It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wikileaks Reveals Source of Leaks?

page: 1
42
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+13 more 
posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Wikileaks just replied to a few comments that John Podesta made on twitter and it was a very curious exchange. John Podesta is the Chairman for the 2016 Clinton Campaign and the newest leak includes a lot of his emails.

In the exchange, Wikileaks denounces John for blaming Russia for the leaks and lack to 'give credit to our hard work.



Then, when Podesta claims that he doesn't know which of the emails are 'real or fake', Wikileaks offers a brilliant solution to find out if they are real or fake:



This all comes after the Clinton camp refuses to confirm the authenticity of the leaks.



Again, this is a strange set of tweets as Wikileaks refers to this leak as our hard work , possibly suggesting that the hackers are directly in connection with Wikileaks. If you ask me, that’s some damning statements for Assange to make as they are already trying to label him a "cyber-terrorist" and have already considered setting a drone out after him.

One thing is for sure, Wikileaks has made it clear that Russia isn't to be credited for this set of leaks.

I haven't seen an instance of him ever lying about his leaks so I don't see why he would do that now. Especially since he has released over 650,000 documents on Russia and Putin in the past, many of which were critical of Putin and resulted in several books (also critical of Putin) being written using the information.

There is a faircounter argument on how Wikileaks is circumstantially tied to Russia, but I personally believe that there are a multitude of foreign and domestic enemies of Clinton that have taken part in this.

I think we can also tell from this exchange that the Clinton camp is going to go into hyper drive in blaming the Russians and possibly claiming that these emails are 'fake'. In other words, they know if they can't sway public perception by creating a Russian enemy, that 'fakes' documents, they'll be in head under water with scandals.

And this is only the first 2,000 emails of 50,000. Clinton camp better push the Russian narrative hard this next week... or find more clips of Trump.

Ghost
edit on 7-10-2016 by ghostrager because: (no reason given)



+11 more 
posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Lol "we're not going to respond to being caught being the arses everyone knows we are"

Trump is bad....lol thats pretty much all Clinton ever says..."i know im a horrible criminal, lie, cheat steal and murder...but Trump is bad.
Lol
edit on 7-10-2016 by BlueJacket because: Sp



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 08:43 PM
link   
I'm guessing our meaning Wikileaks. Don't think this organization would of lasted this long being that dumb.

Send another copy. You know since they already have a copy.
edit on 7-10-2016 by StolidPanda because: A weird typo from auto correct



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 08:45 PM
link   
And the 2016 show goes on and on and on



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueJacket

HE SAYS rude things that hurt feelings!
So HILLARY GOT to be better SHE only says GOOD things...



I'm Tellin ya ...IT'S THE CELLPHONES.
edit on Fri Oct 7 2016 by DontTreadOnMe because: Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ghostrager




I haven't seen an instance of him ever lying about his leaks so I don't see why he would do that now. Especially since he has released over 650,000 documents on Russia and Putin in the past, many of which were critical of Putin and resulted in several books (also critical of Putin) being written using the information.


You took that statement almost entirely from WikiLeaks own statements.

From the WikiLeaks Press Pack:


WikiLeaks has released over 650,000 critical documents relating to Russia under Vladimir Putin.


WikiLeaks’ Motivations Aren’t What You Think


In 2010, the outlet promised to release a major dump of sensitive Russian documents that would embarrass Putin. The WikiLeaks spokesperson said the cables led to “many stories and books about corruption in Russia and subsequent court cases and successful asylum claims.”


Could you name one book? Can you point to these files?



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Mr. ghostrager, please keep up the good work. S+F



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: StolidPanda


Send another copy. You know since they already have a copy.

He was being a dick.



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian




You took that statement almost entirely from WikiLeaks own statements.


Thanks for telling me where I find information, but your wrong. That was from memory as I like to read on both sides. The same goes for the books written.

But if you are in denial on Assange leaking Russian documents, here's a quick link (that isn't Huffington Post) from 2010. I'd try to add a wikileaks link, but I guess that isn't allowed from this site (found out today). If I spend the time to find it, I'll be sure to direct you to the Russian leaked files

Times 2010




The signals coming from Moscow, however, suggest that the Russian reaction will not be as reserved as America's. So is WikiLeaks really ready to take on the world's more callous states?

It's certainly talking the talk. In an interview published on Tuesday, Oct. 26, in Russia's leading daily newspaper, Kommersant, WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson said that "Russian readers will learn a lot about their country" after one of the site's upcoming document dumps. "We want to tell people the truth about the actions of their governments."


Maybe Assange and Putin kissed and made up since then?

Edit:

I can't find an intermediate source to wikileaks. If you go to Google and type in 'Russian Documents Wikileaks', the first results should be a link to the files.
edit on 7-10-2016 by ghostrager because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: ghostrager

I kinda figured that it was the little Dutch Boy who ran out of fingers and was suffering from "Performance Anxiety!"

(Remind me to start a thread about why failure of male physical reactions that are based on spontaneity and erotic inspiration are "dysfunctional" when lack of spontaneity, physical attraction and anything remotely erotic are obviously factors in the decision to "medicate" a condition applicable in a percentage of cases that will Never be quantifiable.

If the end result of the "Cure" is the lad standing firm against the last threat to the dam, it was never about the poor kid being able to act normally. It was modern Pharma forcing another young male drone to what was expected of him... )



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Instead of saying anything they just give their bud a call and have him release the Trump tape, or maybe it was just a coincidence?



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis




Mr. ghostrager, please keep up the good work. S+F


Thank you! I appreciate that
ATS is a great place to 'think outside the box' and has many intelligent members that approach topics from different angles. I learn more from here than I give.



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ghostrager

WikiLeaks never released that "bombshell" on Russia at it was characterized. The files they are referring to are the Syria Files and this nonsense that they were critical of Russia is something that only WikiLeaks is saying.

I'm not accusing of you plagiarizing WikiLeaks btw or even copy-n-pasting them — I'm saying that the purported "facts" in the statements in your OP come straight from WikiLeaks itself. You're repeating them as though you know them to be true because you put way too much trust in WikiLeaks.

That's what I was trying to illustrate. I wasn't trying to offend you.



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Hahahaha. Oh, wikileaks' responses are priceless.


+1 more 
posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 09:29 PM
link   
The Russian boogeyman strikes again. Check your closet, check your bed, actually its all in your head.



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian



WikiLeaks never released that "bombshell" on Russia at it was characterized. The files they are referring to are the Syria Files and this nonsense that they were critical of Russia is something that only WikiLeaks is saying.


Can you source this? The only material I am finding is from 2015/2016, which makes me question it.




I'm not accusing of you plagiarizing WikiLeaks btw or even copy-n-pasting them — I'm saying that the purported "facts" in the statements in your OP come straight from WikiLeaks itself. You're repeating them as though you know them to be true because you put way too much trust in WikiLeaks.

That's what I was trying to illustrate. I wasn't trying to offend you.


I'm not offended in the least. I guess I have to ask why you believe wikileaks would lie about releasing 650,000 documents and what your source is. From my research, the '650,000 documents' isn't proven, but the Russian leaks are on the Wikileaks website.


edit on 7-10-2016 by ghostrager because: Wikileaks, not Wikipedia



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ghostrager

Whoever is responsible for the leaks understands one very simple thing... that if Hillary becomes elected, she will be the one to start WW3.

There is ample evidence to prove how insane this woman is and that she would do so.

We can only pray that some of the coming leaks will be so shocking that even the most docile American will wake up to the game that is being played.



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 06:20 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Ah I see. Wasn't aware.



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 06:25 AM
link   
Can Hillary lovers explain it to me, how exactly is Russia throwing this election to Trump by exposing the truth?

Truth hurts, especially people as corrupted as Hillary Clinton, and those who work with that criminal



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 06:42 AM
link   
a reply to: elementalgrove

Hillary is dangerous but Trump is unpredicatble and dangerous. Not really much of a choice to make if you ask me. I said in the beginning that ultimately you would have to pick between these 2 but no I was told that there are other candidates such as Cruz and Bernie.

Really? Where are they now? It`s all a game being played in the shadows. All is set and we shall see how it plays out...soon enough.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join