December 12, 2016

The NYT headline says "C.I.A. Judgment on Russia Built on Swell of Evidence" and I'm instantly skeptical about whether what's in the article supports that headline.

Because there's so much fake news these days.

Ever notice how cries of "fake news!" slip out of the news when the news outlets have some fake news to slip over? Oh, first let me show you Trump's new tweet:



Now, let's get down to the work of checking to see whether the NYT really presents evidence to justify that headline. I'm reading every word of the rather long article but will only give you the actual evidence offered for the proposition that the Russian government intervened in the U.S. election for the purpose of helping Donald Trump win. There's a lot of material in the article that is not about that at all. I'm excluding that, which is padding if the headline is the correct headline. Go to the link if you want to see what it is.

The first relevant material comes in the 16th paragraph: The DNC's servers and John Podesta's email account were hacked and a lot of damaging and embarrassing material was released onto the internet.

Next:
American intelligence officials believe that Russia also penetrated databases housing Republican National Committee data, but chose to release documents only on the Democrats. The committee has denied that it was hacked.
So here's the crucial disputed question of fact: Were the GOP servers also hacked? We're not told what evidence supports the belief that the GOP servers were also hacked, but the GOP says they were not. Yet some "intelligence officials believe" it was. Why? Where's the "swell of evidence" you were going to tell me about?

Even if that fact were nailed down, there would still be more leaps needed to get to the conclusion. First: Was there any embarrassing material? What? If I knew what, I could begin to think about the next question: Why would embarrassing material be withheld? All I can see from the supposed "swell of evidence" here is an assumption that if the DNC was hacked, the GOP committee was also hacked, and that if bad material was found in the DNC server, bad material would also be found in the GOP server, and since we only saw the DNC material, there must have been a conscious decision — by whom?! — to leak only the DNC things and that decision must have been made to help Trump win. That's not evidence itself, only inference based on evidence.

Finally, there are a few paragraphs about why "Putin and the Russian government" might be thought to prefer a Trump presidency to a Clinton presidency. Trump and Putin have given each other some compliments.

That's no swell of evidence! That's a lot of leaping guesswork. And this is nothing more than I already read in the article the NYT put out on December 9th, which I put effort into combing through and rejected for the same reasons I'm putting in this new post.

This might be the biggest fake news story I've ever seen!

Squirreled away at the end of the article is the admission that people at the FBI are skeptical about the conclusion. An unnamed "senior American law enforcement official" told the NYT that "the Russians probably had a combination of goals, including damaging Mrs. Clinton and undermining American democratic institutions" and that "any disagreement between the F.B.I. and the C.I.A., and suggested that the C.I.A.’s conclusions were probably more nuanced than they were being framed in the news media." The NYT observes that the FBI holds itself to "higher standards of proof," since its work is geared toward prosecuting criminal cases in court, but: "The C.I.A. has a broader mandate to develop intelligence assessments."

I'm staring at that headline again. You said there was a "swell of evidence." Shouldn't that satisfy the FBI's higher standard rather than the good-enough-for-the-CIA standard? I think I see the reason for the different standards. The CIA is concerned about what might happen in the future. But why are we trusting them in an FBI/CIA disagreement about what happened in the past?

The very end of the NYT article is about the FBI investigating "numerous possible connections between Russians and members of Mr. Trump’s inner circle, including former Trump aides like Paul Manafort and Carter Page, as well as a mysterious and unexplained trail of computer activity between the Trump Organization and an email account at a large Russian bank, Alfa Bank." This investigation began in the summer and seems to have played out by September and October — for reasons that are "are not entirely clear" and that the FBI won't talk about.

Speaking of embarrassing material... that headline, with that content... in the NYT. So awful.

I'm distracted into reading about the word "swell" in my dictionary (the OED). One usually reads of a swell of the sea or of music or emotion.  "Fenc'd no where from the least Surge or Swell of the Water," wrote Daniel Dafoe. "And up the valley came a swell of music on the wind," wrote Tennyson.  "Of all the actors who flourished in my time... Bensley had most of the swell of soul, was greatest in the delivery of heroic conceptions, the emotions consequent upon the presentment of a great idea to the fancy," wrote Charles Lamb.

But swell of evidence...

Swell is the talk of upwelling emotion and romanticism.

Swell is a tell.

412 comments:

1 – 200 of 412   Newer›   Newest»
Michael K said...

Maybe nobody in the RNC was stupid enough to click a link in an e-mail that should have been recognized as "Phishing."

Just a thought. I think I even read that Podesta asked about it and was told to go ahead and send a stranger his password.

My daughter did that when she was 12 in the AOL days. She, of course, was not running a presidential campaign,

Kevin said...

And yet, how many Progressives think a link to a NYT article from them immediately ends all argument on a subject because...NYT!

Once written, twice... said...

It should be investigated like the Clinton emails were. We can't have this taint hanging over the government.

Big Mike said...

Podesta's account was hacked via a simple phishing attack -- no need for sophisticated tools to get in if you're going to succumb to a simple phishing attack. Considering how the entire Obama administration has ignored the simplest information security standards I have little doubt that this attitude carried over to the DNC. Did they put tools in place to prevent SQL injection attacks? Do their IT people even know what as SQL injection attack looks like? Did they put software in place to force people to change passwords regularly and to prevent them from reusing recent passwords? Did they enforce standards to require strong passwords?

The RNC may not have been hacked because they made it harder to attack with some of the tools and standards I allude to in the previous paragraph. Or they may have been hacked but there was nothing interesting in their Email traffic -- both are plausible.

Big Mike said...

For those who are curious, here's a cartoonist's take on SQL injection.

Once written, twice... said...

Now, maybe like the Clinton e-mails, the conclusion might be that no damage or ill intent will be uncovered.

Once written, twice... said...

Seriously, this is much more troubling than the Clinton email server affair.

Hagar said...

"Leaping guesswork" is a great appellation!

Rob said...

The Times's heavy-handed treatment includes its recent assertion that Russia had not merely hacked Podesta's email account but had "hacked the election." Maybe you need a tag for "NYT beclowns itself."

southcentralpa said...

"Swell is a tell" [emphasis omitted]

And if the glove doesn't fit...

robother said...

The John Birch Society called and want their Russian Conspiracy Theory back.

Richard said...

They misspelled swill.

Michael K said...

" like the Clinton e-mails, the conclusion might be that no damage or ill intent will be uncovered."

Delusions on the left die hard.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Once written, twice... said...

Now, maybe like the Clinton e-mails, the conclusion might be that no damage or ill intent will be uncovered.

Well, if it turns out that Russia was trying to defeat Clinton that would be proof, in and of itself, that they were acting in America's best interests.

Hagar said...

Calling Laslo to further expound on "swell" and "swelling."

Mike said...

Until these "journolists" start including the hack of Hillary's server in the list of things they are curious about, I don't care to hear about any other hack theories they are pursuing. It's all bullshit. They hid the fact the White House was being hacked in 2014 (along with OPM) and turned a blind eye to the unsecured equipment Madame Secretary used -- despite warnings not to.

So it does all have a whiff of fake news now that they are obsessing over, not facts, but Russian intent as they see it!

geoffb said...

“Of course he has confidence in America’s intelligence, but we don’t have confidence in the New York Times releasing a report of unnamed sources… of some kind of study that the Washington Post said was inconclusive,”

Priebus responded. “The RNC was absolutely not hacked.

“When the DNC was hacked, we called the FBI. The FBI went through everything, and we were not hacked,” Priebus said. “If we were not hacked, then where does that story lie?’


So only on the DNC and Podesta "hacks" were "fingerprints" found that led them to say that the Russians were involved?

Bay Area Guy said...

Beautiful takedown, Althouse.

Anonymous CIA folks leak to gullible NY Times scribes, er, Journalists, who faithfully report fact free conclusions about Russian hackers, tipping the presidency (Wisconsin/Penn voters) to that nefarious Trump dude: Textbook example of Fake News.

eric said...

They think we are laughing with them.

We are laughing at them.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

geoffb said...

So only on the DNC and Podesta "hacks" were "fingerprints" found that led them to say that the Russians were involved?

It is certainly possible that Russia attempted to hack both the DNC and RNC, only succeeded with the DNC ( due to DNC incompetence ), and the "fingerprints" were left only because the hack succeeded.

Rick said...

It's interesting to note how quickly the media and various left wingers take the bit. There's no evaluation or thought involved, as if they've outsourced all that to others.

khesanh0802 said...

Wasn't it just a couple of weeks ago that Obama said there was no hacking that affected the election? Maybe I am giving what he said too broad an interpretation. Of course Obama would be the last person to know whether there was any hint of hacking. He would have to read it in the NYT since no one in the administration would tell him.

I think the hacking of the DNC/Podesta is just another example of Nemesis being visited upon the Dem's enormous Hubris. They're just too smart and sophisticated to be affected by the peons. They never learn.

Quaestor said...

Seriously, this is much more troubling than the Clinton email server affair.

Spot on! For the first time in my memory OWT and I agree.

The email server affair is a clear violation of law and calls for a grand jury. People should not be troubled by the law taking its due course. This "Rooskies under the bed rumor mongering" is an attempt by The New York Times to subvert a national election. There is no law that can be applied in such a case. Perhaps there should be. Americans should be troubled.

M Jordan said...

Brennen's CIA is corrupt. It has been politicized by Obama and even weaponized. I am still in wonder how this nation was so wise to have rejected a continuation of this. Trump is a miracle. The future is murky but that's a hell of an improvement over the certain future Hillary would have smothered us with.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Any surfer will tell you that not a swells turn into rideable waves. But the question of hacking v. the question of motivation are different, aren't they? We could be fairly certain about one but not the other.

khesanh0802 said...

For some real news This. Federal judge rejects Green Party's PA recount case.

Joshua Barker said...

Beyond the question of whether the RNC was hacked, or whether the DNC's emails were released to help get Trump elected, is the unchallenged assertion that Russia was behind this. So far I've seen no evidence presented by anyone in Government to support this accusation. From what I've read, it seems just as plausible, if not more likely, that this was the work of an DNC insider, or private hackers affiliated Anonymous &/or Wikileaks. What evidence is there that Russia had anything to do with the Hillary's hacked emails. Hell, for all we know, it could just as easily have been Israel, Britain or China. It seems like EVERYONE had access to Hillary's illegal homebrew server, not just the Russians.

Bob Boyd said...

Just say NYeT to fake news.

Chuck said...

So, Althouse...

I agree with your exemplary analysis of the Times' headline-puffery in this instance.

Do you have a view as to whether it is good or bad, that there will be a bipartisan Senate investigation of this story? My own feeling is that it is a generally good idea; I agree with the Senate Republicans who have endorsed the Schumer suggestion. I might normally default to a position that any idea of Chuck Schumer's is automatically bad. But I like the idea of the Senate occupying a main role in this case. I trust Lindsey Graham, as someone who is beholden to neither Trump, nor Senate Dems.

We might get to a pint in the investigation that reveals the New York Times reporting to have been hysterical. As a matter of record. For the paper of record.

Francisco D said...

If the Russians are such great hackers, don't you think they hacked into Hillary's SOS top secret emails? If so, wouldn't they prefer her as POTUS, given that they can blackmail her?

This whole fake news episode reeks of incoherent desperation.

Hagar said...

And AA is gamboling with it?

Nonapod said...

As far as I can tell the contents of the article amount to: Through haruspicy and rune casting the seers at the CIA have determined that Trump and Putin are tots BFFs who conspired to deny the queen-in-waiting her crown! The CIA is for reals super trustworthy and not at all politicized, unlike those shifty characters at the FBI who expect all sorts of things like actual facts or whatever. And the Republicans were hacked and stuff to!

Gretchen said...

Joshua,

Hillary's emails were never released by Wikileaks. That is telling. Like you said, I agree everyone who wanted them got them.

CJinPA said...

This article will be quietly changed.

Check out NewsDiffs.org to track changes. I don't see it currently posted.

Ambrose said...

The media attempting to confuse the issue by the language it is using. "Hacking the election" implies some manipulation of the actual votes after they were cast. Is there any evidence of that?

Joshua Barker said...

In fact, here is an article quoting James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, that there is no good insight or clear connection between Russia and Wikileaks. People need to start pushing back on the left's attempts to get this lie accepted as truth.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/10/james-clapper-we-dont-have-good-insight-potential-/

Matthew Sablan said...

My understanding is that, technically, the DNC was not hacked. Podesta was the victim of a transparent, painfully obvious, phishing scam, and then had a plain text, unencrypted password sent to himself again once he tried to regain his account.

This is not "hacking" by any sense of the word. When someone reverse engineered Palin's private email password by using Wikipedia to get facts about her to answer the security question is closer to hacking than this.

Quayle said...

The New York Times is warning us to be on guard - this place is full of fake-news vultures! Fake-new vultures everywhere, everywhere!

Robert Cook said...

There are three articles on Counterpunch (a leftist website) today calling the CIA claims to be fraudulent, or probably so:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/12/the-fake-campaign-to-blame-the-russians/

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/12/historical-structural-reasons-for-skepticism-of-cia-claims-remaining-agnostic-on-claims-of-russian-hackers/

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/12/the-democrats-russia-hacking-campaign-is-political-suicide/

This, of course, follows similar articles at Counterpunch in previous days and Glenn Greenwald's commentary on The Intercept last week. Desperate Democrats may be eagerly swallowing this story, but many on the left are not.

EDH said...

Drudgestaposition: Drudge just posted a picture of Jill Stein in front of the Kremlin above the headline...

"CHILL JILL: Judge rejects Pennsylvania recount..."

traditionalguy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
traditionalguy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
traditionalguy said...

Boy are the Hoax Media mad at DJT. They are coordinating a made up Russian War Propaganda campaign, and repeating it until it is believed. The assholes want to make Russia into our enemy. That is not RealPolitik. Everybody knows COMMUNIST China is our real enemy, and Russia is our natural ally.

The UN one world Governance guys will need a Global Cold War back in hopes they can keep their old peace keeper freebies. They saw what DJT just did to the political consultants in the USA. The UN guys know he will soon end their fake jobs on the Great CO2 Pollution Hoax Scheme. So unless the Russian/American War gets started up again, they will be unemployed.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Ambrose said...

"Hacking the election" implies some manipulation of the actual votes after they were cast. Is there any evidence of that?

The complete lack of evidence proves just how deep the conspiracy goes...

Gretchen said...

Why exactly are they pushing this so hard? Why are they pushing the "fake news" fake story so hard? What are they looking to hide. I personally think the DNC hack was an insider, possibly a Bernie supporter.

Political committees and political operatives were hacked. They happened to be Democrats. Maybe the story should be the Democrats don't take internet security seriously, and Obama in effect turned control of the internet to non-US actors.

Fritz said...

Kevin said...
And yet, how many Progressives think a link to a NYT article from them immediately ends all argument on a subject because...NYT!


At this point, that's the main function of the NYT.

mccullough said...

The NY Times' loins swell at thoughts of a Russian conspiracy but they always end up with blue balls.

Sydney said...

It's too bad the professional news organizations decided to ignore the JournoList scandal way back when and continued to employ all its members. Otherwise, I might be taking them seriously right about now. As it is, I don't believe a word they say about anything political.

wildswan said...

I think I remember that right after the election news people promised to rain on Trump's parade every day in some way. And this is part of that. But it's ridiculous. As Althouse analyzed it there is no fact anywhere except that the DNC was the target of a successful phishing exploit.

It's been 33 days since the election without the NYT running a positive story on Trump. Will they reach the last day of his first term without a positive story? And what will the stories be like then? Aliens kidnapped me and I watched them hack the election from a UFO above Trump Tower in DC?

Robert Cook said...

"Brennen's CIA is corrupt. It has been politicized by Obama and even weaponized."

The CIA has always been politicized since its founding, and thus, always corrupt.

Darrell said...

The Media didn't cover the actual dumped materials, so what's the problem? How could information that wasn't made available swing the election? Huh?

Fritz said...

Assuming it's all true, and Russia did release Podesta's emails with the intention of harming Hillary's campaign, what's the remedy? Subtract a fraction of the vote in each state swayed by the wikileaks release? How do we determine that? Do republicans get to subtract a similar fraction for dead, illegal alien and multiple votes in each state?

It's just an attempt to delegitimize Trump from the beginning.

madAsHell said...

It all depends upon Gell-Mann amnesia.

Joshua Barker said...

Here are some links showing that both Julian Assange and Craig Murray (former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan) claim to have met the person responsible for the DNC's hacked emails, and that this leaker was a DNC insider, quite possibly the one that was murdered just prior to testifying in Hillary's email investigation.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/12/uk-diplomat-ive-met-dnc-wikileaks-leaker-person-insider-not-russian/

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/

http://www.newsweek.com/seth-rich-murder-dnc-hack-julian-assange-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-492084

Robert Cook said...

"Why exactly are they pushing this so hard? Why are they pushing the "fake news" fake story so hard? What are they looking to hide."

They're not looking to hide anything. They're looking for any reason to make Russia our blood enemy again, the better to justify any war plans they may be making against Russia. Even if Trump doesn't want to go along, perhaps they think if they can convince the public at large of Russia's ongoing perfidy, there will be public pressure on him to take an antagonistic posture toward Russia.

(By "they" I refer to the Obama administration and the intelligence and military establishment.)

Hagar said...

I don't remember any CIA sources for this being named, so, is it all "fake news" from 8th Ave.?

Chuck said...

Michael K said...
Maybe nobody in the RNC was stupid enough to click a link in an e-mail that should have been recognized as "Phishing."

Just a thought. I think I even read that Podesta asked about it and was told to go ahead and send a stranger his password.


Michael K;
Respectfully, I think the real story is worse than what you state.
My understanding is that Podesta asked about the phishing email he got. An IT specialist replied in an email, and told Podesta to definitely change his password and to do it ASAP. Moreover, the IT specialist gave Podesta the direct email to the secure (real) Gmail administration. But Podesta misinterpreted and/or ignored that instruction, and instead went ahead and changed his address per the phishing email.
And all of that became known, with the release of Podesta's emails including the IT e-correspondence.

Joe said...

Two annoying computer myths:

1) You can sharpen any image to perfect clarity

2) You can know where a hack originated.

Yes, there are some images that can be sharpened to remarkable clarity and there are incompetent hackers, but those are small samples.

The source of hacking is all speculation, using the current boogyman as the culprit. Given how poor Hillary's, the DNCs and the Whitehouse security was, it honestly could have been some kid trying out their new hacker training wheels.

I'll even wager that even now if you called the top players in the DNC with the "your computer has a virus, let me take control" scam, you'd get a surprising number of positive hits.

Mick said...

All Bullshit.

The MSM has learned nothing (because they are so morally superior and smart to begin with //)
They will double down on the lies and triple down. They are imploding before our very eyes, driven to destruction by the election of Trump, and by the protection of their elitist political class masters' pedophilia scandal, which goes all the way to the top.

#Pizzagate is real. Where is Podesta? Why are so many resources coming to the aid of a pizza shop owner? If Podesta were innocent he would say so publicly.

campy said...

"Leaping guesswork" is a great appellation!

Would make a decent band name.

Comanche Voter said...

Well when the New York Times tells you that there is a "swell of evidence" supporting their favored story line, you had better brace yourself for the incoming load of swill that the story will deliver.

AprilApple said...

The New York Times and Washington Post are both house organs for Democrat propaganda.


Mick said...

The DNC hack was done by members of the Intelligence Community, alarmed that the Crooked Old Lady would continue the destruction of US society that the Usurper started in 2009.

tcrosse said...

I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up with a Shadow Government, as in the UK, with Hillary as Shadow President. Then the NYT could ignore that vulgar ruffian who got elected through a technicality. Castles, or rather Gated Communities, in the air !

MadisonMan said...

First, The NYTimes tried to convince me that Trump was a Nazi.

Now, they're trying to convince me that Trump is a stooge to the Russians.

I'm guessing the Chinese angle is waiting in the wings. And after that .... Satan.

Quaestor said...

And AA is gamboling with it?

Perhaps not. Doing a merry jig?

roesch/voltaire said...

To understand the Russian interest in interfering in our election look to Secretary of State candidate Rex Tillerson who is in the process of securing oil rights in the high Arctic in a deal worth at least 500 billion that could keep Putin and Russian economy in the pink for years --if the sanctions against Russia can be lifted. Look to see the sanctions lifted and oil prices go up. This "swell" of evidence and interest has even reached Germany where Bruno Kahl now complains about cyber attacks from Russia. No matter, Trump did win over the white voters in previously blue states because they wanted change, and that can not be taken away; nor can the fact that Hillary won the popular vote by 2.5 million. Cold comfort to both sides.

MadisonMan said...

BigMike at 959 PM -- I hadn't seen that. Awesome!!

Sebastian said...

The real tell is that Dems believe that the Russians believed publicizing the results of the DNC hack would hurt the Dems -- and that the Dems agree with the Russians. "Telling people what we really think and say hurts us." Nuff said.

BarrySanders20 said...

There are many factions within our intelligence community. It's not surprising that the Times could get a quote from someone who has been promised anonymity to state that conclusion. It hardly means anything without back up facts. Weak sauce as the basis for a story. But the Electoral College votes in a week, so expect hysterics until then.

Also, even official intelligence stances are not always right. WMD in Iraq was a "slam dunk". We've all seen players miss a dunk attempt.

AprilApple said...

From Robert Cook's links:

"The reality is that the CIA has presented no hard evidence that Russia is behind the hacking of the DNC’s or or Clinton’s private home server. The excuse is given that the Agency doesn’t want to disclose any of its sources, so the reader is left with the pathetic plea, from both the Agency and the White House: "Trust us." ... "

Darrell said...

The Democrats are so stupid they think you will believe any shit they throw at you. They think Republicans will be especially mad at Trump because they hate the Russians. So they tell you a YouTube video was behind the 9/11/2012 attacks om Benghazi and Egypt. They tell you the Ruskies stole the election from Pickles. Thanks, Russia! Now can you do something permanent about George Soros and his minions? Thanks in advance!

Michael said...

Althouse

these are some very thoughtful posts on NYT articles. I hope you will consolidate them into book form, self publish them if you must, and offer them as gifts to the writers at the NYT.

Many thanks for grinding this out

exhelodrvr1 said...

If the Russian government was involved, this is working out better than they could have imagined, and they are likely trying to manufacture "evidence" that they did affect the vote.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

roesch/voltaire said...

Trump did win over the white voters in previously blue states because they wanted change, and that can not be taken away; nor can the fact that Hillary won the popular vote by 2.5 million. Cold comfort to both sides.

I'm pretty sure Trump's side finds that to be nice, warm comfort.

exhelodrvr1 said...

President Bush is probably behind this.

AprilApple said...

One more - it's good.

"Either the Russians did Americans a favor, by exposing the epic corruption of one of their two major parties and one of the candidates seeking to become president — something that a more independent and aggressive domestic media would have and should have done on their own, if not by hacking then by paying attention to, instead of ignoring and blacking out, what frustrated insiders like DNC Vice Chair Tulsi Gabbard, the Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii who quit in disgust saying the DNC was undermining the primaries on behalf of Clinton’s campaign. Or alternatively, we’re being told that our 240-year-old democracy is so shriveled and weak that an outside government can easily undermine it and manipulate the outcome as if we were some corrupt and fragile banana republic.

Either conclusion is rather pathetic and depressing to contemplate.


Thanks, Cook.

Otto said...

1953 Stuyvesant H.S. english 101. Next

Kristian Holvoet said...

I would not be surprised if the RNC was hacked. To paraphrase Barbi, "Network security is hard!" At the same time, what if, just what if, the RNC info was run of the mill campaign stuff? Ad buys, planned speeches, internal polling, random inside baseball inter-office politics? That is, maybe useful to the DNC, but relatively worthless for Drudge / CNN tickers? Sure, there were NeverTrumpers, but unlike the NeverSanders, they mostly weren't hiding. And the RNC didn't have insiders embedded in the media that could leverage access like Donna Brazile.

Chuck said...

The mythbusting site Snopes.com, on the junk theory promoted by Althouse-commenter "Mick":

http://www.snopes.com/pizzagate-conspiracy/

"#Pizzagate is real." ~ Mick

Mick you are a weird, sick, twisted, deluded, lying freak. No wonder, you correctly predicted a Trump victory.

SDaly said...

What was the damaging info from the DNC hack?

That the media and the DNC officials were colluding behind the scenes to support Hillary and to destroy Bernie.

If someone had, in fact, hacked the RNC servers, what similarly damaging information could they possibly have found? The RNC was doing everything in its power to stop Trump. If RNC emails had come out, the insiders' gnashing and wailing about Trump's ability to overcome the Republican establishment would have further cemented Trump's supporters faith in him.

rhhardin said...

Swells are long water waves. Call it watergate.

PB said...

This is all part of the Democrat effort to delegitimize Trump's win and sway electoral college voters that not doing what they were elected to do is somehow for the greater good.

I still find fascinating that Putin wouldn't want Hillary to be president. She'd just be a continuation of Obama's policies that have allowed him to have his way in eastern Europe and the middle east.

Andy Krause said...

This with great respect.
There is a more forthright tone in this post. Is retirement allowing Althouse(the blog) to speak more freely? It is persuasive that my view of Ann and The Badger State has not been reality. Nicely done.

Fernandinande said...

MadisonMan said...
First, The NYTimes tried to convince me that Trump was a Nazi.
Now, they're trying to convince me that Trump is a stooge to the Russians.
I'm guessing the Chinese angle is waiting in the wings. And after that .... Satan.


Would a Russian Nazi Chinese Satan exhibit Diversity™ ?

Original Mike said...

Blogger Once written, twice... said...It should be investigated like the Clinton emails were."

Why would we want another fake investigation?

Mike said...

What are the facts? Real facts?

Someone HACKED the OPM and White House and they were down for several MONTHS in 2014.

Someone PHISHED Podesta and gained access to his Gmail accounts. Not the same as hacking. Social engineering.

Someone LEAKED DNC & DWS emails. Was it Phishing or a hack or an internal disgruntleak? Who knows.

We are dealing in a largely fact free zone within these "reports" and "opinions" swirling around the real issue. Was HRC hacked?

Quaestor said...

I hope you will consolidate them into book form, self publish them if you must, and offer them as gifts to the writers at the NYT.

There is definitely a blockbuster book in this, no matter how it finally resolves, for someone able to do the research, a retired professor from a well-respected university with plenty of spare time sounds about right, one trained in legal forensics with a reputation for bucking the tide. A collaborator with skills in server security and hacking techniques might be helpful. If I were a major publisher I'd be looking for such an author at this very moment, and I'd be prepared to offer a six-figure advance.

If such a book were to become a major embarrassment to the The New York Times, as I anticipate, would they review it or recuse themselves?

Bob Boyd said...

Why is the Democrat/Media complex pushing "fake news" and "the Russians are behind this" memes so hard?

Battle space prep?
Maybe they are expecting a bunch of stuff may come out about Hillary, Obama, the Clinton Foundation and other prominent Democrats and their donors now that they no longer control the Justice Dept, EPA, IRS, Dept of Interior, etc.

Gretchen said...

Did the Russians hack the IRS to come up with Trump's tax return the NYT so breathlessly reported.

There is something fishy about the "Fake News" story and the "Russians did it". All diversionary. They don't want anyone looking at Seth Rich, Weiner's computer, or what a handkerchief with a pizza-related map" means.

It is a bigger story that DHS tried to hack into Georgia's election servers. Much more troubling than any foreign actor dumping real DNC or Hillary campaign emails. Neither are actual US government computer systems, just the email of political hacks, exposing no national secrets.

Gretchen said...

Mike

Why don't they know who hacked the OMP or White House but after a few weeks they claim to be sure about DNC and Podesta?????

Michael K said...

"I think the real story is worse than what you state."

Yeah, that may be what I read. I wonder if Podesta got any of those "IRS" phone calls I was getting a few months ago before they broke that India phone scam ? I wonder if he sent them any money orders? Of course, he was in deep with the IRS so maybe he wasn't fpoled.

JPS said...

My guess is that Russia wanted to undermine Mrs. Clinton since she was the clear favorite to win.

Since Mr. Trump's surprising victory, they now would like to undermine him by sowing some fear that he won in part because of their influence.

Note to Robert Cook, whom I salute again for not being a partisan hack: I do not consider Russia an enemy or want to make them one. They are however an adversary, with a leader who thinks we stand between Russia and Russia's regaining its proper glory.

Note to Democratic hacks and some Republicans, who want to play the game, "No, Russia wanted YOUR candidate!": Foreign countries generally don't care as much as we do about which party wins. Foreign adversaries do prefer us weak and disorganized, and will move where they can to achieve that.

Chuck said...

Andy Krause said...
This with great respect.
There is a more forthright tone in this post. Is retirement allowing Althouse(the blog) to speak more freely? It is persuasive that my view of Ann and The Badger State has not been reality. Nicely done.


Respectfully, I disagree. Althouse has been Fisking the NYT for a long time. With regularity. And with all the "forthrightness" I could ever hope for.

William said...

The news is more swollen than swell. It is possible that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary, but any efforts he made in that direction were dwarfed by the attempts the major news networks made to hack the election for Hillary.......Trump's observations about women on Access Hollywood made for a legitimate story, but I'm puzzled why they were released in the general election rather than the primaries. Did NBC want Trump to win the Republican nomination but lose the election? It is troubling to speculate on this very real possibility. NBC executives should have to testify under oath before Congress about this. Did China and Mexico who favored Hillary's election pay off the NBC and other news networks to gain favorable coverage coverage for Hillary? These questions have never been adequately answered.

Unknown said...

The NYTimes, the paper of record. What a joke.

JPS said...

William,

"Did China and Mexico who favored Hillary's election pay off the NBC and other news networks to gain favorable coverage coverage for Hillary?"

Granting your premise: Would you, in their shoes? When NBC et al. were going to do it happily at no charge?

Fabi said...

Brava, Ann!

Swede said...

Russia? It is to laugh!

Say, the 1980's are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War's been over for 20 years!

Bob Boyd said...

I see a federal judge dismissed the Pennsylvania recount.
Putin must have gotten to him somehow.

LA woman said...

"Swelled" with pride, possibly. Swelled, like a pregnant pause (Having numerous possibilities or implications).

Mick said...

Chuck said...
"The mythbusting site Snopes.com, on the junk theory promoted by Althouse-commenter "Mick":

http://www.snopes.com/pizzagate-conspiracy/

"#Pizzagate is real." ~ Mick

Mick you are a weird, sick, twisted, deluded, lying freak. No wonder, you correctly predicted a Trump victory".


Oh Yeah, I believe Snopes ///////////

Where is Podesta, why so silent? How does a Pizza Shop owner get to be one of the most "influencial people" in DC?
What is with the child torture and Cannibal artwork owned by Podesta?
Would a "family restaurant" have such demented artwork on its walls, amnd have bands like the "Sex Stains" playing there?
Would the Instagram account of a "family pizza shop" owner of sexually explicit, and pedophile ("chicken lover", penis ejaculating pizza) pictures and art on it?

damikesc said...

It should be restated repeatedly: We're supposed to be livid that a country allegedly leaked completely true and accurate things about our political elites. They didn't make up stories. They didn't alter vote numbers.

They allegedly released completely factual information.

It should be investigated like the Clinton emails were. We can't have this taint hanging over the government.

This should be as serious as the criminal prosecution of the dude who leaked Palin's emails.

Which, mind you, contained nothing. But the press asked for readers' help in digging thru them. For this? Well, CNN said it was illegal for people to view the emails leaked.

My understanding is that Podesta asked about the phishing email he got. An IT specialist replied in an email, and told Podesta to definitely change his password and to do it ASAP. Moreover, the IT specialist gave Podesta the direct email to the secure (real) Gmail administration. But Podesta misinterpreted and/or ignored that instruction, and instead went ahead and changed his address per the phishing email.
And all of that became known, with the release of Podesta's emails including the IT e-correspondence.


And, by all accounts, Podesta is more "with it" technologically than Hillary. And we're supposed to believe her email wasn't hacked? I don't buy it.

But the DNC should be livid that Podesta completely ignored what the IT staff wanted to. Imagine the disaster if these clowns were near power.

Chuck said...

Fabi said...
Brava, Ann!


Bravo, Fabi! [For employing the correct gender-match of Bravo/Brava.]

damikesc said...

By "swell of evidence", I think the NYT found somebody who said "I think the Russians did it" and the reporters responded with "SWELL!"

Seeing Red said...

As Insty reminded us, we were hacked by the commies right before the 2014 elections, and was probably told about it by the Israelis.

Not a peep was heard.

Powerline posted about it but it wasn't news-worthy then.

Original Mike said...

"Why exactly are they pushing this so hard?"

Because the recount angle has run its course. This is the next attack.

DavidD said...

Next they'll be saying that 97% of known CIA agents agree that the Russkies hacked the election.

Consensus, dammit!

Mick said...

Where is the POST from the "law prof" about the First Amendment killing HR 6393 "Disinformation and Propaganda Prevention Act"?

There is an all out attack, coming directly from the top, to delegitimize Trump's election, sway Electors to not vote for him, and to cover for the Usurper's former Chief of Staff, who was caught red-handed as a pedophile (#pizzagate). What does the Usurper know?

Are you not interested in protecting the 1st Amendment "law prof"?

CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESTRICTING THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.....

Bay Area Guy said...

Did the Russians hack the Senate, House, Governor and Legislature elections in 50 states, too?

Those evil Commie bastards!

Big Mike said...

A bunch of thoughts:

(1) Hardly any sane person trusts the New York Times anymore. By that I mean that once upon a not-to-long-ago time one could assume that they were quite biased but that nevertheless their reporting -- while slanted -- would be fairly honest. Post election night, a reasonable persona cannot assume that they aren't simply making sh*t up.

(2) Trump's comment on the CIA suggests to me that he's been reading some of the more even-handed and dispassionate analyses of how we got into the war in Iraq, perhaps including Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack (available through the Althouse Amazon portal). The book portrays the CIA as having cherry-picked the intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction, partly in response to their perception that this is what Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney wanted and partly due to their having gotten away from human intelligence (HUMINT, a.k.a. spying) in favor of technology.

(3) I assume that the NSA and CIA are hacking the internal communications of foreign countries and their leading political parties, just as Russia and China and other countries are busy hacking us. There's a reason why many Chinese weapons systems closely resemble American weapons systems (be sure to click on the link at the end of the article).

(4) Emails are legal documents which can be requested and must be produced during the discovery phase of litigation (or so I was taught during mandatory corporate compliance training). The RNC may have internalized that and kept its most sensitive information out of Email traffic while the DNC and Hillary Clinton, imagining (correctly in the latter case) that they are above the law were more lax.

Luke Lea said...

Granted, Russia might have a motive to favor Trump over Hillary, and I would not necessarily hold it against them if they had exposed some true happenings within the DNC, especially Hillary's speeches to big banks, but it should be pointed out that Israel also had a strong motive for doing the same. Moreover, if Israel had done it it would be natural that they would have wanted to make it look like some other government did it, Russia being the obvious choice.

traditionalguy said...


After a wild Russian Did It week, there is still no mention in any media of the execution murder of the DNC tech staffer murdered the weekend after he quit/was fired. It was done on a dark street in DC by 4 bullets in the back, but with no evidence of robbery.

WikiLeaks in posting a $25,000 reward for the killer the next week as good as said the kid was the source of the Podesta e-mail leak. Was he Russian?

PaoloP said...

My impression as a non US citizen is that the Democrats are simply diverting the attention from the actual content of the stolen emails - content which has not to be discussed. It reminds me of Climategate, when the MSM appeared overwhelmingly disinterested in what the emails said.

LA woman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chuck said...

Mick said...
Where is the POST from the "law prof" about the First Amendment killing HR 6393 "Disinformation and Propaganda Prevention Act"?


That's not a real name, is it? Your supposed "Disinformation and Propaganda Prevention Act"? I'm asking, and trying to be polite about it; but HR 6393 is actually the Intelligence funding Reauthorization Act. Is there any part of the actual bill that calls itself a "Disinformation and Propaganda Prevention Act"?

This is must more alt right fever-swamp bullshit from you, right? I am not going to fish through a massive federal spending bill just to show you up on the internet. I am just going to ask you, without actually checking myself. I fully expect to regret any substantive contact with you, but what the hell.

Jack Tors said...

Every day of the week, The New York Times redefines itself as a terrible newspaper in which journalism takes a back seat to the dissemination of Democrat Party propaganda. Nevertheless, it is useful for paper training a puppy.

LA woman said...

Clark Kent said "swell" and Lois Lane mocked him.

Bob Boyd said...

It is the very essence of Progressive-ism to argue that exposing what those in power actually think, do and say is unacceptable meddling in an election.

Mick said...

Chuck said,

"That's not a real name, is it? Your supposed "Disinformation and Propaganda Prevention Act"? I'm asking, and trying to be polite about it; but HR 6393 is actually the Intelligence funding Reauthorization Act. Is there any part of the actual bill that calls itself a "Disinformation and Propaganda Prevention Act"?

This is must more alt right fever-swamp bullshit from you, right? I am not going to fish through a massive federal spending bill just to show you up on the internet. I am just going to ask you, without actually checking myself. I fully expect to regret any substantive contact with you, but what the hell".


Here is the Press Release from the sponsor of the bill (an actual Republican unlike you, not that I think the R Team is any different than the D team-- only a little less worse)


http://www.portman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=3765A225-B773-4F57-B21A-A265F4B5692C

"WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) today announced that their Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act – legislation designed to help American allies counter foreign government propaganda from Russia, China, and other nations – has passed the Senate as part of the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report".

You really don't know enough to argue with me .gov troll.

StephenFearby said...

Speaking about headlines...


"Vincent A. Musetto, who wrote the greatest headline in New York newspaper history, died Tuesday [June 9, 2015] at 74 from cancer."

'...“Headless Body in Topless Bar” ran on The Post’s front page on April 15, 1983. As witty as it was horrific, it expressed with unflinching precision the city’s ­accelerating tailspin into an abyss of atrocious crime and chaos.

“Headless Body” soon became the stuff of pop-culture legend. “Saturday Night Live” worked it into routines and David Letterman invited Musetto onto his late-night show to talk about it. It even became the title of a 1990s crime movie.

But Musetto, a managing editor, had to fight to get “Headless Body” into the paper. He pleaded with then-executive editor Roger Wood, who was equally appalled by the crime.

A psycho had invaded a Queens after-hours joint, shot the owner to death and then — on learning a female customer was a mortician — ordered her to cut off the victim’s head, which cops later found in the madman’s car.

But Wood thought the headline too raunchy even for The Post’s sensationalist, Fleet Street-style of the time. A quieter headline ran with the first version of the story on an ­inside page of the afternoon edition.

But Musetto stuck to his guns, and “Headless Body in Topless Bar” ran on Page 1 the next day.

It prompted witless snarking in egghead circles. The Post’s legendary metropolitan editor, Steve Dunleavy, countered, “What should we have said? ‘Decapitated cerebellum in tavern of ill repute’?”

(The New York Times came close with, “Owner of a Bar Shot to Death; Suspect is Held.”)'

http://nypost.com/2015/06/09/new-york-post-editor-and-film-critic-vincent-musetto-dies-at-74/

Comment: At least it was an honest headline...much harder to find now in NYT news stories flavored with their own Orwellian spin.



Levi Starks said...

To anyone who wonders what AA will be doing in retirement, I'd say it's obvious that fact checking the NYT is likely to be more than a full time job.

campy said...

Thou swell! Thou witty!
Thou sweet! Thou grand!
Wouldst kiss me pretty?
Wouldst hold my hand?
Both thine eyes are cute too;
What they do to me.
Hear me holla I choose a Sweet lollapaloosa in thee.
I'd feel so rich in a hut for two;
Two rooms and kitchen I'm sure would do;
Give me just a plot of,
Not a lot of land,
And Thou swell! Thou Witty! Thou Grand!

David Baker said...

Well, now there's a "bi-partisan" commission of sorts cooked up by Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham. And just because McCain and Graham can't stomach Donald Trump, this doesn't mean they can't be bi-partisan. Sure, they hate Trump's guts, but since when did that enter into their judgement.

The only thing missing is the clown car.

roesch/voltaire said...

Mike I am a sane person who reads the New York Times regularly, along with many other publications, because they do in-depth reporting on topics others gloss over or ignore. To make the claim that the news section or the business section just makes things up is an immature generalization. One can quibble with a story, write the public editor ( how many publications that you read have this) and complain and ask for explanations and CORRECTIONS.
2. To think that Trump is reading analysis like Plan of Attack ignores what others who know Trump well have said--he does not spend time reading; he gets his information from cable tv. As Carl Bernstein pointed out Trump lives in a fact free environment and makes emotional arguments, not logical or fact based ones.
3. Everybody hacks true, but research and design elements are not stolen through emails.The Chinese for example have insiders carry out the material on computers or flash drives.
3.You are right there are many fools, including the DNC, who don't realize that everything they put in emails could go public, not because they think they are above the law, but as you point out just lax (stupid?).
4. And as time goes on, more evidence will be revealed and we shall see a swell of new information that might give us second thoughts about the Russian hack into politics and whether we still find it just froth.

Chuck said...

Okay, so the Portman/Murphy bill is NOT HR6393. Thanks; glad I asked.

JSD said...

More fake news. The DNC and media are still blindsided by this election. They never saw that the Empress had no clothes and now need a scapegoat. I don’t care if Hillary beat Trump in the popular vote. Without victory margins in New York and California, Hillary lost the remaining 48 states by over 2 million. Trump carried 30 states. Hillary carried only 20 states.

For 20 years, the Democrats have been engaged in open warfare on the middle of the country. The middle has always been the country’s primary source of manufacturing, agriculture and energy. The Democrats have come to hate these industries. New York/Wall Street is the primary driver to offshore manufacturing. Environmentalists continue to escalate their demands for outright bans on coal and fracking. Agriculture is under constant assault from EPA and FDA. People are not stupid. It doesn’t take a fake news article on Facebook to realize that the Democrats hate you. The Rust Belt was the final piece to turn red and I don’t think it’s ever going back. If the Democrats and media want to believe that the Russians stole the election, fine. Keep whistling by the graveyard.

FullMoon said...

Re: Pizzagate, Snopes, Chuck, Mick.

Ya know, most average people, like me, never heard, or at least, never looked into pizzagate.

You have Mick, who looks at the "evidence", and believes it. You have Chuck, who finds it preposterous from the get go, and refers to Snopes to back up his conviction. Then you have me, who has no opinion, but has seen Snopes occasionally twist facts, or leave out facts, in order to validate a conclusion. Personally, I am not gonna check out pizzagate evidence. I wonder, however, out of the thousands and thousands of people who previously had no interest, now will believe, without even looking, that "where there is smoke, there is fire".

On second thought, maybe I will check out the evidence, because there sure seems to be a lot of people saying :nothing to see here"".

Bob Ellison said...

I think this story has acquired the legs it needs to keep running for a good, long time.

McConnell and McCain have bought into it, and NPR, herd-like as usual, has been selling it all day today.

DemocraticUnderground.com has a funny graphic on it. Not everyone will like the humor, but I think it's clever.

SDaly said...

Levi -

You really think Althouse retired only to step into the shoes of Sisyphus?

Neo said...

There is also nothing to disprove (or prove) that the hacks weren't meant to help Bernie Sanders.

The early hacked emails from the DNC showed those at the DNC were favoring Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. How does this directly help Donald Trump ? They made the case that Bernie Sanders was being mistreated by the DNC.

The later hacked emails show more of Team Hillary doing things they should have never committed to an email. Was this an attempt to help Trump or an attempt to punish Hillary Clinton for messing with their candidate Bernie Sanders ?

Nobody at the DNC or Team Hillary would confirm or deny any of these emails, so who is to say that there was any hacking ? It could have been all made up to help Bernie Sanders.

Finally, the CIA "report" (which the FBI disputes) given to Congress indicated that has Trump as the beneficiary was the "consensus belief". There was no direct information.

How do we know that this campaign wasn't to help Bernie Sanders, and worse, why did the Obama Administration do nothing to stop it during the primaries or before the general election ?

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.

Murray went on to say that the leaker supported Bernie Sanders.

David Baker said...

"As Carl Bernstein pointed out Trump lives in a fact free environment and makes emotional arguments, not logical or fact based ones."

Well, that certainly explains why Trump is penniless.

mockturtle said...

There are lies, damned lies and the NYT.

Henry said...

The headline should have been "Swell Evidence".

Or "Nifty Evidence". "Groovy". "Hip".

Hagar said...

Until I see names of the purported sources within the CIA and FBI I will assume this story to be all a mare's nest made up from moonshine and horsefeathers.

Yancey Ward said...

You just wait- Althouse will be added to the "Fake News" list of WaPo.

Drago said...

Best line seen today: "The Party of Alger Hiss wants to save America from the Russians!"

Mac McConnell said...

There is no human walking the face of the earth at present that hasn't lived though a time that Russia or the Soviets haven't tried to influence USA elections or undermined our democratic institutions, usually with the media's help.

Obama knew last spring what Russia was doing and said nothing, congress knew by september and said nothing. Why, because they thought Hillary was going to win like Trump's electoral landslide.

After failed efforts to delegitimize the Electoral College, bogus recounts to extend past the Electoral vote and now trying to pin the Trump victory on Russian hacking the Democrats will fail. We would have to believe Russia knew Trump was going to win to buy into this bullshit.

Gretchen said...

Full moon, I have no idea if there is an actual pedophile ring, but there are certainly some odd Podesta emails. One talks about a square vs. a round package, another refers to a handkerchief that is pizza-related. It is clear to me there is code for something in there, it could be money laundering, drugs, etc, I don't know, but there is enough weird stuff to make you wonder, including odd graphic design choices for logos and some disturbing artwork.

I am fully convinced that the "fake news" and "The Russians hacked the election" are an attempt to divert attention from something, which could relate to the emails, Weiner, the murdered DNC staffer, the CF, coordination between the Clinton campaign and others, etc.

Sam L. said...

I try to avoid the fake news in the NYT by not reading it. Not always succesfully.

walter said...

Pizza maps on a handkerchief merely suggests an imbalanced diet.

AprilApple said...

The "news" media are using the Russians as an excuse to hunker-down with their bias and propaganda.

Clues at CNN

Big Mike said...

@roesch, fool me once, shame on the Times and the Post. Fool me twice ... Personally, I think you should revisit your self-characterization as "sane.

I see that you are willing to believe that Trump is poorly read and lives in a "fact free environment." Considering how he flat butt-whipped a well-funded and well-staffed campaign organization that presumably included very well-read people, he seems to know an awful lot about an awful lot. I would use living in a fact free environment to characterize the Hillary campaign staff, not to mention the candidate herself, given that they were campaigning in Texas and Arizona instead of Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

No, the Chinese did not get weapons systems design specs from hacked Emails. I was merely pointing out that hacking computer systems is pervasive. Back when I worked for a defense contractor we used obsolete PS/2 connectors for keyboards and mice and sealed the USB ports to prevent people from using thumb drives at all. Don't know what they do today.

I disagree with your characterization of the DNC as merely being "lax." They are quite used to not being called out for activities of questionable legality. You are entitled to your own opinion, of course, but I think you are flat wrong.

Robert said...

People associated with Julian Assange say it wasn't even a hack, but rather a leak from a whistleblower inside the DNC. See here, for example: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/

Robert said...

By the way, if this CIA propaganda causes electors to change their votes and stop Trump from becoming President, as they appear to want make happen, I think we will have a lot of violence in America, and maybe even an eventual civil war. This is a dangerous game the CIA is playing.

Barry Dauphin said...

If the Russians wanted to create confusion and get Americans to distrust the electoral process, I wonder what that would look like.

Lydia said...

Russia, Russia everywhere makes for a perfect frame to use against Rex Tillerson, friend of the Kremlin and Putin, should he be nominated by Trump for secretary of state.

Earnest Prole said...

Only seven weeks ago the Times told us that calling election results illegitimate was the gravest injury one could inflict on American democracy.

NYT, Washington Post, WSJ denounce Trump's refusal to accept election results

Big Mike said...

@trad-guy, Robert Redford has produced whole movies on less evidence of conspiracy than the murder of the DNC staffer in Washington in the wee hours of the morning.

(1) Assange himself said that the source of the DNC leaks was an insider.

(2) The young man, Seth Rich, was killed -- by four shots in the back -- in what was alleged to be a robbery gone wrong, however neither his watch, nor his wallet, nor his credit cards, nor his cell phone were taken.

"Newsweek" had an article about the murder, which concluded that tying Seth Rich's murder to the DNC Email leaks was just so much right-wing conspiracy theories, but what I found interesting was the following rationale:

"Nor is there any evidence Rich downloaded and printed out the DNC’s internal emails ..."

That's not how anyone would hack an Email server. You'd introduce a virus with rootkit that sends duplicate copies of the day's updates on the outlook PST server, perhaps disguised as backup files, to a remote file server. Or something similar. Who prints off Emails? What you're reading in the "Newsweek" article is the sort of misdirection magicians use in their stage tricks.

So one has to wonder. Just how dirty do the Democrats play?

DanTheMan said...

>>If the Russians wanted to create confusion and get Americans to distrust the electoral process, I wonder what that would look like.

Chicago?

alan markus said...

Wisconsin Election Commission is meeting today at 3:00PM to certify the results of the recount. As of Saturday, with 95% of the votes recounted, the total difference between Trump and Clinton had narrowed by 25 votes ($3.5 million liberal cash donated to Stein/25 votes = $140,000 per Hillary vote gained. That does not include legal and other sundry expenses).

Not sure what the Russians accomplished by supposedly hacking the machines. But am I sure that proving that narrative wrong will not keep this current narrative from being top of mind.

Trump & Pence coming to Wisconsin (West Allis) to highlight winning Wisconsin again.

roesch/voltaire said...

David since Trump won't release his tax forms, we do not really know how rich he is, but we do know this con-aartist didn't know much about running casinos, that when the banks bailed him out the let him keep his brand, but thought he was a poor CEO.
I grant that Trump knows an awful lot, he claims to know more that the CIA, but that doesn't mean he is well-read, or reads, or is logical.
Just follow the money and the oil to figure out Russia's stake in the game, and Trump's reason for dismissing it. Or read Daniel Yergin's The Epic Quest for Oil, Money&Power to understand the oil weapon. These swelling voice of objections to the news is another tell of a different kind.

gadfly said...

Althouse's analyisis herein is really "swell" - as in the 60s song "Elenore" by the Turtles.

And from Professor Harold Hill in "The Music Man: "Trouble in River City"

"Mothers of River City. Heed that warning before it's too late. Watch for the telltale signs of corruption. The minute your son leaves the house, does he rebuckle his knickerbockers below the knees? Is there a nicotine stain on his index finger? A dime novel hidden in the corn crib? Is he starting to memorize jokes from Captain Billy's Whizbang? Are certain words creeping into his conversation, words like 'swell' and 'So's your old man."

William said...

I wonder if anyone has ever hacked Weiner's computer? If I were into hacking computers that would be my target of choice. You get all those Hillary emails, plus there's a cache of primo porno. The story, however, is that no one ever broke into Hillary's bathroom server and the Weiner computer. The Russians were only interested in DNC memos.

steve uhr said...

They prob have a great deal of dirt on Trump they can use to destabilize the government at the right time. Try to bribe him and if that doesn't work go for impeachment.

dustbunny said...

Going to Althouse is becoming one of the few routes I can find to sane and deep analysis online. Thanks for doing this!

walter said...

alan markus said..Trump & Pence coming to Wisconsin (West Allis) to highlight winning Wisconsin again.
--
It's turning into a Wisconsin tradition.

Fabi said...

I'm sure the Russians have lots of dirt on Trump! Lulz

Keep fucking that chicken, steve uhr.

Unknown said...

Maybe they hacked the republican committee servers and could not find anything bad? That would be pretty funny.

Qwinn said...

Steve Uhr:

Why bother helping Trump win then when Hillary was already both eminently blackmailable and successfully bribed (see uranium sale fiasco)?

CWJ said...

DanTheMan,

Old Soviet Union joke. The Soviets always admired Chicago's elections. So when Cook County upgraded their voting machines, the Russians bought the old ones. Russia's next election went off without a hitch until they counted the votes and discovered that Mayor Daley had won.

Bad Lieutenant said...

roesch/voltaire said...
To understand the Russian interest in interfering in our election look to Secretary of State candidate Rex Tillerson who is in the process of securing oil rights in the high Arctic in a deal worth at least 500 billion that could keep Putin and Russian economy in the pink for years --if the sanctions against Russia can be lifted. Look to see the sanctions lifted and oil prices go up


RV, could you take me through the math on that part? Where the supply of oil is increased by (10bn?) barrels and the price goes up?

grackle said...

My latest theory:

A lot of high-up political hacks and failed ideologues of one stripe or another in the CIA are going to retire as soon as Pompeo takes over and they are getting their last licks in at the new sheriff in town before they leave. I think Pompeo, as well as most of Trump’s cabinet picks, are hired to clean house in the various organizations they will run.

Does anyone know who originated the “fake news” phrase? It’s an apt description, more precise than “bullshit,” more fitting for the output of the media whores of America, which is just about all of the MSM “news” that has to do with Trump.

But it doesn’t matter. This will not hurt Trump and may even backfire on the always overreaching whores of the media.

Trump hasn’t been sworn in yet and he is already leading the nation. The contrast between him and the constipated, unimaginative non-leadership of Obama is both striking and “telling.” There’s going to be a lot of bleating from the sheep on both left and right in the next 8 years.

I agree with the Senate Republicans who have endorsed the Schumer suggestion.

This is one of the more unsurprising comments I’ve read on this thread.

… I like the idea of the Senate occupying a main role in this case. I trust Lindsey Graham, as someone who is beholden to neither Trump, nor Senate Dems.

Graham is a NeverTrumper. “Beholden?” Hell, Graham is an ALLY of the Senate Dems when it comes to Trump. Be real.

The dunces in Congress, especially the ones like Graham, who saw fit to oppose their party’s nominee, better be careful how they handle Trump. A lot of hacks have ended up having their asses handed to them by Mr. Trump.

tcrosse said...

Thou shalt not take Voltaire's name in vain.

JaimeRoberto said...

Isn't the NYT partially owned by a Mexican billionaire? Surely that billionaire has ties to the Mexican government. Is there any doubt that the NYT favored Clinton in this election? So couldn't we just as easily say that Mexico was influencing the election?

Mick said...

"REAL FAKE NEWS"

Obama claimed that election is "unhackable". And that is a fact.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/obama-shoots-down-trump-claims-o...

Obama said there was "no serious" person who would suggest it was possible to rig American elections, adding, "I'd invite Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/18/politics/obama-trumps-rigged-election-clai...

President Barack Obama on Tuesday cast Donald Trump's claims of a rigged election as potentially corrosive to American democracy, insisting that the Republican presidential nominee was griping about an invented conspiracy.

"You start whining before the game's even over?" Obama said during a news conference in the White House Rose Garden, adding that Trump's claim is "not based on facts." But it appears it’s actually the White House that’s pushing a conspiracy theory; the intelligence official said they have “no definitive proof” of Russia tampering with the coming elections.
“Of course the election will not be rigged. What does that mean?” Obama said Thursday. Speaking from the Pentagon, Obama said the Republican nominee’s suggestion that there is a conspiracy to keep him from winning the election is “ridiculous.”

“This will be an election like any other election,” Obama said.

walter said...

Yes Mick, and they all loved the electoral college before it betrayed them.

Bay Area Guy said...

Ya gotta love the sheer Chutzpah of the Dems:

1. When Stalin was starving millions in 1930s, with a man-made famine, the NYTimes via Walter Duranty, told us, there's no problem.

2. When Fidel Castro was seizing power in Cuba, and then installing Soviet-made Nuclear weapons 200+ miles off the coast of Florida, the NYtimes via Herbert Matthews told us, there's no problem.

3. 27 years after the Berlin Wall falls, the NYTimes tells us, "We have a major problem with the Russians!"

If Mitch McConnell agrees to hold hearings, the first witness called should be Anthony Weiner with his laptop and a projector screen:)

David Baker said...

roesch/voltaire said..."David since Trump won't release his tax forms, we do not really know how rich he is..."

Well, rich enough that moving to the White House is akin to slumming.

Arthur James said...

Someone on this blog in another post made the astute comment that the media's desperation is really unsettling for millennials. I communicate with my son, a 'working' engineer graduate student, and his friends in Ann Arbor and I am convinced the commentator struck on something profound. They are having a blast witnessing liberals become unhinged. It will be interesting for them to experience mature economic policies, to enjoy communal prosperity, instead of being theorized and told what is best for everyone. The media may be the Republicans greatest weapons in luring young minds away from the extreme insanity polluting the Democrats at this time. Will those with penetrating bright young minds really want to be a part of what the media has become?

Arthur James said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mick said...

There really has to be some MAJOR truth that all the elites are so terrified of the sheeple finding out, that they are willing to risk a total constitutional crisis to keep it covered up.

#PIZZAGATE

Unknown said...

Let the investigations commence.

Unknown said...

Pizzagate is truth, truth I tell ya!

jr565 said...

the fact that no one in the Obama administration act in any way to deal with the people who they supposedly KNOW commited an act of espionage is telling. On one hand the articles say intelligence agenceies KNOW who was involved and that they gave info to Wikileaks (there is no knowledge of this, at least nothing that has been revealed). But then there is no action taken by the admibnistration that would suggest they do in fact know. If they knew a president who wasn't Obama would get on the TV and say "we have proof that Russia did x,y, and z, and we are now arresting the peopel responsible. or chastise them in public. or set up a missile defence system in the Ukraine, or soemthing. Signalling to them that we are punishing them for for trying to screw with us.
That hasn't happened. Because we dont in fact know anything. WE have suspicions.

However, Wikileaks has already said its not the russians. This is all scare mongering.

If there is proof, then its incumbent on the CIA to lay out the facts and not hide behind unconfirmed sources that speak to the washington post.

Gretchen said...

Neo,

I completely agree, the DNC emails were leaked before the DNC convention, to help Bernie. Likely from a disgruntled Bernie supporter.

On the other hand, the Podesta emails were leaked before the general election, so that could be to help Trump, or just to raise money and awareness for Assange, whom Hillary wanted to drone.

As for interfering in an election, puhhhhhhllllllleeeeeezzzz. At least the emails were authentic, unlike Harry Reid's claim Mitt never paid taxes or Dan Rather's obviously fake memo.

Unknown said...

"Mike I am a sane person who reads the New York Times regularly, along with many other publications, because they do in-depth reporting on topics others gloss over or ignore. To make the claim that the news section or the business section just makes things up is an immature generalization. One can quibble with a story, write the public editor ( how many publications that you read have this) and complain and ask for explanations and CORRECTIONS."

Thank goodness, I was beginning to think there were no more sane people in Althousia.

mockturtle said...

I trust Lindsey Graham, as someone who is beholden to neither Trump, nor Senate Dems.

Graham is beholden to the big defense contractors.

David Baker said...

roesch/voltaire;

Also keep in mind that Donald Trump has out-foxed everyone.

It's rare, but some people possess superior instincts. To them, absolutes (as in "proofs") are unnecessary. Essentially, we're talking about a rare form of native intelligence, namely street smarts. This is where Trump excels - and where he confounds his detractors.

Original Mike said...

Well, now we know what's going on.

Electors demand intelligence briefing before Electoral College vote

tim in vermont said...

I am also wondering how bringing a half a trillion dollars worth of oil onto the market will raise the price of oil. If anyone would help Russia, it would have been Hillary keeping Keystone oil of the market.

Unknown said...

Good for the electors. They have a duty not to vote for a President who was elected by fraudulent means. The electoral college ensures we don't put despots and demagogues in the Oval Office.

Gretchen said...

Original Mike,

Nancy Pelosi's daughter, that carries a lot of weight. They got 10 of 538 electors, 9 of them Dems so only 9 of 232 of Hillary's electors are buying the Russia hacked the election BS.

Have I mentioned Podesta is a creeper?

Original Mike said...

Never surrender. Never give up.

tim in vermont said...

Unknown = Hedda from Trumbo. The Russians are everywhere! Where is Tailgunner Joe when you need him.

Unknown said...

Pizzagate! It's real really really really realz!

tim in vermont said...

The Russians! Behind every tree!

Mac McConnell said...

Hillary electors need 37 Trump electors to jump ship, ain't goin to happen. Hillary will never be President!

Drago said...

Unknown: "The electoral college ensures we don't put despots and demagogues in the Oval Office."

Someone may choose to remind you of this statement after Trump is voted in by the electors. The fact, yes fact, that Trump will be voted in by the electors will render inoperative any future statements by you that Trump is a demagogue and/or despot (by your very own formulation).

Doh!

Mac McConnell said...

Best post of the day,

Drago said...
Best line seen today: "The Party of Alger Hiss wants to save America from the Russians!"

Dems continue to beclown themselves.

Drago said...

Unknown: "They have a duty not to vote for a President who was elected by fraudulent means."

And there it is, as we all knew would happen.

The Russians planted "The Deplorables" line on saint Hillary!

It's science,

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

Only IF the Electoral college works as it was meant to under the 12th Amendment. We shall see.

Michael K said...

"To make the claim that the news section or the business section just makes things up is an immature generalization."

Also known as "A Republican opinion. "

mockturtle said...

I should guess that, were the election to be held again, Trump would get MORE votes than he did last month.

Unknown said...

And now we have Bolton saying the hacking was a false flag operation by Obama, hahahahah! Pizzagate per Flynn! False flag hacking of the DNC by Obama per Bolton! Truth! Really really really true! No fake news, no siree!

tim in vermont said...

I think Althouse just made a pretty good case that the NY TIMES just made up the whole "swell" thing. Happy to hear a cogent takedown of her post though.

David Baker said...

Our historical "peaceful transfer of power" is beginning to look a bit more tenuous. To some, even antiquated.

Hear the "living document": Is it a roar, or a meow?

Unknown said...

Just another political junk blogpost.

tim in vermont said...

If Bolton really said that, he's an idiot. Care to share the quote?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 412   Newer› Newest»