Russia Is Reportedly Set to Release Clinton's Intercepted Emails | Hacker News Reader

Russia Is Reportedly Set to Release Clinton's Intercepted Emails

finance.yahoo.com

59 pointsaburan2848 comments

Seems pretty dubious:

>The claim appears to be based off nearly identical reports released last month, most notably by frontpagemag.com, that cited a website known for fake content as proof of the Russians’ intentions.

http://www.infowars.com/debunked-no-russia-is-not-about-to-r...

Using infowars.com as a source to debunk a claim made by several news outlets is quite interesting

Yeah, maybe not the best source.

Though talking of sources, the Daily Mail for example gives oilprice.com as it's source which says amongst other stuff:

>The apparent message from Moscow, through the intelligence community, seemed to indicate frustration with the pace of the official U.S. Department of Justice investigation into the so-called server scandal...

which seems kind of iffy to me. Like Putin is really concerned with the DOJ investigation into Hillary and that is what leaks to the west rather than say their dealings with Ukraine or Turkey. Sounds more like some US based right winger to me.

This is the sort of thing Sorcha Faal puts out regularly.

Sorcha fucking Faal. Via the neo-Nazi site European Union Times. This was too bogus even for Infowars.

Wow, this is total nonsense from Sorcha Faal. http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index2048.htm

Trump made his debut foreign policy speech at a pro-Russian Washington think tank. Several Trump advisors have worked with Russia before.

In the other hand, the Clintons have been involved in scandals over mass dark Chinese money, and Hillary has taken in millions from Saudia Arabia and Kuwait in recent years.

Given that Russia fears China and is currently invoved in a war with Saudia Arabian proxies, it's pretty much a no brainier which candidate they will supporting.

Consider that after HRC and Russia's "worlds goofiest reset button ceremony" around 2009 or so, things have gone sharply downhill for US/Russian relations. From argumentative brothers to something near "the shooting war begins the day after Hillary's inauguration". The analogy of the changing relationship between the USA and Iran in the Carter administration is enlightening.

Its hard for HRC to deflect that to her boss. If she had stayed a senator or otherwise somehow not been involved, maybe the Russians wouldn't be so unhappy with her. She has been at the center of the last couple years of the USA/Russia trainwreck.

However its not totally impossible to deflect that to her boss. Her husband did "OK" with yelsin and met putin right at the end of his term. So she can likely argue its nothing personal or familial, its all an obama problem. And the Russians can turn right around and ask if she failed to advise her boss properly or failed to resign for ethical reasons, either way they have no reason to let her off the hook, unless she does something for them, maybe.

Trump being a businessman and a dealmaker and an outsider is almost certainly a better situation for Russia. He's stable and much more non-interventionist than Hillary. Its hard not to see how that would measurably benefit Russia (and, frankly, the USA)

More philosophically, lifetime politicians bend toward monopoly outlook, and american businessmen bend toward competition. A lifelong politician is going to inherently have an issue with the concept of a competing empire existing. A businessman isn't going to mind a competing land empire on the other side of the planet separated by a vast ocean full of our own navy. He's not going to be existentially scared of Russia. Scared people lash out, and that's dangerous with nuclear powers.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with the above arguments, but nobody else is bringing it up, so here it is.

China, even with Trump's talk of tariffs, seems to take a preferential view on his foreign policy for the same reasons you stated that Russia might hold. There seems to be an appetite abroad for a non-interventionist US foreign policy.

> He's stable

That's a novel argument

He's an old businessman, and the tabloids have been chasing him since before I was born, he has no secrets. List specific examples of business deals and negotiations he torpedoed by being unstable. Does your favorite programming language support null as the content of a list? Most do.

He has problems like any candidate, but his opposition seems to have no idea what they are, which makes him look better.

It's also no brainier if they want to derail the standing of the US in the international community, if only 10% of what trump says on a daily basis will be said during his presidency he can do allot of damage. I some how doubt that many world leaders would take him seriously, at this point I'm hoping for a spoiler from both parties because I cannot remember a lower point in US politics than this election.

Time to draft Mark Cuban or somebody. Maybe we can shine a light in the sky or something.

Okay, so how is this a response to the parent's comment? The parent said that Trump announced his foreign policy position at a pro-russian think tank and that he has a few aids who worked with the russians, and that the russians may release the emails to favour trump. and your response to that is?

He's (maybe) saying the Russians would also support Trump for the benefit of causing America to lose face on the world stage.

Replace the comma between "community" and "if" with a period and it reads better.

Working with Russia isn't something you should be excited about. Trump is delusional about Russia, as were (and still are) several of the European leaders. Russia is not looking for friendly relationships, they don't care about stupid resets etc. Its a backwards country, it will be for decades to come, and it trickles all the way down to the mindset of their people. They should be isolated even more, not courted for friendly relationships by an unexperienced president, so they could abuse that to their own good again.

How is Russia a backwards country? Their HDI is pretty good (although perhaps not as good as other superpowers) and also they were in space race.

Have you been followong the news for the last five years? I lived there almost all my life, have a lot of family and friends there, and agree with parent comment wholeheartedly: modern russian political elite is a backwards and corrupt authoritarian that sincerely hate western and liberal values and do all in their power to turn the country back to totalitarian state. Their ambition in foreign policy is to be a feared bully, and best reaction US and West can come up with is more sanctions and isolation.

>Hillary has taken in millions from Saudia Arabia and Kuwait >in recent years.

There is no actual proof of this. One doesn't have to be a Hillary supporter just want some kind of proof of accusations

>Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

>between 10,000,000 to 25,000,000

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors?category=%241...

>"No actual proof"

ok...

While I'm sure that a donation (especially a gigantic one) to the Clinton Foundation will help make the Clintons like you, it's not as though the Saudis gave the money to Hillary herself, or to her campaign. It went to the Clinton Foundation, whose work you can see in the Our Work menu at the top of that page.

There are ways to be creative about funneling money around. http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-founda...

An excerpt: "The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid. The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends."

Exactly. The money is mostly spent on non-charitable things. For example, HTC needs a private jet to Ohio for a campaign speech. No problem, make a 5 minute speech while in Ohio for the foundation and you can expense it all to the foundation. Or have a huge staff who do fuck all for the foundation and spend 95% of their time on campaign work.

And you have actual proof of this happening? Clinton foundation staff doing campaign work ?

It wasn't an accusation, it was an example of how there's zero accountability. However, here is some information:

Katie Dowd: Previously a director at CF, now a director for HRC's campaign

Cheryl Mills: On the board of CF, said by several sources to be working on HRC campaign

Dennis Cheng: Previously served as chief development officer at the Clinton Foundation, is now campaign finance director

BRUCE R LINDSEY: The campaign director for Bill Clinton, now the Chairman of the Board for Clinton Foundation.

And obviously Cheslea, who works both with the CF and HRC's campaign.

The list goes on. Feel free look at a list of officers etc on page 34 here: https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinto... and continue doing more searching to see how people working, or have previously worked, at the CF are now doing campaign work for HRC.

This is obviously not proof that someone sitting in the Clinton Foundation office is doing campaign work during their 40 hours/week, but common sense would tell us, even from the very limited data above, that it is very probable to have happened at some point.

Also interesting to note: In 2014, the foundation spent nearly $20 million travel while having only $80 million in salaries. That's a shit load of travel expense. They spent more in travel than they did actually providing direct assistance.

good detailed response. thanks.

The Clinton Foundation isn't even in theory a grant-issuing direct-aid charity; its mainly a set of "initiatives", each of which is essentially a policy think-tank with a subject matter focus that actively partners with outside (of the Foundation) entities (often primarily governments at some level) to implement policy in its focal area.

That would show up in "administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses"...the bulk of their expenditures. So it becomes a pretty grey area, fairly easy to funnel money around wherever you want.

As Nigel says, you can look up the public money sent to the Clinton Foundation on the Clinton foundation website itself.

> No actual proof of the exact dollar amount,

lol

Yep, first they took over reddit, then imgur fell, now HN. I thought if I came to HN I could stay away from all the political noise.

(While I have no problem with people talking about things that would effect every single one of us, I cant agree with the fact we at HN are upvoting an article about an article written by oilprice)

I agree with you that the article is so doubiously sourced as to be effectively worthless at the current time.

Every news outlet is citing oilprice.com. Has there been any other source for this?

It feels like a red herring to me. It may not be, but still, after the recent massacre the sentiment supports Trump. Hillary probably wants to change the subject - it may prove difficult.

Concrete evidence that"the sentiment supports Trump" after Orlando is found...where, exactly?

I think this Bloomberg poll may be some concrete indicator: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-14/bloomb...

I don't see anything in that poll that indicates that the more is with Trump after Orlando.

The most recent poll I saw (Hillary ahead of Trump by 12) differs.

If Americans think this is released by Russia to harm Hillary, maybe they'll side with Hillary, at least more so than if it's released by Wikileaks, thought Hillary and started spreading rumors that the leak is coming from the Russians. "Reportedly..." "Reliable intelligence sources in the West have indicated..." Riiiiiight.

Is this news or editorial. The URL says "news", but it's full of "reports say" and "sources say," without saying who those sources are saying to. Are the sources saying to the article's author, or to someone else in some other article at some other outlet, or what?

From the byline, who is "Defense and Foreign Affairs," and who is "oil.com?"

Why would Russia release anything until the DMC have chosen Clinton as their candidate? I think that if Russia actually prefer Trump they would not release anything that would benefit Sanders in his struggle against Clinton.

> Reliable intelligence sources in the West

What sources ? it's too easy to begin an article like that without even telling where the information comes.

> By Defense & Foreign Affairs

I guess it is them

http://www.dfaonline.net/

Doesn't look trustable to me. I didn't hear any Russian official saying they were going to release confidential communication from US officials.

If russia does this, will it not damage Russia's standing globally? It is not like the FBI cannot get hillary's emails, which, correct me if I am wrong, they totally can. If russia does this, it would be a down right open and transparent attempt of influencing domestic issues and justice and due process.

will it not damage Russia's standing globally?

1 - It's hard to see what could further damage Russia's standing.

2 - Russia doesn't appear to be very concerned about its image anyway.

To get Clinton out of the race? DMC will have a candidate, the question is who? And if you support Trump (for your own end) which one would be best. Do you think Clinton or Sanders would have a bigger chans of winning against Trump?

> Do you think Clinton or Sanders would have a bigger chans of winning against Trump?

Sanders by a landslide, according to a bazillion polls by almost all major polling organizations throughout the entire campaign.

Generally, the polling has indicated the following:

• Sanders beats every GOP contender by a big margin.

• Clinton beats most, by a small margin, and loses to Kasich.

Why was this flagged?

I assume because there is no evidence or clear announcement whatsoever, just the claim that unspecific sources say that it is possible something might happen.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com