Hacker News Reader

Comment by lowpro | Hacker News Reader

Even if Russia leaked the emails (not certain as the media would have you believe at all, not saying it’s conspiracy but It’s not conclusive), the information regarding massive corruption in the DNC was true, and that information being public is 1) good and 2) important.

View on HN

This isn’t just the media saying it, it’s the entire crux of the Mueller investigation and their indictment of the GRU agents that attacked Americans.

It’s international Watergate.

what "massive corruption" are you referring to?

The DNC clearly favoring Clinton in an undemocratic fashion, as shown by the emails involving Debbie Wasserman Schultz

"massive corruption" would be things like sharing campaign data with Russian agents and promising them access to the President. Some grumbly emails that they didn't like Bernie, who is not even a Democrat, is strictly embarrassing and incompetent, and nothing more.

I think undermining the most popular candidate for Hillary is quite corrupt and important, it’s got a bearing on who will be president!

I don't like Hillary, but surely it's within the rights of a political party to select candidates however they please?

Isn't it a _bit_ disingenuous to call yourself a "democratic" party and then attempt to subvert (and eventually throw out) your democratic process for selecting a candidate?

Also I found it quite funny how the emails clearly show that Clinton ordered the media to focus on certain people from the Republican side as "credible" leaders and they included (but were not limited to): Ted Cruz and Donald Trump.

I don't understand what the name of the Democrat political party has to do with their process for selecting a candidate.

If the Republican party has the word Republic in it, why don't they use representative electors?

See, doesn't really make sense.

Ok, then don't make the pretence of democracy then?

Just select your candidate if that's what you're going to do anyway.

When did the Democrat party make "a pretense of democracy?"

Then what exactly was the superdelegate system?

Exactly as you have described by naming it - a superdelegate system.

Do you believe that the unelected bureaucrats, not accountable to voters, holding 15% of the voting power is just something that is in line with the way one would imagine an ideal democracy in a primary?

Certainly not a perfect one, no, but that is exactly how the process works, so I don't see any pretense.

I voted for Bernie Sanders but pop over to the Wikipedia page and you'll see that he lost the popular vote by 3 million and change in an election 30 million people participated in. Not the narrowest of margins. In a perfect democracy, he'd have also lost. The superdelegate system was irrelevant in this case.

Ok, but this doesn't fit within my definition of corruption because the DNC is a political party, not the government.

Do you have an argument as to why this should fit within my definition of corruption?

Wikileaks coordinated the release of the DNC emails with the Trump campaign. Is that also "good" and "important?"

If it revealed the truth, then yes.

But that is revealed to be the truth. We know that Trump had information about the upcoming releases by way of Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi (who claims he successfully predicted the releases by revelation from God [1]).

We also know that the release was politically motivated, because it was the only time ever that Wikileaks has drip-fed a release over the course of a month, and it just so happened to be the 30 days prior to the 2016 election, and each release came with the promise that juicier and more scandalous things were coming later (which, btw, never came: the emails were totally benign). If that isn't politically motivated, what is?

1. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/29/18117777/...

massive corruption hah

Isn't it confirmed that the Russians hacked the DNC e-mails on the day that Trump famously said: 'Russia, if you're listening...". Wasn't that in the indictment for the 12 members of the GRU?

No, it's not, nor is it related.

It is related, if only possibly by coincidence

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/13/russians-hil...

It's not, the Mueller investigation debunked that as a conspiracy theory.

You've seen the Mueller report?

When did you get a copy of the report?

Where/when?

I never said it was related. It's just confirmed that the hacks happened on that day. It's in the indictments.

I still cannot believe that rational people believe that Trump said that literally. Even if you weren't watching and only got the media-spun version of events, the idea that the FSB is going to be watching live TV waiting for a literal order from a US candidate strikes me as so comically outlandish.

Email? Nope, it might go to the spam folder.

Phone call? What of the time zone difference?

Blinking morse code? Too obvious!

Secret gesture? The FSB may miss it!

Literally giving out the order on international TV during debates? Sounds like a plan!

I never once implied that the GRU hacked the e-mails because Trump said this. All I said was that in the indictments, it was confirmed that the e-mail hack happened on that day. It could be a coincidence, I have no idea.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com