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.

32 of 689 comments (clear)

  1. Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Great by tripleevenfall · · Score: 5, Insightful

      She sounds like the kid who got caught accusing the kid who told of tattling.

      But at this point, if you believe Hillary is ever going to tell the trust when the truth might not paint her in as good of light as some convenient lie, you are either willfully ignorant or from another planet.

    2. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      No, she was just saying that Russia seems to be on Trump's side (which would presumably encourage people to vote for her).
      Whether you agree or not, I believe that's all there was to it.

    3. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      How is rejecting Trump trolling? It's only trolling if we inflict him on Congress for 8 years. Trump 2016!

    4. Re:Great by golodh · · Score: 5, Interesting
      That's what worrying me. It is as if people (especially his voters and journalists) have totally given up on holding mr. Trump to account on anything he says, much less on whether his words are true or reasonable. Mr. Trump has turned politics into a "reality show". Substance doesn't matter, but tone and appearance do. And personal attacks. Mr. Trump's one area of competence is personal attacks.

      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.

    5. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wat?

      I don't like Trump. I don't like Hillary. Trump says a lot of crap. He contradict himself. Throw some cheap lies. He seems like a pretty shitty president. He doesn't seem like a racist or anything like that though. Just a regular asshole.
      Hillary gets hundred of thousands killed as secretary of the state. Lies in front of the facts. She seems like fucking, genuine pure evil.

      For the debates I have watched so far, Hillary, always, a 100% of the time, tries to put Trump down with personal attacks. Trump eventually replies with his own personal attack. The whole thing is like watching 2 kids fight, which would be funny except for the implications this has. But I sure can tell which kid is bringing the other down and for what reason.

      If you wanna "save America", short of another revolution that seems like a pretty hard task right now.

    6. Re:Great by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, what he said about Warren Buffett was right, nobody pays more taxes than they have to. So I agree with him that avoiding taxes is smart. Taking a $916M loss on the other hand makes him look bad, and if he hasn't paid takes since, that means he hasn't made that money back yet.

    7. Re:Great by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Funny

      EITHER of them would lose against anyone but the other one. Seriously, the other party could field a water cooler next term and it would win.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:Great by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The biggest problem I have with this election is that the ONLY argument to vote for Trump is Clinton, and the only reason to vote for Clinton is Trump.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  2. "we don't even know if it's accurate information" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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?

  3. Hacking Vs. The Mouth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    This has turned into a foot race between Assange & friend's hacking, and Mr. Trump's own mouth.

    1. Re:Hacking Vs. The Mouth by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

      turned into a foot race between Assange & friend's hacking, and Mr. Trump's own mouth.

      In other words, a foot-in-mouth race.

  4. Good answer by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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/
    1. Re:Good answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think Hillary really answered the question. Then again, there were a lot of questions during the debate that neither candidate really answered. The amount of deflection from both sides was pretty shameful.

      In terms of a public and a private position on issues, I understand that being successful in Washington means going along with some things you don't agree with, supporting legislation you don't like, and reacting to changing situations. I think it's okay to say that something goes against your ideals, but you're doing it because it's the right thing to do at the time. Being pragmatic is usually a good thing. Compromise often leads to a good result, too. But that's not what Clinton said.

      I understand making different arguments to different people to support the same position. It's completely reasonable to tailor your message to different audiences in order to make the same point different ways. It's also reasonable to emphasize one part of your message for some people and a different part for others. Different people care about different issues and respond to different types of arguments. That's what Lincoln did, but that's what Clinton is doing, either.

      I also understand that sometimes it's important to not release information publicly while negotiations are going on in private. That's a good policy when there's a situation in which not all the facts are known. It's also useful when trying to negotiate agreements, to not release potential terms until the agreement is agreed to in principle. For example, it's totally reasonable when negotiating an agreement with a foreign leader to not publicly disclose the terms of the agreement until you're ready to take it to Congress for approval. The public reaction could cause an agreement to fall through, when the negotiation is in progress. But that's not what Clinton is defending, either.

      This is about whether it's fair to make mutually exclusive promises to different groups. That's being two-faced, which is what Clinton is accused of. It's dishonest, but her answer seems to dodge the question. There's absolutely no way I'm voting for Trump, but I don't like Clinton's response. I've concluded that winning the presidential debates is about who can make the best use of logical fallacies.

    2. Re:Good answer by ravenshrike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My public position is that I'm for women's rights. My private position is that I will ruthlessly crush anything that threatens my political power, even multiple accusations of rape by my husband from people willing to identify themselves.

  5. Serious question by ArylAkamov · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is there any actual evidence that "the scary russians" are to blame for this?

    Disregard everything else. Is there any evidence?

    1. Re:Serious question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Real, conclusive evidence?

      No.

      Stuff that suggests someone WANTS us to blame the Russians? Yes.

      The evidence that "it was the Russians" is essentially attacks that came from Russian IP addresses (that were associated with VPNs so that means nothing) and the presence of Cyrillic characters is code "left" by the hackers (but why would the hackers leave anything behind?).

      What I got out of the debate is that, if we elect Hillary Clinton as president, we will be going to war with Russia. That terrifies me.

    2. Re:Serious question by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course not. For some reason there's a Neo-McCarthy era going on right now about Russia. I hope we aren't really buying this crap. Everyone intelligent I've talked to takes these claims as nothing more than fearmongering until some evidence shows up.

      This isn't the 1980s any more, and the Russians aren't out to get us, and our ideologies are more similar than they are different. If we'd stop sanctioning them we'd probably get along pretty well at this point...

    3. Re: Serious question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The hacker (Guccifer 2.0) who has claimed credit for the hacking says he's Romanian, but he could only give canned responses in fluent Romanian. When he was interviewed by a Romanian speaker, and had to give off-the-cuff answers, his Romanian (a Romance language) was full of errors that someone who spoke a slavic language (like Russian) would be likely to make. There's more evidence than you suggest.

    4. Re:Serious question by dbIII · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Not quite so simple. Backing one faction over the other for some years turned it into an angry bloodbath when we pulled out and that faction was no longer strong.
      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.

      Even a brutal dictator is better than anarchy.

      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.

  6. A momentary look of genuine anger from Hillary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  7. Re:Who wants either of them in power by ArylAkamov · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Interesting post. I'll assume the knave is clinton and the fool is trump for this post.

    One of the reasons I would prefer trump is accountability. Hear me out.

    I know damn well that if trump made a mistake as president, the media would not hesitate to nail his ass to the wall, and impeach him if possible. Clinton, not so much.

  8. Re:Who wants either of them in power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not just the media. His own party hates him - just witness all the establishment Republicans that refuse to back him. (Yes, they're using the Access Hollywood tape as an excuse, but let's be honest: they never supported him and they're using that as a "safe" way to back out from having to support him.)

    With Trump, anything he wants to do will be an uphill battle with Congress. He won't get a rubber stamp in Congress. Roadblocks will be placed everywhere. He'll have to work with Congress to get anything done.

    With Hillary? Not so much.

    Combined with the fact that the next President is going to appoint at least one Supreme Court judge, and the decision is simple: the nation can't afford a third Obama term. Trump may not have been who I'd like to see in the Oval Office, but he is - by far - the lesser of two evils.

    (Of course I don't live in a swing state so I can safely vote third party. Which I'll be doing. But if you live in a place where your vote might matter, you owe it to America to save our country from the disaster that would be a Hillary presidency.)

  9. Re:Who wants either of them in power by ClickOnThis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know damn well that if trump made a mistake as president, the media would not hesitate to nail his ass to the wall, and impeach him if possible. Clinton, not so much.

    Three things.

    First, I think Trump thrives on attacks from the media. He loves having an excuse to vilify them and energize his base.

    Second, it is congress, not the media, that impeaches a president.

    And third, congress didn't hesitate to impeach Bill Clinton, rightly or wrongly. So, I don't think being a Clinton is a shield against impeachment.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  10. yayo by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think they should postpone the election until they can figure out why Donald Trump sniff's constantly when he's talking. It's a serious problem. A news outlet counted ninety-two times tonight, which is 30% up from the last debate.

    He also chewed his lips several times (play the tape). Now I'm not saying the dude is doing rails in the limo on the way to the debates but if he's didn't have a snoot full of flake, he's got to see an ear, nose and throat doctor, stat. Maybe they can adapt Hillary's anti-coughing machine to stop Donald's incessant sniveling, because I find it very distracting, and I'm keen to hear every red pill truth bomb Trump drops.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  11. Its Russia's Fault Translation by hackus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  12. Re:Who wants either of them in power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I heard you out. Please do the same.

    I was an "anyone but Hillary" guy from before Bill left office but Trump is the only thing I've seen that can put me alongside her (with McCain, Schwartzenegger, ...) That's in part because I don't believe that Trump thinks that his ass can be nailed to the wall. Now think on everything he has said as a candidate, things that would have crushed the campaign of anyone else. What makes you think that electing him president would moderate him in the least?

  13. Re:"we don't even know if it's accurate informatio by Mitreya · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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"

  14. Re:Who wants either of them in power by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At every turn Trump's supporters keep saying "After this point, he'll start behaving properly," and every time that point is reached, he continues behaving erratically, obnoxiously, and ultimately in a self-defeating way. Even his commitment to throw Clinton in jail tonight is absurd, almost as if he doesn't actually understand how the justice system works. He clearly seems to think the Oval Office is some sort of throne from which an Emperor shall reign.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  15. Re:"we don't even know if it's accurate informatio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  16. Didn't ANYBODY Check Wikileaks?! by careysub · · Score: 5, Informative

    Amazingly, nearly 400 posts on this thus far, and nobody has posted or linked to the actual Wikileaks dump on Clinton's comment. I know this is /. but checking facts before bloviating does have its merits.

    Here is is:

    CLINTON: 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. [Clinton Speech For National Multi-Housing Council, 4/24/13]

    So Clinton's characterization of her remarks in the debate last night are completely accurate, and the out-of-text paraphrase (not an actual quote) that is usually repeated is an intentional misrepresentation about what she really said.

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  17. Informative ++ by number6x · · Score: 5, Informative

    Mod-point sis1j informative!

    You are not throwing your vote away if you vote third party. You are voting for a third party if you vote third party. It is just as legitimate a vote as any other vote.

    It actually seems more like you are throwing your vote away if you vote Republican or Democrat. Neither of the two major parties seem to do what they promise, and neither of them seem to care about their voters, just their donors.

    Vote third party so you don't throw your vote away.