If in 2005, you were trying to come up with a nightmare scenario for the government using its enhanced powers to harm a candidate 1/
1
1
1
5
and you had postulated that people in the FBI would leak trumped up investigations days before the election 2/
3
2
4
and that the same candidate would have literally all of their internal communications leaked by a foreign hostile power 3/
2
2
3
Agree with the other sentiments, but I haven’t seen any actual evidence of this foreign power (Russia)’s involvement. Did I miss it?
1
1
I get my tech news from vox, here vox.com/2016/10/7/13205520/u…
1
1
1
it cites motherboard.vice.com/read/al…
2
good enough to at least get past "no evidence"?
1
I'm not convinced. Given what's known about e.g. Podesta's email “security”, not much sophistication would have been needed for that part
1
5
you might be letting biases get the better of you here. I'm not saying I know for sure, but empirical evidence looks strong.
1
Replying to @wycats
If bias interfered, it would steer me the other way. It just looks like inventing “sophisticated actors” to excuse incompetence

Nov 3, 2016 · 6:45 PM UTC

2
4
Replying to @stilkov
I don't think you need Russia to have been particularly sophisticated to be concerned.
Replying to @stilkov
my primary point here is that people have historically expressed concern that govts know so much that they can easily interfere.
1
1
it's now clear that governments can easily interfere in elections with minimal consequences. This is concerning.
1
1
more replies