# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2016, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160/81 "2016-10-12T17:54:21Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The important point to me is this: After that email was exposed as being changed **Trump AFAIK has not acknowledged yet that it was altered** , come to think of it, that goes for most of the right wing info-sphere. I mentioned that case for completeness, but it’s one case, and it was a news outlet albeit Russian which altered it, not Wikileaks. So IMO that and Trump (himself or campaign) lack of due diligence and lack of retraction is part of the general landscape of picking up phony stories from dubious sources on the internet. Any Russian news agency is a dubious source and not just ‘from our POV but let’s understand theirs’, but dubious as in likely to be reporting objective untruths or half truths for Russian govt purposes. But we’re not discussing whether there are in general phony stories or persistently dubious information processing sources on the internet and who believes them. We’re discussing, as I see it, whether I as reasonable person should suspect that Wikileaked original documents are false or altered if they become a point of contention but the targets don’t claim they are false or altered. I don’t see why. ---
**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 12, 2016, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160/82 "2016-10-12T18:07:16Z")
The email wasn’t altered afaik. The reporting of it was wrong because the entire email was really just a cut and paste of the Eichenwald article not Blumenthal’s own thoughts. ---
**Author:** ![garygnu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/garygnu/32/2924_2.png) [@garygnu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/garygnu)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2016, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160/83 "2016-10-12T18:34:49Z")
It was a cut and paste job that would definitely have gotten a warning if it was inside a quote tag here. It’s like editing a movie review that says “This film was so irredeemably terrible I doubt even the MST3K guys could even have much fun” down to “This film was so… much fun.” ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2016, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160/84 "2016-10-12T19:04:33Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#): > > I > We’re discussing, as I see it, whether I as reasonable person should suspect that Wikileaked original documents are false or altered if they become a point of contention but the targets don’t claim they are false or altered. I don’t see why. **That is my point too**. What I was saying also is that the right wing media grabs the documents and misquotes, misrepresents and cherry picks them to give us the worst interpretations. What I’m saying also is that the lack of any acknowledgment by Trump of being wrong regarding that email demonstrates what an incompetent he is. For my part I don’t see why that should be excluded as this is about the election. ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2016, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160/85 "2016-10-12T19:18:33Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > **That is my point too**. What I was saying also is that the right wing media grabs the documents and misquotes, misrepresents and cherry picks them to give us the worst interpretations. > > What I’m saying also is that the lack of any acknowledgment by Trump of being wrong regarding that email demonstrates what an incompetent he is. For my part I don’t see why that should be excluded as this is about the election. I was responding to Originally Posted by Chronos “OK, grant for the sake of argument that Wikileaks is reporting everything exactly as it came to them, and that they’re not altering anything. That still doesn’t mean anything, if it was already lies when it got to them. What evidence do we have that it’s not all lies? Only the word of people whom we already know beyond doubt to have behaved unethically. Why should we take the word of thieves and liars?” The seems to say we have no idea if Wikileaks documents are valid. I say we do. If the supposed authors of particular leaked documents or passages which become celebrated points of contention don’t deny they are real, the simple conclusion is that they are. I think it’s quite different from your point that right wing (and left wing, no interest in debating the %'s) sources give a distorted processing of facts during elections, and every other time. That’s more like ‘sun rises in east, film at 11’. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2016, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160/86 "2016-10-12T19:43:23Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#): > > I think it’s quite different from your point that right wing (and left wing, no interest in debating the %'s) sources give a distorted processing of facts during elections, and every other time. That’s more like ‘sun rises in east, film at 11’. 🙂 It may be, but it is related to the election indeed and the leaks. It is very important to see who is ignoring what for most is a clear mistake or misstatement found in the e-mails that continues to be passed as the next best thing since sliced bread by Trump to his minions. Just saying. ---
**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 12, 2016, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160/87 "2016-10-12T19:49:50Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#): > > I was responding to > Originally Posted by Chronos > “OK, grant for the sake of argument that Wikileaks is reporting everything exactly as it came to them, and that they’re not altering anything. That still doesn’t mean anything, if it was already lies when it got to them. What evidence do we have that it’s not all lies? Only the word of people whom we already know beyond doubt to have behaved unethically. Why should we take the word of thieves and liars?” > > The seems to say we have no idea if Wikileaks documents are valid. I say we do. If the supposed authors of particular leaked documents or passages which become celebrated points of contention don’t deny they are real, the simple conclusion is that they are. > > I think it’s quite different from your point that right wing (and left wing, no interest in debating the %'s) sources give a distorted processing of facts during elections, and every other time. That’s more like ‘sun rises in east, film at 11’. 🙂 What a great idea! Instead of campaigning and trying to get people to vote for them, they can waste all their time poring over all the stolen e-mails and confirming and denying them one at a time, then waste even more time with the inevitable demands to “prove” that they aren’t lying about what they confirm or deny. BTW, if the original emails are/were classified, I’m not even sure they would have the option to talk about them at all. Nice time-wasting trap you’ve set up there, bub. ---
**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 12, 2016, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160/88 "2016-10-12T19:51:49Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#): > > The seems to say we have no idea if Wikileaks documents are valid. I say we do. If the supposed authors of particular leaked documents or passages which become celebrated points of contention don’t deny they are real, the simple conclusion is that they are. No, that isn’t a correct conclusion. It’s one possible conclusion, but that doesn’t make it true. What the purported authors of the emails are saying is that they refuse to confirm, deny, or comment on the accuracy of the emails posted on Wikileaks. It’s a position that’s generally in line with how people attribute non-responses in various situations, such as: 1. Someone asks the CIA if they carried out a coup in Ubekibekibekistanstan last week. CIA says they will neither confirm nor deny. That doesn’t mean that the CIA did it. 2. A reporter asks a politician if they have ever cheated on their spouse. The politician says, “No comment.” That doesn’t mean the spouse is a cheater. 3. A police officer asks if a criminal robbed a bank this morning. He refuses to answer. Not saying anything doesn’t mean that they did. IMHO, sometimes I think we can reasonably assume that some stolen documents are the real deal. For example, I don’t have any reason to believe that Edward Snowden manipulated the classified information he stole, since it seems reasonable that his motivation – as much as I may disagree with it – was to “get the truth out there.” In this case, with the evidence mounting that Russia is not only behind the theft of these emails, but is also doing so with the intent of manipulating U.S. elections or political debates, and given Russia’s demonstrated willingness to lie through their fucking teeth at any opportunity, I don’t believe that we are obliged to give Russia the benefit of the doubt that they are not tinkering with the content before passing it on to Wikileaks. ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2016, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160/89 "2016-10-13T01:30:09Z")
The Washington Post has a good summary of this week’s leaks. [https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/hacked-wikileaks-emails-show-concerns-about-clinton-candidacy-email-server/2016/10/12/cdacbbd0-908f-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae\_story.html?client=ms-android-motorola](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/hacked-wikileaks-emails-show-concerns-about-clinton-candidacy-email-server/2016/10/12/cdacbbd0-908f-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html?client=ms-android-motorola) Pretty tame stuff. Basically aides thinking out loud about campaign strategy. How to deal with various potential Rep candidates. What to do about the email server. It’s a interesting read for people who want a glimpse inside the campaign. This type of dialogue and strategizing is common within any organization. It’s by no means a triumphant PR coupe for Russia. Still have three more weeks to go. ---
**Author:** ![squidfood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a87d85/32.png) [@squidfood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squidfood)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2016, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160/90 "2016-10-13T02:04:25Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > Pretty tame stuff. So how much of it is just to keep the phrase “Clinton E-mails” recurring in the headlines, regardless of content? ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2016, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160/91 "2016-10-13T02:42:50Z")
Roger Stone [admits to a “back channel” contact](http://miami.cbslocal.com/2016/10/12/trump-ally-roger-stone-admits-back-channel-tie-to-wikileaks/) at Wikileaks. But he insists that the Russians have nothing to do with the hacks or that he collaborates with the Trump campaign about the hacked email releases. _Riiiiiiiiighhtttt…_ ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2016, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160/92 "2016-10-13T03:21:33Z")
There’s little chance the voting public will forget about the email server scandal. That’s going to follow Hillary into the Oval Office. The Wiki leaks aren’t hurting her candidacy. Another mention about the email server means nothing. They’ve been banging that drum for a year. Wiki leak will be a minor footnote unless theres something big lurking out there. We should know within the next couple weeks. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2016, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160/93 "2016-10-13T16:03:45Z")
BREAKING BOMBSHELL: [The secrets of making risotto broken wide open!](http://www.epicurious.com/expert-advice/john-podesta-risotto-tips-article) ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2016, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160/94 "2016-10-16T17:49:57Z")
More emails released. I thought this report about micromanaging and scripting the candidate was very revealing. There’s always been a artificial and plastic feel to Hillary. She’s never connected to voters. This explains a lot. Very glad the idea to send Hillary out to work a job waiting tables (for a few hours) didn’t go forward. People would have seen right through that bs. I don’t expect this to change a single vote. The alternative candidate is so horrible that we got no choice in this election. We have to vote for her. Excellent news report. I think this applies to most candidates. There’s nothing spontaneous or genuine in candidates today. > **[Clinton Team Ran Highly Scripted Campaign, WikiLeaks Emails Indicate](https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/clinton-team-ran-highly-scripted-campaign-wikileaks-emails/story?id=42827506)** > > Purportedly hacked emails show a highly scripted, micromanaged campaign. > [@](#): > > One message has a debate-preparation memo from December 2015 that is 164 pages and includes not only full-sentence written responses to over 50 possible questions for the candidate but also gives cues such as “smile.” > > In another purported message, Podesta appears to write to Clinton herself advising that she phone prominent Latino politicians and describing point-by-point how the conversations could go. “1) You really enjoyed seeing Cindy at the Chambers event and appreciate her support. 2) Ask him how he’s been doing 3) Ask about his views on the race and what she should be doing in Colorado 4) Ask that he consider publicly supporting you,” the document reads. ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2016, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160/95 "2016-10-16T18:05:00Z")
I assume this ties in with the earlier report. That even a simple phone call requires detailed talking points. The feud with Richardson goes back to 2008. The Clintons don’t forgive or forget easily. [http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-10-12/john-podesta-asked-hillary-clinton-to-court-needy-latinos-in-wikileaks-email](http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-10-12/john-podesta-asked-hillary-clinton-to-court-needy-latinos-in-wikileaks-email) > [@](#): > > The subject of the Aug. 21, 2015, email from Podesta to Clinton and her top aide, Huma Abedin, reads: “Needy Latinos and 1 easy call.” > > Podesta suggests Clinton make calls to three politicians: Federico Pena, the former secretary of energy and of transportation under President Bill Clinton; Bill Richardson, the former New Mexico governor who spurned the Clintons by endorsing Barack Obama in 2008 and former South Carolina Gov. Jim Hodges. > Richardson was the most dicey request to be sure, which is conveyed in Podesta’s delicate email. > > “I had heard that you were upset that I encouraged a call between WJC and Richardson to bury the hatchet,” Podesta writes to Clinton, referring to the former president by his initials. > > He adds that “not withstanding the fact that [Richardson] can be a dick, it was worth getting him in a good place.” ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2016, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160/96 "2016-10-16T20:20:16Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > I don’t expect this to change a single vote. The alternative candidate is so horrible that we got no choice in this election. We have to vote for her. This shouldn’t change a vote no matter who her opponent is. It’s both funny and sad to think that people are clutching at pearls to “learn” that politicians and campaigns manage this stuff. “She has people recommending how she should handle this or how she should act at that event? Oh my, oh dear, oh my… fetch the salts!” ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2016, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160/97 "2016-10-16T22:14:12Z")
So far, the risotto thing is the only thing to come out of these leaks that wasn’t already known to everyone with three brain cells. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2016, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160/98 "2016-10-17T01:20:41Z")
> [@Jophiel](#): > > Roger Stone [admits to a “back channel” contact](http://miami.cbslocal.com/2016/10/12/trump-ally-roger-stone-admits-back-channel-tie-to-wikileaks/) at Wikileaks. > > But he insists that the Russians have nothing to do with the hacks or that he collaborates with the Trump campaign about the hacked email releases. _Riiiiiiiiighhtttt…_ > Roger Stone, under FBI pressure, argues that his NDA is invalid and stongly implies cooperation. [http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/roger-stone-fbi-donald-trump/26329/](http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/roger-stone-fbi-donald-trump/26329/) ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2016, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160/99 "2016-10-17T06:46:23Z")
Wikileaks just put on twitter that “Julian Assange’s internet link has been intentionally severed by a state party. We have activated the appropriate contingency plans.” Which I regard as horse shit and more attention seeking. First they’d have to have cut off access to the entire embassy which would be a diplomatic incident and the embassy would be screaming about it. Second it would be trivially easy to bring in to the embassy 100s of pre-paid sim cards with data plans and if he uses strong encryption they would have no way of knowing which ones are used by him and which by embassy staff. They’d have to jam GSM network coverage for the whole embassy which again would cause a diplomatic incident. So until I see something on BBC covering it (from the Ecudorean Embassy not from wikileaks), nope, just more attention seeking. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2016, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160/100 "2016-10-17T08:13:44Z")
There was a rumor circulating for several hours that the embassy was raided and Assange was either “taken” or dead, but it seems pretty unlikely that such an operation would go down with _nobody_ actually noticing. It’s not some lonely rural outpost. You can’t fart in central London without someone tweeting a picture of it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-wiki-leaks-thread/768160.md?page=6)