[moduspol]

The hack was public knowledge in June of 2016, and it's only fairly recently that it's been known (asserted?) that Guccifer 2.0 was acting on behalf of the Russian government.

It also says, "GOP campaign consultant." That's a third party contractor--not quite indicative of a high level conspiracy. I think that's a far, far cry from what you're claiming.

[tiles]

Not to trot out the "what if this involved the DNC, the GOP would call for blood" meme, but it's certainly justified to feel outrage over a consultant for a party colluding with a foreign entity to influence an election. It's equally possible that the party knew about the actions of their contractor, since they were on their payroll.

[moduspol]

Well, the leaks themselves revealed some pretty troubling (although not terribly surprising) friendliness between the mainstream media and the Clinton campaign, so it's not like we have nothing to compare it to.

The article alleges a GOP consultant worked with a hacker of unknown origin claiming to have opposition info.

The leaks (and Podesta's) revealed, though, a frankly disgusting level of cooperation between the mainstream media and the Clinton campaign. [1]

This whole idea that a contractor using hacked opposition info to his advantage in a way that may have unintentionally benefited Russian interests is in any way more scandalous than nearly all the mainstream media verifiably going to bat for Clinton campaign is selective outrage.

[1] http://www.anonews.co/wikileaks-emails-hillary/

[narrowrail]

I think it's interesting that George Washington, in his Farewell Address[0], warned of political parties being an enemy of the government, and could provide a route to foreign governments and interests to have influence on our government. That linked section provides almost an exact description of what seems to be going on in the US currently. I would like to see the RNC and DNC dismantled by the people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington%27s_Farewell...

[maxlybbert]

Especially since the "collusion" occurred after the breach.

---

I should probably mention that if getting this data doesn't qualify as "receiving stolen property," it should. The consultant could learn a lot from Pepsi ( https://www.theguardian.com/media/2006/jul/07/marketingandpr... ), but there is a difference between coordinating with somebody to steal data and getting data that has already been stolen.

[acdha]

“Fairly recently” in this case meaning “within hours of release” – CrowdStrike was already publicly connecting the dots to military intelligence by June 15th:

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...

A number of people find it easier to act as if this was a big post-election surprise but that's just wishful thinking to avoid having to consider the implications of many people knowing but not caring as long as it got the political outcome they desired or, in the case of the media, accepting responsibility for their coverage decisions.

[moduspol]

A private third party making claims is not the same as the claims of the collective US intelligence agencies, which were made much more recently.

It's also irrelevant, because it was public knowledge by the time it was reported. My post is to debunk the assumption that the contractor knew the hacker was a foreign agent.