Wikileaks

[Happy Face 29]

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.

[ewerk 31475]

Will you answer my hypothetical?

[Gemmill 46961]

eweazes.

[Rayvin 5528]

You're the one going OTT. Democracy is working just as it's supposed to. You just don't like the answers that it's coming up with.

 

That would be a true statement if our democracy was entirely unblemished by vested interests, market driven agendas, and a total misreading of the people our leaders are supposed to represent. Which is what I was complaining about in my earlier post, where I noted it was delivering us answers I didn't like, primarily because of these blemishes.

[Happy Face 29]

Will you answer my hypothetical?

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.

[Park Life 71]

eweazes.

[ChezGiven 0]

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.

 

Bollocks and the top comments on that AMA show that most people can see through their propaganda too.

 

Julian Assange said he had information on Trump but "it wasn't interesting", you guys released an email of a risotto recipe. How does this statement square?

“

We do have some information about the Republican campaign

,” Assange said. “I mean, it’s from a point of view of an investigative journalist organization like WikiLeaks, the problem with the Trump campaign is it’s actually hard for us to publish much more controversial material than what comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth every second day, I mean, that’s a very strange reality for most of the media to be in.”

[ChezGiven 0]

More top comments from Reddit

 

"Part of your duty as "journalists" and purveyors of information is to sit back and look at the entity of a situation and its circumstances and ask yourselves "Are we being played?" or "are we being used by someone else for their cause?" If you believe that is the case, pursue that as well and let the world know the circumstances of how and why you have the information. You and the information do not exist in a vacuum. If you received information or documents from a source that is aiming to use it to damage a particular person or side you bear part of the responsibility for the outcome it caused. It would not have mattered if you published information from a source in the current american administration intending to damage the Republicans in order to keep their party in power, or if the current suspicions are true about a foreign actor giving you the information with the intent of causing political change in their favor. You have been used as a tool."

[ewerk 31475]

That would be a true statement if our democracy was entirely unblemished by vested interests, market driven agendas, and a total misreading of the people our leaders are supposed to represent. Which is what I was complaining about in my earlier post, where I noted it was delivering us answers I didn't like, primarily because of these blemishes.

 

But none of that is new. It has been that way as long as democracy has been around.

[Rayvin 5528]

 

Bollocks and the top comments on that AMA show that most people can see through their propaganda too.

 

Julian Assange said he had information on Trump but "it wasn't interesting", you guys released an email of a risotto recipe. How does this statement square?

 

 

“We do have some information about the Republican campaign,” Assange said. “I mean, it’s from a point of view of an investigative journalist organization like WikiLeaks, the problem with the Trump campaign is it’s actually hard for us to publish much more controversial material than what comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth every second day, I mean, that’s a very strange reality for most of the media to be in.”

 

Hard to argue with Assange on that one, the media were firing everything they had at Trump.

 

 

More top comments from Reddit

 

"Part of your duty as "journalists" and purveyors of information is to sit back and look at the entity of a situation and its circumstances and ask yourselves "Are we being played?" or "are we being used by someone else for their cause?" If you believe that is the case, pursue that as well and let the world know the circumstances of how and why you have the information. You and the information do not exist in a vacuum. If you received information or documents from a source that is aiming to use it to damage a particular person or side you bear part of the responsibility for the outcome it caused. It would not have mattered if you published information from a source in the current american administration intending to damage the Republicans in order to keep their party in power, or if the current suspicions are true about a foreign actor giving you the information with the intent of causing political change in their favor. You have been used as a tool."

 

This is undeniably true. The only reason Wikileaks could possibly have withheld that information would be because they actually did want to influence the election. I can't see another alternative myself.

[Rayvin 5528]

But none of that is new. It has been that way as long as democracy has been around.

 

The specific scenario wherein it is giving rise to right wing populism that is ascending to power is new in my lifetime. Why are we even arguing about this

[Dr Gloom 22457]

Of course they wanted to influence the election. Look at the timing of the email dumps. I reckon assange is sick of being holed up in the embassy and reckons he's more chance of getting out under president trump

[Rayvin 5528]

Of course they wanted to influence the election. Look at the timing of the email dumps. I reckon assange is sick of being holed up in the embassy and reckons he's more chance of getting out under president trump

 

I could see that being true for sure.

[Gemmill 46961]

Because I know that it's going to form the basis of every discussion on here for the next 6 months, could someone explain to me what information Wikileaks had that they withheld.

 

I cannot be bothered to have to wonder what the fuck you clowns are arguing about from now til next spring.

[Rayvin 5528]

 

It sounds as though they withheld information concerning where their leak on Hillary came from (Russia) and information on Donald Trump's campaign (because it wouldn't penetrate through the already vocal criticism the MSM was offering anyway).

Edited November 11, 2016 by Rayvin

[ewerk 31475]

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.

 

The source is important. You cannot allow yourself to be used as a conduit for illegally attained information by a 'hostile' foreign state.

 

Also, you've stated that it isn't up to Wikileaks to determine what is interesting yet in the quote that Chez posted Wikileaks have admitted to not releasing Republican leaks because they weren't interesting.

[ewerk 31475]

Because I know that it's going to form the basis of every discussion on here for the next 6 months, could someone explain to me what information Wikileaks had that they withheld.

 

I cannot be bothered to have to wonder what the fuck you clowns are arguing about from now til next spring.

 

We don't know what it is because it has been withheld. Dum dum.

[Rayvin 5528]

Of course they wanted to influence the election. Look at the timing of the email dumps. I reckon assange is sick of being holed up in the embassy and reckons he's more chance of getting out under president trump

 

Just a further thought on this - that's some awesome power wielded by Assange. Just saying mind, but for a guy holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, his influence is significant.

 

The temptation is to find that worrying of course, but at the end of the day it's little different to the power someone like Murdoch has, although Assange is unchecked of course. Aside from being limited to existence in about 5 rooms anyway.

[Happy Face 29]

The source is important. You cannot allow yourself to be used as a conduit for illegally attained information by a 'hostile' foreign state.

 

Also, you've stated that it isn't up to Wikileaks to determine what is interesting yet in the quote that Chez posted Wikileaks have admitted to not releasing Republican leaks because they weren't interesting.

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.

[NJS 4446]

She didn't lose 6m votes because of the leaks - she lost them imo because she was untrustworthy and uninspiring.

[Rayvin 5528]

She didn't lose 6m votes because of the leaks - she lost them imo because she was untrustworthy and uninspiring.

 

Hard to prove this one way or the other though, and all this muddies the water. What we can say for certain is that the Russians wanted Trump to win.

 

Either way, it doesn't change the fact that we now have two data points to suggest the centreground consensus is falling apart. If France goes the same way it'll be 3 and I think we can assume that it's not all random coincidence and a sudden upswing in racism.

[ChezGiven 0]

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.

Exactly, the Russians aren't go to provide anything harmful to their objectives.

[ChezGiven 0]

Which of course means the source is relevant if that wasn't obvious.

[Happy Face 29]

Which of course means the source is relevant if that wasn't obvious.

 

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.

[Rayvin 5528]

Tbf to HF, that's a strong response. Especially if Wikileaks don't actually know their sources...