The elephant in the room, and why you shouldn't trust anything from wikileaks

Oh...and before you ask how Hillary has killed...here is a definition which fits Benghazi

Criminally Negligent Manslaughter
A homicide resulting from the taking of an unreasonable and high degree of risk is usually considered criminally negligent manslaughter. Jurisdictions are divided on the question of whether the defendant must be aware of the risk. Modern criminal codes generally require a consciousness of risk, although, under some codes, the absence of this element makes the offense a less serious homicide. There are numerous cases in which an omission to act or a failure to perform a duty constitutes criminally negligent manslaughter. The existence of a duty is essential. Since the law does not recognize that an ordinary person has a duty to aid or rescue another in distress, an ensuing death from failure to act would not be manslaughter. On the other hand, an omission in which one has a duty, such as the failure of a lifeguard to attempt to save a drowning person, might constitute the offense. When the failure to act is reckless or negligent, and not intentional, it is usually manslaughter. If the omission is intentional and death is likely or substantially likely to result, the offense might be murder. When an intent to kill, recklessness, and negligence are present, no offense is committed. In many jurisdictions, death that results from the operation of a vehicle in a criminally negligent manner is punishable as a separate offense. Usually it is considered a less severe crime than involuntary manslaughter. Although criminal negligence is an element, it is generally not the same degree of negligence as that which is required for involuntary manslaughter. For example, some vehicular homicide statutes have been construed to require only ordinary negligence while, in a majority of jurisdictions, a greater degree of negligence is required for involuntary manslaughter.

.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: thedigirati

originally posted by: Annee

Show me emails related to this presidential election targeting Hillary's opposition.

Oh wait. I know the answer to that.

No one has provided any to Assange.

How convenient.

Like how convenient it is that ABC,NBC,MSNBC,CNN, and many other "NEWS" sources have not shown the wikileaks at all?

So?

Like all of them that have "Trump bashed" yet praise Hillary Clinton? You mean those "Mainstream"sources? No need to send dirt to wikileaks, The Democrats have posted all Trumps (alleged) Dirt on TV, Radio, and news print, yet Hillary is "perfect".

Which has what to do with anything.

You got any more excuses?

[/quote

So? you mean wikileaks is not news worthy? I would like an informed nation, not a biased nation. your "so" is why we in the USA are in the situation we are in now. (as an example: job creation numbers include part time work, not just full time )
If I create 3 full time jobs and you create 6 part time Jobs which group is making more money?

As to what does this have to do with anything, it has EVERYTHING to do with it. wikileaks is about LEAKS, not what is in the headlines. hence the name wikiLEAKS. if the mainstream media puts as much effort into looking at Clinton like they do Trump there would be no need for wikileaks at all. It would be public knowledge.

You seem to think Assange gives a rats patootie who's running for office, I don't think he really cares one way or another.
He doesn't live in the USA nor is he a Citizen of the USA. All he cares about are eyeballs and what "he" thinks is the truth.

What excuses do you have for the lack of wikileaks coverage?

What excuse do you have for Folks that plead the 5th when they have immunity? ( you cannot self incriminate if you are immune to prosecution)

a reply to: Agent365

Agreed. I don't think it could've been said much better. It's crucial for Americans to know of the lies, omissions, disinforming, misinforming - fed to us by our government; with resources available (or just open your eyes and pay attention) it's inexcusable for us not to know. Knowledge is power - if you control the knowledge, you control the power.

Unfortunately there's a big 'sweep it under the rug' mentality and an abundance of ignorance and stupidity among the U.S. citizens. The media here is own by six mass corporations - they control everything we see, hear and read on television, advertisements, radio, newspapers...
And if anyone thinks for one second that six mass corporations are not manipulating us all; think again.
The U.S. media puts its all into distracting its viewers from what's most important currently going on in the world. They utilize psychology to fill its viewers with fear and to keep us all disunited by their reported stories.
If they can keep us at each other's throats, they can keep us from banding together in numbers to cease the bull#.

originally posted by: thedigirati

So? you mean wikileaks is not news worthy? I would like an informed nation, not a biased nation. your "so" is why we in the USA are in the situation we are in now.

Your complaint was it wasn't part of MSM.

There are many things that are important to me - - - that, I'm sure, you could give a crap about.

This is important to you. It's not important to everyone.

originally posted by: mirmirm1r

Unfortunately there's a big 'sweep it under the rug' mentality and an abundance of ignorance and stupidity among the U.S. citizens.

I don't know that that is true.

I think its more of making a mountain out of a molehill.

a reply to: Davood

Wow, you really don't know who the head of the snake is do you, I guess you forgot how much the market crash in the US in 2008 interrupted the entire global markets and.

When you disrupt Americas in any way or form, it affects the entire word.

Going after any of the littler snakes does nothing, but alas you target the head and the rest comes tumbling.

a reply to: Annee

Gee I don't know, I guess anything to do with Hillary or the Democrats is not news worthy you are correct. Both are NOT news worthy.

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: Annee

Gee I don't know, I guess anything to do with Hillary or the Democrats is not news worthy you are correct. Both are NOT news worthy.

That is not the discussion.

Are your personal issues not be addressed?

a reply to: Davood

LOL no, he has gone after many countries. He has gone after republicans too. Sorry, I'll keep trusting wikileaks over the media that has been proven to be nothing more than shills.

a reply to: Davood

It's interesting how you have not posted a single thing since 2011, come onto the boards, and then immediately post a verbatim CNN/MSNBC/Hillary Clinton campaign talking point.

I also find it interesting that you haven't even taken the time to respond to a single response.

Smells fishy to me.

We have proof that Reddit and Twitter accounts are being purchased by the boatload by Correct The Record and other violent terrorist groups in this country.

Are you a state actor, or are you a newly purchased account?

a reply to: Davood

Uh no. While I dgaf what you believe, I know a few of the people associated with certain roles within the group and I without question trust those individuals. Attempting to cast doubt on the outlet for truth is ridiculous. Lol. Give me a break.

a reply to: Annee

so if wiki received only info on the dnc and not anything substantial on the rnc, you would have them sit on the thousands of emails til they had equal opposing dirt on the rnc? your argument is purposely obtuse and invalid.

a reply to: Annee

Are you taking into account that Wikileaks & Snowden have been exposing "hidden facts" and not just tossing every bit of information that comes their way out there? If it is already available(MSM) there is no need to "leak" it.

originally posted by: brutus61
a reply to: Annee

Are you taking into account that Wikileaks & Snowden have been exposing "hidden facts" and not just tossing every bit of information that comes their way out there? If it is already available(MSM) there is no need to "leak" it.

Re: only this current presidential election.

The GOP/Trump are so squeaky clean there's nothing worth leaking?

originally posted by: CaDreamer
a reply to: Annee

so if wiki received only info on the dnc and not anything substantial on the rnc, you would have them sit on the thousands of emails til they had equal opposing dirt on the rnc? your argument is purposely obtuse and invalid.

So there's none?

The GOP/Trump are so squeaky clean, that there's nothing?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Annee

No you just don't understand wiki leaks.

Stop telling me I don't understand the leaks. I understand them perfectly.

It is you, and other supporters that refuse to see anything you don't want to see.

Yes, yes, yes - - Hackers and Leakers around the world provide Assange with information. He is completely innocent. All he does is release what he's been given.

Congratulations! Let me sell you a bridge.

This right here shows YOUR bias, it cannot be real if it is ONLY the Democrats. Hillary has 30 years in politics, and by your OWN admission you say ALL governments are corrupt, so of course Hillary has to "play the game"

Donald has not been in politics before so (using your own bias) cannot be corrupt because he does not know how to "play the game"

Could this be the reason it has not been revealed? Nah everyone is corrupt. it HAS to be Assange's fault the Trump doesn't have 30 years of deceit in politics to look for, it just HAS to be!

originally posted by: thedigirati

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Annee

No you just don't understand wiki leaks.

Stop telling me I don't understand the leaks. I understand them perfectly.

It is you, and other supporters that refuse to see anything you don't want to see.

Yes, yes, yes - - Hackers and Leakers around the world provide Assange with information. He is completely innocent. All he does is release what he's been given.

Congratulations! Let me sell you a bridge.

This right here shows YOUR bias, it cannot be real if it is ONLY the Democrats.

Is that what you call logical odds?

100% one sided. What are the odds of that?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: brutus61
a reply to: Annee

Are you taking into account that Wikileaks & Snowden have been exposing "hidden facts" and not just tossing every bit of information that comes their way out there? If it is already available(MSM) there is no need to "leak" it.

Re: only this current presidential election.

The GOP/Trump are so squeaky clean there's nothing worth leaking?

I said that his dirty laundry is being hung on the line by MSM not that he didn't have any.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: thedigirati

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Annee

No you just don't understand wiki leaks.

Stop telling me I don't understand the leaks. I understand them perfectly.

It is you, and other supporters that refuse to see anything you don't want to see.

Yes, yes, yes - - Hackers and Leakers around the world provide Assange with information. He is completely innocent. All he does is release what he's been given.

Congratulations! Let me sell you a bridge.

This right here shows YOUR bias, it cannot be real if it is ONLY the Democrats.

Is that what you call logical odds?

100% one sided. What are the odds of that?

If the Republicans are doing the same, it does not make the Democrats any less guilty or the information any less important.