Wikileaks question.

[Blackmarch]

Does anyone know if there has been any corroboration of the items given by wikileaks, by anyone other than wikileaks or wikileaks affiliates?

Edited November 2, 2016 by Blackmarch

[anatess2]

On 11/2/2016 at 11:36 AM, Blackmarch said:

Does anyone know if there has been any corroboration of the items given by wikileaks, by anyone other than wikileaks or wikileaks affiliates?

I'm not sure what you're asking.  Corroboration?  As in, somebody outside of wikileaks says - yep, those emails were really sent...  I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.

If you're asking if anybody has proven wikileaks is true... Well, it's really easy to prove if it's false - just have Podesta or any of the personalities corresponding with him say, those aren't my emails!  And, nobody has said any of that... rather, the Democrats say - the Russians hacked Podesta's emails and gave it to Assange.  So... even the Democrats admit those are real emails.

[jerome1232]

I trust wikileaks more than I do the Clinton administration but it's incredibly easy for them to have really hacked and obtained real emails and slip in modified or fabricated emails into the mix.

You can't prove you never sent an email.

[Blackmarch]

20 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I'm not sure what you're asking.  Corroboration?  As in, somebody outside of wikileaks says - yep, those emails were really sent...  I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.

If you're asking if anybody has proven wikileaks is true... Well, it's really easy to prove if it's false - just have Podesta or any of the personalities corresponding with him say, those aren't my emails!  And, nobody has said any of that... rather, the Democrats say - the Russians hacked Podesta's emails and gave it to Assange.  So... even the Democrats admit those are real emails.

yes that pretty much. but i'm talking than more than just the emails, we've also got tons of names of folks who were at dinner informal meetings saying different things or who said to contact who and yada yada yada. have any of them spilled beans and confirmed those conversations (or someone close to those people)? So far the best i've seen are the veritas project video clips (which i think do add a lot of weight).

The stuff being reported from the FBI is probably credible, but on the other hand if one was bought off by clinton it's also possible that others are bought off by opposing parties.

unfortunately using silence as an admission of guilt is treading pretty dangerous ground. (and yes it is fishy, and doesn't seem to help their cause)

Edited November 4, 2016 by Blackmarch

[Blackmarch]

19 hours ago, jerome1232 said:

I trust wikileaks more than I do the Clinton administration but it's incredibly easy for them to have really hacked and obtained real emails and slip in modified or fabricated emails into the mix.

You can't prove you never sent an email.

I don't doubt that they hacked in and got emails, but can you trust them to not change anything or add any of their own stuff, or keep things in context?

Edited November 4, 2016 by Blackmarch

[anatess2]

18 hours ago, jerome1232 said:

I trust wikileaks more than I do the Clinton administration but it's incredibly easy for them to have really hacked and obtained real emails and slip in modified or fabricated emails into the mix.

You can't prove you never sent an email.

You don't have to prove it.  You just have to deny sending it.  Nobody has done that.  The fact that they blame the Russians (as if Putin is just some chihuahua that you can throw sticks at - especially as the extremely liberal NYT was forced to publish an article buried in the deep pages of the newspaper that their investigative journalists cannot find any links to Russia) instead of denying any of the emails says something.  The fact that Donna Brazille got fired (okay, resigned) from CNN, Debbie Schultz was fired (okay, resigned) from the DNC chair, etc. adds credibility to the leaks.

Wikileaks also has a 10-year reputation of being dead-on accurate.  They have successfully fought off over 100 legal battles in defense of their "leaks".  And they're equal-opportunity-leakers.  They published Sarah Palin's emails back in 2008 for which the press gleefully reported on.  But those were small potatoes...

The big potatoes are the leaks concerning Foreign Policies worldwide... for example:

1.)  The secret war the US waged on Yemen.

2.)  The Israel bluff of Iranian air strikes

3.)  The Saudi King urging the US to bomb Iran to stop their nuclear program.

4.)  The Israeli Defense Minister asking Egypt and Fatah to assume control of Gaza after they defeat Hamas.

5.)  The US knowledge of Karzai's corruption and drug trafficking and still continued to deal with him regularly anyway.

6.)  The restrictions imposed on Guantanamo Bay prisoners.

and so on and so forth...

 

[anatess2]

31 minutes ago, Blackmarch said:

yes that pretty much. but i'm talking than more than just the emails, we've also got tons of names of folks who were at dinner informal meetings saying different things or who said to contact who and yada yada yada. have any of them spilled beans and confirmed those conversations (or someone close to those people)? So far the best i've seen are the veritas project video clips (which i think do add a lot of weight).

The stuff being reported from the FBI is probably credible, but on the other hand if one was bought off by clinton it's also possible that others are bought off by opposing parties.

 

As far as wikileaks... you can't buy off wikileaks.  That's not how they work.  They have a 10-year reputation that they're hanging on to to maintain credibility and keep them afloat and "protected".  The only reason Sweden keeps their website up and the Ecuadorian Embassy in London is giving them assylum is because of this credibility.  So yeah, wikileaks run on donations...  but, they can't receive donations online because credit cards, paypal, etc. banned people from from using their cards to donate to wikileaks.  They are also banned from holding bank accounts from most countries including Switzerland.  They are also banned from ISPs except in Sweden - the only one that will host them is PRQ (the same ISP that hosts online pirates).   So, it is very risky to donate to wikileaks because it is difficult to do it anonymously... especially as THAT info can get leaked!

So, how do they get their "leaks"... basically, any hacker in the universe can submit "leaks" to wikileaks.  Wikileaks choose if the leaks are important enough (their mission is to expose human rights violations, foreign policy and diplomatic untruths, and political corruption) then they run investigative units to research the "leaks".  Interestingly, one of their partners is the New York Times investigative unit (interesting because NYT adminstration is pro-Clinton through and through).  If they are found credible, they get published on wikileaks.

Quote

unfortunately using silence as an admission of guilt is treading pretty dangerous ground. (and yes it is fishy, and doesn't seem to help their cause)

This was the Bush/Cheney method of withstanding the Democrat attacks in the 8 years they ran the country.  They just ignored all of them... even Cindy Sheehan who blockaded the Bush ranch in Texas was ignored.

Trump, on the other hand, went the complete opposite of this.  Every assertion that he believes is not true he gives immediate rebuttal even if it causes his campaign to get sidetracked.  He stated that he cannot let these assertions become public record without his rebuttal added to it regardless of its effects to his campaign.  He said that he is not sure if this will lead to better results than the usual Republican "we're not going to dignify that preposterous assertion with comment", but we will soon find out on Nov 8.

The Democrats' method is to personally attack the messenger if they can't rebut the message.  So Ken Starr, this super boring boy scout of a lawyer, got his public image transformed into a sexual pervert peeping tom thanks to Hillary Clinton.

[Blackmarch]

I'll reserve judgement about the not buying off bit. I've heard that a bit too often.

[anatess2]

9 minutes ago, Blackmarch said:

I'll reserve judgement about the not buying off bit. I've heard that a bit too often.

Sure.  That's fair.   It really just doesn't make sense for hiim to be bought off with all the leaks he's released in the past 10 years that impacts entire world governments including the entire US government - especially against both major parties that has been in power the past 10 years.  But, that's just my solo opinion on the matter.

Regardless, it doesn't matter if Assange got bought off or not.  The leaks remain.  Like, it doesn't matter that it was Snowden that leaked NSA documents that the US government is spying on its citizens... the fact that the US government was spying on American citizens remain.

[Blackmarch]

16 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Sure.  That's fair.   It really just doesn't make sense for hiim to be bought off with all the leaks he's released in the past 10 years that impacts entire world governments including the entire US government - especially against both major parties that has been in power the past 10 years.  But, that's just my solo opinion on the matter.

Regardless, it doesn't matter if Assange got bought off or not.  The leaks remain.  Like, it doesn't matter that it was Snowden that leaked NSA documents that the US government is spying on its citizens... the fact that the US government was spying on American citizens remain.

for Assanges case I don't think he's been bought out, nor would I try to use that angle if I were some organization trying to use him to put pressure on someone else, but he certainly has motivation for trying to tear down the democratic party.

[Traveler]

 

Why Wikileaks?  It is my opinion that in the evolution of news – both newspapers and TV news that such evolution has taken the news from informative to entertainment – and in general the internet has become blog opinions.   Wikileaks is – in my opinion one of few still objective news sources but Wikileaks is specialized news – it is the one place for whistle blowers to turn.  TV news is biased by management and sponsors – there is no such thing in media as non-bias news reporting – the No Spin Zone does not exist.  If someone has proof of corruption that must take that proof somewhere.  If the proof of corruption includes something in our government – such proof is going to be classified and to leak such information is by definition criminal.

Much of the corruption of our government has long ago spilled over into business seeking and needing government cooperation with both legal and illegal endeavors.  In short if someone is going to be a whistle blower – there are few places to turn.  The most reliable place to take proof of corruption in today’s world is Wikileaks. 

What various news services do with Wikileaks information and how they spin it tells everyone exactly why such news sources do not get such information first hand in the first place.  As many know the founder and controller of Wikileaks is under international warrant for child abuse.  I find this interesting – it seems to me that when power centers get ticked off or want to discredit something – they use some kind of sexual abuse format rather than the information coming from the source.  We find this tactic used in times past with even our Prophet Joseph Smith.  This is because there is seldom a “paper trail” with sexual accusations and just the smoke of such accusations is enough to frighten concerned citizens.  I also find it odd that this is the primary means used to attack Trump.  I am not in a position to know the truth of anything – but I am suspicious. 

In summary – no one disputes the validity of Wikileaks – the only way to counter their information is to attempt to discredit the source and not the information.  In intellectual circles that understand propaganda – this is called miss direction. 

 

The Traveler

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, Blackmarch said:

for Assanges case I don't think he's been bought out, nor would I try to use that angle if I were some organization trying to use him to put pressure on someone else, but he certainly has motivation for trying to tear down the democratic party.

What motivation is that?

[Traveler]

 

Just as a follow up - If I were a betting person; I would bet that the hacked emails from Hillary's server; were not hacked by Russia and leaked to Wikileaks but hacked by FBI agents fed up with the corruption of Washington and leaked to Wikileaks becuase there is not a trust worthy news agency in this country that would never reveal the source.  Fox would want everybody to know the source was inside the FBI to make Fox look cool and CNN would want the source in jail.

For the LDS that think the priesthood will someday save the USA Consitution when it is hanging by a thread - Too late - the Constitution is only used when it benefits the current party in power.

 

The Traveler

[Blackmarch]

On 11/4/2016 at 0:23 PM, anatess2 said:

What motivation is that?

the current US leadership is pretty much responsible for his exile. tried to get him jailed... and even entertained the thought of having him assissinated (if one trusts the leaks).

Edited November 6, 2016 by Blackmarch

[bytebear]

Wikileaks doesn't seem to have a political ideology.  It's a collection of documents, from all sorts of sources (including LDS handbooks), which are not freely available otherwise.  He gets stuff, he publishes it.  As far as I know, he has never had a single document refuted or considered fraudulent.  Not one.  And no one in the DNC are even making that claim.  CNN believed them enough to fire Donna Brazille for leaking debate questions to Hillary (but, ironically, considers them taboo to discuss, and hasn't come out in condemnation of Hillary for leveraging the leaked debate questions to her favor).   I see no reason for Wikileaks to fake material, as any single fraud would taint their entire operation.

Edited November 6, 2016 by bytebear

[anatess2]

On 11/5/2016 at 9:39 PM, Blackmarch said:

the current US leadership is pretty much responsible for his exile. tried to get him jailed... and even entertained the thought of having him assissinated (if one trusts the leaks).

That's not necessarily the Democratic Party.  It would be more like the US in general.  The Republicans were just as disgruntled over Assange as the Democrats are especially with the 2012 election leaks and the leak of the names of intelligence assets.  But then, it's not only the US that's out to get him...