From the article - "There was no way to immediately verify if he had been knocked offline, and if so, how a state actor was suspected." As far as I can tell, no one has verified any of this. Given JA's recent bizarre state of mind, I'm not sure where all of this breathless HN commentary is coming from.
Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'
471–480 of 1001 posts
Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'
#472My understanding is that we do not have any proofs of life from Assange. It could be many things: assassination, deal with Ecuador, extradition by Ecuador or someone else, simply an internet censorship, a PR stunt by Assange. All is possible. This guy lives a fucking dystopian nightmare.
Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'
#473A bit of an interesting dilemma in the spirit of transparency. Given an N-way race, do you just reveal secrets pertaining to one participant (since this may be all you have) or do you with-hold until you can reveal secrets from all participants?
I've been struggling with this a lot. Granted it's pretty much all speculation, but if it is a state actor that is giving Wikileaks this information, and if said state actor was trying to influence the election, I question the responsibility of Wikileaks. It could also be (and I'm aware of this) simply that they're exposing information on "my" candidate, in which case maybe I'd feel differently if was the other way a…
Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'
#474Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assange actually has said that he has info on Trump, however, the info is nothing worse than what Trump already says publicly. ( http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/08/27/wikileaks-info-dona... )
And yet he won't release it so we can be sure of that, while we just have to know Podesta's risotto recipe.
Who knows what they have?
Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'
#475Earlier quoted context omitted.
As Archer would say: "Do you want terrorist groups? Because this is how you get terrorist groups." Or, another way, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. What option are citizens left with when state collusion to deny people their basic rights occurs in broad daylight?
Is internet access really a basic right? I would argue no, but then again I grew up in a world without internet access for the most part so I consider it a nice-to-have rather than a necessity.
Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'
#476I am getting so damn sick of all of the corruption we're seeing in governments all around the world, including the US/UK. Makes me want to vote for Trump and take the whole crooked system down (unfortunately, that would cause a LOT of pain for good everyday people).
Consider that it is the crooked system that has led you to believe that.
See this, newly released, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY shocking stuff.
Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'
#477Earlier quoted context omitted.
It looks like you're also assuming: 3) whoever posted to the wikileaks twitter account didn't first consider the more obvious hypotheses. Which seems like a rather large issue with your theory.
Whoever runs the Wikileaks twitter has posted anti-Semitic tweets and wild conspiracy theories. You're also assuming that whoever posts to the Wikileaks twitter account doesn't want people to believe the most sympathetic, conspiratorial possibility.
I was surprised by your claim that wikileaks posted something antisemitic, so I googled for it.
Is http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/25/what_wikil... what you're talking about? I don't agree that's antisemetic in any honest sense of that word (ie "hostility, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews"). Like, the article's explanation of why it's anti-semitic starts off with "this might be a little hard to follow" -- not something you'd expect in an article throwing around serious accusations.
Hanlon's razor is the obvious objection, and goes unaddressed. --reputation[Slate];
> and wild conspiracy theories
Interesting, any you'd care to link?
> You're also assuming that whoever posts to the Wikileaks twitter account doesn't want people to believe the most sympathetic, conspiratorial possibility.
I'm merely assuming they aren't going to be obviously incompetent? Like, maybe the phrasing will be self-serving... but look at GP... he's seriously suggesting that they may have mistaken a gardening accident for a state actor...
Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'
#478Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/wikileaks-syria-files-syria-r... 100%, huh?
Don't twist my words. I said that they have never leaked fake documents. They clearly have an agenda in what they select for publishing. ================================================ In response to mejari (both of his replies) below, I'm rate-limited: ================================================ Did you even read that article? That's not what it says. They just didn't publish the documents. What it does say is…
Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'
#479Perhaps this is this election cycle's "October Surprise"? If this is Clinton attempting to seal-the-deal on the election, I'm officially not voting. Anyone that uses the power of the state (read: the power of the gun) to silence speech is a non-starter in my book.
I don't feel comfortable telling anyone who to vote for - a personal decision that is no one else's business. I will say that for myself, when I was filling out my early mail-in ballot yesterday, it was an easy decision voting for Jill Stein. Our political system is corrupt and when lots of people (in the many millions) vote for 3rd party candidates, that at least makes it harder for the establishment to maintain the…
So you're saying that voting 3rd party makes it harder for "the establishment" to fool people into thinking they had a choice to begin with? That voting makes it harder for the media to fool you into thinking your vote matters? That drinking the Kool-aid makes it harder for Big Brother to trick you into drinking the Kool-aid?
Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'
#480Earlier quoted context omitted.
If hundreds of pieces of direct evidence don't suffice, then I'm not sure what does. The Clinton Foundation has done countless extremely illegal and unethical things. Between CTR, the Bernie fiasco, the fake Craigslist ads, the "public and private" positions, I'm not sure how you can say that HRC isn't trying to create an alternate reality.
What are the countless and extremely illegal and unethical things?
"What that means specifically is that they are going to turn over all the Blumenthal emails to the Committee that they hav along with some other HRC emails that include a slightly broader set of search terms than the original batch. That of course includes the emails Sid turned over that HRC didn't, which will make clear to them that she didn't have them in the first place, deleted them, or didn't turn them over."
- Purposefully witholding all emails that were between HRC and POTUS [2]:
"Think we should hold emails to and from potus? That's the heart of his exec privilege. We could get them to ask for that. They may not care, but I seems like they will."
- Evidence that the DNC purchased craigslist ads in attempt to frame Trump [3]
"We’re proud to maintain a “fun” and “friendly work environment, where the boss is always available to meet with his employees. Like it or not, he may greet you with a kiss on the lips or grope you under the meeting table. Interested applicants should send resume, cover letter, and headshot to jobs@trump.com"
- Clinton Foundation accepting $1 million from Qatar for Bill's birthday. [4]
1. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9272
2. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9545