Did Russia Really Hack Us? A Discussion.

[Saucy]

So you think Donald Trump's counter terrorism advisor was just speaking out of his rear this morning when he blamed Russia for election hacks?

From the headline in the article:

In a break with his boss, Thomas Bossert said Russian entities clearly tried to meddle in the 2016 race.

You laughed at me earlier for saying this, but I'll say it again. There's a huge difference between "tried to meddle" and "hacked the election".

 

[Go Braves]

From the headline in the article:



You laughed at me earlier for saying this, but I'll say it again. There's a huge difference between "tried to meddle" and "hacked the election".

I laughed because it was a LOL thing to say.

 

[Halbhh]

Well, every nation does it to every nation. We can try to stay ahead of the game and try to prevent influence, but even Obama tried to influence Israel's elections. He tried to influence French and English elections. He tried to influence the Brexit vote. We all have our interests we fight for.

Did Russia try to influence the elections? Yes. Did Russia hack the elections? No. Was Trump connected to any Russian interference? No evidence to support it even all this time later.

I really don't have a side in this, but this is information from a neutral source that is hard on Democrats too (like here: Pelosi's Tortured Denials - FactCheck.org ) (I'm not Democrat, nor Republican, just independent):

We now know that Donald Trump Jr., during the presidential campaign, met with a Russian lawyer offering information that was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” And we now know that the president’s eldest son was less-than-forthcoming in his previous statements on the issue.

When he tweeted images of the email chain about that June 9, 2016, meeting, he said it was “in order to be totally transparent.” But that transparency came days after a misleading statement about the meeting and just as the New York Times was preparing to publish the emails.

Let’s take a look at Trump Jr.’s previous comments.

On July 8, the New York Times broke the story that Donald Trump Jr. had arranged a meeting at Trump Tower with a Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, “who has connections to the Kremlin.” The president’s son-in-law and now senior adviser, Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort, then-campaign convention manager, also attended. Here’s what Trump Jr. told the Times about that meeting in a statement:

Donald Trump Jr., July 8 statement: It was a short introductory meeting. I asked Jared and Paul to stop by. We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at the time and there was no follow up. I was asked to attend the meeting by an acquaintance, but was not told the name of the person I would be meeting with beforehand.

But that was misleading and glossed over the reason for the meeting, which the Times would soon report and Trump Jr. would acknowledge.

On July 9, the Times reported that Trump Jr. was “promised damaging information about Hillary Clinton before agreeing to meet with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer during the 2016 campaign.” His statement that day:

Trump Jr., July 9 statement: [T]he woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Mrs. Clinton. Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information. She then changed subjects and began discussing the adoption of Russian children and mentioned the Magnitsky Act. It became clear to me that this was the true agenda all along and that the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting.

And by July 11, through the Times’ reporting and Trump Jr.’s own release of the emails, we knew that the meeting was explicitly about potential dirt on the soon-to-be Democratic presidential nominee from a purported “Russian government attorney.”
....

Donald Trump Jr.'s Evolving Statements - FactCheck.org

 

[Root of Jesse]

I see that's from this morning, fresh. I'm relieved he's got the integrity & the guts to be honest about the election hacking.

I don't think there's any dispute that there was hacking by the Russians. What there wasn't was criminal collusion between the Trump team and the Russians. As for the hacking, how many votes were manipulated because of it?

 

[Root of Jesse]

I really don't have a side in this, but this is information from a neutral source that is hard on Democrats too (like here: Pelosi's Tortured Denials - FactCheck.org ) (I'm not Democrat, nor Republican, just independent):

We now know that Donald Trump Jr., during the presidential campaign, met with a Russian lawyer offering information that was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” And we now know that the president’s eldest son was less-than-forthcoming in his previous statements on the issue.

When he tweeted images of the email chain about that June 9, 2016, meeting, he said it was “in order to be totally transparent.” But that transparency came days after a misleading statement about the meeting and just as the New York Times was preparing to publish the emails.

Let’s take a look at Trump Jr.’s previous comments.

On July 8, the New York Times broke the story that Donald Trump Jr. had arranged a meeting at Trump Tower with a Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, “who has connections to the Kremlin.” The president’s son-in-law and now senior adviser, Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort, then-campaign convention manager, also attended. Here’s what Trump Jr. told the Times about that meeting in a statement:

Donald Trump Jr., July 8 statement: It was a short introductory meeting. I asked Jared and Paul to stop by. We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at the time and there was no follow up. I was asked to attend the meeting by an acquaintance, but was not told the name of the person I would be meeting with beforehand.

But that was misleading and glossed over the reason for the meeting, which the Times would soon report and Trump Jr. would acknowledge.

On July 9, the Times reported that Trump Jr. was “promised damaging information about Hillary Clinton before agreeing to meet with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer during the 2016 campaign.” His statement that day:

Trump Jr., July 9 statement: [T]he woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Mrs. Clinton. Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information. She then changed subjects and began discussing the adoption of Russian children and mentioned the Magnitsky Act. It became clear to me that this was the true agenda all along and that the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting.

And by July 11, through the Times’ reporting and Trump Jr.’s own release of the emails, we knew that the meeting was explicitly about potential dirt on the soon-to-be Democratic presidential nominee from a purported “Russian government attorney.”
....

Donald Trump Jr.'s Evolving Statements - FactCheck.org

So, the Trump campaign tried to gain an advantage on the Clinton campaign via the lawyer from Russia who had nothing. And the Clinton campaign tried to gain an advantage on the Trump campaign via the Ukranian government.

 

[LoAmmi]

So, the Trump campaign tried to gain an advantage on the Clinton campaign via the lawyer from Russia who had nothing. And the Clinton campaign tried to gain an advantage on the Trump campaign via the Ukranian government.

I've asked before but I haven't been able to find evidence that the Clinton campaign tried to do anything with the Ukrainian government. I've seen the DNC implicated but not anybody who worked for the Clinton campaign.

That said, the DNC was wrong to do that and I still think it *should* be against the law.

 

[Rion]

The DNC servers. This hasn't been at issue, and is merely the established fact all agree to.

example --
September 2015 - The FBI contacts the Democratic National Committee's help desk, cautioning the IT department that at least one computer has been compromised by Russian hackers. A technician scans the system and does not find anything suspicious.
etc.

Uh-huh.

New Research Shows Guccifer 2.0 Files Were Copied Locally, Not Hacked

 

[Ada Lovelace]

I'm dashing on here for a moment and have not read through this entire thread, but it appears the two of you are discussing the article I posted this morning.

From the headline in the article:



You laughed at me earlier for saying this, but I'll say it again. There's a huge difference between "tried to meddle" and "hacked the election".

This is the full headline:

Trump counterterrorism adviser blames Russia for election hacks
In a break with his boss, Thomas Bossert said Russian entities clearly tried to meddle in the 2016 race.

 

[Saucy]

I'm dashing on here for a moment and have not read through this entire thread, but it appears the two of you are discussing the article I posted this morning.




This is the full headline:

Trump counterterrorism adviser blames Russia for election hacks
In a break with his boss, Thomas Bossert said Russian entities clearly tried to meddle in the 2016 race.

Yes, and my question is if 'attempting to meddle' is the same as 'hacking the election'. I'm fine with saying they hacked if they hacked and interfered. I'm genuinely confused because the timeline doesn't add up, we were told there was no evidence of hacking, then Hillary loses and now suddenly there's this big consensus that they did hack? But later, no consensus, just 3-4 agencies, not 17.

It just seems like a convenient story with no real hard evidence behind it.

 

[Maren]

There is evidence that Russians actually attempted to hack electronic voting mechanisms in some states, albeit without any measurable (or so far released) success.

Regarding DNC servers, it appears more likely the Russians received the booty from other hacking attempts.

One point I'd make, even if there was evidence the Russians succeeded in hacking the election, I don't believe it is anything that would be made public. 1) the CIA/NSA would likely not want the Russians to know they had been caught, if that gets released the Russians know they have to improve their methods. The hope is that they'll do the same type of attacks next time and that we will be able to prevent it. 2) It would undermine confidence in the US elections. Particularly with most voting machines having a paper copy, there would be no way to know what the original results were. With the various "winners" of the election already seated, they would not want to undermine the current government, particularly to have new elections that may or may not change the results -- with the government basically at a stand still because of the questions of legitimacy until after the new elections are completed. 3) The current government (wouldn't matter if it is Republican or Democrat) does not want the information released, as it undermines their credibility.

I'm not saying that the Russians did successfully change votes; merely pointing out that the government likely isn't going to announce if another government does successfully hack an election.

 

[RDKirk]

One point I'd make, even if there was evidence the Russians succeeded in hacking the election, I don't believe it is anything that would be made public. 1) the CIA/NSA would likely not want the Russians to know they had been caught, if that gets released the Russians know they have to improve their methods. The hope is that they'll do the same type of attacks next time and that we will be able to prevent it. 2) It would undermine confidence in the US elections. Particularly with most voting machines having a paper copy, there would be no way to know what the original results were. With the various "winners" of the election already seated, they would not want to undermine the current government, particularly to have new elections that may or may not change the results -- with the government basically at a stand still because of the questions of legitimacy until after the new elections are completed. 3) The current government (wouldn't matter if it is Republican or Democrat) does not want the information released, as it undermines their credibility.

I'm not saying that the Russians did successfully change votes; merely pointing out that the government likely isn't going to announce if another government does successfully hack an election.

I don't disagree, and that's been given as a reason why Obama was muted in response to whatever he knew prior to the election.

Operational security--OPSEC--was the rule of much of my life. Heck, if I had been president, nobody would know yet that US Special Forces had anything to do with Osama bin Laden's disappearance.

 

[Allandavid]

That may be true, but it's also off topic. How does hacking into a DNC server "hack the election"?

Really...? Is that what the 'Trump followers defence' now reduces to......semantics?

The Russians sought to influence the US elections by illegally hacking into campaign and party files and releasing any embarrassing information they found.

Period.

Anyone who either assisted their efforts in that regard, or received the illegally obtained information afterwards, likewise behaved illegally.

Period.

 

[Tanj]

Really...? Is that what the 'Trump followers defence' now reduces to......semantics?

That is my read. 3 pages of thread because Saucy doesn't like the way the word "hack" is being used.

My response would be give me another word to use and I'll use that instead (so long as it is a word and not a paragraph).

 

[Allandavid]

That is my read. 3 pages of thread because Saucy doesn't like the way the word "hack" is being used.

My response would be give me another word to use and I'll use that instead (so long as it is a word and not a paragraph).

Ah, but the strategy is to deflect, you see...?

Anything, repeat anything, that can be used to move the discussion away from what is becoming increasingly obvious will be used...

Talk about the etymology of 'hack' and 'meddle', because those are the important issues...not the growing list of people who have repeatedly lied about their connections with those who hacked or meddled...

 

[Go Braves]

I don't think there's any dispute that there was hacking by the Russians. What there wasn't was criminal collusion between the Trump team and the Russians. As for the hacking, how many votes were manipulated because of it?

Well I don't think there should be any dispute at this point that there was hacking by the Russians, but the title of this thread right here is "Did Russia Really Hack Us? A Discussion." Saucy says he's genuinely confused about it still.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

I think Russians hacked this thread.

 

[CitizenD]

"Tried to meddle" is very different than "hacked". Of course they tried to meddle, but were they successful in actual hacking?

Is there really a dispute over whether Russia hacked the Clinton campaign and dumped information to support Trump?

I'm fairly certain our intelligence community has presented evidence to that effect.

 

[AllButNone]

So, this might be a bit of a conspiracy theory, but it's one I seem to be taking to more and more.

It's interesting you chose to use McCarthy's June 26th article.

I haven't gone through the whole thread so I don't know if anybody else has posted this article yet, but it's a more recent article which I believe shows an evolution of McCarthy's thoughts on the issue. For example:

The tepid-on-Trump camp is aghast at revelations of the extent and nature of the Trump clan’s ties to a murderous anti-American regime — and, speaking only for myself, humbled by analysts who were more troubled by the circumstantial evidence in the absence of smoking guns. Trump fans, to the contrary, are doing the full Clinton: doubling down on the absurd insistence that Trump-Russia is a big ol’ “nothingburger.”

Two weeks can make a big difference. Given McCarthy with his very strong opinions appears to have been swayed, I'd ask you to consider the possibility that there really is something to the Trump story.

 

[Saucy]

It's interesting you chose to use McCarthy's June 26th article.

I haven't gone through the whole thread so I don't know if anybody else has posted this article yet, but it's a more recent article which I believe shows an evolution of McCarthy's thoughts on the issue. For example:



Two weeks can make a big difference. Given McCarthy with his very strong opinions appears to have been swayed, I'd ask you to consider the possibility that there really is something to the Trump story.

Well he, nor you, have a smoking gun. You have no evidence. Only assumptions, conjecture, and seasoned with fake news. Is it possible there's something hiding? Of course there is. But everyone is jumping on the 'guilty' bandwagon with no proof, nothing.

 

[Allandavid]

Well he, nor you, have a smoking gun. You have no evidence. Only assumptions, conjecture, and seasoned with fake news. Is it possible there's something hiding? Of course there is. But everyone is jumping on the 'guilty' bandwagon with no proof, nothing.

Balance of probabilities....if it quacks like a......etc.