16 Dec 2016

Tom Woods and I Deal With Russian Hackers

Contra Krugman 14 Comments

Well boys, I reckon this is it. Computer espionage toe-to-toe with the Russkies.

I realize it spoils it if I give you a heads up, but don’t miss another bonus feature at the end of the latest episode of Contra Krugman.

14 Responses to “Tom Woods and I Deal With Russian Hackers”

  1. Jan Masek says:

    I see Dr Woods has persuaded Dr Murphy to watch Breaking Bad 🙂
    Btw interesting about the new left word “normalize”, i wonder if they know what it meant. It refers to the period after the prague spring was suppressed by the soviet army, they appointed soviet-friendly government which then restored the firm communist control of the land. But then again, that may be exactly what they have in mind.


    • Bob Murphy says:

      Jan wrote: “I see Dr Woods has persuaded Dr Murphy to watch Breaking Bad”

      You might want to check your premises.

      • Jan Masek says:

        Oh ok, i heard Dr Woods speak about BB a while back, thought he saw it before you did.

  2. Harold says:

    Your position here is total bollocks. I was happy to give you the benefit of the doubt about Trump support, but this is just too far. The fact that CIA people are not named is your case. That is crap. Distraction, obfuscation and bollocks. You can do better.

    You criticize the particular article that brought this to the headlines as though that were enough to invalidate the whole premise. You accept the plausible deniability of the Kremlin as sufficient to accept that they were not involved.

    One of your worst. Stick to economics.

    • Jan Masek says:

      So what is your case? The burden of proof is on the one making the claims.

    • Craw says:

      His entire case is that there is no evidence?

    • Bob Murphy says:

      Harold, you correctly identified that

      (1) We said no CIA person would go on record; all sources were anonymous, and

      (2) They themselves admitted they had no direct link to the Kremlin.

      But you forgot to mention the other points we raised:

      (3) The WaPo story didn’t even say what the evidence was; the title of the article literally said “secret” in it.

      (4) What this secret evidence, the existence of which is established by totally anonymous source, purports to show, is that the American people would not have elected Trump if Russian hackers hadn’t let them see what kind of people were working for Clinton.

  3. Major.Freedom says:

    Democrats now hate Russia because it is no longer communist.

    • Tel says:

      Worse than that, Russia has reverted to being Orthodox Christian.

      Clinging to their guns, gold, and Bibles.

  4. Ken P says:

    Does phishing actually count as “hacking”? Russian hackers sounds so James Bond like. It makes me picture some guy chain smoking in a dark abandoned building while typing in all this code … and then I find out they sent an email that basically said “click here to give us your password” and Podesta fell for it. Lame!!

    • Jan Masek says:

      I think phishing would count as hacking. But that’s probably not what happened: what happened was leaking. Rather than someone unauthorized sneakily got access to it from the outside, someone inside with otherwise authorized access made them public via wikileaks.

      Judge Napolitano has a nice article on it: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/12/andrew-p-napolitano/russians-hack-hillary/

      • Ken P says:

        Yes, phishing counts, but it does not require some kind of crazy high level cyber sophistication that thed press is implying.

        Thanks for the link! At the time I posted, I had only read a WaPo article that said Podesta clicked on a link from an email that had accidentally been marked legit and thought he was going to gmail to change his password. And I’m just now getting around to listening to Bobs podcast.

  5. Jan Masek says:

    Agreed, phishing would merely mean someone (eg Podesta) was “extremely careless”, not that the Kremlin has created the spying equivalent of a Sputnik. But it would still point the finger at the Russians. But there doesn’t even seem to be evidence of the Russians’ phishing.

Leave a Reply