Wikileaks offers 20,000 reward to catch Obama admin destroying documents

[Coyote]

There is another aspect as well, that is worrisome about hacking and things like wikileaks - and that is publishing what is sensitive material.

A lot of negotiation goes on behind closed doors long before anything public is announced. This means there is the rhetoric that is for public consumption - either at home or abroad, and the conversations in private aimed at establishing what is and isn't possible for each side to agree to, concede to, or oppose without public loss of face or need for face saving that would be needed if a situation were misjudged. When Nixon opened relations with China - it wasn't just all of a sudden. It was preceded by several years of intensely private and secret negotiations between Kissenger and the Chinese in order to establish a public position both countries were comfortable with in order to begin more public negotiations. In the process, negotiaters might indirectly imply positions to test the waters and the reactions of the other side - without worry as to how it might come off publically at home or abroad. Imagine if all that had been played out in public ahead of time.

The problem with Wikileaks - even presuming it's not an indirect extension of Russia's propoganda arm is that it releases information with no thought about consequences or very real damage - such as revealing sensitive information, real names, etc. Real people can be put at risk and for what reason? What illegal things did they do to deserve having their privacy shredded, their credit card info posted?

You can stack all the blame on the victims for being lax with security but that is disengenius - it's a way of justifying the crimes and in the world of cybertechnology the hackers are often a step ahead of the latest security, it's a rapidly evolving field.

 

[aris2chat]

And people ask me how Assange has an axe to grind....lol

You would rather live in ignorance and just let "them" keep on with the corruption fraud and lies while manipulating you and leading you around the the nose?

Don't you think Assange might be doing some manipulating of his own here? Why such complete trust in everything he says?

It's not ignorance to question.

has anything that come from wiki leaks been proven false? It is information from the places it claims to be, like pedesta, and not disproved.

What is there to questions? It is handed to him, wiki. and he then publishes it.

Other than the fact most people are idiots (or worse) when it comes to their communications and what they says, what do you object to???

Knowing the truth?

Well, here is the question: Knowing the Truth

Does selected revealing of information really reveal "the truth"? For example - if only some of the material is released, rather than all - and that leads to a different conclusion - is that the truth? If there is no context by which to judge something - for example you see responses but not the whole conversation - what is the truth? How can you know if any of it is altered in any way?

Do you automatically assume it to be true and if so why? Everyone has an agenda - whether it's governments, leftwing, rightwing, USA, Russia or Julian Assange. And they've all lied at one time or another.

That is what I object to - this wholesale belief in some kind of "impartiality" in Julian Assange's method that implies some sort of integrity. He's known to have lied. He published complete credit card information and personally identifying information on Democrat doners. How can you justify that?

If you find a letter or paper on the ground that says from so and so to so and so and read the letter the publish it............. what is there to question? It says what it says? If there is some missing context, will the sender or receiver clarify it for you?

If the Email is from pedestal and he doesn't expose all the conversations he hd with that person from beginning to end to show context, why should you expect Assange to?

He might or might not have "everything" pedesta ever wrote from that or any source through his life to give as evidence of context or mindset.

Wiki scans the paper, email, etc. and publishes it

Get the original author to explain in full to your satisfaction, no assange

You you fully understand every paper, book or text you have ever seen for context? in every and any language or period of time?

A message on a rock wall in ancient greek, do you know the full context?

And if you take a picture of it and post to your facebook or social media, can you explain the context and motives and mindset of the writer?

Should ever piece of information or writing on a wall or piece of paper be rejected without knowing everything about the source, motive, context, mindset, etc. on it?

What about a piece of art?

A piece of music?

A sound you hear that you have never heard before?

If you don't know volumes about it, is it to be dismissed as irrelevant?

Of deems "fake"

 

[aris2chat]

And people ask me how Assange has an axe to grind....lol

You would rather live in ignorance and just let "them" keep on with the corruption fraud and lies while manipulating you and leading you around the the nose?

Don't you think Assange might be doing some manipulating of his own here? Why such complete trust in everything he says?

It's not ignorance to question.

He is not hacking, he is just a conduit to get information out. Would you rather know the truth or not know?
Close your eyes and cover your ears from the news if you want
Pretend it is not out there

Let everyone else talk about these things then while you stay in the dark

Put a block on your computer for the words Assange and Wikileaks so you don't have to know what is discussed and stay away from the TV, radio and papers

Would you rather not know the scandals and corruptions of the russians when they were exposed or any other country, agency or company? Truly you would have to live in a cave with no electricity and never see another person.

Get off the social media and message boards and filter all the info you receive if you don't want to know the facts.

How does that make sense to you?

What scandals and corruptions of the Russians has he exposed?

You did not bother to look?

Category:Whistleblowers/Russia - WikiLeaks

Want more, take the time to search and then delve deeper on your own

What has not been published........I can't tell you but there must be a lot more being received, sorted and scanned before being published by all those at wiki

You might end up getting lost at wikileaks for awhile

 

[Frankeneinstein]

And people ask me how Assange has an axe to grind....lol

STYFEE, it's me, "pipsqueak" Where ya been hidding? who asked you that? admiring minds want to know

 

[MindWars]

And people ask me how Assange has an axe to grind....lol

You would rather live in ignorance and just let "them" keep on with the corruption fraud and lies while manipulating you and leading you around the the nose?

Don't you think Assange might be doing some manipulating of his own here? Why such complete trust in everything he says?

It's not ignorance to question.

He is not hacking, he is just a conduit to get information out. Would you rather know the truth or not know?
Close your eyes and cover your ears from the news if you want
Pretend it is not out there

Let everyone else talk about these things then while you stay in the dark

Put a block on your computer for the words Assange and Wikileaks so you don't have to know what is discussed and stay away from the TV, radio and papers

Would you rather not know the scandals and corruptions of the russians when they were exposed or any other country, agency or company? Truly you would have to live in a cave with no electricity and never see another person.

Get off the social media and message boards and filter all the info you receive if you don't want to know the facts.

How does that make sense to you?

What scandals and corruptions of the Russians has he exposed?

You did not bother to look?

Category:Whistleblowers/Russia - WikiLeaks

Want more, take the time to search and then delve deeper on your own

What has not been published........I can't tell you but there must be a lot more being received, sorted and scanned before being published by all those at wiki

You might end up getting lost at wikileaks for awhile

get this they are accusing Julian of being a pedophile now lmao. Why can't these liberals piece together this propaganda against those who seek to keep us free, and honest ( Julian) can't they see how these people are purposely getting lied about.
Trump
Assasange
that DNC reporter
everyone that comes forward to blow the whistle on all these crooked Gov. bastards either end up dead or get some fake news put out on them.

CNN, former CIA chief accuse Assange of being a pedophile, Assange launches suit
You are being redirected...

 

[aris2chat]

He is not hacking,

Bullshit!
Assange is a CONVICTED hacker.

Julian Assange: the teen hacker who became insurgent in information war
When Assange was 13 or 14, his mother had rented a house across the street from an electronics shop. Assange began going there and working on a Commodore 64. His mother saved to buy the computer for her older son as a present. Assange began teaching himself code. At 16 he got his first modem.

He attended a programme for gifted children in Melbourne, where he acquired "an introverted and emotionally disturbed" girlfriend, as he put it. Assange grew interested in science and roamed around libraries. Soon he discovered hacking.

Underground: Tales of Hacking, Madness & Obsession on the Electronic Frontier appeared in 1997. Published under the byline of Suelette Dreyfus, a Melbourne academic, Assange is credited as researcher, but his imprint his palpable – in parts it reads like an Assange biography. The book depicts the international computer underground of the 90s: "A veiled world populated by characters slipping in and out of the half-darkness. It is not a place where people use their real names." Assange chose an epigraph from Oscar Wilde: "Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth."

"[He] went to school," runs the story in Underground. "Often he didn't. The school system didn't hold much interest for him. It didn't feed his mind … The Sydney computer system was a far more interesting place to muck around in than the rural high school."

High-level hacking

By 1991 Assange was probably Australia's most accomplished hacker. He and two others founded International Subversives magazine, offering tips on "phreaking" – how to break into telephone systems illegally and make free calls. The magazine had an exclusive readership: its circulation was just three, the hackers themselves.

In the spring of 1991, the three hackers found an exciting new target: MILNET, the US military's secret defence data network. Quickly, Assange discovered a back door. He got inside. "We had total control over it for two years," he later claimed. The hackers also routinely broke into the computer systems at Australia's National University.

But he suspected Victoria police were about to raid his home. According to Underground: "He wiped his disks, burnt his printouts, and left" to doss temporarily with his girlfriend. The pair joined a squatters' union, and when Assange was 18 she became pregnant. They married and had a baby boy, Daniel. But as Assange's anxiety increased, and police finally closed in on his outlaw circle of hackers, his wife moved out, taking their 20-month-old son Daniel with them. Assange was hospitalised with depression. For a period he slept outdoors, rambling around the eucalyptus forests in Dandenong Ranges national park; he would wake up covered in mosquito bites.

But it wasn't until 1994 that he was finally charged, with the case only being heard in 1996. He pleaded guilty in Melbourne's Victoria County Court to 24 counts of hacking. The prosecution described Assange as "the most active" and "most skilful" of the group, and pressed for a prison sentence.

More than ten years before wikileaks, back in his twenties

For the last five years he has been in the Embassy and you think they would let him hack from their computers or servers? To let it be traced back to them somehow?

Is he hacking "for" the embassy and what do they gain from pedesta's emails or anything else? Did they want Trump to be elected president?

Should we be blaming Ecuador instead of Russia? Did they hire the 14yr old that phished podesta and got into his account? Even if it is a russian hackers code that was taken off the black web and used by someone in timbuktu how do you "prove" assange was involved or ecuador other than wiki published it?

For all we know the finder might have tried to send it anonymously to a MSM first and they rejected it.

Do you have any idea what is out there on the black web that someone comes across, exchanges, uses or publishes?

 

[Coyote]

And people ask me how Assange has an axe to grind....lol

You would rather live in ignorance and just let "them" keep on with the corruption fraud and lies while manipulating you and leading you around the the nose?

Don't you think Assange might be doing some manipulating of his own here? Why such complete trust in everything he says?

It's not ignorance to question.

He is not hacking, he is just a conduit to get information out. Would you rather know the truth or not know?
Close your eyes and cover your ears from the news if you want
Pretend it is not out there

Let everyone else talk about these things then while you stay in the dark

Put a block on your computer for the words Assange and Wikileaks so you don't have to know what is discussed and stay away from the TV, radio and papers

Would you rather not know the scandals and corruptions of the russians when they were exposed or any other country, agency or company? Truly you would have to live in a cave with no electricity and never see another person.

Get off the social media and message boards and filter all the info you receive if you don't want to know the facts.

How does that make sense to you?

What scandals and corruptions of the Russians has he exposed?

You did not bother to look?

Category:Whistleblowers/Russia - WikiLeaks

Want more, take the time to search and then delve deeper on your own

What has not been published........I can't tell you but there must be a lot more being received, sorted and scanned before being published by all those at wiki

You might end up getting lost at wikileaks for awhile

I did look - but, I didn't see it come up that way - I just plugged Russia in and got too much info, but nothing significant before I finally stopped looking.

 

[Coyote]

And people ask me how Assange has an axe to grind....lol

You would rather live in ignorance and just let "them" keep on with the corruption fraud and lies while manipulating you and leading you around the the nose?

Don't you think Assange might be doing some manipulating of his own here? Why such complete trust in everything he says?

It's not ignorance to question.

has anything that come from wiki leaks been proven false? It is information from the places it claims to be, like pedesta, and not disproved.

What is there to questions? It is handed to him, wiki. and he then publishes it.

Other than the fact most people are idiots (or worse) when it comes to their communications and what they says, what do you object to???

Knowing the truth?

Well, here is the question: Knowing the Truth

Does selected revealing of information really reveal "the truth"? For example - if only some of the material is released, rather than all - and that leads to a different conclusion - is that the truth? If there is no context by which to judge something - for example you see responses but not the whole conversation - what is the truth? How can you know if any of it is altered in any way?

Do you automatically assume it to be true and if so why? Everyone has an agenda - whether it's governments, leftwing, rightwing, USA, Russia or Julian Assange. And they've all lied at one time or another.

That is what I object to - this wholesale belief in some kind of "impartiality" in Julian Assange's method that implies some sort of integrity. He's known to have lied. He published complete credit card information and personally identifying information on Democrat doners. How can you justify that?

If you find a letter or paper on the ground that says from so and so to so and so and read the letter the publish it............. what is there to question? It says what it says? If there is some missing context, will the sender or receiver clarify it for you?

If the Email is from pedestal and he doesn't expose all the conversations he hd with that person from beginning to end to show context, why should you expect Assange to?

He might or might not have "everything" pedesta ever wrote from that or any source through his life to give as evidence of context or mindset.

Wiki scans the paper, email, etc. and publishes it

Get the original author to explain in full to your satisfaction, no assange

You you fully understand every paper, book or text you have ever seen for context? in every and any language or period of time?

A message on a rock wall in ancient greek, do you know the full context?

And if you take a picture of it and post to your facebook or social media, can you explain the context and motives and mindset of the writer?

Should ever piece of information or writing on a wall or piece of paper be rejected without knowing everything about the source, motive, context, mindset, etc. on it?

What about a piece of art?

A piece of music?

A sound you hear that you have never heard before?

If you don't know volumes about it, is it to be dismissed as irrelevant?

Of deems "fake"

If you are going to use it to accuse or imply crime or corruption then you have an ethical duty to verify the truth don't you? Shouldn't you?

 

[aris2chat]

He is not hacking,

Bullshit!
Assange is a CONVICTED hacker.

Julian Assange: the teen hacker who became insurgent in information war
When Assange was 13 or 14, his mother had rented a house across the street from an electronics shop. Assange began going there and working on a Commodore 64. His mother saved to buy the computer for her older son as a present. Assange began teaching himself code. At 16 he got his first modem.

He attended a programme for gifted children in Melbourne, where he acquired "an introverted and emotionally disturbed" girlfriend, as he put it. Assange grew interested in science and roamed around libraries. Soon he discovered hacking.

Underground: Tales of Hacking, Madness & Obsession on the Electronic Frontier appeared in 1997. Published under the byline of Suelette Dreyfus, a Melbourne academic, Assange is credited as researcher, but his imprint his palpable – in parts it reads like an Assange biography. The book depicts the international computer underground of the 90s: "A veiled world populated by characters slipping in and out of the half-darkness. It is not a place where people use their real names." Assange chose an epigraph from Oscar Wilde: "Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth."

"[He] went to school," runs the story in Underground. "Often he didn't. The school system didn't hold much interest for him. It didn't feed his mind … The Sydney computer system was a far more interesting place to muck around in than the rural high school."

High-level hacking

By 1991 Assange was probably Australia's most accomplished hacker. He and two others founded International Subversives magazine, offering tips on "phreaking" – how to break into telephone systems illegally and make free calls. The magazine had an exclusive readership: its circulation was just three, the hackers themselves.

In the spring of 1991, the three hackers found an exciting new target: MILNET, the US military's secret defence data network. Quickly, Assange discovered a back door. He got inside. "We had total control over it for two years," he later claimed. The hackers also routinely broke into the computer systems at Australia's National University.

But he suspected Victoria police were about to raid his home. According to Underground: "He wiped his disks, burnt his printouts, and left" to doss temporarily with his girlfriend. The pair joined a squatters' union, and when Assange was 18 she became pregnant. They married and had a baby boy, Daniel. But as Assange's anxiety increased, and police finally closed in on his outlaw circle of hackers, his wife moved out, taking their 20-month-old son Daniel with them. Assange was hospitalised with depression. For a period he slept outdoors, rambling around the eucalyptus forests in Dandenong Ranges national park; he would wake up covered in mosquito bites.

But it wasn't until 1994 that he was finally charged, with the case only being heard in 1996. He pleaded guilty in Melbourne's Victoria County Court to 24 counts of hacking. The prosecution described Assange as "the most active" and "most skilful" of the group, and pressed for a prison sentence.

Was...........

He is not hacking now from the embassy or it is on ecuador's head

If they are blamed he loses his asylum

At one point they wouldn't let him even near a computer to send an email or tweet

 

[aris2chat]

You would rather live in ignorance and just let "them" keep on with the corruption fraud and lies while manipulating you and leading you around the the nose?

Don't you think Assange might be doing some manipulating of his own here? Why such complete trust in everything he says?

It's not ignorance to question.

has anything that come from wiki leaks been proven false? It is information from the places it claims to be, like pedesta, and not disproved.

What is there to questions? It is handed to him, wiki. and he then publishes it.

Other than the fact most people are idiots (or worse) when it comes to their communications and what they says, what do you object to???

Knowing the truth?

Well, here is the question: Knowing the Truth

Does selected revealing of information really reveal "the truth"? For example - if only some of the material is released, rather than all - and that leads to a different conclusion - is that the truth? If there is no context by which to judge something - for example you see responses but not the whole conversation - what is the truth? How can you know if any of it is altered in any way?

Do you automatically assume it to be true and if so why? Everyone has an agenda - whether it's governments, leftwing, rightwing, USA, Russia or Julian Assange. And they've all lied at one time or another.

That is what I object to - this wholesale belief in some kind of "impartiality" in Julian Assange's method that implies some sort of integrity. He's known to have lied. He published complete credit card information and personally identifying information on Democrat doners. How can you justify that?

If you find a letter or paper on the ground that says from so and so to so and so and read the letter the publish it............. what is there to question? It says what it says? If there is some missing context, will the sender or receiver clarify it for you?

If the Email is from pedestal and he doesn't expose all the conversations he hd with that person from beginning to end to show context, why should you expect Assange to?

He might or might not have "everything" pedesta ever wrote from that or any source through his life to give as evidence of context or mindset.

Wiki scans the paper, email, etc. and publishes it

Get the original author to explain in full to your satisfaction, no assange

You you fully understand every paper, book or text you have ever seen for context? in every and any language or period of time?

A message on a rock wall in ancient greek, do you know the full context?

And if you take a picture of it and post to your facebook or social media, can you explain the context and motives and mindset of the writer?

Should ever piece of information or writing on a wall or piece of paper be rejected without knowing everything about the source, motive, context, mindset, etc. on it?

What about a piece of art?

A piece of music?

A sound you hear that you have never heard before?

If you don't know volumes about it, is it to be dismissed as irrelevant?

Of deems "fake"

If you are going to use it to accuse or imply crime or corruption then you have an ethical duty to verify the truth don't you? Shouldn't you?

They release the info, and let others explain

Wiki does not have to analyse and explain what is given to them. If ask they tell you what is it not like the emails were not given to wiki by russia. They have said the source was from within ....... then five people connected to the DNC or Clinton suddenly end up dead

Coincident or something more?

Assange might tell what is not the source but he is not going to give out details of all his sources or he would be getting no information at all.

Like a whistle blower that want anonymity for their own protection. Let those where the whistleblower got the info from explain what a document means.

Is it better to expose info and someone is killed or let the secrets and corruption go on and more are endangered and die because the world does not know. The source for the wiki info obviously wanted it exposed or they would have kept it to themselves and possibly used for their own blackmail.

They must have believed or know there was importance to these document that are sent to wiki. Once exposed let everyone else figure out how important.

If a .gov address accidently or intentionally published a top secret and the world read it, should the world be blamed for then knowing top secret info?

those in government would recognize classified and top secret info but would the average citizen? and if they then share that info?

Some want to know what goes into the sausage we are being fed, some don't

 

[Coyote]

Don't you think Assange might be doing some manipulating of his own here? Why such complete trust in everything he says?

It's not ignorance to question.

has anything that come from wiki leaks been proven false? It is information from the places it claims to be, like pedesta, and not disproved.

What is there to questions? It is handed to him, wiki. and he then publishes it.

Other than the fact most people are idiots (or worse) when it comes to their communications and what they says, what do you object to???

Knowing the truth?

Well, here is the question: Knowing the Truth

Does selected revealing of information really reveal "the truth"? For example - if only some of the material is released, rather than all - and that leads to a different conclusion - is that the truth? If there is no context by which to judge something - for example you see responses but not the whole conversation - what is the truth? How can you know if any of it is altered in any way?

Do you automatically assume it to be true and if so why? Everyone has an agenda - whether it's governments, leftwing, rightwing, USA, Russia or Julian Assange. And they've all lied at one time or another.

That is what I object to - this wholesale belief in some kind of "impartiality" in Julian Assange's method that implies some sort of integrity. He's known to have lied. He published complete credit card information and personally identifying information on Democrat doners. How can you justify that?

If you find a letter or paper on the ground that says from so and so to so and so and read the letter the publish it............. what is there to question? It says what it says? If there is some missing context, will the sender or receiver clarify it for you?

If the Email is from pedestal and he doesn't expose all the conversations he hd with that person from beginning to end to show context, why should you expect Assange to?

He might or might not have "everything" pedesta ever wrote from that or any source through his life to give as evidence of context or mindset.

Wiki scans the paper, email, etc. and publishes it

Get the original author to explain in full to your satisfaction, no assange

You you fully understand every paper, book or text you have ever seen for context? in every and any language or period of time?

A message on a rock wall in ancient greek, do you know the full context?

And if you take a picture of it and post to your facebook or social media, can you explain the context and motives and mindset of the writer?

Should ever piece of information or writing on a wall or piece of paper be rejected without knowing everything about the source, motive, context, mindset, etc. on it?

What about a piece of art?

A piece of music?

A sound you hear that you have never heard before?

If you don't know volumes about it, is it to be dismissed as irrelevant?

Of deems "fake"

If you are going to use it to accuse or imply crime or corruption then you have an ethical duty to verify the truth don't you? Shouldn't you?

They release the info, and let others explain

Wiki does not have to analyse and explain what is given to them. If ask they tell you what is it not like the emails were not given to wiki by russia. They have said the source was from within ....... then five people connected to the DNC or Clinton suddenly end up dead

Coincident or something more?

Assange might tell what is not the source but he is not going to give out details of all his sources or he would be getting no information at all.

Like a whistle blower that want anonymity for their own protection. Let those where the whistleblower got the info from explain what a document means.

Is it better to expose info and someone is killed or let the secrets and corruption go on and more are endangered and die because the world does not know. The source for the wiki info obviously wanted it exposed or they would have kept it to themselves and possibly used for their own blackmail.

They must have believed or know there was importance to these document that are sent to wiki. Once exposed let everyone else figure out how important.

If a .gov address accidently or intentionally published a top secret and the world read it, should the world be blamed for then knowing top secret info?

those in government would recognize classified and top secret info but would the average citizen? and if they then share that info?

Some want to know what goes into the sausage we are being fed, some don't

I think that is a conspiracy theory - because frankly, there was nothing really criminal in those emails that someone would need to be killed for. It's like the whole Clinton Body Count thing. They have said it was an insider but not one bit of proof. Not one. Just Assange saying it. More than that - the person he accused of doing it had neither the access nor technical expertise to have done it.

Body count conspiracy theories debunked:

"Body count" lists are not a new phenomenon. Lists documenting all the allegedly "suspicious" deaths of persons connected with the assassination of John F. Kennedy have been circulating for decades, and the same techniques used to create and spread the JFK lists have been employed in the Clinton version:

• List every dead person with even the most tenuous of connections to your subject. It doesn't matter how these people died, or how tangential they were to your subject's life. The longer the list, the more impressive it looks and the less likely anyone is to challenge it. By the time readers get to the bottom of the list, they'll be too weary to wonder what could possibly be relevant about the death of people such as Bill Clinton's mother's chiropractor.
• Play word games. Make sure every death is presented as "mysterious." All accidental deaths are to be labelled "suspicious," even though by definition accidents occur when something unexpected goes wrong. Every self-inflicted death discussed must include the phrase "ruled a suicide" to imply just the opposite. When an autopsy contradicts a "mysterious death" theory, dispute it; when none was performed because none was needed, claim that "no autopsy was allowed." Make liberal use of words such as 'allegedly' and 'supposedly' to dismiss facts you can't support or contradict with hard evidence.
• Make sure every inconsistency or unexplained detail you can dredge up is offered as evidence of a conspiracy, no matter how insignificant or pointless it may be. If an obvious suicide is discovered wearing only one shoe, ignore the physical evidence of self-inflicted death and dwell on the missing shoe. You don't have to establish an alternate theory of the death; just keep harping that the missing shoe "can't be explained."
• If the data doesn't fit your conclusion, ignore it. You don't have to explain why the people who claimed to have the most damaging goods on Clinton (e.g., Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Linda Tripp, Monica Lewinsky, Kenneth Starr), are still walking around unscathed while dozens of bit players have been bumped off. It's inconvenient for you, so don't mention it.
• Most important, don't let facts and details stand in your way! If you can pass off a death by pneumonia as a "suicide," do it! If a cause of death contradicts your conspiracy theory, claim it was "never determined." If your chronology of events is impossible, who cares? It's not like anybody is going to check up on this stuff ...

If a .gov address accidently or intentionally published a top secret and the world read it, should the world be blamed for then knowing top secret info?

But that is not the case is it? When you are receiving hacked material you are receiving stolen goods - that's what it boils down to. When wikileaks choose to accept and then publish that material - it's trafficking in stolen goods. What is the difference between that and selling a stolen car?

 

[aris2chat]

has anything that come from wiki leaks been proven false? It is information from the places it claims to be, like pedesta, and not disproved.

What is there to questions? It is handed to him, wiki. and he then publishes it.

Other than the fact most people are idiots (or worse) when it comes to their communications and what they says, what do you object to???

Knowing the truth?

Well, here is the question: Knowing the Truth

Does selected revealing of information really reveal "the truth"? For example - if only some of the material is released, rather than all - and that leads to a different conclusion - is that the truth? If there is no context by which to judge something - for example you see responses but not the whole conversation - what is the truth? How can you know if any of it is altered in any way?

Do you automatically assume it to be true and if so why? Everyone has an agenda - whether it's governments, leftwing, rightwing, USA, Russia or Julian Assange. And they've all lied at one time or another.

That is what I object to - this wholesale belief in some kind of "impartiality" in Julian Assange's method that implies some sort of integrity. He's known to have lied. He published complete credit card information and personally identifying information on Democrat doners. How can you justify that?

If you find a letter or paper on the ground that says from so and so to so and so and read the letter the publish it............. what is there to question? It says what it says? If there is some missing context, will the sender or receiver clarify it for you?

If the Email is from pedestal and he doesn't expose all the conversations he hd with that person from beginning to end to show context, why should you expect Assange to?

He might or might not have "everything" pedesta ever wrote from that or any source through his life to give as evidence of context or mindset.

Wiki scans the paper, email, etc. and publishes it

Get the original author to explain in full to your satisfaction, no assange

You you fully understand every paper, book or text you have ever seen for context? in every and any language or period of time?

A message on a rock wall in ancient greek, do you know the full context?

And if you take a picture of it and post to your facebook or social media, can you explain the context and motives and mindset of the writer?

Should ever piece of information or writing on a wall or piece of paper be rejected without knowing everything about the source, motive, context, mindset, etc. on it?

What about a piece of art?

A piece of music?

A sound you hear that you have never heard before?

If you don't know volumes about it, is it to be dismissed as irrelevant?

Of deems "fake"

If you are going to use it to accuse or imply crime or corruption then you have an ethical duty to verify the truth don't you? Shouldn't you?

They release the info, and let others explain

Wiki does not have to analyse and explain what is given to them. If ask they tell you what is it not like the emails were not given to wiki by russia. They have said the source was from within ....... then five people connected to the DNC or Clinton suddenly end up dead

Coincident or something more?

Assange might tell what is not the source but he is not going to give out details of all his sources or he would be getting no information at all.

Like a whistle blower that want anonymity for their own protection. Let those where the whistleblower got the info from explain what a document means.

Is it better to expose info and someone is killed or let the secrets and corruption go on and more are endangered and die because the world does not know. The source for the wiki info obviously wanted it exposed or they would have kept it to themselves and possibly used for their own blackmail.

They must have believed or know there was importance to these document that are sent to wiki. Once exposed let everyone else figure out how important.

If a .gov address accidently or intentionally published a top secret and the world read it, should the world be blamed for then knowing top secret info?

those in government would recognize classified and top secret info but would the average citizen? and if they then share that info?

Some want to know what goes into the sausage we are being fed, some don't

I think that is a conspiracy theory - because frankly, there was nothing really criminal in those emails that someone would need to be killed for. It's like the whole Clinton Body Count thing. They have said it was an insider but not one bit of proof. Not one. Just Assange saying it. More than that - the person he accused of doing it had neither the access nor technical expertise to have done it.

Body count conspiracy theories debunked:

"Body count" lists are not a new phenomenon. Lists documenting all the allegedly "suspicious" deaths of persons connected with the assassination of John F. Kennedy have been circulating for decades, and the same techniques used to create and spread the JFK lists have been employed in the Clinton version:

• List every dead person with even the most tenuous of connections to your subject. It doesn't matter how these people died, or how tangential they were to your subject's life. The longer the list, the more impressive it looks and the less likely anyone is to challenge it. By the time readers get to the bottom of the list, they'll be too weary to wonder what could possibly be relevant about the death of people such as Bill Clinton's mother's chiropractor.
• Play word games. Make sure every death is presented as "mysterious." All accidental deaths are to be labelled "suspicious," even though by definition accidents occur when something unexpected goes wrong. Every self-inflicted death discussed must include the phrase "ruled a suicide" to imply just the opposite. When an autopsy contradicts a "mysterious death" theory, dispute it; when none was performed because none was needed, claim that "no autopsy was allowed." Make liberal use of words such as 'allegedly' and 'supposedly' to dismiss facts you can't support or contradict with hard evidence.
• Make sure every inconsistency or unexplained detail you can dredge up is offered as evidence of a conspiracy, no matter how insignificant or pointless it may be. If an obvious suicide is discovered wearing only one shoe, ignore the physical evidence of self-inflicted death and dwell on the missing shoe. You don't have to establish an alternate theory of the death; just keep harping that the missing shoe "can't be explained."
• If the data doesn't fit your conclusion, ignore it. You don't have to explain why the people who claimed to have the most damaging goods on Clinton (e.g., Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Linda Tripp, Monica Lewinsky, Kenneth Starr), are still walking around unscathed while dozens of bit players have been bumped off. It's inconvenient for you, so don't mention it.
• Most important, don't let facts and details stand in your way! If you can pass off a death by pneumonia as a "suicide," do it! If a cause of death contradicts your conspiracy theory, claim it was "never determined." If your chronology of events is impossible, who cares? It's not like anybody is going to check up on this stuff ...

If a .gov address accidently or intentionally published a top secret and the world read it, should the world be blamed for then knowing top secret info?

But that is not the case is it? When you are receiving hacked material you are receiving stolen goods - that's what it boils down to. When wikileaks choose to accept and then publish that material - it's trafficking in stolen goods. What is the difference between that and selling a stolen car?

It is a strange coincidence at a convenient time

why is everything else just a coincidence till there is a pattern.............how many is a pattern?

20? More?

coincidental coincidence of convenience

Lets ask the UFOs?

..............or blame "russia" ;-)

maybe Trump has been behind it for all these years?

racists?

whites?

man in the moon?

Clinton is just so unlucky to have know so many that die in unusual circumstances and just the right time

Why should we not have questions when those deaths seem to have been hushed up and brushed aside, far too quickly with too few answers?

We question everything else for all the facts. Why not this?

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Don't you think Assange might be doing some manipulating of his own here? Why such complete trust in everything he says?

It's not ignorance to question.

Is that why DWS resigned? Because WikiLeaks is lying?

 

[Uncensored2008]

There is another aspect as well, that is worrisome about hacking and things like wikileaks - and that is publishing what is sensitive material.

A lot of negotiation goes on behind closed doors long before anything public is announced. This means there is the rhetoric that is for public consumption - either at home or abroad, and the conversations in private aimed at establishing what is and isn't possible for each side to agree to, concede to, or oppose without public loss of face or need for face saving that would be needed if a situation were misjudged. When Nixon opened relations with China - it wasn't just all of a sudden. It was preceded by several years of intensely private and secret negotiations between Kissenger and the Chinese in order to establish a public position both countries were comfortable with in order to begin more public negotiations. In the process, negotiaters might indirectly imply positions to test the waters and the reactions of the other side - without worry as to how it might come off publically at home or abroad. Imagine if all that had been played out in public ahead of time.

The problem with Wikileaks - even presuming it's not an indirect extension of Russia's propoganda arm is that it releases information with no thought about consequences or very real damage - such as revealing sensitive information, real names, etc. Real people can be put at risk and for what reason? What illegal things did they do to deserve having their privacy shredded, their credit card info posted?

You can stack all the blame on the victims for being lax with security but that is disengenius - it's a way of justifying the crimes and in the world of cybertechnology the hackers are often a step ahead of the latest security, it's a rapidly evolving field.

So you were outraged when the democrats leaked the Watergate Tapes, right?

Oh, that was different, because you hated Nixon, he was the enemy.

Fucking hypocrites.

Woordward, Bernstien, Assange - they all did exactly the same thing, you hate Assange because he exposed your criminal party.

 

[Coyote]

Well, here is the question: Knowing the Truth

Does selected revealing of information really reveal "the truth"? For example - if only some of the material is released, rather than all - and that leads to a different conclusion - is that the truth? If there is no context by which to judge something - for example you see responses but not the whole conversation - what is the truth? How can you know if any of it is altered in any way?

Do you automatically assume it to be true and if so why? Everyone has an agenda - whether it's governments, leftwing, rightwing, USA, Russia or Julian Assange. And they've all lied at one time or another.

That is what I object to - this wholesale belief in some kind of "impartiality" in Julian Assange's method that implies some sort of integrity. He's known to have lied. He published complete credit card information and personally identifying information on Democrat doners. How can you justify that?

If you find a letter or paper on the ground that says from so and so to so and so and read the letter the publish it............. what is there to question? It says what it says? If there is some missing context, will the sender or receiver clarify it for you?

If the Email is from pedestal and he doesn't expose all the conversations he hd with that person from beginning to end to show context, why should you expect Assange to?

He might or might not have "everything" pedesta ever wrote from that or any source through his life to give as evidence of context or mindset.

Wiki scans the paper, email, etc. and publishes it

Get the original author to explain in full to your satisfaction, no assange

You you fully understand every paper, book or text you have ever seen for context? in every and any language or period of time?

A message on a rock wall in ancient greek, do you know the full context?

And if you take a picture of it and post to your facebook or social media, can you explain the context and motives and mindset of the writer?

Should ever piece of information or writing on a wall or piece of paper be rejected without knowing everything about the source, motive, context, mindset, etc. on it?

What about a piece of art?

A piece of music?

A sound you hear that you have never heard before?

If you don't know volumes about it, is it to be dismissed as irrelevant?

Of deems "fake"

If you are going to use it to accuse or imply crime or corruption then you have an ethical duty to verify the truth don't you? Shouldn't you?

They release the info, and let others explain

Wiki does not have to analyse and explain what is given to them. If ask they tell you what is it not like the emails were not given to wiki by russia. They have said the source was from within ....... then five people connected to the DNC or Clinton suddenly end up dead

Coincident or something more?

Assange might tell what is not the source but he is not going to give out details of all his sources or he would be getting no information at all.

Like a whistle blower that want anonymity for their own protection. Let those where the whistleblower got the info from explain what a document means.

Is it better to expose info and someone is killed or let the secrets and corruption go on and more are endangered and die because the world does not know. The source for the wiki info obviously wanted it exposed or they would have kept it to themselves and possibly used for their own blackmail.

They must have believed or know there was importance to these document that are sent to wiki. Once exposed let everyone else figure out how important.

If a .gov address accidently or intentionally published a top secret and the world read it, should the world be blamed for then knowing top secret info?

those in government would recognize classified and top secret info but would the average citizen? and if they then share that info?

Some want to know what goes into the sausage we are being fed, some don't

There is nothing wrong with questioning but - I have to ask - why aren't you questioning these claims? Why aren't you questioning or asking for evidence from Assange?

I think that is a conspiracy theory - because frankly, there was nothing really criminal in those emails that someone would need to be killed for. It's like the whole Clinton Body Count thing. They have said it was an insider but not one bit of proof. Not one. Just Assange saying it. More than that - the person he accused of doing it had neither the access nor technical expertise to have done it.

Body count conspiracy theories debunked:

"Body count" lists are not a new phenomenon. Lists documenting all the allegedly "suspicious" deaths of persons connected with the assassination of John F. Kennedy have been circulating for decades, and the same techniques used to create and spread the JFK lists have been employed in the Clinton version:

• List every dead person with even the most tenuous of connections to your subject. It doesn't matter how these people died, or how tangential they were to your subject's life. The longer the list, the more impressive it looks and the less likely anyone is to challenge it. By the time readers get to the bottom of the list, they'll be too weary to wonder what could possibly be relevant about the death of people such as Bill Clinton's mother's chiropractor.
• Play word games. Make sure every death is presented as "mysterious." All accidental deaths are to be labelled "suspicious," even though by definition accidents occur when something unexpected goes wrong. Every self-inflicted death discussed must include the phrase "ruled a suicide" to imply just the opposite. When an autopsy contradicts a "mysterious death" theory, dispute it; when none was performed because none was needed, claim that "no autopsy was allowed." Make liberal use of words such as 'allegedly' and 'supposedly' to dismiss facts you can't support or contradict with hard evidence.
• Make sure every inconsistency or unexplained detail you can dredge up is offered as evidence of a conspiracy, no matter how insignificant or pointless it may be. If an obvious suicide is discovered wearing only one shoe, ignore the physical evidence of self-inflicted death and dwell on the missing shoe. You don't have to establish an alternate theory of the death; just keep harping that the missing shoe "can't be explained."
• If the data doesn't fit your conclusion, ignore it. You don't have to explain why the people who claimed to have the most damaging goods on Clinton (e.g., Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Linda Tripp, Monica Lewinsky, Kenneth Starr), are still walking around unscathed while dozens of bit players have been bumped off. It's inconvenient for you, so don't mention it.
• Most important, don't let facts and details stand in your way! If you can pass off a death by pneumonia as a "suicide," do it! If a cause of death contradicts your conspiracy theory, claim it was "never determined." If your chronology of events is impossible, who cares? It's not like anybody is going to check up on this stuff ...

If a .gov address accidently or intentionally published a top secret and the world read it, should the world be blamed for then knowing top secret info?

But that is not the case is it? When you are receiving hacked material you are receiving stolen goods - that's what it boils down to. When wikileaks choose to accept and then publish that material - it's trafficking in stolen goods. What is the difference between that and selling a stolen car?

It is a strange coincidence at a convenient time

why is everything else just a coincidence till there is a pattern.............how many is a pattern?

20? More?

coincidental coincidence of convenience

Lets ask the UFOs?

..............or blame "russia" ;-)

maybe Trump has been behind it for all these years?

racists?

whites?

man in the moon?

Clinton is just so unlucky to have know so many that die in unusual circumstances and just the right time

Why should we not have questions when those deaths seem to have been hushed up and brushed aside, far too quickly with too few answers?

We question everything else for all the facts. Why not this?

It's actually not really a coincidence. It boils down to this: anyone who is a public figure has a huge range of aquaintances and friends through out his life and career. Far more than you or I. From those possibly thousands of people - some are going to die, some are going to be victims of crime, some are going to commit suicide. Coincidence or evil doings? More than likely, it's coincidence.

Here is someone who took the tactic, and did the same analysis on Bush (The Bush Body Bags): BUSH BODY COUNT
Here is someone who took all 3 former presidents and did a body count: Obama / Clinton / Bush suspicious death lists, body counts, 250+ names
And here wwe have the beginnings of a Trump body count: Beginning of Trump's BODY COUNT !!


Take the "DNC Insider" who was murdered. He's a perfect example.

What is factual about Seth Rich?
He was murdered.
His killer is not yet apprehended.
Motive is not certain.
He was a specialist in computer voting.
He was shot in the back 3 times, in an area noted for arise in violent crime (people had been complaining).

So what happens? Assange made a statement. Like many of Trump's statements, it's completely divorced from evidence. Who needs evidence? Assange makes a claim..it "must be true". He has not offered a shred of evidence. Worse than that, he is effectively slandering Seth Rich's reputation with it. Police investigated and found no evidence that it was an insider.

From his parents: The slain man’s parents, Mary and Joel Rich of Omaha, Nebraska, are distressed by the apparent political exploitation of their son’s death by Clinton’s opponents. Seth Rich had just accepted a promotion from the DNC to a position in her campaign, they say, and he was devoted to getting her elected. “It’s unfortunate and hurtful,” his parents say, in a statement to Newsweek, “that at the moment a murderer remains at large, there remains unfounded press speculation about the activities of our son that night. We should be focusing on the perpetrator at large.”

From people in the neighborhood: Residents of Bloomingdale, which is about 20 blocks north of D.C.’s Union Station, had long been complaining about a surge in crime. One area resident tells Newsweek her house had been burgled a few years ago while she and her husband were inside. Two other residents who would volunteer only their first names, Jonathan and Kevin, say there were “definitely a lot of muggings and robberies” in the area. Another resident complained on the neighborhood blog about “a small group of guys with a silver handgun terrorizing this neighborhood for weeks with minimal response from public officials.” Residents were particularly incensed about a deterioration in security over the past two years related to a massive D.C. water department tunnel construction project just steps from where Rich was slain. High fences around it left the street occluded, with “hiding places for criminals and [no] sight lines for neighbors,” one resident wrote.


Source: Inside the killing of DNC staffer Seth Rich