Slashdot Mirror


Clinton Campaign: Russia Leaked Emails to Help Trump (washingtonpost.com)

An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes the Washington Post: A top official with Hillary Clinton's campaign on Sunday accused the Russian government of orchestrating the release of damaging Democratic Party records in order to help the campaign of Republican Donald Trump -- and some cyber security experts in the U.S. and overseas agree. The extraordinary charge came as some national security officials have been growing increasingly concerned about possible efforts by Russia to meddle in the election, according to several individuals familiar with the situation.

Late last week, hours before the records were released by the website Wikileaks, the White House convened a high-level security meeting to discuss reports that Russia had hacked into systems at the Democratic National Committee... Officials from various intelligence and defense agencies, including the National Security Council, the Department of Defense, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, attended the White House meeting Thursday, on the eve of the email release.

Clinton's campaign manager told ABC News "some experts are now telling us that this was done by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump." Donald Trump's son later responded, "They'll say anything to be able to win this."

13 of 769 comments (clear)

  1. Re: They'll say anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The United States bombed a Doctors Without Borders hospital while Hillary Clinton was ... oh, you meant when did Putin order hospitals bombed. Sorry, got nothing for that.

  2. Email Smeemail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Story about how she received bribes for allowing Russia to buy 20% of the USA uranium production. She clearly stated how she wouldn't take foreign donations to her foundation while at state, would ask for a waiver to do it if it came up, and would disclose if it happened. She took the bribe, didn't ask for a waiver, didn't disclose it, and failed to report it on her taxes and had to amend them years later after she was caught. She showed "Intent" in hiding the donations because they were bribes. This isn't even questionable campaign donations, this is direct bribes to her for approving something the State Department wouldn't normally even consider.

    I'm not sure why people bring up her email scandal. As bad as it was, it wasn't taking bribes from Russia for State Department favours while she was in charge.

    How is she even possibly considered for the DNC nomination after this came out?

  3. Slashdot: Clinton Campaign mouthpiece. by bongey · · Score: 5, Informative

    The slashdot editors post a Russian conspiracy plot , meanwhile there is strong evidence twitter is suppressing the entire dnc leaks topic. Are we going to start posting 9/11 was an inside job stories?

  4. Re:doesn't matter by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Informative

    If anybody outside the Democratic party can leak these E-mails, then Hillary didn't take sufficient care of them and can't be trusted with national security secrets. Thanks, Hillary, for confirming this once again.

    They were stolen from DNC systems. They contain email related to the election not national security issues.

    ... discuss reports that Russia had hacked into systems at the Democratic National Committee.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  5. Re:Always the same with Hillary... by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

    A person can be both guilty of something wrong, and at the same time have a third party digging up / promoting evidence of it for their own, unrelated purposes.

    --
    Hourglass says she knows a kid in Iowa who grows up to be president.
  6. Re:Horse Hockey by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Informative

    If the Russians wanted to help Trump they would release some "they weren't classified when on my server" emails that they got from her bathroom server.

    Whether or not they have them, there's no need. The FBI has already said that Clinton was lying about that, and they have the evidence to prove it. They just don't have Clinton's leverage with the Obama administration, so no prosecution for that act and the lie told to cover it up - even though anyone else would be in deep legal trouble for doing exactly the same.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  7. Re:Horse Hockey by Bartles · · Score: 3, Informative

    They can only be declassified by the agency that classified the information in the first place. So no, you're wrong. You're right about the arrogance, of course.

  8. Re: They'll say anything by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

    I follow the Syrian conflict very closely and there's a new hospital or clinic hit by airstrikes about once a week on average... sometimes more, sometimes less. It's not always clear which airforce (Syrian or Russian) is doing it, but more often than not when the distinction can be determined it's Russian. There was a multiple clinic hit in Idlib about a week ago, while an ambulance was hit in Aleppo 4 days ago.

    It's really a meat grinder over there :(

    A lot of the time the hits on civilian targets are accidental. Sometimes they're on purpose. Most of what Russia uses, and virtually all of what the Syrian air force uses, are "dumb bombs". For the past month the vast majority of Russia's air power has been directed at north Aleppo (Handaraat / al-Mallah, primarily), so there's been a great amount of white phosphorus and cluster bombs, but in denser-populated areas near Castello Road they use a lot more high explosives. So there's a lot of potential for accidental hits. On the other hand, in many cases it's hard to interpret the attacks as anything but deliberate attacks, particularly on hospitals that are treating wounded rebels - multiple hits on the same target, targets with no conflict in the immediate area, with no obvious targets of value nearby, etc. They do a lot of "double tap" hits on them as well.

    Just in case anyone isn't aware... this isn't "ISIS" that they're focusing on. Daesh (ISIS) doesn't exist in Aleppo, let alone Idlib (further), let alone Latakia (even further), let alone the freaking Jordanian border which they've been bombing recently much to the anger of the Pentagon (whose "New Syrian Army" is there trying to take Al-Bukamal from Daesh and cut off Daesh traffic to and from Iraq). When they do bomb Daesh, it''s overwhelmingly in two areas: Palmyra and Deir ez Zour. The latter is a Syrian government pocket in the middle of Daesh territory that they've been struggling to hang onto for a long time, against constant assault. The former is well known. One exception: the government forces, with some Russian air support, tried an assault from Ithyria toward the Daesh city of al-Taqbah, but they were basically baited into a trap and suffered massive losses. They retreated back to Ithriya and haven't retried since then.

    Oh, and while we're talking about Syria, two things of mention:

    1) The massive "factory of death" southwest of al-Safira exploded last week, with a huge earthquake that rattled houses 50km away, was visible 75km away and audible 100km away. Hopefully that'll reduce the barrel bomb and elephant rocket attacks... at least somewhat...

    2) There's a lot of chatter that Nusra is imminently going to break with al-Qaeda. This would be huge if it happens, but I'll trust it when I see it.

    --
    Hourglass says she knows a kid in Iowa who grows up to be president.
  9. Re:I have seen some crazy responses here by quantaman · · Score: 4, Informative

    Putin allowed these to be released to poke Obama in the eye. No more, no less. The fact that they feed into a long standing story of dishonesty and fraud on the part of the Clintons is incidental. He saw maximum value to let them go right before the DNC, because he knows, like I do, that these e-mails aren't going to decide the election.

    It keeps "emails" in the news and anytime emails are "leaked" people instantly assume that it exposes a bunch of lies and scandals. The stuff about Sanders also pokes the "Bernie or Bust" movement, Trump's big risk is they all decide that they need to vote Democrat. If he can antagonize them enough they might simply decide to sit out the election.

    It wasn't worth holding them until November, as they'd be ineffectual then with all the mud flying in the last couple of weeks.

    They are, however, one of hundreds of data points that will decide this election.

    He doesn't "support Trump" at all. He'd prefer a HRC in charge - less risk, but he doesn't believe he could turn a US election anyway with any of his tools available. Those who believe otherwise are conspiracy theorists.

    If Putin was low risk he wouldn't have invaded Ukraine or stated screwed with NATO member Latvia.

    Putin's dream is to break up NATO and eat up a bunch of former USSR members, his fear is that he loses power in some kind of Democratic revolution. Trump is already suggesting he may not defend NATO members, Putin will be very tempted to take advantage of this.

    Trump has also openly admired the authoritarian tendencies of Putin and other dictators. If Trump gets in it's very unlikely that Putin's next crackdown will be hit with a bunch of international condemnation led by the US. Trump might even kill the sanctions for attacking Ukraine as part of some deal.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  10. Re:Niggers Beware!!! by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 3, Informative
    --
    Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
  11. Re:Here's more credible evidence of Trump-Russia t by quantaman · · Score: 1, Informative

    No one supports Clintons unless they are paid too or threatened.

    No one writes something like this unless they're hyperbolic or a moron.

    Whatever you think of Clinton it's should be obvious that many people don't share your opinion.

    Her utter disregard for the rule of law and use of raw power to intimidate her opponents is so apparent that the only question is why is no one is asking for RICO statue to be applied against her. She doesn't just breaks laws. She is running a criminal organization and uses political intimidation and bribery to push for more power. The only difference between her and the mob is that the mob did their deeds in hiding and Clinton does it in plain view.

    It's apparent as the Kenyan hut where Obama was born.

    And lest anyone thinks that Trump will lose, he has a history of entering business arenas dominated by the mob and winning despite playing clean and not becoming a mobster himself. He has beaten these types of people before. If we are lucky, he'll do it again.

    Seriously, WTF. Do you seriously look at Trump, the thousands of lawsuits, the countless obvious scams, the brazen lying, and think "ooh! he looks like a trustworthy person with integrity!".

    --
    I stole this Sig
  12. Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton? by whoever57 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Trump can't even run a business.

    I think that is political BS.

    No, it's not. He ran a casino into the ground. A casino? Otherwise known as a license to print money.

    Did you miss how he claimed a tax exemption that is only available to people whose income is less than $500k. His "wealth" is smoke and mirrors. His business skills are mediocre (his investments in Manhattan basically tracked the market), but what he excels at is putting over an image of a successful businessman.

    No, everything Trump does is aimed at benefiting him personally, and the run for the presidency is just the same. His claims that he is self-funding his campaign are entirely false. He is actually making a profit from the campaign.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  13. Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1, Informative

    You do know why he didn't publicize his tax returns, right? His estimated inheritance was $150M in 2016 dollars, and his estimated wealth is $100M in 2016 dollars. He's managed to lose more than $1M a year. That's how he runs businesses, into the ground. Of course, he threatened to sue the biographer that detailed his finances, and the biographer said "sure, get on the stand in court, under oath, where the topic is your finances." Trump ran away and took back all his lies about the biographer.

    Trump objects when you call him a failed businessman who has never made $1 in his life, but has just lost his father's fortune with style, but he won't show a tax return or open any books to prove it wrong.

    At least fraud Hillary files her taxes and shared her returns.

    Fraud Donald refuses to do that. And the Trump Worshipers can't think to ask why.