I know nothing about Wikileaks

originally posted by: xuenchen
😆😆😆😆Democrats in a ferocious scramble for the bait

This guy is what happens when you get so indoctrinated into your daily Democrat vs Republican internet personality star bait nonsense that you view every post that is critical or accusatory towards the President or anything Republican related as Democrat or liberal.

Quotes with emojis says Democrats baiting to start arguments in a witty way gets stars from political fans. Excellent one liner! You could take a dump on the forum and it'd be appreciated. Carpe diem, more clout awaits elsewhere from someone who takes your bait because it offended their liberalness.

I call a spaid a spaid. You couldn't see a spaid unless outspoken people you respect and agree with call a spaid a spaid because the spaid might be someone or something you're not supposed to be critical of. I crack eggs on enemy stooges on social media to applause from politicially aligned peers. It makes me feel good about myself. *tap dances for peanuts*

J.A.'s arrest was a brilliant staged show.

There were so many layers to it.

Question the story. Just 2 examples:
Why did he (pretend to) resist?
Why was he allowed to hold the book whilst being 'dragged out of the embassy?


To be able to stage something like that takes powerful people.

I believe it all points to:
President Trump knows what's going on, but distances himself because he can't comment.

a reply to: r0xor

Looks like they put a goldfish on a hook and you've taken the bobber all the way down to the bottom 😎

The "Strategy" is in play 😎

Spaid, spade, whatever. This is political mud-put because I had nowhere else to put it so I take back part of the strong wordedness of my previous reply. Bait is a daily occurence here but I don't bait left vs right "debates". I can only assume I'd recieve a similar response in a similar thread of someone else's.

What I've seen as someone with no party affiliation since 2008 who was indifferent in 2016, even wanting Trump to win out of not thinking Hillary was fit to be President is Wikileaks being praised repeatedly and touted then this.

Trump deferred purpose to the Attorney General to suggest this is his doing, something he found. Didn't Barr only recieve a lukewarm reception because he wasn't as right as Republicans were expecting? Something about his past, that he might not have been firm enough handling the Mueller report? Could it be his Department's show? Someone not exactly favorable but with no loss, Wikileaks was no longer of any use and a liability if anything.

a reply to: r0xor



Kinda speaks for itself I think.

I sometimes wonder if he actually legitimately just runs his mouth and forgets what he says 2 minutes later.

originally posted by: dug88
I sometimes wonder if he actually legitimately just runs his mouth and forgets what he says 2 minutes later.

"Plausible deniability" done right.

a reply to: r0xor

I call a spaid a spaid

I call a "spade" a "spade".



Other than that excellent post of how ATS has become almost like twitter on steroids.

a reply to: Tartuffe

Damn, looks like you won the internet today....

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

We'll let the spelling slide in lieu of the wicked hilarious burns he dropped.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: r0xor

Looks like they put a goldfish on a hook and you've taken the bobber all the way down to the bottom 😎

The "Strategy" is in play 😎

Bring back hot smokey chick.
Hot smokey chick for president 2020!

First reply to the op literally starts off with "but Hilary" you can't make this stuff up folks.

originally posted by: Tartuffe
As per protocol, when the press submits Trump's statements to contextomy, the context is required.

Q : Mr. President, do you still love WikiLeaks?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I know nothing about WikiLeaks. It’s not my thing. And I know there is something having to do with Julian Assange. I’ve been seeing what’s happened with Assange. And that will be a determination, I would imagine, mostly by the Attorney General, who’s doing an excellent job.

So he’ll be making a determination. I know nothing really about him. It’s not my — it’s not my deal in life.

www.whitehouse.gov...

There is no contradiction between the question, his past comments, and his answer.

Right so context only matters when defending Trump, okey-dokey then(400+stars lol).
Actually, re-reading that little speech over doesn't add any context or vindicate Trump like you think it does, he says "I know nothing about Wikileaks", " Julian Assange blah blah blah", passes off responsibility to AG, reiterates "he knows nothing, it's not his thing".
Ergo, the exact point made in OP!

a reply to: r0xor

I wonder how many read it too. Especially those who were claiming there was so much incriminating information in them. When there was none.

I promise you the left will never defend him.

a reply to: IAMTAT

meaning what? Drones carry cameras dont they?

a reply to: Tartuffe

With context... still a straight up lie. And yet another example of where context doesn't help Trump whatsoever. In that paragraph alone is "I know nothing" and "I know" and "I've been seeing". So... he doesn't "know nothing", now does he. Ugh, it's like this idiot still thinks we can't just go back and watch videos of him yammering on about his "love" for wikileaks. Or any of his other litany of lies and flip-flops.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

You know in weighing the information I think the one person who should be worried about Assanges' extradition would be Roger Stone.

a reply to: blueman12

Obviously that is exactly what he plans to do. He is denying him now like Peter denied Jesus.

a reply to: vinifalou

What does telling people to break the law and not to worry about it I will pardon you later mean?
Can you tell me that? Is that something people would think was okay?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: CriticalStinker

You know in weighing the information I think the one person who should be worried about Assanges' extradition would be Roger Stone.

Maybe, I don't know what the ramifications of anything surfacing from their alleged correspondence would be aside form if Stone lied about it under oath.... I think it would depend on the content of alleged discussions.

a reply to: XAnarchistX

He's a hacker.