6 ms·

I think you are confusing a conceivable narrative for a well-reasoned explanation.

mywittyname 8y ago
I suppose you'll just have to wait for Mueller to wrap up his probe into the matter. Several GRU officers have been brought up on charges related to the hacking of the DCCC and DNC, the subsequent dissemination of their findings to Wikileaks, and related payoffs. This suggests that there is concrete evidence that the GRU was collaborating with Wikileaks, it's just not yet publicly available.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  Wait, sure, but don't hold your breath. This investigation has taken much longer than we were led to expect.
  - mywittyname 8y ago
    Mueller's been pretty good about getting evidence put into public record via the court system.
  - pacerwpg 8y ago
    Led to believe by whom? People who have a vested interest in people believing it would be a short investigation.
  - InitialLastName 8y ago
    The investigation has taken very little time as yet relative to other investigations of sitting presidents (chart is ~4 months old, but we still have only possibly reached the end of the next shortest investigation) [0] [0] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-manaforts-flip-may-matter-more-than-25-russian-indictments/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-manaforts-flip-may-...
- lawnchair_larry 8y ago
  That doesn’t suggest anything that could be called collaboration, nor that the publication had any knowledge of GRU involvement.
hannasanarion 8y ago
Why else would the podesta emails be trickled out over the course of the 30 days prior to the election, each time with a promise that the juciest ones are yet to come? Wikileaks has never done a trickle-release like that with any other document dump. Why were the podesta emails different if not to influence the election?
- elif 8y ago
  You don't have to invent an answer to that question, they have provided their own explanation. Wikileaks believed the theft of the democratic party seat would be downplayed, refuted, or ignored by the 24-hour news-cycle. Unfortunately, it seems to have happened anyway. Also wikileaks has done multi-part staged releases on many occasions before and after, including the russia files and vault 7.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
    > Unfortunately, it seems to have happened anyway. If by "theft" you mean "the person who got the most votes got the nom," sure. That's not really news though. I mean, it is, but not for the reason you think it should be.
    - elif 8y ago
      The DNC does not function as a popular vote, but with a complex system of campaigning, finance, and ultimately delegate voting. The DNC seat was stolen through illegal redirection of funds, manipulation of public debates, and a deliberate media smear campaign which led to the DNC chairwoman's forced resignation.
      - fixermark 8y ago
        > The DNC does not function as a popular vote You could have stopped there. The major disconnect between public perception of the political parties and actual party function is the party ultimately nominates who it chooses. Votes are cast because it's assumed Americans wouldn't support a party that simply nominated a candidate via authoritarianism or autocracy, not because either party believes in the wisdom of the mob structurally. If anything, "wisdom of the mob" voting is more reflective of the Republican party's process (and with the nomination of Trump, it kind of showed). You claim there was illegal redirection of funds. Was it actually illegal? Or merely in apparent violation of the party's charter (which could make the party less trustworthy but is not otherwise automatically illegal)? The best I can dig up is that there is a lawsuit alleging the DNC violated campaign finance law.

I suppose you'll just have to wait for Mueller to wrap up his probe into the matter. Several GRU officers have been brought up on charges related to the hacking of the DCCC and DNC, the subsequent dissemination of their findings to Wikileaks, and related payoffs. This suggests that there is concrete evidence that the GRU was collaborating with Wikileaks, it's just not yet publicly available.

jessaustin 8y ago
Wait, sure, but don't hold your breath. This investigation has taken much longer than we were led to expect.
- mywittyname 8y ago
  Mueller's been pretty good about getting evidence put into public record via the court system.
- pacerwpg 8y ago
  Led to believe by whom? People who have a vested interest in people believing it would be a short investigation.
- InitialLastName 8y ago
  The investigation has taken very little time as yet relative to other investigations of sitting presidents (chart is ~4 months old, but we still have only possibly reached the end of the next shortest investigation) [0] [0] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-manaforts-flip-may-matter-more-than-25-russian-indictments/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-manaforts-flip-may-...
lawnchair_larry 8y ago
That doesn’t suggest anything that could be called collaboration, nor that the publication had any knowledge of GRU involvement.

hannasanarion 8y ago

Why else would the podesta emails be trickled out over the course of the 30 days prior to the election, each time with a promise that the juciest ones are yet to come? Wikileaks has never done a trickle-release like that with any other document dump. Why were the podesta emails different if not to influence the election?

elif 8y ago
You don't have to invent an answer to that question, they have provided their own explanation. Wikileaks believed the theft of the democratic party seat would be downplayed, refuted, or ignored by the 24-hour news-cycle. Unfortunately, it seems to have happened anyway. Also wikileaks has done multi-part staged releases on many occasions before and after, including the russia files and vault 7.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
  > Unfortunately, it seems to have happened anyway. If by "theft" you mean "the person who got the most votes got the nom," sure. That's not really news though. I mean, it is, but not for the reason you think it should be.
  - elif 8y ago
    The DNC does not function as a popular vote, but with a complex system of campaigning, finance, and ultimately delegate voting. The DNC seat was stolen through illegal redirection of funds, manipulation of public debates, and a deliberate media smear campaign which led to the DNC chairwoman's forced resignation.
    - fixermark 8y ago
      > The DNC does not function as a popular vote You could have stopped there. The major disconnect between public perception of the political parties and actual party function is the party ultimately nominates who it chooses. Votes are cast because it's assumed Americans wouldn't support a party that simply nominated a candidate via authoritarianism or autocracy, not because either party believes in the wisdom of the mob structurally. If anything, "wisdom of the mob" voting is more reflective of the Republican party's process (and with the nomination of Trump, it kind of showed). You claim there was illegal redirection of funds. Was it actually illegal? Or merely in apparent violation of the party's charter (which could make the party less trustworthy but is not otherwise automatically illegal)? The best I can dig up is that there is a lawsuit alleging the DNC violated campaign finance law.