'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.

Comments

This confirms my previous speculation

[damn_registrars]

When Assange previously was given front-page status on slashdot for having a cache of Hillary emails to release, I said I figured he was going to do it to help Bernie Sanders win the election. After all, if Hillary were to actually fall out somehow before November, Sanders would be the only choice the party could present. Being as every poll that ever asked voters about Sanders vs Trump showed Sanders completely wiping the floor with Trump, this strongly suggests that Assange has a favorite here.

Re:This confirms my previous speculation

[quantaman]

Assange was probably just taking time to review the material and figure out how to release it.

Why would he need to review it to know how to release it? If you're ultimately going to dump the data, just dump it and let the people read it for themselves. Don't pre-filter it or spin it one way or another.

There might be sensitive or personal information that he doesn't think should be made public or there might be bombshells that he wants to specifically advertise.

Re:This confirms my previous speculation

[GrumpySteen]

these days the plurality of people are independents and not actually democrats or republicans. A fact that both parties like to ignore.

Not even close. The majority of people are fairly consistent in voting either Democrat or Republican. The concept of gerrymandering wouldn't exist and wouldn't work if most people were actually independent and voted along anything other than party lines.

Re:This confirms my previous speculation

[mister_playboy]

Correct, and that constitute strong proof that no one, not even liberals, actually enjoys "diversity".

Home is where you don't have to explain yourself.

Politics aside, is this a copyright violation?

[Overzeetop]

Since these are private communications - not government data - and each email is a creative work by the author, would this potentially be subject to copyright infringement, to the "value" of the communications (which may only arguably be $10-20 a piece if you count time spent x nominal billing rate), triple damage for intentional distribution, times the number of downloads (or x1 if it was uploaded to a torrent, and then copyright infringement applied to all who are torrenting)? Could several of the key documents be registered and then, if subsequently distributed by others, in for the $150,000 per infringement violation - and could that be applied to any organization which disseminates [even non-fair-use excerpts] of the works?

Re:What a mess

[TsuruchiBrian]

This isn't about Trump or the Republicans. Someone can be a sleazy politician on their own merit. I don't give a shit how many times she says "radical islamic terrorism". Bengazi is obviously a witchhunt. It's obvious republicans are just attacking her any way they can and seeing what sticks.

Here is what actually bothers me about her in no particular order

1. She was willing to lie about being shot at by snipers in order to boost her foreign policy cred.

2. She fucked up on the whole email server thing. Rather than just admitting it, she maintained that even though it was a bad decision, that nothing she did was against the rules.

3. She says she stood up to wall street when she told them to "cut it out". She says the reason wall street donated money to her was because she was keeping them safe after 9/11.

4. The timing of when her opinions change make it seem like she is just jumping on popular trends rather than actually having any sort of moral conviction. (e.g. her position on gay marriage, fracking, etc)

Is she the most dishonest politician there ever was? No. Are other politicians just as dishonest or even more dishonest than she is? Probably. Are the Republicans and Donald Trump unfairly trying to make her seem more dishonest than she really is? Yes. Has she been held to a different standard because of gender bias? probably.

All of this is important to note, but it doesn't change the fact that she is dishonest. She is willing to lie when she thinks it will benefit her. She is a liar. She is not more of a liar than other politicians especially republicans or Trump, but she is a liar nonetheless.

Attacking the wild accusations against hillary from the right is easy. That doesn't mean that there are not legitimate issues with her honesty.

I get that Donald Trump is worse. Given the choices, I hope she wins. But I don't see the point in sugar coating what we are getting, if/when we stop Trump.

Re: Doing Trump's work for him

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

I've heard:

Democrats are tax and spend. Republicans are borrow and spend.

In that context, Democrats slightly better, at least they realize there's a cost.

Well...

[argStyopa]

...I think Hilary and Bill are as dirty-rotten & blatantly corrupt as the day is long...but if we've had what now, 2 dumps of "info" from the leaks and AFAIK nothing has jumped up obviously to bite her in the ass?

I have to either
a) commend them on the rigor of their operational security, or
b) expect that all the very best bits are still yet to come in Sept or Oct, when the splash will be large enough.

I honestly don't know which I hope. I really, truly don't want her as president, but then I don't want Trump EITHER.
I'm hoping for the enormous asteroid 2016.

Re:What a mess

[Anonymous Coward]

3. Plan's to end all criticism of rights abuses by other nations. No longer will the US be there pointing out regimes that are torturing and murdering their people.

To be fair that's kind of glass houses situation at the best of times. If you want to get on the moral high ground regarding torture and murder then maybe you should stop doing it yourself, american government.

Re:Anything incriminating?

[Orgasmatron]

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, and also how "their" party stole their money and handed it to Hillary. Well, now that Bernie has ripped his mask off, I'm not so sure. But they should be pissed.

Also, did you see how the allegedly objective and neutral news organizations colluded with Hillary? I didn't think it was possible for the approval ratings of the mainstream media to get any lower, but they are working hard to shed those last few percent.

How about the soft bribery of the delegates going on? Think any of them are going to have some explaining to do after this?

Re:Anything incriminating?

[Teun]

Our worry are a certain hairdresser's customers, Donald Trump, Boris Johnson and Gerard Wilders.

Beside their strange hairdo they also share versions of an ultra right-wing and populist view.

Twitter blackout now

[bongey]

#DNCLeaks was trending number 2 and then disappeared.

Re:Anything incriminating?

[hey!]

I was a Sanders supporter, and I'm neither surprised nor particularly upset. You have to be realistic. Hillary has been active and well-known in the party since 1974, when she rose to prominence as a whip-smart young staff attorney of the Children's Defense Fund. She's spent the last forty years, building contacts and networks in the Democratic party, including nationally as first lady for eight years and with nearly successful presidential run that took her across the entire country. She has a massive rolodex, war chest, and ground organization.

Bernie Sanders only joined the party in 2015. That the DNC was less than perfectly impartial towards the two won't come as news to an Bernie supporter, but to be frank the idea that long-time party insiders and activists would treat someone who joined the party last year the same as someone who's been a big deal in the party for decades is simply unrealistic.