File talk:Ele4321.png

This is a talk page for discussing. For sources, claims and narratives see the main page. (To see what is hot, see recent changes)

Perhaps mainpage may benefit from a disclaimer of sort, contains HUMOR and/or PARODY, etc..., if you are allergic try google, etc.  --Resup (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The wiki would certainly benefit from Petri returning to on-topic contributions. I guess this stuff is better than nothing, but I'm not sure about it. --CE (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I have not seen that release is from Cyberberkut. "Our whistleblowers gave us information that ..." . This implies that they are not in a position to be sure that the release is genuine (and also creates 'leaked not hacked' clause). I am not sure exactly how this source operates at present, but in general  I'd think that it would go by some generic security-type code of conduct (not academic or philosophic). This includes responding in kind (ответка -Rus.). If 'the West' allows itself to fill the missing details with own imagination, so can we. There is also an intermediary ('whistle-blower') here who may play by own rule-book, we do not know. Recent Buzzfeed unload was curiously timed before Pres.-Elect Trump testimony and confirmation hearings, which does suggest it may be not exactly accidental, but we do not know who is playing this game. It could go via Republican line too. As for Hillary, as suggested on the mainpage, she does not seem to be in the driving seat right now, and that seat appears empty at the moment, but I really have no clue. I think disclaimer is sufficiently generic and legalistic to pinpoint Soros, this type of disclaimer will go with any financial or legal communication and may be routinely inserted in all emails. So this is along the lines of filling the blanks with imagination. Enough people would want to do it (as alleged), and enough other people would be happy to learn it was evil Soros behind. Unsure what cosmic good we can do about all this on our end.--Resup (talk) 02:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also: Nikolai Patrushev ("ответка"?), 'Patrushev: US use internet servers for unauthorized collection of data', preview of the full version to appear on Monday, by Ivan Egorov, Rossiiskaya Gazeta (wiki), 15 Jan. 2017 (+Rusvesna (brief version) --Resup (talk) 13:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

The issue is too politicized, with a potential to poison the presidency and chances of reducing tensions between the West and Russia. Investigations of this sort should not be done by means of sending crap to media. But as things go, it may be used as a blunt weapon forever. Re Alperovich, it will be surprising to see a real email with Clinton, Soros, and Alperovich in it. This is like having the Queen, Prime Minister, and the Brown Noses on a single piece of paper; may get high price at Sotheby's. Doubtful that the globalists will held him in such a high esteem. -And too easy to have a longer chain to whoever is a tool here. --Resup (talk) 13:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)