Top-Secret NSA Report Details Russian Hacking Effort Days Before 2016 Election (theintercept.com) 456
Russian hacking groups played a larger role in the 2016 election than anyone realized, according to a highly-classified NSA document published today in The Intercept. The document reveals that a Russian intelligence operation sent spear-phishing emails to more than 100 local election officials days before the election, which ran through a hack of a U.S. voting software supplier. The Russian cyber espionage operation was functional for months before the 2016 U.S. election. From the report: It states unequivocally in its summary statement that it was Russian military intelligence, specifically the Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate, or GRU, that conducted the cyber attacks described in the document: "Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate actors ... executed cyber espionage operations against a named U.S. company in August 2016, evidently to obtain information on elections-related software and hardware solutions. ... The actors likely used data obtained from that operation to ... launch a voter registration-themed spear-phishing campaign targeting U.S. local government organizations." This NSA summary judgment is sharply at odds with Russian President Vladimir Putin's denial last week that Russia had interfered in foreign elections: "We never engaged in that on a state level, and have no intention of doing so." Putin, who had previously issued blanket denials that any such Russian meddling occurred, for the first time floated the possibility that freelance Russian hackers with "patriotic leanings" may have been responsible. The NSA report, on the contrary, displays no doubt that the cyber assault was carried out by the GRU.
Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
So we go from "they hacked us" to "they tried to hack us"? Not quite the same accusation.
No one has ever said they actually hacked voting machines or IT infrastructure related with the actual conducting of the election. There have however, been persistent rumours that Russia had attempted, but failed, to hack those things. This is the first evidence we've seen that those rumours were true.
You seem to be conflating those rumours of attempted hacks of election infrastructure with far more publicized claims that Russia hacked the DNC, RNC, and gained access via phishing to John Podesta's emails.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's an issue for the DNC - a private organization which is apparently highly incompetent at keeping their shady bullshit under wraps - but not for us.
If provably true, relevant information about a president or presidential candidate comes to light I don't care if it comes from NBC or Fox or Billy Bush or Assange or Putin himself.
Re: (Score:3)
Doesn't bother me at all. Espionage and propaganda are universally used by countries, including the US. And Soviet influence on US elections and government was much stronger in the 1950's and 1960's and is still strongly influencing today's political debates. But that's the price you pay for having a free society.
Re: (Score:2)
The US has an IP range, time of day. IP ranges always point back to just a nation. Government workers always work 9 to 5 shifts in their own nation's time zones too.
Re: (Score:2)
That may be true, but so what? Those pimply-faced script kiddies don't necessarily work normal day shifts.
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
If you look at the actual public evidence, that's all we've got.
Exactly. The document in question takes a quite conclusive tone on the matter, but does not divulge any raw intelligence data or the methods used to assess that data.
Now, either the NSA personnel who produced this document are a hell of lot less smart than you are, or the document is a fake, or there is private information that the rest of us don't have.
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Informative)
But then since that's all they've used to prove it was ZOMG RUSSIANS, and that even US courts now know that an ip address != an entity, then the actual evidence that has been presented is....
0.
Nothing, zero, zip, nada, void, zilch, aught, nil, zot.
I wrote a post earlier about the US population getting lied into every war for the duration of my life on this planet so far, which is over half a century. They are lying /again/.
And they're not hiding it well. They're just recycling the old arguments. Because it hasn't changed since Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler wrote "War is a Racket."
I suggest you read it.
--
BMO
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Three words to live by: time will tell.
I'm old enough to remember Watergate, and that started pretty thin too. Here's the thing about people: they really suck at keeping secrets, especially when the pressure is on. That's how this works. The opposition gets out ahead of the evidence, but eventually -- if there's something to the story -- someone will crack. Then slowly, slowly the president's supporters will edge away, until he's left with nothing but a handful of useless, deluded stalwarts.
Now I've also seen a lot of bullshit "scandals" over my lifetime. That's because, like I said, the partisan opponents get ahead of what can be definitively proved. But that serves a purpose. If you really have faith in the President, you have nothing to worry about. You can't take down a president with nothing but hatred, you need to get something that sticks; something with legs to do real damage.
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
regarding your last paragraph:
I don't want our sitting president, DJT, ousted.
He is unable to get anything done. Even Republicans within his own party balk at the idiocy that comes out of the WH as a "budget" And that's being nice.
His 4am shitter tweets are a sight to behold. I'm not talking about the new Scrabble 7 letter word - I'm talking about all the rest of them that any sensible PR person would be screaming at him about.
He is a disgusting human being who is only liked as he is because he can play the media like Perlman plays the fiddle and sometimes he's funny. But beyond that, his overall behavior that I have seen since the 80s has been atrocious.
I could go on.
Yes, we could remove him. He's arrogant enough to leave a trail a mile wide, thinking nobody will walk down it.
Yes, we could remove him, but next in line are Pence and Granny Starver Ryan. And if you look at the list, it's assholes all the way down. But they're competent politicians. They know how to say the nice things while stabbing you in the back and you'll thank them for the stab. Trump is fucking incompetent, as we have seen over the past months (it feels like years). The only people left who truly support him are impervious to facts.
As a member of the opposition (I am no longer a dem, because they are Reaganism in Drag, with the drag getting a little threadbare, but as such they are slightly less evil), I want Trump to be stuck to the Republican Party and have them own him at least until the 2018 elections and hopefully to the 2020 elections (to be tossed on his ass by the R party or him rage-quitting)
Because he is so /useful/ to the opposition as an idiot. He brings the media. The media, being stenographers these days, sometimes shines light on the shenanigans unwittingly. More so now than in the past because Trump is entertainment and ratings. For example, we've had Darrel Issa trapped on a rooftop at his town-hall, and similar things have been happening to other congressdroids. People are pissed. I want them to remain pissed. Anger directed in a useful direction is good. They're now getting angry at the people who wish them harm. In order for this to keep going, Trump must remain in office to generally draw attention to government.
Russiagate is a distraction from the real issues - that both the Democratic and Republican parties are Neoliberal economically and considering the last administration, the Democrats are Neoconservatives on foreign policy (we're in how many wars now?) and Heaven Forfend that the public actually gets wind of this.
--
BMO
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Here we have a classified report (not intended for the public) that points fingers at a specific agency (the article didn't say how they learned that, but we can be pretty sure it wasn't by IP), and your only response is to try to discredit the entire government.
There's a point where being skeptical moves into denial.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
No, you're wrong. And, to prove it, I'll provide exactly double the amount of evidence you did in your post.
...
Did they change votes counted? (Score:2, Insightful)
If the Russians actually hacked into the voting machines at the poles and flipped Hillary votes to Donald votes, then yes they hacked the election. Since I have yet to hear this pushed forward, it sounds like all they did was reveal more dirt on Hillary.
Russians may have swayed public opinion but that's no different then what our news media does every day. Heck, the news media likely lost Hillary the election because of those polls. Democrats stayed home because they figured, "we got this and I liked Bernie
I miss the old slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Well I knew that slashdot jumped the shark awhile back, but when most of the comments are defending the Russians, it's reached an all new low.
Re:I miss the old slashdot (Score:5, Interesting)
Well I knew that slashdot jumped the shark awhile back, but when most of the comments are defending the Russians, it's reached an all new low.
Well, as people get older they do get more conservative...
More seriously - it's been true, for a lot of years, that whenever Slashdot has run a story which casts a bad light on Putin... an awful lot of anonymous pro-Putin posts appear. We saw it when he had his country invade the Ukraine; we saw it when he rigged the 2012 Russian election; and we see it now. It would be interesting to examine Slashdot's web logs.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
>Everyone who disagrees with me is a russian agent.
Yeah, must be that. Couldn't just be that in the current political climate saying anything even remotely supportive of Trump or dismissive of the crazy conspiracies against him is thoughtcrime punishable by public ostracization and the angry dumping of long litanies of "-ist"s and "-phobic"s at the offender.
Re:I miss the old slashdot (Score:5, Informative)
There are plenty of putinbots out there, but also plenty of alt-right types who pretty much openly admire autocrats like Putin
Re: (Score:3)
> I've been on Slashdot for way more than ten years - longer than you for sure
--You don't say? ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
calling them Saddam lovers. Establishment types were dumbfuckers back then, too.
No, no one called them that, that was a completely different situation where the US was stepping into a military conflict, not a foreign dictator being viewed negatively for interfering with our politics.
While on the subject of dumbfuckery, got any evidence yet of a Russian invasion that wasn't collected from a Ukrainian neo-nazi Facebook page or twitter feed? It's been years now and not a single U.S. satellite photo or drone footage to be had of Russian forces moving across the border.
I googled this and the second result shows a comprehensive, broadly sourced list of evidence [quora.com]
It will be more interesting when the amount of evidence against Putin exceeds the amount of evidence that Obama's mom knew 45 years in advance that her son could be president, and got him a fake birth certificate with a fake birth announcement in an Hawaiian newspaper.
So Putin, the guy who got over 99% of the vote in Chechnya was fairly elected? That's not even going into the other reports available...
It's pretty clear who'
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In Soviet Slashdot, Russia trolls you
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I mean, Soviet Union was good because of income equality. Liberal artists used to sing "Russians love their children too!"
But now Russia is bad bad bad, they've abandoned socialism so now they are teh evil.
Re: (Score:2)
"I hope the Russians love their children too".
I'm assuming you're talking about Sting's Russians, in which case you seriously missed the point of the song.
Hillary lost because of RUSSIA! (Score:2, Interesting)
This is the second time Hillary failed to become “the inevitable president”. Did Russia sabotage her plans last time? (Oh, Obama won the primaries. Hillary made sure she won those this time.)
Did Russia tell Hillary to rig the primaries to freeze our Sanders?
Did Russia get the DNC to provide Hillary the debate questions in advance? (She still did terrible anyway.)
Did Russia make Hillary collapse on their way to their car?
Did Russia encourage Bill to pardon Marc Rich, the billionaire donor to the
Re: (Score:3)
*sigh*
No, HRC did not lose because of Russia. That doesn't mean there wasn't any collusion within the Russia and the current administration, which is what's currently being investigated into. Honestly, it's been 7 months and the only people still hung up on this election seem to be Trump supporters.
As for the rest of the conspiracy theory items, no comments.
Re: (Score:2)
...this election's result...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hillary lost because of RUSSIA! (Score:5, Insightful)
Partisan politics-as-usual bullshit
Focusing on Clinton instead of the BIGGER PICTURE
Listen buddy: IDGAF about Hillary; I didn't vote for the old bat and I didn't vote for Cheeto-head either, but I do give a good god-fucking-damnit about whether some Russian military assholes, on the orders of the head Russian asshole, HACKED OUR GODS-BE-DAMNED ELECTION PROCESS AND GOT AWAY WITH IT! Is that so fucking hard for you and EVERYONE LIKE YOU to understand!?
Meanwhile your boy Cheeto-head, the Pussy-Grabber-in-Chief, is FUCKING OVER THE COUNTRY with his ham-fisted attempts at being President. You still happy with your choice for POTUS, boy?
Re: (Score:3)
I want Trump to be executed for war crimes, but I also know that anything remotely valuable on the internet is being constantly attacked by every major military force in the world, a few crime syndicates, and probably some bored manchild living in their parent's basement. The things to be concerned about are success and sophistication, and the main response to either should be on being less goddamned stupid about our processes. Just the logistical failures of the primaries alone is a bigger concern as far
Re: (Score:2)
I know you'd like to change the subject back to Hillary, but we're talking about the Russians here and their cozy relationship to the President.
Re: (Score:2)
Every one of those statements is documented fact, dumbass.
Re: Hillary lost because of RUSSIA! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
And so he will remain. Congress and the courts will do the job they were designed to do, keep a moron from destroying the US. In the end if he becomes too unpopular there's always impeachment.
Comment removed (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Because he's a private citizen worried about the rise of the far-right in Europe?
Re: (Score:2)
He is a private citizen who is now trying to reassure the other globalists that it will only be 4 years at most and then they will be back in power. Coincidence that Obama appeared in Germany the same day Trump appeared in Brussels?
Why military intelligence? (Score:2)
It ended in failure as the Soviet staff did not have the decades of skill to work long term with a person in the UK and all the emotional issues that result.
The write up of Russia/the Soviet Union ever using "military intelligence" in the West for activity seems more of an older US fantasy than reality.
Russia knows what its "military intelligence" can do and shoul
Misleading title; no proof given. (Score:2)
From the Intercept article linked:
"While the document provides a rare window into the NSAâ(TM)s understanding of the mechanics of Russian hacking, it does not show the underlying âoerawâ intelligence on which the analysis is based. A U.S. intelligence officer who declined to be identified cautioned against drawing too big a conclusion from the document because a single analysis is not necessarily definitive."
If one reads other articles by the Intercept, one finds that Glenn Greenwald, who wor
Re:Even if there was hacking.... (Score:5, Insightful)
And if there were, what difference would that make, now?
I'm betting zilch.
So, let's do nothing? Are you that worried it might delegitimize your guy? Is this where we're at, that we're so partisan we can't repel a foreign invader? That's straight out of the colonial playbook. Divide and conquer.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Move back to paper.
Re: (Score:2)
So, let's do nothing?
Pretty much yes, though "let's" is "let us", and I'm not an "us" from US. But still.
What I'm reading here is "Russia spammed some voters". So what? No really, so what? Even if the e-mails said "Candidate X eats babies", given the degree of spin and delusion that "legitimate" campaigning adverts are allowed to use, any voter needs to educate themselves. And if they don't, well, frankly it's not the Russians that are the problem. It's the voters.
When I hear that Russia bought votes, we can talk, but
Re: (Score:3)
When I hear that Russia bought votes, we can talk, but sending spam at voters?
No, not just voters, phishing attacks against voting hardware/software vendors and election officials. Basically, anyone who might have access into the equipment and procedures which manage the electoral process.
Re: (Score:2)
So those are the only options you can see? Ignore it or nuke it?
Re:Even if there was hacking.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Even if there was hacking.... (Score:2)
Maybe that's what should've been done in the first place. Regardless of who may have done it, past or in the future, lax security is ultimately to blame and these things are completely avoidable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
...and he's damn hard to cover up! Whenever his lackeys try, Trump twitters something that directly contradicts them.
Re: (Score:3)
If you cannot identify a problem then how can anyone propose a solution?
(tech) Hey boss, the reactor is about 10 minutes away from melt-down. (boss) Unless you have a solution don't come whining to me with your problems.
Re:Even if there was hacking.... (Score:5, Insightful)
So you would do what? Bomb Russia?
Oh, I don't know. How about not roll back the sanctions you placed on them for doing exactly this?
How about getting the President to listen to his own National Security Advisor, and Secretaries of State and Defence, and vocally support Article 5 of the NATO treaty?
How about the administration not try to hide communications with them from their own government?
How about quit fucking lying about having no contact with them? If they're no threat, and if it's no big deal, then why lie? That's a real question—why so much deception? It makes no sense.
How about quit treating the whole situation as utterly innocuous, and without indulging in dated anti-Soviet rhetoric or blowing it off as it's perfectly normal, come to grips with the fact that Russia is a strategic competitor, and is opposed to many American interests?
How about admitting that the Putin administration has a stake in deligitimising democratic norms and processes, because doing so helps him maintain a increasingly tight grip on the Russian population, and maybe, you know, not fucking help with that?
Re: (Score:3)
Agree with most of you points but...
That's a real question—why so much deception? It makes no sense.
Not really... it makes perfect sense from the perspective that the Trump administration lies about goddamn everything, compulsively. So them lying about this doesn't actually stick out. Just yet another piss-on-our-face-and-tell-us-it's-raining move.
Re: Even if there was hacking.... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh Christ, spare us the chest thumping AC.
Re: (Score:2)
Intent + action where the action was ineffective can indeed be a crime. Attempted murder, attempted robbery, attempted hijacking, etc.
Re:Even if there was hacking.... (Score:5, Informative)
Intent != crime.
Generally speaking breaking into someone else's system and sending a spear phishing email would get you well into illegal.
Quoting form the NPR's article at: http://www.npr.org/2017/06/05/... [npr.org]
VR Systems, a Florida-based election systems provider referenced in the material, said in a statement:
"When a customer alerted us to an obviously fraudulent email purporting to come from VR Systems, we immediately notified all our customers and advised them not to click on the attachment. We are only aware of a handful of our customers who actually received the fraudulent email and of those, we have no indication that any of them clicked on the attachment or were compromised as a result."
Now we can argue on if it impacted the results of the election. I don't think anyone knows the answer to that question, but it now appears the question of if there was an attempt by someone to infiltrate the electoral system is pretty solidly answered.
Attribution is a trickier problem, but I'll buy that the NSA has pretty good resources at its fingers for that, and they seem pretty conclusive in the documents provided by the Intercept.
It'll be interesting to see how this comes out, but I'm now convinced that a crime occurred, since VR Systems has confirmed such and any vested interest they have in the matter would be to deny rather then confirm, as it'll undoubtedly damage them commercially going forward.
Min
Re:Even if there was hacking.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess we should have ignored all that stuff back then.
Re: (Score:2)
One political party tried to eavesdrop on another political party.
In other news, Sam the goat is missing. Please help us find our mascot to our players can smash our opponents this Friday night.
Re: (Score:2)
The attempted/failed wiretapping of the Democratic National Committee's office in the Watergate Hotel during the 1972 Presidential Campaign didn't change the outcome of that election either.
We could definitely do with another round of Church and Pike committee investigations.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, but back then, there was a coverup where a bunch of people working for the White House lied about stuff, and then the President fired the guy running the investigation...
Re:Even if there was hacking.... (Score:4, Insightful)
And if there were, what difference would that make, now?
I'm betting zilch.
They use terms like 'played a larger role' to imply it without having to actually back it up.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Even if there was hacking.... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And if there were, what difference would that make, now?
If it were a different country, I bet that many here in the US would opine that they should hold a new election and call shenanigans if the ones in power refused. Then again, double standards is par for the course for 'Tis of Thee.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Every worldwide election in recent memory [dailymail.co.uk] that went or was in danger of going the populists' way has been singled out as being meddled with by the Russians, from Brexit to France.
No one's going to call for a new election because Russians posted stuff on facebook any more than they would've called for a new election after Obama flew to London to campaign against Brexit [theguardian.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Yes PLEASE let us have another election. I'm so ready to do my part again to kick Hillary's butt!
Re: (Score:2)
If it were a different country, I bet that many here in the US would opine that they should hold a new election and call shenanigans if the ones in power refused.
There is precedent. [wikipedia.org] Generally speaking, this is a matter for the appropriate court of disputed returns, which I assume in this case is the US Supreme Court. And presumably they can only act if there is an actual controversy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
what's funny here is the NSA is complaining about Russian spying... when the NSA has been violating the privacy of billions around the world for decades.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
what's funny here is the NSA is complaining about Russian spying... when the NSA has been violating the privacy of billions around the world for decades.
Yes and the pentagon would complain if the russians bombed us despite the pentagon bombing brown skinned people all over the world for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
At this point: fuck that. Isn't this grounds for war?
I'm really terrified at the prospect of Trump trying to clash with the Russian government in order to save face.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, he'll just order a strike of a ridiculous number of missiles on a strip of concrete and it will be repaired the same afternoon.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been reading https://theintercept.com/2017/... [theintercept.com] for about a half an hour. There still is no "raw data". It's still, "Trust Us, We wouldn’t reach conclusions without real evidence!" I'm suspicious about the whole thing.
The Intercept (not Greenwald) did such a good job of protecting their source that she was busted _before_ the document was published? She is Reality Leigh Winner, 25. This idealistic kid wants to protect Hillary and the MSM? She works for Pluribus International Corporation in Georgi
Re: (Score:3)
1) The truth ALWAYS matters
2) There is an active investigation into possible collusion with Russia.
3) Trump could be impeached.
Re: (Score:2)
Secure our vote. Defend our country! (Score:2)
It looks like Russia's patsies are out in force to make sure we ignore Russia's attack on our country's democracy.
Russia wants us to ignore their attack on our election so they can keep doing it.
If we step back and notice that a foreign country attacked the USA, and that we need to immediately secure our voting system, basic patriotism would compel us to act to secure our elections against foreign attacks.
Don't count on Donald Trump securing our voting machines any time soon. Trump is on Russia's payroll an
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
which side is more organized and sends a cohesive voice nightly or hourly?
Is that a trick question? I don't know. Until recently I would have said the Republican party - excluding the president, they still have much higher party discipline than the Democrats. Including the president, who has no discipline, it's more ambiguous. (See what I did there? Two different definitions of the word discipline? I made a joke at Trump's expense, I'll bet I'm the first one to do that.)
Also: Rush Limbaugh is saying that the democratic party is one of his arms? That seems more delusional than
Re: (Score:2)
Remember when the CIA planted logic flaws in some pipeline management software because they knew the Soviets would steal it? This led to the gigantic explosion of a Siberian pipeline:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... [telegraph.co.uk]
Those people have suddenly become immensely skilled hackers?
Re: (Score:2)
Those people have suddenly become immensely skilled hackers?
Dude, the Soviets have been weaponising software [nlcv.bas.bg] for practically ever.
Re:Hysteria (Score:5, Insightful)
This continued media frenzy became tiresome some time ago. Can we move on to something new to be outraged about?
You seem to be conflating "important" and "entertaining".
Important stuff is often quite boring, at least at the outset before you understand what's going on.
Re: (Score:2)
No, get your horses straight. Hillary did that.
Re:Leaker caught and arrested (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Leaker caught and arrested (Score:4, Funny)
Yea, when I read that I said "Well that explains it".
I don't know... (Score:4, Interesting)
They raised her to become a person who'd, though only 9 or 10 when 9.11. happened, pick up Pashto, Farsi and Dari languages and join US Air Force as a linguist, where she served for 6 years.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06... [cnn.com]
Not to mention the whole thing where they raised her to speak out about issues of public interest.
Such as evidence of attacks on the USA by a foreign government, while said attacks are denied by both the said foreign government - and the current USA administration which has landed the job in part thanks to said attacks. [washingtonpost.com]
At the expense of own liberty, job, future...
Some people really take that oath thing about "support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic" seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, 3 June. The article was published on 5 June. The Intercept did an amazing job protecting its source. Did the Intercept even try to protect its source? What's their comment on this failure?
IOW, the article was published on the Intercept to give it more credibility than, say, on CNN.
Re: (Score:3)
Their anonymous source [dailycaller.com] was Reality Leigh Winner. Bernie supporter. Now she will be a felon (if convicted). Anyway, she will never work in a government position again.
One down. How many more to come?
Re:Leftist Media 101 (Score:5, Insightful)
If anything, that she was arrested lends credibility to the document being real.
Re: (Score:2)
The document is real alright. But it doesn't have any real conclusions. This time the accusations are more narrow, but that's about it.
Re:Leftist Media 101 (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess it depends how long it takes for Trump to get impeached or otherwise unpresidented through a failed re-election. There is a reason the Trump administration is leaking like an open pipe (a sieve is not leaky enough for this metaphor). The distrust for this man goes beyond mere partisanship, and countless people are risking prison time to try to undo arguably the worst mistake in recent American history.
She probably should never work in a government position again. She has proven herself untrustworthy. Government secrets are important enough where even well-intentioned leakers need to be punished. We can't have every leaker be protected by their good intentions, or else there would be no secrets anymore.
That said, uncontrollable leaking is one of the failsafes of our democracy, and this is what it looks like when the immune system of democracy is rejecting it's new idiot commander.
Re: (Score:3)
... and countless people are risking prison time to try to undo arguably the worst mistake in recent American history.
That would be not nominating Bernie for the win?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yea, they are not the only one. Oh wait. It didn't come from a legitimate news source like CNN, MSNBC, AP? The Intercept published the original article, multiple others picked up the arrest. DailyCaller, Heavy, etc...
And when they point to this [justice.gov], then YEAH IT HAPPENED.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? Oliver North did. If treason is no barrier then why should this be?
Re: (Score:2)
Oliver North was acting under the orders of the Commander in Chief. He resigned his commission from the Marines Corp after he was convicted, but the charges were dropped on appeal as the original judge did not ensure his congressional testimony could not be used against him. That is not treason. He took the heat for a bad decision which the President (Reagan) decided was a viable way to skirt Congressional ban on supporting Nicaragua rebels.
Re: (Score:2)
When did he or a court say that?
Also, even if that was true, isn't the deal to serve the country and not a King?
What part of giving classified anti-tank weapons to a terrorist group that had killed more than a hundred US Marines less than a year earlier is about serving the country?
Re: (Score:2)
Look, I don't think any honest person can deny the Russians meddled in the election. The bigger question is, did they throw the American election?
That is hard (impossible?) to answer conclusively, but they likely did not. Clinton lost the election all by herself, IMHO.
The problem is that a) it appears that Russia did indeed meddle in US elections and b) there's an active investigation about collusion between the Trump administration and Russian officials. That is the story here.
Re:Russians meddled - but Clinton lost the first t (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that results like 2016 don't have any single cause. There are many things that had they been different could have changed the outcome.
Blame isn't like a hot potato: there's plenty for everyone. Clinton has her share of the blame. Her weak and passive messaging, and her over-reliance on dubious analytics in the face of clear field intelligence were both mistakes. Absent either of them and she would have won -- it was only a matter of swinging 100,000 strategically placed votes, about 1/100th of 1% of the votes cast.
This doesn't mean other things didn't cause her loss too, but the bottom line was that she was facing Donald Trump, a boorish reality TV clown and easily the stupidest and most ignorant man ever to win the presidency. She should have blown the doors of the election far beyond the reach of a few unlucky breaks or marginal meddling to matter.
Re: (Score:3)
The doc is indeed legit: https://www.wsj.com/articles/u... [wsj.com]