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.

12 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 argStyopa · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Re:"Suggesting" ... by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 5, Informative

      HRC and DNC baggages had enough anchors in them to sink the fucking Titanic.

      Clinton lost election. Full stop. Trump had zero to do with it. Putin had zero to do with it. The DNC made their beds with 'super delegates' long before the general election. When are they going to stop blaming everything from Ze Ruskies to Trump supporters?

      The whole election came down to a few swing states, namely Wisconsin and Michigan. States that Clinton didn't even bother to visit until late into the cycle. (And she just sent Kaine to WI). It's not hard to see when you compare the 2012 and 2016 elections, it makes it even easier since Stein and Johnson ran in both elections making them a good control. This was her election to lose and she did.

      Wisconsin:
      2012:

      1. Obama: 1,620,985
      2. Romney: 1,407,966
      3. Johnson: 20,439
      4. Stein: 7,665

      2016:

      1. Trump: 1,405,284
      2. Clinton: 1,382,536
      3. Johnson: 106,674
      4. Stein: 31,072

      Michigan
      2012:

      1. Obama: 2,564,569
      2. Romney: 2,115,256
      3. Johnson: 7,774
      4. Stein: 21,897

      2016:

      1. Trump: 2,279,543
      2. Clinton: 2,268,839
      3. Johnson: 172,136
      4. Stein: 51,463
  2. 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
  3. tl;dr by Shiptar · · Score: 5, Informative

    There has been no specific evidence shared publicly to confirm Mr Putin's role or knowledge of the hackings.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.
  6. 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.

  7. Assange was just on Hannity saying it wasnt Russia by BrookHarty · · Score: 5, Informative

    Assange was on Hannity today, and again, said the leaks did not come from Russia.

    Julian Assange Speaks to Hannity, Says That Russian Gov’t Was Not His Source

  8. Re:Who do we believe? by meta-monkey · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.