The list provides the most detailed forensic evidence yet of the close alignment between the hackers and the Russian government, exposing an operation that stretched back years and tried to break into the inboxes of 4,700 Gmail users across the globe — from the pope’s representative in Kiev to the punk band Pussy Riot in Moscow.

Secureworks stumbled upon the data after a hacking group known as Fancy Bear accidentally exposed part of its phishing operation to the internet. The list revealed a direct line between the hackers and the leaks that rocked the presidential contest in its final stages, most notably the private emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

The issue of who hacked the Democrats is back in the national spotlight following the revelation Monday that a Donald Trump campaign official, George Papadopoulos, was briefed early last year that the Russians had “dirt” on Clinton, including “thousands of emails.”

In the United States, which was Russia’s Cold War rival, Fancy Bear tried to pry open at least 573 inboxes belonging to those in the top echelons of the country’s diplomatic and security services: then-Secretary of State John Kerry, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, then-NATO Supreme Commander, U.S. Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove, and one of his predecessors, U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark.

The list skewed toward workers for defense contractors such as Boeing, Raytheon and Lockheed Martin or senior intelligence figures, prominent Russia watchers and — especially — Democrats. More than 130 party workers, campaign staffers and supporters of the party were targeted, including Podesta and other members of Clinton’s inner circle.

The AP also found a handful of Republican targets.

The list includes Serhiy Leshchenko, an opposition parliamentarian who helped uncover the off-the-books payments allegedly made to Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort — whose indictment was unsealed Monday in Washington.

pacino wrote:Donna Brazile drags DWS and Hillary (and Obama's neglect of the DNC)

it's quite a piece. It looks like I was completely wrong about the Victory Fund last year and others on here were correct. The DNC is in dire straits and the years of mismanagement and Wasserman-Schultz is to blame, with Hillary taking advantage. the smoking gun:

When the party chooses the nominee, the custom is that the candidate’s team starts to exercise more control over the party. If the party has an incumbent candidate, as was the case with Clinton in 1996 or Obama in 2012, this kind of arrangement is seamless because the party already is under the control of the president. When you have an open contest without an incumbent and competitive primaries, the party comes under the candidate’s control only after the nominee is certain. When I was manager of Gore’s campaign in 2000, we started inserting our people into the DNC in June. This victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination.

I've been wrong to defend a fair primary. I feel like a fool, in all honesty. She got more votes fair and square, but the funding was not fair, the agreement wasn't fair, and the chair openly taking sides was not fair. I apologize to all on this board for defending this bullshit. The Clintons need to go away. Period. We can't move on until then.

pacino wrote:Comey's writing a book called 'A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies and Leadership'


Blech, no thanks. Holier than thou prick is still a prick even if he got fired by Donald.

Gimpy wrote:

pacino wrote:Donna Brazile drags DWS and Hillary (and Obama's neglect of the DNC)

it's quite a piece. It looks like I was completely wrong about the Victory Fund last year and others on here were correct. The DNC is in dire straits and the years of mismanagement and Wasserman-Schultz is to blame, with Hillary taking advantage. the smoking gun:

When the party chooses the nominee, the custom is that the candidate’s team starts to exercise more control over the party. If the party has an incumbent candidate, as was the case with Clinton in 1996 or Obama in 2012, this kind of arrangement is seamless because the party already is under the control of the president. When you have an open contest without an incumbent and competitive primaries, the party comes under the candidate’s control only after the nominee is certain. When I was manager of Gore’s campaign in 2000, we started inserting our people into the DNC in June. This victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination.

I've been wrong to defend a fair primary. I feel like a fool, in all honesty. She got more votes fair and square, but the funding was not fair, the agreement wasn't fair, and the chair openly taking sides was not fair. I apologize to all on this board for defending this #$!&@. The Clintons need to go away. Period. We can't move on until then.

Clinton lost, DWS is no longer the DNC chair, I think we just have to move past this. The biggest bummer at the moment is that Canova didn’t beat DWS in the primary last year.

I don’t know how her district leans, but there’s probably a decent shot the Republicans can capitalize on this in the midterms whether Canova beats her in the primary or not. I’ve never been a party guy and I want #$!&@ politicians removed from office regardless of their affiliation, but I’d really rather not see a Dem lose a seat right now.

pacino wrote: it would appear hardly any money funneled down.

Washington Post wrote:Trump takes credit for West Virginia’s economic gains, but it’s undeserved. For one, when the first quarter ended on March 31, 2017, Trump was just two months into his presidency. While he was quick to do away with several regulations on energy production, many of the new policies have yet to take effect. The state’s recent growth is due to increased mining production and a rise in prices for coal and natural gas.

Taking credit for economic advances where no credit is due seems to be a habit for Trump. He should be more careful not to overstate the effect of his administration’s policies when praising economic gains across the country. For trying to capitalize on the hard work of West Virginians, Trump earns Four Pinocchios.

Gimpy wrote:Ha, I knew he was a little out there with the Iran deal and something about the Fed, but I didn’t know that stuff. Yeesh, doesn’t anyone sane live in Florida?

TenuredVulture wrote:I want to avoid going truther here, but this terrorist in NY seems a bit too much a caricature. The fact that his name is more Russian than Arabic should be noted as well. I mean, who really benefits here with this? This takes attention away from the Russian collaboration with the Trump administration. And now we have Trump acting in such a way that might make a real trial difficult. And there's no reason at all to think the Russians couldn't plan an operation like this. It would be pretty easy, and pretty easy to keep secret. (Which is why my conspiracy theory is not really a "truther" conspiracy.)

According to the latest figures from the International Centre for the Study of Radicalization and Political Violence, published in 2015, some 500 Uzbeks are fighting with Sunni militant organizations in Iraq and Syria.

The country, situated north of Afghanistan and with a population of about 32 million, has long grappled with threats posed by domestic terror groups, like the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. The group was created in 1988 to establish an Islamist state. It sought to overthrow longtime authoritarian leader Islam Karimov and his anti-Islamist policies, but has repositioned itself as an ally of al-Qaeda and the Taliban and publicly pledged allegiance to ISIS in 2015. The U.S. designated the IMU as a foreign terrorist organization in 2000.

thephan wrote:I missed this in the swirl:

Fox News Radio: President Trump claims that he 'turned West Virginia around' by cutting regulations on mining

Washington Post assessment : Big old 4 Pinocchios

Trump takes credit for West Virginia’s economic gains, but it’s undeserved. For one, when the first quarter ended on March 31, 2017, Trump was just two months into his presidency. While he was quick to do away with several regulations on energy production, many of the new policies have yet to take effect. The state’s recent growth is due to increased mining production and a rise in prices for coal and natural gas.

Taking credit for economic advances where no credit is due seems to be a habit for Trump. He should be more careful not to overstate the effect of his administration’s policies when praising economic gains across the country. For trying to capitalize on the hard work of West Virginians, Trump earns Four Pinocchios.

Marco Rubio‏Verified account
@marcorubio
Follow Follow @marcorubio
More
House #TaxReform plan is only starting point.But $600 #ChildTaxCredit increase doesn’t achieve our & @potus goal of helping working families