They are here:
https:/wikileaks.org/dnc-emails
If Sanders people wanted proof the party was rigged against him, these e-mails will provide fodder.
As of 10:13 it is the highest trending story on facebook, and second on twitter.
The Democratic blogs are silent – with good reason. But it is more than obvious how establishment they have become.
I talked to the head of the Florida Progressive Caucus yesterday who talked about Netroots Nation and how it had changed. She said it showed how less important and disconnected blogs had become. The real action is now in social media.
From the dean of Florida Political Reporters, the scene when DWS spoke to the Florida Delegation.
If this is a sign of the general attitude of Sanders delegates (it is not the attitude of the ones I know) then this week might be trouble.
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/
And a friend in the CA delegation tells me at the breakfast the Sanders delegates began chanting wikileaks.
Christ what this has started. I say nobody remembers Friday morning.
So the latest, by promising access to Obama the DNC finance people ran close to the line in Federal Campaign Finance rules.
This shit just goes on, and on.
This one is making the rounds of a couple of email chains I am on from the Sanders campaign.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11508
MEN Amy K. Dacey | Chief Executive Officer Democratic National Committee 430 S. Capitol Street, SE Washington, D.C. 20003 202-528-7492 (c) | 202-314-2263 (o) DaceyA@dnc.org On 5/5/16, 1:33 AM, “Brad Marshall” <MARSHALL@dnc.org> wrote: >It’s these Jesus thing. > >> On May 5, 2016, at 1:31 AM, Brad Marshall <MARSHALL@dnc.org> wrote: >> >> It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to >>ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he >>has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could >>make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps >>would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.
God are people pissed about that email….
Interesting thread that includes a response from DWS on the Middle East plank in the Platform.
https:/wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7899
https:
/wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12280
So here’s some fun.
Debbie Wasserman Shultz is conducting DNC business through fucking gmail.
Getting worse.
https:/twitter.com/BurruanoP/status/756836169367814144
Clinton talks about keep people ignorant
https:
/twitter.com/BurruanoP/status/756836169367814144
This says Sanders people are “sheeple” with the attention span of a snail.
both link to the same item. fascinating I found nothing on Vatican visit.
Hmm, only cash commands their attention span, eh?
Hillary’s people will be along to tell you that this isn’t the time to raise any objections about the corruption of the nominating process or the nasty character of the candidate. The election is all that matters.
Of course, after she wins, it won’t be the time then either because she has to preserve her political capital.
And if she gets primaried in 2020, it won’t be the time then either because we’ll need her to defeat whichever Republican bogeyman has come along.
Funny how that works.
The habit of thinking deeply inside the box is one that few people break.
I eagerly await the Democratic partisans discovering a passionate objection to the operations of Wikileaks.
They already have. That’s why Assange has resided in the Embassy of Ecuador in London since 2012.
one by one.
Here is the link to the Hill article that overview this
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/288900-leaked-dnc-emails-reveal-secret-plans-
to-take-on-sanders
Because the claims don’t really match the headline
Finally it should be noted that the first debate actually had the largest viewing audience of any D debate ever which directly contradicts Sanders claim (in the referenced politico article in one of the emails) that “they were “scheduled — pretty clearly, to my mind, at a time when there would be minimal viewing audience– et cetera, et cetera.”
http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/democratic-debate-draws-record-ratings-1201617796/
Seem to remember the New Hampshire debate was NOT scheduled by the DNC. It was negotiated between Sanders and Clinton.
And was originally scheduled by the DNC. It got 15.3 million viewers.
The added debates were
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_debates_and_forums,_2016
HRC asked for that second NH debate (because the polls had her losing there) and she would have whined and accused Sanders of being afraid of a second NH debate if he hadn’t agreed to do it. As consideration, he requested three additional debates. HRC agreed and then did her best to obstruct the NYC debate and completely welshed on the third one. IOW her word isn’t her bond.
she was beating him after New York he too would have said no to an additional debate unless he was a complete incompetent. For that matter any candidate would have.
Debates take time and resources that candidates can use elsewhere. When the election is all over but the singing it would have been election malpractice to go ahead with a debate that was only tenuously agreed upon.
We know Hillary. Tenuous, eh? lol She is kinda infectious.
Location or time. Comparatively the 6 original debates all had dates, times, and locations locked down months in advance.
Also as I noted I would have expected ANY candidate to say no to that 10th debate if they were leading by as much as Clinton was after New York. Yes even Senator Sanders if his and Clinton’s positions were flipped. What you see as backing out of her word, I see as simply a competent campaign saying yeah this thing is wrapped up so lets not waste anymore of our resources on 10th debate that won’t yield any new information.
If you check back the dates and locations of the first six debates weren’t locked down until late. irrc even after a two or three had been, the others still carried a TBD designation. (If you’re going to make a case based on some fact — check your freaking facts.)
Clinton had agreed to that tenth debate. Whether she was winning or losing at that point was irrelevant — it was a character issue. And if Bernie had been leading then, he would have honored his commitment.
What the hell do you Hillary fans not get about how character issues are established in the minds of others. HRC pulls this sort of crap and then you all whine that she have poor favorability and trust ratings and blame it on unfair rightwing attacks on her.
by what Clinton was leading by would have spent the resources on a 10th debate given how pointless it would have been. Not even Sanders. If they did I would have called them out on political malpractice.
You seem to think me defending that decision is coming from me being a Clinton supporter (and yes supporter not fan). I can assure it doesn’t. It comes from me thinking well run campaigns don’t waste precious time and resources.
Time for you to give this issue a rest and get busy extolling the awesomeness of Kaine as VP and how further deregulation of the banks is just such a cool idea, and all the other odious public policies this ticket embraces.
what to post? I realize dripping condescension fed by your inherit belief that you and you alone define progressive values is your go to way of interacting on these boards but that doesn’t mean it still isn’t rude as heck. Not to mention blindingly arrogant.
I want to hear Clinton supporters tell me why they like that “no-fly zone” in Syria, why they support the fascist coup in Ukraine, and what bad man H. Clinton should overthrow next.
Clinton supporters mostly seem to not be the cold warriors that surround Clinton. This could lead to civil unrest the first time her war ambitions are thwarted and pictures of dead babies come over the transom. Or not. No one seems to connect Obama to the moderate rebels who cut off the head of the sick twelve year-old the other day. Your tax dollars are paying for the scimitars. No one connects Obama to the Nazis shelling schools and hospitals in Donetsk.
Bob, you, I, and fellow travelers aren’t “no one.” We speak with the hope that the willfully deaf, dumb, and blind will take out their earplugs, remove their blinders, and open their minds.
Lots of luck! I’d rather try to get a cat to switch to a vegan diet.
Ah, but a vegan diet isn’t healthy for cats. Whereas, personally, socially, and culturally we humans would be healthier if we gave up our addictions to war/strife, racism, inequality, etc. So, we speak up for health even as the odds for failure are near 100%
What you don’t seem to recognize is that whether Clinton behaves honorably and keeps her word is more important than whether that 10th debate happens. The fact that she broke her word so casually is an example of why she has trust issues. And the fact that her supporters justify this with cynicism – she had more to lose than gain from keeping her word, so breaking it was just political competence and what any politician should do – also engenders distrust as it suggests support for Clinton is either motivate by or encourages a lack of principle.
Clinton is running on a platform, which is a promise to the voters of what she will do, or at least seriously attempt to do, if elected. Some of this platform doesn’t seem to fit her actual preferences, but represents a compromise with a party faction that had a lot of support, though not enough to ultimately win. If her promises mean nothing, neither does the platform. If the platform means nothing, why should anyone vote for her? Oh, to stop Trump. Like i said, that’s the valid reason.
The CEO of the DNC in an email discussed making Sanders religious beliefs an issue.
Everyone on that chain should be fired.
And it is clear they talked to the media everyday.
You don’t know if they acted on it.
The debates were set to avoid an audiance. The NH debate happened only because HRC wanted one after she nearly lost Iowa and was behind in New Hampshire.
But I also noted that it wasn’t used. As for the rest of the claims in that Hill article I don’t see those as proof of a conspiracy.
Saying the Sanders campaign was disorganized and had little understanding of the role of the DNC is not a conspiracy. If it is then a whole lot of us who are not DNC insiders in any way, shape, or form were conspirators as well. Because that is something I repeatedly pointed out.
And I just said you don’t know whether they tried to use it or not.
Saying those things nor did I hear of any DNC or Clinton representatives saying those things. That means right now I know of no evidence where Marshall’s idea was used.
So you said this:
“Early May email from Brad Marshall – proposal that never went anywhere”
and then this:
“Saying those things nor did I hear of any DNC or Clinton representatives saying those things. That means right now I know of no evidence where Marshall’s idea was used.”
So there are better Prosecutors than I was, but even I know those statements aren’t close to the same.
The first is that it didn’t happen. The second is I have no information that it did.
Which was my first point.
Great non-denial denial.
any evidence that Marshall’s plan was used. If you have evidence that it was why not link to it? You are the saying a stupid man spouting off in an email is proof of a DNC conspiracy.
I am simply saying for it to be proof of a conspiracy there should be evidence that the DNC ran with Marshall’s suggestion. So far I haven’t seen that proof it seems you haven’t either because if you have I assume you would have posted something about it.
I will let you argue with yourself – as you have now made three contradictory statements.
You said it didn’t happen
Then you said you have no knowledge it did
then you say well if it did happen there would be email evidence of it.
You comments would make great trial advocacy course material.
I said the same thing all along which you are trying to twist into something else. There is no evidence that anyone at the DNC ran with Marshall’s suggestion. If there is and I missed it please feel free to link me to that evidence. I also never said that link had to be an email (honestly where did you get that?)
It could a local article about push phone calls (remember what Bush did to McCain in 2000). It could be some editorials in local papers. It could be any number of things but since you haven’t bothered to link to any of those things and instead have decided to attack on semantics that tells me that you too know of nothing that indicated the DNC took Marshall’s advice.
I said this:
“You don’t know if they acted on it.”
You don’t.
Sure nothing is 100% but I also feel that if they acted on it it would be easy enough to link to contemporaneous evidence like local op-eds, articles about push calls, etc that in retrospect indicates that the DNC followed Marshall’s advice.
there also was a big thing [trying ] to discredit his visit to the Vatican
You have a link to that?
that was a common meme on Kos; that he cornered the Pope in the hallway, that he acted as if he’d been invited by the Pope, and other such things. the meme was so widespread and took the attention off his actual meeting at the Vatican, so I assumed it was a coordinated tp effort, but have no proof. around that time I had a talk with someone at DFA, and suggested that Sanders trip to the Vatican could help the misperception that he isn’t religious. In Judaism, as you probably know, being religious is a matter of action, not belief. technically there is no belief/ faith in the Christian sense, there’s Torah.
My wife has explained the belief/faith non-distinction to me at length.
Numerous times.
I found nothing regarding the Vatican and Sanders in the email db though.
I just meant that Sanders’ religiosity/ or not was an issue at the time. there was a lot of negative coverage of the trip that served to discredit him – here’s a later article http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/4/1534612/-Confirmed-Bernie-Sanders-Illegally-Used-Campaign-Fun
ds-For-Overnight-Trip-To-Italy
Maybe fladem didn’t notice.
I think fladem was asking where/ if I found it on wikileaks, i.e. tying it directly to the DNC
I very well remember the issue – but I can’t find anything related to the Vatican.
yes, I also found nothing on Vatican.
Of course it was coordinated. It was blatant and sloppy, but that’s how rapid response response to the unexpected usually is.
It was a meme being used by Hillarybots at the time. Go back and read Balloon Juice from that time. Or Salon. It was used. What’s not been proven is that after this guy came up with the idea of calling Sanders an atheist that Clinton supporters on the DNC payroll circulated this attack on Sanders through their mouthpieces in the media.
The whole “Bernie Bros” scam that failed to move the needle was a replay of “Obama Boys” in 2008.
http://www.salon.com/2008/04/14/obama_supporters/
Let me see. Did the Clinton camp may hay with Obama’s minister?
As I said the first debate was in Las Vegas and it was one of the original 6 debates scheduled by the DNC. It also had the largest viewing audience of any D primary debate ever. That directly contradicts Sanders claim that “they were “scheduled — pretty clearly, to my mind, at a time when there would be minimal viewing audience– et cetera, et cetera.”
In other words whoever at the DNC made the decision for the date and time of the first debate knew what they were doing because that debate got more eyes on the candidates than any previous debate in Democratic primary history.
The 4th debate (also on the DNC’s original schedule) also got pretty high ratings. The second NH debate (which was one of the 3 added) got the lowest ratings of any of the debates with the other 2 added debates getting the second (Flint debate) and third lowest ratings (Brooklyn debate) of any of the 9 debates
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_debates_and_forums,_2016#Ratings
It would be interesting to see the debate schedule written out, because the general impression was that Wasserman Schultz originally limited the number of debates and hid a number of them at times when no one would be watching.
The wikipedia article posts link popularity between Clinton and Sanders at the time of each debate, based on Real Clear Politics numbers, but seems to reflect the general popularity of the candidates at the time, not who thought which candidate won the debate. The numbers have nothing directly to do with what people saw. Seven of the nine debates had less than ten million viewers, four with under six million viewers.
It was clear that Wasserman Schultz knew that Clinton would do better with less coverage of Sanders, and she was right.
Excuse me, I gotta go get my payday loan.
— sigh — some of us here are hip to rationalization bs.
What’s the highest ever rated VP debate?
2008 — April 16 — Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in the homestretch of the ’08 primary.
(No handy-dandy reference for the viewership of the prior ’08 debates. HRC demanded another one after the April 16th debate to which Obama said, “Enough.”)
2012:
Then we get to 2016:
GOP – (if not identified, the carrier was a cable channel)
August 6 (Thursday) Fox – 24 million viewers
September 16 (Wednesday) CNN – 23 million
October 28 (Wednesday) 14 million
Dem –
October 13 (Tuesday) CNN – 15.8 million
November 14 (Saturday) CBS – 8.5 million
December 19 (Saturday) ABC – 7.8 million
Why was the first Democratic debate schedule for more than two months after the first GOP debate?
Who or what gets credit for that higher than usual viewer rating for the first 2016 DNC primary debate? GOP whetting the public’s appetite for primary debates? A weeknight debate (how novel). And that Saturday night before Christmas debate was designed for who?
Listing the entire 2016 debate data only makes the DNC look worse and more nefarious than the above.
Seems like after-the-fact rationalizations and denials.
Russia hacks the DNC emails and drops the contents on Wikileaks just in time for Trump’s post-convention reboot? Conclusion: Putin would rather deal with Trump than Clinton as an adversary.
The Baltic states and Ukraine thank them.
what’s the date on that article? I thought the DNC claimed such, then retracted in early June?
From the article:
But the broader story seems to originate on 18 May:
Not aware of a DNC retraction beyond Hillary’s elliptical “So far as we know my campaign has not been hacked into…” but doubt it means much in this context.
interesting.
Some speculation on the Guccifer 2.0 connection. As you say all interesting stuff.
Seems we’ve really moved on since the Watergate break-in.
There is a really great manchurian candidate script here.
yes, that’s it, Guccifer claimed it. Actually, it’s better this happen now than in October. In early June someone – conversation in an airpot – told me Assange said he was going to post something, and that others were going to as well, but I didn’t find out the source for that and I never heard that it happened.
Josh Marshall has an interesting piece on Trump’s financial ties to Russia for over a decade.
fascinating
Apparently, the Clinton Foundation has money ties with Putin too. Something about uranium mines.
One degree of separation on the money trail — it flowed through Frank Guista. No degree of separation wrt to WJC’s speech grift. And no degree of separation wrt HRC signing off on the Russian government owning a US uranium mine. This, however, isn’t news. The basic facts on these questionable deals have been out there for years. Democrats don’t care and Republicans have been struggling with how to gin up a “Clinton-Russia-Nuclear-Putin” outrage. Now slightly more problematical because Trump hasn’t been using the “evil empire” to feather his nest.
At this point I don’t take anything coming out of the DNC and/or a DNC contractor as factual or correct. It may be, but then again. As for WaPo, hit and miss, and often big misses when the topic is Russia or politicians to the left of the Clintons.
This:
Just sayin’.
The timing is suspicious as hell.
Doesn’t mean Sanders people won’t be mad.
Just that they are perhaps part of a bigger story.
what do you mean?
Foreign government attempts to influence US elections; in this instance by fanning the flames of the perceived split among Democrats. At the moment the perception is that the GOP is divided and the Democrats not so much; this could change with a mere few news cycles.
interesting
Netanyahu felt perfectly able to do so, no?
Yeah but he’d apparently hacked the brain stems of the Republican delegation to Congress.
That’s one frame. Another is that private email servers can be hacked easily.
Hmmm. Maybe that isn’t the best frame for Clinton.
yes
well, I wold guess there’s more
Here’s a link to the search-able database.
thanks!
Shaun, didn’t you post something about ABC claiming it wasn’t Russia who posted to wikilieaks? can’t find that comment, didn’t have time to reply yesterday. anyway, my question – who are they saying posted the emails? also that there is more to be posted?
Are wikileaks now the Soviet Union, er, Russia?
But of course. Nothing bad or negative ever happens in the US spheres of government, politics, war making that hasn’t been orchestrated in Moscow for the past seventy years.
Man, that Assange guy published secret stuff by US officials that made them look bad. Assange and Wikileaks are the enemy. Both hunted down and assumed to be on ice once Assange managed to escape to the
Ecuadorian embassy. Then that Snowden guy played whistleblower and barely managed to escape the clutches of the USG with the assistance of Wikileaks Legal Defense employee Sarah Harrison. Once Snowden was stranded at the Moscow airport. The dots then all connected:
Assange:Wikileaks:Snowden:Russia.
The only odd part is that the NSA, Pentagon, sister GQHC cyber-spy facilities are huge and global. If the Chinese or Russians can break into US computer systems then the USG systems folks are either incompetent or the USG breaks into and “borrows” as much from the Russians and Chinese was they “borrow” from us.
All rather silly (Keystone Kops) type stuff; but men seem to enjoy it and powerful elites wouldn’t do without it.
The hackers. Wikileaks is just the outlet.
I thought the Chinese were the hackers. Or we were. It’s so confusing.
All I know is if Hillary was having problems with emails (she has been) and the Sanders camp warned the DNC about their computer security and then the DNC blames Sanders but doesn’t fix its problems, then it seems that that’s another screw up to be put on DWS’s doorstep.
Forget Trump being a tool of the Kremlin. Debbie Wasserman Schultz appears to be a tool of the RNC.
Oh, that dastardly Putin. He’s everywhere and controlling everything including in cahoots with the Trump campaign and has penetrated the Clinton Foundation.
And that’s from the team of the sane and qualified Presidential nominee. How soon before they trot out a Ripper with charges that Putin has put poison in US waters?
wow. fascinatng
Question. Your observations not hard data.
I know I frequently chastise Voice, Gilroy, and Bob when they get out of line by resorting to use of (generally stereotypical) personal attacks on others, but do any in the Hill camp do the same when one of their own does it?
I understand the impulse to fling attacks like that — we’ve all been well trained by our culture — but self-censorship in the interests of less rancorous communications seems a small price to me.
Doubt I expend as much energy defending a Clinton today from unfair, unreasonable, or non-factual attacks as I did back in the ’90s. Partly because I’m tired of them. Partly because I erred in defending them on a couple of attacks. And partly because their records deserve attacking. But that still didn’t stop me from defending HRC on the Benghazi attacks. And I did speak up when HRC’s weight was disparaged.
If you don’t consider Putin a ruthless and lethal opponent who will exercise whatever means to achieve his ends, who indeed revels in the exotic and bizarre in his public retributions and assassinations, then I fear you may have failed to grasp the man. It is his nature.
And there is no stunt too bizarre or operation too heavy-handed if it delivers vengeance on his enemies and confusion in the media, so long as denial is plausible. He is a reptile, and while I don’t want to overestimate his intelligence or understate the obvious weakness of his monumental vanity, he has the cunning of a KGB factotum who bullied his way to power with audacious treachery and violence.
In this instance, he has been successful. You have chaos in 2 of the 4 largest Democratic Delegations this morning.
Remember, these are DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION DELEGATES, not random people in the street.
Florida and NY? CA?
California.
Who casts Putin and Russia as “our opponent,” us or him/them? If he/they are so monumentally threatening, then why were they given approval to own a US uranium mine? Why do we allow them to operate the only facility to get US astronauts to and from the Space Station?
Except for the brief period when the US/UK/France would have been defeated or would have had to endure a much longer and much costlier war not to be defeated, the US/UK has been at war with Russia/USSR for a hundred years. Who has recently installed ABMs on the border of the opponent’s country? How odd that Putin/Russia ABMs are no where to be seen in the western hemisphere.
are you suggesting Russia did not release the emails?
Are you claiming to have reasonably irrefutable evidence that high level officials in Russia were active participants in getting and releasing the emails?
That it’s impossible for a hacker to mask his location and identity and not leave false clues that the DNC contractor would fall for? That USG and political party officials don’t routinely make unsupported claims as to who done it?
All we can be certain of at this time is that some individuals within and/or affiliated with Wikileaks got their hands on the emails and Assange knew of their existence, at least some of the content, and that they would be publicly dumped.
Beyond that I’m not foolish enough at this point to accept allegations as fact. The “Russian” (Putin) may have done it. Or it could have been a some kid in Timbuktu. But,
“What difference does it make if” it was the Russians, the Chinese, etc?
(As I fully supported HRC when she testily said, “what difference does it make…,” I am being completely consistent in using it in this instance.
I’m not claiming anything – read more carefully. I’m asking if YOU are suggesting Russia didn’t hack/ post the wikileaks – [or are you just rambling on about anti Russian postings].
does it make a difference? of course it does, but you probably didn’t read any of my posts on the topic
I’m not suggesting anything. I’m stating that I don’t know and I don’t care because I don’t think it matters as to who hacked the DNC and how the data then made its way to Wikileaks.
Do you think this leak will cause HRC to lose? That after the fact it will be blamed for the margin of her loss? Against one of, or the worst, presidential nominees ever? If so, then HRC will have to go down as the worst nominee ever.
no, that’s not what I’m thinking. will wait to see what happens before discussing more though
Is the subject of our discussion, not a hundred years of misplaced anti-bolshevism.
I have no idea what the subject is because it makes no sense to me; seems to me ppl are missing the obvious.
Then please state (or repeat) the obvious for this dummy.
well it seems to me who did the hacking is important, for example anonymous claimed to hack the vote in 2012.
huh? Did anonymous also disclose who they “hacked the vote in 2012” in favor of? And which counties and states they hacked? Claims absent any proof are like wishes.
Would it change the authenticity of the DNC emails and how they’re being viewed in the court of public opinion if the identity of the hacker were known? Or does the content become irrelevant if the hacker is a “bad guy?”
that’s why i wrote there are 2 issues- the contents of the emails and the hacking process. the larger picture may be pertinent if more is posted on wikileaks;
anonymous claimed they closed a backdoor in the Ohio vote count that the Rs were planning to use, claim they kept the vote from being hacked
Thanks for the anonymous claim refresher which I now vaguely recall. Was skeptical of the claim when it was made. Never heard that they disclosed how the backdoor was intended to work and how they closed it; so, I remain skeptical.
Identifying Chelsea Manning as the leaker probably helped the USG to minimize the content by deflecting attention to Manning and away from the content. The sheer complexity of Snowden’s leak minimized the import of it for the general public. Snowden allowed himself to be the target for those that always demonize whistle-blowers or those that embarrass the USG. Not being anonymous changed the dynamics on that one, but the USG and many regular folks still charged the Russia/Putin has something to do with it.
well, they did disclose it, how the backdoor was to work, there was quite a discussion here and there. on the R side, Rove didn’t accept that the Rs lost Ohio. but who knows, indeed, where is proof?
Why you’re bringing up Chelsea Manning? did I miss something or has the virulence of the PUMA thread driven you over the edge? [it could, I sense a defensiveness in the aggression towards Sanders supporters on that thread]
huh?
Brought up Manning as an example that shooting the hacker/leaker is what high USG officials do to identified hacker/leakers and it does seem to be effective in diffusing outrage over the content of a leak and/or deflect attention away from the content. But perhaps that’s not a factor in your position that it’s important to know the identity of the hacker/leaker.
I honestly don’t think that my support for Sanders has anything to do with my disinterest in identifying the hacker/leaker. I’m not at all exercised by the fact that the Panama Papers hacker/leaker remains anonymous. As long as a whistleblower shares content that is authentic and in the public interest, I don’t care who she/he is and would prefer that she/he not be locked up for putting the information in the public domain and people to make up their own minds about it.
“in the public interest” should rarely be a close call for those who have the “goods” and/or the power to publicly disseminate it. Gawker did blow it for publishing those sex tapes, but where would the tabloid industry be without publishing salacious stories?
It’s going to be a long three months if responses to whatever I post here are like this: has the PUMA thread driven you over the edge
While such accusations are never pleasant for me, at the end of the day, I have never been the one that wasn’t sane and rational.
sorry you took my PUMA comment the wrong way. I was appalled at how commenters attacked the woman in the video,
as far as discussing who leaked the emails, clearly I’m not communicating, so will put on hold
Thanks (don’t know how else I was supposed to take your PUMA comment, but accept that it wasn’t an intended insult and that’s good enough for me without any further clarification).
Responses here to the Sanders’ delegate video were indeed appalling. Scary. As if they had bottled and stored their responses to that ’08 HillFan older woman that engaged in a racist tirade against Obama for use against anyone that passionately and reasonably objects to their favorite. Betrays that it’s not about character and policies for them but picking and sticking with a winner.
Fine to put the email hacker/leaker on hold. Seems to be a mini-division among those that appreciate the leak and its content. With disinterest in who/what by some and the who/what is vital to others. Wonder if the split would exist if the official finger pointing were to other than Russia/Putin?
the Sanders delegate video unleashed some intense nastiness and, imo, misogyny, actually started with the comments about HRC’s weight – completely uncalled for. in a non-lookism society she’d be considered healthy. good that Sanders got the concessions on education
thread too skinny at this point
Is it possible the hackers were looking for something specific rather than just fishing around? Here’s a thought, when the Plumbers broke into the DNC offices in the Watergate they placed wiretaps and apparently intended to copy ‘campaign documents’ but their specific objective was never revealed. It is entirely plausible that their objective was also defensive; what does the campaign know about Nixon that could be used against him?
Isn’t it plausible the Russian’s had similar concerns about Trump’s deals involving the kleptocracy? Maybe even dumping the material as a disorienting afterthought?
The Watergate break-in operation was always too large and determined not to suspect a specific objective and that the fishing expedition interpretation was too weak.
For me, Robert Parry is probably not too far off the mark.
Exactly. But maybe even the 1968 peace talk treachery is misdirection.
Of course. The possibilities for known unknowns are some large unknown number.
Who knows how many significant secrets Nixon (and his associates) took with himself to his grave? The man’s serious flaws (which he never outgrew) facilitated his electoral successes and his in-office failures and the loathing he engendered in many people. Had he not chosen the political path to rise as fast and high, he might have built a more satisfying and longer political career and been a more able representative of the people.
Okay — I’ve used up my well of empathy for Nixon for the next ten years.
Preserve Our Essence!
KPCC — Debbie Wasserman Schultz out as Democratic chair after email leak
My delight over stuff like this (as with Karl Rove’s resignation) doesn’t say anything good about me.
Yes it does!
That’s kind. But base emotional, schadenfreude responses aren’t really something we should be proud of. In part because it means that we failed to move ourselves and others to the batter path forward.
Sometimes going to the batter path is the better path.
Seriously, I do believe in revenge and schadenfreude, that’s how I was raised. it was part of the culture. I never could understand “turn the other cheek”.
I know you can’t stand him, but I remember some John Wayne movie where he was a preacher. Somebody slapped him. He turned the other cheek which was also slapped. Then he punched the slapper out. Loved it. Sorry for the base reaction.
Second slap, you get a punch seems okay to me. Metaphorically, over the past year, I feel as if HillFans have only gotten the deserved punch after they’ve slapped Sanders and his supporters half a dozen times or more. And my how they wail when the punch hits them.
Again, it is the justifications of Hillary supporters who say DWS did nothing WRONG that is disturbing. The DNC is NOT a neutral actor in the primaries, according to them. Indeed, the infection grows. Fertile grounds perhaps?
How could they sing any other tune given this:
Isn’t this the statement by the lame-duck president, not the future one? 😉
Don’t believe the lame duck president is female and currently has a campaign.
She was HRC s creature from beginning to end. Really she is being offered up as a sacrificial lamb
HRC’s creature, but more like a faux sacrificial lamb to appease Sanders’ supporters during the convention. She was given a lateral to Clinton’s campaign and we just know she’ll given a plum new job after the election (assuming your projections are correct and HRC gets a landslide win).
fladem, what is happening n the wikileaks analysis? I am in the midst of a work crisis, have only occasionally browsed the threads.
the TPM post about financial ties imo puts Trump candidacy in a different light- i.e. he’s really running, not going to drop out; also, I wonder if other document dumps will be forthcoming
Just so it does not get lost in the fog – a link to the TPM analysis of Trump’s ties to Russia.
Just so it does not get lost in the fog – a link to the TPM analysis of Trump’s ties to Russia.
The story has grown. The mainstream media has become more aggressive. Clinton was asked about on the cbs news
I don’t think the Russian angle has grown much
It will be interesting in philly. I get there Tuesday. Maybe it will calm down
○ After the Crash of 2008, the key struggle among Democrats
○ “The Russians Did It!”
For her loyal service as bagman, DWS has been made honorary campaign chairperson. Touching.
It looks as if the Sanders supporters will be told not just to eat shit but be prepared for seconds.
Bernie is gorging on it. Pardon me while I try to pull the knife out of my back.
This bullshit about a Russian state hacker has to stop until incontrovertible proof emerges, analysed and endorsed by less partisan actors. According to my IT sources (who knows, maybe they’re being paid by Putin), it is no easy trick to determine EXACTLY where a hack originated, if even possible. The Putin hysteria in the west has gone completely off the rails. It began with the US-NATO coup in Kiev and can all be laid at the doorstep of one Victoria Nuland Kagan, to name a figure head. Add John Kerry and Barack Obama for good measure.
Very well said. The number of those in the public arena and blogs that claim to be Democrats, liberals, and/or progressives that have succumbed to Putin hysteria as if this is the McCarthy era hadn’t ended sixty years ago is amazing. And terrifying.