This is how Trump won in the first place, wikileaks published emails of Hilary’s campaign doing this. Instead of critisizing her for being responsible for Trump, democrats blamed Russia and attecked Wikileaks as Russian spies, literally called for shooting the messenger.
This is a prime example of why voting for lesser evil is not a tactic in politics and the whole liberal ideology as whole that we just need to vote for right people, instead of removing powerful positions in government in the first place.
The wikileaks thing is highly suspect, though. Like, wikileaks intentionally disclosed a lot of publicly damaging dirt on Clinton and the Dems at a very sensitive time in the election while not releasing ANYTHING on the GOP, even though they supposedly had that information.
I dunno, I guess that depends. Do they actively and publicly fuel a conspiracy theory that Trump had someone murdered like they did with the Clintons and Seth Rich?
That’s just from people intentionally reading into things that weren’t there and tricking idiots into believing it.
That’s a very weird thing to specifically be calling out compared to all the other real obvious dirt that was in the emails too. Like stopping Bernie Sanders and literally helping insane GOP candidates.
So the odd thing about that is it specifically says Julian Assange says they (wiki leaks) won’t reveal their sources, and the rumors of it being Seth rich were propogated by the long list of bad actors.
The Muller report says it damning about the timing, but I don’t see Julian Assange himself saying it was Seth Rich at all.
Unbidden, Assange brought up the case of Seth Rich. When asked directly whether Rich was a source, Assange said “we don’t comment on who our sources are”
From the interview in question, Assange said (and this is a direct quote): “Wikileaks never sits on material. Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material, and often at very significant risk. There’s a 27 year old that works for the DNC who was shot in the back - murdered - just a few weeks ago, for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington.”
Then, the interviewer asks Assange: “what are you suggesting?”
Assange replies, “I am suggesting that our sources take risks…”
Like, you don’t have to be a fucking Mensa member to draw a logical inference about what Assange is suggesting in regards to Sith Rich. You say “the rumors of it being Sith Rich were propagated by the long list of bad actors.” One of those bad actors was Julian Assange.
I mean Hilary had been personally, as Secretary of State, responsible for Julian’s persecution for years and years, it’s no surprise he would have had a grunge against her, with good reasons. It’s also highly likely no one from the Dems side thought WikiLeaks was a good avenue for leaks because of it, and so no material was submitted. It’s not really suspect, it’s just logical.
How so? I’m sure Clinton was pissed off that he published leaked documents originating from her department, but prosecution is not the role of the Secretary of State in the US government. And besides that, Sweden issued an arrest warrant in November 2010 and she resigned in February 2013. That’s what, two years?
“Let’s be clear. This disclosure is not just an attack on America – it’s an attack on the international community,” Clinton said Monday at a State Department news conference. Such leaks, she said, “tear at the fabric” of responsible government.
[…]
Clinton emphasized that she wanted to “make it clear to the American people and to our friends and partners that we are taking aggressive steps” to hold those who leaked the documents to account.
The cable leaks had everything to do with the State Department has it pertained mostly to foreign affairs, and American involvement and meddling in various countries.
The cable leak is what Julian is being prosecuted for right now, not the dropped charges from Sweden. We also now know for a fact that there was a secret indictment in the US the whole time.
What you’re saying isn’t necessarily a contradiction to what I said.
those who leaked the documents to account
Chelsea Manning leaked the documents. I think this was known relatively early on because she said something to a fellow soldier who tipped off their commanders.
And as I said, Clinton was certainly furious, but that doesn’t mean she had much to do with Julian Assange being pursued. She wasn’t even in office for most of that time.
Nothing suspect besides them turning into Putin’s laundromat. Oh, and then there was the not so subtle pushing of conspiracy theories exploiting Seth Rich’s death. Real class act there.
I used to love Wikileaks. They did genuine good throughout the years. That reputation was forever sullied in 2016 when Assange showed that he could be the puppet for one dictatorial regime (Putin) to promote a proto-fascist (Trump). Then the lies that he used as a coverup! Hardly befitting the head of a “radical transparency” organization. It was all so grotesque and petty. Trump might have just disappeared after 2016 if he hadn’t been elected, but instead the world has to deal with the consequences of the MAGAts for the foreseeable future. It felt like Assange betrayed the underlying cause of Wikileaks in favor of petty revenge on Democrats.
Hillary Clinton is a corporate shill, but you have to be fucking born yesterday to think wikileaks doesn’t play realpolitik or perform political favors.
This is how Trump won in the first place, wikileaks published emails of Hilary’s campaign doing this. Instead of critisizing her for being responsible for Trump, democrats blamed Russia and attecked Wikileaks as Russian spies, literally called for shooting the messenger.
This is a prime example of why voting for lesser evil is not a tactic in politics and the whole liberal ideology as whole that we just need to vote for right people, instead of removing powerful positions in government in the first place.
The wikileaks thing is highly suspect, though. Like, wikileaks intentionally disclosed a lot of publicly damaging dirt on Clinton and the Dems at a very sensitive time in the election while not releasing ANYTHING on the GOP, even though they supposedly had that information.
Would you evaluate the contents of the wikileaks leaks if they had released an equal amount of dirt on Trump?
I dunno, I guess that depends. Do they actively and publicly fuel a conspiracy theory that Trump had someone murdered like they did with the Clintons and Seth Rich?
That’s just from people intentionally reading into things that weren’t there and tricking idiots into believing it.
That’s a very weird thing to specifically be calling out compared to all the other real obvious dirt that was in the emails too. Like stopping Bernie Sanders and literally helping insane GOP candidates.
Play with fire and get burned
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich#WikiLeaks_statements
So the odd thing about that is it specifically says Julian Assange says they (wiki leaks) won’t reveal their sources, and the rumors of it being Seth rich were propogated by the long list of bad actors.
The Muller report says it damning about the timing, but I don’t see Julian Assange himself saying it was Seth Rich at all.
From the wikipedia article:
From the interview in question, Assange said (and this is a direct quote): “Wikileaks never sits on material. Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material, and often at very significant risk. There’s a 27 year old that works for the DNC who was shot in the back - murdered - just a few weeks ago, for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington.”
Then, the interviewer asks Assange: “what are you suggesting?”
Assange replies, “I am suggesting that our sources take risks…”
Like, you don’t have to be a fucking Mensa member to draw a logical inference about what Assange is suggesting in regards to Sith Rich. You say “the rumors of it being Sith Rich were propagated by the long list of bad actors.” One of those bad actors was Julian Assange.
Ahh thanks for the context.
I mean Hilary had been personally, as Secretary of State, responsible for Julian’s persecution for years and years, it’s no surprise he would have had a grunge against her, with good reasons. It’s also highly likely no one from the Dems side thought WikiLeaks was a good avenue for leaks because of it, and so no material was submitted. It’s not really suspect, it’s just logical.
How so? I’m sure Clinton was pissed off that he published leaked documents originating from her department, but prosecution is not the role of the Secretary of State in the US government. And besides that, Sweden issued an arrest warrant in November 2010 and she resigned in February 2013. That’s what, two years?
https://www.npr.org/2010/11/29/131668950/white-house-aims-to-limit-wikileaks-damage
The cable leaks had everything to do with the State Department has it pertained mostly to foreign affairs, and American involvement and meddling in various countries.
The cable leak is what Julian is being prosecuted for right now, not the dropped charges from Sweden. We also now know for a fact that there was a secret indictment in the US the whole time.
What you’re saying isn’t necessarily a contradiction to what I said.
Chelsea Manning leaked the documents. I think this was known relatively early on because she said something to a fellow soldier who tipped off their commanders.
And as I said, Clinton was certainly furious, but that doesn’t mean she had much to do with Julian Assange being pursued. She wasn’t even in office for most of that time.
There is nothing suspect about wikileaks, blueAnon just needs to learn to take responsibility for their actions
Nothing suspect besides them turning into Putin’s laundromat. Oh, and then there was the not so subtle pushing of conspiracy theories exploiting Seth Rich’s death. Real class act there.
nah, the real class act is the shit that we now know about what US does around the world and domestically thanks to wikileaks
I used to love Wikileaks. They did genuine good throughout the years. That reputation was forever sullied in 2016 when Assange showed that he could be the puppet for one dictatorial regime (Putin) to promote a proto-fascist (Trump). Then the lies that he used as a coverup! Hardly befitting the head of a “radical transparency” organization. It was all so grotesque and petty. Trump might have just disappeared after 2016 if he hadn’t been elected, but instead the world has to deal with the consequences of the MAGAts for the foreseeable future. It felt like Assange betrayed the underlying cause of Wikileaks in favor of petty revenge on Democrats.
🙄
lol this comment is a great example of a lib grasping for a weak explanation instead of criticizing Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton is a corporate shill, but you have to be fucking born yesterday to think wikileaks doesn’t play realpolitik or perform political favors.