Slashdot Mirror

> It's amazing how the echo chamber distorted this,

I'm not amazed any more. Every single time I drill down into a Clinton "scandal" it turns out to be bullshit. The republicans have literally spent hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars trying to find something, anything, on the Clintons for decades. There were nine, NINE benghazi investigations alone. But the actual facts never support the hyperbole.

Hell, even the email "scandal" is bullshit. If you watch Comey's senate testimony (excerpted and elaborated here) he says there were three emails (since corrected to two) with partial markings (literally just a (c) next to a single paragraph) and there was ALSO material that was classified. But what he doesn't mention is that the "(c)" emails were already declassified when they were sent to her and for proof you can find those emails in the ones that were officially released by the state department - if they were actually classified they would not have been released because simply being exposed at some point does not automatically declassify a document.

People are going around saying that Comey gave Clinton a pass despite the evidence when in fact he misrepresented the evidence by conflating unrelated facts. He wasn't her friend, he was actually trying to fuck her up in the court of public opinion.

And that's pretty much the way every single clinton "scandal" has gone down. The Clintons are the personification of Cardinal Richelieu's line, "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." And all the people hereabouts who love that quote for what it reveals about the way world works can't even see it when its right in front of them...

Doubly so when iCloud password he was using was sent to him via email by one of his staffers... an email that was part of the Wikileaks dump: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-...

Audit or not, if you have reason to believe someone has access to your stuff, best to change everything you can that might be referenced in that stuff (from a more secure device).

A summary in a discussion website is not the right place to insert colorful qualifiers. That entertainment is for the comments to provide. --Editor 101, chapter 13.

Agreed.

It would be more useful to keep personal opinions in a summary away and instead perhaps provide some links to the actual emails in question instead rather than an article talking about someone elses opinions on them; But hey reading and forming your own opinions is so unfashionable these days.

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

A summary in a discussion website is not the right place to insert colorful qualifiers. That entertainment is for the comments to provide. --Editor 101, chapter 13.

Agreed.

It would be more useful to keep personal opinions in a summary away and instead perhaps provide some links to the actual emails in question instead rather than an article talking about someone elses opinions on them; But hey reading and forming your own opinions is so unfashionable these days.

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

A summary in a discussion website is not the right place to insert colorful qualifiers. That entertainment is for the comments to provide. --Editor 101, chapter 13.

Agreed.

It would be more useful to keep personal opinions in a summary away and instead perhaps provide some links to the actual emails in question instead rather than an article talking about someone elses opinions on them; But hey reading and forming your own opinions is so unfashionable these days.

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

No. Saying anything is not a crime. I can say I raped your mom in the ass. That doesn't make it so, since not only have I never seen your mom, I don't even know who you are. I hope that's convincing enough an example for you. You have major issues with critical thinking. Must be one a part of that "unaware and compliant citizenry" that Clinton has been cultivating (according to Wikileaks: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-...).

Democrats need to turn away! Don't look! Stay ignorant of all the Clinton corruption! Shut up and vote for the Wall Street Bankers via their puppet Hillary!

Love the bits like this one where Hillary's pal Donna Braizle who was then a vice-chair of the DNC working for the DNC was getting Bernie info and forwarding it to the Clinton team via Clinton guy John Podesta. Then, of course the DNC was "cleaned up" by getting rid of Clinton gal pal Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and sliding in ..... wait for it .... Donna Brazile!! ta dah!

It would be impossible to make this stuff up! It's just too impossibly twisted and corrupt.

If we accept the Wikileaks transcript is taken as being accurate

If we accept that the Wikileaks transcript is accurate, which we surely must at this point, why is she saying "we don't even know if these are accurate"? If they're not accurate, you just deny they're accurate and you move on. You don't veer off onto some explanation of how you were just trying to be Lincoln-esque when you said that thing you may or may not have actually said.

She is clearly trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, she wants to be able to deny their accuracy by muddying the waters and claiming that they're possibly/probably/certainly fakes, and on the other hand she wants to be able to downplay what's in the transcripts by attempting to spin it (or "clarify", if you like) after the fact.

Pick a position - if it's fake, it doesn't need clarification, and if it needs clarification, it is necessarily an accurate record of what was said. Not that the media is likely to call her out on one of the more brazen displays of doublethink in recent memory. Nor will her supporters be particularly alarmed by this - no bad tactics, just bad targets, after all.

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

Oh fucking really?

"And as I've mentioned, we've all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry."

Go sit down you ill-educated twit.

If we accept the Wikileaks transcript is taken as being accurate, then Clinton's "weird anecdote" is nothing less than a completely accurate statement of what she actually said. Does no one here bother to check facts?

CLINTON: You just have to sort of figure out how to -- getting back to that word, "balance" -- how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that's not just a comment about today. That, I think, has probably been true for all of our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln, and how he was maneuvering and working to get the 13th Amendment passed, and he called one of my favorite predecessors, Secretary Seward, who had been the governor and senator from New York, ran against Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need your help to get this done. And Seward called some of his lobbyist friends who knew how to make a deal, and they just kept going at it. I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position. And finally, I think -- I believe in evidence-based decision making. I want to know what the facts are. I mean, it's like when you guys go into some kind of a deal, you know, are you going to do that development or not, are you going to do that renovation or not, you know, you look at the numbers. You try to figure out what's going to work and what's not going to work. [Clinton Speech For National Multi-Housing Council, 4/24/13]

Amazingly, nearly 400 posts on this thus far, and nobody has posted or linked to the actual Wikileaks dump on Clinton's comment. I know this is /. but checking facts before bloviating does have its merits.

Here is is:

CLINTON: You just have to sort of figure out how to -- getting back to that word, "balance" -- how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that's not just a comment about today. That, I think, has probably been true for all of our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln, and how he was maneuvering and working to get the 13th Amendment passed, and he called one of my favorite predecessors, Secretary Seward, who had been the governor and senator from New York, ran against Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need your help to get this done. And Seward called some of his lobbyist friends who knew how to make a deal, and they just kept going at it. I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position. And finally, I think -- I believe in evidence-based decision making. I want to know what the facts are. I mean, it's like when you guys go into some kind of a deal, you know, are you going to do that development or not, are you going to do that renovation or not, you know, you look at the numbers. You try to figure out what's going to work and what's not going to work. [Clinton Speech For National Multi-Housing Council, 4/24/13]

So Clinton's characterization of her remarks in the debate last night are completely accurate, and the out-of-text paraphrase (not an actual quote) that is usually repeated is an intentional misrepresentation about what she really said.

Anyone who wants to be actually informed should visit wikileaks and read the actual emails https://wikileaks.org/podesta-... If you can stay awake, you will see that Hillary did not lie anywhere in there. Yes, she says that candidates need money to run. What else is new. Yes, she says "The People That Know The Industry Better Than Anybody Are The People Who Work In The Industry.” but that is true for any industry, right? the people that know cybersecurity best are people that work in cybersecurity, no? So, everything she said is BORING. More importantly, she DID NOT LIE.

They're all from the Washington Post too. Didn't we read about the WaPo in the email leaks? Why yes, yes we did -

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emai...

I do post that one link a lot, but mostly because it's gotten no real attention, everyone is looking at Russian boogeymen and getting distracted from the up-front corruption.

> Appalling corruption? Can you point me to some?

I'd be happy to. Here's them conspiring with the Washington Post to violate campaign financing laws: link. I suggest you read the leaked email for yourself, though, this is but a sample.

> do you have any reason to think the RNC isn't about the same?

I think the last person to have their email hacked on the Republican side was Palin. Nobody found anything remotely interesting. Perhaps they've done bad things, and I'll be happy to condemn that if and when it's proven, but I am not someone who buys the tactic small children use to get out of trouble of pointing fingers at another.

Plenty of hillaryclinton.com over hear. Oh I guess you are saying the Clinton Foundation never sends anything to hillaryclinton . Nonsense https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emai...

user melted gave a short answer, but lets go:
1.0 - Washington's Man Yatsenyuk Setting Ukraine Up For Ruin
1.1 - Ukraine: One ‘Regime Change’ Too Many?
2 - Syria: From the Global Intelligence Files in 2011, about the US financing anyone available to fight against Assad (read terrorists/"rebels"), and being interested in a big humanitarian disaster. Quotes from the e-mail:

they said without saying that SOF teams (presumably from US, UK, France, Jordan, Turkey) are already on the ground focused on recce missions and training opposition forces. One Air Force intel guy (US) said very carefully that there isn't much of a Free Syrian Army to train right now anyway

So there were no rebels to train, but they were there and training them anyway.

the idea 'hypothetically' is to commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns, try to break the back of the Alawite forces, elicit collapse from within

They dont believe air intervention would happen unless there was enough media attention on a massacre, like the Ghadafi move against Benghazi. They think the US would have a high tolerance for killings as long as it doesn't reach that very public stage.

Also, there is a very interesting interview with the former head of the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency):
Who is to blame for the rise of ISIL. Here is a link to the most important part: Former DIA Head Concedes US Deliberately Backed Extremists in Syria.
Finally, listen to Putin talking about the subject, most relevant part about ISIS starts around 1:30.

The Washington Post has a bit of bias in this, so take it with a grain of salt. When will the Washington Post start investigating themselves for holding illicit fundraisers with the DNC? Or is it Russia's fault they did this? Those damned Russians, how dare they expose our corruption!

Source: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/2699

Re: WaPo Party

  From:kaplanj@dnc.org
  To: RangappaA@dnc.org
  Date: 2015-09-22 13:29
  Subject: Re: WaPo Party

  Great - we were never going to list since the lawyers told us we cannot do it.

  We are waiting

  Jordan Kaplan
  National Finance Director
  Democratic National Committee
  (202) 488-5002 (o) | (312) 339-0224 (c)
  kaplanj@dnc.org

  > On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:25 AM, Rangappa, Anu wrote:
  >
  > They aren't going to give us a price per ticket and do not want their party to be listed in any package we are selling to donors. If we let them know we have donors in town who will be at the debate, we can add them to the list for the party.

No, the Washington Post is too busy holding illicit fundraisers with the DNC that their own lawyers forbade them to.

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/2699

Straight from the Wikileaks refutation of this article:
WikiLeaks has published more than 650,000 documents about Russian & president Putin, most of which is critical. See https://search.wikileaks.org/

When will they explore the unsettling relationship between the media and the DNC? Or is it normal to hold clandestine fundraisers that their own lawyers forbid?

Source: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/2699

Re: WaPo Party

From:kaplanj@dnc.org
To: RangappaA@dnc.org
Date: 2015-09-22 13:29
Subject: Re: WaPo Party

Great - we were never going to list since the lawyers told us we cannot do it.

We are waiting

Jordan Kaplan
National Finance Director
Democratic National Committee
(202) 488-5002 (o) | (312) 339-0224 (c)
kaplanj@dnc.org

> On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:25 AM, Rangappa, Anu wrote:
>
> They aren't going to give us a price per ticket and do not want their party to be listed in any package we are selling to donors. If we let them know we have donors in town who will be at the debate, we can add them to the list for the party.

And you can't really trust the news to expose things. People like the Washington Post were too busy holding illicit fundraisers with the DNC.

But you don't have to take my word for it.

Source: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/2699

Re: WaPo Party

From:kaplanj@dnc.org
To: RangappaA@dnc.org
Date: 2015-09-22 13:29
Subject: Re: WaPo Party

Great - we were never going to list since the lawyers told us we cannot do it.

We are waiting

Jordan Kaplan
National Finance Director
Democratic National Committee
(202) 488-5002 (o) | (312) 339-0224 (c)
kaplanj@dnc.org

> On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:25 AM, Rangappa, Anu wrote:
>
> They aren't going to give us a price per ticket and do not want their party to be listed in any package we are selling to donors. If we let them know we have donors in town who will be at the debate, we can add them to the list for the party.

Here is a story AP published that turned out to be fiction. It originated with Jon Ralston and was quickly picked up by AP and then other major media outlets. No corroboration ever materialized for the story, despite there being 3000 cameras in the room, and those that streamed live told a different story. The only media outlet to retract the story was NPR, and PBS fired Ralston.

Note also that this is the story that the DNC leadership instructed its members to pass around "without attribution", i.e. covertly smear Sanders with it. It's also the email that Assange has singled out as the most damming.

And also remember that much of the brouhaha over the leaked DNC emails was over collusion with the media.

In short, if you aren't yet skeptical of mainstream media this year, you need to start paying closer attention.

It's funny that people advocating to take down "criminals" websites and "hate speech" are never talking about political parties that are either advocating for war (republicans - that also started the last official wars) or actually engaging in murder and terrorism financing/training (democrats - see drone papers and Global Intelligence's Syria insight emails).
That's the main problem with limiting speech, the ones doing the limiting are most likely the biggest criminals, otherwise they wouldn't have the power to do it.

While Germany is a somewhat good country (I'm not aware of recent state violence against large groups - please correct me) with, as far as I know, reasonable "limited freedom of speech", let's remember what they did to Greece financially. Shouldn't the speech of "you should destroy your people's lives to pay debt" be forbidden too? That's pretty hateful and extremist to me. So if there is good limiting, when should it stop? The correct answer is "when I think so". That's another problem. For you it would be some DDoSers and some Muslin murderers (but not the moderate murderers that your country finances), for me it would be your country's main political parties.

I wish that when people made such interesting claims as yours that they also bothered to link to their source for the story.
Unsurprisingly, when I tracked it down, it wasn't as you portrayed it. Side note, holy shit does wikileaks suck at displaying these emails. Why no option to see it formatted instead of just raw html?

So, the one and only email related to the "secret fundraiser" was actually the DNC literally saying they fully intended to comply with the law. That's only a smoking gun if your analysis is based on keyword hits and not actually reading full sentences. What is it about politics that makes people give up on critical thinking?

Who the fuck cares who stole the data, if it is Wikileaks who spreads that data and makes it widely accessible:
https://wikileaks.org/akp-emai...

I assume you are referring to this email, written by Bernie Sander's campaign manager. The entire email is based on a Politico investigation. The email is basically calling the DNC out on what Politico had alleged. The email does not shed any light on things that were not already covered by Politico. Since it is entirely based on what Politico had written it has no more credibility either.

There was one instance where they caught themselves https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emai...

Money laundering.

Done. No results found. Sounds like you're full of it.

Apparently this is the 'making fun of a black woman's name' thread:

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emai...

Doesn't really strike me as "racist".

Steven Colbert had Alexander Skarsgaard on a few weeks back and spent spent a few minutes making light of the difficulty of pronouncing his last name correctly... was that racist against Swedes? A few weeks before that they had Steve Buscemi and they talked about the difficulty with his last name too....

A trap? You mean like ignoring their own lawyer's advice over what is and is not legal?

Interestingly enough, I can't help but notice that this is from the WaPo, which is the same one that held this fundraiser the lawyers told them not to hold...

Source: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emai...

Explanation: https://theconservativetreehou...

Take this email, for example:

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emai...

If this were two Hillary campaign staffers discussing it, it would be very sleazy, but not blatantly wrong.

The problem is that it's two DNC staffers. Since DNC effectively organizes the primaries on federal level, they're supposed to be neutral. Instead, we see people not only expressing a clearly non-neutral opinion on one of the candidates, but they are actually plotting to do something that would benefit one candidate by hurting another.

Contrasted with the official DNC claim that they were, indeed, neutral, this is pretty damning. Not illegal, most likely, but as far as reputation goes, it's going to hurt. And Clinton will be affected by it as well, simply because she was the beneficiary of it.

This gives all sorts of insight into team Hillary.

Planned to attack Bernie as an atheist in Kentucky and West Virginia, where they presumed it would hurt among Baptists....

That campaign is completely SATURATED with stereotyping and identity politics.

They presume all sorts of stuff about Baptists, Kentuckians, West Virginians, Atheists, Jews, etc and cynically planned to manipulate Bernie into exposing a presumed vulnerability with which they might then manipulate the supposed rubes in the "Bible Belt". In Hillary world, all the "others" are obviously dumb and easy to manipulate along stereotypical lines.

NEWSFLASH: Nobody in the "Bible Belt" is under any delusion that Trump is particularly religious, and Ted Cruz tried that same sort of stupid identity politics against Trump. The supposedly manipulable religious who were supposed to be bigoted against a non-Bible-thumper voted for Trump over Cruz. It's not just a religious thing. These idiots who work in campaigns, in BOTH parties, slip into the trap of thinking they can over-analyze everything and categorize everyone and then manipulate anyone. This is toxic politics and might be tied to all the data mining that increasingly helps campaigns of all stripes put populations under microscopes and think they understand PEOPLE by looking at NUMBERS.

I suppose Hilary's private email server has saved her from being published by Wikileaks.

A previous poster suggested something incriminating would catapult Sanders into the DNC nomination spot.

If nothing actually incriminating is found, but something unfavorable is revealed, that would then help The Donald.

FYI, as a public service, wikileaks maintains a searchable database of Hilary's private email server documents obtained from FOIA request.

Of course now wikileaks is also hosting these newly obtained DNC emails. These DNC leaks mainly serve to discredit the DNC as to being fair to the Sanders campaign and probably mostly serve to open up old wounds among Sanders supporters. I doubt that Sanders could get catapulted to the nomination, but perhaps embolden his supporters to attempt the same stunt that the #NeverTrump folks tried (and failed) to do in the Republican Convention (ie., unbind the delegates).

Link to location for Publication

Might want to use TOR or your favorite hiding software.

No, Most of the emails that might be posted, should be available in their entirety. And if they could include phone calls that triggered the emails, that would be great too. Unfortunately we don't have email copies. Take wikileaks as a grain of salt.

It doesn't look as fabricated stuff, no geek-friendly header fields. Look at this, for example. It seems to be derived from an original pdf, which bears a 2015 date on it. However vulnerable Clinton's server, the documents seem to have leaked from state dept.

Isn't this the relevant email? https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/737806568201330688/photo/1 [full]

A) nothing there shows me that the document they're talking about is classified
B) couldn't she be saying to send it via unsecured fax because they failed to send it by secure fax and thus the email issue might be moot?

That's not a smoking gun to me but it is maybe interesting enough to warrant looking further.

Link to location for Publication

Might want to use TOR or your favorite hiding software.

The story is about the twitter account.

Well, when Sarah Palin's private e-mail was hacked, reports weren't referring to her as just a mother and grand-mother — the capacity in which she used it and, incidentally, achievements far more serious than being an awareness raiser. No, the reports were referring to her as the Governor of Alaska and a VP-contender.

The story is about the twitter account.

The story is, indeed. And yet, if they describe him, they should've listed things that make hum especially (in)famous. And, maybe, they did — must be real sad, when one's fame is based not on what one has achieved, but what was done to the person by others...

> You got to watch people though who in preaching something contradict the very thing they preach.

Very much this. Not everyone is ideological, and not everyone who is has an ideology that values openness and truth.

Some pretty bad guys often have their interests pretty well aligned with free speech activists. Plus people are complicated and can come up with all sorts of twisted logic to justify things.

But I am also pretty familiar at this point with seeing people who did very good work turn out to be deeply flawed people personally.

A news story had me looking up some of the Stratfor leak emails, and I found a little gem in there, a bit of intelligence service humor, but, I think its also a pretty interesting statement on people:
https://wikileaks.org/IMG/pdf/...

"Patriot: A source who is betraying his country for ideological, religious, patriotic or other unreliable beliefs. Very dangerous person. He could change his mind."

Yeah, that's why Wikileaks got shut down so easy, in fairness there was a short period of time when we had to use the IP Address to get there.

Exactly. They are using these laws, under the dubious pretense of 'wartime' provisions, to attempt to bypass the constitution of not just US citizens but the citizens of other countries as well.

Under the US constitution, the Freedom of Speech is a Natural Right, not a government endowed right. A person acquires the right by nature of existing, and the Government is prohibited from infringing on it

Bullshit. The purpose of removing TLD control from the US government is so it can't shut people up at will, including Americans.

Yeah, that's why Wikileaks got shut down so easy, in fairness there was a short period of time when we had to use the IP Address to get there.

Recep Tayyip ErdoÄYan is an asshole, but Paypal is not behaving any better

In June 2011 Paypal freezes Wikileaks account denying users from contributing to Wikileaks

https://wikileaks.org/Banking-...

https://www.wired.com/2010/12/...

I for one am glad the two can't work together, or our world will become so much worse

maybe i should have said "eagerly handed over" given state department tool's at google,(ie current jared cohens ) desire to please usa gov even before asked.

this was forwarded to hillary then secretary of state in 2012,
"
From: Jared Cohen [mailto
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 1:21 PM
To: Burns, William J; Sullivan, Jacob J; alec.ross
Subject: Syria

Deputy Secretary Burns, Jake, Alec,

Please keep close hold, but my team is planning to launch a tool on Sunday that will publicly track and map the defections in Syria and which parts of the government they are coming from. Our logic behind this is that while many people are tracking the atrocities, nobody is visually representing and mapping the defections, which we believe are important in encouraging more to defect and giving confidence to the opposition. Given how hard it is to get information into Syria right now, we are partnering with Al-Jazeera who will take primary ownership over the tool we have built, track the data, verify it, and broadcast it back into Syria.

I've attached a few visuals that show what the tool will look like. Please keep this very close hold and let me know if there is anything eke
you think we need to account for or think about before we launch. We believe this can have an important

impact.

Thanks,
Jared

Jared Cohen
"

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-...
https://wikileaks.org/google-i...

maybe i should have said "eagerly handed over" given state department tool's at google,(ie current jared cohens ) desire to please usa gov even before asked.

this was forwarded to hillary then secretary of state in 2012,
"
From: Jared Cohen [mailto
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 1:21 PM
To: Burns, William J; Sullivan, Jacob J; alec.ross
Subject: Syria

Deputy Secretary Burns, Jake, Alec,

Please keep close hold, but my team is planning to launch a tool on Sunday that will publicly track and map the defections in Syria and which parts of the government they are coming from. Our logic behind this is that while many people are tracking the atrocities, nobody is visually representing and mapping the defections, which we believe are important in encouraging more to defect and giving confidence to the opposition. Given how hard it is to get information into Syria right now, we are partnering with Al-Jazeera who will take primary ownership over the tool we have built, track the data, verify it, and broadcast it back into Syria.

I've attached a few visuals that show what the tool will look like. Please keep this very close hold and let me know if there is anything eke
you think we need to account for or think about before we launch. We believe this can have an important

impact.

Thanks,
Jared

Jared Cohen
"

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-...
https://wikileaks.org/google-i...

Suppliers charge by the number of times a stream is started and by the popularity of the streamed work.

Are you sure about that? My understanding is that most content is contracted on flat fixed fee basis. Here's an example contract (PDF, Wikileaks) between Columbia Pictures (Sony) and Netflix for a package of content. All flat fixed fee with incremental increases. Nothing based on the number of times streamed.

https://wikileaks.org/sony/doc...

Perhaps other content is contracted by the number of times streamed but you gotta show evidence.

For once, these hacktivists did something useful

So when they fought child pornography, animal abuse, religious harassment, exposed war crimes and private espionage against people (global intelligence files), they were not doing anything useful?

Impressive.

For those that cannot tell, #zedaroca was using sarcasm in his/her post.

I totally agree with the point. The bastards who are PAID BY OUR OWN TAX DOLLARS to uphold the law are routinely breaking it with impunity. These small-scale doxxes should be a daily occurrence, in addition to the periodic large-scale releases that fight greater evils.

For once, these hacktivists did something useful

So when they fought child pornography, animal abuse, religious harassment, exposed war crimes and private espionage against people (global intelligence files), they were not doing anything useful?

Impressive.

The US, the country that sat out the whole conflict until Daesh started committing genocide

From the Global Intelligence Files in 2011, about the US financing anyone available to fight against Assad (read terrorists/"rebels"), and being interested in a big humanitarian disaster. Quotes from the e-mail:

they said without saying that SOF teams (presumably from US, UK, France, Jordan, Turkey) are already on the ground focused on recce missions and training opposition forces. One Air Force intel guy (US) said very carefully that there isn't much of a Free Syrian Army to train right now anyway

So there were no rebels to train, but they were there and training them anyway.

the idea 'hypothetically' is to commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns, try to break the back of the Alawite forces, elicit collapse from within

They dont believe air intervention would happen unless there was enough media attention on a massacre, like the Ghadafi move against Benghazi. They think the US would have a high tolerance for killings as long as it doesn't reach that very public stage.

Also, there is a very interesting interview with the former head of the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency):
Who is to blame for the rise of ISIL (for some reason, I only get the "an error occurred" message, so here is a link to the most important part: Former DIA Head Concedes US Deliberately Backed Extremists in Syria).

They are discussing a 2012 report by the DIA informing that by supporting terrorists, the US would end up supporting Daesh during the interview. Here is the DIA report, heavily redacted (it's just three pages out of seven pages).
You should at least watch the 5 minutes video before saying that the US sat on the conflict again.

Oh come on, of course failed and failing states breed instability and of course the US is actively destabilizing regions all over the world. Rubio knows that, we all know that unless we don't want to hear it, and the brainwash you quote is just sickening. "[N]o longer legal and has theoretically stopped"? You might not be a liar, but you are certainly naive.

Don't get me wrong, it would be nice if we could still see the world the way you do, but it takes an awful lot of ignoring facts to do so.