Wikileaks reveal something about Clinton

As promised Wikileaks have released some Hillary Clinton emails. Initial reports indicated that there doesn’t seem to be anything particularly concerning.

However the timing of the release, while Donald Trump’s campaign is under extreme pressure, has been suggested as an indication of Wikileaks’ determination to swing the election against Clinton.

Politico: The most revealing Clinton campaign emails in WikiLeaks release

WikiLeaks released a trove of emails apparently hacked from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman email account, unleashing thousands of messages that reveal for the first time excerpts of Clinton’s paid speeches — including those delivered before Wall Street — that were flagged as problematic or potentially damaging.

The late-Friday release came almost immediately after a devastating tape emerged of Donald Trump in 2005 talking about how being “a star” entitled him to make aggressive sexual advances on women, fueling speculation that WikiLeaks is trying to tip the balance of the election.

The batch of emails — which Wikileaks promised is the first of many more to come — provided a glimpse into the inner workings of the campaign, and offered telling details about Clinton’s views on trade and the middle class.

In one of the most notable exchanges, Clinton campaign research director Tony Carrk emails other members of the team on Jan. 25, 2016 to share excerpts of her paid speeches that could come back to bite the campaign.

“Attached are the flags from HRC’s paid speeches we have from HWA. I put some highlights below. There is a lot of policy positions that we should give an extra scrub with Policy,” Carrk writes.

The first excerpt highlighted — with the header *CLINTON ADMITS SHE IS OUT OF TOUCH* — is from a Goldman Sachs-Black Rock event in 2014 in which Clinton discusses her distance from middle-class Americans.

The speech excerpts also delve into her support for a Canadian-style universal health care system and offer revealing comments about trade, which could prove controversial after Clinton dragged her feet in voicing fierce opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal that progressives loathe.

Beyond those excerpts, the emails affirm the campaign’s reputation for extreme caution, with an eagerness to proactively influence news coverage. Whether it’s plotting the candidates’ response to an early attack on influence peddling at the Clinton Foundation or writing jokes for an Iowa dinner speech, ad hoc committees — often incorporating advice from Bill Clinton — are shown agonizing over wording and tone. Under fire, they’re determined “not to look beleaguered,” as one aide put it.

Politico details “eight more e-mail exchanges that shed light on the methods and mindset of Clinton’s allies in Brooklyn and Washington”.

There doesn’t appear to be much that’s potentially very controversial.

Clinton’s campaign team has tried to imply doubts about authenticity of some of the material.

The most remarkable aspect of this is whether Wikileaks is going to try and match each Trump disaster with a hit against Clinton.

Leave a comment

27 Comments

  1. resterrestern

     /  9th October 2016

    Wikileaks is impartial! They release 100% verify documents, and if someone says the contrary is a complete liar!

    Reply
    • They don’t seem to be very impartial in the US election, clearly targeting Clinton.

      Reply
      • resterrestern

         /  9th October 2016

        They are not targeting anyone in specific! They release bad practices made by powerful people and governments! You should ask yourself why they are disclosing such secrets! It is simple, they do it because she has committed crimes! If she didn’t, then they wouldn’t have any info to release! We can’t be hypocritical! If we want democracy, we need transparency coming from governments,and candidates to become the next president! I guess you know about the term democracy! Anyway, I don’t like Trump. He is terrible, and racist! They both should be out of the presidential race!

        Reply
        • Missy

           /  9th October 2016

          They do it indiscriminately, and with no consideration of potential consequences to third or fourth parties – their release of documents relating to Afghanistan proved that when they didn’t think it was important to redact names of locals who helped the US and allies, thus putting them at risk of murder, torture, or worse in reprisals from the Taliban. Not to mention not redacting names of serving members of militaries in Afghanistan – including special forces, and NZ soldiers. They risked a lot of lives for their so called transparency.

          They are the hypocritical ones claiming they care about people, but ultimately putting lives at risk.

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  9th October 2016

            Is that true though, Missy? In their October news conference they spent a lot of time denying that there had been any adverse impacts on individuals as a result of their releases which they did vet before release. I haven’t seen any media evidence to the contrary.

            Reply
            • Missy

               /  9th October 2016

              Would Wikileaks admit to having put lives at potential risk? I recall not long after the release of the information there were a few stories in the media talking about the fact that names had not been redacted, also, about 2 years or so ago I heard a documentary on BBC radio about Wikileaks, and they interviewed a German guy who had started it with Julian Assange, and he was quite close to Assange for a number of years, and he said that Assange and most of the staff were more interested in putting out information rather than protecting the individuals.

              And Alan, just because there is no media evidence doesn’t mean that the lives were not put at risk, if you read what I state, I said they were at risk, not that there had been any reprisals (though it is possible). Are you suggesting because the MSM has not said anything that you have heard that the lives of those Afghanis named in the Wikileaks documents were not potentially at risk?

              There is a lot happening in places like Afghanistan, and other parts of South Asia and the Middle East that we are not told about, I wouldn’t take ‘no media evidence’ as any kind of proof that things are not happening.

              For the record, there has been no media evidence that the names that Wikileaks released didn’t put those people’s lives in Afghanistan at risk. We will never know, and that is one of the things about this kind of stuff, we can’t know, if someone dies in what is a seemingly benign way years later there is nothing to say if it was unrelated or not.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  9th October 2016

              I’m just asking for facts, Missy. Obviously those who don’t want info released will claim it shouldn’t be. But are those claims true or false?

              WikiLeaks have released a lot of info, surely enough documents and time have passed to reveal the consequences?

              I rather suspect far more people died when America abandoned them in a succession of places like Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq than have suffered due to Wikileaks.

          • resterrestern

             /  9th October 2016

            Missy why did they release those files, and videos ? It was because someone committed a crime war before! I think that all crimes committed by any government must be known! We can discuss about the details, but it must be known, and judge in The International Court of the Hague. As I said, it doesn’t matter what country commit a war crime, everyone involved in such crimes must be judge! It is the only way to ensure that democracy works.

            Reply
            • Missy

               /  9th October 2016

              So, you are saying you are okay with indiscriminate release of information containing names of individuals who potentially could have their lives put at risk? If you are comfortable with the potential risk to lives when classified information is released, great, however, I am not, I believe there needs to be some care taken to protect human life, especially when dealing with groups like the Taliban.

              This isn’t about countries being held to account for War Crimes, this is about Wikileaks not taking due care in the way they release information, they are irresponsible in their actions.

              I agree should be dealt with by the ICC in The Hague. I don’t think one narcissistic internet nerd should play judge and jury, and do a indiscriminate release of information with no duty of care to protect people, especially when they have no training or expertise in the information they are releasing, and are more interested in the publicity rather than taking the time to at least redact the information on individual people in order to protect them.

        • I think that a lot of people don’t like either Trump or Clinton.

          But interfering an a country’s democratic election process has serious implications, especially when data hacked by other countries is involved.

          And Clinton has not been found guilty of anything, yet. She hasn’t even been charged. Innocence until proven guilty (properly in a court, not via selected unauthenticated data dumps) is an important aspect of modern democratic society.

          Reply
          • resterrestern

             /  9th October 2016

            I don’t want to sound arrogant, but have you read what you have written about that everyone is innocent until it’s proven in a court ? Then, why you affirm that this data was hacked by other countries? Until I know it has not been in a court yet, so your argument is quite contradictory! For things that you believe democracy is valid , and for the rest of things it isn’t mm (other countries have not been found guilty) if this case is ever bring to the court, then it should be in an international one. An issue of impartiality, according to modern democracy! Anyway, I agree about innocence till someone is guilty, but the problem is that all institutions in the USA are politicise. If they are politicise, they become partial. Do you want I remember you about the NSA doing a mass surveillance on American citizens ? According to the constitution it was illegal. It was even acknowledge by the same NSA. Did someone pay for such crime against this human right? It is an example of and administration over politicise. Therefore your argument fall down ! It’s just my opinion, but I brought solid arguments, and facts !

            Reply
    • Missy

       /  9th October 2016

      They may be impartial (a matter of opinion), but they are irresponsible in the release of many documents in the past. Some they have released has put people’s lives at risk, and we may never know how many people in Afghanistan were killed or tortured by the Taliban as a result of the irresponsible 100% unredacted release of documents.

      And as for the release of the Clinton emails, since we know she stupidly had classified material on her personal server, how many of the documents do they have (and may release) that could potentially compromise people, and put them at risk?

      Reply
    • “Wikileaks is impartial! They release 100% verify documents, and if someone says the contrary is a complete liar!”
      For an arm of the Russian Government, I am sure that Wikileaks 100% verifies its documents.

      Reply
  2. patupaiarehe

     /  9th October 2016

    Reply
  3. Shades of our last election here!

    Reply
  4. artcroft

     /  9th October 2016

    Does Wikileaks blindly release 100% of everything? If so then they could be easily converted into a tool that hackers or whistleblowers use to effect the course of the election? If they redact what they release then WL automatically become a player in that election because there is an editorial slant to what they release. They could even attain the status of “worst of both worlds” by releasing nearly everything they get but not disclosing how much or where redactions took place. As I don’t trust or like Assange so I’m betting its this lousy third option they fall into.

    Reply
  5. Gezza

     /  9th October 2016

    “The most remarkable aspect of this is whether Wikileaks is going to try and match each Trump disaster with a hit against Clinton.”

    I reckon. And the Donald’s going to be doing the same. Watch his apology video from 1.00 onwards. The next debate is shaping up to be a real dung-flinger.

    Reply
  6. Gezza

     /  9th October 2016

    The thing about Assange & Wikileaks that’s beginning to annoy me is we’re not seeing much leaked stuff about Xi & Putin and I’m wondering why that is?

    Reply
  7. By now isn’t the Wikileak stuff getting just a bit dated ???

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  9th October 2016

      Dunno, but Trump’s recordings don’t seem to date.

      Reply
      • Joe Bloggs

         /  9th October 2016

        True that, but there’s also an old saying that a leopard doesn’t change its spots… whether the recordings are a decade old or freshly made, his song’s remained the same…

        Reply
  8. Klik Bate

     /  9th October 2016

    Here we go – the whole shebang!

    You can even search for ‘specific terms’ in over 2000 emails – try it, some interesting results XD

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s