Wikileaks Drops Bombshell Cia Provided Podesta Emails To Wikileaks Not Russia! [video]

No one mentions that Podesta left his iPhone in a cab and had his iCloud account compromised. He literally used passw0rd as his password. This breach was posted in realtime on 4chan /pol.

Ooh snap.

Way to go CIA, moving up in the world. Thank you.

♡ For new American / Russian friendship. May we not push for World War III. President Elect will not only make America great again, but the world.

a reply to: DonInHtown

can I get link?

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: seasonal

Unnamed sources. I see. Sounds totally legit.

When were the "Russian hacker" sources ever named or proven?

I must have missed that.

Yeah, just you and the rest of the entire planet.

It was done by the CIA, and then not knowing who the leak was, the DNC used the leak as a pathetic electioneering ploy against the dreaded Russians, and why not, they'd just spent the last couple of years trying to sell Russia down the river at every opportunity they could think of...the Russians were the perfect scapegoat.

Inwardly though, they must have been at their wit's end wondering who was really responsible...and now they know.

originally posted by: chuckk
a reply to: seasonal

If you had listened to Steve Pieczenik on Alex Jone's Infowars five weeks ago, you would of known NSA gave this info to Wikileaks due to the extensive problems with Hillary messing with the safety of the USA.

Inforwars is the best source of factual info. Roger Stone was also several weeks ahead with information.

Thank you. Somebody had to say it.

Infowars does go over the top a bit at times, trying to make their reporting more entertaining, but when they are dead serious, they are usually bang on. Their sources, including Roger Stone, are very often quite valuable insiders, whistleblowers, and people with a working brain in general. And Alex Jones has got to be the hardest working man in news media. He's on a mission with a passion I've yet to see in anyone else. I never understood the bias against Infowars here on ATS.

soulwaxer

a reply to: seasonal

Nothing new here.. However it does show just how much Clinton is hated, and rightfully so.

and so the deciphing US politics are falling in the ditch they made themself....

lets hear no moore ` blame Russia for this and that `
couse its an scam to do so....!

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: seasonal

Nothing new here.. However it does show just how much Clinton is hated, and rightfully so.

Doesn't it concern you that elements within our military usurped our democracy?

Not only that, but worked with an enemy of the state (Assange) to do so. Was Wikileaks aware that they were working with said usurpers?

With the end result being a Donald Trump presidency, this whole things feels like a grand Psyop.

Obama came out of the shadows 8 years ago and no one heard of him at a time Americans were desperate for change. Ending the wars of aggression, closing Gitmo, etc, you know....the "Change we could believe in".

Eight years later here we are with the same evils abound. People are of course disenchanted by Obama and yet again we are sold on an "outsider". Now he stuffs his cabinet with the who's who of conservative war hawks.

Hilary should have known she was being used as the "bad cop" because historically speaking no party wins 3 terms. Who's the real pied piper in this story?

I wonder what they're going to try next in 4/8 years to herd our thoughts this way or that.....

Clinton being president would have been a perpetuation of the neoliberal slide towards neofascism and I opposed her presidency like many here. I also opposed and criticized her email scandal and - most pertinently - the Clinton Foundation machanations it revealed.

That said...

If true... why is it automatically alright for our intelligence bureau to be interfering in domestic elections, now? Everyone's just... fine with this? Really? The CIA? On ATS? Is being praised? For apparently interfering in a democratic election process? Isn't that something we generally call a conspiracy and frown upon? Now they're heroes, though?

I didn't want Clinton to win, either. I can't say anything about her that hasn't already been said a million times. But... the enemy of my enemy is not my friend. That's not how things work. That's a dangerous precedent to overlook. The ends do not justify the means. The CIA isn't non-corrupt or non-dangerous or non-shady now just because they worked against the candidate we dislike. This should be deeply disturbing if true in my opinion. Whether you loathed Clinton or supported her.

Peace.

a reply to: AceWombat04

The security services interferring with domestic elections is of course a serious issue, and one that has serious implications down the road...but, the desicion to interfere may well have been the lesser of two evils and so was sanctioned.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: AceWombat04

...but, the desicion to interfere may well have been the lesser of two evils and so was sanctioned.

As much as id like to consider my government benevolent in its decisions, its track record is less than wanting.

You were presented with two candidates for President. Neither of which the American people wanted which in itself should be suspect. One hand you are presented with the poster child of establishment cronyism and the other a loud mouthed billionaire with seemingly zero ties to government. Can you find a more polarizing situation? 3 card monty.

we blinked.

a reply to: seasonal

The source is Infowars, meaning the story is as reliable as the one that citizens were going to be rounded up and put in concentration camps in 2007... 2008... 2009... 2010... 2011... 2012... 2013... 2014... 2015... 2016... next year,,,,

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me one hundred times....

originally posted by: seasonal
This is backed up by British Ambassador Craig Murray.

Craig Murray is not a British Ambassador. He was sacked from his post in Uzbekistan 12 years ago.

Anyway, I can't see any mention of it on his website - where exactly did he confirm it?

originally posted by: FatherLukeDuke

originally posted by: seasonal
This is backed up by British Ambassador Craig Murray.

Craig Murray is not a British Ambassador. He was sacked from his post in Uzbekistan 12 years ago.

Anyway, I can't see any mention of it on his website - where exactly did he confirm it?

Don't ruin a good Infowars story with facts. (ATS should probably charge them for bandwidth if they are going to use posts here to drive traffic to their site. Just saying....)

a reply to: Rosinitiate

What concerns me is the CIA had to do it instead of the Attorney General and FBI director. What concerns me is how the Democrats cry "rigged election" yet had no issues with a rigged primary. What worries me is how segments of the population are ok with elected officials / those wanting to be elected officials are held to a different standard than the rank and file people.

Given the choices this year I want something different than another Clinton or Bush in the white house. I want someone who won't go on an apology tour. I want someone who wont sell the US out to the highest bidder.

The Democrats had their chance and fell like blue ice from an airplane.

Time to give someone else a chance.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: seasonal

Unnamed sources. I see. Sounds totally legit.

Tops your no sources posts

WW3 avoided , Clinton and Obama to fade into the dark shadows of history

a reply to: Xcathdra

What concerns me is the CIA had to do it instead of the Attorney General and FBI director.

The story is from Infowars; the CIA did not do it. What's more, there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing in the Podesta emails, only slightly dirty politics. Remember, Sanders is not even a Democrat.

a reply to: MysterX

Except the "security forces" didn't mess with an election, it dropped information informing the American Public and then the American Public voted.

a reply to: Floridagoat

Except the "security forces" didn't mess with an election, it dropped information informing the American Public and then the American Public voted.

America does not have "security forces" like Britain and Israel. CIA gathers foreign intelligence. It would be illegal for them to hack Podesta's emails and the FBI would cry foul over the turf violation. This story is an unsourced piece of tripe from Infowars and needs to be moved to the Skunk Works, if not [HOAX!].