- Hillary and her team deliberately trying to trick the FBI by giving them a "slightly broader" set of emails [1]:
"What that means specifically is that they are going to turn over all the Blumenthal emails to the Committee that they hav along with some other HRC emails that include a slightly broader set of search terms than the original batch. That of course includes the emails Sid turned over that HRC didn't, which will make clear to them that she didn't have them in the first place, deleted them, or didn't turn them over."
- Purposefully witholding all emails that were between HRC and POTUS [2]:
"Think we should hold emails to and from potus? That's the heart of his exec privilege. We could get them to ask for that. They may not care, but I seems like they will."
- Evidence that the DNC purchased craigslist ads in attempt to frame Trump [3]
"We’re proud to maintain a “fun” and “friendly work environment, where the boss is always available to meet with his employees. Like it or not, he may greet you with a kiss on the lips or grope you under the meeting table. Interested applicants should send resume, cover letter, and headshot to
> Evidence that the DNC purchased craigslist ads in attempt to frame Trump
Is that actually evidence of an attempt to frame Trump? This is very clearly a fake ad. No one would see this and think it's real. This looks like a political ad in very poor taste.
I can't believe the complete media blackout of these emails. Maybe it has changed since a day or two ago, when I checked around, but here's how it stood:
- CNN: zero coverage. top story = Trump accused of groping
- MSNBC: zero coverage. top story = Trump accused of groping
- New York Times: actually mentioned the emails and a bit of their content...in an small article. Below the fold. Titled "Trump Finds Unusual Ally in Wikileaks" which was almost entirely about how Trump's campaign is pleased with the leak, actual content of the emails was only alluded to in a couple of sentences toward the very end of the article.
top story? Trump accused of groping.
My biggest disappointment was the Financial Times - I held out so much hope that they would actually have some integrity and report about these frankly huge stories. Nope. Zero coverage, top US politics story = Trump accused of groping.
The only places I saw that covered were Fox, drudgereport, and Breitbart. I saw RT.com had a story about them today but I don't know if they reported on it two days ago when I checked around.
I haven't seen anything like this outside of state-run newspapers like Pravda...it feels like everyone's taking crazy pills.
Maybe someone can just do an s/Clinton/Trump/g and send them to the Times?
The emails the article is talking about don't seem all that interesting. Basically, they show that the Obama organization and Democratic party officials were working on figuring out staffing well before the election.
I would hope that every competent Presidential candidate does that.
I was referring to the email dump in general. There are enormous stories in there, any one of which if they involved Trump instead of Clinton would be front page top story, no question.
With regard to the specific subset of emails OP's article refers to, I believe the big deal is that a Citigroup executive basically had his pick of all these positions.
That's really the only glimmer of hope I've seen through all this. There was a report I saw somewhere that people were experiencing unprecedented physical stress during this election season, and I believe it: seeing stuff like this everywhere you turn really does to an extent make you feel like you're going crazy.
You know, instead of assuming a vast conspiracy, you could use regular ol' common sense.
On the one hand we have an email dump that, while there seems to be some amount of smoke, doesn't itself represent much of a fire. Just the usual Clinton crap: lots of shady stuff that rides the line of ethics, and veers pretty far into a inside political baseball.
On the other, we have a wildly controversial presidential candidate caught talking about sexually assaulting women, followed by women coming out and saying he actually did it.
Based purely on the assumption that news == entertainment, which story do you think will get the headlines?
> On the one hand we have an email dump that, while there seems to be some amount of smoke, doesn't itself represent much of a fire. Just the usual Clinton crap: lots of shady stuff that rides the line of ethics, and veers pretty far into a inside political baseball.
You do not seem to be very familiar with them.
>On the other, we have a wildly controversial presidential candidate caught talking about sexually assaulting women
Demonstrably false. Say what you want about the unsavory nature of the quote, the only way it can refer to sexual assault is if you willfully omit the last part of the quote (" they let you do it.")
> followed by women coming out and actually saying he did it
Then followed by several witnesses who came out and said "I was there, and nothing remotely close to this happened." These were also to my knowledge not reported in the mainstream media with the exception of the New York Post, which covered the witness to the allegations of sexual assault on a plane.
> Based purely on the assumption that news == entertainment, which story do you think will get the headlines?
My issue wasn't that they weren't getting the same font size as the groping allegations - my issue is that they aren't getting covered AT ALL.
So do I believe the stories contained in the wikileaks dumps are more newsworthy than "Donald Trump got fresh with me 30 years ago (and do me a favor and ignore anyone who says otherwise? kthx)"? ...Yeah, I don't think it's much of a stretch to say they are.
Or again, you could "use regular ol' common sense" and ask yourself 'If I replaced the name 'Clinton' with the name 'Trump' in this case, would the outcome be the same?"
If you don't think so, I'll give you my Skype username so you can look me in the eye and tell me the media wouldnt pounce on a story of Trump's campaign manager complaining about "needy Latinos"
> the only way it can refer to sexual assault is if
> you willfully omit the last part of the quote ("
> they let you do it.")
There's a difference between consenting and merely not calling the police. If my dog craps on your doorstep and I leave it there, you won't be happy about it. You probably won't stab me or call the police though. That's how I read the "they let you do it" quote.
If I leave dog poop on your doorstep and you don't do anything to me, I could say that you let me do it. That doesn't mean I didn't do anything wrong.
You don't have to call the cops for it to be sexual assault. You don't even have to physically resist. If someone kisses you or touches you in a sexual way without your permission then it's sexual assault. It's that simple.
> There's a difference between consenting and merely not calling the police...That's how I read the "they let you do it" quote.
So yeah...grasping at straws.
> If someone kisses you or touches you in a sexual way without your permission then it's sexual assault. It's that simple.
Which if we take at face value then every single teen boy has committed sexual assault, starting with the "yawn and put your arm around her" move.
As the saying goes, "If everybody's guilty of everything, then nobody's guilty of anything."
But we need to be careful not to conflate two issues here: suppose we even had iron-clad proof that he did it and was unapologetic and planned to do it again next Thursday, there is zero excuse for the press's near-complete silence on the Clinton emails.
I'm not pretending to offer a theory as to why this lack of coverage is occurring - just mentioning it as a data point.
There's no disputing that Trump isn't fit for the Presidency but this whole groping thing is being orchestrated. He said some dumb sh*t years ago and now they're literally paying people to come forward and say he groped them.
Add to the fact that in the emails there's evidence that Scalia was murdered and people should be sitting up and taking notice.
That's the disturbing thing, not Soros buying the presidency, not Scalia been murdered, not Trump been framed, not Hillary's corruption, not the invasion in Syria etc etc but the simple fact that most people either don't care or are just oblivious this is even happening.
Wikileaks has become a weapon of information warfare. What part of the cache was doctored? What was left out? The big publications know that and won't be provoked. This is an admirable move by Russians: they steer the campaign as well as rob Wikileaks of any merit it has for the society.
> What part of the cache was doctored? What was left out? The big publications know that and won't be provoked.
This is a very good point.
However, I don't think it applies in this case, since for this to be true, it would imply that had this been Trump's campaign manager's email account that was hacked with similar Trump-related campaign revelations contained in it, the mainstream media would refuse to report it for the same reason.
21 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 55.6 ms ] thread- Hillary and her team deliberately trying to trick the FBI by giving them a "slightly broader" set of emails [1]:
"What that means specifically is that they are going to turn over all the Blumenthal emails to the Committee that they hav along with some other HRC emails that include a slightly broader set of search terms than the original batch. That of course includes the emails Sid turned over that HRC didn't, which will make clear to them that she didn't have them in the first place, deleted them, or didn't turn them over."
- Purposefully witholding all emails that were between HRC and POTUS [2]:
"Think we should hold emails to and from potus? That's the heart of his exec privilege. We could get them to ask for that. They may not care, but I seems like they will."
- Evidence that the DNC purchased craigslist ads in attempt to frame Trump [3]
"We’re proud to maintain a “fun” and “friendly work environment, where the boss is always available to meet with his employees. Like it or not, he may greet you with a kiss on the lips or grope you under the meeting table. Interested applicants should send resume, cover letter, and headshot to
jobs@trump.com<mailto:jobs@trump.com>"
1. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9272
2. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9545
3. https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12803
Is that actually evidence of an attempt to frame Trump? This is very clearly a fake ad. No one would see this and think it's real. This looks like a political ad in very poor taste.
Between 2003 and 2009, the Bush White House “lost” 22 million emails.
Like Clinton, the Bush White House used a private email server—its was owned by the Republican National Committee.
----
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controv...
----
The reason the GOP can't get scandal traction is it has done every one of these things in the past.
Guys, it's been like 10-16 years (depending on the scandal).
We haven't forgotten yet.
- CNN: zero coverage. top story = Trump accused of groping
- MSNBC: zero coverage. top story = Trump accused of groping
- New York Times: actually mentioned the emails and a bit of their content...in an small article. Below the fold. Titled "Trump Finds Unusual Ally in Wikileaks" which was almost entirely about how Trump's campaign is pleased with the leak, actual content of the emails was only alluded to in a couple of sentences toward the very end of the article.
top story? Trump accused of groping.
My biggest disappointment was the Financial Times - I held out so much hope that they would actually have some integrity and report about these frankly huge stories. Nope. Zero coverage, top US politics story = Trump accused of groping.
The only places I saw that covered were Fox, drudgereport, and Breitbart. I saw RT.com had a story about them today but I don't know if they reported on it two days ago when I checked around.
I haven't seen anything like this outside of state-run newspapers like Pravda...it feels like everyone's taking crazy pills.
Maybe someone can just do an s/Clinton/Trump/g and send them to the Times?
I would hope that every competent Presidential candidate does that.
With regard to the specific subset of emails OP's article refers to, I believe the big deal is that a Citigroup executive basically had his pick of all these positions.
What's the big story here?
On the one hand we have an email dump that, while there seems to be some amount of smoke, doesn't itself represent much of a fire. Just the usual Clinton crap: lots of shady stuff that rides the line of ethics, and veers pretty far into a inside political baseball.
On the other, we have a wildly controversial presidential candidate caught talking about sexually assaulting women, followed by women coming out and saying he actually did it.
Based purely on the assumption that news == entertainment, which story do you think will get the headlines?
You do not seem to be very familiar with them.
>On the other, we have a wildly controversial presidential candidate caught talking about sexually assaulting women
Demonstrably false. Say what you want about the unsavory nature of the quote, the only way it can refer to sexual assault is if you willfully omit the last part of the quote (" they let you do it.")
> followed by women coming out and actually saying he did it
Then followed by several witnesses who came out and said "I was there, and nothing remotely close to this happened." These were also to my knowledge not reported in the mainstream media with the exception of the New York Post, which covered the witness to the allegations of sexual assault on a plane.
> Based purely on the assumption that news == entertainment, which story do you think will get the headlines?
My issue wasn't that they weren't getting the same font size as the groping allegations - my issue is that they aren't getting covered AT ALL.
So do I believe the stories contained in the wikileaks dumps are more newsworthy than "Donald Trump got fresh with me 30 years ago (and do me a favor and ignore anyone who says otherwise? kthx)"? ...Yeah, I don't think it's much of a stretch to say they are.
Or again, you could "use regular ol' common sense" and ask yourself 'If I replaced the name 'Clinton' with the name 'Trump' in this case, would the outcome be the same?"
If you don't think so, I'll give you my Skype username so you can look me in the eye and tell me the media wouldnt pounce on a story of Trump's campaign manager complaining about "needy Latinos"
If I leave dog poop on your doorstep and you don't do anything to me, I could say that you let me do it. That doesn't mean I didn't do anything wrong.
You don't have to call the cops for it to be sexual assault. You don't even have to physically resist. If someone kisses you or touches you in a sexual way without your permission then it's sexual assault. It's that simple.
So yeah...grasping at straws.
> If someone kisses you or touches you in a sexual way without your permission then it's sexual assault. It's that simple.
Which if we take at face value then every single teen boy has committed sexual assault, starting with the "yawn and put your arm around her" move.
As the saying goes, "If everybody's guilty of everything, then nobody's guilty of anything."
But we need to be careful not to conflate two issues here: suppose we even had iron-clad proof that he did it and was unapologetic and planned to do it again next Thursday, there is zero excuse for the press's near-complete silence on the Clinton emails.
I'm not pretending to offer a theory as to why this lack of coverage is occurring - just mentioning it as a data point.
Except if you actually read the emails, you'd see the bigger picture. Clinton's people are setting him up, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12715664 and http://nypost.com/2016/10/14/trump-camp-puts-forward-witness...
There's no disputing that Trump isn't fit for the Presidency but this whole groping thing is being orchestrated. He said some dumb sh*t years ago and now they're literally paying people to come forward and say he groped them.
Add to the fact that in the emails there's evidence that Scalia was murdered and people should be sitting up and taking notice.
That's the disturbing thing, not Soros buying the presidency, not Scalia been murdered, not Trump been framed, not Hillary's corruption, not the invasion in Syria etc etc but the simple fact that most people either don't care or are just oblivious this is even happening.
Wait what?
This is a very good point.
However, I don't think it applies in this case, since for this to be true, it would imply that had this been Trump's campaign manager's email account that was hacked with similar Trump-related campaign revelations contained in it, the mainstream media would refuse to report it for the same reason.
And I don't believe that for a tenth of a second.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯