7 ms·

> But WikiLeaks had also shown, quite recently, a willingness to be a mouthpiece for foreign intelligence services: in 2016, the site had released e-mails from

> But WikiLeaks had also shown, quite recently, a willingness to be a mouthpiece for foreign intelligence services: in 2016, the site had released e-mails from the Democratic National Committee That is certainly one perspective you can have. Another perspective is that if the DNC hadn't engaged in corrupt practices then foreign intelligence services wouldn't have anything to leak.

jamespo 4y ago
Another perspective is WikiLeaks seems to be very selective about what it publishes
- kome 4y ago
  Do you have any evidence they received leaks about republicans (or whatever you mean...) and they didn't publish it?
  - martey 4y ago
    - https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikileaks-syria-files-syria-russia-bank-2-billion/ https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikileaks-syria-files-syria-r... - https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/dec/18/john-podesta/its-true-wikileaks-dumped-podesta-emails-hour-afte/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/dec/18/john-podes... - https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-l...
ianhawes 4y ago
What exactly in the DNC emails would you call a corrupt practice? The purpose of the 2016 political email "leaks" was entirely embarrassment and to create the aura that the emails were proof of corruption.
- willcipriano 4y ago
  How can the emails be both embarrassing and not embarrassing at the same time?
  - permo-w 4y ago
    a leak in and of itself is embarrassing. the content may not be
    - dylan604 4y ago
      Sadly, today, I don't think an email leak itself is embarassing. It's more like "yup, email is weak, and we don't think about its security at all, so this is normal". Today, the only thing embarrassing is for the person whose job it is to leak specific emails didn't do the leaking.
- kome 4y ago
  Rigging the primary against Bernie Sanders: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/14/16640082/donna-brazile-warren-bernie-sanders-democratic-primary-rigged https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/14/16640082/...
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    From the text of that article: "The 2016 Democratic primary wasn’t rigged by the DNC, and it certainly wasn’t rigged against Sanders."
    - kome 4y ago
      "But Democratic elites did try to make Clinton’s nomination as inevitable, as preordained, as possible." so, i guess it was rigged
      - shadowgovt 4y ago
        Reasonable people can disagree on what "Rigged" means. For example, the 45th President of the United States never won the popular vote, yet was elected. Was the election "rigged?" Well, no; the laws of the US do not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the post popular votes and they never have. Or, yes, because the laws of the US are stacked against the demonstrated will of the people via the vote. It's the same with the DNC. The DNC leadership did some things that can be considered subjectively unsavory. But they broke no laws, nor party rules. The rules themselves do not favor a candidate like Sanders (the Democratic party tilts heavily towards something like seniority, especially relative to their peer major party; Sanders was an outlier who ran an outlier campaign).
pstuart 4y ago
You're implying that the GOP is devoid of corruption. Isn't it always "both sides are corrupt"? The key thing is that conservatives don't care about corruption itself, just the opportunity to smear their opponents. I'd be more than fine with even more sunshine exposing the workings of the DNC and addressing what was found. Can you say the same about the GOP? Edit: I'd like to be proven wrong, so tell me what I missed.
- mellosouls 4y ago
  You're implying that the GOP is devoid of corruption I read no such implication.
  - pstuart 4y ago
    The implication was that DNC emails were evidence of corruption, yet no GOP emails were leaked, ergo no corruption there. Disclaimer: I have no party affiliation (political parties are a pox), but I do tend to vote for one side as the least bad option.
    - whimsicalism 4y ago
      That's a strained interpretation for sure. > Disclaimer: I have no party affiliation (political parties are a pox), but I do tend to vote for one side as the least bad option. Yes, most formally unaffiliated voters are still close to single ticket voters.
    - l33t2328 4y ago
      That implication has no textual basis.
- DeWilde 4y ago
  Please explain which part of my post led you to believe that? That is not my belief nor the point of my post. I am only stating that the way the NewYorker looks at this is not the same how some other people look at it. Also I'm not from the US nor do I really care about US politics, I do love pointing out obvious things like these :).
formerkrogemp 4y ago
> Another perspective is that if the DNC hadn't engaged in corrupt practices then foreign intelligence services wouldn't have anything to leak. 'You have nothing to hide so what's wrong with everyone checking out what's there in your search history and what's on your hard drives.' You sound like the same people that want to make encryption illegal: politically naive and maliciously, selectively ignorant.
- brigandish 4y ago
  How is encryption for individuals comparable to, in your account, wanting an organisation to be more transparent, or - given a fair reading of what you're responding to - hoping that an incredibly powerful and influential group that may provide a majority of top level politicians isn't engaged in corruption? Next you'll be arguing for less oversight for the 3 letter agencies because they should have strong privacy rights!
fredgrott 4y ago
straw-men arguments are the least effective logic arguments Is there a stronger argument to be used in place of that one?

jamespo 4y ago

Another perspective is WikiLeaks seems to be very selective about what it publishes

kome 4y ago
Do you have any evidence they received leaks about republicans (or whatever you mean...) and they didn't publish it?
- martey 4y ago
  - https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikileaks-syria-files-syria-russia-bank-2-billion/ https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikileaks-syria-files-syria-r... - https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/dec/18/john-podesta/its-true-wikileaks-dumped-podesta-emails-hour-afte/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/dec/18/john-podes... - https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-l...

ianhawes 4y ago

What exactly in the DNC emails would you call a corrupt practice? The purpose of the 2016 political email "leaks" was entirely embarrassment and to create the aura that the emails were proof of corruption.

willcipriano 4y ago
How can the emails be both embarrassing and not embarrassing at the same time?
- permo-w 4y ago
  a leak in and of itself is embarrassing. the content may not be
  - dylan604 4y ago
    Sadly, today, I don't think an email leak itself is embarassing. It's more like "yup, email is weak, and we don't think about its security at all, so this is normal". Today, the only thing embarrassing is for the person whose job it is to leak specific emails didn't do the leaking.
kome 4y ago
Rigging the primary against Bernie Sanders: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/14/16640082/donna-brazile-warren-bernie-sanders-democratic-primary-rigged https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/14/16640082/...
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  From the text of that article: "The 2016 Democratic primary wasn’t rigged by the DNC, and it certainly wasn’t rigged against Sanders."
  - kome 4y ago
    "But Democratic elites did try to make Clinton’s nomination as inevitable, as preordained, as possible." so, i guess it was rigged
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      Reasonable people can disagree on what "Rigged" means. For example, the 45th President of the United States never won the popular vote, yet was elected. Was the election "rigged?" Well, no; the laws of the US do not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the post popular votes and they never have. Or, yes, because the laws of the US are stacked against the demonstrated will of the people via the vote. It's the same with the DNC. The DNC leadership did some things that can be considered subjectively unsavory. But they broke no laws, nor party rules. The rules themselves do not favor a candidate like Sanders (the Democratic party tilts heavily towards something like seniority, especially relative to their peer major party; Sanders was an outlier who ran an outlier campaign).

pstuart 4y ago

You're implying that the GOP is devoid of corruption. Isn't it always "both sides are corrupt"? The key thing is that conservatives don't care about corruption itself, just the opportunity to smear their opponents. I'd be more than fine with even more sunshine exposing the workings of the DNC and addressing what was found. Can you say the same about the GOP? Edit: I'd like to be proven wrong, so tell me what I missed.

mellosouls 4y ago
You're implying that the GOP is devoid of corruption I read no such implication.
- pstuart 4y ago
  The implication was that DNC emails were evidence of corruption, yet no GOP emails were leaked, ergo no corruption there. Disclaimer: I have no party affiliation (political parties are a pox), but I do tend to vote for one side as the least bad option.
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    That's a strained interpretation for sure. > Disclaimer: I have no party affiliation (political parties are a pox), but I do tend to vote for one side as the least bad option. Yes, most formally unaffiliated voters are still close to single ticket voters.
  - l33t2328 4y ago
    That implication has no textual basis.
DeWilde 4y ago
Please explain which part of my post led you to believe that? That is not my belief nor the point of my post. I am only stating that the way the NewYorker looks at this is not the same how some other people look at it. Also I'm not from the US nor do I really care about US politics, I do love pointing out obvious things like these :).

formerkrogemp 4y ago

> Another perspective is that if the DNC hadn't engaged in corrupt practices then foreign intelligence services wouldn't have anything to leak. 'You have nothing to hide so what's wrong with everyone checking out what's there in your search history and what's on your hard drives.' You sound like the same people that want to make encryption illegal: politically naive and maliciously, selectively ignorant.

brigandish 4y ago
How is encryption for individuals comparable to, in your account, wanting an organisation to be more transparent, or - given a fair reading of what you're responding to - hoping that an incredibly powerful and influential group that may provide a majority of top level politicians isn't engaged in corruption? Next you'll be arguing for less oversight for the 3 letter agencies because they should have strong privacy rights!

fredgrott 4y ago

straw-men arguments are the least effective logic arguments Is there a stronger argument to be used in place of that one?