The New York Times has just published a BOMBSHELL article about the true size of the Russian theft of DNC documents. More than 100,000 documents were stolen. Key sections of the report:
American intelligence agencies have said they have “high confidence” that the attack was the work of Russian intelligence agencies. It has injected a heavy dose of international intrigue into an already chaotic presidential campaign as Democrats have alleged that the Russians are trying to help tilt the election toward the Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump.
Mr. Trump stunned Democrats and Republicans when he said last month that he hoped Russian intelligence services had successfully hacked Mrs. Clinton’s email, and encouraged them to publish whatever they may have stolen, although he said later that he was being sarcastic.
Intelligence and law enforcement officials, however, are taking the issue seriously.
The evidence that Russia is DELIBERATELY trying to destroy Hillary Clinton and boost Donald Trump is now clear. This is a matter of the utmost seriousness, and it demands our immediate attention. We already know that Trump has direct ties through his campaign’s key personnel with Putin. We know through the work of David Cay Johnston that Trump has ties to the Russian Mob. Now this. Given what Julian Assange has threatened, this puts the previous revelations in a new perspective. BIG news.
You can read it here:
www.nytimes.com/…
From Josh Marshall, 2 August, referring to the first hacking report:
Since the DNC hacking story and Trump's apparent ties to Russia moved to the center of the campaign discussion there have been a number of different reactions. One I would call the 'bigthink backlash', articles in a series of the country's smartest, most literary publications which declare flatly that Trump either is not or is almost certainly not a Russian agent or intelligence asset, dismiss the whole topic and then turn the page to discuss some deeper question about Vladimir Putin's malignant rule or why Russia might not fare well with a Trump presidency.
These are fascinating discussions. But they mainly miss the point. I don't put any foolery or bad-acting past Trump. I certainly don't think Donald Trump is actually a Russian agent. I mean, Good Lord, let's hope not! But framing the question in that way creates a nonsense framework in which unless Trump is actually a Russian agent (something that is almost impossible to believe) there's no there there and you just move on. That's silly and writes off most of what is dangerous about Trump and his ties to Russia.
Comments are closed on this story.