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.
First the Clinton camp gave us "I refuse to admit that those documents are mine because they were stolen from me."
Now we get "I never said that, but here's what I meant when I said it."
Can we have Bernie back, now?
Most of the time Hillary's emotions look totally fake to me - especially the smiles and laughs.
But, when Trump seemed to be suggesting that everyone remaining in Aleppo was a rebel - and therefore ISIS - and that the Assad dictatorship and Russia should therefore be allowed to annihilate them, for a brief moment she looked genuinely angry.
Maybe her attention was just wondering back to the personal insults at the beginning of the date. But, for just a moment, I was able to imagine that she genuinely cared about something other than her own personal glory, and I had this fleeting thought that she was almost someone I could vote for.
For all we know her friends at the CIA and NSA may be the ones behind the hacks. She's definitely pissed off enough people there with her security "lapses".
Plus, a lot of the "evidence" is pretty dumb. "Oh, there was Russian metadata in some of the changed files." "They used a server located in Russia." Well duh, don't you think that shit would be sterilized if a real agency was in charge?
It would be the height of comedy if the other investigating agencies were so incompetent that they actually believe that Russia was behind it but it was done by our TLAs.
We want that pipeline from the middle east through Syria to Eastern Europe so we can destroy GAZPROM, and any Russian influence in EU energy planning.
I am not kidding. We are on the verge of going to war with Russia in Syria over a stupid oil pipeline.
This has nothing to do with Assad other than the fact he said NO to the pipeline.
We are comfortable with other Dictators we call friends but somehow Assad is a really bad man.
What crap.
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
the Russians aren't out to get us, and our ideologies are more similar than they are different.
There are some differences:
1. In Syria, America and Russia support factions that are ideologically at least several centimeters apart.
2. In Ukraine, Russia supported the democratically elected government, while America supported the military coup.
3. In Crimea, Russia only had the support of 90% of the people, while America supported (with words but not actions) the other 10%.
4. In America, Russians tell American voters the truths that American politicians were trying to hide.
I know nothing about Russia. I know -- I know about Russia, but I know nothing about the inner workings of Russia.
Are those the words of a Presidential contender, or a fuckwit?
At least one suspects Hillary knows when she is lying, Trump frankly has contradicted himself so many times, to the point of denying saying things that are readily available for review, I suspect he puts no thought into his words, and therefore, cant remember his own words afterwards.
If it wasn't a US election, and this was the plot of a TV show, it would be great entertainment though.
I have a feeling the entire US population is trolling their own politicians, and come election day will reject Trump emphatically.
Whatever Putin is, he is Machiavellian. Russia's actual military and economic position in incredibly weak. It has a GDP less than the UK's, and the long period of low energy prices has wreaked havoc with its economy. So he's playing the West against itself. Whether it's inciting disunity within the EU (like Brexit), or encouraging a dangerous and delusional figure like Trump, it doesn't even have to be any kind of direct relationship, but simply using timed releases of information, Internet astroturfing and the like to create at least some level of chaos among his enemies.
It's almost certain to fail in the United States, where other than Trump's most dedicated supporters, there's little doubt Clinton will win, and it might even see enough downticket Republican Senate races get screwed by Trump's collapsing campaign. But the EU is in trouble, with Britain leaving and countries like Hungary and Poland becoming increasingly right-wing authoritarian.
The real object is, of course, NATO, and with Turkey becoming an increasingly erratic and and unreliable member, he may at the very least cost NATO one member before he's done. I don't think Putin will succeed in the long run, and I think Russia's long-term decline is inevitable, but he's done a pretty admirable job with the limited tools at his disposal.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It seems as if mrs. Clinton is held to a different standard of decency and veracity. One that simply doesn't apply to Mr. Trump because he's so far off the scale all of the time.
Like mr Trump's constant tendency to say whatever sounds good at the time, no matter how misleading, counter-factual or how much it contradicts what he said earlier (Putin comes to mind: first he calls him his buddy, now he says he doesn't know).
Most Trump supporters overlook all of that all of the time. What they forget is that no-one else in the world will.
Especially foreign powers. And that's dangerous because the US's strength has irrevocably decreased compared to the rest of the world. Therefore consistent policy and competent diplomacy is the only way to safeguard US interests ... and security. Mr. Trump's volatile character will ensure he'll scupper whatever policy framework his GOP aides erect. And this time, if he tries to bankrupt his way out of trouble again, it's the entire US that will be saddled with his debts.
Only a video tape with tacky (and in my opinion largely irrelevant because we already knew he's a nasty piece of work) locker room banter and a review of several years' worth of appearance on the Howard Stern show seem to be able to somehow get through to them where obvious deficiencies in competence and intelligence don't.
It needed careful management. Instead we had Rumsfeld and similar wastes of space calling the shots. He picked a side arbitrarily without having the least clue what he was doing.
Sometimes it's hard to be sure, and besides, it's rarely true anarchy anyway since there are existing power structures that can step in. For example, it's no accident that Egypt ended up with an Islamic government, the religious groups were the only ones that had been allowed to meet and organise because political assemblies had been banned for years. All other groups had to start from tiny secret cells or from zero while the people in the religious political groups had been meeting for years.
Is there any actual evidence that "the scary russians" are to blame for this?
Disregard everything else. Is there any evidence?
Yup. The main points are:
1. In this case it is possible to tell that the same group (or groups, there seem to be two Russia agencies at work) had committed previous hacks. They often used the same tools, the same control IP, and even the same encryption keys.
2. These other hacks included attacks on the German parliament, as well as a French TV station. Things that make more sense for Russia.
3. When they hacked the French TV station they claimed to be ISIS.
4. Guccifer 2.0 looks a lot like a committee. He claims to be Romanian but can't really speak Romanian (only Russian) and he's fluent in English when talking politics but not technology.
Is it absolute proof? No. But it's a pretty damn convincing case.
I stole this Sig
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/dnc-hacker-guccifer-20-full-interview-transcript
At most, she has more political baggage than Trump simply because he has never held political office.
It's kinda funny that he is threatening to try to jail Clinton if he wins. She could easily make the same threat about his dodgy business dealings, like the Trump University scam or his tax affairs. A prosecutor could certainly get hold of his tax records.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Well, the primary choices are Orange Hitler and Grandma Nixon.. it sucks.
Silence is a state of mime.
At least one suspects Hillary knows when she is lying, Trump frankly has contradicted himself so many times, to the point of denying saying things that are readily available for review, I suspect he puts no thought into his words, and therefore, cant remember his own words afterwards.
If it wasn't a US election, and this was the plot of a TV show, it would be great entertainment though.
I have a feeling the entire US population is trolling their own politicians, and come election day will reject Trump emphatically.
No, the US population will not reject Trump. In fact they will elect him next president.
Many still fail to understand the type of character Trump is. He's not a fascist or neo-fascist or any of the epiteths the liberals are throwing against him. He is the US version of Italy's Silvio Berlusconi.
The parallel between the two is amazing, it's like Trump is the clone of Berlusconi. Not only in the way he carries himself, the way the speaks about his policies.... The way the criticises the press for misunderstanding his talks etc... It's all taken from Belusconi's playbook. He's a showman and the american people are being bamboozled by this guy. Clinton is going to lose to the suprise of many because you cannot argue rationnaly with someone like Trump. You have to be like him to take him down, and Clinton hasn't got the balls for that.
> When he utters words, his primary intent is not to *say* something, to describe a set of facts in the world; his primary intent is to *do* something, i.e., to position himself in a social hierarchy. This essential distinction
I don't think that in itself is a distinction - everything Clinton says is also carefully crafted PR. Hers is crafted by a team of professionals based on polls; his is more of a natural talent. Both are full of shit. He says whatever crosses his mind that will get attention, she says whatever today's polls indicate the particular audience wants to hear.
Both are bad in different ways. With Trump, you have a pretty good idea of what he's actually thinking, that's good as a someone who is supposed to represent you, bad as chief diplomat. Clinton is better at lying to Putin, Hassan Rouhani, and us.