RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Sainato writes: "On September 23, hacker Guccifer 2.0 released more documents obtained from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC)."

WikiLeaks released files from Guccifer 2.0 through their Twitter account. (photo: hamburg_berlin/Shutterstock)
WikiLeaks released files from Guccifer 2.0 through their Twitter account. (photo: hamburg_berlin/Shutterstock)


WikiLeaks Releases More DNC Docs Leaked From Guccifer 2.0

By Michael Sainato, Observer

24 September 16

 

New evidence proves Clinton was always the Democratic choice

n September 23, hacker Guccifer 2.0 released more documents obtained from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC).

Last week, WikiLeaks directly released files from Guccifer 2.0 through their Twitter account. Among them was a high-profile donor list revealing the pay-to-play appointments of several ambassadorships and other positions by President Barack Obama. On September 15, Guccifer 2.0 released several DCCC memos on a WordPress site, including one from Ohio dated December 9, 2015 that referred to Hillary Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee before the primaries began, even though Sen. Bernie Sanders was just a few points behind Clinton in most polls. “With former Governor Ted Strickland and Secretary Clinton on the ballot, there will be a boost from the top of the ticket,” read the memo.

Based on many similar memos and documents released by Guccifer 2.0 from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and DCCC, it appears the Democratic Party leadership felt strangely self-assured Clinton would be their presidential nominee before a single vote was cast. The Clinton campaign and DNC have not disputed the veracity of any files or documents leaked, rather they have portrayed themselves as the victims of Russian hackers to divert attention from the content of the leaks.

Guccifer 2.0’s latest release includes a dossier file of DCCC Chair Ben Ray Lujan, a Democratic congressman from New Mexico. The extensive file includes hundreds of pages of statements, speeches, financial data and weak and strong points in anticipation of his re-election bid this November, and likely to prepare his political career for bigger ambitions. Among the weak points listed in the dossier is nepotism, as Ben Ray Lujan’s father, Ben Lujan Sr. was the Speaker of the New Mexico House of Representatives, and helped Lujan initially get elected to congress. Lujan’s cousin, Michelle Lujan Grisham, also serves in congress for a separate district in New Mexico.

One document provides talking points for Lujan to make a call to controversial New Jersey Democratic donor George Norcross in March 2015. “We need Mr. Norcross’ help in recruiting top targets such as State Sen. Van Drew, to run in NJ-2.  Ideally, he would call the recruits that we feel are the best and encourage them to run,” read the memo. “Likewise it would be ideal if he could mention his support when asked by others in his powerful circle. This will help to validate our candidates with the political and donor classes.” In a 2013 article, Philadelphia Magazine called Norcross “the man who destroyed democracy.” The DCCC memo reveals the Democratic Party has not only embraced wealthy donors influencing the political system but aggressively courts their input in pushing for their mutually preferred candidates.

Another memo dated April 2016 details a congressional race in Utah and notes, “Trump is extremely unpopular in Utah. Public polling has shown that Hillary Clinton could beat Trump in the very conservative state.” The memo provides further evidence the Democratic Party developed their short-term and long-term strategies with Clinton in mind as their nominee. Sanders wasn’t mentioned at all as a possible option or alternative; strategies incorporating him as the potential nominee were never discussed in these memos.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
-22 # tswhiskers 2016-09-24 14:38
Yes, it's obvious that Bernie hadn't a chance of winning the Dem. nomination with Wasserman-Schul tz at the helm of the DNC.
One hopes that after the election the DNC will do some revamping to keep the party chairman honest and unbiased in the future. But that was then and this is now, and NOW the reality is that Clinton is the Dem. nominee. I doubt very much that it will change either. I hope that most of us will be adult about this election and do whatever is necessary to keep Trump out of the presidency; but voting for Jill Stein won't cut it, and Gary Johnson is not much better. If you can't vote FOR Clinton, then vote AGAINST Trump.
 
 
+41 # guomashi 2016-09-24 15:34
Or better yet, vote against both of them.
 
 
+5 # Adoregon 2016-09-25 13:26
We need the choice of "none of the above" on the ballot.
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2016-09-25 19:11
"None of the above" sounds great, but it's still meaningless unless we find a major news outlet willing to actually report what non-conservativ es think.

Unfortunately, the major media have been too afraid of electing Trump, to say or do ANYTHING against Hitlery.

They'll still show the election results (along with most polling) as though there were only 2 candidates, and as though everyone were actually voting.

If they wanted to do us a service, it would be nice to ask Democrats why they're not voting, and then, actually LISTEN to what they have to say!
 
 
+59 # grandlakeguy 2016-09-24 15:43
I am not willing to take any blame for a Trump Presidency because of my refusal to support Hillary Clinton, a candidate who was NOT chosen by the voters but appointed by DNC party leaders.

From paragraph 3 in the above article the author states "...it appears the Democratic Party leadership felt strangely self-assured Clinton would be their nominee before a single vote was cast."
It is abundantly clear in any honest analysis of the disgraceful role that the Democratic party and their accomplices played in the primaries that they never had any intention to respect the voice of the people and instead appointed their corporate controlled hawk stooge!

Hillary is so distrusted and has such a terrible track record in the area of foreign intervention that she may actually lose to Trump.

Do not blame that very possible outcome on Progressives!
Blame it on those who engaged in election theft and now shill for a dirty candidate...
THE REGRESSIVES!
 
 
+34 # librarian1984 2016-09-24 21:38
Ooh, the REGRESSIVES .. I like that .. You sure have a knack for phrasing.

Hope you're doing well, glg. Respect.
 
 
+34 # grandlakeguy 2016-09-24 22:31
Thanks librarian, I am well and hope that you are too.
The term "Regressives" came to me last night as I worried about a Trump or Clinton Presidency.
My spell check keeps saying it is incorrect so I guess it is a new word.
I will start using it often as it really fits the moment and I urge anyone else who feels that it is pertinent to use it as well.
I think it fits the current "Democratic" party perfectly! Their tactics are anything but democratic and whenever Hillary claims that she is progressive I wince!
 
 
+8 # Helga Fellay 2016-09-25 08:56
grandlakeguy - I wince, too, every time Clinton calls herself progressive. (I wonder if she is so delusional that she actually believes she is progressive) When I first read your comment above, I read the word REGRESSIVES as progressives and thought WTF? I didn't realize my error until I read librarian's response. So I will use the word from now on, but maybe spell it REgressives.
 
 
+7 # sashapyle 2016-09-25 12:03
She DOES believe she is progressive, because she actually has been on social issues, although slowly at times, but doesn't want to reflect on how REgressive her core policy stance is---shoveling our money to thieves, polluters and war profiteers in closed-door backroom deals, the Clinton way. To her that's just how you get your way and get things done. It's as natural to her as breathing (maybe moreso!)
 
 
+2 # RLF 2016-09-26 05:52
Clinton has also been in the Washington Bubble for so many years that she has absolutely no idea of where reality exists. Its a problem with these rich fascists!
 
 
+5 # Femihumanist 2016-09-25 13:08
[quote name="librarian 1984"]Ooh, the REGRESSIVES .. I like that .. You sure have a knack for phrasing.

YES!! The word I'll be using from now on.
 
 
+23 # tedrey 2016-09-24 22:41
REGRESSIVES IT IS! May it catch on.
 
 
+14 # lorenbliss 2016-09-24 23:36
"Regressives" is in fact exceptional, Kudos and a clenched-fist salute to GLG. (Wish I had thought of it myself.)
 
 
+14 # grandlakeguy 2016-09-25 00:06
I actually got out of bed and wrote it down for fear of forgetting it!

Everything that the Democratic party elite have done to the Progressive movement this year is clearly the act of dedicated Regressives!
 
 
+11 # lorenbliss 2016-09-25 00:18
Fanatical Regressives, even. (Yeah, when I think of stuff like that while abed late at night I always get up and write it down too -- for the same reason you do.)
 
 
+5 # librarian1984 2016-09-25 11:49
lol

There's nothing more frustrating than waking up the next morning having forgotten!

I swear, I could have saved the world a dozen times over if I hadn't been deluded enough to think, "oooh, that's brilliant .. NO WAY will I forget THAT" :-D
 
 
+1 # RMDC 2016-09-25 19:31
The Regressive movement sounds reactionary to me.
 
 
+15 # davehaze 2016-09-25 07:52
grandlaketc

If Clinton loses it will be her own fault that she was unable to offer or inspire many of the near 50 percent of eligible adults who seldom if ever vote.

To say that progressives MUST vote for someone anathetical to their beliefs is wrong.
 
 
+7 # librarian1984 2016-09-25 11:59
Quoting davehaze:
To say that progressives MUST vote for someone anathetical to their beliefs is wrong.
That seems fairly self-evident, right?

Let alone that journalists are self-censoring news that makes the Clintons look bad?!

It really is bizarro level bs. Like everyone is telling us the sky is really green, over and over and over.

This happens in Orwell's 1984, A Clockwork Orange and other dystopian visions. TPTB demand conformity as a test of loyalty.

That concept seems particularly perverse in the USA, which has historically empowered the individual.

Hill-bots: Break your chains. Open your eyes. Escape the Matrix. Tear down the wall.

Clintons = Trump = GOP = Dems = TPTB = status quo = war, inequality and injustice

Rise up from Clintonism.
 
 
+7 # Femihumanist 2016-09-25 13:05
Quoting grandlakeguy:
rs.

Do not blame that very possible outcome on Progressives!
Blame it on those who engaged in election theft and now shill for a dirty candidate...
THE REGRESSIVES!


RIGHT!! Where she kept going after the nomination, ignoring the next generation that Bernie brought into the Dem Party.
She was so sure I had no where else to go, Well, screw her and all of them who want to keep trying to manipulate me. I'VE HAD IT!!!
 
 
+8 # librarian1984 2016-09-25 14:12
And add a few decades to the experience for a lot of us.

It's difficult to hold your nose any longer after you've seen what a REAL candidate looks like! AND when it means getting the Clintons back in the WH. eww.
 
 
+9 # Vardoz 2016-09-25 14:01
As Jimmy Carter recently said. " we no longer live in a functioning Democracy." We are voting for Jill Stein come hell or high water. This was a coup if there ever was one. Even Patrick Leahy of VT didn't endorsed Bernie who won in a landslide in VT. Leahy has betrayed his base over and over. He voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act and NAFTA. Bernie didn't vote for either. Bernie won and using illegal election fraud waged his coup with the help of the super delegates. No one should ever work for them again. You can find them on Wikipedia. We want our Democracy back and we are taking a stand for Jill Stein and Democracy! Bernie is also working hard to recruit like minded reps to the house and senate which We believe is just as important as the presidency. It is congress that controls the purse strings!
 
 
+19 # jimallyn 2016-09-24 23:32
Quoting tswhiskers:
NOW the reality is that Clinton is the Dem. nominee. I doubt very much that it will change either. I hope that most of us will be adult about this election and do whatever is necessary to keep Trump out of the presidency; but voting for Jill Stein won't cut it, and Gary Johnson is not much better.

Voting for Jill Stein is the *only* rational approach at this time. Voting for anybody else shows the corporations that we will continue to vote for their candidates, even though we are fully aware that they will not represent the common man (or woman). So, vote for somebody that will actually represent you, and eventually enough people will follow your lead that we will be electing candidates who will represent us. Voting for the lesser evil is counterproducti ve, as it just leaves us with worse and worse candidates with each election.
 
 
-7 # ericlipps 2016-09-25 11:41
Quoting tswhiskers:
Yes, it's obvious that Bernie hadn't a chance of winning the Dem. nomination with Wasserman-Schultz at the helm of the DNC.
One hopes that after the election the DNC will do some revamping to keep the party chairman honest and unbiased in the future. But that was then and this is now, and NOW the reality is that Clinton is the Dem. nominee. I doubt very much that it will change either. I hope that most of us will be adult about this election and do whatever is necessary to keep Trump out of the presidency; but voting for Jill Stein won't cut it, and Gary Johnson is not much better. If you can't vote FOR Clinton, then vote AGAINST Trump.

Based on the posts I see here, RSN's current financial problems may be due to reader-contrib- utors deciding that the rest of us WON'T be adult about this election but will instead yell and scream and throw things because Bernie Sanders isn't the nominee and, later, because he isn't the president.

I wish self-styled "progressives" could leave the politics of tantrum to conservatives, but it seems they can't.
 
 
+8 # sashapyle 2016-09-25 12:06
Stop calling knowledge and discourse a tantrum, Eric.
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-09-25 12:06
And it would be nice if all forms of denial were contained within the GOP too, but obviously not.

Let's change the framing of the fund raising then. Let's charge admission to the digital zoo that holds America's last progressives.

Watch 'em get poked with irrelevancies until they retort!

See the bleeding hearts trampled under HRC's stiletto heels!

Laugh as they scavenge for reason, virtue, integrity and honesty!
 
 
+31 # Radscal 2016-09-24 19:15
Jimmy Dore (the truly progressive voice at The Young Turks) came across this CNN broadcast from 2014. In it, Andrew Cuomo states quite proudly that CNN had done everything in their power to ensure that HRC become the nominee. This is 2014! A year before anyone had even announced they were running, and almost 2 years before a single vote had been cast.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_vWuduMQSQ

Meanwhile, the DNC's lawyer in the lawsuit for Sanders supporters who donated has stated the defense that EVERYONE KNEW the DNC was rigged for Clinton, so Sanders supporters who donated money should have known it wouldn't help Sanders.
 
 
+16 # librarian1984 2016-09-24 21:42
Hi, Radscal. re your disappearing post: I noticed when I deleted one of my own posts that the thing just disappeared, no little box saying it had once been there. Also, none of us seems able to look at our profile pages, so something is going on at rsn.

I sure wish THEY had a little more transparency too. It would be nice to know what's happening. Any time I've emailed the admins I've not gotten a response.

Regards.
 
 
+14 # Radscal 2016-09-24 22:06
Weird! I just checked, and sure enough, I'm not "authorized" to view my own profile page.
 
 
+12 # grandlakeguy 2016-09-24 22:35
Nor am I!
 
 
+12 # tedrey 2016-09-24 22:42
I AM authorized. I feel rejected. (:-(>
 
 
+11 # Thomas Martin 2016-09-24 23:27
You folks are privileged to be rejected - I'm not even able to communicate with RSN
 
 
+8 # lorenbliss 2016-09-24 23:33
I'm likewise "unauthorized." Wonder if Marc, ever more forcefully a Hillaryite, is getting ready to purge us all.
 
 
+4 # tigerlillie 2016-09-25 01:14
Best be careful, Loren. Marc can't disappear you, but beware of your comnents.
 
 
-7 # ericlipps 2016-09-25 11:54
"I should be able to be as nasty as I like, as insulting as I like, toward anyone who dares challenge my hate speech against Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee and even the Democratic Party. I should be free to shout down anyone with whom I disagree."

This is how websites wither: not with a bang but with a snarl.
 
 
+4 # lorenbliss 2016-09-26 11:13
Quoth ericlipps: "I should be able to be as nasty as I like, as insulting as I like...free to shout down anyone with whom I disagree."

As indeed on RSN you already are, ericlipps.

(Thank you for projecting upon all the rest of us the creed of Hillary the Horrible's Legion of Trolls.)
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-09-26 16:02
Projection is a main tactic of HRC and her supporters.

Everything she is caught doing, they accuse someone else of doing. I assume that in their "war room," some Karl Rove planner (probably John Podesta) is deliberately doing this.

But it sure appears that most Hil-Bots are parroting the talking points with no self-awareness of the irony.
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-09-27 08:35
It is sometimes useful to tell what they are up to. Like children. (Children with a gun.)
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-09-25 12:10
@ tedrey

You were also one of several experiencing oddities a while back too, right? And there was something about your not having authority to do something?

Are there different kinds of accounts?
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-09-26 08:56
@ tedrey

Duh. I can't believe it took me so long to think of clicking on your profile since you can access yours. I am not authorized. So either you were given superadmin (?) privileges to fix your earlier access problems, or perhaps rsn or the nsa is tweaking access privileges and it's gone wrong.
 
 
+5 # Billy Bob 2016-09-25 19:16
Lately, it seems like the lights are on but no one's at home.
 
 
+12 # DrD 2016-09-25 07:22
Radscal- re; lawsuit; that's quite a defense for the DNC isn't it? Speaks volumes to how low they have sunk.

Well, I didn't know it was rigged for Clinton when I donated and volunteered my time for Bernie. (In fact I wish we could sue for the lost time even more than the lost money). I truly believed we could put Bernie over the top if we all pitched in. A friend of mine kept saying that he didn't think the DNC would 'let' Bernie win. He was right and I was the naive fool. I hope at least the lawsuit will expose the full depth of the deception.
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2016-09-25 14:24
Exactly my feelings and experiences.

Want to bet that the lawsuit will result in the DNC "proving" it was all the fault of the Russians?
 
 
+4 # Patriot 2016-09-24 22:54
Why is everyone so surprised by the Dems unethical and perhaps illegal machinations? The kept telling us it was Hillary's turn, didn't they?

I'm afraid I still favor capital punishment, and I think it should be carried out by firing squad. The Dems could be the test cases for that process, I think.
 
 
-8 # ericlipps 2016-09-25 11:48
Quoting Patriot:
Why is everyone so surprised by the Dems unethical and perhaps illegal machinations? The kept telling us it was Hillary's turn, didn't they?

Not that I ever heard. But I guess the voices coming from the plate in your head know better.

Quote:
I'm afraid I still favor capital punishment, and I think it should be carried out by firing squad. The Dems could be the test cases for that process, I think.
In other words, they didn't anoint St. Bernard of Brooklyn, so let's blow their heads off.

I don't think this is what your hero had in mind when he spoke about a "political revolution."
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-09-26 08:58
I can't imagine you're a very capable psychologist when you read people so poorly. You consistently misattribute our motives and concerns.
 
 
-7 # Robbee 2016-09-25 10:48
well, no smoking gun here, maybe next installment?
 
 
+4 # kundrol 2016-09-25 20:46
Go Wikileaks! Send those hard working folks a donation if you can.
 
 
+3 # kundrol 2016-09-25 20:49
I posted to see if I can view my own profile. Nope, not authorized. Guess I'm on the bad guys list, too. And I'm signed up for a monthly donation?!?
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN