^^ gonna listen to it now and try and be objective.

I'll try not to be turned off by any response to a WikiLeaks tweet at this point being a cesspool of the worst of all humanity

11/4/2016 3:08:43 PM

http://www.vice.com/read/hillary-clinton-confusingly-accused-of-satanism-thanks-to-marina-abramovic-email?utm_source=vicetwitterus

the perfect story to sum up the insanity that is the Podesta email hack

11/4/2016 4:28:07 PM

From today's leaks, here is Stephen Hadley (Bush National Security Advisor) emailing Podesta about exploiting the ISIL occupation in Iraq to move oil, in 2015. Why Podesta?

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/48234

And a document from Hadley about the war in Afghanistan. Concludes with the question: "How do we explain a moderately extended commitment to Afghanistan to the American people?". Also 2015, seriously interesting stuff.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/46655

[Edited on November 4, 2016 at 6:35 PM. Reason : .]

11/4/2016 6:30:15 PM

Lol WTF is spirit cooking, why is podesta associating with "pigs blood artists" and wtf is this shit

11/7/2016 7:17:15 PM

It's hippie nonsense that Trumpkins think is actual witchcraft.

11/7/2016 7:42:44 PM

No please, I would love to hear you justify it. Please explain what this hippie stuff is

11/7/2016 11:03:18 PM

crazy liberals. why can't they do simple thinks like taking a bite out of the heart of the first deer they kill or posing for photos with the tail of an elephant

11/8/2016 11:41:10 AM

Assange statement on the election

https://wikileaks.org/Assange-Statement-on-the-US-Election

Quote :

"In recent months, WikiLeaks and I personally have come under enormous pressure to stop publishing what the Clinton campaign says about itself to itself. That pressure has come from the campaign’s allies, including the Obama administration, and from liberals who are anxious about who will be elected US President. On the eve of the election, it is important to restate why we have published what we have. The right to receive and impart true information is the guiding principle of WikiLeaks – an organization that has a staff and organizational mission far beyond myself. Our organization defends the public’s right to be informed. This is why, irrespective of the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election, the real victor is the US public which is better informed as a result of our work. The US public has thoroughly engaged with WikiLeaks’ election related publications which number more than one hundred thousand documents. Millions of Americans have pored over the leaks and passed on their citations to each other and to us. It is an open model of journalism that gatekeepers are uncomfortable with, but which is perfectly harmonious with the First Amendment. We publish material given to us if it is of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical importance and which has not been published elsewhere. When we have material that fulfills this criteria, we publish. We had information that fit our editorial criteria which related to the Sanders and Clinton campaign (DNC Leaks) and the Clinton political campaign and Foundation (Podesta Emails). No-one disputes the public importance of these publications. It would be unconscionable for WikiLeaks to withhold such an archive from the public during an election. At the same time, we cannot publish what we do not have. To date, we have not received information on Donald Trump’s campaign, or Jill Stein’s campaign, or Gary Johnson’s campaign or any of the other candidates that fufills our stated editorial criteria. As a result of publishing Clinton’s cables and indexing her emails we are seen as domain experts on Clinton archives. So it is natural that Clinton sources come to us. We publish as fast as our resources will allow and as fast as the public can absorb it. That is our commitment to ourselves, to our sources, and to the public. This is not due to a personal desire to influence the outcome of the election. The Democratic and Republican candidates have both expressed hostility towards whistleblowers. I spoke at the launch of the campaign for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, because her platform addresses the need to protect them. This is an issue that is close to my heart because of the Obama administration’s inhuman and degrading treatment of one of our alleged sources, Chelsea Manning. But WikiLeaks publications are not an attempt to get Jill Stein elected or to take revenge over Ms Manning’s treatment either. Publishing is what we do. To withhold the publication of such information until after the election would have been to favour one of the candidates above the public’s right to know. This is after all what happened when the New York Times withheld evidence of illegal mass surveillance of the US population for a year until after the 2004 election, denying the public a critical understanding of the incumbent president George W Bush, which probably secured his reelection. The current editor of the New York Times has distanced himself from that decision and rightly so. The US public defends free speech more passionately, but the First Amendment only truly lives through its repeated exercise. The First Amendment explicitly prevents the executive from attempting to restrict anyone’s ability to speak and publish freely. The First Amendment does not privilege old media, with its corporate advertisers and dependencies on incumbent power factions, over WikiLeaks’ model of scientific journalism or an individual’s decision to inform their friends on social media. The First Amendment unapologetically nurtures the democratization of knowledge. With the Internet, it has reached its full potential. Yet, some weeks ago, in a tactic reminiscent of Senator McCarthy and the red scare, Wikileaks, Green Party candidate Stein, Glenn Greenwald and Clinton’s main opponent were painted with a broad, red brush. The Clinton campaign, when they were not spreading obvious untruths, pointed to unnamed sources or to speculative and vague statements from the intelligence community to suggest a nefarious allegiance with Russia. The campaign was unable to invoke evidence about our publications—because none exists. In the end, those who have attempted to malign our groundbreaking work over the past four months seek to inhibit public understanding perhaps because it is embarrassing to them – a reason for censorship the First Amendment cannot tolerate. Only unsuccessfully do they try to claim that our publications are inaccurate. WikiLeaks’ decade-long pristine record for authentication remains. Our key publications this round have even been proven through the cryptographic signatures of the companies they passed through, such as Google. It is not every day you can mathematically prove that your publications are perfect but this day is one of them. We have endured intense criticism, primarily from Clinton supporters, for our publications. Many long-term supporters have been frustrated because we have not addressed this criticism in a systematic way or responded to a number of false narratives about Wikileaks’ motivation or sources. Ultimately, however, if WL reacted to every false claim, we would have to divert resources from our primary work. WikiLeaks, like all publishers, is ultimately accountable to its funders. Those funders are you. Our resources are entirely made up of contributions from the public and our book sales. This allows us to be principled, independent and free in a way no other influential media organization is. But it also means that we do not have the resources of CNN, MSNBC or the Clinton campaign to constantly rebuff criticism. Yet if the press obeys considerations above informing the public, we are no longer talking about a free press, and we are no longer talking about an informed public. Wikileaks remains committed to publishing information that informs the public, even if many, especially those in power, would prefer not to see it. WikiLeaks must publish. It must publish and be damned."

11/8/2016 12:31:07 PM

Quote :

"That pressure has come from the campaign’s allies, including the Obama administration, and from liberals who are anxious about who will be elected US President."

and from Republicans, you rapist piece of shit. but hey, why bite the hand that feeds?

11/8/2016 12:50:17 PM

he's not a rapist and the UN has determined his treatment is unlawful

https://justice4assange.com/Accurate-reporting-on-the-one.html

[Edited on November 8, 2016 at 12:56 PM. Reason : .]

11/8/2016 12:53:46 PM

conservative minded folks defending assange(and rallying around the UN'S imposition on sovereign nations) is an underrated hilarity of this election cycle

[Edited on November 8, 2016 at 12:56 PM. Reason : ..]

11/8/2016 12:54:52 PM

and the scariest part of this fiasco is democrats embracing neo-mccarthyist lies

[Edited on November 8, 2016 at 12:57 PM. Reason : .]

11/8/2016 12:57:10 PM

The Clinton's bff got caught going to satanic spirit cooking rituals drinking blood, semen, and breastmilk.

But yea, republicans like to hunt or something...

11/8/2016 12:57:33 PM

^^lol ok. where exactly are the US democrats getting involved with the pending extradition from the UK to Sweden?

http://www.snopes.com/john-podesta-spirit-cooking/

[Edited on November 8, 2016 at 12:59 PM. Reason : .]

11/8/2016 12:59:06 PM

i was talking about the russia claims

but lol if you don't think the end goal is for assange to be extradited to the US

11/8/2016 1:01:06 PM

The Russia claims aren't just made up out of thin air. Jesus.

Is it possible multiple federal agencies are lying about Russian influence? Of course. It is the most likely scenario that the hacks were done by a state agent of Russia? Yes, probably.

I don't get why this is even a thing to be honest. It doesn't belittle what WL is doing and it doesn't mean Assange is working for the Kremlin.

** fwiw, I have 100% confidence the reason he hasn't posted any Trump stuff is legit and he doesn't have any.

[Edited on November 8, 2016 at 1:12 PM. Reason : Of course JCE is harping on that]

11/8/2016 1:03:33 PM

I think the hacks were done by Russia, but the redbaiting and antagonizing rhetoric got really out of hand, and I think a lot of it had to do with the fact that some high ranking DNC officials were embarrassed. I'm not sending my son off to war vs. Russia because Debbie W-S got exposed as a shill.

11/8/2016 1:45:43 PM

I agree with that that though I actually think it has more to do with Syria than with any hack. Either way, not good.

11/8/2016 1:48:39 PM

Assange's statement tries to act as neutral as possible, it still completely ignores the fact that Wikileaks has been working directly with Trump and other pro-right sites. Just more BS coming from a politically targeted side.

11/8/2016 2:44:38 PM

^
Wut? Where did you hear that?

11/8/2016 2:47:01 PM

Roger Stone said it. But Roger Stone also was on Alex Jones today saying Trump fans were being helicoptered out to sea and pushed out Narcos style..

11/8/2016 2:52:17 PM

russian state media is providing the number for trump's voter fraud hotline on their broadcasts. not the bullshit RT english propaganda, but actually russian news. and making sure that the people living in russia know what the US country code is to boot.

but sure, russia didn't hack this shit even through virtually agency in the country agreed they did

but all those liberal intel agents are just cucks amirite

[Edited on November 8, 2016 at 3:10 PM. Reason : .]

11/8/2016 2:52:41 PM

Quote :

"but sure, russia didn't hack this shit even through virtually agency in the country agreed they did"

When you parrot this talking point, it confirms that you are a partisan hack. There's no evidence for this, and even the statement issued by James Clapper is light on substance and high on speculation.

It's concerning to see the Democrats become the party of war, with both Obama and Clinton attempting to rekindle the cold war.

11/8/2016 3:46:30 PM

is it them or Putin?

because I'm pretty sure it's Putin

11/8/2016 3:51:07 PM

There's been absolutely no evidence of that. If it were Bush saying this crap, Democrats would be shitting themselves and protesting over it.

11/8/2016 3:55:20 PM

uh, ok

11/8/2016 4:03:35 PM

Has there been, or are you just admitting that it's all speculation, and you like to run with the speculation that confirms your pre-existing biases?

11/8/2016 4:05:53 PM

I must have just imagined all those news reports of Russia starting a war in Eastern Europe and backing separatists who shot down a commercial jetliner. Damn liberal propaganda.

11/8/2016 4:07:10 PM

Quote :

"When you parrot this talking point, it confirms that you are a partisan hack."

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national

Quote :

""The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.""

fucking hacks

[Edited on November 8, 2016 at 4:09 PM. Reason : .]

11/8/2016 4:08:57 PM

Quote :

"The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts."

That is the exact quote I'm referring to. They're saying "Russia has hacked things in the past, this is a hack, therefore it's probably Russia".

It's the kind of Orwellian shit that I would hope educated people would not fall for, yet here we are.

11/8/2016 4:12:16 PM

Not to mention private cyber security firms have also corroborated that the hacks are of Russian origin. Y'all really took your marching orders from Dr. WiFi, eh?

11/8/2016 4:12:35 PM

^^cool. now here's the exact quote that says you're full of shit. you know, the first fucking sentence of that fucking press release.

Quote :

"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations"

[Edited on November 8, 2016 at 4:14 PM. Reason : .]

11/8/2016 4:13:55 PM

I'm absolutely fine if people question the intelligence agencies. They have been know to trump up stuff in past. However, to act like anyone who might question Russian involvement is an uneducated hack is insulting.

[Edited on November 8, 2016 at 4:16 PM. Reason : Meaning anyone who thinks Russia may be behind it. Unclear sentence.]

11/8/2016 4:15:53 PM

Quote :

"I must have just imagined all those news reports of Russia starting a war in Eastern Europe and backing separatists who shot down a commercial jetliner."

care to respond to this, d357r0y3r?

11/8/2016 4:15:54 PM

Intelligence agencies say Iraq has WMDs with no actual avidence: clearly lies to promote agenda
Intelligence agencies say Russia hacked DNC: why would they ever lie?

Quote :

"I must have just imagined all those news reports of Russia starting a war in Eastern Europe and backing separatists who shot down a commercial jetliner."

I have no idea what this has to do with hacking the DNC. I'm not saying Russia is good, I'm saying that Democrats need someone to blame for the fact that they got hacked, and Russia is it. There doesn't need to be any evidence, apparently.

[Edited on November 8, 2016 at 4:19 PM. Reason : ]

11/8/2016 4:16:55 PM

Quote :

"fucking hacks"

do you need me to post when the DCI told congress about the links between Iraq and al-qaeda, or when they told the white house that Iraq had a growing WMD program would would respond with biological and chemical weapons that they had?

Quote :

"you know, the first fucking sentence of that fucking press release."

read the second sentence on, the press release just says that its consistent with russia

Quote :

"Not to mention private cyber security firms have also corroborated that the hacks are of Russian origin."

you mean the same ones that work side-by-side with national intelligence agencies and get a lot of money as intelligence contractors?

[Edited on November 8, 2016 at 4:20 PM. Reason : .]

11/8/2016 4:17:08 PM

Quote :

"I have no idea what this has to do with hacking the DNC. I'm not saying Russia is good, I'm saying that Democrats need someone to blame for the fact that they got hacked, and Russia is it. There doesn't need to be any evidence, apparently."

you accused the current president and the next president of rekindling the cold war

11/8/2016 4:21:44 PM

this hacking issue is not the start of renewed tensions with russia

11/8/2016 4:26:24 PM

Quote :

"read the second sentence on, the press release just says that its consistent with russia "

you're illiterate. that can be the only reason for your obfuscation.

[Edited on November 8, 2016 at 4:27 PM. Reason : .]

11/8/2016 4:27:00 PM

Quote :

"you accused the current president and the next president of rekindling the cold war"

Getting a little ahead of yourself there, but yes, I am. They can be rekindling the cold war independent of anything Russia has done.

Regional skirmishes are of no concern to me. I think we should leave the middle east to rot (or flourish, as it may), for instance. China and Russia can do what they want around their borders as long as it poses no direct threat to the United States.

I don't want the U.S. to be the world police. Believe it or not, actual liberals have also held this view in the past. Partisans like yourself that put party ahead of...well, just about everything, will support anything that comes down from the party leadership. Clinton, Bush and Obama meddled in various international affairs with disastrous results. I'm sure Hillary will do the same if she's elected.

11/8/2016 4:31:08 PM

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-hackers-ready-hit-back-if-russia-disrupts-election-n677936

11/8/2016 4:40:31 PM

Still waiting on that wiki dump that was going to hand the election over to Trump. Maybe it'll happen when the polls start to close?

11/8/2016 4:54:35 PM

^
you should read the statement above

11/8/2016 4:58:14 PM

Quote :

"Of course JCE is harping on that]"

And of course you're sweeping it under the rug with the rest of the DNC filth that dwarfs Trumps pussy grabbing and media trolling.

11/8/2016 5:08:35 PM

^^Which one? Assange's? Yeah, I read it. So what?

[Edited on November 8, 2016 at 5:17 PM. Reason : .]

11/8/2016 5:17:06 PM

Quote :

"I have no idea what this has to do with hacking the DNC. I'm not saying Russia is good, I'm saying that Democrats need someone to blame for the fact that they got hacked, and Russia is it. There doesn't need to be any evidence, apparently."

This is the 2nd rule of mainstream news:

Whenever a scandal breaks on the right, what's important is the content of the scandal.
Whenever a scandal breaks on the left, what's important is where the information came from and how it was obtained.

Spot on for this entire election.

11/8/2016 5:22:39 PM

Quote :

"Wut? Where did you hear that?"

I cannot find the link at the second, but the collaboration had been rumored for a while, and then a pro-Trump website (or super PAC?) tweeted specific information about the next leak before Wikileaks did; essentially, it showed that they had access to the information prior to Wikileaks officially publishing it to the public.

11/8/2016 5:23:49 PM

^
They always put the leaks on the website before they tweet them. Usually the tweets come an hr or so later. So that's where that story came from.

Reddit always had them posted first as well.

[Edited on November 8, 2016 at 5:28 PM. Reason : .]

11/8/2016 5:27:23 PM

Assange should get into politics once he is out (he probably has no fear of US extradition at this point for at least four years). No one played this election cycle better. Master class.

1/4/2017 10:18:31 AM

the party of hucksters, man

1/4/2017 10:42:00 AM