If there are external groups trying to influence this election, they are not limited to the Russian government. They aren't even limited to governments.
Russia is just the bogeyman du jour of American news media. Many other more capable enemies are completely unreported.
The bogeyman figure is conveniently utilized to spin many stories. E.g. The DNC hack. In this case it's being used to smear Trump's campaign.
The fact is there no substantial evidence Trump is a Russian sympathizer. There is also no evidence that Russia is a Trump sympathizer.
The US has not changed its foreign policy agenda since WW2. There is beautiful continuity from Truman, to Eisenhower, to Kennedy, to Johnson, to Nixon, to Ford, to Carter, to Reagan, to HW Bush, to Clinton, to Bush, to Obama. It's highly unlikely that the next presidential election will have a noticeable effect on our policy towards Russia.
https://www.wired.com/2016/07/heres-know-russia-dnc-hack/
https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...
Maybe Rich wasn't the source, but I don't think it can be reasonably denied that Assange was making some kind of implication there. His motives are undefined.
Since this whole discussion is obviously and thoroughly tainted by personal bias (because the information is so fuzzy that it's just about believing the entities that you trust more), I'll just lay out my cards and say that I don't believe that Russian state actors hacked the DNC (though I'm ready to admit it if real evidence is produced, which I understand is probably not possible).
I think it's a cover story because the powers-that-be don't want the average citizen to know how easy it is to compromise the security of very important institutions, whether they be political organizations or major corporations, lest that citizen decide to take up some targets of their own. I believe the same thing happened with the Sony hack that was blamed on North Korea.
It behooves IDS vendors to make people think that nation-states are regularly trying to invade their systems and it's free publicity to come out and corroborate the mainstream narrative, so they play along/feed into it and say "Yeah it was definitely the Russians even though there's no way we'd actually know that since our software wasn't installed until after-the-fact". This is especially blatant with the follow-on firms that just wanted to cash in on the available PR by saying "uh, yeah, we detected that too".
There is precedent for security vendors falsely claiming that nation states are responsible for some attack when it actually wasn't.
However, in this case top security vendors in direct (and sometimes aggressive competition) with each other are in total agreement, as is every public statement from the intelligence community.
Now, of course, it is in the US government's interest to paint Russia in a bad light, so claims alone aren't enough here. But look at the actual investigative trail ThreatConnect and CrowdStrike presented, and compare it to the past ~5 years of activity from what are almost definitely the same actors, and it's hard to believe they're anything other than a Russia-affiliated group.
That was settled a long time ago by multiple independent, reputable security companies. It doesn't mean they were the source of the leak though.
It is fine if you want to believe their narrative. It was constructed to be believable and at this point it's just an independent judgment call on which sources are credible and which scenario seems more plausible (hacking DNC mail server by a nation-state's cyberwarfare apparatus v. internal whistleblower copying data). No hard feelings.
It is likely that Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the United States. Would it not be valuable for Russia to have knowledge of her party? Do you think the CIA would be interested to have inside knowledge of United Russia?
That kind of information loses most of its value when it is made public. Hence, when an entity with such information releases it, it is usually a safe bet that their goal is to influence public opinion about the party or, if there is information about criminal acts in the information, get someone indicted.
because it's an election year?
It's obvious that Hillary is better for Russia. I think Putin just likes or admires Trump in an entirely personal way. Having Putin all starstruck could be a good thing.
Please save the Donald Trump talking points for a more appropriate forum.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/...
Please, continue to assume Putin is a stereotypical cartoon villain. One would think users of a site like HN would have at least passing knowledge of Occam's Razor...
You don't get to the highest levels of power by being a normal person nor by having other people who you like, respect, and admire, particularly not in a country with a long tradition of autocratic rule. I think that people who are assuming Putin is just another old Joe are projecting their own thought processes onto him, which in a way is admirable - I would love to believe the best in people too - but is at odds with both the culture and history of the country he rules and with the workings of power across all cultures.