Slashdot Mirror
WikiLeaks Releases Hacked Voicemails From DNC Officials (thenextweb.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Late Wednesday afternoon as the Democratic National Convention was in full swing, Julian Assange and WikiLeaks decided to follow through with an earlier statement by publishing hacked voicemails of top democratic officials. There are 29 leaked recordings, which are identified by phone number and total about 14 minutes combined. Many of the voicemails are messages of callers leaving their numbers in hopes of being called back. Others are from voters upset that the DNC was giving too much support to Sanders. The Hill reports that "One caller with an Arizona area code called to blast the DNC for putting Sanders surrogate Cornel West on the platform drafting committee. 'I'm furious for what you are doing for Bernie Sanders,' another caller says in a message. 'He's getting way too much influence. What I see is the Democratic Party bending over backwards for Bernie,' adds the caller, who threatens to leave the party if the DNC doesn't stop 'coddling' the Vermont senator."
This wikileak brought to you by the Make-It-Look-Like-We-Tried-To-Bend-Over-Backwards-for-Bernie department of the Hillary Clinton borg cube.
'He's getting way too much influence. What I see is the Democratic Party bending over backwards for Bernie,' adds the caller, who threatens to leave the party if the DNC doesn't stop 'coddling' the Vermont senator."
Oddly, the caller left her name as "an avid supporter of freedom from email prosecution"
"This is a survey call. Mr. or Ms. DNC, which candidate are you more likely to vote for if the election was held today?"
This is all Russia's fault! I should know, I can see Russia from my back yard!
Pay no attention to the corruption, instead we all need to worry that Trump is going to sell the White House to Canada so they can burn it down... again.
One caller with an Arizona area code called to blast the DNC for putting Sanders surrogate Cornel West on the platform drafting committee.
The man won about half the votes in the primaries. In a fair system, his surrogates would be about half of the platform drafting committee, not a token member or two.
Oh look, slashdot poster who complains about fallacious attacks engages in fallacious attacks. More at 11.
So you thought you could trust the Democrats to leave the power to the people? Right up until they bend you over and fuck you in the ass for corporate interests. That's what Hillary really is, she's the arm of the Democratic Party that will continue to serve the needs of her corporate friends.
Hillary to the left of me, Trump to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle getting screwed.
US clearly needs more parties in the government. The supporters of Bernie and Hillary, and likewise Trump and the former Republican candidates don't belong to the same parties.
I hope that Wikileaks has some strong assurances that these leaks are not state-based, as the quickest way for them to lose the support of the people is to become an unwitting puppet of Russia or any other state.
Not that I want to interrupt the flow of your psychotic and irrational ranting...but...
Were one to be strategically releasing things one would want to release something a little juicy at the beginning to wet the appetite and begin the story you are trying to tell. (i.e. leading to the sacking of corrupt DNC head)
Then fill the middle with the less interesting stuff so it will be reported, continue momentum as possible and create an ongoing story. In marketing it is important to at least double tap the consumer - one impression is too easily forgettable. Remember the media and general public are like a child with ADHD - keeping their attention is difficult and they are easily distracted by shiny, disingenuous, prepackaged speeches.
Once all that is out of the way one might end with a bang in a final awesome explosion of fireworks as the Demo convention closes. Maybe more than one if one had them.
Now I have no evidence that they have any evidence that might lead to this. But likewise you have no evidence that they do not.
So I guess what I am saying is that you are going off half cocked while acting like a cock crowing far too early and likely to end up under the farmer's axe when your irrational ranting is shown to be just that...
Were one to be strategically releasing things one would want to release something a little juicy at the beginning to wet the appetite
Whet.
Why does Wikileaks thinks any of that in controversial? Sanders had a good run, but under no math could he have won. Predictably Hillary Clinton carried the South better than Sanders, and her voting record was 93% the same. Hillary is known name.
It's amazing Sanders did as well as he did considering he was more or less a no name candidate making the same big promise we always hear. This year it seems more young people were desperate enough to pay attention and I think they think that the Sander's 'platform' is somehow significantly different than the standard DNC platform. It's not at all.
Almost everything Sander says is status quo Democrat ideals, The only difference is he stands out there and says they all, perhaps more convincingly in some ways, but outlining the same Democratic goals didn't deserve the level of support Sanders got. Not unless he had a plan to get us there and he did not at all. Anybody can say the things Sanders did, but for some reason most don't get the same attention. Lots of Dems support everything Sanders does, there is nothing there especially leftists really. There are plenty of far more left politicians out there really.
Healthcare and college is basic socialist, it's not really even progressive anymore. If that's progressive liberal then every industrialized democracy in the world has been overtaken by progressive liberals because it's completely common to fund healthcare and college via the government.
Progressive liberalism at this point is paying people a living wage to offset the lack of need for workers as we automate more.
Liberals in the US have been tricked into thinking moderate positions are progressive liberal positions. When every similar nation in the world has these 'liberal' programs, they are modate programs at best. Even in the UK the Brexit idiots did that to protect their, in the rare case of the UK, fully socialized medical system
There is no Bernie Sander conspiracy, he lost by every measure and with any rules system we've ever used. He lost the popular vote by more than 20% and he get blown out in many more stats than he beat Hillary in. Not understanding the voting system is not a reason to make up a conspiracy, especially when both candidate have very similar voting records.
Healthcare should be your focus. The wars are trivial expenses compared to the 3 trillion a year we spend in healthcare. Stop distracting yourselves.
http://www.dictionary.com/brow...
I wonder if the specific timing is WikiLeak's idea or the source's idea.
If you're trying to damage Clinton and the DNC this is great timing, it aggravates Sander's supporters and pits them against the party when everyone is at the DNC, it also distracts the public from good press that the DNC is generating.
But if you're trying to publicize WikiLeaks and the leaks themselves it's terrible timing, almost no one outside of political junkies is going to hear about it because the news is swamped with the DNC itself.
I suspect the source has specific conditions about how this info gets published.
I stole this Sig
I mean, phoning in to complain that Bernie actually was given access? What reporter would do that? They need to get in line after the Billionaires and Millionaires the DNC sold out to, after all!
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
At least they are consistent with their emails...
Whatever you say, Hilldebeast shill.
Seems like a leak for the sake of leaking something. Are they just trying to embarrass the DNC by showing they got voice mail access? There is nothing of value here. This does nothing more than violate the privacy of people. Can't claim any moral high ground about whistle blowing with this.
Wikileaks has stated they are trying to influence US politics. How far are they willing to go? Far enough to make up things and add them to the real hacked files? Are some peoples hate for the DNC/Democrats/Hilldog so strong that they blindly accept anything negative about them regardless of it's lack of vetting?
I rather expected the DNC to have a busier account than that. They tapped the roll-over to voicemail for an hour? or were those the juicy 'saved' ones, lol.
Were one to be strategically releasing things one would want to release something a little juicy at the beginning to wet the appetite
Whet.
^ Thank you. This grammar error made me laugh so hard I whet my pants.
I bet anyone, that in the last 40 years that the leaders of each political party in the US have pushed for their favorites to be nominated and elected. The whole point of super delegates in the Democratic Party was to ensure that some extreme candidate didn't get the party nomination (cough, cough, Trump via the Republicans..) and create chaos.
The system is far from perfect and Bernie Sanders did a great job of getting people thinking, but until the presidential election is tax payer funded (and Citizen United overturned ) and open (2-8 parties based on some equation) we will be stuck choosing between the lesser of two instead of the greatest of two or more.
Story comes out yesterday? I think. /. This evening.
Makes it to
Did this story have some sort of numeric rating?
Plus, if you listen to the messages, they're boring.
Whet.
Whut?
But this wouldn't qualify as "middle" if it was released with the first release. These are news websites capitalizing on clicks, regurgitating "old" material.
Wow, you're one illiterate retard. Go back to middle school in a few weeks, and this time, pay attention in class.
Really hates Sanders...
This election is rife with hilarious situations, if you know where to look.
Technically, Sanders raised more money than Clinton did in the first 3 months of this year. As an example, at the end of January Sanders raised $67 million compared to Clinton's $27 million.
The maximum one can donate to Clinton (or any one candidate) is $5400, but you can donate to other Democratic campaigns in various amounts. So the "Hillary Victory Fund" held a number of campaign contribution events supposedly for local democratic campaigns. The fund transferred the money to local committees, but then moved the money from there directly to the Clinton campaign.
From the Rolling Stone report:
As an example, take couples who paid or raised $353,400 to sit at a table with George Clooney, a sum that Clooney himself called an "obscene amount of money." The figure represented the maximum allowable donation given the structure of the Hillary Victory Fund, a joint venture between the Clinton campaign, the DNC and 32 state committees.
Donors can give a maximum of $5,400 per election cycle to Hillary's campaign, $33,400 per year to the DNC, and $10,000 per year to each of the 32 state committees in the fund.
If you assumed that the Clooney guests had already given their maximum $5,400 to the Clinton campaign, that left just over $353,000 for the DNC and the committees.
But Vogel and Arnsdorf found that less than 1 percent of the $61 million raised by the Hillary Victory Fund went to the state committees.
[...] The money sometimes came and went before state officials even knew it was there. Politico noted that the Victory Fund treasurer, Beth Jones, is also the COO of the Clinton campaign.
[...] Vogel-Arnsdorf also noted that of the $23.3 million spent directly by the fund, most "had gone toward expenses that appear to have directly benefited Clinton's campaign, including $2.8 million for 'salary and overhead' and $8.6 million for web advertising that mostly looks indistinguishable from Clinton campaign ads."
So the Democratic party took all the Bernie Sanders money and matched it with an equal amount of money drained from local democratic elections, and like matter and anti-matter both sums annihilated in a flash of political advertizing!
All that effort and money and work you Bernie Sanders advocates put in came to naught, because the Democrats simply didn't want Sanders to win.
(I don't care *who* you are, that's funny right thar :-)
And nothing will be done about it.
The Democrats probably violated FEC law, possibly violated money laundering law, and absolutely betrayed your trust in a fair and honest runoff between candidates...
All this was noticed in May , and there's been no call for investigation, no call for prosecution, nothing.
Bernie got roughly 43 percent of the popular vote.
Do you think that those extra campaign funds might have tipped the balance in favor of Hillary?
It gets better.
The polls at the time showed that Bernie had a better chance of beating Trump than Hillary.
And by siphoning money away from local elections, the Democrats have probably thrown many local elections to the Republican side!
That's hilarious! :)
Sanders and the rest of the party are calling for *everyone* to support Hillary. They're effectively asking all the Bernie voters to "forget that we just betrayed you in the worst possible way, we have to stick together or Trump will win!". Keep party unity! Don't let the Republicans win!
And they're absolutely right! If Bernie runs as a 3rd party, Trump will win. If Bernie supporters swi
What?
Penis.
Assange is doing this mostly because he has a personal beef with Hillary since he perceives her as one of the driving forces behind his effective incarceration (which is likely true), and partly because he doesn't like her war-hawkishness. He's stated all this before, you just have to put the pieces together.
However the fact that he's risking putting Trump in the White House over this personal feud shows that he's just as immature and reckless as Trump himself, who has pledged not to protect certain NATO allies, has too much of a man-crush on Putin to tell him not to invade any more former Soviet satellite states, and has expressed interest in carpet-bombing ISIS territory and committing war crimes against the populations therein - a candidate who would stumble into many more wars than Hillary would even willingly enter.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
It isn't like Hillary is not going to win the election:
1: She owns the tech companies and social media. She controls the eyes and ears of the nation, period.
2: 1% of the population is pro-gun. The rest want the entire US of A to have reasonable gun laws like New York City, which has extremely low crime for its size. Because of the gun issue, this ensures Hillary more votes, if only to ensure justices she picks for SCOTUS enforce the "well regulated militia" and point out the 2A is only for the Army.
3: She has foreign countries backing her which will go to any lengths, perhaps an invasion on US soil, to ensure she is going to be in the White House.
4: Every statistic out there shows she is ahead in the polls, with the RNC giving Trump a 0% bump, while the DNC has caused her to sail ahead 20 percentage points.
5: There are more Dems than Republicans, as the social majority changes.
6: There is so much hatred against Trump, people are expecting a Reagan-esque sweep of Congress where virtually any/every seat may wind up blue.
7: People are tired of terrorists. Ban guns and enforce the laws, gee, armed terrorists won't be armed anymore. This is currently the Dem strong suite because the US population is tired of hearing about daily mass shootings.
8: We can be sure that eight years of Hillary, then eight years of Chelsea (she will be over 35 by 2024) would ensure the US at least sixteen years of solid substance. Bill was arguably the best President since FDR, when one considers history, economy, and world affairs. The Internet would not have existed under any other administration.
if the DNC had not been working so hard behind the scenes to oppose him while pretending in public that they were treating him equally?
They just needed Bernie to energise the young progressives in 2016 so they could get them out to the polls to vote for Hillary, the pasty old white lady who has never had any principles other than what Wall Street pays her to have.
The timing seems like payback for the treatment Snowden/Asange/Manning has received under a Democratic President.
This isn't leaking. This is doxing. There's nothing of public interest in the voicemails of private citizens calling a party to complain. This isn't about a war or surveillance. It's petty party politics, and politicians aren't the target. Leak the conversations of the powerful. Leak the cover ups. Leave these people alone. This isn't a game. These people calling could be your grandparents or neighbors.
Wikileaks has lost the moral high ground. I can't in good conscience support this kind of behavior.
That is the craziest 8 I have ever read
The Superdelegates were for Hillary, but we probably would have had a situation where Bernie got the popular majority but Hillary got the nomination, if the DNC had played neutral.
Don't lose track of the big issue.
You make some good points, there's lots of insightful analysis that can be done, but the big issue is...
Despite any analysis, he *might* have won the nomination. That $61 million extra given to Hillary by the Democrats is a lot of money, and represents good-faith donations of hard-earned cash gone to waste.
Ultimately, Bernie never got his chance!
"However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion." - George Washington, first President of the US
If people would spend more time reading what our founders said and wrote, and just a tiny bit less time on pop culture, we might be a little bit less messed-up. They designed the American system and left us both the operating manual (the Constitution) and their design notes (extensive writings, both for and against the choices they made see: "Federalist Papers" and "Anti-Federalist Papers" and all thier other books and writings).
FWIW, "Assange" has no stated motive for releasing the emails/voicemails, so for you to infer that it's intended to help Donald Trump become POTUS is premature, not to mention the VM's don't seem particularly damning, yet.
That is some fantastic fantasy trolling there, with some great riffing on the sort of irrational stuff that comes right out of those people we see sobbing tears of cultish joy in the audience at the DNC. Well done! A fantastic simulation of everything that's wrong on the low-information, non-critical-thinking left. Bravo!
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
49% rapist? That's difficult to believe. I never saw anything that suggests he's in any way a rapist.
Some might say this is payback for recording Romney in 2012 at a private fundraiser without his consent. It's pure gold regardless.
The left constantly throws tantrums with fingers squarely plugged into their ears that conservatives are corrupt scum of the earth and now we're getting oodles of proof it was Democrats projecting their own personas all along. It's nice to see it exposed for the unwashed masses who only get their news from the lamestream media.
Pianist.
Well I did, and it was gross.
If you want to see Democrats sniping at each others' candidates or complaining about what the party's up to, just go on any Democratic blog.
It's not a scandal. It's not a secret. It's not even a problem -- not even when people get hot under the collar and start acting like assholes. George Washington was elected unanimously by the Electoral College, but in every election since then politics has been turning Americans into assholes.
And that is a good thing. You can't make politics 100% civil without pushing out unpopular opinions.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
So much that Clinton family is tied too.. From enron to watergate.
If you assume Reagan was a bad guy -- You are under the influence of Clinton and Bush administration Propaganda.
Why is there so much blame on President Obama -- Because of the Clinton and Bush administration Propaganda.
If Hillary wins, we will see even more condemning of President Obama, by the Clintons as they have edited public data, washed paper trails by mazes of different signings of policies.
There is a shroud and only so many know that it was a remote-hack job that flew the aircraft into the world towers. This is the type of proof[The wikileaks voicemail hacks] to prove some guilty parties innocents and for Hillary to play queen USA and attempt to condemn a programing group.
Who will she blame ?
Any propaganda you have heard -- Its been Bush jr and Bill Clinton's actual doings... While they twist the paper trails around to condemn someone else.
Obama didn't make Isis Bush jr did.
Watch out wikileaks you are only giving the corrupt ground to move on.
It works both ways both phonetically and metaphorically.
I apologize. Sometimes I construct comments which require an IQ above 80 to understand...
Hey, just wait for the next leak, which will probably be something like footage from a security camera they had installed over a dnc toilet.
Fox: "I think we should call it... your grave!" Cast: "Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!"
Wow. Just... Wow. I would masturbate while reading this if I were so inclined but unfortunately I'm not a copronanist.
Not that I want to interrupt the flow of your psychotic and irrational ranting...but...
What you are saying in the main part of your post is not actually stupid, but you make a bad impression, starting out calling people psychotic, both because opponents are not psychotic simply because they don't agree with you, and of course, your usage demonstrates that you have no idea what "psychotic" actually means, it seems; you just hope it sounds sufficiently strong to be impressive.
It is easy to get a high score, if that is all you care about - in the present times you just need to howl abuse against Ms Clinton. But that is like keeping warm by pissing in your pants; the good feeling doesn't last long. It is much more satisfying - and worthy - to achieve a high score by arguing calmly, making sense and being respectful of your opponents.
I'll be impressed when Wikileaks posts Trump's tax return.
So this is just a bunch of voicemail from random callers? Why? Why would we even hear about these or moreover care?
I apologize. Sometimes I construct comments which require an IQ above 80 to understand...
Perhaps you could whet our appetite with one.
You just have to put the pieces together.
Well, his statement a few days ago said exactly that, so no rocket science there. And, he specifically called out the administration for intervention in Libya, and for leaving a power vacuum leading to the rise of ISIL. He also specifically mentions Trump, saying that he was a wildcard and no one knew what he would really do if elected, while he thought it was clear through her history what Hillary would do. Agree with it or not, it was a concise and fairly straightforward statement, no need to speculate about his motives.
Ranting conjecture is ranting conjecture.
footage from a security camera they had installed over a dnc toilet
You can watch that right now. It's called C-SPAN. -PCP
It works both ways both phonetically and metaphorically.
Also I hate pedants.
Regardless of what you ever may have thought of him - in this last political cycle what assange is doing with these wikileaks releases shows that he us as bad as anyone he is trying to criticize. Using, withholding and releasing information strategically is exactly the same thing that he is supposed to be "crusading" against but instead he is trying to manipulate a populace for his own personal revenge.
hence the 49%, he just rubbed it up a little and took off
You are correct, what I was saying wasn't stupid at all. In fact it was very intelligent and somewhat amusing.
Psychotic: relating to, denoting, or suffering from a psychosis
Psychosis: a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality.
Since this was a metaphor and not a diagnosis I stand by my words 100%. I was (correctly) implying that he was detracted from reality and acting irrationally.
It also just so happens I have a degree in psychology among other things.
I NEVER write ANYTHING to score "points". I say what I think. Usually after much thought on the topic but not always because I am human.
I am not sure how much more wrong you could be but I imagine it would take herculean effort to achieve such.
But nice try guy - please play again sometime.
49% rapist? That's difficult to believe. I never saw anything that suggests he's in any way a rapist.
So he's just staying in the Ecuadorian embassy because he likes it there.
You don't take well to criticism, do you? No matter - I don't need to get the last word; my self-respect doesn't depend on putting others down. But I do remember when I was young, full of fire, and afraid of letting my mind be changed by good arguments. You know, you are not actually a better person, even if you make somebody else feel bad - that only makes you a bully. And it is perfectly possible to disagree in a mature, well-thought out manner, where you respect the other person's view without agreeing to it. If you know that you are factually right, you just need to give the facts and state your interpretation of those facts - it doesn't really matter if you "win", reality stays the same. There is a lot of peace of mind in simply accepting this.
BTW, well done for looking up the dictionary definitions.
Actually I do take it well. In fact people comment on this. I am more than happy to accept when I am wrong. I am an academic at heart which I credit to the 7 years I taught at university.
But taking criticism well does NOT mean accepting some random persons demonstrably incorrect and patronizing assumptions as fact (I even took the time to explain why) and allowing them sit in a cloud of smugness pretending they have all the answers when they clearly do not.
If it bothers you that I used a passionate rebuttal to the original poster then that is your problem to deal with. I was responding to his snide post in kind while not detracting from the main point which I would firmly argue was the correct way to deal with it. It certainly deserved it.
I then responded in kind to your incredibly incorrect premises and snarky, patronizing tone in kind also. While pretending to be "classy" can make the small minded feel superior I am a firm believer that sometimes you just have to whack a fool when he deserves it - be that intellectually or otherwise.
I also turn 40 this year....so wrong yet again buddy.
How wrong can one person be before they just admit defeat?! The mind boggles.
This ridiculousness conversation is over for me now but feel free to have that last word you were pretending you don't care about...