• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Assange To Hannity: Source For WikiLeaks Was Not Russian Government

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
34,480
Reaction score
17,287
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
So based on this, what exactly did the Russians do that effected the presidential election?




Assange To Hannity: Our Source Was Not The Russian Government | Video | RealClearPolitics
 
This is the 3rd or 4th time he has came out and said this. It doesn't matter to the people that simply want to believe it had to be the Russians. I don't know who is worse, the neocons that want to start war with Russia or the DNC trying to discredit wikileaks for exposing their corruption.
 
Perhaps what should be questioned is the difference in US government reaction to Russian vs. Chinese hacking.
 
Anonymous practically taking credit for releasing the emails on Clinton's server:



Why isn't anybody talking about the obvious? Am I the only one who thinks Anonymous and Assange would work together?
 
Why would a major participant in the hack and release of the information be truthful about their own role and who their partners were?
 

When you assemble your list of villains, please add Americans who are more than willing to turn a blind eye to a shuttle foreign power influencing our own elections and helping to install a leader of their own choice who they apparently believe will benefit their own agenda and goals.
 

Stop it. Not one of those emails was either to or from Hillary. They were mildly embarrassing to the democrat party--which really isn't true either since liberals have no shame--but largely left Hillary untouched. This is nothing more than liberal Russophobia and an attempt to delegitimize Trump. I doubt those leaks swayed a single vote
 
TheGoverness said:
I don't know who to believe anymore.
Click to expand...

Here you have two choices. You can either believe all the US intelligence agencies and the members of congress who have been shown the information or you can choose to believe the guy who was involved in releasing the information retrieved via a hack. Seams like a no brainer for me.
 

You mean the same people that said Benghazi was a protest over an almost unheard of video gone wrong should be trusted here?
 
haymarket said:
Why would a major participant in the hack and release of the information be truthful about their own role and who their partners were?
Click to expand...

Because apparently no one has ever been able to prove that Wikileaks lies.
 
Renae said:
You mean the same people that said Benghazi was a protest over an almost unheard of video gone wrong should be trusted here?
Click to expand...

Over Assange? Most definitely.
 
haymarket said:
Why would a major participant in the hack and release of the information be truthful about their own role and who their partners were?
Click to expand...

Because Wikileaks prides itself on holding government accountable for it's overreach and misinformation and so preventing the Democrats from starting a cold war over a lie is right in line with their motivations.
 

So, just wondering, do you take Wikileaks word over the US government when it comes to GITMO stories? Do you mind that that information was received illegally?
 
Grim17 said:
So based on this, what exactly did the Russians do that effected the presidential election?





Assange To Hannity: Our Source Was Not The Russian Government | Video | RealClearPolitics
Click to expand...

Let's ask ourselves a question. Would our government lie to us? Would our government use the Mainstream Media to lie to us? Dare I mention WMD/Iraq/CIA/Saddam? Dare I mention the CIA'GHWB/Clintons/North/Contras and cocaine distribution and arms smuggling that the Media covered up for nearly 15 years. Waco and the government denied using any incendiary devices to cause a fire and then it turns up that hundreds of rounds of incendiary tear gas shells were shot into that compound. Would the government lie to us? OK, so the government is run by POLITICIANS. Would a politician lie to us. Seems to be their stock in trade. Would investigative journalism lie to us? The Mainstream Media has few investigative journalists because they don't lie to us, but the Mainstream Media does. CIA/Bush/WMD/Iraq/Saddam. CIA/Mena/Clintons/North/Cocaine/Contras/GHWBush. The Mainstream still hasn't reported detailed truth about these events after15 to 30 years, but Congressional testimony hss, just hasn't been Mainstream Media'd. Could any of this allude to the current Russian/election meddling? If you noticed that the Coup D'etat engineered by the USA in Ukraine is called a Russian invasion in the Mainstream Media or that the Oligarchs that control Ukraine were about to do a genocide on the citizens of East Ukraine (Donbass), and the Mainstream Media labelled this a Russian invsion, then perhaps the Mainstream Medis needs to be acknowledged for peddling misinformation, more commonly labelled biased news or FakeNews. Would the Mainstream Medis lie to us. We know they would, ergo, when we read the News or listen to the News, we must weigh alternatives. Is it the truth? If not, what is the opposite of the truth, which is the more likely truth. Take the FakeNews apart to reveal an agenda and determine who is benefitting from the FakeNews Who's agenda? Many Americans know we are being snookered by the Russian hacking and election news from the Mainstream Media. Cui bono. Who benefits. The Cold War warriors that generate big dollar profits for the MIlitary/Industrial/Corporate/Complex by creating illusions of fear and threats of war. End of story.
 
jmotivator said:
So, just wondering, do you take Wikileaks word over the US government when it comes to GITMO stories? Do you mind that that information was received illegally?
Click to expand...

I don't recall looking at any Wikileaks info on GITMO so I can't comment on it.
 
Did anyone ever deny that the emails were accurate?
 
longview said:
Did anyone ever deny that the emails were accurate?
Click to expand...

I don't recall anyone from the DNC denying what was released. However, that doesn't excuse the hacking.
 
azgreg said:
I don't recall anyone from the DNC denying what was released. However, that doesn't excuse the hacking.
Click to expand...

My money is on disgruntled DNC worker/s rather than the "Russians!" as the source for much of this.
 
Renae said:
You mean the same people that said Benghazi was a protest over an almost unheard of video gone wrong should be trusted here?
Click to expand...

You mean the same people who hacked congress in order to read their emails? By definition, the CIA and the FBI are not trustworthy. Doesnt mean they are always lying, but you never know when.
 
Let me ask you folks a question. Pretend you are a member of either congress or the intelegence community. You suspect Russia hacked an email account for a government official, but have evidence that does not conclusively prove anything. Do you...announce to the world, and thus your suspect, that you suspect them, and are investigating them? No, right? No DA in the world would let a cop do that, so why would these super smart CIA guys do it? And further, why it even if you do have something conclusive? What's the goal? Turning the American people against Russia? Putin? Or just to delegitimize Trump? If it were me, I'd keep it quiet, and set up a "mouse trap" for them, to catch them red handed, and then use that as leverage against Putin, via the global community. Blackmail, if you. But no, we tipped our hand. Why?
 

The reality is that almost all the polls showed a swing away from Clinton and to Trump over the last ten days. So we have to look at what changed in that time period as Trump was still Trump and Clinton was still Clinton.

What changed was the Comey letter and the wikileaks daily barrage and the use of both by Trump to paint the picture of Clinton to his advantage.

The daily release of what was reported to be information damaging to Clinton had its effect. Just look how Trump used it on the campaign trail for the past two weeks.

To pretend to ignore that reality is to play ostrich with the truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…