4 ms·

Unless you are a whistleblower and feel that the public legitimately needs to know about something, because afterall this election affects our daily lives. We d

Unless you are a whistleblower and feel that the public legitimately needs to know about something, because afterall this election affects our daily lives. We deserve to to know the truth about threats to democracy, especially when Presidential candidates are still claiming that voter data was rigged. Didn't Trump blame Hillary for him losing the popular vote, saying that it was her fault for hacking the election?

chakalakasp 9y ago
What are you replying to? It can't be my comment.
- braderhart 9y ago
  I'm suggesting, maybe it wasn't ignorant. I can think of a few examples of where I'd want to be transparent in my actions. Seems like as a whistle-blower you should be as transparent as possible. I think it is time that we see the Russian evidence though. A bunch of techies deserve to disseminate if it is legitimate. Afterall, WikiLeaks has been doing nothing but providing verifiable evidence.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
JeremyBanks 9y ago
Was it really vital that this tidbit be leaked right now now? Mueller is currently performing an extremely detailed official investigation of this topic and has access to this and much more information, the resources to follow up, the motive to find the truth. Whistleblowing is warranted in cases where information pertinent to the public interest won't come out otherwise. Given Mueller's investigation, the responsible thing would have been to wait and see, unless you had reason to doubt him.
- pessimizer 9y ago
  She was clearly really into the Trump-Russia thing, and there's very little public evidence that there is a Trump-Russia thing. She saw something that she thought of as good evidence, and wanted to inform the public. Her intentions were good.
  - qb45 9y ago
    The problem is that there is also zero evidence in this document she leaked. No evidence of vote tampering, no evidence of Trump participating in anything, no evidence of Trump trying to cover it up, nothing at all to actually sink Trump. She only sunk herself and gave ammo to critics of government leaks because now it seems that the NSA can't even investigate espionage incidents without somebody leaking to the press just to add fuel to some ongoing drama.
- matt4077 9y ago
  - Mueller's is a criminal investigation. If he doesn't believe he can prove a criminal case, the public will never hear about it. Even if, for example, he had enough to prove that some specific Russian hacker changed the records of enough voting machines to change the outcome of the election: If that guy subsequently died, he wouldn't have a criminal case and the case would be dropped without further commentary. - It's really not the government's job to decide what the public has an interest in knowing. The system is, for the most part, set up as "default public", and that's how it should be. - The fact that information (may) come out eventually doesn't help if it requires action now. I believe it's quite obvious that the public debate about these hacks is happening now, and that this is information that is central to that debate. Let's say nothing happens to prevent future hacking, and we learn about this incident in three or five years: I have no trouble imagining FOX commentators dismissing it as "We had this fight in 2017, and now the democrats want to talk about it again?"

chakalakasp 9y ago

What are you replying to? It can't be my comment.

braderhart 9y ago
I'm suggesting, maybe it wasn't ignorant. I can think of a few examples of where I'd want to be transparent in my actions. Seems like as a whistle-blower you should be as transparent as possible. I think it is time that we see the Russian evidence though. A bunch of techies deserve to disseminate if it is legitimate. Afterall, WikiLeaks has been doing nothing but providing verifiable evidence.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

JeremyBanks 9y ago

Was it really vital that this tidbit be leaked right now now? Mueller is currently performing an extremely detailed official investigation of this topic and has access to this and much more information, the resources to follow up, the motive to find the truth. Whistleblowing is warranted in cases where information pertinent to the public interest won't come out otherwise. Given Mueller's investigation, the responsible thing would have been to wait and see, unless you had reason to doubt him.

pessimizer 9y ago
She was clearly really into the Trump-Russia thing, and there's very little public evidence that there is a Trump-Russia thing. She saw something that she thought of as good evidence, and wanted to inform the public. Her intentions were good.
- qb45 9y ago
  The problem is that there is also zero evidence in this document she leaked. No evidence of vote tampering, no evidence of Trump participating in anything, no evidence of Trump trying to cover it up, nothing at all to actually sink Trump. She only sunk herself and gave ammo to critics of government leaks because now it seems that the NSA can't even investigate espionage incidents without somebody leaking to the press just to add fuel to some ongoing drama.
matt4077 9y ago
- Mueller's is a criminal investigation. If he doesn't believe he can prove a criminal case, the public will never hear about it. Even if, for example, he had enough to prove that some specific Russian hacker changed the records of enough voting machines to change the outcome of the election: If that guy subsequently died, he wouldn't have a criminal case and the case would be dropped without further commentary. - It's really not the government's job to decide what the public has an interest in knowing. The system is, for the most part, set up as "default public", and that's how it should be. - The fact that information (may) come out eventually doesn't help if it requires action now. I believe it's quite obvious that the public debate about these hacks is happening now, and that this is information that is central to that debate. Let's say nothing happens to prevent future hacking, and we learn about this incident in three or five years: I have no trouble imagining FOX commentators dismissing it as "We had this fight in 2017, and now the democrats want to talk about it again?"