The 2016 US General Election

[DOR]

I seem to remember you assuring me that QE forever wouldn't happen and as I recall it the Government shut down was about cutting the budget.

What part of "Government shut down was about cutting the budget" is in conflict with "actively working against the national interests -- by obstructing efforts to minimize the worst effects of the worst economic and financial crisis in living memory -- for mere partisan political interests" ?

Did any macroeconomist ever suggust letting monetary policy alone shore up a staggering economy? No, because it would be highly inefficient ... except, then the obstructionsts could claim the administration they refused to help was incompetent.

For their own partisan interests.

And, against the national interest.

In a time of dire national emergency.

Never again.

[astralis]

pari,

I will admit I understand the anger currently directed at the Russians. It is the use of it in the civil war the Dems are conducting against conservatism that is misplaced.

lol ok. i'm sure conservatives have never attacked the Obama administration regarding Russia ever...:-)

and i'm sure that's why GOP leaders are calling for an investigation too, because it's just a partisan trick the Dems are playing with the entire US intelligence apparatus.

[YellowFever]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/republic...ers-1481850043

Republican National Committee Security Foiled Russian Hackers
Investigation calls it a less aggressive and much less persistent effort than the hacks of the Democratic National Committee

President Barack Obama said the U.S. will take action against Russia for its alleged involvement in the U.S. presidential election, after intelligence officials concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally authorized the hacking of institutions and members of the Democratic party.

By SHANE HARRIS, DEVLIN BARRETT and JULIAN E. BARNES

Updated Dec. 16, 2016 12:27 a.m. ET

Russian hackers tried to penetrate the computer networks of the Republican National Committee, using the same techniques that allowed them to infiltrate its Democratic counterpart, according to U.S. officials who have been briefed on the attempted intrusion.

But the intruders failed to get past security defenses on the RNC’s computer networks, the officials said. And people close to the investigation said it indicated a less aggressive and much less persistent effort by Russian intelligence to hack the Republican group than the Democratic National Committee. Only a single email account linked to a long-departed RNC staffer was targeted.

The disclosures came as a political furor grows over suspected Russian hacking of U.S. political organizations. The Central Intelligence Agency has concluded that Russian hackers, whom analysts say work for that country’s military and intelligence apparatus, stole emails from the DNC, as well as another Democratic organization and the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, to harm her candidacy and boost Republican Donald Trump’s chances of winning. Russia has denied the allegations.

The possibility that Russians tried and failed to infiltrate the RNC doesn’t necessarily conflict with the CIA’s conclusion. A senior U.S. official said analysts now believe what started as an information-gathering campaign aimed at both parties later took on a focus of leaked emails about Mrs. Clinton and Democrat.

Mr. Trump has discounted the U.S. intelligence assessments and disparaged intelligence officials. In a Twitter message Thursday, he wrote: “If Russia, or some other entity, was hacking, why did the White House wait so long to act? Why did they only complain after Hillary lost?”

The Obama administration warned for months that Russian hackers had tried to interfere with U.S. elections, and intelligence agencies issued an unusual public assessment in October warning Russia was behind the cyberattack.

In an NPR interview Thursday, President Barack Obama said the U.S. is considering retaliatory moves against Russia. “I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections, that we need to take action, and we will,” he said. “At a time and a place of our own choosing. Some of it may be explicit and publicized; some of it may not be.”

Until now, few details had been disclosed about the nature of the targeting of Republican organizations, especially the flagship Republican National Committee, where hackers sent so-called phishing emails last spring to an email address there. Those emails were quarantined by a filter meant to detect spam as well as potentially malicious traffic that may carry viruses or trick recipients into divulging passwords, two officials said.

A third person familiar with the investigation said RNC staff members didn’t realize they had been the target of spies until June, after Democratic committee leaders revealed that hackers had successfully gained a foothold inside their networks. Once inside, they reportedly were able to access a trove of DNC opposition research on Mr. Trump, then a candidate.

RNC officials, concerned they too might have been compromised, called a private computer security firm, which in turn called the FBI and obtained information about what kinds of malicious emails to look for, the person said. Upon inspection, the RNC found that its electronic filters had blocked emails sent to a former employee matching the description they’d been warned about.

The apparently successful blocking of a Russian espionage operation offers one possible explanation why the GOP’s main political organization didn’t suffer the same fate as its Democratic counterpart—a deluge of leaked emails revealing private correspondence and internal strategy.

But the suspicion that Russians did try to break into the RNC, using the same techniques and tactics that worked so well on the Democrats, suggests that at least initially, they were trying to gather potentially incriminating or embarrassing information on both parties.


Hackers who overran the DNC also successfully stole and then published emails from Republican state-level officials on a website, DCLeaks, that private security experts have linked to the Russian operation allegedly targeting the DNC and the presidential campaign of Mrs. Clinton. The leaked GOP emails received relatively little public attention and consisted of mostly mundane and innocuous correspondence, including inquiries and complaints sent by constituents to generic addresses.

On Wednesday, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told CNN his campaign email system was hacked by Russian operators. Mr. Graham plans to hold hearings about the hacks, which all U.S. intelligence agencies said in a rare public statement in October were directed by the highest-levels of the Russian government to interfere with U.S. elections.

Those messages were conveyed to WikiLeaks, where they attracted far greater attention than any of the GOP emails posted on DCLeaks, and handed Russian President Vladimir Putin a public-relations victory.

“If you look at the leaks that came out most recently on the DNC, the Russian media were very, very quick to pick up the fact that, ‘See, the West is always lecturing us, and yet look at this primary system. Was it a truly level playing field?’ Which is something the Americans always criticize the Russians about,” Peter Clement, a deputy assistant director at the CIA and the agency’s most senior Russia analyst, said at a conference in Washington in September.

Other emails raised questions about whether Mrs. Clinton used her position as secretary of state to do favors for donors to her family’s foundation.

President Barack Obama said the U.S. will take action against Russia for its alleged involvement in the U.S. presidential election, after intelligence officials concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally authorized the hacking of institutions and members of the Democratic party. Photo: AP.
Independent computer security experts said it was plausible that the RNC’s filtering systems stopped any potentially dangerous emails from reaching their targets. But the fact that they failed doesn’t mean they preferred one candidate over another, nor that they don’t harbor plans to leak embarrassing information about Republicans or Mr. Trump in the future, now that he’s about to assume the presidency.

“It would be naive [for Republicans] to think they weren’t targeted,” said Michael Buratowski, a senior vice president at Fidelis Cybersecurity, which examined the DNC breach and attributed it to the Russian hackers.

“It doesn’t surprise me at all that they were gone after,” Mr. Buratowski said, because the hackers in question have demonstrated over many years a voracious appetite for information. The two groups have been linked to earlier incursions at U.S. government agencies, including the State Department and the White House.

—Damian Paletta contributed to this article.

Write to Devlin Barrett at devlin.barrett@wsj.com, Shane Harris at shane.harris@wsj.com and Julian E. Barnes at julian.barnes@wsj.com

So lets try to work through this quagmire.

Russia tried to hack the RNC with the SAME techniques they tried to hack the DNC and they were successful with the DNC but not the RNC.

So assuming it was the Russians, they released only what they could because obviously they couldn't release what they couldn't hack.....and this "clearly" demonstrate a more "aggressive" attempt at hacking the DNC and a "less persistent" attempt at the RNC and it indicates a preference towards Donald Trump according to some officials??

WTF?.....

The intelligence community better release this so called evidence and why they consider it "high confidence" or Trump is perfectly justified to get in there and fire everyone of these people that considers this evidence as definite proof.

[zara]

The intelligence community better release this so called evidence and why they consider it "high confidence" or Trump is perfectly justified to get in there and fire everyone of this people that considers this evidence as definite proof.

When North Korea hacked the US they released the evidence didnt they?

[YellowFever]

When North Korea hacked the US they released the evidence didnt they?

So you equate NK hacking Sony or whatever with charges of a foreign power directly interfering with one of our constitutional rights.

Tell me do you think Russia messed with your Breixt vote?

Would love to get your thoughts on that.

[Parihaka]

pari,
lol ok. i'm sure conservatives have never attacked the Obama administration regarding Russia ever...:-)

Reds under the bed is hardly new, true. It's more interesting to see the left mainstream claims that the incoming Trump administration is one giant Manchurian candidate, and the Democrat candidate say she'd use military force against Russia and China for cyber attacks, even though they'd be entirely dependent on the CIA to guestimate who it was.

[zara]

So you equate NK hacking Sony or whatever with charges of a foreign power directly interfering with one of our constitutional rights.

Tell me do you think Russia messed with your Brexit vote?

Would love to get your thoughts on that.

No, why would I think that?

I'm just wondering if they can release the evidence of the North Korean hacking why can't they release the evidence of the Russian hack?

[YellowFever]

No, why would I think that?

I'm just wondering if they can release the evidence of the North Korean hacking why can't they release the evidence of the Russian hack?

So you agree with me that the evidence should be released.

And you're the one that brought up the Norks hacking into this so I was wondering how that relates to this charges of hacking of the election.

[zara]

So you agree with me that the evidence should be released.

And you're the one that brought up the Norks hacking into this so I was wondering how that relates to this charges of hacking of the election.

Yes they should release it just like they did with the Koreans. The fact they won't make me think it's probably not very strong.

[YellowFever]

Yes they should release it just like they did with the Koreans. The fact they won't make me think it's probably not very strong.

Agreed.

[citanon]

Agreed.

They probably do have pretty good evidence. They can't release it because then the Russians would know specifics about how they are being monitored.

The thing about the liberal response to this is that it overhypes Putin's influence via these hacks and actually strengthens his capabilities.

As the election showed the Russian hacks had no real ability to change the outcome of the election. The real danger is that future candidates could self curtail criticism of Russia to avoid being embarrassed during the campaign. Then, foreign actors could gain real influence on US elections not by affecting the electorate but by affecting the behavior of the candidates.

The smart thing to do to counter this would have been for both sides to acknowledge the hacks happened, but also highlight their very limited effects, for rnc and DNC to get together with the intelligence community and go through a collaborative effort to upgrade their cyber security, and for Trump, Obama and Hillary to support an nonpartisan probe into the matter under the context of acknowledgement of its feeble effects.

Then future hacks would be discouraged.

Instead, the Democrats are hyping the effects, the intelligence community is going out on thin limbs about the intent, Trump is reactively attacking everybody, and the Russians are probably laughing their asses off while the Chinese are taking notes.

[YellowFever]

They probably do have pretty good evidence. They can't release it because then the Russians would know specifics about how they are being monitored.

Also agreed.

Hence my original statement that Obama played this very badly.

For all I know they might have intimately detailed conversations of Putin and somebody discussing this very issue but saying flat out that they know the intent of the Putin government without willing to back up what they say with evidence was a very stupid thing to do.

Obama placed himself into a corner and if he is unwilling to show the world the evidence, he just looks like a partisan hack.

[astralis]

YF,

Obama placed himself into a corner and if he is unwilling to show the world the evidence, he just looks like a partisan hack.

you keep on saying this, but i can't make any sense of it. exactly -whom- doesn't believe Obama at this point in time?........other than, say, Donald Trump.

moreover, note it was the CIA and then the FBI whom was talking about intent, not Obama.

you only need to simply note the world response to know that pretty much every single US ally has now on high alert for Russian political hacking, ranging from Germany to UK to France to Australia, and neither do they much care whether or not the Russian intent was specific or not. for that matter the US isn't doing any asking-- it's not like the Iraq War where the US was trying to get allies to pony up hundreds of thousands of soldiers.

[YellowFever]

YF,



you keep on saying this, but i can't make any sense of it. exactly -whom- doesn't believe Obama at this point in time?........other than, say, Donald Trump.

moreover, note it was the CIA and then the FBI whom was talking about intent, not Obama.

you only need to simply note the world response to know that pretty much every single US ally has now on high alert for Russian political hacking, ranging from Germany to UK to France to Australia, and neither do they much care whether or not the Russian intent was specific or not. for that matter the US isn't doing any asking-- it's not like the Iraq War where the US was trying to get allies to pony up hundreds of thousands of soldiers.

So it's a given right?

We know the intent of Putin was to get Trump elected, right?

Is this the same absolute that narrated that we know the elctinon was hacked in Trump's favor becuse the RNC documents weren't released?

I really don't care what the world believes.

I do know what he said is causing damage to the next president of the United States.

As an American I don't like that

At the 2:40 mark. Why did he mention Republican voters and Ronald Reagan if his intention wasn't to turn it political?

[astralis]

YF,

So it's a given right?

bottom-line, when the entire US intel community is saying "high confidence", is there a good reason for you to -disbelieve- it?

or do you naturally challenge the findings of the IC every time?

it's certainly within your right to do so, of course, i just find it curious why on THIS aspect you choose to be skeptical.

I do know what he said is causing damage to the next president of the United States.

lol by pointing out that said next President mocking the efforts of the very people whom will be working for him is unwise?

Why did he mention Republican voters and Ronald Reagan if his intention wasn't to turn it political?

he was referencing the poll i put up here earlier, which is fair game. the same people whom mocked Obama for being weak on Russia are now warming up to Russia because their messiah Trump told them to. funny how it works.

for myself, i think Obama probably owes Romney an apology for mocking him in 2012 regarding this. Obama's belief that Russia is in long-term decline is correct, unfortunately Russia has also shown an impressive capability to muck things up in the short and medium term.