Slashdot Mirror

This is what happens when the POTUS didn't take a single fucking dime from a single PAC or Corporation.

Lolwut? He took tons of money from them.
In fact, one of his PACs was trying to get $2 million from China.

The "mass fake news" was fake. But that statement says NOTHING about the accuracy of the DNC internal documents one way or another.

The veracity of those emails can be confirmed. Because cryptography.

Russia did (at least) two nefarious things: first, hacked into the DNC internal documents (or at least tried to)

It's not factual to assert that the hack was perpetrated by the Russians or by the Russian government.

Who got in first? GCHQ? DEA? NSA? CIA?
No legal team likes to see a case that starts with redacted pages in a public court setting.
So the USA will often use charity groups, public private police partnerships to look at big company databases for words, terms, photographs that might surround drug culture. That then gets reported to a company as is then the clean origin of a case.
A legal team can then talk in public about how the case started and the role of a GCHQ, DEA, NSA, CIA can stay historically PRISM like hidden.
The other issue is a very Irish issue. The UK used its mil, the Royal Ulster Constabulary Special Branch, GCHQ to track every call and computer network in Ireland from the 1970's on. It was then easy to create new informants as they called interesting people already been watched.
Interesting people got an offer to become informants or not. If they did, their role was secure. As they moved up in rank, more information flowed back to the UK.
Ireland does not really want to have a new discussion about its data security nationally going back decades. Who is still been legally tracked and how.
Are US, UK or Irish contractors now been used to legally watch people in Ireland or with Irish accounts for historical reasons?
To keep users thinking their data is safe in Ireland the US shortcut is still hidden. The GCHQ, NSA, CIA will still have the same role as always.
The DEA can now get some NSA data in the raw thanks to new raw data sharing options in the USA.
"Obama Opens NSA’s Vast Trove of Warrantless Data to Entire Intelligence Community, Just in Time for Trump" (January 14 2017)
https://theintercept.com/2017/...
"...NSA share vast amounts of private data gathered without warrant, court orders or congressional authorisation with 16 other agencies, including the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Agency, ..."
Ireland can sell its international networking products as been legally secure and as been low cost in terms of staff and tax.
Its win win win. The US and UK get to keep on spying and sharing the raw data with other agencies. Ireland can tell the world no nation can legally access data in Ireland.

Again, no. Concern trolling is defined by the intent to disrupt the discourse by falsely representing one's motivations

Again, yes. Concern trolling is pretending to be supportive or sympathetic to a person or cause, but you just have these concerns about how they are doing it. The more baseless the concern, the bigger the concern troll.

And your failure to address the substance of a literally a single one of the points I made shows just how empty your argument is.

You haven't made a single point, just repeated the same old FUD and character assassination on Assange without bothering to back it up, while ignoring the central flaw in your premise:

Wikileaks is in the publishing business, not the hacking business. If you want them to publish something, go hack something.

Wikileaks is in the publishing business, not the hacking business. If you want them to publish something, go hack something.

Wikileaks is in the publishing business, not the hacking business. If you want them to publish something, go hack something.

Wikileaks is in the publishing business, not the hacking business. If you want them to publish something, go hack something.

Sunk in yet? Assange can only put out what he's been given, and they have published hundreds of thousands of documents on Russia in the past. If you have such a hard on for Pootie Poot's emails or Trump's tax records, go find a Starbucks with WiFi and get to work.

DeVos alone as education secretary is enough to make up for any slack in other picks. She may actually be able to help fix the dire state of public education.

***FACEPALM***

https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.theatlantic.com/edu...
https://theintercept.com/2017/...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

So, the source isn't The Washington Post? That means it might be true!

Glenn Greenwald on how The Washington Post literally profits from fake news:

WashPost Is Richly Rewarded for False News About Russia Threat While Public Is Deceived

In the past six weeks, the Washington Post published two blockbuster stories about the Russian threat that went viral: one on how Russia is behind a massive explosion of “fake news,” the other on how it invaded the U.S. electric grid. Both articles were fundamentally false. Each now bears a humiliating editor’s note grudgingly acknowledging that the core claims of the story were fiction: The first note was posted a full two weeks later to the top of the original article; the other was buried the following day at the bottom.

...

while these debacles are embarrassing for the paper, they are also richly rewarding. That’s because journalists — including those at the Post — aggressively hype and promote the original, sensationalistic false stories, ensuring that they go viral, generating massive traffic for the Post (the paper’s executive editor, Marty Baron, recently boasted about how profitable the paper has become).

After spreading the falsehoods far and wide, raising fear levels and manipulating U.S. political discourse in the process (both Russia stories were widely hyped on cable news), journalists who spread the false claims subsequently note the retraction or corrections only in the most muted way possible, and often not at all. As a result, only a tiny fraction of people who were exposed to the original false story end up learning of the retractions.

Baron himself, editorial leader of the Post, is a perfect case study in this irresponsible tactic. It was Baron who went to Twitter on the evening of November 24 to announce the Post’s exposé of the enormous reach of Russia’s fake news operation...

...

What did Baron tell his followers about this editor’s note that gutted the key claims of the story he hyped? Nothing. Not a word. To date, he has been publicly silent about these revisions. Having spread the original claims to tens of thousands of people, if not more, he took no steps to ensure that any of them heard about the major walk back on the article’s most significant, inflammatory claims. He did, however, ironically find the time to promote a different Post story about how terrible and damaging Fake News is...

The "Russia hacked the U.S. election" headline, in contrast with "some Russians hacked the DNC and we don't know who leaked to Wikileaks", is the biggest case of fake news out there and almost no one is talking about it. Because of this type of deceitful headline half of Clinton's voters believe that the Russian government hacked the vote tallies, even tough there is no indication of that and no officials are actually claiming.

As noted by Glenn Greenwald, WaPo posted fake news last week

If it's bog-standard government IT, then yes, there's no security sophistication there to speak of. I should know, I've helped them with IAVAs and STIGs.

But nation state level hacking is something else entirely. Try comparing this to the Belgacom hack (another company I've worked with, though not in any direct relation to this). Or look at the attacks vs. North Korea.

Yes, some of those did involve sending email with bogus attachments. But they weren't amateurs that set off alarm bells with a "YOU HAVE BEEN HACKED" email. If a nation state wanted Podesta, they'd have gotten it, e.g., when he lost his phone in that DC cab or otherwise compromised one of his personal machines and taken all the passwords (including Gmail) from there. If they did the dump from his own computer, he wouldn't have even been the wiser.

https://theintercept.com/2016/...

/. should stick to tech news and stay out of politics. The editors have no clue or education to filter out fakenews in that field.

I'm so sick of their disinformation. They're aren't the only offender but at this point anytime I see an article from them I automatically assume it's propaganda.
These large media corporations are trading their reputation in to push an ideological rift in our population.
I wonder why they'd do that?
https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

Security experts have been warning of possible foreign hacking for decades. But why this sudden spate of "Russia hacked X" stories now? Why not back when our Secretary of State was running an illegal, private, unsecured email server through which she transmitted classified information?

Simple: The Washington Post wanted Hillary to win the Presidential election, and reminding people how her action made it easier for Russian hackers to gain access to classified information wouldn't have helped her. But publishing it now helps support the false narrative that the Russians were behind the DNC leaks, not disgruntled Democratic Party staffers, and thus supposedly harms President-elect Donald Trump, whom the Washington Post and it's employees almost universally loath. That's the entire reason the story is being written and published now.

Further reading here and here.

What do you think the under/over is for MSM "Russian Hacking" stories between now and January 20?

I'm very happy to come to the comments section and find mostly mocking and people who looked beyond the headline. Would have been nice if the editors did that.

Here is the full takedown on The Intercept of this BS-vending from WaPo: https://theintercept.com/2016/...

I'm sure the Russian government recruits computer talent in the many ways listed in the article. I would suspect the U.S. government does much the same.

The fake part comes in: Why publish this piece now? Why not, say, during the massive OPM breach?

Simple: Publishing it during the OPM breach would have harmed Obama, whom the New York Times and it's employees almost universally adore, while publishing it now helps prop up the false narrative that the Russians were behind the DNC leaks, not a disgruntled Democratic Party insider, and thus supposedly harms President-elect Donald Trump, whom the New York Times and it's employees almost universally loath.

Remember, among the revelations to come out just after the election were how the Times abandoned objectivity to go after Trump and how the entire newsroom is dedicated to driving a predetermined narrative rather than carrying out an objective search for truth.

This story was published because it fits an (unproven and probably false) narrative that Russia "hacked the election" because it theoretically harms Trump.

Further reading here and here.

The pro-Islamic comment was complete claptrap.

However, The Guardian lost credibility after Snowden, and after they were forced to destroy some hard drives in front of GCHQ personnel.

Glenn Grenwald caught them lying, distorting and dissembling just recently.
"The Guardian’s Summary of Julian Assange’s Interview Went Viral and Was Completely False"
https://theintercept.com/2016/...

in english: theintercept.com/2016/12/13/a-mother-and-child-trapped-in-obamas-brutal-family-deportation-system/

(refugees are treated like criminals in US...)

look: theintercept.com/2016/12/13/mae-e-filha-sao-abandonadas-por-autoridades-brasileiras-e-americanas-em-centro-para-deportados-nos-eua/

So... Glenn Greenwald ( the reporter who brought you Edward Snowden) has a nice piece about how team Clinton manufactured fake news to discredit Wikileaks.

Don't be a bloody cunt, okay?

It was not the "Clinton team" who manufactured the fake news, it was Malcom Nance of MSNBC.

No, it is not remotely why any of this is happening.

We are having a conversation about "fake news" because a small cadre of politicos were emotionally invested in their team winning. And they cannot accept that they lost. So they are insisting that it had to be some sort of dirty trick. Like "Fake News!"

But what made them think of "fake news" as a thing to be fought? It didn't exist a couple of months ago, and suddenly it is the greatest threat to democracy, ever. Perhaps there is a bit of projection operating here?

So... Glenn Greenwald ( the reporter who brought you Edward Snowden) has a nice piece about how team Clinton manufactured fake news to discredit Wikileaks.

So the actual story that we have where fake news was used to impact the election is about a Clinton disinformation campaign, willingly assisted by MSNBC. But somehow this means that we need to suppress stories from conservative websites like Breitbart.

For those of you who are lacking a context for threats to free speech, this sort of thing has been the Democrat's dream for at least 40 years. They keep trying to bring back the "fairness doctrine" so they can get people like Rush Limbaugh off the air - or at least force stations to put on their guy for the same number of hours.

So now they have a new angle. But the result is always the same. "We need to make sure that our political enemies are not allowed to speak to 'the people', because they are dangerous and evil"

All of you who are cheerleading this sort of effort should be ashamed of yourselves. There is nobody on Slashdot who is so stupid and so devoid of knowledge of the importance of free speech that they don't know better than this. This used to be a place where suggesting a proprietary protocol for network traffic was considered a flagrant violation of our freedoms. And now we have people openly advocating for the suppression of online speech that they disagree with. On Slashdot.

Good lord, people..... this isn't The Daily Kos or The Daily Beast. This is Slashdot. "Information wants to be free" has been our mantra forever. Now because the other team elected a guy you can't stomach, you want to toss out everything you believe in? Just in the name of political power?

Go find your 1997 self and ask him what he thinks about your online censorship scheme. I really, really doubt he'd be all in on the plan just because you hang a "not the government" fig leaf on it.

And this is all in pursuit of something nobody needs—third-party remote driving or proprietary software driving. As Bradley Kuhn has pointed out, software freedom doesn't kill people, your security through obscurity kills people. I'm no fan of the driverless vehicle but it's worth noting how one-sided it is; the party being left out of knowing how their vehicle will behave is the vehicle's owner. This is a recipe for bad outcomes and we already have evidence of one driverless vehicle killing someone and the VW proprietary exhaust scandal adding more pollutants killing people more slowly.

Eric "The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process" Holder has returned to working for Covington & Burling, whose clients include many of the banks Holder chose not to prosecute when he was Attorney General (despite considerable evidence) and as the Intercept points out, President-elect Trump has made America Goldman's again so if you voted for Trump thinking you were dodging the Goldman Sachs favoritism Hillary Clinton showed, that didn't work.

Of course!

Just look at all the trouble caused by that faked GS transcript from Hillary Clinton that hit the news.

These alt-left stories do nothing but galvanize the other 60% of the country that voted for Trump.

Are you looking to build a fake news story because with those numbers you're off to a good start

Almost 50% of eligible voters in the US did not vote in the 2016 General Election, and Trump captured 46% of those votes which comes to about 23% of all eligible voters.

23% of the country is 160% less than the 60% you claim.

Time magazine, being mainstream American corporate media, would do well to give Trump the nod in order to try and get into his good graces and thus increase the odds of access. Paraphrasing CBS' Les Moonves who told the audience at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media, and Telecom Conference, such a move would not be good for America, but it could be very good for Time Magazine.

Those facts? They're the ones WAPO is pushing. You know, the fact that news aggregators like Drudge are now "fake news" in their eyes. Or wikileaks is "fake news." This bullshit is getting bad enough that even left-wing journalists are calling the entire thing bullshit, and for good reason. Where does it get good? Well just dig a bit, though the ASN is still pointing at google.

https://theintercept.com/2016/...

Seeing as the Fake News idea is being promoted by people who won't even come out into the open.

In other words, the individuals behind this newly created group are publicly branding journalists and news outlets as tools of Russian propaganda – even calling on the FBI to investigate them for espionage – while cowardly hiding their own identities.

The credentials of this supposed group of experts are impossible to verify, as none is provided either by the Post or by the group itself. The Intercept contacted PropOrNot and asked numerous questions about about its team, but received only this reply: “We’re getting a lot of requests for comment and can get back to you today =) [smiley face emoticon].” The group added: “We’re over 30 people, organized into teams, and we cannot confirm or deny anyone’s involvement.”

And if you really want to stop fake news, you can ask questions. A good one to start with, is where is the proof that Russia did any of this ?

Third party standards for hate speech? Are any of the "third parties" remotely neutral in their designation of hate speech?

Likely no. In which case Breitbart is likely going to have a field day with their lawyers getting involved in it. If anything, their "third party groups" are probably along the same lines as Twitter's "Trust and Safety Council" full of far-left groups that look right at home at your local antifa meeting. Of course, WAPO has no problems operating their own blacklist. Gee looks like WAPO is actually fake news now.

"I just don't believe a word Microsoft says about monitoring or not monitoring users anymore, period."

Correct, the big reason is the rich fear the political awakening of the masses, so they are integrating spying into everything to defend themselves.

Basically the rich are worried the average everyday joe will wake up to the fact governments never worked for the people, aka they don't work for us, hence the spying. They are afraid that one day the average person might get a clue politically.

See here former national security advisor of the united states:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ZyJw_cHJY

The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives

https://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261/

The man in the video wrote the above book, once you read it you'll understand that it is the citizens they are worried about, which is why all states are secretly going into lockdown/military alert status and the rule of law is effectively over.

See here on the american militaries assessment of our future dystopia:

https://theintercept.com/2016/10/13/pentagon-video-warns-of-unavoidable-dystopian-future-for-worlds-biggest-cities/

More reading:

https://williamblum.org/

Why is Trump taking pro-media stance?

Trump just read the riot act to the media elite.

On a larger scale, one for the first thing Trump plans to do is to kill US involvement in the TPP, which is pretty much a creation of the media companies...

In many ways, all along Trump has shown he is very much against the media industry. So if any one action appears to be FOR the media industry, it means you need to look a lot more closely.

In fact if you look you'll find that "Network Neutrality" was pushed for by the media industry, very happy to have a corporate backed government take full control over the wilds of the internet. Trump appointing people against network neutrality is continuing in the same vein of being very much against, not for, the media.

I'll just leave this here.

F**king disgusting what google is doing, they are really becoming the Ministry of Truth. Googles rules won't apply to the main fake news site were ABC,CBS,CNN, NY Times, and Huffington Post. https://theintercept.com/2016/...

A major expenditure for political campaigns is media buys—buying TV ads, for instance—but Trump was given billions of dollars in gratis TV coverage (1, 2). That's not "technology".

Trump was up against a horrible Democratic Party candidate who built on a long line of screwing the poor and ignored the lessons of Brexit. As corporate media lined up to bolster her, enough of the Trump voters' interests were left out. While she got busy calling them names (like being a "basket of deplorables") poor voters tried to make rent and feed their families. Every Trump jibe echoed around (such as the rubbish from news parody shows) without acknowledging what had been happening to the disenfranchised for 30 years under Democratic and Republican rule that Trump had nothing to do with setting up. Reacting to a bad economy with no end in sight had a lot more to do with Trump's victory than "technology".

Sweden can not promise Assange anything in advance, they would have to change existing laws to do that.

Repeating that lie over and over again doesn't make it true. Sweden would no more have to pass a new law than the United States had to pass one to not hand Fethullah Gulen over to Turkey. The easiest out for Sweden is to say they wont extradite to a country that tortures prisoners or executes them - which the United States has a penchant for doing.

Doesn't it worry you at all that the FBI investigation so close to the vote most likely lost it for Clinton? Wikileaks and the FBI turned nothing into a Trump victory.

Sounds like John Podesta complaining that FBI Director Comey cost Hillary the election.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...
No, this did not cost Hillary the election. The damage had been done long ago when the DNC and Hillary screwed over Bernie Sanders.
The DNC did not listen to others who told them the selecting Hillary was a mistake, that she was almost unelectable.
https://theintercept.com/2016/...
Then top it off the Democrats got the opposing candidate they wanted in Donald Trump.
Come election day Bernie Sanders supporters stayed away on election day in key states.
This is attributed to the DNC email dumps in the weeks leading up to the election.
Many voters in the rust belt, who voted for Obama in '08 and '12 voted Trump this time around.
Most said Hillary was an insider and part of the problem, they wanted change and Trump offered that.
As for me, no I did not vote for Trump. I also did not give Hillary my vote.
She carried my state and got the biggest prize of all, as the Democrats always do.
The announcement from Comey didn't change my mind, I wasn't going to vote for her from the start.
Her previous actions and mishandling of classified information did it for me. She should NEVER hold a security clearance again.
Now it looks like she never will need one again. That is a good thing for this country.

With Trump being elected, the one thing I am thankful for is that the TPP is DOA.
It may be the only thing good that may come from the Trump presidency but it is a start.

The democrats are blaming everyone but themselves. From a recent article by Glenn Greenwald, posted at the Intercept:

You know the drearily predictable list of their scapegoats: Russia, WikiLeaks, James Comey, Jill Stein, Bernie Bros, The Media, news outlets (including, perhaps especially, The Intercept) that sinned by reporting negatively on Hillary Clinton. Anyone who thinks that what happened last night in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Michigan can be blamed on any of that is drowning in self-protective ignorance so deep that it’s impossible to express in words.

To answer the question the summary poses: Even when the Democrats control both houses of congress and the presidency they don't want to abolish the electoral college. So even the to-be minority party won't do this.

Building on the parent post: And as to Democrats blaming anyone but themselves for pulling defeat from the jaws of victory in a rigged system that favors the corporate duopoly, I'm sure they'd like to add another factor they dared not mention until now: competition from third parties such as the Greens & Libertarians. We're not allowed to hear from them in the "debates" because they're not deemed popular enough to be a factor in the election but when the Democrats lose suddenly they're a factor (paraphrasing Lawrence O'Donnell from "An Unreasonable Man".

Glenn Greenwald has salient factors listed and commented on in his latest on the Intercept. Democrats just don't want to acknowledge how running a corporate-driven system with endless war and no justice against the rapacious banks doesn't go over well by the US public, particularly in states where Clinton lost and among groups who are increasingly poor.

Actually, when I think of point 9, I think of those terror plots which were created by the FBI, or USBP interior checkpoints, or the police buying military surplus gear.

No we don't "all know that" or any such thing. This is the problem with you guys - you start with your hatred of Trump and just *assume* the rest. Garbage in, garbage out.

There's many reasons to not believe the russians were at fault:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...
https://theintercept.com/2016/...

Or just maybe Assange and Wikileaks are attacking her because they're trying to hurt someone that wants Assange punished for acts widely considered to be espionage?

https://theintercept.com/2016/...

Tweets above from the Wikileaks account are not the kind of commentary you would expect from any kind of unbiased source. Also, Wikileaks also published personal and financial information of people whose only "secret" was donating to a political organization which was going to publish their identities as part of public FEC filings anyhow.

And really, if you think Hillary wanted Assange dead, do you think he'd be alive to cry about it? He'd be dead as a doornail.

How many stories have we had on this topic?
Lets go back down the stories and their new Bear related findings, spies, moles, data diodes and the private sector.
Starting with "How Hackers Broke Into John Podesta and Colin Powell’s Gmail Accounts"
https://motherboard.vice.com/r...
"It’s unclear why the hackers used the encoded strings, which effectively reveal their targets to anyone."
and finally "None of this new data constitutes a smoking gun that can clearly frame Russia"
So the first hint of something that is not very spy like?
Lets try the other link:
https://theintercept.com/2016/... (September 14 2016)
"https://theintercept.com/2016/09/13/colin-powell-emails/"
has "a hacker that many allege to have ties with Russian intelligence." and thats all.
Finally past the two slashdot links and down at
"How Russia Pulled Off the Biggest Election Hack in U.S. History" (OCT 20, 2016 )
http://www.esquire.com/news-po...
Lets keep reading past the 56k modems and 1950's see whats new.
"immediately discovered two sophisticated groups of spies" They are not great spies if they are "immediately discovered" by the private sector.
"soon able to reconstruct the hacks and identify the hackers." If the entry was so easy to reconstruct, it could be anyone with the skills.
"each of the attackers seemed unaware of what the other was doing" so more than one group used methods out in the wider public at random times?
Sounds like a few different groups are active.
So groups with "immediately discovered" methods must be the GRU and KGB?
"But several sloppy mistakes"... Do spies make so many "sloppy mistakes"? Use of their own language and emoji?
The Germans added their support to 'Fancy Bear" from years ago. Well understood methods by "different" groups that the private sector was well aware of?
The "hackers forgot to set" - that sounds like spies? Such a "rapid public reconstruction" and in public so the media could follow along?
Then onto the NSA, data diodes, and a small hint at a real spy could be in play with "an old-fashioned mole passed on the tools."
How did the other data get out? "Using commercial cloud services to "exfiltrate" data out"
So we are back to ip ranges? "Confident" in URL's and all that code litter that expert "spies" left for the media, private sector and "open-source counterintelligence" to find. Don't forget the easy to find emoji as part of the litter :)

>> You mean where she complained about the lack of security and went on record asking Congress for more funds for defending Americans,

You have to be fucking joking! she violated security so badly with her personal email server, if she was anyone else at all didn't already have Comey and Lynch in her pocket she'd already be in prison and certainly not allowed to keep any government job where she even comes into contact with classfied info.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

>> Or that the Clinton foundation does actual charitable works,

Yes. it does a few, just to maintain some level of creadbiluity, but not many. Its completely a front for syphoning hundreds of millions of dollars to the Clintons through.
https://theintercept.com/2016/...

If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, she'll be entering office as a war criminal having achieved that status well prior. She has backed possibly every war the US is engaged in and shows no signs of pulling the US out of its many occupations. Her belligerent stance on Syria, for instance, is to push for a "no-fly zone" which she acknowledges (to her bankster friends who also bankrolled Pres. Obama's candidacy) will "kill a lot of Syrians". Patrick Cockburn disagrees any US president would actually do this, but that doesn't stop her from making it known she is fine with the bombastic talk. She'll continue all of Obama's wars just as Obama continued and expanded G.W. Bush's wars. We don't know precisely where she'll expand US wars to, but it's likely to be some other poor country just as Obama expanded wars into Yemen. She'll continue the extrajudicial assassinations of Obama's drone wars (which Obama engaged in far more than Bush, making the drone wars a hallmark of Obama's presidency).

The drone strikes deserve some special attention because so few people seem to know about them. If any other country did this the US would have no problem identifying them as "state-sponsors of global terror" or calling them "terrorists". Each of these wars kill a lot of women and children (putting into perspective how much Clinton cares about women), including Americans (as we've seen with the Al-awlakis, such as killing a father and son 2 weeks apart in separate drone attacks) without due process. And the drones kill completely unsuspected innocent passers-by (such as one infamous wedding party attack. The US kills so many civilians they can't keep track of them all but are clearly ashamed by the deaths so they released (on a Friday before a holiday weekend when mainstream corporate media are least likely to carry the story) an internal assessment of civilian killings in U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya (including those killed including during Clinton's stint as Secretary of State). In that assessment we find an undercount due to the US reclassification of any military-age male as an "enemy combatant" in a desperate attempt to reduce the civilian death toll. There's every reason to expect more of the same from Hillary Clinton should she become president.

Domestically, Clinton's anti-poor/anti-working-person policies are bound to worsen the plight of women. Taking so much money from global banks ensures a continuation of no prosecutions for global banksters, no matter what fellow Democrat Sen. Elizabeth Warren says. Global trade pacts will help the US more efficiently exploit the poor. The TPP is a fine example of this: the TPP was known to, and does, receive massive international disapproval hence the TPP negotiations and early drafts were done in secret even keeping US congresspeople in the dark. Regardless of what Clinton says or hints to the US public, Clinton picked a pro-TPP vice presidential candidate in Tim Kaine and Clinton picked TPP boosters in her cabinet setup committee. It's hardly surprising that in April 2015 TheIntercept.com reported that "TPP Propon

If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, she'll be entering office as a war criminal having achieved that status well prior. She has backed possibly every war the US is engaged in and shows no signs of pulling the US out of its many occupations. Her belligerent stance on Syria, for instance, is to push for a "no-fly zone" which she acknowledges (to her bankster friends who also bankrolled Pres. Obama's candidacy) will "kill a lot of Syrians". Patrick Cockburn disagrees any US president would actually do this, but that doesn't stop her from making it known she is fine with the bombastic talk. She'll continue all of Obama's wars just as Obama continued and expanded G.W. Bush's wars. We don't know precisely where she'll expand US wars to, but it's likely to be some other poor country just as Obama expanded wars into Yemen. She'll continue the extrajudicial assassinations of Obama's drone wars (which Obama engaged in far more than Bush, making the drone wars a hallmark of Obama's presidency).

The drone strikes deserve some special attention because so few people seem to know about them. If any other country did this the US would have no problem identifying them as "state-sponsors of global terror" or calling them "terrorists". Each of these wars kill a lot of women and children (putting into perspective how much Clinton cares about women), including Americans (as we've seen with the Al-awlakis, such as killing a father and son 2 weeks apart in separate drone attacks) without due process. And the drones kill completely unsuspected innocent passers-by (such as one infamous wedding party attack. The US kills so many civilians they can't keep track of them all but are clearly ashamed by the deaths so they released (on a Friday before a holiday weekend when mainstream corporate media are least likely to carry the story) an internal assessment of civilian killings in U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya (including those killed including during Clinton's stint as Secretary of State). In that assessment we find an undercount due to the US reclassification of any military-age male as an "enemy combatant" in a desperate attempt to reduce the civilian death toll. There's every reason to expect more of the same from Hillary Clinton should she become president.

Domestically, Clinton's anti-poor/anti-working-person policies are bound to worsen the plight of women. Taking so much money from global banks ensures a continuation of no prosecutions for global banksters, no matter what fellow Democrat Sen. Elizabeth Warren says. Global trade pacts will help the US more efficiently exploit the poor. The TPP is a fine example of this: the TPP was known to, and does, receive massive international disapproval hence the TPP negotiations and early drafts were done in secret even keeping US congresspeople in the dark. Regardless of what Clinton says or hints to the US public, Clinton picked a pro-TPP vice presidential candidate in Tim Kaine and Clinton picked TPP boosters in her cabinet setup committee. It's hardly surprising that in April 2015 TheIntercept.com reported that "TPP Propon

If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, she'll be entering office as a war criminal having achieved that status well prior. She has backed possibly every war the US is engaged in and shows no signs of pulling the US out of its many occupations. Her belligerent stance on Syria, for instance, is to push for a "no-fly zone" which she acknowledges (to her bankster friends who also bankrolled Pres. Obama's candidacy) will "kill a lot of Syrians". Patrick Cockburn disagrees any US president would actually do this, but that doesn't stop her from making it known she is fine with the bombastic talk. She'll continue all of Obama's wars just as Obama continued and expanded G.W. Bush's wars. We don't know precisely where she'll expand US wars to, but it's likely to be some other poor country just as Obama expanded wars into Yemen. She'll continue the extrajudicial assassinations of Obama's drone wars (which Obama engaged in far more than Bush, making the drone wars a hallmark of Obama's presidency).

The drone strikes deserve some special attention because so few people seem to know about them. If any other country did this the US would have no problem identifying them as "state-sponsors of global terror" or calling them "terrorists". Each of these wars kill a lot of women and children (putting into perspective how much Clinton cares about women), including Americans (as we've seen with the Al-awlakis, such as killing a father and son 2 weeks apart in separate drone attacks) without due process. And the drones kill completely unsuspected innocent passers-by (such as one infamous wedding party attack. The US kills so many civilians they can't keep track of them all but are clearly ashamed by the deaths so they released (on a Friday before a holiday weekend when mainstream corporate media are least likely to carry the story) an internal assessment of civilian killings in U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya (including those killed including during Clinton's stint as Secretary of State). In that assessment we find an undercount due to the US reclassification of any military-age male as an "enemy combatant" in a desperate attempt to reduce the civilian death toll. There's every reason to expect more of the same from Hillary Clinton should she become president.

Domestically, Clinton's anti-poor/anti-working-person policies are bound to worsen the plight of women. Taking so much money from global banks ensures a continuation of no prosecutions for global banksters, no matter what fellow Democrat Sen. Elizabeth Warren says. Global trade pacts will help the US more efficiently exploit the poor. The TPP is a fine example of this: the TPP was known to, and does, receive massive international disapproval hence the TPP negotiations and early drafts were done in secret even keeping US congresspeople in the dark. Regardless of what Clinton says or hints to the US public, Clinton picked a pro-TPP vice presidential candidate in Tim Kaine and Clinton picked TPP boosters in her cabinet setup committee. It's hardly surprising that in April 2015 TheIntercept.com reported that "TPP Propon

If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, she'll be entering office as a war criminal having achieved that status well prior. She has backed possibly every war the US is engaged in and shows no signs of pulling the US out of its many occupations. Her belligerent stance on Syria, for instance, is to push for a "no-fly zone" which she acknowledges (to her bankster friends who also bankrolled Pres. Obama's candidacy) will "kill a lot of Syrians". Patrick Cockburn disagrees any US president would actually do this, but that doesn't stop her from making it known she is fine with the bombastic talk. She'll continue all of Obama's wars just as Obama continued and expanded G.W. Bush's wars. We don't know precisely where she'll expand US wars to, but it's likely to be some other poor country just as Obama expanded wars into Yemen. She'll continue the extrajudicial assassinations of Obama's drone wars (which Obama engaged in far more than Bush, making the drone wars a hallmark of Obama's presidency).

The drone strikes deserve some special attention because so few people seem to know about them. If any other country did this the US would have no problem identifying them as "state-sponsors of global terror" or calling them "terrorists". Each of these wars kill a lot of women and children (putting into perspective how much Clinton cares about women), including Americans (as we've seen with the Al-awlakis, such as killing a father and son 2 weeks apart in separate drone attacks) without due process. And the drones kill completely unsuspected innocent passers-by (such as one infamous wedding party attack. The US kills so many civilians they can't keep track of them all but are clearly ashamed by the deaths so they released (on a Friday before a holiday weekend when mainstream corporate media are least likely to carry the story) an internal assessment of civilian killings in U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya (including those killed including during Clinton's stint as Secretary of State). In that assessment we find an undercount due to the US reclassification of any military-age male as an "enemy combatant" in a desperate attempt to reduce the civilian death toll. There's every reason to expect more of the same from Hillary Clinton should she become president.

Domestically, Clinton's anti-poor/anti-working-person policies are bound to worsen the plight of women. Taking so much money from global banks ensures a continuation of no prosecutions for global banksters, no matter what fellow Democrat Sen. Elizabeth Warren says. Global trade pacts will help the US more efficiently exploit the poor. The TPP is a fine example of this: the TPP was known to, and does, receive massive international disapproval hence the TPP negotiations and early drafts were done in secret even keeping US congresspeople in the dark. Regardless of what Clinton says or hints to the US public, Clinton picked a pro-TPP vice presidential candidate in Tim Kaine and Clinton picked TPP boosters in her cabinet setup committee. It's hardly surprising that in April 2015 TheIntercept.com reported that "TPP Propon

REAL journalists:

These are all from the last week or so and mostly from the hacked emails. Oldest first. Yes these people go after Trump too but as far as I'm concerned has no chance in hell anyway.

Hillary Clinton Sympathized with Goldman Sachs over financial reform.

What Major Donors like Goldman Sachs want from the Democratic Party (they also fucking hate Elizabeth Warren - shock.)

Hillary Clinton repeatedly Praised Wal-Mart in paid speeches This bitch knows who signs her checks and kisses heavy amounts of ass accordingly.

Clinton aide PLANTED ANTI-BANK COMMENTS in a paid speech to throw off reporters.

Democrats trying to work out how to pass huge corporate tax cuts. If you read it's essentially the same thing Trump wants. Remember: same corporate hand, different puppets.

BONUS: Hillary Clinton's encryption proposal impossible. Because she wanted secure communication between people that could still be monitored by the gov't.

For the record I think Bernie Sanders / Elizabeth Warren would have been the dream team. Fuck Hillary and Trump both.

PS. In case you didn't know The Intercept = Glenn Greenwald = Snowden's choice for disclosure. They're good guys.

REAL journalists:

These are all from the last week or so and mostly from the hacked emails. Oldest first. Yes these people go after Trump too but as far as I'm concerned has no chance in hell anyway.

Hillary Clinton Sympathized with Goldman Sachs over financial reform.

What Major Donors like Goldman Sachs want from the Democratic Party (they also fucking hate Elizabeth Warren - shock.)

Hillary Clinton repeatedly Praised Wal-Mart in paid speeches This bitch knows who signs her checks and kisses heavy amounts of ass accordingly.

Clinton aide PLANTED ANTI-BANK COMMENTS in a paid speech to throw off reporters.

Democrats trying to work out how to pass huge corporate tax cuts. If you read it's essentially the same thing Trump wants. Remember: same corporate hand, different puppets.

BONUS: Hillary Clinton's encryption proposal impossible. Because she wanted secure communication between people that could still be monitored by the gov't.

For the record I think Bernie Sanders / Elizabeth Warren would have been the dream team. Fuck Hillary and Trump both.

PS. In case you didn't know The Intercept = Glenn Greenwald = Snowden's choice for disclosure. They're good guys.

REAL journalists:

These are all from the last week or so and mostly from the hacked emails. Oldest first. Yes these people go after Trump too but as far as I'm concerned has no chance in hell anyway.

Hillary Clinton Sympathized with Goldman Sachs over financial reform.

What Major Donors like Goldman Sachs want from the Democratic Party (they also fucking hate Elizabeth Warren - shock.)

Hillary Clinton repeatedly Praised Wal-Mart in paid speeches This bitch knows who signs her checks and kisses heavy amounts of ass accordingly.

Clinton aide PLANTED ANTI-BANK COMMENTS in a paid speech to throw off reporters.

Democrats trying to work out how to pass huge corporate tax cuts. If you read it's essentially the same thing Trump wants. Remember: same corporate hand, different puppets.

BONUS: Hillary Clinton's encryption proposal impossible. Because she wanted secure communication between people that could still be monitored by the gov't.

For the record I think Bernie Sanders / Elizabeth Warren would have been the dream team. Fuck Hillary and Trump both.

PS. In case you didn't know The Intercept = Glenn Greenwald = Snowden's choice for disclosure. They're good guys.

REAL journalists:

These are all from the last week or so and mostly from the hacked emails. Oldest first. Yes these people go after Trump too but as far as I'm concerned has no chance in hell anyway.

Hillary Clinton Sympathized with Goldman Sachs over financial reform.

What Major Donors like Goldman Sachs want from the Democratic Party (they also fucking hate Elizabeth Warren - shock.)

Hillary Clinton repeatedly Praised Wal-Mart in paid speeches This bitch knows who signs her checks and kisses heavy amounts of ass accordingly.

Clinton aide PLANTED ANTI-BANK COMMENTS in a paid speech to throw off reporters.

Democrats trying to work out how to pass huge corporate tax cuts. If you read it's essentially the same thing Trump wants. Remember: same corporate hand, different puppets.

BONUS: Hillary Clinton's encryption proposal impossible. Because she wanted secure communication between people that could still be monitored by the gov't.

For the record I think Bernie Sanders / Elizabeth Warren would have been the dream team. Fuck Hillary and Trump both.

PS. In case you didn't know The Intercept = Glenn Greenwald = Snowden's choice for disclosure. They're good guys.

REAL journalists:

These are all from the last week or so and mostly from the hacked emails. Oldest first. Yes these people go after Trump too but as far as I'm concerned has no chance in hell anyway.

Hillary Clinton Sympathized with Goldman Sachs over financial reform.

What Major Donors like Goldman Sachs want from the Democratic Party (they also fucking hate Elizabeth Warren - shock.)

Hillary Clinton repeatedly Praised Wal-Mart in paid speeches This bitch knows who signs her checks and kisses heavy amounts of ass accordingly.

Clinton aide PLANTED ANTI-BANK COMMENTS in a paid speech to throw off reporters.

Democrats trying to work out how to pass huge corporate tax cuts. If you read it's essentially the same thing Trump wants. Remember: same corporate hand, different puppets.

BONUS: Hillary Clinton's encryption proposal impossible. Because she wanted secure communication between people that could still be monitored by the gov't.

For the record I think Bernie Sanders / Elizabeth Warren would have been the dream team. Fuck Hillary and Trump both.

PS. In case you didn't know The Intercept = Glenn Greenwald = Snowden's choice for disclosure. They're good guys.

REAL journalists:

These are all from the last week or so and mostly from the hacked emails. Oldest first. Yes these people go after Trump too but as far as I'm concerned has no chance in hell anyway.

Hillary Clinton Sympathized with Goldman Sachs over financial reform.

What Major Donors like Goldman Sachs want from the Democratic Party (they also fucking hate Elizabeth Warren - shock.)

Hillary Clinton repeatedly Praised Wal-Mart in paid speeches This bitch knows who signs her checks and kisses heavy amounts of ass accordingly.

Clinton aide PLANTED ANTI-BANK COMMENTS in a paid speech to throw off reporters.

Democrats trying to work out how to pass huge corporate tax cuts. If you read it's essentially the same thing Trump wants. Remember: same corporate hand, different puppets.

BONUS: Hillary Clinton's encryption proposal impossible. Because she wanted secure communication between people that could still be monitored by the gov't.

For the record I think Bernie Sanders / Elizabeth Warren would have been the dream team. Fuck Hillary and Trump both.

PS. In case you didn't know The Intercept = Glenn Greenwald = Snowden's choice for disclosure. They're good guys.