[RexImperator]

The mainstream media is currently pushing hard the narrative the Russian hacking/meddling via Guccifer and Wikileaks cost Hillary Clinton the election and put Trump into office*. I've heard the same story repeated on several different news outlets today.

However, I find it interesting that not once today have them question whether the hacked material on released on Wikileaks was real or not...

(*The other possible source for some of the Wikileaks material was mentioned as "former agents from the NYC FBI office connected to Rudolph Guiliani".)

Clinton supporters are now using the claims of Russian involvement in the election, along with their interpretation of Federalist Paper number 68, in order to push for "faithless" electors in the Electoral College to not to cast their vote for Donald Trump.

[ivansirko]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...iders.html

Quote:

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.

The Russians have been trying to manipulate US society and culture since after WWII.
For instance...the Nuclear Winter myth was pushed by the KGB as a way for us to not place nukes in Europe. The idea is nothing new.

The problem with this hacking story is the Democrats have totally rejected the idea of Russia as "the enemy" until they lose an election. They dont care if its true or not. Alinsky rules are always applied and to me this isnt working (finally). I am having trouble believing Russia did anything to help Trump.

[RexImperator]

Only four years ago:

[BassPlayaYo]

Clinton and her supporters have been playing the Russian card for a long time now. Now that she has a couple of million votes(not electoral) more than Trump along with the Green Party's Jill Stein carrying water for her, the push is on yet again to hoodwink the public. They have no evidence but the media is pushing this notion of "secret" documents from the CIA and anonymous sources. The problem is that lots of people are buying into this.

[RawGod]

(12-14-2016 09:50 PM)ivansirko Wrote:  

The Russians have been trying to manipulate US society and culture since after WWII.
For instance...the Nuclear Winter myth was pushed by the KGB as a way for us to not place nukes in Europe. The idea is nothing new.

So, trying to prevent nukes being placed where they are aggressively poised against Russia is "manipulating US society and culture"? It's always the same thing with anti-Russian propaganda...Russia taking any steps to have friendly buffer states rather than enemies stocked to the gills with made-in-USA armaments is seen as evidence of evil. "Russia, stop hitting your face with my fists!"

[ivansirko]

(12-14-2016 10:28 PM)RawGod Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 09:50 PM)ivansirko Wrote:  

The Russians have been trying to manipulate US society and culture since after WWII.
For instance...the Nuclear Winter myth was pushed by the KGB as a way for us to not place nukes in Europe. The idea is nothing new.

So, trying to prevent nukes being placed where they are aggressively poised against Russia is "manipulating US society and culture"?

Um...yes? Back then it was the Communists and the Soviet Union.

Quote:

It's always the same thing with anti-Russian propaganda...Russia taking any steps to have friendly buffer states rather than enemies stocked to the gills with made-in-USA armaments is seen as evidence of evil. "Russia, stop hitting your face with my fists!"

How is factual information "anti-Russian propaganda"? Take a look a the "peace groups" of the 60's and who influenced them.

Apparently "facts" now have an "anti-Russian" bias. What in the world does this have to do with "buffer states"? Oh...they actually tried to take them over "informally" when they were called the Soviet Union.

People have long memories in Eastern Europe.

[ivansirko]

(12-14-2016 10:28 PM)RawGod Wrote:  

Russia taking any steps to have friendly buffer states rather than enemies stocked to the gills with made-in-USA armaments is seen as evidence of evil. "Russia, stop hitting your face with my fists!"

[The Lizard of Oz]

Here is the only thing Trump or any Trump supporter needs to say about the Russian hacking:

Assuming it's true that Russia hacked the DNC emails to hurt Hillary, this shows one thing and one thing only: the utter weakness and spinelessness of the Obama administration. The US under Obama is held in such little regard that foreign powers feel free to toy with us, even going so far as hacking the emails of the president's own political party and releasing them to the world. They do this because they've grown used to the idea that anyone can take advantage of the US with no fear of retaliation or consequences.

If China is stealing billions and billions of dollars of US intellectual property every year; if every country we do trade deals with is taxing our exports while we import their goods with no tariffs; if Iran gets everything and gives away next to nothing in the deal they sign with us -- why shouldn't Russia join the party and mess with us as well? After all, no one else has paid a price for doing so.

All of this changes the day Trump is sworn in as president. We want to have great relations with all countries, including Russia and China; and we think we're going to get along with them much better than before. But as of January 20, 2017, the time when other countries could take advantage of us comes to an end, big league. Whatever scores remain from the past may be settled at a time and place of our choosing, as is the prerogative of the world's only superpower. But what is most important is the future, not the past; and the future is one in which other nations will simply know better than to ever mess with us in this or other ways. Period, end of story.

[TigerMandingo]

^ Who is messing with America? Relax, Henry Kissinger.

[The Lizard of Oz]

(12-14-2016 11:01 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

^ Who is messing with America? Relax, Henry Kissinger.

First, plenty of people are messing with America, of course. The Russians would never have dared to do the DNC hack if they respected or feared Obama. And the same goes for many other examples. Trump ran on an American nationalist platform -- we're not looking to start any trouble or intervene in other people's affairs but we're not going to be taken advantage of anymore. Which is just as it should be.

Second, this point, in addition to being completely correct, also happens to be very useful in framing the issue. The Democrats are trying to somehow associate Trump with the Russian hacking and portray him as virtually Putin's man in the White House, which is a f'ing outrage. In reality, the hack happened on Obama and the Dems' watch and if it shows anything, it's the weakness of the administration that permitted it. That weakness, which invites derision and disrespect, is coming to an end as of 1/20/2017.

[DJ-Matt]

MUH PUTIN!

[ivansirko]

(12-14-2016 10:53 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

Here is the only thing Trump or any Trump supporter needs to say about the Russian hacking:

[i]Assuming it's true that Russia hacked the DNC emails to hurt Hillary, this shows one thing and one thing only: the utter weakness and spinelessness of the Obama administration. The US under Obama is held in such little regard that foreign powers feel free to toy with us, even going so far as hacking the emails of the president's own political party and releasing them to the world. They do this because they've grown used to the idea that anyone can take advantage of the US with no fear of retaliation or consequences.

If China is stealing billions and billions of dollars of US intellectual property every year; if every country we do trade deals with is taxing our exports while we import their goods with no tariffs; if Iran gets everything and gives away next to nothing in the deal they sign with us -- why shouldn't Russia join the party and mess with us as well? After all, no one else has paid a price for doing so.

What price should "they" pay?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...eline.html

This was always my favorite old Cold War stories. Rarely made public, the Soviets attempted to steal regulators of pipelines. The US modified them so they would pass testing and then in a production environment the action of the pipeline would force the Soviets to increase the pressure on the pipeline and sent the plans on its way. The result was the largest non-nuclear explosion in history.

The US won the Cold War due to things such as this. THIS is paying a price. Nowadays the "spy" war is about 10000 times worse.

[Excelsior]

[porscheguy]

The "Russians hacked us and made us lose" is yet another example of the leftists playing the victim card. They got hacked because they failed to take appropriate security measures. IIRC, their security people told them they had issues, and in typical Clinton fashion their concerns were ignored. It doesn't matter who did the hack. It could be Russians, it could be some /b-tards at 4Chan. That really doesn't matter. All that matters is they fucked up, and showed the world how incompetent they are.

[C-Note]

The media and the liberal establishment, plus a few cuckservatives are doing a full court press on this, but the problem is that there is no fire behind this smoke. So, unless some actual evidence comes out, I think on Monday the electoral vote will likely go off without too much drama.

[TigerMandingo]

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, has a great take on the current Russia hysteria.

http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/fake-news-versus-no-news/

Quote:

At the present moment, it is practically obligatory to slam Russia and Putin at every opportunity even though Moscow is too militarily weak and poor to fancy itself a global adversary of the U.S. Instead of seeking a new Cold War, Washington should instead focus on working with Russia to make sure that disagreements over policies in relatively unimportant parts of the world do not escalate into nuclear exchanges. Russian actions on its own doorstep in Eastern Europe do not in fact threaten the United States or any actual vital interest. Nor does Moscow threaten the U.S. through its intervention on behalf of the Syrian government in the Middle East. That Russia is described incessantly as a threat in those areas is largely a contrivance arranged by the media, the Democratic and Republican National Committees and by the White House. Candidate Donald Trump appeared to recognize that fact before he began listening to Michael Flynn, who has a rather different view. Hopefully the old Trump will prevail.

Blaming Russia, which has good reasons to be suspicious of Washington’s intentions, is particularly convenient for those many diverse inside the Beltway interests that require a significant enemy to keep the cash flowing out of the pockets of taxpayers and into the bank accounts of the useless grifters who inhabit K-Street and Capitol Hill. Neoconservatives are frequently described as ideologues, but the truth is that they are more interested in gaining increased access to money and power than they are in promulgating their own brand of global regime change.

There is, however, another country that has interfered in U.S. elections, has endangered Americans living or working overseas and has corrupted America’s legislative and executive branches. It has exploited that corruption to initiate legislation favorable to itself, has promoted unnecessary and unwinnable wars and has stolen American technology and military secrets. Its ready access to the mainstream media to spread its own propaganda provides it with cover for its actions and it accomplishes all that and more through the agency of a powerful and well-funded domestic lobby that oddly is not subject to the accountability afforded by the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) of 1938 even though it manifestly works on behalf of a foreign government. That country is, of course, Israel.

[Samseau]

   

[Wutang]

^^ Great article. I did a bit of quick reading on the author and turns out he was a foreign policy advisor for Ron Paul and has constantly pushed back on all the Iran fear mongering.

[GlobalMan]

(12-14-2016 10:53 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

Here is the only thing Trump or any Trump supporter needs to say about the Russian hacking:

Assuming it's true that Russia hacked the DNC emails to hurt Hillary, this shows one thing and one thing only: the utter weakness and spinelessness of the Obama administration...

8 hours later from the man himself-

[url=https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/809403760099422208][/url]

[fortysix]

Going to replicate an article by Craig Murray, confidant of Julian Assange below.

Quote:

Former UK Ambassador Blasts "CIA's Blatant Lies", Shows "A Little Simple Logic Destroys Their Claims"

Authored by Craig Murray, a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, and was the Rector of the University of Dundee

I have watched incredulous as the CIA’s blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story – blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton’s corruption. Yes this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also.

A little simple logic demolishes the CIA’s claims. The CIA claim they “know the individuals” involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks. The anonymous source claims of “We know who it was, it was the Russians” are beneath contempt.

As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two. And it should be said again and again, that if Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie, if she had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence, if she had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people, then none of this would have happened.

The continued ability of the mainstream media to claim the leaks lost Clinton the election because of “Russia”, while still never acknowledging the truths the leaks reveal, is Kafkaesque.

I had a call from a Guardian journalist this afternoon. The astonishing result was that for three hours, an article was accessible through the Guardian front page which actually included the truth among the CIA hype:

The Kremlin has rejected the hacking accusations, while the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has previously said the DNC leaks were not linked to Russia. A second senior official cited by the Washington Post conceded that intelligence agencies did not have specific proof that the Kremlin was “directing” the hackers, who were said to be one step removed from the Russian government.

Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “bullshit”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.”

“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.

“If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA’s statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States.

“America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it’s not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever.”
But only three hours. While the article was not taken down, the home page links to it vanished and it was replaced by a ludicrous one repeating the mad CIA allegations against Russia and now claiming – incredibly – that the CIA believe the FBI is deliberately blocking the information on Russian collusion. Presumably this totally nutty theory, that Putin is somehow now controlling the FBI, is meant to answer my obvious objection that, if the CIA know who it is, why haven’t they arrested somebody. That bit of course would be the job of the FBI, who those desperate to annul the election now wish us to believe are the KGB.

It is terrible that the prime conduit for this paranoid nonsense is a once great newspaper, the Washington Post, which far from investigating executive power, now is a sounding board for totally evidence free anonymous source briefing of utter bullshit from the executive.

In the UK, one single article sums up the total abnegation of all journalistic standards. The truly execrable Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian writes “Few credible sources doubt that Russia was behind the hacking of internal Democratic party emails, whose release by Julian Assange was timed to cause maximum pain to Hillary Clinton and pleasure for Trump.” Does he produce any evidence at all for this assertion? No, none whatsoever. What does a journalist mean by a “credible source”? Well, any journalist worth their salt in considering the credibility of a source will first consider access. Do they credibly have access to the information they claim to have?

Now both Julian Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia. Do we credibly have access? Yes, very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of the leak. The people saying it is not Russia are those who do have access. After access, you consider truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation for truthfulness? Well in 10 years not one of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has released has had its authenticity successfully challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for inconvenient truth telling.

Contrast this to the “credible sources” Freedland relies on. What access do they have to the whistleblower? Zero. They have not the faintest idea who the whistleblower is. Otherwise they would have arrested them. What reputation do they have for truthfulness? It’s the Clinton gang and the US government, for goodness sake.

In fact, the sources any serious journalist would view as “credible” give the opposite answer to the one Freedland wants. But in what passes for Freedland’s mind, “credible” is 100% synonymous with “establishment”. When he says “credible sources” he means “establishment sources”. That is the truth of the “fake news” meme. You are not to read anything unless it is officially approved by the elite and their disgusting, crawling whores of stenographers like Freedland.

The worst thing about all this is that it is aimed at promoting further conflict with Russia. This puts everyone in danger for the sake of more profits for the arms and security industries – including of course bigger budgets for the CIA. As thankfully the four year agony of Aleppo comes swiftly to a close today, the Saudi and US armed and trained ISIS forces counter by moving to retake Palmyra. This game kills people, on a massive scale, and goes on and on.

[Excelsior]

[SamuelBRoberts]

I've been very disappointed to see people buying into the Left's frame on this.

I've seen no actual evidence for the claim that Russia was the DNC hacker.

[Space Cowboy]

(12-20-2016 03:17 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

I've seen no actual evidence for the claim that Russia was the DNC hacker.

That's because none has been released, but you're just going to have to take Obama's word for it! Don't you trust the CIA & FBI to be acting in your own interests, citizen?

[TravelerKai]

(12-20-2016 12:30 PM)Space Cowboy Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 03:17 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

I've seen no actual evidence for the claim that Russia was the DNC hacker.

That's because none has been released, but you're just going to have to take Obama's word for it! Don't you trust the CIA & FBI to be acting in your own interests, citizen?

Folks in the information security community are split as well. Very disappointing to see that, but that is just a natural reflection of the corporate types vs the l337 crowd that really know things.

Lizard you should probably be made aware that the US and Russia have already traded blows with each other in "cyber warfare". Each country has taken swipes at the other's electrical grid before, as a demonstration of force. Neither side launched a nuke as a response, nor made a big deal about it to the press, so what does that tell you?

Nuclear weapons are not an appropriate response to cyber attacks first of all and that cyber attacks are just traded back in kind. Obama cannot dump a shitload of "damaging" documents on Putin, so what is his reaction? Whine about it on public television, in an attempt to publicly shame Putin and block Trump.

Another thing about the supposed evidence of Fancy Bear malware/ransomware APT attacks that gets on my nerves is just because the crafters of these kinds of viruses live in Russia, does not mean that they are paid or directed by the Kremlin.

Just like the pirates in the old Age of Sail days, if French merchant vessels are being harassed by pirates sailing in and out of Spanish ports, that does not mean that the Spanish crown issued "Letters of Marque" (Royal permission to attack) to those pirates. Technically a privateer is a person holding a letter of marque, not an actual pirate. As long as the pirate does not attack Spanish trading ships that local governor, probably does not give a good damn. The only way to fix that was either hire your own privateers or make nice with the nearby Spanish governor to stop giving them safe harbor. Ya know... use social skills? Diplomacy n' shit?

Same thing with Russia. The Zeus banking trojans came/come from Russia. Has been for almost a decade. Russia does not arrest the hackers that use these unless they skim money off Russian people. All the US government, the FBI, and Microsoft can do is take down their botnets. That's it!

Is that fair for Putin to let hackers run wild in Russia? Not really. Is it fair that The Jester and other American patriotic hackers take down sites, blogs, and doxx jihadist/radical Islamist groups and countries and not get arrested? Probably not either. At least Russia can say they do not have a law against that. We cannot say that at all.

If Obama has actual evidence of Russian government agencies directing Zeus hackers or even these political hackers, they should put it out or shut up. I am tired of hearing about it.

[RexImperator]

From Pat Buchanan's blog:

Quote:

The never-Trumpers are never going to surrender the myth that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the hacking of Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and the Democratic National Committee to defeat Clinton and elect Donald Trump.

Their investment in the myth is just too huge.

For Clinton and her campaign, it is the only way to explain how they booted away a presidential election even Trump thought he had lost in November. To the mainstream media, this is the smoking gun in their Acela Corridor conspiracy to delegitimize Trump’s presidency.

Incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer sees Russian hacking as a way to put a cloud over the administration before it begins. But it is the uber-hawks hereabouts who are after the really big game.

They seek to demonize Putin as the saboteur of democracy — someone who corrupted an American presidential election to bring about victory for a “useful idiot” whom Clinton called Putin’s “puppet.”

If the War Party can convert this “fake story” into the real story of 2016, then they can scuttle any Trump effort to attain the rapprochement with Russia that Trump promised to try to achieve.

If they can stigmatize Trump as “Putin’s president” and Putin as America’s implacable enemy, then the Russophobes are back in business.

Nor is the War Party disguising its goal.

Over the weekend, Sen. John McCain called for a congressional select committee to investigate Russian hacking into the Clinton campaign. The purpose of the investigations, said Sen. Lindsey Graham, “is to put on President Trump’s desk crippling sanctions against Russia.”

“They need to pay a price,” Graham chortled on Twitter.

“Crippling sanctions” would abort any modus vivendi, any deal with Russia, before Trump could negotiate one. Trump would have to refuse to impose them — and face the firestorm to follow. The War Party is out to dynamite any detente with Russia before it begins.

Among the reasons Trump won is that he promised to end U.S. involvement in the costly, bloody and interminable wars in the Middle East the Bushites and President Barack Obama brought us — and the neocons relish — and to reach a new understanding with Russia and Putin.

But to some in Washington, beating up on Russia is a conditioned reflex dating to the Cold War. For others in the media and the front groups called think tanks, Russophobia is in their DNA.

Though Julian Assange says WikiLeaks did not get the emails from Russia, this has to be investigated. Did Russia hack the DNC’s email system and John Podesta’s email account? Did Putin direct that the emails be provided to WikiLeaks to disrupt democracy or defeat Clinton?

Clinton says Putin has had it in for her because he believes she was behind the anti-Putin demonstrations in Moscow in 2011.

But if there is to be an investigation of clandestine interference in the politics and elections of foreign nations, let’s get it all out onto the table.

The CIA director and his deputies should be made to testify under oath, not only as to what they know about Russia’s role in the WikiLeaks email dumps but also about who inside the agency is behind the leaks to The Washington Post designed to put a cloud over the Trump presidency before it begins.

Agents and operatives of the CIA should be subjected to lie detector tests to learn who is leaking to the anti-Trump press.

Before any congressional investigation, President-elect Trump should call in his new director of the CIA, Rep. Mike Pompeo, and tell him to run down and remove, for criminal misconduct, any CIA agents or operatives leaking secrets to discredit his election.

Putin, after all, is not an American. The CIA saboteurs of the Trump presidency are. Will the media investigate the leakers? Not likely, for they are the beneficiaries of the leaks and co-conspirators of the leakers.

The top officials of the CIA and Carl Gershman, president of the National Endowment for Democracy, should be called to testify under oath. Were they behind anti-Putin demonstrations during the Russian elections of 2011?

Did the CIA or NED have a role in the “color-coded” revolutions to dump over pro-Russian governments in Moscow’s “near abroad”?

If Russia did intrude in our election, was it payback for our intrusions to bring about regime change in its neighborhood?

What role did the CIA, the NED and John McCain play in the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Ukraine in 2014? McCain was seen cheering on the crowds in Independence Square in Kiev.

Trump has promised a more hopeful foreign policy than that of the Republicans he denounced and is succeeding. No more wars where vital interests are not imperiled. No more U.S. troops arriving as first responders for freeloading allies.

The real saboteurs of his new foreign policy may not be inside the Ring Road in Moscow; rather, they may be inside the Beltway around D.C.

The real danger may be that a new Trump foreign policy could be hijacked or scuttled by anti-Trump Republicans, not only on Capitol Hill but inside the executive branch itself.

http://buchanan.org/blog/real-saboteurs-...icy-126270