United States Blames Russia For Hacking: The On-Going Accusation

United States Blames Russia For Hacking: The On-Going Accusation

U.S. intelligence has been trying to track down the hackers that administered the leak of private government information.

Early October, the Obama administration officially acknowledges Russia for interfering with the 2016 Election. They accuse the Russian government of using computer hackers on the National Committee and other political organizations.

The presidential elections are coming near, and media circuits have been more attentive towards Republican nominee Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Hilary Clinton.

As they go through various presidential debates seeking voters prior to election, the conflict between two powerful governments will be important in where the course of it will go as the seat for president is in a pending transition. Hopefully, there will be no escalation and sensitivity, politically and publicly.

This investigation and the on-going accusations against Russia is only a prelude for what is to come after the Obama Administration leaves and the next president takes the responsibility and actions to go forth on the cyber-attack. Hilary Clinton stated during the presidential debate in Las Vegas that 17 U.S. intelligence agencies overall blame Russia:

“What is really important about WikiLeaks is that the Russian government has engaged in espionage against Americans. They have hacked American websites, American accounts of private people, of institutions. Then they have given that information to WikiLeaks for the purpose of putting it on the internet. This has come from the highest levels of the Russian government. Clearly from Putin himself in an effort, as 17 of our intelligence agencies have confirmed, to influence our election.” — Hillary Clinton


How did the United States know that Russia is the culprit of tampering with U.S. government information?

According to the Washington Post, the denouncement was made by the Office of the Director of the National Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security. Pressure within the administration due to the breach led to the lawmakers from both branches of Democrats and Republicans agreeing on Moscow being the source of the computer hacks.They also believe the Russian government hired hackers to fissure the presidential campaigns.The hacks have appeared on WikiLeaks and DC leaks, sharing private emails, addresses and cellphone numbers of Democratic lawmakers. The U.S. government wants Moscow to be punished for their interference.


Obama referred to senior officials who orchestrated the cyber-attack, vaguely identifying Russian President Vladimir Putin to be the main guy behind the scenes. Since the blame game has started, Putin has denied multiple times that he had any hand in the hacks.

U.S. intelligence has been trying to track and obtain the hackers that have administered the leak of private government information. According to the New York Times, a Russian hacker has been arrested in Czech Republic this last Tuesday. He has been a suspect by the Federal Bureau of Investigations for pursuing targets to the United States.Officials will not give out his name.The capture of this man involved Interpol and the F.B.I. Interpol authorized the arrest warrant needed to arrest him.

As of now, it is uncertain this person is one of the hackers affiliated with the hacking to the DNC. There is also uncertainty regarding if the man will be extradited to the United States government as the man is a Russian citizen detained in Prague.

For other recent news regarding the hacks, an American computer hacker called "The Jester," blemished the website of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Jester made remarks to Putin and to Russia to basically stop with the hacks and the referral of Putin's so called non-affiliation with cyber-breach.

More will come on this cyber warfare that is increasingly being used in this generation. The U.S. government does not want to carry these high alerts to the public, but this situation between Russia and the U.S. will ascend future agendas between two powerful nations.

Cover Image Credit: Russia's President Vladimir Putin / Tweaktown

Popular Right Now

6 Places in New York City Every "Friends" Fan Needs to Visit

Grab a cup of coffee at Central Park.

As a Friends fanatic myself, I often wonder about the places in New York City featured in the various episodes and whether I could actually visit them. Most of them are fictional or no longer exist, but there are a few places you can go to reminisce about your favorite Friends moments. So, here are 6 places in New York City you definitely need to visit as a Friends fan.

1. The Apartment Building, Obviously

The building used for the exterior shot of the apartments in Friends is real, and is located at 90 Bedford Street at the corner of Grove Street in Greenwich Village. It's an obvious must-see.

2. The Pullitzer Fountain

This is the fountain that the friends danced around in for the iconic theme song, and it's located right in Central Park.

3. Bloomingdale's

This is the department where Rachel worked before she moved on to Ralph Lauren, where she met Joshua, and where she started her career in fashion.

4. The Plaza Hotel

This is where Monica and Chandler celebrated their engagement in The One WIth Monica's Thunder, and is actually really gorgeous.

5. The Central Perk Replica

While Central Perk isn't a real coffee shop, a pop-up replica opened up in 2014 on Lafayette Street and it's definitely a must-visit.

6. Chandler's Office

The fictional Chandler works in the real Solow Building, located on West 57th street.

Cover Image Credit: Fame Focus

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

The Crimes And Misdemeanors Of A Sitting President

Whether you agree with Nancy Pelosi, regarding impeachment or not, the question each American should ask is: Can this nation survive any more division?


Whether you agree with Nancy Pelosi, regarding impeachment or not, the question each American should ask is; can this nation survive any more division? Is Nancy correct in her comment, "He's just not worth it?" Impeachment should not be used as a political tool to remove an unwanted government official out of office. Its purpose is to bring charges against a government official and once the official is impeached then the legislative body can impose judgment which could ultimately remove the official from office.

Moreover, in the past, this country has impeached two sitting presidents and neither ended with his removal. According to www.merriam-webster.com, the definition of impeaching is "(a) to charge with a crime or misdemeanor, specifically: to charge a public official before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office. (b) to remove from office especially for misconduct, and (c) to bring an accusation against."

So how many cases of impeachment has the United States experienced with sitting presidents? According to www.History.com, eight U.S. presidents have faced impeachment, but with very different results. John Tyler was the first president to face impeachment proceedings in 1843. Representative John Botts of Virginia filed claimed Tyler conduct of the U.S. Treasury although the House of Representatives voted Botts' claim down.

Andrew Johnson was the second sitting president to have impeachment proceedings filed against him. In 1868 President Johnson dismissed Secretary of War Edwin Stanton and according to Congress, the president violated the Tenure of Office Act. Even though Johnson was impeached the Senate would not confirm his removal from office and he finished his term.

With the exception of Grover Cleveland, the twentieth century gave way for many calls for impeachment beginning with Herbert Hoover, Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan, and ending with George H.W. Bush. None of these presidents were subjected to the process as the claims never had the votes to call for a hearing on the committees.

There were three articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon, however, he resigned in 1974 before any of the proceedings could take place. In 1998 Bill Clinton was impeached over allegations of perjury and obstruction of justice relating to the Monica Lewinsky case. In Clinton's case, the Senate acquitted, and he finished his term in office just like Andrew Johnson.

President Trump is under scrutiny for some of the very reason's other presidents have had impeachment proceedings. He has proven to most American's that he is a danger to our democracy. Trump has snubbed his nose at the foreign emolument clause, creating an open way for foreign powers to pressure our president to stray from his constitutional obligation to the United States. The firing of the FBI Director James Comey and fulling admitting on national television to Lester Holt that he did because of "this Russia thing." This is "obstruction of justice," and other presidents have been charged with this article of impeachment. However, Nixon resigned, and Clinton was acquitted.

So why is he not worth it? First the truth, he won the election. Unless there is proven evidence that he colluded with the Russians to rig the 2016 presidential election reversing this fact will drive this new faction of voters back to the polls to elect another under-qualified candidate. In addition, the Republican Party will use the impeachment as a platform in the upcoming election. Citing the Democrats stole the White House from them.

Second, is the nation ready for even one year of Mike Pence as president? His record as Governor of Indiana is the only evidence needed. He banned Syrian refugees, he reinstated mandatory minimum sentences and authored a bill to defund Planned Parenthood. He doesn't take to Twitter, has the political knowledge, and is waiting his turn to strike like an incurable virus.

Third and even more disturbing is the Republican Party and their efforts to gloss over his crimes and misdemeanors and cite the economy, and jobs. Many won't vote against Trump because of his base; cannot afford to have to explain their decisions to his base voters in 2020. Most fear they will have to go through a primary. Even though if they removed Trump and put Pence in his place they could have during their two-year reign and most American's civil liberties would be a thing of the past.

The voters gave their voice in 2018 and Congress is working, unlike the previous Congress. They have a lot of work to do and spinning their wheels debating the crimes and misdemeanors of the sitting president is counter-productive. History will repeat itself and he will be acquitted.

Related Content

Facebook Comments