Merged Wikileaks DNC leak proves primary was rigged /DNC planned to use Sanders' religion ag

[BobTheCoward]

Because I have to point out this information to people such as you, I assume that you are not thinking like I do now.

You haven't told me anything I don't know.

 

[Belz...]

Yes to both.

Interesting. Do you have a reliable source for that?

 

[Childlike Empress]

Interesting. Do you have a reliable source for that?

That's just the beginning. Where have you been? Here's a quick overview of the extent of the conspiracy. Click image for sources.

 

[wareyin]

Interesting. Do you have a reliable source for that?

Try here.

 

[ZiprHead]

Nancy Pelosi just said in a live interview on MSNBC that it definitely was Russia that did the hack.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Interesting. Do you have a reliable source for that?

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

June 15, 2016 UPDATE:
CrowdStrike stands fully by its analysis and findings identifying two separate Russian intelligence-affiliated adversaries present in the DNC network in May 2016. On June 15, 2016 a blog post to a WordPress site authored by an individual using the moniker Guccifer 2.0 claiming credit for breaching the Democratic National Committee. This blog post presents documents alleged to have originated from the DNC.

Whether or not this posting is part of a Russian Intelligence disinformation campaign, we are exploring the documents’ authenticity and origin. Regardless, these claims do nothing to lessen our findings relating to the Russian government’s involvement, portions of which we have documented for the public and the greater security community.

 

[theprestige]

Help me understand why one DNC staffer suggesting in an email that someone might ask Sanders about his religious beliefs is such a heinous transgression.

​

Even if someone had actually done it, which they didn't.

Since when has asking a political candidate about their religious beliefs been forbidden territory?

Conservatives generally don't even bother with the asking part. They prefer to tell people what a politician's religious beliefs are, especially if it is derogatory. Whether it's true or not. They do it all the time. Where did so many people develop the conviction that Obama is a Moslem, even though he goes to Christian churches and asserts quite persuasively that he is a Christian?

How come merely asking got to be such a transgression?

Is there more than one standard involved here?

It's okay for everyone else and their brother, on both sides of the aisle, to routinely ask pols about their faith, but when one DNC flack even mentions the possibility in a friggin' email of asking Bernie it's some sort of major ethical violation?

I don't disagree with that, but it isn't the point.

The point is that it never has been forbidden until all of a sudden when this particular email turned up.

What changed?

Nothing changed.

You raise or suppress topics in order to strengthen or weaken support for a candidate. That's why some conservative campaigners try to tell us what a candidate's religion is, if the think it will hurt the candidate's chances.

That's why Hillary Clinton avoids press conferences and refuses to release the transcripts of her Goldman Sachs speeches. She wants to avoid political hay-making at her expense.

It's entirely understandable for Bernie's political opponents to discuss using his religious beliefs (or lack of same) against him in the campaign. That's part of their job. It's expected, and he'd be using the same strategy against them.

On the other hand, it's a betrayal of trust, and an ethical failure, for Bernie's supposed political allies to do the same. The DNC is supposed to be an advocate and enabler for all the campaigns. What these emails show is that staffers at the DNC were choosing sides an debating strategies to undermine one candidate in favor of another.

Shillaries in the Sanders threads have been insisting that there was nothing to the idea that the DNC was working against the Sanders campaign. What these emails show is that there was something to this idea after all.

I assume nobody has a problem with the GOP talking about trying to make Hillary look bad, as a campaign strategy. I assume everybody would have a problem with the DNC talking about trying to make Hillary look bad.

But maybe I shouldn't assume these things.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Nancy Pelosi just said in a live interview on MSNBC that it definitely was Russia that did the hack.

And Donald Trump tweeted that Russia definitely hacked Clintons email.

Other then the fact that we shouldn't listen to politicians when it comes to technical matters, your point was ... ?

 

[dudalb]

Which reveals his agenda. If these emails exist, and are damaging enough to Clinton to cost her the election, the responsible thing to do would have been to release them well before now, so the Democrats had a chance to pick another candidate.

Which reveals that Assange is now pretty much in the employ of Vladimir Putin.

 

[acbytesla]

Nothing changed.

You raise or suppress topics in order to strengthen or weaken support for a candidate. That's why some conservative campaigners try to tell us what a candidate's religion is, if the think it will hurt the candidate's chances.

That's why Hillary Clinton avoids press conferences and refuses to release the transcripts of her Goldman Sachs speeches. She wants to avoid political hay-making at her expense.

It's entirely understandable for Bernie's political opponents to discuss using his religious beliefs (or lack of same) against him in the campaign. That's part of their job. It's expected, and he'd be using the same strategy against them.

On the other hand, it's a betrayal of trust, and an ethical failure, for Bernie's supposed political allies to do the same. The DNC is supposed to be an advocate and enabler for all the campaigns. What these emails show is that staffers at the DNC were choosing sides an debating strategies to undermine one candidate in favor of another.

Shillaries in the Sanders threads have been insisting that there was nothing to the idea that the DNC was working against the Sanders campaign. What these emails show is that there was something to this idea after all.

I assume nobody has a problem with the GOP talking about trying to make Hillary look bad, as a campaign strategy. I assume everybody would have a problem with the DNC talking about trying to make Hillary look bad.

But maybe I shouldn't assume these things.

I'm really curious what makes you believe the highlighted part about the DNC? No offense but this demonstrates a total misunderstanding of how the DNC and the RNC has always operated.

The DNC's goal is to put the best Democrat in position to win in the GE. Now consider that thoughtfully.
1. Bernie has not until recently been a member of the party. He's been a Socialist who caucuses with the Democrats. In contrast Hillary has been a Democrat for 40 years and served "as a Democrat" both in the Senate and as Secretary of State.
2.Rightly or wrong, it has been believed that Bernie's "socialist" label made him unelectable.

This outrage that the DNC believed that Hillary offered the best opportunity to win in November and that is who they backed was not a shock to Bernie and frankly shouldn't be a reason to be upset.

BTW, the RNC treated Trump exactly like the DNC treated Bernie until it was obvious that Trump would probably win.

 

[theprestige]

I'm really curious what makes you believe the highlighted part about the DNC? No offense but this demonstrates a total misunderstanding of how the DNC and the RNC has always operated.

The DNC's goal is to put the best Democrat in position to win in the GE. Now consider that thoughtfully.
1. Bernie has not until recently been a member of the party. He's been a Socialist who caucuses with the Democrats. In contrast Hillary has been a Democrat for 40 years and served "as a Democrat" both in the Senate and as Secretary of State.
2.Rightly or wrong, it has been believed that Bernie's "socialist" label made him unelectable.

This outrage that the DNC believed that Hillary offered the best opportunity to win in November and that is who they backed was not a shock to Bernie and frankly shouldn't be a reason to be upset.

BTW, the RNC treated Trump exactly like the DNC treated Bernie until it was obvious that Trump would probably win.

Okay, fair enough. You make a good point. I am not outraged by the GOP's opposition to Trump, because it was all out in the open. There was no secret conspiracy.

But we have been told by pro-Hillary members here that the DNC wasn't working against the Sanders campaign all along. Turns out, it was. And turns out, we needed Kremlin hackers and anti-US activists to reveal in the DNC what the GOP rightly did with full transparency.

 

[acbytesla]

Okay, fair enough. You make a good point. I am not outraged by the GOP's opposition to Trump, because it was all out in the open. There was no secret conspiracy.
But we have been told by pro-Hillary members here that the DNC wasn't working against the Sanders campaign all along. Turns out, it was. And turns out, we needed Kremlin hackers and anti-US activists to reveal in the DNC what the GOP rightly did with full transparency.

And you believed them? And what did you expect them to say?

FYI: Republican leadership actively and openly opposed Trump not the RNC. But it was well known the RNC was pushing for Jeb Bush even though they pretended to be an honest broker.

The DNC was made up of well known long time Clinton supporters long before Bernie even declared. DWS has been a very good friend of the Clintons going back 30 years. This is why she had that position. The DNC had a similar makeup in 2008. The difference being BO was a Democratic Senator and was able to get some prominent Democrats to back him. That changed everything.

Bernie and Trump's candidacy are so similar and yet they are not at all the same.

Both really are outsiders, not totally trusted. Much much more in the case of Trump, but still.

Whereas Bernie's policy positions are 95 percent in line with Democrat's core principles Trump's really are not and he has a history of being diametrically opposed to them

Very, very few long time Democrats would have a problem with Bernie being President. The same is not true for traditional Republicans and Trump. (They may be getting there, but many won't)
Bernie threatened but never really led. Trump grabbed the lead early and never relinquished.

 

[Mader Levap]

I find it funny that one e-mail (out of 19k) with idea that never was implemented somehow is evidence and all confirmation we ever needed that that DNC worked against Bernie.

Mountains from molehills. Wikileaks and Putin becoming sudden friends of republicans. Fake outrage and concern-trolling abound. All in all, pretty pathetic show.

 

[Stacko]

Even the guy that attempted to falsely claim credit is a Russian agent.

 

[sunmaster14]

So many things that I have to wonder how one could honestly ask a question like that.

A few that pop up: RNC communications, evidence that the plan was put into action, the rest of the emails instead of the cherry picked worst

None of these things make any sense. Let's take them one at a time.

RNC communications: Huh? What will that teach us about how the DNC was lying about being neutral in the primaries? What will that teach us about why and how top level people at the DNC felt comfortable enough to bruit about a dirty trick to help Hillary that could hurt another Democratic candidate in the general election (if it eventually came to that)?

Evidence that the plan was carried out: You're accusing Wikileaks of withholding that information? I assume that it would be worse for the DNC and Hillary if they had that information and released it, don't you think?

Rest of the emails: The DNC has it within its power to release any emails to the public it thinks might be exculpatory. It does have its own emails after all. I assume that the reasons it hasn't released any of its own is that none of them are particularly helpful in providing exculpatory context.

 

[The Atheist]

Nancy Pelosi just said in a live interview on MSNBC that it definitely was Russia that did the hack.

Doesn't it give you a sense of joy that in 2016, some people still haven't learned that committing things to electronic media is not secure?

 

[newyorkguy]

Even the guy that attempted to falsely claim credit is a Russian agent.

Thanks very interesting.

The hacker who claims to have stolen emails from the Democratic National Committee and provided them to WikiLeaks is actually an agent of the Russian government and part of an orchestrated attempt to influence U.S. media coverage surrounding the presidential election, a security research group concluded on Tuesday...Guccifer 2.0 is more likely a collection of people from the propaganda arm of the Russian government meant to deflect attention away from Moscow as the force behind the DNC hacks and leaks of emails, the researchers found.

“These are bureaucrats, not sophisticated hackers,” Rich Barger, ThreatConnect’s chief intelligence officer, told The Daily Beast.

 

[wareyin]

None of these things make any sense. Let's take them one at a time.

Yes, let's. Do recall that this statement was made in the context of BobTheCoward pretending that morality exists both in a vacuum and as a black and white thing.

RNC communications: Huh? What will that teach us about how the DNC was lying about being neutral in the primaries? What will that teach us about why and how top level people at the DNC felt comfortable enough to bruit about a dirty trick to help Hillary that could hurt another Democratic candidate in the general election (if it eventually came to that)?

You asked what we could expect were wikileaks an objective source. An objective, unbiased source would have hacked and leaked both sides, or neither. Again, morality is a scale, wherein we judge people compared to other people, as well as ideals.

Evidence that the plan was carried out: You're accusing Wikileaks of withholding that information? I assume that it would be worse for the DNC and Hillary if they had that information and released it, don't you think?

Evidence that the plan was carried out is what was missing. Floating an idea that gets dropped immediately is not evidence that this was some terrible thing, as Republicans are trying to frame it.

Rest of the emails: The DNC has it within its power to release any emails to the public it thinks might be exculpatory. It does have its own emails after all. I assume that the reasons it hasn't released any of its own is that none of them are particularly helpful in providing exculpatory context.

Exculpatory in what way? Cherry picking the worst wikileaks could find, the absolute worst they could get was one staffer floating the idea to ask Sanders about his religion, which was then dropped. If this is the worst they can find, I guess you have to try your best to make that mountain out of this molehill.

 

[Polaris]

What is the other side of the story? Suppose Putin and/or Assange were completely objective. What's missing?

What's missing in that case are the real Putin and Assange, because at that point they're imposters from Mars and the real Putin and Assange are kidnapped or dead somewhere.

 

[newyorkguy]

You know what's really ominous.

There is some evidence Vladimir Putin is the one who has set in motion a campaign to discredit Hillary Clinton on the eve of the U.S. presidential election. Why would Putin be doing this? What's in it for Putin? One possible outcome could be the election of Donald Trump as president. What does that do for Putin? Consider that Trump has-

A) Expressed admiration for Putin.
B) Has expressed hostility towards NATO and says if he were president the U.S. wouldn't automatically respond to a NATO call for help.


Do the math.