SNOPES: What We Know So Far About WikiLeaks' #DNCLeaks

[Hissyspit]

Very well done and useful.

http://www.snopes.com/2016/07/25/what-we-know-so-far-about-wikileaks-dncleaks/

[annavictorious]

1. No one is buying it anymore.

Trolls with credentials booing POC at a Democratic convention.

Everyone knows what this is really about.

[Hissyspit]

2. No one is buying what?

I'm not a troll. I'm not a racist. I'm voting for Hillary in the Fall. And I'm disgusted by the content of some of the emails. Do tell me what I'm about.

[Rex]

4. I don't think that was directed at you, more like the people at the convention.

[Squinch]

12. Which ones, specifically? Because I've read through them, and I am seeing 2 out of 20000 that

are problematic, and they are from after Bernie lost the primary.

So which ones concern you?

[JesterCS]

18. It's amazing

Many posters now act like freepers. Their way or the highway

[merrily]

10. Deflect much? False equivalency much?

[leftstreet]

3. DURec - Thanks for posting this

Interesting stuff

[merrily]

5. Thanks, Hissyspit. It is good and clear.

Unquestionably, the e-mails demonstrated that the DNC operated as an arm of the Hillary Clinton campaign, planting information in the media* to flatter Clinton and damage opponent Bernie Sanders. The revelations were particularly damaging because the DNC was obligated to behave neutrally, and had repeatedly denied the demonstrated favor toward Clinton existed.

The spin cycle.

"Conspiracy theory! Conspiracy theory. It's not happening! You're all nuts, imagining something so bizarre and totes unthinkable! Shame. Shame. Shame."

Then, evidence is produced and the spin changes to....

"Big deal. No surprise. Everyone does this. It's SOP. Why are you making a fuss? What jerks you are to be upset. Shame. Shame. Shame."

In between, omg, the nitpicking, the challenging, the demands for proof beyond a reasonable doubt that no one could possibly have fulfilled. And, even if someone had produced such evidence--required only at a criminal trial-- no one would admit they had done so.



I don't know if snopes is correct that the allegations about Russia are true or not. If not, they are no theory. They are garden variety lies, told to distract and as if discrediting the messenger somehow negates the disclosures. News flash. It doesn't matter if Lucifer or Archangel Michael disclosed this. It's true and it's disgusting and shameful and strikes at the heart and soul of our system. The only words I have for those who seek to excuse it, rationalize it, minimize it, distract from it, etc., or pretend it's on a par with booing, are "Shame on you."



*In case anyone missed it, the media had to have known and been complicit.

[RazBerryBeret]

6. sore losers,

conspiracy theorists, purists, bullies, naive, inexperienced....

sigh. sorry I had to chime in.

[merrily]

8. I saw more sore winners than sore losers and sore winners are far less explicable.

However, I am willing to admit that I may not be subjective.

[REP]

13. Even if it hadn't been my ox getting gored, I'd still be angry

I'm not so naïve as to believe either party is free of this - there is a very real sense of it being someone's "turn," especially on the R's side - but it is dismaying to see just how low our side was (is?) willing to go. "Benign neglect" of a less-favored candidate is one thing; outright sabotage is another. Neither is what the DNC is supposed to do, but one is marking the cards and stacking the deck.

[merrily]

16. The DNC *and* the media, hand in hand, much as we've been saying all year. "Unquestionably."

There's not been a sense of someone's turn on the Dem side until Clinton, unless there was an incumbent President or Vice President, like Truman or Gore.

Truman, an incumbent, sadly, by reason of FDR's death; then Eisenhower (R). JFK had to fight like anything for his nomination. Then LBJ was, sadly, an incumbent by reason of the assassination. 1968, Humphrey, an incumbent VP (plus a lot of special circumstances, like assassinations). Then McGovern, who got the nomination seemingly out of nowhere, probably mostly because no one else wanted it, knowing war time incumbent Nixon would win. Then Carter who seemed to come out of nowhere. Then Mondale, an incumbent VP. Then Dukakis, who also seemed to come out of nowhere. Then Clinton, whose turn it was seen to be, despite his young age. But, he had been in politics since he met Senator Fulbright while he (Clinton) was in high school. Then, Gore, an incumbent VP and fellow DLC founding member. Then Obama, who seemed to come out of nowhere. Then, Hillary, whose turn it's supposed to be.

As far as the Republicans, yes, right up until Romney. No one thinks in power on the right thinks it's Trump's turn, though.

In any case, primary voters thinking it's someone's turn is one thing. The DNC and the RNC "making it so" is quite another.

[REP]

21. In general

There's less of a sense of 'time in title' on the Dem side and in general, even the worst candidate (Kerry) is so much better than what the Rs have had on offer in my lifetime (Nixon on, although Ol Tricky Dick is looking better and better). Only once has my candidate won the nomination, and I've never NOT voted for the Democratic candidate in the general.

This year was different - the RNC machine broke down in spectacular fashion, due in part to their usual offerings of horrible ideas served in bland packages, expecting that their voters would love to have another Bush, forgetting that The Marching Morons and Idiocracy were written by bitter but prescient people. The DNC seemed geared up to fight itself instead of The Orange Menace.

[merrily]

22. Please don't say good things about Nixon. He was a POS. Someday, I'll do a post about why Eisenhower

and Nixon seem so good in the rear view mirror. Part of it was only that the did not veto legislation Democratic Congresses were passing--in Eisenhower's case, a Democratic Congress that still had a New Deal Coalition, which did not survive to Nixon. But, for now, please trust me. Warning: Old School Republicans in the rear view mirror may appear much better than they were.

[REP]

33. Please don't misunderstand...

By saying Ol' Tricky Dick is looking good in comparison to tRump, any Bush, Cruz, et alia is to say that one turd doesn't smell quite as foul as another. While Nixon may have signed one good piece of policy in a drunken stupor, his corruption irrevocably poisoned politics.

I can say something good about him I think we'll both agree on: he's still dead.

[merrily]

35. IMO, Nixon was just as evil and maybe even nuttier, but better at concealing his evil and insanity.

So, in addition to more dead than the others, I'll cite "more circumspect."

Aren't we the gracious duo, though?

[madokie]

29. Spot on merrily

on all assertions

[merrily]

30. Thanks so much madokie. I have not seen you in a good bit.

Nice to see you.

[madokie]

31. Yes its nice to see you again

I'm kinda torn as to DU of late. I'd much rather had Bernie to vote for but I do understand the importance of our getting behind Hillary now and will give my support

I could say a lot more on this issue but for the sake of being tossed to the dogs I'll stop as I must.

[OxQQme]

34. This ↑↑

"It doesn't matter if Lucifer or Archangel Michael disclosed this. It's true and it's disgusting and shameful and strikes at the heart and soul of our system. The only words I have for those who seek to excuse it, rationalize it, minimize it, distract from it, etc., or pretend it's on a par with booing, are "Shame on you."

Yep, let's throw the messenger under the bus.

[Rex]

7. Wow that is a lot of reading material, thanks Hissyspit!

Gonna take a bit to digest all of that.

[Marie Marie]

9. Good read.

[ronnie624]

11. Much appreciated. n/t

[Arazi]

14. KIck and rec

[hollowdweller]

15. Thanks. I was under the impression that the Russian thing was proven.

The stuff about colluding with reporters is particularly distressing.

Amazing Sanders got as large a percentage as he did given the operation going against him.

[merrily]

19. Plus, comparative lack of name recognition, almost no big endorsers and raising all his money

without big donors. Frickin' astounding.

[Hissyspit]

24. You forgot the deliberate media blackout.

[merrily]

25. I was replying to post 15, which had already specified complicit media.

Be it black out or publishing one planted story after another, in my opinion, colluding with media covered all of it.

[Hissyspit]

23. Of course you were. That was the idea.

Even here.

[panader0]

17. Wow, just wow!

And UGH!
I guess Snopes will be under the bus now too.

[merrily]

26. Not that we need any more of them, but that would be a huge tell: snopes is better than politifact

by orders of magnitude.

[avaistheone1]

20. Kicked and bookmarked.

Will start reading this tonight.

[SammyWinstonJack]

27. Knr

[ismnotwasm]

28. Whoa

That is hands down the worst series of snopes articles I have ever read. I started opening links and the "proof" was article after article. From places like Vox ect, not bad in itself, but not "proof" of anything.

Even their cited emails weren't that impressive. I thought they found something new.

[kristopher]

32. K&R - Outstanding summary. nt

[riderinthestorm]

36. Yeah this. All of this. Impossible to deny this.

K&R!!