Slashdot Mirror


FBI Probes Hacking of Democratic Congressional Group (reuters.com)

From a Reuters report: The FBI is investigating a cyber attack against another U.S. Democratic Party group, which may be related to an earlier hack against the Democratic National Committee , four people familiar with the matter told Reuters. The previously unreported incident at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, or DCCC, and its potential ties to Russian hackers are likely to heighten accusations, so far unproven, that Moscow is trying to meddle in the U.S. presidential election campaign to help Republican nominee Donald Trump. The Kremlin denied involvement in the DCCC cyber-attack. Hacking of the party's emails caused discord among Democrats at the party's convention in Philadelphia to nominate Hillary Clinton as its presidential candidate. The newly disclosed breach at the DCCC may have been intended to gather information about donors, rather than to steal money, the sources said on Thursday.

159 comments

  1. Cue the idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Time for all the idiots to start screaming that it doesn't matter because they're so blinded by their hatred of Hillary Clinton that they don't have any problem with Russia trying to interfere with the election.

    1. Re: Cue the idiots by tysonedwards · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Just because Trump asked Russia to do this, and Russian hackers did this doesn't mean there's a causal relationship.

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
    2. Re:Cue the idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The idiots are the ones willing to ignore what was said in those emails and voicemails. Clinton is repeating the past once again from Watergate to Whitewater and now Clintongate itself. This goes all the way to the top and it doesn't matter how many aides or chairmen/women fall on their swords for her. Hillary "Rotten" Clinton is the big establishment elitist nightmare this country needs to wake up from desperately. Bernie supporters have. It's too bad Sheeple Democrats haven't.

      captcha: preach

      Such a perfect captcha to describe whenever the truth is spoken here on leftdot.

    3. Re: Cue the idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      right... and the fact that trump has been selling properties to putin cronies for huge profit margins is simply coincidental

      but, throw any wildly inaccurate claims of criminality at Hillary and there are dozens of trolls popping up to ditto-head it and call it +1 insightful

    4. Re: Cue the idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actual quote:
      "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press"

      Trump asked hackers to travel back in time and hack the server when it was still online?
      or
      The server is still online which would be a pretty big story itself.
      or
      He asked them to release the emails they already have.

      I wonder which one it is.

    5. Re: Cue the idiots by bwcbwc · · Score: 1

      Well the Republicans do have a history of this. The reason almost all scandals nowadays have "-gate" appended to them (for example Deflate-gate) is because of the original Watergate scandal. That's when staffers in the Nixon Whitehouse hired burglars to break into the DNC offices in the Watergate office complex during the 1972 presidential campaign.

      Ironically, many of the other activities considered.scandalous at the time now seem routine: the use of the FBI and IRS to harass or entrap political dissidents was a big deal back then during the investigation.

      --
      We are the 198 proof..
    6. Re:Cue the idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should Russia care whether we vote for Kang or Kodos?

    7. Re: Cue the idiots by Kierthos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or he was just saying shit to stay in the news cycle. Don't get me wrong, I'm not apologizing for Trump. But he has a pathological need for attention. So, he says all kinds of stupid shit to get attention, and then gets more attention by saying it was a joke, or you "obviously" misunderstood him.

      So, yeah, not something you want in a President. Not that Hillary Clinton is perfect by any stretch of the imagination, mind you, but I'm not up for giving the launch codes to a temperamental man-baby.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    8. Re: Cue the idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Better properties than uranium.

      Right wing NY Times story:
      http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

    9. Re: Cue the idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The registered leftdotters are already patting themselves on the back with mod points. They won't listen to you or the truth, but anyone who actually saw Trump speak knows it's "He asked them to release the emails they already have."

    10. Re: Cue the idiots by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Just because Trump asked Russia to do this, and Russian hackers did this doesn't mean there's a causal relationship.

      Nah, Trump hacked this himself alone. He already said, "Only I alone can hack this!"

      Hillary said that, "We can all hack this together!"

      What wonderful election choices we have . . .

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    11. Re: Cue the idiots by gtall · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The trigger happy twitter fingers of Trump is what gets the security service guys nervous. He is scheduled to get his first security briefing. There's nothing stopping him from tweeting that information and then blowing up the reaction into another Media Moment for himself. If he makes it big enough, it would look like the Federal Government is singling him out. That they should do but it will only play into his hands. His sycophants in the Republican party will tut-tut and claim it isn't that bad. His infantile voters will find a way to stomach it because he's Telling it Like it Is and Blowing Against the Man.

    12. Re: Cue the idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, he's being sarcastic and taking a shot at the press?

    13. Re: Cue the idiots by Kierthos · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, I have to figure that a lot of people are worried that Trump can't keep his mouth shut when it comes to classified information. Mind you, if he does deliberately spout classified information, it can only hurt his campaign in the long run, because it shows that he shouldn't have been allowed that information in the first place.

      What they need to do is give Trump and Clinton slightly different briefings... still accurate, but formulated that in the event that one or the other of them leaks it (not just on Twitter), it's easier to trace back to which one of the two leaked the information. They've caught spies before that way.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    14. Re: Cue the idiots by Crashmarik · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah it's a sad day in America when we need the Russians to expose our corruption.

      Because the Media and the Justice System won't do their damn jobs.

    15. Re: Cue the idiots by Mashiki · · Score: 0, Troll

      Don't forget her cattle futures, or the number of people dead surrounding her. From bodyguards to people directly involved with her, and dying from things like two bullets in the back of the skull after crawling 150ft uphill.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    16. Re: Cue the idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ironically, many of the other activities considered.scandalous at the time now seem routine: the use of the FBI and IRS to harass or entrap political dissidents was a big deal back then during the investigation.

      Oh please, the GOP was screaming high-hell about the IRS investigating some non-profits not so long ago.

      It never got traction because it was routine business, not thugs in the night, but hell, the right-wing in this country has had the problem of trying to make mountains out of molehills for years.

    17. Re: Cue the idiots by guises · · Score: 1

      Those are the only possibilities that you can come up with? Trump's comment more than anything sounds like Gingrich in 2012 when he was publicly "not communicating" with his PAC.

      It sounds as though Trump is asking Russia for help in getting elected. In my opinion this is a problem regardless of whether or not it involves further criminal activities.

    18. Re:Cue the idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Okay you don't like the guy I get it. A lot of people don't like the guy. As for the "blinded" sentiment. Let me ask you something, except from some sound bites on CNN have you heard any of the guys speeches? Trump didn't say he asked Russia specifically to do anything. He mentioned in a speech that if they "had" the now deleted files, it would be great if they shared them.

      But no, me who you just called an idiot who listens to what someone says and makes a decision based on what that person says is branded an idiot from making an informed opinion.

      Wow. I guess that's why they call television programming, "programming". It is as if you can not only manipulate peoples way of thinking but turn smart people into complete malleable fools.

    19. Re: Cue the idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except of course for the fact that Trump didn't ask them to hack them. If he asked anything at all (seriously) it was for the Russians to provide the emails which the FBI said they likely have anyways. But why let facts get in the way of a good partisan rant.

    20. Re: Cue the idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But he has a pathological need for attention.

      a) He is afterall "running for president"
      b) Yeah, Hillary would never do the same right?

    21. Re: Cue the idiots by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

      Pretty much ALL politicians leak classified like a sieve. I suspect that the daily briefs are sufficiently sanitized that the important data, i.e. "means and methods" are sufficiently obscured to the point that the intelligence sources, if not the information, is protected. However, that doesn't always seem to be the case.

      Example of this would be the 1998-era reports that the US was listening in on Osama bin Laden's sat phone. Soon after it leaked, bin Laden reportedly ceased using it, destroying the source, if not the means of collecting the data. ( Ops note: even the report of the leak is under dispute, depending on your source. . . .)

      But I also suspect that a Candidate briefing is likely only at the "Secret" level. Honestly, it's too much of a risk to brief the really sensitive stuff, aka "SCI", until they've at least been elected. . .

    22. Re: Cue the idiots by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 0

      But he has a pathological need for attention.

      He's a Presidential candidate, the entire process is about getting attention. Hillary gets plenty of free attention because she's a Democrat, Trump has to work for it.

      I don't know what I hate worse: Trump or the idiots who make up stupid shit about him.

    23. Re: Cue the idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We can hope that he wont at least strip the classification off the material and then have that 0information transferred to an insecure email server.

      Look at the bright side, he might say something that breaches national security and they could jail him. Oh wait a minute, maybe not, because when Hillary actually did that very same thing they didn't.

      Oh no we mustn't trust Trump.

    24. Re: Cue the idiots by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      Yeah it's a sad day in America when we need the Russians to expose our corruption.

      Because the Media and the Justice System won't do their damn jobs.

      The Russians only exposed wrongdoing by breaking US law. Are you suggesting the US media and judicial system do the same. Seems paradoxical.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    25. Re: Cue the idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The funny part is the taco bowls in the emails

    26. Re: Cue the idiots by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just because Trump asked Russia to do this, and Russian hackers did this doesn't mean there's a causal relationship.

      He didn't "ask Russia to do this". He was joking about Clinton's missing 30,000 emails. Emails that are apparently now a national security concern even though they're just about yoga and Chelsea's wedding, according to Hillary.

    27. Re: Cue the idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Really ?

      Hmmm "No reasonable prosecutor would bring the case against Hillary Clinton"

    28. Re: Cue the idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      By asking them to release emails. Again the only way he could do that is one of those options.

      Unless there is video of him blinking in morse code some other message during that speech, you are completely making shit up to fit what you wish reality is.

    29. Re: Cue the idiots by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      There does not need to be such a relationship. There merely needs to be a candidate for POTUS who thinks Russia is the US's bestest buddy, and should help that candidate out by hacking his competitor's network to dig up dirt.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    30. Re: Cue the idiots by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      You call off the cuff remarks that are often implausible or borderline retarded "working for it"? I see Trump do precious little actual work. He seems almost willfully ignorant of constitutional and legal matters, and seems to be in no hurry to learn any of these things.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    31. Re: Cue the idiots by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, if you just interpret Trump's bizarre statements in just the right way, with just the right amount of rationalization, suddenly he's a genius!

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    32. Re: Cue the idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump didn't ask ANYONE to do this, you fucking moron. God, you liberal twats need to be put down like rabid dogs. Too stupid for your own good.

    33. Re: Cue the idiots by GLMDesigns · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who released STUXNET info for political purposes so as to look important?

      That wasn't Trump was it? No. It was the clown who is currently in the office.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    34. Re: Cue the idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You must work for the media, good spin there. I just have 2 words 'Pentagon Papers'...

      Ok. More than 2 words. The media & the Justice Department don't have to break the law to 'do their jobs', the latter has the power of warrants to compel turning over all documentation they want. Given the content of the released e-mails ask yourself if the JD is really doing their jobs by not investigating the 'pay-for-play' comments at a minimum. Why is the media not following up on that? Why has the media, by & large, given the Clinton Foundation and Hillary herself a pass based on verified information in Clinton Cash? No, just let her go on 60 Minutes and throw soft-ball questions at her...let her completely skate on a simple question about whether or not its improper for members of the DNC to favour one person over another (note the question didn't ask about THESE e-mails just 'any attempt')...its a simply 'yes/no' question. How hard is it for that talking head asking the questions to do a simple/quick follow up on her answer eg. 'The question wasn't about this incident, I'm just asking if in your view any attempt to influence the candidate selection is improper.'

      Now, don't get me wrong, Trumps a complete ass. But Hillary is NOT the person you want as President either. If the media & JD had been doing their jobs maybe, just maybe the American people would have better candidates than these 2 jokers to vote for.

    35. Re: Cue the idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      or
      He asked them to release the emails they already have.

      I wonder which one it is.

      Pretty much this. Donald Trump asked the hackers to release the emails if they have them. Anti-Trump press outlets are reporting it as him asking the hackers to go out and hack Hillary Clinton which is patently false. It further undermines the credibility of the press to have these headlines out there saying Trump is calling on foreign hackers to hack Hillary Clinton... they already hacked her and he is just calling for them to release the missing emails that she illegally deleted in the first place.

      It seems that 90% to 95% of what press reporting is out there is agenda driven spin which bends any semblance of the truth beyond its breaking point.

      Trump certainly says things that are over the top, but then the press appears to need to take it a step further in their "interpretation" and put words in his mouth that he simply did not say.

      I am not a Trump supporter. I really hope that neither Trump or Clinton win as either would be very very bad for the United States, Gov. Johnson appears to be the only rational, not evil, and qualified candidate on the ballot.

      But more disturbing than who is going to get elected president is the lack of an Independent free press in the US. That is what is going to kill us.

    36. Re: Cue the idiots by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      seems to be in no hurry to learn any of these things.

      Trump himself has said that he will make decisions in the Oval Office based on "what he knows beforehand" and "his common sense" not based on pulling enough information from people who know better than he does. In fact, he also claimed that he knows more about the Iraq War than the generals who were in charge of it. Even setting my policy disagreements with him aside, the idea of a President who would make decisions based on the first thing that pops into their head instead of based on getting all of the available information is scary - no matter what party they belong to.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    37. Re: Cue the idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Pulitzer for Putin!

    38. Re: Cue the idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Russians only exposed wrongdoing by breaking US law. Are you suggesting the US media and judicial system do the same. Seems paradoxical.

      The US media and judicial systems have already bent over backwards to support the breaking of the law and the creation of new law in the favor of the powerful and well connected.

    39. Re: Cue the idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think the President gets to launch nukes himself? He has a button his desk to fire nukes? Are you really that stupid?

      Stop being a moron. There's a chain of command to approve such an order. Boy you're an idiot. I'm going to start calling you Kierthos the Idiot. Everyone will know how stupid you are.

    40. Re: Cue the idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you actually MET a reasonable prosecutor? Most are out for blood and to look amazingly good. You'd think justice or fairness would be reasonable. I'm afraid it doesn't appear that way.

    41. Re: Cue the idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't forget her cattle futures, or the number of people dead surrounding her. From bodyguards to people directly involved with her, and dying from things like two bullets in the back of the skull after crawling 150ft uphill.

      Oh my, citing that oft-discredited Clinton Death List?

      Mashiki, are you trying to make yourself look bad?

    42. Re: Cue the idiots by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Informative

      Do you think the President gets to launch nukes himself? He has a button his desk to fire nukes? Are you really that stupid?

      Apparently you are rather ignorant of the process. While the president doesn't have a button on his desk, he does have the authority to order a nuclear strike. Nuclear football

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    43. Re: Cue the idiots by jimbolauski · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hmmm "No reasonable prosecutor would bring the case against Hillary Clinton"

      I suspect making an offer that no reasonable prosecutor could refuse falls into that category.

      hiLIARy sent and email instructing her staff to remove the classified marking from documents so they could send them unsecure.
      FBI Director James Comey testified that there were 3 classified emails that had portion markings on them, that would happen only if her employees removed the header and footer markings of a classified document and missed some of the portion markings in an effort to send them unsecure.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    44. Re: Cue the idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Story about Obama firing head of the IRS over as you say "routine business".

      I guess you are calling Obama a liar then. Or did you read the spin before it got so bad they had to do something and failed to notice what they admitted to?

    45. Re: Cue the idiots by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      The trigger happy twitter fingers of Trump is what gets the security service guys nervous. He is scheduled to get his first security briefing. There's nothing stopping him from tweeting that information and then blowing up the reaction into another Media Moment for himself.

      Hey. Democrats said they wanted a more transparent government when Obama got into office. Maybe the Republicans will actually give it to them.

    46. Re: Cue the idiots by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      You call off the cuff remarks that are often implausible or borderline retarded "working for it"? I see Trump do precious little actual work. He seems almost willfully ignorant of constitutional and legal matters, and seems to be in no hurry to learn any of these things.

      And when you consider that the President's main job is to be the public face and representative of the USA and it's people to the governments of the rest of the world and their people, it all seems like electing your drunk uncle to run the family business. He isn't even president yet and I think two countries have considered his entry into their country due to things he's said.

    47. Re: Cue the idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But he has a pathological need for attention.

      Presidential candidate understands how media works, film at eleven.

    48. Re: Cue the idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It must have been on the morning handout at the russian troll factory this morning

      it is more than obvious that they have been supporting trump, I just have to wonder who actually bought slashdot now and if they are simply renting it out to the trump campaign or if it was bought lock stock and barrel

    49. Re: Cue the idiots by Bartles · · Score: 1

      He didn't cite it. You did.

    50. Re: Cue the idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah it's a sad day in America when we need the Russians to expose our corruption.

      Because the Media and the Justice System won't do their damn jobs.

      The Russians only exposed wrongdoing by breaking US law. Are you suggesting the US media and judicial system do the same. Seems paradoxical.

      What you call breaking the law we used to call whistle-blowing.

    51. Re: Cue the idiots by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Lerner wasn't fired. She resigned. And now collects $100K a year in pension benefits. No one was fired. In fact, I can't think of a single person this administration ever fired.

    52. Re: Cue the idiots by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Won't Russia rid me of this meddling Democrat?

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    53. Re: Cue the idiots by Bartles · · Score: 1

      You should be able to provide a quote, then.

    54. Re: Cue the idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You mean if you interpret it the way he said it, instead of the insane logical leap your have to make about hacking an offline server.

    55. Re: Cue the idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No he didn't you are right, instead he asked the hackers who hacked the email server to leak all of the hacked contents. It's apples and oranges, but both fruits are fucking poison. What he said was wrong whether it was a joke or not.

    56. Re: Cue the idiots by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

      Does anyone think, if there is a President Trump, that both the Republican and Democrat leadership won't have Articles of Impeachment pre-written, just fill in the blanks? With all the bridges to the rest of the GOP that Trump has napalmed, he would be impeachment bait, big-time. He'd have to watch his step very carefully, or he'd be bounced onto the sidewalk on Pennsylvania Avenue so hard the cement would crack.

    57. Re: Cue the idiots by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 0

      Don't forget her cattle futures, or the number of people dead surrounding her. From bodyguards to people directly involved with her, and dying from things like two bullets in the back of the skull after crawling 150ft uphill.

      Oh my, citing that oft-discredited Clinton Death List?

      Oh my, citing that oft-discredited agenda-driven Snopes website?

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    58. Re: Cue the idiots by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I have to figure that a lot of people are worried that Trump can't keep his mouth shut when it comes to classified information. Mind you, if he does deliberately spout classified information, it can only hurt his campaign in the long run, because it shows that he shouldn't have been allowed that information in the first place.

      Well, he keeps his own secrets pretty well. You haven't seen anything from his tax returns, have you?

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    59. Re: Cue the idiots by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2

      In fact, he also claimed that he knows more about the Iraq War than the generals who were in charge of it.

      I thought what he said was that he knows more about ISIS than the generals...

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    60. Re: Cue the idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More scary is that there is A LOT of people wiling to vote for a guy like that, no matter what
      If he lose, that people will still be there ready to vote for a moron or worst by the next election
      and the one after that....

    61. Re: Cue the idiots by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Except you're wrong - Here's the whole thing in context. Start at about 5:40

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    62. Re: Cue the idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      From the article that you linked:
      ***Kirby confirmed the Times report but then said it appears that in both instances the markings were the result of “human error” during the development of “call sheets,” which are memos that contain information that can be used when talking to foreign leaders. The department marks a portion of the call sheets as “confidential” — the lowest level of classified information — until the secretary makes a decision whether or not to call the foreign leaders. He explained that this is done to give the secretary time to make a decision and to avoid potential embarrassment if it turns out that the secretary decides not to call the foreign leader.
      Kirby said based on the email traffic, it appears that Clinton had already made the decision to call then Malawi President Joyce Banda and Annan, so the “confidential” markings should have been removed when Hanley sent the emails.***

    63. Re: Cue the idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt the Democratic Party will be able to take by the House of Representatives, where any articles of impeachment must originate.

    64. Re: Cue the idiots by crow_t_robot · · Score: 1

      The classification wasn't stripped; it had not gone through classification yet.

      The server wasn't insecure and it has never been shown to have been breached. It was an unauthorized server and considering the quality of work that gov contractors do it was most likely much more secure.

    65. Re: Cue the idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently *you* are rather ignorant of the process. He and *another party* (typically SecDef) hav the authority to order a nuclear strike.

    66. Re: Cue the idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The classification wasn't stripped; it had not gone through classification yet.

      Wrong. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/13/official-clinton-inner-circle-may-have-stripped-email-classification-markings.html

      The server wasn't insecure and it has never been shown to have been breached. It was an unauthorized server and considering the quality of work that gov contractors do it was most likely much more secure.

      And wrong again. https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/

    67. Re: Cue the idiots by guises · · Score: 1

      I'm not aware of anything besides the quote above, here it is again: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press"

      This quote, with no other context, makes it sound as though Trump is asking Russia for help in getting elected. I thought I was pretty clear when I said that before. I need no further input, blinks or otherwise, to read that quote and see that Trump is asking Russia for help in getting elected. It comes from the part where he asks Russia for help in getting elected and then says that they'll be rewarded if they do so.

    68. Re: Cue the idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, they hopped right in their time machine and hacked the DNC servers last January because of what Trump said last week.

      You're a fucking idiot.

    69. Re: Cue the idiots by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      While the president doesn't have a button on his desk, he does have the authority to order a nuclear strike. Nuclear football

      Speaking of ignorance of the process. This is a myth also. The release of nuclear weapons and their use depends on several complex situations and who has that authority has changed through out the years. But at no point in the history after WWII has any president had the authority order a nuclear strike completely on his own, unless it is a response to an attack U.S. mainland or those of her allies.

      The President can not simply get out of bed, put on his house slippers, wonder down to the oval office and nuke someone. I believe as it currently stands the use of nuclear weapons requires a 3 step process. First the recommendation has to come from the Joint Chief of Staffs. This recommendation has to go through the Secretary of Defense, who has to approve the use. Then the recommendation goes to the presidents desk for approval.

      It's at this point that if all three are in agreement then the president will order the release of the codes from the "nuclear football." Most importantly the Secretary of Defense has to confirm the release of these codes too. Only when these conditions are met can nuclear weapons be used.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    70. Re: Cue the idiots by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Oh I didn't have to cite it. Many of those cases actually did happen. But you did know that said snopes death list uses rational wiki for most of their sources on that? Yeah, there's that really credible list. Rational wiki, a site so in deep with conspiracy theories that it makes truthers look sane and balanced.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    71. Re: Cue the idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh I didn't have to cite it. Many of those cases actually did happen.

      Of course, you didn't have to cite it, this is an informal message board, not a court of law. You can claim anything you want in it.

      But it would help to be clear. If you aren't offering an alternative, I must go with what is existent.

      But you did know that said snopes death list uses rational wiki for most of their sources on that? Yeah, there's that really credible list. Rational wiki, a site so in deep with conspiracy theories that it makes truthers look sane and balanced.

      Oh, the irony. You do realize that being insane and unbalanced is the criticism of the Death List that you are apparently citing?

      But no, I see no reference on the Snopes page to rationalwiki, let alone the debunking of it.

      You see, you are the one with the credibility problem, you want to believe in the truth of these accusations so deeply you won't even think to doubt it.

      Or consider how it makes you look.

    72. Re: Cue the idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He didn't cite it. You did.

      Oh my, are you going to claim he was talking about something else?

      Mashiki didn't dispute the confirmation, instead going into some strange bloviation about rationalwiki.

      Look, you can be an idiot and cling to that deceit ridden screed if you want, but that'll just make whatever you do have to say less likely to be heard.

      People have learned to tune you out when you start frothing at the mouth.

      And that is what you are doing.

    73. Re: Cue the idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I will say Obama has a problem with reacting to allegations improperly.

      I said this when it was Shirley Sherrod too. Or that first debate with Romney. I don't know why, but Obama just seems to take frivolous accusations seriously.

      Maybe he just needs more exposure to inoculate him to trolls.

    74. Re: Cue the idiots by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Of course, you didn't have to cite it, this is an informal message board, not a court of law. You can claim anything you want in it.

      You mean besides it makes you look crazy? Up next you'll claim that Hillary is an upstanding person and was all for the terror designation for Boko Haram as a terrorist group right? OH wait...she was actively against it so friends of hers(including the Obama's and their friends) could cash in on money relating to it. Remember #bringbackourgirls and all that SJW feel-good activism? Yeah. You support one of the worst politicians in modern history.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    75. Re: Cue the idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The shoe on the other foot hurts? The U.S. Overturned how many popularly elected governments?

    76. Re: Cue the idiots by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Oops. You're right. Though, in my defense Trump has said so many crazy things it's hard to keep track at times.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  2. Investigate, but still no arrests due to contents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is no one being charged on Hatch act violations? Illegal campaign financing (money transfer pinball)?

  3. Government or hired? by bwcbwc · · Score: 1

    I don't think Vlad P is _that_ invested in having Trump win. If he is, Trump's ties to him go deeper than mere admiration.

    More likely is that someone else has hired the hackers. Those super PACs need to spend their money somewhere.

    But I'd say the most likely scenario is that the Republicans have been hacked too, but their security is so crap they haven't even realized it.

    --
    We are the 198 proof..
    1. Re:Government or hired? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      There's a 100% chance that everyone has been hacked; the question is only what you define as hacked (downloaded malware on their network? CHECK!) and scope of damage.

    2. Re:Government or hired? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would explain all the leaked emails, voicemails, etc. from the Republican party.

    3. Re:Government or hired? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think Vlad P is _that_ invested in having Trump win.

      trump tower condos will skyrocket in value

    4. Re:Government or hired? by Script+Cat · · Score: 1

      Maybe the Republicans were hacked but it just shows bias against the DT, so no one would care.

      No, Just kidding! There d'ain't need to be anything to care about in the leaks to publish them.

    5. Re:Government or hired? by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think Vlad P is _that_ invested in having Trump win. If he is, Trump's ties to him go deeper than mere admiration.

      Anything that hurts the US and weakens America's influence in the world helps Russia. Putin probably sees 2 likely outcomes with Trump winning: Trump does exactly what he has campaigned on and the US becomes protectionist, isolationist, and it's economy stagnates; leaving a large power vacuum that Russia could neatly slide into; or Trump wins, becomes a Putin/Erdogan-lite president and spends most of his time consolidating power, fighting off a hostile Congress, and trying to rebrand the White House as the Trump White House (or maybe just the Trump House?), leaving Putin alone to continue his Eastern European anschluss and growing influence in the Middle East. Either way, a Trump win is a Putin win.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    6. Re:Government or hired? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, why wouldn't they support the candidate they already bought so long ago? It is crazy to think that they would prefer to support Trump who, as far as I know thus far, has not yet been purchased by Russian interests.

    7. Re:Government or hired? by meta-monkey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But what Trump has actually said about Syria and ISIS is that 1. toppling Assad was a bad idea because he was keeping the jihadis in check and 2. thinks a no-fly zone over Syria is dumb because ISIS doesn't have planes and there's no reason to antagonize Russia as they drop their million dollar a pop bombs on ISIS.

      Putin's no good guy but he's on the right side of the fight against Islamic jihad. I would think he'd want Trump in power because Trump will join with Putin against ISIS, unlike Hillary, who destabilized Syria in the first place by arming the moderate beheaders and seems far more concerned with toppling Assad than beating ISIS.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    8. Re:Government or hired? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Putin's no good guy but he's on the right side of the fight against Islamic jihad. I would think he'd want Trump in power because Trump will join with Putin against ISIS, unlike Hillary, who destabilized Syria in the first place by arming the moderate beheaders and seems far more concerned with toppling Assad than beating ISIS.

      You are missing the point. Yes, ISIS is bad. Needs to have its ass kicked. But they are not a superpower, and they will never become one. The real conflict - the one for trillions of dollars and global domination - is between the superpowers: the United States, Russia, and China.

      Why do these three countries care about what happens in the Middle East? Because there's a fuckton of oil there. Yes, all three superpowers have their own fucktons of oil on their own respective territories -- but if you're a superpower, wouldn't it be nice to have influence over the rest of the oil market too?

      So that's what the real battle is about: TPP is our attempt to keep the rest of Asia trading with the US, and not be dependent on China. Ukraine is about Putin's attempt to retake territories and resources formerly held by the USSR before its collapse. And NATO is our attempt to integrate those same territories and resources into the West. Israel and Turkey are our "sorta friendly" airbases. Syria is Russia's "sorta friendly" airbase. The prize in the middle east is control of the oil of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and a shot at Iran's oil. ISIS is merely the excuse the superpowers are using this year.

      Putin absolutely wants Trump to win -- not because of Trump's policy on ISIS, but because he knows Trump, having no foreign policy experience of his own, will be easier to influence and manipulate. Especially with folks like Paul Manafort (this guy has a long history of working for dictators, and his last big contract was working for Putin's Yanukovich before the Ukraine blew up) on Trump's team telling Trump exactly what to think.

      Geopolitically speaking, this election isn't about Trump vs. Hillary. It's about whether you want US foreign policy to be directed by Americans (however crooked one of them might be) or by the Russians (however strong they might make their voters feel). Given that choice, I'd suggest voting for the crook: it's important.

    9. Re:Government or hired? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Syria and IS are today's problems. They're not nearly as important to someone like Putin as NATO and America's long term isolationism.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    10. Re:Government or hired? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Putin's has pretty clear and limited criteria for involvement in neighboring countries. While I think it is valid to be critical of Putin consolidating Russian control, power and influence over majority Russian parts of the former Soviet Union, the propaganda in the West that somehow Putin is on the march and is a threat to his non-Russian neighbors is false. Putin clearly has no interests in territories where a majority of non-Russians live.

      Putin isn't the Soviet Union trying to take over the world for some false ideal of Communism. Putin isn't ISIS trying to unite Muslims to take over the world in the style of Medieval Islam. Putin is a Russian nationalist looking to create a Russian sphere of influence over the territories of the former Soviet Union that are populated by Russians that are for the most part agreeable to the idea of a Greater Russia.

      The right of self determination used to actually be something the US believed in as a moral democratic principle going back to President Woodrow Wilson. That principle of self determination and liberty should include the right of majority Russian areas to agree to reunite with Russia if they so choose.

    11. Re:Government or hired? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I don't have any confidence that Hillary can contend with him, either. She'll probably subvert our security practices and leak all our data to Russia... again.

      So I ascribe the mere fact that the focus has shifted to Russia as just another smoke screen to keep us from thinking about the depths of the corruption in the Democratic party. A party that has proven its own party workings are, in actual fact, less democratic than the Republican party's.

    12. Re: Government or hired? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that choice, I'd suggest voting for the crook: it's important.

      That should be Hillary's campaign slogan: VOTE FOR THE CROOK, IT'S IMPORTANT.

      It pretty much summarizes what her supporters are actually saying.

    13. Re:Government or hired? by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Geopolitically speaking, this election isn't about Trump vs. Hillary. It's about whether you want US foreign policy to be directed by Americans (however crooked one of them might be) or by the Russians (however strong they might make their voters feel). Given that choice, I'd suggest voting for the crook: it's important.

      You're exactly right. But, I'm frankly tired of the proxy wars and the droning of brown people in sand for the control of oil and gas and, of course, pipelines. Not to mention the regime-change agenda over there that started during the W. Bush administration.

      So I don't want Hillary in charge to further that agenda and escalate things over there. The only good it does for anybody is to line the pockets of multinational corporations (and, of course, the politicians that help them gain access to resource they can exploit). And those guys don't give two figs about America or Americans. They don't even bother paying US taxes on all those gains - most of it they stick in some foreign tax haven somewhere so they can get to it when they're ready to retire to one of their tropical villas where all the local officials are already owned (by them).

      So, yea, if you're all concerned about continuing to squeeze the middle class of their ever-dwindling wages so you can spend it fighting foreign wars to prop up the globalists and the bankers, by all means support Hillary as your candidate. For me, I'd rather leave them to their own devices. We'd be better off working in the weapons factories and selling bombs and ammo to the ones left there fighting over some desert. We've got enough of our own gas and oil to do just fine until they're done bombing each other to oblivion and have established the caliphate in the EU.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
  4. Naturally they'll investigate to help HRC. by sethstorm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They won't prosecute if it's Her Highness, but they'll be happy to prosecute if there's an unsubstantiated allegation that besmirches Her Highness.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:Naturally they'll investigate to help HRC. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't Her Highness have deep ties to Russia anyway? You would think they would be attacking republicans to secure more uranium.

    2. Re:Naturally they'll investigate to help HRC. by JackieBrown · · Score: 3, Informative

      The whole democrat party has history and ties with Russia and has never seen Russia as a threat to the US until the democrat party was targeted.

      "President Barack Obama was caught on camera on Monday assuring outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he will have "more flexibility" to deal with contentious issues like missile defense after the U.S. presidential election."
      http://www.reuters.com/article...

      "Gov. Romney ... a few months ago when you were asked what is the biggest geopolitical group facing America, you said Russia, ...And the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back. Because the Cold War has been over for 20 years. But Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s"

      http://www.salon.com/2012/10/2...

    3. Re:Naturally they'll investigate to help HRC. by starless · · Score: 1

      The whole democrat party has history and ties with Russia and has never seen Russia as a threat to the US until the democrat party was targeted.

      What's the "democrat party"?
      Is that some political organization in a different country?
      In the US we have the Democratic Party though.

    4. Re:Naturally they'll investigate to help HRC. by JackieBrown · · Score: 0

      Typical response.

      Emails leaked harming the democrats: "Ignore the emails and instead, focus on who released them!"

      My post "Ignore the post. He used democrat instead of democratic!"

    5. Re:Naturally they'll investigate to help HRC. by _xeno_ · · Score: 2

      In the US we have the Democratic Party though.

      You sure about that? As the DNC email leaks demonstrated, they're not really all that concerned about democracy when it comes to how they choose their nominees.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    6. Re:Naturally they'll investigate to help HRC. by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      They're not prosecuting, they're investigating. And in terms of them being treated equally - they did investigate HRC, but found there wasn't enough wrongdoing to make it worth prosecuting.

      And... it's unlikely the FBI will prosecute any of the hackers, albeit this time because the hackers are likely not within any US court's jurisdiction.


        • . . . . . .
      . .
      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    7. Re:Naturally they'll investigate to help HRC. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole democrat party has history and ties with Russia and has never seen Russia as a threat to the US until the democrat party was targeted.

      Really, let's see your evidence. Or accusations as it were.

      "President Barack Obama was caught on camera on Monday assuring outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he will have "more flexibility" to deal with contentious issues like missile defense after the U.S. presidential election."
      http://www.reuters.com/article...

      A true statement of the reality in politics, come election time, a lot of empty and useless posturing goes on, making any accomplishments difficult when compromises are necessary.

      Any honest president would say the same.

      "Gov. Romney ... a few months ago when you were asked what is the biggest geopolitical group facing America, you said Russia, ...And the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back. Because the Cold War has been over for 20 years. But Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s"

      http://www.salon.com/2012/10/2...

      An honest assessment of Romney's dated views. Notice how the current drum being banged by Trump isn't Russia, it's ISIS? Who is at least as deplorable to Moscow as us, as they have a host of Islamic minorities to worry about.

      Not to say Russia isn't a concern, they are a major state, but they aren't the Great Enemy of all that is Free and shouldn't be responded to that way.

      Of course, you're not getting to the real meat of the expression, which was that Romney was simply borrowing messaging from the Reagan-era, which he was, and trying to use it for the modern day. It was not persuasive. People realize that was a big fat scam.

      Sorry, but your evidence is scanty and non-convincing. You'd do better to leave off the accusations. Throwing things at the wall and hoping they stick is a poor tactic.

    8. Re:Naturally they'll investigate to help HRC. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um. Romney is a republican.

    9. Re:Naturally they'll investigate to help HRC. by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      That;s the point. Obama told Romeny that Russia is not a threat and made him look old and dated in thinking that.

    10. Re:Naturally they'll investigate to help HRC. by Bartles · · Score: 0

      No, we don't have the Democratic party. Both parties are democratic. Are you saying the Republican party is made up of individuals who are Republics? The Democrat party is the correct usage.

  5. Not a great fool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Many people are aware of their public image. Such people will, for example, refuse to endorse a candidate because they know that their endorsement comes with more baggage than benefits.

    Vladimir Putin is not a great fool, he knows what the American populace thinks of him. His most likely motive is a desire to make sure that whoever wins this election, a significant population believes that it only got that way because of illegal foreign campaign contributions and/or espionage by a moderately hostile (not shooting yet) foreign government. This would widen the rift of distrust between the citizenry of the USA and the government, providing an image that "the west" is just as guilty of rigging elections and ignoring citizen opinions as Russia (or at least, that is how his diplomats can argue it).

  6. Investigating the wrong people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The emails were leaked by deliberate negligence. Just like a certain person who wasn't charged for exposing certain files on a private home server.

    Once the noise went down the person in charge got a job working for the person who benefits the most from the leaked emails.

    And yet it's "Russia" influencing the election.

  7. I think the precedent has been set... by argStyopa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...as long as they didn't KNOW that anything they took was secret, no prosecutable crime was committed?

    After all, "... no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case..."

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:I think the precedent has been set... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...as long as they didn't KNOW that anything they took was secret, no prosecutable crime was committed?

      After all, "... no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case..."

      Wouldn't have anything to do with secrecy, it'd be unauthorized access.

      But actually, I think some people have tried to make the argument that they didn't hack because the system was open to default passwords.

    2. Re:I think the precedent has been set... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tried? Succeeded.

      That is why banner messages are mandatory. Same thing as a "No Trespassing" sign on your real estate being required. No denial of access, no crime.

    3. Re:I think the precedent has been set... by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      After all, "... no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case..."

      "... no [loyal] [Democrat] prosecutor would bring such a case ..."

  8. Motive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can some please explain why Russian would bother hacking the DNC?

    No conspiracy theories please, just a plausible motive.

    1. Re:Motive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shits and Giggles?

    2. Re:Motive by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Because inside dirt on everyone who might be the next president of the US is always useful? If I were the Russians I'd hack everyone. I would be shocked if they didn't try to hack the RNC, too. And I bet we're hacking them.

      That said, the evidenced this hack came from the Russians is circumstantial, and there's no evidence it was a state actor.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  9. Just offshoring by mongothesecond · · Score: 1

    We are offshoring almost everything else. Why deny the Russians work in the electoral process?

  10. Weren't the 30k missing emails just about yoga? by mpercy · · Score: 2

    Why would this be a national security issue or even a campaign issue, if the emails in question were just about yoga and Chelsea's wedding?

    I mean, Hillary promised us all that there was nothing important in those emails. Right?

    So going back in time to hack a server to get emails that are only about yoga classes seems improbable...

    1. Re:Weren't the 30k missing emails just about yoga? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If people do yoga, the next thing you know they might actually start paying attention to things, and politics as we know it would be utterly ruined.

  11. We already know who's to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Russia is. And as soon as our Lady President Hillary Rodham Clinton, our leader, is sworn in, we'll wage war against it. We expect Europe to do its duty and send its youth to the front.

    1. Re:We already know who's to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Germany (that is an European country) this youth to be sent to the front would be mostly Turks and Arabs so I do not care.

  12. LOL Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So far as I know, the only people saying it was Russia are DNC officials, the same people that couldn't manage to secure a mail server and the same people that have an extreme interest in making sure their underhanded subverting of Bernie Sanders' campaign wasn't the story. But they're experts at network forensics, apparently, after only 4 days of work... Meanwhile it took months for the FBI & CIA to say they think the Sony hack was done by North Korea. Maybe the FBI and CIA should start hiring Hilary's cronies to do their hacking investigations for them.

  13. Enough already by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's almost hysterical, this loonbait conspiracy crap. Why should Putin favor Trump, when Trump clearly favors the US over all other countries? (as a President for any particular country *should* be putting the interests of his own countrymen first). Putin would more likely actually prefer a POTUS that is going to be weaker on foreign policy, if anything; just about everyone wants to knock the US down a peg or three.
    It's just FUD and hypocritical fearmongering from the DNC; instead of getting their panties twisted up over terrorism, which is actually a credible future threat, they're getting them twisted up over a supposed conspiracy between Russia and a real estate tycoon/nominee. You can't make this stuff up. It's rather pathetic.

    --

    Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    1. Re:Enough already by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      1. I don't think Trump had anything to do with this.

      2. This whole "it's teh ruskies!!!11!!" fear mongering is a retarded distraction.

      3. I think it's obvious if Putin's thinking ahead to who would be better for him in office, it's Trump. Trump would join with Putin against ISIS, as opposed to Hillary who would bomb Assad and establish a no-fly zone over Syria which would bring the US into conflict with Russia.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    2. Re:Enough already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      I'll tell you why Putin favors Trump.
      Trump praises Putin as a "strong leader". Trump also said Saddam Hussein was a "good guy" and did "good things".
      Trump supports nuclear proliferation, specifically saying Japan, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia should be given nuclear weapons "for defense".
      Trump said he may abandon our NATO allies if Russia were to attack them.
      Trump said he supports Russia's invasion and anexation of Crimea and the lifting of sanctions on Russia for doing it.
      Trump said he wants the US to abandon all overseas military bases and only deploy forces directly from the US. This would cripple the US's military capability.
      Trump said wants other nations to pay tribute to the US for military protection. A disaster for foreign relations by turning the US military into mercenaries.
      It's no wonder that Putin and Kim Jong-Un have both endorsed Trump for president. Trump's going to do all their work for them in killing the US as a world power.

    3. Re:Enough already by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      Almost nothing you said is factual, and is a series of half-truths or outright lies. Bravo.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    4. Re:Enough already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it all did come from Trump's mouth so you might be right. Here's the interview transcripts:
      Nuclear proliferation: http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2016/03/29/full-rush-transcript-donald-trump-cnn-milwaukee-republican-presidential-town-hall/
      Paying for protection/removing troops if they don't pay/NATO: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/us/politics/donald-trump-transcript.html?_r=1
      Crimea: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/27/donald-trumps-falsehood-laden-press-conference-annotated/
      Military deployments only from US: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/us/politics/donald-trump-foreign-policy-interview.html

    5. Re:Enough already by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Those links don't all actually match up to the claims made here.
      I'll grant you, he's scatterbrained on nuclear proliferation, he keeps contradicting himself.

      On NATO and protectionism though, Trump has said some NATO allies aren't pulling their weight financially, that's very different from saying he'd abandon them if Russia attacked. He also pointed out that we are paying through the nose to protect a rich country like Saudi Arabia who spends much less on their own protection, who probably wouldn't exist without our protection, and we're losing money doing it. He's asking, why do we keep funding everyone else so much? Are the other countries so broke that everything would fall apart without US financial support? Those are valid points.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  14. Context for off-the-cuff bloviating by mpercy · · Score: 1

    Trump is just a blowhard who doesn't think before he speaks. It is pretty clear in context that he was not actually calling for any hacks.

    "Why do I have to get involved with [Vladimir] Putin? I have nothing to do with Putin. I’ve never spoken to him. I don’t know anything about him other than he will respect me. He doesn’t respect our president. And if it is Russia [behind the WikiLeaks release of stolen Democratic National Committee emails]—which it’s probably not, nobody knows who it is—but if it is Russia, it’s really bad for a different reason, because it shows how little respect they have for our country, when they would hack into a major party and get everything. But it would be interesting to see—I will tell you this—Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.

    1. Re:Context for off-the-cuff bloviating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For someone who doesn't think before he speaks, as you say; Trump has successfully dominated the news cycle all the way through the DNC proceedings. In the business world, you'd call this tactic: sucking the air out of the room. Such a tactic allows him to continue his bashing of everything that HRC and her supporters are saying and doing, focusing more eyeballs on what he wants them to see. But please, continue to believe that Trump doesn't know exactly what he's doing.

  15. The Hillary Defense will take its place next to by mpercy · · Score: 1

    The Chewbacca Defense in the annals of brilliant legal maneuvers.

  16. Missing investigations? by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So the Dems have been hacked, apparently multiple times and these hacks have been widely publicized. To me that raise the question of why aren't we hearing anything about hacks on the GOP side?

    Is it because the GOP has security that is orders of magnitude better than the DNC?
    Is it because the GOP doesn't have any juicy secrets?
    Is it because the GOP has been hacked, but no-one is admitting to anything?
    Is it because all the hackers are pro-GOP?

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:Missing investigations? by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      Is it because all the hackers are pro-GOP?

      It could also be that the hackers are anti-DNC. The Clintons have far, far more global political enemies than Trump does.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    2. Re:Missing investigations? by will_die · · Score: 2

      They have been asked about this and the RNC has released some info that they follow industry and government security policies and have people with the job of making sure the servers are protected and procedures are followed unlike the DNC.
      On some of the security boards you are even seeing people slamming trump and the rnc for releasing that amount of information and how carless they are. Others have taken it as a challenge.

    3. Re:Missing investigations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GOP operations are business oriented. All the good infosec people are there (whether or not they actually support the Republicans).

      The DNC are liberally oriented. They get the liberal arts majors.

    4. Re:Missing investigations? by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      IMHO, I think the Dems don't care about security. Just set stuff up with default. Typical Windows type install, any idiot can do it and any idiot did. They don't care about the security of the country either. No surprise here. Even brought in cop killers into the convention.

      Why anyone would ever vote for them is beyond me.

  17. At least Kang is not "the Executioner" by mpercy · · Score: 1

    I know, mixing my allusions.

  18. Yeah, let's not ignore the multiple millions of $ by mpercy · · Score: 1

    That landed in Hillary's pocket from Uranium One and other Russian deals facilitated by the Clinton Foundation.

    How dare Russia try to influence our potential President?

  19. Re:Investigate, but still no arrests due to conten by Crashmarik · · Score: 2

    You mean like this fellow

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

    Chinese billionaire tied to 1990s Clinton fundraising scandal arrested for lying about how he used $4.5MILLION cash he brought into the U.S. aboard private jets

  20. Nothing to worry about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't see what anybody's all worked up about. Back in 2012 no less a personage than Barack Obama told us we had nothing to fear from Russia, and that any concerns about them were simply fear-mongering.

  21. Re:Investigate, but still no arrests due to conten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No reasonable prosecutor would bring charges against HRC for any reason ever. Obviously.

  22. I heard... by burtosis · · Score: 2

    It originated from a dilapatated Coney Island arcade with a busted up sign and an illegal connection to the power grid.

    1. Re:I heard... by Voyager529 · · Score: 1

      It originated from a dilapatated Coney Island arcade with a busted up sign and an illegal connection to the power grid.

      Yes!! ...but where do they get their internet?

  23. I WOULD like to see those emails ... you, too? by davide+marney · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As soon as I saw that real consequences started happening because of the DNC hack, my first thought was, "Hmm, well, some consumer-grade Exchange box sitting on the end of a Comcast connection running without an SSL certificate for two months would be a piece of cake compared to the DNC's infrastructure. Somebody's for sure got those deleted emails." Heck, even Comey himself testified that the FBI was able to reconstitute thousands of work-related emails. Maybe we don't need the Russkies or the script kiddies to give us the emails, our own FBI could fork them over.

    Regardless, yeah, I'd like to see those emails. I think 30,000 emails about yoga would be interesting.

    --
    "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
  24. Re:Clintons seem to have cornered Nixon's market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Actually, it's the GOP's insistence that there must be something corrupt to show about the Democrats that lead to all these investigations, yet the results?

    Not even as conclusive as the Iran-Contra affair.

    They should just start cleaning their own house, otherwise they'll just cement their reputation for crying wolf.

  25. Clue for the feds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was the hackers, with the hack, in cyber-spaaaace.

  26. Keep changing the subject by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Changing the subject to Russia constantly has been a big help recently. It changes the subject from what we all should be paying attention to, the content of these mails. Instead our attention is diverted away to the man juggling, while the thief picks our pockets clean. This was no ordinary hack, the freaking chairwoman of the DNC has already resigned over it and more resignations will be coming in the days to come. The Democratic Party is not what everyone thought it was

    They ridiculed an African-American woman named LaQueenia Gibson. Yes, the Democrats did this. They wanted to use use Bernie Sandersâ(TM) religious beliefs against him in the Democratic primary. They blocked off roads to an event the opposition was hosting. Does any of this sound like Third World banana republic bullshit to you? That's because it is. And it really happened, here, in America.

    And let's not forget their greatest crime: subverting the democratic process and the people's will in favor of a crooked, rotten career politician. Disgusting. It's like watching a friend you've known for years suddenly start kicking the crap out of a stray dog, the howling and crying goes on and on but he just doesn't stop. No wonder they want to change the subject to Russia. Articles like this help and are part of the whole rotten problem.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:Keep changing the subject by meta-monkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My favorite part is the money laundering scheme, though, where big donors would cut a big check split to each state party allegedly to help down-ballot candidates, but was then instantly wired right back to the national party and then used for pro-HRC ("#ImWIthHer") ads and HRC fundraising. This dodges the FEC donation limit requirements.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  27. Even James Clapper is unconvinced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.rt.com/usa/353840-...

    "US intel head calls for end to hyperventilation over Russiaâ(TM)s alleged role in DNC hack

    The Director of National Intelligence says Washington is still unsure of who might be behind the latest WikiLeaks release of hacked Democratic National Committee emails, while urging that an end be put to the reactionary mode blaming it all on Russia."

    It's interesting that the Western press isn't reporting this.

    1. Re:Even James Clapper is unconvinced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      James Clapper is a serial liar, as shown by repeatedly perjuring himself in front of Congress, with his lies laid bare the following day by Snowden.

  28. My compendium by rickb928 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    0 - Trump's comment was pure sarcasm, and all those who didn't get it at the moment also don't get Trump, and won;t get why he will win.

    1 - Any questions on why you don't get Trump I will not answer. You won't get the answer either.

    2 - Every state is attacking every other state's data, and at every level. Some are more successful than others. If you don't think an individual, moderately technology-capable, state is doing this, then they are entirely successful in hiding their efforts, and their success at getting data is unknown, but non-zero. Do not doubt this. Cyberattacks are the single best example of asymmetrical warfare. It is hugely cheaper to defeat Internet security than it is to implement it. Huge payoff.

    3 - This is proof that there is no absolute security, only security making it unprofitable to circumvent or compromised security that the compromise is not yet detected.

    4 - The DNC hack is unworthy of the FBI's time - they are a private organization. The DCCC hack is also, but because it has the word 'Congressional' in the name, the FBI will be dragged into it.

    5 - If the DCCC hack exposes confidential information with a national security exposure, that is a failure of a congressional caucus dealing with sensitive data improperly. More fast and loose with important data? Probably. Consequences? Not likely.

    Whoop. Expect more of these.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    1. Re:My compendium by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      No, you interpret what he said as sarcasm. But with Trump, it's virtually impossible without applying a filter, either in his favor, or biased against him, to sort out much of what he means. To have a man who wants to be the leader of the Free World speaking in a rantish and often incoherent fashion, and then constantly being informed by his followers as to what he really meant doesn't inspire confidence.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re: My compendium by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      'To have a man who wants to be the leader of the Free World speaking in a rantish and often incoherent fashion, and then constantly being informed by his followers as to what he really meant doesn't inspire confidence'

      Thinking that Trump needs to be told what he said is incoherence. His 'rantish and often incoherent' speech is often plain talk, which we are unaccustomed to from politicians.

      But keep underestimating Trump. That will work out well. Trust me.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  29. corrupt by blackomegax · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They keep investigating the HACKS. Not the corruption and crime the hacks expose. THE FBI IS CORRUPT AS FUCK.

  30. All Bullshit by sycodon · · Score: 1

    The US is hacking every nation in the world. They even Hacked Merkel cell phone.

    Why is anyone, let alone the party in power and presumably the ones signed off on this hacking or at least let it persist, bitching about being hacked themselves?

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  31. Say HACKING and people's head spin. FBI are liars. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of them are full of shit liars. Should they hack an iPhone or not? Is Tim Cook too clever for their advanced tactics with his dildo shaped phone?

    Get the fucking fuck out.

    http://thenextweb.com/insider/2016/01/28/how-the-fbi-became-the-worlds-largest-distributor-of-child-sex-abuse-imagery/

    They are a bullshit taxpayer drain on society and are aware of a vast amount of corruption even surpassing their own internal mole networks.

    FBI are so fucking mole just call them "The whole world agency".

  32. Hillary and DNC refusing to help FBI a factor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's now reported that the FBI warned team Hillary back in March and they refused to cooperate with the FBI.

    Sorta like their earlier year-long refusal to cooperate with the feds on the investigation of her server, while she ran around telling the public she was eager and fully cooperating and that her server was approved, which her own State Department denies. There's a good reason why she has held not a single actual press conference in all of 2016 (you know, those things where politicians take questions from a hostile press corps (worse given that in her case the press is actually in the tank for her party and not even tough)).

    Former CBS news journalist Sharyl Attkisson has a nice, concise timeline on the whole Hillary server flap for those interested.

    1. Re:Hillary and DNC refusing to help FBI a factor by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      I pretty much stopped listening when BILL CLINTON gave a choked, emotional fireside description of how wonderful his life with Hilary has been and what a wonderful marriage they've had together.

      The press just lapped that shit up without a *whisper* of irony or humor.

      I'd expect that from the party faithful, but from journalists that claim neutrality? Think about that.

      --
      -Styopa
  33. It's a standard Clinton tactic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    During the nineties:

    When they were taking illegal campaign money from China and allowing China access to ballisic missile tech and allowing US high-tech manufacturing to move to China, they pointed at the economy and said "the economy is good!"

    When Bill could not keep his pants zipped and molestation, cheating, intimidation and actual rape were alleged, the Clinton machine said "The economy is good!" and "move on [to something else]".

    This Clinton proclivity for bad behaviour and dishonestly and incompetently covering it up was the origin of moveon.org - as an outlet to distract the public from all the Clinton scandals. It was an internet 1.0 version of "get over it already!" and "SQUIRREL!". Many of the web outlets that spawned in the 1990s and got initial funding from Clinton pal and former NAZI collaborator billionaire George Soros were started/funded precisely as part of the Democrat effort to save the Clintons from all the scandals they themselves created. They're a pair of southern trailer trash hicks who managed to get political power, and like many poor hicks who hit the lottery they have no sense of propriety and little self control.

  34. To interpret it as anything else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    would be to presume that Russia has a time machine - a concept only sycophant Democrats mindlessly reciting DNC talking points would presume true.

    FACT: Hillary's e-mails were not on DNC or Government servers; they were by ALL accounts on Hillary's private servers (the FBI says she actually had 4).

    FACT: Hillary had all the files removed from the servers and transferred to her lawyers.

    FACT: Hillary's servers that held her e-mails are no longer in operation.

    FACT: Hillary has claimed her lawyer went through her e-mails and deleted a large number (generally estimated at around 30K)

    These deleted "missing" e-mails are the ones Trump is obviously referring to, given that these are the ones that are missing and the only collections of e-mails anybody in the public eye is associating with the count of about 30000.

    By defintion, Trump could not have been encouraging the Russians to do any future hacking if they lack a time machine. He had to have been sarcastically suggesting that they might have hacker her server (which she and her supporters swear never happened) and might have copies from back then. Further, if they DO have those, then the geopolitical damage is already done. And further yet: If those e-mails are just about her yoga lessons and Chelsie's wedding, as Hillary has claimed, then there is certainly no national security risk to them being handed over to the Americans and all the Hillary people shrieking about this being some grave national threat or "treason" are just hyper-political and hyper-dishonest freaks.

  35. Politicians? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe, from the top down, the Democrats, in turn, politicians should learn something, even a little, about email and computers