Hacker News Reader

Comment by jfoster | Hacker News Reader

Difficult to imagine this being "influenced" by Clinton. It feels like it would be to Trump's significant advantage if this happens. It plays directly into his narrative.

View on HN

Difficult to imagine the person who called for Assange to be "droned" could influence anyone to cut his internet?

I see a lot of people repeating the claim that Clinton said that, but I've yet to see an actual source.

yes please link me to an article that actually says that

:shows truepundit article:

seems flimsy, doesn't really contain any actual sources other than "sources said". can you cite any other articles that don't use truepundit as the source?

:crickets:

yes. one article on an arguably either satire or hard-right website is the source of all the "drone him" talk

Here's Hillary's response to a question about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSTht4G4yJs

Have you looked? https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/782906224937410562

Respectable organizations don't copy text from unsourced articles on partisan blogs, change the font to Courier to make it look like a cable, and then screenshot the result.

Hmm, that's actually a good point, I didn't realize the primary source was so sketchy. Thanks for correcting me, seems I was too quick in my judgement. I'd like to edit/delete my comments, but I don't see the interface. Are HN comments immutable?

Not necessarily. If she is fearful of very damaging leaks in the pipeline, Clinton would want to make sure that, at the very least, they don't come out through Wikileaks, which has a 100% track record of real leaks and can't be denied.

http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/wikileaks-syria-files-syria-r...

100%, huh?

Don't twist my words. I said that they have never leaked fake documents. They clearly have an agenda in what they select for publishing.

================================================

In response to mejari (both of his replies) below, I'm rate-limited:

================================================

Did you even read that article? That's not what it says. They just didn't publish the documents. What it does say is that the hackers that stole the documents were joking about editing them before sending them to wikileaks.

They faked the documents by editing their contents to remove data they didn't want released. How is that twisting your words to show that your claim they've never leaked fake documents is false?

Sooo, then you agree that the documents are true and accurate?

You keep using the word fake, and I don't think you know what the work fake means.

No? What part of my comment suggested I agreed they were true and accurate? I laid out what about them was false and inaccurate.

The part where you said that your problem with wikileaks was that they chose to not release some of the info they have.

You didn't say that they released fake data. You implied that all the data that they DID release was true and accurate, but there was some other true data that they didn't release.

The fact that they explicitly removed data from their release is faking their release. It's not like there was even an entire release they chose not to do, they did the release but selectively removed a small part of it, seemingly in support of Russia. Then they presented their leak as the entire leak. That is false, they presented a false picture.

They leaked falsified documents. Either through receiving falsified documents and releasing them or through falsifying them themselves. Either way your claim is false.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com