Getty/Brooks Kraft

Hacking is the new normal for US elections. So why is lax email protocol still so prevalent?

On Thursday, in what feels like the umpteenth time, hackers posted hundreds of emails from the personal Gmail account of a 22-year old Democratic operative who freelanced for the White House and the Clinton campaign. The leak revealed the detailed movements and schedules of Hillary Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden, and First Lady Michelle Obama at public events, along with the personal information of Secret Service agents, the names and Social Security numbers of campaign donors, and even a purported scan of Michelle Obama’s passport.

On the same day, two Democratic lawmakers explicitly accused Russia of meddling in the US election, with orders coming from as high as President Putin. Following the hack on the email servers and accounts of the DNC, Colin Powell, and numerous other Democratic organizations and party officials, it is clear that hackers are determined to influence the 2016 presidential election more than any other previous election. (So far, it appears that Trump’s emails and servers have not been compromised.)

Yet despite the string of security breaches, the latest leaks show that the White House and the campaign felt no qualms about sending sensitive information over a year and a half to a personal Gmail account. In an era when cyber-espionage by countries is no longer kept under wraps, where there have yet to be any rules of engagement, it seems prudent for state officials to assume that digital security is crucial to national security and can have an enormous and disproportionate effect on our elections.

September 27, 2016

Donald Trump had one job: To seem level-headed. He failed miserably.

Trump’s temperament has been the biggest issue of this campaign. Voters worry about his ability to maintain control of his emotions. His task was to show voters that his skin isn’t as thin as it has seemed over the last 15 months. That was the incredibly low bar set for him.

Clinton got under Trump’s skin early. He got mad and he stayed mad for the course of nearly 90 minutes. Halfway through the debate, he was raving; by the end of the evening, he had completely lost it. Hit repeatedly by Clinton (and, it should be said, by the often absent moderator Lester Holt) on his lies about supporting the Iraq War, he lost the thread, and started ranting at Holt about how is temperament is actually great, literally disproving the point he was making. He was overly defensive and it showed. Instead of succinctly and clearly answering questions, he rambled and ranted.

But the most amazing point was at the very end of the debate, when Clinton brought up Trump’s repeated sexist comments. Once again, Trump took the bait and went on an extended rant about how those comments were justified—Rosie O’Donnell had it coming! Given the opportunity to give one example of how he was not a sexist, he instead argued that the women deserved the attacks he slung at them. And then he threatened to bring up Bill Clinton’s infidelity and claimed the fact that he didn’t was proof that he wasn’t sexist.

This can’t be overstated. Donald Trump’s temperament has been the defining issue of the last year of this campaign. And yet, on the biggest possible stage—the most important of the last year—Trump repeatedly lost his temper.


Donald Trump cited his exclusive Palm Beach club as proof that he’s not racist.

After groaning at Hillary Clinton’s description of “vibrant black communities,” Trump continued to insult minorities by citing his “successful” Mar-a-Lago Club in the “tough community” of Palm Beach, which he described as “probably the wealthiest community in the world” (huh?), as evidence that he is non-discriminatory. In reference to the systemic racism of the American real estate industry and a non-discrimination suit that he settled with no admission of guilt (not the best look), he added simply, “It’s just one of those things.”

While it’s true that his friends and allies credit him for having employees of all races, his non-discriminatory practices in a singular business institution isn’t fooling anyone that he will heal racial divides.

Jewel Samad/Getty

This is why Donald Trump lies about supporting the Iraq War.

He can’t stop doing it. Trump claims that he opposed the war, but this is not true. In 2002—before the war started—Howard Stern asked Trump if he supported invading Iraq. Trump said, “Yeah, I guess so.”

Then, in early 2003, he said that the president should focus on the economy more than Iraq. But he did not say that he opposed the war. (It’s worth pointing out that some of the most significant anti-war activism was happening in the spring of 2003.) Then in the spring of 2004—after the war started—he criticized it.

If you’re president, opposing a war after it starts is totally useless. Donald Trump didn’t oppose the Iraq War when it mattered—when, as commander in chief, he could have stopped it. He supported the war. He only opposed it later, after it became fashionable to do so.

Why does Trump keep lying about Iraq? Because he has absolutely no credible claim that he possesses the judgment necessary to be president of the United States. He’s essentially borrowing Barack Obama’s 2008 strategy on Iraq. It worked for Obama because he really did oppose the Iraq War—his claim to having the necessary judgment was credible. Trump’s isn’t.

Donald Trump, who once called for the execution of five innocent minority teenagers, criticized Hillary Clinton for her “superpredator” comment.

Yes, it’s true that Clinton in 1996 referred to certain young black men as “superpredators,” a characterization she has since said that she regrets (though not until she was prodded by a Black Lives Matter activist).

But perhaps Trump forgot that time when he demanded the execution of five teenagers (four black, one Hispanic) who were wrongly convicted in a rape case in 1989 in New York City. He went as far as to take out $85,000 in newspaper ad space advocating for reinstating the death penalty, thus fanning the racially charged fears of the city.

Win McNamee/Getty

Hillary Clinton straight-up called Donald Trump a racist.

At the presidential debate, Lester Holt asked Trump the question everyone has been asking since Trump grudgingly proclaimed that he no longer believed that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States. It was an inevitable question, and yet Trump seemed wholly unprepared to answer it. Instead, he flailed around for a while. First, he blamed Sid Blumenthal, a former Clinton aide, for starting the birther movement. (He didn’t.) And then he claimed that what he was doing was actually heroic: He just wanted the truth! Why weren’t journalists asking about the birther question? Trump had to do it! (Journalists weren’t asking because Obama had settled the issue of his citizenship when he ran in 2008.)

That’s when Hillary Clinton went in for the kill, attacking Trump for his long, long record of racism. “Just listen to what you heard,” she said, appealing to the audience. “He tried to put the whole racist, birther lie to bed. But it can’t be dismissed that easily. He has started his campaign activity based on this racist lie ... because some of his supporters believed it or wanted to believe it.” And then she hit him for his decades of racist behavior:

Donald started his career back in 1973 being sued by the justice department for racial discrimination...

He has a long record in engaging in racist behavior. And the birther lie was a very difficult one. Barack Obama is a man of great integrity. I would like to remember what Michelle Obama said ... When they go low, we go high.

It was a masterful answer from Clinton. She got the point across—Trump is a racist—but she did it while simultaneously going high.

Lester Holt deployed a targeted fact-checking strategy against Donald Trump.

Holt seemed to be sitting on his hands for the first hour of the debate, watching the nominees spar about the economy, jobs, and trade deals without driving the conversation at all. But when he moved the conversation to policing and racial justice, the dynamic changed.

Trump mentioned stop-and-frisk as a key element in his plan to return “law and order” to the United States, noting that former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani was sitting in the audience. “It worked very well in New York,” he said.

Holt pushed back, mentioning that District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that the practice was unconstitutional in 2013.

“No, you’re wrong,” Trump replied.

Through their exchange, Clinton was staring steelily at her opponent, only chiming in later to say: “Stop-and-frisk was found to be unconstitutional, in part because it was ineffective.” It’s a good strategy on her part, letting Holt point out Trump’s most flagrant falsehoods and only interceding later with specific statistics that show Trump was wrong.


Donald Trump can’t help but plug his silly hotel.

When challenged on his business bona fides at the presidential debate, Trump made a pitch for his new hotel, which just opened in Washington, D.C., this month. This doesn’t quite refute the notion that Trump’s whole campaign is just a Ponzi scheme to pad his own pocket. Recently, it has been reported that the Secret Service has had to pay to ride on Trump’s own planes. Overall, the Trump “scampaign” has spent $8.2 million on Trump’s businesses. Now, apparently, Trump is using his national platform to boost another Trump business.

Donald Trump is raving.

He’s yelling, he’s scowling, he’s shouting over Clinton. As my colleague Laura Reston wrote earlier, Clinton has figured out how to successfully bait Trump: She’s continuously called his narcissistic sense of self into question by attacking his business acumen and intelligence. Trump, meanwhile, is lashing out wildly—at Clinton, yes, but also at the nation’s airports. He’s literally showing his teeth. He is not showing any discipline whatsoever. Clinton, meanwhile, has seemed even-keeled.

(To be fair, LaGuardia is a hell hole.)

Trump’s second-biggest hurdle to becoming president is his demeanor. (His biggest hurdle is the racism.) Tonight’s debate audience will be the biggest of this election season. Trump needed to show voters that he was capable of being calm, collected, and reasonable. He has done no such thing tonight.

Win McNamee

Donald Trump on paying zero income tax: “That makes me smart.”

Yep, that’s what Trump said at the first presidential debate. He went on to claim that he was not saying it “in a bragadocious way,” but that the next leader of the United States should have “an idea about money.”

In spite of Trump’s attempts to diffuse the focus on his financials, Hillary Clinton and moderator Lester Holt relentlessly sunk their teeth into the fact that he has refused to release his tax returns. “It’s something that the American people deserve to see,” Clinton said. “There’s something he’s hiding.” That secret might be that he is neither as rich nor as charitable as he claims, she added.


Hillary Clinton is doing a good job baiting Donald Trump.

On stage at Hofstra Monday night, she has hit all the right notes.

“Donald thinks that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese,” she said. Flustered, Trump started getting more and more irritated. “I did not say that. I did not say that. I did not say that,” he said, huffily, his voice rising, as Clinton continued calmly hitting her talking points. (Also, he did say that.)

She got him to say that exploiting the housing crisis is just “business.” Trump was lured into declaring that avoiding paying taxes “makes me smart.”

She also excelled in her attempts to call Trump out for factual inaccuracies. “Well Donald, I know that you live in your own reality, but those are not the facts,” she said in a sparring match over the TPP. Again, Trump started blustering: “You have no plan. Secretary Clinton you have no plan.”

Trump is good at talking in short, clear talking points, repeating the same message until it sinks in. But here, it sounds as though he is yelling her down in public—not a good move for a politician attempting to win over suburban voters.