Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Politics

'The Hillary Leaks' - Wikileaks Releases 19,252 Previously Unseen DNC Emails (zerohedge.com) 461

Reader schwit1 writes: The state department's release of Hillary emails may be over, but that of Wikileaks is just starting. Moments ago, Julian Assange's whistleblower organization released over 19,000 emails and more than 8,000 attachments from the Democratic National Committee. This is part one of their new Hillary Leaks series, Wikileaks said in press release.:"Today, Friday 22 July 2016 at 10:30am EDT, WikiLeaks releases 19,252 emails and 8,034 attachments from the top of the US Democratic National Committee -- part one of our new Hillary Leaks series. The leaks come from the accounts of seven key figures in the DNC: Communications Director Luis Miranda (10770 emails), National Finance Director Jordon Kaplan (3797 emails), Finance Chief of Staff Scott Comer (3095 emails), Finance Director of Data & Strategic Initiatives Daniel Parrish (1472 emails), Finance Director Allen Zachary (1611 emails), Senior Advisor Andrew Wright (938 emails) and Northern California Finance Director Robert (Erik) Stowe (751 emails). The emails cover the period from January last year until 25 May this year."
The emails released Friday cover a period from January 2015 to May 2016. They purportedly come from the accounts of seven key DNC staffers: Andrew Wright, Jordon Kaplan, Scott Comer, Luis Miranda, Robert Stowe, Daniel Parrish and Allen Zachary.

A quick scan of the emails focus on Bernie Sanders and dealing with the fallout of many Democrats opposing Hillary Clinton and calling the system "rigged." Many of the emails exchanged between top DNC officials are simply the text of news articles concerning how establishment democrats can "deal" with the insurgent left-winger.
Update: 07/22 17:41 GMT by M :Guccifer 2.0 has claimed responsibility for the leak.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'The Hillary Leaks' - Wikileaks Releases 19,252 Previously Unseen DNC Emails

Comments Filter:
  • When Assange previously was given front-page status on slashdot for having a cache of Hillary emails to release, I said I figured he was going to do it to help Bernie Sanders win the election. After all, if Hillary were to actually fall out somehow before November, Sanders would be the only choice the party could present. Being as every poll that ever asked voters about Sanders vs Trump showed Sanders completely wiping the floor with Trump, this strongly suggests that Assange has a favorite here.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Assange just wants to stir shit up to get publicity. I doubt he cares what shit he stirs, as long as people pay attention.

    • this strongly suggests that Assange has a favorite here.

      Trump?

    • by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Friday July 22, 2016 @12:43PM (#52561693)

      When Assange previously was given front-page status on slashdot for having a cache of Hillary emails to release, I said I figured he was going to do it to help Bernie Sanders win the election. After all, if Hillary were to actually fall out somehow before November, Sanders would be the only choice the party could present. Being as every poll that ever asked voters about Sanders vs Trump showed Sanders completely wiping the floor with Trump, this strongly suggests that Assange has a favorite here.

      There's a lot of emails. Assange was probably just taking time to review the material and figure out how to release it.

      I don't know what Assange's political views are but I doubt that's a huge factor here. If someone gives him a big dump of emails from a major organization he's gonna publish them with maximum publicity.

      • by cdrudge ( 68377 )

        Assange was probably just taking time to review the material and figure out how to release it.

        Why would he need to review it to know how to release it? If you're ultimately going to dump the data, just dump it and let the people read it for themselves. Don't pre-filter it or spin it one way or another.

        • by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Friday July 22, 2016 @12:58PM (#52561799)

          Assange was probably just taking time to review the material and figure out how to release it.

          Why would he need to review it to know how to release it? If you're ultimately going to dump the data, just dump it and let the people read it for themselves. Don't pre-filter it or spin it one way or another.

          There might be sensitive or personal information that he doesn't think should be made public or there might be bombshells that he wants to specifically advertise.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          Assange already got in trouble for carelessly releasing material that endangered people's lives. So I would hope he at least skim the material to make sure there wasn't any information that would potential get anyone killed shortly upon release (i.e. like outing embedded spies, etc). Now normally onemight assume that no sensitive subjects like this could be found in "normal" email traffic, but given the circumstances, I think he should still check.
    • by Penguinisto ( 415985 ) on Friday July 22, 2016 @12:50PM (#52561733) Journal

      It won't matter, if the sheer number of "Bernie" bumper stickers replaced by "Clinton" bumper stickers here in Portland is any indication (most within the same effing week).

      The dubious beauty of partisan politics is that for partisans, the people are almost interchangeable, and they'll hold their nose and vote for anyone - as long as the candidate they've been told to fear doesn't win.

      I do wonder though if my father-in-law got intellectual whiplash when he went from Facebook postings of "Hillary is a corrupt wall street hack - vote Bernie!" to "But Hillary is honest and has integrity!" within less than a week.

    • That's IF there's a bombshell in there that's sure to ruin Hillary. If it's just mundane stuff (my bet), it will only hurt Hillary (who would now have to deal with "Climategate"-style hyper-scrutiny over every little comment that can be framed as remotely incriminating) and help Trump. Worst of all would be if there's something bad in there but not bad enough to hand Sanders the nomination, that could threaten to hand Trump the win over Hillary.

      If there is a bombshell you'd be right.

      I think Assange knows be

      • Worst of all would be if there's something bad in there but not bad enough to hand Sanders the nomination, that could threaten to hand Trump the win over Hillary.

        I have a hard time imagining many voters who are on the fence between Trump and Hillary at this point. If the results are bad - though not bad enough to drive Hillary out of the race - I could expect it to maybe drive some people who would vote for her to vote third party instead. It doesn't seem real likely that such people would occur in large enough numbers in battleground states to flip the election to Trump, though.

  • by LichtSpektren ( 4201985 ) on Friday July 22, 2016 @12:28PM (#52561555)
    It's not a secret that Clinton is a rather vile person, so whatever rude and dirty things she says to other Democrats is of no consequence.

    The question is, is there anything in there that's incriminating? If not, it doesn't really matter.
    • by schnell ( 163007 ) <me@s[ ]ell.net ['chn' in gap]> on Friday July 22, 2016 @12:34PM (#52561607) Homepage

      I was going to ask the same thing. To be a "whistleblower" organization (as described in the summary) is to call attention to illegal activities that have been suppressed. If there is no evidence of wrongdoing here, all Wikileaks is doing is violating people's privacy. While it might be interesting to read the internal e-mails of politicians, executives or celebrities, if there is nothing illegal going on then it's ultimately just voyeurism that doesn't justify distribution from a dodgily (probably illegally) obtained source.

      • > Wikileaks is doing is violating people's privacy.

        Well that would be true if the powers that be never stated, If you got nothing to hide... Unless Citizen Prime has more protection/freedom under the law then Citizen Common.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        If "Guccifer 2.0" had anything interesting to release as a result of the hack, they'd have done it by now for the notoriety. This is like one of these Anonymous "splinter" groups who flail for attention on IRC, then failing to get it decide to break one inconsequential hack up into several inconsequential, but heavily-hyped news releases... Throw in a few bold claims, we'll take down this entire CDN, that entire network for 24 hours. Post it on Slashdot because they'll post any garbage at this point, post i

      • by Orgasmatron ( 8103 ) on Friday July 22, 2016 @02:58PM (#52562617)

        Wrongdoing is not a synonym for illegal, and whistleblowers often reveal things that, while technically legal, are disgusting and wrong.

        • by hey! ( 33014 )

          But in this case what's revealed is internal political strategy discussions which are very interesting, but hardly wrong.

          • But in this case what's revealed is internal political strategy discussions which are very interesting, but hardly wrong.

            Are you kidding? Everything about them is wrong. It's not the DNC's job to ignore the Democrats.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by dpidcoe ( 2606549 )

      The question is, is there anything in there that's incriminating? If not, it doesn't really matter.

      This would imply that it matters even if it is incriminating, something that a brief examination of the history of the Clintons calls into question.

    • by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Friday July 22, 2016 @12:54PM (#52561767)

      For the most part that is all what Wikileaks seems to do.
      Nothing really surprising, unless you are really naive about the world.

      Should I be shocked that the Publicly the Civilian casualties count was lower than the actual?
      Should I be shocked that a Military which is volunteer and not extremely selective and their ages are in the late teens and early 20's would have a bunch of people who will act less than professionally and cause trouble?

      So why should I be shocked to find that When she is running for a position she is working with strategies to counteract her opponent?

      Perhaps they should leak my email to find out that I spend a lot of time explaining my work and trying to avoid getting yelled at for the users mistakes?

      • by Orgasmatron ( 8103 ) on Friday July 22, 2016 @03:12PM (#52562701)

        Think wider.

        The Democratic National Committee is an organization of and for the Democratic Party (aka, the voters), and should be neutral until the party members have selected their candidate. I think a lot of Sanders supporters are going to be disgusted to see how "their" party plotted and schemed to defeat their candidate, and also how "their" party stole their money and handed it to Hillary. Well, now that Bernie has ripped his mask off, I'm not so sure. But they should be pissed.

        Also, did you see how the allegedly objective and neutral news organizations colluded with Hillary? I didn't think it was possible for the approval ratings of the mainstream media to get any lower, but they are working hard to shed those last few percent.

        How about the soft bribery of the delegates going on? Think any of them are going to have some explaining to do after this?

        • The Democratic National Committee is an organization of and for the Democratic Party (aka, the voters), and should be neutral until the party members have selected their candidate.

          Anyone who knows about super-delegates knows that's not the case.

        • by hey! ( 33014 ) on Friday July 22, 2016 @06:33PM (#52563733) Homepage Journal

          I was a Sanders supporter, and I'm neither surprised nor particularly upset. You have to be realistic. Hillary has been active and well-known in the party since 1974, when she rose to prominence as a whip-smart young staff attorney of the Children's Defense Fund. She's spent the last forty years, building contacts and networks in the Democratic party, including nationally as first lady for eight years and with nearly successful presidential run that took her across the entire country. She has a massive rolodex, war chest, and ground organization.

          Bernie Sanders only joined the party in 2015. That the DNC was less than perfectly impartial towards the two won't come as news to an Bernie supporter, but to be frank the idea that long-time party insiders and activists would treat someone who joined the party last year the same as someone who's been a big deal in the party for decades is simply unrealistic.

        • by kqs ( 1038910 ) on Friday July 22, 2016 @08:32PM (#52564243)

          Think wider.

          The Democratic National Committee is an organization of and for the Democratic Party (aka, the voters), and should be neutral until the party members have selected their candidate. I think a lot of Sanders supporters are going to be disgusted to see how "their" party plotted and schemed to defeat their candidate

          Huh?

          There were two major candidates. One is a lifelong democrat who is part of the biggest fundraising team in the democratic party's history, who has regularly campaigned for and helped democratic candidates, and who has pushed democratic policies (and helped set democratic policies) their entire political career. The other is an independent who just recently declared themself a democrat for the express purpose of winning this primary and "leading a revolution" in the democratic party, who is not known for helping or fundraising for democrats and who has policies which are similar to but still rather different than the democratic party's policies.

          Look, I like Bernie and I respect Bernie's goals, but his goal was to take over and explode the democratic party. Why do you think the current democratic party leaders would be neutral about this? That's insane. Of course they dislike him and fear him and did not want him to win; from their point of view, that is the only rational behavior.

          Note also, you say "until the party members have selected their candidate". Bernie wants more open primaries because many of his supporters are independants, not democrats. I don't know if open primaries are good or bad, but when you have open primaries you no longer have "the party members" selecting a candidate, you have anyone who decides to vote in that party's primary selecting. That may be good or it may be bad, but it ain't the same thing.

        • by DerekLyons ( 302214 ) <fairwater@@@gmail...com> on Friday July 22, 2016 @09:07PM (#52564385) Homepage

          The Democratic National Committee is an organization of and for the Democratic Party (aka, the voters), and should be neutral until the party members have selected their candidate.

          "Voter" != "Party Member". Very few people actually realize this.

    • by squiggleslash ( 241428 ) on Friday July 22, 2016 @01:10PM (#52561897) Homepage Journal

      Dunno, I went through them, and the only emails I saw that looked kinda shady were between her and an apparent long time friend with a pseudonym of "yugedeal@hotmail.com" where she appeared to be orchestrating some attempt to hijack the Republican nomination by having her friend win the nomination. Apparently "Yugedeal" would spout a lot of the kinda racist, sexist, what-liberals-think-Republicans-like crap before the nomination, insulting most of the party's big wigs (leaving them in disarray) while attracting support from the grassroots, and then reveal it was all a hoax the day before the election.

      Not sure what came of the plan. The last email in the thread was just a "Good luck today Don!" sent June 16, 2015. I assume from the silence since that nothing came of it.

    • It's not a secret that Clinton is a rather vile person, so whatever rude and dirty things she says to other Democrats is of no consequence.

      No. Every since the right decided that she didn't know her place as a first lady they've been telling everyone who will listen that she's the devil incarnate.

      It's just disturbing that at some point a bunch of progressives have jumped on board because apparently everyone knows she's evil so it must be true!

      Oddly enough her philandering husband who probably knew the email situation, and is certainly involved in any Clinton Foundation conspiracy theories, is still generally popular.

  • What a mess (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ilsaloving ( 1534307 ) on Friday July 22, 2016 @12:29PM (#52561563)

    So I can't even hazard a guess as to what's gonna happen this election. The US has a choice between a politician so sleezy as to be a caricature of a cliche politician, and a narcicistic psychopath who would quite happily plunge the world into world war 3 if someone makes fun of the size of his hands.

    I mean, really? W. T. F.?

    The only real option is if the entire country banded together and voted for an independent, but I just don't see that happening cause all the majority of people can see is the romantic idea of what their "team" represents, rather than look at what's actually happening.

    • by js3 ( 319268 )

      Did you even read the article?

  • by seniorcoder ( 586717 ) on Friday July 22, 2016 @12:40PM (#52561671)
    I suppose Hilary's private email server has saved her from being published by Wikileaks.
    A previous poster suggested something incriminating would catapult Sanders into the DNC nomination spot.
    If nothing actually incriminating is found, but something unfavorable is revealed, that would then help The Donald.
  • It might be easier to deal with.

  • by 0100010001010011 ( 652467 ) on Friday July 22, 2016 @01:18PM (#52561949)

    If you search for the top senders a 'noreply' is on there.

    If you start digging through the e-mail sources there's some pretty interesting (but politically boring) data in there.

    Someone is running "CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.4" in 2016. It was released on 28-Mar-2013 and has had Bug fixes since then [communigate.com]

    https://messages.whitehouse.go... [whitehouse.gov]

    Is not resolvable from the outside it seems.

  • Since these are private communications - not government data - and each email is a creative work by the author, would this potentially be subject to copyright infringement, to the "value" of the communications (which may only arguably be $10-20 a piece if you count time spent x nominal billing rate), triple damage for intentional distribution, times the number of downloads (or x1 if it was uploaded to a torrent, and then copyright infringement applied to all who are torrenting)? Could several of the key do

  • by dbreeze ( 228599 ) on Friday July 22, 2016 @03:46PM (#52562959)

    https://drive.google.com/file/... [google.com]
    Nothing really new but combing thru all this stuff may be fun...

  • Twitter blackout now (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bongey ( 974911 ) on Friday July 22, 2016 @05:12PM (#52563343)
    #DNCLeaks was trending number 2 and then disappeared.
  • by arthurh3535 ( 447288 ) on Friday July 22, 2016 @10:59PM (#52564751)

    ...because she's stated that she would back prosecuting him if he came back to the USA. (This is one of the few, main points that I disagree with her policy myself, BTW).
    So if Hillary gets elected, he's got at least another four years before he can try to come back under a (possibly) different president.

Economists state their GNP growth projections to the nearest tenth of a percentage point to prove they have a sense of humor. -- Edgar R. Fiedler

Working...