WikiLeaks largest classified military leak

[cobl04]

Colour me incredibly unsurprised that Wikileaks has turned out to be a dudebro website.

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by Phantom Dreamer

Justice for Assange has issued a fact-checker.

surely this fact checking will be impartial.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

If he had T-Mobile they just would have throttled him after his high speed data ran out.

This is what he gets for using Verizon

[anitram]

Originally Posted by deep

The guy looked at Hillary and he looked at Trump,
He is the one person that would know who is the worst of the evils.

Yeah, well, sexual abusers don't usually see that as a crime, so there's that.

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by anitram

Yeah, well, sexual abusers don't usually see that as a crime, so there's that.

but "justice for assange" did the impartial fact checking and they assure us that he is not a sexual abuser, he is merely a sexy misunderstood traitor patriot.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I'm all for transparency, whistleblowers, investigative reporting, multiple confirmed sauces.

What I'm not for is illegal hacking, especially by a state run agency.

Unless they're reading this, in which case I think it's just the bee's knees. Just really great stuff.

[Diemen]

Also, wasn't the point of wikileaks to uncover criminal activity? All the latest leaks are just regular office politics. This is the mighty moral crusade of wikileaks? Revealing that Hillary runs a tightly scripted and managed campaign? That she speaks comfortably and knowledgeably about numerous topics?

Yawn.

[Caleb8844]

https://theintercept.com/2016/10/18/...-coordination/

^ Hillary Clinton speaking comfortably and knowledgeably about how to ignore Citizens' United and coordinate with superpacs.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/11/medi...eaks-question/

^ Hillary Clinton speaking comfortably and knowledgeably about how to coordinate with CNN in order to receive town hall questions ahead of time.

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

[Aleister]

Originally Posted by Diemen

Also, wasn't the point of wikileaks to uncover criminal activity? All the latest leaks are just regular office politics. This is the mighty moral crusade of wikileaks? Revealing that Hillary runs a tightly scripted and managed campaign? That she speaks comfortably and knowledgeably about numerous topics?

Yawn.

Inclined to agree. From the limited amount I've read of Wikileaks cable, much of it is just gossipy stuff and froth.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

https://theintercept.com/2016/10/18/...-coordination/

^ Hillary Clinton speaking comfortably and knowledgeably about how to ignore Citizens' United and coordinate with superpacs.

Wikileaks mystery: How did town hall question get to Clinton campaign? - Oct. 11, 2016

^ Hillary Clinton speaking comfortably and knowledgeably about how to coordinate with CNN in order to receive town hall questions ahead of time.

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

If these are the bombshells, then yeah, yawn.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Politician is politician.

Octuuubur Serrrpreeeeeese

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

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?

[Caleb8844]

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

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by DaveC

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

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

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?

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

"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.

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by DaveC

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.

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

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.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

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.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

As for the greater overall point... Clinton's tendency to push the limits and blur the lines over what's legal or not does bother me.

Trump bothers me more; by a vast and significant margin.

If there were a better option, I'd take it. There isn't.