9 ms·

>Russia used him as a deniable way to launder secrets they had stolen into the American press. I have never seen proof of this accusation? Can you link me to i

>Russia used him as a deniable way to launder secrets they had stolen into the American press. I have never seen proof of this accusation? Can you link me to it? Not the accusation, but proof? What is it: was he "used" like you said, or mislead, or intentionally aiding Russia? To be fair the DWS scandal is a real problem, a big deal, and a threat to our democracy... and nobody was seriously punished for that. DWS is hardly the pariah that Assange is. And this happened during your second phase.

hnmonkey 8y ago
There's literal proof throughout this post. In fact, I posted some too. There are definitely levels of threats to American democracy. If DWS refers to Wasserman-Schultz then it pales in comparison to an enemy foreign state's military intelligence corrupting the American government.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- wallace_f 8y ago
  See you keep saying you can convince me, but still wont show me the proot that will. Do you really believe the Iraq Warlogs revealing death, torture, war crimes, and lying is somehow worse than literally subverting American democracy in a presidential primary? Now, I don't want to defend Assange's every single motive, but the DWS scandal was pure corruption, while for whatever bad Assange has done that you keep promising to show me, he has clearly shown bravery in doing some good along the way. And by the way, revealing war crimes is not anti-American. Liberty and justice are American principles. There will always be corruption and always a need to reveal it.
  - hnmonkey 8y ago
    > Do you really believe the Iraq Warlogs revealing death, torture, war crimes, and lying is somehow worse than literally subverting American democracy in a presidential primary? It's interesting... you're asking me if I really believe something that I didn't ever say and implying I did. I actually compared the Wasserman-Schultz situation (which I think is incredibly overblown) to a sovereign foreign government's military intelligence corrupting the American government. And yes, when comparing those two things, the latter is far more worse.
    - metildaa 8y ago
      Citations please? We should deal in fact, not allegations.
      - hnmonkey 8y ago
        The only comments you're leaving on my comments are calling me out and attacking me... I've cited multiple things in this post and each time they seem to be ignored or blown off.
        metildaa 8y ago
        Both the comments I made asked you for citations, yet you have not provided any.
  - nl 8y ago
    I'm not American, but.. I'm very confused. By "DWS scandal" do you mean the Debbie Wasserman Schultz issues[1]? I've read about that reasonable extensively, and they don't seem a huge deal to me at all. I mean it's good she resigned, but to me it looks more like a "perception of bias is as bad as bias itself" thing. She probably did some things that benefited Clinton in the primary, but these don't seem that big a deal in the scheme of things. The Wikipedia link I posted seems a reasonable summary. Which of them exactly is this big threat to democracy? For example, I thought the "removal of Sanders access to database" was a big deal until it became apparent that Sanders staffers had accessed private Clinton campaign information and it was restored in less than 24 hours[2]. What am I missing? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Wasserman_Schultz#2016_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Wasserman_Schultz#2016_... [2] https://www.npr.org/2015/12/19/460361192/dnc-restores-sanders-campaigns-access-to-voter-files-after-data-breach https://www.npr.org/2015/12/19/460361192/dnc-restores-sander...
- metildaa 8y ago
  Please cite proof to back up the accusation leveled wrt Assange. That was all OP asked for, and instead you deflected.
nl 8y ago
The problem with posting "proof" here is that it's always unclear where to start. Do you accept that Guccifer 2.0 was a Russian agent? If not, then it's going to be a long post. If you do, then Guccifer 2.0 himself claimed he gave the leaks to Wikileaks[1]. Wikileaks tweeted the same information[2]. Which part is in question here exactly? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0#cite_note-:5-7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0#cite_note-:5-7 [2] https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/743377025742798848 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/743377025742798848
- resters 8y ago
  The entire Guccifer narrative is the most speculative and least substantiated aspect of the entire drama. That doesn't mean it's false, however. But one might wonder why anyone cares about it or gives it any consideration, when there are so many far stronger data points. The Guccifer narrative supports (weakly) the idea of a link between Russia and the emails. So in order for this to matter you have to believe that Russia matters when considering WL. And in order to believe that you must believe that WL's journalism does not stand on its own and that the motives of those who leaked information are what matter. But WL is designed to be immune to the ill effects of specific political motives for releasing data. I'll point out some of the many ways: - WL tries to verify that it is being given authentic documents. Revelations that documents WL publishes were inauthentic would sink WL nearly instantly. So authenticity absolutely must be the #1 consideration. - For any leak there is an entity whose data was leaked. If a leaker doctored information before sending it to WL, the leaker could easily be discredited by a public release by the entity of an authentic version, revealing what had been doctored, which would reveal motives. - WL insists upon full, unredacted documents. Most of the leaked information has been mostly irrelevant. You could spend days reading WL releases without encountering anything juicy. Why? Because the full documents provide evidence that no aspect of the document has been withheld to create a false impression. This results in a lot of boring stuff -- most of the HRC emails were bulk mail sent to the addresses in question -- but lets the legitimately interesting data stand in proper relief without suspicion. - When possible, WL goes to great lengths to validate/authenticate data. WL created a tool to allow site visitors to easily validate the DKIM/DomainKeys signatures validating that the emails were unmodified. If salacious or newsworthy information had come from an email that failed DKIM/DomainKeys verification, WL's approach would make that obvious even to those who do not understand how content signatures work. - WL can be weaponized by anyone against anyone. There was a US Army report identifying this characteristic early on. Falsifying the identity of leakers would of course be a valuable tactic to use when weaponizing. WL is useful because of the aforementioned characteristics and in spite of being able to be weaponized in this way. It's not novel that a government could submit intel obtained by its intelligence agency to WL to cause a political consequence in another nation. Of course this could happen. It can even be done by domestic parties like Chelsea Manning. It's a question of whether the information leaked is beneficial by providing important transparency or revealing outright fraud/crimes. I have to wonder when people oppose Assange due to indignation about Russia or Manning if the underlying reason is actually that they don't view the war logs or the emails to have been useful investigative journalism.
kristjansson 8y ago
> DWS “scandal” Even if one accepts the premise (that there was active collusion inside the DNC that cost Sanders the election, binding popular primary elections have only been a thing since 1972. It’s quite a stretch to call the supposed failure of that system a threat to democracy.
- pessimizer 8y ago
  Would it follow that in countries that didn't have elections at all in 1972, the corruption of their current elections could hardly be a threat to democracy? It's only been 50 years?
objectivetruth 8y ago
Whoah, was there proof that the DNC staff broke actual FEC election law or individual state election regulations? Or do you mean "machinations strictly within the party framework?" The latter is not illegal.

hnmonkey 8y ago

There's literal proof throughout this post. In fact, I posted some too. There are definitely levels of threats to American democracy. If DWS refers to Wasserman-Schultz then it pales in comparison to an enemy foreign state's military intelligence corrupting the American government.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
wallace_f 8y ago
See you keep saying you can convince me, but still wont show me the proot that will. Do you really believe the Iraq Warlogs revealing death, torture, war crimes, and lying is somehow worse than literally subverting American democracy in a presidential primary? Now, I don't want to defend Assange's every single motive, but the DWS scandal was pure corruption, while for whatever bad Assange has done that you keep promising to show me, he has clearly shown bravery in doing some good along the way. And by the way, revealing war crimes is not anti-American. Liberty and justice are American principles. There will always be corruption and always a need to reveal it.
- hnmonkey 8y ago
  > Do you really believe the Iraq Warlogs revealing death, torture, war crimes, and lying is somehow worse than literally subverting American democracy in a presidential primary? It's interesting... you're asking me if I really believe something that I didn't ever say and implying I did. I actually compared the Wasserman-Schultz situation (which I think is incredibly overblown) to a sovereign foreign government's military intelligence corrupting the American government. And yes, when comparing those two things, the latter is far more worse.
  - metildaa 8y ago
    Citations please? We should deal in fact, not allegations.
    - hnmonkey 8y ago
      The only comments you're leaving on my comments are calling me out and attacking me... I've cited multiple things in this post and each time they seem to be ignored or blown off.
      - metildaa 8y ago
        Both the comments I made asked you for citations, yet you have not provided any.
- nl 8y ago
  I'm not American, but.. I'm very confused. By "DWS scandal" do you mean the Debbie Wasserman Schultz issues[1]? I've read about that reasonable extensively, and they don't seem a huge deal to me at all. I mean it's good she resigned, but to me it looks more like a "perception of bias is as bad as bias itself" thing. She probably did some things that benefited Clinton in the primary, but these don't seem that big a deal in the scheme of things. The Wikipedia link I posted seems a reasonable summary. Which of them exactly is this big threat to democracy? For example, I thought the "removal of Sanders access to database" was a big deal until it became apparent that Sanders staffers had accessed private Clinton campaign information and it was restored in less than 24 hours[2]. What am I missing? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Wasserman_Schultz#2016_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Wasserman_Schultz#2016_... [2] https://www.npr.org/2015/12/19/460361192/dnc-restores-sanders-campaigns-access-to-voter-files-after-data-breach https://www.npr.org/2015/12/19/460361192/dnc-restores-sander...
metildaa 8y ago
Please cite proof to back up the accusation leveled wrt Assange. That was all OP asked for, and instead you deflected.

nl 8y ago

The problem with posting "proof" here is that it's always unclear where to start. Do you accept that Guccifer 2.0 was a Russian agent? If not, then it's going to be a long post. If you do, then Guccifer 2.0 himself claimed he gave the leaks to Wikileaks[1]. Wikileaks tweeted the same information[2]. Which part is in question here exactly? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0#cite_note-:5-7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0#cite_note-:5-7 [2] https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/743377025742798848 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/743377025742798848

resters 8y ago
The entire Guccifer narrative is the most speculative and least substantiated aspect of the entire drama. That doesn't mean it's false, however. But one might wonder why anyone cares about it or gives it any consideration, when there are so many far stronger data points. The Guccifer narrative supports (weakly) the idea of a link between Russia and the emails. So in order for this to matter you have to believe that Russia matters when considering WL. And in order to believe that you must believe that WL's journalism does not stand on its own and that the motives of those who leaked information are what matter. But WL is designed to be immune to the ill effects of specific political motives for releasing data. I'll point out some of the many ways: - WL tries to verify that it is being given authentic documents. Revelations that documents WL publishes were inauthentic would sink WL nearly instantly. So authenticity absolutely must be the #1 consideration. - For any leak there is an entity whose data was leaked. If a leaker doctored information before sending it to WL, the leaker could easily be discredited by a public release by the entity of an authentic version, revealing what had been doctored, which would reveal motives. - WL insists upon full, unredacted documents. Most of the leaked information has been mostly irrelevant. You could spend days reading WL releases without encountering anything juicy. Why? Because the full documents provide evidence that no aspect of the document has been withheld to create a false impression. This results in a lot of boring stuff -- most of the HRC emails were bulk mail sent to the addresses in question -- but lets the legitimately interesting data stand in proper relief without suspicion. - When possible, WL goes to great lengths to validate/authenticate data. WL created a tool to allow site visitors to easily validate the DKIM/DomainKeys signatures validating that the emails were unmodified. If salacious or newsworthy information had come from an email that failed DKIM/DomainKeys verification, WL's approach would make that obvious even to those who do not understand how content signatures work. - WL can be weaponized by anyone against anyone. There was a US Army report identifying this characteristic early on. Falsifying the identity of leakers would of course be a valuable tactic to use when weaponizing. WL is useful because of the aforementioned characteristics and in spite of being able to be weaponized in this way. It's not novel that a government could submit intel obtained by its intelligence agency to WL to cause a political consequence in another nation. Of course this could happen. It can even be done by domestic parties like Chelsea Manning. It's a question of whether the information leaked is beneficial by providing important transparency or revealing outright fraud/crimes. I have to wonder when people oppose Assange due to indignation about Russia or Manning if the underlying reason is actually that they don't view the war logs or the emails to have been useful investigative journalism.

kristjansson 8y ago

> DWS “scandal” Even if one accepts the premise (that there was active collusion inside the DNC that cost Sanders the election, binding popular primary elections have only been a thing since 1972. It’s quite a stretch to call the supposed failure of that system a threat to democracy.

pessimizer 8y ago
Would it follow that in countries that didn't have elections at all in 1972, the corruption of their current elections could hardly be a threat to democracy? It's only been 50 years?

objectivetruth 8y ago

Whoah, was there proof that the DNC staff broke actual FEC election law or individual state election regulations? Or do you mean "machinations strictly within the party framework?" The latter is not illegal.