Are the UK/US or other western democracy's any better than North Korea?

[laughing dog]

No, they are not. We do not know if everything he leaked is true or if it left out exculpatory information.

The holders of that information (be it the DNC or the government) can release the entirely of everything. Nothing is stopping them from doing so but themselves. If he got this much out, good for him. He's under attack for getting out what he did. Do you also want him under attack for NOT getting out what he didn't? And again, what he got out should probably be looked into. If its disproved then he's engaged in propaganda. If its verified, then he's let out the truth, and people should be asking why it was hidden from the public in the first place.

Like the GOP, the DNC is a private institution. Unless there is some evidence that the DNC violated some laws instead of hurting the feelings of Bernie Backers, there is no reason for any investigation. Nor is there any reason for the DNC to reveal more to try and combat any partial picture the leaked emails may present if those revelations are embarrassing in another way.

Mr Assange plotted a course of action that he had to know would help a narcissistic time bomb to get elected. Mr Assange did no investigation - he took stolen information and revealed it. The revelations that the DNC is not 100% squeaky clean nor that it favored a non-Democrat as its candidate would not be news to any person who functions at a minimal level of intelligence. Anyone who actually cared about the outcomes would have weighed the probative value of that non-news with its potential effect on the election. A responsible course of action would have been to wait until after the election. Mr. Assange knew (or should have known) the risks he was taking. In this instance, the ends (revealing the "truth") do not justify the means (using stolen information) especially when the ultimate end is helping Trump get elected.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

No, they are not. We do not know if everything he leaked is true or if it left out exculpatory information.

The holders of that information (be it the DNC or the government) can release the entirely of everything. Nothing is stopping them from doing so but themselves. If he got this much out, good for him. He's under attack for getting out what he did. Do you also want him under attack for NOT getting out what he didn't? And again, what he got out should probably be looked into. If its disproved then he's engaged in propaganda. If its verified, then he's let out the truth, and people should be asking why it was hidden from the public in the first place.

Like the GOP, the DNC is a private institution. Unless there is some evidence that the DNC violated some laws instead of hurting the feelings of Bernie Backers, there is no reason for any investigation. Nor is there any reason for the DNC to reveal more to try and combat any partial picture the leaked emails may present if those revelations are embarrassing in another way.

I didn't say they should be forced to release such information. I said that they can, if they want to. They have that power. As far as I am aware, Assange wasn't bound by any sort of non-disclosure agreemnet. He revealed what he revealed. If they want to rush to damage control and if revealing "the whole picture" isn't as damning (doubtful) then they have it entirely in their power to do that. If they don't, then too bad, so sad.

Anyone who actually cared about the outcomes

He had no obligation to care about the outcomes of him revealing what he knew. The DNC had every opportunity to reveal the "whole truth" if they thought it would help (doubtful that it would have). And why shouldn't the public know what they learned from Assange?

In this instance, the ends (revealing the "truth") do not justify the means (using stolen information) especially when the ultimate end is helping Trump get elected.

Oh I see. So its a partisan sour grapes thing. What if Assange had instead revealed something about Trump during a period leading up to an election? Like something allegations regarding Russia etc?

 

[ZiprHead]

Like the GOP, the DNC is a private institution. Unless there is some evidence that the DNC violated some laws instead of hurting the feelings of Bernie Backers, there is no reason for any investigation. Nor is there any reason for the DNC to reveal more to try and combat any partial picture the leaked emails may present if those revelations are embarrassing in another way.

I didn't say they should be forced to release such information. I said that they can, if they want to. They have that power. As far as I am aware, Assange wasn't bound by any sort of non-disclosure agreemnet. He revealed what he revealed. If they want to rush to damage control and if revealing "the whole picture" isn't as damning (doubtful) then they have it entirely in their power to do that. If they don't, then too bad, so sad.

Anyone who actually cared about the outcomes

He had no obligation to care about the outcomes of him revealing what he knew. The DNC had every opportunity to reveal the "whole truth" if they thought it would help (doubtful that it would have). And why shouldn't the public know what they learned from Assange?

In this instance, the ends (revealing the "truth") do not justify the means (using stolen information) especially when the ultimate end is helping Trump get elected.

Oh I see. So its a partisan sour grapes thing. What if Assange had instead revealed something about Trump during a period leading up to an election? Like something allegations regarding Russia etc?

IIRC, the RNC was broken into too. I suspect the data that was found from that break in is now being used to blackmail Republicans into falling in line behind Trump instead of being disseminated to Assange. Playing both ends.

 

[laughing dog]

I didn't say they should be forced to release such information.

I said that they can, if they want to......

There is no evidence in your response that you read or understand a single point in my post.

Assange choose to leak stolen information to help one candidate over another. He did not bother to authenticate the emails. I suspect if these leaks had tarnished your idol - Bernie - instead of hated HRC, your tune would be different.

This instance is an example that the ends do not always justify the means.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I didn't say they should be forced to release such information.

I said that they can, if they want to......

There is no evidence in your response that you read or understand a single point in my post.

I understood just fine.

Assange choose to leak stolen information to help one candidate over another.

So what? Did he steal it?

I suspect if these leaks had tarnished your idol - Bernie - instead of hated HRC, your tune would be different.

This tells me two things. First that you think this information tarnished Hillary. If so then it was newsworthy, but instead the news became about how the information you think tarnished Hillary got out. Second, it tells me you have no clue who my "idols" are. I am not even for Bernie in this primary. Was he better than Hillary? Hell yes. But that's not a high bar at all.

This instance is an example that the ends do not always justify the means.

Again, Assange had no obligation to Hillary or anyone else to sit on information that would show something bad about them.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I understood just fine.

Assange choose to leak stolen information to help one candidate over another.

So what? Did he steal it?

I suspect if these leaks had tarnished your idol - Bernie - instead of hated HRC, your tune would be different.

This tells me two things. First that you think this information tarnished Hillary. If so then it was newsworthy, but instead the news became about how the information you think tarnished Hillary got out. Second, it tells me you have no clue who my "idols" are. I am not even for Bernie in this primary. Was he better than Hillary? Hell yes. But that's not a high bar at all.

This instance is an example that the ends do not always justify the means.

Again, Assange had no obligation to Hillary or anyone else to sit on information that would show something bad about them.

Whatever. Dude: why is it hard for you to accept that Assange had a soft spot for the republicans? It's being reported now that Trump's buddy, Roger Stone, was the main contact with Assange.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Whatever. Dude: why is it hard for you to accept that Assange had a soft spot for the republicans? It's being reported now that Trump's buddy, Roger Stone, was the main contact with Assange.

I didn't say Assange does or doesn't have a soft spot for Republicans. I said it doesn't matter. He had no obligation to sit on any information that would put Democrats or the Republicans in a positive or negative light. He isn't merely accused of having a bias. He has been run out of the country because he revealed information that people should know that power people don't want the people to know. As has Snowden.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Whatever. Dude: why is it hard for you to accept that Assange had a soft spot for the republicans? It's being reported now that Trump's buddy, Roger Stone, was the main contact with Assange.

I didn't say Assange does or doesn't have a soft spot for Republicans. I said it doesn't matter. He had no obligation to sit on any information that would put Democrats or the Republicans in a positive or negative light. He isn't merely accused of having a bias. He has been run out of the country because he revealed information that people should know that power people don't want the people to know. As has Snowden.

This is not a complicated issue. Assange leaked damaging information about the democrats. But this bastion of truth and justice never leaks anything about the republicans and/or Trump. Zero. Zippo. Do the math.

 

[PyramidHead]

Whatever. Dude: why is it hard for you to accept that Assange had a soft spot for the republicans? It's being reported now that Trump's buddy, Roger Stone, was the main contact with Assange.

I didn't say Assange does or doesn't have a soft spot for Republicans. I said it doesn't matter. He had no obligation to sit on any information that would put Democrats or the Republicans in a positive or negative light. He isn't merely accused of having a bias. He has been run out of the country because he revealed information that people should know that power people don't want the people to know. As has Snowden.

This is not a complicated issue. Assange leaked damaging information about the democrats. But this bastion of truth and justice never leaks anything about the republicans and/or Trump. Zero. Zippo. Do the math.

Should that be illegal? I'm serious, since this is a thread about state actions against Assange. Should it be illegal, in your opinion, to leak information that benefits one political party without giving its little brother a punishment as well so they don't argue all the way home?

 

[Harry Bosch]

This is not a complicated issue. Assange leaked damaging information about the democrats. But this bastion of truth and justice never leaks anything about the republicans and/or Trump. Zero. Zippo. Do the math.

Should that be illegal? I'm serious, since this is a thread about state actions against Assange. Should it be illegal, in your opinion, to leak information that benefits one political party without giving its little brother a punishment as well so they don't argue all the way home?

Of course not. But Jolly has been portraying Assange as this Lone Ranger international champion of free information and exposure of the powerful elite. But when it's pointed out that he only exposed the powerful elite on the left, and helps the elites on the right, indignity sets in. I just ask calling it as it is, Assange and Wikileaks only cared about exposing problems on the left.

 

[RVonse]

This is not a complicated issue. Assange leaked damaging information about the democrats. But this bastion of truth and justice never leaks anything about the republicans and/or Trump. Zero. Zippo. Do the math.

Should that be illegal? I'm serious, since this is a thread about state actions against Assange. Should it be illegal, in your opinion, to leak information that benefits one political party without giving its little brother a punishment as well so they don't argue all the way home?

That's an extremely good question and a fair one also. And it also works the other way around for google and facebook. Should it be against the law for facebook, google, amazon, and twitter to censor data flow from one side or the other without giving the democrats a punishment for doing this as well?

What do you say about this Harry?

 

[RVonse]

This is not a complicated issue. Assange leaked damaging information about the democrats. But this bastion of truth and justice never leaks anything about the republicans and/or Trump. Zero. Zippo. Do the math.

Should that be illegal? I'm serious, since this is a thread about state actions against Assange. Should it be illegal, in your opinion, to leak information that benefits one political party without giving its little brother a punishment as well so they don't argue all the way home?

Of course not. But Jolly has been portraying Assange as this Lone Ranger international champion of free information and exposure of the powerful elite. But when it's pointed out that he only exposed the powerful elite on the left, and helps the elites on the right, indignity sets in. I just ask calling it as it is, Assange and Wikileaks only cared about exposing problems on the left.

Perhaps. Neither one of us knows what was going through Assanges mind when he did this. But I suspect it was the same kind of thought that Larry Flynt had when he offered a $1 million reward for information on republicans who were having a sex affair during the Clinton blow job scandal. I'm pretty sure that Assange saw the utter hypocrisy with Hillary and the democrats (that wasn't there with the republicans) and simply wanted to expose this. As a matter of good journalism and for the benefit of all.

In any case, Jolly is right about this. We should all be better off knowing the truth where ever that leads us to. And instead of attacking the messenger, we should be looking at the data itself we are blessed to see. The truth is liberty.

 

[Elixir]

...the Clinton blow job scandal

Oh, how I pine for the days of blowjob scandals, budget surpluses and republicans at least feigning morality.
Now we have no government at all, just Republicans wallowing in the trillion dollar tax giveaway trough, and frustrated Democrats, puzzled by the public's failure to become indignant about the use of their tax dollars to bribe/extort foreign powers into manufacturing dirt on them. Dumbasses can't even get the fact that "quid pro quo" is a euphemism that sounds like some elitist invention to the rabble who elected the Trump Junta.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

This is not a complicated issue. Assange leaked damaging information about the democrats. But this bastion of truth and justice never leaks anything about the republicans and/or Trump. Zero. Zippo. Do the math.

Should that be illegal? I'm serious, since this is a thread about state actions against Assange. Should it be illegal, in your opinion, to leak information that benefits one political party without giving its little brother a punishment as well so they don't argue all the way home?

Of course not. But Jolly has been portraying Assange as this Lone Ranger international champion of free information and exposure of the powerful elite. But when it's pointed out that he only exposed the powerful elite on the left, and helps the elites on the right, indignity sets in. I just ask calling it as it is, Assange and Wikileaks only cared about exposing problems on the left.

This is a complete sideline and false accusation against me. At no time above have I claimed that Assange had or did not have a bias against anyone. I have repeatedly stated that it doesn't matter. He is still revealibg truth to the public that that public should know and that the power elite don't want exposed.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Of course not. But Jolly has been portraying Assange as this Lone Ranger international champion of free information and exposure of the powerful elite. But when it's pointed out that he only exposed the powerful elite on the left, and helps the elites on the right, indignity sets in. I just ask calling it as it is, Assange and Wikileaks only cared about exposing problems on the left.

This is a complete sideline and false accusation against me. At no time above have I claimed that Assange had or did not have a bias against anyone. I have repeatedly stated that it doesn't matter. He is still revealibg truth to the public that that public should know and that the power elite don't want exposed.

Yea right. The "power-elite" is always the left. The poor right has no power. Poor Trump, he's such a victim.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

When Assange posted the Collateral Murder video, even though the release happened while Obama was president, it was a huge black eye to Bush. The airstrike happened under Bush. Assange posted it in time to embarrass both. That "proves" he favors Republicans.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Of course not. But Jolly has been portraying Assange as this Lone Ranger international champion of free information and exposure of the powerful elite. But when it's pointed out that he only exposed the powerful elite on the left, and helps the elites on the right, indignity sets in. I just ask calling it as it is, Assange and Wikileaks only cared about exposing problems on the left.

This is a complete sideline and false accusation against me. At no time above have I claimed that Assange had or did not have a bias against anyone. I have repeatedly stated that it doesn't matter. He is still revealibg truth to the public that that public should know and that the power elite don't want exposed.

Yea right. The "power-elite" is always the left. The poor right has no power. Poor Trump, he's such a victim.

You've taken this projection way over the top.

The power elite is the people in power. That includes those on both the left and the right. Its not a matter of left vs right. Its a matter of power vs the public.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Yea right. The "power-elite" is always the left. The poor right has no power. Poor Trump, he's such a victim.

You've taken this projection way over the top.

The power elite is the people in power. That includes those on both the left and the right. Its not a matter of left vs right. Its a matter of power vs the public.

You would have many more allies if you'd also attack the power on the right.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Yea right. The "power-elite" is always the left. The poor right has no power. Poor Trump, he's such a victim.

You've taken this projection way over the top.

The power elite is the people in power. That includes those on both the left and the right. Its not a matter of left vs right. Its a matter of power vs the public.

You would have many more allies if you'd also attack the power on the right.

I'll say it one last time. Assange revealed information that the public should have, as did Snowden. I smile upon them both for this. That you feel the need to read in that I was attacking the power on the left and not the right speaks more about you than I. They revealed truths that powerful people on both the left and right didn't want out.

As for "allies", I have no use for people who always agree with me on an online forum, nor do I see any point in repeating an already dominant view. That makes for dull pointless threads.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You would have many more allies if you'd also attack the power on the right.

I'll say it one last time. Assange revealed information that the public should have, as did Snowden. I smile upon them both for this. That you feel the need to read in that I was attacking the power on the left and not the right speaks more about you than I.

It's funny reading that, in context with knowing Harry Bosch's actual political leanings, based on posting on this site for about the same amount of time.

They revealed truths that powerful people on both the left and right didn't want out.

Snowden yes. Of course, trying to insinuate the release of information regarding a secret monitoring program in America, with stolen private emails regarding people's attitudes on a primary is quite odd.

And is Assange cared about truth, the DNC email release would have been a lump sum release, instead of metered out in efforts to influence the American election.