BI: Putin chooses not to respond to Obama sanctions, diplomat expulsion

Will Truman

Will Truman is the Editor-in-Chief of Ordinary Times. He is also on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

84 Responses

  1. InMD says:

    I just don’t understand the Obama administration’s thought process on this. Expelling the Russian diplomats has had no substantive impact of any kind, and we’re probably lucky that the Kremlin is playing it this way. The move looks like sour grapes based on the election results and like the article says, is going to give Putin a propaganda victory.Report

    • Stillwater in reply to notme says:

      Man, are you suggesting what I actually think you’re suggesting: that the entirety of the US government, spanning 17 departments, is engaging in a massive lie?

      Well, if we’ve reached that point, why do limit your criticisms to only Democrats and liberals…Report

      • Kazzy in reply to Stillwater says:

        Because only the Dems/liberals are involved. Obvs.Report

      • notme in reply to Stillwater says:

        I just presented information without suggesting any conclusion. Take the info as you will.

        I would say that the podesta email hack may be different that the DNC hack. Its never been clear if they are seperate or part of the same hack.Report

        • Stillwater in reply to notme says:

          “notme presents, you decide.”Report

        • Joe M. in reply to notme says:

          The are clearly separate if you believe technical details disclosed by CrowdStrike and details in the dumps themselves. (You should not fully trust dumps, there is no assurance the leaker has not tampered.)

          The Podesta and Powell hacks are separate but part of the same campaign. The method used to gain access, spearfishing and stealing credentials, would only gain access to what that individual has. This attack only requires a malacious server to capture the credentials and sending an email to the target. We are almost certain that they were part of the same campaign because the leak of URLs by the hackers contained both Podesta’s and Powell’s accounts and the breaches happened at about the same time.

          For the DNC emails CrowdStrike details implants in the DNC network itself that were active for some time. They dont detail DNC email system or what level of access the attackers had to it. It appears that they were somewhat fenced during the period in which they were active. This is much more invasive and therefore potentially much more informative. It appears they were watched for some time before being ejected, so I am certain MUCH more (volumes more) is known than is disclosed in the blog post.

          Really the only similarities are the target (things close to Clinton or Democratic Party) and exfiltrated data (emails). This is awful thin to call things the same.

          Personally, I look at the Podesta and Powell email compromises as separate “hacks” since they were independent of each other. Same as if a burgler broke in to two different buildings using the same methods. We would consider it two break ins instead of one.Report

          • Kim in reply to Joe M. says:

            So, from what I’ve heard, someone came in and ransacked the DNC servers.
            Then the Russians came in, and left fingerprints behind.

            Wikileaks didn’t get the data from the Russians, but that’s not surprising.Report

            • Mr.Joe in reply to Kim says:

              Care to share the bit about ransacking the servers?

              The Russian’s did not just leave fingerprints behind at DNC. They were caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Same sets of well developed highly sophisticated tools seen by these same groups before.Report

              • Kim in reply to Mr.Joe says:

                Yeah, Americans who cared about not leaving fingerprints (this is kinda illegal) came in and grabbed the data — all the data. They left the door open, and the Russians came in afters and found it easy pickin’s.

                So, I’m not denying that Russians had the data (but, again, Clinton’s SeccyState private emails? Israel had them a full year before the FBI did)Report

              • Joe M. in reply to Kim says:

                News to me. Anything to substantiate?Report

              • Kim in reply to Joe M. says:

                I have my source, who has worked extensively for the Clintons, as well as a whole lot of other Washingtonians.

                Same folks that had to yell at Clinton’s team repeatedly to get them to understand that they couldn’t just deny that the e-mails exist.

                Here’s Julian:

                (Now, he’s just noting that the DNC was getting hacked repeatedly)Report

              • Mr.Joe in reply to Kim says:

                He is clearly lied that some if not all the emails are after the allegations of Russian involvement occurred.

                If you go to the archive and search for keyword “the” and sort by newest. You get May 25 as the newest.

                Notice that the CrowdStrike WP was released over a month BEFORE WikiLeaks released the archive. Notice also, that the article says they did their work in May.

                You should chat with your sources about them blowing clearly verifiable smoke up your butt.Report

              • rmass in reply to Joe M. says:

                I dont know if your new joe, but kimmi has all the sources. Kim knows all, thanks to her legion of friends.Report

              • Kim in reply to rmass says:

                Relatively weak on sports, actually (something that should surprise no one. sports are pretty boring, mostly). And where I have any knowledge whatsoever, it tends to be second and third hand.
                (this is not to say that I don’t know at least a bit about blackmail and skulduggery involved in the throwing of pigskins, but that’s not actually sports).Report

              • Mr.Joe in reply to rmass says:

                Been around a while, I mostly lurk. Seems that someone usually says what I am thinking far better than I can, before I say it.

                It never hurts to ask. In this case, I won the lottery and got a source back. One that was easily verifiable as full of it. NEAT!Report

      • InMD in reply to Stillwater says:

        @stillwater I want to submit to you that this kind of critique is one of the things that made Trump’s victory possible. I’m not saying it isn’t possible that the Russians are behind the hack(s). I am saying that these agencies you’re talking about have a very sordid history when it comes to the truth, and the traditional media has a very recent history of being manipulated into being mouthpieces of behind the scenes actors with an agenda.

        Just saying ‘well x agency says so, and someone who works there but refused to be named or provide any details confirmed it to the Washington Post’ can’t cut it anymore. This is especially so when the campaign that lost spent months saying these leaks were immaterial (and as far as influencing the election I think they probably were, unless the contention is that they were the last straw in making a bunch of blue collar workers around the Great Lakes who voted Obama twice switch sides or stay home).

        From our conversations before you know I had no love for HRC but I do oppose Trump. Those of us on the broader liberal side of the equation need to get back to showing our work. Relying on appeals to authority that fewer and fewer people find credible (something I see as justified by recent history) is a losing strategy. Focusing on this nonsense with the Russians isn’t helping.Report

        • Gaelen in reply to InMD says:

          But it’s not x agency. It’s every intelligence agency and most members of birth parties who have been briefed, with a decent a amount of work shown by private companies who have looked at it.Report

          • InMD in reply to Gaelen says:

            I haven’t read up enough on the private entities (I’m attempting to do that with the links provided above) but the 17 agencies and various congress critters is still just an appeal to authority. I’m also not saying I don’t think it’s possible or even probable that there was some Russian involvement. I’m asking what the purpose of this move from the administration was, and what the point is that people who are freaking out over this are trying to make.

            Let’s assume for the sake of argument that everything that the intelligence agencies are saying is true and untainted by their various murky agendas. Let’s also give them a pass on how hypocritical it is for them of all people to raise concerns about foreign powers involving themselves in our domestic politics. What is the argument being made? Is it that the Russian hack caused people to know too much about Hilary Clinton and vote for someone else or not at all? If so, is that really a sound argument that Democrats should get behind, that they lost because the voters knew too much?

            Maybe there’s an angle I’m missing here but that sounds pretty silly to me, and not like something that’s going to get people to change their mind about the next candidate next time around.Report

            • Gaelen in reply to InMD says:

              I don’t think it is an ‘just’ an appeal to authority because it is backed up by the available evidence from private cyber crime experts from the U.S. and Europe, and it is not an appeal to the view of one expert or authority. In this country it is many entities and people with varying motivations and partisan affiliations all agreeing that it was most likely a Russian hack. When was the last time they all agreed on anything? I have no problem using their agreement as circumstantial evidence for Russian involvement.

              On your point, it’s that one sided hacks can provide a distorted and misleading view of the electoral choices. Look at their respective foundations. I think a large part of the reason most people would rate the Clinton foundation* ‘scandal’ as a bigger ethical lapse than the Trump foundation is because emails regarding it were regularly leaked, and stories on it were constantly in the news. This despite the fact that Trump has basically admitted in a tax return that he violated the law.

              Assuming it was Russia, the argument being made is that Russia cannot attempt to meddle in, discredit, or attempt to influence our democratic process without paying an economic or political price. I mean, Putin is attempting to undermine and discredit (throughout the US and Europe) the liberal democratic order that the U.S. has built over the last fifty to sixty years, and we are supposed to give it a pass because Clinton’s emails contained some good gossip? This effects more than just the U.S., though their actions here show they are growing increasingly confident in their meddling.

              I would also say that there is a place for privacy in politics and government. People who are afraid of their every word being used against them by partisan opponents are not going to give honest and frank advice.

              *I should say that the more I read on the Clinton Foundation the less I liked it, but it is no where near the boondoggle the Trump Foundation is.Report

              • Kim in reply to Gaelen says:

                Because we’ve done so much to Israel for Bibi’s blatant meddling.
                I mean, for god’s sake, he had the Clinton e-mails before the FBI did!!

                The Clinton Foundation was way, way worse than the Trump Foundation. Insidious creeping evil. (Please note: I would have voted for a corrupt Clinton.)Report

              • InMD in reply to Gaelen says:

                From my perspective it just isnt clear that this particular one sided hack (again, assuming for the sake of argument that the characterization we are getting is generally true and accurate) had some kind of decisive impact on the election. Right up through election day Clinton and her supporters were confident that it was a non-issue. I’ve seen no evidence that it was what turned the couple hundred thousand odd votes in the upper Midwest that gave victory to Trump.

                On the matter of how to handle Russia I’m fine with the idea of increasing security behind the scenes and looking for ways to keep them from exploiting holes more generally, the same as we would with any other country. What I don’t think is useful is a lame duck president firing a meaningless shot across the bow of a large, assertive nuclear power because his party lost an election, which is how this looks.

                On the issue of privacy in politics my heart wants to agree with you but my head and recent experience says that’s just not the kind of country we live in. Our federal government is largely run by people and institutions who are utterly allergic to transparency. If the price of a little sunlight is that politicians are also caught making embarassing or hypocritical remarks I think we have to take it. If people in power want to do something about it or regain moral authority then the answer is to stop classifying so much and to make government more open so we don’t have to rely on the Julian Assanges and Edward Snowdens of the world to find out what our government is actually doing.

                It’s also not like we’re talking about some insurgent political movement that got caught unaware by a foreign power and the cynical game of American politics. We’re talking about a heavily favored presidential candidate with massive institutional support in the government and the media.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD says:

                I once saw Wikileaks as that corrective measure, holding powerful governments accountable.
                Until I realized that Wikileaks is itself mysterious and opaque and powerful enough to access secrets and selectively manipulate information for whatever purpose they desire.
                Who are they? How do we know we can trust that the information they release hasn’t been redacted or manipulated? How can we ever corroborate their assertions?

                Wikileaks isn’t testimony- it can’t be examined, cross examined, studied for its veracity.

                I also notice that they share a lot in common with the actions of authoritarians and cultists in that they try to deny the legitimacy of any other sources of information except themselves.

                No one can be trusted, not the NYT, WaPo, Guardian, or cable news. Not the FBI or CIA.

                No, just Julian Assange.
                His word alone is credible and can be trusted without any corroboration.Report

              • Kim in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Well, there are answers to what the hell wikileaks is.
                It’s a hope and a prayer, that people can take information as it is, in raw form, and derive meaning from it.
                That we can pull away the censors and make our own news.

                Of course, I’m hardly going to post enough for you to believe me.Report

              • Mr.Joe in reply to Kim says:

                Look through all of their releases. You should quickly notice that nearly all are American and Western European secrets.

                It is believe impartiality to facts when there is clearly an agenda.Report

              • Kim in reply to Mr.Joe says:

                Mr. Joe,
                *eyeroll* threatening (or actually) publishing Swiss bank accounts does not imply “mostly western european and american secrets.”

                Here. Enjoy. They published stuff out of Iran too. Saudi Arabia, Kenya. Turkey (did you know Turkey invaded Iraq? News at never).

                If you’re wondering why there’s nothing from Eritrea, well, there’s a good reason for that. (And it starts with “wait, that’s an actual country?”)Report

              • Mr.Joe in reply to Kim says:

                I think I did say mostly. Most of the non-US, non-EU related stuff is older. Switzerland is pretty EU and seems to be situated westward in Europe last I checked. Cherry picking a few items that are over a year old and some much older really only makes my point for me.

                Turkey made news for various incursions into Iraq. The Kurdish issue would be a good one resolve. But most of the world seems to have bigger fish to fry.

                Good point on Eritrea. Now that mention I have not heard anything from Lichtenstein, Laos, or Lethoso lately. Are they up to no good?Report

              • Kim in reply to Mr.Joe says:

                Mr. Joe,
                It’s not like Julian pays people to leak stuff. People leak stuff when they want to leak stuff. (and that’s when blackmail and other methods of “fixing idiots in power” don’t work — trust me, there was some stuff the CDC was working on that deserved to hit Wikileaks).

                Swiss bank accounts are held by Powers that Be worldwide, if he threatens to shake that tree, it’s not something about Western Powers.

                The countries? Eh, not so much. If you want a country up to no good, you can look at Myanmar. But, you didn’t really expect Julian to release documents pointing to the reason for opening Myanmar to the rest of the world? (Sex trafficking for the Powers that Be).Report

              • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                I’m not and would never argue for blind trust in any organization, Wikileaks included. They’ve got their own agenda like everyone else (I’ve got a much more positive disposition to someone like Edward Snowden, based on what we know about him).

                However I also think Wikileaks is the direct and inevitable result of government policy. As I said above to Galen I do think there are plenty of obvious things Western governments could do with regard to their own conduct that would undermine the case Wikileaks makes for itself. They chose not to do those things and for that reason my sympathy is very limited.Report

              • Gaelen in reply to InMD says:

                On Obama’s response. Expelling intelligence agents/diplomats seems to be the common response, not just in this country but around the world. Bush did it in response to the Russian espionage caught by the FBI, and the Russians have done it to us. In this case Obama had to act fast to impose some penalty because his successor has a strangely cordial relationship with Russia and is motivated to do nothing. To me this says more about Trump than it does about Obama. I mean the harshest criticism of Obama’s actions from Republican leaders is that it was overdue.

                On privacy, I generally agree, but I would say that the problem is that the actual programs, policies, and actions are secret. I still think it is important that the discussion of those policies stay private for at least a while. Now, that’s not to say if there are leaks of those private conversations that they aren’t newsworthy, or shouldn’t be discussed, just that it is better when that is the exception rather than the rule.

                I don’t know if it was decisive. But I don’t think that’s what’s important. It’s that this, and worse, is happening throughout the western world. Pro-Western parties, groups, and people are being targeted in order to lay bare their faults and bolster pro-Russian and nationalist groups. At the end of the day the motivations for the leaks have to matter, at least a little. So, while we should certainly be cognizant for corruption or malfeasance when the infighting and dirty laundry of the Clinton campaign or some Latvian party that opposes Russia is hacked and leaked. In this case we let it dominate our discussion and tar a candidate without ever really providing us any real malfeasance. As many people have noted, we played right into their hands.

                On a final note, and this is just speculation on my part, but if they did find anything of real value it is just as likely that they would attempt to use it rather than leak it. Or I have watched to many action/thrillers recently.Report

              • InMD in reply to Gaelen says:

                I don’t want to speculate on what else Russia might do with whatever information it has. With regard to their foreign policy though this is where I’d like us to become a bit more circumspect about how our own actions are perceived abroad, and the precedents we’re setting. From Russia’s perspective we marched NATO right up to their doorsteps, have orchestrated regime changes, and put our own fingers on the scale in the internal politics of other countries (including supporting some corrupt and unsavory groups of our own in places where they have interests like Ukraine and Syria).

                This doesn’t mean I think well of Putin’s government or that the West shouldn’t defend it’s actual interests when pressed. It does mean that we need to be more honest about the role our own actions abroad play in causing blowback, and assessing when it’s worth the risk. Right now we seem to treat everything as some sort of hollywood script with the valiant, free and democratic West standing up for what’s right and the evil Russians/terrorists/whoever undermining us.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD says:

                Wouldn’t you agree that being able to run our own elections free of foreign fuckery is one our “primary interests”?Report

              • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                I would and as I said above I’m fine with investigating what happened and attempting to close those holes. I’m less sanguine about what was done in the particular context.Report

              • Kim in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Yes. but AGAIN we haven’t done jack to China or Israel or even fucking Saudi Arabia.Report

              • Gaelen in reply to InMD says:

                That’s well said, and I agree with pretty much all of it.

                Nevertheless, Obama was right to act. The Russians had interfered to help elect their preferred candidate, who, from all indications, was going to deny their involvement no matter what his intelligence told him. Direct Russian interference in American elections with no repercussions is a questionsble precedent to set. With that background, Obama’s response was within historical norms, proportionate, and, in my opinion, mandated by the fact that Trump seemed extremely unlikely to act.Report

              • Kim in reply to Gaelen says:

                Direct Israeli interference was fine.
                Direct Saudi interference was fine.

                what’s so wrong about the Russians? (who, as far as I can tell, did a standard scan for “goodies” and found an open server — that had been deliberately stripped of security).

                I repeat — this is a country taking action so that “The Mad Bomber” doesn’t become president of a nuclear power. If Clinton had taken control of the United States, we would have a 1 in 3 shot of a limited nuclear war in the first 200 days.

                Russia is doing what’s in their own best interest, of course they are.

                Ya’ll do realize the Russians don’t wanna war with us, right?Report

              • Gaelen in reply to Kim says:

                Evidence that Saudi Arabia or Israel ‘directly interfered’? Not hacked us, but used that information to influence our election.

                And, so help me god if you cite one or your “sources”*

                *read cat or reddit conspiracy theorist.Report

              • Kim in reply to Gaelen says:


                Oooh, Jordan’s got a cite from the Saud Crown Prince:
       (significantly less objectionable this).

                Not to talk about anything related to the drek that the rabid right wants to spew…(really, don’t look it up — it’s totally ridiculous) but Huma Abedin was a very highly placed Saud in Clinton’s campaign.

                Direct interference, not hacking.Report

              • Gaelen in reply to Kim says:

                So you have other countries leaders and poobah’s giving their opinion on an American election or policy that effects them, and a zero hedge article based on a (very) poorly translated quote from some deputy crown prince that they funded 20% of Clinton’s election. Also, the underlying Petra article on the Saudi funding claim was stated by Petra to be the result of a hack. That’s it.

                Please stopReport

              • Kim in reply to Gaelen says:

                Leaders, yes. Moneytrail? that too.Report

              • Gaelen in reply to Kim says:

                I don’t know why I botherReport

          • Kim in reply to Gaelen says:

            Assange has an assassinated leaker from the DNC. Let’s just say that’s not NORMAL.

            And no, it’s not every intelligence agency. It’s everyone who has buried bodies somewhere, and can be armtwisted successfully.Report

            • Gaelen in reply to Kim says:

              What intelligence agencies don’t think it was the Russians? Be specific.Report

              • Morat20 in reply to Gaelen says:

                The AI on the internet that speaks to her, probably.

                Or the inquirer.

                I see a lot of Kimmie’s statements first on the reddit conspiracy pages, which doesn’t surprise me. Conspiracy theorists are really big on getting information from “people in the know” — you get a lot of “A guy I know who is on the inside” from them.

                Kimmy’s pretty classic conspiracy “enthusiast” to be honest.Report

              • Kim in reply to Morat20 says:

                But… there really was a pot smoking Elmo! (ahem. that pissed the CEO off but GOOD.)

                Seriously, sources cited on that one.

                Great prank.

                If I know someone capable of pranking CEOs by coming up with a really bad idea and making it sound really, really good… well, did I mention he does politics too?

                I don’t mind that you don’t believe me (probably safer that way, to be honest). Life’s too crazy to not be true, and that’s the honest truth.Report

              • Mike Schilling in reply to Gaelen says:

                The one that John Mahoney works for in Burn Notice.Report

      • Kim in reply to Stillwater says:

        My democratic sources say that “Yeah, pretty much, the CIA is full of it.”
        My liberal sources say the exact same thing.

        Please tell me you don’t give money to solar fucking roadways simply because the government invested some piker money to it.Report

    • Joe M. in reply to notme says:

      I would consider the source and target here. Assange’s credibility when comes to Clinton/Obama/USA should be considered suspect. It’s going on 5 years now of them chasing him, harassing him, and making it clear that there is target on his back, if not outright attempting assassinating him.

      It is very possible that he does not know. WikiLeaks has quite a nice setup for anonymous delivery of materials. The only reason WikiLeaks and therefore him would know is that the individual delivering the materials expressly wanted him/them to know. Which then leads to whole other sets of questions.

      I will give that it is possible he does know and is telling the truth. However, it seems unlikely that if the one delivering materials made themselves known to WikiLeaks that they would be the one who took them in the first place.Report

      • notme in reply to Joe M. says:

        Yes, it’s possible the Russians hacked the info then gave it to a third party that made themselves known to assange in order to disguise the source. Or the podesta emails are seperate from the DNC hack. We may never know.Report

        • Joe M. in reply to notme says:

          Podesta emails and DNC emails are clearly separate operations. It is a live question if both operations were the same actor. The DNC hack was almost certainly a nation state actor. APTs at this level of sophistication are still small in number, like count on your fingers small.

          The Podesta email was crude in comparison, hoewever opsec failures by the attacker paint a stark picture.Report

          • Kim in reply to Joe M. says:

            I don’t think the DNC hack ranks in the top 10 hacks of all time. Seriously, it doesn’t.
            So, I’m fucking saying that it is less sophisticated than one 14 year old girl. (Name that hack!)Report

            • Mr.Joe in reply to Kim says:

              If you are saying the DNC hack could have been performed by a 14 year old girl, you clearly lack a lot necessary understanding.

              It was performed by one of the best in the world that we know of. The tools used were clearly written by a group with substantial resources, they are not some ready made kit one can pickup off of github. It is not something some kid could cobble together in his basement.

              Feel free to make all the top 10 lists you want. This hack is ordinary in that this is type stuff is going on all the time by multiple actors. It is extraordinary in that there are few orgs capable of what was witnessed. Those few orgs however are presistant doing this stuff across the world every day.

              What is new here is that the ex-filtrated data got sent to WikiLeaks. This is a significant escalation in current cyber-espionage. Without the dump, this would have been a non-story. We caught the Russians in a network, kicked them out and published a security whitepaper. Russians have done the same with the NSA. That would probably have been the end of it. Most cyber security professionals are painfully aware that everybody is hacking the shit out of everyone else, and there is likely no end in sight.

              However, they put the pilfered emails to a visible use. This required a visible response. There has been a visible response and bluster from both sides. So we are even steven and we go back to business as usual. Isn’t this how US/Russia relations have happened for decades?Report

              • Kim in reply to Mr.Joe says:

                Except that wikileaks didn’t get the data from Russia.
                There is that little flaw in the ointment.
                (wikileaks got the data from a DNC analyst).Report

              • Kolohe in reply to Kim says:

                Kim: (wikileaks got the data from a DNC analyst).

                This is a lie. At best, Wikileaks whole ostensible cover is that the info it gets is sent in the blind, with Wikileaks itself unable to identify the source.Report

              • Kim in reply to Kolohe says:

                Wikileaks could claim “we can’t identify you” while still verifying credibility. In fact, they could very well be able to identify you, and keep the people who can do that out of subpoena land.

                It’s a mistake to take what’s essentially a PublicRelations/Credibility message to their sources and treat that as fact. It may very well not be.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to Kim says:


                Yes, of course. All that is true. But here’s the problem: a theory which relies on evidence to disprove it, rather than evidence to support it, is by definition non-empirical conspiracy theory stuff.

                Basically, you’re saying it’s possible that X and the justification is that countervailing evidence is NOT inconsistent with X. But that’s just a big ole circle, no?Report

              • Kim in reply to Stillwater says:

                Skepticism is always something to be treasured.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to Kim says:

                Yes. But skepticism should be distinguished from cynicism.

                Skepticism is based on the rationally justified recognition that incomplete evidence implies a degree of uncertainty. Cynicism is based on the irrational belief that incomplete information implies certainty that the worst possible thing is actual.Report

              • Kim in reply to Stillwater says:

                Rational Skepticism when dealing with psychopaths tends to look like cynicism when dealing with normal people.

                Fucking Humanity, man. Why the fuck did we give power to fucking psychopaths and sadists?

                Plans on the books for genocide. Starting race wars for fun and profit. Moneygrabs no matter what the cost to you and me. Billions of desperate refugees backed by nuclear weapons.Report

              • Kim in reply to Mr.Joe says:

                this hack ain’t all that. this isn’t the first hack of the DNC server, and it wont’ be the last (until they hire better security, in which case it’ll be the fucking security folks hacking in).

                (To be clear, I’m referencing a particular 14 year old girl. I don’t think Trump in his tweets is doing similar).Report

      • Kim in reply to Joe M. says:

        Wikileaks has a DNC insider, dead now. Assassinated? you decide.
        Also, the DNC was apparently really fucking easy to hack.

        You’d have to be completely stupid to go ahead and get someone who could have access to be the “pretend leaker”. That’s just weird. Okay, so doable, sure, but? Weird.Report

        • Kolohe in reply to Kim says:

          Please stop spreading unsubstantiated garbage about Seth Rich.Report

          • Kim in reply to Kolohe says:

            You can read what Assange has to say.
            I’m not going to post anything more than that, of course.

            I will note that assassinations are generally things that are claimed. I will also note that I doubt Assange has the contacts in DC to know that sort of thing.

            I do know people with those contacts.Report

            • Kolohe in reply to Kim says:

              Assange is where he’s at because he claimed Swedish(!) sexual assault charges were a ruse to extradite him to America and/or Gitmo. He claimed this while he had been living freely *in the UK*, the 100 year bestie of the USA.

              Assange’s eyes should be even browner then they are, he’s so full of s***.Report

              • Kim in reply to Kolohe says:

                Assange is merely the frontman.
                (Have you read the stuff about the Swedish sexual assault charges? Seem pretty trumped up, and basically amount to a guy not listening to a woman who asked him to put a condom on.)

                Assange doesn’t wear that ring because of fear of America.Report

    • Mike Schilling in reply to notme says:

      Assange to Hannity

      Talk about strange bedfellows.Report

      • Joe M. in reply to Mike Schilling says:

        Not really. Both want the end of Clinton and Obama.

        The rapidness of one of our two major political teams to buy into “the enemy of my enemy” is personally very scary.Report

        • Mike Schilling in reply to Joe M. says:

          This is the GOP. If a disease were killing millions of Americans but more in blue states than red, they’d set their tame pundits to propagandizing against curing it. Based on Constitutional principles, of course.Report

          • Joe M. in reply to Mike Schilling says:

            Maybe, but I doubt it. Virtually nothing extends to infinity. There are always boundaries. Knowing where they are helps me make good choices.

            Also, the internet has done wonders to make it clear that states are not the real red vs. blue boundaries. It is primarily rural vs. urban and we skirmish over the suburbs.Report

        • Don Zeko in reply to Joe M. says:

          I’m curious to see if Greenwald and Wikileaks pivot back to criticizing Republicans once Trump takes power or not.Report

        • InMD in reply to Joe M. says:

          I don’t buy this analysis. Yes certain Republican partisans are exploiting it. However you’d have to ignore all the Iraq war leaks to believe the organization is somehow in the bag for the GOP.Report