. — Page 85

You're right, of course, but I haven't heard much in the way of actual denial of authenticity.

Hi kdogg I don't really fight in here and I won't do tit for tat, but in my imo I respect you and your right to say it. I may disagree with some of your views but in this election I can't even get along with my brother.

Of course I was being facetious when I called for a drone to bomb the Embassy. You and I know we would never do that. As for what Assange has done let's start with rape and assault. When Australia and the UK would not grant asylum or protection from extradition, personal connections to friends with influence were able to persuade Equador to allow a safe place for him. Sweden is right in pursuing these charges. This is where you can start to see that HE wants to and thinks he is above the law. His writings, his deep desire to keep directing any and every opposition President Obama and HRC, his opinion of what's right and wrong is his only barometer, he blames Clinton for ISIS and yet says she is the most dangerous hawk in the world. His tools and intelligence have allowed him and wikileaks to expose their brand of "truthiness". He absolutely is playing God. Wikileaks is the Bible and only truth. They are not, they are doctored, they are re=packaged.

The leaks will continue to be released and misconstrued and Trump can get more mileage and sound bites. Again, if he has done nothing wrong and he believes only he can "be" and "release" the truth why is Assange hiding?

I saw today his internet access was attacked and down now. That won't stop him.

I guess my opinion is not as centrist as yours seems to be. I think both the candidates Stein and Johnson are woefully uninformed and unaware of what is required in a leader. Clinton is not perfect, no one is. Trump is a dangerous joke and Assange, by his actions, is treating him as an actual alternative to power. So no, no sending a drone, but I wouldn't mind if someone poisoned him. Rape is a most horrible violation; until he faces this and exonerated or not, I can not except anything from him as being the truth.

Yes, seriously! And I don't see how your link responds to that at all. You don't seriously think I'm a fan of GWB, do you? :)

Another of Obama's problematic policies was the decision not to prosecute members of the previous administration for torturing people and starting illegal wars. I guess Nixon was basically right when he suggested that nothing is illegal when the president does it.

"And the American people are ignoring them--why? Because there's no there there."

I'd amend that to say that thinking American people are ignoring them - gullible and bored Americans are sort of trying to cuddle them.

Are the wikileaked emails accurate or fabricated? It's an important question.
I don't think the answer is at all clear.

I've seen only two things that suggest that they were fabricated. Donna Brazile - most recently last night with Rachel Maddow - has denied she was never given any debate question in advance (if I understand her correctly). And she has clearly denied she shared one with Palminitieri.

Also, Eichenwald's piece in Newsweek

Greenwald makes a good case for the leaked emails being accurate. He cites wikileaks long history of accuracy and he makes a strong case for Eichenwald's being inaccurate.

"MORE INSIDIOUS AND subtle, but even worse, was what Newsweek and its Clinton-adoring writer Kurt Eichenwald did last night. What happened — in reality, in the world of facts — was extremely trivial. One of the emails in the second installment of the WikiLeaks/Podesta archive — posted yesterday — was from Sidney Blumenthal to Podesta. The sole purpose of Blumenthal’s email was to show Podesta one of Eichenwald’s endless series of Clinton-exonerating articles, this one about Benghazi. So in the body of the email to Podesta, Blumenthal simply pasted the link and the full contents of the article. Although the purpose of Eichenwald’s article (like everything he says and does) was to defend Clinton, one paragraph in the middle acknowledged that one minor criticism of Clinton on Benghazi was possibly rational."

https://theintercept.com/2016/10/11/in-the-democratic-echo-chamber-inconvenient-truths-are-recast-as-putin-plots/

Updated On: 10/18/16 at 10:50 AM

"Are the wikileaked emails fabricated? It's an important question. I don't think the answer is at all clear."

What IS entirely clear is that they haven't been either authenticated or verified. As far as anyone knows for sure at this time, they're an utter fabrication - believing that they are authentic is merely a choice, like believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

Remember - proof is worth the wait. Everything without undeniable proof is just rumor.

Updated On: 10/18/16 at 10:57 AM

"What IS entirely clear is that they haven't been either authenticated or verified. As far as anyone knows for sureat this time, they're an utter fabrication"

I'm sorry Newintown, but while your first sentence is true, your second completely contradicts it. When something is neither authenticated nor verfied, by definition no one can possibly know for sure that they are an utter fabrication. Much less, when they are provided by Wikileaks which has a longstanding history of providing accurate information, and when almost no one who reportedly sent the leaked emails - Brazile being a very notable exception - have denied their accuracy.

Updated On: 10/18/16 at 11:13 AM

It should also be pointed out that while Brazile denies the recent leaked email, she earlier not only acknowledged that Wikileaks leaked emails concerning the DNC were accurate, but she apologized to those of us who found them offensive.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donna-brazile-apologizes-email-leak_us_57962efee4b01180b52f990b

Updated On: 10/18/16 at 11:20 AM

"Any rumor or accusation, until verified, is just that - rumor or accusation. The onus of proof never lies upon the accused to prove a negative. The accuser must always prove their accusations, and what may easily be a spurious fabricated pdf of an email chain is never proof of anything."

I completely agree, but that's quite different than suggesting that they are clearly fabrications or that we know for sure that they are fabrications.

"As I said before, only the bored and gullible believe the veracity of idle rumor. And no matter how many previously released items were or were not verified as authentic, each new item still requires proof before any sober, thinking person should accept it as true - especially as Assange has shown himself to be less than objective or reliable during this excessively partisan period in our history."

I can't agree if you are suggesting that only the bored and gullible are concerned about the Wikileaks emails. And not merely because of Wikileaks track record. But because so few of those reported to have sent these emails have denied sending them, as one would naturally expect anyone accused of sending an email that they did not, would.

Moreover, I also don't agree that Assange has shown himself to be at all unreliable during this election cycle. What are you basing that on? You may not like where he might appear to be coming from politically. But that doesn't make the things he is leaking inaccurate.

"Skepticism is the hallmark of clear thinking."

I agree.

Updated On: 10/18/16 at 11:34 AM

newintown said: Until proven otherwise, all sketchy gossip should be assumed to be totally or partially untrue. Anything else is, again, mere gullibility or wishful thinking



Like all those ladies accusing Trump? Or Bill? Or Cosby?

As FLOTUS say, when those go low, rise above. I will not name call in return.

To your statement NewinTown. That is innocent in a court of law. not in court of public opinion. I am not saying anyone should go to jail. Only that there is a lot of documents, not just leaked but by the FBI that are concerning, And no one has denied them. Except for 1 email by the flailing Donna Brazile

Updated On: 10/18/16 at 11:45 AM

I'm of the mind that the leaks are probably real, simply because the content is largely so mundane and unsurprising. They reveal political culture to be flip, self-serving, and ugly. Duh. They reveal Clinton to be cautious and surrounded by laughably over-protective layers of handlers. Duh. There are no bombshells- there isn't even a lot of "oh this looks bad" (such as the leaks in August, which probably would not have been so damaging if Debbie Wasserman Schultz weren't already damaged goods) . I doubt they will be authenticated before the election, though, since the Democrats have been fortunate to have Trump drowning out and delegitimizing the story with his crazy flailing. In any other election, they would need to directly address them in detail.

I agree mostly with what Kad said. Though I do find the idea that Brazile, when vice chair of the DNC, may have leaked a debate question to Jennifer Palmintieri, to be a serious one (again, Brazile denies this ever happened).

If this were a fabricated smear campaign, it seems much more likely that what was coming out, and particularly what was coming out with direct reference to Hillary Clinton, would be a hell of a lot worse than it is. Of course, there are three weeks left. Just hope there isn't anything coming out that's more damaging.

If there is not, what we have been shown is of negligible value for anyone trying to influence an election through false leaks.

Updated On: 10/18/16 at 12:48 PM