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

[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.

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

[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

[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?

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: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.

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."

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.

RUSSIA MADE US LOOK BAD!

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

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

BLAME RUSSIA!