Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Guccifer 2.0 Drops New Documents (thehill.com)

Posted by msmash on from the new-wrinkle-in-the-story dept.

Joe Uchill, reporting for The Hill: Guccifer 2.0, the hacker who breached the Democratic National Committee, has released a cache of purported DNC documents to The Hill in an effort to refocus attention on the hack. The documents include more than 11,000 names matched with some identifying information, files related to two controversial donors and a research file on Sarah Palin. "The press [is] gradually forget[ing] about me, [W]ikileaks is playing for time and [I] have some more docs," he said in electronic chat explaining his rationale. The documents provide some insight into how the DNC handled high-profile donation scandals. But the choice of documents revealed to The Hill also provides insight into the enigmatic Guccifer 2.0. The hacker provided a series of spreadsheets related to Norman Hsu, a Democratic donor jailed in 2009 for running a Ponzi scheme and arranging illegal campaign contributions. The DNC responded by assembling files to gauge the exposure from Hsu to its slate of candidates.

106 comments

  1. Re:Uh by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 0

    Meh, still beats slashvertisements.

    --
    Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
  2. DLP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It amazes me the committees and candidates do run have DLP.

  3. Well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The press [is] gradually forget[ing] about me"

    Well we can't have that now can we.

  4. So by xx_chris · · Score: 1

    what.

  5. Me me me by js3 · · Score: 0

    Seems like someone is just an attention grabber

    --
    did you forget to take your meds?
  6. yeah by Ryanrule · · Score: 0

    these little right wing shitheads can go fuck rebar.

    1. Re:yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      right wing shitheads, left wing asshats, it's all the same. They can all go suck an egg.

  7. "Controversial" donors? by mi · · Score: 5, Informative

    I seem to remember, Donald Trump being called "racist" over an unsolicited endorsement from a former "KKK"-member. For a while every interviewer kept asking him to "repudiate" it...

    Meanwhile the Democratic Party is getting not mere endorsements, but hefty donations from convicted criminals — without anybody asking the inconvenient questions about repudiation. Yeah, they eventually refunded the monies he got for them — but only after the man was convicted — despite "weeks of reports about Hsu's controversial history and murky business practices" and a 15 year-old outstanding warrant for him...

    Imagine Trump pointing out, David Duke has never been convicted of any crime — only he did not even know, who the man was... No, he was supposed to know all about David Duke (who, it turns out, quit KKK in 1980).

    (Should you choose to reply insisting, Trump really is racist, be sure, your response condemns "Black Lives Matter" as an inherently racist idea, which started with a lie.)

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:"Controversial" donors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do KKK and criminals have to do with one another?

    2. Re:"Controversial" donors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Controversy"

    3. Re:"Controversial" donors? by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Informative

      He was pestered by the press because he refused to repudiate it the day before.

      David Duke is famous to everyone that is old enough to remember 1994 (I realize you might not have been born yet). He was a fucking congressman in the 90's for god sake, his connections to white supremacists (he was a grand wizard of the KKK, not just a member) and his heading of a current white supremacist (sorry white nationalist) organization are all well known facts with anyone that's older than 20. He's got his own page with Southern Poverty Law and all the racist tracking groups.

      David Duke is about as well known of a white supremacist as you can get, there are very few people in his "movement" that are as famous as him. The claim that Trump didn't know who he was is absolute horseshit and the fact that he failed to repudiate the donation and DEFENDED duke during the first interview is what brought the media storm. A well deserved storm because it's not often that presidential candidate defends probably the most famous racist in the country.

    4. Re:"Controversial" donors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They overplayed the "Donald Trump is racist" card when they tried to claim that the "Corrupt Hillary" poster was antisemitic because it contained a six-pointed star.

      Sorry, Democrats, a six-pointed star pointedly is NOT a "Star of David." They're different symbols. The fact that Democrats called it antisemitic speaks volumes more about their own antisemitism than Trump's. That being said it wouldn't surprise me if Israel wanted Hillary in the White House more than Trump - of the two, she's the more likely to go to war with Iran while Trump is more focused on fixing domestic issues rather than starting new wars.

      You'd think that after Black Lives Matter got five cops killed with multiple copy-cat attempts stopped, people would stop pretending it was anything other than a racist anti-police movement, but no, the media is still claiming it's some kind of "civil rights" movement.

    5. Re:"Controversial" donors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The SPLC is a pay-to-list-your-enemies-as-racist service, nothing more.

    6. Re:"Controversial" donors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Normally I deeply disagree with pretty much everything you post. After I learned that George Soros was funding BLM, it instantly made complete sense why BLM had a problem with Sanders. On the red site, somebody made a very good point that the name of the movement itself is designed to be divisive. Somebody else pointed out that it was a "double dog whistle." It's always struck me as the "have you stopped beating your wife?" approach to social justice. And there is no justice in that approach.

      As far as Trump, I don't think Trump the Man is racist. However, I think the character he's playing on the Candidate is intentionally trying to appeal to racists.

      BEFORE you knee jerk about what I just wrote... the media's handling of the whole David Duke thing was utterly bizarre. If I recall correctly, Trump HAD disavowed Duke's support, but for the next week every news outlet was screeching about how he needed to do just that. Trump supporters (I nearly was one, but I'll be voting Johnson again this year) pointed out that he HAD done what was asked of him, and the screeching never stopped. It was just retarded.

      Here, I brought up Johnson. Let me give you some ammo when the bullshit really gets started labeling everybody who doesn't support Clinton a misogynist. I'll be posting here and there calling Stein supporters misogynists for not getting behind Clinton. Figure out something along those lines.

    7. Re:"Controversial" donors? by cdrudge · · Score: 4, Informative

      David Duke has never been convicted of any crime

      So pleading guilty to mail and tax fraud in 2002 isn't good enough to be considered a conviction anymore?

    8. Re:"Controversial" donors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm 34 and had no idea who he was. This might surprise you, but I also have no idea who the current big A list celebrities are either. Outside of the representation whom I can directly vote for, I don't know who most politicians are either. You see, some of us are busy and don't have time to deal with things outside of our control or areas of interest.

    9. Re:"Controversial" donors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      You are forgetting the more well known one, Robert Byrd. A DNC member for life, until he died a few years ago while still a member of the Senate for them. A previous Grand Cyclops of the KKK, and ... wait for it.... personally filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prevent it from being passed.

      So, the DNC having a KKK member, who tried to prevent equal rights for blacks back in the day is OK. A not well known KKK member endorses Trump, he forgets who he was when asked, is proof that Trump shouldn't be allowed to run for president? Lets also forget he denounced Duke every time once he was reminded who he was.

      For some of you reading this, you won't believe the DNC tried to prevent the Civil Rights Act. It would have passed in the 30s if they didn't prevent it. They will also bring up the term Dixicrats and say they became the GOP, but of the 54 Dixicrats 2 went to the GOP while 51 went back to the DNC for life, 1 went independent. Al Gore Sr. being one of them along with Robert Byrd.

      Sorry, but history is against you. GOP fought tooth and nail to get blacks equality and the DNC fought to prevent it. The GOP started as a single issue party to end slavery against the wishes of the DNC.

    10. Re:"Controversial" donors? by crow_t_robot · · Score: 1

      Then why did Trump immediately change it?

      BTW, the star they posted was a filled in Star Of David that has 6 points in the same geometric orientation.

    11. Re:"Controversial" donors? by SirSlud · · Score: 2

      If you're unable to cultivate an extremely basic set of working knowledge regarding national and international news and politics, it's not that you're too busy, it's that you choose not to know these things. Willful ignorance is still ignorance.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    12. Re:"Controversial" donors? by mi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He was a fucking congressman in the 90's for god sake

      Oh, that's a good point. So was Charles Rangel. Oh, wait, he still is a Congressman, unlike Mr. Duke.

      Now, unlike Duke, Representative Rangel's was cited for 11 ethics violations — yet Hillary Clinton not only wouldn't "repudiate" him upon learning of his endorsement, she actively campaigned with him in NYC.

      But, at least, for all his faults and crookedness, Charles Rangel does not seem to be a racist personally. Unlike Al Sharpton, for another example — who is as bona-fide anti-Semitic as one can get in America. The riots he encouraged and personally participated in led to an actual killing of at least one man. And yet, Hillary Clinton not only welcomed Al Sharpton's support this year, she gave a speech at his organization.

      A well deserved storm because it's not often that presidential candidate defends probably the most famous racist in the country

      Maybe, if Trump went to give a speech at a KKK-organized conference — and campaigned together with Mr. Duke on the streets — it would've been comparable... As things are, you can't even see your own hypocrisy jumping in front of you and screaming into your ear...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    13. Re:"Controversial" donors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a huge difference between when a KKK leader endorsed Hillary and when one endorsed tRump. tRump is a racist so that endorsement proves he is racist. Hillary is not, so her endorsement wasn't racist because she isn't. They are different.

    14. Re:"Controversial" donors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BTW, the Star of David is a simple hexagram. Any generic "star burst" call-out shape set to six points is going to look like a "filled in Star Of David" because - well, it's a simple geometric shape.

      Much like any five-sided star is going to look like a filled in pentagram. Oh no! Now you're saying that Trump is secretly "in league with the devil" because his campaign materials include "filled in pentagrams"!

    15. Re:"Controversial" donors? by mi · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected. Thank you...

      And yet, his crime:

      Duke was accused of telling supporters he was in financial straits, then misusing the money they sent him from 1993 to 1999. He was also accused of filing a false 1998 tax return claiming he made only $18,831 in 1998 when he really made more than $65,000.

      is kinda smallish, don't you think?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    16. Re:"Controversial" donors? by pastafazou · · Score: 1

      Media spin. Here's the first of what happened, in 2015: Bloomberg’s John Heilemann: “How do you feel about the David Duke quasi-endorsement?” Trump: “I don’t need his endorsement; I certainly wouldn’t want his endorsement. I don’t need anyone’s endorsement.” Heilemann: “Would you repudiate David Duke?” Trump: “Sure, I would do that, if it made you feel better. I don’t know anything about him. Somebody told me yesterday, whoever he is, he did endorse me. Actually I don’t think it was an endorsement. He said I was absolutely the best of all of the candidates.” Then the saga continues in 2016... Feb 26th news conference: Question: “How do you feel about the recent endorsement from David Duke?” Trump: “I didn’t even know he endorsed me. David Duke endorsed me? Okay, all right. I disavow, okay?” Feb 28th on CNN with Jake Tapper: CNN’s Jake Tapper: “I want to ask you about the Anti-Defamation League, which this week called on you to publicly condemn unequivocally the racism of former KKK grand wizard David Duke, who recently said that voting against you at this point would be ‘treason to your heritage.’ Will you unequivocally condemn David Duke and say that you don’t want his vote or that of other white supremacists in this election?” Trump: “Well, just so you understand, I don’t know anything about David Duke. Okay? I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I don’t know. I don’t know, did he endorse me or what’s going on, because, you know, I know nothing about David Duke. I know nothing about white supremacists. And so you’re asking me a question that I’m supposed to be talking about people that I know nothing about.” Tapper: “But I guess the question from the Anti-Defamation League is, even if you don’t know about their endorsement, there are these groups and individuals endorsing you. Would you just say unequivocally you condemn them and you don’t want their support?” Trump: “Well, I have to look at the group. I mean, I don’t know what group you’re talking about. You wouldn’t want me to condemn a group that I know nothing about. I would have to look. If you would send me a list of the groups, I will do research on them. And, certainly, I would disavow if I thought there was something wrong.” Tapper: “The Ku Klux Klan?” Trump: “But you may have groups in there that are totally fine, and it would be very unfair. So, give me a list of the groups, and I will let you know.” Tapper: “Okay. I mean, I’m just talking about David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan here, but” Trump: “I don’t know any — honestly, I don’t know David Duke. I don’t believe I have ever met him. I’m pretty sure I didn’t meet him. And I just don’t know anything about him.” Tapper: “All right.” Feb 29th on NBC's Today Show: Trump: “I’m sitting in a house in Florida, with a very bad earpiece that they gave me, and you could hardly hear what he was saying. But what I heard was ‘various groups.’ And I don’t mind disavowing anybody and I disavowed David Duke. And I disavowed him the day before at a major news conference. I have no problem disavowing groups, but I’d at least like to know who they are. It would be very unfair to disavow a group if the group shouldn’t be disavowed. I have to know who the groups are. But I disavowed David Duke.” So despite Trump stating in 2015, that he would disavow David Duke's endorsement, the media won't let it go. So in 2016 when AGAIN asked about it, he AGAIN disavows the endorsement. But of course, the MSM still won't let it go, and ask him again two days later. And because he claims to know nothing about the groups, and doesn't EXPLICITLY SAY

    17. Re:"Controversial" donors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It should be pointed out, that Trump disavowed David Duke 2 days prior to that interview, on a campaign trail speech. Interestingly enough, he also disavowed him 15 years ago in a NYT op-ed. Every Trump outrage story has some strange twist it seems.

    18. Re:"Controversial" donors? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      The controversy is not whether or not it was meant to be the Star of David - it was, factually, created by a white supremacist and was meant to arouse anti-Jewish sentiments.

      The controversy is that, after the Trump campaign was made aware that they had unwittingly shared a piece of anti-Semitic propaganda, they waffled a bit before finally deciding that, no, they weren't going to apologize - or even express any kind of regret.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    19. Re:"Controversial" donors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The controversy is not whether or not it was meant to be the Star of David - it was, factually, created by a white supremacist and was meant to arouse anti-Jewish sentiments.

      No it wasn't. The "white supremacist" website it originated on? 4chan.

      Try again.

    20. Re:"Controversial" donors? by halivar · · Score: 2

      Oh geez, come off your high horse. I knew who David Duke was, but purely as a matter of trivia. His service in the house was without note; his run for president brief. His impact on national politics was virtually nil, save for his contribution to the narrative that the GOP is full of racists. Today he likes speaking at Iranian symposiums on the evils of the dirty Joooos; but no one even knows about that because it doesn't fucking matter.

    21. Re:"Controversial" donors? by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      is kinda smallish, don't you think?

      I never commented on how big or small they were, just that he was convicted. They were federal felonies, so I'd say that they were more significant than not.

    22. Re:"Controversial" donors? by quantaman · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm 34 and had no idea who he was. This might surprise you, but I also have no idea who the current big A list celebrities are either. Outside of the representation whom I can directly vote for, I don't know who most politicians are either. You see, some of us are busy and don't have time to deal with things outside of our control or areas of interest.

      Considering that Trump had previously run against David Duke in the 2000 Reform Party Presidential Primary I think it's very likely that he knew who Duke was.

      But even if he had forgotten it doesn't change much, he certainly found out who Duke was afterwards yet he still refused to give a convincing disavowal. I don't pretend to know exactly why he wouldn't disavow Duke but I can't think of any good answers.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    23. Re:"Controversial" donors? by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, media spin is a factor, but Trump dug himself into that hole... the conversation you pasted, goes along, and then Tapper clarifies what he's asking:

      Tapper said "Ku Klux Klan?"

      He was looking for a response specifically to the KKK.

      And Trump said: âoeBut you may have groups in there that are totally fine, and it would be very unfair. So, give me a list of the groups, and I will let you know."

      Trump SHOULD have said: "Well, ok... I condemn the Ku Klux Klan; but you may have other groups in there that are totally fine..."

      Then Tapper seeing that he did not answer the question, even gave him a 2nd chance; and said:
      "Okay. I mean, Iâ(TM)m just talking about David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan here"

      And Trump says: "âoeI donâ(TM)t know any â" honestly, I donâ(TM)t know David Duke. I donâ(TM)t believe I have ever met him. Iâ(TM)m pretty sure I didnâ(TM)t meet him. And I just donâ(TM)t know anything about him.â

      Trump should have said: "Ok... I yes the KKK; I obviously condemn the Ku Klux Klan [...]"

      He didn't. This shit show was his own mess.

      As for your claim that the MSM was spinning - yes they were. That's what they do ... they have 24 hour channels to fill and eyeballs to collect for advertisers.

      But Trump was spinning too. 2 days later he was talking about a bad earpiece, that he couldn't hear properly, that he disavowed DD at the time; despite the fact that he absolutely had NOT, etc. Both sides spin, always, that's the game.

      And seriously, the conversations you pasted don't really fit your narrative at all.

      Was it as big a deal as the MSM made it out to be? Of course not.

      But was Trump inexplicably avoiding condemning the Ku Klux Klan? When asked directly about the ku klux klan? specifically by name? Twice in a row? Its hard to conclude anything else from his responses.

    24. Re:"Controversial" donors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      You are forgetting the more well known one, Robert Byrd. A DNC member for life, until he died a few years ago while still a member of the Senate for them. A previous Grand Cyclops of the KKK, and ... wait for it.... personally filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prevent it from being passed.

      And who reputed the KKK, and expressly endorsed civil rights protections.

      So, the DNC having a KKK member, who tried to prevent equal rights for blacks back in the day is OK.

      If he hadn't rejected those ideas, sure! But he did, didn't he?

      Besides, you forget Strom Thurmond, don't you?

      A not well known KKK member endorses Trump, he forgets who he was when asked, is proof that Trump shouldn't be allowed to run for president? Lets also forget he denounced Duke every time once he was reminded who he was.

      Yeah, yeah, tell us that story again. He still fumbled the first time.

      For some of you reading this, you won't believe the DNC tried to prevent the Civil Rights Act. It would have passed in the 30s if they didn't prevent it. They will also bring up the term Dixicrats and say they became the GOP, but of the 54 Dixicrats 2 went to the GOP while 51 went back to the DNC for life, 1 went independent. Al Gore Sr. being one of them along with Robert Byrd.

      LOL, it's not the members of the House and Senate you to concern yourself about, it's the millions of voters, and their sentiments today.

      Sorry, but history is against you. GOP fought tooth and nail to get blacks equality and the DNC fought to prevent it. The GOP started as a single issue party to end slavery against the wishes of the DNC.

      Fought tooth and nail? The GOP practically abandoned the issue as soon as the election of 1876 came about, and half of them were only barely interested in it. I get it, I get it, you've always been told that the GOP was straight-up abolitionists, but nope, it had several factions, and in fact, Lincoln was chosen to run for office because of his moderate position.

      And they did have other issues, including silver coinage, land grants, and building factories and railroads, among others.

      You really don't know what you're talking about.

    25. Re:"Controversial" donors? by lexman098 · · Score: 1

      "Congressional ethics violations" doesn't have the same ring as "led the KKK". Sharpton may or may not be a racist, but a lot of respectable people publicly engage with him and he has a very large, public following compared to Duke. I'm not saying Hillary isn't slimy. Even most Hillary supporters probably agree that she is, but this is where the difference in media attention comes from.

    26. Re:"Controversial" donors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fought tooth and nail? The GOP practically abandoned the issue as soon as the election of 1876 came about, and half of them were only barely interested in it. I get it, I get it, you've always been told that the GOP was straight-up abolitionists, but nope, it had several factions, and in fact, Lincoln was chosen to run for office because of his moderate position.

      And they did have other issues, including silver coinage, land grants, and building factories and railroads, among others.

      You really don't know what you're talking about.

      A quick lookup here shows slavery was abolished in 1865, 11 years before you say they gave up trying to abolish it.

      Please, when a liberal posts a fact (or even a non-liberal) that seems funny, look it up. I've been amazed at what I have learned by doing so. I knew the 13th was passed while Lincoln was still alive and he was long dead by 1876, so I assumed his statement was false.

    27. Re:"Controversial" donors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but history is against you. GOP fought tooth and nail to get blacks equality and the DNC fought to prevent it. The GOP started as a single issue party to end slavery against the wishes of the DNC.

      I suppose it makes sense that you would suggest that people focus on the history in order to try and drum up support for the GOP when their current behavior is so completely toxic. Today's GOP has allied themselves with the racists and Christian extremists and now spend all their time drumming up support for the fight against the rights of homosexuals, immigrants, minorities, women and pretty much everyone else who isn't a wealthy white man.

      Today's GOP platform bears no resemblance whatsoever to the original party platform and clearly members have no respect for that history. Funny that your main argument for supporting them is that we should respect a history that they don't.

    28. Re: "Controversial" donors? by ZeroWaiteState · · Score: 1

      I lived in Louisiana during David Duke's gubernatorial campaign. I remember the cross burnings in my own neighborhood. I don't need SPLC to tell me what he was.

    29. Re:"Controversial" donors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the first time David Duke made news in close to 20 years. I'm pretty sure a 14 year old kid wouldn't be aware of him.

    30. Re:"Controversial" donors? by jon3k · · Score: 1

      is kinda smallish, don't you think?

      Are you serious? You think forgetting to report 2/3 of your income is "smallish" ?

    31. Re:"Controversial" donors? by mi · · Score: 2

      Sharpton may or may not be a racist, but a lot of respectable people publicly engage with him

      He is a racist — there is no "may or may not" about this. That "a lot of respectable people" engage with him despite this is exactly the hypocrisy I'm decrying here.

      this is where the difference in media attention comes from

      The difference comes from the vast majority of journalists being Democrats.

      And now to recall — Trump did not seek Duke's endorsement, and didn't campaign with him, whereas Hillary has done both with figures far more negative.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    32. Re:"Controversial" donors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buddy you're trying to hard. Most of us no longer get erections from the standard Clinton non-scandal. That shit got old in the 90s.

      This batch of documents is another snoozefest and I got bored looking at it. Absolutely nothing new, and nothing unexpected. Guccifer must be getting nervous that his Russian handlers aren't seeing the results he promised.

      Trump is a sleezebag who has to remodel his closet every few years to make room for new skeletons. We're going to be laughing at the shit the press is going to dig up for decades.

      Just don't even start.

    33. Re:"Controversial" donors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      David Duke is famous to everyone that is old enough to remember 1994

      I'm old enough to well remember 1994 and I had no clue who this asshole was before the Democrats started with their hypocritical mewlings.

      David Duke is about as well known of a white supremacist as you can get

      Sure, if you're rather suspiciously keeping track of white supremacists.

    34. Re:"Controversial" donors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Got proof of that?

    35. Re:"Controversial" donors? by J053 · · Score: 1

      Donald Trump stated: "So the Reform Party now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke, a neo-Nazi, Mr. Buchanan, and a communist, Ms. Fulani. This is not company I wish to keep." - New York Times, Feb. 14, 2000.

      This was when Trump was considering running for President on the Reform Party ticket. Does nobody remember anything, any more?

    36. Re:"Controversial" donors? by J053 · · Score: 2

      You might want to look up the Compromise of 1877

    37. Re:"Controversial" donors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compared to mishandling state secrets, yes, it is kinda smallish.

    38. Re:"Controversial" donors? by mi · · Score: 1

      This was when Trump was considering running for President on the Reform Party ticket.

      I can see Trump forgetting the name of an also-run from 15 years ago. Can you not?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    39. Re:"Controversial" donors? by mi · · Score: 1

      I never commented on how big or small they were

      If you want to go Kefedokhles, I haven't stated, Duke was never convicted of a crime either. I only invited readers to imagine, Trump stating so — even if it were true.

      They were federal felonies, so I'd say that they were more significant than not.

      The entire amounts in question are about 10 times less than just the donations of the schemer in TFA. What the schemer actually schemed out of his victims is, likely, several more orders of magnitude still.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    40. Re:"Controversial" donors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I seem to remember, Donald Trump being called "racist" over an unsolicited endorsement from a former "KKK"-member. For a while every interviewer kept asking him to "repudiate" it...

      Meanwhile the Democratic Party is getting not mere endorsements, but hefty donations from convicted criminals â" without anybody asking the inconvenient questions about repudiation."

      The difference is David Duke is a well known, famous really, "ex-"clan member. Donald Trump, having established the Trump brand famously in the 80s, damn well knows who David Duke is. And even if Trump didn't, he knew after it garnered that press attention, and yet Trump insisted on ignorance.

      Now, unless you think the Democrats know and vets every donor prior to the donation, or the known convicts were brought to their attention of the DNC who then still ignored the donations source, what the Democrats did isn't anywhere in the same league as what Trump insisted on doing.

      "(Should you choose to reply insisting, Trump really is racist, be sure, your response condemns "Black Lives Matter" as an inherently racist idea, which started with a lie.)"

      A doctor who sees a black man with extreme ankle pain in an ER and tests for sickle cell is a racist then, according to your strict definition. Good for you.

      The rest of us can can understand the difference between advocacy for fair, equal, or proper treatment (however true or misinformed) versus suppressing people because of their race or religion.

    41. Re:"Controversial" donors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's be real here. Hillary has the best campaign machine right now, with donors from Saudi Arabia, and many other places. Hillary also has the tech companies, where certain social networks can easily block anything that hurts her campaign, just like they did when they banned a bunch of gun groups that had nothing to deal with firearm sales. Since the 1A doesn't apply to private property, there are zero legal ramifications of them using their power to put Hillary in power, since she will give them what they want (more DMCA, more H-1Bs, etc.)

      Her campaign isn't about her getting into the Oval Office; that is a foregone conclusion. It is about a Democratic sweep of the House and Senate just like how Reagan had his coattails cleaning Congress and shifting the balance, as well as picking the next SCOTUS justices.

    42. Re:"Controversial" donors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why just Imagine the outrage if Hillary Clinton's "mentor" was Senator Byrd, a KKK leader. Oh, wait. That Happened.

      "Trump is RACIST! LISTEN AND BELIEVE!" -- Protip: If you want to know more about the Dixiecrats and how the Republicans destroyed Racism in the south watch Hillary's America.

    43. Re:"Controversial" donors? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The GOP started as a single issue party to end slavery against the wishes of the DNC.

      And just look what has become of it; if it were a dog you'd take it out and shoot it, let alone if it were a horse.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    44. Re:"Controversial" donors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure your point. Article you posted explained that the DNC were racists even after slavery ended, nothing else.
      Didn't repeal 13th amendment, didn't reintroduce slavery.

      Funny how liberals have to spin spin spin to try and make a point and hope no one reads their "facts"

    45. Re:"Controversial" donors? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      It came from here: https://8ch.net/pol/index.html. Feel free to browse that channel and decide for yourself whether or not it is anti-Semitic.

      But he probably got it from the racist/anti-Semitic twitter feed FishBonehead1, which has since been deleted.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    46. Re: "Controversial" donors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Urban lives matter too

    47. Re: "Controversial" donors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how about dnc convention 1924?

    48. Re: "Controversial" donors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or forgetting millions in donations to your foundation

      or lying in congress

      or deleting records

    49. Re:"Controversial" donors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A not well known KKK member endorses Trump...

      The name David Duke is the first that comes to mind when discussing the KKK. He is plenty well known, and Trump has run against him in the past and been very outspoken about who he was and his KKK background.

      Sorry, but history is against you. GOP fought tooth and nail to get blacks equality and the DNC fought to prevent it. The GOP started as a single issue party to end slavery against the wishes of the DNC.

      The appeal to history is a logical fallacy. What matters are the stances on individual issues now. The GOP doesn't even resemble the same party they were a decade or two ago, let alone back in the civil rights era. Now the GOP platform includes pushing "religious freedom" as a reason to let people discriminate against each other, essentially in direct antithesis to their founding civil rights position.

    50. Re:"Controversial" donors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just remember BLM is all about peaceful protests ... wait, weren't they targeting police officers and throwing things like bottles, rocks, etc. at them in recent protests.

      As for WaPo as a reliable news source ... LOL! They're as good at manipulating the new to server their narrative, just like FauxNews and HuffPo. It's mostly fun to troll frequent users there. They've now flip-flopped on the whole racism issue.

    51. Re:"Controversial" donors? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      You misspelled Kontroversy.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    52. Re:"Controversial" donors? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Trump has lived his whole life in New York, are you even sure he knows what the KKK is?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    53. Re:"Controversial" donors? by vux984 · · Score: 1

      are you even sure he knows what the KKK is?

      Let's just say that If he doesn't them its yet another example why he's not fit to be president.

    54. Re:"Controversial" donors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe because he is not one of the PC crowd who just reflexively says whatever they are supposed to say whether they believe it or not. Some people believe it or not want to actually study something and know about it in depth before they comment. The fact is racism is used to mean republican. They are interchangeable terms in the democratic party as a way of race baiting because your spoken views on race are more important than anything you actually do. I've known many liberals espousing or acting racist. What people say publicly means nothing unless it is backed up by deeds. People accused Trump of racism over and over. Yet we find out every black who's worked for Trump has nothing but nice things to say about him. Yet we constantly hear the acclaim trump is racist. It's just an insult term by liberals towards conservatives. It has no meaning. This is why it is fine for Trump to insult democrats because all they do is hurl insults at him. Name calling. The left is still in high school.

  8. Dropped? So...did they pick it back up then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    WTF is with this "drop" lingo? I wish English speaking folks would stop being too lazy to use words larger than 4 letters in attempt to somehow sound hip.

    Pretty soon grunting and sputtering sentence fragments will be all the rage.

  9. its 4 h4xx0r b4b3h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, just another poser s'kiddie with more than the computer security industry's usual compulsive attention seeking disorder.

  10. who does he think we are? by nimbius · · Score: 4, Funny

    this hacker will not detract us. he cannot subvert our freedom or our liberty, or our elections. He must understand that this is a government by the people, for the people, and one in which the current candidates for president are a woman in a $12,000 burlap sack who committed treason and a xenophobic, racist, and somehow unaccountably sentient mind-controlling murkin.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:who does he think we are? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump does have an incredible capacity for cognitive dissonance.

      And Clinton has an incredibly audacious expectation of cognitive dissonance in her supporters.

  11. "The press is gradually forgeting about me." by westlake · · Score: 0

    Someone call the wambulance --- another hacker is losing his audience.

  12. DNC Dump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    DNC dump including some unflattering material:
    "Just the work of some attention whore "

    RNC dump including some unflattering material:
    "Look! Look! More evidence that they're a bunch of racist sexist bigots! Go get'em Gufficer 2.0!"

  13. Let me get this straight.... by BenJeremy · · Score: 1

    ...the DNC actually did due diligence to see how a donor scandal might affect their candidates? The horror!

    I don't see how this is wrong. Show me documents that expose collusion with Hsu to hide illegal donations or some sort of menu detailing the amount of influence certain donations buy, and you might have my attention; otherwise, this is just retrieving somebody's used toilet paper and saying "look at this shit! How dare they take a shit!"

    1. Re:Let me get this straight.... by pastafazou · · Score: 2

      Of course you don't see how it's wrong. They do their due diligence to make sure the scandal won't hurt their election performance, not to make sure they're playing by the rules.

    2. Re: Let me get this straight.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they should have done their "due dillegence" BEFORE accepting money from him. But that would require having any sort of scruples, and we know those are in short supply in the DNC. See Bernie endorsing Hillary despite her opposing literally everything he claimed to stand for.

  14. Re:Uh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are printing stories from a confirmed fabricator why?

    Why do you hate hearing about Liar Hillary! anyway?

  15. Imagine an actual Senator who was a KKK *leader* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine, if you would, an actual US Senator who was a for-real KKK leader.

    You'd have to be a DEMOCRAT to get away with that:

    ... Byrd recruited 150 of his friends and associates to create a new chapter of the Ku Klux Klan in Sophia, West Virginia. ...

  16. Re:Dropped? So...did they pick it back up then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mix tape, on fire

  17. Re:Dropped? So...did they pick it back up then? by twotacocombo · · Score: 2

    Well, "double plus unlift" doesn't look all that sexy in a headline.

  18. Re:Uh by saloomy · · Score: 1

    Save the paper, don't print!

  19. Re:Dropped? So...did they pick it back up then? by SirSlud · · Score: 2

    "I'll drop you a line" has been in the common vernacular for decades. Never-mind it's use in espionage (eg: "wheres the drop")

    You know exactly what it means, it's not new, and frankly you're more interested in being cranky than anything else.

    --
    "Old man yells at systemd"
  20. Lol, Sarah Palin? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "...a research file on Sarah Palin."

    Now we'll know what color crayon she uses when she "writes" her books.

    To be honest, I already know more about Sarah Palin than I ever wanted to. I could die happy if I never heard another word about her.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:Lol, Sarah Palin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well thanks for that valuable contribution to the discussion, completely off-topic as it is, because now I can finally die happy, knowing what you think, special snowflake, about Sarah Palin.

    2. Re:Lol, Sarah Palin? by halivar · · Score: 1

      Something about heads and free rent. Or, as Snape said in response to Dumbledore's "After all these years?": "Always."

    3. Re:Lol, Sarah Palin? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      "...a research file on Sarah Palin."

      Now we'll know what color crayon she uses when she "writes" her books.

      To be honest, I already know more about Sarah Palin than I ever wanted to. I could die happy if I never heard another word about her.

      [chuckles] Yeah, Palin is no match for a female Democrat intellectual powerhouse like sophisticated NYC-born Sheila Jackson Lee, or a male Democrat intellectual like Hank "Guam will tip over" Johnson.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    4. Re:Lol, Sarah Palin? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Palin is no match for a female Democrat intellectual powerhouse like sophisticated NYC-born Sheila Jackson Lee, or a male Democrat intellectual like Hank "Guam will tip over" Johnson.

      They're stupid too. What's your point? Does their stupidity make Palin's stupidity any less stupid?

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    5. Re:Lol, Sarah Palin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Curious to know if you have actually followed and read up on Palin much? or are you simply regurgitating the media you were fed about her?

      Disclaimer, not a fan, not a US citizen, wouldn't vote for her if I could, but did read up on her after her seeing russia. She isn't as stupid as the media latched on to.

    6. Re:Lol, Sarah Palin? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yeah. I was hoping I would never have to hear about Sarah Palin again.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:Lol, Sarah Palin? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Curious to know if you have actually followed and read up on Palin much?

      Yes, I have actually read a fair amount about her out of morbid curiosity.

      -

      but did read up on her after her seeing russia.

      That's not what she said. She said basically that "parts of Russia can be seen from Alaska", and that is correct. You can see parts of Russia from locations in Alaska.

      -

      She isn't as stupid as the media latched on to.

      You're right- she's even stupider than they make her out to be.

      The number of utterly imbecilic things she's said coupled with her lunatic-fringe fundamentalist mindset AND her delusional belief that she was remotely qualified to be the Vice President make her a walking target for any comedian who isn't in a coma.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  21. Re:Dropped? So...did they pick it back up then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So, if a headline were to read "Nintendo drops the Nintendo NX", what does that mean to the average English speaking person?

    Mood has nothing to do with it. Creating a double-meaning to a basic everyday word that's fundamental to the English language is idiotic.

  22. Re:Uh by quantaman · · Score: 3, Informative

    Different entity.

    Guccifer broke into a few people's emails, got arrested, then fabricated a claim about hacking Clinton's server.

    Guccifer 2.0 apparently broke into some DNC servers and has been dumping docs from there ever since.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  23. None's forgotten... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... they just dont't care about script kiddies.

  24. A STATE Congressman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not a U.S. congressman.

    Unlike former Klansman (and "Grand Cyclops," in fact) Robert Byrd (Democrat, West Virginia) who served in the U.S. Senate for half a century, much of it as Majority Leader.

    But that's OK, I guess, because the magic (D) at the end of his name miraculously cleansed him of all guilt...

  25. Guess who Guccifer is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chinese FBI mole. China.

  26. The actual quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The press [is] gradually forget[ing] about me, [W]ikileaks is playing for time and [I] have some more docs,"

    Does anyone know what he actually said?

  27. belief in our politicians by emaname · · Score: 1

    You could say I've lost my belief in our politicians.
    They all seem like game show hosts to me.

    Sting -- If I ever lose my faith in you from the album Ten Summoner's Tales

    --
    An effective "democracy" creates the illusion the people have a say in their government.
  28. 13 Quotes from Guccifer 2.0’s DNC-HRC leaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Reddit is going crazy over these leaks. There's a lot of evidence of underhanded and illegal/borderline illegal press tactics in them: https://medium.com/@og_m4/13-q...

    The claim that the hacker is Russian also seems to be very weak and is being made to fit an agenda.

  29. Guccifer? by jandersen · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't that be the perfect name for a drag queen at the lower end of the scale? Or are we witnessing the actions of one of the extremely rare, female, teen-age hackers, sniggering wildly as she unveils bombshells about somebody called Shaun from the Eastenders, who's cheating on his pregnant girlfriend while she's in hospital with a rare, but probably fatal disease?

  30. Not again by jandersen · · Score: 1

    Somebody, open the window - he's dropped one again.

  31. When will they expose 9/11? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Presumably at least one of these hacker groups has some interest in exposing the U.S. Government's role in 9/11, and Israel's? Why haven't we seen leaked documents about their role in the false flag that was 9/11?

  32. awwwww SNAP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    J053 pwnd dat azz!! Please, when a conservative tries to sound smart and shit-talk a liberal fact, be sure to hang around for awhile and get ready to see him get his stupid ass busted! PWND SON!

  33. TFITNW by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    David Duke has never been convicted of any crime

    So pleading guilty to mail and tax fraud in 2002 [usatoday.com] isn't good enough to be considered a conviction anymore?

    Tax Fraud Is The New White

  34. Re:Dropped? So...did they pick it back up then? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

    Your point might have been made better if you had actually spelled out the word "four".

    --
    Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
  35. Re:Dropped? So...did they pick it back up then? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

    It would mean that Nintendo released the Nintendo NX.

    Most everyday words have more than one meaning, especially in certain contexts.

    --
    Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
  36. Story summary for non-USians. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
    American politics is corrupt.

    Yes, I did say "summary," not "news." Because it's not exactly news, is it?

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"