And so it begins, as predicted.

[OldLady]

Internet censorship.
WikiLeaks (@wikileaks)
14 hours ago - View on Twitter
Julian Assange's internet link has been intentionally severed by a state party. We have activated the appropriate contingency plans.


Bye bye transparency, bye bye personal opinions and the right to express them. Hello State run internet. Thanks Obama.

Bye, bye fucking thief. Although I hear it didn't actually stop him from distributing his stolen goods.

 

[Old Rocks]

If you trust hacked information such as emails you are putting your trust in an anonymous source that you know nothing about except that they violated the law. If they can hack emails they can certainly alter those emails to say anything that fits their purpose.

The other major problem with hacked private communications is you don't know the context in which they were written. I've read some of the wikileak emails and wonder did the writer really mean what he or she was saying? Was he brainstorming? Was the author repeating what someone else said? You just don't know.

Lastly, hacked personal communications can easy be misquoted, pulled out of context, or even altered to support all kinds of fake stories.

So what story has Wikileaks gotten provably wrong in the last five years, Einstein?

Wikileaks does not publish stories so you can't say their stories are right or wrong. They publish data from anonymous sources and leave it up to the reader to determine if the data is actually correct and to arrive at their own conclusion.

If the information was not accurate it could (and would) be proven as such.

That sounds good but it's false. In a political campaign addressing the accuracy and meaning of thousands of emails while staying on message is virtually impossible. A campaign has to concentrate on activities that will delivery the most votes and this is certainly not one of them.

These emails do not tell the complete story or even come close. Deleted emails in chains, meetings, phone conversations, written memos, and the position and responsibilities of the people are also an important part of the story which are missing. Without them you just have snippets of information which are subject to interpretation. They are like conversations one might hear standing at the door of an office with references to other conversations, documents, and meeting that you are not privy to.

Shut the fuck up. The emails tell the exact story, which is that Clinton is a criminal, communist, murdering traitor and should be executed by a firing squad as such.

Not that she's any worse than the rest of you communist fucks. She just has the power to do what you all wish you could do.

Disgusting, depraved pieces of shit one and all.

Gee, you mean you don't like us? Come on, don't hold anything back. LOL

 

[Old Rocks]

And in spite of all the foofawrah by you idiots, Clinton's numbers continue to climb.

 

[koshergrl]

Libs are failing miserably at spinning this. They're saying some crazy shit here.

That's because they hire crazy people to say it.

Now we have indisputable proof of what we knew all along.

They pay mentally ill shills to spread disinformation and instigate violence.

Everybody who has ever dealt with the terror organization known as the FBI knows this is true.

 

[Flopper]

If you trust hacked information such as emails you are putting your trust in an anonymous source that you know nothing about except that they violated the law. If they can hack emails they can certainly alter those emails to say anything that fits their purpose.

The other major problem with hacked private communications is you don't know the context in which they were written. I've read some of the wikileak emails and wonder did the writer really mean what he or she was saying? Was he brainstorming? Was the author repeating what someone else said? You just don't know.

Lastly, hacked personal communications can easy be misquoted, pulled out of context, or even altered to support all kinds of fake stories.

So what story has Wikileaks gotten provably wrong in the last five years, Einstein?

Wikileaks does not publish stories so you can't say their stories are right or wrong. They publish data from anonymous sources and leave it up to the reader to determine if the data is actually correct and to arrive at their own conclusion.

If the information was not accurate it could (and would) be proven as such.

That sounds good but it's false. In a political campaign addressing the accuracy and meaning of thousands of emails while staying on message is virtually impossible. A campaign has to concentrate on activities that will delivery the most votes and this is certainly not one of them.

These emails do not tell the complete story or even come close. Deleted emails in chains, meetings, phone conversations, written memos, and the position and responsibilities of the people are also an important part of the story which are missing. Without them you just have snippets of information which are subject to interpretation. They are like conversations one might hear standing at the door of an office with references to other conversations, documents, and meeting that you are not privy to.

Shut the fuck up. The emails tell the exact story, which is that Clinton is a criminal, communist, murdering traitor and should be executed by a firing squad as such.

Not that she's any worse than the rest of you communist fucks. She just has the power to do what you all wish you could do.

Disgusting, depraved pieces of shit one and all.

I love it when the only replies you can offer are insults.

 

[koshergrl]

So what story has Wikileaks gotten provably wrong in the last five years, Einstein?

Wikileaks does not publish stories so you can't say their stories are right or wrong. They publish data from anonymous sources and leave it up to the reader to determine if the data is actually correct and to arrive at their own conclusion.

If the information was not accurate it could (and would) be proven as such.

That sounds good but it's false. In a political campaign addressing the accuracy and meaning of thousands of emails while staying on message is virtually impossible. A campaign has to concentrate on activities that will delivery the most votes and this is certainly not one of them.

These emails do not tell the complete story or even come close. Deleted emails in chains, meetings, phone conversations, written memos, and the position and responsibilities of the people are also an important part of the story which are missing. Without them you just have snippets of information which are subject to interpretation. They are like conversations one might hear standing at the door of an office with references to other conversations, documents, and meeting that you are not privy to.

Shut the fuck up. The emails tell the exact story, which is that Clinton is a criminal, communist, murdering traitor and should be executed by a firing squad as such.

Not that she's any worse than the rest of you communist fucks. She just has the power to do what you all wish you could do.

Disgusting, depraved pieces of shit one and all.

I love it when the only replies you can offer are insults.

Your comment doesn't deserve any other response, you worthless piece of shit. You're a liar and a mouthpiece for a murdering, traitorous, communist regime.

You deserve death, and nothing more. Or less.

 

[Flopper]

If you trust hacked information such as emails you are putting your trust in an anonymous source that you know nothing about except that they violated the law. If they can hack emails they can certainly alter those emails to say anything that fits their purpose.

The other major problem with hacked private communications is you don't know the context in which they were written. I've read some of the wikileak emails and wonder did the writer really mean what he or she was saying? Was he brainstorming? Was the author repeating what someone else said? You just don't know.

Lastly, hacked personal communications can easy be misquoted, pulled out of context, or even altered to support all kinds of fake stories.

So what story has Wikileaks gotten provably wrong in the last five years, Einstein?

Wikileaks does not publish stories so you can't say their stories are right or wrong. They publish data from anonymous sources and leave it up to the reader to determine if the data is actually correct and to arrive at their own conclusion.

If the information was not accurate it could (and would) be proven as such.

That sounds good but it's false. In a political campaign addressing the accuracy and meaning of thousands of emails while staying on message is virtually impossible. A campaign has to concentrate on activities that will delivery the most votes and this is certainly not one of them.

These emails do not tell the complete story or even come close. Deleted emails in chains, meetings, phone conversations, written memos, and the position and responsibilities of the people are also an important part of the story which are missing. Without them you just have snippets of information which are subject to interpretation. They are like conversations one might hear standing at the door of an office with references to other conversations, documents, and meeting that you are not privy to.

Lol, you keep dodging the main point with double talk.

If Wikileaks puts out bad reports/data from other sources, then it loses credibility.

They go to great lengths to ensure that their sources are valid, dude.

And it is valid even if it hurts Hillarys campaign, doh!

According to Wiki Leaks, they are an intermediary. They accept data from anonymous sources. They make no attempt to check the authenticity of the data nor do they issue any reports concerning the data.
WikiLeaks
Technicalities: 10 Questions on WikiLeaks - Committee to Protect Journalists

 

[Old Rocks]

Wikileaks does not publish stories so you can't say their stories are right or wrong. They publish data from anonymous sources and leave it up to the reader to determine if the data is actually correct and to arrive at their own conclusion.

If the information was not accurate it could (and would) be proven as such.

That sounds good but it's false. In a political campaign addressing the accuracy and meaning of thousands of emails while staying on message is virtually impossible. A campaign has to concentrate on activities that will delivery the most votes and this is certainly not one of them.

These emails do not tell the complete story or even come close. Deleted emails in chains, meetings, phone conversations, written memos, and the position and responsibilities of the people are also an important part of the story which are missing. Without them you just have snippets of information which are subject to interpretation. They are like conversations one might hear standing at the door of an office with references to other conversations, documents, and meeting that you are not privy to.

Shut the fuck up. The emails tell the exact story, which is that Clinton is a criminal, communist, murdering traitor and should be executed by a firing squad as such.

Not that she's any worse than the rest of you communist fucks. She just has the power to do what you all wish you could do.

Disgusting, depraved pieces of shit one and all.

I love it when the only replies you can offer are insults.

Your comment doesn't deserve any other response, you worthless piece of shit. You're a liar and a mouthpiece for a murdering, traitorous, communist regime.

You deserve death, and nothing more. Or less.

My, my. What nice things you wish on your fellow Americans. Perhaps you need to be in the same place as your heroes from the Malhuer Game Refuge.

 

[S.J.]

According to Wiki Leaks, they are an intermediary. They accept data from anonymous sources. They make no attempt to check the authenticity of the data nor do they issue any reports concerning the data.

Their data was pretty accurate the last time when the DNC canned Debbie Wasserman Shultz, wasn't it?

 

[JimBowie1958]

So what story has Wikileaks gotten provably wrong in the last five years, Einstein?

Wikileaks does not publish stories so you can't say their stories are right or wrong. They publish data from anonymous sources and leave it up to the reader to determine if the data is actually correct and to arrive at their own conclusion.

If the information was not accurate it could (and would) be proven as such.

That sounds good but it's false. In a political campaign addressing the accuracy and meaning of thousands of emails while staying on message is virtually impossible. A campaign has to concentrate on activities that will delivery the most votes and this is certainly not one of them.

These emails do not tell the complete story or even come close. Deleted emails in chains, meetings, phone conversations, written memos, and the position and responsibilities of the people are also an important part of the story which are missing. Without them you just have snippets of information which are subject to interpretation. They are like conversations one might hear standing at the door of an office with references to other conversations, documents, and meeting that you are not privy to.

Lol, you keep dodging the main point with double talk.

If Wikileaks puts out bad reports/data from other sources, then it loses credibility.

They go to great lengths to ensure that their sources are valid, dude.

And it is valid even if it hurts Hillarys campaign, doh!

According to Wiki Leaks, they are an intermediary. They accept data from anonymous sources. They make no attempt to check the authenticity of the data nor do they issue any reports concerning the data.
WikiLeaks
Technicalities: 10 Questions on WikiLeaks - Committee to Protect Journalists

Lol, quoting another fake authority site run by leftwing ideologues proves nada.

Wikileaks takes its good time in verifying the authenticity of its data as their whole existence depends on their credibility, doofus.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I love it when the only replies you can offer are insults.

I love irony.

 

[Flopper]

Wikileaks does not publish stories so you can't say their stories are right or wrong. They publish data from anonymous sources and leave it up to the reader to determine if the data is actually correct and to arrive at their own conclusion.

If the information was not accurate it could (and would) be proven as such.

That sounds good but it's false. In a political campaign addressing the accuracy and meaning of thousands of emails while staying on message is virtually impossible. A campaign has to concentrate on activities that will delivery the most votes and this is certainly not one of them.

These emails do not tell the complete story or even come close. Deleted emails in chains, meetings, phone conversations, written memos, and the position and responsibilities of the people are also an important part of the story which are missing. Without them you just have snippets of information which are subject to interpretation. They are like conversations one might hear standing at the door of an office with references to other conversations, documents, and meeting that you are not privy to.

Lol, you keep dodging the main point with double talk.

If Wikileaks puts out bad reports/data from other sources, then it loses credibility.

They go to great lengths to ensure that their sources are valid, dude.

And it is valid even if it hurts Hillarys campaign, doh!

According to Wiki Leaks, they are an intermediary. They accept data from anonymous sources. They make no attempt to check the authenticity of the data nor do they issue any reports concerning the data.
WikiLeaks
Technicalities: 10 Questions on WikiLeaks - Committee to Protect Journalists

Lol, quoting another fake authority site run by leftwing ideologues proves nada.

WikiLeaks takes its good time in verifying the authenticity of its data as their whole existence depends on their credibility, doofus.

WikiLeaks says that they don't verify the data and they also say they accept submissions from anonymous sources so I don't see how they can verify the accuracy of the data when don't know the source or have access to all the original documents.

Wiki Leaks does exactly what they say they do. They provide a secure means of transmitting whistle blower information to the internet. They make no claims about the data and either do not know the source or will refuse to release it if they do. WIkiLeaks can be a valuable source of information for an investigator. However, WikiLeaks data in itself proves nothing and without corroborating evidence it can be misleading.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If the information was not accurate it could (and would) be proven as such.

That sounds good but it's false. In a political campaign addressing the accuracy and meaning of thousands of emails while staying on message is virtually impossible. A campaign has to concentrate on activities that will delivery the most votes and this is certainly not one of them.

These emails do not tell the complete story or even come close. Deleted emails in chains, meetings, phone conversations, written memos, and the position and responsibilities of the people are also an important part of the story which are missing. Without them you just have snippets of information which are subject to interpretation. They are like conversations one might hear standing at the door of an office with references to other conversations, documents, and meeting that you are not privy to.

Lol, you keep dodging the main point with double talk.

If Wikileaks puts out bad reports/data from other sources, then it loses credibility.

They go to great lengths to ensure that their sources are valid, dude.

And it is valid even if it hurts Hillarys campaign, doh!

According to Wiki Leaks, they are an intermediary. They accept data from anonymous sources. They make no attempt to check the authenticity of the data nor do they issue any reports concerning the data.
WikiLeaks
Technicalities: 10 Questions on WikiLeaks - Committee to Protect Journalists

Lol, quoting another fake authority site run by leftwing ideologues proves nada.

WikiLeaks takes its good time in verifying the authenticity of its data as their whole existence depends on their credibility, doofus.

WikiLeaks says that they don't verify the data and they also say they accept submissions from anonymous sources so I don't see how they can verify the accuracy of the data when don't know the source or have access to all the original documents.

Wiki Leaks does exactly what they say they do. They provide a secure means of transmitting whistle blower information to the internet. They make no claims about the data and either do not know the source or will refuse to release it if they do. WIkiLeaks can be a valuable source of information for an investigator. However, WikiLeaks data in itself proves nothing and without corroborating evidence it can be misleading.

Lol, yeah whatever. Sure.

 

[Flopper]

WIkiLeaks when it started about 10 years ago provided a secure means for whistle blowers to get evidence of wrong doing by governments and other organizations on to the Internet. At the time this seemed to be a great service. However, those whistle blowers today are no longer insiders seeking to right the wrongs of their employers.

Hackers, thousands of miles away from their targets search for compromising information in the files of government, business, and other organizations. Their goals are certain not altruistic. They are strictly financial. They are paid by organizations who seek to discredit and destroy their enemies by releasing sensitive information or by outright blackmail and extortion. WikiLeaks and their clones have become essential elements in this chain.

While Wikileaks still provides a good service for whistle blowers seeking to expose wrong doing they also provide an essential service for criminal enterprises whose goals are far from altruistic.

 

[AZGAL]

Wikileaks is providing Truth. that is their mission.

 

[Flopper]

Wikileaks is providing Truth. that is their mission.

No, WikiLeaks provides a means for people to get stolen information on the Internet without being exposed. Whether that information is true or whether there is any wrong doing can only be determined by further investigation.

 

[AZGAL]

Steal the Truth! sounds like Tell the Truth and Run!

 

[AZGAL]

Needs no investigation.

 

[Toro]

Republican nutjobs are cheering law breaking by a foreign nation trying to influence our elections.



How very American.

 

[AZGAL]

Soros is a foreign nation .