A Persistent Threat

I like this article because it shows how persistent cyber threats operate.  That is, this was a sustained effort that only had to succeed once.

As an aside, I read one of the Hillary supporters trying to say this latest round of allegations are yet another nothingburger, and referred to this opensecrets site.

I have questions about the info here I don't know how to look up, since my desired search terms bring up the most recent issues.  I might try a deeper search on my computer (i.e. limit the date range).

Those questions are mostly related to a perennial problem, with Clinton scandals in particular but not exclusively.  Namely this argument that whatever-it-is is something "everyone does" and nothing to be worried about. 

Sometimes those arguments are fair.  I recall reading about the poor IT situation at the State Dept, for example, and it did explain some of what I'd consider malfeasance if done in the SCIFs I worked at.

At other times, these arguments sound like something a six year old would say.  "But everyone does it!" And I'd wonder how supposedly astute politicians try making arguments that wouldn't fly with said six year old's mother.  If you can counter the argument with "two wrongs don't make a right", or "and if 'everyone' decided to jump off a cliff would you do that too?" then maybe you shouldn't be using it as a grown adult.

And sometimes we just don't have enough information to evaluate the claim.  I looked at that opensecrets list and wondered a) when were the states given that money and b) how does the breakdown compare to similar payouts in previous years.  In total dollars as well as a percentage of it all.

It still doesn't justify or explain some of the almost willful ignorance about the agreement giving the Clinton campaign total control over strategy (of somewhat more concern to me than the finances, only because the DNC was apparently broke and it would have taken a better person than most to give the DNC a lot of money without any strings attached.  Though I'd like to see more about how/why the DNC was broke, and why so many  Democratic donors apparently chose to give a lot of money to Hillary, and not to the DNC or state orgs.  More of that 'don't know what's normal so can't really judge' type of problem.)

I saw one poster, for example, point out that some of the language in the agreement preserved DNC neutrality -
“nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC’s obligation of impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process” and that “all activities performed under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and not the Democratic Primary.”

Now, the problem I have with that is that saying one thing and doing it are often different. To stick with the Clintons, saying (for example) you take "personal responsibility" for your election loss is just words when your actions show you really, really don't.  I know it doesn't feel fair, and it seems like letting others 'get away with it' or win, but there's a reason I was taught as a young cadet to say "No excuse, sir."

Even if you really do have an excuse.

It sucks, we all have the urge to defend ourselves and argue.  But something funny happens when you take ownership, full stop, and stop trying to explain or excuse.  It's like, everyone is able to move on and (more importantly, if you really are unable to accept a possible poor impression - even when you have time to correct it by performing well in other areas) you can sometimes let those explanations come to light later, where they're more likely to be understood and accepted since you weren't trying to dodge responsibility.

Anyways, saying in the agreement that the DNC would still be neutral doesn't mean it is, and it's hard to imagine how that would even be possible if they're running strategy by the Clinton campaign.