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."

7 of 177 comments (clear)

  1. voicemail by anonymous or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    '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"

  2. What do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:Scathing by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

  4. Re:The DNC sucks an asshole by danbert8 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why settle for the left nut or the right nut when you can have a Johnson?

    --
    Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
  5. Re:Timing by quantaman · · Score: 5, Informative

    or maybe the walkout by half the DNC hall after clinton was nominated???

    I don't think the word "half" means what you think it means.

    maybe it was the breaking of federal law at the convention when they knowingly had illegal immigrants come out and speak (yes, that IS a federal crime)

    I believe your understanding of the law is incorrect.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  6. A funny story by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  7. Re:Yeah so by quantaman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Up until the point that he got on the Hillary train, I had a LOT of respect for Sanders. You're right that most of his positions are close to "normal" for Democrats, but unlike most politicians, he was not trying to walk both sides of a line, and he was that rare (almost unique) straight shooter. He didn't hide behind weasel words, he didn't equivocate, he stated, simply, what his ideals were, and appeared to live by them.

    When's the last time you heard ANYONE at his level of politics say something like "I have to get my tax returns from my wife, she does them" and then further find out that he's actually living on his Senate salary and not "speaking fees" or other similar near bribes?

    I'm actually pretty upset over the whole thing--I would NEVER have voted for Sanders, because his politics are too far off from mine, but he was a politician I could admire... until he became just another party hack at convention time.

    Politics is the art of compromise. The only ones who refuse to compromise are dictators or useless blowhards.

    Sanders' could have insisted on all of his principles, refused to endorse Hillary, and possibly handed the election to Trump, undercutting virtually every policy objective he had.

    Or he could endorse Hillary, hope she'd win, and watch her do 95% of the same things he would have done.

    You can insist on a perfect candidate and pout if you don't get one. Or you can be smart like Sanders, find the least worst option you can, and do your best to improve it.

    --
    I stole this Sig