Slashdot Mirror
NSA Chief: Nation-State Made 'Conscious Effort' To Sway US Presidential Election (aol.com)
The head of the US National Security Agency has said that a "nation-state" consciously targeted presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, in order to affect the US election. From an AOL article:Adm. Michael Rogers, who leads both the NSA and US Cyber Command, made the comments in response to a question about Wikileaks' release of nearly 20,000 internal DNC emails during a conference presented by The Wall Street Journal. "There shouldn't be any doubt in anybody's minds," Rogers said. "This was not something that was done casually. This was not something that was done by chance. This was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily. This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect." Rogers did not specify the nation-state or the specific effect, though US intelligence officials suspect Russia provided the emails to Wikileaks, after hackers stole them from inside DNC servers and the personal email account of Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta. At least two different hacker groups associated with the Russian government were found inside the networks of the DNC over the past year, reading emails, chats, and downloading private documents. Many of those files were later released by Wikileaks.Further reading: Quartz and MotherJones.
As far as I am concerned the only thing that is important was were the e-mails faked. If the were not than all said nation state really did was give us a better informed public.
Did they maybe not do the same to the other side? Who cares so what? Its not like all sorts of world leaders, and international organizations, didn't make their opinions known about who they wanted to be the next president. Should we image those acts and the resulting media coverage don't impact US elections?
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
The United States has been making "conscious efforts," one way or another, since at least the 1960's if not earlier. Unless the US has some super-special unique privilege among nations, then any nation can play in any way it pleases.
I don't think that Russia was the power that supplied the emails to WikiLeaks. If they really did want Trump to win, they'd have muzzled Snowden, who they allowed to release a statement debunking Trump's claim about how the 2nd investigation could have wrapped up so quickly.
While I agree that WikiLeaks may not have been the sole reason Clinton lost, I also don't think that people ignored it. While the media may well have ignored it, there was nothing stopping voters from going there and seeing what was out. Whether it was Clinton's statement about a borderless Americas, or her staff's views on Catholics, or Donna Brazille leaking questions to Clinton that she was gonna be asked the next day, people didn't need the media to tell them more if they were interested.
But yeah, while Trump would have a policy speech a day in each of his 6 rallies in the last few days, the only thing Clinton had was abusing Trump. Okay, but how different would your policies be from Obama's? And if it won't be, why would it result any differently in what we have now? Why would your plan on Obamacare salvage the pocketbooks of people who have to pay enhanced premiums and higher deductables for reduced coverage? Blah blah blah
And yeah, first woman president was singularly unimpressive, given that she got where she did due to marrying a politically savvy AK governor who went on to become the most successful Democrat president to date. If Warren or Pelosi were to run, the 'first woman president' moniker would suit them.
That being said, however....if Hillary hadn't been such a weak candidate, and not had so many skeletons in her closet, and hadn't been involved with SO many shady things over her career, then none of her staff would have been talking about all this on those emails that were leaked, and there wouldn't have been so much dirt on her to be leaked.
While I detest the meddling in our country's election, regardless of the source....this info DID come strait from the Democrats showing their dirty laundry and underhanded tricks, being in bed with much of the main stream media.....and from the Clinton campaign where her staff was rightfully worried about all the baggage she carried and how poorly she was adept at handling it and not causing more problems for herself and public image.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Personally I'm all for requiring identification to vote. In fact the first time I went to vote I was sorta floored when I went to pull out my Identification and the attendant nearly had a heart attack at the notion that I should somehow prove I was who I said I was.
However I also feel that at that point said identification should be provided to any eligible citizens free of charge and well before it is required for any major election cycle.
Releasing those emails a week before the election so that the FBI could start another investigation into them probably swung it for Trump. Turned out that there was nothing there though, mostly just duplicates and nothing really related to Clinton.
In other words, they released nothing but innuendo and triggered an investigation. How is that not corrupt and deliberately misleading the public? And in what way did the media lie about it? Seems more like they wouldn't shut up about it even when it turned out to be nothing, all the while damaging her campaign.
You live in a strange fantasy land where the mainstream media is somehow in the Democrat's pocket while also helping them to go from a near certain win to a loss. They lapped up Trump's campaign too, giving him massive amounts of free publicity every time he said something stupid or outrageous. They were actively helping him, playing into the hands of an obvious demagogue who fed off controversy and being deliberately offensive.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
This was a disaster of the Democrats own making.
I'd wager Clinton agreed to a forced compromise on Obama getting the nod in 2008 based on his popularity in return for a clear path in 2016 and maximum party support.
The Democrats did everything -- suppress alternative candidates who could have risen up since 2008, railroad the Sanders campaign -- they could to clear a path for Hillary and Hillary only. And she presented a candidacy that only promised more of what everyone already had, which was great for the professional, ownership and social welfare classes but absolutely awful for everyone else.
They voted for a racist, misogynistic fascist
I don't think Donald is racist or misogynistic. He is just tone-deaf to political correctness, and has no filter between his brain and his mouth. So he says things that would indeed be racist if they were said by someone that ACTUALLY THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE SAYING. But he doesn't do that, so he shouldn't be judged by the same standard.
There were women in high levels in the Trump organization, and in his campaign, and by most accounts he treated them fairly. He also worked well with blacks and gays. There is some evidence he discriminated against blacks when marketing the condos in his towers, but the evidence is weak, and was likely motivated by business rather than by prejudice.
I didn't vote for the guy, and I don't like him. But calling him a "racist, misogynistic fascist" is hyperbole. He is another Berlusconi, not another Mussolini.
Knowing how to govern isn't the quality I despise in her.
Wanting to govern absolutely everything is the quality I despise in her.
Being good at oppressing me didn't win my vote. At least with Trump I don't have a certainty that he will crush liberty and give nothing in return.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
If it takes a foreign nation hacking in our nation to make sure the Truth gets out, then so be it.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
No you didn't; I owned one of those, way back in the day (was connected to the much-upgraded COSMAC ELF microcomputer trainer, that I added 8KB of static RAM to, a serial interface, and 2KB integer BASIC in 2708 EPROMs. A Model 33ASR Teletype was uppercase-only, at a blazing 10cps. Fully electro-mechanical, the keyboard had a 1-key rollover, so if you were a good typist, you'd have pressure on the next key before the TTY had finished transmitting the last one over the 20-milliamp current-loop interface.
Because providing every citizen with a free government ID with a picture on it is, apparently, racist.
I am still trying to figure this one out. However I have been assured by the media that Hillary Clinton's tears will cure ovarian cancer, and that black people catch fire if Trump looks at them in anger, free government ID's are racist to the core. Its the god's honest truth, told to me by an atheist journalist.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
So, it's ok for him to say racist & misogynistic stuff
No it is no "ok", but it also doesn't necessarily mean he is racist. If I was running for president, would I want David Duke to vote for me? YES, I would. Every extra vote helps. If I was asked by a reporter if I wanted David Duke to vote for me, what would I say? I would say "NO", because that is the politically correct thing to say, and too many Americans are too stupid to understand the difference between desiring someone's vote and agreeing with them. Since Donald doesn't filter what he says through political correctness (or rational analysis) he didn't disavow David Duke. But, to his credit, he did try to weasel out of it later by blaming it on a bad earpiece.
Tossing around insults like "racist", "misogynist" and "fascist" doesn't help to win elections. Instead, the Democrats should have talked about what they could do to help working class people. They abjectly failed to do that. It is ironic how the Republicans are perceived to be the party of the working class, while the Democrats are seen as controlled by the elite.
Don't call it meddling, call it self defence because of course the US government fucks with every god damn single fucking country on the planet. The very least of what the US does is way more than what they are now in the most bullshitting disgusting way imaginable, claiming against others. PS multinational corporations have more influence over the US government, than US citizens do and of course foreign countries also buy into that same action as well but I suppose that is fucking OK because lobbyists take a percentage of that action and they are the ones writing the laws. Oh the bullshit coming out of the US is just getting sillier and sillier. Why, the lying fuckers are desperate to stay out of jail but they have pissed off way to many honest agents for those agents not to take affirmative action to ensure equal opportunity prosecution and imprisonment ;D.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
That was when computers were still fun. Now they're just work, and politics, and an annoyance. A 6Mhz Z80B processor, 64kB RAM, CP/M 2.2, and a C compiler were the height of the fun. Kinda all started going downhill from there.
Do you know who came up with 'Drain the swamp'?
Mussolini.
Do you know what fascists do?
Mute the press. Check
Make it us vs them (jews/muslims/dems). Check
Promise that everything will be great, without real plans. Check
Put in their friends/elites. Check
THEN they have the power to whatever they want, laws don't matter to them. Remember, this is the guy who promised the military would do war crimes for him. During the second national debate. On live TV.
Ummm, wake up. That's what HILLARY! did.
CONTROL the press - check.
Incite blacks vs whites, everyone vs "the 1%", "If you don't vote for me you're sexist BECAUSE I HAVE A VAGINA" - check.
Absolutely NO policy proposals - check
Clinton cronies already in power - check
Hillary! even has that "laws don't matter to her" down pat ALREADY.
Sooo, do you project much?