[Discussion] What's Clinton Done?

This thread is intended to provide a central point for extended discussions of the Clintons, especially Hillary, and their past and present actions and the effects of those actions. Please use this instead of clogging up election and future political threads with derails. Accusations with evidence, and defenses with evidence, are welcome here, as well as reference articles and personal anecdotes.

Seriously, dumping a list of 600 things here with no commentary on what *you* think about them, no discussion of provenance or issues with the source, and a two word conclusion followed by a personal attack on a candidate? FSeven, I'm not feeling your discussion here. What are we supposed to do, go through every one of 600 assertions and discuss them? Ignore the source? Try to psychic out what you think and don't think? You're just going to yank us around by the nose for individual responses. Where's your discussion?

Put some discussion skin in the game, dude. Pick a few points from the list that you find compelling, put up your take on why we should find them credible, and take your kudos or lumps appropriately, like the rest of us do.

Dropping a 600 point spreadsheet is not discussion, to me anyway.

FSeven wrote:

What hasn't Clinton done?

Here's an archived Google spreadsheet chronicling everything we've learned from Wikileaks. It's updated daily as new things are found and currently lists over 600. Gross corruption.

This witch needs to hang.

So I addressed this document in one of the other political threads and you didn't respond:

Have you actually read the emails linked to these various instances of "corruption"? Because this google doc is full of Trumpian conspiracies and fabricated crimes. People have clearly been reading through the wikileak emails, seizing upon one or two keywords, and then adding a link with a misleading or completely made up accusation, unsupported by the text.

My favorite is "Hillary’s own advisor blamed Hillary for Benghazi", a claim that briefly appeared on a Russian state-run news site and was repeated by Trump, despite being obviously false to anyone who reads the email in question.

If you have specific examples from the document, then post them. Overall, the document is like reading through /r/The_Donald on reddit.

Sam Harris has a conversation with Andrew Sullivan on his podcast that is a rational, tin-foil-hat-less deep dive into why the Clintons are so reviled. Neither of them are fans of Clinton, but both are still absolutely voting for her as an "overwhelmingly lesser of two evils", because Trump.

I'm only an hour into a two hour podcast, but it's good listening, particularly as a filthy foreigner who wasn't in this country, nor paying much attention to politics, in the 90s.

WipEout wrote:

Honestly, especially given the lack of context that "two positions" quote keeps getting thrown about with, I just can't read into it any more than saying "people don't want to see how the sausage gets made."

And they don't. I mean, honestly-- aside from people who would like to be involved in politics beyond only presidential elections, no one else cares how our democracy works on a daily basis.

And besides that, I haven't met a person yet who's brought up that quote without an agenda or negative opinion already. Like, seriously-- what do you expect-- that a politician is going to give a speech to their base, then immediately carry that speech into the meeting room and give the exact same speech to opposing politicians? No, you tell your base what you're all working towards, then you go tell your opponents that you're not likely to change their minds, but you can at least come to a mutually beneficial compromise. Problem being, the Public doesn't want to hear about compromise any more than they want to know that their hot dogs are made of lips and assholes.

It's funny you should say that, because the citation in full actually includes a mention of "sausage being made".

Hillary Clinton wrote:

You just have to sort of figure out how to — getting back to that word, “balance” — how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that’s not just a comment about today. That, I think, has probably been true for all of our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln, and how he was maneuvering and working to get the 13th Amendment passed, and he called one of my favorite predecessors, Secretary Seward, who had been the governor and senator from New York, ran against Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need your help to get this done. And Seward called some of his lobbyist friends who knew how to make a deal, and they just kept going at it. I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position. And finally, I think — I believe in evidence-based decision making. I want to know what the facts are. I mean, it’s like when you guys go into some kind of a deal, you know, are you going to do that development or not, are you going to do that renovation or not, you know, you look at the numbers. You try to figure out what’s going to work and what’s not going to work. [Clinton Speech For National Multi-Housing Council, 4/24/13]

It's *not* being interested in the daily machinery of politics and policy that has allowed politicians to operate without transparency and accountability.

Yale Record refuses to endorse Hillary Clinton.

In its 144-year history, The Yale Record has never endorsed a Democratic candidate for president. In fact, we have never endorsed any candidate for president. This is, in part, due to our strong commitment to being a tax-exempt 501(c)3 organization, which mandates that we are “absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.”

This year’s presidential election is highly unusual, but ultimately no different: The Yale Record believes both candidates to be equally un-endorsable, due to our faithful compliance with the tax code.

In particular, we do not endorse Hillary Clinton's exemplary leadership during her 30 years in the public eye. We do not support her impressive commitment to serving and improving this country —a commitment to which she has dedicated her entire professional career. Because of unambiguous tax law,, we do not encourage you to support the most qualified presidential candidate in modern American history, nor do we encourage all citizens to shatter the glass ceiling once and for all by electing Secretary Clinton on November 8.

The Yale Record has no opinion whatsoever on Dr. Jill Stein.

—The Editorial Board of The Yale Record

After reading more carefully, several times I can see the attempt at sarcasm (you would think I couldn't miss it)

farley3k wrote:

?

So the are very clearly throwing their support to trump by going out of their way to say how they hate clinton. Is anyone fooled by the "non-endorsement"

I realize it was difficult to parse, as the words probably got garbled by the magazine's tongue being so firmly planted in it's cheek.

farley3k wrote:

?

So the are very clearly throwing their support to trump by going out of their way to say how they hate clinton.

Uhhh, no. The opposite, in fact.

farley3k wrote:

?

So the are very clearly throwing their support to trump by going out of their way to say how they hate clinton. Is anyone fooled by the "non-endorsement"

I read that as they are trying to be clever in a tongue in cheek fashion.

"That" being the not an endorsement from that Yale thing listed above.

Try these ones OG.

Clinton campaign colluding with State Dept. over email scandal.

Skirting finance campaign laws.

Her staff confirms Obama knew of her emails and didn't "learn about it from the news" as he stated. Obama lied.

She accepts donations from private prison firms.

Her own campaign staff worried about her mental state.

Champion of TPP which would be the most detrimental trade deal to the US since NAFTA.

Clinton Campaign making decision on TPP based on how to minimize voter loss. Not on policy merit or benefts. They admit she will vote for TPP regardless of any concessions received from labor.

They have to decide whether her explanation on why she stayed married to Bill was sufficient. Apparently Hillary is such a blank slate that they even have to choose what words she says about her marriage.


Great one talking about how she has no voter support, has given secret attack scripts against Bernie to her surrogates, talking about how to handle Bernie and admission that she co-opted Bernie's policies and has no actual policies of her own, discussion on how no one likes Hillary enough to work for free, and proof that she lies about why she wants to become President.

Hints as to why Correct the Record's paid posting campaigns were needed for Reddit and Facebook. Clinton doesn't have enough real, passionate supporters who "give enough of a damn" to actively cheer and support her.

Jake Sullivan, policymaker and top foreign policy advisor to Clinton's 2016 campaign, suggesting that Clinton takes bribes for crafting laws.

Neera Tanden's response to Jake Sullivan's email? That HRC is tainted on that topic. She is "really vulnerable" on corruption, according to her own staff.

Her own campaign criticizing her desire to use big corporate marketing which results in unwanted leaks.

Evidence of handing out government positions of power as token race/gender appointments.

HRC campaign forced LinkedIn to give "influencer" status to campaign staff.

US Ambassador to Finland bribed CLintons for his post.

Hillary deleted emails and colluded with reporter at the AP to manipulate public opinion before turning over emails to Congress.

DNC and Clinton Campaign had a joint bank account. The primaries were rigged from the beginning. Bernie never had a chance.

Hillary suggesting that campaign finance laws are useless and what should be done. Podesta says to raise lots more money.


Neera Tanden, political activist, domestic policy adviser and the President of Center for American Progress, talking about using "brown & women" media shills to bully NY Times into being less harsh on Hillary.

Podesta agreeing that Obama's Iran deal will bring nuclear war to the Persian Gulf.

Connection between Teneo and Clinton Foundation. This is important because when top Bill Clinton aide Doug Band wrote the memo, he was a central player at the Clinton Foundation as well as President of his own consulting firm. If you view the attachment on the email, you will see that it's basically Doug Band making a case that his multiple roles best serve the interests of the Clinton family and the Clinton Foundation. It also shows that Band raised money for the CF from corporations such as Dow Chemical & Coca-Cola which were clients of Teneo, while pressing those corporations to provide personal income to Bill Clinton. It's basically an aggressive strategy to line up consulting contracts and paid speaking roles for Bill Clinton that, now we know, added upwards of $50 million to the Clinton's bank account also during the years Hillary served as Secretary of State. Band brags how he helped run "Bill Clinton Inc.", obtaining "in-kind services for the President and his family - for personal travel, hospitality, vacation, and the like."

Clintons created loose ethics agreement in 2009 to allow for bribery and the selling of government contracts. Haim Saban is a huge donor to the Clinton Foundation. Bill Clinton was clearly bribed to push the State Dept. to give a contract to Saban.Saban paid for all travel expenses for Bill Clinton's travel to Israel in December 2009 to speak at Saban Forum.

Clinton Campaign had a say in where the DNC was held. Collusion.

Friend of Podesta calling him out for supporting Hillary and Bill and calling them criminals.

Apple admits to passing along American's data at the governments' request.

Clinton Campaign panicking about the DOJ releasing CLinton work related emails.

Donna Brazile colluding with the Clinton Campaign. She later becomes DNC chair. Also proof that the three primary candidates all work for the DNC which is HRC.

7 months before Hillary gets the nomination, Donna Brazile pledges to John Podesta that "as soon as (Hillary's) nomination is wrapped up. I will be your biggest surrogate."

sh*tting on Nermie super delegate Tulsi Gabbard and threaten to cut off funding.

Another thing I want to mention is Hillary's "choosing" of Tim Kaine for VP. In 2008, when Hillary lost the primary to Obama, she wanted to lock up the 2016 nomination. She began making moves back then to ensure that happened. Step 1 was to install her 2008 Campaign Chief (Debbie Wasserman Schultz) as head of the DNC so that she could ensure full support of the DNC in 2016. But in order to do that, she had to offer the then head of the DNC something more lucrative than head of the DNC in order to get them to resign. Who was the head of the DNC back then? Tim Kaine. I'll let you figure out the rest. Good to know her VP pick isn't "the best man for the job" and is nothing more than quid pro quo.

Clinton Campaign recognizes that bribery from foreign countries is a problem and needs to be shut down.

Clinton Campaign planning "swiftboat" (unfair or untrue) attacks on Trump.


Media collusion with The Hill & HuffPo and Hillary supporting Obamacare despite rising premiums. Remember back when Hillary actually said "Before it was Obamacare it was Hillarycare."?


Clinton Campaign picks administration and high level positions based on race and religion. Also hires specifically Muslim judges and attorneys.
Why specifically Muslim judges and attorneys? And why would some of the people not survive a vetting?


Podesta and Mook (Chief of Clinton Campaign) conspiring to fix the date of the CA primary to help her win.

Trying to get their story straight on why there are gaps in the emails.

Acknowledgement that they didn't turn over every email.

Clinton Campaign is producing biased polls using oversampling and the media are promoting them.

Podesta admits to threatening Tad Devine (Chief Strategist for Bernie campaign) over an interview given by Bernie's brother.

Citi Group employee emailing Podesta about Treasury Secretary position. Colluding with Wall St. to pick a treasurer.

Clinton strategy to discredit and beat Trump by changing and defrauding voter laws.

Which is a great segue and completely relevant to the Project Veritas videos.

Project Veritas, Rigging the Election - Part I: Clinton Campaign and DNC Incite Violence at Trump Rallies

Project Veritas, Mass Voter Fraud, Part 2: Bussing in illegal immigrants with fake IDs to vote in numerous states

Project Veritas, DNC Schemes to Bully Women at Trump Rally

Steven Bakalar to Podesta about fundraisers and big donors. He says Hillary must tweak her policy to be more in line with the donors (this is in May 2015) Who is Bakalar? "Just to remind, I'm the guy who raised $600K for Obama re-elect". Bakalar writes: "Raisers are effectively salespeople selling the candidate on the donor marketplace, so their feedback is valuable to HQ in terms of tweaking policy, messaging, tone, etc …
big donors usually have ideas/advice and want to feel like they are being heard."

They give the money so their ideas must be taken seriously. It seems Bakalar was worried that in 2015 the donors weren't assured enough that there will be enough play of their ideas. We haven't seen any later complaints about this so it must have been fixed quite efficiently.

Yeah, but Hillary will work FOR YOU! *rolleyes*

Podesta discusses position title semantics in order to skirt compensation law.

They were already knowingly preparing for a campaign in January 2014. FEC violation given that she had paid speeches afterwords.

Setting up the campaign structure in 2014.

Concerns of views of Saudi Arabia regarding Islam. "Saudi Arabia won't be too happy since they are huge donors."

Senator Diane Feinstein admits to "offer to help" and "be a surrogate" for Hillary in Benghazi hearings. Feinstein is chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Hillary should stop attacking Bernie, especially when she says things that are untrue, which candidly she does often.


Clinton staff discusses Hillary only supporting a carbon tax to knock Bernie out of the primaries.
"To be clear: it's lethal in the general, so I don't want to support one. But don't want to give Bernie contrast right now."

Clinton Campaign conspires to have a group of women Senators privately confront Bernie Sanders about running a negative campaign so they can leak the meeting to the press to shape their preferred narrative that Bernie is a sexist who is running a negative campaign.


Concerns over NAACP President Ben Jealous potentially endorsing Sanders on the grounds that "Obama doesn't care about black people."
Ben Jealous eventually did endorse Sanders.

Clinton Foundation tied to Uranium One deal. In short, as Secretary of State, Hillary signed off on a deal that allowed Russians to control about 20% of America's uranium supply.

Clinton camp worried as Chelsea hosts a "fundraiser" for a radical Islamic group that wants to destroy Israel.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3774

Clinton Foundation has no internal audits.

Bill Clinton receives million dollar birthday check from Qatar.

pay to play

Hillary pay to play with King of Morocco and making a "mess" of foreign policy.

Clinton Foundation schemed with Big Pharma to keep the price of AIDS drugs high in America.

Clinton Foundation Dr. was head of ebola efforts in Liberia. Clinton Foundation stood to make a lot of money being the middle man, just as they did in Haiti.

Clinton Campaign and NYT coordinating attack strategy against Trump.

Hillary dreams of open trade and open borders.


Podesta getting drafts of NYTimes articles before they're published.

Vice News does what George Soros tells them.

GOP debate moderator had lunch with Hillary's campaign chief 3 weeks before the debate.

The list of reporters that were taking Marching Orders from Hillary


Clinton Campaign thanking Univision's owner Haim Saban for it's moderators handling of Hillary against Sanders.

Boston Globe colludes with Clinton Campaign to give Hillary a "big presence".

NYT gave Hillary veto power on quotes.

Scripted MSNBC interview.

Podesta hosts a dinner for ~30 reporters.

Head of Yahoo News planning pro-Hillary pieces with Podesta.

Media collusion with NBC.


Donna Brazile shared CNN Town Hall questions with Clinton Campaign.

Clinton Staff hosts private “off-the-record cocktail party” with 38 “influential” reporters, journalists, editors, and anchors (from 16 different mainstream media outlets including CNN, NBC, CBS, NYT, MSNBC, & more) with the stated goal of “framing the race”. See attachment.

Huffington Post contributor Frank Islam writes to John Podesta in email titled “My blogs in the Huffington Post”, says “I am committed to make sure she is elected the next president.” “Please let me know if I can be of any service to you”

Clinton staff “Placing a story” with Politico / New York Times: “place a story with a friendly journalist” “we have a very good relationship with Maggie Haberman of Politico” “we should shape likely leaks in the best light for HRC”

CNBC panelist colluding with John Podesta on what to ask Trump when he calls in for an interview:

Clinton staffers leaking reports to NY Post to get them published.

Clinton staff conspiring to fake Wall St. speeches.


Clinton staff colluding with NYT and Wall St. Journal to paint Hillary's economic policies in a "progressive" light.

Politico is an arm of the Clinton Campaign.

Honestly, there's dozens more emails chock full of media collusion. Too many to list.

Silberstein Foundation: truth finally comes out. Major Soros connections.


Mention of wetworks at the Vineyard days before Scalia's death.

Extend Illinois voting.

Jake Siewert (Goldman Sachs) to Podesta: "Might be time for Denny [Dennis Hastert] to vanish to an undisclosed Japanese island." regarding politico article on tax evasion.

Huma Abedin checking with Robby Mook and Attorney General Loretta Lynch about Hillary attending a dinner hosted by George Soros. Mook says, "I would only do this for political reasons (ie to make Soros happy)."

Glen S. Fukushima seems to be a person working with Center for American Progress (CAP) and Neera Tanden who is one of the most prolific emailers in these leaks. Glen is planning a trip for Neera to Japan and as a part of that trip there will be an opportunity to collect campaign contributions. Glen wants to arrange donations from some "high net worth American business executives" to Hillary Clinton, but he has one big concern: "How do I ensure that I am given “credit” for having gotten these individuals to contribute to HRC’s campaign? Is there a manual or set of guidelines you can send me on the do’s and don’ts of being a bundler for HRC?"

Campaign discussion of Washington Examiner leak of one of Hillary's paid speeches.

Some gems from the leak: Admission that she is out of touch with the middle class, private/public position, HIllary talks about holding Wall St. accountable only for political reasons, suggests that Wall St. insiders are what's needed to fix Wall St., admits to needing Wall St. funding, touts her relationship with Wall St. as NY Senator, suggests she is a moderate, is pro-Kestone XL and Pro-trade.

Hillary Campaign Chairman admits that she "hates everyday Americans".

The way to sure up the ""black vote"" is not to address the needs of the community but to hire a black person for a senior position. This will communicate that she does appreciate the "black vote".

I'll keep going if need be.

I appreciate you taking the time to post all these.

I just picked the one above at random to see what it says. The link has two things highlighted

Strengthen bribery laws to ensure that politicians don’ change
legislation for political donations. 62%
The second idea is a favorite of mine, as you know, but REALLY dicey
territory for HRC, right?

....dude if that is the best your stuff has I am not even bothering with the other crap. That stuff is just stupid.

The moon landing was faked too, JFK was killed by the mob, and Elvis is actually living in my basement.

Maybe Bernie was like the tech bro who left the start up world and opened the artisinal butcher shop in your rapidly gentrifying neighborhood: he turned the process of making the sausage into something you actually want to see.

She hates the phrase "everyday Americans". The phrase.

I know she has begun to hate everyday Americans, but I think we should use
it once the first time she says I'm running for president because you and
everyday Americans need a champion.

I mean sure there could be some better punctuation but that is pretty clear from the text.

> A black campaign vice chair or Sr advisor would go a long way during the
> primary and send the message that, Hillary puts her actions where her mouth
> is, and actually does appreciate the black vote.

I am not sure what is objectionable about this.

I couldn't resist looking at one more because I kind of want to find a smoking gun because well....I kind of think she is annoying.

Acknowledgement that they didn't turn over every email.

I'm sorry, I'm confused--what is it that we are saying we want to do?
> Release everything or just release what the committee has requested?
Yes they have everything, but they don't believe they have everything.
> But no, they are not asking for all 55k.
The committee already has all the relevant documents, but we're to take
> the below as them subpoena'ing everything?
>
> And in addition, does everything mean everything we turned over, or her
> entire email history, whether or not it was turned over?
>>> "The Select Committee on Benghazi today issued subpoenas for all
>>> communications of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton related to
>>> Libya and to the State Department for other individuals who have
>>> information pertinent to the investigation. The Committee also has issued
>>> preservation letters to internet firms informing them of their legal
>>> obligation to protect all relevant documents."

So I guess you are right. They didn't turn over every email. Of course they were not asked to turn over every email but I don't think that really matters to you. I honestly don't think anything matters to you. You hate hillary so anything which can be seen in any way shape or form as negative is taken as proof of how evil she is.

Given Assange's direct quote on how he wants to destroy Clinton's campaign (and Obama) for personal reasons, I don't see how anything coming out of WikiLeaks, especially with a few instances of doctored/misattributed materials in recent weeks, could ever be considered credible with regards to her again.

I'm randomly sampling some of these.

I'm not seeing this. Glenn Hutchins was going to be a guest on CNBC and worked with the Clinton campaign to work on what he was going to say.

///

What? He was a part of a new video series.

///

why do you think that story is not just a bunch of hyped up BS intended to have exactly the kind of reaction you are exhibiting?

///

Jake Sullivan, policymaker and top foreign policy advisor to Clinton's 2016 campaign, suggesting that Clinton takes bribes for crafting laws.

· Strengthen bribery laws to ensure that politicians don’ change legislation for political donations. 62%
The second idea is a favorite of mine, as you know, but REALLY dicey territory for HRC, right?

One possible interpretation is the Clinton has taken bribes in order to craft laws. Another is that strengthening bribery laws isn't something the Clinton campaign wants to talk about because opponents can then turn it around and throw it in her face.

I'm not seeing admission here. It's certainly possible that was admission, but it's also possible it wasn't meant the way people want it to be framed.

///

Okay, I'll stop as it's a dog pile at this point. I'm not seeing the horrible smoking guns all over the place.

I'm sorry to say, but I'm finding a lot in these leaked emails to strengthen what OG said:

OG_slinger wrote:

The revealing of how the political sausage gets made is completely secondary to "I know Hillary's guilty so I'm going to read all sorts of crazy secret meanings into this email that feeds into some anti-Hillary conspiracy theory I heard about."

And I'll come back to what I said, a lot of this is just politics. Ugly politics, but politics.

Demosthenes wrote:

Given Assange's direct quote on how he wants to destroy Clinton's campaign (and Obama) for personal reasons, I don't see how anything coming out of WikiLeaks, especially with a few instances of doctored/misattributed materials in recent weeks, could ever be considered credible with regards to her again.

IMAGE(http://www.congressionalleadershipfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/head_in_the_sand-461x307.jpg)

FSeven wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Given Assange's direct quote on how he wants to destroy Clinton's campaign (and Obama) for personal reasons, I don't see how anything coming out of WikiLeaks, especially with a few instances of doctored/misattributed materials in recent weeks, could ever be considered credible with regards to her again.

IMAGE(http://www.congressionalleadershipfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/head_in_the_sand-461x307.jpg)

Keepin' it classy.

Just reading through that list, the first five or six ones I saw were exercises in wolf crying and I simply lost interest in the rest.

If you can provide the one or two you think really do constitute "smoking guns", it will save me a lot of sifting through the Gish Gallop.

Clearly they're all smoking guns. Wake up, sheeple.

Paleocon wrote:

Just reading through that list, the first five or six ones I saw were exercises in wolf crying and I simply lost interest in the rest.

If you can provide the one or two you think really do constitute "smoking guns", it will save me a lot of sifting through the Gish Gallop.

That's all the pro-Wikileaks / pro-Trump club have is the gish gallop. Just spew large amounts of mindless garbage and then repeat it louder and louder.

FSeven wrote:

Glen S. Fukushima seems to be a person working with Center for American Progress (CAP) and Neera Tanden who is one of the most prolific emailers in these leaks. Glen is planning a trip for Neera to Japan and as a part of that trip there will be an opportunity to collect campaign contributions. Glen wants to arrange donations from some "high net worth American business executives" to Hillary Clinton, but he has one big concern: "How do I ensure that I am given “credit” for having gotten these individuals to contribute to HRC’s campaign? Is there a manual or set of guidelines you can send me on the do’s and don’ts of being a bundler for HRC?"

I randomly picked this one to look at. This is one of the cases where I'm upset that the information was hacked (invasion of privacy) but I appreciate getting to see what's going on in the background. This seems very straightforward. "Can I get an introduction to so-and-so? What levels of contribution are available? How do I get credit for my work?" are normal questions to ask, and you've got to assume this is the sort of conversation that happens all the time for political operatives / fundraisers. Given what we know about Hillary Clinton and political operatives in general I don't see how we can assume this is anything but "I already know how to bundle donations within the law (perhaps barely), I'm just curious how to do it for your campaign and get credit for it."

I'm sure my bias is a part of this. I just can't see how this is anything different than how it works for everyone. This isn't necessarily directed at Fseven: Does anything assume this is something that only happens in corrupt campaigns? Am I being too jaded?

The situation I am seeing with people poring over Wikileaks emails and making giant lists reminds me very strongly of something that happened a couple of years ago. Making up stuff that isn't there. Making assumptions about peoples' character based on sentence fragments. Constant attacks in social media. All it really needs to go completely over the top is for people to start making diagrams with lots of boxes and arrows and publish a bunch of democratic voter rolls with names and addresses online.

I appreciate you posting links, FSeven. (I do think Robear is correct to ask for more rhetorical engagement, but allowing people to see things in the fullest possible context and critically evaluate statements on their own is always good practice).

I also appreciate folks taking the time to read those and write cogent rebuttals - I'm pairing with my junior developer today and have not had the time to read the latest set myself, but it sound like these are roughly as plausible and well-grounded as the last go round (which is to say, not terribly).

Hillary Clinton has no shortage of positions (and actions) where there is plenty of room for legitimate objection or criticism.

So far, this set of links doesn't really seem to be that, though.

BadKen wrote:

The situation I am seeing with people poring over Wikileaks emails and making giant lists reminds me very strongly of something that happened a couple of years ago. All it really needs to go completely over the top is for people to start making diagrams with lots of boxes and arrows.

Actually, it's about ethics in breaching privacy

Reaper81 wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Just reading through that list, the first five or six ones I saw were exercises in wolf crying and I simply lost interest in the rest.

If you can provide the one or two you think really do constitute "smoking guns", it will save me a lot of sifting through the Gish Gallop.

That's all the pro-Wikileaks / pro-Trump club have is the gish gallop. Just spew large amounts of mindless garbage and then repeat it louder and louder.

At the very least, it appears Fseven put in a lot of work to collect those links, comment on many of them, and put them out here in a discussion where he was specifically asked to present them with commentary. Given that I think generalized and insulting responses are uncalled for.

So was the 'head in the sand' pic, but witty reaction gifs are kind of the norm around here pointed the other way so I'm taking it with a large grain of salt.

I'd agree this would be alarming if true.

Figured the least I could do was do a simple Snopes search on it before heading back to work, though.

Spoiler:

It's not true.

FSeven wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Given Assange's direct quote on how he wants to destroy Clinton's campaign (and Obama) for personal reasons, I don't see how anything coming out of WikiLeaks, especially with a few instances of doctored/misattributed materials in recent weeks, could ever be considered credible with regards to her again.

IMAGE(http://www.congressionalleadershipfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/head_in_the_sand-461x307.jpg)

Yes, saying a dude clearly out for revenge who is taking materials from the Russians as they try to influence our elections may not be a credible source is clearly sticking my head in the sand.

Or was that supposed to be a representation of yourself? It works well in that context.

FSeven wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Given Assange's direct quote on how he wants to destroy Clinton's campaign (and Obama) for personal reasons, I don't see how anything coming out of WikiLeaks, especially with a few instances of doctored/misattributed materials in recent weeks, could ever be considered credible with regards to her again.

IMAGE(http://www.congressionalleadershipfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/head_in_the_sand-461x307.jpg)

Your google doc originated from reddit's The_Donald sub. Who do you think is contributing all of these? You're literally getting all of your anti-Clinton talking points from the Trump's most rabid, racist, dishonest supporters, and you accuse others of burying their heads in the sand?