Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Coordinating the releases of DNC emails with the Trump campaign is what did it for me. Wikileaks as a neutral outlet for leaking evidence of corruption is fine and in the past the worst anyone could say is that they were in way over their heads (remember the "insurance file"?). In 2016 Assange allowed politics to slip into the decision-making process, and gave up what credibility he and Wikileaks had.

Wikileaks even sold anti-Hillary merchandise on their website.

Hillary had "joked" about droning Assange before.

There is no evidence that this happened except an article from Wikileaks itself citing "sources at the State Department".


Clinton's 'I didn't say that, but if I did, it would have been a joke' is exactly what politicians say when they said something they don't want attributed to them but aren't sure if there's any evidence of them saying it.

Occam's razor applies here. Your theory is that she had 1. intended to assassinate Assange, 2. attempted to cover it as a joke and then 3. further covering it up by implying she doesn't remember this statement.

Let me offer you another theory: she's almost certain that she didn't say it, but she couldn't remember every word she's said.

Which theory do you think is more likely?

Now I am not saying you are wrong, but you'd need external evidence to support your theory, until then, Occam's rule apply. If you agree that my theory is more probable but do not like it, then it's possible your current belief is skewed by your prior belief.

Using Occam's razor like that is essentially a logical fallacy.

Elaborate? We are discussing event probability, not logical inference, so how can there be fallacy in the first place.

Yes and you are assigning event probability arbitrarily. This is why it is hard to use occams razor correctly in a non-subjective way. I can just as easily say that there is a very high probability that she said it, and doesn't want it on the record. There is nothing backing this as being more or less probable than what you said, it is all arbitrarily subjective prob assignments since we are both going on nearly no information.

That argument is exactly what slanderers say when they know their target didn't say something that the slanderer wants to attribute to them, to distract from the complete lack of any evidence of their target having said it.

Pretty much every major Republican figure and many non-Hillary Democrats openly, publicly called for him to be treated as an unlawful enemy combatant and either killed or detained in the same manner as Taliban/al-Qaeda fighters seized on the battlefield. Even if the supposed comment whose only source seems to be Wikipedia itself actually occurred, Hillary would still be one of the more moderate American public figures on the issue of WikiLeaks and Assange outside of Trump's open praise during the 2016 campaign.

Those people weren't secretary of state at the time, ie. one of the people that can in fact authorize drone strikes.

Are you merely upset about the timing of the releases?

If so, when would have been a good time for them to release the evidence of DNC corruption?

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact