Julian Assange: 'We Released Thousands of Emails Clinton Herself Has Used a 'C' in Brackets'

a reply to: Grambler

It is a very complex issue indeed.

I guess I am more concerned with what the leaks say than who released them. I am sure you would agree that we shouldn't just turn a blind eye to the content of these leaks based on suspicions of who leaked them. But that seems to be Hillary's stance.

I agree regarding the content of the leaks. Who exposes a crime doesn't change the nature of the crime. Setting aside the whole fruit of the poisonous tree issue of evidentiary standards and stipulating that whatever documents to be released are genuine, it's difficult to justify not advocating prosecution.

Where I get hung up is the rammifications in the geopolitical context. I'm sure you remember the Merkel phone tapping scandal where Wikileaks published documents seeming to expose the NSA for eavesdropping not only on Merkel's communications but also those of several German ministers and members of the media?

After an investigation, the Germans reported that there was no "actionable evidence" that the NSA was tapping the phones of Merkel and others. The Obama administration promised they wouldn't do that, yadda yadda and *poof* it just goes away. Even for spying that's egregious. We're talking about tapping the phone of the head of state of a key ally as well as top level officials and members of the media.

Why would the Germans take that lying down? What should have been the response of the German people? Petition to oust Merkel and demand severing ties with the United States? What should have been the repsonse of the American people? Demand that our government shutter our spying operations?

What would be the practical implications of a weakening of the relationship between the US and Germany? It's hard to imagine it being beneficial for either nation. I know I'm going off on a tangent here but I'm just trying to make a point about the brutal reality of geopolitics.

Let's just assume for the sake of argument that both Clinton and Trump are more or less equally dishonest and self-serving (which is essentially my view), the possibility that Russia is exposing the corruption of one candidate because they feel the other is more likely to acquiesce to their agenda is something that deserves serious consideration.

If Assange is working toward that end, he's clearly no friend of any American. That said, if Wikileaks dumps something really damning and nothing similar drops on Trump, what choice do we have but to play into their hands? As you said, we can't very well just let it slide. If dirt was dug up and exposed on both, that's even worse still.

What a debacle. To hell with them all, particularly the DNC for overtly backing Clinton over an honest man with no baggage, no scandals, no history of cronyism, etc and of course Clinton for... well being Clinton.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Alien Abduct

How much should we wager that Clinton will find a way to get out of the debates? Either that or she will blame her health for a poor showing.

I am sure the latest emails will be a topic that comes up.

Actually, trump was triyng to get out of the debates. Then he lied and said the NFL sent him a letter about the debate dates.

Or was that John Miller? you know, his 'other' persona. Health? I wonder if he is being treated for multiple personality disorder.

a reply to: mobiusmale

James Comey didn't recommend indictment because there's no case.

Your "expert" opinion (*belief*) of what might happen in such a circumstance is just that ... an opinion, and in your case, obviously, a biased one.

However, it makes for good fodder for the ATS grist mill, eh?

a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm curious on what grade you would give to Clinton? IN MY OPINION, her grade is lower than Trumps grade. It's sad that we Americans have to vote for either of these two clowns.

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm curious on what grade you would give to Clinton? IN MY OPINION, her grade is lower than Trumps grade. It's sad that we Americans have to vote for either of these two clowns.

Grade?

L

"Least likely to do something incredibly stupid."

Clinton will have handlers. Trump ... would play a different role. "Agent of Change."

I think with Clinton, we might have 3-4 years before widescale international war.

If it's Trump, I wouldn't bet on much past the middle of 2017.

This "election" will be kept neck-and-neck until November. It will be more and more bitter and divisive.

Divisive is the key, in use since Caesar.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Alien Abduct

How much should we wager that Clinton will find a way to get out of the debates? Either that or she will blame her health for a poor showing.

I am sure the latest emails will be a topic that comes up.

Actually, trump was triyng to get out of the debates. Then he lied and said the NFL sent him a letter about the debate dates.

Or was that John Miller? you know, his 'other' persona. Health? I wonder if he is being treated for multiple personality disorder.

How often do you guys complain when a Trump thread becomes about Hillary? Ill wager a guess. How about every time?

I believe the FBI did nothing because they were ordered to do nothing. However, I think they have released the notes as their way of trying to do something. The notes they released really help to emphasize what a liar and possibly incompetent person HC is. Shes either lying about being incompetent to cover up her lies or she really is incompetent. Either way is scary. I'm sure the FBI doesn't want to work with her anymore than some of us want her for president.

a reply to: Xcathdra


WHERE...Cuz Assange is an idiot...

He says he has released "Thousands of emails" "Where she, herself used the (C) marking" ?????

DID HE FORGOT TO CITE THOSE EMAILS???

WHERE ???..There are thousands right?

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Yeah the FBI is looking as criminal as Hillary.

If their intention was to lose credibility so as to save her, then well done.

They are her bitch. She has their agents killed if they are too upity, does what ever she wants with their personal and professional lives, and walks all over them from the top down.

What a bunch of pussies. The CIA is what ever people say they are, but at least they arent anyones bitch. Especially Hillarys.

The FBI are hillarys public relations employees. They might as well work for CTR.

To think their predecessors faced mafia dons and monsters in the past, but this old bitch has them by the balls.

sad day.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Gryphon66
Serious question.

If something is released that shows Hillary herself used a "C" to mark classified information, would you think this proves that she lied?

And do you think lying to the FBI is a big deal?

The (C) marks confidential information not classified if I understand correctly; the terms are used inaccurately.

I think politicians lie, Grambler.

Is Clinton a politician?

so why are you wasting so much of your time defending a liar in every single damn thread on ATS that bashes Hillary?

looks almost like something one would have to get paid for to do.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
James Comey didn't recommend indictment because there's no case.

Actually, what he said was Clinton was extremely careless, and negligent.

But "no reasonable prosecutor would bring the case".

We all know what reasonable prosecutor that was, on the plane
with Bill Clinton, who then admitted it looked inappropriate,
because it was.

dble post

The C in brackets stands for confidential, which is one of the classification levels.

At the basic level:

Confidential
Secret
Top Secret
Sensitive compartmented information (SCI)

Emails containing all the levels listed above where in her private email server.


Comey recommended no charges because he applied his own standard instead of using the legal standard set out in the law in question. Comey tried to say she showed no intent to break the law. Intent is not required to violate the relevant section of the espionage act. Given the FBI notes regarding Clintons interview it became clear the fix was in.

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: Gryphon66
James Comey didn't recommend indictment because there's no case.

Actually, what he said was Clinton was extremely careless, and negligent.

But "no reasonable prosecutor would bring the case".

We all know what reasonable prosecutor that was, on the plane
with Bill Clinton, who then admitted it looked inappropriate,
because it was.

IF you wish to actually quote what the FBI Director said in context we can talk. If not, you're just recounting the story in your own way to support your own political beliefs.

originally posted by: jedi_hamster

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Gryphon66
Serious question.

If something is released that shows Hillary herself used a "C" to mark classified information, would you think this proves that she lied?

And do you think lying to the FBI is a big deal?

The (C) marks confidential information not classified if I understand correctly; the terms are used inaccurately.

I think politicians lie, Grambler.

Is Clinton a politician?

so why are you wasting so much of your time defending a liar in every single damn thread on ATS that bashes Hillary?

looks almost like something one would have to get paid for to do.

Why are you wasting your time commenting on what another member is doing while simultaneously adding nothing except a silly accusation that is against ATS T&C?

I am not "defending Clinton" as much I am working to correct lies, misdirection, obfuscation, logical fallacies, etc. in regard to seemingly mindless repetition of garbage from the American right-wing media.

Next question? Anything on topic?

a reply to: Gryphon66

I am working to correct lies, misdirection, obfuscation, logical fallacies, etc. in regard to seemingly mindless repetition of garbage from the American right-wing media.

Yeah dont get mad next time you get called out for doing such