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

a reply to: soberbacchus


I'm sorry, but no such evidence has come to light as you suggest. Can you please describe and detail what evidence you're referring to (with credible sources, of course)?

U1 isn't the only issue though. How about the mostly-debunked dossier funded by the Clintons and used to obtain at least 1 FISA warrant? How can the Clinton Foundation's financial records reconcile with any conclusion other than bribery?

How about DNC chair Donna Brazile's revelations about primary rigging? Or Ms. Warren's? These aren't "right wing nut job" political hacks - both are well respected and high ranking Democrats (party chair and Senator, respectively).

What about HRC's mishandling of classified information? Don't you find it odd that the Attorney General met with the suspect's husband days before the results were expected to be announced (and subsequently were)? The FBI director himself changed the phrase "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless" for an unknown reason, after this interview had taken place. That is highly suspect.

How about Clinton's campaign funneling money through an attorney's office to exploit attorney client privilege and hide the destination of campaign funds in potential violation of campaign finance laws? That is a crime, you know. Possibly even rises to money laundering - but we can't know this without an impartial investigation!

I am not saying any of this is absolutely evidence of guilt. What I am saying is that there is enough evidence (some circumstantial, some more concrete) to justify a full investigation into all matters and concerns.

I have no problem with the investigation addressing the concerns about Trump - I haven't seen any evidence of crimes, of course.. and I don't expect to either... but I think the concerns should be addressed regardless.

The allegations against Clinton/DNC need to be addressed. We cannot have or support two standards of justice in this country. The Clintons aren't exempt from the law.

Assange and Wikileaks has always been mainly fake news. The dang National Enquirer of leaked documents...

a reply to: soberbacchus


Sober, you still have failed to answer question number two despite quoting it. You are of course not obligated to answer any questions, but in the interest of fair exchange and debate I encourage you to do so - as I will continue to attempt to answer your questions in pursuit of the same

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

I will also answer my own question as well: Yes

a reply to: JBurns

You mean like Pizzagate? You guys flip out about sources of information on all the dirt on Trump, but lay all of your source integrity rules down when it applies to Obama or Hillary. At least be fair.

a reply to: introvert


What exactly from those links was taken out of context? Their analysis is quite accurate, IMO.

a reply to: mzinga


You think I was a pizzagate guy?

I am interested in the story simply because the alleged "code words" are in fact code words for heinous crimes against children. I do not rule it out because of the context it was in as well, lest we forget the "spirit cooking" of Podesta's emails.

My point is that someone engaging in extremely weird things like "spirit cooking" and making off the wall remarks about handkerchiefs and pizza deserves an extra hard look. To dismiss the claims without any investigation or substantiation is ridiculous. To claim they are true without any substantiation is also ridiculous.

I claim neither. I simply state it is worthy of further inquiry, like any unproven matter of public interest.

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?

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

I can only speak for myself but my major concern with the dossier would be if uncorroborated information from the dossier was the basis for obtaining FISA warrants. I don't know if there are any federal charges to be lodged in that instance but if uncorroborated information was the basis and if the FISC judge was misled in the application, the people responsible should lose their jobs and forfeit any pensions. If uncorroborated information was the basis and the judge wasn't misled, the judge should be removed.

As for Uranium One, I've probably done more reading on the topic than most and it really depend on what you're referring to. I don't believe there's any substantial evidence tying the FBI, Mueller, etc to anything — specifically a plot to suppress knowledge of the Mikerin/TENAM investigation.

In relation to the CFIUS vote, we know that Clinton accounted for 1 of 9 votes and she actually delegated the responsibility to Jose Fernandez, then Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs, to attend relevant meetings and to cast the vote. It's very simple. If he says "No, Secretary Clinton did not influence my vote," then it's pretty much dead in the water.

I would be interested in knowing why the State Department interceded in Kazakhstan at the behest of Tefler, in the interest of a Canadian company, Uranium One. An activity that was exposed in the WL diplomatic cable release. I think that probably reeks of quid pro quo more than anything else involving Uranium One.

That said, if evidence of a criminal offense is brought to light, of course federal charges should be pursued.

a reply to: JBurns

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' ."

Who cares what CNN says?

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.

If they do not want to be hypocritical, then yes they would have problems with this.

That is what my post was about.

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.

That is untrue. At least have your facts straight before you post nonsense.

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.

My side? You do know that I am not a Democrat, right? I had no dog in this last election. I wasn't dumb enough to vote for Hillary and I was not dumb enough to vote for Trump.

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

What conspiracy have I focused on? I said I'd wait for more info before coming to any conclusion.

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

No. The vast majority of that nonsense is nothing more than conspiracy.

a reply to: theantediluvian


ante, thank you for contributing to this important discussion

I appreciate your concern with the dossier, as that is really my only true concern there as well. If it wasn't used as a basis to violate anyone's civil rights, then I think it falls into the category of election vitriol as well.

I also agree with your assessment of Uranium One. The quid pro quo is my largest concern there, but I admit a lack of evidence may preclude the possibility of a conviction. I would like to see the matter investigated to determine if any such evidence exists, and whether or not key players would provide helpful information in light of such an investigation.

As far as CFIUS goes, Mr. Fernandez's information is also of great interest to me. I believe his statements will definitely make or break any possibility of legal action. This is one of the several investigations I support without believing in the party-line conclusion.

Thanks again for your reply, and all the great information/facts you presented

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: soberbacchus


I'm sorry, but no such evidence has come to light as you suggest. Can you please describe and detail what evidence you're referring to (with credible sources, of course)?

U1 isn't the only issue though. How about the mostly-debunked dossier funded by the Clintons and used to obtain at least 1 FISA warrant?

A) "Unproven" is the word used to describe much of the Dossier, whilst much of it has been validated. Hell, even the Hotel room stuff. It turns out Trump was at the Moscow Ritz, in the room that was specified, and was offered hookers by associates of Agalarov (Also specified on both). Manaforts dealings in Ukraine confirmed. The Gasprom (Sp?) deal happened for the amounts specified. And of course the Propaganda campaign by Russia and how it was conducted was confirmed by multiple Intelligence agencies.

B) "Funded by the Clintons"...NOPE...While that is the story you and others have sold, Trumps life-long security head Schiller has testified differently.

The former adviser went on to say that he was also approached by someone from the Jeb Bush campaign about the memos in December 2015.

dailycaller.com...

Long before the work was pitched to DNC. What was released was an updated version.

C) It was possibly PART of what was used to obtain a FISA warrant. The fact that Carter Page had a history with the FBI of giving since convicted Russian spies classified material probably didn't help either. And from where I am sitting the Dossier contains various legit intelligence.

a reply to: introvert


A vast majority of the Russia narrative is also conspiracy, though. No evidence at all has come to light proving illegal activity occurred.

Something that is unethical vs criminal activity are two entirely different animals. Every last politician is unethical, we already know this. Through the legal system though, they can only be held to one standard. Holding them accountable for unethical activity is accomplished at the ballot box.

a reply to: JBurns

How about the mostly-debunked dossier funded by the Clintons and used to obtain at least 1 FISA warrant?

There is a single originating source of reporting for this claim and it's a CNN article. There were three relevant paragraphs but the last one is consistently ignored in derivative pieces from some media outlets.

FBI used dossier allegations to bolster Trump-Russia investigation

The dossier has also been cited by FBI Director James Comey in some of his briefings to members of Congress in recent weeks, as one of the sources of information the bureau has used to bolster its investigation, according to US officials briefed on the probe.

This includes approval from the secret court that oversees the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to monitor the communications of Carter Page, two of the officials said. Last year, Page was identified by the Trump campaign as an adviser on national security.

Officials familiar with the process say even if the application to monitor Page included information from the dossier, it would only be after the FBI had corroborated the information through its own investigation. The officials would not say what or how much was corroborated.

If the information was corroborated, there's no malfeasance.

How about DNC chair Donna Brazile's revelations about primary rigging? Or Ms. Warren's? These aren't "right wing nut job" political hacks - both are well respected and high ranking Democrats (party chair and Senator, respectively).

Depends on what you mean by "primary rigging." Nobody, including Brazille, has alleged actual *rigging* of anything as far as I know.

What about HRC's mishandling of classified information? Don't you find it odd that the Attorney General met with the suspect's husband days before the results were expected to be announced (and subsequently were)? The FBI director himself changed the phrase "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless" for an unknown reason, after this interview had taken place. That is highly suspect.

She clearly mishandled classified information and lied about it. As for Comey, gross negligence is a legal term which connotes intent. Are you saying that if he'd not used the wording "extremely careless" that she would have been facing a grand jury?

How about Clinton's campaign funneling money through an attorney's office to exploit attorney client privilege and hide the destination of campaign funds in potential violation of campaign finance laws? That is a crime, you know. Possibly even rises to money laundering - but we can't know this without an impartial investigation!

When AG Sessions was just asked an hour or so ago, if it was a crime, he said he didn't know. I don't believe we need an investigation to know if it was a crime. We already know it happened. What needs to be determined is whether or not that activity is criminal. Clearly, if it was criminal than people should be held to account. Although, I'll add there are interesting implications for other campaigns.

I am not saying any of this is absolutely evidence of guilt. What I am saying is that there is enough evidence (some circumstantial, some more concrete) to justify a full investigation into all matters and concerns.

What does that mean though? "A full investigation into all matters and concerns?" The FEC is more than capable for investigating complaints against the Clinton campaign re: funding Fusion GPS. If I'm not mistaken, the OIG would be the appropriate office to investigate the FBI? I'm really not sure if that would include FISA applications. As for the FISC itself, that falls back on Congress as only Congress can impeach a federal judge, starting with a trial in Senate.

Uranium One is probably the only thing that would require something on the order of a special counsel to investigate imo.

a reply to: theantediluvian

It gets even more screwed up. It seems Assange was pro Trump in the campaign, not for a pardon, but because he wanted Trump to apply pressure and get him named Australia's ambassador to the US.

a reply to: JBurns

A vast majority of the Russia narrative is also conspiracy, though.

No. Much of it has been proven true.

No evidence at all has come to light proving illegal activity occurred.

Then why are people being indicted?

a reply to: Aazadan

I think you are deflecting from the reality of the situation and are unwilling to admit there was a conspiracy between Bernie and Hillary.

Bernie was vehemently opposed to everything HRC represented and claimed to be everything she was lacking. Right up until the nomination. So why would he begin planning an exit strategy months prior to the actual nomination in a very closely held race between the two? The fervor for Bernie was at epic levels before the nomination. I remember hearing many pundits speculating HRC was going to lose the nomination.

It just makes absolutely zero sense unless it was planned. Pull undecideds away from Trump to vote for Bernie then convert those to HRC votes. Now that is just conspiracy talking but IMO it warrants consideration.

The facts are that HRC was managing everything DNC in her favor to win the nomination. That has now come into the light based on Donna Brazile's expose. Are you telling me you don't have an issue with someone you didn't support actually rigging the nomination in her favor? If so then that makes you the single biggest hypocrite on this site and you have zero grounds to cast a stone in any political direction.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

originally posted by: CajunMetal
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Your enemy is free democratic elections? Or the majority of the US Population?

I am confused?

originally posted by: Outlier13Are you telling me you don't have an issue with someone you didn't support actually rigging the nomination in her favor? If so then that makes you the single biggest hypocrite on this site and you have zero grounds to cast a stone in any political direction.

How does that make me a hypocrite? And no, no issues at all. That's called politics. Voting is supposed to be fair (and it is). Nothing says campaigns are supposed to be fair. In fact they're inherently unfair because someone will inevitably campaign better than their opponent.

a reply to: Aazadan

You are conflating campaign rigging with politics. Campaign rigging is illegal for the obvious reasons. I'm not naive enough to believe we live in a democratic society. However, there is still some level of control the body of a political party should have over who will be their chosen candidate.

If a platform such as the DNC is going to rig the system in a manner that makes it impossible for anyone other than their pre-determined chosen one to win the nomination then this should bother you greatly. If you accept this level of deception as being ok then you therefore have no leg to stand on when espousing your opinion on any political matter. By admitting campaign rigging is ok you admit to not caring who represents you or what the results of that person's politics may be which directly affect you.

This is what I mean regarding hypocrisy. You cannot be against opposing political views if you support campaign rigging because you hypocritically support your very views being suppressed by the fact your candidate was chosen for you and not by you.

a reply to: Outlier13

Parties are private entities they can pick whoever they want, by whatever rules they want. I have my preference on policies, but that doesn't mean I think other candidates are in any way obligated to follow them.

Campaign rigging is just convincing a private party to select you and that's totally legal. Election rigging is illegal, but that's not what happened in the DNC since the election was still carried out according to their rules.

Bernie for as much as I liked him, simply wasn't up to the task to lead.