World News

32363 readers

270 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

DNC email archive has been removed from Wikileaks (wikileaks.org)

submitted 5 months ago by MarcoPOLO to c/[email protected]

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] [email protected] -12 points 5 months ago (1 children)

"had the DNC simply been operating in a legitimate..."

Sorry, are you under the impression that the DNC has to choose a particular candidate? They don't. That stuff is internal party politics. There's no US law governing who they choose. That's how party politics works.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm fully aware that the DNC is under no legal mandate to operate legitimately or honestly.

And that's rather obviously entirely irrelevant.

In point of fact, if the legal standing of their actions is the only thing that matters, as you imply, then the entire notion that Russia willfully acted to harm them collapses. How could Russia harm them by leaking details of things that are not illegal and therefore (purportedly) entirely acceptable?

If, on the other hand, we stick with the way that things have been presented by the DNC itself - that Russia willfully acted to bring them harm - then rather obviously even they are taking the position that the legal status of their actions is irrelevant.

Go ahead and pick either one - I don't care. Either there was nothing wrong with their actions, in which case they could not be harmed by having the details of their actions leaked, or they were harmed by the the leak of the details of their actions, in which case their actions were self-evidently judged to be wrong, and the legal standing of them is irrelevant.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

So you're arguing that misinformation is fair if a campaign has done anything that can be remotely described as damaging (and you refuse to say what they did that was so damaging).

How could Russia harm them by leaking details of things that are not illegal and therefore (purportedly) entirely acceptable?

By including disinformation? It's a pretty basic concepts, by lying.

From the Guccifer 2.0 Wikipedia page:

Some of the documents "Guccifer 2.0" released to the media appear to be forgeries cobbled together from public information and previous hacks, which had been mixed with disinformation.[9][10][11]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0

I'm not sure why so many people are reacting like this to my comments. The Republican Senate Committee was able to accept there was a Russian disinfo campaign, not sure why Lemmy thinks that's all fine and dandy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_report_on_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election.