3 ms·

A) https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/jan/11/donald-trump/trump-says-russians-were-unable-hack-republican-na/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017

by croon 6y ago

A) https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/jan/11/donald-trump/trump-says-russians-were-unable-hack-republican-na/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/jan/11/donald-tru... And also, though few details: https://www.wired.com/2017/01/russia-hacked-older-republican-emails-fbi-director-says/ https://www.wired.com/2017/01/russia-hacked-older-republican... B) I don't know if you remember, but they didn't, they portioned it out for optimal effect, teasing the drops on Twitter, not to mention coordinated with Roger flippin Stone, and Russia. Sure, if they are only given access to one side, they can only leak one side, but you have to do some pretty spectacular mental gymnastics to defend that as anything other than willful ignorance of your culpability. If it weren't for the chat transcripts which paints a pretty clear picture of their intent.

pessimizer 6y ago
Expecting a journalist to somehow balance the evidence of misdeeds between a country's two ruling parties is bizarre, and not a standard any other news outlet was held to over the same period. You might as well criticize prosecutors for not bringing charges against one Democrat each time they bring charges against one Republican. What exactly did you expect to see in RNC leaks anyway? The utter collapse of a party apparatus being bulldozed by Trump? If anything, you'd see them working as hard against Trump as the Democrats worked against Sanders. Leaks from the RNC would benefit Trump. The Steele dossier was a Republican production, handed off to the Democrats when their primary ended. Bipartisan. > coordinated with Roger flippin Stone, and Russia. You're not making this up, somebody else did, but there's absolutely no evidence of this. Some of the odd circumstantial cases made for this even intentionally invert parts of the timeline. The largest and most advanced intelligence apparatus in the history of the world has been able to offer no evidence (and claims no evidence, just delivers summaries of the consensus of executives.) Roger Stone, Donald Trump, and Julian Assange must be the smartest people in the history of the world. With Q, Russiagate, and Judeo-Bolshevism coming back in the form of Soros-Antifa theories, I'm terrified.
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  > Expecting a journalist to somehow balance the evidence of misdeeds between a country's two ruling parties is bizarre, and not a standard any other news outlet was held to over the same period. True, people excuse journalists for showing partisan bias all the time (at least, when the bias is towards their preferred party, although they may not call it bias). Also, we might excuse a journalist for being biased against a politician who literally joked about killing them, as Clinton did if this claim from WikiLeaks is true (or Assange may have believed it was true): https://truepundit.com/under-intense-pressure-to-silence-wikileaks-secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-proposed-drone-strike-on-julian-assange/ https://truepundit.com/under-intense-pressure-to-silence-wik...
  - croon 6y ago
    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/julian-assange-drone-strike/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/julian-assange-drone-strik... https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/true-pundit/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/true-pundit/
    - dane-pgp 6y ago
      Thanks for the Snopes link, as I was wondering what evidence there was for the claim. > Rating: Unproven > On 4 October 2016 Clinton answered a question about whether the rumor was accurate, responding that she didn’t “recall any joke … [reference to targeting Assange with a drone] would have been a joke” Oh, well if she "does not recall" it (and I'm sure she has a great memory[0]) and if she'd only be joking about killing him then he'd have no reason to not want her becoming president. [0] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2008/mar/25/hillary-clinton/video-shows-tarmac-welcome-no-snipers/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2008/mar/25/hillary-cl...
      - croon 6y ago
        It's an unproven claim only reported on a website known for bullshit, but sure.
        6y ago
- croon 6y ago
  > You're not making this up, somebody else did, but there's absolutely no evidence of this. Some of the odd circumstantial cases made for this even intentionally invert parts of the timeline. The largest and most advanced intelligence apparatus in the history of the world has been able to offer no evidence (and claims no evidence, just delivers summaries of the consensus of executives. I don't know what you consider proof. But court documents from the Stone trial as well as a Republican led senate committee both state as such. The first two links of my OP. Are you saying that both are fabrications?

by croon 6y ago

pessimizer 6y ago

Expecting a journalist to somehow balance the evidence of misdeeds between a country's two ruling parties is bizarre, and not a standard any other news outlet was held to over the same period. You might as well criticize prosecutors for not bringing charges against one Democrat each time they bring charges against one Republican. What exactly did you expect to see in RNC leaks anyway? The utter collapse of a party apparatus being bulldozed by Trump? If anything, you'd see them working as hard against Trump as the Democrats worked against Sanders. Leaks from the RNC would benefit Trump. The Steele dossier was a Republican production, handed off to the Democrats when their primary ended. Bipartisan. > coordinated with Roger flippin Stone, and Russia. You're not making this up, somebody else did, but there's absolutely no evidence of this. Some of the odd circumstantial cases made for this even intentionally invert parts of the timeline. The largest and most advanced intelligence apparatus in the history of the world has been able to offer no evidence (and claims no evidence, just delivers summaries of the consensus of executives.) Roger Stone, Donald Trump, and Julian Assange must be the smartest people in the history of the world. With Q, Russiagate, and Judeo-Bolshevism coming back in the form of Soros-Antifa theories, I'm terrified.

dane-pgp 6y ago
> Expecting a journalist to somehow balance the evidence of misdeeds between a country's two ruling parties is bizarre, and not a standard any other news outlet was held to over the same period. True, people excuse journalists for showing partisan bias all the time (at least, when the bias is towards their preferred party, although they may not call it bias). Also, we might excuse a journalist for being biased against a politician who literally joked about killing them, as Clinton did if this claim from WikiLeaks is true (or Assange may have believed it was true): https://truepundit.com/under-intense-pressure-to-silence-wikileaks-secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-proposed-drone-strike-on-julian-assange/ https://truepundit.com/under-intense-pressure-to-silence-wik...
- croon 6y ago
  https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/julian-assange-drone-strike/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/julian-assange-drone-strik... https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/true-pundit/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/true-pundit/
  - dane-pgp 6y ago
    Thanks for the Snopes link, as I was wondering what evidence there was for the claim. > Rating: Unproven > On 4 October 2016 Clinton answered a question about whether the rumor was accurate, responding that she didn’t “recall any joke … [reference to targeting Assange with a drone] would have been a joke” Oh, well if she "does not recall" it (and I'm sure she has a great memory[0]) and if she'd only be joking about killing him then he'd have no reason to not want her becoming president. [0] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2008/mar/25/hillary-clinton/video-shows-tarmac-welcome-no-snipers/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2008/mar/25/hillary-cl...
    - croon 6y ago
      It's an unproven claim only reported on a website known for bullshit, but sure.
      - 6y ago
croon 6y ago
> You're not making this up, somebody else did, but there's absolutely no evidence of this. Some of the odd circumstantial cases made for this even intentionally invert parts of the timeline. The largest and most advanced intelligence apparatus in the history of the world has been able to offer no evidence (and claims no evidence, just delivers summaries of the consensus of executives. I don't know what you consider proof. But court documents from the Stone trial as well as a Republican led senate committee both state as such. The first two links of my OP. Are you saying that both are fabrications?