7 years ago
28
The DNC Hack Is Watergate—but Much Worse
A foreign government has hacked a political party’s computers—and possibly an election. It has stolen documents and timed their release to explode with maximum damage. It is a strike against our civic infrastructure. And though nobody died—and there was no economic toll exacted—the Russians were aiming for a tender spot, a central node of our democracy. It was hard to see the perniciousness of this attack at first, especially given how news media initially covered the story. The Russians, after all, didn’t knock out a power grid.
Continue Reading
http://www.slate.com
Additional Contributions:
-
+8Submitted 7 years ago by drunkenninja
-
+6Submitted 7 years ago by drunkenninja
-
+6Submitted 7 years ago by AdelleChattre
-
+5Submitted 7 years ago by drunkenninja
-
+4Submitted 7 years ago by drunkenninja
Join the Discussion
Slate has been incredibly pro-Hillary for some time now. Just sayin'.
S̶l̶a̶t̶e̶ Corporate Media has been incredibly pro-Hillary for some time now. Just sayin'.
FTFY
Amazing that they want us to focus on how the corruption was exposed, but NOT on how the corruption stole primary elections and subverted democracy. The U.S. political system has become as bad as any banana republic, and corporate media would have it no other way.
Please, do tell exactly how democracy was subverted and this was revealed in the emails. All the hyperbolic comments surrounding this entire issue is amazing. (Everything from Trump was commissioned by Putin to somehow the DNC rigged the vote because a few emails weren't overly nice.)
What are you more concerned with? Democracy lost? Wrapping your mind around evidence that contrary to DNC denials that they were actively workng against Sanders, smearing him, even as they laundered money for the Clinton campaign? Or are you just trying to correct the record?
I still see nothing quoted that establishes doing anything. Does the context of the speech directly imply favoritism, yup. DWS should probably have handled many things differently and I'm glad she's gone. I could care less about tone, and whiny interoffice bullshit, and kicking around theories. I've read each of these previously and I still see no prosecutable evidence of anything in particular.
But then again, I fully expected that to be the case before he chose to run as a Dem. It's the difference between being a party insider and the populist figure of the moment. I know of two friends and one relative that have experienced the same first hand at various levels. Some of which were over 20 years ago, some were fairly recent. The game doesn't change.
Are we not seeing eye-to-eye that the Hillary Victory Fund is an illegal scheme to launder money meant for the Clinton campaign through state parties?
That I'm still up in the air about. I need to read more about the exact statues that apply and the deal with the dnc for cooperative fund raising. The real issue there is who was supposed to get what and how it's spelled out.
edit:
Spent another few hours reading and I see nothing remotely scholarly that puts forth the concept that the Hillary Victory Fund situation is illegal. It may be plenty distasteful and probably a suitable 'told ya so' for the supreme court in the McCutcheon v. FEC ruling. As such I stand by my previous stance that it is not illegal.
A few links:
http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81996
http://prospect.org/article/clinton-campaign-money-legal-problematic
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statemen...-clooney-decries-big-money-politics-says-mos/
Kiss it all you want, it's still going to be a frog.
You mean apart from all of the racist, sexist, antisemitic, and homophobic comments the emails revealed, the complete lack of journalistic integrity by certain media outlets, and their active coordination and participation with the Clinton Campaign, the blatantly unethical tactics used by the Clinton Campaign, like the fake Craigslist ads and sending moles into the Sanders Campaign?
Fine, how about the violation of campaign finance laws by the Hillary Victory Fund. The Victory Fund would take large donations from people who had already hit the Federal Limit with Hillary for America (Hillary's campaign hereafter HfA), and then replace it with small-dollar, individual donations directly to HfA. Not only is that a clear subversion of campaign finance laws, but we also have another term for it, it's called Money Laundering, and if you, or I did it (or pretty much anyone not named Clinton), we'd get out asses thrown in a Federal Prison. They redirected money that was legally required to go to the State Parties back to HfA. They used money for media buys for HfA (which was an illegal contribution), and then donated the proceeds to HfA.
The information is all right there in the emails, you just have to go look.
The email you linked is from the Bernie campaign manager to the DNC - what do you think this is proof of?
Which is why I also gave you the link to the searchable database of the rest of the more than 30,000 emails, and said:
Sorry if people are going to assert it's the end of democracy as we know it they could at least point to some substantiation.
I told you exactly what they were doing, and how they were doing it. I gave you a link to a database of more that 30,000 emails where the DNC themselves spell out what they've been doing, and how they've been doing it. And that's to say nothing of the dozens of sites on the web that have done detailed breakdowns of everything contained in the DNC leak. I'm all for a healthy skepticism, especially when it comes to politics, but there is a fine line between skepticism and willful ignorance.
Ill tell you there's a flying pink elephant outside my window, is the burden of proof on you or me? I can point outside my window and tell you to go look just as easily.
As noted below I will continue looking into the Hillary Victory Fund issue, however my research to date seems to show no concrete evidence that any law was actually broken there either, only insinuation under broad journalistic interpretations of FEC rules.
Politics so easily becomes about belief rather than hard evidence and strict logic. I choose not to engage in religious zealotry, especially in concern to politics. I have no horse in this race, no banner to follow, I truly do not care who you vote for.
Right, but if you gave me a video of the flying pink elephant, pictures of it's tracks in the ground outside your window, a statement from a zoologist that confirms that it is indeed a flying pink elephant, and numerous witness statements that all substantiate your claim that at that time, and in that place, a pink elephant did fly, then at some point it's no longer that you didn't provide evidence, it's that I don't believe you simply because I don't want to believe you.
You keep missing the entire concept that you point at a pile of 30,000 emails and say 'see!' Pick out specifics if you want me to agree on a concept.
I have read several dozen articles all with cleverly provocative titles to ensure readership, however beyond some basic favoritism there is still no smoking gun. There's nothing that was actually done, no action, no details of the dastardy plot complete with moustache twirling that people of the mindset to accept it seem to believe is there. Ill refer to my original post in which I asked someone to: "do tell exactly how democracy was subverted and this was revealed in the emails"
You keep missing the entire concept that I'm not your damn research department. You asked for an example and I gave you one.
I'm not "pointing to a pile of 30,000 emails", I'm giving you a link to a searchable database of 30,000 emails. If you can use Google you can use WikiLeaks.
" To help win an election, the Russians broke into the virtual headquarters of the Democratic Party."
That's a pretty bold statement.
It depends on what the meaning of the word "'s" is. After all, if you can’t deny you’ve been caught, attack the messenger. Apparently, even if that means getting involved in a land war in Eurasia.
Let's "correct the record" and make the story about how the corruption was exposed, not about the corruption. Maybe the useful idiots will care more about that.
They really should do the gop next and call it a day.
Oh, well, looks like I won't be coming back here, looks like this site is also propagated with alt-right nonsense. Pity.
Alt-right means Nazi, near as I can tell. Not seeing any great number of those here at the moment. Nor very great numbers of Soviet agents. It'd be a shame if you quit the place over people that aren't actually about at all.
Adelle, your right wing fanaticism is scaring people away!
Wait, it was me? Now just one minute! Are you saying I'm the stuff of which Digg refugees' mental scars are made?
One mouth-breathing cell in a larger colony of knuckle-dragging monsters that, taken together as a hive, constitutes the real beastial menace to our frictionless, e-topian, Polyanna, Jeffersonian perfect state?
Or does 'alt right' mean I both have tattoos and piercings that might be considered 'fringe' or 'fringe of fringe' in polite company?
I wouldn't know, having only spent a tiny amount of time on Digg, and even then only early on. My only reference for what 'alt right' might mean was a passing reference to Milo Yiannopoulos and Twinks for Trump.
Sieg Heil!
See, that's how it starts. You have Volk following you now!