Russian Arrested in Spain 'Over US Election Hacking' (bbc.com) 312
Spanish police have arrested a Russian programmer for alleged involvement in "hacking" the US election, BBC reported Monday, citing local press reports. From the report: Pyotr Levashov, arrested on 7 April in Barcelona, has now been remanded in custody. A "legal source" also told the AFP news agency that Mr Levashov was the subject of an extradition request by the US. The request is due to be examined by Spain's national criminal court, the agency added. El Confidencial, a Spanish news website, has said that Mr Levashov's arrest warrant was issued by US authorities over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Trump's campaign.
Can someone explain what the Russians hacked? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's assume they got all the DNC mail and released it. How was that hacking the election? Hacking the election would be changing votes in a database.
If someone finds out that a candidate murders babies, I would prefer they release it...and not be arrested for "hacking the election".
Breaking in is illegal (Score:2, Informative)
Let's assume they got all the DNC mail and released it. How was that hacking the election?
If you actually read the article, it states "El Confidencial, a Spanish news website, has said that Mr Levashov's arrest warrant was issued by US authorities over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Trump's campaign."
So there are two statements there.
1. Mr Levashov was arrested for suspected "hacking", and
2. this suspected "hacking" helped Donald Trump's campaign.
Breaking into the DNC computers and stealing e-mail is illegal. Period. This was done, plausibly, on behalf of Russia: http://www.bbc.com [bbc.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Russia's goals were to "undermine public faith" in the US democratic process
I think the republicans and democrats did that themselves when they put their two candidates forward.
Re: (Score:3)
According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security report, Russia's goals were to "undermine public faith" in the US democratic process and "denigrate" his Democrat opponent Hillary Clinton, harming her electability and potential presidency. "We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election." http://www.bbc.com/news/world- [bbc.com]... [bbc.com]
This is a fair assessment and while I can agree with the concept, there is one thing that really bugs me about this. It assumes that the average US voter is so pathetically inept, that bad stories about a political (who had some of the worst favorably ratings even before the election!) some how translates into undermining public faith in the democratic process. Just... no.
Clinton was hated long before the 2016 election. She had a lot of baggage and any party revealing the details of that baggage no more und
Re: (Score:2)
You may not have been influenced but did you not think there was something strange about the floods of anti-Clinton messages, not least on this site?
No more than I saw anti-Trump and anti-Sanders (general election and primary election) messages paraded everywhere from Correct The Record. I was even accused of being a Russian troll when I posted my opinions on Clinton (negative). Everyone is trying to convince you of something. Why is this any different?
Re: (Score:2)
What we know the Russians hacked:
1) DNC e-mails. Publishing these e-mails hurt Hillary in the election. It is believed this alone caused her to drop at least 5 points which was more than the difference in the election. This might be called more of hacking the voters than hacking the vote.
2) The US Election Assistance Commission. The EAC is responsible for national voter registration, establishing voluntary guidelines for voting, and certifying and auditing voting machines. Some news outlets reported th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Damn off topic troll
RE: the Paul Allen's yacht, it was on the other side of the world. That incident was in Grand Cayman, not in Australia. Bleaching is still a much bigger threat than his boat (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/01/160129-paul-allen-yacht-tatoosh-damages-cayman-coral-reef/)
Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination (Score:3, Insightful)
The only way "Hacking" affected the election was that things Hillary and the DNC said in private became public. So I don't think it makes a lot of sense to claim the election was really "hacked", it's just the more you know about what Hilary really thinks the less likely you are to vote for her.
In the same vein every major newspaper was trying for a year or so to "hack" the election with negative stories about Trump, most of which turned out to be false... so that was actually a lot worse than the Russians simply illuminating the truth.
Re:Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination (Score:5, Informative)
By your metaphor, i can take your wallet and take your credit card, since you're just going to hand it over to a store anyway. I mean, it's the same thing right? Information wants to be free and all that.
Hillary lost for a bunch of reasons, including Comey, including hacks, including the fact that she had the wrong message, including after having to listen to a black man for 8 years white males didn't want to listen to a woman. And ignore all the times where the US interferes in other elections. Anyone remember the "don't elect Lula or we'll make things hard for you" we said to Brazil?
But ignore all that. They hacked the mail servers, current law is that is a crime, they should be punished.
Re: (Score:3)
If a stowaway hiding the bowels of a ship points out the ship is sinking, do you fret over punishing the stow
Re: (Score:3)
The only way "Hacking" affected the election was that things Hillary and the DNC said in private became public.
I'm pretty sure Donald Trump, and perhaps every other Presidential candidate in history, have said things in private that if they became public would result in them losing the election, so that's a big problem.
Did they now (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm pretty sure Donald Trump, and perhaps every other Presidential candidate in history, have said things in private that if they became public would result in them losing the election
Trump DID say something in private, that was made public also - the whole "grabbing" fiasco.
It would have ended any other candidate, and indeed many were sure that was the end of Trump. Even many Republicans said he should end his candidacy.
But EVEN with that, Trump still won because (on the whole) what Hilary did and support
Re: Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination (Score:2)
The DNC stuff was minor (Score:3, Interesting)
So wrong (Score:5, Informative)
The DNC stuff was minor and esoteric. It didn't even register with voters.
Are you nuts? It registered strongly with EVERY Bernie Sanders supporter. Search Twitter around that time and you'll find it was far from "esoteric" that Sanders had been ejected from the race by the DNC leadership.
Then there's the mounting evidence that Russia hacked voter rolls
Where is that exactly? The only effort ever put forth (by the Green party) showed no Russian involvement and resulted in a few more votes for Trump than were originally counted.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the term "hacking" for the election fits perfectly... in the context of the tech audience here. Because hacking does not have, for us, the same meaning that it acquired through the media : that of breaching electronic systems, most often for criminal gain (note the extra negative connotation).
Instead, here its meaning is about finding and implementing a subversive approach to work around the limitations or rules of a system : all the news manipulation, polls, fact-checking wars are the expressions o
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"election hacking" is a very disingenuous way to refer to what happened. Everyone is treating it like votes were fraudulent, when what really happened was fraudulent activity was exposed via hacking. This should actually be a good thing.
But the truth doesn't matter as much as the narrative.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it was a good thing in the same way that racial profiling by the police is a good thing because it gets criminals off the streets. Right? Or is there some value in equal enforcement?
Re: (Score:2)
If it were a FOX reporter, I'd feel differently about it, but it wasn't. My assumption and hope is that reporters (collectively) go after both parties. Democracy doesn't exist without free and fair elections.
Regardless of whether the actions of the Russians actually made any actual difference in the outcome, what has happened is
Re: (Score:2)
So it is OK with you that one of our political parties conducts secret, distasteful activities that, if revealed to the public, would sway the election toward the other candidate?
Personally, I see the hacking of DNC emails as an intelligence test that they failed miserably. If your party cannot conduct their unpleasant business clandestinely they surely do not deserve to win office. Imagine what would happened if these idiots were actually allowed to run the country. Our entire ruling party would have be
Re: (Score:2)
So it is OK with you that one of our political parties conducts secret, distasteful activities that, if revealed to the public, would sway the election toward the other candidate?
Where did I say that? What I did say is that if it were a FOX reporter that had done that hacking, it would be different. I still have some moral issues with breaking into systems and exposing private communications.
Personally, I see the hacking of DNC emails as an intelligence test that they failed miserably. If your party cannot conduct their unpleasant business clandestinely they surely do not deserve to win office. Imagine what would happened if these idiots were actually allowed to run the country. Our entire ruling party would have been compromised from day one.
The problem I see with your argument is that you're assuming that the Republicans can't or haven't been compromised.
Re: (Score:2)
We are operating on different assumptions, so the communication between us will be flawed. Here are some of my suppositions and logic:
We do not know the provenance of the DNC emails. Conjecture abounds, from a Russian hack to a voluntary disclosure by a now-dead DNC staffer. Nothing is proven, no smoking gun exists. Therefore, your assertion that a foreign power was the source of the leaked emails is irrelevant, as there are sufficient questions about where the emails came from to render it a moot point
Why would you feel differently?? (Score:2)
So it's OK with you that a foreign power hacked the systems of one of our political parties
Nope, not OK.
If it were a FOX reporter, I'd feel differently about it
Why? It's still not OK.
My assumption and hope is that reporters (collectively) go after both parties.
Even if that means using illegal means to do so? I want them going after both parties also.
However just because what was done was wrong, does not mean the outcome has to be bad. Just that the means to obtain it were wrong.
But I also place blame on
Re: (Score:2)
In the same vein every major newspaper was trying for a year or so to "hack" the election with negative stories about Trump, most of which turned out to be false... so that was actually a lot worse than the Russians simply illuminating the truth.
This is probably my selective memory acting up. What were the negative stories about Trump which turned out to be false? Were there vastly different numbers of negative stories about Clinton? Were they substantively more or substantively less often false? Were these false stores products of the press either through outright fabrication or through poor reporting?
Welllll yes and no.... (Score:2)
The WAY that information was leaked about Hilary was somewhat timely, and metered out. There wasn't a dump of it.
So, here's what i don't understand. Trump kept saying the election was rigged - right up until the point where he won, then he suddenly claims it wasn't. Why wouldn't the Trump administration WANT to expose some kind of hack on the election? That would prove him right, and if Russia hacked her email server, then it would also prove his point about how much her email was a security threat for
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Social" hacking doesn't exist.
Hacking involves a computer. People have been trying to sway public opinion in the way they want since the creation of the concept of an election. That doesn't make it "social hacking".
Re: (Score:3)
That's social engineering, not hacking, you clown. It's a meatspace escalation of privilege attack, and is absolutely not hacking. Hacking involves attacking a machine and getting it to exhibit unexpected or unintended behavior.
Re: Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination (Score:4, Interesting)
THE 'FAKE NEWS' LIST
1 — Politico reported that a company overseen by Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin had foreclosed on a 90-year-old woman for due to a 27-cent payment error. The Competitive Enterprise Institute determined that there was no foreclosure and a different company was involved. .@tedfrank shreds @politico on Mnunchin story
2 — CNN reported that Nancy Sinatra was "not happy" Trump's first inaugural dance to her dad's "My Way." She reacted, "Why do you lie, CNN?"
3 — The New York Times and others reported that on Inauguration Day, Trump's team scrubbed climate change and references to LGBT from the White House website. Actually, there was a broadcasted plan to shift the Obama website to a different site and that the Trump team would use a skeleton site for the first few days.
4 — The Washington Post hit Trump for giving a speech in front of the "sacrosanct" CIA Memorial Wall. It didn't mention that Obama had done the same thing.
5 — CBS, reporting on the same event, said that the applause for Trump came from the first three rows of guests, stacked with Trump campaign and White House aides. In an embarrassing pushback, Spicer at a subsequent press briefing said there were no aides in the first four rows, that they were standing in the back.
This list go on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination (Score:5, Informative)
There are retracted news articles all the time, you should be able to do better.
1) This appears to be referring to this article:
http://www.politico.com/story/... [politico.com]
Here is the Fox (Faux) News article you are probably basing your statement on:
http://insider.foxnews.com/201... [foxnews.com]
Politico seems to have gotten the basic facts correct in this case and Competitive Enterprise Institute seems to have gotten it wrong. The mistake Politico had made in the original article was stating that OneWest had done the foreclosure when it had been CIT who had merged with OneWest. The mistake was using the old company name instead of the new company name. Mnuchin was on the board of CIT when the second foreclosure took place.
"CORRECTION: This story has been corrected to reflect that CIT Bank, successor to OneWest after a 2015 merger, was the entity that filed foreclosure proceedings against Ossie Lofton over a 27-cent payment error. The story has also been revised to clarify that there were two separate foreclosure proceedings against Lofton. At the time the second foreclosure was filed in 2016, Mnuchin had sold his stake in OneWest and was on the board of CIT."
Other fact checkers have confirmed that Fox is wrong and the foreclosure did take place. You can even see the court case yourself:
https://pro.polkcountyclerk.ne... [polkcountyclerk.net]
Search for: "CIT BANK, N.A. vs. LOFTON OSSIE".
Score: Politico: 1, Faux News: 0.
That said, I'm not really a fan of Politico atm. They just posted a totally garbage anti-Semitic article claiming that Trump is linked to Putin because Putin met with a Chabad Rabbi who had once met a rabbi who did a bris that Ivanka Trump went to and thus there is some Jewish conspiracy linking the two men... The way the article is written is a total conspiracy theory. That would be a much better example of fake news. I'm not a fan of Trump, but you don't need to come up with anti-Semitic conspiracy theories to link Trump and Putin.
2) As others pointed out in this thread, it was actually Nancy Sinatra who seemed to change her tune and claim the negative Trump comment she had tweeted earlier was a "joke." Although to be fair, it might have been meant as a joke but there was no way for CNN to know that. I wouldn't call that fake news.
3) If you read the article, there doesn't seem to be anything fake about it. They even mention that it was probably part of the plan to shift to a different site.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0... [nytimes.com]
http://www.snopes.com/white-ho... [snopes.com]
What you are leaving out is that it has been several months and Trump still doesn't have anything up on whitehouse.gov about these issues from what I can tell. How is the New York times article "fake news"?
4) As someone else pointed out, they reported on people who objected to the content of the speech not that he gave one there. Here is the article you are claiming is fake news. What exactly is fake? Did the people who Washington Post said objected to the speech not really object?
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
5) It sounds like Spicer is lying (nothing new), not CBS. Although CBS seems to be a little misleading as there were some CIA staff who seemed to support Trump, but the facts about Trump bringing people to cheer him on seem to be correct.
http://www.snopes.com/2017/01/... [snopes.com]
Newsweek de
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, the other AC has it right. I saw it live on TV on CNN. They were claiming she was upset because they used the song, and were trying to stir up some ballyhoo about it. THEN she came out with the "Why do you lie, CNN?" tweet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bakers dozen of rape accusations who all showed up for an October surprise, and then poof gone!
His previous wife had her rape accusations removed rather quickly, and she made hers LONG before Trump showed any political ambitions. In the case of the ex-wife her sudden change of heart was probably down to a financial pay off.
The more recent women accusing Trump of sexual assault all reported getting dozens of death threats and had negative encounters with Trump's vigilante storm troopers on the streets. It's no surprise they are quieter now.
Re: Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bigger hack (Score:5, Insightful)
The biggest hack to support Trump was to put Hillary forward as a candidate.
Re:Bigger hack (Score:5, Insightful)
Hillary being the Democrat candidate was just party politics as usual. I think the hack was to get a completely non-viable candidate trumped (ha) up as the Republican candidate to pave the way for the coronation of Her Hillaryness. Note how NBC News sat on the "Grab the Cat" video all through the primaries, when it might have done some good, in order to ("Oh, *please* let it be Trump!") spring it as an October Surprise.
Also, note the utterly absurd way the "debates" were handled. The immoderators (deliberately?) steered the "debates" in such a way as to dumb them down into ridiculousness, which plays to Trump's strengths, such as they are.
I think the biggest factor in Trump's win is that the attitude of Hillary and most of the Democratic Party, which is basically "How dare those unwashed nobodies in flyover country fail to show proper gratitude that their betters are willing to take up the burden of running their lives for them?!?", doesn't really play well in those parts of the country they show such open and complete contempt for.
Can't we all just get along?!?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I really have a issue here. I really wanted to mod you up but I also want to comment on this thread. But but when it comes right down to it. I think you are spot on.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish more people looked at things this way instead of total polarization.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
and find some common ground... like the fact that Hillary and The Donald are BOTH scumbags who don't deserve to be president?
And right there you have the issue with the USA as a "liberal democracy". How can it be a liberal democracy when the "democracy" part gives voters the choice between a vile rich callous selfish lying warmonger and a vile rich callous selfish lying warmonger? And how liberal can it be when absolutely no one in the senior ranks of the government - or of either major political party - is in the least liberal?
I use the word "liberal" in its original and correct sense:
liberal
n adjective
1 respectful and acc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Hillary and The Donald are BOTH scumbags who don't deserve to be president?
You have highlighted a very important issue: how our voting system works. If we used ranked voting in the US, we would have a more representative government. I mean that in the literal sense that they would be mathematically more representative of who people want to vote for. The question you should be asking is how we can we improve our voting system.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Not even close.
Re: (Score:2)
Common ground doesn't win a two party election, but one thing is damn certain and that is that MY scumbag is better than yours.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't deserve to be president?
While I am no fan of the Don he does deserve and is entitled to be president because he won the contest(s) that decided who is deserving and entitled to hold that position. That contest does not pick the best and brightest because democracy isn't about picking the best and brightest. While that isn't a great thing it is still the best thing we have for government.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump breaks everything. If his chaos fixed something, it was accidental, like Scooby Doo inadvertently crashing into the hologram machine, exposing the ghost as a fake.
He may not have predicted that up front. He's been reluctant to give up control of his biz's.
You seem to assume too much planning and purpose to his actions. There is no soli
Absurd (Score:2, Insightful)
What ridiculous nonsense! Everyone knows Putin did it.
MOD: Please Fix article title (Score:5, Informative)
* https://krebsonsecurity.com/20... [krebsonsecurity.com]
* https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0... [nytimes.com]
Keep eating that finger chilli (Score:2)
My $0.02 USD (Score:2, Interesting)
No foreign country or entity should have *anything* to do with a country's election process. Period.
And yes, I am aware that the U.S. has interfered in foreign countries' elections as well. Karma?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
good lord
Re: (Score:3)
Oh yes. Now this is getting interesting. Anyone care to place a wager on how hard Fox News will try to spin this?
Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr (Score:5, Interesting)
Probably just as hard as BBC proposed it the way they did as a Trump conspiracy vs a Clinton scandal. Nothing new here.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably just as hard as BBC proposed it the way they did as a Trump conspiracy vs a Clinton scandal. Nothing new here.
Why the hell would the BBC care? I thought the guidelines were clear: You had to hate on CNN the Clinton News Network, remember? That's what you are paid for, so don't dally around with that BBC nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Artist's depiction [youtu.be]
Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald T (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, you got trolled. :)
Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr (Score:4)
Predictable baying of the hounds from the Hillary camp.
Too late to have any real relevance since there's been ample time to create fake evidence.
the irony is strong in this one!
Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr (Score:5, Informative)
What "fake evidence"? According to the article:
The fact that Slashdot can't bother to read an article before writing its summary isn't the GP's fault.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This would not be the first time a major news outlet altered the text and headline of an article. Slashdot has been known to do it also.
Curious development.
And by objective, you mean partisan (Score:2)
Re:There's more than the DNC hack ya know (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
During the campaign Trump at various points said that he would end sanctions on Russia that are costing your economy billions of dollars (rubles) and recognize Crimea. The ruble has lost 45% of its value from the sanctions. These Russian scandals that have plagued Trump and that even most Republicans in congress do not seem to share Trump's opinions on Russia have likely prevented Trump's stances on Russia from going forward. If Trump succeeds in his pro-Russia objectives, you can't say that it wouldn't
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that the fighting in Crimea is still going on, right?
I have no idea how accurate this site is, but it shows where current fighting is taking place:
http://liveuamap.com/ [liveuamap.com]
It seems like the current fighting is mostly concentrated in Donetsk, Crimea.
Re:There's more than the DNC hack ya know (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, you are correct. Thanks for the correction. I am terrible at reading maps in Russian. The news seems to talk about fighting currently in Donetsk, but the map on liveuamap also shows fighting still in Crimea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:There's more than the DNC hack ya know (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, you are correct. Thanks for the correction. I am terrible at reading maps in Russian.
That's OK - Even Russian military have repeatedly failed to read their own maps, and accidentally wandered into Ukraine.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't directed at all Russians. He chose his words carefully it seems not to, in fact.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Hacked the voter rolls? Voter rolls are public information. There's even a website where you can buy them at 2.5 cents per name... voterlistsonline.com
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There's mounting evidence that Russia hacked voter rolls and shared them with people involved with the Trump campaign.
I hear many people say this, and no one will point to any actual evidence. Show some evidence, or admit you have nothing but paranoid ravings.
The theory being the data was used to target ad buys and campaigning. It would explain how Trump ran such a stellar campaign with so few resources.
Surely you can see how weak a case that is. Trump ran ads. People listened to the ads on both sides, and decided to vote. You want to override their choice because you allege that the choice of advertising market was optimized by someone you don't like. Even if that is true, Russia saved the Trump campaign some money avoiding running ads that that would have no e
Re: (Score:3)
I think you are confusing the Clinton campaign with the Trump campaign. Clinton used targeted ad buys and voter rolls, Trump just tweeted insanity and was given billions in free coverage. That's why she lost, by deciding to pull resources from places where she lost by 20K, swinging the electoral college. But why would a 30 year veteran of public service understand the election process?
Why would Trump pay for anything he was getting for free from the media? I have heard anywhere from the low billions to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually Nixed did not get ousted for having the re-election team break into DNC Headquarters and plant bugs.
Nixon got ousted for covering up the issue after he learned of it. Nixon did not direct it to happen. Nixon covered it up after the fact.
erm.. there's quite a bit more to it than that and it was very clear he had involvement from inception to execution and over up.. hoisted by his own petard ,his own recording were used as evidence and proved knowledge all the way from the start to the end.
Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr (Score:5, Insightful)
He was asked to hand over the tapes. He should have wiped them first, you know...like with a cloth.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wow, now there's a bit of historical revisionism. Watergate was more than just a coverup, it also lead directly to the Oval Office as the source of the whole conspiracy, not merely just the coverup of the break-in. Any "exoneration" of Nixon comes from the fact that investigators could find no direct evidence that tied Nixon to the actual DNC break-in scheme. The whole matter of 18 minutes of erased tape has long been since as the smoke that lead to the fire that was Nixon's direct involvement in the entire
Re: (Score:2)
There was plenty of circumstantial evidence, and that's what nailed Nixon to the wall. It wasn't merely that he tried to coverup the Administration's involvement in the break-in, it's that there was enough *indirect* evidence, including the tape erasure (and the ridiculous explanation for how it happened) to point a finger pretty firmly at Nixon being at the heart of the whole affair. The kind of weasel language Nixon defenders always bring up was getting pretty old even by the time of his resignation. Cert
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It is still a shame that Nixon's resignation over shadowed his accomplishments while in office. He got the US military out of Vietnam. He visited China to personally open a diplomatic channel between China and the US. That action on his part kicked off the US's most successful regime operation in history. It brought China into the international trade and financial markets which changed them from a poor and inward looking Communist regime into one of the most capitalistic countries on the planet. China has not been a communist country for a long time no matter what they call their country. Nixon also created the EPA which has been one of the most successful government agencies since it was created.
yeah and that war on drugs he started.. that wasn't a total fiscal black hole at all was it? not a waste of time, energy, money and lives? Nixon was a twat
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Trump did publicly ask Russia to hack Clinton's e-mails. His supporters didn't seem to care about him asking a foreign government to interfere with the election or the threat to national security having a foreign government hack a presidential candidate presents.
“I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” the Republican nominee said at a news conference in Florida. “I think you will probably be rewarded mi
Re: (Score:3)
Yes but Trump has been quite ungrateful for Putin's decisive support during the election, not to mention Russian financial support of his businesses for many years. What kind of businessman is he to renege on a such a sweetheart deal from Putin?
He has yet to cancel sanctions against Russia. And he has yet to return Alaska back to Russia, which was illegally sold by the Emperer Alexander II against the will of the Russian people. Returning Alaska will also finally help prove that Sara Palin can actually s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Putin overplayed his hand, and misjudged just how recalcitrant Congress really is over Russia. Maybe Putin misjudged the US political system (he certainly wouldn't be the first Russian ruler to do that), and just assumed that Trump's cooing sounds and his installment in the White House would just erase seven decades of deep distrust between the Washington and Moscow. Maybe he knew it, but Trump was his best shot. Whatever the case may be, Trump is in a political position now where he has no choice but to pi
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The Administration certainly feels it does, including the radar tracking data showing where the attack originated from. But I get it, you've bought into the "Russia is a wonderful country and USA bad bad bad!"
Don't really care what you think. The ASsad clan have been murdering bastards for decades, and Russia, who was supposed to be the guarantor that Assad's chemical weapons were taken out of commission is left makign lame excuses about how some rebel gas cannisters got blowed up reall good.
Face it, Russia
Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald T (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Returning Alaska will also finally help prove that Sara Palin can actually see Russia from her house.
Here, let me help you with that:
Returning Alaska will also finally help prove that Tina Fey can actually see Russia from Sara Palin's house.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
She sent emails of CLASSIFIED information. On a system most likely compromised by .. RUSSIAN HACKERS!!!!.
And lets not forget Uranium One Deal that got her a quid pro quo speaking engagement for ... Bill the alleged rapist.
But yeah, Trump is totally in the pocket of Russia. That's why Putin had Assad gas his own people (with Weapons that Obama said he got rid of) so that Trump could bomb them and claim they aren't buddy/pals (actual NBC conspiracy theory).
Clinton would have been so much better!
Re: (Score:2)
So, you want a stupid President, then?
Re: (Score:3)
Also, pay attention to "My primary beef with Trump is that HE HAS NO EXPERIENCE." which didn't factor into anything when Obama was elected. If it wasn't for double standards, some people would have none.
Obama was elected to the Illinois state senate in 1996, 1998 and 2002. He was elected to the US senate in 2004. His BA was in political science with a specialty in international relations. He graduated from Harvard Law magna cum laude and was the president of the Harvard Law review. He taught constitutional law for 12 years and worked as a civil rights attorney.
Yes, Obama had less experience than many presidents but compare that to Trump. No previous elected experience, no law experience, no previous i
Re: (Score:2)
And still he fucked up the international policy of this country, got an Ambassador killed, allowed ISIS to form and thrive, (drew many red lines in the sand though). Is that the international relations he specialized in? I think he may have skipped class too many times.
Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Naaaah. Shit is shit no matter how you look at it (or smell). It was just that Hillary was a YUGE pile that had a public and private smell.
Re:Amazing the speed of the Russian/Trump shills (Score:4)
And you act like this surprises you? But to be fair if the news was the same about the DNC or Clinton, then their supporters would be spewing crap too. A different crap, but crap still.
Re: (Score:2)
True. There are RNC/Trump supporters that spew crap, and DNC/Clinton supporters that spew crap.
However, there is a third group that are critics of both the RNC and DNC (and/or both Trump and Clinton). That group should be FUCKING HUGE right now. What the fuck people*?
I'm not certain exactly what this Russian is being accused of, but he's certainly not a whistle blower, and he's not being accused of being innocent. He's probably going to roll over on some people, and it's probably going to have negative affe
Re: (Score:2)
Why does this amaze you? Americans are nothing if not blindly faithful to a sky-daddy and their political party of choice, and even then I'm not sure in which order they place that importance.
As for shilling, blind faith is far more powerful and wide reaching than a few cents per post. Being delusional doesn't make one a shill.