U.S. Politics

[OutByEaster?]

12 minutes ago, blandy said:

A agree that the US system is ridiculously undemocratic in the way that is is influenced so much by money and businesses and billioaires have the money and no one else really gets much of a say or sway. But Russia and Putin are not like "ordinary" billionaires.

True enough, but I think there's a danger in getting caught up in the "big bad bear" rhetoric - it's a distraction. I would doubt very much that Putin has more influence on US governmental decisions and policies (and therefore the global economy) than the Koch brothers, Adelson or Mercer - or has anything like the same influence over propoganda as Murdoch. Russia joins Israel, Saudi and others in having an undue influence on US global hegemony, but they're neither a unique case or a particularly powerful voice.

The world is in far more danger from Citibank and the US coal industry than the threat of reds under the beds.

[blandy]

36 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I think there's a danger in getting caught up in the "big bad bear" rhetoric - it's a distraction.

Not for me. Again, I know where you're coming from. The thing is Putin isn't a distraction, he's part of the same problem of rich external influences on the US system - you said as much yourself above. Yes, as I said his behaviour is different in that he's used and is using his State to effect that influence as well as money - for example see the female Russian spy/agent Maria Butina - So Putin's not a somehow distraction, he is joining in with the other influencers, (manipulating them, too).

Quote

A 30-year-old former student has become the first Russian national convicted for seeking to influence US politics during the 2016 presidential election.

Maria Butina, who built a powerful network that reached into Donald Trump’s circle, tried to infiltrate the influential National Rifle Association (NRA) and relay intelligence on American politicians to a Russian government official.

The wikileaks timed release of hacked (by Russia) and co-ordinated (by Russia) info from Clinton's team....

It's more than a distraction. 

[VILLAMARV]

Trying to think of something funnier than the idea that we should have sympathy with the USA because a foreign state may have interfered in their elections........

Nah, got nothing.

[villakram]

3 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

The things is though that the behaviour of Russian billionaires is entirely in keeping with the behaviour of billionaires everywhere on the planet in regards to the US election. 

The US election is an auction where two corporately operated parties each select a candidate and invite business to pay to publicise them to the US public in a vote. The wining corporations get support, tax cuts, subsidies and competitive advantage in the global economy. 

Did Russia attempt to gain influence over the American election?

Yes, of course they did - everyone did - you'd be crazy not to.

 

Bingo.

US law explicitly allows pools of dark money to form political action committees that have to pinky swear to be all above board and such. Colbert was openly mocking this during the Obama election years... years and years ago.

[villakram]

11 hours ago, A'Villan said:

I really don't know how to interpret your post here.

It's an attempt to get you to contemplate the treatment of half of the population of people that are of the particular brand of "faithful", and contrast that with the words said by the Imam after the atrocity.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, VILLAMARV said:

Trying to think of something funnier than the idea that we should have sympathy with the USA because a foreign state may have interfered in their elections........

Nah, got nothing.

Yeah, the biter bit and all that.

Still if we're gonna condemn the US for interfering in elections, then failing to do so if it's someone else doing the interfering is hypocritical.

[VILLAMARV]

24 minutes ago, blandy said:

Yeah, the biter bit and all that.

Still if we're gonna condemn the US for interfering in elections, then failing to do so if it's someone else doing the interfering is hypocritical.

Aye, that'll be why witholding sympathy and upholding the Rule of Law are vastly different things

I suppose the ultimate irony would be if it proved the one place the USA couldn't instigate regime change was the USA

[peterms]

5 hours ago, blandy said:

The wikileaks timed release of hacked (by Russia) and co-ordinated (by Russia) info from Clinton's team....

Leaked, not hacked.

Quote

...We veteran intelligence professionals (VIPS) have done enough detailed forensic work to prove the speciousness of the prevailing story that the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks came from Russian hacking...

...We have scrutinized publicly available physical data — the “trail” that every cyber operation leaves behind. And we have had support from highly experienced independent forensic investigators who, like us, have no axes to grind. We can prove that the conventional-wisdom story about Russian-hacking-DNC-emails-for-WikiLeaks is false. Drawing largely on the unique expertise of two VIPS scientists who worked for a combined total of 70 years at the National Security Agency and became Technical Directors there, we have regularly published our findings. But we have been deprived of a hearing in mainstream media — an experience painfully reminiscent of what we had to endure when we exposed the corruption of intelligence before the attack on Iraq 16 years ago.

This time, with the principles of physics and forensic science to rely on, we are able to adduce solid evidence exposing mistakes and distortions in the dominant story. We offer you below — as a kind of aide-memoire— a discussion of some of the key factors related to what has become known as “Russia-gate.” And we include our most recent findings drawn from forensic work on data associated with WikiLeaks’ publication of the DNC emails.

We do not claim our conclusions are “irrefutable and undeniable,” a la Colin Powell at the UN before the Iraq war. Our judgments, however, are based on the scientific method — not “assessments.” We decided to put this memorandum together in hopes of ensuring that you hear that directly from us...

The discussion of the basis for their claim is in the full piece.

[peterms]

A piece by Matt Taibbi on media failings in respect of the Mueller story over the last couple of years.  Below is only an excerpt.

Quote

...Nothing Trump is accused of from now on by the press will be believed by huge chunks of the population, a group that (perhaps thanks to this story) is now larger than his original base. As Baker notes, a full 50.3% of respondents in a poll conducted this month said they agree with Trump the Mueller probe is a “witch hunt.”

Stories have been coming out for some time now hinting Mueller’s final report might leave audiences “disappointed,” as if a President not being a foreign spy could somehow be bad news.

Openly using such language has, all along, been an indictment. Imagine how tone-deaf you’d have to be to not realize it makes you look bad, when news does not match audience expectations you raised. To be unaware of this is mind-boggling, the journalistic equivalent of walking outside without pants.

There will be people protesting: the Mueller report doesn’t prove anything! What about the 37 indictments? The convictions? The Trump tower revelations? The lies! The meeting with Don, Jr.? The financial matters! There’s an ongoing grand jury investigation, and possible sealed indictments, and the House will still investigate, and…

Stop. Just stop. Any journalist who goes there is making it worse.

For years, every pundit and Democratic pol in Washington hyped every new Russia headline like the Watergate break-in. Now, even Nancy Pelosi has said impeachment is out, unless something “so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan” against Trump is uncovered it would be worth their political trouble to prosecute.

The biggest thing this affair has uncovered so far is Donald Trump paying off a porn star. That’s a hell of a long way from what this business was supposedly about at the beginning, and shame on any reporter who tries to pretend this isn’t so.

The story hyped from the start was espionage: a secret relationship between the Trump campaign and Russian spooks who’d helped him win the election.

The betrayal narrative was not reported as metaphor. It was not “Trump likes the Russians so much, he might as well be a spy for them.” It was literal spying, treason, and election-fixing – crimes so severe, former NSA employee John Schindler told reporters, Trump “will die in jail.”

In the early months of this scandal, the New York Times said Trump’s campaign had “repeated contacts” with Russian intelligence; the Wall Street Journal told us our spy agencies were withholding intelligence from the new President out of fear he was compromised; news leaked out our spy chiefs had even told other countries like Israel not to share their intel with us, because the Russians might have “leverages of pressure” on Trump.

CNN told us Trump officials had been in “constant contact” with “Russians known to U.S. intelligence,” and the former director of the CIA, who’d helped kick-start the investigation that led to Mueller’s probe, said the President was guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” committing acts “nothing short of treasonous.”

Hillary Clinton insisted Russians “could not have known how to weaponize” political ads unless they’d been “guided” by Americans. Asked if she meant Trump, she said, “It’s pretty hard not to.” Harry Reid similarly said he had “no doubt” that the Trump campaign was “in on the deal” to help Russians with the leak.

None of this has been walked back. To be clear, if Trump were being blackmailed by Russian agencies like the FSB or the GRU, if he had any kind of relationship with Russian intelligence, that would soar over the “overwhelming and bipartisan” standard, and Nancy Pelosi would be damning torpedoes for impeachment right now.

There was never real gray area here. Either Trump is a compromised foreign agent, or he isn’t. If he isn’t, news outlets once again swallowed a massive disinformation campaign, only this error is many orders of magnitude more stupid than any in the recent past, WMD included. Honest reporters like ABC’s Terry Moran understand: Mueller coming back empty-handed on collusion means a “reckoning for the media.”

Of course, there won’t be such a reckoning. (There never is). But there should be. We broke every written and unwritten rule in pursuit of this story, starting with the prohibition on reporting things we can’t confirm...

 

[blandy]

7 minutes ago, peterms said:

Leaked, not hacked.

The discussion of the basis for their claim is in the full piece.

Thanks. To my less than expert eye, there's an almighty (apparent) fault in part of their case. They say "This shows that the data had been transferred to an external storage device, such as a thumb drive, before WikiLeaks posted them." So that says to me (and them, I think) that Wikileaks was handed the e mails on a portable windows formatted disc/thumb drive, rather than that the files were (say) provided to wikileaks via an (interceptable) e mail (with a traceable ip address), or via a FTP file transfer also traceable. Or it raises the possibility that wikileaks put the files on a portable drive (perhaps in order to back them up, or have them easily carried away from computers and such like. What it doesn't do is say they were't hacked, or "stolen" by any person whether from Russia or elsewhere. They say they don't know and can't know who stole the data.

They say that "NSA has taps on all the transoceanic cables leaving the U.S. and would almost certainly have such packets if they exist." That is relevant if any hacker (of any US computer) hacks from outside the USA. It doesn't have relevance if a hacker is using a computer from within the USA. The US isn't permitted to monitor in bulk their internal US citizens communications, IIRC. They may still illegally do that of course, even after they were caught out a few years back and it was then said that GCHQ were doing it.

But the rest of the analysis they've done does seem to suggest shenanigans have gone on. That the story isn't as presented by the media. Whether the Mueller team have done what these bods have done and drawn (different) conclusions not so much on the data but on other factors we also don't know. I would imagine the Mueller team has more access and more data than this group of retired professionals. This team is implying the trove of data was copied by someone with access to the actual computer and then leaked. They don't know who that person is or was, or what their motives were. An anti Hillary malcontent, a pro Trump supporter, a Russian, a "freedom of information" campaigner - could be any number of things.

But an interesting and intriguing read.

 

[blandy]

10 minutes ago, peterms said:

Mueller coming back empty-handed on collusion means a “reckoning for the media.”

Indeed. The investigation wasn't into Trump, but that was the angle the media (and Trump) chose to repeat and amplify over and over. The investigation found lots of crime, has indicted/ people have pleaded guilty to illegal acts, and illegal interference (in the case of 13 Russian agents). The Trump thing he's (typically narcisistically ) made it all about him and the media have obliged (it sells papers and books) by reporting and commenting on his words or their own political take. Trump's been found to have done more than enough for a President in normal times to have to leave office. But this ain't normal times.

[blandy]

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

Mueller coming back empty-handed on collusion

Also on this, I dunno if that's definitely the case, tbh. It might be, but we've had a recent Trump supporter and appointee put his summary of Mueller's report into the public domain. What we haven't had is Mueller's actual document or thoughts or summary. They're quite likely not at all the same thing. Like I said before, I doubt they'll have found conspiracy, but more likely effwittery - e.g. the Trump Junior meeting with the Russian agent promising dirt and Trump senior's public call for more "hacking". Not the core area to be investigated, but nevertheless related facts. The PR has been won by Trump (abetted by the media coverage) in the short term, and if he carries on creating storms, then job done. But if in the mid-longer term the report itself is made more public, there will be trouble down the line, perhaps.

[snowychap]

6 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

The world is in far more danger from Citibank and the US coal industry than the threat of reds under the beds.

Putin is not 'reds under the beds'.

Putting it in those terms is either betraying a huge misreading of things or an intent to mislead. Given your posting history, I can't believe it's the latter. I can only assume an obsession with one valid danger has left you blind to another.

[peterms]

26 minutes ago, blandy said:

They say that "NSA has taps on all the transoceanic cables leaving the U.S. and would almost certainly have such packets if they exist." That is relevant if any hacker (of any US computer) hacks from outside the USA. It doesn't have relevance if a hacker is using a computer from within the USA. The US isn't permitted to monitor in bulk their internal US citizens communications, IIRC.

On that point, the indictment of the 12 Russians alleged to have done the hacking says that they used a network of computers across the world.  It also mentions servers based in Moscow, Malaysia, Illinois and Arizona.  This suggests that the claim is that info was transferred abroad electronically, and also that monitoring of US-based comms was happening (remember Clapper lied on oath to Congress about this).

[bickster]

If the Mueller report exonerates Trump, why three days after claiming that he wanted transparency and openness  on the report, has Mitch McConnel blocked its publication, apart from the 4-page summary released by Barr?

One suggestion is that Mueller wanted Congress to decide but Barr has got in the way

[blandy]

1 minute ago, peterms said:

On that point, the indictment of the 12 Russians alleged to have done the hacking says that they used a network of computers across the world.  It also mentions servers based in Moscow, Malaysia, Illinois and Arizona.  This suggests that the claim is that info was transferred abroad electronically, and also that monitoring of US-based comms was happening (remember Clapper lied on oath to Congress about this).

So what do you conclude from that? That the evidence against them includes NSA (and other agency) gathered information on the locations of servers they (allegedly) used? Like you say it suggests hacking using foreign servers...which suggests either the wikileaks data or some other data was stolen via hacking and the NSA have evidence sufficient to place criminal charges...which seems to go against the VSIP thing you posted earlier, doesn't it - unless this is different hacking? We don't know if the route of data going abroad (which they can track, legally) was found to start in illinois, Arizona in the US, but that seems credible as an explanation, doesn't it?

[bickster]

Have the US security services worked out how to hack an iPhone yet? It wasn't long ago they couldn't even manage that

I have serious doubts about some of their claims as to what they can do tbh

[blandy]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

I have serious doubts about some of their claims as to what they can do tbh

Haven't you seen 24?

But yeah.

Equally there is a lot they can and do, do.

[bickster]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

Haven't you seen 24?

But yeah.

Equally there is a lot they can and do, do.

Undoubtedly but I do think some of their claims were written by the people who wrote the TV Detector Van manual

[VILLAMARV]

Well, if they can mess with centrifuges in nuclear facilities half-way around the globe I wouldn't down play their abilities all that much.