Wikileaks 8 - How Long Before the New Trump Scandal of the Day?

a reply to: Ohanka

If you mean the 'money in the bank' remark, that's a well-known phrase, meaning that you have a guaranteed 'win' waiting to be collected (not necessarily electoral or monetary). It's often used to mean something similar to someone owing you a big favor.

Everyday in these new dump threads it seems someone more or less asks for a repository, well here it is:

#WikiLeaks #DNCLeaks #Podesta & FOIA Key Hillary Findings Repository Thread

I got the ball rolling halfway decent in there.

My ideal for it is just new findings linked in kind of thing.

Hillary is despicable, and she probably did pay off Bernie somehow, but that particular "money in the bank" line seems to be more in reference to political capital. The gentleman that wrote that was speaking to his kind remarks about Bernie and his supporters before he was to be officially vanquished. They knew he was in the bag and didn't want to alienate the majority of his supporters. Not that they care about them, but that they need their votes.

We all want to jump on every off kilter sounding phrase, but it can be counter productive. Think about the context first, then jump.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss



Yep! This clip so nails it. We called it when Bernie suddenly got his lake house.

Given that most of these leaks amount to nothing but Breitbart clickbait, they're hardly worth the effort it would take to manufacture an artificial scandal involving Trump.

That's not to say the Clintons wouldn't do it anyway... you know, for fun.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: Perjury
i would upload this, but im not unblocking ads

so..i.imgur.com...

bernie paid off by the dnc

DAMN!

I wasn't hardly tuned into the election back during his era but someone who was and is more familiar with the twists & turns of that story should frame it around this wikileak. Killer thread material.

I know right, flattery can get you far. I am surprised they think Sanders and Co would feel the need to reciprocate later after the primary.

originally posted by: six67seven
a reply to: ketsuko

The Clintons dont need another accuser, because the media is complicit / working with or for Hillary.

MSM has indeed failed this nation.

They are complicit and compliant for Godmother Hillary, but the public is starting to smell a rat. The same lack of common sense that caused Hillary to become a careless crook, is the same lack of common sense that's making Hillary's campaign overplay their "Trump the Groper" hand.. which is nothing more than a bluff, meant for distracting.

If Hillary's team were brighter, they'd now produce a woman with a "stained" blue dress, after having the DNA certified as authentic at Chelsea's medical center/apartment in Manhattan.

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: Perjury
i would upload this, but im not unblocking ads

so..i.imgur.com...

bernie paid off by the dnc

DAMN!

I wasn't hardly tuned into the election back during his era but someone who was and is more familiar with the twists & turns of that story should frame it around this wikileak. Killer thread material.

I know right, flattery can get you far. I am surprised they think Sanders and Co would feel the need to reciprocate later after the primary.

Hillary's campaign didn't "think" Bernie would reciprocate and help her campaign. Hillary's campaign KNEW he would, after making threats to the love of his life, Bernie's wife, Jane.

Julian Assange says Bernie's wife physically threatened: conservativedailypost.com...

a reply to: ketsuko

I don't think it matters any more.

The media doesn't even hide the fact that they are complicit and invested in Hillary winning.

Her supporters are so convinced that Trump is worse, that they'd vote for Hillary regardless.

The electoral college has probably been paid off in key states to insure a Hillary win.

Sorry, but that's the way I see it.

a reply to: carewemust

Is this the quote you mean?

JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, you’re asking me, do I prefer cholera or gonorrhea? Personally, I would prefer neither. Look, I think—you know, we know how politics works in the United States. Whoever—whatever political party gets into government is going to merge with the bureaucracy pretty damn fast. It will be in a position where it has some levers in its hand. And so, as a result, corporate lobbyists will move in to help control those levers. So it doesn’t make much difference in the end. What does make a difference is political accountability, a general deterrence set to stop political organizations behaving in a corrupt manner. That can make a difference, because that changes the perception of what you can do or not do. And so, always—well, almost always, you should choose the principled position, which is to set a disciplinary signal about acting in a corrupt way, and take a philosophical position, which is our institutions can only be as good as our understanding of our institutions.

Quote Source from Interview

But the source you posted changed it to say this

“Look, I think—you know, we know how politics works in the United States. Whoever—whatever political party gets into government is going to merge with the bureaucracy pretty damn fast. It will be in a position where it has some levers in its hand. And Bernie Sanders was independent candidate trying to get the nomination through the Democratic Party and if you ask me he did get the nomination, but he was threatened to drop out.”

Odd

a reply to: Pyle


Thanks for pointing out that there are conflicting stories about this. Bernie has never DENIED it, even with lots of opportunities to do so while tepidly campaigning for Hillary.

But on the other hand, IF Assange did say that Bernie had been threatened, he must have seen some document in the Wikileak "pending release to public" hopper. There are still a great many thousands of documents to come.

a reply to: carewemust

So because Sanders has not denied a fabricated story, its still a possibility?

originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: carewemust

So because Sanders has not denied a fabricated story, its still a possibility?

Since various forms of the "Sanders Threatened" or "Sander's Wife Threatened" stories are out there, it's likey that Bernie has received lots of e-mail from his supporters asking if it were true. Bernie could EASILY set the record straight, which would put an end to much of the mistrust that many of his followers have for Hillary.

a reply to: carewemust

And I just showed that the stories are bunk. They all use the altered quote and I found this in a min of research.

originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: carewemust

And I just showed that the stories are bunk. They all use the altered quote and I found this in a min of research.

Understood. However, some of Bernie's supporters aren't as inquisitive as you are, Pyle. But, they listen to what he says. I had believed that "Bernie threatened" story to be true for 2 months, until you pointed out tonight that it is false.