Hacker News Reader

Comment by dzdt | Hacker News Reader

Yes, the interesting thing would be if any emails with controversial content can be verified. I don't think there were any real bombshells in the wikileaks emails, but still...

View on HN

"I don't think there were any real bombshells in the wikileaks emails, but still..."

Yes, there are quite a few bombshells. There are now tags of twitter about specific e-mails. If you are a Bernie Sanders fan, then the level of betrayal and cheating is astounding.

Never mind the e-mails that shows the staged violence at Trump rallies. If this was a Republican candidate, it would be criminal charge time with the Project Veritas videos as exhibit 2.

Specific examples that are in your opinion most worthy of authentication?

I'm at work so, and I'll get the rest later tonight (Twitter won't load for me now anyway):

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3023

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4776

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808

wow, what the heck, I'll get more later but a lot of sites just aren't loading

[edit: guess its not just me https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12762397 ]

This pretty much just shows that some people in the DNC were kinda biased and played politics. It's literally their job to do what they think is best for the party and that seems to be what they are doing (whether I agree with them is a different matter but currently besides the point).

I'm pretty sure a Bernie Sanders supporter would say this goes way beyond that. Leaking plans from one candidate to another is beyond best for the party.

That's a fair assessment, my current thought is that it was a crappy thing to do but is essentially what the party infrastructure is supposed to do (I supported Sanders by the way). What it really drives home to me is that I wish that there was a setup that allowed more than 2 parties so if they started supporting candidates I didn't like I could just switch to a party that isn't just the exact opposite of the one I am already in. It seems to me that the winner take all nature of the current system necessitates consolidation of parties.

IDK, as a bernie voter in the primary, I don't see this as surprising or problematic, at least not if I'm reading these correctly.

Ok, nothing will shock you then. If you don't believe the head of the party giving insider information from people who were supposed to be working for Sen. Sanders campaign feeding his opponent doesn't cause you fits, then all is fair game.

anyway search #PodestaEmails14 on twitter for the rest

That third email looks like they were asking the DNC for comment on a planned article, which is a standard reporting practice.

Edit: researched more, and while asking for comment is standard practice, sharing a full article pre-edit is not.

Project Veritas has been found to be deceptive and when officials actually have inspected the claims in their previous videos they found that “sometimes a fuller truth is found on the cutting room floor.”

Project Veritas has waited a couple of days each time and released the whole video with no cuts. That little quote is the refrain spoken to dismiss the video, but doesn't take into account that they do release the whole run unlike major news channels as we found out with the creative editing Katie Couric did recently.

I wasn't aware of that. I'll have to look at the whole videos later

The basic tactic is release the clip, watch for the "its edited, that's not what I said" response, then release the full video with even worse stuff in it. I really think in this day and age, its a really good template for anyone doing investigative reporting. Plus, it works fine with click advertising since it creates two waves per video.

Well, with you putting it that way, I can't say too much against the tactic. :) It's actually quite similar to what I wanted to convince courts to allow as a default in the event that they don't already. That is to let me withhold a smoking gun on a case where they might get low charges or punishment due to technicalities. Let them argue their case with lies to the court. Then, show the smoking gun with a follow-up of perjury to keep them from dodging a significant punishment.

How feasible does that sound? I know people do it to themselves accidentally but not sure if judges would allow the tactic intentionally by a non-prosecutor.

Not sure on the court tactic, but I get the feeling the video tactic is more a "give them the rope" style that is often used in court by lawyers during examination.

As far as I know, only the prosecution has an obligation to provide exculpatory evidence. That said, if you wait to half way through your murder trial to produce the video of the one armed man stuffing the body in your trunk, that probably sets you up for interfering with a police investigation, or aiding and abetting, etc.

(Sighs) That's a good point. They mighy try to score an extra conviction on their record in same trial.

If you rely on an honest, ethical democratic process, what those fools did was astounding. Sharing values with people like Bernie Sanders is just icing on the cake.

Most of the things i've came across that are being brought up as bombshells are actually incoming mails from outside the campaign.

Plus there is a number of things that are being put out of context like the Hillary hates Everyday Americans thing, where it's clear from the context that it is just about the phrasing

There are a lot of things that are horrible in these leaks. For example, here are four: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/...

From those four, the following are "verified" by the OP of this thread.

    - 5205: The Clinton's seem to have had access to the questions to a debate.
    - 4178: The Clinton's seem to have been advised about the investigation into their emails from someone in the DOJ.

These are two out of 4. I'll edit this if someone links other articles and I'll check them across this link.

The DOJ status hearing is one of the perfect examples of something out of WikiLeaks that was way blown out of proportion by tweeting first, ask questions later.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/10/11/nbc-reporter-sug...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/10/trump-...

On the debate thing, a Bernie senior aide came out and said that she gave guidance to Sanders campaign too. The most nefarious scenario would be that Brazile gave questions to Clinton to prop her up. The less nefarious scenario would be that Brazile from her DNC position tried to get the best out of both candidates to not embarrass the DNC.

Note that Brazile and CNN are still denying she could have gotten access to the townhall questions. I agree though that networks should not put themselves in these kind of conflict of interests, by hiring a political commentator that is paid by the DNC at the same time, or a former campaign manager that is still on the payroll of said campaign like Corey Lewandowski.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trai...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com