DNC E-Mail Wikileaks

[Carpet_pissr]

Heh. A hacker whose name he says represents "The light of Lucifer"?

Are we sure it's not this guy?

[Anonymous Bosch]

Probably not. But in reading The Daily Beast piece Enough linked to earlier, Guccifer 2.0 attempted to mask their true location by way of a French proxy server. And "Such masking is not uncommon in government-sponsored operations, nor is it particularly difficult to accomplish." So case closed, what more decisive evidence could there be of a fiendish Putin-Trump conspiracy to overthrow the coronation of Imperatrix Clinton?

[malchior]

I imagine Hillary's bathroom server was less defended than that of the DNC...so it's reasonable that her server was hacked...especially if she was being targeted. Of course, I doubt anything would ever really happen to HRC, but it could affect voting which is fine by me.

Speaking from the belly of the trade - assuming her server was more or less defended is dicey at best. The DNC might have a similarly crappy set up. Plus it is generally easier to attack larger organizations since they usually have a greater attack surface. One way to think about it possibly is if it was just HRC and a couple of other people the chances of a spear phish attack succeeding went down dramatically just because there are less people to spear phish and affinity attacks (i.e. social engineering attacks) are less likely to work. Not that this is the only way to attack but it is usually the quickest/easiest way. Though there is an increased chance that a high end nation state actor would have zero days available to them but still social engineering attacks are way more likely. The DNC probably has hundreds and possibly thousands of email accounts and finding a weak link there is more a math game than anything else.

Probably not. But in reading The Daily Beast piece Enough linked to earlier, Guccifer 2.0 attempted to mask their true location by way of a French proxy server. And "Such masking is not uncommon in government-sponsored operations, nor is it particularly difficult to accomplish." So case closed, what more decisive evidence could there be of a fiendish Putin-Drumpf conspiracy to overthrow the coronation of Imperatrix Clinton?

I'm confused - are you implying that a proxy server would be an effective way to evade attribution of the attack? Cause if that is the assertion - I'd dispute that - proxies don't help much for that purpose.

[GreenGoo]

Julian Assange already stated that he has more e-mails and the dump will contain "enough evidence" to indict HRC.

If that's true I'd like to see her be indicted. If it's true.

[hepcat]

And the worry now is that they'll "release" fake emails designed to look worse than what's come out.

And now the party of Reagan is the tool of the KGB/FSB.

Sounds like something someone would say if they knew there were more damaging e-mails that hadn't been released yet....

Do you not give a shit?

Rip would happily hand over control of the United States to Putin if it meant Hillary would lose the election.

[Blackhawk]

Julian Assange already stated that he has more e-mails and the dump will contain "enough evidence" to indict HRC.

If that's true I'd like to see her be indicted. If it's true.

Let the guilty go free or have Lord Trump.

At this point, I have no forking clue what to hope for.

[Isgrimnur]

Does Assange really want a President Trump? I mean, it would keep his concern in business for years, but I have to think that an American Erdogan is somewhat against his philosophy for open governance.

[cheeba]

In other words, it's pretty damn insanely partisan to enter a thread about democrats objectively behaving like shit-heels and several media outlets who let the democrats own them and bitch about republicans.

Republicans are laughing off the fact that Vladimir Putin's spies broke into the files of an American political party and are now trying to use the information to influence our election. It's pretty damn insanely partisan not to care about foreign spies interfering in our politics when it happens to rebound in favor of your candidate.

My candidate is Bernie Sanders. Well now it's probably Gary Johnson. It's pretty much anybody other than the Big 2. As for the Russians, who cares? It's like complaining to the cops that a thief stole your cocaine and bomb collection. I don't care about the thief. Plus we've seen that money doesn't buy elections. If the Kochs can't beat Trump in the primaries then I'm not too worried about Russia.

Don't start shit, won't be no shit. The democrats started shit. If anything the Russians did the US a favor by shining a light on that crap.

[Blackhawk]

You don't find it at all bothersome that Russia is trying to determine who will be President next?

Hint: It won't be Bernie. Or Johnson.

[Defiant]

You don't find it at all bothersome that Russia is trying to determine who will be President next?

Hint: It won't be Bernie. Or Johnson.

Hey, put a spoiler alert around that, will ya?

[Anonymous Bosch]

Probably not. But in reading The Daily Beast piece Enough linked to earlier, Guccifer 2.0 attempted to mask their true location by way of a French proxy server. And "Such masking is not uncommon in government-sponsored operations, nor is it particularly difficult to accomplish." So case closed, what more decisive evidence could there be of a fiendish Putin-Trump conspiracy to overthrow the coronation of Imperatrix Clinton?

FTFY. You needn't edit out Trump's name from what I wrote; that's every bit as puerile as the antics of the candidate you're so anxious to deride.

I'm confused - are you implying that a proxy server would be an effective way to evade attribution of the attack? Cause if that is the assertion - I'd dispute that - proxies don't help much for that purpose.

No, I was just poking fun at the notion of a hacker attempting to mask their identity by way of a foreign server being held up as some sort of evidence of a government-sponsored operation. I mean FFS, the article itself even said that was not "particularly difficult to accomplish".

[Pyperkub]

In other words, it's pretty damn insanely partisan to enter a thread about democrats objectively behaving like shit-heels and several media outlets who let the democrats own them and bitch about republicans.

Republicans are laughing off the fact that Vladimir Putin's spies broke into the files of an American political party and are now trying to use the information to influence our election. It's pretty damn insanely partisan not to care about foreign spies interfering in our politics when it happens to rebound in favor of your candidate.

My candidate is Bernie Sanders. Well now it's probably Gary Johnson. It's pretty much anybody other than the Big 2. As for the Russians, who cares? It's like complaining to the cops that a thief stole your cocaine and bomb collection. I don't care about the thief. Plus we've seen that money doesn't buy elections. If the Kochs can't beat Trump in the primaries then I'm not too worried about Russia.

Don't start shit, won't be no shit. The democrats started shit. If anything the Russians did the US a favor by shining a light on that crap.

What "shit" are you saying the Democrats started?

[Rip]

You don't find it at all bothersome that Russia is trying to determine who will be President next?

Hint: It won't be Bernie. Or Johnson.

Who cares he has already been tea-bagging the current POTUS. Maybe if they pick one we can get a reach around with it.

[Holman]

Does Assange really want a President Trump? I mean, it would keep his concern in business for years, but I have to think that an American Erdogan is somewhat against his philosophy for open governance.

Assange had issued statements about how Turmp might be OK because we don't know what he'll do, while Clinton is 100% evil because she believes in using American power. Somewhere in there he even went out of his way to point out that he hates her personally because she said bad things about Julian Assange.

He even said that she would be terrible for a free press, somehow. Assange is kind of delusional.

[Enough]

Probably not. But in reading The Daily Beast piece Enough linked to earlier, Guccifer 2.0 attempted to mask their true location by way of a French proxy server. And "Such masking is not uncommon in government-sponsored operations, nor is it particularly difficult to accomplish." So case closed, what more decisive evidence could there be of a fiendish Putin-Trump conspiracy to overthrow the coronation of Imperatrix Clinton?

FTFY. You needn't edit out Trump's name from what I wrote; that's every bit as puerile as the antics of the candidate you're so anxious to deride.

I'm confused - are you implying that a proxy server would be an effective way to evade attribution of the attack? Cause if that is the assertion - I'd dispute that - proxies don't help much for that purpose.

No, I was just poking fun at the notion of a hacker attempting to mask their identity by way of a foreign server being held up as some sort of evidence of a government-sponsored operation. I mean FFS, the article itself even said that was not "particularly difficult to accomplish".

Yeah, that's some ice cold analysis. Way to demolish CrowdStrike and ThreatConnect.

Maybe you can compare notes with them at this year's Black Hat conference and show them how wrong they are, LOL. And just to clarify, I'm not calling for ignoring the content of the revealed emails. And I'm not saying that the state actor position is proven. What I am saying is it looks like a Russian link based on detailed breakdowns. Add this to Trump's campaign manager's well known history, the Trump pledge to eviscerate NATO, Julian Assange's complete hatred of Clinton, his previous work hosting a show on RT, and the fawning over Trump in Russian state-controlled media and yep I think we should be concerned. On the big picture level, voters should be damned concerned about how a Trump presidency not only kills off the internationalist stance Republicans have had going back to before Reagan, it also raises the specter of the US embracing Putin. Heck, Trump even has talked about how nice that would be.

Personally, what I think is most likely is that both the RNC and DNC have been or can be compromised by multiple hacks, and I wouldn't be surprised at all that Russia is on that list. We are only looking at the tip of the iceberg on how cyber can disrupt elections.

Edit, and the NYT is now reporting this morning that US intelligence agencies back the claim it was Russia.

[raydude]

In other words, it's pretty damn insanely partisan to enter a thread about democrats objectively behaving like shit-heels and several media outlets who let the democrats own them and bitch about republicans.

Republicans are laughing off the fact that Vladimir Putin's spies broke into the files of an American political party and are now trying to use the information to influence our election. It's pretty damn insanely partisan not to care about foreign spies interfering in our politics when it happens to rebound in favor of your candidate.

My candidate is Bernie Sanders. Well now it's probably Gary Johnson. It's pretty much anybody other than the Big 2. As for the Russians, who cares? It's like complaining to the cops that a thief stole your cocaine and bomb collection. I don't care about the thief. Plus we've seen that money doesn't buy elections. If the Kochs can't beat Trump in the primaries then I'm not too worried about Russia.

Don't start shit, won't be no shit. The democrats started shit. If anything the Russians did the US a favor by shining a light on that crap.

Silly Americans think short fingered vulgarian can run rings around ex-KGB agent. How little they know.
- Putin

[raydude]

Does Assange really want a President Trump? I mean, it would keep his concern in business for years, but I have to think that an American Erdogan is somewhat against his philosophy for open governance.

Assange had issued statements about how Turmp might be OK because we don't know what he'll do, while Clinton is 100% evil because she believes in using American power. Somewhere in there he even went out of his way to point out that he hates her personally because she said bad things about Julian Assange.

He even said that she would be terrible for a free press, somehow. Assange is kind of delusional.

Does anyone else find it weird that Assange doesn't give his two cents on whether Putin is evil? It's disconcerting at the very least that the leaks only seem to come out of Western governments. Nothing out of the Middle East or Russia.

[Holman]

Conservatives are talking like the DNC emails reveal dirty tricks or ballot tampering, when there's nothing of the sort. It's political professionals expressing their political opinions. That those opinions favor Clinton is embarrassing, but it's also totally expected. When the most shocking revelation is that party leaders liked one candidate more than another, you don't have a scandal; you have politics.

It's also worth noting that we lack context for just about all of this. Yes, someone suggested questioning Sanders' religious commitment, but you'll notice that this was never actually done, and that's probably because other professionals shot down the idea as dumb and wrong. You would think vicious collusion between the DNC and the Clinton campaign might have resulted in at least one public attack on Sanders, but there were none, not even a single negative ad.

Meanwhile, we have Putin trying to influence the US election, and Republications are unwilling to face the hugely chilling question of why he wants to give it to Trump.

[LordMortis]

Conservatives are talking like the DNC emails reveal dirty tricks or ballot tampering, when there's nothing of the sort. It's political professionals expressing their political opinions. That those opinions favor Clinton is embarrassing, but it's also totally expected. When the most shocking revelation is that party leaders liked one candidate more than another, you don't have a scandal; you have politics.

It's also worth noting that we lack context for just about all of this. Yes, someone suggested questioning Sanders' religious commitment, but you'll notice that this was never actually done, and that's probably because other professionals shot down the idea as dumb and wrong. You would think vicious collusion between the DNC and the Clinton campaign might have resulted in at least one public attack on Sanders, but there were none, not even a single negative ad.

Meanwhile, we have Putin trying to influence the US election, and Republications are unwilling to face the hugely chilling question of why he wants to give it to Trump.

I wouldn't say ballot tampering but I would say the DNC was wheeling and dealing for donations based on the Clinton win before she won.

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/20352

As to whether or not they have the authority to wheel and deal. That's a different question. I rather doubt they do but that makes the email chains... odd.

Other "shocking" revelations are that Politico sends their critical works to the DNC for approval and to allow for a preparation for response.

But as we all know, I'm already on the other side, so confirmation bias vs cognitive dissonance. *shrug*

[Ralph-Wiggum]

Is it really that surprising that the Democratic National Committee favored the candidate that was, you know, actually a Democrat? As others have said, as far as we can tell they didn't actually do any of the things they talked about in the emails. So just the fact that they favored the candidate that had worked with their party for 20+ years shouldn't surprise anyone.

[YellowKing]

Does anyone actually think the RNC "favored" Trump? I'm sure there's a ton of emails talking about ways to prevent him from getting the nomination.

[ImLawBoy]

On the opposite side of things, is it really surprising that a foreign government might try to influence the election of another government through less than savory ways? This is geopolitics 101, and I don't think any of us would be shocked to hear that the US might have tried to influence foreign elections in the past.

This is a tempest in a teapot both ways, but I am kind of enjoying seeing the partisans struggle to tell the other side how one concern is legitimate, but the other side is no big deal.

[Kurth]

On the opposite side of things, is it really surprising that a foreign government might try to influence the election of another government through less than savory ways? This is geopolitics 101, and I don't think any of us would be shocked to hear that the US might have tried to influence foreign elections in the past.

This is a tempest in a teapot both ways, but I am kind of enjoying seeing the partisans struggle to tell the other side how one concern is legitimate, but the other side is no big deal.

Totally agree with the "geopolitics 101" comment, but that shouldn't dull our outrage.

Classic American exceptionalism, but there's an awful lot of stuff I don't mind our government doing on the world stage (or behind the curtains of the world stage) that I sure as hell don't want being done by other governments -- like Putin's Russia -- and especially not by other governments to the U.S.

[ImLawBoy]

On the opposite side of things, is it really surprising that a foreign government might try to influence the election of another government through less than savory ways? This is geopolitics 101, and I don't think any of us would be shocked to hear that the US might have tried to influence foreign elections in the past.

This is a tempest in a teapot both ways, but I am kind of enjoying seeing the partisans struggle to tell the other side how one concern is legitimate, but the other side is no big deal.

Totally agree with the "geopolitics 101" comment, but that shouldn't dull our outrage.

Classic American exceptionalism, but there's an awful lot of stuff I don't mind our government doing on the world stage (or behind the curtains of the world stage) that I sure as hell don't want being done by other governments -- like Putin's Russia -- and especially not by other governments to the U.S.

Well, sure. I don't want other governments aiding/financing rebels to overthrow our government, either.

All this pearl clutching over the Russians hacking into e-mails still seems a bit silly to me. I don't particularly like it either, but what are we going to do? Send Putin a firm but polite letter asking him to stop hacking? Launch some missiles?

In one form or another, foreign governments trying to influence our elections has almost certainly happened in the past, and it will almost certainly happen again in the future. Our outrage isn't going to influence that at all.

[Anonymous Bosch]

All this pearl clutching over the Russians hacking into e-mails still seems a bit silly to me. I don't particularly like it either, but what are we going to do? Send Putin a firm but polite letter asking him to stop hacking? Launch some missiles?

In one form or another, foreign governments trying to influence our elections has almost certainly happened in the past, and it will almost certainly happen again in the future. Our outrage isn't going to influence that at all.

Amen. Every nation on earth is constantly trying to influence and dick around with foreign elections, ourselves included. Let's not forget, the Obama administration specifically funded efforts to unseat Netanyahu in last year’s Israeli parliamentary elections:

The State Department paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayers grants to an Israeli group that used the money to build a campaign to oust Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in last year’s Israeli parliamentary elections, a congressional investigation concluded Tuesday.

Some $350,000 was sent to OneVoice, ostensibly to support the group’s efforts to back Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement negotiations. But OneVoice used the money to build a voter database, train activists and hire a political consulting firm with ties to President Obama’s campaign — all of which set the stage for an anti-Netanyahu campaign, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations said in a bipartisan staff report.

[GreenGoo]

Does anyone actually think the RNC "favored" Trump? I'm sure there's a ton of emails talking about ways to prevent him from getting the nomination.

Never mind emails, there was near constant, open discussion which culminated in a vote to allow delegates to "vote their conscience" at the convention, which failed.

If that's not open rebellion, it's the next best thing. But somehow the DNC is bad because they discussed it behind closed doors, and then did basically nothing substantial to hinder Sanders?

I'm not a fan of some of this backroom dealing, but I know it goes on, and if the DNC is guilty of anything it's conspiracy, while the GOP would be guilty of actually trying to hinder drumpf and undermine the will of the people.

So give me a break. The whole thing is a non-issue unless you have a non-partisan issue with both parties.

[GreenGoo]

All this pearl clutching over the Russians hacking into e-mails still seems a bit silly to me. I don't particularly like it either, but what are we going to do? Send Putin a firm but polite letter asking him to stop hacking? Launch some missiles?

If I understand Rip's position correctly, it's to get teabagged by Russia. So there's that useful insight into the USA's relationship with Russia.

[ImLawBoy]

Never mind emails, there was near constant, open discussion which culminated in a vote to allow delegates to "vote their conscience" at the convention, which failed.

If that's not open rebellion, it's the next best thing. But somehow the DNC is bad because they discussed it behind closed doors, and then did basically nothing substantial to hinder Sanders?

Well, yeah. They assured Bernie's backers that they weren't favoring anyone, but then they were plotting behind the scenes against him. Doesn't matter whether they did anything substantial. Surely you can see why this might justifiably piss off Bernie's supporters?

The GOP, on the other hand, was at least above board in their distaste for their eventual nominee. The transparency counts for something here.

[ImLawBoy]

All this pearl clutching over the Russians hacking into e-mails still seems a bit silly to me. I don't particularly like it either, but what are we going to do? Send Putin a firm but polite letter asking him to stop hacking? Launch some missiles?

If I understand Rip's position correctly, it's to get teabagged by Russia. So there's that useful insight into the USA's relationship with Russia.

I'm not sure what this means.

[GreenGoo]

All this pearl clutching over the Russians hacking into e-mails still seems a bit silly to me. I don't particularly like it either, but what are we going to do? Send Putin a firm but polite letter asking him to stop hacking? Launch some missiles?

]
I'm not sure what this means.

Ah, let me explain, hopefully.

ILB: What are we to do?
GG: Rip says the US is getting teabagged by Russia. ergo(?) What are we to do? Get teabagged by Russia.

[GreenGoo]

Never mind emails, there was near constant, open discussion which culminated in a vote to allow delegates to "vote their conscience" at the convention, which failed.

If that's not open rebellion, it's the next best thing. But somehow the DNC is bad because they discussed it behind closed doors, and then did basically nothing substantial to hinder Sanders?

Well, yeah. They assured Bernie's backers that they weren't favoring anyone, but then they were plotting behind the scenes against him. Doesn't matter whether they did anything substantial. Surely you can see why this might justifiably piss off Bernie's supporters?

The GOP, on the other hand, was at least above board in their distaste for their eventual nominee. The transparency counts for something here.

Of course. Just as Drumpf's backers were pissed and are pissed at those standing in his way. While I agree that transparency does count for something, in an argument where people whispered about doing a bad thing but did nothing, and other people talked about doing a bad thing and then did it, transparency doesn't count for much.

Presumably the issue is that people were working to undermine a candidate. If one side didn't actually do much of anything in that regard, and the other side did everything in their power to undermine, why does transparency have any significant impact on our view the undermining? Especially when viewed comparatively.

[Enough]

On the opposite side of things, is it really surprising that a foreign government might try to influence the election of another government through less than savory ways? This is geopolitics 101, and I don't think any of us would be shocked to hear that the US might have tried to influence foreign elections in the past.

This is a tempest in a teapot both ways, but I am kind of enjoying seeing the partisans struggle to tell the other side how one concern is legitimate, but the other side is no big deal.

Totally agree with the "geopolitics 101" comment, but that shouldn't dull our outrage.

Classic American exceptionalism, but there's an awful lot of stuff I don't mind our government doing on the world stage (or behind the curtains of the world stage) that I sure as hell don't want being done by other governments -- like Putin's Russia -- and especially not by other governments to the U.S.

Well, sure. I don't want other governments aiding/financing rebels to overthrow our government, either.

All this pearl clutching over the Russians hacking into e-mails still seems a bit silly to me. I don't particularly like it either, but what are we going to do? Send Putin a firm but polite letter asking him to stop hacking? Launch some missiles?

In one form or another, foreign governments trying to influence our elections has almost certainly happened in the past, and it will almost certainly happen again in the future. Our outrage isn't going to influence that at all.

I totally get this perspective and mostly agree. The part where I likely depart this opinion is that the cozy relationship with Russia that Trump has adds a new wrinkle. In particular his stance on NATO, chummy remarks towards Putin by Trump/Assange, the investment money he gets from Russia, and Trump's campaign manager's past are a bit chilling. If there is any evidence of coordination, that would pretty much excite my concern meter (wowza lol) and I don't think that is pearl clutching. And there is at least some smoke here.

On the broader level, cyber threats are only now really coming into the fore, let's see how they evolve and better understand these threats before we write them off as MOTS. Clearly they have existed since the internet has, but where electronic communications are today is a far cry even from 8 years ago when Obama ran for his first term.

Oh and here is Trump's latest on this,

"By the way, if they hacked, they probably have her 33,000 emails. I hope they do," the GOP nominee told reporters, referring to Russia, who security experts suspect was behind the hack. "They probably have her 33,000 emails that she lost and deleted."

He also addressed the country directly: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you can find the 33,000 emails that are missing."

As Bender would say, that's neat.

So, Trump is actively hoping or joking that Russia has Hillary's State Department emails from her private server. That's quite a bit different thing to hope or joke about vs DNC email traffic, no?

[ImLawBoy]

All this pearl clutching over the Russians hacking into e-mails still seems a bit silly to me. I don't particularly like it either, but what are we going to do? Send Putin a firm but polite letter asking him to stop hacking? Launch some missiles?

]
I'm not sure what this means.

Ah, let me explain, hopefully.

ILB: What are we to do?
GG: Rip says the US is getting teabagged by Russia. ergo(?) What are we to do? Get teabagged by Russia.

Yeah, we'll get teabagged by them, and we'll continue to try to teabag them (and others).

Something something level of political discourse.

[Enough]

Never mind emails, there was near constant, open discussion which culminated in a vote to allow delegates to "vote their conscience" at the convention, which failed.

If that's not open rebellion, it's the next best thing. But somehow the DNC is bad because they discussed it behind closed doors, and then did basically nothing substantial to hinder Sanders?

Well, yeah. They assured Bernie's backers that they weren't favoring anyone, but then they were plotting behind the scenes against him. Doesn't matter whether they did anything substantial. Surely you can see why this might justifiably piss off Bernie's supporters?

The GOP, on the other hand, was at least above board in their distaste for their eventual nominee. The transparency counts for something here.

You are delusional if you think we heard everything that the RNC attempted to do to bring down Trump. Transparent they are not lol.

[ImLawBoy]

Never mind emails, there was near constant, open discussion which culminated in a vote to allow delegates to "vote their conscience" at the convention, which failed.

If that's not open rebellion, it's the next best thing. But somehow the DNC is bad because they discussed it behind closed doors, and then did basically nothing substantial to hinder Sanders?

Well, yeah. They assured Bernie's backers that they weren't favoring anyone, but then they were plotting behind the scenes against him. Doesn't matter whether they did anything substantial. Surely you can see why this might justifiably piss off Bernie's supporters?

The GOP, on the other hand, was at least above board in their distaste for their eventual nominee. The transparency counts for something here.

Of course. Just as Drumpf's backers were pissed and are pissed at those standing in his way. While I agree that transparency does count for something, in an argument where people whispered about doing a bad thing but did nothing, and other people talked about doing a bad thing and then did it, transparency doesn't count for much.

Presumably the issue is that people were working to undermine a candidate. If one side didn't actually do much of anything in that regard, and the other side did everything in their power to undermine, why does transparency have any significant impact on our view the undermining? Especially when viewed comparatively.

First, it's a matter of trust. Bernie's supporters know that they cannot trust the Democrats to do what they say - they have evidence to the contrary. Trump backers at least know that the establishment was being honest with them.

Regardless, why are we even comparing them? Isn't this a classic Rip move - someone complains that the right did something wrong, so Rip points out that the left has also done wrong things? Why should a Bernie supporter say, "Well it's not so bad that the DNC lied to us since the RNC was also mean to Trump supporters"?

[Rip]

I have arrived, we are finally naming techniques after me.



Don't make me lay a Rip move on you.

[Enough]

I have arrived, we are finally naming techniques after me.



Don't make me lay a Rip move on you.

Let's dub it the Rip flip!

[LordMortis]

Hillary and her campaign are always right and to question this is to support fascism?

[Ralph-Wiggum]

It's is pretty unbelievable that Trump is publicly encouraging Russia to hack and release more emails. I know some of you hate Clinton, but how can you support a candidate who promotes something like that?

[GreenGoo]

We're comparing them because the GOP seems to think these emails are significant, and that significance seems to be centered around the DNC sabotaging Bernie. It's hard to take them seriously when, during the same election cycle, they were busy trying to figure out how to get rid of Drumpf and taking active steps to accomplish it.

As I said, it's either a non-issue if you only want to take one side, or it's a non-partisan issue if you're upset that both parties worked to get their favoured candidate elected.

You can't accept your party doing it and then call out the other party in any meaningful way for doing the same thing. I understand that politics has special rules, but the disconnect is pretty massive here.