The real source of Wikileaks info?
- Thread starter MegaPoke
- Start date
Really?
You think batting 1.000 on accuracy of content disclosed would extend to statements about their sources?
Why?
If anything, I would think they would dissemble and deceive as to the sources of their content in order to protect those sources and continued access to them.
Yes. I think it's much easier to just say they won't reveal their source. Completely unnecessary to say "It's definitely not Russia" if it's in fact, Russia. I consider that (not russia) bit to effectively be a story reported on their own story, and therefore yes I do believe their 100% content accuracy would be at stake for no reason if not true.
Fair enough.
Follow up question.
Do you think we, as Americans, should accept his statements as verified truth and not do our own investigation of the truth of such statements...i.e., just consider the possibility of Russian involvement in Wikileaks a non-possibility in any investigation?
1. You are just simply wrong. Look no further than how most of the MSM referenced the tea party. A bunch of butthurt losers upset over a black man being POTUS.
2. Super secret sources in the "intelligence community" came out and said Russia hacked both the DNC and RNC. And again, Wikileaks has said it was a DNC insider that released the information to them, not Russia. And curiously there are some with super secret sources in the "intelligence community" who say they've been told it was US intelligence that hacked them and released to Wikileaks.
3. Please, he's not even a quarter as corrupt as Clinton.
4. I don't care how Russia governs its up to the people of that country to change that if they wish. But let's go ahead and run with you having an issue with them being aggressive, violent, and oppressive. Odd you didn't take issue with all the aggressive, violent, and oppressive nations that game millions upon millions of dollars to the Clinton's. You didn't take issue with her support of taking refugees from an aggressive, violent, and oppressive culture which has been shown throughout history as not willing to assimilate and been violent toward its hosts.
4a. The US has meddled in foreign elections for decades. Meddled in Ukraine, had an authoritarian monarch placed in Iran, and I could go on. There are no signs of actual hacking of our election. That would insinuate actually affecting the voting machines. Even if you are right the worst they did was expose Dem corruption. We should thank them.
5. You could use google but I guess this Washington Times article will get you started. She's a war hawk plain and simple. Always has been. She's been on the wrong side of almost every major decision in my view. She's all about filling war profiteer pockets with cash.
I honestly think she may have been the most corrupt candidate in the history of this nation. So bad that Trump was able to beat her. Her, the DNC, and the lemmings that votes for her are to blame.
Investigating it is 100% fair. The media narrative to make it the sole blame, confirmation bias, excuses and fake news however is where it all goes awry.
No way - just a gut feeling on my part. If you are asking me who I believe - Julian Assange or the CIA, I believe Assange. And frankly I don't mean that as a disrespect to the CIA. I'm fine with them basically being sneaky spies doing sneaky spy shit.
I'm kinda/sorta with you, or stated differently, a definite maybe. This entire narrative that (add your favorite Hillary loss excuse here) caused her to lose is self-reproducing strawmen faster than a whack-a-mole jedi could eliminate. We'll never know the "rest of the story" (RIP Paul Harvey), but we'll damned sure get a load of shit as filler.
Do you know what the term geopolitical foe means? 0bama apparently didn't. We can start there if you'd like.
You are a special kind of special.
If Russia is the enemy, then why doesn't someone look into why Hillary Clinton sold the country 20% of our nation's uranium?
