5 ms·

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 t

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.
      - elif 8y ago
        It is my view of the law that if you collect money under a stated intention of nonbiased party-backing and subsequently redirect those funds to Hillary Victory Fund, fraud has been constituted. Washing transactions between 50 different organizations to subvert campaign finance laws, as you referenced, also seems like an illegal redirection of funds. (federal lawsuit) Using DNC party funds for activities such as paying ex-intelligence operatives to manufacture deliberately infactual reports seems like a multi-part illegal redirection of funds. (steele dossier)
        fixermark 8y ago
        > deliberately infactual reports You may want to spot-check your data. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/12/a-new-report-puts-michael-cohen-cell-phone-near-prague https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/12/a-new-report-puts-mi...
        elif 8y ago
        The first two words of your link are "If true," and the report it is using four anonymous sources... Keep in mind, the company contracted to produce this report, Fusion GPS, was also paid to produce "evidence" that north korea was responsible for hacking Sony in 2014... so you may want to spot-check your evidence.
        fixermark 8y ago
        It's international espionage. Four anonymous sources is all we're ever going to get. And the consensus appears to generally be that NK did hack Sony in 2014, so I don't know what you're on about. There are suggestions of alternatives but nothing concrete or in accordance with the known evidence.
        jessaustin 8y ago
        Every detail of the consensus must be policed mercilessly, else the whole edifice crumble...
    - briffle 8y ago
      The DNC does not function as a popular vote, but with a complex system of campaigning, finance, and ultimately delegate voting. That part confuses me, since my tax dollars paid for my states primary election. Why are we subsidizing an internal party process?
- jessaustin 8y ago
  Hey man WL shouldn't get credit for predicting the actions of the media, just because the media happened to act exactly as they predicted! Anyone could have predicted those actions, just by assuming that MSNBCNNWaPoFox was all-in for a war in Syria. It didn't take a rocket surgeon...
asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
Well I mean another consistent explanation is that Assange and/or the decision makers in Wikileaks are just reactionaries and wanted Donald Trump to win the election for that reason (as opposed to because they have been owned by the KGB).
- dwd 8y ago
  Even that may not be true as the DNC leaks primarily focussed on the campaign to favor Clinton over Sanders. An anti-Clinton stance rather than pro-Trump would be more likely.

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.
    - elif 8y ago
      It is my view of the law that if you collect money under a stated intention of nonbiased party-backing and subsequently redirect those funds to Hillary Victory Fund, fraud has been constituted. Washing transactions between 50 different organizations to subvert campaign finance laws, as you referenced, also seems like an illegal redirection of funds. (federal lawsuit) Using DNC party funds for activities such as paying ex-intelligence operatives to manufacture deliberately infactual reports seems like a multi-part illegal redirection of funds. (steele dossier)
      - fixermark 8y ago
        > deliberately infactual reports You may want to spot-check your data. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/12/a-new-report-puts-michael-cohen-cell-phone-near-prague https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/12/a-new-report-puts-mi...
        elif 8y ago
        The first two words of your link are "If true," and the report it is using four anonymous sources... Keep in mind, the company contracted to produce this report, Fusion GPS, was also paid to produce "evidence" that north korea was responsible for hacking Sony in 2014... so you may want to spot-check your evidence.
        fixermark 8y ago
        It's international espionage. Four anonymous sources is all we're ever going to get. And the consensus appears to generally be that NK did hack Sony in 2014, so I don't know what you're on about. There are suggestions of alternatives but nothing concrete or in accordance with the known evidence.
        jessaustin 8y ago
        Every detail of the consensus must be policed mercilessly, else the whole edifice crumble...
  - briffle 8y ago
    The DNC does not function as a popular vote, but with a complex system of campaigning, finance, and ultimately delegate voting. That part confuses me, since my tax dollars paid for my states primary election. Why are we subsidizing an internal party process?
jessaustin 8y ago
Hey man WL shouldn't get credit for predicting the actions of the media, just because the media happened to act exactly as they predicted! Anyone could have predicted those actions, just by assuming that MSNBCNNWaPoFox was all-in for a war in Syria. It didn't take a rocket surgeon...

asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago

Well I mean another consistent explanation is that Assange and/or the decision makers in Wikileaks are just reactionaries and wanted Donald Trump to win the election for that reason (as opposed to because they have been owned by the KGB).

dwd 8y ago
Even that may not be true as the DNC leaks primarily focussed on the campaign to favor Clinton over Sanders. An anti-Clinton stance rather than pro-Trump would be more likely.