The Hillary Email / Benghazi Catch-All

Pages

This is the catch-all for discussing the email scandal, Benghazi and other aspects of Hillary Clinton that aren't specific to the daily, ongoing election.

read: Stop friggin' yammering about it in the other thread!

DNC Shakes up Leadership as It Looks to Turn Page on Email Hack

Democratic National Committee CEO Amy Dacey and two other top officials are stepping down, the party announced Tuesday, following the publication of hacked internal emails.
-
Communications Director Luis Miranda and Chief Financial Officer Brad Marshall joined Dacey in announcing their resignations, after emails showing their apparent favoritism toward Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary were published by WikiLeaks. The emails also led to the resignation of DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Good summary of the scandal.

And then Clinton is claiming that the FBI head said she was truthful.

No, what he actually said was that he didn't think she'd lied to the FBI. He explicitly declined to comment on whether or not those statements matched her public ones, no doubt because that's out of his purview.

I'd really like to see more investigation into the DNC and, specifically, anti-Sanders vote rigging. The vote results were really, REALLY squirrely in quite a few places, diverging sharply from exit polling. If the polling is to be believed, and the vote results had reflected that, Sanders would probably have won, as his visible momentum would have been much higher. (People don't like voting for apparent losers, so early false reports of bad results can have a disproportionate effect on a campaign.)

Plus, there were those early 'coin flip' states, where every one went for Clinton. The chances of that happening without cheating are extremely small. It's very unlikely that all of them cheated, but it's extremely likely that at least one did.

Malor wrote:

Plus, there were those early 'coin flip' states, where every one went for Clinton. The chances of that happening without cheating are extremely small.

Didn't that turn out to be flat out wrong?

Maybe, I don't remember hearing more about it. All I knew at the time was that if all those states really did determine by coin flip, they shouldn't have all gone Hillary.

Malor wrote:

And then Clinton is claiming that the FBI head said she was truthful.

No, what he actually said was that he didn't think she'd lied to the FBI. He explicitly declined to comment on whether or not those statements matched her public ones, no doubt because that's out of his purview.

The WaPo gave her four Pinocchios for this, but honestly, I think they're being a bit harsh. Doesn't it really depend on what your definition of is is?

For example - Iowa coin tosses. From other articles on the same date, Clinton seems to have won six of six in accounts in the Des Moines Register, and Sanders six out of seven tosses reported by the DNC web app. And as far as I can tell, this was just in Iowa, not multiple states.

While I'm happy that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is gone (more or less) and the DNC is getting cleaned up a bit, I don't agree at all with how it was done with the whole wikileaks thing. Because of foreign interference, any DNC evidence is going to be tainted now even if an investigation was opened. I really wish that an investigation had happened in our own country back when we were initially suspicious of what the DNC was doing concerning Bernie and other primary candidates. Martin O'Malley had registered complaints as well. Now it's just a mess that probably wouldn't go anywhere even if an investigation happened.

Nevertheless, I'm not putting blame on Hillary herself for it, even if she's benefited.

I remember that originally, I wasn't too unhappy with the whole Snowden incident because I had the impression that he was revealing information that shouldn't have been kept from U.S. citizens anyway, and maybe initially that was true, but now it's turned into something of a monster with this wikileaks thing for the direct benefit of foreign powers like Russia. Even if the original purpose was good (and I don't know that it was), it seems to have taken on a more obvious "burn it all down" philosophy that I can't in good conscience support, even idealogically.

Any investigations we do need to be ethical or not done at all.

Russia's intel agencies seem to specialize in information warfare these days. You can tell which candidate they'd like to see lose by their actions.

Robear wrote:

Russia's intel agencies seem to specialize in information warfare these days. You can tell which candidate they'd like to see lose by their actions. :-)

Indeed...unless of course, they are just setting up a certain other candidate for a larger fall later.

Russia doesn't particularly benefit from either candidate's success or failure. They benefit by messing with our system and creating instability, societal, financial, whatever. And even if nothing substantial comes of it, it's still got propaganda value.

Malor wrote:

Maybe, I don't remember hearing more about it. All I knew at the time was that if all those states really did determine by coin flip, they shouldn't have all gone Hillary.

I don't know about other states, but this is wrong for Iowa.

Main thing to remember is that these coin flips decided county delegates. Of which there were 11,065 after the initial caucus. The way those county delegates will break down going forward at the county and state level is predictable based on how many there are initially (each is expected / elected to vote for their candidate at the later levels), so the media can report results right away even though the process takes months. But those were the coin flips talked about, and it would have taken closer to 50 coin flips in a row instead of 6 or 7 for the state level equivalent of the delegate margin Hillary beat Bernie.

Robear wrote:

Russia doesn't particularly benefit from either candidate's success or failure. They benefit by messing with our system and creating instability, societal, financial, whatever. And even if nothing substantial comes of it, it's still got propaganda value.

Beyond just destabilizing the West, I kind of get the feeling that Putin has determined that Trump will be far more easily manipulated when it comes to any future US-Russia negotiations. So potentially, Russia could directly benefit from his presidency (vs Clinton's).

Trump has rambled about leaving NATO, or not supporting NATO, or not fulfilling commitments to NATO, which is something Putin would like very much.

I'd fully expect Putin to turn on Trump at some point. Just because they seem to be best buddies now...common enemies and all...doesn't mean that the honeymoon will last once Trump is no longer of any use.

The thing about the DNC shakeup is that it was going to happen regardless - all the Wikileaks business did was move up the timetable by a month or two. And honestly, since DWS wasn't doing a particularly good job, I'd imagine in some ways, it's probably a relief for Hillary to get Donna Brazile in there instead.

bekkilyn wrote:

I remember that originally, I wasn't too unhappy with the whole Snowden incident because I had the impression that he was revealing information that shouldn't have been kept from U.S. citizens anyway, and maybe initially that was true, but now it's turned into something of a monster with this wikileaks thing for the direct benefit of foreign powers like Russia. Even if the original purpose was good (and I don't know that it was), it seems to have taken on a more obvious "burn it all down" philosophy that I can't in good conscience support, even idealogically.

Any investigations we do need to be ethical or not done at all.

The perfect defense against this kind of leakage is not to engage in the unethical bullsh*t in the first place. Wikileaks did you a favor, and will continue to do so, at least assuming you want honest politicians in office.

If, on the other hand, you just want the Democrats to win, no matter how sh*tty they happen to be, then maybe Wikileaks is your enemy. Almost a direct corollary of that position, however, would be that the truth is your enemy.

Malor wrote:

The perfect defense against this kind of leakage is not to engage in the unethical bullsh*t in the first place. Wikileaks did you a favor, and will continue to do so, at least assuming you want honest politicians in office.

If, on the other hand, you just want the Democrats to win, no matter how sh*tty they happen to be, then maybe Wikileaks is your enemy. Almost a direct corollary of that position, however, would be that the truth is your enemy.

I agree that not engaging in unethical behavior is a good...well actually *great* defense, but Wikileaks attacking our country is still an attack, not a favor per se. That's kind of like Russia dropping a bomb on one of our military bases to provide us with the opportunity to see whether that base has good defenses. While we could say, "Well build it better next time." I think most would still consider it as a hostile move by a foreign power.

Also, who makes the ultimate decision whether some behavior is ethical or not? Some is very cut and dry, yes, but other seems grey. Do we really want some other country making that decision for us and acting as judge?

Overall, I suppose I'm just not one of those "ends justify the means" type of person.

Nevertheless, I do agree that if the DNC had behaved according to their own regulations, the attack would not have been effective.

but Wikileaks attacking our country is still an attack

Exposing the truth of what the DNC is doing is not an attack on our country.

Also, who makes the ultimate decision whether some behavior is ethical or not?

Well, in this case, the voters, which is exactly the group that should be deciding.

Do we really want some other country making that decision for us and acting as judge?

Nobody is forcing you to think anything about the DNC. You're the one acting as judge, just like me and everyone else, not them.

Also note that Wikileaks didn't engineer the hack itself, as far as we know. All they've done is publish what powerful people didn't want them to publish, which has been defined as being the only real journalism.

edit: I found the relevant quote:

“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.”

-- George Orwell

I have no issues with the leak.. The threat of leaks IMO is one of the few checks and balances we have left. The timing of the leaks though leads one to believe that Wikileaks isn't an "unbiased" party in this.. Once I can establish agenda then I question the very nature and truthfulness of those leaks.

That's why it's important to call this a hack. "Leak" generally implies that someone on the inside gave away sensitive information willingly (See: Snowden, Manning, etc.).

Leaks as TheGameGuru describes are an important check against government power.

Hacks are an attack that may or may not be effective based on a variety of factors, not all of which are the ethical behavior of those hacked. Some state secrets are deemed necessary for ongoing military and intelligence procedures. Many personal secrets and communications are considered rights under the constitution, ethical or no.

Edit: Malor: I'm a bit surprised to see the "if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide" argument coming from you. Sure, that makes sense from a government organization that is accountable to the people, but we're talking about private citizens and organizations here.

bekkilyn wrote:

I remember that originally, I wasn't too unhappy with the whole Snowden incident because I had the impression that he was revealing information that shouldn't have been kept from U.S. citizens anyway, and maybe initially that was true, but now it's turned into something of a monster with this wikileaks thing for the direct benefit of foreign powers like Russia.

I think that you are confusing Snowden with Chelsea Manning. Many, many people that approve or are ambivalent of Snowden where highly critical of Manning. Manning found some things that that disturbed her, IIRC did not report them up the chain (this I personally don't have much of a problem with, I can well imagine that Manning may not have been in an environment where she thought that was a real option for her) and then grabbed a huge, huge stack of all sort of Classified stuff and gave them to Wikileaks (which was run by Assange at the time) to release.

On the other hand Snowden repeatedly passed complaints about illegal behavior he absorbed up the chain, with no action done. In response he gathered up a bunch of documents, like Manning, but unlike Manning he worked with a respected news outlet (The Guardian) which promised to--and has--worked with relevant organizations to process and redact dangerous information that should not be released, rather than just dumping the whole stash on the internet.

Yeah, the journalist stories about DNC are fine, the hack is not. Hacking is only going to become a bigger and bigger threat to society as digitalization moves on - it is a shame to often see it being described as something honorable. Maybe the end justifies the means in some of these cases, but no need to glorify those means, anymore than glorifying murder and war, just because killing can sometimes be for the greater good.

Regardless the mails still seem relatively weak. Can't imagine it would be easy to find an organization with less drama in their mail correspondence. A major part of their newsworthiness seem to be that they were stolen from DNC, rather than their content. If DNC had released them on their own, would the interpretation of the content be different?

Jolly Bill wrote:

Edit: Malor: I'm a bit surprised to see the "if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide" argument coming from you.

I have different standards for people in positions of power. As far as I'm concerned, the local sheriff has no privacy expectation whatsoever with regard to his work email.

Now, if these hackers were spreading, say, bedroom gossip about DNC staffers, I'd be mildly horrified. But they're releasing details of how they discharge a duty to the public, and I don't think there's a privacy right there to be violated in the first place.

What they do at home should be off limits, but once they start work, as far as I'm concerned, it's fair game.

Shadout wrote:

If DNC had released them on their own, would the interpretation of the content be different?

Probably not. The only thing I'm aware of that really upset people was the evidence that Sanders was not, in fact, fairly treated. And I believe that would have been upsetting no matter what the source was.

Frankly, I think worrying about the source, since there's been no claim that the leak was inaccurate, is heat and noise, pure (deliberate?) distraction from the signal.

Malor wrote:
Edit: Malor: I'm a bit surprised to see the "if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide" argument coming from you.

I have different standards for people in positions of power. As far as I'm concerned, the local sheriff has no privacy expectation whatsoever with regard to his work email.

Now, if these hackers were spreading, say, bedroom gossip about DNC staffers, I'd be mildly horrified. But they're releasing details of how they discharge a duty to the public, and I don't think there's a privacy right there to be violated in the first place.

What they do at home should be off limits, but once they start work, as far as I'm concerned, it's fair game.

Many of them are public officials, but the DNC is a private organization and they were not acting in their capacity as public servants while communicating about DNC business. The DNC has no 'duty to the public' in a governmental sense. I'm assuming you agree that public officials can have obligations outside of public service here. There are communications that will be neither 'home' nor 'work' as for as their office goes, and are still protected.

Now, if we were to open the can of worms about making all party organizations official state actors and bound by government regulation I could agree with you, but that's definitely not where we are today.

Many of them are public officials, but the DNC is a private organization and they were not acting in their capacity as public servants while communicating about DNC business.

I disagree with that assertion. They be a non-governmental organization, but they have a duty to the public they claim to represent. When you're dealing with something as critical as voting and elections, the rules need to be somewhat different.

Note that I'm arguing from a moral standpoint, rather than a legal one. By the letter of the law, you're correct. But morally, I think the leak is entirely justified. They have a duty to be impartial, and even explicitly say that they do, and I don't think they get to hide behind 'wahhh muh privacy!' skirts when they get caught.

There's no legal consequences here. I would be extremely uncomfortable with an actual prosecution based on this evidence. But releasing it into the court of public opinion? That seems just fine to me.

Still private citizens had their social and credit card info leaked as well.. hardly anything we as American's need to be concerned about.

edit:

Malor wrote:

Note that I'm arguing from a moral standpoint, rather than a legal one.

Yeah--people can have power without being state actors. Maybe this is a case of confusion where JollyBill thinks you were talking about state actors while you were talking about anyone with power?

Well, I read it as him arguing from what the law says (about which he's likely correct); the DNC is not a government entity. But I personally think it functions with the same kind of impact on society, and thus inherently should have fewer protections from monitoring and oversight than most organizations would.

So, just from an ethical/moral standpoint, I'm perfectly content with the leaks, because they give We The People back some of our power. As I said, though, I'd be vastly uncomfortable with them facing any kind of legal consequences; I'd consider any evidence obtained this way to be tainted in terms of the Fourth Amendment, and therefore not usable in court.

edit: In other words, even if those emails were talking about how to dispose of the corpses of their enemies, I don't think they should be facing jail time. That evidence shouldn't be usable in court. I imagine the Justice Department would disagree, though, and would likely prosecute, because they themselves didn't break the law to get the evidence. I suspect they would be able to use it.

Despite justice being served in this hypothetical example, I would be very unhappy.

Pages