
Search the DNC email database - aburan28
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/
======
kiernanmcgowan
No one escapes linkedin spam:

[https://wikileaks.org/dnc-
emails/?q=i%27d+like+to+add+you+to...](https://wikileaks.org/dnc-
emails/?q=i%27d+like+to+add+you+to+my+professional+network+on+linkedin&mfrom=&mto=&title=&notitle=&date_from=&date_to=&nofrom=&noto=&count=50&sort=0#searchresult)

~~~
chatmasta
I wonder how many hard drives could be filled with all the linkedin emails
ever sent.

~~~
empath75
I was a rave promoter in the early 2000s and was using my personal email
address to send out promotions for a while. I had several thousands of emails
that I had collected over the years, including a few email lists that
forwarded all over the country. Several years ago, I signed up for linked in,
dutifully unchecked the 20 emails or so on the first page of emails and then
clicked, next, after which it emailed the entire rest of my gmail contact
list. I ended up in the top 5% of viewed profiles on all of linked in for the
month. I felt terrible about it.

~~~
jandrese
LinkedIn is king of dark patterns. Their webpage is full of "spam everyone you
have ever known" landmines.

~~~
nathancahill
= $26.2B.

------
tanderson92
In which DNC executives discuss smearing Bernie Sanders as Jewish:
[https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7643](https://wikileaks.org/dnc-
emails/emailid/7643) [https://wikileaks.org/dnc-
emails/emailid/11508](https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11508)

~~~
jackfrodo
It's smearing him as an atheist. He's saying that southern baptists would be
okay with electing a Jewish person but not an atheist.

~~~
Natsu
Whatever the case, it sure does look as if the DNC has been playing favorites.
There's more where that came from, e.g. -

    
    
      > From: Daniel Strauss [dstrauss1987@me.com<mailto:dstrauss1987@me.com>] 
      > Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2016 12:25 PM 
      > To: Miranda, Luis > Subject: Deep background question 
      > > Hey 
      > > So we want to see the list of committee appointments the Sanders Folks submitted just to verify it was mostly staffers and ineligible figures. That possible with no fingerprints attached?
    

[https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7065](https://wikileaks.org/dnc-
emails/emailid/7065)

------
loopdedoo
[https://wikileaks.org/dnc-
emails/?q=off+the+record&mfrom=&mt...](https://wikileaks.org/dnc-
emails/?q=off+the+record&mfrom=&mto=&title=&notitle=&date_from=&date_to=&nofrom=&noto=&count=50&sort=0#searchresult)

"Off the record" is a fun search term to browse.

~~~
Natsu
Yeah, interesting reading. I think they got more 'fingerprints' on this than
they wanted, though....

> From: Daniel Strauss [dstrauss1987@me.com<mailto:dstrauss1987@me.com>] >
> Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2016 12:25 PM > To: Miranda, Luis > Subject: Deep
> background question > > Hey > > So we want to see the list of committee
> appointments the Sanders Folks submitted just to verify it was mostly
> staffers and ineligible figures. That possible with no fingerprints
> attached?

[https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7065](https://wikileaks.org/dnc-
emails/emailid/7065)

~~~
iconjack
> (Sorry I'm sending this from two email accounts. I hate the iPhone)

I knew it! Lots of people secretly hate the iPhone, but won't admit it public!

------
chatmasta
Lots of social security numbers, credit card numbers, full names, addresses,
and phone numbers of very wealthy donors in there.

Also, here's one where the DNC creates fake (satirical) craigslist posts
advertising jobs for Trump businesses: [https://wikileaks.org/dnc-
emails/emailid/12803](https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12803)

~~~
dtien
this actually demonstrates some savvy low level marketing, seems like they
were going to redirect 'applicants' to a microsite likely with more satirical
anti-Trump stuff.

The desire to keep the 'offensive shit ..verbatim' is also quite interesting (
I think ). 1) again, shows some savvy marketing to not step over the line into
smearing 2) does anyone know if the phrases in their posts are actually taken
from Trump quotes or anecdotes? They seem plausible but also a bit off the
wall.

In any case, somewhat interesting to see the inner workings of US political
marketing machinations

~~~
foota
off the wall eh?

------
mschip
Greg Sargent of WaPo seems to have a pretty friendly relationship with the
DNC. I'd like to know what they were trying to damage control here:
[https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11242](https://wikileaks.org/dnc-
emails/emailid/11242)

edit: Seems they were just scared of the narrative after platform concessions
with the Sanders camp: [https://wikileaks.org/dnc-
emails/emailid/13370](https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13370)

------
EvanAnderson
DNC users have local Administrator rights on their PCs, apparently.

[https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8763](https://wikileaks.org/dnc-
emails/emailid/8763)

~~~
revelation
It says "for Surface", so maybe that's bring your own device (not necessarily
better, mind you).

------
sickbeard
The childish side of me typed in "penis" expecting no results. Boy was I
wrong.

~~~
drostie
None of them are particularly interesting, though. So far I'm pretty surprised
with how pedestrian it is.

Even looking for the word "fuck" reveals few internal communications which use
it. In one thread, some guy seems to have gotten a sub-optimal time slot for
putting out Democratic-leaning news on CNN, since it's at 6AM rather than
closer to near 8:20AM when, it turns out, Obama was going to deliver some
statement. They asked him if he thought it was possible to move the thing
forward a couple hours, and suggested that if he couldn't then they might have
to withhold the news completely for a later time. And he replied with a bit of
lip about how crummy that is: "They structured their whole show on that we’ll
make news in the 6am hour. We told them a time. They took care of us. Now
they’re all asleep. Are we really going to screw them over on our mistake???"
and he follows it up with a couple more replies which are similarly irreverent
but not outright bad, making a valid case (which the higher-ups seem to
eventually agree with) that alienating someone who's doing you a favor is a
really bad idea and they should just bite whatever bullet they're biting with
the worse time-slot. They basically tell him, "You're right, we'll listen to
you, but fuck off with the attitude." And that's the scope of the thing.
Relatively minor.

In another one, someone admitting that they're writing for FoxNews.com invites
comments from them about some hit piece he's thinking about writing on the
subject of Hillary Clinton maybe protecting Bill and trying to silence his
accusers during his sex scandals... an internal email discussing this
"opportunity" (to, presumably, have whatever their words might be, twisted)
one emails to the other people in his office, "Is there a Fuck You emoji?".
After some laughs they decide not to respond at all; but the guy is
persistent, so the person who handles the forward says, "The asshole from fox
emailed us again. I did some research and there’s still no “fuck you” emoji,
unfortunately."

It's pretty tame stuff so far in my browsing. Relatively professional.

~~~
tanderson92
[https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7643](https://wikileaks.org/dnc-
emails/emailid/7643)

[https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11508](https://wikileaks.org/dnc-
emails/emailid/11508)

I wouldn't call that professional. I would call that conspiring to commit a
civil rights violation, or exploit one.

~~~
drostie
I was talking in particular about the use of profanity in a working
environment, of course.

I do not know what you are reading into those emails but speaking purely
objectively, there is remarkably little content in them to go off of. It could
potentially have to do with Bernie Sanders in the Kentucky and West Virginia
primaries (which were in early May), but that seems somewhat unlikely given
the timestamps -- the West Virginia primary was only 5 days after the email
was sent, which is almost no time for one to ask the question, get whatever
answer, and launch a smear campaign. It could also be not about Sanders at all
--WVA is an odd way to refer to West Virginia when WV will work as well, and
the name "Sanders" doesn't appear anywhere in the emails themselves.

Even if it's about Sanders, the email doesn't even say whether the guy is
rooting _for_ or _against_ Sanders: it could just as easily be "Hey, I heard
this rumor that Sanders is an atheist, can we get someone to ask him so that
he can squash that rumor like a bug?"

It doesn't strike me as a "civil rights violation" to ask about someone's
religious views. I mean, maybe the US people not voting for politicians based
on their religious affiliation is a larger civil rights violation that you
fear will be triggered if this question is asked, but that seems like several
steps away from a sure thing, since it's quite possible that Bernie will play
a different political card.

~~~
tanderson92
You cannot possibly be serious.

1) The emails refer to two upcoming primaries, which occurred in close
temporal and spatial proximity to each other. Literally no other campaign in
the nation is in two states. It is hard to imagine any other figure in the
nation that that refers to other than Bernie Sanders. I didn't mention Bernie
Sanders in my reply, so why did you think it was about Bernie and then attempt
to deny it? I think you protest too much.

2) The email is clearly suggesting to use the question _against_ Sanders. Your
hypothetical suggestion is plainly unsupported by the facts. Let me just quote
the objectionable e-mail:

> It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his
> belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish
> heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points
> difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big
> difference between a Jew and an atheist.

That is clearly saying that knowledge that Sanders is an atheist would hurt
him in KY and WVA (by the way:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WVA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WVA)). It is
also implying that someone should directly ask him so he can't "skate by".

3) civil service jobs are not supposed to involve discrimination based on
religious preferences and attempts to exploit bigotry by national political
organizations is deeply unethical.

~~~
kbenson
> 3) civil service jobs are not supposed to involve discrimination based on
> religious preferences and attempts to exploit bigotry by national political
> organizations is deeply unethical.

Are you talking about political agents being _unethical_ (to which I say,
"duh"), or are we talking about what you previously stated, "conspiring to
commit a civil rights violation, or exploit one" ? Those are very different
things.

People have a right to vote for a candidate as they see fit, based on all the
information they have at their disposal. That's a core tenet of democracy.
While I would prefer people not use religious views of candidates in most
cases, there are cases where I would definitely like to know (for example, if
the candidate believes the world will end within the year, I think that's
probably the most relevant information in a presidential candidate you can
know). While self serving, I can't see the action as _purely_ negative, as it
would be increasing _true information_ to the public (as opposed to attack ads
that insinuate unverified information).

~~~
tanderson92
I would say that national political organizations conspiring to exploit
bigotry at the ballot box (which you correctly note is allowed) is a civil
rights violation. It's the actions of the formal organization to promote
bigotry vs the actual voters themselves acting as they see fit.

~~~
kbenson
While I agree in this case it's probably bigotry they would be exploiting, how
do we differentiate that from an informed view of how someone's thoughts on
religion (or birth control, or the belief in evolution, or how to deal with
Israeli/Palestinian relations, or trade agreements) might translate into other
areas of office? If you think they don't matter, it's bigotry. If you think
they do, such as inform as to the character of the person, the personality of
the person, how they deal with conflict, etc, then it's not. How to we
_objectively_ differentiate between things that matter and things that don't?

~~~
tanderson92
You raise some good points. I'll grant that this is probably not an area where
you would want to create legislation or prosecute the violations. I still
contend they are violations: just ones we do not necessarily want to set an
example of pursuing,

~~~
kbenson
I agree, and I think a good solution that works (or doesn't, as the public
sees fit) is to expose the behavior, which is what we have here. We're having
a discussion about it, and agree it's poor behavior, and if it's poor enough
or deemed problematic enough, it may make headlines and hurt rather than help
the people involved. Again, we have an instance of more (hopefully correct and
verified) information being released so the public can do with it what they
deem prudent. Thus, we have democracy in action (even when that action may be
to choose _inaction_ ).

------
slig
So, anyone knows which tech stack wikileaks is using to run that search?

------
verz
Luis Miranda suggests that Hillary isnt already supporting dicators and Trump
doesnt support Israel.

[https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4736](https://wikileaks.org/dnc-
emails/emailid/4736)

* Trump's threat to pull back from our most important military alliances<[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trump-and-the...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trump-and-the-end-of-nato/2016/03/04/e8c4b9ca-e146-11e5-8d98-4b3d9215ade1_story.html>) like NATO, pull aid from our allies like Israel, and his gushing praise for dictators would put our country on a dangerous path.

------
zo1
Another interesting term to search for: "Donald Trump", or "Dangerous Donald"
as they have coined him.

[https://wikileaks.org/dnc-
emails/?q="Donald+trump"](https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/?q="Donald+trump")

[https://wikileaks.org/dnc-
emails/?q="Dangerous+Donald"](https://wikileaks.org/dnc-
emails/?q="Dangerous+Donald")

------
verz
"New York" "New York Bernie"

~~~
r00fus
Sounds a lot like the "New York values" smear used in the GOP side.

------
deadmik3
tried searching my full name hoping for a surprise

nothing :(

------
diyseguy
I guess Assange would like to see Trump win - quickest way to bring about the
downfall of the US

~~~
grandalf
So we're supposed to tolerate corruption simply to avoid Trump? Trump offers
us a lesson that if we don't take democracy (and the underlying
components/principles) seriously, it will decay.

~~~
seizethecheese
Obligatory Gary Johnson reference...

~~~
zeroer
I'm sorry, but you need to spell out clearly what you're saying for some of
us.

------
verz
New York

