Hacker News Reader

Comment by rfrank | Hacker News Reader

"Can't we just drone the guy?" - Hillary Clinton, on Assange.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12736096 and marked it off-topic.

The basis for this is claimed to be anonymous "State Department sources," by way of a single blog which does nothing but print right-wing hatchet jobs (True Pundit). Considering the lack of credibility in True Pundit's other posts, it would not shock me if the quote was fabricated.

Please do your research before posting unverified quotes as fact.

Haven't seen that one. May I have a source, please?

FBI report. Of course, it's a "joke" that Hillary "can't recall." Even though, "The statement drew laughter from the room which quickly died off when the Secretary kept talking in a terse manner, sources said. Clinton said Assange, after all, was a relatively soft target, “walking around” freely and thumbing his nose without any fear of reprisals from the United States. Clinton was upset about Assange’s previous 2010 records releases, divulging secret U.S. documents about the war in Afghanistan in July and the war in Iraq just a month earlier in October, sources said."

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/hillary-clinton-julian...

Snopes must be having a pretty high traffic month: http://www.snopes.com/julian-assange-drone-strike/

The original source is not an FBI report and you are completely misinformed. An unknown blog which contains nothing but right-wing hit pieces claims to have anonymous sources in the State Department. Until I hear this quote echoed by professional journalists with the integrity to verify their sources, I will take it with the grain of salt it deserves.

"completely misinformed"

https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/hillary-r.-clinton-...

"“Clinton could not recall a specific process for nominating a target for a drone strike and recalled much debate pertaining to the concurrence process. Clinton knew there was a role for DOD, State and the CIA but could not provide specifics as to what it was. Due to a disagreement between these agencies, Clinton recalled having many discussions related to nominating an individual for a drone strike. When Clinton exchanged classified information pertaining to the drone program internally at State, it was in her office or on a secure call. When Clinton exchanged classified information pertaining to the drone program externally it was at the White House. Clinton never had a concern with how classified information pertaining to the drone program was handled.”"

She's Secretary of State, and parts of the State Department would like to have a say in whether drone strikes are approved. She attests that no formalized process was in place. This is not news to anyone who has been following the situation.

I do not see the name Julian Assange in the above report.

Is the only way for you find the claim she said the above statement true that someone produce a recording of the meeting at State where they were discussing droning people? Strikes me as an unreasonable bar, but hey, do you. Think recordings of everything HRC says would be wise, given her security practices?

I fully expect the State Department to enter into conversations with DOD about formalizing the process for authorizing a drone strike, since the process is currently dangerously discretionary. Again, that's not news.

If the source and quote about Assange are real, they should go to the Washington Post or another reputable outlet with it. Even FOX News hasn't picked this up. It is very easy to conclude this is a fabrication until someone with a better reputation for journalistic integrity runs it.

Are you skipping the, "...Clinton recalled having many discussions related to nominating an individual for a drone strike." portion of the quote on purpose? That's not "formalizing the process for authorizing a drone strike," it's, "choosing targets for a drone strike."

If your standard for whether or not a story has happened is mainstream news coverage, then you and I perceive the world in extremely different ways.

> It's, "choosing targets for a drone strike."

We're talking about the State Department wanting a voice in how we handle people with names like Bin Laden. It does not surprise me at all that they would like to be present for those conversations instead of allowing DOD to act unilaterally. Again, where are you getting names like Julian Assange?

> If your standard for whether or not a story has happened is mainstream news coverage, then you and I perceive the world in extremely different ways.

Mainstream isn't a curse word. It means they have something to lose by screwing up badly at journalism.

True Pundit can print anything it wants. If it comes out that they literally made it up, they can reopen the blog tomorrow under a new name. It is an unknown and untrusted outlet for news. Given the blog's obvious purpose as a serial hit piece against Clinton, it has no more credibility than a blog I spin up tonight called "Bad Stuff I Think Trump Did."

"We're talking about..."

We're also talking about what they were talking about at the time, which includes who specifically to shoot missiles at from a drone. People with names like Obama say people with names like al-Awlaki, among others. People with names like Clinton say people with names like Assange, among others. I get the name Assange from the allegations of State Department employees.

Mainstream also means collusion with Democrats. Want me to link the several hundred correspondence between reporters and various DNC/HRC campaign staff that have been leaked in the last couple weeks? Or do you actually believe that's a real thing even though it's not heavily reported on?

> I get the name Assange from the allegations of State Department employees.

You get the name Assange from the allegations of a previously-unknown and untrusted conservative blog which does nothing of substance other than regularly attack Clinton. Forget FOX News - even Drudge Report refuses to touch this, and that is very telling.

Not all journalism is created equal, and it is nothing short of gullible to take such thinly-vetted sources on faith.

replying to your most recent comment:

1. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/03/will-wikileaks-as...

2. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-11/how-julia...

3. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/05/hillary_cl...

4. http://www.torontosun.com/2016/10/03/hillary-clinton-suggest...

5. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10...

i even included a blog.amazon.com link just for you sugar. SOURCE SO FAKE.

Most of these stories are about the fact that WikiLeaks retweeted True Pundit. Importantly, none of them are talking to the source. Were I the source, I would take these articles for what they are - invitations to give my message a broader and more legitimate reach.

Unless, of course, I am also the author of True Pundit and I know they will see through me before I even get an interview.

it's cute watching you continually edit your posts. why do you think "it's fake" is the only logical conclusion to someone not stepping forward as the source of the leak from within the state dept?

surely it's not because they fear a response from "the most transparent administration in history" who just so happens to have prosecuted more people under the espionage act than all other presidents combined. or how people like seth rich ended up.

Why do you think "it's real" is the only logical conclusion to a quote appearing in a right-wing hit blog and nowhere else?

It is a weighty accusation which should be taken with healthy skepticism rather than on faith. In the absence of any sort of journalistic integrity behind the outlet, I'm more inclined to believe it's a play for clicks and outrage.

@etjossem

My source is too small for you. Your sources are too guilty of collusion for me. I'm not going to wait for Amazon's clickbait/advertorial farm to tell me something is true or not. Think it's a coincidence that WaPo has won almost nothing since Bezos took over? Not all journalism is created equal indeed.

Your source is fake. Your source is so fake that not even known alt-right bastions are willing to risk their names on it. When it appears in Breitbart, we'll talk.

your question gets an answer when you answer mine. write your whole thought out at once, learn to proofread. i'm not going to f5 for an hour so you can get your whole thought out.

Take a break, then. Breathe. Think about blind trust and where you are willing to place it.

i'll place trust in wikileaks over the obama administration, clinton campaign, and washington post any day. this conversation is over, have a shitty day.

May yours improve.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com