WikiLeaks largest classified military leak

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/21779

^ Hillary Clinton speaking comfortably and knowledgeably about how the President of the United States appears now to have lied about having knowledge of her email server

this says the exact opposite of what you claim it does, and it's the e-mail chain itself. none of the three e-mails in the chain are either from or to hillary clinton herself nor is there anything even referencing her other than to say she e-mailed the president.

"I recollect that Josh was also asked if POTUS ever noticed her personal email account and he said something like POTUS likely had better things to do than focus on his Cabinet's email addresses."

did you actually read these?
 
So, I can basically expect to never hear anything about campaign finance corruption again, then?

It does seem as though hard evidence of breaking the law should mean something, regardless of whether we're aware that it often occurs behind closed doors. If this is not the case, what pray tell is the point of having these laws on the books?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
this says the exact opposite of what you claim it does, and it's the e-mail chain itself. none of the three e-mails in the chain are either from or to hillary clinton herself nor is there anything even referencing her other than to say she e-mailed the president.

"I recollect that Josh was also asked if POTUS ever noticed her personal email account and he said something like POTUS likely had better things to do than focus on his Cabinet's email addresses."

did you actually read these?


"One of us should connect with the WH just so they know that the email will show his statement to not make sense"

The title of the email references an Obama statement claiming to not have known about the email server.

Clearly, they are discussing how his emails back and forth with her will make his statement - the one referenced in the title - appear to be nonsense.

This seems rather apparent upon even a cursory read.

Additionally, it's obvious that none of these emails are from hrc, nor were these emails marketed as being from hrc (The Podesta Emails...). My using her name was rhetorical, in response to Diemen's characterization of the emails' content.

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
It does seem as though hard evidence of breaking the law should mean something, regardless of whether we're aware that it often occurs behind closed doors. If this is not the case, what pray tell is the point of having these laws on the books?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

You do understand the irony of your statement, right?

These emails that you are referencing were obtained illegally. Even if there was evidence of a crime, it would be inadmissible in a court of law due to how the evidence was gathered. An added bonus for the emails being obtained illegally on behalf of a foreign government aiming to destabilize our country's democratic process.

Breaking the law should mean something. Otherwise, what pray tell is the point of having these laws on the books?
 
"One of us should connect with the WH just so they know that the email will show his statement to not make sense"

The title of the email references an Obama statement claiming to not have known about the email server.

Clearly, they are discussing how his emails back and forth with her will make his statement - the one referenced in the title - appear to be nonsense.

This seems rather apparent upon even a cursory read.

that's not even close to what's going on here. try to read deeper than at a "cursory" level. you can't just ignore context or invent it to fit whatever meaning you decide to assign beforehand, that's not how this works.
 
Last edited:
that's not even close to what's going on here. try to read deeper than at a "cursory" level. you can't just ignore context or invent it to fit whatever meaning you decide to assign beforehand, that's not how this works.

Enlighten me on what your perusal of the emails and surrounding context has revealed to you, this seems fun.
 
You do understand the irony of your statement, right?

These emails that you are referencing were obtained illegally. Even if there was evidence of a crime, it would be inadmissible in a court of law due to how the evidence was gathered. An added bonus for the emails being obtained illegally on behalf of a foreign government aiming to destabilize our country's democratic process.

Breaking the law should mean something. Otherwise, what pray tell is the point of having these laws on the books?

I admit that I phrased this less directly than I should've. Naturally she couldn't possibly be prosecuted in any way, shape or form over these emails. When I appeal to our laws, I don't do so in order to suggest she should be prosecuted. I do this to say that, regardless of our means of arriving at this knowledge, the knowledge that her campaign is directly breaking the law should be of some significance to us.

I'll pose the same underlying idea in a way you might be more predisposed to agree with:

Consider the potential existence of Apprentice recordings of Trump saying the N word. Now, to my knowledge, the reason the potential leaker is asking to be compensated is because leaking the tape would be illegal, and he would be sued by Trump (it's possible I'm mixing details up in this story, but details aren't particularly important to the point I'm making here). If he did leak this tape, is there no way we could both condemn the illegality of leaking the tapes while simultaneously using the knowledge gained from the tapes to make judgments about Trump?

By now, the election is a sure bet for Clinton. The so-called Left really needn't sell its soul and principles for this one, at this point. There will be more elections after 2016, and I suspect it won't benefit them to have left so many core principles on the chopping block in the name of "what do you want, TRUMP in office?!"

By all means, vote for Clinton. But don't descend into defending her on things that clearly fly against a lot of the principles people are drawn to liberalism for - it won't behoove you in the long run, I suspect.
 
Last edited:
I admit that I phrased this less directly than I should've. Naturally she couldn't possibly be prosecuted in any way, shape or form over these emails. When I appeal to our laws, I don't do so in order to suggest she should be prosecuted. I do this to say that, regardless of our means of arriving at this knowledge, the knowledge that her campaign is directly breaking the law should be of some significance to us.

I'll pose the same underlying idea in a way you might be more predisposed to agree with:

Consider the potential existence of Apprentice recordings of Trump saying the N word. Now, to my knowledge, the reason the potential leaker is asking to be compensated is because leaking the tape would be illegal, and he would be sued by Trump (it's possible I'm mixing details up in this story, but details aren't particularly important to the point I'm making here). If he did leak this tape, is there no way we could both condemn the illegality of leaking the tapes while simultaneously using the knowledge gained from the tapes to make judgments about Trump?

By now, the election is a sure bet for Clinton. The so-called Left really needn't sell its soul and principles for this one, at this point. There will be more elections after 2016, and I suspect it won't benefit them to have left so many core principles on the chopping block in the name of "what do you want, TRUMP in office?!"

By all means, vote for Clinton. But don't descend into defending her on things that clearly fly against a lot of the principles people are drawn to liberalism for - it won't behoove you in the long run, I suspect.

Except the leaking of the tape isn't illegal, it's contractual. And there's a huge fine built in, which is why nobody has leaked it yet. The potential leaker is asking for somebody to cover the clause in the contract.

There's also a distinct difference between whistle blowing and hacking.

So neither of your arguments hold any water. They aren't the same things.
 
There has yet to be an email that she has authored that raises concerns. I see the inner workings of a political machine, and the conversations, planning, strategy sessions are like crack to my inner historian. The only concerning things that have come out are about foundation donations. Again, she is not involved in those emails. If we had republican emails, we would be seeing the same behaviors.
 
Does anyone else see the incredible irony in the right coming to love Assange? Three years ago they all wanted him tried for treason. Now, he's single-handedly saving America?!
 
I've never liked Assange personally but I've always been appreciative of what Wikileaks brings in general. My views haven't really changed.
 
Yeah, my take on Assange hasn't changed. I didn't care for either extreme; hero or hang him. But I did just glance back through this thread, very entertaining read.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Does anyone see the incredible irony in Assange still portraying himself as a defender of freedom? 6 years ago he was uncovering government corruption, now he's uncovering mundane office politics.

:wink:
 
julian assange is a traitor and a glorified high-tech hood snitch who has put a great many of my personal friends in very real danger. he should rot in a jail cell for the rest of his life right next to snowden and chelsea manning. fuck em all for very nearly getting a lot of good people killed and celebrating it like they're heroes for disclosing usable secrets to an enemy.
 
Snowden at least seemed to have his conscience in the right place. All I get from Assange is "look at me, look at me!"
 
julian assange is a traitor and a glorified high-tech hood snitch who has put a great many of my personal friends in very real danger. he should rot in a jail cell for the rest of his life right next to snowden and chelsea manning. fuck em all for very nearly getting a lot of good people killed and celebrating it like they're heroes for disclosing usable secrets to an enemy.

Can you elaborate on this? Because I'm baffled to hear this from you, unless I had misrepresented your political positions in the past.
 
Can you elaborate on this? Because I'm baffled to hear this from you, unless I had misrepresented your political positions in the past.


That's probably a hint that he or his friends/colleagues have been the inadvertent victim of a massive and irresponsible leak.

I'm not sure Snowden falls under that same category. Wikileaks legitimately just publishes everything. That's like dumb chelsea manning shit. Don't think just act. Snowden on the other hand... I feel like there was some calculated restraint with him.
 
i was in the military when the afghanistan leaks happened and had a lot of buddies who had their security directly compromised by it. our unit couldn't do anything for weeks because jackass gave up all our crypto codes to the enemy during an active war which opened up all of our operational and logistics details.

for example the information included the highly-secret flight paths over the mountain ranges used in and out of kandahar airport, and the taliban certainly owned a lot of stinger missiles that could have very easily downed a hercules with 200 or so of my friends on it. some things are classified for a damn good reason.

so yea, fuck julian assange and the horse he rode in on. i hope karma bites his ass real hard some day.

snowden...yea it's less directly affecting to me and maybe i shouldn't have included him in that list but i categorically reject the notion that the public "deserves" to know any and all classified info. some things need to be kept secret for the sake of good peoples' lives.
 
Last edited:
i was in the military when the afghanistan leaks happened and had a lot of buddies who had their security directly compromised by it. our unit couldn't do anything for weeks because jackass gave up all our crypto codes to the enemy during an active war which opened up all of our operational and logistics details.

for example the information included the highly-secret flight paths over the mountain ranges used in and out of kandahar airport, and the taliban certainly owned a lot of stinger missiles that could have very easily downed a hercules with 200 or so of my friends on it. some things are classified for a damn good reason.

so yea, fuck julian assange and the horse he rode in on. i hope karma bites his ass real hard some day.

snowden...yea it's less directly affecting to me and maybe i shouldn't have included him in that list but i categorically reject the notion that the public "deserves" to know any and all classified info. some things need to be kept secret for the sake of good peoples' lives.




This is all quite true. A very good friend of mine has done what I infer is reasonably high-level intelligence gathering in Iraq and Afghanistan and she had to inform certain contacts to tell them that their name is out there and they were likely going to be murdered.
 
Reminds me of Gary Powers, and his accusations that Oswald had given up his U2 Flight Path when he defected. Oswald did not, but another American had given the intel that resulted in the shoot down. Powers, to my knowledge, was not ever informed that Oswald did not do it.
 
julian assange is a traitor and a glorified high-tech hood snitch who has put a great many of my personal friends in very real danger. he should rot in a jail cell for the rest of his life right next to snowden and chelsea manning. fuck em all for very nearly getting a lot of good people killed and celebrating it like they're heroes for disclosing usable secrets to an enemy.

Nice to meet you, Madam President. :wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom