I get it, I don't like that innocent people's information is out there. However, it's a hard choice that Wikileaks is making there in how to put the information out there. It's not as simple as running it through reporters, because you don't know if you can trust them.

I don't think it's a political mess, though. You only really hear that when the information casts the "liberals" in a bad light. It's a lot easier to rip Wikileaks when it's a matter of national security, but in this case, it's fairly evident we had a biased primary and the media was complicit in that.

Information was passed to trusted reporters because they were the only ones who had access and the ability to publish in a newspaper so that many people could be informed at once.

This is no longer exclusively the purview of newspaper/television reporters.

If someone pressed Assange on this matter, I imagine he'd point out that he has more experience examining and organizing major leaks than almost any reporter. And, further, that he trusts himself more than he trusts the objectivity of reporters.

Now, I can disagree on those claims, and I think I do, but there's no particular reason an experienced data-handler is inherently wrong for not using reporters.

It doesn't work like that.

In the past WikiLeaks worked with the media on redaction. Its not like they just handed over the material and stepped away powerless. And they always had the fallback of posting unredacted materials if they felt the media was biased.

The refusal to redact is plain and simply philosophical.

The fact that they don't care about the vetting aspect anymore just confirms the DNC leak was petty and personal, not an exercise in transparency. The DNC isn't even a government, wasn't the whole point of WikiLeaks to hold governments and their leaders accountable?

I agree that this was personally motivated, but that's a pretty laughable claim. A major political institution was attempting to manipulate an election for the US Presidency, but it's outside Wikileaks' purview because the DNC isn't technically part of the government?

Vetting and bias are topics worth discussing, but when political officials using 'neutral' funds try to reshape an election, I'm quite happy to label that a "government accountability" issue.

Edit: removed "state funds" reference, I had misunderstood part of FECA. I don't think it changes the point.

I agree that it was personally motivated. I just don't care. I want to know if our major media outlets are coordinating with specific campaigns, or if campaign finance laws are being broken in general. I'd love to see those Goldman Sachs speeches that Hillary is looking into for 6 months now.

The DNC portrayed itself as a candidate-agnostic intermediary that wanted to see a Democrat win the election. They fundraised, did press coverage, and organized events using that claim. They were repeatedly accused of being biased, and they denied the accusations then publicly mocked the accusers for spinning crazy conspiracies.

So no, the DNC didn't 'rig' the primary, they didn't have the power. But everyone who donated to the DNC has a right to be angry. The DNC is free to operate as they choose, but they lied about how they operate, and took money under those false pretenses. We aren't expected to accept that behavior from companies or charities, and I don't want to accept it from political groups either.

Those elections use the state's voting machines and vote security infrastructure. That's functionally equivalent to being state-funded, even if the funding is in terms of human-power and machine use donation and not cash.

The state pays me to assist with the operations of the taxpayer-purchased-and-funded voting machines for the purpose of executing both the Democrat and Republican primary elections (and no other primary elections) on PA primary day. I don't know how that can be not "state-funded."

I drive to work on government supplied roads, but that doesn't mean you have a moral or legal right to hack my company email.

Clinton won a majority, so the primary wasn't "stolen". She probably would have won without any DNC intervention, so it wasn't "rigged", either. And the DNC is under no duty to be objective, so it wasn't malfeasance in that sense.

My complaint is specifically that the DNC denied attempting to skew things to Hillary, and collected money while pretending to be neutral. Sanders repeatedly accused the DNC of favoring Hillary and attacking him, and DNC staffers said that the claims were untrue and absurd.

Priebus and the RNC openly opposed Trump, as was their right. Donors to the RNC knew that they were effectively donating to Cruz and Rubio, and against Trump. The DNC insisted they weren't opposing Sanders, and then did so behind the backs of voters and donors.

So no, I'm not mad that a party committee tried to influence a primary. I'm mad that they did so while swearing up and down they weren't, and mocking the Sanders campaign for claiming otherwise.

In light of that, if you don't believe parties have a duty to be fair to all primary contenders, then I'm at a loss. How do you expect to avoid cronyism and corruption when "private" political parties are outed working to bias primaries and you say that's okay?

Having said all that, the democratic primary election was pretty fair and the current candidate is the one who won the most votes.

Don't you think fair means, at a minimum, not doing that kind of thing? The DNC's officials were trying to persuade their own party's voters against one primary candidate and for another primary candidate.

As I understand it, a party's purpose is to organize and provide membership for people sharing whatever ideology they share, who are then (among other things) capable of signing petitions for candidates seeking to run under that Party's name. If enough party members from enough districts sign your petition, you're on that party's primary ballot in that State.

Most of what the DNC and RNC do, or what they should do, is either administrative, or attacking the other party. I'm not defending that DNC vs RNC dynamic; I think we'd probably be better off without the party system, at least as it currently exists as a privatized crony-capitalism bullshit theater with very public repercussions... and I'm also in favor of fixing the voting systems used by the States. But, in the meantime, the DNC and RNC should be banned from trying to influence their own primaries.

If DNC officials want to attack one primary candidate, they should quit the DNC and go work for an opposing primary candidate's campaign. They don't want to do that, because they'd lose the status of working under the aegis of the DNC; they'd be working merely for one candidate or another, any of which could lose.

To put it succinctly, a political party official should act in a purely administrative manner with respect to the party's own internal operation, including its primaries.

As an example, say what you want, Donald Trump is clearly not a conservative in any meaningful sense of conservatism. What is the long run result of his candidacy? there is a high probability that the long run result is irreversible damage to Republican party. Surely, party officials can act to prevent something like this, and not simply act as disinterested administrators. A political party in the US is essentially a private non for profit organization - that can run its affairs as the leadership of that party sees fit

That's the entire point.

People don't have to join the Democrats or the Republicans. Those who do make that choice are now learning that these parties function exactly like any other corporate entity. Some sort of oligarchy calling the shots over a pseudo-democratic process that they ostensibly claim to be the real process. Time for the schisms.

No, not exactly.

WikiLeaks specializes in the analysis and publication of large datasets of censored or otherwise restricted official materials involving war, spying and corruption.[1]

I would definitely say the DNC leak was restricted official materials involving corruption.

[1] https://wikileaks.org/What-is-Wikileaks.html

What pray tell is actually meant by "vetting?"

Something tells me you would not be making this comment if they released leaks that implicated "evil" corporations like Exxon-Mobile, Wal-Mart, Koch, ect.

As much as I like The Intercept, for example, they do not have the same reach as the WSJ or the NYT.

It's not so much the risk that the media buries it, I was incorrect in framing it that way. The bigger risk is that the media spins and reports it. Remember, they still have the majority of the eyes and ears.

Snowden did it, but note that it involved foreign media. It's probably easier to get foreign media involved in an international spying story than it would be to get someone to take up the US democratic primary and campaign finance laws (which everyone else in the world already thinks is ridiculous). I'm not saying it can't be done, or that it shouldn't be done or whatever else - but I do think it's a complex decision.

Also, Assange is currently putting his own spin on it implying the DNC staffer that died was murdered. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

The DNC staffer that died _was murdered_. That's exactly what happened. I think what you mean is they're implying motive and conspiracy.

A $20k reward might clear the air either way.

Yes, thanks for correcting that.

You're acting as if there is a small group of reporters who, if compromised, make it impossible for Wikileaks to be responsible.

edit: grammar

First, parties are clubs and they can have their own rules about their internal elections and campaigns. The rules of the normal election at federal level do not apply. The whole free association thing.

Second, Bernie is not "real" democrat. He was prior and plans on returning to the Senate as an independent. He joined/registered early enough before the process started... but essentially he was just renting the ticket. I can understand how the party would try to dissuade that.

Which leads to my third point, the party has to care about its platform, future viability and not just one candidate. The Clinton have a long history with the DNC. Obviously Bill was a generally well liked president before (by the base) but they have done a lot over the years to support other Democratic candidates in State, Congressional and even Mayoral races. They've raised a lot of money for the DNC and down tickets candidates.

Finally, Bernie didn't earn any extra points (my eyes) by claiming a lot of problems with voting and the process it self. He benefit from the system where there were caucuses; in NYC (where the DNC electoral organizer sucks) he voters that were purged were in heavy HRC; and to take the the next level the campaign started claiming at the end it was going to flip the super delegates after bitching about it for a while.

TL;DR Parties have their own rules; Bernie did not pay his DNC dues; parties have to care about a lot more then a single election; Bernie acted like a spoiled child about ballot box issues.

Disclosure: I'm registered independent in NY. Can't vote in either parties primary as a result of that.

A hundred years ago, it probably seemed possible to build a third path - but with our modern understanding of game theory, we know a two-party system is the inevitable result of first-past-the-post. Building a third path is impossible.

This creates an inconvenient contradiction - the moral legitimacy of the person sitting on the bench derives from the fact that everyone has the same right to sit on it, but we can quite plainly see the criteria for moral legitimacy are not met in practice.

Some people would say we should aspire to meet the criteria for moral legitimacy; and therefore that, regardless of their private status, their internal elections for access to the path should be free, fair and open to all.

Of course, other opinions are available. Some people would argue that the private property owners' rights were more important, morally, than the legitimacy of the presidency. Or that the idea of pursuing morality in politics is a joke. Or that our consent to our rulers isn't derived from the moral legitimacy of their being fairly elected, but comes from some other source such as habit or force of arms. Or that everything is a shade of grey, america is better than russia or north korea, and improving sounds like a hassle who can be bothered?

I'm very involved in party politics and have run for office.

The Democratic Party isn't a single thing. I can't even summarize it briefly. One facet is a bunch of independent groups sharing the same logo, tribal identity. Another is a hierarchy of squabbling ad hoc volunteer organizations fighting each other for relevancy. A third are the Democratic themed campaigns which are largely parasitic on the party organizations. A fifth are the loose coalitions of like minded interest groups also squabbling for resources and relevance.

The DNC isn't even that influential. Closest analog I can think of is a trade association that hosts conferences.

I can't speak directly to the GOP's structure. From observations and contact with their players, they're similar.

People don't get how candidates are chosen to run for office. Especially at the top of the ticket. I'm talking before the primary / caucus. Special interest groups form and then go candidate shopping. "Superstar" electable candidates, like GWB and Obama, are selected, groomed, promoted to other interest groups (investment clubs, individuals). Note that these groups filled the vacuum left by the decline of the traditional GOP and Dem party machines.

All the other candidates are delusional self promoters. They literally have almost no chance. But they run anyway, to promote their brands, to take one for the team, to get the experience, because anything can happen during the campaign cycle, etc.

Me personally, I'm still gobsmacked that Trump iced out both Cruz and Rubio. My initial post-mortem for the GOP 2016 is Trump's dark horse victory just demonstrates how dysfunctional the GOP has become (the Tea Party has driven away their "moderates").

Literally no one is saying otherwise. This is such a tired and ridiculous strawman.

Nice, Argumentum ad populum.

After following this election pretty closely I have observed that many people do not in fact understand how the parties operate and that the primaries are a party and not a legal construct. It's possible that people either have faulty ideas how the party process is run, or just do not have enough experience with it (many new Bernie voters).

This generalization includes people in the party too.

"and that the primaries are a party and not a legal construct."

The primaries and caucuses are legally recognized party constructs.

I'm just not naive about how they work but ultimately I believe they can run however they want to.

If we want to reform the system that we have (two part) it's clearly not going to come from the parties. I'm personally in favor of having open primaries in every state with relatively late voter registration, getting rid of the electoral collage and the rule that if there's mo majority the senate decides the election.

Don't get me wrong. While I supported Bernie, I feel he was outplayed in a masterful game that he wasn't ready for. I'm not sore about it. Frankly, I'm surprised Hillary didn't win by a far larger margin, considering she had a decade to make deals and sway powerful people her way, and apparently, an entire political machine skewed in her favor.

But the idea that the entire DNC teaming up with a single candidate is to be expected and not taken as simply "rigged" seems intentionally obtuse.

This is a big difference and it matters to the party (organization).

If anything the Republicans (particularly pro-Trump factions) have been awfully hypocritical on this stance since they've previously called for various leakers (Snowden in particular) to return home and face the death penalty. They definitely previously referred to Assange as a criminal and a threat to national security, but I guess as long as he's anti-Hillary he's a hero?

I like the mission of wiki leaks; I think they should do some basic editing like not leaking names or ordinary citizens (or low level gov employees). But, I think Assange is terrible front man for the organization. I guess nobody else wants the job.

IMHO you see more people upset about Wikileaks now because they're actually doing things that are more objectionable.

And I find Assange's overt attempt to influence the outcome of a US election much more distasteful than anything that was in those DNC emails.

If you really want to be fair about not giving people a free pass, don't give Assange one either. He's made his anti-Clinton bias clear, and it's obvious that his leaks only serve to benefit one specific party, not the cause of truth in general.

And let's not pretend that "the DNC rigged the election" is actually an assertion that's supported more by the leaked documents than by Trump-camp propaganda.

But yes, agreed; Wikileaks wasn't an issue until the leaks started showing corruption of the DNC.

Now that it has, apparently the corruption isn't the problem, that evidence of corruption can be leaked is the problem.

Hmm.... Really makes you think.

Time to Correct The Record.

If either of these assumptions is incorrect, then your question is meaningless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Commi...

The RNC had a similar anti-Trump preference. There's similarly no evidence they rigged anything against him.

While there may not be proof that the DNC rigged it against Sanders, that doesn't prove it wasn't rigged. It only proves that no evidence has come to light that it was rigged.

And yet Trump has accused the RNC process of being rigged many times. Strange how the current narrative seems to be that only the DNC is exceptionally corrupt, to the point of rigging an election, and possibly having Seth Rich killed as if the Democratic party was literally a crime syndicate.

There really isn't proof of anything, either way, other than "rigged elections" being the current political accusation du jour.

That's simply false. The accusations against the DNC of "rigging" primarily revolve around bias (revealed in the email dumps), not actual electoral fraud. The RNC was almost certainly biased in a similar (likely more intense) manner against Trump.

It's also entirely possible to rig an election unsuccessfully.

That is all that anyone is really arguing here, contrary to this assertion:

>..just when Wikileaks released info that the DNC primaries were rigged

That's not evidence of election rigging.

It's very reasonable for the DNC to work with the media to defend itself against nonsense allegations.

This e-mail in particular is clear discussion of acting on promoting a narrative (i.e. shopping it to news organizations) to discredit Bernie's campaign: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11056

I'm sure you'll find a way to explain that away though.

The religion, "Bernie's campaign is disorganized" talking points, and Hillary Victory Fund e-mails are the most odious in my opinion.

I'm not surprised to see DNC discussing narratives for the point when the primary is over.

This is no evidence that the primary was rigged.

So strange that they forgot to mention to shop this story around after the primary. How did you pick up on this intent of theirs without them saying it?

As others mentioned, there was coordination on talking points as well to discredit his campaign.

Sanders didn't lose because the DNC said mean things in their internal email system. He likely lost because he never made much of a dent in the heavily black Democratic voting population in the South.

Also see: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11056

I'm sure you'll be back to "correct the record"!

That would seem to deflate your point a bit. Surely the DNC isn't violating its neutrality promise if the candidate has effectively been already chosen?

> I'm sure you'll be back to "correct the record"!

I've seen this thrown around several times in this thread. Is it an accusation I'm being paid by the Hillary campaign? If so, LOL.

The candidate had not been chosen, but the DNC lackeys (edit: sorry, top officials) were coordinating media coverage against him.

> The site was described by CNNMoney as offering a "deeply conspiratorial, anti-establishment and pessimistic view of the world." Financial journalists Felix Salmon and Justin Fox have characterized the site as conspiratorial. Fox described Ivandjiiski as "a wonderfully persistent investigative reporter" and credited him for successfully turning high-frequency trading "into a big political issue," but also termed most of the writing on the website as "half-baked hooey," albeit with some "truth to be gleaned from it." Tim Worstall described the site as a source of hysteria and occasionally misleading information.

> Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman describes Zero Hedge as a scaremongering outlet that promotes fears of hyperinflation and an "obviously ridiculous" form of "monetary permahawkery." Krugman notes that Bill McBride of Calculated Risk, an economics blog, has treated Zero Hedge with "appropriate contempt."

> Lokey, a former paid Zero Hedge writer who left the website in 2016 over disagreements in editorial direction, characterizes the site's political content as "disingenuous," summarizing its political stances as "Russia=good. Obama=idiot. Bashar al-Assad=benevolent leader. John Kerry=dunce. Vladimir Putin=greatest leader in the history of statecraft."

You'll excuse me wanting a slightly better source.

You can argue with me on it, but what matters is that MANY people now believe this, for example nearly all Trump supporters (and there's a lot of them).

In my opinion, this is the single biggest issue in our new political climate. There is a large, and growing base of people who no longer trust either politicians or the media reporting on them. Conspiracy theories flourish in environments like this, and when enough people believe conspiracy theories are true... sometimes they take actions.

These things have been happening for a long time. Businesses, governments and other entities all have the ability to manipulate the media. I view it as a power struggle that sometimes bubbles up in public.

Oh, and social media is a part of it. Just it's slightly more difficult to control without people noticing.

Only if you believe it is pro-US to abolish the right to bear arms, the right to free speech (hate speech laws) and to impose Socialism on US citizens.

You'll excuse me wanting a slightly better source.

Every source is biased. It is up to the reader to understand the biases, read from differently-biased sources and then make up his/her minds.

It was not wikileaks who did this. See here: https://glomardisclosure.com/2016/07/26/the-who-and-how-of-t...

Specifically from the summary at the end:

1. Because they tweeted the link to the item, they were blamed by the article. This provoked what seems in hindsight to be an overly defensive reaction. Given the accusations that Russia supplied WikiLeaks with information to publish and some construing this to mean that WikiLeaks is controlled by Russia, it’s easy to see how this could happen.

2. Even though my name was on the page as the uploader and I had tweeted it out first, WikiLeaks never tried to pass the buck to me or say that it was my upload or my fault. They never reached out to me privately to ask me to do or say anything about it, despite the fact that that would have made things easier for them or taken the pressure off of them. I can only conclude that this is because doing so would have violated the spirit, if not the letter, of their source protection policy by placing the blame on me or pointing the Turkish government in my direction. For that, I’m grateful.

I walked around in Philadelphia talking with DNC protestors, during the DNC. Most of them were democrats, who were glad to have evidence of corruption and collusion between the DNC and Media. Most of the protesters I talked with, only had good things to say about wikileaks, and assange.

I think wikileaks knows what they are doing, and are gaining mindshare among the alternative left and right.

I don't have an answer, but that seems like the only possibly-important question.

Please post your complete medical and financial history here.

Thanks!

It is my firm belief that openness and honesty is as important for societal progress as it is for the scientific sort. But I don't expect you to adopt my sentiment only to weigh the full context of the consequences.

If you know my entire banking history that's a privacy issue (which jfaucett was ok with). However, if you are able to access my account and take money, that's a security problem.

The line can get really fuzzy sometimes, but they are different issues.

When everyone knows the truth they can make better decisions. This applies at all levels. Secrets hurt everyone.

(This does not apply to security things, like passwords, bank account numbers and the location of my house key).

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/this-man...

We no longer have these as they all get arrested for one reason or another. Scary.

I know this will get downvoted, but I'll say it anyway.

Stop passing on incorrect information. That wasn't them: https://glomardisclosure.com/2016/08/08/what-a-hit-piece-aga...

Do you have any proof it was anything but from day 1?

But who does it hurt? And who would make the decision about what should be redacted?

The women.

"And who would make the decision about what should be redacted?"

Whoever decides to release the data. [Spiderman quote here].