# Election Wiki leaks Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [October 10, 2016, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160 "2016-10-10T17:21:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160/41 "2016-10-11T14:15:25Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Do you support Clinton’s efforts to bring down Putin? I seem to recall you claiming there was no evidence Clinton and Nuland would attempt a regime change in Russia. First, let’s clarify terms. The word “regime change” is more typically used to refer to the complete overthrow of a government, generally due to an invasion or some kind of direct intervention. I would not ever use the term regime change to refer to a democratic process, as in “the U.K. just had a regime change,” because there was no foriegn direct intervention to do so and the change in leadership was fully in keeping with the way the British government is expected to work. Second, I think you’re using the term “regime change” in an explicit attempt to be provocative. I’m not doubting your sincerity at all, but just because countries would prefer to see other countries have different leaders doesn’t mean it’s Iraq all over again. I think it is misleading and counterproductive to use this loaded term. “The US Government thinks Duterte is a disaster” is not sufficient basis to conclude “the US Government calls for regime change in the Philippines.” Third, I think Putin is a huge danger and would love to see him go because Russians get fed up with him harming their country someday. That doesn’t mean I support an invasion or a U.S.-sponsored coup. At the same time, I have zero problems with sanctions on Russian leaders who are intentionally bombing hospitals, invading their neighbors, messing with our elections, etc. Who the US does business with is our business, and the implication that we are doing something wrong by choosing not to enrich these tyrants is… anti-libertarian? That’s probably a good word for it. Fourth, I continue to be mystified by this conspiracy theory that Victoria Nuland is running around overthrowing governments in Europe. It’s like 9-11 truther level of nonsense to me. The whole idea that she’s a puppet master because she said “I like these guys and not those guys” has been twisted to the point that some must consider me to be an NFL coach on the basis that I chose to start Carlos Hyde in my fantasy league and he had an awesome game last week. > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > I think it’s good for the American public to know what those in and close to the government are doing. Furthermore I think it is good for the US government to be undermined and politically handcuffed by these leaks. I don’t see a problem with Wiki Leaks working with whomever is able to get the information. It seems pretty clear that at least some of the information being posted has been tampered with, very likely by the Russian government for propaganda purposes. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160/42 "2016-10-11T14:30:21Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > I think it’s good for the American public to know what those in and close to the government are doing. Furthermore I think it is good for the US government to be undermined and politically handcuffed by these leaks. I don’t see a problem with Wiki Leaks working with whomever is able to get the information. And you trust the Russian government to take the information they stole and regurgitate it back unaltered…or do you just not give a shit about it’s accuracy as long as it does damage to your political enemies and you can claim “ignorance” if things go sour? ---
**Author:** ![Malden\_Capell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malden_capell/32/5274_2.png) [@Malden\_Capell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malden_Capell)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160/43 "2016-10-11T15:02:45Z")
Just seen on Twitter some new ‘leak’ that indicates Clinton said last year she is ‘beginning to hate ordinary Americans’ or somesuch. What’s the Straight Dope? ---
**Author:** ![Tzigone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Tzigone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tzigone)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160/44 "2016-10-11T15:04:54Z")
> [@Malden\_Capell](#): > > Just seen on Twitter some new ‘leak’ that indicates Clinton said last year she is ‘beginning to hate ordinary Americans’ or somesuch. What’s the Straight Dope? She hates the phrase. Actual sentence is “I know she has begun to hate everyday Americans, but I think we should use it once the first time she says I’m running for president because you and everyday Americans need a champion,” Even [Daily Caller](http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/11/leaked-emails-reveal-hillary-clinton-hates-the-phrase-everyday-americans/#ixzz4Mn06pZdt) has headline “Leaked Emails Reveal Hillary Clinton Hates The Phrase ‘Everyday Americans’” ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160/45 "2016-10-11T15:18:45Z")
If the Russian Government released these stolen government emails directly, instead of through Wiki Leaks, would they be as acceptable to those who wish to see the Democrats harmed? ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160/46 "2016-10-11T15:19:59Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > I don’t think he argues that it’s good, but that the United States is effectively using “soft” power to threaten Putin’s regime in Russia – there’s no dancing around that fact. We operate naively, foolishly with the notion that economic sanctions are not acts of war – but that’s not how they’re viewed by the people who are dealing with their consequences. Russia, unlike a lot of countries, has the means to fight back. > > I say this as someone who’s definitely outraged by the hackings and believes we should confront Russia more directly about them. But confrontation by itself is a stupid policy that our government has foolishly used for several decades because it has assumed a) moral high ground and b) that it has the power to impose its will on others. Yes, I think we should talk about Ukraine and Crimea, but we should also talk about missile defense, the future of NATO, and how the United States and Russia can find ways to get along even if we have different views on what globalization looks like. 1. Russia is actively using its propaganda and cyber assets to threaten the stability and safety of the United States by undermining our electoral system. This is already an act of war, in my opinion. Yes, Russia can fight back. We can fight back too. While I’m no more eager for fighting between Russia and America than any other sane person, endlessly overlooking Russia’s ongoing Cold War activities and tip-toeing around their provocations does nothing but invite more attacks. I don’t want to fight Russia in any sort of war, hot, cold or indifferent. But America can’t be afraid to fight Russia if we have to, or else we risk losing our ability to fight and protect ourselves and our allies. 2.Will Farnaby, in the post to which I was replying, suggested that it was good for Americans to hear what those in power in are doing, ignoring the fact that Russia has been caught repeatedly lying about what American leaders are doing - therefore hearing about it from Russia is not a matter of learning any sort of important self-truth. But then Will repeatedly talks about how he wants to undermine America, so that’s really not a surprise that wants America to be swayed by Russian propaganda. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160/47 "2016-10-11T17:03:15Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > I mentioned this over in [the Stretch Run thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19691530&postcount=1516), but I’m starting to think Russia’s attempts to screw up our election is a genuine act of war. Putin should set up a corporation in the US so that it would be considered political speech under _Citizens United_. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160/48 "2016-10-11T17:12:49Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Putin should set up a corporation in the US so that it would be considered political speech under _Citizens United_. Countries are people too! ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Quatro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bc8723/32.png) [@Mr\_Quatro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Quatro)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160/49 "2016-10-11T17:30:44Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > A reasonable person would do some reasonable vetting of info coming from those with an ax to grind. A reasonable person? I’m a reasonable person … I don’t like wiki leaks, but it is getting more and more impossible to do a search for any information on anything without going to that web site. If you don’t have time that is to go elsewhere. If you watch NBC, CBS, ABC or CNN or Fox can you be considered a reasonable person? They don’t just report the news anymore they sift it, analyze it and slant it. A reasonable person, like me, comes over here to SD to see what ya’ll think even though most of you are Hillary supporters I love you anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160/50 "2016-10-11T17:44:04Z")
It doesn’t matter if someone is a “Hillary supporter” or not. Are _you_ a Russian propaganda supporter? I am not. ---
**Author:** ![Dob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b2d939/32.png) [@Dob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dob)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160/51 "2016-10-11T18:12:24Z")
the most “shocking” thing is that HRC has a different position on open borders and trade then she espoused during the primary run. Well no shit. I read a ton of these boring ass emails and I didn’t see her once degrade a woman, Muslim, immigrant, men, disabled people, secretly support the birther movement, no curse words, nothing… just some things in which she said one thing during a primary and another 3 years ago in a private speech. Either her position changed on the issues, or she still supports open borders and trade and said she didn’t to get more votes then Bernie. Still don’t see an issue. ---
**Author:** ![Frankenstein\_Monster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ccd318/32.png) [@Frankenstein\_Monster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frankenstein_Monster)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160/52 "2016-10-11T21:00:47Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > For those who need clarification: > > Wikileaks faked an email > > The Russian news agency has been promoting this faked email since the moment the dump occurred Just to clarify further: The email is not faked. It is [here](https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2038). Just a big copy-and-paste of a Newsweek article. ([This one,](http://europe.newsweek.com/benghazi-biopsy-comprehensive-guide-one-americas-worst-political-outrages-335218) updated link.) An article that defends Hillary Clinton and excoriates the Benghazi investigations. Nothing remotely scandalous. So there was a hugely misleading article about this email on the Russian site called [sputniknews.com](http://sputniknews.com). The article has been removed, but right now you can still see it by typing this Google query in its entirety: Hillary Confidante: Benghazi was “Preventable,” State Department Negligent site:sputniknews.com Then you can see the article by clicking the little arrow and clicking Cached. It’s just another piece of anti Hillary propaganda. While they removed that particular one, there’s still loads and loads more anti-hillary propaganda on that site. Nothing wrong with Wikileaks, I’m sure they would publish hacked Putin emails if somebody could just get around to hacking them. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160/53 "2016-10-11T21:09:37Z")
> [@Frankenstein\_Monster](#): > > Nothing wrong with Wikileaks, I’m sure they would publish hacked Putin emails if somebody could just get around to hacking them. What is wrong with WikiLeaks is that they are being used as an obvious “useful idiot” to parrot disinformation, lies and Russian propaganda. They know this. They don’t care - they continue to do it. This makes them fully culpable for the bullshit they are spreading. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160/54 "2016-10-11T21:14:40Z")
> [@Dob](#): > > Either her position changed on the issues, or she still supports open borders and trade and said she didn’t to get more votes then Bernie. Still don’t see an issue. The issue, quite obviously since you state it plainly, is that she might be flat out lying on her stance on borders and trade. While you may be cynical enough that it doesn’t cause you to bat an eye, you should still be able to see an issue with it from the cynical “just get elected” level. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160/55 "2016-10-11T21:17:22Z")
> [@Mr\_Quatro](#): > > A reasonable person, like me, comes over here to SD to see what ya’ll think even though most of you are Hillary supporters I love you anyway. I’m a Hillary voter, but not supporter. Though the reasonable and self-aware person that is being revealed in these leaked materials thus far is turning me more toward support. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160/56 "2016-10-11T21:34:59Z")
> [@Frankenstein\_Monster](#): > > Just to clarify further: > > The email is not faked. It is [here](https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2038). > > Just a big copy-and-paste of a Newsweek article. ([This one,](http://europe.newsweek.com/benghazi-biopsy-comprehensive-guide-one-americas-worst-political-outrages-335218) updated link.) An article that defends Hillary Clinton and excoriates the Benghazi investigations. Nothing remotely scandalous. > > So there was a hugely misleading article about this email on the Russian site called [sputniknews.com](http://sputniknews.com). The article has been removed, but right now you can still see it by typing this Google query in its entirety: > > Hillary Confidante: Benghazi was “Preventable,” State Department Negligent site:sputniknews.com > > Then you can see the article by clicking the little arrow and clicking Cached. > > It’s just another piece of anti Hillary propaganda. > > While they removed that particular one, there’s still loads and loads more anti-hillary propaganda on that site. > > Nothing wrong with Wikileaks, I’m sure they would publish hacked Putin emails if somebody could just get around to hacking them. [Newsweek article](http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-sidney-blumenthal-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-benghazi-sputnik-508635)that explains the altered email. > [@](#): > > ``` > Then came the money quote: "Clinton was in charge of the State Department, and it failed to protect U.S. personnel at an American consulate in Libya. If the GOP wants to raise that as a talking point against her, it is legitimate," said Blumenthal, putting to rest the Democratic Party talking point that the investigation into Clinton's management of the State Department at the time of the attack was nothing more than a partisan witch hunt. > > ``` > > Those words sounded really, really familiar. Really familiar. Like, so familiar they struck me as something I wrote. Because they were something I wrote. > > The Russians were quoting two sentences from a 10,000-word piece I wrote for Newsweek, which Blumenthal had emailed to Podesta. There was no mistaking that Blumenthal was citing Newsweek—the magazine’s name and citations for photographs appeared throughout the attached article. The Russians had carefully selected the “of course” paragraph, which mentions there were legitimate points of criticism regarding Clinton and Benghazi, all of which had been acknowledged in nine reports about the attack and by the former secretary of state herself. But that was hardly the point of the story, “Benghazi Biopsy: A Comprehensive Guide to One of America’s Worst Political Outrages.” ---
**Author:** ![Frankenstein\_Monster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ccd318/32.png) [@Frankenstein\_Monster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frankenstein_Monster)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160/57 "2016-10-11T21:37:28Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > What is wrong with WikiLeaks is that they are being used as an obvious “useful idiot” to parrot disinformation, lies and Russian propaganda. They know this. They don’t care - they continue to do it. > > This makes them fully culpable for the bullshit they are spreading. Oh I’m sure they don’t care. But they’re not spreading bullshit. They’re spreading leaked emails. Genuine ones, as far as I can tell. The disinformation, lies and propaganda comes from other sites. I’m not sure I get it. People spread anti-Clinton propaganda, Benghazi lies and disinformation on any number of American right-wing (and likely a few left-wing) sites and have done so for years and decades. Some of it has even been spread by elected U.S. House Representatives. Now we read some on a Russian site and suddenly it’s a scandal? The Russian propaganda - Trump connection looks surprising but I think Trump’s statements in this particular case rather come through the Trump - Breitbart - Alex Jones connection, i.e. known American right-wing anti-Hillary propagandists. Different propaganda groups that both just happen to be on the anti Hillary case. Russian propaganda? We used to laugh and joke about it… ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160/58 "2016-10-11T21:44:14Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > [Newsweek article](http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-sidney-blumenthal-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-benghazi-sputnik-508635)that explains the altered email. **Frankenstein’s Monster** ’s point was that the email itself was not altered. Looking at the source, it appears that it was actually not altered. What _was_ done was Sputnik news reported the email, which is just a cut & paste of the Newsweek article, as words coming from Sidney Blumenthal, not from the Newsweek article, which has a different context. So Trump’s people got a hold of the Sputnik article and quoted the misreporting/propganda about the email. So it appears the Wikileaks email has not been altered, but Trump using Russian propoganda against Hillary Clinton is, of course, problematic on its own. ---
**Author:** ![Frankenstein\_Monster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ccd318/32.png) [@Frankenstein\_Monster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frankenstein_Monster)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160/59 "2016-10-11T21:46:20Z")
And may I add that the Blumental email was a rather weak case of propaganda. Thanks to the Wikileaks email, we could read it for ourselves and notice that it’s nothing against Hillary Clinton. I actually believe that these email leaks are a positive for Hillary. Because people can read them and conclude for themselves that there’s nothing particularly bad in them. Also right wing propagandists will comb through them and likewise conclude that there’s nothing there. They’ll have to keep making up their conspiracy theories like they have always done. That is, making them up out of whole cloth with no benefit from the leaks. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160/60 "2016-10-11T21:54:28Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > **Frankenstein’s Monster** ’s point was that the email itself was not altered. Looking at the source, it appears that it was actually not altered. What _was_ done was Sputnik news reported the email, which is just a cut & paste of the Newsweek article, as words coming from Sidney Blumenthal, not from the Newsweek article, which has a different context. So Trump’s people got a hold of the Sputnik article and quoted the misreporting/propganda about the email. So it appears the Wikileaks email has not been altered, but Trump using Russian propoganda against Hillary Clinton is, of course, problematic on its own. Thanks. I got the impression they had stuck the lines into the email. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160.md?page=4)