WikiLeaks Has Been Busy

[offthewall14420]

I never liked Wikileaks and don't believe the emails are even authentic. If they are DWS should be fired for incompetence. This is what happens when one pursues half-measures. The DNC should have attacked the socialist/atheist mercilessly.

Pretending to be a Jew. What a low-life scumbag.

After all, Julian Assange is <possibly> a serial rapist. This is the sort of allies the sugar shack commie has?

This is his 16th minute.

 

[kallipolis]

Well Bernie didn't get the most votes or the most super-delegates. There is nothing in the 'shocking' revelations to indicate that anything would have changed the outcome.

If he had won ...we'd all be supporting him.

Noteworthy for the truth speaks wisely.

 

[MystikWizard]

You'd be a lot more believable if you were also focusing on Trump.

But he seems to get a complete pass from you.

Look.

The fact is, the DNC didn't stuff the ballot boxes for Hillary....from the outset, Bernie's supporters have whined and complained that they have to play in the big kids' sandbox.

Well Bernie didn't get the most votes or the most super-delegates. There is nothing in the 'shocking' revelations to indicate that anything would have changed the outcome.

If he had won ...we'd all be supporting him.

But right down to the end, there is some thought that the Democrats will still turf the candidate at this week's convention and anoint Bernie.

What the voters like you don't seem to have the ability to grasp is that the only thing that matters is to to unite and beat Trump.

The only thing.

Period.

Because of the Supreme Court.

Your little fantasy that the US can survive another 20 years of a conservative court is frighteningly naive or cynically absurd.

The greater issue at hand is Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's collusion with the Clinton campaign and pressuring of the news outlets to provide favorable coverage of Clinton and less favorable coverage of Sanders, which impacted primarily older voters who unfortunately still rely on television to receive their news.

That is the main issue because of the lack of coverage. So you can say all you want about Hillary getting more votes (and I routinely see caucus results ignored in the vote count), but this comes down to the chicken and the egg argument. Did the coverage Hillary receive produce this result? That is why there is a class action lawsuit since it is against the law for a political party to skew elections in favor of certain candidates.

http://usuncut.com/politics/debbie-wasserman-schultz-hillary-clinton/

It would be great for you to say "yes, this was wrong on the part of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz" and illegal behavior should be condemned.

As far as Trump goes, I don't give him a free pass. I just am not talking about Trump right now. I am talking about the topic of this thread and collusion between the DNC and the Clinton campaigns.

As I have stated previously, I am not concerned about the Supreme Court because even if Trump is elected and fills a seat, that puts us right back where we were when Scalia was on the bench and liberal policies still were ruled in favor of thanks to Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy.

As far as any others who may look to retire, I am willing to wager, such as Justice Ginsburg or Justice Breyer, I am willing they will sit on the bench until the end of Trump's one and only term until we have a chance to do this again and maybe get it right this time by not nominating candidates who involve themselves in illegal activities or is known for consistently lying.

 

[offthewall14420]

^ If the commie was smart he would have setup his own person at the DNC years ago.

Soviet Sanders is not a Democrat.

Fucking millennials.... you know what you want but have no clue how to achieve the goal or implement a strategy. Amateurs.

 

[rareboy]

The greater issue at hand is Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's collusion with the Clinton campaign and pressuring of the news outlets to provide favorable coverage of Clinton and less favorable coverage of Sanders, which impacted primarily older voters who unfortunately still rely on television to receive their news.

That is the main issue because of the lack of coverage. So you can say all you want about Hillary getting more votes (and I routinely see caucus results ignored in the vote count), but this comes down to the chicken and the egg argument. Did the coverage Hillary receive produce this result? That is why there is a class action lawsuit since it is against the law for a political party to skew elections in favor of certain candidates.

http://usuncut.com/politics/debbie-wasserman-schultz-hillary-clinton/

It would be great for you to say "yes, this was wrong on the part of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz" and illegal behavior should be condemned.

As far as Trump goes, I don't give him a free pass. I just am not talking about Trump right now. I am talking about the topic of this thread and collusion between the DNC and the Clinton campaigns.

As I have stated previously, I am not concerned about the Supreme Court because even if Trump is elected and fills a seat, that puts us right back where we were when Scalia was on the bench and liberal policies still were ruled in favor of thanks to Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy.

As far as any others who may look to retire, I am willing to wager, such as Justice Ginsburg or Justice Breyer, I am willing they will sit on the bench until the end of Trump's one and only term until we have a chance to do this again and maybe get it right this time by not nominating candidates who involve themselves in illegal activities or is known for consistently lying.

So all of you who want to risk a four year term of Trump believe that somehow he can't do much damage in one term.

And would see the nomination of a conservative SC justice and many more federal judges...just to 'prove a point'.

George W. Bush did a huge amount of damage in 4 years we still aren't recovering from.

[Text: Removed]

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

It's called facing reality....minus the OCD pedantry.

Reality isn't trying to derail from the topic because instead of actually reading the links you decided to go at the poster posting it.

Half of the things being talked about in this thread have nothing to do with the topic and that speaks volumes about the individuals that feel the need to do this, though not really surprising.

 

[opinterph]

my question remains, why are those not willing to [publicly condemn her for anything illegal, unethical, or immoral she has done or where she has shown poor judgment on a topic] do so for Hillary Clinton?

I think the time to call for public condemnation was back during the primary election contest. Having now selected our nominees through those contests, neutrality becomes harder to defend.

condemn what should be condemned

That concept can arguably be cited to explain events here in this thread.

---

Half of the things being talked about in this thread have nothing to do with the topic

 

[offthewall14420]

Your citation was from Dec 20, 2015... http://usuncut.com/politics/debbie-wasserman-schultz-hillary-clinton/

1. Scheduling primary debates to garner as few viewers as possible

Sanders could have boycotted the debates. He wasn't required to accept, particularly since he was a fringe candidate at the time.

2. Grassroots Clinton field offices co-located at DNC offices.

You ever been to Carson City? Tiny office, not much space in the town.

3. Dismantling Bernie Sanders’ campaign over one staffer’s mistake
After a Sanders campaign executive illegally stole Clinton's data.

4. DNC finance chair caught raising money for Clinton
He made a few calls to ensure an event in his area went smoothly. How much has Sanders raised for the DNC, DSC, or DCCC?

5. The DNC lined up superdelegates for Clinton before first debate
Hillary Clinton whipped those delegates, not the DNC.

 

[opinterph]

Your citation was from Dec 20, 2015...

The ones in the opening post are more recent:

Released Emails Suggest the D.N.C. Derided the Sanders Campaign

(NYT; July 22, 2016)​

BREAKING: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says his next leak will virtually guarantee an indictment of Hillary Clinton

(Silence is Consent; July 22, 2016)​

​

WikiLeaks: Search the DNC email database​

 

[offthewall14420]

This is high-tech women beating by an accused serial rapist.

 

[rareboy]

Certainly well done Wikileaks.

Assange gets his revenge against Hillary for the US keeping him trapped under virtual house arrest.

And someone finally brought Wasserman Schultz down. No mean feat.

Maybe the Donald will give Assange amnesty when he's president.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

Yep, totally the fault of Wikileaks.

 

[MystikWizard]

9 Leaked Emails The DNC Doesn't Want You to See

http://usuncut.com/politics/dnc-leaks-9-emails/

1. The DNC’s communications director was eager to point out negative angles for Sanders stories
2. Debbie Wasserman Schultz privately called Clinton the “presumptive nominee” while accusing Sanders of not being a Democrat
3. DNC officials worked closely with the Hillary Clinton campaign to respond to Sanders’ money laundering allegations
4. A Politico reporter agreed to allow the DNC to edit his stories
5. DNC staff automatically dismissed interview requests from “Bernie bros”
6. Wasserman Schultz demanded an apology from MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski for suggesting she resign
7. DNC staffers knew Sanders would destroy Wasserman Schultz in a one-on-one segment
8. DNC staffers seemed to know Clinton would be the nominee with nearly two months of voting left
9. The DNC may have had plants inside the Sanders campaign

Explanations for each of these and their context are included in the article.

Love that Politico wanted to ensure the Pro Clinton DNC had the ability to edit the context and slant of their stories before they were published. Between this and Wasserman-Schultz' exchange with Mika Brzinski, I think we get the idea of how the media would be handled under a Clinton Administration.

 

[MystikWizard]

I expect more to be coming out about the "Hillary Victory Fund" money laundering attempt which the Clinton campaign attorneys were advising the DNC attorneys about how to handle.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/sanders-clinton-dnc-fundraising/480951/

The Hillary Victory Fund, a joint fundraising venture for the Clinton campaign, the DNC, and 32 state Democratic parties. State parties was found to have retained less than 1 percent of $61 million raised by the arrangement.

The article also cited allegations from fundraisers that some of the state parties were effectively “acting as money laundering conduits” for the DNC and the Clinton campaign to bypass presidential fundraising limits on the Clinton campaign.

 

[TickTockMan]

Good for WikiLeaks. I am looking forward to the upcoming releases.

 

[Kabluey]

See if their are any leaks now from the GOP, Trump or Sanders campaigns now.
Politics is Machiavellian.
This could end up being an information war, which no one except hard right reactionists like Trump will profit from.

Apparently he's been getting plenty of online support from Vladimir Putin's information managers.

 

[Kabluey]

9 Leaked Emails The DNC Doesn't Want You to See

http://usuncut.com/politics/dnc-leaks-9-emails/

1. The DNC’s communications director was eager to point out negative angles for Sanders stories
2. Debbie Wasserman Schultz privately called Clinton the “presumptive nominee” while accusing Sanders of not being a Democrat
3. DNC officials worked closely with the Hillary Clinton campaign to respond to Sanders’ money laundering allegations
4. A Politico reporter agreed to allow the DNC to edit his stories
5. DNC staff automatically dismissed interview requests from “Bernie bros”
6. Wasserman Schultz demanded an apology from MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski for suggesting she resign
7. DNC staffers knew Sanders would destroy Wasserman Schultz in a one-on-one segment
8. DNC staffers seemed to know Clinton would be the nominee with nearly two months of voting left
9. The DNC may have had plants inside the Sanders campaign

Explanations for each of these and their context are included in the article.

Love that Politico wanted to ensure the Pro Clinton DNC had the ability to edit the context and slant of their stories before they were published. Between this and Wasserman-Schultz' exchange with Mika Brzinski, I think we get the idea of how the media would be handled under a Clinton Administration.

All of those suggest that they were backing their long term candidate, as opposed to the one who joined the party last year.

Why did Sanders and his followers believe they were entitled to take the leadership from an established party and hierarchy without resistance?

 

[MystikWizard]

All of those suggest that they were backing their long term candidate, as opposed to the one who joined the party last year.

Why did Sanders and his followers believe they were entitled to take the leadership from an established party and hierarchy without resistance?

Nobody feels entitled to anything here, except Hillary Clinton it seems, who believed she was entitled to the nomination. Do you condone illegal activity like money laundering and violation of campaign contribution laws? Do you not think there are election laws that prohibit collusion between campaigns and the DNC? Do you not think there is anything ethically wrong with manipulation of the media and taking steps to slant coverage in favor of a candidate?

This obliviousness and excuse making is simply mind-boggling.

If the DNC and Hillary felt that confident they could have won on their own, why have the need to cheat and break laws? Furthermore, why do supporters continue to support any and all illegal activity?

Lastly, I will ask the same question I asked elsewhere. Sanders has caucused with the Democrats and their platform for years. Why do you think party is more important than principles?

 

[frankfrank]

why do people support candidates who participate in dishonest activities? Why is it hard to separate and condemn a candidate for what they do wrong, but still have this need to cheer them on nonetheless?

Other than going out of business by spending ten months doing nothing but campaigning for Bernie, which wasn't an option, I did everything that I was legally able to do that could directly affect the outcome. I voted for Sanders in the primary...and "talked him up" as much as possible with friends.

Even if one candidate is horrible (and Hillary is close to fitting in that category), I'm going to vote for that candidate when the alternative is THE COMPLETE DESTRUCTION OF EVERYTHING GOOD ABOUT BEING "AMERICAN," if not an imminent existential threat to myself and most people I know, widespread civil war, and the survival of the world.

It would be no different than what Obama faced with the obstructionism there in Congress, which will continue until something is done about the gerrymandering, which should frankly be illegal.

I remember being taught in Civics class (in 1964) that Gerrymandering was, indeed, illegal.

As I have stated previously, I am not concerned about the Supreme Court because even if Trump is elected and fills a seat, that puts us right back where we were when Scalia was on the bench

As far as any others who may look to retire, I am willing to wager, such as Justice Ginsburg or Justice Breyer, I am willing they will sit on the bench until the end of Trump's one and only term

Not so fast, consider this: Ginsburg is 83 years old, Kennedy is 80, Breyer is 77. Kagan and Sotomayor are, of course, younger.

Their best and most wholesome intentions and motivations may be to ride out those four years. However, at that age, health issues - which can happen SUDDENLY and sometimes fatally - have a way of derailing or destroying plans. Considering that it happened to Scalia at 79, and that two of these three are older than Scalia was at his death, risking it ALL by making assumptions that everything will be fine-and-dandy for four-and-a-half years yet to come, is DANGEROUS.

I don't know how to analyze this statistically, but I would think that statistics would give at least an 80% chance that at least one of these three will become unable to continue duties, if not dead, earlier than January 20, 2021.

That would be the final day that we would be stuck with Trump...IF he actually agrees to leave. I can imagine him and his über-ego colluding to make sure that he becomes President For Life, unless and until he is removed by physical force.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

Why did Sanders and his followers believe they were entitled to take the leadership from an established party and hierarchy without resistance?

It seems that the problem of what is going on here with these emails is lost on most of you considering you assume it has something to do with entitlement or having a problem with some sort of resistance. If you honestly don't get the problem people have here with the emails with even the Chairmen of the DNC resigning because of the leak, at this point I am going to assume that you guys are just mindless drones.