Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
62. Wikileaks doesn't have anything on Trump that is more controversial than the balls-out crazy shit
Mon Oct 31, 2016, 11:00 AM
Oct 2016

that comes directly from Trump's mouth every time he gets in front of a camera.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/293453-assange-wikileaks-trump-info-no-worse-than-him

And that's not exactly an endorsement of Trump. That's another point that shows he's just as fucking crazy as he sounds.

This is not about judicial influence. The goal is political influence. DetlefK Oct 2016 #1
'Any illegally obtained evidence is considered poisoned fruit.' - That's not true. PoliticAverse Oct 2016 #2
So, if something is stolen Funtatlaguy Oct 2016 #3
Yes. Suppose a burglar breaks into someone's house... PoliticAverse Oct 2016 #6
I once turned over some evidence on my son LeftInTX Oct 2016 #63
I would hope the media would not apply that standard. NCTraveler Oct 2016 #4
I can't understand why they don't have ANY standard. FarPoint Oct 2016 #5
The "Pentagon Papers" were quite relevant... PoliticAverse Oct 2016 #7
An exception. The issue of concern was identified prior to obtaining documents. . FarPoint Oct 2016 #9
That seems like a "I don't like this stuff" standard. Goblinmonger Oct 2016 #43
Especially stolen by a hostile foreign government Funtatlaguy Oct 2016 #8
Not irrelevant in any way. NCTraveler Oct 2016 #29
Did you feel that way when Wikileaks leaked info on the Bush administration? JRLeft Oct 2016 #10
I guess it depends on the source. Funtatlaguy Oct 2016 #13
I'm still waiting for verification that it was Russian hackers. JRLeft Oct 2016 #14
It's never been confirmed it was the Russians. I'm still waiting for confirmation. JRLeft Oct 2016 #27
I will pay no attention to it treestar Oct 2016 #15
It doesn't hack anyone and I support information on the RNC, but JRLeft Oct 2016 #19
Yes, I never acknowledged Wilkileaks...ever. FarPoint Oct 2016 #24
You ignored the 2006 dump? Really? Did you ignore JRLeft Oct 2016 #25
Wikileaks has never passed the smell test for me... FarPoint Oct 2016 #26
They have to be equivalent treestar Oct 2016 #41
Podesta was using a GMail account citood Oct 2016 #28
I agree... IndyV0te Oct 2016 #33
So who gets exposed and who doesnt? Funtatlaguy Oct 2016 #37
Evidently those with crap security on their servers B2G Oct 2016 #39
Wikileaks doesn't have anything on Trump that is more controversial than the balls-out crazy shit AtheistCrusader Oct 2016 #62
" Have you ever seen a poor politician (D or R)? No and you never will." Dem2 Oct 2016 #40
Refusal to give coverage to fact hacks were done by Russia Panich52 Oct 2016 #38
The Podesta emails are authentic. You can verify this yourself in 10 minutes. yodermon Oct 2016 #59
^^Exactly^^ End Of The Road Oct 2016 #64
Hey man, keep that shit to a dull roar. We're trying to kill the messenger here. AtheistCrusader Oct 2016 #65
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Wikileaks "evidence" woul...»Reply #62