Well, just bullshitting here, but let me cook up a scenario, albeit a bit tinfoil-ish, but such is the way of the world these days, apparently. Considering WikiLeaks is getting sources (people on the inside) to share this secret, hidden information, is it not plausible that someone with access to the DNC emails dumped these to WikiLeaks and the CIA was meant to come and provide the "evidence" that the Russians hacked the server? I know this sounds silly, but considering all the absurdity of the modern political climate, I'd like to at least posit that the CIA has the appearance of becoming a political tool, here.ssu wrote:Very likely they have those capabilities. But think they have been used here? What simply is the idea? Would the idea be that the CIA hacked the DNC and made it to look like a Russian hack... yet it hacked the DNC? Why? Or people believe in the 400 pound hacker on bed, and then CIA staged it to be Russia? Look, if the CIA/NSA spies on it's allies, let's say France, then it would be logical to make it look like it's someone else (which usually isn't going to work as Washington leaks all the time). Why on Earth an institution that has to be in good terms with the US president will meddle in such way as it strains the relationship with both candidates?
And it simply just isn't the hacking. It's also the appeasement policies (which now are out). It's the Russian media's stance (that is controlled By the Kremlin). Add those all up and then you can get the whole picture.
I think if you take the hacking out of it (this also includes Trumps comments "encouraging" Russia to hack some more), I think the whole Russia angle loses some of the the impact. Does it mean it's completely baseless? Maybe, maybe not. But if the hacking isn't authentic, it looks less like Russian puppet and more like your run-of-the-mill slimy interest politics.
Fair. Whether there's actual nefarious activity by Trump staff or not, it's still going to be a fever pitch. When I see that the CIA has the ability (not saying there's evidence here that they have) to manufacture this kind of hack by a foreign entity, the same kind of hack by a foreign entity that's been the banner for the Democrats, I get significantly more skeptical.ssu wrote:It's US politics. If Trump would be a democratic president now, the Republicans likely would have had him already impeached and thrown out in a frenzy of patriotic fervour. Democrats are simply aren't so aggressive as the GOP, but are simply clueless and very lame. But naturally they will not let this go away and try their best to make matter worse for Trump.Kazmyr wrote:Every time Trump associates are lambasted in the media for Russians, it's always prefaced by bringing up the Russians hacking the DNC to make this look like some kind of grandiose conspiracy, making it look like it's worse than it is. This hack is where it all started.
I can't argue with the fact that it was pretty much Russia or bust for Snowden/Assange. If either of them had a viable alternative, do you think they would have taken it? (And if so, would you actually see something damning about Russia? Most likely, right?)ssu wrote:Usually it's good to follow the money and be a bit critical on every player and understand what their agenda is. Once you understand their agenda, you can filter away the worst bias.Kazmyr wrote:It certainly has me calling into question the "intelligence community's" conclusion, here. You start pulling on this thread of distrust, where do you end up?
First of all, Wikipedia naturally has an desire to clean it's image here, but the truth is that an independent whistleblower in this World isn't going to happen, as much as we would like it. Once the US went after Assange, he had to put his money on the Russians (or basically the Russians put the money on him). There is an obvious reason that Assange is in a denial that it wasn't the Russians is obvious: the actual information gotten from the hacks was even now sidelined, and would have been even more if he would have admitted it could have been the Russians. An Assange type of guy can publish data given by whistleblowers or activists, but if it's something spoonfed from a government, he loses all credibility. The thing simply is that a guy like Assange has to play the game. And let's remember that he got a) a visa to Russia, b) financial backing from Russia and an opening for a media program in Russian media. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.
Just like Snowden, I'm sure that Assange likely didn't want to have such a close tie to Russia, but what could you do else? You can see this clearly from the simple fact that Wikileaks has never said anything really bad or produced any leaks from Russia, even if it says it has been critical about the country. The closest that I can find is that Wikileaks has published hackings from the Syrian government done by anonymous. And even that wasn't hugely embarrasing for Russia or Syria. The emphasis was on the links of the Syrian regime with Western corporations.
Personally, my trust in almost all governmental institutions is rapidly eroding.
And thanks for playing ball with me on this. :cheers: :drunk:
