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.
lets blame russia
Nothing to see here. These crimes were exposed by someone we don't like so much. That makes it OK.
I'm not sure the press is smart enough to understand that use of a Russian VPN means they're working for the Russian government...but I'd expect /. editors to understand at least the basics of, you know, connectivity.
As if Hillary vs. Trump was not popcorny enough, we get a hacker from Russia trying to influence elections? Not even sure if this entire theory is believable but just sit back and watch!
That's CLEARLY the domain of American political parties!
From the same people who said...
"No classified email on my server"
"No material on my email that was classified at the time"
"No material marked classified on my server"
"I handed over all work related emails"
"The DNC did not collude to keep Sanders from winning"
"The DNC doesn't work with news media to plant stories against Sanders"
If they ever got caught telling the truth once, this might be believable. Who hacked the DNC server doesn't matter, what matters is how corrupt the DNC is from the content of the emails. They did their best to disenfranchise their base. Your vote doesn't mean anything to them, only their power and they are willing to lie, cheat and steal to keep that power and extend it over you.
What a joke the DNC is. How long till Debbie Waserman Schultz gets another high paid job thanks to Clinton? Oops, already happened, so corrupt she had to be fired from the DNC but is still truthful enough to work for Clinton.
Is this some pathetic attempt at political spin or misdirection?
1. "At this point, what difference does it make" who he was working for? Are the emails themselves not blatant enough for anyone?
2. What kind of half-assed chicken-shit "Security researchers" draw a connection between Putin's government and a Russian based malware serving IP address? I won't for a second deny that Russia and Putin's goverenment work extensively in hacking the wold. But, there are literally thousands of malware servers in Russia that Putin's government knows nothing about.
The real issue is the fact that DNC tried to stop Bernie with a few underhanded tactics.
The DNC is now trying to redirect the focus everyone to say the Russians did this rather than asking why Bernie didn't get a fair shot or why Hilary was basically given a free pass. I am more worried about why these emails were written in the first place and why the people at the DNC were stupid enough to think their email server couldn't be hacked.
Doesn't matter why he did it
Doesn't matter who he did it for
What matters is what DNC did, they played a game, they lost, and now they say Russia is winning so vote for us because Russia is bad, but infact Russia is irrelevant, it's just a tactic to make Republicans look bad now, even though Republicans did nothing wrong (in this context).
Well not really, but would it surprise anyone at this point?
Granted the mainstream media won't cover it of course...so it'll go largely unnoticed. Just like the title 'worked directly for russian president' ... 's government. Well all that says is he isn't an independent contractor...BFD. Tons of people (hackers included) work for the various first world governments.
You could also say that the soldiers who "worked directly for Obama" ... 's government. Yawn.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
directly for Russia President Vladimir Putin's government in Moscow.
That's a convoluted way of saying "for Russia."
Unless... plot twist! It was in Moscow, Iowa!
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
....attack the messenger.
Isn't that pretty much Lawyer Response 101?
Dovetails nicely with the purported "vast Right Wing conspiracy", doesn't it?
If a hacker reveals illegal conduct, is it "less illegal" if the hacker is Russian?
I haven't noticed anyone asserting the emails are not genuine.
-Styopa
They're so desperate to wag the dog at the moment the left would claim he came from the moon if he could. (my apologies to any moon dwellers for being associated with liberals and democrats)
If he's in cahoots with Putin and the like, why are the GOP still so in love with him?
What indication, other than the breathless nonsense uttered by a Hillary shill in an interview, do you have that Trump is "in cahoots" with the Russians? Be specific.
The only connection between Trump and the Russians is that both of them find her to be an annoying liar. Of course everybody else notices that, too. Which means we're ALL in on the conspiracy, right? Please.
The GOP still likes to rattle their sabres at them from time to time, yet for some reason now they're buddy-buddy.
Please provide examples of this buddy-buddy relationship you're describing, which appears to be exactly the opposite of reality.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Certainly couldn't be a diversion from a DNC "leadership" to which rules mean nothing.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
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.
The Trump campaign welcomes your endorsement.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
"I supported Bernie Sanders but now I'm going to ignore everything he said."
For future reference, you look like less of a troll if you use fewer *****STARS*****.
Never heard of them. How do I know they aren't just an arm of the same dirty DNC. Why would this Guccifer person speak to anyone? Does the dude want to do 30 years to life? Unlikely he spoke to anyone.
One party nominated a racist. The other party nominated a serial liar. And still, I bet the Libertarian and Green parties won't get 5% of the vote. I suspect that Hillary and Trump could beat American children in public while shouting "America sucks" and we still wouldn't get a third-party into office.
My favorite is the guy attending the RNC, wearing the "STOP TRUMP" t-shirt, who said he would vote for Trump. **NUCLEAR FACEPALM**
Yes, he has. So? Does that men he's "in cahoots" with Putin? It would be a very good thing if they got along well enough to go "in cahoots" to solve some mutual problems.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
actual *FACTS* : http://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/assets/4756436/IP_conflict_deaths_total.png
As well as your mass-mindedness, which plays directly into Trump's personal strategy of dominating your every thought.
So, no ethnic Romanians work for Putin?
In the US I know many people who claim to be ethnic XYZ and cannot speak a word of ethnic XYZ language. Some of these people work for the Feds.
So, what is the point of the claim?
Putin has a mancrush on Trump.
isn't that illegal in Russia?
Putin's spy buddies are having a great laugh about this.
Who would have thought it would be so easy to help the USA defeat itself.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
It's what's IN THEM that is the story behind the curtain nobody wants you to see
To my knowledge, ThreatConnect was paid by the DNC to do this investigation, and the company that owns the news source used as a reference here (The Daily Beast is owned by IAC) has Chelsea Clinton on their board of directors.
I would not draw any conclusions until this is independently confirmed.
Putin does not seem to be one to shy away from using extralegal measures to silence people he doesn't agree with, is that what you are suggesting Drumpf might want some tips on to solve "mutual problems"? Certainly Putin is much closer philosophically with Drumpf than he is with anyone from the democratic party; do you expect he has a good method for Drumpf to use to deal with pesky liberals and socialists?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Maybe I'm just not understanding how these investigations happen or what constitutes valid evidence, but how can we ever really know who did a hack like this?
With VPNs, botnets, address spoofing, couldn't the actual hacker make it look like pretty much anyone else did it? A good hacker wouldn't be found at all, and a really good hacker would cover their own tracks and leave a trail that makes it look like it came from Russian intelligence.
So... looks like Putin convinced you to help elect Trump (his preferred candidate).
How does it feel to be a tool of Putin?
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Do they blame all of their cyber-problems on " Those American Hackers " ?
Or is it just this country where we blame whatever the problem of the week is on whatever country has a higher "Evil Quotient" at the time ?
( Usually Russia, China or Iran if you've noticed the trend )
And I also said that they shouldn't be claiming their emails are hacked by Russians, after all we've been hearing about hacked emails for the past year. They may be telling the truth, but making the argument at all is bad optics.
But then I hear this from Trump yesterday, clarifying his previous statements on NATO, which makes the Russian involvement seem more suspicious:
NATO. They ask me about NATO. Right? You saw that the other day, Meet the Press.
"Well, I hear you want to give up NATO..." I don't want to give up NATO. I like... NATO's fine. But they gotta pay. They gotta pay.
So we have all of these countries, and they're not paying. They're not paying. And we're protecting them.
And the question is: "If such-and-such a country were attacked, are you willing to start World War 3?" Because that's essentially what's happening. They don't pay.
They say, "Well, we have a treaty!" So they have these articles: "Donald Trump wants to give up NATO." No no no. I don't want to give up anything. I want them to pay.
We're a country. It's not 40 years ago, 50 years ago. And now, most people in this audience don't even know, that we're protecting Japan, China, we're protecting Germany! Nothing but money.
We're protecting Saudi Arabia. If we weren't around, Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia wouldn't be around for two weeks. We protect Saudi Arabia. They don't pay us what that should be paying. We're losing everything. Folks, we lose on everything.
We protect South Korea. We have 28,000 soldiers on the line, against the maniac on the right. We have 28,000 soldiers against North Korea, separated. Pretty dangerous stuff, considering he's got a million-person army. Pretty dangerous stuff.
So we're doing all this, and yet they're paying us a fraction of what it is.
I saw it with Japan. And by the way, I think it's fine- but they've got to pay us. We don't have the money. They gotta pay us. And they will pay us if the right person asks. If the right person asks. They will. They will.
Do you have any idea the difference that makes for our country if we get countries to take care of us the way they should.
We had a general recently, because we've been doing this, and he said, "Mr. Trump doesn't understand that Japan is paying almost 50 percent of the cost of what we do for them." And I said, why not 100 percent? Why? Tell me why. Tell me why.
Folks, we're run by incompetent people and it's going to end. And it's going to end soon. Because people aren't taking it anymore.
Now, when I talk about we're going to protect Japan, which is great, now, you always have to be prepared to walk. And I said, in one of the articles, they said, "Now what would happen if they didn't pay." I said, âoeWe have to walk."
Hillary Clinton said, "He wants to walk from Japan!" Now, see, what she did, she makes it impossible to negotiate. She's not a negotiator. She's a fool. She's a fool. No, she's a fool.
Because when you tell Japan- very smart people, great people, I have many friends there- but when you say you're not prepared to walk, you'll never walk? So she said, "How dare he say that! We will never walk!"
Then they're never going to pay us. We may have to walk! Folks, we may have to walk.
But- the same thing with Germany. We're spending a fortune in Germany. Same thing with Saudi Arabia. Let me tell you. Saudi Arabia? So we'll say this: "Folks, you gotta pay us. You gotta pay us. Sorry."
They're gonna say no. Bye-bye! Within two days, they're calling back, "Get back over here, we'll pay you whatever the hell you want."
OK? One hundred percent.
But whe
Irrelevant.
I don't remember this much controversy when the Russians were giving millions to the Clinton Foundation to award them with a giant uranium deal. Don't shoot the messenger on this one. She is what she is.
It's so hard to tell sometimes.
E.g. Treveonta, Adrianandious, Tyriekus ...
PARIS, TX - Paris Police have made two more arrests in the case of a man shot and killed just yards from his home last week.
Authorities say 17-year old Treveonta Clark and a 16-year old boy were arrested Tuesday afternoon and charged with capital murder, in the death of 28-year old Roland Williams.
21-year old Adrianandious Blackeyes and 18-year old Tyriekus Edwards were arrested Saturday and have also been charged with capital murder.
http://www.kxii.com/home/headl...
There is video of Donald Trump Jr saying just a year or two ago that the bulk of the Trump corporation profits now come from Russia.
I've been wondering if they affixed Reagan to some magnets by now because the Republican party backing a candidate that supports and admires (by his own words) a former KGB officer who's been running practice bombing runs on the US mainland for the last couple years along with threatening to abandon the NATO alliance and leave Europe in a lurch has got to have Reagan doing about 2000 RPM's and that's one hell of a source of energy right there.
The Irony is apparently lost on those who believe in a person 99% of them will openly admit is a liar, he's just not *wink* *wink* lying about the things they care about. Trump spits on the entire Legacy of Reagan and he's using Reagan's Election slogan! My god you've got people screaming about communists in the democratic party while at the same time supporting the guy that claims he respects the foreign one and will abandon allies we protected from being overrun by the same communists. You couldn't make this stuff up, if you tried no one would believe you because it's so outlandish.
I think that the most significant outcome of this whole story is that we've found the only conspiracy theory on this planet that the typical Trump supporter won't buy into.
Notice how "conspiracies" are only real when they don't imply the culpability of the western establishment
Then reflect on how utterly insane popular opinion is in general
I agree that the DNC is corrupt and badly in need of change. This is not the way to do it.
What is?
The Democratic party has a huge problem. It's also a pretty simple problem: If the US equivalent of the Australian Electoral commission got caught picking a favourite between one of the two major parties there would be a royal commission and a complete overhaul of our political system. The Democratic Party in America should be showing the same level of impartiality between candidates as the Electoral Commission does. It hasn't, and now people are rightly pissed off. This issue isn't going to go away. They have a serious problem on their hands and I don't think that merely putting Sanders on the ballot to run against Hillary for the nomination is enough to fix it.
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!
What the hell does number of deaths on each side have to do with anything? If 12 idiots with dull machetes attack 2 guys with AR-15s, the most the idiots can kill is 2. The most the 2 guys can kill is 12. Is it the 2 guys' fault that they get attacked by idiots with primitive weapons and a death wish?
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Vote for divided govt so Trump can't get anything done. A blocked Trump is better than President Hillary.
"back to an Internet server in Russia and to a digital address that has been linked in the past to Russian online scams"
Or maybe, he hacked the Russians to make it look like they did it.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Wait, in 2012, the Democrats said Russia wasn't a threat. Now they're claiming Russian has the power to influence our elections?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
No conspiracy necessary. His campaign is over, he didn't get the nomination, now he's recommending that his supporters make the best of a bad situation and elect a ho-hum stay-the-course centrist, the only candidate who can realistically win enough votes to keep a bigoted, inept and childish protofascist from winning the presidency.
If you have to step in a dog turd to dodge a bullet, you do it. It's the smart and sensible choice.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Ultra conservative? I don't think that means what you think it means. The whole Left Right is a little weak on details. DT will pander to whoever he needs to to get in. You have to look at DT and ask, "What is important to DT?" Those are the things that will get pushed. The problem is DT has a poker face. We don't really know what maters to him beside the obvious.
And if enough retards like you do what you are proposing to do, Trump gets elected and appoints ultra conservative justices to The Supreme Court. Do you have any idea how badly that is going to fuck things up for this country?
He should, he's old enough to vote and therefore has seen exactly what it's like to have a supreme court stacked with ultra-conservatives.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Funny thing, the Trump supporters are using the same tired argument...
How about we stop being told who to fear, and instead tell both parties to go to hell this go 'round?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
He said many times that whatever else happens, Donald Trump must be stopped. Do you think that throwing a vote to Jill Stein is going to stop Donald Trump?
In Soviet Russia, everyone works for the State!
Hey the Republican establishment is not in love with Trump. NeoCons are not for Trump. PaleoCons are not for Trump. Social Conservatives are not for a planned-parenthood, abortion loving Trump and small-government Libertarians are not for a big-government, eminent-domain grabbing, gun control type like Donald Trump.
The religious hard-right is for him. Not because of his faith or righteousness, but because he offers them the hope of power.
(As if they will be able to control him after he gets elected.)
Trump brought in disenfranchised voters in from the cold (as did Bernie). Look at closed caucus states and see how well Trump did. (He did not do well). If the Republican party was proportionate as the Democrat primary was (as opposed to winner take all/most) then Trump would not be the nominee. It would have been a contested convention with Trump barely having 1/3 of the total delegates.
I suspect the RNC will have a superdelegates mechanism in place before the 2020 election.
Most Republicans seem more worried about him winning than about him losing.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Can we get some coverage of the actual leaks, pretty please? Corruption at the DNC? Clinton's underhanded tactics? I mean, salient stuff like that. I don't care if it's Putin himself who got those emails.
If you have to step in a dog turd to dodge a bullet, you do it. It's the smart and sensible choice.
Eloquently stated.
I only partly agree with this. If a foreign country is trying to affect our elections, that's something worth considering. Especially because if they'll do something minor like this they may do something major and less-easily-traced later.
So people within our borders actively manipulating the elections is fine, but someone outside of our elections proving the fraud most of us suspected is bad. Got it.
This is very true. The DNC was unhappy with Sanders, but never thought he had a chance of winning and didn't do much against him. Some talk, but no action.
That is a Red Herring. Sanders was the only candidate allowed to compete and Hillary is so bad she would have lost if not for the cheating in the party.
I really don't know how primaries should work.
How about parties work as we tell people they work. The people get a group of candidates from which to choose from, and the party follows the people's voice. Does that not match the exact definition of "Democratic" that the party is named after?
That's a red herring. The DNC candidate has been under near-constant "investigations"
The Mark Twain quote about the 3 kinds of lies comes to mind reading this one. Hillary has a very long history of being viewed negatively. Her being under "investigations" does not sweep things under the rug, but is surely not the only issue with the negativity facing the person's statement. At least as important, these people (Hillary et. al) have all been found to be GUILTY of the charges people are investigating.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
It may be sensible if you live in a swing state, but it's completely nonsensical if you live in a solid blue or solid red state. Your vote for Clinton/Trump does nothing, your vote for a third party actually influences the major parties much more.
This space intentionally left blank
Seriously though, this was a Primary. Normal election laws don't apply to what is essentially a private club's internal voting. The Party probably has rules against it, and is supposed to remain impartial, but those are the Party's rules and it's up to the Party to deal with infractions.
Which they have done - they booed Debbie at breakfast. It hurt her feelings so badly that she had to resign and take a high level position in Hillary's campaign. Which she probably won't even get paid for! She'll have to deal with just the power and influence (and expense account) until the election is over and she takes her new position in the cabinet. Poor Debbie....
NATO alliance and leave Europe in a lurch.
will abandon allies we protected from being overrun by the same communists
Leave them in a lurch to the commies? They'll get to keep their socialized health care, and there will also be even less income inequality than there is now! ;-)
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
One of the most successful time periods for Athens was when people were ruled by those who lost the lottery and had to hold public office.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Actually, it oddly makes me feel a little better. While I'd hope he wouldn't sell out to the Russians, improving relations with Russia might not be a bad thing. Given his "my way or the highway" stances in the past I could have seen Trump Vs Putin as being quite a dangerous scenario.
Yes, why vote against Hillary or Trump when you can vote against BOTH HILLARY AND TRUMP!
Vote third party, ANY third party. If you really want to stick it to them, vote for the most likely 3rd party Gary Johnson because if he wins even a few electoral votes, it could prevent either candidate from securing the election and the House of Representatives will have to make the call. You can't just not vote or write in, because those don't get counted and thus might as well be a vote for the status quo.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
I was going to vote for Sanders and will now vote for Johnson. I live in a red state.
Yes, if enough people throw votes. You discouraging that is only making it more likely for Trump to not be stopped.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
First off, by referring to the question I asked as a 'conspiracy theory', you are suggesting that asking questions about the chain of evidence and motives of the parties involved is somehow a crazy crank idea. Subtle straw man type suggestion, there spanky.
It is possible that the DNC isn't saying anything on the advice of lawyers, or at the request of the FBI, CIA, NSA, military or other federal agencies, who are undoubtedly investigating the hell out of this. This was a cyber attack by a hostile foreign intelligence agency, not some script kiddies defacing a AOL web page, so there are going to be a lot of people looking into this.
It is also possible that the DNC is still trying to work out what is real and what isn't. A smart way to manipulate this sort of info is to leave 99% alone, and just change a few key things so there is an air of authenticity about it. It would take a little time to properly work out the dif of the two streams.
To be clear: I never said that the email isn't 100% authentic. I am just pointing out that only a truly stupid person wouldn't start asking a lot of questions about this info considering the source.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
1) In what universe is Trump ultra-conservative? Any reasonable interpretation is that he's center if not left (as he has supported in the past). He just happens to have some asshole tendencies that blind Democrat voters assume must be ultra-conservative.
2) You do realize Trump cannot just appoint anyone to the Supreme Court right? It does require the consent of the Senate... Obama can't currently appoint anyone to the SCOTUS, much less an ultra liberal one. What makes you think Trump will be able to get anyone in the SCOTUS when even Republican officials aren't willing to fully support him if they support him at all?
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
I'd say voting for the person that most closely aligns with your positions is not being a petulant child. Voting against somebody is closer to it, but decent short-term strategy. Let's put this problem of ultra-conservative justices where it really lies, at Earl Warren's feet. Without a massively powerful, activist Supreme Court, it wouldn't be that big of a deal to have conservative or liberal justices. Now, things get really complicated. When people have their guy in whatever office, they want that office to do what they want and grow their power. We've seen the legislature get weaker and the executive and judicial branches get much much stronger since the country was formed.
There are many, many more people in the legislature and it being more granular is a better representation of the people than the one or 7 members of the other branches. How did the legislature get so weak? I think it's because of people voting against the other guy instead of voting with the person that most closely aligns with their beliefs. We fall in to a two party system that naturally divides the population in half. That is it's either this guy or the guy most likely to beat this guy. The parties will always teeter around that equilibrium. People only want to give up as much as they have to to get what they want and by this process the 2 parties will always seek towards a 50/50 split of the voters.
I think everybody has a threshold for how many votes a candidate is likely to receive before voting for them. Anything less than that is throwing the vote away. When you disparage 3rd party voters, you lower the number of votes that go to 3rd party candidates and raise the number of votes for the two party system. This is then fed back in to the system so next time an election comes around it's evidence that nobody votes for 3rd parties.
So how do we get out of this? There are lots of complicated systemic ways to address the problem, but the most direct way is to support a legislature that will reign in the executive and judicial branches to lessen the sting of losing the monolithic executive branch to the guy you don't like, then start voting for the person in your legislature that you think will do the best job. This will destroy the two party system and provide more choices. Actually, I think these things are the same thing, just there is a two step process we need to go through. Step one is get the government back under control, step two is use the government to achieve progress. Actually, there is a third step too. Think long term and don't opt for the quick progress that weakens the whole system.
If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
I agree that the DNC is corrupt and badly in need of change. This is not the way to do it.
What is?
Elect local delegates, build a movement from the bottom up and change the rules. Don't try to switch out the top of the pyramid and pretend that will be effective.
Why would there ever be a conflict between Drumpf and Putin? Two narcissistic fascists on opposite sides of the northern hemisphere should be a good pairing. They also have common enemies in socialism, liberalism, and logic - which thankfully they don't need nukes to go after.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
These crimes were exposed by someone we don't like so much.
Best that the Hillary Haters (which is a family tradition in some cultures) could come up with is claiming violation of 18 U.S. Code  599.
Being the kind of people who don't need and don't care for actual facts as long as they think they fit their agenda - they are even quoting the wrong section.
18 U.S. Code  599 refers to CANDIDATES - not candidate's staff or candidate's party's staff.
But as they have such a hardon for Hillary, they are desperate to make something supposedly done by DNC automagically mean that it's an excuse for execution of Hillary.
What they SHOULD be quoting is section 600 - 18 U.S. Code  600.
Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Only problem is... at best, that would get them some people in the DNC that no one has ever heard of - not Hillary.
In reality, IT WOULD NOT GET THEM ANYONE cause it is NOT a crime - emails they are quoting prove so.
Key word is PROMISE. I.e. Give assurance of future events.
"IF you do this for me, I WILL do this for you."
Emails are AT BEST describing the exact opposite of that.
It's people ASKING FOR names of people to put on lists of potential nominees. And even that is not a certain nomination. They are LITERALLY asking for names of people who would they like to be CONSIDERED.
Any folks who you'd like to be considered to be on the board of (for example) USPS, NEA, NEH. Basically anyone who has a niche interest and might like to serve on the board of one of these orgs.
Not making promises. Looking for loyalists who have ALREADY pledged their loyalty.
"You DID stuff for me, MAYBE you'll be considered."
That's NOT a promise. At best it is compensation for past service... maybe...
And you can't legislate against that cause then the government would have to fire every government employee and dismantle every government program with every election.
Cause the fact that the candidate would be signing budgets, which pay for paychecks, of cops and judges, who have maintained law and order during candidate's past life - could be construed as compensation for past services.
And in the end, they are not even asking people directly - THEY ARE ASKING FOR RECOMMENDATIONS FROM OTHER PEOPLE!
They are asking for references for possible consideration.
So not only is it not a promise - it is not even a promise of a promise.
Casinos and lotteries make more direct promises than that.
But hey... screw that. Did you know that Hillary has a
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Bernie is not a democrat, so why would it surprise anyone that a independent trying to snag a democratic nomination might not be welcome by the democratic elite? OK, downvote away.
I have no idea how these talking points about DT necessarily appointing ultra conservative justices makes any sense.
Although it is highly unlikely to know what DT's position is on anything (he flip-flops all the time and talks off the cuff), his history of political donations doesn't indicate any ultra-conservative streak.
Not saying DT is the best candidate for the job, but these specific irrational fear-mongering talking points aren't really making a good case to vote against him. DT is definitely not Ted Cruz.
AFAIKT, both candidates attempted to throw a bone to the conservative wings of their respective parties by nominating Mike Pence and Tim Kaine.
But stick to your talking points, if that's all you got...
FWIW, that whole ultra-conservative justice talking point is mostly crapola this election cycle. Often this same talking point applied to the "Koch" brothers, but that's pretty misguided too. Politically, the Koch brothers can best be described as libertarian/progressive not ultra-conservative (and I think they are favoring, but not supporting HRC this year anyhow). That's like saying if you really feared the Koch brothers, don't vote HRC this time (wouldn't that be stupid).
What I think that democrats really fear is a non-activist court that doesn't want to advance federal concerns over states rights, but that doesn't rile up the base as much as warning it's gonna be an "ultra-conservative" court as that also fools the libertarian leaning wings of the democratic party to fall in line with the liberal wing of the party.
This is literally like shouting "Squirrel!"
The Dems have gone off their fucking nut.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
The Trump campaign should really be thanking the Democratic party for nominating the only person who could possibly lose to Donald Fucking Trump.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
No, it's saying they can't promise them the quality of the offer. Other emails draw attention to the fact that the sorts of appointments that can be handed out are going fast, and there's even a "last call" to staffers to get them the donor names/numbers so they can get it wrapped up. Yeah, it's relevant, because the very act of talking about the quality of the appointments left to dole out conveys the routine-ness of the DNC's activities in this regard.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Sanders said Clinton was not fit to be president. What exactly changed between then and now? Did Clinton all of a sudden become honest? Did she all of a sudden stop being corrupt? If the Democrats really want to defeat Trump then they shouldn't have nominated the only candidate who can lose to him.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
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++
If you have to step in a dog turd to dodge a bullet, you do it. It's the smart and sensible choice.
Have you seen the movie "Saw"? Exactly the same premise you came up with. Someone points a gun at you, puts a big pile of dog shit there, and then delights in how they make you jump in the dog shit in order to avoid being shot by the gun that they are shooting at you. It's no less sadistic than when the Democrats decide to nominate the second-most-disliked candidate in the history of presidential polling and then they tell everyone that we all need to vote for her in order to defeat the only person more disliked than she is. How about if I just decide I don't want to play their game? They had a chance to nominate someone that would have caused me to vote (enthusiastically) for the Democratic party, but they decided instead to nominate someone corrupt and now *I* have to make the sacrifice? I've seen this game before, I know how it ends. The only winning move is not to play. Neither major party gets my vote, and they only have themselves to blame. A lot of those delegates aren't all that super, they made their bed and now they get to lie in it.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
I'll bite. *How?*
I agree that the DNC is corrupt and badly in need of change. This is not the way to do it.
Oh, ok. How do you suggest we start the revolution, then? Why not just tear down the whole thing and rebuild? Wouldn't that ultimately be cheaper and less painful than trying to kill each termite and replace each board individually?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
They tried to keep Trump out but they failed.
How about working at the grassroots to make the Democrats more progressive, so next time a Bernie type candidate runs, he/she actually makes it?
Too much work?
Voting for the lesser of two evils still means you;re voting for evil.
My political opinions are so variant from the mainsteam that I've never had the privilege of voting for a candidate who represents the way I think or solve problems. Every election I've voted in has always been a case of choosing the least-worst candidate.
Frankly, the idea of not voting against the greater evil seems to be utterly brainless. Why would anybody knowingly let the greater evil win?
Seriously - it's like saying "Oh, I'm voting for Stalin because that Hitler guy is just nasty..."
First, you do know that the U.S. did ally with Stalin to defeat Hitler, right? Or does that piece of history just get glossed over these days?
Are you saying we shouldn't have?
And, second, the current candidates are really nothing like HItler nor Stalin. This is a Godwin's law reducto-ad-absurdum comparision, not relevant to the current election.
Protofascist? What definition of fascist are you using?
If anyone is a fascist it is Clinton. The evidence is there in her collusion with banking and large business interests.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Oh wow, is that what was missing? Not enough grassroots support for Bernie? That was the problem?
The ONLY support he had was grassroots. What he was lacking was the party support that they were contractually obligated to provide, the media coverage that those running the DNC didn't want him to have, and debates that would have exposed him to a larger audience and given him more a boost over Clinton.
In 2008 the Democrats had 26 debates. Clinton participated in all of them, Obama only missed one. Clinton, the "party favorite", lead Obama by 10 points at the start, 35% to 25%, and she would lead him by over 20 points eventually. But she lost her lead in February, and didn't get it back again. The party wasn't going to make the same mistake twice. In 2016 the DNC said that there were going to be 6 debates, because they don't want to threaten the impending coronation of Clinton, do they? Eventually a total of 9 were held, with Clinton and Sanders appearing in all of them. In the first debate support for Sanders was at 25% (sound familiar?), but Sanders didn't get above 40% before the debate schedule ended (in April; the last primaries happened in June).
But I'm sure that had nothing to do with it. I'm sure the problem was not that the DNC was actively working against Sanders and for Clinton, but just that Sanders didn't have enough grassroots support. Because if there's one thing this election showed, it's that Sanders had hardly any grassroots support.
But listen, I'm not trying to change the policies of any party. They can all nominate whoever they want, and I'm going to vote for the person that I think best represents me. If they want my vote, then they'll nominate someone who represents me. Clinton doesn't, and Trump doesn't, so neither of them have earned my vote (the Democrats could have made up a lot of ground there with a VP pick like Warren, but I guess it's better to pick some vanilla guy that no one outside of Virginia has heard of). It's really that simple. If polls of likability are any indication, then it's time to unseat both major parties from their positions and get another 1 or 2 parties into the mix. The 2 major parties don't even represent a majority of Americans, we need more choices. There are too many points of view to expect either major party to satisfy most people.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
A video edit comparing what Hillary Clinton claimed to what James Comey claimed after the FBI investigation highlights the distance between the two quite well and puts a fine point on the part where Comey says that if this had been anyone else who did what she did they might not get the same cushy response from the FBI she got.
And keep in mind that the US has very unclean hands here, according to Edward Snowden, former NSA contractor who would know what tools the NSA has available to look into this.
But of course the veracity of the documents leads us to the real story. Nobody claims the DNC emails were faked, just like nobody said the Snowden revelations were untrue. This helps us focus on what those documents show: Bernie Sanders was not lying to us when he said, "I told you a long time ago that theâ"that the DNC was not running a fair operation, that they were supporting Secretary Clinton.", and that he requests far too weak of a solution to remedy the problem (getting rid of Debbie Wasserman Schultz as chair of the DNC). And the emails show us that the DNC were telling amenable media outlets (such as NBC, if I recall correctly) which stories to not publish because they made someone they cared about look bad. Julian Assange's interview on Democracy Now is worth reading, it's quite revealing about how nasty the Clinton campaign is, sourcing the unnamed "experts" who told Robby Mook, Clinton campaign manager, that "Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails" and "are releasing these emails for the purpose of actually helping Donald Trump".
Digital Citizen
The Russians want Trump to be President. That bears repeating a couple of times. Just think about why that might be.
'Bears' repeating? Lolololoolllffppfppfffffffttttss......Russians.....bears....hahahahahaha.....
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
There is about a 50% chance the Republicans will hold both the house and senate meaning no divided government, a vote for Trump is a vote for at least another 4 years of Republican Tax Cut and Spend of the Bush years that sunk our economy and built 19 trillion in debt, in addition to the new abandoning our allies, destroying the world economy and likely starting a war because someone insulted him.
I'd rather elect Hillary and nothing really change.
Well spoken. The real story here is that a Russian dictator is trying very hard to influence our election for his own ends. This should interest and/or worry people given Putin's apparent designs.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Not catching symbols in an email and robing a bank are two very different things. That should go without saying. You appear to be in Drama Mode.
Table-ized A.I.
You misspelled "unprincipled sociopathic war criminal" there. Unfortunately it's not a choice of stepping into a dog turd to avoid a bullet, it's falling on a sword to avoid a bullet.
The only thing to do in that situation is use all available means to push the system into giving you more choices next iteration. Vote Green or Libertarian and demand electoral reform.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
So any hacker that uses an American computer, American VPN and can't speak Romanian automatically works for the US government? Is anyone seriously buying this argument?
Since everyone seems to have forgotten what was in the Manning leak on Wikileaks about Hillary Clinton this probably won't make make difference either despite what is in it.
Where did I contradict the FBI?
Table-ized A.I.
That's the benefit of hindsight and also generally having a clue about Russia/USSR. If you read about the Yalta conference it becomes very clear that FDR had no clue about Russia/USSR and had utterly no idea that Stalin was evil despite a lot of advice from his own experts and plenty of warnings from Churchill.
One of the triggers for the cold war was clueless people in high places suddenly discovering with shock and feelings of betrayal that Stalin really was as bad as Churchill said he was.
So it seems that FDR and others were not doing a "lesser of two evils" thing due to not paying attention to advice about Stalin and just going by Stalin's personality. FDR really did think he was "good old Uncle Joe" who was hated just for being a communist by some eggheads who wouldn't know a great man if they shook his hand. That's what a focus on national issues and being surrounded by a group of like-minded folk you trust while keeping real experts at a distance gets you. He was the sort of guy that thought you could judge a man by his handshake and Stalin was very good at manipulating such people.
Trump is likely to be a hundred times more clueless.
My point is the grassroots have to take over the Democratic party.
Just pushing one long shot candidacy is not enough, but if the progressives can take over just some positions within the party the next truly progressive candidate may very well pull through. You gotta go for the long haul.
I wonder if Donald Trump sits down and thinks: "So, the Russians want me to win. I wonder why...?"
Voting libertarian moves the republicans a bit toward libertarian ideals in the next election cycle to try to recapture those votes. Voting green moves the democrats a bit toward green ideals. Whereas voting for the "lesser evil" in a state whose electoral college votes are predetermined does nothing (ask Al Gore how much winning the national popular vote matters). A bit is greater than nothing.
This space intentionally left blank
So because he used a server and VPN in Russia he is an agent of the Russian gov't?
Is the server owned by Russian gov't or simply located within the Russian borders?
Isn't it reasonable that the VPN used to access the server in Russia is, uhm, Russian?
I'm confused, the third reason the attacker is an agent of the Russian gov't is because he can't speak Romanian? Doesn't the same report indicate that the source of the leaked emails was likely a group of hackers, not just one - which is it? The lone hacker that claims to be Romanian but can't speak Romanian OR a small group of hackers that work collectively under the name 'Guccifer 2.9'?
http://www.npr.org/2015/12/23/...
All told, a single donor can give more than $700,000 for the election.
That's serious money, according to campaign finance lawyer Brett Kappel.
He said, "It also shows you where campaign finance law has gone. We're now back in the era of soft money."
"Soft money" was the term for unregulated contributions to the party committees in the 1980s and '90s.
The soft money system led to corruption cases in both major parties, and Congress barred party committees from raising it in 2002.
But eight years later, the Supreme Court gave unregulated money a new path with Citizens United and other court decisions.
In a 2014 ruling in the case McCutcheon v. FEC, the Supreme Court elevated the importance of joint fundraising committees between campaigns and parties, such as the Hillary Victory Fund.
Campaign finance law had previously set an overarching limit on how much one person could give to federal candidates and the major parties â" combined â" in one election cycle.
In McCutcheon, the Supreme Court said that limit was unconstitutional.
As in other rulings, the court said removing the limit didn't raise questions of corruption.
You don't like that? Well, you can hop on your time machine and go and shoot down people responsible - two Bushes and a Reagan.
They appointed the guys who made it legal. Obama and Clinton appointed judges were against it.
http://www.npr.org/sections/th...
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down an overall cap on the amount that large campaign donors can give to parties and candidates in a two-year election cycle.
Chief Justice John Roberts led the opinion and was joined by justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito.
A separate but concurring opinion was written by Justice Clarence Thomas.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
tl:dr - They and the Reagan-Bush-Bush judges made it all perfectly legal.
Only "issue" at play is that Democrats are playing by Republican rules.
I.e. Acting like Republicans while talking like Democrats. Which they can't help - Republicans changed the rules of the game.
THAT is their problem, when facing their voters. But it is not illegal. Just immoral. You know... designed by Republicans.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
...to say "Vote Republican."
I.e. Vote Trump.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Political groups Majority (247)
Republican (247)
Minority (187)
Democratic (186)
And that's AFTER Republicans have done all they can to stall the Supreme Court nomination by Obama.
Why must Republicans always resort to stealing? Isn't lying (Hey! They're politicians. They have to lie to SOMEONE.) enough?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I would suggest that we need more parties involved, and let people pick from a more broad array of choices. Let the Democrats do whatever they want, if they want to continue on as the slightly more liberal version of Republicans, I don't want to tell them they need to change. I'm not going to vote for them, but I don't think they need to change if that's what they want to be. The same kind of support that Bernie had could be used to energize the Green, Libertarian, Constitution, etc parties and elevate them to the level where the media is forced to cover them, like what happened with Bernie.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
The republicans hate trump. Nobody's going to be working with him.
The way the system is designed in the US it strongly favours a bi-party state. (It's like the natural attractor in a chaotic system). IMHO another party will only be able to ascend if one of the major current ones goes the way of the Whig.
At any rate, establishing a new party will be harder then pushing the Dems towards a better place. Especially since biology will do half the work for you. The Bernie crowd is much younger than the establishment folks.
You,sir, are my new analogy, and I thank you.
The way the system is designed in the US it strongly favours a bi-party state.
At this point it's actually self-perpetuating. The Democratic and Republican parties created the Commission on Presidential Debates, and the billionaire Perot has been the only non-member of the two parties to appear in a prime-time televised debate. The Ds and Rs enforce their agenda by blacklisting any media outlet that shows a debate featuring a candidate from any other party, and the parties have enough contacts in the media which they are in bed with that threats of political boycotts of those media outlets also mean that they can stop media outlets from even reporting on other candidates. The leaked DNC emails show some of that collusion, DWS was on the phone with the head of MSNBC after one of their on-air personalities dared to suggest that DWS should step down as the chair for favoring Clinton. The parties are in bed with the media, and all together they effectively block any other party from gaining any significant following.
You can see it here too, there are plenty of people who are very happy to tell people that voting for another party is a waste of a vote (it's not), or it helps one of the major parties (it only helps the party you vote for), etc. That's the stranglehold that needs to be broken. This election is so far the most likely that I've seen for the general public to ask questions like why aren't Gary Johnson or Jill Stein allowed in the televised debates. The answer will naturally be some arbitrary thing like "they haven't reached X% of support, therefore they aren't included", even though it's obviously circular reasoning (they haven't reached the support because they aren't included). Gary Johnson is on the ballot in all 50 states, clearly it's possible for him to reach the 270 electoral votes necessary to win, so why would they shut him out? So that you only hear their own voices. Jill Stein is on the ballot in 23 states but it looks like she probably also has access to 270 electoral votes, or she's really close. Both parties should be part of the debates, and let the 50% or more of Americans who don't identify as either a Democrat or Republican decide who best represents them.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
If I were in Russia trying to hide my identity I would first not use Russian computers and second not use a Russian VPN. I would have plenty of bot machines and IPs I could use instead. If I was part of a government propaganda section, I am sure I would also have no problem finding a partner who could speak Romanian. Could this be a reverse con by a pro-Hillary actor trying to create anti-Trump propaganda?
It would be nice to have Gary Johnson and Jill Stein included in the debate, and it would probably help to defeat Trump.
But the dynamics I am referring to are much more fundamental and pre-date modern media. Throughout the history of the US the system always gravitated back to two parties in power under oligarchical control. Howard Zinn's "A People's History Of The United States" is quite an eye opener in that regard.
If another party manages to establish itself it will face the same kind of pressures, and if it survives one of the old ones will be replaced.
"The DNC is corrupt and badly in need of change! Don't do the one thing in your power to change it!"
Pull the other one.
See, there's your problem. You, who clearly failed high school civics, seem to think that the only recourse you have is to act like a petulant child and throw your vote away, very possibly allowing an unstable buffoon to get elected. That is not the way to get it done. Not even close.
I am a Romanian and this article is absolutely retarded. The guy does speak native Romanian very well and the fact that he used VPNs or servers from Russia proves nothing. If I hack a server from US and buy a VPN with some bitcoins, does this make me an US backed hacker ?
And if enough people do what you are proposing you will never end up with anything other then the choice between dumb and dumber. If all the D's who hate Hillary and R's who hate Trump would vote for one third party candidate instead US politics would be reformed overnight. Instead D and R continue the charade that nothing but Roe Vs Wade matters.
Wrong again. It has been said that all politics is local. If you want to see change, get involved in the Democratic party and do your part to make it into what you want to see. Don't be like the disaffected dipshits who are walking away from the election just because their candidate didn't get nominated.
Voters are getting way past tired of the "power structure" politicians.
In his first election, Obama was "none of the above", a stranger that was not known to be a corrupt pawn of the power brokers.
Hillery is the power structure's "strike back".
Trump is this election's "none of the above", and how !
Vote third party, every time. The powerful do look at how many votes they -didn't- get, and why.
And, vote for a change in all voting, to an "Approval Voting" system, where each voter gets one vote -for each candidate-. So you vote for all you can stand, and none that you can't stand. It would remove much of the power from the political parties. 8-)
First of all comparing either Hillary or Trump to Stalin or Hitler is a bit much. Neither of them are anywhere close. For specific example, Hitler had 6 million Jews killed, and Stalin killed 20 million land owners. To compare Hillary who may be a bit of a Wall Street shill, who will do little to change the status quo of wealth inequality, but may advance a few aspects of women;s rights is absurd. Likewise comparing the bombastic Trump who will say a lot of outrageous things, but will likely accomplish very little (other than be entertaining) in office should he manage to get there because there are plenty of democratic checks and balances is also a bit much. At most he could use is veto power to make sure even less is accomplished during his term.
As a side note, I wonder who people compared Stalin and Hitler to before there was Stalin and Hitler to compare people to?
"The Russians are coming, The Russians are coming, The Russians are coming" - Hillary Clinton Ironic, considering how much money the Clintons made off of selling State Department support for selling uranium mines to Russian concerns. The Uranium One sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Hillary Clinton.