[liberationtech] Democrats rally around pledge not to use hacked documents (Wash Post)

[Peter Jones | Redesign]

Indeed, this development is just wishful thinking and doubles-down on false narratives in order to benefit one party. It reeks of desperation. Where does one even start? Most of the underlying assumptions the DNC "true believers" are committed to are just plain false, and they have to know it. The trope of "Russian interference" which is totally  unsupported, other than CIA hearsay (always a great reliable source). The trope of "hacked" documents, when the damning DNC emails were shown by former NSA chief scientist Bill Binney to have been transferred to a flash drive and not hacked. https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/

The hacking narrative (or "lie") is another escape hatch to avoid real culpability and internal responsibility,. It is anti-ethical because they want to poison-pill the truth which they demand be hidden. The pledge to "not use" when of course, the evidence is damning to their core party members and they are afraid it could be used against them. 

Does anyone read independent news media anymore or are real journalists such as Robert Parry (now conveniently deceased), Seymour Hersh, Glenn Greenwald, Caitlin Johnstone, Robert Fisk, Eve Bartlett, Chris Hedges?   They are not even included as op-eds anymore in the establishment-prostrating corporate media which continue to hold adherents, against all the evidence showing them to be our Pravdas?

Peter Jones

PETER JONES, PH.D.
OCAD UNIVERSITY
http://designdialogues.com
http://slab.ocadu.ca







-----Original Message-----
From: LT <lt-bounces at lists.liberationtech.org> On Behalf Of Richard Brooks
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2019 12:20 PM
To: lt at lists.liberationtech.org
Subject: [liberationtech] Democrats rally around pledge not to use hacked documents (Wash Post)

I don't get it. So, they would not look at the Pentagon Papers or other evidence of crimes that have been suppressed?

It seems to me that the important thing is the information, not the source. Or am I just ill-informed with regards to journalism and ethics?

I get the fruit of a poisoned tree thing for government prosecutions. But, won't this type of standard make it easier to suppress whistle-blower information pointing out government malfeasance?

https://s2.washingtonpost.com/camp-rw/?e=cnJiQGcuY2xlbXNvbi5lZHU%3D&s=5cc6e448fe1ff6510311c476

--
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable from any major commercial search engine. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/lt. Unsubscribe, change to digest mode, or change password by emailing lt-owner at lists.liberationtech.org.