This has got to be an Onion article, right?

[The Hammer of Witches]

I am indifferent on this.

 

[MrSpikey]

Both came via wikileaks.

If our government has devolved to the point where we need outside actors to expose corruption and manipulation, then our media is not doing their job.

Wikileaks is, by definition, an outside actor when it comes to exposing US govt material.

Wikileaks may attempt to assign some level of reliability to received info, but they are dependent on what they are told - they did not retrieve the material themselves.

The US govt confirmed the accuracy of the Manning info when it charged her with leaking it. That same level of proof is lacking in other incidents unless they choose to repeat such confirmation.

 

[Uncle Siggy]

Ah, I got it backwards though I knew Ecuador was involved somehow.....

He was on the Sean Hannity radio show today, didn't have a chance to listen to the whole interview but I imagine it might be on Sean's website...

 

[TerranceL]

"Let's not use information we got from foreigners who obtained it illegally with the intent of shifting the election" sure does sound funny, huh?

The information that nobody has ever claimed was fake? Who care about who got it?

Would you be telling us we should ignore the information that Manning exposed to the world because he broke the law to do it? That information was disseminated by a foriegner too why does that matter as long as the information is real?

Or is this all more redscare coldwar bull?

 

[TerranceL]

I think we can draw a distinction here.

In one case, a US citizen released documents acquired from the branch of government in which he was working. This was confirmed by the government when he was charged for this act. Extra commentary added on to videos etc later by 3rd parties doesn't throw any doubt that the documents obtained were genuine.

Do you think documents apparently obtained from your government by another government's hacking activities has the same level of confidence in accuracy? If your government didn't acknowledge the source, as they did with Manning, then do you think it reasonable to give both the same weight of evidence?

One is a violation of law and the other is also a violation of the law, the difference appears to be that the second one is being used to shine the light on the rats nest that is the DNC where the first one was used to shine the light on the pigsty that was the Bush foreign policy.

There was no whining about, "dem foreigners" when wikileaks was feeding Mannings leaks to the world.

 

[tall73]

Wikileaks is, by definition, an outside actor when it comes to exposing US govt material.

Wikileaks may attempt to assign some level of reliability to received info, but they are dependent on what they are told - they did not retrieve the material themselves.

The US govt confirmed the accuracy of the Manning info when it charged her with leaking it. That same level of proof is lacking in other incidents unless they choose to repeat such confirmation.

Well that is the rub isn't it? If the information released includes emails deleted by Hillary from her private server, but not otherwise retained, then she cannot refute what they put out with reference to the actual emails, because she did not retain them.

But since she destroyed work product belonging to the people, I won't feel too bad if we get that work product back by someone helping out. If they are from her server then the damage was already done at that time. The bad actor already has the information. But our security forces do not know all the information in those emails, so we are at a distinct disadvantage. She may have exposed additional information about programs or people, but we do not know which ones because we have no retained copy.

Or if it is a foreign country they could show some but still retain others for blackmail. Who knows.

 

[tall73]

The information that nobody has ever claimed was fake? Who care about who got it?

Would you be telling us we should ignore the information that Manning exposed to the world because he broke the law to do it? That information was disseminated by a foriegner too why does that matter as long as the information is real?

Or is this all more redscare coldwar bull?

Agreed, and if there is no loyalty to either "team" which really appears to be one establishment team, then we can all just be happy that they are revealing corruption.

 

[The Cadet]

The information that nobody has ever claimed was fake? Who care about who got it?

Would you be telling us we should ignore the information that Manning exposed to the world because he broke the law to do it? That information was disseminated by a foriegner too why does that matter as long as the information is real?

Or is this all more redscare coldwar bull?

No, you're right, this was reflexive wagon-circling on my part. If there's actually something there, it should be public knowledge.

 

[jeager016]

Because the dems would surely never do this. Pardon me while I die from laughter.

Not saying it is right, but you know the dems would pounce on similar info like a fat kid on a twinkie if it presented itself.

Bawwwwwwwwww-hawwwwwwwwwwww.
r o t f l m a o!
"fat kid on a twinkie"

 

[MrSpikey]

Well that is the rub isn't it? If the information released includes emails deleted by Hillary from her private server, but not otherwise retained, then she cannot refute what they put out with reference to the actual emails, because she did not retain them.

But since she destroyed work product belonging to the people, I won't feel too bad if we get that work product back by someone helping out. If they are from her server then the damage was already done at that time. The bad actor already has the information. But our security forces do not know all the information in those emails, so we are at a distinct disadvantage. She may have exposed additional information about programs or people, but we do not know which ones because we have no retained copy.

Or if it is a foreign country they could show some but still retain others for blackmail. Who knows.

So you would trust a foreign power you classify as a "bad actor" to be truthful, and not potentially invent propaganda to influence your political process?

 

[MrSpikey]

One is a violation of law and the other is also a violation of the law, the difference appears to be that the second one is being used to shine the light on the rats nest that is the DNC where the first one was used to shine the light on the pigsty that was the Bush foreign policy.

There was no whining about, "dem foreigners" when wikileaks was feeding Mannings leaks to the world.

I didn't say Manning's leak wasn't a violation of law, it was.

I did say that in prosecuting her for that release, the source of the information was verified.

 

[tall73]

So you would trust a foreign power you classify as a "bad actor" to be truthful, and not potentially invent propaganda to influence your political process?

Hence the rub I mentioned. She can't verify them against the originals. If a bad actor did hack them they could blackmail her, they could invent things, etc.

On the other hand if items in the documents check out it might be helpful. We will just have to see.

 

[MrSpikey]

Hence the rub I mentioned. She can't verify them against the originals. If a bad actor did hack them they could blackmail her, they could invent things, etc.

On the other hand if items in the documents check out it might be helpful. We will just have to see.

Using your own reasoning, how could they possible "check out" if there are no originals?

 

[tall73]

Using your own reasoning, how could they possible "check out" if there are no originals?

If you can verify information in them through other means, etc. Supposedly that is what is taking Wikileaks so long anyway, though they now claim to have verified elements of the first batch.

And of course if some admit to it, but I wouldn't count on that.

The problem for Hillary at this point is that even if they are fake, she may not be able to prove that, and it could still damage her.

 

[MrSpikey]

If you can verify information in them through other means, etc. Supposedly that is what is taking Wikileaks so long anyway, though they now claim to have verified elements of the first batch.

And of course if some admit to it, but I wouldn't count on that.

The problem for Hillary at this point is that even if they are fake, she may not be able to prove that, and it could still damage her.

The only foolproof verification would be authentication by Clintion. Even if the foreign power involved provided a chain of evidence of how they apparently retrieved the data, there's no independent confirmation of this.

The point here is damage, with or without proof, and nothing more.

 

[Uncle Siggy]

Did you just describe the mainstream media (which has spend the last week spreading relatively baseless allegations about the Clinton Foundation while ignoring actual bribery from Trump, and just recently offered Trump an incredibly softball interview while hammering Clinton on her email server) or Wikileaks?

Fundamentally, WikiLeaks was supposed to be better. Assange openly said he hoped the DNC leak damaged the Clinton campaign. “There was the hope that in the wake of WikiLeaks’ emergence, a thousand WikiLeaks would bloom, in the same way that the Arab Spring was a really romantic ideal of the effect that digital communication can have on geopolitics,” says Fenster. “But the ideal of WikiLeaks as an information conduit that is stateless and can serve as a neutral technology isn’t working. States fight back.” WikiLeaks’ moral high ground depends on its ability to act as an honest conduit. Right now it’s acting like a damaged filter.

​

What used to be the MSM is now basically turned into the LSM (Lame Stream Media) which is in the tank for one political party, they only cover what they want the people to see and that content may well not have any basis in truth...

OTOH the Alternative Media seems to be willing to cover any and all subjects as uncomfortable as some of them may be. This lets the people decide for themselves what they want to see/read/believe instead of being spoonfed by the LSM...

 

[tall73]

The only foolproof verification would be authentication by Clintion. Even if the foreign power involved provided a chain of evidence of how they apparently retrieved the data, there's no independent confirmation of this.

The point here is damage, with or without proof, and nothing more.

Well certainly Assange indicated that damage of Clinton is intended. He seems to also indicate he thinks it is deserved damage.

 

[The Cadet]

What used to be the MSM is now basically turned into the LSM (Lame Stream Media) which is in the tank for one political party, they only cover what they want the people to see and that content may well not have any basis in truth...

On what basis do you make this claim? What caused you to think this?

 

[TLK Valentine]

If the GOP wants to put their faith in criminals (more than they already have, that is -- having nominated one), and base their future strategy on stolen property, then any pretense they may have of promoting the Constitution and the rule of law will never be taken seriously again.

 

[MrSpikey]

Well certainly Assange indicated that damage of Clinton is intended. He seems to also indicate he thinks it is deserved damage.

Ah, well, if one individual thinks it's justified without offering any evidence to support it, then who am I to question them?