http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37364189
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell has reportedly called Republican nominee Donald Trump a "national disgrace," according to leaked emails. The Republican retired four-star general's comments were revealed in a hack on his personal emails. The emails were posted on DCLeaks.com, which has reportedly been tied to other recent high-profile hacks. Mr. Powell, who has been quiet during the election, said he had "no further comment" but was "not denying it".
[...] Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who crossed party lines in 2008 to endorse Democratic [candidate] Barack Obama, has tried to float above this year's tendentious presidential election. So much for that. First the government released his note to Democrat Hillary Clinton advising her on how to use personal email for back-channel communications while secretary of state. Now - in an ironic twist - his personal email has been hacked, revealing sweeping denunciations of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and some sharp criticisms of Democrat Hillary Clinton.
[...] "Yup, the whole birther movement was racist," the email read. "That's what the 99% believe. When Trump couldn't keep that up he said he also wanted to see if the certificate noted that he was a Muslim." But the leaked emails also revealed Mr Powell's frustrations with Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and her handling of her use of private email while at the State Department. "Sad thing... HRC could have killed this two years ago by merely telling everyone honestly what she had done and not tie me into it," the email read, referring to Mrs Clinton. "I told her staff three times not to try that gambit. I had to throw a mini tantrum at a Hampton's party to get their attention."
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Friday September 16 2016, @08:36PM
what with refusing to publish a subset of leaks that might implicate Russia,
I was unfamiliar with that specifically, but I know that they try to conceal the identities of sources. Do you think that anonymous sources are important for journalism? Do you think that Bob Woodward had an obligation to either reveal who Deep Throat was or not run the Watergate story? I think it's actually a comparable situation, since Deep Throat turned out to be the #2 guy at the FBI and could concievably be part of a larger conspiracy within the government (I'm betting he wasn't). From a certain perspective, Woodward only told half the story by withholding that information. He even outright lied to conceal the identity. But then, Woodward couldn't break Watergate without promising anonymity. And Wikileaks might be able to obtain and verify certain information if they don't make similar promises. Does this matter to you? Are the cases different somehow?
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Friday September 16 2016, @08:38PM
might not be