Also, via Craig Murray (fromer British Ambassador to Uzbekistan):
"The CIA claim they 'know the individuals' involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks. The anonymous source claims of 'We know who it was, it was the Russians' are beneath contempt.
[...]
"And it should be said again and again, that if Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie, if she had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence, if she had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people, then none of this would have happened.
You guessed correctly. I was basing this on something I read the day after the election. The totals have been updated, and the argument no longer holds.
"it’s the collective determination of the intelligence community that this happened"
Actually, there has been no collective statement from all 17 intel agencies, which is what happens when there is a consensus.
"It’s impossible for Wikileaks to determine the original source of the hacks"
You're still calling them hacks, as if that is a fact. Wikileaks does know who is giving them the information. They know the identity of the leaker, and they say it *is* indeed a leaker. Again, maybe they are lying, but based on past performance, I trust Wikileaks much more than the CIA.
"to dismiss every conclusion they’ve come to since 2003 is sheer lunacy."
I don't dismiss every conclusion they've come to. I just don't trust them automatically, which is the appropriate response when dealing with professional deceivers. Why on earth do you?
"if Clinton was the President-elect, would you be so quick to dismiss the potential for blackmail?"
There is potential for blackmail no matter who is elected. This is a complete red herring. But I'd be more concerned over Hillary, because she chose to put her emails on a private server specifically to avoid accountability. And that made them vulnerable to prying eyes. It also made her do and say stupid things, thinking she wouldn't ever be held accountable. Now THAT's a real and blackmail risk. Your idea about Trump is just what one could say of any President elect. In other words, you're grasping at straws.
"I look at this as the cyber equivalent of Watergate, i.e. a 'break in'"
But the difference is that the Watergate break-in was a real thing, as in: it happened and everyone nows it happened. Not so with "Russian hacking"... there is no evidence at all for this. All we have to go on is the CIA's say-so. I am astonished that anyone would find this a reliable source.
"Remember, facts aren’t important to Trump supporters"... or Hillary supporters, apparently.
Look, I understand the urge to want to delegitimate Trump at all costs. But this is just grasping at straws.
What's lost in all of this is the content of the emails. If Russia hacks emails and the emails contain no scandals, then how do the Russians affect the election? They can't! It's the content of the emails that affects the election.
If you want to argue that we had no right to that content, fine. My understand of democracy is that it cannot work if the public is kept in the dark about such things as their would-be president having distinct and antithetical "public" and "private" positions on Walls Street.
According to Wikileaks, the emails were *leaked* to them by a concerned person within the Clinton machine. They were not *hacked*. Of course the CIA claims otherwise, but I'd say Wikileaks is a far more reliable source. They have a unmarred record for reporting true information. The CIA, ahem, does not.
Actually, I'm pretty sure *fewer* Americans voted for Trump than for Romney. Trump actually depressed Republican turnout. Unfortunately, Hillary depressed Democratic turnout much more.
Also, via Craig Murray (fromer British Ambassador to Uzbekistan):
"The CIA claim they 'know the individuals' involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks. The anonymous source claims of 'We know who it was, it was the Russians' are beneath contempt.
[...]
"And it should be said again and again, that if Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie, if she had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence, if she had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people, then none of this would have happened.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/
You guessed correctly. I was basing this on something I read the day after the election. The totals have been updated, and the argument no longer holds.
"it’s the collective determination of the intelligence community that this happened"
Actually, there has been no collective statement from all 17 intel agencies, which is what happens when there is a consensus.
"It’s impossible for Wikileaks to determine the original source of the hacks"
You're still calling them hacks, as if that is a fact. Wikileaks does know who is giving them the information. They know the identity of the leaker, and they say it *is* indeed a leaker. Again, maybe they are lying, but based on past performance, I trust Wikileaks much more than the CIA.
"to dismiss every conclusion they’ve come to since 2003 is sheer lunacy."
I don't dismiss every conclusion they've come to. I just don't trust them automatically, which is the appropriate response when dealing with professional deceivers. Why on earth do you?
"if Clinton was the President-elect, would you be so quick to dismiss the potential for blackmail?"
There is potential for blackmail no matter who is elected. This is a complete red herring. But I'd be more concerned over Hillary, because she chose to put her emails on a private server specifically to avoid accountability. And that made them vulnerable to prying eyes. It also made her do and say stupid things, thinking she wouldn't ever be held accountable. Now THAT's a real and blackmail risk. Your idea about Trump is just what one could say of any President elect. In other words, you're grasping at straws.
"I look at this as the cyber equivalent of Watergate, i.e. a 'break in'"
But the difference is that the Watergate break-in was a real thing, as in: it happened and everyone nows it happened. Not so with "Russian hacking"... there is no evidence at all for this. All we have to go on is the CIA's say-so. I am astonished that anyone would find this a reliable source.
See: https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/anonymous-leaks-to-the-washpost-about-the-cias-russia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence/
"Remember, facts aren’t important to Trump supporters"... or Hillary supporters, apparently.
Look, I understand the urge to want to delegitimate Trump at all costs. But this is just grasping at straws.
What's lost in all of this is the content of the emails. If Russia hacks emails and the emails contain no scandals, then how do the Russians affect the election? They can't! It's the content of the emails that affects the election.
If you want to argue that we had no right to that content, fine. My understand of democracy is that it cannot work if the public is kept in the dark about such things as their would-be president having distinct and antithetical "public" and "private" positions on Walls Street.
According to Wikileaks, the emails were *leaked* to them by a concerned person within the Clinton machine. They were not *hacked*. Of course the CIA claims otherwise, but I'd say Wikileaks is a far more reliable source. They have a unmarred record for reporting true information. The CIA, ahem, does not.
The emails are real. They have not been tampered with. This is a verifiable fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DomainKeys_Identified_Mail
Please disregard previous comment. I was completely wrong, and you were right. Trump: 62,793,872; Romney: 60,933,504
... but apart from that, I agree completely with what you've written. Thank you.
Actually, I'm pretty sure *fewer* Americans voted for Trump than for Romney. Trump actually depressed Republican turnout. Unfortunately, Hillary depressed Democratic turnout much more.