Slashdot Mirror

"...I no longer trust the news I am reading..."

People thinking like you are who got Trump elected in the first place, when it was shown many times the media were in collusion with Hillary Clinton's campaign..

http://www.mostdamagingwikilea...

> I am really appalled at how many people don't take the Russian interference seriously and blame it on some kind of Democrat/Obama conspiracy.

Even if we believe the claims being made without any real evidence, at worst they're alleged to have revealed the truth to us, the same way the Pentagon Papers did a generation back. Remember, for all the talk of "election" hacks, there have been no credible allegations that any voting machines were tampered with by anyone.

Inasmuch as we are to worry about foreign influence on our elections, why is there no concern over the funding of Clinton by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, places with a terrible human rights record where abuses like modern day slavery can still be found? Places that fund terrorists like ISIS? You know, the people who do this sort of thing? (NSFW - graphic content)

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-...
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-...
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-...
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-...

If you're having trouble making out the context, look here for a more digestable form.

I dunno about you, but I'd rather temporarily work with Russia and take out ISIS than to attempt the reverse.

Your links about Russia basically say that they might be trying to fund people they agree with--so if you don't think the above is also harmful, that's literally hypocritical. I'd personally take a more nuanced view that it matters what they have the politicians in question do with that money, whether they follow the relevant laws, etc.

And it's not like elections can be straight up bought. Let's not forget that Hillary spent twice as much as Trump on this election and lost badly where it counted. It's doubly ironic that it's exactly the same kind of loss she suffered to Obama in the DNC primaries in 2008, where he was focused on delegates and she was focused elsewhere as anyone who watched 538's coverage back in 2008 should remember.

Before we escalate to all-out cyber and/or nuclear war with Russia, will we be seeing any -actual evidence- of anything other than a very dumb phishing link clicking Podesta, or of "hacking" involving anything requiring more skill than a neighborhood high school computer club, much less a nation-state?

Nuclear war? Exaggerate much? This is the same sort of nonsense as claims that Donald Trump accepting a phone call from the Taiwanese president is going to get us into a war with China.

I'm guessing we'll see as much evidence as we did regarding accusations about an Iranian nuclear program from American presidents of both parties, which is not much.

And the opposition—the Republicans—aren't in a good position to complain about nondisclosure given the hubbub about the potential accidental leaking of government secrets via Hillary Clinton's private email server. State secrets are apparently really, really important to Trump supporters.

Although I'm sure the Democrats would much prefer the accused not be allowed to speak at all, Putin's question is still pertinent--is he responsible for Democrat losses at -every other governmental level-, as well? Were the Wikileaks e-mails manipulated or untrue, which has still not been asserted?

This red herring is becoming as dangerous as it is ludicrous.

These questions are red herrings. The important point is that the Russians apparently meddled and did so in a way that affected the election of the most powerful political office on the planet.

To address them anyway though:

(1) Yes, the emails were manipulated into propaganda by packaging them with inaccurate interpretations such as those at http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/. One of the more egregious examples uses an email received from an unknown person to assert that Hillary Clinton is racist. They link to the leaked emails, but I imagine most people would read the bad interpretations and never get around to reading the source text.

(2) Given that some of these races were very close—such as those involving Representative Darrell Issa and Senator Pat Toomey—they could have been easily affected by the release of the emails.

Look for media and news.

Worth getting out of the bubble now and then. You will see how much larger the world is on the outside.

not as bad as the media and the opposition made her out to be

There is no way you read even one of those leaked email compilations and think that.
I don't even agree with this list, but I'm linking it because I remembered the name. For me getting money from UAE and Qatar, and selling more weapons to them while knowing they are supporting terrorists is sharing the top of the list with asking for a no-fly zone in Syria and saying in private speeches it would "kill a lot of Syrians".

> Ah yes, grandiose claims of "I've read all the emails..."

That's kind of literally the opposite of what I'm claiming, though I've certainly read many of them, I don't believe anyone can read them all in a short time and make any sense out of it. That's not a realistic investigation by any means.

But yes, they do conspire a lot in the emails. The entire Democratic primary was a sham, as well. Might want to read them for yourself, unless maybe you prefer to let CNN do the thinking for you...

> There's a man who rapes children and there's a woman who had people run a private mail server for her.

The rape thing is so ridiculous that even Jezebel doesn't buy it, let alone others. Suggested reading from people who are definitely not in favor of Trump:

http://jezebel.com/the-source-...
https://popehat.com/2016/10/31...

The "email server" thing goes way deeper than you realize. There have been far too many things in there for me to summarize. I suggest here as a starting place to look into this, but /r/wikileaks has been analyzing it continuously: http://www.mostdamagingwikilea...

The prosecution of this is weird as hell. Here's Congress trying to understand the FBI's initial lack of prosecution due to "lack of intent" -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

And finally, of all the child rapist claims, the one we're best able to substantiate is Bill Clinton's flights on the "Lolita Express" with a convicted pedophile (Epstein) without the Secret Service present. Now there's no proof of what he did and didn't do and a lot of people, including hundreds of famous people, were on that same flight with the same guy, including Trump on one occasion long before his pedophilia was publicly known. So it's kinda ironic that you're more worried about a sham lawsuit based on anonymous witnesses by an ex-Jerry Springer producer known for starting wild lawsuits that went nowhere who hates Trump.

There was also the Todd & Claire scam against Julian Assange recently as well and that's been pretty well proven to be utter BS. The whole site was fake, the UN "partnership" was nonsense (you just have to claim to agree to certain principles) and got revoked, the entire site was completely fake and made with ripped off, mirrored images (to avoid reverse image search--you can see backwards text in some) and all around sketchy as hell.

FWIW, I'm not terribly inclined to believe any of these, but if I had to put money on one panning out, I'd say there's some low chance of Clinton's trips with Epstein being real dirt. He has a lot of ties with them and the Clinton Foundation, though I haven't seen any clear evidence tying them to his pedo ways just yet. Yes, FBI Anon has been right in the past, but we should demand more proof before believing something like this about anyone.

Afraid not, we have copies of a lot of damning stuff thanks to Podesta. And just for comedy, it's coming out that this new FBI investigation came about because they were investigating Democratic Rep. Anthony Wiener (the infamous sexter) who recently divorced Huma Abedin, one of Hillary's closest aids.

But if the objective is to connect emails-Benghazi and conflate the two in votersâ(TM) minds (which consultants feel is an imperative here), Iâ(TM)m not sure we know whether we can credibly do that

Source

Subject: Fwd: POTUS on HRC emails
we need to clean this up - he has emails from her - they do not say state.gov

Source

[Redacted] indicated he had been contacted by [Kennedy], Undersecretary of State, who had asked his assistance in altering the e-mail's classification in exchange for a 'quid pro quo,'

Source (n.b. this is from FBI, not Wikileaks).

The DKIM signatures also say the emails are unmodified and signed by hillaryclinton.com. Feel free to validate them yourselves.

Just for bonus points, here's Hillary talking about how they should've rigged the Palestinian elections.

Listen to Hillary talking about rigging those elections here.

This is a tiny sample from a huge list of damaging emails, too.

There's never been a better time to vote 3rd party.