Slashdot Mirror
Clinton Responds To WikiLeaks During Debate, And Blames Russian Hackers (qz.com)
An anonymous Slashdot reader writes:During Sunday night's debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, moderators asked a question based on WikiLeaks documents released Friday -- to which both candidates responded. The leaked emails had included excerpts from Hillary's paid speeches to Wall Street in which she reportedly said "You need both a public and a private position on certain issues."
Clinton said she had been describing the 2012 movie Lincoln, and that Lincoln's use of different arguments for different groups of people was "a great display of presidential leadership." Then, citing intelligence reports, she said "Putin and the Russian government are directing the attacks -- the hacking on American accounts to influence our election...for Donald Trump."
Click through for a complete transcript of Clinton's remarks -- and Trump's response.
The question -- based on the WikiLeaks release -- was, "Is it okay for politicians to be two-faced? Is it acceptable for a politician to have a private stance on issues?"
Hillary Clinton's response:
Right. As I recall, that was something I said about Abraham Lincoln, after having seen the wonderful Steven Spielberg movie called Lincoln. It was a master class, watching President Lincoln get the Congress to approve the 13th Amendment. It was principled, and it was strategic. And I was making the point that it is hard sometimes to get the Congress to do what you want to do, and you have to keep working at it. And yes, President Lincoln was trying to convince some people, he used some arguments, convincing other people he used other arguments. That was a great -- I thought, a great display of presidential leadership.
But you know, let's talk about what's really going on here, Martha, because our intelligence community just came out and said in the last few days that the Kremlin, meaning Putin and the Russian government, are directing the attacks -- the hacking on American accounts to influence our election. And WikiLeaks is part of that, as are other sites where the Russians hack information -- we don't even know if it's accurate information -- and then they put it out. We have never, in the history of our country, been in a situation where an adversary, a foreign power, is working so hard to influence the outcome of the election. And believe me they're not doing it to get me elected. They're doing it to try to influence the election for Donald Trump.
Now maybe because he has praised Putin. Maybe because he says he agrees with a lot of what Putin wants to do. Maybe because he wants to do business in Moscow -- I don't know the reasons. But we deserve answers. And we should demand that Donald release all of his tax returns, so that people can see what are the entanglements and the financial relationship that he has with Russian and other foreign powers.
Donald Trump's response:
Well I think I should respond because -- so ridiculous. Look, now she's blaming -- she got caught in a total lie. Her papers went out to all her friends at the banks, Goldman Sachs and everybody else, and she said things -- WikiLeaks, that just came out. And you lied. Now she's blaming the lie on the late, great Abraham Lincoln. That's one that I haven't heard. [Audience laughs] Okay, honest Abe. Honest Abe never lied. That's the good thing. That's the big difference between Abraham Lincoln and you. That's a big, big difference. We're talking about some difference.
But as far as other elements of what she was saying, I don't know Putin. I think it would be great if we got along with Russia, because we could fight ISIS together, as an example -- but I don't know Putin. But I notice any time anything wrong happens, they like to say, "The Russians are..." She doesn't know if it's the Russians doing the hacking. Maybe there is no hacking. But they always blame Russia.
And the reason they blame is because they think they're trying to tarnish me with Russia. I know nothing about Russia. I know -- I know about Russia, but I know nothing about the inner workings of Russia. I don't deal there, I have no businesses there, I have no loans from Russia.
I have a very, very great balance sheet, so great that when I did the old post office on Pennsylvania Avenue, the United States government, because of my balance sheet, which they actually know very well, chose me to do the old post office between the White House and Congress -- chose me to do the old post office. One of the primary things, in fact perhaps the primary thing, was balance sheet. But I have no loans with Russia. You could go to the United States government, and they would probably tell you that, because they know my sheet very well.
In order to get that development, I had to have -- now the taxes are a very simple thing. As soon as I have -- first of all, I paid hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes. Many of her friends took bigger deductions -- Warren Buffett took a massive deduction. Soros, who's a friend of hers, took a massive deduction. Many of the people that are giving her all this money, that she can do many more commercials than me, gave or took massive deductions. I pay hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes, but -- but, as soon as my routine audit's finished, I'll release my returns. I'll be very proud to.
Clinton said she had been describing the 2012 movie Lincoln, and that Lincoln's use of different arguments for different groups of people was "a great display of presidential leadership." Then, citing intelligence reports, she said "Putin and the Russian government are directing the attacks -- the hacking on American accounts to influence our election...for Donald Trump."
Click through for a complete transcript of Clinton's remarks -- and Trump's response.
The question -- based on the WikiLeaks release -- was, "Is it okay for politicians to be two-faced? Is it acceptable for a politician to have a private stance on issues?"
Hillary Clinton's response:
Right. As I recall, that was something I said about Abraham Lincoln, after having seen the wonderful Steven Spielberg movie called Lincoln. It was a master class, watching President Lincoln get the Congress to approve the 13th Amendment. It was principled, and it was strategic. And I was making the point that it is hard sometimes to get the Congress to do what you want to do, and you have to keep working at it. And yes, President Lincoln was trying to convince some people, he used some arguments, convincing other people he used other arguments. That was a great -- I thought, a great display of presidential leadership.
But you know, let's talk about what's really going on here, Martha, because our intelligence community just came out and said in the last few days that the Kremlin, meaning Putin and the Russian government, are directing the attacks -- the hacking on American accounts to influence our election. And WikiLeaks is part of that, as are other sites where the Russians hack information -- we don't even know if it's accurate information -- and then they put it out. We have never, in the history of our country, been in a situation where an adversary, a foreign power, is working so hard to influence the outcome of the election. And believe me they're not doing it to get me elected. They're doing it to try to influence the election for Donald Trump.
Now maybe because he has praised Putin. Maybe because he says he agrees with a lot of what Putin wants to do. Maybe because he wants to do business in Moscow -- I don't know the reasons. But we deserve answers. And we should demand that Donald release all of his tax returns, so that people can see what are the entanglements and the financial relationship that he has with Russian and other foreign powers.
Donald Trump's response:
Well I think I should respond because -- so ridiculous. Look, now she's blaming -- she got caught in a total lie. Her papers went out to all her friends at the banks, Goldman Sachs and everybody else, and she said things -- WikiLeaks, that just came out. And you lied. Now she's blaming the lie on the late, great Abraham Lincoln. That's one that I haven't heard. [Audience laughs] Okay, honest Abe. Honest Abe never lied. That's the good thing. That's the big difference between Abraham Lincoln and you. That's a big, big difference. We're talking about some difference.
But as far as other elements of what she was saying, I don't know Putin. I think it would be great if we got along with Russia, because we could fight ISIS together, as an example -- but I don't know Putin. But I notice any time anything wrong happens, they like to say, "The Russians are..." She doesn't know if it's the Russians doing the hacking. Maybe there is no hacking. But they always blame Russia.
And the reason they blame is because they think they're trying to tarnish me with Russia. I know nothing about Russia. I know -- I know about Russia, but I know nothing about the inner workings of Russia. I don't deal there, I have no businesses there, I have no loans from Russia.
I have a very, very great balance sheet, so great that when I did the old post office on Pennsylvania Avenue, the United States government, because of my balance sheet, which they actually know very well, chose me to do the old post office between the White House and Congress -- chose me to do the old post office. One of the primary things, in fact perhaps the primary thing, was balance sheet. But I have no loans with Russia. You could go to the United States government, and they would probably tell you that, because they know my sheet very well.
In order to get that development, I had to have -- now the taxes are a very simple thing. As soon as I have -- first of all, I paid hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes. Many of her friends took bigger deductions -- Warren Buffett took a massive deduction. Soros, who's a friend of hers, took a massive deduction. Many of the people that are giving her all this money, that she can do many more commercials than me, gave or took massive deductions. I pay hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes, but -- but, as soon as my routine audit's finished, I'll release my returns. I'll be very proud to.
So it's Russia's fault you did bad things? What are you going to tell us next, that you can see Russia from your back yard?
"we don't even know if it's accurate information"...right after a weird anecdote about Abe Lincoln clarifying what she meant in that transcript, the one that may or may not be accurate.
She's right - we don't know if they're accurate, but she does, and it sure sounded like that particular transcript was accurate. How about the rest of them?
there's no point to going on the defensive. She's got nothing to gain and lots to lose. Push back. That's how you make the sausage that is real American politics.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Is there any actual evidence that "the scary russians" are to blame for this?
Disregard everything else. Is there any evidence?
Clinton - lies, kills, schemes, physically sick and potentially sociopath (she does pretend that she cares about people) Trumps - lies, assaults women, cheats, psychologically not stable Who do you want more?
It's the difference between the three branches of government working independently and publicly or four years of silence. Take your pick.
love is just extroverted narcissism
Trump is more honest because he admits to being unable to actually tell anything like a consistent truth?
That's like saying magma is less hot than fire because it's more self aware.
I think she was upset that he broke the rules, by blowing up the idea she and others are trying to peddle. That idea being that Aleppo is essentially a city populated by "that injured boy people saw on facebook," rather than a force our country helped arm to fight another proxy war with Russia. The public doesn't want to be involved in that kind of war, and he just planted the idea that we don't have to be, and shouldn't. That is dangerous for her and the MI Complex, because even if she gets elected she will have a harder time pushing that agenda, that may be a desire of those funding her bid.
This became more evident that once Trump showed the slightest decline in his campaign, even his own party (Republicans) are trying to abandon him (at least the Establishment on the Republican side). So who is the real problem in this election year?
I believe it is not the Democrat or the Republican parties as a whole, it is the Establishment member that are causing the problems. After this election is over, I will be taking note on the upcoming House and Senate elections that will be coming and decide which side of the line the candidates are on. Establishment or the constituents.
If any of them had any pro Establishment support, then they will be disqualified from my vote.
Just my opinion, if I lived in Wisconsin that scumbag Ryan would be the first to be removed from office.
Not just that, they have to fish out something he said 11 years ago, and establishment Republicans have a collective hemorrhage - barring a few honorable exceptions, like Rudy, Newt, Hannity, Pirro...
Ironically, by doing this, Clinton just made Kathy Sheldon fair game, as well as the other ex Clinton women that she helped trash as first 'lady' of both AR and the US
clarifying what she meant in that transcript
Can anyone explain what the controversy is about?
First, every politician does have a public and private position on issues. That's a given, unless you think everyone just honestly shares their actual private beliefs during campaigns?
Second, it is perfectly acceptable -- e.g., "I am going to help pass the law legalizing X as promised to voters, but personally I think X should remain banned"
The funny thing here is that if they just approved and opened up the Keystone Pipeline, they'd have achieved the same goal of bankrupting GAZPROM, w/o going to war in the Mid East.
One thing I liked in the debate was Trump bluntly disagreeing w/ Mike Pence on Russia. First of all, there are no good parties there. Hilary mentioned the Kurdish Peshmerga, but they are in Iraq, not Syria, and the Syrian Kurdish group that regained Kobani, Turkey supports ISIS b'cos they oppose this Kurdish group. Turkey hates the idea of any Kurdish nation, be it in Iraq, Syria or Iran, b'cos then, the eastern half of their country is ripe for secession. Ergo, the US can't support the Kurds directly, and in the meantime, they let Saudi Arabia and Qatar do whatever they like in Syria, w/ the end result being the entire eastern half of that country going to ISIS.
So regardless of whether it's ISIS that Russia is fighting or not, the US has no business making Moscow its adversary in Syria. Instead, it's a better idea to join hands w/ Russia instead of some motley Islamic group that no one has ever heard of. Yeah, yeah, we've seen those award winning photos from Aleppo (who the heck cares that Gary Johnson doesn't know what that is?), but open up your hearts and you'll have a situation like in Germany where they go on a rape rampage. So spare me the John Doone quote, and just team up w/ Russia and help destroy anything in Syria. Just make some of US enemies a part of the target - like Hizbullah and Iranian Quds militias, and it'll be complete.
After seeing all the Republicans willing to drop Trump, or even in some cases, endorse Hitlery, I'm more convinced than ever that you're right. I mean, we had Bill Clinton as a president - the entire saga w/ Monica and the stories about Kathleen Willey, Dolly Kyle Browning and Juanita Broderick, and we're now questioning Trump's qualifications for that office for something he said, not did 11 years ago? Had Trump been a Democrat and this all came out, the Dems would be busy closing ranks around him. Just like they're standing steadfast behind her despite the emails.
As for Paul Ryan, I was disappointed that the other Paul didn't win.
Here is what the above poster meant to type:
I am a democrat.
I have always voted democrat
I always will vote democrat, no matter how dishonest, terrible, and disgusting the candidate is
I fail to understand that Trump is actually a democrat and has many policies consistent with democrats. But, since he is not labeled a democrat, I can not vote for him
It didn't seem unreasonable for her to, as an example, tout the money making opportunities of her proposed legislation/policy positions to Wall Street, while touting the job creation aspects of the legislation/position to the general public - this is a very broad example, but just because a position matters in one dimension to a certain group, and then in a different way to another, doesn't mean she's being dishonest, disingenuous or 'playing both ends against the middle'. A policy can create wealth for Wall Street and jobs for Main Street, there's nothing that inherently makes them mutually exclusive (remember, I'm talking generally, and as an example, and not about any particular policy position or purposed legislation)
Anyone that's ever been in a leadership position with subordinates that aren't obligated to follow you (ie, non-job situations) knows that sometimes you have to be persuasive to get things done, and different people are persuaded by different arguments and logic. Some feel an obligation to the greater good, so they need goals set in that context; others need a more local focus, and need persuasion to focus on how actions directly affects them or those close to them. Good leaders know how to adjust their message and presentation to fit the context of the receiving party, and the inability to do this will simply deepen the issues in the government. Liberals want policies that help the masses, conservatives want fiscal responsibility, and they're not necessarily mutually exclusive. But if your messaging and tactics for both are the same, it is unlikely to get both groups on board and get actual laws and legislation passed.
I think you are vastly underestimating Russia, especially their military, no it isn't equal to the US but it is huge and relatively well equipped and in some areas like fighter jets even superior to the US. The economic position has also strengthened considerably since oil prices made a come back, something the press doesn't talk about much now as at around $50 a barrel we are at now they have a healthy income again (not as good as $100 a barrel, but not the disastrous $30 a barrel either). Personally I would back a long term rise of Russia (unless we see another oil price collapse which I doubt will happen given the low prices already had the desired effect of bankrupting American shale oil investments), They also actually have very strong Allies and economic ties in the likes of china which strengthens both their economic and military position.
Trump has lived his life in public for a very long time now, thanks to being the star of a hit reality TV show.
As a result Trump has MANY years of rich source material to draw from (as we have just recently seen).
Trump is less vulnerable not because he's not been in the limelight as long as Clinton; Trump is less vulnerable simply because he's not as repugnant of a person as is Hillary, not even close.
Incidentally Trump being heavily in the public eye for decades now is also why he is so invincible against any verbal gaffes or supposed leaks. People already fundamentally "know" what trump is like from many years of watching him, so anything new they learn is very transitory compared to somebody that no-one knew much of before the race.
That also is true of Clinton; it's just that over decades Trump has earned a lot of favorable press from the before-times, while nothing Clinton ever did was of note unless it was a disaster or rather unethical.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
> First, every politician does have a public and private position on issues.
It seems to me that *all* politicians tend to vote their private positions, even if promising something publicly, then spin the decision ... "this wasn't the right time", "this wasn't about X it was about Y", etc. That seems to happen so often, I no longer care about public statements unless they are in a vacuum. Even then, you often see the hypocrisy in action and can discount their public statements. It's hard for me to believe you care AND have conveniently forgotten *any* political history?
The Clinton campaign's non-answers, their releasing a distraction "pussy" recording immediately after the WikiLeaks e-mail leak broke, and Hillary's feeble attempts at evasion confirm beyond any reasonable doubt that WikiLeaks' record of 100% reliability in releasing genuine documents remains intact. I wonder how many more "pussy" recordings they have to distract from WikiLeaks' plans to release a new batch of incriminating evidence against Hillary ever week from now until election day.
-So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish
Watching this election from the outside has been one of the most absurd experiences in my life thus far. The fact that these 2, both of whom are massively hated, are what the american version of 'democracy' (quotes because if this election doesn't showcase the huge issues with the primary-system I don't know what will) produces is just baffling to me.
And the fact that somehow Trump is seen as an outsider makes this even more twisted: he's not an outsider, he comes from the funding class itself, the same class of people that people hate Hillary for being in bed with. He gets his money from a whole host of different sources than Hillary, but nothing I have seen or read about him makes me believe he's capable of any integrity, or in fact that he has any principles at all. I mean look at his so called 'tax plan', it's cuts to the very richest of the rich, meaning himself, the Kochs, the Waltons, etc. But somehow this is the guy who stands for change and for the little guy moreso than Hillary? On what basis?
Honestly about the only sensible opinion I've heard him say is his opposition to the trade agreements, but given his tendency to openly lie about what he said 5 minutes ago on tape and deny he ever said such a thing I have not got high hopes that he would stick to that either if elected.
Facts stopped mattering a long time ago in this race on Trump's side because he's a known liar and on Hillary's side because the same is true for he and on top of that no-one trusts the establishment. So this has become a weird pseudo-election in which it's not about the policies, it's not about the current state of affairs, it's not about factual argumentation, it's mainly about making sure the other side is perceived as the wrong lizard. It's reality tv masquerading as politics, which is why I guess Trump has gotten as far as he has.
I've said this before and I'll say it again: please change the election system towards something that better allows multiple parties to gain power and redo the laws on political funding. The proper reaction when you see that an establishment talking head and a clown are racing for the presidency is not to elect the clown out of protest, because giving a clown the
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
Public position: I'm against TPP now guys
Private position: Bring on the TPP
Public position: I will not take away 2nd ammendment rights
Private position: plans to use executive order to institute gun control measures
Public position: need to rebuild the middle class
Private position: wants open trade and open border hemisphere
DNC public position: vote for your nominee
DNC private position: ok, how can we give this to Hillary
As someone not living in US - excuse me, but ... this is the best your nation has to offer? Pathetic.
Russian server operator says, "[October 2] If the FBI asks, we are ready to supply the IP addresses, the logs." However, he says, "Nobody is asking⦠Itâ(TM)s like nobody wants to sort this out." . Now oh best beloved, this is NOT because the NSA has taps on all traffic within Russia. They don't,and as all you IT folk know, there is nothing as useful as logs from the server itself (if it was just used a reflector) or other network devices within the provider.
But the FBI seems content to let this attack be originating from Russia. The same FBI who is 100% behind Clinton, who wants to start Cold-then-Hot war 2.0. You're being played, folks.
What is most astonishing is that the FBI could have feigned interest, sent people over there to meet with this fellow and gather all available evidence,and then just pretended not to find any. Corroborating with the operator of a compromised server is chapter-one stuff. So damned obvious it hurts.
Which illuminates the most disturbing aspect of all. We are not merely dealing with conspiratorial bias, and laziness. There is a big measure of stupidity mixed in.
Please don't vote for stupid.
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
It's nice to have someone to blame, but it doesn't change the content of what was leaked. She is just as bad as her opponent (except that he actually formally apologized). Asking people to accept it as 'business as usual' just reveals how broken said business is and perhaps an individual's level of psychopothy. I've never seen a shit storm like this, truly unbelievable.