Why is it ok that Clinton paid a British citizen for dirt, but its wrong if an Australian gave dirt to Trump?
6 2017-12-14 by showmeurboobsplznthx
I'm not supporting Trump or Clinton or any party. I'm just v tired of both parties blaming each other for shit they do themselves... Its causing emotional responses not cognitive responses. Its obvious both parties are unethical and the system is a shit tornado yet they keep pointing fingers.
33 comments
1 DownWithTopMinds 2017-12-14
One is a spy, the other is an attention whore
1 showmeurboobsplznthx 2017-12-14
Id say Assange is a spy too. One is a state sponsored force to protect the echelon and the other is a rogue actor trying to tell the poor what the rich do. I guess You like protecting the rich against the poor?
1 DownWithTopMinds 2017-12-14
Me? What? I was gonna ask you if youve seen this movie and if that is what you were referring to but I dont think I will now...
1 Ninjakick666 2017-12-14
One was HUMINT and one was SIGINT... thats about the only difference.
1 mjbmitch 2017-12-14
Good point.
1 HeavyWinter 2017-12-14
They aren't the same at all. It has to do with HOW the information was obtained, and by who.
Assange got the Clinton Dirt from Russian hackers, who are likely currently affiliated with the Russian Governmemt. Thus, Trump utilized information obtained ILLEGALLY by a hostile foreign government.
Clinton got the Trump dirt from a private citizen, who obtained the information LEGALLY.
Further, there's evidence that Trump and Russia discussed a transactionary deal where Russia would funnel the data through Wikileaks in exchange for loosening of sanctions.
There's no evidence, on the other hand, that Clinton promised anything to Britain or anyone for the delivery of the data.
1 JakeElwoodDim5th 2017-12-14
Nonsense that has been debunked multiple times.
Clinton paid for op research, most of which was false, and this research was illegally used to obtain a FISA to spy an opposing political campaign. That is what's being revealed. That is why Mueller has gotten nowhere.
1 Burrito_nap 2017-12-14
Oh nice, that was silly of her. Which parts of the dossier turned out to be false?
1 MoronToTheKore 2017-12-14
Not a whole lot of it will be false at the end of all this. Only humint mistakes will be false.
1 JakeElwoodDim5th 2017-12-14
I believe any paid op research used to obtain a FISA warrant would be illegal, especially if it isn't properly vetted. Someone can correct me on that if I'm wrong.
1 Burrito_nap 2017-12-14
I mean, can it be used as evidence? Cause then it’s just evidence. But honestly I have no idea.
You said parts of the dossier were false. Which parts are false?
1 HussellWilson 2017-12-14
The whole thing. The entire dossier is acknowledged to be fabricated and the fact that they used it to obtain a FISA warrant is a really big deal that people will eventually go to prison for.
1 Burrito_nap 2017-12-14
Oh nice. Can you link me to anything that proves it’s fabricated?
1 HussellWilson 2017-12-14
No I'm not going to google shit for you. Look it up yourself or don't, but stop spreading misinformation around.
1 Burrito_nap 2017-12-14
You can’t provide a single source, and I’M the one spreading misinformation? I haven’t even made any conclusive statements about this.
Lay a link on me, man. I’ve looked around, and I haven’t seen anything that convinces me it’s false - definitely not “proven false.”
I’ll even take some conjecture, as it may be new - just link me.
1 oldpepperbox 2017-12-14
so you are saying Assange is lying? he said it didn't come from russians.
1 DEEP_SEA_MAX 2017-12-14
Ya he's lying. I used to like assange, but he's really exposed himself as a piece of shit.
Which is a real shame because WikiLeaks should be this amazing thing you expose corruption on all sides, but he's publicly said that he has stuff on the GOP but is choosing not to release it.
1 tainted_waffles 2017-12-14
Hmm, did he give a reason why? Methinks he did.
1 HussellWilson 2017-12-14
It's been shown that the "hacked" emails were taken from the server to quickly for it to have been done over the internet, the speed involved makes it so the only possibility is someone being physically present and copying it to a thumb drive. So no, there were no Russian hackers.
1 DEEP_SEA_MAX 2017-12-14
Ya I remember reading that article when it was posted here. It was quickly debunked by anyone who knew anything about computers as being g total horse shit
1 HussellWilson 2017-12-14
More like it was quickly downvoted by shills and democrats (sorry but there's no appreciable difference seeing as how leftists downvote truth if it doesn't fit their worldview) just like anything else that goes against the narrative. If I remember correctly the people who did the analysis were retired intelligence people, where as the only ones that say it was hacked were "all 17 intelligence agencies", which as it turns out meant 3 intelligence agencies, surprisingly of those 17, 14, including the likes of the Coast Guard or the Geospatial Intelligence Agency, declined to weigh in. The ones that did happen to be the ones most heavily politicized by the Obama administration... no matter, we're slowly but surely uncovering the evidence and in the end justice will be done.
1 DuelingSabres 2017-12-14
"I used to like Assange when he was going after Bush. Now that he's going after my team he's a piece of shit."
1 DEEP_SEA_MAX 2017-12-14
When you're only releasing information that benefits your narrative, you're no longer a news source, you're propaganda.
BTW the democrats are not my team.
1 showmeurboobsplznthx 2017-12-14
Slavery was once legal... Legality is a terrible standard. And, words like probably and likely don't mean a thing. Machines communicate and the flow of data is easy to trace. If it was russia, they'd of already known. Also, we see Saudi and israels role so them hacking lebanon and giving it to America would be ok in your standard then? Also, it was a Russian hacker who gave the evidence of rigging markets in The EU. So the banks sgould of been given a pass as it was Russia who alerted them. Or what about Russia alerting us to the holocaust? Should that info be not allowed in America since it was a bad state that provided it? What about the actual info and it not mattering who gave it?
1 MoronToTheKore 2017-12-14
The only thing that really matters is whether the info is provably true. Trump’s Russian connections seem to be increasingly so... Hillary’s Uranium One connections... not so.
1 showmeurboobsplznthx 2017-12-14
It was more podesta and his brother and other lobbiest. It is just really strange to see the flood of Clinton foundation Spain's and bill clinton running around Russia at that time, but it could of just been about something unrelated like adoptions.
1 robot_overloard 2017-12-14
I THINK YOU MEANT could've
I AM A BOTbeepboop!
1 HussellWilson 2017-12-14
Seriously? Hillary's uranium one involvement is not and hasn't been a matter of debate, the only question is did she break any laws, and it looks that way. Meanwhile all the "evidence" of Trump's "collusion" keeps falling apart day by day. Are you just living in some fantasy world?
1 Lord_of_Jam 2017-12-14
Clinton paid an American research firm who used a source that happened to be ex-MI5/British. So I'd say it could be because the Clintons weren't actively looking for a foreign agent and Steele wasn't actively looking to insert himself into the election. He was just doing a research job for an American firm, paid for (in-part at least) by Clinton.
Compared to Assange who is (and I'm not saying I think this but rather this is how A is viewed) seen as wanting to personally affect the outcome of the election as an end goal.
1 showmeurboobsplznthx 2017-12-14
But foriegn lobbies like AIPAC do exactly what Wikileaks did
1 Lord_of_Jam 2017-12-14
Right, and that's bad. Foreign entities shouldn't be actively trying to affect election results for their own purpose.
1 Fooomanchu 2017-12-14
Because Reddit is a platform that encourages shills to push an agenda, and their current agenda is that Trump is either a calculating dictator, an incompetent crazy, or a Putin puppet depending on the day.
1 MoronToTheKore 2017-12-14
Not a whole lot of it will be false at the end of all this. Only humint mistakes will be false.
1 JakeElwoodDim5th 2017-12-14
I believe any paid op research used to obtain a FISA warrant would be illegal, especially if it isn't properly vetted. Someone can correct me on that if I'm wrong.
1 HussellWilson 2017-12-14
The whole thing. The entire dossier is acknowledged to be fabricated and the fact that they used it to obtain a FISA warrant is a really big deal that people will eventually go to prison for.