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

a reply to: theantediluvian

Here is a thread that has legitimate bomb shell information unlike your hyperventilating and dying thread here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Aazadan

You won't admit what the DNC did was illegal and you are fine with that. I get it. You can wordsmith it all you want but rigging a campaign is immoral and is illegal. Because you support this you lose credibility to pose an argument for or against a political opinion.

I don't want to make an assumption but did you end up supporting Hillary in light of the fact Bernie was not going to be the DNC candidate?

Out of all the postings not one person mentioned about the link they want him to tweet? Did anyone even check it out? If not you should.

Wlsearch.tk

originally posted by: mnemic7x
Out of all the postings not one person mentioned about the link they want him to tweet? Did anyone even check it out? If not you should.

Wlsearch.tk

There's a whole thread on it. Link

The current version of wlsearch.tk was created today though.

originally posted by: Outlier13
You won't admit what the DNC did was illegal and you are fine with that. I get it. You can wordsmith it all you want but rigging a campaign is immoral and is illegal. Because you support this you lose credibility to pose an argument for or against a political opinion.

No it's not. That's literally what primaries are all about.

originally posted by: Outlier13
I don't want to make an assumption but did you end up supporting Hillary in light of the fact Bernie was not going to be the DNC candidate?

I voted Hillary, not because I supported her but because I flipped a coin. I was 100% sure I wasn't voting for Trump. Flipped a coin on if I would vote for Hillary, and the coin came up that I would, so I did vote for her but I wouldn't exactly call it support. My preferred candidate in the race if not Bernie was Kasich, and Jeb Bush after that. In fact if I were to make a list of all candidates Hillary and Trump were my two dead last candidates, I would have taken anyone over either.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Thank you I did not see that.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Outlier13
You won't admit what the DNC did was illegal and you are fine with that. I get it. You can wordsmith it all you want but rigging a campaign is immoral and is illegal. Because you support this you lose credibility to pose an argument for or against a political opinion.

No it's not. That's literally what primaries are all about.

Ok. Please show me where it is clearly stated that "campaign rigging is legal".

For the record the traditionally agreed upon purpose of primaries are to narrow the field of candidates before a general election.

I have yet to find anywhere it states that rigging the campaign in favor of one candidate over another is legal.

It somewhat defeats the entire purpose of this little thing called voting wouldn't you agree?

a reply to: Outlier13

As long as the party adhere's to it's published election rules it's legal. Primaries are private, not public events. Parties can weight votes however they want, and as long as it's specified up front and held to, it's totally legal. The Republicans and Democrats both do it, the only difference is in how they weight the votes. In other parties they don't even have a primary, they just appoint a candidate internally.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: theantediluvian

It's hitting the MSM now. Not really a smudge to the Trumps but surely doesn't look good for wikileaks.

Agree.

It reads like Wikileaks was trying to get Don Jr to bite...but he didn't. He wasn't rude, but obviously he wasn't interested in colluding with Wikileaks.

IOW, it reads like Wikileaks was trying to set a trap to me. I am more suspicious of them than ever.

It does seem rather unbecoming. However it's there in black and white....

a reply to: Outlier13

Each party chooses their own candidate TOTALLY separate from the legal system or even the American people..

Their is no legal mechanism to stop them from choosing any canidate they want to at any time..


Ever..


The election itself is different because that is under federal jurisdiction.

originally posted by: Outlier13
a reply to: Aazadan

You won't admit what the DNC did was illegal and you are fine with that. I get it.

I know you were not asking me, but my take is:

1) It was not illegal
2) I'm not "fine" with it.

a reply to: Aazadan



You can continue to deflect from the fact that campaign rigging is illegal all you want. I see you have no moral compass.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

I fully understand the system and the process. I am still waiting for someone to show me where within primaries it is legal to rig a campaign nomination.

Once again...if this is legal then it negates the purpose of the voting process.

There are open and closed primary elections. I'm doing my best to find where it states campaign rigging is legal.

originally posted by: Outlier13
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I fully understand the system and the process. I am still waiting for someone to show me where within primaries it is legal to rig a campaign nomination.

Once again...if this is legal then it negates the purpose of the voting process.

There are open and closed primary elections. I'm doing my best to find where it states campaign rigging is legal.

I think you are asking the wrong question. What you should be asking is where does it state a private political party cannot rig it's elections.

This has even been discussed in court:

The Court continued, “For their part, the DNC and Wasserman Schultz have characterized the DNC charter’s promise of ‘impartiality and evenhandedness’ as a mere political promise—political rhetoric that is not enforceable in federal courts.

observer.com...

a reply to: Sillyolme

and they wouldnt have cared if they didnt have criminal activity revealed in the emails.

Propaganda war with false/fake/manufactured and spin for news is at it's highest point ever, and this goes for both sides.
I was watching a video report the other day and they were saying reporting accurate news is getting really hard, it's not reporting news anymore it's telling a story to help form a perception, instead just reporting what happened and letting people decide. Look at CNN or even FOX, there is always a prejudice.

The only thing I do know, and I say this as a 10 year plus veteran of ATS is that McCain, Romney have revealed over time to be part of the deep state, and Trump isn't, and anybody that watched them face off against Ron Paul and how they are reacting today know this to be true.

Clinton's are deep state as well.

Every single time someone looks at the Trump campaign where there were massive denials, they go "oh yeah, except for that
thing".

It happens every bloody single time. Mike Pence, Jeff Sessions, Don Jr, Jared Kushner, George Papadopoulos, and the list goes on and on and on.

I believe there wasn't any collusion (this would indicate there was some sort of leadership on the campaign), but they certainly had a damn lot of help from the Russians. Donald Trump just doesn't like to admit that he didn't do this on his own.

I have been busy so I haven't had much time to look at this.

But taken at face value, it does seem as if wikileaks is biased.

To me this is not surprising.

They probably, like me and so many others, want to see government corruption ended. Maybe they bought into the idea trump was an outsider that would do that.

Or maybe they were setting trump up.

Either way, the ends do not justify the means for me. Wikileaks loses a lot of their credibility of they are play on for one side.

Now, does that mean that we shouldn't look at what they leak, of course not.

And I also think that the main stream media's overwhelming support for Hillary was more troubling.

But I do think this is a story worth reading in to, which I will.

This kind of seems to be aimed at undermining Wikileaks more than Trump. I think something huge is about to drop and Wikileaks is getting ready to drop the big one. They know what it is and this is an attempt at preemptive damage control. Buh Bye Hillary.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
There's more:

WikiLeaks made a series of increasingly bold requests, including asking for Trump’s tax returns, urging the Trump campaign on Election Day to reject the results of the election as rigged, and requesting that the president-elect tell Australia to appoint Julian Assange ambassador to the United States.

You missed a line. Pee Wee Herman was to be made Secretary of the Treasury. Sounds like all this was a fairytale, told to eager people that cannot get their minds around the election results. Shame though, so how will they react when Trump wins a second term!? They'll follow Alice down the rabbit hole, of course.

Sorry, this thread is based upon wishful thing, no more.

Yawn, wake me when something real happens. This bombshell is a dud.