MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

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.

PutinMichael Klimentyev/ZUMA Press/NewscomFrom the perspective of a Gary Johnson voter who regularly feels disenfranchised from the American electoral process and probably would stop voting entirely were it not for third parties and ballot initiatives, here's what the responses to the latest allegations that the Russian government hacked and leaked information from the Democratic Party to the press looks like:

Democratic partisans: "Having embarrassing emails and data about our inner workings released to the public is the equivalent of Watergate and Pearl Harbor combined. Why aren't more people outraged?"

Republican partisans: "If the Russians actually were involved, this is proof how weak a President Barack Obama was on the international stage. If only he had started a few more wars and droned a few more weddings!"

Nick Gillespie blogged this morning about how we needed more transparency from our own government and more proof that the Russian government was actually involved before we were to simply accept anonymous sources with unknown agendas.

But, as a thought exercise, let's accept it as truth. Let's say that the Russian government, under direct orders from President Vladimir Putin, hacked and released this inside info with the intent of influencing our election. What is the "right" way to examine what happened? Perhaps those of us with no political dogs in this hunt can give some advice.

1. Separate the Cybersecurity Issues from Hillary Clinton and Her Supporters' Public Humiliation

It's utterly impossible to discuss what sort of policy measures or responses America should consider when a good chunk of partisans are still resisting the reality that Clinton lost the election.

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.

It may be comforting in some really twisted way to think that this is proof that America is under attack instead of considering the possibility that millions of Americans simply didn't like your candidate, but that's not a path to actually addressing the matter at hand. Before selling this hacking as a massive violation of American government, keep in mind not just how many Americans voted for Donald Trump but how many Americans were forced to replace their ATM or credit cards over the past 12 months due to breaches in their security.

Folks are going to have a hard time selling this hack is something particularly special or nasty to the vast swaths of Americans who didn't support Clinton. So don't do that. It creates a weird sense that "the beltway establishment" is completely unfamiliar with a cybersecurity reality faced by ordinary Americans every day.

2. Making it About Donald Trump Is Dumb and Ignores the Actual Problem

Again, if we accept the premise that Russia wanted Trump to win and directly engaged in the hacking, it doesn't necessarily mean that using it to put Trump on defensive is an appropriate or effective response.

While there is some possibility electors may surprise us all, it's best at this point to accept that Trump is going to become president and approach any potential solutions with that reality in mind. That said: We know that Trump is thin-skinned and defensive when he believes he is under attack. And the political response to this has, perhaps even deliberately, created an environment that rolls these incidents into the massive ball of outrage about Trump winning. So, of course, we're going to get defensive tweets from Trump about all of this. And just like in the previous section, it diminishes the voters who supported Trump in the first place (again, probably deliberately).

But making this a fight about politics threatens to push it all away from a debate about policy-based solutions or what exactly the government should genuinely do about Russia's behavior. Making it so that Trump feels that the coverage of the hacking is deliberately attacking him personally could have the side effect of making him stubbornly resist solutions. Though, that might not always be a bad thing given that some people seem to think the solution is that we need a new cold war (or to say we're in one regardless of whether we want it or not).

3. Let's Maybe Not Desire Another Cold War with Russia

Yes, the Russian government probably wants to influence other large governments to install leaders and policies that are beneficial to its aims. This makes them different from other countries—how exactly? That a chunk of people are treating Russia's participation in our presidential election as particularly shocking or a sudden, stark development invites a master class in "whataboutism."

It would not be a surprise if some people (particularly in other countries) saw this story as America getting what it's got coming, not as some remarkably shocking breach of election norms.

This doesn't mean that America in any way should simply shrug at other governments' involvement in our electoral process, particularly when it involves breaches of technological security. The point is, it's absurd to act as though Russia has pulled out a new game of international political intrigue where America is totally unfamiliar with the dice, the board, the cards, and the rules.

To the extent that this election is a challenge to the way the American government operates, the challenge is truly from within. Again, as with the previous two considerations, when responding to the problem of foreign interests fiddling in our elections is to not to pretend that millions of Americans were tricked somehow into voting for somebody they didn't want. Russia didn't cause this election outcome, regardless of what they leaked, and the idea that response is to go after them in kind puts in a state of cybersurveillance gamesmanship that fails to make Americans safer but certainly gives our national intelligence agencies more work to do.

4. The Best Defense Is … a Good Defense, Actually.

The absolute worst possible policy response to this hack would be for America to prioritize counterattacks and an absurd tit-for-tat "cyberwar" with Russia and other possibly hostile administrations' over the cybersecurity of its own institutions and citizen privacy.

Are we supposed to ignore how much hacking of government information is a direct result of poor security practices by our government agencies or, you know, secretaries of state? And yet, our allies in the United Kingdom looked at all of this and still put into place a law that would allow the government to secretly demand tech companies and telecoms to insert encryption back doors that would allow officials to bypass communications security.

If the United Kingdom does require a communication company or service or application to insert a secret back door, guess who else will try to figure out how to take advantage of it? The Russian government. Or the Chinese government. Or the North Korean government. Or United Arab Emirate. Or some ring of identity thieves.

This is what the average citizen should be taking away from this incident and should be worried about. The way Western governments approach the use of technology in espionage and terrorism actively makes security weaker for all of us. Recall that when Apple resisted the call to help weaken its security to help the FBI break into the phone of one of the San Bernardino terrorists, Trump's knee-jerk response was to call for a boycott the company.

Trump does not have much interest or knowledge in cybersecurity, and the real danger of his administration is the possibility of following in the United Kingdom's footsteps, a government that prioritizes secret access over defense. And if that happens, then America could indeed face cybersecurity breaches that cause harms to our infrastructure (both political and actual) that are much greater than having embarrassing info released.

Photo Credit: Michael Klimentyev/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Let's Say Russia Did Hack the Dems. What Would Be a Responsible Reaction?

    I donno, a gift basket and $20?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Make sure that all communications software has a backdoor for government agencies?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Is it more funny or more sad that the dumbest possible answer is always the default US policy.

  • ||

    Of course it's funny! How can you even think to question Funny! I mean, the alternative is worse than you-know-who.

  • Jimbo||

    AM?

  • Zero Sum Game||

    Ship's computer: Your choice is unavailable.
    UnCivilServant: A gay gift basket.
    Ship's computer: Beep-boop.
    *A gay gift basket appears in the replicator.*

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    $50K matching donation to Reason's webathon? Better late than never!

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    So if they merely obtained some embarrassing emails and made them public, and voters used that factual information to help them make a decision, that is a form of service is it not?

    Inverse: If they had done similar to Trump and he lost, the Democrats would be calling for a Nobel Peace Prize for Putin.

  • WoodChipperBob||

    The Democrats wouldn't have said that, because a Trump loss would have fit their narrative.

    Their response would be that the Russian hacking couldn't have had any effect, because Clinton is such a better candidate. The badness that the Russians publicized wouldn't have convinced anyone, because only deplorables wanted Trump, and they aren't convinced by facts anyway.

  • MikeP2||

    You mean like how ABC sat on the "grab em by the P&$$^" tape throughout the election until the opportune moment to use it as a hit on Trump?

    Or how the NYT was running headlining articles about the litany of women coming forth with claims from 30 years ago about Trump. The same women who have all but disappeared.

    And Russia is worse how?

  • buybuydandavis||

    Do we not try to expose corruption of foreign governments to their citizens?

    At least the ones we don't like?

  • LLizard||

    The Russians hacked into the DNC and Podesta's email, and released unflattering - but true - information about how the DNC colluded with the Clinton campaign and major media to ensure a Clinton win, over Sanders, in the primary. This benefited the Trump campaign (by pitting him against a weaker candidate, in the general?). So, the fair thing to do would be to re-run the presidential election, only THIS time, to balance out the Russian interference, someone should publish some unflattering information about Trump. Because no one did, last time.

  • Sevo||

    "So, the fair thing to do would be to re-run the presidential election, only THIS time, to balance out the Russian interference, someone should publish some unflattering information about Trump. Because no one did, last time."

    Sarc, right?

  • BradA||

    I think he used the wrong font.
    I'm sure he intended Sarcastic Bold, but I'm seeing ROTFL Wide.

  • ||

    All out Nuclear War! Duh.

  • SugarFree||

    ***Calm down, I'm not defending Hillary***

    Given that they didn't come out during the election, does that mean that Hillary's homebrew server wasn't hacked?

    ***Calm down, I'm not defending Hillary***

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Have a cocktail on me at the party you're now invited to.

  • ||

    something like:

    2 ounces (1/4 cup) vodka
    1/2 ounce (1 tablespoon) triple sec
    3/4 ounce (1 tablespoon + 1 1/2 teaspoons) cranberry juice
    1/4 to 1/2 ounce (1 1/2 teaspoons to 3 teaspoons) fresh lime juice
    One 2-inch orange peel/twist

  • bacon-magic||

    You forgot the smug. It's the main ingredient.

  • UnCivilServant||

    I don't have Triple Sec, Cranberry Juice, Lime Juice or Orange Peel. Can I sub Vodka for all of those?

  • bacon-magic||

    Yes, but be careful, it might have a charcoal taste. Burnt wood, of which you might be a fan of.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Funny, I've run into vodkas that taste like plastic, but not vokdas that taste like charcoal.

  • Playa Manhattan.||

    Charcoal is used to filter vodkas. To make them taste like nothing.

  • bacon-magic||

    I know Playa, I was picking on Uncivil for saying whiskey tastes like wood.

  • C. Anacreon||

    A friend has recommended I try two off-the-beaten-path whiskeys -- any comment on these from any of you alcohol experts?

    *Whistlepig 10-year 100-proof Rye Whiskey

    *Nikka Coffey Grain Whisky

  • bacon-magic||

    ^Taylor Swift is fucking Kanye and Kim.
    Say something about whiskey again and I will link the pic where she is tossing Kanye's salad.

  • C. Anacreon||

    Bulliet Rye Manhattan.

    Is that enough something about whiskey?

  • bacon-magic||

    Good stuff right there. I don't know of the other two you named.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Why would you think anyone would want to see that?

  • bacon-magic||

    I was picking on Swifty above, you are right, no one wants to see that except Kanye.

  • ||

    Whistlepig is excellent, but a little over-priced in my opinion.

    Not heard of the other one.

    My current go to for taste at a decent price is Jefferson's Very Small Batch.

    Yummy!

  • bacon-magic||

    Knob Creek. Even though the name needs an adjustment...

  • R C Dean||

    The Whistlepig is excellent, but too pricey for mixing IMO.

  • Ted S.||

    I put vodka in my eggnog. Yum.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I need eggnog

  • AlmightyJB||

    I'm not a cocktail person nor have I ever been a fan of cranberry juice. At a bar one night and the Bacardi girls were there. They were giving out these drinks with Bacardi Wolfberry which is a blueberry infused rum, with a splash of cranberry and some sprite which was quite delicious. I substitute sprite zero to make a little less sweet. I'm more a beer drinker and bourbon sipper but that one was pretty good as cocktails go.

  • ||

    I just use 2 oz vodka, some club soda and lime. Easy, works.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    Try 100% cranberry juice -- not the "cranberry juice cocktail" stuff like Ocean-Spray that's actually more apple juice than cranberry.

    The pure, unsweetened stuff is seriously sour and makes for a real mixed drink, not something that you'd expect to be served with a paper umbrella or something.

  • 10mm||

    "I'm not a cocktail person nor have I ever been a fan of cranberry juice. At a bar one night and the Bacardi girls were there. "

    Behold the power of the Bacardi girls.

  • Mr. Paulbotto||

    ISWYDT

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Evidently you and I are the only two who know the recipe for a Cosmopolitan.

    Damn.

    IN MY DEFENSE, my wife loves them.

  • BradA||

    For those who don't like cranberry, leave both it and the twist out and you've got the makings of a Kamikaze.

  • PattyFromTexas||

    That sounds lovely. I take two!

  • SugarFree||

    I mean, they could have been sitting on them in case she was elected as leverage, but if Russia wanted Trump and Russia had them, then they would have come out, right?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    OMG. State secrets were perfectly safe in Hillary's crapper after all. Yes, your support of that candidate is now vindicated. HAPPY?

    It's a fool that looks for logic in the chambers of the commie oligarchic heart.

  • Rasilio||

    Not necessarily, depends on what was in them.

    They might determine that they didn't need to release Hillary's emails because they had Podesta's and there is some benefit to them in leaving everyone uncertain whether they have the contents of Hildog's emails

  • R C Dean||

    Not necessarily. They might have sat on them as insurance in case she won, as their fallback plan.

  • grrizzly||

    It means that whoever hacked the DNC/Podesta emails didn't hack Hillary's email server. Given that the Russian hackers are apparently omnipotent and must have hacked everything, it implies that somebody other than Russia leaked the emails to wikileaks.

  • Pay up, Palin's Buttplug!||

  • Lee Genes||

    I don't know that I would if I were them. Releasing them would negate any leverage you might have or clue others into what secrets you know.

  • Lee Genes||

    And I forgot...

    STOP CARRYING WATER FOR HILLARY YOU PROGTARD COSMO

  • TommyInIdaho||

    Is that cosmo as in: Combine 1.25 oz Gin, 1 oz triple sec, .5 oz Fresh lime juice, .5 oz Cranberry juice cocktail, shake and strain into a cocktail glass. Garnish with a lime wheel...?

  • SugarFree||

    No, I get that, I'm just goggling at the disconnect in the argument.

    -Trump calls on hackers to release Hillary Secret Server Emails (HSSE) if they have them.

    -HSSE are not released.

    -Non-HSSE emails are released that embarrass Hillary campign.

    -Therefore, Trump ordered his minions in Russia to hack Hillary's campaign.

    Trump wasn't given the thing he asked for, therefore Trump was behind it! The brain pretzel you have to twist up to believe this is amazing.

  • Lee Genes||

    All that matters is whether or not a particular interpretation of the situation validates your worldview.

  • kbolino||

    Presuming that it happened, the motives were different from those of the DNC leaks (which afaik has not been disproven as an internal leak). Clinton's server had blackmail material and classified intelligence. You can't use the former if she's not in office, and the latter is much more valuable if kept secret.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Let's Say Russia Did Hack the Dems. What Would Be a Responsible Reaction?

    Nominate the hackers for the Nobel Prize for exposing massive corruption in American politics?

  • Bob K||

    At least a Pulitzer; as this was the best piece of journalism all election.

  • ||

    Maybe the only piece of journalism during the election?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Boom.

  • Suicidy||

    The democrat response will be another series of massive hissy fits. For the rest of us, hilarity will ensue.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    What if we all say, in unison, "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide."

  • albo||

    The judge in PA denied Stein's case with extreme prejudice. Here's his comparison of the state's expert versus Stein's "expert":

    Although Dr. Shamos [PA's expert] acknowledged the theoretical possibility that an individual DRE machine could be hacked, he credibly explained that in light of all of the protections in place, the suggestion of widespread hacking borders on the irrational. (See Hr'g Tr. 63:23-64:9 ("The [vote tampering] scenarios that have been posited are approximately as likely as the fact that androids from outer space are living amongst us and passing as humans.").)

    In contrast, Plaintiffs' computer science expert, Dr. J. Alex Halderman, although qualified as a computer science "expert," knew virtually nothing about Pennsylvania's security procedures, the practices of the Commonwealth's election officials, or the Pennsylvania Election Code. Dr. Halderman admitted that he had "no evidence" that any voting machine was hacked, and that the election outcome was "probably not" the result of a hack.

    And, yes, the judge put quote marks around "expert" for Stein's person. Burn

  • R C Dean||

    The [vote tampering] scenarios that have been posited are approximately as likely as the fact that androids from outer space are living amongst us and passing as humans.

    Aha! I knew it!

  • The Fusionist||

    Soon they'll be doing the jobs American judges won't do.

    As soon as they find something an American judge is unwilling to do, that is.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Uphold the consitution as written?

  • The Fusionist||

    Bring on the cyborgs, then!

    At least until their computer programs detect one or two minor flaws in the law and undertake to correct them...blah blah blah nuclear Armageddon.

  • Trshmnstr, Grump Apprentice||

    At least until their computer programs detect one or two minor flaws in the law and undertake to correct them

    +1 V-ger?

  • Nunya||

    I can only imagine how Asimov's robots would interpret the amendments. Likely, after being twisted by the the laws they would be closer to correct that what Pelosi espouses.

  • BYODB||

    Well, the difference is a computer encounters a law and it is 100% unbreakable. Written in iron, one might say.

    When a human encounters a law, they look both ways to make sure the cops aren't looking then do it anyway.

    Because we invented the law to curtail ourselves, we therefore don't follow the laws. Seems simple, to me, but then again I'm definitely not an android from outer space. By the way, is the name 'Ford Prefect' nicely inconspicuous still? Asking for a -syntax not found-...

  • colorblindkid||

    But what about lizard people?

  • Swiss Servator||

    LIZARDS VS ANDROIDS - Coming this Winter to a theater near you!

  • Ted S.||

    Technically shouldn't it be a summer blockbuster? I think the lizards are too lethargic for a winter release.

  • Deep Lurker||

    Didn't we just have that one? With Donald Trump as the Lizard Commander, and Hillary Clinton as the Android Queen.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Why do they have to be from outer space? Can we not manufacture androids ourselves? This is what Obama has done to innovation in this country.

  • SugarFree||

    Fisto endorses Mexican android overlords made by wage-slaves.

  • Ceci n'est pas un woodchipper||

    In my day, an American worker could make a fair, living wage manufacturing androids and support a family!

  • UnCivilServant||

    Now the Androids make the androids in their air-free outer-space mnufacturing plants where EPA and OSHA regs don't impede efficiency.

  • Swiss Servator||

    "Robo Captain - we have an OSHA battlecruiser and a squadron of EPA fighters approaching!"

  • R C Dean||

    "Not to worry - OSHA prohibits the deployment of any weapons on safety grounds, and the EPA fighters aren't allowed to go faster than 55 mph to reduce emissions."

  • ||

    Dems running out of time to derail the Trump Train. What have they got left? Fake New? Russian hackers? Persaude the electoral college to make Hillary president?

  • Lee Genes||

    They're throwing it all at the wall to see what sticks.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    You can see the dispairation through their wet eyes.

  • Red Rocks Dickin Bimbos||

    the suggestion of widespread hacking borders on the irrational.

    Like I said this morning, the idea that the machines were hacked in several Rust Belt states implies either 1) that they can be centrally manipulated, which is impossible since they're not hooked up to the internet; or 2) that Boris and Natasha sent out numerous agents to every precinct in the region to insert code that would produce votes for Trump. Both are sheer fantasy based on the simple Simon idea that what is shown in the movies and on TV is exactly what could happen in real life.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Doctorow wrote a review of a new show (robots or something) that covered this well...how technical folks (like myself) spend most movies cringing at the ridiculous use of technology in movies.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Has anyone done a poll asking people if learning about the DNC fixing the primary election against Bernie from the emails informed how they voted in the general and if so, do they wish niw that they hadn't learned that tge dems rigged the primary election?

  • Curt||

    I suspect that the knowledge had two main consequences. People who already hated Clinton and planned to vote for Trump because she's a vile, conniving bitch, got an extra piece of evidence to confirm their pre-existing belief; a belief that they already took as gospel in need of no further confirmation. People who were Bernie fans and despised her as a member of the corrupt political establishment were proven correct and confirmed their plan to not vote for her.

    Of the people who had been willing to vote for her, they had already come to terms with much worse things than those emails. So they voted anyways.

    I'd bet the votes changed based on these emails is probably comparable to the number of votes changed in recounts so far.

  • ||

    Last time I checked, 95% of the recount in WI was in and Hillary had gained 25 votes. No mentions of Trump or the other candidate's counts as to where those 25 came from.

    Both PA and MI recounts have been blocked by judges.

    But the good news is that Stein has millions left over!

  • Suicidy||

    I'm sure that every last penny of that money will go to the needy.

  • R C Dean||

    Honestly, this calls for a reaction that is proportionate to the claim being made.

    A tweet ("What difference, at this point, does it make?") seems about right.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    What's "Are you serious?", chopped liver?

  • ||

    What, me worry?

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    You have to read the emails to know what in them?

    I'm not sure if that actually works. Still mulling it over.

  • Adans smith||

    I think the Dems are most pissed about how the hacks show their true nature. Every dirty trick in the book is ok,for them Just don't get caught.

  • Microaggressor||

  • Tony||

    I for one am appalled at the near-total lack of scheming and backstabbing on their part.

    Fucking professionals. This is America. You don't win by being professional, you win by talking about the size of your dick on national TV.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    "What Would Be a Responsible Reaction?"

    Make Snowden ambassador to Russia.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Someone who can't keep a secret?

    Do you even Diplomacy, bro?

  • R C Dean||

    But . . . I thought that's what diplomats do, is leak secret info.

  • Princess Trigger||

    "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv13ZnkpWos

  • waffles||

    Fake news. We never bombed Russia.

  • Bob K||

    We did invade Russia once though. Not sure if we dropped any bombs on them though. Google: American Expeditionary Force Siberia; for anyone interested.

  • C. Anacreon||

    Boy, did he create a shitstorm among the Dems with that little ditty.

    "A President can't joke about such things!"

    Ha-ha, I can remember that people even thought Mondale had a chance. 49 to one! That's a landslide.

  • LynchPin1477||

    5) Politicians wouldn't have to worry so much about their dirty laundry being aired if they didn't have so much dirty laundry

    I'm not trying to downplay the threat of a security breach or play the "only people with something to hide care about privacy" card, but if you really think that shining a spotlight on your behavior cost you the election, then maybe try behaving better.

  • BakedPenguin||

    It's Clinton we're talking about.

  • I can't even||

    Grifters gonna grift.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Are we supposed to ignore how much hacking of government information is a direct result of poor security practices by our government agencies or, you know, secretaries of state?

    Uh, it would be nice.

  • Zeb||

    The parties aren't the government. It's entirely their problem to make sure they have adequate security.

    And if hackers are releasing true information about the party leaders, aren't they sort of doing us a service by exposing all the shady backroom stuff?

    And I don't see what difference it makes if it was Russian government supported people or some kid in his mom's basement who did it.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Regarding your last point, I posted this in another thread

    It's a fair point - the truth is the truth and it shouldn't matter where it comes from or what the motivations behind it are. All I can say is that it *does* matter to a lot of people, because intentions and group identity matter to a lot of people. When the NYT says something it's seen as within bounds because they are part of the in-group, their writers can vote and will live under the new president. The assumption is that their interests are America-centered, and even if they are wildly different than the interests of some other Americans, it's part of a debate between Americans.

    When Russia says something it's seen as out of bounds because they are part of the out-group, they can't vote and won't live under the new president. The assumption is that their interests are Russia-centered, and even if they align with the interests of some Americans, they aren't supposed to be part of the debate.

    I'm not very motivated by intention-based reasoning or in-group vs out-group competition (which is probably why I am a libertarian), but I am somewhat motivated by them (because I am still human), and I certainly understand where others are coming from.
  • BearOdinson||

    So one thing I haven't heard discussed, is that this wasn't a hacking of the US Federal Govt, nor of state or county election boards, nor of voting machines.

    It was a hack of an individual's email account (Podesta), and a private organization (DNC is NOT a governmental agency).

    So, yes there are people out there who try to get information. I mean, I am sure that if Russia got a hold of ExxonMobil emails that somehow proved that they know that AGW is occurring and they don't care and they are going to defraud the public anyway, then the Dems would be just as upset at the Russians for interfering or something. Right?

  • LynchPin1477||

    DNC is NOT a governmental agency

    Strictly speaking this is absolutely correct. In practice, it's pretty much impossible to disentangle the parties from the government.

  • kbolino||

    For more collusive fun, MD voters just approved a Constitutional amendment that says if the elected offices of Comptroller or Attorney General are vacated and a special election is not called for, then the Governor must choose a replacement from a list of three chosen by the party of the person who vacated the office. That's right, the state government must take its orders from a private political party (either one) and not the people.

  • Lee Genes||

    Since it's Maryland, I think we know which party it's going to be.

  • kbolino||

    Hey, there's a nonzero* chance that a Republican could one day hold the office of Attorney General (last held in the 1950s) or Comptroller (last held in the 1890s)!

    * = But you can round it down to zero

  • kbolino||

    What floors me is that it passed with like 75% of the vote. I don't often like to call voters stupid, but this is one instance where I think it's apropos.

  • ||

    The governor is a Republican.

  • kbolino||

    The governor is a Republican.

    But the Attorney General and Comptroller are not, and those offices haven't been held by Republicans for a long time, and have been held by fewer Republicans than the office of Governor.

  • Bubba Jones||

    This explains it. Republican governor can't appoint a republican replacement.

  • kbolino||

    I thoroughly hope this is declared unconstitutional, but this being MD, the only time the courts find something unconstitutional is when the judges have hurt feels or the act in question isn't a handout to cronies/unions/government employees.

  • Ceci n'est pas un woodchipper||

    Fucking Maryland. My wife is the kind of person who voted for Obama and Clinton and calls herself an apolitical who is, and I quote, "more of a libertarian than [me]", and even SHE voted against that shit. We're giving Chicago a run for its money on that corruption thing.

  • kbolino||

    There was nothing wrong with the way it was before; even though the governor could appoint someone from a different party than the previous officeholder, the nominee would still have to be approved by the legislature which has been overwhelmingly Democratic for decades. And I would have been fine if they forced a special election in every case to find a replacement, too.

    But what they did is atrocious and not just because it was so transparently corrupt.

  • Bob K||

    You mean the people who brought us Congressional District 6 & 8 are corrupt? I can't even imagine.

  • ||

    There are a lot of people I've noticed who claim to be 'libertarian' but are nowhere near so.

    It's a strange phenomena. They want to *appear* cool and exercise a free mind but when you press them they're nothing but run of the mill statists - they just don't realize it.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Indeed, it is a strange phenomenon... Libertarians aren't cool and I'm annoyed whenever someone here mistakenly lumps me in with you lot.

  • Citizen X||

    It's not as though you would like being cool anyway.

  • Trshmnstr, Grump Apprentice||

    They want to *appear* cool and exercise a free mind but when you press them they're nothing but run of the mill statists

    It's the "cool" way to be a statist without linking yourself to the idiot Top Men.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Funny, I've run into vodkas that taste like plastic, but not vokdas that taste like charcoal.

    I always thought vodka tasted like dirty dishwater (would taste if you drank it).

  • albo||

    As a beer drinker, I think vodka tastes like alcoholism.

  • ||

    Cheap vodkas taste like I imagine finger nail polish remover would taste. The good ones taste like 40% alcohol, not much of anything else. Some are smoother than others.

  • Zeb||

    Vodka should be easy. Seems like the ideal vodka would just be ethanol and water and nothing else.

    I only use vodka for bloody marys, so as long as it doesn't taste actively bad, I'm good.

    I have gotten acetone in my mouth and I can tell you that it is much less pleasant than even the cheapest vodka.

  • ||

    Zeb: Opens vokda, takes swig. Opens finger nail polish remover, takes swig. Damn that Hyperion!

  • Rat voted NOTA||

    Cheap vodka is a marketing ploy by the beauty industry to create demand for excess, cheap nail polish remover. It's the chocolate diamonds of alcohol.

  • Playa Manhattan.||

    OK. The term "hacking" is getting a little muddied here.

    Did the Russians hack into voting machines and change the out come of the election? No. So in no way did they "hack the the election.

    Did the Russians hand over John "UFO" Podesta's email archive to wikileaks? Who gives a fuck? The truth is an absolute defense.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    They hacked the election the way showing you how bisecting an ice cream container hacks your life.

  • AlmightyJB||

    The balls involved here is amazing to me. DNC colludes with Hillary to rig the primary against Saunders (which wasn't even necessary). Their deplorable behavior (yes I did) is exposed, which they claim caused Hillary to lose the general. Their proposed solution is to make Hillary President. Balls the size of Texas.

  • ||

    What they are doing is what they always do. They are intentionally making a term meaningless. In this case, hacked. Sort of like they did with other words like 'liberal'. This way, since the word has no meaning, they never have to try to explain what it means. In this case, it means it's Hillary's turn, nothing much else.

  • Zeb||

    So, basically she's saying "if you didn't know how scummy my campaign and party were, I'd be president. So you better let me be president".

    Balls indeed.

  • EscherEnigma||

    "The truth is an absolute defense."
    Which is why, of course, it does not matter if evidence was obtained through an illegal search/seizure, only that it is "true".

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    CORPORASHUNS AREN'T PEEPLE!

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Sorry, had to throw in the snark.

    All the leaked emails did was illuminate how corrupt Hillary and the DNC was. No one's going to jail over it. Hillary lost an election based on an entirely unsubstantiated claim of Russian hacking that had an unspecified and unknown and unquantified affect her vote totals.

  • Playa Manhattan.||

    Don't worry, it's Tulpa.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Well, someone should go to jail over it, but all evidence points to us not having jurisdiction so it's probably not going to happen.

    That said, you missed my point. Unless you're arguing that the American justice system isn't based on our ideal† of justice, then yes, we, as a country, do not believe that "the truth is an absolute defense". To put it simply, as a society we value our privacy/secrecy enough that the occasional crook/thief/dishonest politician getting off because of it is acceptable.
    ________
    †Which is arguable, but I'm not interested in that conversation, so it'd be a "agree to disagree" sort of thing.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Let's Say Russia Did Hack the Dems. What Would Be a Responsible Reaction?"

    The Supreme Court voids the election results, and we hold another election.

    And we KEEP holding more elections until Hillary finally wins!

  • John||

    A responsible reaction would be "so what"? Spying on each other is what nations, especially adversarial ones do. If there is a problem here it is that the Democrats didn't secure their server and left a lot of really embarrassing stuff on it. Such is life.

    Think of it this way; if the Russians had somehow obtained the infamous Trump Pussy grabbing tape and released it rather than ABC, I doubt any of the people so angry at the Russians for leaking Podesta's emails, would be angry about it. And nor should they be.

    It would be a problem if the Russians had faked the emails and slandered the DNC. That is interference in the election. But releasing truthful but embarrassing things about either side? That is them doing us a favor.

  • The Fusionist||

    For the future, I'd like to see better protocols in place against hacking.

    For the present, the good Lord may have brought good out of evil by using this stolen information to expose Hillary.

  • ||

    How about this: Don't let high ranking government employees who are dealing with classified info, take home government email servers and put them in their basement closet? Maybe those servers should be maintained by IT staffers, some of whom are experts in securing servers?

    Just an idea I'm throwing out there. I know it's a little crazy, but maybe it should be considered.

  • John||

    Or how about have high ranking political people be smart enough not to say and do stupid shit in emails? Or maybe have major parties refrain from fixing their Presidential Primaries to screw the candidate who got the most votes but wasn't liked by the party elite?

  • ||

    Or how about have high ranking political people be smart enough not to say and do stupid shit in emails?

    I kinda wish somebody could parlay this into some obvious connection about our liberties and the war on terror but I have a feeling the gulf is too wide.

    I mean we are literally giving our rights to people who can't keep their mouth shut in their own insecure emails *after they know it's been compromised* in order to run investigations and track down people who abandon encrypted software almost the instant it's known to be compromised.

    It's not like we're handing the keys to the hen house over to the fox as much as slaughtering chickens in hopes of attracting wolves to chase of the foxes.

  • John||

    That is just it. In many ways we had a lot fewer civil rights and protection from the government in the past than we do now. That wasn't good. But what makes today worse is that at least back then the people in the government were not retarded, were generally competent and often patriotic. Now, the government has almost as much power to violate our civil rights but is being run by people who are unbelievably stupid and vile and care nothing about the country or anything but themselves.

  • Nunya||

    I'm gonna need a bit of proof that previous generations were so benevolent as you claim. See Andrew Jackson, FDR, and even John Adams for proof they aren't so, or shouldn't be, highly regarded as bastions of purity.

  • spqr2008||

    I don't believe they were benevolent, but I do think that higher child mortality rates, and the overall harshness of life in the past did tend to lend public servants more realism about their jobs.

  • C. Anacreon||

    Or how about have high ranking political people be smart enough not to say and do stupid shit in emails?

    Absolutely this. I'm not a government official in the slightest way, yet I've known for at least a dozen years that anything you say in an email can come back to haunt you -- so don't say anything stupid, perjorative, libelous, or discuss anything illegal in an email!!!

    You can say these kinds of things, if you must, in a phone call. If you think there's any risk that the phone call might be tapped, say them in person. Otherwise, clam up.

    Why is it a bozo like me knows this, and someone who people believed should be leader of the free world did not? For that reason alone, she deserved everything that happened to her. Anyone saying "but she should have had privacy" is a moron in this day and age -- there's no such thing as an expectation of privacy with email.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    That would be a great first question if Hillary ever comes out of hiding:

    Q: Do you feel election officials were grossly negligent or merely extremely careless?

  • The Grinch||

    If the Russians did hack the Dems the best response would be to address the corruption and criminality that was revealed. This appears to be a textbook case, if even true which I seriously doubt, of shooting the messenger in an attempt to shift blame. Show me the evidence that WaPo and/or the CIA aren't full of shit or fuck off because I'm highly skeptical of anything they have to say on a controversial political issue.

    Oh, and send Podesta to a training class where they teach you to not click on a freaking phishing scam.

  • John||

    I am pretty sure Podesta not only clicked on a phishing scam but also failed to change his password after the IT people told him he had been hacked. You really can't make up that kind of stupid. That kind of stupid only exists in the wild.

  • ||

    I've come to the conclusion now that Democrats don't even care about being careful. Look what Hillary has gotten away with? Take for example, blaming Benghazi on a video and even Obama going along with it. Whatever they get caught doing, they figure they'll just lie and that will be the end of it.

  • BakedPenguin||

    This. They're too lazy to even bother with the cover up. Of course, to the prog, this means what they did was okay, since they didn't even try to cover it up.

    Hillary's start in politics was during Watergate. I'm guessing the above was what she took away from that.

  • John||

    They honestly didn't think it was possible for them to ever lose the Presidency again.

  • kbolino||

    Maybe they should have paid more attention to Congress, and not just to scream about how the Republicans only won because of gerrymandering (never mind the Senate, apparently).

  • ||

    Someone posted something like the following here. I can't remember who it was, but it makes a lot of sense.

    The left believe that history is on their side and that the natural progression (no pun intended) is always towards their worldview and it always will be until the point where they finally win and utopia has been achieved. The possibility that they could be wrong about that can't be considered since it would basically crumble their entire belief system.

  • The Grinch||

    What was it Obama said about the arc of history bending toward justice or some similar saccharine nonsense? Whoever posted the above seems to be onto something.

  • kbolino||

    The left believe that history is on their side and that the natural progression (no pun intended) is always towards their worldview and it always will be until the point where they finally win and utopia has been achieved.

    A related concept is called Whig history. There is a "soft" form which it seems the vast majority of people accept (e.g. slavery is barbaric and any society who practices it is "backward") and a "hard" form which is akin to what you're talking about. I'd also say there's a variant/corollary form which says that history "stops" so to speak at certain ideas/events (such as "true" communism, or individual liberty). There is a bit of conflation between historical events and ideologies, though. Even if you accept an ideological point as terminal, people continue to exist, to experience things, and to develop new ideas (or rehash old ones).

  • kbolino||

    Note that the "vast majority of people" I'm talking about above is in the context of Western society. There are still many places in the world where slavery is widely accepted and I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

  • kbolino||

    Hillary's start in politics was during Watergate

    Actually, she worked for the Goldwater campaign in 1964.

  • Lee Genes||

    I think she learned a few things from the opposition team, specifically Bill Moyers.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    It only took 52 years to choke out that bitch.

  • Suicidy||

    Let's hope that changes and we have at least four years of the AG putting prominent dems in prison for their bullshit. On the plus side, it will keep Sessions busy and focused on something other than state legalized pot.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Let's Say Russia Did Hack the Dems. What Would Be a Responsible Reaction?"

    An emergency drum circle!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvwPhVs-XL8

  • Lee Genes||

    For a glimpse at the lunatic fringe...

    The FBI is definitely in the Russian's corner now.
  • Lee Genes||

    I agree that the CIA is very good at what it does, and that it generally consists of people who are truly patriotic. But my original comment was made because we really need them to stand up and do what's right, since in the past few years we've been treated to a bunch of cowardly govt officials who are scared of their own shadows. Or complicit.

    I am waiting anxiously for the CIA to use its vast powers to save us and, frankly, itself.
  • LynchPin1477||

    Just like in Iraq, right?

  • Lee Genes||

    We're talking about the same organization that didn't predict the collapse of the very country it was founded to keep tabs on.

  • AlmightyJB||

    + grassy knoll

  • John||

    My entire life I have heard the left accuse anyone who thought the USSR was a threat to the country of being a war monger and that the only danger to the country during the cold war was the evil anti-communist Mcarthyites. To have them now convinced the Russians have infiltrated the entire country and elected the President is so bizarre that it can only be proof that there is a God and he really does have a good sense of humor.

  • Lee Genes||

    They're out of their damn minds so much so that they want the CIA to directly involve itself in domestic politics and help alter the results of a presidential election. That's just mind-blowingly stupid.

  • The Grinch||

    It would mean blood in the streets in a Civil War II sense.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Reading about the new lefty 'resistance' recently had me cracking up.

    Where are they going to get their guns? Who's going to teach them how to use them?

  • John||

    Me too. We are going to have a civil war with Pajama Boy and the staff at Think Progress on one side and the guys from Duck Dynasty on the other. I wish them good luck with that.

  • I can't even||

    It is fun to imagine the butt-hurt militia crossing the Hudson and the Potomac to hunt for Trumpkins.

  • UnCivilServant||

    They wouldn't have the stamina on foot. They'd have to try to drive.

  • Red Rocks Dickin Bimbos||

    Me too. We are going to have a civil war with Pajama Boy and the staff at Think Progress on one side and the guys from Duck Dynasty on the other. I wish them good luck with that.

    It's a lot more likely that in such a scenario, white lefties are going to recreate "Operation Get Behind the Darkie" from the South Park movie. They need people on their side that actually know how to operate firearms without pissing themselves.

  • ||

    Where are they going to get their guns? Who's going to teach them how to use them?

    This is the part that absolutely blows my mind about the whole thing.

    I think there are definitely a collection of ethical wedge issues that they could selectively deploy among branches of the armed services vs. the population at large or in the cities vs. in flyover country (or all of the above) that they could use to pry the country apart and genuinely start a Civil War in which they might have the upper hand. I strongly suspect that this issue is not one of them.

    Forcing your troops to fire on your countrymen because they own and lynch slaves is one thing. Forcing your troops to fire on their countrymen because they're a basket of deplorables and a foreign nation hacked the ballot box on your party and your candidate's watch is a pretty surefire way to get yourself hanged. I'm pretty sure it's military decorum (both in and outside the service) that has prevented the discussion from moving in that direction in the first place.

  • Robert||

    Ever think many of them secretly shoot, while espousing anti-gun attitudes openly?

  • Steve Son of Steve||

    I have several prog friends who do indeed own guns and shoot regularly. And they are all pro-gun control. And they all truly believe they're defenders of the 2nd amendment.

  • LynchPin1477||

    And now they think the CIA is full of truly patriotic people that are very good at what they do!!!!

    Stranger than fiction

  • John||

    But under Bush the CIA was an evil entity that lied the country into invading Iraq so Halliburton could get rich. They have gone even more barking mad than they were.

  • LynchPin1477||

    For as long as I can remember the CIA has been the go-to shady government agency with way too much power. Needed an inside-the-government villain for some political thriller? CIA. But now they are American heroes.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    But now that the CIA is saying something the liberals want to hear, they are trustworthy.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    It's a weird world we live in when John Stewart has become the voice of reason from the left side. I'm so confused.

  • John C. Randolph||

    But it's not the USSR now! (Well, not yet. Putin's doing all he can, but there's a way to go.)

    -jcr

  • Red Rocks Dickin Bimbos||

    And it's not like it happened over the course of several years--it happened in just a few months, if not weeks. For them to make an almost literal over-night change to their worldview about Russia indicates just how deep their cynicism and disingenuousness runs.

    These are a bunch of people who mocked Romney just four short years ago for having a "1980s" foreign policy. Welp, if the Russians actually were responsible for all this, it's their own fucking fault for being so blasé about Russia's subversive capabilities.

  • ||

    "He is about the juiciest intelligence target an intelligence office could imagine."

    Yeah, just like he was the one person who the Democrats wanted to run against Hillary.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    This falls into that category of things that are so politicized that you will never, ever know the truth. Did the Russkies F the Democrats in the A? Or was it some other disgruntled organization/individual upset with the DNC?

    MAYBE IT WAS A FALSE FLAG OPERATION. Maybe the Dems themselves leaked the emails because they knew that Trump was going to win in a landslide and needed to discredit him and make themselves victims. That theory is out there, so it can't be dismissed. Just asking questions is healthy. We don't know.

    And, you know what? I don't really care to know. Live by the obfuscation, die by it. The Clintons could have solid-seeming evidence, a notarized photo of Putin and Trump hanging from a Mission: Impossible harness dangling above Hillary's shitter at a bash prompt on her mail server. Wouldn't trust it.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    Actually, it could be the Russians in a false flag. They suspected Trump might win, so they want to undermine the entire election process because it weakens faith in the US government and potential destabilizes us.

  • John||

    I doubt the Russians had any better a handle on the electorate than the "experts" in the US. So, the Russians almost certainly thought Hillary was sure to win. Why did they leak these things? To undermine her coming Presidency and make her a weaker president.

    As far as these claims go, the Russians don't have to interfere in our elections. They can achieve the same effect by convince a significant number of Americans that they did. Do that and the legitimacy of the government comes into question greatly reducing American power and influence. Given that fact and the fact that our media is amazingly stupid and shallow and will believe anything that is told to them, it looks to me like this whole thing is a Russian disinformation campaign.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    Also possible. It really seems that the missing Step One is an analysis of what, tangibly, the Russians gain from tampering with the election (having Trump as the president is a means, not an end), and to figure out how to minimize that.

    If the whole goal was to undermine our national leaders...well, for one, they're doing us a favor. That aside, the correct response would be to continue employing an election method that is difficult to hack (don't push for any networking of voting machines or online voting), and then to reassure American voters that elections cannot be hacked.

  • John||

    They don't gain anything from tampering with the election. They do however gain from a weak and divided US. And creating the impression that they tampered in the election achieves that.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    If that's the goal, then the method of minimizing those effects would be for the CIA to say, "Russians actually did not influence the election at all. It's very difficult for any outside power to influence American elections, and it did not happen here. The government will continue to function regardless of who is president, and there are internal means of dealing with failures in the presidential office."

  • John||

    That is what the CIA would say if they were smart. But they are not smart. They are partisans and want to weaken Trump and the country just as much as the Russians do.

  • Jimbo||

    Sure, just ignore the evidence!!1!
    While you're in Herself's bathroom stealing all her sh...stuff, you might as well just hide your head in the san...her toilet!

  • double ham fisted||

    Prosecutor: Mr. Chappelle, what would it take to convince you that R. Kelly is guilty?
    Dave Chappelle: Okay, I'd have to see a video of him singing "Pee On You," two forms of government ID, a police officer there to verify the whole thing, four or five of my buddies and Neal taking notes, and R. Kelly's grandma to confirm his identity.
    R. Kelly's Grandma: That's my Robert, always peeing on people.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    The one thing no one seems to be debating is the accuracy of the leaked e-mails. So, the bottom line of what the Russians stand accused of doing is publishing inconvenient but true information. If, rather than Russian hackers and Hillary Clinton, the world were talking about a Trump campaign staffer and Donald Trump, the staffer would be being lauded thoughout the media as a hero of free speech and good government. But, from a principled position, there really isn't a difference in whether rights were violated. Either the heroic whistle-blower is a crook who deserves censure or the Russians were well within their rights.

  • John||

    Exactly that Bill. It is like I say above; leaking embarrassing but true shit about either side's crimes is not interfering in the election. It is doing the country a favor.

  • ||

    Well except for this fellow:

    A Clinton Fan Manufactured Fake News That MSNBC Personalities Spread to Discredit WikiLeaks Docs

    That the emails in the Wikileaks archive were doctored or faked — and thus should be disregarded — was classic Fake News, spread not by Macedonian teenagers or Kremlin operatives but by established news outlets such as MSNBC, The Atlantic, and Newsweek. And, by design, this Fake News spread like wildfire all over the internet, hungrily clicked and shared by tens of thousands of people eager to believe it was true. As a result of this deliberate disinformation campaign, anyone reporting on the contents of the emails was instantly met with claims that the documents in the archive had been proven fake.

    The most damaging such claim came from MSNBC's intelligence analyst Malcolm Nance. As I documented on October 11, he tweeted what he — for some bizarre reason — labeled an "Official Warning." It decreed: "#PodestaEmails are already proving to be riddled with obvious forgeries & #blackpropaganda not even professionally done." That tweet was re-tweeted by more than 4,000 people. It was vested with added credibility by Clinton-supporting journalists like Reid and Frum ("expert to take seriously").
  • SugarFree||

    Oh, my...

    gg
    December 10 2016, 3:54 p.m.
    No matter who doctored them, the point is they can be doctored and should not be taken at face value
  • Christophe||

    DKIM does allow us to check the validity and non-tamperedness of much of the email archive.

  • I can't even||

    ^This^

    The moment they stop denying the information and shift over to attacking the messenger is the moment they have admitted it to be true.

    All the shit that is still pouring out of their leaky unsecured email accounts is absolutely true and they don't even bother trying to deny it.

  • Chipwooder||

    Hey, remember when Teddy Kennedy secretly sought to conspire with the Soviets to defeat Reagan in 1984? Apparently the media and the Democratic Party (but then I repeat myself) don't.

    Also, maybe it would have helped if John Podesta, key player in the movement of brilliant intellectuals known as "progressives", didn't use "pa$sword" as his fucking email password.

  • John DeWitt||

    Holy crap. How I have I never heard of this?

    http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/.....inson.html

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Let's Say Russia Did Hack the Dems. What Would Be a Responsible Reaction?"

    Um . . . how 'bout we all get male to female gender reassignment surgery in sympathy with people in North Carolina who don't know which bathroom to use?

    Gives a whole new meaning to the term, "Dicks out for Harambe!"

  • AlmightyJB||

    Then I would just lay in bed all day with a mirror on the ceiling and play with my new girl parts.

  • R C Dean||

    Wouldn't that be "Dicks off for Harambe!"

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Let's Say Russia Did Hack the Dems. What Would Be a Responsible Reaction?"

    Eat nothing but fruit sushi for two weeks!

  • Flakfizer is Ballet, Jr.||

    One step ahead of you, Shultz.

  • Chipwooder||

    Also, remember how upset the left got when Sarah Palin's emails were hacked? Me neither.

    And remember the consternation when the Obama administration went all out in trying to defeat Netanyahu in the elections in Israel? Me neither.

  • Nunya||

    Well, apparently backstabbing another country's leader while trying to accuse him of collusion while in your own country (rather unfounded, that) is totally cool. If you are "transparent" about trying to control another country's election you get a pass. I guess.

    What I learned from that is that if Putin were behind this he should've just shown everyone his binders of women emails. (We are still calling Hillary and her exposed ilk in the DNC women, right?)

  • A Thinking Mind||

    I honestly think Step One might be to conduct a reasonable investigation, with two main aims. Aim #1 is to figure out HOW Russia hacked the democrats, and to see if those weaknesses need to be shored up. Aim #2 should be to figure out the extent of these effects. That is, getting Trump elected may not further their goals, but if it does, you need to establish HOW, specifically. And maybe the attacks on Hillary were just a false flag and they wanted to reduce faith in the American Electoral system in order to destabilize the strongest military power in the world.

  • R C Dean||

    First, you need to figure out IF Russia hacked the Dems. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

  • Nunya||

    Stop being pragmatic.

  • The Fusionist||

    By all means punish the guilty hackers if they can be found, but for goodness' sakes, don't punish the American people by inflicting Hillary on them again.

  • B.P.||

    A high-level U.S. official should sell Russia some uranium so they'll be nice to us.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Obviously, the right thing is for all the Democrats in congress to get together and introduce articles of impeachment against Vladimir Putin!

    -jcr

  • Jerryskids||

    Remember when the US interfered in the Israeli elections by inviting Netanyahu to address Congress in the run-up to the election?

    How many people were impeached or imprisoned or otherwise punished for that? Oh, that's right, nobody was - because a nod-and-a-wink endorsement of one candidate over another is a completely reasonable standard for any country regardless of the formal position that there is no formal position on some other country's elections. But it would be silly to think a country wouldn't prefer to see another country with a friendly rather than a hostile government.

    So who would Russia prefer between Democrat Hillary and Republican Trump? Well, wasn't it Hillary herself who famously delivered that reset button to Russia to symbolize our starting off with a clean slate with them, the Dems who pivoted to Asia to stress how our biggest concern was with China rather than Russia, Mitt Romney who was lambasted for suggesting Russia was a threat to us? How the hell could you possibly think Russia would prefer the GOP to the Dems, especially their good friend Hillary?

    I'm not saying this "Russian hacking" thing is a false-flag operation but I wouldn't disagree with anybody who claimed it was.

  • John||

    Obama sent a team of political advisers to directly assist the campaign of Netanyahu's opponent. Imagine if Trump had had a team of Russian PR flacks helping his campaign. The Democrats would have lost their minds. Yet, Obama doing the same thing in Israel is totally okay.

  • Lee Genes||

    Obama sent a team of political advisers to directly assist the campaign of Netanyahu's opponent.

    I didn't know it went that far. That's outrageous.

  • John||

    It really is. Of course, Obama being a complete moron with one of the world's great reverse Midas touches, ensured Netanyahu's victory.

  • ||

    It's like Hitler taking charge of the German war effort - it guaranteed the allied victory

    /very broad brush

  • AlmightyJB||

    At least one person thinks it's a false flag.

    http://hotair.com/archives/201.....hn-bolton/

  • The Grinch||

    Russia did prefer Trump but that doesn't mean they hacked the election in any meaningful way. Clinton came very close to advocating direct war with Russia, Syria, and Iran. Putin would have to be certifiable to not want Trump (or other than Clinton) win.

  • John||

    Why would Russia prefer Trump? I have never understood that. Russia needs oil revenue and Trump is going to raise US oil production. Also, Trump didn't say he would walk away from NATO. He said he would expect the Europeans to rearm and start helping out. A rearmed Europe is the last thing the Russians want. The Russians want what we have now; the US assuring Europe it will defend them enough to keep Europe from rearming but the US getting weaker and less able to come through on such assurances.

    I don't buy for a fucking moment the Russians wanted Trump to win. Trump winning is liable to be a strategic disaster for them.

  • EscherEnigma||

    The truth is an absolute defense.
    So you're just ignoring all the pro-Russia things Trump has said, how he's jumped to defend Russia from any claims of impropriety, how he used to brag about meeting Putin and only started denying it when it sort-of became a liability, how he's chosen cabinent members with very strong Russian-ties, and the direct comments from some Russian politicians about their preference for Trump?

    To believe that Trump isn't happy with Russia and that Russia isn't happy with Trump, you have to believe that both are far more subtle then they've ever shown any inclination for in the past.

  • John||

    So you're just ignoring all the pro-Russia things Trump has said, how he's jumped to defend Russia from any claims of impropriety, how he used to brag about meeting Putin and only started denying it when it sort-of became a liability, how he's chosen cabinent members with very strong Russian-ties, and the direct comments from some Russian politicians about their preference for Trump?

    Yes I am ignoring all of that because it doesn't mean anything. It is just talk. What matters is what Trump does. And I don't see Trump doing anything that isn't going to end up being harmful to Russia. Killing off CO2 regulations alone is a strategic disaster for Russia.

    To believe that Trump isn't happy with Russia and that Russia isn't happy with Trump, you have to believe that both are far more subtle then they've ever shown any inclination for in the past.

    Time will tell with Trump, but if you don't think the Russians are not subtle and clever and masters of disinformation, you don't know much about the Russians. I don't know what else to tell you.

  • AlexInCT||

    Hitlery got paid by the Russians for special favors. Paid. Big time. And they would have owned her because of the dirt on her they had. But Trump!. Look, Trump is a douche, but compared to Hillary he was far less compromisable, and a wild card.

  • Nunya||

    I've had that same thought, but what I've come to is they were done with her. They got what they wanted and didn't want to deal with any additional quid pro quo crap with her. I think they see her as someone that cannot be trusted, is careless, has too much baggage that could expose them unnecessarily.

    On the other hand, you know everything Trump does will be under a microscope. I'm not sure how they can get away with much there.

    So I'm at the point of just watching and waiting to see where the money goes. Watch the money and you'll know what's up.

  • The Grinch||

    Trump is less likely to stick his nose into either Syria or the Ukraine and those two issues are at the forefront of Putin et al's minds, although maybe not so much the Russian public's. If he's taken at his word, Putin has been concerned about direct conflict for quite some time now and I would think that avoiding that would be priority number one because they would either have to go nuclear or they'd lose.

  • John||

    Trump is less likely to stick his nose into either Syria or the Ukraine

    Trump said he was going to destroy ISIS. How do you plan to do that without going into Syria? And no US President is going to stick their nose into the Ukraine. Has Obama?

    And what makes you think Hillary was some unstable war monger who was going to start a war with Russia? I don't like Hillary but even I think that is a bit much.

  • The Grinch||

    I think Trump was talking about cooperating with the Russians to destroy ISIS. Clinton is on record as saying she favors a no fly zone in Syria that encompasses where the Russians are present and currently conducting military operations. This would necessarily lead to either war with Russia, Syria, and Iran or Russia tucking their tail between their legs and losing all international credibility which I don't think would happen. What Clinton was advocating was dangerous.

    Trump may end up screwing the pooch as badly as Clinton would have done, that's true, but he's a bit of a wildcard while she's a known antiRussian commodity.

  • John||

    He is not a wild card when it comes to the price of oil. And that matters more than anything else.

  • The Grinch||

    That's true in the long run-Trump's going to allow drilling like there's no tomorrow.

  • MarconiDarwin||

    Jan 20, 2017.

  • tarran||

    Why would Russia prefer Trump?

    He's not the unhinged warmonger that Hillary Clinton is?!?

    Seriously! Look at her major foreign policy pushes. Two of them basically were giant fuck you's to Russia.

    1) The meddling in the Ukraine elections
    2) The attempt to overthrow Assad

    And notice how she is incapable of backing down or accepting reality. The whole email things was utterly stupid. Her boss, her advisors, her husband all told her it was a bad idea, and she went ahead with it anyway.

    She's exactly the kind of person who will stupidly blunder into a war. Remember when Saddam Hussein tried to take a Saudi city hoping to capture a bunch of Americans? His master plan being to strap the prisoners to the front of the tanks to use as human shields? How it ensured that the Saudis would support an invasion of his country?

    That's the level of belligerent tone-deafness Hillary Clinton brought to the table. If I were Putin, I would want Trump to win simply because:

    1) Hillary was a dangerous loose cannon.
    2) Trump can be negotiated with
    3) Trump is far more likely to make common cause with Russia relating the common enemy to both countries (radical sunni islam)
    4) Trump isn't going to support the destruction of the world's fossil fuel industry the way Obama and by extension Clinton would.

    Basically, in Putin's shoes, I would find Trump preferable to Hillary because he's less insane.

  • John||

    If I am in Putin's shoes, I want a nice weak Hillary as president, gutting the US military, giving NATO false assurances and waging the mother earth Jihad against the US petroleum industry. Russia is bankrupt and Putin is likely dead, if oil prices drop too much. They wanted Hillary.

  • Airwaves||

    I really hope you're right John.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Reports are coming out that the DNC has been repeatedly watching Red Dawn while muttering "better dead than red" over and over.

  • John||

    http://www.newsbusters.org/blo.....-stupid-or

    In other news, Moby is still alive. Who knew?

  • The Fusionist||

    Call Captain Ahab.

    (Note to the lawyers for the artist known as Moby - this is simply a bad pun, not a literal invitation for a sea captain to harpoon the artist)

  • Brian||

    Love Trumps Hate, But the Russians are Coming, So Let's Have WW3.

  • waffles||

    Only if we get to have a draft, women too, deal?

  • Ken Shultz||

    The whole purpose of bringing up this CIA thing is so that the progressives can defend their own legitimacy against those who would blame them for Hillary's loss.

    Hating on the white, blue collar, middle class is an important part of what being a progressive is all about. If the progressives didn't blame the CIA or Citizens United or the electoral college of Jame Comey or whatever comes next, then people might start believing that progressives spewing hate towards the people Democrats need to win is the reason Hillary lost.

    And, obviously, we can't have that! Because if you can't hate on whites for being racist, Christians for being homophobes, the middle class for being selfish, blue collar workers for being stupid rednecks, etc., then there's not much point in being a progressive.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Best description of a progressive I have seen. They must have the "other" by which they compare themselves as the enlightened. It's either "us" or "them" [haters, racists, misogynists, rednecks, un-repentant flag waving confederates, in a word deplorables you don't want to associate with]

  • Homple||

    This Russian Rigging of the US Election Phatasmagoria is Hillary's attempt at a Reichstag fire.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I wouldn't go that far.

    I think progressives are ideologically rigid in their belief that the American people would never reject them if only they understood what progressives are really about--and they will not accept that they themselves are the problem.

  • Homple||

    I hope you're right, but this behavior bodes ill for the future. They're just getting warmed up.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    By creating a fighting force of extraordinary magnitude!

  • BakedPenguin||

    Let's Say Russia Did Hack the Dems. What Would Be a Responsible Reaction?

    Getting them a book on basic server security for Christmas?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I am waiting anxiously for the CIA to use its vast powers to save us and, frankly, itself.

    Gadzooks!

  • esteve7||

    This is so fucking ridiculous. They arn't even saying the emails are fake, they are just mad they got caught with their pants down.

    Blaming the whistle-blower for exposing that you are corrupt as shit....

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Right. The transgressions are not the problem, the snitch is.

    Crime family 101

  • Bra Ket||

    Funny I remember October (and November) surprises nailing both candidates pretty hard. But according to the media, with Hillary's little surprise, it's all about the process, and might-have-been's. While with Trump's it's all about what a "pussy-grabbing" misogynist he is.

  • I can't even||

    Strange that all the Trump accusers immediately fell off the radar.

    I mean, who wouldn't believe that Trump grabbed this woman by the pussy?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XKSXSFV894

  • ||

    If sports teams blame a loss on:

    1) field, court or ice conditions.
    2) officiating.
    3) crowd noise
    4) opponent tampering with equipment
    5) the media.
    6) injuries.
    7) luck.

    While we *could* see some justification in the whining it would not detract from the fact they lost to a better team. Period.

    Usually this means:

    1) better preparation and execution.
    2) better overhaul talent and team spirt/play.
    3) mental and clock management.
    4) superior tactics and management.
    5) determination and grit (aka heart/wanting it more).
    6) luck.

  • ||

    The excuses pimped out by the Democrats is like the former.

  • ||

    Make that tactics, management and strategy.

  • I can't even||

    I think you just plagiarized Jim Harbaugh's post game interview notes.

  • ||

    Proper reaction? To thank them for doing our country a great service.

  • ||

    They just can't stop.

    Russian hack like 911!

    Herpity-derpity-herp-derp!

  • Lee Genes||

    "It is an attack on our very democracy. It's an attack on who we are as a people," Mike Morell told The Cipher Brief. "A foreign government messing around in our elections is, I think, an existential threat to our way of life. To me, and this is to me not an overstatement, this is the political equivalent of 9/11. It is huge and the fact that it hasn't gotten more attention from the Obama Administration, Congress, and the mainstream media, is just shocking to me."
    Morell, who served as acting CIA director during President Barack Obama's administration, said a bipartisan commission would be beneficial because it would "look into exactly what the Russians did and what we can do here at home to make sure that no foreign government can ever do this again to us."

    Morell is not inspiring me with much confidence in the CIA (not that I had any). If we don't know what the Russians did, then how is this comparable to 9/11?

  • Lee Genes||

    Morell has also openly called for the US to bomb Syrian government targets.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I think he is talking about the mechanics of how they got the emails.

  • Lee Genes||

    Where Podesta is concerned, it's pretty well established that he was phished. As far as the DNC goes, nobody knows anything, only Wikileaks knows where they came from.

  • PapayaSF||

    "'Russian hackers' is so negative. We should start calling them 'undocumented patriots'" — uncle_nevsky on Reddit

  • Jerry on the sea||

    The proper reaction would be to blame Anthony Weiner. Where is that guy?

  • ||

    He had to check into a sex addiction clinic luxury hotel for a while to be cured of this sex addiction. Now he's back with Huma.

  • The Grinch||

    Good for them, they make such a cute couple.

  • AlexInCT||

    The "Fredo Corleone" of the Democratic Party.....

  • EscherEnigma||

    Honestly, the "problem" I have with the whole thing isn't what Russia did or didn't do. That's beyond our control and mostly beyond our influence.

    What concerns me is that, having happened, we have a president-elect who keeps denying it. Let's be honest here, what's the consequence to Trump of saying "yeah, it looks like the Russians meddled in our election"? He's got the same defenses: "The means of the leaks were deplorable, but the things they tell us are more so", "All they exposed were the truth" and so-on. He could, at no cost to himself, say "yes, the Russians hacked DNC e-mail servers in an attempt to influence the election".

    But instead, he's just denying it happened. He's calling the CIA a bunch of liars, undermining the USA intelligence community, and poisoning his relations with critical agencies before he's even president. If he's so quick to call them liars when they tell him something that runs counter to his bias when it costs him nothing, what will he do when they tell him something that runs counter to his bias when it would cost him something to act on?

    So yeah. I think the "appropriate reaction" is for Trump and his team to say "yes it happened, and we will make sure that we are so good, transparent, and honest, that we are not vulnerable to a comparable attack, because we will have nothing to hide". His "it didn't happen. There's no problem. Look, a squirrel!" approach? Is terrible.

  • I can't even||

    1. Is there an proof?

    2. The CIA aren't a bunch of liars?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwiUVUJmGjs

  • Ken Shultz||

    "He's calling the CIA a bunch of liars, undermining the USA intelligence community, and poisoning his relations with critical agencies before he's even president."

    To my eye, this is like going after a candidate's family.

    That's generally unacceptable . . . unless the candidate's campaign makes a distinction between himself and his opponent in terms of being a good father. At that point, it becomes a legitimate campaign issue.

    If the CIA is weighing in on Trump's legitimacy, then Trump is well within his rights to question the legitimacy of the CIA.

  • ||

    Where's the link to the CIA's official statement on this?

  • GILMORE™||

    Exactly. Both people seem to be pretending that the "CIA" have said something. They haven't. All the news have reported on are a few anonymous people's "interpretation" of something. None of the details of which are available by anyone.

  • Lee Genes||

    The smart thing for Trump to do would be to demand that the CIA lay all its cards out on the table and end all of the supposition and innuendo.

  • ||

    Let's just start out here with the fact that there is zero evidence that Russia hacked anything. Starting with that, the correct response from Trump is to blow it off. Sure the left wants him to play that game, but he absolutely should not play it, there's no upside.

    "I think the "appropriate reaction" is for Trump and his team to say "yes it happened"

    Yeah, right, Trump should say something happened when no one has evidence of it. Are you even trying to be serious?

  • ||

    He probably isnt saying it because there is no evidence that they did. That could have something to do with it.

  • Ken Shultz||

    P.S. To what extent are the CIA's pronouncements politically motivated?

    Did anyone in the Obama Administration or with ties to the Clinton campaign urge them to make these declarations?

    These are legitimate questions.

    This wouldn't be the first time the CIA's pronouncements have been politically motivated.

  • John C. Randolph||

    To what extent are the CIA's pronouncements politically motivated?

    The CIA has been a political entity since its inception.

    -jcr

  • american socialist||

    "His "it didn't happen. There's no problem."

    He egged them on and now he's denying it. Sure, Donald, sure.

  • John C. Randolph||

    What are you doing here? I figured you were busy fellating Castro's corpse or something.

    -jcr

  • GILMORE™||

    we have a president-elect who keeps denying it

    Denying *what*?

  • Red Rocks Dickin Bimbos||

    Christ, how long did it take you to come up with that convoluted bit of illogical fantasia? What possible benefit would it be for Trump to say "Yes, the Russians helped get me elected but I'm going to change that"? I know it would benefit Democrats because they would use it as a bludgeon to possibly overturn the election results, but anyone who isn't a COMPLETE AND TOTAL FUCKING MORON would do the exact opposite of what you propose.

    Is your name in real life George Costanza?

  • Nunya||

    Or, the CIA is parroting what their current boss is telling them to. Honestly, other than the Russians, who knows what the truth is?

    Should Trump out and out call them liars? No, that sounds rather short sighted. However, your prescription of going all in with "They totally did it" without any public evidence proving that is not smart either. It would also not help to legitimize him prior to taking office. I'm no Trump fan, but self trashing his office before he starts certainly doesn't help me any.

  • PapayaSF||

    I had one guy online mock me for my ignorance on this issue, but in another comment he seriously suggested that this supposed Russian hack merited an election "do-over." I must have missed that part of the Constitution.

  • ||

    There is only one way to stop Trump from taking office. Only one. And that would be Obama declaring martial law and suspending elections. The Democrats had better get started on that if they want to stop Trump.

  • Illocust||

    ...You know. I can't tell if I'm thinking in hyperbole when I say a lot of reporters would think martial law to prevent Trump from becoming president would be justified. The majority of the Dem base wouldn't be cool with it, but the intellectuals? They really seem to believe that there are going to be prison camps put up on January 20th.

  • Lee Genes||

    The attitude of the intellectual community toward America is shaped not by the creative few but by the many who for one reason or another cannot transmute their dissatisfaction into a creative impulse, and cannot acquire a sense of uniqueness and of growth by developing and expressing their capacities and talents. There is nothing in contemporary America that can cure or alleviate their chronic frustration. They want power, lordship, and opportunities for imposing action. Even if we should banish poverty from the land, lift up the Negro to true equality, withdraw from Vietnam, and give half of the national income as foreign aid, they will still see America as an air-conditioned nightmare unfit for them to live in.

    -Hoffer

  • PapayaSF||

    +1

  • R C Dean||

    Illocust, fer cryin' out loud - ix-nay on the ison-pray amps-cay already. Geez.

  • AlexInCT||

    The left is worried Trump might do to them what they were hoping Hillary was going to do to the other side...

  • NoVaNick||

    So let's say that enough electors are persuaded to crown Her Majesty POTUS. I think that could have some benefits-primarily in that it will finally flush the toilet on all the proggies still whining about the 2000 election and may finally make the dems extinct as a party, since their candidate will take office with an abysmal approval rating. They do have some hope of making a comeback under Trump, but no chance with Hill at the helm.

  • John||

    I think overturning an election and risking an outright civil war is a pretty high price to pay for some vague assurance that "the proggies will really be done for them". No thanks.

    And how is it that the solution to the Progs is so often "let them take power and then we will show them". That always seemed a bit puzzling to me.

  • NoVaNick||

    John, I am not saying I want it to happen, if it did, I agree that it would be very ugly. It is entertaining to watch the progs cling to an EC upset the way I clung to the hope that my high school ex-GF would take me back after she dumped be for a football player douchebag. I am only musing on would happen the unlikely event that their wish came true.

  • EscherEnigma||

    And how is it that the solution to the Progs is so often "let them take power and then we will show them". That always seemed a bit puzzling to me.
    Well to be fair, you're talking to a bunch of libertarians/Libertarians.

    "[L]et them take power and then we will show them" is the only strategy you guys have.

  • ||

    What it would do is destroy the American public's faith in the electoral process. The electoral college is not meant to be a way for electors to pick their preferred candidate, but a way to give all of the states a fair chance to decide an election. Now you have Democrats saying that want to do away with the electoral college. That's some insane level stuff right there and they have no way of doing it. It would effectively allow CA and NY to decide every election, totally disenfranchising the other states. A bad, bad, bad idea.

  • LynchPin1477||

    They want to do away with right after using it to get Hillary elected

  • Homple||

    One man, one vote, one time.

  • NoVaNick||

    I think this has been discussed here before, but if they did do away with the EC, wouldn't there be a large number of conservatives, and possibly libertarians who don't bother to vote in deep blue states like CA, MA, and NY because they know it is pointless? My guess is that there are more of them than there are proggies in red states who don't vote, so getting rid of the EC might actually get them to vote, and presidential elections might not necessarily become a slam dunk for the dems.

  • PapayaSF||

    Perhaps, but it would still shift the balance of power to the large states, which the EC was designed to prevent.

  • EscherEnigma||

    "[Doing away with the electoral college] would effectively allow CA and NY to decide every election, totally disenfranchising the other states."
    As opposed to now, when a majority of states are disenfranchised anyway?

    Face it, the electoral college encourages folks to only focus on "swing" states, because all they need is a bare plurality to win it all. States like California, New York and Texas have been disenfranchised for a long time because of the electoral college. If you aren't in Ohio, Iowa, Florida or a handful of other "swing" states, then they really don't care that much about you.

    "That's some insane level stuff right there and they have no way of doing it."
    ... electing your chief executive by direct democracy, instead of a contrived system, is "insane"? As for "no way of doing it", check out the Interstate National Popular Vote Compact. It's unlikely at the moment because we'll need at least some red states to sign on (and they've benefited from the electoral college trumping the popular vote twice in the past two decades), but it's a feasible plan that will probably be resurrected in twenty to thirty years after an electoral upset in the other direction convinces Texas to throw it's weight around instead of being assumed.

  • Red Rocks Dickin Bimbos||

    Face it, the electoral college encourages folks to only focus on "swing" states, because all they need is a bare plurality to win it all. States like California, New York and Texas have been disenfranchised for a long time because of the electoral college.

    Christ, talk about begging the question. Whoever wins California alone is already 1/5 of the way to winning the whole thing. That kind of outsized influence is exactly why the Electoral College was created--so smaller states with smaller populations weren't disenfranchised by larger states.

    Your objections are based on nothing more than the sheer fact that your side lost. So stop pretending it's anything more than that, because you're embarrassing yourself with how little knowledge you're putting on display here.

  • SFC B||

    At this point I really do wonder what the folks who wish for this think would happen? Even leaving aside the possibility of actual conflict, how do they think the GOP, which has a majority in both houses, is going to take that? This would make their "obstruction" during Obama's term seem polite and perfunctory.

  • PapayaSF||

    One suggestion is that if it shifts to the House and Trump becomes president anyway, it still taints him as somewhat illegitimate, so political points are thus scored.

  • DRM||

    The saner lunatics are suggesting a "unity" candidate, not Clinton -- Romney is a name that comes up quite a bit.

  • ||

    I am not sure why all the talk of Russia anyway. Isnt it more likely that they were leaked by someone inside the dem party? Didn't Assange say it was Seth Rich, a DNC staffer? You know, the guy who ended up like so many who crossed Hillary; shot dead.

  • Domestic Dissident||

    He has never said anything about Seth Rich or confirmed who gave him the materials, but he has pretty adamantly denied all along that his source was Russian or has anything to do with Russia.

    I don't believe that Rich was murdered because of anything having to do with the Wikileaks e-mails, which I seriously doubt he had any access to. I believe he was murdered because he was a Bernie Sanders supporter who discovered some kind of evidence showing the ways the DNC tilted the primaries in favor of Hillary, and was planning to release it.

  • PapayaSF||

    Assange said it wasn't the Russians, but he did not say it was Seth Rich.

  • ||

    Let's Say Russia Did Hack the Dems. What Would Be a Responsible Reaction?

    CYBERWAR!!!

    Democratic partisans: "Having embarrassing emails and data about our inner workings released to the public is the equivalent of Watergate and Pearl Harbor combined. Why aren't more people outraged?"

    Interestingly, "cyber Pearl Harbor" is a (dumb) "thing" in tech policy and cybersecurity* marketing.

    *idgaf if the prefix "cyber" triggers you, sorry

  • AlmightyJB||

    I see that your immigrant snowman loves pitching his tent Carl

  • ||

    No, it is a story of the American dream. He went from a poor Irish snowman living in a tent, with naught but a sparkle in his eye and fire ice in his heart to riding stowaway in a refrigerated shipping container to America and moving into my basement.

    Duh.

  • AlmightyJB||

    How does an Irish snowman drink whiskey without melting inside?

  • ||

    He's a teetotaler. That's why he was so poor -- he was ostracized from his community.

  • american socialist||

    Why didn't Rand Paul talk more like this in the primary and less like he wanted to ingratiate himself into the Republican establishment?

    http://www.salon.com/2016/12/1.....on-bolton/

  • Ken Shultz||

    You're quoting Salon?

    Why would you quote Salon?

    Find another source. I don't believe what they say about . . . anything.

  • Microaggressor||

    It's the fountain of stupid from which he drinks.

  • american socialist||

    That's funny... whenever I post a reason.com article over at Salon they say pretty much the same thing. What is it about Salon that drives you guys crazy? The abortion advocacy, the Republican Party bashing, calling Trump on his utter bullshit?

  • Sevo||

    Fuck off, asswipe.

  • bacon-magic||

    Do they like you there? If so, you might want to stay there. If not, you might want to stay there. One last question- are you still crying and if you are can you bottle some for us?

  • John Titor||

    I'm going to go with "the blatant dishonesty and stupidity".

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    For me, it's the glowing account of Venezuela's "economic miracle"

  • AlmightyJB||

    OT: Now as far as "actual" terrorist go, don't worry your still free to terrorize.

    http://hotair.com/archives/201.....anization/

  • The Fusionist||

    You know who else was a Nazi?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Every republican candidate. ~ msm

  • AlmightyJB||

    Speaking of which, CNN gets closer to being Huffington Post every day. I guess these guys love purposely losing influence.

  • GILMORE™||

    another reminder that Scott is probably the best writer in the Reason dugout.

  • Chipwooder||

    Now that Moynihan and Cavanaugh are only memories *sniff*

  • ||

    Where's the CIA's official statement on this? Why isn't it on their site? Why can't I find it with a search engine?

  • John||

    Fake news!!

  • ||

    So now CNN are posting a story claiming the USA is blaming Russia for the election results (which of course didn't go their way), but they completely fail to say 'who' said this. At one point they just use the generic term 'The Agencies'. Fake News, yes, from CNN. Again, no statement from CIA on their website and none to be found anywhere.

  • ||

    OT: LAPD are button men for the taxi Mafia (I am Jack's complete lack of surprise)

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Let's say I'm taking a shower and I slip on a bar of soap.

  • ||

    Russia hacked FOE's soap!

  • gbear||

    Putin hacking the election should be a movie by Nakoula Nakoula maybe Harry Thomason could finance it.

  • Sevo||

    SugarFree|12.12.16 @ 1:25PM|#
    "Given that they didn't come out during the election, does that mean that Hillary's homebrew server wasn't hacked?"

    What incentive would Putin have for admitting they owned every bit of data that landed on that thing?
    I'm pretty sure that releasing it would only serve to advertise they have whatever the US didn't want them to have.
    I have no doubt they and the intel agency of every two-bit government in the world has it, but without a strong incentive to admit it, I can see several to just clam up about it.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    Yes, the Russian government probably wants to influence other large governments to install leaders and policies that are beneficial to its aims. This makes them different from other countries—how exactly? That a chunk of people are treating Russia's participation in our presidential election as particularly shocking or a sudden, stark development invites a master class in "whataboutism."

    Please correct me if I am wrong, you Donk Party Members, but did not the Imperator Mendacious send his prize-winning election team to Tel Aviv to try to destabilize the Netanyahu campaign?

  • Chipwooder||

    Why yes, yes they did - but that was GOOD interference in someone else's election because Chocolate Nixon was behind it! I mentioned that one upthread.

  • XM||

    E-mail leaks and hacks have been fairly common in this country. The Chinese hacked the FDIC and our private companies. A few years ago Sony was hacked and when NK was the suspected culprit they pulled "The Interview" from theaters.

    What's important is that the details of the leaks were mostly true and damaging to the democrats. That doesn't change regardless of WHO leaked it - Russia, Wikileaks, OWS, Snowden, etc. And the left usually have no qualms about some radical underground organization hacking the hell out of the Wall Street and Hollywood.

    So all of this is essentially more butthurt bitching from the losing side who dismissed the notion that Russia was a growing threat only 4 years ago. Obama made a show of sanctioning some of their officials then pretty much did nothing else. Everyone knew Russia was emerging as a geopolital foe of the US. The dems are either only waking up to the fact or making noise about it because ONLY because Putin (allegedly) cost them a Clinton presidency.

  • AlmightyJB||

    The most outrageous think about this and the other hacks is that governments are still insisting on software backdoors

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Dems could be forgiven for forgetting this*, but let's remember who the president was while all this was going down. So what say you Dems: was Obama in on the conspiracy, or is he just an idiot? How about both?

    *Obama's name is hardly mentioned by anybody anymore. Shit, Dems talk as though Trump were already president.

  • John||

    That is a good point.

  • Tony||

    Almost as if he's a lame duck with the opposition party coming into power.

  • bacon-magic||

    The end.

  • MarconiDarwin||

    Yeah, 9/11 happened on his watch too. Wonder if cops should be blamed if a crime occurs on their watch.

  • Kevin47||

    My prog friends are on Facebook asking for a re-vote. Over John Podesta's hacked emails.

    A re-vote.

  • NoVaNick||

    A re-vote on whether the e-mails were hacked, or on whether Podesta actually wrote them?

  • Empress Trudy||

    I suspect that what we're seeing is little more than an unveiling of a baseline that's been there for quite some time. Security isn't materially better or worse than it was a year or 2 or 5 years ago. We're simply more exposed and attuned to its more public use for more public and political reasons. After all, who cares about identity theft if it doesn't harm them personally? I suspect this is a case of people suddenly paying attention to the dead raccoon in the road because all of a sudden raccoons are a thing that people starting looking for.

  • Brian||

    I do enjoy the show.

    Whether it's Trump buffoonery, or Constitution/Electoral College shredding, or Russian tinfoil hat conspiracies.

    It's like watching democrats and republicans both desperately try to shred the federal government into a million pieces, while arguing about which direction to cut.

    Whatever happens, I feel like a winner.

  • Hank Phillips||

    The New Left Anti-Industrial global warming religion demands tax sacrifices be levied on nations other than China. No way is non-communist Russia going to like that. But Trump can afford good advice and knows the econazi agenda really is a fraud--with patently evident data tampering. If I were nonlibertarian and stuck in Russia--where competition from communist China and Mohammedan troublemakers are both problems--I would rather Trump win so that These States can have the same competitors and enemies Russia has.
    I personally am hugely entertained by the way the Dems are embarrassed by their reliance on communists and the GO-Pee by their reliance on prohibitionist christianofascists to glue together their coalitions. Both the commies and the christianofascists are shrinking cohorts doomed to rapid extinction for the same reasons Stalin and Hitler are less and less popular with each passing day.

  • SpiderMike||

    If the Russians did hack the DNC, what's the big deal? The Dems have not disputed the content validity of the "hacked" emails so all the Russians or whoever have done is reveal the truth of this despicable political party. And if it was indeed the Russians, I say God bless Mother Russia for the service provided.

  • Cleanthes||

    "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."

    Well, yes. I mean, obviously. We have a large number of idiots who get to vote. And they can be swayed by stupid things. So we need to be able to discuss how terrible it is to use certain swaying tactics.

  • DRM||

    See, the actual story-behind-the-story is the outrage of the Fourth Estate at its prerogatives being stolen here. They're the ones who are supposed to evaluate what illegally obtained information is provided to the American public.

    This crisis, of course, goes beyond just the supposed Russian hacking. It is the right of the Press to decide which blatant nonsense conspiracy theories get publicized, not Facebook. And it is the right of the Press to decide who is an acceptable Presidential candidate. The success of an upstart outlet like Breitbart News, which doesn't even try to be accepted as respectable, is another aspect. And the defeat of Clinton means there will be little chance of the long-hoped-for reversal of Citizens United, allowing non-Press to continue using broadcasting and publication for political influence.

    The Press is in crisis. The Internet destroyed its riches; now it is losing its power, too.

  • CraigL||

    Given how sloppy mz clinto was with her server and how the dem committee was run, I think the blame lies squarely on themselves for sloppiness with their cybersecurity. In addition, if you do so many embarrassing, criminal, and stupid things that when the public finds out it changes the election outcome...perhaps you deserve to be hacked.
    BUT: it didn't change the election. The egg was already on the face of the dems and hillary with Bengazi, her email scandal, and her speech about a basket of deplorables.

  • SundanceInGlentucky||

    Has anyone considered:
    1) It was the DNC, not the US government that got hacked. Why should the feds respond at all?
    2) Hillary had about $1.2 billion to spend and she was still too stupid to hire a decent IT geek.

  • jelabarre||

    We're worried about what the Russians mught have done towards the *end* of the election cycle? Unless you can find some reason to blame them for Clinton *AND* Trump ultimately ending up as the major-party candidates. But this election was much like every other one I've seen; the primaries start out with a group of reasonable and intelligent candidates on *both* sides, along with a handful of corrupt dimwits. The entire process of the primaries is to wear down and eliminate the reasonable candidates and make sure the dumbest of the dumb is all that's left. It's It's like starting out with Sir Lawrence Olivier and ending up with Kim Kardashin.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    Giddyness? Mirth? RollOnTheFloor Laughter?
    It would be devastating if these "hacks" were the result of someone having an unsecured, open-to-the-web, private server in her basement just to keep her emails out of the clutches of FOIA.
    But, that would never happen, particularly with individuals who had been at the highest levels of government for decades.
    Oh, Nelly!

  • Joseph C. Moore (USN Ret.||

    I matters not whether Russia hacked the emails or, as Julian Assange said it was, insider leaks. The fact is that exposing the criminal machinations of the democrat party, its operatives and specifically, Hillary should be the focus. Why are we in the kill the bearer of bad tidings mode when the focus NEEDS to be on the actions of the subversive and pedafilic people, running the Hillary campaign with a propagandizing press carrying the ball for them. THESE are the despicables in the last election cycle not Trump or the (perhaps falsely accused) Russian government.

  • MarconiDarwin||

    So the CIA allegedly says that the Russians hacked, and aided Trump in his election victory. Your rational response to that is Hillary should be investigated?

    How the fuck did you get in the military?

  • MarconiDarwin||

    It's utterly impossible to discuss what sort of policy measures or responses America should consider when a good chunk of partisans are still resisting the reality that Clinton lost the election.
    Only because reason.com wants to focus on "Clinton lost the election" compared to whether or not it is a serious matter.

    Because—and this is trivial—suppose that those partisans do not matter. They never have.

    Does it matter that the next President is simply rejecting what the CIA has offered? On what basis is that defensible?

    "Hillary lost" does not count as reason, does it? I mean it is worth at least one Benghazi-level hearing, is it not? I mean RIGHT NOW.

  • Christophe||

    Does it matter that the next President is simply rejecting what the CIA has offered? On what basis is that defensible?

    The CIA has, of yet, not offered anything. Some sources inside the CIA have said things to journalists under condition of anonymity. This is at least 2 layers of the telephone game.

    The current President has (hopefully) gotten the full briefing, and if he's unwilling to make the information public I'll take that as a signal that it's not as much of a smoking gun as you think it is.

  • BradA||

    Wow, a foreign country trying to directly influence the outcome of a democratic election.
    Certainly something that the "holier than thou U.S." would never do.
    But wait. Who sent OneVoice over to Israel to try and defeat Netanyahu using U.S. taxpayer money?
    Oh yeah, that would be the Obama administration.
    So please stop acting like this stuff never happens or is some how offensive.

  • dunce||

    obama claimed that the Russians targeted both the republican and democrat campaigns. There was nothing to see in the republican campaign but the democrats have earned a reputation for illegal, unethical, and immoral behaviors so it was a target rich area.

  • ChristinaL||

    This is craziness. Julian Assange is a past convicted for MANY counts of hacking into govts top secret and classifed info. Assange hacked his own stuff for wikileaks. He is a criminal avoiding prosecution for possible rape charges or whatever till statutes of limitations runs out hiding from. Some charges already expired - CIA is b.s. They lue. Have for decades. Look at uran and nicaragua contra affairs lies no no no and devastating whistleblowers. Then after years of harming whistleblowers and journalists they admit they are criminal drug and gun smugglers and liars. Craziness I am telling ya. And snowden? A CIA contractor employee unseen unnoticed in top security job with no oversight or survelliance? Hirse feathers. He just happens to get a passport happens to take 10000 documents unnoticed and take em out of country and just happens to go to russia where the usa just happens to pull the passport so he has to stay there and the story just happens to not be public till he is safely in russia? Then he just happens to go to venezuela? CIA plant. More horse doodoo

  • ChristinaL||

    Look at iran - typo. They lie - typo. Sorry i dont have gerbil fingers

  • JD Will||

    Maybe proactively, not meddle in Russia's elections, like Hillary did in 2011.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online