Bombshell report from NYT shows that FBI was aware of Russian cyber attack of DNC in September-2015

[kpete]

Bombshell Report Shows FBI Knew About Russia’s DNC Hacking Since 2015
"The low-key approach of the F.B.I. meant that Russian hackers could roam freely through the committee’s network for nearly seven months before top D.N.C. officials were alerted to the attack..."…
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/12/13/bombshell-nyt-report-shows-fbi-knew-russia-hacking-dnc-2015.html

Tthe FBI was aware of the Russian cyber attack of the DNC in September of 2015, more than a year before the election.

More from the Times:

When Special Agent Adrian Hawkins of the Federal Bureau of Investigation called the Democratic National Committee in September 2015 to pass along some troubling news about its computer network, he was transferred, naturally, to the help desk.

His message was brief, if alarming. At least one computer system belonging to the D.N.C. had been compromised by hackers federal investigators had named “the Dukes,” a cyberespionage team linked to the Russian government.

The New York Times notes that this was the first red flag that the presidential election in the United States was, for the first time ever, being influenced by a foreign government. In this case, it was Russia – a country led by a man, Vladimir Putin, that President-elect Donald Trump has nothing but praise for.

More from the report:

It was the cryptic first sign of a cyberespionage and information-warfare campaign devised to disrupt the 2016 presidential election, the first such attempt by a foreign power in American history. What started as an information-gathering operation, intelligence officials believe, ultimately morphed into an effort to harm one candidate, Hillary Clinton, and tip the election to her opponent, Donald J. Trump.

While Russia’s effort to swing the presidential election toward Trump was bad enough, the lethargic response from the FBI – and the fact that they chose to focus heavily on Hillary Clinton’s emails, instead of foreign involvement in an election – was particularly troubling.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html?_r=0
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/12/13/bombshell-nyt-report-shows-fbi-knew-russia-hacking-dnc-2015.html

[Achilleaze]

1. "Whoopeee!!!" - Comrade Casino & his Cabal O' Ruskie-Republican Cronies

[Vinca]

2. The FBI has turned into a political arm of the government. Heads should roll.

[tomp]

5. yes but which government? nt

[barbtries]

7. yep.

the FBI is becoming the enemy of the people. we're running out of good guys.

[MissKat]

3. Will anyone care?

Will they riot in the streets?
Will they swarm the Capital?
or
Will they smile at President Snow and ask when the next Hunger Games will be held?

There has been a takeover of this country by a foreign agent.

I don't think it's sunk in yet. But my biggest worry is that people will worry about the Kardashians more than they will this travesty.

[whathehell]

4. They'll care..

even if they don't riot in the streets or swarm the Capitol.

[tomp]

6. if you don't hit the streets....

...they don't care if you care.

[whathehell]

10. No, because despite

romantic revolutionary images, everything isn't done "in the street".

[world wide wally]

12. Maybe not everything,

But something is better than nothing

[whathehell]

14. I'm not at all suggesting we "do nothing"

not at all...Just saying it's not all about 'torches and pitchforks' as the poster I responded to implied.

[tomp]

15. romantic revolutionary images?

sorry you feel that way. I think this is demonstrable fact. I'm not looking for revolution at this point, just something that works. I think you're naive about the representativeness of our government.

[whathehell]

20. Yup..

Naive? Lol..Honey, I'm 67 yeas old, which means I've had a front row seat to all the things you've likely only read about in history books -- MLK's March on Washington, his assassination, as well as those of JFK and his brother, Bobby. Add the riots in '68 at Chicago's Democratic Convention and you've got a smsll sense of what I've lived through, and some of what I've participated in.

Large scale demonstrations did a lot in those days, and still have some impact, but over the years, I've watched their impact diminish. The "establishment" of 2016 unlike that of 50 years ago, is now quite accustomed to them, and has even
"adjusted"to them with "free speech zones" and simple tricks like just "blacking" them out of the news.
My point is simply that demonstrations are only ONE tactic in the fight for social and political change. Young people tend to like them because they're a colorful happening and can be, has Hillary Clinton acknowledged "a lot of fun", but they're not the only, or sometimes even the best tactic for every situation. More 'real change's probably takes place off the streets than on. -- Consider the Watergate Hearings, for instance. Definitely didn't happen "on the streets".
My own personal disappointment in the power of demonstrations hit it's peak in 2003 when 100,000 New Yorkers came ',out on the street' to protest the Iraq War...What happening d? Nothing. The war went on, and that huge demonstration in NYC was barely covered in the media. Other large dmos have met the same fate.

[tomp]

22. Honey? The age card?

You know nothing about me, and you are disrespectful (in addition to naive).

I agree the NYC Iraq War protest was ineffective. But why? Because we were betrayed by Democrats, like Clinton and many others. And because we did not go back again into the streets in ongoing protests of the same magnitude in opposition to to Democratic betrayal as well as Republican.

The war in Vietnam was eventually brought to a halt due to massive ongoing protest. The failure of the masses to take to the streets has not materialized of late does not mean it would be ineffective if retried, especially in the age of social media with increased coordination of effort possible. And movements like Black Lives Matter, protests against killings by police, and the struggle for increased minimum wage, may eventually merge into larger overall movements.

And are you actually recommending we rely on the media, as in the case of Watergate? With the current state of our media?

And your dismissal of young people as out to have a good time is so demeaning. You appear to be ignoring the contribution of young people to the Sanders campaign, the only campaign in this election to have had any chance of actual change, and the continuation of which is our best shot short of the revolution you tried to attribute to me advocating.

Yes, naive. You appear not to be aware of the virtually complete sellout of both major parties to to corporate interests. Good luck with your plan for change, whatever it may be. And if you're thinking about change at the voting booth, one look at the clusterfucks that were elections 2000, 2004, 2006, 2010, and 2016...well, you should get my point. You may have experience but you don't appear to have learned from it. I recommend you take a step back and think about your attitude and what you really want going forward.

[NewJeffCT]

17. When Democrats march/protest

is generally gets ignored by the media. The only time it's not is if there is violence, and then they're out of control thugs and police brutality is justified.

Glenn Beck had his big anti-Obama rally and drew somewhere around 80,000 to 100,000 protesters to DC. It got wall to wall coverage in the media that entire weekend. the very next weekend, there was a march in support of gay rights and gay marriage that drew - by most accounts - more people than Beck's march. Not a lot more, but maybe 10% more people. Other than some sarcastic comments on the Daily Show about why this didn't get coverage when compared to Glenn Beck, it got nothing on TV or on the radio other than a passing comment.

[kpete]

9. JOIN US!!!

?itok=hGCU2qjf

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/womens-march-gets-spot-post-inauguration-rally/

[octoberlib]

8. Recommend this article , too

Democratic House Candidates Were Also Targets of Russian Hacking


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/house-democrats-hacking-dccc.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

[world wide wally]

11. And then they'll vote Republican again in the next election.

If the word "stupid" is too rough, can we say "cowardly"?

[NightWatcher]

13. Doesn't matter. Nothing will be done about it.

You'd think if we'd spend two years and billions of dollars on it that we'd fight for it and secure it from hackers, but I guess not.

[NRaleighLiberal]

16. and a relative who is staying with us says to me "I don't believe it"

He is a Hillary Hater. It is an up close and personal view of the challenges we face with this teflon mindset.

His response - "oh, we know about this stuff already. The connection to Russia is just made up"

Thankfully he is leaving tomorrow - my wife and I are just about keeping it together and having to constantly change the subject...

[gordianot]

18. My fear regarding Hillary was or would be hacked.

Apparently she and plenty others were hacked. It would not surprise me that what still remains of our Democracy is still being hacked. Those who mined Hillary's and government information won the election.

[NRaleighLiberal]

19. We are woefully unprepared to fight the battles that lie ahead.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

21. Links to authors' Twitter feeds.

Eric Lipton: @EricLiptonNYT

David E. Sanger: @SangerNYT

Scott Shane: @ScottShaneNYT