Proof that DNC manufactured the Russian controversy in June 2016

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Really??? I could swear they were our enemies for a long time actually. We had a whole Cold War and everything. Or haven't you heard???

You mean that thing that ended in 89? Gee, that's been almost 30 years ago.

Funny thing is, Japan and Germany were allies quicker than thirty years after battle and they actually killed a lot of our men.

originally posted by: PepeTalk
a reply to: Pyle

K

My god you are exactly like all the /r/the_donald users i have had the displeasure of coming across on reddit. Completely shutdown when you get factual info that directly contradicts your worldview.

In the end did it really change anything? Take Oregon, an extremely liberal state that 30% of the population didn't vote because they "hated" both Hillary and Trump. Apply this across the country and people just do not like Hillary no matter what the media or Hollywood suggests.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Pyle

Which is why people/orgs. hack things, to find info they cant get otherwise.

You think this is a better theory than an insider who knows the DNC is corrupt and your candidate is getting screwed? After Watergate neither the Republicans or Democrats would touch this.... The other theory is the DNC is extremely ignorant to network security, and after Hillary's ordeal I might believe this, but no I don't think so.

Could this all be a smoke screen to the real issue...THAT THE DNC FIXED THE ELECTIONS IN HILLARY"S FAVOR!! lol

Person A wants info on Person B. Person A has the ablity to hack a computer system of Person B and leave a small trail that is hard to trace and may not be noticed at all or until much later after the hack.

OR

Person A can hope for a disgruntled person that may not exist to release information to a random third party that in turn releases the information instead of just sitting on it.

Which route would you take if you really wanted information on Person B?

a reply to: Pyle

Is that what you're getting out of this? hahaha

You win. Your facts are too overwhelming

originally posted by: Pyle

Person A can hope for a disgruntled person that may not exist to release information to a random third party that in turn releases the information instead of just sitting on it.

Which route would you take if you really wanted information on Person B?

There is no hope here...the fact that the DNC screwed over Bernie is real...That is the part you are missing. 40+ percent of the DNC base was going in Bernie's direction, Hillary was under attack to lose. They fixed it plan and simple while you still had a large Bernie base that wasn't every happy about it. It took one salty insider to open it all up for the world to see.

Alex.. I'll go with B...lol

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Pyle

Person A can hope for a disgruntled person that may not exist to release information to a random third party that in turn releases the information instead of just sitting on it.

Which route would you take if you really wanted information on Person B?

There is no hope here...the fact that the DNC screwed over Bernie is real...That is the part you are missing. 40+ percent of the DNC base was going in Bernie's direction, Hillary was under attack to lose. They fixed it plan and simple while you still had a large Bernie base that wasn't every happy about it. It took one salty insider to open it all up for the world to see.

Alex.. I'll go with B...lol

So you would wait and hope that a person would leak the info out to someone that would release the inforamtion? When you could just get it first hand?

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Pyle

You want me to download junk from the_donald? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Sorry about that...

No, the source you would download the files from would be wikileaks, the same place I just got them from.

Primary and objectively verifiable source material?

Dafuq outta here wit dat.

We only accept 3rd and 4th hand information reported through anonymous sources continually parroted by newspapers with questionable ownership ties to intelligence agencies that have been shown to act in their own self interests rather than that of our nation.

I thought you knew that?

originally posted by: Pyle

So you would wait and hope that a person would leak the info out to someone that would release the inforamtion? When you could just get it first hand?

Who is waiting and hoping? Did you not read my post? I said hope wasn't apart of it. Get what first hand? They didn't know to make a call to get it or not...lol

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Primary and objectively verifiable source material?

Dafuq outta here wit dat.

No kidding eh?

It gets better, this information is actually wikileaks approved, they have tweeted to a page containing much the same information previously.

These secrets are all hiding in plain sight.

Lets get them to the forefront and spread the word.

Guccifer 2.0 is not Russian or Romanian, it is the DNC themselves.



Tweet

Guccifer 2.0: Game Over

Metadata suggests it took only 30 minutes to go from a DNC tech/data strategy consultant creating documents to Guccifer2.0 tainting them - all occurring on a date that Guccifer2.0 claimed to be after he was locked out of the DNC Network - occurring on the same day that Guccifer2.0 emerged.

Data found deeper in files now also demonstrates there was a misdirection effort, that, in its larger scope - seems to have been intended to discredit leaks by having leaks blamed on Russian hackers

Link

a reply to: D8Tee
Huffpost published an article earlier.

They crossed that line that isn't supposed to be crossed, will be interesting to see if there is a reaction.HuffPost

If you have a problem with this sentiment, yet eagerly await Louise Mensch’s latest breakthrough on hearsay about Trump, then you’re open to circumstantial evidence; just not on topics that don’t bolster your political bias.

In addition, Kim Dotcom isn’t willing to provide merely hearsay or circumstantial evidence, but has spoken to a legal team and is ready to testify under oath.

Why is this blasphemy to CNN and The Washington Post? What are they afraid of?

A true conspiracy theory is the belief that a botched robbery with little evidence surrounding the case should remain shrouded with questions, without any chance at further evidence.

America, and in my humble view anyone who wants more information on Seth Rich’s death, has nothing to lose and everything to gain from Kim Dotcom testifying in Congress under oath.

a reply to: D8Tee

You know that is the exact same BS the_donald said right? Your tweet with links g-2 is the same thing claimed by the_donald poster.

The posts all ignore one glaring detail. Guccifer 2.0 is lying his ass off to cover the real source by throwing people of the trail. The meta data changed after they were removed from the DNC servers and edited on the system of the hackers.

it sure does make me smile to see those who cry, "you attack the source and don't even talk about the information" when fake news is posted, but when something like this, with evidence is posted, the same idiots attack the source and disregard the information. Irony seems better on Saturdays.

a reply to: D8Tee

Hillary Clinton Cannot Be Stopped Why her victory over Bernie Sanders is inevitable. - January 24, 2016 12:00 pm

For the second time in eight years, Hillary Clinton sees the Democratic nomination being pawed by a charming interloper, like a priceless vase grabbed by a panda. She’d prefer to shoot the panda, but that could mean breaking the vase, and onlookers would object. To make matters worse, Bernie Sanders, who leads Clinton in both New Hampshire and Iowa, has produced a new video ad, “America,” a wordless feel-hope montage that is awfully good, good enough that I can’t help feeling both moved by it and resentful that it works on me. Maybe shoot the panda.

Click for remainder of article...

The info above came from reddit.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Really??? I could swear they were our enemies for a long time actually. We had a whole Cold War and everything. Or haven't you heard???

Are you sure?

"Gov. Romney, I'm glad that you recognize that al-Qaida is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what's the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not al-Qaida. You said Russia ... the 1980s, they're now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War's been over for 20 years," Obama said.

"On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space," Obama was heard telling Medvedev, apparently referring to incoming Russian president Vladi­mir Putin.

"Yeah, I understand," Medvedev replied.

Obama interjected, saying, "This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility."

Let's not forget Hillary, Russia is our ally.

"If you take a look at the world today, we have a lot of problems that are not leftovers from the past, but are of the moment," Clinton said, pointing to Iran and its suspected nuclear development program as an example. "In many of the areas where we are working to solve problems, Russia has been an ally."

"Romney acts like he thinks the Cold War's still on, Russia is still our major adversary. I don't know where he's been," Biden said on the CBS program "Face the Nation."

The vice president pointed to Russia's cooperation in transmitting material to troops in Afghanistan, as well as its participation in sanctions against Iran.

"This is not 1956," he added.

Kerry suggested Romney was getting his foreign policy advice from a movie. “Mitt Romney talks like he’s only seen Russia by watching ‘Rocky IV’,” Kerry said.

The NYT even jumped in.

Two decades after the end of the cold war, Mitt Romney still considers Russia to be America’s “No. 1 geopolitical foe.” His comments display either a shocking lack of knowledge about international affairs or just craven politics. Either way, they are reckless and unworthy of a major presidential contender.

a reply to: D8Tee

Glad to see you caught the link and made a thread with the info . Smoking gun ...maybe ...The final nail in the Russians did it coffin ...we can hope

originally posted by: D8Tee
You would say that..

The question is, do you know about metadata embedded in files?

For anyone, have you tried to duplicate the metadata from Guicfer II's wordpress site? I remember when they first came out the left was warning people not to download it...wonder why? If it can be duplicated, it's hard to dispute especially if the metadata shows "corrected" files given to media.

Simple enough to test and they show you what to look for.

Has anyone done the looking up the metadata?

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Pyle
I wouldnt Trust /r/the_donald ,AT ALL, EVER, FOR ANYTHING.

But you blindly trust WaPo, NYT, and CNN?

CNN pointed out the FACTS, people pleading the 5th, Memos not being turned over at deadline, don himself invited the Russians to hack the election.

originally posted by: kurthall

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Pyle
I wouldnt Trust /r/the_donald ,AT ALL, EVER, FOR ANYTHING.

But you blindly trust WaPo, NYT, and CNN?

CNN pointed out the FACTS, people pleading the 5th, Memos not being turned over at deadline, don himself invited the Russians to hack the election.

Yeah the FACT that wikileaks was all lies and unfounded ... and then fired their employee because of info gained from wikileaks.

CNN is the worst fake news there is.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
CNN is the worst fake news there is.

I agree.

CNN is absolutely horrific at generating "FAKE NEWS"