Slashdot Mirror
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..."
"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..."
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.
#DeleteChrome
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Funny how the media acts like Donald Trump's tax returns should be open records, but when it comes to important speeches Hillary Clinton delivered to Wall Street, they're cool with her treating those like state secrets.
How much Donald Trump paid in taxes last year or whatever crude shit he said lately isn't going to have nearly as much of an impact on the day-to-day lives of most Americans as the secret backroom promises that Hillary Clinton has made to the rich and powerful corporate powers on Wall Street. At least Trump bragging about trying to bang some married woman isn't going to gut any labor laws, make him beholden to the corporatocracy, or cost any of us commoners our jobs.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
We're coming up on the "2-minute warning" of the elections.
It's when the parties take out the big guns (Republicans) and long knives (Democrats), hoping to get something into the collective consciousness before the election. It usually starts 3 weeks out, but this election has been particularly polarizing.
This weekend has been particularly entertaining. Trump made some locker-room comments eleven years ago, which is causing everyone to grab their pearls and faint. People are falling over themselves pretending that it makes them "sick to their stomach"(*).
Meanwhile, the wikileaks dump shows Clinton admitting a year ago that her "public policy" and "private policy" are different, how she wants world trade with completely open borders (after denying it publicly), and wants to institute gun control by executive order.
And no one seems to have noticed that Trump has completely owned the media for the weekend up to this point!
Seriously - count the number of Trump articles on Google's news page. He's playing them like a violin.
The current headline reads: "GOP consumed by crisis" about Trump, and "Emails Reveal Clinton's Mixed Relationship With Wall Street" about Clinton.
The next few weeks are going to be *highly* entertaining!
(*) As far as I can tell, the general public has responded with "yeah - so what?" about the comments. Everyone seems to recognize that men talk dirty about women to each other, and women do the same about men. It makes all the media pundits who claim "makes me sick to my stomach" seem laughably disingenuous.
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.
"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."
Interpretation: It's all true, but the people revealing it are mean and want to hurt us so you should ignore whatever it is they've revealed. See ad hominem attack.
Funny how the media acts like Donald Trump's tax returns should be open records, but when it comes to important speeches Hillary Clinton delivered to Wall Street, they're cool with her treating those like state secrets.
Tax returns are a form of disclosure done by every Presidential candidate. And in Trump's case there's a very good reason, they shed light on possible conflicts of interest.
If Trump invested heavily in coal he may be tempted to push US energy policy in a certain direction.
If he invested heavily in Russia then Putin might have the ability to push him into bankruptcy (or make him and his children vastly wealthier).
Speeches on the other hand aren't traditional disclosures. Many candidates have given paid speeches, I'm not aware of any others who have been asked to release them. It's similar to Obama's long form birth certificate. Sure there's nothing to hide, but to grant the request is also to legitimize the question.
I stole this Sig
The Republicans are hardly exempt from such deals.
I never said they were. That's one of the reasons Trump is so popular. People see him as a political outsider who isn't completely beholden to Wall Street in the same way that every mainstream Republican is. And he has been playing that message up too, bragging that his wealth and outsider status will keep him from becoming a corporate whore like every other politician.
Now whether or not Trump actually MEANS what he says is another story. I would say there is about a 70% chance that he'll end up being a corporate whore just like every other politician once he's actually elected. Still, that's better than the 100% chance with Hillary Clinton. And in an election where we're once again having the choose between the lesser of two evils, you go with the best odds.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
"At least Trump bragging about trying to bang some married woman isn't going to gut any labor laws, make him beholden to the corporatocracy, or cost any of us commoners our jobs."
His tax policy will. The policy he's laid out will not only cost us jobs and sink us further in debt but are obviously tailored to enriching the rich.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
Tabloid crap aside, I don't understand how some one from the oligarch class got "common man" status but it's completely clear that he's all about enriching himself and his fellow oligarchs. Clinton is at least politics as usual for the Democrats.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Sure he's a sexist scumbag but he's no worse than any of his predecessors or his opponent, both in context of his personality and history.
Your logical fallacy is... Bandwagon.
People see him as a political outsider who isn't completely beholden to Wall Street in the same way that every mainstream Republican is.
Which is ironic - because HE IS WALL STREET. He doesn't even bother to hide it. He doesn't just avoid paying taxes, he boasts about it. He is not beholden to the man behind the curtain - the curtain has been drawn back, and the guy behind it is Trump.
There was no rigging.
The superdelegates are election tampering. Their express purpose is to allow the Political elite to shut out candidates, or promote one of their own. The republicans have the same structure, but did not give their superdelegates enough power to override the crazy train.
We'll probably never know if Sanders would have won without the Democratic National Committee and the superdelegates doing everything in their power to shut out Sanders. That is why, in spite of facing an imbecile for an opponent, the democrats could still manage to lose this election. The Democrats political elite severely tampered with this election and they know it, and for many people that kind of tampering is enough to prevent them from ever voting for Clinton. There is a small minority of people who will vote for Trump now, just to watch it all burn and teach the god damn career politicians a lesson.
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
"There was no rigging."
There was plenty of obvious rigging if you had a criminal enough mind to look at it from a different angle. Calling the vote for Clinton during primaries before the votes were even counted halfway (Arizona, IIRC) exit polls, etc. all show signs of electoral fraud.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
> 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?
What is "influencing," though? The DNC leaks exposed what anyone with a half a brain has understand for a long time: our news media is just propaganda. We don't so much have state-run media as we have a media-run state. The same corporations that own the media own the politicians. So when the corporate media spreads political propaganda they're influencing the election. When WikiLeaks does it they're influencing the election. What's the difference?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
First past the post can only lead to a two party system. Take a look at the US and realize that it has always been a two party system. The parties may change, but essentially that's what it is.
It's been about a century now that a candidate that wasn't from one of the two major parties came in second. We're not even talking about winning.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Trump didn't say just vulgar comments about women, he said he "grabbed them by the pussy" and forceably kissed them. He has also been married three times, divorced twice because of adultery and is probably cheating on his current wife now.
There is also a court case starting up about him raping a 13 year old girl. If that turns out to be true, we would face a possible impeachment of a President over a high crime. It doesn't matter if he couldn't be charged now due to the statutes of limitations.
Face it, asshole, you're[sic] chosen anti-SJW warrior has lost the election.
Most probably. How strange it is that sex is held to be so much more important than treason or nuclear annihilation. But sigh. Whatever works, just so long as bozo the clown ends up taking the proverbial walk of shame back down the sewer he crawled from.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
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.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
"You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything... Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything." -- Donald Trump, candidate for the office of president of the united states of america.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Women are indeed perfectly capable of standing up for themselves.
The problem is that if women are being denigrated, abused, mistreated, etc., and men just stand by ... don't they become part of the problem?
Real men don't put up with other men abusing women. This is not at all the same thing as acting like the "protector" of women.
For someone who's not /really/ a democrat, he still seems to have done more to help the party platform long term than any of the current batch of (D) politicians it appears.
He's stumping hard for Hillary against Trump, kept his word that he would, and is loyally working hard with the party that supposedly he's not got anything to do with.
He asked for lots, got less, but the things he was fighting for Hillary's picked up and ran with. So I see that as a win.
I wish more politicians were not really a democrat as much as Sanders is.
Waiting for an amusing sig.