ASSANGE: I would've had 'no problem' releasing similar info about Trump and might do so in 4 years

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

A large percentage of this forum feels the same about you

Some pussy will be along any minute to clutch their pearls and admonish you for your lack of class.
Not me though. Some Assange cum swiller.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Like how you guys cried for the last 8?

The right had their own tears and sorrow throughout Obama's presidency, thats true. But all indications point to you guys being about 10x worse. The left has already completely lost it's mind and he's not even in office yet.

 

[SlicerDM]

The right had their own tears and sorrow throughout Obama's presidency, thats true. But all indications point to you guys being about 10x worse. The left has already completely lost it's mind and he's not even in office yet.

Should I start to naming off all the crybaby shit the right did in the first year of the last election?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Conspiracy theorist.

What's the conspiracy? Assange just issued a threat right in the open.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

I'm a wikileaks fan.

I think Assange should simply follow two rules:

1) release the info whenever it is discovered/verified as genuine
2) neither confirm nor deny who/what is the source of the leak no matter the circumstance

 

[Mr Holmes]

What's the conspiracy? Assange just issued a threat right in the open.

Putin is behind it.

 

[IGIT]

Assange didn't cuck the U.S. He cucked the DNC by exposing that they were attempting to undermine our election process.

good afternoon fonzob1,

i just wanted to note that a private organization deciding that it wants to favor one candidate over another is not "undermining our election process". it's something that happens all the time.

you could say that the DNC misrepresented themselves to the Democratic electorate, but private organizations pick the candidates they want to back all the time - and there is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about it.

- IGIT

 

[Letssnuggle]

What's the conspiracy? Assange just issued a threat right in the open.

View media item 25167

 

[Philo-Publius]

good afternoon fonzob1,

i just wanted to note that a private organization deciding that it wants to favor one candidate over another is not "undermining our election process". it's something that happens all the time.

you could say that the DNC misrepresented themselves to the Democratic electorate, but private organizations pick the candidates they want to back all the time - and there is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about it.

- IGIT

Feeding debate questiontions to a presidential candidate is an effort to undermine our democratic process.

 

[IGIT]

Feeding debate questiontions to a presidential candidate is an effort to undermine our democratic process.

hi fonzob1,

your missing my point, lol.

i'm not saying that the DNC didn't actively favor Mrs. Clinton over Mr. Sanders. i'm saying that there's nothing illegal or unconstitutional about a private organization favoring one candidate over another.

- IGIT

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

View media item 25167

That guy is such a total douche. I don't understand how he lives with himself.

 

[IGIT]

A different joining? I don't know what that means. Also, were Woodward and Bernstein pieces of shit who should've died a horrible death? How about Daniel Ellsberg? People who say ridiculously stupid things like you did don't deserve to be taken seriously as citizens.

hi HomerThompson,

i think you're asking an important question here - and i find myself very much on the fence on this issue.

speaking as an American who admittedly prioritizes US interests over Russia's (or China's or Iran's or North Korea's, etc, etc), let me pose you a question; do you see a difference between US journalists like Woodward and Bernstein reporting on government abuses and an organization like Wikileaks, which relies on enough stolen classified material to run their own spy agency?

folks that defend Assange say that all he is doing is releasing information, information that people want, and that information should be set free.

i get that.

but is there a point where you might have qualms with that? i mean, i'm sure people are interested in Donald Trump's private emails...or the private emails of the reporters at the New York Times...or the private emails of US generals and covert operatives in the US intelligence agency...or heck, the private emails of Ivanka Trump, the future first daughter.

does this cause you to welcome the theft of said emails and then releasing them to the public?

also, what if the theft of US classified documents undermines US diplomatic efforts? what are your thoughts on that?

it probably seems like i'm framing my questions to slag on wikileaks, but i'm not seeking to do that - i just think that drawing a direct parallel between what Assange is doing to the Watergate reporting done by Woodward/Bernstein seems like a bit of an oversimplification.

- IGIT

 

[Fawlty]

That guy is such a total douche. I don't understand how he lives with himself.

I ran into that dude sometime around 05/06, when he was protesting Patriot Act-related stuff. I think he had a bullhorn, but he was reasonable, polite, sane, etc when I talked to him. Seemed committed but not at all douchey. Had no idea he was this lunatic making NWO and 9/11 videos. That little encounter actually influenced me that you didn't have to be a shitbag to be a protester...lol.

Cannot believe this prick is getting a pass after his Sandy Hook CT. What the hell does a person have to do to get himself ostracized these days?

 

[Philo-Publius]

hi fonzob1,

your missing my point, lol.

i'm not saying that the DNC didn't actively favor Mrs. Clinton over Mr. Sanders. i'm saying that there's nothing illegal or unconstitutional about a private organization favoring one candidate over another.

- IGIT

I didn't miss your point. I don't know the legality of the media providing debate questions to Hillary ahead of the election (and not Trump), but it's certainly unethical and is an attempt to undermine one candidate.

 

[IGIT]

I didn't miss your point. I don't know the legality of the media providing debate questions to Hillary ahead of the election (and not Trump), but it's certainly unethical and is an attempt to undermine one candidate.

hi there Fonz,

there was nothing illegal about Mrs. Brazile providing Mrs. Clinton's campaign with the insight that, at the Flynt townhall debate, a question would come up about the contaminated water issues that Flynt had been experiencing.

unethical?

absolutely, given the DNC's public posture that it was not favoring Mrs. Clinton over Mr. Sanders...but as i said earlier, the DNC is a private organization, and there is no law or constitutional provision stating that private organizations cannot favor the candidate of their choice.

- IGIT

 

[Philo-Publius]

hi there Fonz,

there was nothing illegal about Mrs. Brazile providing Mrs. Clinton's campaign with the insight that, at the Flynt townhall debate, a question would come up about the contaminated water issues that Flynt had been experiencing.

unethical?

absolutely, given the DNC's public posture that it was not favoring Mrs. Clinton over Mr. Sanders...but as i said earlier, the DNC is a private organization, and there is no law or constitutional provision stating that private organizations cannot favor the candidate of their choice.

- IGIT

That was never really in question though and irrelevant to my original point, which was that Assange targeted the DNC (a private entity as you pointed out) and not the U.S. government directly.

 

[IGIT]

That was never really in question though and irrelevant to my original point, which was that Assange targeted the DNC (a private entity as you pointed out) and not the U.S. government directly.

hello fonzob1,

if i'm to take Mr. Assange at his word, he didn't target anyone in particular - wikileaks just released data.

the Russian entities that targeted the DNC, however, were most certainly trying to influence the US government directly via cyberespionage - by influencing the 2016 election.

- IGIT

 

[Prefect]

I don't know the long play. He could have a source that is slowly leaking. Releasing the information too soon might limit the chance that the whole enchilada gets turned inside out. A third party might have a chance if everyone saw how the sausage was made.

 

[Philo-Publius]

hello fonzob1,

if i'm to take Mr. Assange at his word, he didn't target anyone in particular - wikileaks just released data.

the Russian entities that targeted the DNC, however, were most certainly trying to influence the US government directly via cyberespionage - by influencing the 2016 election.

- IGIT

They were simply evening the playing field. It was the DNC that was making efforts behind the scenes to influence the election (legal or not) in Hillary's favor. No government secrets came to light as a result (that I am aware of). Just some embarrassing DNC e-mails.

 

[ripskater]

Why can't he be dead in a ditch somewhere.
Christ, I hate that guy, hating on my country and telling other people's secrets for a living. POS personified.

Assange saved our country another 4 years.

He's a hero.