4 ms·

I think a legitimate public service was served by the release of Podesta and DNC emails. We wouldn't have known about DNC's stacking the decks against Sanders o

I think a legitimate public service was served by the release of Podesta and DNC emails. We wouldn't have known about DNC's stacking the decks against Sanders otherwise. I wonder why all the liberal outrage hardly address this point.

colordrops 10y ago
Because they're not liberals - they are sociopaths. Glenn Greenwald and Amy Goodman and Julian Assange and the Real News Network are real liberals and they are outraged by the DNC and calling out this new McCarthyism for what it is.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
justinlaster 10y ago
It's not a one or the other...
brown9-2 10y ago
because only one party had their inner communications released
- mtgx 10y ago
  Yes, that's the common criticism - that "only one party was hit by leaks". But to that I say - so what? Would Democrats have been just as outraged if it was the Republicans having their info leaked, like say Trump's tax returns? I remember the Democrats were pretty damn gleeful about Romney's "47 percent" comment, which was recorded without his permission and then leaked to the press. Why didn't Democrats cry that "HEY! We should see Obama's secret recordings, too! It's not fair that only Romney's recordings are being leaked." Nobody did that, and nobody would've done that if it had happened to Trump, because in reality the reaction is extremely partisan, and has nothing or very little to do with the principle of "influencing the election". Also, the Democrats have been pissed off about Trump not releasing his tax returns because they thought that by hiding that he was essentially manipulating the public. I completely agree with that, but now let's turn back to Clinton and admit that Clinton hiding the fact that her team, the DNC, and the media colluded to help her win, was also a manipulation of the public. Something the public should have learned about. Which party gets the most leaks has little to do with anything, and I also see very few people blame the DNC for having such poor security in the first place. And I don't follow much right-wing media, perhaps they did cover this a lot, but as far as "mainstream media" goes, I remember they were trying very hard not to cover what was in the emails, and instead kept trying to make the conversation about "Russians hacking the DNC and helping Trump". So I'm not even sure if the emails influenced the election that much. And most of Sanders' supporters who were engaged in the primary were already aware of the collusion between the DNC and Clinton long before any of the leaks, because it was obvious. Why do you think there were so many protests at the DNC (which were also not covered that well in the media) that embarrassed Democrats?
- Lawtonfogle 10y ago
  I bet Trump supporters are happy nothing bad about Trump was leaked and no foreign news networks ran ant hit pieces on Trump. He probably would have lost if that had happen. /s Besides for the illegal action of actually doing the hack, I don't see how this is any different than all the news stories attacking Trump.
- pessimizer 10y ago
  What could have been released that was worse than what they openly said?
Zigurd 10y ago
Would you think the same if Trump were to be financially ruined and brought down by creditor suits if the confidential terms of his loans were revealed, and his creditors found out he was in violation of loan terms, or getting lower interest rates than his loan terms would otherwise call for. That's one way I can see intelligence services jamming up Trump.
eplanit 10y ago
Yeah I can't help but think that were the Republicans "hacked" (sigh) instead of (or maybe in addition to) the Democrats, then the word we'd be hearing is "whistle blower". I look at the Podesta dump as being of value as that of what a whistle blower provides: insight that an institution is operating in a manner wholly at odds with its publicly stated purpose. It has struck me how the outrage has been focused so much on the source and not the substance.

colordrops 10y ago

Because they're not liberals - they are sociopaths. Glenn Greenwald and Amy Goodman and Julian Assange and the Real News Network are real liberals and they are outraged by the DNC and calling out this new McCarthyism for what it is.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

justinlaster 10y ago

It's not a one or the other...

brown9-2 10y ago

because only one party had their inner communications released

mtgx 10y ago
Yes, that's the common criticism - that "only one party was hit by leaks". But to that I say - so what? Would Democrats have been just as outraged if it was the Republicans having their info leaked, like say Trump's tax returns? I remember the Democrats were pretty damn gleeful about Romney's "47 percent" comment, which was recorded without his permission and then leaked to the press. Why didn't Democrats cry that "HEY! We should see Obama's secret recordings, too! It's not fair that only Romney's recordings are being leaked." Nobody did that, and nobody would've done that if it had happened to Trump, because in reality the reaction is extremely partisan, and has nothing or very little to do with the principle of "influencing the election". Also, the Democrats have been pissed off about Trump not releasing his tax returns because they thought that by hiding that he was essentially manipulating the public. I completely agree with that, but now let's turn back to Clinton and admit that Clinton hiding the fact that her team, the DNC, and the media colluded to help her win, was also a manipulation of the public. Something the public should have learned about. Which party gets the most leaks has little to do with anything, and I also see very few people blame the DNC for having such poor security in the first place. And I don't follow much right-wing media, perhaps they did cover this a lot, but as far as "mainstream media" goes, I remember they were trying very hard not to cover what was in the emails, and instead kept trying to make the conversation about "Russians hacking the DNC and helping Trump". So I'm not even sure if the emails influenced the election that much. And most of Sanders' supporters who were engaged in the primary were already aware of the collusion between the DNC and Clinton long before any of the leaks, because it was obvious. Why do you think there were so many protests at the DNC (which were also not covered that well in the media) that embarrassed Democrats?
Lawtonfogle 10y ago
I bet Trump supporters are happy nothing bad about Trump was leaked and no foreign news networks ran ant hit pieces on Trump. He probably would have lost if that had happen. /s Besides for the illegal action of actually doing the hack, I don't see how this is any different than all the news stories attacking Trump.
pessimizer 10y ago
What could have been released that was worse than what they openly said?

Zigurd 10y ago

Would you think the same if Trump were to be financially ruined and brought down by creditor suits if the confidential terms of his loans were revealed, and his creditors found out he was in violation of loan terms, or getting lower interest rates than his loan terms would otherwise call for. That's one way I can see intelligence services jamming up Trump.

eplanit 10y ago

Yeah I can't help but think that were the Republicans "hacked" (sigh) instead of (or maybe in addition to) the Democrats, then the word we'd be hearing is "whistle blower". I look at the Podesta dump as being of value as that of what a whistle blower provides: insight that an institution is operating in a manner wholly at odds with its publicly stated purpose. It has struck me how the outrage has been focused so much on the source and not the substance.