• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Another possible Guccifer 2.0 leak

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
UglyCasanova said:
Wikileaks released it, presumably the same package: https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/783471736234844160

I would think this does lend a little more weight to the documents. Why it was called a CF dumb instead of DNC and DCCC I'm not sure (unless these files were legitimately on CF servers.

No telling what Assange is doing. Did he know about the Guccifer 2.0 dump? Is Assange/Wikileaks actually Guccifer 2.0 and using it as a proxy? Does he even have anything? I would think so since he's talked it up so much and Wikileaks has been reliable in the past. If he doesn't release something each week for 10 weeks like he said his and his organization's credibility is shot, and I doubt he would risk that.

So many questions, so many black helicopters. 🙂
Click to expand...

Wikileaks is worthless and little more than a Russia puppet organization that is being used to meddle in our affairs. Assange is only out for himself and as far as two sources releasing the same info, making it more credible? No, it isn't.

Go ahead and embrace the Russians and their operatives, you can have them.
 
UglyCasanova said:
Wikileaks released it, presumably the same package: https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/783471736234844160

I would think this does lend a little more weight to the documents. Why it was called a CF dumb instead of DNC and DCCC I'm not sure (unless these files were legitimately on CF servers.

No telling what Assange is doing. Did he know about the Guccifer 2.0 dump? Is Assange/Wikileaks actually Guccifer 2.0 and using it as a proxy? Does he even have anything? I would think so since he's talked it up so much and Wikileaks has been reliable in the past. If he doesn't release something each week for 10 weeks like he said his and his organization's credibility is shot, and I doubt he would risk that.

So many questions, so many black helicopters. 🙂
Click to expand...
Credibility, what credibility?
 
compuwiz1 said:
TARP was signed by Bush 3 months before Obama took office. Dubya knew there was a huge stinking pile of shit he was leaving behind. The question is, did all the money go for it's intended purpose(s), or was some leaked off to benefit the Clintons and/or their cronies? Is that what's being implied?
Click to expand...

Why would any rational person even entertain such conspiracy theory bullshit?
 
UglyCasanova said:
When has he been wrong? Honest question, it may be all the time for all I know.
Click to expand...

It's already been shown that the documents, if genuine, were originated in the hacked files of the DCCC & the DNC. It takes a leap of faith to believe that they came from the Clinton Foundation which is the purported source.

It's clear that Guccifer 2.0 is some sort of propaganda construct & broadcaster, State sponsored or otherwise. It's weaponized insincerity. That makes every bit & byte highly suspect.
 
Kazukian said:
100% accurate so far.
Click to expand...

What's that supposed to mean, anyway? Assange has made trolling an art form. His most recent stunt just proves that. He publishes whatever bits & pieces of info he receives that suit his purposes & grants them credibility in the process, something Guccifer 2.0 obviously doesn't deserve.
 
Jhhnn said:
What's that supposed to mean, anyway? Assange has made trolling an art form. His most recent stunt just proves that. He publishes whatever bits & pieces of info he receives that suit his purposes & grants them credibility in the process, something Guccifer 2.0 obviously doesn't deserve.
Click to expand...

And complaining about it is like getting busted cheating on your spouse and trying to say it's their fault for looking at your phone.

The last leak took out 4 officials of the DNC.
 
Last edited:
brycejones said:
F-that

Ars is in on it now. You can't trust them. There must be some alt-right acceptable tech site who does't cover up the truth. Killary is evil and will put all race realists in fema isalmization and gayifcation camps after she takes away the guns. As part of this there are new bioweapons already developed to rewrite the genetic code of white people and make them brown or black. Also shaving your beard will be banned under the new sjw dictatorship and every real man will have to submit to the will of a feminist and pee sitting down.

It's time to stand up to tyranie now!
Click to expand...
Pics of my feminist so I can make up my mind if this is a good thing or a bad thing.

ARS may have inadvertently harmed Hillary by verifying that these are DCCC documents. Probably not as bad as if they were Clinton Foundation documents, but it brings that dishonesty to voters' minds once again.
 
Kazukian said:
And complaining about it is like getting busted cheating on your spouse and trying to say it's their fault for looking at your phone.

The last leak took out 4 officials of the DNC.
Click to expand...
So what? It's clear that the source of the material is not the Clinton Foundation but rather the previous hack of the DNC & DCCC. That basic misrepresentation has been done for propaganda purposes rendering the content entirely suspect.
 
werepossum said:
Pics of my feminist so I can make up my mind if this is a good thing or a bad thing.

ARS may have inadvertently harmed Hillary by verifying that these are DCCC documents. Probably not as bad as if they were Clinton Foundation documents, but it brings that dishonesty to voters' minds once again.
Click to expand...

Exactly what dishonesty is alleged to have occurred?
 
brycejones said:
Except for the minor detail that the latest "dump" doesn't appear to come from where the source said it did. Doesn't that bother you?
Click to expand...


Do you know that for a fact though? Although originating at the DNC and DCCC is it not entirely posibble that these files were sent to the CF? I have files on my computer that originated elsewhere.

Edit: The lack of anything regarding the CF does make it suspect though, I agree, since it's portrayed as being from there. I did find the Clinton response odd too though, not a definitive "no, these weren't on on servers" but a more vague "we have no evidence of being hacked" statement.
 
Last edited:
UglyCasanova said:
Do you know that for a fact though? Although originating at the DNC and DCCC is it not entirely posibble that these files were sent to the CF? I have files on my computer that originated elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Occam's razor. What seems more likely? That these documents that all relate to an organization previously hacked and ONLY the organizations previously hacked belong to that hack or are from the Clinton Foundation which would have no reason to have them and none of the documents relate to it?
 
UglyCasanova said:
Do you know that for a fact though? Although originating at the DNC and DCCC is it not entirely posibble that these files were sent to the CF? I have files on my computer that originated elsewhere.
Click to expand...

No, I don't know that for a fact. I don't know for a fact these are genuine at all or they are not genuine. With that in mind anything contained within should be taken with a mountain of salt.
 
Jhhnn said:
Exactly what dishonesty is alleged to have occurred?
Click to expand...
Actual dishonesty itself doesn't matter.

The entire 30+ year smear campaign against Clinton has failed to come up with anything criminal, regardless of constant refrains that Clinton is breaking laws. Like murdering close friends. Committing fraud in land deals. Orchestrating/allowing terrorist attacks. Ad nauseam.

By continuing to bring up honesty itself, "it brings that dishonesty to voters' minds once again." Which is the actual goal. A common adage is that, "where there's smoke, there's fire". And for Clinton, it's essentially become a law unto itself that she is criminally dishonest.

For Clinton, where there's smoke, there's a smoke machine. But it doesn't matter, because the smoke itself is enough to get some people to stay home or vote for Mickey Mouse/Donald Duck.

And that's the point.
 
nickqt said:
Actual dishonesty itself doesn't matter.

The entire 30+ year smear campaign against Clinton has failed to come up with anything criminal, regardless of constant refrains that Clinton is breaking laws. Like murdering close friends. Committing fraud in land deals. Orchestrating/allowing terrorist attacks. Ad nauseam.

By continuing to bring up honesty itself, "it brings that dishonesty to voters' minds once again." Which is the actual goal. A common adage is that, "where there's smoke, there's fire". And for Clinton, it's essentially become a law unto itself that she is criminally dishonest.

For Clinton, where there's smoke, there's a smoke machine. But it doesn't matter, because the smoke itself is enough to get some people to stay home or vote for Mickey Mouse/Donald Duck.

And that's the point.
Click to expand...

It's the same people who think that where there are crop circles there must be aliens.

And Benghazi!, obviously.
 
nickqt said:
Actual dishonesty itself doesn't matter.

The entire 30+ year smear campaign against Clinton has failed to come up with anything criminal, regardless of constant refrains that Clinton is breaking laws. Like murdering close friends. Committing fraud in land deals. Orchestrating/allowing terrorist attacks. Ad nauseam.

By continuing to bring up honesty itself, "it brings that dishonesty to voters' minds once again." Which is the actual goal. A common adage is that, "where there's smoke, there's fire". And for Clinton, it's essentially become a law unto itself that she is criminally dishonest.

For Clinton, where there's smoke, there's a smoke machine. But it doesn't matter, because the smoke itself is enough to get some people to stay home or vote for Mickey Mouse/Donald Duck.

And that's the point.
Click to expand...

The Clintons are criminal masterminds who can never be caught out for any of the crimes they commit from cocaine smuggling to murder to cat assassination.

The Clintons are so incredibly inept that everyone knows that they are crooked/corrupt/murderers/drug smugglers/cat assassinators.
 
Victorian Gray said:
The Clintons are criminal masterminds who can never be caught out for any of the crimes they commit from cocaine smuggling to murder to cat assassination.

The Clintons are so incredibly inept that everyone knows that they are crooked/corrupt/murderers/drug smugglers/cat assassinators.
Click to expand...
This is similar to the cognitive dissonance reasoning behind the Even Day/Odd Day Obama trope.

On even days, Obama is a weak-willed surrender monger.

On odd days, Obama is a tyrant who has usurped all our freedoms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top