Slashdot Mirror


US Releases Declassified Report On Russian Hacking, Concludes That Putin 'Developed a Clear Preference' For Trump (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has released its unclassified report on Russian hacking operations in the United States. "We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election," according to the report. "Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump." The report, titled "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections," details the successful hack of the Democratic National Committee. "The Kremlin's campaign aimed at the U.S. election featured disclosures of data obtained through Russian cyber operations; intrusions into U.S. state and local electoral boards; and overt propaganda," according to the report. The report states that Russian intelligence services made cyber-attacks against "both major U.S. political parties" to influence the 2016 election. The report also publicly names Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks.com, two sources of stolen information released to the public, as Russian operatives working on behalf of the country's military intelligence unit, the GRU. Officials from the organization were recently the target of U.S. sanctions. WikiLeaks is also cited as a recipient of stolen information. The report also notes that the U.S. has determined Russia "accessed elements of multiple state or local electoral boards," though no vote-tallying processes were tampered with. The FBI and CIA have "high confidence" the election tampering was ordered by Putin to help then-candidate Trump, according to the report. NSA has "moderate confidence" in the assessment. bongey writes: The declassified DNI report offers no direct evidence of Russia hacking DNC or Podesta emails. Exactly half of the report (subtract blank and TOC) 9 of 18 is just devoted to going after RT.com by claiming they have close ties to Russia and therefore a propaganda arm, trying to imply that rt.com is related to the hacking. "Many of the key judgments in this assessment rely on a body of reporting from multiple sources that are consistent with our understanding of Russian behavior. Insights into Russian efforts -- including specific cyber operations -- and Russian views of key U.S. players derive from multiple corroborating sources. Some of our judgments about Kremlin preferences and intent are drawn from the behavior of Kremlin loyal political figures, state media, and pro-Kremlin social media actors, all of whom the Kremlin either directly uses to convey messages or who are answerable to the Kremlin." UPDATE 1/6/17: President-elect Donald Trump met with U.S. intelligence officials Friday, calling the meeting "constructive" and offering praise for intel officials. "While Russia, China, other countries, outside groups and people are consistently trying to break through the cyber infrastructure of our governmental institutions, businesses and organizations including the Democrat National Committee, there was absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election, including the fact that there was no tampering whatsoever with voting machines," Trump said in a statement after the meeting.

32 of 734 comments (clear)

  1. 'Developed a Clear Preference' For Trump by dohzer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    'Developed a Clear Preference' For Trump? Wow, I never thought the US people and Putin could have so much in common.

    1. Re:'Developed a Clear Preference' For Trump by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You mean the US electoral college and Putin, because in popular vote terms, the US people preferred Clinton.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:'Developed a Clear Preference' For Trump by jjo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Counted one way, the US people favored Trump. Counted another way, the US people favored Clinton. Almost without exception, political observers now profess a clear preference for the vote-counting method that would have worked best for their favored candidate: Clinton supporters have discovered a new passion for using the aggregate popular vote, while Trump supporters see great virtue in the Electoral College. Politics as usual.

    3. Re:'Developed a Clear Preference' For Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You mean the US electoral college and Putin, because in popular vote terms, California preferred Clinton.

      FTFY. And of course those who want citations: http://www.politico.com/2016-e....

      California chose Hillary by 3.4 million cotes. Hillary won nationwide popular vote by 2.9 million votes. The entire difference and then some is the state of California.

      Aaaaaaaand..... your point being that California is not..... a part of America?

    4. Re:'Developed a Clear Preference' For Trump by fredgiblet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which is utterly irrelevant per the rules.

    5. Re:'Developed a Clear Preference' For Trump by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Headline: most populous state in the country has an opinion on who should lead it.

      Clinton also won New York by 1.5 million votes. You could try to make a story of "without New York, Clinton would have only won by 1.4 million votes!", but that would also be dumb and misleading. In fact, if you skip all states where Clinton won, then Trump would have lead by 8.4 million votes! Of course, the opposite would have Clinton winning by 11.2 million, so you might want to keep that inconvenient fact in your pocket.

      America preferred Clinton. "America, except for..." doesn't matter for shit because it wasn't "America, except for..." who votes on these things.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    6. Re:'Developed a Clear Preference' For Trump by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not saying Clinton didn't lose fair and square. But the GP made the claim the American people favored Trump, which is, in fact false. No one disputes that the Electors have the ultimate constitutional authority to choose the POTUS, and that constitutionally Trump is the rightful winner of the election. But whatever that may represent, what it does not represent is that Trump is the popular pick.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    7. Re:'Developed a Clear Preference' For Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In several obvious ways:

      1) He brings up the popular vote, which is pretty much irrelevant within the current American electoral system (i.e., the one used for the 2016 election). It's a pointless distraction within the context of this submission's discussion.

      2) He disparages the electoral college, presumably because he disagrees with the result in this particular case. Yet the American electoral system is well-established, fair, and well-understood. He's just upset that his candidate lost, although he probably would be completely supportive of the electoral college were the outcome in his preferred candidate's favor.

      3) He suggests that Putin had an impact on the outcome of the election, when the evidence suggests there was no such impact.

      So in summary, his comment doesn't contribute to the discussion here, and in fact it appears to be trying to derail it with irrelevant points, false accusations, an undeserved sense of entitlement, and just a lot of whining in general.

      He's just upset that his candidate lost in a fair election, and now he appears to be trying to disrupt the conversation here with nonsense.

    8. Re:'Developed a Clear Preference' For Trump by Freischutz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Last I checked, California was still part of the United States. Unless you can cite something that proves otherwise.

      A large portion of Trump voters is of the opinion that California's votes should not count in elections. Apparently they are, however, perfectly happy to collect the money California's voters pay into the federal coffers and that gets eaten up by federal aid to red states.

    9. Re:'Developed a Clear Preference' For Trump by sexconker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As a Californian, I say Californians should have no right to vote in national elections until they prove they are US citizens.
      I'd extend that to any state that has an illegal immigration problem. And I'd support a Constitutional Amendment to require proof of national citizenship to vote in national elections. (I would NOT approve of any federal law other than a Constitutional Amendment to require this nationwide - currently, the Constitution says that States run their elections.)

      Further, California can't even get its ass together with regards to splitting off Northern California and Southern California into 2 states (which is an idea put forth every few years). CA is not leaving the U.S. of A., nor does it have the right to. Even if it did, it would wither and die, literally, because we're in a biiiiiiiiiiit of a drought. And ultimately, there is no fucking way the US Navy would cede that much Pacific coastline to a turkey shit state like CA, there's no way the US would be selling oil/power/water to an annoying brat who ran away from home at prices other than "fuck you", and there's no way Silicon Valley would stay connected to the internet as they know it should CA attempt to pull such a stunt. The last time people left the club, the nation engaged in Civil War, which is still the deadliest war we've ever had, and that was with many states trying to leave. Not even Texas has the balls to actually quit, and Texas would be perfectly fine on its own (plenty of land, food, water, oil, electricity, etc.).

    10. Re:'Developed a Clear Preference' For Trump by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Stop with rewriting history. Russia and Hitler had a non-aggression pact, not an alliance. The pact included dividing up Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, and Romania between the two.

      Same as the US Monroe Doctrine back in the 1800s claimed political dominance of the Americas to be US's right. This was seen by the whole "banana republic" US corporatism favorable to US business at the expense of central and south america.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    11. Re:'Developed a Clear Preference' For Trump by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How is this trolling?

      Clinton didn't win even 50% of the vote. The majority of voters voted ABC - anybody but Clinton.

      You could flip that and claim that an even greater majority of voters voted ABT.

      You can nitpick that MightyMartian's post was inaccurate because a majority of US voters in fact did not prefer Clinton. But a majority did not prefer Trump either. And Clinton did get more votes than any other candidate. And that bugs the hell out of Trump, so much that he created a fiction of 'millions' of illegal aliens voting for Clinton.

      Yes, I know that it's the Electoral College that matters. That doesn't mean the popular vote is not of interest.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    12. Re: 'Developed a Clear Preference' For Trump by dnaumov · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You seem confused. The electoral college is working precisely as intended: to prevent very few states with very high relative population from dominating the politics of the entire country via a simple majority.

  2. Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I seem to remember the Obama administration had a preference against Brexit and Netin-yahoo...

  3. Why bother with the machines? by Idou · · Score: 3, Insightful

    . . . there was no tampering whatsoever with voting machines. . .

    Why bother with the voting machines when you can tamper with the voters?

    --
    Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
  4. Re:Also in the report by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, Assange has simply claimed it wasn't Russia (why anyone would believe Assange is beyond me, even if he was in a position to know that all the intermedaries weren't Russians). People like you keep trying to make Rich into some sort of victim of the Clinton Crime FAmily. It's a deep irony that you'll reject multiple US security services' claims that Russia was the source, but buy into a completely unevidenced and really quite idiotic conspiracy theory that Hillary Clinton had a DNC staffer murdered. And for what? So that voting for Trump doesn't make you a fucking moron? Well, too bad, you're a fucking moron.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  5. Gee, I wonder... by The+Last+Gunslinger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's compare/contrast the historical veracity of information released by Assange/WikiLeaks with that of any US intelligence service, shall we?

    One has an impeccable record of authenticity, while the other is run by documented liars. In fact, both Brennan and Clapper sat before Congress and bald-faced LIED when asked about the existence and activities of the NSA's domestic spying apparatus.

    The better question would be: Why would anyone in their right mind not believe Assange over the Liar McPantsonFires in Washington DC?

  6. Re:Also in the report by johanw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why would anyone believe Clapper, who has been cought at lying under oath before the congress before?

  7. No evidence here by troll+-1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just a reminder that the US government are proven liars. They lied all through the 1950s about the Middle East and Iran, They lied their arses about Vietnam. They lied about not supporting South American dictators. They lied about the Contras. And when came to WMD they even lied to themselves and then fabricated evidence to prove their own BS. Up until 1973, when they were found out, they even paid reporters at the New York Times and Washington Post to print fake news. This is an incredible but true fact. Well documented. It's amazing stuff. And they always get away with it. Heck, go back to the 1800s, the Philippine war or the Spanish-America war. They were even printing fake news back then. It never ends.

  8. Re:A clear preference by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not to mention that Hillary Clinton used the CIA to influence the 2011 Russian elections against Putin's party. This is just payback in kind.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  9. Re:A clear preference by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Clinton an excellent president? You mean the DINO (Democrat In Name Only) who dismantled the New Deal protections (see Glass-Steagall) that could have prevented the financial meltdown? What f*ing planet are you living on?

    Or the same president who was too chickenshit to allow gay marriage, instead passing the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act? The same guy who claimed he didn't inhale (what was he smoking to even think anyone would believe that?). And let's not forget Don't Ask Don't Tell.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  10. Re:A clear preference by HornWumpus · · Score: 1, Insightful

    We don't want either side to win. We want a decades long, bloody stalemate between Sunni/Shia. Keep them busy and out of trouble.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  11. Who says I believe either? by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    especially without qualification.

    I might believe this report over Assange because he had a very clear motive to make sure Hilary Clinton didn't get elected. Her dislike for him (and Snowden) was well documented).

    And you'd be a fool if you didn't believe Russia preferred Trump over Hilary. Trump has been pro-Russia all along and has millions (billions?) to gain from his business interests by supporting them. The real question is, do American interests align with Russia. If the answer is yes, by all means, believe Trump and his ilk. Otherwise, well, Houston, we have a problem...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Who says I believe either? by WaffleMonster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Given that the Democrats are trying to start WWIII by doing everything from poking Russia with a pointy stick to rolling out tanks on their border, this is a damned good thing.

      Every time I hear "trying to start WWIII" it becomes hard not to tune out. This is such a tired old talking point devoid of any coherent information or useful context to the extent of being virtually non-falsifiable in nature.

      If a training exercise in Norway = WWWIII god can only guess what conducting the same in SK territory means with respect to DPRK, US warships "invading" Chinese territory in South China Sea, Russia annexing land in foreign countries, Russia invading Georgia, Russian invading a country they signed defense treaties with (e.g. Budapest Memorandum), planting flags in Artic and conducting joint training exercises in Cuba.

      Anyone could make reverse argument being a pussy and standing down or otherwise perusing appeasement and capitulation can also lead to war by empowering those with expansionist aims to become blind to consequences.

      None of these statements are worth anything in and of themselves. They are two sides of the same worthless coin.

      If you don't agree with a particular course of action much better simply to support your position by providing falsifiable evidence explaining specifically why a course of action is reckless or dangerous.

  12. Comrade Drumpkov by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Like it or not, the perception of the incoming president as Putin's lapdog is going to stick. You cannot wipe off the stink at this point. In the history books, Donald J Trump is going to have an asterisk after his name, and the image of #RussianDon cuddling up to Vladimir Putin is forever.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  13. Re:A clear preference by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We want a decades long, bloody stalemate between Sunni/Shia. Keep them busy and out of trouble.

    Wars don't reduce trouble. They create radicalized and desperate people. Syrian refugees are destabilizing the EU, and many of the recent terrorist attacks in France, Germany, and Turkey can be traced back to Syria.

  14. Re:A clear preference by Blaskowicz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's fucking horrible. Perhaps thinking that makes you feel smart as if you were Sun Tzu or were playing a game of Sid Meier's Civilization, but there are actual people living there. This sounds like ramblings of a jerky hand lunatic Hitler waiting it out in the bunker.
    What would you rather like (assuming in the US) : functioning education, health, Department of Transportation, EPA etc., DoJ, Police and so on, or three decades of protestant vs catholic war? While, far from leaving the rest out of trouble, the situation spills into Canada and Mexico with even a couple bombings in Brazil, and US Jews have to flee wherever they can.

    If that was bitter sarcasm, let us know.

  15. Re:Hypocrisy? by bongey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Report does not state they have any evidence that the Russians hacked nor leaked emails to wikileaks, just basically "we think they did this". Read the god dam report, it absolutely provides no evidence or new information.

  16. Re: Wow, it's effing nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Unfortunately, the real power is with Paul Ryan. Trump was never really a true Republican.

    I an not looking forward to Trump making deals with Ryan to further his agenda by making some concessions with Ryan to further his agenda.

    Say goodbye to Planned Parenthood, in return we get an early start Trump's wall. Trump wants tariffs, is he willing to overturn roe vs wade to sweeten the deal.

  17. Still waiting for evidence by WaffleMonster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So far US government has utterly failed to provide any compelling evidence to support it's assertions. Yet another worthless mostly off-topic 13 page document crying about success of foreign propaganda rather than supporting any of it's positions with evidence.

    Everyone knows what "RT" is. It's no secret to anyone who isn't living under a rock why they exist and what they do any more than it's no secret why VOA/CNN exist.

    All I've seen on CNN the past few weeks is... Wikileaks is an agent of Russia, Wikileaks stole information, Assange is wanted for rape, Assange rapes little girls and persistently pathetic stories of low morale and despair among TLAs because Trump won't listen to them.... WAHHHHHHH.

    Do I trust US intel to provide truthful and accurate "assessments" to the public? After curveball's mobile production facilities, aluminum tubes and Uranium (dramatic pause) from Africa do you really need to ask?

  18. Re:Well by tsotha · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The other consideration is Trump may have been able to win the popular vote if it mattered. The Republicans sensibly wrote off California early in the campaign, so it's hard to know things would have turned out if they'd had to compete here.

  19. Re: A clear preference by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Fuck you! I'm from the Balkans and US involvement only made things worse.

    Clearly you're not Albanian.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."