Hillary Clinton and the Deception of America

a reply to: projectvxn

I'm all for the truth about corruption coming out as long as it's done without regard for party. Trump has his own news site now (Breitbart) and the single most influential person in American media for the last two decades as an advisor (Roger Ailes).

He's got Sean Hannity on primetime TV and on the radio openly campaigning for him and not by discussing his policies but by telling people to look at YouTube videos.

When he's confronted about it what's his response? "I never claimed to be a journalist"

There are sites like TruePundit which claim to be run by a single anonymous "journalist" who claims to have been twice nominated for Pulitzers. What's "he" write? He started that whole "invisible ear piece" hoax based on what "he" was allegedly told by an "anonymous NYPD source."

This is the same person that started the Assange "drone strike" nonsense and again, that was an "anonymous source."

How do you trust an anonymous source for an anonymous writer? There's absolutely no accountability. Meanwhile, there's plenty of emails to be interpreted and misconstrued from exactly one side. That's not exposing corruption, that's trying to pick a winner. Does anyone really believe that WikiLeaks releasing Podesta's emails in little chunks drawn out over several days in the last month of the election season is anything but a deliberate strategy?

Or do they simply not care? It's funny that so many people think they are seeing all these angles all of a sudden but they're turning a blind eye to a psyops campaign run by foreign agents to manipulate the outcome of the election.

Where's the dirt on the RNC? Where's the dirt on Donald? How about Donald Trump's campaign manager had to quit because *gasp* he has actual known ties to Putin. Not anything you have to guess at. He's being investigated in Ukraine where he got a despot elected — and participated in backroom deals worth millions to him personally and involving all manners of bribes and payoffs — a despot who had to flee to Russia after order snipers to assassinate dozens of protesters. A despot whose opponent in the 2004 elections — the results of which were ultimately invalidated due ot massive, widespread election rigging — was poisoned with an FSB favorite, dioxin.

Where are the #ManafortEmails?

They don't exist because Russians are hacking Manafort. If you think Russians aren't behind this, then I'm willing to make that case too.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Stop.

a reply to: neo96

Aww but the left loved Assange when he was exposing Bush's dirty little secrets.

WikiLeaks existed for less than two years during the Bush administration. Here's the major releases during that period:

1 2006–2008

1.1 Apparent Somali assassination order
1.2 Daniel arap Moi family corruption
1.3 Bank Julius Baer lawsuit
1.4 Guantanamo Bay procedures
1.5 Tibetan dissent in China
1.6 Scientology
1.7 Sarah Palin's Yahoo! email account contents
1.8 Killings by the Kenyan police
1.9 BNP membership list

Which of those are "exposing Bush's dirty little secrets?" I've heard this myth repeated 100x in the last week. It's time to put up or shut up.

Which of "Bush's dirty little secrets" did WikiLeaks expose? In 2010 Assange made a big deal about how he was going to release a massive dump of documents exposing corruption in the Russian government. Guess what never happened? Guess what did happen in 2010? Tell me how this stacks up the Bush years:

3 2010

3.1 U.S. Intelligence report on WikiLeaks
3.2 Baghdad airstrike video
3.2.1 Chelsea Manning
3.3 Afghan War Diary
3.4 Love Parade documents
3.5 Iraq War logs
3.6 State Department diplomatic cables release

You don't understand information warfare at all. That's clear.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Considering the specific high profile people, including Putin, who are trying to prevent a Hillary presidency is like bells & whistles going off to me.

What are they so afraid of?

Reason enough for me to choose Hillary.

originally posted by: ssenerawa
a reply to: theantediluvian

Stop.

Don't Stop.

a reply to: Annee

He releases the information sent to him, to the public, regardless of origin, as a general rule.

Please explain how this is working as an intelligence agent?

In the past he has frequently released pretty damning emails involving numerous serving high-ranking officials from a range of countries, including Russia and China.

a reply to: theantediluvian

And the point is ?

I remember when ATS was in love with the guy.

I remember thread after thread on here how 'awesome' he was.

Until Clinton supporters flip flopped on that.

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: Annee

He releases the information sent to him, to the public, regardless of origin, as a general rule.

Please explain how this is working as an intelligence agent?

And who told you that? Him?

Hook, Line, Sinker

a reply to: Annee

Got it, you have nothing but your opinion...

well gee golly whiz that changes everything...

I like how in the eyes of the totalitarian left Julian Assange went from being a figure to be praised for his stance against secrecy to a Russian Disinformation Agent overnight.

Enjoy your totalitarian dictatorship, America.

We brits just gave up trying to do anything about ours.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Annee

Got it, you have nothing but your opinion...

well gee golly whiz that changes everything...

The question was:

"And who told you that? Him?"

Who told you Assange only releases what others send him?

Guess no one sends him anything on the GOP.

Because surely a foreign spy would be 100% forth coming without bias.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: theantediluvian

And the point is ?

I remember when ATS was in love with the guy.

I remember thread after thread on here how 'awesome' he was.

Until Clinton supporters flip flopped on that.

Ironic isn't it.

a reply to: Irishhaf

I asked you 4 pages ago what proof you have that he is a foreign spy...

I am still waiting for the proof... all you have posted is your opinion.

a reply to: Ohanka

He releases the information sent to him, to the public, regardless of origin, as a general rule.

1. Why do you keep saying that? Do you know how many gigs of data have been taken from WikiLeaks that was never released to the public? Siggi Thordarson gave a terabyte worth of data to Rolling Stone that he took with him. Daniel Domscheit-Berg (aka Danial Schmitt) took a bunch of unpublished material with him (and shredded it at WikiLeaks) and Assange threatened to sue him for stealing his stolen documents.

Then there's that 88 gigabyte encrypted "insurance file" that was released p2p. What do you think is supposed to be in that? Previously released materials?

How about the timing of the Podesta email leaks? No strategy there? How about the release of the DNC emails? No strategic timing there either? He's clearing controlling what and when gets out. That's because WikiLeaks is a black box. Nobody outside WL knows what is going in or who it is coming from and because Assange has uniltateral control and is accountable to no one, nobody knows what he's holding back or how he's deciding when to release what.

Here's an interesting interview Daniel Domscheit-Berg did with Spiegel Online. In it outlines some of the problems:

Schmitt: That is one of the points of dispute internally, but there are others. WikiLeaks, for example, was always free of discrimination. In the past we processed and published smaller submissions that were only of local importance the same way that we did more comprehensive documents that are of national or even international importance.

SPIEGEL: Why don't you do both?

Schmitt: We would like to, but unfortunately we've reached a dead-end. I have tried again and again to push for that, but Julian Assange reacted to any criticism with the allegation that I was disobedient to him and disloyal to the project. Four weeks ago, he suspended me-- acting as the prosecutor, judge and hangman in one person. Since then, for example, I have had no access to my WikiLeaks mail. So a lot of work is just sitting and other helpers are being blocked. I know that no one in our core team agreed with the move. But that doesn't seem to matter. WikiLeaks has a structural problem. I no longer want to take responsibility for it, and that's why I am leaving the project.

How can you be about promoting democracy, transparency, accountability, etc when you're a super secretive dictatorship wholly controlled by a tyrant who is accountable to no one and operates according to his own agenda? WikiLeaks is the antithesis of everything it claims to support.

2. Even if everything above was completely false (and it's not but let's assume it is for the sake of argument), then WikiLeaks releases what it's given. If all that it's given are hacked documents from the DNC and the Clinton campaign, then he can still be manipulated by controlling what information goes INTO WikiLeaks.

So the problem is two-fold. It's easy for WikiLeaks to be a propaganda tool by simply feeding it what the manipulator wants it to have (control of information going in) and what comes out of WL is wholly at the whim of Julian Assange who has an obvious anti-US agenda and a personal vendetta against Clinton (control of information going out).

Instead of misconstruing lamentations about how Koch money conflates politics and entertainment, it would be nice to see people who like to think they "know what's really going on" not be led around by the noses.

a reply to: neo96

Lol. Nice pivot.

Aww but the left loved Assange when he was exposing Bush's dirty little secrets.

becomes:

I remember thread after thread on here how 'awesome' he was. Until Clinton supporters flip flopped on that.

Just keep throwing out random things until something sticks?

originally posted by: Irishhaf

I asked you 4 pages ago what proof you have that he is a foreign spy...

I am still waiting for the proof... all you have posted is your opinion.

Please tell me why he's not a foreign spy.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Just keep throwing out random things until something sticks?

Sorry don't work for the Clinton camp.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Annee

Bradley Manning also comes to mind.

Huh? The Bradley Manning leak was in 2010.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

She has a whole team of professional liars paid to cover up her lies, craft her fake image, control the collusion with the press.

Roger Stone
Paul Manafort
Steven Bannon
Roger Ailes

Those men don't exist apparently.

hey, if she is elected- it will confirm to me that only mentally deficient/ill people cast their votes. sucky? opinion i own

it will be our own fault to give this lady the reigns of our military...sean smith and chris stevens...911 as a co-inky dink

any female generals she would respect the advice of not pursuing any more blood diamonds (spoils of war)? "go sit-down bill".

as an american- i don't support violence...
not in the school, nor the streets,
and for gd sure not aggressive military first strikes...