Of course, the elections weren't free, and they weren't even elections - it was a confirmation process for pre-selected by the communists people - without the possibility to vote no. Of course, it sometimes happened the Soviets said we don't like the person A, we prefer the person B. This didn't happen in the seventies, so the cases are not included in the graph. And anyway, Mr Levin writes at the very beginning of his work that his is interested in competitive national-level executive elections. The elections in the communist countries never were competitive, and they never conducted any national-level executive elections.
Right, but that just means it is a flawed comparison. It was Soviet power ("influence") preventing free parliamentary elections. But they were still elections. There was every opportunity to vote no, but people understood the consequences of doing so, and chose not to. In Australia, it is today illegal to not vote. Slap with a fine. Mind you, Australians also slap you with a tax to leave the country. "National-level executive elections" are not held in many countries, and in reality is very dependent on how you define those terms. Competitive parliamentary elections in many countries lead to cabinet positions (i.e. executive power) being assigned as the leader of winning party (or coalition) decrees inasfar as they can garner internal party support for their choices. By your definition, although these are competitive, they are non-executive elections for seats in a parliament. Therefore any attempt to influence those elections wouldn't be counted.
He explains later he is interested in partisan election interventions, because of the "dearth of research on this topics". A partisan electoral intervention is "a situation in which one or more sovereign countries intentionally undertakes specific actions to influence an upcoming election in another sovereign country in an overt or covert manner". He knows about puppet states like the East European communist countries, but he is not interested in puppet-master relations.
He has a vested interest in outright lying...And he is known to be an outright liar...Anyone that fact checked much of what he said on the campaign trail will tell you that. Are you really that dense? The thing that stole the mails was Russian created, but that was back in the 2000's. It has undergone several permutations since then that make it hard, without specific evidence, to accredit this to one person or another. Created by the Ukrainians??? Really??? Well, then I guess you do not even believe the article that you linked to for proof then. For you see...The Malware is old - anyone, even a "script kiddie" could have put the Ukrainian flag and the "Made in Ukraine" tag in there - Even if they were not Ukrainian. The same reasons that cast doubt on this being Russian are the same ones that cast doubt on this being Ukrainian. As for being a POS...Well, it is a very resilient POS, that can do it's job effectively. Which, pretty much makes it not a POS.
Craig Murrays opinion on this new report of Russian hacking... https://www.rt.com/news/372935-murray-interview-odni-report/
It's not a study, it's information-gathering efforts, they want to fill the blanks in their knowledge, not to judge anybody. And interventions in sovereign countries weren't researched properly earlier, and were poorly understood too.
Results delivered by the so called fact checkers were strangely depended on political allegiance of the fact checkers. But anyway this time he is fact-checked by his peers, leaders of the Senate, and the House - who have access to that report too. Even a pathological liar wouldn't lie so blatantly, simply because it wouldn't be profitable. The thing was adapted and used for years by the Ukrainians so they own it. But the point is: a professional spy organization working for a major power, i.e. Russia, an organization having access to serious money and expertise wouldn't use a known and obsolete piece of software. Because a known and obsolete piece of software doesn't perform well against modern antivirus programs and other defense systems. It delivers results poorly, it's simply not worth it. It would be like deploying the T-34 in a modern battle, when you have a bunch of T-14 Armata at your disposal.
Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found. The Deep State Goes to War with President-Elect, Using Unverified Claims, as Democrats Cheer This is the faction that is now engaged in open warfare against the duly elected and already widely disliked president-elect, Donald Trump. They are using classic Cold War dirty tactics and the defining ingredients of what has until recently been denounced as “Fake News.” Their most valuable instrument is the U.S. media, much of which reflexively reveres, serves, believes, and sides with hidden intelligence officials. And Democrats, still reeling from their unexpected and traumatic election loss as well as a systemic collapse of their party, seemingly divorced further and further from reason with each passing day, are willing — eager — to embrace any claim, cheer any tactic, align with any villain, regardless of how unsupported, tawdry and damaging those behaviors might be.[...] But cheering for the CIA and its shadowy allies to unilaterally subvert the U.S. election and impose its own policy dictates on the elected president is both warped and self-destructive. Empowering the very entities that have produced the most shameful atrocities and systemic deceit over the last six decades is desperation of the worst kind. Demanding that evidence-free, anonymous assertions be instantly venerated as Truth — despite emanating from the very precincts designed to propagandize and lie — is an assault on journalism, democracy, and basic human rationality. And casually branding domestic adversaries who refuse to go along as traitors and disloyal foreign operatives is morally bankrupt and certain to backfire on those doing it.
Given a name like "Politico" and looking at the articles I'm not convinced it's very trustworthy could even be an Onion analog. Overt statements and actions aren't really the issue anyway it's the covert nature of the Russian actions that's the real problem. Can't get to your second reference right now but judging by the url and the title it's questionable whether it is anymore trustworthy than the first.
There are several well-informed fact checkers that are not aligned nor associated with either political party... Yep, and look how quickly Trump's tune changed from Russia did not do it, to Russia did do it. A pathological liar does not care about profit. You still fail to understand...A great many have had access to the malware, and a great many have modified it for their own needs. It is owned by no one any more. And as you point out a 14-year-old "script kiddie" can modify it. Yet, you steadfastly blame it on the Ukrainians, while refusing to accept Russian involvement. Even Trump has now admitted that it was the Russians. Regretfully, you completely miss the point...Because you are not thinking like a "spook." The use of such old, well-traveled malware gives them plausible deniability. Just look at all the articles that are arguing over whether or not this was a Russian hack, and you will see that this is the truth. By using the "latest and greatest" malware that Russian intelligence can code, would leave all fingers pointing directly at Russia and give them no plausible deniability. Had Russia used the latest and greatest, they still would have gotten caught, but we would not be arguing over their involvement, because the "proof" would be there for all to see. Thank you for proving my point with this analogy, although I would have used the T-55 instead of the T-34. The T-55 has been used by a great many countries, and has been heavily modified to fight and survive on a modern battlefield. So, it has the robustness and adaptability to fight on the modern battlefield. By Russia using your presumed T-14 Armata, it leaves them no room for deniability. By using an upgraded T-55 that is in use by several nations, it gives them a good bit of plausible deniability.
Please, viruses don't have fingerprints. They are all written in Microsoft Visual Studio or similar development environments, i.e. Western products. Those viruses were Ukrainians because some Ukrainians were using them to spread spam and sell male enhancements. If you sell something you have to give away a return address. Sometimes there are Russian or Chinese words in them, like here, in the Mirai botnet code: // Get password this.conn.SetDeadline(time.Now().Add(60 * time.Second)) this.conn.Write([]byte("\033[34;1mпароль\033[33;3m: \033[0m")) But that word ("password") serves no useful purpose, it seems like as if someone wanted it to be seen. So this word hunting proves nothing too. A sophisticated malware wouldn't even left any traces it was there. There are viruses that were discovered after years of roaming in the wild, nobody spotted them earlier. On the other hand an old malware would be stopped by the built in Windows anti-virus, so a sophisticated malicious operator wouldn't use it. It would be pointless. It was an old tank/modern tank example, not Russian tanks.
Politico is a spawn of the Washington Post. They have tons of money at their disposal, 300 people are working there. They were rabidly pro-Clinton during the elections, so it is straight from the enemy camp's mouth. Glenn Greenwald is a Pulitzer Prize winner, he has done more for the US than many of its politicians.
Please...You are in error with this statement. Please...The virus has been out there for several years...And persons of several nationalities have used it. IIRC, the "Ukraine" was only for that specific newer version that your source used as an example. It's not just a return address, it's a return IP address, because you are both sending and receiving data, this makes it quite hard, almost impossible, to "spoof" you IP address. Umm..."// Get Password" is a "comment" as denoted by the //...Near about every programmer uses them. Viruses are only spotted if you are looking for them, and you know what to look for. Umm...No, they Windows built in AV is not proof against viruses...Why do you think there are a ton of companies out there making AV... If Windows AV was as good as you suggest...There would be no market for these companies. It was an old Russian tank/new Russian tank example...T-34 vs T-14 Armata...Old Russian...New Russian...But, Russian none the less.
No, it's always done by a proxy, or in a pinch through a public hotspot. Script kiddies use a single proxy, professionals many of them. A source ip address (it's not a return address) leads to nowhere. The comment with "password" was added by a person analyzing the code. Real malware doesn't carry comments. The word password was in red. Someone has written tens of thousands lines of code in English and then suddenly used a Russian word, that's stupid and suspicious. Viruses can be spotted unless they use a zero day vulnerability, or many of them. People with resources and an important mission to carry out use them, and usually get away with it, undetected.
1 billion soros loss after Trump election? A Mirabella at the Globe and Mail, Jan 12, 2017 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ideas/soros-lost-nearly-1-billion-after-trump-election-report/article33594229/
He was betting the world economy would crash because of Trump, and lost. It seems there was a concentrated action to make it happen: Jim Rogers, who founded the Quantum Fund with George Soros, went apocalyptic when he said, “A $68 trillion ‘Biblical’ collapse is poised to wipe out millions of Americans.” Mark Faber, Dr. Doom himself, recently told CNBC that “investors are on the Titanic” and stocks are about to “endure a gut-wrenching drop that would rival the greatest crashes in stock market history.” And the prophetic economist Andrew Smithers warns, “U.S. stocks are now about 80% overvalued.” Davidson [...] warns, “There are three key economic indicators screaming SELL. They don’t imply that a 50% collapse is looming – it’s already at our doorstep.” It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover? Frankly, I find it hard to care much, even though this is my specialty. The disaster for America and the world has so many aspects that the economic ramifications are way down my list of things to fear. Still, I guess people want an answer: If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never. The last one is from Paul Krugman: a distinguished professor of economics, columnist for The New York Times, Nobel Prize winner. These are the best economists on this planet in action. They are colluders or plain idiots. One can imagine the level of manipulation or idiocy that will be going on in a global government.
Well, they were betting the economy would crash, but it had zero to do with Trump. Let's look... While wm. does link to a recent article date January 13, 2017, the actual quote “A $68 trillion ‘Biblical’ collapse is poised to wipe out millions of Americans.” is from back in late-May 2016. http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article55287.html At that point Trump was only the presumptive Republican nominee for President. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/28/dr-doom-marc-faber-investors-are-on-the-titanic.html Here again, this quote was originally from late-June 2016. Here again Trump is only the presumptive Republican nominee for President. Further, Faber's concern was Brexit, and he never mentions Trump...Not once. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/were-in-the-third-biggest-stock-bubble-in-us-history-2014-07-15 Good Lord Man! That was back in 2014...Trump was not even running for President then. http://www.naturalnews.com/051202_economic_predictions_stock_market_crash_James_Dale_Davidson.html This one is from 2015...I believe that Trump had only recently announced he was officially running for President. Regretfully, none of thee above deal with Trump, either directly or indirectly. The only bonafide quote that deals with Trump is the last one from Paul Krugman. Well, 1 out of 5 isn't bad. Yeah, Ok, it is...
So fake news. Well, someone has to do it, they are not going to write themselves... But the doom and gloom is real. It seems there is an outbreak of mass hysteria among economists.
Not "fake news", but "old news". This was simply a repost of an older article, with the title changed to 2017, when it originally read 2016. As is evidenced here: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/80-stock-market-crash-strike-2016-economist-warns-tai-hector Look at the date...September 22, 2016. A response to the original article...Dated August 21, 2016: http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidmarotta/2016/08/21/beware-of-dire-market-crash-predictions/#48307bd91ddb Hardly...The "doom and gloom" comes from a select group of economists who place value on the physical material holdings of companies - factories, machines, invetories, etc. But, in the information age, "value" can come from a great many other sources, not just physical material holdings. So, in one sense, the "doom and gloom" is real, but in another sense, it is not.
