Russian interference with the 2016 election

[Terraceth]

Off-topic update on the Texas primaries.

About That Blue Wave …

Democrats had near-record turnout, with more than one million voters over all taking part in their primaries. Sounds impressive, right? But Republicans had actual record-breaking turnout, exceeding their previous midterm high-water mark, which was set in 2010. All told, with more than 1.5 million votes cast, Republicans had nearly 50 percent more voters take part in their primary than the Democrats in theirs.

I'm not sure what that necessarily means. Even the article itself notes "Primary turnout is not dispositive in any case. In 2002, when Democrats set their record for midterm primary turnout, they failed to flip a single congressional seat in the general election."

Personally, I think the high primary turnout for both parties is less about their enthusiasm regarding the general election and more about how both parties have been showing some major cracks and divisions as of late. So everyone wants to make sure it's their division of the party that wins the nomination and has the chance of getting elected.

[Juvenal]

... the article itself notes "Primary turnout is not dispositive in any case. In 2002, when Democrats set their record for midterm primary turnout, they failed to flip a single congressional seat in the general election."

The Texas turnout discussion was part of a tangent to the thread topic, Russian interference, responding to the suggestion that because votes were not changed, interference had no effect. The takeaway from this article is that, contrary to the Governor's warning I posted earlier, early voting was not heavily Democratic, and neither was the concluded primary itself.

[Juvenal]

‘Russia, Russia, Russia’

“Guccifer 2.0” was the handle of the man, or woman, who hacked into the Democratic National Committee and turned his plunder over to WikiLeaks. He claimed to be a lone “hacktivist” from Romania, just out for a joy ride, or something. Fulfilling his duty as a citizen of the world?

He was touted that way by many. For instance, Breitbart published a piece whose headline admonished us to “Stop Blaming Russia.” Its author, Roger Stone, said that “it seems like Guccifer 2.0 is the real deal.”

He’s the real deal, all right. U.S. investigators have now determined that he is an officer in the GRU, i.e., Russian military intelligence. For as long as anyone can remember, the GRU has been a 400-pound gorilla, so to speak.

[Mountain Man]

And yet the DNC has, to this day, STILL not allowed law enforcement agencies to take a look at their servers.

[Juvenal]

And yet the DNC has, to this day, STILL not allowed law enforcement agencies to take a look at their servers.

I like my sundaes with a cherry on top. But even without the cherry, it's still a sundae.

[rogue06]

And yet the DNC has, to this day, STILL not allowed law enforcement agencies to take a look at their servers.

One might be excused for thinking that they have something to hide.

[Mountain Man]

I like my sundaes with a cherry on top. But even without the cherry, it's still a sundae.

The server is the sundae. You're trying to put a cherry on top of thin air. This guccifier character could be Russian (drill down through the linked sources and the evidence is not quite as conclusive as your quote makes it seem), but that doesn't explain how he got the information in the first place. My money is still on an inside job, but since the DNC won't allow law enforcement to look at their servers, we'll never know.

[Juvenal]

One might be excused for thinking that they have something to hide.

At which point, we'd have to accept that the FBI, the CIA, the DIA, in fact all of our major intelligence agencies were abetting a conspiracy to attack Russia, and that the conspiracy included members of the Trump campaign from Papadopoulos to Page.

Or it was Guccifer 2.0, and he works for the GRU.

[Mountain Man]

At which point, we'd have to accept that the FBI, the CIA, the DIA, in fact all of our major intelligence agencies were abetting a conspiracy to attack Russia, and that the conspiracy included members of the Trump campaign from Papadopoulos to Page.

Or it was Guccifer 2.0, and he works for the GRU.

It wasn't all intelligence agencies, it was three or four. And it wasn't so much "agencies" as it was one representative from each agency, and their conclusions were based on third-hand information from a report bought and paid for by the DNC.

In other words, the Democrat National Committee was allowed to investigate itself, and the agencies who should have been asking the tough questions simply accepted the DNC's conclusions without any sort of independent verification.

So, yeah...

Hey, do you think the Trump campaign would have been allowed to get away with something like that. No need to answer.

[Juvenal]

It wasn't all intelligence agencies, it was three or four. And it wasn't so much "agencies" as it was one representative from each agency, and their conclusions were based on third-hand information from a report bought and paid for by the DNC.

In other words, the Democrat National Committee was allowed to investigate itself, and the agencies who should have been asking the tough questions simply accepted the DNC's conclusions without any sort of independent verification.

So, yeah...

Hey, do you think the Trump campaign would have been allowed to get away with something like that. No need to answer.

Most of the above is false, based on inferior sources, more than a year old, and in the case of Breitbart, badly misrepresents the included Clapper interview. In the clip he says quite clearly that no other actor has been seriously suggested, and that he stands fully behind the conclusion that the Russians hacked the DNC.

This contradiction between source information and story is characteristic of "known propaganda sites."

Similarly no one reputable takes the Daily Fail seriously.

[Mountain Man]

And that, kids, is what we call the genetic fallacy!

[Tassman]

And that, kids, is what we call the genetic fallacy!

No, it's what's called using reliable sources as opposed to biased propaganda sources like Breitbart and Fox.

[Juvenal]

And that, kids, is what we call the genetic fallacy!

The Daily Fail, like Breitbart, is a waste of time for those who examine it and an embarrassment for anyone who posts it.

Consider this, the heart of the posted story.

CrowdStrike, based in Irvine, California, is also the only group that the DNC allowed to directly examine its servers.

Not even the FBI has been granted access to the servers.

U.S. agencies have instead relied on CrowdStrike's work. There is no other known forensic evidence which has been publicly disclosed to link the Kremlin to the attacks, including in a series of intelligence community statements and reports.

Nothing in this is sourced.

The FBI never stated it did not have access to the DNC servers. More, this was an electronic hack, not a physical hack. You examine the logs, not the machine.

There is no basis for supposing the intelligence agencies worked solely off of CrowdStrike's work. Intelligence agencies do not publicly disclose their sources.

The overall conclusion that Russia hacked the DNC servers has not only been confirmed, but amplified, repeatedly, as recently as this past month, and accepted by left wing, mainstream, and conservative sources, including the National Review, as posted upthread.

At some point, one should realize that opposing this conclusion makes one complicit in an attack on our country by a hostile foreign power.

That's treason.

[Mountain Man]

The Daily Fail, like Breitbart, is a waste of time for those who examine it and an embarrassment for anyone who posts it.

Consider this, the heart of the posted story.

CrowdStrike, based in Irvine, California, is also the only group that the DNC allowed to directly examine its servers.

Not even the FBI has been granted access to the servers.

U.S. agencies have instead relied on CrowdStrike's work. There is no other known forensic evidence which has been publicly disclosed to link the Kremlin to the attacks, including in a series of intelligence community statements and reports.

Nothing in this is sourced.

The FBI never stated it did not have access to the DNC servers. More, this was an electronic hack, not a physical hack. You examine the logs, not the machine.

There is no basis for supposing the intelligence agencies worked solely off of CrowdStrike's work. Intelligence agencies do not publicly disclose their sources.

The overall conclusion that Russia hacked the DNC servers has not only been confirmed, but amplified, repeatedly, as recently as this past month, and accepted by left wing, mainstream, and conservative sources, including the National Review, as posted upthread.

At some point, one should realize that opposing this conclusion makes one complicit in an attack on our country by a hostile foreign power.

That's treason.

The reasons for needing physical access to the servers is plainly obvious:

1) To ensure that all relevant logs have been collected.
2) To ensure that the logs are actually from the server(s) in question.
3) To ensure that the logs have not been tampered with or manipulated.

The fact that every indication is that our intelligence agencies essentially took the DNC's word for it should certainly raise some red flags. They got the story they wanted -- or perhaps the story the mainstream media wanted -- and that was good enough for them. As folks keep saying, all of this was done under the assumption that Hillary would be president, and everything would be quietly swept under the rug. Do you think we would have heard another peep about "Russian interference" if Hillary had won? Of course not, and the Democrats certainly never expected to be put on the spot.

You mention the National Review article posted "upthread", but as I mentioned earlier, if you drill through the linked sources (I think it goes two or three sources deep before you get to anything substantive), the evidence is not nearly as conclusive as you or the mainstream media is making it out to be. It's still unclear exactly what the nature of the breach was. Like I said, my money is still on an inside job, with someone in the DNC feeding information to this this "guccifier" character.

[Sparko]

Any day now the new story from the democrats will be: "Why are we still worried about all this? It is ancient news. We need to just move on."