It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"overt" ? sounds like shill language to me. Well written but sounds to me like the kind of article a Clinton staffer would write. Pre-election hype to me.
originally posted by: ParasuvO
originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
That's what I always thought too but it seems to be only liberals being targeted by Russian hacks.
Liberals are the ones who need targeting lately, they are the ones causing all the problems and confusion in the world.
And everyone knows it.
Sure, support foreign interference... as long as bad things are said about liberals, right?
The number one issue for Russia, imo, to attempt to manipulate US elections is to gain more control in the Middle East, particularly the path of the proposed natural gas lines from Qatar and Iran. Both run through Syria.
originally posted by: theantediluvian
I agree with that to an extent though I believe it's grown beyond a personal vendetta against the US govt or Clinton. If you look at WikiLeaks targets, they don't simply focus on the US and ignore Russia — they also ignore Russian allies while targetting those of the US.
Maybe that's what I'll do in the next post? A breakdown of the leaks, Tweets, etc for the past 5-6 years as way of quantifying WikiLeak's bias.
In any case, I believe that citizens of the US and allied nations need to strongly consider Assange's agenda (which is clearly not neutral and not the stated mission of WikiLeaks) as they're swooning over him and holding him up as some sort of luminary of transparency and free speech.
On July 22, as the convention wound down, former U.S. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich talked to CNN New Day anchor Alisyn Camerota. The telling moment came when Camerota confronted Gingrich about Trump’s incendiary acceptance speech. The Republican nominee painted a bleak picture of the modern world — one where crime, chaos and terror lurk in America’s cities and no one is safe.
In reality, violent crime is down across the country, and the world is more peaceful than it was during most of the 20th century. Camerota pointed out the sinking crime rates to Gingrich.
“The average American … does not think crime is down, does not think they are safer,” Gingrich replied.
“But we are safer, and it is down,” Camerota retorted.
“No, that’s your view,” Gingrich said.
“It’s a fact,” she pressed.
“But what I said is also a fact … The current view is that liberals have a whole set of statistics which theoretically may be right, but it’s not where human beings are. People are frightened. People feel that their government has abandoned them.”
“Hold on, Mr. Speaker, because you’re saying liberals use these numbers, they use this sort of magic math,” Camerota said. “This is the FBI statistics. They’re not a liberal organization.”
“No, but what I said is equally true. People feel it.”
“They feel it, yes, but the facts don’t support it.”
“As a political candidate, I’ll go with how people feel and I’ll let you go with the theoreticians.”
The metadata show that the Russian operators apparently edited some documents, and in some cases created new documents after the intruders were already expunged from the DNC network on June 11. A file called donors.xls, for instance, was created more than a day after the story came out, on June 15, most likely by copy-pasting an existing list into a clean document. Although so far the actual content of the leaked documents appears not to have been tampered with, manipulation would fit an established pattern of operational behaviour in other contexts, such as troll farms or planting fake media stories. Subtle (or not so subtle) manipulation of content may be in the interest of the adversary in the future. Documents that were leaked by or through an intelligence operation should be handled with great care, and journalists should not simply treat them as reliable sources.
Instead of fighting Assange about releasing the material, it should be pointed out that not only is Assange using the Wikileaks platform in a personal vendetta against Hillary Clinton, he’s doing so with information that may have been altered and is therefore not trustworthy. First rule of real journalism: Make sure your sources can be trusted.
eta: Gogled true pundit, my anti virus and malware protection say its a moderate risk, unless I really need to go to the site I avoid moderate risk sites.
Can they leave tampered docs, so that even though they might no longer return, the tampered docs would be left behind?
Could this mean that leaked docs could come from sites that have been hacked previously but are not aware that they have been hacked? That these sites could have docs that have been altered which they are not even aware of?
Anything but the same story over and over.