RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Ash writes: "Donald Trump should not be, must not be issued a free pass on any assistance he received from the Russian government in his pursuit of power. Right now Democrats, Republicans, and Congress as a whole are driving by this issue with their windows rolled up."

Trump secretary of state nominee Rex Tillerson appears with Russian president Vladimir Putin. (photo: AP)
Trump secretary of state nominee Rex Tillerson appears with Russian president Vladimir Putin. (photo: AP)


The Reports of Russian Election Interference Are Absolutely Serious

By Marc Ash, Reader Supported News

09 January 17

 

f in fact Russia acted to sway the U.S. presidential election, then yes that is without a doubt a very serious matter.

The U.S. intelligence community reports at the center of the allegations are being met with a significant degree of skepticism by critics of the agencies authoring them.

The CIA, FBI, NSA and DHS get paid to lie. Deceptions large and small are endemic to their day-to-day method. They defend such tactics as essential to doing their jobs and defending the nation. In addition the documents placed in the public record by Edward Snowden contradicted categorically all assurances U.S. intelligence has given government watchdogs and the public for decades that their actions did not violate the Constitution. As a result the intelligence community now struggles for credibility at a moment when they seem most to need it.

As the discussion turns to interference in the political affairs of a nation, any nation, including the United States, the U.S. is outrageously guilty of ruthlessly dominating the political affairs of other nations with the active support of the very intelligence agencies now sounding these alarms.

There is just one problem and one thing that sets this situation apart: the scope and very public nature of these intelligence community disclosures are completely without precedent in the nation’s history, and while the U.S. government and its intelligence arms may be too guilty to speak, the American people and the international community have the right and standing to know if the Russian government has influenced the American presidential election.

There has been no point whatsoever in U.S. history when there has been unified public consensus by all U.S. intelligence players that anything even remotely like the hacking of a U.S. presidential election has taken place. Anyone who tells you that they “have seen this before” is misleading you or themselves, because it’s never happened before.

Moreover, these assertions come on the eve of the very individual whom the intelligence agencies allege benefited from the foreign interference being inaugurated as president of the United States. Clearly the intelligence agencies are sounding an alarm. To completely ignore that alarm invites catastrophe.

The second point of objection to the Russian interference issue is, “So what? There is no proof that it affected the outcome of the election.” True, there is no empirical or forensic evidence, in the public realm, to prove what voters were thinking when they cast their votes – or did not cast them, as the case may be.

It is, however, a red herring argument to begin with, because knowing what is in the mind of individual voters is an unachievable standard in any case. So that cannot be the fault of the intelligence agencies, however flawed they may be.

There are, however, droves of circumstantial evidence. Consider Donald Trump’s own words on the issue, in the final weeks of the campaign:

“Boy, that Wikileaks has done a job on her, hasn’t it?”

“Wikileaks, I love Wikileaks. And I said write a couple of them down. Let’s see. During a speech crooked Hillary Clinton, oh she’s crooked folks. She’s crooked as a 3-dollar bill. Okay here’s one. Just came out – lock her up is right.”

While that still doesn’t prove that any individual voter’s decision was affected by the email releases, it absolutely proves that Donald Trump was willing to encourage the leaks and happy to benefit from them. That makes him an active participant and an informed party to the action.

The third argument is that the Russian election hacking issue is a distraction from the real problem, namely that the Democratic Party needs reform. Or that the Democrats should blame themselves, not the Russians.

Two problems with that line of reasoning. First, the Democrats are not blaming the Russians or anyone else. The Democrats are hiding beneath their beds and saying nothing. The Democrats are not challenging anything. The second problem with the “Democrats are to blame, not the Russians” argument is that it’s victim blaming. If the Russians intervened to help Donald Trump, then the Russians and Donald Trump are to blame for that. Not the Democratic Party.

The fourth factor is the duty of all Americans to confront Donald Trump. Donald Trump did not win a plurality of votes in the presidential election. He lost by nearly three million votes. Yet he is launching a radical political and social assault on the communities and values of those who voted in the majority against him and for his opponent, Hillary Clinton. That is unfair and un-American.

Donald Trump should not be, must not be issued a free pass on any assistance he received from the Russian government in his pursuit of power. Right now Democrats, Republicans, and Congress as a whole are driving by this issue with their windows rolled up.

If Donald Trump’s ascent to the presidency was aided by a foreign power, he must be held accountable. We owe that to ourselves, future generations, and the world.


Marc Ash is the founder and former Executive Director of Truthout, and is now founder and Editor of Reader Supported News.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+32 # DogSoldier 2017-01-09 09:27
Nobody outside of the DNC believes that bullshit. This site is fast becoming a Democrat propaganda machine while pretending to be non-biased. You should just ask the DNC for funding.

RSN-DNC
 
 
-25 # Marc Ash 2017-01-09 10:36
DogSoldier,

Trump and Reince Priebus both now admit that there was Russian interference.
http://bit.ly/2jv8dOL
 
 
+46 # ronnewmexico 2017-01-09 10:45
So Julian Assange is now lying and Trump we are supposed to assume is telling the truth? And he is such a intelligent man I can be certain he is qualified to make these sorts of determinations.

Lets ask Hillary what she thinks. Its not like shw has public and private opinions on things which are as they say, different. I wonder which opinion she will give us... the public or private one. Is either one involving the truth?
 
 
-52 # Kiwikid 2017-01-09 13:00
Assange a liar? Surprise, surprise - lets add it to his other crimes. Why anyone would trust this 'man' is beyond me.
 
 
+51 # Spence 2017-01-09 14:03
Assange has always told the truth. Clapper has always lied. Ambassador Murry is held in high esteem. Assange is the publisher of Wikileaks and it can be trusted with the truth.

It is known truth-tellers and whistleblowers against the neocons. I trust the former, you trust the latter. Why?
 
 
-35 # Cassandra2012 2017-01-09 18:19
UH NOPE, HE RAPED A WOMAN IN SWEDEN BUT THAT GOT COVERD UP SO YOU BELIEVE HIM?
 
 
+12 # Ken Halt 2017-01-09 22:18
At this point in time the rape is alleged but not proven, and the charges may have been the result of sub rosa manipulation by the US.
 
 
-4 # pro54 2017-01-10 19:24
Will you the same of Bill Clinton as regards to rape and if not why not?
You want to turn the discussion into personalities as Hillary made the campaign against Trump and see where it got her.
 
 
0 # pro54 2017-01-10 19:21
can you quote some of his lies with the proof of those lies?
 
 
+46 # jdd 2017-01-09 11:24
Trump has enough trouble with the crusade of the Obama forces to poison the waters who have joined with the Republican
right-wing to push the big lie. The reality is that there has never been proof and that even Assange, Ray McGovern's VIPS group, former British Ambassador Murray, Russia itself and many others have debunked this filth and have never been refuted. Shades pf WMD, which was "a slam dunk," and Clapper perjured statement that there was no surveillance on American citizens.But they get no play on RSN, which is so anti-Trump that it has become a disgraceful CIA mouthpiece and neocon blabsheet. The issue is that Trump is threatening the entire post-war London-Wall Street imperial system by calling for an end to the last 15 years of wars of "regime change" and cooperation with Russia.
 
 
+19 # DongiC 2017-01-09 14:07
jdd: And by calling global warming "a Chinese hoax" and by threatening to pull out of the Paris accords, Trump endangers the entire planet as do the many deniers in his cabinet. He has not been inaugurated so we know nothing about his peace keeping abilities yet. I think that China will provide him with a challenge, a country that holds 1.1 trillion$ in US bonds and is emerging as the leader in the fight for saving our planet.
 
 
+22 # lfeuille 2017-01-09 16:04
This has nothing to do with Russia ALLEDEGLY leaking the DNC and Podesta emails. If you are upset about his climate denial, talk about his climate denial. If you are upset about his attitude to women, talk about that. Etc, Etc. Do not make up conspiracies theory's that could lead to confrontation with nuclear armed Russia who, besides being one of the most formidable forces we could possibly get into a military confrontation with, is still needed if we are ever going to get out of the mess the W got us into in the ME based on earlier cooked intelligence.

Marc acknowledges the CIA's history of dishonesty, but gives us no reason to believe that they are being honest this time. It seems he is falling back on faith. His faith that Trump is so awful that it is intellectually and morally acceptable to believe without proof and spread the most unlikely nonsense if it somehow weakens Trump to any degree. But Marc, along with all the other CIA defenders, are just shredding the credibility that they will need when it comes to actual battles against Trumps actual underhanded dealings which will no doubt be numerous.
 
 
+3 # kbro2 2017-01-09 21:46
DongiC:
I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU SAID--EXCEPT I THINK IT IS CRUCIAL TO UNDERSTAND THAT WHILE TRUMP IS PUSHING FOR THE BIGGEST CHANGE IN THE U.S. POST-SOVIET POLICY FOR WORLD HEGEMONY BY SEEKING SOME KIND OF RAPPROACHEMENT WITH RUSSIA,THERE IS LITTLE DOUBT HE AND ADVISORS WILL CONTINUE TO SEEK U.S. DOMINANCE --PERHAPS IDENTIFYING CHINA--THE "ASIA PIVOT" AS THE PRIORITY. HE AIN'T STOCKING UP HIS CABINET WITH MILITARY LEADERS TO PREPARE FOR A CHESS TOURNAMENT.
 
 
+71 # DogSoldier 2017-01-09 11:28
Marc,

I have read through the public report, as have many others, virtually all of those not connected to to Hillary have described the report as underwhelming. I think it's just a bunch of misdirection and lies. In my 68 years I've never known the CIA to be honest about any damned thing.

Trump and Priebus are playing for approval from Congressional Repugnants that are in favor of sanctions or war with Russia.

The CIA has interfered with more elections in the world than any other country by several orders of magnitude. I don't see Putin assassinating leaders he doesn't agree with or enacting regime change all over the globe.

Do some serious reporting on the CIA. Let people see how many heads of state they murdered, how many elections they interfered with.
 
 
+6 # anarchaos 2017-01-09 12:29
RSN-CIA
 
 
-4 # reiverpacific 2017-01-09 12:58
Quoting anarchaos:
RSN-CIA

"Eh?????"
Please elaborate -or belt-up!
 
 
+14 # anarchaos 2017-01-09 17:52
Certainly Brian, Thursdays' "Democracy Now" in which Amy interviewed Glenn Greenwald, and they cited a previous interview on FoxNois involving Julian Assange & Hannity. So, 2 separate from Left and Right recent interviews regarding the almost certainly CIA-inspired disinfo "news". It is, without a doubt, disinfo (a CIA specialty). Or at least coming from very high 'sources' All the Best 2 you.
 
 
+5 # anarchaos 2017-01-09 17:54
It was Thursday, January 5th 2017 AD
 
 
+6 # Lucretius 2017-01-09 13:56
ABsolutely!
 
 
+42 # DogSoldier 2017-01-09 14:04
So why isn't the other side of the 'hacking' story being printed here? There's certainly plenty of stories calling the CIA's 'investigation' bullshit, Some of which were authored by people that have published on RSN before, when their articles were anti-Republican . How can this be unbiased Reader Supported News when it continually pushes the Democrats whether they're right or wrong?

Frankly, I'm an equal opportunity hater both parties are made of lying sacks of shit, and I fully support their overthrow.
 
 
+21 # DogSoldier 2017-01-09 17:05
Quoting Hillary from her e-mail to Chelsea Clinton, October 20, 2016

"Those shit for brains voters need to just vote already."

Wonderful respect for the people she wants to put her in office, and you wonder why the bitch lost. Do you think that the public didn't sense her denigration of the voters? People know when politicians and others are being condescending. She looked down on voters and they sensed it. Why do you think she was so unpopular?
 
 
+4 # Clovis 2017-01-10 11:07
Actually, the other side of the hacking story was being covered here, by Steve Weissman, but Mr Ash appears to have elbowed him out to appease the institutional gods. Disgraceful.
 
 
+12 # CTPatriot 2017-01-09 11:57
Archive of WikiLeaks Press Conference Addressing CIA Report which was aired live at 9am this morning:

https://www.periscope.tv/w/1YpKkqmkDkmJj
 
 
+24 # anthraxripple 2017-01-09 13:32
Isn't this exactly the same thing Obama and the Democratic Party did to Romney 4 years ago? Remember the "hacked" 47% speech?

Why is it ok to make political gain from one form of leak, and not ok to make political gain from another one?

If "The Russians" secretly taped Mitt Romney when he was saying the same things Hillary was caught saying, would that have disqualified Obama from office?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when did ANY well-known Democratic partisan say ANYTHING against the way Romney's 47% speech became known to all of us?

Wasn't THAT "election hacking" too?
 
 
+30 # DogSoldier 2017-01-09 13:49
Romney wasn't hacked, one of the waiters for the catering company at the event recorded it, and then made it public.
 
 
+6 # anthraxripple 2017-01-09 18:42
That's a hack, just as assuredly as Clinton was hacked.

It was a secret that was let out against Romney's wishes. It embarrassed Romney, and had something to do with him losing.

By the Clinton definition, THAT is "hacking".
 
 
+6 # grandlakeguy 2017-01-10 12:10
Horrors! Imagine how awful it is if the voters actually know who and what the candidates are!
 
 
-3 # RMF 2017-01-09 14:06
anthrax asks:

"Wasn't THAT "election hacking" too?"

No it wasn't -- when you make a speech in public it's open to, and fair play for, being quoted -- indeed that is what candidates often want.

It's a measure of stupidity (for Romney to make said statement, openly in a public forum) and not a matter of hacking.

In short, the recording and quoting of Romney's speech did not involve "breaking and entering."

If Romney did not want any recording he should have banned that activity (just as entertainers now do in concert appearances.) And if he did not want any quoting of his words then he should have refrained from making a public speech or of the statement at issue.

anthrax's other question:

"Why is it ok to make political gain from one form of leak, and not ok to make political gain from another one?"

Answer: Because quoting or recording a speech made in public is lawfully accepted fair use whereas breaking and entering (or using a mole) to obtain confidential info is unlawful conversion.
 
 
+28 # DogSoldier 2017-01-09 14:46
Actually Romney's speech wasn't made in public, but rather at a closed fundraising dinner. The waiter surreptitiously recorded the speech. Nevertheless, all's fair in war and politics.
 
 
-1 # RMF 2017-01-10 11:43
I think you may be confusing wire trap/eavesdropp ing laws with recording of public speech-making or other kinds of public performance.

But even so a "closed" fundraising event is same as public speech-making (anyone can attend -- all they have to do is pay the cover charge -- the fact that there is a cover charge cannot be seen to be same thing as a "private" closed performance.)

Moreover, if Romney had banned recording devices, and there was a colorable claim of a violation, and if Romney objected then he should have taken legal action to ENJOIN use.

But what did Romney do -- NOTHING.
What do we call that inaction -- WAIVER.

[Many commenters here want to compare apples and oranges. In contrast breaking and entering is clearly distinguishable on facts from public speech making, whether or not there is a cover charge. Moreover, as an example of how public statements reside in the public domain, simply consider that many such [public] statements are even admissible evidence as an exception to hearsay law, e.g., "declaration against interest".]

Bottom line -- public statements are "public" and if the speaker doesn't want to be quoted then he must take action to avoid that -- either by silence or by contract with attendees.

And finally, in the Glik case, the First Circuit, upheld "the fundamental and virtually self-evident nature of the First Amendment's protections" of the "right to film government officials or matters of public interest in public space."
 
 
+1 # Contrarian 2017-01-10 20:04
Actually once his statements are made public, there is nothing Romney can do other than to sue. Federal law only requires one party consent so there's no case there. He may have a case under state law if it a two party state. In any case you can't put the cat back in the bag once it's become public.
 
 
0 # RMF 2017-01-11 12:56
Contrarian, yes agree.

Would only note that "reporting" news is not the same as "acquiring" news.

Reporting news has strong First Amendment protections. But that in and of itself does not immunize those who entered the DNC server, and acquired and used information without authorization.

The First Circuit in the Glik case opined that "the fundamental and virtually self-evident nature of the First Amendment's protections" creates a "right to film government officials or matters of public interest in public space."

Under Glik the basic question for Romney's speech may be whether it was a "public space."

I think it's the better legal view that simply charging a cover or admission fee does not render the space non-public.

To rule otherwise would enable any presenter to render the entire body of First Amendment case law moot by simply charging a pro forma entrance fee.

And, given the existing jurisprudence, the Courts are unlikely to run with a theory to displace First Amendment law with a cover charge loophole.

Under the Glik theory the Romney (and Hillary's Wall St) speeches would be viewed as taking place in a public space.

But the underlying facts differ so greatly that the Glik rule could not extend to the DNC server, as there was arguably no authority to enter (or misappropriate if carried out by a mole.)

Thus, the DNC server would not be considered "public space" and "recording" that info would not engender a Glik safe harbor.
 
 
+7 # anthraxripple 2017-01-09 20:42
Recording someone without their permission is illegal. Even if you didn't steal the recording device.

If Clinton didn't want to have her words used against her, she shouldn't have hidden them from the U.S. government (her employer), to cut secret deals she didn't want tracked. Her arrogance and stupidity made her easily "hackable" (or in her case, "leakable").

If she didn't want to be hacked she should have said:

"Please don't hack my emails. I've taken no precautions to make them hack-proof and they're very vulnerable, but it would be embarrassing for me if the public were to ever find out what I really think about most issues".

Too bad she didn't think to do that. If Mitt had said, "Please don't illegally record my secret, private, meeting, you wouldn't have listened to the recording, and you would have voted for him to punish Obama, right?

Once again, Romney's meeting wasn't public. It was a private meeting with private investors, um, I mean "donors" - much like Clinton's private meeting where she reassured Goldman Sachs they had nothing to worry about, and that her "public policy" would have no bearing on her "private policy".

But, based on your logic Woodward and Bernstein should have been put in prison, and Jimmy Carter should have been impeached (as he was the beneficiary of the facts they revealed about Nixon). Woodward and Bernstein DIRECTLY had an impact on the '76 election.

I guess that one was "hacked" too!
 
 
0 # RMF 2017-01-10 11:59
In most cases you don't have to put up a "no trespassing" sign.

The absence of such signage does not immunize culpable conduct, which remains trespassing or theft, as the case may be.

Also see the Glik case, First Circuit, referenced above. [The Court upheld the First Amendment right to record "government officials or matters of public interest in public space."]

Your problem is analytically you are comparing apples and oranges. And your comment about Woodward is off point -- as I recall all Woodward et al did was write stories about what had been told to them -- that is a protected First Amendment right. While traditionally this doctrine was thought to be strongest for journalists, modern tech has expanded the def of journalist -- again, see Glik case.

Romney came out to address the public -- all attendees had to do was pay cover charge, same as attending a musical performance, film presentation etc -- it was not a private, secured gathering in strict sense (as would be in case of a private business meeting, corporate board meeting, etc.)

To apply your definition would eliminate in toto the notion of "public" and "public space" and eviscerate First Amendment journalism.

Where there is near identity is in Hillary's speeches to Wall Street, which are a functional image of Romney's speeches. Publication of matter from those speeches in both cases, involving "government officials or matters of public interest in public space" is protected by First Amendment.
 
 
0 # RMF 2017-01-10 12:29
Bottom Line -- DNC Server is not "public space."
 
 
+2 # Contrarian 2017-01-10 19:48
That's not true under Federal law, which only requires one party consent. Otherwise, it goes to state law some of which require 2 party consent So it all depends on which state he was in.
 
 
+6 # gumby 2017-01-09 20:09
Marc Ash you are a fool. I will never click on RSN again.
 
 
+3 # anthraxripple 2017-01-09 20:52
I think RSN has been hacked.

I know my previous account was. Someone broke into my account and changed my password.

So it's a bit interesting to be lectured about the evils of "hacking" by a web site that clearly had no problem whatsoever with the fact that some of its own users' accounts were hacked.
 
 
+12 # anachronis 2017-01-09 20:35
Marc Ash 2017-01-09 10:36

Absolutely FALSE. See
anachronis 2017-01-08 21:25
AND
anachronis 2017-01-08 21:43
at
http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/41278-chief-of-staff-now-says-trump-is-not-denying-russia-was-behind-hacking-campaign

Be ashamed Mr. Ash. You are disgracing yourself. And you are fast-degrading what was among the 5 best alternative news sources into a Democrat Establishment species of National Enquirer.

Be ashamed.
 
 
+5 # ReconFire 2017-01-09 22:03
Marc Ash, you have to ask you're self why are no IT experts onboard with this story. They are not involved with the political circus.
 
 
+1 # pro54 2017-01-10 19:19
Under pressure from the boys. Schummer: Trump should know those CIA boys will be needed to sell to the country the reason the president wants to invade a country. trump is not dumb and we who come here are also not dumb.
 
 
+33 # jdd 2017-01-09 11:11
Agreed. It now peddles the lies of the intelligence agencies behind Obama as if they are credible sources. Apparently nothing is too far-fetched. But, one day after meeting with Clapper, Brennan, et. al. President-elect Trump issued a statement which truthfully identified the problem facing America, and offered a concrete step towards the solution:

"Having a good relationship with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. Only 'stupid' people, or fools, would think that it is bad! We have enough problems around the world without yet another one. When I am President, Russia will respect us far more than they do now, and both countries will, perhaps, work together to solve some of the many great and pressing problems and issues of the WORLD."
Instead of Trumps usage of "stupid," I would substitute the word, "evil," which is how I am beginning to see this website.
 
 
-20 # Jaax88 2017-01-09 13:03
Why do you keep coming here? I would say this site is for people who like what RSN provides, except for the many useless and negative comments about Ash's choice of commentary. What is the saying, people who keep doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result, probably are In.....
 
 
+19 # lsd 2017-01-09 13:39
Quoting Jaax88:
Why do you keep coming here? I would say this site is for people who like what RSN provides, except for the many useless and negative comments about Ash's choice of commentary. .....

Echo chambers always work so well in the market place of ideas. How many time have I seen the same sentiments on the other political spectrum.
 
 
-23 # Kiwikid 2017-01-09 13:05
'Apparently nothing is too far-fetched.'

So many of the posters on this site are convinced that the US Govt brought down the twin towers, and you claim "nothing is too far-fetched" when it comes to your intelligence agencies. You believe that whopper, and you'll believe anything. And apparently, you do.
 
 
-13 # kyzipster 2017-01-09 16:26
I had the same reaction browsing through the comments here.

'Well, this is the same crowd that bought the Twin Tower conspiracy theories hook line and sinker.'

Skepticism is great, but they don't even want a discussion. There are no grey areas for many people on here, on any subject.
 
 
+16 # anarchaos 2017-01-09 18:13
It was WTC#1, WTC#2 and WTC#7 - THREE towers that fell. And, WTC bldgs #3, #4, #5, #6 and #8, #9, etc (you can find out the total number) did not collapse straight down into their own footprint at essentially free-fall speed. Find Out what happened-ignora nce is not bliss, it's ignorance. Those who do not know what went down, in fact & empirical evidence are ignorant(not intended as an insult) I am attempting a discussion here, but it should be based on forensic facts and empirical science and NO name-calling or dismissive statements.
 
 
+12 # anarchaos 2017-01-09 18:02
Please access: ae911truth.org (and make your own conclusions), but give it a fair consideration/a ssessment.
 
 
+7 # jackdresser 2017-01-10 00:33
The only completely preposterous 911 conspiracy theory is the one that issued forth immediately from the US gov't: a rich guy with terminal kidney disease on dialysis in the Himalayas and 19 ill-intentioned Arabs who took some flying lessons in Florida and Arizona were miraculously able to confuse and defeat NORAD for an hour and a half flying commercial airliners with uncanny skill, pulverize 780,000 metric tons of concrete and collapse 200,000 metric tons of structural steel in 2 massive high rise office buildings with two kerosene (jet fuel) fires, and crash a 3rd into the most highly protected building in the world surrounded by missile batteries designed for protection from Soviet ICBMs. You have obviously never taken Physics 101 and learned the conservation of energy principle that energy out must equal energy in, or noticed how our tax dollars were being spent during a half-century Cold War.

Recognizing your impressive level of judgment, and if you have investment capital available, I'd like to offer you a special deal on some lovely little South Seas island real estate - a whole island in fact. Just give me a few minutes and I'll run in and print out the deed.
 
 
+61 # grandlakeguy 2017-01-09 11:43
It is not the Russians who have been tampering with our elections since 2000.

IT IS THE REPUBLICANS!


This nonsense is nothing but a diversion so that our elections can remain totally under Republican control for as long as they can keep them that way!



Until we have hand counted paper ballots we will never have real elections in this country.
 
 
+14 # RLS 2017-01-09 15:11
Thanks, grandlakeguy, for keeping this very important issue alive. We need RSN and other alternative media to educate the public about election fraud so that we can SAVE OUR DEMOCRACY.
 
 
+11 # DogSoldier 2017-01-09 16:16
Don't worry, they'll rig that too. There aren't any Democracies in the world, there never has been, and there never will. Although there are plenty that call themselves Democracies
 
 
-4 # candida 2017-01-09 17:48
I agree the Republicans are a greater danger. But this doesn't preclude collusion between them and the Russians. Trump even asked for it publicly! It's not either/or.
 
 
+25 # anarchaos 2017-01-09 12:25
Quoting DogSoldier:
Nobody outside of the DNC believes that bullshit. This site is fast becoming a Democrat propaganda machine while pretending to be non-biased. You should just ask the DNC for funding.

RSN-DNC
="If in fact Russia......" and frankly Marc Ash you DO use many "if's" throughout this piece. WhiskeyTangoFox trot??
 
 
-17 # RMF 2017-01-09 12:49
To understand the legal foundation of the alleged DNC hacking one must, for the moment, ignore the source of the hacking/publica tion of the confidential info.

Some argue that because the information was accurate this quality of "truthfulness" in effect immunized it's theft and publication.

By legal (and market) analogy, one need only consider the prohibitions on insider trading on Wall St/stock markets.

Thus, using the DNC hacking argument as a foundation, then logical consistency would also require that we dispense with prohibitions on insider trading in the stock market.

WHY: because it's the identical argument -- that is, permitting insider trading would improve efficiency because it would more rapidly transmit material information to the stock market, but because it's UNFAIR/FRAUDULE NT we nonetheless criminalize that conduct.

SO: I ask where is the logical and legal consistency in criminalizing insider stock market trading but permitting identical conduct in the political market?

Once this fundamental question is answered -- that is, should this kind of interference in the political market be disallowed as is the case in the stock market -- then attention can turn to identification of the source.

But in answering keep in mind that, as noted above, permitting theft/use of info in political market would demand that such inside info also be allowed for use in the stock market as well.

As a wise person once said be careful what you wish for.
 
 
+10 # mashiguo 2017-01-09 15:36
"Thus, using the DNC hacking argument as a foundation, then logical consistency would also require that we dispense with prohibitions on insider trading in the stock market."

non sequitur
 
 
0 # RMF 2017-01-10 13:00
The Courts would not think it a non sequitur.

The underlying legal arguments are in large part the same --- the use of private, non-public info for gain, whether monetarily or politically.
 
 
+21 # Spence 2017-01-09 15:46
IF they were hacked? Assange said that they came from a leak within the DNC. Ambassador Murry said that he was the one who picked up the leaked information in DC and took it to London. This seems to be a more believable explanation than Clapper's.
Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “bullshit”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.”

“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.
 
 
+4 # polfrosch 2017-01-09 18:34
No, your comparison is just a comparison. In Germany we say: all comparisons are flawed. But not everything flawed is a comparison.

This is what is wrong with your "logic".

The essential value of journalism is truth. Basically journalists have to take care of two things.

Is it true what I report?
Is it in the public interest to report it?

(This is also legal reality in the USA.)

Compare it with a doctor, who also has a similar clearcut value, even if it´s very different: Save lives, all lives.

Stock markets have again other essential values.

If your argument was valid, you would have never heard of Watergate or the Pentagon papers. Bernstein and Woodward would have been executed, Nixon would have been reelected. The editors of the Guardian, publishing Snowden´s files would be sentenced to 35 years in prison - or run over by a bus.

I am shure this above is the future. I have no confidence left in the political class of the USA. (But I think different about a substantial part of it´s citizens...) There seems to be very little the US state is not willing to do. It will definitely not have laws standing in the way of it´s power games.

A little FISA court here and there could hand out some convenient death sentences...

There is a lot of brainpower+corr upted morality available to make legal cases for any goal a US government might declare. Torture, wars of aggression, spying soviet XXXL style on everybody - you name it. They will do it.
 
 
-3 # RMF 2017-01-10 14:56
# polfrosch

"Stock markets have again other essential values."

Yes, they do, and that function is capital formation. Moreover that function is impaired by insider trading law as speed in transmission of info is def of mkt efficiency. But we prohibit insider trading anyway, which is in opposite to your argument.

See the First Circuit's opinion in Glik.

And while the First Amendment protects reporting, and in some cases even the recording, of speeches like those of Clinton's Wall St or Romney's 47 percent speeches, that First Amendment protection does not generally extend to a thief breaking into a store of private info on the DNC server.

The journalistic reporting of that info may be protected but the breaking and entering is not.

Again see the Glik opinion for analysis of expanding def of journalist in face of modern tech advances. While there may be more "news" deserving First Amendment protection in the tech age that cannot reasonably be seen as an authorization of theft of private info.
 
 
-12 # Activista 2017-01-09 20:03
Thank you RMF for explaining our readers what hacking (stealing) private information consequence are/could be.
And thank you Marc Ash for being moral and courageous.
 
 
-16 # DongiC 2017-01-09 13:55
#DogSoldier, If this site so disturbs you, why do you stay? There are many who fund RSN and will be happy to do so.
 
 
-2 # Caliban 2017-01-11 02:44
And DogSoldier - HillaryHater?
 
 
+36 # mashiguo 2017-01-09 10:11
I wonder if anyone who pushes the "russia did it" narrative recognizes the irony in saying Trump doesn't respect facts?
 
 
+13 # CDMR 2017-01-09 13:00
mash -- call it what it is -- a vast conspiracy theory. Very long on theory and very short on facts or proofs.

Cross out your word "narrative" and insert "conspiracy theory."
 
 
+38 # anhinga 2017-01-09 10:32
It is beyond disappointing that RSN has decided, since the late stages of the general election, to become a full-on Hillary Clinton and DNC apologist and tool. You seem allergic, now, to sharing any of the MANY contrarian opinions, on the subject of the alleged hacking hysteria or anything else. I have zero interest in continuing to support yet another sold-out, biased media source. http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_real_purpose_of_the_us_governments_report_on_alleged_hacking_by_russi
 
 
+8 # HowardMH 2017-01-09 11:16
There should be an RSN Article EVERY DAY that shows Trumps tweets for the last 24 hours with a short explanation WHY Each one of them is a Damn LIE!
 
 
+11 # Salus Populi 2017-01-09 13:01
Thanks for the link, which goes to a "not found" page that, however, includes the title of the article in clickable form in the left column. Hedges is always worth reading or listening to.
 
 
+15 # Spence 2017-01-09 16:00
Here is the complete link to Chris Hedges article.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_real_purpose_of_the_us_governments_report_on_alleged_hacking_by_russi

The neocons have we progressives fighting among ourselves and discrediting our own. On the other hand, we are finding out who the true progressives are. We are going to come out of this stronger and wiser.
 
 
+14 # CDMR 2017-01-09 16:41
spence -- thanks for this link. I'd not seen it before. Hedges is exactly right. He does not mention the absolute worst part of this whole thing and that is the reality that this is the CIA controlling domestic politics and planning to overturn a presidential election it does not like. The CIA is prohibited in its charter from having anything to do with domestic issues and politics. But here is the CIA launching an all out campaign against Trump because it does not believe it can control him as completely as it controlled Obama and would surely have controlled Hillary.

The CIA does not run the country. It is a minor government agency that does a little bit of intelligence and some criminal operations. We know that the CIA murdered one president (JFK) and framed up another (Nixon). This is going to get ugly before it is over. I agree with Hedges that the CIA is setting the stage for Trump's impeachment. Pence will be easy to control.
 
 
-11 # Kiwikid 2017-01-09 19:46
'We know' - Omniscience is a wonderful thing. No, 'we believe', or 'we suspect', but 'we know'. It sounds like scary world you live in CDMR. Your 'knowing' (I suspect shared by many on this site) rivals that of the right wing Christians, whom, I would have little doubt, most here would disparage. Fundamentalism remains fundamentalism of whatever stripe. .
 
 
+2 # CDMR 2017-01-10 06:01
Kiwi -- I don't think "we know" is too strong. The CIA has been in the business of assassinating political leaders since its inception. Why not do this at home. There's a growing argument that believes the CIA (working through its assets, Hillary and Obama) launched the Russian hacking story to set up the framework for the impeachment or forced resignation of Trump. We'll see if it works out this way. But it seems like a good hypothesis to me to argue that Trump is the real target of the Russian hacking fake news story.
 
 
-1 # Kiwikid 2017-01-11 23:22
There's a big difference between 'a growing argument', 'believes the CIA', 'a good hypothesis' and 'argue', and 'knowing'
 
 
+5 # jackdresser 2017-01-10 01:31
I fear the CIA is anything but "minor" and has far more power than you apparently imagine. I recommend you read The Secret Team by Col. Fletcher Prouty, who served 9 years as liaison officer between the CIA and the Air Force. He was the figure in Oliver Stone's film JFK, played by Donald Sutherland talking with Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner) as they walked alone together in DC. A major actor accepted a one-scene role since it was the most important scene in the film.*

Guided by the evil genius of Allen Dulles, the CIA established its "Central" control of intel, allowing it to effectively steer US foreign policy, and developed a clandestine "operations" function not originally authorized that has overthrown many elected govts including, inter alia, Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Indonesia (1965), Chile (1973), and most recently, Ukraine. They are everywhere, operating out of our embassies alongside the USAID, and provide the principal instrument of covert US power throughout the world.

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSw9sjqYK_I
 
 
+5 # CDMR 2017-01-10 05:54
jackdresser -- I've read all of those studies and they are all very good. The CIA is an essential part of the Deep State or Shadow government and probably its most criminal part. See Doug Valentine's just released book, "The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World."

Valentine has it exactly right. The CIA is an organized crime syndicate. It has the mentality of the mafia. It thinks it runs and owns the nation. But in reality, it is just gangsterism. The CIA runs the world's heroine and cocaine businesses.

Compared to, let's say, the State Dept or Health and Human Seervices, the CIA is very small.

I just refuse to credit gangsters with any importance. They are what they are. They should be policed. The CIA should be broken up and eliminated. The CIA has a lot of power in the same sense as any organized crime syndicate, let's say the cocaine cartels. Mostly the CIA just makes a mess of everything it does. It does a lot of harm in developing nations all over the world. These are just ruling class people destroying the lives of the poor, as they have always done.
 
 
+3 # jackdresser 2017-01-10 01:39
Here's another article with detailed debunking of the Russian hacking claim as well as conspicuous omissions from the CV of a key neocon distributor of such disinformation, John McCain.

The author is computer security specialist and investigative journalist Wayne Madsen, who has been attacked more than once as a madman "conspiracy theorist" by assorted imperial mouthpieces, a reliable indication when he has cut too close to the bone, deserving sanity assassination but not judged dangerous enough for snuffing entirely. I've met and had interesting conversations twice with Wayne about his methods and sources, and have found his exposes to be typically persuasive and thoroughly documented, however deviant from and threatening to mainstream storylines.

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/01/06/mccain-largely-unreported-treachery-against-us.html
 
 
-15 # Kiwikid 2017-01-09 13:09
Goodbye, anhinga.
 
 
+37 # jimmyjames 2017-01-09 10:37
Marc Ash STILL doesn't get it. Whoever leaked/hacked the emails in question did nothing to influence our elections. It was the CONTENTS revealed in those emails that MAY have influenced our elections. I say "may" because even before the emails were revealed, there was plenty to dislike about Hillary Rodham Clinton. And when Bernie Sanders had his nomination stolen, I became a Jill Stein supporter.
 
 
-21 # Marc Ash 2017-01-09 10:39
I address this in the piece.
 
 
+35 # mashiguo 2017-01-09 11:15
No connection has ever been established between any alleged russian hacking and wikileaks.

All available evidence points to wikileaks receiving the information from an inside DNC source, not from Russia. The intelligence briefings present no evidence opf any such connection.

Citing Trumps discussion of Wikileaks as evidence of Russia's influence is without merit or integrity, since there is no documented connection.

As for point no. 4, confronting Trump is fine. Best to find some actual factual reason to confront him. This fraud will not cut it. And, if the US falls for this fraud, heaven help US all. It's over.
 
 
+36 # jdd 2017-01-09 12:07
The relationship between Russia and the U.S. is the most important precondition for solution of all other problems in the world. If there is no peace between U.S. and Russia, and more than peace, friendship and a spirit of cooperation, the world remains in existential danger. The hopeful potential which exists with the incoming American President to go in this direction, is the most important precedent for everything else. It is more than disturbing that RSN has lined up on the other side of this critical issue for all of humanity.
 
 
+24 # CDMR 2017-01-09 13:06
jdd -- could not have said it better myself. I agree 100%. This is exactly what the CIA and Hillary's cold warriors fear the most. This is exactly why they have launched the vast conspiracy theory of Russian hacking the US elections.
 
 
+2 # DongiC 2017-01-09 18:22
China belongs in there somewhere. It has the world's number one economy, is number one in population, is first in renewables, has several hundred nukes and lots of missiles, subs and destroyers. It is allied, militarily and economically, with Russia and four other countries with India, Iran, Turkey acting as observers. I think Trump's first big test in Foreign Affairs will be with China over Taiwan, tariffs, or both.
 
 
+20 # CDMR 2017-01-09 13:04
Ash's point #4 needs a lot of fleshing out. I understand this article is not about Trump's social agenda. That can be discussed elsewhere. But it is simply not the case that he is launching an assault on the communities and values of all americans. He may be against Hillary supporters. But if Trump is able to put the brakes on runaway capital, impose import tariffs on products made by US corporations in low wage nations and then imported back to the US, end the destructive war on terror, he will be doing a great service to all Americans. these are things that Hillary would not have done.
 
 
+18 # mashiguo 2017-01-09 13:20
This is all true, and this is precisely the grave danger that Trump represents to the so called "American way of life" -

No more war profiteering
No more export of slave labor

Is it any wonder everyone with enough money to buy press coverage hates him?
That hatred from those sources is his greatest asset, if he can survive.
 
 
-2 # DogSoldier 2017-01-09 16:33
He represents grave danger in so many ways, it's impossible to name them all. First off, he's a con man thief, an inveterate liar who suffers from narcissistic personality disorder. The moron is inherently unstable, and prone to acting impulsively. That's why he likes unpredictable behavior theory. He really doesn't have a clue as to what he's going to do until he does it. Face it, that asshole has never spent a second considering the effects of his actions. I'm hoping he's assassinated or impeached. Especially impeached, he could be the 1st President impeached and removed from office. Another first for the Trumpeteers.
 
 
0 # CDMR 2017-01-10 10:08
Dog -- I don't disagree with you. But are you saying all of the comments Trump has made about improving relations with Russia, teaming up with Russia to fight ISIS / as Qaeda, imposing import tariffs on US corps which off-shore production are just lies and cons. They may be. I don't know how to tell. Right now, I'm on the side of believing that these are things he will want to do.

You are probably right in saying or suggesting that the CIA will assassinate or impeach him before it will allow him to team up with Russia and destroy the CIA's private mercenary armies in ISIS and al Qaeda.

I mostly agree with you but I have some reservation. Trump wants to be admired and to be a "doer" and problem solver He does not like to take orders from punks, bureaucrats, and pretenders at the CIA. He's been dealing with scum like that for all his life and he is not afraid of them, unlike Obama and nearly everyone in the mass media.
 
 
-25 # Jaax88 2017-01-09 13:24
I wonder what "all available evidence" you are referring to. Is it Assange's word for it. No matter what one might thing about Assnage stealing classified information (good or bad in itself) it is still theft.

The is no "documented connection." That claim is somewhat bogus as for thoughtful people trump's words speak for themselves. Every single individual on this planet decides for themselves on issues of great importance to them on things they see and hear with out going to dig up documents to determine what they should do. When people hear a liar, they consider the lie and know what they will do.

I would not doubt that Assnage and trump are into something together. Scratch my back and I will yours. Assnage has every reason to suck up to trump with the possibility of getting out of the jail of his own making at the Ecuadorian Embassy. On the other hand Assange may have stolen documents that could compromise trump even further.
 
 
+45 # jimmyjames 2017-01-09 11:15
Quoting Marc Ash:
I address this in the piece.

I re-read your "piece" and do not find how you emphasize that the content of the emails was the real problem - not he hacker. That is, and has been my point all along. But you are quite clear in supporting our intelligence agencies and against anyone who doubts them. Personally, I find Julian Assange and the Russian government more trustworthy that our own government - especially our intelligence agencies.
 
 
+40 # lorenbliss 2017-01-09 11:33
@Marc Ash: You say you address "in the piece" the theft of Sanders' nomination. Where? How? I don't find Sanders' name -- or any reference to Hillary's stealing his nomination -- anywhere in your text.
 
 
+21 # PerryAdler 2017-01-09 12:13
"The second problem with the 'Democrats are to blame, not the Russians' argument is that it’s victim blaming. If the Russians intervened to help Donald Trump, then the Russians and Donald Trump are to blame for that. Not the Democratic Party."

If the leaks are true (which no one credible denies), the victim is the electorate. The perpetrator is the Democratic Party, and whoever leaked the truth are good guys, not bad.

I wish I could keep my eyes off this train-wreck of a "progressive" website...
 
 
+16 # lfeuille 2017-01-09 16:18
This is irrelevant to the issue. Before any other discussion is entertained, there has to be proof presented that Russia actually did it. There is none.

But if you are going to talk about victims, the leaks illustrate that the DNC was playing Bernie and all his supporters for suckers. I think WE are the ultimate victims, not Hillary and her henchmen.
 
 
+21 # anarchaos 2017-01-09 12:45
Marc, I am sincerely troubled and perplexed as to why you are "taking this particular tack, or yaw"? IMO Anhinga has a point about "the MANY contrarian opinions," that could be posted. What is truly happening to you? Best Wishes Marc
 
 
+26 # anthraxripple 2017-01-09 13:39
I've been a bit concerned about the same thing.

Didn't Ash used to be a progressive / liberal?

It's hard to imagine how anyone with the stated goals of this site could condemn a source of valid information, that may have caused American voters to become better informed.

I'm also very troubled by self-styled lefties equating JOURNALISM with "hacking".

When one of them can honestly say they stood up in 2012 about the "hacking" of THAT election, because we were leaked a recording of Romney's 47% speech, I'll start taking them a bit more seriously.

I guess we gave Ash more credit than he deserved all along.

A lot of things are starting to make sense now.
 
 
-20 # DongiC 2017-01-09 15:00
Marc is doing a fine job. RSN would be even better if he kicked out the obvious trolls like yourself.
 
 
+12 # dbrize 2017-01-09 15:38
Quoting DongiC:
Marc is doing a fine job. RSN would be even better if he kicked out the obvious trolls like yourself.


You ought to just be thankful one of your recent post was promptly taken down. If you can't figure out why, use your "cryptoanalytic " talents.
 
 
+11 # DogSoldier 2017-01-09 16:41
Yep, that's the Democrat's way. Silence any dissent. It's our way or the highway.
 
 
0 # CDMR 2017-01-10 10:13
anarchaos -- here's why. There's a long history here. It would be interesting to see who the funders of RSN really are but you never will because it is a private corporation, not a 501-c-3. Clearly RSN is a democratic party site.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2002/05/13/leaving-the-truth-out/
 
 
+3 # Inspired Citizen 2017-01-09 17:31
Marc, you didn't mention Assange's assertion that what he published did not come from a government source. He needs to be more clear because he's never said, to my knowledge, the source is NOT Russian.

Everything the intelligence services are pointing at suggests Guccifer2 was Russian, but his disclosures are not on Wikileaks if Assange is to be believed.

Whether the DNC and Podesta emails were leaked by an insider or hacked by a Russian operative or both, the intelligence community and mainstream liberal view is the Russians manipulated the elections by exposing the Clintoncratic machine for having manipulated the primaries. Russian manipulation of U.S. elections is bad. Domestic manipulations of U.S. elections is eh—not really news or of concern.
 
 
+7 # ronnewmexico 2017-01-09 22:19
Here is what Assange said…
"(dispite the source)…
"Host Sean Hannity: “Can you say to the American people unequivocally that you did not get this information about the DNC, John Podesta’s emails — can you tell the American people 1,000 percent you did not get it from Russia . . . “
Julian Assange: “Yes.”
Hannity: “. . . or anybody associated with Russia?”
Assange: “We — we can say and we have said repeatedly . . . “
Hannity: “Right.”
Assange: “. . . over the last two months, that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party.”
 
 
-1 # candida 2017-01-10 16:44
Quoting Inspired Citizen:
... the intelligence community and mainstream liberal view is the Russians manipulated the elections by exposing the Clintoncratic machine for having manipulated the primaries. Russian manipulation of U.S. elections is bad. Domestic manipulations of U.S. elections is eh—not really news or of concern.


I agree with you, Inspired Citizen, but like almost everyone (even the MSM), the alleged interference is not only through hacking but a CAMPAIGN of influence that included social media and fake news, the proliferation of which has been extremely well documented by a plethora of news sources and investigations. Given Steve Bannon's (of Breitbart ill-repute) reputation and current position as Trump's chief advisor/strateg ist, what Trump should really be afraid of (and perhaps was/is) is charges of collusion between his campaign and the Russians. Interesting that I've never heard or read of any speculation on this connection though it is the elephant in the room.
 
 
-17 # RMF 2017-01-09 12:20
# jimmyjames

> Related question raised by analogy from your post:

> Given your line of reasoning re the DNC hacking would you also advocate elimination of prohibitions on insider trading on Wall St/stock markets?

Logical consistency would require your answer to be in the affirmative.

WHY: because it's the identical argument -- that is, permitting insider trading would improve efficiency because it would more rapidly transmit material information to the market, but because it's UNFAIR/FRAUDULE NT we nonetheless criminalize that conduct.

SO: I ask what is the logical consistency and foundation in criminalizing insider stock market trading but permitting identical conduct in the political market?
 
 
+33 # jimmyjames 2017-01-09 12:35
Try this RMF: What Hillary Clinton and the DNC did to Bernie Sanders was UNFAIR/FRAUDULE NT. But apparently we do not criminalize THAT conduct.
 
 
-26 # RMF 2017-01-09 13:08
# jimmyjames

Your answer is not on point, and thus must be viewed a non sequitur.

This is so because it is apparent Bernie (who I supported) did not think that the DNC engaged in theft/unfair use of info.

Had he thought so he could have filed a civil suit alleging such theft/conversion.

But he did not, so your answer evades the fundamental issue. Are we going to permit insider stock trading (the plutocracy would be all for that given their superior access to info) or prosecute similar conduct in the political market.

You can't have it both ways.
 
 
+21 # mashiguo 2017-01-09 15:40
"This is so because it is apparent Bernie (who I supported) did not think that the DNC engaged in theft/unfair use of info."

Good grief
Is no crime committed unless the victim thinks so?
What about murder?
The victim isn't thinking that is a crime.

You guys need to go back to elementary school with that kind of thinking.
 
 
+14 # lfeuille 2017-01-09 16:23
AND Bernie wasn't the only victim. We, his supporters, were also victims and we think so.
 
 
0 # RMF 2017-01-10 12:52
There are two divisions of jurisdiction -- criminal and civil.

Theft on civil side is known as conversion, and an actionable offense under tort law. The victim can easily ENJOIN use of such info wrongfully obtained.

Bernie took no action to object or to urge prosecutors to investigate alleged DNC offenses. WHY -- Most likely because he did not think or have evidence of DNC violations of law -- if you know or have possession of such info please report it here for all of us to assess.

And Good Grief indeed -- Everyone knows if they are a victim of a crime then it should be reported, esp if putative victim wants it prosecuted criminally.

Romney didn't have to go that far -- he could have sued to ENJOIN use.

But he did nothing which, even if the recording violated terms of the Romney performance (think the Rolling Stones on tour) then he WAIVED it by inaction.

And "we" lack legal standing to object -- Romney would have had to have been the objector seeking redress.

Bottom Line -- Reporting of Romney 47 percent and Hillary Wall St speeches is protected under the Glik case of First Circuit (and no doubt other case law as well.)

To analyze these doctrines one must use care to distinguish between (1) protected First Amendment reporting and (2) actions to break into a computer server to steal info. Why is that so difficult?
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2017-01-11 18:43
I enjoyed this explanation. Thank you. But if it were so clear it would be a clearly defined crime when it isn't. You have given us the legal perspective but I wonder what the journalists are thinking? Their attitude seems to have taken a turn for the subjective. Since when did reporters eschew leakers and whistleblowers?

Up is down. Ignorance is truth. Dogs loving cats. What a world.
 
 
0 # RMF 2017-01-12 14:23
librarian

IMHO the bottom line is this:

> Information is "intellectual property," with all property rights attached, and protectable from USE by others.

But the First Amendment expands protection for political news/speech by in part displacing commercial and trade law otherwise applicable (e.g., copyright, privacy, brand name protection, and so on -- there are a myriad of approaches under state law, some even extending to ag-gag reporting -- and many must be suspect as an Unconstitutiona l infringement under First Amendment.)

> So it seems that the First Amendment would strongly protect the reporting of the info in Hillary's hacked e-mails.

The remaining question would be whether the First Amendment protection extends to the acquisition of the info in the first place, by breaking into the DNC server, either from without or from within via a mole.

> The Glik opinion discusses the protection of political speech in the context of "recording" political news without permission, and opines that "recording" is a protected function in public spaces or on issues of public importance.

> So the question appears to be: Was the DNC server a public space.

If YES, then anyone can break in, and record info with impunity.

If NO, then it is a case of theft (although subsequent use by innocent parties would be protected under First Amendment.)

> Recall there was little argument favoring First Amendment protection for the Watergate "plumbers." Some went to prison.
 
 
0 # RMF 2017-01-10 13:54
There are two jurisdictions -- civil and criminal -- the crime of theft is civil conversion, an offense actionable under tort law.

Everyone should know to report a crime esp if the victim wants to see it prosecuted. But Bernie did not do that. WHY -- most likely he did not think DNC had committed actionable offenses.

But Romney would not have had to go that far -- he could have sought to enjoin use of that info if it's use violated terms imposed as a condition of attendance. But in any event Romney's failure to act constituted WAIVER.

The important point here is to distinguish between reporting on matters of public interest in public space (which have First Amendment protection)and theft by unauthorized entry to the DNC server.

Thus, one can see that Hillary's Wall St and Romney's 47 percent speeches are distinguishable from hacking of DNC server.

While First Amendment protection has been most strongly applied to journalism, modern tech is expanding the def. of journalist, as acknowledged by the First Circuit in the Glik case. This in turn serves to distinguish even more forcefully the DNC server hack from reporting about Hillary's or Romney's speeches.
 
 
+3 # anthraxripple 2017-01-09 13:40
I assume then (since we're aiming for "logical consistency") that you're equally up in arms about Romney's "HACKED" 47% speech, right?
 
 
-16 # RMF 2017-01-09 13:56
anthrax:

Your rebuttal fails an essential test of analytical uniformity.

Romney's 47% speech was not hacked -- indeed his words were spoken openly and publicly in a ballroom to all those listening to his speech. [If you don't want to be quoted then don't make a speech is the short answer.]

But, analytically, instead of making a speech had Romney made those claims in a confidential writing then of course the theft and publication of that info would have been wrongful.

This is the basic rule of law -- it has uniform application and it is not sufficient to pick and choose from the thefts you "like" as distinct from the thefts you "dislike."

The result would be total disaster, as it would lead to anarchy and utter chaos.
 
 
+7 # anthraxripple 2017-01-09 19:56
So, basically your argument is this:

1. Romney can't claim "hacking", because he wasn't as secretive and conniving as Clinton about his views.

Actually, Romney's speech was in front of a private meeting of millionaire donors. You and I weren't invited. Just like we weren't invited to most of Hillary's fundraisers. His 47% speech was "stolen" by a secret recording done without his permission. Just like the emails which revealed some of the content of Clinton's secret meetings, where she insulted the Democratic base as "naïve", and openly stated that her public positions on issues important to her secret billionaire buddies were just "public positions", and had no bearing on her "private policies".

2. The medium used to steel the information is key to whether or not it's "hacking". Spoken words (like the words you say privately in your home) are fair game, but words printed aren't. I find it a bit perplexing that the medium used to communicate the original message makes all the difference to you, regarding whether or not it's a "crime" to report what was communicated.

Based on your logic, I guess the 1976 election was "hacked", right? Woodward and Berstein "hacked" into Nixon's personal private crimes and made them public. That got him removed from office, and made it impossible for Ford to win a few years later.

Did you mind the "hacking" that the Washington Post did in '73 and '74?

Back then, we had a different name for it.

We called it "JOURNALISM".
 
 
+1 # RMF 2017-01-11 13:12
anthrax -- you said:

1. Romney can't claim "hacking", because he wasn't as secretive and conniving as Clinton about his views.

Ans: Yes, you are correct.

If you want to keep something secret, and want legal protection in that endeavor, then you have to take steps to maintain the info (private property) in secure and confidential manner.

This is a variation of the old saying that if you sit on your rights you lose them.

It's likely your argument could only succeed if it was shown that the DNC was so careless that they can't really be seen as reasonably attempting to keep that info private, in which case the DNC server would then be rendered in part a public space.

In contrast making a campaign speech is inapposite, and it would be very strange circumstances where that activity could be viewed non-public.
 
 
+7 # lfeuille 2017-01-09 16:27
Or the leak of Trump's sexual assault tape.
 
 
+6 # anthraxripple 2017-01-09 20:59
Right. I forgot about that one.

Seriously, the only problem is anything that shines the light of day on the Clintons and their minions.

Anyone else is fair game.
 
 
0 # RMF 2017-01-12 14:33
lfeuille and anthrax:

Query -- was the sex assault tape created in a public space?

Answering that "fact question" would go a long way toward determining whether the sex assault tape was "similar to or different from" the DNC server hack?
 
 
+12 # Spence 2017-01-09 16:14
Rather twisted logic. Insider trading is illegal and anyone reporting it would be a "good guy." In this case, a U.S. sanctioned primary election was illegally stolen and anyone reporting it is a "good guy." Got it?
 
 
+3 # desertprogressive 2017-01-09 19:48
Insider Trading seems to be 'legal' for Congress:

https://represent.us/action/insider-trading/
 
 
0 # RMF 2017-01-11 13:35
desertprogressive

You citation is from the year 2011, which predates more recent changes in insider trading and government ethics law.

That is, on April 04, 2012, President Obama signed into law the STOCK Act which bans Members of Congress from insider trading, and it also seems the better view that the STOCK Act applies to the White House/Executive branch as well.
 
 
+6 # lfeuille 2017-01-09 16:26
This is apples and oranges. The leaks were acts of an unknown whistleblower exposing the unethical behavior of the DNC. Laws against insider trading are there in an attempt to prevent unethical behavior in the first place.
 
 
+1 # RMF 2017-01-11 14:43
Actually they are similar, inasmuch as both involve "speech" and "news."

Info barred from use in insider trading is "news" in a basic sense, but the prohibition on USE of that news is not barred by the First Amendment.

In contrast political speech and journalistic reporting is given broad protection by the First Amendment.

In the case of the DNC, the unauthorized access to info, and the subsequent ACTION leaking "news" from the e-mails, was wrongful. But it also seems the better view that once the hacked info is in the public domain it is fair game for reporting and journalistic use.

It remains likely however that the First Amendment would extend greater protection to journalistic USE of Hillary's Wall St or Romney's 47 Percent speech making, as at minimum a quasi- or completely-publ ic function. But it seems unlikely the Courts would extend that protection to the unauthorized acquisition of similar info on the DNC server.

So both examples focus on ACTION and USE of "news" info. The insider trading laws ban USE of the "news" info whether obtained innocently or not.

But in political speech USE for reporting is granted broad protection by First Amendment.
 
 
+28 # grandlakeguy 2017-01-09 12:42
Very well put jimmyjames!


It was Hillary and her anti democracy stooges at the DNC that gave us President Trump!

When they decided that they knew better than the voters as to the best nominee was the moment we lost this election.
 
 
+14 # anthraxripple 2017-01-09 13:42
Undemocratic processes like the Electoral College are a travesty.

Whereas, undemocratic processes like the use of Super Delegates are a wonderful thing.
 
 
+50 # CDMR 2017-01-09 10:47
I think Marc expresses a legitimate opinion. It's the opinion of most journalists in mainstream media. It is not one I agree with.

Robert Parry over at Consortium News has done a great job of showing the similarities of this current "red scare" and previous "red scares" of the 20s, 50s, 60s, and 80s. The CIA and earlier the FBI has tried to influence American domestic political conditions with the same outcry -- the Russians or Communists are hacking our systems and influencing us. In the 50s, Joe McCarthy was sure that the communists had taken over Hollywood and most of the movies coming out were destroying the minds of Americans.

What's happening now is just a new McCarthyism, as Parry has written. When I was a kid, Russia was blamed for the crisis in sex, drugs, and rock and roll. Barry Goldwater, the earlier incarnation of John McCain was one of the loudest criers against the Russian influence in American political affairs.

Why is it that Americans are so susceptible to this manipulation? Why are they so willing to believe that they cannot make up their minds because they are so deeply influenced by outside forces?

The Russian hacking conspiracy theory is one more case of the CIA controlling domestic politics -- something it is prohibited from doing by its charter. First it tried to strong-arm the electoral college, and now it is trying to trap Trump so that he cannot open better relations with Russia.

The CIA is far more dangerous than Russia.
 
 
+1 # ronnewmexico 2017-01-09 10:54
Agree with all of this excepting the part saying this is a legitimate opinion.

That many hold a opinion does not qualify its legitimacy. Assange says Russia is not the source. Assange last I checked can not be found to be lying about things. The intelligence community however…..

Why should I msitrust Assange. I listen and have listened to him extensively. Despite how he is portrayed he is rational and all of his perspectives makes sense though I align not with them all. They are all well thought. The intelligence community…they are the inverse. They continually do not make sense in things. Domino theory back in the day,,,all nonsese thought about and studied. Current stuff the same, illogical nonsense.

The intelligence communcity if one gets beyond the fluff what they really think, it is clear almost without exception they are all one brick shy of a load. Assange no.

If Assange had not mentioned source I could have agreed in this being a legitimate opinion. But he has. And he released the information. Find Assange lying once and I may agree. But I have just not seen it.
Those others and trump they lie to us continually. That is a given and a known.
 
 
+16 # anarchaos 2017-01-09 13:00
AMEN !
 
 
+12 # MidwestTom 2017-01-09 11:06
So the Russians hacked; did the Germans or the Israeli's? How about the North Koreans? The real question should be what did they find and what did they too with the knowledge gained? Were there lies broadcast as a result? Just how did this affect the election? If they hacked details that were true and the public was not supposed to find out, they added to transparency. How do we know that the RNC wasn't also hacked? Finally, with the NSA saying they only MODRERATELY agree with the report, and since they listen to every communication on the web, not only here but everywhere, couldn't we be charged with hacking almost any major election out there?
 
 
+38 # markovchhaney 2017-01-09 11:11
If I didn't know any better, I'd think I was reading DNC/Podesta/Cli nton press releases rather than investigative journalism. This piece is lazy, irresponsible hack 'reportage.'

Start, perhaps, with John McAfee (yes, of McAfee software and security) on Ed Schultz the other night: http://bit.ly/2iw62Xe

Try this piece: www.informationclearinghouse.info/46178.htm

Or just try considering a kind of Ockham's Razor approach to this situation: the operate word in "Wikileaks" is LEAKS, not HACKS, and it's far more reasonable to start with the idea that the email leaks came from. . . an inside source at the Clinton Campaign, DNC, or both.

With the long history of CIA manipulation and lying to everyone, trusting them over the word of Julian Assange strikes me as a very odd decision for any progressive.
 
 
+1 # lorenbliss 2017-01-09 23:19
@markovchhaney: Suggest you Google Father Gapon. Then consider whether the Gaponitschka model might explain RSN's sudden emergence as a Hillaryite/DNC (hence CIA) asset.
 
 
+55 # rrmcgovern@gmail.com 2017-01-09 11:14
Former NSA Technical Director Bill Binney and I wrote the op-ed linked below for Baltimore Sun, posted on line on Jan. 5, in print Jan.6.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-hacking-intelligence-20170105-story.html

That was before McCain hearing and before those in charge of U.S. intelligence briefed Trump.

Thursday's hearing and Friday's briefing have made us even more, well, "resolute" in exposing this noxious canard.

NSA needs to be asked, Where’s the beef? NSA’s multimillion-do llar vacuum cleaner would have sucked up the data to prove it, were it a hack. That's just one reason to conclude it was a LEAK, not a hack.

National Intelligence Director James Clapper confessed four years ago to lying under oath to the Senate Intelligence Committee, admitting that he had provided testimony that was “clearly erroneous.” And he has even more serious blots on his record – in facilitating fraudulent intelligence before the Iraq war, for example. Yet he remains just the kind of guy Senators and Congressmen like to fawn over – and believe. Unbelievable.

As for Ash's "Anyone who tells you that they “have seen this before” is misleading you or themselves, because it’s never happened before.

Was Ash asleep before Iraq? Hate to suggest this, but seemss to be a matter of covering one's Ash by drinking the Kool Aid, on the off-chance the MSM might have it right this time. RSN ought not to post drivel.

Ray McGovern
raymcgovern.com
 
 
-28 # Marc Ash 2017-01-09 11:24
Greetings Ray. Long time.

Are you saying that the Russians did not hack democratic campaign emails? Even Priebus now seems to admit they did.
 
 
+37 # economagic 2017-01-09 11:43
EVEN Priebus? Not sure I would count him as a reliable source on ANY subject.
 
 
+29 # jdd 2017-01-09 11:47
Please. He has answered you over and over, what is so what's not to understand? So Priebus is now a greater authority on intelligence matters than the dignified Ray McGovern. Mr. Ash, You stand exposed.
 
 
+30 # CTPatriot 2017-01-09 11:47
All that says to me is that Priebus and Trump are more susceptible to CIA threats and manipulation than I would have hoped. The evidence we've been presented by our intelligence agencies to date proves nothing. And no, I'm not buying into the claim that they "can't show us anything more because it's super secret and would expose sources and methods." That certainly didn't stop them from sharing very solid proof when the Chinese hacked us.

Nice to see you here Ray. I appreciate the analyses you and your colleagues have been posting. It's a shame that RSN hasn't been sharing your work on this with their readers.
 
 
+26 # jimmyjames 2017-01-09 11:53
Quoting Marc Ash:
Greetings Ray. Long time.

Are you saying that the Russians did not hack democratic campaign emails? Even Priebus now seems to admit they did.


"Seems to admit"? Now is that something a journalist would consider "Definitive"?
 
 
+15 # CDMR 2017-01-09 12:57
I think Priebus just wants this story to go away and if he throws a bone to the CIA maybe the mass media will back off and chew on it for a while. The CIA will never back off. This conspiracy theory has the potential of undermining a lot of the momentum Trump and Priebus would like to control once sworn into office. A lot of this momentum is likely to be used for things I diaagree wiht, but it is importaant for the two things I do agree with --

1. ending the Obama hostility toward Russia and the Democrat inspired new cold war. Trump needs to end the sanctions and work closely with Putin.

2. Finishing off ISIS and the rest of the terrorists in al Qaeda, al Nusra and others that the CIA has supported for decades. Trump needs Russia's help on this.

Trump is going to be horrible on the issues he teams up with Paul Ryan on like repealing/repla cing Obamacare. But to me the wars and relations with Russia are more important.
 
 
+2 # anthraxripple 2017-01-09 13:43
Does it matter who hacked Romney's 47% speech?
 
 
+6 # lfeuille 2017-01-09 16:42
The issue is the leak, not the hack, if it existed. The emails could have been hacked before they were leaked to WikiLeaks, but if there was a hack, there is no evidence that Russia did it other than that Russia sometimes does these things (as if the US intelligence agencies don't). And there is absolutely no evidence that Russia had anything to do with the leak.
 
 
+10 # lfeuille 2017-01-09 16:47
So the CIA dazzled Priebus. That doesn't fill the gaps in the CIA's story.
 
 
+8 # DogSoldier 2017-01-09 16:52
Priebus is an ass kissing toadie, who never disagrees with anyone, no matter how inconsistent it makes him.
 
 
+3 # dquandle 2017-01-09 22:00
And we always believe Priebus.
 
 
+30 # dbrize 2017-01-09 11:53
The views of Ray McGovern are supported by Phil Giraldi, another voice with excellent bona fides:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/no-smoking-gun-on-russia-hack/
 
 
-8 # candida 2017-01-09 16:18
Quoting dbrize:
The views of Ray McGovern are supported by Phil Giraldi, another voice with excellent bona fides:


PART 1: Gribaldi's article is much better than McGovern's as it is done after the release of the intelligence report and covers a much broader set of allegations it made than just the hacking. To focus on only the hacking, as do all RSN skeptics who have posted thus far (including McGovern) is a narrow and misleading representation of the intelligence agencies' allegations. Gribaldi confirms the allegations also include an "influence/disi nformation" campaign that included social media and fake news favoring Trump over Clinton. Much evidence of this has been reported by multiple sources. But none of the posts on this site acknowledge this broader campaign, which provides a larger context for the alleged hacking and assessing its meaning.

Gribaldi provides good arguments for the skeptics. However, on the leak vs. hack issue, I wonder why he nor any other skeptic ever addresses the evidence gathered by private cybersecurity firms and other analysts of Russian hacking of the DNC and other entities (e.g., European governments) independent of intelligence agencies published in multiple print news sources (not just WashPo).
 
 
-6 # candida 2017-01-09 17:44
PART 2: Gribaldi and other skeptics argue there is no "smoking gun" (he admits the Russians are too sophisticated to leave one) to confirm official allegations, yet there is a plethora of circumstantial evidence.

The trustworthiness of the source is vital here since most do not have the technical skills to assess hacking evidence. However, what about the preponderance of evidence and not just the hacking? And what if liars can, on occasion, tell the truth?

The intelligence agencies did not (refused to) assess the degree to which the alleged campaign swayed voters. Since we will never know this, why is there so much focus in the MSM and righteous anger among RSN posters about possible foreign intervention in the CAMPAIGN and so little on "domestic" (aka GOP) intervention in the ELECTION which was documented by Greg Palast, Jill Stein, etc. to have been enough to change the final outcome? Is good old American xenophobia, racism and classism alive and well among so-called RSN Progressives (a bit of an oxymoronic term due to all the Trump supporters here) given the disenfranchised were primarily African American and working class/poor?
 
 
+22 # anarchaos 2017-01-09 13:09
Bill Binney, Ray McGovern, Daniel Ellsberg, Aaron Schwartz, Ed Snowden, Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, Glenn Greenwald - just a few of the many true patriots and real HEROEs who love the U$A.
 
 
-13 # candida 2017-01-09 15:50
Quoting rrmcgovern@gmail.com:
Was Ash asleep before Iraq? Hate to suggest this, but seemss to be a matter of covering one's Ash by drinking the Kool Aid, on the off-chance the MSM might have it right this time. RSN ought not to post drivel.

Ray McGovern


For someone of your reputation and stature, I would hope you would provide a higher standard than much of the commentary on this site that resorts to personal attacks, even if there is bad blood between you and Ash, as it seems. Such is the Age of Trumpism.

As for the substance of your post (and article), the Gribaldi article (link posted above) is much better.
 
 
+25 # RabbiMark 2017-01-09 11:25
Hillary didn't lose because her emails were hacked. What the email fiasco showed was the incontrovertibl e evidence that she acted, quite simply and accurately, as a treasonous whore. Most people with a functioning brain could see that. THANK HEAVEN the evidence was presented before her ongoing power play succeeded. If the Russians were involved, ALL OF YOU who were stupid enough to vote for her in light of such obvious evidence owe them a favor.
 
 
-12 # candida 2017-01-09 15:41
Quoting RabbiMark:
Hillary ... acted, quite simply and accurately, as a treasonous whore.


Rabbi (?!?!), such misogynistic language should not have a place in this online community. It is offensive. Deal with your hatred of women elsewhere and more constructively.
 
 
-3 # RabbiMark 2017-01-09 18:19
Quoting candida:

Rabbi (?!?!), such misogynistic language should not have a place in this online community. It is offensive. Deal with your hatred of women elsewhere and more constructively.


Rabbi means Teacher, and to the indoctrinated I preach. You may have a problem with women (and you appear to be named after a yeast infection) but I don't. I have a problem with anyone selling out State secrets and influence. If you think "whore" is sexist, you clearly aren't familiar with its Biblical usage. If you are offended by language, it's likely you are retarded. Better look that one up too, in case you think it's inaccurate. And, it points YOU out as the misogynist - or at least sexist. Judgemental fool. Stick to actual evidence please.
 
 
+30 # kath 2017-01-09 11:25
Russians "interfered" in the election by documenting what an arrogant bunch of slimeballs the Clinton machine really contains...info rmation, by the way, which the mass and alternate media should have provided the voters themselves. You look like a prime hypocrite, complaining about candidate information that should be readily available in an alleged democracy.
 
 
+39 # jimmyjames 2017-01-09 11:26
Let us try an analogy. Suppose a neighbor of mine was discovered to be abusing children by another neighbor who was peeking in the window (hacking). The neighbor tells me about it and I call the police to investigate (leaking). The police raid the residence and find out that the "leak" is true. Do we chastise the "hacker", the "leaker", or the criminal we uncovered. It's a no-brainer in my opinion...
 
 
+26 # CTPatriot 2017-01-09 11:49
By RSN's logic, the criminal wouldn't have been a criminal if those evil hackers/leakers wouldn't have exposed them.
 
 
-4 # candida 2017-01-09 18:13
Quoting jimmyjames:
Let us try an analogy.


The OJ Simpson case provides a different analogy. Though OJ (Russia) was likely guilty (does anyone believe he was not?!), he was rightly found not guilty due to the long history of falsifying evidence by the LAPD (intelligence agencies), particularly against African American men, which raised sufficient reasonable doubt in the minds of mostly Black jurors who (unlike whites) knew all too well the deep racism not only of the LAPD but of American society.

The difference here (and why RSN skeptics are not equivalent to the Black jurors) is this is not a court case, rather a search for the truth.
 
 
0 # RMF 2017-01-12 14:58
Jury nullification on the crime charge.


But OJ was found liable for the tort of wrongful death.
 
 
+2 # RabbiMark 2017-01-09 18:40
Quoting jimmyjames:
... It's a no-brainer in my opinion...


Unfortunately, jimmyjames, it's the ones with no brains spouting opinions. I wonder why they have to beg for money if the opinions have value?
 
 
0 # RMF 2017-01-12 14:56
No, the applicable analysis might be "don't do unlawful things while standing at your window in an urban area as that is not private," and by analogy, if in the political context, would be considered public space.

[Of course the analogy is tortured to absurdity because crimes are not political speech protected by First Amendment. So can't go very far with this kind of off-point analogy.]

But off hand, I cannot say whether the "good citizen" viewing and reporting the offense would be immune from a charge of trespassing -- the operative legal question by analogy. That seemingly simple question might depend on whether it was urban or rural.

Moreover, to make the analogy work, you would need to include info in Hillary's emails that rose to the level of a serious crime, such as child abuse.

I don't recall any such allegations in the e-mails.
 
 
+16 # sharag 2017-01-09 11:29
I'm with dog soldier and jimmy James.
 
 
+11 # CDMR 2017-01-09 13:10
sharag -- me too. Jimmy and Dog make a lot of sense. For some reason they are able to through the facade of this story.
 
 
+11 # anarchaos 2017-01-09 13:14
me 2 !
 
 
+29 # ronnewmexico 2017-01-09 11:33
Till I find Assange lying, which I so far have never I believe this…

(dispite the source)…
"Host Sean Hannity: “Can you say to the American people unequivocally that you did not get this information about the DNC, John Podesta’s emails — can you tell the American people 1,000 percent you did not get it from Russia . . . “
Julian Assange: “Yes.”
Hannity: “. . . or anybody associated with Russia?”
Assange: “We — we can say and we have said repeatedly . . . “
Hannity: “Right.”
Assange: “. . . over the last two months, that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party.”

You believe Trump Clapper et al. I believe Assange…oh well. Who is the progressive in this thing? You telll me.
 
 
-20 # Jaax88 2017-01-09 13:55
That argument of yours has a big hole. Knowing what national security services
can do and actually do it is not hard to imagine that the Russian security service
hid the source of the hacked material and routed it through sources that would not be connected to it in anyway.
 
 
+17 # CTPatriot 2017-01-09 15:28
So the fact that you don't actually know for sure where the hack originated is proof positive the Russians did it! #Logic! LOL
 
 
-14 # Jaax88 2017-01-09 16:36
No, certainly not. But I believe they did.
Laugh at that.

I also believe that many people who want to discount idea that Russia did hack and use information to try to sway voting in trump's favor are being blinded by their prejudices.

Let's say everything the naysayers here say is true and honest. Not conceding that, but for argument's sake. That Putin's Russia did not hack or at least did not try to sway voting in trump's favor, that Assange is not a liar (but you cannot honestly say he is not a thief,) the CIA is an intelligence agency that deals in lies, but also is charged with protecting Americans and American interests. That there is some dark Deep State in America running everything from how your toilet paper is rolled, to what is in food you feed to your kids and to how much your vote will count. (No need to ponder that, just look at the big business corporations, trusts and banks, i.e., the money.)You naysayers can gum yourselves to death, but what are you accomplishing? Is it you need to show how brave you are or how astute you think you are, which I concede some of you are even though I do not agree with many of your, but what result? Giving aid and comfort to trump and his potentially destructive cabinet and administration?
 
 
+2 # RabbiMark 2017-01-09 18:42
Quoting Jaax88:
... that Russia did hack and use information to try to sway voting in trump's favor ...


Simple question. WHY?
 
 
+5 # anthraxripple 2017-01-09 20:09
I'm glad The Gremlins From the Kremlin were able to report facts about Clinton that voters needed to be informed. Most of us already knew what a Wall-Street/Fos sil-Fueled/Mili tary-Industrial Shill she was, and warmonger, long before the emails proved it. But, there were still naysayers among your team, who needed "proof". You got it. Rather than dealing with the facts, your only response has been to blame the messenger.

THANK YOU, RUSKIES!
 
 
+2 # ronnewmexico 2017-01-09 22:13
Jaa Assange steals nothing. He is a publisher of materials people bring him. Did the peoples steal the information, legally probably in many cases yes.

AS Ellsberg stole the pentagon papers type of steal.
Assange publishes the stuff. he never personally makes any content. He is a reporter in a classical definition of the term.

He reports what others bring him. Perhaps you are confusing Assange and Snowden Snowden did leagally steal the information he released to publishers. The Guardian was the lead on the publishing of Snowdens information. Did the Guardian then steal a thing…no, They reported it, as media does. Wikileaks is media. Wikileaks does not pay for the materials nor did trhe Guardian pay for Snowdens materials.

So they legally stole nothing Wikileaks nor the Guardian. .
 
 
+28 # Aliazer 2017-01-09 11:36
The warmongering faction in the U. S. has been carrying on a fully discrediting and massive effort against Trump from day one!!!

To this very day, Trump continues being regarded a dangerous figure, particularly now, who is about to assume the Presidency.

Besides, the CIA is doing what they have been doing since its founding, and that is the disinformation of people everywhere. Clapper, who is the coordinator of the Intelligence community, a known public liar when addressing Congress, is doing what he has been professionally trained to do.

But let us concede that Clapper is truthful this time and that Russia revealed the criminal activities perpetrated by DNC in subverting the popular vote, all it tells me is that there are numerous people in the DNC that ought to be criminally prosecuted and exposed for interference of the voting process.
 
 
+11 # anarchaos 2017-01-09 13:26
[quote name="Aliazer"] The warmongering faction in the U. S. has been carrying on a fully discrediting and massive effort against Trump from day one!!!

To this very day, Trump continues being regarded a dangerous figure, particularly now, who is about to assume the Presidency.

Besides, the CIA is doing what they have been doing since its founding, and that is the disinformation of people everywhere. Clapper, who is the coordinator of the Intelligence community, a known public liar when addressing Congress, is doing what he has been professionally trained to do.

But let us concede that Clapper is truthful this time and that Russia revealed the criminal activities perpetrated by DNC in subverting the popular vote, all it tells me is that there are numerous people in the DNC that ought to be criminally prosecuted and exposed for interference of the voting process.[(quote ,"Clapper.....a known public liar when addressing Congress"!)] Definition: Conspiracy Theorist - "One who questions the statements of known public liars."
 
 
-5 # Jaax88 2017-01-09 16:45
I do regard trump as a dangerous figure particularly as to his climate denial and appointing climate deniers to his cabinet, but there is more. He is not stable and who knows what he will do about war and nukes. His domestic agenda, with nomination of Session, looks to me to be dangerous to voting rights, and civil rights to say nothing about more police state activities and mentality being further embedded in our society and suppression of free speech and assembly to protest the Orange Pumpkin and GOP agenda and actions.
 
 
-1 # RabbiMark 2017-01-09 18:48
Quoting Jaax88:
... particularly as to his climate denial and appointing climate deniers to his cabinet...


Climate change is real. Chemtrails are the method, and the whole point is to PRETEND there is such a thing a global warming, so control can be exerted on a worldwide basis. Go to openlibrary dot org and look for the book "Toward the Year 2018." I just scanned in the PDF, and fools who believe in global warming need to read the chapter on Weather.

Having worked on the project myself, I left the defense industry and all that crap behind. You think you know so much. You know nooooothinnnng.

https://openlibrary.org/works/OL17606098W/Toward_the_Year_2018

It's a 40mb scan in the External Links section.
 
 
-23 # mdmcdmd 2017-01-09 11:40
Well reasoned piece.

Thank you, Marc.
 
 
-14 # candida 2017-01-09 15:38
Quoting mdmcdmd:
Well reasoned piece.

Thank you, Marc.


Agreed.
 
 
-22 # revhen 2017-01-09 11:47
Dear fellow trolls. You trashed Hillary at every turn, making up stuff she's not guilty of. Who can believe you? You support Russia and Putin. Is that traitorous? Crawl back under the bridge.

Trump's aattainment of the presidency is just another another acquisition into his business portfolio. Those in his cabinet who are not big business are military. We are about to enter the worst time in USA history.
 
 
+12 # ronnewmexico 2017-01-09 11:53
Pot this is kettle calling.
Geeze Louise it is so dark in here I can't see you.

If only you were some other color.
Pot kettle calling…. where are you?
 
 
+29 # jimmyjames 2017-01-09 11:59
"Fellow Troll"? Are you not admitting that YOU are a troll? I know that I am not. I'm just informed and concerned US citizen.

Hillary gave all of us plenty of a munition to call her out. She was merely exposed of her own misdeeds.

And it is not traitorous to want peace with a major nuclear power. Russia has much more to fear from us than we from them.
 
 
-12 # Jaax88 2017-01-09 13:57
Thank you for your comment. I certainly agree with it.
 
 
-22 # Shelbey 2017-01-09 11:54
All you Jill Stein voters seem happy with the DT as president outcome. The election should be held over, if it was hacked. The whole thing is a disaster. A lot of Americans are going to suffer as a result.
 
 
+26 # ronnewmexico 2017-01-09 11:58
Well I voted for Stein and am not happy with Trump. And my main source of suffering at this place in time is reading this quite nonsensical post.
 
 
-16 # newell 2017-01-09 12:51
So you voted for Stein? If that was a swing state then you helped Trump. And don't give me that 'I voted my conscience'. Life is full of choices and most are the lesser of two evils. Trump will kill millions just by his climate change policies..... If there are any progressives here and not Trumpets in Sanders' clothing--I'll see you in the streets protesting Trump.
 
 
+19 # ronnewmexico 2017-01-09 13:26
It is called voting newell. You vote for who you prefer not some sort of Macavalian game. You perhaps could use a civics lesson they used to give in grade school but have stopped. You vote for who you would like to see in the position it is a essential part of democracy..

As to credentials I have actually been in jail several times subsequent to protests…have you?
 
 
0 # newell 2017-01-10 08:04
"And don't give me that 'I voted my conscience'. Life is full of choices and most are the lesser of two evils."

But you gave it to me anyway ---"You vote for who you prefer"

Yes and my head busted open as well--but I saw no one except spooks that looked like they would vote for Trump--which is what you did by default. I voted for Nader. It was a mistake--we got Bush and the Iraq war.
 
 
+13 # CTPatriot 2017-01-09 16:32
I'm sick and tired of Hillary voters' delusion that they're progressives. Anyone whose willing to flush the country down the toilet by voting for a neoliberal neocon who seems intent on provoking war with Russia, and who tells us that single payer health care is "free stuff", and who steals primaries is not a progressive. Fancy yourself so if you like, but we have very little in common.
 
 
-5 # newell 2017-01-10 07:51
It's ok to say you prefer Trump rather than Clinton. And who said Hillary is a progressive?
 
 
+32 # economagic 2017-01-09 11:56
"Donald Trump should not be, must not be issued a free pass on any assistance he received from the Russian government in his pursuit of power."

The MSM certainly are not issuing any such "free pass," but continue to repeat the claims of US intel while mostly ignoring testimony to the contrary. I have yet to see anyone on this website endorse Trump except as POSSIBLY the lesser evil in comparison with Clinton prior to the election. If Mr. Ash feels that the DNC is granting Trump a pass perhaps he should address his complaint directly to that entity rather than expecting readers who clearly disagree with his evaluation to do that for him.
 
 
+11 # jdd 2017-01-09 12:23
The level of vitriol being hurled at Trump by the lying mass media, along with the ant-Russian hysteria being generated by the neocons behind Obama/Republica ns is unprecedented in our history.
 
 
+6 # dbrize 2017-01-09 14:31
Quoting jdd:
The level of vitriol being hurled at Trump by the lying mass media, along with the ant-Russian hysteria being generated by the neocons behind Obama/Republicans is unprecedented in our history.


A minor addition. "Neoliberals" and neocons.

What's worse for those who wish to confront Trump on political proposals, the cacophony of fear based Primal Scream hysterics currently being orchestrated against him are having unintended consequences. He is winning the PR battle due to the ongoing unhinged piling on by the neolib/cons and MSM.

The best thing they could do would be to take a deep breath, do some silent meditation, a brief vacation and in the interim, let him hang himself. The more they berate him the better he does.
 
 
-5 # DongiC 2017-01-09 15:19
jdd, almost as bad as the stuff hurled at Hillary at this site. She's bad, yes but give Trump a chance. My money says he will be worse.
 
 
+2 # dascher 2017-01-10 11:11
Trump will be the first US President removed from office due to his "disabilities" of not being able to put 3 words together in a coherent sentence, being illiterate, and most importantly his continual sniping at the GOP Congress and its leaders, Ryan and McConnell.

I give him 12 months tops. And then the SHIT will really hit the fan with President Pence and whoever he chooses (Ryan is my guess) to be VP.
 
 
+15 # John Puma 2017-01-09 12:22
What IS important is that the USA is exceptional .... but ONLY in its monumental hypocrisy.

Here is my standard list of US "interventions" across the globe that has gone on for more than a century. Millions have died because they are not us and/or have resources we want and/or won't obediently kiss the imperial backside on demand.

http://tinyurl.com/brsk8bk
http://bit.ly/USA-at-war
http://tinyurl.com/nodnk
http://tinyurl.com/q655p63
http://tinyurl.com/o33eg64

If we can stay away from "Putin did it" for a bit can we expect an equivalent intelligence community full-court expose on the Crosscheck system of (likely Dem voter) suppression that has prevented an estimated 7 million people from voting in the recent presidential election?

tinyurl.com/hmtfwh7
tinyurl.com/h7dulzt
tinyurl.com/zbj5gj3
tinyurl.com/jv9r665

It is the brainchild of Kris Kobach, Herr Hair transition team member whose proven database "skills" will apparently be applied to the promised Muslim registry.
tinyurl.com/jvaldm7
 
 
+12 # Henry 2017-01-09 12:30
YES!! Crosscheck and 7 million people blocked. Call off the inauguration, I say!
 
 
+13 # CDMR 2017-01-09 13:18
John -- Thanks. Amazing lists. The world knows about this because it has suffered from US imperialism and interventionism . Americans do not know this.
 
 
+1 # candida 2017-01-09 17:57
Quoting John Puma:
If we can stay away from "Putin did it" for a bit can we expect an equivalent intelligence community full-court expose on the Crosscheck system of (likely Dem voter) suppression that has prevented an estimated 7 million people from voting in the recent presidential election?


I'm totally on board with the investigation of Crosscheck and focusing on domestic interventions in the election (whether by the GOP or DNC)!!! Though not sure where you're going with pointing out US interventions. I do not believe one intervention deserves another. I am against ALL interventions!
 
 
+1 # anthraxripple 2017-01-09 22:02
He's pointing out hypocrisy.
 
 
0 # anthraxripple 2017-01-09 22:02
Sorry, but I don't click on "tinyurls".
 
 
-2 # John Puma 2017-01-10 02:59
If you mean the "tinyurls" don't open from this page, they aren't meant to. Copy and past them into your browsers address bar.

If you mean you will not use them at all, I can't help you.

I ignore most articles the majority of the text of which is complete urls that obscure the entire post.
 
 
+1 # anthraxripple 2017-01-10 11:06
Tiny urls can mask a lot of other things. So, as a basic personal security policy (since I don't really know you) I don't copy and paste tinyurls on to my browser and hit "enter".

I'd rather see the entire url. That way, I can get an idea what I'm clicking on in advance.

I may agree with you and your content 100%, but it's a basic personal security precaution.
 
 
0 # John Puma 2017-01-11 04:33
I understand.
 
 
0 # Salus Populi 2017-01-21 23:35
There is/are app/s that will un-tinyurl or bit.ly and show you the original URL; just look up 'reverse tinyurl' on your favorite search engine. In order to work, the shortened URLs have to have a link to the original, long-form URLs.
 
 
+27 # Saberoff 2017-01-09 12:42
If I witnessed a robbery and told the police, would I be guilty of influencing what happens to the robber?
 
 
+31 # dusty 2017-01-09 13:24
It is so strange that what upsets so many is that Russia might be involved when our country interferes with elections all over the world through our intelligence services and military interventions. It should be more bothersome that the DNC operated as a hidden agent of RHC and against Sanders.
 
 
+22 # RLS 2017-01-09 14:26
Mr. Ash,

As Ray McGovern, William Binney, Kirk Wiebe and others have pointed out, the NSA has the ability to identify the sender and recipient of the hack(without "any danger to sources and methods") if one had occurred. The fact that the NSA has not revealed this information tells us all that we need to know.
 
 
+14 # rcdawson 2017-01-09 16:56
Apparently Democrats would much rather red bait than face the fact that the workers they abandoned were so desperate as to turn to a right wing fascist. And just what are the Russians accused of doing that so damaged our democracy? The are alleged to have made available undisputed facts about one of the candidates. I cannot for the life of me see how publishing truthful information is damaging to a democracy. If one is concerned about the integrity of our elections, how about addressing the massive voter suppression by Republicans? As to trusting CIA analysis, have you forgotten the CIA B team that attacked President Carter? The weapons of mass destruction lies? I'm no Trump supporter, but he didn't win because of Russians. He probably won't really do anything to improve relations with Russia, even though that would be a good idea, but Hillary seemed ready to take us to the brink of nuclear war with Russia. If only we could believe Trump's assertion that diplomacy with Russia would be a better choice. To summarize, quit red baiting Trump, and let's get on with a progressive party takeover of the Democratic party.
 
 
+6 # anthraxripple 2017-01-09 20:12
Establishment Democrats feared (rightly) that their candidate couldn't stand the light of day, so any truth about her has been deemed "dangerous".
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2017-01-11 08:33
And the msm voluntarily complied, self censoring stories that reflected poorly on HRC or well on DT. I heard more than one journalist express concerns about this. I wish I had noted their names -- some of the last honest journalists.

Saw Andrea Mitchell on MtP. She was Very Serious and in a snit about Sam Tidwell (?) from CNBC, who was dismissive of the intel briefings before last week's SASC hearing.

In a later segment he used a weak analogy between ACA and a car, and she snipped under her breath, 'That's a silly analogy.'

haha Fun to watch the establishment unravel.
 
 
+7 # lnason@umassd.edu 2017-01-09 18:24
Russia may or may not have tried to influence our election and Russia may or may not have been successful influencing our election, but one fact is very clear and well documented: in 2015, the Obama Administration sent $350,000 to One Voice, an NGO which used the money to campaign against the re-election of Benjamin Netanyahu.

If it was OK for us to spend our taxpayer money to affect the outcome of a national political election, why would Democrats be so outraged that Russia might decide to do likewise? And there are a dozen other instances where Obama has spent US taxpayer money trying to affect elections, referenda, and legislation in foreign countries -- too many to list here.

Realistically, right or wrong, probably every major power tries to affect all elections around the world. I just don't quite understand all the selective outrage.

Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
 
 
+5 # anthraxripple 2017-01-09 20:10
I've never agreed with you before, Lee.

But there's a first time for everything.

GOOD COMMENT.
 
 
+1 # RMF 2017-01-12 15:11
Did One Voice hack into the Netanyahu computer server? [Probably not.}

[Moreover when our govt -- the USA -- attempts to influence external events they are presumptively working in our interests. The same cannot be said when we are the victim of such mischief. It may seem hypocritical to some but that is how international affairs work, as Machiavelli instructed long go.]
 
 
+7 # sharag 2017-01-09 19:10
John McAfee, a guru of cyber security even says the Russians didn't hack the DNC. I'll believe him any day over the CIA, Hillary, and certainly Trump or Preibus.
 
 
+3 # dascher 2017-01-10 11:06
John McAfee is crazier than Trump. He may be correct, but he has absolutely no basis for his opinion - and he IS off his rocker. See this sympathetic story about what he's been doing for the past 10 years or so. http://www.whoismcafee.com/john-mcafees-ultimate-hack/
 
 
+4 # jeffsyrop 2017-01-09 20:00
It's so weird to suddenly see progressives supporting the findings of our "intelligence" agencies as if they are respectable agencies that we trust, simply because this time it suits our purpose. These agencies stated as fact that Iraq had WMD's, rolling weapons labs, (remember Collin Powell's prop vial of anthrax at the UN), and an "advanced nuclear weapons program". So usually progressives treat the intelligence agencies as the enemies of free Americans and interferes in free elections all over the world.
 
 
+5 # ronnewmexico 2017-01-09 20:11
Jeff no offense but…those selling that line are not real progressives.

Partisan hacks is more like it. There is a line and it is quite clear, you can see it on this board if you read them all.
 
 
+5 # dbrize 2017-01-09 20:35
Quoting jeffsyrop:
It's so weird to suddenly see progressives supporting the findings of our "intelligence" agencies as if they are respectable agencies that we trust, simply because this time it suits our purpose. These agencies stated as fact that Iraq had WMD's, rolling weapons labs, (remember Collin Powell's prop vial of anthrax at the UN), and an "advanced nuclear weapons program". So usually progressives treat the intelligence agencies as the enemies of free Americans and interferes in free elections all over the world.


Maybe they aren't "progressives".
 
 
+8 # anachronis 2017-01-09 20:42
Mr. Ash:

You assert that Trump and Reince Priebus "admit" that Russia hacked the DNC and the election. Absolutely FALSE; neither "admitted" such.
See
anachronis 2017-01-08 21:25
AND
anachronis 2017-01-08 21:43
at
http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/41278-chief-of-staff-now-says-trump-is-not-denying-russia-was-behind-hacking-campaign

Be ashamed Mr. Ash. You are disgracing yourself. And you are fast-degrading what was among the 5 best alternative news sources into a Democrat Establishment species of National Enquirer.

You assert that the CIA/NSA/FBI Russia hacking claim is true and very serious. It is serious only in that it seeks to mislead the U.S public very dangerously with a bare claim — flagrant propaganda that has ZERO basis in any creditable evidence. See
Kropotkinesque 2016-12-15 16:14
through
Kropotkinesque 2016-12-15 16:16
at
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/40829-trumps-russian-hand
AND
Kropotkinesque 2016-12-30 21:05
Kropotkinesque 2016-12-30 21:06
Kropotkinesque 2016-12-30 21:07
at
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/41112-were-living-through-the-first-world-cyberwar-but-just-havent-called-it-that

Be ashamed, Mr. Ash. Be ashamed.
 
 
+5 # kbro2 2017-01-09 21:56
marc ash--i am wondering why and please correct me if i'm mistaken--you do not post glenn greenwald, ray mcgrath, and the other intel vets, as well as others who debunk the official story on a daily basis ?
 
 
+5 # anachronis 2017-01-09 22:02
kbro2 2017-01-09 21:56

You are not mistaken. RSN is contemnibly pro-Clinton/ant i-Trump/pro-Rus sia-baiting biased respecting the phony "Russia-did-it" meme.
 
 
+4 # kbro2 2017-01-09 22:37
Glenn Greenwald: U.S. Intel Chiefs Alleging Russian Threat Have History of Deceiving the Public

https://www.democracynow.org/2017/1/6/greenwald_us_intel_chiefs_alleging_russian?utm_source=Democracy+Now%21&utm_campaign=8eaa0a995b-Daily_Digest&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fa2346a853-8eaa0a995b-190179225
 
 
+2 # AshamedAmerican 2017-01-09 22:38
There are many problems with this article.

"If in fact Russia acted to sway the U.S. presidential election, then yes that is without a doubt a very serious matter". But what hypocrites are we when we do worse throughout the world, including Russia, and when we wreck entire countries in the process of regime change. If a country has managed to do our election process harm, then we should be first addressing our own undemocratic, and often murderous, actions, elsewhere. And we should then deal with our many internal obstacles to achieving anything approaching truly democratic elections.

It is not precisely true that there is "unified public consensus by all U.S. intelligence players". It would have been more accurate to have written "all intelligence agencies". But that many of these agencies' responsibilitie s do not include matters such as external efforts to hack party emails make it highly suspicious that they would weigh in on the subject. It sounds as if all were ordered to do their part to vilify Russia.

"The Democrats are not blaming the Russians". This is nonsense. Obama has even punished the Russians.
 
 
+2 # AshamedAmerican 2017-01-09 22:38
More reliable sources assert that it was a leak- not a hack. And whoever is responsible did the USian public a favor. They exposed the corruption of the DNC. They showed us that the primary process was corrupted. This preceded the general election, and made the corruption of the general election secondary. The People had already been denied a democratic process. So we owe our thanks to some unknown entity for showing us the corruption of the primaries, regardless of any effect it may have had on which representative of the 1% is now to succeed Obama.
 
 
+3 # dascher 2017-01-10 10:59
Since donations to SuperPACS are kept secret, there is no way to know how many hundreds of millions were funneled through them in support of any candidate from any foreign entity - although US law forbids donations to US election campaigns from foreigners.

Ms. Clinton worked pretty hard to lose the election but clearly got the most help in losing from the US media who repeated Trump's every Tweet, burp, and fart as well as repeatedly showing her "collapse" after an event in NYC near the end of the campaign, buttressing Trump's ridiculous claims about her being too ill to serve, while he, of course, being a "virile", "successful businessman" (who is too shy to reveal his taxes or anything else about his phoney fortune) was ready to rock 'n roll on the day after the election.
 
 
0 # RMF 2017-01-10 11:56
In most cases you don't have to put up a "no trespassing" sign.

Even absent such signage it's still wrongful, either trespassing or theft, as the case may be.
 
 
0 # Activista 2017-01-10 14:32
Thank you Marc Ash for you integrity and courage - not repeating ad nausea all these conspiracy lies some "selected" readers use as a propaganda.
There is so much hate in some of these comments - reflecting mind of their leader Trump?
Thanks.
 
 
+1 # Salimlone 2017-01-10 16:21
Its unimaginable that the great and once-progressiv e Marc Ash is joining DEmocrats and REpublicans in pushing against better relations with Russia. OK, lets assume intel got it right this time and Russia was behind the hacking, but do you know how many anti-Russian actions we undertake routinely, all much more damaging to Russia than a DNC hack?
 
 
0 # aDog8myH8 2017-01-10 21:26
Marc, regarding your statement, "There has been no point whatsoever in U.S. history when there has been unified public consensus by all U.S. intelligence players that anything even remotely like the hacking of a U.S. presidential election has taken place. Anyone who tells you that they “have seen this before” is misleading you or themselves, because it’s never happened before.", please check out this very brief video of just such an occurence.
 
 
0 # No Go 2017-01-11 03:45
Donald, utilizing the lowest level of demagoguery and indecency, managed to get a squeaky small electoral college margin of victory over Hillary's 2.9 million popular vote victory.
It is safe to say that a confluence of factors contributed to this dismal election outcome.
The nonsensical overwrought rush to claim that Putin has had nothing to do with helping Trump get elected is hilarious to read.
It appears to come from the Hillary-Hating, Bernie or Bust, Jill Stein-Loving, or Trump-Loving class of armchair amateur self-proclaimed cyber security, political disinformation experts, who love to rant, but, clearly, have no conclusive evidence with which to make their absolutist declarations.
There are classified intelligence reports, impartial public servants, raving whack jobs (e.g. Donald Trump), partisan hacks, wild speculation, wishful thinkers, actual players-in-the- know and every other stripe of opinion monger weighing in behind the scenes, online, in the press, and on TV.
In time, hopefully, we shall see who or what is true.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN