Trump Jr. and Wikileaks Talking During Election

[Orbitus]

They did not receive their information from the Kremlin. The intelligence agencies did not claim that either, this debate is old and has been sent from the Clinton campaign to mislead the reality here that 3 IC had said that it was plausible.

Really? Because the CIA has identified the GRU, Russian Intelligence, as the sources for releases from Wikileaks.

http://time.com/4625301/cia-russia-w...s-dnc-hacking/

Gonna go with them, over Assange.

[NYC17]

Projecting much?

Clearly you have to, since you believe the Atlantic article although it’s publicly known that they’ve done severe malpractice with their article, something that can be evidently witnessed just by comparing the quotes from the article with the actual exchange on Twitter.

Projection accusations don't land here. I love how people think they just get to declare "PROJECTION!" like it has no meaning or can apply to everything ever. You're bending yourself into a pretzel to try and explain what Wikileaks really meant(wink, wink) as if you have some sort of authority to speak on the matter.

Also, you aren't qualified to declare something as "severe malpractice". You've criticized the Atlantic and your pushback was hilariously exposed as nonsense by Edge, and you don't even understand why. You spent post upon post explaining what Wikileaks goal really was, again devoid of any real authority or credibility.

Hi. larious.

[Shadowmelded]

Oh wow, I must've missed that one! That is pretty aweful... especially since earlier in the article he (asshole-ange) was apparently telling Dummy Junior to have his dad cool it on the "Rigged" crap. >_<

“Hi Don if your father ‘loses’ we think it is much more interesting if he DOES NOT conceed [sic] and spends time CHALLENGING the media and other types of rigging that occurred—as he has implied that he might do, The discussion can be transformative as it exposes media corruption, primary corruption, PAC corruption, etc."

10characters

[wunksta]

Hillary

That didn't take long.

[Felya]

Again, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

How about... keep your friends close, but your enemies closer. I bet I have an idiom to contradict every idiom you can come up with.

They stated two things that the Trump's group wanted to hear - and which were not false either. With that said, they had a smear campaign against them as if they were somewhat pro-Russian or pro-Trump, which were also both false.

They listed 3 reasons, which focused on helping both parties. The request even lists the fact that NYT already released one year and they did no damage. He isn’t asking this before the NYT article when general belief skirting millions in taxes would harm Trump, not garner cheers for claiming he is smart to do it. This was after NYT Times article, which was explicitly used to show it wouldn’t harm anything, while creating a perception of them being impartial.

Not hard: They don't reveal source. Once, they've confirmed that the source wasn't a state actor. Still don't know the source.

It seems hard for you... both your quote and you are ignoring that the first reason given is that NYT article did no damage. They are not asking for impartial taxes, but ones that wouldn’t cause damage. Ones that Donald Trump chooses to release. Ones that he used as his first example... that did no damage to Trump.

Let me see if this makes sense to you. If you ask Trump to leak something, would it be as damaging if it were someone impartial being asked?

- - - Updated - - -

Projecting much?

Clearly you have to, since you believe the Atlantic article although it’s publicly known that they’ve done severe malpractice with their article, something that can be evidently witnessed just by comparing the quotes from the article with the actual exchange on Twitter.

Donald Jr fucking confirmed it... wtf?

[wunksta]

They don't lie, they don't deny, they simply don't tell.

They lied when they said they didn't collude with Trump.

[Felya]

Projecting much?

Clearly you have to, since you believe the Atlantic article although it’s publicly known that they’ve done severe malpractice with their article, something that can be evidently witnessed just by comparing the quotes from the article with the actual exchange on Twitter.

You are arguing that WikiLeaks contacted Donald Trump Jr, to leak taxes that would be damaging to his campaign. You think Trump would release taxes to Assange, that would damage the Trump campaign, because Assange asked? You don’t think asking Trump to release his taxes, would result in the least damaging year possible? How stupid do you think Trump is?

[Machismo]

I love how people are trying to tap dance, and still say Wikileaks was being impartial... give me a fucking break. You have verified evidence of collusion and favoritism.

[ati87]

You are arguing that WikiLeaks contacted Donald Trump Jr, to leak taxes that would be damaging to his campaign. You think Trump would release taxes to Assange, that would damage the Trump campaign, because Assange asked? You don’t think asking Trump to release his taxes, would result in the least damaging year possible? How stupid do you think Trump is?

Why would the tax returns be damaging to Donald Trump?

[Blade Wolf]

Why would the tax returns be damaging to Donald Trump?

Because it would show how massively indebt he is. He acts as a billionaire but he's actually massively indebt to Wall Street hence why he's surrounding himself with the swamp.

[DarkTZeratul]

Why would the tax returns be damaging to Donald Trump?

The point is that they're leaking documents that are damaging to one party and asking the other party to volunteer information to give the impression of impartiality, but that party is never going to volunteer damaging information about themselves.

[Felya]

Why would the tax returns be damaging to Donald Trump?

For Trump? I really don’t know at this point... he boasted about costing tax payers millions, which would kill any other presidential campaign. But, Trump, somehow got away with calling him self smart for it... that was the point WikiLeaks was making. They said NYT leak had no impact, while seeing benefit for both Trump and WikiLeaks, because even though it won’t do any damage... it would create the perception that WikiLeaks is impartial, to quiet the pro-Trump and pro-Russia accusations.

[ati87]

The point is that they're leaking documents that are damaging to one party and asking the other party to volunteer information to give the impression of impartiality, but that party is never going to volunteer damaging information about themselves.

No the point is that the tax returns aren't damaging it's a god dam tradition followed by every single candidate who is seriously running for office.....so why would it be damaging?

Unless ofc he is doing something really bad?

[DarkTZeratul]

No the point is that the tax returns aren't damaging it's a god dam tradition followed by every single candidate who is seriously running for office.....so why would it be damaging?

Unless ofc he is doing something really bad?

So... Was your original question rhetorical, then?

[Breccia]

I love how people are trying to tap dance

Well, they're low on choices. "Oh, you mean that collusion with Russia."

[Mayhem]

Not hard: They don't reveal source. Once, they've confirmed that the source wasn't a state actor. Still don't know the source.

The two sentences contradicted each other, just saying. You're trusting their word, but why do you trust them?

[Felya]

No the point is that the tax returns aren't damaging it's a god dam tradition followed by every single candidate who is seriously running for office.....so why would it be damaging?

Unless ofc he is doing something really bad?

Trump never released his tax returns. But, you are asking why anyone would think there is anything bad in them, while pointing at those who did release theirs, showing nothing in them? Is this serious? I don’t know Davey... it might be the differance between someone saying there is nothing wrong in their taxes and those that show it. Jeebus...

- - - Updated - - -

So... Was your original question rhetorical, then?

Yeah, I took him seriously and I doubt he liked answer.

[Arvei]

Nothing, this exploration of American hysteria and divisions is quite amusing and enlightening by itself.

And it might even be useful later when our propaganda outlets will copy American approaches as they always did.

Yeah, that propaganda and trolling is doing wonders for you. How are you liking those sanctions?

[Shalcker]

Yeah, that propaganda and trolling is doing wonders for you. How are you liking those sanctions?

Very much; the only way to get Russian oligarchs to invest in Russia rather then West is to be denied Western loans and investment opportunities.

Keep them up please, ignore Putin whining about them.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

How about... keep your friends close, but your enemies closer. I bet I have an idiom to contradict every idiom you can come up with.



They listed 3 reasons, which focused on helping both parties. The request even lists the fact that NYT already released one year and they did no damage. He isn’t asking this before the NYT article when general belief skirting millions in taxes would harm Trump, not garner cheers for claiming he is smart to do it. This was after NYT Times article, which was explicitly used to show it wouldn’t harm anything, while creating a perception of them being impartial.



It seems hard for you... both your quote and you are ignoring that the first reason given is that NYT article did no damage. They are not asking for impartial taxes, but ones that wouldn’t cause damage. Ones that Donald Trump chooses to release. Ones that he used as his first example... that did no damage to Trump.

Let me see if this makes sense to you. If you ask Trump to leak something, would it be as damaging if it were someone impartial being asked?

- - - Updated - - -



Donald Jr fucking confirmed it... wtf?

Look at the article from medium I’ve posted not too long ago. You think they meant something they did not, because of a botched article which cannot bother to take the time to put full sentences without editing it to look like something else entirely.

They lied when they said they didn't collude with Trump.

They didn’t. The offer was made publicly on their twitter page then followed through PM in an almost copy-pasted fashion.

You are arguing that WikiLeaks contacted Donald Trump Jr, to leak taxes that would be damaging to his campaign. You think Trump would release taxes to Assange, that would damage the Trump campaign, because Assange asked? You don’t think asking Trump to release his taxes, would result in the least damaging year possible? How stupid do you think Trump is?

No, unless releasing it was unevitable, which was the perception then. If the NYT would put their hands on it and selectively reveal parts of it - like this article - then it could be much more damaging. It was a simple win/win situation, assuming the tax return was actually clean, which we do not know.

The two sentences contradicted each other, just saying. You're trusting their word, but why do you trust them?

They have precedence of releasing accurate, genuine information about whomever (institute or individuals) they can which is politically motivated to hide information.