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.

54 of 106 comments (clear)

  1. So by xx_chris · · Score: 1

    what.

  2. "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 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.

    2. 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?

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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"
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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

    9. 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.
    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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
    13. 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.

    14. 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.

    15. 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.

    16. 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.

    17. 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.

    18. 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" ?

    19. 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.
    20. 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?

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

      You might want to look up the Compromise of 1877

    22. 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.
    23. 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.
    24. 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.'"
    25. 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.
    26. 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?
    27. 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?
    28. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.
  5. 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!"

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. Re:Uh by saloomy · · Score: 1

    Save the paper, don't print!

  9. 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"
  10. 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 halivar · · Score: 1

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

    2. 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.
    3. 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...
    4. 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."
    5. 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...
  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. 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?

  16. Not again by jandersen · · Score: 1

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

  17. 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

  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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"