web analytics

Hacking Schmacking

Written By: - Date published: 12:59 pm, January 7th, 2017 - 155 comments
Categories: International, making shit up, Media, us politics, useless - Tags: , , ,

Warning: do not spark up any illegal substances for the imbibing thereof before reading the linked report lest you become stranded on the floor gasping for breathe in fits of uncontrollable and possibly life threatening laughter.

US Intelligence Report (pdf)

This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment. This document’s conclusions are identical to the highly classified assessment, but this document does not include the full any supporting information, including specific intelligence on key elements of the influence campaign. Given the redactions, we made minor edits purely for readability and flow.

Okay, I cheated there. The original document didn’t score out ‘the full’ and replace it with the more accurate ‘any’. But for fucksake people! In essence the report boils down to the fact that some peeps in the US disapprove of people in Russia having an opinion, and the fact their opinions are being met with disapproval means that they must have acted nefariously. And so we get a so-called ‘intelligence’  report that’s peppered with nothing much besides such earth shattering revelations as –

Putin publicly pointed to the Panama Papers disclosure and the Olympic doping scandal as US-directed efforts to defame Russia, suggesting he sought to use disclosures to discredit the image of the United States and cast it as hypocritical.

Moscow also saw the election of President elect Trump as a way to achieve an international counterterrorism coalition against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

Pro-Kremlin proxy Vladimir Zhirinovskiy, leader of the nationalist Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, proclaimed just before the election that if President-elect Trump won, Russia would “drink champagne” in anticipation of being able to advance its positions on Syria and Ukraine.

And so it goes, an endless stream of innuendo, banality and opinionated assertions before moving on to … (drum roll)

Russia — Kremlin’s TV Seeks To Influence Politics, Fuel Discontent in US*

In an effort to highlight the alleged “lack of democracy” in the United States, RT broadcast, hosted, and advertised third party candidate debates and ran reporting supportive of the political agenda of these candidates. The RT hosts asserted that the US two-party system does not represent the views of at least one-third of the population and is a “sham.”

RT aired a documentary about the Occupy Wall Street movement on 1, 2, and 4 November. RT framed the movement as a fight against “the ruling class” and described the current US political system as corrupt and dominated by corporations. RT advertising for the documentary featured Occupy movement calls to “take back” the government. The documentary claimed that the US system cannot be changed democratically, but only through “revolution.” After the 6 November US presidential election, RT aired a documentary called “Cultures of Protest,” about active and often violent political resistance (RT, 1- 10 November).

How do I wrap this up? It’s like I went to the loo and all the toilet paper spontaneously unraveled onto the floor. I’m just left sitting thinking wtf?

 

155 comments on “Hacking Schmacking”

  1. Siobhan 1

    Yup. It’s all Russia’s fault that Hilary and the DNC and that beacon of “Hope” – Obama, are politically corrupt and could only manage to run neck to neck with a nutter in an orange wig.

    Of course the flip side is that America is well positioned to advise Russia on the pitfalls of interfering in other peoples Political balances of power.

    http://inthesetimes.com/article/17311/noam_chomsky_the_worlds_greatest_terrorist_campaign

    • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1

      🙄

      You know they must be corrupt because RT said so.

      • Bill 1.1.1

        Well no, OAB. The emails kind of indicated that, yes? And a goodly number of US citizens reckon so too (their suspicions were only more or less confirmed). And a fair swathe of people who don’t live in the US reckon the same. And stuff mounts up and eventually translates into fewer votes at the polls.

        The counter narrative is that a TV station and a handful of trolls working for the Kremlin ran rings around US Intelligence while exercising quite remarkable mind control over US voters – or something like that.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.1.1

          Did they? I read them – the emails rather than the breathless “reporting” of them. Can you point me to the smoking gun?

          Or is it more of a “kind of” scenario?

          As for electoral apathy, remind me which party passes the voter suppression laws. It’s the Republicans, eh.

          Dylan Ratigan talked about a “bought congress” back in 2008, so there’s certainly something going on. The Supreme Court says corporations are people. Perhaps that’s it.

          • Bill 1.1.1.1.1

            What smoking gun you referring to?

            I didn’t bother with the reporting of them beyond noticing a whole pile of people initially jumping up and down proclaiming them to be false. Now, as far as public perception goes, that claim alone, when it’s stepped back from, is like a smoking gun whose barrel is aimed directly at ones own foot.

            There was an attempt to discredit the content of the emails that failed, therefore, no matter what the emails actually contained, enough people are going to reckon there must have been something in them and shift their perceptions accordingly.

            And all this is unfolding against the backdrop of liberalism generally losing its sheen and people being willing, given half a chance, to opt for ‘anything but’

            And that’s the elephant in the room – that liberalism is losing its legitimacy in the eyes of ever greater numbers of people. And in response, its advocates and beneficiaries/power-brokers flail and run Project Fear type nonsense (yet again).

            • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.1.1.1.1

              All this is also unfolding against the backdrop of a multi-decadal sustained right wing corporate attack upon human rights and the rule of law.

              Orwell’s totalitarian jackboot didn’t have a Liberal foot inside it.

              • And that’s the elephant in the room – that liberalism is losing its legitimacy in the eyes of ever greater numbers of people.

                You write that like it’s a good thing.

                • Bill

                  Well, that’s because it is a good thing. What comes after may or may not be good though. (See my comment below)

                  • weka

                    Do you see yourself as a beneficiary of liberalism in any way?

                    • Bill

                      I could be in prison and would see myself as benefiting from the provision of food to prisoners.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Food in schools.

                      Libraries.

                      The BoRA.

                      Adult education.

                      Aquaducts. No wait, that was the Romans.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      Food in schools.

                      Libraries.

                      The BoRA.

                      Adult education.

                      Everything worthwhile in that list is 50 to 100 years old. Prisoners being provided food in gaol even older than that. Since then liberalism has been wondering the desert accentuating its political use by date

              • Bill

                If that’s an accurate statement, then who or what enabled this multi-decadal sustained right wing corporate attack upon human rights and the rule of law?

                There has been a liberal flavoured establishment in power all across the western (or English speaking) world for a very long time now.

                So the governments that signed up to free trade agreements that saw the shirts on our backs removed and sold – what was their make-up? Were they not, broadly speaking, liberal governments? I do believe they were.

                And now people – in response to grey tweedledee and gray tweedledum right and left having signed us up to futures of diminishing material prospects and shrinking social services, are taking any option that isn’t more of the same.

                And if things tilt to the right (possible) then corporations and whatever other unaccountable concentrations of power there may be could well enjoy free slather. And if things are to tilt to the left (my preference) then liberalism has to stop killing off the left and step aside and away. If they don’t, then people will perceive only one choice and that will be between right wing populism and staid, discredited liberalism. And right wing populism will triumph.

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  Liberalism has been an inadequate bulwark against corporatism, I agree: that’s because smashing things is a lot easier than maintaining them and there’s been an awful lot of vandalism going on.

                  It was the Republican majority on the Supreme Court that passed Citizens United, it’s the Right that denies Physics.

                  What’s an effective defence against determined well-resourced hatred?

                  • Bill

                    Liberalism has been an inadequate bulwark against corporatism,…

                    Liberalism has been the usher at the door OAB.

              • Colonial Viper

                Orwell’s totalitarian jackboot didn’t have a Liberal foot inside it.

                Yes it did. Because the liberals are now proving themselves to be the most illiberal and authoritarian of all. They want alt-news sites shut down. They want systems of censorship (“fact checking”) to prevent dissenting opinions being voiced. They want approved mainstream corporate media exalted without any competing voices.

                Further, left wing “liberals” (like Krugman) are the ones with MSM pedestals regularly exercising their “minute of hate” against Trump and his supporters.

                • Bill

                  To be fair, I reckon the liberal foot is in the other boot, the one without which totalitarianism couldn’t keep advancing.

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  How would a megaphone know?

                  [Cut it out right now OAB. One more ad-hom and you’re gone] – Bill.

                  • Clump_AKA Sam

                    American capitalism was founded on slavery and the destruction of indigenous populations. That’s got nothing to do with Adam smith but it’s the source of American propaganda

                    • Smith’s notion of a market economy and events such as US slavery and destruction of indigenous populations are closely related.

                      These events of enclosure, expropriation, exploitation and oppression are episodes of ‘primitive accumulation’ – the remaking of some resource into a form usable by capitalism.

                      For example, there’s the suggestion that the witch hunts both in Europe and the Americas were specifically timed to debilitate the culture of health provision and reproductive control (i.e., in capitalist terms – control over the reproduction of ‘labour’) that posed an alternative to control through a capitalist economy. (see ‘Caliban and the Witch’)

                      For me, the irony over the disputes between ‘progressive liberals’ and what, for want of a better term, I call ‘the left’ is that the racism and sexism that has evolved over the last few centuries is best understood as part of these recurrent processes of ‘primitive accumulation’ to get the gigantic Heath Robinson economic contraption we call capitalism slowly chugging and grinding its way around the planet.

                      One other point is that it’s a curiosity rarely discussed on the left that the heyday of social movements (both in advances and in the proliferation of them) has been in lock-step with the rise of neoliberalism.

                      This timing may be pure coincidence but I’ve thought for a while that progressive advances often tend to be made when extant power sees some use in them for its own purposes (e.g., the many peasant revolts often achieved success because of the conflict of interest between the monarch and the nobility – the peasants were used to keep the nobility in check).

                      My guess is that two aspects of that ‘usefulness’ in the current context are (a) it has helped split the left by favouring one set of left groups over others (in the same way that, in the colonisation of the Americas, property/slave owners deliberately elevated the status of white, crippling poor workers over black slaves when solidarity between the two groups had started to form), and (b) it allows the formation of an alliance in favour of financialisation and globalisation against both ‘the left’ and right wing conservatives (who oppose financialisation and globalisation but for distinctly different reasons).

                      On point (b) here’s an interesting analysis from Nancy Fraser, a professor of philosophy and politics, in relation to recent US political events: The End of Progressive Neoliberalism’. Basically, the argument is that the keywords of modern progressive liberalism – diversity, emancipation, non-discrimination, etc. – were neatly folded in to the project of neoliberalism.

                      As Fraser put it:

                      “the assault on social security was glossed by a veneer of emancipatory charisma, borrowed from the new social movements. Throughout the years when manufacturing cratered, the country buzzed with talk of “diversity,” “empowerment,” and “non-discrimination.” Identifying “progress” with meritocracy instead of equality, these terms equated “emancipation” with the rise of a small elite of “talented” women, minorities, and gays in the winner-takes-all corporate hierarchy instead of with the latter’s abolition. These liberal-individualist understandings of “progress” gradually replaced the more expansive, anti-hierarchical, egalitarian, class-sensitive, anti-capitalist understandings of emancipation that had flourished in the 1960s and 1970s. As the New Left waned, its structural critique of capitalist society faded, and the country’s characteristic liberal-individualist mindset reasserted itself, imperceptibly shrinking the aspirations of “progressives” and self-proclaimed leftists. What sealed the deal, however, was the coincidence of this evolution with the rise of neoliberalism. A party bent on liberalizing the capitalist economy found its perfect mate in a meritocratic corporate feminism focused on “leaning in” and “cracking the glass ceiling.””

                    • Bill

                      Thanks for the “The End of Progressive Neoliberalism” link Puddleglum.

                    • Carolyn_nth

                      Puddleglum, Nancy Fraser is presenting a particularly US analysis of feminism, racism, etc. Basically, in the US liberal feminism was the dominant form of feminism, etc, in the 1960s-80s. And embraced by the MSM – the HR Clinton’s political following tends to fit within liberalism – feminism and racism as a process of equality, diversity, etc within the existing system. The idea of meritocracy, etc was always very string in the US mainstream

                      In contrast, in the UK and much of Europe, women’s liberation and anti-racism were more firmly located within socialism, and involved campaigning for a change to the system. It was not embraced by the MSM so much in places like the UK.

                      Neoliberalism was also an international shift in increasing US-anisation of culture. So it brought with it a superficial liberal form of anti-racism and anti-sexism.

                      Bea Campbell in the UK says that neoliberalism also incorporated a neo-patriarchy, and it is brutal and violent. There was with it a faux form of the promise of “liberation”, certainly as embraced by the US-dominant MSM.

                      But stronger left wing forms of anti-racism and anti-mysogyny that aimed for a change in the whole system, never went away.

                      I do agree that the ruling classes do tend to allow a certain amount of rebellion, before they find ways to appropriate them and neutralise them – or, maybe as Gramsci said, there are true moments of rebellion and some ground gained, but the ruling classes re-group, appropriate selected elements of the rebellion, and regain dominance in a slightly changed form.

                      Also, various change in technologies etc, post WWII, resulted in shifts in gender and race relations, that seemed like progress at the time, (eg gains for women, people from the working classes, black and brown people, etc getting access to education and various jobs) but were part of the elites, regaining control in new ways.

                      Fraser, also ends by saying continued campaigns are needed against racism and sexism:

                      This does not mean muting pressing concerns about racism or sexism. But it does mean showing how those longstanding historical oppressions find new expressions and grounds today, in financialized capitalism. Rebutting the false, zero-sum thinking that dominated the election campaign, we should link the harms suffered by women and people of color to those experienced by the many who voted for Trump. In that way, a revitalized left could lay the foundation for a powerful new coalition committed to fighting for all.

                      So, basically, I think I would say there are attempts to challenge the system, that are quickly closed down by the elites. In retrospect, it could look like the social movements were part of the seemingly smooth shift to neoliberalism, but I’m more with Gramsci.

                      Changes don’t happen smoothly in some pre-planned way. They are the outcomes of struggles in contexts that are continually shifting. These contexts involve a complicated array of inter-related elements.

                    • greywarshark

                      Terrific Puddleglum – that analysis of the movement of culture post-hippy era explains a lot.

                      It appears that people who want and win a progressive culture that advances the mass and also respects all individuals instead of just a clique, must be savvy and plot to keep on track or have the prize gradually grifted away from them.

                    • Olwyn

                      Spot on Puddleglum – in both your own commentary and the link you put up.

                    • Clump_AKA Sam

                      One of the reason I write here is because people who fall in love with there political an economic abusers hit you with a whole lot of technical language and make you think your stupid and don’t understand what you’re talking about when you raise a legitimate issue, like ‘should we exclude political donations from electoral cycles.’ My whole role around this is don’t be snowed by these guys.

                      It’s the foundation of neoliberalism that needs explaining because the language is so difficult. For people reading this, it’s the belief human social systems work if there’s almost no government, and almost everything is done through markets and everything has got prices and you’ve got to pay with your own income to buy anything. It also says there should be no trade unions, no tariffs, remove all the controls, and the economy will work better. That’s only true if a system is inherently stabilising, it’s like saying a plane will go faster if we take the wings off that stabilises it.

                      We call people who present as intellectuals but don’t play the role, this goes back to biblical prophets who where driven out of the desserts and in prisoned and hundreds of years later honoured. At the same time the pattern is set and persist through the ages. In retrospect the people who honour and respect are punished or tortured depending on the nature of society. Those who flatter the court are honoured and given lots of amenities, there’s grants these days, that’s run virtually through out history. The pope now honours Galileo but he was bitterly opposed in his day. Bloggers who dare challenge the magnificence of Labour and National and state and so on. I’m not sure if Helen Clark intends to return to New Zealand or if John Key will remain on permanent vacation in Hawaii, there’s very rear exception to that pattern but division remains the same. People who we call intllectual are very weird. If a cleaner has great ideas and understanding and deep insight and plenty of knowledge, we don’t call him an intellectual because, the people we call intellectuals are the ones with privilege and authority, deserved or not, are the ones who choose to make a choice to articulate there concerns, that’s very weird because it has nothing to do with understanding and insight. You can use privilege and authority to improve the world or you can be a flatterer of the court. That’s the choice, the latter being more dominant though all of history.

                      Maori intellectuals have clustered around them flatterers of the court, the responsibilities don’t change, the circumstances change. As to whether something has changed to the lives of prison inmates is a statistical cluster of things that go on all the time so it’s misleading to put change and intellectualism together, That’s constant. If you take constant statistical anomalies, there are clusters but nothing new and thats constant through out time but the nature of oppression has changed dramatically. This goes back to the signing of the treaty of Waitangi and it’s only recently that understandings have been made to the huge contributions maoridom contributed to domestic and international well being, that’s constant, it was well known during early Auckland evolution that there sustenance relied solo on Tainui. Commerce was heavily dependant on land already in use by Tainui and that’s how our financial system developed. In England the same thing, they lived off lamb produced on farms that was once used by Ngai Tahu. So New Zealand industry rose rapidly with out technology except for pens and pistols. Just driving people further and further, making people’s lives more and more miserable and impossible. As we all know that didn’t end with Whena Coppers hikoi on parliament because, we got bastion point and dawn raids not long after. It’s formal freedom, then came the treaty settlement process which reintroduces a form of acquiring control over land or as John Rangihau Sr said it, they couldn’t divide and rule disintegrated tribes so they United and rulz, in another form which is much like today – criminalising maori woman far beyond any criminal behaviour, for maori males it’s the same, for traffic offences or what ever it may be. Now you have the perfect labourer. When prisoners are on the out side you have to make sure the eat so they can make it to the yard but when they’re inside you don’t have to bother about them so it’s a perfect slave labour camp – every ones cool with it.

                      My one criticism of Bernie Sanders election campaign is his support for black lives matter emerged as a kind of after thought and intern lacked credibility among African Americans. This criticism can be applied to anything, you could oppose the Syrian civil war or the minimum wage, it always generalises to everything. There is cross over here with maori concerns (I just didn’t want to use John Keys version of the Orewa speech) of two major crimes, the first is both injures settler colonies which is a particularly ugly form of imperialism, that’s to say you don’t just rule over indigenous inhabitants you eliminate them. You don’t see maori walking around the streets with a piu piu on and the situation is the same for blacks and that’s the second major crime of cultural genocide and expulsion/extermination/recidivism which essentially created the economy. There are reverberations that effect the present and give both groups reason to oppose repression with regards to indigenous issues. With regards to tactics is up for discussion but I don’t like how maori are fickle voters and black lives matters interruptions of Sanders rallies needed to do there research first. But all ends with discussion debate and reconciliation. So it turned out not bad. I’m reluctant to critique tactics because I was often wrong about the last electoral cycle having been to closely associated with the Internet party. If any one had asked me if its cool to take funds from Dotcom I would have said no and been wrong. But it turned out OK in Te Tai Tokerau. Tactical judgements are not trivial but it’s important to consider the Likely consequences.

                      I respect Hone Harawira because he is single minded about tangatawhenua but look at his career. He protests corporate control when ever it seeks rent in New Zealand in and out of parliament, He’s totally against the surveillance state so how much contact did he have with the problems of an Internet entrepreneur skilled at encryption. I think Hone Harawira is an important voice for tangatawhenua and I like his policies on sovereignty and style of financial growth but there are policies I don’t like and thats to do with campaign contributions. Political donations did shift Hone Harawiras campaign and he dropped issues that he shouldn’t have ignored. You can discuss tactics but as I said before it turned out ok because Hone Harawira is wiser for it and maoridom can’t replace his experience in a constellation of competing political structures.

                      People are now arguing about the minimum wage but if you take a look at the minimum wage (I presume you know this) though the huge growth period during the 70’s and 80’s tracked productivity. That started to brake in the late 80’s when the neoliberal assault began, if the minimum wage had continued to track productivity it would be closer to $21 p/h so when you hear people ask for $15-$18 an hour they’re saying lets keep it low and that’s true for everything. Neoliberalism teaches people to value work that isn’t work or in the overwhelming majorities best interest. The idea of austerity during recession is shockingly humiliating, it’s undermining major achievements since the 2nd world war, social and economic, welfare state programmes are being undermined. From the point of view of conservatives they don’t like them so they’ll get rid of them but that’s generalised across the globe. Take our health system for example, it’s one of the best in the world but conservatives are trying to make it like Americas which is the worst in the world, the American health system is literally twice the cost per capita of any other system, it’s got some of the worst outcomes with extensive red tape and the argument is lets become like them and destroy a good system. These are just different manifestations of different kinds of neoliberal policy that doesn’t like to do proper accounting. Now the Latin America which was a loyal student of neoliberal programmes is a major opposer, about 15 years ago Latin America started to pull out of the neoliberal paradigm. It’s ironic that Obama isolated himself so much he was forced to normalise relations with Cuba because the US gets thrown out of any talks with Latin America because they can’t reach an agreement on the drug war. For any one who knows the history of America it’s shocking to see them get thrown out of there own back yard. America never use to worry because they would just overthrow governments but this is totally reversed now. It began as a reaction to neoliberal policy and now Latin America is slowly pulling themselves out. This reaction is global but it takes different forms in different places.

                      Immigration has become a monstrous tool of aggression. It’s not that immigrants want to flee they can’t afford to live isn’t there own countries. There are countries that absorb immigrants and refugees and there are countries that make them and New Zealand makes them contrary to popular belief. The Iraq war which we participated in 3 times destroyed Iraq created 2 million refugees and they’re still fleeing, same as in Afghanistan and now we are magnanimously rebuilding capabilities in those regions and now we are going to except immigrants on the bases of skill. The nature of people under duress and working people have a hard time is easy to rind reason but not the true reason because it makes initiative sense because they’re taking our jobs. In fact they’re not, they’re taking jobs nobody wants to take. The economic benefits are subtle but what is seen is they’re working and I’m not, it must be there fault. It’s easy for political figures and the trump types to turn this into something that looks plausible. It’s much worse in Europe, Iv always thought Europe was much more racist than the US, it doesn’t show up as much in Europe because European tend to be homogeneous. So when every one is blond blue eyed you can say but where not racist. But as soon as you get a tinny percent of the population that deviates hen all of a sudden it all comes out in extremely ugly ways. The solution requires those with the whip to apologise and pay reparations and I think that is generalised across the globe.

                      Technology is kind of neutral. Social media can organise activities and that’s good. On the other hand when I walk around and see young people stuck to their iPhone having superficial conversations I don’t think that is a good thing, it’s an atomised society and that’s apart of neoliberal ideology, you’re in it for yourself, others can fend for themselves but I’m for me. That’s so called market ideology, social media has a tendency to magnify that. Technology can enable or diminish the character of life.

                      I’ll end with this from Tyler Durden:http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-02/capitalism-requires-world-war?page=1

                      “If Capitalism could speak, she would ask her older brother, Imperialism, this: “Can you solve the problem?” We are not reliving the 1930’s, the economy is now an integrated whole that encompasses the entire World. Capital has been accumulating since 1945, so under- and unemployment is a plague everywhere. How big is the problem? Official data tells us nothing, but the 47 million Americans on food aid are suggestive. That’s 1 in 7 Americans and total World population is 7 billion.

                      The scale of the solution is dangerous. Our probing for weakness in the South China Sea, Ukraine and Syria has awakened them to their danger.The Chinese and Russian leadership reacted by integrating their payment systems and real economies, trading energy for manufactured goods for advanced weapon systems. As they are central players in the Shanghai Group we can assume their aim is the monetary system which is the bedrock of our Imperial power. What’s worse, they can avoid overt enemy action and simply choose to undermine “confidence” in the FIAT.

                      Though given the calibre of their nuclear arsenal, how can they be fought let alone defeated? Appetite preceded Reason, so Lust is hard to Reason with. But beware brother. Your Lust for Power began this saga, perhaps it’s time to Reason.”

                  • simbit

                    He’ll, what’s OAB doing that’s so wrong? Ad-hom attacks? Mockery?

                • …the liberals are now proving themselves to be the most illiberal and authoritarian of all. They want alt-news sites shut down. They want systems of censorship (“fact checking”) to prevent dissenting opinions being voiced.

                  1. You don’t seem to know what “liberal” means.
                  2. You don’t seem to know what “authoritarian” or “censorship” mean, because you’re equating a few activist hand-wringers bleating about the alt-right with the actual censorship practiced by actual authoritarian governments.

                  • Clump_AKA Sam

                    All this is barley mentionable because it bears no relation to its founding doctrine

                • JonL

                  “They want alt-news sites shut down. They want systems of censorship (“fact checking”) to prevent dissenting opinions being voiced. They want approved mainstream corporate media exalted without any competing voices.

                  Further, left wing “liberals” (like Krugman) are the ones with MSM pedestals regularly exercising their “minute of hate” against Trump and his supporters.”

                  ….and why would you think these people are liberal? Despite what they may think of themselves, I’d see people like this as most illiberal, if not just more of the authoritarian ilk!
                  ….unless they are Liberals, in which case that goes with the title!

      • Siobhan 1.1.2

        I was talking about their relationships with Wasserman Schultz, Donna Brazile and, Goldman Sachs…such a list… you know, all the things you and the DNC would like to politely ignore so there’s probably no point in going over it ad infinitum..I would have thought ‘Wikileaks’ would have been more pertinent than your RT reference, but, whatever.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.2.1

          Speaking of Wikileaks, I read the awfully terrible emails. Can you point me to the smoking gun?

          I even read Clinton’s speeches to Goldman Sachs. Perhaps my English language comprehension skills are lacking.

          • Siobhan 1.1.2.1.1

            Not the speaches OAB…How about all Obamas, and Hilarys policies and staff, do ya think this might be an issue…

            http://www.nachumlist.com/goldmansachsobama.htm

            • Clump_AKA Sam 1.1.2.1.1.1

              The most shocking wiki leaks was Saudi interests funding Killary and ISIS.

              • One Anonymous Bloke

                Is that because you are mistaking her for a foundation with her name or can you back that up?

                • Colonial Viper

                  Friends of Bill got special priority through the State Department

                  Americans saw through the corrupt Clinton pay for play scheme. Not to mention the Clintons taking nice holidays on Clinton Foundation resources and cash.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke

                    The allegation is that the Saudis fund, or funded, Hillary Clinton. Do you have anything substantive to say about that or are you just going to keep on parroting propaganda?

                    [Now that I have your attention. See here and see here. Capiche?] – Bill

          • Colonial Viper 1.1.2.1.2

            Speaking of Wikileaks, I read the awfully terrible emails. Can you point me to the smoking gun?

            Oh wow, so no real serious material in those ***leaked*** (not hacked) emails?

            Funny, because the Clinton Camp has been claiming that they were powerful enough to lose her the presidency.

            PS I think the emails describing the Clinton Campaign strategy to deliberately “elevate” Trump (and Cruz and Carson) in the MSM were pretty good.

            That bit them in the arse.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.2.1.2.1

              Yawn. So many assertions, so little credibility.

              [Dropping you in auto mod until you acknowledge the moderation made above about the level of your interaction here today and modify your behaviour appropriately] – Bill

              • Clump_AKA Sam

                Hillary her self gave it credibility when she declared that they are all her documents. The assumption at the time was that she had scrubbed her servers.

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  So the assumption was wrong, and I’d still like to know what is in the actual emails that is so very damning, compared to say, “grab them by the pussy”.

              • One Anonymous Bloke

                I will tone down the tenor of my sincerely held contempt for and hostility towards this particular commenter by simply not engaging with their provocative persistent destructive trolling any more.

                [Here’s the thing about your contempt. I couldn’t give a monkey’s flying fuck about it. This is meant to be a forum revolving around political ideas and thoughts, not some fucking message board displaying personal gripes and likes] – Bill

        • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.2.2

          I note that the Orange Uberlugenfarter has also got GS links.

      • Morrissey 1.1.3

        I’m sorry to have to say that, as always, my friend, you’re out of your depth.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.3.1

          I’m not in the least bit sorry to say that I value your opinion very much indeed. It’s so valuable I’m convinced there’s a market for it somewhere. Keep on marketing yourself and I’m sure everything will work out for you.

  2. mike 2

    Thank you for including the link to the intelligence report PDF. Otherwise your sneering reportage may have given me a completely wrong understanding of what was in it. When it comes to ‘an endless stream of innuendo, banality and opinionated assertion’ look to yourself.

    • Bill 2.1

      You got anything beyond ad-hom there mike?

      Stick to the content of the post or desist from commenting on this post or, third option, continue with the pointlessness and pick up a ban. You choose.

    • Olwyn 2.2

      Did you read the PDF yourself? I did, and could hardly believe that it was written and released by adults with important jobs. When Intelligence Community analysts use words such as “we assess” or “we judge,” they are conveying an analytic assessment or judgment. it tells us. Then you read on, and learn that there is some Eastern European person or group called Gucifer who might be Russian and hence might be linked to Putin. Then there is a lot of guff about what Putin said, and the kind of thing you might see on RT – general, predictable opinions that can hardly rely on hacked material. Sooo, Putin must have done it because…he doesn’t always agree with us and he says as much publicly and that’s not fair….

      There is more rigour in a note pinned to a door asking someone-or-other to please stop feeding someone else’s cat.

      • Bill 2.2.1

        Except with the cat thing, there actually is a cat… 😉

        • Olwyn 2.2.1.1

          Justified confidence that there really is a cat is one of the ways in which “more rigour” goes into the note. 🙂

          • Anne 2.2.1.1.1

            So we can get the important question of the cat sorted, one must be open to further possibilities such as… the cat being fed might actually be stealing the cat food that belong’s to the ‘noted’ one’s cat. In which case it is incumbent on the owner of the cat doing the stealing to take measures to ensure their cat/cats stop stealing what belongs to someone else. 😕 ?

            • Olwyn 2.2.1.1.1.1

              Anne! I almost had to do a little diagram to follow your version of the cat story. 🙂 If you are using the cat to make an analogy with the hacking story, the first step is surely to show exactly what cat is doing the stealing. And there was nothing in the PDF Bill put up that convinced me that Russia was behind the hacked emails.

              The sooner the Democrat camp starts looking into what they did wrong rather than casting around for someone or something to blame, the better. In that respect Bernie has the right idea – become a strong, focused opposition rather than a sore loser.

              • One Anonymous Bloke

                The report was authored by the Democrats???

                • Olwyn

                  Wasn’t Obama the guy who called for the report? And even if I have that detail wrong, they are certainly the people making the biggest song and dance about it.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke

                    So far as I’m concerned, the thing politicians say carry very little weight.

                    The NSA and CIA, by comparison, are public servants.

                    Sun Tsu holds that spying is a humanitarian pursuit – it shortens wars and so forth. It involves deception, as does a boxer’s feint.

                    The Republicans are taking it seriously. I expect they have something to hide. After all, they took all that money from the NRA 😉

                    • Clump_AKA Sam

                      The quote Zsun Tsu made referred to resupply of your army assures it’s destruction

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      That’s as clear as mud, C_A_Sam.

                      In regards to resupply, Sun Tzu said (among other things)

                      Bring war material with you from home, but forage on the enemy. Thus the army will have food enough for its needs.

                      Whereas regarding the use of spies he said (among other things):

                      Hostile armies may face each other for years, striving for the victory which is decided in a single day. This being so, to remain in ignorance of the enemy’s condition simply because one grudges the outlay of a hundred ounces of silver in honours and emoluments, is the height of inhumanity.

                      Please expand on your comment.

                    • Clump_AKA Sam

                      Thats a neat discription of sanctions you have there

              • Anne

                If you are using the cat to make an analogy with the hacking story,…

                Guilty as charged.

                Here’s my take – simplistic though it may be:

                AMERICA – if you want us ordinary folk to believe that the Russians were responsible for the hacking (bearing in mind somebody was and whoever it was… was targeting the Democrats and Hillary Clinton) then front up with the proof! None of this you’ve got to believe us blah blah… SHOW US THE MONEY as they say.

                RUSSIA -If you want us to believe you are an innocent party and that you have no knowledge of the identities responsible for the hacking then demonstrate your innocence. We’re not stupid. Issuing press statements denying your involvement is not good enough. Front up and show you are genuine in your denials.

                In other words: imv, neither side can be trusted.

  3. Adrian Thornton 3

    Glenn Greenwald Democracy Now yesterday re; leaks,Russian Wikileaks DNC etc…enough said…

    https://www.democracynow.org/2017/1/5/glenn_greenwald_on_dearth_of_evidence

  4. One Two 4

    The contrived accusations won’t vanish
    Diplomatically it’s disastrous for The USA

    When such a farce erupts, inevitably it’s a cover for other events

    • Clump_AKA Sam 4.1

      Russia’s reach isn’t as far as Cold War relics think it is. Threats are manufactured for intervention in our own domains, not Russia.

    • Bill 4.2

      You’re right that they won’t vanish. But on the diplomacy front…well, we know that Trump wants rapprochement with Russia. Leaving aside how he might do that given his other statements on Israel and Iran, I’d say it’s a safe bet that most Democrats and most Republicans have bought into this Russia nonsense and all it entails in terms of retaliation .

      So how does he (Trump) shift the US Congress and Senate away from its present belligerence? And, maybe something for the entrenched liberal establishment to mull over, since most US citizens simply don’t believe that Russia influenced anything, then how is that beleaguered establishment thinking it’s going to play out its opposition to Trump’s public statements towards Russia if ‘half’ of the people in the US are actually quite sympathetic to it or, if not sympathetic, at least downright cynical about the establishment’s take on stuff?

      • Clump_AKA Sam 4.2.1

        Trumps response to decent is to raise taxes on (insert babbling CEO name here) which he can do at a stroke of a pen, bye passing congress ect.

  5. greywarshark 5

    I can’t comment on the politics and propaganda – amazing Revelations! /sarc

    I am concerned about the toilet paper on the floor though. Is it safe to reroll and use it under health and safety guidelines? And ‘What about the children’? I understand this is the classic finale to every concerned comment from the easily distracted.

    • Once was and others etc 5.1

      Better to flush the bloody lot and install a bidet….
      In fact I reckon a high pressure jet of cold water up the jacksie might just give a few egos the shot they need.

      • Once was and others etc 5.1.1

        The who;e debate above reminds me of this:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdaeQLCTa6g

        but then I’m a bit weird

        bullshits and jellybeans and egos and opinions.

        Actually a bloody good dowsing that goes further than the arsehole might not be such a bad idea.
        Unfortunately though, those with the resources (such as the fire brigade) rely on volunteers, and you can take your chances with the ambulance service if that shot of cold water causes a catostrophic eminer

  6. ian 6

    If I were in the States, I’d be particularly concerned about how much time was spent on RT America in that report. They labelled it ‘propaganda’, which is an unusually emotive word to appear in such a serious report. Regardless of where it came from, RT provided an alternative view.

    And don’t even get me started on US propaganda. There is no way that the business-oriented financial capitalism of the type seen over there has been kept in place for so long on its own merits.

    • They labelled it ‘propaganda’…

      It’s the Russian equivalent of Voice of America, ie a propaganda service of its patron government, so what other label would be more appropriate?

      • Colonial Viper 6.1.1

        Excellent RT discussion panel on different views of the Russia hacking noise out of the US. Featuring Americans no less, including a spokes person from the Ron Paul institute. (No doubt a Russian agent eh).

        • Bill 6.1.1.1

          I wouldn’t have called it ‘excellent’, but I’d watched before and came away (in no particular order) laughing at the animation of the Trotsky look-alike and thinking that the guy in the middle had it about right. Ignore his “17 intelligence Agencies say” stuff. The fact is that the congress and the senate is packed to the gunnels with people who believe the guff about Russia. And that (not any evidence or lack thereof) is what will determine how the US moves forward.

          It’s like the clowns became the ringmasters and the lunatics took over the asylum. (Assign whichever scenario to the senate and congress according to your preference)

        • Psycho Milt 6.1.1.2

          So, RT runs a discussion panel that endorses the Russian government’s view of this, and you present it as evidence RT isn’t a propaganda service of the Russian government. I guess it makes no less sense than most of your comments.

          [Leave out the ad homs. Only warning] – Bill

      • ian 6.1.2

        It’s entirely appropriate, it’s just interesting that the Intelligence Communities take exception to it when it is simply “hilighting criticisims of US democracy and civil liberties”. I guess this is just the latest example of what’s been called ‘American exceptionalism’ where it’s OK if America does it, not so good if it’s you. What RT America does is not very much different from the domestic offering produced by media outlets owned by the business-oriented financial capitalism and that is presented by multi-millionaire editors and newsreaders. It’s just got a different light on it. They’re not exactly going to be pushing the barrow for, frinstance, the unions or the working poor. It is simply pro-business propaganda.

        • Psycho Milt 6.1.2.1

          What RT America does is not very much different from the domestic offering produced by media outlets owned by the business-oriented financial capitalism…

          It’s only “not very much different” if you ignore the fact that RT America is a propaganda service of the Russian government – but yeah, if we ignore that important difference they’re not very much different at all.

          • Colonial Viper 6.1.2.1.1

            RT America is an excellent alternative media source based in the USA, with US anchors, interviewing US based media personalities. Having said that RT America has a very limited reach, I doubt its viewership is more than 1M or so in the USA.

            McAffee analyses inconsistencies in FBI Russia hacking report:

            • Bill 6.1.2.1.1.1

              No, no. Common sense will. not. be given oxygen and will. not. prevail. How dare you post such a link CV!

            • Psycho Milt 6.1.2.1.1.2

              Astonishing! The independent journalists of RT find that the Russian government has it exactly right.

              Mcafee has been giving the impression of being a few sandwiches short of a picnic for a while now. Some actual common sense on the subject can be found here.

              • Bill

                Erm. I believe the claim being made by McAfee (not any RT journalist) is that the US government has it wrong. The Russian government hasn’t made any allegations. Not as far as I know.

                Anyway. To repeat what I said to OAB on the other thread – if you’re saying that McAfee knows nothing about fuck all and has this wrong then engage and present your case. But to just flippantly suggest he’s insane and so therefore ought to be ignored and/or dismissed is just dog-shit.

            • ian 6.1.2.1.1.3

              According to the Intelligence Community’s report, RT America’s YouTube channel (which is English speaking) has had more than 800 million views.

              • Colonial Viper

                Thanks for that ian. I was more referring to viewership (i.e. individual people) rather than the total times that their various videos have been viewed. Looking on RT America’s youtube page I see they have about 400,000 subscribers and 1.4M video views so far.

                The “IC” may have added in the number of views of RT’s other youtube channels (including their main international channel) to get to their 800M total views.

                • ian

                  NP, CV.
                  The channel statistics are a bit misleading. Did you check the ‘about’ pages of the channels? Just to confuse matters, the shows that are broadcast to American audiences also have their own channels and perform thusly:

                  RT America:
                  404, 920 subscribers
                  192,408,136 views
                  source: https://www.youtube.com/user/RTAmerica/about

                  Redacted Tonight:
                  121,113 subscribers
                  13,803,197 views

                  Boom Bust:
                  27,364 subscribers
                  5,652,923 views

                  The Big Picture:
                  120,183 subscribers
                  32,836,155 views

                  Breaking The Set:
                  164,197 subscribers
                  35,118,115 views

                  etc etc etc

                  Interestingly, the main RT channel boasts 2 million subscribers, and more than 1.8 billion views.

                  Similarly-subversive channel The Young Turks have more than 3 million subscribers and 3.251 billion views of their own.

                  So there certainly is the appetite for non-MSM views.

                  • Colonial Viper

                    Cheers ian. I see what you are getting at.

                    Lionel from Lionel Media recently pointed out that if the Deep State was unhappy with RT’s spreading of “propaganda” they really should stop referring to it and increasing its profile on a daily basis. The irony.

  7. Tony Veitch (not the partner-bashing 3rd rate broadcaster 7

    Well, I’ve just read the report in the link above and all I can say is – the US intelligence service have not let facts get in the way of a bad argument!

    What a load of waffly crap and surmises! There doesn’t appear to be a shred of real evidence linking Russia to the DNC email hacking!

    I also find it deliciously ironic that the US is upset that another country may have the unmitigated gall to interfere in its affairs! As if the US has never done anything like that!

    • ian 7.1

      “The CIA complaining about a right-wing president being installed by a foreign power might be the funniest thing that has ever happened.”

      • Gabby 7.1.1

        The cia may very well have been keeping an eye on the international doings of citizen chump over the years.

    • Bill 7.2

      I also find it deliciously ironic that the US is upset that another country may have the unmitigated gall to interfere in its affairs! As if the US has never done anything like that!

      I suspect this list isn’t exhaustive. (Lifted from the comments section under an article in ‘The Independent’

      Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. (* indicates successful ouster of a government)

      China 1949 to early 1960s
      Albania 1949-53
      East Germany 1950s
      Iran 1953 *
      Guatemala 1954 *
      Costa Rica mid-1950s
      Syria 1956-7
      Egypt 1957
      Indonesia 1957-8
      British Guiana 1953-64 *
      Iraq 1963 *
      North Vietnam 1945-73
      Cambodia 1955-70 *
      Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
      Ecuador 1960-63 *
      Congo 1960 *
      France 1965
      Brazil 1962-64 *
      Dominican Republic 1963 *
      Cuba 1959 to present
      Bolivia 1964 *
      Indonesia 1965 *
      Ghana 1966 *
      Chile 1964-73 *
      Greece 1967 *
      Costa Rica 1970-71
      Bolivia 1971 *
      Australia 1973-75 *
      Angola 1975, 1980s
      Zaire 1975
      Portugal 1974-76 *
      Jamaica 1976-80 *
      Seychelles 1979-81
      Chad 1981-82 *
      Grenada 1983 *
      South Yemen 1982-84
      Suriname 1982-84
      Fiji 1987 *
      Libya 1980s
      Nicaragua 1981-90 *
      Panama 1989 *
      Bulgaria 1990 *
      Albania 1991 *
      Iraq 1991
      Afghanistan 1980s *
      Somalia 1993
      Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
      Ecuador 2000 *
      Afghanistan 2001 *
      Venezuela 2002 *
      Iraq 2003 *
      Haiti 2004 *
      Somalia 2007 to present
      Honduras 2009
      Libya 2011 *
      Syria 2012
      Ukraine 2014 *

      • Whispering Kate 7.2.1

        Bill you missed out on when the David Lange Government was messed about by the US trying to destablize us. Maybe we are not considered significant enough by the US press considering there are many over there who haven’t any idea where we are in the world or that we exist.

  8. Ovid 8

    Do you remember how three years ago we were all so very upset about dirty politics?

    Guess not.

    • weka 8.1

      what’s your point Ovid?

      • Red 8.1.1

        I am guessing his point irrespective of what you think of Hilary and DNC there has been some dirty politics going on but it appears it only matters if it happens to the other side

      • Ovid 8.1.2

        My point is I see some parallels between Moscow’s efforts to delegitimise the political discourse in the United States on behalf of the alt-right and Slater & Co’s efforts to disparage their political enemies in NZ.

        Neither effort is a case of stealing an election. But it is a case of a concerted effort to frame the discourse outside of normal conventions. Such as the convention against making stuff up. This isn’t a case of boo-hoo the Establishment’s fee-fees have an owie. This is a case of surrogates – in one case Slater, the other Russia – using dirty techniques to sling mud on behalf of the parties they support. But in Russia’s case they have far more resources at their disposal and stand to gain far more from victory.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1.2.1

          Well said.

        • weka 8.1.2.2

          thanks Ovid.

        • Andre 8.1.2.3

          Ovid, thank you for bringing some concise clarity to what this is about.

          • Clump_AKA Sam 8.1.2.3.1

            Allegations of Russian hacks didn’t come from the NSA/CIA they came from Hillary. The CIA hand balled it to the FBI who released conflicting reports of imininant arrest because Hillary kept state secretes in her bathroom toilet which is a crime punishable by death

          • Xanthe 8.1.2.3.2

            Really ?? Andre?….. !

        • Xanthe 8.1.2.4

          Thats crap ovid,
          True information that the american public needed to properly excercise their democratic responisbilities was published… and no evidence linking it to russia has been cited…. And no one has suggested it was not true info

          How is that in any way “parallel” to slaters efforts? Thats just misleading, bullshit, spin

        • Sabine 8.1.2.5

          well said.

        • Bill 8.1.2.6

          What specific efforts to delegitimise ‘the political discourse’ in the US did Russia make? Did Russia set the narratives around Trump and Clinton? Well, hardly.

          Does the US not have news outlets like CNN, NBC, Fox, Washington Post, New York Times to set and promote whatever discussion they prefer and whatever basis they choose?

          As for this mythical convention against making stuff up…I guess no-one has told the Washington Post about that one. According to Glen Greenwald

          On November 24th, (The Washington Post) claimed, based on a newly formed anonymous group, that there has been a very widespread, successful effort to implant Kremlin propaganda in the American discourse.

          And that Vladimir Putin and Russia had hacked into the electric grid of the United States through a Vermont utility,

          There is not one iota of evidence pointing to Russia doing anything untoward in relation to the US election. Nothing. (Fuck, did you even read the report this post is about?)

          • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1.2.6.1

            Not one iota. None whatsoever. Nothing to see here at all.

            I’d surprised if it weren’t happening.

            Rule a great nation as you would cook a delicate fish. Lao Tsu.

            • Bill 8.1.2.6.1.1

              See. That’s the thing about putting up links accompanied with nothing but misleading, smart arse one liners – you waste people’s time.

              That link begins … THE only public evidence that the Russian government was responsible for hacks of the DNC and key Democratic figures has been circumstantial and far short of conclusive, courtesy of private research firms with a financial stake in such claims.

              Now, it just might have escaped your notice OAB, but the entire post I put up is about supposed evidence (lack of) pertaining to Russian hacking around last year’s US Presidential election.

              That link (you’ve ‘provided’ it before) merely serves to underscore the point that US Intelligence got nuffin. All that historical stuff points very much to their capabilities on the detection end of things. Meaning that if Russia had been hacking the Democrats or doing anything else that’s been implied or claimed, then the fucking evidence would be there and able to be made public – whether in full or redacted form is for another discussion.

              • One Anonymous Bloke

                No, Bill, they don’t have nuffink. If they had nuffink Republicans wouldn’t be calling for an inquiry, and the Snowden document would not exist.

                Whether you like it or not, circumstantial evidence is evidence.

                If I had to quantify it I’d say I’m 33% confident in the NSA/CIA narrative, and minus 100% confident in the “buildings that are hit by passenger aircraft can’t possibly fall down” crew and their bullshit.

                Make of that what you will.

                • Clump_AKA Sam

                  If the America wanted to be mad about hacking, they could have pointed to the adresses of all US public servants Russia stole early last year.

                • Bill

                  The Snowden document would exist whether allegations had been made or not.

                  Is the Republican Party calling for an inquiry even though Obama called for a report on Dec 9th that’s just been published? You got a link or something?

                  Circumstantial evidence is more suspicion with degrees of likelihood than evidence. Question. Why would a simple phishing scam require the involvement of any state? And what in the world leads anyone to believe that only a state actor would wish to gain entry to the Democratic Party emails? (That was the basic premise of one of the talking heads from one of the agencies – can’t remember which one)

                  As your link makes abundantly clear (the Snowden doc) hard evidence would be in the possession of the NSA if Russia had been up to anything. So where is it?

                  Meanwhile, a 33% confidence rating is way down there in terms of certainty. And yet you incessantly bang the drum of ‘official narrative’ in your comments. Odd.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke

                    Already linked it. Here it is again.

                    So where is it?

                    Greenwald pointed out the potential fishhooks involved in providing that info. Others note that the public servants involved are tasked with providing information to their government. Who then decides what to do with it.

                    Do you think it would be appropriate for spies to simply issue press releases instead of briefings? What would you think of a spy who behaved that way? Incompetent? Treacherous?

                    As for banging the drum, I prefer to discuss the actual failings of [insert political party of your choice] rather than the propaganda some megaphone read on the interwebz.

                    • Bill

                      Obama called for a report on the 9th and some Republicans were calling for an inquiry on the 12th. Are they still wanting one? Or are they satisfied with that “Simple Simon Says” hash of a report?

                      I’d quite like to see one btw.

                      As for the fish hooks. I’m thinking it’s more than likely the case that any surveillance techniques they might have to reveal have already been revealed by Snowden. Therefore they’ve nothing to reveal.

                      You want to play cute with who should release info means you think the report I linked to was Intelligence Agencies overstepping bounds then?

                      Failings of parties. Got to blow away this smokescreen the Democrats have propagated before we’ll see that happening. Meaning, it’s probably not going to happen. I mean, you or I or who-ever can discuss and debate it, but it won’t enter mainstream discourse. The line is and will remain that everything’s fine and dinky and as before – except for those pesky Ruskies (and Trump).

                  • One Anonymous Bloke

                    PS: 33 is 133 above -100.

        • emergency mike 8.1.2.7

          Your comment doesn’t address Bill’s point about a lack of evidence. The evidence against Slater was clear, against Russia it isn’t. Putin said things we don’t like and RT said things we don’t like won’t cut it. I’m not sure what pointing out that x doing dirty politics and y doing dirty politics both have something in common achieves.

          What if Russia is guilty as sin? Look at Bill’s list a few comments above. The USA has been using their considerable resources to interfere in leadership decisions all over the world as a matter of course. We’re all supposed to grab a star spangled banner when some other country that’s too big to be pushed around decides to stick their finger in the USA’s election pie? No it’s not OK, but major players have been playing dirty since forever. USA plays dirty, Russia plays dirty, China plays dirty, UK plays dirty, etc. It’s not news.

          Until there is evidence I see parallels with Bush and Blair going on about Saddam’s WMDs, and with cold war ear gossip, leaks, official announcements, and ‘Reds under the bed’ scaremongering. Whether it’s true or not what is for sure is that the people who are going on about this and keeping it in the limelight, do so not from patriotism, but for their own agenda and self-interest.

        • One Two 8.1.2.8

          Face value ‘simplicity’ is unlikely to be the ‘truth’

          Many variables and actors involved on levels not decernable to the naked eye

          Putting it another way…

          Those comments believing in ‘who’, can only offer speculation about ‘why’…

          The ‘how’ will not be understood by commentators (complex security angles), which makes ‘what’ , nothing more than a myth…

          Never happened!

  9. Andre 9

    Interesting commentary on the whole clusterfuck here. Seems we now have “hack truthers” as a new category.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/01/06/how-the-u-s-enabled-russian-hack-truthers.html

  10. NZJester 10

    I get most of my US news coverage from TYT. They have been trying to get people in the US to sign up with wolf-pac.com and get money out of politics, or legal bribery as they rightfully call it. National with their cabinet club events have been practicing legal bribery in New Zealand as well. So much so-called anonymous donations received at those events.
    We need to get the money out of politics here and stop all the legal bribery we have here also.

    • Clump_AKA Sam 10.1

      Reform and Revolution are one and the same. For revolution to be successful the majority must be convinced that reform is impossible with in current institutions and not before. Transforming political structures will be bloodless because instead of using guns to take objectives we are using laptops.

  11. emergency mike 11

    You know your democracy is in a bad state when a broadcaster giving airtime to 3rd party candidates is supporting evidence for an effort to subvert democracy.

  12. NewsFlash 12

    I really don’t know what the argument is about, just watched the news and Putin publicly admitted “ordering the hacks to interfere with the US election”.

    It can’t be anymore cut and dry than that, sorry, all you Trump fans.

    • Bill 12.1

      Link. And btw, what the fuck does support or non-support of Trump have to do with any of it?

      • NewsFlash 12.1.1

        Trump was voted in with one out of five eligible votes, not a lot of support in any measure.

        • Colonial Viper 12.1.1.1

          He won the most votes in the most states. That’s what counts, constitutionally. As for Hillary Clinton, she can be President of California. Without that one state she slides straight back into a popular vote loss.

          • NewsFlash 12.1.1.1.1

            http://www.lowellsun.com/opinion/ci_30697144/predictions-you-can-take-bank-2017

            Putin admits ordering hacks, after all Trump asked him (publicly) to do this on multiple occasions, hardly the behaviour of a competent, diplomatic leader of the once free world.

            • Colonial Viper 12.1.1.1.1.1

              Why are you spreading false news? Firstly, Putin never said any such thing. Secondly the Russian Federation doesn’t take orders from Donny Tiny Hands.

              • NewsFlash

                Don’t mis quote, secondly, Trump has accepted the fact that Putin ordered the hacking, thirdly, you’re the only one spreading false news.

                Try to keep up with current news around the world, it makes you look silly when you say shit that isn’t correct.

  13. Ethica 14

    Fascinating. The role of Tokelau and incidentally NZ in the hacking

    http://michaeljfield.tumblr.com/post/155409123408/nz-and-the-hacking-link-tokelau

  14. infused 15

    its hard being right all the time

  15. jcuknz 16

    After all that I would simply say “If I was american I would not have voted for Clinton ..Her voice when she got excited … horrible”
    I made that choice right at the beginning of the campaign first time I heard her.
    Bit like when I heard the Aussie PM of years ago when he spoke [like an Aussie 🙂 ]
    I had a second reason but that is family and personal 🙂

  16. One Anonymous Bloke 17

    I take it all back: the whole story is obviously bollocks:

    …Trump accepts the US intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia engaged in cyber attacks aimed at disrupting the presidential election…

    • Bill 17.1

      As Burton points out below, it seems that not a single other scenario was looked at. In other words, just like with WMD, it seems the Intelligence Community has had a theory and then set out to find evidence that will fit that theory.

      Then there’s the obvious point from the article you link to (I’d have thought it to be obvious anyway) that Russia isn’t the Russian government. I mean, if IP addresses or whatever had pointed to NZ, would you entertain, even for just one second, a claim that the NZ Government had orchestrated shit?

      So where we at? Russian TV programmes aired in the US. Some e-mails were put into the public domain. And…
      …well, that’s about it as far as I can tell.

      The only hullabaloo is about who might have gotten their hands on the emails in the first place. Many potential sources for a hack or a leak or whatever, but only one possibility investigated.

  17. Burton 18

    There is no mention in this report of there being the remotest possibility of this being a leak from within the DNC. Did they just rule out this theory? A British diplomat claims to know who leaked the info. No mention at all in the report.
    Intelligence Community you FAIL!

    • One Anonymous Bloke 18.1

      A British diplomat claims to know who leaked the info

      [citation needed]

      iirc he claimed to know the identity of the bagman, which isn’t the same thing. Can you back up your assertion?

  18. adam 19

    Hey Bill —

    best tweet about report, and funniest observation on report. It’s a sad joke.

    https://twitter.com/AbbyMartin/status/817497773704671236

    • Bill 19.1

      Thanks Adam. That is kind of…brilliant. Quite a few sharp observations in the comments…which isn’t bad seeing as how it’s obviously a pile of Putinbots or Kremlin trolls talking up their side in a second language. Or…could it be….?

      Anyway. For anyone still popping into this thread that whole twitter thread is well worth the read.

      • adam 19.1.1

        More from Abby, she directed me to look at one her older shows. It would appear that the Muppet John Podesta who got hacked, did this.

        user name — jpodesta
        Password — p@ssw0rd

        I could have hacked him, My 5 year old niece could have hacked him. This is a sick bloody joke.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts