In his Washington Post column David Ignatius asks four questions:
- Did Trump’s campaign encourage Russia’s alleged hacking to hurt his rival Hillary Clinton and help him, and does Russia have any leverage over him?
- Why did the Obama administration wait so long to deal with Russia’s apparent hacking?
- What discussions has the Trump team had with Russian officials about future relations?
- Finally, what’s the chance that Russian intelligence has gamed its covert action more subtly than we realize?
-
All reasonable questions and I doubt we’ll ever get satisfying answers to any of them.
I’d add one more: why hasn’t the Obama Administration done anything about Chinese hacking? Chinese hacking has been quite damaging. The Administration’s apparent inaction in the matter has encouraged cynicism even if not encouraging further exploits.
1) Obviously, we all saw him do it. “And Russia, if you’re listening. . .” Trump literally asked a foreign autocrat and all-around thug to commit a crime against the United States, for the purpose of getting him elected.
2) Most likely because they knew Trump would accuse them of trying to help Hillary, and because at that point it was still inconceivable that 46% of Americans would actually vote for a malicious man-baby.
3) Dunno, and given the supine Congress and a corrupt administration that will do absolutely nothing to investigate itself, and Trump’s willingness to lie, we’ll probably never know.
4) It is definitely possible that Putin intended his support of Trump to be discovered. It would mean Hillary knowing and that would please Putin. But various LeCarré scenarios can also be guessed at.
What we do not need to guess at is that Trump is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Vladimir Putin. To date Trump has a) asked Russia to commit crimes to help his campaign. b) Has had not a single syllable of criticism of Putin and on the contrary, c) gives Putin daily public media handjobs. d) Has installed a Putin apologist as National Security advisor, and e) is evidently believed to be a Putin stooge by the Russian rumor mill.
Did he hire hookers to pee for him? Who knows. I don’t begrudge anyone their kinks so long as it’s consensual. But the specific in this case is not the point. The point of the MI6 memo is that the Russians seem to think they have a handle on Trump. My guess is they’re right – it fits perfectly with Trump’s behavior and statements.
I think the odds are at least 60% that Putin has Trump by his tiny balls. It is more likely than not that the 46% just put a foreign agent in the White House.
I thought this piece on Pat Langs blog is an accurate summary of the brouhaha http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/01/is-it-just-me-or-has-someone-decided-to-go-after-trump-.html
What’s most striking is how little actual evidence exists (or known to the public) despite the extraordinary claims that have been made.
You would think extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof but it seems the country has lost its collective mind.
Probably a first step (won’t happen) is to give grant asylum to all the Russian sources used and get them to testify in public.
“why hasn’t the Obama Administration done anything about Chinese hacking? ”
Well according to this article in Wired, Obama Curbed Chinese Hacking, But Russia Won’t Be So Easy, it did take action — successfully.
Sam, that happened after OPM. It’s like saying Obama has taken action against Russia – after everything occurred that is claimed.
As I said when it first came up, Obama is going to look terrible because he was in charge when the cyber security issues happened. It’s really gross negligence.
1. Trump made one off-the-cuff, sarcastically uttered comment (much like Reynolds does), and liberal diehearts now use that as bsome kind of “evidence” of deliberate encouragement or even collusion with the Russians. Didn’t Obama make a similar wry, off the cuff remark about taking care of any illegal if they were caught voting in the 2016 election? That too was deciphered by the right as evidence of wrong signaling, on Clinton’s behalf.
2. Some have opined Obama didn’t take Russia on earlier for their hacking because the administration did not want to become embroiled in any agressive episode with Russia so close to Obama leaving office. Like so many uneasy , delicate issues the current president wanted to leave dicy messes for the next president to deal with, even though he was confident it would be HRC. Also, such a pattern for ignoring or even dismissing the need for better cyber security was extended to other hacks – China’s hacking of the OPM, for instance, was considered far more extensive.
3 & 4 are questions that will be difficult to ascertain, although distressed liberals are quick to lay unfounded accusations on the next president.
CuriousOnlooker:
What surprises me is that the same suggestive but not dispositive evidence is being reported over and over again as though it were new.
Nobody, and I mean nobody, thought trump would win the election. Even Assange said that “they” wouldn’t let Trump win, without really defining precisely who “they” were. The Russians, too, seemed stunned by the “sure thing” candidate losing, especially so resoundingly. All and all, with such pronounced and absolute confidence of HRC being the next POTUS, I think it’s logical that the hacking was aimed more at weakening her presidency than trying to turn the tide towards her opponent.
Furthermore, I believe Trump when he indicates he will be a far stronger nemisis, and force to be dealt with, towards Russia than HRC would have been, should any untoward lines be crossed during his presidency. Just look at his no-nonsence team of national security advisors being currented vetted!
Lastly, Trump is already addressing cyber security more agressively and openly than Obama seems to have done during his 2 terms in office. He says he will immediately call for an extensive report on current cyber security, to be done 90 days after he is sworn into office. Also, he is naming professionals, rather than ideologues, to posts dealing with cyber security.
Look, I don’t want to get deeply into the eristics here, but this was the claim: [W]hy hasn’t the Obama Administration done anything about Chinese hacking?
As a matter of simple truth, it did do something. Now, was that something too late, to little, or what? The answers to those questions do not undo the fact that it did do something.
I’m sure Trump will do better at internet security, after all, he’s already hired ‘security expert’ Rudy Giuliani to take care of it. Rudy, whose corporate web site is running 5 year-old software as full of holes as a Swiss cheese.
I don’t know whether this is a deliberate lie or Jan is suffering from amnesia. Hundreds of times – hundreds – Trump openly exploited the Putin leaks. Hundreds of times, Jan, in speech after speech, rally after rally.
#1: Most of the hacks took place before it was clear that Trump would get nominated. The DNC system was penetrated in the summer of 2015 by one group, then again in early 2016 by a similar group. Podesta’s email was hacked in March 2016. So, I doubt the hacks themselves were specifically conducted to benefit Trump, but the timed releases of the material months later was certainly intentional.
#2: I don’t know. I think the government’s response to hacking in general is lacking. I’m going to need lifetime credit monitoring thanks to the OPM hack.
#4: Extremely high.
“I’d add one more: why hasn’t the Obama Administration done anything about Chinese hacking?”
Edward Snowden.
Michael,
“The point of the MI6 memo is that the Russians seem to think they have a handle on Trump. My guess is they’re right – it fits perfectly with Trump’s behavior and statements.”
Just to clarify, it’s not an MI6 memo. It doesn’t even come from the intelligence community and doesn’t use intelligence community information. The media doesn’t completely understand what is going on:
– An ex-British agent/analyst used his contacts in Russia to build a dossier on negative Trump information for the purpose of political opposition research.
– It’s been reported that the US intelligence community calls this “credible.” What they actually mean is they consider this agent – the source – as credible. That is not the same thing as saying the information is credible. Even Buzzfeed admits the dossier contains “errors.”
Andy:
So, the guy was MI6. Yeah, yeah, former, in just the way our agents immediately upon leaving the agency cease to be connected to the CIA. Right.
As for the rest, as I said, the specifics are not the point; the takeaway is the point: the Russians believe Trump is 1) someone they want in the WH, 2) someone they control.
Now, this wouldn’t mean all that much, except for the fact that Trump has behaved exactly, precisely, in every small detail but one, as if he were completely in Putin’s pocket. Up to and including trashing our own intelligence agencies while praising the former KGB colonel at every opportunity.
See, if someone says Joe Blow’s a drug addict, you shrug it off. Unless Joe’s got sunken eyes, an agitated mien, keeps asking if you can loan him a 20 . . . and track marks up both arms. Then you start thinking, yeah, maybe Joe’s got issues.
So far Trump has done exactly one, single thing that in any way might displease Putin: picking General Mattis for DoD. Every other thing – every word out of his mouth, every appointment, very much including his Sec. of State – is pure Putin love. Trump is a narcissist and psychopath – that kind of person does not publicly suck up to and prostrate themselves before another person. You will search in vain for another example of Trump groveling this way. And that’s because Putin the KGB colonel, the man directly involved in similar blackmail operations, has Trump by the short ones.
I see it as Obama lack of response for years prior to OPM encouraged the OPM hack and Russia to invest heavily in cyber. Yes, Obama has deterred the Chinese from hacking for economic purposes, note his deal did not include intelligence or political purposes, which is what OPM and what we think occurred here. Finally, where is Obama on cyber defense? Telling, threatening and negotiating with Russia and China is not the only way to prevent hacks. It’s probably a lot easier to get some NSA folks to secure DNC and John Podesta’s email.
Dave, I think Buzzfeed did good journalism by publishing the dossier. The “evidence” certainly helped explain the hysteria that Harry Reid, John McCain, IC, had while all the public ever knew was about DNC and John Podesta (which seemed very small beer to assume so much).
Where are the sanctions and ejecting of diplomats? Either there’s a lot that we’re not being told about or some of the animals are more equal than others.
Frankly, Mattis and the other Trump pick made discouraging remarks about Russia being an enemy and a threat. Lies. Also one said he never trusted wikileaks. Why does Trump need to rely on those who contradict him and the truth? Hopefully he will overrule or ignore their warmongering stances.
A conservative writer who has it right is Dan Larison of The American Conservative. YES, IF YOU DEFINE “America” as the indispensable world hegemon rather than a nation, if you believe the hegemon needs to dominate Eastern Europe, intervening, even, in family feuds which are none of its business, then Russia is a threat.
The fact is, Putin could form a Eurasian bloc reaching to Berlin
and the continent would be the better for it–in traditional, conservative terms.
But not only would Europe be the better, so would all those Americans who do not like funding a dysgenic empire.
Here by the way is a link re: Trump’s hire of Giuliani to handle internet security. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/13/giuliani_joomla_outdated_site/?mt=1484334761108
Getting “the best people.” One more Trump lie to join so many, many, many others.
So Obama drew a red line for China. Make that pink.
Obama didn’t want to piss off Russia a/c Syria.
Hillary was a horrible candidate.
And Michael is still acting deranged over the election.
Sounds like self inflicted wounds.
It’s nice to see you have the loyalty to go right down with the ship, Drew. It seems some of your fellow Trump voters are already bailing. His current favorable number is actually three points below his 46% vote. He is officially the least popular president elect in the history of the data and has accomplished the previously impossible task of losing ground among his own voters before he’s even inaugurated. Damn, that’s practically a miracle.
Meanwhile, my president’s numbers just keep going up. The RCP average has Mr. Obama up net 13, and Gallup says nope, it’s a net 17. Wow. You know what those are? Those are Reagan numbers.
But don’t let all those rats scurrying for the life rafts scare you. And I don’t want you to worry just because Trump is walking back essentially every promise he made, because I’m sure he still means to give you and me a bunch of money. Shouldn’t be a problem, it won’t be us paying off the trillions in debt.
Oh, and you elected a Russian tool.
“http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-13/confirmed-unknown-republican-democrat-behind-compromising-anti-trump-report”
Fools will engage in foolish speculation.
Barack “my policies are on the ticket” Obama is so popular that his chosen successor, Hillary Clinton, lost. That’s the only fact. All the rest is your delusional ranting, Michael.
In time it will pass.
It doesn’t help your case that you almost always link to Zero Hedge, a blog itself suspected of being a conduit of Russian agitprop. Try reading actual news. Like from Americans.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-13/some-election-interference-more-equal-others-how-ukraine-meddled-behalf-clinton
Proof positive Hillary was assisted by the Ukrainians.
Now don’t you have a dinner date with Elvis, Michael?
“Where are the sanctions and ejecting of diplomats?”
Is that what you mean by “do something”? I would think less hacking is the goal, not sanctions, and that goal was accomplished. Why would dejecting people be more important than reducing the actual hacking?
Steve
Well, I won’t be surprised if Trump is impeached – his plan to distance himself from his businesses is laughable and it’s only a matter of time before some decision of his (intentional or not), will turn out to demonstrably benefit his bottom line.
On the positive side, he has a refreshing tendency to change his mind on the issues that is far different from the calculated “evolving” that most politicians use. He seems willing to listen, which would normally be a good thing, but he’s picked a lot of dud advisors. There will definitely be some fireworks between Flynn and Mattis who are cut from very different clothes – I hope that Mattis wipes the floor with him but Flynn is a better sycophant and political player.
Anyway, Considering that Trump has migrated from a New York Democrat to neo-Nazi figure (at least in the eyes of some), I’ll withhold judgment until he’s actually President and we see what his actual policies turn out to be. Right now there is a lot of heat but not much light.
“I’ll withhold judgment until he’s actually President and we see what his actual policies turn out to be.”
Sumbitch. A voice of sanity.
“….it’s only a matter of time before some decision of his (intentional or not), will turn out to demonstrably benefit his bottom line.”
This sets up a nearly impossible standard. I doubt you will see any intentional actions. But unintentional? Politicians acting in a manor that in some way is claimed to benefit them? One mans “constituent service” will be another’s bottom line benefit. One mans tax, regulatory or trade policy is anothers bottom line benefit. etc etc.
“I doubt you will see any intentional actions. But unintentional?”
How will anyone but Trump be able to tell? He hasn’t released his tax returns so no one knows with certainty what his financial portfolio actually is. Taking himself out of the day-to-day business of running his commercial affairs is only one side of the coin – he still knows what those affairs are even if his sons are making the decisions. We shouldn’t pretend that he would be ignorant to, for instance, the effect of his policy changes on banking and real estate to his business. He expects us to rely on trust that his own family will keep him completely in the dark about their business decisions.
Personally, I don’t really care about Trump’s personal finances or if he will use his position to tip the scales to further enrich himself and his family. Politicians do that to some extent all the time. What I care about is that he is likely to set a new low standard for ethical conduct in US politics which is saying something since the current standard is already pretty low.
But we’ll have to see what happens.
Michael, maybe we’re not talking about the same “off the cuff remark” made by Trump. The one I’m addressing is when he quipped about maybe the Russians should hack HRC’s emails – brazenly said but not seriously intended, except by his detractors and or the MSM.
Why, indeed? The Obama Administration is reacting differently to breaches by different perpetrators with the less significant breach being more harshly punished. And you’re taking its word alone that Chinese breaches have ended. I think that’s unlikely. What’s more likely is that there haven’t been any successful breaches and won’t be until the next one.
What continues to be the case, as practically every web administrator on the Internet could tell you, is that by far the greatest number of attempted breaches originate in China. That’s still true.
Dave- In the articles cited, the ones claiming that Chinese hacking has fallen way off are internet security companies. They claim their business and revenues are down because the hacking has fallen off so precipitously. So, I just don’t think harsh punishment should be the goal. It should be less hacking. They accomplished that, without less harsh measures. Since we have very few commercial ties to Russia, we just don’t have the leverage we do with China so negotiations are less likely to work. Russia already has sanctions on it.
Steve
Maybe that’s the case. I think another factor is that the Administration is much more concerned about political offenses (Russia’s) than it is about offenses with actual, material consequences (China’s).
We’ll have a much better idea when the next Chinese hack comes. If it comes.
Could be, but it looks like they have had some success with the more consequential Chinese hacking. It tok a couple of years, but they did it through diplomacy rather than kicking people out. What diplomatic leverage do we have with Russia. More sanctions? Not working. Cut trade? What trade? What worked with China doesn’t seem likely to work with Russia.
Steve
If I understand correctly, Trump was Putin’s bitch, but Putin could not start hacking until he got authorization from his bitch?
Somebody does not quite understand the entire power structure concept of being a bitch. The bitch follows order. I realize that there is topping from the bottom, but this only occurs in fantasy play. In real life, a top never gives power to his/her bitch.
Of course, I am sure I am completely wrong. I was schooled by a great and wonderful famous fiction writer who assured me I was clueless about foreign policy, and because of this, I did not understand that President Obama had made Putin his bitch over Syria. I was assured that Syria was a done deal, and Putin was a laughingstock.
Not being a fiction writer, I am only able to understand reality as an objective truth, and therefore, I know that what is up must be down, left must be right, and incorrect must be correct. So, I am certain that Putin and Assad are now President Obama’s bitches even though the objective truth is the opposite.
I agree with Andy’s comment but I feel the degree of corruption we’ve already been accepting is much worse than has been openly discussed.
Before I give an example for comparison’s sake, let me make clear that I’m not a Trump fan nor an apologist. The example I’m about to cite is not meant to excuse the conflict of interest inherent in the business interests of the Trump family.
What puzzles me is why (to take just one example, not even going to the most prominent conflict of interest in the Obama administration-the Clinton Foundation and FOB) it didn’t seem to matter to most people that the VP’s son was profiting from the administration’s policy toward Ukraine. (This story was apparently a big yawn, but it seemed pretty egregious to me. Other than the fact that Trump started the business that he’s passing to his sons, is there really a big difference in these situations? Are we to believe that Hunter Biden didn’t have any inside information, and that Joe Biden was able to completely separate his family’s interests from the country’s interests?
Team spirit.
So Israel just attacked Syria again.
If Trump is truly “Putin’s tool” here’s a minimum of what we’ll see.
Tacit acceptance of Russian rights to its historic sphere of influence
in Eurasia and the Mideast.
No military or political pressure menacing otherwise.
Trump ordering Israel with threat of curtailment of economic assistance to do nothing to get in the way of Russia’s rebuilding of a pan-Arab socialist/rejectionist enemy nor its teamwork with Traditional Shiism.
Should Trump cooperate in this fashion, it would not jeopardize the standard of living nor security one whit of the United States. A fact the libercon interventionist imperialists of both parties ranging from Schumer to Tom Cotton do not want you to know.
Literally no one said that. So no, you do not understand correctly.
@Dave- in all honesty though, is there a difference that I’m missing?
Other than, as I’ve mentioned, that Joe had not built the company, or maybe that the deal wasn’t all that lucrative (I have no idea how much it enriched Hunter Biden)?
If the latter argument is used, is that really the standard we want to use? Elected officials are free to leverage their positions for financial gain for their families as long as they aren’t very successful at it?
I thought the answer to the second question was well known and obvious — for months before the election, no one thought Trump could win. Obama didn’t want to politicize the Russian hacking, and since it was making no difference, it could wait until after the election for full disclosure and investigation.
Obviously, things didn’t turn out that way.
I’d prefer it if we were tougher on elected officials than we are but with partisanship running as high as it is that’s impossible. Our guys are always as pure as the driven snow while your guys are always more scarlet than sin.
Speaking of Ukraine, looks like Russia was not the only country meddling in the election http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446.
Raises the uncomfortable question of did the Russians know Ukraine was attempting to favor Hillary and did that influence their behavior?
IF everything that is alleged to occur occurred, then the consequence of turning Ukraine into proxy contest between US and Russia was to turn our own election into a proxy contest between Ukraine and Russia, sigh.
The only solution I see to prevent foreign meddling in our politics is to adopt a for more active isolationlist foreign policy (I know it’s a dreame while the US is a superpower)
As long as we’re talking Russia, Syria and Ukraine, I highly recommend this:
http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/americas-failure-russia-irans-success-syrias-cataclysmic-civil-war-joshua-landis/
Oh, look:
It must be a relief to be able to dispense with dead letter drops and go right to face-to-face meeting between asset and case officer.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/trump-wants-putin-summit-in-reykjavik-rc909n9t0