31–40 of 334 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you’re overconfident in what you believe to be true based on the evidence that exists. The Russian bit can be politically inconvenient for you and yet also be true.
Extraordinary claims (Trump colludes with Russians, Russians hack DNC) requires extraordinary evidence. In over 5 years, this has not been presented.
>Russians hack DNC
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Extraordinary claims (Trump colludes with Russians, Russians hack DNC) requires extraordinary evidence. In over 5 years, this has not been presented.
Plenty of evidence has been shown for this part: >Russians hack DNC
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that’s not illegal for somebody without a clearance. The crime he’s charged with is that he was willing to (and I think did?) assist in breaking into a computer system to get the docs. I think under the CFAA. They have communication records of this because the person he was talking to was working for the USG. Had he just been accepting docs as he was initially that would have been fine. It’s hard to know the trut…
> At some point Russia was also using Wikileaks as a place to target the USG with some plausible deniability and Assange’s personal anti-US politics became a corrupting influence too. There's a passage in Sarah Kendzior's book (Hiding in plain sight: the invention of Donald Trump and the erosion of America) which clicked (to me): ultimately things like wikileaks damage societies and governments that are transparent.…
Imagine a leak comes out about Putin (you don’t have to imagine that hard..). It would hardly make any noise: there’s no more free press to raise a stink about it, and the population is so used to swimming in the post-truth sewage spewing from the top that they’ll just ignore it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe the reason you are getting down voted isn't because you don't cite your source, but because the reasoning is absurd. > You will always find more dirt and problems in public/accessible records than in dictatorships. Wikileaks isn't some sort Wikipedia of public/accessible records, it's a platform to publish confidential information. If the US gov is a healthy, democratic, open gov, how and why can Wikileaks…
> If the US gov is a healthy, democratic, open gov, how and why can Wikileaks be so damaging? Because we are still humans and fallible. No matter how healthy, open gov or democratic our governing bodies are I suppose there will always be something going off rails at some points and it's much easier to spot it in transparent governing structures (which usually means democracies) than in non-transparent ones (which usu…
Did you look at what Wikileaks revealed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Leaks
I don't think you realize the scale of what is happening. These aren't some cute human mistakes or tax evasion.
We are talking war crimes, environmental disasters, political corruption, ...
And yes - lots of it targets the US gov, maybe time to rethink what the US (and others) gov is and isn't ?
This isn't the work of fallible humans, this is the work of malfunctioning states.
Without Wikileaks, medias and investigation that reveals the wrongdoings ... dictatorship is at the end of the road.
This is why the reasoning that Wikileaks helps dictatorships and hurts democracies is absurd.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you’re overconfident in what you believe to be true based on the evidence that exists. The Russian bit can be politically inconvenient for you and yet also be true.
Extraordinary claims (Trump colludes with Russians, Russians hack DNC) requires extraordinary evidence. In over 5 years, this has not been presented.
s/presented/investigated
There's a lot of things to investigate https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/21/how-russian-money-helpe... but since the whole world saw what happened on the 6th and what did not after I don't think there'll ever be evidences extraordinary enough to act on any kind of claims.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you’re overconfident in what you believe to be true based on the evidence that exists. The Russian bit can be politically inconvenient for you and yet also be true.
Extraordinary claims (Trump colludes with Russians, Russians hack DNC) requires extraordinary evidence. In over 5 years, this has not been presented.
The Trump campaign, at minimum Paul Manafort, colluded with agents of Russia [2].
I'm not going to research how strong the public evidence that Russia was behind the DNC hack but again, it's not an extraordinary claim.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Tower_meeting
[1] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/id-exclusive-interview-trump-listen-foreigners-offered-dirt/story?id=63669304
[2] https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-paul-manafort-russia-campaigns-konstantin-kilimnik-d2fdefdb37077e28eba135e21fce6ebfEarlier quoted context omitted.
I think you’re overconfident in what you believe to be true based on the evidence that exists. The Russian bit can be politically inconvenient for you and yet also be true.
It is interesting that apparently the GOP's email server was hacked as well, but nothing was ever released publicly. I'm no fan at all of the DNC but if "all politicians are dirty" is a thing, then why did no dirt spill out from the other side? Was it more valuable as kompromat?
The “RNC hack” was one guy’s old laptop with a years out of date local outlook db. Not even in the same league.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> At some point Russia was also using Wikileaks as a place to target the USG with some plausible deniability and Assange’s personal anti-US politics became a corrupting influence too. There's a passage in Sarah Kendzior's book (Hiding in plain sight: the invention of Donald Trump and the erosion of America) which clicked (to me): ultimately things like wikileaks damage societies and governments that are transparent.…
I’m not sure why you’re being downvoted so much, the point is definitely interesting Imagine a leak comes out about Putin (you don’t have to imagine that hard..). It would hardly make any noise: there’s no more free press to raise a stink about it, and the population is so used to swimming in the post-truth sewage spewing from the top that they’ll just ignore it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you’re overconfident in what you believe to be true based on the evidence that exists. The Russian bit can be politically inconvenient for you and yet also be true.
It is interesting that apparently the GOP's email server was hacked as well, but nothing was ever released publicly. I'm no fan at all of the DNC but if "all politicians are dirty" is a thing, then why did no dirt spill out from the other side? Was it more valuable as kompromat?