Slashdot Mirror


Hackers Have Targeted Both the Trump Organization And Democrat Election Data (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Two recent news stories give new prominence to politically-motivated data breaches. Friday the Wall Street Journal reported that last year Guccifer 2.0 sent 2.5 gigabytes of Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee election data to a Republican operative in Florida, including their critical voter turnout projections. At the same time ABC News is reporting that the FBI is investigating "an attempted overseas cyberattack against the Trump Organization," adding that such an attack would make his network a high priority for government monitoring.

"In the course of its investigation," they add, "the FBI could get access to the Trump Organization's computer network, meaning FBI agents could possibly find records connected to other investigations." A senior FBI official (now retired) concedes to ABC that "There could be stuff in there that they [the Trump organization] do not want to become part of a separate criminal investigation."

It seems like everyone's talking about the privacy of their communications. Tonight the Washington Post writes that Trump's son-in-law/senior advisor Jared Kushner "discussed the possibility of setting up a secret and secure communications channel between Trump's transition team and the Kremlin, using Russian diplomatic facilities in an apparent move to shield their pre-inauguration discussions from monitoring, according to U.S. officials briefed on intelligence reports." And Friday Hillary Clinton was even quoted as saying, "I would have won had I not been subjected to the unprecedented attacks by Comey and the Russians..."

109 of 232 comments (clear)

  1. So I was right... how about an apology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So I was right that Donald Trump, Jared Kushners, and others are traitors who colluded with Russia's hack of our presidential campaign.

    Will any of you dumbfucks apologize, or are you just going to keep pretending you don't notice the obvious treason taking place in front of your eyes?

    I accept your apology, morons.

    1. Re:So I was right... how about an apology? by dbIII · · Score: 1, Troll

      They were kind of acting like traitors whether Russia was involved or not. Wasn't there something about putting a wrecking ball through America?

    2. Re:So I was right... how about an apology? by ilguido · · Score: 4, Informative

      Will any of you dumbfucks apologize, or are you just going to keep pretending you don't notice the obvious treason taking place in front of your eyes?

      You should read carefully the article. It makes two very important points:
      1) "It is common for senior advisers of a newly elected president to be in contact with foreign leaders and officials."
      2) "Obama administration officials say members of the Trump transition team never approached them about arranging a secure communications channel with their Russian contacts, possibly because of concerns about leaks."
      In fact it is understandable the mistrust with American intelligence agencies right now, because, as Bloomberg put it, "the U.S. intelligence ship is too leaky to sail". Besides that, this Kushner-Flynn affair has ostensibly nothing to do with the alleged (and very unlikely IMO) Russian hack of the Democratic party, but it is related to the Syrian war, where American intelligence agencies have been playing dirty since the start and not in the interest of the American people (unless arming al-Qaeda is in the interest of the American people).

    3. Re:So I was right... how about an apology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This. Standard procedure when clicking any cnn/wapo/nyt "BREAKING NEWS BOMBSHELL TRUMP'S A TRAITOR ZOMG IMPEACH!!!" story is to immediately scroll to the very end of the article, find the inevitable "Everything that we just spent 50 paragraphs violently implying is high treason (because hate and paranoia get us way more clicks than straight news) is actually completely normal and legal and there's still zero evidence Trump's a Soviet sleeper agent" caveat, and then close the tab.

    4. Re:So I was right... how about an apology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In your mind I'm sure there was, and a lot worse besides.

    5. Re:So I was right... how about an apology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's not remotely what any of this means. It's fun watching you get so worked up and excited over and over though. THIS time Trump is finally finished! His ceiling is 25%!^H^H^H^H^H^HThe delegates will switch to Rubio!^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HThe pussy tape finished him!^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HHillary has a dozen paths to 270!^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HThe recounts will overturn Michigan and Pennsylvania!^H^H^H^H^H^H^HThe electors will revolt!^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HRussian prostitutes!^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HKushner talked to a russian guy once (and doesn't like NSA snooping any more than the rest of us)!

      Impeachment is just around the corner; Maxine Waters and Rachel Maddow say so.

    6. Re:So I was right... how about an apology? by Tesen · · Score: 1

      Clapper: "Yes, wittingly."

      If he doesn't know what's going on around him and in his administration, then he shouldn't be running it. In that case it's the 25th. In any other case, it's 18 USC 1505. Take your pick: Trump is being impeached.

      Negligence and ignorance does not excuse him.

    7. Re: So I was right... how about an apology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'll just leave this one for you to rage over:
      Court rebukes NSA for 5-year illegal surveillance of U.S. citizens

    8. Re:So I was right... how about an apology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except that nothing at all supports your claim, moron.
      Even the source that revealed this 'secret' Kushner channel admits that it was to be used for sharing information about Syria - exactly like the channels Obama set up to do the same thing.

    9. Re:So I was right... how about an apology? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Trump only cares about Trump. This makes him easily manipulated all you need to do is stole his ego and he'll be your best friend. He personally may not be knowingly involved in the russians but he guilty of a crime of omission by not taking into conserned about the people in his circle.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    10. Re:So I was right... how about an apology? by gtall · · Score: 2

      Yeah, well el Presidente Tweetie's sprog mentioned in the 2000's that their Ma and Pa Kettle organization wasn't worried about money because they had plenty of Russian money. Putin owns el Presidente Tweetie's ass.

    11. Re:So I was right... how about an apology? by gtall · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, but it is not common for senior advisors to be paid by Russia nor become an agent of Turkey. And why would they need a secret backdoor to Russia? One could argue their conspiracy theorist bullshit got the better of them. I would argue they would do anything to win and selling America out to Russia was okay, just as long as they won.

    12. Re:So I was right... how about an apology? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1) "It is common for senior advisers of a newly elected president to be in contact with foreign leaders and officials."

      Is it common for senior advisers to go to the Russian embassy to use their equipment to contact those foreign leaders in secret?

      Remember, the "secret" part is that they were trying to keep it secret from Americans.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    13. Re:So I was right... how about an apology? by someone1234 · · Score: 2

      When he realizes, he has been gamed, his wrath will be unspeakable. When he realizes he is a cock holster, he just opens his mouth wider. I'm betting on the former.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    14. Re: So I was right... how about an apology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why? That wasn't news, we already heard about it under Bush.

      You're like the parent who confronts his kid's drug use, and then they say they learned it from you.

      Who never had to teach grandpa to spy on Americans, let alone suck eggs.

      Look, you want to convince me you give a rat's ass about privacy, and aren't just grinding a partisan axe? Show some concern beyond the previous administration, the one that's out of office. Take a gander overseas, or in the boardrooms. Then maybe I'll think it is something other than an irate pretense that you'll drop as soon as somebody else is in office.

    15. Re:So I was right... how about an apology? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I still believe Trump is just an unwilling puppet as opposed to being Putin's Cock Holster. Not sure about Jared and the rest.

      So we're already in Ronald Reagan/Iran-Contra mode? Just between us chachalacas, this treasonous activity is getting harder and harder to excuse without actually supporting it. The amazing thing is they apparently thought they could get away with it.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    16. Re:So I was right... how about an apology? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Putin owns el Presidente Tweetie's ass.

      And it seems to be paying off for them big time so far.

      I'm starting to think that the golden shower video is going to show up any day. So much of what was denied has turned out to be true so far.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    17. Re:So I was right... how about an apology? by ilguido · · Score: 2

      Is it common for senior advisers to go to the Russian embassy to use their equipment to contact those foreign leaders in secret?

      Remember, the "secret" part is that they were trying to keep it secret from Americans.

      I'm sorry, but that's the point of such secret meetings. They're supposed to be kept secret, not public domain stuff that you (American or not) can read about on newspapers, wikileaks, internet blogs and the likes. When your officials cannot be trusted to keep their secrets, you can see these shady behaviours: senior advisers that prefer foreign communication equipment or a secretary of state that uses her personal email server, instead of the federal one. The goal is the same.

      Moreover, there is another obvious, but interesting point in the article: "Russia at times feeds false information into communication streams it suspects are monitored as a way of sowing misinformation and confusion among U.S. analysts". That works both ways. When there are so many leaks, as it has been the case lately, you may expect lot of misinformation from the source of the leaks (i.e. intelligence agencies).

    18. Re:So I was right... how about an apology? by benjfowler · · Score: 1

      Right. Using communication operated by the Russian SVR. That isn't normal, that's TREASON.

      That kind of thing, in a time of war, would get you put up against a wall and shot.

      Don't be stupid. This is NOT "normal".

    19. Re:So I was right... how about an apology? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Trump is being impeached.

      Impeachment is initiated by the House of Representatives, and decided by the Senate. Both of these are firmly in Republican control, and likely to stay that way through the 2018 election. Trump is still popular with the Republican base, and Republicans in Congress would gain nothing by going after him. He is not going to be impeached, at least for anything that has surfaced so far.

    20. Re:So I was right... how about an apology? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And why would they need a secret backdoor to Russia?

      Because Trump doesn't trust the official channels. The CIA has leaked damaging information about him, and it is clear that there are people in the "deep state" that don't like Trump and want to see him fail.

      I want to see him fail too. But engineering presidential failure is not the job of the CIA. Our intelligence agencies should not be partisan organizations.

    21. Re:So I was right... how about an apology? by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Yes, but it is not common for senior advisors to be paid by Russia nor become an agent of Turkey.

      There's a lot of corruption right now in the top levels of the military. Fat Leonard is one example. Flynn is more likely a symptom of that problem. Becoming an agent of Turkey seems like a problem (and I agree) but it's small compared to what else has been going on. This is the kind of thing that gets lost in the noise when people start spouting wild conspiracy theories and forget about the truth. I'll bet you didn't even hear about Fat Leonard.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    22. Re: So I was right... how about an apology? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      They are sworn to defend the US from all enemies.

      Illegal leaks to the press are not a "duty" of the CIA.

    23. Re:So I was right... how about an apology? by Ly4 · · Score: 1

      Kushner didn't disclose the meeting on his security clearance form.
      That's not normal. It's also illegal.

    24. Re:So I was right... how about an apology? by Sperbels · · Score: 2

      Trump is still popular with the Republican base

      Most republicans are not actively denouncing and disavowing him yet, if that's what you consider popular support.

      Republicans in Congress would gain nothing by going after him.

      You means besides demonstrating they still have decency, character, and a backbone?

    25. Re:So I was right... how about an apology? by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      FiveThirtyEight had an article a few days ago suggesting that Trump support is even weakening with the Republican base.

      https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe...

      And before people start mouthing off about Silver, he was the one guy who was actually giving Trump a reasonable chance of winning (1 in 4, as I recall).

      This is Trump's real problem. If Republicans going into the mid-terms begin to fear for their own skin because Trump is sufficiently unpopular, they'll run, not walk from Trump. The same thing happened with Nixon, where while the Dems controlled the House and could have him impeached, it was still going to require Republican Senators to actually convict. When it became clear to Nixon that he was losing support among Republican Senators, he had little choice but to resign or face conviction.

      I think the Administration is already entering serious crisis mode. Fox is reporting Bannon is going to lead some sort of "A team" of lawyers and spin doctors to battle a possible impeachment. Trump needs to keep enough of the Republican base loyal to scare the GOP into backing off, and if Bannon can't pull that off, then I think Trump is toast. If someone as close to him as Kushner ends up having been compromised, and worse, compromising him, then there really is nowhere left to hide and no one left to blame.

      I just simply don't get it. People like Pence, Kushner and Sessions don't seem like idiots, so why in the name of fuck were they trying to pull these stunts? Was it to protect Trump? Did they think the three letter agencies don't keep on eye on everyone who is interacting with Russian officials or other important Russians? The level of arrogance overriding any kind of rationality is mind boggling. Trump I can understand, he's clearly an idiot, probably suffering dementia or some other cognitive decline. But these other guys, whatever you think of them, seem to be reasonably intelligent and thoughtful people.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    26. Re:So I was right... how about an apology? by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      If the Republicans hadn't made it their cause célèbre to block every initiative the Obama Administration tried to roll out for six years, Obama might be seen in a lot better light. The Republicans did everything in their power to wreck his presidency.

      The irony, of course, is now they're basically being forced to do it to their own man. They're being a lot more polite about it, but no less obstructionist. It was truly astonishing to watch Ryan punt an unpassable health care bill up to the Senate, and declare victory merely because it was no longer the House's problem, with a pile of money stuck in it so maybe somehow McConnell can take the shit sandwich and make a shit casserole out of it.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    27. Re:So I was right... how about an apology? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      If Trump is removed, then I think it will be Nixon-style. Pence (or maybe Ryan, if Pence is any further implicated in all of this) will pardon him, and he'll sent off to semi-exile in Florida or New York. The reasons will be the same, to end the "national nightmare" and try to get the Government functioning properly again.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    28. Re:So I was right... how about an apology? by Baloroth · · Score: 2

      Right. Using communication operated by the Russian SVR. That isn't normal, that's TREASON.

      Did you know, during the cold war, the US president had a communication line that connected directly to his USSR counterpart? And do you know who ran half that service? That's right, the KGB. And do you know why it wasn't treason? Because talking to foreign operatives isn't treason, it's communication. I mean, FFS, I'm no fan of Trump, but these kinds of rabid accusations really just add fuel to the alt-right fire.

      Let me put it another way: using a Russian-run communication line is generally a bad thing because it allows the Russians to hear what you're saying. But if the point of that communication line is to talk to the Russians, well, they kinda obviously already know what you're saying, now don't they?

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    29. Re:So I was right... how about an apology? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      You means besides demonstrating they still have decency, character, and a backbone?

      No. I mean getting re-elected, where all of those characteristics are at best irrelevant, and more likely an impediment.

    30. Re: So I was right... how about an apology? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      destroying his presidency, which will serve the national, indeed international good.

      I don't think so. There are people in the CIA that hate Trump, but there are also people in the CIA that support him. Now that the precedent is set that is okay for individuals in the CIA to go rogue and leak intelligence to destroy democratically elected leaders, the knife will cut both ways.

    31. Re: So I was right... how about an apology? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Do you think this is better?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    32. Re:So I was right... how about an apology? by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      The president has a line, and you can also be damned sure there is records of its use and what was discussed, even if it's classified. This attempt at a secret back channel appears have to been made deliberately to keep its existence and what might be said away from any kind of oversight.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    33. Re:So I was right... how about an apology? by ChatHuant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You means besides demonstrating they still have decency, character, and a backbone?

      Republican voters don't care about any of that. They care about "not giving in to the enemy". The thing to understand though, is that in the Republican worldview "the enemy" is not Russia. It is "the liberal agenda", in its various aspects: gay marriage, global warming, pollution, regulation. This was pumped into their brains by years and years of exposure to Rush Limbaughs, Sean Hannitys and others ejusdem farinae. Selling America to Russia or Saudi Arabia is not betrayal, since Putin is seen as a natural ally against the "liberal agenda". Impeaching Trump however, would be betrayal of the Republican ideals.

    34. Re:So I was right... how about an apology? by ScentCone · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yes, but it is not common for senior advisors to be paid by Russia

      You mean like when the Clinton family (NOT their money laundering foundation) collected half a million dollars in cash from a Russian bank immediately following then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's ushering through of a huge uranium deal that greatly benefited Putin and his industry cronies? That sort of "paid" is what you're talking about, right? Because that's a matter of record, as opposed to the complete lack of any evidence of Trump being in any sort of analogous relationship. To the point where even senior Democrat legislators are on the record saying there's no evidence of such.

      But: "OMG secret communications!" ... just, like the article mentions, is common with every presidential transition team. Why might the Trump team want to start conducting early policy back-and-forth over secure channels? Because the Obama administration was using the NSA and FBI surveillance for political purposes. Just this week we see that the Obama administration received a scathing smack-down from the FISA court about the abuses of that system, including the FBI disclosing NSA-collected information (without any warrant) to third parties.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    35. Re:So I was right... how about an apology? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is that you have no idea what "high treason" actually means. Have you considered actually looking it up? It's actually written down in words you can probably understand! But I can understand why you would remain (or pretend to remain) deliberately ignorant of that, because it would take all the fun out of your phony outrage and obvious partisan hypocrisy.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    36. Re:So I was right... how about an apology? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      The Republican base is shifting away from Trump. It may take a while yet, but with mid-terms next year, if Trump's support falls much further, Republican lawmakers will take what they have and remove him. In the end, if all he has left supporting him is the Alt-right crowd, that's a pretty puny support base.

      There are a few highly placed lawmakers I would like to have answer the same questions that the Trump team will be answering soon. There were some known truths that they were willing to look the other way about that make me question exactly why they chose to look the other way.

      I'm willing to put up with shenanigans from time to time, but a hard and fast line when it comes to treason.

      And I do consider anyone still supporting that gang as likewise accepting of treason.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    37. Re:So I was right... how about an apology? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Claiming that anyone who supports the president, nearly half of all voters, are treasonous while claiming to have the sane position?

      Lay off the recreational chemicals buddy.

      I wonder how many of those voters still support him, Ivan? If they do support sharing codeword intel and using Russian intel for secret communications hidden fmor teh country thy live in, I'm happy to call them traitors. And Ivan - as easy as it is to hack electronic voting machines, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out there is more interesting news coming from that area.

      Ivan.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    38. Re:So I was right... how about an apology? by Nyder · · Score: 2

      This was some of the "fake news" that was spread around. Hillary was an a committee that oversaw the uranium deal, but had no power to approve or deny it.

      I got made at this first, then found out I and other was being played with the news story. It was fake news targeted at people who hated Hiliary. I fell for it, you fell for it. We got played.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    39. Re:So I was right... how about an apology? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      ttaboy Ivan. Or is it Boris. WE're getting pretty bored with y'all. Do they pay you with dollars or rubles?

      I can always tell when people like you recognize I'm right about a basic fact, because the intellectually craven response specifically avoids ANY attempt to show I'm wrong on the matter (see: "High Treason," and pretty much any working definition you care to actually read, anywhere), and just goes instead for the lazy, juvenile ad hominem response of a cranky child. Thanks for demonstrating that I'm correct. Keep up the good work!

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    40. Re:So I was right... how about an apology? by ScentCone · · Score: 1, Informative

      Nope, Bill DID collect the huge "speaking fee" and the deal DID go down on Hillary Clinton's watch as the nation's top diplomat. Without approval from the State Department, deals like that do NOT go down. She was running the State Department. And she and her husband collected the cash.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  2. Re:Regression by Z80a · · Score: 2

    When the opposition is reduced to people that can only scream empty buzzwords, even someone like trump can win.

  3. Only complete idiots are surprised by this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Russia is no friend to Trump and his administration. They only care about exploiting the Trump administration to achieve their goals. Governor Romney was right in 2012 when he said Russia was the biggest geopolitical threat to the United States. The left was wrong to laugh at him, but the right is even dumber to ignore Romney's warning now that evidence shows he was right.

    The problem is that the right seems to have taken a favorable view of Russia now. Perhaps it's because the right wing "Christians" love that Putin has cracked down on homosexuality in Russia. I kid you not, I've heard Christians praise Putin for this. Russia was all too happy to look the other way as gays were rounded up and tortured in Chechnya. All too many Christians objected to Trump during the primaries and were all too happy to fall in line and vote for him once he got the nomination, all because the Republican party platform claims to be pro-life. Never mind, of course, all the other evils that Trump supports, and the fact that the Republicans will never ban abortion because it would take away the one reason people vote for them. If there is a God, a lot of Christians will be burning in hell for what they've supported in the name of Jesus.

    Putin cannot be trusted. He is no friend to democracy and free society, nor will he ever be. Putin is an evil man, but the right wingers seem to have developed a love for him. They're too stupid to realize that, despite helping to get Trump elected, that love is not mutual and Putin is only interested in exploiting far right political leaders for his own benefit.

    1. Re:Only complete idiots are surprised by this by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Governor Romney was right in 2012 when he said Russia was the biggest geopolitical threat to the United States. The left was wrong to laugh at him

      The laughter was because he was stating the incredibly obvious not because he was wrong. What other choice was there? China, who want to sell us so much and don't want to kill the golden goose?

    2. Re:Only complete idiots are surprised by this by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The laughter was because he was stating the incredibly obvious not because he was wrong.

      Nah, in this case, they really were mocking him for being wrong (or more accurately, because they were partisans looking to mock). There are many examples still around. Here is one example. The NYT editorial page wrote, "His comments display either a shocking lack of knowledge about international affairs or just craven politics." That's a clear statement that they thought he was wrong (or maybe their article is just craven politics).

      What other choice was there?

      The NYT article gave examples of the "real" threats: "Al Qaeda and its imitators, Iran, North Korea, economic stresses."

      I'll go on record saying I don't think Russia is a threat, and they could become a strong ally if we had a president with any diplomacy skill (Bush Sr did well in that regard. Clinton was decent).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Only complete idiots are surprised by this by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Let the record show that you think a tyrannical despot would make a strong ally, and that you think Bush Sr. had any diplomatic skill.

      The easiest way to see Bush Sr's skill in diplomacy is to compare him to his son.
      After Kuwait, Bush Sr after a lot of work managed to get every country in the middle east to work on the same side as Israel in the Middle East.
      After 9/11, nearly every government in the world was on the side of the US. Bush Jr managed to turn them against the US in just a single month.

      There was a lot that could have gone wrong in the aftermath of the soviet union, but all the worst problems were avoided. We can look at El Salvador since you brought up central America: Bush had a huge success ending the war there. And I can't say it was necessarily Bush, but his team did well.

      The leaches that were still around in the foreign policy establishment by the time Bush Jr became president were pathetic, though. Rumsfeld was a garbage human. Powell was solid.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Only complete idiots are surprised by this by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      You're looking for polemic.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Only complete idiots are surprised by this by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Your post is really long and scattered. Not focused. :/
      We agree on a lot of things. That Bush Jr was awful. That dictators in general are bad. That said:

      Putin is not a Stalin-level dictator, not even close. I don't even think you believe it. Putin builds crappy churches, Stalin built crappy subways.

      I was talking about the diplomacy around Desert Storm, but you changed the subject to whether the strategy of leaving at the end was good or not. It's a totally different topic. But seriously, do you think that Bush Sr should have occupied Iraq?

      Also it's pretty clear you don't know anything about the end of the war in El Salvador lol. That's ok, most people don't, but it's hard to imagine a worse end. If the FMLN had won outright, it would have been disastrous for the country.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:Only complete idiots are surprised by this by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Fair enough, but there very plenty of other reasons to laugh at Romney other than that.

      I'll go on record saying I don't think Russia is a threat

      It appears that thinking wasn't involved before stating that :( You've got to toe the party line I suppose and show that you are a good party member by denying reality.

    7. Re:Only complete idiots are surprised by this by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I belong to neither party. Last election I voted green.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:Only complete idiots are surprised by this by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Because the group of murderous thugs that I noted that 80s Bush was quite content to support, was also disastrous, a bloody reign of terror for the country. So blood one way, you speculate, but blood is what Bush delivered. To me, it seems clear that you want to ignore that, when it is exposing the blood-tainted hands of the US, and no matter how you cut it, I can't blame it all on Senile Old Reagan

      Um, what exactly do you think he should have done? I'm an FMLN supporter, I have the t-shirt from a rally. But even I recognize that it would have been worse if they'd won the war.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re:Only complete idiots are surprised by this by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Nice try.
      The "Russians are our friends now" is a fucking huge indicator in flashing neon light of a Trump apologist.

    10. Re:Only complete idiots are surprised by this by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      ok, you have no reasonable answer lol

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  4. Re:Regression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    RACIST!

  5. Re:Regression by Rockoon · · Score: 1

    The Democrats werent "reduced" to that. They just willingly and knowingly did it, because they thought that they could.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  6. LOL Hillary is ineligible by birth by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    You actually have to have been born, summoned from the Netherhells doesn't count.

  7. Re:Did Kushner get his back channel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Presidential candidates are commonly given security briefings and access to some classified information during the campaign process.

    Unfortunately, as that information is classified, we don't generally get to know what kind of information they are given during such briefings until it gets leaked. Or there is some sort of investigation.

    So, there are all sorts of reasons for many of the things we've been hearing about in the media for the past couple of months to be legitimate. This doesn't change the fact that a) Trump is a complete douche, and b) the media is filled with glorified editorialists who constantly seek to rewrite history to their own advantage/misunderstanding, which doesn't help anyone.

  8. Is Russia the right focus? by Soft · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've read an interesting opinion piece by a Russian opponent: http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/03/06/trump-russia-conspiracy-trap/.

    Basically, the messages are: first, yes, Russia has meddled in, and there are links between them and Trump. But it's nothing new, Russia's always tried to destabilize Western democracies and undermine their credibility, including by supporting political crackpots there. This time the crackpots won the election.

    Second, the media frenzy about this is being played up because it's seemingly the only scandal that riles people enough that the Republican majority in Congress might have to take notice, instead of looking the other way as they did with all the other documented lies. So Trump opponents are playing this specific card.

    But, third, there's probably nothing concrete enough there to warrant a successful impeachment. And this is beginning to border on speculation and conspiracy-theory thinking, in other words using some of Trump's foul tactics against him in the unlikely hope of getting rid of him. Bad precedent.

    So, fourth, not only it won't work, it's drowning out more urgent and serious issues: dismantling healthcare, crippling budget cuts everywhere but in the military, hurting government agencies. If more attention was focused on them instead, sure, it would be even less likely to cause Trump's demise, but it would mitigate the damage, as it did for the Muslim travel ban.

    1. Re:Is Russia the right focus? by Freischutz · · Score: 1

      So, fourth, not only it won't work, it's drowning out more urgent and serious issues: dismantling healthcare, crippling budget cuts everywhere but in the military, hurting government agencies. If more attention was focused on them instead, sure, it would be even less likely to cause Trump's demise, but it would mitigate the damage, as it did for the Muslim travel ban.

      That's probably the most serious point. The thing is that the people voted for all of this and they are going to get it. It's a bit like that recent and shocking discovery by a large portion of the Republican voting citizenry that: ((the ACA = ObamaCare) ^ (I'm on ACA)) -> Repealing Obamacare affects me!!! The Republicans look set to go to town with wrecking not just the ACA but Medicare, Medcaid and a number of other benefits the Republican voting citizenry enjoys either directly or indirectly because, for example, their ageing parents are on ACA, Medicare or Medicaid and will be suffering, destitute or both when these programs are repealed and replaced with health 'insurance' that's just for healthy people and where you get kicked into a defunded high risk pool if you have a pre-exiting condition or the instant you get sick. It is it's OK to vote for Republicans because you both are Christian, pro-life, pro-religion or pro-gun, after all, Americans live in a (nominally at least) representative democracy. But if you forget to check whether those same Republicans you are voting for because they are Christian, pro-life, pro-religion or pro-gun are also pro-you it's your own damn fault when the Republicans take things away from you that matter to you and are critical to the existence of you and your family so that they can give rich people a monstrous tax cut. Over the next two years the Republicans are going to wreck a social security system that took decades to build and that seems to be the price that must be paid for millions of Americans to learn the simple basic lesson,when voting for a politician, before you check whether he/she is Christian, pro-life, pro-religion or pro-gun or pro anything else you care about, first of all check whether he/she is pro-you.

    2. Re:Is Russia the right focus? by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      So, fourth, not only it won't work, it's drowning out more urgent and serious issues: dismantling healthcare

      Obama already did a great job dismantling healthcare in the US and setting it on a path to self-destruction. Trump and the GOP don't look like they are going to fix it, but they can't make it much worse.

      crippling budget cuts everywhere but in the military, hurting government agencies

      Hard as that may for you to believe, that's what Trump and Republicans are elected for. Unfortunately, they are not doing their job: their budget cuts are cosmetic at this point, and they will get trimmed back further as Republicans don't want to give up their own pork spending. And many would like to see several departments and agencies eliminated entirely.

    3. Re:Is Russia the right focus? by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      The Republicans look set to go to town with wrecking not just the ACA but Medicare, Medcaid and a number of other benefits the Republican voting citizenry enjoys either directly or indirectly because, for example, their ageing parents are on ACA, Medicare or Medicaid and will be suffering, destitute or both when these programs are repealed and replaced with health 'insurance' that's just for healthy people and where you get kicked into a defunded high risk pool if you have a pre-exiting condition or the instant you get sick

      You're fabricating political positions that don't exist. Republicans aren't going to touch Medicare because it would be political suicide. We're stuck with Medicare for the time being; if anything is going to happen to it, it's going to be phased out over a period of many decades.

      The "you get kicked into a defunded high risk pool when you get sick" system is the shitty system that progressives created in the US with employment-linked healthcare. The ACA did little to fix that problem. Under an actual private insurance system, insurers are bound by long-term contracts that cover you even if you lose your job.

      Furthermore, the large single-payer healthcare system that the US has (Medicare/Medicaid) is far too expensive; if you want to keep it alive and have, say, a British-style healthcare system, you need British-style cost controls and nationalization of healthcare providers. It's the medical and pharma lobbies (big Democratic donors) that are preventing that from happening and are saddling us with a public healthcare system that is crony capitalism on a grand scale, and that is simply not sustainable. Democrats have even opposed means testing for Medicare benefits.

      The healthcare system in the US was unsustainable and corrupt before the ACA, and it is still unsustainable and corrupt after the ACA, arguably even more so. There are ways of fixing it. For example, any of the European systems would be better. But they simply aren't on the table, in large part because Democrats refuse to even consider them.

    4. Re:Is Russia the right focus? by thrich81 · · Score: 1

      "It's the medical and pharma lobbies (big Democratic donors)" -- somewhat misleading, Phama companies are big donors to both sides but Republicans generally received more than the Dems. From the Center for Responsive Politics (https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?Ind=H4300), "Pharmaceutical companies, which develop both over-the-counter and prescription drugs, have been among the biggest political spenders for years. They've traditionally supported Republican candidates, as they have received 64 percent of industry contributions on average since the 1990 election cycle."

    5. Re:Is Russia the right focus? by quantaman · · Score: 1

      I've read an interesting opinion piece by a Russian opponent:
      http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/03/06/trump-russia-conspiracy-trap/.

      Basically, the messages are: first, yes, Russia has meddled in, and there are links between them and Trump. But it's nothing new, Russia's always tried to destabilize Western democracies and undermine their credibility, including by supporting political crackpots there. This time the crackpots won the election.

      There are a few differences this time:
      1) Russia seems to have had significant influence with several people in the crackpot's administration, and that influence seems to have been translated into proposed policy.

      2) Several members of the crackpot's campaign were having unusual communications with the Russians, and may have been colluding in Russian interference.

      3) Russia may have significant leverage over the main crackpot himself.

      None of these may be true, but there's more than enough evidence to warrant investigation.

      Second, the media frenzy about this is being played up because it's seemingly the only scandal that riles people enough that the Republican majority in Congress might have to take notice, instead of looking the other way as they did with all the other documented lies. So Trump opponents are playing this specific card.

      Russia having direct influence in the White House is a pretty damn big deal. I don't think the media is going overboard with its focus.

      But, third, there's probably nothing concrete enough there to warrant a successful impeachment. And this is beginning to border on speculation and conspiracy-theory thinking, in other words using some of Trump's foul tactics against him in the unlikely hope of getting rid of him. Bad precedent.

      As I said, there's a lot of real evidence in play. And being a lying incompetent President isn't an impeachable offence, conspiring with Russia is.

      So, fourth, not only it won't work, it's drowning out more urgent and serious issues: dismantling healthcare, crippling budget cuts everywhere but in the military, hurting government agencies. If more attention was focused on them instead, sure, it would be even less likely to cause Trump's demise, but it would mitigate the damage, as it did for the Muslim travel ban.

      This is a very valid point, the focus on Trump's scandals allow the rest of his administration (and the GOP legislators) to get away with some astoundingly outrageous things. I'm honestly not sure what their plan is in some cases, I mean WTF are they thinking with health care? Have they even considered what would happen if their bill became law?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    6. Re:Is Russia the right focus? by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      The reason why you think that this is "misleading" is because you don't understand how Democrats corrupt markets and think in a simplistic "good for greedy corporations" and "bad for greedy corporations" dichotomy. If Democrats were generically anti-business, they would get no contributions from business.

      But what Democrats are actually doing is interfere in markets in order to favor businesses that donate to them and hurt businesses that don't. That's why you see this split in donations between the Republican and the Democratic party: Democrats receive donations from businesses they sell power to, and everybody else goes to the Republicans.

  9. Hillary Cliton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    HRC would have won the election if she weren't HRC. Truth.

    1. Re:Hillary Cliton by cahuenga · · Score: 1

      "I would have won had I not been subjected to the unprecedented attacks by Comey and the Russians..."

      It's always the last straw that breaks the camel's back. Somehow, all the other straws don't matter.

  10. Re: God bless Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What is the point of releasing her personal tax returns when her foundation has all of the sketchy stuff?

  11. get real by ooloorie · · Score: 2

    "In the course of its investigation," they add, "the FBI could get access to the Trump Organization's computer network, meaning FBI agents could possibly find records connected to other investigations." A senior FBI official (now retired) concedes to ABC that "There could be stuff in there that they [the Trump organization] do not want to become part of a separate criminal investigation."

    The idea that there is this secret stash of documents that is finally going to reveal Trump's secret identity as Dr. Evil and is going to doom his presidency is wishful thinking. Trump's computers and people around Trump were under surveillance for months under the Obama administration, and Trump has many people in his administration, among Republicans, and in his organization who hate him; if there had been anything substantive, it would have come out by now, either in leaks or in official investigations.

    1. Re:get real by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Trump's secret identity as Dr. Evil

      It's not exactly secret what Trump is which is why the situation is so ridiculous and potentially tragic. Just one of many connections - his former top advisor was very publicly running a fucking PR campaign for Russian rebels in Ukraine FFS and getting paid directly (not under the counter) by Russian spooks. He was fucking proud of doing promotional work for the shits who shot down a Malaysian airliner with US citizens aboard. Then there's the Russian bank loans to Trump - all perfectly legal but not a good look for a US President to be so far in debt to Russian banks.

      f there had been anything substantive, it would have come out by now, either in leaks or in official investigations.

      A lot has come out, just not details. Even Watergate took a few years, as did Iran-contra. The CIA Church commission stuff took years as well.

    2. Re:get real by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      It's not exactly secret what Trump is which is why the situation is so ridiculous and potentially tragic. Just one of many connections

      "Connections" are not illegal. Furthermore, since it "is not exactly a secret", voters took it into account when voting for Trump.

      A lot has come out, just not details. Even Watergate took a few years, as did Iran-contra. The CIA Church commission stuff took years as well.

      Yeah, Russia may have hired trolls to attack Hillary on social media, and maybe had a hand in leaking Hillary's E-mails. Anything else? How does that translate into a Watergate-like affair?

    3. Re:get real by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Don't play dumb. Watergate was the example of how long it takes for an investigation and not some suggestion that Trump asked people to break into a hotel room.
      I really don't get why you are still cheering for the Manchurian Canditate when he's really got it in for immigrants and is going to get "tough" on gays at some point to get the hard right of the Republicans to do some things for him.

    4. Re:get real by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Don't play dumb.

      That's not an answer to the question of what illegal things Trump is supposed to have done. Having "connections" with foreign governments is not illegal, and neither is having the support of foreign governments. If it were, both Obama and Hillary would be in prison. So far, I have not heard anybody articulate anything actually illegal that Trump is supposed to have done.

      I really don't get why you are still cheering for [Trump]

      Actually, I have never been "cheering" for Trump and I didn't vote for him. However, the more I observe progressives and Democrats post-election, the more relieved I am that Hillary lost.

      when he's really got it in for immigrants and is going to get "tough" on gays at some point to get the hard right of the Republicans to do some things for him.

      Well, your concern trolling is noted for what it's worth.

    5. Re:get real by dbIII · · Score: 1

      That's not an answer to the question of what illegal things Trump is supposed to have done

      Indeed - instead it's directly addressing the question that you actually asked instead of a new one that you didn't ask.
      I'm utterly baffled by you "alt-right" people. It's as if you grew up in a box and somehow missed seeing more than a tiny slice of life. Trump is not going to be grateful for your cheerleading and will turn on you the second he can get some advantage out of it.

    6. Re:get real by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Trump is not going to be grateful for your cheerleading and will turn on you the second he can get some advantage out of it.

      Which part of Actually, I have never been "cheering" for Trump and I didn't vote for him. However, the more I observe progressives and Democrats post-election, the more relieved I am that Hillary lost. did you not understand?

      I'm utterly baffled by you "alt-right" people.

      But I'm not baffled by you at all: you're the typical Alinsky/Goebbels/Soviet-style totalitarian propagandist, with your misrepresentations, lies, and statist ideology.

    7. Re:get real by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Actually, I have never been "cheering" for Trump

      Keep on telling yourself that, but dozens upon dozens of your posts indicate stridently that you were cheering for him all the way (and still seem to be doing so from time to time for some incredibly strange reason).

    8. Re:get real by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Keep on telling yourself that,

      I'm telling you, you just persist in misrepresenting me.

      Of course, your conduct comes out of the propagandistic playbook of totalitarians and statists: you're despicable.

    9. Re:get real by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Ah yes - I remember your rather odd "statist" insult from much earlier - thanks for reminding me that you are an anarchist that has been cheering Trump on because you hope he will destroy government in the USA.
      You really should try doing some growing up before you end up learning from experience that you will be utterly fucked if you get the stupid shit you are asking for.

    10. Re:get real by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Oh really? Examples please.
      What's wrong with liking the idea of having a country instead of anarchy anyway? "Statist" has got to be one of the strangest insults I have heard in a very long term and it reflects extremely poorly on the person that employs it.

      Why should I let a very loud Trump cheerleader pretend that they never were?

  12. Re: Old discredited news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What's with all the Russophobia?

    Do the Russians blow up little girls at concerts? Or perhaps they call for the murder of gays/lesbians?
    Do they advocate stoning women who don't wear tents in public? Did their Prophet call for enslavement, rape, and murder of the Christians/Jews?

    I get it, you probably have the Russians precisely because they fight the radical Islamic terrorists. How fucking sick.

  13. Re:Regression by dbIII · · Score: 1

    The Democrats werent "reduced" to that. They just willingly and knowingly did it, because they thought that they could.

    He's describing the other Republicans.
    When it was so bad that even tollbooth guy got into the primaries at all then it's pretty fucked up.
    Who would have voted Christie for President? Some of the others were almost as bad.

  14. Re:Old discredited news by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Because they put forward a politically unappealing candidate with a giant walk-in closet full of skeletons and in America, the value of your vote is proportional to the amount of unoccupied land around you. Now let's get back to discussing one of the many issues that could lead to Trump's (eventually almost certain) impeachment.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  15. Re:Old discredited news by gtall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Pro-American? So, he goes to Saudi Arabia and bends over for them. This is the same Saudi Arabia which funds the most virulent forms of militant Islam aimed at taking down the West. Then that twat goes to Europe and offends NATO claiming that the treaty saying the U.S. would defend NATO countries didn't mean what it says it means.

    Pro-American means taking from the poor and giving to the rich through yet more tax giveaways. It means fucking the U.S. raw environmentally. It means ceding the Pacific basin to China. It means cutting the State Dept. so that it cannot wield U.S. soft power. It means giving the Christian nutjobs their very own political political party. It means taking the concept of America to the rest of the world and dragging it into the mud where that asshole feels comfortable.

    Some pro-American leader.

  16. Re: Old discredited news by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Do the Russians blow up little girls at concerts

    No, they send girls who perform at concerts to prison in Siberia instead.

    Or perhaps they call for the murder of gays/lesbians?

    Yes, especially in the vassal state of Chechnya.

  17. Re:Old discredited news by dbIII · · Score: 1

    It's clearly either dishonest or insane to claim that baby Bush, Obama, Clinton, Bush and Reagan were not pro-American leaders.
    It may play well to the peanut gallery of fellow travellers but it just looks utterly nuts to everyone else - especially if you compare them to Trump who has spent his entire life trying to screw people over and is the most selfish President the USA has had. He's pro-Trump, he's not on anyone else's side.

  18. Re: Old discredited news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What's with all the Russophobia?

    Common sense?

    Do the Russians blow up little girls at concerts?

    I certainly don't doubt that Putin would do so. The most you can say is that he won't see it as to his advantage.

    Or perhaps they call for the murder of gays/lesbians?

    They actually murder them

    Do they advocate stoning women who don't wear tents in public?

    No, they advocate throwing their enemies in the gulag.

    And no, they aren't exactly good on attire, no.

    Did their Prophet call for enslavement, rape, and murder of the Christians/Jews?

    Russians aren't big on religious tolerance either, no.

    I get it, you probably have the Russians precisely because they fight the radical Islamic terrorists. How fucking sick.

    Oh so, they fight the Radical Islamic terrorists, so nothing they do can be wrong, is that it?

    Maybe it's just like WW2, when Stalin and Hitler were BOTH MURDEROUS TYRANNICAL DESPOTS.

    And since the Islamic terrorists don't have a tenth of Hitler's war machine, I see no reason to buddy up to Putin.

    I will not give him a favorable reference in the House of Commons, the House of Representatives, or in the House of Saud.

  19. That's certainly the spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's certainly the spin they're putting on it, *but* this Russian provided secure channel was not disclosed to Congress, was not within the Whitehouse record keeping system, and thus outside of Congretional oversight.

    You don't get Presidents working with foreign powers to bypass their own checks and balances, such a thing is NOT routine. It's NOT normal.

    "In addition to their discussion about setting up the communications channel, Kushner, Flynn and Kislyak also talked about arranging a meeting between a representative of Trump and a “Russian contact” in a third country whose name was not identified, according to the anonymous letter. "

    Kislyak is considered a Russian spy. Is it normal and routine to set up meetings with Russian spies outside of the USA? No? Yes?

    " but it is related to the Syrian war,"
    That's your spin, there's no mention of Syria in the WP article, and no reason why Trump's transition teams Syria discussions would be special and outside of Senate and Congress oversight.

    Jared likely received a smartphone or similar device provided by the Russians with encryption software on it. This is not normal. It's not normal for team Trump to want to bypass the NSA, or to trust Putin more than the NSA. Well there is one reason why they'd want a more secure line.

    1. Re:That's certainly the spin by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      It's not only not normal, to my mind it looks a lot like treason.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  20. Re:Regression by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    When the opposition is reduced to people that can only scream empty buzzwords, even someone like trump can win.

    Bigly.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  21. Re:Did Kushner get his back channel? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    They think this because the Democrats have such a list, and would have used such a list if it benefited them. Unfortunately for them, Trump was a person that didnt have such a list, so we are left with the only fact: The Democrats have such a list and are scumbag enough to use it.

    Jezzuz Christ, Boris, You need to write your bullshit before the second bottle of vodka. Your bullshit only works if it makes sense on some level.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  22. Re:Old discredited news by benjfowler · · Score: 1

    What colours is the sky on your planet?

    Trump and his entourage is going to get cut to pieces. He is dead meat.

    When we are done with Trump Inc, we're coming after the Putin regime.

    I'd stop digging that hole if I were you.

  23. Putinbots abound by benjfowler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Everyone -- note that this article is being spammed hard by "Anonymous Cowards" sprouting pro-Putin and pro-Trump talking points.

    Adjust your skepticism accordingly. They're rattled -- there's been a strong uptick in Putinbot activity in the last few days, which makes me wonder if pro-Western forces are getting closer to the truth on Kremlingate.

    In the absence of Slashdot waking up to themselves and getting rid of "Anonymous Coward", you'll have to wade through a lot of Putinbot spam in the meantime.

    1. Re:Putinbots abound by anyaristow · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The following anonymous coward putinbot posts are mine. I don't normally bother signing in to slashdot because it isn't worth the trouble:

      WaPo, CIA conflict of interest rag
      Guccifer 2.0 is a fraud
      TL;DR

      I'm a Democrat, not a Republican or a Trump fan or a putin bot. I resist propaganda because propaganda is more dangerous than Trump. I resist propaganda because it is a symptom of a system that is so stacked against ordinary citizens that it may be too late to ever wrest control of our government back from the oligarchs, deep state and military industrial complex.

      But since you mention bots, I'll mention paid trolls (not claiming you are one): Correct the Record, ShareBlue. Paid trolls working for Hillary, according to sources I think you'll agree aren't Putin-friendly:

      How a super PAC plans to coordinate directly with Hillary Clinton’s campaign
      David Brock's Army of "Nerd Virgins" Has Hillary's Back
      Clinton SuperPac Admits to Paying Internet Trolls
      The making of a Hillary Clinton echo chamber

    2. Re:Putinbots abound by benjfowler · · Score: 1

      Putinbots pissing on our legs, then telling us it's raining.

    3. Re:Putinbots abound by benjfowler · · Score: 1

      This is not a question of domestic partisanship. Evidence of covert, underhanded Russian influence and interference in Western countries, especially in the last few years, is everywhere to be seen.

      I'm sure our Russian "partners" would _love_ to destroy all notion of objective truth and turn everything into a partisan pissing match where there IS no absolute truth (only political priorities). Unhappily for them, the West has rightly seen it for what it is: broad-spectrum political and information war against all advanced and free countries, designed to poison the well for all political thought -- and the Cold War anti-disinformation playbook is being dusted off. Enemy political and information attacks won't work, and in the long run, it will end very badly for them.

    4. Re:Putinbots abound by Xenographic · · Score: 2

      > Everyone -- note that this article is being spammed hard by "Anonymous Cowards"

      You should trust ACs exactly as much as everyone else here, which is to say, not at all. Judge the reasoning on its merits and its factual basis (if any), and not on the name attached to it.

      Also, please reserve the same skepticism for all the news citing anonymous sources. Top Obama administration advisors have told me that many of the claims are made up whole cloth to support a point or tell a story.

    5. Re:Putinbots abound by dwillden · · Score: 2

      So we are to mistrust AC's yet give credence to the Anonymous sources the WaPo, CNN and NYT all love to cite non-stop in their flailing and failing anti-trump campaign?

      There are many valid reasons to post AC. And disregarding AC posts just because they are AC is foolish.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
  24. Re:Regression by Rockoon · · Score: 1

    He's describing the other Republicans.

    I dont know who he thinks that he is describing, and now I know who you think that he is describing.

    The fact remains that he is describing the DNC, not the RNC.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  25. Re:Regression by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

    Sorry you feel that screaming into the Internet is going to fix anything. The post is meant to highlight the pointlessness of such actions. At the same time, I don't entirely disagree with your sentiment, just your execution.

    --
    There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
  26. Re:Did Kushner get his back channel? by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

    Have you considered that maybe US intel was already incompetent? They ban pot smokers and believe in polygraph voodoo, to the exclusion of those that don't at least pretend that it has some credibility. But, they keep massive amounts of data, more than they can reasonably analyze, and because of all that data, they have to lower their hiring standards and increase their number of employees, meaning that more and more moles are going to have access to the mother lode.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  27. Whatever by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    >> "And Friday Hillary Clinton was even quoted as saying, "I would have won had I not been subjected to the unprecedented attacks by Comey and the Russians..."

    Yeah keep telling yourself that Hillary. I mean your own obvious corruption had absolutely nothing to do with it right?

  28. unprecedented by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Unprecedented straws are the ones that matter more than the usual ones. So now it's just more things to have to deal with... except Comey broke the law, that "straw" wasn't supposed to be possible and the law was created to prevent it. The Russian stuff is a new issue that needs to be protected against but will never be stopped... hopefully it makes people finally realize computer voting machines are asinine.

  29. Re: A robbery victim. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    It wasn't a hit. Get over it. DC is a dangerous goddamned place. The Rich story is fabrication and even Fox has walked away from it.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  30. Re:Old discredited news by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    Actually som Dems the hate the idea of Trump being lined early because the longer he's there the worse the GOP looks.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  31. Not so fast, Dumbfuck AC... by davesays · · Score: 1

    Maybe a little history lesson would be helpful for the simpletons like you. Irrespective of party, every administration and pretty much every country has back-channel communications with their enemies. About every decade or so WWIII is temporarily averted by them. Judge them by how they are used, not their existence. Two that come to mind are Carter during the Iran situation and the Kennedys during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I am sure the history buffs here can name many more instances, so I leave it to Slashdot.

  32. You were wrong - apologize to all of us by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    So I was right that Donald Trump, Jared Kushners, and others are traitors who colluded with Russia's hack of our presidential campaign.

    Nope. The story had nothing to do with that, and even top level Democrats admit Trump had nothing to do with Russia hacking the DNC.

    Important to remember that the "hack" of the campaign was simply to reveal emails that Democrats, and especially Hillary, did not want the public to see. That's not a hack - that's a leak. Just like the ones Trump is going through right now. If you thought the leaks exposing Hillary were so bad, where are your complaints about leaks targeting Trump? They are equivalent. Yet I'm sure you have cheered them on even as they unravel the fabric of U.S. intelligence services.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  33. Re: Old discredited news by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Is killing political rivals with Polonium to "send a message" not excessive enough for you?
    Also Putin rode to power on a wave of anti-US sentiment and he's still stirring that pot. You may not consider him your enemy but he certainly considers you one, or at least he tells his press such things.

  34. Hillary said? by kenh · · Score: 1

    And Friday Hillary Clinton was even quoted as saying, "I would have won had I not been subjected to the unprecedented attacks by Comey and the Russians..."

    What, exactly, does her OPINION prove?

    --
    Ken
  35. An anonymous reader writes: by DirkDaring · · Score: 1

    That's the most fitting part of this entire news post.

  36. Re:Old discredited news by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

    2 different law enforcement officials from 2 different parties (Dem & GOP) plus the special prosecutor have publicly stated the Ruskies HAVE effected the election.
    sorry, but you need to stop drinking the FauxNoise cool aid.