My word, really?

Hillary Clinton’s team members met with the Russian ambassador during the election as well as Donald Trump’s, the Kremlin spokesman has alleged, as he set out to dismiss the “hysteria” surrounding Mr Trump’s links to Russia.

31 comments on “My word, really?

  1. Although it smacks of Soviet practice, at what point are the Democrats so clearly disturbed that some form of medical intervention, perhaps even commitment, is necessary?

    These are supposedly the smart people. The elites.

  2. The Meissen Bison – “Committal?”

    Committed. As in involuntary. Sectioned. 5150’ed. Baker-ed.

    They clearly pose a danger to the rest of us but I am beginning to worry that they post a threat to themselves.

  3. I don’t think any democrat campaign members have lied under oath about meeting with the Russians. Easy distinction no?

  4. Sandman – “I don’t think any democrat campaign members have lied under oath about meeting with the Russians. Easy distinction no?”

    Nor have any Republicans. What’s your point?

  5. Saw in the Times yesterday:

    GCHQ: Russian cyber‑threat to British elections

    Crikey! What nefarious deeds are those sneaky slavs plotting? Polonium-scented ballot papers? Assassinating David Dimbleby? Hacking our pencils so people put their X against the Lib Dem candidate?

    Nothing quite as drastic:

    [GCHQ] fear that Kremlin-backed hackers could steal and leak internal emails or publish private databases of voters’ political views in an attempt to damage the standing of political parties with the public.

    Our democracy is in terrible danger of the Russians letting us know more facts.

    But we’re the good guys, right?

  6. Different rules apply to Democrats and have done so since at least the time of JFK. More likely FDR. Perhaps even Wilson.

  7. Private databases of voters political views?
    LOL – the voters put it all over social media. Hardly private when you put it all on facebook or tweet it to a million other people indirectly.

  8. [GCHQ] fear that Kremlin-backed hackers could steal and leak internal emails or publish private databases of voters’ political views in an attempt to damage the standing of political parties with the public.

    Didn’t that happen to the BNP a few years ago, and everyone cheered?

  9. > Kremlin-backed hackers could steal and leak internal emails

    It’s the selective releasing of information that causes the problem.

    Let’s say you’re the KGB (or Mossad) agent in charge of ensuring that the UK retains policies favourable towards Russia (or Israel). A by-election is coming up, and the parties are selecting their candidates.

    From your on-going electronic dragnet surveillance, you learn that one of the candidates spends a lot of time reading anti-Russia (or anti-Israel) news sources. You dig through the person’s history and find something that will make them unlikeable to the public (everyone has something). If you really can’t find anything, invent something plausible: people will assume that there’s no smoke without fire. Leak the information either to the press or to the selection committee. Candidate fails to get selected; job done.

    If you have boots on the ground, you can intervene more forcefully and make the candidate withdraw themselves. Perhaps the candidate’s house burns down one day. Perhaps their child has an accident on the way home from school. Perhaps their elderly parent develops a severe illness. Either way, the candidate suddenly finds themselves fully absorbed in their personal lives and no longer has any free time to campaign. They withdraw their candidacy, and job done.

    Look at France, where Macron remains the only candidate not tainted with allegations of unscrupulous behaviour.

  10. Andrew M – You dig through the person’s history and find something that will make them unlikeable to the public (everyone has something). If you really can’t find anything, invent something plausible: people will assume that there’s no smoke without fire. Leak the information either to the press or to the selection committee. Candidate fails to get selected; job done.

    You mean, business as usual for the political parties, MSM, etc? ¯\_(ツ)_/ ¯

  11. TIS,
    Sure, except one assumes that the KGB / Mossad have access to more information than rival political parties, the media, etc. A reasonable assumption, in the light of all the Wikileaks stuff.

  12. Different rules apply to Democrats and have done so since at least the time of JFK. More likely FDR. Perhaps even Wilson

    Given that the Democrats were historically the party of Jim Crow, segregation and the KKK, different standards have applied to them since the end of the Civil War.

  13. Andrew – Eh. Mebbe. I think the most important lesson from Wikileaks is that our own government is already spying on us more assiduously than any spook in Moscow or Tel Aviv.

    I think I know which shower of bastards to be more wary of, and it ain’t the foreign ones.

    And from what I gather, there’s no actual evidence Russia is in fact doing anything like what you describe. Unless they hacked Ed Miliband’s brain and made him carve his election promises into a big crazy stone like some sort of mentalist.

  14. Sessions talked to the Russian Ambassador at a Democrat function. Then the Dems go nuts that Sessions talked to the Russian Ambassador!

    Surreal. The Democrats have joined Obama’s Choom Gang.

  15. Andrew M,

    “From your on-going electronic dragnet surveillance, you learn that one of the candidates spends a lot of time reading anti-Russia (or anti-Israel) news sources. You dig through the person’s history and find something that will make them unlikeable to the public (everyone has something). If you really can’t find anything, invent something plausible: people will assume that there’s no smoke without fire. Leak the information either to the press or to the selection committee. Candidate fails to get selected; job done.”

    What “ongoing electronic dragnet surveillance”?

    I work in software, have done for decades, and I know what smells like hardcore hacking, what is lax security, and what is an inside job. I can tell you that almost nothing happens because of hardcore hacking. Almost no targeted attacks happen because of lax security, and nearly all “hacks” are inside jobs.

    There’s a conspiracy of lies about all of this. Organisations like Sony and the Democratic Party would much rather pretend it’s serious state hacking than admit flawed internal procedures. It’s the juicy story for the media. And the likes of the FBI and CIA can join in with it to scare the public and raise their budgets.

    The FBI spoke about this attack with no physical access to the Democrat Party server. So, how do they deduce there was a hack? That means no physical evidence of the attack, no server logs of the attack. Do they record every single internet packet coming into America? No, they don’t.

  16. A good hack leaves no trace. A hack you want them to be aware of you make sure they are aware of.

  17. Mr Press Secretary to Putin, it’s alleged that your country has successfully schemed to install a patsy as US president – a shady businessman whose massive debts will make him easy to control. Is that true?

    Peskov (for it is he): no, definitely not

    But Mr Peskov, it’s well established that your government favoured Mr Trump’s candidacy throughout, and that were many contacts between your government’s employees and his campaign. His National Security Adviser was sacked for concealing his meeting with your country’s ambassador.

    Peskov: No, that was nonsense. Why, the ambassador probably also met with people working in think tanks who advised people who worked for Hillary Clinton.

    Oh, that’s all right then.

  18. That’s the first time I have read that Hillary Cinton is “a shady businessman whose massive debts will make him easy to control”

  19. Maybe the Russians hacked Hillary Clinton’s meds and turned her into a horrible old woman with the charisma of a common cold though.

  20. – “GCHQ: Russian cyber‑threat to British elections”

    Thank heavens postal votes are incorruptible.

  21. Diogenes

    “Different rules apply to Democrats and have done so since at least the time of JFK. More likely FDR. Perhaps even Wilson
    Given that the Democrats were historically the party of Jim Crow, segregation and the KKK, different standards have applied to them since the end of the Civil War.”

    Didn’t Teddy Kennedy specifically request assistance from the USSR to help him win a US presidency?

  22. Funny how the left has had an attack of the vapours over Russia interfering in our way of life but we’re silent when they did it during the Cold War.

  23. Maybe he does not know that it should be cui bono? So who stands to benefit from discrediting Trump? Maybe the Democrats?

  24. In other news, Murph is in meltdown

    Richard Murphy says:
    March 13 2017 at 12:02 pm
    I despair of Corbynistas

    You are the most right wing fundamentalist support group there has ever been in UK politics

    That, and pretending to be left when Corbyn / McDonnell and neoliberal book balancers to their core

    So Jezza is on the right now?

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.