Leaked WikiLeaks Messages Reveal Anti-Clinton Agenda and More

a reply to: theantediluvian

Shocking..... Assange has only stated that he despised Hillary only a million times.

originally posted by: visitedbythem
" Shes a bright, well connected sadistic sociopath".

I liked that one.

Best description of her ever!

originally posted by: theantediluvian
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?).

Wikileaks is NOT only Julian Assange as many people seem to believe. He is the founder of the publishing organisation but Wikileaks has in fact more than one hundred other staff accross the Americas, Africa, Eurasia and the Asia Pacific. I can not link to the Wikileaks site (ffs, ATS) but anyone can go there and click the button that says "About" to learn a thing or two.

Also this tweet from Julian Assange regarding the hit job from the Intercept, is enlightening:

the @WikiLeaks account is run by a rotating staff as has been repeatedly stated over the years: twitter.com... …
- basic fact checking would have shown this. another example: the article uses messages from late Oct 2016 when I infamously had no internet access.

Read more tweets from JA about the Intercept smear piece here:

Julian Assange tweet thread

a reply to: theantediluvian

And that differs from the MSM or any outlet how?

a reply to: theantediluvian

This is the bigger news:

They don’t reveal anything new about WikiLeaks’ relationship with the Trump campaign, although they are consistent with the group’s public statements casting doubt on claims by former Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone that he had advanced knowledge of the group’s anti-Clinton leaks. The chats don’t illuminate any connections with the Russian government or tell us anything about the identity of the source who provided WikiLeaks with emails from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chair John Podesta.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Assange seems to be more like Machiavelli than a true exponent of freedom and transparency.

A very conniving dangerous fellow.

Does anyone else find it ironic/sucpecuous that Wikileaks would use a Twitter group to discuss...well anything that they didn’t want to get out?

a reply to: theantediluvian

Jw in your opinion is this more incriminating than the strokz test which atleast one of you TOTALLY missunderstood or more likely purposely misrepresented to try and explain away?

Another point is that Glenn Greenwald has the other view, and supports the trump anti Russia meddled side.

It is a good thing that they have different opinions on the intercept.


Assange is just a sleazy guy who proves the age old maxim:


Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely

a reply to: theantediluvian

Well Hillary Clinton did want to kill him with a drone strike so...

a reply to: theantediluvian

" The reality is that as the hypocrite Assange smugly points fingers at the media, politicians, governments and their agencies, behind the scenes he's using his unilateral control over the flow information to interfere in geopolitics and the domestic affairs of sovereign nations as he sees fit."


Yeah , kinda like taking One from the C.I.A. Playbook for Over the Last 65 Years...........YAWN .

So anybody who post the truth for political gains is a enemy. Got it.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
In some of the published messages, Assange can be seen laying out a rationale for his preference for a GOP candidate over Hillary to these lower level "boosters."

In other messages, Assange paints Russia as a victim of the US with "minor imperialistic goals in its near abroad."

All totally true.

And this helps your cause how exactly?

a reply to: Perfectenemy

agree

You still searching for anything , no matter how much of a stretch of the imagination , that may show Hillary Clinton is anything other than Hillary Clinton ?
Give it up..

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: theantediluvian

Assange seems to be more like Machiavelli than a true exponent of freedom and transparency.

A very conniving dangerous fellow.

He is only dangerous to corrupt people. What do people send him in documents? They send him things that show corruption and crimes in governments. Crimes not likely to ever be prosecuted because the prosecutors are controlled by the same people that the documents are exposing (usually). People do not send him things that show how nice someone is.
Of course people who have everything to lose when Assange gets a hold of a document that exposes their misdeeds is going to say he is dangerous and conniving, or those who support those corrupt individuals will also disparage Assange.

We have already seen many examples of this with Hillary's corruption being exposed, and the subsequent MSM assassination of Assange, and also during Obama's corrupt legacy years. We also saw it when GW Bush's corrupt deeds were exposed...

a reply to: MostlyReading

Wikileaks is NOT only Julian Assange as many people seem to believe. He is the founder of the publishing organisation but Wikileaks has in fact more than one hundred other staff accross the Americas, Africa, Eurasia and the Asia Pacific. I can not link to the Wikileaks site (ffs, ATS) but anyone can go there and click the button that says "About" to learn a thing or two.

WikiLeaks has more than one hundred other staff who make absolutely no important decisions, including what will be published.

Also this tweet from Julian Assange regarding the hit job from the Intercept, is enlightening:

How convenient. Are we to believe that it could have been basically anyone on the WikiLeak's twitter account? Come on. If it wasn't JA, he knows exactly who it was. "Rotating staff" is a non-answer, it's a vague ploy at plausible deniability.

I suppose next he'll say that some "rotating staff" controlling his Twitter account DM'd the fake Sean Hannity account about having dirt he wanted to share on Warner?

Probably the same phantom DMers who told Don Jr to share some tax returns to "dramatically improve the perception of our impartiality."

This is rich:

- the editorial propriety of letting Micah F Lee, of all people, instrumentalize the Intercept to further his obsessive, obscenity laden campaign against WikiLeaks must be questioned. Lee was formally behind cutting off WikiLeaks' US tax deductible donations.

- after I wrote to the FPF board last year on that serious subject, Lee has become hysterical. The conflict of interest is obvious. Such a story should have been given to someone else. By failing to do so the story's credibility has been marred.

Sounds like somebody is projecting? Look at the posts in this thread.

"Shocking..... Assange has only stated that he despised Hillary only a million times."

Why do you think it is that people say this? He made his personal animosity quite apparent, as he did in the ITV interview when he was asked point blank if he would prefer Donald Trump be elected.

"from my personal perspective, well you know, the emails we've published show that Hillary Clinton is receiving constant updates about my personal situation. She has pushed for the prosecution of WikiLeaks which is still (in training?) so we do see her as a bit of a problem for freedom of the press generally. In relations to wars, her emails that we revealed about her involvement in Libya and statements by Pentagon generals show that Hillary was overriding the Pentagon's reluctance to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi..."

Another article, from last year in The Intercept (no, not written by Micah Lee), gives a number of examples of how WL (JA) has demonstrated overt abject hatred for Clinton.

Julian Assange’s Hatred of Hillary Clinton Was No Secret. His Advice to Donald Trump Was.

One of the most disappointing parts of the DMs to Don Jr was JA trying to talk Don Jr into pushing fake news from True Pundit about the drone strike — # people repeat even in this thread even though there's a 99.9% likelihood that it was a complete fabrication by a known bad source. They even linked the True Pundit "story" and mocked up an excerpt to look like a leaked document with a big yellow highlight.

How many examples of JA and/or WL being sketchy af do you need before you start to question what JA says?

Here's some interesting excerpts from Daniel Domscheit-Berg

Julian had promised that the basis under which the Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel had agreed to collaborate was that there was redactions to be made before publication. And Julian had obviously agreed on that. And then he had made interviews with all the three papers, where in these interviews he was describing the harm-minimization process that this material was going through.

But that was all an illusion, because there was no harm-minimization process. He hadn't cared about setting it up, and he hadn't cared about telling anyone else that he needed someone to take care of this. So he gave this promise, but he never told anyone that this work actually had to be done.

So five days before the publication -- the publication day was a Monday, and on the Wednesday before that, I was sitting at lunch with the reporters from Spiegel, and they had asked me how that process was going.

Yes. That was at this time, around the time, that is when he started to behave irresponsibly and when he also made clear that you might have a different view, but he doesn't care very much about your views, and it's either his way or the highway, or however you would want to put that, you know.

So it had changed from a small team that was working as a team to him having set up whatever agreements in the U.K. that he didn't share with anyone. He wouldn't tell anyone in WikiLeaks what the agreements precisely were, who was actually involved, what kind of other people he was working with in Sweden or the U.K., and I don't know all of that.

And it just really got abusive, to a point where if you criticized it, he started to threaten people. And he was saying that, I don't know, leadership should not be challenged in times of crisis, and all sorts of really just unacceptable stuff like this, especially in times of crisis, where leadership has to be challenged.

It was just so wrong, you know. It developed in a direction where I and others had become part of something that we didn't understand anymore. And if you're speaking about these publications, then that's just something that doesn't feel too good if you don't understand that publication.

I can go on. I've got quotes of other acquaintances calling JA out for lies, like Tangerine Bolen when JA made like Team Trump re Carter Page and tried to act like he barely knew Sigurdur Thordarson. Threats he's made to reveal details about associate's sex lives.

Here's how James Ball, former in-house investigative reporter for WikiLeaks, describes Assange's relationship with the truth:

What’s often underestimated is his gift for bull#. Assange can, and does, routinely tell obvious lies: WikiLeaks has deep and involved procedures; WikiLeaks was founded by a group of 12 activists, primarily from China; Israel Shamir never had cables; we have received information that [insert name of WikiLeaks critic] has ties to US intelligence.

And once you realize that JA is a liar and a savvy manipulator, then you really have to wonder if he's not himself a sociopath, considering how he's fomented Seth Rich conspiracies.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Why is it the "bigger news?" The WL inner circle is lucky to know what's going on in WL, you think he'd broadcast something like that to a Twitter support group?

originally posted by: Gothmog
You still searching for anything , no matter how much of a stretch of the imagination , that may show Hillary Clinton is anything other than Hillary Clinton ?
Give it up..

This isn't about Hillary Clinton. You care 1000x more about Hillary Clinton than I'm even capable of.

And? Is Assange not allowed to have preferences? Is he some sort of robot?