They cannot be completely separated, logically speaking. When you are receiving an incomplete story, you must ask yourself important questions: WHAT is being left out, and WHY? Would you place a gambling bet on a football team if you only knew one of the teams that was playing. "Ooo, I just learned all about Clemson -- I'm putting my money on them." It depends if they're playing Vanderbilt, or if they're playing 'Bama before you move your chips. It's similar to trusting a highly edited video version of an event. Or trusting a news clip with one candidate saying one phrase, without the surrounding full sentences. (All of that is so common in the twitter age, but we still should fight against it, if we care about a reasonable future.) You cannot say that unless you work deeply embedded within Wikileaks. It is very, very odd, that if they publish everything they get, with no respect to timing (they are always saying "wait for it" and building suspense, so it's obviously false that they release material in a timely way), that they've received NOTHING this year about the RNC or about Putin's empire. Yeah, just nothing at all. Ho hum. Neither you nor I know if they've received material or not, but they've shown that they try to time their releases and they're only targeting Clinton right now, for whatever reason. You assume b/c that's the only material they are receiving from the entire planet. Others of us are somewhat skeptical about that idea. I loved the idea of wikileaks when they started, but they've progressively changed in tone and objective over the last couple of years, for whatever reason. It's not a clearing house anymore, if it ever was. It's an organization with an agenda that is not simply transparency anymore. LOL. That's politics in America for the last 200 years. What's to condone or condemn? If a politician doesn't pursue every angle to get elected, within the law, they are basically stupid or naive to the point of stupid. I can't believe people can even raise their ire about things like this. I'm still surprised they can't find anything worse that what they've been releasing. Yes, Clinton will do anything within the law to get elected. This surprises nobody who's been awake the last 20 years, I think. She is Nixonian in this desire, IMHO. Hopefully without some of Nixon's deepest flaws. We may yet get to see.
yes they can. wikileaks existence is not predicated on clinton camp writing those emails and behaving that way and vice versa. those emails were written independently and wikileaks had nothing to do with their origins. but yet again you and others refuse to acknowledge the email content and clinton camp behavior and instead focus on wikileaks ethics. well guess what, wikileaks and assange aren't running for president so who gives a **** about their ethics in the context of our presidential election. she is, with the help of her camp, running for president and that's the topic of discussion. excuse me for wanting to focus on the morality and behavior of the potential president and not some website. also wikileaks DID NOT write a single email or force anyone to write those emails. they would have been written even if wikileaks didn't exist, although we would not have seen them. but they do and we did so we can. those emails were voluntary and so the writers bear the full responsibility. i don't necessarily disagree with you and yes it is odd and very possible wikileaks has an agenda. but again, i'm talking about emails that wikileaks didn't write and i want to complain about those who did write them. You acknowledge they cheat and lie as far as they can get away with and when we complain about it you make fun of us? Call us out, call us naive and stupid? So let me get this straight. They (all "good" christians btw...) have liberty to act that way (hey it's politics) but we don't have those same liberties to complain about their behavior. very do as i say not as i do christian of you. your god is proud LOL
So how do you feel about Clinton illegally having her emails deleted? Are you asking yourself the same important questions?
It's probably just naive for you to think that Trump (and Kasich and Cruz and every other would-be contender) doesn't or wouldn't do the exact same things. Probably we should complain about the dirty tricks, but it's a bit ridiculous to be incensed at one candidate and not the other.
"The Clinton campaign buzzed over a picture of Bernie Sanders in his swimming suit, at the same time they were pushing stories about the Vermont Senator attending a fundraiser for Democrats with wealthy supporters." what's to condemn or condone here? you sure this is some form of "lying and cheating"?
No Trump would absolutely doe the same, probably worst. He has no business being anywhere near the POTUS office. Only difference really is that we already know Trump is scum where as the Clinton's act like they are not which imho is even worse.
Please. It's not worth this kind of frustration and anger. I was not name calling, and I'm sorry you took it that way. I said "a politician" is stupid or naive if they don't work exactly like a politician. Unless you are a politician running for the top office, I was not insulting you. 1. No. I did not "acknowledge they cheat." Leaking an unflattering photo is gross. It is the opposite of high-minded. But I don't see how it's "cheating." 2. Yes, they definitely lie. 3. Again, did not make fun of you. Sorry. I personally don't understand how it's surprising. But if it is surprising, especially coming from HRC, I am all ears and will give your explanation a good listen. I mean that respectfully, and again, I did not mean to come across as your enemy, even though I dared post in this strange forum again. Cheers. And Okierock, you betcha I am. I am assuming everything that's been deleted has been something that could be politically unflattering, or perhaps worse. Despite dozens of investigations, to my reading, and to many independent readings, we haven't found anything truly criminal from her in these years. But I'm all ears. At the same time, we do not have access to literally billions of government emails, including millions apparently deleted by previous administrations (Cheney being the most incredible example). I'm honestly not sure it serves the public interest to have ALL email correspondence from our government officials revealed all the time. Having worked in an organization's administrative functions, sometimes a little electronic discretion is for the greater good. And sometimes not. As much as we'd like to paint yet another issue black and white, I don't think it's appropriate. I'm out. Good luck to every team involved in this crazy election! And God bless the USA.
you didn't click the leaked email. clinton aides had the photo as an attachment and were passing it around via email discussing who to send it to. now i ask you, why would they be passing around and discussing an unflattering photo of bernie poolside in his swimsuit? agree or disagree with bernie that's fine but that's low brow, low class. bernie is the longest-serving independent in us history and has served us all selflessly. again if you disagree with his politics okay fine, but to try and scheme to embarrass an honorable man, a husband, a father, like that in the public. again i ask you, why would they want to do that? trump does that hateful crap and everyone goes nutz!! and rightfully so. clinton camp does it....crickets.....
1. Guess where the quote i posted came from 2. And clinton did not do it 3. And don't act like the candidate the GOP nominated himself never put the picture of a sitting US senators wife out there or mimicked a disabled person so everyone can make fun of or talk about sexually assaulting any woman he wants etc
You are totally off base about the whole thing, which shows a Trumpy side to you: this photo is about Bernie maxin' and relaxin' with the elites at Martha's Vineyard. Check what Breitbart has to say about it: 'The photo was published by Perez Hilton just one day after the Clinton team discussed releasing the image. “I wonder what Mike Bloomberg would think about this???” wrote Hilton on his blog. “Bernie Sanders lounges at elite Martha’s Vineyard pool, summer 2015 after helping raise money from Wall Street lobbyists.” The following week, several stories appeared in the media questioning Sanders for attending fundraisers for Harry Reid. “For Sanders, campaign finance purity not always possible” wrote MSNBC’s Alex Seitz-Wald, citing “a guest list obtained by MSNBC” that included “previously unreported are details about who exactly attended those fundraisers.” “Bernie Sanders: Prolific Democratic Party fundraiser,” wrote CNN’s Eric Bradner on Monday, February 8, announcing that “CNN has obtained invitations that listed Sanders as a host for at least one Majority Trust event in each year since 2011.”' http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...pshot-of-bernie-sanders-in-his-swimming-suit/ You think this is about Bernie's "unflattering" appearance in a bathing suit. That's all you, Dude. You're reflecting the rate-the-person-in-a-bathing-suit side of this year's election. But the story is about Bernie lounging with elites at Martha's Vineyard.
Then let me repeat it for you: the Bernie Sanders photo story is not about an "unflattering" pic in a bathing suit. That's very Trumpy of you to think so.
I'm saying it is, its like disgusting paparazzi bullshit. A private moment not meant for everyone to see and Clinton camp talk and share it like giddy junior high kids. nice presidential team u got there
Since when is lounging by a pool at Martha's Vineyard a private moment? It's not in his back yard. As Brietbart reported, the conversation was about Bernie kickin it with the elites at Martha's Vineyard, not his beach body or lack thereof. Look beyond the bathing suit..... And what is a "presidential team" anyway? And in what sense do I "got" it?
Since forever. I guess when you treat yourself to a nice vacation and go poolside in your bathing suit you will be sharing your pics here on CF. Like I don't think presidential teams email each other like giddy schoolgirls you know. Like I swear the only thing that was missing in those emails was emojis but like they probably use those too.
Wikileaks has announced that is launching "Phase 3 of its US election coverage". It is not clear what that will consist of yet, but does anyone believe for a second that they have not saved the best for last? If Hillary Clinton thought she had problems with the FBI reopening the investigation into her nefarious activities again, she is probably getting ready to have even more trouble here very soon. To be fair, Assange has said he would publish materials on Trump too if anyone sent him any.
Phase 3 = give me some money! We commence phase 3 of our US election coverage next week. You can contribute: https://t.co/MsNZhrTzTL @WLTaskForcepic.twitter.com/XferJnMGux
Me. If you want to maximize your impact on the election, you should do it around mid-October, before early voting gets going and with enough time for the stories to marinate, have editorials written about them and so on. But, what he's released so far have been yawners, and I expect more of the same.
Clinton camp getting their due karma for how they treated Bernie. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
That must be why the November surprise in 2000 of GWB's alcoholism was released in October. Honestly, you release it with just enough time to soak up all the oxygen but with little time for the opposition campaign to react. I expect it to drop today or tomorrow at the latest.
