On That Russian “Meddling”

With respect to yesterday’s big news story, the report on Russian “meddling” in our recent election, while I definitely think we should investigate it I think the story to date is pretty weak tea. No actual evidence of anything has been shown to date other than the ineptitude of the Democratic Party organization with respect to data security.

I also think that it’s a bit amusing to see the consternation. I don’t recall anything like this level of dismay over U. S. meddling in Russian politics in the late 90s.

24 comments… add one
  • michael reynolds Link

    You know, David, just because you speak Russian you don’t have to be in the tank for Putin. Weak tea my ass. Mitch McConnell just called for an investigation, no doubt bullied into it by McCain and Graham.

    Putin clearly tried to interfere to elect Trump. Trump is just as clearly in Putin’s pocket. Trump isn’t subtle enough to hide the fact that he is Putin’s buttboy.

  • TastyBits Link

    Apparently, Democrats elected the wrong President. Instead of electing the President “reset with Russia” or President “tell Putin to wait until after the election” or President “the Cold War is over”, they should have elected Mr. “Russia is the “number one geopolitical foe”.

    They should have elected Mitt Romney, and since I have been informed that a President Trump would nuke anybody who farts in our general direction, the Democrats should be happy.

    But seriously, the Russians were misunderstood and abused by President Bush, but President Obama was there to save the day. Now, Russia has initiated a sneak attack like the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, and we should be ecstatic that the one candidate we were assured would annihilate any US enemy will soon have access to the nuclear codes.

    You can’t always get what you want
    But if you try sometimes you just might find
    You just might find
    You get what you need

  • Guarneri Link

    Surely, Tasty, you don’t expect intellectual honesty or consistency from the sulking left. Apparently the Elegant Black Man’s views have “evolved.”

  • michael reynolds Link

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/12/12/schumer-on-congressional-probe-of-russia-i-dont-want-this-to-turn-into-a-benghazi-investigation/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_mcconnell-1110a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.7e5b3cd56428

    “The Russians are not our friends,” McConnell told reporters at a scheduled year-end news conference.

    McConnell’s announcement came a day after a group of senators called for a thorough, bipartisan investigation of Russian interference. Some have endorsed the idea of a special select committee to lead an investigation, but McConnell stopped short of endorsing that, saying that any congressional probe would follow “regular order” through the current committee structure.

    “This simply cannot be a partisan issue,” McConnell said, before adding that the Intelligence Committee “is more than capable of conducting a complete review of this matter.”

  • walt moffett Link

    First off, we don’t exactly have clean hands here when it comes to influencing elections. Secondly, to clear the air, we need full public accounting of what happened and what we are going to do about it. Lastly, looks like all the hot air on this will may melt the polar icecap.

  • michael reynolds Link

    https://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/exclusive/fmr-cia-acting-dir-michael-morell-political-equivalent-911-1091#.WE6RWJk6AUU.twitter

    Mike Morrell, former acting director CIA, formerly George W. Bush’s briefer on 911, who broke with his lifelong practice of staying apolitical and endorsed Hillary because Trump was, “not only unqualified for the job, but he may well pose a threat to our national security.”

    I think the first point is it’s really interesting, and you said this earlier, this is not a new story. We knew back in October that Russia was meddling in the election. In October, the Obama Administration said publicly that Russia was interfering with the election and that the knowledge and direction of that went to the highest levels of the Russian government. This was, in my mind, the first time in American history that our government has accused another government of meddling in our election. This is huge. What was new in The Washington Post story, if its right—we still don’t know whether its right, and whether the rest of the IC agrees or not—but that the CIA believes the intent of the meddling was to help Mr. Trump and hurt Mrs. Clinton’s chances. That meddling went way beyond just stealing the DNC and Podesta information and giving it to WikiLeaks, that’s what’s new.

    But what’s important to me is, it’s less important that they had picked the winner and loser, which I thought all along they had done. What’s most important is that they did indeed meddle. I think the implications of that are just absolutely huge, and I think there are three of them:

    The first is, we need to see this for what it is. It is an attack on our very democracy. It’s an attack on who we are as a people. 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.

  • walt moffett Link

    “.. political equivalent of 9/11..” Should we recall Maj Kong to the ready room or would another Siberian pipe line “accident” suffice?

  • sam Link

    Who needs a fictional cowboy when we’ve got John “False Flag” Bolton ready to saddle up?

  • CuriousOnlooker Link

    Surprised Obama decided to highlight this. If he thought about it, he realize how this could make him look bad.

    Who started poking at the Russians by appointing a “specialist on democracy, anti-dictator movements, revolutions” as the ambassador, wink winked nudge nudge the overthrow of the democratically elected Ukrainian government, and then practically call for “regime change” by slapping sanctions and trying to cut Russia off the world financial system.

    In my organization, if there’s a hack, the person that the hack happened to will be investigated as to whether they did not negligently practice information security. The consequence upon finding negligence can be up to termination. If something as consequential as the election was “hacked”, who in the current administration let it happen, why was it not forseen? I’m sure the next administration would love to investigate this angle.

    Or how about an investigation into what the Russians found and leaked. I’m sure Bernie Sanders would like a congressional investigation into how the DNC rigged the election against him, or John Podesta could talk about his emails under oath…

    Finally, for those who support “regime change” around the world and didn’t like the election result (John McCain and Lindsay Graham both did not endorse Trump). Perhaps a little reflection is in order. If the Russian really did “hack” the elections, that’s twice you advocated for regime change abroad that has led to regime change at home in a way you didn’t like (Iraq led to Obama, Ukraine led to Trump).

  • Guarneri Link

    They nominate perhaps the most dislikable, morally challenged and faux competent candidate in memory. They believe their own BS about the state of the economy and the current presidents stewardship. They are too arrogant to even campaign like they have a problem, or that their opponent has struck a cord. They all affirm each other’s opinions. They lose to an incredibly weak candidate, but all they have is..,

    The electorate is stupid, Republicans are Nazis, and now, the Russians did it.

    They shot their dirks off. And now are doubling down. It’s Monday. Is Obama mocking Romney on Russia, or telling us they are an existential threat? He could use Candy Crowly to run interference for him about now…..

  • michael reynolds Link

    The Economist:

    And that is what is, or should be, so unsettling. Russian interference in elections across the Western world is like a nasty virus, attacking the body politic. Normally, America is protected by powerful, bipartisan immune responses against such a menace. It also boasts some of the world’s most sophisticated intelligence and cyber-defences, and when spooks tell the Republicans and Democrats who lead Congress and sit on the House and Senate intelligence committees of hostile acts by a foreign power, love of country generates a unified response. That immune response is not kicking in this time.

    […]

    Some may wonder if this latest squabble matters. There is no evidence of actual collusion between Mr Trump and Russia. Mr Putin’s fierce dislike of Mrs Clinton, who as secretary of state questioned the validity of the 2011 elections in Russia, is more than enough motive to want her defeated. It is unknowable whether the last-minute leaks of Democratic e-mails affected the result. Most straightforwardly, a close election is over and Democratic leaders are not questioning the result.

    This squabble does matter. When the next president of America takes his oath of office in January, officers of Russian intelligence can savour a historic win. And that astonishing, appalling fact has divided, not united, the two parties that run the world’s great democracy. That should be enough to unsettle anyone.

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/12/house-divided

  • michael reynolds Link

    Interview with Michael Hayden, former director of the NSA, and former DCI (appointed by George W. Bush.)

    TCB: It’s reported that the FBI and the CIA had different views on the intelligence gathered about Russian interference or involvement in the election. Is it often the case that the FBI and the CIA disagree in their assessment?

    MH: Let’s review the ground truth here. Reading what is available in the public domain, I don’t think there’s any dispute that the Russians conducted espionage against the Democratic National Committee and used that information, washing it through WikiLeaks, to corrode confidence in the American political process.

    The dispute is over Russian intentionality — if they are trying to mess with our heads, or as was suggested last Friday in the press accounts, it’s more than that, and they wanted to actually affect the outcome of the election and were trying to pick a winner. Now, there could be differences between the Agency and the Bureau on that, but you don’t have to chalk it up to bureaucratic turf or some kind of dishonest competition.

    Keep in mind that the Bureau works to prove things beyond all reasonable doubt. That’s not the job of the CIA. CIA is an intelligence organization. CIA’s job is to enable action – decisive, important action – even in the face of lingering doubt. You’ve got tensions that exist simply because of the nature of these organizations; it’s not a good default position to simply say this is the forces of good versus evil. It may simply be a difference in the character of the organization. The level of proof that the Bureau requires before they say anything might be much higher than what the Agency requires before it starts to say something.

    TCB: The issue is also direct attribution – the last mile in intelligence gathering. It might be possible to say the Russians did this, but to link it directly to the Kremlin or President Putin himself is difficult. Is that what Donald Trump is saying? That it’s not so much the Kremlin or President Putin, it’s just generally the Russians?

    MH: He hasn’t really formed the argument that way, has he? He says they don’t know; nobody knows. It could be this “400-pound guy on the bed in his basement.” He’s got a right to be skeptical — in fact, maybe he even has a duty to be skeptical, but skeptical based on the facts. He’s rejecting the argument, not on factual data, but on a priori assumptions that he had before he got introduced to the data.

    TCB: What signal does this send to the world that there appears to be a division between the CIA and a President-elect who doesn’t seem to rate the work that this Agency does?

    MH: The rest of the world judges that the Russian covert influence campaign against the United States has exceeded all expectations, because we now have, a month away from the inauguration, a President-elect of the United States condemning the intelligence services on which he will undoubtedly have to rely.

    https://www.thecipherbrief.com/column/network-take/president-elects-dismissal-cias-election-findings-not-acceptable-1091?utm_source=Aggregators&utm_campaign=f995dbfc25-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2016_12_10&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b02a5f1344-f995dbfc25-117247

  • michael reynolds Link

    Yep. Nothing to see here. “Weak tea.”

  • TastyBits Link

    @Drew I forgot to add:

    “Trump supporters are meanies, and they stink, and they are racists, homophobes, misogynists, and …, and …, and …, and they have cooties and girl/boy germs, and we hate them and hope they die.”

    But, I should be serious. Instead of restarting the Cold War, President Obama should nuke the commie bastards while we can. He could knock out their oil production and infrastructure plus all military targets. As to any radiation, they were not too concerned about Chernobyl, and they f*cked over Hillary (the smartest woman in the whole wide world). They will get what is coming, and if a few stray ICBM’s happen to hit a few red states – oops.

  • The dispute is over Russian intentionality — if they are trying to mess with our heads, or as was suggested last Friday in the press accounts, it’s more than that, and they wanted to actually affect the outcome of the election and were trying to pick a winner.

    Yes, that’s why there should be a more thorough investigation. Do you really believe that we aren’t “conducting espionage” with respect to the Russians? I certainly hope we are. That’s why it’s weak tea. Espionage is obvious. It’s the intentionality that’s important and to date nobody seems to have produced much other than hypothesized motive.

  • steve Link

    Of course we interfere with everyone else when we can. Of course they do the same. However, it usually isn’t this blatant and they usually don’t get caught so soon. It sounds like the evidence is pretty good that it was Russians. Not so clear that it was the Russian government. If I had to bet, I would bet that they were trying to undermine Clinton whom they saw as the future president more than they were trying to elect Trump. That was just an extra benefit. Continuing the investigation certainly seems merited. If it is true that, as reported, the RNC was also hacked, would be nice to know why they didn’t release those.

    Sure wish we had seen Trump’s tax returns and finances. Guess we will never know if he owes money to the Russians and how much if he does. Will just have to take the word of our financial whizzes like Drew who just believe whatever anyone says when it comes to money, or at least as long as they have an R after their name.

    Steve

  • It sounds like the evidence is pretty good that it was Russians. Not so clear that it was the Russian government.

    Yep. I also read quotes in the WP and the Guardian from unnamed administration sources who said that the CIA was blowing smoke.

  • ... Link

    How many tens of millions of dollars have the Clintons received from foreign governments & foreign groups through the years? The Saudis have been Fuck all more damaging to the US over the last 25 years than the Russians have, but it’s okay that they tried to buy (another) US President?

    Please. We know Hillary was openly on the take from foreign governments. The concern now is just so much bullshit.

  • ... Link

    The best part of this is that the same people that thought Wikileaks was the best organization ever when they were releasing info damaging to Bush & Republicans now think that organization is a Russian front now that it’s releasing info inconvenient to them. Outstanding work!

    Incidentally, it’s also funny as hell that they’re complaining about documents that showed HRC was colluding with the DNC in the primaries to rig those elections and that the HRC campaign was colluding with the media to win the general election. Their argument is that if only Hillary had been allowed to rig the elections in secret she could have won them fair and square! Lmao!

    I still think she lost because she spent more money on Lena Dunham related campaigning than actually campaigning in places like Wisconsin. That and because people are sick and tired of the same old same old. But then, I’ve probably been hacked by the Russian government and just don’t know it.

    “What a world! What a world!”

  • PD Shaw Link

    @steve: “If I had to bet, I would bet that they were trying to undermine Clinton whom they saw as the future president more than they were trying to elect Trump.”

    Mostly agree. Before the U.S. elections, there were stories that explained Russian efforts in this area had historically been to create chaos, distrust and delegitimize the political process, not to throw an election to one side or the other. Since this explanation preceded the outcome of the election, I tend to favor it. The Russians probably don’t have a great idea of who they would necessarily favor; they face significant blowback if caught (particularly as the perceived pro-Russian candidate might be forced to become the most anti-Russian candidate) ; and delegitimization of the political process provides more bang for the buck. I may differ in this strategy wouldn’t solely be about Clinton, but about American democracy.

  • steve Link

    “How many tens of millions of dollars have the Clintons received from foreign governments & foreign groups through the years?”

    This would justify the Russians buying Trump? Did they? I don’t know. Neither do you. Should be easy to find out, but he won’t release his financial info, and you guys don’t care. So, please stop pretending that you care about the issue.

    Steve

  • Andy Link

    “The best part of this is that the same people that thought Wikileaks was the best organization ever when they were releasing info damaging to Bush & Republicans now think that organization is a Russian front now that it’s releasing info inconvenient to them. Outstanding work!”

    That’s unfortunately true, but it’s also true the GoP and Trump’s allies played the same game when the leaks went in their favor. It’s pretty obvious Wikileaks is a creature of the Russian government, but we still can’t seem to see past our partisan biases.

    Speaking of partisanship, I don’t think we should look at this in terms of the Russians supporting one candidate or another. They would much prefer disruption designed to weaken whoever does get in office, and I think that’s what they got.

  • Guarneri Link

    Setting the snark aside.

    The elephant in the room is that if any of this is true Obamas apparatus was so weak he allowed this to happen. Only now it becomes important? Whatup with that?

    And is it elephants, or elephanti? Where was the wailing and howling about Hillary’s home server getting hacked?

    If I didn’t know any better I’d say this was all political. Recount? Oops. That didn’t work. Ban the electoral college. Crap. That didn’t work. How ’bout the Russians did it!? What next? Trump married a babe so he’s suffering from unnecessary loss of precious bodily fluids?

    Michael thinks he can prove the case by spewing speculation by the pound. The FBI begs to differ. It’s bizarre to watch. A slow motion car wreck.

  • WarrenPeese Link

    Did Putin meddle? Yes. Did Putin change the outcome? Nah. All of this deflects from the fact that Hillary was a pathetically awful candidate, with zero political skills and even less charisma.

Leave a Comment