Maybe grab himself one of those triangle sandwiches while he’s there.
4 Likes
So rather than “signal her fealty” in the private, paid for speeches, she did so with an inscrutable proxy maneuver? One that did more damage than just releasing the damn things would have? Sort of what I was talking about with mountains and molehills. The lack of evidence for the thing in question totally proves the thing in question!
I think rather than using subtle variations in eyebrow weight to signal her reptiloid over lords it’s likely just more of that frustrating Clinton unwillingness to release anything untill neccisary. Even when it’s good news or exculpatory. It’s a well established and understandable (if frustrating and entirely counter productive) tick of theirs. And widely held to be a reaction to 30+ years of political show trials.
Eta: there’s also a non zero possibility that she was legally bared from releasing them. I’ve done some communications work with the major banks. They’re scumbags and the non disclosures are intense. In fact I probably just violated mine. By acknowledging there is such a thing as a major bank. That communications is a thing they engage in. And implying they ever contract anyone for any work ever.
Also mentioning that NDAs exist on planet Earth.
7 Likes
You might be able to authenticate the speeches… Talk to the “court reporter”/transcriptionist.
1 Like
Good God. So much bullshit in such a tiny space.
-
Greenwald is wrong. It damn well does matter that Russia is behind the leaks. Not with regard to newsworthiness, but with regard to the fact that attempting to subvert the electoral process of a sovereign country to install your preferred candidate is the next best thing to an act of war. We don’t have to speculate how Russia would respond if they were on the receiving end. They invaded Ukraine on a very similar pretext.
-
Wikileaks essentially has revealed itself as a willing arm of Russian intelligence. Fuck Wikileaks.
-
How do you square “these proved to be remarkably anodyne” with “calling her to account for her misdeeds?”
-
It is a mistake to judge the past by the standards of the present. The 1994 crime bill turned out to be a mistake but no one thought that at the time. The country was in the middle of the biggest crime wave in our history, and what turns out to be the correct explanation (too much environmental lead 20 years earlier wrecked developing brains) wasn’t on the table.
-
As Kevin Drum has convincingly demonstrated, the 1994 Crime Bill had almost nothing to do with the black incarceration rate. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/02/black-incarceration-didnt-explode-under-1994-crime-bill
-
Drum also addresses the welfare reform bill with ACTUAL DATA! http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/02/heres-why-bernie-sanders-doesnt-say-much-about-welfare-reform
You can fairly criticize the rest. Those are judgment calls and judgments can differ. But facts do not. And in any case, I hasten to point out that Barack Obama also opposed single payer at the time ACA was passed, supports TPP today, and supported the Wall Street bailout that was a far bigger gift to the finance industry than anything Clinton has ever supported.
4 Likes
What’s Assange’s (or Wikileaks’) motivation? I mean, they detest all politicians. I’m sure that includes Putin and Trump as well. They’d happily hang them all and have as much as said that before. I suspect he’ll take data from anyone that is willing to leak it and chortle all the way to publishing it.
1 Like
Best bet? Irony of ironies, Putin probably has dirt on Assange.
1 Like
Is this a personal opinion or do you have a factual basis for this statement?
I really doubt that Putin is blackmailing Assange. Assange is a piece of shit who is already on the lam from sexual molestation (if not rape) charges.
1 Like
A couple times in the recent past Wikileaks has acted directly in line with Russian goals. That is before these hacks. I remember seeing some speculation that other people besides Assange at Wikileaks, and specifically people that are currently anonymous may be in some way connected to Russia or the FSB.
That said Assange has taken the position that all bad things happening to him are the result of US skulduggery. Cooperation with Russia makes sense in that Russia is providing him with an easy opportunity to embarass the US. Likewise Assange’s publicly stated motivation is that he hates Clinton and personally wants to take her down. He’s acknowledged that the leaks are being deliberately timed to cause maximum damage to Clinton.
So best case scenario Wikileaks are being played as stooges by the Russians/hackers. Assanges personal biases and suspicions happen to line up nicely with Russian intelligence goals. Making him a convenient publication vector after the various self administered leak sites were too easily tied to Russia.
One interesting thing with this whole shebang is how Wikileak’s and Assange’s recent behavior has underlined fundemental differences with how Snowden comported himself. Snowden grabbed documents. Brought them to well regarded journalists. And helped them carefully sort, redact, and verify before publication. Recently Wikileaks has basically just been dumping un-checked documents en mass. Regardless of newsworthiness, veracity and what damage it might cause. Even with out Assange openly warping things to his own (perceived) benefit, that makes it insanely easy for a state like Russia to get them to act on its behalf.
3 Likes
I generally agree with what you’re saying except the above (and I’m a Snowdenista). Snowden handed over the docs. He hasn’t helped redact or verify them before publication. His role since handing them over has been entirely minimal. He’s said as much many times.
I think Assange is a classic self-absorbed Internet trolley when it comes to personality. His narcissism would explain his (like Jake Appelbaum’s) behavior towards women as well. He’s human filth.
3 Likes
I was under the impression that he offered advice and commentary in regards to what things were. Which would factor in to decisions about what to publish, and what should be held back. Even though he wasn’t necessarily directly involved in the work on what he brought in.
I think I like Snowden. But I think its also clear that he had some ulterior motives. Even beyond the warrentless wiretapping and NSA fuckery is a net bad that he sought to expose for entirely justifiable reasons thing. But I’ve never been able to really figure out what he’s genuinely on about. Which is why I think I like him. Though I have to say he looks better and better daily.
Either way my point remains. Snowden removed himself and his personal politics, biases, and what have from the situation. He handed off what he had to ethical third parties who handled it properly.
Wikileaks never really did anything at all like that. Even before. The Chelsea Manning thing never sat well with me. That there was a person who was hurting, confused, and frightened. Wikileaks folks manipulated her into giving over info in a way that looks eerily like espionage work, then left her holding the bag. Then dumped the info with little regard for the effects. It was crass, and a huge violation of journalistic ethics. And they’ve continued down that same path.
My feeling on Assange and Wikileaks as a whole is basically that its another example of the web’s vaunted political positions. Like radical free speech, or “information wants to be free” type radical transparency. Are really just pseudo-libertarian excuses for assholes to be assholes. If they thought they could hold the moral high ground leaking celebrity n00dz and trash gossip I’m sure they’d be working that angle too.
4 Likes
I’m surprised an embassy, even one in a friendly country, doesn’t have its own satellite uplink.
1 Like
My theory is that she knew there was nothing particularly damning in them, and that they’d be released eventually, but keeping them sekrit as long as possible kept Trump wasting time tilting at windmills. When you repeatedly cry wolf over things that turn out to be innocuous, subsequent cries diminish in credibility. Won’t make a difference to his lunatic supporters, but it could soften negative opinions of HRC amongst undecideds.
3 Likes
Oh, those wacky noodles over at The Graun. The piece is more hilarious than you’d think.
What makes you think it doesn’t? The embassy is who cut off Assange.
1 Like
Dear Julian,
No more internet until you do your chores.
While you’re under my roof you bring our the bins and put the dishes in the dishwasher.
Regards,
The Ambassador.
10 Likes
Personal conspiracy theory. Sure, he could only be a terrible person but that’s no fun.
I agree. If you have them screeching for some content that you know is a big fat nothingburger, refusing to release it is smart. In addition to keeping their attention from focusing somewhere else where they might find something substantial, it also makes them look like desperate outrage junkies when it finally does go public and turns out to be a big fat MEH
2 Likes
I typed “cutting ethernet cable” into Google’s image search and came back with far too many examples that actually make sense for this article. Not like you guys have ever made fun of shitty or misused stock photos, though.
it’s a hobby.
5 Likes
Pernicious NDAs are a possibility, although Hillary Clinton is high enough up the power scale that it would surprise me if they demanded them of her. And she is a lawyer; she would have the sense to retain authorship rights over her own words. However, she may have accepted some disclosure constraints, even if they were informal.
Most of us peons have no idea of how pervasive the NDA is as a social tool, rather than a legitimate constraint on loss of competitive advantage. The hyper-elite use them with abandon on all their hirelings. Some of the most constricting I’ve encountered lately were (I suspect; the signatories can’t risk telling) among turnkey camp workers at Burning Man.
