Assange Moves Wikileaks Announcement to Berlin

[Fishking]

And? She nor Trump did anything illegal.

Yet Trump is catching flak for it, to include from you.

Which pedophile rapist? And she defends her man.. oh the horror... at least she has the balls to take a stand, unlike Trump who lies and pleads the 5th when asked about his sexual assaults, sexism and possible pedophilia.

Yes, standing by your man is wrong if your man is a sex predator. As far as the pedophile rapist....

Eh? context would be nice. Now with Trump we have cases going back to the 70s not to mention "his African American friend" comment... among many other issues on race.

If you don't know the reference then you really shouldn't be about throwing stones at anyone. First educate yourself before disparaging others. Those things are common knowledge for anyone that pays attention.



The three strikes you're out was the 1994 Crime Bill that her husband signed into law and which she was supportive of. That disproportionately institutionalized minorities, especially blacks.

 

[Fishking]

If you have followed any of my posts from the past, you would know that I would prefer to burn down this government.

Assange is a leach, a liar, and a women abuser.

Leach, maybe. I'm not aware of him lying. As far as abusing women, the charges against him was dropped and was probably a type of false flag operation meant to put him in prison in order to shut him down. The U.N. has called his confinement in the embassy a violation of his rights.

 

[Fishking]

How will we know the emails are legit, and untampered & unedited?

I'm sure we'll know more once it gets released. As far as right now, all we have is his past practice and he has nor provided tampered or false materials before.

 

[Lutherf]

Assange needs to be taken out.

He's just another white speck on a chicken turd.

There's a story going around that Hillary suggested EXACTLY that in 2010. I don't put much stock in anonymous sources with only anecdotal "evidence" but in this election it seems to be as good as anything else.:lol:

 

[Chomsky]

That's what the Independent Council law was set up for, and also why the US Constitution gives Impeachment powers to the Congress. There's nothing restricting the impeachment and conviction of a President or Secretary of State, AFTER he or she has left office - although that would be very ugly politically.

However, we don't know what, if anything, this document dump will actually show. It may just be a lengthy discussion about toe jam, jock itch, and airplane talks about grandchildren.

Yeah, but with a chain of custody that goes through a fugitive from investigation & currently under Ecuadorian asylum, and is prefaced by God only knows what other scurrilous individuals and/or nation states, do you really believe those emails could survive trial?

 

[Chomsky]

I'm sure we'll know more once it gets released. As far as right now, all we have is his past practice and he has nor provided tampered or false materials before.

How do you know?

 

[Beaudreaux]

Yeah, but with a chain of custody that goes through a fugitive from investigation & currently under Ecuadorian asylum, and is prefaced by God only knows what other scurrilous individuals and/or nation states, do you really believe those emails could survive trial?

It would be a darn good scenario to bring up by the defense attorneys, that's for sure. To answer your question, it would depend on two things, what the DOJ was able to independently verify, and who was the judge that would be ruling on admissibility. Short answer... I don't know, damn good point though.

 

[ocean515]

How do you know?

You have a point.

The public, well, the rational public, has seen how Hillary Clinton's machine has fabricated, deceived, and lied regarding Trumps comments, etc., so it's possible the same could be done with whatever WikiLeaks could be planning to release.

It's hard to believe the information we as voters are asked to absorb would come from a return of the height of yellow journalism perfected by William Randolph Hearst.

 

[Moot]

I wonder what it would take for these emails to make any kind of diffference? I think it will just confirm what all of the anti-Hillary folks already know( lack of charcter,fundamentally dishonest) .

The Hillary supporters will just say. " That's bad but all politicians lie,but , Trump called somebody fat!!!"

If you're wrong...then what will you say?

 

[Jack Hays]

And? She nor Trump did anything illegal. That was never the point of the Trump tax issue and you know it. It is all about how rich he is, the charities he has given too and of course his credibility over all.



Which pedophile rapist? And she defends her man.. oh the horror... at least she has the balls to take a stand, unlike Trump who lies and pleads the 5th when asked about his sexual assaults, sexism and possible pedophilia.



Eh? context would be nice. Now with Trump we have cases going back to the 70s not to mention "his African American friend" comment... among many other issues on race.

"They are often the kinds of kids that are called 'super-predators,' " Clinton said in 1996, at the height of anxiety during her husband's administration about high rates of crime and violence. "No conscience, no empathy, we can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel."

Clinton regrets 1996 remark on 'super-predators' after encounter with ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../clinton-heckled-by-black-lives...The Washington Post


Feb 25, 2016 - The last part of the quote was written on a large, hand-lettered sign that Williams ... Williams added, "I'm not a super predator, Hillary Clinton.".

 

[Chomsky]

You have a point.

The public, well, the rational public, has seen how Hillary Clinton's machine has fabricated, deceived, and lied regarding Trumps comments, etc., so it's possible the same could be done with whatever WikiLeaks could be planning to release.

It's hard to believe the information we as voters are asked to absorb would come from a return of the height of yellow journalism perfected by William Randolph Hearst.

Thank you.

Exactly!

The amount of dis-information overload we suffer is unbelievable. I believe that's why the political process has become so crazy!

If we allow these outside sources to influence our political process, I can easily see the campaigns surreptitiously establishing their own counter-leakers! :doh

Up until recently we were able to function in non-internet real-life, and were warned to not interact with or believe the crazy stuff on the internet. Now, the internet *is used* for real-life, including some electronic voting machines in several states!

I just feel it's becoming crazier, and rather than being better informed, we are becoming more easily mis-informed!

 

[ocean515]

Thank you.

Exactly!

The amount of dis-information overload we suffer is unbelievable. I believe that's why the political process has become so crazy!

If we allow these outside sources to influence our political process, I can easily see the campaigns surreptitiously establishing their own counter-leakers! :doh

Up until recently we were able to function in non-internet real-life, and were warned to not interact with or believe the crazy stuff on the internet. Now, the internet *is used* for real-life, including some electronic voting machines in several states!

I just feel it's becoming crazier, and rather than being better informed, we are becoming more easily mis-informed!

Well, perhaps it's the eternal optimist in me, but I would suggest there are some who are easily miss-informed, while most remain skeptical of the deluge of BS floated out by the hour.

The challenge is getting to the truth without becoming indifferent to the whole thing.

 

[Chomsky]

Well, perhaps it's the eternal optimist in me, but I would suggest there are some who are easily miss-informed, while most remain skeptical of the deluge of BS floated out by the hour.

The challenge is getting to the truth without becoming indifferent to the whole thing.

Hey, fair enough - I like your post.

But just remember, the next time we hear some negative statement claiming the *average* American citizen or voter only is "xxx", by definition that implies *half* our fellow citizens & voters are *below* "xxx"!

(I just couldn't resist) :mrgreen:

 

[Fishking]

How do you know?

It's never been refuted as such. For example, the DNC emails weren't criticized for being fake or tampered with, just a claim from the Clinton campaign that Russia did it. No one has claimed any of Snowden's files were fake or doctored.

But, sure, you're more than free to give me an example where it was demonstrated he did so.

 

[Chomsky]

It's never been refuted as such. For example, the DNC emails weren't criticized for being fake or tampered with, just a claim from the Clinton campaign that Russia did it. No one has claimed any of Snowden's files were fake or doctored.

But, sure, you're more than free to give me an example where it was demonstrated he did so.

Like you, I have no proof at hand.

But without review of all the emails against known data, it cannot be said they're authentic or accurate.

They're accuracy is unknown.

 

[Fishking]

Like you, I have no proof at hand.

But without review of all the emails against known data, it cannot be said they're authentic or accurate.

They're accuracy is unknown.

*their

I win.

I have no concerns about the accuracy. Again, that's never been refuted by anyone, to include those who were involved. Debbie didn't resign over fake emails. They were the real deal.

 

[Fenton]

Assange needs to be taken out.

He's just another white speck on a chicken turd.

Hillary allegedly considered droning Julian Assange
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rt.com/document/57f26244c46188b5248b4569/amp?client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us

Hillary allegedly wanted him droned back in 2010. Explains his decision to move to a live video feed instead of making a statement from a balcony in London.

I wouldn't put it past her or the Obama administration

 

[Chomsky]

*their

I win.

:lamo

Alright, I'll concede this point! :mrgreen:

I have no concerns about the accuracy. Again, that's never been refuted by anyone, to include those who were involved. Debbie didn't resign over fake emails. They were the real deal.

Fair enough. I'm not going to go on banging against you on all four of your new posts.

I disagree here, in technicality terms.

But some of your points are reasonable, even if unproven.

However, regardless of past appearances (which I don't necessarily trust), I do not see that as a predictor of the future.

So basically, I look at this stuff as an interesting diversion, but I'm not putting serious stock in it. I demand a somewhat higher evidentiary bar, and have no problem with that.

 

[Fishking]

:lamo

Alright, I'll concede this point! :mrgreen:

Whoa...you don't get to concede and then try and refute. That's totally now how it works.

So basically, I look at this stuff as an interesting diversion, but I'm not putting serious stock in it. I demand a somewhat higher evidentiary bar, and have no problem with that.

So do I, which is why we have things like congressional hearings, FBI investigations, ect. So far no vetting process has questioned the validity of his leaked information. That means that the burden is on the opposition to support their position, not the other way around.

 

[Jack Hays]

:lamo

Alright, I'll concede this point! :mrgreen:

Fair enough. I'm not going to go on banging against you on all four of your new posts.

I disagree here, in technicality terms.

But some of your points are reasonable, even if unproven.

However, regardless of past appearances (which I don't necessarily trust), I do not see that as a predictor of the future.

So basically, I look at this stuff as an interesting diversion, but I'm not putting serious stock in it. I demand a somewhat higher evidentiary bar, and have no problem with that.

As a practical matter it's nearly certain that whatever is released will be true and accurate. That's because it's checkable. What's not certain is whether the release would be the whole truth.

 

[joG]

Correct, you can't silence it, but you can ignore it like the FBI and DOJ have done and you discredit it like Hillary, Bill, and their minions have done for ~30 years.

True. That has and is costing the state a lot of credibility to the point of losing its legitimacy in parts.

 

[countryboy]

Julian Assange canceled plans to do a balcony announcement Tuesday due to " specific " safety concerns

The anticipated anouncment will be made during a Belrin press conference tomorrow

https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxn...ent.amp.html?client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us

I bet the NYTs will refuse to post any of these newly released e-mails. You know, because they were obtained " illegally "

Wait. You mean like the three pages of Trump's "tax records" they are wildly speculating about?

 

[countryboy]

She has? Oh what tax issues? What sexism issues? And racism? come on... Let me guess you are a Trumpman all the way, regardless if he has lusted for his own daughter, been screwing around and been clearly racist for decades.. not to mention a massive con man. Yea Clinton is sooo much worse.. she has lived in a freaking glass bubble for 30+ years and the GOP has not been able to nail anything to her.

This level of partisan blindness is truly astonishing.

 

[JackA]

This level of partisan blindness is truly astonishing.

You could try opening your eyes.

 

[JackA]

As a practical matter it's nearly certain that whatever is released will be true and accurate. That's because it's checkable. What's not certain is whether the release would be the whole truth.

It was a whole disappointment at least.