Slashdot Mirror


White House Supports Claim Putin Directed US Election Hack (bbc.com)

The White House is suggesting that Russian President Vladimir Putin was directly involved in a hacking operation aimed at interfering with the U.S. presidential election. BBC reports: Ben Rhodes, adviser to President Barack Obama, said that Mr Putin maintains tight control on government operations, which suggests that he was aware. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest added that it was "pretty obvious" that Mr Putin was involved. "Everything we know about how Russia operates and how Putin controls that government would suggest that, again, when you're talking about a significant cyber intrusion like this, we're talking about the highest levels of government," Mr Rhodes said. "And ultimately, Vladimir Putin is the official responsible for the actions of the Russian government." NBC reported that the U.S. had evidence that Mr Putin personally directed how information hacked by Russian intelligence was leaked. The Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence also released a statement asserting Russia had orchestrated the hack, including breaches on the Democratic National Committee and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The contents of those hacks, passed to Wikileaks and posted online, were embarrassing to the Democrats and shook up the presidential campaign. The NBC report, which cited two unnamed senior officials, said the hacking campaign began as a "vendetta" against Mrs Clinton before becoming "an effort to show corruption in American politics and split off key American allies." Mr Putin is said to have been furious when Mrs Clinton, as secretary of state, questioned the integrity of 2011 parliamentary elections in Russia. He publicly accused her of encouraging street protests.

48 of 715 comments (clear)

  1. "Suggesting" ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... nothing of substance here.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:"Suggesting" ... by 31415926535897 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. And they keep saying "election hack" in all of the headlines, so it keeps sounding as if Russia and Putin himself were meddling with the voting mechanisms: i.e. hacking voting machines or election authority networks. And I strongly suspect that's exactly how they want it to sound.

      Even if the claims are exactly true, that Russia hacked the DNC to expose their secrets, all they wound up doing was publishing what was true for the world to see--that the DNC was manipulating everything they could to coronate HRC as heir apparent. The wikileaks publications only brought us a little bit closer to the full disclosure every voter should have before making their decisions.

      But I suppose in the minds of some, that invalidates the election results.

    2. Re:"Suggesting" ... by SubtleGuest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And you aren't concerned that a foreign country directly altered the outcome of an election here?

    3. Re:"Suggesting" ... by sexconker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And you aren't concerned that a foreign country directly altered the outcome of an election here?

      I'm more concerned that a domestic party nearly got away with doing the same thing.

      IF you believe the Russian hacker bullshit (and we have seen ZERO evidence of it), all they did was expose truth.

    4. Re:"Suggesting" ... by argStyopa · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Notice that the coverage has gone from Russians "hacking" the voting machines, to the subtly different "hacking" the elections, ie trying to manipulate the elections. This is of course as the plausibility of the DNCs original intimation of hacked voting machines falls after the WI recount.

      In that EXACT same syntax, Martin Sheen's bitchfest video begging electors not to vote for Trump is trying to "hack" (ie manipulate) the election.

      For that matter, why aren't we talking just as much about the $millions$ HRC took from Qatar and other Gulf States for her campaign? Weren't they trying to 'hack' the election in their much more direct and documented way?

      --
      -Styopa
    5. Re:"Suggesting" ... by msauve · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "a foreign country directly altered the outcome of an election"

      FAKE NEWS ALERT!

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    6. Re:"Suggesting" ... by meta-monkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's just as much evidence of Russians hacking as there is of illegals voting: it sounds like something they would do. I am as bothered by Russians hacking emails as you are by illegals voting.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    7. Re:"Suggesting" ... by _KiTA_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And you aren't concerned that a foreign country directly altered the outcome of an election here?

      I'd be very concerned, if that happened. ... Got any evidence of that happening?

      Because so far we've seen absolutely nothing other than the Regressive Left completely losing their minds. Seriously, Keith Olbermann's twitter reads like a slightly less sane Alex Jones rant. It makes me wonder if he's always been that nuts and I just didn't notice because I agree with him politically.

      In the end, it's best to remember Sagan's Law - "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The idea that Russia would have committed an act of war to prevent Hillary from inciting a war with them is an EXTREMELY large claim. Where's the evidence? Hell, the CIA won't even show this supposed evidence to Congress but are demanding to show it to the Electoral College members.

      All told, so far what it looks like to me is that "Russian Hackers" is this year's "But where's the Birth Certificate?" A cheap political smear job designed to delegitimize the incoming administration and make President Trump waste political capital dealing with loons. It has the added bonus of giving the Regressive Left an excuse as to why they lost that doesn't involve them doing any form of self reflection.

    8. Re:"Suggesting" ... by meta-monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But the Watergate burglars were caught. We have no evidence Russia did squat. And even if we did, okay, what do you want to do about it? Anoint Clinton to spite Russia? Go to war with Russia because Podesta can't spot a fucking phishing email?

      How about instead, 1) don't do shady shit you wouldn't want the electorate finding out about like getting the debate questions early from the news network, and 2) practice better computer security.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    9. Re:"Suggesting" ... by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, apparently telling the truth is interfering with US elections, oh my (someone wasn't thinking when they put out this release). So Putin directly involved in the hacks, hmm, hunched over a keyboard typing away, expert computer hacker, on top of everything else. What is the White House trying to do promote Putin as the worlds greatest head of state in the world, the bare chested, bear riding computer hacker.

      The Russian government is only able to run rings around the US government because the US government is a chaotic mess with individual multi-national corporations able to pull it in different, often competing and contradictory directions at the same time (as well other countries who not only interfere but have direct contradictory controls over the US government, two prime examples Israel and Saudi Arabia both of who should be actively kicked out from involvement in US elections, who can forget the Israeli government issuing instructions to the US government in public https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and not one squeak about it except http://rare.us/story/rand-paul..., seriously what the fuck is the matter with Americans putting up with that shit, seriously). At lot of the good efforts done by the US government are undone by the US government, so much so, that the Russian government just has to sit back and watch the chaos unfold on it's own, as it picks up the pieces.

      Fucking hell, whine about Russia when Israel and Saudi Arabia have been fucking over American elections for decades, what the fuck is wrong with Americans.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    10. Re:"Suggesting" ... by Tailhook · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here is Secretary Of State Kerry today, unwilling to hang his hat on unnamed "intelligence officials" and their latest evidence free "analysis."

      It's all fun and games at CNN and MSNBC and the rest of the usual suspects; they don't hesitate to broadcast the 100% evidence free analysis of political appointees in the "intelligence community" as metaphysical certitude. But aim a camera at one of these politicians and suddenly it's "I'm not commenting on that."

      It's fake news folks and it's not going to work. Trump isn't some pansy ass RINO praying no one calls him a name or tries to put stink on him. You can echo this shit all you want. In the end it won't matter.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    11. Re:"Suggesting" ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ... foreign country directly altered ...

      The undereducated middle class whites of the rust belt region were not in a foreign country.

      Trump won seven out of 10 non-college white men and six out of 10 non-college women.

      The largest voting bloc were the ones who didn't show up.

      And 31415926535897 is correct in that HRC and DNC baggages had enough anchors in them to sink the fucking Titanic.

      [Disclaimer: I didn't vote for the goddam pussy-grabber.]

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    12. Re:"Suggesting" ... by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And you aren't concerned that a foreign country directly altered the outcome of an election here?

      You know what was more impactful to the outcome of the election than the fact that "russian hackers" leaked some e-mails?

      The fact that the DNC threw all its might into nominating the only possible candidate who could have lost to Trump. You know, the facts that were revealed.

      You fucktards need to start cleaning your own house rather than trying to deflect attention from what really happened with this endless "RUSSIA HACKED THE ELECTION" BS.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    13. Re:"Suggesting" ... by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except that what the CIA is stating is that Russia broke into both the DNC and RNC, but only choose to release the info from the DNC.

      You know, you guys, you very well could be the next target. And Russia isn't the only country learning whether or not they can get away with stuff like this. Do you think China would be above doing likewise? Iran? North Korea?

      --
      Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
    14. Re:"Suggesting" ... by DaHat · · Score: 4, Funny

      You election deniers are quite entertaining.

      At least 9-11 conspiracy 'theorists' can at least point to some kind of evidence which can be examined & considered.

    15. Re:"Suggesting" ... by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 5, Informative

      HRC and DNC baggages had enough anchors in them to sink the fucking Titanic.

      Clinton lost election. Full stop. Trump had zero to do with it. Putin had zero to do with it. The DNC made their beds with 'super delegates' long before the general election. When are they going to stop blaming everything from Ze Ruskies to Trump supporters?

      The whole election came down to a few swing states, namely Wisconsin and Michigan. States that Clinton didn't even bother to visit until late into the cycle. (And she just sent Kaine to WI). It's not hard to see when you compare the 2012 and 2016 elections, it makes it even easier since Stein and Johnson ran in both elections making them a good control. This was her election to lose and she did.

      Wisconsin:
      2012:

      1. Obama: 1,620,985
      2. Romney: 1,407,966
      3. Johnson: 20,439
      4. Stein: 7,665

      2016:

      1. Trump: 1,405,284
      2. Clinton: 1,382,536
      3. Johnson: 106,674
      4. Stein: 31,072

      Michigan
      2012:

      1. Obama: 2,564,569
      2. Romney: 2,115,256
      3. Johnson: 7,774
      4. Stein: 21,897

      2016:

      1. Trump: 2,279,543
      2. Clinton: 2,268,839
      3. Johnson: 172,136
      4. Stein: 51,463
    16. Re: "Suggesting" ... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How did they "directly" do that? Was Putin in the back of a Wisconsin precinct throwing away ballots?

      Obtaining and releasing information is hardly "directly" affecting an election outcome. Would you charge the New York Times with the same shit? Because they do that every day. Yes, sometimes via extra-legal means.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    17. Re:"Suggesting" ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 4, Insightful

      However we will still have to wait as to whether a Trump administration will turn out to be a good or a bad experience.

      Prior to January 1, 2016, I would have a snarky answer for this.

      However ...

      In late December, 2015, my wife expressed concern that Trump would win the GOP nomination.

      I assured her that, "Trump would be gone by the end of February."

      Then, I predicted, all along the way, that Trump would lose in the worst spanking in the history of US elections.

      Shortly after midnight, November 8-9, I was like, "WTF!?"

      So, my political predictive super powers are bullshit.

      Instead of a smart-ass, uninformed remark, I'll adopt a wait-and-see and hope for the best.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    18. Re:"Suggesting" ... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 3, Informative

      The emission of the DNC emails is not nearly as concerning to me as the omission of the data stolen from the RNC.

      Except that the RNC was never hacked, so they didn't have any stolen data to release.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    19. Re: "Suggesting" ... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There is an interesting thing about that "Russian fake news". It does not appear to have gotten very much traction. For example, "pizzagate", which I learned about after the man with the gun showed up to "investigate" it. Since then I have seen numerous people who voted for Hillary mention it. Yet when I ask the people I know who voted for Trump about it, they never heard of the original story, or even about the man with the gun. The same thing is true about several other fake news stories which were supposed to have caused people to vote for Trump. They are known about by many of the Hillary voters I know, but by few, if any, of the Trump voters.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    20. Re:"Suggesting" ... by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Suppose Russians really did it and imagine they even had said in September "hey Americans we hacked your emails and we're releasing them because we hate you." Do you really believe it would have changed what people thought of Clinton and Trump?

    21. Re:"Suggesting" ... by Boronx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just apply the Clinton rules. Even if there's zero evidence of any wrongdoing, she must be punished for something, because surely she did something wrong.

    22. Re:"Suggesting" ... by Boronx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The CIA didn't get Irak wrong. They had plenty of voices pointing out the so-called evidence was bullshit. They were sat on by Bush/Cheney until the CIA told them what they wanted to hear.

      Obama is not Bush. There is zero evidence that he is pressuring the CIA to go after Russia. He doesn't even have leverage to pressure them. They will all have a new boss in a few weeks.

    23. Re:"Suggesting" ... by _KiTA_ · · Score: 3, Informative

      No evidence? She literally used Bleachbit on her server after being supoenaed and told to not delete anything. If she was literally anyone else she would be in jail right now. 30,000+ counts of destruction of evidence.

    24. Re:"Suggesting" ... by newbie_fantod · · Score: 3, Insightful

      all they did was expose truth

      No you fucking idiot, they exposed half the truth. They also hacked the Republicans, but did not choose to release that information.

    25. Re:"Suggesting" ... by Rei · · Score: 3, Informative

      I seem to recall much information from the intelligence community in the run up to Iraq II which laid out the case as to what they knew..

      This seems to be the go-to talking point these days. It's also 100% wrong. The CIA's conclusion was that it could not establish solid connections (either for or against) between Iraq and al-Qaeda or Iraq and WMDs. The Bush administration's response was to create the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon to "reassess" the intelligence (basically, to make up whatever the hell they wanted). The CIA got it right; the Bush administration deliberately distorted to to pass their agenda.

      --
      Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
    26. Re:"Suggesting" ... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Informative

      FAKE NEWS ALERT!

      Seriously dude, words mean things. Why is is that fucking everyone who tries to dismiss fake news doesn't seem to understand either the words "news" or "fake. The news is:

      "White house supports claim putin blah blah blah"

      Did the white house say that?

      Yes, the white house did say that, ergo the news is not fake.

      Is the white house mistaken? That's irrelevant to whether this is fake news or not.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    27. Re:"Suggesting" ... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It wasn't "telling the truth" that swung the election decisively. It was the timing of the final leak, which lead to an FBI investigation which found nothing. Repeat, the FBI investigation found nothing new or interesting. The timing was perfect though, right before the vote, turning Clinton's near certain victory into an electoral college defeat.

      You also have to wonder how much they have on Trump and the Republicans, and how they are going to use it to influence the US government in the future. Even if you don't care about the election, you should care about how Russia can use leaks and blackmail to control your leaders.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  2. Why won't they just show their proof? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They are just inferring, where is the proof they were involved?

    1. Re:Why won't they just show their proof? by guruevi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also today: CIA and NSA brass has refused to testify in front of congress as to the facts of these allegations. The narrative being pushed into the media and the very circumstantial evidence together with the "just trust us, we are the good guys" makes it seem very fishy. Clinton has indicated she wants to steer into another Cold War, her surprise loss to Trump sent the industrial complex into a frenzy trying to force the hands of both Russia and US.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  3. Cut The Bull! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Anonymous sources claim...

    CIA Suspects...

    White House believes...

    None of this is evidence, let alone proof.

    All I'm seeing for the past several days is sour grapes, bitterness, and misdirection. What don't they want us looking at?

  4. Shocking by Orgasmatron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Obama's options were:

    A) Either his ideas and presidency were so bad that he personally drove the country to find and elect someone like Trump, or

    B) The Russia-fairy hacked the election.

    I'm shocked and amazed that he picked B. What's even more amazing is that all of his political appointees also picked B, while the career intelligence officers that work for them all appear to have picked A.

    --
    See that "Preview" button?
    1. Re:Shocking by rleibman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Could it be
      C) The democrats chose their candidate poorly and Trump winning had not much to do with Obama and more to do with Hillary?
      P.S. Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

  5. tl;dr by Shiptar · · Score: 5, Informative

    There has been no specific evidence shared publicly to confirm Mr Putin's role or knowledge of the hackings.

  6. The new owners of Slashdot really annoy me by pecosdave · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's obvious that they post a lot of "in power" propaganda and support pretty much anything that comes out of the White House's media matters. Are things going to switch when Trump gets in and disbands the current propaganda machine or harnesses it for his own use? Or is Slashdot going to follow the globalist machine outlet to wherever it goes after the official controller of the current propaganda mill moves on?

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  7. The Russians didn't... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Russians didn't:
    - Game the DNC system against Bernie
    - Keep Clinton from campaigning in the midwest
    - Cause Clinton to collapse into a van
    - Keep Clinton away from the press for most of the campaign
    - Make Clinton call half the country rude names
    - Force Clinton to set up a shitty little email server
    - Tell Clinton's campaign manager that it's OK to click on "legitimate" phishing emails

    Have to agree with Barack when he said, "The 1980's are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War's been over for 20 years." My money is still on a (non-Russian) pissed-off Bernie-backer as the real Wikileaks connection - most of the grey+ hats I know were quite #neverclinton.

  8. Who do we believe? by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In other news, both Wikileaks and Putin deny that Russia did any of this.

    Who do we believe? And note that the US isn't showing evidence, just like they didn't show evidence for "weapons of mass destruction".

    Assange said specifically that it wasn't the Russians who leaked the information, and he's in a position to know the truth and has an unblemished record. (You may disagree with what he does, but you can't legitimately say that any of his information is made up.)

    Furthermore, isn't transparency a good thing? To take a random example, isn't Clinton taking $28 million from Morocco exactly the sort of thing that should be investigated by the news and discussed in public?

    Or how about the DNC torpedoing Bernie Sanders' campaign. Isn't that something that's important enough to be transparent to the public?

    I have to think that this isn't Russia's problem as much as it was Clinton's.

    It's sort of like finding out whether the voting machinery is rigged. On the one hand, it embarrasses the country. On the other hand, transparency leads to fixes.

    1. Re:Who do we believe? by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How would Assange even know? It's not like someone would phone him and say "Hello, Julian, this is Yuri from FSB, and we have Democrat emails for you to publish." Beyond which, I have so little faith in Assange as a teller of truth these days I see no reason to accept any claim he makes. Even Ecuador shut down his Internet access, clearly believing he was using their facilities to less than noble ends.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Who do we believe? by meta-monkey · · Score: 5, Interesting

      When did Assange ever lie? You may not like his bias based on what he chooses to reveal or not, but to my knowledge I can't think of a single lie he's ever told.

      Also, how would Assange know? Perhaps the person identified themselves. "Hi Julian, this is Seth Rich, DNC staffer. Here's the emails." We're pretty damn sure Assange knew he was getting the military intel dump from Bradley Manning from the chat logs. There's little to suggest Assange doesn't know where his information comes from. He would probably want to know where it comes from to help him verify the information so he can keep his 100% spotless record of never releasing anything that's been shown to be false.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    3. Re:Who do we believe? by meta-monkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A guy who specifically times releases of data to coincide with the US election isn't exactly what I'd call an unbiased actor,

      No one says Assange isn't biased. All humans are biased. I'm pretty sure Assange hates Hillary because 1) wars and 2) she wanted to drone strike him. But name one provable lie Assange has ever told.

      and the fact that he didn't seem to be delivering any details on Trump indicates that whoever was feeding him the data had specific objects in mind.

      Or it indicates Assange didn't have dirt on Trump. Assange deals in hacked or leaked computer data. Trump barely uses email. What is there to hack?

      And here we go again with the Clintons As Mafioso conspiracy theory once again...

      You don't get to bitch about conspiracy theories while shilling for the "PUTIN HAXX0RS EVERYTHING!!!!" conspiracy theory.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  9. If you talk about Putin and Russia by pecosdave · · Score: 5, Insightful

    but don't mention anything to do with George Soros or middle eastern donations to the Clinton campaign you're playing partisan politics.

    If you talk about Russia influencing the elections by releasing harmful Clinton emails but never mention the contents of those emails and what it means, you're playing partisan politics.

    If you talk about everything above you're having a rational discussion, but having the typical towing the party line headline like this one you're just showing what side you're on.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  10. If it is true by wjcofkc · · Score: 4, Funny

    The most interesting thing about it is that no one seems to care outside of the media reporting it.

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
  11. Assange was just on Hannity saying it wasnt Russia by BrookHarty · · Score: 5, Informative

    Assange was on Hannity today, and again, said the leaks did not come from Russia.

    Julian Assange Speaks to Hannity, Says That Russian Gov’t Was Not His Source

  12. What a year by cfalcon · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm glad I lived to see the day that the WHITEHOUSE would complain that the KREMLIN had told the truth, and that this was UNACCEPTABLE.

    What a year indeed.

  13. Sounds about right by Scarred+Intellect · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He[Putin] publicly accused her[Clinton] of encouraging street protests.

    Considering the street protests after she lost, this seems to be the most accurate part of the article.

  14. Re:Fake News by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Informative

    No, they are conflaiting a whole bunch of different leaks that exposed the Democrats, Hillary and even Obama to the corrupt people they actually are.

    The ONLY real hacking attempt we have of this election came from the Department of Homeland Security on Georgia state election offices. But don't let that fool you, it was the RUSSIANS!!!

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  15. Testify Under Oath about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The intelligence agencies are REFUSING to testify to Congress about this "leaked" information. Testimony that may leave them in legal trouble if they purger themselves during that testimony. Thats right, the executive branch is once again REFUSING to answer to the people about something they are claiming.

    Until the intelligence agencies testify to the people, in front of Congress, under oath and give specific information showing Russia did hack the election, it is fake news.

    Pics or it didn't happen.

  16. Have we forgotten the Pentagon Papers were stolen? by Xenographic · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, it's more like the Pentagon Papers, which as you might remember were stolen, though they disputed the charge based on him not using them for personal gain and eventually got the charges thrown out due to illegal acts by the prosecution.

    Even if we assume the DNC leak was a Russian hack despite the fact that most of the evidence boils down to what can be paraphrased as "trust our anonymous sources, they've got this, it's totally not like that time with the WMDs where we helped cause a war over nothing," the harm from these leaks were the revelations that peoples' votes for Bernie didn't matter and the media will print whatever the DNC tells them to, followed by the media carefully avoiding any actual reporting on the leaks. You saw this on Slashdot where they ignored the important, meaty submissions and posted fluffy crap like the "food groups" of VP candidates (they were sorted by race & sex, with Bernie off by himself in the special group), never mind that we had other leaks showing Tim Kaine was always going to be the VP pick in a quid pro quo arrangement and the entire exercise was a farce where they went through a dance to make it look legitimate.

    I mean, just look at how pathetic the media has become:

    “Because I have become a hack I will send u the whole section that pertains to u Please don’t share or tell anyone I did this Tell me if I f**ked up anything,”
    - Politico reporter Glenn Thrush via the Podesta dump

    Do you really expect journalism when we have pathetic hacks like this doing our reporting? I do more actual journalism than this and I have a real job and write comments whenever I'm bored or can't sleep.