181–190 of 577 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, you think there should be punishment for airing other countries dirty laundry? Should e.g. the US punish the turks for airing the Saudi's dirty business? I think that s not a defensible position
I'm not going to bother responding to you anymore. You're definitely twisting my words into something you'd like to attack.
> Russia will continue to air other country's dirty laundry with impunity
your words.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, including literally in this thread (copied this link from another comment): https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/what-the-latest-mue... And many others, including former CIA director Pompeo too: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/13/us/politics/mike-pompeo-c... Google 'pompeo wikileaks' and you'll get a ton. You seem to be ignoring the evidence people are putting in this post and continually defending WikiLeaks…
The indictment referenced in your first link literally doesn't mention WikiLeaks or Assange. It's pure speculation. Pompeo is a liar, and Clapper was to. Check out all of Clapper's statements he'd make before being nearly immediately contradicted during the whole Snowden thing. After paying attention to statements from national security heads for decades, they are just straight up lying an alarming amount of the time…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you though? The State Dept under Clinton played fast and loose with it's own procedures and regulations and I have a friend who died in the Benghazi attack if you want to fight with me on this point. More than 5% of the Section 702 wiretaps conducted under the last President's administration were performed illegally by their own admission. False flag operations are part of our history and three-letter agencies…
>More than 5% of the Section 702 wiretaps conducted under the last President's administration were performed illegally by their own admission. Source?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The purpose of the DNC, as with the RNC, is to choose a candidate they feel is most likely to win. I don't believe choosing Obama over Clinton would have been any less political than choosing Clinton over Obama, or Clinton over Bernie. I don't believe that political calculus or meddling or special privileges granted to high-ranking party officials is actually atypical for either party. Of course, Wikileaks never rele…
I know it's unfashionable, but shouldn't the parties choose a candidate they feel is most likely to do good and communicate why? I feel the constant triangulation is a big reason why the democratic world is so messed up right now.
Did the Republicans choose Trump because they felt he was the most likely to do good and communicate why?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't say the emails were fake. I said they were altered. The metadata, specifically. According to the NY Times they were alter to make it look like they were downloaded directly from a computer in the U.S. and to change the date the documents were obtained. And publishing false information is not illegal. Knowingly aiding a foreign government in their efforts to undermine an election is treason.
No metadata had been altered for any WikiLeaks releases.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/06/gucci...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if he is partial to putin, his work benefits the world by pushing others to do the same. I 'd rather live in a world where governments compete to expose each other's secret than one in which they conspire to hide as many as possible from their people. That's medieval
Medieval? It's what every country has been doing forever. Every spy agency on earth does this and has done this since their inception. It's practically their MO. So... you do live in that world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://truepundit.com/under-intense-pressure-to-silence-wik... It was from before he was in the embassy, after the CableGate thing.
Truepundit.com is a site with no named reporters but somehow still manages to get "scoops" from unnamed sources in the State Department, the Justice Department, the Pentagon, and the FBI. Yet these scoops are never confirmed by other sources and many of them are proved false, like these: * November 4, 2016: BREAKING: Comey Mandates All FBI Agents Report to D.C. Offices; Prep for Raids, Possible Arrests in Clinton Pro…
https://youtu.be/ErH29hrpqvg?t=233
"I don't recall having said, but if I did it would have been a joke", while smirking.
That's politics code for "I totes said that, but I don't want to be caught in a lie if there's some record of it."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But this argument is defending the dirty laundry with an ad hominem attack. The fact being that he will no longer be able to air any government's dirty laundry from the prison and this kind of argument says it's for the better.
Huh? I said I wasn't defending the dirty laundry and that there's definitely some illegal stuff in there that should be prosecuted. The fact that he won't be able to air any government's dirty laundry is for the better. I can guarantee Russia will continue to air other country's dirty laundry with impunity in the future, with or without Assange.
I'm not sure I understand. How is it for the better? Shouldn't wrongdoing be brought to light, no matter the perpetrator?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which emails were doctored? I hadn't heard about that. My understanding is that the "doctoring" done by Wikileaks consisted of selectively releasing information obtained from Democratic sources while concealing similar information related to the Republican side ( https://www.wired.com/2017/01/russia-hacked-older-republican... ). If true, that's the point at which Assange and Wikileaks departed from the path of legiti…
The Russians doctored the email, for example: https://www.businessinsider.com/guccifer-2-0-dnc-document-ru... They did it to make it seem that the Clinton Campaign and the DNC had something nefarious going on