He didn't win ****. The USA does this international espionage and undermining governments all over the world all of the time. We're probably the most active and best at this type of stuff.
Nice try but neither Wikileaks documents nor Wikileaks itself was mentioned in that report. These are other docs. All major states do this including USA. I think we do it more often and in more places. No one including Clinton Camp, FBI, CIA, etc... has said wikileaks documents are fraudulent. In fact Clinton Camp has confirmed some of the wikileaks info. Please try harder and try not to misinform folks. That's very irresponsible.
You Ultimate Truther Warriors basing your arguments that Russia is behind all the Wikileaks. is flawed Again, FBI sources are saying it's 99% certain 5 countries hacked Hillary's e-mail account. We have no idea who hacked Podesta's e-mails.
Then it must have been Trump telling everyone the U.S. election is "rigged." The U.S. has the oldest government in the world, and America is great already, thank you very much. Trumpsters are afraid of the most successful voting system in history. Wanna grab your pitchfork or musket to overthrow the U.S. government? The boys in blue will have something for ya.
I recall the FBI report on 9/2 said they did not find evidences that her email's server was hacked. Where did you get this 99% certain from FBI sources from?
http://bbs.clutchfans.net/index.php...linton-foundation.278204/page-2#post-10750566 Point #5. Keep up man.
Podesta was stupid. He fell for that oldest trick in the book. I have this email memorized spoof@paypal.com for the number of times I've gotten requests to change my password "or else my account will be closed."
Yick. Horrible news reporting. This is why we all should be careful about "anonymous" sources and certain news station. At least he apology but you know, for some people, it wouldn't matter. If it sounds good, it doesn't matter if it's true or not. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...54/?siteID=je6NUbpObpQ-n6f7Tbz9ntAmKhkIDFNJcQ
Thank you for pointing out the horrible reporting from that post. Hopefully as Rockets fans and members of the greatest fan site there is, we will learn to rise above posting such shoddy "news" stories.
"journalist" John Harwood was allowed to moderate a GOP debate, asking Hillary's chief of staff what to ask Jeb
That story was retracted and Fox News has apologized. https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...d56f20-a2b7-11e6-8d63-3e0a660f1f04_story.html "Fox News apologizes for falsely reporting that Clinton faces indictment Fox News anchor Bret Baier apologized Friday for reporting that federal investigators had determined that Hillary Clinton’s private email server had been hacked and that an investigation would lead to an indictment of Clinton after the election. In fact, Baier said, after checking with his sources, there is no evidence at this time for either statement."
This is a look inside Wikileaks and Julian Assange from someone who was briefly with Wikileaks at the time the State Dept. cables were leaked. It explains some of Assange's mindset and why he has been going after Clinton. It's pretty long so posting a couple of select quotes but it's an interesting read in the whole. https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamesball/...lian-assange?utm_term=.dnYAQxVqpy#.ioz4kA0WgP Inside The Strange, Paranoid World Of Julian Assange The WikiLeaks founder is out to settle a score with Hillary Clinton and reassert himself as a player on the world stage, says BuzzFeed News special correspondent James Ball, who worked for Assange at WikiLeaks. To an outsider, the WikiLeaks of 2016 looks totally unrelated to the WikiLeaks of 2010. Then it was a darling of many of the liberal left, working with some of the world’s most respected newspapers and exposing the truth behind drone killing, civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq, and surveillance of top UN officials. Now it is the darling of the alt-right, revealing hacked emails seemingly to influence a presidential contest, claiming the US election is “rigged”, and descending into conspiracy. Just this week on Twitter, it described the deaths by natural causes of two of its supporters as a “bloody year for WikiLeaks”, and warned of media outlets “controlled by” members of the Rothschild family – a common anti-Semitic trope. The questions asked about the organisation and its leader are often the wrong ones: How has WikiLeaks changed so much? Is Julian Assange the catspaw of Vladimir Putin? Is WikiLeaks endorsing a president candidate who has been described as racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, and more? These questions miss a broader truth: Neither Assange nor WikiLeaks (and the two are virtually one and the same thing) have changed – the world they operate in has. WikiLeaks is in many ways the same bold, reckless, paranoid creation that once it was, but how that manifests, and who cheers it on, has changed. ... How might the US react, or overreact, this time? WikiLeaks was afraid of legal or extralegal consequences against Assange or other staff. WikiLeakers were angry at US corporations creating a financial blockade against the organisation with no court ruling or judgments – just a press statement from a US senator. And the figurehead of this whole response was none other than Hillary Clinton. For Assange, to an extent, this is personal. ... All of this is the cocktail of ingredients that produces 2016’s incarnation of WikiLeaks. Julian Assange mistrusts the US government, dislikes Hillary Clinton, and has spent years trapped in a small embassy flat in west London, in declining physical and psychological health, monitored minute-by-minute in reports filed by his wary Ecuadorian hosts. Assange would not, in my view, ever knowingly be a willing tool of the Russian state: If Putin came and gave him a set of orders, they’d be ignored. But if an anonymous or pseudonymous group came offering anti-Clinton leaks, they’d have found a host happy not to ask too many awkward questions: He’s set up almost perfectly to post them and to push for them to have the biggest impact they can."
Very telling article. I read a similar piece weeks ago. This narrative highlights the near-coincidental confluence of various historical forces and how it doesn't take much to get the fire raging is you just know where to toss the match. No grand conspiracies. Just being clever enough to dump documents to the right parties; to further inflame the right passions. Still, shame on Assange for letting himself be a tool. Sullies the reputation of a much needed organization that, on net, imo, was doing not good than harm.
Remember back when people first accused Wikileaks of being biased, and some members kept asking when have they ever been biased? Well now we know.
