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

Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment

stundin.is

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 334 posts

Re: Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment

#201

Post by pseudo0 »

sketchyj wrote: post #153
deadite wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like a very anti-American sentiment. You don't get to air the dirty laundry of a country trying to keep a lid on chaos because they do something you don't like now and then. I want to know that the intelligence agencies, and the military that safe guard us, are able and willing to go to any length to preserve our way of living, even if it means they overstep. Not just one country, but all Five Eyes and th…

That's a lot of words but you didn't answer the question. The CIA and FBI are not accountable to Americans. You may be a fan of, or even work for, these institutions. But they are unaccountable and authoritarian and opaque.

Accountability likely peaked with the Church Committee (disclosed MKULTRA, COINTELPRO, etc), some of the results of which are still classified today, almost 50 years later.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee

Re: Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment

#202

Post by the_optimist »

newacct583 wrote: post #183
justnotworthit wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not even an uncontrollable, unencumbered, outsider (Trump) critical of the FBI/CIA could make dent in 4 years.

I continue to be amazed at the level of competence ascribed to this man. Donald Trump was, at heart, a lazy do-nothing in search of sycophancy and praise. He had zero inclination to actually change anything about how the government operates. All he cared about was that it was "his". And to the extent he was ever "critical" of agencies, it was only because they said something (or leaked something) that embarrased him.…

I understand this is how you feel. However, your reply reeks of not only anger, but of hatred. You haven’t succeeded in identifying biographic or factual characteristics that even merit inspection. Navel gazing.

Re: Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment

#203

Post by anothernewdude »

rendall wrote: post #25
encryptluks2 wrote: post #18

I honestly have very little sympathy for Assange at this point. The entire organization either appears to have been a honey pot or front for foreign election interference.

This is a badly uninformed opinion

Look to cryptome for what it would've looked like if it wasn't an engine for Assange's ego. The people who just wanted to host leaks left more than a decade ago.

The org admitted to pushing it's own political positions. No idea why people defend the thing. All they publish now is the result of Russian hacks.

And he's not a journalist.

Re: Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment

#205

Post by edgyquant »

johnchristopher wrote: post #58
namdnay wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> I’m not sure why you’re being downvoted so much, the point is definitely interesting I have observed a `shark smelling blood` thing going sometimes on HN. If the timing is right and if a child comment in an upvoted parent that is at the top of post gets one or two downvotes then it has some visibility and then it attracts downvote clicks. If there are 4 or 5 other children they get ignored (I believe the last one g…

Don’t think so. Reddit suffers heavily from this and is a known phenomenon.

Re: Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment

#206

Post by adrr »

the_optimist wrote: post #197
adrr wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a whole mueller report that was started and run by GOP. Person who started it was Rosenstein, a republican. Who picked Mueller another Republican. Why would they fake evidence against their own president?

This is idle speculation at best. It doesn’t attach to evidence, and it cannot be dispositive.

Mueller charged Russians for the hack.

Re: Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment

#207

Post by pstuart »

zionic wrote: post #38
pstuart wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Highly misleading. The DNC’s mail servers got hacked and they got everything done The “RNC hack” was one guy’s old laptop with a years out of date local outlook db. Not even in the same league.

What do you mean by "they got everything done"?

Re: Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment

#208

Post by the_optimist »

adrr wrote: post #206
the_optimist wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is idle speculation at best. It doesn’t attach to evidence, and it cannot be dispositive.

Mueller charged Russians for the hack.

Indicted. Famously prosecutors can indict ham sandwiches. Conviction is different. No such thing here.

Re: Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment

#209

Post by roenxi »

jbuhbjlnjbn wrote: post #171
emmelaich wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vote for the party which is most critical on them. Currently Republicans though it used to be the Democrats. Embedding undercover agitators in radical groups goes on all the time I'm sure. It's valuable but very easily abused, too.

>Vote for the party which is most critical on them. >Currently Republicans though it used to be the Democrats. This statement shows the absurdity of a two-party political system. Voting for either party will not change anything. You need to vote for particular politicians, and if that's not possible, then there is no way at all for reform or change.

If you always reliably vote for (Party X) then paradoxically you are less likely to get your concerns addressed because they mainly need swing voters to win elections.

People who switch parties to vote for their pet issue probably have a disproportionate impact on the outcomes, because both parties gain an incentive to take a position on that issue.

Re: Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment

#210

Post by roenxi »

dragonwriter wrote: post #88
NaturalPhallacy wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Russian bit can be politically inconvenient for you and yet also be true. I'm not sure how it's politically inconvenient for me when I'm a registered Pacific Green. People need to stop "thinking" in false dichotomies like left vs right or liberal vs. conservative. Astrology is six times smarter.

> I'm not sure how it's politically inconvenient for me when I'm a registered Pacific Green. The West being less hostile to and more willing to collaborate with Russia is a frequent position promoted in Pacific Green circles; Russia being tied to active hostile activity against Western regimes is politically inconvenient to that message.

> The West being less hostile to and more willing to collaborate with Russia is a frequent position promoted in Pacific Green circles

This should be a frequent position promoted in sane circles. What is the alternative, promoting war between nuclear powers? A permanent campaign of bullying, hoping that the Russians never get into a position to do anything about it?

If the US can be close allies with the Saudis and the Israelis at the same time, they can collaborate with Russia.

Post reply on HN