Bombshell: WikiLeaks Corresponded With Don Jr, Asked Him to Push Fake News

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: theantediluvian

What is the bombshell?

Wikileaks works for Russia. Assange gets paid via RT News. He is contracted with them for a "show" for many years now.

Or as TRUMPS OWN CIA Director explains it Wikileaks is:
"– a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia. In January of this year, our Intelligence Community determined that Russian military intelligence—the GRU—had used WikiLeaks to release data of US victims that the GRU had obtained through cyber operations against the Democratic National Committee. And the report also found that Russia’s primary propaganda outlet, RT, has actively collaborated with WikiLeaks."

a reply to: soberbacchus


So? The information released was truthful.

We have a duty to seek truthful information to make informed decisions before casting a vote.

If Russia is responsible for this, then I appreciate Russia.

a reply to: mzinga


It absolutely is not a pivot.

There is real evidence of criminal activity that the institutions of justice demand be investigated.

The facts and circumstances must be evaluated and prosecuted as is appropriate. Any less is establishing two system of law: one for Hillary & The Democrats, and one for the rest of us.

That, to me, is totally unacceptable.

In listening to AG Sessions' testimony to congress just now, it does appear there is very much so an active investigation.

a reply to: soberbacchus

I guess larry king is a russian shill too?
Larry king continues working for RT news

a reply to: JBurns

Let me put it this way, even if direct cooperation is proven no crime will have been demonstrated. No such law is on the books, and you can't make one up just to suit specific needs.

If direct cooperation is proven, whether no crime has been committed or not, this should raise some serious red flags to everyone.

This will be yet another test of consistency with the Trump supporters. My money is on that they will prove themselves to be hypocrites yet again.

I'm more focused on the new Clinton/DNC/U1 investigations myself.

You are focused on Right Wing conspiracies?

Not surprised.

a reply to: introvert

Right wing conspiracy theories?

a reply to: introvert


On CNN, their major thing is that "the campaign had no issue with WikiLeaks/Russians are long as it was 'rowing in their general direction' ."

They don't have to express or actually have problems with this. If they didn't directly orchestrate the attack (the messages prove they didn't even know about it in advance), they aren't guilty of any crime. They're allowed to support whatever/whoever they wish, as long as they don't break any laws.

Again, the DNC cooperated with a foreign citizen (Steele) to create the mostly debunked (word used in the congressional hearing w/ Sessions just now) dossier. That is the foreign "collusion" I'm concerned about. Not this BS overblown Russian narrative.

If direct cooperation is proven, whether no crime has been committed or not, this should raise some serious red flags to everyone.

Why? If no crime is committed, then there is nothing wrong with what they chose to do. We have the right to undertake ANY action provided it doesn't violate our laws. Including associating with a country your side despises, or exposing a candidate your side protects.

You are focused on Right Wing conspiracies?

And you're focused on left wing conspiracies. Your point?

I want ALL ALLEGATIONS to be thoroughly investigated for evidence of criminal activity. Wherever criminal activity is found, I want prosecutions to take place in the harshest possible way. That is why BOTH SIDES need to be thoroughly investigated.

Wouldn't you agree there is at least some troubling evidence RE: Clinton, DNC, Uranium1, Dossier/FISA warrants, etc?

a reply to: Dfairlite


introvert and the other Dem-apologists will ignore your link and any evidence of their wrongdoing.

To them, the game is hypocrisy. They only support investigations into allegations if they're against Republicans, but never their precious.

a reply to: JBurns

The best part is that they pretend not to be biased. As if people can't see their bias if they simply say they're not biased.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: JBurns


If direct cooperation is proven, whether no crime has been committed or not, this should raise some serious red flags to everyone.

This will be yet another test of consistency with the Trump supporters. My money is on that they will prove themselves to be hypocrites yet again.

Sincere question: What in the hell, according to the "The Atlantic" article, should raise red flags or, if a supporter keeps supporting, will "prove themselves to be hypocrites?"

That is a serious question, because I read the article, and there is nothing there, from what I see in the article. Do you have a deeper insight than "The Atlantic" does at this point?

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Dfairlite


introvert and the other Dem-apologists will ignore your link and any evidence of their wrongdoing.

To them, the game is hypocrisy. They only support investigations into allegations if they're against Republicans, but never their precious.

JBurns and the other Trump-apologists will ignore any evidence of their wrongdoing.

To them, the game is hypocrisy. They only support investigations into allegations if they're against Democrats, but never their precious.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: soberbacchus


So? The information released was truthful.

We have a duty to seek truthful information to make informed decisions before casting a vote.

If Russia is responsible for this, then I appreciate Russia.

If it was a whistleblower ratting out the republicans, there would be awards and that a boys all around. The General public is tired of the hypocrisy. Sad the democrats didn’t get the talking points.....

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: intrptr
That was what used to be called The Free Press.

Unfortunately, over the past 20 years the government has only gotten more and more harsh in it's treatment of whistleblowers. Wikileaks originally sprung up in response to the global poor treatment of whistleblowers and was attempting to rebalance the power. It was a very good thing, and they revealed some major things of importance in both the public and private sectors.

I think they've strayed from their original mission though, and it hasn't been for the better.

Julius Assange being bottled up and all...


Got a linked example, how specifically have they "strayed"?

a reply to: soberbacchus

Sorry, it’s not just “Trump Apologists”. The dems have cried wolf one to manny times, burnt one to many bridges, and all in the context of giving the bad actor Russia an interest in USA uranium production. Hasn’t Hillary pocketed more money from Russia than Trump? The democrats in general?

a reply to: soberbacchus


At least I admit "my side" has apologists and hypocrites.

We're also more than willing to crucify Trump is evidence of a crime is presented. No such evidence has come to light, as of this date and time.

a reply to: soberbacchus


You have nevertheless ignored the questions, sir.

1) Wouldn't you agree there is at least some troubling evidence RE: Clinton, DNC, Uranium1, Dossier/FISA warrants, etc that is worth investigating?

2) If evidence of criminal conduct comes to light, will you support or oppose Federal charges?

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: soberbacchus


You have nevertheless ignored the questions, sir.

1) Wouldn't you agree there is at least some troubling evidence RE: Clinton, DNC, Uranium1, Dossier/FISA warrants, etc that is worth investigating?

I have examined that evidence.

The difference is, that the deeper you look at Uranium 1 + Hillary, the less suspicious any of it appears. The deeper you look at Russian interference or potential collusion with the Trump Campaign, the more resignations, recusals, indictments and more evidence coming to light.

Uranium 1 + Hillary is politically useful only for headlines, because the details don't support the political smokescreen cast by the GOP. It becomes far less possible the closer you look. It's utility is near solely political distraction.

Russian interference and Potential Trump Campaign Collusion becomes more viable the more it is examined.




2) If evidence of criminal conduct comes to light, will you support or oppose Federal charges?

a reply to: theantediluvian

The other obvious vector is Cambridge Analytica and Roger Stone corresponding with Wikileaks.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: introvert

Right wing conspiracy theories?

Nice link. It is a good example of propaganda that takes things completely out of context.

a reply to: introvert

There are four links.