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

Cheesy 80's movie excuse by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-24 10:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse by MillionthMonkey · 2016-07-24 11:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by prisoner-of-enigma · 2016-07-24 11:49 · Score: 5, Funny

It's a vast left-wing conspiracy!

--
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse by Applehu+Akbar · 2016-07-24 13:24 · Score: 4, Funny

I can't believe they're using "our emails were hacked by Russians" as their excuse.
Next we'll be hearing that Trump is organizing all those shootings and bombings across Europe to boost his campaign. That's gotta be really expensive.
Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse by Hartree · 2016-07-24 14:12 · Score: 5, Funny

But, but...
The dog really did eat my homework!
Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse by Sarten-X · 2016-07-24 15:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

It's not an excuse. It's an explanation. Those are different things.
The problem with the emails is their source. 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. That, in turn, means we must question the integrity of anything they release.
For example, consider the differences in the edited and un-edited versions of the Collateral Murder video. The raw footage shows a pretty typical battle, where a group of men, some of them armed, are loitering in an area where American troops have been under attack all morning. The edited version shows a group of men, and highlights that two of them are not armed, and in a slow-motion frame comparison, shows that one of the apparent weapons was actually a telephoto camera lens, then shows them being attacked by American fire. There are numerous other differences.
There's a huge difference in context between the two versions, which Assange himself has said was intentional for "political effect". In the raw video, the soldiers' actions are justified, though mistaken. In the edited version, they're portrayed as ruthless killers intentionally targeting civilians.
Now WikiLeaks has released a bunch of emails. That's great, but we must ask: what editing has been done here? Did they (or their possibly-Russian source) strip out any emails that conflict with the "DNC is corrupt" narrative? Are the emails signed? Is it possible or probable that some of the damning emails edited or completely faked?
These sorts of questions should be raised every time a leak is made public. The leakers always have an agenda, and it may not necessarily be to "inform the public".
With all that in mind, consider again what's being said. There is no denial of the emails' existence, and little discussion of the emails' content. Instead, at this point there's just a request to consider the trail the emails have followed, and the impact that has on their credibility.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse by Grishnakh · 2016-07-24 15:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by skids · 2016-07-24 16:21 · Score: 2

so it's probably a pretty good move to go to work for the government there.
Well, unless you are the poor guy ordered by Putin to find the master crypto key to the Internet or get sent to Siberia.

--
Someone had to do it.
Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse by lucm · 2016-07-24 17:51 · Score: 5, Funny

Over in Russia, things aren't the same; they don't have a booming tech sector like we do
They have a booming tech sector: spam, botnets, credit card fraud, etc.
And it's a real industry. Not happy with the stolen credit card numbers you bought? Call customer service and you get a discount on your next order.
They make non-Russian organized crime look like drunk hooligans.

--
lucm, indeed.
Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse by MillionthMonkey · 2016-07-24 17:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by Z00L00K · 2016-07-24 18:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse by iris-n · 2016-07-24 19:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
entropy happens
Re: Cheesy 80's movie excuse by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-24 19:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 by Salgak1 · 2016-07-24 23:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

. . . . 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 by Hodr · 2016-07-25 00:01 · Score: 5, Funny

Nah, he hires immigrants who will work for less.
Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2016-07-25 01:03 · Score: 2

Sorry, to finish your answer, look to the investors in said business and do wnat a journalist does...follow the money backwards from there!

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse by Nickodeimus · 2016-07-25 01:15 · Score: 2

Snowden's data dump has been released piecemeal because Snowden and whats his name the journalist (Glen Greenwald?) knew that if all of it was released at once it would cause worldwide upheaval and the fall of multiple governments. They didn't want that blood on their hands.

Ask yourself: What has changed since Snowden released the data he had? Pretty much nothing (in the US.) The status quo has been maintained.

This is because the populace's outrage was kept to a manageable level by letting the data trickle out instead of dropping it like the bomb that it is.
Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse by ravenshrike · 2016-07-25 01:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by sycodon · 2016-07-25 01:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

"....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?

--
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.

well well well by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-24 10:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-24 11:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.
Look it up. Lies by omission are the easiest ones. All he needs to have done is a) hidden the emails which help Clinton and b) hidden the ones which hinder Trump and c) kept the ones which guarantee his control over Trump.
The accusation is extremely serious and a big risk. It's probably true because if they get found out that it isn't they lose big time. Putin has every reason to prefer a buffoon like Trump over Clinton. There's also pretty good evidence he's interfering with European politics, so why shouldn't he do the USA too? Still, this needs better evidence and confirmation than we have now.
Re:well well well by ShanghaiBill · 2016-07-24 11:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by drnb · 2016-07-24 11:17 · Score: 5, Funny

A bunch of petty, unethical DNC employees (which is highly shitty, no question) still pales compared to a Manchurian candidate.
Given the Clinton's history of illegal political financial support from China it may be best not to mention Manchuria.
Re:well well well by Fragnet · 2016-07-24 11:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by taustin · 2016-07-24 11:28 · Score: 2

Indeed. If the truth hurts you, the problem isn't with who reveals it, the problem is with you. And Hillary Clinton will do anything she possibly can to obfuscate that fact.
Of course, Trump will do anything he can to emphasize it.
In neither case does it matter if the emails are real or not.
Re:well well well by guises · 2016-07-24 11:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by prisoner-of-enigma · 2016-07-24 11:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Re:well well well by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2016-07-24 11:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Re:well well well by whoever57 · 2016-07-24 11:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

Indeed. If the truth hurts you, the problem isn't with who reveals it, the problem is with you. And Hillary Clinton will do anything she possibly can to obfuscate that fact.
The problem is the asymmetry here. What do you think a cache of RNC emails would show?

--
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Re:well well well by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-24 12:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-24 12:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 by Dahamma · 2016-07-24 13:02 · Score: 2

I think you meant "Trump's campaign manager"...
http://www.politifact.com/glob...
Re:well well well by Fragnet · 2016-07-24 13:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by swb · 2016-07-24 13:31 · Score: 4, Interesting

That they were terrified of the loudmouth Donald Trump and grew increasingly terrified as he completely sabotaged their own attempt at coronating their own hand-picked stooge to run against Hillary in 2016.
The only difference between them and the Democrats? The RNC failed to derail Trump and the DNC and Hillary Clinton vociferously denied colluding to railroad Bernie Sanders.
The difference is also in expectations. Everyone *expects* the RNC and its major donors to guide a hand-picked favorite son into November. It's who they are. They don't operate under ideological banner that promotes free, open and fair elections -- they want to gut the Voting Rights Act, for example.
The Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, promote themselves as the guarantors of democracy, extending and protecting the franchise and voice of all people. Which is now being exposed for what it was all along -- a sanctimonious fiction and a bill of goods. Instead they spent their time promoting their own handpicked favorite and undermined a worthy and successful challenger.
I try not to buy into the Hillary is corrupt meme. But at this point, there's just too much evidence she's conniving and fundamentally not honest. And I'm not a Trump supporter, but I do have a certain admiration for the way he eviscerated the Republican party.
Re:well well well by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-24 14:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by techsoldaten · 2016-07-24 14:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by schnell · 2016-07-24 16:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
"95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
Re:well well well by Orgasmatron · 2016-07-24 16:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?

--
See that "Preview" button?
Re:well well well by Princeofcups · 2016-07-24 16:42 · Score: 2

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.
Doesn't matter. People have already made up their own fantasy world around this, and no one is ever going to get them to change their minds. Facts are meaningless when you make your decisions based on emotion. Hate and fear being the easiest ways to control those emotions, and people.

--
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
Re:well well well by Rakarra · 2016-07-24 19:07 · Score: 2

Fragnet, AC, come on, can't we both admit that BOTH Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are horrible excuses of presidential candidates?
Re: well well well by Rakarra · 2016-07-24 19:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
Re:well well well by DirkDaring · 2016-07-24 23:50 · Score: 2

"Then you are a fool and"
No no no. When losing an argument always first deflect. You don't insult until much later on. Sheesh.
Re:well well well by oh_my_080980980 · 2016-07-25 01:09 · Score: 3, Interesting

Ahem: "Almost immediately after her resignation, Wasserman-Schultz was given a position within the Clinton campaign as an honorary chair. " http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

So no she was not thrown under the bus. She did her job and was rewarded.
Re:well well well by will_die · 2016-07-25 01:19 · Score: 2

Good luck with that. LOL
Wasserman was hired by hillary within minutes of "quitting".
Re: well well well by Spy+Handler · 2016-07-25 04:44 · Score: 2

Trump is one of the most dishonest political candidates I've EVER seen
I agree, Trump is one of the most dishonest political candidates I've seen.
Clinton, on the other hand, is the most dishonest. #1, numero uno.

Here's more credible evidence of Trump-Russia ties by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-24 10:42 · Score: 5, Interesting

Trump actually lobbied to change the Republican platform to favor Russia over the Ukraine -- one of seven strange Russia connections clearly documented by Josh Marshall.

"Post-bankruptcy Trump has been highly reliant on money from Russia, most of which has over the years become increasingly concentrated among oligarchs and sub-garchs close to Vladimir Putin," for example. And then there was the "secret financing" for a Soho real estate project from Russia and Kazakhstan. Even Trump's campaign manager, Paul Manafort, "spent most of the last decade as top campaign and communications advisor for Viktor Yanukovych, the pro-Russian Ukrainian Prime Minister and then President whose ouster in 2014 led to the on-going crisis and proxy war in Ukraine."

I haven't been following Trump's campaign closely, but his ties to Russia are really clear.

Trumps son... by srsmith · 2016-07-24 10:42 · Score: 2

...is not wrong.

Re:Trumps son... by Dahamma · 2016-07-24 11:04 · Score: 4, Funny

Which one, Uday or Qusay?

Always the same with Hillary... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-24 10:43 · Score: 5, Interesting

Why does Hillary always claim some sort of big conspiracy every time she gets caught doing something? Perhaps, she should just concentrate on keeping her nose clean to begin with.

Re:Always the same with Hillary... by fred911 · 2016-07-24 11:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

"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.

--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Re:Always the same with Hillary... by Kohath · 2016-07-24 11:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

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:Always the same with Hillary... by Rei · 2016-07-24 11:40 · 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.
Re:Always the same with Hillary... by prisoner-of-enigma · 2016-07-24 11:58 · Score: 2

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

Because legions of her supporters will believe anything she says, no matter how absurd or self-serving.

--
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky

First, kill the messenger by Orgasmatron · 2016-07-24 10:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
See that "Preview" button?

Horse Hockey by Snotnose · 2016-07-24 10:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by ScentCone · 2016-07-24 11:45 · 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.
Re:Horse Hockey by Bartles · 2016-07-24 11:47 · 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.
Re:Horse Hockey by prisoner-of-enigma · 2016-07-24 12:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Re: They'll say anything by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-24 10:53 · 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.

Dammit Trump! Enough with the Conspiracy Theories! by CajunArson · 2016-07-24 10:56 · Score: 4, Funny

That crazy Trump running around blaming the Russians for everything! That guy is completely unhinged and we need a sane establishment-connected candidate like Her Highness Hill --- [whispering] --- Uh.. wait that was Hillary who said that?

Well uh, she's obviously right. There's a vast right wing conspiracy led by the Russkies that's infiltrated all levels of the U.S. Government to stop the most qualified woman on EARTH from being coronated queen of 'Murica! I have in my hand here a list of 47 Russkie agents that are hellbent on subverting Hillary's ascendency to the throne and I propose a witchhunt to ruin their lives!! (in the name of diversity and BLMLGBTQQRSUNVAKEHG rights of course)

--
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.

How much do you believe ? by Alain+Williams · 2016-07-24 10:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Re:How much do you believe ? by guruevi · 2016-07-24 11:08 · Score: 2

The accusations against Clinton have been proven by the FBI with the only excuse being "she's too big to jail" and an obvious golden handshake by Bill Clinton with the AG that should've prosecuted who subsequently dropped the case.
I'm sure the Russians helped, they have their own agenda just like they would've attempted to help their cause with any other election in the world (the US does the exact same thing through the CIA as does any other world power including the UK, Germany etc).
We all know in every country, the leadership is corrupt whether it be UK, Turkey, Greece or the US. The problem is how do you get them removed without a bloody coup and subsequent civil war?

--
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Re:How much do you believe ? by whoever57 · 2016-07-24 12:13 · Score: 2

and then huge amounts of muck was dug up

And then the person who controlled GCHQ was elected. What a surprise.

--
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!

Sounds plausible by fustakrakich · 2016-07-24 11:00 · Score: 2

Trump and Putin share many interests and personality traits (going by what mass media puts out). And Trump is getting a lot of questionable help from others on the outside.

It would be nice though if somebody besides the Hillary campaign said it, if just for the sake of appearance.

Still the biggest shame is seeing the election coming down to these two... the very worst of the worst. A Wall Street dominatrix vs. a demagogue

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

Email Smeemail by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-24 11:01 · 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?

Re:Email Smeemail by quantaman · 2016-07-24 12:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.
Did you link to the right article? I see some bad things for her, but not the stuff you were talking about.
1) The foundation wasn't supposed to accept foreign government donations, she didn't. Though she may have taken donations from people who had connections to foreign companies with significant government ties.
2) The foundation was supposed to publicly disclose all the donations to the foundation, apparently this guy who donated, a Canadian, reported on his tax form that he made a bunch of donations that the foundation didn't publicly disclose. I don't know if this was a mistake, deliberate, or some kind of misunderstanding.
3) During this period Bill Clinton got a $500k fee to speak to a Russian bank.
4) There's nothing I saw there about hers or the foundation's taxes. I have no idea where you got the idea she hid something on her taxes.
All the bad looking stuff is Bill Clinton, who ran the foundation, accepting donations or work from people who had a connection to businesses who might be affected by the State Department.
As for "approving something the State Department wouldn't normally even consider". She was only one of multiple people who had a say on the approval. If anything her fighting it would have been the more unusual action.

I'm not sure why people bring up her email scandal.
Because it's the only scandal, where after a critical investigation, there's evidence that she really did do something wrong.
Her problem is most politicians do everything they can to avoid the appearance of impropriety. The Clintons on the other hand, Bill in particular, don't really seem to care about the appearance because they think they'll be attacked regardless.
So you get stuff like this where Bill Clinton is constantly dealing with a bunch of people he should really be avoiding. I don't think Hillary was biased when it came to doing her job, but it does lead to some fishy optics.

--
I stole this Sig

Pot meet Kettle by fahrbot-bot · 2016-07-24 11:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Ya, *they*.

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .

Slashdot: Clinton Campaign mouthpiece. by bongey · 2016-07-24 11:16 · 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?

Re:doesn't matter by fahrbot-bot · 2016-07-24 11:18 · 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. . . .

Re:doesn't matter by Kohath · 2016-07-24 11:28 · Score: 2

So what? The message here is "Trump" -- ethics and competence don't matter because "Trump". Get used to it. "Trump" is the new all purpose justification for anything they want to do (or did in the past), regardless of ethics or laws or anything else.

Why would Putin fear Clinton? by drnb · 2016-07-24 11:28 · Score: 5, Interesting

Putin has every reason to prefer a buffoon like Trump over Clinton.

Why would Putin fear Clinton? He has beaten her repeatedly in the arena of foreign policy. What was her foreign policy experience prior to becoming secretary of state? She accompanied Bill on some trips and visited hospital and schools with the other wives while the Bill and the other actual players met elsewhere and discussed the issues and problems of the day?

I'm not trying to be sexist, women are perfectly capable at doing the job be it SOS or POTUS, but this particular person's experience was PR fluff stuff not actual foreign policy. When that crisis happened on the other side of the world and the phone rang at 3am she answered the phone and passed it to Bill saying "its for you".

She was made Secretary of State in 2008 for one and only one reason. To get the Clinton political machine behind Obama, to bind her future to his. This "machine" still controlled the Democratic party, and still does to this day as we saw with Sanders. To offer her something credible for her resume for her next attempt at the office of POTUS as a consolation promise. She was not selected because of her foreign policy experience, there was none, and her performance indicates on the job training didn't help her much.

She really is in the same league as Trump with respect to foreign policy, neither to be feared by the Russians.

Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton? by chipschap · 2016-07-24 11:35 · Score: 4, Interesting

Why would Putin fear Clinton? He has beaten her repeatedly in the arena of foreign policy.
That's the part I don't get. Putin has to know from experience that he can walk all over Hillary. You may call Trump clownish but the thing is that clowns are unpredictable, and in the world of international politics, unpredictable can mean dangerous. Wouldn't Putin want someone whose actions he could predict and whom he would easily out-maneuver?
Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton? by Dunbal · 2016-07-24 12:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

That's the part I don't get.
There's nothing to "get" when pure bullshit is involved.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton? by Crashmarik · 2016-07-24 12:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why bother with beat ? Clinton is for sale cheap.
Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton? by YooHoo2U2 · 2016-07-24 12:50 · Score: 4, Interesting

Follow the money:

"Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets," Trump's son, Donald Jr., told a real estate conference in 2008, according to an account posted on the website of eTurboNews, a trade publication. "We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Re: Why would Putin fear Clinton? by nehumanuscrede · 2016-07-24 13:09 · Score: 2

He doesn't fear Clinton.
He knows he will at least get a dialog with Trump. Clinton just wants to preserve the status quo.
Talking to Hillary is just like talking to her husband, Bill.
BTDT, would be a total waste of time to do it again.
Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton? by gumbi+west · 2016-07-24 13:32 · Score: 5, Interesting

Putin has stated that he wants to destabilize/topple NATO. Trump has a pretty clear goal of destabilizing/weakening/ending NATO. It's really not that hard to see.
Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton? by quenda · 2016-07-24 13:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

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? by drnb · 2016-07-24 14:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

Trump can't even run a business.
I think that is political BS. IF I understand things correctly each project is usually a different corporation. Different investors for different projects, one failed project won't impact other projects, a failure doesn't impact anyone personally, etc. Basically look up all the reasons you want an S-Corp or LLC rather than a sole proprietorship for your own business. I think his bankruptcies are several of these projects failing. If only several projects failed out of dozens he's doing pretty well.

... and while Trump is busy making a mess of the US economy ...
Compared to the Clinton era prosperity which was the smoke and mirrors of the Internet Bubble, which began bursting as Bill was leaving office? Like the relaxing of home loan standards that began under the Clinton administration, at their encouragement to help underdeveloped communities, that led in part to the banking crisis? Like the current economy that after how many years under Obama still needs massive stimulus and near zero interest rates to barely limp along? I'm not endorsing Trump or anything but lets not pretend the last couple Democratic administrations knew what they were doing.
Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton? by drnb · 2016-07-24 15:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

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? by Grishnakh · 2016-07-24 15:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

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).
Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton? by whoever57 · 2016-07-24 16:07 · 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!
Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton? by drnb · 2016-07-24 18:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

Only casinos in areas people like to visit. Atlantic City turned out not to be so, and it wasn't just him. Again, are we talking about more than a few projects out of dozens.

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.
One year's annual income is not one's wealth. Wealth includes other years. Wealth includes assets you own but have not sold yet. Does he exaggerate his wealth, probably, but you haven't really shown us any real data on that subject.

His business skills are mediocre (his investments in Manhattan basically tracked the market),

Do you realize how meaningless that statement is? Of course a real estate investment tracked the market, do you think maybe the timing of an entry and an exit might be relevant? IF, and I don't know one way or the other but you seem not to either, he timed it well then that is an indication of business skill. You know, like those handful of CEOs who pay very close attention to various macroeconomic indicators and slow hiring when they say a bear market may be coming and start hiring in the depths of a bear market when those indicators start saying a bull market may be coming. If one can time things better than random guesses that is a business skill. Get back to us with your analysis of his timing, thanks for your research in advance.

No, everything Trump does is aimed at benefiting him personally ...
Hey if you are going to argue he is a narcissist I'm not one to argue against that, but what major party presidential candidate is not? The last one may have been Jimmy Carter, and he wasn't very good at the job. He is however an excellent human being and great role model outside of the political realm. Maybe that's related to his presidential shortcomings?
Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton? by vux984 · 2016-07-24 18:41 · Score: 2

IF I understand things correctly each project is usually a different corporation. Different investors for different projects, one failed project won't impact other projects, a failure doesn't impact anyone personally, etc. Basically look up all the reasons you want an S-Corp or LLC rather than a sole proprietorship for your own business. I think his bankruptcies are several of these projects failing. If only several projects failed out of dozens he's doing pretty well.
Quite so.
However, if trump had merely stuck his inheritance money in a market ETF and then fucked off to play golf for the last 25-30 years, he be 3x-5x as wealthy as he is now. (the variance depending on just how much you believe he's actually worth now.)
25 years of 'projects', wheeling and dealing, real estate, steaks, wines, universities, casinos.
My own simple investments have done better than Trump over the last 2-3 decades.
The only difference between people like me and Trump is that Trump started out with a couple hundred million, and I didn't, so even earning wildly sub-par returns he's STILL a billionaire, and I'm not.
Really, how much success do you want to attribute to a businessman who trailed the market by THAT much?
Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton? by whoever57 · 2016-07-24 18:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

One year's annual income is not one's wealth. Wealth includes other years.

Yeah, except that he claimed that exemption for multiple years.

Do you realize how meaningless that statement is? Of course a real estate investment tracked the market, do you think maybe the timing of an entry and an exit might be relevant?
The man was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, he bought some buildings and his overall investments were no better than if he had randomly bought and sold them. He didn't beat the market in some way that isn't obvious due to "timing".

Does he exaggerate his wealth, probably, but you haven't really shown us any real data on that subject.
Wow, you really are blind to any evidence that he isn't what he says he is, aren't you? How about the fact that he hasn't published his tax returns? Clearly, he is hiding something and I doubt that it is that he is wealthier than he makes out.

Hey if you are going to argue he is a narcissist
No, I am not going to claim that he is a narcissist. I am going to claim that he is a racist bigot, who is only in the campaign to profit from it.
And, yes, there is proof that he is racist. Go back some years in his business dealings and you will see concrete evidence. But you won't do that, because you don't want to find it. It's much more comfortable to be ignorant.

--
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton? by Mashiki · 2016-07-24 18:49 · Score: 2

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

Guess you don't realize that casino's aren't a license to print money, but in many cases operate on a thin profit margin. And the more casino's there are, the more that margin thins out. Let's look at Ontario for example: All the casino's here are operated by the provincial government. Around 70% of them are money losing ventures because they've built so many that they've created an artificial glut.
Welcome to business 101.

--
Om, nomnomnom...
Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton? by Rakarra · 2016-07-24 19:14 · Score: 2

That was a shame, about Sanders. Not counting those bullshit "superdelegates" he was holding his own extremely well with actual, real voters. .
Then they should have voted for him.
Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton? by drnb · 2016-07-24 19:28 · Score: 2

Why would Putin fear Clinton?
It isn't about fearing Clinton, it is about the insane mess Trump will create of the west if Trump wins, from NATO Chaos to trade wars it has the potential to play big time into Russia's favour or at least be an amusing thing to watch if you aren't tied at the crotch to the west.
Congress can stop any of those things. And IF Trump wins we will likely have the most obstructionist do nothing Congress ever. Not only will Democrats oppose anything silly but many Republicans will probably join in since Trump is fairly well hated among the Republican establishment. He effectively has little to no base of support in Congress. It'll just be 4 years of embarrassing speeches.
Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton? by Maritz · 2016-07-24 22:42 · Score: 2

They know that Trump is a buffoon and a megalomaniacal psychopath. They know he will do things that undermine the US and the West. That's why they want him in.

--
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton? by swillden · 2016-07-25 00:48 · Score: 2

The man was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, he bought some buildings and his overall investments were no better than if he had randomly bought and sold them. He didn't beat the market in some way that isn't obvious due to "timing".
Worse, actually. If he'd put the money into an S&P 500 index fund he'd be much wealthier today.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.

Wasserman-Shultz will get a job in administration by drnb · 2016-07-24 11:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by drnb · 2016-07-24 11:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

From Russia with love by WaffleMonster · 2016-07-24 11:37 · Score: 3, Funny

What difference at this point does it make who hacked DNC's dammed emails?

Re:Here's more credible evidence of Trump-Russia t by Rei · 2016-07-24 11:38 · Score: 2

A more assertive US? From the guy who wants the US to leave Ukraine to Russia, and overrode the Republican party on the platform issue? Stating that he wants to give Putin a free hand in Syria? Insists that there's no evidence that he kills journalists, political opponents and invades countries? The guy who's exchanged repeated back-and-forth praise with Putin on the campaign trail, with fawning language like "It is always a great honor to be so nicely complimented by a man so highly respected within his own country and beyond" and "a very bright and strong leader"... so much of a bromance that people in Eastern Europe have started painting murals? Are you talking about the same Donald Trump here?

--
Hourglass says she knows a kid in Iowa who grows up to be president.

I have seen some crazy responses here by HBI · 2016-07-24 11:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

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 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.

--
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.

Re:I have seen some crazy responses here by quantaman · 2016-07-24 12:58 · 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
Re:I have seen some crazy responses here by quantaman · 2016-07-24 15:01 · Score: 3

Remember that Trump knows how to negotiate, and most positions that he takes are intended to be bargained away while he achieves his real intention.
Why do you think he's a great negotiator? Because someone wrote a book called "Art of the Deal" and put his name on it? You realize the US government has plenty of skilled negotiators, I don't see why we should assume that Trump has superpowers.
I'm sure he knows what he's doing when it comes to business deals, but when it comes to international negotiations he seems to be frighteningly out of his depth. Hiding your true intentions in international negotiations doesn't give you great deals, it gives you wars. And bullying people around is fine when you're a business person, but as a country other nations start coordinating against you.

Trump wants to save the US effort, or get funds for defending Europe. He has no intention of dropping out of NATO or anything like that. I mean, I doubt I am spoiling things for him by saying this. I suspect Europe's leaders will find the risk too high to avoid doing business with him.
So what happens when Putin decides to take Latvia (who certainly can't afford Trump's rates)? He's a lot more likely to try with a Trump who might let him get away with it.
What about when South Korea decides to get its own nukes rather than pay Trump's protection fee. Or when he tries to renegotiate the nuclear deal, loses sanction support from the other nations, and Iran decides to get build nukes and ally itself with Russia for protection?

--
I stole this Sig

No one will be ruled by Trump even if he wins by drnb · 2016-07-24 11:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by gumbi+west · 2016-07-24 13:43 · Score: 2

To your founding fathers thought of this argument I would add that they weren't sure that they had gotten it right and I'm not sure that they did either. I think they did a pretty good job, but I'd rather not find out.
One of the checks is the parties themselves and he has completely overwhelmed one of those (and the more organized one nonetheless). 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. 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.
The courts are both the hardest and easiest nut to crack. They have been treated as the final word for a long time now. But they weren't always. Also, they tend to take 5-10 years to resolve where to have lunch and even once they've done that a president can always say, "yeah, too bad, I'm not doing it." No president has done that in a long time, but the court relies (almost) entirely on the executive to carry out its orders.
I'm not saying it is likely, but I wouldn't completely rule it out.
Re:No one will be ruled by Trump even if he wins by drnb · 2016-07-24 14:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by drnb · 2016-07-24 15:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

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:No one will be ruled by Trump even if he wins by lucm · 2016-07-24 18:00 · Score: 2

Trump has made it clear on several occasions that
1) he admires Vladimir Putin
2) he wants a closer working relationship between the US and Russia
3) he thinks NATO is a "bad deal" for the USA, and
4) 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
So what you are saying, basically, is that Trump's foreign policy make more sense than Clinton's?

--
lucm, indeed.

Re:Wasserman-Shultz will get a job in administrati by prisoner-of-enigma · 2016-07-24 11:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

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."

--
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Re: They'll say anything by Rei · 2016-07-24 12:02 · 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.

yawn. by Black+Parrot · 2016-07-24 12:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

Um... because there is one? by rsilvergun · 2016-07-24 12:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

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...

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

There is a name for this type of "defense" by superwiz · 2016-07-24 12:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.

Re:Niggers Beware!!! by Plus1Entropy · 2016-07-24 13:19 · Score: 3, Informative

This is why there is actually quite a lot of black trump supporters.

--
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.

Re:Here's more credible evidence of Trump-Russia t by superwiz · 2016-07-24 13:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.

Working with? [Re:well well well] by Tablizer · 2016-07-24 13:27 · Score: 2

Who said "working with"? I found no claim of the GOP working with Russia to pull off the hack. So far the DNC claim is that Russia hacked or backed the hacks because Russia wants Trump to win.

Trump has talked about dismantling or shrinking NATO, which Russia would be happy with. GOP doesn't have to be involved for Russia to make such a conclusion.

--
Table-ized A.I.

Re:Here's more credible evidence of Trump-Russia t by Rei · 2016-07-24 13:38 · Score: 2

Lithuania.

--
Hourglass says she knows a kid in Iowa who grows up to be president.

Contaminated content by seven+of+five · 2016-07-24 13:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

If the source of the emails is a Russian hacker, who's to say that any of the content is genuine? What if some of it were doctored? Source can't be trusted.

Re:doesn't matter by ooloorie · 2016-07-24 13:50 · Score: 2

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

Of course, they are "under her control": if she had told them to increase security, they would have done it. And, of course, the staff and experts that slosh around her campaign and the DNC are likely later to get involved in her administration.

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

That's the question you should ask yourself. Personally, I'm not partisan, I'm simply anti-Clinton because I think she is incompetent, deeply corrupt, and dangerous.

Re:Here's more credible evidence of Trump-Russia t by mvdwege · 2016-07-24 16:31 · Score: 2

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

Then she must have some deep pockets supporting her, as every public job she has done she has left with increased public support.

--
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?

Re:Dammit Trump! Enough with the Conspiracy Theori by vandelais · 2016-07-24 17:06 · Score: 3, Funny

You know when fluoridation first began?
Nineteen hundred and forty-six. 1946, CajunArson. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.
first became aware of it during the physical act of love. Yes, a profound sense of fatigue... a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily, I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence.

And there's no fighting in here.

--
Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.

RUSSIA MADE US LOOK BAD! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2016-07-24 17:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

BLAME RUSSIA!

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."

If it was the Russian's fault by Dasher42 · 2016-07-24 17:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

So I understand... by Alypius · 2016-07-24 18:39 · Score: 3, Funny

...Hillary's staff has insisted for months that Russia never hacked her accounts. Yet for some reason the same staff is blaming the Russians for leaking these details. Must be more of that Smart Diplomacy we've been hearing about, what with that Russian Reset and all.

Re:Wasserman-Shultz will get a job in administrati by tsotha · 2016-07-24 18:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

Re:Wasserman-Shultz will get a job in administrati by Rakarra · 2016-07-24 19:21 · Score: 2

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.

Were you supposed to? The DNC is a private organization, who they send to the general election in November is their business and no one else's. They give lip service to democratic process, but they don't need to.

Re:Wasserman-Shultz will get a job in administrati by drnb · 2016-07-24 20:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

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/...

Re:spekaing English by cayenne8 · 2016-07-25 01:56 · Score: 2

Except who doesn't speak some level of English

Well, more and more it seems English is being spoken less and less in the USA.

Hence we seeing the Dem. vice president speaking Spanish at rallies......

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

Slashdot Mirror

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

122 of 769 comments (clear)