Happy Face

Deleted my response to this when I meant to edit it. Basically said hackers are being deployed to influence political outcomes, not just Russian. The correct response to that is not to suppress news reporting anywhere. It's down to politicians, media and lobbyists to curtail activity that will be embarrassing when exposed. Or it's up to them to publicly support and implement encryption standards that secure everyone's online correspondence. Hackers are also being deployed to attack IT systems that damage infrastructure of other nations. That's the scariest thing Bamford covers. The fact Biden so brazenly and publicly told Russia that the US was going to perform a cyber attack in response to the Clinton email hack he's provided no evidence Russia were responsible for. Whether the next IT disaster in Russia is just an IT issue, or is an attack that eminates from Iran, or China or the US, Biden has put the US on the hook for it publicly and almost guaranteed that escalation follows. Scary thought with Trump as commander in Chief.

Whether or not Trump was the result Wikileaks wanted or actually swayed, they're revelling in the concerns he exposes

Your preference would be for Wikileaks to suppress evidence of wrong doing they obtain and know to be true?Like the NYT did on behalf of George Bush ahead of his re-election and got severely criticised for.

Much was made of the 16% swing from democrat to Republican from income earners under $50k There's also an interesting trend above £50k, with a reversal of who the democrats biggest voting block are from middle class to biggest earners.

...if it was someone within the NSA as Bamford suggests, would that make Wikilieaks a more responsible leaker and hypothetical election swayer?

I don't like governments meddling in democracy elsewhere and will criticise it anywhere it happens. This sort of interference has been outlined in detail where the US has engaged in it... http://www.reuters.com/article/us-election-intelligence-commentary-idUSKCN10F1H5 Don't they reap what they sow? There is no comparable evidence of Russia subverting Wikileaks here though. Rather, in the article linked above James Bamford tells us : "the sloppy, Inspector Clouseau-like nature of the Guccifer 2.0 operation, with someone hiding behind a silly Bolshevik cover name, and Russian language clues in the metadata, smacked more of either an amateur operation or a deliberate deception. the Shadow Brokers released more information, including what they claimed is a list of hundreds of organizations that the NSA has targeted over more than a decade, complete with technical details. This offers further evidence that their information comes from a leaker inside the NSA rather than the Kremlin. Imagining that Trump, a man with no political history whatsoever, might have a comparable trove to be shared would seem to me to be a longshot too. That's not to say nothing has come out or could. He has been exposed by the videos of bragging about sexual harrassment, suffered heavy criticism of his "university" as a scam and there were leaked tax records showing how little he's paid and his lack of charity.

Very good read.... http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN12X075 Bamford is considered a major authority on these matters.

Evidence of collusion from other media outlets dismissed as unimportant but hypothetical collusion without any basis in reality condemned in the strongest terms. Remarkable. Edit: sorry, you weren't suggesting collusion. Nothing there that alters my opinion.

Nothing in western culture over the past century comes to expressing this level of joy either.

It's an interesting hypothetical. Like the question of whether your lass is messing around on you. Would you like a mate to tell you? Would you like one of the bastards diddling her to tell you? Would you like to be blissfully unaware? Or would you prefer not to be taken for a mug? Personally I'd prefer to know and wouldn't give a shit who told me, though it would sting a bit more if it was someone who was fucking her who delighted in letting me know, it wouldn't make any difference to the impact of the revelation and what it does to my relationship. Wikileaks avoid these hypotheticals by doing all they can to avoid knowing their source in the first place. They request leaks be sent to them via encrypted data drops that require no personal communications whatsoever. It protects them and their sources. As a result, there is no evidence that Russia was the source and anyone claiming they were (like Clinton) is dutyboiund to provide evidence or have their claims disputed. It's also noteworthy how disdainful people are of any notion that wikileaks might possibly have been looking to sway the election one way or another when every other media outlet on the globe is overt about coming out in support for a candidate and editorialising on their behalf. No-one blinks an eye at this partisan approach to journalism where it is evident. That's because those media outlets work alongside political campaigns to be a mouthpiece to most effectively disseminate their campaign talking points. Wikileaks do not do this, they have consistently leaked information against BOTH parties and have never endorsed either. It's unsurprising that the establishment are keen to portray this behaviour as abnormal or harmful, despite being the exact purpose of adversarial journalism and the reason that the founding fathers wrote freedom of the press into the constitution. If any evidence does come to light of wikileaks suppressing anything important from being released prior to the election then I'd be the first to criticise them for that.

Branson is the sort of arsehole who bangs on about saving the environment then launches an airline ffs

I disagree. The source IS irrelevant. As long as you verify the authenticity which Wikileaks did. It's disgusting to me that the new york times withheld evidence they had that George Bush had authorised warrantless wire tapping. They sat on it for over a year so as not to influence the election. Because George Bush asked them. I have no idea of the source or their motivation. The job of the newspaper WAS to influence the election. The public decide whether it's relevant to their vote. In the same interview chez quotes assange said... “If anyone has any information that is from inside the Trump campaign, which is authentic, it’s not like some claimed witness statement but actually internal documentation, we’d be very happy to receive and publish it,” Which suggests what they had on Trump was not from the inside.

QFT

Yes I do. They were 100% accurate and unequivocally so. The source and their intent is irrelevant. As was the source of Palin's emails in 2008.

That "ally" is like the Russian bill O'Reilly. He knows fuck all and said "may" Interesting q and a on reddit with wikileaks staff yesterday covered all this off.

Restored. Still racist.

Donald Trump's campaign team appears to have removed a press release from his website, in which the now-president-elect promised to ban Muslims from entering the United States. The release appears to have been taken down sometime after the morning of Nov. 8, election day in the United States. Links to the page now redirect to Trump's homepage. http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/world/trump-website-pulls-promise-to-ban-muslims-1.3154898 :::

President pump

Did the Lord make him grab pussy too?

Aye, that's him dickie. Cheers. @lankystu on Twitter btw if anyone wants to follow him https://twitter.com/lankystu/status/435447738080063488

It'll be nice to have a media class that might challenge the dear leader again.

And throwing in a joke about Sexual assault for good measure. ROFL ROFL ROFL.

Ive been saying they should do this off their own back at sjp for years. Much better for the atmosphere.

WIKILEAKS!!!! (despite months of belittling wikileaks email revelations as irrelevances) See Huffington Post has withdrawn the policy of referring to Trump as a racist. Ingratiating themselves with the new establishment.

That's excellent, thanks.