The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[frank ryan]

The thing is, Frank, that I don't recall any vigorous denials, or denials at all, from Clinton or Obama or Podesta about the accuracy of the released e-mails. Clinton is very upset that Trump's friend Putin is involved in procuring the emails (allegedly) but she has not said they are inaccurate or wrong.


I dislike Assange as much as the next guy, but I dont think he has a track record of fabricating or altering materials he releases.

There's been some instances, like this one: http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/wikil...ank-2-billion/

Assange can rot in that little tiny Ecuadorian embassy for all I care, although I think they might be tired of him.

[YOhio]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8...ca.html?pg=all

Would be much better if he said something about the horrendous religious bigotry so common amongst fat cat big money college athletic department and conference administrators.

[Commando]

Hillary's up +10 on early ballot returns in AZ.

Embedded Tweet

[Uncle Ted]

Putin's rentboy, Assange has given everyone scandal fatigue. I don't care about these leaks, no can I trust them.

The liberal's rentboy sez otherwise...

[Uncle Ted]

nobody without a clearance could possibly know this, and there are a few compelling reasons to not respond to stolen emails even if they've been doctored

The claim the emails have been doctored is BS...

Yes, we can validate the Wikileaks emails


Recently, WikiLeaks has released emails from Democrats. Many have repeatedly claimed that some of these emails are fake or have been modified, that there's no way to validate each and every one of them as being true. Actually, there is, using a mechanism called DKIM.


DKIM is a system designed to stop spam. It works by verifying the sender of the email. Moreover, as a side effect, it verifies that the email has not been altered.


Hillary's team uses "hillaryclinton.com", which as DKIM enabled. Thus, we can verify whether some of these emails are true.


Recently, in response to a leaked email suggesting Donna Brazile gave Hillary's team early access to debate questions, she defended herself by suggesting the email had been "doctored" or "falsified". That's not true. We can use DKIM to verify it.
[...]

http://blog.erratasec.com/2016/10/ye...l#.WBACBqOZNSP

[Moliere]

Fair point as to the classified materials, but not all of it is classified. In fact, much of it isnt classified.

While I hate Assange, I kind of agree here. These emails should have been at least as much of the public record as all other similar state emails. The suppression of some of them by Clinton is horrible and corrupt and I'd rather they come to light through an illegal means than never come to light. Sometimes two wrongs make a right...or maybe if Hillary had done the right thing to begin with then Assange wouldn't have any part in this.

I also love the tinfoil hat wearing argument that Assange is in the tank for Trump. That's funny. I don't think he's in the tank for anyone, except for people that want secrets to be made public.

[old_gregg]

I also love the tinfoil hat wearing argument that Assange is in the tank for Trump. That's funny. I don't think he's in the tank for anyone, except for people that want secrets to be made public.

it is definitely more than a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theory now.

[Moliere]

it is definitely more than a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theory now.

I agree, it's crazier than a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory

[Uncle Ted]

There's been some instances, like this one: http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/wikil...ank-2-billion/

Assange can rot in that little tiny Ecuadorian embassy for all I care, although I think they might be tired of him.

I pretty sure wikileaks is much bigger than Assange... In fact, he might actually be dead given that no one has heard from him in some time. However, wikileaks is still releasing batches of emails every day. Snuff out one Assange and five more will pop up.

[old_gregg]

I agree, it's crazier than a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory

u r dumb

[Moliere]

u r dumb

Well, that's a revelation!

Just because someone did something to hurt your favorite candidate, it doesn't mean they are in the tank for the other guy.

Assam he likes transparency. Clinton hates transparency and was willing to stretch federal laws to avoid it. I'm sure if Trump did the same thing, he'd get the same treatment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[frank ryan]

While I hate Assange, I kind of agree here. These emails should have been at least as much of the public record as all other similar state emails. The suppression of some of them by Clinton is horrible and corrupt and I'd rather they come to light through an illegal means than never come to light. Sometimes two wrongs make a right...or maybe if Hillary had done the right thing to begin with then Assange wouldn't have any part in this.

I also love the tinfoil hat wearing argument that Assange is in the tank for Trump. That's funny. I don't think he's in the tank for anyone, except for people that want secrets to be made public.

Greg's right, you're being dumb. The intelligence community think GRU/FSB is feeding Assange the material. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...b66_story.html

Moliere, where are all the anti-Trump leaks? Why did Assange turn down the Panama papers?

I also don't get Ted's defensiveness about Assange. Wikileaks isn't much more than Assange. Go look at all the anti-Clinton shit he has for sale on his website. What's tin foil is to believe Swedish feminist activists accused Assange of sexual assault at the behest of their CIA overlords so he could be extradited to Sweden from the UK and turned over the to the US. It makes tons of sense.

[Moliere]

My tin foil hat tells me the anti-Trump leaks are at NBC and the rest of the lamestream media, who sit on 10 year old hit mic footage only to release it one month before the election.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[frank ryan]

Well, that's a revelation!

Just because someone did something to hurt your favorite candidate, it doesn't mean they are in the tank for the other guy.

Assam he likes transparency. Clinton hates transparency and was willing to stretch federal laws to avoid it. I'm sure if Trump did the same thing, he'd get the same treatment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, Assange is not some secular saint. Knock it off. He was given a TV show on RT for fuck's sake.

Here are some articles for you to peruse.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/wo...ge-russia.html

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...nsane-era.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...t-Kremlin.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/snowd...-russia-2013-8

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffberc.../#7719f7266511

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/15/1292926...n-assange-hate

Here's one from back in 13 that speculate Assange was tight with the Kremlin. It's an awesome blog btw :https://warisboring.com/has-wikileak...35a#.6wjckbnhs

[Uncle Ted]

Well, that's a revelation!

Just because someone did something to hurt your favorite candidate, it doesn't mean they are in the tank for the other guy.

Assam he likes transparency. Clinton hates transparency and was willing to stretch federal laws to avoid it. I'm sure if Trump did the same thing, he'd get the same treatment.

Trump doesn't seem like an yuge advocate of transparency either. Otherwise we would have seen his tax returns. The problem with Trump is he doesn't use email, cell phones, or even computers... that makes him pretty secure to the hackers.

John Podesta, on the other hand, is a computer security idiot. First, his default password is 'p@ssword'. His aid sent it to him in an email. Second, the dumbass left his cell phone in a cab and didn't do anything to try to secure the data on it. If this guy was indeed hacked by the Russians then it seems he most likely left the front door wide open. He deserved to have all his email published on wikileaks for having sh*t for brains when it comes to even basic computer security.