Top Democrats Request FBI Investigation of Trump Campaign Ties To Russia Over Hacking (politico.com)

As the Trump campaign refuses to point blame at Russia for the DNC hacks, top democrats on four House committees are questioning possible connections between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russia. They have formally asked the FBI to investigate the matter, citing new comments from a Trump confidant. Politico reports: "Troubling new evidence appears to show that the Trump campaign not only was aware of cyber attacks against Secretary [Hillary] Clinton's campaign chairman, but was openly bragging about it as far back as August," said Reps. Elijah Cummings from Government Affairs, John Conyers from Judiciary, Eliot Engel from Foreign Affairs and Bennie Thompson from Homeland Security. "For months, we have been asking the FBI to examine links between the Trump campaign and illegal Russian efforts to affect our election, including interviewing Trump advisor Roger Stone," they said. "In light of this new evidence -- and these exceptional circumstances -- we call on the FBI to fully investigate and explain to the American people what steps it is taking to disrupt this ongoing criminal activity." Earlier this week Stone said that "I do have a back-channel communication with Assange," referring to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, whose organization has been dropping documents online from Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, and has been unloading documents from other Democrats as well. U.S. intelligence agencies last week declared that a connection exists between Russia and allegedly hacked documents leaked by WikiLeaks and others.

Comments

Can we see this evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we see some of this troubling new evidence before we go to war with Russia please?

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

The bush white house lost 22 million, but um that is different. Right? 22 million

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[KeensMustard]

I can't keep with the various theories - she's a demon, she's a lizard person from the planet zorg, she eats babies, she is personally responsible for the deaths in Syria. Just *insert random theory here* I guess.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

So because a wrong was committed in the past, it's okay to commit another one now even though we have the chance do right?

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[acrimonious howard]

Yup, there's the subpoena. But even before that (addressing parent now), I'd argue that the emails are more important from the Bush Administration. From the excellent Newsweek article: "when the Bush administration was ginning up support for what turned out to be a disastrous war in Iraq with false claims that the country possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and, later, when it was firing U.S. attorneys for political reasons."

The Iraq war (II) and subsequent fighting is responsible for over 1 million deaths. 1 million deaths. I can't imagine how anyone can argue that it's not the most serious issue of the past 40+ years. Then there's the refugee crisis, al qaeda in Iraq (I don't care how they spell it), and the birth of isis, all stemming from this political decision.

If you have to talk politics, and sorry - this is a binary choice at the presidential level, you have to bring up the death of a *million* people. And then remember this email thing really came from a political witch hunt, costing tax payers millions of dollars. About a few broken laws and a handful of documents? If Hillary directly shot the 4 Benghazi victims herself, that would be comparable to less than an hour of American soldiers dying in the worst Iraq fighting. But she didn't. She was running a big organization and she (and more so others) made a mistake, for which she's examined and answered plenty already, and changes have been made to hopefully prevent the mistakes in the future.

Where's the Iraq War marathon hearings? How much did who profit from them?

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[KeensMustard]

Comprehension fail on your part. In no sense am I "speaking for her". I'm highlighting the lack of any evidence in the argument that says she is a criminal.

If you don't believe in the rule of law then that is your problem. Nobody will justify it to you.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[ooloorie]

So your argument is: "Vote for Hillary, she is possibly no worse than Bush!" Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. Neither does "Vote for Hillary, she is not a misogynist."

And even if there were an equivalence between Bush and Hillary on e-mails, that leaves the Clinton Foundation, Hillary's "two positions", and a string of outrageous behavior.

But the foremost problem with Hillary Clinton is the political positions she holds: both the ones her pollsters have crafted for her public appearances and the ones she has crafted to appeal to her billionaire friends and Wall Street buddies. Of course, nobody knows what she really believes, if anything.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[FalseModesty]

Even if all of that were true (and it isn't even close), it still wouldn't matter. Trump is so vastly worse in every way.

Take the blinders off.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[dcw3]

Let's see...

* Compromised national security by keeping classified on a private server, then lying about it, and deleting emails when subpoenaed.
* Says she's a champion for women, yet attacked the women who her husband screwed.
* Voted for the war in Iraq
* Complete failure in the handling of the Arab Spring, leaving voids in Libya and Egypt
* Pay for play with the Clinton Foundation
*
*
This list goes on and on.

Yes, Trump said some stupid shit that would normally disqualify him, but there's been no evidence, only speculation, that he's actually done anything criminal. And suddenly, a few weeks before the election, we're supposed to believe a bunch of women who come out at the last minute to make claims against him that he's got no chance to defend against...not buying it w/o evidence.

Sure thing

[HBI]

Right after they get on investigating the Clinton Foundation.

Re:Sure thing

[randomErr]

And all new allegations that came out in the hacked emails?

Re: Sure thing

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean they should spend tax money and valuable resources investigating one of the most transparent and well respected charitable organizations on the planet? I can't imagine why they would do that, other than at the request of some tiny-handed megalomaniac.

Re:Sure thing

[h33t l4x0r]

Considering that HRC is the most investigated candidate in history, I think it's fair to take a little peek at Trump.

Re:Sure thing

[Rei]

Tell me, how many of the hacked emails have you actually read?

How many of the hacked emails do you think almost anyone bringing them up has actually read?

I, unlike (almost assuredly) you, and the vast majority of people citing them, have actually read several. Now, keep in mind that these were carefully selected by Wikileaks, out of the vast number of emails that a campaign chair goes through, to be the most harmful things that they can find. In most of them, Clinton isn't even part of the conversation - not even quoted several replies back. However, in some of them, things she's written there. And my reaction to reading the actual words of Hillary Clinton?

Honestly, I was impressed.

Lest you think I'm a Clinton supporter, I was an Obama delegate in 2008 in the primaries when I lived in the US, aka fought hard against Clinton and her dirty campaign then. And I was a Bernie backer this time around and was harshly attacked by Clinton fans on progressive sites. Her politics don't align well with mine. She's a hawk. She's very pro-Israel. She's lagged behind the rest of the party on a lot of issues that I think important, only belatedly coming to the table (for example, gay marriage). Let's just say, I'm not her biggest fan.

But she comes across very well in her emails. It's interesting to get to read things from her not intended for public consumption, aka, without a filter. She comes across as extremely wonkish, very well informed, thinking about every last angle of every issue. To pick an example at random: one of the emails was leaked by Wikileaks to show that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were suspected of giving covert support to Daesh. Indeed, that's a very brief line in the email, that it's suspected and diplomatic pressure should be put on them to stop it. But most of the content in the email was a strategy analysis for how to deal with the conflicts in the region. If we do X, then Y will be upset with us, but we can compensate with Z, and if we don't do it then A will perceive B and think that they can then get away with C..... on and on across numerous axes. How can you change perceptions without actually taking action, for example? She brings up Benghazi - every Republican's favorite buzzword. But it's in the context of two US fighter jets who overflew during the attacks, and about how even though the jets had no authorization to attack, simple fear that they would provide close air support diminished the level of attacks for several hours.

Check out any of the leaked emails with any relevant amount of content from her. Not just some brief "here's the twitter-length shocker" summary written by someone else - read them yourselves. Yes, the "shockers" are there. But so are very detailed lines of thinking about policy. No rage or emotional reactions. Actually, if you want to stick any of the "negative Hillary stereotypes" to her private writings, the one that probably fits best is the "cold and calculating" one. Analytic would probably be a better summary. Things like, what are all of the angles on this? What do we know, and what don't we know? What's the long game?

Just my take. Form your own. Take in more than just soundbytes.

Re: Sure thing

[Bartles]

No, he's a Democrat. And Democrats always come home, even if its for a candidate who was the Antichrist 8 years ago, and who rigged the primary against their preferred candidate.

So much hypocrisy from the DNC...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, right after we look into that whole election rigging nonsense the DNC pulled. Doesn't feel so good, does it guys?

Re:So much hypocrisy from the DNC...

[AutodidactLabrat]

What election rigging?
Not one voter was forbidden to vote, not one vote was switched.
Hillary got more votes, and that is why she is beating Trump with his own mouth

Re:So much hypocrisy from the DNC...

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because the head of the DNC always resigns in disgrace when nothing wrong was done...

The source isn't important

[somenickname]

The whole, "The Russians did it!" is completely irrelevant. The hacks/leaks/whatever show that these people are complete slime and probably shouldn't be trusted to clean your toilet, let alone run your country. If the Russians have this information, it's safe to assume that *everyone* who wants this information has it. This entire crescendo of "The Russians!" is just a ploy to try to get people to ignore the horrible facts in these leaks and instead build up a bogeyman to redirect the peoples anger. It's grade A+ politics.

Re:The source isn't important

[J053]

So, we should just ignore the real possibility that a concerted effort is being made by the Russian intelligence services to influence our election, and install a President who would be favorable to Russian interests?

Re:The source isn't important

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. (Probably.) I'm not sure if the Russian interests are governmental (Putin-related or not), other political, economical or private, but whatever. The ‘interests’ are trying to influence our elections through data leaks. That means they have found that on some subjects their interests align with ours, and if you're a party whose interests align with the people of some nation, there's nothing wrong with trying to persuade that people, and when you do, you'll necessarily influence the elections. So you might as well do it when the elections are coming soon, because if you wait, then you might have persuaded the people but you might still have to deal with politicians with other agendas for another term.

Re:The source isn't important

[guruevi]

Yes? EVERYONE tries to influence EVERYONE's elections, the US meddles in pretty much every "election" overseas. A lot of the 'elections' in South America and even the Middle East have historically been heavily influenced by the CIA if not outright manufactured by them. If these candidates were on the up-and-up they wouldn't be able to be so easily influenced.

Cold War 2: Electric Boogaloo

[Anonymous Coward]

The threat of Middle Eastern terrorists is starting to wear thin. The MIC needs something bigger to justify trillions more in tax dollars dumped into defense. Gotta get that dosh somehow.
Ignore the blatant corruption in the political parties, media, banking, and government, remember, this is all Russia's fault. And Donald Trump too, that fucking fat rapist tax dodger.

Illegal?

[zedaroca]

Let's for a moment pretend it was the Russians...

illegal Russian efforts to affect our election

They are not illegal, they followed the law, the constitution and their policies.

Or are you saying that when conducting operations overseas the laws in the country affected should be considered? In that case everything the NSA does is illegal, not just the national spying.

Re:Illegal?

[ZenShadow]

Let's for a moment pretend it was the Russians...

Yes, let's.

In this case illegal or not is not the primary issue. Democracy works to the extent it does because the playing field is nearly level. If one side has far more power to dig up dirt on the other side that is a perversion of the process.

Hillary has the actual sitting President of the United States working for her campaign at this point. He's making speeches and so forth. He is the head of our government, and has at his disposal the NSA, CIA, FBI, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Suddenly, even with those "Russian" hacks, the field seems like it's tilted at about an eighty degree angle. Two guesses which side has the better position.

IOW, that was a terrible argument if you think supposed "Russian" involvement is somehow making the field less fair.

That said, in case you couldn't "tell", I still haven't seen even a shred of evidence that the Russians are involved. All I hear is Hillary screaming it at the top of her lungs. Funnily enough, at the beginning of this cycle, I was deeply concerned about Trump's lack of diplomacy and what it would do for foreign relations. I never expected to be terrified of Hillary reaching office for the very same reason, albeit on a far more immediate and concrete level.

Some of the younger folk around here are probably too young to remember the cold war. I remember the tail end of it, and that was bad enough. I'd really rather not go back to that, especially with an opposing Russian government that seems far less stable and far more aggressive. I doubt it would be so cold this time.

Let's face it: both candidates suck, and Hillary will probably have us at war with Russia halfway through her first term.

What we should be doing is having a meaningful conversation about the alternative candidates, and convincing everyone to vote for neither of the current major party candidates. If nothing else, we as citizens should be sending a loud and clear message that the behavior of the major parties -- BOTH of them -- is unacceptable to the American people. Yes, I know I'm dreaming.

Hey... are write-ins still allowed? Maybe Bernie or Ted can still win!

What about investigating the content in the leaks?

[StandardCell]

Disclaimer: I don't think either Trump or Clinton is suited to be president, for different but equally important reasons, and we desperately need a real third party candidate better than Johnson or Stein.

That said, the level of political gyration in this election is beyond astounding. I and many others have lost complete faith in journalistic integrity and ethics, and we are approaching Soviet-era levels of information control with respect to the leaks. In those leaks are very serious allegations of fraud, illegal collusion with the media and with other parties inside and outside the government, perjury and other criminal acts, the hypocritical content aside.

You will also notice that no politician has forwarded these allegations for investigation to the FBI, nor has the FBI apparently undertaken any effort to investigate these allegations. You will notice that the FBI has begun investigating the source of the leaks, but this action is contradictory in and of itself. Either the leaks are false, in which case there is nothing real that was leaked, or the leaks are true, in which case both the leaked material AND the source of the leaks are investigated.

What we have now is an overt subversion of the rule of law and the distraction pointed at our old enemy Russia. Russia, of course, isn't too happy with us meddling in Ukraine or Syria because we can't get our fucking noses out of those places and nearly every other country where we have some cold war or energy interest. As much as I regret saying this, the Arab Spring has shown that having a dictator in the Arab world is preferable to having tribal religious extremism tear the country apart, destroy some of humanity's oldest heirlooms in the name of religious extremism, and spawn terrorism all over the world.

But even that isn't enough. Now there's word the CIA will organize a cyber-attack against Russia soon. I'm definitely not a big fan of Russia with their imperialistic ambitions and the oligarchs robbing common people their blind, but this country is doing everything but deescalating conflict and creating an extremely dangerous situation.

Perhaps it's finally time to clean up our own house, first and foremost. If we can't fight the level of corruption that the Wikileaks emails and subsequent actions of the current administration have shown, then there's no doubt that using yet another foreign conflict as a distraction is driving this country headlong into disaster. Too bad people can't get together and put their partisanship aside to have a million people march outside the Capitol or down Pennsylvania Avenue to attempt to get them to investigate everything and everyone impartially, foreign and domestic, Republicrat and Demican, and everyone in between.

In other words, if we don't get our shit together, welcome to the alternate version of Alien vs. Predator. Whoever wins, we lose.

Re:FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

Pick either candidate, your future president will be a loser and an international joke regardless.
I'm embarrassed for you all.

Building wealth

[Okian Warrior]

I mean, it seems pretty weird to "not give up on Trump" at this point. You really genuinely want a republican president so badly that you're willing to elect a kiddy fiddler?

Heh.

That is sooooo far away from important to me that it doesn't even register.

Important to me is turning away from globalism, making the government work for Americans, and fixing some of our obvious problems.

Of those, the most important to me is the globalism thing. If you look at economics from a math perspective (specifically: game theory, and I'm a math person) you see that economics is based on flawed rationalizations. It's patently obvious that the rationalizations are true and correct given their assumptions, but that the assumptions are wrong.

The thing that made America great in the last half of the 20th century was the ability for citizens to build and keep wealth. Many people could get an education with little-or-no money, find a job, buy a house and raise a family.

People are finding that they can't do that any more, largely because of globalism. When a wealth-building country partners with a non-wealth-building country, all the wealth flows out of the great country and into the poor country.

England can partner with Germany or Norway and would do well. England partnering with Poland, Spain, or Greece is a disaster - Greeks can move to England and take high-paying jobs, but the English can't do the same in Greece. Greece is full of corruption, which limits personal wealth building.

To take a clear example, Clinton wants a 65% estate tax. This is a clear burden on creating and keeping wealth, it's double taxing, and it will be a disaster.

Farms can't be left to children, they'll have to be sold to pay the taxes. Family-owned businesses too. And houses.

And if there's no one interested in your farm, or business, or house at the time you need to sell it, it'll be sold for a lot less than it's worth just to pay the taxes.

That's only one example, but there are a ton of others. Pretty-much everything Clinton is for will pull the country down into poverty.

Yes, I'm for Trump simply because he wants to reverse that trend.

I don't care if he's Sithrak the blind gibberer in his private life.

If he's not Clinton, he's better.

Re: Building wealth

[bestweasel]

He's such a stone-cold, 100% genuine solid idiot that should he win, he will be outwitted by every world leader he meets. They'll only have to say "ISIS" and he'll jump up and beg (if that doesn't work they'll dangle a pretty young woman in front of him and make sure the cameras are running). That's why he's Putin's poodle. Putin's a great leader, Putin fight ISIS, yeah we're best friends on no wait I mean we never even talked. Wikileaks is all he has against Clinton so he has to be grateful.

He can't even cope with questions from journalists without bluster, bullying and evasion, oh yes, and lies, mustn't forget lies. He digs his own traps, decides they're not big enough, digs a bit more then jumps in. How well would that work as President?

Re: Building wealth

[jasmusic]

He's such a stone-cold, 100% genuine solid idiot that should he win, he will be outwitted by every world leader he meets.

Why do you say stupid shit? He didn't get to his station in life by being outwitted. You should be able to deduce that. Every square inch of Manhattan has to be negotiated for between banks, developers AND regulators, on a level I bet you are utterly unaware even exists. His "bullying bluster and evasion" prevents his enemies from nailing him down with technicalities that aren't even important to THEM. That's what Democrats do, ignore the forest and harass you on the dimensions of each leaf.

Re:Building wealth

[jrumney]

To take a clear example, Clinton wants a 65% estate tax.

You do realise that the proposal to raise the estate tax does not come with any proposal to lower the exemption limit, which currently stands at $5.45M. This tax is simply not affecting ordinary citizens, you are being misled by the very people who are taking your wealth and lining their pockets with it.

Re:Building wealth

[Rockoon]

his tax is simply not affecting ordinary citizens

It effects small business owners.

In fact, its a very direct attack on them.

Want to leave the small business to your children? Too fucking bad says Clinton.

Re:FFS

[king neckbeard]

So, the fact that the effective leader of the Democratic party, the one that will have the most influence on foreign policy, the one that keeps a shitlist on anyone that defies her family, loves war isn't relevant to the discussion?

so what?

[FalseModesty]

So we should go ahead and do what Putin wants, because everybody wants something? That makes Trump sense.