Russia's Apparent Attempt To Hijack the U.S. Presidential Election Is the Biggest Story of the Year

[workinclasszero]

If you're not furious about this, you're either not paying attention or you're completely missing the point.
CHEZ PAZIENZA 8 HOURS AGO

Let's just skip right to the point here: There aren't enough hyperbolic adjectives to truly and properly express just how big a deal it is that Russia is almost certainly behind the hack of the Democratic National Committee and that the goal of that hack was likely to throw the presidential election for Donald Trump.

http://thedailybanter.com/2016/07/putin-hijacking-the-presidential-election-is-huge/

[merrily]

1. FWIW, snopes doesn't seem to think Russia's involvement has been substantiated.

Last edited Wed Jul 27, 2016, 02:47 AM - Edit history (2)

http://www.snopes.com/2016/07/25/what-we-know-so-far-about-wikileaks-dncleaks/

ETA: If you are tempted to reply to this post, which originally consisted of one mild, qualified, totally accurate and objective sentence and a link please see Reply 54 first thanks. I hope that will eliminate your desire to reply to me and save us both some time. Have a great day, evening or whatever it is when you read this.

[workinclasszero]

2. Apparently the FBI thinks there is something to it

FBI Suspects Russia Hacked DNC; U.S. Officials Say It Was to Elect Donald Trump

Did the Russian government hack the DNC to bring down Hillary Clinton? That’s the view that’s quickly emerging inside American intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512301898

[treestar]

47. Yes! And it ought to be investigated.

With as fine a tooth comb as has been done with the Clintons.

[merrily]

54. Two things: (1) "something to it" and "suspects" is not the same as "Russia did this."

(2) "FWIW" is short "For whatever it's worth," not for "Moses came down from the mountain with tablets written by the finger of God saying it has not been proven that Russia did this."

Someone accused me of being desperate to disassociate Russia from this, which is total message board nonsense. Suddenly, a one sentence post saying, in essence, "This may not have been conclusively established yet" is not a respect for accuracy, but proof of some complex agenda on my part that never entered my mind. However, I guess that was projection on the part of others because a mild, objective one sentence, qualified post got swarmed by people who want to believe Russia is terrfied of a Clinton presidency.

For the record, I care a lot that the DNC and media shafted my candidate while pretending to be neutral, honest brokers. I could care less who hacked the DNC and exposed its corruption and bad faith. I care a lot my government is lavishing my tax dollars on sparing no expense to violate my Fourth Amendment rights. I could care less if Snowden is a serial killer or a saint.

I hope this clears everything up.

[Demsrule86]

5. Oh I think it can and will be.

He takes money from the Russians to by all reports and put pro-Putin crap in the GOP platform. Why do you suppose he wants to get our of NATO and other peacekeeping entities...the Russians want us out so they can do what they want. Comrade Heil Trump is more than willing to oblige.

[merrily]

59. Did I say it would not be proven conclusively? Please see Reply 54. Thanks.

[DanTex]

6. Snopes political coverage is garbage. Kim LaCapria retweets Glenn Greenwald of all people.

Snopes is a niche site dedicated to debunking urban myths. Someone there decided they could get bigger by expanding into politics, but the people they have covering politics are clueless.

[merrily]

7. Sorry but this is not political coverage. It's determining whether evidence exists.

It's the same process

And you might enjoy http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8048675

[DanTex]

8. Yes it is. She's getting her info from Glenn Greenwald, ignoring credible sources.

And I'm not surprised that you think Bernie or Bust hacks like LaCapria and Greenwald are better than credible journalists.

[merrily]

9. And I'm not surprised that you go immediately to baseless assumptions and ad homs.

However the Daily Banter saying "apparent" involvement is not exactly substantiation of anything.

So no, I was not favoring one source over another.

[DanTex]

10. Not baseless, you posted a link to yourself talking about how great snopes political coverage is.

Enjoy your Glenn Greenwald worldview.

[merrily]

11. Yes ad homs and baseless assumptions. The Daily Banter's use of "apparent" is not substantiation.

If you have a credible source that states unequivocally that Russians were involved, by all means, post it.

Also, please see Reply 1 which is prefaced with "FWIW." I assume you know what that stands for.

[DanTex]

13. Does trying to play down Russia's meddling in our elections make you fell better that Bernie lost?

Weird. I think I know a place where your Glenn Greenwald/Kim LaCapria stuff would be better received.

[merrily]

14. More ad homs, no link to any substantiation, though. That's what I thought.

[DanTex]

15. The link is in the OP. Did you even read it? I doubt it, you prefer the Greenwald spin.

[merrily]

17. Again, "apparent" Russian involvement is not substantiation.

[DanTex]

18. LOL. So you only read the title. Figures. Yes, Greenwald and LaCapria are more your speed.

[merrily]

21. Clearly ad homs and baseless assumptions are your speed. I not only looked at the Banter article, I

looked at the two articles on which the Banter article is based, which are linked in the Banter article. All used words like "suspects" theory, etc. Not one flat out statement that Russia was involved, which is why the Banter title says "apparent." So, is your difficulty reading comp.vocabulary or lack of familiarity with what a "fact" is? (Hint: suspicion and theoriies are not facts. Of course if you find a flat statement that Russia was involved, please post a direct quote.

[DanTex]

22. Clearly actually reading beyond headlines is not part of your routine.

Multiple investigations have found Russian involvement, and sources inside the FBI are now saying that the FBI is finding the same thing. Which you would know if you read beyond the headline.

LOL, I mean even if you had read the first sentence of the article you would have seen that they described it as "almost certainly."

[merrily]

26. Jaysu, "almost certainly" is not a flat statement that Russia is involved. What part of that escapes

you? Either post a direct quote from Banter that is a flat statement or slink.

[DanTex]

27. No, for the supporting evidence you have to read further, and follow the links to the other

stories talking about the investigations and the FBI.

[merrily]

28. Um, no supporting evidence is not the issue. The issue is a flat, unequivocal statement that Russia

is involved. Not apparently. Not in theory. Not suspected to be involved. Not almost certain involved. Simply something like "It's been proven Russia did it."



Oh, and btw, I did follow links from Banter to two other stories. I posted that a couple of posts back and stated those stories made no flat statements either. Did you miss that comment, too? Maybe it's time to be checked for new reading glasses? (serious on that one).

Anyway, you've been insulting, tedious and unable to produce what you keep insisting exists. That's not really a combination that is very interesting to me, so I confess I am going to move on to something more compelling. Please do have a great day.

[Ghost Dog]

31. You are absolutely right, merrily. There is no more than weak circumstancial evidence

to point to Russian state intrusions into the DNC server, which has been described as not difficult for any skilled hacker to also do.

And there is zero evidence that Russian state actors passed the hacked emails to Wikileaks.

[merrily]

55. That is not what I said, Ghost Dog.

[DanTex]

33. Of course supporting evidence is the issue.

The only place where there is 100% certainty is in math. Beyond that, it's about evidence. And here the evidence points to Russia. You're just trying to pretend it doesn't because you have a pro-Russia and anti-Hillary agenda, shared by Greenwald. You're not fooling anyone.

[NurseJackie]

48. Well done.

[merrily]

58. LOL! He insults me repeatedly, but can't prove his claim.

Why am I not surprised you approve? Please see Replies 1 (the reply he claims is wrong and only proof I adore Greenwald) and also Reply 54. Thanks

[merrily]

56. Please see Reply 54.

BTW, search DU for comments by me about Greenwald or Snowden. See what they actually say. If not, at least look up the definition of "fact."

Also, please stop imagining you know me and/or can read my mind. You really suck at that.

[John Poet]

61. That's a lot of bullshit you're shoveling there, DanTex!

"Russia's meddling in our elections" is far from a proven thing-- really, it's just a theory at this point. I guess one could even call it a "conspiracy theory", since there's no proof whatsoever!

But do you think we should nuke them now, or after the FBI completes their investigation?



What a gracious *winner* you are.

[avaistheone1]

29. The credible sources are the emails themselves.

I can only commend websites and organizations like Snopes that feature the DNC emails.

The horse is out of the barn at this point.

[DanTex]

34. The content of the emails is irrelevant to the question of who hacked them.

[avaistheone1]

36. Quite the opposite. It is about the message not the messenger.

Remember it was about the deceptions of the Vietnam War, not the messenger, Daniel Ellsberg who leaked them.

[DanTex]

37. Russia is meddling in our elections. That's a huge deal.

[DLCWIdem]

20. I stopped using scopes as a good source when they

Posted a statement about those old black figured lawn jockey yard decorations which stated they couldn't "confirm" there use in the underground railroad movement because the evidence was anecdotal. Apparently never having studied history they don't know that oral history is widely used as a legitamate source. Oral history is anecdotal. If you are going to be used as a source shouldn't you use all the data available.

[merrily]

24. Thanks, but that does not relate to this instance.

[DLCWIdem]

46. merely that snopes is not a "good source" that uses critical thinking.

[merrily]

51. Yes, I got your point. There may be some flies on me, but not a swarm.

My original post on this thread began with "FWIW, snopes..." so it's not as though I was touting snopes or its pronouncement on this topic as gospel. However, I think snopes is very good source for many purposes, but not all, much like wikipedia.

[BlueStateLib]

53. matching code from know russian hacks

“The software code that I have seen from the hack had all the telltale signs of being Russian, including code re-used from other attacks,” Gourley told me. “This is a really big deal. Some people in the community are saying this is the Russians pretending to be a hacker, then giving that information to Julian Assange is all part of an operation.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-25/cybersecurity-experts-say-russia-hacked-the-democrats

[merrily]

57. Please see Reply 54. Thanks.

[UCmeNdc]

62. Yes, the Russians hacked the DNC - There is no doubt about that

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/25/politics/democratic-convention-dnc-emails-russia/

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-hack-idUSKCN0Z0205

Hackers believed to be working for the Russian government broke into the Democratic National Committee's computer network, spied on internal communications and accessed research on presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, the committee and security experts said on Tuesday.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-government-hackers-penetrated-dnc-stole-opposition-research-on-trump/2016/06/14/cf006cb4-316e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-25/cybersecurity-experts-say-russia-hacked-the-democrats


www.forbes.com/sites/.../russian-hacks-democratic-national-committee-donald-trump/

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/spy-agency-consensus-grows-that-russia-hacked-dnc.html?_r=0

[merrily]

64. Not sure which part of the edit to Reply 1 and Reply 54 were unclear to you.

[Demsrule86]

3. And word is that Trump's campaign is being bankrolled by Russian banks. nt

Combine this with the hacking of the DNC...and you have a modern day version of Watergate.

[TrishaJ]

12. WORSE than Watergate

If the Russian hackers are planning to get into the electronic voting system to ensure a Trump an Electoral College victory. That really concerns me.

[Cha]

4. And, wikileaks be all denying it.. lol

Mahalo, working!

[duncang]

16. Another possibility

So far the general consensus from cyber security firms is that the hack did come from russia. (what is it now 3 or 4 separate firms say it came from russia including the original company cyberstrike.) But they would not say it was government sponsored just that it appeared to be from russia, the same mode of operation and possible ties to russian intelligence groups. But it's not just putin that has a interest in donnie becoming prez. Donnie has done business with russian mob figures over there and there are hackers for hire.

Adjusts tinfoil hat. Yep, its on snug.

[workinclasszero]

19. Hey...

You might be on to something there!

[L. Coyote]

23. Apparency is never a big story and often a lie to cover a truth.

Passing data through Russian computers and allowing such to show = cover your tracks

[backscatter712]

25. How much do you want to bet that it's Putin's troll army fueling places like Reddit's r/The_Donald?

I will bet that's a significant part of the constant Drumpfuck spam we're seeing on the Internet.

[workinclasszero]

32. I wouldn't doubt it

[etherealtruth]

30. I agree .... it seems that this is the conclusion of all security analysts in and out .....

.... of the government. the US is being very cautious in their accusations (understandably due to the sensitive nature and the foreign government involved) .... there doesn't seem to be any doubt in anyone's mind.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/why-experts-think-russia-hacked-dnc-emails-n616486
Why Experts Are Sure Russia Hacked the DNC Emails
its work hours aligned with a Russian time zone, cybersecurity company FireEye concluded in a report.
•LANGUAGE: The hackers also left an obvious digital fingerprint, one cybersecurity expert said, perhaps on purpose: a signature in Russia's Cyrillic alphabet.
•FORENSIC EVIDENCE: After a different batch of hacked Democratic emails was released last month, a wide spectrum of cyber-security experts concluded that it was the work of Russian intelligence agencies through previously known proxy groups known as COZY BEAR or APT 29, and FANCY BEAR or APT 28. "We've had lots of experience with both of these actors … and know them well," according to the DNC's own contract cybersecurity firm, Crowdstrike, which blogged that one of the two groups had already gained illegal access to the White House, State Department and even the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff.
•MOTIVE: Given their mutual and very public bromance, Putin would much prefer a Trump presidency to a Clinton one, and the timing suggests the leak was timed for maximum embarrassment to the Democrats and their presumptive nominee. Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said the campaign was told by cyber experts that Russian hackers stole and released the emails to help Trump. "I don't think it's coincidental that these emails were released on the eve of our convention here," said Mook, "and I think that's disturbing."
•HISTORY: U.S. intelligence officials, including Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, said they had previously seen evidence of foreign hackers spying on U.S. presidential candidates, including some state-sponsored ones, and that such cyber-intrusions would become even more commonplace.





The main reason, however, is that the email hack is exactly the kind of thing Russian hackers can do, are supposed to do, and are used for by Putin and his aides, retired four-star Adm. James Stavridis told NBC News.

http://www.npr.org/2016/06/14/482029912/russian-hackers-penetrate-democratic-national-committee-steal-trump-research
Russian hackers have been accessing the Democratic National Committee's computer network for the past year, and have stolen information including opposition research files on presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

According to CrowdStrike, the security firm the DNC called in to deal with the massive data breach, one group of hackers tied to the Russian government has been stealing information from the national party for about a year.

"They infiltrated the DNC's network last summer and were monitoring their communications, their email servers, and the like," company co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch told NPR.

A second group, also tied to Russia, accessed the DNC's network in April. "They went straight for the research department of the DNC and exfiltrated opposition materials on Mr. Trump," Alperovitch said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-emails.html?_r=0

Proving the source of a cyberattack is notoriously difficult. But researchers have concluded that the national committee was breached by two Russian intelligence agencies, which were the same attackers behind previous Russian cyberoperations at the White House, the State Department and the Joint Chiefs of Staff last year. And metadata from the released emails suggests that the documents passed through Russian computers. Though a hacker claimed responsibility for giving the emails to WikiLeaks, the same agencies are the prime suspects. Whether the thefts were ordered by Mr. Putin, or just carried out by apparatchiks who thought they might please him, is anyone’s guess.

http://www.npr.org/2016/07/25/487380897/examining-russias-role-in-leaked-democratic-party-emails

[Hekate]

35. American media is not paying sufficient attention, and if posts/links at DU are any indication....

...neither is the American Left. They're all too distracted by the latest shiny object that purports to discredit HRC and the DNC to see that the American presidential election process is under attack, and it could well play out to be worse than Watergate.

[workinclasszero]

38. "...neither is the American Left."

Or the American right.

Once again they are united in their insane hatred of Hillary Clinton.

[Hekate]

39. I appreciate you and the other handful of DUers who are keeping this topic going here.

Stolen elections never seem to happen to Republicans, do they?

[workinclasszero]

40. That's cause they are always the thief

This story could blow open huge at anytime. It would destroy Trump and his party if caught colluding with a foreign power to manipulate the American presidential election.

[Hekate]

42. In order for it to blow open the media MUST pay attention and stop chasing shiny objects...

...instead of doing their Constitutionally mandated duty.

[workinclasszero]

43. True

The FBI is investigating it now.

Proof of Russian interference in our elections to favor Putin's pal Trump is gonna be too big to ignore I think.

[Hekate]

44. But will FBI investigations come in time to stop Nixon's (sic) election? Especially since Comey...

...is hardly unbiased when it comes to Hillary?

[workinclasszero]

45. That's a good question

[RonniePudding]

49. Interesting isn't it?

I think it's also quite telling some of the pushback on this story from some here. Very interesting indeed.

BTW, my expectation/hope is that the pivot on this story is toward Trump's business interests in Russia, how he can't get credit from US banks and what if anything his tax returns might reveal re: Russia. As Joy Reid said last night, there's no smoking gun needed on the email hack to explore those issues.

[Sivart]

41. Ok, so how does this not make our party look incompetent.....??

So, the clueless idiot Trump is working with Russian hackers for hire, and successfully obtains what were thought to be private emails amongst DNC staffers and officials.

Who is in change of IT security for the DNC?????

Did they know they had been hacked, and just not said anything? Or did they have no idea they had been hacked??

The dangers and risks associated with IT systems - especially email - are extremely well know. In my opinion, there is no excuse for this from a DNC IT security perspective.

Typically in this situation, if a company or organization realizes they have been compromised, they will announce it. This leads me to believe that the DNC had no idea they had been compromised.

[Blue_Tires]

50. Y'all can start telling me I was right any time now

[SunSeeker]

52. K & R for exposure.

[lovemydog]

60. I think Black Lives Matter

and economic inequality are the biggest stories of the year.

Equal justice under the law. Equality of opportunity. They affect a lot of people.

These email things are hard to prove. Hearsay & hyperbole. I doubt many people are going to say 'I'm voting for so and so because of emails.'

[baldguy]

63. A lot of people here completely missing the point.