4 ms·

>what is the general accusation of his crimes? Realistically, he simply pissed off members of the ruling class of the US. Their presence has become significant

>what is the general accusation of his crimes? Realistically, he simply pissed off members of the ruling class of the US. Their presence has become significantly more obvious in recent years. Other than that, I'd say it's mostly a 'show me the man, I'll show you the crime' sort of thing.

res0nat0r 5y ago
In reality he laundered hacked materials he knowingly received from an adversarial to the USA nation state actor, and released it deliberately to interfere with the US election process to damage a POTUS candidate he didn't like.
- the_optimist 5y ago
  1) You cannot even come close to proving your statement, and 2) None of this would even be illegal if it weren't for intel agencies acting as political hit squads.
  - res0nat0r 5y ago
    It has already been documented and laid out in the Mueller Report, and summarized here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Commi...
    - the_optimist 5y ago
      We have all read the Mueller report. It entirely fails on the points above. It’s right there in the link you sent. Do you care to differentiate between unsubstantiated allegations and reality? You just want everyone to pretend your conspiratorial story, based strictly on allegations, is true?
      - res0nat0r 5y ago
        It is true and substantiated, and detailed in the Mueller report. Just because you don't like these facts don't make them false.
        the_optimist 5y ago
        Oh, is it then? Remarkable. Then post directly here the part where it says: > In reality he laundered hacked materials he knowingly received from an adversarial to the USA nation state actor, and released it deliberately to interfere with the US election process to damage a POTUS candidate he didn't like. I know that you cannot and will not, because it doesn't say that. But you can try your darnedest. Give it a good college try.
        res0nat0r 5y ago
        This is tiresome, but like I mentioned has already been proven. > On December 9, 2016, the CIA told U.S. legislators the U.S. Intelligence Community concluded Russia conducted operations during the 2016 U.S. election to assist Donald Trump in winning the presidency.[12][66][67] Multiple U.S intelligence agencies concluded people with direct ties to the Kremlin gave WikiLeaks hacked emails from the DNC and additional sources such as John Podesta, campaign chairman for Hillary Clinton. > On July 27, 2016, The New York Times reported that Julian Assange, in an interview on British ITV on June 12, 2016, had "made it clear that he hoped to harm Hillary Clinton's chances of winning the presidency", and that in a later interview[118] on the program Democracy Now! on July 25, 2016, the first day of the Democratic National Convention, he acknowledged that "he had timed their release to coincide with the Democratic convention."[50][119] In an interview with CNN, Assange would neither confirm nor deny who WikiLeaks' sources were; he claimed that his website "... might release "a lot more material" relevant to the US electoral campaign ..."
        the_optimist 5y ago
        Perfect. You quoted Wikipedia, not the report you claim has the information. Wikipedia cited the WP. WP cited 'secret'. How do we know it? "CIA told us." Why do we believe it? "CIA told us." What evidence do we have? "CIA told us so." How'd they come to this conclusion? "That's for them to know and us to take in faith." Do they have a history of lying? "Yes." To Congress? "Yes." Are there any consequences for this? "No." Okay, so you want to steer our country and globe like this? "Yes." It's BS turtles all the way down. Oh, and btw their primary collaborators are pathological, serial liar, child molestors who are both threatened with prosecutorial jeopardy and granted legal immunity.
- DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
  I'd like to understand the difference between "interfere[nce] with the US election process" and releasing true information that some voters use to inform their vote.

res0nat0r 5y ago

In reality he laundered hacked materials he knowingly received from an adversarial to the USA nation state actor, and released it deliberately to interfere with the US election process to damage a POTUS candidate he didn't like.

the_optimist 5y ago
1) You cannot even come close to proving your statement, and 2) None of this would even be illegal if it weren't for intel agencies acting as political hit squads.
- res0nat0r 5y ago
  It has already been documented and laid out in the Mueller Report, and summarized here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Commi...
  - the_optimist 5y ago
    We have all read the Mueller report. It entirely fails on the points above. It’s right there in the link you sent. Do you care to differentiate between unsubstantiated allegations and reality? You just want everyone to pretend your conspiratorial story, based strictly on allegations, is true?
    - res0nat0r 5y ago
      It is true and substantiated, and detailed in the Mueller report. Just because you don't like these facts don't make them false.
      - the_optimist 5y ago
        Oh, is it then? Remarkable. Then post directly here the part where it says: > In reality he laundered hacked materials he knowingly received from an adversarial to the USA nation state actor, and released it deliberately to interfere with the US election process to damage a POTUS candidate he didn't like. I know that you cannot and will not, because it doesn't say that. But you can try your darnedest. Give it a good college try.
        res0nat0r 5y ago
        This is tiresome, but like I mentioned has already been proven. > On December 9, 2016, the CIA told U.S. legislators the U.S. Intelligence Community concluded Russia conducted operations during the 2016 U.S. election to assist Donald Trump in winning the presidency.[12][66][67] Multiple U.S intelligence agencies concluded people with direct ties to the Kremlin gave WikiLeaks hacked emails from the DNC and additional sources such as John Podesta, campaign chairman for Hillary Clinton. > On July 27, 2016, The New York Times reported that Julian Assange, in an interview on British ITV on June 12, 2016, had "made it clear that he hoped to harm Hillary Clinton's chances of winning the presidency", and that in a later interview[118] on the program Democracy Now! on July 25, 2016, the first day of the Democratic National Convention, he acknowledged that "he had timed their release to coincide with the Democratic convention."[50][119] In an interview with CNN, Assange would neither confirm nor deny who WikiLeaks' sources were; he claimed that his website "... might release "a lot more material" relevant to the US electoral campaign ..."
        the_optimist 5y ago
        Perfect. You quoted Wikipedia, not the report you claim has the information. Wikipedia cited the WP. WP cited 'secret'. How do we know it? "CIA told us." Why do we believe it? "CIA told us." What evidence do we have? "CIA told us so." How'd they come to this conclusion? "That's for them to know and us to take in faith." Do they have a history of lying? "Yes." To Congress? "Yes." Are there any consequences for this? "No." Okay, so you want to steer our country and globe like this? "Yes." It's BS turtles all the way down. Oh, and btw their primary collaborators are pathological, serial liar, child molestors who are both threatened with prosecutorial jeopardy and granted legal immunity.
DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
I'd like to understand the difference between "interfere[nce] with the US election process" and releasing true information that some voters use to inform their vote.