3 ms·

> If the DNC & the Clinton campaign weren't so dirty ... I don't think they were dirty, and the fact that even their private emails didn't reveal anything seri

> If the DNC & the Clinton campaign weren't so dirty ... I don't think they were dirty, and the fact that even their private emails didn't reveal anything serious is a strong indicator. I think Trump is much dirtier, for example. Also, we assume the emails were authentic, as if Russian intelligence wouldn't conduct a sophisticated disinformation campaign.

mi100hael 10y ago
You don't think the following is dirty? - Clinton fed multiple debate questions ahead of time - Clinton's private speeches contradicting her publicly-espoused positions - The DNC blatantly rigging the primaries in Clinton's favor - Bill Clinton using staff paid by the Clinton Foundation for his own personal engagements - Donors to the Clinton Foundation subsequently receiving favorable treatment from the State Dept. - Clinton campaign paying protestors to incite violence at Trump events - The deputy director of the FBI in charge of the Clinton email investigation is a close friend of Clinton's campaign manager and asked for a role in the campaign. Etc etc etc (http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/ http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/) All of that information is only available due to emails made public via Wikileaks and would otherwise have been considered the stuff of loony conspiracy theorists. Many (all?) of the emails can be directly validated as authentic using DKIM, and no one including the senders/recipients have disputed their validity. Safe to say they are legit.
- hackuser 10y ago
  I think most of those are unsubstantiated and/or exaggerated. A common tactic of the right's demonization machine is to make a flood of false allegations; with the endless negative news, people assume some must be true if the list is long enough. > Many (all?) of the emails can be directly validated as authentic using DKIM Even if true, I think DKIM validates only the sending server, not the sender, recipient, or content of the email. > no one including the senders/recipients have disputed their validity. Safe to say they are legit. Part of the goal of a disinformation campaign is a sort of DoS attack, overwhelming your target with disinformation so they spend all their time and resources fighting it, and attracting more attention and coverage to it. The Clinton campaign is smart enough not to play that role.

mi100hael 10y ago

You don't think the following is dirty? - Clinton fed multiple debate questions ahead of time - Clinton's private speeches contradicting her publicly-espoused positions - The DNC blatantly rigging the primaries in Clinton's favor - Bill Clinton using staff paid by the Clinton Foundation for his own personal engagements - Donors to the Clinton Foundation subsequently receiving favorable treatment from the State Dept. - Clinton campaign paying protestors to incite violence at Trump events - The deputy director of the FBI in charge of the Clinton email investigation is a close friend of Clinton's campaign manager and asked for a role in the campaign. Etc etc etc (http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/ http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/) All of that information is only available due to emails made public via Wikileaks and would otherwise have been considered the stuff of loony conspiracy theorists. Many (all?) of the emails can be directly validated as authentic using DKIM, and no one including the senders/recipients have disputed their validity. Safe to say they are legit.

hackuser 10y ago
I think most of those are unsubstantiated and/or exaggerated. A common tactic of the right's demonization machine is to make a flood of false allegations; with the endless negative news, people assume some must be true if the list is long enough. > Many (all?) of the emails can be directly validated as authentic using DKIM Even if true, I think DKIM validates only the sending server, not the sender, recipient, or content of the email. > no one including the senders/recipients have disputed their validity. Safe to say they are legit. Part of the goal of a disinformation campaign is a sort of DoS attack, overwhelming your target with disinformation so they spend all their time and resources fighting it, and attracting more attention and coverage to it. The Clinton campaign is smart enough not to play that role.