Monday, July 25, 2016

DNC Hack Done By "Russians"? Don't Buy It

It figures that the Clinton political strategist and hack Robby Mook, e.g.
Image result for robby mook

 would at some point toss out the BS that "Russians" were behind the DNC hack.  But don't believe it for a second. It is merely an attempt to deflect attention from the content of the emails themselves in order to desperately preserve (or pretend) some sense of unity in the emerging shit storm with Bernie Sanders people at the Democratic Convention. (Some of which we beheld today in various spontaneous protests including one disrupting a DNC breakfast sponsored by the FLA delegation featuring Debbie Wasserman Schultz.)

And, btw, this type of deflection tactic is old hat. Anyone who has spent any time investigating the JFK assassination, for example, has seen it at multiple levels with the disinformationists. For example, the CIA-confected malarkey of "Oswald in Mexico City' which no serious researcher buys.

In this DNC case, numerous other experts (with less air time than the DNC puppets) have already pointed out the sheer difficulty - no matter what the FBI may eventually say - about actually positively identifying the source of the hack. As one expert put it: "Just because you find an AK -47 lying around doesn't mean a Russian was responsible". Same thing with a system hack bearing  "Russian Cyrillic letters in the code". Ever heard of spoofing a hack? When did we see this before? Well with the claimed Sony  hack by N. Korea three years earlier. (Which turned out to be due to a disaffected Sony employee).

Worse, the cyber security firms (like 'CrowdStrike')  and resident "experts" that make these wild claims are often the beneficiaries of   "faith-based attribution"  whereby they skate and are never held accountable when they are wrong. SO pardon me if I don't bite. See also:


Now, back to the Convention!

Three electrifying speeches, from Michelle Obama, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders mesmerized the Convention crowd but Bernie's was easily the most intense and best. (Finally starting after nearly ten minutes of "Bernie!" chants and much applause). Michelle's speech was mainly for political naifs and spell binding on that score. If you were new to a political convention, the words and delivery were meant to get you ramped up

Waarren''s speech was also good but mainly recycled talking points she's used before, say on her network appearance, including on MSNBC only a few weeks ago.

Bernie's speech was relatively novel, not like his campaign retreads. He noted all the disasters a Trump presidency would bring, as well as the enormous inequality which persists where "the top one tenth of one percent have as much wealth as the bottom ninety percent".  Also of the "grotesque wealth and income inequality" which he believes a "President Hillary Clinton" will address.

Well, one can hope and "hope springs eternal"  as they say. The problem is that with two Neoliberal, pro-market (Wall Street friendly) candidates on the ticket it will be extremely difficult. I will be amazed, indeed, given Clinton's already turned to the  center right (with the selection of Kaine)  that she fulfills any of the promises made to Sanders even if she gets congressional leverage. The Wall Street connections are just too lucrative, which is why one Bernie supporter described her as "having the moral depth of a thimble".

Interestingly, even after Sanders' speech (and an earlier scolding by Sander's supporter Sarah Silverman) many 'Bernie or Bust' folks weren't biting. One said she planned to vote for Jill Stein of the Green Party and another insisted Hillary "has work to do to earn my trust."  This is understandable and with 105 days left until the election she has lots of work to do. Alas, choosing Tim Kaine (who was erroneously described over and over as "progressive" by a number of speakers) only compounded distrust among many Sanders' folks. How she will overcome that political miscue I have no idea.

See also:

No comments: