3 ms·

What was illegal about releasing campaign emails that were given to them?

midniteslayr 8y ago
When it was done with the intent of influencing the 2016 election, that tends to fall under conspiracy and espionage ... especially when it comes from a former adversarial government.
- gbumakefan 8y ago
  So then was it illegal when msnbc aired the infamous Trump video saying “grab them by the p...”? That was clearly meant to influence the election...
  - midniteslayr 8y ago
    First, that was the Washington Post that released the tape, and second, that is more for the fitness of the candidate (at the time). Third, and more importantly, it was obtained legally, without having to break in to a server to get it.
    - stordoff 8y ago
      > second, that is more for the fitness of the candidate (at the time) How are we distinguishing influencing the election and fitness of the candidate? I'm not seeing a substantive difference between the two, other that the source (if anything, their campaign practices seem more relevant).
    - gbumakefan 8y ago
      Wikileaks didn’t break into the server. No one knows how the emails were obtained. Your reply demonstrates your hypocrisy nicely. Clearly you just don’t like what Wikileaks has to say.
- stale2002 8y ago
  That's sounds like a political opinion that you just stated. Why are you trying to meddle in the political process, by engaging in political speech?
  - kjksf 8y ago
    Unlike you, the law does make a distinction between expressing political opinion and unlawful interference with election process and we have independent judicial system to apply those laws.
    - stale2002 8y ago
      Indeed it does have a distinction. And the distinction is usually as follows: speech that threatens or criticises those in power is generally illegal, and the speech that supports it is legal.
- vkou 8y ago
  > When it was done with the intent of influencing the 2016 election Reality check - partisan newspapers, news channels, and news organizations publish partisan nonsense with the intent of influencing elections. All the time. Unfortunately, or fortunately, freedom of speech does not mean 'Freedom of unbiased speech.' If it did, then you could shut down the entire media establishment tomorrow.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
bradford 8y ago
Intentions and prior knowledge matter in a situation like this. It would be wise to see what information the prosecutors have before declaring the death of free press.
elliekelly 8y ago
Some of the emails were altered by Russia for the purpose of spreading misinformation. Russia used Wikileaks to lend credibility to the conspiracy theories they were sowing in the run-up to the election. NY Time has a great 3-part video series about Russia's history of spreading fake news. Each video is about 15 minutes but it's well worth the watch.
- gbumakefan 8y ago
  Even if that’s true — it’s not, no emails have been shown to be fake — it’s not illegal to publish false information.
  - elliekelly 8y ago
    I didn't say the emails were fake. I said they were altered. The metadata, specifically. According to the NY Times they were alter to make it look like they were downloaded directly from a computer in the U.S. and to change the date the documents were obtained. And publishing false information is not illegal. Knowingly aiding a foreign government in their efforts to undermine an election is treason.
    - monocasa 8y ago
      No metadata had been altered for any WikiLeaks releases.
      - elliekelly 8y ago
        Do you have any source for that? I'm not saying it's a fact that the data had been altered but I'm saying reasonable minds can draw that conclusion based on the information we have available.[1] You're oddly defensive of Assange and don't seem to have come to this thread with any interest in discussion. [1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/06/guccifer-leak-of-dnc-trump-research-has-a-russians-fingerprints-on-it/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/06/gucci...

When it was done with the intent of influencing the 2016 election, that tends to fall under conspiracy and espionage ... especially when it comes from a former adversarial government.

gbumakefan 8y ago
So then was it illegal when msnbc aired the infamous Trump video saying “grab them by the p...”? That was clearly meant to influence the election...
- midniteslayr 8y ago
  First, that was the Washington Post that released the tape, and second, that is more for the fitness of the candidate (at the time). Third, and more importantly, it was obtained legally, without having to break in to a server to get it.
  - stordoff 8y ago
    > second, that is more for the fitness of the candidate (at the time) How are we distinguishing influencing the election and fitness of the candidate? I'm not seeing a substantive difference between the two, other that the source (if anything, their campaign practices seem more relevant).
  - gbumakefan 8y ago
    Wikileaks didn’t break into the server. No one knows how the emails were obtained. Your reply demonstrates your hypocrisy nicely. Clearly you just don’t like what Wikileaks has to say.
stale2002 8y ago
That's sounds like a political opinion that you just stated. Why are you trying to meddle in the political process, by engaging in political speech?
- kjksf 8y ago
  Unlike you, the law does make a distinction between expressing political opinion and unlawful interference with election process and we have independent judicial system to apply those laws.
  - stale2002 8y ago
    Indeed it does have a distinction. And the distinction is usually as follows: speech that threatens or criticises those in power is generally illegal, and the speech that supports it is legal.
vkou 8y ago
> When it was done with the intent of influencing the 2016 election Reality check - partisan newspapers, news channels, and news organizations publish partisan nonsense with the intent of influencing elections. All the time. Unfortunately, or fortunately, freedom of speech does not mean 'Freedom of unbiased speech.' If it did, then you could shut down the entire media establishment tomorrow.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

bradford 8y ago

Intentions and prior knowledge matter in a situation like this. It would be wise to see what information the prosecutors have before declaring the death of free press.

elliekelly 8y ago

Some of the emails were altered by Russia for the purpose of spreading misinformation. Russia used Wikileaks to lend credibility to the conspiracy theories they were sowing in the run-up to the election. NY Time has a great 3-part video series about Russia's history of spreading fake news. Each video is about 15 minutes but it's well worth the watch.

gbumakefan 8y ago
Even if that’s true — it’s not, no emails have been shown to be fake — it’s not illegal to publish false information.
- elliekelly 8y ago
  I didn't say the emails were fake. I said they were altered. The metadata, specifically. According to the NY Times they were alter to make it look like they were downloaded directly from a computer in the U.S. and to change the date the documents were obtained. And publishing false information is not illegal. Knowingly aiding a foreign government in their efforts to undermine an election is treason.
  - monocasa 8y ago
    No metadata had been altered for any WikiLeaks releases.
    - elliekelly 8y ago
      Do you have any source for that? I'm not saying it's a fact that the data had been altered but I'm saying reasonable minds can draw that conclusion based on the information we have available.[1] You're oddly defensive of Assange and don't seem to have come to this thread with any interest in discussion. [1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/06/guccifer-leak-of-dnc-trump-research-has-a-russians-fingerprints-on-it/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/06/gucci...