Wikileak thread

Lets all laugh together
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/w...uses-wikipedia-with-wikileaks/article/2605278

 

Not saying that everything they report is a lie but calling their motives into question.

So I'm supposed to trust someone who has been out to get me and is trying to ruin with illegally obtained information about my spouse and not question that persons motives? You consider that smart.

Anyway aren't you one of the guys who keeps on saying the media is slanted and biased? So you are defending a group that's sole existence i to release illegally obtained information who is doing so only targetting one political party while claiming the mainstream media which does also report on both Clinton and Trump is biased and shouldn't be trusted.

 

Soon...

 

Yep you are one of those guys.

 

Has wikileaks published anything that matters yet?

 

Did you just insult a counter terrorism organization?

 

To truly damage Hillary? Not really

But you have to admit, having a glimpse into how a US presidential election runs has been pretty interesting and substantial. I hope we get a Frontline documentary on it.

 

People are so stupid still, if you don't want people to see it in the future, do not put it in email, that was one of the first things we tell new employees. There is always a chance any email could become public sometime in the future.

 

Those thousands of emails paint them as high strung, sometimes nasty for their woman, yet willing to think through issues. At least it didn't make them totally look like the aides from Veep.

 

I guess many here are either too young or naive about how hardball presidential politics and campaigns work.

For a quick primer, start off by reading the book or watching the movie, "All the President's Men."

How is anything in these emails new or surprising?

 

@rocketsjudoka why does motive matter? Motive didn't write those emails. Attaching motive to these "hacked" (wikileaks doesn't hack) emails is classic deflection and misdirection tactics. Don't tell me you've become one of those "whatever it is, it's not our fault" sheeple.

 

Of course motives matter. If someone is out to ruin you wouldn't you expect them to release only information that is meant to be the most damaging and do it in a way that is the most damaging? This is why context is always important.

I notice people like to throw the term "sheeple" out a lot for those who don't agree with them. Except I would contend unquestionably accepting material that was obtained illegally and released by someone who doesn't even hide their bias is pretty sheep like behavior.

Have you ever wondered why they don't pursue RNC emails or only selectively release emails timed for the election?

 

Yes, I have wondered that. I've concluded that:
1. Wikileaks pretty much publishes everything they get. They don't do the hacking....they simply are an avenue to release those things that are hacked by others. Plenty of embarrassing things were released during the Bush administration.
2. If they could, I'm sure they would love to release RNC emails. Maybe someday they will. Of course, they can only release what they receive. Perhaps the Republicans are better at securing their internal conversations? Something to consider when deciding who to put in charge eh?
3. Of course they timed these emails for release during the election. They obviously don't like Clinton. When someone is feeling threatened with death, they tend to not like the person doing the threatening. It doesn't change the fact that the emails are authenticated and ring true. In the meantime, the idea of Dems killing the messenger over this while constantly bashing Trump over the illegally obtained tax records the NYT printed is amusing. Hypocrisy...thy name is politician.

 

I'm wondering what it will take for you to even acknowledge the "illegally obtained material" below it's surface. Here's my best shot at it, YES I agree that motive and context matter. However, I also agree that the content of those emails matters. They BOTH matter but they are two different things that should be addressed separately imho. Combining them is an attempt at misdirection.

So in light of that, since this is the Wikileak thread, I want to discuss the content of the emails that you refuse to even acknowledge. Your refusal to acknowledge forces me to assume you approve of the DNC leadership behavior. If you do approve that says a lot about your bias and prejudices and convincing me that you're not able to think for yourself politically even if you think you are. Your behavior is akin to Stockholm Syndrome in relation to the Democratic Party. A good little soldier you are.

Regarding RNC leaks you are dead wrong. So wrong it's laughable you even believe that. One of the first leaks wikileaks ever published was docs related to Bush's Guantanamo Bay. Wikileaks also published Palin's hacked emails (by anonymous) during the 2008 election. Their biggest release ever, Manning diplomatic cables leak, was non-discriminatory in it's content. It contained content from/about everyone in world politics. Again, you're dead wrong here. They publish what they get after some internal vetting, period.

Back to Podesta emails, here's a little gem. What do you think about Clinton's team releasing a private photo of Bernie relaxing poolside only in his swim trunks to the NY Post during the primary? Source, https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9394 Interesting to note, NY Post did not publish after all but other outlets did. Do you condone or condemn?

 

"Follow the money."

<blockquote class="twitter-video" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">SHOCKINGLY<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/morningjoe?src=hash">#morningjoe</a> was FORCED TO COVER <a href="https://twitter.com/wikileaks">@wikileaks</a> &amp; crooked <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/RapeyBill?src=hash">#RapeyBill</a>&#39;s enrichment thru <a href="https://twitter.com/ClintonFdn">@ClintonFdn</a>!<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/VoteTrump?src=hash">#VoteTrump</a><a href="https://t.co/6H63mnsZ7S">https://t.co/6H63mnsZ7S</a></p>&mdash; Boston Bobblehead (@DBloom451) <a href="">October 27, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

In response to the last statement in the video, this isn't acceptable.