White House Supports Claim Putin Directed US Election Hack (bbc.com) 715
The White House is suggesting that Russian President Vladimir Putin was directly involved in a hacking operation aimed at interfering with the U.S. presidential election. BBC reports: Ben Rhodes, adviser to President Barack Obama, said that Mr Putin maintains tight control on government operations, which suggests that he was aware. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest added that it was "pretty obvious" that Mr Putin was involved. "Everything we know about how Russia operates and how Putin controls that government would suggest that, again, when you're talking about a significant cyber intrusion like this, we're talking about the highest levels of government," Mr Rhodes said. "And ultimately, Vladimir Putin is the official responsible for the actions of the Russian government." NBC reported that the U.S. had evidence that Mr Putin personally directed how information hacked by Russian intelligence was leaked. The Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence also released a statement asserting Russia had orchestrated the hack, including breaches on the Democratic National Committee and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The contents of those hacks, passed to Wikileaks and posted online, were embarrassing to the Democrats and shook up the presidential campaign. The NBC report, which cited two unnamed senior officials, said the hacking campaign began as a "vendetta" against Mrs Clinton before becoming "an effort to show corruption in American politics and split off key American allies." Mr Putin is said to have been furious when Mrs Clinton, as secretary of state, questioned the integrity of 2011 parliamentary elections in Russia. He publicly accused her of encouraging street protests.
"Suggesting" ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... nothing of substance here.
Re:"Suggesting" ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. And they keep saying "election hack" in all of the headlines, so it keeps sounding as if Russia and Putin himself were meddling with the voting mechanisms: i.e. hacking voting machines or election authority networks. And I strongly suspect that's exactly how they want it to sound.
Even if the claims are exactly true, that Russia hacked the DNC to expose their secrets, all they wound up doing was publishing what was true for the world to see--that the DNC was manipulating everything they could to coronate HRC as heir apparent. The wikileaks publications only brought us a little bit closer to the full disclosure every voter should have before making their decisions.
But I suppose in the minds of some, that invalidates the election results.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Suggesting" ... (Score:4, Insightful)
And you aren't concerned that a foreign country directly altered the outcome of an election here?
I'm more concerned that a domestic party nearly got away with doing the same thing.
IF you believe the Russian hacker bullshit (and we have seen ZERO evidence of it), all they did was expose truth.
Re:"Suggesting" ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, apparently telling the truth is interfering with US elections, oh my (someone wasn't thinking when they put out this release). So Putin directly involved in the hacks, hmm, hunched over a keyboard typing away, expert computer hacker, on top of everything else. What is the White House trying to do promote Putin as the worlds greatest head of state in the world, the bare chested, bear riding computer hacker.
The Russian government is only able to run rings around the US government because the US government is a chaotic mess with individual multi-national corporations able to pull it in different, often competing and contradictory directions at the same time (as well other countries who not only interfere but have direct contradictory controls over the US government, two prime examples Israel and Saudi Arabia both of who should be actively kicked out from involvement in US elections, who can forget the Israeli government issuing instructions to the US government in public https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] and not one squeak about it except http://rare.us/story/rand-paul... [rare.us], seriously what the fuck is the matter with Americans putting up with that shit, seriously). At lot of the good efforts done by the US government are undone by the US government, so much so, that the Russian government just has to sit back and watch the chaos unfold on it's own, as it picks up the pieces.
Fucking hell, whine about Russia when Israel and Saudi Arabia have been fucking over American elections for decades, what the fuck is wrong with Americans.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It wasn't "telling the truth" that swung the election decisively. It was the timing of the final leak, which lead to an FBI investigation which found nothing. Repeat, the FBI investigation found nothing new or interesting. The timing was perfect though, right before the vote, turning Clinton's near certain victory into an electoral college defeat.
You also have to wonder how much they have on Trump and the Republicans, and how they are going to use it to influence the US government in the future. Even if you
Re:"Suggesting" ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that what the CIA is stating is that Russia broke into both the DNC and RNC, but only choose to release the info from the DNC.
You know, you guys, you very well could be the next target. And Russia isn't the only country learning whether or not they can get away with stuff like this. Do you think China would be above doing likewise? Iran? North Korea?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Except that what the unnamed source said that an unnamed source connected with the CIA is stating is that Russia broke into both the DNC and RNC, but only choose to release the info from the DNC.
There, fixed that for you. Except that the FBI, official and named sources, mind you investigated the RNC's servers and found no evidence that they were hacked.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:"Suggesting" ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The CIA didn't get Irak wrong. They had plenty of voices pointing out the so-called evidence was bullshit. They were sat on by Bush/Cheney until the CIA told them what they wanted to hear.
Obama is not Bush. There is zero evidence that he is pressuring the CIA to go after Russia. He doesn't even have leverage to pressure them. They will all have a new boss in a few weeks.
Re:"Suggesting" ... (Score:4, Informative)
This seems to be the go-to talking point these days. It's also 100% wrong. The CIA's conclusion was that it could not establish solid connections (either for or against) between Iraq and al-Qaeda or Iraq and WMDs. The Bush administration's response was to create the Office of Special Plans [wikipedia.org] in the Pentagon to "reassess" the intelligence (basically, to make up whatever the hell they wanted). The CIA got it right [vice.com]; the Bush administration deliberately distorted to to pass their agenda.
Re: (Score:3)
Bay of Pigs: only marginally an intelligence failure (improper assessment of the willingness of Cubans to rise up). Primarily a tactics failure and a misunderstanding of how far Kennedy would go to protect the operation.
Church Committee: Not an intelligence failure
Iran-Contra Affair: Not an intelligence failure
MKultra: Not an intelligence failure
Manuals: Not an intelligence failure
And your most recent example is 30 years old.
Re:"Suggesting" ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Suppose Russians really did it and imagine they even had said in September "hey Americans we hacked your emails and we're releasing them because we hate you." Do you really believe it would have changed what people thought of Clinton and Trump?
Re: (Score:3)
What "truth" would that be? What "truth" about the Democratic Party would be far worse than a foreign nation meddling with our electoral process?
Re: (Score:3)
Thinking strategically and sending emails about stuff is a major scandal when you're a Democrat.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
all they did was expose truth
No you fucking idiot, they exposed half the truth. They also hacked the Republicans, but did not choose to release that information.
Re: "Suggesting" ... (Score:2, Insightful)
directly altered? hardly
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Testify Under Oath about it (Score:4, Insightful)
The intelligence agencies are REFUSING to testify to Congress about this "leaked" information. Testimony that may leave them in legal trouble if they purger themselves during that testimony. Thats right, the executive branch is once again REFUSING to answer to the people about something they are claiming.
Until the intelligence agencies testify to the people, in front of Congress, under oath and give specific information showing Russia did hack the election, it is fake news.
Pics or it didn't happen.
Re:"Suggesting" ... (Score:4, Insightful)
FAKE NEWS ALERT!
Re:"Suggesting" ... (Score:5, Informative)
FAKE NEWS ALERT!
Seriously dude, words mean things. Why is is that fucking everyone who tries to dismiss fake news doesn't seem to understand either the words "news" or "fake. The news is:
"White house supports claim putin blah blah blah"
Did the white house say that?
Yes, the white house did say that, ergo the news is not fake.
Is the white house mistaken? That's irrelevant to whether this is fake news or not.
Re:"Suggesting" ... (Score:4, Insightful)
There's just as much evidence of Russians hacking as there is of illegals voting: it sounds like something they would do. I am as bothered by Russians hacking emails as you are by illegals voting.
Re:"Suggesting" ... (Score:5, Insightful)
And you aren't concerned that a foreign country directly altered the outcome of an election here?
I'd be very concerned, if that happened. ... Got any evidence of that happening?
Because so far we've seen absolutely nothing other than the Regressive Left completely losing their minds. Seriously, Keith Olbermann's twitter reads like a slightly less sane Alex Jones rant. It makes me wonder if he's always been that nuts and I just didn't notice because I agree with him politically.
In the end, it's best to remember Sagan's Law - "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The idea that Russia would have committed an act of war to prevent Hillary from inciting a war with them is an EXTREMELY large claim. Where's the evidence? Hell, the CIA won't even show this supposed evidence to Congress but are demanding to show it to the Electoral College members.
All told, so far what it looks like to me is that "Russian Hackers" is this year's "But where's the Birth Certificate?" A cheap political smear job designed to delegitimize the incoming administration and make President Trump waste political capital dealing with loons. It has the added bonus of giving the Regressive Left an excuse as to why they lost that doesn't involve them doing any form of self reflection.
Re:"Suggesting" ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Just apply the Clinton rules. Even if there's zero evidence of any wrongdoing, she must be punished for something, because surely she did something wrong.
Re:"Suggesting" ... (Score:4, Informative)
No evidence? She literally used Bleachbit on her server after being supoenaed and told to not delete anything. If she was literally anyone else she would be in jail right now. 30,000+ counts of destruction of evidence.
Re:"Suggesting" ... (Score:5, Interesting)
The undereducated middle class whites of the rust belt region were not in a foreign country.
Trump won seven out of 10 non-college white men and six out of 10 non-college women. [newsweek.com]
The largest voting bloc were the ones who didn't show up.
And 31415926535897 [slashdot.org] is correct in that HRC and DNC baggages had enough anchors in them to sink the fucking Titanic.
[Disclaimer: I didn't vote for the goddam pussy-grabber.]
Re:"Suggesting" ... (Score:5, Informative)
HRC and DNC baggages had enough anchors in them to sink the fucking Titanic.
Clinton lost election. Full stop. Trump had zero to do with it. Putin had zero to do with it. The DNC made their beds with 'super delegates' long before the general election. When are they going to stop blaming everything from Ze Ruskies to Trump supporters?
The whole election came down to a few swing states, namely Wisconsin and Michigan. States that Clinton didn't even bother to visit until late into the cycle. (And she just sent Kaine to WI). It's not hard to see when you compare the 2012 and 2016 elections, it makes it even easier since Stein and Johnson ran in both elections making them a good control. This was her election to lose and she did.
Wisconsin:
2012:
2016:
Michigan
2012:
2016:
Re: (Score:3)
The Libertarian candidate pulls 5x the votes in Wisconsin and 25x the votes in Michigan, mostly from people who voted for Obama in 2012. Oh, but election hacks, even after recounting in Wisconsin. It couldn't possibly be that the DNC nominated the only person that could have possibly lost to Trump, and did, after fucking up in practically every meaningful way possible. Or that their candidate already had massive trust issues with the public, which were further exacerbated by chains of revelations about h
Re: (Score:3)
The Superdelegates had enough votes to give the nomination to Bernie, which they should have done. That's the whole reason they exist, so that terrible candidates such as Clinton don't get the nomination and then lose the general election.
Re: (Score:3)
The Superdelegates had enough votes to give the nomination to Bernie, which they should have done.
So first the Bernie supporters blame superdelagates for unfairly rigging the election against Bernie, then when Bernie would have lost without them anyways they blame the superdelagates for not backing him.
That's the whole reason they exist, so that terrible candidates such as Clinton don't get the nomination and then lose the general election.
They exist to keep candidates like Bernie (and Trump) from winning the nomination, and you damn well know it. It's just that this election cycle turned conventional thinking on its head. If Bernie had actually won the nomination and lost to Trump we'd be hearing how stupid the Democrats were for not going
Re: (Score:3)
So first the Bernie supporters blame superdelagates for unfairly rigging the election against Bernie, then when Bernie would have lost without them anyways they blame the superdelagates for not backing him.
Why can't both be true? It was well known going into the primaries that superdelegates heavily favored Clinton. That meant that Clinton would have gotten a lot of funding and support that she otherwise would have had to work to get. And she just might have lost without that funding and support.
Then of course, the superdelegates indeed could have voted for Sanders instead of Clinton at the convention.
They exist to keep candidates like Bernie (and Trump) from winning the nomination, and you damn well know it. It's just that this election cycle turned conventional thinking on its head. If Bernie had actually won the nomination and lost to Trump we'd be hearing how stupid the Democrats were for not going with Hillary.
And the obvious rebuttal would have been a list of the problems Clinton brings along with the question, "W
Re:"Suggesting" ... (Score:5, Insightful)
However we will still have to wait as to whether a Trump administration will turn out to be a good or a bad experience.
Prior to January 1, 2016, I would have a snarky answer for this.
However ...
In late December, 2015, my wife expressed concern that Trump would win the GOP nomination.
I assured her that, "Trump would be gone by the end of February."
Then, I predicted, all along the way, that Trump would lose in the worst spanking in the history of US elections.
Shortly after midnight, November 8-9, I was like, "WTF!?"
So, my political predictive super powers are bullshit.
Instead of a smart-ass, uninformed remark, I'll adopt a wait-and-see and hope for the best.
Re:"Suggesting" ... (Score:5, Interesting)
And you aren't concerned that a foreign country directly altered the outcome of an election here?
You know what was more impactful to the outcome of the election than the fact that "russian hackers" leaked some e-mails?
The fact that the DNC threw all its might into nominating the only possible candidate who could have lost to Trump. You know, the facts that were revealed.
You fucktards need to start cleaning your own house rather than trying to deflect attention from what really happened with this endless "RUSSIA HACKED THE ELECTION" BS.
Re:"Suggesting" ... (Score:5, Funny)
You election deniers are quite entertaining.
At least 9-11 conspiracy 'theorists' can at least point to some kind of evidence which can be examined & considered.
Re: "Suggesting" ... (Score:5, Interesting)
How did they "directly" do that? Was Putin in the back of a Wisconsin precinct throwing away ballots?
Obtaining and releasing information is hardly "directly" affecting an election outcome. Would you charge the New York Times with the same shit? Because they do that every day. Yes, sometimes via extra-legal means.
Re: (Score:3)
Evidently, some Democrats decided Clinton's crap was too dirty NOT to reveal to the public...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk]
Re:"Suggesting" ... (Score:4, Informative)
The emission of the DNC emails is not nearly as concerning to me as the omission of the data stolen from the RNC.
Except that the RNC was never hacked [politico.com], so they didn't have any stolen data to release.
Re: (Score:3)
"Doesn't it bother you that, somewhere out there, that data is floating around, just waiting to be used as leverage to blackmail Trump or other senior officials at some later date?"
The same Trump who can deny whatever the hell he wants to deny -- even if crap is recorded? No. It doesn't bother me.
You are making some pretty big assumptions.
1: Russia was involved DNC "hacks"
(CIA doesn't say they were. They say they have "high confidence" they were involved. Doesn't mean they were right and some of our o
Re: "Suggesting" ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Imagine that in a U.S. Presidential election, a group acting without the direct knowledge of the candidate broke into offices of the Democratic National Committee headquarters, intending to wiretap the offices and look for material that could be used to attack them and make them look bad.
Would that have been a scandal? Because that's never happe- oh, wait, it did. It was called Watergate: https://en.w [wikipedia.org]
Re:"Suggesting" ... (Score:5, Insightful)
But the Watergate burglars were caught. We have no evidence Russia did squat. And even if we did, okay, what do you want to do about it? Anoint Clinton to spite Russia? Go to war with Russia because Podesta can't spot a fucking phishing email?
How about instead, 1) don't do shady shit you wouldn't want the electorate finding out about like getting the debate questions early from the news network, and 2) practice better computer security.
Have we forgotten the Pentagon Papers were stolen? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, it's more like the Pentagon Papers, which as you might remember were stolen [umkc.edu], though they disputed the charge based on him not using them for personal gain and eventually got the charges thrown out due to illegal acts by the prosecution.
Even if we assume the DNC leak was a Russian hack despite the fact that most of the evidence boils down to what can be paraphrased as "trust our anonymous sources, they've got this, it's totally not like that time with the WMDs where we helped cause a war over nothing," the harm from these leaks were the revelations that peoples' votes for Bernie didn't matter and the media will print whatever the DNC tells them to, followed by the media carefully avoiding any actual reporting on the leaks. You saw this on Slashdot where they ignored the important, meaty submissions and posted fluffy crap like the "food groups" of VP candidates (they were sorted by race & sex, with Bernie off by himself in the special group), never mind that we had other leaks showing Tim Kaine was always going to be the VP pick in a quid pro quo arrangement and the entire exercise was a farce where they went through a dance to make it look legitimate.
I mean, just look at how pathetic the media has become:
“Because I have become a hack I will send u the whole section that pertains to u Please don’t share or tell anyone I did this Tell me if I f**ked up anything,”
- Politico reporter Glenn Thrush [wikileaks.com] via the Podesta dump
Do you really expect journalism when we have pathetic hacks like this doing our reporting? I do more actual journalism than this and I have a real job and write comments whenever I'm bored or can't sleep.
Re:"Suggesting" ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Notice that the coverage has gone from Russians "hacking" the voting machines, to the subtly different "hacking" the elections, ie trying to manipulate the elections. This is of course as the plausibility of the DNCs original intimation of hacked voting machines falls after the WI recount.
In that EXACT same syntax, Martin Sheen's bitchfest video begging electors not to vote for Trump is trying to "hack" (ie manipulate) the election.
For that matter, why aren't we talking just as much about the $millions$ HRC took from Qatar and other Gulf States for her campaign? Weren't they trying to 'hack' the election in their much more direct and documented way?
Re:"Suggesting" ... (Score:5, Informative)
Here is Secretary Of State Kerry [c-span.org] today, unwilling to hang his hat on unnamed "intelligence officials" and their latest evidence free "analysis."
It's all fun and games at CNN and MSNBC and the rest of the usual suspects; they don't hesitate to broadcast the 100% evidence free analysis of political appointees in the "intelligence community" as metaphysical certitude. But aim a camera at one of these politicians and suddenly it's "I'm not commenting on that."
It's fake news folks and it's not going to work. Trump isn't some pansy ass RINO praying no one calls him a name or tries to put stink on him. You can echo this shit all you want. In the end it won't matter.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
... nothing of substance here.
Exactly. In fact, viewed carefully, all of this can be traced back to one person: James Clapper. It was Clapper's statement that was first used to claim "17 intelligence agencies" have said Russia was involved in the hacks. Clapper's statement is full of opinions "we believe" and vague correlations with no real evidence. The Washington Post article quoted an unnamed "official" who was repeating what he heard from unnamed sources (hearsay about hearsay). And the statements sound suspiciously similar to C
Why won't they just show their proof? (Score:4, Insightful)
They are just inferring, where is the proof they were involved?
Re:Why won't they just show their proof? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also today: CIA and NSA brass has refused to testify in front of congress as to the facts of these allegations. The narrative being pushed into the media and the very circumstantial evidence together with the "just trust us, we are the good guys" makes it seem very fishy. Clinton has indicated she wants to steer into another Cold War, her surprise loss to Trump sent the industrial complex into a frenzy trying to force the hands of both Russia and US.
Re: (Score:2)
. The narrative being pushed into the willing media
Fix that for you. I mean, it was also exposed that most of the MSM was directly involved with the DNC and Hillary Campaign.
Re: (Score:3)
From your citations:
Re: (Score:2)
They are just inferring, where is the proof they were involved?
There are lots of possible reasons why no proof has been offered. Just speculation, but the answer could be as simple as, "we have a guy on the inside."
Unfortunately, the Administration seems to think everyone will take them at their word.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Does this qualify as proof?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk]
At least he's in esteemed company (Score:2, Informative)
Cut The Bull! (Score:4, Informative)
Anonymous sources claim...
CIA Suspects...
White House believes...
None of this is evidence, let alone proof.
All I'm seeing for the past several days is sour grapes, bitterness, and misdirection. What don't they want us looking at?
Shocking (Score:4, Insightful)
Obama's options were:
A) Either his ideas and presidency were so bad that he personally drove the country to find and elect someone like Trump, or
B) The Russia-fairy hacked the election.
I'm shocked and amazed that he picked B. What's even more amazing is that all of his political appointees also picked B, while the career intelligence officers that work for them all appear to have picked A.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, I almost forgot. Since it is $CURRENT_YEAR, I need to provide the meme version too. So, if the above was TL;DR, please see this concise summary [i.sli.mg] instead.
Re:Shocking (Score:5, Insightful)
C) The democrats chose their candidate poorly and Trump winning had not much to do with Obama and more to do with Hillary?
P.S. Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.
Re: (Score:3)
Is the weather nice on your planet?
Re: (Score:2)
Another bald-faced lie.
Concrete proof or STFU already! (Score:2, Insightful)
This entire argument STILL relies on third party unverified and unsourced claims.
Hey, I VOTED for Trump. But there's just no first hand sourced proof that this is at all true. And by god I WANT to know if there is proof. But then again I've wanted proof about what he's doing or has done this entire election cycle. Yet no one seems to be able to show up with ANYTHING that at matches the claims that the media keeps coming up with.
Re: (Score:3)
But there's just no first hand sourced proof that this is at all true. And by god I WANT to know if there is proof.
Think about it. There is an objective truth out there, but you'll never know what it is. There is no such thing as proof.
Suppose we had a voice recording of Putin saying "Hack the DNC and release the emails to wikileaks". If we had that no way they'd let you know because then Putin would know... that we had his calls at least around such and such a day at such and such a time in such and such a place... that could put agents at risk, that could put other assets/access at risk, or expose capabilities etc et
Re: (Score:2)
Something better than 'OMG Guys, it's the probably the Russians' repeated over and over again.
Again, there's not even remotely a consensuses in the US intel community that has happened in this election. Yet several IT experts at least suggest that all this data came out of the really bad IT policies of the Clinton Campaign. And even more than that there has been several actions by the DNC and the Clinton themselves that at least suggest they're acting like a lot of it was true.
In the end we're not likely
Re: (Score:2)
Any kind of actual evidence whatsoever would go a good long way. Even the linked BBC article states
There has been no specific evidence shared publicly to confirm Mr Putin's role or knowledge of the hackings.
tl;dr (Score:5, Informative)
There has been no specific evidence shared publicly to confirm Mr Putin's role or knowledge of the hackings.
The new owners of Slashdot really annoy me (Score:4, Insightful)
It's obvious that they post a lot of "in power" propaganda and support pretty much anything that comes out of the White House's media matters. Are things going to switch when Trump gets in and disbands the current propaganda machine or harnesses it for his own use? Or is Slashdot going to follow the globalist machine outlet to wherever it goes after the official controller of the current propaganda mill moves on?
The Russians didn't... (Score:5, Insightful)
- Game the DNC system against Bernie
- Keep Clinton from campaigning in the midwest
- Cause Clinton to collapse into a van
- Keep Clinton away from the press for most of the campaign
- Make Clinton call half the country rude names
- Force Clinton to set up a shitty little email server
- Tell Clinton's campaign manager that it's OK to click on "legitimate" phishing emails
Have to agree with Barack when he said, "The 1980's are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War's been over for 20 years." My money is still on a (non-Russian) pissed-off Bernie-backer as the real Wikileaks connection - most of the grey+ hats I know were quite #neverclinton.
Re: (Score:3)
There was no "gaming of the DNC system". This is one of these stupid political memes that flourish because people are ignorant about how things work.
The DNC is not a non-partisan or representative body elected by the party at large. By design. I know, because when this came up I took the time read the party bylaws. Like the RNC it is a creature of the party insiders -- and by "insiders" I mean people who have actually spent their time doing stuff like working their way up from canvasser to precinct capta
Re: (Score:3)
"To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables," Clinton said. "Right? Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it." (http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-basket-of-deplorables/)
>>> Trump (said) worse things
What's worse than being called a "racist"?
If you talk about Putin and Russia (Score:5, Insightful)
but don't mention anything to do with George Soros or middle eastern donations to the Clinton campaign you're playing partisan politics.
If you talk about Russia influencing the elections by releasing harmful Clinton emails but never mention the contents of those emails and what it means, you're playing partisan politics.
If you talk about everything above you're having a rational discussion, but having the typical towing the party line headline like this one you're just showing what side you're on.
If it is true (Score:5, Funny)
Assange was just on Hannity saying it wasnt Russia (Score:5, Informative)
Assange was on Hannity today, and again, said the leaks did not come from Russia.
Julian Assange Speaks to Hannity, Says That Russian Gov’t Was Not His Source [mediaite.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yep... and then the White House press secretary slipped up and blamed China instead of Russia too....
http://conservativetribune.com... [conservativetribune.com]
But I like Judge Napolitano's commentary:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion... [foxnews.com]
Strange how these things turn around (Score:3)
Today we call it a hack when a 3rd party exposes factually accurate information to the people and then get angry about it.
Meanwhile, I'm just sitting here wondering, "Didn't we used to call that journalism?" /kermit
In all seriousness, it's fun that people seem to be more upset about the "hack" and not the data contained therein. If it were enough to lose the election, doesn't that say more about the data and not it's means of acquisition?
Re: (Score:3)
Very well-stated.
I am very disappointed by the integrity of the press as well as the Democrats regarding this subject.
It's the *content* of the emails that needs to be questioned, not the source.
I'm just glad it got out.
What a year (Score:5, Funny)
I'm glad I lived to see the day that the WHITEHOUSE would complain that the KREMLIN had told the truth, and that this was UNACCEPTABLE.
What a year indeed.
Re: (Score:3)
Also a year when hackers (or leakers) reveal the truth about political corruption, and the journalists try to cover it up! Can you imagine Woodward and Bernstein attacking Deep Throat instead of reporting what he revealed?
Re: (Score:3)
CNN told people it was illegal for them to look at Wikileaks.
Russan Hackers != The Russians... (Score:2)
Ah come on...
Some DNC operative fell for a common G-Mail Phising attack, gives up his password to some *unknown* hacker, possibly Russian based and his E-mail's start showing up on WikI Leaks and now the Russians are responsible for "hacking the election"? Seriously? I don't know, maybe I'm a bit too partisan here, but you know the DNC would be coming unglued if hacked RNC E-mails showed even a whiff of something like what was reveled.
MAYBE, just maybe, the DNC should take careful stock of what they are
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe if the DNC was doing really shady things they didn't want anyone to know about, and they thought that information getting out was going to cost them the election, THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!
Though, really, if they didn't just try to steamroll Hildogg in because "It's her turn!" and actually listened to any of the people or their concerns, they may have had a fighting chance.
Really, I'm seeing a pattern here...
Why is this even news? (Score:2)
Why is this even on Slashdot? It's a tech site. It should know the most basic information: VOTING MACHINES AREN'T CONNECTED TO THE INTARWEBNETS!
This is like the same old shit from the 80s: Every bad guy and wrong action is Russian trying to threaten democracy!
The only remotely concrete anything I can find on this topic is that the DNC had a bunch of leaks prior to the election. So... transparency in government operations especially on the election of officials, that sounds typically anti-Russian to me. An
Re: (Score:2)
"Why is this even on Slashdot? It's a tech site."
It used to be a tech site, with primarily FOSS related news. Way back in the day, the vast majority of visitors primarily used Linux. Things have changed. This is no longer just "a tech site".
You stopped reading before my point. I understand that 90% of the news on here isn't about tech anymore, but I assumed that there was enough tech left to at least know the basics of "must be plugged in / connected to remotely hack"
Insultingly amateurish globalist propaganda (Score:2)
This agitprop is hilarious to any discerning person.
Sounds about right (Score:4, Insightful)
He[Putin] publicly accused her[Clinton] of encouraging street protests.
Considering the street protests after she lost, this seems to be the most accurate part of the article.
It's a good test of skill (Score:3)
Russia's influence on the recent U.S. Presidential contest further legitimized the electoral outcome. Because Russia is a potent adversary, confronting it during the campaign as a candidate made the electoral competition a better test, one more representative of the winner's subsequent and challenging work in international relations. Hillary Clinton failed that test abysmally by surrounded herself with incompetent sycophants who fell for the stupidest of phishing scams, by her having engaged in such scandalous conduct for so many years that the leaks were significantly damaging, and by relying on such a thin veil of secrecy to conceal her dishonesty; Information wants to be free and those million-dollar speeches to Wall Street bankers were getting out one way or another.
It is backwards to assert that her evident ineptitude in protecting herself from the hacking and leaks which exposed her corruption recommends her for the office of U.S. President. On the contrary, getting owned by Russia in a presidential campaign is a good indication that the United States would have lost big to Russia in any subsequent foreign relations dispute with her as President.
Since I don't see anyone else linking to it... (Score:3, Informative)
...here's the most likely answer...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk]
When you run an operation so corrupt and dirty that it pisses off your own people, you get outed...
Re: (Score:2)
Could be fake news [youtube.com]
But then again this is information being fed to us by the CIA/NSA etc which has been planting friendly operatives as the head of state for many countries for the past 70 years now
Who do we believe? (Score:5, Insightful)
In other news, both Wikileaks and Putin deny that Russia did any of this.
Who do we believe? And note that the US isn't showing evidence, just like they didn't show evidence for "weapons of mass destruction".
Assange said specifically that it wasn't the Russians who leaked the information, and he's in a position to know the truth and has an unblemished record. (You may disagree with what he does, but you can't legitimately say that any of his information is made up.)
Furthermore, isn't transparency a good thing? To take a random example, isn't Clinton taking $28 million from Morocco [dailycaller.com] exactly the sort of thing that should be investigated by the news and discussed in public?
Or how about the DNC torpedoing Bernie Sanders' campaign. Isn't that something that's important enough to be transparent to the public?
I have to think that this isn't Russia's problem as much as it was Clinton's.
It's sort of like finding out whether the voting machinery is rigged. On the one hand, it embarrasses the country. On the other hand, transparency leads to fixes.
Re:Who do we believe? (Score:4, Insightful)
How would Assange even know? It's not like someone would phone him and say "Hello, Julian, this is Yuri from FSB, and we have Democrat emails for you to publish." Beyond which, I have so little faith in Assange as a teller of truth these days I see no reason to accept any claim he makes. Even Ecuador shut down his Internet access, clearly believing he was using their facilities to less than noble ends.
Re:Who do we believe? (Score:5, Interesting)
When did Assange ever lie? You may not like his bias based on what he chooses to reveal or not, but to my knowledge I can't think of a single lie he's ever told.
Also, how would Assange know? Perhaps the person identified themselves. "Hi Julian, this is Seth Rich, DNC staffer. Here's the emails." We're pretty damn sure Assange knew he was getting the military intel dump from Bradley Manning from the chat logs. There's little to suggest Assange doesn't know where his information comes from. He would probably want to know where it comes from to help him verify the information so he can keep his 100% spotless record of never releasing anything that's been shown to be false.
Re:Who do we believe? (Score:5, Interesting)
A guy who specifically times releases of data to coincide with the US election isn't exactly what I'd call an unbiased actor,
No one says Assange isn't biased. All humans are biased. I'm pretty sure Assange hates Hillary because 1) wars and 2) she wanted to drone strike him. But name one provable lie Assange has ever told.
and the fact that he didn't seem to be delivering any details on Trump indicates that whoever was feeding him the data had specific objects in mind.
Or it indicates Assange didn't have dirt on Trump. Assange deals in hacked or leaked computer data. Trump barely uses email. What is there to hack?
And here we go again with the Clintons As Mafioso conspiracy theory once again...
You don't get to bitch about conspiracy theories while shilling for the "PUTIN HAXX0RS EVERYTHING!!!!" conspiracy theory.
Re: (Score:3)
Assange made Wikileaks an active player, a maker of news, rather than a reporting of news
Do you believe there's such a thing as a pure reporter of news? Can you give me an example of an unbiased news source?
and makes his now declarations that it wasn't the Russians (something I doubt he has any ability to determine) fairly unbelievable to me.
Why wouldn't he have the ability to determine the source of the leak? I was under the impression Wikileaks knows who their sources are as part of their verification process. Of course it could be a double-fake, where the Ruskies hacked the DNC and then slipped the info to a DNC staffer who identified himself to Assange, but that seems odd. Again, you're decrying "conspiracy theories" while i
Re: (Score:2)
Well I didn't mean my comment seriously. I just wanted to point out that this is the usual reaction by people on the left to people right claiming that the elections are rigged or that the clintons kill people or stuff. Yes, maybe some of these things are entirely made up, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't deserve to get attention, as there might be stuff in there that's actually correct and it will be banned as well because its "fake" by some politically biased standard.
Re: (Score:3)
You look at the evidence. If someone doesn't present evidence, it's the same as if they've proven nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
There isn't much brain between the eyes btw, its more above your eyes or behind them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Not one mention of the damning email content.
Only that they got out.
Re: (Score:2)
This is what cracks me up.
No one is holding Hillary responsible for the damning *content* of her (and Podesta's) emails.
Only that they got caught.
I don't give a rat's ass who revealed the emails. I'm just glad the truth got out.
If that's "manipulating the election" then I say Hillary, the DNC and Podesta's COMMENTS caused the change.
Let's not shoot the messenger. Let's just be glad the messages got out.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, they are conflaiting a whole bunch of different leaks that exposed the Democrats, Hillary and even Obama to the corrupt people they actually are.
The ONLY real hacking attempt we have of this election came from the Department of Homeland Security on Georgia state election offices. But don't let that fool you, it was the RUSSIANS!!!
Re: (Score:3)
Well in this case the democrats have lost so badly over the last 8 years I'm not even sure they can be called a national party anymore. Coastal and urban, but that's all. They've lost the house, the senate, the presidency, soon the Supreme Court, and they've only got about a quarter of the governor's mansions and state legislatures. If they lose one more state legislature the Republicans can pass constitutional amendments without opposition. And not having those state party up and comers means they don't ha