WikiLeaks Releases Paid Clinton Speech Excerpts, And Threatens To Expose Google (dailymail.co.uk)

An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes the Independent: Wikileaks has dumped thousands of emails from Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, which includes apparent excerpts from Ms Clinton's paid, closed-door speeches to Wall Street executives after leaving her position as Secretary of State. In the excerpts, flagged in a 25 January email, Ms Clinton apparently suggested that Wall Street insiders were best qualified to regulate the banking industry and also included her apparent admission of the need for money from banking executives for political fundraising...

"Earlier today, the US government removed any reasonable doubt that the Kremlin has weaponized WikiLeaks to meddle in our election and benefit Donald Trump's candidacy," said Clinton campaign spokesperson Glen Caplin. "We are not going to confirm the authenticity of stolen documents released by Julian Assange who has made no secret of his desire to damage Hillary Clinton." Slashdot reader schwit1 quotes the Daily Mail's article about what's coming up next: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange promised to release information on subjects including the U.S. election and Google [and] warned that the so called 'October Surprise' will expose Google. Assange did not reveal what type of information would be leaked about the tech giant, but his 2014 book could provide a clue. In it, he wrote: "(Eric) Schmidt's tenure as CEO saw Google integrate with the shadiest of U.S. power structures..."

Comments

What's good for the goose

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean to say someone is trying to unfairly influence the elections, kinda like the Dems rigged the primaries? Oh well...

Re:What's good for the goose

[Anonymous Coward]

> Sanders never really had a chance

Then why did they plot against him so much? If he never had a chance, why collude and cheat?

Re:What's good for the goose

[aaarrrgggh]

Seeing as Bernie isn't really a democrat, it is pretty disengenuous to claim that the party rules are unfair or unreasonable. The system is theoretically there for stability, but either way, it is the rule of the game.

Interesting

[93 Escort Wagon]

These Wikileaks releases do seem pretty one-sided. Is it just a function of what they do and don't have (it's surprising they didn't have that Trump recording)? But it's hard to believe the timing is completely coincidental, given how it seems to happen soon after Trump either says something particularly stupid or we learn about something damning from his past. However it's not surprising there's lots of skeletons in either candidate's closet... but again, why doesn't Assange have any of Trump's?

Problem is, from what I've seen over the past few months on Slashdot - it's obviously going to be hard to have a rational discussion on these questions here right now. People are way too ready to overlook their preferred candidate's foibles.

Re:Interesting

[Tesen]

These Wikileaks releases do seem pretty one-sided. Is it just a function of what they do and don't have (it's surprising they didn't have that Trump recording)? But it's hard to believe the timing is completely coincidental, given how it seems to happen soon after Trump either says something particularly stupid or we learn about something damning from his past. However it's not surprising there's lots of skeletons in either candidate's closet... but again, why doesn't Assange have any of Trump's?

Problem is, from what I've seen over the past few months on Slashdot - it's obviously going to be hard to have a rational discussion on these questions here right now. People are way too ready to overlook their preferred candidate's foibles.

I find it interesting the connection between WikiLeaks and Russia add on top of that the business connections and announced respect that Donald Trump has for Putin. Yes, it could all be very coincidental and perhaps WikiLeaks / Russia is playing to the gaffes of Trump (and he keeps falling for it and fueling the fire, which is a problem in of it self). Add on his business history is less than stellar, the losses he has had, the very disgusting comments he has made about women, minorities etc and you get a very odd looking if not ugly looking picture.

I hate to bring this election down to Hillary vs. Trump -- unfortunately at the presidential level that is it. 3rd parties at this point are not going to win the White House, but obtaining senate and house seats both at the federal and state levels is very possible. Gear up folks, spend the next couple of years finding indies that are not batshit crazy and lets try to change the system for us.

Re:Interesting

[whoever57]

But it's hard to believe the timing is completely coincidental, given how it seems to happen soon after Trump either says something particularly stupid or we learn about something damning from his past.

Are you sure it isn't the other way around? Perhaps the Dems have a collection of things like the recent recording of Trump ready to go, to deflect the news from things like these leaks on Wikileaks? The old Trump recordings have pushed the Clinton emails out of the headlines. Coincidence?

Re:Interesting

[whoever57]

Gear up folks, spend the next couple of years finding indies that are not batshit crazy and lets try to change the system for us.

I don't think independents are the answer you think they are. In any first-past-the-post election system, you will end up with a two-party system. Very occasionally, a third party will displace one of the majors, but then end up as the despised mainstream party.

The only solution is to do what the Koch brothers have been doing for the last few decades: work to push the center of politics in the desired direction. If you don't like Clinton, support candidates like Sanders at the primaries.

In several of the largest states (for example: CA, TX), the primaries are the only elections that matter.

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it interesting the connection between WikiLeaks and Russia add on top of that the business connections and announced respect that Donald Trump has for Putin.

The consensus seems to be that Russia is behind the hacking. Now the possibility exists that it is not Russia, but some group in America with an ax to grind. I'm not sure it matters. Either way you have an unbalanced force trying to manipulate the US election, which is not good, to say the least. We know one of Trump's sons says he has Russian interests. That could be a lie, though it would certainly explain the strange position Trump has on Putin. Without a tax return the only safe assumption is he is a walking liability and is owned by half the world. There is a reason they look at debt when they consider security clearances, yet the American people can't even see any of his tax returns save part of one someone leaked? Unacceptable. Assange is just someone with an ax to grind. He is mostly not important save as a convenient place to dump stuff you want released. As such he must be considered a biased source, though the material may be legit. Trump's altitude with respect to women is of course foul and unforgivable. I've argued that we can't elect someone who lies continually and seems to have no principles. This just reinforces that.

As far as fixing any of this nonsense so our choices are actually better, well the first step is some form of ranked voting. Ranked Voting It is already in various cities. We need it nationwide.

I'd also argue that we as a country should do nothing promoting the establishment of political parties. This means no primaries facilitated by the government, unless it is simply to reduce the set of candidates uniformly, without respect to party. It also means not putting party name on the official ballots. You can use multiple ballot variations to insure that candidate order on the ballots are effectively random. (Computers can easily deal with it.)

This doesn't eliminate parties. Party primaries will still exist. We just won't spend any tax dollars on them. It also doesn't keep someone from bringing in a party cheat sheet to pick who they vote for, but that is fine, as long as they don't leave it behind. Sure we will need more poling places and voting will take longer, but I think it is worth it.

Shocking!

[im_thatoneguy]

Hillary admits that campaigns are expensive "I wish it weren't so but I don't know how to change it" and therefore she will need campaign contributions to win! What a calling admission.

And to also admit that maybe professionals who are experts in a field would be necessary to help regulate the industry! Next she is going to say that maybe a computer scientist or white hat hacker should help write cyber defense policy.

Re:Shocking!

[elrous0]

Don't be naive. Her statements were intended to send a clear message to the audience, "Give me money and I'll be your friend." It's the same scummy promise that has become the norm for the almost every politician running for office now--politicians who are SUPPOSED to represent the people, and not just a few narrow monied interests. And it has infected both parties like cancer.

Give Julian a break!

[Okian Warrior]

Assange is an admitted Hillary hater. His goal is not transparency and it has nothing to do with public service or the public good. The man's a walking colostomy bag.

Oh, be fair. Clinton wanted to kill Assange, and spend an entire meeting discussing how to do it.

Clinton never followed up the "drone strike" comment with "seriously", or anything to indicate that she was kidding - she just went on as if it was an option.

“Can’t we just drone this guy?” Clinton openly inquired, offering a simple remedy to silence Assange and smother Wikileaks via a planned military drone strike, according to State Department sources. The statement drew laughter from the room which quickly died off when the Secretary kept talking in a terse manner, sources said. Clinton said Assange, after all, was a relatively soft target, “walking around” freely and thumbing his nose without any fear of reprisals from the United States.

Also, the meeting prompted one of her staffers to write a followup memo with the subject "legal and nonlegal strategies re Wikileaks"

Immediately following the conclusion of the wild brainstorming session, one of Clinton’s top aides, State Department Director of Policy Planning Ann-Marie Slaughter, penned an email to Clinton, Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and aides Huma Abebin and Jacob Sullivan at 10:29 a.m. entitled “an SP memo on possible legal and nonlegal strategies re Wikileaks.”

Give Julian a break, Hillary Clinton conspired to kill him.

Re:Two-minute warning

[Frank Burly]

And no one seems to have noticed that Trump has completely owned the media for the weekend up to this point!

No, the news cycle has completely owned him, everybody noticed, and 14 sitting Republican senators have asked him to step aside. Further, Trump's 16-dimensional chess move stepped on the latest Wikileaks nothingburger (or the nothingburger was served to distract from Trumps implosion, I'm not sure of the timing).

It also deprived Trump of a public appearance/reconciliation with House Speaker Ryan.

I'm far more troubled by Trump's continuing belief in the guilt of 5 men exonerated of rape after years in prison. But he is a parade of deplorability and people can only focus on so much.

Re:Non-controversial

[im_thatoneguy]

Hillary also admitted she has a "public policy" and "private policy",

Yes and she's 100% right. It's impossible to find a diplomatic compromise if you can't sit down out of the public eye and hash out your differences without having to worry about your exact language. You can't negotiate any kind of deal in a public sphere. People will be looking over their shoulder unable to speak freely and nothing will get done. A lot of politics recently has been everybody covering their ass from their base and therefore unwilling to sit down and find real solutions. Read the actual quote everybody not just some headline which was literally written by a staffer in the context of "This is how our opponents would twist this."

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.

She wants unfettered world trade with open borders

Yeah she has a dream of free trade in the western hemisphere. I do too. It sounds like a nice dream. It's a good goal to work towards where we have and sustainable energy. We don't need border regulation and everybody is happy and rich. Is that not a good dream for the future? You *WANT* the future to look like the present with a bunch of walled off states afraid of their own shadow?

âoeMy dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.â

Re:Oh No! Trump opened his mouth again!

[KeensMustard]

Hillary Clinton was accused of wrongful handling of classified material, investigated but no charge was ever laid. Trump was accused of rape, but no charges were ever laid (because the accuser, his wife, chose not to lay charges, even while describing him forcing her to have sex when she did not want it).

If Hillary is guilty of wrongdoing in the Bengazi incident, or guilty of wrongdoing with respect to her mail server, then Trump is guilty of rape. So if you say Hillary is guilty, then you must say Trump is also guilty.

Sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind.

Re:Two-minute warning

[Bing Tsher E]

Sure. Great site you linked, there.

Here's one of their other articles:

Hip-Hop Is Turning On Donald Trump.

And another:

Gun Deaths In America.

Your sing-along with Hillary's media is a little pathetic. If you're in the bag with the Wall-Street candidate (Hillary Clinton) why not just say it out loud?

Re:Wha?!?! Hilary! lied?!?! In bed with banksters?

[Black Parrot]

Story about Clinton being bribed by Russia for favours while she was Secretary of State. Bribed by Russia for uranium, in the NYT

LoL. This "scandal" was put to rest at the time when someone asked who bribed the other dozen agencies that had to sign off on it.

Re:Two-minute warning

[skam240]

I normally don't do replies to AC comments as my profile tag suggests but I couldn't refuse this one.

Estate taxes are taxes designed to establish social equity. We don't need royalty in this country, which is to say children of billionaires who have done nothing to earn their wealth. A person should always benefit from wise commercial actions but a wealthy class completely distant from how that wealth was made is not good for a democracy.

If you ask me, no one should get more than a few hundred thousand from their parents. A few hundred thousand sets one up pretty well by any reasonable standard (while still making sure one has to work) but does not make one royalty by birth right.

Re:Oh No! Trump opened his mouth again!

[ArtemaOne]

Yes, "letting" someone as in, the victim doesn't shoot or stab you, does often mean it could be assault. If there's no consent then a lack of forcefully violent protest isn't necessary.

Re:Two-minute warning

[thegarbz]

Sure. Great site you linked, there.

Are you discrediting a statistical analysis of the election run by a statistician who is widely considered as the most referential and accurate source of election coverage in America, who has predicted correctly almost every seat in the previous 3 elections including swing states, based solely on a website owned by ESPN publishing an blog post written by someone else?

* slow clap *