Cyber Showdown

[TheDeamon]

In the new world order all information must be filtered through bipartisan ideology before facts can be established and arguments made. 
Party, Corporation, Guns, God and Family

If a criminal act helps the party its ok when it does not drop a bomb on it.

From What I'm gathering in the discussion, "Foreign influences are bad, unless they help my side(tribe), in which case they're ok."

I guess this is the biggest part of why I'm personally shrugging at a lot of this. Ok, the Russian Government has a greater than non-zero chance of having deliberately hacked, and subsequently intentionally released damaging, but true, information to the public. If true, there are things that should happen, but it's mostly in regards to the hacking itself.

Meanwhile, we've had previous discussions where several of us on this forum have discussed voter fraud, and in particular mentioned how it was very likely that there was the possibility of foreign nationals, in the form of illegal immigrants, having voted in this election in not insignificant numbers.

So in the grand scheme of things as far as electoral manipulations and challenges to the integrity of the electoral process of the United Sates of America. The Russian hacking rates about a 3, while the possibility of undetected illegal immigrant voters rates about a 5 on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being super-critical. And yet we're fixating on the Russians under the guise of "concern about foreign influence on our elections."

That it's the Democrats doing so just makes the entire thing rather laughable to me, doubly so since they're talking out of both sides of their mouth. They don't want Russia to get involved in our elections "because they're foreigners." But they're perfectly happy to turn around and court La Raza and other (Illegal) Immigrant advocacy groups and get those foreign nationals to involve themselves in our electoral process. And in this respect, the Illegal Immigrant working under La Raza's banner doesn't even need to vote themselves, they just need to show up at rallies, or otherwise help canvas for voters, and so on.  They could donate time and/or money themselves, possibly through third parties if they wanted to be super careful.

I guess if the Russians had brown skin instead of white, everything would be ok with the world?

[NobleHunter]

A very likely possibility that no one has been able to find anyone who'd actually done it? We're talking about millions of people, it shouldn't be hard to find a couple to interview. It could have happened therefore it did happen is conspiracy theory logic. I haven't seen anything that bridges the final step between could have and did.

I'd say more about the emails but I haven't been paying enough attention >.<

[Kasandra]

From What I'm gathering in the discussion, "Foreign influences are bad, unless they help my side(tribe), in which case they're ok."

I guess this is the biggest part of why I'm personally shrugging at a lot of this. Ok, the Russian Government has a greater than non-zero chance of having deliberately hacked, and subsequently intentionally released damaging, but true, information to the public. If true, there are things that should happen, but it's mostly in regards to the hacking itself.

Meanwhile, we've had previous discussions where several of us on this forum have discussed voter fraud, and in particular mentioned how it was very likely that there was the possibility of foreign nationals, in the form of illegal immigrants, having voted in this election in not insignificant numbers.

No, no, no.  You shrug it off because it appears to favor people whose political position differs from yours?  Really?  It's ok that Russia hacked the political process but only released information damaging to the other side, so again, that's ok?  Really?  We've discussed voter fraud, but there is zero evidence that it occurred in "not insignificant numbers".  Because we've discussed it, it's ok to say it might have happened, and if it might have happened, it probably did because we discussed it?  Really?

[Fenring]

Donald,

Seriati and TheDeamon are trying to draw a distinction between actual crimes committed (hacking) and between 'journalistic' efforts made by foreign governments to offer information to sway American voters. As far as I know there is nothing illegal or even suspicious in the latter, while everyone seems to agree that the former should be pursued as a problem. So what exactly is it you're hung up about on this issue? You seem to be implying that 'foreign interference' should be 'stopped' somehow, and that it's such a problem that it should be classified as "an attack". So what, exactly, are you actually talking about? Banning the BBC in America? Having complete government control on "foreign" media sources? I'm really not sure what you're advocating for.

I can't tell why hearing of a foreign government trying to influence an election should be a surprise or be perceived as a threat. Some ways of influencing it would be a threat, but that's getting more specific. If a foreign government finances a political party then that is actually a national security threat, and a conflict of interest. If a foreign government places agents or insurgents in a foreign political process, that is a real threat. If a foreign government prints material in a newspaper - that is not a threat to America in any actionable sense. It may be troublesome, but that would be a completely different conversation.

[TheDeamon]

No, no, no.  You shrug it off because it appears to favor people whose political position differs from yours?  Really?  It's ok that Russia hacked the political process but only released information damaging to the other side, so again, that's ok?  Really?  We've discussed voter fraud, but there is zero evidence that it occurred in "not insignificant numbers".  Because we've discussed it, it's ok to say it might have happened, and if it might have happened, it probably did because we discussed it?  Really?

Fenring already addressed this well, not going to recover that. But I do LIKE how you conveniently dropped off the mention of illegal immigrants working "the ground game" for certain political campaigns, even though it seems to be pretty blatantly obvious that the DNC was running a full court press to get them to participate in that at the least. Even if they stopped short of illegally entering the ballot booth themselves. Which still goes back to the DNC deliberately obtaining material support from foreign nationals in the course of carrying out a political (electoral) campaign. So they're condemning the Russians on one hand for their foreign intervention, while actively courting "foreign intervention" on the part of our neighbors to the south in particular.

And as to proof or the lack thereof in regards to their voting illegally, we shall have to wait and see, I halfway suspect the Trump Admin may make at least a half-assed attempt at auditing the voter registration lists in New York and California in particular. So we will have a chance to see what gets turned up.

[Seriati]

It's ok that Russia hacked the political process...

Russia hacked what again?  Lol, didn't you guys say that no one was making this silly claim, or am I misremembering?

[D.W.]

It's ok that Russia hacked the political process...

Russia hacked what again?  Lol, didn't you guys say that no one was making this silly claim, or am I misremembering?

YES, you are misremembering. 
Hacking the political process does not equal hacking the vote.

[Gaoics79]

Donald, apart from improving security to prevent future hacks, what do you propose be done about this "attack"?

[Kasandra]

It's ok that Russia hacked the political process...

Russia hacked what again?  Lol, didn't you guys say that no one was making this silly claim, or am I misremembering?

YES, you are misremembering. 
Hacking the political process does not equal hacking the vote.

Selectively releasing emails and other information that revealed secrets of one party while avoiding doing the same thing to the other party isn't significant in your mind?   To be clear, the Russians and Wikileaks had as their agenda to undermine one party in favor of the other. It appears that they had a meaningful impact on the outcome. That you don't like the party that was hacked and manipulated means that it's not anything to worry about. Very objective of you.

[D.W.]

Selectively releasing emails and other information that revealed secrets of one party while avoiding doing the same thing to the other party isn't significant in your mind?

Are you asking me?  It is significant?  Yes...

I was correcting the statement / inference or whatever it was, that saying one thing does not can or does mean the other.  (edit:  think I phrased that wrong...)  For whatever reason I have a problem when we get this.

person1:  The hacking influenced the election.
person2:  nobody hacked the ballot machines to change the vote, you're talking nonsense.
person1:  That IS nonsense... and I never said that.

Now maybe Seriati was not suggesting anything of the sort and I'm boxing at shadows.  That you would ask me this question (if you were asking me as the person quoted) only goes to prove we can read something a whole lot different than what the author intended with their words.

I will say that it would have been LESS significant to Republican numbers, due to the way Trump campaigned.

[Seriati]

Selectively releasing emails and other information that revealed secrets of one party while avoiding doing the same thing to the other party isn't significant in your mind?   To be clear, the Russians and Wikileaks had as their agenda to undermine one party in favor of the other.

Is it clear?  Where's your actual evidence?   I'm struck by how in the Benghazi thread, we eventually had multiple emails (including from Secretary Clinton), memos and information released establishing that the Administration knew effectively real time that the video was not the cause, yet they still sold that lie for political convenience, and you, among others, still don't believe it.  Yet here there's nothing released that establishes Wikileaks got the information from a Russian hacker, and it's "clear" to you.

Do I suspect Russians hacked the DNC?  Yep, I also suspect that others did as well, both internal and external and I'd be absolutely shocked if there were not leakers from within the DNC on top of that. But you're making a specific claim of certainty, show me the basis for it, or just admit you're talking out of your rear.

It appears that they had a meaningful impact on the outcome.

Agreed, I'd be willing to say that but for the release of the truth about the people at the head of the DNC, Hillary and the whole disreputable lot of them would be in a very different position today.  I look at that as a good thing, which is exactly the position you would normally take on a whistle blower revealing such hypocrisy.

I actually think you may have missed the real truth about why the Republicans weren't "hacked" and reported on in the same way.  If I had to guess there's a lot less damaging stuff in their files.  Keep in mind, the DNC flat out asserts that the RNC is filled with racist, sexist homophobes, when a hack of their server doesn't turn up anything really supporting that meme how damaging can it really be?  If the RNC leadership is hypocritical on issues their base really cares about it might be more shocking, just as it was to the Democrats to find out the DNC is filled with hateful people when they like to believe they are the good guys.

[Fenring]

To be clear, the Russians and Wikileaks had as their agenda to undermine one party in favor of the other. It appears that they had a meaningful impact on the outcome. That you don't like the party that was hacked and manipulated means that it's not anything to worry about.

You're confusing the issue when you mention Wikileaks and Russia in the same breath. Wikileaks, for all intents and purposes, is a journalistic organization that publishes things that come into their hands. Unless you can directly impute criminal activity on their behalf then they are no different from a guy with a blog or a political group that supports one party or another. Since I haven't heard any statement from Wikileaks that they are completely non-partisan and will never favor one candidate over another, the claim that they tried to help Trump and/or hurt Hillary is not valid as a complaint any more than you can complain about any citizen trying to help one side or the other. Assange isn't an American citizen but I've never heard of anything preventing foreign citizens blogging about an American election. Glenn Greenwald, on the other hand, is American, and so there's really no case to be made here about it being 'foreign people' interfering. This kind of talk smacks of the kind of tribal fear that Democrats seem to hate about Trump's rhetoric. "It's those foreigners, ruining our country!" In a sense you should be applauding Wikileaks for actively trying to participate in the political process by uncovering misconduct. If it turns out they support one side over the other, where is the equivalent group trying to uncover misconduct by the GOP? I would find it strange if you believed there should be no watchdog group trying to keep either party honest. The issue, of course, is how they get their information. If it's an illegal hack then we could argue they are complicit in a crime. If it's an insider then they are operating how all journalists do. D.W. didn't seem to think it made all that much of a difference whether it was a hack or an insider in terms of Russia's involvement, but I think in terms of how Wikileaks should be evaluated it matters a lot.

[D.W.]

I look at that as a good thing, which is exactly the position you would normally take on a whistle blower revealing such hypocrisy.

If I didn't honestly believe that Trump will be a disaster I'd be with you on this.  That's my concession to being a hypocrite.  Any other Republican I like to believe I'd agree wholeheartedly. 

While I think the Democratic party will benefit from the whistle-blowing, I'm unsure if on balance Trump's win is a fair price for that benefit.   

D.W. didn't seem to think it made all that much of a difference

Clarification.  I separate the hacking and the Russian involvement.  HOW they got the info does nothing to diminish the seriousness of them attempting to influence our election to their benefit.  (It does matter in how/if we can can do anything about it.)
Then there is the hacking.  I ALSO feel cyber-security is important and whoever did it, needs to be dealt with in some way as a deterrent and we need to institute better security to prevent it.

Maybe that came across the first time... maybe it didn't.

[TheDeamon]

D.W. didn't seem to think it made all that much of a difference

Clarification.  I separate the hacking and the Russian involvement.  HOW they got the info does nothing to diminish the seriousness of them attempting to influence our election to their benefit.  (It does matter in how/if we can can do anything about it.)
Then there is the hacking.  I ALSO feel cyber-security is important and whoever did it, needs to be dealt with in some way as a deterrent and we need to institute better security to prevent it.

I tend to place attempts of outside governments and/or foreign nationals on a sliding scale. BBC News is generally only going to rate anywhere from a 1 to a 2, very rarely are they likely to skew much higher.

What the Russians released, if they even were the ones who released much of it, without regard to how they obtained it, probably still only really rates a 3, on a scale of 10. It registers, but that it was left largely in context, that it was true, and didn't require further embellishment on its own spoke to itself.

Now if they had sent operatives in to talk with Hillary "behind closed doors" and entrapped her to say some rather politically embarrassing things on camera/tape, we'd be talking another ballgame entirely. THAT would likely peg a 7 or higher. (Think Howard Stern's "Piece of ass" comment about Trump's daughter, only have Stern be a Russian operative instead of an American shock jock)

But as it was, it involved information involving events that "happened naturally" on their own without someone trying to engineer/"force" their way into having people embarrass themselves. The only potentially dubious thing about all of this is how the information was obtained and what route it took to becoming public.

[Kasandra]

You're confusing the issue when you mention Wikileaks and Russia in the same breath. Wikileaks, for all intents and purposes, is a journalistic organization that publishes things that come into their hands.

Sometimes you are so patently obvious.  I'm not going to bother correcting you, and I won't try to correct Seriati, either.  Sometimes I wonder how you both can be so suspicious of some things and so unconvinced about others in partisan ways and never seem to realize it.

I actually think you may have missed the real truth about why the Republicans weren't "hacked" and reported on in the same way.  If I had to guess there's a lot less damaging stuff in their files.

See what I mean?

[Seriati]

Lol, Kas, I almost changed that because I knew you'd pull it out of context as a confirmation of your worst fears.  Suffice to say, it's my guess that the DNC emails are far juicer on an absolute basis than the Republicans, or if you prefer that the juicy portions in them come as more of a shock to their likely voters.  You can't have it both ways, and simultaneously believe all Republican voters voted for hate or because they are deplorable and still believe that any "shocking" emails would have changed their minds.  Not saying that the releasers were neutral, but's entirely likely that if they were and their goal was simply disruption they'd still have done it this way because of such a factor.

In any event, you won't bother to "correct" us because you're not capable of actually laying out facts that prove your case.

[Fenring]

You're confusing the issue when you mention Wikileaks and Russia in the same breath. Wikileaks, for all intents and purposes, is a journalistic organization that publishes things that come into their hands.

Sometimes you are so patently obvious.  I'm not going to bother correcting you, and I won't try to correct Seriati, either.  Sometimes I wonder how you both can be so suspicious of some things and so unconvinced about others in partisan ways and never seem to realize it.

You are saying that Wikileaks and Russia were in it together to stick it to democracy, and when I point out that Wikileaks is a private organization rather than a clandestine conspiracy you say that I'm suspicious? This would be the textbook case of projection. But aside from the word "suspicious" I'm not really clear on what you're saying here.

However I will point out how amused I am that you've labeled me "partisan" for around the umpteenth time. The more you try to pigeonhole others who disagree with you into political camps the more you reveal just how entrenched in one of them you are, as you have difficulty thinking outside of those terms. It is beyond laughable to suggest I have any kind words to say about the GOP.

[Kasandra]

Suffice to say, it's my guess that the DNC emails are far juicer on an absolute basis than the Republicans, or if you prefer that the juicy portions in them come as more of a shock to their likely voters.

How did you figure that out?  Wait, I think I know...

You are saying that Wikileaks and Russia were in it together to stick it to democracy, and when I point out that Wikileaks is a private organization rather than a clandestine conspiracy you say that I'm suspicious?

Gee, I got it from the media.  Where did you get your information that it didn't happen?

However I will point out how amused I am that you've labeled me "partisan" for around the umpteenth time.

Can you guess why?  I'll give you a hint.  You continually present feelings and opinions as if they are guiding arguments.  This is a good example.  What makes you think that Wikileaks didn't get information from the places that hacked it?  There is a virtual certainty in the intelligence community that Russia was directly involved in the hacking, had a partisan objective against Clinton that is shared by Assange. 

Why is that suspicion amusing?

[TheDeamon]

You are saying that Wikileaks and Russia were in it together to stick it to democracy, and when I point out that Wikileaks is a private organization rather than a clandestine conspiracy you say that I'm suspicious?

Gee, I got it from the media.  Where did you get your information that it didn't happen?

You "got it from the media" who in turn "got it" "from administration sources highly placed within the the intelligence community." Which makes their credibility on the topic near nada.

Further compounding things is we have the Press in Great Britain reporting that the WikiLeaks people involved say they didn't get their information from Russians, but rather obtained the data by physically traveling to Washington D.C. and meeting up, in person, with one of their sources. They even named the guy who made the trip for wiki leaks, he was a former member of the British Diplomatic corps.

So now, either the U.S. Intelligence community is being selective in what they're analysing. The Russians are perpetrating one hell of a operation (convincing WikiLeaks they were dealing with members of the DNC), or the WikiLeaks people and the press corps in the UK are in on this grand Russian conspiracy. Hrm. Which do I think happened?

I think I'll go with: The DNC Mail Servers leaked like a sieve, they were both hacked, and leaked from.

Which goes back to initial points many have already raised multiple times:

Nobody disputes the Russians hacked the DNC servers. Nobody disputes the Russians had motive, or means for releasing that information "into the the wild." So while yes, that builds a compelling circumstantial case as you have the trifecta of "Motive, Means, and opportunity"  with regards to Russia being "the responsible party."

However what IS under dispute is that Russia probably was not the only group with "Motive, Means, and opportunity" with regards to releasing that information into the wild. As recent events have shown, Russia also had reason to not want to disclose the information they obtained due to the foreign relations nightmares it can create, which means other options may be more viable.

Among that number is people working in the DNC who were disaffected with what was going on within their own party, and opting to become whistle blowers. (Which Wiki claims to be the case here)

As well as the potential case of hackers working for other nations or other non-governmental entities, such as organized crime. I understand Podesta was had by a phishing attempt that was successful. Now while that could have been a targeted attack by a foreign intelligence service given who he is, it is just as likely he happened across a member of organized crime, such as the Russian Mafia, and thus we wind up with "Russian ties" to leaked data regarding the Democratic party. No Vladimir Putin, or Russian government involvement required.

[TheDeamon]

However I will point out how amused I am that you've labeled me "partisan" for around the umpteenth time.

Can you guess why?  I'll give you a hint.  You continually present feelings and opinions as if they are guiding arguments.  This is a good example.  What makes you think that Wikileaks didn't get information from the places that hacked it?  There is a virtual certainty in the intelligence community that Russia was directly involved in the hacking, had a partisan objective against Clinton that is shared by Assange. 

Why is that suspicion amusing?

To put this another way, to build on my previous comment:

The case against Russia that has been presented so far is highly circumstantial at best, and mostly revolved around the fact that "The Russians had the information" and little to nothing about what they may or may not have done with it after that step. Other than "magic happens" and "They decide to release it because Putin has a grudge against Hillary."

In the mean time, many, if not most Hillary supporters are doing the equivalent of walking upon a murder scene where they see someone standing over the victim holding a bloody knife and declaring the knife wielder must be the killer.

Which while that is a reasonable enough conclusion to draw on its face, there often can be more to the story than just that point of evidence.

[DonaldD]

You're confusing the issue when you mention Wikileaks and Russia in the same breath. Wikileaks, for all intents and purposes, is a journalistic organization that publishes things that come into their hands.

Of course,this get out of jail free card does really hold water.  A purely journalistic organization would have released all its information once it had vetted it; it would not have held the information until late in election, then released it piecemeal in order to maximize whatever effects it might have; it wouldn't time releases in an attempt to overshadow other events in the election.

Of course, maybe the timing was all purely coincidental, and maybe Assange's only got access to the information at exactly the same time as he released it.

Except for the uncomfortable fact that he kept telling us that there was more, to be released later in the election cycle.

[Kasandra]

You "got it from the media" who in turn "got it" "from administration sources highly placed within the the intelligence community." Which makes their credibility on the topic near nada.

Perhaps I should find better sources.  How about Facebook or WND?  They're not tainted.

The case against Russia that has been presented so far is highly circumstantial at best, and mostly revolved around the fact that "The Russians had the information" and little to nothing about what they may or may not have done with it after that step. Other than "magic happens" and "They decide to release it because Putin has a grudge against Hillary."

Makes sense. It can't be proven unless Russia makes an official announcement.  They would do that if the CIA found them out; it's only fair. That's how "Intelligence" works.

Nothing at all leaked about Trump.  Nothing...at...all.  The explanations here are 1) that there was nothing to leak because the RNC and Trump were clean as a whistle, 2) No matter how bad the RNC/Trump information was, we kind of knew it already, and 3) Look!  Squirrel!!!!!

[Gaoics79]

Of course,this get out of jail free card does really hold water.  A purely journalistic organization would have released all its information once it had vetted it; it would not have held the information until late in election, then released it piecemeal in order to maximize whatever effects it might have; it wouldn't time releases in an attempt to overshadow other events in the election.

I am not saying you're wrong Donald, but I have to ask: what makes you so sure that a "journalistic" organization would not do this? And if one did release a story strategically to influence an election, what could (or should) possibly be done about it?

[Fenring]

Of course, maybe the timing was all purely coincidental, and maybe Assange's only got access to the information at exactly the same time as he released it.

Except for the uncomfortable fact that he kept telling us that there was more, to be released later in the election cycle.

One thing I'll say about Assange, having observed his comments for some time, is that I think he blows a lot of hot air much of the time, often promising things he doesn't actually have but hopes he'll have. He claimed, for instance, he had material on Hillary that would send her to jail for certain, and this was after the email scandal was already afoot. He never followed through on that one, and I think it was wishful thinking on his part. A decent portion of his public statements seem to me to be hype, while others appear to be accurate statements of what he knows.

[Seriati]

Of course,this get out of jail free card does really hold water.  A purely journalistic organization would have released all its information once it had vetted it; it would not have held the information until late in election, then released it piecemeal in order to maximize whatever effects it might have; it wouldn't time releases in an attempt to overshadow other events in the election.

I am not saying you're wrong Donald, but I have to ask: what makes you so sure that a "journalistic" organization would not do this? And if one did release a story strategically to influence an election, what could (or should) possibly be done about it?

Or better yet, the New York Times among others, held stories that were anti-Trump in a very similar manner, and we have actual proof that Hillary's staffers coordinated with friendly journalists in both timing releases and what they said. 

[Seriati]

Suffice to say, it's my guess that the DNC emails are far juicer on an absolute basis than the Republicans, or if you prefer that the juicy portions in them come as more of a shock to their likely voters.

How did you figure that out?  Wait, I think I know...

Why speculate, I specifically said why I think that could be the case.  Too confusing for you?

You are saying that Wikileaks and Russia were in it together to stick it to democracy, and when I point out that Wikileaks is a private organization rather than a clandestine conspiracy you say that I'm suspicious?

Gee, I got it from the media.  Where did you get your information that it didn't happen?

I see, so you exercised your critical reasoning and took a media report at face value, even though they don't lay out any facts that support their conclusions?  Have I not heard you complain about fake news more than once?  How exactly can you personally tell the difference if you refuse to engage in basic logic and fact checks of your sources?

However I will point out how amused I am that you've labeled me "partisan" for around the umpteenth time.

Can you guess why?  I'll give you a hint.  You continually present feelings and opinions as if they are guiding arguments.  This is a good example.

Talk about a pot calling a kettle black.  When do you ever present anything but your feelings and opinions and what ever google link is on the first page of a search, whether or not its also an opinion piece?

What makes you think that Wikileaks didn't get information from the places that hacked it?

Nothing, they either got it from hacks or leaks.  Now what evidence do you have that they got it from the Russian government?

There is a virtual certainty in the intelligence community that Russia was directly involved in the hacking, had a partisan objective against Clinton that is shared by Assange.

There is direct evidence that the Russians, the Chinese and multiple of our own allies, among others are directly involved in hacking.  Why do you think only the Russians hacked the DNC?  Or only the Russians had a motive (virtually the whole world has a motive to hack our government and politicians, and a significant chunk have partisan motivations which could lead to partisan objectives)? 

Why is that suspicion amusing?

There's nothing amusing about a suspicion.  Honestly, I can share the suspicion.

What's scary is that you jump from suspicion to "clear proven fact" without any actual evidence, and that others have called for vague "solutions" to prevent this in the future, none of which would possibly be consistent with the freedoms we enjoy in this country.

[Seriati]

I feel like I'm arguing with the Underpants Gnomes here.  Phase 1, collect underpants, Phase 3, Profit!

[D.W.]

That pretty much sums up both sides.  Why I tried to sidestep with the initial post/question. 

[TheDeamon]

You "got it from the media" who in turn "got it" "from administration sources highly placed within the the intelligence community." Which makes their credibility on the topic near nada.

Perhaps I should find better sources.  How about Facebook or WND?  They're not tainted.

Still highly placed US Intelligence sources, and almost every report I've seen uses "...that the Russians hacked the DNC servers" as proof that they were the source. Everybody reporting on it is presenting circumstantial cases for what they're claiming.

The case against Russia that has been presented so far is highly circumstantial at best, and mostly revolved around the fact that "The Russians had the information" and little to nothing about what they may or may not have done with it after that step. Other than "magic happens" and "They decide to release it because Putin has a grudge against Hillary."

Makes sense. It can't be proven unless Russia makes an official announcement.  They would do that if the CIA found them out; it's only fair. That's how "Intelligence" works.

Likewise, they've been hacking into Presidential campaign servers for almost as long as Presidential campaigns have been using them. So what was so different about this election cycle over previous ones in regards to Russia suddenly changing a long-standing policy in regards to not releasing information they gathered?

Keep in mind, this is a long standing policy going back at least a decade. That also happens to coincide with Putin being in power as well, so "new leadership in Russia" doesn't explain things either. So why would the same leadership who implemented the policy of keeping silent suddenly decide to start releasing it?

Nothing at all leaked about Trump.  Nothing...at...all.  The explanations here are 1) that there was nothing to leak because the RNC and Trump were clean as a whistle, 2) No matter how bad the RNC/Trump information was, we kind of knew it already, and 3) Look!  Squirrel!!!!!

1) In case you missed the presidential primaries, "The Establishment" was a bit preoccupied with a "Never Trump" campaign that lasted almost right up until the National Convention. So it's unlikely you'd find any GOP e-mails regarding the primaries that would embarrass Trump.
2) As Trump was running as anti-establishment, embarrassing the GOP by releasing information from the Primary Campaign would be more likely to help Trump than hurt him.
3) See previous comments in this thread, or even this past spring. The GOP "Base" already views much of the GOP leadership in Washington as scum, so leaking proof that they are doesn't really accomplish much?
4) The Trump campaign ran a pretty tight ship, has NDA's and other contractual protections up the wazzu going on. In addition to the candidate himself being unafraid of litigation. Between the GOP being a late participant in helping his campaign, and that consideration, it's unlikely that the Trump campaign had any "disillusioned staffers" in its number, and the GOP itself was irrelevant this year.
5) If there is "anything good" regarding Trump in his e-mail servers, it's probably more late/post-election material than primary stuff. Which means nothing from Trump of much substance until very recently.
6) Trying to leak/release stuff to damage or otherwise harm the Trump campaign seems to be a dubious proposition in the first place, did you bother to follow his election campaign? Short of finding evidence that Trump was involved in overtly criminal activity, I doubt you could do lasting harm to his campaign based on everything else that did get released on him.

7) Assange may make of Journalistic intentions, but his grudge against Hillary specifically is well known. He doesn't need Russian "handlers" in order to be set off after Hillary or to otherwise try to seriously damage her in any political capacity. He also has no history with Trump, so no grudge.
8) Likewise, for Assange, he's pretty sure he'd remain trapped in that Embassy in London if Hillary became president, while a Trump Presidency might give him a chance to leave. So long as he doesn't do anything to piss off Donald Trump. So Assange has "means, motive, and opportunity" for being rather partisan this election cycle, his personal interests lay in defeating Hillary.

[Kasandra]

I see, so you exercised your critical reasoning and took a media report at face value, even though they don't lay out any facts that support their conclusions?  Have I not heard you complain about fake news more than once?  How exactly can you personally tell the difference if you refuse to engage in basic logic and fact checks of your sources?

Did I?  I think you leaped to that determination because you don't agree with it.  Therefore, your conclusion is more valid than mine. Or do you have something more substantial than your excellent insight?

What's scary is that you jump from suspicion to "clear proven fact" without any actual evidence, and that others have called for vague "solutions" to prevent this in the future, none of which would possibly be consistent with the freedoms we enjoy in this country.

What better source can you suggest than a consensus across virtually all US Intelligence agencies?  I mean besides yourself, of course.

As for "the freedoms we enjoy in this country," that's the same rhetoric that is used to defend people who discriminate or deny other people their rights.  For instance, why should you be able to vote if you can't jump over a fence this high?  As Rand Paul said, if a restaurant won't serve you because you're black, well duh, just don't go there.

[Seriati]

I see, so you exercised your critical reasoning and took a media report at face value, even though they don't lay out any facts that support their conclusions?  Have I not heard you complain about fake news more than once?  How exactly can you personally tell the difference if you refuse to engage in basic logic and fact checks of your sources?

Did I?  I think you leaped to that determination because you don't agree with it.  Therefore, your conclusion is more valid than mine. Or do you have something more substantial than your excellent insight?

I'm just repeating back to you what you claimed as a source.

What better source can you suggest than a consensus across virtually all US Intelligence agencies?

This is why I accuse you of not engaging in critical reasoning and applying logic.  What does a "consensus" have to do with a question of fact?  Facts are objective.  A consensus is a relevant concept to conclusions or opinions.  I get that they have "concluded" this is true, but they have not provided any of the evidence or facts that support that conclusion in an objective manner or upon which they based the conclusion (and given the potential that they are heavily influenced themselves by their own biases and/or partisan motivations, it's not the kind of thing we should be willing to take on faith).

As for "the freedoms we enjoy in this country," that's the same rhetoric that is used to defend people who discriminate or deny other people their rights.  For instance, why should you be able to vote if you can't jump over a fence this high?  As Rand Paul said, if a restaurant won't serve you because you're black, well duh, just don't go there.

Multiple people on this thread have specifically laid out that to "fix" this problem you'd have to suppress free speech, and not one of you has responded with any kind of alternative solution that would not violate our rights and actually solve the "problem" you have identified.  If you can't distinguish "rhetoric" from what was actually said, that's on you not everyone else.

[TheDeamon]

What better source can you suggest than a consensus across virtually all US Intelligence agencies?  I mean besides yourself, of course.

The problem here goes back to the happening upon a murder scene and finding someone holding the bloody knife. The reality is the "US Intelligence consensus" is that Russia has been found in possession of said bloody knife.

Which is not the same thing as having been found using the bloody knife.

[Fenring]

What better source can you suggest than a consensus across virtually all US Intelligence agencies?  I mean besides yourself, of course.

The problem here goes back to the happening upon a murder scene and finding someone holding the bloody knife. The reality is the "US Intelligence consensus" is that Russia has been found in possession of said bloody knife.

Which is not the same thing as having been found using the bloody knife.

Also, the intelligence agencies blatantly said that their evidence seems to point to Russian hackers, which they then in turn said had to be tied to Putin precisely because the hack was a big enough job that it had to be certain big hacking groups, and that they wouldn't be operating outside of Putin's purview. However the subsequent admitted point that the Podesta leak was, in fact, a phishing scheme, pokes a hole in the theory that it was a high-grade operation. It really could have been any Joe Blow hacker, and I imagine there are plenty of them in Russia. It's one thing to claim it was 'Russians', it's another to definitively tie that back to Putin personally. Even assuming complete confidence that Russians of some ilk were behind the hacks (despite Wikileaks insisting at least some of it was insider leaks) I have still seen nothing more than speculation that this therefore means the Russian government was behind it. This isn't to say they weren't, but the "consensus" doesn't mean what people want to believe it does.

[Seriati]

What better source can you suggest than a consensus across virtually all US Intelligence agencies?  I mean besides yourself, of course.

The problem here goes back to the happening upon a murder scene and finding someone holding the bloody knife. The reality is the "US Intelligence consensus" is that Russia has been found in possession of said bloody knife.

Which is not the same thing as having been found using the bloody knife.

It's more like someone found a body with blood around it but hasn't reported on how they were killed, and says that they know Russia has a bloody knife (without context of whose bloods on it) and therefore is absolutely certain that Russia is the murderer.

[TheDeamon]

Also, the intelligence agencies blatantly said that their evidence seems to point to Russian hackers, which they then in turn said had to be tied to Putin precisely because the hack was a big enough job that it had to be certain big hacking groups, and that they wouldn't be operating outside of Putin's purview. However the subsequent admitted point that the Podesta leak was, in fact, a phishing scheme, pokes a hole in the theory that it was a high-grade operation. It really could have been any Joe Blow hacker, and I imagine there are plenty of them in Russia. It's one thing to claim it was 'Russians', it's another to definitively tie that back to Putin personally. Even assuming complete confidence that Russians of some ilk were behind the hacks (despite Wikileaks insisting at least some of it was insider leaks) I have still seen nothing more than speculation that this therefore means the Russian government was behind it.

Exactly, the Podesta leak/hacking through social engineering/"phishing" could literally be anyone and him just having the bad (dumb) luck of falling into a trap set by a Russian hacker operating separately from the Russian Intelligence services. As such, linking the Podesta stuff back to the Kremlin is going to be one heck of an undertaking.

The DNC Email server on the other hand, likely was a Russian Intelligence operation(as they've been doing that for several election cycles already), but they probably weren't the only ones to attempt a break in, possibly not the only ones who succeeded.

But it still circles back to: Just because the Russians compromised the DNC's data doesn't therefore mean they were the ones who released it. Particularly if DNC staffers had motives/reasons of their own for releasing said information. (Sour grapes over how Bernie was treated, particularly when they feel they have a "smoking gun" in their possession. Their mistake was handing the data to Wikileaks, which was more interested in defeating Hillary in general, rather than helping Bernie. Considering we had high level members of the DNC resign in protest over how Bernie was treated, it shouldn't be that much of a stretch to imagine someone might have "pulled a Snowden" on the DNC on their way out, assuming they actually left.)

This isn't to say they weren't, but the "consensus" doesn't mean what people want to believe it does.

Crime scene investigation 101. Things may be what they appear to be, or things might be completely different. You're going to need to gather more data points to make sure. So far everything that's been publicly released doesn't make a very compelling case. If this was a murder in the 1st degree case, Russia would walk away, the evidence is all circumstantial. It does not, and can not, rule out other actors being involved. We don't even need to concoct elaborate stories to explain what happened.

In total, it is pretty damning how much circumstantial information does point back to the Russians. But that's also how a lot of police procedural shows start off on many of their investigations(and how more than a few real world cases have played out). The prime suspect didn't do it, it was somebody else.

Statistically speaking, you probably have a more than decent chance of it being the Russian government, but that is a far cry from being anywhere close to eliminating any reasonable doubts as it stands currently. I might even go so far as saying there probably is about a 60% certainty in my own book that the Russian government did do, or would have done(if someone else didn't beat them to it), exactly what they're accused of. However, that doesn't mean I'm going to ignore that there still is a 40% chance that other parties were involved.

[Kasandra]

The problem here goes back to the happening upon a murder scene and finding someone holding the bloody knife. The reality is the "US Intelligence consensus" is that Russia has been found in possession of said bloody knife.

Which is not the same thing as having been found using the bloody knife.

Ah, the Bart Simpson defense: I didn't do it, you didn't see me do it, you can't prove I did it.  Or as Russia would say, "What knife?  That's a spoon.  I was eating borscht."

[TheDeamon]

The problem here goes back to the happening upon a murder scene and finding someone holding the bloody knife. The reality is the "US Intelligence consensus" is that Russia has been found in possession of said bloody knife.

Which is not the same thing as having been found using the bloody knife.

Ah, the Bart Simpson defense: I didn't do it, you didn't see me do it, you can't prove I did it.  Or as Russia would say, "What knife?  That's a spoon.  I was eating borscht."

Except we have some faceless DNC staffers also wandering around with potentially bloody knives, and they like wise had "Means, motive, and opportunity."

[Gaoics79]

The problem here goes back to the happening upon a murder scene and finding someone holding the bloody knife. The reality is the "US Intelligence consensus" is that Russia has been found in possession of said bloody knife.

Which is not the same thing as having been found using the bloody knife.

Ah, the Bart Simpson defense: I didn't do it, you didn't see me do it, you can't prove I did it.  Or as Russia would say, "What knife?  That's a spoon.  I was eating borscht."

I don't recall a response to my original question: assuming the Russians did precisely what is alleged, other than beefing up network security at the DNC, what do you propose be done about it? Go to war with Russia? Cancel the results of the election and declare Clinton the winner?

[Pete at Home]

Russophobia is the new birtherism

[TheDeamon]

Ah, the Bart Simpson defense: I didn't do it, you didn't see me do it, you can't prove I did it.  Or as Russia would say, "What knife?  That's a spoon.  I was eating borscht."

I don't recall a response to my original question: assuming the Russians did precisely what is alleged, other than beefing up network security at the DNC, what do you propose be done about it? Go to war with Russia? Cancel the results of the election and declare Clinton the winner?

That's the other thing. Ok, so it turns out the Russians did do it. What then?

[Kasandra]

I don't recall a response to my original question: assuming the Russians did precisely what is alleged, other than beefing up network security at the DNC, what do you propose be done about it? Go to war with Russia? Cancel the results of the election and declare Clinton the winner?

A good start would be to have Congress and Trump acknowledge that it happened.  Revealing exactly what was done might generate some public support for tighter election controls.  As Obama said (but hasn't yet done), the US will respond appropriately in a manner and time of its choosing.  I have no idea what that will be, but I hope it's spectacularly public or devastatingly covert, or both.

[Gaoics79]

Kasandra, I'll address item #2 first. What "tighter election controls" would you propose be instituted to prevent Russian hackers from compromising DNC servers and dumping the bounty on the internet during an election campaign via Wikileaks? Please be specific.

As for #1, what in your view, does Trump "acknowledging" the hack accomplish? Is he supposed to admit that the Russians stole the election and step down so that Clinton can take his place? I am fuzzy on this point. And supposing he does acknowledge it, what then? What is to actually be done about it? Please again be specific in your response.

[Kasandra]

Kasandra, I'll address item #2 first. What "tighter election controls" would you propose be instituted to prevent Russian hackers from compromising DNC servers and dumping the bounty on the internet during an election campaign via Wikileaks? Please be specific.

As is said about object oriented programming, you can promote safety but not prevent fraud.  Party infrastructure for at least the two main parties should be treated as national assets and protected accordingly.  Both parties have incredibly sophisticated IT teams, so they can manage it. I'm not an IT guy, so someone else here who is should answer the call to "Please be specific".

As for #1, what in your view, does Trump "acknowledging" the hack accomplish? Is he supposed to admit that the Russians stole the election and step down so that Clinton can take his place? I am fuzzy on this point. And supposing he does acknowledge it, what then? What is to actually be done about it? Please again be specific in your response.

I find this a strange question.  It would be, you know, presidential.  OTOH, why should Trump have to admit anything that goes against his personal interests?  Well, he's already doing things that way.  The truth has no relevance except as it serves him.  At least he was willing to acknowledge that millions of people voted illegally for Clinton.

But, if I were in Trump's shoes and King I would gather the heads of the Intelligence agencies together on the first day of my reign and command them to make protecting the country's valuable cyber-assets their highest priority just after ridding their departments of people who won't sign loyalty oaths and non-disclosure agreements.  If they won't do anything about it, maybe Putin will.  Right, he's already doing it.

[Fenring]

As is said about object oriented programming, you can promote safety but not prevent fraud.  Party infrastructure for at least the two main parties should be treated as national assets and protected accordingly.

The funny thing about this is that while it sounds on the face of it like a reasonable suggestion, I would argue that they not only are not national assets but rather are national liabilities. They are of negative value in America's ledger. Elevating them to the status of national anything would fly in the face of the claims they, themselves, make repeatedly, which is that they're private organizations that can make up their own rules. If there was anything national about them the manner in which the DNC primary was conducted would be something akin to a coup.

I know you said "treated AS national assets", meaning they would only receive the protection but not actually be considered national assets, but I don't think it should work like that. Why should one self-important group receive government security assistance? Why not other groups? It sounds like more gravy-train politics where politically preferred groups become fixtures of the government, which is just another way of taking the democratic process out of the hands of the people. As it stands I think the parties need to be taken down a peg, not helped in being increasingly secured.

[Gaoics79]

I have to say Kasandra, I find the notion of making DNC email servers "national assets" intriguing. Would that, pray tell, open the door to FOI access as per any public record?

As for your proposed plan of action, I have two points in response: 1) Better IT security is not an "election control" and 2) It's a moot point because I can pretty well guarantee it is already being done by both the RNC and the DNC unless they're complete imbeciles. I see no reason why this would even require government assistance, as both the RNC and DNC have the resources to pay for good network security.

Which brings us back to the original point: your call for Trump to "acknowledge" the hack has no practical implication, and seems more motivated by a desire to undermine the results of the election, rather than any practical concern for the integrity of the election process on an ongoing basis.

[Kasandra]

The funny thing about this is that while it sounds on the face of it like a reasonable suggestion, I would argue that they not only are not national assets but rather are national liabilities. They are of negative value in America's ledger.

Ok, pitch me the US political system without the two major parties.  As Jason asks, be specific what would replace it and how it would be more effective than what we have now.

I have to say Kasandra, I find the notion of making DNC email servers "national assets" intriguing. Would that, pray tell, open the door to FOI access as per any public record?

Prayer will be helpful, if not essential, in the coming regnum.  Why do you think they would be open to FOIA requests?  If they were to become protected by the US government I would expect information about how they protect them to be accessible in some manner.

As for your proposed plan of action, I have two points in response: 1) Better IT security is not an "election control" and 2) It's a moot point because I can pretty well guarantee it is already being done by both the RNC and the DNC unless they're complete imbeciles. I see no reason why this would even require government assistance, as both the RNC and DNC have the resources to pay for good network security.

1) IT is the operational center of control for electronic information.  Would you rather have nurses do it?  How about political appointees? Why not go all the way and use a magic 8-ball?  2) In that case it must not have happened, because they're probably not imbeciles.  Unless you're saying that only the DNC IT staff are imbeciles and the RNC's are all world class experts since none of the RNC data has been exposed by Wikileaks or Russia.  I think you're naive to think that the government is feckless in the area of cyber security, but if you're right we can probably cut a lot of money and staff devoted to national security and save the country $$$BB a year.  Add 17 more agencies to Rick Perrry's list of forgettable agency names.

Which brings us back to the original point: your call for Trump to "acknowledge" the hack has no practical implication, and seems more motivated by a desire to undermine the results of the election, rather than any practical concern for the integrity of the election process on an ongoing basis.

Actually, despite my utter disdain and fears regarding Trump, I think he should do it as a sign of integrity and strength.  You seem to be slipping into the New Thinking that everything is partisan and nothing has real national interest.  If you're following the news, positive attitudes toward Russia among Republicans have risen dramatically since Trump started saying that he admires Putin.  We can be sure that Putin will take that into account as he plans Russian international policy over the next four years.

[Pete at Home]

Ok, pitch me the US political system without the two major parties.  As Jason asks, be specific what would replace it and how it would be more effective than what we have now.

Up/down voting on each candidates with no allowance of withdrawal once filed
Highest ranking candidate with over 50% yes votes wins. If no one beats 50%, then disqualify all candidates and vote on a new slate.

.  (Adapted from the longest lasting Republic in history, Ragusan (650 AD through 1808).

[Kasandra]

Highest ranking candidate with over 50% yes votes wins. If no one beats 50%, then disqualify all candidates and vote on a new slate.

Sounds hugely expensive to hold multiple votes, likely with declining voter participation in each successive one.

This Ragusa[n]?

The Republican Constitution of Ragusa was strictly aristocratic. The population was divided into three classes: nobility, citizens, and plebeians who were mainly artisans and peasants (serfs, coloni and freemen). All effective power was concentrated in the hands of aristocracy. The citizens were permitted to hold only minor offices, while plebeians had no voice in government. Marriage between members of different classes of the society was forbidden.

[TheDeamon]

Highest ranking candidate with over 50% yes votes wins. If no one beats 50%, then disqualify all candidates and vote on a new slate.

Sounds hugely expensive to hold multiple votes, likely with declining voter participation in each successive one.

Instant runoff takes care of that concern.

[Kasandra]

Instant runoff takes care of that concern.

How is that going to work?  Revote every day or just every Tuesday until somebody wins?  Who prepares the new ballot and reprograms the voting machines?  How much paid time off from work should people be granted to go vote?  Should there be a floor on voting participation else the vote doesn't count?  Could I think of at least 3 or 4 more objections?