“As to his falsehoods, I really don’t have a time to make a list. Either he, wikileaks, or their sources have edited the data in the dumps. You can find many links to that.”
Feel free to link. But I don’t agree with that argument and I think it’s easy to dismantle. I note that of those whose email was released no one has pointed to one email as false. The closest to it was Donna Brazile. And she didn’t point to a specific email but spoke in generalities. Please link to prove me wrong. I would consider it a favor. The email meta data analysis I have seen suggests the emails are all real.
Some edits may be substantive. But some might not. Redaction for escape is meant to take place. As I said, feel free to show me.
“This isn’t simple “a condom broke and two women got mad.””.
Excellent example at a rhetorical trick. I never described it as such so you are demonstrating “straw-manning”. Arguing against a weak position which was never presented. I pointed out that the the circumstances involved non use of condoms - the ladies had never made a rape claim. They originally only visited the police station to ask if it was possible to compel an HIV test. The document I linked to made that clear. You did ask how I knew that so you could have at least looked at the link. Effectively this case hinges on condom use. Read it yourself and see. Either way, a
“Whatever he’s doing, it seems to be serving Russian interests and his high ground, personally and as the organization, seems pretty nonexistent.”
I’m sorry. How does wikileaks serve Russian interests? You think the Russians care about Clinton or Trump? Why? I can’t see why the Russians would care either way? Or how even if they cared, that this kind of intervention would do anything but hurt russian interests. I don’t mean to be rude but I have never seen a case made for Russian intervention that made any sense. Feel free to try. As for Assange high ground, well couldn’t he just say that while he is not a moral exemplar he did publish true stories/leaks. If he does, isn’t that what makes a democracy work?
If he falsified emails then you are right. But here you are demonstrating “Petitio Principii” another rhetorical trick. You assume that which you wish to prove - that Assange is publishing falsified emails from the Russians.
I see you are a fan of the their rhetorical trick!
