3 ms·

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. Hacke

by 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.
  - PKop 10y ago
    If you're talking about Donna Brazile, she was not the head of the DNC at the time she was giving the Clinton campaign debate questions. She was employed at CNN. If she acted alone, then maybe you can argue it wasn't "the media" but one person. But how was she able to view the questions ahead of time? She was a known Clinton supporter, no? https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/cnn-drops-donna-brazile-as-pundit-over-wikileaks-revelations/2016/10/31/2f1c6abc-9f92-11e6-8d63-3e0a660f1f04_story.html?tid=a_inl https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/cnn-drops-don... "From time to time, I get the questions in advance." "I'll send a few more." - Donna Brazile to John Podesta Wikileaks references: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/38478 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/38478 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/39807 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/39807
    - tanderson92 10y ago
      > She was a known Clinton supporter, no? No, that's part of the problem. She was a mover and shaker behind the scenes but had not formally and publicly declared an allegiance (of course, it was obvious from the way she talked on CNN). She was an ostensibly unaffiliated commentator who had a secret allegiance. It's an excellent case study of why news agencies and networks should not have paid political operators (hacks) on their payroll and the fact that it went wrong is entirely predictable.
    - andreyf 10y ago
      Still seem like non-issues -- Hillary's and Bernie's answers to "should states abolish the death penalty?" and "how will you help people with lead poisoning from municipal water supplies?" were prepared long before anyone at her campaign got them, and it seem unlikely they went anywhere near the candidates. I'll support Bernie and his policies over Clinton any day of the week, but I have no doubt Hillary would have won the dem primaries without Donna's attempts at illicit support. Compare that to what's likely in Trump's tax returns (and do you think the Russians really don't have a copy?), and you'll see that these are absolutely non-issues. Also, care to defend (3) in any way?
krapp 10y ago
>Hackers released dirt on only one side -- a clear attempt to influence the election, not expose corruption overall. And unsurprisingly, almost everyone who wants to dismiss any thought of retaliation or of even investigating the matter seems to be either a Republican or Trump supporter.

by andreyf 10y ago

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.
- PKop 10y ago
  If you're talking about Donna Brazile, she was not the head of the DNC at the time she was giving the Clinton campaign debate questions. She was employed at CNN. If she acted alone, then maybe you can argue it wasn't "the media" but one person. But how was she able to view the questions ahead of time? She was a known Clinton supporter, no? https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/cnn-drops-donna-brazile-as-pundit-over-wikileaks-revelations/2016/10/31/2f1c6abc-9f92-11e6-8d63-3e0a660f1f04_story.html?tid=a_inl https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/cnn-drops-don... "From time to time, I get the questions in advance." "I'll send a few more." - Donna Brazile to John Podesta Wikileaks references: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/38478 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/38478 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/39807 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/39807
  - tanderson92 10y ago
    > She was a known Clinton supporter, no? No, that's part of the problem. She was a mover and shaker behind the scenes but had not formally and publicly declared an allegiance (of course, it was obvious from the way she talked on CNN). She was an ostensibly unaffiliated commentator who had a secret allegiance. It's an excellent case study of why news agencies and networks should not have paid political operators (hacks) on their payroll and the fact that it went wrong is entirely predictable.
  - andreyf 10y ago
    Still seem like non-issues -- Hillary's and Bernie's answers to "should states abolish the death penalty?" and "how will you help people with lead poisoning from municipal water supplies?" were prepared long before anyone at her campaign got them, and it seem unlikely they went anywhere near the candidates. I'll support Bernie and his policies over Clinton any day of the week, but I have no doubt Hillary would have won the dem primaries without Donna's attempts at illicit support. Compare that to what's likely in Trump's tax returns (and do you think the Russians really don't have a copy?), and you'll see that these are absolutely non-issues. Also, care to defend (3) in any way?

krapp 10y ago

>Hackers released dirt on only one side -- a clear attempt to influence the election, not expose corruption overall. And unsurprisingly, almost everyone who wants to dismiss any thought of retaliation or of even investigating the matter seems to be either a Republican or Trump supporter.