At this point, we don’t know if WikiLeaks is planning on releasing more embarrassing and inconvenient emails or if all the emails that get dumped will be stolen from the Democrats. Perhaps some problematic Republican emails have been pilfered, too. What we do know, though, is that prominent Republicans are setting Hillary Clinton up to take the blame if more evidence of hacking takes place. Here’s RNC Chairman Reince Priebus talking on the Hugh Hewitt radio show:
Asked whether he expected some of Clinton’s personal emails to leak from her server, Priebus said, “Boy, I don’t know.”
“Certainly it seems like we hear these rumors that they have these emails,” he said, referring to hackers. “Quite frankly if it’s national security you don’t want to see that happening. Hillary Clinton put our country at grave risk, and hopefully we don’t get to the point where those are released. But her sloppiness could lead to something very bad.”
Of course, the DNC wasn’t using a server in Hillary Clinton’s house, and there’s no reason to believe that her emails have been hacked by the Russians. According the forensic investigation, there’s no evidence that they were, anyway. But Priebus wanted to blame her “sloppiness” for any future thefts regardless of where they were stolen from.
Reince also made a curious prediction to reporter Andrea Mitchell at the Democratic National Convention on Monday:
Reince said, “I believe that here are more emails coming. I think this is just the beginning. I don’t believe Wikileaks or these folks, whoever they are, simply released the emails all at once without more to come. I think there’s more to come and I think they should be prepared for more excitement in the email world this week.”
Mitchell followed up,”Do you know something about it?”
Priebus denied knowing anything, but speculated on the motives of people that “like to play games” and said usually more do follow.
Thus, the Democrats were duly forewarned, so it should be no surprise that they sent out Joe Biden and Tim Kaine this morning to make a little preemptive counterattack. And it’s not that hard of a case to make. Just looking at the Putin Times is enough to convince me that Russia is now a propaganda organ of the Trump campaign. It’s obvious enough that even George Will is out there saying that Trump’s ties to Russia are the real reason why he won’t release his tax returns.
The pushback was sufficient enough that Trump was repeatedly forced to respond during his press conference today, and he seems to have badly ad libbed the talking points Reince Priebus was using because he went further than predicting that there will be more leaks.
“Russia, if you’re listening: I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Trump said, directly addressing a country with which American relations are currently quite frosty. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let’s see if that happens.”
I link Trump’s remarks to what Preibus has been saying because the DNC emails have no actual relationship to Hillary Clinton’s emails or any emails from within the State Department. If Wikileaks has more DNC emails that they’re holding back, that won’t shock anyone since they didn’t release a complete set. But, if they’re holding Clinton’s deleted emails, that would be a major story.
Trump seems to have gotten a smear campaign mixed up with something real, and he wasn’t just asking Russia to release everything they have from the DNC. He was asking them to go find (if they haven’t already) emails that Clinton wrote as Secretary of State.
These are actually distinct things, although neither reflects well on Trump. In the first case, he’s nakedly hoping to benefit politically from the Russians breaking into the DNC, G. Gordon Liddy-style. In the latter case, he’s inviting a foreign power to do their best to hack into his rival’s emails and steal personal and governmental communications.
What’s astonishing is that he did this in a press conference where his objective was to deny accusations that he is colluding with Vladimir Putin and in hock to him. His opponents couldn’t have possibly provided a more convincing and compelling case that he is than Trump did himself.
The Clinton campaign probably cannot believe that this actually happened:
“This has to be the first time that a major presidential candidate has actively encouraged a foreign power to conduct espionage against his political opponent,” Clinton senior policy advisor Jake Sullivan said in a statement.
He added: “That’s not hyperbole, those are just the facts. This has gone from being a matter of curiosity, and a matter of politics, to being a national security issue.”
Jake Sullivan could have gone further because Trump wasn’t just calling for espionage against his opponent, but against U.S. government cybersecurity and U.S. government records. If Trump wants to argue that the “30,000 emails” in question are not government records, then he’s agreeing with Clinton that they are personal in nature and arguing that the Russian spy services should steal and share them anyway. But that’s not his theory of the case, is it?
His theory of the case is that the deleted emails contained sensitive classified information of the exact kind that we don’t want the Russians to read.
The man is a maniac and his candidacy is menacing.
Yet, Russia (and WikiLeaks) probably do have more to share with us, and undoubtedly all of it will be selected to assist Trump.
What an incredible commentary on the ludicrous place in which we find ourselves. Irony is truly dead. Maybe this is the end of times.
End times? Maybe we’ll find out on August 9 when Putin and Erdogan meet to kiss and make up, do business, in St. Petersburg. Then the mother of all foreign policy shit storms will break out among the US, EU, Iran, Syria and of course the main actors Turkey and Russia. The emails? Which emails?
I can see how the two dictators might get along well, but finding agreement on Syria, let alone anything else, will not be easy unless one of them has already decided to change policy.
Yes, that was a very interesting story.
Didn’t Assange already say there were more DNC e-mails to come? So no story there.
Snowden has an opinion on the hack…http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/07/russia-hillary-clinton-email-hack.html
More than Snowden and the article is worth reading.
Assange has publicly stated Wikileaks didn’t received this email batch from “the Russians.” Make up your own mind if he’s being truthful or not. It’s not like truth is a very high priority for Americans today; so, not sure why Assange’s truthfulness matters that much. Nonsense and allegations are so much easier to promote and Americans are currently in one of the recurring modes of believing anything as long as it comes from a celebrity or high USG official.
Well, even if he’s being “truthful,” there’s plenty of wiggle-room in Assange’s statement – that he didn’t receive it from “the Russians” directly does not negate the possibility that he received it from them indirectly.
I would put it like this — if they hacked it, there’s no reason he would have needed to receive it directly from them. In all likelihood it came to him by an indirect route — a little less obvious that way.
I’m trying to remember Snowden’s address and employer’s name. Could you help? Surely that sort of information is as relevant and important as, say, the source of Hillary Clinton’s campaign donations.
Funny, I thought Netanyahu established that precedent back in 2012, no? Foreign governments welcome to interfere in our presidential elections.
ssh — self-reflection isn’t a strong suit among those most easily persuaded by preexisting propaganda about “evil ones” determined to destroy our way of life.
American as good and only send peace bombs. If that destroys a country and the way of life of the residents, it’s either good for them or only a big of spilled milk.
only on one side of the aisle it appears
Yes. Was it 56 Dems who skipped his Iran address to Congress in opposition to the Iran treaty in 2015?
right I don’t remember any Republicans skipping the address
Was it that many? And the only reason they did is because Netanyahu was being a racist dick to Obama. And we still send them billions each year in “aid.”
I’m trying to remember Snowden’s address and employer’s name. Could you help? Surely that sort of information is as relevant and important as, say, the source of Hillary Clinton’s campaign donations.
NSA could tell us, but they won’t. Do you believe that?
This is nice:
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
ObamaCare is a disaster and Snowden is a spy who should be executed-but if it and he could reveal Obama’s records,I might become a major fan
6:48 PM – 30 Oct 2013
Superb point here:
Sam Cutler @youbsanctioned
He roots for foreign cyberops against domestic pol opponents now. What makes you think he won’t target pol opponents himself if he’s POTUS?
9:34 AM – 27 Jul 2016
Get a grip. This Putin/Russia hysteria in both parties is reaching the “commie under every bed” level. And we know there that leads.
If we Americans can’t manage our own democracy and are at the mercy of a foreign government strategically releasing authentic email written by Democratic Party officials, then it isn’t a robust democracy, is it?
You all aren’t even running with solid evidence that “Putin did it.” Obama merely cited “experts” – those would be “experts” hired by the DNC. When he has at his command the largest systems/intell operation on the planet at his disposal.
This crap is like Nixon blaming a security guard and later the Democratic Party for his downfall. (Not that the Democrats weren’t delighted that they didn’t have Nixon to kick around anymore.)
Can’t handle the public exposure of your corruption? Don’t be corrupt in thoughts and deeds.
FDR could jaw-jaw with Stalin (and he bordered on being insane) to accomplish his goal. Now we have little other than Democratic pearl clutchers. Grow a spine.
LOL Maybe HC org should have listened to Sanders people on their DNC server’s hackability and not used it to gin up a phony scandal.
Whatever the DNC’s sins–and Clinton’s–this is breaking new ground. I know that nobody here (with maybe one exception?) is even a tiny bit of a halfway fan of Trump. So none of us need to be convinced that he’s a danger to the country and the world. And I have absolutely no idea where the hack came from (nor do I care, in terms of this element of the story).
But still, this is exactly right: “This has to be the first time that a major presidential candidate has actively encouraged a foreign power to conduct espionage against his political opponent.”
That’s … beyond. And as usual, with this sort of thing, it’s a test of our media. Which is not comforting.
That ship has already sailed, as far as Russians being able to hack HRC’s SofS servers. They either did or did not. Most think not. Not read of any theories of them being out there in the ether, either. Trump is stupid.
I don’t know who can, or did, hack what. Clinton’s servers, the DNC, the Pentagon, the NSA, the Russians, the Chinese, the Croatians. Not only don’t I know that, I can’t know that. There’s no way. So fuck it. What I do know is that the Republican nominee openly asked a foreign country to get private emails from his opponent in order to gain domestic political advantage.
There are (at least) two issues here, and there’s a bright line between them. Nattering about Russia is as much a distraction from Trump’s actions now as it was a distraction from the DNC’s actions last week. The hacking is a serious problem, but it’s not the only one.
“What I do know is that the Republican nominee openly asked a foreign country to get private emails from his opponent in order to gain domestic political advantage.”
I understand; you want THIS to be the story. Dunno, Trump is pretty bullet-proof, too, for outrageous behavior, no?
As does Obama, HRC, etc.
Since he’s become so adept at it, why doesn’t Obama borrow a page from Woodrow Wilson’s bio. Arrest and charge Trump with espionage or sedition. Fast track his trial and he could be locked up before election day.
LOL Obama has missed a million opportunities for sedition trials, starting with Mitch McConnell, no?
Well, I think it is the story. I mean, there’s nothing new about Russia-or-someone-hacked-the-DNC. There’s room for more revelations about who hacked what, but this is new news.
And yes, he’s pretty bullet-proof. But good god, this is a silver stake dripping with holy water. At the very least I think the media should only go slightly easier on Trump for using a press conference to coordinate crimes with foreign intelligence organizations than they would on Bernie Sanders for not getting a tattoo of Clinton’s face on his arm.
Yeah. You might be right, but my money is on the horse race aspect that generates more income. I don’t think you can underestimate our MSM.
Indeed.
Speaking of which, is Hillary ever going to hold a press conference again?
https:/www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/21/hillary-clinton-hit-a-milestone-today-and-
it-wasnt-a-good-one
I envy your faith in press conferences.
That Clinton could lie her way through a press conference with relative ease doesn’t change the fact that it’s undemocratic for a major party nominee to refuse to submit to journalistic examination.
I suspect you wouldn’t have shrugged off George W. Bush doing the same thing in the 2000 race.
I definitely wouldn’t have, but my estimation of the media has plummeted since then. I no longer believe that ‘journalistic examination’ is related in any way to press conferences.
I don’t really buy that. It sounds to me like he was being snarky and is too dumb to know people were going to pounce on something like that considering questions about Russian investment in Trump businesses and Putin’s preference that he be elected. It fits into the larger narrative about how Trump is uniquely unsuited for the Presidency.
Trump isn’t going to lose any votes from his core support for this. It’s really only something that will horrify the elites and foreign policy establishment.
Really? Snark? Punked again?
“Later in the news conference, when asked if he was really urging a foreign nation to hack into the private email server of Mrs. Clinton, or at least interfere in the nation’s elections, he dismissed the question. “That’s up to the president,” Mr. Trump said, before finally saying “be quiet” to the female questioner. “Let the president talk to them.”
In a series of Twitter messages, Jason Miller, a campaign spokesman, tried to clarify Mr. Trump’s comments.
“To be clear, Mr. Trump did not call on, or invite, Russia or anyone else to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails today,” Mr. Miller wrote.
In a Twitter post of his own, Mr. Trump added: “If Russia or any other country or person has Hillary Clinton’s 33,000 illegally deleted emails, perhaps they should share them with the FBI!”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-clinton-emails.html?_r=0
I didn’t see that he had doubled down on twitter. Interesting. Perhaps just a ploy to suck up some extra attention.
Still, not going to do him any real damage. Few of those who find this objectionable were planning on voting for him.
The video of the statement…http://nyti.ms/2a06kW1
I also expect not wrt HRC’s server. (Such a dumb move that it may not have even occurred to any interesting party to look for it. Guccifer was such a low level hack that he likely didn’t recognize what he had. He released reconstructed Blu-HRC emails (without headers) in March 2013 and they were published worldwide and it wasn’t until a year later (CREW FOIA request to State) that the existence of her server became known to those outside her circle. There was a window of opportunity from Guccifer’s published hack to when HRC’s server became inaccessible (she was looking for an IT contractor to take over either slightly before or contemporaneous with the Guccifer leak. OTOH, Blumenthal and team Clinton may not have recognized the IT threat of the publication either.
OTOH, if any foreign government hacked her server and made off with the goodies, we’re not likely to see that either.
You’re a piece of shit!
Right.
Hillary, evil.
Trump, just a clown. Not at all a major party nominee, publicly calling for a foreign government to help him beat his opponent.
Trump is just a poopy head.
What did you call it when Netanyahu did everything but explicitly endorse Mitt?
I wasn’t aware that Rmoney asked Netanyahu to endorse him.
So, an endorsement for a US presidential candidate by a foreign leader is only beyond the pale if said candidate asked for the endorsement?
What an asinine position. How obtuse does one need to be not to recognize that Netanyahu did interfere in the 2012 election. Not successfully, but the precedent was set.
What does any of this have to do with the Republican Presidential candidate asking a foreign country to hack into a former SOS email server to release stolen documents to help that Republican candidate beat his political opponent?
Holy fucking shit, get a grip.
Does the server still exist?
Trump has also said that he would build a great wall and send the bill to Mexico. He say so much stupid shit that lives too short to get exercised over every one.
Get a grip — Putin and Peña Nieto aren’t going to do follow Trump’s orders or requests. (At least not while Trump doesn’t have the power to blow them to smithereens, which he’ll never have anyway.)
In the real world (and not the naive place most Americans think it is with “white hats” and “black hats” and Americans fitted with permanent white hats), cyber-espionage is ubiquitous.
Returning to the issue of endorsements which was the topic we’re were engaged before you chose to switch, the evaluation criteria is not if an endorsement is solicited or unsolicited (in part because that not information that is not always disclosed, but whether the endorsement is accepted or rejected. And it doesn’t even matter if the formal words, “I endorse X,” are used if all the other words and actions can only be interpreted as an endorsement.
Wow.
The topic was of the Republican Presidential nominee asking a foreign government to hack a former SOS email server to leak documents to help him win an election.
The topic was switched, for whatever reason, to some endorsement that Netanyahu gave to Rmoney, which is not only irrelevant to what Trump did, but isn’t something that I’m going to defend, so what does it matter?
If you want to keep spinning this, go for it. Just remember that at the end of the day, you’re having to downplay Trump and what he actually did, because your goal is to keep the target hanging on Clinton.
I mean, kudos on staying on-topic while off topic and everything, I guess.
given a name somewhere, sometime, by someone (haven’t they all?). But I don’t know the official Latin name.
Regardless, the fallacy (which is being widely practiced these days!) goes like this:
First it has to be established that person X is indeed reprehensible. Who decides that? Person Z? It’s complicated.
Netanyahu Appears in Pro-Romney Ad
The use of officially non-partisan organizations to aid in political campaigns has become common, since they are not subject to laws regulating spending that apply only to partisan organizations. Most of these groups are, in fact, intended to benefit one of the parties over another.
While Netanyahu has officially endorsed no candidate in the current campaign, his personal and political affinity with Romney has been obvious, as is his often difficult relationship with Romney’s opponent, President Barack Obama.
http://www.worldjewishdaily.com/netanyahu-ad.php
Now you may split hair and dance angels on the head of a pin, but I think this kinda qualifies. He did not object to the ad being run.
Am I supposed to defend Rmoney, or are you wanting me to say that what Trump has done is just as bad?
I guess I don’t see what Netanyahu’s endorsement of Rmoney in 2012 has to do with Strongman Trump asking another Strongman to hack into a former US SOS to leak emails to help him win an election?
There were two aspects of Booman’s post. One was “Putin is Now Trump’s Running Mate”. “Just looking at the Putin Times is enough to convince me that Russia is now a propaganda organ of the Trump campaign. It’s obvious enough that even George Will is out there saying that Trump’s ties to Russia are the real reason why he won’t release his tax returns.”
http://nyti.ms/2a06kW1
Here is what he actually said about the e-mails. Not hack, but find. Later, he suggested giving them to the FBI. (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-clinton-emails.html?_r=0)
Did he hand HC a hammer to beat him with? Yep.
Donald Trump calling for foreign espionage is not of concern to you then? That is an issue distinct from the content of purloined e-mail.
Trump is a jackass. If a jackass is what Americans want in the WH, it’s what they deserve.
You don’t seriously think that if elected (selected must include that possibility since 2000), Trump would allow Putin to manage him any more and/or better than the GOP has done?
As Americans barely noticed that the USG perpetrated espionage on Merkel, why get all hot under the collar that Trump is at least not blind to the reality of cyber-espionage. Everybody does it. And everybody would use whatever they collect if it served their own purposes. (Hell, for all any of us know, the Merkel files may have been used to blackmail into doing US bidding.)
“Trump is a jackass”
.. who could become president of the United States.
At some point, you have to take politicians at their word. Dismissing them as “jackassery’ is unhelpful at best.
Since you’re there — “At some point, you have to take politicians at their word.” — why are your wasting your time here? The votes for Trump aren’t here. Go find and persuade them. As 59 million people voted for Palin, for god’s sake, shouldn’t be hard to find some. Stupid people and fools make enemies of those most closely aligned with themselves and ignore those that they’ve defined as their real enemies.
When Hitlery-bots were asking why more Sanders supporters weren’t voting for Sanders, it was victim-blaming. Sanders supporters were just so demotivated that they stayed home, and can you blame them?!?
When Donald Trump is the major party nominee and is calling for a foreign government to help him beat his opponent, Donald is just a dummy head, and well, the stupid fucking American people deserve him anyway.
Yes, blame the American people for Donald Trump. Tell us how we deserve him.
Brilliant.
huh? Did the 2016 general election already happen?
Routine espionage not the issue. The DNC leaks are not happening as a news dump. It’s being leaked in such a way to impact the election. This is something new in US domestic politics and its not a story that will go away anytime soon.
The mainstream media many reject as an authoritative source on this is late to covering this story. It was the likes of Vice and other media that started digging deeper into the hack.
You are certainly leaning heavily into the deflection game. We’ll see where this goes.
Not new:
2004 Osama bin Laden video
Nor is it new for a US presidential candidate to collude (through proxies) in manipulating the outcome of an election at the waning days of a campaign when it’s most effective. Nixon-Kissinger-S. Vietnam government did it in 1968.
It’s likely that ReaganCo-Iran did it in 1980.
I wish far fewer ordinary American voters weren’t so easily persuaded by a single issue or matter in every presidential election. But hey, they fall for lots of stupid shit and 99+% of that is homegrown.
You know I’m not talking about the general use of dirty tricks in elections so I’m not even going there.
I didn’t toss out generic instances of political campaign ratfucking or even specific instances, but three real instances of foreign interference in US presidential elections. One may have been done completely independent of any US officials involvement in the production/release, but they didn’t shy away from exploiting its existence to their own advantage and it could have been the difference between a win and loss for them.
The second is based on well-grounded speculation that a deal was made with a foreign government that was labeled an enemy. It too may not have involved any collusion with the campaign of a certain presidential candidate. Had Carter managed to get the Tehran hostages released before the election, there’s a high probability that the would have won. The release of the hostages was done as Reagan was being sworn into office and therefore, officially, neither the Carter nor Reagan administration can claim to have made it happen. Decide for yourself.
The third one most definitely involved the campaign and associates of a presidential candidate. Had the Paris Peace Talks had any breakthrough before the election, HHH would probably have won (that election was that close).
Abstract thinking doesn’t require the exact same and concrete details to recognize the similarities.
Chennault, 1968.
“You don’t seriously think that if elected (selected must include that possibility since 2000), Trump would allow Putin to manage him any more and/or better than the GOP has done?”
Yes I do. Trump hates the GOP establishment and anybody in the party that doesn’t kowtow to him. Putin, on the other hand, he likes very much.
When Donald Trump is a major party nominee, I think it proves that the US isn’t a robust democracy.
Not giving a shit that the major party nominee is asking the Russian government to help him defeat his opponent seems odd if you actually care whether the US is a robust democracy.
This has nothing to do with hippie punching, communist scarring, or attacking Sanders supporters.
You’re OK with the Republican party asking a foreign government to release hacked documents, or go hacking again for more documents to release?
I thought I had explained WHY Trump is stupid. Putin could never do that thing–for the reasons I listed.
So while Trump might believe in fairies, I refuse to get nervous about that set. He has enough REAL shit to be nervous about, thank you very much.
So, I shouldn’t give a shit that a major party Presidential nominee is asking a foreign government to help him beat his opponent, by hacking into a former SOS server to get emails?
No big deal.
Besides, Trump is just a dummy head and junk.
Well, I should hope his handlers will have him walking it back pretty soon. Maybe he did not even realize it would be seen as seditious? He is not the sharpest knife. And there was George Bush’s fondness for Putin.
And, as I said, it was an impossible request, though that IS beside your point that he DID ask for it.
But our press has the attention span of a gnat.
Trump’s main handler, Paul Manafort, is extremely well connected in Russian ruling circles.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/04/paul_manafort_isn_t_a_gop_retread_h
e_s_made_a_career_of_reinventing_tyrants.html
When Donald Trump is a major party nominee,
Did Putin orchestrate that as well?
Not giving a shit that the major party nominee is asking the Russian government to help him
Don’t we have laws in this country to deal with foreign interference in US politics and citizens/politicians begging for a foreign country to come to their aid?
If the US Justice Department doesn’t, in your words, give a shit, why should I? Doesn’t do any good when I do “give a shit” because they gave all the Wall St crooks a pass. (They couldn’t even determine if a crime existed for destructing records covered under FOIA regulations.)
Get real — if the shoe were on the other foot and it were damning RNC records and HRC were calling for Putin to release more of them, you’d be cheering.
Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Starting with the fact that I can’t see Clinton doing anything so stupid bordering on treasonous, if she did I’d be condemning her — at the very least — atrocious judgment.
Now go ahead and call me a Hillbot; or is “Hillfan” your preferred epithet now?
My comment wasn’t directed at you.
It was merely a hypothetical for illustrative purposes. You weighing in that you can’t imagine Hillary doing something so stupid .. and therefore, you cannot deal with the alternative situation, says nothing about how would respond given that situation. Not a very good deflection from the point I was making.
Who could have imagined that HRC would be so stupid as to set up her own server and use it exclusively for her work as SoS? She didn’t own the g/d records she received and sent while employed by US as SoS. And legally they were supposed to be retained and available in response to FOIA requests. Finally, USG officials are not empowered to delete any official records.
Doubly stupid because she had it set up almost two years after Rove and the Bush WH were busted for using the RNC server for their emails.
Who would have thought that Hillary would say, “We came, we saw, he died. Ha ha.” to describe the death of any foreign leader?
Bullshit. You tried to play the both sides do it card, and you’re still slapping it on the table, insisting that —
Oh, fuck it. You’re so far down the Hillary hate rabbit hole, you’re not worth responding to — as the last line of your comment so richly illustrates.
To think I used to respect you.
Insisting what? In a comment below, I stated that I would welcome the release of damning RNC emails. I’m an equal opportunity sunlight advocate. That’s not a usual definition of being down a rathole.
(Skip the inclusion of Hillary in my hypothetical) and answer the simple question: would you cheer or be appalled if damning RNC emails were hacked and released?
One would hope we would be as equally outraged if foreign nations sought to manipulate the media and therefore the election with strategically timed leaks aimed at damaging one of our two main political parties.
Had Bernie won would you not be offended at dirty tricks played by external actors with the aim of throwing the election to the fascist? It’s not about Hillary.
How can you call yourself an equal opportunity sunlight advocate when you’ve spent the last couple of days discrediting this story and pretending this is routine espionage? It is nothing equivalent to listening in on Merkel’s calls but that’s the card you played.
The problem is that you seem to be inconsistent with your principles.
No, I wouldn’t be cheering a data release of that type.
FUCK NO, I wouldn’t be cheering that.
And you know better than to claim Clinton would ever call upon Russia to do that.
Appalling.
You wouldn’t welcome the public release of damning RNC emails? Regardless of who hacked and released?
Guess sunlight isn’t your thing. I, on the other hand, have welcomed every documented shred of Republican nefarious doings that have made their way to the public arena through unofficial channels. We’re not talking about state secrets here. This is more on the level of Nixon’s WH tapes wrt CREEP.
Bullshit again — as you well know. You’re specifically accusing Clinton supporters of cheering on interference in our presidential election by a foreign government.
Deflection? Maybe you should stop projecting onto others.
Assange’s primary goal is not to reveal corruption.
His primary goal is to try to get Donald Trump in the White House.
Assange waited until the nominees were named to begin the leaking of emails. He claims that he will continue to release emails, with a clear primary intent to increase the chance Donald Trump will be elected President.
If his primary goal were to reveal corruption, he would be releasing emails of the RNC staff and/or other emails which undermine Trump’s candidacy.
You’re beginning to convince me that revealing political corruption is not your primary goal, either.
You’re beginning to convince me that you share Assange’s primary goal, which is to elect Donald Trump President.
Like I’ve said but you don’t believe me,
They are republicans.
.
centerfielddj, Assange’s primary goal is to get out of the Ecuadorian embassy and out of the UK. I’m not qualified to say more about that.
Yes, I accept that point.
Just as Assange accepts the entire Trump agenda if manipulating the American public to elect Trump increases the chances of his personal freedom.
Some champion for freedom of the press and reduction of state-sponsored violence Assange is! Trump would be demonstrably worse than Clinton on all the issues he claims to prioritize. The Donald has been exceedingly clear on this. It’s the primary issue Trump is running on
Again, Assange is not attempting to reveal corruption in the Republican Party, or in Trump’s personal and professional affairs. He wants Trump to become President.
He’s a highly unprincipled actor on the political scene.
No, I wouldn’t welcome that, you fascist moron.
It’s nothing to do with sunlight. There was nothing at all interesting in those emails. DNC staffers wanted Hillary to win, and the CFO idiotically thought somebody asking questions to get to Bernie being an atheist would play with Democratic voters (even in religiously backwards places like WV and KY).
There was nothing at all interesting to it. A whole big NothingBurger. But it was released with the hope that a subset of Bernie voters wouldn’t bother to actually read any of it, and would instead act like dipstick suburbanites eating up tabloid gossip.
A foreign government tries to pray on the stupidity of partisans to influence an election. And most people like you ate it up, just as the foreign power wanted you to.
Appalling.
It’s what’s amazing. It IS a nothing burger. A couple 6th tier workers exchanged emails. It had nothing to do with Clinton.
Huh?
.
The phrase ‘nothing burger’ deserves a linguistic and anthropological investigation all its own: where did it come from and where is it going, who uses it to dismiss or ridicule and who doesn’t even know what it means, etc.?
What Shecky Said:
https:/first-draft.com/2016/07/27/dnc-wrap-up-its-about-time
“All the stolen DNC emails prove is that Debbie Wasserman Schultz couldn’t organize a two-car funeral let alone a vast conspiracy against Bernie Sanders. Repeat after me: the DNC runs neither primaries nor caucuses. The states take care of that. It’s called federalism. If one wants to changes the system, one needs to know how it works. The Busters need to do some reading…”
Marie, I think that entire comment comes very close to Frankfurter’s definition of bullshit: you’re trying to obscure the facts. The silly rhetorical question about Putin, the hand-waving about laws, the non-sequitur about Wall Street, the bogus tu quoque at the end — all of it is designed to evade the central issues.
Actually, I changed my mind: your comment perfectly fits the definition of bullshit.
Once you realize that the central issue for ‘Busters is that Hillary Clinton is the real enemy, everything begins to make sense.
The constant criticism you’ve heard 12,000 times repeated for a 12,001st time as if it’s some revelation.
The preemptive shitting on anyone who is planning on voting for Clinton, because like they aren’t TrueProgressives with all the best principles.
The immediate deflection of any criticism of Sanders supporters as an ad hominem against Sanders himself. I mean, holy shit, even Sanders has told the ‘Busters to join the rest of us here in objective, observable reality and beat Trump.
The immediate throwing down of the victim card, because if anyone who is going to vote for Clinton has anything negative to say about a Sanders supporter (which is always played as a direct ad hominem against Sanders) it’s just plain bullying, whereas, you know, the constant criticism of Hillbot Hillfan Hitlery CoronationTM supporters is just good-natured snark!
The spinning of anything that Trump does as just run-of-the-mill Republican behavior, so they can get back on the topic of keeping the target well-attached to Clinton.
Repeated, ad nauseam. Over and over and over.
It’s exceedingly fucking tiresome.
Except that Sanders was never the objective. The objective has always been the furthering of republican memes. Sanders is the excuse.
What more proof do people need than this thread? It’s a outright defense of Trump through and through.
.
6 of one, half a dozen of another.
I have no doubt that they’d rather Sanders be elected President, but it doesn’t change that the are clearly attempting to spin anything bad against Trump as something equally bad against Clinton, or her evil, neocon neoliberal progressive-hating supporters.
I mean, in one sub-comment thread I was supposed to be super ultra mega upset or supportive, or something, of Netanyahu’s endorsement of Rmoney half a decade ago…for whatever reason I still don’t quite understand.
At some point I have a feeling that I’ll be pressed to support WJC’s question of what the definition of “is” is, for some reason or another to move the crosshairs back onto Hitlery.
They are NOT progressive. The goal is furthering republican memes and goals.
Another example;
How many times have you seen on Booman Tribune someone criticize Trump for no tax returns and the IMMEDIATE response from the same cohort is ‘where is Hillery’s speech transcripts?’ No progressive would conflate the two issues, they are apples and oranges. Progressives know that releasing tax returns benefits their goals of transparency of money in politics. Trump’s refusal sets the stage for others to refuse, and that would be a HUGE set back to progressive goals. Sanders, by not releasing his tax returns did the same, he put his short term personal gain ahead of the long term benefits of transparency, hurting progressive goals.
It’s another example of defending Trump, but furthering what republicans cans want as a long term goal….a lack of transparency.
It happens far to often to be coincidence. Furthering republican goals is the objective. Supporting Sanders was always the camouflage.
.
.
No, Putin isn’t the boogieman for me the same way Clinton and Huma Abedin and her ISIS contacts are the boogieman to ‘Busters.
It’s fun watching you spin, spin, spin, in order to deflect what Trump actually did on television, because, like, the real enemy is Clinton and stuff, you guys.
Seriously, keep going. It’s hilarious. Tragic, but hilarious.
Don’t we have laws in this country to deal with foreign interference in US politics and citizens/politicians begging for a foreign country to come to their aid?
I don’t know what the exact contours of the law are, and I also think it’s entirely possible that this is an… unforeseen circumstance. If the FSB and GRU were SuperPACs, and Trump was telling them what ads to run, this would be illegal. But I guess ’cause they’re foreign intelligence agencies and we’re just talking about felonies on US soil, it’s OK.
Get real — if the shoe were on the other foot and it were damning RNC records and HRC were calling for Putin to release more of them, you’d be cheering.
Uh huh, sure.
Anyone who cheers when a foreign nation breaks into our secured systems and releases our records is a traitor, I don’t care what side it helps.
That’s the long and short of it.
It’s not the crime, it’s the
coverupincitement of foreign governments to commit the crime that will bring you down.a couple of notes
They are trying.
Here:
http://twitter.com/Renatus84/status/758381577646682113
Yes, that was a real Time cover. Remember who Yeltsin picked as his successor? You might have heard of him.
Now he had vodka in the cornflakes. lol
You write:
No.
They would be “experts” from Spook Central, no matter what their public alliance may be. They would be people who are known to never tell the truth on any subject if they can possibly get away with it. That’s their job!!!
Like this mutt. (From Wikipedia.)
Remember. Please!!!
We must learn this lesson before they lie us right into the grave.
Bet on it.
Whatever the current government says…about anything…is not to be believed because of the many lies that they have told us (we ignorant, trusting plebes in their eyes) for 8 years. More if you go back to Bush I, Clinton I and Bush II.
Is Trump lying too? No doubt. Is there an honest politician in the whole bushel basket of hustlers we now have competing in the current Liars’ Derby? maybe Bernie Sanders. Maybe. He carefully trod the line. in an honorable attempt to break that line. He failed. Why? No charisma plus a dedicated effort by the DNC to dump him. So it goes.
Maybe some of the dedicated Libertarians are straight as well. Jill Stein? I don’t know her well yet. We’ll see.
So that goes as well.
So far?
Down, down, down, down, down, down.
Been down so long it looks like up to me. (Richard Fariña, 1966. That’s about when all of this shit really began to happen. He knew. The artists always know early.)
Later…
AG
If I had seen anything in the DNC emails that came within 100 miles of “corruption,” I might credit your argument. But if that meets your definition of “corruption,” then you have a low bar indeed. It’s up there with “Teacher won’t call on me because she likes Susie best!” I mean, are you even serious?
On the other hand, having a foreign government illegally steal information from a major political party and then hand it off to a screw-loose cannon like Julian Assange, all in the service of manipulating a U.S. presidential election, well, there was a time that would be a hanging offense.
I guess the “Debbie Schultz is a bitch!” revelation poses a graver existential threat to democracy these days.
Fucking unbelievable.
Adopting your framing for the sake of argument, what specifically do you think the US response should be?
A resolution of condemnation in the United Nations? Economic sanctions? Blow some of their shit up?
The government should further investigate how the DNC was compromised. They should investigate how WikiLeaks obtained their information. They need to be careful about directly investigating Trump because he’s a special category as a nominee, even if he doesn’t act like it. But, if they become convinced that Trump is colluding in the dissemination of these emails, the public ought to know about it. Better to vote him out than charge him during a campaign.
Trump makes us break every norm just trying to maintain a semblance of a functioning system.
But, setting aside how the government should react, including how they should speak with Russia privately, the public should know that Trump and Manafort are in Putin’s pocket.
Speaking of breaking norms…
Trump was asked today “Do you think the Geneva Conventions are out of date?”
“I think everything’s out of date,” he said.
He’s a bit dangerous.
Sorry about the community, and the degree to which my participation sometimes fans the flames. A lot of people appear emotionally incapable of accepting the primary result and have lost all perspective, and I just dislike allowing particularly outrageous behavior to stand.
I’m getting better, though. I typed up a few responses today that I never sent. Impulse control’s improving.
Geneva Convention violations are called on our enemies only. So they are still useful in that respect. Maybe they are still aspirational to some of us.
Behold, the diseased mind of a populist.
No chance of requiring as solid proof of Russian guilt as Hillary’s defenders require when she is suspected of malfeasance, I suppose.
I am positively appalled at the fact that posters here are attempting to condone this behavior.
I’m beginning to get the feeling that the water here at The Frog Pond is developing a bit of a stench. Thinking it might be time to move upwind for a while and get some relief.
How’s everything in Ohio these days? I’m traveling within a couple states of you in early Sept (ya, still far from you, I know, but it’s a long way for me) and I must admit, I’m leery of the weather.
.
“Developing”? “Awash in” might be more apt.
The People’s Judean Front knows that the Judean People’s Front is their true enemy.
Assange wants Trump to become President. This is his goal.
Assange’s primary goal is not to reveal corruption.
Assange has said his goal is to defeat Hillary. He is releasing these emails immediately after the Parties named their nominees.
Do the math. Assange approves of Trump’s policy agenda.
Assange’s claim that he does not approve of Trump’s agenda are shown to be false by his very intentional actions.
Assange claims to be for freedom of the press. Trump has been very clear that he will change laws and regulations to curtail press freedoms.
Assange is taking action to help implement Middle East genocides and increased murders and oppression of non-whites everywhere. This is Trump’s agenda.
Assange supports Trump’s plans to increase economic inequality and suffering of those with low and middle incomes.
Assange is acting as an mortal enemy of the progressive/liberal values everyone on this blog claims to value.
The kindest possible interpretation of Assange’s actions is that in exchange for the possibility Trump might help him gain his freedom, Julian accepts complicity with increasing police murders and maimings of African-Americans, forced deportations of millions of Hispanics and others, increased economic inequality, nuclear proliferation and genocidal war actions.
Support the continued releases of DNC emails, timed with the clear intent to create greater chances of increasing economic inequality, worldwide war and curtailments of press freedoms, at your moral peril.
Performance Art!
.
1 out of 4 global citizens consider the US the greatest threat to world peace.
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/1-threat-peace-world-guess-who-its-us
I suspect Assange is one of them.
As such, he could not be expected to care overmuch which wing of the Military Empire is launching the drone missiles.
Hmmm!!! Why would Assange want to defeat Hillary? Because of the treatment of Chelsea Manning? Because WikiLeaks has been under investigation continuously since then?
I understand that Assange is motivated by this.
That is irrelevant to the outcome of Assange’s very intentional actions here.
Assange wants Trump to become President. He supports Trump’s agenda, all of it, including Trump’s plans to change laws to claw back press freedoms.
Because he would like to return the ratf*cking he got from us?
Assange wants Trump to be President. This is his goal.
His actions reveal that he does not care about press freedoms, or any of the other values you claim to care about.
Documentation in support of that assertion, please (noting your specific formulation, “Assange has said his goal is to defeat Hillary.“)
I think this article has Assange saying that, pretty much:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/assange-timed-wikileaks-release-of-democratic-emails-t
o-harm-hillary-clinton.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/assange-timed-wikileaks-release-of-democratic-emails-t
o-harm-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0
Assange, Avowed Foe of Clinton, Timed Email Release for Democratic Convention
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
JULY 26, 2016
“WASHINGTON — Six weeks before the anti-secrecy organization WikiLeaks published an archive of hacked Democratic National Committee emails ahead of the Democratic convention, the organization’s founder, Julian Assange, foreshadowed the release — and made it clear that he hoped to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning the presidency.
Mr. Assange’s remarks in a June 12 interview underscored that for all the drama of the discord that the disclosures have sown among supporters of Bernie Sanders — and of the unproven speculation that the Russian government provided the hacked data to WikiLeaks in order to help Donald J. Trump — the disclosures are also the latest chapter in the long-running tale of Mr. Assange’s battles with the Obama administration.
In the interview, Mr. Assange told a British television host, Robert Peston of the ITV network, that his organization had obtained “emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication,” which he pronounced “great.” He also suggested that he not only opposed her candidacy on policy grounds, but also saw her as a personal foe.
At one point, Mr. Peston said: “Plainly, what you are saying, what you are publishing, hurts Hillary Clinton. Would you prefer Trump to be president?”
Mr. Assange replied that what Mr. Trump would do as president was “completely unpredictable.” By contrast, he thought it was predictable that Mrs. Clinton would wield power in two ways he found problematic…”.
It’s all there for us to see. At the moment of the June 12th interview, it’s likely that Assange had knowledge of the contents of the emails for over a month.
He chose, with malicious intent, to keep the emails secret until the Party’s Presidential nominees had been revealed. He wanted to prevent the Democratic Party from having a real chance to consider its nominee with a timely release of the full information. His claims that he is intentionally planning to continue to release emails he believes will be progressively more politically damaging makes this point even more clearly.
He is displaying no interest in pursuing revelations of corruption in the Republican Party, or in Trump’s personal, business or campaign affairs.
Trump’s likely actions as President are not “completely unpredictable.” He’s been very clear about what he wants to do, and what sentiments and ideologies motivate him, including repudiations of the policy views Assange claims to prioritize: press freedoms, state-sponsored violence and torture.
Read the interviews Assange has taken. He expresses generalized claims that he dislikes Trump, but that is pretty transparently an attempt to maintain a shred of credibility. He does not talk about corruption in the Republican Party or by Trump, or the need to reveal their information as well, or express any concern about Trump’s singular decision to refuse to release his tax returns, or talk about specific disapprovals of Trump’s campaign statements or personal affairs. If Assange were truly concerned about corruption and violence by the United States, all of these things and Trump’s direct repudiations of Assange’s primary policy advocacies would be expected to get a lot of attention from him in interviews.
There is literally no other way to interpret Assange’s very calculated actions than to observe that he not only aims to defeat Hillary Clinton’s campaign, he hopes to manipulate the American public in order to place Donald Trump in the White House.
As I wrote earlier, the kindest possible interpretation is that he is willing to be complicit in the worst policies Trump might execute, including being much worse on all of Assange’s claimed priorities, in exchange for the possibility that Trump might lead the American government to help him feel comfortable enough to leave the Ecuadorean Embassy.
It’s even worse. He potentially could have released these allegedly incriminating emails when the FBI had an open investigation and voters still had a chance to weigh the facts and select their nominee. But nope.. he wants to spread it out to cause maximal damage. That’s nefarious and a ‘screw you’ to the American public.
Yes, the primaries broke many brains and exposed others as buffoons.
I need a staple gun for my face.
oh dear. stay away from that staple gun, please!
The behavior of trying to determine who the chief executive of a foreign state will be?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#U.S._involvement
So, you’re Alvy’s father.
A fool.
That’s because you don’t really understand the magnitude of the threat Hillary poses to the republic.
“If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons”
I’d say it’s amazing, but I’ve seen enough here from that lot the past several months. They need anti-psychotic medication.
I actually have a little sympathy for Priebus. He mismanaged the primaries, to be sure, but now that he has Trump, he is probably sleeping very poorly.
Scotch whiskey in the cornflakes time? lol
the Priebus/Trump attempt to conflate emails using Hillary’s private server with DNC emails allegedly hacked by Russia and provided to wikileaks reminds me — vividly! — of the equally dishonest and reprehensible Bushie campaign to similarly conflate Saddam/Iraq with al Qaeda/9-11.
Over and over and over Bushies (including Bush!) just happened coincidentally to mention Saddam/Iraq and al Qaeda/9-11 in the same or consecutive sentences.
(Almost)* always taking care to avoid making the implied connection explicit.
Can there possibly be any credible competing hypothesis with the conclusion that this behavior was carefully thought-through and deliberate, or that its purpose was preserving “plausible deniability” (i.e., “Gosh no! We never claimed Saddam/Iraq were involved in/responsible for 9/11! We just endlessly implied as much!”) That the dolt dubya seemed to slip up once and forget that plan* just looks like the exception proving the rule to me.
*I think I recall seeing a quote in which dubya, apparently forgetting his instructions momentarily, at least arguably breached that firewall to make the intended implicit instead explicit. Anybody documenting that in the absence of sufficient motivation on my part to research it scores bonus points which can be redeemed for . . . well . . . almost nothing; but a “thank you”, anyway.
Good point. R is conflating DNC stuff with SofS stuff, hoping future mention of general “e-mail releases” will be connected to HC, not DNC.
FWIW — and as the bonus offer is too low for me to research this one — there was one time when GWB did specifically state link Iraq-Saddam to 9/11. Otherwise the Bush/Cheney team promulgated that propaganda by innuendo. Very effective because by the time they were ready to “get Saddam” and blow up Iraq, the percentage of Americans that believed that Saddam/Iraq had perpetrated the events of 9/11 was astronomically high.
the offered “bonus” sufficiently enticing!
“INsufficiently enticing”. Duh.
Should add that I followed that Bush-Cheney pairing of 9/11-Iraq somewhat closely in real time and appreciated what they were doing (a well known PR/propaganda tool) and at some point went back and verified that I had in fact seen GWB flub his line one time. So, I’m sharing my recollection of my review of my real time observation. I intended to or actually wrote and posted on this, and if the latte, I can’t recall when or where.
Richard “hair-on-fire” Clarke, holdover from Clinton admin whose warnings were almost entirely ignored in spite of his locks in flame.
Clarke’s report and description of Tenet’s “hair on fire.”
Interesting observation and certainly possible. Most citizens will easily conflate the two “Email-gates” and so forth.
Some truly troubling statements about Putin’s Russia. Of course, Russia Today is a propaganda outlet for Russian view on world news. Usually RT covers US politics quite closely en are quick on breaking news items. In addition, many of their articles are from renowned news outlets such as AP – Reuters – AFP owned by western corporations.
RT supplies Russian propaganda in similar fashion as US corporate media publishes western propaganda from Washington DC – London – Paris.
The DNC hack information has been circulating for months in hackers publications. Pointing the finger to Putin is an easy scapegoat to use. The Obama administration has cast source of hackers to either the Peking Chinese or Kremlin Russians very much according to the sign from the weather vane on top of the White House. I suspect Joe Biden, responsible for Cold War 2.0 policy, is personally involved in choosing the direction and claiming source of hacks. 😉
Yep, the Internet has become part of global warfare and the US is leading: read about the origin of Stuxnet.
○ Cyber Security: Guccifer 2.0
○ Docs release by Guccifer 2.0 – June 15, 2016
« click for more info
Yep, definitely a Russian hack --- tell-tale Cyrillic characters in text
[June 14th, Washington Post]
“DNC staffers were tipped to the hack in late April.”
If the people involved in this release wanted to reveal corruption as their primary goal, they would have released the emails months ago, before the Presidential nominees were established.
Instead, they waited until the nominees were determined.
The people involved with this release are displaying disinterest in revealing corruption within the Republican Party and the Trump campaign, or revelatory information in Trump’s tax returns, which he will not share.
Assange says his goal is to defeat Hillary Clinton’s Presidential campaign.
Therefore, Assange and his partners want Trump to be President. They are actively supportive of his clearly stated policy agenda. They want it all, including the crushing of the press.
From link in my post:
Back in December 2015 the Sanders campaign “tipped off” the DNC about their shoddy computer security, if I recall. And back then the DNC aka Hillary Campaign blamed Sanders.
It looks like Debbie’s nephew (who got the DNC computer contract) is as dumb as DWS herself.
Trump is much closer to the European view about economic cooperation with Putin …
○ Atlantic Council / NATO’s Yvo Daalder: Make Russia a Pariah State (2013)
I notice Dutch “en” for English “and” in your first paragraph! 🙂
Thx! Can’t fool them all the time … so fortunate the characters weren’t Arabic, or Hebrew or … Jahweh forbid, Cyrillic! Can’t be independent over the years and not show favoritism or a bias. 😉
Just a question: What isn’t NSA/CIA et al hacking? Rumors were that the Panama Papers was a CIA job in which they tried to connect Putin with corruption, although Putin’s name never actually shows up anywhere in the papers.
If the NSA hacks every email and phone call it wants overseas, it shouldn’t have been a surprise what they did domestically when that came out.
This is also a common propaganda technique called “bad-jacketing”. You know, Obama and that minister. You connect someone you want to attack with someone or something already considered bad. It happens frequently prior to US coups or invasions against foreign heads of state, probably because it’s easier to make people hate and fear a person rather than a country or a philosophy. My favorite example, stated in another thread, was the right-wing meme that Clinton had scheduled a round of golf with OJ Simpson. The story came out after the murders were announced. So you have Clinton the womanizer and abuser of women playing golf with the wife-beater and murderer. Whether or not Clinton ever planned to golf with Simpson is irrelevant. Propaganda isn’t about facts, it’s about emotions. If you can inflame someone’s hate by connecting him with someone else you who’s hated you have done your job.
So before you get indignant about Putin interfering wth our elections, write yourself a list of how many governments the US has interfered with since WWII.
Remember Russian 2011 elections? I’ll bet Putin does.
Politico — Why Putin hates Hillary
Speculative as to Putin/Russia being involved in the DNC hack/release (a point that few here and in the news are careful to note in their statements/comments, but not speculative as to what HRC said about the 2011 Russian election and that it found its way to protests in Moscow.
The Russian election may have been unfair (its not as if the USG doesn’t have enough spies around to make such a determination), and if so her statements were true. And Putin can suck on it. But the DNC emails are authentic. And therefore, no doubt exists as to the veracity of the content.
I’m not particularly indignant about Putin attempting to interfere with our elections. I’m indignant about Trump apparently trying to collude with Putin to interfere with our elections.
Exactly.
This isn’t about Putin.
It’s about Trump, and his nonchalant call for a foreign government to interfere with an election to help him win.
Putin is likely sitting at home doing massive amounts of curls or wrestling bears shirtless, grinning at just how clownish the 2016 elections are.
And yet, I’m supposed to just shrug this off, all so we can get back to the real story – Hillary Clinton’s CoronationTM and how she is going to start a shooting war with Russia while making matzo ball soup with the blood of TrueProgressives’ babies.
OK,
Your starting to piss me off now. There is just no way I can equal this.
.
Nonchalant:
“We came, we saw, he died.”
Gee, did the bombing of Libya affect the Libyan government? Or do you just get worked up when there’s an election going on?
Late forties: CIA arranges with the Guerini Gang in Marseilles to “end” the French Communists influence on the docks in exchange for what developed into The French Connection.
CIA spreads money around Italy to defeat communists who at the end of the war, like in France, were seen as the true patriots for fighting against the Nazis. Is that interference.
_
I just thought of the utter size of writing down every US interference in a foreign election and realize that it’s too daunting a task.
Apparently, nobody here at Booman has heard of this.
Oh, my bad Bob!
I forgot that we were changing the conversation to 1940s US involvement in foreign governments rather than Strongman Trump asking a foreign government to interfere with the current election going on, right now.
Here, let me now engage you in an off topic discussion so that we can stop discussing Trump and instead focus on shit that happened 70 years ago:
At the current moment we are engaging in regime change in Syria. Who gave us that right? Giving air support and weapons to the rebels in Libya destroyed the Libyan government. The US aided the coup in Ukraine.
If you don’t want to talk about the 40s, we can talk about the fifties (Iran, Guatemala), or the sixties (Vietnam, Indonesia, US, Brazil), seventies (Chile, Bolivia, Argentina), eighties (Nicaragua), nineties (Yugoslavia), the aughts (Afghanistan, Iraq), and our current decade (Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Honduras). These are just the highlights. Lots of little countries along the way.
If the Echelon and other NSA programs aren’t supposed to spy on Americans (they have), then who are they spying on? Are they looking at foreign emails? When the US spied on Merkel, how did you protest America interfering with other governments.
Hello? World to Nicholas?
There you go again, Bob.
Protip: stay on topic, or go rant at the clouds.
Thanks!
The spin is from the usual DNC-friendly sources.
So you’re not mad that the Clinton faction politicizes it, or that Putin (as if he’s right there behind the computer monitor typing away) did it. You don’t even seem to be outraged that, as Sanders supporters have been saying all along, the DNC was working against Sanders as that’s what those emails revealed.
You are mad because Trump made a joke about it, and it was a joke, saying maybe the Russians can find her lost emails.
Heck, here’s my add-on. Maybe the Russians can find transcripts of her speeches in front of Goldman Sachs.
The spin is from the usual DNC-friendly sources
Uh huh.
So you’re not mad that the Clinton faction politicizes it,
Nope. They’re politicians. Politicizing shit is their job.
or that Putin (as if he’s right there behind the computer monitor typing away) did it.
Not particularly. I expect foreign intelligence services to try to break into computers in the US to get information that advances their countries’ interests. That’s their job.
You don’t even seem to be outraged that, as Sanders supporters have been saying all along, the DNC was working against Sanders as that’s what those emails revealed.
Not particularly, because it’s not true that they revealed that, and even if they did, it’s pretty small ball stuff and the (terrible and dumb) head of the DNC was fired for it.
You are mad because Trump made a joke about it, and it was a joke, saying maybe the Russians can find her lost emails.
I don’t think it was a joke. I think you’re seeing what you want to see, just like you did with the emails.
It was a joke.
It’s unacceptable behavior from a Presidential candidate. Particularly a candidate who has made it to the general election. Particularly a candidate whose campaign chair has had a pro-Russian politician as his primary client for the past decade.
No amount of blathering on about Victoria Nuland or Bloodthirsty Hillary or Allen Dulles makes this acceptable behavior from a Presidential candidate.
I’m ashamed of the behavior on this thread.
“It was a joke”
Funny, that’s what an abusive bully always says to his target when he’s done or said something vicious and cruel and the target protests.
“It was just a joke! Whassamatta, can’t you take a joke? You’re such a crybaby!”
So when are you going to oppose all the coups that the US has engineered post-WWII? If it’s bullying to say that it was a joke and you say it’s bullying behavior, what’s making an issue of Sanders’ religion? Playtime? How about working with Nazis to overthrow the legally elected government of Ukraine? How about working with ISIS and al Qaeda to overthrow the Syrian and LIbyan governments?
Tell me what’s funny: If Trump saying that the Russians should release Clinton’s lost emails isn’t funny, was the release of the Panama Papers funny? Was spying on Merkel funny?
When the US overthrew the elected government in Guatemala in the fifties, did you think it was funny? Hundreds of thousands died for that one. How about the most recent coup in Honduras? Do you think that no one in DC deigned to read emails floating around before that happened?
If it’s bullying to say that it was a joke and you say it’s bullying behavior, what’s making an issue of Sanders’ religion?
That would have been bigoted and, sure, bullying, if the DNC had actually done it. Since they didn’t do it, it’s just a couple party hacks saying stupid shit in private email because they didn’t know the New York Times Rule.
All the rest of your examples are completely fucking irrelevant. You’re trying to deflect attention to Putin by arguing for moral equivalency because what Trump did is indefensible, as Trump himself is indefensible, and without a defense of Trump the case for electing Hillary Clinton is unanswerable.
How do you know they didn’t do it? About that time a lot of Clinton people in the webs did in fact raise Jewishness/atheism as a reason why Sanders wasn’t a desirable candidate.
Now there is no proof that someone at DNC actually spread the meme. Just like there’s even less proof that Russia had anything to do with releasing those DNC emails.
But this morning you were angry at Putin. So the propaganda worked. That’s all that matters. Not truth. Not even the contents. Just the emotion.
How do you know they didn’t do it?
Because no evidence has been presented that they did beyond your appeal
(provided without citation) to “a lot of Clinton people in the webs”. Also, it would have been an epic own-goal for the sake of beating a guy who was already beat.
But this morning you were angry at Putin.
No, last night I said I was “[n]ot particularly” angry at Putin, on the grounds that I don’t think it’s all that outrageous that he’d try to meddle in our elections in order to advance Russian interests. I am mad at Trump because he was all ready to help Putin do it.
Hell, you seemed to think I was somehow being unfair by being angry at Trump instead of Putin, Clinton and the DNC. The posts are right there, man.
Remember.
Bob and friends are SuperProgressives with all the best principles.
So, what they are going to do is deflect from what Trump said, and try to turn it into you hating Putin, or hating puppies, or cheering on Hillary’s future shooting war with Russia and all of the dead, dead babies Hillary, you, and I will be responsible for.
Because Bob and friends are SuperProgressives with all the best principles.
So where is your proof that Russia released those DNC emails?
I’ve been joking for months now that Trump is part of some nefarious Russian conspiracy. He kept praising Putin, the paper his son-in-law owns kept giving Russia good press when everyone else slammed them, little things like that.
I never, ever expected my joke conspiracy theory to show up as a big story in the mainstream media. Looks like plenty of other people noticed those little signs, too.
Never thought I’d see so many people on this site defending Donald Trump and the Russian government.
Rationalizing it that the US may have done something similar at some point or it’s not really a big deal or it hurts the DNC/Clinton so it can’t be all that bad or he, Trump, is a fool anyway so who cares or, or, or …
All very unprogressive and harmful to all the causes we at least claim to champion
it’s something, isn’t it? watching them defend this.
uh huh
uh huh
Seems like this primary season has caused brain damage for some posters. Hope its not irreversible, and they come to their senses in a few months.
Propane Jane @docrocktex26 Feb 1
Ignoring the impact of PBO’s opposition on the implementation of his agenda is ignoring the very mechanism by which racism infects govt.
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12256510/republican-party-trump-avik-roy
A Republican intellectual explains why the Republican Party is going to die
Updated by Zack Beauchamp
Jul 25, 2016, 8:50a
“CLEVELAND — Avik Roy is a Republican’s Republican. A health care wonk and editor at Forbes, he has worked for three Republican presidential hopefuls — Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Marco Rubio. Much of his adult life has been dedicated to advancing the Republican Party and conservative ideals.
But when I caught up with Roy at a bar just outside the Republican convention, he said something I’ve never heard from an establishment conservative before: The Grand Old Party is going to die.
“I don’t think the Republican Party and the conservative movement are capable of reforming themselves in an incremental and gradual way,” he said. “There’s going to be a disruption.”
Roy isn’t happy about this: He believes it means the Democrats will dominate national American politics for some time. But he also believes the Republican Party has lost its right to govern, because it is driven by white nationalism rather than a true commitment to equality for all Americans.
“Until the conservative movement can stand up and live by that principle, it will not have the moral authority to lead the country,” he told me.
…
“Goldwater’s nomination in 1964 was a historical disaster for the conservative movement,” Roy tells me, “because for the ensuing decades, it identified Democrats as the party of civil rights and Republicans as the party opposed to civil rights.”
…
The available evidence compiled by historians and political scientists suggests that 1964 really was a pivotal political moment, in exactly the way Roy describes.
Yet Republican intellectuals have long denied this, fabricating a revisionist history in which Republicans were and always have been the party of civil rights. In 2012, National Review ran a lengthy cover story arguing that the standard history recounted by Roy was “popular but indefensible.”
This revisionism, according to Roy, points to a much bigger conservative delusion: They cannot admit that their party’s voters are motivated far more by white identity politics than by conservative ideals.
“Conservative intellectuals, and conservative politicians, have been in kind of a bubble,” Roy says. “We’ve had this view that the voters were with us on conservatism — philosophical, economic conservatism. In reality, the gravitational center of the Republican Party is white nationalism.”…
if you’re going to quote a source, try putting it in blockquotes…it’s basic HTML …k?
< block quote > to open, < / block quote > to close……lose the spaces and you get
it’s a lot easier than yelling…:)
also if you use these [ ] at the opening and closing of links, it makes things a lot easier to read…ergo, this http://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12256510/republican-party-trump-avik-roy becomes source.
try it, you’ll like it and perhaps it’ll dial back the histrionics a bit.
heerin endth the lesson.
Thanks.
your […] tip works for http addresses but not for https addresses, just so people know.
Finally watched the convention speeches everyone is talking about. Michelle was my favorite. She didn’t look very happy to be there, but she was authentic. Halfway through I started thinking I could vote for her for president right now. And not because she’s beautiful. Because she’s badass.
Sander’s speech was good enough. I’d have preferred to see him there trying one last time to persuade delegates to vote for him and why than the go-along he did, but he declared for himself, and me, that what we did accomplish was a pretty damn good start, for once (and undoubtedly thanks to Michelle’s husband). So the money we gave wasn’t wasted.
Then I watched Bill (we used to call him young Bill, back when we were thirty-something). He spent the first five or ten minutes of his speech talking about when he met Hill at college. She looked like wicked wonder woman to him and he got very detailed in his reminiscence. I suppose these were the parts quoted from one of his biographies. Did anyone believe them then? I lost interest and came here.
Ahh, politics. You can’t beat it with a stick.
Dennis Kucinich:
Instead of directly addressing the leaked DNC memos which reveal attempts to subvert the Sanders movement, several top officials of the Clinton campaign have used identical talking points that Russia is responsible for making the emails public. This makes for a weird Clinton campaign mash-up of secret emails, State Department server vulnerabilities, alleged Russian hacking of an opaque US system and political manipulation by insiders. It would be truly funny, except it is anti-democratic.
Desperate to change the subject, and avoid a deeper discussion of a rigged system, the Clinton campaign is tapping the kind of Cold War themes which were popular in Hillary Clinton’s State Department. Last I checked, Vladimir Putin is not up for nomination at the DNC. And why should Americans have to depend on Russia to find out what is really going on inside our institutions?
Yes, changing the subject to Putin, rather than discussing Strongman Trump’s call for a foreign government to interfere with the current US election, is a desperate attempt to change the subject.
I am wholeheartedly agreeing with you on that one.
Well, if you want to talk about Putin, how about assembling some evidence? Thanking you in advance for your thorough analysis that Trump wasn’t making a joke.
Reading comprehension is your friend.
Get some.
A few years ago a “conspiracy theorist” was warning about Assange (and Snowden) being reactionary tools.
Guess he was right.
The arguments on this thread, most of them anyway, are generating more heat than light, and that is because two different issues are being confused.
The contents of DNC e-mails were leaked, and as a result, DWS got the sack. As far as the content, it doesn’t matter who the hackers were, just that they WERE hacked and then released. They said what they said. If the DNC did not consider the implications of the contents serious, they would not have sacked DWS. And I’m glad they did, it should have happened a long time ago. And they do vindicate what Sanders had been saying all along.
Second issue. As far as Russian hackers being behind this, and the idea that Trump has some strong connections with the Russian establishment, there is abundant evidence for it, including the fact that his campaign manager Paul Manafort has strong connections with the Russian establishment, including intelligence. And of course, it is extremely troubling that they are interfering in our election, and even worse that Trump is urging them to continue. Trump’s response is way off the charts, and I would urge people to take that very seriously.
Plus, the issue of Hillary’s e-mails is being deliberately confused with the issue of the DNC e-mails. I’m not sure who exactly is doing this. It may even be elements of our own intelligence, because the linked discussion between Binney and Ray McGovern, two American intelligence experts, embodies that confusion.
You don’t have to be an intelligence expert to understand the difference between Hillary’s server and the DNC server, Hillary’s e-mails and DNC e-mails. Many people here picked up on it immediately. So I see this as calculated disinformation, intended mainly for anti-Hillary purposes among low-information voters. I don’t know who originated it. It may be that Binney, though an expert, was misinformed on this particular issue. McGovern, many of whose writings I’ve read over the years, seems to be a good guy. But I don’t know. Very puzzling, this.
The hysterical allegations of nalbar, that “they” (meaning Sanders and his supporters) are covert Republicans, is more of the kind of assinine bullshit we’ve come to expect from him and his friends.
As far as seeing commies under every bed, Marie, let me just point out that the Russians in question are not commies but fascists.
Oh Lord!!!
Booman tribune is now officially Dkos Jr.!!!
What a bunch of bullshit above!!!
I am stepping away.
My boots need cleaning.
AG
That was one hell of a speech Obama just gave.
It really needs to be noted that the “30,000 missing emails” or “33,000 missing emails” that the secretary of state deleted from the account on her private server ARE NOT MISSING.
They were recovered by the FBI from the equipment last summer and since last week they’ve been in the process of being turned over to the state department for public release.
And there are only two or three thousand of them.
These are well known facts that everybody from the New York Times and Guardian on down appears to have forgotten. Trump may be a maniac, but he has done a great job of making us forget, and reviving this fake issue.
LOL Well everybody bit, didn’t they? Thanks.
Any evidence that Russia was in any way connected to this? I’m still waiting. I mean evidence beyond Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s nephew?
In 1980 when William Casey negotiated with Iranian representatives to hold onto the American hostages until after the election, was that better or worse than releasing DNC emails talking about attacking Sanders as a Jew/atheist?
When the CIA delivers bags of money to candidates overseas, is it better or worse than releasing DNC emails talking about attacking Sanders as a Jew/atheist?
Is destroying a political infrastructure by bombing and invasion for a reason which was a lie, is that better or worse than releasing DNC emails talking about attacking Sanders as a Jew/atheist?
Is supporting fascists in overthrowing the democratically elected government in Ukraine better or worse than releasing DNC emails talking about attacking Sanders as a Jew/atheist?
Is overthrowing Allende for Pinochet better or worse than releasing DNC emails talking about attackng Sanders as a Jew/atheist?
Was publishing the Panama Papers better or worse than releasing DNC emails talking about attacking Sanders as a Jew/atheist?
I’ve got hundreds of these.
Apparently, Booman is embracing the propaganda. How long until Boo’s son is eligible for the draft?