Clinton Campaign: Russia Leaked Emails to Help Trump (washingtonpost.com) 769
An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes the Washington Post:
A top official with Hillary Clinton's campaign on Sunday accused the Russian government of orchestrating the release of damaging Democratic Party records in order to help the campaign of Republican Donald Trump -- and some cyber security experts in the U.S. and overseas agree. The extraordinary charge came as some national security officials have been growing increasingly concerned about possible efforts by Russia to meddle in the election, according to several individuals familiar with the situation.
Late last week, hours before the records were released by the website Wikileaks, the White House convened a high-level security meeting to discuss reports that Russia had hacked into systems at the Democratic National Committee... Officials from various intelligence and defense agencies, including the National Security Council, the Department of Defense, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, attended the White House meeting Thursday, on the eve of the email release.
Clinton's campaign manager told ABC News "some experts are now telling us that this was done by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump." Donald Trump's son later responded, "They'll say anything to be able to win this."
Late last week, hours before the records were released by the website Wikileaks, the White House convened a high-level security meeting to discuss reports that Russia had hacked into systems at the Democratic National Committee... Officials from various intelligence and defense agencies, including the National Security Council, the Department of Defense, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, attended the White House meeting Thursday, on the eve of the email release.
Clinton's campaign manager told ABC News "some experts are now telling us that this was done by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump." Donald Trump's son later responded, "They'll say anything to be able to win this."
Cheesy 80's movie excuse (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems like Hillary could have avoided all this by associating with non-corrupt people. Including herself.
Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, when you're in a hole, stop digging!
Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse (Score:5, Funny)
It's a vast left-wing conspiracy!
Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse (Score:5, Funny)
I can't believe they're using "our emails were hacked by Russians" as their excuse.
Next we'll be hearing that Trump is organizing all those shootings and bombings across Europe to boost his campaign. That's gotta be really expensive.
Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse (Score:5, Funny)
Nah, he hires immigrants who will work for less.
Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse (Score:5, Funny)
But, but...
The dog really did eat my homework!
Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not an excuse. It's an explanation. Those are different things.
The problem with the emails is their source. WikiLeaks has shown great interest in anti-US material, and comparatively very little interest in anything that disparages Russia. Their bias has been analysed pretty thoroughly, and it calls their motives into question. That, in turn, means we must question the integrity of anything they release.
For example, consider the differences in the edited and un-edited versions of the Collateral Murder video. The raw footage shows a pretty typical battle, where a group of men, some of them armed, are loitering in an area where American troops have been under attack all morning. The edited version shows a group of men, and highlights that two of them are not armed, and in a slow-motion frame comparison, shows that one of the apparent weapons was actually a telephoto camera lens, then shows them being attacked by American fire. There are numerous other differences.
There's a huge difference in context between the two versions, which Assange himself has said was intentional for "political effect". In the raw video, the soldiers' actions are justified, though mistaken. In the edited version, they're portrayed as ruthless killers intentionally targeting civilians.
Now WikiLeaks has released a bunch of emails. That's great, but we must ask: what editing has been done here? Did they (or their possibly-Russian source) strip out any emails that conflict with the "DNC is corrupt" narrative? Are the emails signed? Is it possible or probable that some of the damning emails edited or completely faked?
These sorts of questions should be raised every time a leak is made public. The leakers always have an agenda, and it may not necessarily be to "inform the public".
With all that in mind, consider again what's being said. There is no denial of the emails' existence, and little discussion of the emails' content. Instead, at this point there's just a request to consider the trail the emails have followed, and the impact that has on their credibility.
Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse (Score:5, Insightful)
WikiLeaks has shown great interest in anti-US material, and comparatively very little interest in anything that disparages Russia. Their bias has been analysed pretty thoroughly, and it calls their motives into question.
No, not necessarily. You're assuming that it's equally easy to get damaging materials from both countries. That's an incorrect assumption.
The explanation is simple: the US government does a horrible job with data security, and the Russian government is actually competent at it.
Anyone who's worked in or with the US government and dealt with USG computer systems and IT people knows just how incompetent they are. It's no wonder they're constantly being hacked. And also remember, here in the US, if you're a competent computer security professional, there's plenty of great-paying work for you in the private sector, since the tech companies are doing so well in this country. Why would you waste your time going to work for the government for lousy pay and having to deal with ridiculous bureaucracy? You can't even purchase a $5 piece of equipment you need for your job without filling out a bunch of forms and then waiting 6 months (I'm not exaggerating). So the only people who take these jobs are the ones who are utterly incompetent.
Over in Russia, things aren't the same; they don't have a booming tech sector like we do, so it's probably a pretty good move to go to work for the government there.
If hackers can easily steal emails from US government systems, but Russian government systems are locked up tight, then it stands to reason that WikiLeaks would post lots of US stuff instead. You can't get blood from a stone.
Re: (Score:3)
so it's probably a pretty good move to go to work for the government there.
Well, unless you are the poor guy ordered by Putin to find the master crypto key to the Internet or get sent to Siberia.
Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse (Score:5, Funny)
Over in Russia, things aren't the same; they don't have a booming tech sector like we do
They have a booming tech sector: spam, botnets, credit card fraud, etc.
And it's a real industry. Not happy with the stolen credit card numbers you bought? Call customer service and you get a discount on your next order.
They make non-Russian organized crime look like drunk hooligans.
Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse (Score:5, Insightful)
You're overthinking it. The explanation is much simpler: Wikileaks was created and is run by English-speaking people, for whom it is much easier to make contact with sources and hackers that speak English. And the sources are going to leak from organizations in the US, because that is where they work. And the hackers are going to hack networks in the US, because these are the networks they know.
Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure the Trump campaign is sloppy with email security as well. But nothing he writes (e.g. love letters to neo-Nazis) would surprise anyone at this point. The fact that HRC is already known for exercising poor network security has already compromised her campaign, and reminding people that "Russians love Trump and that's why they released my messages that they were able to access" is not a smart defense. (Neither is immediately hiring DWS upon her firing from the DNC and announcing that she "will continue to serve as a surrogate for my campaign nationally". The tone deafness here is astounding.)
Yes, the DNC email server contained no classified information. But don't keep reminding people that anyone in the world can read your email.
Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse (Score:5, Insightful)
"....what editing has been done here? "
A question that can be answered simply by the DNC publishing their own copies of said emails.
Interesting that they haven't, eh?
Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse (Score:5, Insightful)
. . . . and yet claim that Hillary's private email server was NEVER hacked by the Russians, or anybody else, for that matter [mediamatters.org].
Cognitive Dissonance, much ???
Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmmm, apparently the Russians found the DNC emails important enough to obtain but completely ignored Clinton's email server. Odd cyberwarfare priority that.
Re: Cheesy 80's movie excuse (Score:5, Insightful)
By not voting you waste your vote. By voting for an independent you will at least make a statement.
It's the silent masses that allows for corruption to prosper.
well well well (Score:5, Insightful)
to me, unless you can show the integrity of the original messages was compromised, then the "who did it" does not matter as much as "what the emails say".
now, if the messages were altered to promote an agenda, I agree with the Hillary Camp.
if this is what the emails did say, then I feel we have a problem with the undermining of the vote of the people.
Re:well well well (Score:5, Insightful)
Hillary has already thrown Wasserman-Shultz under the bus, so it looks like the emails are real. Nobody is claiming they aren't.
Wasserman-Shultz will get a job in administration (Score:5, Insightful)
Hillary has already thrown Wasserman-Shultz under the bus, ...
Bull. DNC chairperson Kaine was reward for his long standing loyalty and service to the Clinton's with the VP nomination. DNC chairperson Wasserman-Shultz will be reward for her loyalty and service once Hillary gets into office. Maybe Wasserman-Shultz can be Secretary of State. It seems to be handed out for political reasons anyway, no actual foreign policy experience required it seems.
Bernie supporters get some meaningless words in the party platform. Clinton supporters get positions of power.
Re:Wasserman-Shultz will get a job in administrati (Score:5, Insightful)
Bernie supporters get some meaningless words in the party platform. Clinton supporters get positions of power.
Oh, I'm sorry. Were you unaware the system was rigged long ago? Between the DNC's internal schemes to anoint Hillary and whole idea of "superdelegates," you don't have much in the way of say-so about who gets the DNC nomination. "But trust us," the DNC says. "We know better than you who's fit to rule you."
Re:Wasserman-Shultz will get a job in administrati (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wasserman-Shultz will get a job in administrati (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you name one disgraced supporter of the Clintons that has been rewarded
"Friday, April 1, 2005; Page A01 Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, a former White House national security adviser, plans to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and will acknowledge intentionally removing and destroying copies of a classified document about the Clinton administration's record on terrorism ... Berger spoke falsely last summer in public claims that in 2003 he twice inadvertently walked off with copies of a classified document during visits to the National Archives, then later lost them."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/... [washingtonpost.com]
"Berger served as a foreign policy adviser to Senator Hillary Clinton in her 2008 presidential campaign."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:well well well (Score:4, Interesting)
So no she was not thrown under the bus. She did her job and was rewarded.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. If the truth hurts you, the problem isn't with who reveals it, the problem is with you. And Hillary Clinton will do anything she possibly can to obfuscate that fact.
Of course, Trump will do anything he can to emphasize it.
In neither case does it matter if the emails are real or not.
Re:well well well (Score:5, Insightful)
In neither case does it matter if the emails are real or not.
Well, actually it does matter. If the emails are real -- and everything thus far indicates they are, including press releases from HRC's campaign and the resignation of the DNC chairwoman -- it shows systematic corruption within the DNC. Not that comes as any surprise. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was an unabashed Clinton supporter, carrying water for her at every opportunity. Only a fool could believe she was capable of running the DNC on an impartial basis.
Unfortunately there are a lot of fools out there.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is the asymmetry here. What do you think a cache of RNC emails would show?
Re:well well well (Score:5, Interesting)
That they were terrified of the loudmouth Donald Trump and grew increasingly terrified as he completely sabotaged their own attempt at coronating their own hand-picked stooge to run against Hillary in 2016.
The only difference between them and the Democrats? The RNC failed to derail Trump and the DNC and Hillary Clinton vociferously denied colluding to railroad Bernie Sanders.
The difference is also in expectations. Everyone *expects* the RNC and its major donors to guide a hand-picked favorite son into November. It's who they are. They don't operate under ideological banner that promotes free, open and fair elections -- they want to gut the Voting Rights Act, for example.
The Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, promote themselves as the guarantors of democracy, extending and protecting the franchise and voice of all people. Which is now being exposed for what it was all along -- a sanctimonious fiction and a bill of goods. Instead they spent their time promoting their own handpicked favorite and undermined a worthy and successful challenger.
I try not to buy into the Hillary is corrupt meme. But at this point, there's just too much evidence she's conniving and fundamentally not honest. And I'm not a Trump supporter, but I do have a certain admiration for the way he eviscerated the Republican party.
Re: well well well (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, Trump tells you how it is, good and bad.
Trump is one of the most dishonest political candidates I've EVER seen, and my bar and expectations these days are very low.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But I am also intrigued by the Russians deciding to help Trump. Foreign powers meddling with our elections, swaying our public opinion we
Re:well well well (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the DNC has a contractual and fiduciary responsibility to stay neutral in a primary, because they sign contracts to that affect.
Section 4 of the Democratic Party charter reads this way:
"In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process."
The chairperson was Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who resigned / was fired earlier today. The CEO of the DNC is Amy Dacey. But look at their emails and tell me if that lives up the charter.
https://www.facebook.com/DNCfr... [facebook.com]
Some of us are suing.
Re:well well well (Score:5, Insightful)
You must be using the newfangled definition of corruption, popular with people that aren't familiar with the word graft, that only includes actual cash bribes for services or lenience.
Sorry to say that graft is only one type of corruption. Corruption is a broad thing. So broad that it is hard to pin down a concrete definition that includes everything and excludes nothing.that people consider to be corruption. The basic idea is that if a person is in an office or position of authority, and that authority is intended to be used for the benefit of some person or group, corruption is any time that person secretly uses their authority for their own benefit, or for the benefit of anyone other than the intended beneficiary, particularly when the intended is harmed or neglected in some way.
Seen in that light, it is hard to pretend that the DNC isn't riddled with corruption from top to bottom. They had a duty to the nation's democrats to run the primary process in a manner specified by the rules, which included neutrality, transparency, etc. What happened instead?
And it isn't enough that the DNC is corrupt, it is also corrupting. You read the exchanges with the press? Surprise, CNN and MSNBC see themselves are the propaganda wing of the democrat party. Is that what they told the FCC and the American people they were going to be doing?
Re: (Score:3)
What the email actually say are normal intra party politics, back stabbing and intrigue. They have not found corruption, extortion or even racist jokes being forwarded. In fact for an email dump it is pretty innocuous.
Doesn't matter. People have already made up their own fantasy world around this, and no one is ever going to get them to change their minds. Facts are meaningless when you make your decisions based on emotion. Hate and fear being the easiest ways to control those emotions, and people.
Re:well well well (Score:5, Funny)
A bunch of petty, unethical DNC employees (which is highly shitty, no question) still pales compared to a Manchurian candidate.
Given the Clinton's history of illegal political financial support from China it may be best not to mention Manchuria.
Re:well well well (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I think you meant "Trump's campaign manager"...
http://www.politifact.com/glob... [politifact.com]
Re:well well well (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would Putin fear Clinton? (Score:5, Interesting)
Putin has every reason to prefer a buffoon like Trump over Clinton.
Why would Putin fear Clinton? He has beaten her repeatedly in the arena of foreign policy. What was her foreign policy experience prior to becoming secretary of state? She accompanied Bill on some trips and visited hospital and schools with the other wives while the Bill and the other actual players met elsewhere and discussed the issues and problems of the day?
I'm not trying to be sexist, women are perfectly capable at doing the job be it SOS or POTUS, but this particular person's experience was PR fluff stuff not actual foreign policy. When that crisis happened on the other side of the world and the phone rang at 3am she answered the phone and passed it to Bill saying "its for you".
She was made Secretary of State in 2008 for one and only one reason. To get the Clinton political machine behind Obama, to bind her future to his. This "machine" still controlled the Democratic party, and still does to this day as we saw with Sanders. To offer her something credible for her resume for her next attempt at the office of POTUS as a consolation promise. She was not selected because of her foreign policy experience, there was none, and her performance indicates on the job training didn't help her much.
She really is in the same league as Trump with respect to foreign policy, neither to be feared by the Russians.
Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why would Putin fear Clinton? He has beaten her repeatedly in the arena of foreign policy.
That's the part I don't get. Putin has to know from experience that he can walk all over Hillary. You may call Trump clownish but the thing is that clowns are unpredictable, and in the world of international politics, unpredictable can mean dangerous. Wouldn't Putin want someone whose actions he could predict and whom he would easily out-maneuver?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the part I don't get.
There's nothing to "get" when pure bullshit is involved.
Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton? (Score:4, Interesting)
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: Why would Putin fear Clinton? (Score:3)
He doesn't fear Clinton.
He knows he will at least get a dialog with Trump. Clinton just wants to preserve the status quo.
Talking to Hillary is just like talking to her husband, Bill.
BTDT, would be a total waste of time to do it again.
Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton? (Score:5, Interesting)
Putin has stated that he wants to destabilize/topple NATO. Trump has a pretty clear goal of destabilizing/weakening/ending NATO. It's really not that hard to see.
Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's the part I don't get. Putin has to know from experience that he can walk all over Hillary.
RTFA. Even if it is Russian GRU, they have other plausible motives. It could be simple tit for tat on recent leaks that have embarrassed Putin.
There is no reason to believe they prefer Trump. The Russians would be more comfortable with the devil they know.
Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why bother with beat ? Clinton is for sale cheap.
Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton? (Score:5, Interesting)
Trump can't even run a business.
I think that is political BS. IF I understand things correctly each project is usually a different corporation. Different investors for different projects, one failed project won't impact other projects, a failure doesn't impact anyone personally, etc. Basically look up all the reasons you want an S-Corp or LLC rather than a sole proprietorship for your own business. I think his bankruptcies are several of these projects failing. If only several projects failed out of dozens he's doing pretty well.
... and while Trump is busy making a mess of the US economy ...
Compared to the Clinton era prosperity which was the smoke and mirrors of the Internet Bubble, which began bursting as Bill was leaving office? Like the relaxing of home loan standards that began under the Clinton administration, at their encouragement to help underdeveloped communities, that led in part to the banking crisis? Like the current economy that after how many years under Obama still needs massive stimulus and near zero interest rates to barely limp along? I'm not endorsing Trump or anything but lets not pretend the last couple Democratic administrations knew what they were doing.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, it's not. He ran a casino into the ground. A casino? Otherwise known as a license to print money.
Did you miss how he claimed a tax exemption that is only available to people whose income is less than $500k. His "wealth" is smoke and mirrors. His business skills are mediocre (his investments in Manhattan basically tracked the market), but what he excels at is putting over an image of a successful businessman.
No, everything Trump does i
Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton? (Score:5, Interesting)
No, it's not. He ran a casino into the ground. A casino? Otherwise known as a license to print money.
Only casinos in areas people like to visit. Atlantic City turned out not to be so, and it wasn't just him. Again, are we talking about more than a few projects out of dozens.
Did you miss how he claimed a tax exemption that is only available to people whose income is less than $500k. His "wealth" is smoke and mirrors.
One year's annual income is not one's wealth. Wealth includes other years. Wealth includes assets you own but have not sold yet. Does he exaggerate his wealth, probably, but you haven't really shown us any real data on that subject.
His business skills are mediocre (his investments in Manhattan basically tracked the market),
Do you realize how meaningless that statement is? Of course a real estate investment tracked the market, do you think maybe the timing of an entry and an exit might be relevant? IF, and I don't know one way or the other but you seem not to either, he timed it well then that is an indication of business skill. You know, like those handful of CEOs who pay very close attention to various macroeconomic indicators and slow hiring when they say a bear market may be coming and start hiring in the depths of a bear market when those indicators start saying a bull market may be coming. If one can time things better than random guesses that is a business skill. Get back to us with your analysis of his timing, thanks for your research in advance.
No, everything Trump does is aimed at benefiting him personally ...
Hey if you are going to argue he is a narcissist I'm not one to argue against that, but what major party presidential candidate is not? The last one may have been Jimmy Carter, and he wasn't very good at the job. He is however an excellent human being and great role model outside of the political realm. Maybe that's related to his presidential shortcomings?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, except that he claimed that exemption for multiple years.
The man was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, he bought some buildings and his overall investments were no better than if he had randomly bought and sold them. He didn't beat the market in
Re: (Score:3)
IF I understand things correctly each project is usually a different corporation. Different investors for different projects, one failed project won't impact other projects, a failure doesn't impact anyone personally, etc. Basically look up all the reasons you want an S-Corp or LLC rather than a sole proprietorship for your own business. I think his bankruptcies are several of these projects failing. If only several projects failed out of dozens he's doing pretty well.
Quite so.
However, if trump had merely stuck his inheritance money in a market ETF and then fucked off to play golf for the last 25-30 years, he be 3x-5x as wealthy as he is now. (the variance depending on just how much you believe he's actually worth now.)
25 years of 'projects', wheeling and dealing, real estate, steaks, wines, universities, casinos.
My own simple investments have done better than Trump over the last 2-3 decades.
The only difference between people like me and Trump is that Trump started out w
Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton? (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile, Clinton has paid her dues in government ...
If Hillary paid any dues it was to her husband not the government. She was a part-time Senator and a part-time Presidential candidate and then a full-time Presidential candidate. She was a Senator to get something, anything, on her resume that might sound Presidential material. Until the Senate her only experience was riding Bill's coat tails and supporting him at every turn. After the part-time Senate gig she got a full-time Secretary of State gig as a consolation prize, she wasn't really qualified and her performance shows it.
So she has Senator and Secretary of State titles on her resume, and on balance little to no positive results from either brief role. So what is her qualification other than decades of loyalty to Bill, the most influential person in the party machine?
Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it is a bit of a surprise (well, not really):
The thing about Bernie is that he could actually win the election: his polling numbers are much higher than Hillary's when you poll everyone, not just Dem voters. He was a lot like Obama in 2008: he energized the youth vote (youth apathy has long been a big problem for the Dem party), and if he was on the ticket they'd be out there in droves voting for him, and also for down-ticket Dem candidates.
This just isn't the case with Hillary: the younger people either despise her or at least have no enthusiasm whatsoever for her.
She's still likely to win (but it's not a sure thing), but only because the Rep candidate is so awful. If she were running against McCain or Romney or even Jeb, I'd fully expect her to lose.
So the only thing that's surprising is that the DNC is so dumb that they'd double down on such a lousy candidate, banking on the Republican candidate being even more horrible (and they decided to back her *long* before anyone had a clue that Trump was going to win; most people probably assumed that Jeb would).
No one will be ruled by Trump even if he wins (Score:5, Insightful)
Then you are a fool and you deserve to be ruled by Putin / Trump.
No one will be ruled by Trump even if he wins. The US government is actually designed to handle situations like this. There are three separate but equal branches of government that can stalemate the others. IF Trump is elected the Democrats in Congress will oppose any dumb ideas and given the Republican establishment's hatred and anger they will find many Republicans to join in opposition. The Democrats call today's Congress obstructionist, it will be nothing compared to a Congress after a Trump victory.
Only fools believe Trump will get anything he wants. You are just swallowing the political pablum.
Re: (Score:3)
To your founding fathers thought of this argument I would add that they weren't sure that they had gotten it right and I'm not sure that they did either. I think they did a pretty good job, but I'd rather not find out.
One of the checks is the parties themselves and he has completely overwhelmed one of those (and the more organized one nonetheless). The power of the president is a mix of hard and soft power. So if local police do what he says (or mayors tell them to) then he can control local police. The Rep
Re:No one will be ruled by Trump even if he wins (Score:4, Insightful)
One of the checks is the parties themselves and he has completely overwhelmed one of those (and the more organized one nonetheless).
Parties were never part of the plan and have no governmental authority. That said, he has not overwhelmed the party, he convinced enough voters to become the party nominee. Party members elected to Congress are not obligated to vote his way. Normally the candidate is favored by the party establishment and any non-compliant Congressperson would face some sort of internal discipline, lack of committee assignments, etc. However given how Trump is hated by the establishment such internal discipline is not likely. And if he suggests something "stupid" even more so. Trump will not get anything the mainstream firmly opposes.
The power of the president is a mix of hard and soft power. So if local police do what he says (or mayors tell them to) then he can control local police.
There is no such power. Governors are elected and exercise power independently of the President. Mayors too with respect to both the Governor and President. Police, military, etc swear an oath to the Constitution not the elected leaders. They swear only to obey lawful Constitutional orders from their lawful commanding officers and the President is not a lawful commander of the police.
The Republicans have shown that legislators (at least about half of Republicans) are principally concerned about getting elected and so he need only win an election to show that he can flex some might vs them.
No. Winning a national election is nothing at all like winning a local election. Republican members of Congress won't necessarily face any blowback for ignoring Trump, especially if Trump asked for something "stupid". Keep in mind that nearly all incumbents get re-elected. People generally hate Congress but for some reason think their Congressperson is OK.
No president has done that in a long time, but the court relies (almost) entirely on the executive to carry out its orders.
The police and military are quite good about complying with decisions of the Supreme Court. Again, Trump will get ignored if he tries to ignore a ruling in any substantial way. Again, police and military take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, not the Office of the President, and the Supreme Court decides what is Constitutional not the President.
I'm not saying it is likely, but I wouldn't completely rule it out.
I think monumentally stupid things can be ruled out. Only the normal day-to-day stupidity of politicians will prevail, and that will occur regardless of who holds the office. A divided do nothing government, that might work out well.
Re:No one will be ruled by Trump even if he wins (Score:5, Insightful)
Congress is only able to vote a declaration of war up or down; the President is the one who decides to go to war, or not.
That is so wrong. Congress controls the money for the war. No funding for the war and there is no war. The President only gets to suggest spending, Congress has to actually write the spending bill.
he wants a closer working relationship between the US and Russia
So does Hillary, remember her big "reset" on our relationship with Russia?
he thinks NATO is a "bad deal" for the USA
And treaties have to be ratified by Congress.
he might disregard the key part of the NATO covenant pledging assistance to a member that has been attacked by an external foe, i.e. the Baltic States by Russia
Sort of like the assurances the Ukraine got regarding its territorial integrity from the US in exchange for giving up its nukes?
So to say that the POTUS is just a figurehead is nonsense. Look what Bush and Cheney did in Iraq in 2003.
Wrong again, recall that Hillary and the rest of Congress gave them the authority and funding for the war.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump has made it clear on several occasions that
1) he admires Vladimir Putin
2) he wants a closer working relationship between the US and Russia
3) he thinks NATO is a "bad deal" for the USA, and
4) he might disregard the key part of the NATO covenant pledging assistance to a member that has been attacked by an external foe, i.e. the Baltic States by Russia
So what you are saying, basically, is that Trump's foreign policy make more sense than Clinton's?
Re:well well well (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well actually, one of the many things Trump has proven, is that despite all their money, the Koch brothers lost very badly. Even in the democrats, Sanders was not so far from winning.
(Another thing Trump has proven, is that all those movies with villains that were far too stupid to be credible, well, actually, they are credible.)
Re:well well well (Score:5, Insightful)
The US elections are ran and decided by the ultra-rich.
Sorry to sound confrontational, but that's bullshit. It just is. And ironically Donald Trump is the one that proves it.
Yes, his election to GOP nominee isn't an election for office, but he was detested and denigrated by pretty much every single Republican establishment "ultra rich" figure. He won because the Joe Sixpacks of the GOP - their wisdom in doing so is a separate discussion topic - actually voted for him more than anyone else. Despite all the best efforts of the "rich" and the "establishment" in the party, the demagogue with popular support ACTUALLY WON.
If the fact that the Republican Party - the REPUBLICAN FUCKING PARTY - can be taken over by popular votes against the fervent wishes of the Koch Brothers, the Bushes, the Cruz Evangelicals and everyone else who hated them, then nothing will. The rich did not get their way. And spare me any "false flag" bullshit. The Republican Powers That Be did not conspire to sink their own party. Joe and Jane Sixpack voted for somebody else, and they had to suck it up.
Saying that the rich own elections is a cop-out. Yes, the US is a democratic republic. Yes, the elections for the two highest offices in the land are mediated through an Electoral College. But by and large, the US is absolutely a functional democracy. It's easy to claim it's not because you don't like who got elected... but really you should think about the idea that the people in power are really there because 51% of the voting public wanted them there, even if they disagree with you. Not liking the results of democracy is its great hazard.
Here's more credible evidence of Trump-Russia ties (Score:5, Interesting)
"Post-bankruptcy Trump has been highly reliant on money from Russia, most of which has over the years become increasingly concentrated among oligarchs and sub-garchs close to Vladimir Putin," for example. And then there was the "secret financing" for a Soho real estate project from Russia and Kazakhstan. Even Trump's campaign manager, Paul Manafort, "spent most of the last decade as top campaign and communications advisor for Viktor Yanukovych, the pro-Russian Ukrainian Prime Minister and then President whose ouster in 2014 led to the on-going crisis and proxy war in Ukraine."
I haven't been following Trump's campaign closely, but his ties to Russia are really clear.
Re: (Score:3)
A more assertive US? From the guy who wants the US to leave Ukraine to Russia, and overrode the Republican party on the platform issue? Stating that he wants to give Putin a free hand in Syria? Insists that there's no evidence that he kills journalists, political opponents and invades countries? The guy who's exchanged repeated back-and-forth praise with Putin on the campaign trail, with fawning language like "It is always a great honor to be so nicely complimented by a man so highly respected within hi
Re: (Score:3)
Lithuania [bbc.com].
Re:Here's more credible evidence of Trump-Russia t (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Always the same with Hillary... (Score:5, Interesting)
Why does Hillary always claim some sort of big conspiracy every time she gets caught doing something? Perhaps, she should just concentrate on keeping her nose clean to begin with.
Re:Always the same with Hillary... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Why does Hillary always claim some sort of big conspiracy every time she gets caught doing something? "
Because most of the time she's dirty.
Re:Always the same with Hillary... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the press always lets her. Because anyone else would be gone after one or 2 times, but the Clintons keep getting a pass for scandal after scandal after scandal, always ensuring there will be yet another scandal in the seemingly endless list. Because the Democrats across the country lost so many elections in the past few years that there's no one else in the party with national stature who can mount a successful campaign. Because calling the other side "racist" is seen as an acceptable substitute for acting ethically or having any sort of thoughts on policy.
Re:Always the same with Hillary... (Score:5, Informative)
A person can be both guilty of something wrong, and at the same time have a third party digging up / promoting evidence of it for their own, unrelated purposes.
Um... because there is one? (Score:3, Insightful)
First, kill the messenger (Score:5, Insightful)
What is always step one when dealing with a whistleblower? Try to distract the press by yammering nonstop about the whistleblower, and deflect every question about the leaked documents back to the leaker's motivations, integrity, etc.
Of course, given the content of the emails, I suspect that DWS has already given the marching orders to CNN and MSNBC so that the party doesn't have to dirty their hands by acting all shifty and evasive on TV.
Horse Hockey (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't think the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, et all didn't hack that server? You're naive.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If the Russians wanted to help Trump they would release some "they weren't classified when on my server" emails that they got from her bathroom server.
Whether or not they have them, there's no need. The FBI has already said that Clinton was lying about that, and they have the evidence to prove it. They just don't have Clinton's leverage with the Obama administration, so no prosecution for that act and the lie told to cover it up - even though anyone else would be in deep legal trouble for doing exactly the same.
Re:Horse Hockey (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if they did get in (nice proof by intimidation you have there), how likely is it that there were REAL gems there?
So you're going with the "I broke the law, but it's OK because nothing bad happened" defense? Try that next time you get pulled over and fail a breathalyzer. "Hey officer, I'm drunk as a skunk but nobody got hurt so you can't charge me!" Tell me how that works out for you, the common citizen.
The laws Hillary broke did not require intent or damage to occur in order to be prosecuted. Go read the statute. Comey invented the whole "intent" thing out of thin air. She got a pass because her last name is "Clinton." Any other person would, at the least, be fired and banned for life from Federal service. At the worst, they'd be in jail already.
Re:Horse Hockey (Score:4, Informative)
They can only be declassified by the agency that classified the information in the first place. So no, you're wrong. You're right about the arrogance, of course.
Dammit Trump! Enough with the Conspiracy Theories! (Score:5, Funny)
That crazy Trump running around blaming the Russians for everything! That guy is completely unhinged and we need a sane establishment-connected candidate like Her Highness Hill --- [whispering] --- Uh.. wait that was Hillary who said that?
Well uh, she's obviously right. There's a vast right wing conspiracy led by the Russkies that's infiltrated all levels of the U.S. Government to stop the most qualified woman on EARTH from being coronated queen of 'Murica! I have in my hand here a list of 47 Russkie agents that are hellbent on subverting Hillary's ascendency to the throne and I propose a witchhunt to ruin their lives!! (in the name of diversity and BLMLGBTQQRSUNVAKEHG rights of course)
Re:Dammit Trump! Enough with the Conspiracy Theori (Score:4, Funny)
You know when fluoridation first began?
Nineteen hundred and forty-six. 1946, CajunArson. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.
first became aware of it during the physical act of love. Yes, a profound sense of fatigue... a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily, I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence.
And there's no fighting in here.
How much do you believe ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Speaking as a Brit: we have just been through a month of unscrupulous back stabbing carried out by our MPs (Members of Parliament). The Prime Minister resigned and so the Tories had to elect a new one; several put their names forwards and then huge amounts of muck was dug up, some of it completely proposterous or ridiculously overblown; the press played their part in keeping silly stories on the front pages.
We have the same thing going on in Labour: leadership election with mole hills being blown up to be the size of Everest; again the press with the Westminster mafia out to knife Jeremy Corbyn. He is loved by Labour voters country wide but hated by those in the Westminster bubble.
This story strikes me as made from the same elements: something small made out to be oh - so important. The trouble is that many voters are not able (or sufficiently interested) to see beyond the head lines.
Re: (Score:3)
The accusations against Clinton have been proven by the FBI with the only excuse being "she's too big to jail" and an obvious golden handshake by Bill Clinton with the AG that should've prosecuted who subsequently dropped the case.
I'm sure the Russians helped, they have their own agenda just like they would've attempted to help their cause with any other election in the world (the US does the exact same thing through the CIA as does any other world power including the UK, Germany etc).
We all know in every c
Re: (Score:3)
And then the person who controlled GCHQ was elected. What a surprise.
Pot meet Kettle (Score:5, Insightful)
Donald Trump's son later responded, "They'll say anything to be able to win this."
Ya, *they*.
Slashdot: Clinton Campaign mouthpiece. (Score:5, Informative)
From Russia with love (Score:4, Funny)
What difference at this point does it make who hacked DNC's dammed emails?
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I have seen some crazy responses here (Score:5, Informative)
Putin allowed these to be released to poke Obama in the eye. No more, no less. The fact that they feed into a long standing story of dishonesty and fraud on the part of the Clintons is incidental. He saw maximum value to let them go right before the DNC, because he knows, like I do, that these e-mails aren't going to decide the election.
It keeps "emails" in the news and anytime emails are "leaked" people instantly assume that it exposes a bunch of lies and scandals. The stuff about Sanders also pokes the "Bernie or Bust" movement, Trump's big risk is they all decide that they need to vote Democrat. If he can antagonize them enough they might simply decide to sit out the election.
It wasn't worth holding them until November, as they'd be ineffectual then with all the mud flying in the last couple of weeks.
They are, however, one of hundreds of data points that will decide this election.
He doesn't "support Trump" at all. He'd prefer a HRC in charge - less risk, but he doesn't believe he could turn a US election anyway with any of his tools available. Those who believe otherwise are conspiracy theorists.
If Putin was low risk he wouldn't have invaded Ukraine or stated screwed with NATO member Latvia.
Putin's dream is to break up NATO and eat up a bunch of former USSR members, his fear is that he loses power in some kind of Democratic revolution. Trump is already suggesting he may not defend NATO members, Putin will be very tempted to take advantage of this.
Trump has also openly admired the authoritarian tendencies of Putin and other dictators. If Trump gets in it's very unlikely that Putin's next crackdown will be hit with a bunch of international condemnation led by the US. Trump might even kill the sanctions for attacking Ukraine as part of some deal.
Re:I have seen some crazy responses here (Score:4)
Remember that Trump knows how to negotiate, and most positions that he takes are intended to be bargained away while he achieves his real intention.
Why do you think he's a great negotiator? Because someone wrote a book called "Art of the Deal" and put his name on it? You realize the US government has plenty of skilled negotiators, I don't see why we should assume that Trump has superpowers.
I'm sure he knows what he's doing when it comes to business deals, but when it comes to international negotiations he seems to be frighteningly out of his depth. Hiding your true intentions in international negotiations doesn't give you great deals, it gives you wars. And bullying people around is fine when you're a business person, but as a country other nations start coordinating against you.
Trump wants to save the US effort, or get funds for defending Europe. He has no intention of dropping out of NATO or anything like that. I mean, I doubt I am spoiling things for him by saying this. I suspect Europe's leaders will find the risk too high to avoid doing business with him.
So what happens when Putin decides to take Latvia (who certainly can't afford Trump's rates)? He's a lot more likely to try with a Trump who might let him get away with it.
What about when South Korea decides to get its own nukes rather than pay Trump's protection fee. Or when he tries to renegotiate the nuclear deal, loses sanction support from the other nations, and Iran decides to get build nukes and ally itself with Russia for protection?
yawn. (Score:3, Insightful)
Who'd'a thought the DNC would favor a centrist party insider over a left-leaning outsider? (The Bernie camp has been complaining about this since day one.)
Who'd'a thought the internet is full of hax0rs that break into any and every system they can and proclaim that they've done something earthshaking?
Who'd'a thought Assuange would try to spin it as something to do with the Hillary server scandal?
Who'd'a thought a campaign manager would have made an outrageous claim?
Who'd'a thought the opposing campaign manager would make a vacuous counter-claim?
Who'd'a thought Slashdot would run with such a nothing-burger story when there are actually interesting things going on in the world?
I take my subject back - a yawn overrates the whole thing.
There is a name for this type of "defense" (Score:5, Insightful)
Contaminated content (Score:3, Interesting)
If it was the Russian's fault (Score:5, Insightful)
If it was the Russians' fault, then why did your DNC Chair have to step down?!
So I understand... (Score:4, Funny)
Email Smeemail (Score:5, Informative)
Story [nytimes.com] about how she received bribes for allowing Russia to buy 20% of the USA uranium production. She clearly stated how she wouldn't take foreign donations to her foundation while at state, would ask for a waiver to do it if it came up, and would disclose if it happened. She took the bribe, didn't ask for a waiver, didn't disclose it, and failed to report it on her taxes and had to amend them years later after she was caught. She showed "Intent" in hiding the donations because they were bribes. This isn't even questionable campaign donations, this is direct bribes to her for approving something the State Department wouldn't normally even consider.
I'm not sure why people bring up her email scandal. As bad as it was, it wasn't taking bribes from Russia for State Department favours while she was in charge.
How is she even possibly considered for the DNC nomination after this came out?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Story [nytimes.com] about how she received bribes for allowing Russia to buy 20% of the USA uranium production. She clearly stated how she wouldn't take foreign donations to her foundation while at state, would ask for a waiver to do it if it came up, and would disclose if it happened. She took the bribe, didn't ask for a waiver, didn't disclose it, and failed to report it on her taxes and had to amend them years later after she was caught. She showed "Intent" in hiding the donations because they were bribes.
Did you link to the right article? I see some bad things for her, but not the stuff you were talking about.
1) The foundation wasn't supposed to accept foreign government donations, she didn't. Though she may have taken donations from people who had connections to foreign companies with significant government ties.
2) The foundation was supposed to publicly disclose all the donations to the foundation, apparently this guy who donated, a Canadian, reported on his tax form that he made a bunch of donations that
Re:Trumps son... (Score:5, Funny)
Which one, Uday or Qusay?
Re:doesn't matter (Score:5, Informative)
If anybody outside the Democratic party can leak these E-mails, then Hillary didn't take sufficient care of them and can't be trusted with national security secrets. Thanks, Hillary, for confirming this once again.
They were stolen from DNC systems. They contain email related to the election not national security issues.
... discuss reports that Russia had hacked into systems at the Democratic National Committee.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, they are "under her control": if she had told them to increase security, they would have done it. And, of course, the staff and experts that slosh around her campaign and the DNC are likely later to get involved in her administration.
That's the question you should ask yourself. Personally, I'm not part
Re: (Score:3)
So what? The message here is "Trump" -- ethics and competence don't matter because "Trump". Get used to it. "Trump" is the new all purpose justification for anything they want to do (or did in the past), regardless of ethics or laws or anything else.
Julian Assange, agent of Repub Conspiracy (Score:5, Insightful)
but I'm not sure the Dems can win the political game of crazy.
When Julian Assange is part of the great Republican conspiracy to "get" the Clintons I think the Dems are a bit crazy too.
Re: They'll say anything (Score:5, Informative)
I follow the Syrian conflict very closely and there's a new hospital or clinic hit by airstrikes about once a week on average... sometimes more, sometimes less. It's not always clear which airforce (Syrian or Russian) is doing it, but more often than not when the distinction can be determined it's Russian. There was a multiple clinic hit in Idlib about a week ago, while an ambulance was hit in Aleppo 4 days ago.
It's really a meat grinder over there :(
A lot of the time the hits on civilian targets are accidental. Sometimes they're on purpose. Most of what Russia uses, and virtually all of what the Syrian air force uses, are "dumb bombs". For the past month the vast majority of Russia's air power has been directed at north Aleppo (Handaraat / al-Mallah, primarily), so there's been a great amount of white phosphorus and cluster bombs, but in denser-populated areas near Castello Road they use a lot more high explosives. So there's a lot of potential for accidental hits. On the other hand, in many cases it's hard to interpret the attacks as anything but deliberate attacks, particularly on hospitals that are treating wounded rebels - multiple hits on the same target, targets with no conflict in the immediate area, with no obvious targets of value nearby, etc. They do a lot of "double tap" hits on them as well.
Just in case anyone isn't aware... this isn't "ISIS" that they're focusing on. Daesh (ISIS) doesn't exist in Aleppo, let alone Idlib (further), let alone Latakia (even further), let alone the freaking Jordanian border which they've been bombing recently much to the anger of the Pentagon (whose "New Syrian Army" is there trying to take Al-Bukamal from Daesh and cut off Daesh traffic to and from Iraq). When they do bomb Daesh, it''s overwhelmingly in two areas: Palmyra and Deir ez Zour. The latter is a Syrian government pocket in the middle of Daesh territory that they've been struggling to hang onto for a long time, against constant assault. The former is well known. One exception: the government forces, with some Russian air support, tried an assault from Ithyria toward the Daesh city of al-Taqbah, but they were basically baited into a trap and suffered massive losses. They retreated back to Ithriya and haven't retried since then.
Oh, and while we're talking about Syria, two things of mention:
1) The massive "factory of death" southwest of al-Safira exploded last week, with a huge earthquake that rattled houses 50km away, was visible 75km away and audible 100km away. Hopefully that'll reduce the barrel bomb and elephant rocket attacks... at least somewhat...
2) There's a lot of chatter that Nusra is imminently going to break with al-Qaeda. This would be huge if it happens, but I'll trust it when I see it.
Re:Niggers Beware!!! (Score:4, Informative)
This is why there is actually quite a lot of black trump supporters. [washingtonpost.com]
RUSSIA MADE US LOOK BAD! (Score:5, Insightful)
By letting you KNOW what we REALLY think and how AWFUL we ACTUALLY behave!
BLAME RUSSIA!