4 ms·

I assumed these were going to be filled with FUD, and that this was a "false flag" against the Clinton campaign when I read the blog post without looking at the

I assumed these were going to be filled with FUD, and that this was a "false flag" against the Clinton campaign when I read the blog post without looking at the contents of the documents. But tbh, all the stuff that's "leaked" looks pretty reasonable to me. The Trump stuff is all true, public knowledge --- obviously spun a little bit, but maybe even more fair to Trump than John Oliver. The policy stuff sounds pretty good to me --- national cyber advisor is probably needed, the crisis response stuff sounds like a pretty good idea, a speech to an Islamic forum in the first 100 days sounds good too. If this were fake, you'd think it would be more damaging. If anything, this probably makes me a little more comfortable with the idea of voting Clinton, since she has (less) incentive to lie in "confidential documents." (Of course, I don't think that she would have the confidential-confidential-plans-to-expand-the-NSA papers in the hands of a campaign staffer.) So.... solid leak, Guccifer 2.0. You keep doing you.

fab13n 10y ago
> all the stuff that's "leaked" looks pretty reasonable to me. If I understand correctly, the only point of this leak was to demonstrate that the hack actually happened. The damaging stuff has been given to Wikileaks, which knows better how to maximise its impact. Depending on WL and the leaker's agenda, they'll release it before or after the DNC convention: some people would rather have Sanders as a Dem candidate, some others would rather have an undermined Clinton being trounced by Trump. France faced a similar situation in 2012: DSK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominique_Strauss-Kahn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominique_Strauss-Kahn) was bound to win the presidency, except that he could neither keep his dick in his pants, nor bother to get consent before shoving it down people's throats. His campaign exploded before the left-wing primary, because he allegedly raped a maid in New York's Sofitel; but the right-wing government had an ongoing investigation on pimping charges, linked to Lille's Carlton, which was scheduled to go public after the primary. Had he been bust by the French investigation, rather than prematurely in New York, French then-president Sarkozy would have very likely been re-elected.
- evgen 10y ago
  The problem with this read is that Sanders will never be the dem candiate (even if Hillary drops dead tomorrow the backup is Uncle Joe and maybe Sen. Warren) and Hillary could emulate the Cheetoh Jesus' claim and shoot someone dead on 5th avenue and she is still going to be the next US president. Releasing to WL is also a good move if the leak were to have come direclty from the Clinton camp, as there are few information sources more biased and discredited among the general public than WL.
  - fab13n 10y ago
    I admit I don't know enough about Democratic party rules to guess who would replace a busted Clinton candidacy. Common sense would dictate that a candidate who came close second would be chosen, but common sense doesn't necessarily apply here indeed. As for Clinton being the next president, I'd be surprised if she were. Based among others on PG's "It's Charisma, stupid" [http://www.paulgraham.com/charisma.html http://www.paulgraham.com/charisma.html], more recently Scott Adams' perspectives, US history, and the mounting anti-establishment sentiments empowered by Internet bypassing centralised media, I expect Trump to tune his public persona for a target wider than Tea Party voters, then to thoroughly beat her. It sounds very bold, until you remember that this country chose Bush Jr. against Kerry, who was vastly more likeable, competent, and seemingly honest than HRC. I'm also doubtful about the public at large being influenced by a WL apparent origin: I'm afraid the general public hasn't yet learned to mind and evaluate sources. That's a digital native reflex, we're still a minority, and we're rather sympathetic towards WL.
    - evgen 10y ago
      "Scott Adams' perspectives"? Seriously, what particular insight to you think that particular MRA douche brings to bear here? You just need to look at the polling data to see where things are going to go; there are not enough angry white bros left to make a difference in the election at this point. The only question is the degree of impact on down-ticket races that the upcoming beat-down of Trump will have. The Senate is going to flip control, but at the speed at which Trump is crashing to earth I think the House may be in play.
admax88q 10y ago
> and that this was a "false flag" against the Clinton campaign > If this were fake, you'd think it would be more damaging. Why would you think it'd be more damaging if it were fake? If you're going to hack yourself to gain pity, you would obviously only release documents that didn't significantly damage your campaign.
- jontas 10y ago
  I think the OP means fake meaning "fabricated to do damage to the DNC", not fake as in "created by the DNC for publicity". The suggestion is that if the intent was to do damage, the contents would've been made much more inflammatory.

fab13n 10y ago

> all the stuff that's "leaked" looks pretty reasonable to me. If I understand correctly, the only point of this leak was to demonstrate that the hack actually happened. The damaging stuff has been given to Wikileaks, which knows better how to maximise its impact. Depending on WL and the leaker's agenda, they'll release it before or after the DNC convention: some people would rather have Sanders as a Dem candidate, some others would rather have an undermined Clinton being trounced by Trump. France faced a similar situation in 2012: DSK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominique_Strauss-Kahn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominique_Strauss-Kahn) was bound to win the presidency, except that he could neither keep his dick in his pants, nor bother to get consent before shoving it down people's throats. His campaign exploded before the left-wing primary, because he allegedly raped a maid in New York's Sofitel; but the right-wing government had an ongoing investigation on pimping charges, linked to Lille's Carlton, which was scheduled to go public after the primary. Had he been bust by the French investigation, rather than prematurely in New York, French then-president Sarkozy would have very likely been re-elected.

evgen 10y ago
The problem with this read is that Sanders will never be the dem candiate (even if Hillary drops dead tomorrow the backup is Uncle Joe and maybe Sen. Warren) and Hillary could emulate the Cheetoh Jesus' claim and shoot someone dead on 5th avenue and she is still going to be the next US president. Releasing to WL is also a good move if the leak were to have come direclty from the Clinton camp, as there are few information sources more biased and discredited among the general public than WL.
- fab13n 10y ago
  I admit I don't know enough about Democratic party rules to guess who would replace a busted Clinton candidacy. Common sense would dictate that a candidate who came close second would be chosen, but common sense doesn't necessarily apply here indeed. As for Clinton being the next president, I'd be surprised if she were. Based among others on PG's "It's Charisma, stupid" [http://www.paulgraham.com/charisma.html http://www.paulgraham.com/charisma.html], more recently Scott Adams' perspectives, US history, and the mounting anti-establishment sentiments empowered by Internet bypassing centralised media, I expect Trump to tune his public persona for a target wider than Tea Party voters, then to thoroughly beat her. It sounds very bold, until you remember that this country chose Bush Jr. against Kerry, who was vastly more likeable, competent, and seemingly honest than HRC. I'm also doubtful about the public at large being influenced by a WL apparent origin: I'm afraid the general public hasn't yet learned to mind and evaluate sources. That's a digital native reflex, we're still a minority, and we're rather sympathetic towards WL.
  - evgen 10y ago
    "Scott Adams' perspectives"? Seriously, what particular insight to you think that particular MRA douche brings to bear here? You just need to look at the polling data to see where things are going to go; there are not enough angry white bros left to make a difference in the election at this point. The only question is the degree of impact on down-ticket races that the upcoming beat-down of Trump will have. The Senate is going to flip control, but at the speed at which Trump is crashing to earth I think the House may be in play.

admax88q 10y ago

> and that this was a "false flag" against the Clinton campaign > If this were fake, you'd think it would be more damaging. Why would you think it'd be more damaging if it were fake? If you're going to hack yourself to gain pity, you would obviously only release documents that didn't significantly damage your campaign.

jontas 10y ago
I think the OP means fake meaning "fabricated to do damage to the DNC", not fake as in "created by the DNC for publicity". The suggestion is that if the intent was to do damage, the contents would've been made much more inflammatory.