Is the USA or CIA trying to shut down Wikileaks?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

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.

Yeah, I guess it DOES matter what the meaning of the word “is” is.
And, Hillary’s expertise with parsing words will undoubtedly make her a “masterful” leader.
She did not have classified information on her server. Wait! She did not have anything marked classified on her server. Or, was it that she did not send or receive anything marked classified? Or, was it that SHE didn’t send anything marked classified?
And, I find all this parsing of words comical to begin with since no documents are marked “classified.” They are marked “top secret,” “secret,” and “confidential.”
Yes, parsing of words is absolutely necessary. When one is trying to save their own ass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

Yeah, I guess it DOES matter what the meaning of the word “is” is.
And, Hillary’s expertise with parsing words will undoubtedly make her a “masterful” leader.
She did not have classified information on her server. Wait! She did not have anything marked classified on her server. Or, was it that she did not send or receive anything marked classified? Or, was it that SHE didn’t send anything marked classified?
And, I find all this parsing of words comical to begin with since no documents are marked “classified.” They are marked “top secret,” “secret,” and “confidential.”
Yes, parsing of words is absolutely necessary. When one is trying to save their own ass.

She is a masterful lair and lesrn d a lot from Bill - the only thing she didn't learn is how to commit assault and rape.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

Yeah, I guess it DOES matter what the meaning of the word “is” is.
And, Hillary’s expertise with parsing words will undoubtedly make her a “masterful” leader.
She did not have classified information on her server. Wait! She did not have anything marked classified on her server. Or, was it that she did not send or receive anything marked classified? Or, was it that SHE didn’t send anything marked classified?
And, I find all this parsing of words comical to begin with since no documents are marked “classified.” They are marked “top secret,” “secret,” and “confidential.”
Yes, parsing of words is absolutely necessary. When one is trying to save their own ass.

Actually, the statement about Assange didn't even really involve parsing. How much parsing is required to know that wikileaks wasn't shut down? If you have a problem, it should be with the reporter who bothered to report something that was obviously meaningless. Nobody is arguing that the US pressured Ecuador, so what parsing needs to be done with regard to that?

If you want to catalog lies by the two candidates, come back in five days or so because that is how long it will take to type a list of Trump's lies. He definitely is not a good parser because his lies are blatant and obvious.