Ruh roh. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/25/fec-complaint-accuses-clinton-dnc-violations/ FEC complaint accuses Clinton campaign, DNC of violating campaign finance law with dossier payments
This is like shooting fish in a barrel. They have no place to hide and no chance. https://news.grabien.com/story-flashback-how-media-went-hysterical-over-don-jrs-willingness FLASHBACK: HOW THE MEDIA WENT HYSTERICAL OVER DON JR.’S WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT RUSSIAN DIRT ON HILLARY
And here's CNN trying to change the subject. http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/25/polit...n-assange-wikileaks-clinton-emails/index.html Trump campaign analytics company contacted WikiLeaks about Clinton emails
Serious question for you and Rasta. What do you think of WikiLeaks? I'll go first: I think it's been a great public service. That goes for the Clinton emails and abu grahib and the NSA spying program. All of it. The public has the right to know. That's my opinion.
I think the general concept of whistleblowing is a good one. I am not sure that Wikileaks approach of massive data dumps is the right way to go about it. Does the public have a right to see all of every candidate or elected official's emails, or just the ones you don't like? If Gary Johnson is emailing some woman or man about having an affair, or getting a pizza, does the public have a right to know that? Why? Does the public have a right to see documents that put soldiers or other public employees in harm's way? For instance, is it ok if wikileaks publishes a list of covert overseas CIA operatives if the list is part of a larger dump? Is whistleblowing the single greatest good, and all other considerations should be of less import? barfo
The emails shouldn't be damning in the first place. Nor should anything else they published. As long as they're not stealing the documents themselves, they have every right to publish it all. That goes for W, for Gary Johnson, for Trump, for Hillary. If they can't stand up to the light of discovery, they're basically cockroaches.
So if they pay people to steal documents which they then publish, that's ok? What if your emails were stolen and published, on the theory (perhaps incorrect, but no one can say for sure) that you might run for office one day? That ok? barfo
I doubt many people in the world give a rat's ass if their emails were exposed to the public. Everybody knows the NSA has a complete record of every American's emails going back at least a decade, and besides that only an utter moron... would ever refer to crimes or anything serious in an email. Emails are the tech version of a post-it note, and not much use for anything else. Ironically, a letter mailed through the USPS is still the most secure form of communication known to man.
If I were running for office, I'd have no issue with my work/official emails going public. They're pretty boring to people outside my circles. If I were running for office and lying about my medical condition, my private emails would show conversations between me and doctors. I don't see any problem with the public knowing the truth. If I were sexting with teenagers like your not-creepy democrat, the public should know that, too. To be clear: people running for public office should be put under scrutiny, or we'll more quickly turn into the old USSR. The "if they pay people to steal documents" bit is absurd speculation. Though we know Clinton and the DNC paid Russian spies. If someone does pay a 3rd party to commit a crime (hacking is a crime), then they're guilty as well. Even if that 3rd party subcontracts the work out. If the FBI really wanted Hillary's lost 33,000 emails, they should have asked the NSA. Trump, instead of making his dig about the Russians ability to get her emails, he should have told the truth and asked the NSA to release them.
Re: weaponizing The dossier was widely released to the media so they could investigate the claims in the document. None of them could find enough (or anything) worth publishing, even though they're willing to go on camera and lie. It wasn't until BuzzFeed published the dossier that the media wrote about it. Fusion GPS denies it had any communications with BuzzFeed. http://www.businessinsider.com/fusion-gps-trump-russia-dossier-buzzfeed-2017-10 BuzzFeed issued the following statement: "As we’ve stated time and again, the dossier was circulating at the highest levels of government, among numerous media outlets, and is the subject of multiple federal investigations. The only group that had yet to see the dossier when we published it was the public.”
So is there any boundary for you at all? We should be able to look at any email, work or personal. Presumably it would be ok for the public to get tapes of any phone calls too? How about videotapes of bedroom activities? If a public official is kinky in any way, we have a right to know? There is no right to privacy for public officials or candidates for public office? barfo
You're the one who loves government. They read all your emails anyway. The crooked administrations peek at those emails for political gain, as it is. The NSA can turn on the webcam on your TV in the bedroom (or any other room) without you knowing it and see and hear what you're doing. We don't have a right to privacy for our financial information. It seems fine with you that the IRS collects it all. Do you have no boundaries? I think it's great when it's those who advocate the loss of our freedoms are screwed by their own policies.
Have you figured out who killed JFK yet? This is the big day for you conspiracy theorists, right? Luckily for me, I don't have a TV in the bedroom. Bullet dodged! So, you support removing freedoms just to spite your enemies. You don't believe in any right to privacy. You sure you are a libertarian? barfo
I think Oswald killed JFK. I am not into conspiracy theories. But you are. http://www.motherjones.com/media/2017/10/the-trump-russia-scandal-is-a-huge-media-fail/ The Trump-Russia Scandal Is a Huge Media Fail If we don’t come to terms with this assault on American democracy, Trump and Co. win.
