Yes go listen to the women.

Your will have to go to alternative media since main stream media are in bed with Hillary to get her elected, per Wikileaks

New October Wikileaks Publications Wreck Hillary Clinton's Campaign - The Podesta Email Dump

@eric3579, I agree with you. Hillary's reputation took a big hit after the DNC Leaks broke during the convention.

@newtboy, here's how I think of the campaign. (Please pardon me for this silly fable. I just kinda got writing and my creative side just sorta took over, and I just kinda had fun with it.)

.. ..

As the primary campaign advanced it was clear that Scissors was the front runner in the Rep's side. Unless something changed drastically, he would be become the nominee.

On the Dem’s side, the race was not yet decided. Rock was behind, but not by much. He was quickly closing in on Paper’s lead. Rock was hoping that his strategy of being consistent over time would prevail and win him votes. In the beginning Paper had taken off an airplane. Laughing at how slow Rock was to gain speed. But now Paper’s once comfortable head start was being called into question. Could Rock’s momentum grow fast enough to overtake her?

Paper had gone through extensive planning (on paper) long before the election. Paper wanted to keep news of Rock from reaching the voters. The idea as was to keep Rock "covered over" to the point that many of voters just didn't know about him. They just saw the old familiar name of "Paper" on the ballot and went with that. They had little or no exposure to Rock.

Rock was on a roll, and it was clear that it was gathering no moss.

Since so many voters relied on “traditional” media for information, it wasn’t too difficult to keep pro-Paper ads on the radio, and television, and in newspapers. It was expensive, but Paper seemed to have an unlimited supply of money to fund the campaign. It was almost like Paper had bought the press...

Though Rock started to break through into the areas that Paper had been dominant, the Strategy worked. Rocks downhill momentum wasn’t able to fully catch Paper’s airplane—head-start.

Paper would win the primary and go on to face Scissors in the general.

But at the Democratic Candidate Coronation Ceremony, something terrible happened!

It turns out that someone was keeping a paper-trail on Paper’s dealings. Paper had written many correspondences, and many of those letters had reached the hands of Wikileaks, which had finally chosen to publish the secrets!

The strategies Paper had used to ensure victory over Rock—the Cover-Up Campaign—were revealed. The fundraising done by The Paper Foundation to keep money flowing around laws were becoming clear.

And each week and new secret seemed to drip onto Paper’s hat…

What happens next? We don’t know. There are so many questions! Could a boat float if made of Panama Papers? How deep will the leaks get? What other secrets will be revealed before the final election? Will Paper win over former Rock supporters now that the reality of the Cover-Up-Campaign had been uncovered? Who will win the final election? Can Paper beat Scissors?

Could Scissors have been secretly helping Paper out behind the scenes out of a fear of facing Rock? Could Paper have been helping Scissors in the early parts of his primary campaign out of a fear of facing Ben Carson?

Tune in again for out next episode of House of Cards I mean Rock-Paper-Scissors to find out!

//

//

Okay, I hope you read that with in the lighthearted voice it was intended. And I’m not hiding my bias. This story was mostly about Paper—who (at first) I thought would be a fine second choice.

(I was rooting for Rock the whole time! I liked they way he rolled!)

Trump was Scissors: Wouldn't hesitate to cut his opponents with his uh.. 'wit.'
Sanders was Rock: Consistent over time. (Not blown around by the wind)
Hillary was like Paper: Thin, like her integrity.

I'm shocked, shocked to find that the Democrats are corrupt.

How about if an American citizen helps Daesh? Do they deserve to be outed? If so, you have no argument, just anger. (to clarify, I think it's bad that some names of American sympathizers/informants were released, but keep in mind that WikiLeaks is not American, so has no obligation to capitulate to our wishes or to put our interests above those of the Afghanis)

The rape claim is clearly false and a purely political ploy to put him in jail for a false charge because they can't put him in jail for what he's actually done to the governments that created the charge. Repeating it as if it were a fact instead of a blatant lie is bullshit and is a big slap in the face of all those who've actually been raped.

Golden quote from McFuckface Wikileak rapist who is hiding from the law:

But there is a responsible tradition of redacting potentially harmful private information. In 2010, just before publishing the first Afghan war logs provided to WikiLeaks by Chelsea Manning, Mr. Assange and a group of journalists from The Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel were engaged in a tussle over redacting the names of Afghan informants. The three publications all decided to do so, but Mr. Assange disagreed. As he told Nick Davies of The Guardian, “If an Afghan civilian helps coalition forces, he deserves to die.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/opinion/can-we-trust-julian-assange-and-wikileaks.html?emc=edit_ty_20160808&nl=opinion&nlid=40977923

This need for folks to be squeaky clean is, excuse me, childish.

Good lord. Look at all the cliches there are around politics. It's a dirty business. Has been forever.

What HAS been said repeatedly, including in this clip, is that THERE IS NOTHING THERE.

I LOVED seeing asshat WikiLeak McFuckface squirm when Maher asked him to discuss the difference between transparency and privacy.

So many "let the system blow up" people are often fierce about privacy issues -- until it suits them to not care about it.

Those emails had nothing. People being people in private convos between co-workers.

I think it is stupid to whine about the email leaks "unfairly" damaging Hillary's campaign.

The DNC could have easily avoided the fallout / resignations / etc. by simply not doing shady, underhanded shit. When you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, don't bitch about who snitched on you -- a better response would be to learn that you can't get caught if you don't do anything wrong.


Sorta reminds me of earlier in the campaign when Hillary complained that it was unfair for people to want to see her transcripts of paid speeches given to Wall Street banks. She said that other candidates weren't expected to do that, so it was an unfair double standard. Bernie Sanders response was great -- he said he'd be 100% willing to hand over any of his transcripts, except for one minor problem: he never made any paid speeches to Wall Street banks.


With regards to Wikileaks, I have zero problems with how they handled things and don't care at all who their source was -- Russia, some other very biased source with a clear agenda to damage Hillary, whatever. The only thing that matters is, are the emails true / legit? I haven't heard anyone suggest that they aren't; just bitching about it being "unfair" that all the dirt is on Hillary and the DNC.

Wikileaks relies on sources. You know, leakers. I'm confident that if they had dirt on Trump or any other candidate, they'd put it out there. But Wikileaks can't make candidates or parties do questionable shit, and even when candidates or parties do do questionable shit, they still need someone to catch them and then leak the information to Wikileaks.

Sometimes, if they don't have any dirt on somebody, it might be because there isn't any dirt to be had... Just like Sanders' transcripts of Wall Street speeches.

Eh... Sanders lost. It's probably impossible to prove that he would have won even if there wasn't election fraud--which is quite possible.

@Januari: ad hominem again, huh? How astute.

@newtboy: The talking head in this video isn't as funny as he thinks he is, but at least some of his facts check out.

What there is for actual election fraud is (AFAIK) on a correlation level, that doesn't quite prove things. The wikileaks email release however does prove a slanted bias within the DNC.

Article: Clinton Does Best Where Voting Machines Flunk Hacking Tests

Article: DNC Leak Shows Mechanics of a Slanted Campaign

You'd also confirm the pickpocket was guilty, wouldn't you? Well I would - I don't just believe everything I see or hear. I didn't mention it explicitly because I expect everyone to question all of their sources all of the time, like I do. But I don't see how that would make it make less sense, rather that it is more or less accurate of a comparison...? anyway.

In light of that, I think my example not only makes sense but is more valid than yours because yours introduces feelings and bias towards the involved parties that only make metaphorical sense if you refer to jingoistic crap about blindly loyal American nationalism and fear/hatred of Russians somehow. Which is kind of the point I'm questioning in the first place; there is a huge difference between 'applying reasonable doubt to your sources' (your point) and using the Russian excuse to ignore the actual problem (my point).

Also has there ever been an American intelligence leak/failure that was NOT linked to the Russians? I hope we're not reverting to the kind of cold war style paranoia that 10 years ago we would have laughed at around here. Somewhere there's a flow chart in the White House that has 12 boxes on one side listing possible internal failures and fuck ups and they all point to one box on the other side saying "Blame Russia".

If you're genuinely worried about the source making the leak up and it all being just faked, you best take that up with Wikileaks. They have a very robust reputation, the kind that you don't earn easily. It doesn't make them right, but it means you have to make a strong point against them. I feel like it wouldn't be all that hard for anyone with the clearance to check and confirm if it was a Russian fabrication, and then a story confirming Wikileaks was talking bullshit, releasing Russian propaganda, would be huge news.

RT is literally called Russia Today a wholly sponsored media channel of the Kremlin, it's like the Fox News of Putin.

Julian Assange is waging a personal war against the Obama/Clinton administration, some Australian hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy because he won't face rape allegations in Sweden shouldn't be the one to dictate how the American people should vote.

He is implying that Clinton blaming the email leak on Russians means that she will be terrible at foreign policy not mentioning that 3 separate cyber security firms found traces indicating the hack was carried out by Russians. It's so sensitive now. They release proof Russia is dabbling with US elections how will the American people react?

Selectively releasing damaging information against one candidate against another is not just some idealistic truth to power its manipulation of elections. I wouldn't mind if BOTH the DNC and RNC emails get released but this is a very one-sided attack. But think what that scenario even implies. Should all federal government briefings be open to the public because WikiLeaks says so?

Where are the WikiLeaks on Russia's war in Ukraine? Or the assassination of Boris Nemtsov?

This year's election cycle was like a game of rock/paper/scissors.

Sanders (was) Rock (consistent over time)
Trump is Scissors (not afraid to cut people with his wit)
Clinton is Paper (thin, like her integrity)

And now with the weight of this wikileaks' reveal of the corruption surrounding the Clinton campaign's back-room plans to keep "Rock" off the ballot--by covering it up so that the voters don't realize they have a better option--All they see is paper.

American voters are in an interesting choice indeed: A fraud, or... whatever the other one is.

@bareboards2

I've been operational in a war-zone. Shot at twice, and in a Mexican standoff once, but I never fired my own weapon.

Fact is, other developed nations manage just fine (for the most part) when it comes to things like this. It doesn't help that the US has never and probably will never allow any member of the forces to be prosecuted internationally for war crimes.

I know someone who was in Italy many years ago when a US plane decided to buzz underneath the wires of a gondola (the mountain kind, not the Venice kind, obviously). The tail of the plane caught on the wire and 12 people died, including a few children. There was no criminal prosecution for the pilot, crew, or commanding officers. I mean, just look at all the Wikileaks files on war crimes committed by US soldiers, barely any of them received any kind of judicial review (if any at all did, I never heard of them) including indiscriminate killing of random civilians.

Like it or not, that's a part of the US military culture and they worked hard to make things that way. In Vietnam it was estimated that one in a million shots fired from small arms actually HIT an enemy combatant. They learned it was because fewer than one in ten soldiers even TRIED to hit.

On top of that, the pay is so terrible, it's mostly those desperate to lift themselves and their family out of abject poverty that apply for enlisted positions. They are not well-educated and they are certainly not (for the most part) intelligent, hard-working individuals. The US chooses to spend the vast bulk of military spending on technology, rather than people (after all, it's easier to give kickbacks to your political donors that way).

Well, this is the result. A military with no fear of repercussions unless you're one of the poor scapegoats at Abu Ghraib (and if you think they represent even one tenth of the total personnel involved, you're out to lunch) and you're dumb enough to take pictures of yourself, there's pretty much nothing you can do to the 'enemy' that will get you in serious trouble.

Why do you think the Brits insisted on their own zones of Iraq for the second gulf war? In the first one they fought alongside Americans and suffered more casualties from American fire than they did from Iraqi fire. I talked to a Brit armored officer who was in the first gulf war. He went to introduce himself to the colonel of the American unit next to them, the Colonel stared in amazement at the Scorpion light tank and said, "What the hell kind of Bradley is that?" I can guarantee you, every soldier, from Private to the Colonel of my regiment could have identified every armored vehicle on the battlefield.

"Can [They] be so insanely sheltered that they think her 'answers' help her?"

If you piece together all of her statements on a plethora of different topics, it is inescapably obvious that they (!) truly have no connection to anyone or anything outside their bubble. Surrounded by sycophants as the Clintons are, people have wondered, and justifiably so, whether she cares or even knows that she's lying on a regular basis. One might make the case that the entire concept of an objective "truth", connected to reality, has no meaning for them.

Additionally, she really does suck at campaigning. But that's not punishable by extended prison sentences, unlike, I don't know, sending Special Access Program (SAP) info through your own bloody email server.

Lastly, Joe mentions Powell (6:16 onwards). When Colin Powell was SoS, his office was connected to the internal system, but had no connection to the internet or the outside world in general. You can't get shit done that way, not in this day and age. That's why he had additional gear set up to at least send and receive emails. This was done separate from the internal network and, if I remember correctly, his entire staff was not only open about it every step of the way, they applied for and received special permissions before they touched anything.

Clinton didn't give a jar of cold piss about the rules that are meant to safeguard access to sensitive information. It was inconvenient to her, and since the rules and laws only apply to plebs, she and her posse set up their own system.

A whole lot of people have to adhere to tedious rules and procedures, with severe punishment looming just around the corner. One guy was in the press for receiving three years of prison after he placed a document on the wrong desk. So, if the FBI drags out the investigation or even buries it, you can bet your ass that a lot of people at different agencies are going to be fuming. And between the FBI, the NSA and CIA, a lot of people have access to the remaining emails from Clinton's server. That opens Clinton up to blackmail, a lot of it. Can't have a compromised president. Not to mention that someone's going to take the data and just drop it over at WikiLeaks or the Intercept.

Let me quote the Grauniad: "While much of the leaked material will remain private, there are compelling reasons for publishing some of the data."

Translation: no worries, chumps, we'll keep your tax evasion hidden good and proper.

Maybe WikiLeaks will come to the rescue at some point and publish the raw data.

Edit: As Craig Murray puts it, Corporate Media Gatekeepers Protect Western 1% From Panama Leak