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."

Comments

Cheesy 80's movie excuse

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like Hillary could have avoided all this by associating with non-corrupt people. Including herself.

Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse

[MillionthMonkey]

I can't believe they're using "our emails were hacked by Russians" as their excuse.

I mean, when you're in a hole, stop digging!

Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse

[Grishnakh]

WikiLeaks has shown great interest in anti-US material, and comparatively very little interest in anything that disparages Russia. Their bias has been analysed pretty thoroughly, and it calls their motives into question.

No, not necessarily. You're assuming that it's equally easy to get damaging materials from both countries. That's an incorrect assumption.

The explanation is simple: the US government does a horrible job with data security, and the Russian government is actually competent at it.

Anyone who's worked in or with the US government and dealt with USG computer systems and IT people knows just how incompetent they are. It's no wonder they're constantly being hacked. And also remember, here in the US, if you're a competent computer security professional, there's plenty of great-paying work for you in the private sector, since the tech companies are doing so well in this country. Why would you waste your time going to work for the government for lousy pay and having to deal with ridiculous bureaucracy? You can't even purchase a $5 piece of equipment you need for your job without filling out a bunch of forms and then waiting 6 months (I'm not exaggerating). So the only people who take these jobs are the ones who are utterly incompetent.

Over in Russia, things aren't the same; they don't have a booming tech sector like we do, so it's probably a pretty good move to go to work for the government there.

If hackers can easily steal emails from US government systems, but Russian government systems are locked up tight, then it stands to reason that WikiLeaks would post lots of US stuff instead. You can't get blood from a stone.

Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse

[MillionthMonkey]

The problem here is that anyone from Russia was able to read those emails at all.

I'm sure the Trump campaign is sloppy with email security as well. But nothing he writes (e.g. love letters to neo-Nazis) would surprise anyone at this point. The fact that HRC is already known for exercising poor network security has already compromised her campaign, and reminding people that "Russians love Trump and that's why they released my messages that they were able to access" is not a smart defense. (Neither is immediately hiring DWS upon her firing from the DNC and announcing that she "will continue to serve as a surrogate for my campaign nationally". The tone deafness here is astounding.)

Yes, the DNC email server contained no classified information. But don't keep reminding people that anyone in the world can read your email.

Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse

[quenda]

WikiLeaks has shown great interest in anti-US material, and comparatively very little interest in anything that disparages Russia.

You have some evidence that Wikileaks has been receiving and withholding Russian documents? What is this material disparaging Russia that they have been rejecting?
Being against the American invasions of other countries hardly makes him pro-Russian. Unless you subscribe to the idiotic "you are either with us or against us" mentality.

Re: Cheesy 80's movie excuse

[Z00L00K]

By not voting you waste your vote. By voting for an independent you will at least make a statement.

It's the silent masses that allows for corruption to prosper.

Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse

[iris-n]

You're overthinking it. The explanation is much simpler: Wikileaks was created and is run by English-speaking people, for whom it is much easier to make contact with sources and hackers that speak English. And the sources are going to leak from organizations in the US, because that is where they work. And the hackers are going to hack networks in the US, because these are the networks they know.

Re: Cheesy 80's movie excuse

[Anonymous Coward]

These aren't "good points" at all. Or at lay their irrelevant. Now that the DNC Chairman has resigned, even though the DNC had not confirmed the veracity of the emails, we can reasonably deduce they are true.

Whether or not there is other evidence painting the DNC in a better light is irrelevant. Blaming this on Russia is simply an attempt to deflect, eg. It's the Chewbacca defense. Whether or not there are other emails that may somehow show the DNC people to be not so corrupt is like trying to mitigate you murdering someone by pointing to your charitable quirks helping the poor e.g. it's irrelevant to the "crime" committed.

"Shooting the messenger" is a standard practice for corrupt politicians and their supporters.

Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse

[Salgak1]

. . . . and yet claim that Hillary's private email server was NEVER hacked by the Russians, or anybody else, for that matter.

Cognitive Dissonance, much ???

Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse

[ravenshrike]

Hmmm, apparently the Russians found the DNC emails important enough to obtain but completely ignored Clinton's email server. Odd cyberwarfare priority that.

Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse

[sycodon]

"....what editing has been done here? "

A question that can be answered simply by the DNC publishing their own copies of said emails.

Interesting that they haven't, eh?

well well well

[Anonymous Coward]

to me, unless you can show the integrity of the original messages was compromised, then the "who did it" does not matter as much as "what the emails say".

now, if the messages were altered to promote an agenda, I agree with the Hillary Camp.

if this is what the emails did say, then I feel we have a problem with the undermining of the vote of the people.

Re:well well well

[guruevi]

Whose vote and whose people? The US elections are ran and decided by the ultra-rich. The Koch brothers and similar donors on one end and people like Zuckerberg, Clinton and Obama on the other.

Re:well well well

[ShanghaiBill]

Hillary has already thrown Wasserman-Shultz under the bus, so it looks like the emails are real. Nobody is claiming they aren't.

Re:well well well

[Fragnet]

I was watching the pea under the thimble there. Nice use of the phrase "working with". Don't think it wasn't noticed. We go from Russia leaking something in it's own interests, to the Republican Party being in cahoots with Russia in leaking DNC emails. This is all notwithstanding the fact that the DNC want you to believe that Russia leaked them, even if they didn't, to deflect attention away from their content - something you haven't really considered.

Re:well well well

[guises]

You're making a mixed metaphor here. Clinton and Obama are not the ultra-rich, they're just regular rich, and they're the subjects of the contest (or the prizes, if you will) they're not the contestants.

Re:well well well

[prisoner-of-enigma]

In neither case does it matter if the emails are real or not.

Well, actually it does matter. If the emails are real -- and everything thus far indicates they are, including press releases from HRC's campaign and the resignation of the DNC chairwoman -- it shows systematic corruption within the DNC. Not that comes as any surprise. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was an unabashed Clinton supporter, carrying water for her at every opportunity. Only a fool could believe she was capable of running the DNC on an impartial basis.

Unfortunately there are a lot of fools out there.

Re:well well well

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

What the email actually say are normal intra party politics, back stabbing and intrigue. They have not found corruption, extortion or even racist jokes being forwarded. In fact for an email dump it is pretty innocuous. Some embarrassment for some. Debbie seems to be the one they are throwing under the bus. ( She actually looks like Mrs Frizzle from The Magic School bus).

But I am also intrigued by the Russians deciding to help Trump. Foreign powers meddling with our elections, swaying our public opinion we should be very very wary about. It is definitely illegal for foreign entities to give campaign contributions. It seems to be some sort of in kind contribution. That Russia does not want Hillary seems to be a very big plus point in her favor.

Re:well well well

[Anonymous Coward]

Particularly amusing given the close ties Clinton's campaign manager has to Russian interests (not to mention the rest of the Clinton organization). This is very much a case of projection. Blame the opposition for what you're doing, and decrease the impact of any revelations of your own actions.

Re:well well well

[Anonymous Coward]

to me, unless you can show the integrity of the original messages was compromised, then the "who did it" does not matter as much as "what the emails say".

now, if the messages were altered to promote an agenda, I agree with the Hillary Camp.

if this is what the emails did say, then I feel we have a problem with the undermining of the vote of the people.

So you're worried about the DNC not liking an outsider / socialist who tried to take over their party. But not about Russian state actors interfering in U.S. political campaigns. Personally I don't have a problem with the DNC not liking Sanders. I'd be shocked if they did like him. I'm more concerned about Putin and company trying to influence our elections. If Sanders wanted to run for president maybe he should have done so as an independent or a Socialist and not tried to hijack one of the existing parties. Of course, you could say the same about Trump. Unfortunately, American political parties are "big tent" organizations which don't act to keep people with views the party doesn't like out. Or fortunately they don't. I could go either way on that from day to day. But the Russians interfering, that I'm 100% against. Period.

Re:well well well

[Anonymous Coward]

The Russians do not need to collaborate with anyone to promote their own agenda. The Russian government has created an alternate reality and at this point I doubt they could recognize any truth if they tried. They have shutdown or taken over every media outlet in Russia. They have passed laws basically outlawing any encryption and publishing any information critical to the government is punished.

Back when the Ukraine situation first started and it looked like Putin was going to lose his puppet someone wiretapped the US Embassy and then released recordings of the US Ambassador talking about the situation. And not a single person complained about a foreign state government spying on another. At the time everyone was to busy castigating the NSA for having the temerity to spy on foreign governments. The simpering morons scattered across Europe totally ignored the fact that the NSA didn't violate their privacy. It was their own state intelligence agencies who collected their data which they shared willingly to the NSA if requested.
Of course Putin is interfering in Europe. He knows perfectly well that he can do anything he wants because any geo-political-military power Europe had atrophied a long time ago. I believe the ruling commissars in Brussels solution to problems with Russia would include giving Russia back all of their vassal states in eastern Europe. And that is really sad because Russia is only a few steps away from becoming a 3rd world country. International power is built on top of military and economic dominance. Russia has neither. The state of California has a higher GDP than Russia. Russia's economy is miniscule compared to the US, China, and a unified European market.

Re:well well well

[Fragnet]

Why are you talking about Trump? This is about the Democratic Party and leaked emails. See what you're doing? Moving the pea under the thimble again...

Re:well well well

[Anonymous Coward]

Well actually, one of the many things Trump has proven, is that despite all their money, the Koch brothers lost very badly. Even in the democrats, Sanders was not so far from winning.
(Another thing Trump has proven, is that all those movies with villains that were far too stupid to be credible, well, actually, they are credible.)

Re:well well well

[techsoldaten]

Actually, the DNC has a contractual and fiduciary responsibility to stay neutral in a primary, because they sign contracts to that affect.

Section 4 of the Democratic Party charter reads this way:

"In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process."

The chairperson was Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who resigned / was fired earlier today. The CEO of the DNC is Amy Dacey. But look at their emails and tell me if that lives up the charter.

https://www.facebook.com/DNCfr...

Some of us are suing.

Re:well well well

[schnell]

The US elections are ran and decided by the ultra-rich.

Sorry to sound confrontational, but that's bullshit. It just is. And ironically Donald Trump is the one that proves it.

Yes, his election to GOP nominee isn't an election for office, but he was detested and denigrated by pretty much every single Republican establishment "ultra rich" figure. He won because the Joe Sixpacks of the GOP - their wisdom in doing so is a separate discussion topic - actually voted for him more than anyone else. Despite all the best efforts of the "rich" and the "establishment" in the party, the demagogue with popular support ACTUALLY WON.

If the fact that the Republican Party - the REPUBLICAN FUCKING PARTY - can be taken over by popular votes against the fervent wishes of the Koch Brothers, the Bushes, the Cruz Evangelicals and everyone else who hated them, then nothing will. The rich did not get their way. And spare me any "false flag" bullshit. The Republican Powers That Be did not conspire to sink their own party. Joe and Jane Sixpack voted for somebody else, and they had to suck it up.

Saying that the rich own elections is a cop-out. Yes, the US is a democratic republic. Yes, the elections for the two highest offices in the land are mediated through an Electoral College. But by and large, the US is absolutely a functional democracy. It's easy to claim it's not because you don't like who got elected... but really you should think about the idea that the people in power are really there because 51% of the voting public wanted them there, even if they disagree with you. Not liking the results of democracy is its great hazard.

Re:well well well

[Orgasmatron]

You must be using the newfangled definition of corruption, popular with people that aren't familiar with the word graft, that only includes actual cash bribes for services or lenience.

Sorry to say that graft is only one type of corruption. Corruption is a broad thing. So broad that it is hard to pin down a concrete definition that includes everything and excludes nothing.that people consider to be corruption. The basic idea is that if a person is in an office or position of authority, and that authority is intended to be used for the benefit of some person or group, corruption is any time that person secretly uses their authority for their own benefit, or for the benefit of anyone other than the intended beneficiary, particularly when the intended is harmed or neglected in some way.

Seen in that light, it is hard to pretend that the DNC isn't riddled with corruption from top to bottom. They had a duty to the nation's democrats to run the primary process in a manner specified by the rules, which included neutrality, transparency, etc. What happened instead?

And it isn't enough that the DNC is corrupt, it is also corrupting. You read the exchanges with the press? Surprise, CNN and MSNBC see themselves are the propaganda wing of the democrat party. Is that what they told the FCC and the American people they were going to be doing?

Re: well well well

[Rakarra]

Also, Trump tells you how it is, good and bad.

Trump is one of the most dishonest political candidates I've EVER seen, and my bar and expectations these days are very low.

admits it helps trump?

[Anonymous Coward]

So on top of being scum the Clinton camp is also dumb enough to admit to the world this helps Donald. I hate Democrats so much. this has all been so obvious for so long. I say this as a Democrat.

First, kill the messenger

[Orgasmatron]

What is always step one when dealing with a whistleblower? Try to distract the press by yammering nonstop about the whistleblower, and deflect every question about the leaked documents back to the leaker's motivations, integrity, etc.

Of course, given the content of the emails, I suspect that DWS has already given the marching orders to CNN and MSNBC so that the party doesn't have to dirty their hands by acting all shifty and evasive on TV.

Horse Hockey

[Snotnose]

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.

You don't think the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, et all didn't hack that server? You're naive.

Re:Horse Hockey

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Even if they did get in (nice proof by intimidation you have there), how likely is it that there were REAL gems there?

So you're going with the "I broke the law, but it's OK because nothing bad happened" defense? Try that next time you get pulled over and fail a breathalyzer. "Hey officer, I'm drunk as a skunk but nobody got hurt so you can't charge me!" Tell me how that works out for you, the common citizen.

The laws Hillary broke did not require intent or damage to occur in order to be prosecuted. Go read the statute. Comey invented the whole "intent" thing out of thin air. She got a pass because her last name is "Clinton." Any other person would, at the least, be fired and banned for life from Federal service. At the worst, they'd be in jail already.

How much do you believe ?

[Alain Williams]

Speaking as a Brit: we have just been through a month of unscrupulous back stabbing carried out by our MPs (Members of Parliament). The Prime Minister resigned and so the Tories had to elect a new one; several put their names forwards and then huge amounts of muck was dug up, some of it completely proposterous or ridiculously overblown; the press played their part in keeping silly stories on the front pages.

We have the same thing going on in Labour: leadership election with mole hills being blown up to be the size of Everest; again the press with the Westminster mafia out to knife Jeremy Corbyn. He is loved by Labour voters country wide but hated by those in the Westminster bubble.

This story strikes me as made from the same elements: something small made out to be oh - so important. The trouble is that many voters are not able (or sufficiently interested) to see beyond the head lines.

doesn't matter

[ooloorie]

By blaming Russia, Hillary's campaign has unequivocally confirmed that these E-mails were leaked by an outside organization. It doesn't matter which outsider leaked these E-mails of for what reason. 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.

Re:doesn't matter

[fahrbot-bot]

Do you really need to have this spelled out for you? She couldn't even protect E-mails ... [remainder omitted because it's even more stupid]

Do you? The systems at the DNC do not belong to her and are not under her supervision or control. The DNC is a private organization:

The DNC is composed of the chairs and vice-chairs of each state Democratic Party committee and over 200 members elected by Democrats in all 50 states and the territories. Its chairperson is elected by the committee. It conducts fundraising to support its activities.

Jesus, can you be anymore ignorant and/or partisan.

Re:Always the same with Hillary...

[fred911]

"Why does Hillary always claim some sort of big conspiracy every time she gets caught doing something? "

  Because most of the time she's dirty.

Pot meet Kettle

[fahrbot-bot]

Donald Trump's son later responded, "They'll say anything to be able to win this."

Ya, *they*.

Re:Always the same with Hillary...

[Kohath]

Because the press always lets her. Because anyone else would be gone after one or 2 times, but the Clintons keep getting a pass for scandal after scandal after scandal, always ensuring there will be yet another scandal in the seemingly endless list. Because the Democrats across the country lost so many elections in the past few years that there's no one else in the party with national stature who can mount a successful campaign. Because calling the other side "racist" is seen as an acceptable substitute for acting ethically or having any sort of thoughts on policy.

Wasserman-Shultz will get a job in administration

[drnb]

Hillary has already thrown Wasserman-Shultz under the bus, ...

Bull. DNC chairperson Kaine was reward for his long standing loyalty and service to the Clinton's with the VP nomination. DNC chairperson Wasserman-Shultz will be reward for her loyalty and service once Hillary gets into office. Maybe Wasserman-Shultz can be Secretary of State. It seems to be handed out for political reasons anyway, no actual foreign policy experience required it seems.

Bernie supporters get some meaningless words in the party platform. Clinton supporters get positions of power.

Julian Assange, agent of Repub Conspiracy

[drnb]

but I'm not sure the Dems can win the political game of crazy.

When Julian Assange is part of the great Republican conspiracy to "get" the Clintons I think the Dems are a bit crazy too.

No one will be ruled by Trump even if he wins

[drnb]

Then you are a fool and you deserve to be ruled by Putin / Trump.

No one will be ruled by Trump even if he wins. The US government is actually designed to handle situations like this. There are three separate but equal branches of government that can stalemate the others. IF Trump is elected the Democrats in Congress will oppose any dumb ideas and given the Republican establishment's hatred and anger they will find many Republicans to join in opposition. The Democrats call today's Congress obstructionist, it will be nothing compared to a Congress after a Trump victory.

Only fools believe Trump will get anything he wants. You are just swallowing the political pablum.

Re:No one will be ruled by Trump even if he wins

[drnb]

One of the checks is the parties themselves and he has completely overwhelmed one of those (and the more organized one nonetheless).

Parties were never part of the plan and have no governmental authority. That said, he has not overwhelmed the party, he convinced enough voters to become the party nominee. Party members elected to Congress are not obligated to vote his way. Normally the candidate is favored by the party establishment and any non-compliant Congressperson would face some sort of internal discipline, lack of committee assignments, etc. However given how Trump is hated by the establishment such internal discipline is not likely. And if he suggests something "stupid" even more so. Trump will not get anything the mainstream firmly opposes.

The power of the president is a mix of hard and soft power. So if local police do what he says (or mayors tell them to) then he can control local police.

There is no such power. Governors are elected and exercise power independently of the President. Mayors too with respect to both the Governor and President. Police, military, etc swear an oath to the Constitution not the elected leaders. They swear only to obey lawful Constitutional orders from their lawful commanding officers and the President is not a lawful commander of the police.

The Republicans have shown that legislators (at least about half of Republicans) are principally concerned about getting elected and so he need only win an election to show that he can flex some might vs them.

No. Winning a national election is nothing at all like winning a local election. Republican members of Congress won't necessarily face any blowback for ignoring Trump, especially if Trump asked for something "stupid". Keep in mind that nearly all incumbents get re-elected. People generally hate Congress but for some reason think their Congressperson is OK.

No president has done that in a long time, but the court relies (almost) entirely on the executive to carry out its orders.

The police and military are quite good about complying with decisions of the Supreme Court. Again, Trump will get ignored if he tries to ignore a ruling in any substantial way. Again, police and military take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, not the Office of the President, and the Supreme Court decides what is Constitutional not the President.

I'm not saying it is likely, but I wouldn't completely rule it out.

I think monumentally stupid things can be ruled out. Only the normal day-to-day stupidity of politicians will prevail, and that will occur regardless of who holds the office. A divided do nothing government, that might work out well.

Re:No one will be ruled by Trump even if he wins

[drnb]

Congress is only able to vote a declaration of war up or down; the President is the one who decides to go to war, or not.

That is so wrong. Congress controls the money for the war. No funding for the war and there is no war. The President only gets to suggest spending, Congress has to actually write the spending bill.

he wants a closer working relationship between the US and Russia

So does Hillary, remember her big "reset" on our relationship with Russia?

he thinks NATO is a "bad deal" for the USA

And treaties have to be ratified by Congress.

he might disregard the key part of the NATO covenant pledging assistance to a member that has been attacked by an external foe, i.e. the Baltic States by Russia

Sort of like the assurances the Ukraine got regarding its territorial integrity from the US in exchange for giving up its nukes?

So to say that the POTUS is just a figurehead is nonsense. Look what Bush and Cheney did in Iraq in 2003.

Wrong again, recall that Hillary and the rest of Congress gave them the authority and funding for the war.

Re:Wasserman-Shultz will get a job in administrati

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Bernie supporters get some meaningless words in the party platform. Clinton supporters get positions of power.

Oh, I'm sorry. Were you unaware the system was rigged long ago? Between the DNC's internal schemes to anoint Hillary and whole idea of "superdelegates," you don't have much in the way of say-so about who gets the DNC nomination. "But trust us," the DNC says. "We know better than you who's fit to rule you."

yawn.

[Black Parrot]

Who'd'a thought the DNC would favor a centrist party insider over a left-leaning outsider? (The Bernie camp has been complaining about this since day one.)

Who'd'a thought the internet is full of hax0rs that break into any and every system they can and proclaim that they've done something earthshaking?

Who'd'a thought Assuange would try to spin it as something to do with the Hillary server scandal?

Who'd'a thought a campaign manager would have made an outrageous claim?

Who'd'a thought the opposing campaign manager would make a vacuous counter-claim?

Who'd'a thought Slashdot would run with such a nothing-burger story when there are actually interesting things going on in the world?

I take my subject back - a yawn overrates the whole thing.

Um... because there is one?

[rsilvergun]

Look, whatever else you think good or bad about Hilary the fact is a lot of very, very wealthy people have it in for her. Fox news alone is enough to account for a conspiracy by the strict definition. What's that old quote from Gore Vidal? I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I'm a conspiracy documenter. Or put another way: a conspiracy is just two or more people doing something shady. If you can't find two folks from the anti Hilary side doing something shady then you sure aren't even trying...

Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton?

[Dunbal]

That's the part I don't get.

There's nothing to "get" when pure bullshit is involved.

Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton?

[Crashmarik]

Why bother with beat ? Clinton is for sale cheap.

Re:Always the same with Hillary...

[AK Marc]

Because it's usually true. The Republicans admitted that the Benghazi hearings were political in nature, timed to weaken her in the primaries. They found nothing new, and nothing that incriminated Hillary for anything other than having a small budget handed to her by the Republicans in Congress. When there are actual conspiracies, it's hard to not see conspiracies.

There is a name for this type of "defense"

[superwiz]

It's called shooting the messenger. Even if Russia did hack the DNC servers, what they chose to release still demonstrates inappropriate behavior by the DNC chair. Even if Trump's candidacy benefits Russia, it doesn't change the fact that DNC chair undermining democratic elections (with a small "d") doesn't help The United States.

Re:Here's more credible evidence of Trump-Russia t

[superwiz]

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

Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton?

[quenda]

That's the part I don't get. Putin has to know from experience that he can walk all over Hillary.

RTFA. Even if it is Russian GRU, they have other plausible motives. It could be simple tit for tat on recent leaks that have embarrassed Putin.
There is no reason to believe they prefer Trump. The Russians would be more comfortable with the devil they know.

Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton?

[drnb]

Meanwhile, Clinton has paid her dues in government ...

If Hillary paid any dues it was to her husband not the government. She was a part-time Senator and a part-time Presidential candidate and then a full-time Presidential candidate. She was a Senator to get something, anything, on her resume that might sound Presidential material. Until the Senate her only experience was riding Bill's coat tails and supporting him at every turn. After the part-time Senate gig she got a full-time Secretary of State gig as a consolation prize, she wasn't really qualified and her performance shows it.

So she has Senator and Secretary of State titles on her resume, and on balance little to no positive results from either brief role. So what is her qualification other than decades of loyalty to Bill, the most influential person in the party machine?

Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton?

[Grishnakh]

Actually, it is a bit of a surprise (well, not really):

The thing about Bernie is that he could actually win the election: his polling numbers are much higher than Hillary's when you poll everyone, not just Dem voters. He was a lot like Obama in 2008: he energized the youth vote (youth apathy has long been a big problem for the Dem party), and if he was on the ticket they'd be out there in droves voting for him, and also for down-ticket Dem candidates.

This just isn't the case with Hillary: the younger people either despise her or at least have no enthusiasm whatsoever for her.

She's still likely to win (but it's not a sure thing), but only because the Rep candidate is so awful. If she were running against McCain or Romney or even Jeb, I'd fully expect her to lose.

So the only thing that's surprising is that the DNC is so dumb that they'd double down on such a lousy candidate, banking on the Republican candidate being even more horrible (and they decided to back her *long* before anyone had a clue that Trump was going to win; most people probably assumed that Jeb would).

RUSSIA MADE US LOOK BAD!

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

By letting you KNOW what we REALLY think and how AWFUL we ACTUALLY behave!

BLAME RUSSIA!

If it was the Russian's fault

[Dasher42]

If it was the Russians' fault, then why did your DNC Chair have to step down?!

Re:Wasserman-Shultz will get a job in administrati

[tsotha]

The superdelegate system was created specifically to keep people like Sanders out, and it works.

Re:Wasserman-Shultz will get a job in administrati

[drnb]

Can you name one disgraced supporter of the Clintons that has been rewarded

"Friday, April 1, 2005; Page A01 Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, a former White House national security adviser, plans to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and will acknowledge intentionally removing and destroying copies of a classified document about the Clinton administration's record on terrorism ... Berger spoke falsely last summer in public claims that in 2003 he twice inadvertently walked off with copies of a classified document during visits to the National Archives, then later lost them."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

"Berger served as a foreign policy adviser to Senator Hillary Clinton in her 2008 presidential campaign."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...