Comments by "No One" (@joermundgand) on "NYTImes Prints Hacked Cables Revealing Private Conversations About Trump" video.
-
35
-
3
-
2
-
@Pernicion "Of course it's different. Julian Assange had no rights to the material he published, it wasn't his to publish. How fucking thick do you have to be not to understand that?"
Leaked or hacked materials can be posted by any publisher without fear of legal repercussions except in a time of war, the US is not in any official wars, the former governments of Afghanistan and Iraq are no longer in power and therefore those wars are technically over, this means Assange can publish whatever the fuck he wants, the emails acquired was John Podestas who is not a public servant, he is and was at the time a private citizen, this means that even in a time of war his correspondence isn't protected by various legalese BS.
"And can someone provide proof that Assange published everything he received? Or that the person who gave Assange the material didn't selectively edit?"
They weren't edited, editing software leaves a trail, the emails are in the proper sequence and have all been authenticated.
There was no need to edit them, the material within was incriminating enough unedited, nor has the authors of any of the emails claimed that the emails were edited, if they were they would have made that claim immediately.
2
-
@Pernicion "As soon as they arrest him, I guess we'll find out the legality. It looks as though it's about to be tested."
He's not wanted for committing any crime in the UK or Sweden, how will you accomplish this feat, will you arrest a foreign citizen for publishing information about illegal acts committed by the United States federal government? I'm sure that precedent will ensure that no nation will be inclined to freely extradite actual criminals to face justice in the United States.
"I don't have an issue with what Assange did, I couldn't care less. But it's not comparable to this situation, regardless of legality."
No it is not comparable, but it does highlight the hypocrisy and deceptive practices of the so-called news manufactured in the little New York/DC bubble.
"Yeah, they did. I'm not certain they still maintain they were edited, but Donna Brazile certainly claimed they were doctored. There's a pretty fun, and popular Jordan Chariton video (If I remember correctly)."
Yes she attempted that particularly ploy in which you imply that the publisher has a motive contrary to your own and therefore the material must have been altered despite the complete absence of proof of such an event, she was never specific which rendered her attempt utterly meaningless and vindicated the publisher by default.
"But again, I don't care. I was trying to make a point about unfounded claims."
Nice retreat, taking lessons from the French and the Neocons.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Pernicion "If your criticism of the NSA, EU and New York Times is erroneous, it hurts the cause of legitimate criticism."
It is not erroneous, it's legitimate, the incestous relationship between these three entities makes them untrustworthy.
"Well, I'll let you go back and read the OP, since we agree."
We agree that this story is a pointless hit piece on the behest of the permanent bureaucracy disguised as a hack, I believe that the point of presenting this information as hacked is an attempt to establish precedent on the "acceptable" method of "exposing" the criminality of elected and unelected public servants, hence their choice of publisher, the penultimate mainstream publisher, that is the nature of our agreement, we disagree that permission from the corrupt is required to expose corruption.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1