the Kremlin, the incoming president has broken with 35 years of Republican orthodoxy – now there’s even talk of another Watergate Committee to investigate him There is talk of another Watergate Committee to investigate the President-elect AP It was “an act of war,” an intervention by a foreign power that de-legitimises the election of America’s next president. In the more restrained words of its presumed intended victim, Hillary Clinton, it was “an act against our country, going well beyond normal political concerns”. Call it what you like. For Democrats and the anti-Trump brigade, Russia’s meddling in the US election – the hacking and public dumping via Wikileaks first of Democratic National Committee documents and then, probably more damagingly, of the emails of John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, over the last weeks of the campaign – has become the main reason for her shock defeat on 8 November. And, on the eve of formal ratification by the electoral college of Trump’s victory, and a month before his inauguration, it increasingly appears as the last, best chance of preventing the nightmare, or at least of derailing the Trump presidency almost before it begins. Unfortunately, the impact may be somewhat less than meets the eye. Keep the outrage in perspective. America’s record of meddling in foreign elections is second to none. These days, cyberattacks – be they by Russia, China, the US or Israel, whether to steal industrial secrets, to play havoc with an adversary’s nuclear programme, or to tamper with elections – are standard operating procedure. And the US seems to have dealt with this one in lackadaisical fashion. It was in September 2015 that the FBI first warned the DNC that it might have been hacked by the Russians, according to an investigation by The New York Timesthis week. But for months it didn’t press the matter – and certainly not with the zeal it devoted to Hillary Clinton’s private email server. Circumstantial evidence that the Russian intelligence services were behind the hacking is overwhelming – whatever the protestations of innocence, and despite the Kremlin’s demand that Washington either put up or shut up. Whether Vladimir Putin personally directed the operation, and whether the goal was general mischief-making or to help secure Trump’s victory over a rival who as Secretary of State attracted Putin’s ire, may never be definitively established. But you can’t blame Trump for what happened. For all his “useful idiot” admiration of the Russian leader, and despite his description of the notion of Russian interference as “ridiculous”, he didn’t carry out the hacking, even if he was the beneficiary of it. And even the Podesta emails released every day by Wikileaks in the closing stages of the campaign were mostly tittle tattle, the snarky comments of aides. Embarrassing certainly, but surely of less impact on the outcome than the letter of FBI director James Comey to Congress 10 days before the election. That letter not only re-opened the email affair, but transformed the atmosphere of the campaign. At least one study has suggested that it caused a late 1 per cent break in Trump’s favour, enough to turn predicted losses in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania into crucial victories. Now none of this means Trump can brush off the Russian factor in his first weeks and months in office, normally a productive time for any administration. Not least, it will complicate the confirmation of Rex Tillerson, the outgping ExxonMobil chief and Trump’s choice for Secretary of State, whose own friendly relations with Putin are already a matter of controversy. What is more, his dismissal of Russian involvement has set Trump at odds with the US intelligence agencies on which he will rely, not least in combattng Russia (score another one to the Kremlin). President Obama has promised a government report within the next month, and leading members of Trump’s own Republican party in Congress will take up the issue. By making nice with the Kremlin, the incoming president has broken with 35 years of Republican orthodoxy dating back to Ronald Reagan. There’s even talk, probably wishful thinking, of another Watergate Committee, a repeat of the bipartisan exercise that laid bare an earlier subversion of American democracy. And all the while, other questions linger, fuelled not least by Trump’s failure to produce his tax returns. What about his business dealings with Russia? Is the privately owned Trump Organization dangerously in hock to Russian banks? Or is there something else the Kremlin has on Trump? Barring a genuine bombshell, one’s best guess is that this too will pass. Even a Congressional probe may be lost in the partisan mire on Capitol Hill. Republicans will depict Democrats as sore losers, ready to use all possible means to discredit the 45th president. It’s now up to the US to make sure similar cyberassaults don’t happen in future. In the end, you’re left wondering less about Russian skullduggery than about the vulnerability of a democracy compared with autocratic, one-party states such as Russia or China. Checks and balances, accountability, a free press and a functioning opposition are not compatible with ruthless and shameless Kremlin-style hardball. Hit back, they say, and Obama promises to do exactly that – and the US, you can bet your bottom dollar, is the equal of anyone in the hacking business. The problem is, hit back how? Putin and his accolytes knew the US would leap upon the Wikileaks material, however dodgy its provenance. If roles were reversed, he would have no such problems. In Russia, the media knows what it may and may not publish – and the second category does not include leaked emails showing Putin in a bad light. But suppose, for argument’s sake, the material was published. Could such revelations affect the result of a Russian election? Not likely, with the grip Putin has on proceedings. Or suppose the leaks detailed Putin’s personal corruption and enrichment? His regime would just insist the whole thing was a lie. And in this world of fake news, many would be persuaded. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...mocracy-bring-donald-trump-down-a7481191.html https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07...omeland-security-and-office-director-national So far, the effort to investigate Russia has been largely limited to Democrats. However, one Republican — Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina — said on Dec. 7 that he would not only join but lead an investigation of Russia and its role in hacking into the servers of U.S. political parties and officials. “I am going to lead the charge to investigate Russia’s role not only in the elections but throughout the world,” Graham told CNN. “… I think they’re one of the most destabilizing influences on the world stage. I think they did interfere with our elections and I want Putin personally to pay a price.” http://www.factcheck.org/2016/12/trump-russia-u-s-election/ Donald J. Trump– Verified account @realDonaldTrump If Russia, or some other entity, was hacking, why did the White House wait so long to act? Why did they only complain after Hillary lost? 6:24 AM - 15 Dec 2016 http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...fire-trump-tweet-about-russian-hacking-probe/
@Deckard......Pepto-Bismol? Nice!!! It's always Red vs. Blue! And both use whatever means necessary to get elected! I hope you don't think that only one side of the isle is corrupt while the other side only has puritans! Russia doing what Russia does is nothing new! You dont think that we (U.S.A.) try to influence and manipulate foreign affairs? Please Loise!!! Nothing I said made a difference! You still feel the same way. I still feel the same as well.....Red vs. Blue! Politics it's FANtastic!!! ....... ....... .......
Of course pigeonholing does you a disservice. It's perfectly possible for someone to be pissed the overt manipulation by the Kremlin and Wikileaks (by proxy of their mutual hate for Clinton) on the electorate and media orgs filling in their news cycles AND at the party hacks running the DNC with their dirty sometimes cynical laundry aired out. There were several tens of thousands of emails being dumped yet No Charges Being Filed Against the DNC, No October Surprise by Assange, and No Trump prosecution against Hillary, which further confirms a blatant campaign by the leaks to discredit one of the two major political American parties. The fact that this has become a partisan matter rather than a call for American self-defense means that "turnarounds a b****" is gonna **** all Americans in the ass in the near and mid-future.
Deckard Logic 101: Russia allegedly exposing DNC corruption = Act of War US meddling in middle east affairs (an act of war defined by Deckard) = ok for Al Queda to fly two airliners into our financial district. Its frightening for you to believe that Russia (allegedly) exposing DNC corruption equates to war. Here we are worried Trump might throw a temper-tantrum and nuke a country while we have Deckard who is ready to goto war with one of the most powerful nations on earth for exposing his parties dirty laundry. You're ****ing insane. If you disagree with this, then dont post articles declaring "acts of war" if you're not ready to send hundreds of thousands of our young men to their death.
Still laugh at all the right wingnuts that claim they didn't vote for Trump, yet defend and support every statement and position. The third party candidates got a tiny fraction of the vote, especially here in Texas. Reckon they are ashamed of their votes so they publicly claim they didn't vote for him. I actually have more respect for the few that own up to voting for the guy, as they supported the winning candidate. But whateves...
To the first part, we have provided this evidence before in a recent major Chinese cyberattack. https://theintercept.com/2016/12/14/heres-the-public-evidence-russia-hacked-the-dnc-its-not-enough/ Take your time to click on the link and read it if you want to have a good summary of what we know right now. The evidence wouldn't hold up very well in a court of law. The intercept doesn't seem to be too biased of a news source either.
As you know very well, the Russians are not being "supported," and blindly trusting our government is not a smart way to evaluate politically motivated assertions, as these clearly are. As has been repeated more times than can easily be counted in this thread, what is needed is a full investigation by the US Senate of ALL credible assertions of election tampering in this last presidential election cycle. Certainly that should included the Russians. If they have engaged in some impropriety that we have not also recently engaged in as well, then a substantial retaliation will likely be in order. If one or both political parties are found to have engaged in improprieties, they should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. As far as I can tell, the only people opposing that very reasonable recommendation are supporters of the Democrat left.
