Slashdot Mirror


White House Supports Claim Putin Directed US Election Hack (bbc.com)

The White House is suggesting that Russian President Vladimir Putin was directly involved in a hacking operation aimed at interfering with the U.S. presidential election. BBC reports: Ben Rhodes, adviser to President Barack Obama, said that Mr Putin maintains tight control on government operations, which suggests that he was aware. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest added that it was "pretty obvious" that Mr Putin was involved. "Everything we know about how Russia operates and how Putin controls that government would suggest that, again, when you're talking about a significant cyber intrusion like this, we're talking about the highest levels of government," Mr Rhodes said. "And ultimately, Vladimir Putin is the official responsible for the actions of the Russian government." NBC reported that the U.S. had evidence that Mr Putin personally directed how information hacked by Russian intelligence was leaked. The Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence also released a statement asserting Russia had orchestrated the hack, including breaches on the Democratic National Committee and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The contents of those hacks, passed to Wikileaks and posted online, were embarrassing to the Democrats and shook up the presidential campaign. The NBC report, which cited two unnamed senior officials, said the hacking campaign began as a "vendetta" against Mrs Clinton before becoming "an effort to show corruption in American politics and split off key American allies." Mr Putin is said to have been furious when Mrs Clinton, as secretary of state, questioned the integrity of 2011 parliamentary elections in Russia. He publicly accused her of encouraging street protests.

38 of 715 comments (clear)

  1. "Suggesting" ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... nothing of substance here.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:"Suggesting" ... by 31415926535897 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. And they keep saying "election hack" in all of the headlines, so it keeps sounding as if Russia and Putin himself were meddling with the voting mechanisms: i.e. hacking voting machines or election authority networks. And I strongly suspect that's exactly how they want it to sound.

      Even if the claims are exactly true, that Russia hacked the DNC to expose their secrets, all they wound up doing was publishing what was true for the world to see--that the DNC was manipulating everything they could to coronate HRC as heir apparent. The wikileaks publications only brought us a little bit closer to the full disclosure every voter should have before making their decisions.

      But I suppose in the minds of some, that invalidates the election results.

    2. Re:"Suggesting" ... by SubtleGuest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And you aren't concerned that a foreign country directly altered the outcome of an election here?

    3. Re:"Suggesting" ... by sexconker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And you aren't concerned that a foreign country directly altered the outcome of an election here?

      I'm more concerned that a domestic party nearly got away with doing the same thing.

      IF you believe the Russian hacker bullshit (and we have seen ZERO evidence of it), all they did was expose truth.

    4. Re: "Suggesting" ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      directly altered? hardly

    5. Re:"Suggesting" ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      you mean like the CIA has been doing in other countries for the last 50+ years?

    6. Re:"Suggesting" ... by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As with most things done "on a computer" this isn't new. So let's translate it for the non-internet age.

      Imagine that in a U.S. Presidential election, a group acting without the direct knowledge of the candidate broke into offices of the Democratic National Committee headquarters, intending to wiretap the offices and look for material that could be used to attack them and make them look bad.

      Would that have been a scandal? Because that's never happe- oh, wait, it did. It was called Watergate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Now imagine that, instead of G. Gordon Liddy and pals, it was a bunch of KGB officers breaking in to wiretap the offices of the DNC. Does this substantially change what happened, if the Presidential candidate who benefits still does everything in his power to squash the resulting call for investigations? Should we just ignore it and move on? Because this is NOT the sort of thing we should be letting pass, regardless of who's doing it. It's not even necessarily about this particular election, because of the precedent it sets. What happens if next time it's a Democrat who's perceived as friendly to Russia, and a Republican that's a Russian hawk? Worse, what if future presidential candidates deliberately start cozying up to Russia because they know that if they don't, they'll get hacked and dox'ed. Think after that, it'll just be the Russians doing it? If I were China, I'd be paying close attention to this too, nevermind Iran.

    7. Re:"Suggesting" ... by rudy_wayne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And you aren't concerned that a foreign country directly altered the outcome of an election here?

      Assuming, for the sake of argument, that it was a foreign country, and not some 400 pound guy sitting on his bed, it doesn't bother me in the least.

      Why? Because there was no actual "hacking" of the election. Contrary to what the Democrats would like you to believe, the only thing that actually happened was revealing the truth -- all the dirty shit that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats were up to. All the dirty shit that the Democrats didn't want the public to know about.

    8. Re:"Suggesting" ... by msauve · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "a foreign country directly altered the outcome of an election"

      FAKE NEWS ALERT!

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    9. Re:"Suggesting" ... by meta-monkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's just as much evidence of Russians hacking as there is of illegals voting: it sounds like something they would do. I am as bothered by Russians hacking emails as you are by illegals voting.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    10. Re:"Suggesting" ... by _KiTA_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And you aren't concerned that a foreign country directly altered the outcome of an election here?

      I'd be very concerned, if that happened. ... Got any evidence of that happening?

      Because so far we've seen absolutely nothing other than the Regressive Left completely losing their minds. Seriously, Keith Olbermann's twitter reads like a slightly less sane Alex Jones rant. It makes me wonder if he's always been that nuts and I just didn't notice because I agree with him politically.

      In the end, it's best to remember Sagan's Law - "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The idea that Russia would have committed an act of war to prevent Hillary from inciting a war with them is an EXTREMELY large claim. Where's the evidence? Hell, the CIA won't even show this supposed evidence to Congress but are demanding to show it to the Electoral College members.

      All told, so far what it looks like to me is that "Russian Hackers" is this year's "But where's the Birth Certificate?" A cheap political smear job designed to delegitimize the incoming administration and make President Trump waste political capital dealing with loons. It has the added bonus of giving the Regressive Left an excuse as to why they lost that doesn't involve them doing any form of self reflection.

    11. Re:"Suggesting" ... by meta-monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But the Watergate burglars were caught. We have no evidence Russia did squat. And even if we did, okay, what do you want to do about it? Anoint Clinton to spite Russia? Go to war with Russia because Podesta can't spot a fucking phishing email?

      How about instead, 1) don't do shady shit you wouldn't want the electorate finding out about like getting the debate questions early from the news network, and 2) practice better computer security.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    12. Re:"Suggesting" ... by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, apparently telling the truth is interfering with US elections, oh my (someone wasn't thinking when they put out this release). So Putin directly involved in the hacks, hmm, hunched over a keyboard typing away, expert computer hacker, on top of everything else. What is the White House trying to do promote Putin as the worlds greatest head of state in the world, the bare chested, bear riding computer hacker.

      The Russian government is only able to run rings around the US government because the US government is a chaotic mess with individual multi-national corporations able to pull it in different, often competing and contradictory directions at the same time (as well other countries who not only interfere but have direct contradictory controls over the US government, two prime examples Israel and Saudi Arabia both of who should be actively kicked out from involvement in US elections, who can forget the Israeli government issuing instructions to the US government in public https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and not one squeak about it except http://rare.us/story/rand-paul..., seriously what the fuck is the matter with Americans putting up with that shit, seriously). At lot of the good efforts done by the US government are undone by the US government, so much so, that the Russian government just has to sit back and watch the chaos unfold on it's own, as it picks up the pieces.

      Fucking hell, whine about Russia when Israel and Saudi Arabia have been fucking over American elections for decades, what the fuck is wrong with Americans.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    13. Re:"Suggesting" ... by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except that what the CIA is stating is that Russia broke into both the DNC and RNC, but only choose to release the info from the DNC.

      You know, you guys, you very well could be the next target. And Russia isn't the only country learning whether or not they can get away with stuff like this. Do you think China would be above doing likewise? Iran? North Korea?

      --
      Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
    14. Re:"Suggesting" ... by dlkwnt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, that's not the only thing that happened. The emission of the DNC emails is not nearly as concerning to me as the omission of the data stolen from the RNC. Doesn't it bother you that, somewhere out there, that data is floating around, just waiting to be used as leverage to blackmail Trump or other senior officials at some later date? that scares the crap out of me to be honest. But, more importantly, it will cast a pall over every decision made by the new administration, we'll never truly know if the decisions they're making are their own, or the result of foreign manipulation. Putin has our President-Elect wrapped around his finger, and that should be cause for serious concern.

    15. Re:"Suggesting" ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 4, Insightful

      However we will still have to wait as to whether a Trump administration will turn out to be a good or a bad experience.

      Prior to January 1, 2016, I would have a snarky answer for this.

      However ...

      In late December, 2015, my wife expressed concern that Trump would win the GOP nomination.

      I assured her that, "Trump would be gone by the end of February."

      Then, I predicted, all along the way, that Trump would lose in the worst spanking in the history of US elections.

      Shortly after midnight, November 8-9, I was like, "WTF!?"

      So, my political predictive super powers are bullshit.

      Instead of a smart-ass, uninformed remark, I'll adopt a wait-and-see and hope for the best.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    16. Re:"Suggesting" ... by Jhon · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Except that what the CIA is stating is that Russia broke into both the DNC and RNC, but only choose to release the info from the DNC."

      Maybe the RNC's emails weren't showing the RNC to be a bunch of hypocritical misogynistic race baiters rife with hubris -- like the DNC emails showed the DNC? Or maybe the CIA didn't state that Russia broke in to both the DNC and RNC. Maybe they indicated they have "high confidence" of that (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html?_r=0).

      Remember IRAQ and WMDs? There was high confidence there, too. Not just with the CIA both most other intelligence organizations as well. Hell, our own intel agencies don't even have the consensus on this EMAIL hacking thing that they had on WMDs in Iraq.

    17. Re:"Suggesting" ... by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And when foreigner George Soros started meddling in elections - nobody said nothing about anything.

      Cause, it was for the "correct" side.

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    18. Re:"Suggesting" ... by Boronx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just apply the Clinton rules. Even if there's zero evidence of any wrongdoing, she must be punished for something, because surely she did something wrong.

    19. Re:"Suggesting" ... by Boronx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The CIA didn't get Irak wrong. They had plenty of voices pointing out the so-called evidence was bullshit. They were sat on by Bush/Cheney until the CIA told them what they wanted to hear.

      Obama is not Bush. There is zero evidence that he is pressuring the CIA to go after Russia. He doesn't even have leverage to pressure them. They will all have a new boss in a few weeks.

    20. Re:"Suggesting" ... by newbie_fantod · · Score: 3, Insightful

      all they did was expose truth

      No you fucking idiot, they exposed half the truth. They also hacked the Republicans, but did not choose to release that information.

    21. Re:"Suggesting" ... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It wasn't "telling the truth" that swung the election decisively. It was the timing of the final leak, which lead to an FBI investigation which found nothing. Repeat, the FBI investigation found nothing new or interesting. The timing was perfect though, right before the vote, turning Clinton's near certain victory into an electoral college defeat.

      You also have to wonder how much they have on Trump and the Republicans, and how they are going to use it to influence the US government in the future. Even if you don't care about the election, you should care about how Russia can use leaks and blackmail to control your leaders.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    22. Re:"Suggesting" ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Someone hasn't been paying attention and is repeating the misinformation from the Hillary camp.

      1. The FBI found PLENTY in the initial investigation but chose (ie told) not to do anything about it - causing a lot of drama within the FBI itself. You can easily fact check that by youtube searching for Gowdy questions Comey. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIzS6okNI_E
      2. The later investigation found nothing NEW. - pay attention to that word right there.

      So - your opinion is based on disinformation. You may want to be a little more critical in your thinking in future.

  2. Conspiracy theory! Fake news! by NotInHere · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why does this shit get not deleted as fake news?

  3. Why won't they just show their proof? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They are just inferring, where is the proof they were involved?

    1. Re:Why won't they just show their proof? by guruevi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also today: CIA and NSA brass has refused to testify in front of congress as to the facts of these allegations. The narrative being pushed into the media and the very circumstantial evidence together with the "just trust us, we are the good guys" makes it seem very fishy. Clinton has indicated she wants to steer into another Cold War, her surprise loss to Trump sent the industrial complex into a frenzy trying to force the hands of both Russia and US.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  4. Shocking by Orgasmatron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Obama's options were:

    A) Either his ideas and presidency were so bad that he personally drove the country to find and elect someone like Trump, or

    B) The Russia-fairy hacked the election.

    I'm shocked and amazed that he picked B. What's even more amazing is that all of his political appointees also picked B, while the career intelligence officers that work for them all appear to have picked A.

    --
    See that "Preview" button?
    1. Re:Shocking by rleibman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Could it be
      C) The democrats chose their candidate poorly and Trump winning had not much to do with Obama and more to do with Hillary?
      P.S. Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

  5. Concrete proof or STFU already! by Noishkel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This entire argument STILL relies on third party unverified and unsourced claims.

    Hey, I VOTED for Trump. But there's just no first hand sourced proof that this is at all true. And by god I WANT to know if there is proof. But then again I've wanted proof about what he's doing or has done this entire election cycle. Yet no one seems to be able to show up with ANYTHING that at matches the claims that the media keeps coming up with.

  6. The new owners of Slashdot really annoy me by pecosdave · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's obvious that they post a lot of "in power" propaganda and support pretty much anything that comes out of the White House's media matters. Are things going to switch when Trump gets in and disbands the current propaganda machine or harnesses it for his own use? Or is Slashdot going to follow the globalist machine outlet to wherever it goes after the official controller of the current propaganda mill moves on?

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  7. The Russians didn't... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Russians didn't:
    - Game the DNC system against Bernie
    - Keep Clinton from campaigning in the midwest
    - Cause Clinton to collapse into a van
    - Keep Clinton away from the press for most of the campaign
    - Make Clinton call half the country rude names
    - Force Clinton to set up a shitty little email server
    - Tell Clinton's campaign manager that it's OK to click on "legitimate" phishing emails

    Have to agree with Barack when he said, "The 1980's are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War's been over for 20 years." My money is still on a (non-Russian) pissed-off Bernie-backer as the real Wikileaks connection - most of the grey+ hats I know were quite #neverclinton.

  8. Who do we believe? by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In other news, both Wikileaks and Putin deny that Russia did any of this.

    Who do we believe? And note that the US isn't showing evidence, just like they didn't show evidence for "weapons of mass destruction".

    Assange said specifically that it wasn't the Russians who leaked the information, and he's in a position to know the truth and has an unblemished record. (You may disagree with what he does, but you can't legitimately say that any of his information is made up.)

    Furthermore, isn't transparency a good thing? To take a random example, isn't Clinton taking $28 million from Morocco exactly the sort of thing that should be investigated by the news and discussed in public?

    Or how about the DNC torpedoing Bernie Sanders' campaign. Isn't that something that's important enough to be transparent to the public?

    I have to think that this isn't Russia's problem as much as it was Clinton's.

    It's sort of like finding out whether the voting machinery is rigged. On the one hand, it embarrasses the country. On the other hand, transparency leads to fixes.

    1. Re:Who do we believe? by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How would Assange even know? It's not like someone would phone him and say "Hello, Julian, this is Yuri from FSB, and we have Democrat emails for you to publish." Beyond which, I have so little faith in Assange as a teller of truth these days I see no reason to accept any claim he makes. Even Ecuador shut down his Internet access, clearly believing he was using their facilities to less than noble ends.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  9. If you talk about Putin and Russia by pecosdave · · Score: 5, Insightful

    but don't mention anything to do with George Soros or middle eastern donations to the Clinton campaign you're playing partisan politics.

    If you talk about Russia influencing the elections by releasing harmful Clinton emails but never mention the contents of those emails and what it means, you're playing partisan politics.

    If you talk about everything above you're having a rational discussion, but having the typical towing the party line headline like this one you're just showing what side you're on.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    1. Re:If you talk about Putin and Russia by mean+pun · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The Russians government using hacking to try to influence the US elections is big enough news on its own. There is no need to drag in anything else, that is playing partisan politics.

  10. Sounds about right by Scarred+Intellect · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He[Putin] publicly accused her[Clinton] of encouraging street protests.

    Considering the street protests after she lost, this seems to be the most accurate part of the article.

  11. Testify Under Oath about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The intelligence agencies are REFUSING to testify to Congress about this "leaked" information. Testimony that may leave them in legal trouble if they purger themselves during that testimony. Thats right, the executive branch is once again REFUSING to answer to the people about something they are claiming.

    Until the intelligence agencies testify to the people, in front of Congress, under oath and give specific information showing Russia did hack the election, it is fake news.

    Pics or it didn't happen.

    1. Re: Testify Under Oath about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are one of the loudest, most partisan advocates of one side's fake news on Slashdot. Though I suppose that does qualify you as kind of an expert.