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

a reply to: Aazadan

They might know some but not all. More likely they typically know we're getting information in some fashion but don't know the details of how.

It is a cat and mouse game, to be sure. But consider the wiki-"Leaks" have all been about the uS gubment spying on its own people, meddling in other nations internal affairs and in the case of Manning's "Collateral Damage" Video, waging unjust war on Sovereign Nations.

Most superpowers are fully aware of satellite and eavesdropping technology directed at them. That stuff is almost never discussed in the public eye because its considered espionage.

a reply to: Aazadan

Where did they get the CIA tools?

a reply to: JBurns

Seems to me she was able to parlay that into a lucrative book deal.

'HACKS,' IS SOLD OUT ON AMAZON


Lackluster.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: intrptr
They don't have to push anything false, what they got has been golden, every time.

I've always felt their leaks were pretty lackluster,tbh. If they were the real deal, they could get their hands on more damning stuff than Donna Brazile giving Hillary a couple of debate questions.

Their leaks always seem so carefully controlled...watered-down.

Wikileaks 'lackluster' right. Only The thorn in the Empires side. Snowden, Manning, etc., all the exposure of NSA eavesdropping, Hillarys emails, her private server, The CIA hacking tools. Too name a few.

Or it's their favorite tool to placate the masses and keep them busy while no actual criminal is ever held accountable.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: intrptr


Exactly

The IC are the ones hurting people with these tools and technologies. Those who expose these professional liars, thieves and drug dealers (yes, CIA deals drugs to fund black projects in foreign nations) are heroes in my book.

I'd love to see all low-brow public intelligence agencies shuttered. We have plenty of private contractors that pay their people much better than the public [lack-of] Intelligence Community agencies.

Hi praise coming from someone as obviously intelligent as yourself. Fear of exposing the level of corruption at the highest levels is what drives the National Security Engine, at home and abroad.

They aren't scared of foreign states as much as they are of being found out by we the people.

Just one video of attack helicopters killing journalists in Iraq was enough to blow the lid off.

a reply to: introvert


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

However, if actual evidence of a crime comes to light, that will be different.

As of now, no evidence (and no accusation) rises to the level of an actual crime.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Let me make sure I have this correct:
In your mind, wikileaks has exposed nothing of value because no one has been prosecuted by the swamp they've exposed?

a reply to: intrptr

Not all, they used to be an outlet to publish corporate abuses too. They've stopped doing that though in order to be more politically active. Like I said, I like Assange but I think he's proving himself to be untrustworthy on a political level. There's no question that he was colluding to influence our elections which has destroyed their previous (and important) perception of being impartial. You're not going to find a bigger supporter of WikiLeaks mission statement than me, hell I learned a few hacks just because their website inspired me. That said, I don't think they've been acting in the public interest to the US for the last 2 years or so.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Where did they get the CIA tools?

I don't know. I assume someone in the US government leaked it. Probably a disgruntled high ranking software engineer who would have access to any project.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: intrptr
They don't have to push anything false, what they got has been golden, every time.

I've always felt their leaks were pretty lackluster,tbh. If they were the real deal, they could get their hands on more damning stuff than Donna Brazile giving Hillary a couple of debate questions.

Their leaks always seem so carefully controlled...watered-down.

Wikileaks 'lackluster' right. Only The thorn in the Empires side. Snowden, Manning, etc., all the exposure of NSA eavesdropping, Hillarys emails, her private server, The CIA hacking tools. Too name a few.

Or it's their favorite tool to placate the masses and keep them busy while no actual criminal is ever held accountable.

That CNN's job.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Let me make sure I have this correct:
In your mind, wikileaks has exposed nothing of value because no one has been prosecuted by the swamp they've exposed?

Oh, I think it has value -- just not for me or you.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

What could they release, hypothetically, that would change your mind? What kind of information?

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: elementalgrove

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: elementalgrove

Then why hasn’t Trump fired him., he has had a year?!?!

Everything has a paper trail. It would be impossible for people to act against trump without him knowing who they were, and he had the power to fire any of them....

So why isn’t he???

Maybe because he has fabricated this intangible “deep state” because with the gop owning every branch of government. Blaming the dems just doesn’t work anymore???


If y’all just spent 5 seconds to deduce what the logistical requirements for all this nonesense.. you wouldn’t be so easily duped.

Perhaps you should learn about 4D chess!

If Trump is impeached, are you going to claim it was all part of his master plan?

Lol and if he is not are you going to accept his innocence?

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Are you really a Bernie supporter? If so then how badly did Bernie troll you and millions like you into voting for him all while having a secret agreement to allow HRC to help rig the nomination in her favor? Seriously you don't feel deceived by the one you chose to support?

You do realize the concept of the "deep state" has been around long before this election right? You also realize the proverbial "deep state" revealed their existence just after the election for the world to see right? Only 2 networks actually made note of this. FoxNews and very surprisingly CNN. Small little snipets buried in a pile of rubbish but it was reported on.

Do you genuinely not believe there is a hidden government within ours (and others) that seek to thwart its political objectives?

a reply to: Aazadan

Not all, they used to be an outlet to publish corporate abuses too.

That was what used to be called The Free Press.

Like the Pentagon Papers and Deep Throat in Watergate Scandal, those were investigative journalists working for main stream press outlets that used to protect its confidential sources, back then.

The Press used to actually expose Gubment and Pentagon corruption at the highest levels.

A bygone era, lol.

a reply to: Aazadan

Espionage is a very important aspect of maintaining global stability. Revealing espionage techniques isn't something that should be done lightly. I think WikiLeaks screwed up here,

Not they didn't. They did not expose the technology that gathers or disseminates classified information, just the information itself.

Thats why its such a conundrum for the Deep State. The information exposed reveals corruption and injustice but not how its gathered or disseminated. Difficult to prosecute the "whistleblowers' because it will come out the information is far more illegal and the gubment wants to keep that quiet, after all.

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.

originally posted by: Outlier13
Are you really a Bernie supporter? If so then how badly did Bernie troll you and millions like you into voting for him all while having a secret agreement to allow HRC to help rig the nomination in her favor? Seriously you don't feel deceived by the one you chose to support?

I was a Bernie supporter. It didn't bother me at all. If Bernie wasn't even able to manage the politics to get through a party nomination that was opposed to him, how would he ever be able to handle himself on a world stage where it's expected that all of your peers will be focused on self interest. Politics is the art of consensus building. The most basic qualification to be president is to build a consensus within your own party. Trump to his credit, did that. So did Hillary. Bernie didn't, he proved he wasn't fit to lead.

a reply to: JBurns

And that investigation isn't misdirection? I mean come on, it is a classic pivot.

a reply to: Aazadan

What you're saying is only situationally true. Before you can build any type of consensus you have to have an available platform and then the money to utilize that platform. The DNC was that platform and it is clear then and now he did not have the available resources as did HRC. Not that it mattered.

I just found it very, very odd that a few months before the official DNC nomination occurred he was already planning an exit strategy consisting of speaking engagements and book deals. Those are the actions of a person who is aware of an already pre-determined outcome. And regardless of what political party I support I find this to be the most egregious of transgressions as it undermines the concept of an open, voter decided political system. The entire democratic base was told who they were going to support.

a reply to: Outlier13

I don't take issue with that at all. We expect our government to have a plan for any event, I expect politicians to think the same way. I'm sure Bernie would have taken the nomination and run with it if he got it but I see nothing wrong with also setting himself up in the event he doesn't get it.