7 ms·

Seems to me this should be verified as legit data before we start disseminating this info, no? In this guy's screenshots there is literally a directory titled "

Seems to me this should be verified as legit data before we start disseminating this info, no? In this guy's screenshots there is literally a directory titled "Pay to Play." A little on the nose isn't it?

koolba 10y ago
> Seems to me this should be verified as legit data before we start disseminating this info, no? The previous releases haven't been disputed so until proven otherwise, I'd say this is legit as well. > In this guy's screenshots there is literally a directory titled "Pay to Play." A little on the nose isn't it? I'm not sure if that's the original directory listing or a grouping Guccifer 2.0 put together. Even if it's not, I wouldn't be particularly surprised if there was a directory or Excel named "Pay to Play" or equivalent. It's still a ways away from naming it "Bribe List" or "Scamola Monies".
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- travmatt 10y ago
  That's exactly Russian tradecraft - they build up trust with the leaks of true information, then layer in false, damning allegations. We'll likely see the worst lies directly before the elections, so as to aid Trump the most.
  - vaishaksuresh 10y ago
    Even if we believe that this is a Russian conspiracy, why is it more important than the actual corruption? Leaking DNC emails was probably illegal, but that does not make the content any less damning.
    - travmatt 10y ago
      Did you mean to respond to me? I just said that the Russian intelligence services will use the trust they've established (by disseminating truthful information) in order to spread lies when it comes closer to the election - do you not see harm in that? Edit: Also, can you point to the 'actual corruption' that occurred? Not the dirty tricks (which I agree happened), but the 'actual corruption' that you are alleging occurred. So far I've heard plenty of people allege corruption, but I've yet to actually see this corruption. With the contents of the DNC emails it shouldn't be difficult.
      - vaishaksuresh 10y ago
        I see harm in what you're saying, but I also think the same thing applies to the US media and corporations. Just because the hack was linked to Russia and they have been at loggerheads with the US, you should not be using that sentiment to discredit the actual information. I don't know what you call 'actual corruption' but discriminating against another candidate, not providing level playing ground and actively harming another candidate's campaign, DNC chair stepping down because of corruption and immediately getting hired in Clinton campaign all look pretty shady to me. Illegal, maybe not but definitely corrupt.
        travmatt 10y ago
        > Just because the hack was linked to Russia and they have been at loggerheads with the US, you should not be using that sentiment to discredit the actual information. Correction, Russia is in hostilities with the United States, and is attempting to weaken it's international standing and weaken it's treaties (primarily NATO). It's currently headed by a dictator fond of murdering journalists and dissidents, jailing and inciting violence against sexual minorities, nationalizing multi-billion dollar corporations for his personal profit, and literally (as in the actual definitive use) rigging elections - in addition to invading his neighbors. There is no honest defense of Putin as a leader, and there is no honest defense of why he should have a say in who America elects as it's next president. I'd suggest that his involvement in the US electoral process is poisonous, and if any US citizens are found to have conspired in this effort with him, that should be considered treason. And again, you seem to be intentionally mis-parsing my words. As I've now said twice, Russian intelligence intentionally leaks truthful information so that it may later spread deceitful propaganda. I've never argued that American voters aren't entitled to know truthful disclosures about it's electoral process. But again, as I've said twice, Putin has a track record of using this credibility to later spread lies. With the understanding that Putin intentionally spreads lies, it becomes abundantly clear as to why America should treat everything he leaks with a healthy dose of skepticism. With regards to the 'everyone else is doing it' what-aboutism, I'll pass. I personally find it a tiring and intellectually lazy argument, and in any case it's irrelevant. >I don't know what you call 'actual corruption' but discriminating against another candidate, not providing level playing ground and actively harming another candidate's campaign, DNC chair stepping down because of corruption and immediately getting hired in Clinton campaign all look pretty shady to me. Illegal, maybe not but definitely corrupt. To be clear, 'actual corruption' is orchestrating the submission of fraudulent ballots (ballot-box stuffing), fraudulently disqualifying the ballots of eligible voters, or otherwise attempting to alter the outcomes of American votes. I'm not sure if you're familiar with American politics, but otherwise these 'dirty tricks' are actually par the course - since forever, really. A candidate who is unable to overcome them probably isn't qualified to become president by dint of their amateurism. For some perspective, the DNC tried all these tricks - and worse - on Obama as he wrested the nomination away from Hillary. If you believe that Sanders could walk into the Democratic Party after 30 years as independent and seize the nomination then you don't understand party politics. Lastly, the question of DWS's resignation. To be clear, no allegations against DWS regarded 'actual corruption.' With that said, Putin timed his leaks beautifully to sabotage the Democratic Conventions. If you'll remember, these disclosures left the convention beginning in an upheaval and largely against HRC. Since there is no person able to force the resignation of the DNC chairperson, HRC faced a convention in open revolt against her and the chairperson. Offering DWS a spot in her campaign allowed her to resign and still save face, and allowed HRC to bring in a chairperson who could help bring the convention to heel. DWS draws no salary from the campaign nor has any responsibilities - we call this an honorary position. What you're calling 'actual corruption' I call deft political maneuvering. Lastly, Bernie Sanders lost by over 3,000,000 votes. To suggest that the nomination should go to him is in defiance of the idea of a democracy, unless you are alleging that Hillary Clinton manufactured or stole 3 million votes. "I wouldn't use the word 'rigged,' because we knew what the rules were. But what is really dumb is that you have closed primaries, like in New York State, where 3 million people who were Democrats or Republicans could not participate. Where you have a situation where over 400 superdelegates came on board Clinton's campaign before anybody else was in the race, eight months before the first vote was cast. That's not rigged. I think it's just a dumb process, which has certainly disadvantaged our campaign." - It seems Bernie himself would align much more closely with my interpretation of reality than yours.
  - grandalf 10y ago
    Do you have any evidence of Russian involvement? It would seem to me that a state actor would have the sophistication not to leave fingerprints on the data.
    - travmatt 10y ago
      You should probably start with the incident report published by the incident response firm responsible for investigating the DNC hack: https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...
tomku 10y ago
That's a fundamental problem with leaks like this, particularly from brazenly partisan sources. There's no realistic way to verify that the hacker did not fabricate documents to insert before they released the "leak". The "Pay to play" folder and the TARP spreadsheet strike me as a little too convenient to be real.
- adamiscool8 10y ago
  It's a fair point, but "never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity".
  - tomku 10y ago
    That saying really does not work when the you're talking about one party potentially being malicious and a completely different party being stupid. It's also worth pointing out that malice and stupidity aren't necessarily an either-or.
  - micaksica 10y ago
    Hanlon's Razor definitely does not apply when you are talking about intelligence, information warfare, and diplomacy. To believe that aphorism holds true as a "razor" in high-stakes political games puts one firmly in the stupid camp.
    - jwtadvice 10y ago
      This 100%. However most people who hold this view seem to apply it only for adversaries of their nation, and not the intelligence activities of their own nation. For example the selective leaks known as the Panama Papers was criticized for being screened before being leaked of implicating US officials - and for being selectively published to implicate other world leaders. Ask an American about this an Hanlon's Razor suddenly seems relevant. Really, whether to take the mental effort to understand the realpolitik implications, incentives and to pry into leaks and their sources to understand what's true, what's false, what's mischaracterized and what's missing - that decision to be careful and skeptical is immediately under the bias that nationalistic individuals hold dear: cognitive dissonance, etc.
draw_down 10y ago
Sure... though worth noting that it would be in the interest of some for that verification process to take absolutely as much time as possible.
defen 10y ago
I have no opinion on whether this leak is "real", but if it is, Pay To Play almost certainly refers to this: https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2010/ia-3043.pdf https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2010/ia-3043.pdf and not illegal pay-to-play schemes.
- tootie 10y ago
  DNC leaks included a lot of messages with a "pay to play" label and they were all about documenting compliance with pay to play laws.
ZenoArrow 10y ago
> "Seems to me this should be verified as legit data before we start disseminating this info, no?" Whilst it makes sense to check the data, does it not make it easier to verify by leaking it? Many hands make light work. That said, I don't think this leak is likely to change the outcome of the US election. Anyone who has been paying attention is well aware of the corruption widespread throughout politics, and the level of integrity in mainstream journalism is so low that politicians can get away with blatant lies with minimal blowback.
vintermann 10y ago
Nope, because if you look at the file it's opposition research. I'm not surprised to see Democrats not mincing words about corruption internally - when speaking of opponents.

koolba 10y ago

> Seems to me this should be verified as legit data before we start disseminating this info, no? The previous releases haven't been disputed so until proven otherwise, I'd say this is legit as well. > In this guy's screenshots there is literally a directory titled "Pay to Play." A little on the nose isn't it? I'm not sure if that's the original directory listing or a grouping Guccifer 2.0 put together. Even if it's not, I wouldn't be particularly surprised if there was a directory or Excel named "Pay to Play" or equivalent. It's still a ways away from naming it "Bribe List" or "Scamola Monies".

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
travmatt 10y ago
That's exactly Russian tradecraft - they build up trust with the leaks of true information, then layer in false, damning allegations. We'll likely see the worst lies directly before the elections, so as to aid Trump the most.
- vaishaksuresh 10y ago
  Even if we believe that this is a Russian conspiracy, why is it more important than the actual corruption? Leaking DNC emails was probably illegal, but that does not make the content any less damning.
  - travmatt 10y ago
    Did you mean to respond to me? I just said that the Russian intelligence services will use the trust they've established (by disseminating truthful information) in order to spread lies when it comes closer to the election - do you not see harm in that? Edit: Also, can you point to the 'actual corruption' that occurred? Not the dirty tricks (which I agree happened), but the 'actual corruption' that you are alleging occurred. So far I've heard plenty of people allege corruption, but I've yet to actually see this corruption. With the contents of the DNC emails it shouldn't be difficult.
    - vaishaksuresh 10y ago
      I see harm in what you're saying, but I also think the same thing applies to the US media and corporations. Just because the hack was linked to Russia and they have been at loggerheads with the US, you should not be using that sentiment to discredit the actual information. I don't know what you call 'actual corruption' but discriminating against another candidate, not providing level playing ground and actively harming another candidate's campaign, DNC chair stepping down because of corruption and immediately getting hired in Clinton campaign all look pretty shady to me. Illegal, maybe not but definitely corrupt.
      - travmatt 10y ago
        > Just because the hack was linked to Russia and they have been at loggerheads with the US, you should not be using that sentiment to discredit the actual information. Correction, Russia is in hostilities with the United States, and is attempting to weaken it's international standing and weaken it's treaties (primarily NATO). It's currently headed by a dictator fond of murdering journalists and dissidents, jailing and inciting violence against sexual minorities, nationalizing multi-billion dollar corporations for his personal profit, and literally (as in the actual definitive use) rigging elections - in addition to invading his neighbors. There is no honest defense of Putin as a leader, and there is no honest defense of why he should have a say in who America elects as it's next president. I'd suggest that his involvement in the US electoral process is poisonous, and if any US citizens are found to have conspired in this effort with him, that should be considered treason. And again, you seem to be intentionally mis-parsing my words. As I've now said twice, Russian intelligence intentionally leaks truthful information so that it may later spread deceitful propaganda. I've never argued that American voters aren't entitled to know truthful disclosures about it's electoral process. But again, as I've said twice, Putin has a track record of using this credibility to later spread lies. With the understanding that Putin intentionally spreads lies, it becomes abundantly clear as to why America should treat everything he leaks with a healthy dose of skepticism. With regards to the 'everyone else is doing it' what-aboutism, I'll pass. I personally find it a tiring and intellectually lazy argument, and in any case it's irrelevant. >I don't know what you call 'actual corruption' but discriminating against another candidate, not providing level playing ground and actively harming another candidate's campaign, DNC chair stepping down because of corruption and immediately getting hired in Clinton campaign all look pretty shady to me. Illegal, maybe not but definitely corrupt. To be clear, 'actual corruption' is orchestrating the submission of fraudulent ballots (ballot-box stuffing), fraudulently disqualifying the ballots of eligible voters, or otherwise attempting to alter the outcomes of American votes. I'm not sure if you're familiar with American politics, but otherwise these 'dirty tricks' are actually par the course - since forever, really. A candidate who is unable to overcome them probably isn't qualified to become president by dint of their amateurism. For some perspective, the DNC tried all these tricks - and worse - on Obama as he wrested the nomination away from Hillary. If you believe that Sanders could walk into the Democratic Party after 30 years as independent and seize the nomination then you don't understand party politics. Lastly, the question of DWS's resignation. To be clear, no allegations against DWS regarded 'actual corruption.' With that said, Putin timed his leaks beautifully to sabotage the Democratic Conventions. If you'll remember, these disclosures left the convention beginning in an upheaval and largely against HRC. Since there is no person able to force the resignation of the DNC chairperson, HRC faced a convention in open revolt against her and the chairperson. Offering DWS a spot in her campaign allowed her to resign and still save face, and allowed HRC to bring in a chairperson who could help bring the convention to heel. DWS draws no salary from the campaign nor has any responsibilities - we call this an honorary position. What you're calling 'actual corruption' I call deft political maneuvering. Lastly, Bernie Sanders lost by over 3,000,000 votes. To suggest that the nomination should go to him is in defiance of the idea of a democracy, unless you are alleging that Hillary Clinton manufactured or stole 3 million votes. "I wouldn't use the word 'rigged,' because we knew what the rules were. But what is really dumb is that you have closed primaries, like in New York State, where 3 million people who were Democrats or Republicans could not participate. Where you have a situation where over 400 superdelegates came on board Clinton's campaign before anybody else was in the race, eight months before the first vote was cast. That's not rigged. I think it's just a dumb process, which has certainly disadvantaged our campaign." - It seems Bernie himself would align much more closely with my interpretation of reality than yours.
- grandalf 10y ago
  Do you have any evidence of Russian involvement? It would seem to me that a state actor would have the sophistication not to leave fingerprints on the data.
  - travmatt 10y ago
    You should probably start with the incident report published by the incident response firm responsible for investigating the DNC hack: https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...

tomku 10y ago

That's a fundamental problem with leaks like this, particularly from brazenly partisan sources. There's no realistic way to verify that the hacker did not fabricate documents to insert before they released the "leak". The "Pay to play" folder and the TARP spreadsheet strike me as a little too convenient to be real.

adamiscool8 10y ago
It's a fair point, but "never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity".
- tomku 10y ago
  That saying really does not work when the you're talking about one party potentially being malicious and a completely different party being stupid. It's also worth pointing out that malice and stupidity aren't necessarily an either-or.
- micaksica 10y ago
  Hanlon's Razor definitely does not apply when you are talking about intelligence, information warfare, and diplomacy. To believe that aphorism holds true as a "razor" in high-stakes political games puts one firmly in the stupid camp.
  - jwtadvice 10y ago
    This 100%. However most people who hold this view seem to apply it only for adversaries of their nation, and not the intelligence activities of their own nation. For example the selective leaks known as the Panama Papers was criticized for being screened before being leaked of implicating US officials - and for being selectively published to implicate other world leaders. Ask an American about this an Hanlon's Razor suddenly seems relevant. Really, whether to take the mental effort to understand the realpolitik implications, incentives and to pry into leaks and their sources to understand what's true, what's false, what's mischaracterized and what's missing - that decision to be careful and skeptical is immediately under the bias that nationalistic individuals hold dear: cognitive dissonance, etc.

draw_down 10y ago

Sure... though worth noting that it would be in the interest of some for that verification process to take absolutely as much time as possible.

defen 10y ago

I have no opinion on whether this leak is "real", but if it is, Pay To Play almost certainly refers to this: https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2010/ia-3043.pdf https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2010/ia-3043.pdf and not illegal pay-to-play schemes.

tootie 10y ago
DNC leaks included a lot of messages with a "pay to play" label and they were all about documenting compliance with pay to play laws.

ZenoArrow 10y ago

> "Seems to me this should be verified as legit data before we start disseminating this info, no?" Whilst it makes sense to check the data, does it not make it easier to verify by leaking it? Many hands make light work. That said, I don't think this leak is likely to change the outcome of the US election. Anyone who has been paying attention is well aware of the corruption widespread throughout politics, and the level of integrity in mainstream journalism is so low that politicians can get away with blatant lies with minimal blowback.

vintermann 10y ago

Nope, because if you look at the file it's opposition research. I'm not surprised to see Democrats not mincing words about corruption internally - when speaking of opponents.