Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Security United States Democrats Privacy Republicans Politics

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

White House Supports Claim Putin Directed US Election Hack

Comments Filter:
  • "Suggesting" ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CaptainDork ( 3678879 ) on Thursday December 15, 2016 @06:16PM (#53493347)

    ... nothing of substance here.

    • by 31415926535897 ( 702314 ) on Thursday December 15, 2016 @06:34PM (#53493503) Journal

      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)

        by SubtleGuest ( 967971 )
        And you aren't concerned that a foreign country directly altered the outcome of an election here?
        • by sexconker ( 1179573 ) on Thursday December 15, 2016 @06:48PM (#53493591)

          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.

          • by rtb61 ( 674572 ) on Thursday December 15, 2016 @07:20PM (#53493847) Homepage

            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)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              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

          • by Rei ( 128717 ) on Thursday December 15, 2016 @07:30PM (#53493931) Homepage

            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.

              • That's how journalism works, especially when dealing with informants that can get sacked or retaliated against due to the information they're providing. You can't just throw away all journalism just because of anonymous sources. It's a practice that is as old as written history.
          • Re:"Suggesting" ... (Score:4, Interesting)

            by iMadeGhostzilla ( 1851560 ) on Thursday December 15, 2016 @08:58PM (#53494413)

            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?

          • What "truth" would that be? What "truth" about the Democratic Party would be far worse than a foreign nation meddling with our electoral process?

            • by Boronx ( 228853 )

              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.

        • by Anonymous Coward

          directly altered? hardly

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          you mean like the CIA has been doing in other countries for the last 50+ years?
        • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 15, 2016 @07:07PM (#53493751)

          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.

        • by msauve ( 701917 ) on Thursday December 15, 2016 @07:10PM (#53493777)
          "a foreign country directly altered the outcome of an election"

          FAKE NEWS ALERT!
          • Re:"Suggesting" ... (Score:5, Informative)

            by serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) on Friday December 16, 2016 @06:21AM (#53496081) Journal

            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.

        • by meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Thursday December 15, 2016 @07:16PM (#53493809) Journal

          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.

        • by _KiTA_ ( 241027 ) on Thursday December 15, 2016 @07:16PM (#53493813) Homepage

          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:5, Interesting)

          by CaptainDork ( 3678879 ) on Thursday December 15, 2016 @07:23PM (#53493871)

          ... foreign country directly altered ...

          The undereducated middle class whites of the rust belt region were not in a foreign country.

          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)

            by 0100010001010011 ( 652467 ) on Thursday December 15, 2016 @07:50PM (#53494069)

            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:

            1. Obama: 1,620,985
            2. Romney: 1,407,966
            3. Johnson: 20,439
            4. Stein: 7,665

            2016:

            1. Trump: 1,405,284
            2. Clinton: 1,382,536
            3. Johnson: 106,674
            4. Stein: 31,072

            Michigan
            2012:

            1. Obama: 2,564,569
            2. Romney: 2,115,256
            3. Johnson: 7,774
            4. Stein: 21,897

            2016:

            1. Trump: 2,279,543
            2. Clinton: 2,268,839
            3. Johnson: 172,136
            4. Stein: 51,463
            • 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:"Suggesting" ... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by aardvarkjoe ( 156801 ) on Thursday December 15, 2016 @07:24PM (#53493881)

          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.

        • by DaHat ( 247651 ) on Thursday December 15, 2016 @07:41PM (#53494011) Homepage

          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)

          by MachineShedFred ( 621896 ) on Thursday December 15, 2016 @08:03PM (#53494143) Journal

          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:2, Insightful)

        As with most things done "on a computer" this isn't new. So let's translate it for the non-internet age.

        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]
        • by meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Thursday December 15, 2016 @07:20PM (#53493843) Journal

          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.

        • by Xenographic ( 557057 ) on Thursday December 15, 2016 @07:58PM (#53494115) Journal

          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)

        by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Thursday December 15, 2016 @06:58PM (#53493677) Journal

        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)

      by Tailhook ( 98486 ) on Thursday December 15, 2016 @07:22PM (#53493859)

      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

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 15, 2016 @06:17PM (#53493357)

    They are just inferring, where is the proof they were involved?

    • by guruevi ( 827432 ) <`evi' `at' `evcircuits.com'> on Thursday December 15, 2016 @06:24PM (#53493413) Homepage

      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.

      • . 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.

    • 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.

      • Yep. This is how Intelligence works. The secrecy levels and the caveats are used to protect the methods and sources that gathered the information. Raw reports are classified the highest, because of the likelihood that they can be used to identify the source behind them. The more you water down the information, you protect the source, and can share it more widely, but at the cost of exacting accuracy. For instance, if the OSS/MI6 had a spy in Hitler's inner circle that was passing them secrets, they'd go to
      • That may work for not disclosing the information to the public. But the CIA refused to brief the House Intelligence Committee in a closed session. Which exist specifically for oversight on intelligence matters. This just policy by press release.
    • by dbreeze ( 228599 )

      Does this qualify as proof?
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk]

  • Putin knew. Who didn't? [politico.com]
  • Cut The Bull! (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 15, 2016 @06:20PM (#53493375)

    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)

    by Orgasmatron ( 8103 ) on Thursday December 15, 2016 @06:20PM (#53493377)

    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.

  • 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.

    • by vux984 ( 928602 )

      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

  • tl;dr (Score:5, Informative)

    by Shiptar ( 792005 ) on Thursday December 15, 2016 @06:25PM (#53493421)

    There has been no specific evidence shared publicly to confirm Mr Putin's role or knowledge of the hackings.

  • by pecosdave ( 536896 ) on Thursday December 15, 2016 @06:29PM (#53493457) Homepage Journal

    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?

  • by xxxJonBoyxxx ( 565205 ) on Thursday December 15, 2016 @06:29PM (#53493459)
    The Russians didn't:
    - 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.
    • by hey! ( 33014 )

      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

  • by pecosdave ( 536896 ) on Thursday December 15, 2016 @06:32PM (#53493479) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by wjcofkc ( 964165 ) on Thursday December 15, 2016 @06:32PM (#53493481)
    The most interesting thing about it is that no one seems to care outside of the media reporting it.
  • by BrookHarty ( 9119 ) on Thursday December 15, 2016 @06:37PM (#53493515) Homepage Journal

    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]

  • 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?

    • 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)

    by cfalcon ( 779563 ) on Thursday December 15, 2016 @06:42PM (#53493545)

    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.

    • 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?

  • 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

    • 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 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

  • This agitprop is hilarious to any discerning person.

  • Sounds about right (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Scarred Intellect ( 1648867 ) on Thursday December 15, 2016 @06:55PM (#53493653) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by Jodka ( 520060 ) on Thursday December 15, 2016 @07:13PM (#53493791)

    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.

  • by dbreeze ( 228599 ) on Thursday December 15, 2016 @08:00PM (#53494125)

    ...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...

I am more bored than you could ever possibly be. Go back to work.

Working...