Wikileaks, Russia, and the US Election

[EyeKhan]

I'm curious what the forum thinks about Wikileaks releasing the hacked DNC emails.

What I've managed to pick up so far, admittedly without delving very deeply into the news reporting, is that:

a. It's very likely the DNC hackers were Russian - whether directly tied to the Russian state or not is debatable.

b. Wikileaks very likely is getting the emails they are leaking from the Russian hackers

c. The material being leaked, by all appearances, is intended to undermine the Clinton campaign, thereby influencing US voters away from Clinton.

d. The emails leaked, so far, don't amount to much in terms of damning information on Clinton or her associates. However, the Trump campaign is doing everything it can to make hay out of it, so there could be some real-world effect on the electorate.

Note, I heard a claim that the Trump campaign got advance notice before Wikileaks posted the first batch. I don't know if this is true, so I didn't want to include it as a lettered item. Anyone else hear about that?

The sum of the above appears to amount to someone in Russia making a serious effort to influence the outcome of the presidential election. I'm not sure what Wikileaks is getting out of this. I could understand, somewhat, if the emails leaked were seriously damning "gotcha red-handed" stuff, but by all accounts it's not much beyond something for the Trump electioneers to point to as a basis for campaign half-or-less-truth smears. And that, for me, completely tanks Wikileaks' credibility.

Thoughts?

[RandBlade]

Seems much ado about nothing so far.

Trump says more embarrassing things on a daily basis than the entire Wikileaks furore put together. To be honest it seems like the fame has gone to the head of the Wikileaks crew and now they've fallen for their own hype.

[Hazir]

I didn't read up on this, but it seems a bit odd how Wikileaks is attacking the US Presidential candidate who's percieved least comfortable for the Russian government.

It sheds a very negative light on their agenda as far as I am concerned.

[RandBlade]

Wikileaks has had an anti-western anti-American agenda all along. It hasn't been attacking Russian interests at any stage I can think of. It's only blatant now.

[Aimless]

I'd question whether or not wikileaks is a functioning and independent organisation at this point.

Btw, some of the leaked material seems to be forged.

[Loki]

At the very least, Wikileaks has been duped by Russia to do its bidding. A less favorable interpretation is that Wikileaks has been thoroughly infiltrated by Russian intelligence. Any Westerner supporting it really needs to have their priorities reexamined.

Let's not forget that Jill Stein is parroting Kremlin talking points word for word this election, not just on foreign policy either. She's yet to condemn Trump for his behavior towards women.

I don't think there's a need to go through all the ways that Trump is tied to Russia. We have an election where 2 of the 4 candidates are de facto Russian pawns.

[RandBlade]

An even less favourable interpretation is that Wikileaks was always treasonous and antiwestern.

[Loki]

They weren't so pro-Russian in the past. They even claimed to have some Russian leaks, though they obviously never released them.

[Lewkowski]

I'd question whether or not wikileaks is a functioning and independent organisation at this point.

Btw, some of the leaked material seems to be forged.

I don't think they particularly care where the leaks come from - its likely looking that way simply because they are getting a mountain from one source.

[Lewkowski]

Seems much ado about nothing so far.

Trump says more embarrassing things on a daily basis than the entire Wikileaks furore put together. To be honest it seems like the fame has gone to the head of the Wikileaks crew and now they've fallen for their own hype.

I'd say Bernie supporters should be pretty POed at the DNC. Not enough to vote for Trump (of course) but possibly enough not to vote for Clinton.

[RandBlade]

They weren't so pro-Russian in the past. They even claimed to have some Russian leaks, though they obviously never released them.

Have they ever leaked anything that was seriously anti-Putin or would anger him?

[Loki]

Not that I'm aware. But they could have pretended to be focusing on the US because it was more important.

[RandBlade]

Indeed they could, I suspect we've seen the mask slip now though.

[Lewkowski]

Not that I'm aware. But they could have pretended to be focusing on the US because it was more important.

Maybe Russia is still using 1980s computers and its hard to leak stuff.

[EyeKhan]

And now this....

I'm all for retaliation, but announcing to the world you're going to do some unspecified thing like this, IMHO, looks like weakness. Strength is, once you're confident who did it, you smack them back, without warning, and hard enough that they'll reconsider messing around with you again. If this is the Obama administration pandering to the US public, trying to look like we won't let the Russians push us around, it's pitiful.

Could Obama’s Threat of Retaliation against Russia Lead to Cyberwar?
Online attacks are unpredictable and hard to control, leading to worries that White House cyber rattling could quickly escalate
By Larry Greenemeier on October 18, 2016

Late last week Obama administration officials used NBC News to send Moscow a cryptic threat: The U.S. government is “contemplating an unprecedented cyber covert action” against Russia for allegedly interfering in the upcoming U.S. elections. Anonymous sources cited in the NBC story offered no details about what the U.S. might d, but said the White House has asked the CIA to cook up a “clandestine” cyber strategy “designed to harass and embarrass” Russian leadership, including Pres. Vladimir Putin.

<snip>

Scientific American spoke with O. Sami Saydjari—a former senior U.S. Department of Defense cyber expert who now runs a consultancy called the Cyber Defense Agency—about why the government is suggesting cyber retaliation, what such a response might look like, and the dangers of online attacks escalating into cyber war or something much worse.

[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]

Why would the Obama administration publicly announce that it is contemplating a large-scale yet covert digital offensive against Russia?
It’s clearly public posturing for some effect, although it’s not yet clear what that effect will be. This is a cyber version of mutually assured destruction—or, maybe more accurately in this case, mutually assured damage. You damage our cyberspace, we’ll damage your cyberspace. But that’s a dangerous game. Cyberspace is a murky area: It’s not clear who your enemy is, and the outcome of your actions isn’t easy to control. Put another way, when you rattle your saber in cyberspace it’s not clear what you’re rattling, at what you’re rattling and whether you’ll be effective if you do rattle it.
<snip>

Link: https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...d-to-cyberwar/

[Lewkowski]

Obama's foreign policy has always been a mess.

http://www.independentsentinel.com/o...-the-red-line/

He projects weakness instead of strength. The president of the United States should be someone foreign dictators should fear crossing, can anyone actually say that's the case now?

[LittleFuzzy]

And now this....

I'm all for retaliation, but announcing to the world you're going to do some unspecified thing like this,

You can make unspecified threads. Vague is just fine when it comes to IR saber-rattling. What you don't do is say you're looking at covert or clandestine activities. BECAUSE THEY'RE FUCKING COVERT.

[EyeKhan]

You can make unspecified threads. Vague is just fine when it comes to IR saber-rattling. What you don't do is say you're looking at covert or clandestine activities. BECAUSE THEY'RE FUCKING COVERT.

Ha ha, I just now put that together. Announcing you're going to do something covert does sort of negate the covert part of it...

[Loki]

Pretty sure it was just a threat to Russia to stop what it's doing.

[Lewkowski]

Pretty sure it was just a threat to Russia to stop what it's doing.

He hopes it will cause Russia to change. Right? Let's see how well that plan works.

[EyeKhan]

Pretty sure it was just a threat to Russia to stop what it's doing.

If that's the case, it's mind-boggling to me that the administration somehow thinks that would work. I think it's more likely they are pandering to the US electorate, trying to show "Democrats aren't weak" or something, because there's no way in hell that's going to get Putin's Russia to knock it off.

[Aimless]

Not a threat. Bait.

[EyeKhan]

Not a threat. Bait.

Hmm. Okay, can you elaborate?

[LittleFuzzy]

Hmm. Okay, can you elaborate?

She's saying it's an attempt to goad Russia into something more overt which we could use to make a fuss, invalidate the election if necessary, or just track so we can figure out/eliminate the channels they are/would be using to try and tamper with our elections.

[Aimless]

Hmm. Okay, can you elaborate?

I was thinking that they'd provoke Russian agents and hacker groups into trying to dig up more information about this covert counter-attack in order to root some of them out by catching them in the act and then spank them really, really hard. That's always how you catch double-agents and moles and assorted villains in movies and TV-shows but I figure Russian agents don't watch American movies and shows

[EyeKhan]

Well, I hope you two are right, because to me the public aspect of it is disheartening.

[LittleFuzzy]

Well, I hope you two are right, because to me the public aspect of it is disheartening.

Oh, I don't think he's right, I just grasped what he was thinking/saying. I think this is Obama and his administration on their way out and not thinking things out as carefully as they should.

[EyeKhan]

That's what it feels like to me too.

[Dreadnaught]

I'd say the exposure of Democratic operatives should be more concerning...hacking is hacking, could be Russian or anyone else. This is on the ground investigation, albeit by a flawed organization. This one seems hard for even the NYTimes to outright ignore.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/us...p-rallies.html

[ImAnOgre]

Didn't Julian say the leak was formerly alive DNC security guy Seth Rich, RIP.