WikiLeaks

Thoughts on WikiLeaks?

Hero or traitors?

I find them to be non-partisan. The Left loved them when Bush was in office and they reported on NSA. Now the Left hates them because they are showing the corruption in the DNC (ousting Bernie, Hillary emails, etc).

Yesterday Ecuador shut off their internet access. However, Assange has contingency plans in case he's killed (very real possibility, as Hillary asked if they can Drone him once before). Yesterday he started the contingency (you can read here: http://www.allenbwest.com/michellejesse/gag-order-wikileaks-reveals-trying-silence-assange ).

As these emails come out, I find the media ignoring it, which shouldn't surprise me, but it does.

Anyway, I thought I"d start a thread to post WikiLeaks articles, leaked emails, video's, and get everyone's thoughts on them.

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiLeaks/

Having followed Wikileaks for the past couple months, I'm shocked at the amount of stuff they've uncovered. I'm reading one article and I'm thinking to myself, "this can't be real" and it's from FBI.GOV.

 

I don't even know what to say about this stuff anymore. Some of it actually makes her look more "Republican" to be honest, but there is a ton of stuff in there that is beyond the pale. I don't even think I'm angry anymore. It's just depressing. It's depressing because the closer we get to the election and the more of this stuff that comes out, the more people are starting to talk like she is actually a GOOD candidate. I mean, a few months ago people that were voting for Hillary were doing so because Trump was that much worse. but somewhere the narrative changed and now people are talking like she is going to be good?

The media is in one party's back pocket to the point where it borders on state run media. Our country is uneducated and morally bankrupt enough that they can't see through blatant lies even when they are shown in black and white (Wikileaks) the truth. I own one gun, but with the way things are rolling, my wife and I both are thinking seriously about buying more...lots more STRICTLY for protection. I see no way this ends peacefully at this point. This is the end of America as a power, as a free country. When we can look at facts, words straight from the horses mouth about how they are outright lying to the American people, and the supporters aren't batting an eye at it, the country is past the point of no return.

 

^^^ great point: stock up.

 

Revolution my man. It's on its way.

Although I will say that I think in moments of reflection the majority of Hillary supporters know she's a bad person and a bad candidate. But when the media is flooding you with anti-Trump propaganda (even if it's truthful), people tend to lose sight.

I haven't given up faith in the American people. They've just been blinded and had a fog thrown over their eyes. The only good thing that Trump has done as a candidate is drive forward the truth about American politics and how seedy it actually is. How demented and how awful it actually is.

 

I have.

 

I have given up on a certain type of American. I know there is a huge contingency that is still OK, but I believe we will end up two countries eventually. There is way too much animosity and polar opposite views of how this country should be ran.

 

Any last shred of confidence I had in the American voters ended when they waltzed Obama in to a second term. I gave everyone a pass on his first term because he was largely an unknown commodity. But, the second time around it should have been blatantly obvious.

The problem this time, of course, is that we are choosing between Mr. Ridiculous and Mrs. Devious. I won't be able to blame anyone for how they vote this election.

Oh, and on topic: I have not read any of the WikiLeaks dumps but I am enjoying reading the summaries.

 

Actually I disagree. I think the narrative is that there's massive conflict, but in reality the vast majority of the population are moderate.

The only thing that needs to change is the political structure. Change out the old guard for a new and the system can start to hum again. Easier said than done, I know, but that's the truth.

 

I actually agree with that. I DO think it's closer, but the narrative is what people believe. I've said before (I think on this board) that the media is to blame for so much of our problems with their screaming talking heads. Because of MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, etc. the narrative becomes the reality. Nobody bothers to actually consider they are being lied to by the media of their choosing (Democrats with MSNBC and Republicans with Fox). Democrats believe the Republicans want to re-institute slavery and kick all women out of the workforce, so the Democrats will dig their heels in with equally preposterous stances. And of course Republicans believe the Democrats want all jobs to become government jobs, we will be forced to marry people of the same sex and of course expectant mothers will have babies ripped from their wombs...I mean, does either side think this? No. Are we all much closer than we think? Absolutely. But our "news sources" will continue to throw gasoline on the fire until it becomes an inferno.

 

I agree with you, but that's why I still have some faith. I think once people sit back and realize that and get a dialogue going they can actually learn and grow and move away from this extremist society we're living in right now.

I have to believe this is temporary or I'd have already left the US.

 

Wikileaks has emails from Obama. They've released some (nothing major) from early in his presidency.

They sent a tweet today saying they have a surprise for Kaine and Brazile. I'm assuming they have their emails too.

Obama said he'd have the most transparent administration in history. He's getting it. Not by his choice, but he's getting it.

 

In an email to Clinton campaign chair John Podesta from February 2016, released Friday by WikiLeaks, now-acting chair of the Democratic National Committee Donna Brazile gave a frank and honest assessment of the Obama economy — it wasn’t good.

“I think people are more in despair about how things are—yes new jobs but they are low wage jobs,” she admits. “HOUSING is a huge issue. Most people pay half of what they make to rent,” she continued.

 

"I will be another 4 years of Obama" - Hillary Clinton.

 

And it will be only 4 years. If she's elected, our relations with Russia and the Middle East will worsen, and our economy will likely hit another recession during her term (which wouldn't be her fault, it's just due). There's a reason the Republicans are distancing themselves from Trump. They'd rather retreat and lose this little battle rather than let Trump get into the White House and do irreparable damage to the party. Granted, I would argue the damage has been done.

 

Months before Hillary Clinton officially announced her bid for the presidency, the Rothschild family was hard at work helping craft her future economic policy.

As Wikileaks reveals in the ongoing hugely-damaging release of John Podesta’s files, Lynn Forester de Rothschild, who maintains an incredibly cozy personal relationship with the Clintons, was already forming Hillary’s economic policy in January 2015 — long before the former secretary of state announced her candidacy.

On January 7, 2015, Lady Rothschild wrote to top Clinton aide, Cheryl Mills, under the subject heading “FW: Elizabeth Warren”:

“I think this blog overstates what Warren was doing, but we need to craft the economic message for Hillary so that Warren’s common inaccurate conclusions are addressed. Xoxo Lynn.”

In the blog Rothschild refers to, Warren attacks Clinton’s close association with Big Banks and Wall Street, by highlighting how enormous free trade deals and banking deregulation line the wallets of the elite at the expense of the working class.

Rothschild’s brief message tells of the upcoming predictably negative public perception Clinton would incur for her fealty to bankers — as clearly evidenced in thetranscripts of highly-paid speeches for Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and others — also recently released by WikiLeaks.

Of course, the irony of both Lady Rothschild’s concern and her heralding the “need to craft” Hillary’s “economic message” cannot be overstated.

Heading an elite global banking empire, the notorious — or, more aptly, nefarious — Rothschild family collectively shapes the planet’s economic and, thus, political policies. Lynn Forester de Rothschild, who marriedbillionaire financier Sir Evelyn de Rothschild in 2000, plays prominently throughout Clinton’s political career — including her tenure at the State Department.

In fact, it could easily be argued Clinton’s Big Bank loyalty more accurately lies specifically with the Rothschild family.

Wikileaks’ previous release of Hillary Clinton’s emails disclosed an April 2010 exchange in which Rothschild tells Clinton under the subject heading “Miss you” that she “would love to catch up” and “I remain your loyal adoring pal.”Clinton responds in kind, “let’s make that happen,” and signs off, “Much love, H.”

Then in September 2010, Clinton messagedRothschild, “I was trying to reach you to tell you and Teddy that I asked Tony Blair to go to Israel as part of our full court press on keeping the Middle East negotiations going.” She also asks, “Let me know what penance I owe you.”

Rothschild thanks Clinton for “personally reaching out to us,” and notes, “You are the best, and we remain your biggest fans. Sweet dreams and Godspeed with everything you are doing.”

In January 2012, Clinton emailed aides, reminding them about an upcoming “conference in England about climate change … sponsored by Jacob Rothschild at his historic estate, Waddesdon.”

And the Rothschild influence obviously continues — on May 12 this year, Clinton showed her true colors by attending a$100,000-per-plate fundraising dinner hosted by none other than Lynn Forester de Rothschild.

Despite their insidious and overwhelming influence in global geopolitics and finance, the Rothschild dynasty manages to shield themselves from public scrutiny — an estimated trillion-dollar fortune makes such evasion simple. When snippets of their intimate relationships with the political and financial elite do surface, it only adds to the all-but-proven theory the Rothschilds essentially rule the globe through puppet politicians.

Considering Lynn Forester de Rothschild’s apparent hand in potential President Hillary Clinton’s economic policy, such theories don’t appear so far from the truth — and only furtherprove the United States has strayed from its democratically-based roots to become a banking and corporate plutocracy.

 

But Trump is the one whose loyalties can be bought. Not Hillary.

Or so the media would have you believe.

A novice debater should have been able to destroy Clinton on the stage. Trump's lack of intelligence bit him in the a** the way we all knew it would.

 

Pay for Play

Just hours after Hillary Clinton dodged a question at the final presidential debate about charges of "pay to play" at the Clinton Foundation, a new batch of WikiLeaks emails surfaced with stunning charges that the candidate herself was at the center of negotiating a $12 million commitment from King Mohammed VI of Morocco.

One of the more remarkable parts of the charge is that the allegation came from Clinton's loyal aide, Huma Abedin, who described the connection in a January 2015 email exchange with two top advisers to the candidate, John Podesta and Robby Mook.

Abedin wrote that "this was HRC's idea" for her to speak at a meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative in Morocco in May 2015 as an explicit condition for the $12 million commitment from the king.

"She created this mess and she knows it," Abedin wrote to Podesta and Mook.

The "mess" refers in part to the fact that the three Clinton advisers were discussing the possibility of the former secretary of state pulling out of speaking at the May 2015 event because it was happening one month after the official launch of her presidential campaign and could raise more questions about her role at the foundation.

In April 2015, Politico reported the Clinton Foundation was accepting a "major donation" of at least $1 million from a Moroccan government-owned company, OCP, a phosphate exporter. Politico added that an official at the foundation said it was "unlikely" Hillary would attend the May 2015 event, just weeks after the April launch of her campaign.

It turns out the amount was far bigger -- $12 million -- and there was a far bigger struggle over whether Clinton would attend because she had a much more extensive role in lining up the money than the public ever knew.

In January 2015, Mook indicated Clinton was still considering whether to attend the event, even though her advisers clearly seemed to be concerned about the appearance of such heavy involvement in the foundation amid questions about its fundraising.

With the subject line, "FYI CGI Africa," Mook sent an email to Podesta and Abedin on January 18, 2015.

"Came up on our call with HRC," wrote Mook. "John flagged the same issues we discussed, Huma. HRC said she's sitll(sic)considering."

Abedin wrote back later that day, and suggested the King would be furious if Clinton pulled out of the event.

"Just to give you some context, the condition upon which the Moroccans agreed to host the meeting was her participation," Abedin wrote. "If hrc was not part if(sic) it, meeting was a non-starter."

Abedin added that CGI had not even come up with the idea to hold the event in Morocco, instead it was generated by Clinton herself.

"This was HRC's idea, our office approached the Moroccans and they 100 percent believe they are doing this at her request," wrote Abedin. "The King has personally committed approx $12 million both for the endowment and to support the meeting."

Since Abedin was writing this in January 2015, after Clinton had already left the State Department, it is unclear if "our office" is a reference to this meeting being something that was set up years earlier while Clinton was still secretary or something that was put together by her personal office after she left the Obama administration.

"What did these donors get in return?" Charles Ortel, a philanthropy expert who has been critical of the Clinton Foundation's practices, said in an interview with Fox News. "We are scratching the surface now."

While Clinton was secretary of state, her department in 2011 charged that the Moroccan government was behind "arbitrary arrests and corruption in all branches of government."

At the final presidential debate in Las Vegas on Wednesday night, Republican nominee Donald Trump demanded Clinton give back large contributions to the foundation from countries with questionable human rights records.

"It's a criminal enterprise," Trump said. "Saudi Arabia giving $25 million, Qatar, all of these countries. You talk about women and women's rights? So these are people that push gays off business -- off buildings. These are people that kill women and treat women horribly. And yet you take their money."

Clinton did not directly answer Trump's attack, instead focusing on her own questions about Trump's foundation as well as what she billed as positive parts of the work of the Clinton Foundation.

"But I am happy, in fact I'm thrilled to talk about the Clinton Foundation, because it is a world-renowned charity and I am so proud of the work that it does," said Clinton, adding it had made it possible for 11 million people around the world with HIV-AIDS to afford treatment.

The moderator of the debate, Chris Wallace of Fox News, also pressed Clinton on the issue of donors getting favors for major contributions.

"Why isn't what happened and what went on between you and the Clinton Foundation, why isn't it what Mr. Trump calls pay to play?" asked Wallace.

"Well, everything I did as secretary of state was in furtherance of our country's interests and our values," said Clinton. "The State Department has said that. I think that's been proven."

Though in the email exchange revealed by Wikileaks, Abedin suggested Clinton initiated the solicitation of the $12 million commitment, and the aide made it clear it was going to cause a major issue with the Moroccan government if the candidate pulled out of the CGI event that ran from May 5-7 of 2015.

"It will break a lot of china to back out now when we had so many opportunities to do it in the past few months," Abedin wrote in January 2015. "She created this mess and she knows it."

Hillary Clinton did not end up attending the event, though Bill and Chelsea Clinton did go to Morocco and moderated various panel discussions.

Lanny Davis, a longtime adviser to the Clinton family, told Fox News that the Clinton Foundation helped 11 million people with AIDS, fed hungry children and said the focus should be on the fact that the Obama administration has said there are indications the government of Russian President Vladimir Putin is behind the hack of Podesta's emails.

"This is the first time we've allowed a foreign power, much less Putin, to interfere," Davis said.

Davis added that he knows that when it comes to the people who have worked at the foundation, "their hearts were in the right place." He acknowledged that any time emails like this leak, there will be "optics" problems.

"When you're in the sausage factory, it doesn't always look so good," Davis said.