> There is absolutely an audit trail, including non-repudation for the analyst who performed the query (They must use their smartcard or "PKI").
What do you make of Snowden's assertion that he could have eavesdropped on anyone he wanted? Was he failing to mention that his actions could be audited? Was he failing to mention that he had access to someone else's PKI with which to do the surveillance? Other?
Assuming you have knowledge of how the intelligence agencies work:
- Which agency is the process you described applicable to?
- Are you certain it is the same in other agencies?
- Are you aware of any loopholes (or might Snowden have been?) which would have allowed it to happen without consent from higher level officials?
I do not have a belief one way or another about whether Trump was "wiretapped". My intent was to apply the logical consequence of the Snowden revelations to the issue being discussed, and flag the FISA warrant argument as a straw man.
> He was a Sharepoint admin with access to Office type filesHe was a Sharepoint admin with access to Office type files.
I wish he were a participant on HN so he could chime in here and defend himself.
My impression is that he held several jobs over a few years which gave him access to more of the breadth of what was going on.
Surely after the revelations more security checks would have been implemented. But the other instances of large caches of leaked material suggest that there are not effective internal controls.
As a thought experiment, I'd suggest that the small size of teams required to maintain security, combined with a 'need to know' rule, results in an environment where creating an internal audit trail puts operational security at risk, and so it is avoided. All the anti-Trump leaks suggest that this is true, since surely Trump would have asked who had access to the leaked information, and the list would have been small enough (b/c of need-to-know) that he could have made a spectacle of the leaker.
Well, putting aside the observation that the documents speak for themselves, and ignoring the inaccurate claims made by leaders to the American people about surveillance, what impression should I have?
I believe that was a (not so nice) way of saying that Snowden had intentionally exaggerated his history in order to establish himself as more of an authority on these matters regarding things he did not actually have access to.
Personally, even if I disagree with most of what he did, I think that specifically was an understandable move as he seemed to be genuine about his beliefs and desire to spread his message.
> What do you make of Snowden's assertion that he could have eavesdropped on anyone he wanted? Was he failing to mention that his actions could be audited? Was he failing to mention that he had access to someone else's PKI with which to do the surveillance? Other?
I think he was not really telling the truth. And I don't mean that he intended to be dishonest, but rather, he was trying to explain the issue as he understood it in a simplified manner. My understanding is that he did not actually have access to XKEYSCORE and other tools, so he did not known how they actually worked and the associated red tape. He could only go by what the presentation slides that he downloaded from NSA had said (I am assuming that those slides did not describe much regarding the associated red tape because it was meant for those who had already been read in and had access to the program so they would have already been fully aware of the legal and compliance side of things, along with continuous training and review of the Constitution). Snowden had to get the materials regarding programs he didn't have access to by authenticating with the smartcard/PKI of colleagues who did have access to those systems (Source: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/NSA_Snowden_...).
> Which agency is the process you described applicable to?
NSA. I don't think there would be another agency with access to this alleged wiretap.
> Are you certain it is the same in other agencies?
I am not certain. I do believe it is the case though, as my understanding is that DoD and IC IG have this authority not specifically NSA (If you are aware of an agency not properly protecting USPI as they should be, the IC IG would definitely want to hear about it, I am very serious).
> Are you aware of any loopholes (or might Snowden have been?) which would have allowed it to happen without consent from higher level officials?
I am not aware of any, so definitely cannot conclude that they do not exist. There could possibly be a case to be made there, as the "data" versus "metadata" debate awhile back demonstrated that some things are interpreted in a way that could allow for overreach. I personally don't think it is productive to assume that loopholes were utilized until there is evidence of that. Additionally, any loophole would be for accessing the information but the way the system is setup at least these days would not allow for that to occur without an audit trail ("tag the people, tag the data!").
> the FISA warrant argument
If I understand correctly, the following still could have happened and I don't know if anyone has disputed it:
1. Trump associate spoke to someone who was subject to FISA collection or regular collection of a foreign target of interest.
2. Topic was discussed which specifically related to the US Person (Trump associate) which was serious enough to warrant de-minimization of the USPI.
3. The proper process was followed, and the evidence was solid enough to de-minimize the US Person's side of the conversation.
This interestingly would mean that (1) it was serious enough to warrant de-minimization but not enough to be conclusive proof of malice, which is something that anti-Trump folks would not want to hear, and (2) it was a discussion of interest involving an intelligence collection target, which is something that pro-Trup folks would not want to hear. Therefore this potential exact scenario is not within the interest of either side and I have not heard it discussed much.
There are many possibilities, some which are politically convenient to either side, others which are not convenient to either side. It might be mildly amusing to discuss but as far as I understand, an actual investigation into this is going to occur and either we will get answers to all of this based on a comprehensive audit of those who accessed the intercepts and/or was responsible for the tasking.
I appreciate your thoughtful comments. I wish Snowden were a participant on HN so he could address the specific detail points.
One recent historical point I'd mention based on your reasoning is that there was a period of time toward the end of Obama's presidency when there was immense political pressure on him to "do something" about Russia meddling in the US election to benefit Trump.
It seems plausible that since Obama was willing to impose last-minute sanctions on Russia and expel diplomats only weeks before leaving office, his administration might have also been pressured into explicitly investigating allegations of improper association between Trump and Russia via surveillance.
If such an investigation had been initiated and turned up any damning evidence, it is quite likely Trump would not have been sworn in as president.
I interpret Obama's willingness to impose sanctions and expel diplomats as an indication of how much pressure he was under to use his power to intervene in what was viewed by many as the effective rigging of an election.
I am not a Trump supporter, so I don't make this point in defense of Trump, merely as a possible indication of the amount of pressure Obama was under in his final days in office.
I think the pressure operated in reverse. That is, under normal circumstances, the election meddling, the associate connections, the pro-Russia rhetoric, etc. naturally warranted an investigation/response as a matter of national security. No pressure would be required. Likewise, public revelations about some of this stuff (in particular, the attack on our democracy) clearly could not go unchecked, thus warranting the sanctions and diplomatic expulsions.
However, Obama was under intense pressure not to appear to be acting politically.
> However, Obama was under intense pressure not to appear to be acting politically.
Only to the extent that is typically the sitting president's responsibility to jump on board with the campaign rhetoric of his/her own party. The accusations about Russia put Obama in a delicate spot. If there had been evidence, his decision would have been easy, but in the absence of evidence he faced accusations of stoking fears about Russia to benefit his party.
But I think the line was crossed in the other direction when he imposed sanctions and evicted diplomats. For a president to do that weeks before a new administration takes over is abundantly petty and ought only be done if the new administration approves of it.
Doing so was far beneath Obama, and was akin to leaving an unflushed bowel movement in the oval office bathroom so Trump would find it on his first day. Obama did it only because he was under great pressure from his party to do so.
>Only to the extent that is typically the sitting president's responsibility to jump on board with the campaign rhetoric of his/her own party
No. In this case, simply carrying out the normal duties of the president could have been seen as political, given the context. Obama himself later mentioned this and indicated it was why he hadn't acted sooner, especially with Trump already making the "rigged election" charges.
>If there had been evidence
There was evidence, as repeatedly and publicly corroborated by 17 U.S. intelligence agencies.
>For a president to do that weeks before a new administration takes over is abundantly petty
He was still president and doing his job. Had we been attacked militarily, it's doubtful that anyone would advocate that he await Trump to respond.
The attack on our electoral process was no less destructive in the eyes of those of us who value our democracy.
> There was evidence, as repeatedly and publicly corroborated by 17 U.S. intelligence agencies.
This is one of the false statements that gets repeated over and over. There was not evidence presented to the public, only an assessment in which the NSA felt it was only marginally probable that meddling had occurred, and it was only from a small number of agencies. The document was also an informal, unusual concoction that is not the typical product of intelligence analysis under any circumstances.
I've critiqued that document before on HN, but the bottom line is that it was an extremely amateurish and embarrassing hodge podge of pasted-in boilerplate, wild speculation, and hand waving that intentionally blurred the line between all sorts of disconnected things and attempted to present a narrative of a Russian conspiracy.
But it all rests on trusting the agencies who concocted such an embarrassing document. We're told that the proof was redacted for security reasons, but I think that such grandiose claims ought to be accompanied by at least the tiniest bit of non-circumstantial evidence. Note that HRC supporters (and McCain, as is often the case) were chest-pounding and calling for war. I think a bit of skepticism is in order considering that it wasn't long ago that we were misled into another very costly war.
I have heard this critique repeated frequently and was pretty sure it would be trotted out here.
I am not referring specifically to that document, but to the repeated public assertion that the intelligence agencies had reached a consensus, combined with the reality that the assertion itself went unchallenged by those agencies. They could have easily denied those claims. Yes, I am aware that this area was not the specific purview of all agencies, however, the united front represented the intelligence community coalescing around this finding.
And, you assail the document, but do you expect them to divulge sources and methods?
>But it all rests on trusting the agencies
No. It actually doesn't. You look at all of the other evidence and ask whether the agencies' explanation is plausible in that context. The strange affinty that Trump has for Putin, the inexplicable modification of key RNC platform elements in favor of Putin, the telegraphing of lifting sanctions, the connections and contacts between Trump associates and Russia, the lying about said contacts, the entire Wikileaks operation, and on and on.
Via raw common sense alone, it is actually difficult to believe any other conclusion except that found by our intelligence agencies. What are you suggesting, that we instead believe Russian denials? Or that we believe some conspiracy theory that HRC was directing the intelligence agencies or they otherwise went rogue to elect her by making up a conclusion that happened to make perfect sense, and which many observers had already reached?
> you assail the document, but do you expect them to divulge sources and methods?
Of course! After the multi-Trillion dollar fiasco in Iraq I absolutely think that the raw evidence for grandiose claims about foreign threats must be disclosed without artifice to the people.
We learned from the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs that our leaders classified information not to protect people or methods but to hide aspects of the war effort from the American people. This is a high and vicious crime, and nobody was held accountable for it.
You are advocating placing blind trust in people who have not only been wrong, but have been intentionally wrong in an attempt to mislead and misdirect us.
> Via raw common sense alone,
The mistake you make here is to assume that we can apply comnon sense when the landscape of "facts" we are considering has been contrived and heavily influenced by people who want a specific outcome.
I'm not arguing that Russia did not meddle in the election or any making any specific claim about Russia, just making the point that common sense is not something we can rely on, and so our default judgement should be to de-escalate rather than escalate tensions with a nuclear power.
Nope. I stated the opposite: that all of the evidence already pointed us in this direction. No blind trust required.
>The mistake you make here is to assume that we can apply common sense
Ah, yes, the ol' "who ya' gonna trust, me or your lyin' eyes?" defense. Sorry, I prefer that my fellow Americans leave our eyes and brains switched on. We really need them these days, what with the shills and propagandists running rampant.
>the landscape of "facts" we are considering has been contrived and heavily influenced
The landscape of facts to which many of us are referring don't require quotes and include the otherwise inexplicable words out of Trump's mouth, coupled with his actions, removal of key parts of the RNC platform in Russia's favor, secret connections with his aides and the subsequent lying and admissions, etc. We know enough as irrefutable fact without relying on our intelligence agencies. Odd that you suggest we ignore it all.
>I'm not arguing that Russia did not meddle...our default judgement should be to de-escalate rather than escalate tensions
This argument comes straight out of Trump's mouth and makes no sense. It's essentially an argument for encouraging any adversary who wishes to extract concessions from us to simply attack us.
And, where else do we advocate responding to direct attacks with kindness? Where else do we advocate not holding aggressors responsible and instead to appease or "de-escalate", as you put it? Indeed the normally bellicose Trump himself has inexplicably treated our allies far less favorably than a foreign aggressor. Now, why is that?
I do not pay attention to Trump or anything he says. I think your perspective on these issues is unduly influenced by Trump's claims and your conviction that if Trump claims something it must be false.
> And, where else do we advocate responding to direct attacks with kindness? Where else do we advocate not holding aggressors responsible and instead to appease or "de-escalate", as you put it? Indeed the normally bellicose Trump himself has inexplicably treated our allies far less favorably than a foreign aggressor. Now, why is that?
This is the argument George W. Bush made about Iraq and why it was necessary to overthrow Saddam.
> Odd that you suggest we ignore it all.
> Ah, yes, the ol' "who ya' gonna trust, me or your lyin' eyes?" defense
I think it depends on what you consider evidence. If you can't imagine renting a VPS in Ukraine and running some scripts on it, I suppose the evidence is convincing.
>I think your perspective on these issues is unduly influenced by Trump's claims
Nope. Just the facts.
>This is the argument George W. Bush made about Iraq
"Because, Iraq" is not a magical dismissal for everything the U.S. does forevermore. It's possible (and sensible) to disagree with the Iraq War and Russian attacks on our democracy. In fact, that's where most Americans stand.
>If you can't imagine renting a VPS in Ukraine and running some scripts
Yeah, that or the 400lb guy in his basement makes more sense than what the U.S. intelligence agencies concluded.
But, AGAIN, ignore the agencies and just look at Trump's counterintuitive, but consistent behavior.
The implication of CIA having high confidence and NSA having moderate confidence was that the intelligence came more from humans sources rather than signals intelligence.
This makes it more difficult to show proof. What kind of proof would be sufficient enough to be convincing, without burning the source? I cannot think of a good answer to that question, although I truly wish they did figure out a way to declassify some of the evidence used to create their judgements.
> not the typical product of intelligence analysis under any circumstances.
This statement is untrue. That release is absolutely what an Intelligence Community Assessment looks like. Other declassified ICAs are public, so you do not even need to take my word for it.
> was that the intelligence came more from humans sources rather than signals intelligence.
My read of it was that there was not any human or signals intelligence, only that the idea that Russia meddled in the US election fit with an established notion of what Russia might wish to do, so there was not really any need for evidence.
The closest thing to evidence was blaming an individual in the Ukraine for allegedly acting at the behest of the Russian government.
In order to be credible, the analysis would have to offer a sense of what Russia/Putin's alleged strategic mindset was. How did he benefit from the overwhelmingly likely event that HRC got elected and revelations that Russia meddled came out?
One must believe not only that Putin meddled, but that he saw Trump's victory as a sure thing and worth risking escalation over.
It seems likely that if someone like HRC or McCain had been in office, retaliatory military action by the US might have occurred.
The attribution of those hacks did not implicate Russia and especially did not implicate Putin. There may be other, secret evidence that does, but it was not revealed to the public for scrutiny.
I think it goes without saying that Russia engages in mischief around the world in ways that hinder the US, and the US does the same to Russia.
Nothing about this is a sudden, triggering event that calls for military strikes (as McCain has called them an "act of war").
The notable aspect of all this is not that it happened, but that it is being framed with the same "we must unseat Saddam immediately" urgency that we have seen before when warmongers try to manipulate our judgment.
A lot of people risked their lives to end the cold war. I can think of few things more irresponsible than fanning the flames of a minor incident to the point where someone like McCain is calling for military retaliation (which he effectively did).
It could be argued that a stronger bluff was needed against Russia over the Caucuses or Crimea, but that ship has sailed and the opportunity was lost. We can count on US hawks to try to turn any event into a trigger, but that doesn't mean it is a big deal or that it represents a threat to US national security.
I just read them again. There is clearly a great effort being made to embellish the evidence so that it seems like state actor caliber work.
I think we can safely assume that the US and Russia conduct steady amounts of mischief toward each-other, and that it's largely out of the public view. Some of it likely includes hacking attempts, etc.
But the very documents you link say that while the groups in question were not previously linked to the Russian government, there is suddenly reason to believe they are (namely the release of the DNC emails).
So for some reason previous JARs had not felt it worthwhile to speculate about state actors being involved, suddenly this link to the Russian state became the most relevant aspect. Hmm.
I think it's quite plausible that Russia pays several groups of hackers a few million dollars a year to conduct mischief. For all we know the US pays similar (or even the same) groups to do mischief.
We're told that there is an arbitrary code execution vulnerability that was responsible for the DNC hack, but we're also told that a user fell victim to a phishing email. While both might be true, which of these pieces of evidence can we attribute to the DNC hack?
It was revealed previously that the server at the DNC was not patched and was likely vulnerable for many months. Any number of actors could have gained access to it, installed rootkits, etc.
With all the leaks and embarrassing revelations coming out about US intelligence agencies, I think it's best to remain highly skeptical of any information revealed that has a political impact.
A few months ago people were angry that James Comey handed the election to Donald Trump, now the same people are certain that the best explanation for the DNC email leaks is a Russian state-sponsored attack.
The truth is likely somewhere in the middle. Sure, Russia probably has a constant mischief campaign (as does, quite likely, the US), but within 24 hours of the DNC email leaks there were loud accusations of Russian involvement before Crowdstrike had done any analysis.
Reading the actual emails reveals an organizational culture that was extremely technically inept and that did not take it security seriously at all.
To put this in perspective, any serious state actor would have owned a vulnerable server being used by a major US political figure within hours after the server became vulnerable, and no trail would have been left. US intelligence warned the HRC about the vulnerable server multiple times because the US, a state actor, is on top of it.
How difficult is it to periodically scan the list of a few hundred IP addresses used by top officials for known vulnerabilities. This is by far the most plausible explanation for how a state actor would handle the situation.
If anything the FancyBear group and other similar groups are just hackers for hire who periodically sell some results to the Russian government.
I think it's important to consider that if you have the budget of a state actor you don't do many of the things that are used as evidence in this narrative.
> I just read them again. There is clearly a great effort being made to embellish the evidence so that it seems like state actor caliber work.
You very clearly didn't read them before this when you said there was no evidence other than that Russia might want to meddle in the election, and from your post, it seems unlikely you read them "again" just now. The hacks used implants that were only ever used by the respective groups, which had only targeted organizations that the Russian government was pursuing and were known to be RIS groups by multiple security firms long before the DNC attack even happened. The implants were dropped through spearphishing campaigns with forms hosted on known RIS infrastructure.
> within 24 hours of the DNC email leaks there were loud accusations of Russian involvement before Crowdstrike had done any analysis
> US intelligence warned the HRC about the vulnerable server multiple times because the US, a state actor, is on top of it.
HRC had nothing to do with the compromised DNC server, so US intelligence wouldn't have warned her and did not. Where are you getting this ridiculous assertion from?
> The hacks used implants that were only ever used by the respective groups, which had only targeted organizations that the Russian government was pursuing and were known to be RIS groups
So you're arguing that if you were state sponsored intelligence agency and you were using a crude technique that could be easily detected, that you'd only target organizations that your state had obvious strategic interest in?
Your assertion fails a test of reasonableness for several reasons. The most obvious of which is that since there are thousands of Nigerians doing the same kind of phishing campaigns, so there would be no tactical reason not to include a large number of randomly generated email addresses or email addresses from other hacked lists.
One obvious example is the Stratfor dump. Who were Stratfor's subscribers? Largely members of government agencies, large institutions, etc. Any hacking group would have had access to all of the emails in the dump, as well as other publicly available caches of email addresses.
Also, if you were a state actor wishing to conduct a phishing campaign like the one we're discussing, why would you dispatch it from the Ukraine? Even the links you sent claim it's quite unusual for the sender address of a phishing email to be the same as the one registered to the domain, but this fact is not deemed worthy of consideration.
So we're now down to three main possibilities: Either the state actor in question is extremely amateurish and careless, or it wasn't a state actor, or it was a state actor intending to lay a misleading trail.
My point is simply that it's very presumptuous to jump to the conclusion that it was definitely a state actor and definitely Russia.
The article you linked would perhaps be somewhat trustworthy if it were not the case that the NYT had a clear intent on helping HRC's candidacy and has been one of the chief supporters of propaganda about Russia. I consider the NYT to be America's own Pravda.
The article contains assertions that are not accompanied by data. We're told that one of the DNC's computers was "phoning home" to "Russia" but there is sadly no reason to believe this or any of the other information in the article.
I'd also add that due to the NYT's very poor adherence to journalistic best-practices and basic professionalism during the campaign, reading an article like that makes me doubt the truthfulness of the claims even more than I would have without reading it.
While there are a few good reporters left at the NYT, the paper has a set of propaganda goals that often take precedence over truthful reporting and real journalism. This is deeply saddening to me, as I would hope that our nation would have at least one reputable large news organization.
FWIW I'm horrified that Trump won the election, and did not expect him to, but I would also have been horrified (though less so) if HRC had won. We can do so much better.
> I would also have been horrified (though less so) if HRC had won.
It is clear from the rest of your comments that your perception of the world is divorced from reality, that no matter how many reports from the FBI and private security firms confirm the Russian link with none saying otherwise, you believe you know better. There was nothing horrifying about HRC.
Personally I do not have enough knowledge on the circumstances to credibly argue one way or another with regards to the alleged meddling.
> My read of it was that there was not any human or signals intelligence, only that the idea that Russia meddled in the US election fit with an established notion of what Russia might wish to do, so there was not really any need for evidence.
This is not the case. The declassified version only had open source evidence. In combination with the fact that the general public is not going to know how exactly to read an ICA or read between the lines, the release was not very helpful, as it understandably lead many to think that they were presenting their full case, rather than the reality of "evidence is too sensitive so here is some analysis of RT!" being what they put in the ICA. Definitely not a good strategy, as I said, this would have been far better for critical discussion if they figured out a way to declassify actual evidence.
> this would have been far better for critical discussion if they figured out a way to declassify actual evidence.
True. I think it's very important in situations like this to recall how the alleged evidence for the Iraq war turned out not to exist. The methods used by intelligence agencies are far from infallible.
This is not a reasonable conclusion. It seems clear that Russia felt it didn't have much to lose, given their behavior prior to the election, including their own fiery rhetoric.
And, the notion that we would have "likely" engaged militarily is not only unfounded, it is highly improbable.
Russia's strategic mindset and their method for waging war has been oft-repeated by the intelligence community, foreign policy experts, and pretty much anyone whose job it is to assess these things. It's easy to find. But, you honestly don't seem to believe anything from those who express concern for U.S. national interest in this matter, unless it comes from Trump, of course.
> the notion that we would have "likely" engaged militarily is not only unfounded, it is highly improbable.
I think you are mistaken about this. There was great disagreement between Obama and HRC on how to handle Russia, and many such as McCain (and HRC) felt that the US lost a key opportunity to forcefully stop Russia from conducting mischief in Europe and the middle east.
All that was needed, as HRC was days away from being sworn in, was the right triggering event. I think HRC's team began the high intensity Russia-blaming while still under the impression that HRC would be commander in chief very soon.
Possibly. If you ignore the fact that your claim is pure conjecture that departs sharply from our history of dealing with Russia. Moreover, confronting Russia militarily over election-hacking would have been a strikingly disproportionate response.
On the other hand, you seem to be ignoring Russia's rhetoric and posturing at the time. And, also the fact that they'd already invaded a sovereign nation.
Instead, you've managed to turn it all around to paint those in the U.S. who expressed concern over Russia's agression as the actual aggressors.
And you've combined that stance with intense scrutiny of U.S. intelligence conclusions that seem to perfectly explain Trump's otherwise inexplicable behavior.
> U.S. intelligence conclusions that seem to perfectly explain Trump's otherwise inexplicable behavior.
I think this statement needs to be flushed out a bit to understand the absurdity of it. What is the objective of Trump's behavior? I see no pattern or strategy in it, other than a series of PR stunts intended to keep everyone distracted.
>ignoring Russia's rhetoric
What rhetoric are you referring to?
> confronting Russia militarily over election-hacking would have been a strikingly disproportionate response
What is the difference between a missile that takes out a power grid and a computer virus that takes out a power grid? Over the past decade hawks in the US have been honing their propaganda message about cyber "warfare" and cyber "terrorism".
There will be a situation where a hack or computer virus unleashed against US interests triggers retaliation in the form of missiles. I think this is going to happen sooner rather than later. The US would rather this happen sooner to avoid a messy ethical debate and the associated delays.
Just as it took a lot of practice to vilify Saddam to the point where GWB asking that he step down and being refused seemed like justification for missiles and bombs, it will take a while to create enough consent among the US public to allow our leaders to send strikes in retaliation for hacking.
Right now, vague Russian meddling is our "training wheels" phase. We're meant to be indignant, and to align against Russia. The next time there won't be as much vagueness and there will be more obvious harm (not just embarrassment).
Leaders of democracies are shackled by the need to convince the people that war is necessary. The widespread apathy that helps our leaders in most cases turns against them when it comes to warmaking, and a lot of effort must be undertaken to turn us against a foe to the point where we'd sacrifice anything.
Drone wars, and other relatively inexpensive, indirect war methods are a way to maintain apathy while still projecting force, but an adversary like Russia is powerful enough that techniques like this won't work and the public will have to be engaged and will have to consent.
I'm not arguing that this hawkish, war-making stance is against US interests. I'm not making a claim about that.
>What is the objective of Trump's behavior? I see no pattern or strategy in it
LOL. That would make you the only person on the planet in that category. Whatever your value judgment of the actors, it's completely disingenous to just pretend there are no patterns.
>What is the difference between a missile that takes out a power grid and a computer virus that takes out a power grid?
Seriously? Now you're walking back your claim by conflating it with cyberhacking? I could reply further, but I'm trying to stick to things that actually happened vs. imaginary scenarios.
And, in all of this, you keep advocating that it's the U.S.'s responsibility to simply stand down.
>Over the past decade hawks in the US have been honing their propaganda message about cyber "warfare" and cyber "terrorism".
You contradicted your previous statement by now asserting that there actually is a difference that requires propaganda to conflate.
>took a lot of practice to vilify Saddam
You keep invoking that. FWIW, I and many other Americans disagreed with the Iraq war. That doesn't mean we now believe that we should let any adversary undermine our democracy and attack us with impunity. You don't seem to appreciate the difference.
Many Americans love our country, in spite of its mistakes. We believe the solution is to push for it to be better in accordance with its ideals, not advocate that foreign adversaries undermine it or to appease those who do.
>We're meant to be indignant
Any right-thinking American is indignant at any attack on our freedom and democracy.
You seem to completely underestimate the resolve of average Americans when aroused. The disinformation campaign has some off-balance. That won't last.
The only pattern is this: Trump says something outrageous and gets the media focused on what he said. This continues until he says another outrageous thing, attracting attention at will. He's like a human teasing a cat with a bamboo pole with a piece of yarn attached.
I don't assume any motive other than to control media attention. GWB used this technique when Rumsfeld said various outrageous things (such as about torture), and WJC used the technique effectively during his scandals.
What is Trump's motive? Certainly his remarks during the campaign about wanting better relations with Russia were intended to stir the pot, not to (stupidly) telegraph some sort of quid-pro-quo with the Russian government.
> Now you're walking back your claim by conflating it with cyberhacking?
I am not making the claim as my own view, simply stating that one of the objectives of all this is to get Americans to take cyber warfare seriously. The likely scenario for cyber attacks are surprise attacks on infrastructure that will not be easy to attribute blame for, so the public must be ready to suspect the likely foes so that consent for military action can be granted in a timely fashion.
> Many Americans love our country, in spite of its mistakes. We believe the solution is to push for it to be better in accordance with its ideals, not advocate that foreign adversaries undermine it or to appease those who do.
This is a silly comment. Of course Americans want America to be successful. I think you overlook the decades long strategy the US has had toward Russia which, if it is in fact part of Russia's strategy, the election meddling fits into, as does the vilification of Russia.
> Any right-thinking American is indignant at any attack on our freedom and democracy.
Yet in this case the "attack" simply revealed one of our pols to be a bit more corrupt and dishonest than anyone realized. It's hard to say whether this actually harmed the US. FWIW the closure of the Clinton foundation after donations dried up following the scandal suggest that it was a gray market campaign finance scheme.
> Any right-thinking American is indignant at any attack on our freedom and democracy.
I figured you represented the right-wing view, and yes, the American right is very hawkish about Russia.
>The only pattern is this...his remarks during the campaign about wanting better relations with Russia were intended to stir the pot
LOL. That's absurd on its face. His deference to Russia and Putin is complete and it's not just his public rhetoric, but backchannel nods that were not intended to be revealed for public shock or otherwise, and favorable RNC platform changes and beyond.
And, all of this in the context of Russian election interference, designed to rig the election in his favor. He long-denied that rigging, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. But, even he was finally forced to admit the intelligence agencies had it right. Still, here you are.
Sorry. Real things happened that can't be dismissed as pot-stirring rhetoric.
>not to (stupidly) telegraph
One would think it would be stupid, but then, here you are trying to shill for him in spite of it.
>I am not making the claim as my own view...
In one sense, that's probably the most accurate thing you've said.
But, you seem to have thoroughly confused yourself here vis-a-vis your original asinine assertion, which was that Clinton likely would have responded militarily to Russia's election-meddling. Now, you're throwing in stuff about later cyber-attacks on infrastructure, etc. that would precipitate such a response. BTW, that "Clinton would have started WW3" rhetoric is exactly the fear-mongering coming out of Russia during the campaign. Funny how you are in complete lock-step with Russian propaganda.
>I think you overlook the decades long strategy the US...
I don't. I just look at what's happening now.
Most Americans actually want an investigation. But, even those who don't aren't so starkly anti-American/pro-Russian as you.
>This is a silly comment
I would say more corny than silly, but I just wanted to help you understand how most Americans feel about our country, since you don't seem to be familiar with that.
>I figured you represented the right-wing view
By "right-thinking", I meant correct or clear, not politically right. It's a figure-of-speech. I'm hardly a hawk. But, the real question is what are you, exactly?
> LOL. That's absurd on its face. His deference to Russia and Putin is complete...
Just to be clear, there have been two factions in the US with respect to Russia after the wall came down. Obama did not view Russia as a threat and took significant criticism from those who did. The factions cross party lines. Rubio is vehemently (absurdly) anti-Russia, as is McCain. McCain called for escalation, perhaps military action when Russia invaded the Caucuses and Crimea. HRC shares McCain's and Rubio's stance on Russia. Trump apparently shares Obama's and during the campaign indicated he would likely be even more open to normalized relations with Russia.
Note that Trump has reversed course on many (if not the majority) of his campaign promises. He is very unlikely to consider any policy that would alter the balance of power between US, NATO and Russia.
The issue is that because the US has not been able to keep Putin in check, the balance of power is shifting in Russia's advantage. Putin would happily drag the US into a proxy war in Syria and a proxy war in Iran. Trump is taking the bait on Iran, HRC took the bait on Syria.
No matter which proxy war the US gets into, Putin gains strength.
The US did not act to stop Putin's aggression in Crimea or the Caucuses and even hawks like McCain and HRC realize it is probably too late to prevent the inevitable rise of Russia relative to a struggling Europe. Trump may or may not realize this yet. I think his campaign rhetoric was mainly a PR strategy and has little bearing on the policy the US actually follows during his time in office.
As Europe struggles, Russia will seek to re-align with former Soviet bloc nations and offer favorable trade options, etc. The US does not have the will or the resources to thwart this, and by not intervening over the past few years, the US has sent a message to those nations that it does not have their back.
HRC and McCain realize that the longer the US waits, the harder it will be to threaten Russia militarily. Obama's sanctions were the last arrow in the quiver. Russia is in no hurry now that the momentum is in Russia's favor.
HRC did everything possible to send the message to Putin that the US would engage fully in Syria and not put up with anything. But what will the US do besides spend 10x or 100x what Russia spends in a Syrian nation building disaster? Meanwhile, Russia makes inroads into Iran and works the other angle.
It's important to keep in mind that the reason the US invaded Iraq was mainly to get there before Russia did. During the Soviet era, the Iran/Iraq war left the region vulnerable, and after the Soviet Union fell there was a period when the US didn't really worry too much about it. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait offered the US an excuse to project power there, but before long Russian firms had trillions of dollars worth of oil extraction contracts in Iran and Iraq, and Russia was on track to gain undue influence in the region, since there was no actual loyalty to the US.
GWB invaded Iraq and took the first step, and he snubbed Russia by restricting the spoils only to firms from coalition countries. This was basically stealing from Russian firms and giving the loot to coalition countries, all in the name of the "freedom" of the Iraqi people.
Soon it became clear that the US was over-extended in the middle east. The American public was tired of the costly wars, and the idea that the US was able to successfully nation build and bring freedom was becoming more and more obviously hollow.
So Russia focused on aligning with Assad and with Iran. Obama tried to prevent the situation in Iran using a carrot, HRC wanted to prevent the situation in Syria with a ground war.
The key point is that Trump will be forced to take a stance on both of these and it is fairly unlikely that he'll act in a way that benefits Russia over the medium term. European nations have a lot of influence in the US, and most do not want a more powerful Russia.
We don't know how far along the path of brinksmanship a US hawk would take us, but Trump is navigating to ward the brink with Iran. If there is a coherent policy taking shape, he might try to make a deal with Russia allowing Russia's influence in Syria to continue, but he's just as likely to renege on the arrangement as Putin is, so I don't think it really changes the strategic equilibrium or the inevitable transformation Russia into a power having clout that is a bit closer to the level it has known for most of European history.
>Just to be clear, there have been two factions in the US with respect to Russia after the wall came down...Trump apparently shares Obama's...
That proposition treats the decades since the wall came down as static, without any action or directional policy shifts in Russia, U.S. or the world. You later acknowledge, without truly accounting for, dramatic events such as Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and direct attacks on U.S. democracy.
And, certainly, you don't expect anyone to believe that Trump and Obama share the same position with regard to Russia or, for that matter, that Trump's position (including rhetoric and concessions) are like those held by any serious U.S. official in that sphere. Whatever you think of their "hawkishness", HRC, McCain, etc. aren't the odd ones here. Your guy is.
In general, your recounting of recent history and your purported estimation of Trump's position and future intent leaves out an entire universe of conspicuously related facts; thus your conclusions are just wrong. Sprinkling in somehwat cogent nods to a few facets of the current geopolitical situation does nothing to obscure this.
I'm not defending Trump. His campaign strategy was to say somewhat ludicrous things and then when challenged, double down on them, thus amplifying the PR impact. To be quite clear, for every person who socially shared an article slamming one of Trump's ridiculous statements, perhaps 90% of their friends agreed, but the message also reached the 10% who approved of Trump's approach, or saw in it evidence he was not part of the establishment.
While I abhor Trump's approach of appealing to the worst parts of human nature (bigotry, fear, etc.) to rally support, it's sadly a very common technique used by politicians. HRC at one point in her career called for a "physical barrier" between the southern US and Mexico, and focused her talking points on "criminal aliens". Yes, HRC was playing to fear and bigotry when she said those things, just as Trump was when he called for a wall and described immigrants as "rapists". Trump brought a new level of crassness to something that had existed before but was spoken about in tones of moderation even though the intended audience read between the lines and found (and was animated by) the bigotry.
> you don't expect anyone to believe that Trump and Obama share the same position with regard to Russia
This is not the point of my comment. What I meant was that no president really has the power to dramatically shift US policy toward Russia, there are too many interest groups involved. The two main factions, those who are willing to accommodate Russia's adolescent mischief (led by strong man Putin taking the country for an authoritarian joy ride), and those who wish to send a signal that it will not be tolerated.
We've had 8 years of the former, during which time Putin has had quite a joy ride. Trump is inclined to let it continue, while HRC would likely have tried to put a stop to it one way or another. It's not clear Obama would do anything different than Trump in terms of policy. The revelations about alleged Russian meddling date back to July 2016, and according to the article you linked, it was known about for years prior. Yet Obama declined to impose sanctions, preferring instead some sort of back-channel communication (if any response at all).
Obama's decision to impose sanctions two weeks before the end of his term was likely a nod to the prevailing Democratic Party view, which Obama had not attempted to shape during the campaign. He had to be loyal to his party, and likely did the least consequential thing he could, sent a few people home and imposed sanctions that would be awkward for Trump to remove, etc.
So if you ignore Trump's rhetoric (as I think it is wise to ignore most of what politicians say, and instead focus on what they do), he is staying the course 100% with Obama's policy. Let's wait until there is actual policy change before concluding that he feels differently. We've seen him do a 180 on so many other campaign promises since taking office, why should Russia be any different?
> dramatic events such as Russia's invasion of Ukraine
US policy on this matter was set by president Obama and the congress at the time. The relevant before picture and after picture (in terms of US policy) have nothing to do with Trump unless he actually drives a policy change. There was a minority (including McCain, HRC, etc.) who harshly criticized Obama's inaction. This minority has become very vocal of late, and has attracted many HRC partisans to the chorus, but there is not really evidence that a majority of congress holds this view. Notably, the members of the GOP who are most vehement are the ones whose own opportunism calculus dictates that vocally calling out Trump on the issue suits their own personal objectives.
From a game theoretic perspective, I think the hawks may be right, though I personally hope we find a more peaceful, trade-driven equilibrium. I've worked with various Ukrainian and Russian software engineers before, and they are all nice, reasonable people who do not deserve to have the US launching missiles at them.
>I'm not defending Trump...it's sadly a very common technique used by politicians. HRC at one point in her career...
Sure, you're defending him, by normalizing it through false moral equivalence. You can't say Trump has done anything wrong without invoking HRC, GWB, or someone else. That also happens to be a well-known Russian propaganda technique.
>So if you ignore Trump's rhetoric
Again, it has already gone beyond rhetoric, which I've noted exhaustively, including the RNC platform change. And, ignoring what he says is not wise in any case, as it sets the stage for policy. Further, contrary to what you state, he has not done "a 180 on so many other campaign promises".
>This is not the point of my comment... It's not clear Obama would do anything different than Trump
These two statements contradict, and the latter points back to your previous post that attempted to conflate Trump's position on Russia with Obama's. In fact, they couldn't be more different. Start with the biggest: sanctions.
>do not deserve to have the US launching missiles at them.
More propaganda in lock-stop with Russian fear-mongering. As if the choices are a.) defer to and appease Russia or b.) nuclear holocaust. And again, in your view, Russia never has responsibility in any of it. Invade countries, attack democratic processes, etc. And, the onus is on the U.S. to simply try to find some "trade equilibrium".
You should consider being more open about what you really believe. If you think you're in the right, then there's really no need to dissemble and hide. You just lose credibility. Just make your case in the open and people can process it on the merits. As it is, you repeatedly contradict yourself and morph positions, and much of what you write is demonstrably false.
So, feel free to continue solo with your walls of words.
What do you make of Snowden's assertion that he could have eavesdropped on anyone he wanted? Was he failing to mention that his actions could be audited? Was he failing to mention that he had access to someone else's PKI with which to do the surveillance? Other?
Assuming you have knowledge of how the intelligence agencies work:
- Which agency is the process you described applicable to?
- Are you certain it is the same in other agencies?
- Are you aware of any loopholes (or might Snowden have been?) which would have allowed it to happen without consent from higher level officials?
I do not have a belief one way or another about whether Trump was "wiretapped". My intent was to apply the logical consequence of the Snowden revelations to the issue being discussed, and flag the FISA warrant argument as a straw man.