Enjoy President Trump, Courtesy of The Kremlin

[Strontium Dog]

Now that Trump is President, I have no reason to think Wikileaks won't release dirt they get on his administration.

Funny how they didn't release any dirt on Trump before the election, even though he's probably the dirtiest candidate in American electoral history.

Anyway, the fullness of time, when nothing that could damage Trump is ever released, will prove you to be wrong.

[Brian Peacock]

am I really being blind to my own requirements having been satisfied?.

Maybe. I think one way you could be is by ignoring how odd it is that where one person will supposedly satisfy your requirements, the word of the CIA, FBI, NSA does not.

And Trump, who appeared to accept the report while disputing it's implications.

Sounds not unreasonable. One can accept the report and differ markedly on what conclusions to draw from it, given that the mainstream media seems to be lofting it as proof of Russian hacking and influence in election, when it doesn't appear that the report actually says that. One can accept the report "as far as it goes..." which is not very far, actually.

Fine, so Russia did the hacking, for the reasons stated, but it didn't make a difference so there's no need for concern?

[L'Emmerdeur]

. . . If the person vouching just got done being exposed for lying to Congress about another intelligence issue, well, am I really being blind to my own requirements having been satisfied?

James Comey, the Director of the FBI, in testimony today stated that not only was the DNC hacked by the Russians, but also the RNC.

Comey also said that the Russians "got far deeper and wider into the (Democratic National Committee) than the RNC," adding that "similar techniques were used in both cases."

[source]

Is he lying, Forty Two?

[pErvinalia]

So, if this is actually the case does it make Wikileaks the unwitting pawn of the Kremlin, or at least make it complicit in undermining democratic processes?

How would revealing unethical and shady activity, and providing the voters with more information and insight into the behind the scenes activities of the DNC and the Clinton campaign, "undermine" democracy? Would democracy be better if we did not see what Podesta and Hlllary were up to? Would Democracy be better had we not found out that Donna Brazile gave Town Hall questions to Hillary Clinton in advance?

"Evidentiary value = 0" http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity ... ing-report

What the Russians did was undermining democracy. Selective hacking and release of information is not supporting the democratic process. But Wikileaks can't be complicit in it as their role isn't as independent media. Their role is in support of whistleblowers and secrecy busting. They owe nothing to any political process.

Which part of the report shows to you that Russia engaged in hacking?

Clapper said they did in front of Congress. You can claim he is lying (which you have essentially done), and that's fine. But if he is telling the truth, then what happened can never be understood to be 'in support of democracy'. If what they claim is true, then it was for the purposes of [undermining/supporting] one candidate in the election.

[pErvinalia]

As I said previously, I'd be much more apt to give the report credence if someone said that evidence actual exists showing that Russia did it (even if they can't show the evidence).

The report did not explicitly state that the evidence of hacking exists. The boilerplate language is there, that the declassified report doesn't contain all the evidence that's in the classified report. But, the declassified report is almost exclusively (except less than one page dedicated to cyber-attack) related to propaganda and such, and Russia Today reporting. There is no indication that the super-secret evidence they have relates to hacking.

Oh ffs, he and I are facepalming you because Clapper put his name and reputation on the report by stating in front of congress that Russia hacked and interfered in the election. I.e. "if someone said that evidence actual [sic] exists showing that Russia did it (even if they can't show the evidence)".

[pErvinalia]

As I said previously, I'd be much more apt to give the report credence if someone said that evidence actual exists showing that Russia did it (even if they can't show the evidence).

The report doesn't exactly say that, now does it? It suggests, generally, that things can't be disclosed because of sources and methods, etc. But, it does not say that evidence exists here that directly implicates the Russians, and we're not disclosing it to protect sources, etc. And, nobody has put their name on it, which is something I also mentioned - nobody has said "I put my reputation on it." That's what I'd be more apt to place some trust in.

Clapper appeared personally in front of congress in support of the report.

You better link to the transcript of his support for the report.

Clapper has already been caught lying to Congress. After being exposed to have falsely testified in response to Democratic Congressman Wyden's questioning, he stated to CNN's Andrea Mitchen "I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful manner by saying no." On the question he made the "least untruthful" response he could, he was given the question in advance and he was given an opportunity to clarify and supplement after his response. He did not clarify or supplement. He did later say "My response was clearly erroneous—for which I apologize."

So, forgive me for not breathing a sigh of relief that James Clapper has gone on record before Congress in support of a report which does not actually connect hacking to Russia.

You are doing again what you did in that other thread. You are mixing two separate issues, for what reason I don't know (none that I can think of are flattering to you). One issue is that Clapper and the CIA etc are lying. The issue you were talking about and I was responding to was someone "[putting] their name on it.... 'I put my reputation on it'." Clapper put his name and reputation on it.

But, hey, if you're convinced, you're convinced. Just at least don't pretend it's unreasonable to be skeptical here. You can't seriously be arguing that doubting what we've been told so far is unreasonable and deserving of a facepalm.

I'm facepalming your retarded "argument".

Have you really been given enough information to believe that it's been proved, yet?

I never said it's been proved. Is it too much to ask that you could follow the actual debate?

[pErvinalia]

If that's good enough for you, and if you're willing to just trust them based on canned, boilerplate disclaimers, then that's your view of it. For me, am not willing to believe the conclusions based on what I've read. I don't accuse them of lying. I just don't believe it on faith or trust. There is more than enough of a track record of lying from these agencies to warrant distrust, moreover. Just the recent testimony before Congress where the head of the NSA lied, outright, to Congress, saying that they do not collect data on Americans, and then hedging to say "not wittingly." LOL, and then later said that he answered in the "least untruthful" manner he could. Fuck off with that shit. You don't do that and then come to me saying "how dare you not believe me when I tell you something?" The boy who cried "The Russians are Coming" .....

No shit, you already said you don't believe them on faith and trust. That's why you wanted someone to put their name on it. But now it has to be a particular person apparently. Were you intentionally being vague before when you said you'd be more apt to take the report seriously if "someone" put their name on the line? You sneak you.

It's his usual debate tactic. Put qualifiers on all sorts of stuff, and when those qualifiers are met or turn out to be nonsensical he pretends like he never made those qualifications. It's why it's so fucking frustrating debating this clown.

[pErvinalia]

But, clearly my "requirement" was not met, and I never suggested it as a sufficient requirement in all cases. I just said I would be more apt to trust a report if someone went on the line saying "I've seen the evidence, and it's compelling." Nobody has done that. Boilerplate intelligence report language is not that. Further, it always depends who is vouching for something. If someone with a clear reputation for trustworthiness is vouching for X, then that's one thing. If the person vouching just got done being exposed for lying to Congress about another intelligence issue, well, am I really being blind to my own requirements having been satisfied?

What utter bullshit. You have shown repeatedly over the years that you will dig and dig and dig to avoid getting out of admitting that you were wrong. Black is white. It always will be for you.

[pErvinalia]

So, if this is actually the case does it make Wikileaks the unwitting pawn of the Kremlin, or at least make it complicit in undermining democratic processes?

"Unwitting". Heh heh, good one.

Assange just wants to watch the world burn. Always has. It's the only way a feeble, talentless albino rapist could ever insert themselves into history as a figure of note.

I'm a supporter of the wikileaks concept, but I'm coming to view Assange as a narcissist. I think wikileaks would be better if he was gone.

[NineBerry]

Assange is the only one left at Wikileaks

[pErvinalia]

42 and SD should look up Glenn Greenwald's article (and interview on Democracy Now) about the Washington Post and fake news. He's gone off the deep end* a bit it seems lately, but I still afford him some respect from his past. Not that I accept the totality of what he is saying, but it adds to the debate.

* - Not even Chomsky invokes a conspiracy of media and political elites sitting around concocting the media narrative to support fascist takeover of the world.

[pErvinalia]

Now that Trump is President, I have no reason to think Wikileaks won't release dirt they get on his administration.

Funny how they didn't release any dirt on Trump before the election, even though he's probably the dirtiest candidate in American electoral history.

Anyway, the fullness of time, when nothing that could damage Trump is ever released, will prove you to be wrong.

It seems almost impossible to damage Trump, as the last 6 months of him saying and doing increasingly shocking things has shown. I'm not even certain that if paedophilia allegations against him were proven true that his supporters would repudiate him.

[pErvinalia]

. . . If the person vouching just got done being exposed for lying to Congress about another intelligence issue, well, am I really being blind to my own requirements having been satisfied?

James Comey, the Director of the FBI, in testimony today stated that not only was the DNC hacked by the Russians, but also the RNC.

Comey also said that the Russians "got far deeper and wider into the (Democratic National Committee) than the RNC," adding that "similar techniques were used in both cases."

[source]

Is he lying, Forty Two?

[DaveDodo007]

Well there you go. Authoritarianism FTW!

Desperate times call for desperate measures, only when we have crushed the lefty/liberal insanity can we again breathe true freedom and true liberty.

I think I would be impossible to reply to this and still obey the "play nice " rule
so i won't .... Dave you are a fucking cretin . Trisomy of chromosome 21 would be an improvement for you .

He wants to preserve Russian culture and its people, wasn't that the whole point of the Irish Nationalist uprising against us Brits? Is it only OK when you Irish do it?

[DaveDodo007]

Now that Trump is President, I have no reason to think Wikileaks won't release dirt they get on his administration.

Funny how they didn't release any dirt on Trump before the election, even though he's probably the dirtiest candidate in American electoral history.

Anyway, the fullness of time, when nothing that could damage Trump is ever released, will prove you to be wrong.

Trump has been in the public eye for thirty fucking years and he is not exactly subtle so what do you think they have on him that everybody has already released (or just made up?)