Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Pretty Clear GRU's Goal Was To Weaken a Future Clinton Presidency, Former Facebook CSO Says (zdnet.com)

Posted by msmash on from the closer-look dept.

Speaking at the TechCrunch Disrupt tech conference this week, former Facebook chief security officer Alex Stamos reflected on his time dealing with fake news and Russian intelligence interference ahead and after the 2016 US presidential election. From a report: The former Facebook security head said "it [was] pretty clear the GRU's goal was to weaken a future Hillary presidency. Putin has a [you know, it's been well-documented] like a personal antipathy towards her and believes that she was behind the protests against him in the 2012 Russian election, and so, the GRU activity was specifically focused on weakening her."

"I think it was less about actually electing Trump," Stamos added. "I find it unlikely that the Russians are better than Nate Silver at predicting elections." What kind of attacks could we expect in the near future? Per Stamos, "Throwing an election one way or another is going to be very difficult for a foreign adversary but throwing any election into chaos is totally doable right now."

36 of 345 comments (clear)

  1. Read another way... by Zorro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Install a weak president.

    1. Re:Read another way... by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Read another way... Install a weak president.

      No, help to make sure a weakened president was elected. Hillary Clinton getting elected was a foregone conclusion for everyone but a statistics guy inside the Trump campaign, maybe Ann Coulter, and a few others. Every foreign government was saying it out loud, every media outlet in the US was sure of it, every academic expert was convinced of it. The Russians were taking steps to turn her taking power into something more suited to their taste: make it as awful for her as possible, making her as ineffective (at blunting Putin's aspirations) as possible. Another hint that was the case: the Russian actions altered tone, pace, and targets the moment she lost. They didn't want Trump as president, they wanted known-to-be-corrupt, feckless person like Clinton - someone whose family they had already enriched and who exhibited a taste for cashing in on Russian and similar engagement from other nasty types.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re: Read another way... by kenh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Think this through - Putin & friends were able to thwart the election for abut $100K in ads, and Hillary with her $1BN budget couldn't overcome that influence/meddling?

      Serious question - what was the last US presidential election the Russians *didn't* meddle in?

      --
      Ken
    3. Re:Read another way... by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't think they wanted Clinton either. A lot of her actions as Secretary of State were quite opposed to what Russia was doing and it's likely that she would have been willing to step that up and increase U.S. intervention in Syria and the other proxy conflicts that the U.S. and Russia are engaged in. That isn't to say they liked Trump or wanted him to win. As you point out, they, like most others, were probably sure that wasn't a real possibility based on the data. I suspect that they were ambivalent about him, or perhaps they were indifferent towards him.

      I think that Trump also fits quite well into the known-to-be-corrupt, feckless category just as well as Clinton (or most other politicians for that matter) so they knew that they wouldn't have a problem dealing with Trump either. He's in real estate and has enough history prior to his foray into politics to leave them comfortable in that assessment.

      My guess is that if Clinton were elected, she would similarly beleaguered at this point in her presidency. As much as you might like to argue that the media would be on her side, they also like blood in the water.

    4. Re:Read another way... by avandesande · · Score: 4, Informative

      no shit- they are getting their money back in spades over the russian meddling hysteria/trump presidency

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    5. Re: Read another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      No, more accurately, Trump won because of the majority of people, who disliked both candidates, a small fraction disliked Trump slightly less than they disliked Clinton.

      When elected, Trump was the most disliked president elect in history. If Clinton had been elected, she would also have been the most disliked president elect in history.

    6. Re:Read another way... by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 3, Funny

      they wanted known-to-be-corrupt, feckless person like Clinton

      Hey -- HEY!! Quit throwing around bad terms at people. You're going to taint feckless much worse than it really is.

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    7. Re: Read another way... by XXongo · · Score: 5, Informative

      But if the foreign influence was "pretty clear" before the elections why exactly is this chief security officer not an accomplice of the GRU?

      If you read the actual article, he says that the extent of Russian interference was not clear until after the elections.

      In fact, the article itself is pretty interesting-- the speculation about Russian motivation is the least important part; the talk about what they did and how they did what they did is more interesting.

    8. Re: Read another way... by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, please.

      Firstly, that's the ads that Facebook found. There may be far more that Facebook did not identify.

      But the ads were a tiny part of Russia's campaign. Russia used troll farms to influence people though cost-free posts.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    9. Re: Read another way... by SirSlud · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's why there are laws in electoral advertising.When you don't have to be transparent, advertising can be far more effective/manipulative.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    10. Re:Read another way... by Targon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hillary is universally hated by virtually every Republican, and disliked by a good percentage of the Democrats. Then you have those who are not in either party but tend to vote for one party over the other, and THOSE tended to dislike Hillary a lot as well. The best way to avoid foreign interference is to have candidates who people want to see as president, rather than candidates who are only seen as slightly better than the other(depending on your perspective). Clinton vs. Trump, neither one should have been allowed anywhere near the White House!

    11. Re: Read another way... by AlanObject · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hillary was torpedoed by Comey. Had that not happened the Russian interference would not have mattered except to elect more Republicans to congress perhaps. Which is what they wanted.

    12. Re: Read another way... by Deathlizard · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To be fair, there was probably a lot more money thrown around for Russian meddling, but thats beside the point.

      The main reason Hillary lost is because she was literally the worst candidate the DNC could've chose. Back when she announced her candidacy in 2015 I posted this which listed all of her past scandals, and that you had better choices, even on the democrat side

      After the Access Hollywood scandal, Trump should've been done. Period. Any other candidate would have been sunk, and Trump would've lost to any other candidate running against him. The difference is that he was running against Hillary, and all he had to do was divert people's attention away from the scandal by addressing the issue once, and then going back to his core voter issues while Hillary spun in circles trying to capitalize on the scandal instead of focusing on her core voter issues.

      From my experience in this election, I can tell you that Trump was resonating with voters. I live in the rust belt (More Specifically North East Ohio, Western PA) where there is a ton of Democrat support. Almost all of the people I knew that traditionally voted Democrat were voting Trump, including my Grandfather, who was a WWII vet, a Retired Union leader who worked in the Railroad Business, and Voted straight Democrat except for Eisenhower. When I asked him why, he said he was the first Candidate he saw in decades that gets that Free Trade and especially Steel Dumping is killing heavy industry in this country and he felt he was the only candidate to actually fix it instead of talking about fixing it. Most of the other voters had similar reasons. Here on Slashdot, it was the H1B issue drawing voters since he was against it (but as of this post still hasn't done anything about it, which is going to hurt him come November)

      Surprisingly, Almost no one I asked that went from voting Democrat to Trump voted for him because of Hillary Scandals or "Crooked Hillary" or any anti Hillary message that you commonly saw with these Russian troll ads. They voted for Trump cause They liked Trump's stance on issues (particularly anti free trade) vs Hillary. Many of them also like Sanders over Hillary because of the same issues and reasons, since many of Sanders issues were similar to Trump when it came to Jobs. It wouldn't surprise me in the least that Sanders would be in the White House if he won the nomination.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
    13. Re: Read another way... by OYAHHH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Odd, I'm a baby boomer and Donald Trump is doing exactly what I wanted him to do when I voted for him.

      That's not gullibility. That is smart voting.

      --
      Caution: Contents under pressure
    14. Re: Read another way... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hillary was torpedoed by Comey.

      What, like with a submarine or something?

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    15. Re: Read another way... by DamnOregonian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It doesn't appear that way at all. Putin says it happened. He says it because there were protests, and because the US Government's media mouthpieces supported those protests.

      There were protests this year too. Did Trump cause them? Or better, Trump's secretary of state?

      A dictator who runs rigged elections blames popular protests on old-timey mortal enemy. News at fucking 11.

    16. Re: Read another way... by greythax · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's only smart if what you "wanted him to do" is actually in your best interests. Otherwise we are back to gullibility.

  2. Clinton Meddling by ebonum · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Fair Question: Did Clinton meddle in the Russian election?

    1. Re:Clinton Meddling by avandesande · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Does the concept of 'blowback' matter, ie that the USA might actually be responsible for some of the bad things that happen to it? Would Hillary have been a stronger candidate if she had not taken part in globalist 'nation-building' activities?

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    2. Re:Clinton Meddling by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because when you fuck with people, they often have the desire to fuck with you right back. Preferably in the exact same way you did to them. This is typically known as "the cycle of violence".

      For example, did you know the US meddled in the 1996 Russian election to get Yeltsin re-elected? It's absolutely true, a lot of people were proud of it at the time and it wasn't a secret. He was in fifth place with ratings in the single digits before the Americans got involved. This was disastrous for Russia, as the oligarchs and Western neo-liberal economists made a mess of things. This started the chain of events that led directly to Putin seizing power four years later. Action, reaction.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:Clinton Meddling by KalvinB · · Score: 4, Informative

      https://www.theguardian.com/wo...

      Yes, she did.

      --
      Work Safe Porn
    4. Re:Clinton Meddling by quantaman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Fair Question: Did Clinton meddle in the Russian election?

      There are two broad categories of states, functioning Democracies where the leaders can be booted out by the public, and countries where you're going to need a revolution to change leadership.

      I'm actually fine with a policy where you should leave the functioning Democracies as is but you're free to screw around with the other countries to make them functioning Democracies since the common thread is you're trying to make the leadership of those countries accountable to the people.

      Therefore I'll happily condemn Russian meddling in US elections but encourage US meddling in the Russian theatre productions they call elections. The US meddling in Ukraine is a bit more ambiguous, they were a semi-functioning Democracy but with a leader trying very hard to entrench himself for life. The Ukrainian revolution actually made them a lot closer to a functioning Democracy, which as it turns out was a great motive for Russia to invade them and steal some territory.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    5. Re:Clinton Meddling by mukinrestak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, for those who may not actually know about it, the US government (and in some cases also corporations!) has meddled in the elections of every single country in Central and South America. Every last one. They've also off the top of my head meddled in German, Iranian, French, and pretty much all of the Soviet bloc states elections.

      So did they meddle in Russia? You bet your sweet caboose they did. I'd be willing to bet there isn't a country on earth whose elections the US hasn't meddled in, unless of course it's one that has no elections with which to meddle.

  3. chaos? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 4, Interesting

    but throwing any election into chaos is totally doable right now."

    "Chaos"?

    First of all, we would know that how, lol? Aren't they all chaos?

    In any case, real elections are "chaos" ... in real elections there's real potential for the voters to actually choose something different, whether the elites like it or not.

    That feels like "chaos" to the people who think that only one party should rule and that any other parties are to be kept around only for appearances sake.

    1. Re:chaos? by Lucas123 · · Score: 3

      I totally agree.

      The Russian "involvement" in the 2016 election is being overplayed. We act is if the U.S. and other nations don't try to affect the outcome of elections around the world, and that the fake news on Facebook/Twitter in our last election somehow influenced a large swatch of the electorate -- people other than died-in-the-wool conservative. It's not as if moderates were suddenly believing Pizzagate was real and Hillary Clinton and top Democratic operatives are running an underground and possibly satanic child sex ring out of a pizza restaurant in Washington D.C.

      I think it would be interesting to see the results of an objective poll or some other study showing just how much influence fake news had in the election. To date, all we have is a narrative being pushed by sore losers.

  4. Hillary wanted a no-fly zone over Syria by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Remember the debates? Hillary was firm in wanting a no-fly zone in Syria. This would have led to direct conflict between USAF and Russian AF. It could have easily broken out into a big shooting war. Heck, I get the idea that a lot of people in DC (the unelected government, so-called deep state) would have greatly desired that. World War II hero and former U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) once observed, in a different context: "There exists a shadowy government with ... its own fundraising mechanism."

    Also remember, just before the inauguration, that US armored brigade landed and the jokes wrote themselves? Obama just sent tanks into Poland, that sort of thing. They then traveled to the Russian border? That was Hillary's big stick. Plant a bunch of troops near them and then start shit in Syria. But she wasn't elected, and they just did some training and then left. Peace broke out instead.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  5. 2 years later... by TimMD909 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... And there's still a ridiculous amount of derangement. Hilldog was a bad candidate who few outside the far left liked. She was caught meddling in her own party's process to boot Bernie. She tried pretending that destroying evidence on her personal email server was an innocent mistake. Worst of all, she pretended to be a saint when she is definitely not. That wolf in sheeps clothing never sat well with me. Look up Hitchens thoughts on her for more things to be unsettled about. Now 2 years later, uncountable hours have gone into trying to shift the blame. When will the Dems admit it was a mistake to have her as the candidate?

    1. Re:2 years later... by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hilldog was a bad candidate who few outside the far left liked.

      What on Earth are you talking about? Clinton was loved by Centrists and the Establishment Right. It was everyone to the left of that, moderate to "far" (is there such a thing in the US?) left, that wanted a better candidate.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:2 years later... by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Clinton was loved by Centrists and the Establishment Right.

      What? Centrists, sure, but the right? You're off your nut. Big Pharma loved her, centrists, and the near left, but everyone else disliked her. That's why polls showed that Sanders could beat Trump, but Clinton couldn't. The DNC chose to run Clinton when it was clear that democrat voters preferred Sanders, and that is the primary reason we have president Trump right now.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  6. Yes, you are alone :) by gDLL · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's like saying "what's this CIA abbreviation?"........ this is why the americans get called ignorant :)

  7. A campaign to damage America, not to elect Trump by XXongo · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Both sides spent roughly a billion dollars on their campaigns.

    The closer an election is, the more a small effect will tip the result. The 2016 election turned out to tilt on 80,000 votes in three states, a very small margin in an election in which 57.6 million people voted.

    The Russian campaign contributions had a significant advantage; they didn't even have a need to pretend to truth or accuracy or morality. They were aiming for disruption of America by any means necessary, with no concern for collateral damage.

    (and note that your figure of "$100K in ads" is the documented part of the advertising budget for their interference-- we don't have any idea of the full extent of it, but that is only the barest tip of the iceberg, not even including the money spent on trolls and fake grass-roots organizations. The full extent was a lot higher than that, and we have no idea how much higher.)

  8. Re: A campaign to damage America, not to elect Tru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sorry, no. She doubled Trump up. Even if you add money for Russian interference.

  9. National turmoil by MikeMo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They're not only creating election turmoil, they're amplifying and exploiting the issues we have in this country. I believe they are partly to blame for all the left-right anger and hate.

  10. Re:A campaign to damage America, not to elect Trum by sexconker · · Score: 5, Informative

    Both sides spent roughly a billion dollars on their campaigns.

    False. Hillary's campaign cost about double what Trump's did. And that ignores all the backdoor bullshit with the media, the DNC, and the Clinton Foundation.

  11. Re:A campaign to damage America, not to elect Trum by merky1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So the callousness in which you treat the general population is quite amazing. If the two candidates where identical, you might be right. But this was black vs. white. There was no common ground between the two. If you are saying that 100K of advertising is all it takes to tip someone from black to white, then our "election" process is beyond repair. Really, people made the opinion early on, and disregarded information based on their bias.

    This fantasy world that people live in where obviously the Russians are the ONLY reason Trump is president is amazing. Admitting Hillary was a flawed candidate would really help the democrats swing centrists, but instead they prefer to go off the rails.

    --
    --WooooHoooo--
  12. Re: A campaign to damage America, not to elect Tru by ilguido · · Score: 4, Insightful

    On top of that the vast majority of the media companies endorsed Hillary Clinton. 500 newspapers endorsed Hillary Clinton, while only 28 endorsed Trump and an additional 30 newspapers, including USA Today, were outright against Trump.

    But the big question is: why did the GRU know where to spend their (up to) $100,000 (including post electoral expenditures), while Hillary Clinton and her staff did not? Probably because it is all an excuse for a very poor performance, after all the money she spent and all the media support she gained.