Slashdot Mirror


Russian Hackers Allegedly Attempted To Breach the DNC After the 2018 Midterms (fortune.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Fortune: Russian hackers attempted to breach Democratic National Committee email addresses in a spear-phishing campaign just after the 2018 midterms, according to a DNC court document filed Thursday night. "The content of these emails and their timestamps were consistent with a spear-phishing campaign that leading cybersecurity experts have tied to Russian intelligence," reads the complaint. "Therefore, it is probable that Russian intelligence again attempted to unlawfully infiltrate DNC computers in November 2018." The complaint [...] said there is no evidence that the attempted hack in Nov. 2018 was successful.

Spear-phishing campaigns involve sending emails that appear to be from a trusted source in order to gain confidential information. According to CNN, the emails in question appeared to have been sent from a State Department official and contained a PDF attachment that, if opened, would allow the hacker access to the recipient's computer. The timing and content of these emails were consistent with the practices of the Russian hacking group known as Cozy Bear, one of the two groups that hacked the DNC prior to the 2016 U.S. presidential election. According to the cybersecurity firm FireEye, Cozy Bear attempted to hack over 20 entities in Nov. 2018, including clients in local government, transportation, defense, law enforcement, and military.

43 of 127 comments (clear)

  1. omg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    orange man good

  2. Re:We're still pushing this BS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We're coming up on three years since the "hack" supposedly happened. The DNC has produced absolutely no evidence it actually happened. WikiLeaks has come out and flat-out said they didn't receive the email dump from Russia or any state. There's a lot of circumstantial evidence it was an inside job: if you look at timestamps created when files were copied off the system, you'll see that they show evidence that someone copied the files off the server using a USB thumbstick.

    Face it, just because the "blue wave" failed to materialize and Trump remains extremely popular despite the Democrat Shutdown, doesn't mean that Russia was involved in the election. There is no evidence that they were. All actual facts point to Hillary being a record unpopular candidate who Americans resoundingly rejected. Accept that Democrats just aren't that popular, and that real Americans side with Trump.

  3. Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Russians and the Chinese try to hack EVERYONE. All the major corporations, no matter what they produce. All the politicians, no matter what their party. All the banks, all the universities, all the tech firms - all of it.

    Trying to play off standard, everyday behaviors as special and indicative of something deeper, as is done here. turns normal news into storytime fiction.

    1. Re:Fake News by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      This is untrue.

      Any org with anything valuable is hardened against these attacks. Especially the DNC after they were hacked before.

      To get in now requires significant resources. Directed phishing attacks, zero day exploits, skilled operators. The Russians only have so many of them and they can't be hacking every major corporation, all the politicians, all the banks, all the universities, all the tech firms, all of it at once.

      They choose where to direct their resources. And naturally when Trump was weakened by the midterms they directed those resources to support him.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  4. Re:We're still pushing this BS? by sdinfoserv · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually fucktard, in September of '15 the FBI contacted the DNC telling them at least 1 computer had been compromised. Evidence in any FBI investigation is not, nor ever has been publicly released, so, no - YOU will never see it. The FBI's information was substantiated by FireEye, a company that makes security firewalls.
    But then again, you're likely one of those "deep state" paranoids who has no time to be bothered with facts.

  5. Where is the evidence? by BlueCoder · · Score: 1

    I only hear claims. How can they be sure it did not come from somewhere else? It's trivial to reroute though other computers in the same country or other countries. I can not see how the US can be aware of every single connection going in and out of every country...(probabilistic matching incoming and outgoing streams to determine proxies). Russia and China along with other not quite US friendly countries in that region have direct connections. But supposing they did there are ways to disguise the data to make them sufficiently unmatchable. Further nowadays these things are done via script and fully automated. There are reasons for countries to make it seems like data is coming from one another.

    Russia and China are full of technologically sophisticated people fully capable of hacking with their own agendas.

    1. Re:Where is the evidence? by Jeremi · · Score: 2

      What sort of evidence are you expecting to see? System logs? Mail dumps from peoples' inboxes? Testimony from sysadmins?

      And if someone was to take you aside and show you this evidence, would your viewpoint change, or would you dismiss it as 'easily faked'?

      Perhaps it is just the nature of the Internet, and hacking, that evidence cannot be conveyed across it in a way that would meet your demands. If so, then it's hardly surprising that you have "only heard claims", since that is all you are able to hear from your position.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    2. Re:Where is the evidence? by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      That's a good point. The DNC and by association their paid consultants are so untrustworthy that the burden of proof for any of their claims to be taken seriously is probably insurmountable. There is no benefit of the doubt to be granted to an organization where rule number one is that the ends justify the means, of which history has shown time and time again.

      3rd party that doesn't have a conflict of interest to provide testimony or evidence to collaborate? That's a start. Same for both sides.

    3. Re:Where is the evidence? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Just add the bit that was censored out. 'People with IP addresses in the Russian IP address range', of course that don't sell anything and of course once it hits Russia, they don't know anything beyond that, the person could be next door and route it all over the place, with servers rented in Russia from Australia or in China from Japan. All meaningless twaddle. Fuck Americans complain and phishing attacks when they are launching actual missiles and cleaning people all over the world, ohh boo hoo, your idiot employees are clicking emails they are not meant to, nor that you have set up filters to block but keep on actually killing people because that is a good thing.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  6. The data walked out by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    It was a US domestic political event with a human walking out with data to give to the media.
    A Pentagon paper event totally internal to the USA and US politics.
    Random spear-phishing attempts did not move data out as it was done by a person in person.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  7. Re:We're still pushing this BS? by sdinfoserv · · Score: 4, Informative

    as to your "blue wave" comment, just looking at the numbers..
    Dems took 40 House seats away from the GOP. On the State level, the Dems took 7 Governors away from the GOP, 6 legislatures and over 300 State House and Senate seats. So if you're calling the GOP flipping 3 Senate seats a "win", you're delusional. 350+ (Blue Flipped) Vs 3 (Red Flipped) is a MASSIVE blue wave by any measurement. Sorry Sparky, go back and sniff more FauxNoise coolaid.

  8. Re:We're still pushing this BS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The president's party always loses seats in the midterms. It was true for Obama as well. The "blue wave" was expected to be overwhelming, and it ... just didn't happen. We got a relatively normal midterm. Attempts to hype it up as something earthshattering are just false - turnout was slightly higher than expected, but still lower than presidential election years. You saw about an average swing. Sorry, the "blue wave" was just a normal blue trickle, and it'll almost certainly be entirely reversed in 2020, especially if Trump can remind voters of the record shutdown the Democrats caused the instant they had even a whiff of power.

  9. Re:We're still pushing this BS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What the fuck are you talking about? The Republicans controlled the house when the shutdown started, dipshit. They had control of the house for two years, and for those two years, the wall didn't seem that important.

    Perhaps they should've focused on building the wall instead giving the super rich a tax cut.

  10. Cyber-guerrilla-warfare by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    I think at this point, anyone who doesn't take an overall look at Russian operations all over the world, and the general ambitions of Vladimir Putin, who doesn't see that this is all a form of guerrilla warfare isn't paying close enough attention, is in denial, or is one of their extraterritorial operatives whitewashing the whole thing. What we're seeing are just the early stages of the overall agenda and gameplan.

    1. Re:Cyber-guerrilla-warfare by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      When the DNC was hacked in 2016, Democrats themselves said there was nothing of significance in those emails. And there wasn't. With both parties airing their craziness out in the open (with Dems heavily in the lead, by my opinion), I can't imagine what 2018 DNC or RNC email hack would have changed.

    2. Re:Cyber-guerrilla-warfare by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      You are dumb. Do you know what '''destabilizing a country''' means, or is that too many big words for you?

    3. Re:Cyber-guerrilla-warfare by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      I'll say the same thing I said to the AC above you but in a nicer way: I believe things like this to be an overall campaign of destabilizing Western countries which can be nothing but beneficial to governments like Russia and China, both of which have expansionist ambitions. It doesn't matter what data they did or did not get, what does matter is that they're creating chaos and distrust and helping create divisiveness. Just here in the U.S. we've got half the country looking to '''stick it''' to the other half because they do not like nor trust them based on their political leanings, we've got an extremist President who, probably unwittingly, is helping create more divisiveness, and now we've got most of the Government shut down for a historically record number of days, and both major political parties at odds with each other, stalemated, which means nothing of value is getting done.
      PUT ASIDE whatever your partisan political beliefs and leanings are for a moment or two and look at the bigger picture: our Nation, at the moment, can't get out of it's own way. If I was the leader of another country and I had an overall plan of political and eventually military conquest of neighboring countries, and NATO countries are what are standing in my way, I'd be breaking out the good booze and passing the bottle around to celebrate things going so well for me, seeing both the U.S. and the UK in disarray and chaos from their own internal strife that *I* and my forces created within them.

      Now let's talk for a moment about the UK, since I mention them: do you really think the Brexit affair started entirely internal to the UK, with no outside influences? Think again, U.S. Intelligence reports have said othewise, just like MI6 has also said. The UK is in a similar state of chaos and disarray as the U.S. because of the whole Brexit fiasco; they also are too distracted by it and can't get out of their own way.

      Here's another example I can come up with off the top of my head: Catalonia and Spain. Do you really think it's just coincidence that the tensions between Catalonia and Spain over Catalonias' desire to be independent and self-governing just suddenly flared up into the conflicts they've seen over there? Note again that Spain is a NATO member country, just like the U.S. and the UK. Note also I'm not saying that Russia and/or China (although I'd think Russia really) created that conflict, but the potential and the tensions were already there for a long time now and all it would take is a nudge in the right direction to cause the tensions to explode into a conflict.

      How about France? Sure, the French are a passionate people and protest is in their blood, but I would not at all be surprised if these 'Yellow Vest' protests, which are now becoming violent, are being amplified via -- you guessed it -- Social Media, and I wouldn't at all be surprised that if they are, you could trace key parts of that back to non-French sources, or foreign nationals within French borders.

      I'd have to go dive deep into news stories from varied sources, but I wouldn't at all be surprised, either, if I looked at incidents in all key NATO countries right now, that I'd find Social Media fanning the flames of those conflicts -- and that if you traced them to their sources, you'd find them to either be from other countries, or from foreign nationals in-country.

      Russia would love nothing better than to have NATO break up; it's the only thing that's prevented Russian expansionism since before the wall fell. Vladimir Putin is former KGB and from his background and pattern of behavior it's clear he would love nothing better than his historical legacy to be creating Soviet Union 2.0. Destabilizing the European Union and destroying (or at least weakening) NATO will be at the top of his To-Do List. Furthermore the Russia/Crimea/Ukraine situation is both on his To-Do List as well as him testing the waters with NATO, the EU, and the U.N. to see how much

    4. Re:Cyber-guerrilla-warfare by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      Consider that Western societies have reached a level of neuroticism not seen since the time of Victorian England, with its deadly catalyst in the form of social media. Take a look at anything non-Trump, non-politics related to see how quickly people get upset and divided over it. Those can't all be Russians. And even when it is politics, you have say the image of Cathy Griffin holds Trump's mock severed head spreading over social media and people get worked up to a frenzy -- you don't need Russians for that. All this is a phase in the evolution of the collective mind.

    5. Re:Cyber-guerrilla-warfare by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point, AC: peoples '''own motivations''' can get amplified by foreign operatives if their '''own motivations''' serve the interests of a foreign power. So a carefully crafted bot-net nudge here and there, and people just venting their frustrations peacefully on Facebook or Twitter gets turned into a physical protest out on the streets; add some infiltrators to the protest to both start a physical confrontation with police, and to '''get attacked and injured''' (perhaps faked) by police, and now you've got a full-on conflict that's polarizing people who had nothing to do with any of it. Rinse, repeat as required. If successful you can turn an entire nation on it's ear.

    6. Re:Cyber-guerrilla-warfare by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      ..okay, you also are not getting it. Read this other comment: https://slashdot.org/comments.... these things don't need to be created out of wholecloth by foreign operatives, in fact it works better if it's NOT '''created''' by them, they just use resentment that's already there to start with.

    7. Re:Cyber-guerrilla-warfare by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      You're making it sound like there's merely resentment underneath the surface and the operatives are exploiting it to turn it into a crisis. Whereas I'm saying there is a half-madness going on and what operatives do is no more than a noise.

      It's the difference akin to psychologically pressuring a vulnerable person vs. taunting a deranged person in the street.

    8. Re:Cyber-guerrilla-warfare by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      I see that whereas I'm attempting to analyze what I see and read from various news sources in as objective and unbiased a way as possible, you're clinging to your own personal beliefs, biases, and opinions. As such we can't have a real conversation about this subject because you've clearly already made up your mind already. Good-bye.

    9. Re:Cyber-guerrilla-warfare by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      The Americans themselves are destabilizing the country. This undying "Russia" bullshit from the democrats is a perfect example.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  11. Re: We're still pushing this BS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As much as you would wish it to be not true, doesnâ(TM)t make it false, there is a strong connection:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-the-russians-hacked-the-dnc-and-passed-its-emails-to-wikileaks/2018/07/13/af19a828-86c3-11e8-8553-a3ce89036c78_story.html?utm_term=.7f5f14fdd746

  12. DNC Secrets? by edi_guy · · Score: 1

    Good, maybe someone in the FSB will be able to figure out the Dems political strategy, 'cause I sure can't.

  13. Re:We're still pushing this BS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Which is why the spending bill had passed the House before the shutdown started. Where it failed was the Senate, where Democrats used the filibuster to block it until the new session of Congress happened and they could use their new power in the House to keep the government closed.

    Like I said, they got a hint of power and immediately used it to shut down the government, even before they were seated.

  14. You know by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The problem with lying, and getting caught, is it tends to wreak havoc on your credibility.

    After the BS they pulled with Bernie / Hillary, they are naive ( or arrogant ) to believe that anyone will ever put any faith
    into any story they wish to tell. The doubt will be there again in 2020 when they nominate their next candidate and you
    can be sure Team Red* is going to make sure everyone and their brother remembers it.

    *Not that Team Red is the poster child of truthfulness, mind you, but they will surely throw some fuel on that fire.

    At what point will the people decide that the only way forward is to remove the cancer that is our entrenched elected leadership
    and start from scratch ? It seems the only ones who have been getting screwed over for the past several decades are us . . . . .

    It's a shame the US doesn't have the " No Confidence " rule to remove an incompetent / incapable government.

  15. PDF attachment allow access to computer by najajomo · · Score: 1

    According to CNN, the emails in question appeared to have been sent from a State Department official and contained a PDF attachment that, if opened, would allow the hacker access to the recipient's computer.”

    Really, it's for such insightful technical analysis that keeps me coming back here. Would this PDF attachment run a script that hacked a Microsoft Windows computer? The rest of the story is merely the usual neocon waffle, part of the strategy to provoke the next cold war with Russia.

  16. No actual evidence for the so-called DNC hack by najajomo · · Score: 4, Informative

    Former NSA experts say it wasn’t a hack at all, but a leak — an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system.

    ‘ To this day, however, the intelligence agencies that released this assessment have failed to provide the American people with any actual evidence substantiating their claims about how the DNC material was obtained or by whom. Astonishingly and often overlooked, the authors of the declassified ICA themselves admit that their “judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact.” ’

    1. Re:No actual evidence for the so-called DNC hack by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Former NSA experts say it wasn’t a hack at all, but a leak — an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system.

      ‘ To this day, however, the intelligence agencies that released this assessment have failed to provide the American people with any actual evidence substantiating their claims about how the DNC material was obtained or by whom. Astonishingly and often overlooked, the authors of the declassified ICA themselves admit that their “judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact.” ’

      Seriously?

      That article is preceded by a giant editorial essay basically saying:

      "Hey! We only published this thing because we think it's important to ask more questions about the topic! Oh, and it turns out the article author actually misrepresented parts of the report, and the group that released the report actually had a lot reservations about publishing it!!"

      The evidence that it was a Russian hack continues to be pretty overwhelming.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    2. Re:No actual evidence for the so-called DNC hack by jbn-o · · Score: 1

      Bill Binney's group seems convinced the other way and makes a compelling case that the DNC's network connection wasn't fast enough for the data transfer to have been sent from the DNC to someone in Russia over the Internet. You cite no evidence to support your conclusion. You repeated a summary we're supposed to take for granted (given the repetition in corporate-friendly media) where every Russiagate story turns out to be completely untrue (such as Russians allegedly compromised the American power network via a power station in Vermont) or wildly overstated (such as trying to get us worked up over Russians buying social media ads totaling thousands of dollars). And all in service of what--covering for Hillary Clinton losing a rigged election to another political novice (I doubt many people in Illinois knew who Barack Obama was when he was that state's junior senator). Neoliberalism (a greater distance between rich and poor) and neoconservatism (more war) do a far better job of explaining why Mrs. Clinton couldn't convince enough voters in enough states with enough electoral votes to support her campaign than any Russians-did-it conspiracy theory. Candidate Trump (as opposed to President Trump) spoke against those values quite well (objecting to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, NAFTA, TPP, and mentioning Medicare for All once on "60 Minutes"). He didn't support much of that as president (he has ramped up war beyond Obama's ramp ups, signed trade deals that reintroduce anti-worker/anti-environmental policy, left US healthcare to the HMOs) but voters couldn't have known that for certain when they cast their vote. Comparing political records and what was said during campaigning it's no surprise some people (those who aren't elites, for example) wanted to give Trump their vote even if only to prevent Clinton from taking office.

    3. Re:No actual evidence for the so-called DNC hack by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Bill Binney's group seems convinced the other way

      And virtually everybody in the US intelligence apparatus disagrees with him.

      makes a compelling case that the DNC's network connection wasn't fast enough for the data transfer to have been sent from the DNC to someone in Russia over the Internet

      No they don't, they're morons.

      The metadata showing a 22.5 Mb/s transfer rate doesn't prove the files were downloaded from the DNC using a USB stick, it proves they were likely downloaded to (or from) a USB stick at some point.

      And if I were a remotely competent hacker I'd be doing the same thing I do when connecting to a customer installation. Working from a computer on an airgapped Network.

      And how do you move files back and forth from an airgapped Network?

      You use a USB.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    4. Re:No actual evidence for the so-called DNC hack by jbn-o · · Score: 1

      And virtually everybody in the US intelligence apparatus disagrees with him.

      The only statement we have which tries to make the opinion (an "assessment") from the Obama administration which I can't find anyone who seriously believes; nobody believes all of those agencies agree on anything much less that opinion. Sy Hersh says as much when he talked about that assessment and the media's lacking coverage of it ("What does an assessment mean? It's not a national intelligence estimate. If you had a real estimate you would have five or six dissents, people saying, 'cause I can tell you right now. One time they said 17 agencies all agreed. Oh really? The Coast Guard and the Air Force, they all agreed on it? And it was outrageous and nobody did that story."). Even the ostensible source of Russiagate stories—alleged collusion between some Russians and the Trump campaign—isn't looking so rosy for proponents anymore (it never looked relevant for the American public; Russiagate doesn't address the public's concerns it only reflects elite's interests). As the title indicates, "Mueller report PSA: Prepare for disappointment." and one report concurs. And this kind of downplaying has been done before. To think this is all being done in service of a neoliberalist losing a rigged election in search of an excuse to distract us from her culpability, what those leaked emails actually said, and possibly manufacture lies that could help foment a future war with Russia.

      No they don't, they're morons.

      Sources and evidence, not namecalling, are required to sustain convincing arguments.

    5. Re:No actual evidence for the so-called DNC hack by quantaman · · Score: 1

      The only statement we have which tries to make the opinion (an "assessment") from the Obama administration which I can't find anyone who seriously believes;

      Then pull your head out of the Fox News/Infowars bubble. The only people who "don't believe" the assessment are the people who worry that significant Russian interference delegitimizes Trump's presidency (which it kinda does).

      Even the ostensible source of Russiagate stories—alleged collusion between some Russians and the Trump campaign—isn't looking so rosy for proponents anymore

      LOL

      Sources and evidence, not namecalling, are required to sustain convincing arguments.

      The evidence that they're morons is they presented the timestamps as proof, apparently not realizing a USB transfer likely came AFTER the remote download.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    6. Re:No actual evidence for the so-called DNC hack by jbn-o · · Score: 1

      "likely came AFTER" comes with no evidence to justify the assertion of likelihood. Again. And this evidenceless assertion as we get yet another Russiagate "bombshell" from anonymous sources (this time with Robert Mueller, Russiagate-supporter's hero, saying it's not so). In the end the DNC emails still strike me as a relatively minor detail overshadowed by the importance of what those emails said. In other words, the DNC emails continue to be consistent with someone on the inside leaking them, but regardless of how they got out what they say is far more important and not at all helpful to make the Clinton campaign or DNC corporation look like organizations worth supporting (but if you want collusion, there it was). Another year of things not looking good for Russiagate as Jimmy Dore and Aaron Maté discuss.

    7. Re:No actual evidence for the so-called DNC hack by quantaman · · Score: 1

      "likely came AFTER" comes with no evidence to justify the assertion of likelihood. Again.

      So? There's a ton of other evidence suggesting Russia hacked the DNC emails. The major piece of counter-evidence is the USB transfer which is meaningless.

      And this evidenceless assertion as we get yet another Russiagate "bombshell" from anonymous sources (this time with Robert Mueller, Russiagate-supporter's hero, saying it's not so).

      Yeah, it sounds like the reporter somehow got it wrong. And unlike the Fox News / Infowars alternate reality when Mueller says something it's probably accurate, and when the MSM realizes the story is probably wrong they drop it.

      --
      I stole this Sig
  17. Anonymous Pansy cries RUSSIA! fromParent'sBasement by WheatGrass · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure who I'm more disgusted with, the anonymous pansy who shared this nonsense or SlashDot for keeping the Russophobia ball going to the detriment of U.S. credibility. I'll tell you this though, I wish Microsoft and Amazon's attempts at penetrating my network were as infrequently as those of the Russians. My log files tell me who my enemies are and Russia is NOT one of them.

  18. Re:We're still pushing this BS? by quantaman · · Score: 3, Informative

    The president's party always loses seats in the midterms. It was true for Obama as well. The "blue wave" was expected to be overwhelming, and it ... just didn't happen. We got a relatively normal midterm. Attempts to hype it up as something earthshattering are just false - turnout was slightly higher than expected, but still lower than presidential election years. You saw about an average swing. Sorry, the "blue wave" was just a normal blue trickle, and it'll almost certainly be entirely reversed in 2020, especially if Trump can remind voters of the record shutdown the Democrats caused the instant they had even a whiff of power.

    Democrats won the generic ballot by 8.6%, compared to the "red wave" of 2010 where the GOP only won by 6.8%.

    The reason the GOP had a 59 seat advantage with +6.8% of the vote while Democrats only had a 36 seat advantage with +8.6% is the GOP gerrymandered the hell out of the US in 2012, which is actually a pretty idiotic thing to do.

    The point of winning is to enact your polities, and unless your policies include widespread civil unrest then undercutting the legitimacy of the government is not the thing you want to do.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  19. And they were blocked by wyattstorch516 · · Score: 1

    Amazing how much more secure the firewall is when you stop using the default administrator password.

  20. Re:We're still pushing this BS? by melted · · Score: 1

    House was expected, happens every time. Senate, on the other hand, was critical, given that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is about to kick the bucket. Only the Senate is needed to confirm her replacement.

  21. Trump did better than Obama & Clinton midtermw by drnb · · Score: 1

    Yes, look at the numbers and compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. Your "blue wall" theory is as garbage in 2018 as it was in 2016. Trump actually outperformed Presidents Obama and Clinton with respect to first midterm losses.

    In 2018, Trump's first midterm election, the Republicans lost 42 seats.
    In 2010, Obama's first midterm election, the Democrats lost 63 seats.
    In 1994, Clintons's first midterm election, the Democrats lost 54 seats.

    The fantasy of a "blue wall" is of great help to Trump. Is there some reason you perpetuate this myth?

  22. Party before Country by Martin+S. · · Score: 1

    Far too many are prepared to up play, down play, blame the victim for short term political advantage.

    When will people wise up and recognise that Putin is one of world's biggest threats to the freedom we enjoy in the west?

  23. Re:We're still pushing this BS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Totally false. Budget bills have to start in the House. The House has yet to pass a single bill reopening the government.

    This is blatant bullshit. The new House has in in fact passed a couple of different budget bills, the Reps even have a choice. The first is a copy of the bill that was already passed but Trump refused to sign. There are also bills that fund and open individual departments.

    Apart from that, the House has passed a number very reasonable bills to reform the election process and other important maintenance, and started a number of long overdue inquiries into government atrocities, corruption, and overreach, so any claim that the House and Pelosi are not doing their jobs is just propaganda bullshit.