Julian Assange: Have more Hillary leaks, will release in stages.

[Madmick]

What's Assanges end game? Eventually Assange is going to want to come out of that embassy and he has already made an enemy out of the US government that's why he's leaking the info lil by lil as the election goes by. It's easy to see which way he's trying to influence the election and who for. I'm down for Iggy sex tapes. She's a transracial princess.

My guess is that he believes Trump's rhetoric with regard to Putin & NATO casts him as the most likely figure Assange has ever seen that could loosen the USA-muscled stranglehold on his freedom. The guy has been living in am Embassy for how many years, now? Even Bernie has worked with the establishment, and hasn't shown a blatant disregard for US security interests (while simultaneously pandering with his strongman posturing).

Four years of house arrest will turn any man desperate. The man is essentially enduring a safer, well-decorated prison sentence with better food and entertainment.

 

[Skarr]

Releasing it in stages sounds more like someone looking for a payday, or making a power play, then someone that wants to help his people.

If you have something Americans, and the world,needs to know, release it all and let the people decide what to do with it.


Withholding information and manipulating events is the very shit we don't want out people in power doing.

ex-fucking-actly .... they already have the msm beat in that people pay attention to what these people are leaking, if they have dirt....show everyone what it is..."stages" screams agenda

 

[HereticBD]

I have to agree with the idea that releasing it in stages is the type of manipulation that I question.

If it's being released in stages it's so that the voting public is slowly conditioned to vote in a specific fashion. Given that we have no idea on the source of the leaks, I'm always concerned when foreign powers work this hard to manipulate our elections.

If you release it all at once, maybe the MSM tries to bury it but the right wing of the media will continue to bring these things up and the campaigns and Super PAC's can choose what to target and when. This approach just reeks of external manipulation and I don't see how anyone concerned about election manipulation could find it acceptable...even if it's being used to harm someone you don't agree with politically.

Because it's Hillary this time but next time it's someone else. I don't want this to become the new normal.

Does Hillary have no responsibility in this whatsoever? I could understand if it was all fabricated bullshit being created by the Russian government(or whoever), but it's not. Evidence showing her corruption should be made public, and if it's being used against her to keep her out of office, tough titties. If she wasn't corrupt as fuck in the first place, her and her supporters would have nothing to worry about.

 

[panamaican]

You were only going to be on top of the hill as a nation (in terms for world espionage) for so long due to technology available. You dont need SIGNIT SAT capabilities anymore -- now anyone with an ip connection and a case of mountain dew can infiltrate.

It was a mild occurrence happening to a country that has be pulling this kind of activity against a myriad of countries for decades.

Sorry, States. Japanese build a better car, China produces more steel and now anyone with a proxy can be a better spy.

You still got cheeseburgers and football!

You keep believing that. PM me in 50 years when we're still sitting on top of the hill.

 

[panamaican]

Does Hillary have no responsibility in this whatsoever? I could understand if it was all fabricated bullshit being created by the Russian government(or whoever), but it's not. Evidence showing her corruption should be made public, and if it's being used against her to keep her out of office, tough titties. If she wasn't corrupt as fuck in the first place, her and her supporters would have nothing to worry about.

She has no responsibility in the DNC being hacked. And, corrupt or not, my interest is in the goals of those who are trying to manipulate our elections through it.

If the RNC hacked them and leaked it, I'd be fine with it. If a political action committee was behind it, I'd also be fine with it. If it was Sanders or a U.S. corporation, I'd be fine with it. If it's coming from a foreign entity, I'm not not fine with it.

I don't have an issue with hacking or releasing the information. I have an issue with who does the hacking and why they are choosing to release it in the form they are choosing.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

You keep believing that. PM me in 50 years when we're still sitting on top of the hill.

Top of the Hill in what, global espionage?

The US has been on the skunk end of the majority of the most infamous hacks.

 

[panamaican]

Top of the Hill in what, global espionage?

The US has been on the skunk end of the majority of the most infamous hacks.

You mean the ones that get publicized because they were noticed. Hardly the subset you want to use when evaluating what are supposed to be clandestine activities.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

You mean the ones that get publicized because they were noticed. Hardly the subset you want to use when evaluating what are supposed to be clandestine activities.

show me the major ones that weren't noticed -- noticing a breach is not an issue, most of them are noticed. Getting in is the real threat, and the US has been breached more times than a girl on prom night.

 

[panamaican]

show me the major ones that weren't noticed -- noticing a breach is not an issue, most of them are noticed. Getting in is the real threat, and the US has been breached more times than a girl on prom night.

Show you the ones that weren't noticed? That kind of underlies my point. You're basing your subset on the activities that were published without any idea if they actually represent what a "major" breach is. When the point of these breaches is to get in and get out undetected - the major successful breaches would be things that we wouldn't know had even occurred.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Show you the ones that weren't noticed? That kind of underlies my point. You're basing your subset on the activities that were published without any idea if they actually represent what a "major" breach is. When the point of these breaches is to get in and get out undetected - the major successful breaches would be things that we wouldn't know had even occurred.

LOL - you are basing this on pure assumption. Unless you can prove your robust knowledge of US hacking history and protocol, then i am going to suggest you really have no clue what you are talking about. Stick to law.

Attacks on the DoD in 08 and 15 - access to millions of data points including social security numbers, classified documents, finger prints-- EVEN weapons systems. China has attacked US economic and government targets 600x. Look up the concern with Juniper Networks and the backdoor concerns with their hardware currently in use within the government. Hell, you guys were getting hacked so much you actually set up a program called hack the pentagon imploring people to try to break their security protocols in an attempt to determine how other countries get in so easily.

The concern is once they are in, they take -- obviously that is going to be noticed, these cycle logs that document these incidents. What you are arguing is that it's only good if they don't notice you do it -- which is bunk, its good once they get in and take what they want.

It also like not like thus US has never been caught: remember when Kaspersky Lab's caught the US trying to install spyware via hardware in about 30 different countries?

Also since you have no tangible proof that the US is doing hacks without being notice, your point is faulty. Furthermore, it can be extended that we may not know how many times Russian and China has infiltrated the US - that 600 number may only be a small part of the total.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

LOL - you are basing this on pure assumption. Unless you can prove your robust knowledge of US hacking history and protocol, then i am going to suggest you really have no clue what you are talking about. Stick to law.

Attacks on the DoD in 08 and 15 - access to millions of data points including social security numbers, classified documents, finger prints-- EVEN weapons systems. China has attacked US economic and government targets 600x. Look up the concern with Juniper Networks and the backdoor concerns with their hardware currently in use within the government. Hell, you guys were getting hacked so much you actually set up a program called hack the pentagon imploring people to try to break their security protocols in an attempt to determine how other countries get in so easily.

The concern is once they are in, they take -- obviously that is going to be noticed, these cycle logs that document these incidents. What you are arguing is that it's only good if they don't notice you do it -- which is bunk, its good once they get in and take what they want.

It also like not like thus US has never been caught: remember when Kaspersky Lab's caught the US trying to install spyware via hardware in about 30 different countries?

Also since you have no tangible proof that the US is doing hacks without being notice, your point is faulty. Furthermore, it can be extended that we may not know how many times Russian and China has infiltrated the US - that 600 number may only be a small part of the total.

Well, the US was intercepting Merkel and every other leader calls though, it's a form of hacking.

 

[Madmick]

show me the major ones that weren't noticed -- noticing a breach is not an issue, most of them are noticed. Getting in is the real threat, and the US has been breached more times than a girl on prom night.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

We also once literally shut down North Korea's entire intranet overnight. Just broke their fucking internal computer network at the heart. We're still way beyond anyone, except perhaps the Russians who I'm told by a buddy who is a military intelligence officer have gotten pretty damn good. Their major focus has been on tech-warfare with regard to ballistics (ex. electronic hack bombs-- not EMP's-- that drop missiles out of the sky).

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Well, the US was intercepting Merkel and every other leader calls though, it's a form of hacking.

I am not saying the US doesnt hack, or cant hack, or doesnt have the best technology to do so, i am saying with the current technological landscape, infiltration and breaches are not a US only dominated game -- that as long as you have an IP connection a proxy and skills, you can hack from any country.

 

[Hans Gruber]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

We also once literally shut down North Korea's entire intranet overnight. Just broke their fucking internal computer network at the heart. We're still way beyond anyone, except perhaps the Russians who I'm told by a buddy who is a military intelligence officer have gotten pretty damn good. Their major focus has been on tech-warfare with regard to ballistics (ex. electronic hack bombs-- not EMP's-- that drop missiles out of the sky).

Worried about Russia's technology?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-clinton-foundation-state-and-kremlin-connections-1469997195

Hillary was a great friend to the Russians in that regard:

Clinton’s State Department worked aggressively to attract U.S. investment partners and helped the Russian State Investment Fund, Rusnano, identify American tech companies worthy of Russian investment.


Soon, dozens of U.S. tech firms, including top Clinton Foundation donors like Google, Intel and Cisco, made major financial contributions to Skolkovo, with Cisco committing a cool $1 billion. In May 2010, the State Department facilitated a Moscow visit by 22 of the biggest names in U.S. venture capital—and weeks later the first memorandums of understanding were signed by Skolkovo and American companies.


By 2012 the vice president of the Skolkovo Foundation, Conor Lenihan—who had previously partnered with the Clinton Foundation—recorded that Skolkovo had assembled 28 Russian, American and European “Key Partners.” Of the 28 “partners,” 17, or 60%, have made financial commitments to the Clinton Foundation, totaling tens of millions of dollars, or sponsored speeches by Bill Clinton.

Amid all the sloshing of Russia rubles and American dollars, however, the state-of-the-art technological research coming out of Skolkovo raised alarms among U.S. military experts and federal law-enforcement officials. Research conducted in 2012 on Skolkovo by the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Program at Fort Leavenworth declared that the purpose of Skolkovo was to serve as a “vehicle for world-wide technology transfer to Russia in the areas of information technology, biomedicine, energy, satellite and space technology, and nuclear technology.”

Ms. Ziobro also wrote that “The [Skolkovo] foundation may be a means for the Russian government to access our nation’s sensitive or classified research development facilities and dual-use technologies with military and commercial application.”

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

We also once literally shut down North Korea's entire intranet overnight. Just broke their fucking internal computer network at the heart. We're still way beyond anyone, except perhaps the Russians who I'm told by a buddy who is a military intelligence officer have gotten pretty damn good. Their major focus has been on tech-warfare with regard to ballistics (ex. electronic hack bombs-- not EMP's-- that drop missiles out of the sky).

I dont even think Stuxnet rates in the top 10 of largest hacks -- I think Shady RAT and China breach of Raytheon beats it...maybe even the OPM hack.

I am not saying the US isnt a world player -- i am saying the technology field now makes any country a threat. You dont need kh-9's in orbit anymore -- anyone with basic setup, a 802. and skills can do damage.

The US use to dominate by embedding code into hardware and then selling it -- until other countries would just use VM's and sandboxes and feed you guys shit information with it.

 

[Winded Walrus]

Because the media is constantly covering for Clinton with deflection stories and then over inflating any story that involves Trump. Mass manipulation and propaganda is single handily keeping Clinton in it.

you've seen the media use the word Clinton? It's 24 hour trump/Genghis Khan

 

[HereticBD]

She has no responsibility in the DNC being hacked. And, corrupt or not, my interest is in the goals of those who are trying to manipulate our elections through it.

If the RNC hacked them and leaked it, I'd be fine with it. If a political action committee was behind it, I'd also be fine with it. If it was Sanders or a U.S. corporation, I'd be fine with it. If it's coming from a foreign entity, I'm not not fine with it.

I don't have an issue with hacking or releasing the information. I have an issue with who does the hacking and why they are choosing to release it in the form they are choosing.

Actually, your complaint was how they were releasing it, and how it's designed to hurt Hillary's campaign. You seemed to not care where the information came from, just that it was being released in a trickled out manner that is obviously meant to hurt her, instead of releasing it all at once so the story has a chance to be squashed within a week.

Let's face it, your main issue is that it hurts Hillary. Not that it's possibly Russia that is doing it. I highly, HIGHLY doubt you'd be A-OK with the RNC hacking into the DNC's database. I mean, c'mon. You know you didn't type that with a straight face. It's an attack on Hillary that has some bite, and you don't like it, period.

 

[D3THRONED]

The DNC CEO just resigned lmao. I love watching the left implode, glorious.

 

[Hans Gruber]

The DNC CEO just resigned lmao. I love watching the left implode, glorious.

Yep. Buried underneath the Trump "Get the baby out of here" (Joke) propoganda /click bait/distraction headlines if you dig deep enough you will see it.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/dnc-ceo-resigns-amid-turmoil-226570

Will Hillary reward this one with a new position too?

 

[Renard]

If he has some awful dirt on Hillary, the time to release it would have been during the primaries, to get Hillary out of the race, and get Bernie the nomination.

This seems more like simple self-publicity, nothing noble intended to help people. Perhaps nothing even truly substantive.

There's a lot of moving parts. Two different hacker groups. We don't know when the hackers decided to presumably sell their information. We don't know when or how Assange was able to get his hands on the emails. It's not possible to know if Assange had the emails and sat on the information during the primaries or if he didn't have the data yet.