Slashdot Mirror


'The Hillary Leaks' - Wikileaks Releases 19,252 Previously Unseen DNC Emails (zerohedge.com)

Reader schwit1 writes: The state department's release of Hillary emails may be over, but that of Wikileaks is just starting. Moments ago, Julian Assange's whistleblower organization released over 19,000 emails and more than 8,000 attachments from the Democratic National Committee. This is part one of their new Hillary Leaks series, Wikileaks said in press release.:"Today, Friday 22 July 2016 at 10:30am EDT, WikiLeaks releases 19,252 emails and 8,034 attachments from the top of the US Democratic National Committee -- part one of our new Hillary Leaks series. The leaks come from the accounts of seven key figures in the DNC: Communications Director Luis Miranda (10770 emails), National Finance Director Jordon Kaplan (3797 emails), Finance Chief of Staff Scott Comer (3095 emails), Finance Director of Data & Strategic Initiatives Daniel Parrish (1472 emails), Finance Director Allen Zachary (1611 emails), Senior Advisor Andrew Wright (938 emails) and Northern California Finance Director Robert (Erik) Stowe (751 emails). The emails cover the period from January last year until 25 May this year."
The emails released Friday cover a period from January 2015 to May 2016. They purportedly come from the accounts of seven key DNC staffers: Andrew Wright, Jordon Kaplan, Scott Comer, Luis Miranda, Robert Stowe, Daniel Parrish and Allen Zachary.

A quick scan of the emails focus on Bernie Sanders and dealing with the fallout of many Democrats opposing Hillary Clinton and calling the system "rigged." Many of the emails exchanged between top DNC officials are simply the text of news articles concerning how establishment democrats can "deal" with the insurgent left-winger.
Update: 07/22 17:41 GMT by M :Guccifer 2.0 has claimed responsibility for the leak.

35 of 461 comments (clear)

  1. Anything incriminating? by LichtSpektren · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not a secret that Clinton is a rather vile person, so whatever rude and dirty things she says to other Democrats is of no consequence.

    The question is, is there anything in there that's incriminating? If not, it doesn't really matter.

    1. Re:Anything incriminating? by schnell · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I was going to ask the same thing. To be a "whistleblower" organization (as described in the summary) is to call attention to illegal activities that have been suppressed. If there is no evidence of wrongdoing here, all Wikileaks is doing is violating people's privacy. While it might be interesting to read the internal e-mails of politicians, executives or celebrities, if there is nothing illegal going on then it's ultimately just voyeurism that doesn't justify distribution from a dodgily (probably illegally) obtained source.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    2. Re:Anything incriminating? by dpidcoe · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The question is, is there anything in there that's incriminating? If not, it doesn't really matter.

      This would imply that it matters even if it is incriminating, something that a brief examination of the history of the Clintons calls into question.

    3. Re:Anything incriminating? by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For the most part that is all what Wikileaks seems to do.
      Nothing really surprising, unless you are really naive about the world.

      Should I be shocked that the Publicly the Civilian casualties count was lower than the actual?
      Should I be shocked that a Military which is volunteer and not extremely selective and their ages are in the late teens and early 20's would have a bunch of people who will act less than professionally and cause trouble?

      So why should I be shocked to find that When she is running for a position she is working with strategies to counteract her opponent?

      Perhaps they should leak my email to find out that I spend a lot of time explaining my work and trying to avoid getting yelled at for the users mistakes?

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:Anything incriminating? by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hey, don't lump everyone together. There's plenty of leftists who are all in favor of FOIA, Wikileaks, etc., and still think Hillary is a corrupt sell-out. It's really the establishment-lovers who defend her.

      Just like "the right" has several different camps, with some overlap (the Evangelicals, the Big Business lovers, the Tea Partiers, the economic libertarians, etc.), and sometimes these groups are opposed, leading to Trump's nomination for example, "the left" also has several different camps, with some overlap: the environmentalists, the SJWs, the radical feminists, the Big Business lovers (but they love different big businesses than those on the right), the union supporters, the equal rights supporters, etc. Hillary vs. Bernie (just like everyone vs. Trump on the right) has exposed a huge schism on the left. True Bernie supporters and other actual leftists (not Hillary-loving centrists) and anti-establishment folks are all in favor of this stuff; it's only the establishment people who are going to call this "violating privacy". These DNC high-ups are greatly affecting our politics, and quite likely choosing our next leader, so we have every right to read their emails. Even more so when you consider that these very same people are big proponents of the NSA spying on us; turnabout is fair play.

    5. Re:Anything incriminating? by Orgasmatron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wrongdoing is not a synonym for illegal, and whistleblowers often reveal things that, while technically legal, are disgusting and wrong.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    6. Re:Anything incriminating? by kqs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Think wider.

      The Democratic National Committee is an organization of and for the Democratic Party (aka, the voters), and should be neutral until the party members have selected their candidate. I think a lot of Sanders supporters are going to be disgusted to see how "their" party plotted and schemed to defeat their candidate

      Huh?

      There were two major candidates. One is a lifelong democrat who is part of the biggest fundraising team in the democratic party's history, who has regularly campaigned for and helped democratic candidates, and who has pushed democratic policies (and helped set democratic policies) their entire political career. The other is an independent who just recently declared themself a democrat for the express purpose of winning this primary and "leading a revolution" in the democratic party, who is not known for helping or fundraising for democrats and who has policies which are similar to but still rather different than the democratic party's policies.

      Look, I like Bernie and I respect Bernie's goals, but his goal was to take over and explode the democratic party. Why do you think the current democratic party leaders would be neutral about this? That's insane. Of course they dislike him and fear him and did not want him to win; from their point of view, that is the only rational behavior.

      Note also, you say "until the party members have selected their candidate". Bernie wants more open primaries because many of his supporters are independants, not democrats. I don't know if open primaries are good or bad, but when you have open primaries you no longer have "the party members" selecting a candidate, you have anyone who decides to vote in that party's primary selecting. That may be good or it may be bad, but it ain't the same thing.

    7. Re:Anything incriminating? by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Democratic National Committee is an organization of and for the Democratic Party (aka, the voters), and should be neutral until the party members have selected their candidate.

      "Voter" != "Party Member". Very few people actually realize this.

  2. What a mess by ilsaloving · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So I can't even hazard a guess as to what's gonna happen this election. The US has a choice between a politician so sleezy as to be a caricature of a cliche politician, and a narcicistic psychopath who would quite happily plunge the world into world war 3 if someone makes fun of the size of his hands.

    I mean, really? W. T. F.?

    The only real option is if the entire country banded together and voted for an independent, but I just don't see that happening cause all the majority of people can see is the romantic idea of what their "team" represents, rather than look at what's actually happening.

    1. Re:What a mess by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If I were Trump, I'd find campaign issues other than "crooked" and "bad judgement" to run against:

      "crooked" - Under investigation for fraud, probably soon to be under investigation for bribery to get earlier fraud investigations squashed.

      "bad judgement" - Three wives, four bankruptcies.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:What a mess by clubby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's quite possible to hold a disfavourable view of Hillary Clinton without ascribing any integrity or awareness to Trump. I think her cozy relationship with Wall Street is at best an appearance of impropriety, and she should be more circumspect about such things. I also think she ran a private email server to circumvent FOIA, and I really like FOIA, so I tend to frown upon non-compliance. I also agree with Comey's assessment of her recklessness. Not everyone shares these views, but I do think most people consider them defensible positions, as opposed to most of the garbage that comes out of Trump's mouth.

    3. Re:What a mess by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      you forgot "that if anyone else not named 'Hillary Clinton' had done would have gone to prison". And despite the FBI's claims, INTENT is not required. Or so it was explained to me in my security training. Probably also to that the poor guy on the sub taking a selfie....

  3. Re:This confirms my previous speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Assange just wants to stir shit up to get publicity. I doubt he cares what shit he stirs, as long as people pay attention.

  4. Hah! by fireylord · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I do love how random commentators, particularly anonymous ones, love telling people what everyone else is purported to want.

    Such class

    1. Re:Hah! by Dishevel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To be fair though it certainly seems like people now are much more willing to give up opportunity and freedom for the illusion of security (Economic and otherwise) and to be removed from the list of responsible parties for their lives.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    2. Re:Hah! by Dishevel · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I have no such fantasy.
      I guess if I wanted to I could gain the skills and lose some benefits and live off the grid.
      I do not want to though and most people have no such want.
      But the TSA does not make you safe. More police on the streets, does not make us safe.
      The Patriot act does not make us safe. Safety is an illusion that we are selling our freedoms for.

      Minimum wage laws have created no jobs. When people are not taking shitty jobs because the benefits that come from not having a job are better, it causes real issues.

      I tell my children this all the time. "When something is wrong in your life. Finding someone other than yourself to be "At Fault" will never benefit you. Always strive to find what you can do differently. This is where you gain power."
      It is just truth. If you ever truly can find nothing you can do in your life differently to get better results, you win. You are a powerless victim. No fualt can be assigned to you. Nothing you could ever do to change things.
      Feel better?

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  5. Re:Why? by _xeno_ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They haven't nominated Hillary yet. Her coronation is next week at the Democratic National Convention. Which means it's still conceptually possible that they could nominate someone else.

    They won't, of course. But it's still theoretically possible. In some other universe where criminals get charged for their crimes.

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
  6. Re:This confirms my previous speculation by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It won't matter, if the sheer number of "Bernie" bumper stickers replaced by "Clinton" bumper stickers here in Portland is any indication (most within the same effing week).

    The dubious beauty of partisan politics is that for partisans, the people are almost interchangeable, and they'll hold their nose and vote for anyone - as long as the candidate they've been told to fear doesn't win.

    I do wonder though if my father-in-law got intellectual whiplash when he went from Facebook postings of "Hillary is a corrupt wall street hack - vote Bernie!" to "But Hillary is honest and has integrity!" within less than a week.

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  7. Re:Doing Trump's work for him by Dishevel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So if you have to pay for the things you need and want, you are a slave.
    The path to freedom, according to you is for those that have earned a lot of money to give up the money they worked for so that you can be "Free".
    In other words. The "Slaves" should pay for the freemen to be free?



    WTF?

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  8. Deeply offensive, beyond spoiled brat by raymorris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > You give 40+ hours of your week away to corporate bosses, just so you can feed yourself. That's called slavery.

    So you think that sitting in your air-conditioned office posting on Slashdot and getting paid $100K for doing so is just exactly like slavery https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/ma...

    Sometimes I wish you whiny little spoiled liberals could spend six seconds on the whipping post in order to start getting a clue how incredibly fortunate you are. I EXPECT you to be a whiny, spoiled brat, but when you start saying that your experience of sitting here posting on Slashdot is *slavery*, just like people who are chained up and whipped, you cross the line and I'm going to call you on it. Your ridiculous "I'm a victim because I didn't get a free iPhone 6" crap trivializes the real suffering of actual victims, and it's deeply offensive.

    1. Re:Deeply offensive, beyond spoiled brat by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because people have it worse than you, you can't have criticism?

      You can always criticize, everyone has free speech. Just be aware that in some cases, you'll seem like a whiny little brat. This might be because you are.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Deeply offensive, beyond spoiled brat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He says while the US experiences the highest level of income disparity it has ever seen.

      No one is complaining that they didn't get a free i-phone six. They are complaining that after working their way through college, accumulating massive amounts of debt, and struggling through a recession, the status quo is to reward the people and companies that are destroying the mobility in American society that you pretend you love so much. You want social mobility? Massive unemployment and huge profits for corporations isn't going to help anyone achieve the American Dream-- it's destroying that dream and creating some neo-fuedalistic society, a sham version of capitalism.

      It's not whining to want to make the country a better place. Recognizing that human beings have inalienable rights is something our forefather's did over 200 years ago-- the rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". We have resources to provide people with universal heathcare, to provide people with food, water, shelter, and give them the freedom to pursuit happiness in whatever way they want. What will it cost us? It will mean that instead of earning 1.5 billion dollars a year some company will only earn a billion. It means that being rich in America will mean only being able to afford a 200 room mansion, a private jet and a fleet of sportscars an only have 20 million set aside for a rainy day instead of 40 million.

      No one "earned" that money-- they won it in the lottery that is our economic system. They were a lucky bastard who did well. What a lot of people want is the SYSTEM that lets someone become a rich bastard ALSO make sure that the people who don't become rich bastards have a place to sleep, food to eat, and good health. The rich won't be quite as rich and the poor won't be quite as poor-- that' all, no socialist revolution, no communist bread lines.

      It disgusts me that this is so hard to understand. People act like they are somehow special and earned their place in our society with no help from the society itself-- as if the crooked rules in the economic system weren't benefiting the rich after they bought and sold the politicians. If "having money" means you "earned that money" then the future of our society is undeniably going to become one of violence. When economic opportunity dies up, people will turn to violence, and all the creative accounting and luck in the market will be useless against one pissed off guy with a .45.

      Good luck with your awesome Darwinian society.

  9. You have more freedom than you think by zerofoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A friend recently showed me 20 acres of land in Texas for $8000.00. Sure there are no utilities and it is in the middle of nowhere, but it's cheap.

    Through your own sweat, you could build a little house and live off the grid and off of the land.

    I realize that the cost of that "freedom" from my corporate bosses would require lots of sweat equity.

    My corporate job provides me with benefits, paid time off, and a relatively stable life. I willingly trade some freedom for those benefits - absolutely no one is forcing me to take that deal.

    Where the brainwashing has occured is on the Democratic side. Every year Democrats convince more people that more things are "rights" and therefore the people are entitled to those goods and services - without having earned them.

    The people forced to provide those goods and services for those that haven't earned them are the real slaves.

    1. Re:You have more freedom than you think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What goods are you talking about?

      You have an odd idea of what Democrats are trying to convince voters of especially when you compare to Republicans which are offering much of the same just in different places. Think about what it would take to enforce the retarded Muslim ban idea? The only positive for building the wall to Mexico is that it would employ a lot of people for a lot of years and cost tax payers untold billions and be foiled with a simple tunnel.

      I'm unsure why you think you should have to "earn" healthcare. I'm also unsure why you think people should "earn" paying for education when it used to be free in this country. We just wanted to provide adequate funding so that it is free again or at least lower cost. Maybe you should stop listening to conservative pundits that are anything but conservative these days. The amount government expansion required to deport 11 million illegal immigrants would make creation of the DHS seem small in comparison. Republicans these days are all about expanding government reach, not reducing it like you seem to think.

      The reason Bernie was/is so disruptive is that he actually wants to hold people accountable for their actions which should be something a lot of Republicans could get behind. The $15/hr minimum is obviously unattainable but the idea is that you have to increase minimum wage because it has stagnated and doesn't mean anything anymore. Certain regions could absolutely go to there but some places that would prompt massive unemployment if done all at once. Of course none of the options say to do it overnight either.

      When you look at Bernie's platform as a mandate, or as a direction to go in then it is not nearly as scary. It doesn't have to happen over night but it is hard to argue that all people deserve to survive and illness we have the ability to treat. That people shouldn't have to go bankrupt because they had a heart attack especially since they were probably ensured. We have a whole new insurance industry around supplemental insurance now to cover things that used to be covered by normal insurance.

      This race is really about how bad a two party system is. Trump and Bernie made massive inroads because neither party is delivering on their promises. The scary prospect is that people think governing is at all like running a business. They are very different skillsets. You can argue about Trump's ability to run a business but you can't argue that he has no experience governing and is going for the biggest governing job there is right off the bat. That would be a person skipping all the training to be an electrician and immediately working on high voltage transmission lines! You need to learn how it all works, as you gain experience you become qualified for higher and higher end projects. A person off the street isn't going to suddenly start developing AI. They are going to learn to code first, then they will learn a few other languages, then they'll be really good at math and then finally they'll be building neural nets. You can't just skip to the end.

  10. Re:Doing Trump's work for him by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    want to live in a society where the government dictates everything from on high

    You mean like who I'm allowed to have sex with? What women are allowed to do with their bodies?

    You'd almost think they were to the point of micromanaging bathrooms.

  11. Re:This confirms my previous speculation by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Assange already got in trouble for carelessly releasing material that endangered people's lives. So I would hope he at least skim the material to make sure there wasn't any information that would potential get anyone killed shortly upon release (i.e. like outing embedded spies, etc). Now normally onemight assume that no sensitive subjects like this could be found in "normal" email traffic, but given the circumstances, I think he should still check.

  12. Re:Why? by clubby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In some other universe where wealthy and/or powerful criminals get charged for their crimes.

    FTFY

  13. Re:Doing Trump's work for him by Immerman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Of course slavery requires consent of the slave. A slave who refuses to work is no slave at all, only a victim of abuse and probably eventually murder.

    That the violence in a rigged economy is homelessness and starvation not directly imposed by any specific individual does not fundamentally alter the fact that consent is often coerced.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  14. Where is the Technical /. Discussion? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you search for the top senders a 'noreply' is on there.

    If you start digging through the e-mail sources there's some pretty interesting (but politically boring) data in there.

    Someone is running "CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.4" in 2016. It was released on 28-Mar-2013 and has had Bug fixes since then

    https://messages.whitehouse.go...

    Is not resolvable from the outside it seems.

  15. Re:This confirms my previous speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    you aren't wrong here, but the leap from Bernie support to Hilary support is far less than from Bernie to Trump. I've seen a lot of people jumping on the Jill Stein train.

    Not quite on topic, but when did it become a sin to change your beliefs?

  16. Re:Doing Trump's work for him by naughtynaughty · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Earned is the correct word to use to refer to resources that were paid for with earnings.

    I don't withhold my resources (ie my retained earnings) in order to extract labor from people. I've always just offered to pay people a fee for their labor, which happens to be the same way I earn most of my money.

    If you don't have any resources I'd suggest a two step approach:
    1) Perform labor for a fee
    2) Don't spend all the money you were paid for your services

    Now I do admit that it is far easier if you can just replace step 1) with "Have someone give you some of their stuff", I can assure you that not working and getting paid only works if the percentage of parasites is sufficiently small. Too many parasites and the host dies.

  17. Re:Doing Trump's work for him by Dishevel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So. If I risk money and invent a thing, and hire people to make it and pay them an agreed upon wage and after some years I get rich ...
    I am now a slave owner that has earned nothing?
    There is a reason that loser fucks continue to be loser fucks.
    It is because there is no way to convince them that they have any power over their own lives.
    They are scared that if they concede that they have power over their lives that they will suddenly be responsible for their own happiness.
    They are not happy and get their only "Joy" from blaming others.

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  18. Re:Doing Trump's work for him by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You realize that you have no freedom, right?

    You are right, we used to have freedom until you nanny state lefties decided what we can eat, watch, drive, build and fly on our own property. California is the worst for over regulation.

    You give 40+ hours of your week away to corporate bosses, just so you can feed yourself.

    37.5 hours on average. I can more than feed myself. I can travel to exotic places, stay at 5 star resorts, buy my fiancee a nice diamond solitaire engagement ring and support numerous charities and ministries.

    That's called slavery.

    No, it is called a job or a career.

    Getting a handout and not needing to slave at a job would GIVE YOU MORE FREEDOM.

    No, it would indenture me to be a slave of the state by requiring me to hand over more of my money. Someone has to work to produce. We cannot all be welfare bums.

    It astounds me that you right-wingers have been brainwashed so hard you're basically stockholm'd zombie slaves to capitalism.

    Yeah, sorry but I have a nice 6 figure salary, 5 weeks of vacation and a nice benefits package. I do sometimes work overtime but rarely.

    --
    Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  19. Re:This confirms my previous speculation by MachineShedFred · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's almost shocking that the electorate in Portland would shift from the most liberal candidate (full stop) to the most liberal remaining viable candidate without a single thought of hypocrisy.

    No, wait, that's exactly what Portland always does.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  20. Re:This confirms my previous speculation by Dare+nMc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is really bad etiquette to DOC innocent people. IE you should at least make sure their are not home addresses, SSN, phone numbers, credit card numbers, etc before you release. It would also be polite to remove innocent but embarrassing details: things like sickness, illness, VD's, victims names of things like rape, phishing...