Printable View
https://www.rt.com/usa/352710-wikile...hillary-email/
That's no surprise...Quote:
Nearly 20,000 emails and more than 8,000 attachments from the Democratic National Committee [[DNC) have been released by WikiLeaks. Many of the emails indicate that top DNC officials were hostile to the Bernie Sanders campaign.
Wasserman Schultz resigning as party leaderI find it hard to imagine Bernie committing such acts had the situation been reversed.Quote:
Debbie Wasserman Schultz announced Sunday she is stepping down as chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee at the end of the party's convention, which is set to begin here Monday.
The Florida congresswoman's resignation -- under pressure from top Democrats -- comes amid the release of leaked emails showing DNC staffers favoring Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders in the party's 2016 primary contest....
Did Anonymous have any role in the leak?
Wow..Does this mean the Dems are as dishonest as the Republicans??
I don't think so. It was supposedly either Guccifer 2.0 or the Russians who did the hacking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimaz
Saw on the news some of Bernie's supporters will not go quietly into the night. They feel betrayed and rightly so.
Trump's buddy Putin, at work? Just a joke, I think.
Good riddance to Wasserman-Schultz and thanks for her falling on her sword. Her actions have damaged the party but in this fast spin news cycle age they will be overwhelmed and soon forgotten. It also happened on a day when are 2/3 of superdelegates have been eliminated, another good move.
However it does not change the fact that Bernie would not have won now matter how one spins it.
In the one thing that really counts, real votes by real people at polls, Hillary wins by 12.4 points 55.4 to 43%. Not even close and by nearly 4 million votes. By historic election standards that is a landslide - 4 points more than the Reagan-Mondale landslide where Mondale only won his home state of MN.
Thankfully Bernie knows this and that is one of the many reasons why he says he is voting for Hillary. That and he has gotten large portions of his agenda on the platform and now he can add Debbie's scalp.
Lowell, the people investigating election fraud think he did win. There were problems in at least 11 states.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowell
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/ele...on-nomination/
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/04/hillary-cheated/
Debunking the popular vote stats:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-ka...b_9972312.html
After doing some more reading, they don't know who did the hack. Blaming the Russians was getting traction in the mainstream media though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobl
An unnamed Democrat source leaked to the Media that the Russians did it and when they heard it reported on CNN they knew it was true. After all, CNN would not report anything that they couldn't check out and If they say it often enough it become true anyway because there's no proof it, ergo, it doesn't need checking out. [[CNN/Dem. logic).
It was probably your buddy Snowden. They're not going to let him live high on the hog if he ain't useful.Quote:
Originally Posted by coracle
Got a spare 200K? You can have dinner with Shillary!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXk4E_LS33Q
Why Assange has gleefully talking about "more emails", proves he is not using Wiki leaks for the greater good, but for his own agenda...
Anything on the RNC?
Could be. Could be he's also informing the populace what a POS has been strongarmed into the Democratic nomination. Personally, I'm glad the e-mails have been released. It gives a wonderful insight into how the public is being spoon fed bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigers77
Assange was on the Bill Maher show and Bill asked him why they didn't put out anything on Trump and he said "we're trying". Whether or not he has an agenda doesn't excuse the wrong doing of the DNC.
Wikileaks offers reward for help finding DNC staffer's killer, prompting speculation that he was the source of the leak.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...d78_story.html
Julian Assange of Wikileaks interview regarding murdered DNC staffer. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016...-shot-dead-dc/
The Snopes article regarding the Seth Rich incident http://www.snopes.com/seth-conrad-rich/.
If one bothers to read it, the most revealing elements are towards the end that sum up that matters regarding Seth Rich, the very alive and well hacker Guccifer, and John Ashe were distorted and sensationalized by a very fraudulent source:
A common thread between the three rumors was a blogger known by the nom de plume “Sorcha Faal.” RationalWiki describes Faal’s WhatDoesItMean.com conspiracy site as “sensational” and “outrageous”:
Sorcha Faal is the alleged author of an ongoing series of “reports” published at WhatDoesItMean.com, whose work is of such quality that even other conspiracy nutters don’t think much of it.While it’s true police maintain an open investigation into Seth Rich’s death, the claim connecting him to Hillary Clinton was the third of its sort to emerge from the same conspiracy-monger in mid-2016. All those rumors were variations on the long-circulating [[and false) “body bags” claims that the Clintons habitually do away with once-loyal associates turned political liabilities. Prior to publishing the trio of Clinton-related fabrications, the same site and blogger held that President Obama had ordered the military to nuke the city of Charleston [[which didn’t happen), that Rear Admiral Rick Williams was fired because he revealed Obama’s purchase of a mansion in Dubai [[Williams was actually terminated for misconduct), and that Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama were enmeshed in a potentially conflict-starting dispute over the practices of the Monsanto agribusiness corporation.
Each report resembles a news story in its style but usually includes a sensational headline barely related to reality and quotes authoritative high-level Russian sources [[such as the Russian Federal Security Service) to support its most outrageous claims. Except for the stuff attributed to unverifiable sources, the reports don’t contain much original material. They are usually based on various news items from the mainstream media and/or whatever the clogosphere is currently hyperventilating about, with each item shoehorned into the conspiracy narrative the report is trying to establish.