Wikileaks

  • Thread starter Sage
  • 511 comments
  • 31,709 views
I didn't say he had the same agenda as the media. The media had the interests of their companies in mind. Assange has his freedom as his agenda. He has said before and after the election that WL has dirt on the RNC and Trump. Sure, Trump is his own worst, or I guess best given the election results, enemy, and so there isn't much on him that isn't already public. Not much isn't the same as completely devoid though. And this certainly isn't the case for the RNC as a whole.
Now, if the intent was to have clarity in politics, then I would imagine all info would be released all at once for all involved. However that was not the case. Instead bit of information against a small group (Podesta, Clinton and Schultz) of individuals was released at key times during the election cycle. To me, that certainly shows an intent to sway the election, and the motivation being getting his charges dropped. Something that would never have happened had Clinton become president.
He had a need and the means. You might not see a correlation, but I certainly do.

Edit: and for the record, Sweden may or may not have a statute of limitations on sexual assault. Not my land, not my law. I don't know. Espionage in the US on the other hand can be extended given executive order. An order I don't doubt that would be given if the election would have gone the other way.
 
Last edited:
Rallywagon
I didn't say he had the same agenda as the media. The media had the interests of their companies in mind. Assange has his freedom as his agenda. He has said before and after the election that WL has dirt on the RNC and Trump. Sure, Trump is his own worst, or I guess best given the election results, enemy, and so there isn't much on him that isn't already public. Not much isn't the same as completely devoid though. And this certainly isn't the case for the RNC as a whole.
Now, if the intent was to have clarity in politics, then I would imagine all info would be released all at once for all involved. However that was not the case. Instead bit of information against a small group (Podesta, Clinton and Schultz) of individuals was released at key times during the election cycle. To me, that certainly shows an intent to sway the election, and the motivation being getting his charges dropped. Something that would never have happened had Clinton become president.
He had a need and the means. You might not see a correlation, but I certainly do.
Click to expand...

No you didn't, nor did I say you did. But people seem to get confused that some how there is an agenda with what is released and describe it in the same light as media. Which is why I say what I have.

As for dirt on Trump I said it in my last post and will say it again, that entire article link you provide in supposed evidence was minuscule to what they had on the opposing side. Not to count the fact as many believed was a reason, was claimed here as well. Because Trump can't control his mouth or his fingers on a keyboard, he exposed and got exposed plenty to the general public, that Wikileaks couldn't have done any more damage. It may be hard to believe, but when the Dems were so tidy in their public image and talks, not so hard.

It wasn't a small group it was large players in a much bigger group and power.

As for this supposed buy out for freedom I subscribe to this notion, perhaps you can argue it.

Danoff
I understand, but choosing to release information to the public about one candidate and not the other is not interference with an election. Suppose you have information on both major candidates which are unequally damaging. Your choices are:

- Release both
- Release neither
- Release one and not the other

Any of those could be construed as interfering with the election, but in reality none of them are. You're just providing the public with information, they still make the choice.
Click to expand...

Also good job on failing to argue what I said in my previous post, you literally regurgitated what was said in your post earlier on the motive Assange has. Which I'll remind you shouldn't detract from the true and factual info that was given to the public that should have been known and necessary.
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
No you didn't, nor did I say you did. But people seem to get confused that some how there is an agenda with what is released and describe it in the same light as media. Which is why I say what I have.

As for dirt on Trump I said it in my last post and will say it again, that entire article link you provide in supposed evidence was minuscule to what they had on the opposing side. Not to count the fact as many believed was a reason, was claimed here as well. Because Trump can't control his mouth or his fingers on a keyboard, he exposed and got exposed plenty to the general public, that Wikileaks couldn't have done any more damage. It may be hard to believe, but when the Dems were so tidy in their public image and talks, not so hard.
Click to expand...
I believe that I was conceding the point on Trump. In all truth, I don't think the guy is savvy enough to have much of an electronic footprint to have anything negative show up.
It wasn't a small group it was large players in a much bigger group and power.
Click to expand...
Semantics. The point was that by and large, the leaks were pretty targeted.
As for this supposed buy out for freedom I subscribe to this notion, perhaps you can argue it.
Click to expand...
It's not a buy out, it's a sell out.

Also good job on failing to argue what I said in my previous post, you literally regurgitated what was said in your post earlier on the motive Assange has. Which I'll remind you shouldn't detract from the true and factual info that was given to the public that should have been known and necessary.
Click to expand...
https://justice4assange.com/assange-case-fact-checker.html
Check out bullet 3. Seems Assange isn't out of hot water with the US yet. I've not been able to find anything newer. Certainly nothing I would accept over that. That is to say, nothing to further the progression, nor the stoppage of said investigations mentioned in the first and second links. I'll grant the investigation and criminal charges are not one in the same. But again, I have little doubt Trump and his regime is going to be more favorable in halting investigations than Clinton. Given the words of the FBI, it's clear if not now, there was a very real chance, that even Assange and his lawyer understood, that Assange was going to be charged. Assange made no extradition a provision when trying to negotiate questioning with Sweden.
When the first batch of emails were released, Assange kinda signed his fate off. Once those emails hit, if Clinton won, there is no way she and the DNC would have let that go. Then consider the timing of some of those leaks. I don't see the coincidence in that. At least a few of the leaks seemed deliberately timed. It makes sense he would stack his deck the best he could. Pretty sure the punishment for espionageiis death. That's a pretty serious stake.
But, as I said, that's just my take. Like it, don't, whatever. I don't disagree with what wikileaks does personally. I would like to see a lot more transparency from my governement. But I'm not convinced that these leaks weren't meant to sway opinions, and Assange definitely had motivation to see Trump won.
I'm also of a mind that Sanders was his best bet at getting this all dropped. Maybe he should have dropped those emails a little sooner.
 
ryzno
My question is, what is GTPs definition of a millennial? I was born in 85. I don't consider myself one, but I've been called one a few times.
Click to expand...
Your Gen Y just which technically makes you one, Millianials are basically Gen Y and later.

The definition means someone who reaches adulthood in the 21st century.
 
Rallywagon
I believe that I was conceding the point on Trump. In all truth, I don't think the guy is savvy enough to have much of an electronic footprint to have anything negative show up.
Click to expand...

Well as has been shown you clearly don't have to be tech savvy to leave a print, all one has to be is cumbersome enough with said devices to get in trouble.

Semantics. The point was that by and large, the leaks were pretty targeted.
Click to expand...

Because these were the people in charge and making the rules and controlling a larger group, so no not semantics. There were others in it too, also high ranking people.

It's not a buy out, it's a sell out.
Click to expand...

Talk about actual semantics...

If that's all you have to say about the quote and the realistic reasoning to why this information release was done the way it was, then I guess you've decided.


https://justice4assange.com/assange-case-fact-checker.html
Check out bullet 3. Seems Assange isn't out of hot water with the US yet. I've not been able to find anything newer. Certainly nothing I would accept over that. That is to say, nothing to further the progression, nor the stoppage of said investigations mentioned in the first and second links. I'll grant the investigation and criminal charges are not one in the same. But again, I have little doubt Trump and his regime is going to be more favorable in halting investigations than Clinton. Given the words of the FBI, it's clear if not now, there was a very real chance, that even Assange and his lawyer understood, that Assange was going to be charged. Assange made no extradition a provision when trying to negotiate questioning with Sweden.
When the first batch of emails were released, Assange kinda signed his fate off. Once those emails hit, if Clinton won, there is no way she and the DNC would have let that go. Then consider the timing of some of those leaks. I don't see the coincidence in that. At least a few of the leaks seemed deliberately timed. It makes sense he would stack his deck the best he could. Pretty sure the punishment for espionageiis death. That's a pretty serious stake.
But, as I said, that's just my take. Like it, don't, whatever. I don't disagree with what wikileaks does personally. I would like to see a lot more transparency from my governement. But I'm not convinced that these leaks weren't meant to sway opinions, and Assange definitely had motivation to see Trump won.
I'm also of a mind that Sanders was his best bet at getting this all dropped. Maybe he should have dropped those emails a little sooner.
Click to expand...

Who said he was out of hot water with the U.S., one has to look at the congressional hearings to see that Wikileaks is on the radar and anyone associated would be well to stay unknown. I'm talking about the other charges that you've yet to actually think about or even address when I bring them up. So again...

Also I bring up this argument because every time he talks, he talks about how Sweeden would simply extradite him to the U.S. Yet many find this notion a lie, and it's curious as to why he claims it, so if it not extradition, then surely it's because he wants to wait out statue of limitation as people are claiming. I don't really know if this is the case or the other and I really don't see why it matters to the info we're getting. The info we're getting and the implications have hardly much to do with him. Because he has no real out be it Sanders, Clinton or Trump...

Also who is to say he had those emails, you seem to have this almost insider premise on how things worked out or this great novel into his master plan. I mean it's fine to have a thought or wonder if it's possible but this is reaching.
 
With all this talks about Wikileaks, me looking up the entire US Election history and Trumps recent conference.

What news gives out news anymore? I remember watching The Project after the Election and noticed all the rubbish immediately thrown.

I was always taught that news is a bit stretchy of the truth as a child but I feel the amount it is now is ridiculous. You can't have any information services be neutral especially in Political situations. I thought Wikileaks while a site anyone can use and not really a news site could give some information, now we have problems with it being too right.

It's hard to form your own opinion when information has a massive chance of it being fake.
 
Last edited:
RESHIRAM5
With all this talks about Wikileaks, me looking up the entire US Election history and Trumps recent conference.

What news gives out news anymore? I remember watching The Project after the Election and noticed all the rubbish immediately thrown.

I was always taught that news is a bit stretchy of the truth as a child but I feel the amount it is now is ridiculous. You can't have any information services be neutral especially in Political situations. I thought Wikileaks while a site anyone can use and not really a news site could give some information, now we have problems with it being too right.

It's hard to form your own opinion when information has a massive chance of it being fake.
Click to expand...
Project is like an Australian MSNBC talk show, it's a complete joke.

Me personally I get it from Secular Talk on Youtube, he goes though all the news Throughly and picks them apart to determine what is most truthful.

Yeah he has a slight liberal bias but he will highlight that and he only brings up that after he says what is actually in the news, I have yet to find someone better.
 
I read that he would give himself up if Manning was pardoned. As far as I am aware, she is only being released early and therefore still a convicted criminal in the eyes of US law.

I do wonder what life on the outside will be like for Chelsea Manning; don't be surprised if there is a Flowers By Irene van on every corner from now until the day she dies.
 
Liquid
I read that he would give himself up if Manning was pardoned. As far as I am aware, she is only being released early and therefore still a convicted criminal in the eyes of US law.

I do wonder what life on the outside will be like for Chelsea Manning; don't be surprised if there is a Flowers By Irene van on every corner from now until the day she dies.
Click to expand...

The words used by Wikileaks were:

"If Obama grants Manning clemency Assange will agree to US extradition despite clear unconstitutionality of DoJ case"

Key word highlighted by myself, clemency doesn't by its definition require a pardon and what has been done would certainly meet the definition wikileaks used.
 
Scaff
Key word highlighted by myself, clemency doesn't by its definition require a pardon and what has been done would certainly meet the definition wikileaks used.
Click to expand...

The BBC report I initally read did say pardoned but now that I've checked again, it has been edited to say clemency.
 
Scaff
The words used by Wikileaks were:

"If Obama grants Manning clemency Assange will agree to US extradition despite clear unconstitutionality of DoJ case"

Key word highlighted by myself, clemency doesn't by its definition require a pardon and what has been done would certainly meet the definition wikileaks used.
Click to expand...

They already tweeted long before your post that he would supposedly still stand by what he said originally. So now you just have to wait and see if it really happens. Point is a comment has been made by them on this situation and in regards to what Assange originally said.
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
They already tweeted long before your post that he would supposedly still stand by what he said originally. So now you just have to wait and see if it really happens. Point is a comment has been made by them on this situation and in regards to what Assange originally said.
Click to expand...
I'm aware, however saying you will do something is not the same as doing it.

Hence my post that the ball is in his court.
 
Scaff
I'm aware, however saying you will do something is not the same as doing it.

Hence my post that the ball is in his court.
Click to expand...

Never said it was, your post read like it had gone dark on their account when it had not. So glad you know and I also echoed the same thing
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
They already tweeted long before your post that he would supposedly still stand by what he said originally. So now you just have to wait and see if it really happens. Point is a comment has been made by them on this situation and in regards to what Assange originally said.
Click to expand...
He's not. Assange called for Manning to be released immediately. Since Manning won't be released until May, he holds that since the US didn't hold to their end of the "deal", he doesn't have to. Hope at one point Ecuador gets tired of this.
 
Blitz24
He's not. Assange called for Manning to be released immediately. Since Manning won't be released until May, he holds that since the US didn't hold to their end of the "deal", he doesn't have to. Hope at one point Ecuador gets tired of this.
Click to expand...

Never said I believed it either, most people felt from what I could see that their would be some semantics over it. Also there is no evidence to suggest Obama did this because of Assange (not that that changes what was said).
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
At least out in public.
Click to expand...

But you never know what's being filmed or spied on these days. What if it were to get out that secretly the President of the United States had cooked a big meal for orphans while letting them pet puppies instead of something good and wholesome like urinating on prostitutes?

That would be a PR disaster, and surely the populace would lose all faith in such a clearly weak leader no matter how cold and militant he might seem in public. There's no going back from that sort of thing. Once a puppy petter, always a puppy petter. Personally I think the sooner all those sick bastards are locked up the better. Zero tolerance.
 
Imari
Yes. Why, is there something wrong with thinking that people who have to make hard decisions shouldn't be distracted by emotion and compassion?
Click to expand...
There's compassion and there is taking advantage of the system.
If she had her surgury before going to prison, I can see my tax dollars going to hormones.
I am not happy of my tax dollars paying for her surgery.
Prison is not about being happy is about punishment. That said she should have served her whole time. She must have some dirt on Obama.

You must think she was innocent. Or you think I'm uncompassionate?

You do the crime, you do the time. And what she did is far more serious than stealing a pack of cigarettes from the gas station.
 

Similar threads

FastRacer99
Thrustmaster T-GT2 / T-LCM
Replies
1
Views
761
VR-SORN
V
Irrmchester
Two questions..
Replies
5
Views
1K
Irrmchester
Irrmchester
2
Sardenga Road Track 800pp race Clean Race Bonus
Replies
10
Views
880
ZevZoq
ZevZoq
yuhboiari
  • Locked
Reports
Replies
3
Views
967
TexHill
TexHill
NosOsH
T-GT T-DFB
Replies
25
Views
6K
kartman21
kartman21

Latest Posts

Back