
The Most Important WikiLeaks Revelation Isn’t About Hillary Clinton - MollyR
https://newrepublic.com/article/137798/important-wikileaks-revelation-isnt-hillary-clinton
======
shoehornhands
I can't believe the complete media blackout of these emails. Maybe it has
changed since a day or two ago, when I checked around, but here's how it
stood:

\- CNN: zero coverage. top story = Trump accused of groping

\- MSNBC: zero coverage. top story = Trump accused of groping

\- New York Times: actually mentioned the emails and a bit of their
content...in an small article. Below the fold. Titled "Trump Finds Unusual
Ally in Wikileaks" which was almost entirely about how Trump's campaign is
pleased with the leak, actual content of the emails was only alluded to in a
couple of sentences toward the very end of the article.

top story? Trump accused of groping.

My biggest disappointment was the Financial Times - I held out so much hope
that they would actually have some integrity and report about these frankly
_huge_ stories. Nope. Zero coverage, top US politics story = Trump accused of
groping.

The only places I saw that covered were Fox, drudgereport, and Breitbart. I
saw RT.com had a story about them today but I don't know if they reported on
it two days ago when I checked around.

I haven't seen anything like this outside of state-run newspapers like
Pravda...it feels like everyone's taking crazy pills.

Maybe someone can just do an s/Clinton/Trump/g and send them to the Times?

~~~
zzalpha
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?

~~~
shoehornhands
> _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"

~~~
actsasbuffoon

      > 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.

~~~
shoehornhands
> 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.

------
gragas
Really?

\- Hillary and her team deliberately trying to trick the FBI by giving them a
"slightly broader" set of emails [1]:

"What that means specifically is that they are going to turn over all the
Blumenthal emails to the Committee that they hav along with some other HRC
emails that include a slightly broader set of search terms than the original
batch. That of course includes the emails Sid turned over that HRC didn't,
which will make clear to them that she didn't have them in the first place,
deleted them, or didn't turn them over."

\- Purposefully witholding all emails that were between HRC and POTUS [2]:

"Think we should hold emails to and from potus? That's the heart of his exec
privilege. We could get them to ask for that. They may not care, but I seems
like they will."

\- Evidence that the DNC purchased craigslist ads in attempt to frame Trump
[3]

"We’re proud to maintain a “fun” and “friendly work environment, where the
boss is always available to meet with his employees. Like it or not, he may
greet you with a kiss on the lips or grope you under the meeting table.
Interested applicants should send resume, cover letter, and headshot to

jobs@trump.com<mailto:jobs@trump.com>"

1\. [https://wikileaks.org/podesta-
emails/emailid/9272](https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9272)

2\. [https://wikileaks.org/podesta-
emails/emailid/9545](https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9545)

3\. [https://wikileaks.org/dnc-
emails/emailid/12803](https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12803)

~~~
TYPE_FASTER
From: [http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-
house...](http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-
lost-22-million-emails-497373.html)

Between 2003 and 2009, the Bush White House “lost” 22 million emails.

Like Clinton, the Bush White House used a private email server—its was owned
by the Republican National Committee.

\----

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controv...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy)

\----

The reason the GOP can't get scandal traction is it has done every one of
these things in the past.

Guys, it's been like 10-16 years (depending on the scandal).

We haven't forgotten yet.

------
akytt
Wikileaks has become a weapon of information warfare. What part of the cache
was doctored? What was left out? The big publications know that and won't be
provoked. This is an admirable move by Russians: they steer the campaign as
well as rob Wikileaks of any merit it has for the society.

~~~
shoehornhands
> _What part of the cache was doctored? What was left out? The big
> publications know that and won 't be provoked._

This is a very good point.

However, I don't think it applies in this case, since for this to be true, it
would imply that had this been Trump's campaign manager's email account that
was hacked with similar Trump-related campaign revelations contained in it,
the mainstream media would refuse to report it for the same reason.

And I don't believe that for a tenth of a second.

------
wangii
I normally laugh at conspiracy theories, but in this election it's hard to not
see one.

------
relics443
"Trump would legitimately be a terrifying leader of the free world"

¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

