Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Security United States Privacy Politics

CIA Captured Putin's 'Specific Instructions' To Hack the 2016 Election, Says Report (thedailybeast.com) 535

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Daily Beast: When Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., CIA Director John Brennan and FBI Director James B. Comey all went to see Donald Trump together during the presidential transition, they told him conclusively that they had "captured Putin's specific instructions on the operation" to hack the 2016 presidential election, according to a report in The Washington Post. The intel bosses were worried that he would explode but Trump remained calm during the carefully choreographed meeting. "He was affable, courteous, complimentary," Clapper told the Post. Comey stayed behind afterward to tell the president-elect about the controversial Steele dossier, however, and that private meeting may have been responsible for the animosity that would eventually lead to Trump firing the director of the FBI.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CIA Captured Putin's 'Specific Instructions' To Hack the 2016 Election, Says Report

Comments Filter:
  • by TimothyHollins ( 4720957 ) on Friday December 15, 2017 @08:03AM (#55744649)

    When you require careful and concerted choreography to explain simple concepts to your president, there might be a problem.

    • Re:Intredasting (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Friday December 15, 2017 @08:11AM (#55744683)

      >When you require careful and concerted choreography to explain simple concepts to your president

      If you want Trump to believe something, it's best to get Fox News to do a short and aggressive segment on it in which they flatter Trump a lot. Maybe include a short phrase that looks good with a hash tag.

      • Re:Intredasting (Score:5, Insightful)

        by houghi ( 78078 ) on Friday December 15, 2017 @08:17AM (#55744715)

        Too much work. Just say that Obama wanted the opposite.

      • Maybe include a short phrase that looks good with a hash tag.

        You mean something like "Covfefe"?

      • "If you want Trump to believe something, it's best to get Fox News to do a short and aggressive segment on it in which they flatter Trump a lot."

        Naw, just do it like John Oliver does it, paying for a commercial with a self-lubricating-catheder-cowboy actor explaining things to the 'fucking moron' on Faux-News.

  • horse-shoe (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TimothyHollins ( 4720957 ) on Friday December 15, 2017 @08:06AM (#55744657)

    If your boss explodes when reality does not conform to his wishes, he just might be a snowflake.

  • by Lisandro ( 799651 ) on Friday December 15, 2017 @08:07AM (#55744659)

    The real surprise would be if they didn't find any evidence of this.

  • by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Friday December 15, 2017 @08:08AM (#55744663)

    If you show the average person evidence that someone is doing something bad, they might ask questions about the reliability of the evidence.

    If his own spy agency shows Trump evidence that Russia is doing something bad, he denounces them and has an off-the-record chat with Putin.

    I wouldn't trust a spy agency as a general rule - their whole existence is about getting what they want by deception - but I'd hardly trust the Russians when it comes to a domestic agency's claims against them.

    This immediately leads to questions about why a president might trust a foreign power over his own agencies. And more questions when there are records of his team attempting to work with that same power to scuttle an opponent's election bid, that have been consistently lied about in an obvious cover-up.

    But this is Trump, so this will amount to another round of Twitter outrage and blow over.

    • by ReeceTarbert ( 893612 ) on Friday December 15, 2017 @08:39AM (#55744817)

      This immediately leads to questions about why a president might trust a foreign power over his own agencies.

      No, the real question and, as far as I know a question that no one is asking, is: if the elections have really been hacked, why not void them and have a do over?

      Of course that's a rhetorical question, since putting the blame one someone else is easier than admit that enough people voted for the man, so you now have to deal with it. Trouble is, so does the rest of the world.

      RT.

      • by squiggleslash ( 241428 ) on Friday December 15, 2017 @09:04AM (#55744965) Homepage Journal

        if the elections have really been hacked, why not void them and have a do over?

        Because "elections have been hacked" can mean anything including:

        1. Polling machines programmatically hacked (which nobody, so far as I can tell, is alleging.)
        2. Infrastructure around polling, such as voter registrations, and tools to make available voter IDs, being hacked to suppress turnout (there were rumors the Russians might have at one point been considering doing this, but nobody has alleged they actually have done this.)
        3. The pollution of information sources to ensure voters are given believable false information

        Thus far, the allegations concerning the Russians have focused on (3). There's pretty much no constitutional basis for overturning an election on the basis that voters were mislead. Voters are mislead all the time, it's just usually the lies come from fellow Americans, and to some extent there's some balance. On top of that, if the election were reheld today, how many people would go to the polls saying "Well, I've since learned that Clinton was actually the victim of a 25 year long smear campaign and it's highly improbable that 90% of the bad things I've heard about her actually have any basis in reality. I was duped, and will change my vote"?

        Any? Nobody willingly admits they were duped over something that basic.

        At this point, the only mechanism we have for "correcting" the mistake is to elect an opposition party to power in Congress in 2018. If we consider Trump continuing to be President dangerous (and I do), we also have to hope that party also recognizes that Trump has already broken the law [brookings.edu] and should be impeached. But that's the extent of it. You can't request a do-over because voters were lied to and manipulated, that'd invalidate almost every Presidential election we've ever had. The fact it's a foreign government that did so means we need to address our relations with that government, not invalidate our own elections.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Even if people don't admit that they were duped, just knowing that will make them more careful next time. And that's the point of it - to understand what happened and come up with ways to stop it happening again.

      • if the elections have really been hacked, why not void them and have a do over?

        And what organization would be the arbiter? CIA can't call new elections. Congress can impeach, but that is a political decision, not a technical one. Any other?

        Your question was indeed rhetorical, but not for the reason you named.

        • Here's something that the majority of America would support to the extent that legality is moot:
          Shoot Trump and Clinton into the sun. Have a new primary and a new general election. Have an option on the ballots to shoot both candidates into the sun, just in case we end up in a similar situation. Rinse and repeat until we've got a candidate that the country doesn't hate.
      • This immediately leads to questions about why a president might trust a foreign power over his own agencies.

        No, the real question and, as far as I know a question that no one is asking, is: if the elections have really been hacked, why not void them and have a do over?

        That would be cool, but the process of removing a sitting president in America is based on either Impeachment and removal, or the 25th amendment removal process, then there is a specific line of succession as to who is next in line. The next to are obviously vice president Mike Pence, followed by Paul Ryan, speaker of the house.

    • "doing something bad?" You would have more predictable results by enlarging your frame of reference. Consider, "One person's Terrorist is another's Freedom Fighter."
      • Consider, "One person's Terrorist is another's Freedom Fighter."

        I always found that phrase so vapid. One persons cult figure is another persons great leader. The fact that people are often delusional or mislead doesn't mean there aren't objective standards, or that words don't actually have real meaning.

    • by guruevi ( 827432 ) <evi@evc i r c u its.com> on Friday December 15, 2017 @08:52AM (#55744889) Homepage

      Itâ(TM)s not about trust but about keeping the peace and politics. Trump may or may not personally believe what the NSA and CIA told him (which has its own agenda) but to accuse or retaliate on Russia could start another Cold War.

      In the end, Russia used propaganda to influence an election just like the US does in Russia. They didnâ(TM)t hack it, they didnâ(TM)t make people vote or stop voting at gun point, they got some advertising on a Facebook - voters influenced by that are morons and are spread out evenly across the population so itâ(TM)s unlikely to have had a great effect other than being demoralizing.

      • by e3m4n ( 947977 ) on Friday December 15, 2017 @09:58AM (#55745287)

        I do find it ironic that out of the hundreds of millions of dollars spent in advertising in this election, so many people are willing to believe that just $3000 in well placed Facebook ads is all it took to 'steal' an election. Does anyone besides Facebook have anything to gain by perpetuation this rumor? I mean that's totally amazing Advertisement for Facebook. "Ads placed on Facebook are 10,000 times more likely to be viewed than traditional media. A 2016 study showed that every dollar spent in ads on Facebook had more impact than $10,000 spent with our competitors" ... then they go about feeding those who are so anti-trump they will latch onto anything, and suddenly half the country believes that Facebook is the ultimate advertisement platform.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Russia did much more that Facebook advertising. They hacked the democratic party and had Wikileaks published 20000 internal stolen emails. This was denied by the Trump campaign and Trump instead at a rally said, ""Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing". US intelligence released a statement stating that Russia was responsible and Obama kicked out a number of Russian diplomats and enforced sanctions on Russia. While Trump claimed it "could be Russia, but i

        • by guruevi ( 827432 )

          Bold claim. However it has never been proven.

          • I forget which news, maybe RT, but I recently heard Putin is all pissed off with the West because he's paranoid of them seizing his $200 billion in offshore funds and a trial at the Hague. Just to be clear, the west have a lot of bad shit on Putin ( ie, torturing and killing) and when he's not in power, he's fair game.
    • But this is Trump, so this will amount to another round of Twitter outrage and blow over.

      First statement is true, as for the second one - just stand by

      • >as for the second one - just stand by

        I stopped thinking anything would happen to Trump when he went crazy over the inauguration photos and the Republican party didn't immediately convene to discuss how to remove someone that divorced from reality from the White House.

        Instead, people supported him, and continued with every new inappropriate thing he said afterwards. I don't care if his support is slowly falling in the polls to record lows, nothing seems to stop his party and their core voters from uncon

    • Who says he trusted anyone? Distrust a foreign power particularly one run by a Soviet-era intelligence operative. But they weren't Trump's agencies by any stretch of the imagination. They were the last administration's agencies. Pretty much everyone in there came on board before he took office. They all have a vested interest in their own power, influence, and careers. I wouldn't trust them either.

  • Cool... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Steve Jackson ( 4687763 ) on Friday December 15, 2017 @08:11AM (#55744685)
    Publish them... SHOW us all this "Evidence" I want to SEE it. Not hear about it. I can hear lies from ALL directions. SHOW ME THE TRUTH!
    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by gtall ( 79522 )

      They won't publish because it would reveal how they got that information. They aren't going to advertise how the Kremlin leaks. Now go back and learn about how to do foreign intelligence.

    • Re:Cool... (Score:5, Funny)

      by houghi ( 78078 ) on Friday December 15, 2017 @08:27AM (#55744771)

      YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

      Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with power. Who's gonna do it? You? You, #4687763? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Net Neutrality and you curse the TSA. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know; that Net Neutralities death, while tragic, probably saved money.

      And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, *saves money (for a few companies)*. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that firewall. You need me on that firewall. We use words like hacking, code, money. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a computer and stand a post.

      Either way, I don't give a *damn* what you think you are entitled to!

      --Somebody-in-the-know

    • Exactly.

      The media has been pounding on the Russian drum for over a year now. So far, it's a big nothing-burger. A few alleged Facebook ads, not even a molecule in a drop in a bucket. Otherwise, endless allegations, but a stunning lack of actual proof.

      Really, it's like the media are trying to distract from something. Like, maybe, Trump isn't doing such a bad job after all?

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Like, maybe, Trump isn't doing such a bad job after all?

        Impossible. According to CNN he drinks way too much diet coke for that.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        >big nothing-burger

        Except for the guilty pleas...

        You're in for a shock if you think this is all made up. Time will tell.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Nothing burger? You should tell that to Michael Flynn, Peter Smith (oh...), George Papadopoulos, Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner.

        Considering some of them have already admitted their crimes, it's odd that you forgot to mention it in your summary.

        • Which one of those people pled guilty to anything related to colluding with Russia to affect the election?

    • Publish them... SHOW us all this "Evidence" I want to SEE it. Not hear about it. I can hear lies from ALL directions. SHOW ME THE TRUTH!

      Exactly.. I'd settle for a transcript of the intercept myself.. Not that some intercept transcript means much at this point. There have been SO many invented things reported about this now that turned out to be false that I'm pretty skeptical every time something new pops up.

      What we have now isn't even hearsay. It's basically somebody saying that somebody else heard a third person say something. But you can bet we have a federal case now!

  • Yea, Right, (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-14/new-russian-hacker-claims-putin-ordered-theft-clintons-email-after-first-one-refused

  • by Charcharodon ( 611187 ) on Friday December 15, 2017 @08:37AM (#55744805)
    At this point I hardly believe anything they say.

    There is the simple fact that even if the DNC and Hillary were hacked by the Russians, which evidence shows that it was mostly leaked data by their own people, they were acting in a criminal manner to rig the nomination process and to burn Trump with made with a made up dossier .

    I for one do not care how the information came out. The fact that it came out was good enough for me. I actually hope hackers all over the world do this every election. Break in to both sides as show where all the bodies are buried. Maybe then we can end some of the corruption that plagues governments.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Baron_Yam ( 643147 )

      >they were acting in a criminal manner to rig the nomination process

      The party was in a financial mess, and Team Hillary essentially bought the debt and the right to have significant control of the party with it. Not illegal in the slightest, 'just' slightly unethical in that it was not traditionally how things were done.

      Also, as it turns out, a giant mistake because Hillary was not actually a viable candidate.

      > and to burn Trump with made with a made up dossier .

      Nope. You know that dossier was first

      • The dossier was NOT "first commissioned by Republicans". Christopher Steele was not hired by Fusion GPS until AFTER the Republicans in question stopped paying Fusion GPS for opposition research on Donald Trump and the Clinton Campaign/DNC started paying Fusion GPS for it. Which makes it seem as if the opposition research which Fusion GPS was able to obtain using techniques which the Republicans who hired them would sanction was considered to be of no value by the Democrats who thus wanted something more sal
        • >The dossier was NOT "first commissioned by Republicans". Christopher Steele was not hired by Fusion GPS until AFTER the Republicans in question stopped paying Fusion GPS for opposition research on Donald Trump

          So it was, in fact, first paid for by Republicans.

  • Turns out the entire FBI leadership was, and mostly still is, a rat's nest of opposition [pjmedia.com] to him filled with unethical bureaucrats who think it's their right to have "insurance policies against the President" among other things.

    If this were happening in 2009, the Democrats would have been giving Obama--rightly--carte blanch to purge the entire agency's leadership above the level of GS15. It doesn't matter what you think of Trump or Obama. Neither of them were Hitler or Stalin or anything like that. The only

    • Sedition is the technical term for it, not mutiny.

    • It doesn't matter what you think of Trump or Obama. Neither of them were Hitler or Stalin or anything like that.

      The things that Trump posts on twitter make me think he's aspiring to become like Stalin. The guy doesn't think he should have any oversight whatsoever.

  • by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Friday December 15, 2017 @08:58AM (#55744927) Journal
    Trump was too casual on this. And like this intelligence world is holding more. If Trump/pence loved America, they would simply step down and allow ryan to take over. Neither trump nor pence love America enough to do what is right. They are going to force America to release more which will only help Russia/China know how and where we monitor them.
  • james clapper (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NynexNinja ( 379583 ) on Friday December 15, 2017 @09:28AM (#55745089)
    This is the same James Clapper who lied under oath in proceedings in Congress. Not sure he can be trusted to make any comments at this point.
  • ... Trump was the sort of person who would...

    Comey stayed behind afterward to tell the president-elect about the controversial Steele dossier, however, and that private meeting may have been responsible for the animosity that would eventually lead to Trump firing the director of the FBI.

    ...kill the messenger. A petty little man.

  • It doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Karmashock ( 2415832 ) on Friday December 15, 2017 @09:40AM (#55745151)

    Hillary didn't lose because of Russia. Trump didn't win because of Russia.

    Ignore Russia for five seconds if you can... Hillary was a weak candidate and so was pretty much the entire republican field.

    Jeb Bush for example carried 3 percent of the republican vote. Hillary is generally disliked by most of her own party. Trump naturally is one of the most disliked presidents in US history. But he didn't win the election because people liked him. He won because for whatever reason... he said he was going to do things and people believed him.

    Pretending that the current political circumstances are the result of the Russians is deranged. This is the same sort of blind spot that lead to Al Gore losing the election against Bush 43. Anyone that studied the gore vs bush election knows that Gore made a lot of mistakes. If you tell yourself you lose because of the Russians or because the Supreme Court robbed you... then you're going to keep losing and you'll deserve to lose.

  • And People take his words and run with them, only later do the News Agencies claim they were wrong (less Foxnews). I for one am tired of it.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us... [theguardian.com]

    I had such a warm fuzzy after Roy Moore was beat by Doug Jones, that I'm looking forward to Trump's ouster.

TRANSACTION CANCELLED - FARECARD RETURNED

Working...