It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Leaked WikiLeaks Messages Reveal Anti-Clinton Agenda and More

page: 2
24
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Very interesting. I'd say that the DM's (hate that term) were calling out the GOP just as much.

But, are we really going to make a comparison of a small-time journalist' opinion vs the great news corps?




posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Their point about the media being mute on any Dem issues, and speaking out against Republican ones is true, and something that I have felt for a long time is the best (only) reason to hope for an R win as opposed to a D. At least the media will do it's damn job.



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reeeing as usual from you



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: theantediluvian

Wiki has NEVER had to retract anything they publish. How many can say that in this vast ocean of journalistic integrity?



Why would they have to retract anything? They're dumping documents. It's about controlling what gets released, when and how to achieve a desired result.


So you don’t mind the messages, only the messenger you don’t like.



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6


For the record, Wikileaks has always focused on malfeasance and cover ups at the highest state levels. As a result, the majority of their revelations will, obviously, be directed at whoever has most recently been in a position of authority and clearance. In that election, Clinton ran as the experienced, established, extension of the outgoing president. Any Wikileak documents collected on the White House during the prior 8 years were going to be viewed as a negative against her.


Except WikiLeaks didn't release documents collected from the White House (or even the government). They released documents from the DNC and they released John Podesta's personal emails.

I don't see the relevance of Chris Cuomo's statement.


Wikileaks is no friend of The Narrative. Doesn't make them bad guys, contrary to the American propaganda machines in the MSM... it just means they bring the pain to those who deserve to feel every screaming, searing, hot inch of it.


WikiLeaks is no enemy of the Narrative they want to win. That sure as hell precludes them from being "the good guys."



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Tempter


But, are we really going to make a comparison of a small-time journalist' opinion vs the great news corps?


Jeremy Scahill a partner of the intercept uncovered Blackwater, helped with the Snowden story. He's one of the best investigative journalists...

His reputation is above all corps combined.



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Rosinitiate

The Intercept is a very reliable source, one of the best.

They're a true whistle-blower outlet, Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald started it after they broke the Snowden story along with Reality Winner.


Yes and even the title states WikiLeaks.....Not Assange. JA is not Wikileaks.



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Whether or not bias was involved, that does not lessen the fact of whether the information was correct or not.


Makes no difference really.


EDIT: Why would anyone even assume a site such as that not be biased in some way?
edit on R582018-02-14T16:58:12-06:00k582Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Rosinitiate

JA *is* WikiLeaks. He has unilateral control over everything that WikiLeaks does. It's assumed in the article that JA was behind the wheel of the WL account (how many people have control over the WL twitter account aside from Assange? 1 or 2 others?). I would imagine it also has to do with the leaker's understanding that it was JA speaking.


One of the authors of this article verified the authenticity of the Twitter group messages by logging in using Hazelpress’s credentials. Throughout this article, The Intercept assumes that the WikiLeaks account is controlled by Julian Assange himself, as is widely understood, and that he is the author of the messages, referring to himself in the third person majestic plural, as he often does. The Intercept has also preserved typographical errors in quoted material.

WikiLeaks did not respond to a request for comment, sent several days before publication.



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Hey I was a Clinton supporter, well really Bernie. Just cheering from the sidelines as I am Canadian. My question is...how could you expect him to be anything but anti Clinton after the leaks he received? Also who knows how much more info he has?

I mean it would be a different story if he had damning info on Trump and kept it hidden...if that were proven to be the case that changes things. His asking for an Austrailan Ambassador position is a little show of self interest. From the info he has released he is only really in question for his timing of telease, but it seems like he was trying to do the best thing for all the people.



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: theantediluvian

For the record, Wikileaks has always focused on malfeasance and cover ups at the highest state levels. As a result, the majority of their revelations will, obviously, be directed at whoever has most recently been in a position of authority and clearance. In that election, Clinton ran as the experienced, established, extension of the outgoing president. Any Wikileak documents collected on the White House during the prior 8 years were going to be viewed as a negative against her.

I am reminded of this little gem...
www.realclearpolitics.com...

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN: Remember, it is illegal to possess these stolen documents. It is different from the media. So everything you learn about this, you are learning from us.


Wikileaks is no friend of The Narrative. Doesn't make them bad guys, contrary to the American propaganda machines in the MSM... it just means they bring the pain to those who deserve to feel every screaming, searing, hot inch of it.



CNN reporter isnt wrong. It is illegal for a member of the general public to have stolen material. The media has case law behind them saying they can report on information they receive as long as they were not soliciting the information or party to stealing it.



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Maybe. Maybe they just have plenty to work with.

Im glad we can at least agree that what wikileaks does publish is not false.

You should ask to join their team and provide them your feed back.

Say you want more corruption exposed but to wait until it can be delivered with equally damaging material for the political polar opposites of the exposed.


edit on 2 14 2018 by tadaman because: manners



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 05:10 PM
link   
The left complains that wikileaks has and anti-Clinton agenda.

The right complains that the FBI has an anti-Trump agenda.

And it goes round and round



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I think it's a point summed up well in the article by the leaker himself:


“At this point, considering the power exercised by WikiLeaks, [disclosing] literally anything Assange says is in the public interest,” Hazelpress told The Intercept, including Assange’s political position during the 2016 selection, since “WikiLeaks purports to be a neutral transparency organization.”


Real transparency is neutral. Selectively releasing material to fit an agenda is not promoting transparency, it's trying to pick winners and losers.

I don't know why people think that it's any better that Assange interferes in politics this way than any other foreign power doing the same thing. Except in this particular case, some want to see WL as "the good guys" because his agenda matched with their desire for Trump to win.

At the very least, they should be able to admit that the facade of neutrality, promoting transparency and journalistic integrity is a lie.



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Except WikiLeaks didn't release documents collected from the White House (or even the government). They released documents from the DNC and they released John Podesta's personal emails.


It's a massive stretch to argue John Podesta couldn't be considered a member of "the government." Same is true of Clinton, particularly when it is considered that quite a bit of what they leaked revolved around her time as SOS. Even the DNC leaks were in line with leaks pertaining to government action, considering Clinton was the establishment choice and the DNC railroaded her non-establishment blessed challenger, Bernie Sanders.

Regardless, there's a lot of ground between bad guys and good guys. Most of the world operates within that middle ground, including Wikileaks. In this particular case, I think they're closer to the side of good simply because their leaks were exposing an agent of pure evil.



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

There is no such thing as non-bias, which is why there is no such thing as non-partisan. Welcome to the world that has existed since the inception of humans.



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Truth seems to be biased against Hillary Clinton.

Justice? So far, not so much.



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Has their been evidence that Wikileaks had damning information against the GOP which it chose not to release? If not, then I'm confused by what you're suggesting with this:

Real transparency is neutral. Selectively releasing material to fit an agenda is not promoting transparency, it's trying to pick winners and losers.

It seems the only scenario in which you'd have been placated and seen "neutrality" would have been Wikileaks not releasing the poop on the DNC, Hillary, and Podesta unless and until they had an equal amount of poop to release on the GOP... that's not neutral or transparent, it's artificial equality. Have you considered the possibility that the leaks dumped were accurate and claims of "manipulating the election" against Wikileaks are, in actuality, sour grapes by people searching for external excuses for why their candidate failed?



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

completely unrelated, but do you feel that the MSM (excluding Fox news) is in any way, bias towards Democrats?
Just asking for your personal opinion here.



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

So what didn't he release? Honest question as I have not ever heard about anything they recieved to leak that they didn't leak unless it was deemed inappropriate to release...like names of agents in the field or the likes that would endanger lives. If it has been proven they have info about wrongdoings that they didn't leak please inform me as that would paint them in a different light in my eyes.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join