Lion of the Blogosphere

When Russians tried to help Democrats win, no one cared

From the declassified government report

Russia, like its Soviet predecessor, has a history of conducting covert influence campaigns focused on US presidential elections that have used intelligence officers and agents and press placements to disparage candidates perceived as hostile to the Kremlin.

Translation: the Russkies have always been trying to get Democrats elected instead of Republicans (because Democrats were closer to communist than Republicans), but no one cared because the Democrats are the good guys.

But now that the Russkies are supporting the Republican candidate (and remember, the Reupblicans are the bad guys), we make a big stink about it.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

January 6, 2017 at EDT pm

Posted in Politics

6 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. What evidence is there that Russia did the hacking? Nothing conclusive as far as I know.

    Assange insists that his source was not the Russian government; either the intelligence services or Assange is lying. Now, one might point out that Assange’s denials by themselves prove nothing. While this is true, keep in mind that Assange does know the identity of the source. If he knows it was the Russians and he is lying about their involvement then he also knows the intelligence community potentially is holding back on definitive evidence that could damage his credibility if they drop their bombshell later. I find this a bit doubtful (though concede it is possible) because normally when people lie they try to make their initial statements somewhat equivocal so that they can back out of what they said later if they receive pushback.

    But Assange hasn’t been giving himself room for maneuver when he’s asked about the matter; which is what one would expect him to do if he knew there was something to the allegations.

    For Assange to be so unambiguous when he knows the truth – along with other reasons, such as the fact hacking that system would be a very doable assignment for a freelancer – leads me to believe the Russians were not involved.

    The Undiscovered Jew

    January 6, 2017 at EDT pm

    • Assange’s source is the key issue in this entire story. It’s perfectly plausible that Russia hacked the DNC. What I find less plausible is that they would give away that information to Wikileaks, instead of keeping it for themselves.

      Mike Street Station

      January 7, 2017 at EDT am

    • I think Russia would have a reason to give it to Wikileaks. It wouldn’t have been much help to Russia if they did not use it before the election.

      It’s also possible Russia offered information to Wikileaks, but that Wikileaks turned it down because they already had other sources for it. The DNC’s system was so vulnerable that multiple hackers probably had the goods on them.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      January 7, 2017 at EDT pm

  2. If a foreign gov’t did the hacking, and yes evidence has not been presented to prove the case, then the USA of course needs to oppose it. Does Washington have some claim to moral high ground? No, Washington covertly and overtly works to influence elections in foreign countries all the time, including of course “regime change.” Washington funded Netanyahu’s opposition, covertly worked to influence the Ukrainian elections, and on and on. I won’t get into how many foreign leaders Washington has overthrown.

    Do I have blanket opposition to ALL Washington’s actions? No, just some, since it is all part of the big game of geopolitics and if Washington does nothing other countries will.

    The CIA, FBI, an other gov’t arms are highly politicized. Was the government intelligence honest with “findings” about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? What else is a lie?


    January 7, 2017 at EDT am

    • True, but it’s our country. We’ve manipulated our own share of elections, but now it’s been done to us, and we ought to fight back. I’m not that sanguine about Putin, who pretty much seems to see the USA as the enemy.


      January 8, 2017 at EDT am

  3. Today, NPR semantically in a talk segment headline (but not logically) tied Trump’s use of Twitter to Twitter’s possibility of ever increasing financial issues. It was about as weasel-like as it gets, but certainly par for the course.

    Within the same segment, the host also mentioned other users who would be unsavory to either the Left or everyone, depending (another weasel strategy to defame Trump). One of them was ISIS. Another was the “alt-right”. Notably, they failed to mention any group of the extreme Left.

    That the establishment is the extreme Left is the only rational conclusion, which is of course a conclusion that implies much more evidence than I mention here.. They are always going to willfully ignore anything that might impugn themselves.


    January 9, 2017 at EDT pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: