Anyone else disappointed in Wikileaks?

[TheDude]

Liberals are programmed to downplay all things negative Democrat. There are plenty of grenades to choose from. In this example, it's more a missile: Wikileaks BOMBSHELL Exposes Extent Of Clinton Corruption - YouTube

 

[emilynghiem]

^^^these two haven't been paying any attention^^^

Maybe you aren't. Wikileaks has shown to be very partisan and a tool for Trump.

Dear WaitingFor2020
And the same is being said of facebook, twitter, etc.
that were caught cutting accounts of conservative bloggers etc.

Since Yahoo is up for sale, and maybe Twitter,
what should we do? Lobby independents to help USMB buy
them out as a all-partisan free speech institution
willing to ensure everyone can yahoo and tweet
whatever they want to say legally.

Is that what we should do to ensure free speech and press
for the masses?

 

[owebo]

Time is running out. Where's the bombshells?

Democrats are crushed it's not the Russians....

 

[TemplarKormac]

Time is running out. Where's the bombshells?

I am immensely pleased with them. I even followed them on Twitter.

And you have had your head up your rear end for the past few months now.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Assange, Putin, Trump, Comey, Ryan, and the rest in a circle dropping the bomb.

 

[Bush92]

Time is running out. Where's the bombshells?

Bombs are dropping daily. Hillary campaign in nosedive.

 

[EverCurious]

[ that's the battle I fight every day
and just about lost at this point. I am asking for help but
may collapse and lose everything I was trying to work on
because there is no help from Democrats who keep benefiting
off the game the way it is played. if we keep rewarding that,
we keep losing our shirts, while the people in the game will say otherwise.

If that's not just internet alter-ego talking I'd like to say thanks. Sadly we are outnumbered by folks who don't care. They hate /their life/ so thus have no love for the country and then don't put efforts into voting or even finding out why their life is like it is. We cannot win, no matter how much time and money we put into it.

 

[emilynghiem]

[ that's the battle I fight every day
and just about lost at this point. I am asking for help but
may collapse and lose everything I was trying to work on
because there is no help from Democrats who keep benefiting
off the game the way it is played. if we keep rewarding that,
we keep losing our shirts, while the people in the game will say otherwise.

If that's not just internet alter-ego talking I'd like to say thanks. Sadly we are outnumbered by folks who don't care. They hate /their life/ so thus have no love for the country and then don't put efforts into voting or even finding out why their life is like it is. We cannot win, no matter how much time and money we put into it.

Dear EverCurious
I don't think we can win a losing war.
But we can win where we set ourselves up on a solid basis.

In the spiritual process, often the person has to lose everything that's built on the wrong premise.
Before they find the right way to do things. I've seen this over and over.
The millionaires who had it all but lost it because it was still built on conditions they couldn't sustain.
They lose it all. and only when they let go of the old ways,
they find the real path to take that is solid and true.
Then they rebuild, and they know the difference, and know this is sustainable
but that other path could only go so far before it crashed and burned.

Whatever process or stage this is in social and spiritual growth and development,
America may just have to lose before we gain.

It's like a huge control alt delete. We may have to shut down
and reboot, to start over with a fresh screen without jams left and right.

 

[EverCurious]

Heh Sometimes I wish I could bring myself to believe in ya'll's sky fairy so I had something I could turn to, but I can't.

It's over and I'm out before they destroy my life. Self preservation.

 

[Norman]

Time is running out. Where's the bombshells?

Tomorrow, monday, or the election day... and most likely not the election day.

 

[skye]

Disappointed in wikileaks?

you must be joking, right?

Very happy with wikileaks...more than happy!! Julian rocks!

 

[oreo]

Time is running out. Where's the bombshells?

Did it ever occur to you that someone who is willing to commit a FELONY--has an AGENDA--and a person that is so technology advanced that they could hack into secure Government computers---would also be able to add & delete context?

17 intelligence agencies, both private and government have stated these email hacks are coming from Russia. You'll note they're not hacking into RNC computers.

They want DONALD TRUMP bad, who has repeatedly snuggled up to Putin in numerous comments and even at one time is on video for encouraging Russia to do a cyber attack on the United States-(the State Department) to find more Clinton emails.
Yes, 17 intelligence agencies really did say Russia was behind hacking

You Reich wingers really aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer, are you?

A neuroscientist explains what may be wrong with Trump supporters’ brains
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/10/04/trump-polls-immigration-taxes-column/72755896/

Dear oreo If so, the Clinton defense would have already argued all this was planted.
I don't think you can fake emails where Hillary Clinton communicated with Chelsea and others IMMEDIATELY
that they knew the Benghazi attacks were terrorist attacks originally. Then the whole video
focus was used as a distraction. That's one example.

Sure just like with Bill Clinton's take on what is the meaning of is,
they could get away with arguing all their emails were doctored or implanted.
That could create enough reasonable doubt to get them off like OJ did.

Is that what you want for America.
To be a country of taking the Fifth Amendment to avoid incrimination,
where we censor and lose our own First Amendment right to say what's really going on???

Not necessarily, they can add & delete context and not every single email is she going to address. Again you're trusting a criminal that is committing A felony, that has an AGENDA. That's stupid.

The entire POINT is where is it coming from. 17 Intelligence agencies confirm it's coming from Russia.

BENGHAZI: If you had watched 11 hours of her testimony she explained that email in detail. There were in fact, 3 other embassies in the middle east that were being raided because of the VIDEO. That is a FACT. On first notice they believed it was another raid. FURTHERMORE---FOX NEWS hasn't told you the whole truth. And they typically don't, they are the only cable news network--that let's their audience dictate to them what they want to hear.

FOX NEWS continually reported this was an embassy, it wasn't. Chris Stevens showed up in Benghazi on the 10th, and against the advise of the CIA on the ground he rented an unsecure villa from a friend and was killed the very next day on the 11th.

Benghazi couldn't be better stated than this: "Herein lies a lesson for Republicans who are perpetually trying to appease the far right: It’s a fool’s errand. They went to the tea party – and now they’re taking Donald Trump to the prom. Likewise, then-House Speaker John Boehner named the Benghazi committee because activists were dissatisfied that seven previous congressional investigations had failed to uncover major scandal material. Now an eighth has produced more of the same – and the agitators are as agitated as ever.

There’s a certain twisted logic to this. The unhinged right starts with the ideologically satisfying answer – President Obama and Hillary Clinton are guilty of horrible Benghazi-related wrongdoing – and then works backwards, looking for “proof” that matches the conclusion. When their ostensible allies fail to tell these activists what they want to hear, they could reevaluate their bogus assumptions, but it’s vastly easier to believe Republicans have let them down.

This is what it’s come to: Benghazi conspiracy theorists are so creative, and so unmoved by evidence or reason, that they can convince themselves that congressional Republicans are in on the conspiracy.
With Clinton exonerated, conspiracy theorists turn on Trey Gowdy

Read the BOOK or even watch the movie 13 hours that was written by the CIA agents on the ground that were fighting this battle in Benghazi and it's more than obvious what Fox News has done to distort this story, along with every right wing talk show host. It's actually ridiculous.

And as we know G.W. Bush had a few Benghazi's on his watch also.

 

[320 Years of History]

^^^these two haven't been paying any attention^^^

Or there standards are TERRIBLY low..

My standards are low. If the public is not being smacked in the face and forced to acknowledge wrongdoing by the talking heads then most will just ignore it.

After the election is too late.

Red:
What does it mean, in this context, to have low standards?

• The barest bit of innuendo is sufficient for accepting a claim.
• A smattering of evidence, some of which is true, some of which may be true and some of which is uncertain/unverified/unverifiable, but absent incontrovertible evidence, so long as the evidence be presented with an unsound argument, one should or legitimately can accept the argument's conclusion(s)?
• If it "looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it is a duck," and one should accept it as such, even though it's mechanized toy duck, or perhaps a goose?
• Anything said by someone "important" and that agrees with whatever one had oneself thought is rightly construed as accurate, notwithstanding that the "important" speaker hasn't delivered an unassailable argument in support of the conclusion they and one share and also one hasn't oneself conducted an objective and rigorous examination of the matter?
• The standard and burden of proof is the same for objective matters as it is for subjective ones?
• Correlation equates to causation?

Blue:
Why does the public need to hear "talking heads" say anything? Is it not our responsibility to examine things for ourselves? Sure, it's nice to hear what others think about a given matter, but at the end of the day, it is each of our individual burden to collect the facts -- all of them that are available -- and perform our own analysis of them and their impact(s). The notion that we'd delegate to someone else, to the "talking heads," the intellectual process of information gathering, analysis and concluding is anathema to a strong democracy. Nobody is creating "sheeple," but the "powers that be" are perfectly willing to allow the people to be "sheeple." What people need to do is consume objective facts and eschew editorials about those facts. Sadly, however, I think that many people cannot tell the difference between what is an objective data point and what is an opinion.

Let's face it. This election is a popularity contest.

Most people can't, or couldn't be bothered, to read and organize the available evidence into a coherent conclusion.

Comey said Clinton was guilty last summer but could not prove the necessary intent to raise the negligence to the level where a prosecutor would lay charges. Some of the public claimed exoneration, some claimed whitewash.

I am of the opinion that it was whitewash.

I think a lot of FBI authorities also considered it whitewash.

Red:
That may be what you heard, or what you understood or inferred him to have meant, but it's not what he said or meant. He said exactly what he meant, but folks insist on reading into it more than what he meant. From my own discussions on USMB, it's very clear to me that one can count on one hand the quantity of folks who understand the two-dimensional nature of guilt that must be established to successfully prosecute a person under 793(f).

Blue (and continuing my "red" paragraph):
One member here, even after I pointed him to the exact SCOTUS decision that establishes the necessity of intent in connection with that statute, flat out refused to read that decision.

So maybe you're right about what folks lack the will to do in the interest of becoming well informed.

 

[AntonToo]

My friend, an attorney, examined the facts and feels that Hillary is scum.

Dumbass, I just explained to you the facts - NO NEW EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FOUND AGAINST HILLARY AT THE TIME OF COMEY'S LETTER. None, Zero, Zilch.

Now wtf is it that your lawyer friend knows about this that other lawyers, or people don't?

No new evidence has been released. It is difficult to discern the reasons why an independent investigation decided that evidence in one case needed to be called to the attention of a different, and closed, investigation. Zealous or overzealous? We will find out sooner or later but not in time for the election. Where does the precautionary principle land for this case?

No, you aren't paying attention - at the time of writing his letter Comey had no idea what is in the emails and he didn't even get a warrant for FBI to to even BEGIN to look at them until middle of last Sunday, the 30th.

This is why his letter was so damaging and inappropriate. It was vaguely written, released 11 days before election and didn't spell out exactly what Comey was saying and exactly what he was NOT saying.

People simply ASSumed based on Comey's credibility is that if he refocused on Hillary's case and even sent out a letter, then it must've been because of some new found evidence against Hillary, BUT IT WAS NOT. He simply said that new emails MAY contain something, not that they DID contain something.

Comey failed American public, he failed investigation and he undermined FBI's credibility as independent, a-political institution.

You have your opinion, I have mine. I think something was seen 'unofficially' in the Weiner investigation and perhaps passed along to Comey, who then made a tough choice that will take him down but allow him to keep his personal dignity.

Dear IanC and antontoo
Given that they couldn't even read the emails until after the warrant was issued and the permission obtained,
it can be argued this was politically motivated on both sides.
HOWEVER it seems MUCH LESS LIKELY that Comey would do that over nothing.
Common sense would tell you the pressure was the other way.
With all the pressure on people, it would be harder to do anything on the side of
investigating indicting Clinton or going in that direction WITHOUT REAL REASON OR CHANCE that this is of real significance. People take the path of least resistance,
and there is so much pressure to assume innocence until proven guilty,
especially with Clinton pushing for President, that even bigger pressure and
standard of proof is needed to go against that overwhelming pressure to pass the buck forward.

There is very very little chance that if there was very very little chance of wrongdoing,
that Comey would have released this publicly in advance. He could have
avoided it, then when this turned out to be nothing, no harm would be done.
That would have had much less consequences
than blowing this up before the election over nothing, which would be
committing political suicide twice.

Big note: From what I understand, just HAVING such emails on the third party laptop
IS ENOUGH to show there was lying going on. So anything they find is icing on the cake.

that's my understanding of why there was pressure on Comey to come forward.
the fact they had the laptop at all with emails on it that were through the private server,
that was enough to spell trouble, and everything else is just consequential to that fact.

You reasoning makes 0 sense to me and I don't see how it address what I was saying to you.

Comey could've done exactly what he had done, which is to say announce new materials looked at with connection to Clinton's case, BUT DO IT IN DIFFERENT, CLEAR WAY.

He could have explained clearly in the letter that while they are looking at these new emails, as it stands, no new evidence against Hillary has been found. Had he done that no one would have been able to fault him given that he promised to update congressmen during the congressional hearings Republicans organized after Comey had no case to convict Hillary.

BUT HE DIDN'T. And my read of it is that he thought that now that he had (not at all deservingly btw) the Clinton-lova rep. he could put his thumb on election the other way and win back the favor of home-base without catching slack. He thought wrong and got hit upside the head from just about all angles. He can pretty much pack his stuff at this point....Trump's win is his only prayer.

On your Big note: you do not understand correctly, Hillary using private server to send emails to her assistant is in no shape or form illegal. Abedin herself could perhaps have a problem depending on what she told FBI under oath on what she does with her emails, but that is not Hillary's issue. Hillary's issue could only be in CONTENT of the emails.

 

[IanC]

No matter what is shown regarding Hillary each individual will choose to ignore or not. I just spoke with someone who did vote for Hillary and now regrets it after the FBI announcement. Wikileaks is only one means used to expose that horrible woman.

FBI has so far not found new evidence against Hillary, and all Comey said was that they found some emails that MAY contain something new, so wtf is your friend regretting?

My friend, an attorney, examined the facts and feels that Hillary is scum.

Dumbass, I just explained to you the facts - NO NEW EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FOUND AGAINST HILLARY AT THE TIME OF COMEY'S LETTER. None, Zero, Zilch.

Now wtf is it that your lawyer friend knows about this that other lawyers, or people don't?

No new evidence has been released. It is difficult to discern the reasons why an independent investigation decided that evidence in one case needed to be called to the attention of a different, and closed, investigation. Zealous or overzealous? We will find out sooner or later but not in time for the election. Where does the precautionary principle land for this case?

No, you aren't paying attention - at the time of writing his letter Comey had no idea what is in the emails and he didn't even get a warrant for FBI to to even BEGIN to look at them until middle of last Sunday, the 30th.

This is why his letter was so damaging and inappropriate. It was vaguely written, released 11 days before election and didn't spell out exactly what Comey was saying and exactly what he was NOT saying.

People simply ASSumed based on Comey's credibility is that if he refocused on Hillary's case and even sent out a letter, then it must've been because of some new found evidence against Hillary, BUT IT WAS NOT. He simply said that new emails MAY contain something, not that they DID contain something.

Comey failed American public, he failed investigation and he undermined FBI's credibility as independent, a-political institution.

Weiner was being investigated. His laptop was checked and oddly it contained Clinton materials that Huma took home to print. The first investigation already had authorization. Comey needed his own warrants because it was for a different investigation. I don't know what Comey was told by the first investigators but it was enough for Comey to risk his career over.