It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

blaming Wikileaks is pointless

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Wikileaks are journalists. They can leak whatever the # they want. It's all fair game, just like Trump bought Chinese steel, Trump's taxes in 1995, Trump's Access Hollywood tape in 2005 were all leaked in the election.

Voters had the right to information about the candidates and the parties before casting their vote.
edit on 7-1-2017 by FanDanGo because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Yes.

Voters have every right to the truth !!



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: FanDanGo

Yup. If you have dirty secrets your best bet is to not set your password to password.



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: FanDanGo
Wikileaks are journalists. They can leak whatever the # they want. It's all fair game, just like Trump bought Chinese steel, Trump's taxes in 1995, Trump's Access Hollywood tape in 2005 were all leaked in the election.

Voters had the right to information about the candidates and the parties before casting their vote.


I don't blame wikileaks, in general, the word is right in their name. I am getting the idea that a lot of what they dumped was not for the 'greater good', though. They dumped heavily on one side, to influence perception on one side. They dumped minutae. They dumped things they should have known were distractions from other important issues.

If they KNEW some of the information they received was from Russian go-betweens, paid for by the Russian government, then I have a problem.

I have had a little bit of a problem with their journalism ethics as of late.
edit on 7-1-2017 by reldra because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-1-2017 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 03:10 PM
link   
There is a difference between public, private, and classified information, so "legally" they can't leak anything they want.

Although I agree that voters should be given as much information as possible before voting.



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: FanDanGo

Yup. If you have dirty secrets your best bet is to not set your password to password.


He did not set his password to password and it was for CAP. Not Gmail. He was given a temp password by an admin.
Please, do try and keep up.



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: FanDanGo

How does this differ from possessing stolen property?



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

Trump's classified taxes and tape and buying steel from China were all stolen. Stealing for information in election is fair game.



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

My point being that the responsibility lies with the leakee. Not the leaker.



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: FanDanGo
Wikileaks are journalists. They can leak whatever the # they want. It's all fair game, just like Trump bought Chinese steel, Trump's taxes in 1995, Trump's Access Hollywood tape in 2005 were all leaked in the election.

Voters had the right to information about the candidates and the parties before casting their vote.


I don't blame wikileaks, in general, the word is right in their name. I am getting the idea that a lot of what they dumped was not for the 'greater good', though. They dumped heavily on one side, to influence perception on one side. They dumped minutae. They dumped things they should have known were distractions from other important issues.

If they KNEW some of the information they received was from Russian go-betweens, paid for by the Russian government, then I have a problem.

I have had a little bit of a problem with their journalism ethics as of late.


Yea, but God Bless those who leaked the Trump tapes.



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: reldra

My point being that the responsibility lies with the leakee. Not the leaker.


Is there any evidence the leakers of Trump's classified information are not foreigners? Who's to confirm they are not foreigners? It's fair game, whether foreigners or domestic. Voters have the right to information in election.



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: FanDanGo

Yup. If you have dirty secrets your best bet is to not set your password to password.


He did not set his password to password and it was for CAP. Not Gmail. He was given a temp password by an admin.
Please, do try and keep up.


How do you know? (pro tip- you don't)



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: FanDanGo

I'm all for as much transparency as possible. Information is critical.

But in this case I don't care who leaked what. Foreign or not.



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: FanDanGo
Wikileaks are journalists. They can leak whatever the # they want. It's all fair game, just like Trump bought Chinese steel, Trump's taxes in 1995, Trump's Access Hollywood tape in 2005 were all leaked in the election.

Voters had the right to information about the candidates and the parties before casting their vote.


I don't blame wikileaks, in general, the word is right in their name. I am getting the idea that a lot of what they dumped was not for the 'greater good', though. They dumped heavily on one side, to influence perception on one side. They dumped minutae. They dumped things they should have known were distractions from other important issues.

If they KNEW some of the information they received was from Russian go-betweens, paid for by the Russian government, then I have a problem.

I have had a little bit of a problem with their journalism ethics as of late.


Yea, but God Bless those who leaked the Trump tapes.


I never said God Bless them. I am sure they were not working for a foreign state actor, though.



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra


They dumped heavily on one side, to influence perception on one side.


They've dumped heavily on all sides throughout the 10 years in Wikileaks' existence.

You accuse Wikileaks of trying to influence perception on one side yet the emails and documents they published were available to everyone from all sides. In order for Wikileaks to influence the perception of one side they would have had to have leaked their material to the constituents of only one political party.

What's more, you criticize Wikileaks for trying to influence the public's perception on behalf of one side, an accusation that stands unproven, and you remain silent about the proven corruption from the MSM. The New York Times published an illegally obtained copy of Trump's tax returns from 1995, but you didn't seem to complain much about that.


I have had a little bit of a problem with their journalism ethics as of late.


Every critical statement you have made about Wikileaks is a projection of the lack of journalistic integrity coming from your own party and the MSM. Wikileaks succeeds to exist because the MSM has left a vacuum of lies and propaganda that the public instinctively tries to occupy with truth.


They dumped things they should have known were distractions from other important issues.


Could you PLEASE elaborate on this statement? WHAT other important issues?

I'm dying to know what could have been more important or relevant than evidence of the DNC rigging the primaries against Hillary's opposition, proof of the media colluding with a presidential campaign, proof that CNN gave HRC the list of debate questions in advance, proof that Hillary Clinton lied to Congress, proof that the President sent and received emails to HRC via her illegal private server and then lied about to to the American public, proof that Hillary Clinton conspired to rig a Palestinian election in 2006, the list goes on...

You move fast for someone who cannot see.



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: FanDanGo

Yup. If you have dirty secrets your best bet is to not set your password to password.


He did not set his password to password and it was for CAP. Not Gmail. He was given a temp password by an admin.
Please, do try and keep up.


How do you know? (pro tip- you don't)


I do know and I am not accepting 'pro tips' from you. It has been gone over on this very site.



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: FanDanGo
a reply to: Bluntone22

Trump's classified taxes and tape and buying steel from China were all stolen. Stealing for information in election is fair game.


There is nothing "Classified" about Trumps taxes!

Where is it required by law?

As far as buying steel? Blame Bill Clinton for that! Yea, I live in W. PA where the blue collar workers in the steel mills suffered from Slick Willies globalist agenda!



edit on 7-1-2017 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: reldra


They dumped heavily on one side, to influence perception on one side.


They've dumped heavily on all sides throughout the 10 years in Wikileaks' existence.

You accuse Wikileaks of trying to influence perception on one side yet the emails and documents they published were available to everyone from all sides. In order for Wikileaks to influence the perception of one side they would have had to have leaked their material to the constituents of only one political party.

What's more, you criticize Wikileaks for trying to influence the public's perception on behalf of one side, an accusation that stands unproven, and you remain silent about the proven corruption from the MSM. The New York Times published an illegally obtained copy of Trump's tax returns from 1995, but you didn't seem to complain much about that.


I have had a little bit of a problem with their journalism ethics as of late.


Every critical statement you have made about Wikileaks is a projection of the lack of journalistic integrity coming from your own party and the MSM. Wikileaks succeeds to exist because the MSM has left a vacuum of lies and propaganda that the public instinctively tries to occupy with truth.


They dumped things they should have known were distractions from other important issues.


Could you PLEASE elaborate on this statement? WHAT other important issues?

I'm dying to know what could have been more important or relevant than evidence of the DNC rigging the primaries against Hillary's opposition, proof of the media colluding with a presidential campaign, proof that CNN gave HRC the list of debate questions in advance, proof that Hillary Clinton lied to Congress, proof that the President sent and received emails to HRC via her illegal private server and then lied about to to the American public, proof that Hillary Clinton conspired to rig a Palestinian election in 2006, the list goes on...

You move fast for someone who cannot see.


We are talking about wikileaks, in this thread, I thought. Everything else is deflection. (see most of your post).

In the past Wikileaks was leaking a wide rangs of things. This past year, not so much.



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: FanDanGo

Tell that to all the celebrities collecting millions in legal compensation for their leaked nudes...

There is a difference between transparency and a safety deposit bank... that's obvious. What is stolen becomes irrelevant until where it is stolen from is decided as lawful or not.



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra


I never said God Bless them. I am sure they were not working for a foreign state actor, though.


Working on behalf of a foreign state actor you say. Obviously referring to the Russian hack allegation, an accusation with nothing to back it up.

What are your thoughts on Obama trying to influence the Israeli election last year? Were you aware that he spent money on anti-Netanyahu adds in order to prevent him from being reelected?

Let's talk about the leaked audio tape of Hillary Clinton in 2006 suggesting that the CIA rig the Palestinian elections.

What are your thoughts on that? These are two proven cases of United States diplomats, one being the POTUS, trying to influence and/or rig the elections in another nation.

There's no evidence that Russia tried to interfere in our election. There's no evidence that the documents obtained by Wikileaks were given to them by Russia. There's no evidence that Julian Assange leaks material based on a political bias.

Keep trying.

Or don't.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join