Hillary sold weapons for money - Rumor / wikileaks part 2-4

a reply to: drock905

Hillary sold her humanity and soul for money and power. Selling weapons is a given.

a reply to: thinline

I think even if Wikileaks could produce damning evidence of others, they wouldn't.

Just as a previous thread pointed out by reminding us of the goal put forth by the John Birch Society, we are seeing this unfold now.

Obama cannot be responsible for ensuring that Hillary Clinton fail to reach the WH, but their puppet has much darker puppeteers pulling strings and etc.
We will see this come from "another source": Wikileaks.

Then, the country will enter phase II of the plan laid out and reminded to us yesterday in this thread: Robert Welch in 1958 Predicting Insiders Plan for America

Could see some uncensored classified emails.

What a bombshell.



adding:
Hillary is talking now to a VFW convention.
Not many "applause" LOL
BS'ing her way through it.

originally posted by: drock905
a reply to: DupontDeux

It was on their Twitter page when they posted the link on Friday.

No, I do not think it was.

The full text of the "release-twitter" is as follows:

Are you ready for Hillary? We begin our series today with 20 thousand emails from the top of the DNC. #Hillary2016

I have gone through every Wikileaks-tweet send since thursday, and I cannot find a specific number of parts mentioned. I cannot put a finger on why, but my impression is that the Hillary Leaks series will have way more than four parts.

a reply to: DupontDeux

It's very possible that I read it wrong, I could have sworn they said 4 parts, it may have been in response to someone in Twitter. I could be mistaken though.

But it does say it's part of a series

a reply to: drock905

It sure does

- and it is going to get progressively better/worse/more controversial, I think!

a reply to: jefwane

Given Assange's past leaks, I have no doubt he would publish them if he had them.

Do you think Assange would not exercise a certain amount of... discretion? Has Wikileaks ever published Russian diplomatic traffic?

a reply to: SonOfThor

Your insinuation demonstrates a lack of understanding about wikileaks.

Did I say wikileaks was responsible for the hack?

People leak the information to wikileaks, i.e. what Manning did for example, they don't go hacking into 'political enemies' systems and the like. If no one has hacked into Trump's system, and no one from the inside leaked something, then wikileaks would not be able to release it.

And a certain intelligence agency routinely hacks American traffic and might leak it in order to damage one public figure while helping another.

nvm

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
a reply to: drock905

The U.S. is the single biggest arms dealer in the world and has been for some time.

So what was this about?.

Some people that that the Secretary of State personally sells guns. Congress has to approve weapons sales, so if it was crooked, Congress is crooked.

I do believe much of Congress is crooked. However, there are lots of black ops across the world that Vongress doesn't approve nor know of.

originally posted by: angeldoll
Does it occur to anyone else that Assange is a conniving, manipulative, attention seeking little twit who is in cahoots with Putin to get his buddy Trump into the white house?

Completely irrelevant if this information is authentic.

a reply to: DJW001

I've in the past been critical of when wiki leaks makes editorial claims to the news they leak. I was particularly critical of the "Collateral Murder" story showing a US gunship killing a couple of journalists. But they gave access to the raw footage so i could make my own judgement.

It seems to me that you're trying to paint Assange as either having conservative leanings, which is laughable, or as an agent of a foreign government which to be honest I've given more than a little thought to myself over the years. However, regardless if the motives are altruistic or nefarious, wikileaks did not create the contet of these leaks or the previous ones. But like someone, I can't remember who, once said "At this point what difference does it make." The DNC still is responsible for the content and not securing it.

Edit to add:
As I stated earlier, I've given more than a little consideration to the possibility that Assange might be an operative of some government whose interests do not always align with US interests. That is a possibility. However, there are two other possibilities just as likely. The first is no one inside or out is leaking their diplomatic cables to him so there is nothing to publish, and the other is that they have, but he's not as willing to face the wrath of nations that go after their enemies with assassins equiped with Polonium tipped umbrellas as he is nations that use warrants, extraditions, trial by juries, and incarceration.

Just a heads up - My Twitter feed is saying assange is currently being interviewed on "democracy now" can't listen because I'm working.

Anyone familiar with Pi Mobi/Cicada 3301?
I heard about this just now on Twitter and am not familiar with it.
It seems to (in part) concern Hillary and illegal arms transfers.
Video:
www.youtube.com...

The question for me is: A for part release because there is an agenda? Or a parted release so every part get enough scrunity? Well, those are two questions badly formulated to be one.

If I would have to decide over it, I would go with parted releases but then every two months, not years.
Doesn´t mean I´m saying it´s either A or B for assange but wanted to point this out.

FOX: Assange just announced the next leak will be emails FROM Hillary.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Completely irrelevant if this information is authentic.

You aren't supposed to notice the attempt to poison the well.

I love the search example they give in the search tips:

To search an exact phrase use quotes around it like in "money laundering"

a reply to: IAMTAT

Anyone familiar with Pi Mobi/Cicada 3301?

Not certain of the former, but I have seen the latter referenced elsewhere.

I'd much rather not state where, if you take my meaning.

But don't quote me.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Check out the video posted above.

US politics has played the October surprise a few times. This could be a year for one.