Now you're being obtuse. It just means that Assange cannot be taken at his word. Did I really have to explain that to you? The intelligence community's evidence of Putin's involvement doesn't appear to have anything to do with Assange. Assange just disseminated what Putin's tag team acquired.
Art Of The Deal
- Thread starter vanzandt
- Start date
I'm not the one being obtuse. Even if Assange cannot be taken at his word, doesn't mean it's the Russians.
You've gone from Assange releases leak must mean Assange has axe to grind with only Clinton must mean he's lying must mean his lie is about Russians being involved.
Without any proof at all. And now I'm making an assumption that there's no proof, because - let's face it, why the hell wouldn't they give us the proof if they had some?
Both Assange and Putin have specific axes to grind against Hillary Clinton. I will assume you know why. US intelligence ties the hacks to the highest levels of Russian government (Putin). That Assange is just Russia's front man only serves to validate their conclusion.
You know what? I'm really not getting much stimulation from this water-is-wet "debate." For now, it's just a matter of picking sides when it comes to credibility. I'll go with accepting the agreed-upon conclusion of the collective US intelligence community while you accept Assange's (and, by extension, Putin's) word at face and assume Putin's innocence in the whole matter. Why don't we just wait and see what evidence will be presented in due for your amusement and entertainment?
Last edited:
So what if the Russians did hack them? The impact did not come from the hacking but from the sordid content of the documents. Suddenly liberals hate whistleblowers?
We all know to a moral certainty that if someone had hacked Trump and revealed embarrassing stuff, we would be getting a lecture on the virtues of transparency and the First Amendment. I know that because that is what we got when the treasonous NY Times and WashPost published top secret info about terrorist tracking and CIA ops.
We all know to a moral certainty that if someone had hacked Trump and revealed embarrassing stuff, we would be getting a lecture on the virtues of transparency and the First Amendment. I know that because that is what we got when the treasonous NY Times and WashPost published top secret info about terrorist tracking and CIA ops.
Nothing has been validated at all. You've got a hypothesis. That's about it.
I accept everyone's innocence until proven guilty. That's kinda how the Universal Declaration of Rights works. I can suspect, you can suspect, but innocence cannot be refuted until evidence is put forth, no matter how much we want it to be.
The issue that I have in this whole debate is that we have professional intelligence agencies who should know better than to accuse without proof. Or, if they have the proof, they owe the American people the proof to show that a foreign power has meddled in an election.
Of course, the two biggest factors continue to escape you guys on the left. Firstly, there is no such proof, and secondly, Putin didn't type the damning emails, Clinton did. So even if they were hacked, they're still a good indication of her character - and that is why she lost the election.
Supposedly, Hillary has said she thinks Putin despises her because she called BS on the Russian elections. There, like here, she couldn't accept the results of voting. The CIA and various government slush funds had poured a lot resources into humiliating Putin and instead, he walked all over them. It's ok for us to meddle in elections all over the world. If Putin does it, suddenly it's a big problem. The thing is, no one who voted for Trump gave a crap if the Russians hacked her or not. Non story except for republican senators who see opportunities to clip Trump's wings and get on TV.