Slashdot Mirror
President Obama Threatens Retaliatory Actions Against Russia Over Hacks (nytimes.com)
An anonymous reader quotes the New York Times:
[President Obama] said he was weighing a mix of public and covert actions against the Russians in his last 34 days in office, actions that would increase "the costs for them." Mr. Obama said he was committed to sending the Kremlin a message that "we can do stuff to you," but without setting off an escalating cyberconflict... "Some of it we will do in a way that they will know, but not everybody will," he said...
[T]he president was clearly wrestling with what he said the hacking affair and the reaction to it revealed about the state of American politics. Citing a recent poll that showed more than a third of Trump voters saying they approved of Mr. Putin...the president appealed to Americans not to allow partisan hatred and feuds to blind them to manipulation by foreign powers. "Unless that changes," Mr. Obama said, "we're going to continue to be vulnerable to foreign influence because we've lost track of what it is that we're about and what we stand for."
President Obama pulled Putin aside at a September meeting of the G20 to discuss Russian hacking, according to the article, telling Putin "to cut it out, there were going to be serious consequences if he did not."
[T]he president was clearly wrestling with what he said the hacking affair and the reaction to it revealed about the state of American politics. Citing a recent poll that showed more than a third of Trump voters saying they approved of Mr. Putin...the president appealed to Americans not to allow partisan hatred and feuds to blind them to manipulation by foreign powers. "Unless that changes," Mr. Obama said, "we're going to continue to be vulnerable to foreign influence because we've lost track of what it is that we're about and what we stand for."
President Obama pulled Putin aside at a September meeting of the G20 to discuss Russian hacking, according to the article, telling Putin "to cut it out, there were going to be serious consequences if he did not."
You got about 30 days. Try to get anything done in that amount of time with our bureaucratic nightmare of a government.
Guess we know which side it came down on, don't we.
About time those those annoying and shitty St. Petersburg troll posts stop. (see below for examples)
They really need to publish some proof Not sure why you would release a voting system that was secure beyond a shadow of a doubt. I hope everything ends up adding up for the sake of the integrity of the outgoing leadership.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Can someone explain what exactly was hacked (voting machines?) and what is the evidence that the Russians are responsible?
... and Putin knows it.
Obama is just giving the guy a heads up.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
"Airing our party's dirty laundry crosses a red line, and there will be consequen -- nah, nevermind"
you can get stuffed too....glad trump won, and i hope he does scrap nafta , then we in canada can be free of you for good
If they are not careful, Obama may be forced to do something drastic, like issue a strongly worded letter of condemnation!
You seem to be confusing two completely different email sets here. Are you confused, or are you just trying to be confusing?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
There are not even the barest shreds of any proofs about russian influence or wrongdoing. However the allegations all come from proven professional liars and torturers who then steal and kill to hide their wrongdoings. All of the infamous 17 agencies lie pretty much everytime they go public with anything political.
How many russian speakers work at the CIA who can write russian comments? "Rasputin" is now considererd a proof? How many attack servers of the NSA and CIA are located in former soviet republics? Weren't stuxnet servers there too? The CIA/NSA has a lot more reason to do some hacking their own election than Russia: there simply is no reason for Russia to hack cause the conflicts they are in, they are actually winning, unlike the US no matter who wins the election. Also no mather who wins it, the war in the middle east will go on, maybe a little less bloody since the US won't send weapons to Al-Qaeda aka al-Nusra via Saudi Arabia. Russia has realistic goals, and goes rationally to achieve them. The US does not but finances and supports with weapons instead the people they are claiming to fight for the last 15 years.
So if any country wishes to meddle in any election by telling the truth about any sides corruption, I say: more power to them. Even if it is some CIA guy who publicized the campaign emails. I'd be happy if they did the same for the republicans and their campaings, but I guess that hacker there already did a lot for the american public so we can't demand more from him.
The US has meddled in other countries' elections especially their allies, since at least WW2 (Greece, Italy for example), toppled by now probably dozens of governments in clandestine operations and in bloody coups on in middle and southern america alone. So how are they to accuse anyone of doing it? And doing it with the truth instead of bullets like the US customarily does?
And how would that have been done, seeing as the presidential election is effectively 50 separate elections, with different voting technologies? As to Democrat email leaks, it is unclear to me that the Executive branch has ever had an overt role in securing political parties' data.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
they can't and the reason why is because they use the same ways ot hack all there allies as well as others....
END
THEY ALL ARE DOING IT , PROVE ME WRONG.....thats the damage they brought on themselves doing what they do....it cost them an election al right cause people saw whats inside the emails for a change and how awful she really was
The only reason the emails were newsworthy at all was that the documents revealed information that the DNC and the Clinton campaign were trying to keep secret from the American voters. If the Russians were involved in the leak (and that seems like a pretty big "if" since there doesn't seem to be much evidence), they would only have been giving to the voters information that Clinton should have released on her own. In other words, these disclosures are clearly not “fake news”.
I'll say this one more time: information that the CIA has accused Russia of sharing with the American people is “real news” about newsworthy topics, and given how pathetic the "security" was on the servers it came from, it seems unbelievable that this wouldn't have made the news sooner or later.
Tell me again how they "hacked the election"?
Based on what evidence, and even if true, what would it achieve? Saber-rattling isn't going to make the world safer and it isn't going to fix the security holes in our systems. It also won't educate our people on the importance of being sensible on security.
Do you know what I think? Obama still cannot get over the fact that Clinton was the wrong candidate to push forward, and is seeking to blame anything, anything but himself, for that cock-up.
It's not his fault, because the media is purposely confusing things. Notice how they always talk about Russia "hacking the election" even though that's not at all what happened. And then when they do talk about what Russia is actually accused of doing, they always just say "emails" to try and conflate Hillary's email server with the Wikileaks dump. It's classic disinformation and if you talk about politics with regular people, it's working: people have just kind of mentally merged Hillary's private email server with the Wikileaks email dump with Russians "hacking the vote" despite the fact that none of them are related and the third never happened.
It's a technique that the Democrats are using to distance themselves from Hillary's historic failure as a candidate, and that the Republicans are more than happy to let them get away with because refusing to acknowledge the truth is only going to lead to a GOP supermajority in 2018 and likely a GOP-controlled Constitutional Convention within the next decade.
But it's not surprising that people are confused about what "Russian hacking" is - the media and the lame duck administration are purposely trying to confuse people.
[...] she made it very clear during the debates that she wanted to start WWIII with Russia.
I didn't realized that we elected Trump to be the new Chamberlian to appease the Russians.
That's OK - they gave us some target practice. That's invaluable training. It's way more fun when the targets go BOOM.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
What happens if the rest of the world also threatens retaliation?
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/US/Efforts_to_Suppress_Democracy_since_1945
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/US/Foreign_Assassinations_since_1945
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/US_Sponsored_Regime-change_efforts_since_1945
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/US_Bombing_campaigns_since_1945
1) it doesn't matter who's the hacker, if our infrastructure is vulnerable, its vulnerable to anyone. lets worry about fixing that first.
2) fine, retaliate. why is this news? hacking happens every day. remember stuxnet? solution to hacking is better technology NOT better lawyering.
3) nice job wagging-the-dog your way out of actually dealing with the contents of hillary emails. real threat is what happened with Sanders (i'm not his supporter _at all_). it was a scandalous perversion of democracy. Putin (if it was him) did us a great service. i mean us the people, not necessarily certain people in power.
"We can do stuff to you. Butt stuff."
> They really need to publish some proof
All of this is about convincing congress to create an committee to investigate. The republicans (except for a handful like McCain) want to bury the investigation inside intelligence committees where there is no guarantee that proof will ever be made public. The democrats want a special committee where the final results are made public so that the nation can decide not just how to respond to Russia this time but what steps should be taken to prevent it from happening again.
US agents were supplying arms to numerous rebel factions. Many of these weapons and rebel groups have joined ISIS. Syria, Libya, and the rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq represent the worst foreign policy strategy every implemented by the US.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Trump lost the popular vote. He won the Electoral College vote.
Now, the numbers aren't real impressive in either case, a percentage point or so. No great mandate on either side. But if the American people 'have spoken' they mumbled a lot.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
> but without setting off an escalating cyberconflict
exactly, so Putin will escalate and Obama will run away with wet pants...
It was a decent strategy. But the strategy was to stalemate the sunnis and shia, Iran/Iraq war style. Not let the shia win. As the Bush admin couldn't say that outloud the Obama admin apparently didn't understand and the Saudis got fixated on Yemen and are facing a cash flow crunch.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
1) He's initiating an action that he himself will not have to bear the consequences of.
2) He is doing so in such a way that alerts the Russians as to what our cyber capabilities are and assures that these exploited vulnerabilities will be a closed avenue in the future (when they could have been used to better effect)
Thanks Obama!
This freak is clinically insane; completely detached from reality. Russia has thousands of nuclear warheads and the means to deliver them. They are ringed by forces hostile to them, and have a history of being viciously attacked and invaded in WW II, WW I, and before (Napoleon).
If you are even halfway sane, you don't threaten them with unspecified aggression. Especially without even presenting slightest shred of evidence of them doing any harm whatever to the US.
the worst foreign policy strategy every implemented by the US.
Because lying about the need to invade and occupy Iraq, destroying the one bulwark which might have existed to stop the spread of ISIS, had nothing to do with any of this, right? That was a fantastic foreign policy issue, right?
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Some of it we will do in a way that they will know, but not everybody will,"
Well, NOT IF YOU TELL THE MEDIA ABOUT IT!!!!
I wonder what kind of retaliatory actions?
Maybe he means supporting protests and civil unrest against the Russian government? Oh wait, they already did that 5 years ago against the Russian government: http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-protests-usaid-hilary-clinton-state-department-2011-12
Or how about directly supporting a Russian Presidential candidate who would ultimately be a disaster for Russia and a huge boon to the US? Oh, wait, the US did that too in 1996 with Boris Yeltsin.
Or maybe we might threaten to overthrow an elected government of one of Russia's neighbors and put Russia on the defensive? Oh wait, we did that too with Ukraine (2004), Georgia (2003), and Kyrgyzstan (2005).
This is ridiculous. We've been meddling in Russian politics for decades, and other countries meddle in US politics for decades. They all know it and they all do it; hell the Chinese basically funded Clinton in 1996 and as a result the US pushed for their acceptance into the WTO. Obama's statement is not for the Russians, it's for domestic politics, pure and simple. It's to cast a shadow of doubt and illegitmacy over the Trump administration before it even starts, which only serves to add to the growing partisanship in the US. To me that's dangerous. Who cares if other countries meddle, we do it to them and no one's ever going to stop. It becomes dangerous when that meddling is used to create further divisiveness in our nation.
And for the record, even if the Russians meddled (which is likely), the most they did was hack the DNC servers and that was in retaliation for what we did to them. You can't hack the electoral system, it's too diversified and decentralized and too manual for that to happen. And it ignores the simple fact that Hillary Clinton lost the election by her own choices. Having her husband have a not-so-secret meeting with the attorney general over the emails, and then suddenly the FBI drops the investigation, that was stupid and made her look corrupt. As Axelrod said, she failed to see how much the electorate hated politicians today and where Trump's actual support was coming from. And finally, her campaign wound down 2 weeks before the election because they thought they were so far ahead they would win; her campaign basically did nothing new in the last 2 weeks giving Trump the opportunity to take the narrative; even Obama was out trying to score points for her while she did next to nothing. The election was Hillary's to win or lose, and her campaign lost it; Trump won by default. The Russians had nothing to do with her campaign's missteps.
https://youtu.be/8VBtB77_U0g
watch this funny video lol
Well, I'm not bloody confused, and I think it's a reasonable assumption that Russia wanted to do what it could to prevent Clinton from winning the election, and at least initially has got what it wants; a president who is Russia-friendly and a Secretary of State with pretty deep ties to Russia. We can debate how much influence the Russians really did have, but I'd say the Wikileaks emails did Clinton tangible harm.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I didn't vote for either Trump or Hillary --- but if you look at what actually happened, you don't need conspiracy theories to explain it.
Hillary won the east and west coasts, very much as you might have expected. She won them big and that's the main reason for her overall popular vote win.
She lost in conservative states where you would expect that.
The pollsters and pundits misread the situation on the ground in states like Michigan, which they thought Hillary would win, but instead went over to Trump by fairly narrow margins. This appears to be more to do with the economy, jobs, etc., than leaked emails and the like.
Of course, all of this can be debated endlessly, but what is there about the election that really leads to a credible theory of manipulation, fraud, and hacking? The fact that Hillary lost is not exactly evidence.
You may or may not be disappointed with the outcome. You may or may not be happy that Trump will be president. But there certainly seems to be a fairly simple and fairly logical explanation for the outcome. That seems a lot stronger than conspiracy theories.
BND and DGSE said there was no reason to attack Iraq and both countries did not take part in the rape of Iraq.
Keep Lying, New York !
That's funny. Just last night at his rally Donald Trump said his victory was the "most historic ever", so you might want to check your facts.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Interesting that the Russians can hack the DNC and the elections, but not Hillary's unsecured email server, isn't it? Or just *convenient*?
They really need to publish some proof
Besides the US president himself tried to interfere in the UK EU referendum, albeit by overt rather than covert threats, so even if what he says is true perhaps he should not be so outraged that the Russian president tried to interfere in a US election.
which turned out to be nothing (hell, I give Hilary bonus points for charging Goldman Sachs millions for those worthless speeches) and ignoring the massive amount of fake news, aka propaganda that their pro trolling organization did. They played us like a fiddle and we let them. Hell, they're still doing it by getting you to focus on worthless "leaks".
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
== Bankster Tools
Putin's rear end is more photogenic than Hillary...
I didn't vote for either Trump or Hillary --- but if you look at what actually happened, you don't need conspiracy theories to explain it.
But that's the thing, too many people on the Trump side are explaining it as...something it is not. That's what has come up here.
Hillary won the east and west coasts, very much as you might have expected. She won them big and that's the main reason for her overall popular vote win.
She lost in conservative states where you would expect that.
The pollsters and pundits misread the situation on the ground in states like Michigan, which they thought Hillary would win, but instead went over to Trump by fairly narrow margins.
Ah, you should look at some maps..
Pretty
pictures.
ok
This appears to be more to do with the economy, jobs, etc., than leaked emails and the like.
Well, it's not because they love Donald Trump. He's now not unfavorable by 2/3 of the country! That's soaring...to new lows.
Of course, all of this can be debated endlessly, but what is there about the election that really leads to a credible theory of manipulation, fraud, and hacking? The fact that Hillary lost is not exactly evidence.
You may or may not be disappointed with the outcome. You may or may not be happy that Trump will be president. But there certainly seems to be a fairly simple and fairly logical explanation for the outcome. That seems a lot stronger than conspiracy theories.
Bzzt, error, error. You're in the wrong section of the thread. This is the section of the thread where we're talking about how Trump's win is not a landslide, is not clearly showing how the American people are speaking, and ultimately how Trump's a lying braggart.
I mean, if you want to discuss something, we could ask ourselves why Wisconsin has the lowest turnout since 2000. Why Michigan had so many problems. Why Pennsylvania election officials lied to potential voters. We could do that. But we won't.
Why didn't he just donate to the Clinton foundation like everybody else does?
He went off to vacation in Hawaii after saying that. Congress isn't even in session. So yeah, he might as well threaten them with a limp noodle.
And even if you somehow believe all of this, the only thing they did was reveal all the corruption: the primaries were rigged, they coordinate with their super PACs, they rigged the debates and then lied about it, Hillary took down every single other Democrat that ran this year via financial means and others, Hillary got funded by Saudi Arabia, Qatar (you remember what they're like from the Olympic slavery scandals, right?) and other distasteful places, they used Clinton Foundation money for Chelsea's wedding and other things I've forgotten and CNN just lies and tells us it's illegal to look.
Even if we assume Putin himself was behind it, I'd have to thank him for exposing the corruption our press seems to be turning a blind eye to. And that's only when they weren't willingly complicit with it. No, I haven't forgotten the "WaPo party" the lawyers were complaining about, Washington Post. All those articles you write and not a damn one about your own involvement here.
This man was NOT a Hillary Clinton supporter, and he never had access to any emails. Seth Rich was a communist Trump supporter and a racist, vile, deplorable piece of shit that got shot while trying to rob a McDonald's to feed his drug addiction. In truth and fact, it was RUSSIA that hacked Hillary's servers, and they certainly didn't obtain any copies from Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton's lesbian lover, or Huma's child molesting ex-husband. Anyone who says otherwise is just spreading LIES and FAKE NEWS. Nobody who serves The Woman Who Should Be Queen would ever betray her trust. See, Seth Rich was a drug addict. He was addicted to opiates, and he did horrible things to feed his addiction. He was known to be a gay prostitute, and Seth Rich was also known to cut himself, and be emo, and eat too much food (he was fat LOL). There is also strong evidence that Seth Rich questioned the authenticity of Barack Obama's birth certificate. Seth Rich also believed that some people in the government were lizard shape changers, and he had donated over $65,000 to the Church of Scientology over the last 8 years. Seth Rich was nothing, and he deserves to be erased from the history books. Anyone who speaks his name should be tortured and killed. Hillary Clinton would have been elected President of the United States of America if it wasn't for Russia hacking her servers and posting her emails on wikileaks. Seth Rich's death had absolutely NOTHING to do with that. And Seth Rich never worked for any DNC members or politicians in any capacity.
...We can debate how much influence the Russians really did have, but I'd say the Wikileaks emails did Clinton tangible harm.
You mean lifting the rock to show a bit of the Democrat underneath?
An actual unbiased press should have done that but didn't.
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
Russia didn't hack the election.The elections results were not changed by a hack. People need to get over Trump winning.I didn't support him,but the constant bitching whining and complaining is now getting annoying.Blacks wont get killed in the streets,families are not going to get deported. Would you rather have us in a nuclear war with Russia? It's better to be friends with them than have another 1960s cold war. And the media needs to quit saying the election was hacked because that is not what happened,they may have spread news,etc but the election itself ie: the votes,terminals,etc were not hacked by Russia nor could they be, they aren't hooked to the internet.
You can never properly, orderly lose. Obeying rules would be "fascist". You will bitch and moan in order to enrage the sheeple into a revoution. If you succeed you will kill millions and install your own tyrant elite:
1789
1917
for starters
Well, he did first defeat the republican establishment and then the democrats. I'm not from the US but I've never seen a candidate that got as little support - even opposition - from his own party.
One can start a "kinetic military action" in 30 days, no problem. Or at least a big lead up, to really try to screw the incoming Administration. What better way to put a wrench in the system than to force the new Administration to start with a brewing war? Gotta do something to try to stop the incoming Administration from undoing your own "signature piece" of work....
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
They KNOW that tinfoil hats are just a conspiracy invented to make it easier to identify the wingnut conspiracy theorists.
That's why they wear INVISIBLE tinfoil hats, made out of transparent aluminum.
BTW did you know that tinfoil hats, invisible or otherwise, act as an echo chamber amplifying and scrambling thoughts (and trapped electromagnetic radiation)?
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
No, what was IN the wikileaks emails, done by Clinton and her minions, did Clinton tangible harm. The message is the big story, not the messenger.
I guess what we can conclude from all this is that President Bush was smarter and a better salesman than President Obama. After all, he fooled Hillary, Reid, Pelosi, and most of the MSM to support Iraq, and Obama can barely get half the MSM on his side...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
So Obama has not done enough harm yet to the U.S. between Obamacare and the massive importing of Illegals and the massive freeing of criminals and the invasive government actions and all the rest, now as he leaves he wants to start a war with Russia over imagined unsupported fake news Russian hacking (when even Julian Assange has taken the extra step of outright saying that Russia nor Russian actors were the source of the Wikileak files). That man really hates this country and its citizens.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
How is this our infrastructure being vulnerable? Russia didn't hack US infrastructure, at least not that I've seen (please provide reliable sources if you know otherwise) they got in to the internal e-mails of campaigns. Also "hack" seems to be a bit of a strong word for what they did. Sounds like they got in to Podesta's e-mails by phishing his username/password. I'm not really sure what you think the federal government can do to fix/prevent that. I mean they already have information out there about "don't click on shit in e-mails" and there is training out there organizations can point people to from groups like SANS.
That aside, even if it was a hack (as in exploiting vulnerabilities) it wasn't a federal government controlled system. So again, what is the fed supposed to do? Take over private e-mail systems? Put up a national firewall on the Internet?
US agents were supplying arms to numerous rebel factions. Many of these weapons and rebel groups have joined ISIS.
Many of these weapons were already in Iraq by the time Obama became president, and many were supplied to the Iraqi government. That the Iraqi government lost them later to ISIS is the fault of the Iraqi government, not anybody else.
Syria, Libya, and the rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq represent the worst foreign policy strategy every implemented by the US.
Oh golly, yet another armchair diplomat. What exactly would you have done differently? Even with 20/20 hindsight it is not clear to me what Obama did wrong in those countries. Keep in mind that the Iraqi government was very clear that it wanted the US troops out of the country even before Obama became president.
At least that is what AIPAC told me.
We can debate how much influence the Russians really did have, but I'd say the Wikileaks emails did Clinton tangible harm.
Hillary won the "popular" vote by several million votes. The flyover states that handed Trump the presidency were never going to vote for her anyway; all Trump did was encourage them out to vote en masse.
I fail to see the impact of Wikileaks here.
It was "nothing" that debate questions were leaked to Hillary in advance, and she said nothing?
It was "nothing" that the DNC rigged the primaries against Sanders?
It was "nothing" that Hillary sent many classified emails over her private email when she said she had said none?
It was "nothing" that Hillary claimed she had only deleted personal emails when in fact she had deleted a vast number of official emails?
Ask Martha Stewart how "nothing" it is to lie to the FBI. Even if you ignored the vast number of illegal and unethical things Hillary has done, even if you ignored all that Hillary should have still gone to jail for the same reason Martha Stewart did. That's why people rightfully called her "Crooked Hillary" and still claim she is a felon; because she is.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
He beat the Republicats. It's not over until the Rs and Ds dump their MAD dirt though.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Does the 'balls party' get federal funding for its primaries?
Obviously the Balls Party receives federal fondling instead.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I don't understand your response. The maps you reference show about what I said, big Hillary margins on the coasts (and some metropolis cities), Trump getting the in-between territory.
Your politico quote is misquoted --- it says Trump is now more popular than ever (that surprises me too but there you have it).
And I hardly claimed a Trump landslide --- it certainly wasn't. But he did win, and the explanation for that doesn't seem overly complex.
Baloney and more baloney, Nobel Prize winner desperately trying to act hawkish, and it is laughable
It was historic. When was the last time we had a non-politician, non-lawyer win the Presidency? You'd have to go back to Eisenhower, I believe... It's been nothing but career politicians and lawyers since then.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Forgot to add ... if you want to get into conspiracies, let's talk about why the candidate I supported (Bernie) didn't have a chance.
Exactly. The American left has worshipped Russia since the Bolshevik Revolution.
Her and her staff silliness did her harm. Russians (if these were they who did it) just helped (possibly illegally) to reveal the truth.
Mebby current historians ought to **inform** Obama and his poodles that USA yeomanry trust Putin more than Obama ... the USA media mafia ( Soros/Pritzger/Page/Brin/Zuckerberg/Speilberg/Bezos etc ) hasn't bought Putin ... yet. And some advise if Trump were a good Christian he'd send 'em to the Utah gulag. Don't like that? Yeomanry gonna see ya in the streets , palsy.
What with the voter fraud confessed on tape, and apparent in the recount, I don't even believe she won the popular vote. Regardless, it's not about appealing to the most people, it's about appealing to the most different kinds of people.
What does the popular vote have to do with anything? The fact is she lost, and several states by fairly close margins. The DNC leaks certainly contributed to that loss. Easily 1% across the board. Doesnt make a difference in California or New York, but it made a difference in more than enough other states. But please, keep saying everything is A-OK because Hillary won the popular vote.
And the White house Email system, and the OPM. Don't forget those. That happened more than two years ago, and shut down those email systems for weeks. What was our response to that? Crickets. Thank God this President is on the way out.
I think it's far safer to assume that after the terrible choices made during the Bush years that people just want to be done and over with the region.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Propaganda for nerds. The only thing that fucker will return is ba-na-nas.
So just what is the difference between the Russians and Chinese hacking United States computer systems, and our FBI granting themselves the "power to legally hack" into any computer in the world? I think the word you are looking for is hypocrisy. I really don't blame the Russians at all, I blame the US government since it was the NSA that corrupted and subverted all encryption and actively prevents any attempts at proper computer security in order to make computers easy to be hacked into by dimwits like the FBI.
Trump is such a moron, though. You're really proud of him, aren't you? I guess that makes you a moron too.
You don't threaten. You do.
You cripple something, or deny something, plant some bogus info, raise the noise level, pass them off in a covert way.
Cost them money or time.
Public threats are posturing.
I, for one, don't care.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Is ANYONE (aside from CNN and the NYT) buying this bullshit?
-Styopa
Do a little screaming.
Make a little war.
Hand off to next guy!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Keep licking those wounds because your side lost.
The losing side? Oh, you mean most of the citizens of the U.S.? Yep, but we're not licking Trump's Twitter-whining behind. We're trying to make sense of a president-elect who based his entire campaign on lies. I know, it's confusing for the uneducated but keep on reading the back of your cereal box each morning. Trump will eventually write a secret message to you. Till then, you can donate all your money to that multi-millionaire (not even close to a $billionaire) so he can buy his narcissistic partners in crime a fancy "gold-foil hats" for XMAS.
I don't understand your response.
Well, that's continuing it, since you didn't seem to understand the thread of the conversation.
The maps you reference show about what I said, big Hillary margins on the coasts (and some metropolis cities), Trump getting the in-between territory.
They reference more than that. If you'd notice, they show a lot more purple (aka, middle-ground) than anything else.
p>Your politico quote is misquoted --- it says Trump is now more popular than ever (that surprises me too but there you have it).
Except I wasn't quoting them, I was sarcastically interpreting the new low highs. The idea of soaring is now? Yeah. Saracasm.
And I hardly claimed a Trump landslide --- it certainly wasn't.
But he did win, and the explanation for that doesn't seem overly complex.
That which appears simple and true is often the most deceiving. But actually, this election does seem quite complex, otherwise more people would be able to grasp how convoluted a win it was. Right now, I'm concerned about the issue of turnout, but I've not yet seen that mapped, though what data I have seen points to steep drops in Hillary and Obama areas, rather than gains for Trump.
Columbine had happened, which set the stage for children being indoctrinated with obvious authoritarianism and security theatre from a young age.
There was a cascade of bad choices made in America that lead us to today, and just as many of them were due to domestic actions caused by aggrieved and in some cases mentally ill parties looking to make a mark/take revenge for what they percieved happening to them. And instead of fixing the underlying issues that caused those situations to happen, more authoritarianism was passed as security theater to 'stop it from happening'. Hint: ~20 years later, the security theatre hasn't stopped dedicated attackers, but it has done a good job herding sheep. Much like the once inevitable march of colonists across America wiped out much of the culture and peoples who once resided here, leaving a pale imitationi in its wake, so too with authoritarians march across what is left of Democracy, eventually seeing us at the total mercy of either the financial and political elite, or the mockery of communism that countries like China and Russia represent (with maybe a dash of Singapore/North Korea for good measure.)
Were you alive, then? Because it was a 14-month march to war.
Wow are you confused. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The Taliban in Afghanistan admitted to hosting and supporting Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
I know we're living in a post factual world where empirical truth doesn't exist. But the fact is that the U.S. led a coaliton of forces against the Taliban in Afghanistan beginning on October 7, 2001. Less than one month after the September 11 attacks.
Close, but not quite. Iraq was not a direct result of or a response to 9/11. 9/11 laid the groundwork for Iraq, though, focusing more resources including political will, attention, and covert focus on Iraq. More importantly, it put the American People on a war footing psychologically, in a way they had not been for decades. Without that, the ground war in Iraq would probably have been a political non-starter.
Real lawyers write in C++
"...by every empirical measure, GDP, unemployment rate, household income, military casualties, etc., the US has substantially improved during Obama's presidency..."
That HAS to be a joke, but you did not use any indication.
1. Unemployment rate: It's FAKE. Obama's census department reports about 168 million working age adults (NOT kids or retirees) and Obama's labor department reports about 95 million working age adults out of the work force...that's NOT a 4% unemployment rate. Many of the jobs created under Obama are part-time, due to Obamacare. All the net new jobs last year went to immigrants.
2. Household income is DOWN, middle class people have actually seen no pay increases through the Obama AND Bush years. Worse: household ASSETS are lower now. If you are not a poor immigrant who is getting handouts, or a rich person in one of the big cities Hillary won, then you are earning LESS money now for a day's work than you earned 20 years ago - that's unprecedented in US history.
3. Military casualties? That fluctuates by president based on international matters (wars) and by your standard Democrat presidents Woodrow Wilson and FDR would be among the worst. What IS interesting is that under Obama, two categories of military deaths have spiked: [1] suicides, and [2] deaths from aviation accidents due to worn out aircraft that should have been replaced.
Home ownership, a traditional measure (and one you did not mention) is DOWN. Heath Insurance NOT provided by government or with government subsidy is DOWN, twice as many people need food stamps as when Obama took office, Life expectancy is DOWN, Student loan debt is UP, adults kids still living with their parents is UP, there are nearly a million illegal alien felons known to be in the country, drug use is UP, cities like Chicago are setting records for murder....
While achieving all this, Obama DOUBLED that national debt.
The "coolest" yet most-incompetent president in US history, my Obama, has finally removed from Jimmy Carter the title of "worst president ever". Keep reading HuffPo and dreaming; Trump's cabinet members so far named are twice as competent as the clowns Obama picked, and your attack that he has called on a couple of Wall Street execs is funny given that Hillary was COMPLETELY in the bag for those people and got her money from them...and now Hillary has had meetings in NYC ballrooms to thank her hundreds of rich supporters, while Trump is going around holding rallies thanking THOUSANDS of average Americans - it's quite a contrast.
It's not his fault, because the media is purposely confusing things. Notice how they always talk about Russia "hacking the election" even though that's not at all what happened. And then when they do talk about what Russia is actually accused of doing, they always just say "emails" to try and conflate Hillary's email server with the Wikileaks dump. It's classic disinformation and if you talk about politics with regular people, it's working: people have just kind of mentally merged Hillary's private email server with the Wikileaks email dump with Russians "hacking the vote" despite the fact that none of them are related and the third never happened.
It's a technique that the Democrats are using to distance themselves from Hillary's historic failure as a candidate, and that the Republicans are more than happy to let them get away with because refusing to acknowledge the truth is only going to lead to a GOP supermajority in 2018 and likely a GOP-controlled Constitutional Convention within the next decade.
But it's not surprising that people are confused about what "Russian hacking" is - the media and the lame duck administration are purposely trying to confuse people.
I think you got it backwards, the media conflating the email stories was a huge benefit to the GOP during the election.
You also got it a bit confused as there were three to five distinct email stories (depending how you counted):
1) Clinton using a private unsecured email server instead of the official unsecured email sever, violating some department policies. It wasn't illegal and people had done similar things in the past, but not to the same extent.
2) The tech in charge of the email violated a subpoena. After Clinton turned over her official emails (having her lawyers do the sorting, which was according to protocol), they changed policy to start deleting old emails (completely legal and a good idea). The tech seems to have procrastinated until the subpoena was issued, at which point he illegally tried to fix his mistake by doing the delete. This was illegal and is the 33,000 deleted emails you hear about, but it seems to have just been the tech doing something stupid to fix his screwup. He was never charged since he got immunity in exchange for telling the FBI everything.
3) A few classified emails got sent through the unclassified server by accident. This was the reason for the FBI investigation, the basis for all the claims for her being locked up, and probably the least scandalous part. These are people working with classified and unclassified information on a daily basis, it's inevitable that they'd sometimes put something through the wrong system. It showed the State Dept was a bit too laid back handling classified information, but that's an issue that both preceded Clinton and went well beyond her.
4) Guccifer 2.0 hacked the DNC and gave internal DNC emails to Wikileaks. These were fairly benign mostly showing that yes, campaigns do sketchy stuff sometimes. The most scandalous bit was a party member who was also a CNN contributor got hold of a debate question during the primary and leaked it to the Clinton campaign. Everybody except Wikileaks and portions of the GOP thinks Guccifer 2.0 was actually Russian intelligence (it looks liked they hacked the RNC too but didn't disclose anything).
5) Finally John Podesta's gmail account was hacked directly, again by what appears to be Russian intelligence. Again nothing scandalous though it's fairly interesting since it shows in inside of a campaign. This also exposed the Clinton Foundation since Podesta was involved with that, and as such the Foundation which brought up questions about influence, got drawn into the controversy.
That the general public got confused is pretty much inevitable, there were a lot of different things going on. And since story had the air of something unsavoury going on then even reporting on something relatively savoury re-enforced the larger narrative that there was some kind of deep corruption going on.
I stole this Sig
Yeah but you also have the problem of explaining how the press could be so categorically WRONG about the election. Not only that, but explaining how a competent (if not corrupt) candidate lost to a reality tv star? And lost most every single majority in government.
What the hacks did or did not achieve is tangential to the repudiation democrats received in the election, where Clinton's loss falls in line with the general trend in the election. Did the Russians also "hack" all of those congressional seats as well? And the governorships? I mean hell, the left regularly accuses everyone else as being uninformed and dumb as hell. Exactly when did they start paying attention to Russian propaganda?
And this is in the larger context of the left blaming everything from fake news to gerrymandering to an undercurrent of racism that pervades every aspect of American life (except for the dems of course).
Voice of America is still operational as far as I know, and it strikes me as amusing that the American government is now accusing others of propaganda. The response to the election results has been schizophrenic in the extreme, from protesting election results, threats of subverting the electoral college, "fact checking" from the very same media that miscalled the election to McCarthy-esque appraisals of the electorate.
Maybe, just maybe, Russia isn't the only source for propaganda.
He managed to get her approval to take over a big chunk of US Uranium capability
Her campaign guy, John Podesta, was exposed in the Panama Papers as a registered lobbyist for Putin's banker
Under her time as SecState and Obama's presidency, Putin has gotten away with everything he has done in the Ukraine, the Crimea, Syria, Iran, etc
Your point, however, is well made: Putin could easily have just funneled more money into her foundation, and hell, he COULD have just bought her outright like the Wall Street bankers, by just paying her millions of dollars to give a private secret speech behind closed doors and out of sight of any cameras. He could have easily done it in a rented Manhattan office space on any visit to the UN, etc and avoided any scrutiny just like the bankers kept doing. The idea that he needed to have his government hack the DNC servers as a bank-shot to influence the election, and that such a ploy had any chance of success at a time when all the "experts" claimed Donald trump had no real path to victory is silly compared to the simpler solution you pointed out.
It sounds HUGE to say "she won the popular vote by millions of votes", but context,perspective, and a sense of scale are needed here:
[1] That ACTUALLY means that she won the popular vote by fewer votes than she got in Los Angeles and San Francisco.
[2] California has millions of illegal aliens, and it gives them drivers licenses and it signs people up to vote when it gives them their drivers licenses - and California also does not allow anybody to look for voter fraud, while then saying there is no voter fraud because none has been seen. To win the popular vote, all she needs is a bunch of ineligible voters in a few big cities, which by pure coincidence are packed with immigrants many of whom are illegally present and protected by the Democrats who run the places.
[3] The Constitution says nothing about winning the popular vote. For the entire history of the country, our presidents have had to campaign all across the country in small states and large ones and in cities and rural areas because they have to win the electoral college votes - it's a core element of the stability of our Democratic Republic. Pretending that her popular vote count gives her some legitimacy is like claiming that the winner of the Super Bowl is not legitimate if the losing team had more passing yards - that's NOT the metric for winning the contest, and the contestants would play differently if it were. If we went by popular vote, campaigns would concentrate on the big cities and the rest of the nation would be ignored in national politics, which is a recipe for very corrosive and divisive politics in such a large and diverse country.
What is impressive about the Trump win is that he destroyed the narratives of all the consultants, talking heads, and "experts" in every single media outlet and consulting firm, campaign shop and party headquarters in the nation from the DNC and RNC, to ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, MSNBC, Comedy Central, the NYT, WaPo, and yes even Fox News. The only "experts" to have seen that Trump HAD a path to victory turned out to be Kelly Ann Conway and her people - making her the first woman in US history to run a winning campaign for the presidency, and like Trump or not, she deserves serious respect for that feat.
The American people did not really "mumble[d] a lot" - You need 270 electoral votes to win and all the experts said Clinton had a lock on it with Trump having little to no path to even the 270 threshold. He ended up with 306. Trump won something like 2,623 counties to Clinton's 489 (there are some similar but different numbers (like 3084 to 57), because votes are not tabulated by county by by precinct and those do not map perfectly) but the point is: she really mostly just won the big cities while he had support across most of the rest of the country in a campaign success not seen by the GOP since Reagan. The Bush era of Republicanism that embraced Wall St and ignored Main Street was a disaster for the GOP and helped the Democrats become overconfident that they could ignore most of America and still succeed.
See, the problem I have here is, where's the indication that Hillary _isn't_ at least as friendly to Russia as Trump is? You do know about all the Russian contributions to the Clinton foundation, her campaign manager's lobbying for a major Russian bank, and the whole uranium sales bit, right?
Are you saying Putin has reason to believe that Hillary isn't an honest politician? That is, she won't stay bought?
Seems to me there is just anonymous sources, and baseless assertions.
As I understand it: the FBI, and the NSA, are not convinced of such hacking. And the CIA refuses to allow congress to see it's so-called "evidence." I also understand that Putin has essentially asked Obama to put up or shut up - provide evidence or stop accusing.
I want real evidence. I don't care if it's pro-Trump, or anti-Trump, or whatever.
I am sick to death of baseless assertions from anonymous sources. That sort of thing is beneath the standards of the National Enquirer.
IF (and I do say "IF") the CIA has evidence, then have the head of the CIA come out on national television and say that he has unequivocal evidence that Russian hackers substantially affected the US election. And let him explain exactly how the election was hacked, and explain exactly what evidence the CIA has. And let other agencies, such as FBI, and NSA, review the evidence and come to the same conclusions, and make similar announcements.
Also, what do they mean by "hacked?" Do they mean the Russians actually changed the vote counts? Or do they mean that Russia gave hacked emails to wikileaks? Or what?
If it's just email, then what difference does it make if they came from Russia, or another source?
If the dems don't want their shameful behaviour publicised, maybe they should stop their shameful behaviour.
Before we do something as drastic as overthrowing the election, let's have such actual facts.
US agents were supplying arms to numerous rebel factions. Many of these weapons and rebel groups have joined ISIS.
Many of these weapons were already in Iraq by the time Obama became president, and many were supplied to the Iraqi government. That the Iraqi government lost them later to ISIS is the fault of the Iraqi government, not anybody else.
He's not referring to Iraqi army weapons that were captured in Iraq. He's referring to weapons that our government has stated it has supplied to Syrian rebels. Rebels which then either sold the weapons to jihadis, or were absorbed into larger jihadi organizations.
www.cnn.com/2013/09/12/politics/syria-arming-rebels/ : "CIA-funded weapons have begun flowing to Syrian rebels, a U.S. official told CNN."
www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-syria-obama-order-idUSBRE8701OK20120802
Why would a communist government want a guy who preaches and lives capitalism win?
You'd think they'd want the communist - Hillary, or the socialist - Bernie to win.
Maybe it's a smoke screen for what's in those emails?
Or maybe trying to obfuscate the fact the emails were released by a Bernie whistleblower pissed off Hillary stole the nomination from him?
And why is Russia so bad? Like China, who we rely on for all our manufacturing, Russia is an important trade partner for the global economy.
This whole thing reeks of something. Thinking because it's such a high profile thing in the "real news" it must be propagated by the left. But why?
...and 100% of President Obamas supports approve of Castro.
But, but, Trump didn't win the popular vote.
You can fuck your ass with a pineapple however hard you want while screaming about how stupid everyone else is, but at the end of the day, your team ran a shit candidate who couldn't even topple a nacho cheese Dorito.
While I do agree with you in general, it's worth noting that the rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq only happened after the Iraqi government was "forced" to threaten sending the US soldiers to international courts for their war crimes.
Obama did promise to remove the troops, but as many other promises, he did nothing. There was one bilateral agreement to keep American war criminals outside of international courts (or he was cooking up one, can't remember). After Wikileaks published the Iraq war logs with all those torture reports the bilateral agreement fell apart (or was threatened) and he did the withdrawal.
But IMO, the constant arming and training of "moderate" rebels to make assassination campaigns and the support to other countries that were financing ISIS was more relevant to their growth than leaving Iraq, I think so because of the "famous" 2012 DIA report.
A FUCKING WORTHLESS FRAUD
I think you're mostly right. But honestly I never liked Hilliary for years before this. I think the high handed way she and her campaign and the DNC dealt with Bernie did her some harm with a lot of Democrats. They didn't vote for Trump, they just stayed home. It's pretty obvious the leaked e-mails, and they were leaked not hacked, did her the most damage. The fact is though, other than moral support for Trump the Russians had zero to do with it. I figure they want Trump because when it comes to business he's pragmatic. Money talks. They know they can deal with him. I don't know what happened between Hilliary, Obama and Putin but not that long ago they were very cozy then things went sour. Putin gave Hilliary a lot of money and he received a nice Uranium deal but evidently she short changed him somehow.
'bamer got about a month left. Why is he causing so much trouble all of the sudden? What a sore loser.
No - I think the decision to invade Iraq will forever trump the title "worst foreign policy strategy every implemented by the US".
I think it's a reasonable assumption that Russia wanted to do what it could to prevent Clinton from winning the election.
I think it's a reasonable assumption that everyone sane wanted to do what they could to prevent Clinton from winning the election.
It's attitudes like yours that cost the entire left this past election cycle. You seem to have it in your head that you get to have an say so in how everyone else gets to vote. And just because YOU think people didn't make the right choice doesn't make your OPINION have any more weight.
And more to the point how just how much absolute corruption can you pricks on the left tolerate? How many well documented cases of high level criminal corruption will it take for you open your eyes to the mere possibility that maybe, just maybe, the media isn't being honest with you? Or are you just going to just talk down to people about how you think you know better than them?
Mr Pussy will only make some sour grapes noises and try to leave another mess for Trump to clean up. A real class act. Wonder how long he will keep his house in DC after Donald sends a few late night tweets that bring the crowds to the doorstep? I know i can't wait to gang-piss on his walkway.
If the lines aren't too long...
Americans are ready for a racist piece of shit who'll lie to them, fuck everything up, and who'll take credit for the sun coming up every morning. That's all this is.
Play Command HQ online
You left out black unemployment, which has nearly doubled since your boy took office. And thankfully it will go up by one more January 20th. But realistically it would have been hard for those other numbers not to have gone up after what the globalist GWB did to the country. And I suspect that you picked the few good numbers you could and that black unemployment wasn't the only bad number.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
The Biden that gropes little girls? On camera.
Creepy as shit. Makes Trump look like a paragon of virtue.
Evidently? look up that word.
Whataboutism.
Written like someone who has never served his country. Coward.
President Obama Threatens Retaliatory Actions Against Russia Over Hacks
Is he planning to slap Putin to death with his hankie?
"Questions are a burden to others, Answers a prison for one's self."
(A sign on the wall of The Village Shop, 'The Prisoner'(c1967))
"And frankly, it's hard for me to believe that the gap between any normal qualified Democratic candidate - Biden, Warren, or even Kaine running alone, against Trump would have been anything other than double digits."
I don't see Warren necessarily doing any better. The other two are in the 'more total white male domination' category.
I know what it means. If you've got a point say it, don't be cute.
we have had that for 8 years now
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Put him in the Breaking Bad series, replace meth with hacking and main antagonists with Russians and you get awesome show: Breaking Bad, the White Hut version.
Exactly, now Trump can hand them over when they have sleep-overs without all the fuss.
It's attitudes like yours that cost the entire left this past election cycle.
As a moderate conservative, I don't representative the left.
You seem to have it in your head that you get to have an say so in how everyone else gets to vote.
Yes, I'm an American.
And just because YOU think people didn't make the right choice doesn't make your OPINION have any more weight.
Again, I'm an American.
And more to the point how just how much absolute corruption can you pricks on the left tolerate?
Why don't you ask someone on the left? I'm just right of center.
How many well documented cases of high level criminal corruption will it take for you open your eyes to the mere possibility that maybe, just maybe, the media isn't being honest with you?
Assuming that the Electoral College doesn't correct this historical mistake, the Trump administration will rival the Reagan administration when it comes to controversy, corruption and prison sentences.
https://www.quora.com/Which-presidents-administration-was-the-most-corrupt-in-US-history
Or are you just going to just talk down to people about how you think you know better than them?
If you feel like I'm talking down to you, it's because you're groveling on the floor. That's your problem, not mine.
Or else we will be very, very angry with you. And we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are.
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT
When they show Obama talking, every time he says (D)"Uh", that's a shot. Just pull up is announcement on this one.
... Obama's threat, Putin laughed so hard that he peed a little.
Seriously, Barry, you are the most impotent president since Carter. Nobody takes your threats seriously.
Interfere in the political process of another country himself! Oh wait, how would you notice that?
Or perhaps it's you Mr President that has lost track with your spying on citizens while in the same breath trying to air a superiority complex..
I bet Putin is just EVER SO SCARED. He's surely just quaking in his furry little Russian boots.
What precisely are they supposed to stop doing, the thing they allegedly already did, and for which the damage is already done?
That's like finding out your neighbor has impregnated your wife, and you tell him to knock it off. One, pathetically weak, timid, limp response. Two, a bit post-cattle-exodus barn-door-lockey, isn't it?
What are they supposed to do, NOT HAVE DONE what they supposedly did... RETROACTIVELY?!?
God I can't wait for that sad-sack to leave office and fade instantly into irrelevance. Obama's 15 minutes are about to end, and then soon after he'll join the ranks of all the other insignificant and quickly and easily forgotten presidents only trivia-geeks know about.
He'll be a Jeopardy "question" in 50 years.
"I'll take US Presidents for a Thousand, disembodied floating head of Alex Trebeck in a jar."
"This president is mostly remembered for being weak and ineffective, and having his few accomplishements in office during a looong eight years reversed, repealed, and nullified within DAYS of leaving office. Also won a Nobel Peace Prize for being born black."
(And no one will even ring in because by then he'll be forgotten.)
when revealing the truth about someone or something is considered manipulation? Yes, ideally we should be indignant when foreign powers affect the political outcome of our elections (e.g. The Chinese government injecting millions of dollars into Bill Clinton's campaign). However, if this had been revealed by US news reporters, would the reactions be any different or of different value?
You can argue all you want about the bad reasoning for the invasion of Iraq. But none of that will change the fact that in 2008, there were more violent deaths in Chicago than there were in Iraq. The Obama/Clinton approach to the Middle East is a complete disaster. Millions of refugees from across North Africa and the middle east thanks to their arming of rebels everywhere. US armed rebels have been responsible for indiscriminately killing civilians everywhere across the Middle East including Libya, Egypt, Syria, northern Iraq, Yemen and Tunisia. But please, keep bringing up the invasion of Iraq to distract from this foreign policy disaster.
More civilians have died from Obama/Clinton arming rebels across the Middle East than died from the Iraq war and the subsequent insurgency there.
Hillary's email server was already offline when it was found out about. They wiped it rather than submit the emails to congressional subpoenas. There was nothing for them to hack. Also, they DID NOT hack the elections, stop helping the media with spreading this falsehood.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?