Hacker News Reader

Comment by lern_too_spel | Hacker News Reader

> It always fascinated me that the discussion of the leaked Clinton emails conveniently focused on the speculative source and motivation, never on the content of the emails with valid DKIM signatures

Because there was nothing in them that painted Clinton in a bad light. They were normal boring emails that were sensationalized in conspiracy blogs but recognized as normal boring emails by professional journalists.

View on HN

There were multiple emails from journalists at supposedly neutral reputable outlets asking the campaign to check and edit their articles before publishing. Also in an email Donna Brazile of CNN agreed to forward the debate questions to the campaign before the debate.

If the act of leaking emails about media collusion is a "bad" thing that influenced the election in one way, so can the media collusion itself be a "bad" thing that influenced the election the other way.

Was there ever any evidence that having the questions is actually dirty pool, or was that more an instance of "ask and ye shall receive, and nobody else asked?"

> There were multiple emails from journalists at supposedly neutral reputable outlets asking the campaign to check and edit their articles before publishing

Despite what the conspiracy bloggers would have you believe, this is standard fact checking. If the conspiracy bloggers did that, they wouldn't have anything to report.

> Also in an email Donna Brazile of CNN agreed to forward the debate questions to the campaign before the debate.

This was heavily covered mainstream news and resulted in CNN firing Brazile. Brazile also assisted the Sanders campaign as the Sanders campaign has admitted, but we don't have the Sanders campaign emails to see how much.

https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/3038...

Conservatives are not offered the opportunity to review or edit articles about them beforehand by these same outlets. The standard is to reach out for comment, not for permission or editorial review.

> Conservatives are not offered the opportunity to review or edit articles about them beforehand by these same outlets.

Clinton's team was not offered the opportunity to edit or review the articles either. They were sent articles about the costs of policy proposals to respond with their own numbers. If you think this is out of the ordinary or that conservatives don't get the same consideration, what do you think " did not immediately respond to requests for comment" means at the end of news articles?

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/37543

I don't get it. What's the issue with this email?

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/10037

This email does not clarify the significance of either email.

I think that's the point. The leaked emails were boring and normal except to conspiracy theorists.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15003606

That claim is easily refuted with a minute of Googling, just like the Pizzagate conspiracy theory. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Etymology_...

With a few more seconds one could CTRL-F 1035-960.

Hah, the difference being some people still believe in conspiracy theories. Nobody believes in Pizzagate.

The person posting Podesta emails in this thread believes in Pizzagate.

That can't be. Nobody still believes in Pizzagate. That building didn't even have a basement.

Clearly they're part of a conspiracy to make us believe, against all possible odds, that anyone still believes in Pizzagate.

Yes they must feel like fools, believing that multiple national politicians would associate with an organized pedophilia ring, for instance even flying on a private plane that had been nicknamed "The Lolita Express".

I mean, they should probably feel like fools believing there was child sex trafficking going on in the basement of a building that has no basement, even if some other conspiracies turn out to be real. It's a textbook case of mob mentality that so many people believed the lies and nobody did even basic legwork.

(And let's note: it's not like 4chan broke open Epstein's crimes. Old fashioned FBI legwork did. And the guy had a history of sex trafficking already, which nobody in Pizzagate did. As fun as it is to pretend to be an armchair sleuth, it sure isn't a pass-time that's got a good batting average over professional investigation).

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17175011

And some are so sure of their worldview that they believe in a wholly-manufactured conspiracy theory long after the reasonable evidence has discredited it, including physical evidence like the fact a building has no basement. It's a big world with a wide variety of people.

Not jakeogh though. like I said, he's part of a conspiracy to make us believe people still believe Pizzagate. The purpose of which is to undermine confidence in average human reasoning skills, which undermines faith in democracy. This is important for the next step of the Triluminati's plan.

Pointing to a specific claim that was not made as if it was. Anyone can find something to point to that is false. It's an effective way to avoid specific things that were brought up.

Since you've brought up nothing but a couple of links to emails with the word "pizza" in them somewhere and a couple of links to your own posts in the past (without any context to explain why those posts are relevant to the topic), I think I've avoided nothing specific you've claimed because you've claimed nothing specific.

Does it even count as "JAQing off [https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions]" if one party in the conversation doesn't even bother asking questions?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17181228

My question stands unanswered and further communication in this topic is likely fruitless.

jakeogh, I wish I could say I wished you the best, but I'm not a fan of conspiracy theorists and I'm not a fan of this game you're playing trying to convince people that anyone still believes in Pizzagate. Reality is already complex enough as it is.

May the Triluminati treat you gently for doing their bidding, whether or not you know you are.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17180321

Old fashioned FBI legwork...

You're wrong about... everything.

FBI washed their hands of this when the rest of DoJ did, in 2008. Two things caused national attention to return to Epstein: Alexander Acosta's nomination to Labor, and Julie K. Brown at the Miami Herald refusing to forget about Epstein's victims even after the rest of the media had. FBI had fuck-all to do with any of this; they don't like to investigate people who can afford to hire lawyers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com