Um, I Think It's Time for a Thread on WikiLeaks

don't believe the obama admin would be willing to make the claims purely for political reasons and putin barely even denies it

i'm not opposed to the leaks having new + potentially inflammatory information in them but when i saw this update i remembered something i had read that google v quickly turned up from April: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/21/hillary-pac-spends-1-million-to-correct-commenters-on-reddit-and-facebook.html

Due to FEC loopholes, the Sunlight Foundation’s Libby Watson found this year that Correct the Record can openly coordinate with Clinton’s campaign, despite rules that typically disallow political campaigns from working directly with PACs.

“SuperPACs aren’t supposed to coordinate with candidates. The whole reasoning behind (Supreme Court decision) Citizens United rests on (PACs) being independent, but Correct the Record claims it can coordinate,” Watson told The Daily Beast. “It’s not totally clear what their reasoning is, but it seems to be that material posted on the Internet for free—like, blogs—doesn’t count as an ‘independent expenditure.’”

so essentially hacked leaks prove something that has already been asserted + reported since back in april i guess?

Russian language in the hacking logs of a romanian hacker, the same method the Russians has used before. The evidence is a lot thicker than any evidence of PAC-coordination in those emails.

No Mordy. Someone from Priorities gave Podesta the wrong address for a meeting, so clearly Hillary took Saudi money to destroy Bernie Sanders.

btw the same Sunlight Foundation also called the Clinton Foundation a "slush fund"

also disagree w/ - I'm no big fan of Assange either but the Russian intrigue angle on this is much thinner so far than anything you are dismissing in the emails - it could be US intelligence is wrong to claim that Russia is behind the hacks but it's not thinner than the nothing that the leaks have uncovered to have the accusation on record from the head of national intelligence and the dpt of Homeland Security. again before ShariVari anyone comes in and says that we don't know anything for sure and there's no absolute evidence - i agree - but that doesn't make it nothing that the administration is asserting that fact so forcefully.

i think you're missing the significance, hurting. it's not that the Sunlight Foundation is right or wrong. it's that the admission of collaboration was on the books since april. maybe it should've gotten more attention then but it's not new information that CTR and Hillary campaign are working together.

My understanding is that Correct the Record claimed it had exemptions that allowed it to coordinate, it did not "admit" to improper coordination. The new emails also include other PACs.

And doesn't prove any coordination...

why would a Super PAC be sending Podesta an address for a meeting then?

all the sure fire coordination emails are involved CTR. the two that are not are the dinner w/ donors from American Bridge (which could or could not mean coordination since afaik they are not forbidden to solicit donations from PAC donors - just cannot coordinate on strategy) and the meeting discussion from Cecil from Priorities USA which has no information re coordination (Cecil doesn't say that the meeting is on behalf of Priorities USA) but I guess is the closest thing. If you look at the Intercept article almost all the examples are from CTR - that's how they pad out the article so they can make the claim of "consistent, repeated efforts by the Clinton campaign to collaborate with super PACs."

and you are correct - there was no admission of wrongdoing. but that's the point - if i say that i got a dispensation to use the hall pass and two months later intrepid student journalist reveals my private emails where i'm given permission to use the hall pass - it is disingenuous to present that information as a new inflammatory leak. if there was information you had that revealed that i used the hall pass and claimed i had permission but knew that i didn't really - that would be something else. but this is like "i have proof that you did something that months ago you claimed you had the right to do and that you were actively doing"

the Super PAC didn't send him the address. Guy Cecil - the political director of Hillary's 2008 presidential campaign (and a member of the Priorities USA SuperPAC) - did, and there's no indication that it's related to Priorities USA. but i admit that as far as damning new information this definitely comes the closest.

look at this quality time capsule lol from back when politico was reporting Cecil joining Priorities USA:

The news of Cecil’s role comes as Republicans and Democrats alike eye Jeb Bush, whose presidential bid is expected to rely on an allied super PAC to an unprecedented extent. While Clinton’s campaign is not expected to have problems raising large amounts of money, Bush’s supporters have recently spoken of record fundraising for the Republican.

where i'm given permission to use the hall pass -- this is inexact. i meant something more like "where i discuss my hall pass usage"

Plus it could be a restaurant recommendation, or perhaps something completely unpolitical, a mistress. For some weird reason there's no other information about the meeting in the released emails, it's almost as if they are being selectively leaked to maximize speculation.

it could mean they were careful to keep incriminating details out of the emails but it's hardly a slam dunk leak either way

Yeah, 'it could'. But it doesn't. It's still all just speculation, just as it was before the leak.

rereading the intercept article this might be a violation of citizens united:

In February 2016, Dennis Cheng, the lead fundraiser for the Clinton campaign, emailed other staffers to recommend that Podesta call certain donors to Priorities USA Action, the largest pro-Clinton Super PAC, to thank them for their six- and seven-figure donations. Cheng flagged three donor names, telling a colleague they were “very important Priorities USA calls that ideally John can make.”

i don't actually know exactly what is and what isn't allowed re coordination. is using the prestige of a campaign member to thank donors for donations enough coordination - or since it's using the campaign as an asset to the PAC and not vice-versa it's not a problem. i'd have to spend more time than i'm willing to studying CU.

Also, that stuff can't be read out of the linked email. Unless it's in the attachments, but fuck if I'm downloading something from the hackers at wikileaks.

The link in the Intercept page goes 403, which is some hilarious incompetence from a news organization trying to put together an important story.

Lol, even Micah Lee from the Intercept knows who did the hack: How did these prominent political figures get their emails hacked in the first place? It appears that Russian hackers used “spear-phishing” attacks against many high-profile political targets, and some of them bit.

Of course, Greenwald himself still disputes there's any link, even while his reporters reports what's up. Such a shithead.

so did these guys just leak that Steve Jobs died of AIDS or what

wait n/m that's fake

Of course, Greenwald himself still disputes there's any link, even while his reporters reports what's up. Such a shithead.

― Frederik B, Tuesday, October 18, 2016 2:03 PM (fifty-seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

you know what's totally cool tho? saber rattling for a country you don't even live in.

Well, yeah, at least me, you and Greenwald agrees on that.

ultimately in spite of everything I said upthread I think I am leaning towards "there's not that much to see here" and agreeing that from an ethical perspective it's far preferable to take Snowden's approach rather than dumping

ugh there's this stupid thing going on now where there was an email mentioning that Jane Sanders asked the Vt governor not to endorse Clinton and now it's being cut off/taken out of context to look like she begged Bernie not to endorse Clinton. These lost causers are starting to really irritate me.

just from my experience nobody really even gives a shit about this wikileaks stuff other than these lames

I called Glenn Greenwald a shithead a bit too soon, he might still be a shithead, but as I wrote he was working on mitigating the things I was mad at him for. This interview with Naomi Klein is quite good and he allows her to attack him on exactly the paradoxes and hypocrisies in the Podesta hack: https://theintercept.com/2016/10/19/is-disclosure-of-podestas-emails-a-step-too-far-a-conversation-with-naomi-klein/

So mea culpa, I guess.

Naomi Klein even uses the same example of climate activism that has gotten me concerned and that I wrote about upthread :)

Hey guys

Guess who's in the latest wikileaks dump

Frederik?

Apparently i'm tangentially associated w some stuff that got leaked re: burning man. I'm in one of the photos attached at the bottom of this:
https://burners.me/2016/10/19/breaking-burning-man-in-latest-wikileaks-data-dump/

in other news, Assange protesting the 17 intelligence agencies quote a little too much on Twitter, methinks

xpost GUYS QUARANTINE SHAKEY

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/789296990127427588

wtf is a "pied piper candidate"?

so what is really the deal w/ this strange alliance w/ trump? i understand i guess why assange/wikileaks hates clinton but i really don't get how his antagonism has basically morphed into outright support of rightwing/trumpist conspiracy shit

i mean if you're thing is actually "radical transparency" how the fuck would you come to the conclusion that trump is your partner in this?

if he buddies up to trump and trump wins then he'll let him into the country

I'd assume it's partly personal animosity, partly the idea that everyone else is gunning for Trump, partly that there's not much of international interest in Trump's past - he's a cheap crook who presents as a cheap crook, whereas Clinton has had positions of actual power and (in the Wikileaks narrative) has abused it.

i suspect with him not being a fan of the U.S., he simply wants to see us get fucked up. trump is the quickest and easiest way to do that.

There's an email going around now showing Jessica Valent, Sady Doyle and others p much collaborating with the Hillary Clinton campaign. Not totally surprising and not sure whether it violates the nebulous ethics of "political blogging" but just sort of confirms why they were so obnoxious throughout.

Valenti responded to that charge on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/JessicaValenti/status/789470590054854656

@seanhannity
In 10 yrs @wikileaks has gotten nothing wrong & no one's been killed bc of the info released. #freejulianassange #freeinternet for all.

lol

Valenti responded to that charge on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/JessicaValenti/status/789470590054854656

― GUNSHOW POOPHOLE (Phil D.), Friday, October 21, 2016 10:34 AM (five hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

The email says that they are "working with" bloggers on getting the message out and that they had a group call with a few of them (not standard "journalistic" practice, not the same thing as reaching out for comment). However, if you read the wording carefully it's plausible that Valenti wasn't one of the people on the call, and was just someone they were listing as a blogger who was generally on their list or whatever. Ultimately she's more akin to an op-ed writer anyway and pretty clearly, one-sidedly pro-Hillary throughout the campaign. It's not like she reached out to the Sanders campaign for comment, as a reporter would.