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..."

29 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 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).

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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
    6. 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).

    7. 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.

    8. 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."
    9. 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.

    10. 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?

    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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
    14. 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.

    15. 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.
    16. 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.

    17. 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...
  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 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."
  4. 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.

  5. 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?

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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 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.

    3. 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.