Is the USA or CIA trying to shut down Wikileaks?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting to see the people who condemned Snowden's Wikileaks dump are now actively rooting for the Wikileaks hacker dump.

Exactly. The hypocrisy is astonishing.

And vice versa!
Those who want to pardon Snowden are turning a blind eye to these wikileaks.

NOPE! It was illegal when Snowden did it and it's illegal when Assange does it. I condemned them both.

Is the corruption that you are seeing illegal as well? Or does it not count if its hidden from the American people?

If it uncovered illegal corruption, then that illegal corruption should be prosecuted. But what illegal corruption has wikileaks uncovered? Hint: none.

[Anonymous]

New uploads today:


https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails...6#searchresult

[Anonymous]

Better:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/?3&q=&mfrom=&mto=&title=¬itle=&date_from=&date_to=&nofrom=¬o=&count=50&sort=6#searchresult

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New uploads today:


https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails...6#searchresult

Did you send pizza to Podesta, too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New uploads today:


https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails...6#searchresult

Did you send pizza to Podesta, too?

Assange lives

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting to see the people who condemned Snowden's Wikileaks dump are now actively rooting for the Wikileaks hacker dump.

Exactly. The hypocrisy is astonishing.

And vice versa!
Those who want to pardon Snowden are turning a blind eye to these wikileaks.

NOPE! It was illegal when Snowden did it and it's illegal when Assange does it. I condemned them both.

Is the corruption that you are seeing illegal as well? Or does it not count if its hidden from the American people?

There are legal ways of whistleblowing. Snowden chose not to follow them but instead to defect to Russia. Now he's just a loser criminal. As is Assange. Living in an embassy? For years? What a joke.

Doesn't answer the question. The content is out there

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting to see the people who condemned Snowden's Wikileaks dump are now actively rooting for the Wikileaks hacker dump.

Exactly. The hypocrisy is astonishing.

And vice versa!
Those who want to pardon Snowden are turning a blind eye to these wikileaks.

NOPE! It was illegal when Snowden did it and it's illegal when Assange does it. I condemned them both.

Is the corruption that you are seeing illegal as well? Or does it not count if its hidden from the American people?

There are legal ways of whistleblowing. Snowden chose not to follow them but instead to defect to Russia. Now he's just a loser criminal. As is Assange. Living in an embassy? For years? What a joke.

Doesn't answer the question. The content is out there

Snowden didn't do anything positive for our personal liberty, our country, or the world. Assange is showing that the DNC does political stuff. More or less, better or worse, than the Republicans? Since Assange is partisan, we don't know. Thats what the content has shown me. Also, people's addresses, ss #s, cc #s, email passwords, etc. That was low, Assange.

[Anonymous]

I love the leaks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is silence from US got so this confirms they had something to do with it. John kerry was in London yesterday.

There is also silence from Clinton campaign but she did post somthing about Alex Jones on social media implying that those on right are crazy.

I have no doubt that our US government is behind this.

I like your logic. Because the US has not claimed responsibility, or denied it, you have no doubt that the US government is behind this. It could not have been the UK acting on her own, or at the behest of any other country. It must have been the US government, because they haven't denied doing it.

Does that logic also apply to the UK? Assange has only blamed a "state actor", not the US specifically, btw.

Looks like pp was correct.
And, while I am not a supporter of ANYONE hacking anyone, this is why so many people distrust our government officials.

Quiet pressure from the U.S. government played a role in Ecuador's decision to block WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange from using the internet at Ecuador's London embassy, U.S. officials told NBC News.

"It was a bit of an eviction notice," said a senior intelligence official.
-
-
-
However, U.S. intelligence officials told NBC that a message was conveyed to Ecuador that it should stop allowing Assange to carry water for Russian intelligence agencies, and that Ecuador, though run by a leftist, anti-American government, was receptive.

The U.S. moves come as bipartisan concern is growing about the alleged Russian interference amid a daily release of Podesta emails.

Back when this happened, this is what the official government response was:

A senior administration official said that the U.S. did not push Ecuador to cut Assange off from the internet: "Reports that the U.S. government, to include the Intelligence Community, pressured the Ecuadorian government to interrupt internet service within Ecuador's embassy in London are not accurate."

The State Department said it did not pressure Ecuador or play any other role in blocking Assange's internet access.

"While our concerns about WikiLeaks are longstanding, any suggestion that Secretary (John) Kerry or the State Department were involved in shutting down WikiLeaks is false," State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-urged-ecuador-act-against-assange-n669271

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is silence from US got so this confirms they had something to do with it. John kerry was in London yesterday.

There is also silence from Clinton campaign but she did post somthing about Alex Jones on social media implying that those on right are crazy.

I have no doubt that our US government is behind this.

I like your logic. Because the US has not claimed responsibility, or denied it, you have no doubt that the US government is behind this. It could not have been the UK acting on her own, or at the behest of any other country. It must have been the US government, because they haven't denied doing it.

Does that logic also apply to the UK? Assange has only blamed a "state actor", not the US specifically, btw.

Looks like pp was correct.
And, while I am not a supporter of ANYONE hacking anyone, this is why so many people distrust our government officials.

Quiet pressure from the U.S. government played a role in Ecuador's decision to block WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange from using the internet at Ecuador's London embassy, U.S. officials told NBC News.

"It was a bit of an eviction notice," said a senior intelligence official.
-
-
-
However, U.S. intelligence officials told NBC that a message was conveyed to Ecuador that it should stop allowing Assange to carry water for Russian intelligence agencies, and that Ecuador, though run by a leftist, anti-American government, was receptive.

The U.S. moves come as bipartisan concern is growing about the alleged Russian interference amid a daily release of Podesta emails.

Back when this happened, this is what the official government response was:

A senior administration official said that the U.S. did not push Ecuador to cut Assange off from the internet: "Reports that the U.S. government, to include the Intelligence Community, pressured the Ecuadorian government to interrupt internet service within Ecuador's embassy in London are not accurate."

The State Department said it did not pressure Ecuador or play any other role in blocking Assange's internet access.

"While our concerns about WikiLeaks are longstanding, any suggestion that Secretary (John) Kerry or the State Department were involved in shutting down WikiLeaks is false," State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-urged-ecuador-act-against-assange-n669271

That's some interesting cut and pasting, PP. You left out the bit where a source close to Ecuador said has been frustrated with Assange and his presence at the embassy in London for months and has been considering how best to proceed. You're also discounting the official response from Ecuador, that said Assange had been meddling in a foreign countries elections and that's a no-no. If you're complaining about politicizing or shading an issue, well...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is silence from US got so this confirms they had something to do with it. John kerry was in London yesterday.

There is also silence from Clinton campaign but she did post somthing about Alex Jones on social media implying that those on right are crazy.

I have no doubt that our US government is behind this.

I like your logic. Because the US has not claimed responsibility, or denied it, you have no doubt that the US government is behind this. It could not have been the UK acting on her own, or at the behest of any other country. It must have been the US government, because they haven't denied doing it.

Does that logic also apply to the UK? Assange has only blamed a "state actor", not the US specifically, btw.

Looks like pp was correct.
And, while I am not a supporter of ANYONE hacking anyone, this is why so many people distrust our government officials.

Quiet pressure from the U.S. government played a role in Ecuador's decision to block WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange from using the internet at Ecuador's London embassy, U.S. officials told NBC News.

"It was a bit of an eviction notice," said a senior intelligence official.
-
-
-
However, U.S. intelligence officials told NBC that a message was conveyed to Ecuador that it should stop allowing Assange to carry water for Russian intelligence agencies, and that Ecuador, though run by a leftist, anti-American government, was receptive.

The U.S. moves come as bipartisan concern is growing about the alleged Russian interference amid a daily release of Podesta emails.

Back when this happened, this is what the official government response was:

A senior administration official said that the U.S. did not push Ecuador to cut Assange off from the internet: "Reports that the U.S. government, to include the Intelligence Community, pressured the Ecuadorian government to interrupt internet service within Ecuador's embassy in London are not accurate."

The State Department said it did not pressure Ecuador or play any other role in blocking Assange's internet access.

"While our concerns about WikiLeaks are longstanding, any suggestion that Secretary (John) Kerry or the State Department were involved in shutting down WikiLeaks is false," State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-urged-ecuador-act-against-assange-n669271

That's some interesting cut and pasting, PP. You left out the bit where a source close to Ecuador said has been frustrated with Assange and his presence at the embassy in London for months and has been considering how best to proceed. You're also discounting the official response from Ecuador, that said Assange had been meddling in a foreign countries elections and that's a no-no. If you're complaining about politicizing or shading an issue, well...

My main point was the OUR officials have been denying their involvement. But, it seems that is not the case. Why deny?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
My main point was the OUR officials have been denying their involvement. But, it seems that is not the case. Why deny?

When dealing with international affairs, government officials choose words carefully. Read the statements from US government officials you quoted:

"Reports that the U.S. government, to include the Intelligence Community, pressured the Ecuadorian government to interrupt internet service within Ecuador's embassy in London are not accurate." Apparently "pressure" was not required nor used.

"While our concerns about WikiLeaks are longstanding, any suggestion that Secretary (John) Kerry or the State Department were involved in shutting down WikiLeaks is false." This also accurate because Wikileaks was not shut down.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
My main point was the OUR officials have been denying their involvement. But, it seems that is not the case. Why deny?

When dealing with international affairs, government officials choose words carefully. Read the statements from US government officials you quoted:

"Reports that the U.S. government, to include the Intelligence Community, pressured the Ecuadorian government to interrupt internet service within Ecuador's embassy in London are not accurate." Apparently "pressure" was not required nor used.

"While our concerns about WikiLeaks are longstanding, any suggestion that Secretary (John) Kerry or the State Department were involved in shutting down WikiLeaks is false." This also accurate because Wikileaks was not shut down.

And your post is exactly why so many Americans are distrustful of our government, and of Hillary Clinton in particular.
"Parsing words" is misleading. They know it. It provides politicians a way to escape accountability.
And, it is why so many people are trying to read into the idea that Russia is behind the Wikileaks hacks.
What is our government REALLY saying? What is it that they REALLY know?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
My main point was the OUR officials have been denying their involvement. But, it seems that is not the case. Why deny?

When dealing with international affairs, government officials choose words carefully. Read the statements from US government officials you quoted:

"Reports that the U.S. government, to include the Intelligence Community, pressured the Ecuadorian government to interrupt internet service within Ecuador's embassy in London are not accurate." Apparently "pressure" was not required nor used.

"While our concerns about WikiLeaks are longstanding, any suggestion that Secretary (John) Kerry or the State Department were involved in shutting down WikiLeaks is false." This also accurate because Wikileaks was not shut down.

And your post is exactly why so many Americans are distrustful of our government, and of Hillary Clinton in particular.
"Parsing words" is misleading. They know it. It provides politicians a way to escape accountability.
And, it is why so many people are trying to read into the idea that Russia is behind the Wikileaks hacks.
What is our government REALLY saying? What is it that they REALLY know?

Parsing words is absolutely necessary in international affairs. Beyond that, the entire legal profession would cease to exist if words could not be parsed. I'm sorry that you don't believe in accuracy of words. I suggest that you stay away from any profession that involves communication.

As far as what the government is REALLY saying, read their statements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a really strange question. I would hope the US is trying to shut down Wikileaks and has been trying to shut it down since it started, because it is completely illegal. So what's your conspiracy theory?

See, for me? I think that our government doing illegal things is much, much more critical than Wikileaks exposing the fact that our government is doing illegal things. Our government is supposed to be subservient to the people, not the other way around.

That's not what WikiLeaks is doing. It has become nothing more than a vehicle of personal vendetta and escape for Julian Assange. Deal with it.