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.
Assange denies it, and he's been reliable. Putin will say whatever is to his advantage.
The CIA/FBI may be the source, but we will not know for a while, if ever.
But the Democrats are desperate to retain power. Some believe the Right will punish them, some know how close they are to domination and permanent rule, some merely fear prison.
But they are desperate. Insanely so.
It may get worse.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Notice that the coverage has gone from Russians "hacking" the voting machines, to the subtly different "hacking" the elections, ie trying to manipulate the elections. This is of course as the plausibility of the DNCs original intimation of hacked voting machines falls after the WI recount.
In that EXACT same syntax, Martin Sheen's bitchfest video begging electors not to vote for Trump is trying to "hack" (ie manipulate) the election.
For that matter, why aren't we talking just as much about the $millions$ HRC took from Qatar and other Gulf States for her campaign? Weren't they trying to 'hack' the election in their much more direct and documented way?
-Styopa
The undereducated middle class whites of the rust belt region were not in a foreign country.
Trump won seven out of 10 non-college white men and six out of 10 non-college women.
The largest voting bloc were the ones who didn't show up.
And 31415926535897 is correct in that HRC and DNC baggages had enough anchors in them to sink the fucking Titanic.
[Disclaimer: I didn't vote for the goddam pussy-grabber.]
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
And you aren't concerned that a foreign country directly altered the outcome of an election here?
You know what was more impactful to the outcome of the election than the fact that "russian hackers" leaked some e-mails?
The fact that the DNC threw all its might into nominating the only possible candidate who could have lost to Trump. You know, the facts that were revealed.
You fucktards need to start cleaning your own house rather than trying to deflect attention from what really happened with this endless "RUSSIA HACKED THE ELECTION" BS.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
When did Assange ever lie? You may not like his bias based on what he chooses to reveal or not, but to my knowledge I can't think of a single lie he's ever told.
Also, how would Assange know? Perhaps the person identified themselves. "Hi Julian, this is Seth Rich, DNC staffer. Here's the emails." We're pretty damn sure Assange knew he was getting the military intel dump from Bradley Manning from the chat logs. There's little to suggest Assange doesn't know where his information comes from. He would probably want to know where it comes from to help him verify the information so he can keep his 100% spotless record of never releasing anything that's been shown to be false.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
How did they "directly" do that? Was Putin in the back of a Wisconsin precinct throwing away ballots?
Obtaining and releasing information is hardly "directly" affecting an election outcome. Would you charge the New York Times with the same shit? Because they do that every day. Yes, sometimes via extra-legal means.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
A guy who specifically times releases of data to coincide with the US election isn't exactly what I'd call an unbiased actor,
No one says Assange isn't biased. All humans are biased. I'm pretty sure Assange hates Hillary because 1) wars and 2) she wanted to drone strike him. But name one provable lie Assange has ever told.
and the fact that he didn't seem to be delivering any details on Trump indicates that whoever was feeding him the data had specific objects in mind.
Or it indicates Assange didn't have dirt on Trump. Assange deals in hacked or leaked computer data. Trump barely uses email. What is there to hack?
And here we go again with the Clintons As Mafioso conspiracy theory once again...
You don't get to bitch about conspiracy theories while shilling for the "PUTIN HAXX0RS EVERYTHING!!!!" conspiracy theory.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
... nothing of substance here.
Exactly. In fact, viewed carefully, all of this can be traced back to one person: James Clapper. It was Clapper's statement that was first used to claim "17 intelligence agencies" have said Russia was involved in the hacks. Clapper's statement is full of opinions "we believe" and vague correlations with no real evidence. The Washington Post article quoted an unnamed "official" who was repeating what he heard from unnamed sources (hearsay about hearsay). And the statements sound suspiciously similar to Clapper's original statement. So does this latest anonymous source.
So really, it seems to all come down to a single hyper partisan person, who has been caught lying under oath to Congress in the past spreading rumors for compliant journalists.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
"So Putin directly involved in the hacks, hmm, hunched over a keyboard typing away, expert computer hacker, on top of everything else. "
The only group we know of with certainty (outside of the RNC) that was actively working to get Trump elected was the DNC. Wikileaks ALSO released emails which showed the DNC coordinating to have Trump win the nomination by focusing all responses to him (as if he were the presumptive nominee and encouraging the press to do the same. They didn't want to face anyone other than Trump or Cruz as they didn't think Clinton could win.
The Republicans deserve their crappy candidate -- but the Democrats? They have a special hell -- they helped nominate TWO crappy candidates (one of which was going to win the election).
There is an interesting thing about that "Russian fake news". It does not appear to have gotten very much traction. For example, "pizzagate", which I learned about after the man with the gun showed up to "investigate" it. Since then I have seen numerous people who voted for Hillary mention it. Yet when I ask the people I know who voted for Trump about it, they never heard of the original story, or even about the man with the gun. The same thing is true about several other fake news stories which were supposed to have caused people to vote for Trump. They are known about by many of the Hillary voters I know, but by few, if any, of the Trump voters.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Suppose Russians really did it and imagine they even had said in September "hey Americans we hacked your emails and we're releasing them because we hate you." Do you really believe it would have changed what people thought of Clinton and Trump?