« Trump is a nationalist, not an internationalist. | Main | Who would the Russian "hackers" have been? »

24 July 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Former 11B

Why not? Acting civilly has gotten Russia nowhere.If Trump represents a more reasonable discourse then game on.

Larry Kart

So our next president will be picked by the Borg or by Putin? 

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

Robert Frost



If Putin authorizes the release of the Borg Queen's files showing she mis-handled classified information, would Obummer allow AG Lynch to indict her?

IMO, that's not gonna happen. The Borg is going to do everything in its power to insure the coronation of the Borg Queen. There's too much at stake for a "loose cannon" like Trump to upset the apple cart they have carefully stacked.


Why would Russia do anything directly, much less before the June 28 sanctions vote? July 1 Friday is take out trash day in Washington so likely internal government report's release date saying there were issues but nothing serious -'move along nothing to see here' day. July 18 begins Republican convention so likely if there is a Russian/Assange release it would be just before then. Democratic convention debate is July 25, so if Russia preferred Bernie then leak before Dem convention would be likely and leak just before Rep. convention would be needed to fan flames. Likely counter would be Obama pardon of Petraeus and Clinton both and at his leisure during a slow news day in early August. Again what would Russia gain by this when they have a useful idiot like Assange or some German media outlet to do the dirty work for them?


Generally speaking, Putin prefers a non-interventionist policy.
His willingness to release the Clinton tapes suggest that Moscow sees Hillary as a grave threat to their national security.

Unfortunately, I would agree with that assessment.


Hmmmm...It will all come out in the wash I believe.....http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/clinton-email-scandal-imminent-document-leak-enough-to-indict-her/


The problem with releasing hacked emails is - Can you prove which server it was stolen from -
the allegedly hacked Clintonmail server
State Dept verified-hacked servers
Other unknown Hacks of US govt computers

The law of unintended consequences is always ready to pounce and bite the hand that unleashes it


What a pile of BS! "We can't really prove that it was Russian government - let alone Russian hackers, but we are saying it anyway. Trust us, guys! Dum-dum-dum-duuum!"

And why would Russia feel"frustration with the pace of the official U.S. Department of Justice investigation". No one gives a crap, seriously. No one truly believes tha any American president would be really capable of either overpowering the Establishment and ruling oligarchy, or even fulfill a fraction of his/her election promises.

This is all a case of projection and more "Russians are coming!" hysterics from the Free and Independnet Western Media (tm)


1. I very much doubt those unsourced "reports" How would anyone know if Putin would decide over such nonsense?

Russia has no history of releasing such policy papers. But now claiming that Russia will release them allows to blame Russia should whoever has copies release them,

2. Russia likely did not hack the DNC server just like North Korea definitely did not hack the Sony servers. For what? Oppo research on Trump? Starting a year before Trump won the race?

The self advertising bosses of the crowdsource snake-oil shop that investigated the case say themselves that there were multiple hacks of the server. One hacker published a lot of those papers proving that the DNC has worked to inaugurate Clinton all along. That might help Sanders but not Putin.

#blameputin is a funny hashtag but there are so many hackers out there and so many open servers that it is not justified at all in such a case.


The American public should know before the Democratic convention and before the November election if Hillary Clinton broke the law. At this point I am wondering if the Obama administration is breaking the law by not prosecuting her. Is the FBI free to ignore a crime? How many crimes are in those emails?


I have been wondering if the Guccifer release of the DNC data was a warning shot to the Obama administration.


I have trouble buying this.

If Russians (and any foreigner) think their bad mouthing of an American politician would actually hurt his or her chances, they'd be stuck in fantasyland. I don't know if this is Putin's MO--it seems too childish given what we have seen of him, but then, they, like us, might have an inflated sense of their own credibility and might underestimate nationalistic resistance to obvious foreign propaganda.

I do wonder, though, if this is a subtle maneuvering by the pro-HRC crowd--it actually does smell like their MO: portray Trump as Putin's candidate, while astroturfing at the same time whatever bad news that might emerge from possible releases of what was in those emails. It smacks of how the Republican neocons tried to use the Valerie Plame affair to discredit their critics, but I would expect Democratic neocons to be no less sloppy.


Maybe you'd like to explain why Assange is an "idiot".



"think their bad mouthing of an American politician would actually hurt his or her chances, they'd be stuck in fantasyland." Ah, no, it would not be that. It would be release of HC's correspondence itself. Nothing more would need to be said. pl



"How would anyone know if Putin would decide over such nonsense? Russia has no history of releasing such policy papers." The Soviet KGB had a long history of grey and black propaganda operations. Putin was a career KGB 2nd Main Directorate operative. The SVR and FSB would be quite able to carry this out on a plausible un-attributable basis. how would you know? You would know if the Russians told you in order to get Clinton/Obama's attention. pl


Putin didn't write those emails and didn't mishandle and make them vulnerable to intercept. By making them available it's still left to electorate to vote for or against Hillary.


Assange has mentioned this Hillary email document dump. And Assange has a good track record of coming through on his promises.



You have that all wrong. The Borg do not think the citizens of the USA can be trusted with knowing just what is in Hillary's emails. Putin thinks they can.



All those "donors" to the Clinton Foundation must be very happy with the IT security provided by HRC and the people with the backup bathroom server. I can hardly wait to find out who they are and how much they paid. I wonder why Obama doesn't trust Americans to know that information.


With all due respect - but this is just your speculation. I have kitchen knife - several, in fact - in my flat. Why should I commit a murder just becayse some other people often used this kind of utensil to kill their victims?

Can you cite any example of modern Russian "black propaganda" op, where:

a) Data was 100% stolen by Russian government.
b) Said data would be released with the aim to harm the victim.
c) The victim in question is a member of foreign elite

Could Russia do something along the line? Maybe. But Russia can do a lot of stuff - like invading the Baltic limitroph states, assassinating Poroshenko or launching all of its nukes to Canada. All before the breakfast on ordinary Sunday. So what?

Richard Armstrong

I'm wondering who the forensic IT folks were that determined "the Russians" (Russian Intelligence? Some guy in his babushka's basement?). I'm also wondering why anyone thinks that particular server in question is still online. Based on first hand experience from the '80s I know that the FBI seizes entire systems - not just their hard drives. However, if only the hard drives were seized then that alone would take that particular server offline.

It does not seem reasonable to me that the unnamed sources cited by oilprices.com know what they are talking about.


catellio, the operative term is "useful idiot". This is used to describe some unwitting agent that is acting as a tool for some larger agency (I think it was Lenin who introduced that term). Love him or hate him there is no way that Assange is an unwitting tool.



I am in the business of enlightened speculation. Neither you nor anyone else will tell me what to write. If you don't like it go elsewhere. pl



Who said it is still online? Once you copy the contents from afar you have the contents and it does not matter if it is still online. pl


You will know the leak came from Moscow if it includes the smoking gun evidence of a pay-for-play with Gulfie donors to support AQ in Syria.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad