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
"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
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
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.
How do Trump supporters arrive at the "might stand up to wall street" conclusion for a clear member of the oligarch class whose tax plan clearly favors the affluent as opposed to Clinton who has at least furnished one that seems to favor the middle class?
Please, tell me, how on earth to arrive do you arrive at the conclusion that some one like him will favor the middle class over the affluent? There's certainly nothing in the few actual policy proposals he's floated that suggests that.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
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
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.