Slashdot Mirror


Russian Arrested in Spain 'Over US Election Hacking' (bbc.com)

Spanish police have arrested a Russian programmer for alleged involvement in "hacking" the US election, BBC reported Monday, citing local press reports. From the report: Pyotr Levashov, arrested on 7 April in Barcelona, has now been remanded in custody. A "legal source" also told the AFP news agency that Mr Levashov was the subject of an extradition request by the US. The request is due to be examined by Spain's national criminal court, the agency added. El Confidencial, a Spanish news website, has said that Mr Levashov's arrest warrant was issued by US authorities over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Trump's campaign.

312 comments

  1. over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Trump by GeoDirk · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Or to word it in a more objective way: over suspected "hacking" that help expose the corruption in Hillary's campaign.

  2. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by SirSlud · · Score: 2, Informative

    good lord

    --
    "Old man yells at systemd"
  3. Lock him up! Lock him up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Trump, not Levashov. Oh fuck it, put 'em in a cell together.

  4. Can someone explain what the Russians hacked? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's assume they got all the DNC mail and released it. How was that hacking the election? Hacking the election would be changing votes in a database.

    If someone finds out that a candidate murders babies, I would prefer they release it...and not be arrested for "hacking the election".

    1. Re:Can someone explain what the Russians hacked? by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      I'll bet you believe in Bigfoot and The Easter Bunny too.

    2. Re:Can someone explain what the Russians hacked? by unrtst · · Score: 1

      Damn off topic troll

      RE: the Paul Allen's yacht, it was on the other side of the world. That incident was in Grand Cayman, not in Australia. Bleaching is still a much bigger threat than his boat (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/01/160129-paul-allen-yacht-tatoosh-damages-cayman-coral-reef/)

    3. Re:Can someone explain what the Russians hacked? by dszd0g · · Score: 1

      What we know the Russians hacked:

      1) DNC e-mails. Publishing these e-mails hurt Hillary in the election. It is believed this alone caused her to drop at least 5 points which was more than the difference in the election. This might be called more of hacking the voters than hacking the vote.

      2) The US Election Assistance Commission. The EAC is responsible for national voter registration, establishing voluntary guidelines for voting, and certifying and auditing voting machines. Some news outlets reported that this hack occurred after the election, but the only evidence to support that is that after the election one of the hackers involved was selling the administrator accounts and other data. It also isn't clear if the Russian hacker was state sponsored or not as the hack was not advanced (started with an SQL injection). It doesn't make sense for Russia to hack it after the election, but it might make sense for one of the hackers to sell the data after he didn't need it anymore to try to make extra cash if he wasn't kept in line to keep this secret.

      To me the EAC hack is even bigger than the other one, but it has received very little attention and as far as I know hasn't been part of the investigation. After the election Republicans voted to get rid of the EAC in committee, but as far as I can tell it hasn't gone before a full congressional vote. We know Russian hackers achieved full administrator access to the EAC and stole the reports on the audits of the voting machines. This means we know Russia stole the plans on how to hack the voting machines and for some reason this hasn't been investigated. We also know that Trump did better in districts that had the vulnerable voting machines than he did in districts where other systems were used. Most exit polls showed that Clinton won (they show different results for North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Florida). Republicans blocked the recounts and it wasn't clear that the recounts could have determined if there was hacking in districts with no paper trail, although it could have in districts with a paper trail.

      https://www.theregister.co.uk/...
      http://thehill.com/policy/cybe...

      https://www.theguardian.com/us...

      Election Systems & Software alone controls 60% of voting machines in the US, and can control the election results. The majority of the rest of the machines are Dominion Voting System (formerly Premier Election Solutions, formerly Diebold) and they also control enough machines to change the results of the election.

      How do we know the election itself wasn't hacked?

      --
      This message is encrypted with Quad ROT-13 to protect the author's copyright under the DMCA.
    4. Re:Can someone explain what the Russians hacked? by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      Look at the unapologetic baby-lover. You probably think they're cute. That's great for you, but the rest of us hate babies, and we don't appreciate you bringing needless publicity to our perfectly-justified culling campaign. Look: babies are assholes, and the sooner they're gone, the better off we'll all be. Let's make America old again!

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    5. Re:Can someone explain what the Russians hacked? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > How do we know the election itself wasn't hacked?

      Every liberal stood up and told us that this was completely impossible. They mocked Trump for implying otherwise.

      CNN: No, the 2016 presidential election can't be hacked.
      http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/19/...

      And then:

      CNN: Where's the outrage over Russia's hack of the 2016 election?
      http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/10/...

      "Waaaaah our candidate lost waaaaaah burn down cars and break windows and redefine 'hacking' to mean 'expose the shady shit our candidate said' waaaah"

    6. Re:Can someone explain what the Russians hacked? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What we know the Russians hacked:"

      is absolutely nothing. Wikileaks is on record stating that the DNC emails were a leak, and that it wasn't some Russian. While that doesn't preclude a Russian state actor hacking the DNC and then giving the emails to a third party that then relayed them to wikileaks, it does mean that we definitely don't KNOW that the Russians did that, any more than we KNOW that the Chinese did it, or whomever. The entire public-facing case that the government made on this pointed to "malware signatures", which it was recently revealed that at least one intelligence agency routinely spoofs those- who know exactly how many do so. You'd be furious if this dearth of evidence were used to give a man a fucking parking ticket, but you are fine attaching it straight to Russia. We also don't know that "the Russians" hacked the EAC. We know that at least one guy selling something related to that on the darknet posted something in Russian. Again, you'd be frothing at the mouth if this kind of non-evidence were used by a judge.

    7. Re:Can someone explain what the Russians hacked? by dszd0g · · Score: 1

      I stand by my statement that it was the Russians.

      Julian Assange has no credibility with their claim that the DNC hack wasn't the Russians. Assange's latest claim is that the source was Seth Rich, which feeds into the right wing conspiracy theories on the murder Seth Rich. That claim doesn't even pass a quick sanity test as Seth Rich was only hired by Clinton a few days before he was killed and even Seth's father said it would not make sense for his death to have anything to do with Clinton as he hadn't started working for her yet. Seth Rich's death was most likely linked to the robberies that had been plaguing his neighborhood as his watch was torn and it looked like he had fought with a robber. Paul Tyrone Dorn, Demetrius Brandon, or Stanley Marquis Williams were arrested for armed robbery in that neighborhood shortly after his murder so would be good suspects.

      I have no idea what evidence the CIA/NSA has that Russia is behind the attacks. There is plenty of public information to support the CIA/NSA claim that it was the Russians.

      Guccifer 2.0 accepted responsibility for hacks and released previously unreleased documents in an interview to prove that he was responsible. Matt Tait, a former GCHQ operator found that the leaked files had been modified on a computer using Russian-language settings and there was metadata saying the user was "Feliks Dzerhinsky." Feliks Dzerzhinksy is a known member of the Soviet secret police. As you said, this evidence could be a misdirection.

      Guccifer 2.0 in a live online interview claimed he was Romanian but couldn't answer questions fluently in Romanian or English, but he could in Russian.

      Guiccer 2.0 left malware on one of the DNC computers that traced back to the same machine that had been used in the German
      Bundestag breach. Germany traced that attack to Russia's Fancy Bear.

      The Russian smile emoji was used in the e-mails to reporters.

      The hack used Bitly for the e-mail phishing. Fancy Bear forgot to set 2 of their Bitly accounts private which allowed investigators to also tie the hack to Fancy Bear and to also see who else was targeted in the attacks.

      The last one is very strong evidence that Fancy Bear was behind the attack even if you don't trust US or German intelligence. There is lots of public information that Fancy Bear is a Russian government sponsored hacking group.

      --
      This message is encrypted with Quad ROT-13 to protect the author's copyright under the DMCA.
    8. Re:Can someone explain what the Russians hacked? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not a fan of phrasing it as "hacking the election" either, but hacking into DNC documents and releasing them for political effect is EXACTLY what Nixon tried at Watergate (Except in the physical and not the digital realm. But we're slashdotters, and I'm pretty sure we all have contempt for the marketers who tell us that doing something normal ON THE INTERNET is something spectacular). Except this case is WORSE because Trump didn't have his own goons doing the deed, but a foreign actor working to his benefit.

      On the other hand, there's an extra dimension in that there are allegations that the RNC were hacked too. Of course, us normals haven't seen those documents, which might mean that the RNC is being blackmailed.

    9. Re:Can someone explain what the Russians hacked? by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      Paul Allen's yacht is a yacht, he took it many places and fucked up many reefs.

    10. Re:Can someone explain what the Russians hacked? by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Every liberal stood up and told us that this was completely impossible.

      lol. Bush stole the election in 2000. Go ahead and link 'every liberal'. Dumb fuck.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    11. Re:Can someone explain what the Russians hacked? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paul Tyrone Dorn, Demetrius Brandon, or Stanley Marquis Williams

      I think I can guess what kind of neighborhood it was...

    12. Re: Can someone explain what the Russians hacked? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So by "stole" you mean, fairly won the election based off the standards and practices that govern presidential elections in the US. Got it!

  5. Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The only way "Hacking" affected the election was that things Hillary and the DNC said in private became public. So I don't think it makes a lot of sense to claim the election was really "hacked", it's just the more you know about what Hilary really thinks the less likely you are to vote for her.

    In the same vein every major newspaper was trying for a year or so to "hack" the election with negative stories about Trump, most of which turned out to be false... so that was actually a lot worse than the Russians simply illuminating the truth.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re: Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by cunina · · Score: 1, Troll

      Which stories in major news outlets about Trump were false, though? Name one.

    2. Re: Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An unusual high number of people voted Hillary in Detroit Michigan area. Maybe they got hacked.

    3. Re:Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the same way Trump is trying very hard to hide all of what he and his goons said to Russia around the same time frame?

    4. Re: Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Russian hooker peeing on a bed

      Bakers dozen of rape accusations who all showed up for an October surprise, and then poof gone!

      Supposed underage rape victim that refused to sign her name or disclose her identity

      All bullshit, all ran in MSM.

      Meanwhile, the phrase "hacking the election" is meant to persuade you that releasing ACTUAL REAL DIRT on Hillary, much of it in her own hand, is "hacking the election".

    5. Re:Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the election wasn't hacked.

      the DNC/Hilary's computers were hacked. Just like Trump's private conversation about pussy grabbing was leaked. That's not hacking the election either.

      Releasing true yet scandalous information about a candidate is not "hacking an election". Its releasing truth. Hacking an election would be to electrically change the votes people actually gave towards the candidates.

    6. Re:Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      Social hacking is still hacking.

    7. Re: Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the Russian hooker peeing on a bed story is not so much false as unproven. Increasingly the other claims in the document it is in are being proved.

      One day you might just have to deal with the possibility the Russian hookers thing is true. He did, apparently, try to get a Miss World contestant up to his bedroom on that same trip. (Based on testimony that substantially predates the document)

    8. Re:Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      "Social" hacking doesn't exist.

      Hacking involves a computer. People have been trying to sway public opinion in the way they want since the creation of the concept of an election. That doesn't make it "social hacking".

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    9. Re:Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 4, Informative

      By your metaphor, i can take your wallet and take your credit card, since you're just going to hand it over to a store anyway. I mean, it's the same thing right? Information wants to be free and all that.

      Hillary lost for a bunch of reasons, including Comey, including hacks, including the fact that she had the wrong message, including after having to listen to a black man for 8 years white males didn't want to listen to a woman. And ignore all the times where the US interferes in other elections. Anyone remember the "don't elect Lula or we'll make things hard for you" we said to Brazil?

      But ignore all that. They hacked the mail servers, current law is that is a crime, they should be punished.

    10. Re: Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by roccomaglio · · Score: 4, Informative

      There was the list of Russian propaganda outfits who helped trump supplied by PropOrNot. There was the Russians Hacking the electrical grid. They linked that to Trump via the Trump Russia hacking angle. The was the WaPo Op-Ed claiming Trump’s OMB Pick was unqualified because he never served on Budget Committee, except he did. http://www.mediaite.com/online...

    11. Re:Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      The only way "Hacking" affected the election was that things Hillary and the DNC said in private became public.

      I'm pretty sure Donald Trump, and perhaps every other Presidential candidate in history, have said things in private that if they became public would result in them losing the election, so that's a big problem.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    12. Re:Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Social hacking does indeed exist and involves fooling someone to give-up privileged info. Read a book

    13. Re: Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

      And this, ladies and gents, is what a partisan hack looks like when modeling his shiny new tinfoil hat.

    14. Re: Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bakers dozen of rape accusations who all showed up for an October surprise, and then poof gone!

      His previous wife had her rape accusations removed rather quickly, and she made hers LONG before Trump showed any political ambitions. In the case of the ex-wife her sudden change of heart was probably down to a financial pay off.

      The more recent women accusing Trump of sexual assault all reported getting dozens of death threats and had negative encounters with Trump's vigilante storm troopers on the streets. It's no surprise they are quieter now.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    15. Re: Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      THE 'FAKE NEWS' LIST

      1 — Politico reported that a company overseen by Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin had foreclosed on a 90-year-old woman for due to a 27-cent payment error. The Competitive Enterprise Institute determined that there was no foreclosure and a different company was involved. .@tedfrank shreds @politico on Mnunchin story
      2 — CNN reported that Nancy Sinatra was "not happy" Trump's first inaugural dance to her dad's "My Way." She reacted, "Why do you lie, CNN?"

      3 — The New York Times and others reported that on Inauguration Day, Trump's team scrubbed climate change and references to LGBT from the White House website. Actually, there was a broadcasted plan to shift the Obama website to a different site and that the Trump team would use a skeleton site for the first few days.

      4 — The Washington Post hit Trump for giving a speech in front of the "sacrosanct" CIA Memorial Wall. It didn't mention that Obama had done the same thing.

      5 — CBS, reporting on the same event, said that the applause for Trump came from the first three rows of guests, stacked with Trump campaign and White House aides. In an embarrassing pushback, Spicer at a subsequent press briefing said there were no aides in the first four rows, that they were standing in the back.

      This list go on.

    16. Re:Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by Arkh89 · · Score: 1

      I think the term "hacking" for the election fits perfectly... in the context of the tech audience here. Because hacking does not have, for us, the same meaning that it acquired through the media : that of breaching electronic systems, most often for criminal gain (note the extra negative connotation).
      Instead, here its meaning is about finding and implementing a subversive approach to work around the limitations or rules of a system : all the news manipulation, polls, fact-checking wars are the expressions of that hack to attract the voters one way or another.

    17. Re:Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by backwardsposter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "election hacking" is a very disingenuous way to refer to what happened. Everyone is treating it like votes were fraudulent, when what really happened was fraudulent activity was exposed via hacking. This should actually be a good thing.

      But the truth doesn't matter as much as the narrative.

    18. Re: Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which stories in major news outlets about Trump were false, though? Name one.

      Tens of thousands of stories claiming Trump is "Literally Hitler". He is a terrible Hitler. Doesn't look a thing like him. Probably can't even grow a mustache. Worse, we have not even annexed Austria yet.

      The schnitzel prices are too damn high!

      But in seriousness every news article claiming objectively Trump can't win and wont win are all demonstrably false including several hundred polls with high confidence that Hillary will win by a landslide. It's the same tactic they used against Bernie Sanders. Nobody wants to throw their vote away so just claim your opponent cant and wont win enough times to make people believe it. That deception just so happen to not work out in the primary election.

    19. Re:Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Social hacking describes the act of attempting to manipulate outcomes of social behaviour through orchestrated actions. The general function of social hacking is to gain access to restricted information or to a physical space without proper permission.

      So what you are saying is Trump and Russia "social hacked" DNC and Hilary. But DNC, Hilary, and most media didn't try and "social hacked" Trumps campaign? Sounds just like the left.

    20. Re:Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, the hacking of emails was another step of the way in terms of priming and hypersensitizing the public to E-mails in conjunction with Hillary. So, when they turned up on Anthony Weiner's computer and Comey wrote a letter about it, people lost their collective shit.

    21. Re:Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Social hacking describes the act of attempting to manipulate outcomes of social behaviour through orchestrated actions.

      So, every presidential campaign.

    22. Re:Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by Solandri · · Score: 2

      The proper metaphor would be stealing a stolen credit card - most people honestly wouldn't care if a credit card thief had his stolen credit cards stolen in turn. Amazingly, the press has turned the Russian hacking thing into a story about the hacking, and have pretty much ignored what the hack revealed (e.g. Hillary being emailed debate questions in advance, making the televised debates a sham).

      If a stowaway hiding the bowels of a ship points out the ship is sinking, do you fret over punishing the stowaway for being aboard illegally, or how he brought it to the attention of the first mate in order to try to make the captain look bad? Or do you prioritize fixing the sinking ship? That's the test of character those on the left are facing because of the hacking, and they're failing at it pretty miserably. When someone points out wrongdoing, you take steps to correct the wrong. You don't devote all your energy to punishing the person who pointed it out. That's what they tell us about whistleblowers anyway. I guess it doesn't apply when the shoe is on the other foot?

    23. Re:Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By your metaphor, i can take your wallet and take your credit card, since you're just going to hand it over to a store anyway. I mean, it's the same thing right? Information wants to be free and all that.

      Hillary lost for a bunch of reasons, including Comey, including hacks, including the fact that she had the wrong message, including after having to listen to a black man for 8 years white males didn't want to listen to a woman. And ignore all the times where the US interferes in other elections. Anyone remember the "don't elect Lula or we'll make things hard for you" we said to Brazil?

      But ignore all that. They hacked the mail servers, current law is that is a crime, they should be punished.

      There's many factors for why Hillary lost, as you noted, which also include the idea of her selecting SCOTUS nominees for the next four years. There's no need to ignore it however the framing of the statement is definitely there to carry a specific viewpoint and narrative.

      "Russian Arrested in Spawn over Hacking Election" vs "Russian Arrested in Spain over Hacking DNC Servers"

      There's a demonstrable difference in the implication by those two different headlines. The latter would be a far more accurate headline but the former is more inaccurate on conveys the implication that the Russians hacked the election itself rather than hacked DNC servers which caused a release of information that was damaging to Hillary and may have swayed votes. The former is part of a narrative that is attempting to suggest that the only reason that Trump won the election is because Russians directly influenced the election to get Trump elected when they indirectly influenced it at best which is no different than maybe SNL making fun of Trump ever night or someone releasing a dossier prior to election day.

    24. Re: Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Election hacking" is a disingenuous way of avoiding the fact that Trump won the election by winning in enough states to get a majority of the electoral votes.

      He won. Deal with it.

      As a famous shitstain once said " elections have consequences."

    25. Re: Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nancy Sinatra, when asked for a response about the song selection on Twitter, said, in a now-deleted tweet: "Just remember the first line of the song."

      The first line of the song is, "And now, the end is near."
      Sinatra tweeted a link to this article, saying: "That's not true. I never said that. Why do you lie, CNN?"
      Sinatra deleted her tweet regarding the song after CNN published this article.

      Methinks it is you who fudge the story a bit.

    26. Re:Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My dad covered the white house for WCBS radio in Washington DC from 1980 to 1994 when he died of a heart attack.

      My dad would always tell me that the news was always fair and balanced, that every positive news event had to be followed up with a negative. My dad is turning over in his grave now.

      Every mainstream news outlet had positive news about Clinton and negative news about Trump. It is no longer journalism. There is nothing that is fair and balanced any more. It is all propaganda now.

      I voted for Bernie and I could tell that something was wrong when all the news stories over a weekend, about Bernie turned negative.

      If that wasn't hacking the election, I don't know what is.

    27. Re:Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Yes, it was a good thing in the same way that racial profiling by the police is a good thing because it gets criminals off the streets. Right? Or is there some value in equal enforcement?

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    28. Re: Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Nope, the other AC has it right. I saw it live on TV on CNN. They were claiming she was upset because they used the song, and were trying to stir up some ballyhoo about it. THEN she came out with the "Why do you lie, CNN?" tweet.

    29. Re:Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by sexconker · · Score: 2

      That's social engineering, not hacking, you clown. It's a meatspace escalation of privilege attack, and is absolutely not hacking. Hacking involves attacking a machine and getting it to exhibit unexpected or unintended behavior.

    30. Re: Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can I use that same line next time Trump spouts some drivel on Twitter? It's not false, it's just unproven.

    31. Re:Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by j-beda · · Score: 1

      In the same vein every major newspaper was trying for a year or so to "hack" the election with negative stories about Trump, most of which turned out to be false... so that was actually a lot worse than the Russians simply illuminating the truth.

      This is probably my selective memory acting up. What were the negative stories about Trump which turned out to be false? Were there vastly different numbers of negative stories about Clinton? Were they substantively more or substantively less often false? Were these false stores products of the press either through outright fabrication or through poor reporting?

    32. Re: Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, the other AC has it right. I saw it live on TV on CNN. They were claiming she was upset because they used the song, and were trying to stir up some ballyhoo about it. THEN she came out with the "Why do you lie, CNN?" tweet.

      .

      CNN's interpretation is hardly a lie, the tweet was real. Let's see, asking people to remember the first line of the song, does indeed come across as a sardonic remark to me, and fits well enough with CNN's interpretation of unhappiness. To me, it's Nancy Sinatra whose accusation was off-base. Probably why she deleted it.

      Sorry, but if this is the kind of thing produced, it's going to be unpersuasive in terms of skewering CNN. Rather the opposite effect.

    33. Re: Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hacking does not need to use a computer.

      You are so stupid, you should be removed from this conversation and refrain from using computers.

    34. Re:Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by unimacs · · Score: 1

      So it's OK with you that a foreign power hacked the systems of one of our political parties for the express purpose of swaying the election towards a candidate of their liking?

      If it were a FOX reporter, I'd feel differently about it, but it wasn't. My assumption and hope is that reporters (collectively) go after both parties. Democracy doesn't exist without free and fair elections.

      Regardless of whether the actions of the Russians actually made any actual difference in the outcome, what has happened is that it has sown distrust in the validity of our election process. That is a big problem, not a good thing.

    35. Re:Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      including after having to listen to a black man for 8 years white males didn't want to listen to a woman.

      pretty much describes all of SuperKendall's posting history, ever.

    36. Re: Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      URLs for all these allegations, please.

      You can't cite outrageous claims and expect anyone outside your echo chamber to believe you.

      It's all tinfoil nonsense until PROVEN.

    37. Re: Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      The Washington Post was not upset that Trump gave a speech in front of the CIA Memorial Wall, which was expected. The issue was with the speech he gave, which was bizarre, self-promotional, and had little relevance to the CIA.

    38. Re: Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that's clearly not hacking.

      You're just disillusioned into thinking news reporting was ever fair and balanced. (Don't be hard on yourself, I once thought this, too).

    39. Re:Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      So it is OK with you that one of our political parties conducts secret, distasteful activities that, if revealed to the public, would sway the election toward the other candidate?

      Personally, I see the hacking of DNC emails as an intelligence test that they failed miserably. If your party cannot conduct their unpleasant business clandestinely they surely do not deserve to win office. Imagine what would happened if these idiots were actually allowed to run the country. Our entire ruling party would have been compromised from day one.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    40. Re: Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by dszd0g · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are retracted news articles all the time, you should be able to do better.

      1) This appears to be referring to this article:

      http://www.politico.com/story/...

      Here is the Fox (Faux) News article you are probably basing your statement on:

      http://insider.foxnews.com/201...

      Politico seems to have gotten the basic facts correct in this case and Competitive Enterprise Institute seems to have gotten it wrong. The mistake Politico had made in the original article was stating that OneWest had done the foreclosure when it had been CIT who had merged with OneWest. The mistake was using the old company name instead of the new company name. Mnuchin was on the board of CIT when the second foreclosure took place.

      "CORRECTION: This story has been corrected to reflect that CIT Bank, successor to OneWest after a 2015 merger, was the entity that filed foreclosure proceedings against Ossie Lofton over a 27-cent payment error. The story has also been revised to clarify that there were two separate foreclosure proceedings against Lofton. At the time the second foreclosure was filed in 2016, Mnuchin had sold his stake in OneWest and was on the board of CIT."

      Other fact checkers have confirmed that Fox is wrong and the foreclosure did take place. You can even see the court case yourself:
      https://pro.polkcountyclerk.ne...
      Search for: "CIT BANK, N.A. vs. LOFTON OSSIE".

      Score: Politico: 1, Faux News: 0.

      That said, I'm not really a fan of Politico atm. They just posted a totally garbage anti-Semitic article claiming that Trump is linked to Putin because Putin met with a Chabad Rabbi who had once met a rabbi who did a bris that Ivanka Trump went to and thus there is some Jewish conspiracy linking the two men... The way the article is written is a total conspiracy theory. That would be a much better example of fake news. I'm not a fan of Trump, but you don't need to come up with anti-Semitic conspiracy theories to link Trump and Putin.

      2) As others pointed out in this thread, it was actually Nancy Sinatra who seemed to change her tune and claim the negative Trump comment she had tweeted earlier was a "joke." Although to be fair, it might have been meant as a joke but there was no way for CNN to know that. I wouldn't call that fake news.

      3) If you read the article, there doesn't seem to be anything fake about it. They even mention that it was probably part of the plan to shift to a different site.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

      http://www.snopes.com/white-ho...

      What you are leaving out is that it has been several months and Trump still doesn't have anything up on whitehouse.gov about these issues from what I can tell. How is the New York times article "fake news"?

      4) As someone else pointed out, they reported on people who objected to the content of the speech not that he gave one there. Here is the article you are claiming is fake news. What exactly is fake? Did the people who Washington Post said objected to the speech not really object?

      https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      5) It sounds like Spicer is lying (nothing new), not CBS. Although CBS seems to be a little misleading as there were some CIA staff who seemed to support Trump, but the facts about Trump bringing people to cheer him on seem to be correct.

      http://www.snopes.com/2017/01/...

      Newsweek de

      --
      This message is encrypted with Quad ROT-13 to protect the author's copyright under the DMCA.
    41. Re:Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by unimacs · · Score: 1

      So it is OK with you that one of our political parties conducts secret, distasteful activities that, if revealed to the public, would sway the election toward the other candidate?

      Where did I say that? What I did say is that if it were a FOX reporter that had done that hacking, it would be different. I still have some moral issues with breaking into systems and exposing private communications.

      Personally, I see the hacking of DNC emails as an intelligence test that they failed miserably. If your party cannot conduct their unpleasant business clandestinely they surely do not deserve to win office. Imagine what would happened if these idiots were actually allowed to run the country. Our entire ruling party would have been compromised from day one.

      The problem I see with your argument is that you're assuming that the Republicans can't or haven't been compromised.

    42. Re:Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The proper metaphor would be stealing a stolen credit card - most people honestly wouldn't care if a credit card thief had his stolen credit cards stolen in turn.

      They would, however, care about the credit cards were used fraudulently. That is the problem.

      Amazingly, the press has turned the Russian hacking thing into a story about the hacking, and have pretty much ignored what the hack revealed (e.g. Hillary being emailed debate questions in advance, making the televised debates a sham).

      The televised debates were a sham, regardless, the most boring and insipid since 2000, maybe earlier. I don't know if it related to seeing the questions in advance, or the lack of either candidate being able to do more than tepid rebuttals and remarks of their own.

      If a stowaway hiding the bowels of a ship points out the ship is sinking, do you fret over punishing the stowaway for being aboard illegally, or how he brought it to the attention of the first mate in order to try to make the captain look bad? Or do you prioritize fixing the sinking ship?

      If a person snuck aboard a ship, and THEN claimed it was sinking, in order to convince everybody to get off, in order to hijack the ship, then what would you do?

      Because that's what happened here. You do know that, right? The ship was never sinking. You're just being told it was.

      That's the test of character those on the left are facing because of the hacking, and they're failing at it pretty miserably. When someone points out wrongdoing, you take steps to correct the wrong. You don't devote all your energy to punishing the person who pointed it out. That's what they tell us about whistleblowers anyway. I guess it doesn't apply when the shoe is on the other foot?

      There was no wrong-doing, that's the test of character that the right keeps failing at, as no matter what, they manage nothing more than they did when it was in the Nineties and Whitewater. A whole lot of tortured attempts to find wrong-doing, but it all ended up being nothing. Those emails were scoured, and yet all that the GOP pundits produced were a few miscontrued statements, even the FBI couldn't find any actual crime they'd want to prosecute.

      Meanwhile, an ACTUAL crime is being revealed in Alabama. The governor there went to severe lengths to conceal his illicit affair, and that's an actual wrong.

      Look at how silent you'll be on Trump, who just recently tried to claim his successful 13-week period. I'll forgive him his 2-week error, but you have to admit, he's not got anything in the way of real successes. Failed missile strike. Failed executive order. Failed healthcare reform. Failed security adviser. Failed bipartisanship. Failures all around.

      What will you do?

    43. Re:Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      We are operating on different assumptions, so the communication between us will be flawed. Here are some of my suppositions and logic:

      We do not know the provenance of the DNC emails. Conjecture abounds, from a Russian hack to a voluntary disclosure by a now-dead DNC staffer. Nothing is proven, no smoking gun exists. Therefore, your assertion that a foreign power was the source of the leaked emails is irrelevant, as there are sufficient questions about where the emails came from to render it a moot point. Only the content of the emails is not in question. We know for certain what they contain, thus any judgement should be made not for or against where they came from, or for what purpose they were released, but on their content alone.

      Another set of assumptions with regard to the second part:

      In today's political climate, hiding what you do from the electorate is of tantamount importance for our government officials and their party. If you cannot do this you cannot effectively play the public, appearing to give your supporters what they want while advancing an agenda that is contrary to what your voters and constituents actually want.

      Consider that both "parties" are, without a doubt, completely compromised in every way: phishing and social engineering attacks with lurked access, moles with external loyalties or who are bought and sold for influence or cash, technical hacks that bypass security...you name it. Your responsibility as a political entity is to keep those holes plugged by grift or by graft. Sure you know your security and integrity is a holey as shotgunned Swiss cheese. That is the only valid starting point of any realistic plan to manage security.

      Where you end up is the test, and so far, the democrats have failed. This is indicative of a group with internal strife and that doesn't have their eye on the ball. Is it any wonder they lost the last presidential election? Not to me.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    44. Re: Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      False: multiple allegations of rape, collusion with Russian, trump server talking to Russian server, hooker-peeing-story for starters just from memory.

    45. Re:Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Computer" hacking doesn't exist.

      Hacking involves a slashing blade. People have been trying to sway public opinion in the way they want since the creation of a computer in a mothers basement. That doesn't make it "computer hacking"

    46. Re: Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      Unemployment is at 90%!

    47. Re: Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      Society is just one big squishy machine.

    48. Re: Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The schnitzel prices are too damn high!

      Are you the famous, "the schnitzel price is too damn high" guy? I loved that campaign!

    49. Re:Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only way "Hacking" affected the election was that things Hillary and the DNC said in private became public.

      Well, no. "Somebody" hacked all the voter registration info from 20 states needed for targeted disinformation campaigns.

    50. Re: Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He won. Deal with it.

      As a famous shitstain once said " elections have consequences."

      Actually - you will have to deal with it. And I will laugh my ass off watching you.

    51. Re:Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only way "Hacking" affected the election was that things Hillary and the DNC said in private became public. So I don't think it makes a lot of sense to claim the election was really "hacked", it's just the more you know about what Hilary really thinks the less likely you are to vote for her.

      In the same vein every major newspaper was trying for a year or so to "hack" the election with negative stories about Trump, most of which turned out to be false... so that was actually a lot worse than the Russians simply illuminating the truth.

      You forgot to mention Apple being great and Samsung/Google being bad.

    52. Re: Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Trump still doesn't have anything up on whitehouse.gov about these issues from what I can tell.

      This is slashdot. Climate change is an evil hippy/chinese conspiracy etc.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    53. Re: Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by Maritz · · Score: 1

      That deception just so happen to not work out in the primary election.

      lol, all the pollsters are part of the conspiracy too? Jesus Christ, if that rabbit hole goes any deeper you're coming out in fucking Australia.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    54. Re: Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by Maritz · · Score: 1

      You made the statement, so it must be true right?

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    55. Re:Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it was a good thing in the same way that racial profiling by the police is a good thing because it gets criminals off the streets. Right?

      Thank you! I'm glad you finally see the light.

    56. Re: Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      But in seriousness every news article claiming objectively Trump can't win and wont win are all demonstrably false including several hundred polls with high confidence that Hillary will win by a landslide.

      You'd think reporters tended to lack precognition.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    57. Re: Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      Oversampling Democrats is well known, well documented, and not at all new.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
  6. No hacking was involved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There was no hacking of the US election. You might not like the results but the american people did that all by themselves.

    1. Re:No hacking was involved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for your authoritative statement on the subject, you're obviously totally in the know on all the backroom stuff.

    2. Re:No hacking was involved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Preach! It's time that people stop whining, turn off Trevor Noah and start working towards building a decent candidate for 2020. Even better, start working towards winning the mid-term elections and try taking back the House of Reps.

      Until then, watch the Trump train as it rolls on by.

  7. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    But of course Trump's shit don't stink, its all roses and dollar signs!

  8. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    Nixon got ousted over having his reelection team break in to the Democratic headquarters to plant bugs.

    This is identical, except now it was all done with computers. It's not somehow more acceptable because it's Russian hackers. It wasn't acceptable then, it isn't acceptable now.

  9. thank goodness. by nimbius · · Score: 1

    As an american im always deeply concerned when our witch hunts proceed without so much as a ghoulish evil monster to subject to ye olde tribulations. After this, I suspect the good witch -- whos time it was to be elected to president because she did the mannequin challenge-- will prevail and righteousness will be restored to america.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  10. Bigger hack by religionofpeas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The biggest hack to support Trump was to put Hillary forward as a candidate.

    1. Re:Bigger hack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And the dummies in the red states thought it would be better to cut of their nose to spite their face. Just because Hillary was terrible doesn't mean you have to vote for Trump -- the one guy on the ballot who represents all the worst aspects of America.

    2. Re:Bigger hack by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hillary being the Democrat candidate was just party politics as usual. I think the hack was to get a completely non-viable candidate trumped (ha) up as the Republican candidate to pave the way for the coronation of Her Hillaryness. Note how NBC News sat on the "Grab the Cat" video all through the primaries, when it might have done some good, in order to ("Oh, *please* let it be Trump!") spring it as an October Surprise.

      Also, note the utterly absurd way the "debates" were handled. The immoderators (deliberately?) steered the "debates" in such a way as to dumb them down into ridiculousness, which plays to Trump's strengths, such as they are.

      I think the biggest factor in Trump's win is that the attitude of Hillary and most of the Democratic Party, which is basically "How dare those unwashed nobodies in flyover country fail to show proper gratitude that their betters are willing to take up the burden of running their lives for them?!?", doesn't really play well in those parts of the country they show such open and complete contempt for.

    3. Re:Bigger hack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a deep mole. Trump planned this as early as 1999 when he got her elected to the Florida Senate.

    4. Re:Bigger hack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad they didn't notice that the electorate firmly rejected politics as usually eight years ago and affirmed that decision four years ago.

      Hillary probably would have beaten Rubio. I seriously doubt he could have flipped the Rust Belt, which would have made it difficult for him to win.

    5. Re:Bigger hack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the biggest factor in Trump's win is that the attitude of Hillary and most of the Democratic Party, which is basically "How dare those unwashed nobodies in flyover country fail to show proper gratitude that their betters are willing to take up the burden of running their lives for them?!?", doesn't really play well in those parts of the country they show such open and complete contempt for.

      This is the simple explanation, which the voting numbers bare out. Trump didn't win so much as he failed to alienate as many voters as Clinton.

    6. Re: Bigger hack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I happen to live in flyover county and I can confirm, the Dems do not give a flying fiddle fuck what we think about anything. Not that the Orange Overlord does either, but at least he pretended to during the campaign. Hillary didn't bother with any towns smaller than half a mil or so (except in the early caucuses where it's required to get the nod)

    7. Re:Bigger hack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not entirely as I see it.

      I see Trumps win having to do more with Clinton's cheating in both primaries and her overall attitude about it.

      With a legit head to head election against Sanders, Clinton would have likely lost but even if she had won by some slim chance, people would have been more willing to hold their nose and vote for her even with her embodying the corruption that many of his supporters disliked just due to the 15 people on the other side running generally being even worse.

      But instead she cheated in the primaries and robbed huge numbers of voters of their voice along with donors to his campaign, That alone ran a great many off as who wants to vote for the person that cheated them. Then to make things worse her and her people repeatedly made it a point to insult and antagonize the Sanders voters for daring to want someone other than her making people even less likely to want to vote for her. Then you had her basically saying screw you to his voters by saying she wouldn't come to them because "I am winning" and expecting his voters to come to her instead, that isn't how things work. Then as icing on the cake, the cheating was verified and they double down on it. Debbie had to step down in disgrace for the cheating only to have Clinton appoint her to her campaign that same day as a slap in the face, then you had her replaced by Donna who also helped cheat for Clinton.

      After all this, she actively made it a point to run off her own base. She actively ran off Sanders supporters thinking she didn't need them and they had no choice but to have for her and effectively kicked them in the ass on the way out and her actions even disgusted and ran off some of her own supporters in the process.

      Then you get the leaks that not only did she meddle in the DNC Primaries to cheat but she actively meddled in the RNC primaries as well trying to prop up the most damaged candidate as well to run against making her still the better candidate regardless of how bad she was.

      It is easy to get yourself out to vote for someone you genuinely like as the Sanders voters did virtually everywhere he was allowed to be seen and heard, it is much harder to motivate yourself to go out to vote against someone you hate by voting against someone you hate slightly-less. That leads to many just staying home rather than throwing their vote away or voting for other candidates as evidenced by the 3rd party votes this year versus other years.

      Clinton ignoring "Flyover Country" because she thought she had it on lock is a factor, but it wasn't the biggest factor. She basically flipped the bird to her entire voting base thinking she had it on lock because she cheated her away ahead of the better candidate and managed to get herself running against the only candidate who was seen as worse than her but only marginally so.

    8. Re:Bigger hack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this case, Hillary was the worst guy....

    9. Re:Bigger hack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you care about the Supreme Court. Trump will be gone in a few years. Hillary would have been gone in a few years. But Hillary's damage to the court would have lasted decades. That matters more than any other factor.

    10. Re: Bigger hack by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Hillary didn't bother with any towns smaller than half a mil or so

      She was just trying to campaign efficiently, not thumb her nose at small towns. Democrat policy is NOT anti-middle-America (unless you still believe trickle-down works; another debate).

      Not that the Orange Overlord [cares about swing states] either, but at least he pretended to

      That's the key, he faked it better. He's a sales whiz, she's not. The truth is that automation is a bigger (and growing) threat to the rust belt than bad trade deals. Education is better way to stay ahead of "the robots" than trade gambles, and H had better education policies. (Robots will threaten Chinese factory jobs also soon.)

      T gave them at least a lingering hope that reworking the trade deals will bring back old-style jobs. Yes, most voters probably realized it's a long shot, but they were willing to take that gamble. The casino salesman knew how to sell a good gamble. "What've you got to lose?" was one of his favorite phrases.

    11. Re:Bigger hack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the biggest factor in Trump's win is that the attitude of Hillary and most of the Democratic Party, which is basically "How dare those unwashed nobodies in flyover country fail to show proper gratitude that their betters are willing to take up the burden of running their lives for them?!?", doesn't really play well in those parts of the country they show such open and complete contempt for.

      Yes, how terrible it is that the godless commie homosexual satanic muslim scum were mean to team "Fuck Your Feelings".

      Political correctness is the worst sin against freedom, except when you might have mean words to say about rural people.

    12. Re:Bigger hack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen brother. But you forgot the smugness that she always had about the whole affair. Remember the little smug dance she did when leaving the voting booth?

  11. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    But her emails

  12. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Actually Nixed did not get ousted for having the re-election team break into DNC Headquarters and plant bugs.

    Nixon got ousted for covering up the issue after he learned of it. Nixon did not direct it to happen. Nixon covered it up after the fact.

  13. Amazing the speed of the Russian/Trump shills by MatthiasF · · Score: 0, Troll

    Not even fifteen minutes after the story is posted and already every top post response is Trump supporters spewing crap about the Hillary emails even though they were not mentioned.

    I doubt this is about the DNC emails. This is most likely about the social media and email spamming before the election with fake news that might have used stolen state election information.

    1. Re:Amazing the speed of the Russian/Trump shills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      So "posting shit Hillary doesn't like" and "lying on social media" are now state sponsored hacking?

    2. Re:Amazing the speed of the Russian/Trump shills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both sides published fake news. The big difference is only one side is getting arrested for it. I would hope you can see the problem here.

    3. Re:Amazing the speed of the Russian/Trump shills by jwhyche · · Score: 3

      And you act like this surprises you? But to be fair if the news was the same about the DNC or Clinton, then their supporters would be spewing crap too. A different crap, but crap still.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    4. Re:Amazing the speed of the Russian/Trump shills by unrtst · · Score: 1

      True. There are RNC/Trump supporters that spew crap, and DNC/Clinton supporters that spew crap.
      However, there is a third group that are critics of both the RNC and DNC (and/or both Trump and Clinton). That group should be FUCKING HUGE right now. What the fuck people*?

      I'm not certain exactly what this Russian is being accused of, but he's certainly not a whistle blower, and he's not being accused of being innocent. He's probably going to roll over on some people, and it's probably going to have negative affects on both D's and R's. Those detracting from the issue at hand might just be scared - shouldn't both sides be happy this guy was arrested (if he was actually guilty)?

      * not necessarily jwhyche :-)

    5. Re:Amazing the speed of the Russian/Trump shills by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Why does this amaze you? Americans are nothing if not blindly faithful to a sky-daddy and their political party of choice, and even then I'm not sure in which order they place that importance.

      As for shilling, blind faith is far more powerful and wide reaching than a few cents per post. Being delusional doesn't make one a shill.

    6. Re:Amazing the speed of the Russian/Trump shills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even more amazing are those who think pointing out the bloody obvious stupidity in this situation are 'Trump Shills'.

      Actually. Not Amazed. Saddened.

      You can always count on sockpuppets and useful ignorants.

  14. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    What? We FINALLY caught the Russians "RED" handed? Game over. The Russians should of kept their hands off the US election. Hillary would of won 90+ of the votes. It is time to Impeach Trump.

  15. Leaks by shaksys · · Score: 1

    If its true, what makes what he did any different than what the USA does all the time in other countries? The difference is that the USA uses missiles to change another nations political power sometimes.

  16. Can't we all just get along?!?!? by mtmiller100 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    and find some common ground... like the fact that Hillary and The Donald are BOTH scumbags who don't deserve to be president?

    1. Re:Can't we all just get along?!?!? by jwhyche · · Score: 2, Informative

      I really have a issue here. I really wanted to mod you up but I also want to comment on this thread. But but when it comes right down to it. I think you are spot on.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    2. Re:Can't we all just get along?!?!? by lactose99 · · Score: 1

      I wish more people looked at things this way instead of total polarization.

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
    3. Re:Can't we all just get along?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But my candidate is less of a scumbag then your candidate.

    4. Re:Can't we all just get along?!?!? by Archtech · · Score: 1, Insightful

      and find some common ground... like the fact that Hillary and The Donald are BOTH scumbags who don't deserve to be president?

      And right there you have the issue with the USA as a "liberal democracy". How can it be a liberal democracy when the "democracy" part gives voters the choice between a vile rich callous selfish lying warmonger and a vile rich callous selfish lying warmonger? And how liberal can it be when absolutely no one in the senior ranks of the government - or of either major political party - is in the least liberal?

      I use the word "liberal" in its original and correct sense:

      liberal
      n adjective
      1 respectful and accepting of behaviour or opinions different from one's own. Ø(of a society, law, etc.) favourable to individual rights and freedoms. ØTheology regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.
      2 (in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform. Ø(Liberal) relating to Liberals or a Liberal Party, especially (in the UK) relating to the Liberal Democrat party.
      3 (of education) concerned with broadening general knowledge and experience.
      4 (especially of an interpretation of a law) not strictly literal.
      5 given, used, or giving in generous amounts.
      n noun
      1 a person of liberal views.
      2 (Liberal) a supporter or member of a Liberal Party, especially (in the UK) a Liberal Democrat.

      DERIVATIVES
              liberalism noun
              liberalist noun
              liberalistic adjective
              liberality noun
              liberally adverb
              liberalness noun

      ORIGIN
              Middle English (originally in sense 'suitable for a free man' hence 'suitable for a gentleman'): via Old French from Latin liberalis, from liber 'free (man)'.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    5. Re:Can't we all just get along?!?!? by mtmiller100 · · Score: 2

      Both of the major political parties have devolved into businesses, which sell our tax dollars to those who can pay. The words that come out of their mouths are just "advertising" to entice the people to vote for them. On occasion, we actually hold them accountable for their deceptive advertising, but not very often. It is basically Coke vs Pepsi, where the cola who's ads appealed to the most voters, gains power and gets to wallow in, and sell, our tax dollars.

    6. Re:Can't we all just get along?!?!? by Archtech · · Score: 0

      Here's a good example of how the word "liberal" is now used by some to mean its exact opposite:

      http://theduran.com/democrats-...

      The Democratic Party, many of whose members consider themselves "liberals", apparently wants one of its elected legislators to be (unconstitutionally) ejected from Congress because of something she said. Now that is illiberal, because liberals believe in freedom (as far as possible) - including freedom of speech. Of course the freedom of legislators to speak their minds is, if possible, even more important than that of ordinary citizens. The fact that Tulsi Gabbard is absolutely right to ask for some evidence before the USA is committed to yet another war, is a separate matter.

      This state of affairs, deplorable and dangerous as it is, has not come about recently. Mark Twain remarked on it in 1897.

      "It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them".

      - Mark Twain, Pudd'nhead Wilson's New Calendar, Ch. XX

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    7. Re:Can't we all just get along?!?!? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

      Hillary and The Donald are BOTH scumbags who don't deserve to be president?

      You have highlighted a very important issue: how our voting system works. If we used ranked voting in the US, we would have a more representative government. I mean that in the literal sense that they would be mathematically more representative of who people want to vote for. The question you should be asking is how we can we improve our voting system.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    8. Re:Can't we all just get along?!?!? by circularWaffle · · Score: 1

      I'm with ya. When they were both running and now, I still have the same opinion. Neither of these douchenozzles deserved to be up there running as the public face of the US. I don't know how many times I said, before the election, "Man, I don't know who I want to vote for...Both of these people are unfit corrupted assholes". I didn't vote for either of them in the end, and I'm proud to admit that fact in public. Say what you want, I didn't have to vote for them and I took that right and went with it. I knew that both of them would fuck our country up even more than it was already. At least I can say, without guilt, "I didn't vote for them".

    9. Re:Can't we all just get along?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought that during the campaign, however seeing the stuff that has been dredged up about democrats... I see each party using the same corrupt mechanisms that the other party had in place, and Trump broke this cycle. And they hate them for it. In my opinion, Trump is a hero.

      Just look at his networth tank over the course of the election. There is no way you can say that he did it for personal wealth.

    10. Re:Can't we all just get along?!?!? by DogDude · · Score: 1

      and find some common ground... like the fact that Hillary and The Donald are BOTH scumbags who don't deserve to be president?

      Nope. Not even close.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    11. Re:Can't we all just get along?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol. you wishy washy can't we all get along people have never acomplished shit.

      why do you insist on being an idiot?

    12. Re:Can't we all just get along?!?!? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Common ground doesn't win a two party election, but one thing is damn certain and that is that MY scumbag is better than yours.

    13. Re:Can't we all just get along?!?!? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      find some common ground... like the fact that Hillary and The Donald are BOTH scumbags who don't deserve...

      Almost ALL politicians are scumbags. Non-scumbags rarely last in the system; politics is a mean biz. We've been electing scumbags from the beginning. Plus, you need scumbags to understand international scumbags, like angry dictators.

      This election was between a sane scumbag and a nutzo xenophobic scumbag.

    14. Re:Can't we all just get along?!?!? by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      Trump broke [partisan payback] cycle...Trump is a hero.

      Trump breaks everything. If his chaos fixed something, it was accidental, like Scooby Doo inadvertently crashing into the hologram machine, exposing the ghost as a fake.

      his networth tank over the course of the election. There is no way you can say that he did it for personal wealth.

      He may not have predicted that up front. He's been reluctant to give up control of his biz's.

      You seem to assume too much planning and purpose to his actions. There is no solid record of him carefully planning anything anywhere. His family does most the real work.

    15. Re:Can't we all just get along?!?!? by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Don't deserve to be president?

      While I am no fan of the Don he does deserve and is entitled to be president because he won the contest(s) that decided who is deserving and entitled to hold that position. That contest does not pick the best and brightest because democracy isn't about picking the best and brightest. While that isn't a great thing it is still the best thing we have for government.

    16. Re: Can't we all just get along?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already do, it's called "low voter turnout".

      It's NOT what you really want.

      Personally, I think Aaron Sorkin should get behind Rob Lowe for President. His character was primed to be President someday (The West Wing TV show).

    17. Re: Can't we all just get along?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have a problem with politicians having freedom of speech, but they represent PEOPLE, not themself only. Not the same thing.

      Second, when you said politician's freedom of speech was more important than ordinary people, I decided "you can go fuck yourself" .

  17. To be indicted, you have to be accused of a crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I doubt this is about the DNC emails. This is most likely about the social media and email spamming before the election with fake news

    Except "social media and e-mail spamming" isn't an indictable crime. Fake news isn't even a crime E-mail spamming is closest to being a crime, but the CAN-SPAM act has a specific exemption for political e-mail.

    Breaking in to DNC servers and stealing the email, however, is a federal crime

    that might have used stolen state election information.

    First time I've heard this alleged. You have a source for that?

  18. stop calling it "hacking" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a concerted effort to dangle scary cyber crime but no evidence that vote totals were changed. Clinton and her apologists want to blame sexism, Russians, the FBI and sexism for her loss without taking any responsibility for her awful campaign or her career of truth shading and bothsidesofmouth talking. I voted for Clinton - why? I thought Trump was a corrupt idiot and a dangerously impulsive incompetent illiterate and so far I'm sadly even righter than I thought. - but the irony of a foreign super power using its intelligence assets to influence a US election and put in a corrupt strong man to further its own interests doesn't escape me.

  19. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Yes, as we learn that Donald Trump is a foreign agent beholden to Vladamir Putin's KGB I think we can all agree it was worth losing our country to a foreign government to keep Hillary from being President.

    When we ponder the implications of Donald Trump's subservience to a hostile foreign government, it's important to remember that Hillary Clinton sent emails.

    Emails! Can you believe that?! She sent emails.

    Bring on the Russian puppet - We can't have a Clinton presidency!!

  20. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I said of this election: "Choose ye the form or the destroyer."

  21. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by jwhyche · · Score: 2

    Oh yes. Now this is getting interesting. Anyone care to place a wager on how hard Fox News will try to spin this?

    --
    I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
  22. Absurd by Archtech · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What ridiculous nonsense! Everyone knows Putin did it.

    --
    I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    1. Re:Absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Putin personally held a gun to the heads of Hillary's advertising team and said "I am forcing you to create an ad campaign that completely focuses on how much better you people perceive yourselves to be compared to everyone else"

  23. And by objective, you mean partisan by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

    There'sâ a big difference between a primary (where you are allowed to use almost any method you like to choose your candidate) and an election (where intentionally disenfranchising one candidate is not allowed). Apparently you don't know that difference.

  24. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All two-legged clothes-wearing pigs are corrupt. Some are more corrupt than others.

  25. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lol I knew the top comment would be some nonsense from an alt-right Trump fan.

  26. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sickening. This sort of rouse would ONLY be aroused by a TRUMP supporter.

  27. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you need a safe space, punkin'? Did the headline trigger you?

  28. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by rholtzjr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Probably just as hard as BBC proposed it the way they did as a Trump conspiracy vs a Clinton scandal. Nothing new here.

  29. The DNC stuff was minor by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, Interesting

    and esoteric. It didn't even register with voters. OTOH there's evidence linking the Russians to the "Bernie Bros" campaign (not that folks don't love Bernie, he's the most popular politician in America today and for good reason). Then there's the mounting evidence that Russia hacked voter rolls and shared that data with team Trump. That sorta data is a gold mine beyond value and if true that more than anything would explain Trump's win.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  30. Breaking in is illegal by XXongo · · Score: 2, Informative

    Let's assume they got all the DNC mail and released it. How was that hacking the election?

    If you actually read the article, it states "El Confidencial, a Spanish news website, has said that Mr Levashov's arrest warrant was issued by US authorities over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Trump's campaign."

    So there are two statements there.
    1. Mr Levashov was arrested for suspected "hacking", and
    2. this suspected "hacking" helped Donald Trump's campaign.

    Breaking into the DNC computers and stealing e-mail is illegal. Period. This was done, plausibly, on behalf of Russia: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...

    Hacking the election would be changing votes in a database.

    According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security report, Russia's goals were to "undermine public faith" in the US democratic process and "denigrate" his Democrat opponent Hillary Clinton, harming her electability and potential presidency. "We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election." http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...

    If someone finds out that a candidate murders babies, I would prefer they release it...and not be arrested for "hacking the election".

    There was no allegation that Trump or Clinton murders babies. This really is changing the subject. It's the same argument that governments use to break into your computer: "think of the children! Maybe that computer we break into has child porn! Would you disagree that we need to stop child porn?" Breaking into computers and stealing e-mail is illegal. People who do that should be arrested. Nobody is murdering babies; saying "but what if they murder babies?" is not an excuse.

    1. Re:Breaking in is illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the same argument that governments use to break into your computer: "think of the children! Maybe that computer we break into has child porn! Would you disagree that we need to stop child porn?" Breaking into computers and stealing e-mail is illegal. People who do that should be arrested. Nobody is murdering babies; saying "but what if they murder babies?" is not an excuse.

      The US government should be constrained by US law. The Russian government is not.

    2. Re:Breaking in is illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A) a person that has the password of "password" and fals for a phishing attempt is an idiot certainly when they have incriminating emails

      B) Assange released the emails, not Russia.

      C) There has been new evidence that points to Seth Rich as a source of these leaks.

      D) Seth Rich is dead and all sorts of stuff about his supposed "Robbery gone wrong" don't add up.

      C) If there was any evidence that could actually link Russia and the emails, let alone Russia and Trump, it would have been plastered all over every publication know to man

      D) MX Records with foreign IP's is not evidence of hacking. If it is then every server on the internet is getting "hacked" 20 times a day by every country.
       

    3. Re:Breaking in is illegal by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Russia's goals were to "undermine public faith" in the US democratic process

      I think the republicans and democrats did that themselves when they put their two candidates forward.

    4. Re:Breaking in is illegal by penandpaper · · Score: 2

      According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security report, Russia's goals were to "undermine public faith" in the US democratic process and "denigrate" his Democrat opponent Hillary Clinton, harming her electability and potential presidency. "We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election." http://www.bbc.com/news/world-... [bbc.com]

      This is a fair assessment and while I can agree with the concept, there is one thing that really bugs me about this. It assumes that the average US voter is so pathetically inept, that bad stories about a political (who had some of the worst favorably ratings even before the election!) some how translates into undermining public faith in the democratic process. Just... no.

      Clinton was hated long before the 2016 election. She had a lot of baggage and any party revealing the details of that baggage no more undermines faith in the democratic process than any other leak of government personnel and processes.

      Did revealing Anthony Weiner's digital escapades undermine the faith in the democratic process in NY? Why would it be different for Clinton? There have been scandals since there has been politicians and to assume that some bad press will up end centuries of democracy in this country is laughable. Clinton was a terrible candidate who dug her own shitty campaign.

      Yes, it is illegal to hack the DNC, a private company, just like it was illegal to hack Ashley Madison. The later did not undermine the institutions that were caught up because of work emails found in those hacks and why would it? The people involved were shitty and we found out the details of their shittiness but that does not translate to a complete distrust and lack of faith to the institutions involved. Especially institutions that have survived for centuries and far worse than airing of bad laundry.

      I participated in all parts of the election season. I was not influenced by Russia anymore than the BBC stating how bad Trump was/is. I saw both candidates and I consumed as much information as I could about both for the topics that concerned me as an American. Clinton's actions, rhetoric, and campaign hurt her electability. She was a poor candidate who ran a poor campaign with a poor message. No one is to blame but her for that.

    5. Re: Breaking in is illegal by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      You may not have been influenced but did you not think there was something strange about the floods of anti-Clinton messages, not least on this site?

      No more than I saw anti-Trump and anti-Sanders (general election and primary election) messages paraded everywhere from Correct The Record. I was even accused of being a Russian troll when I posted my opinions on Clinton (negative). Everyone is trying to convince you of something. Why is this any different?

    6. Re:Breaking in is illegal by Maritz · · Score: 1

      It's the same argument that governments use to break into your computer: "think of the children! Maybe that computer we break into has child porn! Would you disagree that we need to stop child porn?" Breaking into computers and stealing e-mail is illegal. People who do that should be arrested. Nobody is murdering babies; saying "but what if they murder babies?" is not an excuse.

      The US government should be constrained by US law. The Russian government is not.

      Russian law is whatever Putin wants it to be. They are perfectly constrained by this.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    7. Re:Breaking in is illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems you didn't pay attention to the news of what was found out from the DNC hacking. It wasn't that Hillary had some 'dirt' or 'baggage', it was that the DNC was actively sabotaging Bernie, which was very popular amonst the actual voters, so that Hillary would become the nominee no matter what. That actually does call the "democratic process" into question, the process of the primary, not the election.

  31. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Nite_Hawk · · Score: 1

    Dude, you got trolled. :)

  32. Risky business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this guy has anything the russians might worry about he'd be dead, very soon.
    Like a long list of journalists, exKGB and double agents.
    There is no difference between the russian government and organised crime. The methods and rationale are identical.

  33. MOD: Please Fix article title by exabrial · · Score: 5, Informative

    He's not being arrested for "hacking the election" he's being arrested because of other crimes:

    * https://krebsonsecurity.com/20...
    * https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

    1. Re:MOD: Please Fix article title by CajunArson · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Sorry, those facts are racist because they don't repeat the narrative that Slashdot's so-called "editors" want to spoonfeed to a certain segment of what little is left of the readership around here.

      --
      AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    2. Re:MOD: Please Fix article title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, he's a spam king & botnet controller. Here's the part of the Krebs article talking about the associations:

      The above-referenced Reuters story on Levashov’s arrest cited reporting from Russian news outlet RT which associated Levashov with hacking attacks linked to alleged interference in last year’s U.S. election. But subsequent updates from Reuters cast doubt on those claims.

      “A U.S. Department of Justice official said it was a criminal matter without an apparent national security connection,” Reuters added in an update to an earlier version of its story.

      The New York Times reports that Russian news media did not say if Levashov was suspected of being involved in that activity. However, The Times piece observes that the Kelihos botnet does have a historic association with election meddling, noting the botnet was used during the Russian election in 2012 to send political messages to email accounts on computers with Russian Internet addresses. According to The Times, those emails linked to fake news stories saying that Mikhail D. Prokhorov, a businessman who was running for president against Vladimir V. Putin, had come out as gay.

    3. Re:MOD: Please Fix article title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      more fake news as usual, this time by the bbc

  34. So wrong by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Informative

    The DNC stuff was minor and esoteric. It didn't even register with voters.

    Are you nuts? It registered strongly with EVERY Bernie Sanders supporter. Search Twitter around that time and you'll find it was far from "esoteric" that Sanders had been ejected from the race by the DNC leadership.

    Then there's the mounting evidence that Russia hacked voter rolls

    Where is that exactly? The only effort ever put forth (by the Green party) showed no Russian involvement and resulted in a few more votes for Trump than were originally counted.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:So wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hacked the voter rolls to target with the micro-targetting in marginal seats. They would find voters in the marginal seats, and aggressively target those people over facebook with fake news.

      Not hacked the election machines or results.

    2. Re:So wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So now we went from "hacked election to make Trump win" to targeted ads in a couple of minor seats?

      Since you all lied so much before, you will have to excuse me if I just assume the left is lying here again.

    3. Re:So wrong by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

      Here ya go. Seriously, it's just a GIS.

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  35. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *sigh* your tin foil hat is getting worn out.

  36. Did they now by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm pretty sure Donald Trump, and perhaps every other Presidential candidate in history, have said things in private that if they became public would result in them losing the election

    Trump DID say something in private, that was made public also - the whole "grabbing" fiasco.

    It would have ended any other candidate, and indeed many were sure that was the end of Trump. Even many Republicans said he should end his candidacy.

    But EVEN with that, Trump still won because (on the whole) what Hilary did and supported was far worse than Trump, and voters knew it.

    So Hillary and Trump were even as far as disclosure of private speech... and Trump still won.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Did they now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got that right... The Access Hollywood tape was released by who? Who owned that tape? Who produces Access Hollywood?

      NBC.... SOMEBODY at the network "leaked" the tape after more than 10 years sitting in the archives... In OCTOBER! The timing was impeccable, if one wants to get Hillary elected...

      Seems like an attempt to "hack" the election to me... Just as much as the releasing of the DNC's internal E-mail was.... Are we talking about that? (crickets)

    2. Re: Did they now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The big fucking difference is NBC/Access Hollywood is American.
      If that wasn't obvious, you were whooshed.

  37. This is So Telling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    After months of denying there was any sort of Russian hacking of the election, now this thread is full of Trump supporters claiming that it wasn't "really" hacking. Or that the hacking "didn't matter". Or that "it's only one hacker". Or "you can't prove a state affiliation to this hacker".

    The minimization of what went on is a disgrace. Imagine your candidate was the subject of overt interference by a foreign power. You good with that? No? I didn't think so.

    The Russians had no business being involved in the election. It's as simple as that. Apparently that is too simple for Trump supporters though, because they keep trying on excuses for size. In the end Trump supporters benefited from Russian interference and that means they are unreliable commentators on the issue, being in a massive conflict of interest. Your judgment and wisdom have been tested and found wanting.

    It makes no difference whether the hacking was effective, or swung your particular vote you morons! It is electoral interference and that ought to be a Red Flag, full stop. Sad.

    1. Re:This is So Telling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every Presidential election ever prosecuted by the United States has been subject to overt influence by a foreign power... what is your point? (disclaimer: I voted for Hillary)

  38. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It is still a shame that Nixon's resignation over shadowed his accomplishments while in office. He got the US military out of Vietnam. He visited China to personally open a diplomatic channel between China and the US. That action on his part kicked off the US's most successful regime operation in history. It brought China into the international trade and financial markets which changed them from a poor and inward looking Communist regime into one of the most capitalistic countries on the planet. China has not been a communist country for a long time no matter what they call their country. Nixon also created the EPA which has been one of the most successful government agencies since it was created.

  39. Re:There's more than the DNC hack ya know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There's mounting evidence that Russia hacked voter rolls and shared them with people involved with the Trump campaign.

    No there's not.

    I don't like the idea that a Russian propaganda machine helped choose our president. Maybe you feel different. Maybe you're one of those Russians.

    Don't look now, rsilvergun, the ebil rooskies are hiding under your bed!

  40. Re:There's more than the DNC hack ya know by loonycyborg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I for one am a Russian, and I frankly don't care who wins on american elections. It's obvious to me that this whole story is made up to whitewash Hilary's fuckups in her campaign that alienated people so much that they voted for the designated "joke candidate". However the very idea that associating something with Russians can automatically vilify it seems very insulting and ridiculous to me.

  41. Re:There's more than the DNC hack ya know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hacked the voter rolls? Voter rolls are public information. There's even a website where you can buy them at 2.5 cents per name... voterlistsonline.com

  42. At least by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They remember to put "hacking" in quotes. There very well may have been some shenanigans pulled, but I seriously doubt "hacking" is an appropriate term to describe them.

    Makes it sound like all the US votes are tallied exclusively electronically, and the Russians somehow got into this system and manually altered the final vote counts or something.

  43. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by mtmiller100 · · Score: 1

    yep. It's not like Trump paid this guy to do this, but the headlines sure make it sound like it.

  44. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wait till we see the corruption in your boyfriend's campaign. This will be awesome! Impeachment, here we come!

  45. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Pax681 · · Score: 3

    Predictable baying of the hounds from the Hillary camp.

    Too late to have any real relevance since there's been ample time to create fake evidence.

    the irony is strong in this one!

  46. Keep eating that finger chilli by netsavior · · Score: 1

    butHerEmails.jpg

    1. Re:Keep eating that finger chilli by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Her emails revealed a glibness with classified data and probably would have revealed much more if she hadn't deleted tens of thousands of them and wiped the server after picking and choosing which ones would be sent over. The emails alone weren't disqualifying, but they were a serious strike against her candidacy. She should have promptly sat the fuck down and let some Democrat who wasn't a scandal ridden scoundrel step up to the plate.

  47. Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there is no way they could ever trace something like this, even if "Russian hackers" hacked the U.S. election. They're basically trying to convince us that they left their names and e-mail addresses in some supposedly left-behind software. Utter far-fetched bullshit.

  48. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Pax681 · · Score: 2

    Actually Nixed did not get ousted for having the re-election team break into DNC Headquarters and plant bugs.

    Nixon got ousted for covering up the issue after he learned of it. Nixon did not direct it to happen. Nixon covered it up after the fact.

    erm.. there's quite a bit more to it than that and it was very clear he had involvement from inception to execution and over up.. hoisted by his own petard ,his own recording were used as evidence and proved knowledge all the way from the start to the end.

  49. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Pax681 · · Score: 2, Informative

    It is still a shame that Nixon's resignation over shadowed his accomplishments while in office. He got the US military out of Vietnam. He visited China to personally open a diplomatic channel between China and the US. That action on his part kicked off the US's most successful regime operation in history. It brought China into the international trade and financial markets which changed them from a poor and inward looking Communist regime into one of the most capitalistic countries on the planet. China has not been a communist country for a long time no matter what they call their country. Nixon also created the EPA which has been one of the most successful government agencies since it was created.

    yeah and that war on drugs he started.. that wasn't a total fiscal black hole at all was it? not a waste of time, energy, money and lives? Nixon was a twat

  50. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, as we learn that Donald Trump is a foreign agent beholden to Vladamir Putin's KGB I think we can all agree it was worth losing our country to a foreign government to keep Hillary from being President.

    Do you have any evidence for this claim?

  51. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1
    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  52. Re: To be indicted, you have to be accused of a cr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    accessing a computer system you weren't invited to use is illegal.

    yet the jews in control still see the internet at large as OK.

    swim in the hypocrisy. you're all idiots.

  53. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by ad454 · · Score: 2

    Yes but Trump has been quite ungrateful for Putin's decisive support during the election, not to mention Russian financial support of his businesses for many years. What kind of businessman is he to renege on a such a sweetheart deal from Putin?

    He has yet to cancel sanctions against Russia. And he has yet to return Alaska back to Russia, which was illegally sold by the Emperer Alexander II against the will of the Russian people. Returning Alaska will also finally help prove that Sara Palin can actually see Russia from her house.

    As a Canadian, if Trump does returns Alaska to Russia, I do hope that he also gives Hawaii to Canada in order to finally prove that Obama was not born in the USA. After all, Trump would not lie about Obama, and Canadian winters are too damm cold.

  54. Re:There's more than the DNC hack ya know by dszd0g · · Score: 1

    During the campaign Trump at various points said that he would end sanctions on Russia that are costing your economy billions of dollars (rubles) and recognize Crimea. The ruble has lost 45% of its value from the sanctions. These Russian scandals that have plagued Trump and that even most Republicans in congress do not seem to share Trump's opinions on Russia have likely prevented Trump's stances on Russia from going forward. If Trump succeeds in his pro-Russia objectives, you can't say that it wouldn't be good for you.

    Billions of dollars is plenty of reason for Russia to have helped elect Trump.

    --
    This message is encrypted with Quad ROT-13 to protect the author's copyright under the DMCA.
  55. Re:There's more than the DNC hack ya know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe you, comrade, I do.

    Russia is not hacker. Just Americans making big joke with Trump. Russia is strong, not hacker.

  56. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's just make it clear that BOTH choices were absolute piles of shit. It was a lose regardless of who you voted for.

  57. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This sort of rouse would ONLY be aroused by a TRUMP supporter.

    Well, nothing else would be.

  58. Re:There's more than the DNC hack ya know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There's mounting evidence that Russia hacked voter rolls and shared them with people involved with the Trump campaign.

    I hear many people say this, and no one will point to any actual evidence. Show some evidence, or admit you have nothing but paranoid ravings.

    The theory being the data was used to target ad buys and campaigning. It would explain how Trump ran such a stellar campaign with so few resources.

    Surely you can see how weak a case that is. Trump ran ads. People listened to the ads on both sides, and decided to vote. You want to override their choice because you allege that the choice of advertising market was optimized by someone you don't like. Even if that is true, Russia saved the Trump campaign some money avoiding running ads that that would have no effect. Are you seriously going to pretend that saving Trump a few bucks on ads is a reason to overturn an election?

    I don't like the idea that a Russian propaganda machine helped choose our president.

    The plot you alleged isn't even a serious issue, and you have no evidence it is true.

    Maybe you feel different. Maybe you're one of those Russians.

    Of course you assume anyone who disagrees with you is conspiring against you. It allows you to avoid listening to what they say, and realizing that you have no evidence for a conspiracy theory that makes no sense.

    I genuinely hope you get the professional help you so clearly need. Until you do, please stay far away from a voting booth.

  59. mhmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How exactly does on "hack the US election"?

  60. Re:There's more than the DNC hack ya know by merky1 · · Score: 2

    I think you are confusing the Clinton campaign with the Trump campaign. Clinton used targeted ad buys and voter rolls, Trump just tweeted insanity and was given billions in free coverage. That's why she lost, by deciding to pull resources from places where she lost by 20K, swinging the electoral college. But why would a 30 year veteran of public service understand the election process?

    Why would Trump pay for anything he was getting for free from the media? I have heard anywhere from the low billions to trillions in free media coverage.

    And this whole Russians hacked our election thing is going on way too long. Second paragraph of the unclassified report says it best - "there is no evidence that Russian agents affected the election"[paraphrasing]. So essentially, the DNC had crap security, lost control of critical systems, and somehow it is all someone else's fault.

    And bonus points for equating the hacking of a private us company to the hacking of the US government.

    --
    --WooooHoooo--
  61. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To be clear, Trumps supporters think his shit smells like roses but is shaped like dollar signs, not that it smells like dollar signs.

  62. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...should of...would of...

    You are a moron and your opinion is invalid. Figures you're WITH HER.

  63. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *whoosh*

    You're using that wrong. That post was full of sarcasm, not paranoia.

  64. Re:There's more than the DNC hack ya know by loonycyborg · · Score: 1

    Who cares what he said? People lie. Some campaign promises aren't enough to warrant supporting him with black ops. Sanctions actually support local industry by removing competition from foreign imports and Crimea's status doesn't matter as long as people aren't getting killed there.. The only issues with sanctions is that they're insulting.

  65. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Informative

    Wow, now there's a bit of historical revisionism. Watergate was more than just a coverup, it also lead directly to the Oval Office as the source of the whole conspiracy, not merely just the coverup of the break-in. Any "exoneration" of Nixon comes from the fact that investigators could find no direct evidence that tied Nixon to the actual DNC break-in scheme. The whole matter of 18 minutes of erased tape has long been since as the smoke that lead to the fire that was Nixon's direct involvement in the entire scheme. We can never know for sure, but I can't imagine any reasonable person can draw any other conclusion than that Nixon and his senior advisers were all in on the break-in.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  66. Re: To be indicted, you have to be accused of a cr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody broke into the DNC servers. They simply phished on of the head people at the DNC, and once they had his password they grabbed all the emails

    Exactly. When you access a server you don't have legal access to, that process is known as as a "break in." It happened to have been done by a phishing attck, rather than by smashing a window, but it's a still a break-in.

    Through the purely legitimate method that anybody with the password could use.

    Yes, if by the word "legitimate" you mean "illegal".

  67. If everyone in the room is not the patsy.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does that make you?

  68. Wow, the mods really don't like Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could you explain why you don't think he was correct?

  69. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1
    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  70. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Putin overplayed his hand, and misjudged just how recalcitrant Congress really is over Russia. Maybe Putin misjudged the US political system (he certainly wouldn't be the first Russian ruler to do that), and just assumed that Trump's cooing sounds and his installment in the White House would just erase seven decades of deep distrust between the Washington and Moscow. Maybe he knew it, but Trump was his best shot. Whatever the case may be, Trump is in a political position now where he has no choice but to pick up the anti-Russia stick and pound it loudly. The fact is that outside of a few Congressmen like Nunes, Trump actually has few real devotees in Congress, and it's clear Congress has absolutely no intention of permitting the Administration to jump into bed with Putin.

    Enter Assad's gas attack, which gives Trump the cover he needs to basically switch teams. Whether it's a serious change of heart or not has to be seen, but I'm thinking that right now in the Kremlin Putin and his aides are actually generally worried that they may have aided an actual real-live warmonger to get into the Oval Office. And maybe that's not a bad thing. Russia has largely assumed since Putin's rise to power that the US is going to steer clear of any elevated tensions, and has seen itself able to do what it pleases from the effective seizure of South Ossetia to the out and out annexation of Crimea, and of course, going into Syria to make sure Assad stays in power regardless of any other circumstance. Now it actually has to wonder what the Command-in-chief of the most powerful military machine in history might do. For once, Putin is the one knocked off balance.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  71. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Informative

    She sent emails of CLASSIFIED information. On a system most likely compromised by .. RUSSIAN HACKERS!!!!.

    And lets not forget Uranium One Deal that got her a quid pro quo speaking engagement for ... Bill the alleged rapist.

    But yeah, Trump is totally in the pocket of Russia. That's why Putin had Assad gas his own people (with Weapons that Obama said he got rid of) so that Trump could bomb them and claim they aren't buddy/pals (actual NBC conspiracy theory).

    Clinton would have been so much better!

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  72. More bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who even believes this shit anymore? Its like they arent even trying. Just throwing shit and hoping itl stick. It wont, just give up fuckings losers.

  73. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by TheDarkener · · Score: 0

    A small handful of e-mails (in comparison to the bulk sent from that server). I would personally attribute that to her being stupid and not remembering which account she was sending from.

    You know how many high ranking federal officials use Yahoo, Hotmail and Gmail accounts?? Guess how many of them send CLASSIFIED info through them? Guess how many of them are pwned by Russian hackers?

    My primary beef with Trump is that HE HAS NO EXPERIENCE. Just as you wouldn't hire a lead programmer for a multimillion dollar software project that hasn't done, "Hello, world!" before, Trump is in way over his head. It shows through his actions, his cabinet choices, their actions, and generally his lack of a personality fit for being a president. No wonder he's bankrupted so many businesses. No wonder he's golfing every weekend. I'm surprised he hasn't had a heart attack yet.

    Listen, the government is fucked up and corrupt. Probably always will be. That doesn't mean you intentionally try to destroy it by hiring a n00b that already hates everything about the job he's about to take.

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  74. Re:There's more than the DNC hack ya know by TheDarkener · · Score: 1

    It wasn't directed at all Russians. He chose his words carefully it seems not to, in fact.

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  75. My $0.02 USD by TheDarkener · · Score: 1, Interesting

    No foreign country or entity should have *anything* to do with a country's election process. Period.

    And yes, I am aware that the U.S. has interfered in foreign countries' elections as well. Karma?

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  76. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

    A small handful of e-mails (in comparison to the bulk sent from that server). I would personally attribute that to her being stupid and not remembering which account she was sending from.

    So, you want a stupid President, then?

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  77. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald T by negRo_slim · · Score: 2

    Fuck off until they show us actual proof. If you open your eyes you'll amazed at how little proof is ever provided by the corporate media or government. It's time for that to change.

    --
    On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
  78. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would personally attribute that to her being stupid and not remembering which account she was sending from.

    Would you excuse drunk drivers for "just being stupid"?

    You don't get to fucking "just be stupid" in many times and places in life.

  79. Re:There's more than the DNC hack ya know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd say you do care, if you have an opinion. As for the vilifying, lots of us Americans were raised to fear the USSR and it's godless commies with their nukes. Nothing personal, it can be difficult to change your childhood programming, so to speak. I am certain you are one of the nice Russians!!

  80. It could be on purpose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He may be arrested for other crimes, but in the public eye he needs to be linked to "election hacking". So when he starts giving the long-awaited "evidence" against Russian goverment (unless he wants to spend 20 years in prison), it can be made to look somewhat believable.

  81. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by tsqr · · Score: 2

    Returning Alaska will also finally help prove that Sara Palin can actually see Russia from her house.

    Here, let me help you with that:

    Returning Alaska will also finally help prove that Tina Fey can actually see Russia from Sara Palin's house.

  82. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Dread_ed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He was asked to hand over the tapes. He should have wiped them first, you know...like with a cloth.

    --
    When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
  83. Re:There's more than the DNC hack ya know by dszd0g · · Score: 1

    You do know that the fighting in Crimea is still going on, right?

    I have no idea how accurate this site is, but it shows where current fighting is taking place:

    http://liveuamap.com/

    It seems like the current fighting is mostly concentrated in Donetsk, Crimea.

    --
    This message is encrypted with Quad ROT-13 to protect the author's copyright under the DMCA.
  84. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0

    Not just "stupid", stupid with Sensitive / Secure material.

    The whole "Stupid" thing is a ruse to ignore the other parts of the equation ... like Uranium One Deal, and the speaking engagments afterwards in Russia by Bill. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtains.

    Also, pay attention to "My primary beef with Trump is that HE HAS NO EXPERIENCE." which didn't factor into anything when Obama was elected. If it wasn't for double standards, some people would have none.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  85. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Enter Assad's gas attack, ...

    And you have any proof that this was Assad's making? Assad would be very stupid if he would have been ordered or approved something like this at this point in the war.

  86. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My primary beef with Trump is that HE HAS NO EXPERIENCE.

    That didn't seem to be important in 2008.

  87. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surely you have something better to do that post on every fucking story? You're hardly that important or interesting. No one cares and your parents hate you.

    Hugs and kisses,

    Juan Epstein

  88. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, The New York Times, the Clinton campaign who started the rumor to begin with, some "anonymous sources," 19^h^h errm, I mean 3, intelligence agencies who said they were positive ^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h err, I mean it's possible.

    How can you not believe all that proof? You must be a total idiot.

  89. Re:There's more than the DNC hack ya know by loonycyborg · · Score: 3, Informative

    Donetsk isn't in Crimea. It's deep in the mainland. Ukraine basically splintered like Soviet Union did before, and Crimea and Donbass(Donetsk is a major city in the latter region) are among regions that have splintered off. Russia has incorporated Crimea but didn't incorporate Donbass for some reason.

  90. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald T by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    There was plenty of circumstantial evidence, and that's what nailed Nixon to the wall. It wasn't merely that he tried to coverup the Administration's involvement in the break-in, it's that there was enough *indirect* evidence, including the tape erasure (and the ridiculous explanation for how it happened) to point a finger pretty firmly at Nixon being at the heart of the whole affair. The kind of weasel language Nixon defenders always bring up was getting pretty old even by the time of his resignation. Certainly no one in Congress actually believed any of it.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  91. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by MightyMartian · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The Administration certainly feels it does, including the radar tracking data showing where the attack originated from. But I get it, you've bought into the "Russia is a wonderful country and USA bad bad bad!"

    Don't really care what you think. The ASsad clan have been murdering bastards for decades, and Russia, who was supposed to be the guarantor that Assad's chemical weapons were taken out of commission is left makign lame excuses about how some rebel gas cannisters got blowed up reall good.

    Face it, Russia is on the losing end of this one, and Putin knows it, so cash your Kremlin checks while you can.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  92. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They got the wrong guy, it was Doris...

    CAP === 'epistle'

  93. Re: There's more than the DNC hack ya know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is nothing new. Russia has been one of the favorites for the USA to point at and cry corruption to take the heat off and derail the public from actual important purely domestic issues. There are numeorous people from the DNC that shpuld be in prison for trying to rig the election for hillary but.. Thats all unimportant now because RUSSIA. They've (the usa) had other directions to point in the last 20+ years but this one came off of the backburner when it was needed.

    Trump is almost certainly the worst president america has ever had but...I wonder what's really going on here... I have recordings of people on various internet radio streams from the early to mid 90s that clearly stated they had insider knowledge the USA was going to invade Afghanistan Iraq Syria etc, back then it sounded like tinfoil hat conspiracy nonsense so I kept it around to laugh at like william binneys interview on coast to coast AM.... I'm not laughing anymore.

    Look up a documentary called 'the power of nightmares: the rise of the politics of fear' by Adam Curtis.

  94. Don't wave facts areound here, dude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a Democrat meme at work and it must be accepted and parroted all through the media and across the intertubes. There's a dream by beltway political hacks all across the spectrum that if they can just destroy Trump, they can put that anti-globalist thing back into the bottle and go back to getting filthy rich off of multinational corporations outsourcing all labor. There's an entire model of corruption here that's on the line and a revoloving-door of lobbyists/lawmakers/bureaucrats under threat from the orange one - partisanship be damned, the beltway reptiles must rid the system of its only REAL disrupter in decades.

    Hillary wasn't an AWFUL candidate who never even TRIED to understand, let alone reach out to, middle America... nope...

    she did not remind every male voter of an ex-wife or a mother in law every time she bellered... nope...

    she did not highlight an existence bereft of accomplishment, devoid of ethics, and awash in craven hypocrisy... nope...

    The RUSSIANS did it!

    The RUSSIANS did it!

    The RUSSIANS did it!

    Repeat as necessary and hope the public will not focus on WHAT EXACTLY they supposedly DID. Obama himself attacked Trump last fall insisting that our elections were impossible to hack and had not been hacked. His CIA guy said there was ZERO evidence the election was tampered with.

    Repeat as necessary and hope that the establishment GOP who spent decades being hostile to the Soviets will get confused and, thinking modern Russa under Putin is the same as Soviet Russia under Kruschev, jump on board with hating Trump and help to impeach him.

    The problem to this "plan" is: that group of Republicans (the McCain and Bill Kristol sort) were "never Trumpers" and he won despite their opposition and hatred. It turned out that the average Republican in "fly-over country" DOES know Russia != Soviet Union. It also appears that middle America is realizing that a number of "defense hawks" are really just defense SPENDING hawks who refuse to secure the American border but insist we wage small wars all over the world defending all the other borders because they are really just interested in global brush fires that grind-up hardware at a predictable rate to lock-in defense contracts for their campaign financers in order to keep replenishing the inventory while having very little to do with national survival.... Hell, the "never Trumper" globalists don't really care about NATIONAL survival at all - hence the lack of concern for the NATIONAL border. If the average GOP person in fly-over country does not oppose Trump, then the relatively few elitist never Trumpers will be no more successful stopping him than they were last year and without THEIR help the Democrats are powerless to stop Trump - so this whole thing is really just a farsical circus of globalist elitists and freaked-out progressives united (temporarily) by a feverish condition and a shared denial of reality.

  95. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Jahoda · · Score: 0

    Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Bill Hillary Hillary Hillary Bill Hillary Hillary

    Hate to break it to you chief, but HIllary Clinton lost the election 153 days ago.

  96. Re:There's more than the DNC hack ya know by Jahoda · · Score: 1

    You know, at least during the eight years of "b-b-b-b-b-ut Clinton!"-ing during the Bush II administration, he had at least been the president. *Two dozen* Benghazi hearings. Dozens. What a joke.

  97. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Enigma2175 · · Score: 2

    Also, pay attention to "My primary beef with Trump is that HE HAS NO EXPERIENCE." which didn't factor into anything when Obama was elected. If it wasn't for double standards, some people would have none.

    Obama was elected to the Illinois state senate in 1996, 1998 and 2002. He was elected to the US senate in 2004. His BA was in political science with a specialty in international relations. He graduated from Harvard Law magna cum laude and was the president of the Harvard Law review. He taught constitutional law for 12 years and worked as a civil rights attorney.

    Yes, Obama had less experience than many presidents but compare that to Trump. No previous elected experience, no law experience, no previous interest in politics. The only item on his resume that even remotely resembles qualification to be president is a BS in economics from 49 years ago. What was that you were saying about double standards?

    --

    Enigma

  98. Re:There's more than the DNC hack ya know by dszd0g · · Score: 2

    Sorry, you are correct. Thanks for the correction. I am terrible at reading maps in Russian. The news seems to talk about fighting currently in Donetsk, but the map on liveuamap also shows fighting still in Crimea.

    --
    This message is encrypted with Quad ROT-13 to protect the author's copyright under the DMCA.
  99. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The way Trump is fucking up all over the place right from the get go is highly suggestive of his being a foreign agent.

  100. Welllll yes and no.... by gosand · · Score: 1

    The WAY that information was leaked about Hilary was somewhat timely, and metered out. There wasn't a dump of it.

    So, here's what i don't understand. Trump kept saying the election was rigged - right up until the point where he won, then he suddenly claims it wasn't. Why wouldn't the Trump administration WANT to expose some kind of hack on the election? That would prove him right, and if Russia hacked her email server, then it would also prove his point about how much her email was a security threat for the nation. Then he could "put her in jail" as he promised.

    And if Russia did influence our election, it was likely because Putin didn't want Hilary in office - not necessarily because Trump was involved in it. I never understood why Trump never took this stance. Instead, he did an about-face on it and pretends like they weren't involved to the point of defending them.

    These things are all perplexing to me.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  101. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Carewolf · · Score: 1

    Probably just as hard as BBC proposed it the way they did as a Trump conspiracy vs a Clinton scandal. Nothing new here.

    Why the hell would the BBC care? I thought the guidelines were clear: You had to hate on CNN the Clinton News Network, remember? That's what you are paid for, so don't dally around with that BBC nonsense.

  102. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck you, you worthless piece of shit.

  103. Lots of Yummy Stuff Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://patribotics.blog

    And for the record, whether he is complicit or not, Trump is a large pile of flaming excrement.

  104. Re:There's more than the DNC hack ya know by loonycyborg · · Score: 1

    Probably it's marked so on the map because they plan to attack it later after they'll be done with attacking DNR and LNR.

  105. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not somehow more acceptable because it's Russian hackers

    It's not just about how bad something is; it's about who is responsible.

    Nixon might have been considered by some, to be vaguely, indirectly responsible for CREEP, but that was iffy. But then also got caught lying about knowing what happened and eventually was pretty-damn implicated in the coverup. And let's all take a moment of appreciation for how HOW FUCKING AMAZING IT WAS that those tapes existed, and were actually handed over (except for the missing bit, with the comical story of the secretary who accidentally erased the parts of it) instead of him saying "what tapes?"

    Trump won't be held responsible for the Russians, and arguably shouldn't unless he literally asked them to do it, and he really might not have done that. (Russia already had motivation for doing it, unasked.) Furthermore, there won't be any tapes (or emails) like Nixon had, and if there are, they will be successfully obstructed instead of handed over as easily as Nixon did.

    Also, for this particular issue, it looks like there really isn't a coverup, or at least not by the president. That the Russians were thought to be responsible for the voters learning about what DNC was doing, was already speculated within minutes of the release. And definitely before he was president. Suppose the president wanted to cover it up. What could he do? He'd need a time machine. The only way there is going to have been a Nixon-like presidential coverup, will be if it's determined that Trump framed the Russians to cover up what his own people did. And that doesn't fit any evidence, so it's either wrong or it's a highly successful coverup.

    Trump is free on this one.

    He's still a fuckwit, though, and will probably be caught doing something else. Just keep giving him rope.

  106. The spam king was arrested for spamming/botnets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Source: https://krebsonsecurity.com/2017/04/alleged-spam-king-pyotr-levashov-arrested/

    The above-referenced Reuters story on Levashov’s arrest cited reporting from Russian news outlet RT which associated Levashov with hacking attacks linked to alleged interference in last year’s U.S. election. But subsequent updates from Reuters cast doubt on those claims.

    “A U.S. Department of Justice official said it was a criminal matter without an apparent national security connection,” Reuters added in an update to an earlier version of its story.

    The New York Times reports that Russian news media did not say if Levashov was suspected of being involved in that activity. However, The Times piece observes that the Kelihos botnet does have a historic association with election meddling, noting the botnet was used during the Russian election in 2012 to send political messages to email accounts on computers with Russian Internet addresses. According to The Times, those emails linked to fake news stories saying that Mikhail D. Prokhorov, a businessman who was running for president against Vladimir V. Putin, had come out as gay.

    So, the association here was that a spam king's botnet once sent election spam? Who paid for it?

  107. Why would you feel differently?? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    So it's OK with you that a foreign power hacked the systems of one of our political parties

    Nope, not OK.

    If it were a FOX reporter, I'd feel differently about it

    Why? It's still not OK.

    My assumption and hope is that reporters (collectively) go after both parties.

    Even if that means using illegal means to do so? I want them going after both parties also.

    However just because what was done was wrong, does not mean the outcome has to be bad. Just that the means to obtain it were wrong.

    But I also place blame on the DNC and Hillary for shoddy security practices. However that goes right in line with why I wasn't going to vote for her to begin with which is why I say what happened was simply casting more illumination on what was already there - and already known. It just made more people aware.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  108. NYT says that relation with Russia is in trouble by SuperKendall · · Score: 0

    NYT is saying that after the Syrian strike it's obvious Trump and Russia are at odds.

    Pretty much all major news outlets are saying the same thing.

    Shame you only believe fringe nutter news outlets which still maintain the fantasy that Trump and Russia are in any way friends. They are what the mafia would call "associates". They know each other well. That doesn't mean they LIKE, or do things for each other...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  109. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

    What "fake evidence"? According to the article:

    However, Agence France-Presse news agency quoted a source close to the matter in Washington as saying that Mr Levashov's detention was "not tied to anything involving allegations of Russian interference with the US election".

    The fact that Slashdot can't bother to read an article before writing its summary isn't the GP's fault.

    --
    You don't exist. Go away.
  110. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Hylandr · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This would not be the first time a major news outlet altered the text and headline of an article. Slashdot has been known to do it also.

    Curious development.

    --
    ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  111. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    troops on the ground in syria up next cuz.. well saddam had used gas and had oil, remove assad to combat russian interests..anything else good for his CEO buddies? election is over so promises dont really matter anymore.

  112. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh look, it's MarxistMartian vigorously defending the narrative of the Cult of the Left. Tell me, Marxist, are you unemployed, which gives you all the time in the world to post Establishment BS, or are you actually employed as a professional propagandist?

    A whole lot of evidence that Hillary broke the law, and you lefties defend her to the bitter end.
    No evidence at all that Trump is involved with the Russians, and you lefties "just know it" and parrot it non-stop, and then base further lies on top of that, as if it were somehow made "fact" from repetition.

    Pretty much sums it up, don't it?

  113. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or to word it in a more objective way: over suspected "hacking" that help expose the corruption in Hillary's campaign.

    You must be one of those paid trolls... Was your slashdot account hacked? Inactive since 2009 but suddenly decided to start commenting again today?

  114. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you realize how many jobs the "war on drugs" creates? American Gangster has a few lines about it, but basically if drugs were legal, people wouldn't go to jail and pay lots of fines for having, using and selling. It creates rehab jobs, prison jobs, police jobs, court jobs and bail bonds jobs as well. If drugs were decriminalized a ton of easy money would be gone to the counties.

    It's fairly amazing MJ has gotten as far as it has just based on this alone. I'm not going to go check but I'm sure easy MJ busts in Colorado have dropped out the bottom. Pretty sure the MJ tax is taking care if it but I bet the police aren't get as much of a budget which may potentially cost jobs or otherwise decrease public safety.

  115. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hackers have more than likely already owned large swaths of the defense and personnel information systems, and their contractors to boot. such stories dont make it to the front page or beyond industry focused newsletters but given the frequency of commercial breaches due to traditional cybercrime, it is highly likely at least or more prevelaent when protecting such high value intel from 7+ figure industrial projects, even the great and mysterious 3 letter agencies have been owned...though havent seen an fbi revelation yet unless they are doing original cyber work, likely not given they paid someone to unlock an iphone. insiders, good ole spear phishing, watering hole attacks, trumps bluster about government agencies is a great chance to put up some click bait for gov employees and contractors at work and at home. management of such systems has lagged a decade or more behind as it pertains to security requirements in many places...even when managers do see it they have to jump through contracting hoops to do anything.

  116. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't see what Big Black Cock has to do with this...

  117. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it ever possible in today's world to acknowledge both the good and the bad actions of a person? Does Nixon's drug policies negate every single positive action he made.

  118. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's also the fact that Putin apparently really hates Clinton. It seems like there's too much else going on for it to be that simple, but it could be that simple: stick it to Clinton, which happens to mean helping Trump.

  119. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or to word it in a more objective way: over suspected "hacking" that help expose the *alleged* corruption in Hillary's campaign.

  120. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 2

    This is a sick version of the broken window fallacy, except that this time it's people instead of windows. Both are fallacies though.

  121. Re:There's more than the DNC hack ya know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yeah, there's a lot more than the DNC hack alright. Like all of the witnesses they had to dig for during Benghazi, quite a few of which were never found. And of course there's that $9 Trillion which mysteriously grew legs, and walked out of the FED last September. Now there's a $500 Billion error in the books at HUD that Carson just found. The last eight years have been so ripe with scandals, it's disgusting.

    But then we also had three straight stories from the NYT and Washington Post that they tried to use against Trump which had to be recanted in their entirety. Let's see if this is real, considering how every intelligence head in DC admits that there is absolutely no evidence that Russia tried to mess with our election in any way.

    But what really ticks me off is the insinuation that I would let anybody tell me how to vote, considering that I had this one researched years ahead of time.

  122. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know that. You need to break why she lost to her.

  123. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And he was still a product of the Daley Political Machine.

  124. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, Chief Executive Officer of a multinational company means nothing, but a junior senator and part time professor vaults a community organizer into the White House.

  125. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

    Naaaah. Shit is shit no matter how you look at it (or smell). It was just that Hillary was a YUGE pile that had a public and private smell.

  126. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by axewolf · · Score: 0

    How your insane, delusional fantasies get modded up constantly I'll never know....oh wait, it's because your account is a proxy for the editors.

    HEY LET ME RATTLE OFF A LIST OF NEWS ITEMS AND SCRIBBLE MY BULLSHIT BETWEEN THE DOTS

    It's so sad that people actually fall for this kind of surface level dogmatic thinking

  127. Re:NYT says that relation with Russia is in troubl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Syria strikes was the Trump administration reminding the world that the US is willing to use it's military resources without asking anyone's permission or worrying about what any other country thinks. Trump could follow the Israeli doctrine. They go after anything they judge a threat no matter what country the threat is located in. It's an effective doctrine because their enemies know without a doubt Israel that Israel doesn't play politics with their security and they don't give a shit what anyone thinks. The various ME countries are more afraid of Israel than the US. Trump is very unpredictable and the world can no longer predict US actions which is a good thing. The US has been too predictable and it's enemies have taken full advantage of. Russia knew they could invade a neighboring country and the US response would be ineffectual sanctions and a strongly worded protest letter. China knew they could start colonizing the South China sea and the US would just conduct freedom of navigation missions which does nothing to counter China's plans. Both Syria and Russia are having to recalibrate their actions because Trump can say Assad is not an US problem and the next day reduce the old inventory of cruise missiles to make room for the new and improved models. Russia warned they were installing more air defense systems but they will not use them against any US air assets whether they be jets, drones, or cruise missiles. And the reason they won't use them is they don't want to advertise how easy the US could defeat their air defense systems.

  128. Re: NYT says that relation with Russia is in troub by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless they're working together to get people to think they're at odds. I'm getting more and more convinced that there's something sinister going on with them, but it's just below my consciousness...

  129. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

    The smug look on Putin's face when Trump was announced the winner clinched it for me. He knew exactly what the outcome was going to be.

  130. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

    And still he fucked up the international policy of this country, got an Ambassador killed, allowed ISIS to form and thrive, (drew many red lines in the sand though). Is that the international relations he specialized in? I think he may have skipped class too many times.

  131. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by amiga3D · · Score: 0

    I remember how absolutely certain another administration was about WMD in Iraq. I remember a certain "Highly Honarable Mr. Clapper" who told bald face lies to Congress under oath. Anyone who thinks the US Intel community can be trusted is a fool. I think they played Trump like a banjo just like they did W. The Globalist agenda marches on. They own Congress and they've crippled the President so that he's their tool whether he likes it or not. Here we go with 8 more years of world policeman bullshit. Fuck it. I figured they'd kill him but they just co-opted him. Nice.

  132. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald T by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

    Why do you think it's either Trump or Hillary? Lots of us think they're both terrible people and horrible leaders. And they are. So we didn't vote for either, because once everyone gets on board the Two-Party-System-Is-Made-Up-Bullshit-So-Rich-Powerful-People-Can-Keep-Being-Rich-And-Powerful train and starts voting on who would actually be good honorable leaders for this country, then we can start to get this country back on track again. Until then we're going to be stuck choosing between the lesser of two evils every time.

  133. Re:There's more than the DNC hack ya know by rholtzjr · · Score: 0

    Wow,,, now that is delusional to the extreme. Now we know where the "fake news" is being created. Right here on ./

    Who 'da thunk?

    Now back to reality, Hillary lost because she was a TERRIBLE candidate and ran a deeply flawed campaign.

  134. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Complete.
    Utter.
    Total.
    Bologna.

    Please kill yourself.

  135. A HUMINT Operation Gone Awry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This whole episode is pretty damn funny to me as someone that was in the American intelligence community years ago as a Russian specialist. Any honest person can admit that Russia is at best an Oligarchy and at worst a totalitarian state. Slowly, (very slowly) the Russian people are starting to figure that out and are becoming disgruntled. Russians however, are the masters of mass manipulation. This whole interference (and there was interference) was a plan to de-legitimize the democratic process that the US likes to brow-beat other nations with. This was a massive HUMINT campaign to call into question the "superiority" of the American system and tell the domestic population of Russia "Yes we have problems but so does everyone else." This is powerfully effective to the Russian mindset.

    Here's the thing though: they expected for Clinton to win. The whole idea of delegitimizing the election process was to show Clinton as corrupt and that she won through cronyism and the power of the Washington insiders. That would be a major domestic coup for them while still maintaining the international status quo that (despite sanctions) has seen Russia's influence increase over the last decade. The Russian's were just as shocked as anyone to learn that Trump won. They never wanted that: He's too unpredictable. And now the responsibility for the clown show in DC is being laid at their feet and they are reeling to readjust to a complete political incompetent in the Whitehouse who can't make accommodations with the Russian because of the taint of the operation that helped put him in office.

    Harasho tovarishi. Harasho.

  136. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You could have voted to stop the second coming of Adolf Hitler and instead you sat home juggling your turds?

    And you now expect us to act like you idiotic act of complicity with the Trump / Putin agenda was honorable?

    Go fuck yourself, turncoat. The next time your country needs you show up for the fucking election, moron.

  137. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah! But there is another factor!

    Hillary's followers have no nose!
    How do they smell?
    Deplorable!

    hat tip

  138. ..what hacking / corruption / expose ? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    and over what? the technically treason committed by a trump staffer?

    kinda funny actually how americans are. just flip a coin and choose a side and then go inventing more and more crazy shit about the other side.

    seriously, if someone should be put into prison it would be everyone sharing totally bogus and fake news, both sides, that you should with elementary school education know as fake.

    the next elections are going to be reaaaally bad since there is now a precident that yeah, the party officials can post crazy shit about the other party without penalties of any sort.

    the pizzeria debacle being a fine example. seriously, I wouldn't hire guys who re-posted that shit again and again as a janitor but you guys have those guys deciding about your taxes!(as a further note, if they really believed the pizza thing to be true, they should have been charged for believing a crime is happening and them not calling the cops about it - seriously)

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  139. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Honesty may not be the best policy, but it is worth trying once in a while.
    --President Nixon

  140. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So did I and I was pretty smug about it too.

    No one believed me when I said that Trump would win, I based it purely on that Trump was more well known than Clinton. When he was more in the news than Clinton it was a lock.

    Remember "Any news is good news", this has been very true of US presidential elections for a long time.

  141. Worried about hacks? Lobby for auditability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Trump warns about potential US election hacking

    Haha, look at this idiot. Nobody can hack the US election. Fuck off, you rich simpleton.

    > Trump wins election

    omg Russia hacked EVERYTHING.

    Also, don't pay attention to the fact that all of this "hacking the election" is just about leaks on the Democratic Party acting like aristocratic assholes.

  142. Re:There's more than the DNC hack ya know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just one point, to exchange anecdote:

    > "associating something with Russians can automatically vilify it seems very insulting and ridiculous to me"

    Agreed. I even have a couple of good Russian friends. I even learnt (a bit) of this magnificent language. No problems with Russians.

    Putin, OTOH...

  143. Re:There's more than the DNC hack ya know by GNious · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sorry, you are correct. Thanks for the correction. I am terrible at reading maps in Russian.

    That's OK - Even Russian military have repeatedly failed to read their own maps, and accidentally wandered into Ukraine.

  144. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by dszd0g · · Score: 2

    Trump did publicly ask Russia to hack Clinton's e-mails. His supporters didn't seem to care about him asking a foreign government to interfere with the election or the threat to national security having a foreign government hack a presidential candidate presents.

    “I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” the Republican nominee said at a news conference in Florida. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

    He also said: "By the way, they hacked -- they probably have her 33,000 e-mails. I hope they do. They probably have her 33,000 e-mails that she lost and deleted because you'd see some beauties there. So let's see."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0...

    http://www.politico.com/story/...

    https://www.theguardian.com/us...

    --
    This message is encrypted with Quad ROT-13 to protect the author's copyright under the DMCA.
  145. you've no idea what you're on about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You apparently think that Mr. Putin is as stupid as American voters.

    The idea that a politician's utterances during a campaign may not be entirely reliable, or that one man may not succeed at causing US foreign policy to turn on a dime, may seem novel to you. I suspect that ol' Vlad is long past that point.

  146. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by mjwx · · Score: 1

    Probably just as hard as BBC proposed it the way they did as a Trump conspiracy vs a Clinton scandal. Nothing new here.

    OK, next time you go to the "BBC" make sure it's followed by the suffix .co.uk because judging by what you're saying, you're being directed to a fake news site instead of the genuine BBC... because nothing like you described actually was written.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  147. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Maritz · · Score: 1

    ...should of...would of...

    You are a moron and your opinion is invalid. Figures you're WITH HER.

    You appear to be suggesting that Trump supporters have better spelling and grammar than non-Trump supporters.

    LOL.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  148. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald T by Maritz · · Score: 1

    There was plenty of circumstantial evidence, and that's what nailed Nixon to the wall. It wasn't merely that he tried to coverup the Administration's involvement in the break-in, it's that there was enough *indirect* evidence, including the tape erasure (and the ridiculous explanation for how it happened) to point a finger pretty firmly at Nixon being at the heart of the whole affair. The kind of weasel language Nixon defenders always bring up was getting pretty old even by the time of his resignation. Certainly no one in Congress actually believed any of it.

    He was just unfortunate not to have a volunteer propaganda apparatus on the internet. He'd be fine nowadays. They'd just call the whole affair 'fake news' and move on.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  149. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What "fake evidence"? According to the article:

    However, Agence France-Presse news agency quoted a source close to the matter in Washington as saying that Mr Levashov's detention was "not tied to anything involving allegations of Russian interference with the US election".

    The fact that Slashdot can't bother to read an article before writing its summary isn't the GP's fault.

    Who are you gonna believe: the surrender monkey press agency, or the official Putin TV station RT? Which one is better qualified to tell us whether the Russians hacked the election?

  150. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Maritz · · Score: 1

    And he has yet to return Alaska back to Russia, which was illegally sold by the Emperer Alexander II against the will of the Russian people.

    There is nowhere on Earth that was illegally acquired that is going back to its original owners.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  151. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Maritz · · Score: 1

    And you have any proof that this was Assad's making?

    Evidence? Ample amounts. Evidence that you would accept? None, of course. No such evidence exists even in principle.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  152. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Maritz · · Score: 1

    The Globalist agenda marches on.

    That's a dog whistle for Jews, right?

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  153. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Bill Hillary Hillary Hillary Bill Hillary Hillary Hate to break it to you chief, but HIllary Clinton lost the election 153 days ago.

    Thanks dumbass. Hate to break it to you, but you lost too. You're just too fucking stupid to realise.

  154. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

    A small handful of e-mails (in comparison to the bulk sent from that server).

    Is that like being a little bit pregnant?

  155. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    Why do you Nazis hate Jews so much?

  156. behind those curtains by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

    The deep state wants to undermine the Trump administration so its can consult Ouija boards so to speak in the name of bipartisanship.

    They think they can usher their agenda through secretly, but their secret allies are the dark lurkers of the occult.

  157. Liberals.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These moronic assclowns just can't get over the fact that that bitch Hillary lost. It's not HER fault she got creamed by Trump of all people, it's the Russians, or misogynists, or 'low information' voters or *insert whiny ass excuse here*. Sad these asshats are still allowed to vote, much less breathe.

    Ridiculous nonsense by immature ridiculous people.

  158. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    I'm enjoying watching the Trump supporters bleed away as the man actually transforms himself into a President, and slowly evolves away from fist thumping populist.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  159. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please look up objective, it doesn't mean bias in the opposite direction.

  160. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald T by Izuzan · · Score: 1

    Thats a trick question isnt it....

  161. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are aware WMDs WERE found in Iraq right? And they were still being uncovered as late as 2007?

  162. Re:There's more than the DNC hack ya know by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    It doesn't show fighting in Crimea. it shows Crimea as an occupied territory.

    There has been no fighting in Crimea since the occupation.

  163. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by abmw · · Score: 1

    the bouquet of that Trump supporter is not ambrosia, even to Melania

  164. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you have any proof that this was Assad's making?

    Evidence? Ample amounts.

     

    Care to elaborate?

    Evidence that you would accept?

    The report of the OPCW would be acceptable, but they are still investigating (as of 2017-04-11) ...

  165. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm enjoying watching the Trump supporters bleed away as the man actually transforms himself into a President, and slowly evolves away from fist thumping populist.

    I see, to become a Real American President (tm) he had to do some prickwaving errm I mean drop some bombs on brown people

  166. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Administration certainly feels it does, ...

    I get it, waiting for the results of a proper investigation like done by the OPCW is out of the question when "The Administration" feels something

    But I get it, you've bought into the "Russia is a wonderful country and USA bad bad bad!" [...] so cash your Kremlin checks while you can.

    How weak is your argument, because someone does not believe that Assad is responsible and asks for actual evidence makes him a puppet of the Kremlin. Sure thing.

  167. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

    You left out the millions of knee-jerk reactionary responses to ANY story with the word Russia in it.

    It's even worse than Bush Derangement Syndrome, where Dubya was controlling the weather and all kinds of other crazy nonsense.

    --
    Murphy was an optimist
  168. Re:There's more than the DNC hack ya know by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

    Previt, priyatna paznokomitza. Spasibo. Sovershenno Verno, eta takaya fignya :-)

    Please excuse my poor command of the language as I have only been studying it for three years. Americans, as a general rule, have nothing against the Russian people at all, it is only our idiot media and a few crazy leftists communists who make so much noise they appear to have power.

    --
    Murphy was an optimist
  169. Re:There's more than the DNC hack ya know by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

    But what about the godless leftist communists in our own country? Why are they coddled?

    --
    Murphy was an optimist
  170. !!! not even close to the mark !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone involved in the dark web knows Donald Trump stole this info this via his Media Companies using MKUltra Enabled Satellites from Russian Hacker: The_Prodigy_Dancer, Peter_Jackson and Dæ Me ÅrÅ"Å. ICQ has proof of this. its a complete Hoax. therefore Donald Trump and more so his Media Companies are completely liable for publishing this.

  171. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    !!! the real news direct from -=BNI=-Everyone involved in the dark web knows Donald Trump stole this info via his Media Companies using MKUltra Enabled Satellites from Russian Hackers: The_Prodigy_Dancer, Peter_Jackson. ICQ No: 147079107 has proof of this. its a complete Hoax. therefore Donald Trump and more so his Media Companies are completely liable for publishing this.

  172. Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

    No previous elected experience, no law experience, no previous interest in politics.

    You say that like it is a bad thing. Nothing like inbred lawyers involved in politics. ;)

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.