"Just a reminder: none of this is normal. ®"
Welcome to the new normal. At least until impeachment.
Julian Assange's WikiLeaks – that bastion of fiercely independent journalism – privately urged the Trump campaign to not concede the 2016 presidential election, to contest the result as rigged, and asked for one of Donald's tax returns so as to appear impartial and nothing whatsoever to do with Russia's meddling in the White …
Isn't it getting a bit old trying to change the subject. Every time more evidence is found about Russian collusion all we hear from Big John is "what about the democrats?" The DNC fix for Hillary is a bad thing and maybe there were some criminal acts (since parties are not part of the government that isn't clear to me) but it pales in comparison to the collusion by Don Jr. and his merry band of treasonists.
I'm sure this will be eventually shown to have been ordered directly by the orange snowflake himself. Hopefully we'll be treated to an impeachment hearing around this time next year.
" Every time more evidence is found about Russian collusion "
For those not familiar with Progressive's vocabulary "evidence" in their language means "But he's literally Hitler, REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE".
By the way, if you understood Russian a bit you'd know that all Kremlin state media were 100% rooting for Hillary during last campaign.
"Isn't it getting a bit old trying to change the subject. Every time more evidence is found about Russian collusion all we hear from Big John is "what about the democrats?" "
From Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument,[1][2][3] which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda
Re: Shower of shites!
"Isn't it getting a bit old trying to change the subject. Every time more evidence is found about Russian collusion all we hear from Big John is "what about the democrats?" "
This is not Whataboutism because no one is being accused of hipocrisy.
The accusation is that the subject is being changed - which is a red herring argument.
At the risk of creating an misleading analogy, that logic of fairness is not applied to most areas of life:
Why aren't organised criminals and ordinary citizens both investigated by the police?
Why don't all employees get the same bonus irrespective of how good they are at their jobs?
Why don't conspiracy theorists and qualified experts get the same amount of airtime?
Because equal treatment and fair treatment are not the same.
@Big John
You have just committed a tu quoque fallacy (and no, it's not Latin for "you cuck").
If there are grounds for investigating Hillary/Podesta/etc (I'm not convinced there are) then go for it. And if any of them have broken the law, throw the book at them. I don't want corrupt politicians of any flavour because they only encourage other politicians of both sides to do the same.
But going after Hillary (if there are grounds to do so, and I'm still not convinced of that) is no fucking excuse for ignoring Trump's behaviour. That's the tu quoque fallacy.: saying "Hillary did something bad so ignore the fact Trump did something bad." Go after both of the fuckers.
Your response to that is predictable: "But they're ignoring Hillary." The Congressional investigations didn't ignore her (they just couldn't prove anything). Republican congresscritters are now asking the justice department to go after her with a special prosecutor, and I'm fine with that. But she's not that important because Hillary is not the fucking president. Hillary cannot launch nuclear missiles. Hillary cannot crash the economy. Hillary can, but doesn't, make the US a laughingstock around the world. Deal with Trump first because Hillary can wait. Go after both of them, but Trump first because he can do more damage (and is doing so).
Answer me something honestly, John. Assume that Hillary won the election. Oh, wait, she did. So assume she won the electoral college. If Hillary had been accused (without evidence) of even a fraction of what Trump has done (and for which there is evidence) would you have ignored it (as you're ignoring the Trump evidence) or would you have gone apeshit?
I'm left-wing but I want Hillary prosecuted if she has done wrong. I'm left-wing but I really want to see Tony Blair on war crimes charges. Can you honestly say you're just as impartial, or are you merely exhibiting the blind tribalism common to most of Trump's base? It's an easy question to answer, if you're honest about it: swap Hillary for Donald and say if you'd be defending her as you are Trump or going totally apeshit.
On a point of information, the tu quoque (you too) defence was found to be valid at the Nuremberg war crimes trials and got Doenitz off: see here.
That does not deflect from my view that, despite my one-time sympathy for him, it's time Assange faced his Swedish trial for alleged attempted rape and before that his British one for jumping bail. I don't think I need to say what I think of the Orange Snowflake.
"On a point of information, the tu quoque (you too) defence was found to be valid at the Nuremberg war crimes trials and got Doenitz off: see here."
Going to to jail for 10 years doesn't count as "get(ting) off". And I don't see any evidence that Doenitz successfully used the "tu quoque" defense either. The actual factor in his defense was that the civilian merchant marine ships were typically armed, and therefore legitimate military targets.
Though, saying someone used successfully used a tu quoque defense at Nuremberg is basically a tu quoque defense: The US justice system in 2017 is not influenced by what happened in Nuremberg in in 1945. Nuremberg was an international tribunal, so it can't even be cited as jurisprudence in the US.
Given that Wiki edited the emails before release you may want to recalibrate your concern. Then there is the whole issue of Wiki getting all its leaks and directions from Russian sources, if you are more concerned about the workings of the DNC than the machinations of Putin and his oligarchs you are part of the problem. Re4member, it could just as easily be your boy Trump they decide to torpedo next time comrade
Good for you. Now you can ignore those Podesta emails laying the whole DNC fix for Hillary. Never happened, right? Even tho they were never contested...?
Typical reaction of those brainwashed by right wing propaganda. As soon as someone criticises someone on the right, you immediately assume that they are a brainwashed drone who mindlessly thinks the left does no wrong.
It's to be expected, seeing as that's how the Fox manipulated zombies operate, but what you don't realise is that most people with 'left-leaning' views actually apply critical thinking, and don't blindly worship "their side" like brainless sheep.
"Julian Assange's WikiLeaks"
Shome mistake shorley? Don't you mean "Ambasssador Julian Assange's WikiLeaks"
I gather that "Imperial Ambassador to the High Court of Emperor Trump" has already been taken by the Russians.
The problem is, even if the frog is aware, the whole boiling plan still works. This is becoming the new normal. And the even bigger problem is, nobody seems to have any idea on how to jump out of the pot. The current political climate rewards acting like a lunatic. That's what needs to change, not any specific politician.
"Private Twitter messages obtained by The Atlantic detail how WikiLeaks interacted with the president's son, Donald Trump Jr"
The words private and twitter don't go together in the same sentence. The leaks came from either Twitter or Congress but not Wikileaks. It's more likely that, rather than having anything to do with "Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign", the Washington intelligence establishment already had Donald Jrs Twitter msgs, which prompted the congressional investigation. The same intelligence establishment that concocted the 'golden shower' memo also found evidence of Saddam Hussein weapons of mass destruction.
The truth is more likely that Assange leaked the Hillary emails in retaliation for her instigating an arrest warrant against Assange on false allegations of rape in Sweden. There seems to be two factions of the deep state at work here. One supporting Clinton and one supporting Drumpf, both leaking and making specious allegations against the other side. A defacto palace coup being acted out in public and apparently with the willful co-operating of the US Media.
OK i have to react to this - you honestly believe that Hillary Clinton somehow managed to convince two women to make separate rape accusations against Assange? I assume that's what your implying. Assange has never denied that he had sex with the women. That's never been in dispute. Is your implication that the Police wouldnt have investigated rape allegations without international pressure? If that's the case, I hate to think which Country you live in. Police normally strongly investigate rape claims. And if a suspect flees a Country rather then talking to investigators that usually looks very suspicious and yes an international Arrest Warrant will normally be issued. All looks pretty normal so far to me.
Maybe, it was the Arrest in the UK that your talking about? Well it is kinda normal that if a friendly Country (and Sweden is a friend of the UK) has an Arrest Warrant out, then the UK Police will act on that. Obviously that international pressure you talked about didnt work very well, because he was actually granted bail. That seems to go against the Party line doesnt it? I mean if all that pressure was being applied, he never would have been allowed to walk out of jail would he?
And then he ran away to the Ecudarian Embassy. Maybe the UK wanting to arrest him when he leaves that is what your talking about? But then someone who is on bail and flees the Country is commiting a crime and that is something that normally the Police do go after. I mean that doesnt normally require international pressure. If you're on bail, you're given certain rules - not leaving the Country is usually pretty prominent on that list. You break those rules and the Police will attempt to arrest you and send you to prison for a time.
I really cant see any conspiracy here. He was accused of rape. The Police were investigating and he fled the country. The Police issued an Arrest Warrant (as you would when a suspect flees the Country rather than be questioned). He's arrested in the UK. Released on Bail. Flees to the Ecudaorian embassy. And now the UK Police want him for breaking bail conditions. Where are you seeing a conspiracy?
Don't forget that he ran from Sweden to the UK apparently because he was worried about being extradited to the US.
Which is about as sensible a plan as running from Norway to China when you're worried about being extradited to Russia.
Also, why's Clinton getting the blame for this alleged conspiracy against poor widdle Julian? Wasn't Obama president then?
I'm confused. I've got a headache. But, is Assange running Wikileaks, or is somebody going freelance there? What about journalistic investigations into fake news, Russian meddling into the American election, half the speeches? Ambassador? How embarrassing, I hope he wasn't one of my students.
This stuff doesn't help the cause of his cause.
The language actually spoke about Assange in the third person, so that is why I asked if somebody was going rouge there. My headache has cleared up, but I'm not going back over the article to understand who write what. I understand he is in bad health, which tends to make you go off your game, but seriously, this is bad stuff for him.
I may fully agree with his concerns as to his deportation and the secret US Court hearings concerning Wikileaks etc. I may agree that what he is accused of and what has been withdrawn is a voluntary greyish moral area, and something the reporting of had a bit of a contorted path (though if Hillary was involved in getting them to turn up together and pursue this, I don't know). I also agree a limited amount with his view to expose bad corruption innthe past. But with Snowdon stuck in Russia and him in the Peruvian embassy, having a Russian hand up your ass, and most Russians, and really bad country's people's, too frightened to leak, is pretty awkward. The US, however, is leading the way in leak related democratic reforms, or has a chance to, inorder to show those other countries how it is done.
Some folks don't seem to know that Twitter has a Direct Messaging facility as well as a public one.
But when you have caused the deaths of many incredibly brave people whose passion is freedom, simply because you disagree with their politics and couldn't be arsed to redact their names, and shrugged it off as "collateral damage", helping the Russians meddle in US elections must be child's play.
Power corrupts. Assange has power. Go figure.
Where is his next power play going to fall?
"Some folks don't seem to know that Twitter has a Direct Messaging facility as well as a public one."
<raises hand> I didn't! Actually I came here to ask what a DM was. It got two or three mentions in the article and not once was DM defined. Considering the nature of the readership, I hear you cry, surely all readers know everything about the entirety of the IT world? But wait, there's more. It seems most commentards disdain "social media" so an explanation might actually be required :-)