Because of the strong lobbying for Internet censorship that comes from the MPAA, I fell that it is immoral to give money to them (and stupid too). That made me stop going to the movies, cancel cable and even netflix.
Before people decide to ignore my point and make up claims about my motives/reality, I will inform that it is not about saving money and "stealing". I miss some food channels like TLC and other time wasters that you can't/won't download to watch. Sports are way more exciting on live tv. Netflix's price is irrelevant. I do miss going to the movies and almost made an exception because of Snowden.
I think the poll's being hacked by state actors, since Vladimir Putin now leads with 38%, followed by Theresa May (16%) and North Korea leader Kim Jong Un (13%),
Then realized it was part of the summary, so probably not a joke. The editors in Slashdot are really pushing on the (Russian) state actors hacking tale. Why would state actors act on Times' online poll? If they did, why would they put up these results?
Times' poll was hacked by 4chan before. Kim Jong Un won in 2012 thanks to them, the magazine just discarded the results.
if you're going to call someone else a liar, you might be better served by not lying yourself (...) You're the one lying here.
More than one person can lie, specially if you count at different times, about different subjects. We can't be sure if he was lying or wrong, but let's call it a lie. In the Hillary vs e3m4n comparison, does that make e3m4an the liar? Does that make Hillary's lies not lies?
His explanatory list of reasons why Hillary is unpopular shouldn't be discarded because of this one item. Specially since the point of that item (that she offended a lot of potential voters) continues correct if you fix it for the actual fact, that she called half of Trump supporters dregs of society, according to you (I don't care it doesn't really make a difference enough to check).
You pointed a fifty percent "lie" on one item in a list of issues that is correct. How do you compare that to the 17 US intelligence agencies lie on a presidential debate? Or the lies on her investigation? Or her public opinions (as opposed to the supposedly real, private ones)? Or to the money laundering to hide foreign donations to her campaign?
They want him to testify against his own country, in the interest of the German people (and not in the interest of Americans/humanity in general as he previously did), all without giving him political asylum first. For a country that doesn't have the decency of giving political asylum for someone that is being persecuted for whistle blowing on activities that hurt the whole world to even ask for help would be really bold. But doing so while threatening to give him to a country that is known for human rights abuses, torture and that have a legal system where he can not present a defense for his actions. Impressive.
"After the issuance of the statement and the communication that I know took place between our government and Russian government, it seemed to have curtailed the cyberactivity that the Russians were previously engaged in," Clapper said.
He said he was specifically referring to the "cyber-reconnaissance" that had been observed prior to the statement. "That sort of activity seemed to have curtailed," he said.
He said intelligence agencies don't have good insight on when or how Wikileaks obtained the hacked emails.
Of course, he could be lying again, as US intelligence officials usually do.
The whole Snowden thing happened because of that lie. Unless you are claiming that the Snowden leaks are the lies, he DID lie to congress. Just because he was not prosecuted for that doesn't mean it didn't happen. WTF???
BTW, in other news, contradicting the other post on the front page, he also claimed that:
"After the issuance of the statement and the communication that I know took place between our government and Russian government, it seemed to have curtailed the cyberactivity that the Russians were previously engaged in," Clapper said.
He said he was specifically referring to the "cyber-reconnaissance" that had been observed prior to the statement. "That sort of activity seemed to have curtailed," he said.
He said intelligence agencies don't have good insight on when or how Wikileaks obtained the hacked emails.
They keep mixing those two leaks to give the false impression that Hillary didn't lie so blatantly on the debate and the narrative against the Russians. Some people from intelligence agencies claimed the DNC hack was or "had signs of being" from a nation-state attack. They didn't do so about the Podesta emails (the closest was to say that if it was from a nation-state, the people from the top would be involved, duh). This was the case again, he commented on the DNC hack and not the Podesta emails leak.
The DNC hack was released a long time ago and showed mostly the rigging of the primaries (AFAIK). The Podesta emails showed much more and were being released in the last few months. The money laundering from international campaign funds. The "no-fly zone will kill a lot of Syrians" statement (while she defends creating a no-fly zone). The debates rigging and a lot more.
After statements about a specific hack, media outlets mix the leaks to keep the narrative against Russia. In the best case scenario, bad Slashdot editors can't keep up with the events or filter BS. Another possibility is that they are after the clicks. But the worst case is that they are actively pushing lies to keep a narrative that is being used to keep people uninformed/confused.
“Take the money!! We're consistently flagging more FARA registrants daily. In terms of # - we're at 27 out of 370 prospective bundlers - but to Jesse's question - that does not represent the costs of how much these folks would likely raise. If we were looking at these folks below on a case by case basis, I'd want to specifically raise: Tony Podesta (Iraq, Azerbaijan, Egypt), Ben Barnes (Libya), John Merrigan (UAE), Wyeth Weidman (Libya), and Mike Driver (UAE connections)...Wyeth Wiedeman Ben Barnes Group National Board for the Following Up and Recovering of the Libyan Looted and Disguised Funds of the Transitional Government of Libya, through Washington African Consulting Group, Inc (12/3/14 - Current)."
The media in general and many social sites like slashdot censored the real news that were being shown about Hillary. At the same time it was proven they were working with her. Now they are claiming it was the fake news in Facebook that made Trump win.
First, I believe it was the real news that made him win. Even with the media working in her favor and hiding the real news, talking about DNC gossip instead of electoral crimes (like getting money from foreigners and laundering it), people somehow got informed of who she is. There was no motivation for democrats to vote for a candidate that is a warmonger that rigged their primaries. There was real motivation for people who needed jobs and/or were against war or terrorists to go vote for Trump (not because he is decent, because he was the alternative).
Second, if the real news were provided by traditional means, people wouldn't be running away from them. Having to read Wikileaks twitter feed and subreddits (cause reddit was censoring too) to know what people were finding, despite the magnitude of the revelations, is shameful for Slashdot (that did post about someone calling Chelsea a brat, about the Russian hackers fiction, despite of intelligence agencies claiming there was no way to say it was them, but not about money laundering, about the proposed no-fly zone killing a lot of Syrians or about getting money from terrorist supporting countries and increasing the weapons sales for them).
Third, if Hillary had won, it would be mainly to the MSM's hiding of news and collusion with her that would be to blame, and that wouldn't be such wild speculation like this shitpost TFA was. That together with how bad Trump is (something we know). Even if the "fake news made him win" was true, I'm not sure if that would be much worst than "MSM manipulation that included fake news made her win".
No. From the start I said maybe you didn't made up those statements. Right from the start I claimed it was either you making it up, or that you quoted someone. But you keep claiming that i said you made it up. I never claimed it was you, I claimed it was you or someone else (duh), but you keep putting words on my mouth.
If you cannot mount a compelling case (...) then you don't have a case, and HRC is presumed innocent.
The secret information mishandling should be one of those clear cut cases of too powerful to answer to justice. They clearly said that the reason they would not prosecute was lack of intent, not lack of proof it was done. Rep. Gowdy Q&A - Oversight of the State Department (short video) The actual FBI statement on the case. They didn't say she didn't commit the crime, just that no prosecutor would prosecute. They also explain what the crimes would be in the case ("Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities."). That's why sometimes we are not sure what the crime is. Because US law is overly intricate.
Your answer to "shit you made up (or someone you are quoting)" was "No." You picked the part of my comment and said no, wrongly, since it was someone you were quoting. Had you said "I didn't make this up" and linked to the same stuff, there wouldn't be anything wrong with your post. If you are not simply disagreeing or denying what was said, use words, phrases, expressions different from just "no".
There is no evident difference between each of these conspiracy theories
Do you think demons and lizard persons from zorg are real? Do you think someone in the US government could be responsible for deaths in a country were the USG is admittedly financing armed rebels? If your answer is yes to both, then your assertion is correct, and there is no evident difference. Also, I think you are hopeless, there is no point in trying to reason with you and the rest of this post is a waste you shouldn't bother with. But if your answers are "no" for demons and "yes" for she might be responsible for deaths, then there is evident difference between these theories, and reason to check up facts only on the Syria case.
Does he backs it with a clear, agreed upon definition of demon, and then evidence? So it is not a fact. My point is that you should keep up with facts and not with theories.
Which would imply that none of them are true. Asserting that HRC is a criminal (without evidence) is the same as asserting that she is a demon.
It does not imply that none of them are true because there is no agreed upon definition of demon, while the crimes that she supposedly committed, even if not that clear to non jurists, have hints of a definition (e.g. we know that mishandling secret information is a crime, even if we don't know exactly what crime; we instinctively think that misleading the government to the point were some people are killed is probably a crime, even if we don't know what crime that is).
Asserting that HRC is a criminal (without evidence)
In my first post I suggested the congress hearings about Benghazi on youtube, that's one place were you can find evidence, but I'm not gonna search them for you. Since you are not talking only about Syria, but about calling her a criminal, she mishandled secret information. There is uncontested evidence of that, but in an unprecedented case of kindness from the DOJ, "intent to harm" became a necessity, only in her case. There is another criminal that took a photo of a submarine and posted online when everybody was posting their workspaces and he went to jail, even though there was no harm or intent to harm. You shouldn't expect people to always have a list of links ready for you, or to be repeating the evidence over and over again every time they call her a criminal.
It's not a language mixup. As you correctly understood, if it was the Russian government, it was legal for them, in Russia. I didn't include the "in Russia" because I wanted people to understand that by themselves. After all, we foreigners hear day after day that everything the NSA and the GCHQ do is legal and respectful to the constitution and to the policies in place. So I wanted to make Americans read the same thing we do, that violating your rights is legal.
The actions of the CIA are frequently illegal in the country in which they occur. This doesn't make them illegal within the US.
I'm aware that what the NSA is doing here in my country is illegal here, while legal in the US. I find it pretty disgusting to allow doing things against others that you don't allow for yourselves. As I pointed out, my problem is that many Americans defend that part of their government keep committing crimes against us, as if there was nothing wrong with that, because for them it's not a crime, that's legal and their job and nice, cause fuck foreigners.
On the extradition, it usually is done only if the alleged crime is a crime in both countries (that's why there is a rape allegation against Assange, and not just the lighter offense that expired). So this could happen if it was a Russian citizen, not an operative. Additionally, some countries only do it if the country requesting the extradition respect human rights conventions (that's why the court from Canada said that the US is fine when they decided to extradite Matt Dehart, it wasn't ass licking).
You didn't make it up OR quote someone? Your link shows that you quoted someone on this BS. Does he backs it with a clear, agreed upon definition of demon, and then evidence? So it is not a fact. My point is that you should keep up with facts and not with theories.
It's very easy, instead of keeping up with the theories, try to keep up only with the facts.
she's a demon, she's a lizard person from the planet zorg, she eats babies
Shit you made up (or someone you are quoting).
she is personally responsible for the deaths in Syria
Exaggerated fact. She is personally responsible for many of the deaths in Syria, not all of them. Obama is the president. But if you dig very little on the US government their allies and the terrorists murdering in Syria, you'll find the connection pretty easily. If you want to know on Clinton's personal responsibility, the best documented stuff is about Benghazi, the congress hearings are available on youtube.
BTW, "Russia did it" is also in the theories department.
You're welcome. Basically the 4chan news was the MSM screaming that Wikileaks doesn't vet their publications. Wikileaks immediately told them it was false reporting (as is much of MSM's "reporting"), but they are not going to fix that. Just like they made a big deal that Wikileaks promised leaks for an earlier date and didn't deliver, when in reality they didn't set a date for the leaks and even explained the media's "mistake". That's why Wikileaks Twitter feed (with their replies) is now one of the best news source. They have history on telling the truth.
Um, I'm pretty sure hacking a computer system you don't own is illegal...
Well, if it really was an official Russian campaign, it would be legal for them. Just like many Americans like to point out that when the NSA fucks people from other countries it is legal.
Yes, that is how the law works.
Agree with you, I'm my country spying on me is illegal, but the NSA is doing it and many Americans say that "that's their job". According to the GCHQ, they are doing PSYOPS here too, also illegal here. BTW, this is exactly what the Russians are being accused of.
Clinton has been investigated numerous times, why shouldn't Trump be held to the same standard?
I wasn't talking about investigating Trump, TFA used the expression "illegal Russian efforts". Since the Snowden files came I heard from many Americans that most of what the NSA does is legal, if that is the mentality, these supposedly "Russian efforts" should be considered legal too, because its supposedly the Russian laws and policies.
My point was: If the Russians doing this is illegal, everything the NSA does against foreigners is illegal too. If Americans want to feel outraged with this they should stop doing it to others first.
But one extra point not related to my original post: since what was done to hurt Clinton's campaign was to show the reality of who she is and how she works, I think Americans should be grateful to whomever did this. Just like I think they should be grateful to whomever leaked the Trump tapes. You should know who your candidates are.
You understood my comment. My point is that many Americans keep saying that what the NSA does against foreigners is legal, and that it is their job. Well, as one of those affected foreigners, I feel offended that Americans defend the assholes in the NSA that disrespect my laws, constitution and rights. Your comparison with the 1941 Germans is great too.
They are not illegal, they followed the law, the constitution and their policies.
Or are you saying that when conducting operations overseas the laws in the country affected should be considered? In that case everything the NSA does is illegal, not just the national spying.
When people say that MSM is working for Clinton, this kind of "news" is what they mean. The best thing people have to say in favor of Clinton is that she is not Trump. Well, this release also showed that besides taking Sanders out of the Democrats race, they pushed Trump up on the Republicans race. That is news, not the internal brawls that the emails might cause.
When they say Trump is the KGB candidate they are lying, Trump is the DNC's republican candidate.
The release also showed that she considers the enviro groups opposing her effort to expand fracking are Russian front groups. But the media focus on the little BS to steer people away from things that matter.
Slashdot Mirror
Because of the strong lobbying for Internet censorship that comes from the MPAA, I fell that it is immoral to give money to them (and stupid too).
That made me stop going to the movies, cancel cable and even netflix.
Before people decide to ignore my point and make up claims about my motives/reality, I will inform that it is not about saving money and "stealing". I miss some food channels like TLC and other time wasters that you can't/won't download to watch. Sports are way more exciting on live tv. Netflix's price is irrelevant. I do miss going to the movies and almost made an exception because of Snowden.
I think the poll's being hacked by state actors, since Vladimir Putin now leads with 38%, followed by Theresa May (16%) and North Korea leader Kim Jong Un (13%),
Then realized it was part of the summary, so probably not a joke.
The editors in Slashdot are really pushing on the (Russian) state actors hacking tale. Why would state actors act on Times' online poll? If they did, why would they put up these results?
Times' poll was hacked by 4chan before. Kim Jong Un won in 2012 thanks to them, the magazine just discarded the results.
if you're going to call someone else a liar, you might be better served by not lying yourself (...)
You're the one lying here.
More than one person can lie, specially if you count at different times, about different subjects. We can't be sure if he was lying or wrong, but let's call it a lie. In the Hillary vs e3m4n comparison, does that make e3m4an the liar? Does that make Hillary's lies not lies?
His explanatory list of reasons why Hillary is unpopular shouldn't be discarded because of this one item. Specially since the point of that item (that she offended a lot of potential voters) continues correct if you fix it for the actual fact, that she called half of Trump supporters dregs of society, according to you (I don't care it doesn't really make a difference enough to check).
You pointed a fifty percent "lie" on one item in a list of issues that is correct. How do you compare that to the 17 US intelligence agencies lie on a presidential debate? Or the lies on her investigation? Or her public opinions (as opposed to the supposedly real, private ones)? Or to the money laundering to hide foreign donations to her campaign?
They want him to testify against his own country, in the interest of the German people (and not in the interest of Americans/humanity in general as he previously did), all without giving him political asylum first.
For a country that doesn't have the decency of giving political asylum for someone that is being persecuted for whistle blowing on activities that hurt the whole world to even ask for help would be really bold. But doing so while threatening to give him to a country that is known for human rights abuses, torture and that have a legal system where he can not present a defense for his actions. Impressive.
James Clapper just announced:
"After the issuance of the statement and the communication that I know took place between our government and Russian government, it seemed to have curtailed the cyberactivity that the Russians were previously engaged in," Clapper said.
He said he was specifically referring to the "cyber-reconnaissance" that had been observed prior to the statement. "That sort of activity seemed to have curtailed," he said.
He said intelligence agencies don't have good insight on when or how Wikileaks obtained the hacked emails.
Of course, he could be lying again, as US intelligence officials usually do.
The whole Snowden thing happened because of that lie. Unless you are claiming that the Snowden leaks are the lies, he DID lie to congress. Just because he was not prosecuted for that doesn't mean it didn't happen. WTF???
BTW, in other news, contradicting the other post on the front page, he also claimed that:
"After the issuance of the statement and the communication that I know took place between our government and Russian government, it seemed to have curtailed the cyberactivity that the Russians were previously engaged in," Clapper said.
He said he was specifically referring to the "cyber-reconnaissance" that had been observed prior to the statement. "That sort of activity seemed to have curtailed," he said.
He said intelligence agencies don't have good insight on when or how Wikileaks obtained the hacked emails.
They keep mixing those two leaks to give the false impression that Hillary didn't lie so blatantly on the debate and the narrative against the Russians. Some people from intelligence agencies claimed the DNC hack was or "had signs of being" from a nation-state attack. They didn't do so about the Podesta emails (the closest was to say that if it was from a nation-state, the people from the top would be involved, duh). This was the case again, he commented on the DNC hack and not the Podesta emails leak.
The DNC hack was released a long time ago and showed mostly the rigging of the primaries (AFAIK). The Podesta emails showed much more and were being released in the last few months. The money laundering from international campaign funds. The "no-fly zone will kill a lot of Syrians" statement (while she defends creating a no-fly zone). The debates rigging and a lot more.
After statements about a specific hack, media outlets mix the leaks to keep the narrative against Russia. In the best case scenario, bad Slashdot editors can't keep up with the events or filter BS. Another possibility is that they are after the clicks. But the worst case is that they are actively pushing lies to keep a narrative that is being used to keep people uninformed/confused.
Money laundering for electoral fraud?
“Take the money!! We're consistently flagging more FARA registrants daily. In terms of # - we're at 27 out of 370 prospective bundlers - but to Jesse's question - that does not represent the costs of how much these folks would likely raise. If we were looking at these folks below on a case by case basis, I'd want to specifically raise: Tony Podesta (Iraq, Azerbaijan, Egypt), Ben Barnes (Libya), John Merrigan (UAE), Wyeth Weidman (Libya), and Mike Driver (UAE connections)...Wyeth Wiedeman Ben Barnes Group National Board for the Following Up and Recovering of the Libyan Looted and Disguised Funds of the Transitional Government of Libya, through Washington African Consulting Group, Inc (12/3/14 - Current)."
The media in general and many social sites like slashdot censored the real news that were being shown about Hillary. At the same time it was proven they were working with her.
Now they are claiming it was the fake news in Facebook that made Trump win.
First, I believe it was the real news that made him win. Even with the media working in her favor and hiding the real news, talking about DNC gossip instead of electoral crimes (like getting money from foreigners and laundering it), people somehow got informed of who she is. There was no motivation for democrats to vote for a candidate that is a warmonger that rigged their primaries. There was real motivation for people who needed jobs and/or were against war or terrorists to go vote for Trump (not because he is decent, because he was the alternative).
Second, if the real news were provided by traditional means, people wouldn't be running away from them. Having to read Wikileaks twitter feed and subreddits (cause reddit was censoring too) to know what people were finding, despite the magnitude of the revelations, is shameful for Slashdot (that did post about someone calling Chelsea a brat, about the Russian hackers fiction, despite of intelligence agencies claiming there was no way to say it was them, but not about money laundering, about the proposed no-fly zone killing a lot of Syrians or about getting money from terrorist supporting countries and increasing the weapons sales for them).
Third, if Hillary had won, it would be mainly to the MSM's hiding of news and collusion with her that would be to blame, and that wouldn't be such wild speculation like this shitpost TFA was. That together with how bad Trump is (something we know). Even if the "fake news made him win" was true, I'm not sure if that would be much worst than "MSM manipulation that included fake news made her win".
The last dump from the shadow brokers contained the servers the NSA uses to hack others, it included compromised Russian servers (Mustafa Al-Bassam tweet).
No, it sucks.
You claim that I made up those statements
No. From the start I said maybe you didn't made up those statements. Right from the start I claimed it was either you making it up, or that you quoted someone. But you keep claiming that i said you made it up. I never claimed it was you, I claimed it was you or someone else (duh), but you keep putting words on my mouth.
If you cannot mount a compelling case (...) then you don't have a case, and HRC is presumed innocent.
If you look for information yourself, the chances of getting an understanding of things and believing your understanding is better. I wrongly assumed you wanted that and not just an excuse to say she's innocent. That's why the nudge and not the links list. So here is the case. .
Benghazi:
Search terms on youtube: Hillary Clinton Benghazi (as stated before), but you refused to search
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaENYYQIAKE (this is a short one with some points);
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUObFqU5cgE (another one focused on the troublesome parts);
full hearing.
On supporting terrorism:
Hillary's email saying Qatar and the Saudis are financing terrorism
Who is to blame for the rise of ISIL - not directly related to Clinton but important to understand ISIS;
Military intervention in Syria email from 2011 - also not Clinton, but to give an understanding of what the "moderate rebels" the USG under Obama supports are supposed to do ("commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns, try to break the back of the Alawite forces, elicit collapse from within");
The three above are to make it explicit that everyone (in her circles) knows who the Saudis are and what the regime change the US is pursuing does to people. It is common knowledge.
Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department;
Contributor and Grantor Information from Clinton Foundation the Saudis donated between 10 and 25M;
Qatar giving 1M to Bill Clinton (Qatar, the ones she says are financing terrorism);
The secret information mishandling should be one of those clear cut cases of too powerful to answer to justice. They clearly said that the reason they would not prosecute was lack of intent, not lack of proof it was done.
Rep. Gowdy Q&A - Oversight of the State Department (short video)
The actual FBI statement on the case. They didn't say she didn't commit the crime, just that no prosecutor would prosecute. They also explain what the crimes would be in the case ("Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities."). That's why sometimes we are not sure what the crime is. Because US law is overly intricate.
Your answer to "shit you made up (or someone you are quoting)" was "No."
You picked the part of my comment and said no, wrongly, since it was someone you were quoting. Had you said "I didn't make this up" and linked to the same stuff, there wouldn't be anything wrong with your post. If you are not simply disagreeing or denying what was said, use words, phrases, expressions different from just "no".
There is no evident difference between each of these conspiracy theories
Do you think demons and lizard persons from zorg are real? Do you think someone in the US government could be responsible for deaths in a country were the USG is admittedly financing armed rebels? If your answer is yes to both, then your assertion is correct, and there is no evident difference. Also, I think you are hopeless, there is no point in trying to reason with you and the rest of this post is a waste you shouldn't bother with. But if your answers are "no" for demons and "yes" for she might be responsible for deaths, then there is evident difference between these theories, and reason to check up facts only on the Syria case.
Does he backs it with a clear, agreed upon definition of demon, and then evidence? So it is not a fact. My point is that you should keep up with facts and not with theories.
Which would imply that none of them are true. Asserting that HRC is a criminal (without evidence) is the same as asserting that she is a demon.
It does not imply that none of them are true because there is no agreed upon definition of demon, while the crimes that she supposedly committed, even if not that clear to non jurists, have hints of a definition (e.g. we know that mishandling secret information is a crime, even if we don't know exactly what crime; we instinctively think that misleading the government to the point were some people are killed is probably a crime, even if we don't know what crime that is).
Asserting that HRC is a criminal (without evidence)
In my first post I suggested the congress hearings about Benghazi on youtube, that's one place were you can find evidence, but I'm not gonna search them for you. Since you are not talking only about Syria, but about calling her a criminal, she mishandled secret information. There is uncontested evidence of that, but in an unprecedented case of kindness from the DOJ, "intent to harm" became a necessity, only in her case. There is another criminal that took a photo of a submarine and posted online when everybody was posting their workspaces and he went to jail, even though there was no harm or intent to harm.
You shouldn't expect people to always have a list of links ready for you, or to be repeating the evidence over and over again every time they call her a criminal.
It's not a language mixup. As you correctly understood, if it was the Russian government, it was legal for them, in Russia. I didn't include the "in Russia" because I wanted people to understand that by themselves. After all, we foreigners hear day after day that everything the NSA and the GCHQ do is legal and respectful to the constitution and to the policies in place. So I wanted to make Americans read the same thing we do, that violating your rights is legal.
The actions of the CIA are frequently illegal in the country in which they occur. This doesn't make them illegal within the US.
I'm aware that what the NSA is doing here in my country is illegal here, while legal in the US. I find it pretty disgusting to allow doing things against others that you don't allow for yourselves. As I pointed out, my problem is that many Americans defend that part of their government keep committing crimes against us, as if there was nothing wrong with that, because for them it's not a crime, that's legal and their job and nice, cause fuck foreigners.
On the extradition, it usually is done only if the alleged crime is a crime in both countries (that's why there is a rape allegation against Assange, and not just the lighter offense that expired). So this could happen if it was a Russian citizen, not an operative. Additionally, some countries only do it if the country requesting the extradition respect human rights conventions (that's why the court from Canada said that the US is fine when they decided to extradite Matt Dehart, it wasn't ass licking).
You didn't make it up OR quote someone? Your link shows that you quoted someone on this BS.
Does he backs it with a clear, agreed upon definition of demon, and then evidence? So it is not a fact. My point is that you should keep up with facts and not with theories.
It's very easy, instead of keeping up with the theories, try to keep up only with the facts.
she's a demon, she's a lizard person from the planet zorg, she eats babies
Shit you made up (or someone you are quoting).
she is personally responsible for the deaths in Syria
Exaggerated fact. She is personally responsible for many of the deaths in Syria, not all of them. Obama is the president.
But if you dig very little on the US government their allies and the terrorists murdering in Syria, you'll find the connection pretty easily. If you want to know on Clinton's personal responsibility, the best documented stuff is about Benghazi, the congress hearings are available on youtube.
BTW, "Russia did it" is also in the theories department.
You're welcome. Basically the 4chan news was the MSM screaming that Wikileaks doesn't vet their publications. Wikileaks immediately told them it was false reporting (as is much of MSM's "reporting"), but they are not going to fix that. Just like they made a big deal that Wikileaks promised leaks for an earlier date and didn't deliver, when in reality they didn't set a date for the leaks and even explained the media's "mistake".
That's why Wikileaks Twitter feed (with their replies) is now one of the best news source. They have history on telling the truth.
Now, do you think American's are allowed to collaborate with foreign spies working in the US?
I did not say or think that.
If not, then why do you think Americans are allowed to collaborate with foreign intelligence agencies hacking computers in the US?
I already clarified that earlier in the thread, for someone that misunderstood in the same way.
I wasn't talking about investigating Trump
Um, I'm pretty sure hacking a computer system you don't own is illegal...
Well, if it really was an official Russian campaign, it would be legal for them. Just like many Americans like to point out that when the NSA fucks people from other countries it is legal.
Yes, that is how the law works.
Agree with you, I'm my country spying on me is illegal, but the NSA is doing it and many Americans say that "that's their job". According to the GCHQ, they are doing PSYOPS here too, also illegal here. BTW, this is exactly what the Russians are being accused of.
Clinton has been investigated numerous times, why shouldn't Trump be held to the same standard?
I wasn't talking about investigating Trump, TFA used the expression "illegal Russian efforts". Since the Snowden files came I heard from many Americans that most of what the NSA does is legal, if that is the mentality, these supposedly "Russian efforts" should be considered legal too, because its supposedly the Russian laws and policies.
My point was: If the Russians doing this is illegal, everything the NSA does against foreigners is illegal too. If Americans want to feel outraged with this they should stop doing it to others first.
But one extra point not related to my original post: since what was done to hurt Clinton's campaign was to show the reality of who she is and how she works, I think Americans should be grateful to whomever did this. Just like I think they should be grateful to whomever leaked the Trump tapes. You should know who your candidates are.
You understood my comment.
My point is that many Americans keep saying that what the NSA does against foreigners is legal, and that it is their job. Well, as one of those affected foreigners, I feel offended that Americans defend the assholes in the NSA that disrespect my laws, constitution and rights. Your comparison with the 1941 Germans is great too.
Wikileaks debunked the 4chan hack.
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/786653209825861633
No they didn't. We checked that the credentials had already been changed.
Agree with the rest.
Let's for a moment pretend it was the Russians...
illegal Russian efforts to affect our election
They are not illegal, they followed the law, the constitution and their policies.
Or are you saying that when conducting operations overseas the laws in the country affected should be considered? In that case everything the NSA does is illegal, not just the national spying.
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/786653209825861633
No they didn't. We checked that the credentials had already been changed.
This is irrelevant. Hacked people supposedly got hacked again...
For actual news about the leaks you should go:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DNCleaks
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/575e37/new_wikileaks_podesta_emails_part_five_673_more/
https://twitter.com/wikileaks
Sample:
Best Podesta leak pair: 1) HRC stating in 2014 that the Saud+Qatar govts fund ISIL and 2) Qatar giving Bill Clinton $1m for 5 minute meeting
ABC Exec Ben Sherwood Pledges "Any and All ABC Platforms" to Help Hillary.
CNN's Donna Brazile, now head of DNC, tipped off Clinton campaign about debate question
Algeria Donated to the Clinton Campaign in order to get off the Terror Watchlist, according to Joe Scarborough
When people say that MSM is working for Clinton, this kind of "news" is what they mean.
The best thing people have to say in favor of Clinton is that she is not Trump. Well, this release also showed that besides taking Sanders out of the Democrats race, they pushed Trump up on the Republicans race . That is news, not the internal brawls that the emails might cause.
When they say Trump is the KGB candidate they are lying, Trump is the DNC's republican candidate.
The release also showed that she considers the enviro groups opposing her effort to expand fracking are Russian front groups. But the media focus on the little BS to steer people away from things that matter.