Trump quotes Wikileaks/Sputnik misquote

jnpy!$4g3cwk

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 11, 2010
1,100
1,293
I admit it -- I'm nervous. Somebody in Trump's campaign is getting fed hot-off-the-press anti-Clinton propaganda straight from Russia. As it happens, someone made a dumb error. Read this:

http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-sidney-blumenthal-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-benghazi-sputnik-508635

The evidence emerged thanks to the incompetence of Sputnik, the Russian online news and radio service established by the government controlled news agency, Rossiya Segodnya.

The documents that Wikileaks unloaded recently have been emails out of the account of John Podesta, the chairman of Clinton’s election campaign. Almost as soon as the pilfered documents emerged, Sputnik was all over them and rapidly found (or probably already knew about before the Wikileaks dump) a purportedly incriminating email from Blumenthal.

The email was amazing—it linked Boogie Man Blumenthal, Podesta and the topic of conservative political fevered dreams, Benghazi. This, it seemed, was the smoking gun finally proving Clinton bore total responsibility for the terrorist attack on the American outpost in Libya in 2012. Sputnik even declared that the email might be the “October surprise” that could undermine Clinton’s campaign. [...]
Then came the money quote: "Clinton was in charge of the State Department, and it failed to protect U.S. personnel at an American consulate in Libya. If the GOP wants to raise that as a talking point against her, it is legitimate," said Blumenthal, putting to rest the Democratic Party talking point that the investigation into Clinton's management of the State Department at the time of the attack was nothing more than a partisan witch hunt.

Those words sounded really, really familiar. Really familiar. Like, so familiar they struck me as something I wrote. Because they were something I wrote.

Here is the real summation of my article, which the Russians failed to quote: [long quotation omitted -- see article].
Of course, this might be seen as just an opportunity to laugh at the incompetence of the Russian hackers and government press—once they realized their error, Sputniktook the article down. But then things got even more bizarre.

This false story was only reported by the Russian controlled agency (a reference appeared in a Turkish publication, but it was nothing but a link to the Sputnik article). So how did Donald Trump end up advancing the same falsehood put out by Putin’s mouthpiece?

At a rally in Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania, Trump spoke while holding a document in his hand. He told the assembled crowd that it was an email from Blumenthal, whom he called “sleazy Sidney.”

“This just came out a little while ago,’’ Trump said. “I have to tell you this.” And then he read the words from my article.

“He’s now admitting they could have done something about Benghazi,’’ Trump said, dropping the document to the floor. “This just came out a little while ago.”

The crowd booed and chanted, “Lock her up!”

This is not funny. It is terrifying. The Russians engage in a sloppy disinformation effort and, before the day is out, the Republican nominee for president is standing on a stage reciting the manufactured story as truth. How did this happen? Who in the Trump campaign was feeding him falsehoods straight from the Kremlin?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlliFlowers

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
On the way home from work I heard some of Trump's rally where he was talking about, "sleazy Sidney," and the eaxact same things your Newsweek article talks about.

Trump is in a desperate position, so he's grabbing at anything he can.

Hopefully this disinformation (lies) won't be spread too irresponsibly.
 

jnpy!$4g3cwk

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 11, 2010
1,100
1,293
On the way home from work I heard some of Trump's rally where he was talking about, "sleazy Sidney," and the eaxact same things your Newsweek article talks about.

Trump is in a desperate position, so he's grabbing at anything he can.

Hopefully this disinformation (lies) won't be spread too irresponsibly.
Trump has many ties to Russia. I wonder if one of them has close ties to the FSB? The following article was published right before Manafort's activities were disclosed in the NY Times and Manafort resigned.

“The Trump-Russia links beneath the surface are even more extensive,” Max Boot wrote in the Los Angeles Times. “Trump has sought and received funding from Russian investors for his business ventures, especially after most American banks stopped lending to him following his multiple bankruptcies.”

What’s more, three of Trump’s top advisors all have extensive financial and business ties to Russian financiers, wrote Boot, the former editor of the Op Ed page of the Wall Street Journal and now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Trump’s de facto campaign manager, Paul Manafort, was a longtime consultant to Viktor Yanukovich, the Russian-backed president of Ukraine who was overthrown in 2014. Manafort also has done multimillion-dollar business deals with Russian oligarchs. Trump’s foreign policy advisor Carter Page has his own business ties to the state-controlled Russian oil giant Gazprom. … Another Trump foreign policy advisor, retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, flew to Moscow last year to attend a gala banquet celebrating Russia Today, the Kremlin’s propaganda channel, and was seated at the head table near Putin.
http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eraserhead

Limey77

macrumors regular
Apr 22, 2010
103
974
My question is "why don't the moderators call him out?" Surely that's their job to moderate the debate and correct fallacies on both sides?

Obviously they'll miss some things, but 80%+ of what Trump said was demonstrably false - not a mistake but deliberately false because it played to his base. The moderators should call him out each and every time he lies.
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
My question is "why don't the moderators call him out?" Surely that's their job to moderate the debate and correct fallacies on both sides?

Obviously they'll miss some things, but 80%+ of what Trump said was demonstrably false - not a mistake but deliberately false because it played to his base. The moderators should call him out each and every time he lies.
Moderators job is to moderate, not "call people out", Hillary is supposed to know the facts to make a rebuttal. The moderators are simply there to relay the questions and make sure time constraints are enforced.
 

cube

macrumors P6
May 10, 2004
16,430
4,436
Moderators job is to moderate, not "call people out", Hillary is supposed to know the facts to make a rebuttal. The moderators are simply there to relay the questions and make sure time constraints are enforced.
Maybe debate broadcasts should have a real-time fact check ticker underneath.
 

sodapop1

Suspended
Sep 7, 2014
187
1,282
Moderators job is to moderate, not "call people out", Hillary is supposed to know the facts to make a rebuttal. The moderators are simply there to relay the questions and make sure time constraints are enforced.
It really doesn't matter who calls Trump out during or after the debate. His deplorable supporters aren't interested in the truth and anyone who challenges Trump's lies will only be labelled by his supporters as being in bed with the Clinton campaign. Fortunately, the number of decent good people outnumber his deplorable supporters and don't fall for his nonsense. This election is no longer about policy, it is about human decency.
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,609
34,768
USA
Moderators job is to moderate, not "call people out", Hillary is supposed to know the facts to make a rebuttal. The moderators are simply there to relay the questions and make sure time constraints are enforced.
I don't think Hillary (or Donald) rebutting something that is supposedly a quote from an email really works during a live debate. It's a he said/she said thing. Unfortunately. It's something that needs to become an article that can provide the research and from a 3rd party. Now you can argue bias - but it's far more effective than one of the candidates, themselves, debunking it.
 

thermodynamic

Suspended
May 3, 2009
1,336
1,175
USA
It really doesn't matter who calls Trump out during or after the debate. His deplorable supporters aren't interested in the truth and anyone who challenges Trump's lies will only be labelled by his supporters as being in bed with the Clinton campaign. Fortunately, the number of decent good people outnumber his deplorable supporters and don't fall for his nonsense. This election is no longer about policy, it is about human decency.
Who is interested in the truth? People love to engage in self-deception.

Look, all politicians seem to lie once in a while, for varying reasons. Some of their supporters will do the same things and be no less deplorable all while pointing a finger at the other camp. Just making sure you understand a basic truth. Which is not the "When I point one finger at you, I accidentally point three at me" - which is another cozy trait people engage in unwittingly, even if they give it a thumbs-up at the time. So maybe there's a bigger issue of forgiveness, which is also a trait of human decency? How can we move forward together, especially to better this country?
 

Snoopy4

macrumors 6502a
Dec 29, 2014
661
2,921
It really doesn't matter who calls Trump out during or after the debate. His deplorable supporters aren't interested in the truth and anyone who challenges Trump's lies will only be labelled by his supporters as being in bed with the Clinton campaign. Fortunately, the number of decent good people outnumber his deplorable supporters and don't fall for his nonsense. This election is no longer about policy, it is about human decency.
The only deplorable people in this election cycle are the two front runners. Hillary should look in the mirror once in a while.
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,355
UK
Or maybe moderators should just moderate.
You know we need more facts in politics and less ******** rhetoric. And that applies to both sides and in every country.

We also need government to do more what the people want and be less nannying. Though sometimes nannying is good.
[doublepost=1476187891][/doublepost]
The only deplorable people in this election cycle are the two front runners.
And the racist Trump supporters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sodapop1

Snoopy4

macrumors 6502a
Dec 29, 2014
661
2,921
You know we need more facts in politics and less ******** rhetoric. And that applies to both sides and in every country.

We also need government to do more what the people want and be less nannying. Though sometimes nannying is good.
[doublepost=1476187891][/doublepost]

And the racist Trump supporters.
And lying Hillary supporters.
 

sodapop1

Suspended
Sep 7, 2014
187
1,282
The only deplorable people in this election cycle are the two front runners. Hillary should look in the mirror once in a while.
Please, anyone who tries to equate Hillary's shortcomings to the disgusting things that Trump has done is lying to themselves. Especially, his fake Christian right supporters claiming to be Christians.
 

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,408
Donald Trump, Putin's Bitch


ON FRIDAY, while much of the country was preoccupied with the latest revelations about Donald Trump, the U.S. intelligence community made an alarming and unprecedented announcement: Russia was seeking “to interfere with the U.S. election process” through the hacking of political organizations and individuals, including the Democratic National Committee. The statement rightly alarmed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, who said in Sunday night’s debate that “we have never in the history of our country been in a situation where an adversary, a foreign power, is working so hard to influence the outcome of the election.”

And Mr. Trump? Once again, the GOP nominee played the part of Vladimir Putin’s lawyer. “She doesn’t know if it’s the Russians doing the hacking,” he said of Ms. Clinton. “Maybe there is no hacking.” Mr. Trump is receiving classified intelligence briefings, so he is certainly aware of the evidence that hackers backed by Moscow have stolen email and other records from the DNC and tried to penetrate state electoral systems. So why does he deny it? Mr. Trump’s advocacy on behalf of an aggressive U.S. rival, and the opaqueness of his motivation, is one of the most troubling aspects of his thoroughly toxic campaign.

Experts differ on whether the Putin regime is trying to tip the election to Mr. Trump, as Ms. Clinton suggested, or merely to sow confusion and distrust about the integrity of U.S. democracy. But the leaks traced to Russia through the WikiLeaks website have been aimed at Ms. Clinton — most recently emails from her campaign chairman revealing excerpts from her private speeches on Wall Street. The timing of the WikiLeaks releases, clearly calculated to do maximum damage to the Democrats, confirms (again) that the website is not a crusader for transparency, but a willing political agent of the Kremlin.

Perhaps Mr. Trump knows nothing about all this, as he protested. But he has defended Mr. Putin and his crimes throughout his campaign. He brushed off the fact that journalists and other opponents of the Russian ruler have been murdered and claimed Russia had not invaded Ukraine. He has repeatedly called Mr. Putin a better leader than President Obama.

In Sunday’s debate, Mr. Trump reeled off a series of false statements about Russia’s intervention in Syria, saying it was aimed at the Islamic State even though almost all of Russia’s bombs have fallen on rebel groups fighting the regime of Bashar al-Assad, or on civilians. He then rejected the statement by running mate Mike Pence that “provocations by Russia need to be met with American strength” and the United States should consider using “military force to strike military targets of the Assad regime” if Russia’s bombing of Aleppo continued. (Abjectly, Mr. Pence on Monday attempted to deny that he said those words in the vice-presidential debate.) “I think it would be great if we got along with Russia because we could fight ISIS together,” Mr. Trump said at Sunday’s debate.


Here’s what we don’t know: Does Mr. Trump propose this collaboration with a regime obsessed with thwarting and weakening American power out of ignorance and naivete, or because of personal and business interests he has not disclosed? Mr. Putin surely knows the answer to that question — but U.S. voters do not.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/donald-trump-putins-puppet/2016/10/10/451f099e-8f0e-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b:homepage/story&utm_term=.b14529c05673
 
  • Like
Reactions: jnpy!$4g3cwk

balamw

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 16, 2005
19,075
963
New England
This, to me is the true danger of Wikileaks.

We simply can't know what the true source of the information they "leak" is and it can get distorted so easily by a single round of misquoting/mistranslation.

While some/much of the stuff they have posted may well once have belonged to Podesta, other items may simply be planted in there by sources unknown. How would we ever know for sure?

Not unlike the police planting evidence.

Or Mr. Trump confusing someone (Putin) calling him "flamboyant" to being called "brilliant", "a genius."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/08/donald-trump/did-vladimir-putin-call-trump-brilliant/

B
 
Last edited: