6 ms·

The "hacks" (so far all we know is Podesta clicked on a phishing email and gave away his password) revealed shady behavior on the part of: 1. The DNC coordinat

by PKop 10y ago

The "hacks" (so far all we know is Podesta clicked on a phishing email and gave away his password) revealed shady behavior on the part of: 1. The DNC coordinating with the Clinton campaign to ensure victory over Bernie in the primary. 2. Collusion between the media and the Clinton campaign (giving questions ahead of debates) to favor Clinton over Bernie 3. Signs of pay for play or general corruption of the Clinton foundation through foreign government donations. To the hackers, I say: Thank you very much! Thank you for releasing information on the Democratic party that we would never have been told otherwise (certainly not by the mainstream media). And you want to fight a nuclear war over this? Ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous.

pdabbadabba 10y ago
I'd say each of your three points are seriously exaggerated, but that's really neither here nor there. Why can't we be worried by the content of the emails and the fact that a foreign government hacked them and leaked them strategically to influence our election? It strikes me as profoundly foolish to not react here just because you happen to be happy that this particular set of information was released. (As well as, by the way, reams of email with no value to the public whatsoever.) And of course nobody is suggesting we fight a nuclear war. There's clearly plenty of space between GP's suggestion that we do more than tell them to 'cut it out' and nuclear warfare.
- exstudent2 10y ago
  Whoever released the emails did the American public a huge service. They pulled back the curtain and we got to see how the sausage is made. It doesn't matter who they are or why they did it. The end result was important whistle blowing. We should hope that information like this is leaked out as it helps balance the power between the public and corrupt politicians/media in a way nothing else can.
  - simonw 10y ago
    How do you feel about the fact that they appear to have hacked the RNC too but deliberately chose not to release those emails, in order to favor one candidate over the other. Still think that's a huge public service? Not to mention that the emails they kept might be used for blackmail in the future.
    - williamle8300 10y ago
      Maybe because RNC emails are mundane and don't have scandalous material?
      - cariaso 10y ago
        The majority of the Podesta leaks were extremely mundane. This suggests the RNC leaks were held to a different standard.
        mythrwy 10y ago
        The majority, yes. However some were "interesting".
        3131s 10y ago
        Of course the majority were mundane. The majority of Chapo Guzman's private communications would be mundane too. The contents of the DNC emails suggest nothing about the contents of the RNC emails, though I have no doubt that republicans are equally crooked.
        chillwaves 10y ago
        And what does the one-sidedness of the attacks and releases suggest?
        3131s 10y ago
        The one-sidedness of the attacks? From whom? If you're referring to recent CIA claims that the RNC was hacked as well, then my answer is that I don't trust the CIA. It may have happened, but you have no real proof about Russian involvement at all. Unlike other posters in this thread and Clinton herself, I am not keen on starting a physical war with Russia over conjecture about a virtual attack.
- williamle8300 10y ago
  It's called whistleblowing. By definition, you have to step outside of protocol... or hack. Choose whatever verbiage that suits you. I don't know what country you're from, but our laws in America are supposed to protect whistleblowers––not prosecute them.
  - rhcom2 10y ago
    A foreign government breaking into a computer system and releasing documents wholesale is not whistleblowing.
propogandist 10y ago
Here's US congressman Pete King, the Chairman of the Sub-Committee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence, stating this was all a disinformation campaign by the CIA: https://noagendaplayer.com/listen/886/41-20 https://noagendaplayer.com/listen/886/41-20 Publications like the Washington Post have made some ridiculous claims (clickbait headlines) with zero evidence, and it's been cited heavily for more Fake News. It doesn't help that the new NDAA bill includes the "Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act" which allows the US government to propogandize the American people. https://noagendaplayer.com/listen/885/1-30-59 https://noagendaplayer.com/listen/885/1-30-59 The American population is absolutely ignorant.
- superbaconman 10y ago
  Assange and another involved with WikiLeaks claim the leak wasn't a government official (they know the person who gave them the data). Either that person is involved with Russian intelligence, and the 'hack' involved infiltrating the Democratic party (if we know this happened why isn't the guy in chains?). Or the CIA is flat out lying to the American people for some unknown purpose/operation. Either way it's clear the CIA is the last person to listen to regarding election 'hacks'. https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/10/cia-concludes-russia-interfered-to-help-trump-win-election-report?client=ms-android-google https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/10/cia-conclude...
  - propogandist 10y ago
    the report you've cited references the same Washington Post story I've noted above, which is the source of all this misinformation >"A secret CIA assessment...the Washington Post reported, citing officials briefed on the matter." If it's a secret assessment, how did WaPo get a hold of it? How does the CIA not disclose this information to US Congress, who has oversight over the CIA, when they're asked to testify re: this new information? Please see the first link in my previous post. Nearly every single one of these "Russia did it!" stories cites the Washington Post article[1]. Interestingly, the article itself says: >a senior U.S. official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered. and >For example, intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin “directing” the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said. As mentioned elsewhere, there's is zero coverage on the contents of the emails leaked & the blatent corruption that should make people mad. CNN even said it was illegal for anyone other than CNN to look at the Clinton Email leaks. Why is the media so afraid? The CIA and mainstream news is clearly lying to American people to trigger war. They seem to have no control over PEOTUS, who is shutting down Military contracts via Twitter -- how can the military industrial complex survive without endless war!? https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama...
andreyf 10y ago
I'll give you (1), but that's on the DNC, not the Clinton campaign. (2) and (3) seems pretty tough unlikely to be substantiated by the evidence I've seen. Hackers released dirt on only one side -- a clear attempt to influence the election, not expose corruption overall.
- sappapp 10y ago
  Julian Assange has addressed this issue many times.
  - andreyf 10y ago
    He also said "Donald Trump will not be allowed to win" the weekend before the election. Pretty sure Julian sees the world not wholly accurately these days :-/
- PKop 10y ago
  2 for sure happened: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/07/donna-brazile-is-totally-not-sorry-for-leaking-cnn-debate-questions-to-hillary-clinton/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/07/do... You can view it as not that big of a deal, or unavoidable by the nature of employing biased pundits at a news organization that carries out the debates. Whatever. But it happened. My larger view is that none of these things were overall that significant of factors to a huge portion of the electorate. More significant were the economic uncertainties of midwest states who viewed Trump's ideas as appealing... while the Democratic candidate failed to campaign in many of these states (Minnesota (she barely won it), Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania). Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate. She almost won, and should have. But I don't think she can blame Russia for her failures.
  - andreyf 10y ago
    That sounds like (1), not (2). The DNS head leaked a single question to one of the candidates, and it never even did Hillary any good. It's not just not-a-big-deal, it's literally an issue of zero importance that had zero impact on Hillary beating Berney. Not blaming Russia for Hillary's failures, of course, just pointing out that even intelligent people are super confused by the disinformation that happened this year.
matt_wulfeck 10y ago
Not only that, but both Wikileaks and Russia have hinted that it was a disgruntled insider in the Clinton campaign that did the major email leak. To those that care about the truth, the leak was a service.
- akhilcacharya 10y ago
  Russia also hinted that MH17 was downed by Ukrainian aircraft.
- int_19h 10y ago
  The problem is that there's such a thing as lie by omission. Cherry picking which truths to release, and which to keep hidden, can provide an extremely distorted picture of the world. Indeed, 90% of modern Russian propaganda for internal consumption is exactly that. It's not that they lie all that much, it's that they selectively choose the facts to focus on, and the facts to ignore, to create a very specific view of the world.
  - galfarragem 10y ago
    That is called charming.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
kaosjester 10y ago
It's a damn shame they only did it for the DNC.
- bluejekyll 10y ago
  Not only a damn shame, but in fact the reason that it can be claimed to have been a partisan attack and an attempt to sway the election one way or another. We should have an open government, but it doesn't work properly if only one party's dirty laundry which is aired.
  - witty_username 10y ago
    Everything is an attempt to sway the election. When I say "Shillary Clinton", that's an attempt to sway the election.
  - incogitomode 10y ago
    Both the DNC and the RNC are non-profit private organizations (IRS 527). While I'm also interested in an open government, I think it's reasonable for both of those groups to expect to operate with some degree of privacy and autonomy.
    - Teever 10y ago
      Maybe those organizations should be regulated differently due to the tremendous amount of influence they have over our society.
- leesalminen 10y ago
  Agreed. Maybe next time around they'll get the RNC. Perhaps then we will be ready for a third party, which is sorely needed IMHO.
  - bluejekyll 10y ago
    We need to first lay the groundwork for a third party option to actually work. This means getting something like ranked-choice voting in place. Otherwise you're left with the winner take all system, and even if you had just 30% of the vote go to one candidate, if that was 2% more than all the other candidates, that one would win. It ends up forcing a two party system, b/c nothing else will allow smaller parties to emerge. So for anyone who wants third party options, start pushing for their states to allow for ranked-choice voting in state wide elections.

by PKop 10y ago

pdabbadabba 10y ago

I'd say each of your three points are seriously exaggerated, but that's really neither here nor there. Why can't we be worried by the content of the emails and the fact that a foreign government hacked them and leaked them strategically to influence our election? It strikes me as profoundly foolish to not react here just because you happen to be happy that this particular set of information was released. (As well as, by the way, reams of email with no value to the public whatsoever.) And of course nobody is suggesting we fight a nuclear war. There's clearly plenty of space between GP's suggestion that we do more than tell them to 'cut it out' and nuclear warfare.

exstudent2 10y ago
Whoever released the emails did the American public a huge service. They pulled back the curtain and we got to see how the sausage is made. It doesn't matter who they are or why they did it. The end result was important whistle blowing. We should hope that information like this is leaked out as it helps balance the power between the public and corrupt politicians/media in a way nothing else can.
- simonw 10y ago
  How do you feel about the fact that they appear to have hacked the RNC too but deliberately chose not to release those emails, in order to favor one candidate over the other. Still think that's a huge public service? Not to mention that the emails they kept might be used for blackmail in the future.
  - williamle8300 10y ago
    Maybe because RNC emails are mundane and don't have scandalous material?
    - cariaso 10y ago
      The majority of the Podesta leaks were extremely mundane. This suggests the RNC leaks were held to a different standard.
      - mythrwy 10y ago
        The majority, yes. However some were "interesting".
      - 3131s 10y ago
        Of course the majority were mundane. The majority of Chapo Guzman's private communications would be mundane too. The contents of the DNC emails suggest nothing about the contents of the RNC emails, though I have no doubt that republicans are equally crooked.
        chillwaves 10y ago
        And what does the one-sidedness of the attacks and releases suggest?
        3131s 10y ago
        The one-sidedness of the attacks? From whom? If you're referring to recent CIA claims that the RNC was hacked as well, then my answer is that I don't trust the CIA. It may have happened, but you have no real proof about Russian involvement at all. Unlike other posters in this thread and Clinton herself, I am not keen on starting a physical war with Russia over conjecture about a virtual attack.
williamle8300 10y ago
It's called whistleblowing. By definition, you have to step outside of protocol... or hack. Choose whatever verbiage that suits you. I don't know what country you're from, but our laws in America are supposed to protect whistleblowers––not prosecute them.
- rhcom2 10y ago
  A foreign government breaking into a computer system and releasing documents wholesale is not whistleblowing.

propogandist 10y ago

Here's US congressman Pete King, the Chairman of the Sub-Committee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence, stating this was all a disinformation campaign by the CIA: https://noagendaplayer.com/listen/886/41-20 https://noagendaplayer.com/listen/886/41-20 Publications like the Washington Post have made some ridiculous claims (clickbait headlines) with zero evidence, and it's been cited heavily for more Fake News. It doesn't help that the new NDAA bill includes the "Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act" which allows the US government to propogandize the American people. https://noagendaplayer.com/listen/885/1-30-59 https://noagendaplayer.com/listen/885/1-30-59 The American population is absolutely ignorant.

superbaconman 10y ago
Assange and another involved with WikiLeaks claim the leak wasn't a government official (they know the person who gave them the data). Either that person is involved with Russian intelligence, and the 'hack' involved infiltrating the Democratic party (if we know this happened why isn't the guy in chains?). Or the CIA is flat out lying to the American people for some unknown purpose/operation. Either way it's clear the CIA is the last person to listen to regarding election 'hacks'. https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/10/cia-concludes-russia-interfered-to-help-trump-win-election-report?client=ms-android-google https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/10/cia-conclude...
- propogandist 10y ago
  the report you've cited references the same Washington Post story I've noted above, which is the source of all this misinformation >"A secret CIA assessment...the Washington Post reported, citing officials briefed on the matter." If it's a secret assessment, how did WaPo get a hold of it? How does the CIA not disclose this information to US Congress, who has oversight over the CIA, when they're asked to testify re: this new information? Please see the first link in my previous post. Nearly every single one of these "Russia did it!" stories cites the Washington Post article[1]. Interestingly, the article itself says: >a senior U.S. official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered. and >For example, intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin “directing” the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said. As mentioned elsewhere, there's is zero coverage on the contents of the emails leaked & the blatent corruption that should make people mad. CNN even said it was illegal for anyone other than CNN to look at the Clinton Email leaks. Why is the media so afraid? The CIA and mainstream news is clearly lying to American people to trigger war. They seem to have no control over PEOTUS, who is shutting down Military contracts via Twitter -- how can the military industrial complex survive without endless war!? https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama...

andreyf 10y ago

I'll give you (1), but that's on the DNC, not the Clinton campaign. (2) and (3) seems pretty tough unlikely to be substantiated by the evidence I've seen. Hackers released dirt on only one side -- a clear attempt to influence the election, not expose corruption overall.

sappapp 10y ago
Julian Assange has addressed this issue many times.
- andreyf 10y ago
  He also said "Donald Trump will not be allowed to win" the weekend before the election. Pretty sure Julian sees the world not wholly accurately these days :-/
PKop 10y ago
2 for sure happened: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/07/donna-brazile-is-totally-not-sorry-for-leaking-cnn-debate-questions-to-hillary-clinton/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/07/do... You can view it as not that big of a deal, or unavoidable by the nature of employing biased pundits at a news organization that carries out the debates. Whatever. But it happened. My larger view is that none of these things were overall that significant of factors to a huge portion of the electorate. More significant were the economic uncertainties of midwest states who viewed Trump's ideas as appealing... while the Democratic candidate failed to campaign in many of these states (Minnesota (she barely won it), Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania). Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate. She almost won, and should have. But I don't think she can blame Russia for her failures.
- andreyf 10y ago
  That sounds like (1), not (2). The DNS head leaked a single question to one of the candidates, and it never even did Hillary any good. It's not just not-a-big-deal, it's literally an issue of zero importance that had zero impact on Hillary beating Berney. Not blaming Russia for Hillary's failures, of course, just pointing out that even intelligent people are super confused by the disinformation that happened this year.

matt_wulfeck 10y ago

Not only that, but both Wikileaks and Russia have hinted that it was a disgruntled insider in the Clinton campaign that did the major email leak. To those that care about the truth, the leak was a service.

akhilcacharya 10y ago
Russia also hinted that MH17 was downed by Ukrainian aircraft.
int_19h 10y ago
The problem is that there's such a thing as lie by omission. Cherry picking which truths to release, and which to keep hidden, can provide an extremely distorted picture of the world. Indeed, 90% of modern Russian propaganda for internal consumption is exactly that. It's not that they lie all that much, it's that they selectively choose the facts to focus on, and the facts to ignore, to create a very specific view of the world.
- galfarragem 10y ago
  That is called charming.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

kaosjester 10y ago

It's a damn shame they only did it for the DNC.

bluejekyll 10y ago
Not only a damn shame, but in fact the reason that it can be claimed to have been a partisan attack and an attempt to sway the election one way or another. We should have an open government, but it doesn't work properly if only one party's dirty laundry which is aired.
- witty_username 10y ago
  Everything is an attempt to sway the election. When I say "Shillary Clinton", that's an attempt to sway the election.
- incogitomode 10y ago
  Both the DNC and the RNC are non-profit private organizations (IRS 527). While I'm also interested in an open government, I think it's reasonable for both of those groups to expect to operate with some degree of privacy and autonomy.
  - Teever 10y ago
    Maybe those organizations should be regulated differently due to the tremendous amount of influence they have over our society.
leesalminen 10y ago
Agreed. Maybe next time around they'll get the RNC. Perhaps then we will be ready for a third party, which is sorely needed IMHO.
- bluejekyll 10y ago
  We need to first lay the groundwork for a third party option to actually work. This means getting something like ranked-choice voting in place. Otherwise you're left with the winner take all system, and even if you had just 30% of the vote go to one candidate, if that was 2% more than all the other candidates, that one would win. It ends up forcing a two party system, b/c nothing else will allow smaller parties to emerge. So for anyone who wants third party options, start pushing for their states to allow for ranked-choice voting in state wide elections.