Slashdot Mirror
'DNC Hacker' Unmasked: He Really Works for Russia, Researchers Say (thedailybeast.com)
The hacker who claimed to compromise the DNC swore he was Romanian, but new investigation shows he worked directly for Russia President Vladimir Putin's government in Moscow. The Daily Beast reports: The hacker who claims to have stolen emails from the Democratic National Committee and provided them to WikiLeaks is actually an agent of the Russian government and part of an orchestrated attempt to influence U.S. media coverage surrounding the presidential election, a security research group concluded on Tuesday. The researchers, at Arlington, Va.-based ThreatConnect, traced the self-described Romanian hacker Guccifer 2.0 back to an Internet server in Russia and to a digital address that has been linked in the past to Russian online scams. Far from being a single, sophisticated hacker, Guccifer 2.0 is more likely a collection of people from the propaganda arm of the Russian government meant to deflect attention away from Moscow as the force behind the DNC hacks and leaks of emails, the researchers found. ThreatConnect is the first known group of experts to link the self-proclaimed hacker to a Russian operation, amidst an ongoing FBI investigation and a presidential campaign rocked by the release of DNC emails that have embarrassed senior party leaders and inflamed intraparty tensions turning the Democratic National Convention. The emails revealed that party insiders plotted ways to undermine Sen. Bernie Sanders' presidential bid. The researchers at the aforementioned security firm are basing their conclusion on three signals: the hacker used Russian computers to edit PDF files, he also used Russian VPN -- and other internet infrastructure from the country, and that he was unable to speak Romanian.
It's payback time for Crooked Liar Hillary! leading this:
Election-meddling fiasco hits US-Russia relations
Revelations about email transactions between the US State Department and the Russian election watchdog Golos prior to Russia's parliamentary elections threaten to bring the reset to a grinding halt.
Golos, an independent watchdog that has been monitoring elections in Russia for 10 years, was fined 30,000 rubles ($1,000) last week by a Moscow court for publishing “election-related opinion polls and research” after a deadline for publishing such material had passed (it is illegal in Russia to publish such information five days or less before an election).
Duma officials who petitioned to start a probe with the prosecutor’s office argued that the NGO was funded by “foreign organizations” hoping to influence the results of the elections.
...
"We favor foreign observers monitoring our political electoral processes. We favor this, we are not against this," he said. "Howeverwhen financing comes to some domestic organizations which are supposedly national, but which in fact work on foreign money and perform to the music of a foreign state during electoral processes, we need to safeguard ourselves from this interference in our internal affairs and defend our sovereignty.”
violations of campaign finance law
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
I haven't read the emails, but I don't believe they expose any crimes committed by the DNC
Conspiring to violate 18 USC/599 is a federal crime. The rest is just typical liberal crap on display (hey! nobody's looking! let's use disparaging references to ethnic groups and make fun of a black woman's name!), but that's simply them displaying their hypocrisy. It's the whole caught-in-the-act of offering quid pro quo on promising government appointments to high profile supporters that actually breaks the law.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Reading shit headlines like that always brings home the fact that most reporters are almost completely ignorant about the subject matter at hand, and will generally spew whatever their "sources" tell them, even if the primary article says something completely different.
Who did the hacking is irrelevant. It's just a distraction. Nobody (that we know of) made those DNC staffers and managers write what they wrote. The inner workings of both major US political parties as it relates to rewarding large donors, choosing party candidates, and dealing with "disruptive" candidates is very ugly. The emails show this. Looking out for the average person is clearly at the bottom of the list of their priorities. This could have easily happened to the RNC (if it hasn't already) and a similar pile of shit would likely be unearthed.
This shouldn't be a partisan issue. Those who make it partisan are just sweeping "their side's" problems under the rug and allowing the problem to continue. The way we pick presidential candidates is really, really, bad. The primary system gives too much power to those with strong and vocal opinions. The disapproval ratings for the DNC and RNC candidates are at record high levels and speak for themselves. At this point, a random lottery would be better than the current system. We do this dance every 4 years and it isn't getting better. By November, people will have forgotten all about the primaries and nothing will change.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
Please provide examples of this buddy-buddy relationship you're describing, which appears to be exactly the opposite of reality.
Drumpf has praised Putin many times on the campaign trail. This has made the news numerous times. If you don't watch the news and don't know how to use a search engine I don't see how I can help you.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
What crimes would those be? Seriously, I'm curious. What crimes have been revealed by the DNC emails that were released? Staffers at the DNC didn't much like a number of members of Sanders's staff. Some of them preferred Clinton. Good policy? Maybe, maybe not, but not a crime by any definition of the term.
The crime exposed by the DNC emails is money laundering. In those, they discuss how to move money from very wealthy donors making big deposits through a DNC fund for "down ticket" candidates (like state and local races). Huge donors with money, adhering to campaign finance laws, make deposits into the Clinton campaign (HFA). But they want more money to go to her so they direct the majority of it into something called the Hillary Victory Fund which is operated by the DNC. From there it's split again between state level party operations and the DNC, also to avoid limits. However, it's not at the state party accounts long, in fact, it's often there so briefly that the state level treasurers managing don't even have time to see it hit the account before it's gone and it's "donated" back to the DNC, essentially having been 'washed' through the sate accounts. The DNC then used the money to support the Clinton campaign.
tl:dr - the DNC laundered money to circumvent campaign finance law and support Hillary.
You're referring to a law prohibiting the "promise of appointment" - i.e.: selling appointed positions. Where in the DNC emails did this happen?
The worst that I've seen so far is the bit about the DNC favoring Hillary over Bernie. Which has nothing to do with selling appointed positions.
Conspiring to violate 18 USC/599 is a federal crime.
Assuming that the e-mail is authentic. It might well be, but there should be some serious scrutiny of any evidence that has been 'dug up' by Russian intelligence running false flag ops to influence US elections. They might just be up to something....
Trump and Putin, what a pair they would make...I bet they would get on like Hitler and Mussolini...
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
No no, for it to be fraud, you need to have lied in performance of a contract. Like when a billionaire tycoon lies about the zoning of a building subjecting his buyers to unexpected taxes, exceptionally high mortgage rates, and half the expected resale value. That's fraud.
The faux laziness of Hillary supporters who want to maintain the ability to pretend they're unaware of her and her campaign's corruption never ceases to amaze. I know, that whole google searching thing is laborious, isn't it?
http://dailycaller.com/2016/07...
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Voting for the lesser of two evils still means you;re voting for evil.
Seriously - it's like saying "Oh, I'm voting for Stalin because that Hitler guy is just nasty...
You realize we sent Stalin a massive infusion of arms and armaments to help him keep fighting Hitler, and supported him despite his evil, right through V-E day? That we really preferred having Russian soldiers dying to having Americans dying, so we gave him all the help we could?
Yes, there was a strong feeling in certain circles that when the eastern front met the western front, the fighting would continue and we'd wind up in a war with the Russians. But still, we absolutely supported evil when it was fighting another evil.
Real lawyers write in C++
Trump's ghostwriter spent 18 months with him and thinks he's a sociopath.
http://www.newyorker.com/magaz...
Hillary's involvement is Benghazi is what disqualifies her for me.
[ Cutting a anti-H rant which disagrees with the events in every official Benghazi investigation ]
We can agree on a few things:
* There have been about 8 Benghazi investigations.
* The first few focused on finding Obama at fault. After the 2014 election, they quickly pivoted to finding Hillary at fault.
* Most, maybe all of them were controlled by Republicans
* Republicans have very strong incentives to find Obama and Hillary at fault
* Republicans are supported by a number of generous billionaires, who also have very strong incentives to find Obama and Hillary at fault.
* Every investigation has returned largely the same results:
* Hillary and Obama did not give complete information at first (while conflicting information was coming in), but neither one lied. They gave the facts as they were known at the time.
* Neither Hillary nor Obama could have done anything during the attack which could have changed the outcome or had any effect.
* Neither Hillary nor Obama did anything (or failed to do anything) before the attack which directly led to or caused or enabled the attacks.
* Some lower level people at State made some decisions which were (in 20/20 hindsight) poor, but were not malicious.
* Some of the people involved in the investigations have not disagreed with the facts in the official reports, but have nonetheless claimed without explicit basis that Hillary and/or Obama lied and caused it and were otherwise EVIL. Again, without facts or clear explanations.
Now here is where we disagree.
You seem to believe that all of the investigations were wrong for some unexplained reason, and all wrong in the exact same way, and nobody involved has clearly explained how they were wrong, but you know more than all of the investigators and can prove that your version is correct.
I believe that you cannot deal with what you WANT to be true disagreeing with reality, so you are making shit up and ignoring facts while truly believing every word you say, You are not lying. You are also not correct.