10 ms·

Is there something really damaging in Wikileak emails? Even on Fox News they are not able to mention anything that is at the level of Trump tapes. Sure, there i

by sytelus 10y ago

Is there something really damaging in Wikileak emails? Even on Fox News they are not able to mention anything that is at the level of Trump tapes. Sure, there is some amusing stuff and quipes by aggressive campaign staff about opponents but nothing that can points to big corruption directly on Clinton's part. The media coverage is unexpectedly very low but I can see why media will want to put these rather boring emails front and center while juicy Trump stuff keeps coming out. If anyone has studied these emails, please feel free to comment. PS: As far as voting is concerned, I'm still in information collection mode and don't support any candidate at this point.

gotchange 10y ago
> Is there something really damaging in Wikileak emails? That's my main problem with all these arguments «false equivalency» in their pursuit of seeming and sounding fair, balanced and impartial, they resort to equate all the horrendous things that Trump said or did with these harmless details that Hillary or her chief of staff said behind closed doors or in private emails. It's just not right and unfair for Hillary and her campaign.
- skylan_q 10y ago
  These are completely different things. What's in those emails is FAR more damming than some foul-mouthed quips. Gross FCC violations, for one.
  - brainfire 10y ago
    You're literally proving the grandparent comment's point- the best you can come up with is a baseless accusation.
  - slg 10y ago
    You say that without linking to any real source. Every time I have seen someone link "evidence", it is just a Rorschach test of an email that depending on where you fall on the political spectrum you might view as signs of criminal activity or view as politics as usual.
    - TaylorAlexander 10y ago
      Can't it be criminal activity and politics as usual?
  - revscat 10y ago
    Which email(s) are you speaking of?
  - xenadu02 10y ago
    Two things: 1. Having read the emails I disagree that there is anything damning in them. Even when campaign staffers suggested bad things they got shot down. The email releases have been one big nothing-burger after another. The media is like a toddler... unless you have something interesting going on their attention wanes quickly. 2. The Trump sexual assault tape is not bad because he had a foul mouth. In some cases focusing on that is a deliberate effort at mis-direction. Trump can swear all he likes and no one except a few pearl-clutching grandmas care. What is gross is Trump boasting that he commits sexual assault against women and they let him get away with it because he's rich and famous. That's what was so offensive about that video.
    - DominikR 10y ago
      > 1. Having read the emails I disagree that there is anything damning in them. So you have read _all_ the emails and thanks to your superior judgement you can now explain to us peasants how it all doesn't matter. Whats interesting is that your deflection contains zero substance, you just call it a nothing burger.
    - bduerst 10y ago
      Definitely agree on #1 - even Assange knew there was nothing in the emails which is why there was no "October surprise." Now they're releasing the emails in parcels to manipulate the 24 hour news cycle - e.g. "More Hillary Emails leaked!" There's no smoking gun in those emails, and the majority of the "There's a lot there" statements boil down to examples like this: http://i.imgur.com/eRRc02n.png?1 http://i.imgur.com/eRRc02n.png?1
      - EdHominem 10y ago
        > they're releasing the emails in parcels to manipulate the 24 hour news cycle That's be the tail wagging the dog. They release daily to participate in the 24h news cycle.
        bduerst 10y ago
        Yes, semantically speaking, manipulating the 24 hour news cycle does require participating. If there was any actual news in the emails, released each day, then it wouldn't be manipulation. It would be news, like how WashPo released the Trump sex assault tape the same day they got it. As it is now, they're withholding empty, hacked information and timing the releases to participate and manipulate headlines during the U.S. election period.
- forgetsusername 10y ago
  >It's just not right and unfair for Hillary and her campaign. Wow. Trump is a buffoon; I'm sure you can scour the public record for innumerous idiotic things he's said over the years. What do you expect from the guy? Clinton, on the other hand, is a career politician and public servant. I think those behind-the-scenes dealings are far more dangerous.
  - gotchange 10y ago
    No, I disagree. Trump is the Republican nominee for the 2016 US presidential elections which means that he's as much a politician as Hillary or Obama is and should be held against the same set of standards like every politician does and this notion that since he's novice in this field he deserves to get preferential treatment and be forgiven for all his mistakes and wrongdoings is bit disingenuous.
    - forgetsusername 10y ago
      >Trump is the Republican nominee for the 2016 US presidential elections which means that he's as much a politician as as Hillary or Obama is I hope you're kidding when you say he's as much a politician as Hilary. He has very limited political experience. She's been doing it for 30+ years. He's a candidate, but has held precisely zero public offices thus far. >this notion that since he's novice in this field he deserves to get preferential treatment and be forgiven for all his mistakes and wrongdoings is bit disingenuous. What preferential treatment are you talking about? Who said anything about "forgiving" him? I'm saying, "what on earth do you expect by nominating a TV personality"? I expect more from my politicians. Apparently you don't. Perhaps that's why your election is a mess?
      - gotchange 10y ago
        I am the one here who's advocating for equal and fair treatment for both candidates not the usual prevailing one for Hillary and a more lenient and almost non-existent for Trump because he's a newbie to the world of politics. This is not a game. This is a real and serious national election for a superpower, and this levity when dealing with these matters is not helpful. Your position seems to be along those lines above. If not, please clarify.
skylan_q 10y ago
DNC collusion with the media is one that stands out to me. Also the acknowledgement that ISIS is funded in part by Saudi Arabia while the Clinton Foundation gets many donations from Saudi Arabia. If you have some time, scroll through the Wikileaks Twitter. Very little noise, mostly content. https://twitter.com/wikileaks https://twitter.com/wikileaks
- phs318u 10y ago
  Sadly, bipartisan support for Saudi Arabia (and by extension its state sponsorship of various Wahhabist groups) has been a thing since way before Bush Snr was president. When the Russians were in Afghanistan it was "useful". Since then - not so much. But hey, oil right?
  - vonmoltke 10y ago
    > But hey, oil right? Why does this canard keep coming up? This isn't 1973. The Middle East does not have the West by the balls with respect to energy anymore. We're invested in Saudi Arabia to keep it from imploding, not for natural resources. Not directly, at least, since oil money is one of the few things keeping it from imploding.
    - phs318u 10y ago
      Yes but think of the timeframes and the scope. Increasing energy independence is a relatively recent phenomenon - say the last decade? Geopolitical "investments" aren't traded quickly precisely because they're not supposed to be so transparently viewed as merely an investment in resources. The perception of things is still important which means such support can't be withdrawn in the short term. (Edit: so yes, I do agree, but...) The US may well be largely energy independent but a large number of significant client states within its sphere of influence are not. The viability of those client states goes directly to the global effectiveness of US hegemony.
- awinder 10y ago
  This is a perpetuation of the status quo of (at least) 20 years of Washington influence with the Saudi government, though. Which isn't going to change with trump who has some equally deep ties.
bazillion 10y ago
Here's a summary of most of what has been found in the emails so far: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/57vefh/podesta_emails_magathread/ https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/57vefh/podesta_... Some of the things found were: 1. The Goldman Sachs speeches, showing that Hillary has a "public and private position", is still against gay marriage, wants open borders, wants to enact gun bans, and wants to establish a hemispheric common market. 2. John Podesta (Hillary's campaign chair) giving a list of "needy latinos" to call. 3. The DNC planning fake Trump assault scandals 4. Clinton Campaign Discusses Which Emails To "Hold" Hours After Subpoena ...all among many, many other things. We still have another 10k Podesta emails to go.
- xenadu02 10y ago
  > 1. The Goldman Sachs speeches, showing that Hillary has a "public and private position", is still against gay marriage, wants open borders, wants to enact gun bans, and wants to establish a hemispheric common market. With the exception of a common market I must strongly disagree with your assessments. I'll also point out that everyone has public and private positions and everyone except the most socially inept tries to tailor what they say to their audience to get a better reception. That's half of being a politician: glad-handing and smooth-talking your constituents and colleagues into going along with your plan. > 2. John Podesta (Hillary's campaign chair) giving a list of "needy latinos" to call. What's your point? Is that supposed to compare to calling Mexicans rapists, saying more countries should have nuclear weapons, calling for a ban on muslim immigrants, saying you want veto-power over the press, claiming US elections are illegitimate, attacking a Gold Star family, ... I mean I could go on and on and on here. > 3. The DNC planning fake Trump assault scandals I haven't seen anything legit on this. Care to elaborate? I know some campaign staffers have occasionally proposed really stupid ideas but they were always shot down. If there is proof that anyone actually carried out such a plan please let us know. > 4. Clinton Campaign Discusses Which Emails To "Hold" Hours After Subpoena This is standard practice. It's called a document retention notice and every single company in the US follows this exact procedures. The court orders you to deliver evidence and you must figure out which documents are covered under that order. If you just backed up all your servers and dumped them on the court wholesale you'd be held in contempt.
amasad 10y ago
There are really damaging things -- although nothing surprising and that's why I think nobody is talking about it. E.g. in one email HRC talks about how Qatar is funding ISIS, and in the next they're giving Bill Clinton a $1m check for his birthday. The wallstreet stuff would've definitely tilted the balance to Bernie Sanders in the primaries. Finally, the level of involvement with the press is far more than I could've ever imagined (the NYT is sending the HRC campaigns drafts of stories for approval before they come out, and promise complete support). I found this site which summarizes the finding (tweeted by a Trump supporter): http://www.vaskal.ca/podestafiles http://www.vaskal.ca/podestafiles
- zuminator 10y ago
  They didn't give Bill Clinton a check for $1m. They contributed $1m to the Clinton Foundation in honor of his birthday. Contrary to what some alt-right sites maintain, the Clintons derive no personal income from the charitable foundation which takes its name from them.
  - t0liman 10y ago
    This is pretty disingenuous for the definition of charity. The Clinton Foundation perhaps redefines what political bribery means in the 21st century, in an attempt to skirt the laws set up to prevent power, via money, government leaders or corporations influencing policy or private citizens. The Clinton Foundation is the new SuperPAC. At what point is a $1 million birthday gift seen as a gift from a friend? Or a "charitable donation" ? Sure, there's no evidence of pay for play in explicit terms. Doing so would be tantamount for a legal definition of bribery. However, consider the natural progression of the PAC if it were to use the same loophole of charity instead. Would a charity request for money be considered access, at the same level as PAC influence? At some point, the foundation should be considered a profitable business rather than a charity, given the immense staffing and expenditures of operation in a billion dollar+ charity organization. It's not trivial to ignore the oddities that abound when it does not operate like any other charity organization. Plane tickets for Hillary and Chelsea, car expenses, six figure living expenses, etc. The grey area of having ~70 year billionaires running for president is when you see just how they live and work, and how they got there... It's usually disgusting or disappointing. It almost always has to be. If you disagree, examine what it is you believe is good about the process of allowing, then choosing between the richest of egomaniacs, to lead a nation with a sense of morality or ethical standards. The democratic process is acutely broken by any standard if you believe that PACs and now, "charity organizations" is a net benefit.
alphapapa 10y ago
> Even on Fox News they are not able to mention anything that is at the level of Trump tapes. The Trump tapes? You mean that one 11-year-old video that shows him talking very crudely about sexual escapades? Sure, that's reprehensible. Is it worse than what past presidents have done while in office? If not, why is it a problem now? Why is one candidate's personal sex life a bigger problem than collusion with the media during the campaign and using a cabinet-level position to enrich oneself? That is, why is his sex life a bigger problem than her corruption exhibited while in public office, as well as her criminal mishandling of classified material, which directly harmed U.S. interests abroad, when many have been jailed for less (including since Comey's press conference)? > PS: As far as voting is concerned, I'm still in information collection mode and don't support any candidate at this point. That's nice. A suggestion: if you really care about who wins, look less at the candidates and more the platforms of them and their parties. The media makes it appear that this election is a contest between two people--but it's actually a contest between two competing worldviews which are vastly different from one another. You could swap any other Democrat for her and any Republican for him (though any actual Republican would differ much more from Trump than any other Democrat would differ from Clinton), and the underlying issues would be the same. The individual candidates are virtually a facade, a distraction from the real issues at stake.
- marincounty 10y ago
  "You could swap any other Democrat for her and any Republican for him (though any actual Republican would differ much more from Trump than any other Democrat would differ from Clinton), and the underlying issues would be the same. The individual candidates are virtually a facade, a distraction from the real issues at stake." I agree real issues are at stake. A lot of them local, like prop 61 in California. Pharmacutical companies dread this prop passing. Trump is no Rebublican I can recall. He's for tarriffs? He's against Globalization.(that little thing that lets your bosses build their stuff in the cheapest, most corrupt country.) He is so far from being a true Republican; Rebublican voters are voting for Hillary. They don't want anyone touching their cheap labor. Apple must be a bit scared? One of the problems with Trump is I just don't trust the guy. I don't trust him on any level. As to the issues, he must know by now can't just raise Tarriffs; without congressional approval, and breaking a bunch of legal trade agreements? So, I feel, he's running just to run at this point. I don't trust her either. I do have a feeling he will win though. Just a weird feeling. I don't feel voters would admit to pollsters they might vote for the guy. On the bright side, if he screws up too bad, he could be impeached, or worse.
smsm42 10y ago
That depends on what is damaging. Is evidence of collusion and cooperation between DNC, media (including sending articles for approval, leaking supposedly secret interview questions and creating content at the request of the campaign, to be published as independently created) and Clinton campaign to get Clinton elected damaging? It might be if you value free press and honest election process, or it might be OK for you if you agree that getting Clinton elected is the ultimate goal.[1] Is evidence of financial ties of Clinton and foundation aides to Russian oligarchy damaging? Depends on whether you think being financially tied to Putin and claiming Trump is in Putin's pocket in the same time is something bad to do or a clever game? Is evidence of pay-for-play arrangements between State Dept., Clinton foundation and foreign investors - including same persons working for both at the same time - damaging or just a successful charity that nobody has to be ashamed of? Is revelation that the president knew what he claimed to have no knowledge of damaging or just a clever tactic to defeat attacks? Is revelation that Supreme Court was (successfully) pressured into making certain decisions by threatening to make it a campaign issue otherwise damaging or just a successful management? Is calling your voters "needy latinos"[2] and Catholics "amazing bastardization of the faith"[3] damaging or just funny banter? Is telling "we've all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry"[4] and complaining "compliance is obviously fading rapidly" damaging or accurate assessment of their electoral strategy? It all depends on your point of view, I guess. [1] https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak-reveals-clinton-campaigns-cozy-press-relationship/ https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak... [2] https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak-reveals-clinton-campaigns-cozy-press-relationship/ https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak... [3] http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/12/hillary-clinton-campaigns-wikileaks-emails-reveal-/ http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/12/hillary-clinto... [4] https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3599 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3599
- mentalpiracy 10y ago
  Slightly orthogonal to your #5: are you in a current job role where you ever bring up the topic of your customers or your clients in casual discussion? Do you ever refer to either group in less-than-stellar terms? For my part, I do both. I have bitched and kvetched at times about my clients being cripplingly needy, aggressively brain dead, and the like. I certainly wouldn't say it to their faces, and it doesn't mean I don't rely on their dollars to support my business. Nor either does it mean I am producing lesser-quality work for them. This is a non-issue. People everywhere bitch about the outsiders they have to deal with in language that would never be used in business proper. It is a massive chasm of difference between calling a group "needy" and categorizing them as illegals, rapists and murderers.
Chathamization 10y ago
Usually when people tell me about some of the awful things that were said in the e-mail Wikileaks released I go look at the original e-mail and read it in full. It's almost always the case that if you read these statements in context, they just aren't that offensive. For instance, the comment about public/private positions is one of the most common ones you hear people complain about (and Clinton was asked about it during the debate). Here's the full statement: "You just have to sort of figure out how to -- getting back to that word, "balance" -- how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that's not just a comment about today. That, I think, has probably been true for all of our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln, and how he was maneuvering and working to get the 13th Amendment passed, and he called one of my favorite predecessors, Secretary Seward, who had been the governor and senator from New York, ran against Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need your help to get this done. And Seward called some of his lobbyist friends who knew how to make a deal, and they just kept going at it. I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position. And finally, I think -- I believe in evidence-based decision making. I want to know what the facts are. I mean, it's like when you guys go into some kind of a deal, you know, are you going to do that development or not, are you going to do that renovation or not, you know, you look at the numbers. You try to figure out what's going to work and what's not going to work." I would encourage everyone to look at the original source anytime someone makes a claim about what was said in the e-mail.
shard972 10y ago
> Is there something really damaging in Wikileak emails? The most damaging thing at the moment would have to be the attempted bribery from the under secretary to the FBI. Even in their excuse they are kind of admitting they attempted to bribe, but it just failed so we shouldn't worry. The other part that really gets me is the death penalty question that the head of the DNC smuggled out of CNN when she was working there. I don't know how she hasn't resigned when you have been caught working within the media to manipulate things to benefit your prefered candidate. And that skips over the whole issue of how the DNC was bias against bernie, it's just pilling on now how rigged the system was against him.

by sytelus 10y ago

gotchange 10y ago

> Is there something really damaging in Wikileak emails? That's my main problem with all these arguments «false equivalency» in their pursuit of seeming and sounding fair, balanced and impartial, they resort to equate all the horrendous things that Trump said or did with these harmless details that Hillary or her chief of staff said behind closed doors or in private emails. It's just not right and unfair for Hillary and her campaign.

skylan_q 10y ago
These are completely different things. What's in those emails is FAR more damming than some foul-mouthed quips. Gross FCC violations, for one.
- brainfire 10y ago
  You're literally proving the grandparent comment's point- the best you can come up with is a baseless accusation.
- slg 10y ago
  You say that without linking to any real source. Every time I have seen someone link "evidence", it is just a Rorschach test of an email that depending on where you fall on the political spectrum you might view as signs of criminal activity or view as politics as usual.
  - TaylorAlexander 10y ago
    Can't it be criminal activity and politics as usual?
- revscat 10y ago
  Which email(s) are you speaking of?
- xenadu02 10y ago
  Two things: 1. Having read the emails I disagree that there is anything damning in them. Even when campaign staffers suggested bad things they got shot down. The email releases have been one big nothing-burger after another. The media is like a toddler... unless you have something interesting going on their attention wanes quickly. 2. The Trump sexual assault tape is not bad because he had a foul mouth. In some cases focusing on that is a deliberate effort at mis-direction. Trump can swear all he likes and no one except a few pearl-clutching grandmas care. What is gross is Trump boasting that he commits sexual assault against women and they let him get away with it because he's rich and famous. That's what was so offensive about that video.
  - DominikR 10y ago
    > 1. Having read the emails I disagree that there is anything damning in them. So you have read _all_ the emails and thanks to your superior judgement you can now explain to us peasants how it all doesn't matter. Whats interesting is that your deflection contains zero substance, you just call it a nothing burger.
  - bduerst 10y ago
    Definitely agree on #1 - even Assange knew there was nothing in the emails which is why there was no "October surprise." Now they're releasing the emails in parcels to manipulate the 24 hour news cycle - e.g. "More Hillary Emails leaked!" There's no smoking gun in those emails, and the majority of the "There's a lot there" statements boil down to examples like this: http://i.imgur.com/eRRc02n.png?1 http://i.imgur.com/eRRc02n.png?1
    - EdHominem 10y ago
      > they're releasing the emails in parcels to manipulate the 24 hour news cycle That's be the tail wagging the dog. They release daily to participate in the 24h news cycle.
      - bduerst 10y ago
        Yes, semantically speaking, manipulating the 24 hour news cycle does require participating. If there was any actual news in the emails, released each day, then it wouldn't be manipulation. It would be news, like how WashPo released the Trump sex assault tape the same day they got it. As it is now, they're withholding empty, hacked information and timing the releases to participate and manipulate headlines during the U.S. election period.
forgetsusername 10y ago
>It's just not right and unfair for Hillary and her campaign. Wow. Trump is a buffoon; I'm sure you can scour the public record for innumerous idiotic things he's said over the years. What do you expect from the guy? Clinton, on the other hand, is a career politician and public servant. I think those behind-the-scenes dealings are far more dangerous.
- gotchange 10y ago
  No, I disagree. Trump is the Republican nominee for the 2016 US presidential elections which means that he's as much a politician as Hillary or Obama is and should be held against the same set of standards like every politician does and this notion that since he's novice in this field he deserves to get preferential treatment and be forgiven for all his mistakes and wrongdoings is bit disingenuous.
  - forgetsusername 10y ago
    >Trump is the Republican nominee for the 2016 US presidential elections which means that he's as much a politician as as Hillary or Obama is I hope you're kidding when you say he's as much a politician as Hilary. He has very limited political experience. She's been doing it for 30+ years. He's a candidate, but has held precisely zero public offices thus far. >this notion that since he's novice in this field he deserves to get preferential treatment and be forgiven for all his mistakes and wrongdoings is bit disingenuous. What preferential treatment are you talking about? Who said anything about "forgiving" him? I'm saying, "what on earth do you expect by nominating a TV personality"? I expect more from my politicians. Apparently you don't. Perhaps that's why your election is a mess?
    - gotchange 10y ago
      I am the one here who's advocating for equal and fair treatment for both candidates not the usual prevailing one for Hillary and a more lenient and almost non-existent for Trump because he's a newbie to the world of politics. This is not a game. This is a real and serious national election for a superpower, and this levity when dealing with these matters is not helpful. Your position seems to be along those lines above. If not, please clarify.

skylan_q 10y ago

DNC collusion with the media is one that stands out to me. Also the acknowledgement that ISIS is funded in part by Saudi Arabia while the Clinton Foundation gets many donations from Saudi Arabia. If you have some time, scroll through the Wikileaks Twitter. Very little noise, mostly content. https://twitter.com/wikileaks https://twitter.com/wikileaks

phs318u 10y ago
Sadly, bipartisan support for Saudi Arabia (and by extension its state sponsorship of various Wahhabist groups) has been a thing since way before Bush Snr was president. When the Russians were in Afghanistan it was "useful". Since then - not so much. But hey, oil right?
- vonmoltke 10y ago
  > But hey, oil right? Why does this canard keep coming up? This isn't 1973. The Middle East does not have the West by the balls with respect to energy anymore. We're invested in Saudi Arabia to keep it from imploding, not for natural resources. Not directly, at least, since oil money is one of the few things keeping it from imploding.
  - phs318u 10y ago
    Yes but think of the timeframes and the scope. Increasing energy independence is a relatively recent phenomenon - say the last decade? Geopolitical "investments" aren't traded quickly precisely because they're not supposed to be so transparently viewed as merely an investment in resources. The perception of things is still important which means such support can't be withdrawn in the short term. (Edit: so yes, I do agree, but...) The US may well be largely energy independent but a large number of significant client states within its sphere of influence are not. The viability of those client states goes directly to the global effectiveness of US hegemony.
awinder 10y ago
This is a perpetuation of the status quo of (at least) 20 years of Washington influence with the Saudi government, though. Which isn't going to change with trump who has some equally deep ties.

bazillion 10y ago

Here's a summary of most of what has been found in the emails so far: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/57vefh/podesta_emails_magathread/ https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/57vefh/podesta_... Some of the things found were: 1. The Goldman Sachs speeches, showing that Hillary has a "public and private position", is still against gay marriage, wants open borders, wants to enact gun bans, and wants to establish a hemispheric common market. 2. John Podesta (Hillary's campaign chair) giving a list of "needy latinos" to call. 3. The DNC planning fake Trump assault scandals 4. Clinton Campaign Discusses Which Emails To "Hold" Hours After Subpoena ...all among many, many other things. We still have another 10k Podesta emails to go.

xenadu02 10y ago
> 1. The Goldman Sachs speeches, showing that Hillary has a "public and private position", is still against gay marriage, wants open borders, wants to enact gun bans, and wants to establish a hemispheric common market. With the exception of a common market I must strongly disagree with your assessments. I'll also point out that everyone has public and private positions and everyone except the most socially inept tries to tailor what they say to their audience to get a better reception. That's half of being a politician: glad-handing and smooth-talking your constituents and colleagues into going along with your plan. > 2. John Podesta (Hillary's campaign chair) giving a list of "needy latinos" to call. What's your point? Is that supposed to compare to calling Mexicans rapists, saying more countries should have nuclear weapons, calling for a ban on muslim immigrants, saying you want veto-power over the press, claiming US elections are illegitimate, attacking a Gold Star family, ... I mean I could go on and on and on here. > 3. The DNC planning fake Trump assault scandals I haven't seen anything legit on this. Care to elaborate? I know some campaign staffers have occasionally proposed really stupid ideas but they were always shot down. If there is proof that anyone actually carried out such a plan please let us know. > 4. Clinton Campaign Discusses Which Emails To "Hold" Hours After Subpoena This is standard practice. It's called a document retention notice and every single company in the US follows this exact procedures. The court orders you to deliver evidence and you must figure out which documents are covered under that order. If you just backed up all your servers and dumped them on the court wholesale you'd be held in contempt.

amasad 10y ago

There are really damaging things -- although nothing surprising and that's why I think nobody is talking about it. E.g. in one email HRC talks about how Qatar is funding ISIS, and in the next they're giving Bill Clinton a $1m check for his birthday. The wallstreet stuff would've definitely tilted the balance to Bernie Sanders in the primaries. Finally, the level of involvement with the press is far more than I could've ever imagined (the NYT is sending the HRC campaigns drafts of stories for approval before they come out, and promise complete support). I found this site which summarizes the finding (tweeted by a Trump supporter): http://www.vaskal.ca/podestafiles http://www.vaskal.ca/podestafiles

zuminator 10y ago
They didn't give Bill Clinton a check for $1m. They contributed $1m to the Clinton Foundation in honor of his birthday. Contrary to what some alt-right sites maintain, the Clintons derive no personal income from the charitable foundation which takes its name from them.
- t0liman 10y ago
  This is pretty disingenuous for the definition of charity. The Clinton Foundation perhaps redefines what political bribery means in the 21st century, in an attempt to skirt the laws set up to prevent power, via money, government leaders or corporations influencing policy or private citizens. The Clinton Foundation is the new SuperPAC. At what point is a $1 million birthday gift seen as a gift from a friend? Or a "charitable donation" ? Sure, there's no evidence of pay for play in explicit terms. Doing so would be tantamount for a legal definition of bribery. However, consider the natural progression of the PAC if it were to use the same loophole of charity instead. Would a charity request for money be considered access, at the same level as PAC influence? At some point, the foundation should be considered a profitable business rather than a charity, given the immense staffing and expenditures of operation in a billion dollar+ charity organization. It's not trivial to ignore the oddities that abound when it does not operate like any other charity organization. Plane tickets for Hillary and Chelsea, car expenses, six figure living expenses, etc. The grey area of having ~70 year billionaires running for president is when you see just how they live and work, and how they got there... It's usually disgusting or disappointing. It almost always has to be. If you disagree, examine what it is you believe is good about the process of allowing, then choosing between the richest of egomaniacs, to lead a nation with a sense of morality or ethical standards. The democratic process is acutely broken by any standard if you believe that PACs and now, "charity organizations" is a net benefit.

alphapapa 10y ago

> Even on Fox News they are not able to mention anything that is at the level of Trump tapes. The Trump tapes? You mean that one 11-year-old video that shows him talking very crudely about sexual escapades? Sure, that's reprehensible. Is it worse than what past presidents have done while in office? If not, why is it a problem now? Why is one candidate's personal sex life a bigger problem than collusion with the media during the campaign and using a cabinet-level position to enrich oneself? That is, why is his sex life a bigger problem than her corruption exhibited while in public office, as well as her criminal mishandling of classified material, which directly harmed U.S. interests abroad, when many have been jailed for less (including since Comey's press conference)? > PS: As far as voting is concerned, I'm still in information collection mode and don't support any candidate at this point. That's nice. A suggestion: if you really care about who wins, look less at the candidates and more the platforms of them and their parties. The media makes it appear that this election is a contest between two people--but it's actually a contest between two competing worldviews which are vastly different from one another. You could swap any other Democrat for her and any Republican for him (though any actual Republican would differ much more from Trump than any other Democrat would differ from Clinton), and the underlying issues would be the same. The individual candidates are virtually a facade, a distraction from the real issues at stake.

marincounty 10y ago
"You could swap any other Democrat for her and any Republican for him (though any actual Republican would differ much more from Trump than any other Democrat would differ from Clinton), and the underlying issues would be the same. The individual candidates are virtually a facade, a distraction from the real issues at stake." I agree real issues are at stake. A lot of them local, like prop 61 in California. Pharmacutical companies dread this prop passing. Trump is no Rebublican I can recall. He's for tarriffs? He's against Globalization.(that little thing that lets your bosses build their stuff in the cheapest, most corrupt country.) He is so far from being a true Republican; Rebublican voters are voting for Hillary. They don't want anyone touching their cheap labor. Apple must be a bit scared? One of the problems with Trump is I just don't trust the guy. I don't trust him on any level. As to the issues, he must know by now can't just raise Tarriffs; without congressional approval, and breaking a bunch of legal trade agreements? So, I feel, he's running just to run at this point. I don't trust her either. I do have a feeling he will win though. Just a weird feeling. I don't feel voters would admit to pollsters they might vote for the guy. On the bright side, if he screws up too bad, he could be impeached, or worse.

smsm42 10y ago

That depends on what is damaging. Is evidence of collusion and cooperation between DNC, media (including sending articles for approval, leaking supposedly secret interview questions and creating content at the request of the campaign, to be published as independently created) and Clinton campaign to get Clinton elected damaging? It might be if you value free press and honest election process, or it might be OK for you if you agree that getting Clinton elected is the ultimate goal.[1] Is evidence of financial ties of Clinton and foundation aides to Russian oligarchy damaging? Depends on whether you think being financially tied to Putin and claiming Trump is in Putin's pocket in the same time is something bad to do or a clever game? Is evidence of pay-for-play arrangements between State Dept., Clinton foundation and foreign investors - including same persons working for both at the same time - damaging or just a successful charity that nobody has to be ashamed of? Is revelation that the president knew what he claimed to have no knowledge of damaging or just a clever tactic to defeat attacks? Is revelation that Supreme Court was (successfully) pressured into making certain decisions by threatening to make it a campaign issue otherwise damaging or just a successful management? Is calling your voters "needy latinos"[2] and Catholics "amazing bastardization of the faith"[3] damaging or just funny banter? Is telling "we've all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry"[4] and complaining "compliance is obviously fading rapidly" damaging or accurate assessment of their electoral strategy? It all depends on your point of view, I guess. [1] https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak-reveals-clinton-campaigns-cozy-press-relationship/ https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak... [2] https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak-reveals-clinton-campaigns-cozy-press-relationship/ https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak... [3] http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/12/hillary-clinton-campaigns-wikileaks-emails-reveal-/ http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/12/hillary-clinto... [4] https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3599 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3599

mentalpiracy 10y ago
Slightly orthogonal to your #5: are you in a current job role where you ever bring up the topic of your customers or your clients in casual discussion? Do you ever refer to either group in less-than-stellar terms? For my part, I do both. I have bitched and kvetched at times about my clients being cripplingly needy, aggressively brain dead, and the like. I certainly wouldn't say it to their faces, and it doesn't mean I don't rely on their dollars to support my business. Nor either does it mean I am producing lesser-quality work for them. This is a non-issue. People everywhere bitch about the outsiders they have to deal with in language that would never be used in business proper. It is a massive chasm of difference between calling a group "needy" and categorizing them as illegals, rapists and murderers.

Chathamization 10y ago

Usually when people tell me about some of the awful things that were said in the e-mail Wikileaks released I go look at the original e-mail and read it in full. It's almost always the case that if you read these statements in context, they just aren't that offensive. For instance, the comment about public/private positions is one of the most common ones you hear people complain about (and Clinton was asked about it during the debate). Here's the full statement: "You just have to sort of figure out how to -- getting back to that word, "balance" -- how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that's not just a comment about today. That, I think, has probably been true for all of our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln, and how he was maneuvering and working to get the 13th Amendment passed, and he called one of my favorite predecessors, Secretary Seward, who had been the governor and senator from New York, ran against Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need your help to get this done. And Seward called some of his lobbyist friends who knew how to make a deal, and they just kept going at it. I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position. And finally, I think -- I believe in evidence-based decision making. I want to know what the facts are. I mean, it's like when you guys go into some kind of a deal, you know, are you going to do that development or not, are you going to do that renovation or not, you know, you look at the numbers. You try to figure out what's going to work and what's not going to work." I would encourage everyone to look at the original source anytime someone makes a claim about what was said in the e-mail.

shard972 10y ago

> Is there something really damaging in Wikileak emails? The most damaging thing at the moment would have to be the attempted bribery from the under secretary to the FBI. Even in their excuse they are kind of admitting they attempted to bribe, but it just failed so we shouldn't worry. The other part that really gets me is the death penalty question that the head of the DNC smuggled out of CNN when she was working there. I don't know how she hasn't resigned when you have been caught working within the media to manipulate things to benefit your prefered candidate. And that skips over the whole issue of how the DNC was bias against bernie, it's just pilling on now how rigged the system was against him.