
A “nation-state” used Wikileaks to influence US election, the head of NSA says - hourislate
http://qz.com/838615/nsa-chief-on-wikileaks-and-the-hacks-affecting-the-us-election-a-conscious-effort-by-a-nation-state/
======
josho
Has the NSA ever offered evidence for these allegations? The WSJ article
linked says "this action originated from servers operated by a Russian
company". That's rather weak evidence to offer up.

Further, why is there no backlash against the DNC or the government themselves
for failing to secure their systems.

This entire election cycle just seems like _everyone_ has been acting
irrationally.

~~~
scarmig
What evidence would you accept? Short of an admission of guilt signed using
the SVR's public key, everything will be circumstantial. And if the NSA has
any assets that can give a more direct confirmation, do you really want the
NSA to give them up just so that the people who disbelieve the NSA can say
"well they're lying anyway"?

As it stands, the public evidence I've seen is

1) The attacks originating from servers owned by Russian companies

2) Pseudo-admission/gloating by low-level officials

3) Wikileaks and Assange's increasingly close relationship with Russia

4) The behavior of the Trump campaign, taking an exceptionally pro-Russian
tack. Indeed, the only change they demanded be made to the Republican platform
was to take out some anti-Russian commitments.

True, this is all circumstantial. The NSA certainly has more. If the NSA
released it, the people who disbelieve the NSA would rightly point out that
any really hard evidence could have been planted by the NSA anyway, so it
can't be taken as certain that the NSA didn't plant it.

So why should the NSA sacrifice any assets to satisfy them?

~~~
ryanlol
>1) The attacks originating from servers owned by Russian companies

This doesn't even hint that there might be Russian involvement. It's utterly
irrelevant. Anyone doing something like this will most likely be hosting
either in Russia or the Netherlands.

>2) Pseudo-admission/gloating by low-level officials

Low-level officials probably aren't in positions to confirm intelligence
operations such as these, and even if they were, such behaviour would hardly
be unexpected from an entirely unrelated party.

>3) Wikileaks and Assange's increasingly close relationship with Russia

Would you like to back that up somehow? Not all of us share your security
clearance so we can't read the emails between Assange and Putin.

>4) The behavior of the Trump campaign, taking an exceptionally pro-Russian
tack. Indeed, the only change they demanded be made to the Republican platform
was to take out some anti-Russian commitments.

The pro-Russian tack only stands out if you ignore the rest of their
politics... In which case literally anything would stand out, no?

>True, this is all circumstantial

This is all bullshit. There exists _significantly better_ technical evidence
of Russian involvement available to the public.

~~~
scarmig
>There exists significantly better technical evidence of Russian involvement
available to the public.

Could you share?

------
mi100hael
If the DNC & the Clinton campaign weren't so dirty, the leaks wouldn't have
made a difference. Sure, the messenger had an agenda, but they're still just a
messenger.

~~~
mrgordon
I certainly agree with you to a certain extent, but if we're honest there were
just as many things to leak about Trump if they had wanted to do so. If you
smear one side to put the other side in power and undermine American democracy
on the world stage, then you are influencing the election for the benefit of
other countries.

~~~
grandalf
So you are accusing Wikileaks of sitting on a trove of data that was highly
unflattering to Trump?

~~~
GVIrish
No, there is no evidence of that. What is clear is that 'someone' provided
illegally obtained materials to Wikileaks, and all indications are that it was
Russia. Russia chose to provide information that was damaging to Hillary
Clinton, and not Donald Trump.

Wikileaks just ran with what it got.

~~~
mi100hael
> all indications are that it was Russia

If you worked during normal Russian business hours and used a few proxies and
a final exit IP in Russia paid for with a stolen Russian credit card, the
assumption would be that you're Russian. It wouldn't prove it, though. AFAIK
the attacker just guessed Podesta's GMail password, so it could have been a
kid in Tennessee[1] for all we know.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin_email_hack](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin_email_hack)

~~~
GVIrish
It's certainly possible that multiple US intel and law enforcement agencies
were incorrect in their analysis. The US intelligence community has a high
degree of confidence on this one, but you never really know unless you can see
the evidence first hand.

That's what makes this sort of espionage so effective and dangerous. You can
significantly damage an adversary by meddling in their elections, with little
risk to yourself. Yeah it might raise tensions, but the US is not going to
retaliate with sanctions or military action.

I can only imagine in the future that this sort of thing will become a lot
more common. No other nation can challenge the US militarily, but anyone can
wage war in cyberspace.

~~~
grandalf
> It's certainly possible that multiple US intel and law enforcement agencies
> were incorrect in their analysis

I receive phishing emails like the one Podesta clicked on from time to time.
They typically end up in my spam folder on gmail and get ignored. They can
ensnare technically illiterate people, but are not very sophisticated attacks.

The spokesperson said that the phisher was targeting government officials in a
number of countries. It's difficult to see why this makes the attacker "state
sponsored". Is the idea that only a state would desire to dig into the emails
of other states? I'd say that many corporate interests would also benefit from
it, as would those doing speculative investment, etc. The list is long.

The other thing is that there was no damage to the US election. Arguably the
release of the Podesta emails helped American voters learn more about
candidates than would have been possible without alternative news orgs like
Wikileaks.

If on the other hand there was a Stuxnet style attack on electronic voting
machines, or on traffic lights near polling places, then sure, it's likely
state sponsored.

Any teenager with pentesting tools and a VPS could have done all the hacking
relevant to this election. Sure he/she could have been on the state payroll,
but it counts more as mischief than cyber warfare. That our government and one
of our candidates came out strongly beating war drums over it says more than
any of the leaks or official statements.

------
alexandercrohde
I don't understand this critique. Though "influence election" sounds ominous,
in this case it really refers to "influencing" voters by revealing true
things, does it not?

One can argue that the means of obtaining the information (hacking) is
relevant, but I'm not sure if that's something I'd accept without examination.

~~~
ascagnel_
Something can be true and be misrepresented at the same time.

For example, the DNC email leaks showed that the DNC was working with Clinton.
However, when those emails were sent, it was mathematically impossible for
Sanders to overtake Clinton when only counting primary/caucus-assigned
delegates (not counting super-delegates at all). The emails were in response
to Sanders (mostly his supporters) pushing super-delegates to change their
pledged vote.

The emails were accurate, in that they showed the DNC supporting Clinton
directly. But they were from a time where Clinton had just become the
presumptive nominee, and it is reasonable to expect the party to offer support
to the presumptive nominee in preparation for the general election. They were
misrepresented as showing the DNC supporting Clinton while Sanders was still a
viable candidate with a reasonable chance of winning the nomination.

I say all of this as a disappointed Sanders supporter who knew that he was
running a tough race in a party he had just joined without much support from
the party's rank-and-file members.

~~~
alexandercrohde
Of course people can draw incorrect conclusions from true facts. But since
neither you nor I know the exact truth, we'll never know for sure which party
is the one drawing the incorrect conclusions.

In this case it sounds like the NSA has several assumptions:

A. That Trump winning was worse than Clinton

B. That what Russian state-actors do is somehow more "bad" than what American
state-actors do

C. That the people of America should be prevented from knowing certain things
that "us smarter people in power" can handle, so that they vote for the person
"We know is best."

C is pretty scary when you think about it. And I for one, certainly don't
trust the militaristically-minded never-tried-marijuana lets-do-polygraph tap-
everything-and-ask-questions-later people at our acronym agencies to be more
objective judges of long-term good than the average citizen.

Let's (humans) work on stopping asteroids and climate change rather than fight
over lines on maps.

~~~
ascagnel_
> A. That Trump winning was worse than Clinton

If this is the case, why not pull a Comey and release this information before
the election?

> B. That what Russian state-actors do is somehow more "bad" than what
> American state-actors do

Since the NSA is an American agency, it follows that they think themselves
less "bad" than the equivalent Russian agency. If they thought themselves
worse, why not help Russia?

> C. That the people of America should be prevented from knowing certain
> things that "us smarter people in power" can handle, so that they vote for
> the person "We know is best."

Again, if they thought Clinton was the better option (your stated assumption
from point A), why wouldn't they release information that appears to show that
Russia is sympathetic to Trump before the election?

~~~
alexandercrohde
Let me try to make this simple, because I think you want to, and can,
understand what I'm saying.

I'm saying this article quotes the NSA using language condemning what Russia
allegedly did.

I'm saying, if we want to condemn this type of behavior we should:

A) Define why it is bad in a general sense (not in the context of a
controversial president)

B) Ensure that if we agree it's an morally unacceptable or malicious process,
that our acronym agencies do not do this same behavior to other countries
(otherwise we are hypocrites and they will quite rightly feel they have
justification to retaliate in kind)

And my last paragraph suggests that those in positions of authority are too-
close-to-see-it, and that perhaps these distinctions on what is "cyber
warfare" and what is "revealing the truth" should be made by congress in
unambiguous and neutral fashion.

------
TazeTSchnitzel
“Maybe we helped a bit with WikiLeaks.” — Sergei Markov, 9 November:
[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/putin-
applau...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/putin-applauds-
trump-win-and-hails-new-era-of-positive-ties-with-us)

(I don't know if him having said that means anything, but it's interesting
nonetheless.)

------
fatdog
It is in the interest of every state to discredit Wikileaks, hence Russia
"letting slip," they were behind the DNC leaks right after the election.

The intelligence community doesn't get an opinion. Arguably, any comment from
them about domestic elections only reduces the legitimacy of their mandate.

------
mladenkovacevic
They've never lied before to protect their own interests before so why start
doubting them now right?

~~~
josho
For those that downvoted the parent, the NSA denied doing many of the
activities that Snowden exposed. The US misled the public building their case
to invade Iraq. Just two recent examples of where the government lied for
their own interests. So, I think the OP makes a fair point.

Further, the gov. hasn't exactly offered substantial evidence to show that it
was Russian government as opposed to hackers working alone. Maybe they don't
need to provide the general public with all the details, but showing the
evidence to a third party would go a long way to building trust.

~~~
mladenkovacevic
It's interesting to note that the hack that likely got access to Podesta
emails and subsequently handed those emails over to Wikileaks is recorded in
the leaked emails themselves.

It was a typical phishing email scheme easy to recognize and ignore by anyone
who's used a internet connected computer for more than a year, but for some
reason not by their own IT guy who tells Podesta to click on the link! EDIT:
Actually he does send the correct password reset link as well, but still
identifies the original email as authentic. The link in that original email is
a bitly one - clearly an email from Google themselves lol

[https://wikileaks.org/podesta-
emails/emailid/34899](https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/34899)

I don't know much about FSB's hacking abilities but I would guess they are a
little more sophisticated than this.

------
fixxer
So, the issue is not the content of the emails, but the fact that they were
leaked?

~~~
philk10
unless you were interested in risotto recipes, yes

~~~
yolesaber
Or widespread and obvious collusion and corruption? Don't be thick, these
emails revealed just how sleazy and inept the DNC is. The establishment left
needs a serious overhaul if they want to do anything of substance in the next
four years

~~~
91bananas
This is hyperbole. It seems implicitly that you're saying the right doesn't
need a similar cleansing.

~~~
philovivero
How can anyone in this day and age assume when someone speaks poorly of a
massive, corrupt oganisation that they think highly of another massive,
corrupt organisation?

Shouldn't we assume that everyone outside of those massive, corrupt
organisations are tired of the status quo?

~~~
grzm
_" How can anyone in this day and age assume when someone speaks poorly of a
massive, corrupt oganisation that they think highly of another massive,
corrupt organisation?"_

I'd so love for this to be the case. Unfortunately that doesn't appear to be
empirically true. There's a lot of political discussion just on HN that shows
it's hard for people to grant the other side (whatever other happens to be)
that benefit of the doubt. It does take work, though.

------
leeleelee
What evidence exists to suggest that this was a deliberate attempt by Russia
to influence the results of the US election in a way that would benefit them?

~~~
TwoNineA
Ukraine related economic sanctions would be probably cancelled by Trump, while
Clinton would have maintained the status quo.

~~~
leeleelee
I'm not asking _only_ how Trump would benefit Russia, but what evidence exists
to suggest that this entire ordeal was some elaborate scheme concocted by the
Russian government?

EDIT: If this claim was such a stark truth, surely there must exist a smoking
gun somewhere? So, where is the evidence?

~~~
metalliqaz
I don't know if you've ever heard of the NSA before, but they deal in secrets.
They don't publish their methods and they don't reveal sources. Remember that
whole Edward Snowden thing?

~~~
alva
They have also been caught telling rather big fibs for political purposes
before.

------
TycusNycton
The NSA clearly has motives for rallying people against Wikileaks.

Do they have any evidence for this or should a sane person really take them at
their word?

------
api
There's a good summary post on Reddit on evidence for Russian infiltration or
influence of Wikileaks:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5c8u9l/we_are_the_wik...](https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5c8u9l/we_are_the_wikileaks_staff_despite_our_editor/d9uwctp/?context=10)

The timeline suggests that Wikileaks was about to try to dump something
damaging to Russia and/or Putin (is there a difference at this point?) and
then was threatened, backed off, and now may have been folded into Russian
intelligence as some kind of asset.

I wouldn't be surprised. It's naive to believe that a small volunteer outfit
can take on an entire world of pro intelligence agencies. The USA is not the
only country that does these things, and many countries such as Russia do so
with a much more "gloves off" approach than we do... especially when dealing
with civilians.

In any case I now see stuff about Trump and Putin communicating prior to Trump
taking office, etc., and Putin's politics certainly aligns to some extent with
elements of the 'alt-right.' Of course the Bushes have their Saudi "investors"
and the Clintons have their Chinese pals, so overseas enmeshment with nations
of questionable allegiance to the US is not out of the ordinary in US
politics. One of the consequences of empire is that an empire's national
politics become everyone else's business too. DC is a world capital, and our
elections are world elections.

~~~
qb45
_" We have [compromising materials] about Russia, about your government and
businessmen," Mr. Assange told the pro-government daily Izvestia. "But not as
much as we'd like... We will publish these materials soon."

He then dropped a hint that's likely to be nervously parsed in Russia's
corridors of power: "We are helped by the Americans, who pass on a lot of
material about Russia," to WikiLeaks, he said._

Really? Is it likely that Americans would pass dirt on Russian government to
Assange and let him disclose the source? If they wanted to be so open they
could as well announce it themselves, I think.

------
mywittyname
Curious that the article quotes Assange but fails to mention that he's not
been seen since his internet has been cut off back in October.

------
pasbesoin
"Divided we fall."

And by far, the biggest source of that division has been internal.

If some "nation state" (the catchphrase of the month, apparently) found a
crack and applied a bit of leverage -- well, look to yourselves for blame --
and for the solution.

Democrats as well as Republicans. The high side of both parties outsourced,
and basically told the dispossessed to "get over it".

Divided we fall.

~~~
wu-ikkyu
>since we have (I may say) all the naval Stores of the Nation in our hands, it
will be easy to obtain the mastery of the seas, and then the united force of
all Europe, will not be able to subdue us. The only way to keep us from
setting up for ourselves, is to disunite Us. Divide et impera. Keep us in
distinct Colonies, and then, some great men, in each Colony, desiring the
Monarchy of the Whole, they will destroy each others influence and keep the
Country in Equilibrio.

-John Adams

[http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/06-01-02-0003#P...](http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/06-01-02-0003#PJA01d005n1)

------
pnathan
No kidding; this was obvious from way back. I'd be very interested to learn
the back alley reasons why this was treated as _significantly_ less important
a drum to bang in the bulk of the media than the Clinton emails.

It also needs to be brought out in _painful_ clarity: disinformation campaigns
are real; they are not always lies; sometimes they are carefully pruning the
truth to ensure the chosen outcome comes out to play.

It _also_ needs to be brought out: the cypherpunk model (anonymous hackers
sourcing anonymous data) has exploded messily under the presence of
coordinated group of actors come out to subvert the hackers.

Makes me wonder how to get involved with public policy, to be honest.

~~~
hackuser
> I'd be very interested to learn the back alley reasons why this was treated
> as _significantly_ less important a drum to bang in the bulk of the media
> than the Clinton emails.

IMHO, a large segment of the media is not really journalism, but ideological
promotion. This includes Fox properties (Fox News, the WSJ - at least their
editorial page, NY Post, various UK publications, etc.), Rush Limbaugh and
most talk radio, right-wing blogs, and many others. Therefore a large segment
of the news media doesn't cover scandals on the right, while everyone covers
them on the left:

* _An unsubstantiated hint of scandal on the left_ gets blanket coverage from the ideological sources. Consider the fake Planned Parenthood emails, or the fake investigation of the Clinton Foundation.

* _A substantiated scandal on the left_ is covered by everyone, the ideological right as well as the real journalists. For example, the NY Times broke the Clinton email server story and covered the Russian/Wikileaks emails extensively. Of course, Fox et al. covered and promoted these stories to maximum extent.

* _A substantiated scandal on the right_ is covered only by real journalists, and ignored (or used as fodder for spin and attacks against accusers) by the ideological right.

* _An unsubstantiated scandal on the right_ is ignored by everyone.

~~~
philovivero
Not to disagree with one half of your assertion (that media leaning right is
corrupt and broken), but you appear completely blind to the media that leans
left being equally corrupt and broken. Many scandals about the left were
covered up and hidden away. You just didn't look for them.

I struggle to find any mass media that hasn't been rendered completely useless
during this election cycle. To contrast your Fox/WSJ/WaPo list of egregious
terrible media, consider BBC, CNN, TYT, HuffPo, Slate (I'll stop there, but I
could list 50 more).

Honestly, the best coverage I could find in this last election cycle came from
dreary underground groups. All major media had clearly picked a side and was
uninterested in providing useful, factual information.

~~~
pnathan
That's factually a a half false equivalency, and will _badly_ mislead you into
conspiracy theory.

\- Fox, WSJ, and WaPo are news organizations. HuffPo is definitely not up to
their standard, being, AFAICT, a collection of blogs; Slate is primarily
essays- not news.

\- CNN and BBC are actual news orgs.

Leaving the BBC out of it, as they are British. Please demonstrate where CNN
covered a left scandal up.

~~~
hackuser
IMO, Fox News is clearly the leading source of ideology, and the WSJ's
editorial page, if not their news (though it's owned by the same people as Fox
News), is the same ideology repackaged for the 'elite'.

In my experience, that's clear to people from everywhere on the spectrum.
There's a reason the ideologues on the right only listen to Fox.

------
vaadu
How is this any different than what the CIA has done in the past to other
countries?

Are the emails legitimate and do the American people have a right to know
what's in them?

------
phy6
I have [potentially unfounded] assumptions that groups within the NSA/CIA had
a hand in the leaks. I'm sure the corruption of selling government positions
and influence of foreign money/bribes happens in both establishment parties.
Bringing this kind of corruption to the public's eye rings of the 'patriotic'
motives of Snowden, etc.

------
mtgx
So suddenly it's not Russia anymore, but a "nation-state"?

------
wu-ikkyu
Is there any practicality to claiming the hack originated from a "nation-
state"?

Any time news worthy hacks are ambiguously attributed to massive geographical
regions (i.e. CN, RU) which can easily be proxied through from anywhere in the
world, how is it any different from saying "we're certain the hack originated
from somewhere on this planet, trust us."?

------
vonklaus
I believe that a nation state did use wikileaks to influence the election. I
just think it was the U.S. Also, Assange hasn't been seen publicly in ~42
days. You can see the timeline on assange.net (not Julians personal site). It
doesn't speculate, just provides facts. Very concerning.

~~~
notahacker
Um... he's just completed a two day interview over rape allegations and issued
statements about it. I doubt that the Ecuadorean embassy, Swedish prosecutors,
Assange's legal team and the @Wikileaks Twitter account are working together
on this one...

~~~
vonklaus
no. his last confirmed public appearance was early october. The checksums of
the evidence files don't match post his internet going down. The questions
were relayed to him and his lawyer was not present. Do your own research,
don't take my word for it, however the "wikileakstaskforce" account was made
in October. There is significant skepticism he is alive and the embassy has a
bay window which his cat was seen at yesterday. He could simply pull back the
curtain or sign a document with the private key to quell skeptics who have
become increasingly vocal since his internet was severed over a month ago.

edit: it is nearly 7pm local time in London. Do you not find it odd wikileaks
has been rather silent that it's founder has likely completed giving a full
days deposition to exonerate him of the crime he is seeking asylum for...in
that vbery embassy. A half-decade or greater ordeal. They posted an
infographic yesterday, an NEA Bill Clinton leak, and appeal for pardoing
Chelsea Manning. No mention that this is day 2 of a major fight for Assange.

edit 2: In fact, according to google[0] there has been NO news about it. There
are ~5 stories and none of them relating to todays depo.

[0][https://www.google.com/#q=assange+sweden+interview&tbm=nws&t...](https://www.google.com/#q=assange+sweden+interview&tbm=nws&tbs=qdr:d)

~~~
notahacker
He _could_ simply pull back the curtain or sign a document with the private
key to quell skeptics who have become increasingly vocal since his internet
was severed over a month ago. But that assumes that calming paranoid people
down is high on Assange's list of priorities, and that assumption alone is
pretty heroic.

If your conspiracy theory involves Swedish prosecutors, Ecuadorean embassy
staff and Assange's legal team all conspiring not to notice that he's not
around to take their interviews or phone calls and doesn't involve public
statements released in Assange's name looking any different to his usual
output, it's not a very good one

~~~
vonklaus
I am simply stating that there is no proof he is alive, and hasn't been for
~40 days. The checksums don't match-- which is a bit odd as they have
consistently matched pre-comitments until now. That said, I would assume that
if Assange is alive (and hasn't escaped the embassy somehow) that he _would_
want people to know he was alive. If very powerful people were trying to kill
you, you would likely not want to make it a habit to disappear for >1 month to
elicit shock value. In the event someone actually does kidnap/threaten/kill
you no one would think it odd for 40 days.

Again, I am not really speculating. There is no proof he is alive. Many have
asked for it. The twitter poll vote was for a video, the pilger interview was
a pre-recorded video and his spokesperson said he was "very ill and his
condition had deteriorated" and the prosecutor relayed the info to him via 3rd
party and barred his lawyer Samuelson from being present. So IDK what is going
on, but something feels very strange about this.

~~~
notahacker
> I am simply stating that there is no proof he is alive

 _rolls eyes_

Apart from the fact that his hosts, his own legal team, and Swedish
prosecutors have all publicly vouched for having interacted with him in the
past couple of days and even Pamela bloody Anderson has met him since his last
"proof of life", none whatsoever.

Also, there is not cryptographically sound proof that I am alive, so it is not
really speculating to suggest that you are interacting with a ghost.

This particular ghost finds it pretty hilarious that anybody could consider it
plausible that powerful people wanting to kill Assange would form the largest
and unlikeliest group of conspirators ever and then drip feed as much
information drawing as much attention to his situation as possible to the
press after doing the deed, and consider it unlikely that Assange might do
something to elicit shock value.

~~~
vonklaus
> Apart from the fact that his hosts, his own legal team, and Swedish
> prosecutors have all publicly vouched for having interacted with him in the
> past couple of days and even Pamela bloody Anderson has met him since his
> last "proof of life", none whatsoever.

Links? PA met him over a month ago. I have not seen the prosecutor state she
has met with him.

> there is not cryptographically sound proof that I am alive

Well, to my knowledge you aren't being hunted by state government. You also
didn't publicly state, build, and confirm a contingency plan and take pains to
cryptographically verify most of your disclosures.

I am _again_ not speculating further. I am stating that despite his extremely
precarious situation and his quarters being in a major city literally
surrounded by reporters and with a balcony and windows he has not made an
appearance despite tripping of his deadmans switch. Further, he is a pretty
arrogant guy so I would be surprised he wouldn't be not only commenting on his
successful influence of the election, his potential to exfiltrate himself from
this legal mess or just generally make some statements, it is seeming as if he
is no longer able to do so.

When your dead man switch goes off, and you have encouraged people to verify
your identity in this scenario, it is pretty fucking weird there has not been
cryptographic proof. Believe what you want, but clearly something is amiss.

~~~
notahacker
Pamela Anderson met him twice since October 4th, most recently this week. As
did a Swedish prosecutor, who just _might_ have had something to say and not
gone back the following day if she'd been interviewing a mannequin. His legal
team issued a statement over the interview saying that he was "very happy" and
had "prepared himself very carefully". His website issued a statement in his
name about the elections on November 8th. Another press release in his name
issued November 14th complained that only his Ecuadorean counsel and not his
Swedish counsel were there but said he was cooperating with prosecutors
anyway.

But yeah, I'm sure none of these people _really_ interacted with him in any
way because he hasn't reactivated his dead mans switch since October 4th. Your
evidential standards and blind faith in Assange's desire to quell rumours
about conspiracies against him are _totally_ reasonable here.

------
ryanx435
Maybe the democratics shouldn't have cheated, stolen the nomination from
bernie, or coordinated illegally with their super pacs.

~~~
tptacek
The "Democrats" didn't "steal" the nomination from Bernie Sanders. Bernie
Sanders got _crushed_ in the Democratic primaries, by a margin almost _ten
times_ that of what Obama achieved over Hillary Clinton in 2008. Even if
leaked emails had shown material support for Clinton over Sanders, let alone
before the nomination had become a foregone conclusion, there's nothing the
DNC could do to explain the extent to which Sanders lost. He lost decisively,
both by the same pledged delegate count margin Obama achieved and for which
his team was praised as delegate counting geniuses, and by a massive gulf in
the popular vote.

~~~
vonklaus
What? Five thirty eight has them at:

HRC: 2,218

BS: 1,833

This _includes_ >700 superdelegates which are not tied to primary contests.
Hillary won almost all of these. If this was 100% up to voters (which
admittedly is not how this contest works) it would be closer. That said, she
certainly influenced those SD to vote for her well in advance.

[http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-t...](http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-
targets/)

edit: The above information is wrong. Tptacek corrected me. Please see my
comment below for expanded point.

~~~
tptacek
Not only does that count _not_ include the superdelegates, but the page you
linked to, in the only mention of superdelegates, below a count labeled
"pledged delegates" (who are not superdelegates), specifically says they
aren't. Further, by the logic you just used, had the count included
"superdelegates" that Hillary Clinton won entirely, you would be suggesting
that Bernie Sanders would have _won_ the Democratic Primary without them (he
would not have).

Bernie Sanders lost decisively. But because Wikileaks strategically leaked the
right hacked emails, his supporters believe instead in a false alternative
history. It's Wikileaks you should be angry at.

~~~
vonklaus
Point ceded, Clinton did win without super delegates. I misread that. That
said, I believe sanders would have beaten Trump. I also believe the wikileaks
emails and do not believe it was a fair contest (primary or general election).
Again, I agree you are correct Hillary won, however I do not believe this was
"fair". I believe the emails to be genuine as they were not disputed, and some
were released by the government itself. I won't try to convince you how to
interpret the content, but much of it certainly seems clear to _me_ that
between the non-agression pact, references to keeping in check due to their
"leverage" over him, and the entire internal DNC scandal with DWS, ect. that
this was anything but a typical primary.

~~~
tptacek
Sanders would have gotten his _ass kicked_ against Trump. I can't make that
argument as conclusively as I can the argument that the DNC didn't steal the
primary from him, but I personally believe it just as firmly:

* Turnout was lower for _both_ the D's and the R's this cycle. R turnout would not have been lower if the D's had run an avowed socialist. Suburban/exurban voters --- a natural R cohort Clinton actually outperformed with in this cycle --- would have turned out in force for the GOP.

* Sanders policy proposals and the language he uses to talk about it aren't in sync with the white working class (really, any part of the working class); it's "let them eat college tuitions". Unemployed tool & die engineers aren't looking for college subsidies, and they already survive on handouts ("long term disability"). That's why they're angry.

* Sanders did terribly at engaging the African American vote, so much so that insider stories got written about how messed up their African American outreach was. The narrative of this election is that Clinton lost in part because she failed to mobilize Obama's coalition. But Clinton crushed Sanders in the primary with exactly that coalition, so the evidence suggests Sanders would have done even worse with the hand Clinton was dealt.

* Sanders was terribly vulnerable. His supporters like to believe that HRC gave it to him with both barrels during the primary. But she did not: she was a complacent candidate who believed (correctly) in the inevitability of her nomination and (incorrectly) in the inevitability of her election. It is simply a fact that Sanders did not receive a serious vetting during the primary, and to see that, you only have to see what stories didn't come up during the primary:

\--- Sanders chaired Senate VA during the Veterans Health Scandal and was on
VA during the Walter Reed scandal. Unlike Benghazi, these were real failures
of oversight that harmed large numbers of American veterans. Not only that,
but Sanders has in part built a Senate career on support for veterans
benefits, so the attack ads write themselves. How culpable was Sanders for any
of this? Fuck if I know. That's not the point.

\--- Sanders wrote an essay that stated women fantasize about being raped by
three men simultaneously. Does that really matter? Almost certainly not.
That's not the point.

\--- While Trump was starting his real estate "empire" with help from his
father, not only was Bernie Sanders not winning victories for the working
class, he was collecting employment (in his mid-30s) and stealing electricity
from his neighbors. Does that matter? Not to me; to me that makes him more
relatable. But that's not the point.

\--- Sanders is not only a supporter of, but personally profits from, a scheme
to transport toxic waste from Vermont and dump it in Latino communities in
Texas. Does that make Sanders an "environmental racist"? Well, in fact, yes it
does.

Are all of these things dispositive? No. But they give the lie to the idea
that Sanders would have crushed Trump because Clinton had too much baggage to
run with.

~~~
vonklaus
These are all fascinating facts and new to me. I actually didn't know any of
these things. On balance, I think he is a leagues better person than Hillary
or Trump but this definitely underscores hat all politicians make some
terrible compromises/must do bad things.

We will never know if Trump would've beat Sanders but had he been on the
ticket, I likely would've voted for him instead of writing in "no confidence".
Interesting.

------
rurban
Sure, the USA.

High members of the USA will for sure like to prove everybody of corrupt and
criminal actions by members in government offices.

------
benevol
Also, here's Oliver Stone's "Snowden" movie (open with Transmission or
similar):

    
    
      magnet:?xt=urn:btih:beb9b342be059a38a54bd1b3ec0cb6448ee07740&dn=Snowden.2016.HDRip.XviD.AC3-EVO&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.leechers-paradise.org%3A6969&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fzer0day.ch%3A1337&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fopen.demonii.com%3A1337&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.coppersurfer.tk%3A6969&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fexodus.desync.com%3A6969

------
mjmsmith
Does anyone seriously think this isn't at least worth a congressional
investigation?

------
g8oz
Julian Assange is the modern "useful idiot".

[http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Useful_idiot](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Useful_idiot)

------
draw_down
More beating of the drum for war with Russia.

~~~
tptacek
Can you draw up a set of guidelines for what facts we are and are not allowed
to discuss here in the US for fear that we might be encouraging a war with
Russia?

~~~
draw_down
First of all, I didn't say anything about what we are "allowed" to discuss
here.

I just think we should be honest with ourselves about what we're doing (by
"we" I mean America, not HN). I remember what it was like when we were leading
up to war with Iraq and all the intimations about Russia of late feel the same
way to me. Lots of big accusations that are baseless but sound truthy.

As far as this particular piece of news, I would push back by suggesting that
the Democrats blew the election by running a crappy campaign with a charisma-
less DC insider that Americans mostly dislike.

Do I then get to accuse the DNC and everyone who pushed for Clinton against
her primary opponents of colluding with Russia? I expect not.

~~~
pyvpx
baseless? a current, active Russian politician (whose name and position escape
me) publicly said 'we might have helped with Wikileaks'

it's far from baseless -- no matter how (correctly) suspicious one is of
anything the NSA says.

~~~
qb45
Reportedly it was said by

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Alexandrovich_Markov](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Alexandrovich_Markov)

Seems legit ;)

------
scarmig
The NSA kept a real, meaningful scandal--and not a blowjob scandal, but one
material to how the President will govern and look out for American interests
--buried until after the election. While the FBI released a pseudo-update on a
scandal of IT incompetence the week before the election after dragging it out
for months.

It's hard not to be bitter about how politicized both these agencies are. I
can see arguments either way about how and when things should be released, but
there should be consistency. The fact that they're inconsistent and always
happen to come up anti-Democrat is pretty telling.

ETA: As misja111 points out below, the NSA and CIA did announce this before
the election. So, my ding against the NSA's political integrity was uncalled
for. Leaving this comment here so no one is confused by all the replies.

~~~
JackFr
This is not a scandal.

If true, but embarrassing leaked emails had been obtained by a non-state
actor, news outlets would do what news outlets do, and they would publish it.
There would by cries to investigate and prosecute from the embarrassed party
but typically at the end of the day little would come of it.

The fact that it was a state actor is a red herring. Would it had made any
difference if it were an unknown US hacker?

Further, Hillary Clinton truly has no one to blame but herself for her FBI
problems. Four years of dissembling and foot dragging caused this.
Additionally, what the Wikileaks hack shows is that her carelessness almost
certainly meant that top secret emails were hacked by an adversarial state
actor as well.

~~~
bradford
> The fact that it was a state actor is a red herring. Would it had made any
> difference if it were an unknown US hacker?

I think it makes a huge difference. The specific parties involved and their
intent matters.

Suppose this were a shooting instead of hack. If an unknown US citizen shoots
up a mall, it's a headline. If a member of a Foreign military shoots up a US
mall, it's an international incident.

~~~
kodablah
Inaccurate analogy. There are several analogies one can come up with to
emphasize the "who" over the "what" and there are several analogies that can
do the opposite. In this case, even if the "who" matters in some other
context, it shouldn't matter with regards to the "what" which is the same
regardless. So while the who does matter, that's a different question and a
different discussion and arguably shifts the discussion away from the what.

~~~
bradford
The analogy is the least important part of my statement.

I'm not entirely clear on what you're saying. Just to be clarify, suppose that
the hack was done either by a script kiddy, or a nation state. Are you saying
it doesn't make a difference?

~~~
kodablah
To the original question of "Would it had made any difference if it were an
unknown US hacker?", I believe it would not have made any difference in the
election which is what I believe is implied by the question. As to whether it
makes a difference _at all_ , sure it does in other contexts (e.g. foreign
diplomacy), but the email writers and the contents are what helped make the
difference in the election. Blaming the releasers is like blaming SMTP or
computers, it shifts responsibility.

