Re: "Russian hacking", one thing I have trouble understanding is why the CIA would want to publicise it.
Do they really need to do either of those things?
Publicising evidence Russia tampered with the election is obviously harmful to its legitimacy and that of the government so it seems strange that they would do so even (perhaps especially) if it were true.
One theory doing the rounds is that Trump is the figurehead of a military/naval intelligence takeover
Kragh also mentions a fake telegram which suggested that former Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt might be appointed Prime Minister of Ukraine.
steve Bannon, former Navy ... there you have it 🔥
I know this is hardly the main point here, but has anyone else noticed the quaint language invariably used in news reports on hacking, Wikileaks and so on?
I mean, surely we're not talking about a literal telegram here?
Apparently WhatsApp is popular nowadays: https://www.theguardian.com/technol...-this-alien-whatsapp-emoji-for-vladimir-putin
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/01/attributing_the_1.html schneier agrees,The question is a kind of Rorschach test, which is why it's a great question.
Question is, is there any hard evicence? The article in the thread-starting post is very vague on what's been really done. Not that I think it's not plausible, on the contrary.