Julian Assange: I Will Bring Hillary Down Before The Debate Stage On September 26th

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

Your failure to admit you were wrong about wikileaks has the volume turned up to Studio 54 levels

You have completely failed to show even one wiki document that makes Russia look bad, that's why you keep falsely claiming that I have been proven wrong. Your desperation to discredit what is now painfully obvious is odious.

As for your lying about what Brazile said, claiming to be able to read her mind is just lame.

You have completely failed to even look, because if you did you would find some.
I have already told you I am not posting wikileaks docs here.

I don't need to read minds - The Clinton campaign have already claimed the huge alt-right conspiracy led by Putin, with Trump, Duke, Alex Jones and Nigel Farage working for him. Donna Brazile is just spreading the same 'it's all Trump's fault' desperate nonsense.

a reply to: UKTruth

You have completely failed to even look, because if you did you would find some.
I have already told you I am not posting wikileaks docs here.

You mean you can't because you know that the documents you claim exist don't exist. The T&C does not forbid it. Note that my screen capture has not been deleted. No reason why you can't do the same. Until you do, the evidence points to Assange being a Russian asset.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

You have completely failed to even look, because if you did you would find some.
I have already told you I am not posting wikileaks docs here.

Until you do, the evidence points to Assange being a Russian asset.

Interesting conclusion. Which evidence would that be? Hilarious.
I wonder would wikileaks leaking a money laundering investigation into one of Putin's inner circle count? Only took me 1 minute to find that one.
I suggest you do some more research

The list from the current "hack" by Gruccifer of fund-raisers is a perfect example, I'm glad someone brought that up.

Shocker: Those who assist during political campaigns are often rewarded with positions in government.

Each of these "appointments" still had to be confirmed by Congress.

The spreadsheet clearly ranks by the amount RAISED not CONTRIBUTED. However, words make no difference when fronting for a political agenda as we've seen here.

I'll ask the same question I've asked before: how do we know which of these "hacked" documents are authentic and how many are fabricated. Obviously, whatever "Gruccifer's" origin, the intention is to cause partisan turmoil.

So, to those of you who quote these documents as gospel ... how do you know? Is your sense of skepticism overwhelmed by your politics?

Just some more evidence Hillary is bringing her own self down with her actions.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
Just some more evidence Hillary is bringing her own self down with her actions.

Wow another video with Photoshopped graphics.

Stunning.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

You have completely failed to even look, because if you did you would find some.
I have already told you I am not posting wikileaks docs here.

Until you do, the evidence points to Assange being a Russian asset.

Interesting conclusion. Which evidence would that be? Hilarious.
I wonder would wikileaks leaking a money laundering investigation into one of Putin's inner circle count? Only took me 1 minute to find that one.
I suggest you do some more research

You mean the cables forwarding an open source article in the Wall Street Journal containing the following?

The effort is related to a wider push by U.S. prosecutors to go after the proceeds of foreign corruption under the Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative, two people familiar with the matter said.

The initiative, announced in 2010, has targetedallegedly corrupt officials in Africa and the Middle East, but this appears to be the first-known probe involving Russia since the country’s relations with the West deteriorated over the Ukraine crisis.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Brooklyn and the Justice Department declined to comment.

The probe is also examining whether any of Mr. Putin’s personal wealth is connected to allegedly illicit funds, one person said. U.S. officials have previously said that Mr. Putin has investments in Gunvor.

Mr. Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said: “We’re not aware of any investigation, and we’re not following such things.” He dismissed allegations of any financial or business ties between Messrs. Putin and Timchenko, including any investment in Gunvor, as “nonsense.”

Mr. Putin has confirmed knowing Mr. Timchenko since the early 1990s, but denied playing any role in his business success.

Mr. Timchenko has long played down his relationship with Mr. Putin and has flatly denied that he has personally benefited from it.

“I’m a businessman, not a politician,” he said in a 2008 interview with The Wall Street Journal, attributing Gunvor’s success to its ability to transport oil on time and on budget. “Our advantage is clearly logistics.”

Email-ID 149279 Link to original open source. [Emphasis mine. --DJW001]

Sure sounds like the US is hounding an innocent businessman in pursuit of their persecution of Russia. Could you explain why you think this article from a decadent American newspaper could in any way damage Russia? It's not like you can't read that article in the WSJ online aechives anyway.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

You have completely failed to even look, because if you did you would find some.
I have already told you I am not posting wikileaks docs here.

Until you do, the evidence points to Assange being a Russian asset.

Interesting conclusion. Which evidence would that be? Hilarious.
I wonder would wikileaks leaking a money laundering investigation into one of Putin's inner circle count? Only took me 1 minute to find that one.
I suggest you do some more research

You mean the cables forwarding an open source article in the Wall Street Journal containing the following?

The effort is related to a wider push by U.S. prosecutors to go after the proceeds of foreign corruption under the Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative, two people familiar with the matter said.

The initiative, announced in 2010, has targeted allegedly corrupt officials in Africa and the Middle East, but this appears to be the first-known probe involving Russia since the country’s relations with the West deteriorated over the Ukraine crisis.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Brooklyn and the Justice Department declined to comment.

The probe is also examining whether any of Mr. Putin’s personal wealth is connected to allegedly illicit funds, one person said. U.S. officials have previously said that Mr. Putin has investments in Gunvor.

Mr. Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said: “We’re not aware of any investigation, and we’re not following such things.” He dismissed allegations of any financial or business ties between Messrs. Putin and Timchenko, including any investment in Gunvor, as “nonsense.”

Mr. Putin has confirmed knowing Mr. Timchenko since the early 1990s, but denied playing any role in his business success.

Mr. Timchenko has long played down his relationship with Mr. Putin and has flatly denied that he has personally benefited from it.

“I’m a businessman, not a politician,” he said in a 2008 interview with The Wall Street Journal, attributing Gunvor’s success to its ability to transport oil on time and on budget. “Our advantage is clearly logistics.”

Email-ID 149279

Sure sounds like the US is hounding an innocent businessman in pursuit of their persecution of Russia. Could you explain why you think this article from a decadent American newspaper could in any way damage Russia? It's not like you can't read that article in the WSJ online aechives anyway.

Wikileaks published the specific emails they uncovered and it was picked up by MSM. It is shining a light on potential money laundering involving one of Putin's associates. That is what Wikileaks do. They publish the actual source material.

The commentary Wikileaks used is directly referencing the content used in the email trail they leaked.

The completely unsubstantiated conspiracy theory about Putin isn't looking so good.

a reply to: UKTruth

Wikileaks published the specific emails they uncovered and it was picked up by MSM. It is shining a light on potential money laundering involving one of Putin's associates. That is what Wikileaks do. They publish the actual source material.

The cables in question merely quote an article from the Wall Street Journal. There would be no point in with-holding it as the "damaging" part is already out there/

The commentary Wikileaks used is directly referencing the content used in the email trail they leaked.

The commentary is on the part of Italian diplomats who were gossiping about the content of the article.

The completely unsubstantiated conspiracy theory about Putin isn't looking so good.

No, your desperation is showing. You still can't find anything that would actually incriminate Russia, only second or third hand statements that can be plausibly denied. I dare you to find one thing; just list its catalog number as I have. What are you afraid of?

a reply to: thepixelpusher

Just some more evidence Hillary is bringing her own self down with her actions.

Google "Blue Dog Democrats" to understand the picture. I'm done trying to explain it to foreigners.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

Wikileaks published the specific emails they uncovered and it was picked up by MSM. It is shining a light on potential money laundering involving one of Putin's associates. That is what Wikileaks do. They publish the actual source material.

The cables in question merely quote an article from the Wall Street Journal. There would be no point in with-holding it as the "damaging" part is already out there/

The commentary Wikileaks used is directly referencing the content used in the email trail they leaked.

The commentary is on the part of Italian diplomats who were gossiping about the content of the article.

The completely unsubstantiated conspiracy theory about Putin isn't looking so good.

No, your desperation is showing. You still can't find anything that would actually incriminate Russia, only second or third hand statements that can be plausibly denied. I dare you to find one thing; just list its catalog number as I have. What are you afraid of?

They published the specific emails. Good lord. /sigh.
Honestly, there is no evidence of a great conspiracy here.

a reply to: UKTruth

They published the specific emails. Good lord. /sigh.
Honestly, there is no evidence of a great conspiracy here

Oh, the irony. You claim that I'm unfamiliar with WikiLeaks, yet you did not even bother to read the emails you claim are incriminating. They are just transcripts of an article in the Wall Street Journal. Now please find some dirt on Russia that does not come from an open source, or diplomatic gossip. If you can't, the absence is evidence.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

They published the specific emails. Good lord. /sigh.
Honestly, there is no evidence of a great conspiracy here

Oh, the irony. You claim that I'm unfamiliar with WikiLeaks, yet you did not even bother to read the emails you claim are incriminating. They are just transcripts of an article in the Wall Street Journal. Now please find some dirt on Russia that does not come from an open source, or diplomatic gossip. If you can't, the absence is evidence.

We've already established that Wikileaks has published 650k documents relating to Russia, including documents critical of Putin. I was just reading another about Russian atrocities against Muslims.

You keeping making me laugh (thank you - it's good to laugh) when you say you have evidence of Putin and Assange working together because you can't find any negative Putin documents on Wikileaks. Even if there were none (which of course there are), how would that be evidence of your conspiracy theory ???

a reply to: UKTruth

We've already established that Wikileaks has published 650k documents relating to Russia, including documents critical of Putin.

We have established that WikiLeaks has published 650k documents mentioning Russia, none of which were leaked by Russian sources, and the ones that contain critical information are second or third hand, and include open source material which can be plausibly denied. In other words, nothing damaging to Russia has been published.

a reply to: UKTruth

Even if there were none (which of course there are), how would that be evidence of your conspiracy theory ???

Of course there are? Find one.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

We've already established that Wikileaks has published 650k documents relating to Russia, including documents critical of Putin.

We have established that WikiLeaks has published 650k documents mentioning Russia, none of which were leaked by Russian sources, and the ones that contain critical information are second or third hand, and include open source material which can be plausibly denied. In other words, nothing damaging to Russia has been published.

???? Why does it matter if Russian sources are behind the documents on Wikileaks being critical of Russia?
Wikileaks do not reveal their sources. Emails can be hacked from anywhere.
So we know Wikileaks has published 650k documents about Russia or Putin and some are critical of both Russia and embarrassing for Putin.

How does that provide you evidence of your conspiracy theory? You're not making any sense.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

Even if there were none (which of course there are), how would that be evidence of your conspiracy theory ???

Of course there are? Find one.

As I said, I think the leaks involving Russian persecution of Muslims is a good candidate - took me 30 seconds to find that one.
Oh I forgot it doesn't count because it wasn't hacked from a Russian computer

a reply to: UKTruth

As I said, I think the leaks involving Russian persecution of Muslims is a good candidate - took me 30 seconds to find that one.

Provide a document number and I'll check it out.

a reply to: UKTruth

???? Why does it matter if Russian sources are behind the documents on Wikileaks being critical of Russia?

I like how you are playing fast and loose with "damaging" and "critical." Very professional.

Wikileaks do not reveal their sources. Emails can be hacked from anywhere.

But not, apparently, from Russia.

So we know Wikileaks has published 650k documents about Russia or Putin and some are critical of both Russia and embarrassing for Putin.

Cite one, please.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

???? Why does it matter if Russian sources are behind the documents on Wikileaks being critical of Russia?

I like how you are playing fast and loose with "damaging" and "critical." Very professional.

Wikileaks do not reveal their sources. Emails can be hacked from anywhere.

But not, apparently, from Russia.

So we know Wikileaks has published 650k documents about Russia or Putin and some are critical of both Russia and embarrassing for Putin.

Cite one, please.

We do not know who the sources are and they are not revealed. I think you seem to be suggesting that no hacks on a Russian computer specifically (as opposed to a source) means Putin is directing Assange. That seems to be your 'evidence' of a conspiracy


As for documents - already cited 2 - but you now seem to want it to be from a hacked Russian Server/PC.

It's up to you to prove your conspiracy theory.

You have failed.