It now seems to be generally agreed that the Russians were responsible for the hack which Wikileaks released late last week, to the embarrassment of the Democratic National Convention:

Close your eyes and imagine that a hacking group backed by Russian President Vladimir Putin broke into the email system of a major U.S. political party. The group stole thousands of sensitive messages and then published them through an obliging third party in a way that was strategically timed to influence the United States presidential election. Now open your eyes, because that’s what just happened.

On Friday, Wikileaks published 20,000 emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee. They reveal, among other things, thuggish infighting, a push by a top DNC official to use Bernie Sanders’ religious convictions against him in the South, and attempts to strong-arm media outlets. In other words, they reveal the Washington campaign monster for what it is.

But leave aside the purported content of the Wikileaks data dump (to which numerous other outlets have devoted considerable attention) and consider the source. Considerable evidence shows that the Wikileaks dump was an orchestrated act by the Russian government, working through proxies, to undermine Hillary Clinton’s Presidential campaign.

That's astonishing – and the evidence is growing:

The hacker who claims to have stolen emails from the Democratic National Committee and provided them to WikiLeaks is actually an agent of the Russian government and part of an orchestrated attempt to influence U.S. media coverage surrounding the presidential election, a security research group concluded on Tuesday.

Even the President has waded in

“What we do know is that the Russians hack our systems, not just government systems but private systems,” Obama told NBC. “What the motives were in terms of the leaks, all that — I can’t say directly. What I do know is that Donald Trump has repeatedly expressed admiration for Vladi­mir Putin.”

For Franklin Foer this is worse than Watergate:

A foreign government has hacked a political party’s computers—and possibly an election. It has stolen documents and timed their release to explode with maximum damage. It is a strike against our civic infrastructure. And though nobody died—and there was no economic toll exacted—the Russians were aiming for a tender spot, a central node of our democracy.

It was hard to see the perniciousness of this attack at first, especially given how news media initially covered the story. The Russians, after all, didn’t knock out a power grid. And when the stolen information arrived, it was dressed in the ideology of WikiLeaks, which presents its exploits as possessing a kind of journalistic bravery the traditional media lacks….

The DNC dump may not have revealed a conspiracy that could end a candidacy, but it succeeded in casting a pall of anxiety over this election. We know that the Russians have a further stash of documents from the DNC and another set of document purloined from the Clinton Foundation. In other words, Vladimir Putin is now treating American democracy with the same respect he accords his own.

Now the talk is starting: does Trump have business dealing with Russia? Why won't he release his tax returns?

Interesting times….

 

Posted in

6 responses to “The Russian Connection”

  1. Martin Adamson Avatar
    Martin Adamson

    Generally agreed by Democrats anxious for anti-Trump talking points to divert public attention from the contents of the e-mails, certainly.

    Like

  2. Bob-B Avatar
    Bob-B

    Trump is sometimes compared with Ronald Reagan, both right wing Republicans with ‘interesting’ backgrounds. But whatever you say about Reagan, he was not soft of Russian imperialism and as a result is celebrated in some former Russian colonies:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan_Monument_(Warsaw)
    It’s hard to imagine a similar future for Trump.

    Like

  3. clazy Avatar
    clazy

    Anyone who could mistake Trump for a right-wing Republican is incapable of meaningfully comparing him with Reagan.
    In any event, Trump does have a soft spot for dictators and strong men; that would be enough to put him in Putin’s good graces, although it may also be the case that he is in the pocket of Russian oligarchs. Perhaps his tax returns would shed some light on that, just as the 30,000 emails wiped from Hillary’s private server might have shed some light on her own dealings with the Russians–such as the $2.35 million Rosatom gave the Clinton Foundation after Hillary allowed them to buy Uranium One. Why would the US Secretary of State think it was a good idea to help the Russians corner the market for uranium, particularly by acquiring US resources?
    Both Trump and Hillary are horrible candidates. I could not possibly vote for Hillary; if I vote for Trump, it would mainly be to tell the press to f#%$ off and do their job. Indeed, I do think the press would be much more vigilant before a Trump administration than a Clinton administration. And whereas Clinton would surely wreck the Supreme Court by loading it with judicial activists, there is at least the possibility that Trump will keep his word to nominate conservative judges, so that’s another consideration in his favor. Either way, the US is clearly in a decadent phase that I can only hope will reverse within my lifetime.

    Like

  4. Bob-B Avatar
    Bob-B

    I think Trump is both right wing and a Republican, hence a right wing Republican. I daresay he is not particularly right wing by Republican standards, but I prefer different standards.

    Like

  5. L.C. Avatar
    L.C.

    I’ve been chiding myself over my overactive and paranoid imagination for a few weeks because the thought has crossed my mind that financing a successful effort (the Trump campaign) to exacerbate the anger and hatred already coursing through this country’s political debate would be right in line with a Russian payback for 1991, with the ultimate goal of returning the favor and breaking up a country. I fully recognize that that is a little over the top! But this stuff about the emails sure doesn’t help.

    Like

  6. Andrew Duffin Avatar
    Andrew Duffin

    So the whole argument is about who leaked the emails, rather than about whatever incriminating content might be in them, is that right?
    How convenient.

    Like

Leave a reply to L.C. Cancel reply