President Obama Threatens Retaliatory Actions Against Russia Over Hacks (nytimes.com) 531
An anonymous reader quotes the New York Times:
[President Obama] said he was weighing a mix of public and covert actions against the Russians in his last 34 days in office, actions that would increase "the costs for them." Mr. Obama said he was committed to sending the Kremlin a message that "we can do stuff to you," but without setting off an escalating cyberconflict... "Some of it we will do in a way that they will know, but not everybody will," he said...
[T]he president was clearly wrestling with what he said the hacking affair and the reaction to it revealed about the state of American politics. Citing a recent poll that showed more than a third of Trump voters saying they approved of Mr. Putin...the president appealed to Americans not to allow partisan hatred and feuds to blind them to manipulation by foreign powers. "Unless that changes," Mr. Obama said, "we're going to continue to be vulnerable to foreign influence because we've lost track of what it is that we're about and what we stand for."
President Obama pulled Putin aside at a September meeting of the G20 to discuss Russian hacking, according to the article, telling Putin "to cut it out, there were going to be serious consequences if he did not."
[T]he president was clearly wrestling with what he said the hacking affair and the reaction to it revealed about the state of American politics. Citing a recent poll that showed more than a third of Trump voters saying they approved of Mr. Putin...the president appealed to Americans not to allow partisan hatred and feuds to blind them to manipulation by foreign powers. "Unless that changes," Mr. Obama said, "we're going to continue to be vulnerable to foreign influence because we've lost track of what it is that we're about and what we stand for."
President Obama pulled Putin aside at a September meeting of the G20 to discuss Russian hacking, according to the article, telling Putin "to cut it out, there were going to be serious consequences if he did not."
Evidence, please. (Score:3, Insightful)
Can someone explain what exactly was hacked (voting machines?) and what is the evidence that the Russians are responsible?
Re: Evidence, please. (Score:2, Insightful)
If I understand correctly, this was about the DNC emails, which have the Democratic party the transparency they've been promising all this time.
Re:Evidence, please. (Score:5, Insightful)
Can someone explain what exactly was hacked (voting machines?) and what is the evidence that the Russians are responsible?
Why are you wasting time asking silly questions!? Angry you should be, yes! Russians! Hacking!! Russians hacking! US election!! Hacking! Pay no attention to the corruption behind the curtain! Russians! Hacking! Election!
SQUIRREL!!
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
ROFL
thank you, I needed to laugh loudly and publicly
Re:Evidence, please. (Score:5, Informative)
Every indication from the articles are that they're talking about the hacking of the DNC and Hillary's emails.
There's not indication that they hacked the actual results (the electronic voting machines aren't even net-connected), but merely that by releasing the DNC's emails that they hacked they swayed public opinion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> the electronic voting machines aren't even net-connected
So far they have not alleged that the voting machines were hacked. But an airgap is not much of an obstacle. Do not forget how well Iran's offline centrifuges were hacked by stuxnet. Voting machines don't even have the kind of operational security procedures that Iran's classified program had. A voter could do it. [bleepingcomputer.com] Or they could attack the PCs of the people who do maintenance on the voting machines, and put a virus on the media they use to cop
Re:Evidence, please. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Evidence, please. (Score:5, Insightful)
Are we talking about Trump here? He says that quite often--he says it is a negotiating technique.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, even more bullshit. Spearfishing is not hacking. Someone emails you their password, you access their account, you have only reached the level of unauthorized access, NOT hacking.
If the Clinton campaign hadn't been engaging in dishonest activity, and if Clinton hadn't been dishonest herself in her 2-faced speeches, there wouldn't have been any dirt to leak. Blaming the messenger is not going to cut it. She should never have been the candidate, and if the DNC process had worked as it was supposed to, imp
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A flood of fake news stories to influence gullible voters to vote against their interests by voting for Trump. It doesn't help that Trump, various staff members and some of his appointees are members of The Friends of Putin Club. Or that the Republican Party is worshiping Putin as a strong leader that the U.S. could never have without a fascist government.
Re:Evidence, please. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Ain't gonna happen unless you drug the water supply.
The water supply is already drugged, as most waste treatment plants don't remove dissolved drugs from the water supply.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-half-of-drugs-removed-by-sewage-treatment/ [scientificamerican.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
by voting for Trump.
A large mass of people didn't just go out and vote Trump. Trump did not win this election as much as Clinton lost it. In the few states that flipped from D to R this election Republican votes remained more or less flat.
Stein and Johnson saw massive jumps. People didn't get talked into voting for either of them because of some fake news stories, they went 3rd party after the DNC declared it didn't need or want those pesky Bernie supporters.
Clinton lost because she was Clinton. That is no ones fault but hers
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the story all the good boys and girls are believing this month?
That's what I'm reading in the media these days.
Re: (Score:3)
It's attitudes like yours that cost the entire left this past election cycle.
As a moderate conservative, I don't representative the left.
You seem to have it in your head that you get to have an say so in how everyone else gets to vote.
Yes, I'm an American.
And just because YOU think people didn't make the right choice doesn't make your OPINION have any more weight.
Again, I'm an American.
And more to the point how just how much absolute corruption can you pricks on the left tolerate?
Why don't you ask someone on the left? I'm just right of center.
How many well documented cases of high level criminal corruption will it take for you open your eyes to the mere possibility that maybe, just maybe, the media isn't being honest with you?
Assuming that the Electoral College doesn't correct this historical mistake, the Trump administration will rival the Reagan administration when it comes to controversy, corruption and prison sentences.
https://www.quora.com/Which-presidents-administration-was-the-most-corrupt-in-US-history [quora.com]
Or are you just going to just talk down to people about how you think you know better than them?
If you feel like I'm talking down to you, it's becaus
Re: (Score:2)
I'm more interested in what proof, if any, they have that Russia intended to help Trump get elected. That may have been the end result, but I find it far more likely that they intended to hurt Clinton to make her less able to do anything once she was elected.
Re:Evidence, please. (Score:5, Informative)
Here are some other ways:
http://www.rollingstone.com/po... [rollingstone.com]
http://patch.com/michigan/detr... [patch.com]
If you would like more ways Trump's win can be declared illegitimate, I'm here to serve.
Re: (Score:2)
If you would like more ways Trump's win can be declared illegitimate, I'm here to serve.
How about some ways for us to have a government that's not hostile to a huge fraction of the population? Got anything for that?
It will require not demanding you be allowed to spend huge -- and always increasing -- amounts of money other people earned.
Re: (Score:2)
I just want to keep the money I earn in my paycheck.
We already have the goods ... (Score:2)
... and Putin knows it.
Obama is just giving the guy a heads up.
red line (Score:5, Funny)
"Airing our party's dirty laundry crosses a red line, and there will be consequen -- nah, nevermind"
Re: (Score:2)
We shall write a very stern letter.
And send it to the UN!
You're focusing on the "dirty laundry" (Score:2)
Russia better watch out! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
If they are not careful, Obama may be forced to do something drastic, like issue a strongly worded letter of condemnation!
We'll expect a retraction of your snarky sarcasm here when something much more significant than a letter occurs.
Pot calling the kettle black (Score:5, Informative)
There are not even the barest shreds of any proofs about russian influence or wrongdoing. However the allegations all come from proven professional liars and torturers who then steal and kill to hide their wrongdoings. All of the infamous 17 agencies lie pretty much everytime they go public with anything political.
How many russian speakers work at the CIA who can write russian comments? "Rasputin" is now considererd a proof? How many attack servers of the NSA and CIA are located in former soviet republics? Weren't stuxnet servers there too? The CIA/NSA has a lot more reason to do some hacking their own election than Russia: there simply is no reason for Russia to hack cause the conflicts they are in, they are actually winning, unlike the US no matter who wins the election. Also no mather who wins it, the war in the middle east will go on, maybe a little less bloody since the US won't send weapons to Al-Qaeda aka al-Nusra via Saudi Arabia. Russia has realistic goals, and goes rationally to achieve them. The US does not but finances and supports with weapons instead the people they are claiming to fight for the last 15 years.
So if any country wishes to meddle in any election by telling the truth about any sides corruption, I say: more power to them. Even if it is some CIA guy who publicized the campaign emails. I'd be happy if they did the same for the republicans and their campaings, but I guess that hacker there already did a lot for the american public so we can't demand more from him.
The US has meddled in other countries' elections especially their allies, since at least WW2 (Greece, Italy for example), toppled by now probably dozens of governments in clandestine operations and in bloody coups on in middle and southern america alone. So how are they to accuse anyone of doing it? And doing it with the truth instead of bullets like the US customarily does?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The US has meddled in other countries' elections especially their allies, since at least WW2 (Greece, Italy for example), toppled by now probably dozens of governments in clandestine operations and in bloody coups on in middle and southern america alone. So how are they to accuse anyone of doing it?
It gets better. According to Hillary herself, the reason Russia is interfering with the US election is in retaliation for Hillary as Secretary of State interfering in the Russian election in an attempt to prevent Putin from being elected.
Really.
She flat-out admitted to trying to influence the Russian election, and then blamed her loss on Putin retaliating over her attempted manipulation of their election.
If that right there doesn't sum up both the amazing delusion of liberals and the cognitive dissonance th
This whole story line is ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
The only reason the emails were newsworthy at all was that the documents revealed information that the DNC and the Clinton campaign were trying to keep secret from the American voters. If the Russians were involved in the leak (and that seems like a pretty big "if" since there doesn't seem to be much evidence), they would only have been giving to the voters information that Clinton should have released on her own. In other words, these disclosures are clearly not “fake news”.
I'll say this one more time: information that the CIA has accused Russia of sharing with the American people is “real news” about newsworthy topics, and given how pathetic the "security" was on the servers it came from, it seems unbelievable that this wouldn't have made the news sooner or later.
Tell me again how they "hacked the election"?
Re: (Score:2)
The Russians made US voters aware of lies, deceit, corruption and collusion of the Clinton campaign, the DNC and the media.
Re: (Score:2)
They (or someone else) also hacked the voter registration in a few states.
Re:This whole story line is ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
> They... hacked some servers and released information which influenced voters. That's it. It doesn't require anything else.
Okay emails were leaked. Public got information that Hillary did not want the public to have.
How is that any different than Trump having his "pussy grabbing" comments leaked? Certainly Trump thought his conversation was private. Certainly the public got information that Trump did not want the public to have. Certainly that could have influenced voters.
Re:This whole story line is ridiculous (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
> If the public sees DNC's dirty laundry but not the RNC's dirty laundry, then the public is getting lopsided information.
It would be true if it were the other way around as well.
What about Trump's "pussy grabbing" comment being leaked? I don't remember anybody complaining about that?
mr president, you're missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
1) it doesn't matter who's the hacker, if our infrastructure is vulnerable, its vulnerable to anyone. lets worry about fixing that first.
2) fine, retaliate. why is this news? hacking happens every day. remember stuxnet? solution to hacking is better technology NOT better lawyering.
3) nice job wagging-the-dog your way out of actually dealing with the contents of hillary emails. real threat is what happened with Sanders (i'm not his supporter _at all_). it was a scandalous perversion of democracy. Putin (if it was him) did us a great service. i mean us the people, not necessarily certain people in power.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If anything I hope this emphasizes the need to use well funded domestic IT workers in many more areas of the industry.
Good luck with that. I saw a study in 2001 that the IT industry will have 1M+ job openings and no one to fill them as baby boomers retire by 2030. That's when I went back to community college to learn computer programming and got into the IT field. Few workers means higher pay for those still in the workforce.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you ask for more money, in their mind that just validates a more open H1-B.
Today, yes. Not in 2030. As China and India embraces the middle class lifestyles, their young people will stay home to work. If we do import workers, it will be in the healthcare industry to take care of all those baby boomers in retirement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is hiring. How do you hire competent IT people when the primary criteria is 'commitment to the cause' and the cause is fucking stupid and corrupt.
I'm sure there is a competent IT person working for the DNC. I'm also sure (s)he is 'on the outs' for breaking up the circle jerk.
A competent IT person would say 'there isn't any evidence the Ruskys did it'. Guess who's not going to be working for the DNC next week?
One of the consequences of working in a corrupt organization is corrupt hiring. I
Ummmm (Score:4, Insightful)
How is this our infrastructure being vulnerable? Russia didn't hack US infrastructure, at least not that I've seen (please provide reliable sources if you know otherwise) they got in to the internal e-mails of campaigns. Also "hack" seems to be a bit of a strong word for what they did. Sounds like they got in to Podesta's e-mails by phishing his username/password. I'm not really sure what you think the federal government can do to fix/prevent that. I mean they already have information out there about "don't click on shit in e-mails" and there is training out there organizations can point people to from groups like SANS.
That aside, even if it was a hack (as in exploiting vulnerabilities) it wasn't a federal government controlled system. So again, what is the fed supposed to do? Take over private e-mail systems? Put up a national firewall on the Internet?
Re: (Score:3)
lets assume you're right.
what is the difference then between what the russians (allegedly) have done vs what a whistle blower or a real journalist might have done to expose conspiracy to deny Sanders a nomination?
should we say "thank you russia" and move on?
Re: (Score:2)
whooosh!..
Re: (Score:2)
Hey Dummy... (Score:2)
Well, NOT IF YOU TELL THE MEDIA ABOUT IT!!!!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It hardly took that long over 9/11. And with evidence just as feeble..
Re:Good luck (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Er - Afghanistan was attacked the very night the towers fell. Iraq was NEVER about 9/11.
Yeah, right. Tell that to Bush, Cheney, Rove, and millions of Americans. They were wrong, but they MADE Iraq about 9/11.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Had all the nations involved in the 1991 war with Iraq helped make sure Iraq abided by their surrender agreement the 2003 war would not have happened.Instead a significant amount of those countries ran the UN Oil for Food scam and turned a blind eye every time Iraq violated the terms of their surrender. The largest coalition of nations supporting military operations was gathered for the 1991 war. It was a positive action that gave the UN a rare opportunity to show how the world could be rallied together for
Re: (Score:3)
"Had all the nations involved in the 1991 war with Iraq helped make sure Iraq abided by their surrender agreement the 2003 war would not have happened"
This has got to be about the dumbest assertion written on Slashdot. Bush was going to invade Iraq and no facts were going to get in his way.
Re:Good luck (Score:4, Interesting)
Iraq was about keeping the muslim world busy the traditional way. By restarting the war between its two largest factions. Let them kick the fight out of each other for a century or two. It worked for Christianity. (100 years war, between the catholics and protestants. Only those remote to the fight, Irish/British, missed the point, they got it themselves, eventually.)
Re: (Score:3)
Off by 70 years, if you are referring to the Catholic-Protestant conflict of the 17th century, usually known as the 30 Years' War
Re:Good luck (Score:5, Informative)
Were you alive, then? Because it was a 14-month march to war.
Wow are you confused. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The Taliban in Afghanistan admitted to hosting and supporting Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
I know we're living in a post factual world where empirical truth doesn't exist. But the fact is that the U.S. led a coaliton of forces against the Taliban in Afghanistan beginning on October 7, 2001. Less than one month after the September 11 attacks.
Re: (Score:3)
"Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks"
Any support for that. I thought they were all from Saudi Arabia. And all I remember Osama saying was "wow, good for them" after the attack, and there wasn't flight simulators to train on in Afghanistan anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Were you alive, then? Because it was a 14-month march to war.
Wow are you confused. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The Taliban in Afghanistan admitted to hosting and supporting Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
I know we're living in a post factual world where empirical truth doesn't exist. But the fact is that the U.S. led a coaliton of forces against the Taliban in Afghanistan beginning on October 7, 2001. Less than one month after the September 11 attacks.
A lot of people were confused back then, 9/11 was the major motivation for the war in Iraq and the Bush administration was constantly trying to conflate the two. If they didn't try to suggest they were allied there was always the implication that the crazy Arab Muslim Saddam would commit an unprovoked first strike with his WMDs the way al-Qaeda did on 9/11.
In reality they were mostly enemies, Saddam was a Sunni dictator in a majority Shia country so ran a largely secular state. Not dissimilar to Assad a Shi
Iraq was an unintended consequence of 9/11 (Score:4, Interesting)
Were you alive, then? Because it was a 14-month march to war.
Wow are you confused. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The Taliban in Afghanistan admitted to hosting and supporting Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
I know we're living in a post factual world where empirical truth doesn't exist. But the fact is that the U.S. led a coaliton of forces against the Taliban in Afghanistan beginning on October 7, 2001. Less than one month after the September 11 attacks.
Close, but not quite. Iraq was not a direct result of or a response to 9/11. 9/11 laid the groundwork for Iraq, though, focusing more resources including political will, attention, and covert focus on Iraq. More importantly, it put the American People on a war footing psychologically, in a way they had not been for decades. Without that, the ground war in Iraq would probably have been a political non-starter.
Re: (Score:3)
"You simply cannot separate the two attacks from each other."
You perhaps can't, but you should speak for yourself.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Were you alive, then? Because it was a 14-month march to war. Bush made a dozen speeches making his case. Powell did the UN presentation. They got a UN resolution, and two authorizations of force from congress. And EVERY security service on the face of the planet said Saddam had WMDs - including the one you are trusting now about the Russians.
The Iraqi war had nothing to do with 9/11. No one stopped us from going into Afghanistan after 9/11 to take out the Taliban government and Osama bin Laden. If the Bush administration wasn't obsess with Saddam, they wouldn't have let Osama bin Laden escape and started an unnecessary war in Iraq.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean that was also Hillary?
No the conspiracy theorists are too clever (Score:3)
They KNOW that tinfoil hats are just a conspiracy invented to make it easier to identify the wingnut conspiracy theorists.
That's why they wear INVISIBLE tinfoil hats, made out of transparent aluminum.
BTW did you know that tinfoil hats, invisible or otherwise, act as an echo chamber amplifying and scrambling thoughts (and trapped electromagnetic radiation)?
Re: Good luck (Score:3, Informative)
The amazing thing is Thursday I listened to Julian Assange give a live interview stating categorically that Wikileaks did not receive the emails from any state actor including Russia. It was a DNC insider angry about Clinton Foundation corruption and what happened to Bernie. Not hearing a word of this in the "media".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you fucking retarded? Do you think if the Russians should hand over information to Wikileaks they will do it with a greeting card "From Russia with Love"? Don't you think that if they have the means to hack into highly confidential systems, they don't have groups and their ways to hide their involvement. Jesus, wake the fuck up already.
Re: (Score:3)
Short of invalidating the election results and making us redo it, I don't know what Obama thinks he can do that will actually bother Putin.
Re: (Score:3)
He likes to draw lines in the sand. He drew a bunch of them in Syria but Assad kept wiping them out with his foot. Maybe he'll draw a line for Putin to scrub out too. No one has any fear of him, they know he's all talk. He can launch a few drones to blow up some goat pens in Pakistan but to actually take a shot at Russia? No way.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You seem to be confusing two completely different email sets here. Are you confused, or are you just trying to be confusing?
Re:message from other hackers (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not his fault, because the media is purposely confusing things. Notice how they always talk about Russia "hacking the election" even though that's not at all what happened. And then when they do talk about what Russia is actually accused of doing, they always just say "emails" to try and conflate Hillary's email server with the Wikileaks dump. It's classic disinformation and if you talk about politics with regular people, it's working: people have just kind of mentally merged Hillary's private email server with the Wikileaks email dump with Russians "hacking the vote" despite the fact that none of them are related and the third never happened.
It's a technique that the Democrats are using to distance themselves from Hillary's historic failure as a candidate, and that the Republicans are more than happy to let them get away with because refusing to acknowledge the truth is only going to lead to a GOP supermajority in 2018 and likely a GOP-controlled Constitutional Convention within the next decade.
But it's not surprising that people are confused about what "Russian hacking" is - the media and the lame duck administration are purposely trying to confuse people.
Re:message from other hackers (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, I'm not bloody confused, and I think it's a reasonable assumption that Russia wanted to do what it could to prevent Clinton from winning the election, and at least initially has got what it wants; a president who is Russia-friendly and a Secretary of State with pretty deep ties to Russia. We can debate how much influence the Russians really did have, but I'd say the Wikileaks emails did Clinton tangible harm.
Re: (Score:3)
What does the popular vote have to do with anything? The fact is she lost, and several states by fairly close margins. The DNC leaks certainly contributed to that loss. Easily 1% across the board. Doesnt make a difference in California or New York, but it made a difference in more than enough other states. But please, keep saying everything is A-OK because Hillary won the popular vote.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And the White house Email system, and the OPM. Don't forget those. That happened more than two years ago, and shut down those email systems for weeks. What was our response to that? Crickets. Thank God this President is on the way out.
Re: (Score:2)
The answer is simple - the whole thing is bogus. Even if Russia were behind it it's nothing compared to what the US, via the CIA, did to their ally Japan [nytimes.com]. With friends like those, who needs enemies except as a distraction from your own corruption?
Re:Good luck (Score:5, Informative)
Besides, Putin is more photogenic than Hillary.
Don't assume that everyones taste in porn is the same as yours.
Moonriver (Score:2)
Re:Way to waste every modicum of self-respect Obam (Score:5, Informative)
And how would that have been done, seeing as the presidential election is effectively 50 separate elections, with different voting technologies? As to Democrat email leaks, it is unclear to me that the Executive branch has ever had an overt role in securing political parties' data.
Re: (Score:2)
That's OK - they gave us some target practice. That's invaluable training. It's way more fun when the targets go BOOM.
Re: Way to waste every modicum of self-respect Oba (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It was a decent strategy. But the strategy was to stalemate the sunnis and shia, Iran/Iraq war style. Not let the shia win. As the Bush admin couldn't say that outloud the Obama admin apparently didn't understand and the Saudis got fixated on Yemen and are facing a cash flow crunch.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because lying about the need to invade and occupy Iraq, destroying the one bulwark which might have existed to stop the spread of ISIS, had nothing to do with any of this, right? That was a fantastic foreign policy issue, right?
Re: (Score:3)
US agents were supplying arms to numerous rebel factions. Many of these weapons and rebel groups have joined ISIS.
Many of these weapons were already in Iraq by the time Obama became president, and many were supplied to the Iraqi government. That the Iraqi government lost them later to ISIS is the fault of the Iraqi government, not anybody else.
He's not referring to Iraqi army weapons that were captured in Iraq. He's referring to weapons that our government has stated it has supplied to Syrian rebels. Rebels which then either sold the weapons to jihadis, or were absorbed into larger jihadi organizations.
www.cnn.com/2013/09/12/politics/syria-arming-rebels/ : "CIA-funded weapons have begun flowing to Syrian rebels, a U.S. official told CNN."
www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-syria-obama-order-idUSBRE8701OK20120802
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you don't know that, and once again we see the Clinton Crime Family conspiracy theory put forward. Seth Rich was killed in a robbery, and it took him an hour to die. It wasn't a hit, it was just bad luck.
I do see what fake news really is. It's every fucked up maniac's conspiracy theory somehow rendered legitimate.
Re: You do it, or you talk about doing it. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People associated with the Clintons are prone to bad luck. It's just a coincidence though. The fact that the Clintons always manage to just barely escape going to jail proves they're honest.
Re:You do it, or you talk about doing it. (Score:4, Insightful)
oh fuck off. We all know what the poster was referring to, the conspiracy theory that Clinton had Rich assassinated in some sort of gangland-style take down. For fuck's sake, this is exactly what fake news is, where the diseased minds that invent these conspiracy theories suddenly become accepted as being holders of the "real story".
There's no evidence that Rich leaked anything, and there's no evidence that the Clinton's had him killed. These are pure fabrications that have been repeated by the Sanders and Alt-right lunatics so much that they just assume the truth of this particular fantasy.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a public statement by the guy who got the emails. It's much more than CNN has to back the Obama admins story.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: You do it, or you talk about doing it. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Are you saying 'Anybody I don't like is Hitler' is a good strategy?
Re: (Score:2)
If he wasn't unhappy with the DNC, shame on him (and you too).
Re: (Score:2)
You have not logic to rebut. Just a self righteous 'shame on you'.
Re: Proof (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:they cant (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Proof (Score:4, Insightful)
What? Hilary was going to take your guns if she was elected?
How could you have any guns left after Obama took them all? Oh wait....
Re: (Score:3)
[...] she made it very clear during the debates that she wanted to start WWIII with Russia.
I didn't realized that we elected Trump to be the new Chamberlian to appease the Russians.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Trump lost the popular vote. He won the Electoral College vote.
Now, the numbers aren't real impressive in either case, a percentage point or so. No great mandate on either side. But if the American people 'have spoken' they mumbled a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
That's funny. Just last night at his rally Donald Trump said his victory was the "most historic ever", so you might want to check your facts.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If Russia's neighbors aren't so friendly, it might have something to do with the 20th century.
He's crazy, but will be out of office in a month.
Russians aren't suicidal, nukes aren't really on the table. They are much more likely to engineer an 'oil price shock event' in the middle east. If I was in charge of security at Saudi oil processing facilities, I'd double down for the next few years, perhaps triple down.