Thoreau72
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2012
- Messages
- 29,638
- Reaction score
- 7,644
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Hm. I would say that I don't consider those two items to be mutually contradictory. Generally speaking, in any influence operation, you want as many vectors as possible. I find both to be plausible. Given limited evidence in their favor, therefore, I find both to be likely.
"Know" is a strong word. I find it highly likely that the Russians intend to interfere with US political processes for their own ends, and that they would be willing to do so in the context of an election. The broader Russian intent is to reduce American political willingness to oppose Russia dominating the countries in its' Near Abroad and securing warm water ports (like in Syria). The rise of Trump was pretty beneficial towards that desired end-state, and it would have been a pretty stupid IO director who failed to take advantage of it. The Russians are a lot of things - stupid isn't on the list.
Any use of a proxy actor (such as Wikileaks) would come with deniability, whether that was in the form of a cut-out or a non-disclosure agreement that comes with penalties. If you double cross America, we will get very upset with you, perhaps send you a strongly worded letter, or (worst case scenario) make an international sub-culture hero out of you by talking about how angry we are at you (see: Snowden, Assange). If you double-cross Putin, you die. It's not terribly surprising that Assange would insist that Russia didn't provide him the information - that is what he would be saying whether they had or not.
I am not even a computer person, if you know what I mean, but even I understand the difference between a leak and a hack.
As Binney has noted, if it had been a hack, the NSA would be able to demonstrate the paths taken by the hackers. As the NSA has not come forth with any such evidence, one should assume there was no hack, considering the pattern of behavior of Washington these days--allegations galore, but not one scintilla of evidence or proof.
On the other hand, several people associated with WikiLeaks have claimed it was a disgruntled DNC person. Considering the momentum Bernie had among young people, and how the DNC screwed him royally, it is most plausible that the information was leaked from the inside, not hacked from the outside.
So, the US can assert its Monroe Doctrine as it pleases, but the Russians are not allowed to do the same? Isn't that hypocrisy?