Donald Trump

Obama Response to Alleged Russian Hacking Undermines Confidence in U.S. Government

Administration argues email hacks eroded faith and undermined confidence in government, but doesn't explain how providing voters with more info accomplished that.

|

White House

With just three weeks left in office, President Obama announced a series of measures, including limited sanctions and the expulsion of Russian intelligence operatives from the country, that the U.S. would take against Russia in response to its alleged hand behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta.

Obama imposed sanctions on a number of individuals and two intelligence agencies, the FSB and the GRU, as well as companies accused of aiding in hacking. House Speaker Paul Ryan called the sanctions long overdue. The president also amended an executive order from 2015 (EO #13964) concerning the executive branch's authority to deal with cyberattacks and hacks aimed at the "critical infrastructure sector," distributed denial-of-service attacks, and corporate and financial espionage. Obama has added a fourth condition under which the U.S. government has authority to respond to cyberattacks: When they "tamper with, alter, or cause a misappropriation of information with the purpose or effect of interfering with or undermining election processes or institutions." That expansion should deeply trouble us all, especially since the federal government has not shown why it ought to be trusted to be responsible for the cybersecurity needs of non-governmental agencies.

Along with the measures, the administration released a report (PDF) from the FBI and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) purporting to prove Russia's role in the hackings. The document does not explicitly refer to Podesta nor the DNC, instead it refers to a "U.S. political party." Most of the document is not about the election-related hacks but rather a laundry list of preventative measures network administrators can take.

The FBI and DHS joint report does explain how the DNC was hacked but offers little new information about that. In more technical language, the document explains that hackers sent out a thousand phishing emails, looking for someone to click on an attachment and thus provide them access into the targeted system via malware. We know from New York Times reporting that John Podesta's emails were compromised in just such a way.

Similarly, the report doesn't even really pretend to document that the Russian government was directly involved in the hackings; rather than offering independent verification, it asks readers to rely yet one more time on the FBI and DHS, two agencies that have done little to inspire full confidence among Americans. As former George W. Bush campaign heavyweight and ABC News' chief political analyst, Matthew Dowd, put it on Twitter: "Lets be clear: U aren't an American patriot & don't respect Constitution if u believe Putin more than our President and intelligent services." Perhaps believing the president is in Article 12 of the Constitution? You don't have to be an America hater to distrust the president or intelligence services. The United States was, for example, sure that North Korea was behind the hacking of Sony, and then decided it wasn't. The machinations of the intelligence community are notoriously lacking in transparency, making a substantive evaluation of its claims exceedingly difficult.

The administration argues that the hacks of the DNC and Podesta were "intended to influence the election, erode faith in U.S. democratic institutions, sow doubt about the integrity of our electoral process, and undermine confidence in the institutions of the U.S. government," but it does not explain how. None of the emails released by Wikileaks from the DNC or Podesta's email account have been challenged as forgeries or faked. Insofar as the emails from the DNC illustrated that Democratic Party bigwigs were in fact skewing the primary process to benefit their favored candidate, Hillary Clinton, over Bernie Sanders, any loss of faith in the DNC ought to be blamed on the DNC and not on whoever might have hacked their emails or released them to Wikileaks. (Wikileaks, for its part, has denied receiving the email batches from Russian sources.) Those revelations combined with worries in the Sanders camp about how much the legacy media was in the tank for Clinton, with the larger result that many Americans had less faith in the DNC (and its former chairperson Debbie Wasserman-Schultz) and major newspapers and news channels. But none of the emails themselves suggested anything untoward about the actual voting process—no illegal tampering with voting machines or voter rolls or anything of the kind.

If we're being honest (rather than purely partisan), the administration's slow-moving and cryptic responses to the alleged Russian hacking has itself sowed doubt "about the integrity of our electoral process" and undermined "confidence in the institutions of U.S. government." Within recent memory, we've been treated to revelations that Obama kept an unconstitutional "secret kill list," and that major intelligence bosses have lied under oath; whatever else you might say about the way that director James Comey handled the FBI's investigation of Clinton's private server during the election, you can't say it made you feel more sure about an outfit with a decades-long reputation for spin and outright deception.

The president says in the coming weeks, the administration will release more reports on the history of election-related interference, including cases from previous election cycles. That the Obama administration waited until its last month in office to make these disclosures certainly works to undermine confidence. The context-free coverage of "election hacks," meanwhile, makes it seem like something more than the hacking of emails happened this election cycle. A remarkable 50 percent of Hillary Clinton voters said in a recent YouGov poll that they believed Russia had tampered with vote tallies to help Trump. President Obama has specifically denied such claims, yet the imprecise language used by government officials and reporters has helped to, in the words of the administration, "sow doubt about the integrity of our electoral process."

While citing election-related crimes, the Obama administration also lodged other complaints about Russia—namely that U.S. diplomatic officials in Russia were being harassed by police and security services. But the entirety of the claim about hacking appears to involve only the DNC and John Podesta emails. Those emails were not forged. Rather than respond to the hack transparently, the DNC and Podesta attempted to shift the discussion to the source of the leaks. But the source of the leak is irrelevant to the content of the leak.

Indeed, it's hard to look at the freakout over who might be responsible for leaks that provided voters with useful information about the way their political leaders operate and not wonder if it's being done to delegitimize unwanted results (remember how outraged everyone was when Donald Trump refused to proactively abide by the results of the election?). Wikileaks has long been the target of a campaign to delegitimize it as a source. At The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald notes how a recent interview with Julian Assange was misleadingly summarized by The Guardian in an article that went viral and spread "false news" about Assange across the world. The Guardian claimed that Assange said there was no need for a Wikileaks in Russia because the country had a free and open press, an obviously false statement. Instead, in the actual interview, Assange talked about the problems of penetrating Russian sources because his organization doesn't have Russian speakers on staff and other reasons.

In the interview, Assange dismissed the idea that Wikileaks was trying to help Trump by releasing the DNC and Podesta emails. "What is the allegation here exactly?" Assange asked. "We published what the Democratic National Committee, John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, and Hillary Clinton herself were saying about their own campaign, which the American people read and were very interested to read, and assessed the elements and characters, and then they made a decision. That decision was based on Hillary Clinton's own words, her campaign manager's own words. That's democracy."

Russia said it would not retaliate by expelling U.S. diplomats from Russia or imposing sanctions of their own. Instead, Russia President Vladimir Putin invited the children of American diplomats to the annual children's Christmas party at the Kremlin. Trump praised Putin's decision to "delay," tweeting that he knew Putin was "very smart." You don't have to believe that Putin is "very smart," or even a decent human being to continue to question Obama administration's claims about Russia "hacking" the election. And you certainly don't have to be as disturbingly incurious as Donald Trump seems to be about Russian intelligence operations—he's said it's "time to move on to bigger and better things," an unthinkable response from him if the country in question was, say, China. No, you only have to have lived in the United States for any length of time, especially in the 21st century, when government officials have been caught redhanded lying to the public and Barack Obama has failed to deliver on his promise to run the "most transparent administration ever." This is the man, after all, who has been called "the greatest enemy of press freedom in a generation" by legendary journalist James Risen. It will take more than a few reports and press statements to regain the confidence of Americans. Indeed, it might even take the kind of transparency and sharing of information that he once promised to deliver.

NEXT: Silencing professor speech to prevent students from being offended -- or from fearing discrimination by the professors

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Administration argues email hacks eroded faith and undermined confidence in government, but doesn’t explain how providing voters with more info accomplished that.

    Explanation? Look who the president-elect is. Do we need to spell it out for you?

  2. Administration argues email hacks eroded faith and undermined confidence in government, but doesn’t explain how providing voters with more info accomplished that.

    I think it’s because many realized these same people are pulling the federal strings of power, and therefore can’t be trusted.

  3. Obama has added a fourth condition under which the U.S. government has authority to respond to cyberattacks: When they “tamper with, alter, or cause a misappropriation of information with the purpose or effect of interfering with or undermining election processes or institutions.”

    Something something ex post facto law something something

    You know, I do think there is cause for concern when a foreign government can gain access to potentially sensitive information of a major political party, but dammit if Obama doesn’t find ways for me to go “yeah but” even when I have reason to agree with him.

    1. As a former law lecturer, he believes that this information was obtained illegally and should thusly be disregarded by the American voter. Unless the evidence works in his favor.

    2. Last year OMB was actually hacked. Not “some moron gave away his password”. Actually hacked. The result of that hack was that tons of personal information for over 20 million people were exposed. Social security numbers, family situations, financial information, outcomes of security investigations (which can be VERY personal).

      What did Obama do about that? Jack shit. Now some political dirty laundry gets aired because the people involved are morons (sure, here’s my password) and we’re saber rattling with a global power. What a fucking asshole this guy is.

      1. “They aired our election-tampering-dirty-laundry, and if that’s not election tampering in itself, then I’m White.”

        “So it was only half-tampering? I’m not sure I follow, Mr. President.”

      2. I think you mean OPM.

        1. Let’s not be pedantic about getting the right can of alphabet soup.

      3. Yep. Screw this mendacious prick and his corrupt party of our effete leftist “betters.” May their exile in the wilderness be long and their suffering exquisite.

        1. YEAH! We now have rightist pricks and effete thugs to obey!!!!

          1. Can’t help a little schadenfreude after eight years listening to Obama’s sanctimonious gibberish. But don’t worry, the Republican wing of the Party will be back on the bottom soon enough, and you can rejoice at the return of virtue and altruism. The IRS is the IRS through it all, and we all (those of us who are economically productive, anyway) have to pay the man.

            1. Yeah, I know the GOP will be on the toilet –as I said. They may be there already! Why would anyone rejoice the GOP’s version of altruism — like their wacky healthcare notions, even more costly “free stuff” than the progressives?

              May even be crazier than looting the income tax to “pay for” Medicare Prescriptions — without which the Medicare “Trust Fund” would have been exhausted years ago. Income taxes now pay about 40% of the ENTIRE Medicare program, as the Democrats cleaned their clock in return for Dem votes, again. (see 1986).

              Or the Bush tax cuts, where 85% of the cuts went to taxpayers UNDER $250,000, who were paying only 45% of the tax — the biggest wealth redistribution since FDR!

              All told, Dubya’s GOP spent trillions of dollars to buy middle-class votes, then lost the White House and both houses of Congress, and seem determined to repeat the same debacle.. For the growing majority of us who hate both parties, they both continue collapsing!

              1. Or the Bush tax cuts, where 85% of the cuts went to taxpayers UNDER $250,000, who were paying only 45% of the tax — the biggest wealth redistribution since FDR!

                The one percentage has nothing to do with the other, and lowering a person’s tax burden is not redistributing any wealth to them.

                1. You are REALLY fucking dumb.

                  Or the Bush tax cuts, where 85% of the cuts went to taxpayers UNDER $250,000, who were paying only 45% of the tax — the biggest wealth redistribution since FDR!

                  The one percentage has nothing to do with the other,

                  Pay attention. If you pay only 45% of the tax and get 85% of the tax cut, then the tax burden shifts away from you TO SOMEBODY ELSE.

                  If you pay 45% of the tax and get 45% of the cut then you get your share of the tax cuts. If you get more than your share somebody gets less. They now subsidize you.

                  and lowering a person’s tax burden is not redistributing any wealth to them.

                  Tax burden and share of taxes are two different things, chump.
                  Pay attention.

                  1) Total taxes are $100
                  2) You pay $45
                  3) Your SHARE of taxes decreases, say, $5
                  4) SOMEBODY ELSE’S INCREASES $5, which is where YOUR $5 came from. duh
                  6) Redistributtion.

                  AND YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW THE TAX CUTS ARE CALLED “BUSH TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH?” …. ON TOP OF YOUR FIVE SHAMEFUL LIES here

                  Yep, a Trump voter. Or Ron Paul.

                  (tone and boldface in defense of repeated aggression, stalking and harassment
                  by a thug )

                  1. #4 on your list wouldn’t happen if the parties would deliver on their promises to couple tax cuts with spending cuts.

                    In theory it isn’t redistribution. In reality it usually is.

                    1. ?if the parties would deliver on their promises to couple tax cuts with spending cuts.

                      Not just parties, Reason is the strongest in the crazy claim that BIG spending cuts have a stimulus effect. This based on a postwar boom that never happened!. And Gillespie is the top recent propagandist.

                      Nothing shows better the corruption of the Political Class than the postwar boom. They invent a boom, then spend over 45 years fighting over which one caused the bullshit. HYSTERICAL

                      Progressives say we had a postwar boom despite 91% tax rates, so Republicans are full of shit on high taxes. Fiscal conservatives say we had a postwar boom despite 50% spending cuts, so liberals are full of shit on spending. Taxes and spending. That’s all there is. And they’re both bat-shit crazy.

                      The facts are undeniable, 91% tax rates and federal spending cut in half. But it goes both ways. See it?

                      Progressives claim a boom …. with 50% spending cuts
                      Fiscal conservatives (especially Nick) claim a boom ,,,, with 91% tax rates
                      So both are arguing against themselves!

                      No boom . Five back-to-back recession in only 16 years, per the official dates of our business cycles! Recessions start when the economy peaks, so look in the Peak column. Count ’em, 1945-1960. Ooops.

                      JFK’s first SOTU (1961) described 9 years of economic tragedy. In a boom! (lol)

      4. It was OPM not OMB. If the data never surfaces, then it’s usually impossible to trace. Here it was traced to China you may recall, but bo proof of government?

        What should Obama have done? What did Republicans do? If you Google it you’ll see that the debate was on the Senate giving more cybersecurity powers to the White House. Many in Congress believed the adminsitration had too little ppwer. The opposition was that would also give the government more power to violate everyone’s privacym which is why Cato strongly opposed that as a fix.

        What a fucking asshole this guy is.

        Somebody is.

        And, of course, hacking government computers for the personnel records of 21 million federal employees is bad, but not nearly as bad as trying to change the leadership of our federal government by hacking private servers. Calling Obama an asshole may feel good, but it’s no better than throwing stones at him for sneezing.

        1. trying to change the leadership of our federal government by hacking private servers

          There’s just the small wrinkle that nothing was actually changed. No vote totals were altered, no internal DNC processes were tampered with, no delegates were bribed, cajoled, blackmailed, etc. There is, so far as anyone has presented, no evidence of electoral manipulation whatsoever.

          1. Hey, now–your easily discernible facts are pissing in his elaborately constructed narrative.

            And THAT AIN’T FAIR.

            1. Hey, now–your easily discernible facts are pissing in his elaborately constructed narrative.

              Not really, he’s babbling about the wrong issue entirely. And, apparently, you share his confusion.

              1. It’s amazing how everybody but you is confused in the same way. It’s almost as though you are just projecting your mental deficiencies onto others.

                1. It’s amazing how everybody but you is confused in the same way.

                  VERY amazing that so many of you INSIST t the DNC tabulates votes in voting machines …. and say it publicly! Not everybody, just three Trumpsters.

                  One more time. In detail,

                  https://reason.com/blog/2016/12…..nt_6651123

          2. kbolino,
            You’ve totally lost track of the issue here.

            1. No, you’ve totally lost perspective. Or, rather, you never had any to begin with. Why don’t you stick to one name, Michael Hihn?

              1. Ummm, the hack reported here was of the DNC and perhaps Podesta. Since the DNC has nothing to do with tabulating votes, this is solely about the emails released

                Vote manipulation is totally different issue,

                That would be clear if you’d read the story. This is the very first paragraph, emphasis added.

                President Obama announced a series of measures, including limited sanctions and the expulsion of Russian intelligence operatives from the country, that the U.S. would take against Russia in response to its alleged hand behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta

                Again. The DNC, Hillary and Podesta do not tabulate votes.

                “Vote manipulation” was a fear of hacking voting machine to change the tallies. The results are on computers ONLY.

                Computers can be hacked.

                With paper ballots the results are on paper.

                Paper cannot be hacked.

                Paper numbers can be hacked when TRANSMIITTED electronically. But the paper records would catch it, With voting machines, there are NO backup data,

                This likely caused your confusion between hacking for vote manipulation vs hacking to steal emails.

          3. There is, so far as anyone has presented, no evidence of electoral manipulation whatsoever.

            Nobody said there was. And you STILL don’t know the issue.

            1. I see kbolino is bullshiiting again, He fucked up, confusing two hacking issues — hacking to reveal emails is the topic here. Hacking to change votes is separate. Here’s what he now denies so shamefully.

              kbolino|12.31.16 @ 8:53PM|#
              trying to change the leadership of our federal government by hacking private servers
              ((by attacking Hillary’s email))

              There’s just the small wrinkle that nothing was actually changed. No vote totals were altered, no internal DNC processes were tampered with, no delegates were bribed, cajoled, blackmailed, etc. There is, so far as anyone has presented, no evidence of electoral manipulation whatsoever.

              And here’s the link to his massive blunder.
              https://reason.com/blog/2016/12…..nt_6650883

              Keep exposing the bellowing blowhards, John! (or whoever you are)

            2. We do know the issue. We just don’t believe Obama cares about the issue. He wants people to question the election results. Unfortunately for him, most people no longer care, and they don’t believe a word he says anyway.

              1. We do know the issue

                Some do. This thread shows several who INSIST on bullshit,

                We just don’t believe Obama cares about the issue. He wants people to question the election results

                That IS the issue!

                Unfortunately for him, most people no longer care, and they don’t believe a word he says anyway.

                Projection. Depending on the poll, he has about the same trust as Trump, or slightly more. They’re both bat-shit crazy. but their tribes still control the elections despite being in the minority.

    3. Something something ex post facto law something something

      something something means cannot punish an act done before it became illegal something something.,

      (We are allowed to punish murder, theft, fraud and every other crime known to man — all of which were perpetrated done before they became illegal.)

  4. , the document explains that hackers sent out a thousand phishing emails, looking for someone to click on an attachment and thus provide them access into the targeted system via malware

    In other words, that half their “proof” isn’t even specifically targeting anyone, and isn’t even technically “hacking”.

    they were just casting a wide-net in hopes someone, somewhere would fall for one of the lowest-level, most commonly employed tricks of identity-thieves

    they seem to be suggesting that because a political hack happened to fall for this scam, it somehow inversely proves that the scam had ‘political motives’.

    , the report doesn’t even really pretend to document that the Russian government was directly involved in the hackings;

    This certainly won’t stop anyone citing it as “proof” of the dubious claims made by anonymous administration officials.

    1. The best part is that NO ONE IS DENYING WHETHER OR NOT WHAT WAS EXPOSED IS TRUE.

      All of the information released showed was that the Clinton Campaign and the Obama administration have complete and utter contempt for the American voters and were willing to manipulate the media in order to insure their candidate was elected.

      I don’t care if it was ISIS who exposed this corrupt political mafia, they have no business complaining about getting caught.

      1. Does it count as manipulation if the other party is willing?

      2. Damn you for rigging the election by exposing us rigging the primary!

      3. I don’t care if it was ISIS who exposed this corrupt political mafia, they have no business complaining about getting caught.

        AND IF HILLARY GOT GANG-RAPED SHE DESERVED IT! And if it DID influence the election, who gives a shit if MY tribe wins. (says an accomplice)

        Another totally insane tribal cocksucker. Shows why a growing majority of us reject loyalty to both hate-spewing tribes of mindless drones — led by libertarians who proclaimed left and right to be obsolete almost a ha;f-century ago.

        1. AND IF HILLARY GOT GANG-RAPED SHE DESERVED IT! And if it DID influence the election, who gives a shit if MY tribe wins. (says an accomplice

          Because getting a bunch of embarrassing emails = getting raped.

          You are one seriously stupid person.

          1. Because getting a bunch of embarrassing emails = getting raped.

            WHOOSH! Sailed right over your head.

            If you two want to repeal the rule of law … for purely partisan reasons … excuse the most vicious terrorist group on the planet … because she DESERVED to get hacked …. then who knows how low you’d sink?. Once you piss away moral principles, what’s left?

            You are one seriously stupid person.

            WHOOSH!
            Merely one without your tribal partisan hatred and double standard.. See above re: moral principles. Classical libertarians are neither left nor right, thus immune to that type of corruption.

            You’re also a trashmouth aggressor. Says all we need to know about your judgement.

            1. He’s correct about you being seriously stupid. Although if you use ALL CAPS a little more you may be able to overcome that deficiency.

              1. Please tell me what you challenge — instead of sticking your tongue out — so I can publicy crush you.

                1. Nothing much, just your sanity and veracity.

                  Please proceed with your proglodyte meltdown. It is a joy to behold.

                  1. Watch the shell game (snicker)

                    Please tell me what you challenge — instead of sticking your tongue out — so I can publicly crush you.

                    Nothing much, just your sanity and veracity.

                    CAUGHT ANOTHER ONE!
                    1) REFUSES to challenge any statement, which would see him crushed again
                    2) Sticks his tongue again/
                    3) Personal insult, REFUSES to support the insult. “Because God says so1”
                    4) But he’s not an arrogant bully!!!!!!

                    1. Wow, John, you’re really on a roll. Most impressive!

                      Please continue.

                2. >> so I can publicy crush you.

                  You’ve already lost most people on this board and, no, it’s not because any of us are stupid or uninformed. There will be no crushing.

                  The fact is, the majority of Americans aren’t buying the Russia hacking thing. First, Obama’s timing is suspect. Secondly, Trump has survived media attacks, Democrat attacks, Republican attacks, recounts, protests, and childish leftist death threats. Why would anyone take THIS seriously?

                  1. Please tell me what you challenge — instead of sticking your tongue out — so I can publicy crush you. so I can publicy crush you.

                    You’ve already lost most people on this board and,

                    Only the goobers who NEVER have a source, and mostly do personal attacks and aggression.
                    Here’s a hint. Objective reality is face more powerful than the opinions of fewer than a dozen people.
                    And only 10% of of readers in onlne forums ever comment, overall average.

                    it’s not because any of us are stupid or uninformed. There will be no crushing.

                    You just crushed yourself! PLEASE TELL ME WHAT YOU CHALLENGE.
                    Coward.

                    > the majority of Americans aren’t buying the Russia hacking thing.

                    Different issue. Evasion. STILL no challenges!

            2. You need MOAR BOLDED WORDZ to really drive the point home, Loopy.

              1. You need MOAR BOLDED WORDZ to really drive the point home, Loopy

                If you insist, since this is aggression by you — you have AGAIN proven my assessment of your hissy fit

                THIS: “You’re also a trashmouth aggressor. Says all we need to know about your judgement.”

                Now MORE trashmouth aggresion … with the childish spelling of “moar.” One more time for the mentally impairedL

                If you two want to repeal the rule of law … for purely partisan reasons … excuse the most vicious terrorist group on the planet … because she DESERVED to get hacked …. then who knows how low you’d sink?. Once you piss away moral principles, what’s left?

                What’s left is more thuggery and bullying.

                This was the original hissy fit and bigoted attack on the rule of law,

                I don’t care if it was ISIS who exposed this corrupt political mafia, they have no business complaining about getting caught.

                Self-righteous Assholes rooting for ISIS and vigilante justice (yawn)

                (My stalker will not dictate my response to his repeated aggression. My tone and boldface are self-defense.)

                1. LOL–you’re such a prissy little bitch, Hihn.

                  1. LOL–you’re such a prissy little bitch, Hihn.

                    Translation: self defense is being a “prissy little bitch” to an authoritarian refusing ro accept his own failure and public humiliation,

                    (this will also enrage the bully — identical to the better known authoritarian bully, Donald J Trump))

                    And my name is Galt. A screenname like yours. But I outgrew my “bimbo fixation” at about the age of 18.,

                    1. Michael Hihn is a silly little bitch
                      And a silly little bitch is he.

      4. All of the information released showed was that the Clinton Campaign and the Obama administration have complete and utter contempt for the American voters and were willing to manipulate the media in order to insure their candidate was elected. WHOA. Chill the bigotry You have no clue — not the faintest idea — of what a Republican hack would reveal.

        I don’t care if it was ISIS who exposed this corrupt political mafia, they have no business complaining about getting caught.

        WHOA! We rarely see tribalism severe enough to reject the rule of law.

        I’d LOVE to see a hack of Trump — since he’s proposing a 60% tax cut for HIMSELF, , a top personal income tax rate of 15%, WAY below the rate paid by his loyal supporters. That’s a moral atrocity and we didn’t even need a hack!

        1. OOPS Needs correcting.

          All of the information released showed was that the Clinton Campaign and the Obama administration have complete and utter contempt for the American voters and were willing to manipulate the media in order to insure their candidate was elected.

          WHOA. Chill the bigotry You have no clue — not the faintest idea — of what a Republican hack would reveal.

          I don’t care if it was ISIS who exposed this corrupt political mafia, they have no business complaining about getting caught.

          WHOA! We rarely see tribalism severe enough to reject the rule of law.

          I’d LOVE to see a hack of Trump — since he’s proposing a 60% tax cut for HIMSELF, , a top personal income tax rate of 15%, WAY below the rate paid by his loyal supporters. That’s a moral atrocity and we didn’t even need a hack

          1. >> WHOA. Chill the bigotry

            I knew that would come out of your mouth. It was only a matter of time.

            There is not one iota of bigotry in anything Tman said.

            1. There is not one iota of bigotry in anything Tman said.

              1) I quoted it.
              2) Fellow bigots, on all sides,yell, “BUT IT’S TRUE.” The Klan said that about negro inferiority.

              All of the information released showed was that the Clinton Campaign and the Obama administration have complete and utter contempt for the American voters and were willing to manipulate the media in order to insure their candidate was elected.

              BLATANT partisan bigotry. How can that apply to events after the election?
              (sigh)

    2. Sounds like Podesta is a fish.

      He must pound the desk shouting, ‘Not again!’ each time he responds to Nigerian financial offers.

      1. He does like fish sticks, allegedly.

        1. Yes he especially like “Fish sticks” when he goes for “Pizza”. And “Brownies” too.

    3. The document explains that hackers sent out a thousand phishing emails, looking for someone to click on an attachment and thus provide them access into the targeted system via malware

      In other words, that half their “proof” isn’t even specifically targeting anyone, and isn’t even technically “hacking”.

      Lemme ‘splain it to you, Lucy. It SAYS the “system” is targeted, with a technique as old as the Internet, originally used to get legitimate email addresses for telemarketing. The original form of phishing.

      And you just defended Obama. OR you say it’s okay to sneak your way into the pentagon computers, if you aren’t targeting an individual. And yes, it is hacking either way. Try not to allow tribal hatred to encourage the compromising of national security. If it’s “only” a Democrat who acts against it.

      1. It SAYS the “system” is targeted, with a technique as old as the Internet, originally used to get legitimate email addresses for telemarketing. The original form of phishing.

        Maybe they should have invested some of the $1.2 billion that Hillary blew in another losing Presidential campaign to get better spam filters.

        1. Then she may have won. Since so many Trump votes were against Hillary and not for him.

          Did she campaign on a 60% tax cut for herself? A top tax rate of 15% — MUCH lower than her brainwashed supporters?

          Did she openly brag of buying off politicians? “I give them money; they do what I want?”

          Did she show total contempt for her supporters? Say he could kill somebody and not lose a single voter, Do YOU agree his supporters are so morally corrupt?

          Did she whine, screech and wave her hands about sending jobs to China, while … sending jobs to China?

          Did she openly brag about grabbing guys by the cock? Go bankrupt four times — screwing the investors and suppliers who trusted him?

          Think he’ll get that 15% tax bracket? What’s YOUR tax bracket?

          1. Your word salad needs more croutons.

            1. He wants to see your tax bracket. I wouldn’t show it to him if I was you.

              1. He wants to see your tax bracket. I wouldn’t show it to him if I was you.

                He’s already humiliated himself,

            2. Behold the sniveling coward

              Red Rocks Dickin Bimbos|12.31.16 @ 8:42PM|#
              Your word salad needs more croutons.

              HUMILIATED BY THESE:

              Did she campaign on a 60% tax cut for herself? A top tax rate of 15% — MUCH lower than her brainwashed supporters? Well?

              Did she openly brag of buying off politicians? “I give them money; they do what I want?” YOU DEFEND CRONY CAPITALISM?

              Did she show total contempt for her supporters? Say he could kill somebody and not lose a single voter, Do YOU agree his supporters are so morally corrupt? Cat got your tongue (again)?

              Did she whine, screech and wave her hands about sending jobs to China, while … sending jobs to China? KA-POW

              Did she openly brag about grabbing guys by the cock? Go bankrupt four times — screwing the investors and suppliers who trusted him? Evasion

              Think he’ll get that 15% tax bracket? What’s YOUR tax bracket? Rank cowardice

              (My tone and boldface in defense of aggression … by a gutless coward)

              1. LOL–you’re such a prissy little bitch, Hihn.

          2. What does any of this have to do with the DNC leaks?

            1. What does any of this have to do with the DNC leaks?

              Nothing. Hihn’s having a commenting stroke again. Time for red herrings, non sequiturs, and crying complaints about bullies while corpse-thread fucking like Jenna Jameson in her prime.

            2. kbolino|12.31.16 @ 8:54PM|#
              What does any of this have to do with the DNC leaks?

              You must be new to this.
              It has to do with what I responded to. They’re called threads.
              Stick around. You’ll learn how the big boys do it.

              1. I understand how threading works. Not the random neuron firings of a person suffering from degenerative brain disease.

                1. I understand how threading works.

                  After I corrected your laughable fuckup here:
                  https://reason.com/blog/2016/12…..nt_6651052

                  Not the random neuron firings of a person suffering from degenerative brain disease

                  (laughing harder)

  5. Similarly, the report doesn’t even really pretend to document that the Russian government was directly involved in the hackings

    Doesn’t matter. Just put something to that effect in the headline and it basically becomes an unassailable truth.

  6. MOST UNWILLINGLY TRANSPARENT ADMINISTRATION EVAH!!!

  7. Another great analysis. Thank you Ed.

    1. Agreed 100%

  8. Instead, Russia President Vladimir Putin invited the children of American diplomats to the annual children’s Christmas party at the Kremlin

    (slow clap)

    1. (easily manipulated by obvious political gimmickry)

      1. Yeah, that joint report was pretty obvious political gimmickry, thanks for agreeing.

        1. thanks for agreeing.

          You’re welcome – and full of shit. It was about Putin’s invitation and … Oh hell,, read it again.
          https://reason.com/blog/2016/12…..nt_6649264

          But thank YOU for agreeing that Gilmore was so “easily manipulated.by political gimmickry.”

  9. So how are my filthy little anarcho-frankentrumpkensteins doing today?

    1. Great. How is behead-the-infidel land doing?

      1. Great. We see our plans to destroy the West are unfolding nicely.

        1. It’s a living.

        2. Be honest. You didn’t actually *plan* this. You lucked into it.

    2. So how are my filthy little anarcho-frankentrumpkensteins doing today?

      Still defending a top 15% income tax rate for Trump — well below his adoring brainwashed goobers.

      1. Change out your colostomy bag, Hihn.

        1. Pay attention. I’ll TRY to dumb it down to your level.

          “Pass-through corporations” are exempt from the corporate income tax. Profits are allocated (on paper) to shareholders, reported and taxed as personal income. They now have a top tax bracket of 37.5%.

          Trump proposes cutting the top rate to 15%, ab 22.5% reduction 22.5 / 37.5 = 60% tax reduction

          Virtually all of Trump’s corporate profits — that we know of — are pass-throughs. In his business, he has NO need to file at what we call a C Corporation, and pay the infamous double tax on corporate profits.

          This it’s likely he’d pocket a 60% tax cut — to a 15% top rate — on the vast majority of his profits, most likely all his profits.

          He gets away with it, largely because people like you are so totally clueless on the tax code.
          What’s your own tax bracket, sucker?

          I hate to see you spend another moment both brainwashed and ignorant. Here’s an analysis on how Trump’s “plan” sends most of the benefits to the ultra-rich. It’s from those damn lefties at … Forbes … and the Tax Foundation. (suppressed giggle)

          And what IS your tax bracket again?

          1. Oh no, someone isn’t paying as many taxes as you think they should!! Hide the kids and shit the pants!

            1. Oh no, someone isn’t paying as many taxes as you think they should!! Hide the kids and shit the pants!

              Wrong again, dumbass. Libertarians have always opposed crony capitalism — loopholes and tax breaks for the privileged few.

              The brainwashed goober DEFENDS Trump proposing a 60% tax cut for himself … to a 15% tax bracket for himself ,,,, well bellow the rate of the working- and middle-class suckers who voted for Trump.

              1. Shorter Hihn– “REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!”

                1. Red Rocks, AGAIN humiliated by his own stupidity …… screeches in rage!

                  My tone and boldface are still in response to my stalker’s repeated aggression.

          2. Congress sets tax rates, not the President.

            Any lowering of the tax rates would benefit everyone in the adjusted brackets, not just one man.

            Dropping the top marginal tax rate by a certain percentage doesn’t effect a commensurate decrease in tax revenue since most tax revenue comes from lower brackets.

            But other than getting everything wrong, stellar job you’ve done there.

            1. Behold my stalker and Trumpo clone PROVEN a TOTAL liar

              Trump proposes cutting the top rate to 15%, = 60% tax reduction

              Congress sets tax rates, not the President.

              Fuckup1

              Any lowering of the tax rates would benefit everyone in the adjusted brackets, not just one man.

              Fuckup2 Never said one man. The President proposes a 60^% tax cut for HIMSELF. EMBEZZLER, and
              Fuckup3 for owners of corporations ALREADY loopholed out of the corporate income tax. (see Forbes link)

              Fuckup4 Second time in four comments. Targeted mostly to the rich … per those proggies (sneer) at Forbes and the Tax Foundation!

              Fuckup5 HE’S A PROGGIE!

              Dropping the top marginal tax rate by a certain percentage doesn’t effect a commensurate decrease in tax revenue since most tax revenue comes from lower brackets.

              Suckered by Obama AND Trump! (OMG) TOTALLY ignorant IRS data
              $200,000+ income = top 3.8%
              $2.4 T = 38.7% share of income
              $665 B = 54.6% share of tax.

              But other than getting everything wrong, stellar job you’ve done there.

              PROVEN: Every single word you say is a lie, you pathetic piece of shit

              (My tone is defense of aggression — by a psycho liar)

              1. 1. I thought you were talking about personal income tax
                2. You have no idea what “aggression” means
                3. You call me a psycho liar yet… you are the crazy one

                1. THE BULLY IS PISSED — PISSED — THAT HE GOT CALLED OUT FOR FIVE — COUNT ‘EM FIVE FUCKUPS — AND DEFENDING OBAMA’S PROGRESSIVE LIES!!!

                  https://reason.com/blog/2016/12…..nt_6651086

                  1. I thought you were talking about personal income tax

                  STOP THE PRESSES!!!! ANOTHER MASSIVE FUCKUP??
                  Does he think I EVER changed from personal income taxes?
                  Is he STILL defending proggies that “most tax revenue comes from lower brackets.”

                  2. You have no idea what “aggression” means

                  UNPROVOKED PERSONAL ATTACK … COMBINED WITH RAGING HATRED WHEN CALLED OUT AS A BLITHERING, DROOLING, JACKASS

                  3. You call me a psycho liar

                  **I**
                  **PROVED**
                  **IT**

                  yet … you are the crazy one

                  NOBODY is reading this (except my blog). You still show yourself as a mean, vicious, vindictive, name-calling prick.

                  EVERY TIME you get humiliated .. you come back with an even DUMBER attack … now even talking like a prog!

                  I’m only come to link your comments from my blog. Last I checked, nearly 60 readers had clicked to see one of more of your (and RedRocks) retardation.

                  I don’t comment in my own blog, except to provide links … that readers LOVE ridiculing

                  GIVE US MORE TO RIDICULE!!

                  (tone and boldface in defense against repeated aggression by a stalking thug — a proven psycho liar)

                  1. “GIVE US MORE TO RIDICULE!!”

                    Who? Just you and Michael or all the voices in your head?

                    Maybe you shouldn’t try to do without your meds, dude. It doesn’t seem to be working out for you.

              2. PROVEN: Every single word you say is a lie, you pathetic piece of shit

                Projecting again, huh, Hihn?

                1. PROVEN: Every single word you say is a lie, you pathetic piece of shit

                  Projecting again, huh, Hihn?

                  1) Cannot challenge a single proof of his five fuckups and his defending Obama’s lies
                  https://reason.com/blog/2016/12…..nt_6651086
                  2) Defends his other identity
                  3) Also ignorant of what projection is.

                  Gives me another psycho link from my blog.

                  1. UnHihnged!!!!

      2. Your suffering is exquisite. Enjoy!

        1. Your suffering is exquisite. Enjoy!

          I rarely suffer, beiing so much smarter than the goobers on these matters.

          Just above you I TRY to help “Dickin Bimbos” work through his ignorance ,,, and childish trash mouth.
          I’m semi-retired so Trump can’t fuck ME over. How about you? What’s your tax bracket? Compared to the 15% max that Trump would pay?.

          1. We goobers appreciate your generous gift of wisdom. We are not worthy of your urbane altruism.

            Seriously.

          2. >> beiing so much smarter than the goobers on these matters.

            Anyone who has to point that out repeatedly (you), either doesn’t really believe it themself or knows no one else does.

  10. “intended to influence the election, erode faith in U.S. democratic institutions, sow doubt about the integrity of our electoral process, and undermine confidence in the institutions of the U.S. government,” but it does not explain how

    What’s there to explain, Ed? The email release made Hillary and the DNC look bad. That they were true makes it all the worse. Eroding faith in political leaders and parties is, like, 90% of the way to a declaration of war when they are the right politicians and parties.

  11. The “hacked election” meme is certainly one of the strangest things I’ve seen. Any polls or idea who is buying this story? Or is it just a sop to the base (based on the poll above)?

    1. Any polls or idea who is buying this story?

      I’m going to go out on a limb and say people who are upset with the result of the election and some of their friends who otherwise wouldn’t care.

    2. Greenwald’s story in the Intercept reports that 50% of Hillary’s voters believe that “Russia tampered with vote tallies to elect Donald Trump”. 9% of Trump voters agree.

      The original story on the Economist/YouGov poll.

      Since it doesn’t line up with today’s DNC talking points, I’m fairly confident this poll is directionally reliable.

      1. directionally reliable, Band or Album?

        1. I think Album. Either from the unknown band’s chaotic early days or the artistic turn around.

      2. CatoTheChipper|12.30.16 @ 6:49PM|#
        Greenwald’s story in the Intercept reports that 50% of Hillary’s voters believe that “Russia tampered with vote tallies to elect Donald Trump”. 9% of Trump voters agree

        So the overwhelming majority of Trump voters believe that Hillary released the emails herself, intentionally destroying her own candidacy, because …….. ???

        Hell, we know they’d stick with Trump even if he shot someone to death in broad daylight, in Times Square.
        So believing Hillary did it, and/or Podesta, is easy to imagine. Thanks for the proof!

        1. intentionally destroying her own candidacy

          I’d like to see some polling evidence that the driving issue for voters in OH, PA, FL, and MI was emails leaked from the DNC.

          Hillary did it, and/or Podesta

          Or any of the literally thousands of people who worked for the DNC and Clinton campaign.

          1. kbolino

            So the overwhelming majority of Trump voters believe that Hillary released the emails herself, intentionally destroying her own candidacy,

            I’d like to see some polling evidence that the driving issue for voters in OH, PA, FL, and MI was emails leaked from the DNC.

            Pay attention, slick. You lied about my words, which I corrected, then you change the subject entirely.

            As crazy as I said!

            Or any of the literally thousands of people who worked for the DNC and Clinton campaign

            Backed into a corner, suffering severe denial, HILLARY DESTROYED HER OWB CAMPAIGN ,,, or Podesta … or their own staff!!!!.

            The prosecution rests (while laughing hyserically)

            1. you change the subject entirely

              … you just “lectured” me on following threads, yet… you can’t follow a thread

            2. Fun fact, Michael Hihn: Not everybody working for the DNC was a Clinton supporter.

              1. Fun fact: Now the raging — and desperate — dumbfuck is backed into claiming a DNC staffer sabotaged Hillary — to elect Trump— as a non-Clinton supporter

                Fun fact, Michael Hihn: Not everybody working for the DNC was a Clinton supporter.

                Trump insulted his own cult, claiming they would still support him, even if he murdered someone in broad daylight.

                They may not be THAT stupid — but see how desperate this one is to coverup his own lies.

                Show of hands. How many non-Clinttonm Democrats would intentionally sabotage Clinton to elect Trump.

        2. WTF does Hillary’s emails have to do with speculation over the hacking of vote tallies? It’s not even midnight, and you’ve already apparently consumed more booze than Andre the Giant.

          1. Dumbass goes CRAZIER!

            RedRocksDumbfuck
            WTF does Hillary’s emails have to do with speculation over the hacking of vote tallies?

            Absolutely nothing. This is the second time I’ve corrected your fuckup on the TOPIC OF THE STORY HERE. Pay attention, Slick

            YOU believe they hacked the DNC and maybe Podesta … to manipulate vote tallies. (OMFG) HOW MANY VOTES ARE COUNTED AT DNC HEADQUARTERS???

            And you NEVER HEARD OF THE SCANDAL FROM THE LEAKED EMAIILS IN THE CLOSING DAYS OF THE CAMPAIGN? YOU DON’T KNOW THE ISSUE **AT ALL?**

            Do you know what year we’re entering? The day of the week? Who’s the VP-Elect? How many inches in a foot.

            It’s not even midnight, and you’ve already apparently consumed more booze than Andre the Giant.

            I didn’t totality humiliate myself … FOUR TIMES. You OWN that.

            I’m done here. I feel guilty, ridiculing he mentally handicapped. Just. keep babbling as long as you can.

            SURVEY.L Who committed the absolute most God-awful stupid attack. RedRocks the Bimbo chaser here. Or kbolino here? …….. Or kbolino HERE?

            (My tone and boldface in defense of aggression, stalking and harassment.
            by a proven psycho)

            1. Fuckin LOL–you really have gone unHihnged here.

              YOU believe they hacked the DNC and maybe Podesta … to manipulate vote tallies. (OMFG)

              Umm, the link pointed out that 50% of Democrats think the vote tallies are hacked. No one else is here buying that nonsense.

              And you NEVER HEARD OF THE SCANDAL FROM THE LEAKED EMAIILS IN THE CLOSING DAYS OF THE CAMPAIGN? YOU DON’T KNOW THE ISSUE **AT ALL?**

              You seem awfully upset that Hillary’s campaign was humiliated by their own words. Can’t imagine why that would be.

              I didn’t totality humiliate myself … FOUR TIMES. You OWN that.

              LOL–you’re humiliating yourself all over this thread. You just lack the self-awareness to understand it.

    3. The “hacked election” meme is certainly one of the strangest things I’ve seen.

      Wait for it …

      Any polls or idea who is buying this story? Or is it just a sop to the base (based on the poll above)?

      If you ever follow the news, the information was widely reported.

      How many idiots would you guess are convinced that Hillary intentionally leaked her own emails, to destroy her candidacy? Because she’s been a secret Trump supporters all along. (Bill no longer grabs her crotch)

  12. the imprecise language

    Certainly not to be confused with #fakenews. That’s only something that helps Trump get elected.

  13. Instead, Russia President Vladimir Putin invited the children of American diplomats to the annual children’s Christmas party at the Kremlin

    I hadn’t heard that. That’s top grade trolling right there. You know, graded on the current curve, Putin may actually be an evil super genius.

    1. At the Kremlin’s Christmas party, the children all got fancy teddy bears.

      1. Better check them for microphones and hidden cameras.

      2. Teddy bears with Trump hair!

  14. Have the “Intelligence Community” provided any evidence of this Russian hacking?

    Or is this now like the Queen of Hearts, ‘Sentence first ? verdict afterwards.’

    1. You expect Obama to start waiting for evidence with less than a month left in office. He only waits for evidence when wants to delay until he can drop an issue as old news.

      1. “Dude. That was like two years ago.”

        Some nameless Pajama Boy minion whose name is forgotten.

  15. Don’t you just love it when a plan comes together. 😉

  16. I’m running on a platform to abolish safe spaces for trolls. Can I count on your vote?

  17. Don’t blame me – it was like that when I got here.

  18. You did it people – congrats! Party at Cheesecake factory??

  19. I would like to thank all my filthy little anarcho-frankentrumpkensteins who made this day possible. Couldn’ta dunnit withoutcha!

  20. Learn to APPRECIATE your own APOTHEOSIS.

  21. “The document explains that hackers sent out a thousand phishing emails, looking for someone to click on an attachment and thus provide them access into the targeted system via malware.”

    That does not speak well for the intelligence of the people who work at the DNC.

    Does the report say anything about whether any of them sent money to princes with cash flow problems in Nigeria?

    1. Hey it’s the FBI. They wouldn’t lie to you.

      1. I guess the people at the DNC will open anything you send to them!

        They’re like Ron Jeremy–who will read anything you put on the teleprompter.

        Well, if I wasn’t supposed to open it, why did they send it to me? How could I have known what was in it if I didn’t open it?

        Besides, I needed to translate it anyway–because the whole email was in Russian!

        LOL

        1. Ron Jeremy, Ron Burgundy, you know what I’m talkin’ about!

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMXRxNbPvGI

        2. Oooh! Porn MadLibs. Great idea!

          They’re like Ron Jeremy–who will ____ anything you put on the _______.

        3. Goddamit Ken, way to break a streak.

    2. This should be #1 or at least #1a on this story. The report dresses everything up with cyber-jargon, but even there it says that 2 things happened:

      1) Somebody at the DNC clicked on a link that put malware on their computer
      2) Somebody at the DNC got an email asking for his password and said “Uhhh…sure, here’s my password.”

      The story should be that these people are morons. These are the top of the Top Men. And they’re so fucking dumb that a 10 year old kid could’ve easily “hacked” them. I don’t know how they’re getting away with calling this “hacking”. This is the internet equivalent of a guy on the street asking if he can hold your wallet while you go inside.

      1. A week or so ago, there was a story about how the Republicans also got a lot of phishing emails (who doesn’t?) but their spam filter filtered them out.

        1. Anyway, my point being, the DNC wasn’t bright enough to have decent spam filters on their email servers.

          1. You get what you pay to have installed in your broom closet.

  22. A friend, former FBI, was asked at a speech he was giving, why the FBI didn’t arrest some specific Soviet agents as soon as they were identified. The answer he gave was that the FBI wants to keep them under surveillance (in the specific case for twenty years!) to see with whom they interface (e.g. American traitors) and even perhaps “turn” them. So I would imagine that the last thing the FBI wants is to see these 35 Russian agents booted out of the country and their spy-nests shut down.

    1. “Obama wastes years of funding on scraped investigation. Less at 11.”

      1. *scrapped

  23. I imagine everyone is holding their breath waiting for President Not My Fault tin-pot POS to leave. I cant imagine anyone is taking him seriously anymore. Putin’s response to his ‘sanctions’ is a perfect example.

  24. “House Speaker Paul Ryan called the sanctions long overdue”.

    Just to be clear, the link you gave from that sentence does not say that Paul Ryan is endorsing the sanctions because of the election hacking.

    He’s saying that sanctions against Russia are long overdue for years and years of Putin’s misdeeds.

    In regards to the election hack, your link quotes Paul Ryan as saying, “He said Russia’s interference in U.S. elections showed the Obama administration’s “ineffective foreign policy that has left America weaker in the eyes of the world.”

    http://www.nola.com/politics/i…..nctio.html

    It doesn’t look like his endorsement of the sanctions is about the hacking per se.

    P.S. I’m sure the Times-Picayune is a lovely newspaper.

  25. “That the Obama administration waited until its last month in office to make these disclosures certainly works to undermine confidence.”

    I’ll say!

    The Obama administration knew that Russian spies were posing as diplomats and using their dacha on the eastern shore as a spy base–but they didn’t do anything about it until Hillary Clinton lost the election?!

    How is that credible?

    Who’s being fired for incompetence? Tell me it’s somebody!

    Either that or Obama is full of shit.

  26. And you certainly don’t have to be as disturbingly incurious as Donald Trump seems to be about Russian intelligence operations?

    I’ll admit it, I’m not curious about the depths of “Russian hacking of the election” because I have no reason to believe it’s the case. The word of buttsore Democrats notwithstanding.

  27. How did the Russian phishers figure out that John Podesta wanted to increase his penis size?

    1. Roughly half of all American men have smaller than average penises. sooner or later someone would have opened it.

      1. It may be a coincidence that it was the Democrats who opened the spam, or one could continue with the probabilistic argument and conclude that it was more likely a Democrat who would be in that part of the distribution

  28. I have a dumb question. Do they have any evidence that the WikiLeaks info actually came from these phishing scams, or is that made up too?

    I know, the fact that A happened, then B happened means that the Russians did it.

    It’s just like what I used to say, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, is it still Bush’s fault?

    1. They are spinning a story that Julian Assange is a Soviet Russian agent who gets his information from the NKVD KGB GRU. Assange has categorically denied that Wikileaks obtained the information from the Russians, therefore it was obtained from the Russians.

      How do we know this? Well, The Guardian reports that Assange is on record as saying that he supports Trump and that he thinks that Russia has an open and transparent government with no need for a Wikileaks. Of course, Glenn Greenwald has proven that this is as fake as Pope Francis’ endorsement of Trump.

      Frum tweeted the fake news as fact and got over 7000 retweets. Not even Orwell could imagine the bullshit that the US government is spouting. A related story: CNN reports that the Russians are closing down the Anglo-American School based on US State Department sources without asking the Russians. Russian Foreign Ministry says the story is a lie. Who you gonna believe?

    2. No, they’re pulling a bait and switch, trying to make people accept without proof that, because the Russians hacked the DNC and copied their data, they were also the party that leaked that data to Wikileaks in order to influence the election*. The problem is that, if the Democrats’ security was total shit (note that the Sanders campaign also hacked them, stealing voter data, allegedly), then pretty much every state agency on the planet, along with any number of criminals, hackivists, disgruntled employees, and so on also hacked them.

      The CIA is selling this shit because cold war is their business model. They might well have planted the evidence of Russian involvement — they’re certainly not above hacking into Democrats’ system and tampering with their files, as Sen. Feinstein can attest. The rest of the Dem-op media are selling it because they want to de-legitimize Trump’s win.

      *Actually, they’re using language like “Russia hacked the election” to suggest to the less-informed that Russia actually tampered with election results, not that they maybe leaked information proving the Democrats were corrupt scum. The second layer of deception is repeated stating things that are at best sort of vaguely suggested by anonymous officials as official, universally accepted truths (textbook Big Lie). The bait-and-switch is a third layer of deception to snare people smart enough to notice the other two.

  29. So, if the media and democrats at large have any standards then doesn’t that mean that the 2008 election was hacked as well? After all Sarah Palin’s emails were hacked and they were only too gleeful to dig through that as a news source.

    If it weren’t for double standards they would have no standards at all.

  30. This a real life Tom Clancy story! Its about as much fun as I expected.

  31. The FBI and DHS joint report does explain how the DNC was hacked but offers little new information about that
    So if there was little new information, you already knew that the DNC was hacked, which makes the alleged in the headline a bit awkward.

    The CIA, FBI and DHS say the DNC was hacked, that however is mere allegation.
    The FBI says there were no grounds to indict Hillary, and no evidence ever revealed that classified info. was stolen, but that’s different.

    The United States was, for example, sure that North Korea was behind the hacking of Sony, and then decided it wasn’t. The machinations of the intelligence community are notoriously lacking in transparency, making a substantive evaluation of its claims exceedingly difficult.

    Yes,so best to make up facts as we wish.

    Oh wait, this is reason.com, where Republicans pose as libertarians for the most part.

    Something something libtard, leftist… should be said in the responses.

    1. I don’t think it’s really disputed that the DNC was hacked (even an inside job would fall into that category, really). You’re sort of leaving the word “Russia” out of it, which is kind of a key point. Given that any number of parties could have hacked them, the more critical point is which party leaked the data to Wikileaks. If Russia hacked the Democrats and then stuck the data in a basement somewhere in Moscow, well, that’s what governments do. It doesn’t affect elections.

      The FBI says there were no grounds to indict Hillary, and no evidence ever revealed that classified info. was stolen, but that’s different.

      The FBI was not so strong about classified info being stolen. IIRC, they basically said it could have easily been stolen, but it would be impossible to definitely prove.

      As far as indictment, they said that while her actions violated the letter of the law, no reasonable prosecutor would pursue charges. Note that he didn’t say the action would be unreasonable (i.e. immoderate), but that the person would be unreasonable. For example, mounting a criminal investigation of your boss’s party’s Presidential candidate would be career suicide, if not actual suicide, and you would be undermined in so many ways (particularly if, as was the case, you were aware the AG was meeting said candidate’s spouse in secret) that it would be a futile gesture.

    2. About the only indisputable fact at this point is Democrats and IT don’t mix very well.

      1. Maybe Podesta should’ve wiped his hard drive “like with a cloth or something.”

        Dishonest morons.

  32. A cybertech timeline of administration:
    – 2009: more emphasis on cyberwarfare exploits, Probably ends w/ the robust Stuxnet virus that while targeted at Iran ended up using a variety of new exploits, including jumping air gaps by USB and cd, and spread worldwide. HLS doesn’t seem to be aware of what other 3 letter agencies are doing, and only Symantec and a few other organizations are talking about this
    – 2010: multiple MSM articles are out on the topic; Stuxnet is found to be mostly in Iran, but also in machines and PLCs globally, including in US infrastructure and a Russian power facility
    – 2010: without admitting to anything, HRC says US has slowed Iran’s nuclear progress ( but even knowing about the hacking still decides to use personal email server)
    – 2011 to 2014: exploits used similar to Stuxnet show up in a variety of viruses including keyloggers (code, after all, doesn’t go away even if encrypted). Many use Windows server management flaws that remain unaddressed
    – 2014/2015: Concerns arise about HRC use of server, but nobody in Whitehouse or MSM thinks it is a big deal even though it appears at a minimum to be vulnerable to man in middle attacks

  33. Continued….

    – Summer 2015: DWS does Bernie with apparent blessing of DNC; Wikileaks releases leaked files; DNC has also discovered a supposed hack but tells MSM that only minor files stolen, like Trump opposition profile. The Whitehouse is concerned because of the DWS scandal, but not the leaks or the minor hack
    – Podesta spearfished
    – First Crowdstrike report paid for by DNC talks only about commonly available exploits, but like a good vendor raises possibilities of Russian involvement
    – Whitehouse unconcerned in Sept/Oct, doesn’t think this will impact election
    – HRC loses election to Trump
    – MSM and others talk about hacked voting machines and recounts; it bears no fruit
    – Whitehouse and anonymous sources raise hacking as an issue, start building straw man of probabilities
    – JAR released, offers nothing new or definitive, only exploit mention is so common you can even get code for it on GitHub. Press releases are long on conjecture short on details, other than “but Russia”
    – Whitehouse sanctions Russia for Probably hacking DNC, though JAR is vague on if spearfishing or exploits, talks about other attempts, says senior Rus officials “must have known”
    – Putin throws party to troll current POTUS

    1. You forgot how the GOP reported hacking their party database… then retracted it to make it a partisan issue,
      Like Trump retracting 90% of his campaign promises, while seeking a top income tax rate of 15% for himself.
      What’s YOUR marginal tax rate?

      1. Well, my goal is as much long term capital gains as possible, since it is the lowest tax rate, and implies a long term view. I consider it prudent, and in the cases in the past in which I’ve had investors (including a railroad technology company, of which “John Galt” would certainly approve), its improved their returns as well. Or do you think the government would do a better job with creating jobs and societal benefit if I just gave them all the money? Doesn’t seems like high taxes are a very libertarian position, Jr…

        1. Frankly, it’s crackers to slip a rozzer, the dropsy in snide.
          I’ll stick with that.

          And unless you’re very low income, you’d pay 15% on those gains only, where Trump would pay it on everything. Do you realize YOU will pay 15% on “phantom” gains, no indexing for inflation.

          Doesn’t seems like high taxes are a very libertarian position, Jr…

          If you think that’s the issue here, then I must guess at the cause of your confusion. Apologies if I guess wrong.

          Crony capitalism is not a libertarian position either, special carve outs for a favored few — with one exception. Our anti-gummint faction doesn’t give a shit about liberty. Instead of a love of liberty they are driven by a hatred of government. To them, ANY tax reduction. to ANYONE is a victory because they THINK it shrinks government. If anyone objects to a targeed special loophole, they yell, “CONSPIRING WITH STATISTS.” in the thick dialect affected by goobers.

          Or do you think the government would do a better job with creating jobs and societal benefit if I just gave them all the money?

          At the very bottom of the pile, the very dumbest goobers ask questions like that to defend crony capitalism. Why does that make them so fucking stupid? They beat their chests, claiming to be libertarians but they are unwitting tools of the political elite.

          Again, I apologize if I wrongly assumed the cause of your confusion.

  34. Hey dumbass. Protecting us from abuse and spying is a legitimate function of government.
    Was he defending the Democrat Party, “a non-government agency” or American voters and governance?

    You would allow hacking and spying of our employers and businesses because they’re “non-government agencies?” REALLY?

    The federal government has not shown why it ought to be trusted to be responsible for the cybersecurity needs of non-governmental agencies.

    Chill. They aren’t, It’s a backstop. And a legitimae funcrtion to protect us from enemies foreign and domestic. You think the political parties will say — “Hey, we don’t have to protect ourselves any longer?” REALLY?

    How will government abuse the task — false accusations of spying? (gasp)
    This just enhances the likelihood hat Reason has become a mouthpiece for Fox News and the GOP.
    Like its commentariat.

    1. Hi Michael,

      It was wonderful to bump into you at the grocery store the other day, thanks for saying hello! I’m usually pretty spaced out after the gym, and low on nutrition. I’ll have to tell you the details of this crazy diet later.

      I didn’t want to say anything while she was there with you, but you are right, definitely not worth the value from that Russian mail order bride service. I’d be angry too, but maybe they will still honor the return policy since it’s only a week since it expired. Hope it all works out, and hope you still manage to have a wonderful New Year!

      1. Hi!
        It’s crackers to slip a rozzer, the dropsy in snide.

    2. Hey dumbass. Protecting us from abuse and spying is a legitimate function of government

      Maybe these high-IQ vanguards shouldn’t have clicked on elementary-grade phishing links. But shit, this is about blaming Russia in our glorious new Cold War, not examining the utter imbecility of the Hillary Clinton campaign.

      1. Red Rocks seems compelled toward massive fuckups,

        Hey dumbass. Protecting us from abuse and spying is a legitimate function of government

        Maybe these high-IQ vanguards shouldn’t have clicked on elementary-grade phishing links.

        Sarcasm can be dangerous, if it sets up a manifestly stupid statement,

        But shit, this is about blaming Russia in our glorious new Cold War,

        Umm, why do you say that protecting us from, spying and other abuses by ANY foreign government is NOT a legitimate function of government?

        not examining the utter imbecility of the Hillary Clinton campaign.

        I can’t imagine how to deal with the utter imbecility of that statement … on top of saying that government has no legitimate function to protect us from …. do you know what “espionage” is?

        1. Umm, why do you say that protecting us from, spying and other abuses by ANY foreign government is NOT a legitimate function of government?

          You nuked the strawman like Obama wants to nuke Russia.

          I can’t imagine how to deal with the utter imbecility of that statement ..

          Probably because it’s a full blown fact that Hillary ran a shitty campaign.

    3. Chill. They aren’t, It’s a backstop. And a legitimate function to protect us from enemies foreign and domestic.

      The Feds lost any credibility on the cyberdefense front when it was revealed the NSA paid American companies to use insecure RNGs in their cryptosystems, and abused the NIST standards processes to undermine US private cybersecurity.

      Not to mention the fact that, unlike US corporations, there are many documented cases of US agencies finding vulnerabilities, and not disclosing them to vendors for months or years (usually until someone else finds and reports it), just so they can exploit them for longer for investigative purposes. They treat us pretty much the same as foreign spy agencies do.

      Any attempt by the Feds to increase their authority in this space should be treated as what it is, an encroachment by a domestic enemy set on undermining the citizenry’s 1st and 4th amendment rights.

      It wasn’t always like this (DES-era NSA actually cared about protecting US communications, to some extent), but it’s a good operating rule now.

      1. . And a legitimate function to protect us from enemies foreign and domestic.

        The Feds lost any credibility on the cyberdefense front when it was revealed the NSA paid American companies to use insecure RNGs in their cryptosystems, and abused the NIST standards processes to undermine US private cybersecurity.

        How is that relevant to … anything?
        Why does that mean government has no legitimate function in protecting us from espionage?
        Why would corporations accept payments to dismantle their cybersecurity? Or are you saying their cybersecurity experts were conned into destroying their protection. NOBODY’S DATA IS SAFE?
        Are you being paid by Putin?
        Soros?

        Any attempt by the Feds to increase their authority in this space

        Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether government has a legitimate role in protecting us from espionage.
        If you mean government has no ILlegimate role, who doesn’t know that?

        1. Why does that mean government has no legitimate function in protecting us from espionage?

          What is it that you think the government was supposed to have done? Nothing can address it now, except for the DNC to adopt better practices. The government can advise on that front but unless you are advocating that the government should take over IT security for private organizations, then there isn’t much to do. Maybe DHS can send John Podesta to anti-phishing training, but I think he’s already learned his lesson.

          1. If you get robbed, get better locjs.

            Lol

            1. If you get robbed, get better locjs.

              A good lock isn’t going to help much if you’re stupid enough to actually give a thief your key. In that case you probably shouldn’t be shocked when they take your stuff.

        2. How is that relevant to … anything?
          Why does that mean government has no legitimate function in protecting us from espionage?

          Having a legitimate function is one thing, being able/willing to carry it out is another. The incredibly vague report and lack of supporting evidence (beyond saying “trust us, we agree internally”) tells me that once again, political purposes are supplanting actual national interest.

          It’s the same story with the states’ police powers. In theory they exist to protect people’s life, liberty and property. In practice they go the other way often enough to make one consider whether it was a good idea to give them such powers.

          I’m saying I’d be mighty uncomfortable with trusting the government as a “backstop for security”, given that any advice they give me may actually be aimed at undermining the security I set up, to make it easier to get my customers’ data in their anti-(terrorism/drug/tax evasion) operations.

          Letting the fox guard the henhouse, so to speak.

          Why would corporations accept payments to dismantle their cybersecurity? Or are you saying their cybersecurity experts were conned into destroying their protection.

          Bit of both, mostly the latter.

          1. How is that relevant to … anything? Why does that mean government has no legitimate function in protecting us from espionage?

            Having a legitimate function is one thing, being able/willing to carry it out is another.

            Precisely my point.

  35. HAPPY NEW YEARS

    I can see what your saying… Raymond `s article is surprising, last week I bought a top of the range Acura from making $4608 this-past/month and-a little over, $10,000 this past month . with-out any question its the easiest work I’ve ever had . I began this five months/ago and almost straight away startad bringin in minimum $82 per-hr

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  36. The interesting part about the public report is how little effort they make to tie the attack to the Russians.

    Their entire argument boils down to labelling APT-28, APT-29 and GRIZZLY STEPPE (the CIA’s name for the spearfishing operation that got Podesta’s emails) as “Russian”, with no real justification.

    Now, the revealed information shows that APT-28 and APT-29 work together, and use relatively advanced tools with recognisable (unique) signatures, so I’ll buy that it’s a nation state, or other high calibre attacker. Of course there’s no evidence that it’s Russia, and not China, Iran, GHCQ or the NSA in the report, you’ll have to take their word for it.

    The more interesting one is that GRIZZLY STEPPE is blamed on APT-28, but the level of sophistication seems much lower, as they simply harvest system credentials and then manually use them to access various systems. It’s an attack anyone with basic tech competence and decent amounts of free time could pull off. So why it’s tied to APT-28 isn’t revealed at all, and its identification as “Russian” is even less credible.

    1. Well written comments, and clearly you understand problems with the JAR reports and definitive attribution. Interestingly enough, of all the media figures that have made comments, Matt Taibbi ( of all people!) has an intelligent position on the topic.
      Obama has had years to get the cyber conflict issues sorted out, but probably has been as much an instigator as diplomat ( btw, IMHO it’s hard to reconcile complaints about cyberwar and yet not keeping ICANN control). I don’t expect much from the Donald on this, but hope lessons learned include:
      – no important American official should be doing US national, highly confidential domestic or international policy work on personal email servers (yes, Hilllary should have been prosecuted)
      – There isn’t really clear international agreements on defining cyberwar, spying, etc. Agreeing on the rules of the game with Russia and the EU would be a good start.
      – If three letter agencies that aren’t supposed to operate domestically release code targeting foreign powers that boomerangs back into US or ends up outside of targeted nation state (hypothetically, this is what happened with Stuxnet ), they should be required to inform WH and appropriate cabinet and Congress members AND help HLS address issue.

      1. “- There isn’t really clear international agreements on defining cyberwar, spying, etc. Agreeing on the rules of the game with Russia and the EU would be a good start.”

        If this had occurred, there’s a good chance Obo’s (and that hag’s) talking points would have been more limited.
        I’m not positing that they would avoid doing so for that reason, just that there are no strong incentives to do so and there are to avoid doing so.
        As a general rule, the state prefers vague definitions of criminal acts as it gives the state more leverage against those who act against it.

  37. HAPPY NEW YEARS

    upto I looked at the paycheck saying $9861 , I accept that my father in law was like they say trully bringing in money in their spare time online. . there best friend haz done this less than 8 months and a short time ago repayed the dept on there appartment and bourt a great Citro?n 2CV . see at this site

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  38. Yeah, because Drumpf looks bad

  39. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.homejobs7.com

  40. Let’s simplify this; Obama’s entire administration undermines confidence in U.S. Government. He was unqualified when he first ran, he never came up to speed, and he’s going to sh*t all over everything on his way out. I know a lot of people cringe at the idea of President Trump, but I’m not at all sure I see how he can be worse than the jug-eared incompetent currently packing his bags.

    Amd don’t get me started on the criminal shrew who opposed Trump.

  41. Well besides Hihn I’m probably the only other one on here at this point but anyway……

    OT: Rang in the New Year with a good old one-two nutpunch by watching Do Not Resist and Of Men and Dogs in the same day. Both are good documentaries and I almost want to get back on Facederp to try to encourage some of the sheeple to watch them. Almost.

    Do Not Resist (available on Amazon Prime) while worthwhile was a little bit of a let down. Heavy on Ferguson footage and ominous music but kind of light on substance. Really was hoping for more discussion of the impact of the drug war and the trampling of the 4th amendment. I think they were attempting to let the footage speak for itself, which it does, but it fails to educate someone who hasn’t thought about the implications of police militarization. It is still a good wake up call for those who might be receptive. LEO’s and their unconditional supporters will declare it biased and hand wave it away.

    Of Men And Dogs (streamed Amazon for $4.99) was truly excellent and will not be so easily dismissed. It’s pretty hard to watch clip after clip of dogs being executed and I think even the more boorish copsucker would have a hard time justifying the documented puppicide (although I’m sure they’d go through all sorts of mental and moral contortions to do so). Since sympathy for animals always holds more water with the general populace than dead criminals and oppressed poor people I think it’s a great tool to raise awareness.

    1. Anyhow, I highly encourage anyone to watch, even though it’s not gonna leave you feeling good. Alright Hihn (or John Galt Jr or whatever sock you are using today), proceed to berate me as a Paulista goober and boldface about my verbal aggression….

      1. My favorite part was when he posted, “Frankly, it’s crackers to slip a rozzer, the dropsy in snide.” under his real name and his sock puppet, and then acted as if John Galt Jr wasn’t him here

        I’ve seen Hihn’s comments on other blogs and he’s not nearly this unhinged. It wouldn’t surprise me if “Michael Hihn” was actually our beloved manic-obsessive Mary Stack, who’s been known to shit up threads.

        1. I haven’t been around long enough to know who Mary Stack is. Based on his [very old] liberty issues blog and the fact that his trolling style lacks any variety (picks fight, digresses from main point into non sequitur/unfounded accusation/cry bullying; declares himself ‘winner’; continues to corpse fuck thread for 3 days), I think Michael Hihn is his actual identity. He uses several socks (John Galt II/John Galt Jr) that he unconvincingly uses converse with himself (and usually fucks up as you pointed out above. Usually he gives up pretty quickly and drops all pretense of him being anyone other than Michael Hihn.

          My all time favorite moment was a couple months ago when he was chased out of the forum by 3-4 other people also logged in as some variation of his name. He got so confused that I think he couldn’t keep his shiftiness straight and just left.

          1. Meant to say “shitty-ness.” Anyway he was posting his drivel on here last night at the stroke of midnight so you know ol’ Mike is pretty shy on friends and meaningful human interaction. If what keeps the old coot going is being the self declared “winner” on unmoderated forums I truly feel bad for the guy. I’ve read on here that ‘no true libertarian has any friends’ but I think he takes it to a whole other level.

    2. Corrcrion….”Of Dogs and Men” not “Of Men and Dogs”

      1. (snicker)
        I’m the one with an empty life …. but these goobers have ANOTHER lengthy thread, totally devoid of ANY content ?. ENTIRELY verbal aggression and personal attacks, but … THEY AREN’T BULLIES AND AGGRESSORS!!

        Or stupid enough to do it in public!! (lol)

        They can’t deal with ANY issue of substance, because I (a) crush them, (b) ridicule them and (c) point out their aggression (like here)

        Their perversions now have a leader in Trump. The authoritarian mentality doesn’t mind making a blatant, public fool of itself, and/or being exposed as psychotic liars. To blowhards, it’s all about the bellowing.

        The few times they deal with an actual issue, they … like Trump … make asses of themselves. And just like Trump’s cult, they nurture each other’s wounds, boosting their frail egos, convinced that THEY are the Way and the Light.

        Eric Hoffer saw the common thread in every zealot and fanatic throughout human history, in his seminal study and book, The True Believers,

        “… hatred unifies True Believers”

        The same searing hatred that unifies my attckers in all their threads, with Bobertson as Lead Goober this time, INITIATING aggression out of thin air! See the PROUD attack dogs!! (All the same person)

        See them boost and comfort each other, the “unifying” that Hoffer brilliantly described.

        This too is defense against shameless aggression. Any CONTENT, goobers? Or more raging hatred from thugs? Thugs suffering severe denial.

      2. Psycho dancing in a mirror?

        If one does a page search, Red Rocks Dickin Bombos has 22 comments
        a) Absolutely none has any actual content
        b) All 22 launch aggression, personal attacks devoid of all content, at a single person.
        c) But he’s not a stalker
        d) Not one sick fuck
        e) And not a 16-year-old who giggles about “Dickin Bimbos”

        Now Bob Boberson, 5 comments, corpse-fucking a thread “he” was never in … on a totally irrelevant topic … with a personal attack on …. guess who? (lol)
        1) Every single one launches aggression, personal attacks
        2) except one which corrects his own screwup.
        3) And EVERY cycle has a dialog with Red Rocks, within mere minutes of each other. (Dumb?)
        4) But there are no raging psychos here.

        (AGAIN, my tone, boldface and all caps are in response to multiple repeating aggression by a deranged stalker. Thugs don’t get to also control how their victims choose to respond. And yes, I LOVE tweaking their noses like this, to see and ridicule ever more childish hissy fits!)

        (shouting down all dissent and disagreement has been the defining trait of authoritarians for all of human history ,.. toward those who DARE to have an actual mind)

        Shall we see MORE hatred, totally devoid of actual content?

  42. Aaliyah. I see what you mean… Edwin`s artlclee is unimaginable, on friday I bought themselves a Cadillac after making $5642 this past five weeks and-more than, 10/k lass month. this is definitely the best-job Ive ever done. I began this six months/ago and pretty much straight away was earning at least $75, per-hr. Learn More Here

    _+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  43. Isaiah. if you, thought Sheila`s artlclee is unimaginable, on saturday I got Citro?n DS since getting a cheque for $7153 this-last/five weeks and just over $10 thousand last-munth. with-out a doubt this is the most comfortable work Ive ever had. I began this 6 months ago and pretty much straight away began to bring home minimum $70 p/h. why not look here

    ??????????????????????????????> http://www.homejobs7.com

  44. I basically profitcloseto $6k-$8k every month doing an online job. For those of you who arepreparedto do easy at home jobs for 2h-5h each day at your house and earnvaluablepaycheck while doing it…

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  45. My best uncal ex-wife makes Bucks75/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over Bucks9000 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site…..
    ================ http://www.homejobs7.com

  46. Bentley . true that Ashley `s blurb is good… last week I got Lotus Esprit sincee geting a check for $5815 this-last/five weeks and-even more than, ten/k lass-month . without a doubt it is the easiest work I’ve ever done . I began this seven months/ago and almost immediately startad earning minimum $77… per-hour . more tips here

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  47. Do You want to get good income at home? do you not know how to start earnings on Internet? there are some popular methods to earn huge income at your home, but when people try that, they bump into a scam so I thought i must share a verified and guaranteed way for free to earn a great sum of money at home. Anyone who is interested should read the given article…
    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, http://www.homejobs7.com

  48. my roomate’s step-mother makes $72 every hour on the computer . She has been out of a job for six months but last month her check was $13623 just working on the computer for a few hours. blog here

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  49. uptil I saw the paycheck for $7608 , I accept that…my… friend woz realey bringing home money in there spare time on their apple labtop. . there aunts neighbour has done this for under 18 months and at present paid the loans on there house and purchased a new Chrysler . Check This Out

    ==================== http://www.homejobs7.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.