Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Democrats Privacy Security Software News Politics Technology

WikiLeaks Releases Hacked Voicemails From DNC Officials (thenextweb.com) 177

An anonymous reader writes: Late Wednesday afternoon as the Democratic National Convention was in full swing, Julian Assange and WikiLeaks decided to follow through with an earlier statement by publishing hacked voicemails of top democratic officials. There are 29 leaked recordings, which are identified by phone number and total about 14 minutes combined. Many of the voicemails are messages of callers leaving their numbers in hopes of being called back. Others are from voters upset that the DNC was giving too much support to Sanders. The Hill reports that "One caller with an Arizona area code called to blast the DNC for putting Sanders surrogate Cornel West on the platform drafting committee. 'I'm furious for what you are doing for Bernie Sanders,' another caller says in a message. 'He's getting way too much influence. What I see is the Democratic Party bending over backwards for Bernie,' adds the caller, who threatens to leave the party if the DNC doesn't stop 'coddling' the Vermont senator."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WikiLeaks Releases Hacked Voicemails From DNC Officials

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28, 2016 @03:52PM (#52602299)

    'He's getting way too much influence. What I see is the Democratic Party bending over backwards for Bernie,' adds the caller, who threatens to leave the party if the DNC doesn't stop 'coddling' the Vermont senator."

    Oddly, the caller left her name as "an avid supporter of freedom from email prosecution"

  • by npslider ( 4555045 ) on Thursday July 28, 2016 @03:56PM (#52602339)

    "This is a survey call. Mr. or Ms. DNC, which candidate are you more likely to vote for if the election was held today?"

    • Well think about this: If you see two people in a room who basically look the same, only one has a giant ass, which one will you remember more? This is precisely why Hillary won the nomination.

      • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Did you hear about the new "Hillary" special at KFC?

        Two large thighs, two small breasts, and a left wing.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28, 2016 @03:56PM (#52602343)

    This is all Russia's fault! I should know, I can see Russia from my back yard!

    Pay no attention to the corruption, instead we all need to worry that Trump is going to sell the White House to Canada so they can burn it down... again.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      This is all Russia's fault! I should know, I can see Russia from my back yard!

      Pay no attention to the corruption, instead we all need to worry that Trump is going to sell the White House to Canada so they can burn it down... again.

      Meh. Burning White House is so last millennium. It seams to be causing more damage to US intact anyways.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28, 2016 @04:00PM (#52602371)

    One caller with an Arizona area code called to blast the DNC for putting Sanders surrogate Cornel West on the platform drafting committee.

    The man won about half the votes in the primaries. In a fair system, his surrogates would be about half of the platform drafting committee, not a token member or two.

    • A funny story (Score:5, Informative)

      by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Thursday July 28, 2016 @05:18PM (#52602913) Homepage Journal

      This election is rife with hilarious situations, if you know where to look.

      Technically, Sanders raised more money than Clinton did in the first 3 months of this year. As an example, at the end of January Sanders raised $67 million compared to Clinton's $27 million.

      The maximum one can donate to Clinton (or any one candidate) is $5400, but you can donate to other Democratic campaigns in various amounts. So the "Hillary Victory Fund" held a number of campaign contribution events supposedly for local democratic campaigns. The fund transferred the money to local committees, but then moved the money from there directly to the Clinton campaign.

      From the Rolling Stone report [rollingstone.com]:

      As an example, take couples who paid or raised $353,400 to sit at a table with George Clooney, a sum that Clooney himself called an "obscene amount of money." The figure represented the maximum allowable donation given the structure of the Hillary Victory Fund, a joint venture between the Clinton campaign, the DNC and 32 state committees.

      Donors can give a maximum of $5,400 per election cycle to Hillary's campaign, $33,400 per year to the DNC, and $10,000 per year to each of the 32 state committees in the fund.

      If you assumed that the Clooney guests had already given their maximum $5,400 to the Clinton campaign, that left just over $353,000 for the DNC and the committees.

      But Vogel and Arnsdorf found that less than 1 percent of the $61 million raised by the Hillary Victory Fund went to the state committees.

      [...] The money sometimes came and went before state officials even knew it was there. Politico noted that the Victory Fund treasurer, Beth Jones, is also the COO of the Clinton campaign.

      [...] Vogel-Arnsdorf also noted that of the $23.3 million spent directly by the fund, most "had gone toward expenses that appear to have directly benefited Clinton's campaign, including $2.8 million for 'salary and overhead' and $8.6 million for web advertising that mostly looks indistinguishable from Clinton campaign ads."

      So the Democratic party took all the Bernie Sanders money and matched it with an equal amount of money drained from local democratic elections, and like matter and anti-matter both sums annihilated in a flash of political advertizing!

      All that effort and money and work you Bernie Sanders advocates put in came to naught, because the Democrats simply didn't want Sanders to win.

      (I don't care *who* you are, that's funny right thar :-)

      And nothing will be done about it.

      The Democrats probably violated FEC law, possibly violated money laundering law, and absolutely betrayed your trust in a fair and honest runoff between candidates...

      All this was noticed in May [politico.com], and there's been no call for investigation, no call for prosecution, nothing.

      Bernie got roughly 43 percent [realclearpolitics.com] of the popular vote.

      Do you think that those extra campaign funds might have tipped the balance in favor of Hillary?

      It gets better.

      The polls at the time showed that Bernie had a better chance of beating Trump than Hillary.

      And by siphoning money away from local elections, the Democrats have probably thrown many local elections to the Republican side!

      That's hilarious! :)

      Sanders and the rest of the party are calling for *everyone* to support Hillary. They're effectively asking all the Bernie voters to "forget that we just betrayed you in the worst possible way, we have to stick together or Trump will win!". Keep party unity! Don't let the Republicans win!

      And they're absolutely right! If Bernie runs as a 3rd party, Trump will win. If Bernie supporters swi

      • Bernie got roughly 43 percent [realclearpolitics.com] of the popular vote.

        That's only the primary count. If you include the caucus votes, he got about 49% of the popular vote.

        Now, we know the DNC was in the bag for Hillary and pushing the media to cover her favorable. It's generally considered that good press is worth about 5% in the polls.

        The Superdelegates were for Hillary, but we probably would have had a situation where Bernie got the popular majority but Hillary got the nomination, if the DNC had pla

        • The big issue (Score:3, Insightful)

          The Superdelegates were for Hillary, but we probably would have had a situation where Bernie got the popular majority but Hillary got the nomination, if the DNC had played neutral.

          Don't lose track of the big issue.

          You make some good points, there's lots of insightful analysis that can be done, but the big issue is...

          Despite any analysis, he *might* have won the nomination. That $61 million extra given to Hillary by the Democrats is a lot of money, and represents good-faith donations of hard-earned cash gone to waste.

          Ultimately, Bernie never got his chance!

        • No, we're talking about the popular vote. 55% Hillary vs 43% Bernie [thegreenpapers.com]. That's a 12 point gap, nothing the DNC did could possibly have shifted that many votes. It's time for Bernie supporters to get over their butt-hurt and act like grown ups.
          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by unitron ( 5733 )

            No, we're talking about the popular vote. 55% Hillary vs 43% Bernie [thegreenpapers.com]. That's a 12 point gap, nothing the DNC did could possibly have shifted that many votes. It's time for Bernie supporters to get over their butt-hurt and act like grown ups.

            The scheduling of the debates was designed to limit exposure to the public of all the Democratic candidates, thus denying them free publicity early on, leaving HRC with the then superior name recognition she already had.

        • What do you mean by "caucus votes"? There are often straw votes in caucuses, but they don't mean anything, and hence are unreliable. Bernie got a lot of delegates, but not enough to win. The superdelegates are there to prevent things like George McGovern in 1972, still a painful memory for some of us. They are intended to make it more difficult for someone like Sanders to win, and there's good reasons for that. If someone coming from out of left field who's going to have serious vulnerabilities in the

      • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

        The funniest part is the Democrat Party allowed themselves to be screwed over by Hillary Clinton's massive ego. They completely blew their chance to pick up more congress and senate seats and the whole idea of Hillary playing feminazi socialist to hide a right wing corporate policy stance with the aid of corporate controlled media, is now completely utterly blown (it took pretty much six years to blow away the PR=B$ surrounding the uncle tom and the fake feminazi wont even get one day of protection). Havin

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28, 2016 @04:03PM (#52602391)

    So you thought you could trust the Democrats to leave the power to the people? Right up until they bend you over and fuck you in the ass for corporate interests. That's what Hillary really is, she's the arm of the Democratic Party that will continue to serve the needs of her corporate friends.

    Hillary to the left of me, Trump to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle getting screwed.

    • by danbert8 ( 1024253 ) on Thursday July 28, 2016 @04:17PM (#52602493)

      Why settle for the left nut or the right nut when you can have a Johnson?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Actually, it is more like Hillary to the right of you and Trump to the right of her.

      Calling the democrats left because they are left of the republicans is like calling Tennessee west coast because they are to the west of North Carolina.

      There is still a lot of the right to go before the democrats hit the center, let alone cross the center and make it to the left.

      • though true, good luck getting someone to the left of Hillary elected.

        Obama was pretty center-right. In a more sane era, he'd be a Rockefeller Republican. The Republicans would trot out this black guy, who had a racist grandma and a dad that left, show that he pulled himself up and became President. Classic Republican story!!! Nahh, instead he's somehow a radical Christian, a secret muslim, a communist AND a nazi, never do anything AND oversteps his bounds all the time.

        Part of this left/right problem is

        • by Anonymous Coward

          Some random AC here (emphasis on the "C" part of AC):

          Left and right really don't make sense. There are more than just the one, perhaps two axes. For example:

          Complete gun bans versus "own what you want, but you will be going to jail if it is improperly stored or takes out someone innocent".
          Corporatist versus individual rights.
          Country/nationalism versus "free trade" agreements that only benefit multinational entities.
          Interest in national security by preserving wealth and education (i.e. don't eat the seed c

          • by skids ( 119237 )

            IT is dying, because the cloud is removing the need for system admins

            Umm... well lets just say this doesn't square with my personal experience. Every cloud project I've seen needed more IT staff than in-house projects.

        • by Uberbah ( 647458 )

          though true, good luck getting someone to the left of Hillary elected. Obama was pretty center-right.

          His campaign wasn't. Closing Gitmo, card check, public option, ENDA....a solidly progressive platform that won him the election. That he turned out to be a closet neoliberal neocon doesn't change the fact that he won on a platform far to the left of where she is now. You poll by issues rather than labels, and the "far left" position is generally the most popular one, even amongst Republican voters.

    • "I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat."

        -- Will Rogers

      I've never felt that more true.

      • Yeah, this year we even have a Senator who remains registered in the Senate as an Independent, who is complaining that the Democratic Party doesn't consider him a real Democrat. Well, he did change his personal voting registration to Democrat within the past couple years; but to this day he's never changed his Senate registration. Bernie may be a Democrat personally, but as a professional politician who holds office he is actually not one even now.

        • by msauve ( 701917 )
          WTF is a "Senate registration?" He's always caucused with the Ds. If he's a state registered D, he's a D.
          • The Senate has a list. Every Senator chooses who they are formally associated with. Bernie is not Senator (D) he's a Senator (I), regardless of him having run to be a D in another position.

        • by Uberbah ( 647458 )

          Yeah, this year we even have a Senator who remains registered in the Senate as an Independent, who is complaining that the Democratic Party doesn't consider him a real Democrat. Well, he did change his personal voting registration to Democrat within the past couple years; but to this day he's never changed his Senate registration

          Canard. If Bernie wasn't a Democrat in all but name, they wouldn't give him seniority in the Senate, nor would they let him sit on committees. And of course he ran for president a

          • My advice, instead of handwaving and making up your own theory, just fact-check what I said.

            I'd take you more seriously if you even know how Senate seniority is counted. It isn't conferred separately on the whim of each Party, it is in the Senate rules and is based on the time serving in the committee.

            You argue the point about if he's registered as a D or an I in the Senate, but you didn't look it up first. Tsk tsk. Go, look, read, learn... Bro.

            • by Uberbah ( 647458 )

              I'd take you more seriously if you even know how Senate seniority is counted. It isn't conferred separately on the whim of each Party, it is in the Senate rules and is based on the time serving in the committee.

              You might want to have remedial knowledge of the subject before engaging in patronization, least you look like a pompous fool. [outsidethebeltway.com] You could have a hundred years of service in the Senate, and it doesn't mean dick if a party doesn't recognize your seniority.

              You argue the point about if he's registered as

              • You found a silly website I'm not going to click on, but even wikipedia can explain how Senate seniority works. You say the word "remedial," but you still haven't attempted a first pass. I'm not going to repeat what I said above that you get wrong. You didn't even understand your own link. Without reading, and because I actually follow politics on a continuous basis, I can already tell you that it is a poorly written piece that conflates the issue of committee assignments, which the parties can do however t

    • Hillary to the left of me, Trump to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle getting screwed.

      Bridging the gap, I guess your only real choice is which way you want to be facing...

      [ You're all welcome for that imagery. ]

  • by Anonymous Coward

    US clearly needs more parties in the government. The supporters of Bernie and Hillary, and likewise Trump and the former Republican candidates don't belong to the same parties.

    • by tiqui ( 1024021 ) on Thursday July 28, 2016 @07:00PM (#52603511)

      "However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion." - George Washington, first President of the US

      If people would spend more time reading what our founders said and wrote, and just a tiny bit less time on pop culture, we might be a little bit less messed-up. They designed the American system and left us both the operating manual (the Constitution) and their design notes (extensive writings, both for and against the choices they made see: "Federalist Papers" and "Anti-Federalist Papers" and all thier other books and writings).

  • Timing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Thursday July 28, 2016 @04:12PM (#52602453)

    I wonder if the specific timing is WikiLeak's idea or the source's idea.

    If you're trying to damage Clinton and the DNC this is great timing, it aggravates Sander's supporters and pits them against the party when everyone is at the DNC, it also distracts the public from good press that the DNC is generating.

    But if you're trying to publicize WikiLeaks and the leaks themselves it's terrible timing, almost no one outside of political junkies is going to hear about it because the news is swamped with the DNC itself.

    I suspect the source has specific conditions about how this info gets published.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by ganjadude ( 952775 )
      what good press? The riots outside of the walled off area, owned by wells fargo, one of the large banks they hate so much?? ?

      or maybe the walkout by half the DNC hall after clinton was nominated???

      maybe it was the breaking of federal law at the convention when they knowingly had illegal immigrants come out and speak (yes, that IS a federal crime)

      but hey, they got 1 transgendered bathroom so i guess thats good right?
      • Re:Timing (Score:5, Informative)

        by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Thursday July 28, 2016 @04:48PM (#52602699)

        or maybe the walkout by half the DNC hall after clinton was nominated???

        I don't think the word "half" means what you think it means.

        maybe it was the breaking of federal law at the convention when they knowingly had illegal immigrants come out and speak (yes, that IS a federal crime)

        I believe your understanding of the law is incorrect [snopes.com].

      • by Anonymous Coward

        ...

        but hey, they got 1 transgendered bathroom so i guess thats good right?

        Yep, all they did was paper over ONE Women's bathroom sign.

        DNC’s ‘All-Gender’ Bathroom A Mere Publicity Stunt. Here’s Proof. [dailywire.com]

        "All of the other bathrooms in the arena appear to be more traditional, split by the sexes. Is it a coincidence that the all-gender restroom is right by the press booth?" asks Rantz.

        The great transgender coverup at the DNC [hotair.com]

      • by _xeno_ ( 155264 )

        There seems to be an effort by the media to paint the DNC as being "a success" and the RNC as "a disaster" - despite all reports indicating that they were the exact opposite: the RNC was (with the exception of Cruz) a party coming together to support their candidate, while the DNC was two warring factions failing to come to any sort of agreement - primarily because it's come out that the "losing" side only lost because of massive fraud and cheating on the "winning" side. (But, hey, if the FBI gives a pass t

        • There seems to be an effort by the media to paint the DNC as being "a success" and the RNC as "a disaster" - despite all reports indicating that they were the exact opposite: the RNC was (with the exception of Cruz) a party coming together to support their candidate

          Yeah, that was great how Bush, McCain, and Romney all came out to support.... oh wait, they all stayed away because a significant part of the Republican establishment refuses to endorse Trump.

          In fact if they were to endorse anyone during the campaign it would likely be Hillary. I mean the Cruz-endorsing "Obamacare is unconstitutional" folks at Volokh Conspiracy have already done so.

          while the DNC was two warring factions failing to come to any sort of agreement

          The only reason the RNC was so quiet is their insurgent with outsider delegates won. Can you imagine how chaotic it would be if

  • I mean, phoning in to complain that Bernie actually was given access? What reporter would do that? They need to get in line after the Billionaires and Millionaires the DNC sold out to, after all!

    • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

      Well they have to complain somewhat, otherwise they won't know how to write the stories on the DNC, Hillary or Bernie. Then send those stories to the DNC to get approval before they publish them.

  • At least they are consistent with their emails...
  • Why? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28, 2016 @04:17PM (#52602489)

    Seems like a leak for the sake of leaking something. Are they just trying to embarrass the DNC by showing they got voice mail access? There is nothing of value here. This does nothing more than violate the privacy of people. Can't claim any moral high ground about whistle blowing with this.

  • by justcauseisjustthat ( 1150803 ) on Thursday July 28, 2016 @04:54PM (#52602735)
    I bet anyone, that in the last 40 years that the leaders of each political party in the US have pushed for their favorites to be nominated and elected. The whole point of super delegates in the Democratic Party was to ensure that some extreme candidate didn't get the party nomination (cough, cough, Trump via the Republicans..) and create chaos.

    The system is far from perfect and Bernie Sanders did a great job of getting people thinking, but until the presidential election is tax payer funded (and Citizen United overturned ) and open (2-8 parties based on some equation) we will be stuck choosing between the lesser of two instead of the greatest of two or more.
  • Really hates Sanders...
  • by SJ ( 13711 )

    The timing seems like payback for the treatment Snowden/Asange/Manning has received under a Democratic President.

  • If you want to see Democrats sniping at each others' candidates or complaining about what the party's up to, just go on any Democratic blog.

    It's not a scandal. It's not a secret. It's not even a problem -- not even when people get hot under the collar and start acting like assholes. George Washington was elected unanimously by the Electoral College, but in every election since then politics has been turning Americans into assholes.

    And that is a good thing. You can't make politics 100% civil without pushing out unpopular opinions.

  • I'll be impressed when Wikileaks posts Trump's tax return.
  • So this is just a bunch of voicemail from random callers? Why? Why would we even hear about these or moreover care?

    • My best guess is that Wikileaks is acting like assholes right now. I can't see any legitimate reason for releasing recordings of random people calling the committee.

Programmers used to batch environments may find it hard to live without giant listings; we would find it hard to use them. -- D.M. Ritchie

Working...