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.

 

blaming Wikileaks is pointless

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Maybe Truth and politics are not legally allowed in the same sentence,




posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra


We are talking about wikileaks, in this thread, I thought. Everything else is deflection. (see most of your post).


Yes, I am talking about Wikileaks. Wikileaks is doing the job that used to be done by American journalists. He is proving that professionalism and decorum in American journalism is extinct.

What say you?



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra


They dumped things they should have known were distractions from other important issues.


Please don't forget to respond to my inquiry about this statement made by you.



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 03:48 PM
link   
it seems to me that hiding those e-mails on a private server when they are public records and should have been made available through a freedom of information request was a much more damning attempt to influence perception during an election, than leaking them was.
edit on 7-1-2017 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: reldra


I never said God Bless them. I am sure they were not working for a foreign state actor, though.


Working on behalf of a foreign state actor you say. Obviously referring to the Russian hack allegation, an accusation with nothing to back it up.

What are your thoughts on Obama trying to influence the Israeli election last year? Were you aware that he spent money on anti-Netanyahu adds in order to prevent him from being reelected?

Let's talk about the leaked audio tape of Hillary Clinton in 2006 suggesting that the CIA rig the Palestinian elections.

What are your thoughts on that? These are two proven cases of United States diplomats, one being the POTUS, trying to influence and/or rig the elections in another nation.

There's no evidence that Russia tried to interfere in our election. There's no evidence that the documents obtained by Wikileaks were given to them by Russia. There's no evidence that Julian Assange leaks material based on a political bias.

Keep trying.

Or don't.


You keep trying to deflect and answer in an off topic manner. I have have stated why I believe what I stated before.



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: [post=21728464]ColdWisdom[/post



Working on behalf of a foreign state actor you say. Obviously referring to the Russian hack allegation, an accusation with nothing to back it up.


Nothing? That's not true.

Also, WikiLeaks had no problem publishing Snowden's stolen and classified government documents, or Bradley/Chelsea Manning's. That was not a "foreign" breach.



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Tardacus

The WikiLeaks emails didn't come from Hillary's private server. They came from the DNC. Do you know why Richard Nixon was impeached? Does Watergate mean anything to you?



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Tardacus

The WikiLeaks emails didn't come from Hillary's private server. They came from the DNC. Do you know why Richard Nixon was impeached? Does Watergate mean anything to you?





Just to clarify....

Nixon was never actually impeached.

They recommended impeachment, but he resigned instead.

Blue Plate Special.




posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen



Nixon was never actually impeached.


You are wrong.



On Saturday, July 27, the House Judiciary Committee approved its first article of impeachment charging President Nixon with obstruction of justice. Six of the Committee's 17 Republicans joined all 21 Democrats in voting for the article. The following Monday the Committee approved its second article charging Nixon with abuse of power. The next day, the third and final article, contempt of Congress, was approved.

Articles of Impeachment:
RESOLVED, That Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment to be exhibited to the Senate:
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST RICHARD M. NIXON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOURS.



Wherefore, Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office.
www.historyplace.com...

Nixon resigned to avoid "removal from office".


edit on 7-1-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

they didn`t? where did they come from?



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Tardacus

The WikiLeaks emails came from the Democratic National Convention computer and its members', Donna Brazile, Debbie Wassermann, John Pedosta, etc., private emails.



Early in the morning of June 17, 1972, several burglars were arrested inside the office of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), located in the Watergate building in Washington, D.C. This was no ordinary robbery: The prowlers were connected to President Richard Nixon’s reelection campaign, and they had been caught while attempting to wiretap phones and steal secret documents. While historians are not sure whether Nixon knew about the Watergate espionage operation before it happened, he took steps to cover it up afterwards.....
www.history.com...


Sound familiar?



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 04:37 PM
link   
If wikileaks had comparable information on Trump, I think they would've released it too. I don't think it's about trying to influence anything, I think it's about releasing whatever they have at the time.



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

where did the emails from Hillary`s server come from, who released those? we know Hillary didn`t she was hiding them on her home server when they should have been left on a government server since many of them were public records.


edit on 7-1-2017 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Tardacus

The FBI has those emails, and they never released any of them, certainly not to WikiLeaks.

The FBI announced that they had reviewed them, and that some of them contained classified info, even though Clinton said they didn't. Clinton claimed they were classified AFTER they were sent. Colin Powell confirmed that some of his own private emails were also later deemed classified, after they had been sent, but denied that it was his idea for Hillary to use their private server. (Jogging your memory here)

Hillary claimed that her private emails, that she refused to turn over to the National Archives which is why she got in trouble in the first place, were mostly Chelsea's wedding plans and yoga classes.


edit on 7-1-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: windword


Nothing? That's not true.


Show me the money windword. Where is this evidence?



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

so, the state department eventual got those emails back and did release most of them,which did influence the perception of some people during the election. she knew the emails would influence perception which is why she tried to hide them.

her attempt to influence perception during the election by doing something, careless, and negligent with public records is much more damning than anything WikiLeaks did because WikiLeaks didn`t have a stake in the election or the future of America, but Hillary did.



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom

"Nothing" is far cry from the national Intel community claims to have.



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Just to clarify.

That was a Committee, not a full House vote.

So that means you might be mis-informed.



Unless you can cough up the full House vote results (which doesn't exist).



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Tardacus

Citation please! Do you have a link for me to the State Department release of Hillary's private emails? The speculation of what might be in her private emails fueled scandal. WikiLeaks never published any of Hillary's emails from her private server, and neither did the State Dept. or the FBI.

Hillary Clinton's refusal to turn over her private emails to the National Archives when she left the office of Sec. of State, had nothing to do with trying to influence the 2016 election. She couldn't have known that her refusal would have backfired on her in such a way.


edit on 7-1-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen



And so with impeachment by the House and removal by the Senate all but certain, on the night of August 8, 1974, Nixon took to the airwaves and delivered SP 3-125: Presidential Address Announcing His Intention to Resign the Oval Office. And then on the day of August 9, 1974, Nixon became the first, and so far only, president to resign.

www.historyplace.com...



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join