Russian hacking of the US election

droid

Well-known member
Its also strange that the head of the FBI would make an election changing non-announcement 2 weeks before polls open.

Its almost as if there are competing interests in the political/intelligence/military establishments.
 

sadmanbarty

Well-known member
Re: "Russian hacking", one thing I have trouble understanding is why the CIA would want to publicise it.

If they didn't publicise it, they'd run the risk of someone leaking it (believing it to be in the public interest). If the democrats and the public at large found out that the CIA were sitting on evidence of Russian hacking, which may have influenced the election results, many would see this as evidence of partisanship. This may in turn have consequences for the CIA (funding, firings, etc.).
 

firefinga

Well-known member
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.

No, it's as Luka said. Don't forget, these are first and foremost bureaucracies where certain key figures fight for power and influence. That's usually best done via money/fundling.
 

luka

Well-known member
The question is a kind of Rorschach test, which is why it's a great question.
 

firefinga

Well-known member
Never underestimate the possibility of a cabal going on, too. If there's a security problem somehwere, soenone is responsible, and that certain smeone may be the enemy of somebody else etc. Career driven sniping...
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
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?

Kragh also mentions a fake telegram which suggested that former Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt might be appointed Prime Minister of Ukraine.

I mean, surely we're not talking about a literal telegram here? Other favourites include 'wire', 'cable' and the cryptic 'comminiqué'. Are they all just silly journalistic synonyms for 'email', or what?

It's actually not an entirely superficial point when you consider how hard or otherwise it might be to convincingly fake an official message. A physical letter will need a signature and will presumably be printed on headed paper, and while an email doesn't need any of that, it must have some sort of digital signature for the purposes of verification.
 

firefinga

Well-known member
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?

Hopefully, we do. Dump twitter, go telegram again!
 

firefinga

Well-known member
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.
 

Leo

Well-known member
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.

that article in my thread-starting post is from more than a month ago, more detailed intelligence agency reports came out a week ago. still not concrete evidence, but more evidence anyway.
 

sadmanbarty

Well-known member
C-Span Online Broadcast Interrupted by Russian TV Feed

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/business/media/cspan-russia-today.html

They cheekily leave the most likely explanation till the 2nd to last paragraph, still funny though.

"C-Span’s newsroom monitors many other news channels for breaking news, including domestic networks like CBS and CNN, and various international networks. Its statement suggested that a routing error had caused the RT feed it regularly monitors to be broadcast accidentally."
 

Leo

Well-known member
Blaming Trump's election on a few smart Russians ignores the contribution of 60 million moronic Americans.
 

Leo

Well-known member
^^ that's not fair, actually, most of them aren't morons. many may truly believe but many are also misguided, uninformed, misled, preoccupied with the trivial distractions/spin, etc. the ny times has an interview with women explaining why they voted for trump and it's still puzzling (if not infuriating) to hear from their own mouths about the things they feel are important and other factors they completely overlook or dismiss.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Yeah, it's easy to take the high ground and dismiss people as idiots, but you have to consider the sheer density and omnipresence of bullshit information - I don't mean fake news as such, just extremely biased or otherwise lousy 'news' sources and professional opinion-havers - and the fact that none of us get to choose the family/community/area we're born into.
 

Leo

Well-known member
imagine if this were to happen:

1. russians hack DNC email and give them to assange.
2. assange helps trump campaign by releasing DNC emails.
3. trump wins election.
4. assange says he will agree to US extradition if chelsea manning is released
5. obama commutes chelsea manning's sentence.
6. trump sworn in as president.
7. assange extradited to the US.
8. trump administration refuses to press charges against assange.

some or all of this might be fiction, of course. but funny how things (could) work out.
 
Last edited:

droid

Well-known member
Thats precisely how it did happen (except perhaps for the Manning bit). Assange agreed to meet the Swedish prosecutor a couple of days after the election. He acted as an intermediary for Russian hack info so he could get out of jail via Trump.
 
Top