FBI Probes Hacking of Democratic Congressional Group (reuters.com) 159
From a Reuters report: The FBI is investigating a cyber attack against another U.S. Democratic Party group, which may be related to an earlier hack against the Democratic National Committee
, four people familiar with the matter told Reuters. The previously unreported incident at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, or DCCC, and its potential ties to Russian hackers are likely to heighten accusations, so far unproven, that Moscow is trying to meddle in the U.S. presidential election campaign to help Republican nominee Donald Trump. The Kremlin denied involvement in the DCCC cyber-attack. Hacking of the party's emails caused discord among Democrats at the party's convention in Philadelphia to nominate Hillary Clinton as its presidential candidate. The newly disclosed breach at the DCCC may have been intended to gather information about donors, rather than to steal money, the sources said on Thursday.
Government or hired? (Score:2)
I don't think Vlad P is _that_ invested in having Trump win. If he is, Trump's ties to him go deeper than mere admiration.
More likely is that someone else has hired the hackers. Those super PACs need to spend their money somewhere.
But I'd say the most likely scenario is that the Republicans have been hacked too, but their security is so crap they haven't even realized it.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a 100% chance that everyone has been hacked; the question is only what you define as hacked (downloaded malware on their network? CHECK!) and scope of damage.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the Republicans were hacked but it just shows bias against the DT, so no one would care.
No, Just kidding! There d'ain't need to be anything to care about in the leaks to publish them.
Re:Government or hired? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think Vlad P is _that_ invested in having Trump win. If he is, Trump's ties to him go deeper than mere admiration.
Anything that hurts the US and weakens America's influence in the world helps Russia. Putin probably sees 2 likely outcomes with Trump winning: Trump does exactly what he has campaigned on and the US becomes protectionist, isolationist, and it's economy stagnates; leaving a large power vacuum that Russia could neatly slide into; or Trump wins, becomes a Putin/Erdogan-lite president and spends most of his time consolidating power, fighting off a hostile Congress, and trying to rebrand the White House as the Trump White House (or maybe just the Trump House?), leaving Putin alone to continue his Eastern European anschluss and growing influence in the Middle East. Either way, a Trump win is a Putin win.
Re:Government or hired? (Score:4, Interesting)
But what Trump has actually said about Syria and ISIS is that 1. toppling Assad was a bad idea because he was keeping the jihadis in check and 2. thinks a no-fly zone over Syria is dumb because ISIS doesn't have planes and there's no reason to antagonize Russia as they drop their million dollar a pop bombs on ISIS.
Putin's no good guy but he's on the right side of the fight against Islamic jihad. I would think he'd want Trump in power because Trump will join with Putin against ISIS, unlike Hillary, who destabilized Syria in the first place by arming the moderate beheaders and seems far more concerned with toppling Assad than beating ISIS.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You are missing the point. Yes, ISIS is bad. Needs to have its ass kicked. But they are not a superpower, and they will never become one. The real conflict - the one for trillions o
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Geopolitically speaking, this election isn't about Trump vs. Hillary. It's about whether you want US foreign policy to be directed by Americans (however crooked one of them might be) or by the Russians (however strong they might make their voters feel). Given that choice, I'd suggest voting for the crook: it's important.
You're exactly right. But, I'm frankly tired of the proxy wars and the droning of brown people in sand for the control of oil and gas and, of course, pipelines [curry.com]. Not to mention the regime-change agenda over there that started during the W. Bush administration [youtube.com].
So I don't want Hillary in charge to further that agenda and escalate things over there. The only good it does for anybody is to line the pockets of multinational corporations (and, of course, the politicians that help them gain access to resource t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Putin's has pretty clear and limited criteria for involvement in neighboring countries. While I think it is valid to be critical of Putin consolidating Russian control, power and influence over majority Russian parts of the former Soviet Union, the propaganda in the West that somehow Putin is on the march and is a threat to his non-Russian neighbors is false. Putin clearly has no interests in territories where a majority of non-Russians live.
Putin isn't the Soviet Union trying to take over the world for s
Naturally they'll investigate to help HRC. (Score:3, Insightful)
They won't prosecute if it's Her Highness, but they'll be happy to prosecute if there's an unsubstantiated allegation that besmirches Her Highness.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The whole democrat party has history and ties with Russia and has never seen Russia as a threat to the US until the democrat party was targeted.
"President Barack Obama was caught on camera on Monday assuring outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he will have "more flexibility" to deal with contentious issues like missile defense after the U.S. presidential election."
http://www.reuters.com/article... [reuters.com]
"Gov. Romney ... a few months ago when you were asked what is the biggest geopolitical group facing
Re: (Score:2)
The whole democrat party has history and ties with Russia and has never seen Russia as a threat to the US until the democrat party was targeted.
What's the "democrat party"?
Is that some political organization in a different country?
In the US we have the Democratic Party though.
Re: (Score:1)
Typical response.
Emails leaked harming the democrats: "Ignore the emails and instead, focus on who released them!"
My post "Ignore the post. He used democrat instead of democratic!"
Re: (Score:3)
In the US we have the Democratic Party though.
You sure about that? As the DNC email leaks demonstrated, they're not really all that concerned about democracy when it comes to how they choose their nominees.
Re: (Score:1)
No, we don't have the Democratic party. Both parties are democratic. Are you saying the Republican party is made up of individuals who are Republics? The Democrat party is the correct usage.
Re: (Score:2)
That;s the point. Obama told Romeny that Russia is not a threat and made him look old and dated in thinking that.
Not a great fool (Score:1)
Many people are aware of their public image. Such people will, for example, refuse to endorse a candidate because they know that their endorsement comes with more baggage than benefits.
Vladimir Putin is not a great fool, he knows what the American populace thinks of him. His most likely motive is a desire to make sure that whoever wins this election, a significant population believes that it only got that way because of illegal foreign campaign contributions and/or espionage by a moderately hostile (not s
Investigating the wrong people (Score:3, Interesting)
The emails were leaked by deliberate negligence. Just like a certain person who wasn't charged for exposing certain files on a private home server.
Once the noise went down the person in charge got a job working for the person who benefits the most from the leaked emails.
And yet it's "Russia" influencing the election.
I think the precedent has been set... (Score:4, Insightful)
...as long as they didn't KNOW that anything they took was secret, no prosecutable crime was committed?
After all, "... no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case..."
The Hillary Defense will take its place next to (Score:2)
The Chewbacca Defense in the annals of brilliant legal maneuvers.
Re: (Score:2)
"... no [loyal] [Democrat] prosecutor would bring such a case ..."
Re: (Score:2)
I pretty much stopped listening when BILL CLINTON gave a choked, emotional fireside description of how wonderful his life with Hilary has been and what a wonderful marriage they've had together.
The press just lapped that shit up without a *whisper* of irony or humor.
I'd expect that from the party faithful, but from journalists that claim neutrality? Think about that.
Just offshoring (Score:1)
LOL Russia (Score:3, Insightful)
So far as I know, the only people saying it was Russia are DNC officials, the same people that couldn't manage to secure a mail server and the same people that have an extreme interest in making sure their underhanded subverting of Bernie Sanders' campaign wasn't the story. But they're experts at network forensics, apparently, after only 4 days of work... Meanwhile it took months for the FBI & CIA to say they think the Sony hack was done by North Korea. Maybe the FBI and CIA should start hiring Hilary's cronies to do their hacking investigations for them.
Enough already (Score:2, Insightful)
It's just FUD and hypocritical fearmongering from the DNC; instead of getting their pant
Re: (Score:2)
1. I don't think Trump had anything to do with this.
2. This whole "it's teh ruskies!!!11!!" fear mongering is a retarded distraction.
3. I think it's obvious if Putin's thinking ahead to who would be better for him in office, it's Trump. Trump would join with Putin against ISIS, as opposed to Hillary who would bomb Assad and establish a no-fly zone over Syria which would bring the US into conflict with Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll tell you why Putin favors Trump.
Trump praises Putin as a "strong leader". Trump also said Saddam Hussein was a "good guy" and did "good things".
Trump supports nuclear proliferation, specifically saying Japan, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia should be given nuclear weapons "for defense".
Trump said he may abandon our NATO allies if Russia were to attack them.
Trump said he supports Russia's invasion and anexation of Crimea and the lifting of sanctions on Russia for doing it.
Trump said he wants the US to aba
Re: (Score:3)
Almost nothing you said is factual, and is a series of half-truths or outright lies. Bravo.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll grant you, he's scatterbrained on nuclear proliferation, he keeps contradicting himself.
On NATO and protectionism though, Trump has said some NATO allies aren't pulling their weight financially, that's very different from saying he'd abandon them if Russia attacked. He also pointed out that we are paying through the nose to protect a rich country like Saudi Arabia who spends much less on their own protection, who probably wouldn't
Re: (Score:1)
James Clapper is a serial liar, as shown by repeatedly perjuring himself in front of Congress, with his lies laid bare the following day by Snowden.
Context for off-the-cuff bloviating (Score:2)
Trump is just a blowhard who doesn't think before he speaks. It is pretty clear in context that he was not actually calling for any hacks.
"Why do I have to get involved with [Vladimir] Putin? I have nothing to do with Putin. I’ve never spoken to him. I don’t know anything about him other than he will respect me. He doesn’t respect our president. And if it is Russia [behind the WikiLeaks release of stolen Democratic National Committee emails]—which it’s probably not, nobody know
Missing investigations? (Score:5, Interesting)
So the Dems have been hacked, apparently multiple times and these hacks have been widely publicized. To me that raise the question of why aren't we hearing anything about hacks on the GOP side?
Is it because the GOP has security that is orders of magnitude better than the DNC?
Is it because the GOP doesn't have any juicy secrets?
Is it because the GOP has been hacked, but no-one is admitting to anything?
Is it because all the hackers are pro-GOP?
Re: (Score:3)
Is it because all the hackers are pro-GOP?
It could also be that the hackers are anti-DNC. The Clintons have far, far more global political enemies than Trump does.
Re: (Score:3)
On some of the security boards you are even seeing people slamming trump and the rnc for releasing that amount of information and how carless they are. Others have taken it as a challenge.
I heard... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It originated from a dilapatated Coney Island arcade with a busted up sign and an illegal connection to the power grid.
Yes!! ...but where do they get their internet?
I WOULD like to see those emails ... you, too? (Score:4, Insightful)
As soon as I saw that real consequences started happening because of the DNC hack, my first thought was, "Hmm, well, some consumer-grade Exchange box sitting on the end of a Comcast connection running without an SSL certificate for two months would be a piece of cake compared to the DNC's infrastructure. Somebody's for sure got those deleted emails." Heck, even Comey himself testified that the FBI was able to reconstitute thousands of work-related emails. Maybe we don't need the Russkies or the script kiddies to give us the emails, our own FBI could fork them over.
Regardless, yeah, I'd like to see those emails. I think 30,000 emails about yoga would be interesting.
Keep changing the subject (Score:1, Insightful)
Changing the subject to Russia constantly has been a big help recently. It changes the subject from what we all should be paying attention to, the content of these mails. Instead our attention is diverted away to the man juggling, while the thief picks our pockets clean. This was no ordinary hack, the freaking chairwoman of the DNC has already resigned over it and more resignations will be coming in the days to come. The Democratic Party is not what everyone thought it was
They ridiculed an African-Ameri
Re:Keep changing the subject (Score:4, Insightful)
My favorite part is the money laundering scheme, though, where big donors would cut a big check split to each state party allegedly to help down-ballot candidates, but was then instantly wired right back to the national party and then used for pro-HRC ("#ImWIthHer") ads and HRC fundraising. This dodges the FEC donation limit requirements.
My compendium (Score:2, Insightful)
0 - Trump's comment was pure sarcasm, and all those who didn't get it at the moment also don't get Trump, and won;t get why he will win.
1 - Any questions on why you don't get Trump I will not answer. You won't get the answer either.
2 - Every state is attacking every other state's data, and at every level. Some are more successful than others. If you don't think an individual, moderately technology-capable, state is doing this, then they are entirely successful in hiding their efforts, and their success a
Re: (Score:2)
No, you interpret what he said as sarcasm. But with Trump, it's virtually impossible without applying a filter, either in his favor, or biased against him, to sort out much of what he means. To have a man who wants to be the leader of the Free World speaking in a rantish and often incoherent fashion, and then constantly being informed by his followers as to what he really meant doesn't inspire confidence.
Re: My compendium (Score:2)
'To have a man who wants to be the leader of the Free World speaking in a rantish and often incoherent fashion, and then constantly being informed by his followers as to what he really meant doesn't inspire confidence'
Thinking that Trump needs to be told what he said is incoherence. His 'rantish and often incoherent' speech is often plain talk, which we are unaccustomed to from politicians.
But keep underestimating Trump. That will work out well. Trust me.
corrupt (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Cue the idiots (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: Cue the idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
Actual quote:
"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press"
Trump asked hackers to travel back in time and hack the server when it was still online?
or
The server is still online which would be a pretty big story itself.
or
He asked them to release the emails they already have.
I wonder which one it is.
Re: Cue the idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
Or he was just saying shit to stay in the news cycle. Don't get me wrong, I'm not apologizing for Trump. But he has a pathological need for attention. So, he says all kinds of stupid shit to get attention, and then gets more attention by saying it was a joke, or you "obviously" misunderstood him.
So, yeah, not something you want in a President. Not that Hillary Clinton is perfect by any stretch of the imagination, mind you, but I'm not up for giving the launch codes to a temperamental man-baby.
Re: Cue the idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
The trigger happy twitter fingers of Trump is what gets the security service guys nervous. He is scheduled to get his first security briefing. There's nothing stopping him from tweeting that information and then blowing up the reaction into another Media Moment for himself. If he makes it big enough, it would look like the Federal Government is singling him out. That they should do but it will only play into his hands. His sycophants in the Republican party will tut-tut and claim it isn't that bad. His infantile voters will find a way to stomach it because he's Telling it Like it Is and Blowing Against the Man.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, I have to figure that a lot of people are worried that Trump can't keep his mouth shut when it comes to classified information. Mind you, if he does deliberately spout classified information, it can only hurt his campaign in the long run, because it shows that he shouldn't have been allowed that information in the first place.
What they need to do is give Trump and Clinton slightly different briefings... still accurate, but formulated that in the event that one or the other of them leaks it (not just o
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much ALL politicians leak classified like a sieve. I suspect that the daily briefs are sufficiently sanitized that the important data, i.e. "means and methods" are sufficiently obscured to the point that the intelligence sources, if not the information, is protected. However, that doesn't always seem to be the case.
Example of this would be the 1998-era reports that the US was listening in on Osama bin Laden's sat phone. Soon after it leaked, bin Laden reportedly ceased using it, destroying the so
Re: Cue the idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
We can hope that he wont at least strip the classification off the material and then have that 0information transferred to an insecure email server.
Look at the bright side, he might say something that breaches national security and they could jail him. Oh wait a minute, maybe not, because when Hillary actually did that very same thing they didn't.
Oh no we mustn't trust Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The server wasn't insecure and it has never been shown to have been breached. It was an unauthorized server and considering the quality of work that gov contractors do it was most likely much more secure.
Re: (Score:2)
The trigger happy twitter fingers of Trump is what gets the security service guys nervous. He is scheduled to get his first security briefing. There's nothing stopping him from tweeting that information and then blowing up the reaction into another Media Moment for himself.
Hey. Democrats said they wanted a more transparent government when Obama got into office. Maybe the Republicans will actually give it to them.
Re: (Score:1)
But he has a pathological need for attention.
He's a Presidential candidate, the entire process is about getting attention. Hillary gets plenty of free attention because she's a Democrat, Trump has to work for it.
I don't know what I hate worse: Trump or the idiots who make up stupid shit about him.
Re: (Score:3)
You call off the cuff remarks that are often implausible or borderline retarded "working for it"? I see Trump do precious little actual work. He seems almost willfully ignorant of constitutional and legal matters, and seems to be in no hurry to learn any of these things.
Re: Cue the idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump himself has said that he will make decisions in the Oval Office based on "what he knows beforehand" and "his common sense" not based on pulling enough information from people who know better than he does. In fact, he also claimed that he knows more about the Iraq War than the generals who were in charge of it. Even setting my policy disagreements with him aside, the idea of a President who would make decisions based on the first thing that pops into their head instead of based on getting all of the available information is scary - no matter what party they belong to.
Re: (Score:3)
In fact, he also claimed that he knows more about the Iraq War than the generals who were in charge of it.
I thought what he said was that he knows more about ISIS than the generals...
Re: (Score:2)
Oops. You're right. Though, in my defense Trump has said so many crazy things it's hard to keep track at times.
Re: (Score:2)
You call off the cuff remarks that are often implausible or borderline retarded "working for it"? I see Trump do precious little actual work. He seems almost willfully ignorant of constitutional and legal matters, and seems to be in no hurry to learn any of these things.
And when you consider that the President's main job is to be the public face and representative of the USA and it's people to the governments of the rest of the world and their people, it all seems like electing your drunk uncle to run the family business. He isn't even president yet and I think two countries have considered his entry into their country due to things he's said.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That wasn't Trump was it? No. It was the clown who is currently in the office.
Re: (Score:1)
But he has a pathological need for attention.
Presidential candidate understands how media works, film at eleven.
Re: Cue the idiots (Score:5, Informative)
Do you think the President gets to launch nukes himself? He has a button his desk to fire nukes? Are you really that stupid?
Apparently you are rather ignorant of the process. While the president doesn't have a button on his desk, he does have the authority to order a nuclear strike. Nuclear football [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
While the president doesn't have a button on his desk, he does have the authority to order a nuclear strike. Nuclear football
Speaking of ignorance of the process. This is a myth also. The release of nuclear weapons and their use depends on several complex situations and who has that authority has changed through out the years. But at no point in the history after WWII has any president had the authority order a nuclear strike completely on his own, unless it is a response to an attack U.S. mainland or those of her allies.
The President can not simply get out of bed, put on his house slippers, wonder down to the oval office and
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The registered leftdotters are already patting themselves on the back with mod points. They won't listen to you or the truth, but anyone who actually saw Trump speak knows it's "He asked them to release the emails they already have."
Re: Cue the idiots (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, if you just interpret Trump's bizarre statements in just the right way, with just the right amount of rationalization, suddenly he's a genius!
Re: (Score:1)
You mean if you interpret it the way he said it, instead of the insane logical leap your have to make about hacking an offline server.
Weren't the 30k missing emails just about yoga? (Score:3)
Why would this be a national security issue or even a campaign issue, if the emails in question were just about yoga and Chelsea's wedding?
I mean, Hillary promised us all that there was nothing important in those emails. Right?
So going back in time to hack a server to get emails that are only about yoga classes seems improbable...
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds as though Trump is asking Russia for help in getting elected. In my opinion this is a problem regardless of whether or not it involves further criminal activities.
Re: (Score:1)
By asking them to release emails. Again the only way he could do that is one of those options.
Unless there is video of him blinking in morse code some other message during that speech, you are completely making shit up to fit what you wish reality is.
Re: (Score:2)
This quote, with no other context, makes it sound as though Trump is asking Russia for help in getting elected. I thought I was pretty clear when I said that before. I need no further input, blinks or otherwise, to read that quote and see that Trump is asking Russia for help in getting
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
or
He asked them to release the emails they already have.
I wonder which one it is.
Pretty much this. Donald Trump asked the hackers to release the emails if they have them. Anti-Trump press outlets are reporting it as him asking the hackers to go out and hack Hillary Clinton which is patently false. It further undermines the credibility of the press to have these headlines out there saying Trump is calling on foreign hackers to hack Hillary Clinton... they already hacked her and he is just calling for them to release the missing emails that she illegally deleted in the first place.
It s
Re: (Score:2)
Well the Republicans do have a history of this. The reason almost all scandals nowadays have "-gate" appended to them (for example Deflate-gate) is because of the original Watergate scandal. That's when staffers in the Nixon Whitehouse hired burglars to break into the DNC offices in the Watergate office complex during the 1972 presidential campaign.
Ironically, many of the other activities considered.scandalous at the time now seem routine: the use of the FBI and IRS to harass or entrap political dissidents
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, it's the GOP's insistence that there must be something corrupt to show about the Democrats that lead to all these investigations, yet the results?
Not even as conclusive as the Iran-Contra affair.
They should just start cleaning their own house, otherwise they'll just cement their reputation for crying wolf.
Re: (Score:2)
Lerner wasn't fired. She resigned. And now collects $100K a year in pension benefits. No one was fired. In fact, I can't think of a single person this administration ever fired.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because Trump asked Russia to do this, and Russian hackers did this doesn't mean there's a causal relationship.
Nah, Trump hacked this himself alone. He already said, "Only I alone can hack this!"
Hillary said that, "We can all hack this together!"
What wonderful election choices we have . . .
Re: Cue the idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah it's a sad day in America when we need the Russians to expose our corruption.
Because the Media and the Justice System won't do their damn jobs.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah it's a sad day in America when we need the Russians to expose our corruption.
Because the Media and the Justice System won't do their damn jobs.
The Russians only exposed wrongdoing by breaking US law. Are you suggesting the US media and judicial system do the same. Seems paradoxical.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really ?
Hmmm "No reasonable prosecutor would bring the case against Hillary Clinton"
Re: Cue the idiots (Score:4, Informative)
Hmmm "No reasonable prosecutor would bring the case against Hillary Clinton"
I suspect making an offer that no reasonable prosecutor could refuse falls into that category.
hiLIARy sent and email instructing her staff to remove the classified marking from documents so they could send them unsecure [cbsnews.com].
FBI Director James Comey testified that there were 3 classified emails that had portion markings on them, that would happen only if her employees removed the header and footer markings of a classified document and missed some of the portion markings in an effort to send them unsecure [factcheck.org].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You must work for the media, good spin there. I just have 2 words 'Pentagon Papers'...
Ok. More than 2 words. The media & the Justice Department don't have to break the law to 'do their jobs', the latter has the power of warrants to compel turning over all documentation they want. Given the content of the released e-mails ask yourself if the JD is really doing their jobs by not investigating the 'pay-for-play' comments at a minimum. Why is the media not following up on that? Why has the media, by & l
Re: (Score:1)
Pulitzer for Putin!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You should be able to provide a quote, then.
Re: (Score:2)
Except you're wrong - Here's the whole thing in context [youtube.com]. Start at about 5:40
Re: Cue the idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because Trump asked Russia to do this, and Russian hackers did this doesn't mean there's a causal relationship.
He didn't "ask Russia to do this". He was joking about Clinton's missing 30,000 emails. Emails that are apparently now a national security concern even though they're just about yoga and Chelsea's wedding, according to Hillary.
Re: (Score:2)
Won't Russia rid me of this meddling Democrat?
Re: (Score:2)
There does not need to be such a relationship. There merely needs to be a candidate for POTUS who thinks Russia is the US's bestest buddy, and should help that candidate out by hacking his competitor's network to dig up dirt.
Re: Cue the idiots (Score:5, Interesting)
Better properties than uranium.
Right wing NY Times story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0
Re: (Score:1)
Don't forget her cattle futures, or the number of people dead surrounding her. From bodyguards to people directly involved with her, and dying from things like two bullets in the back of the skull after crawling 150ft uphill.
Oh my, citing that oft-discredited Clinton Death List [snopes.com]?
Mashiki, are you trying to make yourself look bad?
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't cite it. You did.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I didn't have to cite it. Many of those cases actually did happen. But you did know that said snopes death list uses rational wiki for most of their sources on that? Yeah, there's that really credible list. Rational wiki, a site so in deep with conspiracy theories that it makes truthers look sane and balanced.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, you didn't have to cite it, this is an informal message board, not a court of law. You can claim anything you want in it.
You mean besides it makes you look crazy? Up next you'll claim that Hillary is an upstanding person and was all for the terror designation for Boko Haram as a terrorist group right? OH wait...she was actively against it so friends of hers(including the Obama's and their friends) could cash in on money relating to it. [pjmedia.com] Remember #bringbackourgirls and all that SJW feel-good activism? Yeah. You support one of the worst politicians in modern history.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
The idiots are the ones willing to ignore what was said in those emails and voicemails. Clinton is repeating the past once again from Watergate to Whitewater and now Clintongate itself. This goes all the way to the top and it doesn't matter how many aides or chairmen/women fall on their swords for her. Hillary "Rotten" Clinton is the big establishment elitist nightmare this country needs to wake up from desperately. Bernie supporters have. It's too bad Sheeple Democrats haven't.
captcha: preach
Such a perfect
Yeah, let's not ignore the multiple millions of $ (Score:2)
That landed in Hillary's pocket from Uranium One and other Russian deals facilitated by the Clinton Foundation.
How dare Russia try to influence our potential President?
Re: (Score:1)
Okay you don't like the guy I get it. A lot of people don't like the guy. As for the "blinded" sentiment. Let me ask you something, except from some sound bites on CNN have you heard any of the guys speeches? Trump didn't say he asked Russia specifically to do anything. He mentioned in a speech that if they "had" the now deleted files, it would be great if they shared them.
But no, me who you just called an idiot who listens to what someone says and makes a decision based on what that person says is branded
At least Kang is not "the Executioner" (Score:2)
I know, mixing my allusions.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean like this fellow
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk]
Chinese billionaire tied to 1990s Clinton fundraising scandal arrested for lying about how he used $4.5MILLION cash he brought into the U.S. aboard private jets
All Bullshit (Score:2)
The US is hacking every nation in the world. They even Hacked Merkel cell phone.
Why is anyone, let alone the party in power and presumably the ones signed off on this hacking or at least let it persist, bitching about being hacked themselves?
Re: (Score:2)
Because inside dirt on everyone who might be the next president of the US is always useful? If I were the Russians I'd hack everyone. I would be shocked if they didn't try to hack the RNC, too. And I bet we're hacking them.
That said, the evidenced this hack came from the Russians is circumstantial, and there's no evidence it was a state actor.