Softpanorama

Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Skepticism and critical thinking is not panacea, but can help to understand the world better

NeoMcCartyism bulletin, 2016


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[May 02, 2017] An Obituary of The New York Times by

Notable quotes:
"... And this is where The New York Times has lost it. By dropping its veneer and abandoning its self acclaimed standards of journalism, it has sentenced itself into irrelevance. ..."
"... I also suspect that much like the heads of the Soviet newspapers quickly adapted to the new rules and new rulers of the game while regular journalists were sentenced to life of unemployment, so will Sulzberger and Keller adapt to whatever will come while the staff of The New York Times will be sentenced to their very own "Hall of Shame", much like already happened to their colleague Judith Miller when her services on propagating for war with Iraq was no longer required. ..."
"... I enclose as a small eulogy the following email exchange with a couple of editors from The New York Times . The emails are significant if only as examples of how the newspaper stopped living up to the most basic elements of journalism towards the end of its life. In them editors Bruce Headlam and Isvett Verde explain that The New York Times does not correct mistakes, does not grant the right of reply, and does not, as a matter of policy, publish material about its own censorship. ..."
Sep 14, 2016 | www.unz.com
126 Comments

... during the current election cycle in the United States, The New York Times has so clearly abandoned all rudimentary standards of journalism and alienated its readership so badly, that it has sentenced itself to wither away into irrelevance. Remembered only in history books as a relic of the Cold War, much like its sister newspaper Pravda of the Soviet Union.

As a Swedish reader of The New York Times , I may be surprised that the paper has ignored election rigging in the governing party of the United States serious enough to cause its top five officials to resign. But it doesn't really matter, since I can read the source material on it via WikiLeaks. As a foreign journalist I may be surprised that the paper has chosen to downplay the political bribes of the Clinton Foundation, but it makes little difference because the Associated Press has made the investigation available for me to report on. As a citizen of a western democracy I may be surprised that The New York Times so clearly campaigns against Trump and for Clinton, rather than reports on the policy issues of the candidates, but I can ignore this since I can read and listen to what they say themselves, while I can get a variety of more enlightened and entertaining campaigns all over the blogosphere. If I were a US citizen however, I would be more than just surprised.

And this is where The New York Times has lost it. By dropping its veneer and abandoning its self acclaimed standards of journalism, it has sentenced itself into irrelevance. Because even if the newspaper has steadily been outflanked by many blogs when it comes to audience size, it was until recently considered to be an important platform from which the US elites formed their world-view. But a newspaper with such a small reach, that is no longer taken seriously even by the main presidential candidates of its own country, a newspaper that doesn't abide by the most fundamental journalistic standards, namely publishing rather than hiding newsworthy, correct information, has very little to offer either any powerful people or its own readers. Because even propaganda has to be good, for it to have any value.

The only question that now remains, is how history will remember the journalists of The New York Times . Will they be judged leniently as people that just did their jobs, not knowing what they were doing? Or will they suffer the same fate as the thousands of Soviet journalists who lost their jobs when the charade at their communist mouthpieces ended? I much suspect that it will be the latter. But I also suspect that much like the heads of the Soviet newspapers quickly adapted to the new rules and new rulers of the game while regular journalists were sentenced to life of unemployment, so will Sulzberger and Keller adapt to whatever will come while the staff of The New York Times will be sentenced to their very own "Hall of Shame", much like already happened to their colleague Judith Miller when her services on propagating for war with Iraq was no longer required.

I enclose as a small eulogy the following email exchange with a couple of editors from The New York Times . The emails are significant if only as examples of how the newspaper stopped living up to the most basic elements of journalism towards the end of its life. In them editors Bruce Headlam and Isvett Verde explain that The New York Times does not correct mistakes, does not grant the right of reply, and does not, as a matter of policy, publish material about its own censorship.

If you have any other documents pertaining to the demise of The New York Times , please email them to me or send them to WikiLeaks. One of these days I will collect them for a proper obituary.

Johannes Wahlström Award-winning investigative journalist and filmmaker can be reached on Johannes.wahlstrom@gmail.com

[Dec 31, 2016] Like Iraq WMD Fiasco, Russia Story Does Not Add Up

If such attempts were really registered, the question is were those attempts to hack US sites from Russian IP space a false flag operation, probably with participation of Ukrainian secret services? '
As one commenter noted: "The Ukrainian government have been trying to drive a wedge between the West and Russia for years for their own political advantage."
If so what is the agenda outside obvious attempt to poison Us-Russian relations just before Trump assumes presidency. Neocon in Washington are really afraid losing this plush positions. And there is the whole colony of such "national security professionals" in Washington DC. For example Robert Kagan can't do anything useful outside his favorite Russophobic agenda and would be an unemployed along with his wife, who brought us Ukrainian disaster.
Notable quotes:
"... President Obama issued a terse statement seeming to blame Russia for the hack of the Democratic National Committee emails. "These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government," he wrote. ..."
"... The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect. Nothing quite adds up. ..."
"... Now we have this sanctions story, which presents a new conundrum. It appears that a large segment of the press is biting hard on the core allegations of electoral interference emanating from the Obama administration. ..."
"... Did the Russians do it? Very possibly, in which case it should be reported to the max. But the press right now is flying blind. ..."
"... Maybe the Russians did hack the DNC, but the WikiLeaks material actually came from someone else? There is even a published report to that effect, with a former British ambassador as a source, not that it's any more believable than anything else here. ..."
"... We ought to have learned from the Judith Miller episode. Not only do governments lie, they won't hesitate to burn news agencies. In a desperate moment, they'll use any sucker they can find to get a point across. ..."
"... The Joint Analysis Report from the FBI contains an appendix that lists hundreds of IP addresses that were supposedly "used by Russian civilian and military intelligence services." While some of those IP addresses are from Russia, the majority are from all over the world, which means that the hackers constantly faked their location. ..."
"... "If I was the Chinese and I wanted to make it look like the Russians did it, I would use Russian language within the code, I would use Russian techniques of breaking into the organization," McAfee said, adding that, in the end, "there simply is no way to assign a source for any attack." ..."
"... I have a problem understanding why the powers that be can't understand the widening gap between their on podium statements and the average persons view. Are they hoping to brainwash, or really believe it, or just leaving a video record for posterity that might sway historical interpretation of the current time? ..."
"... A little OT, but how many people realize that Israel (less than half the population of the former Palestine) has taken complete control of ALL water and has decreed that 3% of that water may be directed to the Palestinians! ..."
"... It's been said that on average Americans are like mushrooms – "Keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em shit!" ..."
"... And THAT, from what I've read in OPEN literature (obviously) about what is known by our cyber threat intel community, read on tech sites, and seen on the outstanding documentary program CyberWar about the Eastern European hacking community, is a OUTRIGHT BLATANT LIE. ..."
"... NOTE that he may actually believe that because that is what he may have been TOLD, just as Bush was told there were WMDs in Iraq, but as I've pointed out, the clumsy errors allowing the malware to be so very EASILY traced back to "supposedly" Russia are beyond belief for any state-sponsored outfit, especially a Russian effort. ..."
"... Note that the user info for TWO BILLION Yahoo email accounts was stolen and they left no traces which then led the FBI to conclude that it must have been "state sponsored." ..."
"... We are left with two basic options. Either they are simply stupid or their is a larger agenda at hand. I don't believe they are stupid. They have been setting fires all around this election for months, none of them effective by themselves, but ALL reinforcing the general notion that Trump is unfit and illegitimate. ..."
"... I do not believe this is just random panic and hyperbole. They are "building" something. ..."
"... This is what is must have been like being a Soviet Citizen in 1989 or so. The official media was openly laughed at because its lies were so preposterous. ..."
"... Sadly, the JAR, as the Joint Analysis Report is called, does little to end the debate. Instead of providing smoking guns that the Russian government was behind specific hacks, it largely restates previous private-sector claims without providing any support for their validity. Even worse, it provides an effective bait and switch by promising newly declassified intelligence into Russian hackers' "tradecraft and techniques" and instead delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups." ..."
"... WORSE than "delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups." It should have said "by just about anyone using 'in the wild' malware tools." ..."
"... The Russians probably have a lot of information about USG employees, contractors, etc, via hacking, recording, etc than Wikileaks. But, as a general rule, intelligence agencies do not dump it into the public domain because you don't want a potential adversary know what you know about him lest he investigate and close off the means of obtaining that information. The leaks came from elsewhere. ..."
"... Smells like a "false flag" operation, like the USA/NATO Operation Gladio in Europe. ..."
"... McCain and the War Hawks have had it out for Russia for a long time, and the Neo-cons have been closing in on the borders of Russia for some time. What will be interesting is when Trump meets with the CIA/NSA et al. for intel briefings on the alleged hacking. Hopefully, Trump will bring along VP Pence, Mad Dog and the other Marine generals (appointees) for advice. I suspect that the "false flag" nature of the hacking excuse will be evident and revealed as the pretext for the Neo-con anti-Russia agenda moving forward. ..."
"... McCain is the real thug, and an interferer in foreign elections (Kiev) and seems to have no real scruples. ..."
"... After Victoria Nuland brags about the USA spending $5 billion to overthrow the elected Ukraine government, how these Russia-phobes have any credibility is beyond me. Just shows that the consolidation of the media into a few main propaganda outlets under Bill Clinton (who also brought the Neo-cons into foreign policy dominance) has reached its logical apex. The Swamp is indeed a stinking, Corrupt miasma. ..."
"... Russia a country of 170 million surrounded by NATO military bases and 800 million people in the EU and USA is the threat? The US alone spends 12 times as much on its military annually than Russia. It's not Russia invading and overthrowing secular governments in the Muslim world. ..."
"... If I remember correctly the CIA claimed their intelligence sources came from unspecified 'allies'. It seems rather crucial to establish who these allies actually are. If it were Germany that would be one thing, however it is more than likely to be the Ukraine. ..."
"... So if Obama had actually produced evidence that the Russians had hacked Hilary's illegal, unprotected email setup in her Chapaqua basement/closet how would that change the ***content*** of the emails? It wouldn't. ..."
"... Obama is failing to convince the world that Russia is a bunch of whistle blowers on his corrupt regime. All of the emails detailing corruption and fraud are true (unchallenged), however Obama wants to suggest they were obtained illegally from an illegal email server? That is Obama's bullshit defense for the corrupt behavior? ..."
Dec 30, 2016 | mishtalk.com

Yesterday, President Obama expelled 35 Russian "Operatives" from the Russian Embassy .

Is there any evidence those expelled are "intelligence operatives"? Any hard evidence Russia was behind the Hillary hacks? Any credible evidence that Putin himself is to blame?

The answers are No, No, and No. Yet, once again the American press is again asked to co-sign a dubious intelligence assessment.

... ... ....

Something Stinks

The Rolling Stone comments Something About This Russia Story Stinks

In an extraordinary development Thursday, the Obama administration announced a series of sanctions against Russia. Thirty-five Russian nationals will be expelled from the country. President Obama issued a terse statement seeming to blame Russia for the hack of the Democratic National Committee emails. "These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government," he wrote.

The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect. Nothing quite adds up.

If the American security agencies had smoking-gun evidence that the Russians had an organized campaign to derail the U.S. presidential election and deliver the White House to Trump, then expelling a few dozen diplomats after the election seems like an oddly weak and ill-timed response. Voices in both parties are saying this now.

Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham noted the "small price" Russia paid for its "brazen attack." The Democratic National Committee, meanwhile, said Thursday that taken alone, the Obama response is " insufficient " as a response to "attacks on the United States by a foreign power."

The "small price" is an eyebrow-raiser.

Adding to the problem is that in the last months of the campaign, and also in the time since the election, we've seen an epidemic of factually loose, clearly politically motivated reporting about Russia. Democrat-leaning pundits have been unnervingly quick to use phrases like "Russia hacked the election."

This has led to widespread confusion among news audiences over whether the Russians hacked the DNC emails (a story that has at least been backed by some evidence, even if it hasn't always been great evidence ), or whether Russians hacked vote tallies in critical states (a far more outlandish tale backed by no credible evidence ).

As noted in The Intercept and other outlets, an Economist/YouGov poll conducted this month shows that 50 percent of all Clinton voters believe the Russians hacked vote tallies.

And reports by some Democrat-friendly reporters – like Kurt Eichenwald, who has birthed some real head-scratchers this year, including what he admitted was a baseless claim that Trump spent time in an institution in 1990 – have attempted to argue that Trump surrogates may have been liaising with the Russians because they either visited Russia or appeared on the RT network. Similar reporting about Russian scheming has been based entirely on unnamed security sources.

Now we have this sanctions story, which presents a new conundrum. It appears that a large segment of the press is biting hard on the core allegations of electoral interference emanating from the Obama administration.

Did the Russians do it? Very possibly, in which case it should be reported to the max. But the press right now is flying blind.

Maybe the Russians did hack the DNC, but the WikiLeaks material actually came from someone else? There is even a published report to that effect, with a former British ambassador as a source, not that it's any more believable than anything else here.

We just don't know, which is the problem.

We ought to have learned from the Judith Miller episode. Not only do governments lie, they won't hesitate to burn news agencies. In a desperate moment, they'll use any sucker they can find to get a point across.

Where the Hell is the Evidence?

'I Can Guarantee You, It Was Not the Russians'

John McAfee, founder of the security firm McAfee Associates, says 'I Can Guarantee You, It Was Not the Russians' .

The Joint Analysis Report from the FBI contains an appendix that lists hundreds of IP addresses that were supposedly "used by Russian civilian and military intelligence services." While some of those IP addresses are from Russia, the majority are from all over the world, which means that the hackers constantly faked their location.

McAfee argues that the report is a "fallacy," explaining that hackers can fake their location, their language, and any markers that could lead back to them. Any hacker who had the skills to hack into the DNC would also be able to hide their tracks, he said

"If I was the Chinese and I wanted to make it look like the Russians did it, I would use Russian language within the code, I would use Russian techniques of breaking into the organization," McAfee said, adding that, in the end, "there simply is no way to assign a source for any attack."

Question of Patriotism

It's not patriotic to accept accusations as facts, given US history of lies, deceit, meddling, and wars.

Related

keepitsimple , December 30, 2016 1:41:03 at 1:41 PM
The gullibility and ignorance of the typical media lapdog is appalling, and whores like McCain and Graham will use them shamelessly to promote their twisted, warmongering agenda. The same old story, over and over again.
Bobdough , December 30, 2016 10:51:52 at 10:51 PM
Not gullibilty, but complicity
The_Fish , December 30, 2016 2:07:19 at 2:07 PM
I have a problem understanding why the powers that be can't understand the widening gap between their on podium statements and the average persons view. Are they hoping to brainwash, or really believe it, or just leaving a video record for posterity that might sway historical interpretation of the current time?

No problem if they deliver proof.

James Greenberg , December 30, 2016 6:30:47 at 6:30 PM
Read 1984. It will explain EVERYTHING.
The_Fish , December 30, 2016 7:05:07 at 7:05 PM
Net control very likely in Europe soon with public administration of the web/content. Might at least help reduce the unemployment rate. Looked over the 2016 Bilderberg attendees too. MSM attendees interesting vs political bias they exhibit.

Whoever thinks there aren't people behind the scenes with a plan is naive and woe betide anyone upsetting that plan.

Crysangle , December 30, 2016 8:56:05 at 8:56 PM
Unemployment rate read last refuge from the official economy. Not the alt. web that takes away motivation, it is a pressure valve for people who find the official direction nothing short of insulting. The majority of social media users won't be distracted.

Noticed zh on Italy for you if you had not picked it up

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-30/italy-urges-europe-begin-censoring-free-speech-internet

Michael G , December 31, 2016 9:53:11 at 9:53 AM
A little OT, but how many people realize that Israel (less than half the population of the former Palestine) has taken complete control of ALL water and has decreed that 3% of that water may be directed to the Palestinians!

Over ten million get running water for 12 hrs a week, while in Israel (borders move every day as the world says nothing) there are no water restrictions zero! So, while Palestinians struggle to live in hot barren desert conditions (food and medicine is also denied children die of treatable cancer often as medication is blocked), a 5 min drive away millions of gallons are used to create a green, lush paradise for the Jewish Masters!

Did you know US laws were changed in 1968 to allow "Dual Citizens" to be elected and appointed to government positions and today many of the top posts are citizens of Israel and America WTF?

Trump needs to make a daily dose of Red Pills the law

Michael G , December 31, 2016 9:58:31 at 9:58 AM
Oops the 10M fig is a bit high but it's at least double the Jewish population, yet they get 97% this is slow moving genocide yet it's never even acknowledged
Greg , December 30, 2016 2:07:48 at 2:07 PM
Syria is about gas pipelines. Corporations want to profit from the gas pipeline through the region and wr the people are supposed to send our children to war over it and pay taxes tpbsupport the effort. Rissia wants pipelines from their country under the Black sea and Irans pipelines to the north. The US is supporting Qatar pipeline and LNG from our own shores to the EU.
The_Fish , December 30, 2016 2:09:55 at 2:09 PM
Some rumours Obama to be considered for UN role and Cameron NATO.
Germ , December 30, 2016 2:13:34 at 2:13 PM
It's been said that on average Americans are like mushrooms – "Keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em shit!"
Winston , December 30, 2016 3:43:28 at 3:43 PM
"These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government," (Obama) wrote.

And THAT, from what I've read in OPEN literature (obviously) about what is known by our cyber threat intel community, read on tech sites, and seen on the outstanding documentary program CyberWar about the Eastern European hacking community, is a OUTRIGHT BLATANT LIE.

Note he avoided the phrase, "slam dunk"

Winston , December 30, 2016 3:52:29 at 3:52 PM
NOTE that he may actually believe that because that is what he may have been TOLD, just as Bush was told there were WMDs in Iraq, but as I've pointed out, the clumsy errors allowing the malware to be so very EASILY traced back to "supposedly" Russia are beyond belief for any state-sponsored outfit, especially a Russian effort.

Note that the user info for TWO BILLION Yahoo email accounts was stolen and they left no traces which then led the FBI to conclude that it must have been "state sponsored."

fingerhole , December 30, 2016 5:24:36 at 5:24 PM
Any government that claims a right to secrecy over its affairs is going to use lying as a policy.
Steven milgrom , December 30, 2016 4:17:51 at 4:17 PM
Snowden says that it is auite easy to trace the source of the hackers.
madashellowell , December 30, 2016 4:21:48 at 4:21 PM
We are left with two basic options. Either they are simply stupid or their is a larger agenda at hand. I don't believe they are stupid. They have been setting fires all around this election for months, none of them effective by themselves, but ALL reinforcing the general notion that Trump is unfit and illegitimate.

I do not believe this is just random panic and hyperbole. They are "building" something.

Fred Rogers , December 31, 2016 1:25:43 at 1:25 PM
Well, it is an established and accepted fact that Richard Nixon was a very intelligent guy. None of Nixon's detractors ever claimed he was stupid, and Nixon won reelection easily.

Tricky Dick was just a tad "honesty challenged", and so is Obama. They were/are both neo-keynesians, both took their sweet time ending stupid wars started by their predecessors even after it was clear the wars were pointless.

Then again, I doubt Obozo is as smart as Nixon. Soros is clearly the puppeteer controlling what Obama does. Soros is now freaking out that his fascist agenda has been exposed.

vooch , December 30, 2016 5:18:15 at 5:18 PM
This is what is must have been like being a Soviet Citizen in 1989 or so. The official media was openly laughed at because its lies were so preposterous.
Winston , December 30, 2016 5:24:35 at 5:24 PM
http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/12/did-russia-tamper-with-the-2016-election-bitter-debate-likely-to-rage-on/

Excerpt:

"While security companies in the private sector have said for months the hacking campaign was the work of people working for the Russian government, anonymous people tied to the leaks have claimed they are lone wolves. Many independent security experts said there was little way to know the true origins of the attacks.

Sadly, the JAR, as the Joint Analysis Report is called, does little to end the debate. Instead of providing smoking guns that the Russian government was behind specific hacks, it largely restates previous private-sector claims without providing any support for their validity. Even worse, it provides an effective bait and switch by promising newly declassified intelligence into Russian hackers' "tradecraft and techniques" and instead delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups."

WORSE than "delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups." It should have said "by just about anyone using 'in the wild' malware tools."

The_Fish , December 30, 2016 5:54:31 at 5:54 PM
2015 Bilderberg. Looking down the attendees and subjects covered. Interesting some of the main anti-Brexit groups had representatives there, suggests HC picked for 2016 US election, Cyber-security and etc. Look at the key topics. How they all helped define 2016. So many current intertwined themes.

Little people upset the apple-cart? http://www.globalresearch.ca/bilderberg-chooses-hillary-clinton-for-2016/5454829

wootendw , December 30, 2016 6:01:33 at 6:01 PM
"We just don't know "

The Russians probably have a lot of information about USG employees, contractors, etc, via hacking, recording, etc than Wikileaks. But, as a general rule, intelligence agencies do not dump it into the public domain because you don't want a potential adversary know what you know about him lest he investigate and close off the means of obtaining that information. The leaks came from elsewhere.

greg , December 30, 2016 9:09:50 at 9:09 PM
One of the leakers is dead, we know that.
joelg5 , December 30, 2016 6:35:45 at 6:35 PM
Smells like a "false flag" operation, like the USA/NATO Operation Gladio in Europe.

McCain and the War Hawks have had it out for Russia for a long time, and the Neo-cons have been closing in on the borders of Russia for some time. What will be interesting is when Trump meets with the CIA/NSA et al. for intel briefings on the alleged hacking. Hopefully, Trump will bring along VP Pence, Mad Dog and the other Marine generals (appointees) for advice. I suspect that the "false flag" nature of the hacking excuse will be evident and revealed as the pretext for the Neo-con anti-Russia agenda moving forward.

The CIA it is now widely believed was part of the Deep State behind the JFK assassination when JFK took an independent view, so Trump will need the USA Marines on his side. McCain is the real thug, and an interferer in foreign elections (Kiev) and seems to have no real scruples.

After Victoria Nuland brags about the USA spending $5 billion to overthrow the elected Ukraine government, how these Russia-phobes have any credibility is beyond me. Just shows that the consolidation of the media into a few main propaganda outlets under Bill Clinton (who also brought the Neo-cons into foreign policy dominance) has reached its logical apex. The Swamp is indeed a stinking, Corrupt miasma.

Perhaps the Clinton Foundation and nascent Obama foundation feel it in their financial interests to nurture the misma.

Cha-ching, cha-ching. Money to be made in demonizing Russia.

Ron J , December 31, 2016 12:32:19 at 12:32 PM
"The CIA it is now widely believed was part of the Deep State behind the JFK assassination when JFK took an independent view "

All the circumstantial evidence pointed to Oswald. No one has ever proven otherwise, in over 50 years.

After 50 years of being propagandized by conspiracy book writers, it isn't surprising that anything is widely believed at this point. The former curator of the 6th Floor Museum, Gary Mack, believed there was a conspiracy, but over time came to realize that it was Oswald, alone.

CJ , December 30, 2016 8:15:54 at 8:15 PM
When liberal Rolling Stone questions the Obama/DNC propaganda, you know for certain that they have lost even their base supporters (the ones that can still think). The BS has just gotten too stupid.
Truth seeker , December 30, 2016 9:32:32 at 9:32 PM
Why is the WSJ strongly supporting Obama here but also saying he waited way to long to make this move? I don't always agree with them nor do I with you.

Ok I haven't read the comments but would only say that when Vladimir Putin the once leader of the KGB becomes a preacher and starts criticizing the West for abandoning its Christian roots, it's moral dignity, that for me doesn't just stink, it raises red flags all over the place. I think Trump and some of the rest of u r being set up here-like lambs to the slaughter. Mish your naïveté here surprises me!

Bobdough , December 30, 2016 11:00:12 at 11:00 PM
The Russians are coming!

Russia a country of 170 million surrounded by NATO military bases and 800 million people in the EU and USA is the threat? The US alone spends 12 times as much on its military annually than Russia. It's not Russia invading and overthrowing secular governments in the Muslim world.

greg , December 30, 2016 9:52:15 at 9:52 PM
Germany takes back its gold from US. Finally, after the Fed Res refused an audit request. http://www.pravdareport.com/business/finance/27-12-2016/136521-gold-0/
Simon Hodges , December 31, 2016 7:57:09 at 7:57 AM
If I remember correctly the CIA claimed their intelligence sources came from unspecified 'allies'. It seems rather crucial to establish who these allies actually are. If it were Germany that would be one thing, however it is more than likely to be the Ukraine.

The Ukranian government have been trying to drive a wedge between the West and Russia for years for their own political advantage. If I was Trump then when I took office I would want an extremely thorough investigation into the activities of the CIA by a third reliable party.

Seenitallbefore , December 31, 2016 9:48:10 at 9:48 AM
Don't be stupid. The Russians did it. CNN reported it, so it must be true.
Winston , December 31, 2016 10:22:42 at 10:22 AM
Supporting -EXACTLY- the points I've previously made here: Russian Hackers Said To "Penetrate US Electricity Grid" Using Outdated Ukrainian Malware

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-31/russian-hackers-said-penetrate-us-electricity-grid-using-outdated-ukrainian-malware

Excerpt: But was it really Russian meddling? After all, how does one prove not only intent but source in a world of cyberespionage, where planting false flag clues and other Indicators of Compromise (IOCs) meant to frame a specific entity, is as important as the actual hack.

Robert M. Lee, CEO and founder of cybersecurity company Dragos, which specializes in threats facing critical infrastructure, also noted that the IOCs included "commodity malware," or hacking tools that are widely available for purchase.

He said:

1. No they did not penetrate the grid.
2. The IOCs contained *commodity malware* – can't attribute based off that alone.

Fred Rogers , December 31, 2016 1:09:53 at 1:09 PM
So if Obama had actually produced evidence that the Russians had hacked Hilary's illegal, unprotected email setup in her Chapaqua basement/closet how would that change the ***content*** of the emails? It wouldn't.

Obama is failing to convince the world that Russia is a bunch of whistle blowers on his corrupt regime. All of the emails detailing corruption and fraud are true (unchallenged), however Obama wants to suggest they were obtained illegally from an illegal email server? That is Obama's bullshit defense for the corrupt behavior?

And as "proportional retaliation" for this Russian whistle blowing, Obozo is evicting 35 entertainment staff from the Russian embassy summer camp?

I doubt Hollywood or San Francisco has the integrity to admit they backed the wrong loser when they supported Obozo but they should think about their own credibility after January 20th. Anyone who is still backing Obozo is just too stupid to tie their own shoes much less vote

[Dec 31, 2016] The last hissy fit of neocon Obama is probably connected with the loss of Alepo and being sidelined in Syria

Notable quotes:
"... White House/StateDep press release on sanctions is ORWELLIAN: corruption within the DNC/Clinton's manager Podesta undermines the democracy, not its exposure as claimed (let alone the fact that there is still no evidence that the Russian government has anything to do with the hacks). ..."
"... The press release also talks about how the security of the USA and its interests were compromised, so Obama in effects says that national security interest of the country is to have corrupt political system, which is insane. ..."
"... You may be sure that the Americans will commit all the stupidities they can think of, plus some that are beyond imagination." ~Charles de Gaulle. ..."
"... United States are not united I guess. Guess, that Merkel is the next on the list... ..."
"... Obama will be making to many paid speeches to be doing anything of the sort. And frankly I suspect he be silent, because Trump is soon going to know where all the bodies were buried under Obama, just like Obama knows where all the bodies are buried from the Bush area. ..."
Dec 31, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

On Friday, the Kremlin responded to the moves, including the expulsion of 35 suspected intelligence operatives and the closing of two Russian facilities in the US, with a shrug. Putin, it seems, is willing simply to wait until Trump moves into the Oval Office. Trump's tweet suggested he is too.

But such provocative words could not distract the media and public from another domestic concern for Trump – the growing perception that his predecessor has acted to his disadvantage .

"The sanctions were clearly an attempt by the Obama administration to throw a wrench into – or [to] box in – the next administration's relationship with Russia," said Boris Zilberman, a Russia expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

"Putin, in part, saw through that and sidestepped it by playing good cop to [Russian foreign minister Sergey] Lavrov and the [state] Duma, who were calling for a reciprocal response."


vgnych 8h ago

All Obama does with his clumsy movements is just attempting to blame Russians for Democrat's loss of elections. Also he is obscuring peaceful power transition while at it.

All what Trump needs to do is to just call the looser a loser a move on.

Max South , 30 Dec 2016 18:56
White House/StateDep press release on sanctions is ORWELLIAN: corruption within the DNC/Clinton's manager Podesta undermines the democracy, not its exposure as claimed (let alone the fact that there is still no evidence that the Russian government has anything to do with the hacks).

The press release also talks about how the security of the USA and its interests were compromised, so Obama in effects says that national security interest of the country is to have corrupt political system, which is insane.

This argumentation means that even if Russian government has done the hacking, it was a good deed, there is nothing to sanction Russia for even in such case.

MacCosham -> Max South , 30 Dec 2016 19:38
There were no hacks, the DNC emails were leaked by disgruntled insiders. As brilliantly said by the heroic former diplomat Craig Murray. Reply
CDNBobOrr , 30 Dec 2016 18:58
'Fraid both Putin and Trump are a lot smarter than Barry. Putin's move in not retaliating and inviting US kids to the Kremlin New Year party was an astute judo throw. And Barry is sitting on his backside wondering how it happened. Reply
antobojar , 30 Dec 2016 19:00
.. Probably Obama's "exceptionalism" made him so clumsy on international affairs stage..

.. just recently.. snubbed by Fidel.. he refused to meet him..
.. humiliated by Raul Castro, he declined to hug president of USA..
.. Duterte described.. hmm.. his provenance..
.. Bibi told him off in most vulgar way.. several times..
.. and now this..
..pathetic..

P.S.
You may be sure that the Americans will commit all the stupidities they can think of, plus some that are beyond imagination." ~Charles de Gaulle.

chiefwiley -> Tribal War , 30 Dec 2016 21:49
Obama knew about Russian involvement in July. Look it up. He ignored it because it was seen as having no effect, and they didn't want the appearance of the government favoring Hillary, because they thought she was in line for a landslide victory.

After the election, "RUSSIA" has become a fund raising buzz word for Democrats.

Phrygian , 30 Dec 2016 19:02
Talk about sore loser. Obama's actions are disgraceful. The sooner he leaves office the better. Reply Share
AveAtqueCave -> Phrygian , 30 Dec 2016 19:17
The election should have taught our "betters" that people do think for themselves, albeit occasionally.

I've been frustrated enough with Obama since he pardoned Bush and Cheney... now he wants to sacrifice whatever shreds of reputation the Democratic party has... to be a white knight for miserable candidate, warmonger, and incompetent Hillary Clinton.

He figured the republicans would love him when he took Bush et al. off the hook and (clumsily) implemented Romney's health plan. They didn't.

Now he thinks leftists will love him because he's going "all in" on Hillary didn't lose this all on her own. They won't.

The guy doesn't have a fraction of the insight he credits himself with.

blocksburg -> Phrygian , 30 Dec 2016 19:18
Indeed, may even be seen as treasonous behaviour Reply
Munchausen007 , 30 Dec 2016 19:06
Simple solution, publish the commenter geolocation and ban proxy, clean the comment section from putinbots. Putin like ASBO's must stop to do more harm against democracy. Reply Share
Down2dirt -> Munchausen007 , 30 Dec 2016 19:17
What a foolish comment. Reply Share
Ilurktostudyyouall -> Munchausen007 , 30 Dec 2016 19:39
And what happens when you begin to realise many are not putinbots? Reply Share
Not4TheFaintOfHeart -> Ilurktostudyyouall , 30 Dec 2016 19:58
I'm sure they'll find some excuse to get around that...
'It's elephants all the way down', don't forget Reply
ukc ltd , 30 Dec 2016 19:07
Sanctions = token gestures that will soon fade into the distance. Much like you know who.

Obama is salty because of Kilary getting whupped and Putin out-playing him in Syria.

Never thought I would see the day when I sided with Trump over Obama. Interesting times. Reply

foolisholdman -> ukc ltd , 30 Dec 2016 20:01
Yes, the so-called liberals are losing all over. They blame everyone but themselves. The problem is that they have been found out. They were not real liberals at all. They had little bits of liberal policies like "Gay rights" and "bathrooms for Transgenders" and, of course, "Anti-Anti-Semitism Laws" and a few other bits and pieces with which they constructed a sort of camoflage coat, but the core of their policies was Corpratism. Prize exhibits: Tony Blair and Barak Obama.

The extreme Left and extreme Right ("Populists") are benefiting by being able to say what they mean, loud and apparently clear. People are not, on the whole, politically sophisticated but they do realise that they have been lied to for a very long time and they are fed up. That is why "Populists are making such a showing in the polls. People don't believe in the centre's "Liberalism" any more.

Terry Phillips , 30 Dec 2016 19:19
You just know these people, like Johnny boy, who are pointing fingers at Russia are doing so based upon long laid plans to bind up Trump from building a healthy relationship with Russia which would put an end to terrorism and likely all of these petty little wars that are tearing the world to pieces. These people want war because division keeps them in power and war makes them lots of money. I hope that Trump and Putin can work together and build a trust and foundation as allies in that together we can stamp out terrorism and stabilize the worlds conflicts. Everything these people do in the next 20 days has a single agenda and that is to cause instability and roadblocks for Trump and his team. Hope is just around the corner people so let's help usher it in.
86753oh9 , 30 Dec 2016 19:24
First... let's see some actual evidence/proof. Oh, that's right, none has been offered up.
Second... everyone is upset that the DNC turd was exposed, but no one upset about the existence of the turd. ?

Obama acting like a petulant child that has to leave the game and go home now, so he's kicking the game board and forcing everyone else to clean up his mess. Irresponsible.

TheWindsOfFreedom -> 86753oh9 , 30 Dec 2016 19:33
Hundred times repeated lie will become the truth... that's the US officials policy for decades now. In 8 years, they did nothing, so they are trying to do "something" in the last minute. For someone, who's using his own brain is all of this just laughable.

United States are not united I guess. Guess, that Merkel is the next on the list...

Fulhamred , 30 Dec 2016 19:26
Hopefully now this will enable senate and congress republicans to prevent these crazy ideas of russian appeasement take hold and prusue a hardline against Russia, Hamas, Iran and Cuba.
Down2dirt -> Fulhamred , 30 Dec 2016 19:31
They'll probably do that. Business as usual. To pursue a hard line against Isis enablers like Saudi and Qatar, now that would be a surprise. Reply Share
Individualist -> Down2dirt , 30 Dec 2016 19:35
Actually the biggest ISIS enabler was Cheney.
Down2dirt -> Individualist , 30 Dec 2016 19:42
Well you're probably right about that.
rocjoc43rd -> Individualist , 30 Dec 2016 19:45
Obama will be making to many paid speeches to be doing anything of the sort. And frankly I suspect he be silent, because Trump is soon going to know where all the bodies were buried under Obama, just like Obama knows where all the bodies are buried from the Bush area.

You are a wishful thinker, if you think Obama is going anything after he leaves office.

cosmith , 30 Dec 2016 19:27
So the person awarded a Nobel Peace Prize uses his last weeks in office to sour relations between the only 2 superpowers on Earth for - what ?

American party politics /
Spite ?
Ideological hatred ?

For those of you who are too young to remember, look up "Cold War" and look for references
to Hawks and Doves.

Who are the Hawks now - and who are the Doves ?

The Left/Liberal paradigm is so drastically in need of updating that it is becoming downright dangerous.

Hell hath on fury like a self defined "liberal" scorned.

Banker1 -> Individualist , 30 Dec 2016 19:48
The foreign power did the American people a favor when it exposed the corruption within the Democratic Party; something the establishment media was apparently unable or unwilling to do. Rather than sanctioning Putin, Americans should be thanking him!
Haigin88 , 30 Dec 2016 19:30
R.E.M.: 'Exhuming McCarthy'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMedTmZKo38 Reply Share
gottliebvera , 30 Dec 2016 19:34
I think Obama is behaving in a most petulant and non-presidential manner. Lack of decorum as parting shot. Good going. Reply Share
UnitedundertheSun -> Jonathan Stromberg , 30 Dec 2016 23:10
Attack Russia with a wet lettuce? Oh the pain! And gives Putin the high moral ground. Brilliant politics from Obama.

All to hamfistedly conceal what a rotten dysfunctional political organisation he heads.

Obama plays snakes and ladders while Putin is playing chess.

chelsea55 , 30 Dec 2016 19:35
Seems a no brainer, reverse Obama's ridiculous posturing gesture. As if the US doesn't have a long track record of interfering in the affairs of other countries.
chelsea55 -> LithophaneFurcifera , 30 Dec 2016 21:57
Personally I think the US should do as it wishes but it's extremely hypocritical to act shocked when the same meddling is returned by others. Obama is acting foolishly as if the final weeks of his presidency have any genuine traction on future events.

[Dec 31, 2016] Like Iraq WMD Fiasco, Russia Story Does Not Add Up

If such attempts were really registered, the question is were those attempts to hack US sites from Russian IP space a false flag operation, probably with participation of Ukrainian secret services? '
As one commenter noted: "The Ukrainian government have been trying to drive a wedge between the West and Russia for years for their own political advantage."
If so what is the agenda outside obvious attempt to poison Us-Russian relations just before Trump assumes presidency. Neocon in Washington are really afraid losing this plush positions. And there is the whole colony of such "national security professionals" in Washington DC. For example Robert Kagan can't do anything useful outside his favorite Russophobic agenda and would be an unemployed along with his wife, who brought us Ukrainian disaster.
Notable quotes:
"... President Obama issued a terse statement seeming to blame Russia for the hack of the Democratic National Committee emails. "These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government," he wrote. ..."
"... The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect. Nothing quite adds up. ..."
"... Now we have this sanctions story, which presents a new conundrum. It appears that a large segment of the press is biting hard on the core allegations of electoral interference emanating from the Obama administration. ..."
"... Did the Russians do it? Very possibly, in which case it should be reported to the max. But the press right now is flying blind. ..."
"... Maybe the Russians did hack the DNC, but the WikiLeaks material actually came from someone else? There is even a published report to that effect, with a former British ambassador as a source, not that it's any more believable than anything else here. ..."
"... We ought to have learned from the Judith Miller episode. Not only do governments lie, they won't hesitate to burn news agencies. In a desperate moment, they'll use any sucker they can find to get a point across. ..."
"... The Joint Analysis Report from the FBI contains an appendix that lists hundreds of IP addresses that were supposedly "used by Russian civilian and military intelligence services." While some of those IP addresses are from Russia, the majority are from all over the world, which means that the hackers constantly faked their location. ..."
"... "If I was the Chinese and I wanted to make it look like the Russians did it, I would use Russian language within the code, I would use Russian techniques of breaking into the organization," McAfee said, adding that, in the end, "there simply is no way to assign a source for any attack." ..."
"... I have a problem understanding why the powers that be can't understand the widening gap between their on podium statements and the average persons view. Are they hoping to brainwash, or really believe it, or just leaving a video record for posterity that might sway historical interpretation of the current time? ..."
"... A little OT, but how many people realize that Israel (less than half the population of the former Palestine) has taken complete control of ALL water and has decreed that 3% of that water may be directed to the Palestinians! ..."
"... It's been said that on average Americans are like mushrooms – "Keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em shit!" ..."
"... And THAT, from what I've read in OPEN literature (obviously) about what is known by our cyber threat intel community, read on tech sites, and seen on the outstanding documentary program CyberWar about the Eastern European hacking community, is a OUTRIGHT BLATANT LIE. ..."
"... NOTE that he may actually believe that because that is what he may have been TOLD, just as Bush was told there were WMDs in Iraq, but as I've pointed out, the clumsy errors allowing the malware to be so very EASILY traced back to "supposedly" Russia are beyond belief for any state-sponsored outfit, especially a Russian effort. ..."
"... Note that the user info for TWO BILLION Yahoo email accounts was stolen and they left no traces which then led the FBI to conclude that it must have been "state sponsored." ..."
"... We are left with two basic options. Either they are simply stupid or their is a larger agenda at hand. I don't believe they are stupid. They have been setting fires all around this election for months, none of them effective by themselves, but ALL reinforcing the general notion that Trump is unfit and illegitimate. ..."
"... I do not believe this is just random panic and hyperbole. They are "building" something. ..."
"... This is what is must have been like being a Soviet Citizen in 1989 or so. The official media was openly laughed at because its lies were so preposterous. ..."
"... Sadly, the JAR, as the Joint Analysis Report is called, does little to end the debate. Instead of providing smoking guns that the Russian government was behind specific hacks, it largely restates previous private-sector claims without providing any support for their validity. Even worse, it provides an effective bait and switch by promising newly declassified intelligence into Russian hackers' "tradecraft and techniques" and instead delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups." ..."
"... WORSE than "delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups." It should have said "by just about anyone using 'in the wild' malware tools." ..."
"... The Russians probably have a lot of information about USG employees, contractors, etc, via hacking, recording, etc than Wikileaks. But, as a general rule, intelligence agencies do not dump it into the public domain because you don't want a potential adversary know what you know about him lest he investigate and close off the means of obtaining that information. The leaks came from elsewhere. ..."
"... Smells like a "false flag" operation, like the USA/NATO Operation Gladio in Europe. ..."
"... McCain and the War Hawks have had it out for Russia for a long time, and the Neo-cons have been closing in on the borders of Russia for some time. What will be interesting is when Trump meets with the CIA/NSA et al. for intel briefings on the alleged hacking. Hopefully, Trump will bring along VP Pence, Mad Dog and the other Marine generals (appointees) for advice. I suspect that the "false flag" nature of the hacking excuse will be evident and revealed as the pretext for the Neo-con anti-Russia agenda moving forward. ..."
"... McCain is the real thug, and an interferer in foreign elections (Kiev) and seems to have no real scruples. ..."
"... After Victoria Nuland brags about the USA spending $5 billion to overthrow the elected Ukraine government, how these Russia-phobes have any credibility is beyond me. Just shows that the consolidation of the media into a few main propaganda outlets under Bill Clinton (who also brought the Neo-cons into foreign policy dominance) has reached its logical apex. The Swamp is indeed a stinking, Corrupt miasma. ..."
"... Russia a country of 170 million surrounded by NATO military bases and 800 million people in the EU and USA is the threat? The US alone spends 12 times as much on its military annually than Russia. It's not Russia invading and overthrowing secular governments in the Muslim world. ..."
"... If I remember correctly the CIA claimed their intelligence sources came from unspecified 'allies'. It seems rather crucial to establish who these allies actually are. If it were Germany that would be one thing, however it is more than likely to be the Ukraine. ..."
"... So if Obama had actually produced evidence that the Russians had hacked Hilary's illegal, unprotected email setup in her Chapaqua basement/closet how would that change the ***content*** of the emails? It wouldn't. ..."
"... Obama is failing to convince the world that Russia is a bunch of whistle blowers on his corrupt regime. All of the emails detailing corruption and fraud are true (unchallenged), however Obama wants to suggest they were obtained illegally from an illegal email server? That is Obama's bullshit defense for the corrupt behavior? ..."
Dec 30, 2016 | mishtalk.com

Yesterday, President Obama expelled 35 Russian "Operatives" from the Russian Embassy .

Is there any evidence those expelled are "intelligence operatives"? Any hard evidence Russia was behind the Hillary hacks? Any credible evidence that Putin himself is to blame?

The answers are No, No, and No. Yet, once again the American press is again asked to co-sign a dubious intelligence assessment.

... ... ....

Something Stinks

The Rolling Stone comments Something About This Russia Story Stinks

In an extraordinary development Thursday, the Obama administration announced a series of sanctions against Russia. Thirty-five Russian nationals will be expelled from the country. President Obama issued a terse statement seeming to blame Russia for the hack of the Democratic National Committee emails. "These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government," he wrote.

The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect. Nothing quite adds up.

If the American security agencies had smoking-gun evidence that the Russians had an organized campaign to derail the U.S. presidential election and deliver the White House to Trump, then expelling a few dozen diplomats after the election seems like an oddly weak and ill-timed response. Voices in both parties are saying this now.

Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham noted the "small price" Russia paid for its "brazen attack." The Democratic National Committee, meanwhile, said Thursday that taken alone, the Obama response is " insufficient " as a response to "attacks on the United States by a foreign power."

The "small price" is an eyebrow-raiser.

Adding to the problem is that in the last months of the campaign, and also in the time since the election, we've seen an epidemic of factually loose, clearly politically motivated reporting about Russia. Democrat-leaning pundits have been unnervingly quick to use phrases like "Russia hacked the election."

This has led to widespread confusion among news audiences over whether the Russians hacked the DNC emails (a story that has at least been backed by some evidence, even if it hasn't always been great evidence ), or whether Russians hacked vote tallies in critical states (a far more outlandish tale backed by no credible evidence ).

As noted in The Intercept and other outlets, an Economist/YouGov poll conducted this month shows that 50 percent of all Clinton voters believe the Russians hacked vote tallies.

And reports by some Democrat-friendly reporters – like Kurt Eichenwald, who has birthed some real head-scratchers this year, including what he admitted was a baseless claim that Trump spent time in an institution in 1990 – have attempted to argue that Trump surrogates may have been liaising with the Russians because they either visited Russia or appeared on the RT network. Similar reporting about Russian scheming has been based entirely on unnamed security sources.

Now we have this sanctions story, which presents a new conundrum. It appears that a large segment of the press is biting hard on the core allegations of electoral interference emanating from the Obama administration.

Did the Russians do it? Very possibly, in which case it should be reported to the max. But the press right now is flying blind.

Maybe the Russians did hack the DNC, but the WikiLeaks material actually came from someone else? There is even a published report to that effect, with a former British ambassador as a source, not that it's any more believable than anything else here.

We just don't know, which is the problem.

We ought to have learned from the Judith Miller episode. Not only do governments lie, they won't hesitate to burn news agencies. In a desperate moment, they'll use any sucker they can find to get a point across.

Where the Hell is the Evidence?

'I Can Guarantee You, It Was Not the Russians'

John McAfee, founder of the security firm McAfee Associates, says 'I Can Guarantee You, It Was Not the Russians' .

The Joint Analysis Report from the FBI contains an appendix that lists hundreds of IP addresses that were supposedly "used by Russian civilian and military intelligence services." While some of those IP addresses are from Russia, the majority are from all over the world, which means that the hackers constantly faked their location.

McAfee argues that the report is a "fallacy," explaining that hackers can fake their location, their language, and any markers that could lead back to them. Any hacker who had the skills to hack into the DNC would also be able to hide their tracks, he said

"If I was the Chinese and I wanted to make it look like the Russians did it, I would use Russian language within the code, I would use Russian techniques of breaking into the organization," McAfee said, adding that, in the end, "there simply is no way to assign a source for any attack."

Question of Patriotism

It's not patriotic to accept accusations as facts, given US history of lies, deceit, meddling, and wars.

Related

keepitsimple , December 30, 2016 1:41:03 at 1:41 PM
The gullibility and ignorance of the typical media lapdog is appalling, and whores like McCain and Graham will use them shamelessly to promote their twisted, warmongering agenda. The same old story, over and over again.
Bobdough , December 30, 2016 10:51:52 at 10:51 PM
Not gullibilty, but complicity
The_Fish , December 30, 2016 2:07:19 at 2:07 PM
I have a problem understanding why the powers that be can't understand the widening gap between their on podium statements and the average persons view. Are they hoping to brainwash, or really believe it, or just leaving a video record for posterity that might sway historical interpretation of the current time?

No problem if they deliver proof.

James Greenberg , December 30, 2016 6:30:47 at 6:30 PM
Read 1984. It will explain EVERYTHING.
The_Fish , December 30, 2016 7:05:07 at 7:05 PM
Net control very likely in Europe soon with public administration of the web/content. Might at least help reduce the unemployment rate. Looked over the 2016 Bilderberg attendees too. MSM attendees interesting vs political bias they exhibit.

Whoever thinks there aren't people behind the scenes with a plan is naive and woe betide anyone upsetting that plan.

Crysangle , December 30, 2016 8:56:05 at 8:56 PM
Unemployment rate read last refuge from the official economy. Not the alt. web that takes away motivation, it is a pressure valve for people who find the official direction nothing short of insulting. The majority of social media users won't be distracted.

Noticed zh on Italy for you if you had not picked it up

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-30/italy-urges-europe-begin-censoring-free-speech-internet

Michael G , December 31, 2016 9:53:11 at 9:53 AM
A little OT, but how many people realize that Israel (less than half the population of the former Palestine) has taken complete control of ALL water and has decreed that 3% of that water may be directed to the Palestinians!

Over ten million get running water for 12 hrs a week, while in Israel (borders move every day as the world says nothing) there are no water restrictions zero! So, while Palestinians struggle to live in hot barren desert conditions (food and medicine is also denied children die of treatable cancer often as medication is blocked), a 5 min drive away millions of gallons are used to create a green, lush paradise for the Jewish Masters!

Did you know US laws were changed in 1968 to allow "Dual Citizens" to be elected and appointed to government positions and today many of the top posts are citizens of Israel and America WTF?

Trump needs to make a daily dose of Red Pills the law

Michael G , December 31, 2016 9:58:31 at 9:58 AM
Oops the 10M fig is a bit high but it's at least double the Jewish population, yet they get 97% this is slow moving genocide yet it's never even acknowledged
Greg , December 30, 2016 2:07:48 at 2:07 PM
Syria is about gas pipelines. Corporations want to profit from the gas pipeline through the region and wr the people are supposed to send our children to war over it and pay taxes tpbsupport the effort. Rissia wants pipelines from their country under the Black sea and Irans pipelines to the north. The US is supporting Qatar pipeline and LNG from our own shores to the EU.
The_Fish , December 30, 2016 2:09:55 at 2:09 PM
Some rumours Obama to be considered for UN role and Cameron NATO.
Germ , December 30, 2016 2:13:34 at 2:13 PM
It's been said that on average Americans are like mushrooms – "Keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em shit!"
Winston , December 30, 2016 3:43:28 at 3:43 PM
"These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government," (Obama) wrote.

And THAT, from what I've read in OPEN literature (obviously) about what is known by our cyber threat intel community, read on tech sites, and seen on the outstanding documentary program CyberWar about the Eastern European hacking community, is a OUTRIGHT BLATANT LIE.

Note he avoided the phrase, "slam dunk"

Winston , December 30, 2016 3:52:29 at 3:52 PM
NOTE that he may actually believe that because that is what he may have been TOLD, just as Bush was told there were WMDs in Iraq, but as I've pointed out, the clumsy errors allowing the malware to be so very EASILY traced back to "supposedly" Russia are beyond belief for any state-sponsored outfit, especially a Russian effort.

Note that the user info for TWO BILLION Yahoo email accounts was stolen and they left no traces which then led the FBI to conclude that it must have been "state sponsored."

fingerhole , December 30, 2016 5:24:36 at 5:24 PM
Any government that claims a right to secrecy over its affairs is going to use lying as a policy.
Steven milgrom , December 30, 2016 4:17:51 at 4:17 PM
Snowden says that it is auite easy to trace the source of the hackers.
madashellowell , December 30, 2016 4:21:48 at 4:21 PM
We are left with two basic options. Either they are simply stupid or their is a larger agenda at hand. I don't believe they are stupid. They have been setting fires all around this election for months, none of them effective by themselves, but ALL reinforcing the general notion that Trump is unfit and illegitimate.

I do not believe this is just random panic and hyperbole. They are "building" something.

Fred Rogers , December 31, 2016 1:25:43 at 1:25 PM
Well, it is an established and accepted fact that Richard Nixon was a very intelligent guy. None of Nixon's detractors ever claimed he was stupid, and Nixon won reelection easily.

Tricky Dick was just a tad "honesty challenged", and so is Obama. They were/are both neo-keynesians, both took their sweet time ending stupid wars started by their predecessors even after it was clear the wars were pointless.

Then again, I doubt Obozo is as smart as Nixon. Soros is clearly the puppeteer controlling what Obama does. Soros is now freaking out that his fascist agenda has been exposed.

vooch , December 30, 2016 5:18:15 at 5:18 PM
This is what is must have been like being a Soviet Citizen in 1989 or so. The official media was openly laughed at because its lies were so preposterous.
Winston , December 30, 2016 5:24:35 at 5:24 PM
http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/12/did-russia-tamper-with-the-2016-election-bitter-debate-likely-to-rage-on/

Excerpt:

"While security companies in the private sector have said for months the hacking campaign was the work of people working for the Russian government, anonymous people tied to the leaks have claimed they are lone wolves. Many independent security experts said there was little way to know the true origins of the attacks.

Sadly, the JAR, as the Joint Analysis Report is called, does little to end the debate. Instead of providing smoking guns that the Russian government was behind specific hacks, it largely restates previous private-sector claims without providing any support for their validity. Even worse, it provides an effective bait and switch by promising newly declassified intelligence into Russian hackers' "tradecraft and techniques" and instead delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups."

WORSE than "delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups." It should have said "by just about anyone using 'in the wild' malware tools."

The_Fish , December 30, 2016 5:54:31 at 5:54 PM
2015 Bilderberg. Looking down the attendees and subjects covered. Interesting some of the main anti-Brexit groups had representatives there, suggests HC picked for 2016 US election, Cyber-security and etc. Look at the key topics. How they all helped define 2016. So many current intertwined themes.

Little people upset the apple-cart? http://www.globalresearch.ca/bilderberg-chooses-hillary-clinton-for-2016/5454829

wootendw , December 30, 2016 6:01:33 at 6:01 PM
"We just don't know "

The Russians probably have a lot of information about USG employees, contractors, etc, via hacking, recording, etc than Wikileaks. But, as a general rule, intelligence agencies do not dump it into the public domain because you don't want a potential adversary know what you know about him lest he investigate and close off the means of obtaining that information. The leaks came from elsewhere.

greg , December 30, 2016 9:09:50 at 9:09 PM
One of the leakers is dead, we know that.
joelg5 , December 30, 2016 6:35:45 at 6:35 PM
Smells like a "false flag" operation, like the USA/NATO Operation Gladio in Europe.

McCain and the War Hawks have had it out for Russia for a long time, and the Neo-cons have been closing in on the borders of Russia for some time. What will be interesting is when Trump meets with the CIA/NSA et al. for intel briefings on the alleged hacking. Hopefully, Trump will bring along VP Pence, Mad Dog and the other Marine generals (appointees) for advice. I suspect that the "false flag" nature of the hacking excuse will be evident and revealed as the pretext for the Neo-con anti-Russia agenda moving forward.

The CIA it is now widely believed was part of the Deep State behind the JFK assassination when JFK took an independent view, so Trump will need the USA Marines on his side. McCain is the real thug, and an interferer in foreign elections (Kiev) and seems to have no real scruples.

After Victoria Nuland brags about the USA spending $5 billion to overthrow the elected Ukraine government, how these Russia-phobes have any credibility is beyond me. Just shows that the consolidation of the media into a few main propaganda outlets under Bill Clinton (who also brought the Neo-cons into foreign policy dominance) has reached its logical apex. The Swamp is indeed a stinking, Corrupt miasma.

Perhaps the Clinton Foundation and nascent Obama foundation feel it in their financial interests to nurture the misma.

Cha-ching, cha-ching. Money to be made in demonizing Russia.

Ron J , December 31, 2016 12:32:19 at 12:32 PM
"The CIA it is now widely believed was part of the Deep State behind the JFK assassination when JFK took an independent view "

All the circumstantial evidence pointed to Oswald. No one has ever proven otherwise, in over 50 years.

After 50 years of being propagandized by conspiracy book writers, it isn't surprising that anything is widely believed at this point. The former curator of the 6th Floor Museum, Gary Mack, believed there was a conspiracy, but over time came to realize that it was Oswald, alone.

CJ , December 30, 2016 8:15:54 at 8:15 PM
When liberal Rolling Stone questions the Obama/DNC propaganda, you know for certain that they have lost even their base supporters (the ones that can still think). The BS has just gotten too stupid.
Truth seeker , December 30, 2016 9:32:32 at 9:32 PM
Why is the WSJ strongly supporting Obama here but also saying he waited way to long to make this move? I don't always agree with them nor do I with you.

Ok I haven't read the comments but would only say that when Vladimir Putin the once leader of the KGB becomes a preacher and starts criticizing the West for abandoning its Christian roots, it's moral dignity, that for me doesn't just stink, it raises red flags all over the place. I think Trump and some of the rest of u r being set up here-like lambs to the slaughter. Mish your naïveté here surprises me!

Bobdough , December 30, 2016 11:00:12 at 11:00 PM
The Russians are coming!

Russia a country of 170 million surrounded by NATO military bases and 800 million people in the EU and USA is the threat? The US alone spends 12 times as much on its military annually than Russia. It's not Russia invading and overthrowing secular governments in the Muslim world.

greg , December 30, 2016 9:52:15 at 9:52 PM
Germany takes back its gold from US. Finally, after the Fed Res refused an audit request. http://www.pravdareport.com/business/finance/27-12-2016/136521-gold-0/
Simon Hodges , December 31, 2016 7:57:09 at 7:57 AM
If I remember correctly the CIA claimed their intelligence sources came from unspecified 'allies'. It seems rather crucial to establish who these allies actually are. If it were Germany that would be one thing, however it is more than likely to be the Ukraine.

The Ukranian government have been trying to drive a wedge between the West and Russia for years for their own political advantage. If I was Trump then when I took office I would want an extremely thorough investigation into the activities of the CIA by a third reliable party.

Seenitallbefore , December 31, 2016 9:48:10 at 9:48 AM
Don't be stupid. The Russians did it. CNN reported it, so it must be true.
Winston , December 31, 2016 10:22:42 at 10:22 AM
Supporting -EXACTLY- the points I've previously made here: Russian Hackers Said To "Penetrate US Electricity Grid" Using Outdated Ukrainian Malware

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-31/russian-hackers-said-penetrate-us-electricity-grid-using-outdated-ukrainian-malware

Excerpt: But was it really Russian meddling? After all, how does one prove not only intent but source in a world of cyberespionage, where planting false flag clues and other Indicators of Compromise (IOCs) meant to frame a specific entity, is as important as the actual hack.

Robert M. Lee, CEO and founder of cybersecurity company Dragos, which specializes in threats facing critical infrastructure, also noted that the IOCs included "commodity malware," or hacking tools that are widely available for purchase.

He said:

1. No they did not penetrate the grid.
2. The IOCs contained *commodity malware* – can't attribute based off that alone.

Fred Rogers , December 31, 2016 1:09:53 at 1:09 PM
So if Obama had actually produced evidence that the Russians had hacked Hilary's illegal, unprotected email setup in her Chapaqua basement/closet how would that change the ***content*** of the emails? It wouldn't.

Obama is failing to convince the world that Russia is a bunch of whistle blowers on his corrupt regime. All of the emails detailing corruption and fraud are true (unchallenged), however Obama wants to suggest they were obtained illegally from an illegal email server? That is Obama's bullshit defense for the corrupt behavior?

And as "proportional retaliation" for this Russian whistle blowing, Obozo is evicting 35 entertainment staff from the Russian embassy summer camp?

I doubt Hollywood or San Francisco has the integrity to admit they backed the wrong loser when they supported Obozo but they should think about their own credibility after January 20th. Anyone who is still backing Obozo is just too stupid to tie their own shoes much less vote

[Dec 31, 2016] The last hissy fit of neocon Obama is probably connected with the loss of Alepo and being sidelined in Syria

Notable quotes:
"... White House/StateDep press release on sanctions is ORWELLIAN: corruption within the DNC/Clinton's manager Podesta undermines the democracy, not its exposure as claimed (let alone the fact that there is still no evidence that the Russian government has anything to do with the hacks). ..."
"... The press release also talks about how the security of the USA and its interests were compromised, so Obama in effects says that national security interest of the country is to have corrupt political system, which is insane. ..."
"... You may be sure that the Americans will commit all the stupidities they can think of, plus some that are beyond imagination." ~Charles de Gaulle. ..."
"... United States are not united I guess. Guess, that Merkel is the next on the list... ..."
"... Obama will be making to many paid speeches to be doing anything of the sort. And frankly I suspect he be silent, because Trump is soon going to know where all the bodies were buried under Obama, just like Obama knows where all the bodies are buried from the Bush area. ..."
Dec 31, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

On Friday, the Kremlin responded to the moves, including the expulsion of 35 suspected intelligence operatives and the closing of two Russian facilities in the US, with a shrug. Putin, it seems, is willing simply to wait until Trump moves into the Oval Office. Trump's tweet suggested he is too.

But such provocative words could not distract the media and public from another domestic concern for Trump – the growing perception that his predecessor has acted to his disadvantage .

"The sanctions were clearly an attempt by the Obama administration to throw a wrench into – or [to] box in – the next administration's relationship with Russia," said Boris Zilberman, a Russia expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

"Putin, in part, saw through that and sidestepped it by playing good cop to [Russian foreign minister Sergey] Lavrov and the [state] Duma, who were calling for a reciprocal response."


vgnych 8h ago

All Obama does with his clumsy movements is just attempting to blame Russians for Democrat's loss of elections. Also he is obscuring peaceful power transition while at it.

All what Trump needs to do is to just call the looser a loser a move on.

Max South , 30 Dec 2016 18:56
White House/StateDep press release on sanctions is ORWELLIAN: corruption within the DNC/Clinton's manager Podesta undermines the democracy, not its exposure as claimed (let alone the fact that there is still no evidence that the Russian government has anything to do with the hacks).

The press release also talks about how the security of the USA and its interests were compromised, so Obama in effects says that national security interest of the country is to have corrupt political system, which is insane.

This argumentation means that even if Russian government has done the hacking, it was a good deed, there is nothing to sanction Russia for even in such case.

MacCosham -> Max South , 30 Dec 2016 19:38
There were no hacks, the DNC emails were leaked by disgruntled insiders. As brilliantly said by the heroic former diplomat Craig Murray. Reply
CDNBobOrr , 30 Dec 2016 18:58
'Fraid both Putin and Trump are a lot smarter than Barry. Putin's move in not retaliating and inviting US kids to the Kremlin New Year party was an astute judo throw. And Barry is sitting on his backside wondering how it happened. Reply
antobojar , 30 Dec 2016 19:00
.. Probably Obama's "exceptionalism" made him so clumsy on international affairs stage..

.. just recently.. snubbed by Fidel.. he refused to meet him..
.. humiliated by Raul Castro, he declined to hug president of USA..
.. Duterte described.. hmm.. his provenance..
.. Bibi told him off in most vulgar way.. several times..
.. and now this..
..pathetic..

P.S.
You may be sure that the Americans will commit all the stupidities they can think of, plus some that are beyond imagination." ~Charles de Gaulle.

chiefwiley -> Tribal War , 30 Dec 2016 21:49
Obama knew about Russian involvement in July. Look it up. He ignored it because it was seen as having no effect, and they didn't want the appearance of the government favoring Hillary, because they thought she was in line for a landslide victory.

After the election, "RUSSIA" has become a fund raising buzz word for Democrats.

Phrygian , 30 Dec 2016 19:02
Talk about sore loser. Obama's actions are disgraceful. The sooner he leaves office the better. Reply Share
AveAtqueCave -> Phrygian , 30 Dec 2016 19:17
The election should have taught our "betters" that people do think for themselves, albeit occasionally.

I've been frustrated enough with Obama since he pardoned Bush and Cheney... now he wants to sacrifice whatever shreds of reputation the Democratic party has... to be a white knight for miserable candidate, warmonger, and incompetent Hillary Clinton.

He figured the republicans would love him when he took Bush et al. off the hook and (clumsily) implemented Romney's health plan. They didn't.

Now he thinks leftists will love him because he's going "all in" on Hillary didn't lose this all on her own. They won't.

The guy doesn't have a fraction of the insight he credits himself with.

blocksburg -> Phrygian , 30 Dec 2016 19:18
Indeed, may even be seen as treasonous behaviour Reply
Munchausen007 , 30 Dec 2016 19:06
Simple solution, publish the commenter geolocation and ban proxy, clean the comment section from putinbots. Putin like ASBO's must stop to do more harm against democracy. Reply Share
Down2dirt -> Munchausen007 , 30 Dec 2016 19:17
What a foolish comment. Reply Share
Ilurktostudyyouall -> Munchausen007 , 30 Dec 2016 19:39
And what happens when you begin to realise many are not putinbots? Reply Share
Not4TheFaintOfHeart -> Ilurktostudyyouall , 30 Dec 2016 19:58
I'm sure they'll find some excuse to get around that...
'It's elephants all the way down', don't forget Reply
ukc ltd , 30 Dec 2016 19:07
Sanctions = token gestures that will soon fade into the distance. Much like you know who.

Obama is salty because of Kilary getting whupped and Putin out-playing him in Syria.

Never thought I would see the day when I sided with Trump over Obama. Interesting times. Reply

foolisholdman -> ukc ltd , 30 Dec 2016 20:01
Yes, the so-called liberals are losing all over. They blame everyone but themselves. The problem is that they have been found out. They were not real liberals at all. They had little bits of liberal policies like "Gay rights" and "bathrooms for Transgenders" and, of course, "Anti-Anti-Semitism Laws" and a few other bits and pieces with which they constructed a sort of camoflage coat, but the core of their policies was Corpratism. Prize exhibits: Tony Blair and Barak Obama.

The extreme Left and extreme Right ("Populists") are benefiting by being able to say what they mean, loud and apparently clear. People are not, on the whole, politically sophisticated but they do realise that they have been lied to for a very long time and they are fed up. That is why "Populists are making such a showing in the polls. People don't believe in the centre's "Liberalism" any more.

Terry Phillips , 30 Dec 2016 19:19
You just know these people, like Johnny boy, who are pointing fingers at Russia are doing so based upon long laid plans to bind up Trump from building a healthy relationship with Russia which would put an end to terrorism and likely all of these petty little wars that are tearing the world to pieces. These people want war because division keeps them in power and war makes them lots of money. I hope that Trump and Putin can work together and build a trust and foundation as allies in that together we can stamp out terrorism and stabilize the worlds conflicts. Everything these people do in the next 20 days has a single agenda and that is to cause instability and roadblocks for Trump and his team. Hope is just around the corner people so let's help usher it in.
86753oh9 , 30 Dec 2016 19:24
First... let's see some actual evidence/proof. Oh, that's right, none has been offered up.
Second... everyone is upset that the DNC turd was exposed, but no one upset about the existence of the turd. ?

Obama acting like a petulant child that has to leave the game and go home now, so he's kicking the game board and forcing everyone else to clean up his mess. Irresponsible.

TheWindsOfFreedom -> 86753oh9 , 30 Dec 2016 19:33
Hundred times repeated lie will become the truth... that's the US officials policy for decades now. In 8 years, they did nothing, so they are trying to do "something" in the last minute. For someone, who's using his own brain is all of this just laughable.

United States are not united I guess. Guess, that Merkel is the next on the list...

Fulhamred , 30 Dec 2016 19:26
Hopefully now this will enable senate and congress republicans to prevent these crazy ideas of russian appeasement take hold and prusue a hardline against Russia, Hamas, Iran and Cuba.
Down2dirt -> Fulhamred , 30 Dec 2016 19:31
They'll probably do that. Business as usual. To pursue a hard line against Isis enablers like Saudi and Qatar, now that would be a surprise. Reply Share
Individualist -> Down2dirt , 30 Dec 2016 19:35
Actually the biggest ISIS enabler was Cheney.
Down2dirt -> Individualist , 30 Dec 2016 19:42
Well you're probably right about that.
rocjoc43rd -> Individualist , 30 Dec 2016 19:45
Obama will be making to many paid speeches to be doing anything of the sort. And frankly I suspect he be silent, because Trump is soon going to know where all the bodies were buried under Obama, just like Obama knows where all the bodies are buried from the Bush area.

You are a wishful thinker, if you think Obama is going anything after he leaves office.

cosmith , 30 Dec 2016 19:27
So the person awarded a Nobel Peace Prize uses his last weeks in office to sour relations between the only 2 superpowers on Earth for - what ?

American party politics /
Spite ?
Ideological hatred ?

For those of you who are too young to remember, look up "Cold War" and look for references
to Hawks and Doves.

Who are the Hawks now - and who are the Doves ?

The Left/Liberal paradigm is so drastically in need of updating that it is becoming downright dangerous.

Hell hath on fury like a self defined "liberal" scorned.

Banker1 -> Individualist , 30 Dec 2016 19:48
The foreign power did the American people a favor when it exposed the corruption within the Democratic Party; something the establishment media was apparently unable or unwilling to do. Rather than sanctioning Putin, Americans should be thanking him!
Haigin88 , 30 Dec 2016 19:30
R.E.M.: 'Exhuming McCarthy'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMedTmZKo38 Reply Share
gottliebvera , 30 Dec 2016 19:34
I think Obama is behaving in a most petulant and non-presidential manner. Lack of decorum as parting shot. Good going. Reply Share
UnitedundertheSun -> Jonathan Stromberg , 30 Dec 2016 23:10
Attack Russia with a wet lettuce? Oh the pain! And gives Putin the high moral ground. Brilliant politics from Obama.

All to hamfistedly conceal what a rotten dysfunctional political organisation he heads.

Obama plays snakes and ladders while Putin is playing chess.

chelsea55 , 30 Dec 2016 19:35
Seems a no brainer, reverse Obama's ridiculous posturing gesture. As if the US doesn't have a long track record of interfering in the affairs of other countries.
chelsea55 -> LithophaneFurcifera , 30 Dec 2016 21:57
Personally I think the US should do as it wishes but it's extremely hypocritical to act shocked when the same meddling is returned by others. Obama is acting foolishly as if the final weeks of his presidency have any genuine traction on future events.

[Dec 29, 2016] One thing lost in all the hullabaloo about Russian hacks is that the Obama administration's record on cyber security has been terrible.

Dec 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Reply ↓ cocomaan , December 28, 2016 at 9:29 am

One thing lost in all the hullabaloo about Russian hacks is that the Obama administration's record on cyber security has been terrible. Off the top of my head I can think of several compromising cases:

* Anything having to do with HRC's bathroom server, of course
* The Sony hack that Obama said was North Korea, but other experts say was probably just Trump's 400 lb fat guy on a bed.
* The alleged Chinese hacking of OPM
* And undoubtedly the "CYBER 911!!" of the alleged Russian interference in the election.

I don't see anyone talking about the fact that cyber infrastructure looks like it's been hit by birdshot. All the while, Obama's intelligence teams are mining information on Americans as extralegally as possible.

[Dec 29, 2016] The neoliberal MSM narrative that it is a well established fact that Russia influenced US election is nonsense.

Dec 29, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
sanjait -> DeDude... , December 28, 2016 at 06:26 PM
"Russia tampered with vote tallies to help Donald Trump"

Yeah, that seems like a clear statement, but when you consider that the vast majority of people do not habitually read closely and interpret things literally, I can see how this would easily be misinterpreted.

Russia tampered with the election to help Donald Trump. That's a fairly well established fact. It's not the same as "tampered with vote tallies" but an inattentive poll respondent might assume the question was about the former. And most people are inattentive.

likbez -> sanjait... December 28, 2016 at 09:40 PM , 2016 at 09:40 PM
Sanjait,

"Russia tampered with the election to help Donald Trump. That's a fairly well established fact."

You are funny. Especially with your "well established fact" nonsense.

In such cases the only source of well established facts is a court of law or International observers of the elections. All other agencies have their own interest in distorting the truth. For example, to get additional funding.

And that list includes President Obama himself, as a player, because he clearly was a Hillary supporter and as such can not be considered an impartial player and can politically benefit from shifting the blame for fiasco to Russia.

Also historically, he never was very truthful with American people, was he? As in case of his
"Change we can believe in!" bait and switch trick.

There were several other important foreign players in the US elections: for example KAS and Israel. Were their actions investigated? Especially in the area of financial support of candidates.

And then FYI there is a documented history of US tampering in Russian Presidential election of 2011-2012 such as meetings of the US ambassador with the opposition leaders, financing of opposition via NGO, putting pressure by publishing election pools produced by US financed non-profits, and so on and so forth. All in the name of democracy, of course. Which cost Ambassador McFaul his position; NED was kicked out of the country.

As far as I remember nobody went to jail in the USA for those activities. There was no investigation. So it looks like the USA authorities considered this to be a pretty legal activity. Then why they complain now?

And then there is the whole rich history of CIA subverting elections in Latin America.

So is not this a case of "the pot calling the kettle black"?

I don't know. But I would avoid your simplistic position. The case is too complex for this.

At least more complex that the narrative the neoliberal MSMs try to present us with. It might be Russian influence was a factor, but it might be that it was negligible and other factors were in play. There is also a pre-history and there are other suspects.

You probably need to see a wider context of the event.

[Dec 29, 2016] One thing lost in all the hullabaloo about Russian hacks is that the Obama administration's record on cyber security has been terrible.

Dec 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Reply ↓ cocomaan , December 28, 2016 at 9:29 am

One thing lost in all the hullabaloo about Russian hacks is that the Obama administration's record on cyber security has been terrible. Off the top of my head I can think of several compromising cases:

* Anything having to do with HRC's bathroom server, of course
* The Sony hack that Obama said was North Korea, but other experts say was probably just Trump's 400 lb fat guy on a bed.
* The alleged Chinese hacking of OPM
* And undoubtedly the "CYBER 911!!" of the alleged Russian interference in the election.

I don't see anyone talking about the fact that cyber infrastructure looks like it's been hit by birdshot. All the while, Obama's intelligence teams are mining information on Americans as extralegally as possible.

[Dec 29, 2016] The neoliberal MSM narrative that it is a well established fact that Russia influenced US election is nonsense.

Dec 29, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
sanjait -> DeDude... , December 28, 2016 at 06:26 PM
"Russia tampered with vote tallies to help Donald Trump"

Yeah, that seems like a clear statement, but when you consider that the vast majority of people do not habitually read closely and interpret things literally, I can see how this would easily be misinterpreted.

Russia tampered with the election to help Donald Trump. That's a fairly well established fact. It's not the same as "tampered with vote tallies" but an inattentive poll respondent might assume the question was about the former. And most people are inattentive.

likbez -> sanjait... December 28, 2016 at 09:40 PM , 2016 at 09:40 PM
Sanjait,

"Russia tampered with the election to help Donald Trump. That's a fairly well established fact."

You are funny. Especially with your "well established fact" nonsense.

In such cases the only source of well established facts is a court of law or International observers of the elections. All other agencies have their own interest in distorting the truth. For example, to get additional funding.

And that list includes President Obama himself, as a player, because he clearly was a Hillary supporter and as such can not be considered an impartial player and can politically benefit from shifting the blame for fiasco to Russia.

Also historically, he never was very truthful with American people, was he? As in case of his
"Change we can believe in!" bait and switch trick.

There were several other important foreign players in the US elections: for example KAS and Israel. Were their actions investigated? Especially in the area of financial support of candidates.

And then FYI there is a documented history of US tampering in Russian Presidential election of 2011-2012 such as meetings of the US ambassador with the opposition leaders, financing of opposition via NGO, putting pressure by publishing election pools produced by US financed non-profits, and so on and so forth. All in the name of democracy, of course. Which cost Ambassador McFaul his position; NED was kicked out of the country.

As far as I remember nobody went to jail in the USA for those activities. There was no investigation. So it looks like the USA authorities considered this to be a pretty legal activity. Then why they complain now?

And then there is the whole rich history of CIA subverting elections in Latin America.

So is not this a case of "the pot calling the kettle black"?

I don't know. But I would avoid your simplistic position. The case is too complex for this.

At least more complex that the narrative the neoliberal MSMs try to present us with. It might be Russian influence was a factor, but it might be that it was negligible and other factors were in play. There is also a pre-history and there are other suspects.

You probably need to see a wider context of the event.

[Dec 28, 2016] The Empire Strikes Back The MSMs 3-Point Plan To Recapture The Narrative

Notable quotes:
"... Secondly , a meme has been invented about so-called "Fake News," which will be used to shut down dissident media outlets. ..."
Dec 28, 2016 | www.unz.com
Some perspective: For most of human history, power was rooted in possession of land. After the Industrial Revolution , power lay in controlling in the means of production. But today, the main source of power is control of information.

Having the power to control information (what Steve Sailer calls The Megaphone ) gives you the ability to determine what issues will be discussed, what viewpoints are considered legitimate, and who is allowed to participate in polite society. It ultimately allows you to push an entire code of morality on others. And morality is, ultimately, a weapon more terrible than can be found in any arsenal [ Weaponized Morality , by Gregory Hood, Radix, October 12, 2016].

The 2016 election was ultimately a battle between the commanding heights of media (newspapers, networks, and web portals) and what we could call the guerillas of media (/pol, forums, hackers, right wing trolls , and independent media outlets like us). The latter lacked power on their own, but they united behind Donald Trump, a man whose brand was so well-established that the Establishment couldn't ignore him. It was Fourth Generation Warfare –this time over information.

And just as guerillas have been frustrating established armies all around the world on real-world battlefields, so did the online commandos frustrate and eventually overcome the seemingly invincible Fourth Estate.

But this victory wasn't inevitable. From day one, the MSM tried to destroy Donald Trump , including his business empire, because of his stated views on immigration.

Since that failed, they have started turning on his supporters with three tactics.

Soon after the election, the Leftist Think Progress blog announced that the Alt Right should only be called "white nationalist" or "white supremacist". [ Think Progress will no longer describe racists as "alt-right" , November 22, 2016] The AP dutifully echoed this pronouncement days later, warning journalists not to use the term and instead to stick to pejoratives. [ AP issues guidelines for using the term 'alt-right,' by Brent Griffiths, Politico, November 28, 2016]

This is a literally Orwellian attempt to eliminate Crimethink through linguistic control . Of course, no such guidelines will apply to non-white Identitarian groups such as the National Council of La Raza, which will continue to be called an "advocacy" or "progressive grass-roots immigration-reform organization" [ NCLR head: Obama 'deporter-in-chief, ' by Reid Epstein, Politico, March 4, 2016].

Needless to say, most the rationale for this is not just fake, but comically, obviously, wrong. Thus the Washington Post reported that VDARE.com (and many other sites) was a "Russian propaganda effort" based on no evidence at all. We ask: where is our vodka?

Rolling Stone, which pushed one of the most disgusting hoaxes in modern journalism at the University of Virginia, is having meetings with President Obama to discuss "fake news." The Guardian fell for what appears to be a hoax decrying "online hate" precisely because it is impossible to tell the difference today between the latest virtue signaling craze and satire.

But algorithms are already being introduced to distinguish between "verified" and "non-verified" news sources. It can be assumed only Leftist sites will receive verification on social media. [ Fake news on Facebook is a real problem. These college students came up with a fix in 36 hours , By Colby Itkowitz, Washington Post, November 18, 2016]

There is "fake news" and it is annoying, to be sure. There were plenty of cringey stories about non-existent celebrity endorsements of Trump i n the last cycle. But most "verified" or "mainstream" sources today don't actually report but simply "point and sputter" or actually conceal real news. For example, even after the journalists got what they wanted out of the latest NPI conference , the MSM still couldn't restrain themselves from simply making things out of whole cloth .

Actual attacks on Trump supporters are not covered, while unsourced, unverified claims of a wave of "hate crimes," which mostly consists of handwritten notes most likely written by the supposed "victims" or incidents so trivial normal people wouldn't even notice , dominate the headlines.

This is a far more insidious form of "fake news" than anything "the Russians" are promoting. And what about the lie of " hands up, don't shoot ?"

Another example: supposedly mainstream outlets are comfortable leveling wild charges Steve Bannon is somehow a "white nationalist." Bannon on the evidence is actually a civic nationalist who has specifically denounced racism and, if anything, is showing troubling signs of moving towards the "DemsRRealRacist"- style talking points which led Conservatism Inc. to disaster. There are absolutely no statements by Bannon actually calling for, say, a white ethnostate.

In contrast, Rep. Keith Ellison, candidate to head the DNC, actually has c alled for a black ethnostate. [ Keith Ellison once proposed making a separate country for blacks , by Justin Caruso, Daily Caller, November 26, 2016]. However, this has not prevented him from being "normalized" and celebrated by the "mainstream" media.

The logical conclusion of all of this:

Or, as VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow told the NPI conference: "What we are going to see in the next few years is an intensified Reign Of Terror."

For example, Buzzfeed's latest masterpiece of journalism: the shocking revelation that reality stars Chip and Joanna Gaines attend a church that disagrees with homosexual marriage [ Chip and Joanna Gaines' Church Is Firmly Against Same-Sex Marriage , by Kate Aurthur, Buzzfeed, November 29, 2016]. You know–like every Christian church for about 2000 years. The obvious agenda: to get the show canceled or the Gaines to disavow their own pastor.

This is the goal of most "journalism" today–to get someone fired or to get someone to disavow someone. The Southern Poverty Law Center ( $PLC to VDARE.com) makes a lucrative income from policing speech . ( Right, a graph of their endowment fund.)And journalists today are no different than the $PLC. They do not report, they do not provide information, and rather than ensuring freedom they are the willing tools of repression.

And this repression only goes one way.

If you wouldn't invite some communist demonstrator into your meeting, why would you invite an MSM journalist? They have the same beliefs, the same motivations, and increasingly, they rely on the same tactics. Aside from the occasional throwing of feces (as Richard Spencer learned at NPI), the preferred tactic of "Antifa" consists of pearl-clutching blog posts.

The repression is accelerating. Reddit is now moving to censor pro-Trump content on its site [ Breaking: Unethical @reddit CEO vows to crack down on "toxic users" as right wing subreddit protests censorship , by Charles Johnson, Got News, November 30, 2016]. Having been purged from Twitter, many free speech supporters are moving to GAB, so The New York Times is trying to get that shut down too [ The Far Right Has a New Digital Safe Space , by Amanda Hess, November 30, 2016]. And Kellogg pulled its ads from Breitbart, after Trump's election, because it said it did not "align with its values as a company". [ Breitbart at 'war' with Kellogg's over advertising snub , BBC, December 1, 2016].

Since the election, journalists have been paying tribute to their own courage, promising to hold Trump accountable. But there is no greater enemy to free speech than reporters. Shutting down the networks and shuttering the newspapers would be a boon to independence of thought, not an obstacle.

For his own sake, to defend his own Administration, Trump has to delegitimize the MSM, just as he did during the campaign. He should continue to use his Twitter account and speak straight to the people. He should not hold press conferences with national MSM and speak only to local reporters before holding rallies. If Twitter bans him, as Leftists are urging, he should nationalize it as a utility and make it a free speech zone.[ Twitter has become a utility , by Alan Kohler, The Australian, October 17, 2016]

And Trump's supporters need to act the same way. Stop giving reporters access. Stop pretending you can play the MSM for your own benefit. Stop acting like these people are anything other than hostile political activists whose only interest in life is to make yours worse.

Stop giving them what they want.

Your career, family, and entire life may depend on it. And so does the life of the nation.

James Kirkpatrick [ Email him] is a Beltway veteran and a refugee from Conservatism Inc.

[Dec 28, 2016] The risk of WWIII is not enough to deter these maniacs from doing everything they can to keep neoliberals in power

Notable quotes:
"... "The lockstep zombies for the sleaze and global mayhem of the Clinton Machine and Dem Party gangsters are on the march. These liberals for US Empire are showing their reverence and fanboy love for the CIA and FBI and McCarthyism. ..."
"... They either cheered or shrugged when the Clinton thugs stole the primary from Bernie (with his obsequious assent) or snored when Obama/Clinton staged coups and installed fascists in Honduras and Ukraine but oh how they bellow and shake their fists at the *alleged* hacking by Russia that amounts to providing info on just how sleazy the Democratic Party is. ..."
"... THAT form of fake news is not only acceptable it is to be embraced and taught to our fucking children. If the NYT or WaPo tells us all bad things come from Putin these shock troops for the Democratic Party click their heels and salute. ..."
"... The risk of WWIII is not enough to deter these fucking maniacs from doing all they can to keep their team in power. Meanwhile their leaders want to "work with" Trump and "give him a chance." Who are the fascists in this shit show?? Such a clusterfuck of incoherence. ..."
"... If it's true the "Russians" (who be that by the way?) did what the professional liars in the intelligence agencies say they did it doesn't even amount to a parking violation compared to the billions and billions of dollars spent by the US over the last 70 years rigging and crushing democracy (literally with murder) across the globe. ..."
Dec 28, 2016 | www.unz.com

Anon December 12, 2016 at 9:33 pm GMT

This post by Leftie on facebook offers glimpse into chasm on the other side.

It's Progs vs Globs. ProGlob is coming apart.

"The lockstep zombies for the sleaze and global mayhem of the Clinton Machine and Dem Party gangsters are on the march. These liberals for US Empire are showing their reverence and fanboy love for the CIA and FBI and McCarthyism.

They either cheered or shrugged when the Clinton thugs stole the primary from Bernie (with his obsequious assent) or snored when Obama/Clinton staged coups and installed fascists in Honduras and Ukraine but oh how they bellow and shake their fists at the *alleged* hacking by Russia that amounts to providing info on just how sleazy the Democratic Party is.

The "fake news" (it's called free speech you fucking assholes) that the Rooskies pumped into our helpless and confused brains is a threat to the Republic but "capitalism means freedom and democracy", WMD's, yellow cake, mobile weapons labs, babies torn from incubators, the international monolithic communist conspiracy, Gaddafi supplying viagra to his troops, the headchoppers Obama gives arms and sends into Syria to destroy yet another nation are "moderates", KONY 2012, the filthy Hun is coming to kill us all in 1917, "Duck and cover!!" Gulf of Tonkin, Ho Chi Min's soldiers are going to spring from their canoes on the beaches of Malibu to rape your wife and make you wear pajamas, "superpredators" and on and on etc etc etc

THAT form of fake news is not only acceptable it is to be embraced and taught to our fucking children. If the NYT or WaPo tells us all bad things come from Putin these shock troops for the Democratic Party click their heels and salute.

The risk of WWIII is not enough to deter these fucking maniacs from doing all they can to keep their team in power. Meanwhile their leaders want to "work with" Trump and "give him a chance." Who are the fascists in this shit show?? Such a clusterfuck of incoherence.

If it's true the "Russians" (who be that by the way?) did what the professional liars in the intelligence agencies say they did it doesn't even amount to a parking violation compared to the billions and billions of dollars spent by the US over the last 70 years rigging and crushing democracy (literally with murder) across the globe.

And the whole obscene carnival engulfing the nation is of course to be blamed on the racist knuckle-dragging "basket of deplorables.""

[Dec 28, 2016] How NOT to hack an election Russian Hack EXPOSED as Hoax Zero Hedge

Dec 28, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
For those who missed it among the deluge of propaganda, the Russian 'hack' of the election has been exposed as a huge hoax:

A Wikileaks envoy today claims he personally received Clinton campaign emails in Washington D.C. after they were leaked by 'disgusted' whisteblowers - and not hacked by Russia.

Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, told Dailymail.com that he flew to Washington, D.C. for a clandestine hand-off with one of the email sources in September.

'Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,' said Murray in an interview with Dailymail.com on Tuesday. ' The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.'

His account contradicts directly the version of how thousands of Democratic emails were published before the election being advanced by U.S. intelligence.

For those who have read our book Splitting Pennies - this comes as no surprise. As we explain in the book, the world is manipulated by several large global "Banks" which are also owners of big news outlets that control the flow of information around the world (i.e. Thompson Reuters). The surprise here is that the disinformation campaign goes so deep, it has even fooled senators into voting for a bill to stop Russian propaganda; which - on the surface, every flag waving US senator should agree with. No one wants foreign spies or foreign propaganda influencing the domestic population. But how big is the 'threat' of 'Russian' propaganda and how has it been overplayed, in a final 'hail mary' attempt to disrupt the legitimate political process. The motto, the modus operandi of the Illuminati controlled CIA "Order from Chaos" is explained on their 'think tank' website here.

Americans steeped in a culture of 'politics' are again being fooled, this election wasn't about party or state lines, "Republicans" didn't win over "Democrats" - this election was about a wild card, a non-politician, non-Establishment candidate winning by a landslide if going by the polls (Trump was given 5% chance of winning up until the night of election).

How to Hack an Election

Interestingly, Bloomberg (although biased Bloomberg is still one of the only mainstream news sources that still produces real, investigative journalism globally) in April published an extremely well researched composition "How to Hack an Election" detailing the life of a real election hacker, Andres Sepulveda and his US political 'analyst' partner, Juan Jose Rendon. To understand how foolish the claim about Russians hacking the election, readers can study the story of Sepulveda who successfully hacked multiple elections in Latin America and was paid millions for his efforts:

When Peña Nieto won, Sepúlveda began destroying evidence. He drilled holes in flash drives, hard drives, and cell phones, fried their circuits in a microwave, then broke them to shards with a hammer. He shredded documents and flushed them down the toilet and erased servers in Russia and Ukraine rented anonymously with Bitcoins. He was dismantling what he says was a secret history of one of the dirtiest Latin American campaigns in recent memory.

For eight years, Sepúlveda, now 31, says he traveled the continent rigging major political campaigns. With a budget of $600,000, the Peña Nieto job was by far his most complex. He led a team of hackers that stole campaign strategies, manipulated social media to create false waves of enthusiasm and derision, and installed spyware in opposition offices, all to help Peña Nieto, a right-of-center candidate, eke out a victory. On that July night, he cracked bottle after bottle of Colón Negra beer in celebration. As usual on election night, he was alone.

Sepúlveda's career began in 2005, and his first jobs were small-mostly defacing campaign websites and breaking into opponents' donor databases. Within a few years he was assembling teams that spied, stole, and smeared on behalf of presidential campaigns across Latin America. He wasn't cheap, but his services were extensive. For $12,000 a month, a customer hired a crew that could hack smartphones, spoof and clone Web pages, and send mass e-mails and texts. The premium package, at $20,000 a month, also included a full range of digital interception, attack, decryption, and defense. The jobs were carefully laundered through layers of middlemen and consultants. Sepúlveda says many of the candidates he helped might not even have known about his role; he says he met only a few.

His teams worked on presidential elections in Nicaragua, Panama, Honduras, El Salvador, Colombia, Mexico, Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Venezuela. Campaigns mentioned in this story were contacted through former and current spokespeople; none but Mexico's PRI and the campaign of Guatemala's National Advancement Party would comment.

The point here, well there are several points. One, Sepulveda is not the only guy in the world doing this. The CIA even has a team of social media trolls and the NSA has a department that only develops robots to do the same thing Sepulveda was doing and better. The age of 'spies' has transformed into an electronic, digital, online version - much like the internet has transformed life and business it has also changed the way the intelligence establishment deals with controlling the population. Oh how the FBI has evolved since the days of Hoffman and Cointelpro!

Many of Sepúlveda's efforts were unsuccessful, but he has enough wins that he might be able to claim as much influence over the political direction of modern Latin America as anyone in the 21st century. "My job was to do actions of dirty war and psychological operations, black propaganda, rumors-the whole dark side of politics that nobody knows exists but everyone can see," he says in Spanish, while sitting at a small plastic table in an outdoor courtyard deep within the heavily fortified offices of Colombia's attorney general's office. He's serving 10 years in prison for charges including use of malicious software, conspiracy to commit crime, violation of personal data, and espionage, related to hacking during Colombia's 2014 presidential election. He has agreed to tell his full story for the first time, hoping to convince the public that he's rehabilitated-and gather support for a reduced sentence.

Usually, he says, he was on the payroll of Juan José Rendón, a Miami-based political consultant who's been called the Karl Rove of Latin America. Rendón denies using Sepúlveda for anything illegal, and categorically disputes the account Sepúlveda gave Bloomberg Businessweek of their relationship, but admits knowing him and using him to do website design. "If I talked to him maybe once or twice, it was in a group session about that, about the Web," he says. "I don't do illegal stuff at all. There is negative campaigning. They don't like it-OK. But if it's legal, I'm gonna do it. I'm not a saint, but I'm not a criminal." While Sepúlveda's policy was to destroy all data at the completion of a job, he left some documents with members of his hacking teams and other trusted third parties as a secret "insurance policy."

We don't need a degree in cybersecurity to see how this was going on against Trump all throughout the campaign. Not only did they hire thugs to start riots at Trump rallies and protest, a massive online campaign was staged against Trump.

Rendón, says Sepúlveda, saw that hackers could be completely integrated into a modern political operation, running attack ads, researching the opposition, and finding ways to suppress a foe's turnout. As for Sepúlveda, his insight was to understand that voters trusted what they thought were spontaneous expressions of real people on social media more than they did experts on television and in newspapers. He knew that accounts could be faked and social media trends fabricated, all relatively cheaply. He wrote a software program, now called Social Media Predator, to manage and direct a virtual army of fake Twitter accounts. The software let him quickly change names, profile pictures, and biographies to fit any need. Eventually, he discovered, he could manipulate the public debate as easily as moving pieces on a chessboard-or, as he puts it, "When I realized that people believe what the Internet says more than reality, I discovered that I had the power to make people believe almost anything."

Sepúlveda managed thousands of such fake profiles and used the accounts to shape discussion around topics such as Peña Nieto's plan to end drug violence, priming the social media pump with views that real users would mimic. For less nuanced work, he had a larger army of 30,000 Twitter bots, automatic posters that could create trends. One conversation he started stoked fear that the more López Obrador rose in the polls, the lower the peso would sink. Sepúlveda knew the currency issue was a major vulnerability; he'd read it in the candidate's own internal staff memos.

While there's no evidence that Rendon or Sepulveda were involved in the 2016 election, there is also no evidence that Russian hackers were involved in the 2016 election. There's not even false evidence. There isn't a hint of it. There isn't a witness, there isn't a document, there's nothing - it's a conspiracy theory! And a very poor one.

By the way, if you want to disguise your IP address as if you are living in Russia, there's a service that will do this for about $10/month - millions of people use this service. You can sign up for it too, and choose what country you want to be 'from' - Canada, Brazil, Russia - take your pick.

Russian hackers would have had the same or better (probably much better) tools, strategies, and resources than Sepulveda. But none of this shows up anywhere. If anything, this is an example of how NOT to hack an election.

To learn more about the way the world works, checkout Splitting Pennies. To gain some Alpha in your portfolio for QEP / ECP investors checkout Alpha Z Advisors.

Further reading about 'truth' and 'alternative reality'

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution .

Armand Hammer: The Untold Story

A People's History of the United States

Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich

Fooled by Randomness: The Hidden Role of Chance in Life and in the Markets .
Mike Masr , Dec 28, 2016 8:06 AM

This truth will be swept under the rug and regarded as "fake news" because it doesn't fit the official Obama narrative that Russia did it!
mary mary Kefeer , Dec 27, 2016 6:55 PM
Thanks. Right. Hillary's official electronic communications is more correct than Hillary's emails.

(And the "wipe them, you mean like with a rag?" from Hillary, after having been in government all her adult life and after having presented herself as a modern Secretary of State who knew all about how government and modern technology worked would have been a funny joke if it hadn't obviously been intended to cover up enormous crimes.)

Grandad Grumps , Dec 27, 2016 2:58 PM
Whoever is running the world with all of this fake stuff and all of the monitoring of people and petty false propganda, they pretty much suck at it. it is as if they are claiming to be running the world using "training wheels". As a substitute for God they stink! Grade D-!
Fathead Slim , Dec 27, 2016 2:25 PM
The tale doesn't have to be a good one for the TV addicted masses to believe it, it only has to be presented by the only sources these imbeciles are willing to use: their fucking TV sets. Most people are so deluded by their main source of entertainment and information that they wouldn't give a shit if incontrovertible evidence that their TV information source was lying was presented to them.

Most people I know don't want to know anything that can't be spoonfed to them on a TV screen.

Dick Buttkiss Fathead Slim , Dec 27, 2016 2:42 PM
"The tale doesn't have to be a good one for the TV addicted masses to believe it..."

Like the tale that the only steel highrise buildings to ever collapse due to fires (turning into dust at near freefall speed) ocurred on a single day 15 years ago, orchestrated, along with everything else on that fateful day, by a man in a cave half a world away.

Fathead Slim Dick Buttkiss , Dec 27, 2016 6:57 PM
Yep, a prime example. TV addicts are also convinced that they've seen news broadcasts that announced the finding of WMDs in Iraq.
Kefeer Dick Buttkiss , Dec 27, 2016 4:49 PM
You left out that the man was also on dialysis.
jeff montanye Kefeer , Dec 27, 2016 6:51 PM
and that after every airport was closed and every single commercial plane was grounded, that man's entire extended family resident in the u.s., some two dozen individuals, was given fbi protection, rented cars and chartered planes, and flown out of the country without ever being interviewed, at all, by any law enforcement branch of the government of the united states which, needless to say, had absolutely no involvement with the deadliest foreign attack on u.s. soil since the war of 1812, killing nearly 600 more than died at pearl harbor. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bin-laden-family-evacuated/

this was known at the time it happened. what took longer to discover was that the source of the foreign attack was not a cave in afghanistan or even saudi arabia or the muslim world generally.

all along it was our trusted ally, brave little israel.

  • http://www.whale.to/b/israel_did_911.html
  • https://sites.google.com/site/onedemocraticstatesite/archives/-solving-9...
  • http://www.amazon.com/Solving-9-11-Deception-Changed-World/dp/0985322586
  • http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticl... .
  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/everything-rich-man-trick/
  • https://smile.amazon.com/dp/098213150X/sr=1-1/qid=1467687982/ref=olp_pro...
  • http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf
  • Twodogs jeff montanye , Dec 28, 2016 8:33 AM
    Anti-semitism enables one to ignore the elephant in the room, namely the Saudis who have been spending billions promoting Wahhabism and terrorism, to blame a tiny little country for everything, without ever having to bother about evidence. Seek help.
    BSHJ Dick Buttkiss , Dec 27, 2016 3:06 PM
    Well, he was probably always watching HGTV and knew all the right tricks to make his man-cave as efficient as possible.
    mary mary BSHJ , Dec 27, 2016 6:58 PM
    So easy (with a little help from Bush and Cheney) that even a cave-man could do it. ....

    [Dec 28, 2016] The Empire Strikes Back The MSMs 3-Point Plan To Recapture The Narrative

    Notable quotes:
    "... Secondly , a meme has been invented about so-called "Fake News," which will be used to shut down dissident media outlets. ..."
    Dec 28, 2016 | www.unz.com
    Some perspective: For most of human history, power was rooted in possession of land. After the Industrial Revolution , power lay in controlling in the means of production. But today, the main source of power is control of information.

    Having the power to control information (what Steve Sailer calls The Megaphone ) gives you the ability to determine what issues will be discussed, what viewpoints are considered legitimate, and who is allowed to participate in polite society. It ultimately allows you to push an entire code of morality on others. And morality is, ultimately, a weapon more terrible than can be found in any arsenal [ Weaponized Morality , by Gregory Hood, Radix, October 12, 2016].

    The 2016 election was ultimately a battle between the commanding heights of media (newspapers, networks, and web portals) and what we could call the guerillas of media (/pol, forums, hackers, right wing trolls , and independent media outlets like us). The latter lacked power on their own, but they united behind Donald Trump, a man whose brand was so well-established that the Establishment couldn't ignore him. It was Fourth Generation Warfare –this time over information.

    And just as guerillas have been frustrating established armies all around the world on real-world battlefields, so did the online commandos frustrate and eventually overcome the seemingly invincible Fourth Estate.

    But this victory wasn't inevitable. From day one, the MSM tried to destroy Donald Trump , including his business empire, because of his stated views on immigration.

    Since that failed, they have started turning on his supporters with three tactics.

    Soon after the election, the Leftist Think Progress blog announced that the Alt Right should only be called "white nationalist" or "white supremacist". [ Think Progress will no longer describe racists as "alt-right" , November 22, 2016] The AP dutifully echoed this pronouncement days later, warning journalists not to use the term and instead to stick to pejoratives. [ AP issues guidelines for using the term 'alt-right,' by Brent Griffiths, Politico, November 28, 2016]

    This is a literally Orwellian attempt to eliminate Crimethink through linguistic control . Of course, no such guidelines will apply to non-white Identitarian groups such as the National Council of La Raza, which will continue to be called an "advocacy" or "progressive grass-roots immigration-reform organization" [ NCLR head: Obama 'deporter-in-chief, ' by Reid Epstein, Politico, March 4, 2016].

    Needless to say, most the rationale for this is not just fake, but comically, obviously, wrong. Thus the Washington Post reported that VDARE.com (and many other sites) was a "Russian propaganda effort" based on no evidence at all. We ask: where is our vodka?

    Rolling Stone, which pushed one of the most disgusting hoaxes in modern journalism at the University of Virginia, is having meetings with President Obama to discuss "fake news." The Guardian fell for what appears to be a hoax decrying "online hate" precisely because it is impossible to tell the difference today between the latest virtue signaling craze and satire.

    But algorithms are already being introduced to distinguish between "verified" and "non-verified" news sources. It can be assumed only Leftist sites will receive verification on social media. [ Fake news on Facebook is a real problem. These college students came up with a fix in 36 hours , By Colby Itkowitz, Washington Post, November 18, 2016]

    There is "fake news" and it is annoying, to be sure. There were plenty of cringey stories about non-existent celebrity endorsements of Trump i n the last cycle. But most "verified" or "mainstream" sources today don't actually report but simply "point and sputter" or actually conceal real news. For example, even after the journalists got what they wanted out of the latest NPI conference , the MSM still couldn't restrain themselves from simply making things out of whole cloth .

    Actual attacks on Trump supporters are not covered, while unsourced, unverified claims of a wave of "hate crimes," which mostly consists of handwritten notes most likely written by the supposed "victims" or incidents so trivial normal people wouldn't even notice , dominate the headlines.

    This is a far more insidious form of "fake news" than anything "the Russians" are promoting. And what about the lie of " hands up, don't shoot ?"

    Another example: supposedly mainstream outlets are comfortable leveling wild charges Steve Bannon is somehow a "white nationalist." Bannon on the evidence is actually a civic nationalist who has specifically denounced racism and, if anything, is showing troubling signs of moving towards the "DemsRRealRacist"- style talking points which led Conservatism Inc. to disaster. There are absolutely no statements by Bannon actually calling for, say, a white ethnostate.

    In contrast, Rep. Keith Ellison, candidate to head the DNC, actually has c alled for a black ethnostate. [ Keith Ellison once proposed making a separate country for blacks , by Justin Caruso, Daily Caller, November 26, 2016]. However, this has not prevented him from being "normalized" and celebrated by the "mainstream" media.

    The logical conclusion of all of this:

    Or, as VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow told the NPI conference: "What we are going to see in the next few years is an intensified Reign Of Terror."

    For example, Buzzfeed's latest masterpiece of journalism: the shocking revelation that reality stars Chip and Joanna Gaines attend a church that disagrees with homosexual marriage [ Chip and Joanna Gaines' Church Is Firmly Against Same-Sex Marriage , by Kate Aurthur, Buzzfeed, November 29, 2016]. You know–like every Christian church for about 2000 years. The obvious agenda: to get the show canceled or the Gaines to disavow their own pastor.

    This is the goal of most "journalism" today–to get someone fired or to get someone to disavow someone. The Southern Poverty Law Center ( $PLC to VDARE.com) makes a lucrative income from policing speech . ( Right, a graph of their endowment fund.)And journalists today are no different than the $PLC. They do not report, they do not provide information, and rather than ensuring freedom they are the willing tools of repression.

    And this repression only goes one way.

    If you wouldn't invite some communist demonstrator into your meeting, why would you invite an MSM journalist? They have the same beliefs, the same motivations, and increasingly, they rely on the same tactics. Aside from the occasional throwing of feces (as Richard Spencer learned at NPI), the preferred tactic of "Antifa" consists of pearl-clutching blog posts.

    The repression is accelerating. Reddit is now moving to censor pro-Trump content on its site [ Breaking: Unethical @reddit CEO vows to crack down on "toxic users" as right wing subreddit protests censorship , by Charles Johnson, Got News, November 30, 2016]. Having been purged from Twitter, many free speech supporters are moving to GAB, so The New York Times is trying to get that shut down too [ The Far Right Has a New Digital Safe Space , by Amanda Hess, November 30, 2016]. And Kellogg pulled its ads from Breitbart, after Trump's election, because it said it did not "align with its values as a company". [ Breitbart at 'war' with Kellogg's over advertising snub , BBC, December 1, 2016].

    Since the election, journalists have been paying tribute to their own courage, promising to hold Trump accountable. But there is no greater enemy to free speech than reporters. Shutting down the networks and shuttering the newspapers would be a boon to independence of thought, not an obstacle.

    For his own sake, to defend his own Administration, Trump has to delegitimize the MSM, just as he did during the campaign. He should continue to use his Twitter account and speak straight to the people. He should not hold press conferences with national MSM and speak only to local reporters before holding rallies. If Twitter bans him, as Leftists are urging, he should nationalize it as a utility and make it a free speech zone.[ Twitter has become a utility , by Alan Kohler, The Australian, October 17, 2016]

    And Trump's supporters need to act the same way. Stop giving reporters access. Stop pretending you can play the MSM for your own benefit. Stop acting like these people are anything other than hostile political activists whose only interest in life is to make yours worse.

    Stop giving them what they want.

    Your career, family, and entire life may depend on it. And so does the life of the nation.

    James Kirkpatrick [ Email him] is a Beltway veteran and a refugee from Conservatism Inc.

    [Dec 28, 2016] The risk of WWIII is not enough to deter these maniacs from doing everything they can to keep neoliberals in power

    Notable quotes:
    "... "The lockstep zombies for the sleaze and global mayhem of the Clinton Machine and Dem Party gangsters are on the march. These liberals for US Empire are showing their reverence and fanboy love for the CIA and FBI and McCarthyism. ..."
    "... They either cheered or shrugged when the Clinton thugs stole the primary from Bernie (with his obsequious assent) or snored when Obama/Clinton staged coups and installed fascists in Honduras and Ukraine but oh how they bellow and shake their fists at the *alleged* hacking by Russia that amounts to providing info on just how sleazy the Democratic Party is. ..."
    "... THAT form of fake news is not only acceptable it is to be embraced and taught to our fucking children. If the NYT or WaPo tells us all bad things come from Putin these shock troops for the Democratic Party click their heels and salute. ..."
    "... The risk of WWIII is not enough to deter these fucking maniacs from doing all they can to keep their team in power. Meanwhile their leaders want to "work with" Trump and "give him a chance." Who are the fascists in this shit show?? Such a clusterfuck of incoherence. ..."
    "... If it's true the "Russians" (who be that by the way?) did what the professional liars in the intelligence agencies say they did it doesn't even amount to a parking violation compared to the billions and billions of dollars spent by the US over the last 70 years rigging and crushing democracy (literally with murder) across the globe. ..."
    Dec 28, 2016 | www.unz.com

    Anon December 12, 2016 at 9:33 pm GMT

    This post by Leftie on facebook offers glimpse into chasm on the other side.

    It's Progs vs Globs. ProGlob is coming apart.

    "The lockstep zombies for the sleaze and global mayhem of the Clinton Machine and Dem Party gangsters are on the march. These liberals for US Empire are showing their reverence and fanboy love for the CIA and FBI and McCarthyism.

    They either cheered or shrugged when the Clinton thugs stole the primary from Bernie (with his obsequious assent) or snored when Obama/Clinton staged coups and installed fascists in Honduras and Ukraine but oh how they bellow and shake their fists at the *alleged* hacking by Russia that amounts to providing info on just how sleazy the Democratic Party is.

    The "fake news" (it's called free speech you fucking assholes) that the Rooskies pumped into our helpless and confused brains is a threat to the Republic but "capitalism means freedom and democracy", WMD's, yellow cake, mobile weapons labs, babies torn from incubators, the international monolithic communist conspiracy, Gaddafi supplying viagra to his troops, the headchoppers Obama gives arms and sends into Syria to destroy yet another nation are "moderates", KONY 2012, the filthy Hun is coming to kill us all in 1917, "Duck and cover!!" Gulf of Tonkin, Ho Chi Min's soldiers are going to spring from their canoes on the beaches of Malibu to rape your wife and make you wear pajamas, "superpredators" and on and on etc etc etc

    THAT form of fake news is not only acceptable it is to be embraced and taught to our fucking children. If the NYT or WaPo tells us all bad things come from Putin these shock troops for the Democratic Party click their heels and salute.

    The risk of WWIII is not enough to deter these fucking maniacs from doing all they can to keep their team in power. Meanwhile their leaders want to "work with" Trump and "give him a chance." Who are the fascists in this shit show?? Such a clusterfuck of incoherence.

    If it's true the "Russians" (who be that by the way?) did what the professional liars in the intelligence agencies say they did it doesn't even amount to a parking violation compared to the billions and billions of dollars spent by the US over the last 70 years rigging and crushing democracy (literally with murder) across the globe.

    And the whole obscene carnival engulfing the nation is of course to be blamed on the racist knuckle-dragging "basket of deplorables.""

    [Dec 28, 2016] How NOT to hack an election Russian Hack EXPOSED as Hoax Zero Hedge

    Dec 28, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    For those who missed it among the deluge of propaganda, the Russian 'hack' of the election has been exposed as a huge hoax:

    A Wikileaks envoy today claims he personally received Clinton campaign emails in Washington D.C. after they were leaked by 'disgusted' whisteblowers - and not hacked by Russia.

    Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, told Dailymail.com that he flew to Washington, D.C. for a clandestine hand-off with one of the email sources in September.

    'Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,' said Murray in an interview with Dailymail.com on Tuesday. ' The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.'

    His account contradicts directly the version of how thousands of Democratic emails were published before the election being advanced by U.S. intelligence.

    For those who have read our book Splitting Pennies - this comes as no surprise. As we explain in the book, the world is manipulated by several large global "Banks" which are also owners of big news outlets that control the flow of information around the world (i.e. Thompson Reuters). The surprise here is that the disinformation campaign goes so deep, it has even fooled senators into voting for a bill to stop Russian propaganda; which - on the surface, every flag waving US senator should agree with. No one wants foreign spies or foreign propaganda influencing the domestic population. But how big is the 'threat' of 'Russian' propaganda and how has it been overplayed, in a final 'hail mary' attempt to disrupt the legitimate political process. The motto, the modus operandi of the Illuminati controlled CIA "Order from Chaos" is explained on their 'think tank' website here.

    Americans steeped in a culture of 'politics' are again being fooled, this election wasn't about party or state lines, "Republicans" didn't win over "Democrats" - this election was about a wild card, a non-politician, non-Establishment candidate winning by a landslide if going by the polls (Trump was given 5% chance of winning up until the night of election).

    How to Hack an Election

    Interestingly, Bloomberg (although biased Bloomberg is still one of the only mainstream news sources that still produces real, investigative journalism globally) in April published an extremely well researched composition "How to Hack an Election" detailing the life of a real election hacker, Andres Sepulveda and his US political 'analyst' partner, Juan Jose Rendon. To understand how foolish the claim about Russians hacking the election, readers can study the story of Sepulveda who successfully hacked multiple elections in Latin America and was paid millions for his efforts:

    When Peña Nieto won, Sepúlveda began destroying evidence. He drilled holes in flash drives, hard drives, and cell phones, fried their circuits in a microwave, then broke them to shards with a hammer. He shredded documents and flushed them down the toilet and erased servers in Russia and Ukraine rented anonymously with Bitcoins. He was dismantling what he says was a secret history of one of the dirtiest Latin American campaigns in recent memory.

    For eight years, Sepúlveda, now 31, says he traveled the continent rigging major political campaigns. With a budget of $600,000, the Peña Nieto job was by far his most complex. He led a team of hackers that stole campaign strategies, manipulated social media to create false waves of enthusiasm and derision, and installed spyware in opposition offices, all to help Peña Nieto, a right-of-center candidate, eke out a victory. On that July night, he cracked bottle after bottle of Colón Negra beer in celebration. As usual on election night, he was alone.

    Sepúlveda's career began in 2005, and his first jobs were small-mostly defacing campaign websites and breaking into opponents' donor databases. Within a few years he was assembling teams that spied, stole, and smeared on behalf of presidential campaigns across Latin America. He wasn't cheap, but his services were extensive. For $12,000 a month, a customer hired a crew that could hack smartphones, spoof and clone Web pages, and send mass e-mails and texts. The premium package, at $20,000 a month, also included a full range of digital interception, attack, decryption, and defense. The jobs were carefully laundered through layers of middlemen and consultants. Sepúlveda says many of the candidates he helped might not even have known about his role; he says he met only a few.

    His teams worked on presidential elections in Nicaragua, Panama, Honduras, El Salvador, Colombia, Mexico, Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Venezuela. Campaigns mentioned in this story were contacted through former and current spokespeople; none but Mexico's PRI and the campaign of Guatemala's National Advancement Party would comment.

    The point here, well there are several points. One, Sepulveda is not the only guy in the world doing this. The CIA even has a team of social media trolls and the NSA has a department that only develops robots to do the same thing Sepulveda was doing and better. The age of 'spies' has transformed into an electronic, digital, online version - much like the internet has transformed life and business it has also changed the way the intelligence establishment deals with controlling the population. Oh how the FBI has evolved since the days of Hoffman and Cointelpro!

    Many of Sepúlveda's efforts were unsuccessful, but he has enough wins that he might be able to claim as much influence over the political direction of modern Latin America as anyone in the 21st century. "My job was to do actions of dirty war and psychological operations, black propaganda, rumors-the whole dark side of politics that nobody knows exists but everyone can see," he says in Spanish, while sitting at a small plastic table in an outdoor courtyard deep within the heavily fortified offices of Colombia's attorney general's office. He's serving 10 years in prison for charges including use of malicious software, conspiracy to commit crime, violation of personal data, and espionage, related to hacking during Colombia's 2014 presidential election. He has agreed to tell his full story for the first time, hoping to convince the public that he's rehabilitated-and gather support for a reduced sentence.

    Usually, he says, he was on the payroll of Juan José Rendón, a Miami-based political consultant who's been called the Karl Rove of Latin America. Rendón denies using Sepúlveda for anything illegal, and categorically disputes the account Sepúlveda gave Bloomberg Businessweek of their relationship, but admits knowing him and using him to do website design. "If I talked to him maybe once or twice, it was in a group session about that, about the Web," he says. "I don't do illegal stuff at all. There is negative campaigning. They don't like it-OK. But if it's legal, I'm gonna do it. I'm not a saint, but I'm not a criminal." While Sepúlveda's policy was to destroy all data at the completion of a job, he left some documents with members of his hacking teams and other trusted third parties as a secret "insurance policy."

    We don't need a degree in cybersecurity to see how this was going on against Trump all throughout the campaign. Not only did they hire thugs to start riots at Trump rallies and protest, a massive online campaign was staged against Trump.

    Rendón, says Sepúlveda, saw that hackers could be completely integrated into a modern political operation, running attack ads, researching the opposition, and finding ways to suppress a foe's turnout. As for Sepúlveda, his insight was to understand that voters trusted what they thought were spontaneous expressions of real people on social media more than they did experts on television and in newspapers. He knew that accounts could be faked and social media trends fabricated, all relatively cheaply. He wrote a software program, now called Social Media Predator, to manage and direct a virtual army of fake Twitter accounts. The software let him quickly change names, profile pictures, and biographies to fit any need. Eventually, he discovered, he could manipulate the public debate as easily as moving pieces on a chessboard-or, as he puts it, "When I realized that people believe what the Internet says more than reality, I discovered that I had the power to make people believe almost anything."

    Sepúlveda managed thousands of such fake profiles and used the accounts to shape discussion around topics such as Peña Nieto's plan to end drug violence, priming the social media pump with views that real users would mimic. For less nuanced work, he had a larger army of 30,000 Twitter bots, automatic posters that could create trends. One conversation he started stoked fear that the more López Obrador rose in the polls, the lower the peso would sink. Sepúlveda knew the currency issue was a major vulnerability; he'd read it in the candidate's own internal staff memos.

    While there's no evidence that Rendon or Sepulveda were involved in the 2016 election, there is also no evidence that Russian hackers were involved in the 2016 election. There's not even false evidence. There isn't a hint of it. There isn't a witness, there isn't a document, there's nothing - it's a conspiracy theory! And a very poor one.

    By the way, if you want to disguise your IP address as if you are living in Russia, there's a service that will do this for about $10/month - millions of people use this service. You can sign up for it too, and choose what country you want to be 'from' - Canada, Brazil, Russia - take your pick.

    Russian hackers would have had the same or better (probably much better) tools, strategies, and resources than Sepulveda. But none of this shows up anywhere. If anything, this is an example of how NOT to hack an election.

    To learn more about the way the world works, checkout Splitting Pennies. To gain some Alpha in your portfolio for QEP / ECP investors checkout Alpha Z Advisors.

    Further reading about 'truth' and 'alternative reality'

    Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

    Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution .

    Armand Hammer: The Untold Story

    A People's History of the United States

    Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich

    Fooled by Randomness: The Hidden Role of Chance in Life and in the Markets .
    Mike Masr , Dec 28, 2016 8:06 AM

    This truth will be swept under the rug and regarded as "fake news" because it doesn't fit the official Obama narrative that Russia did it!
    mary mary Kefeer , Dec 27, 2016 6:55 PM
    Thanks. Right. Hillary's official electronic communications is more correct than Hillary's emails.

    (And the "wipe them, you mean like with a rag?" from Hillary, after having been in government all her adult life and after having presented herself as a modern Secretary of State who knew all about how government and modern technology worked would have been a funny joke if it hadn't obviously been intended to cover up enormous crimes.)

    Grandad Grumps , Dec 27, 2016 2:58 PM
    Whoever is running the world with all of this fake stuff and all of the monitoring of people and petty false propganda, they pretty much suck at it. it is as if they are claiming to be running the world using "training wheels". As a substitute for God they stink! Grade D-!
    Fathead Slim , Dec 27, 2016 2:25 PM
    The tale doesn't have to be a good one for the TV addicted masses to believe it, it only has to be presented by the only sources these imbeciles are willing to use: their fucking TV sets. Most people are so deluded by their main source of entertainment and information that they wouldn't give a shit if incontrovertible evidence that their TV information source was lying was presented to them.

    Most people I know don't want to know anything that can't be spoonfed to them on a TV screen.

    Dick Buttkiss Fathead Slim , Dec 27, 2016 2:42 PM
    "The tale doesn't have to be a good one for the TV addicted masses to believe it..."

    Like the tale that the only steel highrise buildings to ever collapse due to fires (turning into dust at near freefall speed) ocurred on a single day 15 years ago, orchestrated, along with everything else on that fateful day, by a man in a cave half a world away.

    Fathead Slim Dick Buttkiss , Dec 27, 2016 6:57 PM
    Yep, a prime example. TV addicts are also convinced that they've seen news broadcasts that announced the finding of WMDs in Iraq.
    Kefeer Dick Buttkiss , Dec 27, 2016 4:49 PM
    You left out that the man was also on dialysis.
    jeff montanye Kefeer , Dec 27, 2016 6:51 PM
    and that after every airport was closed and every single commercial plane was grounded, that man's entire extended family resident in the u.s., some two dozen individuals, was given fbi protection, rented cars and chartered planes, and flown out of the country without ever being interviewed, at all, by any law enforcement branch of the government of the united states which, needless to say, had absolutely no involvement with the deadliest foreign attack on u.s. soil since the war of 1812, killing nearly 600 more than died at pearl harbor. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bin-laden-family-evacuated/

    this was known at the time it happened. what took longer to discover was that the source of the foreign attack was not a cave in afghanistan or even saudi arabia or the muslim world generally.

    all along it was our trusted ally, brave little israel.

  • http://www.whale.to/b/israel_did_911.html
  • https://sites.google.com/site/onedemocraticstatesite/archives/-solving-9...
  • http://www.amazon.com/Solving-9-11-Deception-Changed-World/dp/0985322586
  • http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticl... .
  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/everything-rich-man-trick/
  • https://smile.amazon.com/dp/098213150X/sr=1-1/qid=1467687982/ref=olp_pro...
  • http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf
  • Twodogs jeff montanye , Dec 28, 2016 8:33 AM
    Anti-semitism enables one to ignore the elephant in the room, namely the Saudis who have been spending billions promoting Wahhabism and terrorism, to blame a tiny little country for everything, without ever having to bother about evidence. Seek help.
    BSHJ Dick Buttkiss , Dec 27, 2016 3:06 PM
    Well, he was probably always watching HGTV and knew all the right tricks to make his man-cave as efficient as possible.
    mary mary BSHJ , Dec 27, 2016 6:58 PM
    So easy (with a little help from Bush and Cheney) that even a cave-man could do it. ....

    [Dec 27, 2016] Wielding Claims of Fake News, Conservatives Take Aim at Mainstream Media

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Fake news was a term specifically about people who purposely fabricated stories for clicks and revenue," said David Mikkelson, the founder of Snopes, the myth-busting website. "Now it includes bad reporting, slanted journalism and outright propaganda. And I think we're doing a disservice to lump all those things together." ..."
    "... "What I think is so unsettling about the fake news cries now is that their audience has already sort of bought into this idea that journalism has no credibility or legitimacy," ..."
    "... The market in these divided times is undeniably ripe. "We now live in this fragmented media world where you can block people you disagree with. You can only be exposed to stories that make you feel good about what you want to believe," Mr. Ziegler, the radio host, said. "Unfortunately, the truth is unpopular a lot. And a good fairy tale beats a harsh truth every time." ..."
    Dec 25, 2016 | www.nytimes.com
    ... ... ...

    Rush Limbaugh has diagnosed a more fundamental problem . "The fake news is the everyday news" in the mainstream media, he said on his radio show recently. "They just make it up."

    .... As reporters were walking out of a Trump rally this month in Orlando, Fla., a man heckled them with shouts of "Fake news!"

    Until now, that term had been widely understood to refer to fabricated news accounts that are meant to spread virally online. But conservative cable and radio personalities, top Republicans and even Mr. Trump himself, incredulous about suggestions that fake stories may have helped swing the election, have appropriated the term and turned it against any news they see as hostile to their agenda.

    In defining "fake news" so broadly and seeking to dilute its meaning, they are capitalizing on the declining credibility of all purveyors of information, one product of the country's increasing political polarization. And conservatives, seeing an opening to undermine the mainstream media, a longtime foe, are more than happy to dig the hole deeper.

    "Over the years, we've effectively brainwashed the core of our audience to distrust anything that they disagree with. And now it's gone too far," said John Ziegler, a conservative radio host, who has been critical of what he sees as excessive partisanship by pundits. "Because the gatekeepers have lost all credibility in the minds of consumers, I don't see how you reverse it."

    Journalists who work to separate fact from fiction see a dangerous conflation of stories that turn out to be wrong because of a legitimate misunderstanding with those whose clear intention is to deceive. A report, shared more than a million times on social media, that the pope had endorsed Mr. Trump was undeniably false. But was it "fake news" to report on data models that showed Hillary Clinton with overwhelming odds of winning the presidency? Are opinion articles fake if they cherry-pick facts to draw disputable conclusions?

    "Fake news was a term specifically about people who purposely fabricated stories for clicks and revenue," said David Mikkelson, the founder of Snopes, the myth-busting website. "Now it includes bad reporting, slanted journalism and outright propaganda. And I think we're doing a disservice to lump all those things together."

    The right's labeling of "fake news" evokes one of the most successful efforts by conservatives to reorient how Americans think about news media objectivity: the move by Fox News to brand its conservative-slanted coverage as "fair and balanced." Traditionally, mainstream media outlets had thought of their own approach in those terms, viewing their coverage as strictly down the middle. Republicans often found that laughable. As with Fox's ubiquitous promotion of its slogan, conservatives' appropriation of the "fake news" label is an effort to further erode the mainstream media's claim to be a reliable and accurate source.

    "What I think is so unsettling about the fake news cries now is that their audience has already sort of bought into this idea that journalism has no credibility or legitimacy," said Angelo Carusone, the president of Media Matters, a liberal group that polices the news media for bias. "Therefore, by applying that term to credible outlets, it becomes much more believable."

    .... ... ...

    Mr. Trump has used the term to deny news reports, as he did on Twitter recently after various outlets said he would stay on as the executive producer of "The New Celebrity Apprentice" after taking office in January. "Ridiculous & untrue - FAKE NEWS!" he wrote. (He will be credited as executive producer, a spokesman for the show's creator, Mark Burnett, has said. But it is unclear what work, if any, he will do on the show.)

    Many conservatives are pushing back at the outrage over fake news because they believe that liberals, unwilling to accept Mr. Trump's victory, are attributing his triumph to nefarious external factors.

    "The left refuses to admit that the fundamental problem isn't the Russians or Jim Comey or 'fake news' or the Electoral College," said Laura Ingraham, the author and radio host. "'Fake news' is just another fake excuse for their failed agenda."

    Others see a larger effort to slander the basic journalistic function of fact-checking. Nonpartisan websites like Snopes and Factcheck.org have found themselves maligned when they have disproved stories that had been flattering to conservatives.

    When Snopes wrote about a State Farm insurance agent in Louisiana who had posted a sign outside his office that likened taxpayers who voted for President Obama to chickens supporting Colonel Sanders, Mr. Mikkelson, the site's founder, was smeared as a partisan Democrat who had never bothered to reach out to the agent for comment. Neither is true.

    "They're trying to float anything they can find out there to discredit fact-checking," he said.

    There are already efforts by highly partisan conservatives to claim that their fact-checking efforts are the same as those of independent outlets like Snopes, which employ research teams to dig into seemingly dubious claims.

    Sean Hannity, the Fox News host, has aired "fact-checking" segments on his program. Michelle Malkin, the conservative columnist, has a web program, "Michelle Malkin Investigates," in which she conducts her own investigative reporting.

    The market in these divided times is undeniably ripe. "We now live in this fragmented media world where you can block people you disagree with. You can only be exposed to stories that make you feel good about what you want to believe," Mr. Ziegler, the radio host, said. "Unfortunately, the truth is unpopular a lot. And a good fairy tale beats a harsh truth every time."

    [Dec 27, 2016] This Russian hacking thing is being discussed entirely out of realistic context.

    Notable quotes:
    "... This Russian hacking thing is being discussed entirely out of realistic context. ..."
    "... Voting machines are public and for Federal elections then tampering with them is elevated to a Federal crime. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron : , December 18, 2016 at 07:18 AM

    This Russian hacking thing is being discussed entirely out of realistic context.

    Cyber security is a serious risk management operation that firms and governments spend outrageous sums of money on because hacking attempts, especially from sources in China and Russia, occur in vast numbers against every remotely desirable target corporate or government each and every day. At my former employer, the State of Virginia, the data center repelled over two million hacking attempts from sources in China each day. Northrop Grumman, the infrastructure management outsourcer for the State of Virginia's IT infrastructure, has had no known intrusions into any Commonwealth of Virginia servers that had been migrated to their standard security infrastructure thus far since the inception of their contract in July 2006. That is almost the one good thing that I have to say about NG. Some state servers, notably the Virginia Department of Health Professions, not under protection of the NG standard network security were hacked and had private information such as client SSNs stolen. Retail store servers are hacked almost routinely, but large banks and similarly well protected corporations are not. Security costs and it costs a lot.

    Even working in a data center with an excellent intrusion protection program as part of that program I had to take an annual "securing the human" computer based training class. Despite all of the technical precautions we were retrained each year to among other things NEVER put anything in an E-Mail that we did not want to be available for everyone to read; i.e., to never assume privacy is protected in an E-Mail. Embarrassing E-Mails need a source. We should assume that there will always be a hacker to take advantage of our mistakes.

    RGC -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 07:57 AM
    Can you spell "diversion"?

    Sanders: "Break up the banks!"

    Trump: "The elites are screwing you over!"

    Supporters of the status quo:

    "It's racism"

    "It's Russian hackers"

    Whatever it takes to change the subject.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> RGC... , December 18, 2016 at 08:09 AM
    Maybe it is diversion, but it is definitely uninformed if not just plain stupid.
    sglover -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 06:11 PM
    Absolutely. What does that suggest about Team Dem?
    DrDick -> EMichael... , December 18, 2016 at 08:34 AM
    The reality is that all the major world powers (and some minor ones), including us, do this routinely and always have. While it is entirely appropriate to be outraged that it may have materially determined the election (which I think is impossible to know, though it did have some impact), we should not be shocked or surprised by this.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> EMichael... , December 18, 2016 at 09:55 AM
    "...I would suggest attacks on Putin's personal business holdings all over the world..."

    [My guess is that has been being done a long time ago considering the direction of US/Russian foreign relations over NATO expansion, the Ukraine, and Syria.

    Long before TCP/IP the best way to prevent dirty secrets from getting out was not to have dirty secrets. It still works.

    The jabbering heads will not have much effect on the political opinions of ordinary citizens because 40 million or more US adults had their credit information compromised by the Target hackers three years ago. Target had been saving credit card numbers instead of deleting them as soon as they obtained authorizations for transfers, so that the 40 million were certainly exposed while more than twice that were probably exposed. Establishment politicians having their embarrassing E-mails hacked is more like good fun family entertainment than something to get all riled up about.]

    http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/10/news/companies/target-hacking/

    Target: Hacking hit up to 110 million customers

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> EMichael... , December 18, 2016 at 10:22 AM
    Voting machines are public and for Federal elections then tampering with them is elevated to a Federal crime. Political parties are private. The Federal government did not protect Target or Northrop Grumman's managed infrastructure for the Commonwealth of Virginia although either one can take forensic information to the FBI that will obtain warrants for prosecution. Foreign criminal operations go beyond the immediate domestic reach of the FBI. Not even Interpol interdicts foreign leaders unless they are guilty of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.

    The Federal government can do what it will as there are not hard guidelines for such clandestine operations and responses. Moreover, there are none to realistically enforce against them, which inevitably leads to war given sufficient cycles of escalation. Certainly our own government has done worse (political assassinations and supporting coups with money and guns) with impunity merely because of its size, reach, and power.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> EMichael... , December 18, 2016 at 10:43 AM
    BTW, "the burglar that just ransacked your house" can be arrested and prosecuted by a established regulated legal system with absolutely zero concerns of escalating into a nuclear war, trade war, or any other global hostility. So, not the same thing at all. Odds are good though that the burglar will get away without any of that because when he does finally get caught it will be an accident and probably only after dozen if not hundreds of B&E's.

    There is a line. The US has crossed that line, but always in less developed countries that had no recourse against us. Putin knows where the line is with the US. He will dance around it and lean over it, but not cross it. We have him outgunned and he knows it. Putin did not tamper with an election, a government function. Putin tampered with private data exposing incriminating information against a political party, which is a private entity rather than government entity. Whatever we do should probably stay within the rule of law as it gets messy fast once outside those boundaries.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 11:01 AM
    As far as burglars go I live in a particular working class zip code that has very few burglaries. It is a bad risk/reward deal unless you are just out to steal guns and then you better make sure that no one is home. Most people with children still living at home also have a gun safe. Most people have dogs.

    There are plenty burglaries in a lower income zip code nearby and lots more in higher income zip codes further away, the former being targets of opportunity with less security and possible drug stashes, which has a faster turnover than fencing big screen TV's. High income neighborhoods are natural targets with jewelry, cash, credit cards, and high end electronics, but far better security systems. I don't know much about their actual crime stats because they are on the opposite side of the City of Richmond VA from me, but I used to know a couple of burglars when I lived in the inner city. They liked the upscale homes near the University of Richmond on River Road.

    Peter K. -> DrDick... , December 18, 2016 at 09:21 AM
    Putin was mad b/c Clinton interfered in Russia's election using the bully-pulpit.

    She may have been complete correct in what she was saying, but it's not surprising she pissed Putin off.

    The Democratic establishment would rather discuss this than do a post-mortem on Hillary's campaign.

    They kept telling us the e-mail didn't reveal anything and now they say the e-mail determined the election.

    DeDude -> Peter K.... , December 18, 2016 at 09:43 AM
    "They kept telling us the e-mail didn't reveal anything and now they say the e-mail determined the election"

    And those two statement are not in conflict unless you are a brain dead Fox bot. Big nothing-burgers like Bhengazi or trivial emails can easily be blown up and affect a few hundred thousand voters. When the heck are you going to grow up and get past your 5 stages of Sanders grief?

    Peter K. -> DeDude... , December 18, 2016 at 09:54 AM
    "Big nothing-burgers like Bhengazi or trivial emails can easily be blown up and affect a few hundred thousand voters. "

    There is already an audience for those faux scandals, the Fox viewers.

    They don't create new Voters.

    You're nothing but a brainwashed partisan Democrat, a mirror-image of these brainwashed Fox viewers.

    You're told what you're supposed to think by the Party leadership and you eat it up.

    No critical thinking skills.

    EMichael -> DeDude... , December 18, 2016 at 09:55 AM
    He's barely over Nader.
    DeDude -> EMichael... , December 18, 2016 at 10:07 AM
    I know - and there used to be some signs of a functional brain. Now it is all "they are all the same" ism and Hillary derangement syndrome on steroids. Someone who cares need to do an intervention before it becomes he get gobbled up by "ilsm" ism.
    Peter K. -> EMichael... , December 18, 2016 at 01:08 PM
    Nader's critique was correct.

    The Democrats moved to the right and created more Trump voters.

    im1dc -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 08:56 AM
    ABC video interview by Martha Raddatz of Donna Brazile 2:43

    Adding the following FACTS, not opinion, to the Russian Hacking debate at the DNC

    Russian hacks of the DNC began at least as early as April, the FBI informed the DNC in May of the hacks, NO ONE in the FedGovt offered to HELP the DNC at anytime (allowed it to continue), and Russia's Putin DID NOT stop after President Obama told Putin in September to "Cut it Out", despite Obama's belief otherwise

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dnc-chair-says-committee-was-attacked-by-russian-hackers-through-election-day_us_5856acb6e4b08debb78992e4

    "DNC Chair Says Russian Hackers Attacked The Committee Through Election Day"

    'That goes against Obama's statement that the attacks ended after he spoke to Putin in September'

    by Dave Jamieson Labor Reporter...The Huffington Post...12/18/2016...10:59 am ET

    "The chair of the Democratic National Committee said Sunday that the DNC was under constant cyber attack by Russian hackers right through the election in November. Her claim contradicts President Barack Obama's statement Friday that the attacks ended in September after he issued a personal warning to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    "No, they did not stop," Donna Brazile told Martha Raddatz on ABC's "This Week." "They came after us absolutely every day until the end of the election. They tried to hack into our system repeatedly. We put up the very best cyber security but they constantly [attacked]."

    Brazile said the DNC was outgunned in its efforts to fend off the hacks, and suggested the committee received insufficient protection from U.S. intelligence agencies. The CIA and FBI have reportedly concluded that Russians carried out the attacks in an effort to help Donald Trump defeat Hillary Clinton.

    "I think the Obama administration ― the FBI, the various other federal agencies ― they informed us, they told us what was happening. We knew as of May," Brazile said. "But in terms of helping us to fight, we were fighting a foreign adversary in the cyberspace. The Democratic National Committee, we were not a match. And yet we fought constantly."

    In a surprising analogy, Brazile compared the FBI's help to the DNC to that of the Geek Squad, the tech service provided at retailer Best Buy ― which is to say well-meaning, but limited.

    "They reached out ― it's like going to Best Buy," Brazile said. "You get the Geek Squad, and they're great people, by the way. They reached out to our IT vendors. But they reached us, meaning senior Democratic officials, by then it was, you know, the Russians had been involved for a long time."..."

    im1dc -> im1dc... , December 18, 2016 at 08:59 AM
    This new perspective and set of facts is more than distressing it details a clear pattern of Executive Branch incompetence, malfeasance, and ineptitude (perhaps worse if you are conspiratorially inclined)
    im1dc -> im1dc... , -1
    The information above puts in bold relief President Obama's denial of an Electoral College briefing on the Russian Hacks

    There is now no reason not to brief the Electors to the extent and degree of Putin's help for demagogue Donald

    [Dec 27, 2016] This Russian hacking thing is being discussed entirely out of realistic context.

    Notable quotes:
    "... This Russian hacking thing is being discussed entirely out of realistic context. ..."
    "... Voting machines are public and for Federal elections then tampering with them is elevated to a Federal crime. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron : , December 18, 2016 at 07:18 AM

    This Russian hacking thing is being discussed entirely out of realistic context.

    Cyber security is a serious risk management operation that firms and governments spend outrageous sums of money on because hacking attempts, especially from sources in China and Russia, occur in vast numbers against every remotely desirable target corporate or government each and every day. At my former employer, the State of Virginia, the data center repelled over two million hacking attempts from sources in China each day. Northrop Grumman, the infrastructure management outsourcer for the State of Virginia's IT infrastructure, has had no known intrusions into any Commonwealth of Virginia servers that had been migrated to their standard security infrastructure thus far since the inception of their contract in July 2006. That is almost the one good thing that I have to say about NG. Some state servers, notably the Virginia Department of Health Professions, not under protection of the NG standard network security were hacked and had private information such as client SSNs stolen. Retail store servers are hacked almost routinely, but large banks and similarly well protected corporations are not. Security costs and it costs a lot.

    Even working in a data center with an excellent intrusion protection program as part of that program I had to take an annual "securing the human" computer based training class. Despite all of the technical precautions we were retrained each year to among other things NEVER put anything in an E-Mail that we did not want to be available for everyone to read; i.e., to never assume privacy is protected in an E-Mail. Embarrassing E-Mails need a source. We should assume that there will always be a hacker to take advantage of our mistakes.

    RGC -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 07:57 AM
    Can you spell "diversion"?

    Sanders: "Break up the banks!"

    Trump: "The elites are screwing you over!"

    Supporters of the status quo:

    "It's racism"

    "It's Russian hackers"

    Whatever it takes to change the subject.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> RGC... , December 18, 2016 at 08:09 AM
    Maybe it is diversion, but it is definitely uninformed if not just plain stupid.
    sglover -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 06:11 PM
    Absolutely. What does that suggest about Team Dem?
    DrDick -> EMichael... , December 18, 2016 at 08:34 AM
    The reality is that all the major world powers (and some minor ones), including us, do this routinely and always have. While it is entirely appropriate to be outraged that it may have materially determined the election (which I think is impossible to know, though it did have some impact), we should not be shocked or surprised by this.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> EMichael... , December 18, 2016 at 09:55 AM
    "...I would suggest attacks on Putin's personal business holdings all over the world..."

    [My guess is that has been being done a long time ago considering the direction of US/Russian foreign relations over NATO expansion, the Ukraine, and Syria.

    Long before TCP/IP the best way to prevent dirty secrets from getting out was not to have dirty secrets. It still works.

    The jabbering heads will not have much effect on the political opinions of ordinary citizens because 40 million or more US adults had their credit information compromised by the Target hackers three years ago. Target had been saving credit card numbers instead of deleting them as soon as they obtained authorizations for transfers, so that the 40 million were certainly exposed while more than twice that were probably exposed. Establishment politicians having their embarrassing E-mails hacked is more like good fun family entertainment than something to get all riled up about.]

    http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/10/news/companies/target-hacking/

    Target: Hacking hit up to 110 million customers

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> EMichael... , December 18, 2016 at 10:22 AM
    Voting machines are public and for Federal elections then tampering with them is elevated to a Federal crime. Political parties are private. The Federal government did not protect Target or Northrop Grumman's managed infrastructure for the Commonwealth of Virginia although either one can take forensic information to the FBI that will obtain warrants for prosecution. Foreign criminal operations go beyond the immediate domestic reach of the FBI. Not even Interpol interdicts foreign leaders unless they are guilty of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.

    The Federal government can do what it will as there are not hard guidelines for such clandestine operations and responses. Moreover, there are none to realistically enforce against them, which inevitably leads to war given sufficient cycles of escalation. Certainly our own government has done worse (political assassinations and supporting coups with money and guns) with impunity merely because of its size, reach, and power.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> EMichael... , December 18, 2016 at 10:43 AM
    BTW, "the burglar that just ransacked your house" can be arrested and prosecuted by a established regulated legal system with absolutely zero concerns of escalating into a nuclear war, trade war, or any other global hostility. So, not the same thing at all. Odds are good though that the burglar will get away without any of that because when he does finally get caught it will be an accident and probably only after dozen if not hundreds of B&E's.

    There is a line. The US has crossed that line, but always in less developed countries that had no recourse against us. Putin knows where the line is with the US. He will dance around it and lean over it, but not cross it. We have him outgunned and he knows it. Putin did not tamper with an election, a government function. Putin tampered with private data exposing incriminating information against a political party, which is a private entity rather than government entity. Whatever we do should probably stay within the rule of law as it gets messy fast once outside those boundaries.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 11:01 AM
    As far as burglars go I live in a particular working class zip code that has very few burglaries. It is a bad risk/reward deal unless you are just out to steal guns and then you better make sure that no one is home. Most people with children still living at home also have a gun safe. Most people have dogs.

    There are plenty burglaries in a lower income zip code nearby and lots more in higher income zip codes further away, the former being targets of opportunity with less security and possible drug stashes, which has a faster turnover than fencing big screen TV's. High income neighborhoods are natural targets with jewelry, cash, credit cards, and high end electronics, but far better security systems. I don't know much about their actual crime stats because they are on the opposite side of the City of Richmond VA from me, but I used to know a couple of burglars when I lived in the inner city. They liked the upscale homes near the University of Richmond on River Road.

    Peter K. -> DrDick... , December 18, 2016 at 09:21 AM
    Putin was mad b/c Clinton interfered in Russia's election using the bully-pulpit.

    She may have been complete correct in what she was saying, but it's not surprising she pissed Putin off.

    The Democratic establishment would rather discuss this than do a post-mortem on Hillary's campaign.

    They kept telling us the e-mail didn't reveal anything and now they say the e-mail determined the election.

    DeDude -> Peter K.... , December 18, 2016 at 09:43 AM
    "They kept telling us the e-mail didn't reveal anything and now they say the e-mail determined the election"

    And those two statement are not in conflict unless you are a brain dead Fox bot. Big nothing-burgers like Bhengazi or trivial emails can easily be blown up and affect a few hundred thousand voters. When the heck are you going to grow up and get past your 5 stages of Sanders grief?

    Peter K. -> DeDude... , December 18, 2016 at 09:54 AM
    "Big nothing-burgers like Bhengazi or trivial emails can easily be blown up and affect a few hundred thousand voters. "

    There is already an audience for those faux scandals, the Fox viewers.

    They don't create new Voters.

    You're nothing but a brainwashed partisan Democrat, a mirror-image of these brainwashed Fox viewers.

    You're told what you're supposed to think by the Party leadership and you eat it up.

    No critical thinking skills.

    EMichael -> DeDude... , December 18, 2016 at 09:55 AM
    He's barely over Nader.
    DeDude -> EMichael... , December 18, 2016 at 10:07 AM
    I know - and there used to be some signs of a functional brain. Now it is all "they are all the same" ism and Hillary derangement syndrome on steroids. Someone who cares need to do an intervention before it becomes he get gobbled up by "ilsm" ism.
    Peter K. -> EMichael... , December 18, 2016 at 01:08 PM
    Nader's critique was correct.

    The Democrats moved to the right and created more Trump voters.

    im1dc -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 08:56 AM
    ABC video interview by Martha Raddatz of Donna Brazile 2:43

    Adding the following FACTS, not opinion, to the Russian Hacking debate at the DNC

    Russian hacks of the DNC began at least as early as April, the FBI informed the DNC in May of the hacks, NO ONE in the FedGovt offered to HELP the DNC at anytime (allowed it to continue), and Russia's Putin DID NOT stop after President Obama told Putin in September to "Cut it Out", despite Obama's belief otherwise

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dnc-chair-says-committee-was-attacked-by-russian-hackers-through-election-day_us_5856acb6e4b08debb78992e4

    "DNC Chair Says Russian Hackers Attacked The Committee Through Election Day"

    'That goes against Obama's statement that the attacks ended after he spoke to Putin in September'

    by Dave Jamieson Labor Reporter...The Huffington Post...12/18/2016...10:59 am ET

    "The chair of the Democratic National Committee said Sunday that the DNC was under constant cyber attack by Russian hackers right through the election in November. Her claim contradicts President Barack Obama's statement Friday that the attacks ended in September after he issued a personal warning to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    "No, they did not stop," Donna Brazile told Martha Raddatz on ABC's "This Week." "They came after us absolutely every day until the end of the election. They tried to hack into our system repeatedly. We put up the very best cyber security but they constantly [attacked]."

    Brazile said the DNC was outgunned in its efforts to fend off the hacks, and suggested the committee received insufficient protection from U.S. intelligence agencies. The CIA and FBI have reportedly concluded that Russians carried out the attacks in an effort to help Donald Trump defeat Hillary Clinton.

    "I think the Obama administration ― the FBI, the various other federal agencies ― they informed us, they told us what was happening. We knew as of May," Brazile said. "But in terms of helping us to fight, we were fighting a foreign adversary in the cyberspace. The Democratic National Committee, we were not a match. And yet we fought constantly."

    In a surprising analogy, Brazile compared the FBI's help to the DNC to that of the Geek Squad, the tech service provided at retailer Best Buy ― which is to say well-meaning, but limited.

    "They reached out ― it's like going to Best Buy," Brazile said. "You get the Geek Squad, and they're great people, by the way. They reached out to our IT vendors. But they reached us, meaning senior Democratic officials, by then it was, you know, the Russians had been involved for a long time."..."

    im1dc -> im1dc... , December 18, 2016 at 08:59 AM
    This new perspective and set of facts is more than distressing it details a clear pattern of Executive Branch incompetence, malfeasance, and ineptitude (perhaps worse if you are conspiratorially inclined)
    im1dc -> im1dc... , -1
    The information above puts in bold relief President Obama's denial of an Electoral College briefing on the Russian Hacks

    There is now no reason not to brief the Electors to the extent and degree of Putin's help for demagogue Donald

    [Dec 26, 2016] Crowdsourced Volunteers Search For Solutions To Fake News

    Dec 26, 2016 | news.slashdot.org
    (wired.co.uk) 270 Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday November 27, 2016 @03:34AM from the help-me-hive-mind dept. Upworthy co-founder Eli Pariser is leading a group of online volunteers hunting for ways to respond to the spread of fake news. An anonymous reader quotes Wired UK: Inside a Google Doc, volunteers are gathering ideas and approaches to get a grip on the untruthful news stories. It is part analysis, part brainstorming, with those involved being encouraged to read widely around the topic before contributing. "This is a massive endeavour but well worth it," they say...

    At present, the group is coming up with a list of potential solutions and approaches . Possible methods the group is looking at include: more human editors, fingerprinting viral stories then training algorithms on confirmed fakes, domain checking, the blockchain, a reliability algorithm, sentiment analysis, a Wikipedia for news sources, and more.

    The article also suggests this effort may one day spawn fake news-fighting tech startups.

    [Dec 26, 2016] Are We Seeing Propaganda About Russian Propaganda?

    Dec 26, 2016 | news.slashdot.org
    (rollingstone.com) 335 Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday December 04, 2016 @12:39PM from the ghosts-of-Joseph-McCarthy dept. MyFirstNameIsPaul was one of several readers who spotted this disturbing instance of fake news about fake news. An anonymous reader writes: Last week the Washington Post described "independent researchers" who'd identified "more than 200 websites as routine peddlers of Russian propaganda " that they estimated were viewed more than 200 million times on Facebook. But the researchers insisted on remaining anonymous "to avoid being targeted by Russia's legions of skilled hackers," and when criticized on Twitter, responded "Awww, wook at all the angwy Putinists, trying to change the subject -- they're so vewwy angwy!!"

    The group "seems to have been in existence for just a few months," writes Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi , calling the Post's article an "astonishingly lazy report". (Chris Hedges, who once worked on a Pulitzer Prize-winning team at the New York Times, even found his site Truthdig on the group's dubious list of over 200 " sites that reliably echo Russian propaganda ," along with other long-standing sites like Zero Hedge , Naked Capitalism , and the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.) "By overplaying the influence of Russia's disinformation campaign, the report also plays directly into the hands of the Russian propagandists that it hopes to combat," complains Adrian Chen, who in 2015 documented real Russian propaganda efforts which he traced to "a building in St. Petersburg where hundreds of young Russians worked to churn out propaganda ."
    The Post's article was picked up by other major news outlets ( including USA Today ), and included an ominous warning that "The sophistication of the Russian tactics may complicate efforts by Facebook and Google to crack down on 'fake news'."

    [Dec 26, 2016] Are We Seeing Propaganda About Russian Propaganda?

    Dec 26, 2016 | news.slashdot.org
    (rollingstone.com) 335 Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday December 04, 2016 @12:39PM from the ghosts-of-Joseph-McCarthy dept. MyFirstNameIsPaul was one of several readers who spotted this disturbing instance of fake news about fake news. An anonymous reader writes: Last week the Washington Post described "independent researchers" who'd identified "more than 200 websites as routine peddlers of Russian propaganda " that they estimated were viewed more than 200 million times on Facebook. But the researchers insisted on remaining anonymous "to avoid being targeted by Russia's legions of skilled hackers," and when criticized on Twitter, responded "Awww, wook at all the angwy Putinists, trying to change the subject -- they're so vewwy angwy!!"

    The group "seems to have been in existence for just a few months," writes Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi , calling the Post's article an "astonishingly lazy report". (Chris Hedges, who once worked on a Pulitzer Prize-winning team at the New York Times, even found his site Truthdig on the group's dubious list of over 200 " sites that reliably echo Russian propaganda ," along with other long-standing sites like Zero Hedge , Naked Capitalism , and the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.) "By overplaying the influence of Russia's disinformation campaign, the report also plays directly into the hands of the Russian propagandists that it hopes to combat," complains Adrian Chen, who in 2015 documented real Russian propaganda efforts which he traced to "a building in St. Petersburg where hundreds of young Russians worked to churn out propaganda ."
    The Post's article was picked up by other major news outlets ( including USA Today ), and included an ominous warning that "The sophistication of the Russian tactics may complicate efforts by Facebook and Google to crack down on 'fake news'."

    [Dec 24, 2016] If the 2018 elections will not be converted to verified paper ballots, accompanied by random auditing of all close elections, then it is clear that the accusations of Russian hacking were blatant lies

    Notable quotes:
    "... Another thing: it will be clear how serious they take the allegations of Russian hacking, by how they address the problem of auditing electronic voting machines. ..."
    "... If the 2018 elections aren't all with voter verified paper ballots, accompanied by random auditing and auditing all close elections, we know the accusations of Russian hacking were blatant lies. ..."
    Dec 24, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    John M -> John M ... December 23, 2016 at 07:17 PM

    Another thing: it will be clear how serious they take the allegations of Russian hacking, by how they address the problem of auditing electronic voting machines.

    If the 2018 elections aren't all with voter verified paper ballots, accompanied by random auditing and auditing all close elections, we know the accusations of Russian hacking were blatant lies.

    [Dec 24, 2016] If the 2018 elections will not be converted to verified paper ballots, accompanied by random auditing of all close elections, then it is clear that the accusations of Russian hacking were blatant lies

    Notable quotes:
    "... Another thing: it will be clear how serious they take the allegations of Russian hacking, by how they address the problem of auditing electronic voting machines. ..."
    "... If the 2018 elections aren't all with voter verified paper ballots, accompanied by random auditing and auditing all close elections, we know the accusations of Russian hacking were blatant lies. ..."
    Dec 24, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    John M -> John M ... December 23, 2016 at 07:17 PM

    Another thing: it will be clear how serious they take the allegations of Russian hacking, by how they address the problem of auditing electronic voting machines.

    If the 2018 elections aren't all with voter verified paper ballots, accompanied by random auditing and auditing all close elections, we know the accusations of Russian hacking were blatant lies.

    [Dec 23, 2016] Has The CIA Been Politicized

    Notable quotes:
    "... The use of the term, however, rather naïvely implies that it is possible for a government agency to not be politicized. A non -political government agency, it is assumed, acts without regard to how its actions and claims affect its political standing among powerful interests in Washington. Such an agency has never existed. ..."
    "... Indeed, when a government agency relies on taxpayer funding, Congressional lawmaking, and White House politics to sustain itself, it is absurd to expect that agency to somehow remain not "politicized." That is, it's a logical impossibility to think it possible to set up a government agency that relies on government policymakers to sustain it, and then think the agency in question will not attempt to influence or curry favor with those policymakers. ..."
    "... Does the organization depend on taxpayer funding for a substantial amount of its budget? ..."
    "... Does the organization engage in what would be illegal activities were it not for protective government legislation? ..."
    Dec 23, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

    Anonymous leakers at the CIA continue to make claims about Russia and the 2016 election. In response to demands to provide evidence, the CIA has declined to offer any, refusing to meet with Congressional intelligence committees, and refusing to issue any documents offering evidence. Instead, the CIA, communicating via leaks, simply says the equivalent of "trust us."

    Not troubled by the lack of evidence, many in the media and in the Democratic party have been repeating unsubstantiated CIA claims as fact.

    Of course, as I've noted before , the history of CIA intelligence is largely a history of missing the forest for the trees. Sometimes, the failures have been spectacular.

    One of the questions that immediately arises in the media in situations like these, however, is " has the CIA been politicized ?"

    When used in this way, the term "politicized" means that the CIA is involved in helping or hurting specific political factions (e,g., specific ideological groups, pressure groups, or presidential administrations) in order to strengthen the CIA's financial or political standing.

    All Government Agencies Are Politicized

    The use of the term, however, rather naïvely implies that it is possible for a government agency to not be politicized. A non -political government agency, it is assumed, acts without regard to how its actions and claims affect its political standing among powerful interests in Washington. Such an agency has never existed.

    Indeed, when a government agency relies on taxpayer funding, Congressional lawmaking, and White House politics to sustain itself, it is absurd to expect that agency to somehow remain not "politicized." That is, it's a logical impossibility to think it possible to set up a government agency that relies on government policymakers to sustain it, and then think the agency in question will not attempt to influence or curry favor with those policymakers.

    This idea might seem plausible to school children in junior-high-school civics classes, but not to anyone who lives in the real world.

    In fact, if we wish to ascertain whether or not an institution or organization is "politicized" we can simply ask ourselves a few questions:

    If the answer to any of these questions is "yes" then you are probably dealing with a politicized organization. If the answer to all of these questions is "yes" - as is the case with the CIA - then you're definitely dealing with a very politicized organization. (Other "non-political" organizations that fall well within this criteria as well include so-called "private" organizations such as the Federal Reserve System and Fannie Mae.)

    So, it has always been foolish to ask ourselves if the CIA is "politicized" since the answer is obviously "yes" for anyone who is paying attention.

    Nevertheless, the myth that the CIA and agencies like it can be non-political continues to endure, although in many cases, the charge has produced numerous helpful historical analysis of just how politicized the CIA has been in practice.

    Recent Narratives on CIA Politicization

    Stories of CIA politicization take at least two forms: One type consists of anti-CIA writers attempting to illustrate how the CIA acts to manipulate political actors to achieve its own political ends. The other type consists of pro-CIA writers attempting to cast the CIA as an innocent victim of manipulation by senior Washington officials.

    Of course, it doesn't matter whether the provenance of CIA politicking comes from within the agency or outside it. In both cases, the fact remains that the Agency is a tool for political actors to deceive, manipulate, and attack political enemies.

    With CIA leaks apparently attempting to call the integrity of the 2016 election into question, the CIA is once again being accused of politicization. Consequently, articles in the Washington Times , the Daily Caller , and The Intercept all question the CIA's motivation and present numerous examples of the Agency's history of deception.

    The current controversy is hardly the first time the Agency has been accused of being political, and during the build up to the Iraq invasion in 2003, for example, the CIA worked with the Bush Administration to essentially manufacture "intelligence."

    In his book Failure of Intelligence , Melvin Allan Goodman writes:

    Three years after the invasion of Iraq, a senior CIA analyst, Paul Pillar, documented the efforts of the Bush administration to politicize the intelligence of the CIA on Iraqi WMD and so-called links between Iraq and al Qaeda. Pillar accused the Bush administration of using policy to drive intelligence production, which was the same argument offered by the chief of British intelligence in the Downing Street memorandum prior to the war, and aggressively using intelligence to win public support for the decision to go to war....Pillar does not explain why no senior CIA official protested, let alone resigned in the wake of the president's misuse of intelligence on Iraq's so-called efforts to obtain uranium ore in Africa. Pillar falsely claimed "for the most part, the intelligence community's own substantive judgments do not appear to have been compromised," when it was clear that the CIA wa wrong on every conclusion and had to politicize the intelligence to be so egregiously wrong."

    Since then, CIA officials have attempted to rehabilitate the agency by claiming the agency was the hapless victim of the Administration. But, as Goodman notes, we heard no protests from the Agency when such protests would have actually mattered, and the fact is the Agency was easily used for political ends. Whether or not some agents wanted to participate in assisting the Bush administration with trumping up evidence against Iraq remains irrelevant. The fact remains the CIA did it.

    Moreover, according to documents compiled by John Prados at the George Washington University , "The U.S. intelligence community buckled sooner in 2002 than previously reported" and that "Under the circumstances, it is difficult to avoid the impression that the CIA and other intelligence agencies defended themselves against the dangers of attack from the Bush administration through a process of self-censorship. That is the very essence of politicization in intelligence."

    In other words, to protect its own budgets and privileges, the CIA reacted quickly to shape its intelligence to meet the political goals of others.

    Journalist Robert Parry has also attempted to go the CIA-as-victim route in his own writings. In an article written before the Iraq War debacle, Parry looks at how the Agency was used by both Reagan and Clinton, and claims that what is arguably of the CIA's biggest analytical errors - repeatedly overstating the economic strength of the Soviet Union - was the result of pressure applied to the Agency by the Reagan administration. (Parry may be mistaken here, as the CIA was wrong about the Soviet economy long before the Reagan Administration .)

    While attempting to defend the CIA, however, Parry is merely providing a list of the many ways in which the CIA serves to manufacture false information that are useful for political officials.

    In this essay for the Center for International Policy, Goodman further lists many examples of politicization and concludes "Throughout the CIA's 60-year history, there have been many efforts to slant analytical conclusions, skew estimates, and repress evidence that challenged a particular policy or point of view. As a result, the agency must recognize the impact of politicization and introduce barriers to protect analysts from political pressures. Unfortunately, the CIA has largely ignored the problem."

    It is difficult to ascertain whether past intelligence failures were due to pressure form the administration or whether they originated from within the Agency itself. Nevertheless, the intelligence failures are numerous, including:

    The fact that politicization occurs might help explain some of these failures, but simply claiming "politicization" doesn't erase the legacy of failure, and it hardly serves as an argument in favor of allowing the CIA to continue to command huge budgets and essentially function unsupervised. Regardless of fanciful claims of non-political professionalism, it is undeniable that, as an agency of the US government, the CIA is a political institution.

    The only type of organization that is not politicized is a private-sector organization under a relatively laissez-faire regime. Heavily regulated private industries and all government agencies are politicized by nature because they depend heavily on active assistance from political actors to sustain themselves.

    It should be assumed that politicized organizations seek to influence policymakers, and thus all the actions and claims of these organization should be treated with skepticism and a recognition that these organizations benefit from further taxation and expanded government powers inflicted on ordinary taxpayers and other productive members of society outside the privileged circles of Washington, DC.

    Perimetr -> Chupacabra-322 •Dec 23, 2016 11:34 AM
    Is the CIA politicized?

    ...Is the pope catholic?

    How many more presidents does the CIA have to kill to answer your question?

    Oldwood -> DownWithYogaPants •Dec 23, 2016 11:26 AM
    How could the CIA NOT be politicized? They collect "intelligence" and use it to influence policy makers without ANY accountability and no real proof. The CIA operates on CONJECTURE that is completely subjective to bias and agenda. Is that ANYTHING BUT political?
    TeaClipper's picture -> TeaClipper •Dec 23, 2016 11:24 AM
    The CIA was not wrong about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, it lied about them. That is a very big distinction.
    Old Poor Richard •Dec 23, 2016 12:13 PM
    The question is whether the CIA is puppeteer and not the puppet.

    The Snowden report, jam packed with provably false scurrilous accusations, demonstrates that not only is the US intelligence community entirely lacking in credibility, but that they believe themselves so powerful that they can indefinitely get away with baldfaced lies.

    The thing is, the deep state can only keep up the charade when they completely control the narrative, the way China does. Hence the attacks on the first amendment that are accelerating as fast as the attacks on the second amendment. Majority of Americans don't believe the Russian hacking hoax and it make the CIA increasingly hysterical.

    DarthVaderMentor •Dec 23, 2016 12:33 PM
    The CIA has been politicized. In fact, all the way down to the COS level, and in concert with the State Department. Brennan and Moran are nothing but Clinton surrogates.

    In one embassy in a country where IEDs keep blowing up, there were millions of taxpayer dollars spent and continue to be spent in "safe spaces" and "comfort food and liquor" inside an embassy (taking away space from the US Marine Giuards for it) to let "Democrat snowflakes" in senior embassy and CIA positions recover from the Trump elections.

    The real reaon for the loss of the Phillipines as an ally may eventually come out that a gay senior embassy official made a pass at the President of the country. Just like it happened with the gay ambassador in the Dominican Republic.

    That Libral You Hate •Dec 23, 2016 12:41 PM
    I would say the simple answer to the question asked in the headline of this article is "yes" but it is important to actually understand the nuance of the langer answer.

    The critical nuance is that: politics didn't conquor the CIA, but rather the CIA injected itself into politics. I.e. the CIA aren't political stooges, but act political because they have injected political stooges into politics and they have to act political to protect them to protect their interests. Thus while the answer is "yes" the question is phrased wrong as: "Has the CIA Been Politicized," the appropriate question is "Has politics been co-opted by the CIA"

    insanelysane •Dec 23, 2016 12:50 PM
    The first post is spot on except the CIA was in Southeast Asia stirring stuff up to get us into a war. War is big business.

    The entire reason for Vietnam was "If Vietnam falls the commies will be marching down Main Street USA afterwards."

    Well we fucking lost Vietnam and the commies still aren't marching down Main Street and yet the assessment is still being peddled by the Corporation.

    Kennedy was killed because, even though he was fucking totally drugged up, he still saw Vietnam for what it was.

    The Corporation gave Johnson and offer he couldn't refuse, take the keys to the kingdom, just keep "fighting" in Vietnam. I say fighting because we were just fucking around there. No one in charge wanted to risk winning the war.

    And here we are today, 23rd, December, 2016, "fighting" in the Middle East and the Corporation not willing to risk winning the war. Just need to keep it hot enough for the weapons and ammunition to be used in a nice steady pace to keep business going.

    [Dec 23, 2016] CIA Director John Brennan may face investigation for leaking Russian hacker story to the Washington Post

    theduran.com
    Fox Business News discusses a potential investigation involving CIA Director John Brennan over whether he leaked information about the Russian hacking investigation to the media

    John Brennan takes his cues directly from Barack Obama, which means the entire CIA, Russian hack investigation, was initiated and conducted under Obama's direct order.

    The Russian hack, media spin, has been and remains a political play. National security has very little to do with it.

    [Dec 23, 2016] Russian Hacking The CIA Never Lies Information Clearing House - ICH

    Dec 23, 2016 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

    There certainly are experts in the field who should know about the alleged hacking, but they are not allowed to disrupt mainstream media's Russophobe frenzy. Bet you never saw William Binney on mainstream media. Who is Binney? He is the guy who put together the NSA's elaborate worldwide surveillance system. He has publicly stated on alternative news sites, that if something was "hacked", the NSA would instantly know who, when, and whether the info was passed on to another party. He designed the system. He argues, there was no hacking for that very reason. Binney insists the e-mails had to have been leaked by an "insider" who had access to the data. Never heard him on mainstream media huh? Next comes Craig Murray a former US Ambassador who claims he knows who leaked the e-mails, because he met with the individual in Washington D.C. Never heard him on mainstream media either huh? Finally, Julian Assange, the man who released the e-mails. He insisted all along he never got the e-mails from Russia. Another no show on mainstream media. Whatever happened to the journalistic adage of going to the source? Assange is the source, but no mainstream media journalist, and I use the term very loosely, has ventured to speak with him. The accusation has been repeated countless times, without any evidence, or consulting with any of the above three experts.

    Because the big lie has been repeated so many times by corporate media, about half of the US public, according to a recent poll, believes Russia interfered, even though there is not a bit of evidence to support it. Once again they take the bait; hook, line, and sinker.

    For believers of Russian hacking, I offer the following analogy. It might, but I doubt it will help, because you cannot undo the effect of propaganda. You are put on trial for murder that you did not commit. The prosecutor and judge simply say they have reached a "consensus view", the phrase offered by intelligence agencies, that you committed the murder and are guilty. You ask for proof. They offer none. They just keep repeating that you did it. You challenge and ask how do you know I did it? Answer: we have anonymous sources, but we cannot tell you who they are, nor can we show you proof.

    Just as in the fake run-up to the Iraq war, the expert voices of the opposition are not tolerated on mainstream media. Do these folks really want a war with Russia? Are they so upset with Trump's pronouncement that he wanted better relations with Russia? What sane person would not? Hmmm.

    It appears there is a war already raging between the Russophobes, who do not want better relations with Russia, and are doing their best to smear and demonize Putin, and those who do. This is the same tactic used with Manuel Noriega of Panama, Muarmar Gaddafi, and Saddam Hussein, before they made war on all three. Demonize, then make war.

    Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Shame on those who buy into propaganda without any proof.

    Think about it and use a little logic.

    jim james · 1 day ago
    The oddity of the above author's first paragraph is that the CIA was not lying in 2001-03. The CIA said Iraq/Saddam had no wmds.

    In fact, if you lived through it then perhaps you recall the words cherry-picking and stove-piped intel. Now, I understand he's CIA so there's no reason to believe them, but ask Larry Johnson (I know, great name for CIA).

    Fitzhenrymac 125p · 22 hours ago
    Actually he didn't mention the CIA in the first paragraph. However in late 2002 CIA director George Tenet and United States Secretary of State Colin Powell both cited attempts by Hussein to obtain uranium from Niger in their September testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee using intelligence Italy, Britain, and France.

    Days before the Iraq invasion, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voiced serious doubt on the authenticity of the documents to the UN Security Council, judging them counterfeit but the CIA while having suspicions, largely kept them to themselves.

    guest01 · 18 hours ago
    The author of the above article, Joe Clifford is referring to what CIA Chief George Tenet who represented US intelligence, said: it was "Slam Dunk" Iraq had WMD. Tenet was quoted over and over again by Bush-Dick regime to justify US war against Iraq. After Tenet said those words, CIA neither contradicted him nor corrected him which meant that they went along with the "Slam Dunk" Iraq had WMD. Tenet, representing US intelligence, even sat quietly behind Powell at the UNSC when Powell was spewing his lies about Iraq's nonexistent WMD.
    tictac · 23 hours ago
    Not only to officials repeat false assertions over and over, but those who hear the falsities, themselves start repeating them. The more outrageous, the more they are repeated.
    Rampart · 21 hours ago
    Fool me once, shame on you,. Fool me twice, .....we won't get fooled agin.
    GW
    A jurist · 1 hour ago
    Yeah right, in the CIA's (very bad) dreams maybe, the people will not be fooled. But this isn't a CIA nightmare, on the contrary.
    fantelius 67p · 19 hours ago
    Even Trump doesn't believe in or trust the CIA Why should anyone else?
    See: Presidential Proof of Governmental Distrust https://systemhumanity.com/2016/12/23/presidentia...
    OSIKA · 19 hours ago
    You forgot former Yugoslavia.There they "sharpened "their tools.They "demonized" that country,demonized their President,trained and financed those local soldiers and then destroyed that country while "peace making".Filthy BASTARDS.And you people call USA a decent country?They lied when they created that country and still their mouths and deeds are full of lies,murder and plunder.And their Churches are cheer leaders in that endeavour yet they will proclaim even this Christmas "Peace to the world" while they will plot more of the same.They preach one thing but their actions are totally opposite.They leave wrecked countries behind them and those people end up feeding from containers.I hope that they choke on that stolen turkey.
    romanaorfred · 17 hours ago
    I would still plead with our grassroots hero Tom Feely to discontinue the sensationalistic, emotonal pandering photos on the front page of ICH.

    I much prefer the old text styled front page of ICH -sans pictures - leave the focus on quality content - not hype.

    We could do without the bad memory of Hillary and Obama pics.

    uphill · 11 hours ago
    ditto
    Schlüter 84p · 17 hours ago
    „Media, Independent and Mainstream: Fake News and Fake Narratives": https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2016/12/18/media-i...
    &
    „US Allegations Against Russia: Hold the Thief! (in addition to the previous post)": https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2016/12/18/us-alle...
    ignasi orobitg gene · 15 hours ago
    Truth is the first love of Freedom.
    Truth answers all questions.
    No dream of freedom is possible by listening to lies
    coldish1 42p · 14 hours ago
    Craig Murray was not a US ambassador. He was British ambassador to Uzbekistan from 2002 to 2004.
    Fired Up · 11 hours ago
    The counter tactic for the "big lie" is the "big truth." Ordinary people have access to e-mail, social media and website comments. No secret organization is needed. Just make counter-bullturdism part of your personal routine.
    A jurist · 1 hour ago
    This takes time. Most people invest little thought into the news they digest. Quite often, news (or "news") is not even digested at all, just internalised. They know this. The CIA, th eDNC, all of them. They rely on public apathy to survive.
    FrankZ · 8 hours ago
    This the the lie the liberals love just like Iraq's wmd was the lie so dear to the conservatives. It's sickening the way these partisan idiots are so easily manipulated.
    LRE · 6 hours ago
    It doesn't matter who hacked the emails one bit! That right there is the point the powers that be want us to argue about endlessly, because it draws attention away from what actually matters: What matters is that the emails revealed the truth about the democratic party, and that they rigged their primaries. What matters is that the press did not reveal this and since the reveal, they have been trying to distract people from the truth. It is the press and the Democratic party that were influencing the 2016 election by lying and cheating, not the Russians or whoever hacked the email.
    chrisgoodwin 60p · 4 hours ago
    The e-mails were not hacked: they were leaked. Every time anyone refers to the "hacked" e-mails, it raises the question "Who dunnit ?" This is a wild goose chase. The e-mails were leaked by a disgusted insider.
    A jurist · 1 hour ago
    The contents of the leaks/hacks were almost never claimed to be false. Even the very faint cries of "the e-mails were doctored" eventually died out. Nobody has stepped in to claim that the information was false since. This means that all Wikileaks revealed was true. Whoever was responsible for providing this information has done a very valuable public service. Yes, even if it (somehow) was the Russians. To deny that the leak/hack was beneficial to the public is insane.

    Not that we didn't know beforehand that the CIA are quite crazy, but still. I would at least have expected them to welcome this 4th detente. I mean, they have thus far shown that their intelligence gathering efforts in Russia are laughably bad. Do they not want some respite form the humiliation? It would at least be good PR.

    [Dec 23, 2016] NSA Whistleblower US Intelligence Worker Likely Behind DNC Leaks, Not Russia Zero Hedge

    Dec 23, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    During the third and last presidential debate between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton, debate moderator Chris Wallace pulled a quote from a speech Clinton had given to Brazilian bankers, noting the information had been made available to the public via WikiLeaks.

    Instead of answering the question, Clinton blamed the Russian government for the leaks , alleging " [t]he Russian government has engaged in espionage against Americans ," hacking " American websites, American accounts of private people, of institutions in an effort, as 17 of our intelligence agencies have confirmed, to influence our election ."

    Following the claim, Clinton criticized Trump for saying " [Clinton] has no idea whether it's Russia, China, or anybody else ," repeating her assertion that 17 U.S. intelligence agencies had determined the Russian government had been behind the Democratic National Committee (DNC) hack.

    Despite her claim, reality couldn't be more different.

    Instead of 17 agencies, only the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have offered the public any input on this matter, claiming the DNC attacks " are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts ."

    Without offering any evidence, these two - not 17 - agencies hinted that the Kremlin could be behind the cyber attack. But saying they believe the hacks come from the Russians is far short of saying they know the Russians were behind them.

    During an interview on Aaron Klein's Sunday radio program , former high-ranking NSA intelligence official-turned-whistleblower, William Binney , discussed the alleged Russian involvement in our elections, suggesting the cyber attack against the DNC may not have originated from the Russian government. Instead, Binney says, a " disgruntled U.S. intelligence worker " is likely behind the breach.

    https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/nsa-whistleblower-tells-aaron-klein-agency-has-all-of-hillarys-emails

    Speaking as an analyst, Binney added that a testimony by the former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Robert S. Mueller from March 2011 shows the FBI has access to a series of databases that helps them " to track down known and suspected terrorists ."

    According to Binney, what Mueller meant is that the FBI has access to the NSA database and that it's accessed without any oversight, meaning the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), as well as the FBI, have open access to anything the NSA has access to. " So if the FBI really wanted [Clinton's and the DNC emails] they can go into that database and get them right now ," Binney told Klein.

    Asked if he believed the NSA had copies of all Clinton's emails, " including the deleted correspondence ," Binney said:

    " Yes. That would be my point. They have them all and the FBI can get them right there ."

    While Binney seems to be the only intelligence insider who has come forward with this type of analysis, a young man from Russia whose servers were implicated in the recent hacking of the DNC sites says he has information that will lead to the hacker - yet the FBI won't knock on his door.

    In a conversation with the New York Times , Vladimir M. Fomenko said his server rental company, King Servers, is oftentimes used by hackers. Fomenko added that the hackers behind the attack against computerized election systems in Arizona and Illinois - which, like the DNC hack, were also linked to the Russian government by the FBI - had used his servers.

    According to the 26-year-old entrepreneur, "[w]e have the information. If the F.B.I. asks, we are ready to supply the I.P. addresses, the logs, but nobody contacted us."

    " It's like nobody wants to sort this out, " he added .

    After learning that two renters using the nicknames Robin Good and Dick Robin had used his servers to hack the Arizona and Illinois voting systems, Fomenko released a statement saying he learned about the problem through the news and shut down the two users down shortly after.

    While he told the New York Times he doesn't know who the hackers are, he used his statement to report that the hackers are not Russian security agents.

    " The analysis of the internal data allows King Servers to confidently refute any conclusions about the involvement of the Russian special services in this attack ," he said on September 15, the New York Times reported.

    According to Fomenko, he found a trail left by the hackers through their contact with King Servers' billing page, which leads to the next step in the chain " to bring investigators in the United States closer to the hackers ."

    The clients used about 60 I.P. addresses to contact Fomenko, including addresses belonging to server companies in Finland, France, Italy, Norway, Britain, and Sweden. With these addresses in hand, authorities could track the hackers down.

    But while this information is somewhat recent, few news organizations found it necessary to report on the King Servers link. In the past, however, at least one major news network mentioned Binney.

    In August 2016, Judge Andrew Napolitano commented on the DNC hack.

    On "Judge Napolitano Chambers," the Judge said that while the DNC, government officials, and the Clinton campaign all accuse the Russians of hacking into the DNC servers, " the Russians had nothing to do with it. "

    [Dec 23, 2016] NSA Whistleblower Destroys CIA Narrative – "Hard Evidence Points To Inside Leak, Not Russia Hack

    Dec 23, 2016 | www.activistpost.com

    Originally from: NSA Whistleblower US Intelligence Worker Likely Behind DNC Leaks, Not Russia Zero Hedge

    December 21, 2016

    By Vin Armani

    "A group of retired senior intelligence officials, including the NSA whistleblower William Binney (former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA), have posted an open letter on consortiumnews.com that destroys the Obama administration's "Russian hacking" narrative.

    Within the letter, Binney argues that, thanks to the NSA's "extensive domestic data-collection network," any data removed remotely from Hillary Clinton or DNC servers would have passed over fiber networks and therefore would have been captured by the NSA who could have then analyzed packet data to determine the origination point and destination address of those packets. As Binney further notes, the only way the leaks could have avoided NSA detection is if they were never passed over fiber networks but rather downloaded to a thumb drive by someone with internal access to servers."

    [Dec 23, 2016] Russian Hacking The CIA Never Lies Information Clearing House - ICH

    Dec 23, 2016 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

    There certainly are experts in the field who should know about the alleged hacking, but they are not allowed to disrupt mainstream media's Russophobe frenzy. Bet you never saw William Binney on mainstream media. Who is Binney? He is the guy who put together the NSA's elaborate worldwide surveillance system. He has publicly stated on alternative news sites, that if something was "hacked", the NSA would instantly know who, when, and whether the info was passed on to another party. He designed the system. He argues, there was no hacking for that very reason. Binney insists the e-mails had to have been leaked by an "insider" who had access to the data. Never heard him on mainstream media huh? Next comes Craig Murray a former US Ambassador who claims he knows who leaked the e-mails, because he met with the individual in Washington D.C. Never heard him on mainstream media either huh? Finally, Julian Assange, the man who released the e-mails. He insisted all along he never got the e-mails from Russia. Another no show on mainstream media. Whatever happened to the journalistic adage of going to the source? Assange is the source, but no mainstream media journalist, and I use the term very loosely, has ventured to speak with him. The accusation has been repeated countless times, without any evidence, or consulting with any of the above three experts.

    Because the big lie has been repeated so many times by corporate media, about half of the US public, according to a recent poll, believes Russia interfered, even though there is not a bit of evidence to support it. Once again they take the bait; hook, line, and sinker.

    For believers of Russian hacking, I offer the following analogy. It might, but I doubt it will help, because you cannot undo the effect of propaganda. You are put on trial for murder that you did not commit. The prosecutor and judge simply say they have reached a "consensus view", the phrase offered by intelligence agencies, that you committed the murder and are guilty. You ask for proof. They offer none. They just keep repeating that you did it. You challenge and ask how do you know I did it? Answer: we have anonymous sources, but we cannot tell you who they are, nor can we show you proof.

    Just as in the fake run-up to the Iraq war, the expert voices of the opposition are not tolerated on mainstream media. Do these folks really want a war with Russia? Are they so upset with Trump's pronouncement that he wanted better relations with Russia? What sane person would not? Hmmm.

    It appears there is a war already raging between the Russophobes, who do not want better relations with Russia, and are doing their best to smear and demonize Putin, and those who do. This is the same tactic used with Manuel Noriega of Panama, Muarmar Gaddafi, and Saddam Hussein, before they made war on all three. Demonize, then make war.

    Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Shame on those who buy into propaganda without any proof.

    Think about it and use a little logic.

    jim james · 1 day ago
    The oddity of the above author's first paragraph is that the CIA was not lying in 2001-03. The CIA said Iraq/Saddam had no wmds.

    In fact, if you lived through it then perhaps you recall the words cherry-picking and stove-piped intel. Now, I understand he's CIA so there's no reason to believe them, but ask Larry Johnson (I know, great name for CIA).

    Fitzhenrymac 125p · 22 hours ago
    Actually he didn't mention the CIA in the first paragraph. However in late 2002 CIA director George Tenet and United States Secretary of State Colin Powell both cited attempts by Hussein to obtain uranium from Niger in their September testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee using intelligence Italy, Britain, and France.

    Days before the Iraq invasion, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voiced serious doubt on the authenticity of the documents to the UN Security Council, judging them counterfeit but the CIA while having suspicions, largely kept them to themselves.

    guest01 · 18 hours ago
    The author of the above article, Joe Clifford is referring to what CIA Chief George Tenet who represented US intelligence, said: it was "Slam Dunk" Iraq had WMD. Tenet was quoted over and over again by Bush-Dick regime to justify US war against Iraq. After Tenet said those words, CIA neither contradicted him nor corrected him which meant that they went along with the "Slam Dunk" Iraq had WMD. Tenet, representing US intelligence, even sat quietly behind Powell at the UNSC when Powell was spewing his lies about Iraq's nonexistent WMD.
    tictac · 23 hours ago
    Not only to officials repeat false assertions over and over, but those who hear the falsities, themselves start repeating them. The more outrageous, the more they are repeated.
    Rampart · 21 hours ago
    Fool me once, shame on you,. Fool me twice, .....we won't get fooled agin.
    GW
    A jurist · 1 hour ago
    Yeah right, in the CIA's (very bad) dreams maybe, the people will not be fooled. But this isn't a CIA nightmare, on the contrary.
    fantelius 67p · 19 hours ago
    Even Trump doesn't believe in or trust the CIA Why should anyone else?
    See: Presidential Proof of Governmental Distrust https://systemhumanity.com/2016/12/23/presidentia...
    OSIKA · 19 hours ago
    You forgot former Yugoslavia.There they "sharpened "their tools.They "demonized" that country,demonized their President,trained and financed those local soldiers and then destroyed that country while "peace making".Filthy BASTARDS.And you people call USA a decent country?They lied when they created that country and still their mouths and deeds are full of lies,murder and plunder.And their Churches are cheer leaders in that endeavour yet they will proclaim even this Christmas "Peace to the world" while they will plot more of the same.They preach one thing but their actions are totally opposite.They leave wrecked countries behind them and those people end up feeding from containers.I hope that they choke on that stolen turkey.
    romanaorfred · 17 hours ago
    I would still plead with our grassroots hero Tom Feely to discontinue the sensationalistic, emotonal pandering photos on the front page of ICH.

    I much prefer the old text styled front page of ICH -sans pictures - leave the focus on quality content - not hype.

    We could do without the bad memory of Hillary and Obama pics.

    uphill · 11 hours ago
    ditto
    Schlüter 84p · 17 hours ago
    „Media, Independent and Mainstream: Fake News and Fake Narratives": https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2016/12/18/media-i...
    &
    „US Allegations Against Russia: Hold the Thief! (in addition to the previous post)": https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2016/12/18/us-alle...
    ignasi orobitg gene · 15 hours ago
    Truth is the first love of Freedom.
    Truth answers all questions.
    No dream of freedom is possible by listening to lies
    coldish1 42p · 14 hours ago
    Craig Murray was not a US ambassador. He was British ambassador to Uzbekistan from 2002 to 2004.
    Fired Up · 11 hours ago
    The counter tactic for the "big lie" is the "big truth." Ordinary people have access to e-mail, social media and website comments. No secret organization is needed. Just make counter-bullturdism part of your personal routine.
    A jurist · 1 hour ago
    This takes time. Most people invest little thought into the news they digest. Quite often, news (or "news") is not even digested at all, just internalised. They know this. The CIA, th eDNC, all of them. They rely on public apathy to survive.
    FrankZ · 8 hours ago
    This the the lie the liberals love just like Iraq's wmd was the lie so dear to the conservatives. It's sickening the way these partisan idiots are so easily manipulated.
    LRE · 6 hours ago
    It doesn't matter who hacked the emails one bit! That right there is the point the powers that be want us to argue about endlessly, because it draws attention away from what actually matters: What matters is that the emails revealed the truth about the democratic party, and that they rigged their primaries. What matters is that the press did not reveal this and since the reveal, they have been trying to distract people from the truth. It is the press and the Democratic party that were influencing the 2016 election by lying and cheating, not the Russians or whoever hacked the email.
    chrisgoodwin 60p · 4 hours ago
    The e-mails were not hacked: they were leaked. Every time anyone refers to the "hacked" e-mails, it raises the question "Who dunnit ?" This is a wild goose chase. The e-mails were leaked by a disgusted insider.
    A jurist · 1 hour ago
    The contents of the leaks/hacks were almost never claimed to be false. Even the very faint cries of "the e-mails were doctored" eventually died out. Nobody has stepped in to claim that the information was false since. This means that all Wikileaks revealed was true. Whoever was responsible for providing this information has done a very valuable public service. Yes, even if it (somehow) was the Russians. To deny that the leak/hack was beneficial to the public is insane.

    Not that we didn't know beforehand that the CIA are quite crazy, but still. I would at least have expected them to welcome this 4th detente. I mean, they have thus far shown that their intelligence gathering efforts in Russia are laughably bad. Do they not want some respite form the humiliation? It would at least be good PR.

    [Dec 23, 2016] Has The CIA Been Politicized

    Notable quotes:
    "... The use of the term, however, rather naïvely implies that it is possible for a government agency to not be politicized. A non -political government agency, it is assumed, acts without regard to how its actions and claims affect its political standing among powerful interests in Washington. Such an agency has never existed. ..."
    "... Indeed, when a government agency relies on taxpayer funding, Congressional lawmaking, and White House politics to sustain itself, it is absurd to expect that agency to somehow remain not "politicized." That is, it's a logical impossibility to think it possible to set up a government agency that relies on government policymakers to sustain it, and then think the agency in question will not attempt to influence or curry favor with those policymakers. ..."
    "... Does the organization depend on taxpayer funding for a substantial amount of its budget? ..."
    "... Does the organization engage in what would be illegal activities were it not for protective government legislation? ..."
    Dec 23, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

    Anonymous leakers at the CIA continue to make claims about Russia and the 2016 election. In response to demands to provide evidence, the CIA has declined to offer any, refusing to meet with Congressional intelligence committees, and refusing to issue any documents offering evidence. Instead, the CIA, communicating via leaks, simply says the equivalent of "trust us."

    Not troubled by the lack of evidence, many in the media and in the Democratic party have been repeating unsubstantiated CIA claims as fact.

    Of course, as I've noted before , the history of CIA intelligence is largely a history of missing the forest for the trees. Sometimes, the failures have been spectacular.

    One of the questions that immediately arises in the media in situations like these, however, is " has the CIA been politicized ?"

    When used in this way, the term "politicized" means that the CIA is involved in helping or hurting specific political factions (e,g., specific ideological groups, pressure groups, or presidential administrations) in order to strengthen the CIA's financial or political standing.

    All Government Agencies Are Politicized

    The use of the term, however, rather naïvely implies that it is possible for a government agency to not be politicized. A non -political government agency, it is assumed, acts without regard to how its actions and claims affect its political standing among powerful interests in Washington. Such an agency has never existed.

    Indeed, when a government agency relies on taxpayer funding, Congressional lawmaking, and White House politics to sustain itself, it is absurd to expect that agency to somehow remain not "politicized." That is, it's a logical impossibility to think it possible to set up a government agency that relies on government policymakers to sustain it, and then think the agency in question will not attempt to influence or curry favor with those policymakers.

    This idea might seem plausible to school children in junior-high-school civics classes, but not to anyone who lives in the real world.

    In fact, if we wish to ascertain whether or not an institution or organization is "politicized" we can simply ask ourselves a few questions:

    If the answer to any of these questions is "yes" then you are probably dealing with a politicized organization. If the answer to all of these questions is "yes" - as is the case with the CIA - then you're definitely dealing with a very politicized organization. (Other "non-political" organizations that fall well within this criteria as well include so-called "private" organizations such as the Federal Reserve System and Fannie Mae.)

    So, it has always been foolish to ask ourselves if the CIA is "politicized" since the answer is obviously "yes" for anyone who is paying attention.

    Nevertheless, the myth that the CIA and agencies like it can be non-political continues to endure, although in many cases, the charge has produced numerous helpful historical analysis of just how politicized the CIA has been in practice.

    Recent Narratives on CIA Politicization

    Stories of CIA politicization take at least two forms: One type consists of anti-CIA writers attempting to illustrate how the CIA acts to manipulate political actors to achieve its own political ends. The other type consists of pro-CIA writers attempting to cast the CIA as an innocent victim of manipulation by senior Washington officials.

    Of course, it doesn't matter whether the provenance of CIA politicking comes from within the agency or outside it. In both cases, the fact remains that the Agency is a tool for political actors to deceive, manipulate, and attack political enemies.

    With CIA leaks apparently attempting to call the integrity of the 2016 election into question, the CIA is once again being accused of politicization. Consequently, articles in the Washington Times , the Daily Caller , and The Intercept all question the CIA's motivation and present numerous examples of the Agency's history of deception.

    The current controversy is hardly the first time the Agency has been accused of being political, and during the build up to the Iraq invasion in 2003, for example, the CIA worked with the Bush Administration to essentially manufacture "intelligence."

    In his book Failure of Intelligence , Melvin Allan Goodman writes:

    Three years after the invasion of Iraq, a senior CIA analyst, Paul Pillar, documented the efforts of the Bush administration to politicize the intelligence of the CIA on Iraqi WMD and so-called links between Iraq and al Qaeda. Pillar accused the Bush administration of using policy to drive intelligence production, which was the same argument offered by the chief of British intelligence in the Downing Street memorandum prior to the war, and aggressively using intelligence to win public support for the decision to go to war....Pillar does not explain why no senior CIA official protested, let alone resigned in the wake of the president's misuse of intelligence on Iraq's so-called efforts to obtain uranium ore in Africa. Pillar falsely claimed "for the most part, the intelligence community's own substantive judgments do not appear to have been compromised," when it was clear that the CIA wa wrong on every conclusion and had to politicize the intelligence to be so egregiously wrong."

    Since then, CIA officials have attempted to rehabilitate the agency by claiming the agency was the hapless victim of the Administration. But, as Goodman notes, we heard no protests from the Agency when such protests would have actually mattered, and the fact is the Agency was easily used for political ends. Whether or not some agents wanted to participate in assisting the Bush administration with trumping up evidence against Iraq remains irrelevant. The fact remains the CIA did it.

    Moreover, according to documents compiled by John Prados at the George Washington University , "The U.S. intelligence community buckled sooner in 2002 than previously reported" and that "Under the circumstances, it is difficult to avoid the impression that the CIA and other intelligence agencies defended themselves against the dangers of attack from the Bush administration through a process of self-censorship. That is the very essence of politicization in intelligence."

    In other words, to protect its own budgets and privileges, the CIA reacted quickly to shape its intelligence to meet the political goals of others.

    Journalist Robert Parry has also attempted to go the CIA-as-victim route in his own writings. In an article written before the Iraq War debacle, Parry looks at how the Agency was used by both Reagan and Clinton, and claims that what is arguably of the CIA's biggest analytical errors - repeatedly overstating the economic strength of the Soviet Union - was the result of pressure applied to the Agency by the Reagan administration. (Parry may be mistaken here, as the CIA was wrong about the Soviet economy long before the Reagan Administration .)

    While attempting to defend the CIA, however, Parry is merely providing a list of the many ways in which the CIA serves to manufacture false information that are useful for political officials.

    In this essay for the Center for International Policy, Goodman further lists many examples of politicization and concludes "Throughout the CIA's 60-year history, there have been many efforts to slant analytical conclusions, skew estimates, and repress evidence that challenged a particular policy or point of view. As a result, the agency must recognize the impact of politicization and introduce barriers to protect analysts from political pressures. Unfortunately, the CIA has largely ignored the problem."

    It is difficult to ascertain whether past intelligence failures were due to pressure form the administration or whether they originated from within the Agency itself. Nevertheless, the intelligence failures are numerous, including:

    The fact that politicization occurs might help explain some of these failures, but simply claiming "politicization" doesn't erase the legacy of failure, and it hardly serves as an argument in favor of allowing the CIA to continue to command huge budgets and essentially function unsupervised. Regardless of fanciful claims of non-political professionalism, it is undeniable that, as an agency of the US government, the CIA is a political institution.

    The only type of organization that is not politicized is a private-sector organization under a relatively laissez-faire regime. Heavily regulated private industries and all government agencies are politicized by nature because they depend heavily on active assistance from political actors to sustain themselves.

    It should be assumed that politicized organizations seek to influence policymakers, and thus all the actions and claims of these organization should be treated with skepticism and a recognition that these organizations benefit from further taxation and expanded government powers inflicted on ordinary taxpayers and other productive members of society outside the privileged circles of Washington, DC.

    Perimetr -> Chupacabra-322 •Dec 23, 2016 11:34 AM
    Is the CIA politicized?

    ...Is the pope catholic?

    How many more presidents does the CIA have to kill to answer your question?

    Oldwood -> DownWithYogaPants •Dec 23, 2016 11:26 AM
    How could the CIA NOT be politicized? They collect "intelligence" and use it to influence policy makers without ANY accountability and no real proof. The CIA operates on CONJECTURE that is completely subjective to bias and agenda. Is that ANYTHING BUT political?
    TeaClipper's picture -> TeaClipper •Dec 23, 2016 11:24 AM
    The CIA was not wrong about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, it lied about them. That is a very big distinction.
    Old Poor Richard •Dec 23, 2016 12:13 PM
    The question is whether the CIA is puppeteer and not the puppet.

    The Snowden report, jam packed with provably false scurrilous accusations, demonstrates that not only is the US intelligence community entirely lacking in credibility, but that they believe themselves so powerful that they can indefinitely get away with baldfaced lies.

    The thing is, the deep state can only keep up the charade when they completely control the narrative, the way China does. Hence the attacks on the first amendment that are accelerating as fast as the attacks on the second amendment. Majority of Americans don't believe the Russian hacking hoax and it make the CIA increasingly hysterical.

    DarthVaderMentor •Dec 23, 2016 12:33 PM
    The CIA has been politicized. In fact, all the way down to the COS level, and in concert with the State Department. Brennan and Moran are nothing but Clinton surrogates.

    In one embassy in a country where IEDs keep blowing up, there were millions of taxpayer dollars spent and continue to be spent in "safe spaces" and "comfort food and liquor" inside an embassy (taking away space from the US Marine Giuards for it) to let "Democrat snowflakes" in senior embassy and CIA positions recover from the Trump elections.

    The real reaon for the loss of the Phillipines as an ally may eventually come out that a gay senior embassy official made a pass at the President of the country. Just like it happened with the gay ambassador in the Dominican Republic.

    That Libral You Hate •Dec 23, 2016 12:41 PM
    I would say the simple answer to the question asked in the headline of this article is "yes" but it is important to actually understand the nuance of the langer answer.

    The critical nuance is that: politics didn't conquor the CIA, but rather the CIA injected itself into politics. I.e. the CIA aren't political stooges, but act political because they have injected political stooges into politics and they have to act political to protect them to protect their interests. Thus while the answer is "yes" the question is phrased wrong as: "Has the CIA Been Politicized," the appropriate question is "Has politics been co-opted by the CIA"

    insanelysane •Dec 23, 2016 12:50 PM
    The first post is spot on except the CIA was in Southeast Asia stirring stuff up to get us into a war. War is big business.

    The entire reason for Vietnam was "If Vietnam falls the commies will be marching down Main Street USA afterwards."

    Well we fucking lost Vietnam and the commies still aren't marching down Main Street and yet the assessment is still being peddled by the Corporation.

    Kennedy was killed because, even though he was fucking totally drugged up, he still saw Vietnam for what it was.

    The Corporation gave Johnson and offer he couldn't refuse, take the keys to the kingdom, just keep "fighting" in Vietnam. I say fighting because we were just fucking around there. No one in charge wanted to risk winning the war.

    And here we are today, 23rd, December, 2016, "fighting" in the Middle East and the Corporation not willing to risk winning the war. Just need to keep it hot enough for the weapons and ammunition to be used in a nice steady pace to keep business going.

    [Dec 23, 2016] NSA Whistleblower US Intelligence Worker Likely Behind DNC Leaks, Not Russia Zero Hedge

    Dec 23, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    During the third and last presidential debate between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton, debate moderator Chris Wallace pulled a quote from a speech Clinton had given to Brazilian bankers, noting the information had been made available to the public via WikiLeaks.

    Instead of answering the question, Clinton blamed the Russian government for the leaks , alleging " [t]he Russian government has engaged in espionage against Americans ," hacking " American websites, American accounts of private people, of institutions in an effort, as 17 of our intelligence agencies have confirmed, to influence our election ."

    Following the claim, Clinton criticized Trump for saying " [Clinton] has no idea whether it's Russia, China, or anybody else ," repeating her assertion that 17 U.S. intelligence agencies had determined the Russian government had been behind the Democratic National Committee (DNC) hack.

    Despite her claim, reality couldn't be more different.

    Instead of 17 agencies, only the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have offered the public any input on this matter, claiming the DNC attacks " are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts ."

    Without offering any evidence, these two - not 17 - agencies hinted that the Kremlin could be behind the cyber attack. But saying they believe the hacks come from the Russians is far short of saying they know the Russians were behind them.

    During an interview on Aaron Klein's Sunday radio program , former high-ranking NSA intelligence official-turned-whistleblower, William Binney , discussed the alleged Russian involvement in our elections, suggesting the cyber attack against the DNC may not have originated from the Russian government. Instead, Binney says, a " disgruntled U.S. intelligence worker " is likely behind the breach.

    https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/nsa-whistleblower-tells-aaron-klein-agency-has-all-of-hillarys-emails

    Speaking as an analyst, Binney added that a testimony by the former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Robert S. Mueller from March 2011 shows the FBI has access to a series of databases that helps them " to track down known and suspected terrorists ."

    According to Binney, what Mueller meant is that the FBI has access to the NSA database and that it's accessed without any oversight, meaning the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), as well as the FBI, have open access to anything the NSA has access to. " So if the FBI really wanted [Clinton's and the DNC emails] they can go into that database and get them right now ," Binney told Klein.

    Asked if he believed the NSA had copies of all Clinton's emails, " including the deleted correspondence ," Binney said:

    " Yes. That would be my point. They have them all and the FBI can get them right there ."

    While Binney seems to be the only intelligence insider who has come forward with this type of analysis, a young man from Russia whose servers were implicated in the recent hacking of the DNC sites says he has information that will lead to the hacker - yet the FBI won't knock on his door.

    In a conversation with the New York Times , Vladimir M. Fomenko said his server rental company, King Servers, is oftentimes used by hackers. Fomenko added that the hackers behind the attack against computerized election systems in Arizona and Illinois - which, like the DNC hack, were also linked to the Russian government by the FBI - had used his servers.

    According to the 26-year-old entrepreneur, "[w]e have the information. If the F.B.I. asks, we are ready to supply the I.P. addresses, the logs, but nobody contacted us."

    " It's like nobody wants to sort this out, " he added .

    After learning that two renters using the nicknames Robin Good and Dick Robin had used his servers to hack the Arizona and Illinois voting systems, Fomenko released a statement saying he learned about the problem through the news and shut down the two users down shortly after.

    While he told the New York Times he doesn't know who the hackers are, he used his statement to report that the hackers are not Russian security agents.

    " The analysis of the internal data allows King Servers to confidently refute any conclusions about the involvement of the Russian special services in this attack ," he said on September 15, the New York Times reported.

    According to Fomenko, he found a trail left by the hackers through their contact with King Servers' billing page, which leads to the next step in the chain " to bring investigators in the United States closer to the hackers ."

    The clients used about 60 I.P. addresses to contact Fomenko, including addresses belonging to server companies in Finland, France, Italy, Norway, Britain, and Sweden. With these addresses in hand, authorities could track the hackers down.

    But while this information is somewhat recent, few news organizations found it necessary to report on the King Servers link. In the past, however, at least one major news network mentioned Binney.

    In August 2016, Judge Andrew Napolitano commented on the DNC hack.

    On "Judge Napolitano Chambers," the Judge said that while the DNC, government officials, and the Clinton campaign all accuse the Russians of hacking into the DNC servers, " the Russians had nothing to do with it. "

    [Dec 23, 2016] NSA Whistleblower Destroys CIA Narrative – "Hard Evidence Points To Inside Leak, Not Russia Hack

    Dec 23, 2016 | www.activistpost.com

    Originally from: NSA Whistleblower US Intelligence Worker Likely Behind DNC Leaks, Not Russia Zero Hedge

    December 21, 2016

    By Vin Armani

    "A group of retired senior intelligence officials, including the NSA whistleblower William Binney (former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA), have posted an open letter on consortiumnews.com that destroys the Obama administration's "Russian hacking" narrative.

    Within the letter, Binney argues that, thanks to the NSA's "extensive domestic data-collection network," any data removed remotely from Hillary Clinton or DNC servers would have passed over fiber networks and therefore would have been captured by the NSA who could have then analyzed packet data to determine the origination point and destination address of those packets. As Binney further notes, the only way the leaks could have avoided NSA detection is if they were never passed over fiber networks but rather downloaded to a thumb drive by someone with internal access to servers."

    [Dec 21, 2016] The Perfect Weapon How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the U.S by ERIC LIPTON , DAVID E. SANGER and SCOTT SHANE

    the article contain at least one blatant lie which discredits its connect: the assertion the Sony attack was from North Korea. No mentioning of Flame and Stixnet. Another proof that NYT is a part of Clinton campaign and became a neocons mouthpiece...
    Notable quotes:
    "... How many of us have signed petitions to exonerate Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning for letting us know what our govt was doing? Didn't they do us all, and democracy, a great service? ..."
    "... I'm happy to know how the DNC operated, the astounding and unprecedented conflation of a national party committee with one candidate's campaign organization. ..."
    "... What they were doing to Bernie Sanders, and the use they were making of national media was just wrong. ..."
    "... Clinton herself was involved (via her neocon undersecretary, formerly Cheney's chief foreign policy aide) in overthrowing the elected president of Ukraine, a friend of Russia, and installing a US-capitalist friendly fellow in his stead. ..."
    "... What goes around comes around. If we wanted to stop all this cyber warfare, the time to do it was by treaty BEFORE we risked Iranian lives with the Stuxnet virus. ..."
    "... The release of e-mails was embarrassing for Secretary Clinton and the Democratic Party, but I don't think it tipped the election. How many longtime Democratic voters stayed home on November 9th because of the release of these e-mails? How many working class voters switched their vote because of the release of these e-mails? ..."
    "... If the hacking had tampered with voting, I would be extremely concerned, but since it only involved email systems, I am not concerned. ..."
    "... The hacked and subsequently published emails revealed the dishonest, deceitful, and unethical practices of the Democrats, especially in the treatment of Sanders, who should have ditched the Democrats run for president as an Independent. ..."
    "... The emails also revealed that Obama was a participant in HRC's use of a nongovernmental email system when he stated emphatically that the first time he had ever heard of it was when the media first reported it. ..."
    "... That's not the first and probably not the last time he will lie to the public. And the emails revealed the satanic practices of Podesta. The published emails made the election interesting and entertaining. But it is over and mow its time to put this issue to rest, accept the fact that Donald Trump is our next President, the leader of the freest county in the free world, and get on with governing this blessed great nation. Thank you. ..."
    "... I suppose Hillary's email server could have been hacked like this too. Could this be the reason for Comey's stern reprimand of her? It is a little ironic, isn't it, that the DNC, while down playing Hillary's issues with her private server and criticizing Comey for his handling of the investigation, should itself suffer a damaging security breach of its own servers at the hands of a foreign power, which was exactly Comey's concern. Not to mention the fact that the NYT, which told us enough was enough with Hillary's email, is now up in arms about exactly that issue with the shoe on the other foot ..."
    "... I am struggling with how to react to this, just as i do with the Edward Snowden disclosures. On the one hand Russian meddling in a US election is certainly a concern, and should be investigated. On the other hand the disclosures laid bare things many people had suspected, let the sunlight in, so to speak. ..."
    "... Would Hillary even have had the nomination were it not for the favoritism shown by the DNC to her campaign at the expense of the Sanders campaign? What was more meddlesome, the Russian hack and release or the DNC's unfair treatment of Bernie? There is no suggestion that the leaked documents were altered. The effect of the hack was to reveal the truth. Is that the Russian goal, to delegitimize the election process by revealing the truth? ..."
    "... I suppose we finally got a taste of our own medicine -- countless governments overthrown and elections influenced at the hand of the United States. Not fun is it? Perhaps we can learn a lesson from this. ..."
    Dec 21, 2016 | www.nytimes.com
    Sandy Garossino Vancouver, British Columbia December 13, 2016

    An aspect that truly surprises me is the hopeless ineptitude of the DNC response (which could easily have parallels in the RNC).

    Irrespective of who the cyber-attacker is, it's astounding in this day and age that sensitive organizations do not pre-arm themselves with the highest security, and treat every sign of interference (eg, an actual FBI WARNING PHONE CALL) as a major alarm.

    Sadly, that this response is probably replicated all over the place underscores a theory I've held for some time: Technology will kill democracy. Maybe it already has.

    Martha Dryden, NY December 13, 2016

    I'm surprised at what's missing here. How many of us have signed petitions to exonerate Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning for letting us know what our govt was doing? Didn't they do us all, and democracy, a great service?

    I'm happy to know how the DNC operated, the astounding and unprecedented conflation of a national party committee with one candidate's campaign organization.

    What they were doing to Bernie Sanders, and the use they were making of national media was just wrong.

    Assange and Putin (if he was involved) revealed the truth. And since Clinton took no care to guard her private emails, mixed with public communications, how much sympathy is she owed?

    Clinton herself was involved (via her neocon undersecretary, formerly Cheney's chief foreign policy aide) in overthrowing the elected president of Ukraine, a friend of Russia, and installing a US-capitalist friendly fellow in his stead. We do this sort of thing all the time, so if the Russians "interfere" in our electoral process by revealing true stuff (far short of fomenting a coup like we did in Ukraine), isn't that just tit for tat? We even hacked into the communications of European leaders and international organizations. We were the first to use cyber warfare (Stuxnet, v. Iran), so how can we play holier than thou? What goes around comes around. If we wanted to stop all this cyber warfare, the time to do it was by treaty BEFORE we risked Iranian lives with the Stuxnet virus.

    Classicist New York, NY December 13, 2016

    The release of e-mails was embarrassing for Secretary Clinton and the Democratic Party, but I don't think it tipped the election. How many longtime Democratic voters stayed home on November 9th because of the release of these e-mails? How many working class voters switched their vote because of the release of these e-mails?

    The bigger issue for me is that because we are now politicizing this hacking (i.e. making the argument that the hacking helped Republicans), many Republicans are opposed to investigating it.

    That is crazy to me.

    Southern Boy The Volunteer State December 13, 2016

    If the hacking had tampered with voting, I would be extremely concerned, but since it only involved email systems, I am not concerned.

    The hacked and subsequently published emails revealed the dishonest, deceitful, and unethical practices of the Democrats, especially in the treatment of Sanders, who should have ditched the Democrats run for president as an Independent.

    The emails also revealed that Obama was a participant in HRC's use of a nongovernmental email system when he stated emphatically that the first time he had ever heard of it was when the media first reported it.

    That's not the first and probably not the last time he will lie to the public. And the emails revealed the satanic practices of Podesta. The published emails made the election interesting and entertaining. But it is over and mow its time to put this issue to rest, accept the fact that Donald Trump is our next President, the leader of the freest county in the free world, and get on with governing this blessed great nation. Thank you.

    GBC , Canada December 13, 2016

    I suppose Hillary's email server could have been hacked like this too. Could this be the reason for Comey's stern reprimand of her? It is a little ironic, isn't it, that the DNC, while down playing Hillary's issues with her private server and criticizing Comey for his handling of the investigation, should itself suffer a damaging security breach of its own servers at the hands of a foreign power, which was exactly Comey's concern. Not to mention the fact that the NYT, which told us enough was enough with Hillary's email, is now up in arms about exactly that issue with the shoe on the other foot

    I am struggling with how to react to this, just as i do with the Edward Snowden disclosures. On the one hand Russian meddling in a US election is certainly a concern, and should be investigated. On the other hand the disclosures laid bare things many people had suspected, let the sunlight in, so to speak.

    Would Hillary even have had the nomination were it not for the favoritism shown by the DNC to her campaign at the expense of the Sanders campaign? What was more meddlesome, the Russian hack and release or the DNC's unfair treatment of Bernie? There is no suggestion that the leaked documents were altered. The effect of the hack was to reveal the truth. Is that the Russian goal, to delegitimize the election process by revealing the truth?

    Mark Bratanov FL December 13, 2016

    I suppose we finally got a taste of our own medicine -- countless governments overthrown and elections influenced at the hand of the United States. Not fun is it? Perhaps we can learn a lesson from this.

    Eric Lipton is an NYTimes reporter Reporter December 13, 2016

    The agent could have walked over to the DNC headquarters and shown the DNC IT consultant his badge. Or he could have invited the DNC IT consultant to his office--confirming his true identity. Instead, the two communicated for several months just by phone, and as a result, the DNC IT consultant did not fully believe he was speaking to an FBI agent, and so he did not act as aggressively to search for the possible cyber intrusion.

    GC carrboro, nc December 13, 2016

    She lost, get over it. Yes the Electoral College is obsolete. Yes some voting machines can be hacked, but no-one is claiming that in states with tight results. Let's see what the official investigation says, and who says it.

    For better or worse Mr. Trump will be our next President because he won the election. Personally I'm delighted that he may damp down the over-the-top Russophobia that is swirling around DC, "defense" contractor Congressional shills, & the offices of the NYT but nowhere else in the country.

    It's time for progressives to emerge from Obama-daze and convince the rest of the country that they have a better vision for this country's future than that offered by conservatives/reactionaries. One that doesn't involve bombing hapless foreigners. Articulate your policies as best you can, learn from your defeats and from your victories. Onward!

    Southern Boy The Volunteer State December 13, 2016

    If the hacking had tampered with voting, I would be extremely concerned, but since it only involved email systems, I am not concerned. The hacked and subsequently published emails revealed the dishonest, deceitful, and unethical practices of the Democrats, especially in the treatment of Sanders, who should have ditched the Democrats run for president as an Independent. The emails also revealed that Obama was a participant in HRC's use of a nongovernmental email system when he stated emphatically that the first time he had ever heard of it was when the media first reported it. That's not the first and probably not the last time he will lie to the public. And the emails revealed the satanic practices of Podesta. The published emails made the election interesting and entertaining. But it is over and mow its time to put this issue to rest, accept the fact that Donald Trump is our next President, the leader of the freest county in the free world, and get on with governing this blessed great nation. Thank you.

    Louisa is a trusted commenter New York December 13, 2016

    The police call and tell you to be sure to lock your doors and windows--there have been people seen lurking around your house.

    You hang up on them. And do nothing about your doors or windows.

    The police call repeatedly. You ignore all their calls.

    The police advise you to install an alarm system. You, making millions a year, say you can't afford it.

    You receive a notice in the mail telling you you've received 6 months worth of free storage. A van will arrive to pick up your stuff.

    You let the movers take your stuff away. You did not supervise what they took.

    You are the DNC, in terms of how they acted during this mess.

    [Dec 21, 2016] Russians are everywhere, much like Jews in traditional anti-Semitic propaganda.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Can you please explain to me why you are thinking that this was a hack, not a leak by an insider? ..."
    "... Yes, of course, Russians are everywhere, much like Jews in traditional anti-Semitic propaganda. ..."
    "... Or in good McCarthyism tradition, they are under each bed. This evil autocrat Putin (who actually looks like yet another corrupt neoliberal ruler, who got Russia into WTO mousetrap and invests state money in the USA debt) manages to get everywhere, control everything and at the same time (German elections, Ukraine, Syria, world oil prices, Chechnya Islamic insurgence, US Presidential election, US stock market, you name it.) Amazing fit for a man over 60. ..."
    "... And citing NYT article as for Russian hacks is probably not so much different from citing The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to support anti-Semitic propaganda. NYT was and still is one of the most enthusiastic supporters of Hillary campaign. Hardly a neutral observer. ..."
    "... This level of anti-Russian hysteria that several people here are demonstrating is absolutely disgusting. Do you really want a military confrontation with Russia in Syria as most neocons badly want (but would prefer that other fought for them in the trenches) ? ..."
    Dec 21, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    likbez -> im1dc... , December 18, 2016 at 07:15 PM

    Can you please explain to me why you are thinking that this was a hack, not a leak by an insider?

    One DNC staffer, 27-year-old Seth Rich, the DNC's director of voter expansion, was killed around this time in pretty strange circumstances. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/12/democratic-national-committee-staffer-shot-and-killed-in-washington.html

    Former British Ambassador and current Wikileaks operative Craig Murray recently said he has met the person who leaked DNC and Clinton campaign emails, and they aren't Russian.

    http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/bombshell-wikileaks-figure-says-insider-russia-hack/

    Or it can come from a dissident within the US agency that did have access to all emails.

    Do you remember such a person as Edward Snowden ?

    It might be very educational for you to read his opinion about this case:

    While he is highly critical of Wikileaks, he suggests that without NSA coming forward with hard data obtained via special program that uncover multiple levels of indirection, those charges are just propaganda and insinuations.

    And BTW after the fact it is usually impossible to discover who obtained the information, as they use multiple levels of indirection and Russia might be just one of those indirection levels. Use of Russian IP-space or Russian IPS might be just an attempt to create a false trail and to implicate a wrong party.

    As in any complex case you should not jump to conclusions so easily.

    DeDude -> likbez... , December 18, 2016 at 08:05 PM
    Or you can explain why you believe strange Faux news conspiracy stories with absolutely no evidence that this person was in a position to hack the computers? Or why do you believe the obvious hugely conflicted statements from Wikileaks operatives, who would never want to admit that they were played by the Russians? Or a guy like Snowden who's life depend on Putins charity? Why would those sources make anybody question the clear evidence already presented?

    The fact that NSA is not going to publish all its evidence, is not a surprise. No need to tell the Russians and other hackers how they can avoid detection. But it is not just the government that conclude Russian involvement. Private company experts have reached the same conclusion. The case for a Russian government hack is about as good as it can get.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html?_r=0

    likbez -> DeDude... , December 18, 2016 at 09:48 PM
    Yes, of course, Russians are everywhere, much like Jews in traditional anti-Semitic propaganda.

    Or in good McCarthyism tradition, they are under each bed. This evil autocrat Putin (who actually looks like yet another corrupt neoliberal ruler, who got Russia into WTO mousetrap and invests state money in the USA debt) manages to get everywhere, control everything and at the same time (German elections, Ukraine, Syria, world oil prices, Chechnya Islamic insurgence, US Presidential election, US stock market, you name it.) Amazing fit for a man over 60.

    And citing NYT article as for Russian hacks is probably not so much different from citing The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to support anti-Semitic propaganda. NYT was and still is one of the most enthusiastic supporters of Hillary campaign. Hardly a neutral observer.

    This level of anti-Russian hysteria that several people here are demonstrating is absolutely disgusting. Do you really want a military confrontation with Russia in Syria as most neocons badly want (but would prefer that other fought for them in the trenches) ?

    That's what this hysteria is now about, I think.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> likbez... , -1
    The NSA is very good at finding the source of intrusion attempts because they happen all the time every day from China, Russia, North Korea and just little island backwaters in the Pacific.

    Doing something to stop or punish the perpetrators is what is hard. Individual US installation instances must each be protected by their own firewalls and then still monitored for unusual variations in traffic patterns through firewalls to detect IP spoofing.

    [Dec 21, 2016] The Perfect Weapon How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the U.S by ERIC LIPTON , DAVID E. SANGER and SCOTT SHANE

    the article contain at least one blatant lie which discredits its connect: the assertion the Sony attack was from North Korea. No mentioning of Flame and Stixnet. Another proof that NYT is a part of Clinton campaign and became a neocons mouthpiece...
    Notable quotes:
    "... How many of us have signed petitions to exonerate Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning for letting us know what our govt was doing? Didn't they do us all, and democracy, a great service? ..."
    "... I'm happy to know how the DNC operated, the astounding and unprecedented conflation of a national party committee with one candidate's campaign organization. ..."
    "... What they were doing to Bernie Sanders, and the use they were making of national media was just wrong. ..."
    "... Clinton herself was involved (via her neocon undersecretary, formerly Cheney's chief foreign policy aide) in overthrowing the elected president of Ukraine, a friend of Russia, and installing a US-capitalist friendly fellow in his stead. ..."
    "... What goes around comes around. If we wanted to stop all this cyber warfare, the time to do it was by treaty BEFORE we risked Iranian lives with the Stuxnet virus. ..."
    "... The release of e-mails was embarrassing for Secretary Clinton and the Democratic Party, but I don't think it tipped the election. How many longtime Democratic voters stayed home on November 9th because of the release of these e-mails? How many working class voters switched their vote because of the release of these e-mails? ..."
    "... If the hacking had tampered with voting, I would be extremely concerned, but since it only involved email systems, I am not concerned. ..."
    "... The hacked and subsequently published emails revealed the dishonest, deceitful, and unethical practices of the Democrats, especially in the treatment of Sanders, who should have ditched the Democrats run for president as an Independent. ..."
    "... The emails also revealed that Obama was a participant in HRC's use of a nongovernmental email system when he stated emphatically that the first time he had ever heard of it was when the media first reported it. ..."
    "... That's not the first and probably not the last time he will lie to the public. And the emails revealed the satanic practices of Podesta. The published emails made the election interesting and entertaining. But it is over and mow its time to put this issue to rest, accept the fact that Donald Trump is our next President, the leader of the freest county in the free world, and get on with governing this blessed great nation. Thank you. ..."
    "... I suppose Hillary's email server could have been hacked like this too. Could this be the reason for Comey's stern reprimand of her? It is a little ironic, isn't it, that the DNC, while down playing Hillary's issues with her private server and criticizing Comey for his handling of the investigation, should itself suffer a damaging security breach of its own servers at the hands of a foreign power, which was exactly Comey's concern. Not to mention the fact that the NYT, which told us enough was enough with Hillary's email, is now up in arms about exactly that issue with the shoe on the other foot ..."
    "... I am struggling with how to react to this, just as i do with the Edward Snowden disclosures. On the one hand Russian meddling in a US election is certainly a concern, and should be investigated. On the other hand the disclosures laid bare things many people had suspected, let the sunlight in, so to speak. ..."
    "... Would Hillary even have had the nomination were it not for the favoritism shown by the DNC to her campaign at the expense of the Sanders campaign? What was more meddlesome, the Russian hack and release or the DNC's unfair treatment of Bernie? There is no suggestion that the leaked documents were altered. The effect of the hack was to reveal the truth. Is that the Russian goal, to delegitimize the election process by revealing the truth? ..."
    "... I suppose we finally got a taste of our own medicine -- countless governments overthrown and elections influenced at the hand of the United States. Not fun is it? Perhaps we can learn a lesson from this. ..."
    Dec 21, 2016 | www.nytimes.com
    Sandy Garossino Vancouver, British Columbia December 13, 2016

    An aspect that truly surprises me is the hopeless ineptitude of the DNC response (which could easily have parallels in the RNC).

    Irrespective of who the cyber-attacker is, it's astounding in this day and age that sensitive organizations do not pre-arm themselves with the highest security, and treat every sign of interference (eg, an actual FBI WARNING PHONE CALL) as a major alarm.

    Sadly, that this response is probably replicated all over the place underscores a theory I've held for some time: Technology will kill democracy. Maybe it already has.

    Martha Dryden, NY December 13, 2016

    I'm surprised at what's missing here. How many of us have signed petitions to exonerate Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning for letting us know what our govt was doing? Didn't they do us all, and democracy, a great service?

    I'm happy to know how the DNC operated, the astounding and unprecedented conflation of a national party committee with one candidate's campaign organization.

    What they were doing to Bernie Sanders, and the use they were making of national media was just wrong.

    Assange and Putin (if he was involved) revealed the truth. And since Clinton took no care to guard her private emails, mixed with public communications, how much sympathy is she owed?

    Clinton herself was involved (via her neocon undersecretary, formerly Cheney's chief foreign policy aide) in overthrowing the elected president of Ukraine, a friend of Russia, and installing a US-capitalist friendly fellow in his stead. We do this sort of thing all the time, so if the Russians "interfere" in our electoral process by revealing true stuff (far short of fomenting a coup like we did in Ukraine), isn't that just tit for tat? We even hacked into the communications of European leaders and international organizations. We were the first to use cyber warfare (Stuxnet, v. Iran), so how can we play holier than thou? What goes around comes around. If we wanted to stop all this cyber warfare, the time to do it was by treaty BEFORE we risked Iranian lives with the Stuxnet virus.

    Classicist New York, NY December 13, 2016

    The release of e-mails was embarrassing for Secretary Clinton and the Democratic Party, but I don't think it tipped the election. How many longtime Democratic voters stayed home on November 9th because of the release of these e-mails? How many working class voters switched their vote because of the release of these e-mails?

    The bigger issue for me is that because we are now politicizing this hacking (i.e. making the argument that the hacking helped Republicans), many Republicans are opposed to investigating it.

    That is crazy to me.

    Southern Boy The Volunteer State December 13, 2016

    If the hacking had tampered with voting, I would be extremely concerned, but since it only involved email systems, I am not concerned.

    The hacked and subsequently published emails revealed the dishonest, deceitful, and unethical practices of the Democrats, especially in the treatment of Sanders, who should have ditched the Democrats run for president as an Independent.

    The emails also revealed that Obama was a participant in HRC's use of a nongovernmental email system when he stated emphatically that the first time he had ever heard of it was when the media first reported it.

    That's not the first and probably not the last time he will lie to the public. And the emails revealed the satanic practices of Podesta. The published emails made the election interesting and entertaining. But it is over and mow its time to put this issue to rest, accept the fact that Donald Trump is our next President, the leader of the freest county in the free world, and get on with governing this blessed great nation. Thank you.

    GBC , Canada December 13, 2016

    I suppose Hillary's email server could have been hacked like this too. Could this be the reason for Comey's stern reprimand of her? It is a little ironic, isn't it, that the DNC, while down playing Hillary's issues with her private server and criticizing Comey for his handling of the investigation, should itself suffer a damaging security breach of its own servers at the hands of a foreign power, which was exactly Comey's concern. Not to mention the fact that the NYT, which told us enough was enough with Hillary's email, is now up in arms about exactly that issue with the shoe on the other foot

    I am struggling with how to react to this, just as i do with the Edward Snowden disclosures. On the one hand Russian meddling in a US election is certainly a concern, and should be investigated. On the other hand the disclosures laid bare things many people had suspected, let the sunlight in, so to speak.

    Would Hillary even have had the nomination were it not for the favoritism shown by the DNC to her campaign at the expense of the Sanders campaign? What was more meddlesome, the Russian hack and release or the DNC's unfair treatment of Bernie? There is no suggestion that the leaked documents were altered. The effect of the hack was to reveal the truth. Is that the Russian goal, to delegitimize the election process by revealing the truth?

    Mark Bratanov FL December 13, 2016

    I suppose we finally got a taste of our own medicine -- countless governments overthrown and elections influenced at the hand of the United States. Not fun is it? Perhaps we can learn a lesson from this.

    Eric Lipton is an NYTimes reporter Reporter December 13, 2016

    The agent could have walked over to the DNC headquarters and shown the DNC IT consultant his badge. Or he could have invited the DNC IT consultant to his office--confirming his true identity. Instead, the two communicated for several months just by phone, and as a result, the DNC IT consultant did not fully believe he was speaking to an FBI agent, and so he did not act as aggressively to search for the possible cyber intrusion.

    GC carrboro, nc December 13, 2016

    She lost, get over it. Yes the Electoral College is obsolete. Yes some voting machines can be hacked, but no-one is claiming that in states with tight results. Let's see what the official investigation says, and who says it.

    For better or worse Mr. Trump will be our next President because he won the election. Personally I'm delighted that he may damp down the over-the-top Russophobia that is swirling around DC, "defense" contractor Congressional shills, & the offices of the NYT but nowhere else in the country.

    It's time for progressives to emerge from Obama-daze and convince the rest of the country that they have a better vision for this country's future than that offered by conservatives/reactionaries. One that doesn't involve bombing hapless foreigners. Articulate your policies as best you can, learn from your defeats and from your victories. Onward!

    Southern Boy The Volunteer State December 13, 2016

    If the hacking had tampered with voting, I would be extremely concerned, but since it only involved email systems, I am not concerned. The hacked and subsequently published emails revealed the dishonest, deceitful, and unethical practices of the Democrats, especially in the treatment of Sanders, who should have ditched the Democrats run for president as an Independent. The emails also revealed that Obama was a participant in HRC's use of a nongovernmental email system when he stated emphatically that the first time he had ever heard of it was when the media first reported it. That's not the first and probably not the last time he will lie to the public. And the emails revealed the satanic practices of Podesta. The published emails made the election interesting and entertaining. But it is over and mow its time to put this issue to rest, accept the fact that Donald Trump is our next President, the leader of the freest county in the free world, and get on with governing this blessed great nation. Thank you.

    Louisa is a trusted commenter New York December 13, 2016

    The police call and tell you to be sure to lock your doors and windows--there have been people seen lurking around your house.

    You hang up on them. And do nothing about your doors or windows.

    The police call repeatedly. You ignore all their calls.

    The police advise you to install an alarm system. You, making millions a year, say you can't afford it.

    You receive a notice in the mail telling you you've received 6 months worth of free storage. A van will arrive to pick up your stuff.

    You let the movers take your stuff away. You did not supervise what they took.

    You are the DNC, in terms of how they acted during this mess.

    [Dec 21, 2016] Russians are everywhere, much like Jews in traditional anti-Semitic propaganda.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Can you please explain to me why you are thinking that this was a hack, not a leak by an insider? ..."
    "... Yes, of course, Russians are everywhere, much like Jews in traditional anti-Semitic propaganda. ..."
    "... Or in good McCarthyism tradition, they are under each bed. This evil autocrat Putin (who actually looks like yet another corrupt neoliberal ruler, who got Russia into WTO mousetrap and invests state money in the USA debt) manages to get everywhere, control everything and at the same time (German elections, Ukraine, Syria, world oil prices, Chechnya Islamic insurgence, US Presidential election, US stock market, you name it.) Amazing fit for a man over 60. ..."
    "... And citing NYT article as for Russian hacks is probably not so much different from citing The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to support anti-Semitic propaganda. NYT was and still is one of the most enthusiastic supporters of Hillary campaign. Hardly a neutral observer. ..."
    "... This level of anti-Russian hysteria that several people here are demonstrating is absolutely disgusting. Do you really want a military confrontation with Russia in Syria as most neocons badly want (but would prefer that other fought for them in the trenches) ? ..."
    Dec 21, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    likbez -> im1dc... , December 18, 2016 at 07:15 PM

    Can you please explain to me why you are thinking that this was a hack, not a leak by an insider?

    One DNC staffer, 27-year-old Seth Rich, the DNC's director of voter expansion, was killed around this time in pretty strange circumstances. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/12/democratic-national-committee-staffer-shot-and-killed-in-washington.html

    Former British Ambassador and current Wikileaks operative Craig Murray recently said he has met the person who leaked DNC and Clinton campaign emails, and they aren't Russian.

    http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/bombshell-wikileaks-figure-says-insider-russia-hack/

    Or it can come from a dissident within the US agency that did have access to all emails.

    Do you remember such a person as Edward Snowden ?

    It might be very educational for you to read his opinion about this case:

    While he is highly critical of Wikileaks, he suggests that without NSA coming forward with hard data obtained via special program that uncover multiple levels of indirection, those charges are just propaganda and insinuations.

    And BTW after the fact it is usually impossible to discover who obtained the information, as they use multiple levels of indirection and Russia might be just one of those indirection levels. Use of Russian IP-space or Russian IPS might be just an attempt to create a false trail and to implicate a wrong party.

    As in any complex case you should not jump to conclusions so easily.

    DeDude -> likbez... , December 18, 2016 at 08:05 PM
    Or you can explain why you believe strange Faux news conspiracy stories with absolutely no evidence that this person was in a position to hack the computers? Or why do you believe the obvious hugely conflicted statements from Wikileaks operatives, who would never want to admit that they were played by the Russians? Or a guy like Snowden who's life depend on Putins charity? Why would those sources make anybody question the clear evidence already presented?

    The fact that NSA is not going to publish all its evidence, is not a surprise. No need to tell the Russians and other hackers how they can avoid detection. But it is not just the government that conclude Russian involvement. Private company experts have reached the same conclusion. The case for a Russian government hack is about as good as it can get.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html?_r=0

    likbez -> DeDude... , December 18, 2016 at 09:48 PM
    Yes, of course, Russians are everywhere, much like Jews in traditional anti-Semitic propaganda.

    Or in good McCarthyism tradition, they are under each bed. This evil autocrat Putin (who actually looks like yet another corrupt neoliberal ruler, who got Russia into WTO mousetrap and invests state money in the USA debt) manages to get everywhere, control everything and at the same time (German elections, Ukraine, Syria, world oil prices, Chechnya Islamic insurgence, US Presidential election, US stock market, you name it.) Amazing fit for a man over 60.

    And citing NYT article as for Russian hacks is probably not so much different from citing The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to support anti-Semitic propaganda. NYT was and still is one of the most enthusiastic supporters of Hillary campaign. Hardly a neutral observer.

    This level of anti-Russian hysteria that several people here are demonstrating is absolutely disgusting. Do you really want a military confrontation with Russia in Syria as most neocons badly want (but would prefer that other fought for them in the trenches) ?

    That's what this hysteria is now about, I think.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> likbez... , -1
    The NSA is very good at finding the source of intrusion attempts because they happen all the time every day from China, Russia, North Korea and just little island backwaters in the Pacific.

    Doing something to stop or punish the perpetrators is what is hard. Individual US installation instances must each be protected by their own firewalls and then still monitored for unusual variations in traffic patterns through firewalls to detect IP spoofing.

    [Dec 18, 2016] DNC did not take even elementary steps to protect its infrastructure, steps described in NIST guidelines, it operated like a non profit and did not even have 24 x7 monitoring of its servers to say nothing about firewalls and proxy infrastructure corresponding to the level of sensitivity of information they handle. In other words they were suckers and pays for their machinations, greed and incompetence

    Notable quotes:
    "... To whom do US intelligence agencies owe protection against hackers? The DNC was informed that the Russians or someone pretending to be the Russians was on them. To put your political dirty tricks or your apprehensions about the possible discovery of apparent pay-to-play games in your client's foundation in your emails after being warned was just plain foolish. ..."
    "... The Clintons' venality has been an open secret for 30 years, though Dem-leaning pundits prefer to ignore it or attribute it to the evil right wing conspiracy. From the Arkansas arrangements permitting the purchase of influence by engaging as attorney the wife of the AG or the Governor, the miraculous commodity investment, the Marc Rich and other pardons all stunk. ..."
    "... That the Clinton Foundation and its generous support for Clinton political operators might be a pay-to-play operation was not a surprise to longtime observers. I thought it was admirably bold and clever myself. Nobody else has been able to organize a tax-exempt political slush fund under personal control except even in Illinois where we have a lot of smart lawyers in politics. I suspect we will see a lot more political slush funds disguised as foundations in the future. ..."
    "... We also need to think about what political parties actually are. Then are not government agencies or acting on behalf of government agencies or the people at large. Political parties are large private lobbying firms for a set of loosely affiliated private interests that promote an agenda and communications expressly triangulated to satisfy both their donor class and voting majority constituencies. They are more like corporations with owners, employees, and clients than any public entity. ..."
    "... Former British Ambassador and current Wikileaks operative Craig Murray recently said he has met the person who leaked DNC and Clinton campaign emails, and they aren't Russian. ..."
    "... And BTW after the fact it is usually impossible to discover who obtained the information, as they use multiple levels of indirection and Russia might be just one of those indirection levels. Use of Russian IP-space or Russian IPS might be just an attempt to create a false trail and to implicate a wrong party. ..."
    Dec 18, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to im1dc... , December 18, 2016 at 10:06 AM
    It was only after listening to the Donna Brazile interview that I decided to comment on the hacking because of how wrong that Donna Brazile was in so many ways. What responsibility do you think that the Federal government should have for protecting the data of a private political operation? What legal or regulatory responsibility do you think that the Federal government has towards the protection of data for private civilian entities? The second question is rhetorical only to put the first question in perspective since they are materially exactly the same thing according to law. How difficult do you think it is to avoid exposure of incriminating or covert E-mails simply by not having such things?
    sglover -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 06:19 PM
    I just can't get past imagining that Donna Brazile is an honest, competent observer at all, and particularly this episode.
    mrrunangun said in reply to im1dc... , December 18, 2016 at 11:13 AM
    To whom do US intelligence agencies owe protection against hackers? The DNC was informed that the Russians or someone pretending to be the Russians was on them. To put your political dirty tricks or your apprehensions about the possible discovery of apparent pay-to-play games in your client's foundation in your emails after being warned was just plain foolish.

    The Clintons' venality has been an open secret for 30 years, though Dem-leaning pundits prefer to ignore it or attribute it to the evil right wing conspiracy. From the Arkansas arrangements permitting the purchase of influence by engaging as attorney the wife of the AG or the Governor, the miraculous commodity investment, the Marc Rich and other pardons all stunk.

    HRC was elected senator from NY despite that. That the Clinton Foundation and its generous support for Clinton political operators might be a pay-to-play operation was not a surprise to longtime observers. I thought it was admirably bold and clever myself. Nobody else has been able to organize a tax-exempt political slush fund under personal control except even in Illinois where we have a lot of smart lawyers in politics. I suspect we will see a lot more political slush funds disguised as foundations in the future.

    DeDude -> mrrunangun... , December 18, 2016 at 12:14 PM
    If it wasn't that none of what you write has any connection to the fact; it sounds good. What right wing website did you copy-paste it from?
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to mrrunangun... , December 18, 2016 at 11:52 AM
    THANKS! We better get used to Republicans, at least until they "d'oh" their way out of political power just like the Democrats did. Democrats will never get it back on their own.

    DeDude -> im1dc..., December 18, 2016 at 11:52 AM

    I think there was a serious lack of IT competence in the DNC playing a big role. One being with the obvious incompetence of their cyber-security contractor and another the lack of supervision or procedures set for this person:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html?_r=0

    I agree that the procedures and rules at the FBI could have been much better. Why the FBI agent didn't (or maybe (s)he did) send the information up higher in the chain (all the way to the President) is a bit of a mystery. Hacking of one of our two major parties should have been Presidential level info, or at least cabinet level.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to DeDude... , December 18, 2016 at 12:25 PM
    How about the possibility of not even having any E-mails incriminating Democrats of political corruption? Would that have been to hard? I am not saying that they should not be corrupt, just don't put it in an E-mail for Christ's sake.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 12:37 PM
    [Interesting that Putin is the bad guy here for exposing the behavior of the DNC. Why so much talk of Russians and so little talk of what was in those Emails?]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak

    2016 Democratic National Committee email leak

    The 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak is a collection of Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails leaked to and subsequently published by WikiLeaks on July 22, 2016. This collection included 19,252 emails and 8,034 attachments from the DNC, the governing body of the United States' Democratic Party.[1] The leak includes emails from seven key DNC staff members, and date from January 2015 to May 2016.[2] The leak prompted the resignation of DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz before the Democratic National Convention.[3] After the convention, DNC CEO Amy Dacey, CFO Brad Marshall, and Communications Director Luis Miranda also resigned in the wake of the controversy.[4]

    WikiLeaks did not reveal its source; a self-styled hacker going by the moniker Guccifer 2.0 claimed responsibility for the attack. On July 25, 2016, the FBI announced that it would investigate the hack[5][6][7][8][9][10][11] The same day, the DNC issued a formal apology to Bernie Sanders and his supporters, stating, "On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the inexcusable remarks made over email," and that the emails did not reflect the DNC's "steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process."[12] On November 6, 2016, WikiLeaks released a second batch of DNC emails, adding 8,263 emails to its collection.[13]

    On December 9, 2016, the CIA told U.S. legislators that the U.S. Intelligence Community concluded Russia conducted operations during the 2016 U.S. election to assist Donald Trump in winning the presidency.[14] Multiple U.S intelligence agencies concluded people with direct ties to the Kremlin gave WikiLeaks hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee...

    ...Bernie Sanders' campaign

    In the emails, DNC staffers derided the Sanders campaign.[45] The Washington Post reported: "Many of the most damaging emails suggest the committee was actively trying to undermine Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign. Basically, all of these examples came late in the primary-after Hillary Clinton was clearly headed for victory-but they belie the national party committee's stated neutrality in the race even at that late stage."[46]

    In a May 2016 email chain, the DNC chief financial officer (CFO) Brad Marshall told the DNC chief executive officer, Amy Dacy, that they should have someone from the media ask Sanders if he is an atheist prior to the West Virginia primary.[46][47] In another email, Wasserman Schultz said of Bernie Sanders, "He isn't going to be president."[45]

    On May 21, 2016, DNC National Press Secretary Mark Paustenbach sent an email to DNC Spokesman Luis Miranda mentioning a controversy that ensued in December 2015 when the National Data Director of the Sanders campaign and three subordinate staffers accessed the Clinton campaign's voter information on the NGP VAN database.[48] (The party accused Sanders' campaign of impropriety and briefly limited their access to the database. The Sanders campaign filed suit for breach of contract against the DNC; they dropped the suit on April 29, 2016.)[47][49][50] Paustenbach suggested that the incident could be used to promote a "narrative for a story, which is that Bernie never had his act together, that his campaign was a mess." (The suggestion was rejected by the DNC.) [46][47] The Washington Post wrote: "Paustenbach's suggestion, in that way, could be read as a defense of the committee rather than pushing negative information about Sanders. But this is still the committee pushing negative information about one of its candidates."...

    ...Financial and donor information

    The New York Times wrote that the cache included "thousands of emails exchanged by Democratic officials and party fund-raisers, revealing in rarely seen detail the elaborate, ingratiating and often bluntly transactional exchanges necessary to harvest hundreds of millions of dollars from the party's wealthy donor class. The emails capture a world where seating charts are arranged with dollar totals in mind, where a White House celebration of gay pride is a thinly disguised occasion for rewarding wealthy donors and where physical proximity to the president is the most precious of currencies."[60] As is common in national politics, large party donors "were the subject of entire dossiers, as fund-raisers tried to gauge their interests, annoyances and passions."[60]

    In a series of email exchanges in April and May 2016, DNC fundraising staff discussed and compiled a list of people (mainly donors) who might be appointed to federal boards and commissions.[61] Center for Responsive Politics senior fellow Bob Biersack noted that this is a longstanding practice in the United States: "Big donors have always risen to the top of lists for appointment to plum ambassadorships and other boards and commissions around the federal landscape."[61] The White House denied that financial support for the party was connected to board appointments, saying: "Being a donor does not get you a role in this administration, nor does it preclude you from getting one. We've said this for many years now and there's nothing in the emails that have been released that contradicts that."...

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 12:41 PM
    That does not make Putin a good guy. I was not a fan of Snowden's either. But it is easier for me to avoid incriminating myself in Emails than it is to get a foreign leader half way around the world to not expose my self-incrimination if it is in his self-interest to do so and he has the resources to do so.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 12:52 PM
    We also need to think about what political parties actually are. Then are not government agencies or acting on behalf of government agencies or the people at large. Political parties are large private lobbying firms for a set of loosely affiliated private interests that promote an agenda and communications expressly triangulated to satisfy both their donor class and voting majority constituencies. They are more like corporations with owners, employees, and clients than any public entity.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 12:53 PM
    I probably should have said investors instead of owners to be more precise.
    DeDude -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 01:20 PM
    So a bunch of nothing burgers about how the sausage is made. You don't say that there is actually people in the DNC that have their own personal favorite among the primary candidates - shocking??? And campaign donations in exchange for the ability to gain influence -- almost half a chocking as the K-Street project - and a quarter as shocking as the revelation that donating to the Clinton foundation could NOT give the donors what they wanted from the State Department (what an absurdly incompetent scheme of corruption - how could we let her run the gobinment).

    I am sure that the Russian governments hack of the GOP didn't find anything like that - and that's the reason they didn't make those emails public.

    The general advice that you should not send anything by email that you don't want the public to know should have been headed by all involved. Maybe the DNC could learn from Hillary - who had > 30K emails examined and not a single one where she had said anything not good for public consumption.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to DeDude... , December 18, 2016 at 02:38 PM
    "...Maybe the DNC could learn from Hillary - who had > 30K emails examined and not a single one where she had said anything not good for public consumption."

    [Now you are starting to come around.

    NO, I did not find anything in the Emails shocking. None of it was a surprise at all to me. However, it was enough for a lot of other people to be influenced in their voting (likely to stay home and maybe it helped the Green Party get a few more votes), otherwise no one would care that they were hacked.

    Observer's comment just down thread shows that he got it. Now he was not a Hillary supporter and more likely than not a Libertarian of sorts, but the principle here is universal, simple risk management where there was nothing to be gained and everything to lose.

    Also, going to war over the hacked Emails of any political party is probably off the table:<) Where Hillary made a mistake was making an enemy that had one of the worlds most aggressive state sponsored internet hacking programs (China and the US being the only ones that are more capable, but still less aggressive and more covert).]

    im1dc -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 05:18 PM
    You have exhaustively proven that there was no crime or wrong doing committed by the DNC or Hillary. Thanks. You have provided evidence that politics is politics and like sausage making you don't want to actually see it up close and personal.

    Nothing here, nothing at all.

    Except for Marshall McLuhan's observation that the media is the message. In this case the Russian leaked emails to Assange lead Wikileaks calculated to dribble out over the months and weeks before the November election to suggest there were illegalities and criminal behavior being covered up by Hillary and the DNC at EXACTLY the same time Donald Trump is jetting around the country telling everybody who listened that the election was rigged, Hillary is a crook, and the MSM was out to get him.

    Wow, how did you miss that and the implications derived from it?

    likbez -> im1dc... , December 18, 2016 at 05:41 PM
    Can you please explain to me why you are thinking that this was a hack, not a leak by an insider?

    One DNC staffer, 27-year-old Seth Rich, the DNC's director of voter expansion, was killed around this time in pretty strange circumstances. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/12/democratic-national-committee-staffer-shot-and-killed-in-washington.html

    Former British Ambassador and current Wikileaks operative Craig Murray recently said he has met the person who leaked DNC and Clinton campaign emails, and they aren't Russian.

    http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/bombshell-wikileaks-figure-says-insider-russia-hack/

    Or it can come from a dissident within the US agency that did have access to all emails.

    Do you remember such a person as Edward Snowden ? It might be very educational for you to read his opinion about this case:

    While he is highly critical of Wikileaks, he suggests that without NSA coming forward with hard data obtained via special program that uncover multiple levels of indirection, those charges are just propaganda and insinuations.

    And BTW after the fact it is usually impossible to discover who obtained the information, as they use multiple levels of indirection and Russia might be just one of those indirection levels. Use of Russian IP-space or Russian IPS might be just an attempt to create a false trail and to implicate a wrong party.

    As in any complex case you should not jump to conclusions so easily.

    ilsm -> im1dc... , -1
    Nothing Ron says is clearing. The e-mail thing is about safeguarding and preserving public records. The content of mishandled records is not an issue.

    The public demanded to know what government does. Congress passed the federal records act. The crime has nothing to do with content.

    That is one felony Comey could complain about justice whitewashing. The elements of friendly information released must never be discussed, that would make the breeches worse. Except in closed, secure rooms with no electronic bugging devices.

    Clinton would have been impeached!

    [Dec 18, 2016] The US medias neo-McCarthyite campaign for war against Russia by Andre Damon

    Notable quotes:
    "... These allegations were followed Wednesday by a press briefing in which White House spokesman Josh Earnest declared that media outfits in the US, in reporting on the Democratic Party emails released by WikiLeaks, "essentially became the arms of Russian intelligence." ..."
    "... Later that day, President Obama threatened to retaliate against Russia, telling National Public Radio, "I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections, that we need to take action and we will." ..."
    "... The Times followed up its inflammatory article with an editorial Thursday all but accusing the president-elect of acting as a Russian agent. ..."
    "... There are bitter and raging conflicts within the state, and a faction of the military-intelligence apparatus is determined that there be no retreat from an aggressive confrontation with Russia. This is connected to anger over the debacle of the CIA-led regime-change operation in Syria. ..."
    "... Bound up with this internecine conflict within the ruling class, there is a concerted effort to politically bludgeon the American people into supporting further military escalation, both in the Middle East and against Russia itself. ..."
    Dec 18, 2016 | www.defenddemocracy.press

    The American population is being subjected to a furious barrage of propaganda by the media and political establishment aimed at paving the way to war.

    The campaign was sharply escalated this week, beginning with Wednesday's publication of a lead article in the New York Times . Based entirely on unnamed sources and flimsy and concocted evidence, it was presented as definitive proof of Russia's hacking of Democratic Party emails and waging of "cyberwar" against the United States.

    These allegations were followed Wednesday by a press briefing in which White House spokesman Josh Earnest declared that media outfits in the US, in reporting on the Democratic Party emails released by WikiLeaks, "essentially became the arms of Russian intelligence."

    On Thursday, Earnest declared that president-elect Trump had encouraged "Russia to hack his opponent because he believed it would help his campaign." Later that day, President Obama threatened to retaliate against Russia, telling National Public Radio, "I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections, that we need to take action and we will."

    These warmongering comments by the Obama administration were accompanied by editorials in leading US and international newspapers denouncing Trump's accommodative stance toward Russia and clamoring for a more aggressive response to the alleged hacking. News reports, based on unnamed intelligence officials, breathlessly proclaim that Russian President Vladimir Putin directly ordered and oversaw the hacking.

    The Times followed up its inflammatory article with an editorial Thursday all but accusing the president-elect of acting as a Russian agent. "There could be no more 'useful idiot,' to use Lenin's term of art, than an American president who doesn't know he's being played by a wily foreign power," the Times declared. The editorial further defined Russia as "one of our oldest, most determined foreign adversaries," adding, "Kremlin meddling in the 2016 election" justifies "retaliatory measures."

    The declarations by the Times and other media outlets combine all of the noxious elements of 1950s McCarthyism, with capitalist Russia replacing the Soviet Union: hysterical denunciation of "wily" Russia, shameless lying and attacks on domestic opponents as spies, traitors and agents of foreign governments.

    There are bitter and raging conflicts within the state, and a faction of the military-intelligence apparatus is determined that there be no retreat from an aggressive confrontation with Russia. This is connected to anger over the debacle of the CIA-led regime-change operation in Syria. Trump has packed his cabinet with generals and is planning a massive escalation of war, but he has also indicated a preference for greater accommodation with Russia.

    Bound up with this internecine conflict within the ruling class, there is a concerted effort to politically bludgeon the American people into supporting further military escalation, both in the Middle East and against Russia itself.

    The propaganda campaign alleging Russian interference in the US election parallels a related media blitzkrieg claiming that Syrian government troops, backed by Russia, are carrying out massacres as they retake the Syrian city of Aleppo.

    The Times ' lead editorial on Thursday, titled "Aleppo's Destroyers: Assad, Putin, Iran," declares: "After calling on Mr. Assad to 'step aside' in 2011, Mr. Obama was never able to make it happen, and it may never have been in his power to make it happen, at least at a cost acceptable to the American people." The front-page lead of Thursday's Times bemoans the fact that efforts to whip up public support for US military intervention in Syria have "not resonated" as much as previous propaganda campaigns.

    The international press has joined in the hysteria. An op-ed in Germany's Der Spiegel bitterly complains that "Obama sought a diplomatic, not a military solution" to the crisis in Syria. It "made him popular, both in the United States and here [in Germany]," the piece states, but adds that such "self-righteousness is wrong."

    Such media propaganda campaigns are not new. Without exception, they have preceded every bloody military adventure: the attempts to blame Afghanistan for the September 11 terrorist attacks in the run-up to that country's invasion in 2001; the lying claims about "weapons of mass destruction" before the 2003 invasion of Iraq; and the reports of an imminent massacre of civilians in Benghazi that preceded the US bombing and destruction of Libya in 2011.

    The difference now, however, is that this campaign is directed not at a virtually defenseless and impoverished former colony, but at Russia, the world's second-ranked nuclear power. None of the figures carrying out this campaign care to explain how a war against Russia should be fought, how many people will die, and how such a war could avoid a nuclear exchange leading to the destruction of human civilization.

    Behind the banner headlines and vituperative editorials, real steps are being taken to prepare for warfare on a scale not seen for 60 years. Earlier this year, US Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley told the Association of the United States Army that the military must prepare for wars against great powers, which will be "very highly lethal, unlike anything our Army has experienced since World War II."

    The campaign that has developed over the past two weeks makes clear what the policy of a Clinton administration would have been. The Democratic Party and its allied media outlets have rooted their opposition to Trump not on the basis of his losing the popular vote by nearly three million ballots, or that he is appointing a cabinet dominated by right-wing, reactionary billionaires, bankers, business executives and generals, but on the charge that he is "soft" on Russia. That is, the Democratic Party has managed to attack Trump from the right.

    Whatever the outcome of the conflict within the state, the American ruling class is preparing for war. The dissolution of the USSR 25 years ago was greeted with enraptured declarations of an era of perpetual peace, in which a world under the unrivaled hegemony of the United States would be free of the wars that plagued mankind in the 20th century. Now, after a quarter century of bloody regional conflicts, the blood-curdling declarations of the press make it clear that a new world war is in the making.

    Among broad sections of workers and young people, there is deep skepticism toward government lies and hostility to war. However, this opposition can find no reflection within any faction of the political establishment. The building of a new anti-war movement, based on the international unity of the working class in opposition to capitalism and all the political parties of the ruling class, is the urgent task.

    Andre Damon

    [Dec 18, 2016] Two more states confirm election hacks traced to US government

    "Oh dear. How are they going to keep their 'Putin did it' story straight if they keep shooting themselves in the foot like this?"
    www.sott.net

    Last week we reported that the State of Georgia had traced an attempted break-in to its voter registration database to none other than the famous Russian government agency, the Department of Homeland Security.

    Now it has been revealed that Kentucky and West Virginia "have confirmed suspected cyberattacks linked to the same U.S. Department of Homeland Security IP address as last month's massive attack in Georgia". There must be some way to blame Moscow:

    While there could be an "innocent" explanation for such attacks (testing network security, for example), the Department of Homeland Security did not inform any of these states - before or after the attacks - that they had been conducted, for security-checking purposes or otherwise. In other words: These states still don't know why DHS targeted, and they're still waiting for an answer:

    In the past week, the Georgia Secretary of State's Office has confirmed 10 separate cyberattacks on its network over the past 10 months that were traced back to DHS addresses.

    "We're being told something that they think they have it figured out, yet nobody's really showed us how this happened," Kemp said. "We need to know."

    He says the new information from the two other states presents even more reason to be concerned.

    "So now this just raises more questions that haven't been answered about this and continues to raise the alarms and concern that I have," Kemp said.
    Georgia's Secretary of State says he has already sent an appeal to the incoming Trump administration, asking for assistance in resolving this bizarre string of cyber attacks.

    Stay tuned.

    [Dec 18, 2016] Revealed! Putin personally hacked DNC from surveillance aircraft with bear on board

    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... Danielle Ryan is an Irish freelance writer, journalist and media analyst. She has lived and traveled extensively in the US, Germany, Russia and Hungary. Her byline has appeared at RT, The Nation, Rethinking Russia, The BRICS Post, New Eastern Outlook, Global Independent Analytics and many others. She also works on copywriting and editing projects. Follow her on Twitter or Facebook or at her website www.danielleryan.net. ..."
    Dec 18, 2016 | www.rt.com
    Danielle Ryan
    RT
    Sat, 17 Dec 2016 21:42 UTC Map © Alexey Nikolsky / Reuters Shocking revelations earlier this week as US intelligence officials confirmed with "high confidence" that Russian President Vladimir Putin was "personally involved" in the hacking of the Democratic National Committee.

    According to the anonymous sources inside the anonymous US intelligence agency, Putin's objectives were multifaceted, but the whole thing began as a "vendetta" against Hillary Clinton because she said some mean things about him a few times. Putin is also an "immature 12 year-old child," a former US official with links to the defense industry, who spoke on condition of anonymity, confirmed (with high confidence).

    The high level, anonymous and completely trustworthy sources also told a major US news agency that Putin himself had piloted a specially-designed Russian spy plane across the Atlantic to personally direct the still-ongoing hacking operations from the air.

    via GIPHY
    Satellite images seen by a separate anonymous NASA whistleblower are believed to show Putin in the cockpit of the spy plane alongside his co-pilot Boris, a lifelike robotic bear which has been under secret development in the depths of Siberia and has been programmed to attack Putin's enemies on command using a variety of lethal methods.

    The NASA whistleblower did not provide journalists with photographic evidence, but the editors had a chat about it in their morning meeting and concluded that it's probably still true.

    In fact, the American news agency could not verify any of the claims from the officials who commented for the story, but given that their sources used the term "high confidence" they took this to mean the evidence must be "nearly incontrovertible" and relayed the information to the public with this implication. An understandable decision, since, as we all know, only 100 percent factual information is ever released by anonymous intelligence officials.

    Okay, let's rewind. Obviously that bit about the bear and the plane was fake news. And maybe a few other bits, too. But it all demonstrates a point. I've provided you with about the same amount of evidence as NBC has in its story this week claiming Putin personally rigged the US election: I made some allegations, I cited anonymous sources and then I conveyed it to you readers as "nearly incontrovertible" and suggested no further digging or investigation, or even a bit of healthy skepticism, was necessary.

    Journalism is dying

    There was a time when journalists needed more than 'maybes' and 'probablys' before deciding what their sources told them was "incontrovertible" and delivering half-baked conspiracy theories to the public. That time has apparently long gone.

    Imagine for a moment that RT published a story about, oh, let's say Barack Obama personally hacking into Putin's computer. Now imagine the only evidence RT provided was "anonymous FSB officials" and told its readers the story was therefore practically indisputable because these anonymous sources were "confident" in the legitimacy of their secret evidence. Imagine the laughs that would get from sneering Western journalists. Well, that's pretty much exactly what NBC did. And they're not alone. The Washington Post has been at it too, reporting on a "secret" CIA assessment that Russia worked to get Donald Trump elected, quoting anonymous "top officials" and like NBC, providing no evidence.

    Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but for something to be presented to the public as indisputable fact, there must be evidence made available to back it up. Neither the CIA or the FBI have provided any such evidence to the public.

    Perhaps the saddest thing though is having to acknowledge that all our debates over fake news and real news really don't matter because the very people we are told to trust are the people who will most adeptly use the public's concerns over fake news to manipulate them. The CIA, for example, is hardly known for its long history of telling the truth. Its employees are literally trained in the art of deception and disinformation. They are hardly averse to creating a bit of fake news or making up 'evidence' where needed. Anything they say or do can be forgiven once someone utters the words "national security".

    NBC's story claimed Putin not only wanted to embarrass Clinton with the DNC leaks, but to highlight corruption in the American political system; the emails showing, for example, how the DNC colluded with the Clinton campaign to ensure Clinton, not Bernie Sanders, would be the Democratic nominee.

    Now, what better way to encourage people to ignore the corruption in the system than to focus their attention on the idea that Putin is the one who told them about it? Are people really reading these stories and convincing themselves that the CIA is the most credible source of public information on what the Russians are doing?

    Clinton's long-shot

    We've been hearing about Russian hacking for months, long before the election results in November, so why the sudden confidence in all this new and secret evidence? Why the new assertions that Putin himself directed the hacking? Look at your calendar. The Electoral College votes on Monday and it may be Clinton's last hope. It's a long shot, but in true Clinton character, she won't go down without a fight to the last gasp. Her best hope is to convince the Electoral College that Trump's win was influenced by a foreign power, is therefore illegitimate and that national security will be at stake if he takes office.

    Amazingly, in the midst of all this, while Clinton's camp is still trying to get her elected through back-door tactics, Obama has pretty much called the election results legitimate .

    Members of the Electoral College are expected to vote the way their states voted, but they are not required to. If Clinton can get enough members to flip their votes, Trump is deprived of the 270 votes he needs to become president. That's what this is really all about - and the media is serving as Clinton's willing accomplice.

    Danielle Ryan is an Irish freelance writer, journalist and media analyst. She has lived and traveled extensively in the US, Germany, Russia and Hungary. Her byline has appeared at RT, The Nation, Rethinking Russia, The BRICS Post, New Eastern Outlook, Global Independent Analytics and many others. She also works on copywriting and editing projects. Follow her on Twitter or Facebook or at her website www.danielleryan.net.

    [Dec 18, 2016] DNC did not take even elementary steps to protect its infrastructure, steps described in NIST guidelines, it operated like a non profit and did not even have 24 x7 monitoring of its servers to say nothing about firewalls and proxy infrastructure corresponding to the level of sensitivity of information they handle. In other words they were suckers and pays for their machinations, greed and incompetence

    Notable quotes:
    "... To whom do US intelligence agencies owe protection against hackers? The DNC was informed that the Russians or someone pretending to be the Russians was on them. To put your political dirty tricks or your apprehensions about the possible discovery of apparent pay-to-play games in your client's foundation in your emails after being warned was just plain foolish. ..."
    "... The Clintons' venality has been an open secret for 30 years, though Dem-leaning pundits prefer to ignore it or attribute it to the evil right wing conspiracy. From the Arkansas arrangements permitting the purchase of influence by engaging as attorney the wife of the AG or the Governor, the miraculous commodity investment, the Marc Rich and other pardons all stunk. ..."
    "... That the Clinton Foundation and its generous support for Clinton political operators might be a pay-to-play operation was not a surprise to longtime observers. I thought it was admirably bold and clever myself. Nobody else has been able to organize a tax-exempt political slush fund under personal control except even in Illinois where we have a lot of smart lawyers in politics. I suspect we will see a lot more political slush funds disguised as foundations in the future. ..."
    "... We also need to think about what political parties actually are. Then are not government agencies or acting on behalf of government agencies or the people at large. Political parties are large private lobbying firms for a set of loosely affiliated private interests that promote an agenda and communications expressly triangulated to satisfy both their donor class and voting majority constituencies. They are more like corporations with owners, employees, and clients than any public entity. ..."
    "... Former British Ambassador and current Wikileaks operative Craig Murray recently said he has met the person who leaked DNC and Clinton campaign emails, and they aren't Russian. ..."
    "... And BTW after the fact it is usually impossible to discover who obtained the information, as they use multiple levels of indirection and Russia might be just one of those indirection levels. Use of Russian IP-space or Russian IPS might be just an attempt to create a false trail and to implicate a wrong party. ..."
    Dec 18, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to im1dc... , December 18, 2016 at 10:06 AM
    It was only after listening to the Donna Brazile interview that I decided to comment on the hacking because of how wrong that Donna Brazile was in so many ways. What responsibility do you think that the Federal government should have for protecting the data of a private political operation? What legal or regulatory responsibility do you think that the Federal government has towards the protection of data for private civilian entities? The second question is rhetorical only to put the first question in perspective since they are materially exactly the same thing according to law. How difficult do you think it is to avoid exposure of incriminating or covert E-mails simply by not having such things?
    sglover -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 06:19 PM
    I just can't get past imagining that Donna Brazile is an honest, competent observer at all, and particularly this episode.
    mrrunangun said in reply to im1dc... , December 18, 2016 at 11:13 AM
    To whom do US intelligence agencies owe protection against hackers? The DNC was informed that the Russians or someone pretending to be the Russians was on them. To put your political dirty tricks or your apprehensions about the possible discovery of apparent pay-to-play games in your client's foundation in your emails after being warned was just plain foolish.

    The Clintons' venality has been an open secret for 30 years, though Dem-leaning pundits prefer to ignore it or attribute it to the evil right wing conspiracy. From the Arkansas arrangements permitting the purchase of influence by engaging as attorney the wife of the AG or the Governor, the miraculous commodity investment, the Marc Rich and other pardons all stunk.

    HRC was elected senator from NY despite that. That the Clinton Foundation and its generous support for Clinton political operators might be a pay-to-play operation was not a surprise to longtime observers. I thought it was admirably bold and clever myself. Nobody else has been able to organize a tax-exempt political slush fund under personal control except even in Illinois where we have a lot of smart lawyers in politics. I suspect we will see a lot more political slush funds disguised as foundations in the future.

    DeDude -> mrrunangun... , December 18, 2016 at 12:14 PM
    If it wasn't that none of what you write has any connection to the fact; it sounds good. What right wing website did you copy-paste it from?
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to mrrunangun... , December 18, 2016 at 11:52 AM
    THANKS! We better get used to Republicans, at least until they "d'oh" their way out of political power just like the Democrats did. Democrats will never get it back on their own.

    DeDude -> im1dc..., December 18, 2016 at 11:52 AM

    I think there was a serious lack of IT competence in the DNC playing a big role. One being with the obvious incompetence of their cyber-security contractor and another the lack of supervision or procedures set for this person:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html?_r=0

    I agree that the procedures and rules at the FBI could have been much better. Why the FBI agent didn't (or maybe (s)he did) send the information up higher in the chain (all the way to the President) is a bit of a mystery. Hacking of one of our two major parties should have been Presidential level info, or at least cabinet level.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to DeDude... , December 18, 2016 at 12:25 PM
    How about the possibility of not even having any E-mails incriminating Democrats of political corruption? Would that have been to hard? I am not saying that they should not be corrupt, just don't put it in an E-mail for Christ's sake.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 12:37 PM
    [Interesting that Putin is the bad guy here for exposing the behavior of the DNC. Why so much talk of Russians and so little talk of what was in those Emails?]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak

    2016 Democratic National Committee email leak

    The 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak is a collection of Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails leaked to and subsequently published by WikiLeaks on July 22, 2016. This collection included 19,252 emails and 8,034 attachments from the DNC, the governing body of the United States' Democratic Party.[1] The leak includes emails from seven key DNC staff members, and date from January 2015 to May 2016.[2] The leak prompted the resignation of DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz before the Democratic National Convention.[3] After the convention, DNC CEO Amy Dacey, CFO Brad Marshall, and Communications Director Luis Miranda also resigned in the wake of the controversy.[4]

    WikiLeaks did not reveal its source; a self-styled hacker going by the moniker Guccifer 2.0 claimed responsibility for the attack. On July 25, 2016, the FBI announced that it would investigate the hack[5][6][7][8][9][10][11] The same day, the DNC issued a formal apology to Bernie Sanders and his supporters, stating, "On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the inexcusable remarks made over email," and that the emails did not reflect the DNC's "steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process."[12] On November 6, 2016, WikiLeaks released a second batch of DNC emails, adding 8,263 emails to its collection.[13]

    On December 9, 2016, the CIA told U.S. legislators that the U.S. Intelligence Community concluded Russia conducted operations during the 2016 U.S. election to assist Donald Trump in winning the presidency.[14] Multiple U.S intelligence agencies concluded people with direct ties to the Kremlin gave WikiLeaks hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee...

    ...Bernie Sanders' campaign

    In the emails, DNC staffers derided the Sanders campaign.[45] The Washington Post reported: "Many of the most damaging emails suggest the committee was actively trying to undermine Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign. Basically, all of these examples came late in the primary-after Hillary Clinton was clearly headed for victory-but they belie the national party committee's stated neutrality in the race even at that late stage."[46]

    In a May 2016 email chain, the DNC chief financial officer (CFO) Brad Marshall told the DNC chief executive officer, Amy Dacy, that they should have someone from the media ask Sanders if he is an atheist prior to the West Virginia primary.[46][47] In another email, Wasserman Schultz said of Bernie Sanders, "He isn't going to be president."[45]

    On May 21, 2016, DNC National Press Secretary Mark Paustenbach sent an email to DNC Spokesman Luis Miranda mentioning a controversy that ensued in December 2015 when the National Data Director of the Sanders campaign and three subordinate staffers accessed the Clinton campaign's voter information on the NGP VAN database.[48] (The party accused Sanders' campaign of impropriety and briefly limited their access to the database. The Sanders campaign filed suit for breach of contract against the DNC; they dropped the suit on April 29, 2016.)[47][49][50] Paustenbach suggested that the incident could be used to promote a "narrative for a story, which is that Bernie never had his act together, that his campaign was a mess." (The suggestion was rejected by the DNC.) [46][47] The Washington Post wrote: "Paustenbach's suggestion, in that way, could be read as a defense of the committee rather than pushing negative information about Sanders. But this is still the committee pushing negative information about one of its candidates."...

    ...Financial and donor information

    The New York Times wrote that the cache included "thousands of emails exchanged by Democratic officials and party fund-raisers, revealing in rarely seen detail the elaborate, ingratiating and often bluntly transactional exchanges necessary to harvest hundreds of millions of dollars from the party's wealthy donor class. The emails capture a world where seating charts are arranged with dollar totals in mind, where a White House celebration of gay pride is a thinly disguised occasion for rewarding wealthy donors and where physical proximity to the president is the most precious of currencies."[60] As is common in national politics, large party donors "were the subject of entire dossiers, as fund-raisers tried to gauge their interests, annoyances and passions."[60]

    In a series of email exchanges in April and May 2016, DNC fundraising staff discussed and compiled a list of people (mainly donors) who might be appointed to federal boards and commissions.[61] Center for Responsive Politics senior fellow Bob Biersack noted that this is a longstanding practice in the United States: "Big donors have always risen to the top of lists for appointment to plum ambassadorships and other boards and commissions around the federal landscape."[61] The White House denied that financial support for the party was connected to board appointments, saying: "Being a donor does not get you a role in this administration, nor does it preclude you from getting one. We've said this for many years now and there's nothing in the emails that have been released that contradicts that."...

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 12:41 PM
    That does not make Putin a good guy. I was not a fan of Snowden's either. But it is easier for me to avoid incriminating myself in Emails than it is to get a foreign leader half way around the world to not expose my self-incrimination if it is in his self-interest to do so and he has the resources to do so.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 12:52 PM
    We also need to think about what political parties actually are. Then are not government agencies or acting on behalf of government agencies or the people at large. Political parties are large private lobbying firms for a set of loosely affiliated private interests that promote an agenda and communications expressly triangulated to satisfy both their donor class and voting majority constituencies. They are more like corporations with owners, employees, and clients than any public entity.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 12:53 PM
    I probably should have said investors instead of owners to be more precise.
    DeDude -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 01:20 PM
    So a bunch of nothing burgers about how the sausage is made. You don't say that there is actually people in the DNC that have their own personal favorite among the primary candidates - shocking??? And campaign donations in exchange for the ability to gain influence -- almost half a chocking as the K-Street project - and a quarter as shocking as the revelation that donating to the Clinton foundation could NOT give the donors what they wanted from the State Department (what an absurdly incompetent scheme of corruption - how could we let her run the gobinment).

    I am sure that the Russian governments hack of the GOP didn't find anything like that - and that's the reason they didn't make those emails public.

    The general advice that you should not send anything by email that you don't want the public to know should have been headed by all involved. Maybe the DNC could learn from Hillary - who had > 30K emails examined and not a single one where she had said anything not good for public consumption.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to DeDude... , December 18, 2016 at 02:38 PM
    "...Maybe the DNC could learn from Hillary - who had > 30K emails examined and not a single one where she had said anything not good for public consumption."

    [Now you are starting to come around.

    NO, I did not find anything in the Emails shocking. None of it was a surprise at all to me. However, it was enough for a lot of other people to be influenced in their voting (likely to stay home and maybe it helped the Green Party get a few more votes), otherwise no one would care that they were hacked.

    Observer's comment just down thread shows that he got it. Now he was not a Hillary supporter and more likely than not a Libertarian of sorts, but the principle here is universal, simple risk management where there was nothing to be gained and everything to lose.

    Also, going to war over the hacked Emails of any political party is probably off the table:<) Where Hillary made a mistake was making an enemy that had one of the worlds most aggressive state sponsored internet hacking programs (China and the US being the only ones that are more capable, but still less aggressive and more covert).]

    im1dc -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 05:18 PM
    You have exhaustively proven that there was no crime or wrong doing committed by the DNC or Hillary. Thanks. You have provided evidence that politics is politics and like sausage making you don't want to actually see it up close and personal.

    Nothing here, nothing at all.

    Except for Marshall McLuhan's observation that the media is the message. In this case the Russian leaked emails to Assange lead Wikileaks calculated to dribble out over the months and weeks before the November election to suggest there were illegalities and criminal behavior being covered up by Hillary and the DNC at EXACTLY the same time Donald Trump is jetting around the country telling everybody who listened that the election was rigged, Hillary is a crook, and the MSM was out to get him.

    Wow, how did you miss that and the implications derived from it?

    likbez -> im1dc... , December 18, 2016 at 05:41 PM
    Can you please explain to me why you are thinking that this was a hack, not a leak by an insider?

    One DNC staffer, 27-year-old Seth Rich, the DNC's director of voter expansion, was killed around this time in pretty strange circumstances. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/12/democratic-national-committee-staffer-shot-and-killed-in-washington.html

    Former British Ambassador and current Wikileaks operative Craig Murray recently said he has met the person who leaked DNC and Clinton campaign emails, and they aren't Russian.

    http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/bombshell-wikileaks-figure-says-insider-russia-hack/

    Or it can come from a dissident within the US agency that did have access to all emails.

    Do you remember such a person as Edward Snowden ? It might be very educational for you to read his opinion about this case:

    While he is highly critical of Wikileaks, he suggests that without NSA coming forward with hard data obtained via special program that uncover multiple levels of indirection, those charges are just propaganda and insinuations.

    And BTW after the fact it is usually impossible to discover who obtained the information, as they use multiple levels of indirection and Russia might be just one of those indirection levels. Use of Russian IP-space or Russian IPS might be just an attempt to create a false trail and to implicate a wrong party.

    As in any complex case you should not jump to conclusions so easily.

    ilsm -> im1dc... , -1
    Nothing Ron says is clearing. The e-mail thing is about safeguarding and preserving public records. The content of mishandled records is not an issue.

    The public demanded to know what government does. Congress passed the federal records act. The crime has nothing to do with content.

    That is one felony Comey could complain about justice whitewashing. The elements of friendly information released must never be discussed, that would make the breeches worse. Except in closed, secure rooms with no electronic bugging devices.

    Clinton would have been impeached!

    [Dec 17, 2016] You think Putin personally supervised the Yahoo hacking? This could make many people patriotic in a hurry.

    Notable quotes:
    "... this will probably be in tomorrow's washington post. "how putin sabotaged the election by hacking yahoo mail". and "proton" and "putin" are 2 syllable words beginning with "p", which is dispositive according to experts who don't want to be indentified. ..."
    "... [Neo]Liberals have gone truly insane, I made the mistake of trying to slog through the comments the main "putin did it" piece on huffpo out of curiosity. Big mistake, liberals come across as right wing nutters in the comments, I never knew they were so very patriotic, they never really expressed it before. ..."
    "... Be sure and delete everything from your Yahoo account BEFORE you push the big red button. They intentionally wait 90 days to delete the account in order that ECPA protections expire and content can just be handed over to the fuzz. ..."
    "... It's a good thing for Obama that torturing logic and evasive droning are not criminal acts. ..."
    "... "Relations with Russia have declined over the past several years" I reflexively did a Google search. Yep, Victoria Nuland is still employed. ..."
    "... With all the concern expressed about Russian meddling in our election process why are we forgetting the direct quid pro quo foreign meddling evidenced in the Hillary emails related to the seldom mentioned Clinton Foundation or the more likely meddling by local election officials? Why have the claims of Russian hacking received such widespread coverage in the Press? ..."
    "... I watched it too and agree with your take on it. For all the build up about this press conference and how I thought we were going to engage in direct combat with Russia for these hacks (or so they say it is Russia, I still wonder about that), he did not add any fuel to this fire. ..."
    "... The whole thing was silly – the buildup to this press conference and then how Obama handled the hacking. A waste of time really. I don't sense something is going on behind the scenes but it is weird that the news has been all about this Russian hacking. He did not get into the questions about the Electoral College either and he made it seem like Trump indeed is the next President. I mean it seems like the MSM was making too much about this issue but then nothing happened. ..."
    Dec 17, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    pretzelattack , December 16, 2016 at 3:46 pm

    this will probably be in tomorrow's washington post. "how putin sabotaged the election by hacking yahoo mail". and "proton" and "putin" are 2 syllable words beginning with "p", which is dispositive according to experts who don't want to be indentified.

    HBE , December 16, 2016 at 4:13 pm

    [Neo]Liberals have gone truly insane, I made the mistake of trying to slog through the comments the main "putin did it" piece on huffpo out of curiosity. Big mistake, liberals come across as right wing nutters in the comments, I never knew they were so very patriotic, they never really expressed it before.

    B1whois , December 16, 2016 at 6:45 pm

    The great sucking pit of need that keeps on giving. when will it abate?

    different clue , December 16, 2016 at 6:49 pm

    They are only hurt at the loss of their beloved Clintron, and are seizing on the Puttin Diddit excuse.

    polecat , December 16, 2016 at 7:45 pm

    Did they happen to offer you some Guyana Kool-Aid with that order of vitriol ?

    Brad , December 16, 2016 at 10:26 pm

    Unfortunately the whole "grief cycle" will get a reboot after next Monday's "Election II".

    The rest of us are to be pissed off that the CIA and Clinton clique have continued to agiprop this.

    Knot Galt , December 16, 2016 at 10:48 pm

    Since the ex-Correct The Record key jockeys are out of a job they have to practice their craft somewhere.

    hunkerdown , December 16, 2016 at 5:23 pm

    Be sure and delete everything from your Yahoo account BEFORE you push the big red button. They intentionally wait 90 days to delete the account in order that ECPA protections expire and content can just be handed over to the fuzz.

    auntienene , December 16, 2016 at 8:07 pm

    I don't think I've looked at my yahoo account in 8-10 years and I didn't use their email; just had an address. I don't remember my user name or password. I did get an email from them (to my not-yahoo address) advising of the breach.

    Do I need to do anything at all?

    hunkerdown , December 16, 2016 at 8:22 pm

    auntienene, probably not, but as a general principle it's better to close accounts down properly than to abandon them.

    Tvc15 , December 16, 2016 at 10:50 pm

    I was amazed as I watched a local am news show in Pittsburgh recommend adding your cell phone number in addition to changing your password. Yeah, that's a great idea, maybe my ss# would provide even more security.

    Jeremy Grimm , December 16, 2016 at 4:30 pm

    I use yahoo email. Why should I move? As I understood the breach it was primarily a breach of the personal information used to establish the account. I've already changed my password - did it a couple of days after the breach was reported. I had a security clearance with DoD which requires disclosure of a lot more personal information than yahoo had. The DoD data has been breached twice from two separate servers.

    As far as reading my emails - they may prove useful for phishing but that's about all. I'm not sure what might be needed for phishing beyond a name and email address - easily obtained from many sources I have no control over.

    So - what am I vulnerable to by remaining at yahoo that I'm not already exposed to on a more secure server?

    polecat , December 16, 2016 at 7:53 pm

    You are vulnerable to the knowledge that Marissa Mayer is STILL employed as a high-level corporate twit --

    Lee , December 16, 2016 at 3:05 pm

    It's a good thing for Obama that torturing logic and evasive droning are not criminal acts.

    Ranger Rick , December 16, 2016 at 3:12 pm

    "Relations with Russia have declined over the past several years" I reflexively did a Google search. Yep, Victoria Nuland is still employed.

    Pat , December 16, 2016 at 3:32 pm

    Yeah, it isn't like Mr. 'We go high' is going to admit our relationship has declined because we have underhandedly tried to isolate and knee cap them for pretty much his entire administration.

    Jeremy Grimm , December 16, 2016 at 4:44 pm

    Are you referring to Obama's press conference? If so, I am glad he didn't make a big deal out of the Russian hacking allegations - as in it didn't sound like he planned a retaliation for the fictional event and its fictional consequences. He rose slightly in stature in my eyes - he's almost as tall as a short flea.

    With all the concern expressed about Russian meddling in our election process why are we forgetting the direct quid pro quo foreign meddling evidenced in the Hillary emails related to the seldom mentioned Clinton Foundation or the more likely meddling by local election officials? Why have the claims of Russian hacking received such widespread coverage in the Press?

    Why is a lameduck messing with the Chinese in the South China sea? What is the point of all the "fake" news hogwash? Is it related to Obama's expression of concern about the safety of the Internet? I can't shake the feeling that something is going on below the surface of these murky waters.

    Susan C , December 16, 2016 at 5:44 pm

    I watched it too and agree with your take on it. For all the build up about this press conference and how I thought we were going to engage in direct combat with Russia for these hacks (or so they say it is Russia, I still wonder about that), he did not add any fuel to this fire.

    He did respond at one point to a reporter that the hacks from Russia were to the DNC and Podesta but funny how he didn't say HRC emails. Be it as it may, I think what was behind it was HRC really trying to impress all her contributors that Russia really did do her in, see Obama said so, since she must be in hot water over all the money she has collected from foreign governments for pay to play and her donors.

    The whole thing was silly – the buildup to this press conference and then how Obama handled the hacking. A waste of time really. I don't sense something is going on behind the scenes but it is weird that the news has been all about this Russian hacking. He did not get into the questions about the Electoral College either and he made it seem like Trump indeed is the next President. I mean it seems like the MSM was making too much about this issue but then nothing happened.

    Pat , December 16, 2016 at 7:02 pm

    Unfortunately the nightly news is focusing on Obama says Russia hacked the DNC and had it in for Clinton!!! He warned them to stay out of the vote! There will be consequences! Russia demands the evidence and then a story about the evidence. (This one might have a few smarter people going "huh, that's it?!?!")

    I do like the some private some public on that consequences and retaliation thing. You either have to laugh or throw up about the faux I've got this and the real self-righteousness. Especially since it is supposedly to remind people we can do it to you. Is there anyone left outside of America who doesn't think they already do do it to anyone Uncle Sam doesn't want in office and even some they do? Mind you I'm not sure how many harried people watching the news are actually going to laugh at that one because they don't know how how much we meddle.

    Knot Galt , December 16, 2016 at 10:55 pm

    Obamameter. ty L. Scofield ;-)

    [Dec 17, 2016] Paul Krugman Useful Idiots Galore

    Notable quotes:
    "... Shorter Paul Krugman: nobody acted more irresponsibly in the last election than the New York Times. ..."
    "... Looks like Putin recruited the NYT, the FBI and the DNC. ..."
    "... Dr. Krugman is feeding this "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality. He comes across as increasingly shrill and even unhinged - it's a slide he's been taking for years IMO, which is a big shame. ..."
    "... It is downright irresponsible and dangerous for a major public intellectual with so little information to cast the shadow of legitimacy on a president ("And it means not acting as if this was a normal election whose result gives the winner any kind of a mandate, or indeed any legitimacy beyond the bare legal requirements.") This kind of behavior is EXACTLY what TRUMP and other authoritarians exhibit - using pieces of information to discredit institutions and individuals. Since foreign governments have and will continue to try to influence U.S. policy through increasingly sophisticated means, this opens the door for anyone to declare our elections and policies as illegitimate in the future. ..."
    "... Any influence Russian hacking had was entirely a consequence of U.S. media obsession with celebrity, gotcha and horse race trivia and two-party red state/blue state tribalism. ..."
    "... Without the preceding, neither Trump nor Clinton would have been contenders in the first place. Putin didn't invent super delegates, Citizens United, Fox News, talk radio, Goldman-Sachs, etc. etc. etc. If Putin exploited vulnerabilities, it is because preserving those vulnerabilities was more important to the elites than fostering a democratic political culture. ..."
    "... It's not a "coup". It's an election result that didn't go the way a lot of people want. That's it. It's probably not optimal, but I'm pretty sure that democracy isn't supposed to produce optimal results. ..."
    "... All this talk about "coups" and "illegitimacy" is nuts, and -- true to Dem practice -- incredibly short-sighted. For many, voting for Trump was an available way to say to those people, "We don't believe you any more. At all." Seen in that light, it is a profoundly democratic (small 'd') response to elites that have most consistently served only themselves. ..."
    "... Post Truth is Pre-Fascism. The party that thinks your loyalty is suspect unless you wear a flag pin fuels itself on Post Truth. Isnt't this absurdity the gist of Obama's Russia comments today!?! ..."
    "... Unless the Russians or someone else hacked the ballot box machines, it is our own damn fault. ..."
    "... The ship of neo-liberal trade sailed in the mid-2000's. That you don't get that is sad. You can only milk that so far the cow had been milked. ..."
    "... The people of the United States did not have much to choose between: Either a servant of the Plutocrats or a member of the Plutocratic class. The Dems brought this on us when they refused to play fair with Bernie. (Hillary would almost certainly have won the nomination anyway.) ..."
    "... The Repubs brought this on, by refusing to govern. The media brought this on: I seem to remember Hillary's misfeasances, once nominated, festering in the media, while Trump's were mentioned, and then disappeared. (Correct me if I'm wrong in this.) Also, the media downplayed Bernie until he had no real chance. ..."
    "... The government brought this on, by failing to pursue justice against the bankers, and failing to represent the people, especially the majority who have been screwed by trade and the plutocratic elite and their apologists. ..."
    "... The educational system brought this on, by failing to educate the people to critical thought. For instance: 1) The wealthy run the country. 2) The wealthy have been doing very well. 3) Everybody else has not. It seems most people cannot draw the obvious conclusion. ..."
    "... Krugman is himself one of those most useful idiots. I do not recall his clarion call to Democrats last spring that "FBI investigation" and "party Presidential nominee" was bound to be an ugly combination. Some did; right here as I recall. Or his part in the official "don't vote for third party" week in the Clinton media machine....thanks, hundreds of thousands of Trump votes got the message. ..."
    "... It's too rich to complain about Russia and Wikileaks as if those elements in anyway justified Clinton becoming President. Leaks mess with our democracy? Then for darn sure do not vote for a former Sec. of State willing to use a home server for her official business. Russia is menacing? Just who has been managing US-Russia relations the past 8 years? I voted for her anyway, but the heck if I think some tragic fate has befell the nation here. Republicans picked a better candidate to win this thing than we Democrats did. ..."
    "... The truth of the matter is that Clinton was a very weak candidate with nothing to offer but narcissism ("I'm with her"). It's notable that Clinton has still not accepted responsibility for her campaign, preferring to throw the blame for the loss anywhere but herself. Sociopathy much? ..."
    Dec 17, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Monetas Tuas Requiro -> kthomas... , December 16, 2016 at 05:10 PM
    The secret story of how American advisers helped Yeltsin win

    http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19960715,00.html

    JohnH -> Dan Kervick... , December 16, 2016 at 11:46 AM
    PK seems to be a bitter old man...
    anne -> sanjait... , December 16, 2016 at 03:08 PM
    Nothing to see here, say the useful idiots.

    [ I find it terrifying, simply terrifying, to refer to people as "useful idiots" after all the personal destruction that has followed when the expression was specifically used in the past.

    To me, using such an expression is an honored economist intent on becoming Joseph McCarthy. ]

    anne -> anne... , December 16, 2016 at 03:15 PM
    To demean a person as though the person were a communist or a fool of communists or the like, with all the personal harm that has historically brought in this country, is cruel beyond my understanding or imagining.

    "Useful Idiots Galore," terrifying.

    Necesito Dinero Tuyo -> anne... , December 16, 2016 at 05:25 PM
    Dale : , December 16, 2016 at 10:51 AM
    trouble is that his mind reflects an accurate perception of our common reality.
    Procopius -> Dale... , December 17, 2016 at 02:37 AM
    Well, not really. For example he referred to "the close relationship between Wikileaks and Russian intelligence." But Wikileaks is a channel. They don't seek out material. They rely on people to bring material to them. They supposedly make an effort to verify that the material is not a forgery, but aside from that what they release is what people bring to them. Incidentally, like so many people you seem to not care whether the material is accurate or not -- Podesta and the DNC have not claimed that any of the emails are different from what they sent.
    Tom aka Rusty : , December 16, 2016 at 11:06 AM
    PK's head explodes!

    One thought....

    When politicians and business executives and economists cuddle up to the totalitarian Chinese it is viewed as an act of enlightment and progress.

    When someone cuddles up to the authoritarian thug Putin it is an act of evil.

    Seems a bit of a double standard.

    We are going to have to do "business" with both the Chinese and the Russians, whoever is president.

    Ben Groves -> Tom aka Rusty... , December 16, 2016 at 11:07 AM
    Your head should explode considering Trump's deal with the "establishment" in July was brokered by foreign agents.
    ilsm -> Ben Groves... , December 16, 2016 at 04:11 PM
    curiouser and curiouser! while Obama and administration arm jihadis and call its support for jihadis funded by al Qaeda a side in a civil war.

    the looking glass you all went through.

    Trump has more convictions than any democrat

    ... ... ...

    Tom aka Rusty -> kthomas... , December 16, 2016 at 01:36 PM
    In a theatre of the absurd sort of way.
    dilbert dogbert -> Tom aka Rusty... , December 16, 2016 at 12:11 PM
    One thought:
    Only Nixon can go to China.
    anne -> sanjait... , December 16, 2016 at 03:22 PM
    Putin is a murderous thug...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/opinion/david-brooks-snap-out-of-it.html

    September 22, 2014

    Snap Out of It
    By David Brooks

    President Vladimir Putin of Russia, a lone thug sitting atop a failing regime....

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/22/opinion/thomas-friedman-putin-and-the-pope.html

    October 21, 2014

    Putin and the Pope
    By Thomas L. Friedman

    One keeps surprising us with his capacity for empathy, the other by how much he has become a first-class jerk and thug....

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/opinion/sunday/thomas-l-friedman-whos-playing-marbles-now.html

    December 20, 2014

    Who's Playing Marbles Now?
    By Thomas L. Friedman

    Let us not mince words: Vladimir Putin is a delusional thug....

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/opinion/paul-krugman-putin-neocons-and-the-great-illusion.html

    December 21, 2014

    Conquest Is for Losers: Putin, Neocons and the Great Illusion
    By Paul Krugman

    Remember, he's an ex-K.G.B. man - which is to say, he spent his formative years as a professional thug....

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/opinion/thomas-friedman-czar-putins-next-moves.html

    January 27, 2015

    Czar Putin's Next Moves
    By Thomas L. Friedman

    ZURICH - If Putin the Thug gets away with crushing Ukraine's new democratic experiment and unilaterally redrawing the borders of Europe, every pro-Western country around Russia will be in danger....

    anne -> anne... , December 16, 2016 at 03:23 PM
    Putin is a murderous thug...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/16/world/middleeast/white-house-split-on-opening-talks-with-putin.html

    September 15, 2015

    Obama Weighing Talks With Putin on Syrian Crisis
    By PETER BAKER and ANDREW E. KRAMER

    WASHINGTON - Mr. Obama views Mr. Putin as a thug, according to advisers and analysts....

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/opinion/mr-putins-mixed-messages-on-syria.html

    September 20, 2015

    Mr. Putin's Mixed Messages on Syria

    Mr. Obama considers Mr. Putin a thug, his advisers say....

    Gibbon1 -> anne... , December 16, 2016 at 07:15 PM
    > By David Brooks
    > By Thomas L. Friedman
    > By Paul Krugman
    > By Peter Baker and Andrew E. Kramer

    I feel these authors have intentionally attempted to mislead in the past. They also studiously ignore the United States thuggish foreign policy.

    Sandwichman : , December 16, 2016 at 11:06 AM
    "...not acting as if this was a normal election..." The problem is that it WAS a "normal" U.S. election.
    Ben Groves -> Sandwichman ... , December 16, 2016 at 11:09 AM
    Yup, like the other elections, the bases stayed solvent and current events factored into the turnout and voting patterns which spurred the independent vote.
    Gibbon1 -> Ben Groves... , December 16, 2016 at 11:57 AM
    When people were claiming Clinton was going to win big, I thought no Republican and Democratic voters are going to pull the lever like a trained monkey as usual. Only difference in this election was Hillary's huge negatives due entirely by her and Bill Clinton's support for moving manufacturing jobs to Mexico and China in the 90s.
    dilbert dogbert -> Sandwichman ... , December 16, 2016 at 12:13 PM
    I would have thought in a "normal" murika and election, the drumpf would have gotten at most 10 million votes.
    Sandwichman -> dilbert dogbert... , December 16, 2016 at 01:54 PM
    The trouble with normal is it always gets worse.
    Fred C. Dobbs : , December 16, 2016 at 11:08 AM
    To Understand Trump, Learn Russian http://nyti.ms/2hLcrB1
    NYT - Andrew Rosenthal - December 15

    The Russian language has two words for truth - a linguistic quirk that seems relevant to our current political climate, especially because of all the disturbing ties between the newly elected president and the Kremlin.

    The word for truth in Russian that most Americans know is "pravda" - the truth that seems evident on the surface. It's subjective and infinitely malleable, which is why the Soviet Communists called their party newspaper "Pravda." Despots, autocrats and other cynical politicians are adept at manipulating pravda to their own ends.

    But the real truth, the underlying, cosmic, unshakable truth of things is called "istina" in Russian. You can fiddle with the pravda all you want, but you can't change the istina.

    For the Trump team, the pravda of the 2016 election is that not all Trump voters are explicitly racist. But the istina of the 2016 campaign is that Trump's base was heavily dependent on racists and xenophobes, Trump basked in and stoked their anger and hatred, and all those who voted for him cast a ballot for a man they knew to be a racist, sexist xenophobe. That was an act of racism.

    Trump's team took to Twitter with lightning speed recently to sneer at the conclusion by all 17 intelligence agencies that the Kremlin hacked Democratic Party emails for the specific purpose of helping Trump and hurting Hillary Clinton. Trump said the intelligence agencies got it wrong about Iraq, and that someone else could have been responsible for the hack and that the Democrats were just finding another excuse for losing.

    The istina of this mess is that powerful evidence suggests that the Russians set out to interfere in American politics, and that Trump, with his rejection of Western European alliances and embrace of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, was their chosen candidate.

    The pravda of Trump's selection of Rex Tillerson, head of Exxon Mobil, as secretary of state is that by choosing an oil baron who has made billions for his company by collaborating with Russia, Trump will make American foreign policy beholden to American corporate interests.

    That's bad enough, but the istina is far worse. For one thing, American foreign policy has been in thrall to American corporate interests since, well, since there were American corporations. Just look at the mess this country created in Latin America, the Caribbean, Southeast Asia and the Middle East to serve American companies.

    Yes, Tillerson has ignored American interests repeatedly, including in Russia and Iraq, and has been trying to remove sanctions imposed after Russia's seizure of Crimea because they interfered with one of his many business deals. But take him out of the equation in the Trump cabinet and nothing changes. Trump has made it plain, with every action he takes, that he is going to put every facet of policy, domestic and foreign, at the service of corporate America. The istina here is that Tillerson is just a symptom of a much bigger problem.

    The pravda is that Trump was right in saying that the intelligence agencies got it wrong about Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction.

    But the istina is that Trump's contempt for the intelligence services is profound and dangerous. He's not getting daily intelligence briefings anymore, apparently because they are just too dull to hold his attention.

    And now we know that Condoleezza Rice was instrumental in bringing Tillerson to Trump's attention. As national security adviser and then secretary of state for president George W. Bush, Rice was not just wrong about Iraq, she helped fabricate the story that Hussein had nuclear weapons.

    Trump and Tillerson clearly think they are a match for the wily and infinitely dangerous Putin, but as they move foward with their plan to collaborate with Russia instead of opposing its imperialist tendencies, they might keep in mind another Russian saying, this one from Lenin.

    "There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience," he wrote. "A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel."

    Putin has that philosophy hard-wired into his political soul. When it comes to using scoundrels to get what he wants, he is a professional, and Trump is only an amateur. That is the istina of the matter.

    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , December 16, 2016 at 11:25 AM
    If nothing else, Russia - with a notably un-free press - has shrewdly used our own 'free press' against US.

    RUSSIA'S UNFREE PRESS

    The Boston Globe - Marshall Goldman - January 29, 2001

    AS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION DEBATES ITS POLICY TOWARD RUSSIA, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS SHOULD BE ONE OF ITS MAJOR CONCERNS. UNDER PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN THE PRESS IS FREE ONLY AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT CRITICIZE PUTIN OR HIS POLICIES. WHEN NTV, THE TELEVISION NETWORK OF THE MEDIA GIANT MEDIA MOST, REFUSED TO PULL ITS PUNCHES, MEDIA MOST'S OWNER, VLADIMIR GUSINSKY, FOUND HIMSELF IN JAIL, AND GAZPROM, A COMPANY DOMINATED BY THE STATE, BEGAN TO CALL IN LOANS TO MEDIA MOST. Unfortunately, Putin's actions are applauded by more than 70 percent of the Russian people. They crave a strong and forceful leader; his KGB past and conditioned KGB responses are just what they seem to want after what many regard as the social, political, and economic chaos of the last decade.

    But what to the Russians is law and order (the "dictatorship of the law," as Putin has so accurately put it) looks more and more like an old Soviet clampdown to many Western observers.

    There is no complaint about Putin's promises. He tells everyone he wants freedom of the press. But in the context of his KGB heritage, his notion of freedom of the press is something very different. In an interview with the Toronto Globe and Mail, he said that that press freedom excludes the "hooliganism" or "uncivilized" reporting he has to deal with in Moscow. By that he means criticism, especially of his conduct of the war in Chechnya, his belated response to the sinking of the Kursk, and the heavy-handed way in which he has pushed aside candidates for governor in regional elections if they are not to Putin's liking.

    He does not take well to criticism. When asked by the relatives of those lost in the Kursk why he seemed so unresponsive, Putin tried to shift the blame for the disaster onto the media barons, or at least those who had criticized him. They were the ones, he insisted, who had pressed for reduced funding for the Navy while they were building villas in Spain and France. As for their criticism of his behavior, They lie! They lie! They lie!

    Our Western press has provided good coverage of the dogged way Putin and his aides have tried to muscle Gusinsky out of the Media Most press conglomerate he created. But those on the Putin enemies list now include even Boris Berezovsky, originally one of Putin's most enthusiastic promoters who after the sinking of the Kursk also became a critic and thus an opponent.

    Gusinsky would have a hard time winning a merit badge for trustworthiness (Berezovsky shouldn't even apply), but in the late Yeltsin and Putin years, Gusinsky has earned enormous credit for his consistently objective news coverage, including a spotlight on malfeasance at the very top. More than that, he has supported his programmers when they have subjected Yeltsin and now Putin to bitter satire on Kukly, his Sunday evening prime-time puppet show.

    What we hear less of, though, is what is happening to individual reporters, especially those engaged in investigative work. Almost monthly now there are cases of violence and intimidation. Among those brutalized since Putin assumed power are a reporter for Radio Liberty who dared to write negative reports about the Russian Army's role in Chechnia and four reporters for Novaya Gazeta. Two of them were investigating misdeeds by the FSB (today's equivalent of the KGB), including the possibility that it rather than Chechins had blown up a series of apartment buildings. Another was pursuing reports of money-laundering by Yeltsin family members and senior staff in Switzerland. Although these journalists were very much in the public eye, they were all physically assaulted.

    Those working for provincial papers labor under even more pressure with less visibility. There are numerous instances where regional bosses such as the governor of Vladivostok operate as little dictators, and as a growing number of journalists have discovered, challenges are met with threats, physical intimidation, and, if need be, murder.

    True, freedom of the press in Russia is still less than 15 years old, and not all the country's journalists or their bosses have always used that freedom responsibly. During the 1996 election campaign, for example, the media owners, including Gusinsky conspired to denigrate or ignore every viable candidate other than Yeltsin. But attempts to muffle if not silence criticism have multiplied since Putin and his fellow KGB veterans have come to power. Criticism from any source, be it an individual journalist or a corporate entity, invites retaliation.

    When Media Most persisted in its criticism, Putin sat by approvingly as his subordinates sent in masked and armed tax police and prosecutors. When that didn't work, they jailed Gusinsky on charges that were later dropped, although they are seeking to extradite and jail him again. along with his treasurer, on a new set of charges. Yesterday the prosecutor general summoned Tatyana Mitkova, the anchor of NTV's evening news program, for questioning. Putin's aides are also doing all they can to prevent Gusinsky from refinancing his debt-ridden operation with Ted Turner or anyone else in or outside of the country.

    According to one report, Putin told one official, You deal with the shares, debts, and management and I will deal with the journalists. His goal simply is to end to independent TV coverage in Russia. ...

    (No link; from their archives.)

    DeDude -> Fred C. Dobbs... , December 16, 2016 at 11:33 AM
    "Unfortunately, Putin's actions are applauded by more than 70 percent of the Russian people"

    Exactly; the majority of people are so stupid and/or lazy that they cannot be bothered understanding what is going on; and how their hard won democracy is being subjugated. But thank God that is in Russia not here in the US - right?

    anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , December 16, 2016 at 11:45 AM
    https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2001-02-07/html/CREC-2001-02-07-pt1-PgE133-4.htm

    February 7, 2001

    Russia's Unfree Press
    By Marshall I. Goldman

    Watermelonpunch -> Fred C. Dobbs... , December 16, 2016 at 04:55 PM
    "Infinitely dangerous" As in the event horizon of a black hole, for pity's sake?

    Odd choice of words. Should there have been a "more" in between there? Was it a typo?

    cm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , December 17, 2016 at 03:42 PM
    "Pravda" is etymologically derived from "prav-" which means "right" (as opposed to "left", other connotations are "proper", "correct", "rightful", also legal right). It designates the social-construct aspect of "righteousness/truthfulness/correctness" as opposed to "objective reality" (conceptually independent of social standards, in reality anything but). In formal logic, "istina" is used to designate truth. Logical falsity is designated a "lie".

    It is a feature common to most European languages that rightfulness, righteousness, correctness, and legal rights are identified with the designation for the right side. "Sinister" is Latin for "left".

    Ben Groves : , December 16, 2016 at 11:18 AM
    If you believe 911 was a Zionist conspiracy, so where the Paris attacks of November 2015, when Trump was failing in the polls as the race was moving toward as you would expect, toward other candidates. After the Paris attacks, his numbers reaccelerated.

    If "ZOG" created the "false flag" of the Paris attacks to start a anti-Muslim fervor, they succeeded, much like 911. Bastille day attacks were likewise, a false flag. This is not new, this goes back to when the aristocracy merged with the merchant caste, creating the "bourgeois". They have been running a parallel government in the shadows to effect what is seen.

    cm -> sanjait... , December 17, 2016 at 03:46 PM
    There used to be something called Usenet News, where at the protocol level reader software could fetch meta data (headers containing author, (stated) origin, title, etc.) independently from comment bodies. This was largely owed to limited download bandwidth. Basically all readers had "kill files" i.e. filters where one could configure that comments with certain header parameters should not be downloaded, or even hidden.
    cm -> cm... , December 17, 2016 at 03:48 PM
    The main application was that the reader would download comments in the background when headers were already shown, or on demand when you open a comment.

    Now you get the whole thing (or in units of 100) by the megabyte.

    tew : , December 16, 2016 at 11:19 AM
    A major problem is signal extraction out of the massive amounts of noise generated by the media, social media, parties, and pundits.

    It's easy enough to highlight this thread of information here, but in real time people are being bombarded by so many other stories.

    In particular, the Clinton Foundation was also regularly being highlighted for its questionable ties to foreign influence. And HRC's extravagant ties to Wall St. And so much more.

    And there is outrage fatigue.

    Ben Groves -> DeDude... , December 16, 2016 at 11:34 AM
    The media's job was to sell Trump and denounce Clinton. The mistake a lot of people make is thinking the global elite are the "status quo". They are not. They are generally the ones that break the status quo more often than not.

    The bulk of them wanted Trump/Republican President and made damn sure it was President. Buffering the campaign against criticism while overly focusing on Clinton's "crap". It took away from the issues which of course would have low key'd the election.

    cm -> DeDude... , December 17, 2016 at 03:55 PM
    Not much bullying has to be applied when there are "economic incentives". The media attention economy and ratings system thrive on controversy and emotional engagement. This was known a century ago as "only bad news is good news". As long as I have lived, the non-commercial media not subject (or not as much) to these dynamics have always been perceived as dry and boring.

    I heard from a number of people that they followed the campaign "coverage" (in particular Trump) as gossip/entertainment, and those were people who had no sympathies for him. And even media coverage by outlets generally critical of Trump's unbelievable scandals and outrageous performances catered to this sentiment.

    Jim Harrison : , December 16, 2016 at 11:24 AM
    Shorter Paul Krugman: nobody acted more irresponsibly in the last election than the New York Times.
    Sandwichman -> Jim Harrison ... , December 16, 2016 at 11:53 AM
    Looks like Putin recruited the NYT, the FBI and the DNC.
    DrDick -> Sandwichman ... , December 16, 2016 at 11:57 AM
    Nah, Wall Street and the GOP recruited them to the effort.
    Sandwichman -> DrDick... , December 16, 2016 at 01:57 PM
    GOP included in FBI. Wall Street included in DNC, GOP. It's all just one big FBIDNCGOPCNNWSNYT.
    sanjait -> Jim Harrison ... , December 16, 2016 at 03:06 PM
    He can't say it out loud but you know he's including the NYT on his list of UIs.
    tew : , December 16, 2016 at 11:26 AM
    Let me also add some levelheaded thoughts:

    First, let me disclose that I detest TRUMP and that the Russian meddling has me deeply concerned. Yet...

    We only have assertions that the Russian hacking had some influence. We do not know whether it likely had *material* influence that could have reasonably led to a swing state(s) going to TRUMP that otherwise would have gone to HRC.

    Dr. Krugman is feeding this "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality. He comes across as increasingly shrill and even unhinged - it's a slide he's been taking for years IMO, which is a big shame.

    It is downright irresponsible and dangerous for a major public intellectual with so little information to cast the shadow of legitimacy on a president ("And it means not acting as if this was a normal election whose result gives the winner any kind of a mandate, or indeed any legitimacy beyond the bare legal requirements.") This kind of behavior is EXACTLY what TRUMP and other authoritarians exhibit - using pieces of information to discredit institutions and individuals. Since foreign governments have and will continue to try to influence U.S. policy through increasingly sophisticated means, this opens the door for anyone to declare our elections and policies as illegitimate in the future.

    DrDick -> tew... , December 16, 2016 at 11:56 AM
    It is quite clear that the Russians intervened on Trump's behalf and that this intervention had an impact. The problem is that we cannot actually quantify that impact.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-backs-cia-view-that-russia-intervened-to-help-trump-win-election/2016/12/16/05b42c0e-c3bf-11e6-9a51-cd56ea1c2bb7_story.html?pushid=breaking-news_1481916265&tid=notifi_push_breaking-news&utm_term=.25d35c017908

    Sandwichman -> tew... , December 16, 2016 at 01:17 PM
    "We only have assertions that the Russian hacking had some influence."

    Any influence Russian hacking had was entirely a consequence of U.S. media obsession with celebrity, gotcha and horse race trivia and two-party red state/blue state tribalism.

    Without the preceding, neither Trump nor Clinton would have been contenders in the first place. Putin didn't invent super delegates, Citizens United, Fox News, talk radio, Goldman-Sachs, etc. etc. etc. If Putin exploited vulnerabilities, it is because preserving those vulnerabilities was more important to the elites than fostering a democratic political culture.

    cm -> Sandwichman ... , December 17, 2016 at 04:00 PM
    But this is how influence is exerted - by using the dynamics of the adversary's/targets organization as an amplifier. Hierarchical organizations are approached through their management or oversight bodies, social networks through key influencers, etc.
    David : , December 16, 2016 at 11:58 AM
    I see this so much and it's so right wing cheap: I hate Trump, but assertions that Russia intervened are unproven.

    First, Trump openly invited Russia to hack DNC emails. That is on its face treason and sedition. It's freaking on video. If HRC did that there would be calls of the right for her execution.

    Second, a NYT story showed that the FBI knew about the hacking but did not alert the DNC properly - they didn't even show up, they sent a note to a help desk.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fbi-probe-dnc-hacked-emails_us_57a19f22e4b08a8e8b601259

    This was a serious national security breach that was not addressed properly. This is criminal negligence.

    This was a hacked election by collusion of the FBI and the Russian hackers and it totally discredits the FBI as it throwed out chum and then denied at the last minute. Now the CIA comes in and says PUTIN, Trump's bff, was directly involved in manipulating the timetable that the hacked emails were released in drip drip form to cater to the media - creating story after story about emails.

    It was a perfect storm for a coup. Putin played us. And he will play Trump. And God knows how it ends. But it doesn't matter b/c we're all screwed with climate change anyway.

    sglover -> David... , December 16, 2016 at 02:50 PM
    "It was a perfect storm for a coup. Putin played us. And he will play Trump. And God knows how it ends. But it doesn't matter b/c we're all screwed with climate change anyway."

    It's not a "coup". It's an election result that didn't go the way a lot of people want. That's it. It's probably not optimal, but I'm pretty sure that democracy isn't supposed to produce optimal results.

    All this talk about "coups" and "illegitimacy" is nuts, and -- true to Dem practice -- incredibly short-sighted. For many, voting for Trump was an available way to say to those people, "We don't believe you any more. At all." Seen in that light, it is a profoundly democratic (small 'd') response to elites that have most consistently served only themselves.

    Trump and his gang will be deeply grateful if the left follows Krugman's "wisdom", and clings to his ever-changing excuses. (I thought it was the evil Greens who deprived Clinton of her due?)

    100panthers : , December 16, 2016 at 02:17 PM
    Post Truth is Pre-Fascism. The party that thinks your loyalty is suspect unless you wear a flag pin fuels itself on Post Truth. Isnt't this absurdity the gist of Obama's Russia comments today!?!
    ilsm -> 100panthers... , December 16, 2016 at 04:29 PM
    Obama and the Clintons are angered; Russia keeping US from giving Syria to al Qaeda. Like Clinton gave them Libya.
    Jerry Brown -> sanjait... , December 16, 2016 at 04:46 PM
    I agree. Unless the Russians or someone else hacked the ballot box machines, it is our own damn fault.
    ilsm : , December 16, 2016 at 04:27 PM
    the US media is angered putin is killing US' jihadis in Syria
    Mr. Bill : , December 16, 2016 at 08:27 PM
    "On Wednesday an editorial in The Times described Donald Trump as a "useful idiot" serving Russian interests." I think that is beyond the pale. Yes, I realize that Adolph Hitler was democratically elected. I agree that Trump seems like a scary monster under the bed. That doesn't mean we have too pee our pants, Paul. He's a bully, tough guy, maybe, the kind of kid that tortured you before you kicked the shit out of them with your brilliance. That's not what is needed now.
    Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... , December 16, 2016 at 08:39 PM
    What really is needed, is a watchdog, like Dean Baker, that alerts we dolts of pending bills and their ramifications. The ship of neo-liberal trade bullshit has sailed. Hell, you don't believe it yourself, you've said as much. Be gracious, and tell the truth. We can handle it.
    Ben Groves -> Mr. Bill... , December 16, 2016 at 09:51 PM
    The ship of neo-liberal trade sailed in the mid-2000's. That you don't get that is sad. You can only milk that so far the cow had been milked.

    Trump was a coo, he was not supported by the voters. But by the global elite.

    Mr. Bill : , December 16, 2016 at 10:28 PM
    Hillary Clinton lost because she is truly an ugly aristocrat.
    Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... , December 16, 2016 at 11:49 PM
    The experience of voting for the Hill was painful, vs Donald Trump.

    The Hill seemed like the least likely aristocrat, given two choices, to finish off all government focus on the folks that actually built this society. Two Titans of Hubris, Hillary vs Donald, each ridiculous in the concept of representing the interests of the common man.

    At the end of the day. the American people decided that the struggle with the unknown monster Donald was worth deposing the great deplorable, Clinton.

    Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... , December 17, 2016 at 12:11 AM
    The real argument is whether the correct plan of action is the way of FDR, or the way of the industrialists, the Waltons, the Kochs, the Trumps, the Bushes and the outright cowards like the Cheneys and the Clintons, people that never spent a day defending this country in combat. What do they call it, the Commander in Chief.
    Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... , December 17, 2016 at 12:29 AM
    My father was awarded a silver and a bronze star for his efforts in battle during WW2. He was shot in the face while driving a tank destroyer by a German sniper in a place called Schmitten Germany.

    He told me once, that he looked over at the guy next to him on the plane to the hospital in England, and his intestines were splayed on his chest. It was awful.

    Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... , December 17, 2016 at 12:55 AM
    What was he fighting for ? Freedom, America. Then the Republicans, Ronald Reagan, who spent the war stateside began the real war, garnering the wealth of the nation to the entitled like him. Ronald Reagan was a life guard.
    btg : , December 16, 2016 at 11:09 PM
    Other idiots...

    Anthony Weiner
    Podesta
    Biden (for not running)
    Tim Kaine (for accepting the nomination instead of deferring to a latino)
    CNN and other TV news media (for giving trump so much coverage- even an empty podium)
    Donna Brazile
    etc.

    greg : , December 16, 2016 at 11:57 PM
    The people of the United States did not have much to choose between: Either a servant of the Plutocrats or a member of the Plutocratic class. The Dems brought this on us when they refused to play fair with Bernie. (Hillary would almost certainly have won the nomination anyway.)

    The Repubs brought this on, by refusing to govern. The media brought this on: I seem to remember Hillary's misfeasances, once nominated, festering in the media, while Trump's were mentioned, and then disappeared. (Correct me if I'm wrong in this.) Also, the media downplayed Bernie until he had no real chance.

    The government brought this on, by failing to pursue justice against the bankers, and failing to represent the people, especially the majority who have been screwed by trade and the plutocratic elite and their apologists.

    The educational system brought this on, by failing to educate the people to critical thought. For instance: 1) The wealthy run the country. 2) The wealthy have been doing very well. 3) Everybody else has not. It seems most people cannot draw the obvious conclusion.

    The wealthy brought this on. For 230 years they have, essentially run this country. They are too stupid to be satisfied with enough, but always want more.

    The economics profession brought this on, by excusing treasonous behavior as efficient, and failing to understand the underlying principles of their profession, and the limits of their understanding. (They don't even know what money is, or how a trade deficit destroys productive capacity, and thus the very ability of a nation to pay back the debts it incurs.)

    The people brought this on, by neglecting their duty to be informed, to be educated, and to be thoughtful.

    Anybody else care for their share of blame? I myself deserve some, but for reasons I cannot say.

    What amazes me now is, the bird having shown its feathers, there is no howl of outrage from the people who voted for him. Do they imagine that the Plutocrats who will soon monopolize the White House will take their interests to heart?

    As far as I can tell, not one person of 'the people' has been appointed to his cabinet. Not one. But the oppressed masses who turned to Mr Trump seem to be OK with this.
    I can only wonder, how much crap will have to be rubbed in their faces, before they awaken to the taste of what it is?

    Eric377 : , -1
    Krugman is himself one of those most useful idiots. I do not recall his clarion call to Democrats last spring that &q