Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Security Cloud Communications Democrats Network Networking Privacy Republicans Software The Almighty Buck The Internet News Politics Hardware IT

DNC Hacker Releases Trump Opposition File (gawker.com) 421

An anonymous reader writes: Following the report that Russian hackers penetrated the DNC's database and stole research on Donald Trump, a 200+ page Democratic anti-Trump playbook compiled by the DNC has leaked online. In the book, Trump is called a "bad businessman" and "misogynist in chief." The document was created on December 19th, 2015, and was sent to Gawker by a hacker calling himself "Guccifer 2.0." (Guccifer is a popular Romanian hacker who hacked various American political figures, most notably Hillary Clinton and her private server.) The hacker said in an email to Gawker that the package contains a variety of donor registries and other strategy files, "just a few docs from many thousands I extracted when hacking into DNC's network," adding that he's in possession of "about 100GB of data including financial reports, donors' lists, election programs, action plans against Republicans, personal mails, etc." His motive is to be "a fighter against all those illuminati that captured our world." The "Donald Trump Report," as it's called, appears to be a summary of the Democratic Party's strategy for delegitimizing and undermining Trump's presidential aspirations. There's a section titled "Top Narratives" that describes a seven-pronged attack on Trump's character and record. The hack was first revealed Tuesday by the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, linking the hack to Russian intelligence. Wikileaks founder Julian Assange says later this year it will publish enough new information about Hillary Clinton to indict her.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DNC Hacker Releases Trump Opposition File

Comments Filter:
  • Doesn't Matter (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15, 2016 @07:51PM (#52325809)

    From perusing the table of contents, it looks like almost all of this is already well known (see the last couple weeks of NYT for articles about what a horrible real estate business man, husband, father, uncle, and University executive Trump has been).

    Indeed many of the items listed are actually marketed as Trump himself and his followers as selling points (offensive and demeaning attitude to foreigners, for example).

    But in the end, none of it matters. His followers are willing to forgive any behavior, no matter how crass, ignorant, or even downright evil. Trump literally would be able, as he pointed out, shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and still get elected president. They just don't care. And in fact will see this "oppo" research as more proof that the establishment is "out to get him" and so therefore must be elected.

    • by Dunbal ( 464142 ) *
      Trump's mouth is almost as big as his ego. Newsflash. Also water is wet.
    • by Z80a ( 971949 )

      Most trump "supporters" would immediately switch if an actually good candidate appeared, but trump is all they got.

      • Re:Doesn't Matter (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Darinbob ( 1142669 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2016 @10:11PM (#52326551)

        The Republican race started with at least 12 candidates who were better than Trump. (hedging here because there were a tiny number who were probably worse)

        • Now, gnetlemen, there's no need to start playing the race card here. Just because Republicans look different and seem a bit dim, they are still human beings. (- *JOKE* *JOKE *JOKE*)

    • For bad business, check the last decade of news about Trump. He always aims big, bigger than he should, and sometimes he wins big but very often he loses big. Often when he loses he's just putting his name on someone else's product (his ego forces him to say that his name is his biggest asset) and is just a minor partner, so when a big Trump Brand loses big he's not losing much money. And with America's short term memory he's not losing much popularity when he loses big. His followers probably think any

      • by rworne ( 538610 )

        There is a precedent for voters electing a candidate like Trump winning the general election. Just look to the state of California electing Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor back in 2003.

        • Arnold had actually done some political work before then. Not a lot, but... Compare too: Arnold gets to be governor of California, and doesn't do a bad job. Jesse Venture becomes governor of Minnesota and does not do very well at all, $4 billion surplus to $4 billion deficit. Of course it may not be his fault, but if it had gone the other direction I'm sure he'd have taken credit for that, it's how politics works.

        • Re:Doesn't Matter (Score:5, Insightful)

          by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Thursday June 16, 2016 @12:45AM (#52326993) Journal

          Whatever Schwarzenegger is, he's no Trump. Most of his platform was fairly reasoned, though he did have to give the odd policy nod to the Republicans.

        • Re:Doesn't Matter (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Aighearach ( 97333 ) on Thursday June 16, 2016 @03:31AM (#52327413) Homepage

          Governator was a moderate with a lot of Democratic supporters. "If I'm paying a lot of taxes, I must be making a lot of money."

          No comparison at all. He's even a Kennedy by marriage.

  • This is a gift... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bartles ( 1198017 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2016 @07:57PM (#52325849)

    ...to Donald Trump. Who wouldn't want to know the other team's strategy and the information they are going to use to attack you?

    • by swb ( 14022 )

      Or is it?

      If the facts and narrative of the files are legitimate, then they are bound to be bad for Trump. It may not matter if they're used strategically for so-called maximum impact -- releasing them at once may be like bomb, wounding Trump badly enough he can't regain momentum. And unlike carefully timed releases, the whole "stolen files" publicity may give the information the kind of self-perpetuating dynamic that keeps it in the public's eye longer than it would have on Meet the Press.

      On the other han

      • It's all possible. But then Hillary goes and does an interview like this [grabien.com]. The irony.

      • by Boronx ( 228853 )

        There's nothing here that trump didn't already know that they knew. What this does is get people talking about Trump raping Ivana without any Democrat having to bring it up.

    • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

      Politically speaking knowing their strategy doesn't provide any real benefit. What does real benefit is, taking there strategy book and presenting it to the public as the lies the opposition intends to tell. You get in first, you show no fear of the information and you demonstrate the scamminess, the scumminess of the opposition, fuck policy, those losers want the very worst of politics, they want pathetic gutter talk as they hide behind holier than though attitudes.

      Trump has just gone through that, with

    • It's not very hard. Trump basically gives them a whole new load of attack pieces every fucking day. I'm not even sure why they have a secret strategy to go after him at all. It's like having the GPS coordinates of a bullseye 10 miles wide.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) <mojo&world3,net> on Thursday June 16, 2016 @03:55AM (#52327471) Homepage Journal

      I'm more interested in the Russian security services angle. There have been allegations that Russia is campaigning for the UK to leave the EU too, as a way to weaken the EU. I would imagine they would see electing Trump as a way to weaken the US too, and the security firm that the DNC hired to investigate the hack claims it was Russian security services.

  • by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2016 @08:00PM (#52325867) Homepage Journal

    There's a really obvious reason why Trump is so popular.

    A lot of people are facing complete ruin [cnn.com] and are scared, holding their breath hoping that something will change.

    Trump is the candidate for "change", and Clinton is the candidate for "stay the course".

    I'm not a Clinton supporter, but I don't think that statement about Hillary is particularly controversial even among her supporters. She's definitely a political insider, is funded by moneyed interests, and her website has a list of issues [hillaryclinton.com] that give a sense of "direction" without promising anything concrete. Typical of politicians for the last 50 years - nothing bad or unusual about that.

    Trump has a list of 7 things that he will change [donaldjtrump.com], with a concrete list of changes for each. All of his proposed changes are aimed at making peoples' lives better.

    People who are secure in their position, who have a job and don't see themselves being laid off or expect to find a new job quickly if they are laid off, should vote for Hillary. There are a lot of these people in the country, and "stay the course" is the least risky choice for them to make.

    People who are unemployed, struggling, or in fear of losing their situation should vote for Trump, because he's proposing to make changes.

    As the theory goes, when you're doing well you should minimise risk - don't do anything that could change your situation. When you're doing poorly, you can tolerate more risk in the hopes that it might help.

    So it really all boils down to the proportion of people in the country who are at-risk and scared, versus the proportion who think the current situation is "pretty good".

    We're presented with a never-ending stream of depressing news about this here on Slashdot, and you really can't trust the MSM any more, so it's easy to believe that majority of the country might be shivering in fear hoping for something to change, but that might not be an accurate view.

    "Change" or "stay the course"? The voters will probably decide this November.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by PopeRatzo ( 965947 )

      There's a really obvious reason why Trump is so popular.

      The reason Trump is so popular is that he's actually not popular at all.

      http://nymag.com/daily/intelli... [nymag.com]

      It's like a zen koan for morons: "He's so popular that 70% of people can't stand him."

      Gamergate logic.

      • There's a really obvious reason why Trump is so popular.

        The reason Trump is so popular is that he's actually not popular at all.

        http://nymag.com/daily/intelli... [nymag.com]

        It's like a zen koan for morons: "He's so popular that 70% of people can't stand him."

        Gamergate logic.

        Apropos of nothing, does your Gamergate logic explain why so many people voted for him?

        Votes would seem to be a better measure, but then I'm not familiar with Gamergate logic.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Apropos of nothing, does your Gamergate logic explain why so many people voted for him?

          Votes would seem to be a better measure, but then I'm not familiar with Gamergate logic.

          GOP primary voters.

          Approximately 14 million of them, and well, maybe you esteem their judgment, but I can't say I do. And 7.7 million of them picked Cruz, 3.5 million picked Rubio, and 4 million Kasich. What does that say?

        • Being extremely popular with 30% of the Republican primary electorate in a divided and frankly weak field got him the nomination, but that's not enough to win him a general election.

          Your guy is disliked by a far bigger proportion of the population than the proportion that like him. He is disliked far more than Hillary Clinton, according to the polls.

          Your guy has little acquaintance with facts in his public rhetoric, but that doesn't make them go away. Trump will lose the general election to Hillary. Th

        • Re:Gamergate logic? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2016 @10:03PM (#52326507) Journal

          Apropos of nothing, does your Gamergate logic explain why so many people voted for him?

          OK, let me unpack it for you, because I've studied this particular pathology in depth.

          First, Trump has not really gotten that many votes, as a proportion of the total electorate, or even the Republican electorate. he's gotten about 13 million votes actually cast for him so far. In those same Republican primaries, there have been over 15 million votes cast against Trump. So a couple of million more Republicans voted against Donald Trump than for him. By the way, Hillary Clinton has also gotten over 2 million more primary votes than Donald Trump.

          But here's the kicker: There are about 130,000,000 people who will vote in the next presidential election. Right now, Donald Trump has captured 10% of those votes. Do you think there are a lot of people who have been saying, "I'm going to wait to see what this Donald Trump is all about before I go out and actually cast a vote for him"?

          This is why you hear about how "the demographics" overwhelmingly favor whomever the Democrats run in 2016. First, there are a lot more Democrats than Republicans in the US. Second, independents have actually been breaking against Donald Trump in the primaries. Third, even Republicans voted more often against Donald Trump than for him, and finally, the dude has a 70% disapproval rating since the end of the primaries. That means his disapproval numbers have jumped 10% in one month. His approval rating is at 29%, which is about the same as the approval rating of the mosquitoes that carry Zika virus.

          It's time for you to start thinking of excuses for why Donald Trump got blown out in the general election. I suggest going with the, "they robbed him" excuse. That's a favorite of mine, and it's always been effective when my sports teams lose. Plus, it's almost certainly the excuse Donald will use because he seems constitutionally lacking in self-awareness. Come up with a good conspiracy theory and you'll be good to go for the next four long years that the unpleasant Mrs Clinton will be president.

          • by amiga3D ( 567632 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2016 @11:38PM (#52326799)

            Really I imagine he'll probably lose in the general election. I suspect further that it wouldn't matter which Republican was running they'd lose as well. In fact I think Trump has a better chance than any of the others in the field. The reason is that I know a lot of people who voted this time around who haven't voted in years. Many who have never voted and registered so they could vote for Trump. He is not a politician and all the people that hate the lying fucking whores like Hillary finally got someone else to vote for. Sure he's a blowhard and a dirty bastard but compared to a shit stain like Hillary he looks pretty damn good. She's going to continue fucking us just like the bastard before her and the bastard before him. They're all a part of the same machine they just market them differently. I have no doubt that if by some miracle Trump managed to win it'd be a very short term before his aircraft malfunctioned or some nut case shot him. Can't have someone fucking up the system.

            Sorry for the rant....I'm feeling especially cynical tonight. Can you blame me? I get to choose between a Crazy Bastard and a Crooked Bitch. Democracy??????

            • Re:Gamergate logic? (Score:4, Informative)

              by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Thursday June 16, 2016 @12:02AM (#52326875) Journal

              I get to choose between a Crazy Bastard and a Crooked Bitch.

              I'm pretty sure that "Crazy Crooked Bastard" applies in this case:

              http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/3... [cnn.com]

              http://dailycaller.com/2016/06... [dailycaller.com]

              http://thehill.com/blogs/ballo... [thehill.com]

              "Crooked Crazy Bastard" is also appropriate. I'm not sure why you'd think this indicates someone who would shake up the corrupt system.

              http://img2.timeinc.net/people... [timeinc.net]

              • The worst thing about the Trump University fiasco isn't that he's a scam artist, it's that several years worth of work by Republicans working on the ground in battleground states to build support among the Latino community have literally been wiped out. I really do feel sorry for those people. I just can't imagine putting your heart and soul into trying to build support for your political party to have its presidential candidate, its leader, nuke the whole damned thing from orbit because he's pissy about a

            • by epine ( 68316 )

              Sure he's a blowhard and a dirty bastard but compared to a shit stain like Hillary he looks pretty damn good.

              There are thousands of things that don't look as bad as a shit stain—if you can see them at all—that will harm you far worse than a shit stain. An insecure, xenophobe blowhard in a post-nuclear world might very well be one of those things.

              On the playground, being a shit stain is pretty much the ground zero of social comparison. In real life, the Mines of Moria couldn't contain everything

          • Thanks for this. Well analyzed. Though I'm at the point of not bothering to discuss it. I just want to find a legal betting market and make money off the stupidity out there rather than just be appalled.

      • This [youtube.com] is why Trump is popular.
      • "It's so crowded that no one goes there anymore."

    • Typical of politicians for the last 50 years - nothing bad or unusual about that.

      Being typical doesn't mean it's "not bad!"

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by peragrin ( 659227 )

      Except unless trump manages to get the Republicans on his side he can't do anything. Look how effect Obama has been without congressional approval. Trump unless he string arm Republicans will be even worse. And if trump does strong arm Republicans expect mafia like responses to everything. All media companies but his chosen pets will be banned, all disent will not be tolerated.

      My hope is that Bernie and Graham Do the unthinkable and throw their support behind Gary Johnson. Graham for fiscal conservativ

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15, 2016 @08:55PM (#52326177)

      Trump has a list of 7 things that he will change [donaldjtrump.com], with a concrete list of changes for each. All of his proposed changes are aimed at making peoples' lives better.

      Leaving aside that it would hardly be likely for him to propose worsening people's lives, your definition of concrete seems off.

      Pay for the Wall? Proposal that relies on Mexico doing something and yet does nothing in itself. Wow, that's...kinda not concrete, when you look at it with a discerning eye. Sure, it seems like he's going to do something, but heck, just the issue of setting the borders is a complicated matter, let alone constructing anything along it.

      Same with Immigration reform. Triple the number of ICE officers? That seems concrete, until you realize how much work it'll be. You can't just wave a wand and hire people. Same with his detention plans. Let's do it! Oh wait, how much will that cost? And you won't see any real proposals to make enforcement of E-verify a reality.

      China? Oh, let's bring them to the bargaining table. As if they weren't already being negotiated with. Oh oh but he's going to have a zero tolerance IP policy. Durp, apparently we don't have any talks about that already. Oh but wait, he's going to be vigorously eliminating waste, fraud and abuse in the Federal government, ending redundant government programs, and growing the economy to increase tax revenues. How specific is that? Not at all, perhaps?

      Healthcare? The only thing it gets right is that simple repeal isn't going to do shit. Unfortunately, it doesn't give us more than "Hey, Block Grants, let the states solve it" and "No more blocking drugs, let the pharmaceutical companies solve it!" and other stuff that won't help people's real problems.

      VA? Oh my, going to any Medicare provider. But that assumes there are existing providers who can do the job. But he's going to INCREASE funding. Wait a second, I thought throwing money at problems was a bad idea? But wait, he's going to Transform the VA to meet the needs of 21st century service members! Is that supposed to be concrete?

      Tax Reform? It claims to be revenue neutral. No numbers are shown. It can't even avoid talking about the estate tax as the death tax.

      Gun Rights? Oh my, he says he's going to enforce the laws on the books. Yeah, that's very specific. Oh wait, he's going to make right to carry nationwide. IOW, he's going to tell states that they have to accept anybody with a gun that some state says is ok, with no safeguards. But he thinks that the right to travel isn't a right, and that recognizing that automobiles are used for that travel? What the fuck? Does Trump not know the Constitution at all? Or does he just buy into the empty NRA-style rhetoric without thinking about it? And the military doesn't want firearms uncontrolled on their bases. This is a deliberate and intentional choice to control the very serious danger of firearms. They have enough accidents in areas where they to have people armed, they aren't going to want to change that just because some idiot thinks it needs to be changed.

      Sorry, but I see a blow-hard promising all sorts of shit, but actual delivery? That's another story.

      • by Boronx ( 228853 )

        Since Trump's MO is to promise the moon then walk away leaving someone else holding the bag, how good his proposals are almost doesn't matter.

    • by scatbomb ( 1099255 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2016 @09:22PM (#52326319)
      Interesting that politicians appeal mostly to people's fears and insecurities. Fear of criminals, mass murders, fear of losing your job, xenophobia, fear of any number of disasters which each claims the other will bring if you don't elect the opposite as leader. Terror is just another word for fear, and one who uses terror to achieve political goals is a terrorist. Break the cycle, vote for somebody who doesn't need to scare you to get your support.
      • Nice post (Score:2, Interesting)

        Interesting that politicians appeal mostly to people's fears and insecurities. Fear of criminals, mass murders, fear of losing your job, xenophobia, fear of any number of disasters which each claims the other will bring if you don't elect the opposite as leader. Terror is just another word for fear, and one who uses terror to achieve political goals is a terrorist. Break the cycle, vote for somebody who doesn't need to scare you to get your support.

        Damn! Nice post.

        It's rare to find an actual flash of insight on this subject. Keep up the good work.

        I'd vote you up if I had points.

      • by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Thursday June 16, 2016 @08:22AM (#52328089) Journal

        Except that personal security is the FUNDAMENTAL contract between the governed and the governing.

        As a theoretical exercise in a 'State of Nature' you can feed yourself, clothe yourself, house yourself...but protecting yourself is an escalating challenge: it's invariably going to involve 'needing more friends' than the other guy(s) which is the root of social organization. These people can't just do whatever they want, and consensus becomes difficult in larger groups, thus "government".

        So I believe that this is the core thing that people expect from government: am I and my family, and to a lesser degree "our stuff" safe?

        This is why fear works so well as a political tool, and why when this compact between citizens and government is perceived to be breaking down (ie today) the voters become astonishingly skittish, willing to make what they even may recognize as a stupid leader choice IF that leader is otherwise believed to be bringing them more safety.

    • Except that no president can "fix" the economy. It's the responsiblity of the entire government not just whatever clown is in the oval office. Even then the entire government still has to rely on a good deal of luck. The government is basically able to nudge things in certain directions and provide for buffers against downturns. We've got one party who's mantra is to cut taxes when times are good and also cut taxes when times are bad, and we've got another party who is scared to do much at all for fear

    • by Boronx ( 228853 )

      Unless you're Muslim or Hispanic or ....

      Any way, you'd have to be a pretty poor judge of character to think that Trump is going to give you anything just because he promised it. That's not how the man operates.

  • by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Thursday June 16, 2016 @12:22AM (#52326921)

    Guccifer isn't a hacker, he's a dumbass who guessed password reset questions then dumped the contents for lulz.

    Yet suddenly he claims to have actual "break into a server" hacking skills, uses those skills to crack into one of the biggest profile politicians on the planet, but suddenly thinks the contents are boring and doesn't dump anything??

    He's just attention whoring as usual, when he was free he got attention by releasing dumps of emails that he has. But now he's in jail he can claim to have other super-duper important emails and he'd totally show them to you but he's in prison.

    Stop feeding the damn troll!

  • by EEPROMS ( 889169 ) on Thursday June 16, 2016 @02:50AM (#52327305)
    When I look at the US presidential candidates I can help but think of the South Park episode where they had to choose between a douche and a shit sandwich.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

Real Users never use the Help key.

Working...