And the Taibbi piece referenced.

[rollingstone.com]

The DNC made that claim about the emails being doctored, yet offered no copies of originals to establish that, nor did they even bother to specify what exactly was altered. They also claim their servers were hacked by Russians, but chose not to turn them over to the FBI for forensic examination.

@WilliamCharles i do not remember where i read the originals but i did read them at the time (not ALL of them lol) so i know that someone turned something over and they WERE doctored. i saw the examples myself. so your statement, while probably well meant, isn't accurate. but i can't back it up, alas, except with my own memory. i have wondered for the past couple years why no one has been mentioning it.

g

@genessa

Found this.

[zerohedge.com]

@genessa Snopes is not the be all, end all as far as verification goes, but they're often fairly good in deconstructing claims.

[snopes.com]

@WilliamCharles zerohedge i don't know. snopes is often good, more often good than otherwise. bu i remember reading the actual texts, not reading ABOUT them but reading them. i didn't memorize them lol. i remember one that might not have been altered and it was a couple of clinton employees discussing whether or not to sabotage bernie in the south about his possibly being an atheist. it was just a plan to make sure someone asked him about it during a town hall or debate or some such thing. they never did it. that was the worst thing i read that was said in the emails. but as i say that is not necessarily one of the ones i read where i saw the original and then the altered version.

g

@genessa - zerohedge is just a convenient place to retrieve information that often gets neglected by the MSM. Any site/individual should be continually evaluated for credibility and veracity.

As far as those supporting Assange, I consider John Pilger and Chris Hedges as a couple of the most trustworthy journalists alive. Their arguments for seeing the war waged against Assange for what it is, a push to prevent, demonize, and marginalize transparency, and dissuade any who might dare to do so as well... is well reasoned and supported by the facts.

Just a reminder that far too many credible alternative news, information, and opinion sites on Facebook and Twitter were scrubbed in their campaigns against so-called "fake news." It proved what many were saying when they defended Alex Jones. It wasn't defending Jones for his credibility, but that a top down sanctioning of that which us deemed reliable is problematic in itself. Notice that the mainstream news outlets, virtually all of corporate media, were the ones that echoed the Bush administration's drive for war. Yet, they're not only not blacklisted as unreliable, they themselves have published lists of the ones they consider fake news. Again, reliable sites were lumped in with the others. If you don't see a problem with this, I don't know what to tell you.

@genessa - in the case of my zerohedge link, they posted it from here.

[disobedientmedia.com]

@WilliamCharles lol just as unfamiliar. but i stand by what i remember because it made a big impression on me at the time.

g

@genessa - well, far be it from me to challenge such convincing assertions then.

(is a snark tag needed?)

@WilliamCharles okay, so you think i remember wrong or that i am lying. fine. whatever. no, i got the snarkiness. i didn't get WHY. i didn't say anything wrong, untrue or rude. i told you the truth, and my memory, while as i say i didn't memorize it, is in general quite good. so there was absolutely no need for snarkiness. we could have disagreed civilly. i guess now we can't.

g

@genessa - I'm sorry for being so dismissive. My point is that in the give and take of trying to establish the facts of any given issue, there has to be a mutually agreed upon manner to determine what is factual. What you offered, is essentially hearsay. You remember seeing it, the source and the information you considered reliable and worth passing along to support your position, but with no other corroboration.

Usually there's an article, or an opinion piece detailing the salient points, or a quote, or something... referencing the type of assertion you are making. I found a couple at least in line with my understanding of what arguments are out there for or against. If you look at some of your responses, they're rather dismissive themselves. There's a difference between writing "it's bullshit" and writing "it's bullshit because..." and offering a counterpoint. If that counterpoint is challenged, it's worth supplying a citation. I welcome corrections as needed regardless as I always want to fine-tune my own arguments in order that they are considered credible and up to date when I'm trying to persuade others. There's much in these type of discussions that is subjective, particularly when attempting to piece together a narrative from limited information, but we should at least be able to agree somewhat on what has already been revealed. I find it especially troubling personally when I hear/read mainstream media sources present something as fact that I know has not been established. They have a much greater budget and resources in their respective organizations to get the facts right, and when they don't you have to ask yourself, "Qui bono?"

A simple rock solid example of this is Amazon's Jeff Bezos. He also owns the Washington Post and has a $600m contract with the CIA (though claimed not to be anything nefarious). He sent a memo to the WP staff indicating no negative stories were to be run about Amazon or its employees. I consider omitting or shading the truth not much better than lying, and not at all the mission of a widely circulated news organization.

@WilliamCharles wrong. i did not read ABOUT altered emails. i read altered emails, myself. not hearsay to me. hearsay to you because i am telling you about it, but this is not a court of law. you can choose to believe me or you can choose to disbelieve me, but it is MY experience you are choosing to believe or disbelieve, not something i read about somewhere that someone else had something to say about. no, i don't have a link to that. oh WELL. but i know what i saw.

g

@genessa - again, short of details, I'm not sure what establishes that you saw originals.

@WilliamCharles well since i cannot produce what i saw, i guess i can tell you no more.

g

Planting fear into others, and trying to normalize such gross infringements of journalistic freedom is part of plugging the dike. In a world of alternatives to the MSM, the drive to marginalize and dismiss the alternative press, particularly by lumping them in with those sites bordering on demented and/or enemies of the state essentially, permits them to designate "approved" sources for news and information. Some truths are too destructive to the official official narrative.

yes there will always be criminal traitors. thank no one.

g

@genessa So are you saying that telling the truth is the same as being a criminal traitor?

@Jolanta in what way, shape or form did i ever say that? are you actually reading what i sahy, or are you not a good reader, or are you actually trying to gaslight me? you can't gaslight me. assange doesn't tell the truth, next?

g

@genessa If someone asks you what you meant surely you can explain without talking about gaslight.

@Jolanta surely you can respond without gaslighting. now i know. BYE.

g

yes that's a good story. it's bullshit but it sounds good, doesn't it?

g