Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

by mercer • 9 years ago

43 19 9 years ago

MaysonL• 9 years ago

Interesting that Politico publishes this by Donna Brazile the week that the Mueller Manafort and Papadopolous news breaks. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?

mercer• 9 years ago

Could you elaborate? While I can definitely see some intent behind the timing of this (even if just to sell more books), it doesn't really seem relevant to the content of the piece.

Fjolsvith• 9 years ago

How does claims that Hilary's takeover of the DNC to ensure her position as the Democratic candidate relate to a volunteer lying to the FBI or a guy who laundered a bunch of money over 7 years ago?

polotics• 9 years ago

WTF USofA? Does China win on democracy now?

adventured• 9 years ago

Yes, why don't we just pretend that all other democratic systems are always perfect and have never had immense problems. That's obviously what Italian, Spanish, German and French history from the last 200 years would teach us, right?

The US has one of the oldest, mostly unbroken democratic systems in world history. Just go back to eg 1840 or 1890 and take a look at all the nations of the world and their government systems at the time. Nearly the entire world was more than century behind the US in adopting any form of representative government. It's a small miracle it still functions at all given the cruft that has been stapled on over two centuries.

keganunderwood• 9 years ago

Don't forget the English who recently promised Scotland so many things before the referendum and conveniently forgot them once they eeked out a narrow victory. Democracy isn't just about going out to vote. Easy to say but I feel like a hypocrite as well.

zimpenfish• 9 years ago

mostly unbroken democratic systems

A system that vastly overpowers the southern states, allows rampant gerrymandering, and doesn't even guarantee voting rights to its citizens is neither democratic nor unbroken.

rdtsc2• 9 years ago

I needed to have solid proof, and so did Bernie. So I followed the money

I wonder what she followed when she was passing debate questions to Clinton.

as a cache of emails stolen by Russian hackers

What Russian hackers? What's the evidence for that. It keep getting repeated, I still haven't seen anything convincing on it.

Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the 32 states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.

How is that not a clear case of fraud and maybe money laundering?

Yet the states kept less than half of 1 percent of the $82 million they had amassed from the extravagant fund-raisers Hillary’s campaign

So she is directly responsible for not having people on the ground in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin? Russians hacked her agenda apparently too and diverted her plane from there.

Bernie was familiar with it, but he and his staff ignored it.

Why didn't they raise a stink? I am guessing the administration at the time who would investigate anything was headed by Obama and he was campaigning for Hillary. So stuff like this would have been squashed pretty quickly.

akhilcacharya4• 9 years ago

What Russian hackers? What's the evidence for that. It keep getting repeated, I still haven't seen anything convincing

There have not been any alternative explanations. Crowdstrike, government intelligence agencies and Infosec professionals all agree.

harry83• 9 years ago

...all agree on the necessity of invading Iraq to prevent the weapons of mass destruction...

shimon_e2• 9 years ago

Does a phishing attack and leaking that podesta's passwords were p@ssw0rd and runner1234 on to 4chan need explanation? I was monitoring 4chan when the password leaks happened. People were posting screenshots of tracking his iPad. Changing his bus schedule from NY to DC on Nov 8 to Nov 11. Tweeting that he converted and became a Trump supporter ( https://archive.fo/Cv6hK - note the "hi pol" this is a reference to the pol board on 4chan). And eventually wiping his iPad. Maybe the Russians downloaded a copy of all his emails during this chaos but trust me at least another dozen people did the same. He didn't realise his passwords were leaked onto 4chan for at least 12 hours. Quite honestly I do not trust any report that doesn't document what was happening on 4chan during these "hacks" as trust worthy.

So far I haven't seen any journalist go to the effect to document exactly what happened to Podesta on the day his passwords were leaked to 4chan.

Edit: I found this on slashdot from the time of the password leaks. https://mobile.slashdot.org/story/16/10/13/2025257/4chan-hac...

Edit 2: More proof that regular people gained access to his Gmail account. Seemingly whoever gained access to his twitter account did so via a password reset using his Gmail address. https://twitter.com/pwnallthethings/status/78662164964259840...

This for me is the ultimate card that the leaks weren't a grand conspiracy to elect Trump. Rather a security illiterate person got completely owned by trolls on the internet.

Edit 3: Further more, if the Russians were really behind the phishing to capture Podesta's passwords why would they leak on 4chan where they would end up losing their control of his accounts? A state actor would try to maintain access for as long as possible. A troll would rather see everything explode.

mikeyjk• 9 years ago

You're going to need to address each and every one of these sources and then provide equally substantial evidence in the opposite direction:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Committee_...

It's a bit disingenuous to claim there is no evidence when it is so readily accessible.

rdtsc2• 9 years ago

Ok let's go:

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/4xa5g9/all-signs-...

Oh wait, they are just quoting WaPo and CrowdStrike.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russi...

Quoting CrowdStrike and committee "officials"

NYT Will surely have some good evidence:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/us/politics/russian-hacke...

"... the party and cybersecurity firm claim". Oh must be another cyber security firm.

Ah nope, CrowdStrike again.

I think I'll stop here.

Right so 100 sources are just quoting each other. Spreading a lie and quoting it many times over times over doesn't make it any more true. It makes for a nice PR campaign for sure.

I think at this point you're going to need to address the sources and find where the evidence is.

Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC

Related Stories