Does Wikileaks have anything more on DNC/HRC/etc megethread

[Erich Maria Remarque]

What sucks is that eventually, a major government secret will find it's way to WikiLeaks, something that SHOULD be reported, and no one will believe them. They've destroyed their reputation.

Ehm, why? Have Wikileaks ever faked the data they published? The answer is no, as far as I know. Or?


P.S. It is funny that Dems are so angry with the deliever, not with those who actually done/said things. I understand, that one can be mad that WL publishes only the data about one of the campaigns. But hey, better something that nothing, right? RIGHT?
According to the majority of American people the American media is biased against Trump. It is not a problem according to Dems here (because Trump es un hombre malo?). But when some international organisation is, yeah, it suddenly becomes a problem

Let be honest, if Wikileaks published some "private" data exposing Bush clan back in 2000/04 and by doing this affecting the elections, would you be against them? It is a rhetorical question, dudes


P.S.S. I don't think WL have some game-changer, but you all are so painfully hypocritical

[Erich Maria Remarque]

It's pretty obvious Assange is now just a harmless fruitcake. Why bother?

Then why would one cut his internet connection?

[Erich Maria Remarque]

if they have got some REAAAAAAAALLY damning stuff left, is there any practical notion why they should have waited until now?

even O'Keefe began his leaks prior to the third debate (possible too late).....i am not sure, new semi-scandals are able to even reach a big enough slice of non-partisan america until the election day now.

I didn't say WL has a game-changer, but it is not harmless. This election is likely over, but WL might help to make Hillary as weak President as possible. Hopefully

We has lost the battle but we has not lost the war

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Its a fair point, and certainly WL should be intrinsically popular on the Left. It just seems like they have gone from exposing government wherever they can, to becoming a partisan hack. If your motivation is to get the truth out there, why drip feed it instead of dumping it all in one go; why build it up - tweeting about how next week 'we're going to expose Hillary's lies' - that's electioneering grandstanding, there's no need for commentary, let the media do that - and by turning off many on the Left its self-defeating, they're pissing off one of their biggest constituencies.

And if they'd done the same to Bush then the Left would have celebrated and the Right been turned off - if WL wants to be taken seriously by all it shouldn't take this editorializing stance, imho

It is not how WL works. WL is sort of media canal for "illegal, anonymous hackers". They don't to choose who they will hack. They get information from hackers; now, probably, from Russian hackers. What should they do to be "balanced"? Wait until Mexican hackers hack Trump?

I don't know about DNC leak, but WL usually dumps a large part/almost everything of the information they've got from the hackers. Eventually.  https://wikileaks.org/-Leaks-.html
So as I said they are just a "service". They give opportunity for hackers to publish information about  elites without being killed/tortured in Guantanamo. But yeah, "bad" guys can use WL in their own interests, like Russians now. But it is not a good reason to NOT publish this information. The information doesn't get "evil" if it is leaked by evil hackers.

On-Topic: the probability that they've got a game-changer is <1%. But they will harm Clintons/establishment. Enough for me

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Its a fair point, and certainly WL should be intrinsically popular on the Left. It just seems like they have gone from exposing government wherever they can, to becoming a partisan hack. If your motivation is to get the truth out there, why drip feed it instead of dumping it all in one go; why build it up - tweeting about how next week 'we're going to expose Hillary's lies' - that's electioneering grandstanding, there's no need for commentary, let the media do that - and by turning off many on the Left its self-defeating, they're pissing off one of their biggest constituencies.

And if they'd done the same to Bush then the Left would have celebrated and the Right been turned off - if WL wants to be taken seriously by all it shouldn't take this editorializing stance, imho

It is not how WL works. WL is sort of media canal for "illegal, anonymous hackers". They don't to choose who they will hack. They get information from hackers; now, probably, from Russian hackers. What should they do to be "balanced"? Wait until Mexican hackers hack Trump?

I don't know about DNC leak, but WL usually dumps a large part/almost everything of the information they've got from the hackers. Eventually.  https://wikileaks.org/-Leaks-.html
So as I said they are just a "service". They give opportunity for hackers to publish information about  elites without being killed/tortured in Guantanamo. But yeah, "bad" guys can use WL in their own interests, like Russians now. But it is not a good reason to NOT publish this information. The information doesn't get "evil" if it is leaked by evil hackers.

On-Topic: the probability that they've got a game-changer is <1%. But they will harm Clintons/establishment. Enough for me

If you're just releasing documents given to you by a government agency then you're hardly an anti-establishment organisation are you. If the idea is to promote clear, transparent, fair governance, then being a mouthpiece of the Russians is an interesting angle to take.

You're talking again about the deliever, and don't care about the message. As long as information is authentic, it should be published. No?

And when I'm reading your post, I get a feeling that WL released only stuff handed by [probably] Russians. But no, they likely released all leaks they've got. https://wikileaks.org/-Leaks-.html

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Wikileaks has NOTHING and yet they attack the US? They're enemies of this nation and this will just make more Americans want to vote for Clinton more.

Supporters, not necessarily Wikileaks themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can agree with them on this ^^^

They should stop colluding with Russia to interfere with our election then. If they want to be the freedom fighters they purported to be, they should have used individual sources, not the Russian government, effectively acting as a wing of their cyber-terror efforts.

"The action came after U.S. officials conveyed their conclusion that Assange is a willing participant in a Russian intelligence operation to undermine the U.S. presidential election, NBC News has learned. U.S. intelligence officials believe Assange knows he is getting the information from Russian intelligence, though they do not believe he is involved in helping plan the hacking, officials told NBC. "

Why is it OK to get money from dictators and use them in philanthropic purpose (Clinton Foundation), but it is not OK to get information from Russians and use them to expose corrupt politicians (Wikileaks)?

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Because the latter is illegal. Next. Besides, if an asshole wants to make the world a better place, who are we to stop them? The entire alt-right meme about inner city rioters try to get what they want moot.

It's okay because the money is used for the general good of people in the world, regardless of where it comes from so long as it's obtained by legal means.

Guys, you know who dictators are and what they do? SA, Qatar etc... It kind of ok to rape women overthere...

It's not okay to function as a wing of a foreign government that is aggressive towards the target, releasing information obtained through cyber-attacks that may or may not be accurate. It's even more-so not okay when you do it under the guise that you're some sort of freedom fighting organization, when you're clearly acting partisan.

WL have so far never faked their data. If this they did it, they would easily exposed. I repeat EASILY.
Aggressive? 95% of their action is just actually publishing the data and hosting.
5% trolling in Twitter. Wouldn't call it aggressive. And yeah, they have always been that way (more or less) even when they published data about USA:s actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those days they were heroes, at least in Europe

They would've attempted to obtain Trump's tax records, for instance, if they really wanted to, but that's not their goal. They've been reduced to a Russian propaganda machine attempting to undermine the US election so that Russia may obtain a better standing in the world by weakening the US.

Um, no. They are not hackers. They get data, publish it and hold hackers back. That is the reason why hackers give them data and not for example media. Obama would press media and hackers would be droned, but Assange has balls. He and Snowden live a [relatively] miserable lives, but not giving up

Les misarables

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Not to mention they editorialize the information they put out instead of letting people understand the information. Their organization is clearly slanted against the US. Why trust them when they're publishing and editorializing information that we KNOW was stolen by Russian cyber-attacks? No.

As I said they are media for hackers. Why do media sometimes say that they will tomorrow release intresting polls in battleground states instead of letting people understand the information? The same to WL.

But in the end they just released this information, and you can search it, mail by mail. So what's wrong. They have so far released more than 10mln emails about everything (Syrian, Guantanamo, US in Iraq, US in Afghanistan etc) https://wikileaks.org/-Leaks-.html

No, they are against corrupt (as they think) system in USA.

We don't know. But OK. It was Russians, so what? Does information becomes less worth?


This conversation goes nowhere, so my last attempt is an extreme example:
Let's imagine, Mexican hackers hacked Trump and handed it to WL. Would it be OK publish it?
No? Even if they founded evidence that proved Trump is Putin's puppet? But the publication would interfer the election, right?

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Again, offer Assange complete clemency if he faces rape charges in Sweden

He is not even indicted. He should be first questioning; he offered to do it at Ecuador Embassy. Swedish prosecution didn't want it by some reason. "Only in Sweden", they said.

To be questioning in Sweden, he wanted a guarantee that he won't be handed to USA. Swedish prosecution said they didn't have such authority to grant it

You thinks probably that his imagination is too colourfull? Well, I hope you remember how USA do its business and don't give a f**k about the rules
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/02/world/americas/bolivia-presidential-plane/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's how USA:s establishment made the majority of journalist-hackers (who are often brainless  libertarians in absolutism) to hate them and help WL.

Wait, how are you not banned after gleefully calling for the assassination of Hillary Clinton? Jesus fücking Christ

I just changed Lief post a bit. Hillary instead of Assange

Or does rules not apply to her? Again

[Erich Maria Remarque]

I don't think they have any (even minor) leacks. But if they had, they would not release them right now, when it is all about FBI. Only if it is somehow related.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

They fired Donna for doing this for the Clinton and Sanders Campaigns, I understand why but still, they keep Lewandowski.

Did he leacked anything?

CNN fires Brazile.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/10/cnn-severs-ties-with-donna-brazile-230534

Wow, it is a good news for Trump. Not by itself, cause it is a minor, but to prolong emails-clinton-is-crooked-emails news cycle. Timing is good.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

The intresting part is that Donna knew that Crooked Hillary would accept such a "help", she knew Hillary is crooked... The witches that cover each other...

Disgusting and a slap in the face of all voters who were watching this debate.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

The intresting part is that Donna knew that Crooked Hillary would accept such a "help", she knew Hillary is crooked... The witches that cover each other...

Disgusting and a slap in the face of all voters who were watching this debate.

She did the same with Bernie as well.  She helped both out.

Did she? From the article:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Such an evil person, amIrite?

PR-trick. The girl is "famous", so they would get a story in CNN.

Why otherwise choose this particalur girl? There is for god sake 70mln refugee. Just google something about child hunger in africa, for f**k sake. But this way, you don't get into CNN. amIrite?

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Such an evil person, amIrite?

PR-trick. The girl is "famous", so they would get a story in CNN.

Why otherwise choose this particalur girl? There is for god sake 70mln refugee. Just google something about hunger in africa, for f**k sake. But this way, you don't get into CNN. amIrite?

Ever heard of the Clinton Foundation? SMH

How is that relevant to this particular case? Just answer the question. Why help this particular girl "from CNN", when there are millions of poor/starving kids? Why her?

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Trump admits that Wikileaks is working hard with his campaign to give him Russian-hacked information ahead of time:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Intresting. Hope they have something, but doubt
Trump needs a good leak to finish her.