Slashdot Mirror
Dutch Intelligence Agents Watched Russia Hack the DNC (volkskrant.nl)
Long-time Slashdot readers Agilulf, Sara Chan, and wiredmikey -- plus an anonymous reader -- all submitted the same story. Agilulf writes:
Dutch hackers from AIVD (their intelligence agency) infiltrated Russian hackers, had access to their CCTV system, and followed them for more than a year, watched their attack on the DNC, provided the proof to the U.S. intelligence community that Russia was behind those hacks and the stolen emails, and were disappointed with the response from the U.S.
The Dutch agents also watched Russian agents breach a non-classified network at the U.S. State Department in 2014, where the Russians then sent a phishing email to the White House, successfully stole login credentials, and then accessed email from embassies and diplomats.
"Three American intelligence services state with 'high confidence' that the Kremlin was behind the attack on the Democratic Party," according to the article, which adds that that certainty "is derived from the AIVD hackers having had access to the office-like space in the center of Moscow for years."
The Dutch agents also watched Russian agents breach a non-classified network at the U.S. State Department in 2014, where the Russians then sent a phishing email to the White House, successfully stole login credentials, and then accessed email from embassies and diplomats.
"Three American intelligence services state with 'high confidence' that the Kremlin was behind the attack on the Democratic Party," according to the article, which adds that that certainty "is derived from the AIVD hackers having had access to the office-like space in the center of Moscow for years."
So the emails were real. Not fake.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Does this change anything about the undisputed authenticity of the emails we saw? No.
I want to say "I hope the DNC has learned a valuable lesson about email and network security," but that would imply I think the DNC is capable of learning from their mistakes.
What does it matter who hacked the DNC? There's still no proof that this hack was the source of the emails given to Wikileaks, the legitimacy of the emails was never in dispute, and it's the contents of those emails that got them in trouble, not the hack.
The "Russia hacking scandal" was that they "hacked the election," a claim for which absolutely no evidence has been provided.
There's still no evidence that there is any tie between Russia and the Trump campaign, and this does nothing to further it.
This is a giant nothingburger. It tells us nothing and means nothing.
He was the only of the two using the word "jobs" in a convincing manner.
Everyone not doing it deserved to lose for being so hind-sighted.
that certainty "is derived from the AIVD hackers having had access to the office-like space in the center of Moscow for years."
Or maybe the hackers used social engineering to convince the landlords that they worked for the Kremlin. Or freelance and sometimes work for the Kremlin, but not always. Or the office space isn't in fact always only for groups working for the Kremlin.
Personally I'm ambivalent about this entire situation, but dislike how everyone seems to be jumping to one conclusion or another.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
The Dutch are rather liberal so of course anything they say can't really be trusted.
#DeleteChrome
Re-instate Hillary Clinton as President, now !
That's not how impeachment works. The vote was still real.
There is a referendum upcoming in the Netherlands about massively expanding what the intelligence agencies are allowed to do. Any information about Dutch intelligence in the coming months should be viewed in that light. The government is trying to paint them in as positive light as possible. Given that nothing they say can be verified, be careful what you believe.
How does anyone know whether to believe any of this stuff any longer?
It seems to be that all these "cyber espionage" stories consist of impossible to verify leaks (intentional or otherwise) about other impossible to verify leaks. I guess it probably is true that some emails were leaked by someone, but after that everything could be no more true than the contents of a John le Carré novel and the latter would be a better read!
The treason is provable. Hillary was dumb AF but she didn't side with Putin.
If I am not mistaken, this is the arm that used to be the Militaire Inlichtingendienst (Military Intelligence). They were pretty good, but also kept secret out of sight of Parliament. When they came to light they were merged with the existing counterintelligence agency BVD (Binnenlandse Veiligheidsdienst, Internal Security), which did have a Keystone Kops reputation.
So, take it with a grain of salt, indeed, but don't dismiss it outright.
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
My favourite part of this story - which I heard retailed with a perfectly straight face by some BBC presenter - is the webcams with the nice view of Red Square. Because all highly secret Russian hackers must, by law, occupy rooms with a view of Red Square. Indeed, they are probably lodged in the Kremlin - just as the NSA has its offices in the White House.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Treating other people/services with this kind of disdain is what ultimately sinks countries/organizations as large as the US. Eternal rule number 1 of all warfare (hot & cold / physical & electronic): Never EVER underestimate the other party - even if he is you ally and even if is appears to be small/undeveloped/inferior compared to yourself. History has many many many examples of people/organizations/countries that failed to do so and paid very dearly for their mistakes.
If Trump gets impeached, we will not be getting Hillary... We will get Mike Pence, who is probably 100x worse than Trump.... So be careful what you wish for.... You should look up presidential line of succession. It would be Mike Pence -> Paul Ryan -> Orrin Hatch. All nice gems in themselves. Also it's highly unlikely there was any collaboration. What probably happened was some hackers obviously did hack the DNC, then gave that info to someone, then that someone who possibly was Russian, approached Trump team and said hey I have juicy emails showing DNC corruption, would you like it? And Trump said, hell yeah, let me see. Collaboration would have to show that they were working together on the plan and execution. Which clearly was not the case.
The free market doesn't mean the least government influence in the market. It means a market in which there is the most benefit for consumers. And net neutrality was beneficial in this way. Now the only winners will be ISPs, who will collude more and raise prices more to gouge American consumers more.
Ok so if the US intelligence agencies knew the DNC had been hacked why didn't they do anything about it? Why didn't they tell the DNC there was a hacker in their network?
Were they worried about the hackers finding out that there was someone watching them and then shutting off that particular source of information? Was there some issue with a government agency sharing information with the operations of a political party during an election?
The other thing that hasn't been answered is why this happened. Why were the Russians interested in the DNC? Did Russia stand to gain something by influencing the election in a way that caused Hillary and the Democrats to lose?
My favorite quotes:
See that "Preview" button?
The DNC email hack wasn't a hack, it was a phish. Podesta clicked a malware link in an email and gave them access. Doesn't sound too sophisticated to me, sounds more like morons without proper training in the DNC.
This propaganda is published NOW because there is an upcomming referendum (which the government already said it would ignore) about more dragnet powers for the Dutch intelligence. This sounds like a stunt to get a referendum result in favor of the dragnet powers. The government seems to have learnt about the previous 2 lost (and also ignored) referenda about the Ukraine and the EU "constitution".
Njet!
> I think it has been said there were a few fake ones in between, or that there might be, but the breaki.n happened and was done by russians was never disputed.
Sure it has. We know Podesta got phished because there's a damned phishing email in the dump. Wikileaks claims to have gotten it from some other source, however. There's no clear evidence about who did it and no, don't point me at the Crowdstrike or Trend Micro reports, neither one presents anything worth mentioning in the way of proof. Trend Micro just says we agree with Crowdstrike's conclusions and Cloudstrike says this is clearly the APT for Fancy Bear, but oops, we didn't even bother to notice that our IPs are for TOR and we had no idea the old copy of P.A.S. we found was some Ukranian freeware. The "17 intelligence agencies" include the damned Coast Guard and the actual report, which nobody ever bothers to link to, doesn't draw any conclusions other than some hand-waivy things about how we think hacking us is totally something Russia would do. There's no actual, technical content whatsoever. All the reports are "sources say" whatever you want and nobody ever links to the damned reports because they're too embarrassing, all the links go to past coverage pulling the same wool over our eyes.
Now, as for the "there were a few fake ones" nobody has shown any evidence of that. In fact, Donna Brazille, who went on CNN to claim that was quickly proven to have lied when the emails were validated via DKIM. In older Slashdot comments, you can find out how to pull the key from Hillary's own damned DNS to validate that.
So enough propaganda. You guys keep repeating the same nonsense. My inside sources say that your inside sources are full of crap.
Right now, I'm just waiting until /pol uses /r/deepfakes to make a fake Trump porno tape to troll you guys again. It should be just a matter of time now.
Considering how the FBI was pro Clinton, and anti Trump at least in terms of what we know. Then you have the fact this all was happening under the Obama administration. One hast to wonder given the Dutch accounts how interested the Obama administration or the FBI was about any of this until Trump won? I guess it wasn't a big until until your candidate didn't win.
All you can know is that some email were stolen. NOTHING tells you that the email which were found later correspond to those stolen. And since most of that stuff is not encrypted, it is *trivial* to add fake stuff in it. There is no chain of custody. Any leaker stuff which is not covered by an encryption key in a separate place is *suspect*.
I also note that from all what is said,m all the hacking, all you retained "the email were [possibly] not fake" I can only say , i am betting you are one of those ultra partisan type which do not care as long as either their party wins, or more dirt is thrown at the other party.
This is truly why a two party system is toxic.
I have a very simple, and very pointed question.
What, exactly, are the hot, Top Secret contents of those emails?
Remember what the state department does - It has diplomats. They talk. They talk a lot. They have no need of Operationally Secure Information. And while a lot of spying goes on from diplomatic missions, the spy's chain of command does not run through the Department of State, nor do they use email. Think about what the State Department does. Then ask yourself, what kinds of secrets they will be a party to. EG: Who is who's mistress. Which children of what diplomats are doing drugs or other things that can be used against that diplomat. They don't get the nuclear launch codes - they have no need of them. They do not get troop movements, order of battle, or deployment orders. Again, they have no need to know.
Now, let us turn to the facts of the matter.
HRC used a private email sever under their control.
President Trump's daughter and son in law used Yahoo accounts, whose servers are not under their direct control. If you know anything about email systems, then you'll know that any Yahoo engineer could view the contents of those accounts by simply logging in with their credentials.
Was it wrong for HRC to use a private email server? Yes. Absolutely.
Was it wrong for others to use Yahoo accounts? Arguably even more stupid than what HRC did.
Let not your political desires affect your judgement. To put it like my grandmother used to say, if a shirt is dirty, then it's dirty. Don't try to convince yourself a mustard stain is any worse or better than a lobster bisque stain.
It's still dirty.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
For all that long rant, you missed the point. Impeach Trump and you don't get a do-over, you get the line of succession.
How many times does it need to be said? Crying about the popular vote is just moving the goalposts from the election rules that have been in place since Thomas Jefferson.
I fucking hate Trump, but he got the ELECTORAL VOTES necessary to win the Presidency. If you don't like that, then work to not nominate the only person from the Democratic Party that had enough negatives to actually lose to that asshole. Or, convince the DNC to actually campaign somewhere between the mountain ranges not named Chicago. Or get them to stop trying to sell out the middle class to Wall Street yet again. Or using the middle class's children to protect "American" (read: corporate) interests abroad in the guise of national military service.
Those last two sentences apply equally to the Republican Party, if not more so. Just to be somewhat Neutral, here's an incomplete list of things the Republicans should stop doing:
- bloviating about balanced budgets and government spend while treating massive military spending as a sacred cow that must be increased while cutting everything else
- ridiculously craven jingoistic politics and the treating of hard working immigrants that just want a better life for themselves and their families as a punching bag in order to toss metaphorical "red meat" to the fraction of ignorant racists and bigots in their "base"
- pretending that religion has any place in the federal government whatsoever
Also, impeachment has a definition, with procedures defined behind it. "We don't like him" is not included in "treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors" and you should be glad for that, or every single President would constantly be having fringe cranks from the opposition party drumming up real impeachment resolutions in Congress rather than the joke speeches and stunts we get today.
If he's actually committed any of those crimes, and you have proof, call your representative and hand over the evidence. Otherwise, wait for the Office of the Independent Counsel to complete their investigation and issue their report. Please. I'd love to see that guy being perp lwaked from the White House by the FBI.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Why was this modded down? That's been the Clinton way for decades (see Kenneth Starr as the best example).
Collusion and collaboration isn't necessary - all that is necessary is INTENT to solicit foreign aid/items of value for an election campaign - that itself is illegal and crime, and has already been demonstrated by the emails between them.
The Dutch have seen repercussions, there were serious hack attempts at several ministries and shortly before the elections all use of computers for the counting was banned because there were strong indications of Russian attempts to corrupt the system.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Possible, it's not exactly a recent thing and only now it gets in the press.
At the same time here we see proof significant (counter) surveillance is possible without the dragnet legislation certain people in our government want.
The fact they have ignored the 'outcome' of the other two referenda is great news, first of all they were/are only advisory referenda, secondly both had their outcome seriously flawed by misinformation of the public, possibly or even likely by Russian influence?
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
For all that long rant, you missed the point. Impeach Trump and you don't get a do-over, you get the line of succession.
I know that, you get Pence and then Paul Ryan, Orrin Hatch, Rex Tillerson.... (bit like a monarchy isn’t it?) ... but I don’t care about that. The only two points I was trying to make are, a) Trump’s presidency is many things but it is not the will of the manority of the American people and, b) Trump is so incredibly dirty and corrupt that he could be impeached in a New York minute if them that sit in Congress wanted to. Maybe there is also a third point c) the electoral college is about as relavant in modern America as a flint handaxe and it should be abolished.
Can slashdot remove the obvious shill accounts and upvoters?
The electoral college is a check and balance against gerrymandering. Of course, gerrymandering still won him the presidency. But don't blame the electoral college.
The electoral college is a check and balance against gerrymandering. Of course, gerrymandering still won him the presidency. But don't blame the electoral college.
There is no gerrymandering in presidential elections except the electoral college. It is an obsolete 18th century election result manipulation instrument meant to guard against precisely the kind of demagogue that Trump is. However, the electoral college hasn’t worked as intended for over a century because for it to work the college members would have to think for thrmselves and vote against the demagogue rather than vote like sheep for him. Presidential elections should be a one-man-one-vote, popular vote wins affair, end of story!
I don't think you understand impeachment. It IS we don't like you very much. That is all it is. The bar is you have to have 2/3 of the senate convict and that is a high bar. Impeachment is a political process. That is why even if the report comes back that trump laundered money for the mob, with our current congress, likely nothing will happen.
The reason Hillary lost the election was because her supporters were too concentrated in too few states.
When her husband ran for President in 1992 and 1996 he and his campaign understood what every 10th grade civics student knows, that we elect Presidents via the Electoral College, not popular vote.
Ken
In round numbers, how many immigrants in the visa lottery are from North Korea?
The infamous 'sh!thole countries' comment was with regard to countries involved in the diversity lottery.
Ken
Sorry, but if Trump said, "hell yeah, let me see," that's a severe issue as it not only indebts himself, a future sitting president, to a foreign power, but provides potential leverage in the form of blackmail to like, anyone on the planet. Because he can't help but say what comes to his mind.
I would state that this is something like murder, where actions prior and not directly involved in, equivalate to the act.
Correction, it was not the MID which caused a scandal, it was the Inlichtingendienst Buitenland (Foreign Intelligence Service). As officially we were not supposed to have a spy agency doing Foreign Intelligence, having it turn out that, well, actually, we did, that was a bit of a scandal.
The IDB, MID and BVD were merged into a single intelligence service, the AIVD (Algemene Inlichtingen- en Veiligheidsdienst, aka General Intelligence and Security Service).
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
I'm still amazed that the hackers were able to penetrate Podesta's iron wall of security on his gmail account - I mean he used a totally secure password of "password". Seriously, he couldn't even add a capital "P"?
Democrats all but encouraged the hacking of their servers - not actually, but nearly - as demonstrated by their weak security practices.
Ken
For example, Evan Mecham's 'trial' in the Arizona's Republic party controlled legislature was a joke and a circus. Everybody hated him and for good reason, but they found no 'misdemeanors.'
From Wikipedia: "Mecham was removed from office following conviction in his impeachment trial of charges of the obstruction of justice and the misuse of government funds – funds that Mecham maintained were private. A later criminal trial acquitted Mecham of related charges."
Yet, the Republics got rid of him because they wanted too.
Fifty years of Yippie! 1968-2018
It was great to watch Hillary say she wished 'all' the emails could come out, and her supporter said cheered her on. Then Trump asked whoever had the 'missing' to release them it was collision!
Ken
'Top Editor' or not, I think you're a fucking idiot.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
The only Russian words I know are "dos vadanya", and that's only because they said it in every cold war movie of the 80s.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
My goalpost has always been effective governance, and I don't think tweaking the election system to that end is something we should shy away from, nor is it something that hasn't been happening continually since the founding of this country. Gerrymandering has been in the news a lot lately, but it's an old, old word. Voter suppression has been in the news a lot lately too, but it also has a storied history in America, see poll taxes.
About the College. As initially conceived, voting was limited to male landowners over 21, measures that were intended to make sure the voters had some kind of wits about them. (Misguided, IMO.) To a similar end, the Electoral College was established. They were intended to be level-headed, educated gatekeepers, a check on the popular vote, so that if by some fluke a disastrously unqualified or malevolent actor wins, there'd be that final hurdle. There were also logistical considerations - the fastest way to relay a message was still wax-sealed parchment on horseback. Each state conducts its own election, sends their representatives to the College, and from there they convene for the vote that actually decides the President.
The logistical considerations no longer exist, and the College has utterly failed to perform its other duty as a sanity check. To me that makes a very strong case to get rid of it, even apart from the ideological consideration that it obscures the will of the people. Nobody knows who represents their vote in the College. Nobody pays attention to who gets put there. It's assumed that they will be a rubber-stamp for the will of the electorate, which it obviously isn't. It's one of the pieces of our government that locks us into the two-party system. Hopefully I don't need to explain the damage that has inflicted on our government and our society.
One example of that damage... Any attempt to revise the system to be more equitable to the people, is going to be painted as partisan whining, ironically by the same people who'd otherwise hate the College if they didn't have the impression it gives an advantage to "their guy".
oh, ah, we have some irrefutable proof here boys. pack up.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion. -- Spazmania (174582)
win an election, and change it, convince people and change it.
in obama's words,
you don't like what i'm doing? win an election.
Slashdot editors: Please leave that kind of waffle to Faux News. What is this neocon waffle doing on slashdot. Notice this is from some ' intelligence agency' the same kind of people that produced the Trump golden shower dossier. The only evidence being produced here is of the deep state manipulating public opinion. I don't believe Dutch hackers bugged Russian hackers, you see the Russian FSB isn't as incompetent as their US counterpart.
It has everything to do with Hillaryâ(TM)s unsecured email server. But for the DNC leak, weâ(TM)d never know that the email server existed, or that Stonetear was trying to scrub VIP addresses from his logs, before the server was wiped. We now know President Obama himself emailed at least 20 Special Access Program documents and had his own account. If Hillary goes down, Obama goes down. Therefore everyone has to go into defense mode. A prosecution will expose it, so there canâ(TM)t be a real investigation or even a crime. Thatâ(TM)s why Comey and Strzok scrubbed âoegrossly negligentâ and wrote the result before the first interview (which was conducted by Strzok, the one whoâ(TM)s texts are now being discovered). Thereâ(TM)s your conspiracy and textbook obstruction of justice.
...effective governance...
The Roman Catholic Church has survived for millenia. Very effective. Maybe we should emulate their manner of selecting leaders.
In all seriousness:
However, the excuse being offered for the "sh!thole" remark is that it was referring to the poverty of the countries, not their ethnicity. In which case, yes indeed, North Korea would fall into the "Trump sh!thole class", even though North Koreans are not emigrating to the U.S.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
...the electoral college. ...is an obsolete 18th century election result manipulation instrument...
It's amazing how so many apparently smart people do not understand the "electoral college." It lessens the chance that the President is selected only by the voters of a few metropolises. Anyhow, if you didn't learn about the "electoral college" in school you can learn about it at Wikipedia (assuming there's a good article for it there that hasn't been vandalized by anti-American ideologues).
In all seriousness:
No it wouldn't be... How much monetary value would you put on DNC emails? And it's not illegal to read it.
What would be illegal is if Trump paid for it.
Prevyet, tavarish!
(can't do cyrillic at \...)
It would only be illegal if Trump paid for it. Obtaining it for free isn't illegal and doesn't in-debt him to anything. Keep in mind that Russia didn't like Hillary, so I see no reason why they wouldn't provide this info for free.
We have 0 proof it was Russian government that hacked the DNC. Or at least 0 proof that has been shown so far.
Collusion and collaboration isn't necessary - all that is necessary is INTENT to solicit foreign aid/items of value for an election campaign - that itself is illegal and crime, and has already been demonstrated by the emails between them.
Are you referring to Trump or Hillary soliciting? Because both solicited information from Russian sources through British intermediaries.
In the Hillary case they paid a strategic intelligence company who offered a former British MI6 agent with good ties to Russian intelligence to get dirt on Trump from the Russians.
In the Trump case a British publicist wanted to set up a meeting with a Russian lawyer who claimed to have dirt on Hillary.
Maybe you should explain why, because it's not self-evident. Wait, that would require analysis and thinking. Perhaps you're worried the analogy would fall flat on its face? So I'll just respond only what you said: (1) Survival of the state should be but one of a state's goals, and not the sole factor in judging its success, (2) The Catholic church's "citizens" are de facto governed by other states, (3) It no longer "survives" in any politically relevant sense in its homeland of Europe, and is on the way out in its last strongholds in Latin America.
Go die loser
It's amazing how so many apparently smart people do not understand the "electoral college." It lessens the chance that the President is selected only by the voters of a few metropolises. Anyhow, if you didn't learn about the "electoral college" in school you can learn about it at Wikipedia (assuming there's a good article for it there that hasn't been vandalized by anti-American ideologues).
Are you referring to the good old argument that the electoral college is gerrymandered '...to protect the little states...'? If the electoral college was meant to protect the little states it is failing spectacularly. If you take a look at where candidates campaign the most it is in a few key swing states. The small states get next to no attention.
The electoral college is a check and balance against gerrymandering. Of course, gerrymandering still won him the presidency. But don't blame the electoral college.
There is no gerrymandering in presidential elections except the electoral college. It is an obsolete 18th century election result manipulation instrument meant to guard against precisely the kind of demagogue that Trump is. However, the electoral college hasn’t worked as intended for over a century because for it to work the college members would have to think for thrmselves and vote against the demagogue rather than vote like sheep for him. Presidential elections should be a one-man-one-vote, popular vote wins affair, end of story!
As much as I enjoy seeing a frothing-at-the-mouth temper tantrum from a disappointed Hillary lover, I must point out that you don't get to change the rules after the game already been played. In the real world, losers don't get "participant" trophies that pampered millennials have come to expect. The electoral college is working as intended. The great compromise helps the lesser populated states from getting railroaded by the population centers. When you finish jumping up and down ranting about how CA, NY and the high population cities should be the deciders for all the rest of us, maybe you will wise up and see why we don't want to turn our power over to the nanny staters, crybullies, and the irrational numbskulls that think Hillary should be "reinstated". You're going to need a Constitutional amendment to drop the electoral college and I don't see it being ratified by the states you disagree with. So, in short, tough shit loser.
Hehe... Did you know that it is possible to win the electoral college and become POTUS with ~27% of the popular vote behind you? If that ever happens I hope whoever does it is a Clinton just so that I can hear you shriek so loud with outrage that your shrill, high-pitched girly scram shatters armour glass.
There is no gerrymandering in presidential elections except the electoral college.
Gerrymandering happens before the election and it has little to do with the electoral college process. The electoral college just means that the actual deciding votes are cast by electors rather than the tallied votes themselves. Some states use a winner-takes-all approach, some do it proportionally. Neither really has anything to do with how a state is divided into its districts per se - it's up to the state decide how electors are chosen.
Really? In 1934? It wasn't in 2014 when President Obama urged the FCC to implement net neutrality by reclassifying ISPs as common carriers?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The MSM has reported so many lies about Trump. There has also been excessive spin, lies by omission, and laughable sensationalism.
Let's get some names and put people under oath. Let's see some videos.
BTW: when is a story about Trump "news for nerds?"
Even *if* there was any evidence to support this Russian hacking story, that *still* would not implicate Trump.
To implicate Trump, you have to prove that Trump himself was somehow part of the hacking (duh).
And good luck proving that. If Russia wanted the hack the DNC, why would they need to conspire with citizen Trump?
Just because you don't like somebody, does not mean that person is guilty of treason.
I agree with Bannon that the June 2016 meeting was treasonous. Those present had evidence that Russians had hacked Americans, and were planning to use what they found for their own political purposes. This should have been immediately reported to the FBI. If, as I believe, Trump Senior was aware of what was going on, he was an accessory to treason. Whether this can be proven is another matter.
TFA contains no supporting quotes and no attribution. You know, the little details that supposedly separate "journalism" from "fiction". In fact, it concludes with this statement:
"The AIVD declined to respond to de Volkskrant's findings."
New theory:
Slashdot, because it has the most sophisticated and robust moderation system of any major internet forum, has become a sort of R&D battleground for the rapidly evolving art of information warfare.
All the major and many of the minor geopolitical players have their 50 cent armies marshalled here. Yet many of us civilians - of varying degrees of disinterestedness - also remain.
It is our "hearts and minds" that the information warriors seek to win.
This PRO-TRUMP advertisement was brought to you by your friends at Comcast. Comcast, where our motto is "bend over and take it".
I went to Starbucks this morning, and VLADIMIR PUTIN made the barrista give me LUKEWARM COFFEE! Curse those meddling Rooskies!!!1!
OK, what regulation or law considered ISPs as common carriers (as recognized by law or regulatory agencies) prior to 2015?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
It lessens the chance that the President is selected only by the voters of a few metropolises
Because of course those people shouldn't count as much as people who live in rural states.
> In the Hillary case they paid a strategic intelligence company who offered a former British MI6 agent with good ties to Russian intelligence to get dirt on Trump from the Russians.
Again - lying by omission. Isn't it also known that the RNC started giving money to this strategic intelligence company to get dirt on Trump, which was then taken up by DNC and others?
The Republican never Trumper's paid for it during the primaries. Hillary and the DNC paid for it during the general election.
Where is the lie by omission. There is no refutation of solicitation by Trump nor Hillary. You merely identify a third group. The third group adds to the first two, it does not exonerate either of the first two.
That's not what I said or am even talking about. Apparently, to some of the people in this thread, net neutrality was around since 1934 and applied to all ISPs because they are common carriers. If that was the case, then why did the FCC decide to establish regulations about ISPs being treated as common carriers in 2015? And how did the Internet get rolling and explode without ISPs being common carriers?
You're missing the point that for the VAST majority of the life - and most of the growth - of the Internet, ISPs were not common carriers, and it was an executive action that unilaterally decided as such with in fact there was no driving legislation to do so. Yet somehow, because we're going back to how it was in 2014 and earlier, the Internet will now collapse and we'll all be subject to the whims of whatever #BIGEVILISP wants...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Apparently I misremembered that bit. I was going from memory.
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
If you're going to advocate chucking a feature of the system, you should have a replacement for it, and be able to articulate why the replacement is better than what exists now. We have every indication that constant focus on the four-year circus distracts people from paying attention the people who do the *most* to affect their lives: state and local representatives. Having a direct popular vote for president will exacerbate that problem. We'd be far better off we went back to having the legislature select the president.
If he's actually committed any of those crimes, and you have proof, call your representative and hand over the evidence.
Treason: handing the Russians top secret intel. I believe you can easily find proof on any number of real news sources as Trump himself claimed to have done so. While Trump has the power as president to declassify something and share it, congress can still find it treasonous and charge him for it.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
You silly little man, those rules were great obviously, the Internet flourished. It's your fuckers that decided to overturn them in the courts so you could make more money. Hence the whole declaring those rules invalid and forcing the new 2015 rules to be put in place. Guess what, you fuckers still didn't like those either so you got rid of them too.
If this sounds familiar it's because you were already told exactly this up above but are too think to understand it.
You can't go back dipshit, those rules are gone.
Also, impeachment has a definition, with procedures defined behind it. "We don't like him" is not included in "treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors" ...
Congress defines what "high crimes and misdemeanors" are and there is no reason to think that the court would overrule them instead of saying that it is a "political question".
and you should be glad for that, or every single President would constantly be having fringe cranks from the opposition party drumming up real impeachment resolutions in Congress rather than the joke speeches and stunts we get today.
Fringe cranks in the opposition party routinely file for impeachment proceedings.
You don't understand impeachment. The left has mislead you. It's not a political process. Nor should it be. In the case of Clinton the Democrats clearly ignored their duties and didn't convict him. In that case there was a federal judge that was charged with the same thing and they convicted him just two weeks earlier. That is, lying in court. That was a very sad day and today I have a feeling they'd convict him.
The reason Hillary lost the election was because her supporters were too concentrated in too few states.
When her husband ran for President in 1992 and 1996 he and his campaign understood what every 10th grade civics student knows, that we elect Presidents via the Electoral College, not popular vote.
I think you could fit Hillary's supporters in a football stadium. The vast majority of people who voted for her held their noses and voted against Trump. Had the Democrats nominated just about anyone other than Hillary they would have won.
That wouldn't help much, would it? https://www.merriam-webster.co...
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.