5 ms·

That's a bit of a strawman argument. The least they could do is vet the material with reporters, the media would have jumped all over these emails. If their rep

That's a bit of a strawman argument. The least they could do is vet the material with reporters, the media would have jumped all over these emails. If their reporting partners for some reason determined they didn't want to run with the story, then WikiLeaks could just go ahead and do what they've already done. The fact that they don't care about the vetting aspect anymore just confirms the DNC leak was petty and personal, not an exercise in transparency. The DNC isn't even a government, wasn't the whole point of WikiLeaks to hold governments and their leaders accountable?

Bartweiss 10y ago
> The DNC isn't even a government, wasn't the whole point of WikiLeaks to hold governments and their leaders accountable? I agree that this was personally motivated, but that's a pretty laughable claim. A major political institution was attempting to manipulate an election for the US Presidency, but it's outside Wikileaks' purview because the DNC isn't technically part of the government? Vetting and bias are topics worth discussing, but when political officials using 'neutral' funds try to reshape an election, I'm quite happy to label that a "government accountability" issue. Edit: removed "state funds" reference, I had misunderstood part of FECA. I don't think it changes the point.
- vasilipupkin 10y ago
  Manipulate an election? What? Firstly, Clinton straight out won more votes then Sanders, secondly, it's absolutely legitimate for leadership of a political party to try to influence who that party nominates as its candidate. It's an organization. Sanders could have run for president as a socialist and nothing was stopping him from doing so.
  - harshreality 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law In light of that, if you don't believe parties have a duty to be fair to all primary contenders, then I'm at a loss. How do you expect to avoid cronyism and corruption when "private" political parties are outed working to bias primaries and you say that's okay?
    - vasilipupkin 10y ago
      what does "fair" mean? A party's purpose is to advance a set of ideas. So, absolutely, the party leadership can choose not to be fair to a primary candidate that does not support those ideas. As an example, if Sanders is a socialist and wants to advance socialist ideas, he can form his own party and have it be on the ballot. And that party should be free to reject primary candidates who are not socialists, no? otherwise, why have parties in the first place ? Having said all that, the democratic primary election was pretty fair and the current candidate is the one who won the most votes.
      - harshreality 10y ago
        http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sanders-clinton.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-san... Don't you think fair means, at a minimum, not doing that kind of thing? The DNC's officials were trying to persuade their own party's voters against one primary candidate and for another primary candidate. As I understand it, a party's purpose is to organize and provide membership for people sharing whatever ideology they share, who are then (among other things) capable of signing petitions for candidates seeking to run under that Party's name. If enough party members from enough districts sign your petition, you're on that party's primary ballot in that State. Most of what the DNC and RNC do, or what they should do, is either administrative, or attacking the other party. I'm not defending that DNC vs RNC dynamic; I think we'd probably be better off without the party system, at least as it currently exists as a privatized crony-capitalism bullshit theater with very public repercussions... and I'm also in favor of fixing the voting systems used by the States. But, in the meantime, the DNC and RNC should be banned from trying to influence their own primaries. If DNC officials want to attack one primary candidate, they should quit the DNC and go work for an opposing primary candidate's campaign. They don't want to do that, because they'd lose the status of working under the aegis of the DNC; they'd be working merely for one candidate or another, any of which could lose. To put it succinctly, a political party official should act in a purely administrative manner with respect to the party's own internal operation, including its primaries.
        10y ago
  - Bartweiss 10y ago
    Hang on, I think you're misunderstanding my objection. Clinton won a majority, so the primary wasn't "stolen". She probably would have won without any DNC intervention, so it wasn't "rigged", either. And the DNC is under no duty to be objective, so it wasn't malfeasance in that sense. My complaint is specifically that the DNC denied attempting to skew things to Hillary, and collected money while pretending to be neutral. Sanders repeatedly accused the DNC of favoring Hillary and attacking him, and DNC staffers said that the claims were untrue and absurd. Priebus and the RNC openly opposed Trump, as was their right. Donors to the RNC knew that they were effectively donating to Cruz and Rubio, and against Trump. The DNC insisted they weren't opposing Sanders, and then did so behind the backs of voters and donors. So no, I'm not mad that a party committee tried to influence a primary. I'm mad that they did so while swearing up and down they weren't, and mocking the Sanders campaign for claiming otherwise.
    - vasilipupkin 10y ago
      I guess, although you have to realize the reality of politics is often like this. It is because the voters on average are quite misinformed, so they will not understand the nuance of the situation. So, yes, they got caught in a lie and had to resign as a result.
- SmellTheGlove 10y ago
  Given how much money goes into an election, this level of collusion should piss you off at least a little if you supported Bernie Sanders, right? It's not an outright fix, but if the deck was stacked, any donations to candidates other than Hillary Clinton were sort of like pissing into the ocean. Maybe a little less satisfying than that. I agree that it was personally motivated. I just don't care. I want to know if our major media outlets are coordinating with specific campaigns, or if campaign finance laws are being broken in general. I'd love to see those Goldman Sachs speeches that Hillary is looking into for 6 months now.
  - dmschulman 10y ago
    It's not collusion, the decisions are all being made within the party. It's wrong and unfortunate the way Sanders was treated by the DNC (I supported and donate to Sanders), but it's the DNC's call to operate however they want to operate.
    - Bartweiss 10y ago
      It's not really, though. Or at least, what the DNC did wasn't just operating how they chose. The DNC portrayed itself as a candidate-agnostic intermediary that wanted to see a Democrat win the election. They fundraised, did press coverage, and organized events using that claim. They were repeatedly accused of being biased, and they denied the accusations then publicly mocked the accusers for spinning crazy conspiracies. So no, the DNC didn't 'rig' the primary, they didn't have the power. But everyone who donated to the DNC has a right to be angry. The DNC is free to operate as they choose, but they lied about how they operate, and took money under those false pretenses. We aren't expected to accept that behavior from companies or charities, and I don't want to accept it from political groups either.
- eli 10y ago
  You are incorrect. DNC is not state funded.
  - dmschulman 10y ago
    They're not federally funded, correct
  - fixermark 10y ago
    Actually, in several states the two-party system is baked pretty deeply into the state-level laws. Pennsylvania, for example, has a primary system where one has to declare whether one is Democrat, Republican, or Independent, and then must vote on the ballot corresponding to that declaration (with the Independent ballot holding only referendum questions and not any input into the primary process). Those elections use the state's voting machines and vote security infrastructure. That's functionally equivalent to being state-funded, even if the funding is in terms of human-power and machine use donation and not cash.
    - dmschulman 10y ago
      That's a bit of a stretch to reach the conclusion the DNC and RNC are "state funded". Poll workers are volunteers, the machines are bought with taxpayer money but they are used for multiple types elections (from state to federal).
      - fixermark 10y ago
        Not all poll workers are volunteers. I'm a majority inspector; I'm state-paid. I'm required to show up for the primaries.
        dmschulman 10y ago
        But you're not a federal employee, that isn't your full time job. That's a responsibility you volunteered to take on, the fact that you get compensated for your time every time there's a primary vote doesn't imply you're an agent of the state, it's not a "functional equivalent".
- Jtsummers 10y ago
  Neither the DNC, RNC, nor any other political party organization is a federal institution.
  - dmschulman 10y ago
    Exactly
  - emp_zealoth 10y ago
    Doesn't it make it even worse? A private, oblique organisation has effective stranglehold on who gets the shot at presidency with little oversight, because "private"
    - Jtsummers 10y ago
      The DNC is a private entity, and can act (internally) just about any way they want. You and I are free (well, constrained by finances I suppose) to establish our own parties that act however we want. Freedom of association and all. People don't have to join the Democrats or the Republicans. Those who do make that choice are now learning that these parties function exactly like any other corporate entity. Some sort of oligarchy calling the shots over a pseudo-democratic process that they ostensibly claim to be the real process. Time for the schisms.
    - dmschulman 10y ago
      Someone didn't pay attention in civics class. You'd prefer the federal government to manage the decisions of all the major political parties?
jdoliner 10y ago
When you say "vetting" what are you actually suggesting they do? Check to make sure the information is actually true? As far as I can tell they did that. Check the make sure that the information doesn't put peoples lives in danger? It doesn't seem like they put any lives in danger with this leak. Except maybe their source's but I'm not sure how "vetting" the information would have helped that. What pray tell is actually meant by "vetting?"
- Frondo 10y ago
  Releasing the personal information for all those Turkish women absolutely can put their lives in danger.
doomtop 10y ago
> wasn't the whole point of WikiLeaks to hold governments and their leaders accountable? No, not exactly. WikiLeaks specializes in the analysis and publication of large datasets of censored or otherwise restricted official materials involving war, spying and corruption.[1] I would definitely say the DNC leak was restricted official materials involving corruption. [1] https://wikileaks.org/What-is-Wikileaks.html https://wikileaks.org/What-is-Wikileaks.html
mason240 10y ago
>The DNC isn't even a government, wasn't the whole point of WikiLeaks to hold governments and their leaders accountable? Something tells me you would not be making this comment if they released leaks that implicated "evil" corporations like Exxon-Mobile, Wal-Mart, Koch, ect.
- selectodude 10y ago
  If Wal-Mart had an election for their CEO and the deck was stacked, I would probably be equally surprised.

Bartweiss 10y ago

> The DNC isn't even a government, wasn't the whole point of WikiLeaks to hold governments and their leaders accountable? I agree that this was personally motivated, but that's a pretty laughable claim. A major political institution was attempting to manipulate an election for the US Presidency, but it's outside Wikileaks' purview because the DNC isn't technically part of the government? Vetting and bias are topics worth discussing, but when political officials using 'neutral' funds try to reshape an election, I'm quite happy to label that a "government accountability" issue. Edit: removed "state funds" reference, I had misunderstood part of FECA. I don't think it changes the point.

vasilipupkin 10y ago
Manipulate an election? What? Firstly, Clinton straight out won more votes then Sanders, secondly, it's absolutely legitimate for leadership of a political party to try to influence who that party nominates as its candidate. It's an organization. Sanders could have run for president as a socialist and nothing was stopping him from doing so.
- harshreality 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law In light of that, if you don't believe parties have a duty to be fair to all primary contenders, then I'm at a loss. How do you expect to avoid cronyism and corruption when "private" political parties are outed working to bias primaries and you say that's okay?
  - vasilipupkin 10y ago
    what does "fair" mean? A party's purpose is to advance a set of ideas. So, absolutely, the party leadership can choose not to be fair to a primary candidate that does not support those ideas. As an example, if Sanders is a socialist and wants to advance socialist ideas, he can form his own party and have it be on the ballot. And that party should be free to reject primary candidates who are not socialists, no? otherwise, why have parties in the first place ? Having said all that, the democratic primary election was pretty fair and the current candidate is the one who won the most votes.
    - harshreality 10y ago
      http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sanders-clinton.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-san... Don't you think fair means, at a minimum, not doing that kind of thing? The DNC's officials were trying to persuade their own party's voters against one primary candidate and for another primary candidate. As I understand it, a party's purpose is to organize and provide membership for people sharing whatever ideology they share, who are then (among other things) capable of signing petitions for candidates seeking to run under that Party's name. If enough party members from enough districts sign your petition, you're on that party's primary ballot in that State. Most of what the DNC and RNC do, or what they should do, is either administrative, or attacking the other party. I'm not defending that DNC vs RNC dynamic; I think we'd probably be better off without the party system, at least as it currently exists as a privatized crony-capitalism bullshit theater with very public repercussions... and I'm also in favor of fixing the voting systems used by the States. But, in the meantime, the DNC and RNC should be banned from trying to influence their own primaries. If DNC officials want to attack one primary candidate, they should quit the DNC and go work for an opposing primary candidate's campaign. They don't want to do that, because they'd lose the status of working under the aegis of the DNC; they'd be working merely for one candidate or another, any of which could lose. To put it succinctly, a political party official should act in a purely administrative manner with respect to the party's own internal operation, including its primaries.
      - 10y ago
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  Hang on, I think you're misunderstanding my objection. Clinton won a majority, so the primary wasn't "stolen". She probably would have won without any DNC intervention, so it wasn't "rigged", either. And the DNC is under no duty to be objective, so it wasn't malfeasance in that sense. My complaint is specifically that the DNC denied attempting to skew things to Hillary, and collected money while pretending to be neutral. Sanders repeatedly accused the DNC of favoring Hillary and attacking him, and DNC staffers said that the claims were untrue and absurd. Priebus and the RNC openly opposed Trump, as was their right. Donors to the RNC knew that they were effectively donating to Cruz and Rubio, and against Trump. The DNC insisted they weren't opposing Sanders, and then did so behind the backs of voters and donors. So no, I'm not mad that a party committee tried to influence a primary. I'm mad that they did so while swearing up and down they weren't, and mocking the Sanders campaign for claiming otherwise.
  - vasilipupkin 10y ago
    I guess, although you have to realize the reality of politics is often like this. It is because the voters on average are quite misinformed, so they will not understand the nuance of the situation. So, yes, they got caught in a lie and had to resign as a result.
SmellTheGlove 10y ago
Given how much money goes into an election, this level of collusion should piss you off at least a little if you supported Bernie Sanders, right? It's not an outright fix, but if the deck was stacked, any donations to candidates other than Hillary Clinton were sort of like pissing into the ocean. Maybe a little less satisfying than that. I agree that it was personally motivated. I just don't care. I want to know if our major media outlets are coordinating with specific campaigns, or if campaign finance laws are being broken in general. I'd love to see those Goldman Sachs speeches that Hillary is looking into for 6 months now.
- dmschulman 10y ago
  It's not collusion, the decisions are all being made within the party. It's wrong and unfortunate the way Sanders was treated by the DNC (I supported and donate to Sanders), but it's the DNC's call to operate however they want to operate.
  - Bartweiss 10y ago
    It's not really, though. Or at least, what the DNC did wasn't just operating how they chose. The DNC portrayed itself as a candidate-agnostic intermediary that wanted to see a Democrat win the election. They fundraised, did press coverage, and organized events using that claim. They were repeatedly accused of being biased, and they denied the accusations then publicly mocked the accusers for spinning crazy conspiracies. So no, the DNC didn't 'rig' the primary, they didn't have the power. But everyone who donated to the DNC has a right to be angry. The DNC is free to operate as they choose, but they lied about how they operate, and took money under those false pretenses. We aren't expected to accept that behavior from companies or charities, and I don't want to accept it from political groups either.
eli 10y ago
You are incorrect. DNC is not state funded.
- dmschulman 10y ago
  They're not federally funded, correct
- fixermark 10y ago
  Actually, in several states the two-party system is baked pretty deeply into the state-level laws. Pennsylvania, for example, has a primary system where one has to declare whether one is Democrat, Republican, or Independent, and then must vote on the ballot corresponding to that declaration (with the Independent ballot holding only referendum questions and not any input into the primary process). Those elections use the state's voting machines and vote security infrastructure. That's functionally equivalent to being state-funded, even if the funding is in terms of human-power and machine use donation and not cash.
  - dmschulman 10y ago
    That's a bit of a stretch to reach the conclusion the DNC and RNC are "state funded". Poll workers are volunteers, the machines are bought with taxpayer money but they are used for multiple types elections (from state to federal).
    - fixermark 10y ago
      Not all poll workers are volunteers. I'm a majority inspector; I'm state-paid. I'm required to show up for the primaries.
      - dmschulman 10y ago
        But you're not a federal employee, that isn't your full time job. That's a responsibility you volunteered to take on, the fact that you get compensated for your time every time there's a primary vote doesn't imply you're an agent of the state, it's not a "functional equivalent".
Jtsummers 10y ago
Neither the DNC, RNC, nor any other political party organization is a federal institution.
- dmschulman 10y ago
  Exactly
- emp_zealoth 10y ago
  Doesn't it make it even worse? A private, oblique organisation has effective stranglehold on who gets the shot at presidency with little oversight, because "private"
  - Jtsummers 10y ago
    The DNC is a private entity, and can act (internally) just about any way they want. You and I are free (well, constrained by finances I suppose) to establish our own parties that act however we want. Freedom of association and all. People don't have to join the Democrats or the Republicans. Those who do make that choice are now learning that these parties function exactly like any other corporate entity. Some sort of oligarchy calling the shots over a pseudo-democratic process that they ostensibly claim to be the real process. Time for the schisms.
  - dmschulman 10y ago
    Someone didn't pay attention in civics class. You'd prefer the federal government to manage the decisions of all the major political parties?

jdoliner 10y ago

When you say "vetting" what are you actually suggesting they do? Check to make sure the information is actually true? As far as I can tell they did that. Check the make sure that the information doesn't put peoples lives in danger? It doesn't seem like they put any lives in danger with this leak. Except maybe their source's but I'm not sure how "vetting" the information would have helped that. What pray tell is actually meant by "vetting?"

Frondo 10y ago
Releasing the personal information for all those Turkish women absolutely can put their lives in danger.

doomtop 10y ago

> wasn't the whole point of WikiLeaks to hold governments and their leaders accountable? No, not exactly. WikiLeaks specializes in the analysis and publication of large datasets of censored or otherwise restricted official materials involving war, spying and corruption.[1] I would definitely say the DNC leak was restricted official materials involving corruption. [1] https://wikileaks.org/What-is-Wikileaks.html https://wikileaks.org/What-is-Wikileaks.html

mason240 10y ago

>The DNC isn't even a government, wasn't the whole point of WikiLeaks to hold governments and their leaders accountable? Something tells me you would not be making this comment if they released leaks that implicated "evil" corporations like Exxon-Mobile, Wal-Mart, Koch, ect.

selectodude 10y ago
If Wal-Mart had an election for their CEO and the deck was stacked, I would probably be equally surprised.