Slashdot Mirror
Guccifer 2.0 Releases More DNC Documents (politico.com)
For the past several months, the hacker who calls himself "Guccifer 2.0" has been releasing documents about the Democratic National Committee. Today, he has released a new hoard of documents. Politico reports: The hacker persona Guccifer 2.0 has released a new trove of documents that allegedly reveal more information about the Democratic National Committee's finances and personal information on Democratic donors, as well as details about the DNC's network infrastructure. The cache also includes purported memos on tech initiatives from Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine's time as governor of Virginia, and some years-old missives on redistricting efforts and DNC donor outreach strategy. Most notable among Tuesday's documents may be the detailed spreadsheets allegedly about DNC fundraising efforts, including lists of DNC donors with names, addresses, emails, phone numbers and other sensitive details. Tuesday's documents regarding the DNC's information technology setup include several reports from 2010 purporting to show that the committee's network passed multiple security scans. In total, the latest dump contains more than 600 megabytes of documents. It is the first Guccifer 2.0 release to not come from the hacker's WordPress account. Instead, it was given out via a link to the small group of security experts attending [a London cybersecurity conference].
What about the large number of donors who, immediately after their hefty donations, received cushy ambassadorships?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
yawn...
Where's the evidence of the DNC specifically employing people to go to every polling place in the nation pretending to be somebody else to vote? Where's the evidence of Hillary having her own personal hit squad? Where are the obvious ties to the Communist party? Where is the document showing how literally Hillary Clinton and President Obama created ISIS?
All of these leaks will (finally?) let everybody know that if you are not "NSA Proof" you are not secure.
The last set of documents showed that the DNC broke campaign finance laws and yet absolutely nothing was done about it.
Since any damning evidence in documents from democrats will be ignored, why do they even try? It won't make any difference.
Now, if a similar trove of documents from the RNC was dumped, you can bet the DOJ would be all over it. Under Obama's administration political considerations trump the law every time.
You've got to know that a lot of left-leaning hackers must be targeting the RNC for this same sort of info in order to balance the scales. If the RNC is smart they'll have taken all of it off of internet-exposed computers and limited access to it for even trusted employees. Or, probably better, destroyed it completely. I think this represents the full emergence of cyber warfare for retail political means. What a strange new world awaits.
What are you talking about? Every media outlet except FOX is sucking at Hillary's big toes, and even at times FOX is sucking her toes and licking them. Whether it be in the US or Canada or the bloody UK. Hell NBC deleted a segment from a broadcast last night when Bill Clinton said Hillary "Frequently fainted" sorry I mean "occasionally fainted" that of course saved them all of 1.5 seconds from their 1hr broadcast time limit, which was their excuse. Nearly every site is sucking at her toes. Even on reddit from /r/politics to /r/news to /r/worldnews is deleting anti-Hillary stories, even when they use the exact title.
Om, nomnomnom...
There is reluctance to take actions base on evidence uncovered by illegally hacked emails. Doing so would invite more entities with political motivations to just hack more. Republicans have just as many (if not more) skeletons in the closet as Democrats. I’d say these are very close to Fruit of the Poison Tree kind of findings. Add to this the suspicion that the Russians are trying to game our political system by hacking and leaking and it all becomes a morass.
Letter To Iran
Surprise! I've submitted this news and slashdot refuses to run it. Just one more example of blatant pro-Trump bias on slashdot.
Because your submission didn't involve, you know, hackers... because this happens to be a, you know, tech site.
Dunno who modded your post up, but they're apparently just as unable to grasp that concept as you are.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
It is like when the talking heads on one news program (CNN I believe) described New York City on Sunday as "Sweltering", when it was 78 Degrees out, in an attempt to make Hillary's lie about dehydration seem more legitimate. Obviously they are "pro-Trump".
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Wouldn't surprise me. Here's the thing on CBC editing the news earlier too. Figured I'd post it since I fucked up and posted the wrong news org, my bad.
Om, nomnomnom...
Bullshit.
"Here is a list of gaffes, mistakes, or scandals that came out of the Trump campaign, just in the last seven days, just off the top of my head:
Let’s begin with the Commander and Chief Forum. Trump lavished praise on the Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. He then made the unprecedented error of discussing his classified intelligence briefings and claiming his briefers were unhappy with the current President. After that, Trump lied, yet again, that back in 2003 he opposed the Iraq War.
It was then revealed by the Washington Post that Trump had taken credit for charitable giving by others. It reported he lied to the IRS, claiming donations he never made. What’s more, he illegally used $20,000 earmarked for his charity to buy a six-foot portrait of himself.
Trump then gave a TV interview to the Kremlin’s propaganda network RT, and afterwards claimed he only did it because he was “tricked” by Larry King. In another appearance he gave an incoherent monologue about something he called “nuclear warming,” which included false accusations against Clinton and sentences like, “Uranium is big, big stuff because it means the ultimate.”
Next, as the terror attacks of 9/11 were remembered, a radio clip emerged of Trump (on the very day of the attacks!) boasting that his building was now the highest in New York. Then it was reported Trump has publicly lied about helping to recover bodies at Ground Zero. He also claimed he personally had “hundreds” of friends who died in the attack, not one of whom his campaign was able to name.
While all of this was going on, he made an unprecedented personal attack on the chair of the Federal Reserve, Janet Yellen. He renewed his attacks on Elizabeth Warren, once again calling her “Pocahontas.” He promised he would start a war with Iran if its sailors made inappropriate gestures. After his VP released his own tax returns, Trump once again refused to do the same. His son tweeted a neo-Nazi meme. And one of his chief surrogates disavowed the Geneva Conventions."
And here we are still talking about Clinton's irrelevant bullshit email story without a single fucking mention of any of those. Add to that the fact that pro-Clinton comments are downmoderated, pro-Clinton or anti-Trump stories are never posted, etc all goes to show how fundamentally slanted covetage on slashdot and every other site has been. Then there is the bullshit AP coverage, the bullshit New York Times coverage. It all adds up to the media, mainstream AND non-mainstream, all working hard to push Trump.
Hillary lies about what she said. Then she lies about telling lies. And then lies again.
Or perhaps she forgets what she said, after all the brain trauma she's experienced (and used as an excuse for not remembering critical briefings).
AND I guess you didn't see the part where I am not defending Trump. You're defending Hillary is amusing, when it is clear that she is every bit as bad as Trump is, and yet you think Trump is worse.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Sorry, that's not what I see. For example, she's apologized for her "super predator" and "half are deplorable" comments, or at least re-stated them to narrow the scope. Trump usually doubles down.
As far as "lies", Trump's Polifact accuracy score is far worse than H's. If you claim Politifact is biased, show us what falsehoods it points out that are not really falsehoods.
Table-ized A.I.
She apologized because she got caught, not because she didn't mean it. "basket of deplorables"wasn't an accident. She didn't apologize for calling 1/2 of Trumps supporters all those "phobic" names, which means she apologized for the word choice, not how she actually feels.
It is like liberals who claim to hate Misogyny, while laughing at Ann Coulter being called a CUNT 37 times during a roast for someone else. If I actually used that word, and called Hillary a "fucking cunt", every liberal would come unglued and I would instantly be labeled misogynist.
And again, you missed the point where I am not defending Trump at all. I'm not voting for him, so his lies aren't any better than Clinton's. You should go back and read through this thread, I actually made the case against pointing to bad behavior as justification / excuse for bad behavior being quite childish.
I don't find Trumps lies any less or more than Clinton's. They are more or less the same in my book, which is why NEITHER of them should be president. But keep defending the indefensible all you want.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Politifact is biased, it's owned and operated by a newspaper(Tampa Bay Times), that is not only in the tank for Hillary, but openly endorsed her. That means it's a partisan organization, and not independent. They much like snopes will turn around and claim something is half-true, or not true at all when it's expedient to do so because it doesn't fit their agenda. Seriously, if you can't see this you're simply unwilling to question something because it fits your own agenda. Especially if someone like me who is a political outsider and non-US citizen can find the facts that are contrary in many of their cases.
Personally, I still like her "under sniper fire" BS...while she was receiving a bouquet of flowers.
Om, nomnomnom...
And yet, Hillary limbos under that bar like she's Hermes Conrad strolling underneath the Arc de Triumph.
She's more corrupt, more dishonest, more contemptuous of the law, less skillful in foreign policy, less patriotic, and more contemptuous of those with opinions that differ from her own.
Not to mention the fact Bush held more press conferences in any given month than Hillary has done this entire year.
And Bush was obviously far healthier...
...without his ability, insight or taste.
Unlike you, I'm not going to pretend to be a mind-reader.
Trump got caught also, but still didn't apologize. My point stands.
But we are effectively stuck with only 2 choices, and I'll go with the least evil: the one who CAN apologize.
If it's a choice between a D and an F grade, I'll vote the D.
(The rest of your statements are off-topic.)
Table-ized A.I.
I'd suggest applying Hanlon's razor.
TV news are all rush-job cheap-skate slop-heads.
Perhaps they wanted to make it sound like they had a ground crew when they really didn't because they are cheap or late. There's many possibilities besides kissing H's ass.
(By the way, if it's humid, 78 degrees *is* hot in my opinion.)
Table-ized A.I.
Yes and no. The maximum salary for an ambassador is under $200k, so a wealthy donor certainly isn't in it for the money. In fact they usually end up spending far more than that out of their own pockets to keep up appearances.
Every media outlet except FOX is sucking at Hillary's big toes
What color is the sky in the world where you're posting from? Is it pretty?
The media has basically giving giving Trump nearly a free pass on everything he does so they can run more stories about Hillary coughing.
But we are effectively stuck with only 2 choices,
Actually if everyone who didn't like Hillary AND Trump voted for Gary Johnson, he would win in a landslide. Their Unfavorables are in the 60% range across party lines. If every one of those voted for Johnson, he would have more votes that the other two combined.
So, effectively becomes effectively enslaved to two party system ...and the lessor of two gawd awful candidates.
the one who CAN apologize.
And, there is a clip of Trump actually apologizing for something, somewhere, so he can apologize. So now what?
"Sometimes, in the heat of debate, and speaking on a multitude of issues, you don’t choose the right words or you say the wrong thing. I have done that, and believe it or not I regret it," Trump said.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...
You'll vote for a proven liar, who lies about lying, and then lies about lying about lying. And yet you believe her when she apologizes (not really though, if you actually saw the apology for the "Deplorable" comment). Stop lying to yourself, you'll vote for Hillary because you like some of the policies she is lying about to get elected. ;)
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
But heck, you can't even come up with an honest statement about your real feelings for Trump.
Trump is a fucktwad. Clear and honest enough?
Hillary is also a fucktwad. You just can't stand the thought of someone who isn't part of the two party cabal . Vote for the lying liar Hillary if you want. But do not be surprised when the world goes to hell in a handbasket, because that is her actual record.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
My wife would agree with you. She thinks 70 is hot, regardless of humidity. Me, I think 64 is freezing cold.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Sorry, but by my observation Trump apologizes less often and lies more often.
I've seen no evidence Politificact is significantly biased. Although not perfect, they WANT to be considered credible by everyone.
Table-ized A.I.
Because that's wingnut dumbfuckery:
1) There are only two political appointments at the IRS, and the chief was a Bush appointee
2) The only group to be denied tax-exempt status was a liberal one
Now, this is where the chicken-fuckers whine that more conservative groups were investigated than liberal ones - but no shit, Sherlock, that's because the explosion in groups after Citizen United was entirely conservative. Unions didn't have billions to suddenly throw at front groups, that's the Koch's and the Sheldon Adelson's. And unions are of course invested in the other right wing party - the Democrats.
It's not like there aren't legit issues for right-wingers to complain about - Obama signing the NDAA, letting the banks commit the greatest theft in the history of the human race, persecuting more whistleblowers than all previous presidents combined times two - but that would require you to be honest for five seconds.
And we can't have that, can we?
Mendacity and ass-covering do not an apology make. HRC has never said she's sorry, only used the same doublespeak she uses to defend her Iraq War vote.
Yes, they are a biased, right-wing rag. Which is why the endorsed the right-wing candidate most likely to support the status quo.
Yea, and Hillary "stumbled" when getting into her campaign van. When in reality, she was carried by her SS bodyguards, with her feet dragging on the sidewalk.
No. They didn't. If she were anyone else, she'd already be in jail, and looking at a century of prison time. Just ask the sailor being prosecuted by the DOJ for taking pictures of a submarine on his phone - they agree that he didn't intend to distribute them, but is still prosecuting him for mishandling classified evidence.
And that's for for a few pictures, not tens of thousands of emails on an unsecured, unauthorized, public-facing email server.
Trusting huffington post is like trusting mediamatters to not take something out of context in order to try painting an agenda. It's only a step above gawker and a small one.
Om, nomnomnom...
Because I bitch about Hillary more than Trump I am a Trump supporter? That is the one lame argument. The MSM have nailed Trump all over the place, does that mean they are in the tank for Hillary, or is that just unbiased reporting?
spend a week posting criticism of Trump, Republicans and the Right-wing.
I don't need to. There is PLENTY of places where you can go to get all the anti-Trump crap you want, including just about every MSM outlet. But when the MSM calls 78 Degree weather "Sweltering", to defend Clinton's medical collapse, and run her a couple hours later "feeling great" and hugging a little girl having been diagnosed with "pneumonia" (medially irresponsible), I will be "attacking" her.
The fact is, Hillary is being protected by so fucking many people on so many different levels, that it is approaching comedy levels of obvious. Trump, everyone is attacking, from the dipshit fucktwads in the GOP, to every nutjob in the DNC and MSM
So, I am not lacking in any area of "self-awareness", as I am actually paying attention. Perhaps you can tell me, besides "I hate Trump" three reasons why you are supporting Hillary. I want specific examples besides the typical vapid emotional arguments. My guess is, you can't.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
In the cases I've looked at, Politifact provides explanations of why they rule the way they do, and you can examine them and check on them if you like. This isn't the same as being unbiased, but the difference in truthfulness they record between Clinton and Trump can't be explained by any sort of subtle bias that would stand up to examination.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Okay, put up or shut up. Name one person who negligently got small amounts of classified data where it shouldn't be and faced serious criminal prosecution. The most I've seen was a misdemeanor charge that was dropped.
The sailor deliberately took pictures of the submarine. This isn't negligence. This was a deliberate action, and presumably known to be illegal at the time.
I don't know what the law says exactly, but I do know how the cases are usually handled. Deliberately put classified material where it doesn't belong and you get seriously prosecuted. Do that negligently and you aren't.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Did NPR pointedly refused to call torture, torture, or did they not? Yes, they did. So WYP? That you are even more unreliable than you're accuse HuffPo and Gawker of being?
Actually that's continuing to stick fingers in the ears. Who armed those religious fanatics? The United States. Who's the greatest recruiter for religious extremists? The U.S. military, when it bombs weddings and funerals and schools and markets and apartments and hospitals. Who's ensured that more countries are run by religious extremists? The United States, when it props up the most repressive government in the world, Saudi Arabia. The United States, when it overthrows secular governments in Afghanistan and Iran and Libya and Iraq and Syria (work in progress).
On what planet is Hillary's email server "small"? In order of proportion, you're comparing an anthill (sailor's cell phone) to Mt. Everest. With Mt. McKinley parked on top it (HRC's email server). Sandy Berger, by comparison, had a literal handful of documents (he had them in his pants pockets) and pled to 2 years probation, a $50,000 fine, and the loss of his security clearance and law license.
Do tell us how this election would go if Hillary was entering the debates with Trump on probation, disbarred, and without a security clearance for the first three years of her presidency. Oh, and part of the reason Berger was prosecuted? He destroyed the classified material he had. How many emails did Hillary delete from her server? Over 30,000. Sure, she claims those were personal, but she also claimed that none of them were marked classified at the time (pure mendacity as that information is inherently classified) but lied about that too.
Anyone else, the charges would include Obstruction of Justice, in addition to mishandling classified evidence.
Yes, taking pictures on his phone was a deliberate act. Setting up a private, unsecured, unauthorized email server to run 100% of your highly classified email communications was also a deliberate act. How much power does a cognitive dissonance generator require to ignore the parallels and the scale involved? Is it powered by a fusion reactor?
Nope. Going back to the sailor again, even the the DOJ prosecutors agree that he had no intent to distribute the pictures. Because intent is irrelevant in the government's eyes, only the action matters. The act of mishandling classified evidence. Just ask any whisteblower to face the DOJ's wrath, like John Kiriakou. The only person to go to prison for the CIA's brutal torture program....is the man who revealed it's existence.