Said Scott Walker, opining on the news that the Russians preferred Donald Trump and got involved in showing the public a bunch of embarrassing email messages that various Democrats sent to each other.
Is this a good analogy? And did the leader of Scotland endorse Hillary? The answer to the second question is easy. It's yes:
Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon broke with international protocol when she wrote days before the election that she hoped Clinton would win.But is it a good analogy? Sturgeon openly endorsed Hillary, but Putin's preference for Trump is merely a matter of guesswork. What Putin may have done about his preference is also a matter of guesswork, and it is connected to the illegal hacking into computers and the revealing of private communications that — through no action of his — contained statements that reflected badly on Hillary Clinton.
So the analogy doesn't match up on all points, but that's what's provocative about it. To the extent Sturgeon did something similar to what Putin is accused of, how bad is it? To the extent that it's different, is what Sturgeon did okay? And was it awful for Walker to compare these 2 things that are not entirely the same?
Jenni Dye, research director for liberal group One Wisconsin Now, called Walker’s comparing the two scenarios “simply jaw-dropping.” “Declaring one of these actions was not dramatically more serious than the other is either incredibly naive or the most disturbing example yet of Gov. Walker’s blind partisanship,” Dye said.Key word: dramatically. I'm tired of the continual drama. I'd prefer to calmly compare the 2 things in the analogy. If you want me to be upset that somebody is a "blind partisan," don't sound like one yourself.
Posts
128 comments:
All is hyperbole
It'd probably ruin the narrative to mention that at least one of the hacks occurred long before Trump won the nomination and the assumption was a flame out and he'd never last(summer of 2015) and one when he had the nod and nobody thought he'd win (April 2016).
We still have literally zero evidence that the Russian government was involved. Julian Assange has said the source isn't Russian specifically. Considerable evidence is that the leaker was the DNC aide killed a few months ago. Putin has had few problems "working with" the Clintons, as the buying of a fifth of our uranium demonstrated. He knows you can buy the Clintons without much problem.
This is all an attempt to destabilize the country. And the Democrats are playing his game.
illegal hacking
It's not illegal if done from overseas.
I'm also tired of the drama, the death throes of the present people in power.
December 19th can't get here soon enough.
Obama campaigned against Netanyahu, if I remember from a Rush caller yesterday.
I'm always not paying close attention though.
“Declaring one of these actions was not dramatically more serious than the other is either incredibly naive or the most disturbing example yet of Gov. Walker’s blind partisanship,” Dye said."
Except Walker did not declare that Jenni. He used the word conversely, which means "on the other hand" or "opposite." It doesn't mean "equally opposite."
Nice analogy via Instapundit, the democrats are one by one pulling out all the control rods.
Meaning that democracy depends on a lot of unwritten conventions, called gentlemen's agreements, about for instance the conventions of a peaceful transfer of power. Without them, the written parts go unstable and won't work.
This Russia thing is entirely overblown and way over hyped.
So long as the leaked stuff was true, the more of it the better.
The Russians or somebody were doing the media's job. Perhaps they were as sick of soap opera news as America was.
Obama campaigned against Netanyahu, if I remember from a Rush caller yesterday.
I'm always not paying close attention though.
That's different, though.
Because...FYTW.
Jenni Dye: “simply jaw-dropping ... dramatically ... incredibly naive ... most disturbing ... blind partisanship”
The amount of overwrought adverbial phrases is in inverse proportion to the legitimacy of the argument here, as with most progressives.
Or as Shakespeare put it, "The lady doth protest too much."
Obama against brexit.
Meaning that democracy depends on a lot of unwritten conventions, called gentlemen's agreements, about for instance the conventions of a peaceful transfer of power. Without them, the written parts go unstable and won't work.
I am wowed how quickly the press and Democrats (I know, I repeat myself) went from being outraged that Trump might question the results to claiming that Putin "hacked the election" (somehow) to give Trump the win.
Dems nominate worst, most flawed candidate in a generation (Hillary), rig the primaries against Sanders, make a calculated decision to not campaign in Wisconsin, lose the general election to political novice (Trump). Their solution? Blame Russia.
If you're "tired of the continual drama" then I suggest hiding under a rock for the next several years. This is going to be all drama, all the time. And here I thought we'd reached peak drama in the "no drama Obama" years!
As for the comparison, a public endorsement is bad enough--and we shouldn't be doing it with other countries' elections either. They tend to backfire, as no one likes other countries' leaders to tell them what to do.
But actual hacking and meddling in an election is worse--it undermines the whole point of free elections.
We don't know exactly what happened in our last election--we do know info was dropped, and the Russians have ties to those who dropped it. It's worth investigating, either to clear the air or figure out what happened. We should not be tolerating the Russians doing something like this, or encouraging them to do it in the future.
Brando, I'm not sure I get what the bad thing Russia did was.
If the entire theory is accurate, in the end, they leaked completely accurate info. They didn't invent stuff. They didn't fabricate stuff. They put out 100% truthful information.
Isn't that what our PRESS was supposed to do? I don't get why I should be mad about transparency.
All the hacks proved is what men already knew. It would have been superfluous without the women's vote. All those people being deceptive and nasty. Who could have guessed?
Decertify the Democratic Party today.They are attempting a coup, along with their house-organ Press.
As if the illegal donations from Chinese businessmen to Bill Clinton didn't influence, not just the election, but foreign policy. Hypocrisy, thy name is Democrat.
There is an old saying in Russia that translates something like this--Hillary Clinton will never be President of the United States.
What if the Russians were aiming at a different target? What if the "hacks" were intended to weaken HRC to the point where after the election she would be in the position of having her election questioned? It makes more sense to assume that the Russians were under the same delusion as every other intelligence agency as well as "conventional wisdom" and expected an HRC landslide win. They were only hoping to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the process, and undercut her "mandate" so that once she was in office and was apprised of all the intel Russia had on her she could be easily manipulated, controlled by the fear of them dumping everything and revealing the extent of the Global Clinton Crime syndicate.
That makes much more sense and comports with past Russian behavior. The present push to create a pro-Trump bogeyman just seems like so much fake news, but angling for REAL POWER, that makes sense. What has the Media done to show Putin having leverage over Trump? Over whom would the information we have and haven't seen give Putin more leverage, HRC or Trump?
The DNC-Media-academy are selling you a turd pie, America, with 24/7 non-stop propaganda, trying to make the silly "hack" story stick in the public craw. I don't think it's working.
Scotland was ruled for a decade by Toom Tabard, the empty suit of a guy who left for France.
The preference for empty suits survived.
"If the entire theory is accurate, in the end, they leaked completely accurate info. They didn't invent stuff. They didn't fabricate stuff. They put out 100% truthful information."
If they actually engaged in the hacking and leaked strategically with the intention of influencing our election, I'd be bothered by that--not just because it'd be a foreign power trying to mess with our election but because it could give them leverage over our candidates for what they'd threaten to release. For the same reason why we don't let candidates take foreign money for their campaigns.
We're not blameless, of course--we've long meddled in other countries' elections. And I'm sure this isn't the first time any country has done this or tried to. But it still is troubling if we let such a thing happen.
I'm still in favor of a full investigation even if it turns out this is much ado about nothing, just to send the message that we don't take it lightly. We don't want to set a precedent.
The message to worry about sending is that a peaceful transfer of power is no longer possible in the US, and it's a message to the US population.
. If you want me to be upset that somebody is a "blind partisan," don't sound like one yourself.
But that is the problem...the Left doesn't think they're partisan, they think they are simply correct, and anyone who disagrees with them is only doing so because they are partisan.
The amount of projection the Left does is simply amazing.
This Russia thing is entirely overblown and way over hyped.
Probably. And on the heels of that the selection of Tillerson for Sec of State will prolong and exacerbate the controversy.
So why select Tillerson. Is controversy Trump's intent?
The point is only Republicans can have politically embarrassing news reports about them whether they're fake, like Bush's Texas Air National Guard report or McCain's Mistress or Romney's Taxes, or not. Democrats cannot have anything embarrasing released during an election, because that is illegal interference in the election, no matter how true those things are, like Obama's ties to Jeremiah Wright and convicted Weather Underground terrorists or the actual SoS related emails Hillary erased from her hard drive.
Nice analogy via Instapundit, the democrats are one by one pulling out all the control rods. Meaning that democracy depends on a lot of unwritten conventions, called gentlemen's agreements, about for instance the conventions of a peaceful transfer of power. Without them, the written parts go unstable and won't work.
Exactly. And it began before this latest freak out. When the NY Times published on its front page the opinion that journalists needed to set aside their ethics and work to elect Clinton, I thought, "How can they ever uncross this line?"
Conventions are falling left and right. Trump helped shove a few over himself. Our Cold Civil War enters its next phase.
This shouldn't be a surprise considering how they acted the last time a new Republican president was elected. Different details, same play: drag out the election and de-legitimize the outcome.
This time the election wasn't actually close, so they need a bigger narrative than "his brother rigged the state"; hence, "foreign powers rigged the whole country"
Combined with the gnashing over popular vote vs. electoral college gives the left enough excuses to claim Trump was selected not elected and isn't "their" president, while believing it isn't hypocritical to do so after 8 years of screaming at the right for treasonously disrespecting Obama.
I say it shouldn't be surprising, and it isn't. It's just been so long since 2000-01 that the memory starts to fade.
In truth, they didn't treat George W. Bush any better than they are treating Trump now. It's always the same shit.
The leader of Scotland hoped to show Hillary how to rock the non-pantsuit.
The United States have done a lot of "interfering in other countries' elections" - sometimes even using the U.S. Navy and Marines for the purpose.
Russian influence is obviously worse because it exposed what Democrats really think and that the media conspires with Democrats. The only reason the various nuts are focusing on the hack is to get those facts off the front page.
And on the heels of that the selection of Tillerson for Sec of State will prolong and exacerbate the controversy. So why select Tillerson. Is controversy Trump's intent?
Combined with his diplomatic slap at China, perhaps he has identified China as our most dangerous adversary and wants to tag team with Russia to keep it in check.
Or not. I've been wrong about Trump's tactics pretty consistently.
Why isn't Scotland Yard in Scotland?
I bet the Russians are behind that.
I am Laslo.
Granted, if the roles were reversed, Republicans would be losing their minds right now.
That said, if Democrats had displayed half of this anti-Russian passion when Soviet Communists were enslaving large swathes of the globe, the Cold War would have ended much sooner.
1. The usual sources are giving this more credence than one would imagine in any previous transition.
2. The "hacked" yet accurate material referred to was distributed around the filtering mechanism of the usual sources.
3. No accusation has been made of any direct connection between any campaign and the Russians, unlike the direct bargaining by Ted Kennedy with the Soviets in 1984 to help defeat Reagan. Note that this was never reported by any of the usual sources anywhere close top when it happened. (Also note how well this worked. /sarc)
4. Look for FBI vs CIA version of Godzilla vs Megatron before January 20th? That's my guess.
It's a good thing no looney will be inspired to do anything stupid by any of this, eh?
Tucker Carlson had one of these hysterical the Russians are hacking guests last night and after seven minutes of painful wriggling, the progressive still could not provide one example of a "hack" that had any effect on the election. Podesta was not "hacked" at all but was phished because he's stupid about Gmail. The DNC leaks have never been identified. So WHAT exactly was hacked? And HOW does that point to Russia helping electTrump?
I know I'm getting pretty sick of it all, but I get my news from the internet. Not sure how the average man-on-the-street is receiving it. On the other hand, I have had zero patients bring it up, so I imagine they aren't buying it.
They'll turn Hillary into Joan of Arc yet.
Without the fire thing, of course.
I am Laslo.
If you want me to be upset that somebody is a "blind partisan," don't sound like one yourself.
When that is all you have left in your quiver, that is what you use.
All is hyperbole
Yep. It's all they have left at the moment. The trophies are going to go to the most dramatic, judged on originality, intensity and creativity.
simply jaw-dropping isn't going to cut it.
Choose your battles is a phrase people use to illustrate the allocation of scarce resources. So what "hacking" do the Democrats/media/academy care about? Let's see.
No one cared * when Russia hacked the OPM and stole the private info of tens of millions of Americans, including biometrics.
No one cared * when Russia hacked the White House in October 2014 and put their whole network OFFLINE for several weeks.
No one cared * when Russia hacked the secret server Hillary was using to LEAK state secrets to any and all comers.
*If the Press wasn't in 24/7 hyperdrive about hacking like they are now, ask yourself why not?
It's funny to see the hack press move on from all the embarrassing wikileaks discoveries. The poor MSM lost the election too, right along with Hillary. They tried so hard to hide the wikileaks.
Russia is their new scapegoat. Just like the shadowy character who made the youtube video that no one in the M.E. ever watched.
Brando said...
For the same reason why we don't let candidates take foreign money for their campaigns.
12/13/16, 7:46 AM
Except that we do. Look at Obama. His donations site specifically had the credit card address verification disabled to allow foreign donations and the press and Government let it go on. As Glen R. says, if you want true Government accountability you have to elect a Republican.
You can never reach Peak Stupidity.
CJinPA:
"if Democrats had displayed half of this anti-Russian passion when Soviet Communists were enslaving large swathes of the globe, the Cold War would have ended much sooner."
I'd been thinking just that. A lot of people who were no help whatsoever during the second half of the Cold War seem really keen to go toe-to-toe with the Roo-skies now that they're not commies anymore.
I might as well fess up, I hacked those websites, and yes, myself and my girlfriend are to blame. It's what us Russians do.
Sincerely,
Boris Badenov and Natasha Fatale
The obvious difference is also the big difference: one is open and public, our voters can decide whether the Scots endorsement is a reason to affect their vote one way or the other; the other is secret and hidden and indirect, giving no opportunity to voters to express their views.
The Demoratic elected government in Ukraine was deposed by the anti- American Obama/Hillary Gang the same way they did it to allies in Egypt, Libya, and in partially Syria. Putin said No More. So that Gang has tried to remove him ever since.
Tillerson can fix it easily. So McCain and Graham have gone full McCarthyite on Trump and Tillerson
So who is the sell out?
"international protocol". That's what's supposed to keep John Kerry in long pants when he's on the beach in Bermuda, right?
a peaceful transfer of power is no longer possible in the US, and it's a message to the US population.
You want peace? Vote the right way. Vote democrat.
When that is all you have left in your quiver, that is what you use.
As if Jenni Dye *ever* had anything else in her quiver.
"It's not illegal if done from overseas."
Yes, of course it is, under various federal and state laws. You can't shoot a bullet from Russia into a person's head in Alaska and say "That wasn't murder!"
But the illegality of hacking seems filled with difficulty. If you email someone and say "Please send me your credentials so that I can extract data from your computer", and you get a response and do so, have you broken the law? I guess you asked for access, so, no. What if you send a phish that does the same thing, albeit fraudulently? Yes, I guess.
What if you just dip your digital hand into the data stream going through your own Intertubes and pick out some interesting bits, and publish them? Seems more like a potential tort than a crime, if anything.
The ones up in arms over hacking are repressing their fear of their own homosexuality.
They feel they have been anally raped by the Election, and it can't be that half of America fucked them in the ass, it had to be someone more powerful and nefarious by whom they were overpowered and bent over. If they ARE gonna be butt-fucked, they want it to be by Putin, not Trump.
Putin's virile manhood frightens them, but in a 'why do I tingle?" way.
Putin is Rough Trade, and that is their weakness: they feel the way they did when they accidentally walked into the gay biker bar, and felt terrified yet excited, their palms sweaty with -- yes -- inchoate feelings of anticipation.
Putin revs his metaphorical motorcycle and they get weak in the knees. If only Putin would just settle for them sucking his cock: they are used to sucking the cocks of the powerful. But Putin: Putin wants more...
It is now The Morning After, and they feel ashamed. The Shame drives them to Hysteria. And their ass hurts.
That is my theory.
I am Laslo.
Hagar for early thread winner!
Radio Free Wikileaks
Let’s Say Russia Did Hack the Dems. What Would Be a Responsible Reaction?
A guide to stripping the political outrage out of a national defense and policy issue.
"To be clear, to the extent we're certain there was "meddling" with the election, the interference was all about providing private messages and information to the public that cast the Democratic Party establishment in a bad light. Thinking that this seriously altered with the election outcome suggests a lack of belief in the agency of the average voter. Or to put it a different way: If you have such a low opinion of the American voter, your problem is not with the Russians or hacking but with the concept of voting itself."
Mike said...
Podesta was not "hacked" at all but was phished
Phishing is a hacking method. This is not an effective response.
Could the Russians come up with anything that could cast the Democratic Party establishment in a GOOD light? Nobody is that clever!
Interesting that the current First Minister's family name is Sturgeon, and her predecessor's family name was Salmond. Nothing fishy at the end of the Royal Mile, eh?
Interesting that the current First Minister's family name is Sturgeon, and her predecessor's family name was Salmond. Nothing fishy at the end of the Royal Mile, eh?
"Hacked yet accurate" is a keeper!
Unless the Russians did something like hack the voting machines, the decision was still up to American voters, and we were voting between two of the most well known entities in the history of politics with the highest degree of transparency ever afforded an electorate. No matter who the leaks came from, they enhanced that knowledge and transparency. Investigate all you want, but the only surprise that could come of it would be that the Russians wanted Hillary, or had nothing to do with the leak. Everybody already suspected the Russians anyway and could consider that in their voting. The Russians, just like the CIA, do small things to influence elections all the time. We do it, they do it, foreigners like Soros do it, and foreign media do it, often with foreign government help. All that is dwarfed by the the overwhelming influencers of American elections: the media, the press, and higher education - all ruled by the left.
In the end, nobody fills out our ballots for us. The voters cannot be sequestered.
Last time they lost, it was Diebolt rigged Ohio.
You can never reach Peak Stupidity.
But we are identifying some of the leftie asymptotes.
The last sentence of Caroline Glick's column yesterday in the Jerusalem Post: "With their policies rejected by voters, the purpose of the Left isn’t to govern. It is to render their societies ungovernable." Drama indeed.
""To be clear, to the extent we're certain there was "meddling" with the election, the interference was all about providing private messages and information to the public that cast the Democratic Party establishment in a bad light."
If your own words put you in a bad light, don't blame the light.
Rick said...
Mike said...
Podesta was not "hacked" at all but was phished
Phishing is a hacking method. This is not an effective response.
Again, who cares? Point me to the evidence that this "hack" was critical to the election. HRC still got more votes so what exactly was gained? Speaking of effective, how did this affect the campaign in plain simple terms?
I reject the "Russia wanted Trump to win" assumption based on such airhead innuendo that it cannot be called a "conclusion."
Yes, of course it is, under various federal and state laws. You can't shoot a bullet from Russia into a person's head in Alaska and say "That wasn't murder!"
The offense is the firing, not the heading. It would be Russian law that applied.
Bay Area Guy said...
Dems nominate worst, most flawed candidate in a generation (Hillary), rig the primaries against Sanders, make a calculated decision to not campaign in Wisconsin, lose the general election to political novice (Trump). Their solution? Blame Russia.
Don't forget that they actively worked for Trump in the primaries, assuming he'd self immolate.
Laslo Spatula said...
Putin's virile manhood frightens them, but in a 'why do I tingle?" way.
12/13/16, 8:30 AM
This "nails it" (get it, nails it)!
This is the poler opposite of the "Obama tingle". That was more of a "I get to go to my first slumber party" tingle. This is the "and the bad boys that smoke cigarettes will be there" follow-on tingle.
:)
Darrell asserts: You can never reach Peak Stupidity.
Many keep trying.
Again, who cares?
If you don't care why are you saying it?
Point me to the evidence that this "hack" was critical to the election.
This is a better argument, why not stick with it instead of something obviously wrong which allows you and by extension other critics to be painted as driven by partisanship?
Hillary lost because enough people in key States thought she was a piece of shit. They weren't wrong.
There are many of us who had made our minds up about Hillary in the 1990's, without any help from the Russians, thank you very much.
Nice analogy via Instapundit, the democrats are one by one pulling out all the control rods.
Meaning that democracy depends on a lot of unwritten conventions, called gentlemen's agreements, about for instance the conventions of a peaceful transfer of power. Without them, the written parts go unstable and won't work.
This is what really bothers me. In their drive to obtain and retain power, these conventions, gentlemen's agreements, are falling, one by one, to the wayside. Dingy Harry killed the filibuster in most cases when they lost their 60 votes in the Senate, and, now, are facing the likelihood that they can't stop the Republicans from confirming conservative Justices or Trump's business types in cabinet posts, people who know what they want, and how to get it. They sacrificed the MSM this election, which spent its time involved in suppressing information harmful to Dems, and making up such for the Reps, in order to drag Crooked Hillary's diseased carcass across the finish line, and failed. So, they tried to flip three key states that had narrowly gone for Trump with recounts and bogus theories about potential tampering, in order to deprive him of an Electoral College win, and now are desperately trying to subvert the Electoral College itself, which has done its job for 230 or so years now. And, they were pretty brazen, beating up old Trump supporters. Physical assaulting opposing voters coordinated at the top of the DNC and the Crooked Hillary campaign, and partially funded, as usual for this sort of violence, by George Soros. All because they desperately don't want to give up power.
I don't know how far they can go before they get a reaction, and the reaction is violent. How many of the fuel rods can be removed before critical mass is reached. But, they should be worried. The people whom the left are so desperately trying to disenfranchise so that they, themselves, can retain power, are the ones with most of the guns in this country, and the knowledge and ability to use them. Few should doubt where the leanings of our military after the response of their upcoming officer corps to Trump last weekend at the Army/Navy game. And, most of the police come from the ranks of the deplorables who broke for Trump. I think that we may have seen some of the pushback when those vets marched on Hippie U (Hamilton College). If the Dems and the left don't let the winners of the election, by the rules of the game in place at the time, have their win, it isn't going to be pleasant.
Maybe Podesta leaked the emails? It would be the perfect false-flag operation.
Bruce Hayden--perfect, except "fuel rods" should be "control rods."
Rick said...
Phishing is a hacking method. This is not an effective response.
Phishing, however, is the method probably least consistent with the capabilities that are exclusive to a state actor. So there is a much wider circle of suspects with the means, motive and opportunity to carryout the document capture.
The entire media is missing what is at the core of this story.
What was hacked (or leaked) to the public? It was what the Democrats were saying secretly to each other. It was the dirty tricks the Democrats plotted. It was the collusion between the Hillary campaign and the media.
That should be the Republicans response.
Perhaps the democrats should stop being such corrupt money-grubbing two-faced whores in their e-mails to each other?
nah!
The media lost, Hillary lost.... Blame the Russians!
So why select Tillerson. Is controversy Trump's intent?
Listen to the critics? As Althouse posted elsewhere, does McCain's griping sound diplomatic at all? Sounds like he wants war above all else.
He has managed to work with governments globally and done a good job of it. He's had to make agreements without an army there to intimidate folks. I'm willing to give him a shot.
It's also been 32 years since the Democrats accepted a win by a Republican for President.
I guess Putin is the mean mother...
Clinton Campaign: The Loneliest Runner.
... TV Movie of the week called “The Lonliest Runner” (1976). This movie was based on Michael Landon’s childhood and his struggle with bedwetting. According to the movie, every time John [Podesta] (Michael’s alter-ego) would wet the bed, his mom would hang his soiled sheets out the window for everyone to see. Naturally, this humiliated John and he would race home after school so he could yank the sheets down and spare himself humiliation. As a result of running home at breakneck speed almost every day, John becomes and competitive runner and eventually goes on to win a gold at the Olympics. Michael never really won a gold medal, but he was a competitive runner and had Olympic ambitions as a javelin thrower until a shoulder injury dashed those dreams.
EDH,
Yes, the nature of the hack is most consistent with general scammers and hacker activists. It remains to be seen what evidence the "intelligence community" used to substantiate their claim it was Russia. I suspect the true answer to such an inquiry will be "it was the entity whose guilt would most help Democrats".
Was it an issue when Obama held a campaign rally in Germany in July 2008? No, it was a celebration.
The Guardian
New York Times
Washington Post
Of course it is completely unacceptable for Russia to interfere in America. Imagine, it would be like the US interfering in Israel's election to defeat the incumbent Prime Minister! How uncouth would that be?
It remains to be seen what evidence the "intelligence community" used to substantiate their claim it was Russia.
Some Russian code was found in the hack. It's like finding a Craftsman wrench at the scene of the Crown Jewels robbery and concluding that the Americans must have done it. Private Russian hackers sell their successful hack codes on 4Chan et.al. because they have a short shelf life before patches appear. Hackers from every country in the world have those hacks in their tool kits--because making copies of electronic code is cost-free.
Rick,
"Phishing is a hacking method."
Echoing others: Maybe. Still, if you say Podesta was hacked, in my relative ignorance I picture some nefarious computer whiz overcoming strong cyber-defenses to read his secrets. I don't picture him reading an e-mail stating, "Please click this link to enter your new name and password," and falling for it. (That he apparently asked someone whether he should, and was told to go ahead, makes it all the dumber.)
I agree with Bruce Hayden too.
Although they are control rods that absorb neutrons.
What this brings to my mind is Ed Koch saying, "The people have spoken. Now they must be punished."
The Democrats are determined to pull down the temple since they don't rule it anymore.
There are essentially three groups now in the country who are paying attention.
1. People who voted for Trump
2. People of the left who will NEVER accept him as president.
3. Those who opposed him but are not going to support massive civil disobedience and rioting.
I think the Democrats risk increasing group 3 by a lot.
"Some Russian code was found in the hack. It's like finding a Craftsman wrench at the scene of the Crown Jewels robbery and concluding that the Americans must have done it."
****************
Please source this assertion. If true, it should not be an issue for the intel people to actually release that code rather than simply claim they found it.
After all, it's a tell-tale, not a "secret" that needs to be kept from the public OR the Russians.......right??
There was a lot of press about Russia trying to influence the election through Wikileaks before the election. See, e.g. this or this, back in October. And I tend to think that on the margin highlighting the involvement (or alleged involvement) of a rival government on behalf of a cause tends to work against that cause. For example, I suspect our President's boneheaded attempt to intervene in British electoral politics on behalf of the EU Remain campaign was net-net a boost for Brexit.
So it just doesn't seem like a huge deal to me. They got out the message they wanted (viz. that the Russians are backing Trump and wikileaks is their doing) well before the election. And people took that into account and voted for Trump anyway.
The end.
Could we at least compared to this, when Obama told Medvedev to wait until after the election when he would have more flexibility? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9167332/Barack-Obama-microphone-gaffe-Ill-have-more-flexibility-after-election.html
The Russians trying to influence the election would be a major crisis in the following scenarios:
1. They hacked our voting machines and changed the outcome. (Frankly, that is an act of war.)
2. The intelligence leaks were fake in part or in full.
3. The influence went beyond propaganda to more extreme measures like blackmail and murder.
4. They were secretly coordinating with one candidate. (I would be unhappy if it was done overtly, but at least that would be something voters would know and could take into account.)
At the moment, the worst case accusation by anyone with a smidgen of trust is that the Russians hacked poorly secured computer systems and then released accurate documents that made one candidate look bad. As others have mentioned, that is something the media is supposed to be engaged in, minus doing the hacking themselves. For some reason, the media now finds this distasteful which means they are no longer journalists. Find something about actual vote manipulation or a smoking gun that Trump is actually a Russian stooge and then get back to me.
So far, it appears the published results of the DNC/Podesta "hacking" were accurate.
If I were the FSB operating at Putin's behest to ensure one candidate would win, I would 1. leave off the fingerprints 2. go beyond low-level email exposure 3. mix in some hard-to-refute embarrassing info along with the real stuff. Because Russia seems OK with being suspected, didn't go far in its "hacking" attempts, and stuck to mere revelations, the most plausible scenario is that officially tolerated or enabled "hackers" worked to embarrass the likely winner, Hill, as a way to undermine her.
I think there are two things going on.
First, the left wants to undermine the Trump presidency. It's like Bush-Gore on steroids. Selected, not elected has become, Lost the Popular Vote/Russians stole the election for Hillary. The earnest Clintonians who refuse to move past denial that she lost are simply the dupes helping fuel this effort. HuffPo even has an article saying there is a Pennsylvania (state) court case that provides a basis for overturning this election and declaring Hillary President. The straws they are grasping at are too tenuous (recounts in 3 states, turn the electors votes) to be believable as a real strategy. No one seriously thought the recounts would change the tens of thousands of votes needed. But it provided the drum beat of voter fraud. No one serious person thinks 37 pledged to Trump will change their votes, but they show 10 that will change, often neglecting to say 9 of them are electors for Hillary. (Any bets that these 9 will not vote for Hillary when it comes time?)
Secondly the press and DNC are trying, and successfully to some degree, to take eyes off their collusion and dirty deeds during the election. They openly conspired to get Hillary the nomination, but will need the Bernie Bots to come home for the next election. And they did their damnedest to help Hillary across the finish line.
I don't think this two-fer will work except among the uber-faithful. But who knows. I'd wager there are a substantial number who believe the CIA reported that the Russians hacked voting machines.
Great Scot! Tradguy must have taken that hard.
But no..not really equivalent...since she simply got onboard the campaign for the first female US president. It was high time. She wanted/wants it.
Now..if hse had intercepted and revealed actual communications the likes that are not contested but apparently were damaging/influential, why then she too would have committed the "political equivalent of 911".
Scotland won't be foreign once the Brexit is complete and Trump negotiates the reunion wth the United Kingdom.
Nor will Russia be foreign after Trump and Putin reconstitute the Soviet on an even greater scale than that the first one. Back in the USSR, you don't know how lucky you are.
JAORE said... the left wants to undermine the Trump presidency.
--
This..and this all provides sufficient distraction from the known/documented collusion between the MSM and Dems.
That issue has been swept away....
As somebody here said--The last sentence of Caroline Glick's column yesterday in the Jerusalem Post: "With their policies rejected by voters, the purpose of the Left [is not] to govern. It is to render their societies ungovernable." This is Obama's motive. Obama's Presidency itself fed that end. Nothing but division.
The Democrats blamed Sarah Palin for the nut who shot Gabby Gifford and two others in Tucson.
I am concerned all this very public agitation by the left will inspire another nut to shoot Trump.
I just hope the Secret Service is all over this like a rash.
We are talking about sedition here,
Generally, a person may be punished for sedition only when he or she makes statements that create a Clear and Present Danger to rights that the government may lawfully protect (schenck v. united states, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 [1919]).
Nobody is going to prosecute this,certainly under Obama, but if an assassination attempt is made, there might be serious repercussions to these people.
If true, it should not be an issue for the intel people to actually release that code rather than simply claim they found it.
One of the most stupid things ever written. The gov't isn't going to publish a security exploit.
But according to legend, the first time Barack Obama met Bill Ayers when he was holding court at Columbia, Ayers had him give him a BJ. Ayers picked that up when the SDS were looking to the Communist Party for help--explosives and money. While Obama blew Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn tried to blow Barack. Ayers always respected women and minorities that way
" While Obama blew Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn tried to blow Barack. Ayers always respected women and minorities that way"
Hopefully not at the same time.
Bernardine was the one who ran the Weathermen and she ruled by who she was fucking.
Bill was a rich kid dilettante.
Hopefully not at the same time.
Yes. Simultaneousy. Bill Ayers thought a hummer from Bernadine might make Obama's task/pledge of fealty more acceptable. Barack didn't need prompting.
And who has claimed to have witnessed all that?
Other lefties at Columbia when Bill was getting his Master's while not attending classes because he was a hero. All the lefties came to pay homage--like the three kings in Bethlehem.
I wrote: If true, it should not be an issue for the intel people to actually release that code rather than simply claim they found it.
Darrell shucked, jived and deflected as follows: " One of the most stupid things ever written. The gov't isn't going to publish a security exploit."
**************************************
LOLZ! So, we're just supposed to take their word for it?
I guess you are unaware of the issues:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/07/nsa-whistleblower-not-so-fast-on-claims-russia-behind-dnc-email-hack.html
Also: PRIVATE SECTOR data forensics firms were first to look into the DNC hacks.
http://fair.org/home/with-dnc-leaks-former-conspiracy-theory-is-now-true-and-no-big-deal/
Their conclusions were ambiguous.
"Six weeks since the hack was first revealed by the Washington Post (6/14/16), no one in the US government, including the FBI and White House (who have reportedly reviewed the situation in detail), have implicated or even suggested Russian involvement in the leak–neither on the record nor anonymously. Thus far, all suggestions to this effect have taken place outside the organs of the United States government — a common and deliberate conflation that even led to this correction in the Vox recap of the situation (7/23/16):
Correction: I misread the Washington Post‘s story on last month’s DNC hack and misattributed the Russia link to the US government rather than independent security researchers.
Thus far, the Obama administration has avoided any such claims. Indeed, if one reads carefully, so have the security firms in question. Buried in the followup report by the Washington Post (6/20/16) alleging “confirmation” of Russian involvement is the admission by the three firms (the “experts” Clinton’s camp refers to) that they cannot be sure WikiLeaks’ alleged source Guccifer 2.0 is Russian, let alone an agent of “Putin”:
Analysts suspect but don’t have hard evidence that Guccifer 2.0 is, in fact, part of one of the Russian groups who hacked the DNC….
It is also possible, researchers said, that someone else besides the Russians were inside the DNC’s network and had access to the same documents."
Just who is the estupido here, Darrell?
"Other lefties"
Ah..
I read the story in 2008. Private bloggers vetting Obama when the Media refused to do their job.
Lefties some time come to their senses. Not you, of course.
You can try to find it if Google didn't scrub it. Not worth my time--you wouldn't believe it anyway.
Columbia was bringing in all the antiwar lefties that were kicked out of colleges sans degree and helping them rehabilitate their academic record. Rich kids that felt guilty about not joining the anti-war movement and had then inherited money were picking up the tab. The antiwar losers didn't bother to show up for classes to get their degrees. That's what prompted people to talk years later.
Assume an honest Press Corps.
These emails are leaked to the Press, and the Press naturally publishes them and begins investigating their contents. Corruption at high levels is exposed. Pulitzers are won.
Now replace Press with Russia. I get some of the anger - the Russkiys are at it again! But this same event from 2 different perspectives is suddenly twisted into evil itself?
Now assume the Press Corps we actually have in the real world.
Emails from a corrupt RNC and the contents of Jared Kushner's Gmail inbox are leaked to the Press, who publishes the information and begins investigations. Corruption at high levels is exposed. Pulitzers and Nobel Peace Prizes are won.
Now replace Press with Russia again.
Of course, in all cases the party being exposed is going to fight back. I'm betting GOP voters would be quicker to abandon ship or try for a revolt against the party leadership than the Dems are being right now (which is what they should be doing), but there would still be a period of reflexive defensiveness.
More liberals than you know are out there right now coping not only with Trump's victory, but also with the Podesta emails, which they might not know much about but they do realize that someone somewhere shined a big bright light on some things that were not meant to be seen. Coupled with the fact that public awareness of the scale of the Democrats defeat over recent years in statehouses and Governors mansions, as well as the historic GOP margin in the House, has a lot of Dems shaken up. Some of them might be realizing that both parties suck but it's the Democrats who are worse, not the opposite. Not like it's a very far gap.
Classic stupid headline! Of course, they said the same thing when President Obama meddled, with US taxpayer funds, in the Isreali elections. But the idea that Russian hackers coronated Trump is only the latest left-wing opiate — after white supremacists and “fake news” — designed to dull the pain of electoral defeat, and postpone the reckoning that must occur if Democrats are to pose a significant threat as an opposition party at any time in the near future.
damikesc said...
Brando, I'm not sure I get what the bad thing Russia did was.
If the entire theory is accurate, in the end, they leaked completely accurate info. They didn't invent stuff. They didn't fabricate stuff. They put out 100% truthful information.
Isn't that what our PRESS was supposed to do? I don't get why I should be mad about transparency.
12/13/16, 7:35 AM
this is pretty much how i look at it. i don't see why anyone would have a problem with the info being released, because what was in there was true and deserved to be known. for all we know, the russians could have been doing us a favor. and at the same time, we don't know if it was the russians. there doesn't seem to be any evidence so far. and i personally wouldn't want a return to cold war days. i think it's a good thing that trump possibly seeks peace between our counties.
if russia really is responsible, i can understand why they or another foreign nation might want to sway a u.s. election. i also seem to recall that when the issue first arose during the campaign, trump suggested that it could have been any number of foreign powers, and that it was probably china. i can't remember for sure if he'd already began getting intelligence briefings, so he may have know something the rest of us don't. i wouldn't put it past china either. we already meddle in other countries' affairs in similar ways, so i don't doubt it's being done to us in return.
Obvious differences go further than you and most of your comments allow.
1. One act is legal, the other criminal.
2. One is open and can be assessed; the other is clandestine, indeed, falsely denied.
3. One is by a head of state who possesses very, very limited power; the other comes from the head of one of the world's few great military and nuclear powers.
4. The Scottish head of state has no obvious motive to hurt the United States; not so for Russia, which is strongly opposed along many dimensions to American interests and those of our allies.
Those who suggest that it's just fine because the information was true and deserved to be known seem to have no concept of the criminal wrongdoing and invasion of privacy involved in hacking. What do they imagine a hack of the Trump campaigns emails would reveal? How about a burglary of the NBC Studios to get the reputed Trump tapes? Would those also be OK if the information revealed were "true?"
Perhaps jaw dropping is a little strong, but really, Professor Althouse, isn't this a bad analogy, not just an imperfect one? Why is is more important to you to call out the relatively powerless critic who may have used strong rhetoric than the powerful politician who said something that borders on disingenuous.
Stephen said...
Those who suggest that it's just fine because the information was true and deserved to be known seem to have no concept of the criminal wrongdoing and invasion of privacy involved in hacking. What do they imagine a hack of the Trump campaigns emails would reveal? How about a burglary of the NBC Studios to get the reputed Trump tapes? Would those also be OK if the information revealed were "true?"
12/13/16, 6:26 PM
i would say yes. i don't care about the privacy of politicians. they don't care about our privacy either.
Private citizens have a right to privacy. Politicians who wish to rule us do not. I'm fine with getting the truth about Trump out too. The press was acting as Hillary's palace guard, not protecting her privacy, but her secrecy.
Re: tim in vermont:
Private citizens have a right to privacy. Politicians who wish to rule us do not. I'm fine with getting the truth about Trump out too. The press was acting as Hillary's palace guard, not protecting her privacy, but her secrecy.
I think one ought to differentiate between different categories. There's at least three, I think: (1) Clinton emails from her private server, from her tenure as Secretary of State, (2) DNC emails, and (3) Podesta emails.
(1) would be subject to FOIA, so she has no right to privacy whatsoever over those. To the extent she mixed them in with personal emails either through sloppiness or in a deliberate attempt to conceal them from the reach of FOIA, I think she loses any expectation of privacy.
(2) is not subject to FOIA (as far as I am aware), so although the people involved may have been up to shady stuff, there has been some invasion of their privacy. Or the DNC's privacy. Someone's private communications were released anyhow.
(3) I don't know, because I have not bothered to check whether Podesta's emails are from his tenure as a public official. I assume they post-date that, though, so that's an invasion of his privacy.
On the other hand, when we're dealing with elections, there's always the classic "October surprise" to worry about, and sometimes those October surprises are straight up fabrications pushed by embarassing hacks, and sometimes they're hacks of private emails. Whether they're true or not is more important than whether they're "fruit of the poisonous tree," as it were. Donna Brazile was the only one to try and claim her emails were fabricated, and her denials were so unconvincing they basically authenticated the documents. No one pointed to any specific fabrication in the Wikileaks documents (although there were certainly fabricated emails circulating, ginned up to look like Wikileaks emails). So voters -- those who cared anyhow -- seem generally to have concluded that the emails were authentic, and these are the sorts of people a Clinton administration would be returning to power.
Separate and apart from the truthfulness of the material is whether a foreign power was pushing it. And in this case, the argument that Russia was behind the hacks was made long, and loud well before the election, and Trump won anyway. If all the briefing is going to establish is that, yes, the voters were correctly informed by the media and the Clinton campaign that Russia was behind the hacks, it's a waste of time. I can't see how anyone could in good faith think that's a solid reason to overturn the result of the election.
All that said, though, if the FBI can find the hackers -- as they found the Palin email hacker --they ought to be prosecuted. It is a crime, after all.
So progressives are wringing their hands over foreign governments involving themselves in US politics, but forget about all the meddling they did in foreign politics. For example, does anyone remember Brexit?
But we are identifying some of the leftie asymptotes.
And don't think we won't exploit it.
Those who suggest that it's just fine because the information was true and deserved to be known seem to have no concept of the criminal wrongdoing and invasion of privacy involved in hacking. What do they imagine a hack of the Trump campaigns emails would reveal? How about a burglary of the NBC Studios to get the reputed Trump tapes? Would those also be OK if the information revealed were "true?"
Look up The Pentagon Papers. See the bleatings of the NYT and the left at the time. And no, criminals have no right to the expectation of privacy when it comes to their crimes.
I don't know how far they can go before they get a reaction, and the reaction is violent. How many of the fuel rods can be removed before critical mass is reached. But, they should be worried. The people whom the left are so desperately trying to disenfranchise so that they, themselves, can retain power, are the ones with most of the guns in this country, and the knowledge and ability to use them.
Not even that. They don't realize how precarious their blue city states really are.
On the first day of their "civil war", we hack the EBT systems and bring them down. Then we sit back and watch as every blue stronghold is overwhelmed with riots and brought down in flames. Inside of two weeks.
They have enslaved inner city blacks through dependency. So much so that the welfare class believes its "their" money. And if you think Ferguson was bad, wait till you see what starving people will do to each other.
We won't even have to fire a single a shot.
Post a Comment