Slashdot Mirror
DNC Hacker Releases Trump Opposition File (gawker.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Following the report that Russian hackers penetrated the DNC's database and stole research on Donald Trump, a 200+ page Democratic anti-Trump playbook compiled by the DNC has leaked online. In the book, Trump is called a "bad businessman" and "misogynist in chief." The document was created on December 19th, 2015, and was sent to Gawker by a hacker calling himself "Guccifer 2.0." (Guccifer is a popular Romanian hacker who hacked various American political figures, most notably Hillary Clinton and her private server.) The hacker said in an email to Gawker that the package contains a variety of donor registries and other strategy files, "just a few docs from many thousands I extracted when hacking into DNC's network," adding that he's in possession of "about 100GB of data including financial reports, donors' lists, election programs, action plans against Republicans, personal mails, etc." His motive is to be "a fighter against all those illuminati that captured our world." The "Donald Trump Report," as it's called, appears to be a summary of the Democratic Party's strategy for delegitimizing and undermining Trump's presidential aspirations. There's a section titled "Top Narratives" that describes a seven-pronged attack on Trump's character and record. The hack was first revealed Tuesday by the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, linking the hack to Russian intelligence. Wikileaks founder Julian Assange says later this year it will publish enough new information about Hillary Clinton to indict her.
...FOR TREASON. Fortunately for them, we have laws protecting the mentally ill in this country, so they're safe.
From perusing the table of contents, it looks like almost all of this is already well known (see the last couple weeks of NYT for articles about what a horrible real estate business man, husband, father, uncle, and University executive Trump has been).
Indeed many of the items listed are actually marketed as Trump himself and his followers as selling points (offensive and demeaning attitude to foreigners, for example).
But in the end, none of it matters. His followers are willing to forgive any behavior, no matter how crass, ignorant, or even downright evil. Trump literally would be able, as he pointed out, shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and still get elected president. They just don't care. And in fact will see this "oppo" research as more proof that the establishment is "out to get him" and so therefore must be elected.
Next up, Iranian hackers break into the RNC servers to steal the opposition research on Hillary and... oh, wait. There doesn't appear to be any Clinton OR because the Establishment Republicans are all voting for Hillary anyway.
Trump is a fun loving Boy Scout in comparison to BHO and Hillary.
...to Donald Trump. Who wouldn't want to know the other team's strategy and the information they are going to use to attack you?
You realize Hillary is responsible for probably over a million deaths and a good part of Europe being overrun ?
You Americans will do anything to not elect a female president. Any person who gets to be POTUS is crooked, that is well known. The fact that Americas lingering misogynist society is coming out of the woodwork is a good thing. The more light on the Anti-Hillary bus the better. You need her as President, to 'break the glass ceiling' as it were. To make the majority of you folk realize that a woman can lead. I know a lot of you were upset with Obama. That was a good thing too. Two terms for a black president. Thats progress. Make the right choice again. If you fail to elect Hillary, well, Good luck in the Fall America. You were once Great. There will never be One like You again.
There's a really obvious reason why Trump is so popular.
A lot of people are facing complete ruin and are scared, holding their breath hoping that something will change.
Trump is the candidate for "change", and Clinton is the candidate for "stay the course".
I'm not a Clinton supporter, but I don't think that statement about Hillary is particularly controversial even among her supporters. She's definitely a political insider, is funded by moneyed interests, and her website has a list of issues that give a sense of "direction" without promising anything concrete. Typical of politicians for the last 50 years - nothing bad or unusual about that.
Trump has a list of 7 things that he will change, with a concrete list of changes for each. All of his proposed changes are aimed at making peoples' lives better.
People who are secure in their position, who have a job and don't see themselves being laid off or expect to find a new job quickly if they are laid off, should vote for Hillary. There are a lot of these people in the country, and "stay the course" is the least risky choice for them to make.
People who are unemployed, struggling, or in fear of losing their situation should vote for Trump, because he's proposing to make changes.
As the theory goes, when you're doing well you should minimise risk - don't do anything that could change your situation. When you're doing poorly, you can tolerate more risk in the hopes that it might help.
So it really all boils down to the proportion of people in the country who are at-risk and scared, versus the proportion who think the current situation is "pretty good".
We're presented with a never-ending stream of depressing news about this here on Slashdot, and you really can't trust the MSM any more, so it's easy to believe that majority of the country might be shivering in fear hoping for something to change, but that might not be an accurate view.
"Change" or "stay the course"? The voters will probably decide this November.
It does not matter who gets elected Trump/Clinton, because with either option the next president of the USA will be the worst ever.
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange says later this year it will publish enough new information about Hillary Clinton to indict her.
It's unlikely.......she's smart enough to know not to do anything illegal in the public eye, and she's been in the public eye for the last 25 years. She can afford lawyers to tell her how to stay exactly within the law.
With the emails, maybe, she's definitely guilty of being sloppy, but that wasn't an intentional crime........if it's a crime at all, it's because the law around classified documents is very harsh. I don't think Hillary is a particularly bad person.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
That's the best they got?
She has already admitted to multiple felonies related to mishandling classified information. Nothing happened. It is hard to imagine anything that Wikileaks could dump that would harm her at this point. There will be no criminal charges so long as Obama holds the Presidency and obviously none should Hillary win, and should she lose Trump won't waste the political capital to bring her to justice either.
Her voters already know she is a criminal, they are not voting for her in spite of the knowledge, but because of it. It demonstrates she possesses the Will to Power they consider a requirement in a leader.
Democrat delenda est
Yay with the scarewords, the posturing, and the content-free "reporting".
*BSTD has steadily
The reason Trump is so popular is that he's actually not popular at all.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelli...
It's like a zen koan for morons: "He's so popular that 70% of people can't stand him."
Gamergate logic.
Apropos of nothing, does your Gamergate logic explain why so many people voted for him?
Votes would seem to be a better measure, but then I'm not familiar with Gamergate logic.
I found a great video of her reminding us all how truthful she's always been to us:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI
CBS story
Clinton told her aid to remove classifications from the information and send them unsecured. Thereby letting her claim nothing was sent with classification markings.
That is not sloppy, that is not a mistake. She TOLD them to remove classification markings and send unsecured. I'm not sure how much more of a smoking gun of intention there could possibly exist. The only thing I think COULD be worse is sending it with the TOP SECRET on the top of the email, but thats about it.
> I despise the GOP. Trump is just another version of their evil.
The vast majority of Republican commentators and elected officials don't like the guy at all. He's a donor to Bill and Hillary Clinton. Trump really isn't the republicans guy, though with the less-informed public voted, the sane candidates did split the vote, leaving him with all of the crazy vote and therefore a win.
Your guy is disliked by a far bigger proportion of the population than the proportion that like him. He is disliked far more than Hillary Clinton, according to the polls.
Your guy has little acquaintance with facts in his public rhetoric, but that doesn't make them go away. Trump will lose the general election to Hillary. The remaining question is whether his negative impact on the Republican vote will cost the GOP the House and Senate as well.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
This is why Trump is popular.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Interesting that politicians appeal mostly to people's fears and insecurities. Fear of criminals, mass murders, fear of losing your job, xenophobia, fear of any number of disasters which each claims the other will bring if you don't elect the opposite as leader. Terror is just another word for fear, and one who uses terror to achieve political goals is a terrorist. Break the cycle, vote for somebody who doesn't need to scare you to get your support.
Damn! Nice post.
It's rare to find an actual flash of insight on this subject. Keep up the good work.
I'd vote you up if I had points.
Dollars to donuts it ends up being one of those Jack Baur ticking timebomb things that no jury ever convicts her of. I recall that detail of the story in the mainstream press. I don't recall much followup as to the specific motivation in that specific case. Smells like a fishy troll ploy.
Google search the phase "Swiftboating". Then look up the stuff Karl Rove does.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
What lightweights. What morons. There was nothing to hide in the first place unlike Clinton's vault of skeletons. (LOL the captcha was "masonry" because every pathetic attempt the left tries in desperation, the wall gets 10ft taller. Now that's poetic justice for ya)
Fucktard libertarian hackerss are effectively RNC hackers.
Curious that my search of comments for 'ussia' had no hits, and only 3 above it from the summary and related articles.
Trump, based on the past 30 years of his donations, endorsements, and speeches, is a Democrat.
The Republican support for Trump isn't so much because people love him as much as it is a great big "F--K YOU" to the DC establishment Republicans that have constantly lied and betrayed their supporters over the past two decades or so.
Guccifer isn't a hacker, he's a dumbass who guessed password reset questions then dumped the contents for lulz.
Yet suddenly he claims to have actual "break into a server" hacking skills, uses those skills to crack into one of the biggest profile politicians on the planet, but suddenly thinks the contents are boring and doesn't dump anything??
He's just attention whoring as usual, when he was free he got attention by releasing dumps of emails that he has. But now he's in jail he can claim to have other super-duper important emails and he'd totally show them to you but he's in prison.
Stop feeding the damn troll!
I stole this Sig
So they've basically wasted their vote, because they've picked a candidate that cannot win. How exactly is that taking on the Establishment?
And really, how is Trump not the Establishment? He's a semi-successful property tycoon (we may end up finding out just how semi-successful he really is when the Trump University case wends its way into a full trial).
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Just WHAT are her much touted qualifications?
Worked as young lawyer on Democrat congressional team handling Nixon impeachment? - yes, but she was ejected by Democrats for being too unethical
Married a governor? So is Chris Christie's wife.
Married to a president? Ok...so was Nancy Reagan (both married to a governor and married to a president).
Given a safe senate seat? Very few are given such a safe seat, and she was not the first choice. The Democrats in NYC made no secret that they were holding other viable democrat candidates off from that race in the hopes that JFK jr would take it. Then he crashed his plane and the Democrats gave the seat to Hillary where the only thing of note that she did was to vote for the Iraq war.
Given the Sec State position? Sure. What was her training for that job? More importantly: what did she DO with that power? That "Arab Spring" worked out real well, right? The Russian "Reset" button? The woman practically lit the world on fire. Steve Erkel couldn't have done worse.
Instead of continually repeating the mantra from her campaign about being "the most qualified..." her supporters need to come up with a single example of what actually qualifies her to be president more than the nearest bus driver or public pool lifeguard most of whom have at least done SOMETHING useful with actual success.
Swiftboating - The act of outing a hypocritical slimeball politician with the testimony of the people who actually were there when, decades later, he tries to re-write his history for a political campaign.
John Kerry was a complete jerk who slandered every person who served in the Vietnam war. Huge numbers of people who served in that war were drafted, sent halfway around the world to fight a war that elites in DC wanted to wage for geopolitical theories. John Kerry came back from that war and wrapped himself in the "peace movement" which was rising in political popularity at the time and he famously threw his medals away (for the press cameras, of course) and testified in congress that all those evil Americans fighting the war were war criminals he equated with Ghengis Kahn (except for HIM of course... he was a saint). It worked. He used the fame he got in left-wing political circles to get into politics as a member of the congress representing a very left-wing state. Decades later, when the political tide had shifted and being an anti-military guy was a political loser for anybody running nationwide for president, he tried to portray himself as a war hero of Rambo-style action-hero movie screen proportions. That's when the guys who served with him on the Swift boats doing river patrols in Vietnam showed up and participated in a TV commercial exposing the fraudulent nature of his image-consultant-crafted war hero story. One soldier (Kerry) trashing ALL the rest was automatically great in the eyes of the left, but a bunch of them with better military records contradicting him is somehow completely invalid and under-handed according to the left.
Those Swift boat crewmen telling their side of the John Kerry story was considered portrayed by Kerry's campaign team as some sort of political scam with actors. Kerry and his team tried to slander those guys for a second time and of course the left gobbled it up like a pile of recreational drugs. They insisted that there was something wrong with this so-called "Swift boating". They coined the term and tried to make it disreputable in the attempt to make it irrelevant by convincing the public to ignore the content and simply assume there was something wrong with it. It's not dissimilar to the way they denounce Fox News all the time in the hopes that by doing so they will convince their voters to not watch or listen to the only media outlet they do not control. When somebody is that desperate to have you not watch/listen to something, you probably should watch or listen to find out what you are not supposed to hear.
John Kerry has always been a phoney and still is. The guy is very rich, but he did not make any of that wealth - he married a rich widow. His elite-sounding speech patterns are a practiced affectation. Oh, and he still has those supposedly blood-soaked and tainted medals that he'd pretended were so bad he had to publicly and theatrically throw them away - he now admits he never threw them away. All those yeas ago he threw away somebody else's medals for the event that was staged for the press cameras. Even now, he pretended that his Iran nuke deal was with some mythical Iranian "moderate" leaders.... but now that's been exposed as a lie by one of Obama's guys who admits they lied to the press. The deal was with the hardliners. They never were negotiating with any moderates.
Wives in the middle of bitter divorces often accuse their husbands of rape and/or other physical abuse, it's a very common tactic, particularly when there is an inbalance of power/wealth between the soon-to-be-ex-spouses.
Ivana subsequently retracted her accusations. When cornered by journalists on the subject last year she announced that she thought Trump was the best person for the job and would be voting for him. Last year when asked about his divorces, Trump did something nearly unthinkable for a politician: he took the blame for his relationships and said the failures of his marriages had been his fault as he'd spent too much time and attention on his businesses.
Trump's no saint, but unlike Hillary, there appears to be no actual blood on his hands. He has decades of trying to BUILD stuff and employ people all over the place and in all economic situations. The only thing Hillary seems to be able to build are speaking fees from Wall St Bankers and evil tyrants.
Sarah was a respectable governor of a state with a nearly 70% (Republicans AND Democrats in her state) approval rate at the time she was nominated for VP. Democrats all started denouncing her when she become part of the team opposing their team. She had a solid record of opposing both Republicans AND Democrats who were in corrupt relationships with the big oil companies in Alaska at the time, and eliminating waste in the state government. After the huge pile of lawsuits Democrats filed against her after she became the GOP VP nominee, she never was actually found guilty of anything and after her emails were hacked and dumped for the world to see, nothing bad was discovered.
Hillary cannot match that record. Hillary is as corrupt as they come. She is still fighting to hide records from the nineties (the drafts of criminal prosecution filings against here for hiding documents from the courts while she was first lady are still under seal and the subject of legal fights still underway). She's currently under criminal investigation by the FBI (which, contrary to her many statements does not conduct "security reviews") over her destruction of government records and mishandling of government secrets. There are a huge and uncounted number of dead people in her wake. She has already announced that if elected president she will not deport ANYBODY - and given that the law requires such deportations and the presidential oath includes a promise to faithfully enforce the laws, she is effectively already promising to break the oath she plans to take before she even takes it....
Hillary, Trump, and Palin?
Yeah, I'd support Palin.
She's got a very folksy way of talking and the press generally despise her as they despise and trash all Republicans (90%+ of US journalists self-identify as Democrats or further-left "independents") but her record as governor was good and ethical, and she certainly loves the country and would see that it was well-defended (which is the primary job of a president).
Personally, I always hoped that Jean Kirkpatrick (Reagan's UN ambassador) would shove the Bush clan aside and run. She would have been a spectacular first female president. Hillary's problem with male voters is not that we are misogynistic and won't support a woman; it's that she is more of a combination of a bellering sea cow and jack-booted fascist than a responsible, honest and patriotic female leader. Hillary reminds every man of his ex-wife or obnoxious mother-in-law while being the moron who lit the fires of Egypt, Libya and Syria and creating ISIL and the refugee crisis. When she's on a debate stage her head bobbles like one of those baseball player bobbleheads; it's even more irritating that George H W Bush always checking his watch, or Bill Clinton biting his lip or Barack always flipping everybody off. Everybody knows full-well how supremely dishonest she is; she makes Nixon look like Lincoln. She's still going around claiming she never handled classified docs on her secret server - something both the FBI and the State Department have explicitly contradicted. She's still joking about wiping her server "with a cloth" as though it's funny that she tried to deprive the American people of THEIR property (her work product and government documents) and THEIR 1st amendment rights (to "petition the government for redress" - in this case to file and get accurate responses to FOIA requests).
If you are not a Wall St banker, or a gay-murdering woman-oppressing Arab tyrant, willing to pay her tens of millions of dollars to hear one of her secret speeches, then Hillary's not your gal.
Yeah....I'd take Sarah Palin over Hillary Clinton any day.
When I look at the US presidential candidates I can help but think of the South Park episode where they had to choose between a douche and a shit sandwich.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Quite typically when there's some news on a leak I tend to be disappointed to not find a decent download link for the original leak/dump/etc for the noble purpose of mirroring the information. It seems that media isn't always too eager to publish the sources of their news which could be considered as relevant part of investigative journalism, which makes me sad.
Still, one can for i in $(seq 1 211); do wget https\://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2861555/pages/1-p$i-large.gif; done [had to add backslash to escape the URL and display it correctly].
Would still appreciate valid download link for originals though.
"His motive is to be a fighter against all those illuminati that captured our world"
Simply, Awesome! Thank you!!!
So they've basically wasted their vote, because they've picked a candidate that cannot win. How exactly is that taking on the Establishment?
Trump could not win against Bernie Sanders, but it is potentially possible for Trump to win against Hillary Clinton because of all the people who will not vote for her.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The 2016 presidential election isn't about who will be elected POTUS.
The 2016 presidential election is about who won't be elected
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
. . . it's the magnitude of her lies. Having your own email server for the purpose of evading transparency laws and "reclassifying" classified documents is shady as fuck. These are things that would land any of us in PMITA Federal prison for many years. Add in the other scandals from Benghazi all the way back to Whitewater and it's easy to see why she's perceived as such a liar.
DNC research is "truth" if you sign on to a bunch of other things, but it gets portrayed as 'oh yeah, this is a real discovery!'.
When Hillary Clinton said Donald Trump wasn't "qualified" to be president, the press made a big deal about it.
It was like, "Oh we just learned Trump isn't qualified to be president! This is news! This is impartial!"
Voters should be deciding this. The media is acting like it should get to pick the president just like last time.
If a business person who wasn't really known to be Republican or Democrat came out and said Donald Trump was bad at business, that might be newsworthy. If Rush said it it would be news worthy in a different way.
Can you really trust a Presidential candidate and party who cannot secure their own system from hackers? How do you expect them to protect US Government systems from being broken into?
How can you say they've wasted their vote, when you don't even know who they're going to vote for? The election is in November, and it's not like the Republicans are guaranteed to save face by at least coming in second place.
If they past is anything to judge from, they'll succeed in keeping second place. But they're especially hated right now. There's never been a more un-American thing than in 2016 to say "I'm a Republican," so anything could happen, even if unlikely.
You dodge a great deal by announcing that only one of the 200+ was on Kerry's small boat.
Let's see.... Another Democrat who served on small boats in an earlier war (Kennedy on PT boats) was well-supported by guys on other boats. You see, small boat groups are not like large ships. The guys on a small boat generally know the other guys on the other small boats in their group. In Vietnam, the small boats on the river patrols did not operate in isolation, each from its own isolated dock. I spent a few days on a landing craft with its crew many years ago (long story there) and learned first hand just how different the small boat groups are. Everybody knows everybody. It's quite different from service on a carrier.
I presume you would denounce any talk about GW Bush (of whom I am NOT a fan) from anybody who was not in his single-seat plane with him????
Here's the thing: I'll give you credit for acking that there's a lot of politics in this on both sides, and that Kerry inflamed this stuff himself. But having served in the Navy myself, I believe that Kerry is a pig and he is indefensible on this. Not in some generic trollish way; I will explain:
The guy came back to the states and then blasted all the other men in uniform as vile war criminals, painting with broadly and recklessly hurled buckets of hyper political paint and his testimony in congress back then and his participation in high-profile protests helped create the broad cultural impression that all the Americans who served in that war were nuts, drugged-out monsters, or war criminals. He went out of his way to trash everybody who served in high-profile political activities, when he could and should have taken part in quieter activities in DC had he been interested in improving things rather than muckraking and posturing. He had his eye on politics and decided to trample on everybody serving on his way to a political career. Years later, when people from that time and place surface and say "hey, not so fast..." as he is trying to portray himself as a war hero in a campaign to be commander in chief, THEY are criticized with claims they were not all close personal associates with first-hand experience with Kerry. That's a very interesting response given that Kerry himself had no such first-hand associations, and experience with, the many thousands of Americans soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines he himself spent so many years trashing! TOTAL HYPOCRISY of the sort we all-too-often tolerate from elected jerks. There is simply no logical and consistent way to defend him from the Swift boat guys given HIS initial attacks on them and everybody else who served in that war. If their attacks on him are invalid then by the very same rationale, his attacks on them, which began decades ago are all the more dishonest and invalid.
I stand firmly by the point that Kerry is one of the worst dirtbags to ever enter politics.
NOT supposed to be a politician. This is supposed to be a person who is expert in international matters and dealing with foreign leaders and diplomats (which admittedly involves some political skills). Such people are supposed to be careful and patient in judgement, insightful, well-informed, very discreet, and good advisers to the president and assisting him in making sure the world is stable. Our presidents do not need to have degrees in foreign languages and cultures and politics etc precisely because they have experts to advise and assist them... LIKE THEIR SECRETARY OF STATE. You do not have to have a university degree in "US Senate" to be a senator, a politician, but you jolly well ought to have SOME education and qualifications before running the State Department, or NASA, or the Defense department, etc.... the people in charge of those parts of the government are SUPPOSED to be qualified!
Politicians and campaign contributors have (sadly) long been appointed to positions like "Ambassador to Monaco" which are sort-of ceremonial in the sense that they demand little expertise, most of the work is done by the embassy staff, and the skills that are needed are generally political schmoozing and occasionally being a back-channel communication line direct to the President. There have been times when such people have done well in those roles. Secretary of State is a VERY different thing.
Hillary, with her childish Russian big red "reset button" prop (with embarrassingly misspelled/mistranslated label) and her immolated middle east has pretty much proven why a serious person with actual experience and education should be in that job.
Hillary was given the job as a political sop, to try to stitch the Democrat party back together after a very divisive election. Her only qualification was the political needs of the President and his party. She took it to build her resume, so she could now use it to claim experience for the White House, but she clearly wanted none of the details of her time in the job to be available to the public as evidenced by her lawsuit/oversight/FOIA evasion scam of private server and tens of thousands of deleted files.
And really, how is Trump not the Establishment? He's a semi-successful property tycoon ?
There's a whole bunch of billionaires in Silicon Valley. Is Elon Musk or Peter Thiel part of the establishment? Since they aren't at all involved with what's going on in DC and with politics, I'd say no. Trump isn't either.
"The Establishment" doesn't just mean "rich people".
You can tell the shills have taken over when there's no conversation, just one accusation answered with another. That's all that Trump supporters have, because his positions are either unidentifiable or indefensible. Queue the Clinton bashing in 3..2..
Trump is the logical conclusion to a decade of Fox dumbing down and terrifying their right leaning viewers. Trump is the embodiment of talking points over substance, conspiracies over facts, fear over rationality and business over government. Perhaps it's time for Republican leaders and right wing media to start leading their drooling masses out of the intellectual wilderness, before the Grand Old Party goes the way of the Whigs.