Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

941–950 of 1001 posts

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#941

Post by andrei_says_ »

edanm wrote: post #369
joshuaheard wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Assange is a partisan. He's Australian after all and has no stake in this election. I think he is releasing info on Hillary because that is what he has and is timing the release for maximum public exposure. If he had similar info on Trump, I firmly believe he would be doing the same thing.

It's pretty well known that Assange has a vendetta against Hillary Clinton. Just searching for Assange Clinton on Google brings up lots of articles on the subject.

No, it is not "pretty well known." Sources please.

This kind of language is common for propaganda and astroturfing.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#942

Post by snowwrestler »

grandalf wrote: post #931
snowwrestler wrote: post #822

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is because the recent email leaks just validated what everyone already knew about Hillary Clinton and her campaign. The fact that the emails were LEAKED OMG is not the newsworthy part. It is what is in them. And largely speaking, there's not much news in them. IMO a major problem in the U.S. today is that not many people understand how political campaigns or the federal government actually work. So a lot of peop…

Not sure I agree. Is a conspiracy by top officials at the DNC to harm a party candidate during the primary a minor deal? To me this is corruption at close to the highest level. Yes, it's a private org, but one that is critical to the functioning of our democracy. Is a candidate making promises to wall street that directly contradict her campaign promises a minor deal? Well, we can cynically assume all pols are dishon…

The DNC Sanders emails were extremely widely covered when they came out earlier this year and led directly to a change in leadership at DNC. Are you trying to suggest those got ignored?

I've looked through the Goldman transcripts, and maybe I'm stupid, but I didn't see her making any promises. If you've got a direct quote, lay it on me.

I'm not holding my breath, though, since so far you only seem interested in vague concern-trolling.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#943

Post by shard972 »

cbr wrote: post #627
whamlastxmas wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That website is frankly misleading. Their classifications of "overhead" are ridiculous. Look at the actual filing from the Clinton Foundation itself: https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinto... Page 18 and 19. Out of a budget of $217 million, they spent $34 million on direct program expenditures. That's about 16%, not 88% as your link would lead us to believe. Additionally, what is this money spen…

If you read Dylan Matthews' investigation [1] a major takeaway is that the foundation's impact comes primarily from influencing corporations and governments. For example, to make AIDS drugs cheaper they convinced the manufacturers to accept much lower prices in exchange for much larger volume, and they convinced governments to make very large orders. If the foundation were trying to fight AIDS by directly funding the…

> If you read Dylan Matthews' investigation [1] a major takeaway is that the foundation's impact comes primarily from influencing corporations and governments. For example, to make AIDS drugs cheaper they convinced the manufacturers to accept much lower prices in exchange for much larger volume, and they convinced governments to make very large orders.

I find it a bit troubling that in the article he makes passing mention of the drug company the CGI was working with but no mention of how they got into huge trouble for not actually passing many drugs, including the AIDS vaccine through QA.

You really have to wonder the about effects of pushing down the margins of a drug company who wasn't even following safety standards at the time.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#944

Post by drumdance »

erispoe wrote: post #834
pdx wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To further what you're saying. Wikileaks announced for weeks when they were releasing the emails. It was a pre-planned event that the entire world was waiting for. The Trump tape, which had obviously been saved for a rainy day, was trotted out to distract from the pre-announced Wikileaks release. This level of premeditated collusion with the media is not even up for debate at this point, since the very emails they ar…

A distraction from what? There is nothing incriminating in the released emails. We learned that: DNC personnel liked Hillary Clinton better than Bernie Sanders and that Hillary Clinton was saying to bankers what she is saying in public. Where's the scoop that we are supposedly being distracted from?

Not to mention that Sanders was not a Democrat until he became a candidate for president. Politics is about building coalitions. Maybe if Bernie had nurtured closer relations with the DNC he would have gotten more favorable treatment.

And it's not like the nomination process is sacrosanct. For many years primaries were ignored altogether in favor of smoke filled rooms. That only started changing in 1968. It was made more democratic in 1972, which resulted in the nomination of George McGovern, who got his clock cleaned in the general. Sometimes party elites do know better.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#945

Post by shard972 »

danielahn wrote: post #523
gragas wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- Hillary and her team deliberately trying to trick the FBI by giving them a "slightly broader" set of emails [1]: "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, whic…

Is this post satirical? I think I am being trolled, but at the risk of making myself look like a fool for falling for it: How is your reading comprehension this bad? 1. Your understanding of the comment here is miserable given the point you are trying to make. If you should find anything suspicious, it is that the 2nd set of e-mails, with a broader search, included e-mails that should have been turned over previously…

> 4. Please point me to the illegal or unethical behavior here.

Well to start, Qatar is funding ISIS according to other emails so maybe don't accept money from states that sponsor terrorism?

I mean we could go into how they stone gays for being themselves and women for having the gaul to think they can drive but we all know that's totally ethical.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#946

Post by shard972 »

tptacek wrote: post #579
anthony_romeo wrote: post #237

We're in the middle of some crazy propaganda war right now, and it's been this way for quite a while. It became completely transparent when the Podesta e-mails were released mere minutes after Trump's videos regarding possible sexual assault were released. Ever since the DNC leaks and the subsequent accusations against Russia, it became clear to me that, at some point, the attempts to tarnish Wikileaks's name was to…

The magnitude of the falseness of this equivalence tells you everything you need to know about Wikileaks role in this election. Implied in it is the idea that the Clinton campaign had an obligation to release their opposition research on Trump as soon as they had it. But of course, they have no such obligation: they're not journalists! On the other hand, Wikileaks clearly is structuring their releases to draw out the…

> Implied in it is the idea that the Clinton campaign had an obligation to release their opposition research on Trump as soon as they had it. But of course, they have no such obligation: they're not journalists!

But these women are coming out on their own because of cooper's question? I don't understand.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#947

Post by stale2002 »

acdha wrote: post #915
stale2002 wrote: post #660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that is the case, then why has the British government spent millions of dollars guarding the embassy? Seems like am aweful lot of money for such a small crime that you are making it out to be.

What government cheerfully accepts the precedent that you can dodge legitimate exercise of government authority like this? I mean, the U.S. Post Office will send armed officers after someone for mail fraud in even small amounts – not because it costs less than the crime but to serve as a deterrent for anyone else who might try it in the future.

Ahh, so they are doing it as a deterrent.

But perhaps there is other things that they are trying to deter people from doing.

Like, maybe they want to deter people from pissing off powerful governments by leaking and embarrassing world leaders?

Mind you, multiple American leaders have called for him to be arrested.

Maybe the giant elephant in the room has more than a little to do with why the government is spending so much money and effort trying to arrest him.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#948

Post by shard972 »

grey-area wrote: post #526
JohnStrange wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree with your analysis. To add to this, I've been watching US media closely over the past few months and have never seen them so biased in any matter before, including past elections. It appears to me that there is not a single news source in the US that does not entirely follow some political agenda. There seem to be no dissenters or cautious writers left. Most of them are biased against Trump, of cou…

I think the answer is simpler than some grand conspiracy of the global media elite (insert your preferred shadowy cabal here) , the sort of people who work in news agencies simply are not alienated enough from the current system to see trump as anything other than a danger to the current system of representative gov. and they also don't like being demonised and slandered by Trump, this requires no conspiracy, just th…

Ok so lets take your version of events. So when this climate leads to situations were the media then starts working hand in hand with the DNC to leaks questions and give one candidate a leg up, at what point is that not a conspiracy?

At a certain point there is evidence to show people in the media coordinating in private to try and reach a common outcome. If a bunch of people in the media working together to distort the truth isn't a conspiracy then I'm not sure what is.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#949

Post by shard972 »

grey-area wrote: post #526
JohnStrange wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree with your analysis. To add to this, I've been watching US media closely over the past few months and have never seen them so biased in any matter before, including past elections. It appears to me that there is not a single news source in the US that does not entirely follow some political agenda. There seem to be no dissenters or cautious writers left. Most of them are biased against Trump, of cou…

I think the answer is simpler than some grand conspiracy of the global media elite (insert your preferred shadowy cabal here) , the sort of people who work in news agencies simply are not alienated enough from the current system to see trump as anything other than a danger to the current system of representative gov. and they also don't like being demonised and slandered by Trump, this requires no conspiracy, just th…

Ok so lets take your version of events. So when this climate leads to situations were the media then starts working hand in hand with the DNC to leaks questions and give one candidate a leg up, at what point is that not a conspiracy?

At a certain point there is evidence to show people in the media coordinating in private to try and reach a common outcome. If a bunch of people in the media working together to distort the truth isn't a conspiracy then I'm not sure what is.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#950

Post by shard972 »

SamBam wrote: post #325
gaur wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a neutral opinion of Assange until he posted (and then deleted) a tweet with echo parentheses. That made it pretty obvious he's not really in it for any noble purpose.

Wow. Screenshot? (For those not aware, (((echo parenthesis))) are an anti-semitic symbol used by white supremacists to highlight people who are Jewish.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_parentheses Edit: Wow, here it is: http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/wikileaks-echoes-tweet-anti-s... Most of our critics have 3 (((brackets around their names))) & have black-rim glasses. i.e. most of our critics are Jewish. Presuma…

> (For those not aware, (((echo parenthesis))) are an anti-semitic symbol used by white supremacists to highlight people who are Jewish.

Then why do I see self proclaimed jews on twitter with the walls? I though it was a joke.... Considering it's... twitter.

Post reply on HN