Slashdot Mirror


Russia Hackers Had Targets Worldwide, Beyond US Election (apnews.com)

Raphael Satter, Jeff Donn, and Justin Myers, reporting for Associated Press: The hackers who disrupted the U.S. presidential election had ambitions well beyond Hillary Clinton's campaign, targeting the emails of Ukrainian officers, Russian opposition figures, U.S. defense contractors and thousands of others of interest to the Kremlin, according to a previously unpublished digital hit list obtained by The Associated Press. The list provides the most detailed forensic evidence yet of the close alignment between the hackers and the Russian government, exposing an operation that stretched back years and tried to break into the inboxes of 4,700 Gmail users across the globe -- from the pope's representative in Kiev to the punk band Pussy Riot in Moscow. "It's a wish list of who you'd want to target to further Russian interests," said Keir Giles, director of the Conflict Studies Research Center in Cambridge, England, and one of five outside experts who reviewed the AP's findings. He said the data was "a master list of individuals whom Russia would like to spy on, embarrass, discredit or silence."

254 comments

  1. In other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    A broad Russian strategy rather than targeting US election specifically.

    1. Re:In other words by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why would the two be mutually exclusive?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:In other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Why would the two be mutually exclusive?

      Who said it was?

      The GP stated that instead of Russia's strategy being directed exclusively at the US elections, it is a world wide strategy. That's not mutually exclusive.

    3. Re:In other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because logic and English.

    4. Re:In other words by farble1670 · · Score: 2

      Who said it was?

      You?

      "A broad Russian strategy rather than targeting US election specifically."

    5. Re:In other words by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I for one am SHOCKED that a dictator willing to straight up steal part of another country and meddle with it's biggest rival's elections would DARE to do similar things ELSEWHERE!!!

      As to GP's point, I think it's worth pointing out to the slow ones in the audience that all elections and news worldwide should be examined for Russian influence. Furthermore, the magat trump supporters can insist that the 2016 election was totally kosher (despite, you know, the less popular candidate winning and ample evidence) but even THEY shouldn't fool themselves that our elections will go unmolested in the future. At the very least, if Trump (sigh) DOES make america great again, they should be open to the possibility that their Russian friend would then support a liberal to undermine him.

      I guess I'm assuming they haven't been completely brainwashed into supporting Putin.

    6. Re:In other words by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      A broad Russian strategy rather than targeting US election specifically.

      Yep, Russia's strategy is to sow discord throughout the western world to weaken them to Russia's advantage. When we fight amongst ourselves we have less attention to focus on them.

    7. Re: In other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Let's stop fighting and unite under Trump.

    8. Re: In other words by riverat1 · · Score: 2

      I think Trump likes the discord too, at least judging by the first 9 months of his Presidency.

  2. Russia has been doing this forever by Arzaboa · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The KGB and Kremlin have been doing this forever. For the most part, we took control of the media in the sense that no foreign adversaries were able to poke through on a large scale.

    With the advent of the internet, all the walls were dropped and they were able to ramp up.

    Nothing has changed about their strategy other then its now digital.

    --
    "Those Silly Russians" - Eric Kotara

    1. Re:Russia has been doing this forever by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      Whenever I see an "shocking" article about Russia, my first thought is, "Why the shock that countries work for their own interest and against their enemies?"

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    2. Re:Russia has been doing this forever by doctorvo · · Score: 1

      The KGB and Kremlin have been doing this forever. For the most part, we took control of the media in the sense that no foreign adversaries were able to poke through on a large scale.

      The USSR infiltrated numerous US organizations and parts of the US government; they did a lot of damage post-WWII.

      But we still survived, and dealing with this crap is the price we pay for living in a free society. Freedom also means the freedom of stupid Americans to listen to hostile foreign powers if they choose.

    3. Re:Russia has been doing this forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what's worse is, they learnt it from America, who have been doing it since BEFORE forever, and have even greater resources at their hands.

    4. Re:Russia has been doing this forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No surprises. The Russians are in every thing. The next 'big revelation' will be that many Russian hackers are lone wolfs or working with groups that are not directed by the Kremlin. Then we'll "discover" that there are similar hackers all over the world doing similar stuff.

    5. Re:Russia has been doing this forever by dbrueck · · Score: 1

      Agreed. *Especially* since the US doesn't exactly have a very good track record in this department.

      People in the U.S. have a choice: (a) stop being so whiny about what Russia did or (b) stopping doing essentially the same thing to a number of other countries. But the current stance of being upset while we do the same to others is nothing more than hypocrisy.

    6. Re:Russia has been doing this forever by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      The thing that's shocking isn't that Russia spies on us - and even tilts toward one political party or another. It's that Facebook and other social networking sites have suddenly provided a way to easily and fraudulently inject propaganda into our electoral process. It's the way they used the info that's so shocking and scary.

      And one more thing that's shocking to me. Fox and the like have so primed a large audience to believe farcically untrue stuff (and don't go citing MSNBC or CNN - Fox is qualitatively different in this regard, not to mention Limbaugh and his kind) that outright falsehoods that would never see the light of day in, say, a TV ad found a platform that was fine with spreading them - and an audience willing to if not believe, then pretend that there was an argument in favor of their side in there.. I'm sure Mark Zuckerberg never envisioned this for his baby, but hey, they're a public company and gotta keep that stock price up. That's why we need government regulation of business. Whatever downsides you see to it, there's no other way to combat fraud and the like.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    7. Re:Russia has been doing this forever by Nutria · · Score: 1

      It's been a long time since I watched FNC. What are some examples of farcically untrue stuff that it broadcasts?

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    8. Re: Russia has been doing this forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about the story about how Hillary Clinton sold 20% of the US uranium supply all by herself with no records involved. Under the table deal. Because you know, one person has the power to do that in america.

    9. Re:Russia has been doing this forever by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Whenever I see an "shocking" article about Russia, my first thought is, "Why the shock that countries work for their own interest and against their enemies?"

      What's shocking is that we now have a political movement in this country that's friendly to an aggressive foreign power (on the record, Trump said it), encouraged (we have Trump Jr's email) and facilitated (TBD) meddling in our political system. It used to be you could count on whoever was in power to defend the US. Whether they liked patchouli or crewcuts they'd be flipping the f*** out over the idea that Russian agents were (or are) "working" for some aspect of the highest office in this country.

    10. Re:Russia has been doing this forever by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      tilts toward one political party or another

      I thought they were going after all sides to instigate division.

    11. Re:Russia has been doing this forever by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      The Rape of the Mind: The Psychology of Thought Control, Menticide, and Brainwashing by Joost Meerloo. I think they learned it from the Chinese.

    12. Re: Russia has been doing this forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One person can't influence 9 other people sitting on a board that approved the sale? About as laughable as the snopes article proclaiming it isn't true because she and her direct subordinate said so.

    13. Re:Russia has been doing this forever by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Whether they liked patchouli or crewcuts they'd be flipping the f*** out over the idea that Russian agents were (or are) "working" for some aspect of the highest office in this country.

      Nah. Uncle Joe was sorely misunderstood, and Communists really care for the oppressed, unlike the hated Yankees. Che Guevara and Fidel Castro are my heroes, and the Maryknoll Sisters are my heroines.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    14. Re:Russia has been doing this forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mostly it's shocking that it appears to have worked in spite of it being a pretty transparent ploy. Though honestly that'd probably more US politicians tripping over their own dicks than anything the Russians actually did. In particular the Democrats seemed to have gone into it planning to run Hillary rather than to try and find the best possible candidate, and the Republicans seem to have been planning to write this cycle off as a loss and are as surprised and annoyed as everyone else at how it turned out.

  3. Truly amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You people have found the best diversion ever away from from our own corruption. This kind of crap dooms us to another four years and beyond of Trump/Clinton and worse. Oh believe me, you will make things worse! Lucky for me I'm old. Damn all of you! You were supposed to be better and smarter than the bald headed old farts that sent us to Vietnam!

  4. First time an American President committed Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One thing that's changed is the we've never had a President strenuously collude with Russia's attacks on our country.

    Donald Trump magnified Russia's attack on America by publicly praising it, while denying that it was Russia's doing, even though court documents now show that the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia's cyberattacks on America.

  5. Amazing you don't care about your country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every patriotic American should stand up for their country when it's attacked by a hostile foreign adversary and the traitors who collude with it.

    1. Re:Amazing you don't care about your country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about you back up your bullshit, and enlist in the armed forces.

    2. Re:Amazing you don't care about your country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You want me to join the Armed Forces so that Moscow Donald when I already know he is subservient to Russia and doing Vladimir Putin's bidding?

      Not sure what that would accomplish, but all of Paul Manafort's clients have been deposed and exiled by their country's populace when they discover their corruption and Russian puppetry.

    3. Re:Amazing you don't care about your country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are sharping the long knives for Obama, Clinton and the DNC?

      Where do you think Fusion GPS got their money for that "golden showers" dossier they got from a operative working with the Russians, who where just making up stuff? The DNC paid them. The FBI then took the fictional document and used it to justify a counter intelligence investigation of Trump's campaign. Who's colluding with who here?

  6. Re:troll article? WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do us a favor and make this your last article, traitor.

    traitors sell uranium to russians, Traitors steal money from Haitian children, Hillary

  7. Twitter is a greater threat than Russia by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From Twitter's testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee (page 11):

    With respect to #DNCLeak, approximately 23,000 users posted around 140,000 unique Tweets with that hashtag in the relevant period. Of those Tweets, roughly 2% were from potentially Russian-linked accounts. As noted above, our automated systems at the time detected, labeled, and hid just under half (48%) of all the original Tweets with #DNCLeak. Of the total Tweets with the hashtag, 0.84% were hidden and also originated from accounts that met at least one of the criteria for a Russian-linked account. Those Tweets received 0.21% of overall Tweet impressions.

    It seems to me that Twitter is a much bigger threat to our election process than Russia.

    Shouldn't speech about the election be somehow... I don't know... protected or something?

    1. Re:Twitter is a greater threat than Russia by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Number of tweets is the wrong metric. If 100,000 real users with 1 follower each tweet about it, and 1 Russian account with 100,000 followers tweets about it, does the Russian tweet really represent 0.001%?

      Even their Brexit troll accounts averaged a few hundred k followers, so I'd be surprised if the US election troll accounts had less than that.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Twitter is a greater threat than Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Twitter] automated systems at the time [...] hid just under half (48%) of all the original Tweets with #DNCLeak.

      Fucking Twitter was shilling for Killary, hiding negative tweets.
      Folks, does this qualify as: a) shitting all over the Constitution, b) active collusion with the Demonrats to steal the election, c) silencing and disenfranchising the American public, d) business interference with the the election process, or e) illegal discrimination against a protected class?

  8. Finally everyone else catches up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been saying this is way beyond Jail Hillary/Impeach Trump for over a year.

    1. Re:Finally everyone else catches up by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      So has that paranoid freak who runs infowars.com.

      For years now. He spins up so much fluff it almost seems like he's running a cotton candy machine.

  9. Re:Pure Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    ^ This is the kind of idiocy that caused Hillary Clinton to lose.

    But I suppose Democrats need their birther conspiracy theories too. I suspect they'll be a permanent fixture of US politics in the future after ever election.

  10. Re:Pure Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This comment has been sponsored by Clinton Foundation.

  11. US spies on everyone in the world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... and then cries about Russia? lol

  12. Re:Pure Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You cracked the case! Donald Trump is no longer president!

  13. Re:Pure Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Exactly - Moscow Donald's treasonous collusion with a hostile foreign adversary's attacks on our country stole the 2016 election.

  14. I can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can do it, but you don't!

  15. Spain by ISoldat53 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I wonder if what is happening in Spain was pushed along by Russia?

    1. Re:Spain by will_die · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I would guess so with funding and ads. We do know that Russia was one of the main funders for the separation groups in Hawaii and in California and provided ads for the separation groups in Texas.

    2. Re:Spain by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1, Informative
    3. Re:Spain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It can look like it, if you ignore that Catalans have been demanding independence for decades. Just look at the pictures. Notice the similarities? Those were during the 70's, when Franco was just dead. We don't need Assange or the Russians for this, thank you very much.

      Oh, but we do need help, like we once did during the Spanish Civil War that lead to WWII. Back then, the World decided that economic stability was far more important than justice. The consequence was Hitler's rising and millions dead. Have we learnt something since?

    4. Re:Spain by myowntrueself · · Score: 0

      I wonder if what is happening in Spain was pushed along by Russia?

      Just as likely that it was the USA or the Brits. The Brits certainly have the motive to create division in Europe at the moment.

      And the USA, seriously, does anyone honestly think that they'd never interfere with the democratic process in another country?

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    5. Re:Spain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you're not wondering that, you're just trying to stir shit up like every other American. The unrest in Spain has been going on for many many decades, and have at times been much worse than now, even with deadly outcomes.

    6. Re:Spain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troll alert.

    7. Re:Spain by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      Russia told my dog to bug me because she wants to go out for a walk. Those damned Russians, stirring shit up. It's cold out there and I don't WANT to take her for a walk today!

      (it's easy at this point in history to suss out a whole bunch of fucking idiots. They're the 'Blame Russia' crowd, the people calling people they disagree with 'comrade' or 'Ivan.' Total fucking idiots, wind-up morons set loose to annoy the rest of us.)

    8. Re:Spain by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      Psst. The secret is: It was pushed along by the Catalonians.

    9. Re:Spain by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      The Brits certainly have the motive to create division in Europe at the moment.

      Surely you're not suggesting Her Majesty's government would do anything underhand?

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    10. Re:Spain by Ryanrule · · Score: 0

      obviously. they were involved in brexit too.

    11. Re:Spain by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Have we learnt something since?

      Yes. Do not simultaneously declare war on the US and Russia. Finish Russia off first.

    12. Re:Spain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the Catalans are divided on independence. There's no reliable majority for it, and even among its enthusiasts - ten years ago, what support there was, was lukewarm at best. This whole "nationalist frenzy verging on revolution" is a very sudden thing.

    13. Re:Spain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it have oil or coccain? if not the USA don't care.

    14. Re:Spain by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      People wanting independence and freedom is now not good?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    15. Re:Spain by guacamole · · Score: 2

      I wonder if Putin is hiding underneath your bed. Have you checked there today?

    16. Re:Spain by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      The Brits certainly have the motive to create division in Europe at the moment.

      Surely you're not suggesting Her Majesty's government would do anything underhand?

      Her Majesty's government is, of course, beyond reproach. Theresa May's government, on the other hand...

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

      It's nice how the ministers give Her Majesty some plausible deniability...

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    17. Re: Spain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you so confident the Putinbots had nothing to do with Catalonia? What special knowledge do you possess?

    18. Re: Spain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it was helped by the Russians. Bing is a Kremlin troll.

  16. Re:Pure Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    But I suppose Democrats need their birther conspiracy theories too.

    Clinton literally started that one. The right just snatched her ball away from her like a giant red-colored Lucy and laughed.

    Oh, and they're doing it with the MUH RUSSIA narrative now, too.

    Poor Shillary, always gettin' robbed.

  17. Re:First time an American President committed Trea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Donald Trump magnified Russia's attack on America by publicly praising it,

    Oh my, Trump made a sarcastic quip! Treason! That's why Hillary lost!

  18. Universal Internet Code of Conduct UN agreement by Max_W · · Score: 1

    We have an experience of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is not perfect, but it kind of works.

    We need something sumilar for the Internet, Hardware, and Software. It is not a secret that numerous political and economic entities use the Internet for hidden agenda activities.

  19. Re:troll article? WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Traitors peddle bullshit, discredited by every legit fact checker in order to deflect attention from Russia's ongoing attacks on our country, and the collusion of the biggest traitor in US history. The uranium can not be exported... you've pretended that actual charity is wrong etc...

    You will have to live with the stain of treason for the rest of your life after intentionally distracting from the Russian cyberwarfare campaign that Moscow Donald colludes with and protects.

  20. Cowboys and Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We finished playing cowboys and indians a long time ago.
    We're almost finished playing cowboys and muslims.
    Now it looks like we're going to play cowboys and russians next?

  21. Re:First time an American President committed Trea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's not sarcasm if your campaign is actively colluding with the cyberattacks and email thefts that you are praising as court documents show Moscow Donald did.

  22. Journalistic standards have plumeted. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interference in the past didn't usually make it far: there were editors and fact checkers and journalists who had integrity.

    Today, getting the story out there as fast as possible is the goal - regardless of its validity.

    Coupled with a public who prefers infotainment, Russia has an easy time.

    And we have "news" organizations that do nothing but misinform.

    Right now, I see too many folks all worked up over some football players kneeling during the national anthem; while the Republicans are going to put forth a tax plan that's gonna probably screw over the very same folks who really care about who kneels during the national anthem.

    DISTRACTION ISSUES

    No sir, our biggest enemy as regards to fake news is domestically produced.

    And then there are the pundits - like Trump's buddy Hannity - who just lie; make shit up and stupid people believe them!

    1. Re:Journalistic standards have plumeted. by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      I take it your solution is that 'journalists' should need to show their credentials before being allowed to say anything in public.

      You and Kim Jong Un have some interesting ideas. Do you have a newsletter I can subscribe to?

    2. Re:Journalistic standards have plumeted. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I take it your solution is that 'journalists' should need to show their credentials before being allowed to say anything in public.

      You and Kim Jong Un have some interesting ideas. Do you have a newsletter I can subscribe to?

      Unbelievable! The GP criticizes news organization and pundits and you make an irrational ad hominem attack and equate him with Kim Jong-un.

      People deserve the government they get and you sir, deserve this one.

    3. Re:Journalistic standards have plumeted. by Straif · · Score: 1

      Interference in the past didn't usually make it far: there were editors and fact checkers and journalists who had integrity.

      Assumes facts not in evidence.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
  23. They have done well by Chrisq · · Score: 0

    Destabilised Europe through Brexit. Destabilised the US through trump

    1. Re:They have done well by GLMDesigns · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ha. Ha. Ha.

      So the Russians are behind Brexit now?
      Are they behind the open borders movement too - as an effort to destabilize western Europe and the United States?
      The Russians are behind the Scots wanting independence?
      And Catalonia?
      The Kurds as well (yes I know Kurdistan is not in Europe).
      Oooo. How about the upcoming Basque, Corsican, Sardinian, Venetian, and Sicilian Independence Movements.

      Are the Russians behind the California Independence movement? And the Alaskan Independence Movement (yeah rejoining Alaska with Russia).

      Sarah Palin's husband is a Russian operative. You heard it here first folks.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    2. Re:They have done well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the Russians are behind Brexit now?

      Possibly, yes. There's a cozy little clique of high level individuals responsible for both the Trump and Brexit campaigns, and they have been linked / are under investigation for both Russian money laundering and ties to Putin / the RIS.

    3. Re:They have done well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The word 'destabilized' does not imply they were the only factor behind Brexit. They were just a little 'push' of sorts. It's pretty easy to see that Russia is working at destabilizing all of Europe because it serves their interests. I know you're blinded by your urge to protect whatever poor reputation the US has left, so you can continue pretending that there was no meddling in the US. But you have to acknowledge that there is meddling of some sort going on in the East.

    4. Re:They have done well by myowntrueself · · Score: 2

      Ha. Ha. Ha.
      So the Russians are behind Brexit now?

      Are they behind the open borders movement too - as an effort to destabilize western Europe and the United States?

      The Russians are behind the Scots wanting independence?

      And Catalonia?

      I'd have assumed it was the USA behind Brexit. The Brits are probably behind Catalonia and the Irish behind Scots independence.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    5. Re:They have done well by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      I always wondered what it would be like to live through a Red Scare. Now I know. The hysteria is astounding. It's as though TEH ROOSHINS are some hyper-competent adversary capable of anything, who can reach from afar and destroy us with $100k of facebook ads.

      I think a far more likely scenario is straight up denial. If Brexit and Trump are accepted at face value, you might have to realize that the people rejected you, and you'd have to change. You'd rather die than admit the dirty commoners have a point, so the "blame the foreigners" narrative - the oldest trick in the book, one that educated people should never fall for - is suddenly in vogue. Maybe, just maybe, the people don't agree that the EU is a good idea and maybe they don't agree that Crooked Hillary - who we know for a fact now rigged the election - might not have been the best choice for US president. Hell, she reacted to her loss by raging and getting drunk every day...boy we dodged a bullet there.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    6. Re:They have done well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... what does Putins cock taste like?

    7. Re:They have done well by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      But you have to acknowledge that there is meddling of some sort going on in the East.

      Those pesky meddling Russians! Why can't they just get with the rest of us and let the NSA protect all of us. It would be so much better.

    8. Re:They have done well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So... what does Putins cock taste like?

      Victory!

    9. Re:They have done well by coastwalker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Red scare is when the right attacks the left accusing people of communist sympathies. The Soviet Union and communism failed so it is no longer possible to have a red scare, no one in the West believes in communism any more. Democratic socialism and varying degrees of state regulation yes but Soviet communism? no chance.

      What we have here are hostile acts by Russian hackers aimed at destabilsing their enemies. And the United States continues to act as an enemy of Russia so you bastards deserved it. The destruction of the EU and Nato are also highly desireable given the EU power grab in Ukraine. The fact that the Russians have achieved this by hijacking the causes of sociopathic right wing hedge fund managers and the super rich is just the icing on the cake. They must be laughing their asses off at the stupidity of the Nationalist and Populists who are destroying America and the European Union.

      No suprise that the rest of us look at you dumb traitors with disgust. No one cares that Hillary lost or that Brexit is happening, we care about the fact that these aims were achieved by dog whistle racism and pressing the fear of the foriegner button which has poisoned our nations with hatred. Western economic power depends on globalisation and immigration and emigration, at least outside Japan it does. The joke of it all is that by ending globalisation and immigration and emigration the biggest casualty is capitalism as it will lead to a global economic decline. Serves you cretins right.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    10. Re:They have done well by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      The joke of it all is that by ending globalisation and immigration and emigration the biggest casualty is capitalism as it will lead to a global economic decline. Serves you cretins right.

      Yes, I'm sure you'll be fine.

      The US (and Russia for that matter) are going to be relatively well off in a global economic decline. We have natural resources and land to sustain ourselves. And the might to stop others from taking it.

    11. Re:They have done well by jader3rd · · Score: 1

      EU power grab in Ukraine.

      Whhaaatt? I think you've confused which side invaded and took territory away from a sovereign nation.

    12. Re:They have done well by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      People voted to exit the EU. Welcome to real democracy.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    13. Re:They have done well by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Brexit: Yes, they pushed hard for it. Take a look at "David Jones" for example.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re:They have done well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The two are not incompatible. Denials of the social media campaign to influence the 2016 US presidential campaign (and the similar one to influence Brexit, among others) astound me. There's ample public evidence that there were massive coordinated misinformation campaigns online. It's easy enough to fake the source of online activity, so Russia being the source of that campaign is less obvious... but an awful lot of different organizations are claiming to have evidence that it really was them, so either it was or it was an organization capable of getting multiple credible news organizations and the US Intelligence community to claim it was Russia. It's unclear who would have the resources and motive to pull off such an operation (China, maybe?).

      On the other hand, nudging public opinion via online posts only has so much effect. Trump had to already have tens of millions of people wanting to vote for him ignoring that effect. As you say, that level of support can't be ignored; clearly he was offering something a lot of people wanted, and any political opponents should understand what that is.

    15. Re:They have done well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People voted to exit the EU. Welcome to real democracy.

      People voted for Hitler too. Lies and propaganda undermine democracy

    16. Re: They have done well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People voted for Putin too, though it's impossible to tell how many because of the flawed and corrupt electoral process in Russia.

  24. Russian Hackers never drove a truck over anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stay focused on the real enemy of civilization please.

    1. Re:Russian Hackers never drove a truck over anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you refering to the right-wing fucktard and Trump supporter who drove his car into a crowd and killed a woman ?

      Of course not. It's only terrorism when muslims do it.

      By the way: Russian indeed don't drive trucks over their opponents. They poison them with Polonium 210.

    2. Re:Russian Hackers never drove a truck over anyone by coastwalker · · Score: 1

      The real enemy of civilisation are the propagandists seeking genocide and polarisation within our societies to further their political aims. United we stand. divided we fall. Stop being so weak you snowflake chickens.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
  25. The Russians are evil by WCMI92 · · Score: 1

    Of course they had more targets.

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
  26. Joe McCarthy or Joan Baez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Am I the only one that sees the irony with the loony left now aghast at Russian meddling when their earliest patrons were the USSR? The anti-Vietnam War movement in the US got a billion dollars from the commutards and by some estimates received better funding then the Russians were giving the North Vietnamese.

    I'd like to see a true accounting of Soviet meddling in the US but going apoplectic while pretending this is something new smells like something that came out of a swamp or a bull's rear end.

    1. Re:Joe McCarthy or Joan Baez by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Yup. The USSR spent a fortune on Communist and fake peace movements and the left benefited from it.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Russian GRU defector Stanislav Lunev said in his autobiography that "the GRU and the KGB helped to fund just about every antiwar movement and organization in America and abroad," and that during the Vietnam War the USSR gave $1 billion to American anti-war movements, more than it gave to the VietCong,[19] although he does not identify any organisation by name. Lunev described this as a "hugely successful campaign and well worth the cost".[19] The former KGB officer Sergei Tretyakov said that the Soviet Peace Committee funded and organized demonstrations in Europe against US bases.[20] According to Time magazine, a US State Department official estimated that the KGB may have spent $600 million on the peace offensive up to 1983, channeling funds through national Communist parties or the World Peace Council "to a host of new antiwar organizations that would, in many cases, reject the financial help if they knew the source."[13] Richard Felix Staar in his book Foreign Policies of the Soviet Union says that non-communist peace movements without overt ties to the USSR were "virtually controlled" by it. Lord Chalfont claimed that the Soviet Union was giving the European peace movement £100 million a year. The Federation of Conservative Students (FCS) alleged Soviet funding of CND.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    2. Re:Joe McCarthy or Joan Baez by coastwalker · · Score: 1

      We understand that the Soviet Union when it existed funded the left. We also understand that the Soviet Union no longer exists and that communism failed. The modern Russia is a gangster kingdom which actually mainly funds far right extremists across the world as a means of destabalising its enemies. We understand all this but cannot understand why you choose not to understand this.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
  27. Re:So she lost because, Russia? by PoopJuggler · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So you voted for Trump because you believed he was not corrupt...

  28. Re:First time an American President committed Trea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    One thing that's changed is the we've never had a President strenuously collude with Russia's attacks on our country.

    Donald Trump magnified Russia's attack on America by publicly praising it, while denying that it was Russia's doing, even though court documents now show that the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia's cyberattacks on America.

    ROFLMAO.

    Dude, what color is the sky in your planet?

  29. Re:So she lost because, Russia? by will_die · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Or less so than Hillary.

  30. Timing is everything! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While you all are masturbating over "Russia", we just got news how Hillary took over the DNC during the campaign, further confirming that she stole the nomination. This is the real story, folks. Don't be distracted by their bullshit.

    1. Re:Timing is everything! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're probably correct. Good you win! The DNC is corrupt, Hillary stole the nomination. The problem is... she didn't win. She is not the President. She's basically a nobody now. She wanders the woods with her dog and works on selling her book. Should the FBI go after her... sure, whatever you like.

      Let's deal with the problem of the actual President though. He is one of the most powerful men on the planet, and every day there is a new scandal. And don't say "Fake News." You can prove almost every single thing the news says by doing something as easy as showing a clip of Trump speaking during a rally, etc. or pointing to one of his Tweets. The man can't keep his mouth shut and proves the news correct at every turn. Where there's smoke there's fire. And currently the Oval Office is burning. This isn't a partisan issue. You're aren't a "bad Republican" for having voted for Trump. You are honorable and loyal to your party. Give yourself a pat on the back. But then admit the fact that the Orange Turd is probably the worst President in the history of your country. Get him out and put Pence in. He's a piece of garbage too, but at least he's a run of the mill Republican that won't burn your country to the ground while stuffing his pockets with your money. Don't worry, the Republicans will still control your country and you can watch as they rob you while telling you that it's for your own good. At least they won't start WWIII over someone insulting the size of their dingle.

    2. Re:Timing is everything! by coastwalker · · Score: 1

      Absolutely 100% correct. No one gives a jot about clinton now and most of the democrats hope we never see her again. Trump is an idot and is doing far more damage to the west than any corporate money shill republican could ever do. The guy has done exactly nothing for his base except encourage racists and Nazis. Get rid of him before something really bad happens. Pence would be a nightmare but at least he would only make people poor to pay for benefits for the super rich rather than burning down the world like cretinious Trump.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
  31. Re:Pure Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It has been proven that it was a leak and not a hack. The files where copied locally using cp -R based on the time and date stamps.
    It was a 25MB per second copy(i.e. USB2.0).
    https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/2017/07/09/guccifer2-metadata-analysis/comment-page-1/

  32. Time for the daily by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Russian boogymen stole the election/influenced the election/meddled in the election despite the evidence being very circumstantial at best. Yet, in Politico this morning, we learned exactly how HRC stole the election from Bernie. Now THAT is real election rigging.

    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

  33. Re:First time an American President committed Trea by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 2

    or the Left needs to back-off because they are wasting everyone's time.

    That's hilarious, considering that a) the birther-in-chief is the current occupant of the WH, and b) it's not leftists shooting their mouth off you should worry about, but Mueller's actual investigation.

    --
    Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
  34. It was a leak and not a hack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It has been shown already to have been leak which is why the Democrats are not allowing an investigation of the servers themselves. The files where copied locally using cp -R based on their time and date stamps.. a 25MB per second copy(i.e. USB2.0).
    https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/2017/07/09/guccifer2-metadata-analysis/comment-page-1/

  35. Looking at it wrong by DCFusor · · Score: 2

    People, you're letting evil take you over here. Sure, in some eyes we dodged a bullet - but we also backed into a buzzsaw doing it. We "chose" between a corrupt elitist, and an immature buffoon - elitist. If we let that kinda thing divide us and distract attention from the fact that we really had no choice in the matter, evil wins. Yes, the deep state/MIC/IC hate the current guy - which in my opinion is one of the higher compliments - Oh, the moneyed interests in defense - and the press - and hollywood hate that one? Hmmm...Fascism is when the money runs the show...Hmmm. Totalitarianism is orthagonal, but often comes along for that ride. Hmmm.
    .
    Just sayin, we have huge issues with governance in the US, and while it's convienient to blame others (and fer sure they are involved) - it's not just the foreign influences that are the most important. They don't have any monopoly on telling us lies, and trying to blame all deception on an external cause is kinda vain. I seem to recall the old saying "fool me once, shame on you - fool my twice, shame on me". Well, we've been fooled again (apologies Who) and again for as long as I remember at age 64. How about taking some responsibility for that? Oh right, it's mostly immature kids here. You may now get off my lawn. Eisenhower had it right - and it was probably true before he said it.
    If you actually want to fix a problem, rather than just whine about it, it pays to define it correctly. Don't let hate - encouraged by people who don't have your interests at heart - win.
    Clearly, divide and conquer is at play here. And I don't think all that is external - only a few percent is.

    --
    Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    1. Re:Looking at it wrong by coastwalker · · Score: 1

      Very good points. At the end of the day the most significant result of Russian meddling is that society is more polarised and that is a lot harder to fix than whoever gets to be president for a while. The corporations and the rich still benefit the most whoever gets into power.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    2. Re:Looking at it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're overcomplicating things. Practically everybody hates Trump or at least thinks he's unfit, for the simple reason that he's a proven asshole and proved himself numerous times to be unfit for his office. Okay, there might be some conservatives who refuse to accept this, but in general there is not much doubt.

      It's pretty sad that you apparently believe, or at least seem to imply, that a guy like Trump could somehow make the US political system better...

  36. There's been one big change by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    in the past we didn't have a significant portion of the population willing to side with the Russians in order to achieve victory. 30 years ago just the allegations would have kept Trump (and Hilary) out of the Whitehouse. Folks were willing to ignore widespread election meddling just to get their man in office.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:There's been one big change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, all those Hillary supporters and DNC supporters don't seem to care that the Clintons and the DNC colluded with Russia, paying them $9 million for fake data on Trump, to influence the election. Whats worse is they used that fake data to take to a FISA court and wiretap Trump Tower during the election.

      I'm in agreement with you. Anyone who supported Hillary should be banned from being allowed to vote because they have shown their support for Russia over the interests of the US. Perhaps they thought they would get part of that $145 million Clintons got for setting State department policy while she was secretary of state.

      Note: All of what I claimed has evidence to back up. You insinuations of Trump and Russia colluding doesn't have evidence. You are a complete moron for bringing up this topic to bash Trump, when it has now been proven Clinton is ACTUALLY guilty of it. But then again you have hit peak stupidity.

    2. Re:There's been one big change by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      What, u joking bro? There were tons and tons of educated Americans who sided with Communism in the 1940s and 50s and 60s and 70s and 80s. Harry Dexter White was a Russian spy. Alger Hiss was a Russian spy. Robert Hansen was a Russian spy. They were all up and down the US government, and somehow we still won the Cold War. Ted Kennedy colluded with the Russians in the 1984 election. Let's not pretend this is something unprecedented. The only thing unprecedented is Russia's extremely poor geopolitical position, their shrinking economy. declining population, and the fact that they're surrounded by hostile American bases.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:There's been one big change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This meme being astroturfed is not gonna save the fake pres

    4. Re:There's been one big change by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      People have to trained to be gullible. Any time anything unfavourable to Trump comes out he decries to as fake news, and people started to think that way.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:There's been one big change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not really true. In the 50s, 60s and 70s there were a lot of Western sympathizers with the Soviet Union, certainly more than pro-Russia advocates now. Not that I think the comparison makes sense. people knew less about what was going on in the Soviet Union than what they can find out about Russia today, and the sympathizers of the Soviet Union had communist and socialist ideals. Nowadays primarily nazis sympathize with Putin, though there are also just a few who think that the recent Russia critique has gone overboard. (China is in a sense way more oppressive than Russia, for instance.)

    6. Re:There's been one big change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Football politics. As long as their team wins, it doesn't matter how. That's what our system has devolved into. It's been a slow, steady decline... no one incident can really be highlighted as the cause.

    7. Re:There's been one big change by farble1670 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Note: All of what I claimed has evidence to back up. You insinuations of Trump and Russia colluding doesn't have evidence. You are a complete moron for bringing up this topic to bash Trump, when it has now been proven Clinton is ACTUALLY guilty of it. But then again you have hit peak stupidity.

      Hi Russian troll. It's not going to work. Our eyes are open now.

  37. Changed my vote! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll say the Facebook ads convinced me to switch my vote.

    1. Re: Changed my vote! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah and since podestaâ(TM)s email was in fact broken into and leaked, itâ(TM)s all true. And redditors and 4chans have found lots of stuff illegal in there.

      But our lawyers and prosecutors and judges havenâ(TM)t. Weird.

      You can find some of the stuff yourself in those source documents. Do it. Youâ(TM)ll see.

  38. Re:Pure Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/guccifer-2-ngp-van-metadata-analysis/

  39. Re:First time an American President committed Trea by Arzaboa · · Score: 0

    You aren't part of the investigation, and its not over so there is no conclusion.

    The Russians taking out ads to target divisions in our society is an attack. It happened on our Cyber infrastructure. It can therefore be said it was a "Cyber Attack."

    Voting machines not online... are you suggesting they can't be attacked? I've found offline machines are usually more susceptible to a coordinated attack.

    The investigation is not about left or the right. The investigation into Russia started in early 2016. It doesn't matter who is president, the FBI investigates. The only difference is that you would have folks on the other side jumping on the bandwagon and having their news organization play it 24/7.

    We don't rush any investigations for the sake of the peanut gallery. Learning how propaganda affected our institutions is not a waste of our time.

    Just because you don't like whats on your news, doesn't mean the news is partisan. If you have a strong reaction to it, it may mean you are.

    --
    "No Branch!" - Poppi, Trolls

  40. Re:First time an American President committed Trea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's not sarcasm if your campaign is actively colluding with the cyberattacks and email thefts that you are praising as court documents show Moscow Donald did.

    WHAT court documents? There are no documents that show this or even suggest what you claim.

    I think you are making this all up, just like the "Golden Showers" dossier was made up and paid for by the democrats, then used by the FBI to justify surveillance of the Trump campaign so the Obama administration could "tap Trumps wires" (which we actually DO have documentation of).

  41. Re:So she lost because, Russia? by DCFusor · · Score: 0

    And she lost despite serious corruption, which was peripherally reported (districts with more D votes than registered voters discovered by Jill Stein) - and the arrogant attitude "why am I not 50 points ahead?" (which could be interpreted, we've rigged till we're blue in the face and it's not working though we greased all the right palms - why isn't it working?). While the MSM just mentioned it in passing, and amplified all reports true or false negative to the "other side".
    I think that's why the various investigations are hoping it'll all blow over, as it appears there is absolutely no one innocent - the Manaforts all lead back to the Podestas for example - so the truth benefits NO ONE IN POWER NOW. And so we won't hear it from them, QED.
    I'd note that just because one side is wrong, it doesn't make the other one right. False choice/dichotomy is totally in play here among most of you it seems.
    And corruption by one party to the game doesn't make all other corruption OK either. Wrong is wrong. But that's too hard for tiny minds to handle, seems most want a super oversimplification and fixing the blame is more important than fixing the problem. I think fixing the problem is a better way, even if it's hard.

    --
    Why guess when you can know? Measure!
  42. Re:Pure Treason by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

    I'm proud to be a patriotic American.

    We can tell, by your stupidity, obnoxiousness, and dogged attraction to your opinion, regardless of evidence to the contrary....

    --
    "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
  43. Re:Pure Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Evidence like indictments, arrests, guilty pleas, journalistic investigation, FBI investigations which uncover crimes?

    You mean all the evidence you are intentionally ignoring?

  44. Re:First time an American President committed Trea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What an ignorant piece of shit you must be. It's going to be a real bumpy few months in your trailer park.

  45. Contrived Distraction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From what should be the subject of conversation - the evidence of the rampant corruption in the deep state.

  46. Re:Pure Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, a Word Press blog definitely discredits the arrests, guilty plea, and indictments that Moscow Donald and co-conspirators have earned for colluding with Russia's attack on America.

  47. slashdot is propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No but there's plenty of evidence slashdot is Democratic PArty propaganda, which is much more dangerous than Putin.

    1. Re:slashdot is propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russian Putin-bot or traitor?

    2. Re:slashdot is propaganda by farble1670 · · Score: 0

      Hi Russian troll. We see you.

  48. USians got Trump because... by Zombie+Ryushu · · Score: 0

    USians got Trump because Obama didn't reign in Corruption in the Political Class, fix FDR style guards on the Economy, and basically governed as a Center-Right Republican on Economic issues, and Center Left Democrat on Social issues.

    Because he failed to stablize the declining middle class, allowed the decimation of Unions, and because of the Citizens United Ruling, it opened the door for our elections to be bought. This has been happening because the US have basically a far right government in Congress and it's driving the US into Medieval Fudalism. The combination of Economic Collapse, and of the presence of a Black President galvanized elements of White Nationalism that have been bulding since the Bush/Gore Election, and Septermber 11th 2001.

    The Abortion and Gay thing, and religious fanaticism issues are actually issues of Whites being able to outbreed non-Whites. So the Conservative republicans are resorting to violence, and fraud now to rig elections. It is the collapse of Democracy in motion, and it will likely take a war to fix it. Maybe. History has a way of surprising everyone.

    But as long as the Jim Bakkers and the Lance Wallanaus and the Rick Wiles exist, they present a threat to democracy because they represent the Christian Taliban.

    1. Re:USians got Trump because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This rant shows how closed minded you. You and your closed mindset are the problem with America today.

    2. Re:USians got Trump because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Peak stupidity hit again.

      Obama attacked the middle class, used the IRS against them, destroyed their healthcare while dramatically raising taxes on them (they argued in court Obamacare was a tax).

      Trump comes along and says things that will HELP the middle class. None of the other 20 people running were willing to do so. ANY one of the could have EASILY won repeating what Trump was saying, but helping the middle class is so bizarre to them they just couldn't do it.

      And you are upset that a politician won based on helping working families. I really do find it odd when people complain about government doing things to help those who pay the most in taxes and work the hardest.

    3. Re:USians got Trump because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump comes along and says things that will HELP the middle class. None of the other 20 people running were willing to do so.

      In other words: All of the other 20 people running were trying to be honest. Trump lied. And who did you choose ? The lier. Because he told you what you WANTED to hear, not what you NEEDED to hear.

      The problem with the U.S. is not Trump, or the Clintons, or Obama, or even the russians. The problem is that half the U.S. population is made up of fucking uneducated, clueless, gullible, inbred retards who believe anything a fucking loud mouth notorious manipulator says, anything the read on facebook or twitter.

      Three fucking million people in the U.S. All you had to do is find two decent and competent presidental canditates TWO ! Out of 300 MILLIONS !

      And what do you come up with ? Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. For fuck's sake.

      You people are beyond pathetic. You are beyond help, or hope.

    4. Re:USians got Trump because... by DCFusor · · Score: 1

      "And what do you come up with ? Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. For fuck's sake." Pretty much what I was saying. If all you have is the choice of losers, it's not much of a choice. We didn't get here because honest people were doing the vetting of the candidates, eh?

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
  49. Re:First time an American President committed Trea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What grinds my gears is that you fucking turncoats line up to defend Moscow Donald's treasonous collusion with Russia's ongoing attack on America.

  50. Re:Only Moscow Donald spread racist birther lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you're giving too much credit to Moscow Donald. He's a Russian puppet, a Russian stooge or any other number of things... but using the work Agent would imply that he somehow knew what he was doing. The man is one of the stupidest pieces of garbage on the planet. People like to pretend that he's playing some kind of 4 Dimensional chess but the man could not win a game on a board where there's a big square lit up to say "Put Piece Here to Win."

  51. Re:Pure Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This comment has been sponsored by the NRA, Russia, and the GOP.

    "Undermining America, so you don't have to!"

  52. Re:First time an American President committed Trea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Orange Turnip writing "He tappin' muh wires" on a piece of paper is not proof of wiretapping. We know for a fact that Trump pulled that accusation out of thin air and there was zero corroborating evidence. The fact that his administration is leakier than a sieve is not proof of any nefarious deeds. Wow, dishonest Republican party does something dishonest.

  53. Re: First time an American President committed Tre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The "Golden Showers" dossier came from the UK. The British are trying to undermine our democracy! British collusion!

  54. Re: First time an American President committed Tre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Russians paid to have shitty memes placed on Facebook. OMG "Cyber Attack"! They're going to destroy our democracy with their memes!!!

  55. Re:First time an American President committed Trea by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    When your gears are all ground up, will you then STFU? Because your phony patriotism is starting to smell funny.

  56. Re:First time an American President committed Trea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "The investigation into Russia started in early 2016"
    It sure did and the Obama administration had hard evidence of Russia targeting the election and did absolutely nothing about it. The excuse for not doing anything was supposedly to keep from derailing the Presidential election. And that was a fine reason because they totally expected Clinton to win the election. And had Clinton won the lection the whole matter would have been dropped. When Clinton lost the outgoing administration waited until the last few days of Obama's term to seize Russian properties and boot 35 Russian diplomats and officials out of the country in retaliation. Had Clinton won the election there would have been no mention of changing or eliminating the Electoral College. Had Clinton won their would have been no mention of the Clinton Foundations habit of accepting millions of dollars in donations from foreign representatives trying to buy access to Clinton when she was Secretary of State. There would have been no mention of Bill Clinton accepting $500,000 from Russian lobbyists to give one speech. Trump is an idiot but Clinton was a bought and paid for pawn who would have did her masters bidding. The people who are putting all their energy into obstructing or bringing down Trump need to realize that anybody they support in the future will face the same level animosity where no tactic is out of bounds. Trump's detractors have decided he is so bad that the system itself must be put aside all for the sake of getting rid of him. They then foolishly believe the system and rules can be brought back into play going forward. Not to mention that these same people don't seem to realize that Trump elected to a 4 year term and not declared Emperor for Life.

  57. Re:Pure Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't mind him, he's just salty that the most overtly racist president in recent history is a russian plant.

  58. Re:First time an American President committed Trea by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The Clintons are the ones who should be worried about Mueller's actual investigation. Not because of Mueller's intent, of course (never!!) but because of the side effects of all the looking into things that is coming out.

    Also, the 'birther' thing originated from Hillary Clinton's primary campaign against Obama. Yes, it's boring arcana and nothing new with regard to the Clinton Crime Family, but it's the deal.

  59. Nice Straw man by rsilvergun · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    they didn't side with Russian, they sided with Communism. Never mind the fact that Russia was not and never has been communist. They were a dictatorship that happened to use communist rhetoric. And then there's the fact that the American communists were a small minority even in the left wing.

    Nice politics troll though. The part at the end was a little odd though. Are you working for the Ruskies?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Nice Straw man by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Wow. We have a True Communist here. "Russia was never Communist, they didn't even get it dirty. We can stiiiiillll try it if we want! Can we? Can we?"

      What are you, a fucking Trotskyite?

    2. Re:Nice Straw man by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      It is merely an honest evaluation of Russia's geopolitical situation, which existed long before Trump and the current Red Scare Part II. Some of us actually follow military affairs, you know. But hey, don't trust me, look at the facts. Russia is hemmed in and losing badly. To add to it, war hysteria is being deliberately whipped up and educated people who should damn well know better are falling for the "blame the dirty foreigners" narrative.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:Nice Straw man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice Straw man....Russia was not really communist

      The American Left is a movement of projection. Nothing more.

    4. Re: Nice Straw man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, DNS-and-Bind is working for the Russians, just look through his post history. Always follows the Kremlin line.

    5. Re: Nice Straw man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of projection...

  60. Re:Trump is Russia's big play in the U.S.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently you've never turned on a television or opened a newspaper in your life. The idea that Trump is trying to make the US better is laughable. The man hasn't succeeded at a single thing in his entire time in office, despite controlling both the House and the Senate. He can't pass any legislation... all he can do is write executive orders that get blocked. The only thing he has succeeded at doing is staffing various positions with the least capable people you have ever met. DeVos in education, the new Nasa guy... not a scientist. The EPA guy? Climate change denier and someone who has sued the EPA before... yes... perfect.

  61. Re:First time an American President committed Trea by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    Are you talking to yourself again, A.C.?

  62. Re:First time an American President committed Trea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The proof was in the emails, you dumb motherfucker. Go back to your safe-space and work on your coloring books, idiot.

  63. Re:troll article? WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "So the russians disrupted the election? that's news to me. Slashdot has become the biggest piece of garbage masquerading as a tech web site since time began.
    This may be the last article i read here...

    Or not."

    Definitely not, after all you're one of the Russian trolls working the US citizens.
    People, you didn't think they weren't HERE as well?

  64. Re: So she lost because, Russia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The biggest scam of all.

  65. Re:First time an American President committed Trea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly, the proof of Trump's treason is in his emails, where his campaign explicitly colludes with Russia's attack on America.

  66. Hillary's Uranium Deal With Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    * brouught the Clintons Millions in comissions
    * brought Russia access to potential nuke material.

    How is that ?

  67. Re:First time an American President committed Trea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The court documents show crimes from people affiliated with Trump that pre-date their association with the Trump campaign. That's an absolutely enormous difference from what you are describing.

    Worse, the collusion with Russia appears to be both overstated and misdirected. The Hillary campaign created and pushed the Russian dossier that started the FBI investigation, which itself was collusion with Russian informants paid by Hillary to make apparently false accusations on top of her already corrupt sale of 20% of the United State's uranium to Russia.

  68. "disrupted" the election? Oh please... by dbrueck · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'm neither pro-Russia nor pro-Trump, but the whole narrative has become so ridiculously twisted. Replace 'Russia' with 'Britain', and the story would be about how an allied whistleblower uncovered the shocking story of the Democratic primary being rigged. Where's the outrage about that?

    That Russia has wanted, and has tried to encourage, the breakup of the U.S. for decades is not news (Igor Panarin has very publicly made a career out of it). And buying ads to exacerbate the existing divisions hardly seems like an act of war or anything.

    Russia's big "crime" was that they exposed wrongdoing of certain people within the DNC. As in, Russia exposed people circumventing the democratic process. Think about it: for all the brouhaha, by exposing that sort of thing they were actually *helping* strengthen democracy in the US. LOL! Down is up! Up is down!

    Now I don't for a moment believe their motivations were pure or pro-US in any way, but it's so absurd to talk about all their evil meddling when the main thing they did was reveal the foul play that was already going on. Sheesh.

    1. Re:"disrupted" the election? Oh please... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The problem is not that they exposed wrong-doing, it's the way they did it. They exposed Hilary in a way that caused maximum damage to her campaign, even though in the end it didn't result in any prosecutions. At the same time they kept quiet about Trump and his staff's illegal dealings with Russia, which at least one of them has now admitted and taken a plea bargain for.

      Are you really so naive as to think that Russia was trying to help the US, rather than get the guy they thought would weaken their biggest rival elected?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:"disrupted" the election? Oh please... by greythax · · Score: 1

      Let me help you reconnect with reality here. If the UK HACKED a major political party and then tried to influence the people of america with a massive ad campaign around election time, they would damn sure be on our shitlist. Any country would. Sanctions would surely be on the table. And if the winning candidate then pushed to remove those sanctions, only a moron wouldn't at least investigate the possibility of the two conspiring together.

      You know how we look at whatever little dictatorship in other countries and wonder, "why do those people stand for that?" We feed ourselves a narrative that they are afraid of the regime, and I am sure that is part of it. But there are a large number of them who are self deluded too. This post, right here, this is how it starts. With people who are so anxious to be on the winning side that they will justify even the most egregious display of corruption as "just politics" and "false narratives".

    3. Re:"disrupted" the election? Oh please... by dbrueck · · Score: 1

      The problem is not that they exposed wrong-doing, it's the way they did it.

      I think that's a valid point. But it also seems to be part of what has been lost in the noise. And literally it seems like the attention ratio of "how dare Russia do that" to "how dare people try to rig the Dem primary" is 1000:1. I'm not at all against there being a lot of discussion about Russia's actions, but it also seems wrong that the underlying narrative of a semi-rigged primary got so little attention.

      They exposed Hilary in a way that caused maximum damage to her campaign, even though in the end it didn't result in any prosecutions.

      And, importantly, so far we don't have much evidence to suggest that it affected the outcome of the election either (there are many articles about this, here's one chosen at random and because it's not from Fox News or National Review: https://www.voanews.com/a/ex-u...). So until we see stronger data (or any data for that matter) showing that their influence made Clinton lose the election, it seems crazy that so much ado is made about their actions and that there is so little outcry about what was going on with the Dem primary.

      At the same time they kept quiet about Trump and his staff's illegal dealings with Russia, which at least one of them has now admitted and taken a plea bargain for.

      Woah, hang on. That's not what has happened yet. Papadopoulos took a plea bargain. His crime was that he lied to FBI investigators when they /asked/ him about stuff. As CNN reported it, "Papadopoulos copped to lying to the FBI about the timing of his contacts with Russians." Is it a crime to lie like that? Yes. Is this the tip of the iceberg? Could be. Has he admitted to illegal dealings with Russia? No.

      Are you really so naive as to think that Russia was trying to help the US, rather than get the guy they thought would weaken their biggest rival elected?

      I'm trying to have a level-headed conversation here. Instead of making it personal, let's just stick to the discussion itself - I'm sure you can argue a position on its merits alone. Anyway, no, I am not as naive as you suggested - that's what that "Now I don't for a moment believe their motivations were pure or pro-US in any way" part meant. :)

      Thanks for the reply!

    4. Re:"disrupted" the election? Oh please... by coastwalker · · Score: 1

      Most democrats would agree that the DNC and Hilary are corrupt rubbish so you score no significant points by making a big deal of it. The problem with the Russian intervention is that they promoted violent nationalism and this is far more damaging to society than which flavour of corporate politician gets elected. Trumps main problem is that he encourages division, most of the rest of his ghastly legislation will get fixed by the next corporate president but the hatred for minorities will take a lot longer to sort.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    5. Re:"disrupted" the election? Oh please... by dbrueck · · Score: 1

      To me it seems like you're illustrating the exact point I'm trying to make: you're upset over the Russian meddling. I get that. I don't even disagree with it*. But where's the outrage over what was going on within the DNC itself? The purpoted "hack" wasn't stealing the DNC's money or erasing donor lists or anything like it. Rather it was revealing the nefarious deeds of people who, themselves, were essentially doing *the exact same thing* in that they were disrupting the democratic process. It's possible to be upset about both the Russians and the rigging of the Democratic primary; I just find it interesting that the outrage is so lopsided.

      * I feel somewhat upset, but the U.S. has a pretty lousy track record in this department and is equally guilty of trying to influence elections in other nations (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... to get you started, but there's a heck of a lot more in our meddling history than just that).

      This post, right here, this is how it starts. With people who are so anxious to be on the winning side that they will justify even the most egregious display of corruption as "just politics" and "false narratives".

      I'm not sure how to connect what I said ("I'm neither pro-Russia nor pro-Trump") to your conclusion that I'm somehow anxious to be on the winning side - I'm not even sure the concept of a winning side makes sense here.

      To recap my point though:
      (a) it's quite rich of people in the US to be in an uproar about a foreign nation trying to influence our election since we do that all the time. We've been doing it for decades. It's super hypocritical of us to be all wound up by it - although it'd be really great if this uproar leads to us not doing that to other countries anymore (Golden Rule and all).
      (b) why is so little attention paid to what they actually exposed? Namely, the rigging of the DNC's primary. This is a huge, huge deal. Any real outrage about subverting the democratic process must also include being just as upset about this. And yet it's getting so little attention. Why is that? Is it because focusing on that will force us to answer difficult questions? Is it just easier to point the finger at some far away adversary? I'm genuinely curious.

    6. Re:"disrupted" the election? Oh please... by dbrueck · · Score: 1

      Most democrats would agree that the DNC and Hilary are corrupt rubbish

      Is that really the case though? I'm not disputing it so much as asking. I'm neither a Dem nor a Rep, so I don't really have a feel, but if I called myself a Democrat and supported that party (including, probably, giving money to it), I'd be more than a little pissed to find out the candidate selection process was rigged or that people were trying to rig it.

      And to be clear, this has nothing to do with Democrats per se - the same applies equally to Republicans and corruption in their party: isn't that the sort of thing that should be making people rethink their allegiance to that party? Or if not that, at least some massive, overt introspection and damage control. I dunno, looking at things from a historical perspective, this seems like the kind of event that triggers the creation of new political parties. I guess a big part of it could also be less about allegiance to one's party and more about opposition to the other main party.

      The problem with the Russian intervention is that they promoted violent nationalism and this is far more damaging to society than which flavour of corporate politician gets elected.

      Yeah, good point - I don't disagree, but it's also hard to give Russia too much credit in this respect. The deep divide was already there, including elements of violent nationalism. And no matter how many ads they bought, it's a drop in the bucket compared to all of the extreme anti-other-side stuff that was already floating around online anyway.

    7. Re:"disrupted" the election? Oh please... by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      I agree with you, that correlation does not mean causation in this case. But this 'hackers who disrupted the U.S. presidential election' being treated as a foregone conclusion is just more propaganda.

      The DNC wants us to believe that their emails were stolen by Russian hackers, and expects us to accept at face value the word of proven cheats and liars, even when they refuse to have the server in question turned over to the FBI for forensic analysis. We're supposed to ignore the mysterious, still unsolved, murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich, and Julian Assange's bounty for information regarding it. Assange, who stopped just short of admitting that Rich leaked the emails in interviews.

      And then, while hyperventilating about Russian hackers, in the next breath they want to claim that there is no evidence that Secretary Clinton's personal email server was ever compromised, and thus SAP and other top secret information exposed. No, nothing to see there, move along, and only pay attention to the Trump-Russia collusion accusations that still aren't substantiated. It'd be laughable, if so many weren't eagerly sucking down the kool aide.

      But as to the point you made, even if we assume that Russians leaked all the information, including Podesta and the DNC emails, what does it suggest about about the integrity of our political process when getting to see the dirty dealings, the man behind the curtain so to speak, is 'damaging and disruptive'? What does it mean when the truth becomes the establishment's greatest threat, and thus a weakness to be exploited by our nation's adversaries?

    8. Re:"disrupted" the election? Oh please... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      The leaks (DNC emails were not hacked but leaked) proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Democrat party was corrupt to the core. You'd be shouting "LOL prove it" if this was not the case.

      Wasn't Manafort with the Trump campaign for just a couple or three months? And they booted him for appearing shady? I had an employee once that ended up in prison, twice. Am I responsible for his actions? At the time nobody wanted to work for Trump, and Manafort was an experienced campaign manager (Bob Dole in 1996) who had experience with delegates, an area where Trump was sorely lacking. So he wasnâ(TM)t even hired for his Russia connections, but because he had experience in the areas they needed help with.

      Manafort leads to Podesta Group investigation which is already done. The Podesta Group leads to Uranium One investigation which Mueller has to recuse himself from (because he was part of it and is conflicted). Enter Jeff Sessions. Uranium One investigation leads to Clinton Foundation which leads to convictions, jailtime and one for the history books. End of story.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    9. Re:"disrupted" the election? Oh please... by greythax · · Score: 1

      Firstly, when you put the word hack in quotes, you are giving a big pass to a foreign power that had an agenda to control our election, and thought the best was of executing that was to choose one side to target. It's as good as an admission that they want that side to loose. That is not something to be minimized. It is a very very big deal. Should we be doing it to other countries, no. It's a bad thing, a very bad thing.

      But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be outraged when it is done to us. That attitude is just the same as saying "Meh, I am ok with it." I for one am not. Any rational person shouldn't be.

      Now, as to what the hillary campaign did, it was not right, but you are talking about a party, not a whole political system. There is a serious difference between a primary and a popular vote. Because I am registered independent in my state, I am not even ALLOWED to vote in the primaries for either party. Why? Because parties (the organization) are not part of your government. They are very much private entities.

      Someone influencing the superdelegates from inside financially is VERY DIFFERENT from someone potentially going to another country and saying, "Hey, help me fix this election, and I will drop your sanctions." Is it more clear now? One is corruption, the other is treason. Are they both bad? Yes. Are they equal? No friggin way. By suggesting otherwise, you are loosing sight of the bigger issue.

      That being that one of the 3 co-equal branches of government might be beholden to a hostile foreign power. That is why we are freaking out and at least want some answers. Now that doesn't seem so irrational, does it?

    10. Re:"disrupted" the election? Oh please... by dbrueck · · Score: 1

      Firstly, when you put the word hack in quotes, you are giving a big pass

      Nah, that was just me not being very clear, sorry - I was being disdainful because, literally for months, the headlines were things like "Russia hacked the election", which is false.

      That is not something to be minimized. It is a very very big deal. Should we be doing it to other countries, no. It's a bad thing, a very bad thing.

      Agreed!

      But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be outraged when it is done to us. That attitude is just the same as saying "Meh, I am ok with it." I for one am not. Any rational person shouldn't be.

      Wait, are you saying that there are exactly two allowed emotional responses? Either total outrage or "meh, I am ok with it" ? There's nothing in between? That doesn't make any sense to me, but I might be misunderstanding you - apologies if that is the case.

      I don't like the fact that Russia did this, but it's hard for me to feel outrage because there's no evidence to suggest it actually changed the outcome, it so far seems like a fairly ham-fisted attempt on their part and, above all, it's hard to muster outrage when this seems like a pretty obvious consequence of our own actions. We hack other countries - even our own allies - so of course people are going to do this to us.

      Now, as to what the hillary campaign did, it was not right, but you are talking about a party, not a whole political system. There is a serious difference between a primary and a popular vote. Because I am registered independent in my state, I am not even ALLOWED to vote in the primaries for either party. Why? Because parties (the organization) are not part of your government. They are very much private entities.

      The Russian hack was perpetuated against the DNC. The primary rigging was perpetuated against the DNC. Both were an attempt to affect the election (and in that respect both failed). That goes back to what I mentioned above - that too often this has been spun as Russia hacking the US election, which is simply not true, at least based on what has come to light so far.

      Someone influencing the superdelegates from inside financially is VERY DIFFERENT from someone potentially going to another country and saying, "Hey, help me fix this election, and I will drop your sanctions."

      Sure, those two things are very different. For example, one major way in which they are different is that one of them happened and the other did not. What is the point in contrasting something that did happen and conjecture about what could have happened?

      Is it more clear now? One is corruption, the other is treason. Are they both bad? Yes. Are they equal? No friggin way. By suggesting otherwise, you are loosing sight of the bigger issue.

      But here's the problem: you've gone a couple of steps beyond what has actually happened to arrive at some possible scenario (out of many), and are getting wound up about something that is, as of yet, pure fiction. Based on what we know so far:
      1) Someone didn't go to another country to elicit Russian help.
      2) Someone didn't ask the Russian government to "fix" (as in, rig the outcome of) the election
      3) Someone didn't offer a deal that would result in the removal of sanctions

      I mean, I can do that too: Trump throwing Twitter trantrums is VERY DIFFERENT from Hillary potentially going to Russia and saying that if they assassinate him for her she will drop all their sanctions and give them free cookies for life. Are they both bad? Yes. Are they equal? No friggin way.

    11. Re: "disrupted" the election? Oh please... by greythax · · Score: 1

      Ah, but that is the whole issue, for something that didn't happen, there seems to be a lot of evidence that it might have. Hence the investigation. Hence the reporting about the hacks. You are confusing us following information coming out of an ongoing investigation with some kind of conclusion. Originally you pissed the question of why people were so much more interested in one, rather than the other. Well, here we are. Once had vastly different consequences if it turns out to be true. I wish i could look at all of this and confidently say it didn't happen, but to my mind at least, there is enough here to keep weighing the evidence.

    12. Re: "disrupted" the election? Oh please... by dbrueck · · Score: 1

      Ah, but that is the whole issue, for something that didn't happen, there seems to be a lot of evidence that it might have.

      Ok, I'd like to read up on the evidence that suggests that there might have been an offer of sanction removal/reduction in exchange for rigging the election. Can you share a link please? Outside of a huge amount of conjecture, so far there has been very little evidence that I've seen, so I'm eager to be corrected.

      You are confusing us following information coming out of an ongoing investigation with some kind of conclusion.

      Not at all. Rather, it seems like the conclusion was drawn from day one, and ever since it's been a hunt for information to support that conclusion. To me this is very much like the Republicans and Benghazi, and in some respects the Clinton email server - settle on a conclusion and look for evidence to support it. In both cases it's wrongheaded and it's the opposite of a data-driven investigation.

      Originally you pissed the question of why people were so much more interested in one, rather than the other. Well, here we are.

      Well, sorta - you've shifted away from the two things I was talking about when I posted. The first was this notion that "Russia hacked the US election". The second was that people were rigging the Democratic primaries. The first is false, the second one is true. And yet the first one was in the spotlight for months while the second has received very little airtime - it's almost been swept under the rug (although it does get some coverage, e.g. https://www.politico.com/magaz...).

      In parallel to, but independent of, the false story that Russia hacked the US election is the story about interaction between the Trump campaign and Russia. That one is interesting too, but I wasn't talking about it.

      And so far that one isn't exactly turning up any evidence of anything illegal on the part of Trump either, although it's early in the process still. So far all that's really come to light is that Trump shows poor judgement and either hubris or naivete - but we've known that all along, right? Unfortunately being a jerk isn't illegal.

      Once had vastly different consequences if it turns out to be true. I wish i could look at all of this and confidently say it didn't happen, but to my mind at least, there is enough here to keep weighing the evidence.

      Awesome, I'd love to see some of the evidence that points to, say, treasonous behavior. And to be clear, hopeful conjecture != evidence, of course. Thanks!

  69. DNC is problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem is the DNC, end of story.

    They rigged their primary.
    Started a civil war to keep slavery.
    Filibustered civil rights to keep blacks from voting.
    Kept a KKK leader as a top Senator for 60 years, and had his as a mentor for their presidential candidate.
    Had another raists' son, Al Gore Jr. as another one of their presidential candidate.
    Looked the other way as Winestein molested hundreds of women because he gave them money.
    Lied to get a FISA warrant to spy on an opposing campaign.
    Used the IRS to target people based on political views.
    Sold 20% of US Uranium to Russia for bribes to themselves.
    Blamed current president for colluding with Russia to affect election, while THEY paid Russia $9 million to help them win the election.
    And just yesterday put out an email saying if you want a job with DNC IT, don't be a white straight male.

    They are literally evil incarnate at this point. GOP isn't great, but at least they don't purposely attack the middle class for having different viewpoints.

  70. Re:Trump is Russia's big play in the U.S.? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    Apparently you've never turned on a television or opened a newspaper in your life.

    I turned on the Television, but quickly discovered that the material you can view there is called 'programs.' I didn't really want to get programmed.

    And no, I am not interested in buying a copy of your newspaper. Have you tried selling it on the mall down by the Student Union? Lots of gullible freshmen there...

  71. GET SOME REAL NEWS, BOYS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The American 1% lie to you 99% of the time. CNN, NYTIMES, WaPO - all proven LIARS.

    At RT.COM, they simply tell the truth, and that itches all the American 1%ers massively.

    E.g, https://www.rt.com/usa/408594-rt-blamed-clinton-health-conspiracy/

  72. Re:First time an American President committed Trea by mean+pun · · Score: 1

    Where 'started' probably means something like 'the Clinton staff looked into it as part of oppo research when Hilary was running against Obama, but dropped it as insane nonsense.'

    But even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that Hillary ever uttered the phrase 'birth certificate' in this context, does that mean it is suddenly not a sadly laughable conspiracy theory? Because Hilary would somehow have blessed it?

    My estimate of the US voter has never been as low as in the last few years. In any sensible democracy DJT the politician would have sunk without a trace purely for peddling the birther theories, not to mention at least 10 other things at the same level of sad insanity.

  73. Its all BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Listen, Hacking 101 - Change your IP address and MAC address.

    Everybody knows this and nation states AUTOMATE the process just to make sure. All the claims are that IP addresses show it was Russia? It's a bunch of Bull.

  74. CNN. The Economist, NY TIMES: 1% LIARS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of these elitist Rags where all too happy to support GWB's criminal war lies in the run-up to the Iraq war.

    The MIC and Bush painted Iraq and Saddam Hussein into the darkest possible picture:

    * Their SCUD missiles could magically reach Europe
    * They had super-duper powerful chemical agents (remeber that Colin Powell vial-wielding in front of the UN ?)
    * Somehow they were doing ultra-nasty things with "yellow cake" from Niger.

    ALL LIES.

    In truth:

    Israel wanted Iraq to be destroyed for being a NUSIANCE during the 1990 war. Then Iraq shot some highly unprecise SCUDs to Israel, which is the max range of these 1949-age missiles. So the NY banksters lobbied GWB to destroy Iraq for Israel with all sorts of lies. The media complied and parroted all of it in 2003.

    Iraq turned from a modern society where women had some rights into a zone of brutish religious nutcase mass murdering. All due to U.S. destruction of the Iraqi security system.

    WELL DONE NEW YORK TIMES !

    Honest people go to RT.COM for their news.

    1. Re:CNN. The Economist, NY TIMES: 1% LIARS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeh rightho Boris, sounds believable, the honnest RT. LMAO, is Putin using cut price shills now, I guess now he has fucked the economy, he cant afford competant shills anymore.
      Sad.

  75. Hillary Clinton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She was of course "all for this and for more wars". Because the MIC and the general war industry pays nicely.

    Now the war industry is offended their candidate did not win. That is basically all.

    The rest is a bunch of "the Russkies did it" PARANOIA.

    1. Re: Hillary Clinton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Youâ(TM)re both twits, Israel did not want the disaster which destabilized the entire Middle East (where they have to live). and Hillaryâ(TM)s vote was pure political cowardice. She expected a no vote would be portrayed as anti American, against the troops unpatriotic etc. The simplest explanations are usually the most accurate.

  76. Re:First time an American President committed Trea by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 0

    Just because someone on the Trump campaign had contact with Russians means nothing

    Not just "someone"

  77. Re:First time an American President committed Trea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Taking out ads alone should not be considered a "Cyber Attack". It is also incorrect for some politicians to suggest that such a "Cyber Attack" is an act of war. Ads are a form of speech and in a country where free speech is valued it will be difficult to regulate and block speech no matter the actual or assumed origin.

    I have no problem with your premise that an investigation should be non-partisan. But, within the last few years the Snowden and Wikileaks materials have shown proof that the FBI and the Intelligence Community routinely act outside of the Constitution. I'm sure that the Russian Government does not have the best intentions. However, that does not mean that the FBI are the pinnacle of truth because there are internal corrupting forces at work and some of these organizations operate on their own agenda. Sometimes that goes against the interest of citizens. So the question is: Who watches the watchmen?

  78. Re:So she lost because, Russia? by erapert · · Score: 0

    Fallacy: tu-quoque. Please try again with a valid argument.

  79. Re:First time an American President committed Trea by greythax · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Also, the 'birther' thing originated from Hillary Clinton's primary campaign against Obama. Yes, it's boring arcana and nothing new with regard to the Clinton Crime Family, but it's the deal.

    Or, you know, that is just more fake news from the mouth of the president.

    Jeez the discourse on this site has reached a new low. People spouting half assed conspiracy theories used to be modded down, not modded up.

  80. Re:First time an American President committed Trea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The FBI filed a FISA warrant to wiretap Paul Manifort, IN Trump Tower while he was the campaign manager. We have court evidence of this, the FISA warrant.

    Trump did not make it up, its fact. Obama's DOJ wiretapped Trump's campaign during the election. Not even debatable at this point. The question is, did they use the fake documents from Russia as evidence, Clinton, Obama, and Comey all knew they were fake and it was the FBI that requested the wire tap. In this case Comey is in a shit load of trouble if he knew it was requested (he already lied under oath about not wiretapping which was a lie) If he got a warrant with knowingly falsified evidence, it will be worse for him.

  81. Re:First time an American President committed Trea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Taking out ads alone should not be considered a "Cyber Attack". It is also incorrect for some politicians to suggest that such a "Cyber Attack" is an act of war. Ads are a form of speech and in a country where free speech is valued it will be difficult to regulate and block speech no matter the actual or assumed origin.

    I have no problem with your premise that an investigation should be non-partisan. But, within the last few years the Snowden and Wikileaks materials have shown proof that the FBI and the Intelligence Community routinely act outside of the US Constitution. I'm sure that the Russian Government does not have the best intentions. However, that does not mean that the FBI are the pinnacle of truth because there are internal corrupting forces at work and some of these organizations operate on their own agenda. Sometimes that goes against the interest of citizens. So the question is: Who watches the watchmen?

  82. Re:Pure Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your logical fallacy is called "argument to authority" and its the basis of every totalitarian shit-fest ever. No, "17 intelligence agencies" are not to be believed just because they say so (and even their number turns out to be a lie), no the "authorities" are not to be believed just because they say so.

    The only thing that counts is actual physical evidence, which the blog you so look down upon actually provides, while the "authorities" do not, using the oldest ever cop-out of a tyrant: "trust us, we are smarter then you, we have secret knowledge you do not, believe us not your lying eyes and whatever you do don't you ever dare to check our claims or we will label you a traitor (or a Russian bot in this case)".

    The history is full of people persecuted by "authorities" for imaginary crimes using imaginary evidence when they become inconvenient to those in power. It is also full of lynch mobs burning people on the stake for mere accusation of imaginary crimes and all it took is sufficient hate and gullibility, something you apparently have in abundance.

    You should also note that in the nascent Nazi Germany, everyone who was pointing out holes in the fascist world-view was labelled a "communist" or a "jewish" agitator (or a "bot" in today's parlance) and dismissed out of hand. The proponents of Russia-gate have now essentially achieved parity with the early Nazis in this regard....

     

  83. Re:So she lost because, Russia? by GrumpySteen · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yet multiple investigations have turned up absolutely no substantial evidence that she did anything illegal.

    Meanwhile, Trump's associates are bailing out left and right when proof of their wrongdoing is found and members are starting to get arrested and indicted for real crimes.

    You have a hilariously stupid definition of "less so"

  84. Re:First time an American President committed Trea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looking at all of the posts with "Moscow Donald", I notice they have similar word usage and grammar. It's almost as if they were written by a bot.

    If this is an actual person, I have to wonder how it feels to fail the Turing Test so spectacularly...

  85. Re:Pure Treason by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    A blog post 'discredits' something that has not and never will happen? You have a rather frisky imagination. Have you considered contacting Amazon? They publish a lot of stuff these days as eBooks that in the old days would have had to be self-published.

  86. Not proven [Re:Pure Treason] by XXongo · · Score: 1

    It has been proven that it [meaning the DNC hack] was a leak and not a hack.

    Nope. One researcher claimed that it was a leak and not a hack, but the evidence to show that was weak. The Nation (which was the first mainstream outlet to publish those charges first) later published a second article pointing out the weaknesses in the case made by the first article: https://www.thenation.com/arti...

    The files where copied locally using cp -R based on the time and date stamps. It was a 25MB per second copy(i.e. USB2.0).

    So, what the metadata showed was that at some point the data was copied at 25MBits/second. What wasn't shown, however, was at what stage in the hack this transfer speed happened. The files could have been stolen off a server at one speed, but then copied to another file at a higher speed sometime before being released. 25 MBits/second isn't necessarily the speed at which they were initially copied.

    also, note that this is MegaBITS per second, not bytes. In fact, high speed internet connections do reach and exceed this speed, so the analysis doesn't even particularly show that the files weren't stolen across an internet connection.

    So, bottom line, the metadata analysis, in this case, was interesting but didn't really prove anything, and most particularly, didn't show that the leak was internal rather than external.

    1. Re:Not proven [Re:Pure Treason] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, its a misdirection on the Nations' (under an intense and unrelenting pressure from those fatally invested in Russia-gate) and your part.

      The actual damning bit unearthed by these forensic analysts stems from the research of the nature of the insertion of Cyrillic strings into the metadata, which was discovered to NOT have happened by accident and of which there is only one reasonable explanation: Gucifer 2.0 "persona" purposefully and deliberately attempted to implicate the Russians and while doing so screwed up due to an unexpected and obscure behaviour of Microsoft Word internal data formats, thus leaving undeniable trail of the actions performed on the documents.

      The transfer rate was merely a circumstantial but suggestive bit of evidence to reinforce the above conclusion of deliberate fabrication of the "Russian involvement" based on the primary discovery.

      Note that unlike the "official" mythos, the files and the software in question are easily available and you can replicate the research and the results yourself. That is the difference between a political witch-hunt conducted by the "authorities" (all of whom are incidentally heavily invested in one outcome as are the political forces that sponsor them) and actual investigative effort, conducted by "a pitiful" blog which holds to old-fashioned silly notions like as "reproducibility", "public access" and "peer-review" of empirical evidence and research.

      But then again, what is mere truth in a face of an insane military-industrial-intelligence-security-media juggernaut hell bent on vast increases in profits and power...

      Not like history has anything to teach about this stuff!

    2. Re: Not proven [Re:Pure Treason] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Definitely no Russians then? And we can take your word for it? Phew that is a relief, there I was thinking Russia's leaders were trying to damage western societies to distract from their own plundering and incompetence and now I don't have to worry at all.

  87. Re: Pure Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You appear to be a Russian plant.

  88. Re: Only Moscow Donald spread racist birther lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We now know that the anti-Trump spam on these birds are actually part of the Russian trolling campaign. Thanks, Ivan!

  89. Re: Pure Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for your input, Vlad.

  90. Re:First time an American President committed Trea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hard to take your Turing Test commentary seriously when it's obvious your own IQ would largely prevent you from accomplishing a task as difficult as tying your own shoelaces.

  91. Re: First time an American President committed Tre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes and it seems many leftists were duped by Russian disinformation. Buzzfeed reports that anti-Trump protests were organized by Russian linked accounts on Fecesbook.

  92. Re:So she lost because, Russia? by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    So why not vote Bernie?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  93. Democratic Socialist actually by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Communism never gets past the 'Dictatorship of the Proles' phase. The left figured that out ages ago. See, we on the left learn from our mistakes. How's that Trickle Down Economics doing for you?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  94. Re: Pure Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While most Americans would identify the name "Vladimir" as Russian, few would be quick to use the abbreviated version "Vlad," as it has local connotations with Romania or Transylvania due to popular literature. Culturally, a comment that connects "Vlad" to Russia is far more likely to be of Russian origin than American.

    Just sayin'...

  95. Re: Only Moscow Donald spread racist birther lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, the loyal Americans calling attention to Donald Trump's collusion with Russia's attack on America, and continuing subservience to Vladimir Putin are the real Russians, traitor.

  96. This only proves that CIA has no access to Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, FBI and CIA has no direct legitimate access to Russian networks, so Russian internet is safe heaven for all sorts of cyber criminals. Probably it is time to start searching for their origins in USA.

  97. Re: Pure Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I'm not a towel, you're a towel" - towelie

  98. Re: First time an American President committed Tre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't say "emails aren't proof" when it comes to Donald. Then say "Clinton is guilty, cuz emails"

    It doesn't work that way. What's good for the goose and shit.

  99. Re: First time an American President committed Tre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is that the 20% uranium deal is always trotted out like Hillary has the power all by herself to arrange and sell 20% of the US uranium Supply.

    It's like you people actually believe she was the sole reason. Like nobody else profited from it. I'm not even sure what goes thru your brain. Like the Hillary for prison shit. Are you seriously suggesting that Hillary belongs in prison even tho no wrong doing was said to have occur?? No charges brung up. Even after they looked at it TWICE.

      Or what about the Obama birth fiasco. I remember hearing plenty of republicans screaming "where's the birth certificate, he isn't a citizen"

    Feels like the republicans are always spouting FUD to the top of their lungs. Must have serious issues trying to deflect blame to everyone else for your fuck up.

  100. Re: First time an American President committed Tre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This post contains a bunch of false statements and FUD and it's modded up to +1. I mean Christ sakes slashdot.

    Also source: https://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/

  101. Re:So she lost because, Russia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hillary's 'associates' aren't bailing out left and right when proof of their wrongdoing is found because SHE WASN'T ELECTED PRESIDENT. They can skulk about in the shadows until they're dying days because nobody cares wtf they're doing anymore.

    You have a hilariously stupid "apple and oranges" comparison

  102. Why is this news? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

    Or news for kids.Get off my lawn.

    1. Re:Why is this news? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      People on the US elite coast still wonder why people all over the USA voted the way they did.
      That a candidate that can give a good speech that people enjoy would win states.
      If a person wants to win a US election have a policy thats well accepted, a person who can actually give good speeches. Someone who can talk in a positive way about the USA.

      Have some energy, charm and the ability to travel all around the different parts of the USA. Talk to lots of real people and win the needed states.
      Staying in the elite coastal states, talking down to and lecturing the rest of the USA would not seem to be a way to win.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Why is this news? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      What I mean is that Russian election tampering use to be common knowledge and tv fodder.

  103. Re:First time an American President committed Trea by WrongMonkey · · Score: 1
    Form your link:

    Linda Starr, a Clinton volunteer in Texas, was key to spreading the rumor. She connected with with Philip Berger, an attorney and Clinton supporter, who sued to block Obama’s nomination. The suit was thrown out. But this is not the same thing as Clinton or her campaign promoting the theory.

    To be clear: Politifact acknowledges that Clinton staffers were spreading the birther rumor during the primary.

    It just can't be tied back to Clinton herself or the "official" campaign. Which sounds like plausible deniability at work.

  104. Re:So she lost because, Russia? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

    According to my mother, a vote for Bernie is a vote for Trump. That's why.

  105. Re:First time an American President committed Trea by greythax · · Score: 1
    You missed the summary I guess:

    There is no evidence to support this. Clinton supporters circulated the rumor in the last days of the 2008 Democratic primary and after Clinton had conceded to Obama.

    That is tantamount to Trump campaign starting the whole "Aliens are sending girls to rape colonies on the moon" thing just because Alex Jones is throwing it out there.

  106. Re: Pure Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So let me get this straight; you're mad that Russia tampered with our election by exposing how Clinton was tampering with the election.

    And then they posted some dumb ass memes which convinced retards to vote for Trump, and convinced all those super intelligent Democrats to not bither voting at all.

    You people need to seriously shut the fuck up. Show up to vote next time and quit blaming Russia.

  107. nothing burger undematerialization startle reflex by epine · · Score: 1

    Whenever I see an "shocking" article about Russia, my first thought is, "Why the shock that countries work for their own interest and against their enemies?"

    Just asking: did you snort the same blase powder over the Snowden "revelations".

    The shock—and it's usually just a mild one—is to finally see credible evidence marshalled in a public forum that the majority of the population won't immediately discount as a giant nothing burger.

    I always startle a bit when a giant nothing burger suddenly undematerializes behind me.

    You expect it, but you also don't.

  108. Re:First time an American President committed Trea by epine · · Score: 1

    The court documents so far show crimes from people affiliated with Trump that mostly pre-date their association with the Trump campaign. That's an absolutely enormous difference from what you are describing, though it still calls into question what caliber of leader would have hired (under a monetary agreement or otherwise) all these conspicuous fuck-ups in the first place.

    The Disturbing Timeline of George Papadopoulos' Russian Contacts On Behalf of Trump Campaign

    Papadopoulos falsely tells the FBI that he met the "Russian Professor" before joining the Trump team.

  109. Re:So she lost because, Russia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (districts with more D votes than registered voters discovered by Jill Stein)

    Please do your homework before perpetuating partisan myths. There is no evidence of "more votes than registered voters" in any of those precincts. Not even close.

    Thank you.

  110. Where are you looking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Yet multiple investigations have turned up absolutely no substantial evidence that she did anything illegal.

    What?

    We have the classified emails. We have Trey Gowdy grilling the FBI on why the imagined a legal standard that doesn't exist. As for "intent" we have her asking Colin Powell how he got away with using personal email and him telling her how to cheat the damned rules.

    We know about the classified pics of North Korea that were sent. We know about the classified markings that were stripped. We know that the uncleared maid was there printing classified stuff.

    But there's "no evidence"? Or maybe you're going to blame Russia for this? I mean, the brother of her campaign chairman is registered as a Russian lobbyist and he did just step down from the Podesta group because of all this.

  111. Re:First time an American President committed Trea by epine · · Score: 1

    It sure did and the Obama administration had hard evidence of Russia targeting the election and did absolutely nothing about it.

    You know in those video games where your avatar's life is bleeding out in a rising cloud of numeric bubbles? Credibility works this way, too. Only you have to visualize this yourself. It's a little harder, but may I suggest it's a worthwhile life skill to develop.

    Obama's secret struggle to punish Russia for Putin's election assault — The Washington Post, 23 June 2017

    Obama also approved a previously undisclosed covert measure that authorized planting cyber weapons in Russia's infrastructure, the digital equivalent of bombs that could be detonated if the United States found itself in an escalating exchange with Moscow. The project, which Obama approved in a covert-action finding, was still in its planning stages when Obama left office. It would be up to President Trump to decide whether to use the capability.

    That last sentence certainly does manage to call in question whether Obama did nearly enough, soon enough. (Spoiler alert: he almost certainly didn't, and would now admit this himself.)

  112. Re:First time an American President committed Trea by Arzaboa · · Score: 1

    Any time a foreign adversary attacks our interests in a way meant to disrupt our society, that is an act of war. It may be a propaganda war, but its war. They have installed a Russian firewall similar to the Chinese firewall so as to not have the same thing done to them.

    Free speech is a right we give ourselves in the constitution. The Constitution does not apply to other countries. They have zero right to free speech in our country when it originates on their soil.

    --
    "No Branch!" - Poppi, Trolls

  113. Russia is trying to mess up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your country. Strike back by reducing your use of oil.

  114. Re:First time an American President committed Trea by epine · · Score: 1

    I'm a little slow sometimes.

    It sure did and the Obama administration had hard evidence of Russia targeting the election and did sweet fuck all about it.

    If you had written your post that way, instead of "absolutely nothing", much of your credibility would still be intact.

    I know, I know, "absolutely nothing" and "sweet fuck all" are practically cohabiting in the same pouch on your potion belt.

    Yet the difference is crucial.

  115. Re:So she lost because, Russia? by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

    Hillary would not be filling the government with cronies and industry shills and pieces of shit like Trump has.

  116. Re:First time an American President committed Trea by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    The sad things is that posting a link to Politifact just proves that it must be true in some people's minds. They really do seem to believe that anything that the "mainstream media" (basically everyone with a shred of credibility) says is merely more proof of conspiracy.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  117. Re:First time an American President committed Trea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have your country considered educating people in critical thinking? Or would that destroy your economy? If Russia was able to pick a president in your country through the internet, you have a serious democratic problem that you should fix. I'm with Linus, we never blame userland, if anything breaks userland, it's a regression, and it should be fixed asap. Fix your democracy. People voted for the candidate they wanted to be president. That's it. No proof of tampering with the results. If they were too easy to influence, and didn't get what they wanted, then that's your national democratic problem.

    Stop whining about Russia.

  118. Would you please take that neocon waffle by najajomo · · Score: 1

    Would you please take that neocon waffle and shove it where the sun don't shine

  119. AP's source by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    Reading AP's paper, it is not obvious what their sources are.

  120. Re:So she lost because, Russia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As the other AC said, there was plenty of "substantial evidence that she did something illegal", but also multiple determinations that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring the charges."

    Obama's Attorney General did plead the fucking Fifth nine times, fucking google it! Obama DoJ declined to prosecute multiple referrals. That's all you need to know about the Demonrat legal system. So yes, Killary was guilty, but legally untouchable.

    Do you really think anyone in their right mind would care about the fake "Russian Collusion?" In fact, I know many people who like Russia and Putin. If he really cared, he wouldn't collude, he'd lend us a nuke. Instead of draining the Swamp, it might be easier to just glass it over and start again.

  121. Re: First time an American President committed Tre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's an obvious straw man being used to deflect from Russia's actual interference. I say obvious because as others have pointed out, Trump is too stupid and inexperienced to collude with Russia without getting caught. Russia has had to be very careful to avoid Trump and his team incriminating themselves.

  122. pot calling the kettle black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure that the US isn't concerned with elections in other countries, and has never done anything to try and influence an election one way or another. Any system will have to put up with Jan's influence whether natural, socio-economic, or other.

  123. Re: So she lost because, Russia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Russians were also stirring up supporters of Bernie and Stein and Johnson, anything to stop people voting for Hillary.

  124. Re: Pure Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How's the weather in Beijing today, Comrade Zhang?

  125. Re: Pure Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Comrade Li Feng, you really should study American culture & language more. Comments like this make you look like an obvious astroturfer.

  126. Re: Pure Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The statistics are against you. Nationalities represented here:

    Russians pretending to be American 55%
    Russians pretending to be other nationalities (including Chinese) 10%
    Americans 25%
    Others (excluding Chinese) 10%
    Chinese 0%

  127. Re:First time an American President committed Trea by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

    Wait a minute, the media told me Trump is a NAZI. Russians hate NAZI's.

    --
    When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
  128. Re:First time an American President committed Trea by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

    Maybe the reason Obama didn't try to stop the Russians is because it would have been counterproductive. By this I mean that the collusion and election interference from Russia could very well have been the result of a tit-for-tat agreement connected to the uranium deal and huge donations from Russian sources toward the Clinton foundation.

    So, the idea being that Obama and the DNC couldn't imagine a scenario where Hillary would lose, especially with all of the help from the Russians they purchased with uranium. This obviously did not come to pass. So the Democrats know there is collusion with Russia because they are the ones that arranged it! All they need to do to topple their opponent is pin their actions on their rivals.

    If I were going to do that I would start with a narrative that my opponent was working with the Russians. I would keep saying it, without ceasing, until it was on the lips of everyone in the country. And, if you know the ways that the Russians were interfering in the election it would be very easy to use that information disparity to make your opponent look guilty.

    Food for thought? I seriously don't know how valid this idea is. Personally I don't think that any election related collusion went on. There are too many other sources domestically that would provide more bang for the buck. I mean really, if $50k-$100k of foreign sourced money and influence could change the results of the election, how much more could be done with that money in the hands of domestic influence peddlers?

    It just doesn't make sense as presented.

    --
    When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
  129. Decline Of The West by NewYork · · Score: 1

    "Media does not spread FREE opinion; It GENERATES opinion" --Oswald,1918 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

  130. Only Americans can correct the record! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only Americans can correct the record!

    Propagandist bullshit.