In the VENN diagram of this election, it’s always interesting to see when certain stories overlap with the deplorables’ agenda. This is one of those times. Donna Brazile is currently the interim Democratic National Committee chairwoman, having taken the position after Debbie Wasserman-Schultz had to resign at the beginning of the DNC convention this summer. Brazile has headed up the DNC before, and she was Al Gore’s campaign manager (the first African-American woman to hold that position for a national campaign). My point is not that Brazile is a partisan hack – certainly, we all knew that! – it’s that CNN knew what they were getting when they continued to employ Brazile as an on-air commentator.
In Brazile’s work for CNN, she apparently had access to some questions which would be asked in the Democratic primary debates. We already knew that Brazile had emailed the Clinton campaign some ideas/thoughts about what questions would be asked. And in the latest batch of Wikileaks-released emails, people have discovered that this was something that Brazile did more than once – she was emailing exact debate questions to the Clinton campaign ahead of primary debates. So CNN fired her/accepted her resignation.
While I do think it’s fair and just that Brazile should not have a job with CNN, obviously… like, the sh-t is still problematic. CNN still employs former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski as a commentator and he literally still collects checks from Donald Trump. It’s being seen as a certain kind of narrative, that CNN is fine with holding a black woman to a different standard than a white guy. So in the VENN diagram, the deplorables are outraged that Brazile was at CNN… and other groups are outraged that only Brazile was ousted.
Here’s another thing… I’ll admit that I barely paid attention to the Democratic debates. I was never interested in Bernie Sanders, and I always knew I was going to vote for HRC in the primaries, just as I knew she would always be the nominee and I would vote for her for president. So, I can’t speak to the questions asked during the primary debates. But the questions asked during the presidential and vice-presidential debates? While there were strokes of genius here and there (Anderson Cooper and Martha Raddatz did God’s work in their debate), we went through four debates (three presidential, one VP) without any questions being asked about LGBTQ issues, trans access to public bathrooms, marriage equality, “religious freedom” statutes at the state level, climate change, nuclear proliferation and more. My point is that the candidates can prepare for nearly any question and that preparation isn’t any guarantee that your candidate will even get the question.
Photos courtesy of Getty.
When did people forget to never put it in writing?
Why email, for god’s sake?
! week to go! Going to be a long one.
And yes, of course it’s a double standard. Just like these connections to Russia the FBI iseems to be sitting on.
Right? Send it via us mail service! Help the post office out.
I wish we, US, would stop reacting to these leaks. Hacks are illegal. The fact that CNN is taking it as truth without their own investigation into all parties that have affiliations with nominees is horrible.
I don’t think Donna Brazile did anything new. I just think that she was illegally hacked.
If we stop giving credence to information obtained illegally, it will stop happening.
With all due respect…
So, if we don’t find out that corruption is going on, it isn’t going on?
No, if you are given information that corruption is going on do your own investigation. Do not believe illegal information as truth. How do u know that illegal information wasn’t tamer with?
Agreed.
But someone else posted on here somewhere downthread a very good point.
All they have to do is present the legit emails that state something different from the hacked ones to show the hacked ones aren’t real/true/unedited.
No one is doing that, right?
They can shout all they want that the emails are hacked…gained unlawfully.
But show me that theyve been doctored.
Nope.
They can’t.
And if what Donna Brazile is accused of doing isn’t true, she’d be squawking about being let go by CNN.
She’s not.
CNN didn’t even broadcast that they let her go a week or 2 ago.
They did it quietly hoping it would all go away.
And then the 2nd incident was uncovered leading them to say that she had already resigned.
I stopped watching CNN. I could care less about the email story, not one person in my family or even any of my friends cares about the email story, their eyes just glaze over when another reports comes on and they turn the channel and most of us voted already weeks ago. I’m tired of CNN , it’s just the Donald Trump Network this entire primary and election season. Everytime I put CNN on during the primaries it was Donald Trump giving a speech or spouting off some insane comment. I have totally lost respect for the network. I won’t be watching CNN election night. I am going to watch PBS and BBC.
.
They accepted her resignation, if she hadn’t done anything wrong she would not have resigned. She would have let them conduct their own in house investigation. She wasn’t framed. She was probably asked, we don’t know that CNN automatically took it as fact. They may have asked if she sent the e-mail and if she had an explaination for what she did and why.
Lots of important revelations have been uncovered and exposed using techniques far more illegal than hacking. The Internet is still kind of the Wild West and complicated due to jurisdiction issues, the fact it is relatively new and rapidly changing and most law makers don’t have the understanding to write appropriate laws. Some whistle blowers do shady things, don’t come to the table with completely clean hands and pure, altruistic motives. If the information can be verified and illustrate corruption, ethically and/or legally questionable activities that are harming the public, constitutional rights being quietly chipped at and taken away. Sometimes the public’s need and/or right to know is more important than how that information was obtained. People don’t always agree on where that line is, the public’s varied and divisive reaction to Snowden and Manning are perfect illustrations.
Once the information comes out you can’t put the genie back into the bottle. They have a professional obligation to react. Refusing to acknowledge information of wrongdoings does not fix anything. Some people come across information that they cannot just sit idlely by and ignore. They feel what is happening is so egregious that they are willing to break the law, step forward and face the consequences. Refusing to help them tell their story only helps and embolden the wrong doers and discourages others from stepping forward.
If (God I hate this term) “the mainstream media” stops giving credence to information that is illegally obtained nothing will stop happening. The corruption it reveals won’t stop because most people won’t know about it. The hackers won’t stop because they are true believers and will just disseminate the information in the corners of the Internet that shares their view point. These hackers aren’t looking for fame, if nothing else staying anonymous helps you avoid legal problems, they aren’t trying to get rich or else they would be applying their hacking skills to corporate databases, not the interim DNC head’s professional e-mails. Think about 9/11 Truthers or Sandy Hook Deniers, they invest incredible amounts of time and energy going over and over every minute detail. The size of the audience doesn’t really matter to them they feel an obligation to learn more and share what they find to anyone who will listen.
The only thing accomplished by major news organizations dismissing information out of hand due to dubious origins is silencing dissenting voices and cover up wrong doings for the perpetrator, prevent any leaked information from being verified and proven or disproven using network resources, sources and fact checkers, preemptively cause most the general population to discount it because it is coming from people they view as lunatics and conspiracy theorists and it protects the person whose wrong doings were exposed form having to publicly acknowledge and address news of their wrong doings and keep the media from holding their feet to the fire.
The argument, that people should publicly respond to illegally released e-mails is absurd, it’s as if there is no understanding of the illegality of this type of extortion through the press. No one has the legal right to read the e-mails, everything from that point on is from the same poisoned well, to suggest the original e-mails have to be produced is to reward the thief, and assist in the original crime. CNN is the bad guy here, as is the shady morality of people who naively believe these leaks are legitimate and are all things we “need to know.” How naive does one have to be to think the people behind these leaks are doing it for the greater good? The truth is out there and it won’t be discovered in illegally published e-mails.
First, that’s not how extortion works. That would be a felony.
Second, there is no way to know if the e-mails were hacked legally or not. In other countries it is legal and here it’s a misdemeanor. As long as it was hacked from somewhere where it is legal the only thing they would have worry about is running afoul with US (assuming the e-mail originated here) patten laws and theft of intellectual property. So no trade secrets. The FBI won’t run down the if, when and where of e-mail hacking unless it is occurring in conjunction with another more serious crime. So CNN should not be expected to.
How is the thief being rewarded? There is no money changing hands or fame. An individual’s motive for exposing wrongdoings, abuses of power, corruption, ect are irrelevant. Snowden did what he did because he thought the American people should know they were being spied on. If he did it because his boss wasn’t nice to him the end result is still the same, Americans being made awear of the NSA and their secret warrants, Ect.
The poisoned well applies to search warrants. In this case CNN had the legal right to publish it after doing due diligence on the veracity of the claims they were making. Publishing the entire e-mail is fine as getting leads from the e-mail and going from there.
It is legal for news organizations to publish excerpts or the entirety of hacked e-mails. In 2001, the United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Bartnicki v. Vopper that media outlets are within their rights to publish transcripts of phone calls that were illegally intercepted by a third party. The same thinking applies to e-mail.
Some things come with inherent risk. If you want privacy send a letter. At this point everyone is awear that if someone wants into your inbox they will find a way. Don’t e-mail anything you don’t want getting out.
However, there is a line. For a private citizen it would err more toward privacy. For a public figure it would be more generous with the definition of public interest. Clinton getting questions pre debate that Sanders, a fellow party member whom she had a responsibility to as well, is public interest. Naked Jennifer Lawerence photos, no but for reasons beyond how the photos fell into people’s hands.
I agree with everything Lindsay said!!!
I wish we “US would stop reacting to these hacks???? So we should turn a blind eye to the “Clinton Corruption” That is just plain ignorance. Wake up people and look at the trail of evidence, do your own investigating, it’s not hard at all. Sit down and read all the Wikileaks, Nobody has denied any of these emails. (that says a lot!) I do not think it is just HRC that is corrupt, it’s many of them in Washington. These politicians are making decisions for us and spending our money. We have a right to know! And quit blaming the damn Russians, its probably some 18 year old kid hacking from his basement.
And No! I am not voting for DT. I cant stand him!!! Both candidates are pathetic!
Why aren’t’ candidates speaking to the Pipeline/First Nation issue?
Since Trump is a shareholder in the oil company, I doubt he will say anything.
First of all this election has not been about policy. It has been a runaway train of controversies, scandals and jabs. Part of it is because when Trump talks policy it is usually just one or two declarative sentences. He doesn’t and probably can’t explain it. Build that wall! Make our allies pay us for military protection! More countries should have nuclear weapons! Beat ISIS! Repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act! Hillary has the opposite problem. She is very much a wonk who loves minutia and that loses people quickly because it isn’t very entertaining and most of her audience doesn’t care or can’t follow. That is why a good percentage of the very limited allotted time for presidential debates was spent discussing individual women he called fat and ugly a decade ago. It is vile but gives absolutely no insight into his or her stance on any important issue and their goals for their administration. People have run for class president and Miss USA on clearer and better explained platforms. At this point it isn’t notable they haven’t discussed it, it would be surprising if they had. I would even be impressed if he knew what state it was happening it.
Native American make up 2% of the United States population. There are a lot of intractable problems without even touching the pipeline issue. A lot of these issues are very delicate, personal matters requiring a emotionally deft, empathetic, light touch with the strength, fortitude and long term commitment to actually make a real difference all while many people on the reservations especially do not appreciate your intervention, trust your intentions and resent/disdain the government you represent. Neither candidate excels at that.
Also, regardless of his personal stake in the oil company he would have to be pro-oil. Many members of his basket of deplorables probably hold racist views of Native Americans that goes something like they are lazy and drink all day while living off huge government benefits and the profit of their casino. They think they are above the law with their reservations and are not greatful enough to Real Americans for their tax payer funded life of leisure. Plus, oil jobs are great money blue collar jobs and his biggest backers are less educated, blue collar guys. Supporting any work like this is good for him and his base.
@Lindsay
“First of all this election has not been about policy.”
Oh, really. That’s what surrogate Trumpkins keep whining about. Like it’s somehow Clinton’s fault.
Clinton talks policy every chance she gets, and always gives cogent, considered answers when questioned. You can go to her website to see the pages of policy.
What does Trump have to say in depth? Nothing.
It’s just more false equivalence and a way to continue to invalidate Clinton’s position, experience and policy work.
Connections with Russia are way more complex and serious. You cannot just accuse one of the most powerful countries in the world, even with proof, let alone without strong evidence of their involment.
HRC has only herself to blame. you cannot erasei anything on the web. She was in position to make everything right with the FBI. She didn’t need the questions.
Wat a nightmare…
Yawn.
She was leaving CNN anyway.
CNN is becoming like Fox News, last night I turned it on and there was three young blondes and two white males all basically bashing Hillary.
I stopped watching CNN.
They have become the DONALD TRUMP NETWORK.
Donna was realeased by CNN because she did something unethical. She gave questions to HRC in the primary debate. Corey Lowendeski has nothing to do with this story. Why they are being compared is completely off topic. I wish my favorite “celebrity gossip site” would stop commenting about politics.
Im with you Shaunna!
+1000
I’mWithShaunna! You have taken the words out of my mouth. Donna Brazile was caught CHEATING by giving Hillary’s team debate questions. Corey L. has done nothing of the sort (as far as we know). Why put him in this conversation if for nothing else but another excuse to disparage “the deplorables”?
I so enjoyed coming on this site but have avoided it like the plague during this election cycle. Not only is the political bias vomit inducing, I come here to participate in a “celebrity gossip site”, not read the second coming of the Washington Post/New York Times.
I cannot wait until this election is over.
Russia, hahahaha lol
I’m not convinced those e-mails weren’t doctored, unless she and the recipients admit they are authentic. The verification tool used depends on an embedded digital signature to detect alterations that not all messages have and more significantly – the theft wasn’t done by a hacker living in this mom’s basement but by a government team with all the resources of the Russian government. They might very well have found a way to fool the tools currently used -if so, they would use it selectively for maximum effect. These people would not be leaping to claim the $600 bounty offered by one former hacker to anyone who can successfully alter an e-mail and getting it by the verification tool. My experience as a scientist has been that nothing is impossible to crack if you spend enough time and resources.
Now, maybe she always writes this way – but I’ve seen two of the primary debate e-mails and they leap out at me as very suspicious for the same reason they leaped out at media scanning the list of e-mails in the pile. Both times, she announced unethical conduct in the subject heading. One said “Sometimes I get answers in advance” with body text a verbatim detailed question about the death penalty that was asked in the debate, and another was similarly long and revealing, something about a question from a Flint woman who got a rash. The second question did not surface in the debate in that exact form. This is like announcing “Got the dynamite to blast open the bank vault tonight” in an e-mail heading to people with staff who pre-process their e-mail, so many pairs of eyes would see it even if just in lists.
People who are poor e-mail writers typically have the opposite problem – they write subject headings that are completely uninformative, if they remember to write a subject heading at all. This woman was unusually detailed, even I don’t write headings that way and I try to be as informative as possible to alert recipients to the contents. If she really does routinely write headings this way, then I could more easily believe she could be so stupid…. Still baffled that she didn’t just pick up a phone.
The other suspicious thing is that Hillary simply didn’t need this kind of help. She was familiar with the subjects and could guess the kind of questions that would be asked and already had dealt with them many times before. So why would anyone jeopardize her own standing with CNN to provide unnecessary information? Also Hillary has enough experience to know that debate questions aren’t engraved in stone, they can change right up to the moment they are asked. She would be better off doing what I’m sure she did (and what I did in school when preparing for exams), preparing to answer anything within the topics covered. Even I could have guessed those advance questions well enough to be prepared for them. So what was the point? They seem more like media bait for the pile of stolen e-mails.
I agree that it makes no sense for Brazile to do this.
Brazile owed her after throwing HRC under the bus in 2008. I don’t know what truth there is, however, to the emails.
“The other suspicious thing is that Hillary simply didn’t need this kind of help.”
And Barry Bonds didn’t NEED to take PEDs to hit home runs, but he sure as hell took them anyway.
Unethical people don’t need a good reason to behave unethically.
Sports is different since a small difference in performance level can make the difference between winning or losing. There just isn’t the same advantage to this. It’s all risk and no real benefit if your candidate has half a brain. The topics are provided in advance, that’s all that Hillary and her team would need to prepare well.
Erika… This is it exactly. I don’t understand how anyone just picks a side and then pretends that they aren’t doing shady, illegal stuff when it is obvious they are.
You have to pick one, sure, but don’t play blind.
Lalu – we would have to ask the same questions if a Republican had been hacked. It’s a problem regardless of the target – a foreign government is hacking US political campaigns to influence the US election. It’s astonishing to me that people assume it all must be authentic and complete.
Great detective work. It really doesn’t add up. And I agree with your entire last paragraph. Hillary didn’t need the help. But the deplorables would disagree. In their bizarro world, Hillary is the one who lost the debates and who doesn’t understand “the issues.” Grr.
If Hillary didn’t need the help ( and I beleive she is smart enough not to need any help) then she should have told Brazile thank you but NO thank you. This is why people don’t trust her. She continues toputt herself in compromising situations. She was already in enough trouble with questions about her emails. If this was Trump, we would be all over him. I am really disappointed that she would do something so reckless.
CRTB- there is no actual evidence that Hillary even saw these messages. Her e-mail goes through staff and much of it is handled by staff. These were allegedly sent to Podesta. Even if she had seen them and responded as you say, I doubt her response would show up in what was released. Any response by Podesta along those lines doesn’t seem to be there either.
That was my first thought as well- Hillary didn’t need the help. She was up against a moron. She knows her stuff. But yeah, let’s pillory the little women again for suspect emails. Rinse, repeat.
Meanwhile, that Trump thug Lewandowski gets unexamined, uncritical free rein.
crtb, no, that is not why people don’t trust her. People don’t trust her because of a narrative peddled by certain networks that she is the shadiest politician ever. REALLY??? Don’t make me list the shady sh*t that follows so many politicians and Trump. He needs to be mentioned separately because he is not even a politician. Which is the most ridiculous thing I’ve witnessed in my lifetime. Someone who is a shady orange d*ckface “businessman”, a liar and a fraud, somehow gets away with running for the highest office while people complain that the woman, the politicians/dedicated civil servant, who gave paid speeches is shady. Politicians get paid for speeches. That is not scandalous and it doesn’t make her untrustworthy.
I simply cannot wrap my head around this entire thing. Is it November 9th already??? My blood pressure is unhealthy.
“then she should have told Brazile thank you but NO thank you.”
How do you know she didn’t? Do you honestly think Wikileaks would share that email, making Hillary’s team look good?
Wikileaks doesn’t simply share information, they MANIPULATE information. Something to keep in mind.
If Donna did not pass those questions on to Hillary’s camp and in fact they are doctored, Donna could have shown CNN the real emails and she would have not been terminated. Instead, she gave CNN her resignation and they have publicly said how disappointed they are in Donna Brazille’s actions.
There is no proof any of these e-mails are doctored in any way. If they had been it would be so easy for the Democrats to prove by releasing the original e-mails. Why don’t they do this?
Even Politifact has concluded those e-mails are not doctored.
Problem is-there is no proof they have NOT been doctored either. Politifact has no more credibility re:these hacked emails than you or I.
There are people who spend their days doctoring these emails with outlandish claims just to troll people. (Also saw one that said she was in cahoots with the Secret Muslim Brotherhood). Come on now.
Regardless of how real or fake, an outside (possibly adverse) agent is interfering with our system. What’s being said in emails isn’t what bothers me. A lot of it is just strategy. The fact that it’s covering the media and detracting from serious red flags for the other candidate is what concerns me. This type of red meat gossip/insight into people’s lives is what the media dream of to get clicks and viewers. Unfortunately it’s dumbing down the population to care about irrelevant stuff like this.
Politifact and other sources are all relying on the same assumption, that the commonly used e-mail verification tool that will detect alterations is not able to be circumvented. But we can’t know that. Just because no one has yet openly demonstrated the ability to circumvent the tool doesn’t mean it is impossible to do. If the Russian government has succeeded in getting past that tool, they are hardly going to advertise it. They simply will use it in disinformation campaigns, selectively altering whatever messages the media will be most interested in and hoping the real messages have been deleted long ago.
The Russians have been meddling in European elections recently also, although I don’t know the details. Our government has also tried to influence elections and other events in other countries for many years. That’s part of the work of the CIA and the KGB, they never just gathered information but both groups always actively messed around with other governments and groups both inside and outside their own countries. The FBI is typically the agency subverted for that purpose within the US, but we had evidence that the CIA was sometimes operating against activists inside the USA who were opposing wars in Central America.
The crudest approach to such meddling would be outright assassination, and we lost a lot of good will due to that and less permanent damage done by the CIA after WWII. A friend teaching at a university somewhere in Africa said that when he arrived (back in the 1950s), his colleagues assumed he was CIA for quite a while. Such organizations as the CIA and KGB also have faked communications in hardcopy long before computers. Within the United States, such faked messages were used to drive wedges between activists opposing certain government actions or systemic racism.
When I was actively pushing information around against the US wars in Central America, my phone was tapped and my snailmail was curiously delayed. They were pretty clumsy about both activities, which may have been a deliberate intimidation tactic rather than just incompetence. We often had phone problems when trying to spread the word about an upcoming contra aid vote. One American Friends Service Committee office (the primary Quaker service group) told me that they routinely had long distance phone problems at such times. This was before e-mail was readily available, only two contacts on my list could be trusted to even check their e-mail daily. So phone and snailmail were the main communication methods for us.
Anyway, messing with communications is a very old manipulation method. Besides causing a lot of confusion and antagonism (some relationships poisoned by the fakes never recover), it also makes people waste a lot of time sorting things out. We’re seeing that here also, time is wasted dealing with these illegal dumps of private e-mail that otherwise could be used addressing the issues of the campaign. But we do it to ourselves by being gullible and assuming nothing could be faked today.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Who starts an email with “There will be a woman with a rash tomorrow asking about lead in the water”? I have to think something so blatant would be done in a smarter way.
When hacked emails first dropped (which is crappy beyond belief in my opinion) I read one that said “…citizenry will be compliant…”. No native English speaker says that! After that, I’ve been critical of any of these Podesta emails. To me it feels grimy just to read them. Disturbed that the media is salivating over this and have no way to guarantee authenticity.
Fine. ‘The Russians’ hacked into Podesta’s email and took the time to single out Donna’s email and then what they did was go back and look at the footage of the Democratic debate and notice that a woman with a rash asked a question so what they did was make up an email wherein Donna mentions this woman and question ahead of time.
Because if there’s one thing about ‘Russian’ hackers it’s that they are gong to go back and look at footage from a debate then concoct an email wherein they set Donna Brazile up to take the sword. Yep. Those ‘Russian’ hackers. They’ve got quite the imagination in addition, I would assume, to some pretty good IT skills.
When the Sony hack happened not one person questioned the legitimacy of those emails. Amy Pascal was raked over the coals for her comments and there was not press outlet that questioned if those emails were doctored. I understand supporting a nominee. But when you literally have to go so far out on a limb to come up with a defense in the face of evidence it is time to do some soul searching. We need to accept that Hillary has messed up. She has been the architect of this entire mess. Whether or not that changes your vote depends on how much you weigh these offenses. Just as Trump supporters who support his stance on issues must weigh his alleged offenses against women. It is up to you to calculate how much each of these issues weigh into your deciding vote. What Donna did was wrong. If you choose to believe those emails were doctored and Donna would never, ever, attempt to help a candidate she supports in a debate then fine, so believe that. If it was unearthed that Trump was receiving questions ahead of time would you still feel the same way? Both of these candidates and let’s face it their surrounding support staff, have a lot of shortcomings, whether you support one or the other on the issues, both have a lot to answer for.
Well, I didn’t give a damn what was happening in those Sony emails, because I don’t give a damn about Sony. However, the Sony hack seemed to come out of nowhere at the time.
This time, we are in an election, so the timing is too convenient.
Regardless, after the few I ran across, I moved on because either they were re: campaign strategies or obviously doctored. Plus we have people bragging about doctoring messages to look real “to teach people to triple check and think critically”.
Both are corrupt, but at very different levels.
You have no way of knowing if Hillary was involved at all so you can hardly assume she’s the architect. It’s not even her e-mail. But the Russian hackers are very definitely focusing on Democrat campaign people. so it’s not an attempt to mess with all of us, just the Democrats.
They don’t need to view video footage because it would not be hard to get transcripts of the primary debates and a list of the questions. But they do have people who could extract information from English video and audio. I know some very gifted Russians who operate very well in English.
You may think this is too much effort, but I don’t. Governments do make the effort when conducting disinformation campaigns and attempting to manipulate public opinion. They’ve just gone digital. This is much bigger than the Sony hack. The question concerning alteration of messages for maximum effect is a legitimate one, particularly when there are aspects of the messages that seem odd. The Sony messages didn’t raise the same red flags and the senders weren’t denying anything.
Stupidity abounds and anything is possible. I just don’t know if those messages were altered or not, but I do not believe it is an outlandish thing to consider. Those subject headings attracted attention and that’s what you want in a pile of e-mail intended to influence public opinion. But Trump started claiming Hillary got questions in advance quite a while ago, and then these messages manage to pop up. Quite a coinkydink…. Why would Trump even be thinking in that direction? Why would he even care about the Democratic primary debates? He tends to accuse people of doing things he has done himself – does this mean The Trumpster has been fed advance questions? (I know, they didn’t seem to stick…) This is such a weird election.
My prime suspect for an American partner for the Russian team would be Trump’s former campaign guy who had so many contacts in that area of the world. This is all so closely focused on the campaign and clearly attempting to benefit Trump, so that’s not an unreasonable suspicion.
I agree that she didn’t need the help; she’s a lifelong, well versed civil servant certainly familiar with any and all questions that could be asked. But…just throwing it out there…she also seems like an overachieving, over-prepared control freak who will do just about anything to gain a competitive edge. If she did cheat, and who knows if she did, I think it would be less about actually needing the info than it would be about control/perfectionism coupled with an impunity enjoyed by most politicians.
+1,000,000,000,000 Your comment is right on point.
CNN came out last night with the statement that Donna did not have prior access to the questions, so WTF?
The guy who wrote the death penalty question seemed pretty sure that he didn’t let other people see it. That one was quoted verbatim (and it was quite detailed) in the alleged e-mail. If they can’t find out how she got the info, then they had her resign just to avoid the appearance of favoritism for one candidate in the primary debate. It doesn’t sound as though they have any proof that she actually sent those messages.
“The guy who wrote the death penalty question seemed pretty sure that he didn’t let other people see it. That one was quoted verbatim”
That is very interesting!
I wondered this too. I have a feeling she’s taking one for the team (maybe to pay back HRC for 2008 as suggested upthread) .
then why did she resign?
They probably gave her a choice: resign or be fired. Or just suggested she resign and she figured out the rest. My bet is that they don’t have to have a reason in her case, they just have to decide her services are no longer needed.
Unless she actually admitted it, they can’t be sure she actually did it. The verification process for e-mails is not always applicable and even when it is, we cannot be certain that the Russian hacker team can’t circumvent it. But the accusation would make it difficult for her to do her job anyway.
CNN isn’t going to say where she got the questions.
And they deferred to a 3rd party media outlet involved in one of the debates inferring that they must have turned over the questions.
But there is no 3rd party in at least one instance, which means the questions originated with and were in CNN’s domain.
My husband and I are so tired of this years election we have stopped watching the evening news during dinner. We would rather watch our cat Wallyboy play. Much more interesting.
I stopped with the news too. Going about my life for the next week until I vote and praying that America doesn’t screw this one up.
Me too – if I weren’t so terrified of the possible results, I would have checked out long ago.
More interesting and no doubt much less stressful!
Totally get it. Plus cats are natural de-stressors.
Yes, I remember saying to someone back when half my time was spent on very depressing anti-war/anti-WMD and such work, I mentioned to someone that I really couldn’t keep it up without the cats to reduce stress. It was so helpful living with roommates who really couldn’t care less about nuclear war….
Cats are very political, but find human politics totally uninteresting. We are considered low-information creatures because we can’t even pick up the nuances from odors.
I’d greatly appreciate it if you’d set up a live cam so we could all watch Wallyboy play.
=^-.-^=
yeah, what LinaLamont said.
MORE KITTEHS!!!!
Yes, more kittehs. Anyone else follow Love Meow or Vet Ranch? The first one is about rescue kitties finding love after tough times; the other features heroic vets turning injured or sick puppies and kittehs on the brink of euthanasia into happy, healthy pets through the support of many internet supporters.
Seriously guys. I’ll throw my puppies in too, they’re REALLY cute and fun.
@Little Darling
Puppies, kittens, hamsters, guinea pigs, ferrets… bring it on.
God bless Tom Bergeron….maybe, his appearance on The View will be covered.
I stopped watching too. I could care less about the email story and I’m tired of CNN becoming the Donald Trump Network. Everytime I put CNN on it’s Donald Trump giving a speech or spouting off some insane comment. I have totally lost respect for the network. I won’t be watching them election night. I am going to watch PBS and BBC.
Voted already.
.
Same here – I was a news junkie but now I can tolerate MSNBC for a very short period of time. CNN is as bad as FOX these days.
I’m not sure I understand the logic behind “But Lewandowski wasn’t fired!” Lewandowski was not caught feeding the questions ahead of time to anyone. I want to know who gave the questions to Brazile. It’s not as if all CNN commentators got a list of the questions in a company memo before the debates.
Exactly. She wasn’t fired because she has strong ties to the Clinton campaign, she was fired for feeding the campaign sensitive information she only had due to her job with CNN. If Lewandowski is caught out as having done the same and doesn’t get fired, then there’s an issue.
Lewandowski really shouldn’t be working on anything involving the election, though, because he has signed a document prohibiting him from saying anything negative about Trump. Donna’s Democratic ties were not necessarily an impediment to election commentary as long as they were open about it, but that agreement is a big problem for Lewandowski. The checks he still gets from the Trump campaign are apparently innocent enough, something like severance pay I think. But it wouldn’t be any problem at all if they just put him on other stories.
Ladysussex… That’s because it isn’t logical but you are supposed to just go with it because she is a woman, I guess. Same as with Hillary.
Lalu- I agree comparing Brazile and Lewandowski is a,false equivalency, I do think that Lewandowski shouldn’t be allowed to work for CNN while on the Trump campaign payroll. That’s a conflict of interest, imo. One Brazile, as a woman, would never be allowed, most likely.
Totally agree Lalu. Donna’s a woman! I have to think she did nothing wrong and was fired because of something completely different other than the fact she was caught being completely unethical! I have to be mad because Corey – shock, horror, A MAN – is still there even though he hasn’t done anything unethical but, hey, who cares about the facts, hey? On that ridiculous premise – it seems Hillary’s a woman! Therefore I have to vote for her!
Unless Lewandowski was also caught slipping debate questions to his candidate, this is a false equivalence.
Lewandowski is on Trump’s payroll. There is no pretense of him being anything but biased in the extreme. If anything, he’s worse than Brazile, because Trump is such a loathsome excuse for a human being, much less a candidate.
In hiring him while he still takes money from Trump, CNN lost all chance at credibility. They’re not even trying.
@Itchyandweird
Former campaign managers–both Democratic and Republican–are on news networks all the time. This is nothing new. I mean, look at George Stephanopoulis. Former Clinton guy who gave nearly 100K to the Clinton Foundation and didn’t disclose it until an investigative reporter found out. And he’s not even just a commentator but the anchor.
CNN loses far more credibility undermining the electoral process than doing what is entirely commonplace.
“Former campaign managers–both Democratic and Republican–are on news networks all the time.”
Yes, FORMER. As Itchy pointed out, Lewandowski was still on Trump’s payroll.
Lewandowski signed an NDA. Brazile did not. Lewandowski cannot say anything negative about Trump, so he’s only half a commentator.
Seriously? Lewandowski lives in the land of conflict of interest. He’s still on Trump’s payroll (calling it ‘severance’) yet purports to be a……..well, what is he exactly except a mouthpiece for Trump?
1. It is not verified that Brazile slipped questions to Clinton. Clinton didn’t need to crib.
2. Just because it has not been leaked that Lewandowski slipped questions to Trump doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen.
False equivalence? Here’s real equivalence.
Another thing – Hillary got blasted for pointing out that we shouldn’t take e-mails stolen and released by a foreign government to interfere with a US election too seriously. But she does have a point, I think it’s hard for people to get this because it’s information, and they tend to think it’s ok to release it. But the Russians are the new Watergate burglars (who broke into Democratic offices aiming to get helpful information for Republican purposes). The Watergate burglars weren’t even successful but President Nixon resigned rather than get impeached over his role in the burglary. That’s how seriously we used to take such things.
But the reality is that we don’t really know how reliable electronic stolen info is. We don’t know if they can get past verification procedures to alter messages, we don’t know what’s missing in the conversation or in some cases how reliable the original writer was. Tim Kaine pointed out one message claiming that he himself had been personally told he would be the VP pick back in 2015, which he knew wasn’t true. I doubt they would bother to alter that one, but as Kaine said – it was either doctored or the writer had no idea what he was talking about, because the claim was wrong.
There are reasons it’s illegal to receive stolen goods. We need to start thinking how this applies to stolen confidential information. If someone steals money from your neighbor, plops your neighbor’s wallet on your desk and tells you to help yourself – you are part of the theft if you go out and spend that stolen money. Likewise if someone steals your neighbor’s car and hands you the keys.
In this case, we also are dealing with foreign thieves who clearly want to influence our election , in particular they want us to elect Donald the Marshmallow rather than Hillary the Woman of Steel. That’s why they are not hacking the Republicans but only the Democrats. They will find the Marshmallow easy to manipulate (the man who is usually so uninterested in foreign policy is already talking about withdrawing from NATO and not responding to Putin annexing neighboring territories), plus they most likely have him on the coals with major debt held by Russian nationals. So by giving credence to the stolen e-mails, we are also helping these people get exactly what they want: cast doubt on the candidate who won’t follow Putin’s orders and increase the odds that Marshmallow Man is elected.
This ☝🏽️☝🏽️ ^^^^^
100% doubt CNN was passing out debate questions to all the staff. The questions Donna brought up are on a short list of predictable candidate questions for HRC. The Wikileaks guy just has such a strong hate-on for Hillary Clinton. He thinks Trump is going to let him slide with releasing information Trump business with no penalties. Right.
I’m still pissed off at the firing of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. Many Sanders supporters have no idea how much she went to bat for President Obama against Republican lies and racist attacks against him on political shows week after week for 7 years! She fought to get bills out that will be helpful to non-wealthy Americans with no power AND she is from Florida, a state Dems have to win.
So now TWO strong, powerful women’s voices have been silenced because of this campaign season while truly deplorable male politicians or political hacks are allowed to continue going on political shows and lie. Nope, not sexist at all. White male political hacks have endless 9 lives. Nothing to see here folks!
Bingo.
A political site says Bernie got questions beforehand too on a few occasions.
The Bernie campaign, I noticed, only blamed women, and the Democratic party is still dominated by men.
And now these GOPers are going after Huma Abedin. The emails weren’t to or from Clinton, they didn’t pass through or reside on her server, and the FBI hasn’t even read them….but Comey made an announcement? That’s so unethical it would be comical. Meanwhile, he suppressed the investigation into the ties between Trump( and his staffers) and Russia as “too political.”
It would be really good to get an unequivocal and passionate denial out of Donna.
Much Ado About Nothing. It’s stupid that debate questions are secret anyway. Both candidates should have them and prepare. I don’t get why we want our debates to be some sort pop quiz.
This is leadership of our country, not a college midterm.
If they have the questions ahead of time they’ll work with their team to craft the best possible answers. By not giving them the questions beforehand there’s a decent chance you might touch on some things they aren’t prepared for or didn’t expect, and that’s when you get a look at who you’re really dealing with. Some real interesting stuff, good and bad, can come out in debates when people are forced to think on their feet.
Kate- I’m not interested in catching candidates unprepared. When a person is president, they have time to think, reflect, and seek advice before making decisions. So why are the debates a game of “let’s trip them up”? It’s dumb and just for the sake of drama.
You would really learn most about your candidates from giving the time to craft answers. That way, if they screw up, you know it wasn’t just being caught off guard.
I really in particular dislike how Hillary gets flack for sounding too rehearsed or polished. Preparation is something we should want from our candidates and I’d rather see that in our debates than a minefield of questions meant to make a candidate flop.
Hmmmmm…you both make good points.
I wonder if a mix of both would work?
Because I do believe that there are situations where a president may have to make a clutch decision, although it’s true that they aren’t making these decisions autonomously, they have the support of their cabinet. I also think that certain questions don’t necessarily require a rehearsed answer. I mean, it doesn’t HAVE to be a “gotcha”-type trap.
I agree, Kate. Im not interested in what their team thinks unless the team is going to be consulted for everything. Presidents get tested in real time. That’s what I want to see tested in the debates. And Clinton is GOOD at that stuff. Her “made with Chinese steel” comment was hilariously on point and spontaneous. Giving her the questions beforehand is like giving the A student a peek at the quiz. It undermines the fairness of the rest and it’s entirely unnecessary. I think what we’re seeing here is a glimpse into the way all candidates really work. The loser independents don’t have the sources and the teams to campaign on the same level as the partied candidates. They don’t stand a chance. We can complain that it’s unfair but it doesn’t really make much difference when seems pretty obvious that both Clinton and Trump have inside sources.
Neo- A President never makes decisions without consulting advisors. Even with a sudden terrorist attack, there’d be teams of people that the president would confer with. That’s a president working in real time.
And giving Hillary the answers is like letting an A student cheat? Maybe. But it undermines the fairness? Bull. If everyone has questions before hand then they should be an A student. If they’re not, that’s their problem, not the A student’s. It’s not unfair if Hillary comes off as best prepared she actually is. As long as others are given the same shot, the playing field is even.
Kate: Yes!
But how revealing that people are complaining about the debate format instead of the cheating that took place.
I have already voted. I also don’t doubt that some other ” leaks” will happen this weekend. It is astounding to me that folks can’t realize that someone somewhere is desperately trying to sway this election- and it’s not in Hilary’s favor. If that wasn’t the case, then why not release them all
at one time? Why not hack Trump’s? His businesses? Just hope my faith in the good sense in the majority of Americans isn’t misplaced!
Exactly! BINGO.
So now Trump is in the lead – I swear to God I am going to be royally pi**ed if Wednesday morning he is the new POTUS.
Tig, I totally agree, why are we not getting some of his emails hacked, I am sure there would be some juicy stuff in them, but no, its all Hillary’s, it just crazy to think he is getting away with so much, I cant beleive it at this stage. Anybody that I know could couldnt care less about the emails, its so boring at this stage, the women said she was sorry and made a mistake, please lets move on.
This was a good write-up, Kaiser-nice work.
“we went through four debates (three presidential, one VP) without any questions being asked about LGBTQ issues, trans access to public bathrooms, marriage equality, “religious freedom” statutes at the state level, climate change, nuclear proliferation and more.”
I feel your frustration and I could not agree with you more. It’s hard to think about what the debates COULD have been if HRC didn’t have to go up against a deranged orange lunatic.
So let me get this straight, Brazile gets accused of feeding debate questions to the Clinton campaign and almost a month later an email “leaks” with an almost verbatim debate question from Brazile to the Clinton campaign? Riiiiiight.
Right!
How is CNN employing a different standard for a black woman?
Prior to Brazile resigning from CNN for what is certainly unethical, she was drawing two paychecks: one as interim DNC Chairwoman (a political position) and one from CNN. Corey Lewandowski was let go from his ( political) position as campaign manager for Trump and was hired by CNN. I am guessing any compensation he continued to receive might be related to an employment contract or possibly severance. There seems to be no discrepancy in how these two individuals were treated.
Brazile was subsequently caught doing something unethical as part of her political role. If she didn’t do this, I think she would be justified in fighting a probable request for resignation from CNN. She would certainly have the platform for doing so.
My observation is that there is too much back and forth etc, between people who function as political operatives in some way and who then become a consultant/quasi-journalist for the TV networks. It’s why the public can’t get good clean information.
Just for perspective, Brazile is not the only paid TV consultant who had to exit her job for ethical reasons…Doris Kearns Goodwin was caught plagarizing in one of her books and disappeared from her stinct on ABC (?); Clarence Page was nailed for not getting clearance from his employer for a paid speech…I noted his long absence from the McLaughlin Group; NPR fired Juan Williams (a person of Panamanian descent) for comments he made on another network.
I think Brazile’s departure from CNN has everything to do with her actions and nothing to do with race/gender.
The difference is that Lewandowski signed an NDA. Brazile did not.
Was Brazile collecting two paychecks? When she took over DNC they announced her position at CNN was on hold.
Are you saying Lewandowski isn’t collecting two paychecks? Because I thought common knowledge is that he is still paid by the nominee’s campaign.
Lewandowski’s check from the Trumpster seemed innocent to me when I first heard it explained. Memory is dim, but it’s more on the severance pay side than anything else. He did have to sign an agreement to not say anything negative about Trump, which is a serious problem. They need to put him on other stories and just use him behind the scenes for providing background on the campaign.
Truthfully, he shouldn’t be near CNN or any other media. He sounds ridiculous whenever he opens his mouth.
Lama Bean:
To me almost all of the Network News ‘talking heads’ sound ridiculous. And the fact that the networks hire persons who cannot reasonably be considered neutral is antithetical to the role that news is supposed to play.
I watch France 24 (via PBS TV and online) frequently for solid, unbiased news. In addition to news, they also have a show called,’ The Debate’ on daily with nonpolitical experts where issues are discussed.
@Amelie I just had that exact revelation about a week ago. None of these fools know what they are talking about (save very few) and to make themselves feel relevant they spin up questions that are completely not based in fact. I’ve been toning it down on watching these fools lately.
@Lama Bean:
The only example (for me) of “save a few” on network TV would be Pete Williams of NBC. He did work for the DOD as press secretary, so I’m sure he has good contacts there. He also has great sources at the Justice Dept. He reports the facts, not spin or hyperbole and he has a great accuracy rating.
The only other journalist I have respect for reports exclusively on the Vatican and “All Things Catholic.” His name is John L Allen. Allen is considered to have integrity in reporting the facts, so folks from both sides of the issue talk to him. I suspect the same goes for Williams.
@Amelie, Michael Steele drew a check from MSNBC while he drew a check as the RNC chair. It’s not at all uncommon. Part of introducing each commentator involves naming their job. Editor of The Nation, Trump campaign manager, Democratic/Republican strategist, etc. Thus, they are drawing two checks, minimum.
I’ve been a Democrat since I could vote 30 years. And a loyal one. She deserved to be fired. Whatever is going on at the DNC, there needs to be a house cleaning. We shouldn’t need a cheat sheet to win against the Orange One.
And one more thing: The DNC very OBVIOUSLY needs new blood. Tech savvy young people who are in a position to step up and warn the oldsters about the dangers of technology.
We were told at one of my jobs 15 years ago, that before you hit send, re-read and make sure that you would be okay with that particular email ending up on the front page of the New York Times. I’ve been conscious of that ever since.
“We were told at one of my jobs 15 years ago, that before you hit send, re-read and make sure that you would be okay with that particular email ending up on the front page of the New York Times. I’ve been conscious of that ever since.”
this is good advice for ANYONE, in the public or private or governmental sector.
I find it interesting that it is easier to believe that this woman was STUPID rather than to think she was savvy and that this never happened.
Moreover, she could have made a phone call. But she was that STUPID. Seriously?
And that she thought Ms Clinton needed help? Thinking that shows the mentality of someone who is SO highschool. Grownups don’t think this way.
The cheat sheet was needed against Sanders. DNC basically blocked everyone else. People were told that its Hillary’s turn and not to run.
Sanders didn’t listen. And given his age it is understandable. He wasn’t going to get another chance. And DNC did everything they could to sabotage him.
If that is not corruption, I don’t know what it is.
Ms Clinton is bright and supremely knowledgable and experienced. She is also a policy wonk.
She didn’t need to crib from others. Your (right) alt narrative is rather obvious here. Jill Stein just endorsed Trump. Girls will be girls, huh?
Look I don’t like Trump either but these emails are revealing just how corrupt our government really is.Hillary is just one component of it, this is involving all levels of government and many other powerful players.Things are going to stay the same until people start paying attention and saying I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna take it anymore.
You don’t like Trump either? That’s rather a suspiciouly mild opinion about an evil fascist. Your comment is not even remotely reasonable given the facts. Nor is your logic with its false equivalency.
Exactly hmmm. It’s not a question of “like” – Trump poses an actual threat to our democracy, he is talking about creating a police state, has limited freedom of speech, encouraged violence against peaceful protestors, encouraged foreign entities to “hack” our systems and so on. Whether he’s likable is kind of irrelevant.
Why would she think she needed to give Hillary questions in advance? She’s the most prepared, intelligent nominee in years, and her competition is a complete illiterate.
@Jana, You’re saying that Bernie sanders is completely illiterate? I disagree. And just because most here, had their minds made up, doesn’t mean everyone else did. The American people had a right to see a true debate. Obviously someone in HRC’s camp felt she needed the questions. What met consider polished I consider rigid and rehearsed because, she knew ahead of time exactly how she would answer. I’ve seen Hillary freeze several times and I’m sure that was a big fear in her camp.
I’m sure Jana was mistaking the timing of the debate question leak. Jana, this was the primaries, not the general election debates. Bernie is a formidable opponent, unlike the standard bearer for the Republican Party.
Lama Bean – Honestly, that’s probably the case, because I assumed it was more recently – not during the primaries.
Millisandra, actually, everything you said is not true. Whatever your sources are, they are outdated.
But you’re just shouting at people, not listening—-because I suspect you know exactly what the truth about your sexual assaulter of a candidate already is— so what’s the point? You keep saying stuff that’s been debunked for years if not decades. None of what you said about the rape case is true. Monica herself has said things which you are clearly ignoring. Why bother?
Y’all, please leave this person alone. She’s not speaking as if she actually reads anything. These are exactly the GOP nominee’s talking points and lies.
Millisandra is trolling and sounding nonsensical.
devout liberal crank here.
she needed to be fired because she has had the opportunity to deny and hasn’t and what she did, although very unnecessary, was unethical.
comparing this to Drumpf’s slag is apples to to cheetos.
as a few have already mentioned, there is a mega-ton of corruption which is 100% bi-partisan. both parties and every position, elected and appointed.
Hillary is not exempt from this and should be watched very carefully, as any person in a position of power should. not realizing the whole system is corrupt is ignorant and naive.
a very good place to start is to oust members of the house and senate, regardless of party, every 4 or 6 years to be certain they are unable to do more extensive damage. another thing is to insist on more than a 2 party system.
then reject the electoral college because of said 2 party system. it is preventing decent people from being elected president. that’s why a Bernie couldn’t just go ahead and run as an independent -there’s no way in hell he’d get those electoral votes, he could not win even if we all voted for him.
have to laugh that so many republicans don’t see Hillary as what she is: a very conservative, biz as usual conservative politician while being (vaguely at best) socially liberal. which is what a modern republican is (die hard republicans are a shrinking group because of the live and let live attitude that is thankfully more common these days). she sits squarely in the “I got mine, to hell with the rest” camp.
she’s not going to change the banks or any industry that has money and influence. she’s not going to change much at all because she is a life long politician, which means she is either kept or deeply influenced by those already in power. i will be thrilled if i am wrong. THRILLED.
the whole system is a sham and is going to stay that way unless every day people scrutinize the hell out of all of them and demand consequences for all the shady shit that goes down. we aren’t doing that.
i’m all for the leaks. if it does nothing more than reveal the total lack of eithics and accountability, still worth it. these are public officials and the information should be public.
one of the reasons i loved Obama was he was a virtual nobody (politically) and imo didn’t have time to be corrupted.
more of the same for me please.
tear it all down.
Amen, amen I say to you Poppy. On absolutely EVERYTHING you said.
Being an elected official should NOT be a life long career. It is a public service role. Look at the Founding Fathers: Most of them could not WAIT to get back to their REAL careers.
Longevity in politics leads to corruption. It just does. Term limits. Fresh blood. True representation of your populace – NOT to your own (most likely lobbyists funded) special interests.
Although you said it SO much better Poppy!
“then reject the electoral college because of said 2 party system.”
I agree with you. I posted the same before. The electoral college system is anti-democratic and is vulnerable to manipulation and corruption. But , of course, those who are using it to their advantage are not willing to let it go.
The argument for the electoral college has seemed to be that the popular vote tends to be close. But I don’t see how we can get a true multiparty system with it. Why not run-off elections in case of a close vote, if we dump the electoral college?
Without electoral college the other parties will get higher % votes because the argument that if you don’t vote for the top candidate you are throwing away your vote is much weaker without electoral college. especially if there is a runoff election anyway.
With electoral college, the winner takes all in many states. With popular vote everyone gets the vote they got. As a result minor parties will be getting 10-15% of vote not 0%. With time it will build.
If you watch the megyn kelly interview with this lady she seems quite guilty. Still team Hillary but it’s a bit sketchy. I started watching megyn kelly interviews on YouTube after she anihilated newt. She’s really good. Then I watched a tucker Carlson interview. He was cute on cnn 15 years ago. He is garbage now. His interview style is poo.
Until the world gets a look at all Republican email with the same scrutiny, this means nothing. It means running a political campaign is full of strategizing, leveraging connections, taking advantage of every and all opportunities to support and embolden your candidate. Don’t care. Don’t care. I think it real rich that the Trump’s troubles are bolstered by an avalanche of irefutable evidence, but his supporters turn a blind eye. But Clinton loses credibility from stolen information and the RNC screams rigged election!? Oh yeah it’s rigged, against Clinton! I guarantee you the Reublican party would go down in flames if they were hacked as viciously as Clinton. Clinton will do what she has always done, prevail. Recover and rise.
“I guarantee you the Reublican party would go down in flames if they were hacked as viciously as Clinton. ”
Well, Watergate-a different kind of event which was very damaging- happened and it took a long time for the GOP to recover from it.
the clintons are criminals and cheats. the headline of this article is misleading. this corrupt woman who claims to be a christian was fired from cnn for leaking debate questions to corrupt hillary Clinton. this is the second time corrupt hillary has cheated bernie sanders.
The wikileaks emails are very illustrative of the scope of Clinton’s corruption. It is not just one small thing here and there. Don’t take my word for it, go and read the Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/31/the-podesta-emails-show-who-runs-america-and-how-they-do-it
Clinton’s supporters know it , and they know it is wrong. but they don’t talk about it. They’d rather talk about Trump and Russia.
Just like with the DNC hack – they don’t want to talk about the extent of corruption in the Dem party. They’d rather talk about the nasty Russians, who dared to expose their hypocrisy. How dare they! The truth is a dangerous thing, don’t they know.
I swear I don’t understand how people are so surprised that the world operates like this. This isn’t new information. It’s been like this for decades. This is how both Bush administrations, Clinton administration, and PBO himself worked. It’s not ideal by any stretch of the imagination, but it’s what you get when you have a hybrid of a capitalistic and socialistic society. I think of the alternative, uprising and government takeover similar to Arab Spring unrest, and realize it’s not worth the risk. That’s just me. Feel free to disagree.
“I swear I don’t understand how people are so surprised that the world operates like this. This isn’t new information.”
Well, forgive me, if I expected better from the US. I grew up in the USSR and kept hearing about the US, the leader of freedom and democracy , the shining city on the hill, and how we, the Russians, were the evil empire and the enemy of all that is good.
Now, having seen both countries from the inside, I realize that the US and Russia have a lot in common, especially when it comes to how they run and operate in the world. They are two sides of the same coin.
But the majority of the world, which bought into the image the US presents to the outsiders. I think the revelations might be new and worthwhile. Call them naïve, they have been naïve, after all. But hopefully not for long.
“it’s what you get when you have a hybrid of a capitalistic and socialistic society”
The US is the least socialistic of the developed countries. I am not sure where you are going with this. Socialism doesn’t equal corruption. Corruption thrives in secrecy. Transparency is the solution to corruption.
OK Sasha, I will grant that anyone immigrating from a foreign country may see the US as the land of the American dream. To a certain extent I do as well. I can do things here that I definitely recognize I could not do anywhere else. Those who are natives to the US were raised to believe in the American dream as well. However, if you note in my previous comment, the context states I was referring to people who are familiar with prior presidents and history. I’m not insulting you or anyone by saying I don’t understand how this is news.
When I say a hybrid of capitalism and socialism, I mean the constant struggle between every man for himself (capitalism) and the community and society (but also the unpopular equal distribution) of socialism. I was saying absolutely nothing about corruption or secrecy or transparency.
Chill. I’m not insulting anyone. I’m just giving an opinion.
The whole thread is just sad and full of whataboutism – Oh, look , the other side is even worse!
We know Trump is worse. That is not an excuse for the lack of integrity and rampant corruption.
The US is now run like the Ancient Rome in its declining days – everything is based on personal favors, and who knows who.
If that is allright by you, as long as Clinton gets elected, well, I guess, that is that then. Though, I was always taught that the end doesn’t justify the means.
If everyone knew Trump was worse – you wouldn’t have him polling as high as he is. You wouldn’t have seen him make it to this stage of the election.
LIFE is all about who knows who. Look at the people who get hired in businesses, look at small town elections in most countries – this is not an American plague only. That is what life is – and what it has been for quite some time. The difference? We now have technology that allows us to have news and scandals at our finger tips. To me – this is like how people say “oh the world is so much more messed up than it used to be”. In some ways, maybe. But people were still corrupt, people still murdered, people still raped. Now though, you have people in tiny towns hearing about crimes in other tiny towns across the ocean.
Hillary has done the sort of thing that a politician does. Those are the worst things about her – she’s a politician. No politician is ever going to make everyone happy, or live up to every promise they make. They just can’t.
I don’t take things like WikiLeaks as gospel. There’s a reason that you’re seeing so many things about Hillary, and nothing about Trump, or about other Repubs being leaked. Julian Assange has a hate on for Hillary, and because he’s a human – he’s biased. Everyone is. It’s incredibly hard to find someone who has absolutely no bias out in the world – when it comes to elections, it’s even harder because lawmakers affect peoples’ families and livelihoods. I do not look at hackers as some sort of public servant. I see them as humans who are just as flawed as the next who have the ability to pick and choose which information and which target they want to exploit. Some good things come out of hacking scandals – but you can never be sure if other things aren’t being hidden. If he’s managed to find SO much dirt on Clinton – where is the dirt on Trump? This isn’t a case of ‘oh but he did this’. I seriously – genuinely – want to know why he hasn’t managed to release information on Trump – because let’s face it – that man doesn’t have a clean slate.
Vote for the candidate who is going to make the biggest positive influence on your life. If that happens to also be the lesser of two evils – so what. Vote on the things that MATTER to you, and your family. Because other people aren’t necessarily voting for the greater good. Vote for the things that matter most to you because who else is going to look out for your interests? If you leave the polling stations feeling good about your decision, or feeling that your voice is heard – perfect.
“LIFE is all about who knows who. ”
No, that is definition of corruption, not life. It is sad that people can’t even imagine a society based on merit, not on corruption. Or are you just saying these things to excuse Hillary?
As for wikileaks – they are more trustworthy than gospel. They never were accused of doctoring the information they published. There is no reason to believe they did so this time.
The rest is whataboutism. Do you need more dirt on Trump? Is there reason to believe wiki has any? These leaks came from DNC information, there is no reason to believe they contained any dirt on Trump.
“Vote on the things that MATTER to you, and your family.”
I will. My point , though, was – if you are voting for lesser of two evils, you should at least openly acknowledge the evils you are voting for, instead of excusing them.
Erinn, I think you and I are the only ones who just take things as life. I’m not excusing either candidate. But I stand by my belief that, regardless of his possible Russian ties, Trump is still a far worse candidate than Hillary based off his long, storied history of grifting, hatred, disrespect of women & other minorities and his extreme narcissism.
Sasha, I don’t take wikileaks as gospel, especially in a situation like this. Yes, it exposed that Brazile leaked the debate question, but there is no way in hell I take something as gospel when it is only reporting one side of the story. If we are all about “transparency” then it should be transparency on both sides. Some of the stuff Wikileaks publishes (like State Dept cable releases) are downright dangerous to share. So no, not a fan of some people who don’t know the difference between harmless hacks (are there any?) and real dangerous information. Also, at the end of the day, this is still someone gaining access to your private emails. On one hand, we LOVE our privacy. When someone steals an identity, it’s a travesty. How dare they invade our lives? On the other hand, we applaud someone hacking other people’s emails. It’s nonsensical to me.
Sasha- nobody is saying WikiLeaks did the doctoring. They do have a good reputation and probably wouldn’t risk it even though Assange hates Hillary to the very core of his being with a red-hot passion…
But WikiLeaks certainly could release information that has been altered, if the provider did alterations in a way that bypasses any currently used verification tools. I think we always have to consider that possibility. It is not an outrageous thought.
@sasha- The whataboutism you speak of is a direct result of Trump’s campaign. He’s the one using the “two wrongs make a right” fallacy by comparing himself to Clinton. Ergo, you have folks pointing out the false equivalency between Trump and Clinton. Trump and Clinton are not equal in behavior/actions. Period. It is important that folks point things out. There are shades of bad, and it’s not wrong for Clinton supporters to point out that all her flaws are exceeded in egregiousness by Trump. If Trump supporters/Hillary haters don’t like this whataboutism, then they need to blame Trump. It’s his campaign that has promoted this.
But logically, using “what about?” to point out that Clinton does not equal Trump is a perfectly fine route to take. It is not logical to lump every sin in the same basket. And in comparing, nothing, not one thing, that Hillary has done wrong is as bad as the wrongs Trump has committed.
@ sasha- You say “My point , though, was – if you are voting for lesser of two evils, you should at least openly acknowledge the evils you are voting for, instead of excusing them. ”
This is absurd. Nobody is excusing Hillary. All folks here are doing is saying that the sins of the Clinton camp are not enough to make to them vote for Trump. That’s not excusing or avoiding evil; it’s putting it in perspective.
Aw, you sound like a disillusioned Bernie bot. Since you’re dealing in false equivalencies I suggest you take a course in logic. Disappointments come to all of us. Logic and facts are forever.
@Sasha
“We know Trump is worse”……
That’s all you’ve got? No, he is not just “worse”. He is evil. He doesn’t even belong on this planet with his psychopathic attitude and behaviour. He doesn’t care if America burns. He doesn’t even care if Russia burns. He most significantly doesn’t care if the world burns. As long as he gets his.
stop being bais just like cnn and upload my comments. I can’t believe women on this blog are making excuses for bill Clinton. this is a man who constantly cheated and humiliated hillary Clinton. celebitchy post my previous comments. stop being bias like cnn. the clintons are corrupt it has been proven countless times. poor bernie he had no chance againdt the crooked hillary.
Yawn. Literacy needs to be emphasised in schools.
If the ultimate goal of this election was to completely disenfranchise voters, they are doing a marvelous job.
I never thought I would hate the word “email” but I do now! This election is exhausting. Oh & who let the trolls in?
For FCKING REAL, Melly. The amount of Trump Trolls on this thread is ridiculous. Wtf? This blog has made no secret that they are pro-Hillary. If you’re trying to convince anyone otherwise you’re in the wrong place.
I’m hoping all these trolls are just Eric Trump under 5 different screen names. This is as bad as Johnny-Depp-Gate, Jesus.
Yup. I’m with y’all.
Having a different opinion is trolling now? Good to know.
Sasha, you seem to be taking a lot of things personally on this thread. No one said you were trolling. You are contributing to a healthy debate. There are some people that are legitimately trolling and talking nonsense.
99% chance no one is accusing you of being a troll.
I don’t care WHAT Donna’s emails said – she is brilliant, mad-smart and I love her long time.
And friggin beautiful!
Saying something crude isn’t assault.
No, saying you GRABBED somebody is…..saying you committed sexual assault. Nobody has ever conflated “locker room talk” with sexual assault except for Trump apologists.
The 12-15 women claiming he DID those things points to it actually being assault. If even one of those women is telling the truth (I believe most, if not all), that’s one too many.
I hope MSNBC snatches her up.
Listening to All Things Considered and trump supporters in Ohio. Sad, they actually believe the crap he’s shoveling about jobs. Oh, and according to a college educated woman, “All men talk that way(about women).”
Don’t know about the rest of you, but my comments are posting in weird spots.
While I think the all too cozy relationship between the media, politicians, lobbyists, banks and other big business is a detriment to the public, Lewandowski, Brazile and other pundits do get paid to be on CNN and by their respective campaigns, knowingly. But when I as a voter am told that the debate is fair and neither of the candidates knows the questions ahead of time and one of them cheated, that’s a huge lie to the American people and tells them those in power are in it for themselves with no care of right & wrong or a representative democracy. In this case, Bernie got screwed over multiple times. So much for “We the people….”
The donald just picked up another endorsement. From the Ku Klux Klan. Of course.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/11/1/1589543/-The-Ku-Klux-Klan-makes-it-official-endorses-Donald-Trump-saying-Make-America-Great-Again
Thank you for admitting that you didn’t pay much attention during the debate between the Democratic Machine and Senator Sanders.
She will lose.