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

a reply to: theantediluvian

I think you are being naive.

Listen, TPTB want to ruin Wikileak's sterling reputation for truth and accuracy. Why are you getting all worked about this? Or any attempt to discredit Assange and his organization?

Yawn.

This is a non-story.

originally posted by: MRuss
a reply to: theantediluvian

I think you are being naive.

Listen, TPTB want to ruin Wikileak's sterling reputation for truth and accuracy. Why are you getting all worked about this? Or any attempt to discredit Assange and his organization?

Yawn.

This is a non-story.

Please explain why WikiLeaks advised the Trump campaign not to concede if they lost? Why would they find that "interesting?" Aren't they supposed to have a reputation for "objectivity?" I guessed that train left the station years ago.

a reply to: Indigent

I was talking about this on my radio show. I see Hillary's rigging of the election as the only way to truly define Trump as an "illegitimate President". Dumping the Clintons is a must for the NWO for the Harvey Weinstein effect of an awakening public.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: MRuss
a reply to: theantediluvian

I think you are being naive.

Listen, TPTB want to ruin Wikileak's sterling reputation for truth and accuracy. Why are you getting all worked about this? Or any attempt to discredit Assange and his organization?

Yawn.

This is a non-story.

Please explain why WikiLeaks advised the Trump campaign not to concede if they lost? Why would they find that "interesting?" Aren't they supposed to have a reputation for "objectivity?" I guessed that train left the station years ago.

Didn’t somebody in this thread point out Hillary joked about taking Assange out with a drone. There is enough evidence the liberal media had to publish stories that it was not true?

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: MRuss
a reply to: theantediluvian

I think you are being naive.

Listen, TPTB want to ruin Wikileak's sterling reputation for truth and accuracy. Why are you getting all worked about this? Or any attempt to discredit Assange and his organization?

Yawn.

This is a non-story.

Please explain why WikiLeaks advised the Trump campaign not to concede if they lost? Why would they find that "interesting?" Aren't they supposed to have a reputation for "objectivity?" I guessed that train left the station years ago.

Didn’t somebody in this thread point out Hillary joked about taking Assange out with a drone. There is enough evidence the liberal media had to publish stories that it was not true?

You mean Hillary never said that, yet you choose to believe it anyway? Never mind. Why do you think WikiLeaks would find it "interesting" if Trump refused to cede if he lost?

originally posted by: MRuss
a reply to: theantediluvian

I think you are being naive.

I think you are being a typical ATS conspiracy theorist.

Listen, TPTB want to ruin Wikileak's sterling reputation for truth and accuracy.

Wiki-leaks is a freakin' tool of the Russian government. I don't think anyone has claimed that the documents they've published are FAKE, only that WHAT they choose to release is based upon whatever Russia's agenda happens to be at the time. Given that Russia's main goal is destabilization of the West, the "real" documents are often accompanied by Fake News distributed from other sources (ie PizzaGate -- perfect example -- along with dozens of other completely bogus stories centered the DNC emails).

Why are you getting all worked about this?

Why aren't you? A foreign government has managed to hijack the minds of a significant portion of the American electorate, via a sophisticated combination of social media marketing, hacking, fake news, and targeted propaganda.

Yawn.

This is a non-story.

Good luck with your nonsense.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: MRuss
a reply to: theantediluvian

I think you are being naive.

Listen, TPTB want to ruin Wikileak's sterling reputation for truth and accuracy. Why are you getting all worked about this? Or any attempt to discredit Assange and his organization?

Yawn.

This is a non-story.

Please explain why WikiLeaks advised the Trump campaign not to concede if they lost? Why would they find that "interesting?" Aren't they supposed to have a reputation for "objectivity?" I guessed that train left the station years ago.

Didn’t somebody in this thread point out Hillary joked about taking Assange out with a drone. There is enough evidence the liberal media had to publish stories that it was not true?

You mean Hillary never said that, yet you choose to believe it anyway? Never mind. Why do you think WikiLeaks would find it "interesting" if Trump refused to cede if he lost?

As in — I never had classified material on my personal devices — Never happened?

a reply to: DJW001

By the way, Hillary did or did not say the joke was ever made. She couldn’t recall the joke.

Hillary pulled the memory card on interviews regarding her private server and classified material too. I see a pattern forming.

www.politico.com...

“I don't recall any joke,” Clinton said, when asked about the allegations at a press conference in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on Tuesday. “It would have been a joke, if it had been said, but I don't recall that.”

a reply to: theantediluvian

Sadly, the tag "Fake News" gets attached to legitimate info quite often when being discussed by liberals.
It's a bad habit that you really ought to try and break.

a reply to: MRuss

And I think you're being naive. The reality of Assange and WikiLeaks is that there's zero transparency and Julian Assange has unilateral control. He's a self-appointed gatekeeper of leaked and stolen information who operates with his own agenda.

The fact is, WikiLeaks itself exemplifies many major pitfalls of governance that enable corruption.

originally posted by: comawhite12
a reply to: theantediluvian

Sadly, the tag "Fake News" gets attached to legitimate info quite often when being discussed by liberals.
It's a bad habit that you really ought to try and break.

True Pundit is fake news. "They" (whoever "they" are) has an established history of fabricating "exclusive" stories that are demonstrably false. The rest of their content is aggregated from other sources.

I don't know how much more plain it could be made.

a reply to: neutronflux

Look at the other "exclusive" stories from True Pundit. I did a thread about True Pundit and popular pre-election disinfo troll, 0Hour1, which you can find here.

a reply to: comawhite12

Just liberals? Pot meet kettle.

Interesting reporting from Mother Jones today.

WikiLeaks Set Off an Attack on Our Trump-Russia Project—Right After Messaging Donald Trump Jr. About It

On Monday, The Atlantic published private messages from September 2016 in which WikiLeaks gave Donald Trump Jr. the password to a forthcoming site documenting his father’s ties to Russia. But there was more to the story of WikiLeaks’ apparent effort to conspire with the Trump campaign against PutinTrump.org—and I had a front-row seat to it, as editorial director of the site. Within just minutes of reaching out to Trump Jr., WikiLeaks also publicized the password, setting off a wave of online harassment, email bombs, and personal threats against people behind the site.

This is apparently what unbiased "journalism" looks like:



For what purpose would they tweet out the password to a site under development? (which they also shared with Don Jr just prior via DM)

Any of Assange's would be white knights want to explain what that has to do with journalism?

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: neutronflux

Look at the other "exclusive" stories from True Pundit. I did a thread about True Pundit and popular pre-election disinfo troll, 0Hour1, which you can find here.

Where have I ever quote from true pundit? False argument by you?
True or false, was there classified material on Hillary’s server?
True or False, I provided an actual Hillary quote?

I see a long rant coming ignoring my simple questions.

And don’t take a dead thread as victory. You cannot argue with an individual that confuses dogmatic faith with reality.

So Hillary is not a corrupt politician that embodies everything wrong with our government? An example how the judicial system treats those in power differently.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Just Hillary conspiring with Bill to character assassinate, discredit, and use positions of power to intimidate Bill’s accusers is criminal.

a reply to: theantediluvian

The Clintons have long History of using positions of power to criminally enriched themselves. And having that power, and fellow cronies in the system, has rigged the system in favor of the Clintons.

Who voted to give a controlling interest of the USAs uranium production to the bad actor Russia? The Onama administration or Trump?

Where's the fake news?

The emails they released were accurate and truthful, which was never disputed by any of the subject's of the leaked material. That isn't fake news. It's just news you don't like.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Or like the post election hack video on DU

www.youtube.com...

WARNING: Video contains several profane words, and you should avoid if certain words and phrases are offensive. The purpose of the video is to describe the "hack" on election night.

a reply to: JBurns

The fake news could be that at this same time Trump and all his brood were swearing to god, they had met even met a Russian (hyperbole obviously, but not far off.)

It’s not like trump and his brood remained silent on all of this.. every step of the way they lied and denied the allegations, only for some newspaper to get leaked documents that proved otherwise..

But they would only admit to what was proven and lie about everything else..

Only to have those next lies shown to be true..

Wash rinse repeat

So it is not only the proof of the allegations, it is also their constant dishonesty in their attempt to cover it all up.