Slashdot Mirror
Clinton Campaign Considered Bill Gates, Tim Cook For Vice President (theverge.com)
WikiLeaks has been releasing thousands of emails over the past couple of weeks belonging to Hillary Clinton's campaign chair John Podesta. One of the more interesting tidbits revealed from the email dump was the list of potential running mates considered by Clinton's campaign. The Verge reports: Clinton's vice presidential candidates, while not altogether surprising, include some vaguely interesting choices like Bill and Melinda Gates, Apple CEO Tim Cook, and General Motors CEO Mary Barra. In the mail, Podesta says he has organized the list into "rough food groups," one of which includes all the people mentioned above. Xerox CEO Ursula Burns and Starbucks CEO Howard Shultz are also in this "food group," along with Michael Bloomberg. With just under 40 names on the list, it's not immediately obvious how close any of these people came to actually being asked to take on the role (Tim Kaine is on the list).
Don't worry, I actually covered that in a comment to my own submission, which is the first post on this story.
Also, let's linkify that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Because the evidence is junk.
First the "investigative" video is by James O'Keefe, who is infamous for dishonestly editing and framing videos to create the false appearance of criminal behaviour. And yes, you're allowed to shoot the messenger when the messenger is lying.
As for the woman Zulema, even if she was a Clinton supporter or even worked some aspect of the Clinton campaign (they must have thousands of paid staffers) that doesn't mean she was part of a Clinton conspiracy to frame Sanders supporters for violent protests. People who work in politics sometimes care about politics too, and they're more than capable of attending a protest on their own.
Oh, and I don't know what she has to do with the violent protests anyway, the video is of her at a peaceful (though disruptive) protest on a highway!
Huh.
Scott Adams has a blog post on attacking the source, and claims it's almost always a "tell" for being guilty.
I don't know about those sorts of things, maybe this is the statistically improbably case where a non-guilty person attacks the messenger.
Then again, you don't cite any sources, show independent reviews of the evidence, or even any rationalization. Just "the evidence is junk".
Was that on purpose?