Free Assange!

[Falvlun]

nor is there any concrete proof that Russia interfered in the 2016 election and the purported evidence released was at best a bad joke.

That Russia interfered is proven. To deny this is to ignore the conclusions of our own intelligence agencies as well as that of other countries. It is not yet proven that Trump or his campaign colluded in the Russian interference.

The CIA, FBI, and NSA have determined that the Russian government, directed by Putin, waged an influence campaign on the 2016 election, to undermine faith in the election process and to undermine Clinton’s campaign.

 

[idav]

In the news....
Julian Assange awaits arrest warrant ruling - live

While not universally loved (some Hillary themed hostility), I say he's
a hero for free speech, & exposing Americastanian illegal shenanigans.
Sweden is no longer pursuing the highly suspicious rape charges.
USA is still after him though.

I don’t really know what he does that’s wrong, aside from the dropped charges. The whistleblowers are the ones doing the dirty work. He does allow a platform but as of late people have used his image and things less than credible have been getting to his leaks. None of the emails were of interest. The recent nsa type stuff has been interesting but it’s not news that Us spies on its citizens, they made a law saying they would. He could be nice and start providing everyone proxies to keep anonymity at high levels. He’s definitely good at some of that stuff.

 

[HonestJoe]

When the law is corrupt or unjust, it's okay to overstep it.

Potentially sure, but is there any reason to declare that’s the case here? If there was really the level of international corruption and control that Assange and some of his supporters seem to believe, he’d have suffered a “heart attack” or have been kidnapped and be sitting in a cell in Cuba by now.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don’t really know what he does that’s wrong, aside from the dropped charges. The whistleblowers are the ones doing the dirty work. He does allow a platform but as of late people have used his image and things less than credible have been getting to his leaks. None of the emails were of interest.

The emails didn't interest you, but for many they shed light on corruption,
eg, the DNC's rigging the primaries against Bernie, secretly supplying
Hillary with debate questions in advance. I notice that many Democrats
decried these actions as harming their party.

The recent nsa type stuff has been interesting but it’s not news that Us spies on its citizens, they made a law saying they would. He could be nice and start providing everyone proxies to keep anonymity at high levels. He’s definitely good at some of that stuff.

As a result of Wikileaks, our government spying upon us illegally has
moved from foil hat wearing militia conspiracy territory to mainstream
knowledge. That seems pretty valuable to me.

But I sense that many who supported Wikileaks' work before the election
are now dissing it because he's perceived as opposing their party. They
cannot allow him any merit when it's become necessary to demonize him.

 

[idav]

The emails didn't interest you, but for many they shed light on corruption,
eg, the DNC's rigging the primaries against Bernie, secretly supplying
Hillary with debate questions in advance. I notice that many Democrats
decried these actions as harming their party.

Democrats have every right to support anyone they wish. Why does that matter? Questions in advance, I highly doubt it but that’s interesting how much people hated Trump, not foreign adversaries apparently.

As a result of Wikileaks, our government spying upon us illegally has
moved from foil hat wearing militia conspiracy territory to mainstream
knowledge. That seems pretty valuable to me.

But I sense that many who supported Wikileaks' work before the election
are now dissing it because he's perceived as opposing their party. They
cannot allow him any merit when it's become necessary to demonize him.

No Wikileaks is not what exposed the NSA, that was he whistleblower Snowden, which was a great thing in my view, though I have my reservations in what people do when people sign NDA’s.

I’m not demonizing Wikileaks, Wikileaks is not the whistleblower, just a platform to try and keep whistleblowers safe which is commendable enough. Which is why I joked about the proxy thing.

 

[BSM1]

Democrats have every right to support anyone they wish. Why does that matter? Questions in advance, I highly doubt it but that’s interesting how much people hated Trump, not foreign adversaries apparently.

Uhhhh...Donna Brazile admitted it...

 

[Curious George]

The emails didn't interest you, but for many they shed light on corruption,
eg, the DNC's rigging the primaries against Bernie, secretly supplying
Hillary with debate questions in advance. I notice that many Democrats
decried these actions as harming their party.

As a result of Wikileaks, our government spying upon us illegally has
moved from foil hat wearing militia conspiracy territory to mainstream
knowledge. That seems pretty valuable to me.

But I sense that many who supported Wikileaks' work before the election
are now dissing it because he's perceived as opposing their party. They
cannot allow him any merit when it's become necessary to demonize him.

I support them still. Do not know enough about the subject at hand, Assange, to comment about the OP.

 

[idav]

Uhhhh...Donna Brazile admitted it...

Did she, I remember her denying but like I mentioned Trump wasn’t liked by everyone that’s for sure.

 

[BSM1]

Did she, I remember her denying but like I mentioned Trump wasn’t liked by everyone that’s for sure.

Look it up.

 

[idav]

Look it up.

Whats always concerned me more is a party using illegal means and/or resorting to foreign adversaries to do their dirty work A party doing what they can to support their candidate is one thing, hacking and foreign espionage is quite another. I know the republicans were hacked too, one should wonder where all that info is.

 

[idav]

People don't find it strange that we only have info on one party? Wikileaks has nothing to do with that, they get their info from whoever is willing to give it to them. The point is the people giving wiki the info had an agenda and had nothing to do with full transparency on our government, which would be more the idea Wikileaks goes by.

 

[Revoltingest]

Democrats have every right to support anyone they wish. Why does that matter? Questions in advance, I highly doubt it but that’s interesting how much people hated Trump, not foreign adversaries apparently.

No Wikileaks is not what exposed the NSA, that was he whistleblower Snowden, which was a great thing in my view, though I have my reservations in what people do when people sign NDA’s.

I’m not demonizing Wikileaks, Wikileaks is not the whistleblower, just a platform to try and keep whistleblowers safe which is commendable enough. Which is why I joked about the proxy thing.

Wikileaks is a clearing house for whistleblowers.
So all deserve credit for what's exposed.
Note that before the internet, it was much harder to air such information.
Government had the ability to cause trouble for capital intensive news
sources which didn't toe the line. While internet sources are irresponsible,
they're also irrepressible. Good development for us malcontents & rabble
rousers.

Perhaps we need a high profile more Democrat friendly
or Republican unfriendly version of Wikileaks, eh?

 

[BSM1]

Whats always concerned me more is a party using illegal means and/or resorting to foreign adversaries to do their dirty work A party doing what they can to support their candidate is one thing, hacking and foreign espionage is quite another. I know the republicans were hacked too, one should wonder where all that info is.

But....but...that's not what you shouted.

 

[idav]

But....but...that's not what you shouted.

She did deny at first but I also noted, or insinuated that I don't care if she did. The irony of the whole thing is being all up in arms about corruption the dems pulled while ignoring the corruption the repubs pulled.

 

[idav]

Wikileaks is a clearing house for whistleblowers.
So all deserve credit for what's exposed.
Note that before the internet, it was much harder to air such information.
Government had the ability to cause trouble for capital intensive news
sources which didn't toe the line. While internet sources are irresponsible,
they're also irrepressible. Good development for us malcontents & rabble
rousers.

Perhaps we need a high profile more Democrat friendly
or Republican unfriendly version of Wikileaks, eh?

No, see your missing my point. Wikileaks leaks what they are given. If someone hacks the dems and and the repubs then lets see all the info. That isn't a fault of wikileaks, I believe Assange that if he had stuff on the repubs he would leak it. I do believe the hackers had more than just dems dirty laundry.

 

[Revoltingest]

Did she, I remember her denying but like I mentioned Trump wasn’t liked by everyone that’s for sure.

She did admit it.
Donna Brazile Leaves CNN After Leaks Reveal Campaign Collusion

 

[Revoltingest]

No, see your missing my point. Wikileaks leaks what they are given. If someone hacks the dems and and the repubs then lets see all the info. That isn't a fault of wikileaks, I believe Assange that if he had stuff on the repubs he would leak it. I do believe the hackers had more than just dems dirty laundry.

I see your point. But the claim that Wikileaks is withholding
damaging information about Pubs is unsupported. So I don't
accept that criticism as cromulent. Thus, I ignore it.

 

[Revoltingest]

She did deny at first but I also noted, or insinuated that I don't care if she did. The irony of the whole thing is being all up in arms about corruption the dems pulled while ignoring the corruption the repubs pulled.

Whataboutism does not diminish the need to expose corruption among Democrats.
Certainly, Republican corruption is being thoroughly discussed & investigated too.

 

[idav]

I see your point. But the claim that Wikileaks is withholding
damaging information about Pubs is unsupported. So I don't
accept that criticism as cromulent. Thus, I ignore it.

Ok well I woudn't say that, I don't know of others so I try to inform.

 

[BSM1]

She did deny at first but I also noted, or insinuated that I don't care if she did. The irony of the whole thing is being all up in arms about corruption the dems pulled while ignoring the corruption the repubs pulled.

Donna Brazile finally admits she shared debate questions with Clinton campaign

So obviously you were sorely wrong in your assertion, so anything else you might state as fact becomes questionable at best.