1/ publishing evidence of the Clinton campaign actively undermining Sanders who was then the natural candidate of the Democrats according to their internal polls (including by using antisemitic slur) + actively boosting Trump campaign because “it’s the only one we can beat” is “throwing the US presidential election to the Republicans”? How this genuine, authenticated information of public interest, published in the New York Times and WaPo is throwing the US elections more than the facts that were being reported?
2/ “worked with Russian intelligence” is absolute nonsense. What is your source on that? The Muller report says the opposite. If anything it is possible (but not proven) that the source may have been from within Russian intel, but
a) Assange mentioned several times -way before that episode- that the entire architecture of WL made it impossible for them to actually know their sources, and we have all reasons to believe that (as it would be the smartest thing to do)
b) if any journalist gets documents that are authentic and of public interest, regardless of the source, their duty is to publish it. If a Russian intelligence source had provided fake, doctored or otherwise altered material, and they would have been published as such, it would have been a real scandal. In the facts we are still talking of ground-breaking journalism.
I still can’t figure that some people cannot realize that Hillary Clinton did all she could to actually lose this election on her own (this and a fundamentally fucked up electoral system), and are actually finding scapegoats like Assange to avoid looking at this reality in the eyes…
Weird, if they have a duty to publish it, why didn’t they leak the Republicans’ emails too? They had both and chose specifically to release only one. They were not seeking freedom of information but seeking a specific political agenda by releasing some info and concealing other info.
Hillary Clinton was a flawed candidate but it takes mental gymnastics to pretend there weren’t shenanigans here.
Wait what? what Republicans’ emails? where have you heard that? I followed the case quite closely and never heard they had access to these emails.
So the answer would be: because no source came forward to them offering Republicans’ emails, otherwise they probably would have published them too…
A lot of the activity described in the US Army Warlogs in Afghanistan and Iraq happened under a Republican presidency… the Vaul7 release happened under a Republican presidency, etc. I think that reading WikiLeaks’ history under the ultra-narrow US prism of Republican-Versus-Democrats is a bit of a mistake. Not the entire world can be reduced to one or the other of these two…
“The most pervasively misleading thing that’s been reported, though, is that these emails confirm that the DNC was biased against Bernie from the start, and favored Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary process.”
If it was as you said why was Bernie campaigning for the nominated Dem, both then and in Biden’s election? If it’s so bad why is he so happy working with democrats? Why do you have a childish moronic play on Joe Biden’s name as your user? Why twist centrist vs progressive quarreling in a big tent party like some sort of scandal akin to I don’t know paying for sex with campaign cash, hiring your own children’s s giving them top secret clearance against the better judgement of the entire intelligence community, or signing with Putin over said intelligence committee after leaning on Russians to defame Hillary with your very dumbass talking points?
In that article (first time i heard of GOP being hacked I read
" Comey later added that “there was evidence of hacking directed at state-level organizations, state-level campaigns, and the RNC, but old domains of the RNC, meaning old emails they weren’t using. None of that was released.”
Comey said there was no sign “that the Trump campaign or the current RNC was successfully hacked.” "
So yeah “GOP being hacked” big deal. not “GOP emails were sent to WikiLeaks who decided not to publish it” which is indeed raw made up bullshit.
“Ms Brazile took over at the DNC when its former chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz over hacked emails which revealed the party establishment’s favouritism towards Mrs Clinton.”
I never claimed the DNC undermined Sanders in the primary. That Clinton campaign undermined Sanders, it’s very different…
Do you really want we go and search in the Podesta emails to see who is right here?
What else? Assange caused global warming? Cause the US to let their pants down in Afghanistan? Assange has weapons of mass destructions? What else to justify the unjustifiable, all these violations of international and national rights, violations of human rights, mis-use of the US espionnage act against a non-US citizen and precedent that will affect all journalism? Maybe Assange caused UAPs…
Well Mr Bidet, by all means keep washing shit… and ignoring the whole “concluded that the Russian cyber attacks were intended to help elect Donald Trump president.”
But yea poor Bernie. I’m sure Podesta is the real villain here. Straight up the whole substance of your arguement is BS Bernie doesn’t even care as much as you do and neither do voters.
The previous links were to clue you in on your ignorance. MR BIDET. There’s plenty more to go around.
“Since most of the GOP material was not released, whereas the emails of Democratic Party groups and officials were made public, the intelligence community has growing confidence that hacking of US entities was meant to steer the US election toward Trump.”
But keep whining about podesta like you have a real point to make. I’ll keep going.
(never sayd Podesta was a meanie. i think anyone involved in the DNC or GOP is probably a piece of shit that doesnt deserve my respect, but i think the same of many other political parties in many other countries…)
oh and by any chance, are you from the USofA? that way you have of being right about things by being louder… quite fascinating :)
You wrote whole paragraphs about the dnc memos and then asked if you have to read the podesta emails to make a point. Now you’re trying to both sides it. This isn’t a matter of louder it’s a matter of you having I real point to make.
What is the horror of the dnc emails that’s really of substance?
The speech of Clinton at Wall Street is one of the most devastating because she actually lied and used double speech all the way
The efforts to undermine Sanders are despickable
Inflating Trump campaign, of all GOP candidates, is both dumb, cynical and short-sighted.
But again that’s only the bits i personally remember from (reading) the emails.
All I said is:
this was newsworthy and of general interest;
any journalist like Assange, if given authentic, unaltered material of general interest has a duty to publish them. (that’s called journalism);
there is no evidence that WikiLeaks knew their source was from RU intel (if it was). It was said many time the organisation functioned in such way that they cannot know the identity of their sources, and anyone who has ever been in the business of source protection would confirm it is a smart principle.
To other fantasy claims that “WL had the GOP emails too but decided not to published them lol” i replied “haha wait what?!” and was presented with meak links about “GOP got ‘hacked’ period” with no trace of email being transmitted to whoever.
Now please go on barking about my nickname, changing topic or whatever.
Ever been to Lithuania? Not a fan of Russia and don’t suffer idiots whining about emails with zero context. It’s a lame argument a dumber name and a detractor to any real political conversation when you whine about Hillary.
Wait.
1/ publishing evidence of the Clinton campaign actively undermining Sanders who was then the natural candidate of the Democrats according to their internal polls (including by using antisemitic slur) + actively boosting Trump campaign because “it’s the only one we can beat” is “throwing the US presidential election to the Republicans”? How this genuine, authenticated information of public interest, published in the New York Times and WaPo is throwing the US elections more than the facts that were being reported?
2/ “worked with Russian intelligence” is absolute nonsense. What is your source on that? The Muller report says the opposite. If anything it is possible (but not proven) that the source may have been from within Russian intel, but a) Assange mentioned several times -way before that episode- that the entire architecture of WL made it impossible for them to actually know their sources, and we have all reasons to believe that (as it would be the smartest thing to do) b) if any journalist gets documents that are authentic and of public interest, regardless of the source, their duty is to publish it. If a Russian intelligence source had provided fake, doctored or otherwise altered material, and they would have been published as such, it would have been a real scandal. In the facts we are still talking of ground-breaking journalism.
I still can’t figure that some people cannot realize that Hillary Clinton did all she could to actually lose this election on her own (this and a fundamentally fucked up electoral system), and are actually finding scapegoats like Assange to avoid looking at this reality in the eyes…
Weird, if they have a duty to publish it, why didn’t they leak the Republicans’ emails too? They had both and chose specifically to release only one. They were not seeking freedom of information but seeking a specific political agenda by releasing some info and concealing other info.
Hillary Clinton was a flawed candidate but it takes mental gymnastics to pretend there weren’t shenanigans here.
Wait what? what Republicans’ emails? where have you heard that? I followed the case quite closely and never heard they had access to these emails.
So the answer would be: because no source came forward to them offering Republicans’ emails, otherwise they probably would have published them too…
A lot of the activity described in the US Army Warlogs in Afghanistan and Iraq happened under a Republican presidency… the Vaul7 release happened under a Republican presidency, etc. I think that reading WikiLeaks’ history under the ultra-narrow US prism of Republican-Versus-Democrats is a bit of a mistake. Not the entire world can be reduced to one or the other of these two…
Except they don’t and youre full of shit: https://www.mediaite.com/online/heres-what-the-leaked-dnc-emails-actually-show/
“The most pervasively misleading thing that’s been reported, though, is that these emails confirm that the DNC was biased against Bernie from the start, and favored Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary process.”
If it was as you said why was Bernie campaigning for the nominated Dem, both then and in Biden’s election? If it’s so bad why is he so happy working with democrats? Why do you have a childish moronic play on Joe Biden’s name as your user? Why twist centrist vs progressive quarreling in a big tent party like some sort of scandal akin to I don’t know paying for sex with campaign cash, hiring your own children’s s giving them top secret clearance against the better judgement of the entire intelligence community, or signing with Putin over said intelligence committee after leaning on Russians to defame Hillary with your very dumbass talking points?
You ignore this: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/politics/us-formally-accuses-russia-of-stealing-dnc-emails.html
Then you show total ignorance to the fact that republicans also had their emails stolen but specifically not leaked: https://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/comey-republicans-hacked-russia/index.html
There’s these links too: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/senate-panel-finds-russia-interfered-in-the-2016-us-election
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38505398
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-putin/
https://m.malaysiakini.com/news/511501
https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks-election-clinton-trump/
Hell there is a video interview where A REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN confirms the gop was hacked but not leaked and then immediately claims up.
Your narrative is shit and you should feel bad. It took me 5 minutes to find multiple sources confirming what we all saw back then.
But by all means whine about Bernie while even Bernie denies you lame shit.
Wow that agressiveness :))
In that article (first time i heard of GOP being hacked I read
" Comey later added that “there was evidence of hacking directed at state-level organizations, state-level campaigns, and the RNC, but old domains of the RNC, meaning old emails they weren’t using. None of that was released.”
Comey said there was no sign “that the Trump campaign or the current RNC was successfully hacked.” "
So yeah “GOP being hacked” big deal. not “GOP emails were sent to WikiLeaks who decided not to publish it” which is indeed raw made up bullshit.
Also, according to
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37639370
“Ms Brazile took over at the DNC when its former chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz over hacked emails which revealed the party establishment’s favouritism towards Mrs Clinton.”
I never claimed the DNC undermined Sanders in the primary. That Clinton campaign undermined Sanders, it’s very different…
Do you really want we go and search in the Podesta emails to see who is right here?
What else? Assange caused global warming? Cause the US to let their pants down in Afghanistan? Assange has weapons of mass destructions? What else to justify the unjustifiable, all these violations of international and national rights, violations of human rights, mis-use of the US espionnage act against a non-US citizen and precedent that will affect all journalism? Maybe Assange caused UAPs…
Well Mr Bidet, by all means keep washing shit… and ignoring the whole “concluded that the Russian cyber attacks were intended to help elect Donald Trump president.”
But yea poor Bernie. I’m sure Podesta is the real villain here. Straight up the whole substance of your arguement is BS Bernie doesn’t even care as much as you do and neither do voters.
Then there’s this: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/09/14/russians-have-hacked-rnc-too-texas-congressman-says/90380324/
Which he tried to walk back: https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/14/politics/michael-mccaul-rnc-hacked/index.html
The previous links were to clue you in on your ignorance. MR BIDET. There’s plenty more to go around.
“Since most of the GOP material was not released, whereas the emails of Democratic Party groups and officials were made public, the intelligence community has growing confidence that hacking of US entities was meant to steer the US election toward Trump.”
But keep whining about podesta like you have a real point to make. I’ll keep going.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/12/politics/gop-russia-hacking-trump/index.html
https://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/12/14/report-rnc-email-was-actually-hacked
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/investigation/rnc-e-mail-was-hacked-901763
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/thousands-sensitive-emails-hacked-republican-congressional-campaign-arm/story?id=59602406 “
Any “aggression” you feel in your bidet is just a forceful rebuttal of how dogshit your argument is that podesta was a meanie.
(never sayd Podesta was a meanie. i think anyone involved in the DNC or GOP is probably a piece of shit that doesnt deserve my respect, but i think the same of many other political parties in many other countries…)
oh and by any chance, are you from the USofA? that way you have of being right about things by being louder… quite fascinating :)
You wrote whole paragraphs about the dnc memos and then asked if you have to read the podesta emails to make a point. Now you’re trying to both sides it. This isn’t a matter of louder it’s a matter of you having I real point to make.
What is the horror of the dnc emails that’s really of substance?
Still waiting…
You and I remembered different things about these emails. I asked if we really had to source and quote them to find out who is right and who is wrong.
There is no “horror” in DNC emails. just evidence of crass corruption and cynicism from Clinton’s campaign.
So wait, are you saying there is nothing significant in the Podesta emails… while at the same time the would have “made Trump elected”? :)
Some of the substance of the emails summarized here: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/10/us/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-wikileaks.html
But again that’s only the bits i personally remember from (reading) the emails.
All I said is:
To other fantasy claims that “WL had the GOP emails too but decided not to published them lol” i replied “haha wait what?!” and was presented with meak links about “GOP got ‘hacked’ period” with no trace of email being transmitted to whoever.
Now please go on barking about my nickname, changing topic or whatever.
🥱
Ever been to Lithuania? Not a fan of Russia and don’t suffer idiots whining about emails with zero context. It’s a lame argument a dumber name and a detractor to any real political conversation when you whine about Hillary.
you’re really funny :)
https://www.wikihow.com/Teach-Yourself-to-Read