Is Obama right to sanction Russia over the alleged hackings?

Imagine the information they've derived from HRC's private server. If she had been elected they'd have plenty to blackmail her with.

I agree with most of that and it entirely possible (perhaps likely) that the Russian government was involved in the hack.

Where is the proof? There is probable cause, yes, but no actual hard evidence that we have seen. This is accusing a foreign country if stitching up an election. It is a huge claim and can't be made without certainty.

Don't get me wrong, I hate both Trump and Putin but I think power should be accountable. That can only happen if peoe have the information with which to make consequencial decisions.

@Burnley123: I've done a buttload of research on this. It's quite frightening actually. Where to begin? Let's start with Trump when he was in Russia with one of his gross pageants. He brags of his relationship with Putin in an interview. LAT reported he sought and got money from Russian investigators for several projects, including his Soho hotel. This included money from a notorious criminal Russian money laundering op, called Bayrock. They funded Trump projects around the globe. Donald Jr. said "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets" at a real estate conference. Trump's own comments throughout the campaign show an adolescent fanboy love of Putin. He then hires Manafort, who consulted directly for Putin's ally in Ukraine. Manafort received payments from Russian oligarchs and received no money from Trump. NYT story on Manafort was so damaging and explosive he leaves the campaign immediately. Meanwhile, hack leaks are timed with the DNC for maximum impact to split the left. Many try to claim no one knows who did it. But Feds know better. Burnley, you and others may deny it but there are mountains of evidence. Podesta's private email gets hacked too. More leaks but magically nothing on the other side. Remember this? Close Trump aide, Roger Stone warns of more leaks coming. He was right. How did he know? WL contact for sure. Russian? Then in a press conference for the ages, Trump actually verbalizes this: He hoped Russian intelligence services had successfully hacked Hillary Clinton's email, and encouraged them to publish whatever they may have stolen, essentially urging a foreign adversary to conduct cyber espionage against a former secretary of state. Not only is this dangerous, but there's a huge tell in here. He doesn't call for the 400 lb hacker to help. He explicitly says "Russia". At 3rd debate, topic of Russia comes up and HRC accuses Trump of being a puppet for Putin. Not only does Trump have no real response, he nervously panic-objects with the totally normal: "No puppet. No puppet. You're the puppet". Mmmmkay. Meanwhile, the only interaction he's had with our govt is that he starts getting intel briefings. In those briefings, he's told about evidence of Russian interference in the election. Yet subsequently he still says "we have no idea who hacked." It's one of the only things he's been told officially and yet... Why would he lie here? To make intel communities look bad? Or because he knows how much more there is? Republicans are then briefed on Russian hacking but block info getting out. Out of respect for the election of course... Yet they're giddy to lose their minds over the FBI releasing info about Anthony Weiner's laptop. Which may or may not contain anything at all. Emails have a to & a from so since we have all the other end points there's no chance at all there's anything new here. But the media collectively goes insane. Reid demands the FBI also release what they know about Russia. Which is a lot. He knows because the CIA told him. FBI then leaks a bullshit story that yeah Russia did it but not to help Trump. And yet even to this day Trump isn't denying Russian motive. He flat out denies Russian involvement at all! This despite Russian officials saying explicitly they've been talking with the Trump campaign this whole time! So in conclusion, this is all absurdly obvious. All reported by our most respected entities. Do your own research and tell me what you find.

@RootinTootinHighFalutin: Thanks for the response. Here is latest from Glenn Greenwald.


https://theintercept.com/2016/12/14/heres-the-public-evidence-russia-hacked-the-dnc-its-not-enough/

There is a lot to get through but it looks like the CIA may have cyber evidence but may be keeping it for now because they don't wanna reveal their methods. I do think they need to release evidence though because this is just too big. Unless there is conclusive proof there will always be plausible deniability and this will remain a partisan issue.

This move and the UN vote both happened while O was on vacation. His largest foreign policy moves and he was golfing. It's quite appropriate don't you think? He was more interested in sinking a putt. It shows.

Fair enough. I said what I thought on Big Asset's political post earlier today.

@Burnley123: Big Ass doesn't play well with others. Either he blocked me, or I blocked him. Either way, I couldn't be happier.

@carpediem: lol. Some other time then.

@nakedguy: George W Bush had a degree from Harvard but should we trust his word or his expertise? For me this is not a partisan thing but is about broader questions of state power and accountability.

For me if CIA dates they have proof, that is good enough. If they disclose how they know that, then it tells people who shouldn't know, how we know it.

@nakedguy: And if the say that Saddam has WMD...

@Burnley123: oh absolutely so. But I think trying to frame this as a judicial exercise is somewhat fruitless; this is diplomatic manouevring, which absolutely requires a Macchiavellian* approach to it (of course I think it's relatively pointless even at that level, but that's a different discussion).

What concerns me more, and strikes me as more necessary, is a judicial inquiry into the supposed hackings for the purposes of determining the truth and affixing civil penalties to individuals and organisations that were involved directly or as willing accessories. But that is rather less likely than my winning the lottery tomorrow.

*note the capitalization: I dont mean machiavellian in the linguistic sense of being convoluted and devious for its own sake, but in the original meaning of what Niccolo wrote, essentially everythin has to be judged by its effect & outcome, not on a moral scale.

@firefall: I think sanctions by executive order is more than standard political manoovering.

I take your point from Machiavelli but then the outcome is hard to judge and it is even harder to judge if we are not sure exactly what happened. I am just very sceptical of unaccountable power. Some good points though and a good debate. Ttyl

@Burnley123: cheers - always a pleasure to kick it around with you. Well except for football :p

What makes you think there is no evidence?

What makes you think there is? Burden of proof should lay with the accuser and power should be accountable.

@nakedguy: if there was evidence, everyone worldwide would know it, it would be on the front page of the newspapers and it would be printed everywhere on the news websites, just like there is evidence of the nearby prism program

It's almost as if (gasp) someone is forcing his hand by not using lib media to prosecute him for that fraudulent birth cert.

Grow a pair? Who killed bin laden?

@wheels1972: lol. In amongst this passionate political debate, here we have a discussion about an (awesome) 80s/90s synth pop/rock band. 😂

@Burnley123: i have to be honest mate i dodnt read the statement just saw the pic lol and music is much more important

@wheels1972: 😂

So we should trust the off the record briefings of agents (who are by necessity professional liars) as to whether you support a political decision?

well that was easy :)

but its ok for obama to interfere with elections in Israel and Syria?..
i got no proof of course.. but it does seem very hypocritical of young barry.. :)