Expiring Section 702 of FISA Helped US Conclude Russia Hacked Election To Help Trump, NSA Chief Says (reuters.com)

Dustin Volz, reporting for Reuters: A top U.S. intelligence official said Thursday a controversial surveillance law that allows the broad electronic spying of foreigners played a major role in understanding Russia's alleged interference in the 2016 presidential election. The statement from Admiral Mike Rogers, the director of the U.S. National Security Agency, may bolster efforts by intelligence agencies to fully preserve the authority, known as Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, before it expires at the end of the year. Privacy advocates have for years said Section 702 allows for excessively broad surveillance, including warrantless access to some American communications, and should be reformed to include new curbs. "I would highlight much, not all, much of what was in the intelligence community's assessment, for example, on the Russian efforts against the U.S. election process in 2016, was informed by knowledge we gained through (Section) 702 authority," Rogers said. Rogers said allowing the statute to expire on Dec. 31, unless Congress votes to reauthorize it, would degrade U.S. intelligence agencies' ability to provide "timely warning and insight" on a variety of criminal and national security threats.

Comments

Fake Headlines normally end with ?

[TimSSG]

Fake Headlines normally end with ? Tim S.

Re:Fake Headlines normally end with ?

[Aighearach]

Fake Headlines normally end with ?

It isn't fake, it turns out it really is a headline after all!

Re:Fake Headlines normally end with ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The truth hurts. The cyber is very hard. My 10-year-old son has computers. He's so good with them, you wouldn't believe. Maybe he can figure out the cyber. I don't know, maybe it's too hard. Now I'm gonna go rest, because I'm tired of winning.

Re:Fake Headlines normally end with ?

[DaHat]

Anyone can write a headline, it doesn't mean that what it says, or the content it is the title for is real... hence the whole #FakeNews narrative in many a place.

Re:Fake Headlines normally end with ?

[Imrik]

It isn't fake, the NSA chief really did say that...

Re:Fake Headlines normally end with ?

[Anonymous Coward]

What it should say is, "Loophole that allowed Obama Administration to spy on Americans is about to expire"

Everything else is spin.

Re:Fake Headlines normally end with ?

[Tough Love]

What it should say is, "Loophole that allowed Obama Administration to spy on Americans is about to expire"

Everything else is spin.

That sounds like spin.

Re:Fake Headlines normally end with ?

[MightyMartian]

Let the red herrings swim

Re:Fake Headlines normally end with ?

[Aighearach]

OK smartypants, you're going all "vocabulary" on us with your terminology analysis, and that's nice but I'm wondering...

How many definitions of "hacked" are there, and do any apply?

OK, so they probably didn't hit it with a large bladed weapon.

They probably didn't break into a computer to do it.

What about finding an unusual but creative solution using whatever tools were at hand? Are you really sure that doesn't fit? It seems to me that even if no crime occurred for there to be "evidence" of, this one still might be true.

What about social engineering, also known as social hacking? It seems like that one fits the worst of the accusations. And with that type of thing you don't expect there to be strong evidence until late in an investigation. And indeed, intelligence officials and members of congress with security clearance have said that there is significant circumstantial evidence of this already. That doesn't mean that there was automatically a crime, but it seems rather specious at this point to deny that there is any evidence at all. It seems more accurate to say that the specific details of evidence uncovered so far has not yet been made public because the investigation is still ongoing.

Your accusation is false in multiple demonstrable ways, and your vocabulary sucks.

Re: Fake Headlines normally end with ?

[mSparks43]

i love how all the trumptons sucked up everything we put out to make sure hillary didn't get elected. everything from impending dementia to coloscopy bags to google hiding the massive number of stories we put out about trump.

But its even more fun watching the post rationalisation.

Re: Fake Headlines normally end with ?

[Anonymous Coward]

We were fed up with the government so we elected Trump to fire everyone.

Re:Fake Headlines normally end with ?

[BlueStrat]

What it should say is, "Loophole that allowed Obama Administration to spy on Americans is about to expire"

Everything else is spin.

That sounds like spin.

Truth has been known to have a strong 3/5ths-integer spin. :)

Strat

Re: Fake Headlines normally end with ?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/james-clapper-still-no-evidence-of-any-russian-collusion-with-trump-campaign/article/2622452

Re:Fake Headlines normally end with ?

[sycodon]

Wait...did I miss where they released proof that the election was hacked and votes changed?

Because anything other than that is mere PsyOps, which American intelligence services routinely engage in.

Re: Fake Headlines normally end with ?

[greythax]

I wish he would have started with himself.

Re: Fake Headlines normally end with ?

[AutodidactLabrat]

Moony Examiner?
What a LAUGH!!

Re: Fake Headlines normally end with ?

[mSparks43]

you elected him because we hacked your brain to make you think the fall of the american empire is a good thing for you.

i'm definately not having a meltdown. Unless you count the morning after the night before on the day he got elected.

So, in other words it was worthless

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that there's been no evidence provided, anywhere, of any sort of election hacking, and that Hillary lost the election not due to Russian interference but due to her own failure to campaign in her "blue firewall" combined with her many scandals, we can conclude that this Section 702 of the FISA provided no actionable intelligence and, in fact, did not help with anything. Sounds like it should be allowed to expire.

Re: So, in other words it was worthless

[Anonymous Coward]

And those cheering this news and it's source will once again show their cognitive dissonance by ignoring their own anger over 'made up' intelligence ("...but BOOOOOSH!") proving WMDs in Iraq and serving as one of the justifications for Gulf War II.

Re:So, in other words it was worthless

[Anonymous Coward]

Cover what up? There is no evidence of Russian involvement in the US election in any way, shape, or form. It never happened. There's been a lot of speculation and a lot of rumors, but absolutely no evidence has ever been presented. If it existed, it would surely have been shown by now.

A ton of evidence has been presented to show that Hillary's failure to win was due to her own failed campaign strategy. She targeted the wrong states, period. Trump didn't, period.

You can't cover up a thing that never happened.

Re:So, in other words it was worthless

[rickb928]

Probably shouldn't feed them. It won't help.

Re:So, in other words it was worthless

[JoshuaZ]

First, of all, elections are won and lost not by single things but by collections. One can have more than one mistake or more than one event leading to an election win or loss. Second, the evidence that serious attempts at hacking Clinton did occur is overwhelming, and saying otherwise is simply ignoring the evidence. We even know the exact phishing attempts that lead to the hacks http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/310234-typo-may-have-caused-podesta-email-hack?. Third of all, if you do want to actually point to other things that had an impact also, the statistical evidence that Comey's actions mattered is an almost complete slamdunk. See https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/. Facts matter.

Re:So, in other words it was worthless

[gumbi west]

Except that the FBI is making good progress on prosecuting Flynn. The current FBI director just said it is, "a highly significant investigation." I think you should get out of your media bubble.

Re:So, in other words it was worthless

[pedz]

But wait... we need to waterboard the data until it tells us what we know must have really happened!!!

Re:So, in other words it was worthless

[gumbi west]

The thing that makes me sad here is how deeply you are in denial. There are facts here. The only way that you could think otherwise is if your world view was guided by your party over country. When did you start hating America?

Re:So, in other words it was worthless

[ichthus]

There are facts here

Provide ONE. Just one fact that proves Russian involvement in "hacking the election" would surely shut him up.

Re:So, in other words it was worthless

[DirkDaring]

^ this. You need to understand these people. It's never ending on matter what is or isn't found.

Re:So, in other words it was worthless

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, here are facts that matter. I fully supported Bernie Sanders. I contributed several hundred dollars to his campaign. I voted Obama over Hillary the last time she ran. I knew long ago the Clintons were shady and I couldn't support her in 2008.

I was very upset when the DNC pushed Sanders out. I tried to come to grips on voting for Hillary. I thought it was laughable when Trump kept saying to the media to show the crowd. That was until he came to my state and when he came to my area, I went just to see the guy. The stadium held 35,000 some and there were at least 25,000 still wanting to get in. Then when YouTube video after YouTube video showing the possibility of green screening in crowds at Hillary events, and Hillary doing her best to hide her illness and drunkenness, I finally decided that I would prefer someone that would tell me the hard truth than to blatantly lie to my face.

Plus the fact that Trump was an outsider and didn't care whom he pissed off.

The Russians had nothing to do with my decision, nor did the Russians have any affect on my family or friends decisions. The Russian story was created to explain away why so much money was spent on getting Hillary elected and it still went to waste. There had to be something so overwhelming to her getting the office that money couldn't buy its way past. The Russians had to be it.

Hillary was the reason why Hillary was not elected. It had nothing to do with the Russians.

Re:So, in other words it was worthless

[inhuman_4]

That's going to be difficult considering the DNC has repeatedly refused to let the FBI look at the hacked server. The primary claim of Russian hacking comes from a private contractor (CloudStrike) hired by the DNC, not law enforcement or the intelligence services. Worse the contractor has since retracted some of it's claims. The entire DNC hacking investigation was a dog and pony show right from the start.

Re:So, in other words it was worthless

[swillden]

Hillary was part of the reason why Hillary was not elected.

FTFY. HTH. HAND.

Re: So, in other words it was worthless

[guruevi]

Marcel LazÄfr Lehel, known as Guccifer, is a Romanian hacker. Romania is not part of Russia (not for a long time at least). Most people quote the signatures from Ukrainian based hacker groups, Ukraine and Russia are not really great buddies either (Crimea). Cyrillic is used in more than just Russia, it's just the average USian doesn't know geography outside their own city, even the Macron investigation: it could have been Russia, one of our contractors with a Cyrillic character set installed or another hacker we don't have any clue but it's probably Russia.

Re:So, in other words it was worthless

[bayankaran]

Hmmm....

https://www.theguardian.com/te...

The report is about Brexit. But it can be easily applied to US...the players are the same, the same agenda (though I have no clue what they want other than some chaos.)

Re: So, in other words it was worthless

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhhh the fuck?

You mean besides rigging the primary against Bernie, or getting all the debate questions from news organizations before each debate, or having every news organization run stories by her team before printing, or did you mean one of the other 10+ corrupt things she was doing?

Re:So, in other words it was worthless

[cayenne8]

a problem with the education of a population that makes them favor "simple solutions" that doesn't work over pragmatic compromises.

Well, we never saw this with obama...what makes you think we'd see it with hillary if she'd made it into office?

Re:So, in other words it was worthless

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

How about how Hillary's campaign emails being leaked, but not Trump's? I don't buy that argument, but quite a few people do.

If Hillary and friends weren't so rotten there wouldn't have been any emails to leak. I'm just happy they did go public. The argument that it wasn't fair and amounts to "meddling" to me sounds a lot like a little kid crying to his parents that his friend Johnny didn't get in trouble for doing something wrong so he shouldn't either.

Re:So, in other words it was worthless

[SCVonSteroids]

Untrue.

If I keep giving my cat food, eventually it curls up into a ball and sleeps for a very long time.

Re:So, in other words it was worthless

[ichthus]

And, still waiting for even one shred of evidence the Russians had anything to do with this. To date, it would be just as valid to suspect the Chinese or the Canadians.

Re:So, in other words it was worthless

[Tough Love]

Given that there's been no evidence provided, anywhere, of any sort of election hacking, and that Hillary lost the election not due to Russian interference but due to her own failure to campaign in her "blue firewall" combined with her many scandals, we can conclude that this Section 702 of the FISA provided no actionable intelligence and, in fact, did not help with anything. Sounds like it should be allowed to expire.

Sounds like your vote for a cover up. Rot in hell.

Oh, lordy me, I turned over a rock and uncovered a nest of Putin Shitposters[tm] with mod points, hanging on Slashdot no less!

Re:So, in other words it was worthless

[ichthus]

The investigation is supposed to turn up those facts.

You are absolutely correct. But, until it does, Russian involvement is all just conjecture based solely on Hillary's sour grapes assertions. At this point, it's just as reasonable to suspect members of US intelligence that didn't want to be working for Hillary. Or, maybe it was Anonymous, who were very vocal in their opposition to the TPP and Hillary's support thereof.

Re:So, in other words it was worthless

[HeckRuler]

ok. Our Intelligence agencies released a report stating they think the Russians made an organized effort to influence the 2016 US presidential elections.

You can read it here. It points out a propaganda campaign using Russian Today to spread fake news. I didn't even know there was a kremlin financed US news channel.

There was certainly a cyber attack using the Gucifer identity. The report points a finger at the Guicifer identity being multiple people and not just Marcel LazÄfr Lehel who was prosecuted as he made contradictory statements. They believe he was accompliced by Russian state actors.

Sadly, they don't include these details in their report, but you can find them elsewhere. There are fingerprints pointing to known Russian groups. Like using the same attack vectors and tools: "The spearphish message was actually sent from hi.mymail@yandex[.]com, an email address from the Moscow-based webmail provider Yandex."

The caveat is that it's pretty trivial to act like you're someone else online, especially if you want to point the blame elsewhere. And we've found out the CIA has tools to help them look like other hackers. Welcome to the cloak and dagger world of reporting on the CIA where nothing is ever conclusively proven.

But from the propoganda campaign, it's obvious that Russia pushed an effort to influence the election and there's some evidence that the hackers behind the DNC leak had ties to Russian state actors.

Re:So, in other words it was worthless

[Tough Love]

If I keep giving my cat food, eventually it curls up into a ball and sleeps for a very long time.

That's because it's dead.

Re:So, in other words it was worthless

[pipingguy]

The incompetent, drama-seeking, Trump-hating media is simply making shit up, repeating said shit and then insisting that the shit they made up is "reality". It's truly amazing to watch.

Re:So, in other words it was worthless

[deadwill69]

This isn't evidence or a lack of it, but this guy has the best explanation: Short of a three letter agency providing something definitive, there is nothing but speculation and a lot of circumstantial evidence. Much of it of questionable origin.
https://theintercept.com/2016/...

I'm still waiting to see anything concrete either way. Generally, where there is smoke there is fire, but in this case I'm starting to wonder. We might find out soon. We might not.

Re:So, in other words it was worthless

[gumbi west]

DNC says FBI never asked. "In its statement, the FBI agreed with the DNC’s implication that it had instead relied on data from Crowdstrike." https://www.wired.com/2017/01/...

Re:So, in other words it was worthless

[gumbi west]

You pick up an investigation with a lie and then you dig and find all the lies around that lie. Then you see who it points to. It takes time but where there is smoke there is usually fire.

Re: So, in other words it was worthless

[Tough Love]

Marcel LazÄfr Lehel, known as Guccifer, is a Romanian hacker. Romania is not part of Russia ...

But Russia is known to recruit spies from there, and other former USSR vassals

Re:So, in other words it was worthless

[ichthus]

You're obviously keeping an open mind and not simply jumping to partisan-bolstered conclusions. Kudos to you! I want real evidence before I buy into the narrative that's being aggressively pushed by our media.

Re:So, in other words it was worthless

[Tough Love]

It's never ending on matter what is or isn't found.

Wrong. It ends when Trump leaves the whitehouse in cuffs.

That day is getting closer every day. Trump will make history: the first president to be removed from the white house by the police. Sorry Putin, you backed a loser.

Well that settles it

[quantaman]

Trump is preparing to veto his first bill in defence of privacy!

Re:Well that settles it

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, NSA bullshit doesn't matter, as long as Trump is involved. Raagh! Progressivism!!

Re:Well that settles it

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to fire Adm. Mike Rogers.

Re:Well that settles it

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump has earned the consequences of a lifetime being a con artist, scammer, blowhard and fool.

That he's made suckers out of the gullible, CONSERVATIVE, lemming train, is no reason to lambaste the rest of us for being skeptical of his claims and promises.

Really, invented "prime the pump" ?

C'mon, the guy is a buffoon.

Re: Well that settles it

[quantaman]

If he is such a bafoon why don't you win the next election and show us how smart you are? What's that? You don't have the brain power to form a strategy capable of winning? Then STFU you bafoon because you are dumber than the orange troll that is the current president.

If Trump has shown anything it's that the US is not a meritocracy.

Re: Well that settles it

[MachineShedFred]

It should tell you something about the opposing candidates that a majority are willing to not only vote for a dumb orange troll, but according to you also a space alien in a human suit before the alternatives presented.

Though, if you would have said "space alien in a human pantsuit" you may have been closer to one of the opposing candidates available...

Re: Well that settles it

[MachineShedFred]

Whoever claimed it was?

Re: Well that settles it

[EmptyHead]

Well, unless things improve dramatically, the only way Trump will win in 2020 is if they run Hillary again.

Comey 2

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's Colbert? I need to know if this is a good or bad thing.

Re:Comey 2

[Anonymous Coward]

Right now, probably finishing up another monologue with a homophobic joke that leftists will somehow defend as "not homophobic" because it insults Trump. Keep in mind he records his Friday show on Thursday.

Re:Comey 2

[SpammersAreScum]

Well, he DID insult gays. Implying Trump is a gay insults gays the same way that implying Trump is a weasel insults weasels.

Re: Comey 2

[Anonymous Coward]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh god you silly leftists think you can call us snowflakes, and you actually think it will work. You should be more creative in your shitposting.

Re:Comey 2

[Anonymous Coward]

And they called Trump supportors the deplorables. I guess then the Clinton supporters are the intolerables.

Re: Comey 2

[BoogieChile]

Triggered you, didn't it?

Re:Comey 2

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

Oh come on, Colbert didn't imply Trump was gay. He just said Trump's mouth was only good for being Putin's cock holder. People are projecting when they say that's anti-gay. Straight guys can take a dick to the mouth too.

Re:Comey 2

[Chordonblue]

Oh, I wish I had mod points!

For those who don't know what he's referring to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

You can't blame the audience for not being able to keep up with who/what they're supposed to hate...

Re: Comey 2

[AutodidactLabrat]

It worked.
pretty much the standard of performance.

Re:Comey 2

[peawormsworth]

Right. Trump's not gay. The joke is that Trump will go to any length to pleasure his Russian boss.

I have not heard any reports of who complained about Colbert's joke. I would suspect it is most likely Trump supporters, because prudes already don't watch Colbert. This sort of joke is his standard fare and that is what his audience loves.

This is all a moot point

[rsilvergun]

unless the Dems take the House since it's up to the House to bring impeachment charges. And I don't see that happening. I mean, it should. Trump and the Republicans are insanely unpopular. The corporate Dems are weaker than ever and many will lose their primaries. Some Folks like to vote the other party because a lack of Gridlock makes them nervous (e.g. true conservatives as opposed to regressives using conservative rhetoric). The pieces are all there for a land slight victory.

But as the last election proved, if anyone can blow a sure thing it's the Democrats...

Re:This is all a moot point

[Gravis Zero]

unless the Dems take the House since it's up to the House to bring impeachment charges.

What the fuck does that have to do with anything in the article?! Just trying to stir up trouble?

Re:This is all a moot point

[fustakrakich]

The corporate Dems are weaker than ever and many will lose their primaries.

No they won't, and if they do, it will be only to other corporate dems. This entire show is just another rerun, with some role reversal thrown in.

Re:This is all a moot point

[Anonymous Coward]

Once there is some substantial proof of wrongdoing congress will line up and run Trump out on a rail. The about-face will be quite astounding. Right now they're just putting on the appearance of a unified front and trying to stall in hopes of making all this go away - Which really is what politicians are best at.

The wheels of justice are slow and methodical.

Trump so far has proven to have had a dangerous disregard for the institutions he's supposed to represent. Worse, general gross incompetence.
He fired the FBI director without notice, no real justification, no plan for replacement, and at a time that is seriously questionable. The order is hastily written, short, and would get failing grade in a legal writing course. Corey found out he was fired when he watched the news.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-it-was-done-problem-not-only-trump-fired-comey-how-he-did-it

Re:This is all a moot point

[phantomfive]

Trump and the Republicans are insanely unpopular.

That's unlikely. Among certain segments, they are certainly wildly unpopular, but among other segments they are popular, to the point that people would defend them with guns if necessary.

Re:This is all a moot point

[Anonymous Coward]

So the Russians hacked, obtained, then published incriminating emails from the servers of key Democrats.

I am not saying this is ok...but....why did the Democrats send incriminating emails in the first place? If they had not been betraying us, then the hacks would not have been harmful to them.

I fully expect that the Republicans are betraying us too. Maybe they are smarter about how they conspire. Or maybe they just haven't been hacked yet.

Re:This is all a moot point

[Dorianny]

But as the last election proved, if anyone can blow a sure thing it's the Democrats...

Actually historically the Incumbent party looses the Presidency when the incumbent is not running. The GOP was also in control of Congress, the Senate as well as a large number of State legislative bodies and even a larger chunk of Governors. By all accounts it should have been a easy win for the GOP until they almost blew it by nominating Trump.

The most interesting part is that it was the Democrats system of Superdelegates, meant to prevent a non-competitive delegate (like Trump) that stopped the more populist Sanders from getting the nomination and some would argue costing them the election

Re:This is all a moot point

[king neckbeard]

More likely, they just aren't using email.

Re:This is all a moot point

[ClickOnThis]

I fully expect that the Republicans are betraying us too. Maybe they are smarter about how they conspire. Or maybe they just haven't been hacked yet.

Or maybe the Russians wanted Trump, not Hillary, to be elected.

Re:This is all a moot point

[Anonymous Coward]

Current rumor is that they wanted Hillary to win because they already have leverage over her (see: uranium purchases) but they needed to undermine her popular support to weaken her in the US. They never expected Trump to win.

Same thing with Marcon in France. Russia wanted him to win, so they leaked the emails after it was too late to effect the election to ensure that he is politically weakened. Makes them more susceptible to pressure from Russia.

Re:This is all a moot point

[Tough Love]

unless the Dems take the House since it's up to the House to bring impeachment charges.

What do the words "nah nah nah nah, hey hey hey, goo-ood bye" suggest to you?

Re:This is all a moot point

[_Sharp'r_]

No, the "hackers" involved sent the same phishing emails to the GOP as they did to the Dems. The difference was that GOP tech support blocked the emails, while Dem tech support literally told Podesta it was legitimate, so he went ahead and put in "p@ssword" for them so they could dump the contents of his email account.

The only link to Russians is that there is suspicion based on some of the tools used that a Russian-speaker is involved, and since everyone knows there aren't any non-governmental Russian-speaking hackers (sarcasm), an assumption has been made.

Re:This is all a moot point

[Anonymous Coward]

That job was already taken by the antifa thugs dressed all in black.

Re:This is all a moot point

[rickb928]

Ignoring the reality that everyone is trying to hack everything, everywhere, all the time... And masquerading as everyone else.

Re:This is all a moot point

[Anonymous Coward]

It is the entire political establishment (there is no party affiliation). Heard anything on term limits yet? You know they will not agree to this. Unless the swamp is really drained then this country will continue to slide into the abyss that is currently on the precipice. We should fire every single one and ban all currently in office to ever run again.

Re:This is all a moot point

[Aighearach]

That isn't moot at all! If a bunch of evidence comes out that would be grounds for impeachment but it doesn't happen just because the House of Representatives has a majority of Republicans, I don't call that "moot" I call that a "major election issue."

You seem to have strangely-colored glasses. Wave your hands all you like, but issues matter to enough voters to, uh, matter.

Re: This is all a moot point

[Aighearach]

You might want to find a history book.

Re:This is all a moot point

[aardvarkjoe]

But as the last election proved, if anyone can blow a sure thing it's the Democrats...

Actually historically the Incumbent party looses the Presidency when the incumbent is not running. The GOP was also in control of Congress, the Senate as well as a large number of State legislative bodies and even a larger chunk of Governors. By all accounts it should have been a easy win for the GOP until they almost blew it by nominating Trump.

Both parties managed to nominate the absolute worst candidate they possibly could. No matter who won, we would be saying that the other party blew a chance for a "sure thing."

Re:This is all a moot point

[kenh]

What do the words "nah nah nah nah, hey hey hey, goo-ood bye" suggest to you?

That Democrats put politics ahead of the healthcare of working Americans - they literally sat on the sidelines complaining about AHCA, inventing imaginary pre-existing conditions, fantasizing about the resulting body count once the law passes, and sang songs rather than citing specific issues with the bill or putting forth any amendments to either improve PPACA or AHCA...

Re:This is all a moot point

[kenh]

No, the "hackers" involved sent the same phishing emails to the GOP as they did to the Dems. The difference was that GOP tech support blocked the emails, while Dem tech support literally told Podesta it was legitimate, so he went ahead and put in "p@ssword" for them so they could dump the contents of his email account.

The fellow that advised Podesta to enter his password into the phishing email claims his email to Podesta had a typo (a missing word) that completely altered it's meaning - he never meant to tell Podesta to respond to the email.

The only link to Russians is that there is suspicion based on some of the tools used that a Russian-speaker is involved, and since everyone knows there aren't any non-governmental Russian-speaking hackers (sarcasm), an assumption has been made.

The line I heard early on in this story line was "if every piece of evidence points to the Russians, the one thing you can be sure of is that the Russians weren't involved."

Re: This is all a moot point

[goose-incarnated]

You might want to find a history book.

You first - Hitler was hard-left and we all saw how that turned out.

Re: This is all a moot point

[Highdude702]

Thats why they call anybody to the right of them hitler, in their brain "if we scream at them that theyre hitler loud enough they will never know that we actually want to live out hitlers plan!"

Re: This is all a moot point

[goose-incarnated]

You might want to find a history book.

You first - Hitler was hard-left and we all saw how that turned out.

I got modded down for that. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry - there are way too many people who do not know what the National Socialist German Workers' Party is. After all, it's not like there's a clue in the name, after all.

Re: This is all a moot point

[Hognoxious]

It says green in the name of Greenland.

It's mostly white.

Re: This is all a moot point

[goose-incarnated]

It says green in the name of Greenland.

It's mostly white.

So? It says forest in the name of 'Rainforest Foundation Fund'. Turns out, most things are named after their actual characteristics.

PS, The existence of outliers does not invalidate the existence of the non-outliers.

Re:This is all a moot point

[MachineShedFred]

Childish idiocy?

By the way, they're 'singing' of that wasn't about impeachment, it was about the 'yea' votes having to face the voters in a scant 18 months.

Re: This is all a moot point

[guruevi]

Russia has had their leaks such as the Syria Files. There are plenty of whistleblowers and even Wikileaks concerning Russia. It's just not in our media.

Re:This is all a moot point

[Tough Love]

Childish idiocy?

Says you. Ask the congressmen if it seems childish to lose their seats for taking away voter's health care, even red baseball cap trailer trash voters.

Re:This is all a moot point

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly did you expect the democrats to do, given that they were completely shut out of the process by the GOP? They were specifically excluded, and weren't even allowed to see the bill as it was being negotiated by the GOP. All so the GOP can gut medicaid, remove the requirement that insurance actually cover anything, and give a huge tax cut to the rich.

The Democrats did what they could, which was very little.

Re:This is all a moot point

[budsetr]

Yes, they were both bottom of the barrel choices. One was the bottom of the barrel from the Exxon Valdez, the other the bottom of the barrel from Chernobyl. Both are disasters.

Re:This is all a moot point

[MachineShedFred]

Singing during a vote on the house floor that your party is losing through complete obstinance and refusal to work together is pretty childish. Ever have the idea that it's a bad bill because of refusal to work together and govern?

This applies to both parties, and applies to both the current effort, and the previous Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The current effort is just partisan trash that is replacing other partisan trash. The problem will never be fixed until the divisive lunacy is shown the door - we're just going to be having a different political party talking 'repeal and replace' for 3 to 9 years depending on how the Senate takes a meat axe to this piece of legislative detritus, and how long our current Dorito-tinted president continues to be the President.

Re:This is all a moot point

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

The most interesting part is that it was the Democrats system of Superdelegates, meant to prevent a non-competitive delegate (like Trump) that stopped the more populist Sanders from getting the nomination and some would argue costing them the election

Nonsense. Hillary won a larger number of delegates in the primaries than Obama did in 2008. The superdelegates pushed her over the top, as they did Obama in 2008, but you are implying that Sanders clearly won the nomination and the superdelegates basically stole victory from him and that's as false as it can be. It's actually very unlikely that there will ever be a Democratic primary with more than one candidate where the winner is going to clinch without even counting the superdelegates. I get why people don't like the superdelegates idea and I'n not a fan either, but there hasn't been a single presidential election where they clearly overruled the will of the primary voters. Obama's win in 2008 came closest, but he did (barely) have a delegate lead over Hillary. They are there to provide some kind of way to decide things and prevent chaos at the convention. Stopping a candidate who can't win a national selection is more of a possibility of this system than a reason why it was created. Preventing another 1968 Democratic convention is the real reason it exists. Besides, it's still possible for a candidate the superdelegates hate to win the nomination by simply getting enough votes in the primaries. It may be unlikely, but it's not impossible.

Bernie Sanders was a lot more likely to be another Mondale or McGovern than to beat Trump in the general election anyway. My guess is that he would only get 100-150 electoral votes.

Re:This is all a moot point

[Tough Love]

Singing during a vote on the house floor that your party is losing through complete obstinance and refusal to work together is pretty childish

Ahem. It seems you didn't listen to the lyrics. They are about the upcoming repug bloodbath at midterms.

Sheesh, maga trash, need everything spelled out for them.

Re:This is all a moot point

[MachineShedFred]

Oh, you mean the one that I mentioned in my first post?

Try reading, dipshit... if you can.

Re: This is all a moot point

[Hognoxious]

Turns out, most things are named after their actual characteristics.

And it turns out that there are exceptions. You can name two now I've educated you.

Re:This is all a moot point

[Tough Love]

hey, hey, key, goo-ood bye!

Re: This is all a moot point

[Dr_Terminus]

I like how you put a link to an article that completely contradicts your claim that Hitler was hard-left. How do you handle all of the cognitive dissonance?

I guess from your perspective, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a bastion of democracy as well...

Re: This is all a moot point

[Mr.CRC]

https://mises.org/library/why-...

Re: This is all a moot point

[Aighearach]

It is very confusing for some people, because it says both Democratic and also Republic. So they don't know which team it is. Is that Us, or Them?!

Worse, they even have a red, white, and blue flag! So does Russia. And France. And the Netherlands. So confusing.

Why can't the Reds just be Red, and the Nazis can be the commies too since they're socialists, and then nobody has to learn whose side the Russians were on in that war! Go Team! Whoever my team was. If I'm not sure I'll check cable newsvertainment.

Fake headlines

[Anonymous Coward]

What a load of slashdot this one has. The headlines are pure bullshit and the article does NOT show any proof of ANYTHING.

Re:Fake headlines

[ClickOnThis]

What a load of slashdot this one has. The headlines are pure bullshit and the article does NOT show any proof of ANYTHING.

From TFA:

U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that the Russian government orchestrated the hacks and disclosure of Democratic emails during the election in order to support Republican President Donald Trump and discredit his Democratic foe, Hillary Clinton. Russia has denied the allegations.

Re:Fake headlines

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA:

U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that the Russian government orchestrated the hacks and disclosure of Democratic emails during the election in order to support Republican President Donald Trump and discredit his Democratic foe, Hillary Clinton. Russia has denied the allegations.

If obtaining information through tradecraft and publishing it qualified as "hacking the election," which it doesn't, then it would be equally valid to say the NSA attempted to hack the election and failed, and now they're trying to hack the next election.

Seriously, how stupid do they think we are? Only Hillary partisans are "stupid" enough to "believe" this, or rather pretend to believe it so they can experience the outrage they crave.

The NSA's credibility was already shot, but they're poisoning the well for real worries about hacking the election, which should be dire. Russia probably did not hack this election, nor, probably, did the NSA, but either could have. Our legal structure on recounts should be changed to require an unconditional manual paper count on a statistically valid sampling of the ballots large enough to put the election's outcome above some practical confidence bar. Currently, recount procedures are underspecified or irrational, and definitely not statistically valid. Also, requesting recounts is politicized by the judiciary's partisan interpretation of irrational laws, put beyond practicality the judicial overhead of one-by-one local cases forced by over-federation and impractically tight legal deadlines, and by the pressure on politicians to "concede" immediately, which nasty 'ole Hillary created for herself by inflaming a bunch of FUD around Trump's hypothetically not "accepting" the result of the election. Our protection against electronic tampering urgently needs to be made more robust, and also procedurally mandatory and automatic.

This was the subject of a 33c3 talk.

Re:Fake headlines

[Mashiki]

U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that the Russian government orchestrated the hacks and disclosure of Democratic emails during the election

Care to explain how that happened? The FBI has never forensically audited the DNC email servers, and the DNC has repeatedly refused to hand them over to investigate. And nobody has any idea with her illegal private email server because she scrubbed it.

Bullshit

[sexconker]

If they had any evidence of Russian interference, they should have come forward with it.

Rogers said allowing the statute to expire on Dec. 31, unless Congress votes to reauthorize it, would degrade U.S. intelligence agencies' ability to provide "timely warning and insight" on a variety of criminal and national security threats.

Even if we believe they have info they're not sharing, how timely or insightful could it be? The election was half a year ago.

Re:Bullshit

[Moof123]

This. We gave up privacy so they could sit on their hands? It appears we are only hearing about this so that they can keep their toy.

Show us the intelligence, and then show us proof it actually did some good. We know the answer to the second part already...

Re:Bullshit

[AHuxley]

The NSA understands a lot of US party political groups keep data on computers that is not encrypted and is on networks that can be accessed by the internet.
With its domestic powers the NSA could see the vast amounts of US plain text party political data been moved along the US internet in real time.
Without such powers US data could move along US networks and no US clandestine service would ever know what party political US plain text data was moving around US networks or in the hands of US media.
US staff in a US political party could pass data to members of the US press and nobody in the US gov would be able to find the origin of the data until its published.
With the domestic spying powers that data could be tracked from US leaker to the US press. No more leaking by US whistelblowers to the US press.
The Most Intriguing Spy Stories From 166 Internal NSA Reports (May 17 2016)
https://theintercept.com/2016/...
".. scanned 350 press items daily for “cryptologic insecurities” and maintained a database called FIRSTFRUIT with “over 5,000 insecurity-related records” ranging from “espionage damage assessments” to “liaison exchanges.”"

Re:Bullshit

[thesupraman]

No, you gave up your privacy so that they could collect everything about you, so that if in the future you step out of line, they can quietly remind you about things you did previously that would be SO embarrassing if they accidentally became public.

THAT is why you gave up your freedom, never forget that.

And that works pretty much all the way up - just look at the 'friendly' foreign governments bending over backwards for the US these days - do you really think its because they think its the best thing for their country? Or perhaps they have been quietly briefed on what the media would accidentally get leaked if they dont tow the line.

After all, the US Is the world police right? And we have been nicvely educated that we have to accept corruption in the police, because, well, dont ask for reasons, its just accepted!

And if you think they will give up their toy just because its no longer officially allowed? Oh dear...

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

If they had any evidence of Russian interference, they should have come forward with it.

Russian interference is not per say the problem. The problem is that outside interference worked, and it worked cheaply and pretty easily from a cost point of view. Donald Trump is a problem. but he is a tempest in a teacup compared to that. He is a symptom and unless the patient develops some antibodies against this malevolent infection, we are in deep trouble.

Our systems must, no matter the cost, defend against this propaganda crap, no matter the source and no matter the reason. There is _nothing_ more important to a democracy than voters voting with accurate information. Without it, we might as well go back to a monarchy, since at least then it wouldn't be whoever was best at manipulation getting their candidate to win.

Blatantly biased sources masquerading as news are not acceptable, no matter the excuse. It is _NOT_ correct to have a far right or far left tilt because you believe it "balances". That is utter crap.

Personally I want a lot more reporters, given long term positions, paid by the government if necessary, but where they publicly police each other. Make it so everyone is gunning for promotions that they only get when you catch another in a lie. Add the judiciary to verify claims, if needed. Whatever it takes, but the truth is above all the one duty we all must uphold.

Re:Bullshit

[DirkDaring]

"The problem is that outside interference worked"

Would it still have worked if the info that was dug up and made public wasn't illegal and/or damaging? If the DNC hadn't torpedoed the Sanders campaign, shown that Hillary got debate questions early, etc etc that came up seemingly daily from the email dumps? What if the email dumps came up with... just normal election running processes?

Re:Bullshit

[swillden]

And that works pretty much all the way up - just look at the 'friendly' foreign governments bending over backwards for the US these days

For instance?

Re:Bullshit

[swillden]

Thank you for proving my point. supraman implied that a lot of foreign governments were acting oddly submissive to US requests, in ways that could only be explained by hidden leverage, and further implied that this alleged situation is common knowledge. But I can't see any examples, and apparently you can't think of one either... and of course supraman hasn't bothered to reply, which seems to indicate that neither can he.

Re:Bullshit

[Mr.CRC]

"There is _nothing_ more important to a democracy than voters voting with accurate information."

What you think is so important is impossible. Having the government regulate it is even worse.

If people are allowed to vote, they should also be allowed to decide for themselves if the "information" they are getting is legitimate.

Or we can just finally admit that this "democracy" business is a complete sham, because people are not rational and will believe whatever they need to believe in order to fit in to whatever in-group they perceive to be most likely to benefit them. So there is no way democracy can yield optimal leaders.

We would be better off simply having a computer pick the president, the legislators, etc., randomly.

"Whatever it takes, but the truth is above all the one duty we all must uphold." We can't even get agreement on basic facts anymore. The situation is hopeless, and a symptom of a much deeper problem – the scope of government is just too large. If it was less significant, the motive for ordinary citizens to turn on each other would be greatly lessened.

If we were doing it right, politics would matter very little.

Want to live a happier life?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignore ALL these narrative headlines and articles until they read "HERE IS THE PROOF...".

Re:Want to live a happier life?

[quonset]

Ignore ALL these narrative headlines and articles until they read "HERE IS THE PROOF...".

Like Trump saying he was told three times by Comey he wasn't under investigation yet has not provided anything to back up this claim?

How about Trump claiming voter fraud yet again, providing no proof?

People being bused in to vote?

There's more, but we'll keep ignoring his orangeness until he says, "HERE IS THE PROOF...".

Re:Want to live a happier life?

[king neckbeard]

Trump making bullshit claims without evidence doesn't magically prevent the NSA from making bullshit claims without evidence.

Re:Want to live a happier life?

[DaHat]

Here you go: https://twitter.com/RoguePOTUS...

Re:Want to live a happier life?

[TrancePhreak]

The first video on this page at about 50s in corroborates Trump's statement that he was not under investigation. http://circa.com/politics/acco...

Re:Want to live a happier life?

[sexconker]

Did you even read your own shit?

Of course, only one of those two paragraphs above are true. Namely, the first one is a lie. No such recording exists, but there is a deadly important matter surrounding the sufficiency and value of "evidence" against POTUS we need to discuss now that we have your attention.

Even if they didn't admit to clickbait bullshit lies, why would you believe any of the hundreds of copycat, fake "rogue" Twitter accounts? Are you mentally retarded?

Re:Want to live a happier life?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about Trump claiming voter fraud yet again, providing no proof?

How can he? We have a secret ballot, there's no way to prove the most common from of fraud, voting on behalf of someone who doesn't come to the polls. Since IDs aren't checked, there is absolutely no way to verify that all votes cast were cast by the people supposedly voting. It's like being asked to prove a computer wasn't hacked after all the log files were deleted. How can you? There is no record!

People being bused in to vote?

I watched that happen in New Hampshire. People from Massachusetts bused in to interfere with the election. It happens, it's not even really a secret.

Re:Want to live a happier life?

[swillden]

The first video on this page at about 50s in corroborates Trump's statement that he was not under investigation. http://circa.com/politics/acco...

He said Trump and his top aides weren't a target. Perhaps Trump knew that if the investigation continued long enough, they would be.

Re:Want to live a happier life?

[DaHat]

Of course I read it... it's quite lulz-worthy given the amount of fake belief of the tweet originally based on the headline alone. Some responses later noted the content of the actual article.

Read a few of my previous comments maybe? While I didn't vote for Trump, I fully understand why he won... and why so many are eager to believe the fake news of the "rogue" twitter accounts... which is hilarious.

Re:Want to live a happier life?

[TrancePhreak]

Whereby you equate Senators Chuck Grassley and Dianne Feinstein being briefed by Comey to anonymous sources.

In the hands of a madman...

[RyanFenton]

This is why, even though it costs more money, independent oversight of our agencies of government are important.

If you can imagine a political group that you wouldn't trust in power, imagine what you'd want in order to provide responsible checks on their worst abuses of power.

Those checks on power is what we've been getting rid of, along with a proportionally reduced healthy media.

So, now that we have a raving lunatic, a living symbol of arrogance and greed as president, and a fully loyal set of henchmen elected under him, we begin to see the unraveling of what everyone should consider important constitutional boundaries.

What's bizarre is how many folks still support both this dangerous process and the people involved. Folks who spoke exactly the opposite for so long. Constitutional limits are always important, to avoid the path to countless forms of corruption and stagnation.

I don't see how anyone other than Trump benefits from any of this either - even if the corruption stands completely unchecked. Few of the benefits would last in the environment it creates.

Ryan Fenton

Re:In the hands of a madman...

[Anonymous Coward]

Up until your last sentence I thought you were talking about Obama.

Re:In the hands of a madman...

[CrimsonAvenger]

If you can imagine a political group that you wouldn't trust in power, imagine what you'd want in order to provide responsible checks on their worst abuses of power.

Qui custodiet ipsos custodes?

For what it's worth, I can imagine a political party I wouldn't trust in power. The Democrats, the Republicans, pretty much all of them. Doesn't mean I trust a bunch of unelected, secretive yahoos to protect me from them.

Note that my solution to the problem is the one New Texas chose (Lone Star Planet, aka Planet for Texans, by H. Beam Piper)....

How does one "hack" an election?

[Anonymous Coward]

How exactly? There are hundreds and hundreds of precincts that all have different combinations of systems for receiving, tallying and reporting the votes. How does one perfectly "hack" a near unlimited combination of systems perfectly none of the thousands of operators notice anything amiss at all? What are the technical details of how such a thing is accomplished? I expect better from slashdot.

There has yet to be any shred of evidence released beyond "intelligence officials" and "sources" said so. And then this is repeated by the dishonest whore media over and over again. No actual evidence methods of how it was done or motive. Repeat the same bullshit over and over again and people will actually start to believe it.

SO WHAT? Actionable?

[whoever57]

The missing claim here is that Section 702 produced actionable intelligence (and I don't mean of the "blackmail politicians" type).

Otherwise it's just more pointless spying on Americans. More meaningless waste of taxpayers' dollars.

"timely warning and insight"

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't "timely warning and insight" be BEFORE/during the hack attempt in time to stop it? (As opposed to a post mortem many months later)

The Russian efforts against the U.S. election?

[AHuxley]

What did the Russians do?
Have thousands of embassy staff drive out into fly over states without the FBI noticing?
Get deep into the different parts of the USA without people working on the US election reporting strangers asking questions and been in secure areas?
Have US political leaders not give good speeches in parts of the USA that ensured people voted for them?
Ensured US political parties selected unelectable candidates?
Altered the locations speeches got given so one candidate did not fully cover the USA?
The FBI was never able to detect any of the Russian embassy staff movements in the USA?
Reworked speeches so one candidate did not appear electable? A US political party should have found a better candidate that was well liked all over the USA.
Provided Russian advisors to a candidate so the US political party system made mistakes?
Russian has thousands of trusted people pre positioned in the US election staff ready to alter US votes? The FBI is unaware of such massive human efforts?
The US has computerised its entire election process and Russia flipped votes at a city, county, parish and federal level without anyone from any other party or the FBI seeing changes to the tally?
Russian staff walked out to US paper and election computer networks to physically change results before a count?

If a US party wants to win an election find a good candidate that can win in fly over states. Get them out to all parts of the USA and give speeches that win elections. Long speeches, interesting speeches, fun speeches, policy positions that people want to listen to and read about all over the USA.
Ensure the candidate has the ability to talk all over the USA without any other issues over a long election cycle.
Patronizing and boring speeches on the elite East and West coast do not win elections in fly over states.
Did Russia make the speeches boring too?
So with vast domestic spying powers and funding the NSA will hope to uncover what the all the FBI funding and FBI experts could not?

Re:The Russian efforts against the U.S. election?

[HeckRuler]

What did the Russians do?

They sponsored a propaganda campaign pushing fake news and likely aided or were directly involved with the DNC hack.

The propaganda efforts are... you know... milktoast level of shenanigans, but it shows their intent. The hacking is more serious, but it's hard to conclusively prove anything in that realm.

And if the NSA wants to give itself a little ribbon and give itself a price it damn well better pony up some more evidence. Otherwise they're just whining about a toy being taken away. We agree on that point.

[have] Russian staff walked out to US paper and election computer networks to physically change results before a count? [And other strawmen]

No.

If a US party wants to win an election find a good candidate

Yes.

...that can win in fly over states.

...AND in the cities. Where most of the people live. We're a democracy right? If their policies only appeal to self-sustaining preppers who don't have to deal with other people every day, then that candidate is shit.

Hacked the election? Really?

[Mike Van Pelt]

Come on, show me some evidence of the Godless Rooskies(TM) actually hacking the election, as in changing the count of the ballots, as opposed to accusations (likely correct) that they had some involvement in releasing emails from Her sooper-seekrit mail server in her very secure linen closet.

I mean, seriously, I didn't vote for that SOB either, but this hysteria sounds like Nixon justifying the Watergate break-in because "everybody knows" George McGovern is a commie.

Re:Hacked the election? Really?

[jader3rd]

When everyone says "Hacked the election", no one is saying that the Russians changed ballot counts. Think of it like the blog posts like "Hack your life, to get more job interviews". Russia intentionally disseminated false information to change how US registered voters would vote. That's the hacking.

Re:Hacked the election? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Russia intentionally disseminated false information to change how US registered voters would vote.

By that measure, so did both the Democratic and Republican parties.

That is not "hacking". That is called campaigning.

Re:Hacked the election? Really?

[thesupraman]

You mean true information, right?
Intentionally disseminated true information....

Dont forget that part, its kind of important, even if you didnt like the information much.

But of course, how DARE they!

Re:Hacked the election? Really?

[jader3rd]

You mean true information, right?

No, most of it wasn't true. Some of it may have been true, from a certain point of view. Some of it would have been true, but they made mountains out of mole hills with it. Typical scaremongering.

Re:Hacked the election? Really?

[Tough Love]

When everyone says "Hacked the election", no one is saying that the Russians changed ballot counts.

We don't know that they didn't. Florida anyone?

Re:Hacked the election? Really?

[gumbi west]

Yes, something domestics can do and foreigners can't. That said, I'd love to see the US pass laws preventing itself from attempting to influence foreign elections.

Re:Hacked the election? Really?

[gumbi west]

It was asymmetric. Looking in one sides dirty laundry hamper and not the others isn't an unbiased exercise.

Re:Hacked the election? Really?

[zippthorne]

Correct. No one is saying it. They're desperately hoping people will draw that conclusion though, otherwise they'd use different language when making allegations of Russian influence.

Re:Hacked the election? Really?

[aardvarkjoe]

It was asymmetric. Looking in one sides dirty laundry hamper and not the others isn't an unbiased exercise.

This is just a dressed-up way of saying "but Trump does bad things too!"

It's not like it was any secret to anyone that Hillary was going to come with a mountain of dirty laundry. The smart thing to do would have been to nominate a better candidate.

You want someone to blame? Try the voters in the primary election. And of course, the DNC, who colluded to get the absolute worst candidate possible nominated.

This whole thing about "Russian hackers" is just a way to deflect attention from how badly Hillary's campaign and the DNC screwed up. And you idiots are letting them get away with it.

Re:Hacked the election? Really?

[gumbi west]

OK, so why not just share every Trump campaign email now? Or how about that private server that only sends email to Russia?

Re:Hacked the election? Really?

[Orgasmatron]

The parts that he doesn't like. REEEEEE

Re:Hacked the election? Really?

[Orgasmatron]

That would be an imaginary server.

Re:Hacked the election? Really?

[kenh]

When everyone says "Hacked the election", no one is saying that the Russians changed ballot counts. Think of it like the blog posts like "Hack your life, to get more job interviews".

And of course, when they say "The Election" what they mean is the private computers of a private group, the non-governmental group the DNC and John Podesta's super-secure gmail account.

Russia intentionally disseminated false information to change how US registered voters would vote. That's the hacking.

Neither the DNC nor John Podesta ever claimed a single email was "false", their refusal to do so was a serious miscalculation on their part.

Re:Hacked the election? Really?

[kenh]

OK, so why not just share every Trump campaign email now?

As if we've seen "every" Clinton email... She kept every work-related email safely protected from any FOIA requests during her tenure as Secretary of State, and then spent two years deleting half the emails that she, or her hired helpers, determined all on their own what was and was not "work-related" and deleted about half of her emails, handing them over to the government just before being subpoenaed...

Or how about that private server that only sends email to Russia?

You mean the server that had malware that pinged a Russian IP address occasionally?

And of course, by "email" you mean "DNS Ping"...

Re:Hacked the election? Really?

[Kiuas]

That is not "hacking". That is called campaigning.

Well, yes, sure. But it should still be alarming to you that foreign powers are 'campaigning' - rather successfully it seems - for one side. You can already see the effects as the Trump administration seems to want to do everything to divert attention and discussions from the Russians. The Russians helped them bring Hillary down with the hacks, but that also means that they probably have the means to bring Trump.

I'm not American, I'm a Finn, and as such I'm acutely aware of the Russian mentality of indirect control. During the cold war we were not a Soviet satellite exactly, but as the threat of soviet invasion was quite real, there was widespread self-censorship. Fearing the reaction of the Soviet leadership, both politicians and the media avoided in public saying anything that could be deemed too critical in Moscow and be used to justify either disrupting trade (of which we did a lot with them) or military action. This was so characteristic of Finnish politics during the cold war that the term is now named after us: finlandization.

As I look at the way the white house behaves currently, it does resemble this to an extent: while there's obviously no need for the US to fear direct Russian invasion so the media can still freely discuss about these issues, there's been a noted change in tone towards Russia already. The 'alternative media' seems to be pushing a narrative according to which this whole investigation is in fact due to 'the mainstream media' disliking Russia purely because Hillary/dems are against Russia and want to drive a wedge between US-Russian relations, I was watching a video yesterday about the joking comment Lavrov made when asked about the firing of Comey (he said: "He was fired? You're kidding?!" barely containing his laughter) and one of the top comments on the video was; "CNN won't be happy until we nuke Russia or they nuke us." Think about what this implies: it implies that by reporting on these events, the media is guilty of provoking the Russians. It implies that Lavrov and the Russians' motives/actions should never be questioned because the mere act of questioning jeopardizes peace and stability and puts you in risk of war. The Trump-base has been effectively sold the idea that this whole deal is in fact not the fault of Russians seeking political influence over the US leadership, but a conspiracy to tarnish the good and friendly, peace-loving Russians,

Think if this has happened in the Bush or Obama eras; how different would the reaction of republicans have been if Obama was under investigation by the FBI over ties to Russia (or any other country) and he'd have sacked the director? You think they'd have been as calm about it as they're now? This is exactly what the Russians are looking for with this trick: they don't care about how they're perceived, they don't care that you guys bombed an airstrip (and warned them in advance), it's trivial for them. They care about positioning themselves in such a way so that the ruling party cannot act unilaterally on any issue important to Moscow without considering first whether or not the Russians will retaliate by leaking evidence (real or fabricated) about their possible collaboration with the administration and hence bringing about significant political damage. Furthermore this allows them to disrupt US domestic politics: the more infighting, confusion and paranoia there exists in Washington over whose side everyone is on and who can be trusted, the better for them, In the end they probably won't bother to even try and 'save' Trump if he's impeached, in fact they may do the opposite and help throw him under the bus, because they can then amp up the above mentioned rhetoric and convince Trump's base that he's been a victim of a massive conspiracy by the establishment and 'mainstream media' and further increase chaos and division in american politics. The more divided a country is int

Re:Hacked the election? Really?

[goose-incarnated]

It was asymmetric. Looking in one sides dirty laundry hamper and not the others isn't an unbiased exercise.

That doesn't make the side you're looking at "clean", you know.

Besides, you're claiming that because no evidence has been displayed of the other sides dirty laundry, the other side must have even dirtier laundry than the laundry we're looking at from yours side.

Basically, you're claiming that a lack of evidence is evidence itself. That's a stupid position to take.

Re:Hacked the election? Really?

[goose-incarnated]

You mean true information, right?

No, most of it wasn't true. Some of it may have been true, from a certain point of view.

Everything is true from a suitably chosen point of view. If you waffle when asked for evidence, then you don't really have an argument - you're just trying to justify your position in spite of having no evidence.

Re:Hacked the election? Really?

[hazardPPP]

That is not "hacking". That is called campaigning.

Well, yes, sure. But it should still be alarming to you that foreign powers are 'campaigning' - rather successfully it seems - for one side.

You are aware I hope that the US government actively "campaigns" in foreign elections routinely, supporting sides in another country's election which it deems friendly to US interests? That US ambassadors act as de-facto viceroys in many countries, with a veto on who can take power and who cannot? Keeping that in mind, the fact that the Russians seemed to have influenced slightly the US election seems like a bit of cosmic justice, no?

Re:Hacked the election? Really?

[will_die]

You can already see the effects as the Trump administration seems to want to do everything to divert attention and discussions from the Russians.
Really??
Name one thing they have done to divert attention from Russia. From his actions the only thing he has done is focus things more on them. The talks on Comey always bring up his investigation on russia, like he was actually doing the work. Trump has meetings with other country leaders and the media always brings up russia.

Re:Hacked the election? Really?

[nehumanuscrede]

"I'm not American, I'm a Finn, and as such I'm acutely aware of the Russian mentality of indirect control."

In the grand scheme of things, there isn't much difference between a foreign government trying to influence the outcome of an election and a multi-national corporation who can use " campaign contributions " to do the same thing.

"Well, yes, sure. But it should still be alarming to you that foreign powers are 'campaigning' - rather successfully it seems - for one side."

After decades of the same warmongering bullshit coming out of Washington ( regardless of a Red or Blue candidate ), if I were a foreign country that was considered " hostile " to US interests, I would do everything I could to influence the elections as well. Why not ? The US does it to everyone else. Pot meet Kettle.

"As I look at the way the white house behaves currently, it does resemble this to an extent: while there's obviously no need for the US to fear direct Russian invasion so the media can still freely discuss about these issues, there's been a noted change in tone towards Russia already."

There might be a perceived change in tone, but nothing has changed in reality. The same War Drums maintain their cadence with Syria being the current dance floor.

"You guys should know, you've been doing the exact same song and dance in south America for decades, not to even mention middle-east."

This is why I don't really look at it as a " Good Guy " vs " Bad Guy " type of scenario. The US is, without a doubt, the most overt aggressor on the planet. Not even taking into account the shit we pull behind the scenes out of the spotlight.

"While all this is going on they're relatively free to continue their actions in Ukraine and elsewhere in their neighboring regions with next to no real threat from americans/NATO."

The problem here is you really can't spread yourself too thin. We've still got Afghanistan going on, the whole ISIS thing, Syria, Turkey being stupid, Yemen, Iran, North Korea, China and their island building silliness, Philippine leadership being retarded, Venezuela, and probably a few others I can't think of off the top of my head. There IS a limit to what we can juggle without dropping anything.

Besides, you know what a direct confrontation with Russian forces in Ukraine will do.

CNN will get the war they want :D

Re:Hacked the election? Really?

[Kiuas]

The problem here is you really can't spread yourself too thin. We've still got Afghanistan going on, the whole ISIS thing, Syria, Turkey being stupid, Yemen, Iran, North Korea, China and their island building silliness, Philippine leadership being retarded, Venezuela, and probably a few others I can't think of off the top of my head. There IS a limit to what we can juggle without dropping anything.

Absolutely, 100 % agreed.

Besides, you know what a direct confrontation with Russian forces in Ukraine will do.

I do yes, and I'm not saying that should be done. I mean hell, we've got the longest land border in Europe with the Russians so I'm by no means a hawkish fan of a direct US-Russia conflict, far from it.

However my point is that the Russians increasing their influence over US administration is bad for the general security of the area because it gives them more space to maneuver. The people in the Baltics are genuinely suspicious over the willingness of Trump and co to actually help them (despite them being in NATO) if something shady does happen. And keep in mind, this being the Russians they won't make it seem like a direct invasion. Much like in Crimea, the doctrine is to make it seem like an internal conflict. The fear is that they will go to Trump and say: "Don't meddle in the internal affairs of Lithuania' and then be able to pretty much do what they want there, even though they won't obviously try to annex these regions in the same way as they did with Crimea.

Putin is trying to turn back the clock to the days of the iron curtain when eastern Europe was his backyard. He doesn't need - nor does he desire - a full-on conflict with the Americans to achieve this.

Re:Hacked the election? Really?

[gumbi west]

An imaginary server that made DNS requests? The denial is deep with this one.

Re:Hacked the election? Really?

[gumbi west]

Not according to the FBI http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/09/...

Your explanation of the evidence makes no sense.

Re:Hacked the election? Really?

[Rakarra]

Making a DNS request is a far cry from sending email to.

If, say, a server gets probed for weaknesses by hackers located in Russia, then that server is going to make DNS requests for those Russian IPs. It doesn't mean that server is sending tons of emails to Russia.

Are you thinking of the Trump Organization / Alfa Bank computer relationship that the FBI found "odd?" Even the CNN article on it didn't report much of interest:

Internet data shows that last summer, a computer server owned by Russia-based Alfa Bank repeatedly looked up the contact information for a computer server being used by the Trump Organization -- far more than other companies did, representing 80% of all lookups to the Trump server.
It's unclear if the Trump Organization server itself did anything in return. No one has produced evidence that the servers actually communicated. [...]
The Times said the FBI had concluded there could be an "innocuous explanation." And cybersecurity experts told CNN this isn't how two entities would communicate if they wanted to keep things secret.

Re:Hacked the election? Really?

[gumbi west]

The article you linked to is far from exculpatory.

Re:Hacked the election? Really?

[gumbi west]

Who pays any attention to CNN? Who makes a big server that just accepts email from a few people?

Re:Hacked the election? Really?

[gumbi west]

Again, I'd like to see the Trump emails. I want the recipes, the visits to pizza shops, all of it.

Re:Hacked the election? Really?

[Rakarra]

Who pays any attention to CNN?

If there was anything hard there, you can sure CNN would be a bit less lukewarm about this. They don't really have much of a friendship with the President. Hell, they ran with that unsubstantiated pee-party stuff the moment they heard about it. I'd like to think that they're a little more circumspect and will check out sources and stories better now, but I don't know if they are.

Who makes a big server that just accepts email from a few people?

At my previous dot-com jobs, it was pretty common to totally overbuild on critical infrastructure. They had cash to burn, and they either couldn't afford for it to go down, or else they put a powerful system together in the (usually futile) hope that it would be needed for future expansion.

lies, damn lies

[phantomfive]

"I would highlight much, not all, much of what was in the intelligence community's assessment, for example, on the Russian efforts against the U.S. election process in 2016, was informed by knowledge we gained through (Section) 702 authority,"

I would like to see one piece of evidence they gained from the 702 authority. From the report they released, there was not one piece of evidence they presented that required special authority. There was not one piece of evidence thy presented that was new, or unknown by the security community up to that point. Never trust an NSA spokesperson, or an FBI spokesperson.

That is, trust them, but verify. Which means don't trust.

Re:lies, damn lies

[wickerprints]

Agreed. When the National Security Agency claims they are unwilling or unable to obtain the kind of evidence that JOURNALISTS were able to obtain regarding Russian interference in US elections without resorting to panopticon tactics and pervasive domestic surveillance, that is either an outright lie, or a display of egregious incompetence. Which one is it, then? Is the NSA really saying they are too stupid to figure out how the Russians have infiltrated the US government? Because that's exactly what they're saying with this claim. The conclusion to be made is not that the American public should accept the renewal of authorization of draconian surveillance powers, but rather, that the US intelligence agencies are grossly incompetent.

Seriously, can we stop this now?

[bobbied]

The Russians *tried* to mess with the election, sure.. But they messed with both sides as I recall... Sure, the exposure of the internal democratic committee's E-mails through WikiLeaks seems to have a bit more effect on the outcome, but only because of how damming they where... Who knew the democrats where the nasty cheating so and so's their E-mail showed? I sure didn't dream they where that kind of folks... In a way, they sank themselves, albeit with Russian help.

There should have been no way Trump could win, she should have toasted him by more than double digits and walked away with nearly every electoral vote out there, But, even though she out spent, out ground gamed, had more experience and had a less contested primary and thus a less fractured party base, she didn't win.

Face it, she gave this election away... SHE lost it all by herself. The Russians didn't take it, Comey didn't take it, The Donald didn't take it (how could he?), she just lost it. The Russians didn't do her any favors, nor in the long run did Comey, but as heavily favored as she was going into this, there is no other place to put the blame.

Until democrats get off this "The Russians Hacked the Election and that's why Trump won" kick, they are never going to get anywhere useful..

Re:Seriously, can we stop this now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Until republicans get of this "Killary lost therefor Russia cannot be involved" they are never going to regain the trust of the majority of the American citizens. To those American's who put Country over Party, it isn't about Hillary, it isn't about Trump, it's about Russia. If you love Russia so much, go there.

Re:Seriously, can we stop this now?

[loonycyborg]

Actual Russians wouldn't ever care about who POTOS is. Maybe a couple Russian nationals contributed to it for the lulz but real troll has no nationality. They act in multi-national teams.

Re:Seriously, can we stop this now?

[AmiMoJo]

Clinton was ahead by double digits and it looked impossible for Trump to win, a few weeks before the vote. Then those emails leaked out, and then the FBI started another investigation a week before the vote... That's when Trump made up the huge gap.

Correlation is not causation, but in this case so much was made of her emails it seems hard to think the leaks and investigation had no effect.

Re:Seriously, can we stop this now?

[DirkDaring]

"The Donald didn't take it (how could he?)"

Yeah, all those hundreds of thousands of people going to his speeches, lines for miles to get in, even on short announcements, while Hillary could barely fill a High School gym.... right he didn't take it.

Re:Seriously, can we stop this now?

[bobbied]

I know.. She was THAT BAD of a candidate... Seriously...

Now before you translate the crowd sizes into anything... Remember that Trump BARELY scraped this win out, even with the crowd sizes.

Re:Seriously, can we stop this now?

[bobbied]

I didn't say they had no effect, only that given the odds going into the election she should have won hands down. Trump started his campaign behind, WAY behind.

Now if you think the E-mail exposure caused Hillary to lose a double digit lead, go and ask yourself two questions... 1. Did the Russians do this? Maybe... 2. Doesn't the campaign have SOME responsibility for tolerating such behavior that the E-mail exposed? Absolutely. This was Hillary's fault, at least in part, for allowing such behavior in her campaign.

So.. I conclude that Hillary lost this, her mistakes cost her.... She had a bit of help, but had she not made any number of serious errors, she'd be president right now. Remember the margin of victory was razor thin in the surprise states that Trump won. You can point at the Russians if you want, but in the grand scheme of things, Hillary's mistakes cost her more than the Russians did, which makes her responsible for her loss...

Re:Seriously, can we stop this now?

[HeckRuler]

given the odds going into the election she should have won hands down.

Yes... in part, thanks to the efforts of the DNC hack. Cause and effect. "I should have been able to beat that guy in a fight" "Yes, but then he shot you" "Psha, I'm not saying the bullet wound had no effect, only that I should have won hands down!"

1. Did the Russians do this?

Yeah, maybe. It's hard to say anything conclusively when the CIA might be involved. A couple things point their way but that's also easy to fake. It's also easy to forget about.

2. Doesn't the campaign have SOME responsibility for tolerating such behavior that the E-mail exposed?

For tolerating their own behaviour? Huh? Did you mean to say "have some responsibility for the behaviour the email exposed"? The DNC opposed Bernie because he was only a democrat that year. For the language and banter? No, that's honestly to be expected. They might have run a bit afoul of deciding where some contribution money went. Up to Clinton rather than down to lower candidates, but eh, making those party battle decisions is literally their job.

I don't think it was anything that Hilary did, other than mishandling that classified information. Anyone with that long of a history isn't going to have a perfectly clean record, and while it'd be a fireable offence for you or I, I don't think it was malicious in any way. I thought the blatant lie about the state of her health after she collapsed into the car was worse.

Hilary lost by a razor thin technical margin because of a lot of things. She really was uninspiring, other than simply being a woman. She represented politics as usual. Everyone thought her win was assured. Other people certainly DIDN'T vote for her because she was a woman. Bernie supporters were turned off to her, in part thanks to the DNC hack, which was likely caused by Russia. And don't discount Russia's propaganda campaign.
 

Re:Seriously, can we stop this now?

[Mr.CRC]

"it'd be a fireable offence for you or I"

Are you kidding? It would be a CRIMINAL OFFENCE!!!

And no, don't even consider trying to argue about this. There is almost nothing which offends me. The minimization of Hillary's crime which Democrats engaged in is one of the things which does.

I have to endure training about this topic very frequently. Everyone who works where I work knows without any doubt that they would be criminally charged if they even began to set up a computer system outside of the proper authorized manner, and attempted to put classified on it.

The record is clear on this: https://theintercept.com/2016/...

What does it mean "hack elections"?

[mi]

Russia Hacked Election To Help Trump

True or not, what does the statement mean? How would you — or anyone — "hack elections"? What has been done to us in 2016, that did not happen in 2012, for example, and does not happen in any free speech-country in a run-up to elections?

Sssssoooooo Wwwwwhhhhhaaaaatttttt!!!!!!!

[OYAHHH]

What idiot in their right mind would think Russia would not attempt to impact our elections. Even if it were just for kicks and giggles.

So, of course Russia "hacked" our elections. But, did they change a single solitary vote? Did they hack into any ballot machines and change the totals?

Getting your hair raised over Russians meddling in our elections is a bit much while you do not utter a peep when Hillary Clinton brags about overthrowing Qaddafi, Obama attempts to overthrow Assad, Obama meddles in Israeli elections, Obama spies on Merkel, and Obama spied on journalists and hacked their computers.

The only Russians who actually and truly impacted our elections were those Russians in the United States who actually cast votes.

The reason Donald Trump was elected was because Middle America was fed up. And they directed that anger at Hillary Clinton who was the epitome of "politics as usual."

Re:Sssssoooooo Wwwwwhhhhhaaaaatttttt!!!!!!!

[rhazz]

"Russia hacked the election" is just America's new "think of the children" excuse for pushing invasive laws. It doesn't have to have any foundation in facts or logic, it just has to produce the required emotional response.

Re:Sssssoooooo Wwwwwhhhhhaaaaatttttt!!!!!!!

[micahraleigh]

This idiot.

The FEC hit more voting machines than the Russians did during the election. Where's the outrage about the federal government helping the current administration? Or Susan Rice putting the existing government's opponent under direct survelience of the governent?

The narrative that Trump and Putin like each other is completely contrived or else why would we be threatening each other with war over Iran and Syria?

The Democrats have been promising to give Russia the world since Obama's hot mike incident. That's just what is commonly known. If I were Putin, I would want the Democrats in office.

The Russians never hacked never hacked the DNC. Why do you think all those high profile Democrats died immediately after the leaks under shady circumstances? Because they were the leakers! They leaked because their corrupt party gave Hillary the nomination when Sanders earned it.

Whatever Trumps flaws are (I didn't vote for him in the primary), Russia is not one of them.

Re:Sssssoooooo Wwwwwhhhhhaaaaatttttt!!!!!!!

[EmptyHead]

This idiot. The FEC hit more voting machines than the Russians did during the election. Where's the outrage about the federal government helping the current administration? Or Susan Rice putting the existing government's opponent under direct survelience of the governent? The narrative that Trump and Putin like each other is completely contrived or else why would we be threatening each other with war over Iran and Syria? The Democrats have been promising to give Russia the world since Obama's hot mike incident. That's just what is commonly known. If I were Putin, I would want the Democrats in office. The Russians never hacked never hacked the DNC. Why do you think all those high profile Democrats died immediately after the leaks under shady circumstances? Because they were the leakers! They leaked because their corrupt party gave Hillary the nomination when Sanders earned it. Whatever Trumps flaws are (I didn't vote for him in the primary), Russia is not one of them.

Interesting claims, I've seen variations but nothing concrete resembling proof - just more "coincidences". I'd have bet good money on Sanders winning if he'd been nominated.

So what good does that do?

[HalAtWork]

What good does it do if we know we were hacked if nothing's done about it? I'd rather keep our privacy, the result is the same either way.

BWAHAHAH! Yeah, Right after Hillary Clinton

[Anonymous Coward]

is tried and convicted for the same.

Fake News

[cpbright]

This is in part fake news.

It's got everything to do with the article

[rsilvergun]

The article is about yet another reveal of links between Trump & Russia, in particular their helping him win the election. My point is it doesn't matter how much evidence you pile on. With the Comey firing the Republican party has show they just plain don't give a shit. They're not expecting to lose anything. And I think they're probably right. Vlad Putin doesn't worry about what people think because he's got a lock on power.

And I'm not trying to stir up trouble. We've already got that. Lots of it.

Re:It's got everything to do with the article

[Mashiki]

The article is about yet another reveal of links between Trump & Russia, in particular their helping him win the election.

No all the article is about is "MUH RUSSIANS" because I said so. Zero evidence, zero facts. But hey, let's run with your narrative. You ready to prosecute Obama for directly funding opposition in Israel, and interfering in the French and UK election? Because that happened.

Re:It's got everything to do with the article

[Gravis Zero]

Your posts seem to indicate you only read the title. Try reading the article.

Re:It's got everything to do with the article

[bayankaran]

Hmmm...

https://www.theguardian.com/te...

Some hankee and pankee did happen.

Re:It's got everything to do with the article

[greythax]

From literally the least complicated google search ever:
In January 2017, a U.S. intelligence community assessment expressed "high confidence" that Russia favored Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, and that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally ordered an "influence campaign" to denigrate and harm Clinton's electoral chances and potential presidency.[4] The report concluded that Russia used disinformation, data thefts, and leaks to attempt to advantage Trump over Clinton. These conclusions were reaffirmed by the lead intelligence officials in the Trump administration in May 2017.[5] Intelligence allies of the U.S. in Europe found communications between suspected Russian agents and the Trump campaign as early as 2015.[6]

No offense, but I will take the word of the world's most powerful intelligence agencies, with millions in resources and manpower, over you shouting "ZERO EVIDENCE" fifty times a thread and SOMEHOW getting modded up.

Re:It's got everything to do with the article

[Mr.CRC]

Then you are a fool. Because those same intelligence agencies had both the motive and the means to completely fabricate the alleged 'Russian Connection."

What is truly terrifying here is not that Russians and Trump's people may have talked on the phone about how they might change relations if Trump gets in (I can't say I really think this is a bad thing, nor can you state what law such a thing would violate) but rather, that intelligence has become politicized.

Objective intelligence is essential to the security of the nation. It is now impossible to have any confidence that objectivity exists in the intel. that reaches the Pres.

Did they goad Trump into firing missiles at Syria with fake intel.? Are they willing to precipitate a war with Russia just to spite Trump?

There is no basis to develop any confidence at this point that they wouldn't do such a thing.

Re:Only if Trump goes

[MightyMartian]

It took over a year for Nixon to fall.

More fake news from the MSM.

[sethstorm]

Since they can't accept that Trump won the election, they employ a convenient yet false scapegoat.

Re:More fake news from the MSM.

[eaglesrule]

Indeed. We're seeing the narrative slowly shift to speaking of the Russians hacking the election to help Trump as a matter-of-fact. Hyperbolic venting about Trump being a racist and nazi wasn't effective, so the 'strategists' must be flipping back the pages to the front of the play book to the venerable 'prove you're not a communist' section.

The intent of course is to delegitimatize Trump, bog him down and give him the opportunity to make a big mistake, which seems to have worked with the firing of Comey.

It didn't help.

[Sir Holo]

FTA: "Rogers said allowing the statute to expire on Dec. 31, unless Congress votes to reauthorize it, would degrade U.S. intelligence agencies' ability to provide "timely warning and insight" on a variety of criminal and national security threats."

But Mike, the statute FAILED to provide any "timely warning and insight". It did not help.

Re:Naw, check these out

[fustakrakich]

I sincerely hope you're not serious!

I disagree

[rsilvergun]

Hilary was awful, to be sure. But Trump is a whole order of magnitude worse. Trump to this day won't release his tax returns. The reason you want those isn't to see how rich he really is, it's so you know where all his money comes from and who could buy him off. Trump ran a scary, hate filled campaign with exactly the kinds of tactics dictators have used since the 40s (really trying to avoid Godwining the thread here but...). Trump literally said during his campaign he wanted to curtail freedom of press. He Bragged about sexual assault. I can't even remember all the horrible things he said/did.

Here's a good video of Jimmy Carter explaining why Trump won.

Re:I disagree

[aardvarkjoe]

Trump to this day won't release his tax returns.

Despite how much I despise Trump, I'm with him on this. Presidential candidates have set a very bad precedent by releasing their tax returns. Your personal tax returns aren't anyone's business but your own, and demanding someone else's is wrong. Period. It doesn't matter what their position is, people should still have rights to privacy.

I'm fine with law enforcement doing an audit of their finances, including past tax returns, but it is not reasonable to insist that the records be released publicly.

Re:I disagree

[kenh]

Trump to this day won't release his tax returns.

Swear to god, don't you ever get tired of repeating this "complaint"? So what, who cares? What do you hope to learn...

topicquote>The reason you want those isn't to see how rich he really is, it's so you know where all his money comes from and who could buy him off.

"Who could buy him off"? How exactly do you learn that from his tax returns?

You understand that right now there are a team of IRS auditors reviewing his tax returns, right? That they haven't leaked any *explosive* details despite public interest in the topic tells me one of two things, either there's nothing to reveal OR they are consummate professionals and would never entertain the idea of leaking his returns.

You apparently think the IRS is staffed with principled professionals.

Re:I disagree

[aquacrayfish]

You want the IRS to leak taxes they're supposedly auditing (not that I buy that there's an audit)? I'm going to need to start my drinking early today it seems...

Friendly reminder

[Orgasmatron]

Just a reminder that that the technical term for an unnamed source discussing information obtained through FISA is "Felon".

Also, so far the only crime known to have occurred during this fiasco is the leaking of Flynn's name. That is a felony too.

regime change

[Max_W]

What I do not understand is why the US political elite has always been trying to change a regime here or there, but if someone attempts to do something similar in return, media freaks out.

The teaching of the prophets (Matthew 7:12) is: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", isn't it?

I do not get a logic of it. If one starts playing say a hokey it is reasonable to expect that the opposing teams would play back.

We actually need this and a mod.

[WindBourne]

We changed ( or are changing ) the laws so that the Intel world can not spy on the internet without a warrent. This is a horrible mistake. Basically, anything that is sent and/or stored in clear text, should be open game just like it is for Russia, China, etc. Think of a postcard, which anybody can read. Otoh, if content and transmission are encrypted, that I'd just like a letter. At that point, it needs a warrent to open.

Re:We actually need this and a mod.

[Dread_ed]

Did you just quote the 4th amendment as some kind of authoritative source? You are aware that the Constitution is a "living document" which means that the amendment you are referring to isn't worth the parchment it was written on, right? That was part of the whole "secret interpretations" of the constitution that Obama and his justice department and intelligence agencies operated under.

You gotta keep up man! There are way too many things that our government wants, nay deserves, to know about every single one of its citizens for some silly words written hundreds of years ago to stop them.

Re: We actually need this and a mod.

[WindBourne]

Under the same mechanism that a postcard is able to be read legally, or that if police sees in the car, that it is legit to not have a warrent.

"Timely warning and insight"?

[skaag]

Except where it does not serve their purpose, such as warning about it BEFORE it affects the democratic presidential candidate...

Where's the fire?

[reboot246]

All I've seen is a lot of smoke. Every three-letter agency and every news organization have been all over this since last July and nobody has produced any evidence. In a rumor-happy place like Washington D.C., if there were anything to this, we'd have seen something by now. It appears that a lot, if not most, of this is just in the minds of the media and the Democrats.

Either show me the evidence or shut up.

Nice little election system you got there ...

[davide marney]

it'd be a shame if something happened to it. Now, be a good boy and reauthorize the section.

defenders of the constitution? I don't think so.

[bill.pev]

And when the NSA provides clear evidence that proves Russian wrongdoing, they can make their case for renewed powers under 702. Until then, they can shut the fcc up. Its all just a FUD smokescreen. The NSA undermines the very constitution they are sworn to uphold defend and protect. "Protect" MY ASS!!

Did Putin create Electoral College?

[mi]

There are several ways, including, but not limited to, corrupting the count, gerrymandering, voter intimidation, blackmail, extortion, fraud, and systemic design flaws in the election process.

Well, these are well-known terms indeed, so why invent a new one — "hacking"? Such things happened since the founding of the Republic, but these means are also not particularly effective due to America's highly decentralized voting. A power would need to intimidate and extort a lot of people (including a lot of local election-officials) to make them vote a certain way or miscount the votes, so we would've heard by now from at least some of the victims... Especially, if the power were foreign...

Does that exclusivity matter?

Of course, it matters! If 2016 has seen about the same amount of undue interference as 2012 or 2008, why are the dissenters so loud only now?

I think every other country lacks the abomination of the Electoral College

Whatever you think of Electoral College, you are not accusing Putin of sneaking it upon us, are you?

Not possible

[RogueWarrior65]

There's a significant difference between national elections in the U.S. and every other country. Here, they aren't centralized. Every state has its own election infrastructure. While you might be able to hack one state, you couldn't hack enough of them to make a difference in the electoral college which is already heavily blue shifted due to California and the northeastern states. You could probably pretty easily hack one voting district but it would be noticed as was likely the case in Philadelphia in 2012.

December?

[GameboyRMH]

Not sure it makes sense to talk to Trump about what's going to happen in December at this rate...

Hacking of what?

[maz2331]

The "election" didn't get hacked, and it is well established that no voting machines were attacked in any way. Now, the emails of John Podesta and the DNC were hacked and released to the world, due to really bad security practices. These headlines are just how narratives get bent, twisted, spindled, and mangled into something that doesn't resemble reality.

Re:Hacking of what?

[eaglesrule]

I'll agree with that, other than it isn't a given that the DNC emails were a result of a hack, since Assange wouldn't single out his source.

Regardless, now que the paid trolls from the likes of Correct the Record to take this narrative and run with it, to flood forums and comment sections in order to help define reality for everyone not paying attention.

Horse shit

[s.petry]

All campaigns were receiving hacking attempts, well before the party primaries. The DNC was hacked during their national convention. Podesta's Gmaill was well after, and should have been anticipated since attempts were coming for several months against both parties and their candidates.

Keep that tinfoil hat on nice and tight. If there was evidence of collusion it would have already led to criminal charges because the investigations started in JULY_2016. 9 Months later we still have no evidence, and no charges. We have no idea what Flynn is actually guilty of, only speculation. The only thing I have heard any substance to is that he didn't disclose money from RT for an appearance. Other Russian propagandists paid far more money to Bill Clinton, so is he being investigated too?

Re:Horse shit

[Tough Love]

How much does it suck to be you?

Re:Horse shit

[s.petry]

How much does it suck to be you?

Not at all. I'm smarter than people like you and can defend my position without the need to resort to empty ad hominem. You should really ask yourself, a person so intellectually stunted that they lack the capacity for rational dialogue and debate, the same question. I may use an ad hominem on occasion as an exclamation point, but certainly back my positions.

Re:Horse shit

[Tough Love]

I'm smarter than people like you

So you imagine.

Say, I guess you have a lot of time to post because you don't have any steady relationship, because nobody can stand stand you hanging around them, because of being a 24/7 pretentious ass.

A little too late

[lsllll]

Even if it's true that Russians hacked and changed the outcome of the election, I can't believe the audacity of this fucker for taking credit for having recognized this after "the fact". By that standard, if a bomb went off in "x" city in November, the NSA may come back in January and say "Oh, yeah, our records show it was "y" who did it." The surveillance doesn't do much good if it doesn't preempt events. Even if it does, it's not worth it. Let the stupid law expire.

That makes sense!

[s.petry]

Guccifer 2.0 is someone else entirely and according to Roger Stone its a SHE not a HE.

It's one of the women Trump paid to piss on the bed right?

that is snark for the slow

In other words, a modern inquisition

[s.petry]

The FBI started investigating the alleged Russia conspiracy last July during the RNC. Fabricated narratives about hookers peeing on a bed should ring a bell for you, and those were peddled as "news" by the leftist media and politicians.

9 months later there are still 0 facts presented, yet claims by the same people in the Democratic party and leftist media persist. A perpetual stream of lies pawned off as "worthy of investigation" talking points and "news".

You seem to be supporting the inquisition. Shame on you and every other fool supporting a narrative which has been fabricated and perpetuated by leftists and Statists.

ahh yes

[s.petry]

A leftist owned rag who denounces an actual vote in favor of globalism can be considered proof that it's all a conspiracy. It is the Progressive leftist view that people have no capacity to think for themselves, support nationalism, or wish to control their own politics. If only the peons would shut up, get out of the way, let their progressive Utopia happen "here".

Re:ahh yes

[bayankaran]

Your ugly and silly rant aside, I have not heard a cogent argument Britain staying outside EU will be good for it. Also, I have not heard a persuasive argument what can replace globalism/NAFTA or whatever.

Re:ahh yes

[s.petry]

Rant? Not at all, I present an opinion based in fact. If you have not heard arguments for replacing "globalism" (from the leftist view) you are simply not looking. We have this school called "Philosophy" which covers this extremely well.

wrong

[s.petry]

You posted a comment which was a troll, and were moderated accordingly. Your follow up here should similarly be moderated accordingly. Not just a troll, but a whiny troll with delusions of grandeur. Try, just try, to take away your ego and consider it possible that people can disagree with your position and not be "Putin Shitposters" but people with an intellectual viewpoint. Some of which are far superior to your own stunted mental growth.

Paranoid delusion, you should request an evaluation from a doctor.

Re:wrong

[Tough Love]

You posted a comment which was a troll, and were moderated accordingly. Your follow up here should similarly be moderated accordingly. Not just a troll, but a whiny troll with delusions of grandeur and blahdey balh whiney whine whine whine snif sniff....

Surely you understand how much you sound like the special snowflake that you are...

Re:wrong

[s.petry]

I never claimed to be special, you did. Not only paranoid delusions, but psychopathic tendencies refusing accountability for your own actions. You should seek treatment, and lots of Thorazine.

Re:wrong

[Tough Love]

So you fancy yourself a doctor now. If I recall correctly, giving medical advice when not a licensed medical professional is a criminal offense, but suit yourself, and keep that emo coming, slashdot needs more sewage flowing in from special snowflakes such as you.

Re:wrong

[Tough Love]

The lack of post in that one...

Re:wrong

[EmptyHead]

Oh lordy, you're a shrill one. I haven't read such nonsensical hysteria since the day pay-for-play Killary lost and you apply this very special approach to everything, it seems. If it's any comfort, the DNC could have beaten Trump with ANY other candidate than her, including even you. He better work on a lot of issues or it'll be a landslide against him in 2020.

Re:They WOULD have come forward with it

[Mr.CRC]

"After Trump has been imprisoned for treason"

You're kidding, right? Do you even know what treason is?