But would you follow it? What if you knew there was one document, relevant to the decision, but unfair — because there's no time for the candidate to respond, no time to get at what is true — one document, and no one was saying what was in it, only telling you not to look at it, but all you needed to do was click and you'd see it? Would you look?
After the election, the mainstream media will reveal anything it thinks people should see, but it doesn't think they should see anything today:
"If these documents contain revelations, Le Monde will of course publish them after having investigated them, respecting our journalistic and ethical rules, and without allowing ourselves to be exploited by the publishing calendar of anonymous actors," [the newspaper Le Monde said].I don't think I need a poll to establish the correctness of that journalistic position, do I?
पोस्ट्स
१४६ टिप्पण्या:
Not only is the past like another country, other countries are even more like other countries.
I think their rules are absurd, but they are their rules.
After the election is too late.
On the other hand, in this country, if I had those mails in hand, I would promulgate them as far and wide as possible.
The voters have to weigh the information against the probabilities, just like always.
The trouble is women voters. Probabilities don't figure in.
"We will sell no news before its time."
I guess it matters as to whose ox is being gored.
One could suggest that the entire Watergate affair was driven by an anonymous leaker nicknamed "Deep Throat" who provided a lot of negative stuff against President Nixon, gleefully published on the august pages of the Washington Post for over 2 years. And Mr. Throat turned out to be a government official unhappy with Mr. Nixon.
So there's that.
I never believe anything until it has been officially denied.
- Claud Cockburn
I'm not entirely comfortable with these 11th hour revelations, but the question must be asked: If your security is so lax that this can happen in the first place, how can you be trusted in office? What other data have you compromised through your blatant incompetence?
The French like their privacy. If anything, this revelation helps Macron, and the JournoLists are throwing Molotov cocktails from their privileged positions inside the fourth estate. Something similar happened to influence the election here, but Americans had the opposite reaction motivated in part by JournoListic precedent.
Le Monde seems to think people should trust it. Horse puckey.
Yes, the media should lie and hide the truth. Lying and hiding the truth is often the "honorable" thing to do.
What is funny about this is that the old line media and Europe actually think they have the power to suppress this by not reporting on it. They really seem to think that it is still 1965 and people won't just go and look at the information for themselves.
"Le Monde newspaper said on its website it would not publish the content of any of the leaked documents before the election, partly because the huge amount of data meant there was not enough time to report on it properly, but also because the dossiers had been published on purpose 48 hours before the election with the clear aim of affecting the vote."
Would the same reticence have been observed if Le Pen's campaign had been hacked and some juicy negative stuff (planted or not) dumped?
Tout le Monde résistent Le Pen.
Another variant of "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."
If he accomplishes nothing else, Trump has lifted the rock on the malicious media to reveal all the creepy, crawly things beneath.
After the election, the mainstream media will reveal anything it thinks people should see, but it doesn't think they should see anything today
Yes, and the mainstream media is invested in one party's success, as their abject dejection at the Correspondent's Dinner showed.
If the document reveals that Macron has lied about involvement in corrupt overseas investments and tax avoidance (remember, he's a socialist) schemes, then the information is absolutely germane to anybody's vote.
A free democracy depends upon an informed electorate so that votes are based not on ignorance, but on truth. Genuinely free decision-making cannot be done without knowing all the facts.
In France, the government can do huge favors for individual reports, like see that they get that perfect apartment in that tony arrondissement of Paris. The press is utterly corrupt there and should not be trusted.
A rare nearly unanimous poll result.
I'm sure Bill Clinton wished that Drudge hadn't distorted the sincerity of his Oval Office filandering.
NBC respected that sincerity, of course, until Drudge made them disrespect it.
reporters, not reports.
Perhaps the electoral commission should delay the vote a week so the public can digest the unexpected new information.
"Les deplorables don't count, I suppose."
Le Monde is "tout le monde" in their own eyes, I'm sure.
In otherwords, vote for Macon (sp?) and after he wins we will report what we want to and nothing will be damaging to him. I guess I could substitute Hillary in above sentence.
So, here's a handy time line from the BBC of recent terrorist attacks in France .
Of course, the attackers are all disgruntled Muslims, while all the victims are innocent Frenchmen.
So, by all means, if one wants to preserve this excellent status quo in France, one should oppose the terrible threat of Le Pen and her fascistic, nationalistic, misogynistic, nativistic program.
Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite, et Stupidite
"Macron". There corrected my post.
If the Emails had come from Le Pen you can be sure they would be published right now, in bold type.
I was thinking about my uncle. My mother is Spanish, her brother residing in France since the sixties. It amazes me that when he comes here he is passionately absorbed in American politics, convinced he knows what is best for the USA. His latest rants are centered upon the intense racism in America since their was so much opposition to Obama. There is no disagreeing with the man. If I were to even suggest anything regarding French politics he would erupt with insults regarding the arrogance of Americans. He is a funny nervous man, prone to screaming at his sister for the insolence of her children.
These last minute unvetted revelations must be ignored at all costs to ensure the integrity of our elections!
--Dan Rather
I've heard that there were leaks, but I haven't heard anything about what was in the leaks. I guess that we're all compliant with French law.
John: What is funny about this is that the old line media and Europe actually think they have the power to suppress this by not reporting on it. They really seem to think that it is still 1965 and people won't just go and look at the information for themselves.
In the end it isn't the ability to "look it up for themselves" that matters. What matters is the extent to which people will still defer to the "prestige" news sources and opinion-makers.
I get the impression that the decline in the prestige of ptb-approved organs isn't as far along in Europe in general as it is here. Not that they'd be voting in a Le Pen if it were, but the ptbs would probably have found it necessary to come up with something better than the moth-eaten "third way" wares that Macron is flogging, to stay in power.
I guess the David Burge quote applies in this case; namely, that the news must be covered. With a pillow. Until it stops moving.
"Please don't look at that 9GB of emails"
No problem. I can hardly be bothered to look at my own emails.
Boris and Natasha strike again.
Keel moose.
Final thought, I am positive none of the spouses will come close to matching Carla Bruni in beauty and exceptional recordings.
That a forced media election blackout exists is the problem.The release of these documents highlights the problem. Is there a limit? If the media suddenly discovered that LaPen had taken large bribes would they find the information important enough to justify breaking the blackout? If Macron was accused of rape?
rhhardin said...
I never believe anything until it has been officially denied.
- Claud Cockburn
5/6/17, 9:41 AM
Since Claud Cockburn was a Stalinist, he believed a lot of shit.
No big deal. Whether the emails expose some rotten underbelly of Macron or not, his polls will be in the low 20 percent at the end of his first year. He's an incompetent. Maybe they'll be under 20. The French will be crying about their shit sandwich. Schadenfreude will ensue.
Let the sun shine in.
If the press did its job there wouldn't be the possibility of sudden devastating revelations. For example, during the US elections, it wasn't possible to influence Trump supporters with scare stories about revelations in emails because we knew the press had gotten everything out - whatever it was - including much that never happened. And we Trump supporters had time to evaluate because the press put all the lies and all the truths out very early. Hillary supporters however were well aware that the press was covering everything up for her. They could not evaluate, could not separate lies from truth during the campaign as is supposed to happen because the press was hiding all unpleasant facts - and the Hillary supporters knew it. They couldn't say - "well, here's the good in Hillary, does it outweigh the bad" because they knew the bad was being hidden. And so James Comey may have made potential Hillary supporters think: "uh, oh, here it comes, lying, remember Bill? "I did not have sex with that woman", I knew they were hiding terrible stuff, the Clintons are such liars and they are all about money, the tarmac meeting with Loretta Lynch, there will be years of this, I'm not voting for her." In other words, he reminded wavering potential Hillary people that everything bad about her and Bill and Barack was being buried by the press whereas with Donald Trump the good, the bad and the ugly was all known.
And also there were issues - the fact that the Democrats dumped the workers in favor of the better paying globalists. Sort of like the Anglo-Irish landlords dumping the Irish people and shipping all the food out of Ireland during the Great Hunger. That was done in the name of free trade. And it was not forgotten any more than the coal miners will forget Hillary laughing about destroying their jobs and lives. And then there are onlookers like myself and many, many others who regard Hillary's laughter at the great joke of wrecking an economy in flyover land as a typical moment in the life of a current member of the Democratic party-till-they-dope-puke-and-die party.
Journalists may have obligations about journalistic and ethical rules. Let them take their time. In the meanwhile, the interested voters should not be chastised or chased from reading what is right in front of their noses, for heaven's sake.
In an American courtroom, the judge would simply instruct the jury not to consider the e-mails in reaching their verdict.
So simple!
Nobody expects,.............Charlie Hebdo!
No, Carla Bruni was exceptional and not easily replaced. Trump has come very close however.
Sarkozy was this odd fellow, in a way, of being an extreme French stereotype even in appearance and manner, while, almost, not being French at all. Even to the old custom of acquiring admirable mistresses.
These days one gets to marry ones mistresses, which does not seem like an improvement.
The tortured writhing and flailing of the media and the electoral commission are now a bigger story than which candidate wins. The choice of candidates is an argument over deck chairs. The real issue of interest is why the champagne is climbing up the side of the glass.
Jack Wayne said...
No big deal. Whether the emails expose some rotten underbelly of Macron or not, his polls will be in the low 20 percent at the end of his first year. He's an incompetent. Maybe they'll be under 20. The French will be crying about their shit sandwich. Schadenfreude will ensue.
5/6/17, 10:31 AM
Yes, that's what I see happening. They'll vote for more of the same - and that's what they'll get. Including many more terrorist attacks.
Le Pen has a "mistress" herself, in that there is a fellow she lives with to whom she is not married.
That is really quite a new thing in political life. More so, actually, than being married to an older woman, which was quite a common thing for an ambitious player in search of wealth.
There needs to be a semi-respectable word, still uncoined, for such a semi-official paramour. It will probably be up to the French to supply it.
Well, I note the consensus at the Althousian Establishment.
Really, they are just stirring up people's curiosity by making such pompous statements.
Over at hotair.com there is a post which informs us that the French have a law that forbids publishing anything about the election from midnight on Friday until the polls close. So now I'm suspicious, not of a conspiracy of silence on the part of the French news media, but of the leak itself being a Dan Rather-like fake, perhaps with faked information sprinkled among real documents.
But I'll say again that Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and now Macron need to understand better the realities of the 21st century and beef up their cybersecurity awareness.
Ahhh, the French, their October surprises come in the spring.
Big Mike: Over at hotair.com there is a post which informs us that the French have a law that forbids publishing anything about the election from midnight on Friday until the polls close. So now I'm suspicious, not of a conspiracy of silence on the part of the French news media, but of the leak itself being a Dan Rather-like fake, perhaps with faked information sprinkled among real documents.
Thanks Mike. I was wondering about that. (But moving too slowly this morning to have yet tapped a few keys and clicked a few links to satisfy my curiosity.)
Brought up #MacronLeaks on Twitter. One of the first tweets I saw:
"Ahh, so the French government is now censoring its own press for the sake of Macron. Can't wait for the "fascist" Le Pen to win."
Heh.
Since there my be fake information in those email leaks, why should they be published? This is not a violation of free speech. Why aid and abet the hackers who engaged in illegal activity?
Not time for the candidate to respond? If this isn't enough time for a response, then the information must be so significant that it should absolutely be made public.
What would they do if it were le Pen's emails?
Our hostess has her tongue firmly poked into her cheek. She would be the first among us to click on any link to such a trove.
.....but not if I got there first.
- Krumhorn
Years ago, when first visiting France, I commented to my host that the French sure had a lot of laws.
He replied that there were a lot of folks that enjoyed making laws, and some that enjoyed following them. But that, for most, laws were considered "suggestions." To be followed when they appeared to make sense.
His reasoning seems to have held true over the years of observing behavior during return visits. There does seem to be a lot more casual bureaucratic corruption though. All anecdotal, but if there's a troublesome zoning law, something similar, that can't be ignored, the folks I have known seem to be have been able to find a friend in the bureaucracy to give them a waiver or whatever.
Almost all my time, however, has been spent in the south of France, below the tile roof / slate roof divide. Could be a regional thing. I've also always noticed a lot of National Front signs in the country side where I've mostly visited. Painted on boulders, that sort of thing.
Big Mike said...
I'm suspicious, not of a conspiracy of silence on the part of the French news media, but of the leak itself being a Dan Rather-like fake, perhaps with faked information sprinkled among real documents.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". These are Russians that we are talking about.
"Since there my be fake information in those email leaks, why should they be published?"
You must have spent the last year in a Himalayan monastery. Read the first option in the poll carefully. Then consider what demands it would put on your cognitive ability and critical thinking skills.
Cracker, you may trust yourself to weigh things accurately, but that doesn't mean you can be trusted by others to do so. People are going to believe the untruths perpetrated against this candidate and he can't even defend himself because of the laws preventing him from doing so so soon before the election. Why do you think these emails were leaked so soon before the election? Now put on your thinking cap and see if you can come to an intelligent conclusion.
But I'll say again that Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and now Macron need to understand better the realities of the 21st century and beef up their cybersecurity awareness."
I'll say again that Hillary Clinton, the DNC and now Macron need to understand better the realities of operating within the law in the internet age.
Like Clinton and the DNC,Macron isn't actually denying the validity of the evidence.
"He replied that there were a lot of folks that enjoyed making laws, and some that enjoyed following them. But that, for most, laws were considered "suggestions." To be followed when they appeared to make sense."
Also true in Italy. The late Luigi Barzini wrote in his book "The Europeans" that German trains have, or had, signs in them telling passengers that it was VERBOTEN to lean out of the windows of a moving train. In Italy, the signs told passengers that it was "inadvisable" to lean out of the windows.
In other words, Barzini said, the Italian attitude was "We're warning you. If you want to be a fool, go ahead and die."
Cubanbob,
Macron is denying the validity of the leaked emails. It's been reported that there is fake information embedded in the emails.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/05/06/french-watchdog-macron-data-mixed-in-with-fake-news-in-leak.html
"The election commission met early Saturday after reports of the hacking attack emerged just before midnight Friday, when a mandatory pause in campaigning is required.
The commission said the leaked data apparently came from Macron's "information systems and mail accounts from some of his campaign managers." It said the leaked data had been "fraudulently" obtained and that fake news has probably been mingled in with it."
Shorter Inga: voters are too stupid to judge for themselves. They need wise guidance from the leftist elite, who will make sure only "correct" information reaches them.
Just like the ridiculous piss-gate story, right, Inga?
The evidence included in the emails is pretty damning, including images of signed documents, included as email attachments, with emails discussing said documents. Given that it is acknowledged that his email account was hacked, this stuff is difficult to deny.
One thing the coverage freeze does for Macron is that it does not require him to respond, which response is likely to get him into more trouble. Such questions as where this money came from, and how much of it there is, and what else of this nature there may be. Which else may exist in the email file.
It is highly questionable for a man who has spent his career in salaried employment, and has little inherited wealth, or international business operations, to be dealing with Cayman Islands accounts.
US laws are much stricter on this stuff than French ones, and this would be a far worse problem for a US politician, but it should be scandalous in France, supporting as it does the image of a corrupt establishment.
No, wrong. It's Just like the ridiculous Pizzagate story.
It's fundamentally unfair to publish fake information mixed in with real stolen emails and not give the target of these attacks a chance to defend himself.
Macron will almost certainly get a pass for this after he wins, from the press anyway, and he does not have to respond to the alternative press.
How shameful. Some Russian has again committed Journalism in the First Degree. Have they no decency? All Macaroni was doing is practicing SOP Tax Evasion in a country with a 45% marginal tax rate. And he likes banking on Grand Cayman. Freeport is wonderful name.
It is moot, as I doubt there will be real investigation into the truth or falsity of the documents. Someone has raised the possibility that the embedded documents are fake, but unlike the Dan Rather - Bush docs I dont think these will be examined closely.
Also the Cayman Islands side of the info is almost certainly being "sanitized" as we speak. One is not Rothschilds man for nothing.
Macron told the commission some of the stuff was fake.
We're supposed to believe that?
Would Trump get that kind of benefit-of-the-doubt from Inga and her ilk?
The invasion of low-quality information into the "protected arena" of political choice is another aspect of the ongoing collapse of the Nation-State. It depended on tight control of the borders (physical, informational) and on the content and process inside the borders. Official sources, media oligopoly, etc. All gone now. Just like the collapse of the physical border around Europe and the ongoing flood of strangers, some of them with bad intent.
FYI : I am using my son-in-laws computer from Lithia, Florida today. So Read and Enjoy is his commenter name, and not mine. Guess who I am? Think of this as What's My Line.
I know of nobody who voted for Trump on the basis of pizzagate. And anybody who thinks that that played a big factor in his win is being willingfully ignorant about how terrible Hillary was as a candidate.
buwaya wrote:
"The evidence included in the emails is pretty damning, including images of signed documents, included as email attachments, with emails discussing said documents. Given that it is acknowledged that his email account was hacked, this stuff is difficult to deny. "
Just as there is no doubt Podesta wrote what he wrote. Once again, the Left wants to focus on process, not content. When unfavorable information is leaked about conservatives, the focus is on content, nevermind how the information was obtained.
Why, it's almost like leftists are amoral hypocrites or something.
John AnnArbor,
Some hacker steals private emails, then publishes them, then says they are all real. Because they are stolen emails of the candidate you are against, you believe the hacker. Your "ilk" needs to not give a pass to hackers who engage in illegal activity.
And he likes banking on Grand Cayman. Freeport is wonderful name.
Freeport is in the Bahamas, on the other side of Cuba from the Cayman Islands.
Macron said he didn't have an account in the Bahamas but the banking document was for a Cayman account. Some people think he was relying on people confusing the two in making this denial and that it shows the documents are authentic.
"JohnAnnArbor said...
Macron told the commission some of the stuff was fake.
We're supposed to believe that?
Would Trump get that kind of benefit-of-the-doubt from Inga and her ilk?"
Only if some left wing blog told her to. Which seems unlikely.
Your "ilk" needs to not give a pass to hackers who engage in illegal activity.
Immoral.
Life imitating art??
Read Gore Vidal "The Best Man" -or- if you can find it, watch the movie with Henry Fonda and Cliff Robertson
Pizzagate didnt make it out of the right wing fever swamp. It was on reddit and WND; it was not prominent even on Freerepublic. I doubt very much that it changed swing voters in PA.
Not to say there is no germ of truth in it. The people involved have odd behaviors to say the least, and the Pizza shop owner has interesting polutical conbections. The Podestas tastes in art alone would have instantly ended Republican political careers.
There are no morals. Public morality is dead, killed long ago. It is all simply political ammunition. The use of moral arguments at this time is either hypocrisy or naivete.
Does Inga wants us to dismiss ClimateGate also? Should we dismiss Snowden? Hey Inga, funny how so many important leaks in the last 8 years have reflected poorly on lefties and lefty governments. Why is that?
I always assumed that Pizzagate was a practical joke that got out of hand because stupid progs.
All Macaroni needs is a French version of Director Comeh ( maybe Inspector Clouseau) to publicly clear him of any threat of Prosecution by finding Macaroni had no criminal intent when he hid his Income from Tax Collectors, accidentally and with good heart.
Why is it obviously the right thing? Why not then ignore the candidate's speeches until when, after the election, they can be probed by the anointed journalists?
I don't recall Althouse holding back on the Trump pussy tape. She was calling on him to *withdraw* -- almost immediately. So it wasn't obviously the right thing in that case.
I confess that after that statement from the electoral commission I would vote against Macron if I were French. I object to the police interfering in an election to cover up for a candidate and intimidate his critics.
Pizzagate was speculation founded on disparate information that on its own was interesting. There is a homosexual mafia of political operatives including D.Brock, who seems able to collect quite a lot of money; he was in some relationship with the Pizza shop owner who himself had political connections, acknowledged many times it seems in the WaPo. There was an allegation (also published) of pedophilia, or at least ephebophilia, abuse against him. He had some connection with the Podestas, who had some "odd" tastes (also very visible in open source info).
Separate things making for a "model", a unifying conspiracy, that is probably false. But the separate bits together make a probably true picture of a generally degenerate society. None of these people, weirdos, sleazes, should be in or close to power. The Democratic party establishment is however loaded with them.
"Macron is denying the validity of the leaked emails. It's been reported that there is fake information embedded in the emails."
A convenient statement, no? I recall Hillary's camp claiming the same but never refuting what was published.
I suppose since Marcon and his team have already gone through the 9GB of materials to determine what they contain and the presence of forged docs, they would have no problem pointing out which were illegitimate to help the media in its reporting.
I suspect, however, that when Le Monde finally publishes the story there won't be fake documents at all.
You may recall that after the DNC was hacked, Democrats claimed that "some" of the documents were fake but never specified which were. And never have specified that, to this day. Why haven't they? Why indeed.
Why should we believe thieves who steal private information to tell the truth?
Your "ilk" needs to not give a pass to hackers who engage in illegal activity.
Immoral.
Nothing like left wing scandals to stimulate Inga's indignation about morals.
Why should we believe this who have a vested interest in keeping their information private to tell the truth?
I recall Hillary's camp claiming the same but never refuting what was published.
Like when Donna Brazile denied sending debate questions to Clinton? ("As a Christian woman, I understand persecution....")
Why not believe them?
When the press carries no news you can trust, you have recourse to all else. This is the lesson of living in places with official control of news.
The mass media environment in the US anyway is no better than it was under the dictatorships I grew up in. We also had alternate media, some of which was trustworthy. We also had scurrilous rumors. This is what happens when there is no trust.
Hackers who produce forged documents taint every future hack. The hackers have more incentive to be truthful than those who are hacked.
That may be a fine journalistic position, but it's employed only selectively, hence it's not really a position of integrity. Had this been Le Pen's e-mails that were hacked, every news organization in the country would have rushed to get stories out on them.
Meanwhile, leaked information does change minds and votes, that's why these last-minute revelations constantly occur to try and change outcomes. And in some cases it probably should - for example if obvious serious criminal actions are revealed.
There is always the question of whether the information is fake or not, and in the digital age it's easier than ever to fabricate something (and not so quick and easy to definitively debunk the fakes). That does pose a challenge for the popular vote, as there are lots of actors out there with lots of incentives to manipulate the vote in a way favorable to them.
"Why should we believe thieves who steal private information to tell the truth?"
If in fact they never stole private information, they are not thieves, and therefore are as trustworthy as anyone else on the internet.
Conversely, if, as you concede, they stole private emails, why would they need to forge them?
Or did Daniel Ellsberg's theft of the Pentagon Papers make it more likely that he also forged or altered them to make his political point?
"Conversely, if, as you concede, they stole private emails, why would they need to forge them?"
Think about what you just wrote. Disinformation campaigns are known to use real information interspersed with fake stuff to lend it credibility.
Ditto on the hypocrisy.
Why trust the MSM'S assertions of morality given their treatment, of, for instance, the case of the hacking of Sarah Palin's email, which they greeted with glee, and wherein they invited the public to look for incriminating information.
When the police are corrupt, one looks to criminals for justice. Organized crime for instance. Yet another lesson from the third world.
"Just like the ridiculous piss-gate story, right, Inga?"
Exactly what I was thinking of when Inga went into her why-is-the-sky-blue routine. Frankly, I haven't the slightest doubt that I'm smarter, have a better grasp of history, a deeper understanding of human nature, and far superior critical thinking, than 99% of 25 year-old partisan-hack journolisters. With a few exceptions, the same is true of most of the folks here.
"Frankly, I haven't the slightest doubt that I'm smarter, have a better grasp of history, a deeper understanding of human nature, and far superior critical thinking, than 99% of 25 year-old partisan-hack journolisters."
I'm not a big Peggy Noonan fan but she was absolutely right when she said we are being condescended to by our inferiors.
Is Inga for reals?
My irony meter just maxed out.
" Disinformation campaigns are known to use real information interspersed with fake stuff to lend it credibility."
What fake information was contained in the Podesta emails? The ones that showed that the DNC was clearly colluding with CNN and other tame journalists? That wasn't, in fact, fake news.
It was news you are are indifferent to because you don't care about Democrat corruption. You don't care if they lie to and manipulate you. In your case, their lies have been very effective.
Inga said...
Since there my be fake information in those email leaks, why should they be published? This is not a violation of free speech. Why aid and abet the hackers who engaged in illegal activity?
5/6/17, 11:17 AM
Dan (fake but accurate) Rather disagrees.
Whatever you do, do NOT think of kangaroos!!"
" Disinformation campaigns are known to use real information interspersed with fake stuff to lend it credibility."
So says the woman who was completely taken in by piss-gate.
And don't counter with pizza gate, because most of the commenters here did not display the sort of gleeful credulity you did at the ridiculously dumb story that Trump hired hookers to pee on Obama's bed.
"Inga said...
Since there my be fake information in those email leaks, why should they be published? This is not a violation of free speech. Why aid and abet the hackers who engaged in illegal activity?"
Uh, publishing or reading the hacked emails in no way "aids or abets" the hacker. So lets add this to shit you know nothing about.
"The latest case in point: CNN's Chris Cuomo was dissecting the latest Wikileaks document dump when he decided to "inform" viewers that it's illegal for anybody but a member of the media to download and view the contents of the Podesta leaks:
"...Remember, it’s illegal to possess these stolen documents. It’s different for the media. So everything you learn about this, you’re learning from us."
Curious George,
Perhaps this is above your head, but I was not using "aid and abet" in a legal sense.
And don't forget it is Trump who is in favor of strengthening ( "open them up!") libel laws.
Inga, we've had many examples of people leaking private or confidential/classified information to the press over the last 40 years (Pentagon Papers, Deep Throat, Manning, Snowden, Podesta and HRC campaign emails). I can't think of a single example of someone salting such documents with "fake stuff."
Except for Dan Rather and CBS, who faked the only document that they purported to be leaking. Which should tell you a lot about how reliable any of the MSM is in determining what to report.
Everything the French ever knew about Liberté, égalité, fraternité they learned from America, and badly.
I've seen email discovery and what I don't get is how you insert convincing fake stuff into email strings that are cc'd and duplicated all over hell and gone...Is this even doable?
"Inga said...
Curious George,
Perhaps this is above your head, but I was not using "aid and abet" in a legal sense."
It doesn't mean what you think it means in an "English" sense.
Jail Macron for tax evasion and get on with the election.
Disinformation campaigns are known to use real information interspersed with fake stuff to lend it credibility.
Which ones, Inga ? The KGB ?
Why not regale us with your knowledge of disinformation ?
wild chicken said...
I've seen email discovery and what I don't get is how you insert convincing fake stuff into email strings that are cc'd and duplicated all over hell and gone...Is this even doable?
The answer is yes. They are computer files and for all effective purposes infinitely malleable. The documents themselves will contain little that will guarantee their authenticity. Not arguing that they aren't authentic, as Macron has apparently conceded this in at least some cases.
"Why not regale us with your knowledge of disinformation ?"
Michael, why not stop being an ass. People like Ritmo and others wouldn't give you such a hard time if you did. Think about it.
PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN.
ARM: The documents themselves will contain little that will guarantee their authenticity.
...which is why, for instance, the Clinton campaign never denied the authenticity or disputed the contents of the Wikileaks releases.
Inga doesn't seem to realize that 90% of commenters here would be proud to be called 'an ass' by her: she's almost infallibly wrong in her judgment of people and events, so her scorn is as good as a compliment from an intelligent and sensible person.
"Inga doesn't seem to realize that 90% of commenters here would be proud to be called 'an ass' by her..."
Well, in that case, insect, you too are an ass! You're welcome, it was my pleasure.
https://theintercept.com/2017/05/06/no-macron-leaks-politically-motivated-hacking-not-whistleblowing/
"HERE’S SOME NEWS for the alt-right activists in the United States behind a disinformation campaign aimed at getting Marine Le Pen elected president of France by spreading rumors about her opponent, Emmanuel Macron: The French do not much like having their intelligence insulted by Americans.
According to Nicolas Vanderbiest, a Belgian academic who studies social networks, the hacked documents only began to attract attention after they were linked to on Twitter by Jack Posobiec, a Trump supporter who added the misleading hashtag, #MacronLeaks.
That theme was repeated again and again in France on Saturday, in response to reports that a trove of hacked documents — nine gigabytes of memos and emails stolen from Macron aides and posted online Friday night, just before a legally imposed blackout on statements from candidates took effect — was first publicized on social networks by pro-Trump propagandists.
Even though that fake “proof” of a secret Macron account was debunked in the French media, it continued to spread on social networks, successfully confusing some voters, who were also exposed to other forgeries shared by activists from Le Pen’s National Front.
Taken together, the effort to spread forged documents and the late release of genuine material hacked from Macron’s campaign, disguised as a “leak,” might be evidence of an intentional disinformation campaign, aimed at misleading voters into thinking real evidence of malfeasance by Macron had been provided to the media but was being suppressed."
"Michael, why not stop being an ass."
Inga, you seem to get very upset when people disagree with you.
What did I say except you could tell us all you know about disinformation campaigns since you apparently know more than I do, anyway,.
I am trying very hard to ignore Ritmo and have failed to do so in the past. I admit that and it was a mistake I am trying to avoid.
Have I ever responded to you with the invective and obscenity he uses ?
Thanks, Inga! I knew I could count on you to give me the badge of honor I deserve, while stupidly thinking you're somehow insulting me. I'd prefer it were a physical badge of honor, but in this case it's an honor even to be nominated. To compare small things with great: the Democrats and a few independents who made Nixon's enemies list were quite proud of that feat, and some of those who 'missed the cut' are still bitterly disappointed after all these years.
Did my post disappear or was it disappeared? Or did I muff it or post it elsewhere? I was polite and on point with my observations about the Frenchmen I work with, who believe the (leaked or hacked, pas d'import) materials, think Macron corrupt, but agree that France is successfully censoring this information and that Le Pen will lose.
Macron will (may) just have trouble forming his government after the June parliamentary elections, if the right (from which they exclude Le Pen) do well (which a surge by Le Pen may signify).
BTW they don't think she did so hot in the debate. So again these are not guys who you should necessarily consider unreasonable.
The commission said the leaked data apparently came from Macron's "information systems and mail accounts from some of his campaign managers." It said the leaked data had been "fraudulently" obtained and that fake news has probably been mingled in with it."
Inga has a problem with reading comprehension and logic.
Sorry I see I posted it on the previous thread. Anyway, Inga, if you need to push a story for the cause, fine, but I always encourage people not to fool themselves.
How exactly was Michael K. being an ass to Inga? Did he insult her?
No, he just asked her to back up her claims and provide evidence.
Instead of doing so, Inga called him an ass. Not only that but she said such an unreasonable request for evidence is the reason Michael K. is insulted by Ritmo.
There's a reason why most of us consider Inga illogical, hypocritical and not too bright.
Think about it.
Michael K did sincerely not ask me for anything. He was being a condescending disingenuous ass. As for Exiled, she is always an ass for any number of reasons.
"Michael K did sincerely not ask me for anything. "
Really ? I think you post a lot of lefty nonsense but you and I have had useful exchanges on healthcare, as I think you may know something about it.
You really lash out when it seems inappropriate.
But, I guess you live in your own world so go for it and see if anyone agrees with you.
I "live in my own world"? You can't help yourself, I see. That's really too bad.
Inga said...
Michael K did sincerely not ask me for anything."
Really? When you wrote:
"Disinformation campaigns are known to use real information interspersed with fake stuff to lend it credibility."
He asked you this:
"Which ones, Inga ? The KGB ?
Why not regale us with your knowledge of disinformation ?"
Yeah, that's a bit snarky, but that's because he knew you wouldn't be able to provide any evidence of your statement.
He was correct.
"Nothing like left wing scandals to stimulate Inga's indignation about morals."
"Why not regale us with your knowledge of disinformation ?"
Michael K,
Maybe no one ever told you this before, but when you approach people in this manner, a polite conversation is most likely not going to ensue. Most people would be put off by the tone of such comments.
As for Exiled, she is always an ass for any number of reasons.
5/6/17, 4:52 PM
The reason is pretty simple. You can't think your way out a paper bag and you write a lot of dumb stuff.
And like Dr. Weevil, I take great pride in being called an ass by the likes of you.
"And like Dr. Weevil, I take great pride in being called an ass by the likes of you."
Oh good! Then let me repeat myself. Exiled is an ass for any number of reasons. You're welcome, my pleasure.
Hooray! I got my badge of honor!
You made my evening, Inga!
Still can't provide any evidence for your ridiculous statement, can you?
Well, that's no surprise....
The honorable thing would be to ignore the hacking contents.
However, if it will save the President from having to step down, and a new government formed, from his violation of tax laws, then maybe honor should be set aside.
#patheticputinists
" Once again, the Left wants to focus on process, not content. "
This is not a universal truth. For example I recall someone getting a recording of Newt's cell conversation, apparently illegally, the content is all that mattered. Or Mitt's comment on the 47%, content is king.
The operative rule is whichever direction serves the left.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा