DNC Leaked Emails Thread v2: #DNCleaks #NothingToSeeHere

[in the]

I figured and that's the problem. The martyr thing only works if you aren't sitting on shit and selectively releasing it. To do otherwise starts to resemble secrecy and manipulation.

If you release it all at one time, and something else gets media traction (and let's be serious, the media colluded to hold down the DNC leaks until DWS resignation, and even then, it was mentioned in passing because many media outlets were implicated in the leaks), then it dies and no one knows.

I don't have much of a problem with maximizing impacts of leaks.

 

[Hans Gruber]

It might not be related to the DNC (or Hillary) leaks at all. It might be dealing with the NSA.

I had just seen rumors that something big was dropping this weekend. Looks like this might be it.

The rumor that is catching steam is that videos that Huma Albedin and Hillary filmed for Saudi royals are going to leak.

Who knows? We will see soon if it is a baseless rumor or not, Doubt it is true personally

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

If you release it all at one time, and something else gets media traction (and let's be serious, the media colluded to hold down the DNC leaks until DWS resignation, and even then, it was mentioned in passing because many media outlets were implicated in the leaks), then it dies and no one knows.

I don't have much of a problem with maximizing impacts of leaks.

Sure, but I do. If you're a criminal you dump the whole fucking story. If you're a news outlet then so be it. I'm a Snowden supporter. If this is shit that's been sat on from his leaks and it's something that seems late in the game then my opinion shifts in a negative direction. Can you understand that?

 

[in the]

The rumor that is catching steam is that videos that Huma Albedin and Hillary filmed for Saudi royals are going to leak.

Who knows? We will see soon if it is a baseless rumor or not, Doubt it is true personally

I've seen that too, but considering the source, let's just say I'm more than pessimistic.

Sure, but I do. If you're a criminal you dump the whole fucking story. If you're a news outlet then so be it. I'm a Snowden supporter. If this is shit that's been sat on from his leaks and it's something that seems late in the game then my opinion shifts in a negative direction. Can you understand that?

I understand it, but the media is in the back pocket of Hillary so it would be best to leak it at the best available opportunity. FWIW Assange said they are looking into Trump's tax returns, but what the fuck are they going to find that's worse than everything Hillary has done?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I understand it, but the media is in the back pocket of Hillary so it would be best to leak it at the best available opportunity. FWIW Assange said they are looking into Trump's tax returns, but what the fuck are they going to find that's worse than everything Hillary has done?

I don't know about Trump's tax returns. Cough it up if he's got it and it's of public interest. Her bad actions would be as an elected official so that makes her worse if complicit in/performing similar actions.

I do know that if something of large importance comes out now, that was available as part of Snowden's original trove of goodies when he leaked all the shit, my opinion is going to be less favorable of him. I had him as man of the year at the time. Give people the full true story the public deserves and be a martyr. Steal info to manipulate the big picture, especially for personal favors, and fuck you. Somewhere in there is my opinion of him. Depending.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Sure, but I do. If you're a criminal you dump the whole fucking story. If you're a news outlet then so be it. I'm a Snowden supporter. If this is shit that's been sat on from his leaks and it's something that seems late in the game then my opinion shifts in a negative direction. Can you understand that?

Wait a minute. Shouldn't it be the free press that delivers news straight forward with no agenda while criminal leaks things for their own benefit or agenda?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Wait a minute. Shouldn't it be the free press that delivers news straight forward with no agenda while criminal leaks things for their own benefit or agenda?

Consider the difference between a crime committed to benefit the public and one for self-gain. And yes, the news outlet should tell the whole story up front, but they haven't broken the law and relying on public good will for support. Assange holed up in an embassy notwithstanding. If other outlets had the same info as wikileaks and were to provide it then this pump it out slow strategy would put them out of business. But they're not so I guess slow news is better than no news.

 

[Metusalemi]

Well now they done killed Snowden.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world...-cryptic-code-meaning-dead-mans-switch-russia

 

[Contra-dictator]

If you release it all at one time, and something else gets media traction (and let's be serious, the media colluded to hold down the DNC leaks until DWS resignation, and even then, it was mentioned in passing because many media outlets were implicated in the leaks), then it dies and no one knows.

I don't have much of a problem with maximizing impacts of leaks.

The media and the subject matter of the leaks are virtually the same thing, no?

 

[Thurisaz]

I'd hate to play Monopoly with a Clinton. They would hog all of the "Get out of jail" cards

So would I, though my main gripe would be the dying in mysterious circumstances thing. You know, the suicide by three gunshot wounds in the back of the head thing.