Slashdot Mirror
Hack of Democrats' Accounts Was Wider Than Believed, Officials Say (nymag.com)
A Russian cyberattack that targeted Democratic politicians was bigger than it first appeared and breached private email accounts of more than 100 party officials and groups (could be paywalled; alternate source), reports The New York Times, citing officials with knowledge of the case. From the report: The widening scope of the attack has prompted the F.B.I. to broaden its investigation, and agents have begun notifying a long list of Democratic officials that the Russians may have breached their personal accounts. The main targets appear to have been the personal email accounts of Hillary Clinton's campaign officials and party operatives, along with a number of party organizations. Officials have acknowledged that the Russian hackers gained access to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which is the fund-raising arm for House Democrats, and to the Democratic National Committee, including a D.N.C. voter analytics program used by Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign.
Trump doesn't want his friend Putin and his friends to get tied to this too much. Soon the Trump campaign will instead claim that the democrats hacked their own system and set it up to look like someone else, to take attention away from some other conspiracy. I expect we'll see this on the front page of slashdot and the Washington Times by Saturday, maybe sooner if Trump says something else stupid yet today.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Looks like Hillary's strategy is to blame Russia.
And people are stupid enough to fall for it, rather than bother thinking about the content of the information.
This wouldn't happen to Republicans, because they're so old. They'd get competent sysadmins to run the servers, proficient clerks to print out their emails each morning, and they'd dictate their replies to a transcriptionist who can remember her fucking password.
This is how it should be. Why should they keep secrets?
There used to be a time when the press acted as investigative journalists, and worked with whistleblowers to expose political corruption and hold politicians accountable for their actions (think Watergate). This was lauded as necessary for the function of the country. Now, this function has been outsourced to the FSB, and the corruption they reveal is denigrated as "interfering with the sanctity of the electoral process". How about the press goes back to being watch dogs instead of lap dogs, shake off the "Democrats with bylines" label,expose the corruption themselves, and undermine the FSB?
A Russian cyberattack that targeted Democratic politicians was bigger than it first appeared and breached private email accounts of more than 100 party officials and groups (could be paywalled; alternate source), reports The New York Times, citing officials with knowledge of the case. From the report:
New York times: invested majority stake by Carlos Slim with ties to obama and the Clinton foundation
The widening scope of the attack has prompted the F.B.I. to broaden its investigation, and agents have begun notifying a long list of Democratic officials that the Russians may have breached their personal accounts. The main targets appear to have been the personal email accounts of Hillary Clinton's campaign officials and party operatives, along with a number of party organizations. Officials have acknowledged that the Russian hackers gained access to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which is the fund-raising arm for House Democrats, and to the Democratic National Committee, including a D.N.C. voter analytics program used by Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign.
DNC analytics is Groundworks from GOOGLE
Still trying blame the russians when its clear wikileaks is telling you something here.
This whole story is a political hit job written by a fully compromised media outlet. Gerbil and Stalin would be proud of the American Media at this point.
Feel Free to visit independent media and see whats going on. Youtube:
Drudge Report
Redacted tonight
infowars.com
The Jimmy Dore show
Paul Joseph Watson
The Young Turks are going all in for Hillary, avoid them till they get their heads out of their behinds.
How wide is that, exactly?
Are we talking 5"? a foot? a mile? Or are we talking the width of the solar system?
Huh? Because VPN IP address? Again, TrustConnect's analysis was good, it traced back to a Russian VPN service provider. The rest of their analysis was best wild guessing.
The NYT article (which IMHO has become a water carrier for the Clinton's) references it's own story, which again incorrectly assumes that Russia is involved because of the TrustConnect's best guess. But TrustConnect even acknowledges that the originating network is obfuscated behind the VPN provider.
I hate this tactic of the main stream media outlets. They take questionable information, then report on it as if it was fact, then pile onto that by continuing further reporting all based off of the original questionable information by citing earlier articles they've produced.
Note how there is absolute certainty that the Russians are behind this? Way to swallow the Clinton hook. Fools.
As usual, the stories in the press are disappointingly sparse in detail. A few things that would be interesting to know:
If you're going to hack a major American political party, why stop there? Why not hack all of them? Where are the Republican emails?
I'm also surprised that Hillary 2016 would get hacked, considering how much money their campaign has, and how large and professionally staffed it is. Ironically, Trump's low tech, woely understaffed campaign is at an advantage here. All the good information might be on paper, in the heads of humans, and on some computers in Trump Tower, not connected to any network.... Trump is probably the most hated person on Earth right now, so I don't see a lack of motivated hackers here.
Shawn Lucas, process server to the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz who, was found dead in his bathroom 8/2/2016, no cause of death released yet. He had served the DNC and DWS a month earlier in an election fraud case related to the Sanders campaign sabotage, and he can be seen doing this in a video posted to Youtube. This story is publicized exactly nowhere in the mainstream media.
The other funny conspiracy theory is that back when this happened, then there were a dozen Republican candidates and nobody thought Trump stood a chance of getting the nomination, he was somehow running Russia and having the Russian intelligence agencies attack an opponent that he was unlikely to even run against. At the time, Trump was running against Bush and 10 other Republicans.
Left hand doesn't know what the right is doing. I find it strangely ironic though that hackers have broken all of the major news stories this election cycle and it's the reports trying to cover them all up. Fucked up world we're in these days.
I'm actively cheering them on.
Certainly can't rely on our own justice system to weed out and deal with the corruption.
It's rather sad we have to wait for third party folks to provide evidence of wrongdoing within our borders.
I hate this tactic of the main stream media outlets. They take questionable information, then report on it as if it was fact, then pile onto that by continuing further reporting all based off of the original questionable information by citing earlier articles they've produced.
It's almost as if their primary goal is propaganda instead of the reporting of facts...
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Conspiracy or not, I take the whole "the Russian's did it" with a grain of salt. I would love to know how they determine who was responsible, since I am pretty sure that any state sponsored group would be able to hide their origin.
Russia has a ton of seriously black-hat hackers, so it's not hard to believe the hackers were Russian.
Here's the original story from Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/en...
which discusses this interview with "Guccifer2.0": http://motherboard.vice.com/re...
And, for reference, here's the slashdot story: https://it.slashdot.org/story/...
since I am pretty sure that any state sponsored group would be able to hide their origin.
Unlike "Mission Impossible," in the real world nobody is perfect, not even Russians. Everybody tends to leave bits and pieces of evidence behind. But: whether they were Russian government, or just freelancers, remains to be seen.
"Russian cyberattack" Really?
There is no evidence that Russia was behind it. Oh, but but but VPN. /. as retarded as clueless MSM journalists are?
Is
Trump doesn't want his friend Putin and his friends to get tied to this too much.
Did you do know that Clinton (as SoS) sold 20% of American Uranium reserves to Russia, and coincidentally the Clinton foundation received massive donations from Russia?
Did you know that Clinton (as SoS) sold advanced technology to Russia and coincidentally received "tens of millions" of dollars in donations to the Clinton foundation? (Dual-use technology, things that can be used for both industry and military.)
Did you know that Clinton (as SoS) organized and helped build the "Russian Silicon Valley", which opened many US companies to industrial espionage? (17 of 28 companies, both Russian and American, made financial commitments to the Clinton Foundation or sponsored speeches by Bill Clinton.)
Out of curiosity, when you say Trump and Putin are friends, what's your evidence?
The idea, that Russians are behind this is a red herring. Put out by anonymous sources it serves only to change the topic — from the contents of the e-mails and the negligence of the Democratic officials (including their Presidential nominee).
According to Assange, for example, Wikileaks got their data from DNC-sources including the misteriously murdered Seth Conrad Rich.
Maybe, Russians were involved too, maybe not. But the facts remain: DNC officials (including Hillary Clinton herself) are incompetent in computer security and dishonest.
Why is my real account disabled?
and the only thing you died and true republicans / democrats can think of is fighting amongst yourselves. The enemy is not those evil white people or those evil black lives matter folks. It is those russians, chinese, and mexicans that want to destroy the USA. It is time to come together as citizens of the United States. Appeasement never works. Clinton tried appeasement and gave russia 20% of the nations uranium. What does putin do. He hacks her campaign. What does she focus on. Those evil white entitled folks represented by the Republican party. The Republicans are no better. They are cheering a foreign power that has hacked into the USAian election process. In the 80's this would be paramount to a declaration of war.
Let's come together and fight back against uncontrolled chines, and russian aggressian. Why are we worried about islamic fundumentalism when we have an army of brown people invading the S. USA and taking our jobs, our wives, our language, and our lives.
the future goes to the strong. The USA is weak and divided. Illegal immigration did not work for the Romans, it did not work for the American Indians it will not work for the USA.
is that they hacked a bunch of accounts, published the DNC emails, then hung out to capture the scurrying-about as the rats reacted to the DNC hack.
THAT will be interesting!
That the "Russian Breach" story is still being pursued actively (this is by the same FBI that refused to prosecute the Secretary of State for gross secrecy and public-information violations) when it's growing clearer that the recently-murdered DNC staffer was likely the source of the leaks.
Willful ignorance, anyone?
-Styopa
I wonder how deeply concerned the media would be with the source of the hacks as opposed to what they exposed if the target had been the RNC instead of the DNC?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Seth Rich was killed to cover it up and where are hillary clinton emails
"Reporters are faced with the daily choice of painstakingly researching stories or writing whatever people tell them. Both approaches pay the same." -- Scott Adams, _The Dilbert Principle_
Soon the Trump campaign will instead claim that the democrats hacked their own system and set it up to look like someone else, to take attention away from some other conspiracy.
What's more likely to happen is that the Dems did hack themselves - i.e. a Bernie supporter did it. Look for Seth Rich to be outed as a (deceased) Sanders supporter. Assange has all but said he is a source.
You can bet, the RNC is doing a lot of scrubbing of their servers. Both parties are nothing more than crooks. It's to the point, we might as well just merge both parties, get rid of the president, declare the USA a socialist nation, have a dictator for life and be done with it. It's almost to that point anyway. People are AFRAID of government, and it's suppose to be the other way around! They don't do our bidding, we must do what THEY tell us to do!
100% propaganda. I can't believe this shit.
Like Hillary's?
Is this just a giant coverup because of Hillary's breached email servers?
"Why were only Democrat servers attacked and not Republicans"?
Well because there was only one primary hack... Hillary's *PRIVATE* email servers that she ran while head of state. The rest were probably gleaned by info obtained from those initial servers.
Presuming the Russians want to damage her campaign, if she does get elected then we'll have elected her despite having seen all her dirty laundry. She'll be the most transparently elected President in history.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Citing your own articles as references...Wikipedia taught me to do that!
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I'm more apt to believe that the IT guy Killed in early July that WikiLeaks has a reward for his killers was actually the source of the leaks. What IT guy wouldn't have had motive given the DNC's position on H1B, who was also in a key position in IT to get ALL the emails, and who died in a clear hit, and not mugging since nothing was stolen? I hear ghosts of the 90's coming back which was my main issue with Clinton back in 08.
The majority of legislators and politicians in the US seem hell-bent on destroying everyone's privacy in the name of "national security". Now the Dems are experiencing the result of Russia's attempts to further its own national agenda by invading US politicians' privacy. There's at least a little poetic justice in that, methinks...
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Have you even looked at those emails? I wasted a few hours looking for good stuff and all I found was a snotty attitude toward Sanders.
Wait, somebody actually read the e-mails? Everybody else I know is just parroting conclusions some website fed them.
(I have to say, I didn't read the whole stack, but the ones I saw didn't seem to be anything other than a couple of people venting opinions in private that would be politically incorrect in public.)
Sanders wasn't frozen out due to some misguided left wing ideology. Not in the slightest. He was frozen out due to right wing stances on the economy and social services that tried to brand him as unelectable and unrealistic.
Sorry, but Sanders wasn't 'frozen out' of the media at all, not in the slightest. He was built up by the media, because the media likes a horserace, and wanted opposition to Hillary. He never had a chance in the first place, but the media touted all of his wins--even though he never won enough to make him competitive-- and downplayed all of his losses, even though he was losing the delegates he needed to win.
It's not that the media is left wing, or right wing: they want controversy, they want a story. "Frontrunner wins again" doesn't cut it, "plucky underdog challenges frontrunner"-- yes.
Never mind the shady behaviour these emails expose - lets focus on who exposed their lies to the public.
Pointing the finger at everything except the lawbreaker seems to be becoming the democrat party's mantra.
I don't get the point you are trying to make. GP stated that "The Press" is no longer performing it's function and that the solution is to move back to being journalists. Are you suggesting that the expectation should be to give up and/or commit suicide because the media has been consumed by corruption? Or are you advocating a positive change in a bad way?
The "Press" in the US today has become what we used to make fun of in other countries. Baghdad Bob telling people how Iraq was crushing the Americans is no different than every media outlet yesterday (I checked 8 networks and 2 independent radio stations who call themselves conservative) falsely claiming that Trump said to assassinate Hillary. The dishonesty we are seeing from the Press is what we saw in the Pravda in Russia.
Unfortunately the lack of media credibility is causing a secondary set of media problems. Certain people and third party media may provide better truths but include messages of their own which are not part of the truth. We can say that some of it is for money, but another aspect is to distort reality in the opposite direction of the broadcast media. Sadly I distrust _all_ media at the moment and check sources. There is a reason people extract 5-8 second sound bites and invent a narrative around it, and that reason has nothing to do with you, your country, your best interests, or concerns for your welfare.
When it comes to media it's probably about time to format and rebuilt. If you asked, I'd suggest the same for both major political parties.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
and who died in a clear hit, and not mugging since nothing was stolen?
Or just a botched robbery. Guy get's held up, resists/makes noise, robber shoots him then runs off before people call the cops or come outside and see him. Or the robber shoots him then runs off before he can take anything because a car is coming down the street. Hell, could even have just been a random killing like what's going on in Phoenix or a target of opportunity for some guy trying to look tough/join a gang. All of these scenarios are at least as plausible as a Clinton/DNC hit.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Have there been corporate e-mails leaked from Google or Microsoft? I don't think so...
Humbler people recognize their incompetence and use services provided by experts. Hillary Clinton, evidently, is not one of them — in her desire to hide her official communications from the future FOIA-requests, she put it all (including the national secrets) on her own server (and chose the worst platform imaginable for it too).
So, you are justifying the dishonesty of the DNC in general and Hillary Clinton in particular by Trump being "idiot"? Is that your argument?
-1 Offtopic.
Or, maybe, you are trolling? That must be it... And I almost fell for it...
Why is my real account disabled?
You can get around the New York Times paywall by using an incognito tab.
There is a reason why the Left (as opposed to the Democrats or the Liberals) refers to the NYT as "Pravda on the Hudson". Lately, the Washington Post is the same way -- just check their headlines. If you are paying any atttention at all, you will notice that Hillary is running to the right of everyone on policy and on her actual history in office. Notice lately how they cranked it up to 11 regarding what Trump *might* do, while completely ignoring what Hillary actually *has* done.... meanwhile the media is acting all innocent as if they are governed by a bunch of angels. When in fact, they need to be punched in the face and hard.
C|N>K
Meh. Nobody is saying that Trump was running Russia and OP isn't saying that Russia hacked in for Trump. Russian hackers (or hackers from Russia, if you prefer) got into the DNC because they could, and they have since used the info to serve their ends. It is a bonus from their perspective that they get to help Trump--rather than a non Putinista like Rubio or Cruz-but not a prerequisite.
I find it incredible that there has been so much, much more ink about the source of the hack than the damning material in the hack. The docs show an amazing (maybe not) lack of ethics and high-schoolish crap done by the major political party. What a bunch of liars, cheats, manipulators, ethically-void bunch of leaders of democracy.
And now the "evidence" is a VPN in Russia....Gee. And lets make sure there is a magic key that only lets the good guys get into encrypted messages. Oh, the land of rainbows, unicorns and safe-space for the snowflakes....
On the other hand, the media's "nothing to see here" attitude of anything Clinton or Democrat follows the expected playbook. Obfuscate from the story and focus on the messenger.
BTW, you did notice -- those of you that read about the docs and didn't obsess about the hacker -- that part of the DNC playbook was to look for anything that could be construed as Republican violence tendencies and then amplify, exaggerate them with indignant hyperbole. The leap that "second amendment people" were assassins is a perfect following of that play. Sigh.
PS....all the best to the snowflakes....
one obvious implication of all this:
IF the Russians were indeed the hackers as the left insists, and they did indeed access all those accounts, then the Russians got e-mails between Hillary and various Democrats which, in turn, means they saw that her address was not a .gov but rather a private .com, enabling them to easily target her with the full knowledge that her system was not a protected government system.
This does not mean the Russians did hack her private server, but it does mean they would have known about it and where to look for it and how vulnerable it might be. This of course would undercut the Democrat talking point that the NYT has been pushing that there is "no evidence" her private server was hacked (intended to imply that it is known to have not been hacked) and no reason to even worry about it (the presumption that it was obscure and probably nobody even knew about it or tried to hack it).
Were you watching the same media I was? They had basically called the country for Clinton before Super Tuesday, showing how she had so many superdelegates in her pocket that Sanders couldn't feasibly win.
The news I saw pretended that Sanders had a chance. Although, in fact, Sanders couldn't feasibly win.
And no, you're wrong about the left bias.
Since I didn't claim the media had a left bias, I'm not sure what you're talking about. What I said was
"It's not that the media is left wing, or right wing: they want controversy, they want a story."
Every single study I've seen that has analyzed the American media as a whole has found that there's a right-wing bias, on average.
I'd be interested in a link to those studies you refer to. You must read a lot of left biased studies. The most thorough report I've seen, linguistic analysis of bias in newspapers, came to the interesting conclusion that newspapers, as a whole, showed a political bias that was identical to the bias of the market they served. Newspapers in right-leaning locations were right-leaning; newspapers in left-leaning locations were left-leaning.
Which turns out to not be not very surprising.
Wider than believed. Yes, it turns out not only were some of the Democrats hacked some of the time, but all of them were hacked most of the time. Not only that, but Republicans, Independents, and all other party affiliates were also hacked. The hacking ring also appears to extend beyond Russia, in fact to the rest of Asia, not to mention Europe, Africa, Oceania, Australia, South and most surprisingly even North America. Antarctica has yet to be implicated but this is believed due to hacks thwarting the detection process originating from Dr. Evil's own Antarctic lair.
Putin is on Trump's payroll. I don't know who said it, but I hear people say that. Could be true. (Said exactly as trump would say about crazy crap)
It would be ironic if the same folks who pay money to play via dept of state also hacked the crap out of the account.
They did that, right?
...when you can just pay Clinton's campaign manager as a registered lobbyist for Putin connected firms?
Not to mention the tens of millions in Russian bribes sent through the Clinton Foundation...
Specifically, "acute lead poisoning."
The press in the US have self-identified as 80 to 90% Democrats (or further left) in every poll conducted in the past 50+ years.
The American press have always gone after Republicans, but not so much after Democrats. And it's worse this election cycle than ever before - even during Watergate they pretended to be impartial and hunting-down a partictular corrupt politician. This year, however, they are openly discussing their duty to oppose Trump and support Hillary.
Remember how Drudge Report got famous? During the Bill Clinton's time in office, Drudge was eating restaurant and overheard several journalists in a nearby booth discussing their coordinated efforts to suppress the Monica story - so he listened to the details and took notes while dining and then went home and blogged about the story. Had he not overheard those journalists conspiring to protect the Clintons rather than report the honest news, the public might never have known about monica and the blue dress.
Pay attention to who runs the political discussions on the networks:
ABC: George Stephanopoulos - Worked to elect Democrat Bill Clinton, was then a senior advisor to Clinton (thus a Clinton employee who should not be involved in political news, debates, etc this year with Hillary Clinton running)
CBS: John Dickerson - frequent contributor to Slate, NPR, Air America, The Al Franken show, etc
NBC/MSNBC: Chris Mattews - Worked for Democrat President Jimmy Carter, and was Chief of Staff to Democrat House Speaker Tip O'Neill
The more you dig into these people, the more you discover their political leanings and biases. Just do a littel googling and be shocked at how many "mainstream" journalists are either married to, or immediate relatives of, members of the Obama administration or the Clinton team. If you are getting your news from ABC,CBS,NBC,MSNBC,PBS,WaPo, or The New York Times, you are getting your nes from the Democrat National Comittee.
Is the press bias to the left or ideologically neutral to a fault? You can't really be both, ya know? They're polar opposites.
Anyway here the reality: the press is left on social issues (guns, abortion) and right on economic ones (e.g. the ones that actually matter). Outside of Mother Jones you won't find anyone seriously investigating income inequality or the massive wealth grab that happened post 2008. My favorite are a bunch of stories I keep reading about why the middle class' spending isn't going up. Since the press won't talk about income inequality they just kinda trail off when it comes time to talk about why.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
All of these scenarios are at least as plausible as a Clinton/DNC hit.
Until you take into account all of the 50+ other suspicious deaths surrounding the Clintons, that is.
That changes nothing about what I just said.
Than any voter asked to submit a ballot is allowed to see.
Democracy. Republic. Transparency.
PPppppppppppptttttttttt!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Or you can just actually provide some real evidence, as opposed to inventing lists of dead people that two individuals who have been in politics their entire adult lives had involvement with.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Of course, if you believe the Russians did it, you should ask yourself if they also hacked Hillary! Clinton's "private" email server.
Having lived near Fort Meade, I have always believed that if NSA was out to get me, I couldn't stop it. Something they would do would get around my security. The one thing I could count on is that NSA was highly unlikely to actually take an interest in me. So I will take reasonable measures, but I don't walk around covered in tin foil.
Yet so many of those that have good reason to think that they would be a target of highly competent infiltrators appear to rely on the same hope of obscurity. And so do their sysadmins. We see if from these officials of the Democratic Party, we see it from movie stars that ought to know that the traffic through their phones is of great interest, and we see it from businesses that have information on hundreds of thousands or millions of their customers.
Yo! You are NOT obscure.
That phenomenon is called the "echo chamber", where you have 30 or so outlets quoting and referencing each other in a cyclical fashion rather than the other 29 outlets checking original sources. The result is like the rumor game; eventually what is said is so wildly distorted it's unrecognizable. The problem is that by outlets doing this, is you have so many people saying the same thing it lends an aura of credibility to something with very little actual fact behind it. The root cause is the 24 news cycle, where journalists are pressed to publish as soon as possible, often within minutes of the event. This doesn't allow any time at all for research, so the temptation is to skip primary sources and go to third party sources, which is either the press pool or Twitter. The reason for this, in turn, is their revenue model, which currently revolves around display ad impressions (commercials) or clicks. The clicks don't care whether your info is right. They just care that the headline is fresh and enticing.
It wouldn't make sense for a botched robbery, given the multiple shots to the back. It's not even close to impossible; the evidence doesn't really point to a botched robbery, but it could support a botched robbery.
If in all this hacking, there's absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing on anyone's part, aside from snide remarks about one another/political rivals. That'll shut all you conspiracy theorists the fuck up for good! Looking forward to the headline "Email leak reveals Democrats said not nice things about republicans"
It's almost as if their primary goal is propaganda instead of the reporting of facts...
Why in the world would they risk violating the Smith-Mundt act? ...oh... never mind.
And what, pray tell, is so awful about Trump? Please, enumerate a few things you find particularly disagreeable. If you are going to list any promises or statements by him, please, be sure to include links to where he made them (not somebody else building a strawman or two).
America's media — only 7% of them being Republicans — would try to help a Democratic nominee against any Republican. Had the party nominated anyone else — Cruz or Rubio or Bush or whoever, they would've attacked him just as viciously.
Chances are, your own anti-Trump opinions are subliminally formed by these guys' efforts rather than something especially bad he did or said... Hence my question and the insistence on evidence.
Why is my real account disabled?
Wasn't the Russians. Just 'cause they leave lots of crap sitting unprotected doesn't mean it was them.
this reasoning is specious as fuck! Sometimes people are shot for no reason at all, unless you are going to try to draw a specious connection between the Clintons and this guy playing pokemon go in san francisco http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.c... who was also shot but nothing taken
CIA hacked the DNC and blamed Russia.
This is typical spycraft.
As opposed to the non-mainstream-media outlets, who do exactly the same with information that's not so much "questionable" as "completely fabricated".
Seriously, how do you expect them to work? Bottom line, all information is "questionable", and the question of when to stop questioning it is always going to be a judgment call. But 200 years of accumulated experience has shown the media that absolute certainty, pretty much invariably, sells better than honest doubt.
Unless we can come up with a way of financing media that is immune to the imperative of "sells better", and still works, that's what we're stuck with.
....investigators purposefully conceal information so to not out themselves and their detection / investigation techniques.
Other clues pointing to Russia were likely uncovered but not released to the public.
But then there are some people that no matter how much evidence we had they'd balk at it and call BS anyhow.
Spread the new meme.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
is.
The world ruling class is constantly making trades that are bad for the people and are subversions of the concept of sovereignty. The point is not to keep being the old joke that goes: Groucho tells Harpo, "I'll sell you a pair of dimes for a quarter, and Harpo buys several.
When we look at what is good for us, I think we find that sovereignty is not part of it. We need to be doing things that is good for everyone in the or at least affects no one to a net negative. I believe that means that sovereignty plays no part in determining anyone's good.
This is a smoke screen. Assange already said he got the info from a DNC employee who was later murdered. The DNC and Clinton are trying to get you to ignore how corrupt they are.
We know the Dems don't care about security... so who wants to donate money to their campaign? Only a sucker would. A sucker that is ripe for the picking.
If they really did, they would be silly to dump everything they have on her - I mean, at this point, they have to realize that odds aren't exactly in Trump's favor, and I seriously doubt that anything in those emails would prove to be a sufficiently large skeleton to change that. It would make sense for them to hedge their bets, and leave something to try to blackmail her with.
In fact, that itself is an interesting tactic. They only need to dump enough info to establish certainty that they did in fact hack her emails, and then hint that there are really damning things in there that they are intentionally not releasing before the election. The prospect of having something like that hang over the president ought to give quite a few people pause.
Sanders absolutely had a chance, if you look at the turnout among his supporters.
That's right: if you only look at his supporters, you could convince yourself he had a chance.
He didn't: not at the beginning, not at the middle, not at the end, not at all. He never had the polling, he never had the demographics, he never had the organization. If you looked at the actual numbers, he needed miracles to win, and while he did better than predicted... not enough better than predicted to actually win.
But when you narrow your view and look only at the enthusiasm of his supporters and ignore everyting else (and his supporters looked only at his supporters and ignored everything else)- yep, he gave that illusion.