U.S. accuses Russian spies of 2016 election hacking, summit looms

[heybruce]

5 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

He sounds like a fool now, doesn;t he?

No, he sounds like he underestimated the severity of the Russian hacking.  Trump, the one who spent months refusing to accept the conclusions of his intelligence agencies, is the one who sounds like a fool.

[heybruce]

4 minutes ago, tumama said:

 

I don't think, even the die hard anti Russians here, claims the election was hacked. 

The only coherent part of your post is "I don't think".

[Becker]

9 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

He sounds like a fool now, doesn;t he? 

Whatever suits him at the moment is true....if it doesn;t then its not.

He's not the one that sounds like a fool.

[heybruce]

*Deleted post edited out*

 

I think the Russians attempted to hack the election equipment.  I think the Russians did hack the Democratic party servers and selectively released information to damage the Clinton campaign.  I think the Russians did post false news on social media to cause discord.  I think the Russians have been doing similar things in Europe and will continue to do so in future elections. 

 

I've arrived at these conclusions by following the news.  I will not look up and post links to news stories you refuse to read because you claim to already know the truth.  Stop wasting people's time.

Edited July 15, 2018 by Scott

[tumama]

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You admit you can't stay on topic and provide on-topic evidence.  That's in there with your "I don't think" post.

 

I checked.  I did allude to your troll like behavior in the post you replied to. 

 

So now it's on topic evidence you want? Because the evidence you referred to was related to CIA operations. Which by the way is not offtopic IMHO. So you want that or not?

 

But I can see how you don't like inconvenient facts like that. I'm loving how you're jumping through hoops right now to defend that position.

 

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

So now you are comparing the Obama administration's response to Russian hacking to the Bush administration's war in Iraq.  Get back on topic.

 

Yeah because it's a good example where your government said they had the evidence, when they didn't. Which is exactly the same in this case. 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I think the Russians attempted to hack the election equipment.  I think the Russians did hack the Democratic party servers and selectively released information to damage the Clinton campaign.  I think the Russians did post false news on social media to cause discord.  I think the Russians have been doing similar things in Europe and will continue to do so in future elections. 

 

 

As another person who follows the serious news from a variety of sources, I'd say your recap above is a pretty good and accurate one of what's known to have occurred.

 

I remember reading reports of suspected attempted tampering or potential tampering with election systems in different states leading up to the 2016 election, but I don't think I've ever found anything credible documenting that any actual vote tampering occurred.  That doesn't absolutely mean it didn't, of course.

 

But there certainly was a TON of activity apparently by Russia -- by Russia if you believe Mueller's latest indictments -- aimed at SWAYING the votes of U.S voters in favor of Trump and against Clinton. And indeed, they were pretty successful by the outcome of things.

 

Edited July 15, 2018 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Jingthing]

Yes, and it will for all time be impossible to know whether Putin's efforts to elect Putin's poodle as president were the thing that pushed the orange stain over the top. The election was very, very close. Of couse "trump" lost the popular vote dramatically, but the reason he won was very thin margins in only FOUR states. So the Putin effort could have been the thing that put him over. But we'll never know for sure.

 

One  thing I think we can know for sure is that the Comey announcement of reopening the Clinton email investigation so close to the election (which was totally counter to all FBI conventions) definitely helped elect "trump" perhaps even more so than Putin. But every little bit or a lot bit counts! 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Former CIA Director Michael Hayden anticipates many more indictments -- involving Americans -- to come in special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 US election.

Source: CNN

 

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/07/14/michael-hayden-mueller-indictments-russia-lead-vpx.cnn

 

 

[heybruce]

39 minutes ago, Becker said:

He's not the one that sounds like a fool.

True.  It's hard to beat Trump's "Nobody knew health care was so complicated" foolishness.

[bristolboy]

54 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

He sounds like a fool now, doesn;t he? 

Whatever suits him at the moment is true....if it doesn;t then its not.

If the only view of things you've got is hindsight, lots of smart people will look like fools. The truly stupid people are those who despite what we know now, still deny that Russians are trying to hack the elections.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

I just read the Mueller indictments. It's a stunning, frightening recital of the great and sophisticated lengths the Russians -- specifically, Russian military intelligence officers and units -- went to to infiltrate the Clinton Campaign, DNC and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.  And not surprisingly, at least from my quick read, not a jot of effort expended at hacking into Trump or any Republican candidates.  Wonder why?

 

https://www.vox.com/2018/7/13/17568806/mueller-russia-intelligence-indictment-full-text

 

There is a section in the indictment that details the Russians efforts, prior to the election, to hack into various state and county election agencies and they did in fact obtain/steal a lot of voter records. But no indication any actual Election Day technology-based direct vote tampering occurred.

 

 

 

I'm not sure they needed to actually technologically manipulate/falsify any actual voting on Election Day. They'd already succeeded prior to Election Day in swinging the election, and duped American public sentiment, in Trump's favor.

 

Edited July 15, 2018 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[bristolboy]

But it's a good thing that Trump is focused on getting to the bottom of this:

'I hadn't thought' of asking Putin to extradite indicted Russian agents, Trump says

 President Donald Trump said in a new interview airing Sunday that he hadn't thought of pressing Russian President Vladimir Putin on extraditing the dozen Russian officials charged with hacking Democratic emails, while continuing to blame Democrats for the stolen emails that upended the 2016 presidential campaign.

"Well, I might," Trump said when asked during an interview with CBS News about extraditing the indicted intelligence agents. "I hadn't thought of that. 

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/I-hadn-t-thought-of-asking-Putin-to-extradite-13076567.php

[Jingthing]

3 hours ago, bristolboy said:

But it's a good thing that Trump is focused on getting to the bottom of this:

'I hadn't thought' of asking Putin to extradite indicted Russian agents, Trump says

 President Donald Trump said in a new interview airing Sunday that he hadn't thought of pressing Russian President Vladimir Putin on extraditing the dozen Russian officials charged with hacking Democratic emails, while continuing to blame Democrats for the stolen emails that upended the 2016 presidential campaign.

"Well, I might," Trump said when asked during an interview with CBS News about extraditing the indicted intelligence agents. "I hadn't thought of that. 

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/I-hadn-t-thought-of-asking-Putin-to-extradite-13076567.php

Well, he won't.

We all know Putin's poodle is just going to do the minimum lip service about Russian interference in 2016 and that will do NOTHING to prevent what Putin continues to do in 2018 (and 2020). Tragic that "trump" fans are so partisan that they accept this act of war from a hostile enemy dictator. 

[heybruce]

1 minute ago, Rigby40 said:

Sorry, I know you probably would have watched it and only took it seriously if it came from CNN, MSNBC or the like. My bad, I know you like it fake.

I don't waste time watching a skinny, grungy dude with no known qualifications drone on about why he thinks the electoral college is a good thing.

 

Allow me to explain:  The electoral college was one of the ugly compromises to get free states and slave states to accept the constitution.  As part of the compromise slaves were counted as three/fifths of a person for the purpose of the census, and both the number of voters for the electoral college and the number of members for the house were decided by this census of all free people and three fifths of the slaves.  Unfortunately after slavery was abolished this racist voting system remained.

 

Further compromising our democracy is the two party system, which the founders hoped to avoid.  When a party gains power in a state it uses this power to gerrymander districts to ensure it remains in power.  This is the reason why both houses of Congress and the Presidency are controlled by the party that did not receive a majority in elections for the House, Senate or Presidency.

 

I realize this isn't history the way the Alt-Right would explain it, but the current situation with US democracy would appall the founding fathers.   It's undemocratic, and it needs to change.

 

BTW, none of the above came from watching television.  Some of us are interested in the history of the US.

 

Care to offer a counter argument, or will you provide a link to another skinny, shabby guy of no known qualifications?

[AYJAYDEE]

9 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Well, he won't.

We all know Putin's poodle is just going to do the minimum lip service about Russian interference in 2016 and that will do NOTHING to prevent what Putin continues to do in 2018 (and 2020). Tragic that "trump" fans are so partisan that they accept this act of war from a hostile enemy dictator. 

partisan? what a nice word for treasonous!

[heybruce]

10 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Well, he won't.

We all know Putin's poodle is just going to do the minimum lip service about Russian interference in 2016 and that will do NOTHING to prevent what Putin continues to do in 2018 (and 2020). Tragic that "trump" fans are so partisan that they accept this act of war from a hostile enemy dictator. 

We also know that Putin will flatter Trump and Trump will agree to anything Putin says.  Afterwards Trump will go on camera with his goofy grin and announce that he has solved all problems between Russia and the US, just as he did after his capitulation to Kim Jong Un.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

I think everyone would do well to remember here:

 

If Trump had had his way, there would have been no sustained federal investigation into the Russian hacking and tampering with the 2016 presidential election. And the American public might have never clearly known, as well as is spelled out here, just how their presidential election was stolen from them.

 

Trump and Sessions, had the latter not been forced to recuse himself, would have shut down the investigation, and obstructed justice in doing so, long before anyone would have produced this kind of devastating indictment of exactly how the Russians interfered with the U.S. presidential election in a deliberate effort to elect Trump and defeat Clinton.

 

Amazingly, Trump and his Republican allies are making Nixon look pale by comparison in their continuing, and escalating efforts to obstruct justice, prevent criminal acts from being prosecuted and punished, and to whitewash their potential complicity in what does amount to an act of war against the United States by Russia -- which succeeded in stealing away the U.S. presidency.

[Scott]

Troll posts remove.   Continued off-topic trolling will earn suspensions.  

[heybruce]

Actually a system in which a minority party can control the Presidency and both houses of Congress is a system more vulnerable to manipulation by a hostile foreign power (or a rogue FBI chief), but that was not made clear in my posts.

[Ramen087]

While the Russian attempt to influence the outcome failed (Hilary blew it by taking too much for granted, like PA, WI & MI, per The Atlantic), it appears the Trump administration is taking tangible steps to discourage future attempts, says Time magazine. BTW, Russia has been at this for a while, but they're not very good at it (Economist Magazine). It helps those with conspiracy theories, though.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/trumps-road-to-victory/507203/

 

http://time.com/5230713/donald-trump-russia-sanctions-explainer/

 

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2016/12/17/russia-has-often-tried-to-influence-elections-with-little-success

Edited July 16, 2018 by Ramen087

[riclag]

18 hours ago, heybruce said:

No, he sounds like he underestimated the severity of the Russian hacking.  Trump, the one who spent months refusing to accept the conclusions of his intelligence agencies, is the one who sounds like a fool.

No , Google, The Obama Administration told  the head of cybersecurity in 2016 to stand down.They didn't underestimate,they where complicit.It appears  MSM neglected to cover it.  

Edited July 16, 2018 by riclag

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, riclag said:

No , Google, The Obama Administration told  the head of cybersecurity in 2016 to stand down.They didn't underestimate,they where complicit.  

Susan Rice reportedly told the White House cyber team to 'knock it off' when they floated options to combat Russian meddling

• Former President Barack Obama's cyber response team reportedly wanted to strike back hard at Russia when they first learned of its election meddling in the summer of 2016.
• But as they began floating options on how to respond, then-national security adviser Susan Rice allegedly told them to stand down and "knock it off."
• A source familiar with the matter did not contest the characterization, but said the Obama administration "timed its response so as to not provoke the Russians into materially affecting the outcome of the election."

http://www.businessinsider.com/susan-rice-told-white-house-cyber-team-to-knock-it-off-on-combatting-russian-meddling-2018-3

 

This is your idea of "complicit"?

[riclag]

10 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Susan Rice reportedly told the White House cyber team to 'knock it off' when they floated options to combat Russian meddling

• Former President Barack Obama's cyber response team reportedly wanted to strike back hard at Russia when they first learned of its election meddling in the summer of 2016.
• But as they began floating options on how to respond, then-national security adviser Susan Rice allegedly told them to stand down and "knock it off."
• A source familiar with the matter did not contest the characterization, but said the Obama administration "timed its response so as to not provoke the Russians into materially affecting the outcome of the election."

http://www.businessinsider.com/susan-rice-told-white-house-cyber-team-to-knock-it-off-on-combatting-russian-meddling-2018-3

 

This is your idea of "complicit"?

No  your wrong. Obama told Vlad to "cut it out".Susan Rice told Obama  Cyberhead to stand down. Obama cyber guy said their responce was to help the states election process and to guard the events taking place on election day.And to deter the Russian Medellin through efforts to make them spend  money 

Edited July 16, 2018 by riclag

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, riclag said:

No  your wrong. Obama told Vlad to "cut it out".Susan Rice told Obama  Cyberhead to stand down

You mean Susan Rice ordered Obama to stand down?

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, Ramen087 said:

While the Russian attempt to influence the outcome failed (Hilary blew it by taking too much for granted, like PA, WI & MI, per The Atlantic), it appears the Trump administration is taking tangible steps to discourage future attempts, says Time magazine. BTW, Russia has been at this for a while, but they're not very good at it (Economist Magazine). It helps those with conspiracy theories, though.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/trumps-road-to-victory/507203/

 

http://time.com/5230713/donald-trump-russia-sanctions-explainer/

 

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2016/12/17/russia-has-often-tried-to-influence-elections-with-little-success

The economist article you reference is from December 2016 and discusses the history of Russian attempts to influence the election.  It doesn't discuss, and didn't have access to, information on Russian attempts in 2016.

 

From your Time magazine link: " The sanctions come in response to what the administration described as Russia’s “malign activity around the globe.” "  Election interference is not mentioned. 

 

Even if the sanctions are in part a response to the 2016 election interference, they don't justify ending the investigation to learn the extent of the interference.

[riclag]

5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You mean Susan Rice ordered Obama to stand down?

Don't mix my words

No  your wrong. Obama told Vlad to "cut it out".Susan Rice told Obama  Cyberhead to stand down. Obama cyber guy said their response was to help the states election process and to guard the events taking place on election day.And to deter the Russian Meddling  through efforts to make them spend  money. Complicit  

Edited July 16, 2018 by riclag

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, riclag said:

Don't mix my words

No  your wrong. Obama told Vlad to "cut it out".Susan Rice told Obama  Cyberhead to stand down. Obama cyber guy said their response was to help the states election process and to guard the events taking place on election day.And to deter the Russian Meddling  through efforts to make them spend  money. Complicit  

So their goal was to protect the states' election process and to deter Russian Meddling.?

If that's what you're saying, you better do some serious research on the meaning of complicit. But I'll help you out here:

Feedback

Complicit | Definition of Complicit by Merriam-Webster

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/complicit

Complicit definition is - helping to commit a crime or do wrong in some way. 

[heybruce]

35 minutes ago, riclag said:

No , Google, The Obama Administration told  the head of cybersecurity in 2016 to stand down.They didn't underestimate,they where complicit.It appears  MSM neglected to cover it.  

Complicit?

 

"Obama officials chose another course of action after becoming frustrated that Republican leaders on Capitol Hill would not endorse a bipartisan statement condemning Russian interference and fearful that any unilateral action by them would feed then candidate Donald Trump’s claims that the election was rigged. They chose a private “stern” warning by Obama to Russian President Vladimir Putin at a summit in China in early September 2016 to stop his country’s campaign to disrupt the U.S. election."

 

"Obama officials were also worried that a vigorous cyber response along the lines Daniel had proposed could escalate into a full scale cyber war." https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-cyber-chief-confirms-stand-order-russian-cyberattacks-summer-2016-204935758.html   

 

Clearly more should have been done, and would have been done had Sen McConnell not opposed a bipartisan statement condemning Russian interference.  Clearly more should be done now that we know more about the extent of Russian efforts.  

 

However none of this is "complicit".

Edited July 16, 2018 by heybruce

[riclag]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

So their goal was to protect the states' election process and to deter Russian Meddling.?

If that's what you're saying, you better do some serious research on the meaning of complicit. But I'll help you out here:

Feedback

Complicit | Definition of Complicit by Merriam-Webster

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/complicit

Complicit definition is - helping to commit a crime or do wrong in some way. 

I did some serious research        The obama admin, cybersecurity head was told to  "Stand Down" on the investigation of Russian Meddling in 2016 

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, riclag said:

I did some serious research        The obama admin, cybersecurity head was told to  "Stand Down" on the investigation of Russian Meddling in 2016 

I'm sure you were serious. The question is whether or not your sources are, in fact, laughable.

And the evidence you have produced in no way corresponds to the meaning of "complicit".