Donald emails : whitepeopletwitter

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 146 points 3 months ago

The weird part is everyone forgetting in a week or two...

The media is on the side of the wealthy, because that's the whole reason they bought the media in the first place.

This isn't the first time, been happening since newspapers were cutting edge. It's the natural result of deregulating journalism. So ething both parties do at almost every opportunity.

All the shit going on now with the media can be traced back to Slick Willy in the 90s.

https://truthout.org/articles/democracy-in-peril-twenty-years-of-media-consolidation-under-the-telecommunications-act/

[-] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 18 points 3 months ago

It's not like the Clintons are poor though

[-] Tyfud@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

But her supporters were, VS the billionaires class backing the Republicans

[-] BossDj@lemm.ee 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I dunno. Between Hilary emails and Steele Dossier, I feel like MSM is afraid of being used in manipulation schemes.

Whether by foreign agents or even Trump campaign leaking information themselves, baiting media to release a bland report full of already public information just so he can change the narrative back to Government and MSM colluding against him or whatever BS he wants to spew.

If there is any little reported or good stuff, they can now just research and find their own story and leave out the whole "hack "

Robert could have dumped this stuff anywhere.

[-] Grappling7155@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 months ago

It baffles me that Americans don’t properly fund their public broadcaster

[-] jaybone@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Can probably be traced back to the Hearsts in the 1940s.

[-] Kit 57 points 3 months ago

I'm perpetually out of the loop. Did Trump's emails get leaked?

[-] NJSpradlin@lemmy.world 115 points 3 months ago

If I’m tracking properly, they got hacked and then the internal data was given to the media, and the media hasn’t released anything. Because it benefits them to support Trump.

[-] Kit 33 points 3 months ago

That's wild. Any idea what media outlet specifically it was leaked to?

[-] NJSpradlin@lemmy.world 61 points 3 months ago

Politico, the New York Times, and the Washington Post it seems.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-vance-leak-media-wikileaks-e30bdccbdd4abc9506735408cdc9bf7b

[-] Lifecoach5000@lemmy.world 28 points 3 months ago

I wonder why it wasn’t sent to wikileaks?

[-] Lemminary@lemmy.world 33 points 3 months ago

Isn't Wikileaks Russian?

[-] ramble81@lemm.ee 34 points 3 months ago

So they were already cc’d on them.

[-] ealoe@ani.social 4 points 3 months ago

Yes and no; technically they're an independent entity but they've been used as useful idiots by Russian intelligence so many times at this point they're effectively Russian

[-] SLfgb@feddit.nl 2 points 3 months ago

nope.

[-] njm1314@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

Cuz they would have sat on it

[-] jaybone@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

But I thought it was Iran that hacked Trump. Surely they have media that can make this info available.

No, that makes sense. They have the time and energy to hack the Trump campaign email servers. But somehow lack the ability to make that information public. Yeah, that makes much more sense.

[-] orcrist@lemm.ee 7 points 3 months ago

Yesterday there was speculation that it was an internal leak, not a foreign country. Remember that Trump's entire staff lies constantly.

[-] danc4498@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Or because there is literally nothing worth reporting. I guarantee if there was some juicy stories, they would come out.

[-] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 42 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

No, they specifically didn’t get leaked. And that’s the story. Trump’s team got hacked, and the hackers sent the emails to the news outlets. The outlets protected Trump, and refused to publish the emails.

Which is in stark contrast to what happened when Hillary’s emails got sent to the news outlets. The outlets were clambering to be the first to publish them.

Almost as if the outlets have a strong bias…

[-] xor@infosec.pub 9 points 3 months ago

it appears not to be emails.
also, clinton was using a private email server for government business, illegally. Those emails were subpoenaed and then she had them deleted and wiped…

it’s quite different.

leaked confidential material from inside the Donald Trump campaign, including its report vetting JD Vance as a vice presidential candidate. So far, each has refused to reveal any details about what they received.

i think if there was a story they’d cover it. but if it’s just campaign information, there would be no point except to just try to harm him.

[-] EvacuateSoul@lemmy.world 32 points 3 months ago

They did not wipe all the emails. Her team sorted through to send only the ones which were subpeonaed, which is what you are supposed to do.

And the DNC hack is what the original post probably meant, but people mix all this stuff up. Those were published on Wikileaks and generated super productive controversies, such as pizzagate.

And it isn't illegal per se to use private email. It's extremely common, but should be cracked down on. A big problem with it is age. Try telling your grandma she has to use a different email when she contacts you about certain topics.

[-] xor@infosec.pub 5 points 3 months ago

i didn’t say all, but all of the emails were subpoenaed. all of the wiped ones were done so illegally.

the DNC hack did show that they weren’t democratic, they were trying to hurt Sanders (with “Bernie Bros” and bullshit), they intentionally bolstered Trump to make republicans look crazy (oops), and colluded with Clinton to give her the nomination.
There was a lawsuit over this, but they lost because the DNC never actually promised to be Democratic… it’s just in the name.

and it IS illegal, per se, to use a private email server for government purposes. Always has been.
Nixon was impeached for deleting 8 minutes of his own personal audio recordings… as those records were subpoenaed, because you can’t keep any kind of private records of you conducting government business….

you’re just wrong about everything.

the FBI determined they did commit crimes, but there was no “criminal intent”. (which is only required of rich people, apparently).

[-] SolOrion@sh.itjust.works 11 points 3 months ago

Nixon was impeached for deleting 8 minutes of his own personal audio recordings… as those records were subpoenaed, because you can’t keep any kind of private records of you conducting government business….

That is such a gross oversimplification of why Nixon was impeached I don't even know where to start.

[-] EvacuateSoul@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Criminal intent is required for all crimes except those which are strict liability.

And you really ate the propaganda on the rest, not sure what else to say.

[-] xor@infosec.pub 3 points 3 months ago

plain facts aren’t propaganda…
although i don’t know what “on the rest” means….
they used BleachBit to make it intentionally unrecoverable. (it writes “bleachbit” over and over unless you change the default settings).
there was criminal intent.
she claimed to only have destroyed personal emails, but some of the recovered ones ones were in fact state business.
it’s pretty crucial for an informed democracy that we at least have records of what the government does….
i don’t think they should have “locked her up”, or that she should of got the democratic nomination or would’ve been a very good president….
but she’s still better than trump in every conceivable way….
the fact that the DNC tried to shoehorn in such a shitty candidate, and handed the election to cheeto hitler should be seen as a huge crime.
buttery males wasn’t even her biggest problem.

[-] Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world 46 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Lock them emails up came the cry from the C suite and the editor asked what he should run instead.

I worked in small and medium sized print media for a few decades. Very loosely around 1998 you’d still see the newest, greenest, most eager-to-please editor be able to tell the owner or C’s to fuck right off if there was an attempt to break the wall between the money and the news. It was just assumed and known really - because while few examples happened, for the most part management or money would never even think of doing it.

By the early 2000s, while print was still king and only just preparing to completely fuck up internet advertising and kill the industry, the wall cracked a bit. “It’s the beginning of the end” many would say while others said they were just ads on the front above the fold. The former was correct.

And now we have a media landscape run by the money, for the money.

[-] BossDj@lemm.ee 44 points 3 months ago

WIKILEAKS released Hilary's emails. Not the media.

WikiLeaks is a shell now, almost non-existent. For years it's been little more than a Twitter account, but even that hasn't posted since June.

[-] SLfgb@feddit.nl 70 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

False. The Clinton emails were first released under FOIA by the State Department, not by WikiLeaks. You're mixing it up with the Podesta and DNC email archives, which incidentally contained dirt on Trump as well.

Over the next several months, the State Department completed production of 30,068 emails, which were released in 14 batches, with the final batch released on February 29, 2016. Both the Wall Street Journal and WikiLeaks independently set up search engines for anyone who would like to search through the Clinton emails released by the State Department.

[-] BossDj@lemm.ee 3 points 3 months ago

Thanks Dwight

[-] SLfgb@feddit.nl 3 points 3 months ago

xx

[-] Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago

Much like wikileaks, media outlets claim to be impartial third parties and have annoynmous drop boxes for whistleblowers.

[-] pjwestin@lemmy.world 23 points 3 months ago

Jesus Christ, I can't believe how dense people are being about this. First of all, they weren't Hillary Clinton's emails, they were John Podesta's emails. Second of all, and more importantly, the, "Mainstream Political Media," didn't publish those emails, Wikileaks did.

In 2016, Russian hackers got Podesta's emails, Wikileaks published them, and the media reported on them once they were already exposed. In 2024, Wikileaks is functionally dead, so Iranian hackers sent them directly to mainstream media outlets. Mainstream outlets don't want to deal with the legal issues associated with releasing hacked information, so they sit on them.

This isn't some conspiracy by the media to ensure Trump wins. This is a direct result of 20+ of allowing our government to persecute whistleblowers and leakers.

[-] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I disagree, the "media" is trying to get trump elected. When I say media, I mean 80% of the mainstream publications. Some are insanely left, so much so that it looks like a parody (looking at you Huffington Post). But here is why I suspect that is so:

Trump is great for getting outrage clicks from all sides. The people who love him, to see the liberal tears. And the people who hate him because they're worried about America's future and are actually crying.
They are mostly owned and/or ran by the 1%. See here. https://sh.itjust.works/post/20890256 They're probably being promised tax breaks and lots of other shit. They forget that no one wants to live in a 1% utopia of either being their slaves or living in a rich HOA with libertarians as the president.

[-] A7thStone@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Don't give Assange a pass for being a leaker. He had Republican emails in 2016 and choose not to leak them.

[-] pjwestin@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

I'm like...80% sure that's not true. I don't remember any story about GOP emails, and I can't find any reporting on it now.

That being said, I'm not giving Assange a pass. At the time he was getting Podesta's emails from Russian hackers, he was declining to publish a cache of Russian government documents. It's possible that dropping those leaks was part of his negotiations to get the Podesta emails, or that he had just developed a strong anti-U.S. bias after being imprisoned in an embassy for 4 years, but that's still no excuse for violating the Wikileaks' founding principle of holding all power accountable. Also, beyond the bias problems, I think the sexual assault allegations against Assange are credible, and he should have been prosecuted in Sweeden. Wikileaks was a very flawed organization, and Assange is a complete piece of shit.

However, the U.S. didn't want to prosecute Assange for the Podesta hack, or Russian espionage, or sexual assault. They wanted to prosecute him for telling the world that the U.S. military murdered two Reuters journalists. For all of Wikileaks flaws, they did some important work, and there's no one willing to do that work now that they're gone. A great example of that is all these legacy media groups sitting on Trump's emails but being too scared to publish them.

[-] A7thStone@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Assange denied getting any leaks from the rnc, but one of the alphabet agencies confirmed that the rnc was hacked at the same time. Getting any of this information is difficult at best now with how shitty search has become and the fact that any search you do will bring up podesta or the recent email leak. It's also sketchy that right after Assange started doing a show for RT. Assange is a self serving narcissist not a whistle blower, except when it's to his benefit.

[-] pjwestin@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Fair enough, I'll adjust my search terms to see if I can find anything on that. I agree that Assange is a PoS, and it does seem like his Kremlin ties are genuine. I tend to be skeptical when the security agencies tell us someone is secretly a Russian asset (like when the state department revoked Snowden's passport while he was stopped in Russia on his way to Ecuador, then accused him of going there to aid Russia, even though they literally forced him to be there), but it certainly seems like Assange had or developed an interest in aiding the Russian government.

Wikileaks was unfortunately too centered around Assange himself, and only had a non-governing advisory board as it's infrastructure, so there really was no way to separate the organization from the man. It's a shame, because I think the work they did (especially early on) was very important, and I think the world is worse off without an organization like them.

[-] A7thStone@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

I definitely agree. The work WikiLeaks did, especially early on, shed light on things we probably wouldn't have seen without it. Then it became Assange's personal grudge machine, and I had a hard time trusting it after that. He insists he never did any curation of the leaks he released, but how do we know that's true once he started to show his bias.

[-] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 12 points 3 months ago

Idiot Junior tweeted his own e-mails where the campaign arranged Russian interference for sanctions relief, and it got lost under the ten thousand other high crimes, treasonous acts, and outright efforts toward a coup d'etat.

[-] Kalysta@lemm.ee 4 points 3 months ago

Any news that doesn’t publish his emails is not fair or balanced.

[-] imaginepayingforred@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

Who's they?

[-] Asidonhopo@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

The New York Times, I believe. They got sent the research document the GOP did on Vance's vulnerabilities by a state-level actor, probably Iran. They alerted the campaign and didn't release it.

People Twitter