# release the documents

dave23 said:

Alex Jones says he has the memo, which will lend credence to its contents in some quarters.

He only thought he had it.  He had something else that's been publicly available for a while.

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/01/23/alex-jones-purports-release-house-gop-s-secret-russia-memo-not-realizing-document-publicly-available/219145

People's opinions on these things is very predictable.  They will think what benefits their team.  That is why you have evolving opinions about principled people.  

People like assange and greenwald have been singing the same song forever.  But many that loved them during the Bush years hate them now...and vice versa.

There is a super high correlation regarding the hatred of trump and thinking there is Russian Collusion.  This also means you probably don't worry that the FBI lost texts related to the investigation.  If you are a Trump supporter you think the exact opposite.  It is so tedious.

terp said:


There is a super high correlation regarding the hatred of trump and thinking there is Russian Collusion.  This also means you probably don't worry that the FBI lost texts related to the investigation.  If you are a Trump supporter you think the exact opposite.  It is so tedious.

Do you have a solution? How is one to know the truth?

terp said:

People's opinions on these things is very predictable.  They will think what benefits their team.  That is why you have evolving opinions about principled people.  

People like assange and greenwald have been singing the same song forever.  But many that loved them during the Bush years hate them now...and vice versa.

There is a super high correlation regarding the hatred of trump and thinking there is Russian Collusion.  This also means you probably don't worry that the FBI lost texts related to the investigation.  If you are a Trump supporter you think the exact opposite.  It is so tedious.

Yes, and the sky is blue. As someone who despises Trump, I don't know if there was collusion but I do know it would be very hard to prove. I think obstruction and/or laundering are more likely.

I used to respect Assange's work while being rather concerned about his alleged personal behavior. In the last few years, however, he's been rather "selective" about what he publishes and what he holds back.

dude, the Dems are a minority. They can't withhold the document.

The only person "censoring" it is Nunes, the producer of the document. Gee, that's weird isn't it?

Again, examine yourself.

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

Could you explain the "censorship" charge, including who is doing it and what is being censored?  All the main players seem to be having more than enough chances to make their arguments. 

Anyone who opposes the release of the memo in question, or who supports those opposing the release of the memo are advocating censorship:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/censorship

The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

I don't think Assange has changed at all.  He publishes documents(never faked as was once alleged) and doesn't reveal his sources.

As far as my solution...I'm not sure what exactly I am supposed to solve.  I'd like to see a more logical approach, but people are people I guess.  That, or the vast majority of Americans are not equipped to take that approach for whatever reason.

You can hate Trump but still think the Russian Collusion story is questionable.  That is possible.  Personally, I think that is a very logical position.  

There are issues with our institutions that transcend our leaders.  We'd be wise to recognize that.

drummerboy said:

dude, the Dems are a minority. They can't withhold the document.

The only person "censoring" it is Nunes, the producer of the document. Gee, that's weird isn't it?

Again, examine yourself.

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

Could you explain the "censorship" charge, including who is doing it and what is being censored?  All the main players seem to be having more than enough chances to make their arguments. 

Anyone who opposes the release of the memo in question, or who supports those opposing the release of the memo are advocating censorship:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/censorship

The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

Has anything changed since all Democrats on the Intel committee voted against a process to release the memo vs all Republicans who voted for the process?

Serious question; Have any Democrats called for the release of the memo?

terp said:

I don't think Assange has changed at all.  He publishes documents(never faked as was once alleged) and doesn't reveal his sources.

As far as my solution...I'm not sure what exactly I am supposed to solve.  I'd like to see a more logical approach, but people are people I guess.  That, or the vast majority of Americans are not equipped to take that approach for whatever reason.

You can hate Trump but still think the Russian Collusion story is questionable.  That is possible.  Personally, I think that is a very logical position.  

There are issues with our institutions that transcend our leaders.  We'd be wise to recognize that.

Well said.

"The truth lies somewhere between Trump being a Manchurian Candidate and Greenwald’s insistence that the Russia story is a fabrication of a fevered, Russo-phobic liberal mind. And for all its nuances, it’s still a powerful, important story. We’ve discovered that social media giants may be the weak underbelly through which all kinds of adversaries, foreign and domestic, can exercise toxic influence. We can see that Vladimir Putin is having increasing success at filling a vacuum of credibility in Western countries, especially in Europe, created by recent American failures. But when we talk about the Russia story, we aren’t talking about the dangerous concentration in Silicon Valley or partisan outlets like Breitbart or the way the Iraq War undermined the United State’s legitimacy around the world. We’re talking about Glenn Greenwald and the pee tape." 

https://newrepublic.com/article/146725/glenn-greenwalds-women

The entire article is worth a read. There's something for both "sides" in it. Marci Wheeler is the owner of https://www.emptywheel.net/ and has done the most in-depth and objective analysis of the Russia story.

Please upload your last ten years of tax returns with associated schedules and nothing redacted.  If you refuse you’re guilty of censorship. 

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

Could you explain the "censorship" charge, including who is doing it and what is being censored?  All the main players seem to be having more than enough chances to make their arguments. 

Anyone who opposes the release of the memo in question, or who supports those opposing the release of the memo are advocating censorship:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/censorship

The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

Wow! Is Paul working in the behalf of and being fully funded by the American tax payer?  Who knew?

I've already answered your serious question. Why would the Dems support the release of a ridiculous POS?

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

dude, the Dems are a minority. They can't withhold the document.

The only person "censoring" it is Nunes, the producer of the document. Gee, that's weird isn't it?

Again, examine yourself.

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

Could you explain the "censorship" charge, including who is doing it and what is being censored?  All the main players seem to be having more than enough chances to make their arguments. 

Anyone who opposes the release of the memo in question, or who supports those opposing the release of the memo are advocating censorship:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/censorship

The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

Has anything changed since all Democrats on the Intel committee voted against a process to release the memo vs all Republicans who voted for the process?

Serious question; Have any Democrats called for the release of the memo?

I pretty much agree with the bolded statement. The more important part of the investigation is the obstruction aspect. And maybe some money laundering/financial shenanigans.

cramer said:

"The truth lies somewhere between Trump being a Manchurian Candidate and Greenwald’s insistence that the Russia story is a fabrication of a fevered, Russo-phobic liberal mind. And for all its nuances, it’s still a powerful, important story. We’ve discovered that social media giants may be the weak underbelly through which all kinds of adversaries, foreign and domestic, can exercise toxic influence. We can see that Vladimir Putin is having increasing success at filling a vacuum of credibility in Western countries, especially in Europe, created by recent American failures. But when we talk about the Russia story, we aren’t talking about the dangerous concentration in Silicon Valley or partisan outlets like Breitbart or the way the Iraq War undermined the United State’s legitimacy around the world. We’re talking about Glenn Greenwald and the pee tape." 

https://newrepublic.com/article/146725/glenn-greenwalds-women


The entire article is worth a read. There's something for both "sides" in it. Marci Wheeler is the owner of https://www.emptywheel.net/ and has done the most in-depth and objective analysis of the Russia story.

terp said:

As far as my solution...I'm not sure what exactly I am supposed to solve.  I'd like to see a more logical approach, but people are people I guess.

Even within a logical approach, there can always be a difference in goal: The goal of your logical approach appears to be to improve the situation for the independent self. The goal of my logical approach is to improve the situation for the communal greatest possible number of people.

That is true.  I don't believe the 2 to be mutually exclusive. In fact, I would say that the crowning achievement of our culture is the identification of the individual as the primary sovereign.  I believe our culture is unique in that way(and that is not to say that it is perfect). 

And I don't think people should be logical because I think we'll all end up in the same place.  It's more so that we can actually have a discussion, and hopefully a constructive discussion.  Maybe I can learn a bit from you and you can learn a bit from me. 

Most conversations today around politics, or policy, or even culture seem to include demonizing one group or another.  I personally don't think its very fruitful.  

sprout said:

terp said:

As far as my solution...I'm not sure what exactly I am supposed to solve.  I'd like to see a more logical approach, but people are people I guess.

Even within a logical approach, there can always be a difference in goal: The goal of your logical approach appears to be to improve the situation for the independent self. The goal of my logical approach is to improve the situation for the communal greatest possible number of people.

terp said:

I don't think Assange has changed at all.  He publishes documents(never faked as was once alleged) and doesn't reveal his sources.

I was referring to the rape allegation and anti-Semitism.

I may be wrong, but I thought he previously focused on exposing government corruption and lies without favor. The last couple of years has had a distinct angle. (It's possible that he never focused on the rampant corruption in Russia, which would suggest a bias earlier.)

terp said:

That is true.  I don't believe the 2 to be mutually exclusive. In fact, I would say that the crowning achievement of our culture is the identification of the individual as the primary sovereign.  I believe our culture is unique in that way(and that is not to say that it is perfect). 

Perhaps. But the current implementation of the 'individual as the primary sovereign' appears to encourage maintaining or increasing inequities (e.g., racial and socioeconomic). Which worsens the situation for tremendous numbers. So, I think policy implementation and incentives need to change to reverse this.

I don't want to get in the weeds on this, but exactly what is the distinct angle?  The releases regarding the Clinton Campaign exposed corruption in the oldest party in American Politics.   

If this same story was exposed about a long standing major party in another country that America was adversarial to, I'm sure most here (and certainly the mainstream press) would be applauding him and ripping the corruption in that country.   Heck, if it happened to a country say in the middle east, we might even use it as a reason to free those people from that corrupt regime that does not answer to the people. 

I think the primary thing that has changed regarding Wikileaks is the perception of Wikileaks by many who did not like this past election outcome. 

That being said.  It is possible he has an axe to grind with the American power structure.  One could hardly blame him for that.  Even given that.  It sure seems like those emails were real.  I'm not sure anyone is denying that. 

dave23 said:

terp said:

I don't think Assange has changed at all.  He publishes documents(never faked as was once alleged) and doesn't reveal his sources.

I was referring to the rape allegation and anti-Semitism.

I may be wrong, but I thought he previously focused on exposing government corruption and lies without favor. The last couple of years has had a distinct angle. (It's possible that he never focused on the rampant corruption in Russia, which would suggest a bias earlier.)

I guess I would ask how individualism is increasing racial and socioeconomic inequities.  Again, that's probably not this thread, as there's quite a bit to unwrap there.   However, I'm guessing that I would challenge many of your assertions on the subject.  First, I would want to better understand exactly what you're saying. 

sprout said:

terp said:

That is true.  I don't believe the 2 to be mutually exclusive. In fact, I would say that the crowning achievement of our culture is the identification of the individual as the primary sovereign.  I believe our culture is unique in that way(and that is not to say that it is perfect). 

Perhaps. But the current implementation of the 'individual as the primary sovereign' appears to encourage maintaining or increasing inequities (racial and socioeconomic). Which worsens the situation for tremendous numbers. So, I think policy implementation and incentives need to change to reverse this.

Red_Barchetta said:

Please upload your last ten years of tax returns with associated schedules and nothing redacted.  If you refuse you’re guilty of censorship. 

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

Could you explain the "censorship" charge, including who is doing it and what is being censored?  All the main players seem to be having more than enough chances to make their arguments. 

Anyone who opposes the release of the memo in question, or who supports those opposing the release of the memo are advocating censorship:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/censorship

The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

Maybe Oxford Dictionaries will add your example.

drummerboy said:

I've already answered your serious question. Why would the Dems support the release of a ridiculous POS?

You've seen the document?

it did? like what?

terp said:

I don't want to get in the weeds on this, but exactly what is the distinct angle?  The releases regarding the Clinton Campaign exposed corruption in the oldest party in American Politics.   

Calling what happened with the DNC docs "corruption" is a bit of a stretch. It was politics-as-usual. The only difference is that it was exposed to the public. I'm not defending the Clinton machine, but the bed-wetting act by many is a bit much.

It's pretty clear that there are certain power structures Assange seeks to challenge or undermine and those he doesn't. That's fine, but let's not romanticize the guy and pretend he's some Unbiased Conduit of Truth. He enjoys a certain cult of personality that his followers are loathe to tarnish.

terp said:

I don't want to get in the weeds on this, but exactly what is the distinct angle?  The releases regarding the Clinton Campaign exposed corruption in the oldest party in American Politics.   

If this same story was exposed about a long standing major party in another country that America was adversarial to, I'm sure most here (and certainly the mainstream press) would be applauding him and ripping the corruption in that country.   Heck, if it happened to a country say in the middle east, we might even use it as a reason to free those people from that corrupt regime that does not answer to the people. 

I think the primary thing that has changed regarding Wikileaks is the perception of Wikileaks by many who did not like this past election outcome. 

That being said.  It is possible he has an axe to grind with the American power structure.  One could hardly blame him for that.  Even given that.  It sure seems like those emails were real.  I'm not sure anyone is denying that. 

dave23 said:

terp said:

I don't think Assange has changed at all.  He publishes documents(never faked as was once alleged) and doesn't reveal his sources.

I was referring to the rape allegation and anti-Semitism.

I may be wrong, but I thought he previously focused on exposing government corruption and lies without favor. The last couple of years has had a distinct angle. (It's possible that he never focused on the rampant corruption in Russia, which would suggest a bias earlier.)

terp said:

I guess I would ask how individualism is increasing racial and socioeconomic inequities.  Again, that's probably not this thread, as there's quite a bit to unwrap there.   However, I'm guessing that I would challenge many of your assertions on the subject.  First, I would want to better understand exactly what you're saying. 

Yes, we can discuss in a different thread. And at a different time, as I'm going offline momentarily.

dave23 said:

It's pretty clear that there are certain power structures Assange seeks to challenge or undermine and those he doesn't. That's fine, but let's not romanticize the guy and pretend he's some Unbiased Conduit of Truth. He enjoys a certain cult of personality that his followers are loathe to tarnish.

This is how Assange is painted by the Intel community / corporate media. The problem is, it isn't true.

Exhibit A:

https://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/russia/

[ moved to "collusion" thread }

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:

It's pretty clear that there are certain power structures Assange seeks to challenge or undermine and those he doesn't. That's fine, but let's not romanticize the guy and pretend he's some Unbiased Conduit of Truth. He enjoys a certain cult of personality that his followers are loathe to tarnish.

This is how Assange is painted by the Intel community / corporate media. The problem is, it isn't true.

Exhibit A:

https://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/russia/

Re his coverage of Russia, I haven't read anything about it in the supposed corporate media, but was just my own observation with the caveat that I could be wrong.

Where are his leaks about the Republicans and Trump?

a/k/a "the long thread defending Trump".  ;-)

paulsurovell said:

[ moved to "collusion" thread }

Let's not wander into "both sides are the same" arguments here. Sure, there are people on the left who are just assuming Trump is guilty as hell of everything. But they don't have the power to convict him, remove him from office, or throw them all in jail. 

But there are people on the right who are assuming Trump is innocent of everything, and they do have the power to stop the investigation in its tracks. And that would be a miscarriage of justice. 

Because there is ample and clear evidence that Russia interfered with the election. The big pressing questions here are, how did it happen and how do we prevent it from happening again. It's a totally unacceptable thing. Secondary questions are, who knew? Who helped, knowingly or not? Who coordinated? Who collaborated?

The answer to these might possibly be, "nobody", and even if that's true it doesn't invalidate the other very serious issues that could undermine our democracy.  

With all the money flying around real estate deals, all the secret meetings and correspondence between principals of the Trump administration and high-level Russian contacts, dark money and more; why would anyone want to so lightly dismiss the whole thing? 

It's corrupt in and of itself to want to quash these investigations. 

At worst, Trump is a criminal in bed with foreign interests and should go straight to prison.  At best, he is a stooge for wealthy foreign nationals that take advantage of his properties to funnel and launder money.