... Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has a widely known antipathy toward Clinton. He's been quoted as calling the former Secretary of State a "war hawk"—a disparaging term for someone eager for armed conflict abroad—and warned in June that a new leak could damage her candidacy.
Assange has also been sharply critical of President Barack Obama's foreign policy, most notably his administration's use of drones in the Middle East.
O Really wrote:... So, do we assume Wikileaks supports Trump?
Might not have anything to do with Trump.
Maybe not directly, but if he were able to take Hillary down, who would we get?
That would be The Donald.
But then again, he's not an American anyway.
I'm surprised somebody hasn't shot Assange yet.
Not everyone pulls punches because not doing so might aid someone else. My guess is that Assange is radical, non-American and self-absorbed enough that he sees little difference between Trump and Hillary.
It's hard to shoot someone in the Embassy of Ecuador in London. He's there in part due to his valid concern that he will be extradited from Sweden to the United States of America due to his role in publishing secret American documents. So, US policy might be inadvertently keeping him alive.
Interesting contrast - Wasserman Schultz immediately loses role as chair of the Democratic National Convention and may yet be ousted from the DNC entirely while Trump's campaign chair flat out lied about Melania's speech not being plagiarized and is still Trump's campaign chair.
Wasserman Schultz has been wearing a lightning rod for a couple of years. She might as well be the one under the bus. I doubt she's behind the anti-Jewish stuff, though, considering she was the first Jewish member of Congress from Florida.
It was actually anti-atheist, which may or may not be a problem for Debbie Wasserman Schultz, but the anti-atheist emails we know about were from Brad Marshall, CFO of the DNC, and Amy Dacey, CEO of the DNC.
... Several of the emails released indicate that the officials, including Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, grew increasingly agitated with Clinton's rival, Bernie Sanders, and his campaign as the primary season advanced, in one instance even floating bringing up Sanders' religion to try and minimize his support.
“It might may [sic] no difference, but for KY and WA can we get someone to ask his belief,” Brad Marshall, CFO of DNC, wrote in an email on May 5, 2016. “Does he believe in God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My southern baptist peeps woudl draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.”
Amy Dacey, CEO of the DNC, subsequently responded “AMEN,” according to the emails....
If I liked her more, I'd feel bad about the tragedy of her being humiliated and shunned on the eve of what should have been her crowning glory. I expect a resignation after the convention if not sooner.
So the class action lawsuit (which will get nowhere) alleges among other things that the DNC violated its requirement to be neutral as in its charter. Not there. I read it, then scanned for any word that might cover the topic, "neutral" "preference" etc. If anybody want to look for it, here's the doc: http://www.demrulz.org/wp-content/files ... 1.2009.pdf
The suit also mentions legal contracts of neutrality. Can't find them or any (other) reference to them. If anybody has seen them, post the link.
Bernie has accused the DNC of putting their thumb on Hillary's scale all along. Funny he didn't mention violation of contract. Probably because there isn't one.
I'm not saying the "ask about religion" doesn't fall into the category of unacceptable dirty tricks. I think it does. But these people yelling about "required to be neutral" need to produce some evidence of that.
“The first is a claim for fraud ...” ... the DNC broke legally binding neutrality agreements in the Democratic primaries by strategizing to make Hillary Clinton the nominee before a single vote was cast.
The second claim filed is for negligent misrepresentation, a legal theory based on the first claim of fraud.
Seems valid, if they really are "legally binding neutrality agreements"....
I wouldn't know, Wneglia's article has a bunch of links but I can't find one proving the "legally binding neutrality agreements". It'll be way stupid of the lawyers if they don't exist. The rest of the lawsuit seems shakier.
That said, the expectation of neutrality is undeniable, especially for an open POTUS election. It's not like DWS ever openly admitted active bias, she denied it. Hence the righteous outrage and her removal from chairing the convention.
In a giant step backwards in eliminating special interests in Washington, the Democratic National Committee overturned a ban introduced by Barack Obama in 2008 restricting donations from federal lobbyists and super PACs. Unfortunately for Bernie Sanders’ supporters—who take pride in the Democratic presidential candidate’s refusal to accept funds from super PACs—the decision disproportionately benefits Hillary Clinton, as she is the only Democratic presidential candidate taking such donations....
Vrede too wrote:... If I liked her more, I'd feel bad about the tragedy of her being humiliated and shunned on the eve of what should have been her crowning glory. I expect a resignation after the convention if not sooner.
PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - The head of the Democratic Party resigned on Sunday amid a furor over embarrassing leaked emails, hoping to head off a growing rebellion by Bernie Sanders supporters on the eve of the convention to nominate Hillary Clinton for the White House....
Wow. All the Dems had to do was present something boring in contrast to the GOP's convention chaos and incompetence. This is like reading The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight.
Vrede too wrote:Not that I have much faith in US voters, but it'll be hilarious if this (GOP) is the first ever negative convention "bump"....
I'm trying to think exactly how a "legally binding neutrality agreement" would work. So first, the name implies that there is a document that constitutes a contract between the DNC and the candidate(s). This is different from something in the internal rules, Charter, etc. So how would this agreement be presented? Does the candidate say, "I will only run for President if you, DNC, agree to be neutral"? The only benefit of such neutrality would be to the candidates, and mostly to the weaker ones. Is the DNC really going to say, "Oh, please, Bernie. C'mon and run - we'll sign a neutrality agreement" and then after doing that work against him? Under that scenario, if they wanted to work against him, they could have just said "no" we won't sign. Or does the DNC present the contract along with a "loyalty" promise like the Republicans had? "If you promise to support the eventual winner, we'll promise to be neutral in the campaign." That sounds plausible, but nobody has previously mentioned any loyalty promise before, and certainly Bernie took his own sweet time in getting on board. And probably wouldn't have yet if the Republicans were running a real person instead of Trump.
Anyway, they need to produce a copy of the agreement before alleging anything further. The law firm bringing the suit is small, but the lawyers are smart. I'm guessing they expect to create some dust-up, but that's about it. Not being in personal injury (which is their main practice), I could be surprised, but the whole suit looks pretty lame to me, and without real contracts, they're in a deep hole.
I have no answers or even guesses. Either the lawyers are FoS or they aren't.
I care more about the implied, long understood and even claimed by DWS (will she be on DWS next year?) DNC neutrality than I do about any lawsuit over it, plus the potential impact on November's election.
Yes, she should have told Bernie upfront, "you have a right to run, but Hillary is our choice so don't expect support from us" if that was to be the case. But whatever she/they said, apparently Bernie didn't believe them from the start, and has yet to mention any contract.
But really, if enough people in blue or bluish states can't see that a warty Hillary and a sleazy DNC is still way better than a crazy Trump and his racist supporters, then we're doomed anyway.
If that's the "worst", I wonder what other scandalous info is in there? DWS ate a roast pork sammie in Philly on her way to Synagogue? Staff member stiffed a cabbie because he wore a Trump hat? Somebody noted that Lady Sanders is a bit frumpy? I can't wait.
She told all of us that the DNC was neutral, as your latest link says.
Many of the most damaging emails suggest the committee was actively trying to undermine Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign. Basically all of these examples came late in the primary -- after Hillary Clinton was clearly headed for victory -- but they belie the national party committee's stated neutrality in the race even at that late stage.
So, she was lying to us and knew it.
... And in one late-April email, she (DWS) even questioned Sanders's connection to the party.
Sanders, for what it's worth, wasn't a Democrat before entering the Democratic primary. He caucused with the party but has long been an independent.
Ironic. Seems like Bernie understood what the party does just fine, and has for a long time. That's why he was an independent, and why I am one after having once been a state-level insider. He was not a Dem because he valued democratic principles and planks that highly. Our system forces most people in most places to make a choice between two fat cat/corporate dominated options if they want to make change.
That US voters suck is a given. Wise pols and party chairs don't give them and even major donors reason to suck worse.
You're forgetting that putting a thumb on Hillary's scale is mostly a problem for those who opposed Hillary. Seems she had most of the major donors wrapped up anyway. Early on, I'd have sat down with Bernie and said, "what do you want us to do that will get you to drop out and support Hillary"? And then make my best effort to do it.
O Really wrote:You're forgetting that putting a thumb on Hillary's scale is mostly a problem for those who opposed Hillary.
Ones that she desperately needs supporting her now, which makes it a problem for her, the DNC and America.
Seems she had most of the major donors wrapped up anyway.
Now, some of them will be pissed off over being belittled by the DNC.
Early on, I'd have sat down with Bernie and said, "what do you want us to do that will get you to drop out and support Hillary"? And then make my best effort to do it.
Instead, his campaign forced her to at least mouth a more progressive agenda. If Hillary loses, it won't be because of being too left but rather because of character issues like this one.
Vrede too wrote:... Tried to get us single payer healthcare 23 years ago, and took a truckload of unwarranted personal heat for it....
Ah, what a difference 23 years in national politics makes. Not sourced by the group that sent me the email, so possibly incorrect:
The pharmaceutical industry has spent more than $30 million on this election cycle. The top recipient? Hillary Clinton.
1 Clinton, Hillary (D) $705,512
2 McCarthy, Kevin (R-CA) House $337,250
3 Ryan, Paul (R-WI) House $334,014
4 Burr, Richard (R-NC) Senate $295,830
5 Sanders, Bernie (D) Senate $282,509
6 Shimkus, John M (R-IL) House $282,490
7 Cruz, Ted (R-TX) Senate $269,359
... and 13 more.
Interesting that our Burr is #4 and that Bernie got that much.
Clinton supporter: “A vote for Bernie is a vote for Trump!”
Sanders supporter: “Yeah, well, a vote for Hillary is a vote for Romney!”
Media fluff. No different from all the "story lines" eating up TV time and print before the Super Bowl. Not necessarily false, but having little if any impact on the result. Again, I can understand Bernie's people being pissed off, but if they think that they, their goals, or the country is really better off by derailing Hillary, then they're as crazy as the Trump they deserve.
Addendum to my prior post: That's just direct contributions to candidates. We can assume that SuperPac contributions are proportional, but don't know by what order of magnitude.
O Really wrote:Media fluff. No different from all the "story lines" eating up TV time and print before the Super Bowl. Not necessarily false, but having little if any impact on the result.
I hope you're correct. It has already taken some of the shine off the convention.
Again, I can understand Bernie's people being pissed off, but if they think that they, their goals, or the country is really better off by derailing Hillary, then they're as crazy as the Trump they deserve.
I don't disagree, but I'd add - If the DNC and Hillary think that they, their goals, or the country are really better off by derailing themselves, then they're as crazy as the Trump they deserve.
I could be wrong, but I think the convention will be fine. We've got Bernie, Obama, Bloomberg ferpetesake, and Warren. All good speakers - all able to light up a crowd. As long as nobody gets caught plagiarizing Melania, we'll be good.
)