Wikileaks Attacking during an Election

[Lighthouse]

Medical records are protected.
Financial records as well.

From a non-legal point of view...
I have several email conversations that include private personal information from others that was revealed to me with the trust and understanding of my discretion.

So though I have nothing to hide, am I not still bound to the trust and understanding of others to maintain my discretion?

If I were the Secretary of State for the United States of America, and I had a personal email that was composed of government classified information, my own personal information, others personal information... and I was being investigated, I would release everything but the classified, financial, medical, and anything personal I were entrusted with from others.

 

[McBell]

If I were the Secretary of State for the United States of America, and I had a personal email that was composed of government classified information, my own personal information, others personal information... and I was being investigated, I would release everything but the classified, financial, medical, and anything personal I were entrusted with from others.

Let us say that that is exactly what happens to you:

"and I was being investigated,"​

How would your position be any different from Clinton's current situation?

Don't get me wrong, I am in no way defending Clinton, nor am I excusing her actions (inactions).
Merely using her situation as example.

 

[Lighthouse]

Let us say that that is exactly what happens to you:

"and I was being investigated,"​

How would your position be any different from Clinton's current situation?

Don't get me wrong, I am in no way defending Clinton, nor am I excusing her actions (inactions).
Merely using her situation as example.

I would already know that they are legally obligated to be released to the public anyway. This would not enable any potential hackers who may have this information to alter them later. I am organized, with information allocated to their own folder. Anything medical, financial, or the privacy of others would each be in their own folder. It would be quick. When they are released later by law, the public would see for themselves that they haven't been altered. If released quickly, there would be no way I had the chance to delete many or alter many when we are talking about that many thousands. They would match identically with those released later on.

I'm not Hillary, so I don't know what hers contain. I tend to live a life where there is nothing to hide, so I wouldn't have to worry about them lying, ridiculing anyone else, anything remotely shady. I would have nothing to cover up.

I also don't have an issue with her not releasing them immediately. Just simply saying it is what I would do. Others may do that too, others may not.

 

[Nous]

I don't know about others but it seems some unnamed source does not want Democrats or maybe specifically Hillary to take office. If this were about Hillary, would this source wait until he election to get any damning evidence out on the public. When Assange is interviewed he says he will not name his source and people speculate Russia but whoever it is clearly has a partisan agenda. He says he is about truth but this is clearly times for maximum effect, especially with a very slow methodical release of info.
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/wikileaks-julian-assange-hillary-arrest-biggest-leak/

I like truth as much as the next person but I've seen wikileaks as an affront against citizens general privacy.

Assange's personal vendetta against Clinton and against US citizens generally is so demented that he would prefer to see Trump in the White House. Evidently he believes Trump is the sort of upstanding man who will have transparent Presidency. Being holed up in his little closet for 6 years has not left Assange mentally stable, if he ever were in the first place.

Anyway, given that Assange does not engage in any sort of vetting of the material he publishes, there's little reason to believe that it is authentic.

 

[columbus]

Assange's personal vendetta against Clinton and against US citizens generally is so demented that he would prefer to see Trump in the White House.

This!
Assange is anti-USA. That much is clear.

It is still possible that he is a useful idiot and not just another Russian spy. Or maybe he just likes dictatorship like Putin and Trump. I can't really say.
But there is no doubt in my mind that Assange is anti-USA and anti-DNC because the evidence is right out there in front of God and everybody.

Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Their sources who shall not be named are the major players.

I'm curious....
Are their identities secret, unknown, or too dangerous to name?

We already knew there was all that stuff. Nice to see some truth but we want all the truth not the partisan crap we are seeing in order to give conservatives a boost. I'm not going to act naive as if RNC are angels and saints.

I agree there is less than angelic behavior on both sides.
But I see Wikileaks as the more ethical of partisans....
1) They don't owe us neutralilty.
2) They have accurate info.

 

[Revoltingest]

Would I rather have information made available to the world illegally rather than it not?
Indeed, I would. Especially coming from those in power and control, in relevance to crime and corruption.

By the nature of government, information of wrongdoing will be hard to get legally in many cases.

 

[ShivaFan]

Wikileaks deserves the Pulitzer Prize.

 

[Lighthouse]

By the nature of government, information of wrongdoing will be hard to get legally in many cases.

Indeed, we know that wouldn't be possible without whistleblowers.

 

[idav]

I'm curious....
Are their identities secret, unknown, or too dangerous to name?

I agree there is less than angelic behavior on both sides.
But I see Wikileaks as the more ethical of partisans....
1) They don't owe us neutralilty.
2) They have accurate info.

Regadless they are kept secret because what they are doing is illegal.

The motives of the sources is of great importance. When information may be at their fingertips people should care if they are just making people more patsies than we already are. A foreign body pulling strings would make it even worse.

By the nature of government, information of wrongdoing will be hard to get legally in many cases.

Whistle blowers get plenty of protection as it is. There are normally legal means of doing things. For example getting warrants to investigate peoples private servers and private devices.

 

[McBell]

Regadless they are kept secret because what they are doing is illegal.

The motives of the sources is of great importance. When information may be at their fingertips people should care if they are just making people more patsies than we already are. A foreign body pulling strings would make it even worse.

Whistle blowers get plenty of protection as it is. There are normally legal means of doing things. For example getting warrants to investigate peoples private servers and private devices.

Government emails are property of the government.
No warrant required

 

[idav]

Government emails are property of the government.
No warrant required

Makes sense but seems they still have reason and go through proper channels. Of course there are those that just get spied on from our own agencies.

 

[McBell]

Makes sense but seems they still have reason and go through proper channels. Of course there are those that just get spied on from our own agencies.

I suspect where it starts getting complicated is though the government owns the government emails, it may not have legal access to private servers which may have copies of government emails.

 

[Revoltingest]

Regadless they are kept secret because what they are doing is illegal.

A good idea.

The motives of the sources is of great importance. When information may be at their fingertips people should care if they are just making people more patsies than we already are. A foreign body pulling strings would make it even worse.

Assange is foreign already...no Russian connection needed.
But I'd make him an honorary Americastanian.....or Revoltistanian.

Whistle blowers get plenty of protection as it is. There are normally legal means of doing things. For example getting warrants to investigate peoples private servers and private devices.

Whistle blowers take great risk.
And Obama is no friend of theirs.
Even Politifact supports this....
http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...apper-obama-has-used-espionage-act-more-all-/

 

[idav]

I suspect where it starts getting complicated is though the government owns the government emails, it may not have legal access to private servers which may have copies of government emails.

Or the dozens of iphones, android devices and laptops people own in an age of "bring your own device".

 

[james bond]

Assange's personal vendetta against Clinton and against US citizens generally is so demented that he would prefer to see Trump in the White House. Evidently he believes Trump is the sort of upstanding man who will have transparent Presidency. Being holed up in his little closet for 6 years has not left Assange mentally stable, if he ever were in the first place.

Anyway, given that Assange does not engage in any sort of vetting of the material he publishes, there's little reason to believe that it is authentic.

Assange has said he would publish Trump's dirty laundry if anyone hacked it and presented it.

The bombshell I got yesterday is that our social media is rigged.

“They Must Have Something Significant For the FBI to Reopen the Investigation”

"But Zero Hedge reports that Twitter, Facebook, Buzzfeed and Snapchat appear to be censoring the biggest bombshell of this election cycle … that the FBI re-opened its investigation of Clinton’s emails 11 days before the election.

I can add that I’ve been checking Reddit’s front page – the top 25 stories – every day, and there hasn’t been a single reference to the FBI, Clinton or emails since the FBI made its announcement.

As we’ve documented for years, social media is manipulated by the powers-that-be to prevent news that challenges the status quo from going viral."

“They Must Have Something Significant For the FBI to Reopen the Investigation” | Zero Hedge

What's left? 4chan?

 

[Nous]

Assange has said he would publish Trump's dirty laundry if anyone hacked it and presented it.

Due to Assange's total lack of transparency, I'm skeptical of everything he says and publishes.

The bombshell I got yesterday is that our social media is rigged.

“They Must Have Something Significant For the FBI to Reopen the Investigation”

"But Zero Hedge reports that Twitter, Facebook, Buzzfeed and Snapchat appear to be censoring the biggest bombshell of this election cycle … that the FBI re-opened its investigation of Clinton’s emails 11 days before the election.

I can add that I’ve been checking Reddit’s front page – the top 25 stories – every day, and there hasn’t been a single reference to the FBI, Clinton or emails since the FBI made its announcement.

As we’ve documented for years, social media is manipulated by the powers-that-be to prevent news that challenges the status quo from going viral."

These websites are not news organizations. For the first time in my life I just looked at what's trending on Twitter. It's nothing but inanity. News organizations are certainly reporting this story.

“They Must Have Something Significant For the FBI to Reopen the Investigation” | Zero Hedge

But Comey said he didn't know whether the emails are "significant"--whatever he meant by that. The FBI had not even obtained the warrant to look at the emails until Saturday(?) or yesterday(?).

 

[james bond]

Due to Assange's total lack of transparency, I'm skeptical of everything he says and publishes.

These websites are not news organizations. For the first time in my life I just looked at what's trending on Twitter. It's nothing but inanity. News organizations are certainly reporting this story.

But Comey said he didn't know whether the emails are "significant"--whatever he meant by that. The FBI had not even obtained the warrant to look at the emails until Saturday(?) or yesterday(?).

Assange backs it up by linking the military being involved in the censoring of social media servers. As for news organizations, they're not just news anymore, but their view is through the news. It used to be that news was supposed to be unbiased, unfiltered and uncensored, and the editorial was the place for their opinion. We all know that isn't the case anymore. All the news is through the view of the media members in charge. What's damning is the major ones are controlled by a privileged few.

As for Comey, the best explanation is he's covering his own arse. He could be charged with perjury if he didn't write that letter. It also gives him a way out of the findings that will probably show Clinton corruption and violation of Federal laws that could've been solved months ago. These should've been addressed, but they probably were buried because of higher powers. The DOJ is necessary in order to prosecute, and they're involved in this, too. What it could mean is that it leads back to Obama. That said, there will be a lot of running for cover, so we'll have to see what happens. We should know soon enough either from the FBI or Wikileaks.

 

[columbus]

Assange has said he would publish Trump's dirty laundry if anyone hacked it and presented it.

Assange can say anything he wants to and continue hiding.

I hope Godzillary flushes him out. If it requires tactics as unethical as his own....
Well so be it.
Tom

 

[Acim]

Let us say that that is exactly what happens to you:

"and I was being investigated,"​

How would your position be any different from Clinton's current situation?

Don't get me wrong, I am in no way defending Clinton, nor am I excusing her actions (inactions).
Merely using her situation as example.

I would not delete any emails if I were under investigation, for that would surely send a signal that I had things to hide, and that I might be criminally liable for.

I'd want to personally sort them myself (or get help from legal counsel) and then be clear with investigators that items in a particular pile are things that make sense releasing to whomever (in the public) and the other pile doesn't make sense to me to release. If hackers instead chose to release it, I would reiterate the general point and be willing to explain in each case why I didn't think it made sense to release to the general public. I'd very much hope I didn't sort anything into the pile of "doesn't make sense to me to release this" stuff that does make sense to most people for it to be released to the general public.

Now, if I were engaged in criminal activity, I'd want all that deleted, and super duper deleted.