SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
martyb
on Saturday July 23 2016, @08:20PM
from the because-information-wants-to-be-freed dept.
from the because-information-wants-to-be-freed dept.
DNC [Democratic National Committee] top dogs can't seem to wrap their brains around GPG encryption, and so now we have the chance to peruse their emails. Which is nice, but still sort of shocking that the people who want to run the country can't secure their communications. It will probably take a while before anything of great interest is found in the archive because it was just released , but if you want to help in the search, have fun.
Here is one amusing excerpt:
NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Wikileaks Releases 20,000 DNC Email Archive
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 47 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Nadia Comaneci, simple perfection.
-- '76 Olympics
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Saturday July 23 2016, @09:32PM
I read through quite a few of them last night, and here's most of what I picked up.
1. Media influence:
- If you had any doubt that MSNBC was taking marching orders from the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign, here's your proof that yes, they are.
- At least a couple of journalists cleared stories with the Democratic Party before even their editor saw them. One suppressed their story at the DNC's request.
- Reporters pursuing stories potentially hostile to Clinton or the DNC were either not responded to at all or told to "fuck off".
2. Not Remotely Impartial:
- The Democratic Party definitely did not want Bernie Sanders to win, and were actively putting their thumb on the scales to prevent that from happening. For example, organizing a plant of somebody to ask Sanders about religion to reveal that he was an atheist.
- There was talk of "Bernie Bros" within the DNC.
- There was some evidence buried in there that the lack of voting places in Rhode Island (particularly in areas where Sanders polled well) was intentionally organized by "one of ours", and a concerted effort to cover their butts.
3. Shady funding:
- One guy accidentally put into the email system exactly how money was getting funnelled around between the Clinton campaign and the DNC. He was reprimanded not for the funding but for emailing information about it.
- There were all sorts of perks given out for next week's convention depending on giving levels.
- The vetting of major donors was particularly interesting. For example, one guy convicted of wire fraud.
4. Pettiness and stupidity:
- Hardly any of these people can spell properly, or use decent grammar. I know, this is a minor point, but these are supposed to be among the top minds in politics.
- Debbie Wasserman-Schultz in particular comes off as about as mature as a typical high school cheerleading captain.
- A guy named "Pablo" was by all appearances forced out of the organization because he made Debbie work early in the morning to do a media interview.
One of the many consequences of all this is that the DNC is now the target of a class action lawsuit by Sanders backers, because the DNC is supposed to be impartial and very obviously wasn't.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23 2016, @09:46PM
Your interpretations seem much more extreme than what I've actually read.
For example:
- The Democratic Party definitely did not want Bernie Sanders to win, and were actively putting their thumb on the scales to prevent that from happening. For example, organizing a plant of somebody to ask Sanders about religion to reveal that he was an atheist
One guy sent one email suggesting it. No actual "organizing" happened and there was no "plant."
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Sunday July 24 2016, @03:29AM
Except that there's not insignificant evidence that the Clinton campaign had already planted a question in the Michigan debate back in March (Clinton announced in her answer to the same question that she had attended services in the very church that the woman who had asked it attended). And her campaign apparently did the same thing to Obama back in 2008. So the idea that they would have done it again in May of 2016, especially with top DNC officials putting the idea out there in email (and these emails indicate that an awful lot is going on that wasn't in the emails, and one guy got in trouble for emailing something they didn't want in writing) is not far-fetched.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 24 2016, @01:43PM
> (Clinton announced in her answer to the same question that she had attended services in the very church that the woman who had asked it attended)
You see that and think conspiracy. I see that and think most inept conspirators ever. Shades of republican accusations against obama - he's totally inept and also a grand-master of evil.
> So the idea that they would have done it again in May of 2016, especially with top DNC officials putting the idea out there in email is not far-fetched.
So they are getting the blame for something they did not actually do. This is witch-hunt logic. One guy said something dumb and nothing came of it. People talk shit all the time.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Sunday July 24 2016, @08:42PM
The exchange in the March "debate" happened just as you say it did. The New York Times [nytimes.com] has a transcript (search in it for "Denise Ghattas") and the Inquistr [inquisitr.com] has an article speculating that one reason the Clinton wanted questions about religion to be asked was to highlight the fact that Sanders is Jewish. The article goes on to observe that
(Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday July 23 2016, @10:35PM
That's impossible. What are you, some kind of racist sexist anti-Semitic conspiracy-theorist? They were just being facetious, can't you take a joke?
PffffhahahHAAAAAA. As the Jews' chosen candidate, Hillary is above the law, however, the efforts to bring her down are encouraging, and Assange has hinted that there are more to come. He also said that he has what it takes to get Hillary indicted. Well, I doubt that, since the Jews own America and Assange is known for blowing smoke up our asses, but even forcing her Hillary's hand at stepping down and starting a credible movement to oust DNC chairwoman Debbie Wattoman-Schultz [nocookie.net] would be a step in the right direction to gutting such cancer from our country's leadership.
Anybody paying attention to the news for the past year knows the open secret of how many Democrats are pissed for Watto's annointment of Hillary, roaring for proper debates and literally discussing which color platter [canadafreepress.com] to serve Watto's head on.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Saturday July 23 2016, @10:39PM
I'm thinking a yellow platter.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2016, @12:51AM
in the shape of a sheriff's star, wink wink
(Score: 2) by fnj on Saturday July 23 2016, @11:01PM
This place would be pretty unrecognizable without the usual chorus of nattering nabob deranged anti-semitic bigot assholes.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23 2016, @11:28PM
When you welcome all assholes, you tend to get a lot of assholes.
(Score: 4, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 24 2016, @03:09AM
Be glad, you'd make my short list if I were a totalitarian asshole who wanted to control what people were allowed to say and read.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 24 2016, @12:04PM
Have you ever read your own words?
You're the guy who has said he's OK with people being judged by their names.
You are a totalitarian asshole, you just don't have any power.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 24 2016, @10:36PM
The thing you said of me has nothing to do with being a totalitarian. Get a dictionary.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday July 24 2016, @02:58AM
Hey, dipfuck, you forgot to "coincidence-detect" Assange. Come on, if you're gonna troll, go big or go home.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 4, Touché) by butthurt on Sunday July 24 2016, @03:37AM
There's a group of powerful Jews acting in concert, but they chose Ms. Clinton, who claims to be Methodist, [nytimes.com] over Bernie Sanders, who is Jewish. That's got to hurt!
It certainly appears that she's above the law, however FBI Director James Comey is Methodist. [umc.org] I don't know about Barack Obama's beliefs; could he be both Muslim and Jewish? Noted Jew Michael Bloomberg wants us to think [haaretz.com] Obama is Christian, not Muslim or Jewish. Would Mr. Obama have gone to all those Rev. Jeremiah Wright sermons if he weren't Christian? If he's Jewish/Muslim he's done a good job of keeping it secret. How do we know he isn't secretly Methodist?
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday July 24 2016, @05:52AM
Good news as a result of the leak already, that [redacted] Debbie Wasserman Schultz has lost her speaking spots at the convention. http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/22/politics/dnc-wikileaks-emails/ [cnn.com]
Go Tim Canova, her primary challenger. https://timcanova.com/ [timcanova.com] Sort of an annoying autoplay but also worth it -- it's a compilation of DWS dodging the question of whether she'll debate Tim. And now she has lost prime time national exposure. So sweet.