I am Lauren Young, deputy campaign manager for Alexandra Chandler for Congress in MA-3. Here to post Alexandra’s statement on the news that Russian hackers went after Senator Claire McCaskill:
I learned today that Senator Claire McCaskill is a new target of Russian hackers. While the evidence is not as detailed as what Mueller presented against the GRU personnel in his recent indictment, it is a wake up call to every Congressional candidate in the country.
The technical data The Daily Beast has substantiating their analysis is highly suggestive she was targeted by Russian hackers. This shouldn’t be confused or conflated with activities the GRU was undertaking in 2016– this suggests interference in the upcoming midterm election.
Claire McCaskill is not just key to the Democrats retaking the Senate. She sits on Armed Services and the Permanent Subcommittee on Homeland Security Investigations. She has been a voice resolutely challenging Russia.
Most importantly— this report doesn’t mean that Claire McCaskill is the only target. This may or may not be the tip of an iceberg of ongoing Russian interference in the upcoming election.
Though the way this was found out is now a theoretically easily identifiable signature, other attempts could have used different tactics. As a professional, I would be surprised if they didn’t at least try to use a diversity of tactics.
And it all underscores just how vulnerable we are to election interference and that the paltry hundreds of millions Congress has appropriated for this, far too late to spend effectively, is not equal to the task.
As a candidate for Congress and a former analyst and leader at the Office of Naval Intelligence, this is something I take steps to prevent from happening to my campaign. Every other candidate should do this same. Democrats, Republicans, and others. Here’s why.
Russian intelligence and national security services rarely want to leave a clear cut trail. Think of Crimea, their activities in Ukraine, the poisoning of Litivienko.
Though I suspect their interference will still largely be with the aim of aiding Donald Trump and defeating his political enemies- it would be true to form for them to hack some number of Republicans or others to muddle the story even if uncovered later. Or to preserve future options.
This was likely an attempt to politically target one Democratic Senator. This can certainly be a wake up call for Congress, the Administration and Americans across political divisions to see the seriousness of this threat and to plan and act accordingly to protect our elections and democracy.
Thanks for posting.
I will just pre-empt the usual #LOLRussia comments that Chandler is disqualified for office, by having actual experience and qualifications in a highly relevant field. Gosh, where have I heard that before.
Those comments are silly and I will discount them appropriately.
Appreciate that! Alexandra has a tremendous depth of knowledge on many issues. It just so happens that the subject in which she is an expert is the subject of the news lately. I field a lot of requests for her comments so sharing them publicly makes sense.
But she is strong on the kitchen table issues, too, and it comes from her personal experience. She wrote and released her entire platform early on and it is available here: https://www.alexandrachandler.com/issues/
Chandler is either ill-served by the people who constantly post this stuff, or she truly is a one-trick pony. The fact is, we have not heard from her on any issue other than national security. Massachusetts voters are electing a congress(wo)man, not a security analyst.
Well, this IS her area of expertise, so why shouldn’t she run on it? However, she has a whole well-rounded issues page too. I’m still waiting to hear what makes you hate her so much. It sounds personal, and yes, a security analyst in Congress may not be the worst idea.
In the past several weeks that you have been posting about Chandler, there have been several police murders of black men. Not a word from Chandler on this. Not a peep on trade, the economy or attacks on abortion rights the press, or surveillance abuses (.which worries me coming from a member of the national security establishment). And in the last several weeks children have been locked up in cages. Not a word from Chandler about immigration issues either, particularly those that just played out in the MA state House.
I don’t really care what sort of verbiage appears on the “issues” page of her campaign website. She’s apparently incapable of weighing in herself on issues that matter to many progressive Democrats. As I’ve said before, MA is electing a congressman, not interviewing an NSA analyst.
You actually sound like a trolling bot, whether or not you are one. So I am not interested in your ersatz commentary. Christopher already set the facts in order. You make no sense.
She has posted repeatedly here about other issues and has extensive issue videos on her website. Her first post to this website was about healthcare, the second about climate, and her campaigns post before this one was about opposing Kavanaugh and standing up for choice and equality.
But you knew this already since you have attacked her on those issues as well. You do not even live in the district and cannot even vote for this candidate you routinely disrespect, who just so happens to be the only trans candidate running in any congressional race this cycle. I do not live in the district either, but your posts have convinced me to send her a small donation. I will continue to do so every time you troll here.
Just to slightly correct the record, the CD3 race does include one other LGBT person – former Ambassador to Denmark Rufus Gifford. However, Chandler may be the only transgender person to be running for the US House nationwide, though I could not quickly find confirmation of that.
Duly noted. Is he also grossly unqualified since he’s had public service experience?
That question was snark, right? I’d say he is comfortably within the top tier of candidates in this race.
Oh total snark. Ambassadors, intelligence officers, state legislators, all are neoliberal stooges according to certain folk…
You’re nothing if not consistent, Charlie. A comment discounting criticism that hasn’t happened yet, appended to a post warning us to ignore evidence that doesn’t agree with the conclusions already reached.
You’re nothing if not consistent, Bob.
A comment finding fault with someone with very little substance to bolster your negativity.
Again Alexandra Chandler demonstrates why I so enthusiastically support her for Congress.
She understands the threat the Russians pose from the perspective of the intelligence community, and we need that right now in Congress.
It is only when one understands the way Russian intelligence tries to muddle and obfuscate in order to provide smokescreens, that it becomes pretty apparent how and why Donald Trump does this very same thing nearly constantly.
This is exactly what we need right now – factual and historical context.
Alexandra Chandler is in a unique position to provide this in the area not only of foreign policy in general but also in protecting our democratic system from very real attacks – now with this kind of public education, and in the future with knowledgeable policy solutions in Congress.
Where there is smoke, there is fire. I wouldn’t put my money on any Republican incumbents running in swing states getting hacked anytime soon. As Sen. Sanders said on This Week, there needs to be action by the President now to protect these elections. The fact that he is pretending all of our own intelligence agencies are wrong and believing Putin’s laughable denials is proof he knows he benefits from this and will not stop it.
Though the way some Republicans have seemed to be carrying Trump/Russia water lately I’m starting to wonder whether Russia HAS in fact hacked them and gotten kompromat that they don’t want used against them too.
A military and foreign policy analyst looks at Democratic hysteria over the (mutual) probing and spying that has been going on since WWII ended:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/07/24/democrats-will-regret-becoming-the-anti-russia-party/
You read this kind of thing from time to time: folks who treat Trump like Zaphod Beeblebrox, an entertaining mountebank with no actual power, so stay cool, man! I find that attitude bizarre, and especially weird when I hear it from folks to my left.
Never change, bob-gardner.
The problem, however difficult you might find to see it, is that, when all is said and done, the Republicans will try, again, with no actual facts whatsoever, attempt to claim the moral high ground as having been stalwart and consistent against Trump once Trump goes all the way round the bend… They will, with your assistance, succeed in this because they, and apparently you, cannot think that the outcome can be less important than the process by which the outcome is achieved.
Mountebank, indeed.
Dance, ursine one, dance!
I’m not 100% sure I get what you’re trying to say, but I think it’s this: “Don’t treat Trump as an abnormal and serious threat to the constitutional order and the future of the country because doing so might make other Republicans look more reasonable after Trump leaves office.” That seems crazy to me.
I was unclear, and the nesting doesn’t help: I was attempting to use your words to further indict uncaffeine and not you; I thought, indeed, that the particular use of the term ‘mountebank’ (a type of dancing bear — or someone who would dress up as a dancing bear to fleece the uneducated — in medieval Europe) was apt when speaking of this sort of passive-aggressive (not to say backwards ass) Russian boosterism as political swindle… as the Soviets used to be portrayed as a giant, feckless bear.
Or, put another way, I agree with you: it is crazy to blame the Democrats for being too harsh on Russia when the GOP is going to turn around in six months or a year — whenever Trump is gone — and claim ‘we’ve always been at war with Eastasia” and decide Putin is bad and go even harsher. If the Democrats, or indeed anybody, don’t go strong on Russia now the GOP charlatans will have that much an easier time selling the bear urine as cure-all later.
Ah! I’m sorry I was dense.
If you are sympathetic to stuff like this, we may finally have our answer to the true motives behind your animus toward Alexandra Chandler:(
For the record I don’t live in CD-3 and I don’t have any preference in this race. I do have strong opinions about our intelligence agencies, which I think are bigger and more influential than is good for democracy.
At their worst, our intelligence agencies have stovepiped information in order to reach pre-determined conclusions, often with disastrous results. The same agencies have also fostered paranoia against the boogieman of the day.
My problem with Alexandra Chandler’s post above is that it exhibits the worst traits of our intelligence agencies.
Consider this quote:
“Russian intelligence and national security services rarely want to leave a clear cut trail. Think of . . . the poisoning of Litivienko.”
This makes no sense at all. This poisoning was done with a toxin that was only made in Russia. If the Russians didn’t “want to leave a clear cut trail,” this was the worst possible method. There are a number of possibilites for what happened, the most likely being that the Russians wanted to leave a clear cut trail, to send a message. Chandler draws the one conclusion that makes the least sense.
Then there’s this gem:
“it would be true to form for them to hack some number of Republicans or others to muddle the story . . . .”
In other words, classic, heads-I-win-tails-you-lose paranoia. Discount in advance any evidence that conflicts with what we’ve already decided, it must be a trick.
This is laziness and complacency masquerading as vigilence. Sure, we should make our elections as safe from cyberhacking as possible. But we should be open to new evidence about the nature and the source of these threats. This is especially true for someone running for Congress based on experience as an analyst.
Reading this post and the comment thread has been a trip. Between the constant fulsome praise from paid subordinates, to Charlie’s “I’ve got my fingers in my ears and can’t hear you” attitude toward potential criticism, to Christopher’s simple-minded ethnic stereotyping, it is like wandering into a Trump cabinet meeting.
Quite aside from the propagation of a misspelling (it’s “Litvinenko” everywhere else I’ve seen it) you’re conflating the murder of Litvinenko, which was accomplished by exposure to Polonium — an element that is not ‘manufactured’ — and the Skripals and Sturgesses who were exposed to ‘Novichok’ which is the ‘toxin only made in Russia.’ It did, in fact, take quite some time to definitively say Litvinenko was deliberately poisoned by agents of the Russian state. On the other hand, it took no time at all for the poisoning of the Skripals and/or the Sturgesses to be blamed upon the Russians.
If nothing else, this demonstrates how easy it is to get our facts wrong: which tendency, perhaps lamentably, highlights, underscores and italicizes the need for intelligence agencies in the first place. Perhaps that also explains why Putin wants to kill them.
On a side note, Litvinenko died in 2006 and the Skripals were poisoned in 2018. What’s of real concern is that the pattern of growing audacity on the part of Putin, bordering on recklessness: in 2006 he was more careful to obscure the murder, if only for a little while. This is of a pattern. Syria, Crimea, Trump. What’s unclear is if he is emboldened to a greater nasty by his successes or if the increasingly tighter sanctions are driving a desperation to stay afloat.
Your conclusion about the Russians does make the most sense. If they wanted someone dead I assume the KGB could pull off an anonymous hit and run fairly efficiently.