Russian "hacking" imbroglio

[Vince Koloski]

I won't be able to make it tomorrow due to previous commitment, but I would have brought this up.

I am not sure the Democrats quite understand what they are unleashing with the emphatic "Russia hacked the elections" narrative they are promoting.

The initial push was the WAPO story about Russian produced fake news influencing the election which referenced 4 sets of anonymous researchers but promoted one of them 

Propornot and its list of 200 websites that are either direct Russian propagandists or naive stooges parroting Russian progaganda. Propornot (which nicely can be read as well as proPORNot) is 

again an anonymous group of "concerned american citizens" with a wide range of experience who have managed to analyze hundreds of websites and news outlets to compile their list of 200 direct progagandists 

and fellow travellers. This reminds me of Joe McCarthy waving his piece of paper with his list of 57, 81 or 205, depending on the source, communists or subversives working at the State Department. Neither list has anything but the word of anonymous individuals behind the accusations. 

Matt Taibbi did in nice attack job on the WAPO arcticle here. 

Fortune chimed in as well with a thoughtful piece that illustrates the absurdity of Propornot's list. 

Greenwald at the Intercept as well. 

While this was all just a media promoted storm early on, it opened the door for the big hitters to join in. 

The CIA report the the Russians were influencing the election in favor of Trump. WAPO, NYT (may be paywalled)

The FBI did not agree with the CIA report, but that was later news and not as strongly played. WAPO 

Former UK career diplomat Craig Murray also offers an alternative view including an assertion that the DNC leak was an inside job and that he has met the leaker.

While Glen Greenwald and Mary Wheeler also wrote cogent responses to the WAPO/NYT articles, such dissension has been largely brushed aside. 

The only thing that keeps running through my mind when I hear anything from the CIA is "Saddam Hussein definitely has weapons of mass destruction."

When I listen to KCBS in the morning, they report uncritically on the Russian hacking of the election. 

Over 10 electors now want to be briefed on the CIA assertions (no hard evidence of course only "informed opinions") before they cast their votes.

Obama has continually tried to downplay all of this as he seems to be quite aware of the potential constitutional crisis and civil unrest that an electoral college "coup" might bring. 

I wish I had a definite viewpoint on the veracity of all this. The true downside in my mind is that it might well lead to a movement for government oversight of internet content. 

Have fun in the rain tomorrow.

Vince