WHAT PUTIN WAS UP TO

[endicom]

Power Line
Paul Mirengoff
July 19, 2018

In this Wall Street Journal op-ed, Michael Mukasey questioned the timing of Robert Mueller’s indictment of 12 Russians on the eve of the Helsinki summit. I discussed the matter here.

In the same op-ed, Mukasey made another important point, one that has influenced my thinking on Russian interference since January 2017, when an experienced intelligence hand articulated it to me: If we know the Russians hacked the Democrats, it’s probably because the Russians want us to know.

Mukasey writes:

Despite the wide-eyed, golly-Mr.-Science tone in much of the news coverage, the indictment doesn’t portray cutting-edge Russian intelligence capabilities. The defendants all are said to be members of GRU, Russia’s main military intelligence unit. It is comprised largely of former special-forces types who are looked down upon by their more sophisticated competitors in the SVR, successor to Mr. Putin’s alma mater, the KGB. Their acts, as portrayed in the indictment, obviously were detected—in exquisite detail—by U.S. intelligence services. GRU’s phishing venture, although widespread, was primitive compared with the SVR’s capabilities.

More... http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/07/what-putin-was-up-to.php

[endicom]

I think we're getting closer to unraveling this ball of yarn.

[Wingnut]

I think we're getting closer to unraveling this ball of yarn.

Yeah but, there is a ball inside of a ball inside of a ball.

[Jazzhead]

This is in accord with my thinking.   Trump's victory took everyone by surprise - including the Russians.   Russian "meddling" was intended to obtain leverage over a President Clinton, not to elect a President Trump.   

Trump's victory underscores how truly bad the choice was in 2016.   Folks took a chance on Trump as the devil they didn't know over the devil they did.   Hillary Clinton is a truly repulsive and corrupt piece of work.   Bernie Sanders could likely have beaten Donald Trump.  Hillary Clinton simply beat herself.     

[dfwgator]

   Bernie Sanders could likely have beaten Donald Trump.  Hillary Clinton simply beat herself.   

I don't know about that,  the Democrat would have needed more somewhat Conservative 'Never Trumpers' to vote for their candidate.  I couldn't imagine more Conservative 'Never Trumpers' voting for Sanders than they did for Hillary.

[TomSea]

I don't know about that,  the Democrat would have needed more somewhat Conservative 'Never Trumpers' to vote for their candidate.  I couldn't imagine more Conservative 'Never Trumpers' voting for Sanders than they did for Hillary.

That's so.

Watching tv and listening to the radio, they mention how Bernie might have been able to get some of the blue collar vote.

Wisconsin? Hillary didn't even go there, we know that.

I think Wisconsin and Pennsylvania might have been more up for grabs but not most of the other states. Michigan? I have no idea, maybe.

[Wingnut]

Lets not dwell on the should have, could have, would have stuff. 

[Jazzhead]

I don't know about that,  the Democrat would have needed more somewhat Conservative 'Never Trumpers' to vote for their candidate.  I couldn't imagine more Conservative 'Never Trumpers' voting for Sanders than they did for Hillary.

The calculus for the Never Trumpers was whether to vote third party, or return to the GOP fold to vote to defeat Hillary Clinton.   The truly shocking aspect of the 2016 election, for me at least, is that the GOP gained seats in Congress.   That tells me there was a lot of folks thinking a Republican bulwark was required against a President Clinton. 

I continue to view the 2016 election as a repudiation of Clintonism more than an endorsement of Trumpism.   And as we continue to assess Trump's performance, his saving grace is and always has been that he's not that repulsive lizard, Hillary Clinton.   

[TomSea]

But what we have to remember, is if Sanders was the candidate, perhaps a lot of voters would perceive him as being too extreme and would not show up at the voting booth, so it goes both ways.

Candidates perceived as "extreme" on both sides of the spectrum might be able to win their party's nomination but in a general election, they might fail. This could have put other states into play if Bernie had been the nominee, Colorado for one.

[Bigun]

I'm still not sold on the idea that it actually was Russians doing the hacking. But what the heck do I know about anything?

[endicom]

I'm still not sold on the idea that it actually was Russians doing the hacking. But what the heck do I know about anything?

What do any of us know? We have conjecture based in partial knowledge.

@Jazzhead seems to have gotten the gist of it.

Some conjecture:

Trump's waffling on accepting the info from the intelligence agencies is due to what he can reveal, the known GRU stuff, and what he can't reveal, the SVR stuff of which we may have just evidence and not proof.

Trump told Putin privately that we know what SVR is attempting and that we won't accept it. "That's a nice economy you have there, Vlad."

[Jazzhead]

But what we have to remember, is if Sanders was the candidate, perhaps a lot of voters would perceive him as being too extreme and would not show up at the voting booth, so it goes both ways.

Candidates perceived as "extreme" on both sides of the spectrum might be able to win their party's nomination but in a general election, they might fail. This could have put other states into play if Bernie had been the nominee, Colorado for one.

It seems to me that the dynamics of a "devil you know vs. devil you don't" election are very different than an election where both parties are presenting new candidates with new ideas.   As different as "democratic socialist" Bernie was from conventional Dem politicians,  so was "populist anti-immigrant" Trump different than conventional GOP politicians.   How a choice like that would have played out is anyone's guess; my guess is that it would have presented a golden opportunity for an independent centrist candidate.

With Hillary as the choice of the Dems,  no room was seemingly available for an independent centrist to run.  But what took all the conventional thinkers by surprise was the depth of hostility out there in the country for tired, corrupt and morally bankrupt Hillary.   Even she herself couldn't figure out a rationale for her candidacy other than her own royal sense of entitlement.  In the end, millions of us held our noses and voted for Trump as the lesser of two evils.         

[Cyber Liberty]

In the end, millions of us held our noses and voted for Trump as the lesser of two evils.       

And millions of Hillary voters did so for the exact same reason.

[Jazzhead]

And millions of Hillary voters did so for the exact same reason.

No doubt.  I've never had to cast a vote for President under those circumstances before, and I hope I never have to do so again. 

[dfwgator]

What do any of us know? We have conjecture based in partial knowledge.

 

I believe all nations, worth their salt spy on other nations and try to influence their elections, and it has always been and always will be that way.

[endicom]

I believe all nations, worth their salt spy on other nations and try to influence their elections, and it has always been and always will be that way.

I recently read Washington's farewell address and it much concerned duplicitous individuals and governments. He was no naif, our first president, and his warnings would hold today.

 

[truth_seeker]

I have heard the Russia Facebook posts, were about $200,000 which s a pittance.

And they were amateurish, far below the quality which the pros in Russia could have waged.


We must wit for Mueller to give his findings, if ever.

I think Trump was the subject of Obama's administration to frame him, by entrapping people on Trumps side.

Joe diGenova and Mark Levin revealed the main aspects of the scheme, over a year ago.


 

[Cyber Liberty]

No doubt.  I've never had to cast a vote for President under those circumstances before, and I hope I never have to do so again.

I've been casting my vote against politicians since I first started voting in '76.  Don't recall voting FOR them.

[endicom]

I've been casting my vote against politicians since I first started voting in '76.  Don't recall voting FOR them.

I've said the same. None have left me more free or with more money in my pocket.

[DCPatriot]

I've been casting my vote against politicians since I first started voting in '76.  Don't recall voting FOR them.

After Ronald Reagan, it was instinctive to support GHWB.

At the time, his "read my lips...." broken promise didn't seem like such a big deal, personally.

After 8 years of the Clintons, GWB was a breath of fresh air.  I avidly supported him and participated...took hundreds of photos at VP Gore's residence at the Naval Observatory entrance as well as the demonstrations at the Supreme Court.

First candidate I was ambivalent about...John McCain.  Definitely voted against the Manchurian. 

Same as with Romney. 

Yep...those 'principled' Conservatives sure showed us what happens when they don't approve of a candidate's [religious] pedigree.

Now they're trying the same thing over this bullsh*t faux pas in Helsinki.

We should all be concerned about November.  I said in here over a year ago that the DEMS/MSM/SOCMEDIA are going to whip everybody up like never before to get off their asses to vote.

I hope and pray the President's megaphone is louder.

[Bigun]

After Ronald Reagan, it was instinctive to support GHWB.

At the time, his "read my lips...." broken promise didn't seem like such a big deal, personally.

After 8 years of the Clintons, GWB was a breath of fresh air.  I avidly supported him and participated...took hundreds of photos at VP Gore's residence at the Naval Observatory entrance as well as the demonstrations at the Supreme Court.

First candidate I was ambivalent about...John McCain.  Definitely voted against the Manchurian. 

Same as with Romney. 

Yep...those 'principled' Conservatives sure showed us what happens when they don't approve of a candidate's [religious] pedigree.

Now they're trying the same thing over this bullsh*t faux pas in Helsinki.

We should all be concerned about November.  I said in here over a year ago that the DEMS/MSM/SOCMEDIA are going to whip everybody up like never before to get off their asses to vote.

I hope and pray the President's megaphone is louder.

The problem with all that is that the country continued to move leftward no matter which of them was in the White House  at the time.  And there are a host of proofs to confirm that.