You know, instead of assuming a vast conspiracy, you could use regular ol' common sense.

On the one hand we have an email dump that, while there seems to be some amount of smoke, doesn't itself represent much of a fire. Just the usual Clinton crap: lots of shady stuff that rides the line of ethics, and veers pretty far into a inside political baseball.

On the other, we have a wildly controversial presidential candidate caught talking about sexually assaulting women, followed by women coming out and saying he actually did it.

Based purely on the assumption that news == entertainment, which story do you think will get the headlines?

> On the one hand we have an email dump that, while there seems to be some amount of smoke, doesn't itself represent much of a fire. Just the usual Clinton crap: lots of shady stuff that rides the line of ethics, and veers pretty far into a inside political baseball.

You do not seem to be very familiar with them.

>On the other, we have a wildly controversial presidential candidate caught talking about sexually assaulting women

Demonstrably false. Say what you want about the unsavory nature of the quote, the only way it can refer to sexual assault is if you willfully omit the last part of the quote (" they let you do it.")

> followed by women coming out and actually saying he did it

Then followed by several witnesses who came out and said "I was there, and nothing remotely close to this happened." These were also to my knowledge not reported in the mainstream media with the exception of the New York Post, which covered the witness to the allegations of sexual assault on a plane.

> Based purely on the assumption that news == entertainment, which story do you think will get the headlines?

My issue wasn't that they weren't getting the same font size as the groping allegations - my issue is that they aren't getting covered AT ALL.

So do I believe the stories contained in the wikileaks dumps are more newsworthy than "Donald Trump got fresh with me 30 years ago (and do me a favor and ignore anyone who says otherwise? kthx)"? ...Yeah, I don't think it's much of a stretch to say they are.

Or again, you could "use regular ol' common sense" and ask yourself 'If I replaced the name 'Clinton' with the name 'Trump' in this case, would the outcome be the same?"

If you don't think so, I'll give you my Skype username so you can look me in the eye and tell me the media wouldnt pounce on a story of Trump's campaign manager complaining about "needy Latinos"

  > the only way it can refer to sexual assault is if
  > you willfully omit the last part of the quote ("
  > they let you do it.")

There's a difference between consenting and merely not calling the police. If my dog craps on your doorstep and I leave it there, you won't be happy about it. You probably won't stab me or call the police though. That's how I read the "they let you do it" quote.

If I leave dog poop on your doorstep and you don't do anything to me, I could say that you let me do it. That doesn't mean I didn't do anything wrong.

You don't have to call the cops for it to be sexual assault. You don't even have to physically resist. If someone kisses you or touches you in a sexual way without your permission then it's sexual assault. It's that simple.

> There's a difference between consenting and merely not calling the police...That's how I read the "they let you do it" quote.

So yeah...grasping at straws.

> If someone kisses you or touches you in a sexual way without your permission then it's sexual assault. It's that simple.

Which if we take at face value then every single teen boy has committed sexual assault, starting with the "yawn and put your arm around her" move.

As the saying goes, "If everybody's guilty of everything, then nobody's guilty of anything."

But we need to be careful not to conflate two issues here: suppose we even had iron-clad proof that he did it and was unapologetic and planned to do it again next Thursday, there is zero excuse for the press's near-complete silence on the Clinton emails.

I'm not pretending to offer a theory as to why this lack of coverage is occurring - just mentioning it as a data point.

>You know, instead of assuming a vast conspiracy, you could use regular ol' common sense.

Except if you actually read the emails, you'd see the bigger picture. Clinton's people are setting him up, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12715664 and http://nypost.com/2016/10/14/trump-camp-puts-forward-witness...

There's no disputing that Trump isn't fit for the Presidency but this whole groping thing is being orchestrated. He said some dumb sh*t years ago and now they're literally paying people to come forward and say he groped them.

Add to the fact that in the emails there's evidence that Scalia was murdered and people should be sitting up and taking notice.

That's the disturbing thing, not Soros buying the presidency, not Scalia been murdered, not Trump been framed, not Hillary's corruption, not the invasion in Syria etc etc but the simple fact that most people either don't care or are just oblivious this is even happening.

> Add to the fact that in the emails there's evidence that Scalia was murdered

Wait what?

Google Trends: WikiLeaks vs. Trump Sex Allegation (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12715638)

That's really the only glimmer of hope I've seen through all this. There was a report I saw somewhere that people were experiencing unprecedented physical stress during this election season, and I believe it: seeing stuff like this everywhere you turn really does to an extent make you feel like you're going crazy.

The emails the article is talking about don't seem all that interesting. Basically, they show that the Obama organization and Democratic party officials were working on figuring out staffing well before the election.

I would hope that every competent Presidential candidate does that.

I was referring to the email dump in general. There are enormous stories in there, any one of which if they involved Trump instead of Clinton would be front page top story, no question.

With regard to the specific subset of emails OP's article refers to, I believe the big deal is that a Citigroup executive basically had his pick of all these positions.

Cheney was a Halliburton executive and led the Bush transition.

What's the big story here?