Dutch Intelligence Agents Watched Russia Hack the DNC (volkskrant.nl) 358
Long-time Slashdot readers Agilulf, Sara Chan, and wiredmikey -- plus an anonymous reader -- all submitted the same story. Agilulf writes:
Dutch hackers from AIVD (their intelligence agency) infiltrated Russian hackers, had access to their CCTV system, and followed them for more than a year, watched their attack on the DNC, provided the proof to the U.S. intelligence community that Russia was behind those hacks and the stolen emails, and were disappointed with the response from the U.S.
The Dutch agents also watched Russian agents breach a non-classified network at the U.S. State Department in 2014, where the Russians then sent a phishing email to the White House, successfully stole login credentials, and then accessed email from embassies and diplomats.
"Three American intelligence services state with 'high confidence' that the Kremlin was behind the attack on the Democratic Party," according to the article, which adds that that certainty "is derived from the AIVD hackers having had access to the office-like space in the center of Moscow for years."
The Dutch agents also watched Russian agents breach a non-classified network at the U.S. State Department in 2014, where the Russians then sent a phishing email to the White House, successfully stole login credentials, and then accessed email from embassies and diplomats.
"Three American intelligence services state with 'high confidence' that the Kremlin was behind the attack on the Democratic Party," according to the article, which adds that that certainty "is derived from the AIVD hackers having had access to the office-like space in the center of Moscow for years."
Stolen email (Score:5, Insightful)
So the emails were real. Not fake.
You get it wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
I also note that from all what is said,m all the hacking, all you retained "the email were [possibly] not fake" I can only say , i am betting you are one of those ultr
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No they were not fake, but it suited some political purpose to say so, besides which, that was last years bullshit
Re: (Score:2)
And there was nothing significant in them anyway -- the Democrats said so themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re-instate Hillary Clinton as President, now !
That's not how impeachment works. The vote was still real.
Re: (Score:3)
For all that long rant, you missed the point. Impeach Trump and you don't get a do-over, you get the line of succession.
Re: (Score:2)
For all that long rant, you missed the point. Impeach Trump and you don't get a do-over, you get the line of succession.
I know that, you get Pence and then Paul Ryan, Orrin Hatch, Rex Tillerson.... (bit like a monarchy isn’t it?) ... but I don’t care about that. The only two points I was trying to make are, a) Trump’s presidency is many things but it is not the will of the manority of the American people and, b) Trump is so incredibly dirty and corrupt that he could be impeached in a New York minute if them that sit in Congress wanted to. Maybe there is also a third point c) the electoral college is about a
Re: (Score:2)
The electoral college is a check and balance against gerrymandering. Of course, gerrymandering still won him the presidency. But don't blame the electoral college.
Re: (Score:3)
The electoral college is a check and balance against gerrymandering. Of course, gerrymandering still won him the presidency. But don't blame the electoral college.
There is no gerrymandering in presidential elections except the electoral college. It is an obsolete 18th century election result manipulation instrument meant to guard against precisely the kind of demagogue that Trump is. However, the electoral college hasn’t worked as intended for over a century because for it to work the college members would have to think for thrmselves and vote against the demagogue rather than vote like sheep for him. Presidential elections should be a one-man-one-vote, popular
Re: (Score:2)
It's amazing how so many apparently smart people do not understand the "electoral college." It lessens the chance that the President is selected only by the voters of a few metropolises. Anyhow, if you didn't learn about the "electoral college" in school you can learn about it at Wikipedia (assuming there's a good article for it there that hasn't been vandalized by anti-American ideologues).
Re: (Score:3)
It's amazing how so many apparently smart people do not understand the "electoral college." It lessens the chance that the President is selected only by the voters of a few metropolises. Anyhow, if you didn't learn about the "electoral college" in school you can learn about it at Wikipedia (assuming there's a good article for it there that hasn't been vandalized by anti-American ideologues).
Are you referring to the good old argument that the electoral college is gerrymandered '...to protect the little states...'? If the electoral college was meant to protect the little states it is failing spectacularly. If you take a look at where candidates campaign the most it is in a few key swing states. The small states get next to no attention.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no gerrymandering in presidential elections except the electoral college.
Gerrymandering happens before the election and it has little to do with the electoral college process. The electoral college just means that the actual deciding votes are cast by electors rather than the tallied votes themselves. Some states use a winner-takes-all approach, some do it proportionally. Neither really has anything to do with how a state is divided into its districts per se - it's up to the state decide how electors are chosen.
Re: (Score:2)
The electoral college is a check and balance against gerrymandering. Of course, gerrymandering still won him the presidency. But don't blame the electoral college.
There is no gerrymandering in presidential elections except the electoral college. It is an obsolete 18th century election result manipulation instrument meant to guard against precisely the kind of demagogue that Trump is. However, the electoral college hasn’t worked as intended for over a century because for it to work the college members would have to think for thrmselves and vote against the demagogue rather than vote like sheep for him. Presidential elections should be a one-man-one-vote, popular vote wins affair, end of story!
As much as I enjoy seeing a frothing-at-the-mouth temper tantrum from a disappointed Hillary lover, I must point out that you don't get to change the rules after the game already been played. In the real world, losers don't get "participant" trophies that pampered millennials have come to expect. The electoral college is working as intended. The great compromise helps the lesser populated states from getting railroaded by the population centers. When you finish jumping up and down ranting about how CA, NY and the high population cities should be the deciders for all the rest of us, maybe you will wise up and see why we don't want to turn our power over to the nanny staters, crybullies, and the irrational numbskulls that think Hillary should be "reinstated". You're going to need a Constitutional amendment to drop the electoral college and I don't see it being ratified by the states you disagree with. So, in short, tough shit loser.
Hehe... Did you know that it is possible to win the electoral college and become POTUS with ~27% of the popular vote behind you? If that ever happens I hope whoever does it is a Clinton just so that I can hear you shriek so loud with outrage that your shrill, high-pitched girly scram shatters armour glass.
Re:Donald Trump collaborated the Russians (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Donald Trump collaborated the Russians (Score:5, Insightful)
Collusion and collaboration isn't necessary - all that is necessary is INTENT to solicit foreign aid/items of value for an election campaign - that itself is illegal and crime, and has already been demonstrated by the emails between them.
Are you referring to Trump or Hillary soliciting? (Score:2)
Collusion and collaboration isn't necessary - all that is necessary is INTENT to solicit foreign aid/items of value for an election campaign - that itself is illegal and crime, and has already been demonstrated by the emails between them.
Are you referring to Trump or Hillary soliciting? Because both solicited information from Russian sources through British intermediaries.
In the Hillary case they paid a strategic intelligence company who offered a former British MI6 agent with good ties to Russian intelligence to get dirt on Trump from the Russians.
In the Trump case a British publicist wanted to set up a meeting with a Russian lawyer who claimed to have dirt on Hillary.
Re: (Score:3)
> In the Hillary case they paid a strategic intelligence company who offered a former British MI6 agent with good ties to Russian intelligence to get dirt on Trump from the Russians.
Again - lying by omission. Isn't it also known that the RNC started giving money to this strategic intelligence company to get dirt on Trump, which was then taken up by DNC and others?
The Republican never Trumper's paid for it during the primaries. Hillary and the DNC paid for it during the general election.
Where is the lie by omission. There is no refutation of solicitation by Trump nor Hillary. You merely identify a third group. The third group adds to the first two, it does not exonerate either of the first two.
Re: (Score:2)
I would state that this is something like murder, where actions prior and not directly involved in, equivalate to the act.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with Bannon that the June 2016 meeting was treasonous. Those present had evidence that Russians had hacked Americans, and were planning to use what they found for their own political purposes. This should have been immediately reported to the FBI. If, as I believe, Trump Senior was aware of what was going on, he was an accessory to treason. Whether this can be proven is another matter.
Re: (Score:2)
The treason is so real it's already proven and known to the IC community.
I don't think it is proven (yet) in neither the legal sense or as in there is a "smoking gun". The june 2016 meeting with Donny jr. and a number of Russians comes pretty close, though: The Trump campaign were offered "dirt" as "part of Russias help to get Trump elected" - and then wanted to talk Magnitsky act.
In other words, both quid and qou were discussed at that meeting.
We still need to see evidence that anything came of it - or if Russia simply went it alone.
Re: (Score:2)
Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. It's not treason if the Russians set up a meeting offering oppo research, then spring discussion of the Magnitsky Act at the meeting, only to be told "no" or "we can't commit to that". Do you have actual evidence that any Trump person agreed to, or delivered, a "quo" in the hypothesized "quid pro quo"?
Re: (Score:2)
But close does count for something, if what counts is Trump's character. He certainly jumped at the chance to commit treason. If what counts is removing him from office, he's subsequently given
Re: (Score:2)
Getting oppo research on Crooked Hillary is not treason, no matter how much you want to pretend it is. That's the only thing Trump Jr clearly jumped at.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Again, receiving opposition research is not treason, no matter how many times you might claim it is. It isn't even illegal, and it sure falls short of the constitution's very explicit criteria for something to be treason.
Re: (Score:2)
Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
And atom bombs...
Also slow dancing
Re: Stolen email (Score:2)
Offered dirt that was never provided is proof of nothing.
The only 'dirt' that was offered was previously released DNC emails.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, if there had been any serious attempt to collude with Trump, it would have happened. He jumped at the chance. Th
Re: (Score:2)
If it was "proven" then why aren't there Congressional hearings in front of the Justice committees? Articles of Impeachment being offered and voted on?
Oh, because all 535 members of Congress are in on it too?
You know that the 535 members of Congress can't agree on anything, no matter how unimportant or inconsequential, right?
Re: (Score:3)
If it was "proven" then why aren't there Congressional hearings in front of the Justice committees? Articles of Impeachment being offered and voted on?
Two main reasons.:
Its purposefully difficult to impeach a sitting president. Took two years to get Nixon to the point where he knew what was going to happen if he didn't resign. Took from Day 1 of Clinton's reign. There are no charges yet to draw articles of impeachment.
The other is that Republicans are at present the majority in both house, and they support Trump.I'm not certain, but given the politicl climate, they would support him shooting someone, just as Trump himself noted.
The whole process w
Re: (Score:2)
If both Mueller provides sufficient ammunition, and the 2018 midterms are a disaster for the Republicans, I think the Republican party will calculate that a break from Trump is in their best interests. After all, is replacing Trump with Pence so bad from a right wing perspective? They get the same opportunities to move the Supreme and Federal courts more conservative, while beginning the process of suggesting they are a credible governing party, and not a rabble beholden to a raving lunatic.
If Mueller does
Plz learn definition of "treason" (Score:2)
Even *if* there was any evidence to support this Russian hacking story, that *still* would not implicate Trump.
To implicate Trump, you have to prove that Trump himself was somehow part of the hacking (duh).
And good luck proving that. If Russia wanted the hack the DNC, why would they need to conspire with citizen Trump?
Just because you don't like somebody, does not mean that person is guilty of treason.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it has been said there were a few fake ones in between
Probably it has been said by the likes of you. Everybody else knows that all the emails published by Wikileaks are authentic.
but the breaki.n happened and was done by russians was never disputed.
It was disputed since the beginning that a breaking happened and it was disputed since the beginning that Russians had something to do with it. Even the "Cozy Bear" and "Fancy Bear" names that pop around are just marketing names by Crowdstrike (the cybersecurity firm that got rich with the DNC hack investigation): "Unfortunately, there were big problems with CrowdStrike’s accoun [thebaffler.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That isn't how you know this. Your argument depends upon a chain of competent IT administration all the way back to Hillary's private DKIM key, which must also be of sufficient strength to resist being cracked by nation-state actors.
But, hey, don't let the nitty gritty details sully your glib narrative arc.
I just spend ten minutes checking out the reams of unstated assumptions involved here, and on balance, these DKIM signature
And? (Score:4, Interesting)
Does this change anything about the undisputed authenticity of the emails we saw? No.
I want to say "I hope the DNC has learned a valuable lesson about email and network security," but that would imply I think the DNC is capable of learning from their mistakes.
Re: (Score:2)
It would require them to remove USB ports so that the leaker could not have copied the emails onto a USB drive and sent it to Wikileaks.
Re: (Score:2)
Does this change anything about the undisputed authenticity of the emails we saw? No.
I want to say "I hope the DNC has learned a valuable lesson about email and network security," but that would imply I think the DNC is capable of learning from their mistakes.
So if no one ever disputed the authenticity of the emails then why are you now trying to change the topic to the authenticity of the emails?
Re: (Score:2)
Only Possible Explanation (Score:2)
that certainty "is derived from the AIVD hackers having had access to the office-like space in the center of Moscow for years."
Or maybe the hackers used social engineering to convince the landlords that they worked for the Kremlin. Or freelance and sometimes work for the Kremlin, but not always. Or the office space isn't in fact always only for groups working for the Kremlin.
Personally I'm ambivalent about this entire situation, but dislike how everyone seems to be jumping to one conclusion or another.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would Dutch intelligence infiltrate a random hacker space nor associated with Kremlin.....
Let's see: Dutch *counterintelligence* may want to infiltrate an organization who tries to infiltrate Dutch (or allied) information systems. The same group were active in France and Sweden. It is not a stretch to think that they may have tripped some wires in the Netherlands, causing the counterintelligence to start investigating.
Re: (Score:2)
> Why would Dutch intelligence infiltrate a random hacker space nor associated with Kremlin.....
I'd agree that the a Russian government funded and sponsored hacker group would be an intelligence prize. But why would they _not_ infiltrate a large hacker space of any nation? Such a group may break into spaces the intelligence officers have no legal authority to investigate directly, such as their own nation's private email or other agencies of their own government. Discovering and harvesting information, i
Well, sure, but you have to remember (Score:2)
The Dutch are rather liberal so of course anything they say can't really be trusted.
Re: (Score:2)
It's easy to prove they're very liberal, at least if you're a trustworthy resident of the Bible Belt.
After you've said your morning prayers and are done with plowing your fields and planting your corn and soybeans, face south towards the sun. Now think about where that liberal bastion, New York City, lays... a thousand miles or so to your left. And the Netherlands are several thousand miles further left than that!
Re: (Score:2)
The Dutch had to deal with swastika flags for about 5 years already [wikipedia.org]. I really doubt that they're anxious to relive those days.
Referendum (Score:5, Informative)
There is a referendum upcoming in the Netherlands about massively expanding what the intelligence agencies are allowed to do. Any information about Dutch intelligence in the coming months should be viewed in that light. The government is trying to paint them in as positive light as possible. Given that nothing they say can be verified, be careful what you believe.
Re: Referendum (Score:5, Insightful)
As a Dutch person myself, I'm quite sure this is mostly (if not completely) propaganda. The original story provides 0 proof of anything and shows several inconsistencies.
Re: Referendum (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The Volkskrant newspaper claims to have been working on this scoop for seven months to verify that the leaked information was genuine; they found 15 people willing to talk. Also, the newspaper has more information than what they publish. If anything, the newspaper chose to publish it before the referendum.
Re: (Score:2)
As a Dutch person myself, I'm quite sure this is mostly (if not completely) propaganda. The original story provides 0 proof of anything and shows several inconsistencies.
Here's a thought, how about you either enlighten us about the nature of these inconsistencies or stop making nebulous accusations?
Re: (Score:2)
I would not expect the Dutch intelligence to announce publicly that they had hacked a Russian hacker group. There are articles that suggest that they did, indeed, tell the NSA about the successful infiltration years ago.
* https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
You seem to be suggesting that they should have immediately announced it in the press at the time so that you, personally would be aware of it. Why would they do this, rather than leak it quietly and as necessary to allied nations' security agencies? As soo
Re: Referendum (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm Dutch too, and I share your disbelief. First of all, I distrust most media reports on hacking, since I think they don't understand most of it.
Second, I think a 'secret service' type of organization keeps its methods secret as much as possible. In this case they seem all to eager to broadcast their achievements.
Re: (Score:2)
Confirm this is true. The AIVD has a bit of a reputation of publishing dossiers to serve political ends.
On the other hand, they do have decent counterintelligence operatives, so after taking the bias into account do take this seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
This is where I stopped reading, as it marks you as an alt-right crank. The NOS' correspondent in Germany, for example, is well known to push alt-right propaganda. Leftist slant my arse.
Re: (Score:2)
To be more precise, the Dutch government wants to enshrine in law what is already common practice anyway: Dutch citizens being spied upon without a warrant by their own government.
And consider this: which government would voluntarily give up such a massive advantage that spying on the Russians might bring? Whatever technique they were using, you can rest assured the Russians will find it and close it now (assuming it existed of course).
And on top of that... They didn't even warn the Americans of what was ap
Re: (Score:2)
BR> On your third sentence, why don't you read the article? It was the American reaction to the information they found disappointing. (broadcasting that 'Western Intelligence' had hacked a camera in Moscow )
Re: (Score:2)
This story is tagged "orsotheysay", and every time any story about Russian hacking is posted there are a lot of people questioning if it had any effect on the election and trying to dismiss it as a conspiracy theory. Stories about Russian activities on social media are the same, questioning if they had any influence at all.
Some of the accounts doing this are obvious Russia trolls. ACs, young accounts with few posts etc. Some are established but with a long history of supporting Trump by dismissing anything
Re: (Score:2)
You responded to me, are you saying I'm a Trump supporter or Russian troll?
Re: (Score:2)
Neither, just commenting on the way doubt is seeded on these stories. You are probably right, the timing is likely due to the referendum, but that of course doesn't meant it isn't true. There is plenty of corroborating evidence in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah right, yes I agree completely. I have some personal doubts about the story in the part about how the details were leaked to the media, but I don't really doubt the story about the hack itself.
Why believe any of it? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to be that all these "cyber espionage" stories consist of impossible to verify leaks (intentional or otherwise) about other impossible to verify leaks. I guess it probably is true that some emails were leaked by someone, but after that everything could be no more true than the contents of a John le Carré novel and the latter would be a better read!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Cosy Bear, the group involved here, is well documented by multiple parties in multiple countries. Several anti-virus/security vendors have identified their malware and examined it in detail including Kaspersky (!), Symantec and F-Secure. So Russian, Finnish and American companies all reaching the same conclusions. Multiple law enforcement and security services have detected their attacks too.
At this point their existence and activities are not really in question. They are known to attack politicians in othe
Re: (Score:2)
If it was an operation ability in Russian or near Russia and get "results" that would be kept secret for a generation, say 30 to 50 years.
If the results are in the Western media in real time, its a story.
No NATO, UK, US member would give up its covert ability to work in and around Russia to any media group about a fluke.
Even the sub and over flight of the Soviet Union in the 1950's is still not really talked about as it gives
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, we are entering into an era of marginal truth where simultaneous false flag operations and mixed facts/falsehoods make believing anything a marginal proposition.
Of course the downside of not knowing what to believe means not knowing what to disbelieve, and falsehoods gain the same veracity as truth.
Re: (Score:2)
And a nice view of Red Square... (Score:3)
My favourite part of this story - which I heard retailed with a perfectly straight face by some BBC presenter - is the webcams with the nice view of Red Square. Because all highly secret Russian hackers must, by law, occupy rooms with a view of Red Square. Indeed, they are probably lodged in the Kremlin - just as the NSA has its offices in the White House.
Re: (Score:2)
... and, I forgot to add, GCHQ in Buckingham Palace - with a lovely view of the Mall.
Still a few unasnwered questions... (Score:2, Interesting)
Ok so if the US intelligence agencies knew the DNC had been hacked why didn't they do anything about it? Why didn't they tell the DNC there was a hacker in their network?
Were they worried about the hackers finding out that there was someone watching them and then shutting off that particular source of information? Was there some issue with a government agency sharing information with the operations of a political party during an election?
The other thing that hasn't been answered is why this happened. Why we
Re: (Score:2)
The data walked out with a human, no hack over any network. Just like Pentagon Papers the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re "Did Russia stand to gain something by"
The Soviet Union and Russia had their well placed spies deep in all levels of the US and UK gov. What is the last thing any well placed spy who is safe and advancing up the mil/gov would want?
Investigations. Questions. FBI, MI5, NSA, GCHQ doing internal spy hunts. A low access
Re: (Score:3)
Ok so if the US intelligence agencies knew the DNC had been hacked why didn't they do anything about it?
The coverage has said the FBI and NSA stopped the intrusions once they were notified. The coverage also said the Obama administration was concerned about going public on their own, because it would appear they were only attempting to affect the election.
The administration attempted to get a bipartisan statement signed by Obama, Ryan and McConnell so as to make it appear less like "we're affecting the election" and more like "there's been a security breach", but McConnell refused.
The other thing that hasn't been answered is why this happened. Why were the Russians interested in the DNC? Did Russia stand to gain something by influencing the election in a way that caused Hillary and the Democrats to lose?
1) Trump has declared bankr
Ha (Score:2)
My favorite quotes:
So what was in the emails? (Score:5, Interesting)
I have a very simple, and very pointed question.
What, exactly, are the hot, Top Secret contents of those emails?
Remember what the state department does - It has diplomats. They talk. They talk a lot. They have no need of Operationally Secure Information. And while a lot of spying goes on from diplomatic missions, the spy's chain of command does not run through the Department of State, nor do they use email. Think about what the State Department does. Then ask yourself, what kinds of secrets they will be a party to. EG: Who is who's mistress. Which children of what diplomats are doing drugs or other things that can be used against that diplomat. They don't get the nuclear launch codes - they have no need of them. They do not get troop movements, order of battle, or deployment orders. Again, they have no need to know.
Now, let us turn to the facts of the matter.
HRC used a private email sever under their control.
President Trump's daughter and son in law used Yahoo accounts, whose servers are not under their direct control. If you know anything about email systems, then you'll know that any Yahoo engineer could view the contents of those accounts by simply logging in with their credentials.
Was it wrong for HRC to use a private email server? Yes. Absolutely.
Was it wrong for others to use Yahoo accounts? Arguably even more stupid than what HRC did.
Let not your political desires affect your judgement. To put it like my grandmother used to say, if a shirt is dirty, then it's dirty. Don't try to convince yourself a mustard stain is any worse or better than a lobster bisque stain.
It's still dirty.
What is this neocon waffle doing on slashdot? (Score:2)
No evidence, anonymous sources, as usual (Score:2)
The MSM has reported so many lies about Trump. There has also been excessive spin, lies by omission, and laughable sensationalism.
Let's get some names and put people under oath. Let's see some videos.
BTW: when is a story about Trump "news for nerds?"
Re: (Score:2)
He was the only of the two using the word "jobs" in a convincing manner.
Everyone not doing it deserved to lose for being so hind-sighted.
Re:Who else hacked the Ruskies for proof? Jamaica? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I am not mistaken, this is the arm that used to be the Militaire Inlichtingendienst (Military Intelligence). They were pretty good, but also kept secret out of sight of Parliament. When they came to light they were merged with the existing counterintelligence agency BVD (Binnenlandse Veiligheidsdienst, Internal Security), which did have a Keystone Kops reputation.
So, take it with a grain of salt, indeed, but don't dismiss it outright.
Re: (Score:3)
Correction, it was not the MID which caused a scandal, it was the Inlichtingendienst Buitenland (Foreign Intelligence Service). As officially we were not supposed to have a spy agency doing Foreign Intelligence, having it turn out that, well, actually, we did, that was a bit of a scandal.
The IDB, MID and BVD were merged into a single intelligence service, the AIVD (Algemene Inlichtingen- en Veiligheidsdienst, aka General Intelligence and Security Service).
Re: (Score:2)
This propaganda is published NOW because there is an upcomming referendum (which the government already said it would ignore) about more dragnet powers for the Dutch intelligence. This sounds like a stunt to get a referendum result in favor of the dragnet powers. The government seems to have learnt about the previous 2 lost (and also ignored) referenda about the Ukraine and the EU "constitution".
Re: (Score:2)
At the same time here we see proof significant (counter) surveillance is possible without the dragnet legislation certain people in our government want.
The fact they have ignored the 'outcome' of the other two referenda is great news, first of all they were/are only advisory referenda, secondly both had their outcome seriously flawed by misinformation of the public, possibly or even likely by Russian influence?
Re:Who else hacked the Ruskies for proof? Jamaica? (Score:5, Insightful)
How many times does it need to be said? Crying about the popular vote is just moving the goalposts from the election rules that have been in place since Thomas Jefferson.
I fucking hate Trump, but he got the ELECTORAL VOTES necessary to win the Presidency. If you don't like that, then work to not nominate the only person from the Democratic Party that had enough negatives to actually lose to that asshole. Or, convince the DNC to actually campaign somewhere between the mountain ranges not named Chicago. Or get them to stop trying to sell out the middle class to Wall Street yet again. Or using the middle class's children to protect "American" (read: corporate) interests abroad in the guise of national military service.
Those last two sentences apply equally to the Republican Party, if not more so. Just to be somewhat Neutral, here's an incomplete list of things the Republicans should stop doing:
- bloviating about balanced budgets and government spend while treating massive military spending as a sacred cow that must be increased while cutting everything else
- ridiculously craven jingoistic politics and the treating of hard working immigrants that just want a better life for themselves and their families as a punching bag in order to toss metaphorical "red meat" to the fraction of ignorant racists and bigots in their "base"
- pretending that religion has any place in the federal government whatsoever
Also, impeachment has a definition, with procedures defined behind it. "We don't like him" is not included in "treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors" and you should be glad for that, or every single President would constantly be having fringe cranks from the opposition party drumming up real impeachment resolutions in Congress rather than the joke speeches and stunts we get today.
If he's actually committed any of those crimes, and you have proof, call your representative and hand over the evidence. Otherwise, wait for the Office of the Independent Counsel to complete their investigation and issue their report. Please. I'd love to see that guy being perp lwaked from the White House by the FBI.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you understand impeachment. It IS we don't like you very much. That is all it is. The bar is you have to have 2/3 of the senate convict and that is a high bar. Impeachment is a political process. That is why even if the report comes back that trump laundered money for the mob, with our current congress, likely nothing will happen.
Re: (Score:2)
From Wikipedia: "Mecham was removed from office following conviction in his impeachment trial of charges of the obstruction of justice and the misuse of government funds – funds that Mecham maintained were private. A later criminal trial acquitted Mecham of related charges."
Yet, the Republics got rid of him beca
Re: (Score:2)
About the College. As initially conceived, voting was limited to male lan
Re: (Score:2)
win an election, and change it, convince people and change it.
in obama's words,
you don't like what i'm doing? win an election.
Re: (Score:2)
...effective governance...
The Roman Catholic Church has survived for millenia. Very effective. Maybe we should emulate their manner of selecting leaders.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Who else hacked the Ruskies for proof? Jamaica (Score:3)
The reason Hillary lost the election was because her supporters were too concentrated in too few states.
When her husband ran for President in 1992 and 1996 he and his campaign understood what every 10th grade civics student knows, that we elect Presidents via the Electoral College, not popular vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Who else hacked the Ruskies for proof? Jamai (Score:2)
Re: Who else hacked the Ruskies for proof? Jamaica (Score:2)
In round numbers, how many immigrants in the visa lottery are from North Korea?
The infamous 'sh!thole countries' comment was with regard to countries involved in the diversity lottery.
Re: (Score:2)
However, the excuse being offered for the "sh!thole" remark is that it was referring to the poverty of the countries, not their ethnicity. In which case, yes indeed, North Korea would fall into the "Trump sh!thole class", even though North Koreans are not emigrating to the U.S.
Re: Who else hacked the Ruskies for proof? Jamaica (Score:2)
I'm still amazed that the hackers were able to penetrate Podesta's iron wall of security on his gmail account - I mean he used a totally secure password of "password". Seriously, he couldn't even add a capital "P"?
Democrats all but encouraged the hacking of their servers - not actually, but nearly - as demonstrated by their weak security practices.
Re: (Score:2)
The only Russian words I know are "dos vadanya", and that's only because they said it in every cold war movie of the 80s.
Re: (Score:2)
Prevyet, tavarish!
(can't do cyrillic at \...)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Stop just stop and jail traitor hillary (Score:2)
It has everything to do with Hillaryâ(TM)s unsecured email server. But for the DNC leak, weâ(TM)d never know that the email server existed, or that Stonetear was trying to scrub VIP addresses from his logs, before the server was wiped. We now know President Obama himself emailed at least 20 Special Access Program documents and had his own account. If Hillary goes down, Obama goes down. Therefore everyone has to go into defense mode. A prosecution will expose it, so there canâ(TM)t be a r
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Stop just stop. (Score:2)
It was great to watch Hillary say she wished 'all' the emails could come out, and her supporter said cheered her on. Then Trump asked whoever had the 'missing' to release them it was collision!
Re: (Score:2)