6 ms·

Assange Timed WikiLeaks Release of Democratic Emails to Harm Hillary Clinton

36 points by greenburger 10y ago

zarriak 10y ago
> revelations in the emails that party officials had privately rooted This does little justice to what actually is said in those emails I mean I don't get why they talk about him timing it to hurt her, he literally said that the next emails he releases will contain “enough evidence” for the Department of Justice to indict Hillary Clinton. [0] I guess it gets the most media attention now, albeit limited from mainstream publications. I find it annoying that the most coverage from mainstream American publications have been about the leaks and not the content. More people have opinions on whether the Russians were the source for Wikileaks than about the content of the emails. [0]: http://www.itv.com/news/update/2016-06-12/assange-on-peston-on-sunday-more-clinton-leaks-to-come/ http://www.itv.com/news/update/2016-06-12/assange-on-peston-...
- microcolonel 10y ago
  This is the New York Times. They're here for Hillary in the same way the DNC is. They don't care what's in the emails. I'm sure they don't understand that releasing the DNC emails during the DNC makes perfectly good sense.
  - mc32 10y ago
    It's also possible they're "mad" (upset) that they didn't get an exclusive out of it as they did with the Manning cable leaks. So it might be a kind of hissy fit on the NYT's part.
    - SixSigma 10y ago
      Clinton Foundation Donors [1] $1,000,000-$5,000,000 Carlos Slim Chairman & CEO of Telmex, largest New York Times shareholder http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundation-donors-include-dozens-of-media-organizations-individuals-207228 http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundati...
      - cloudjacker 10y ago
        Ok everyone, post your favorite extremist blog with a geocities layout since mainstream media will be incapable of covering this
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
- ghgfhgfhn 10y ago
  What is in the emails? I'm googling but I can't find anything discussing the contents...
- Vexs 10y ago
  What bugged me about the media coverage of the leaks is the stupid russian thing. Cnn had an article, and more than half it was discussing how it could be russians providing the leak, with bits like "Refused to confirm or deny the leaks were of russian origin" despite russians not being mentioned in the source at all! You can say "assage refused to confirm or deny he is a stack of russian midgets in a suit" and it's just as accurate!
DefaultUserHN 10y ago
More like Assange timed the WikiLeaks release to provide more information to the voters, which is good. A well informed voter is a good voter.
- krapp 10y ago
  And as Assange's only motivation is to make certain the voters are informed, I'm sure the RNC leaks will be coming any time now... any time now...
  - current_call 10y ago
    I like to imagine they just have a competent system administrator with great work life balance. When he's not looking through logs, he works on his memoirs, goes on lunch dates with his wife, and proudly looks through the Perl programs his daughter sends him. Perl5 of course. Stan isn't having any of that new age crap.
  - DefaultUserHN 10y ago
    Well, hackers did hacked Trump's voicemail and found out that Trump donated a lot of money to charities.
- dTal 10y ago
  "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." More information does not necessarily lead to a better vote (where "better" is defined as the vote that the voter would pick were they in possession of all relevant information). To illustrate, imagine two candidates: candidate A, who looks like a regular politician, and candidate B, who looks like a serial killer. In the absence of any further information, you vote for candidate A. Now imagine you read an entirely truthful pamphlet detailing guy A's trust fund excesses and other misdemeanors, while helpfully mentioning that guy B volunteers in a homeless shelter in his spare time. You switch your vote to guy B. But it transpires that guy B occasionally abducts and murders the odd homeless person. He really is a serial killer! So your initial, "uninformed" vote was correct, and moreover correct for the right reasons, despite being strictly better informed after reading the pamphlet. Trump will certainly have skeletons in his closet too.
rurban 10y ago
Nonsense. To harm or get rid of Hillary it should have been timed earlier. Wikileaks clearly needs a lot of time to process such massive leaks. They are doing journalists work after all. A few months ago there was still a chance to get a non-criminal, not-lying nominee who would have had a chance against Trump. Now it's too late already. The only outcome was Wasserman Schultz being promoted and Trump leading the polls. All this was entirely expected.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > The only outcome was Wasserman Schultz being promoted Schultz wasn't promoted, she was removed from a position of substantive power and moved to one that's basically a zero-responsibility-and-power position traditionally used to recognize people have given notable support to a candidate.
  - progressive_dad 10y ago
    What is this Amy Bouzaglo's kitchen?
Kristine1975 10y ago
"Putin did it", "Assange wants to harm HRC"... anything to avoid talking about the actual contents of the emails.
- drivingmenuts 10y ago
  Is there anything in the emails that hasn't been discussed to death already? Benghazi is a pretty much settled issue after 8 or so enquiries failed to turn up anything of substance. I'm guessing that the rest of the stuff is the usual small potatoes politics that just happens because it has to happen.
  - JorgeGT 10y ago
    Note that these are not Hillary's private server emails but the internal DNC emails, different leaks.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Is there anything in the emails that hasn't been discussed to death already? Nothing really; its not like the fact that the DNC leadership in general, and DWS in particular, were all-in for Clinton was news (it had been talked about from very early on in the campaign, including when at least one DNC official that disagreed with that resigned because of it.) > Benghazi is a pretty much settled issue after 8 or so enquiries failed to turn up anything of substance. And, anyway, its not like the DNC's emails were going to reveal anything about that.
- SixSigma 10y ago
  A: OMG B, You're cheating on me. B: I can't believe you went through my phone, A, how can I trust you ever again, it's over.
- krapp 10y ago
  I understand Trump supporters probably don't care, but the bigger story should actually be the potential Russian conspiracy to undermine American elections in Trump's favor.
perseusprime11 10y ago
I sometimes think there are more Trump supporters in the Silicon Valley than our leaders who seem to think they represent the entire SV. This article talks about the shy trump vote. http://praxis.ink/2016/07/democrats-fear-secret-trump-vote-that-doesnt-show-up-in-polling/ http://praxis.ink/2016/07/democrats-fear-secret-trump-vote-t... How much of this shy vote is true in Silicon Valley?
cpncrunch 10y ago
If he thinks Hillary is bad, just wait until he releases something bad about Trump when Trump is in power!
atombath 10y ago
Notice how the NYT dropped the comment feature from their site. Notice how they've been caught during this cycle fighting Clinton's battles against Sanders. Notice how there isn't a single direct quote from Assange regarding an intention to "harm hillary"... there are only quotes about how he dislikes her platform. Nothing talking about the msm collusion with dnc? We all noticed. So many things to notice here.
douche 10y ago
Is there any time prior to November that this could have been released that wouldn't have cast a bad light on the DNC and Clinton?
coupdetaco 10y ago
Anyone surprised and/or outraged at this runs a very real risk of playing the useful idiot

36 points by greenburger 10y ago

> revelations in the emails that party officials had privately rooted This does little justice to what actually is said in those emails I mean I don't get why they talk about him timing it to hurt her, he literally said that the next emails he releases will contain “enough evidence” for the Department of Justice to indict Hillary Clinton. [0] I guess it gets the most media attention now, albeit limited from mainstream publications. I find it annoying that the most coverage from mainstream American publications have been about the leaks and not the content. More people have opinions on whether the Russians were the source for Wikileaks than about the content of the emails. [0]: http://www.itv.com/news/update/2016-06-12/assange-on-peston-on-sunday-more-clinton-leaks-to-come/ http://www.itv.com/news/update/2016-06-12/assange-on-peston-...

microcolonel 10y ago
This is the New York Times. They're here for Hillary in the same way the DNC is. They don't care what's in the emails. I'm sure they don't understand that releasing the DNC emails during the DNC makes perfectly good sense.
- mc32 10y ago
  It's also possible they're "mad" (upset) that they didn't get an exclusive out of it as they did with the Manning cable leaks. So it might be a kind of hissy fit on the NYT's part.
  - SixSigma 10y ago
    Clinton Foundation Donors [1] $1,000,000-$5,000,000 Carlos Slim Chairman & CEO of Telmex, largest New York Times shareholder http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundation-donors-include-dozens-of-media-organizations-individuals-207228 http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundati...
    - cloudjacker 10y ago
      Ok everyone, post your favorite extremist blog with a geocities layout since mainstream media will be incapable of covering this
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
ghgfhgfhn 10y ago
What is in the emails? I'm googling but I can't find anything discussing the contents...
Vexs 10y ago
What bugged me about the media coverage of the leaks is the stupid russian thing. Cnn had an article, and more than half it was discussing how it could be russians providing the leak, with bits like "Refused to confirm or deny the leaks were of russian origin" despite russians not being mentioned in the source at all! You can say "assage refused to confirm or deny he is a stack of russian midgets in a suit" and it's just as accurate!

DefaultUserHN 10y ago

More like Assange timed the WikiLeaks release to provide more information to the voters, which is good. A well informed voter is a good voter.

krapp 10y ago
And as Assange's only motivation is to make certain the voters are informed, I'm sure the RNC leaks will be coming any time now... any time now...
- current_call 10y ago
  I like to imagine they just have a competent system administrator with great work life balance. When he's not looking through logs, he works on his memoirs, goes on lunch dates with his wife, and proudly looks through the Perl programs his daughter sends him. Perl5 of course. Stan isn't having any of that new age crap.
- DefaultUserHN 10y ago
  Well, hackers did hacked Trump's voicemail and found out that Trump donated a lot of money to charities.
dTal 10y ago
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." More information does not necessarily lead to a better vote (where "better" is defined as the vote that the voter would pick were they in possession of all relevant information). To illustrate, imagine two candidates: candidate A, who looks like a regular politician, and candidate B, who looks like a serial killer. In the absence of any further information, you vote for candidate A. Now imagine you read an entirely truthful pamphlet detailing guy A's trust fund excesses and other misdemeanors, while helpfully mentioning that guy B volunteers in a homeless shelter in his spare time. You switch your vote to guy B. But it transpires that guy B occasionally abducts and murders the odd homeless person. He really is a serial killer! So your initial, "uninformed" vote was correct, and moreover correct for the right reasons, despite being strictly better informed after reading the pamphlet. Trump will certainly have skeletons in his closet too.

rurban 10y ago

Nonsense. To harm or get rid of Hillary it should have been timed earlier. Wikileaks clearly needs a lot of time to process such massive leaks. They are doing journalists work after all. A few months ago there was still a chance to get a non-criminal, not-lying nominee who would have had a chance against Trump. Now it's too late already. The only outcome was Wasserman Schultz being promoted and Trump leading the polls. All this was entirely expected.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> The only outcome was Wasserman Schultz being promoted Schultz wasn't promoted, she was removed from a position of substantive power and moved to one that's basically a zero-responsibility-and-power position traditionally used to recognize people have given notable support to a candidate.
- progressive_dad 10y ago
  What is this Amy Bouzaglo's kitchen?

Kristine1975 10y ago

"Putin did it", "Assange wants to harm HRC"... anything to avoid talking about the actual contents of the emails.

drivingmenuts 10y ago
Is there anything in the emails that hasn't been discussed to death already? Benghazi is a pretty much settled issue after 8 or so enquiries failed to turn up anything of substance. I'm guessing that the rest of the stuff is the usual small potatoes politics that just happens because it has to happen.
- JorgeGT 10y ago
  Note that these are not Hillary's private server emails but the internal DNC emails, different leaks.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Is there anything in the emails that hasn't been discussed to death already? Nothing really; its not like the fact that the DNC leadership in general, and DWS in particular, were all-in for Clinton was news (it had been talked about from very early on in the campaign, including when at least one DNC official that disagreed with that resigned because of it.) > Benghazi is a pretty much settled issue after 8 or so enquiries failed to turn up anything of substance. And, anyway, its not like the DNC's emails were going to reveal anything about that.
SixSigma 10y ago
A: OMG B, You're cheating on me. B: I can't believe you went through my phone, A, how can I trust you ever again, it's over.
krapp 10y ago
I understand Trump supporters probably don't care, but the bigger story should actually be the potential Russian conspiracy to undermine American elections in Trump's favor.

perseusprime11 10y ago

I sometimes think there are more Trump supporters in the Silicon Valley than our leaders who seem to think they represent the entire SV. This article talks about the shy trump vote. http://praxis.ink/2016/07/democrats-fear-secret-trump-vote-that-doesnt-show-up-in-polling/ http://praxis.ink/2016/07/democrats-fear-secret-trump-vote-t... How much of this shy vote is true in Silicon Valley?

cpncrunch 10y ago

If he thinks Hillary is bad, just wait until he releases something bad about Trump when Trump is in power!

atombath 10y ago

Notice how the NYT dropped the comment feature from their site. Notice how they've been caught during this cycle fighting Clinton's battles against Sanders. Notice how there isn't a single direct quote from Assange regarding an intention to "harm hillary"... there are only quotes about how he dislikes her platform. Nothing talking about the msm collusion with dnc? We all noticed. So many things to notice here.

douche 10y ago

Is there any time prior to November that this could have been released that wouldn't have cast a bad light on the DNC and Clinton?

coupdetaco 10y ago

Anyone surprised and/or outraged at this runs a very real risk of playing the useful idiot