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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

RELEASE: The Podesta Emails Part 4 (1193 new emails)

page: 4
53
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

I hadn't seen that.

And as kets says, if this is how careful Hillary's people are about security, why in the world would we want this group running things?




posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Whistle blowers come from within an organization, like Bradley (Chelsea) Manning. Wikileaks was assisting a whistle blower in making his information public. Serious crimes were exposed, including the machine gunning of innocent civilians and journalists by American forces, of which Manning was a member and hence whistle blower.

In the Podesta case, a private email account was hacked by a person spying on Podesta. I have read that the status of this act is not absolutely clear in law.

www.quora.com...


There is no explicit right to privacy. The Fourth Amendment guarantees freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, but that applies only to interactions with the government. There are no constitutional protections on conduct between private persons.


Bringing a charge against an email hacker is not a straight forward thing, but that is not to say it couldn't be done with significant effort and significant clout behind the person bringing the charge. So, at this point, it would be wrong to say that Wikileaks is an accessory to a criminal act.

Having said that, I don't think revealing private emails sent by a political campaign manager, if they do not reveal indictable malfeasance, comes up to the level of whistle blowing. It's more like "crap disturbing" and that is substantially below the level of the mandate Wikileaks has set for itself.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

How does anyone know that these beans weren't spilled by someone from within the organization? Seth Rich is dead. Conveniently so.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

Here's the pic of it being bricked:



I'm guessing that whomever did the deed would have copied off everything they could prior.

Now, I've seen some interesting conversation indicating that this (the Podesta twitter/gmail hack) could potentially be a cyber false flag. I don't know how much weight to give to that idea, but it is interesting.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 12:07 AM
link   
My favorite email find so far from today: 6900 (subject: Warning to Hillary)

Foreign donations to Clinton Foundation
Paid speeches for hire
Hustling gold mining in Haiti

It's a good one!



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 01:18 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

This is from a Newsweek story about Rich's murder.

www.newsweek.com...


The slain man’s parents, Mary and Joel Rich of Omaha, Nebraska, are distressed by the apparent political exploitation of their son’s death by Clinton’s opponents. Seth Rich had just accepted a promotion from the DNC to a position in her campaign, they say, and he was devoted to getting her elected.


Who do you think murdered Seth Rich, and who would his death be convenient for, and why would it be convenient?
edit on 13-10-2016 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   
SPAM removed by admin
edit on Oct 13th 2016 by Djarums because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
53
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join