Wikileaks releases over 2,000 emails from Clinton campaign chair (John Podesta) UPDATED

[Fawlty]

People are acting like no ones ever had a clue on how politics work and the world we live in and that Trump is free from corruption and will some how clean politics up or something. I'm still waiting for Hillarys arrest.

Yeah that part of it is especially silly. Trump would redefine corruption for all time and everybody knows it. The idea of supporting him because of the way that the Democrats talk in emails is astonishingly stupid. I have more sympathy for the anger of people who are political outsiders and extremely naive to reality.

 

[Yunes]

His answer on Syria at the debate was great.

You don't even know who you are funding and the rejection of a no-fly zone.

How is it in American's best interests to remove Assad and allow Sunni terrorists to take over the country?

How is it in America's best interests to worsen relations with Syria and Russia and put US troops in harm to install a no-fly zone for Syria?

Why are we even involved in Syria, the country was one of the most secular and stable before the Arab spring and they personally invited Russia in, they did not invite us to bomb them.

How are the American citizens going to benefit over removing the Assad regime? The only people who I can think of benefiting are Israel who will have a weak broken up Syria on it's walled up border.

The Arab spring lol, wasn't that hrc's baby a few years ago?

 

[M3t4tr0n]

trump on what he will do in syria...

Can't he fix it by just grabbing Syria by the pussy?

 

[Fawlty]

I could say the same about your irrational fear of Trump.

You could say that, but it would sound pretty stupid.

 

[ThePepe2016]

Can't he fix it by just grabbing Syria by the pussy?

putin does the pussy grabbing in that relationship, donald is on the receiving end... putin could buy and sell trump 10x over and maybe more considering all we know of his business is that he loses a billion dollars. That's literally all we know about him.

 

[in the]

Legality isn't the only way to frame the information that is leaking.

Do you really want the vast majority of media conglomerates to bury stories for candidate X and only promote bad stories for candidate Y? Do you want an honest media or one that seeks to treat you as someone who needs propaganda?

 

[68W Man]

No, I'm saying that the chicken little reaction to things that, frankly, we all know are political reality, is fucking pathetic.

Your making it sound like people who dislike Trump have not constantly taking quotes of his out of context or hyped things up or flat out lied about his policies to make them sound terrifying.

Re-reading my posts it's clear that Trump's campaign isn't doing their background research. They should have known about all of these sexual misconduct things and been prepared for them. Instead, he looks caught off guard and is responding in the moment which drags the story out.

By comparison, by the Clinton campaign refusing the verify the emails they starve the story to an extent. You've got the Wikileaks but they won't reveal their source. So, how do you vet the story before you run it when you can't get any verification as to it's authenticity? It's very limiting.

Trump's Apprentice tapes fall in the same category. When Mark Burnett refused to reply and then stonewalled the MSM on Apprentice back footage, it killed that angle (at least for now).

I'm starting to really appreciate the value of a good campaign manager.

What if Trump's campaign was not aware of these "sexual misconduct" issues if the women who were claiming to be sexually assaulted are lying?

What if Trump's campaign did not know that he had a microphone capture audio of him joking with his friend about grabbing a women's private parts?

Wikileaks has been a 100% credible source in the past, by running lie's they would ruin that credibility, also Hilary Clinton at a debate responded to a question about a wikileaks quote and did not deny it, and answered the question as if it's 100% true. Even at this moment the campaign has been going around blaming the Russians.

LMAO no, ABC, NBC, VoX, MSNBC, CNN, the Associated Press, the NYT, the Washington Post, Huffington Post, and others are helping her black the story out. That is kinda the point of this thread and these leaks. They have colluded together to black out stuff about Hillary while running negative stories about Trump.

These were all obvious, one could have looked at CNN for months and saw non-stop attacks on Trump, MSNBC and Huffington Post are already known for having a liberal bias. The media is hardly mentioning stories about the wikileak drops, and they pick some of the more innocent sounding one's. However they have no problem giving 10+ minute interviews to women who have no evidence but claim to have been sexually assaulted by Trump. These sexual assault stories and the tape started at the same time as the wikileak drops and have been used to divert attention.

 

[MusterX]

Yeah that part of it is especially silly. Trump would redefine corruption for all time and everybody knows it. The idea of supporting him because of the way that the Democrats talk in emails is astonishingly stupid. I have more sympathy for the anger of people who are political outsiders and extremely naive to reality.

For the last time, its not about the "way that they talk." The HRC campaign are a bunch of scumbags that have an unfair advantage using the greater part of the mass media to basically rig this election in Hillary Clinton's favor. They railroaded Bernie and now they are railroading Trump and the leaks prove it over and over again. This is the most disgusting presidential campaign of my lifetime and I remember them all the way back to Ford.

The mass media is the most powerful tool ever created for control of public opinion. They control what 340 million citizens see and hear. You understand that right? They have colluded to rig this election in favor of Hillary Clinton and the cat is out of the bag and as Soda posted the fact this includes outlets such as the Associated Press is astounding, its jaw dropping. Not to mention this is not how things are supposed to work in the United States. The mass media is not supposed to act as a propaganda arm of the DNC.

Now you might not give a fuck, but I sure as hell do.

 

[sangreporsangre]

Bill Clinton met with Comey's boss the Attorney General Lorretta Lynch about the case against her lmao. Holy shit.

Wtf are you talking about, you CT retard Trumpet, they had a clandestine meeting on that tarmac to discuss grandkids and travel plans. Only an idiot would think that there was something shady going on. It's not like Bill has a track record of tampering with federal investigations or anything.

 

[panamaican]

LMAO no, ABC, NBC, VoX, MSNBC, CNN, the Associated Press, the NYT, the Washington Post, Huffington Post, and others are helping her black the story out. That is kinda the point of this thread and these leaks. They have colluded together to black out stuff about Hillary while running negative stories about Trump.

No, that's true. They all cover it. I've seen it with my own eyes. Google all of those sources and Clinton emails and you'll find stories. But to really run a story, you have to verify it first. Either the person telling a first hand account to be somewhat credible. You have a tape you can verify. Or you get 3rd parties who can corroborate the facts.

Short of that, you can only cover it from so many angles. Remember when Trump just threatened the NYT over these allegations? The NYT response laid out that they went and made a reasonable attempt to verify the stories before running them and that's why they felt they weren't in any danger of a lawsuit.

MSM has to do the same thing for the emails and they're limited because the campaign isn't verifying and Wikileaks isn't the source of the emails so they can't verify them either. It would be like me telling a reporter that my neighbor eats people. The MSM can say that I said it but they can't take it much further without verifying that people are missing or that my neighbor has eaten people in the past or something.

This is something that people don't understand when they accuse the MSM of not covering it as much as they want the MSM to cover it. MAybe they could get there via opinion pieces but then you're still open to a real life slander suit.

 

[Fawlty]

For the last time, its not about the "way that they talk." The HRC campaign are a bunch of scumbags that have an unfair advantage using the greater part of the mass media to basically rig this election in Hillary Clinton's favor. They railroaded Bernie and now they are railroading Trump and the leaks prove it over and over again. This is the most disgusting presidential campaign of my lifetime and I remember them all the way back to Ford.

The mass media is the most powerful tool ever created for control of public opinion. They control what 340 million citizens see and hear. You understand that right? They have colluded to rig this election in favor of Hillary Clinton and the cat is out of the bag and as Soda posted the fact this includes outlets such as the Associated Press is astounding, its jaw dropping. Not to mention this is not how things are supposed to work in the United States. The mass media is not supposed to act as a propaganda arm of the DNC.

Now you might not give a fuck, but I sure as hell do.

And there you go again, using "rig" when what you're describing is competition.

 

[68W Man]

Legality isn't the only way to frame the information that is leaking.

Do you really want the vast majority of media conglomerates to bury stories for candidate X and only promote bad stories for candidate Y? Do you want an honest media or one that seeks to treat you as someone who needs propaganda?

These same people have been trying to frame Trump as a potential evil dictator and the next Hitler.

While ignoring that Hilary has been openly getting away with acts such as being behind every single war in this country since her time in office, takes donations from foreign countries for influence, is the most funded by wall street and banks, and uses her poltiical connections and money to buy off the media and her political party into her favor to give her positive attention, super delegates, and negative press for her opponents.

 

[panamaican]

Legality isn't the only way to frame the information that is leaking.

Do you really want the vast majority of media conglomerates to bury stories for candidate X and only promote bad stories for candidate Y? Do you want an honest media or one that seeks to treat you as someone who needs propaganda?

Like I said to the other guy, they haven't buried the story. Search any MSM site and wikileaks on Google news and there are dozens of stories.

Their real problem is that no can verify the truth of the emails so the MSM is limited in how they can cover it. We just saw this play out with Trump. He threatened a lawsuit and the NYT had to lay out that they had actually attempted to verify the story before they ran it. THe same thing with the tax situation. They had to tell us who they spoke to to verify that it was actually Trump's tax document and they still couldn't publish the actual document.

 

[BruceLeeOnTRT]

Current administration has used groups like ISIS and Al Nusra to wage their Arab spring and try to knock off regimes that stood in their way. US could wipe out ISIS in a single afternoon if Washington wanted. The people want it, but Washington players are knee deep in Saudi money.

This is why it's so important that an outsider like Trump gets in the WH, and not another Saudi ring kisser like Bush or Clinton.

 

[in the]

These same people have been trying to frame Trump as a potential evil dictator and the next Hitler.

While ignoring that Hilary has been openly getting away with acts such as being behind every single war in this country since her time in office, takes donations from foreign countries for influence, is the most funded by wall street and banks, and uses her poltiical connections and money to buy off the media and her political party into her favor to give her positive attention, super delegates, and negative press for her opponents.

I highly doubt anyone here has a legal background on the issues that are being raised, so framing things in terms of legality seems like an attempt to brush off the information being leaked. As for the legality, people who are specialized in the field will have to decide that and it's going to take time. It doesn't happen via trial by Twitter.

Plus, sourcing the same media implicated in shilling for a particular candidate only works if you overlook everything that has been leaked so far.

Again, this is bigger than just "legality."

 

[68W Man]

No, that's true. They all cover it. I've seen it with my own eyes. Google all of those sources and Clinton emails and you'll find stories. But to really run a story, you have to verify it first. Either the person telling a first hand account to be somewhat credible. You have a tape you can verify. Or you get 3rd parties who can corroborate the facts.

Short of that, you can only cover it from so many angles. Remember when Trump just threatened the NYT over these allegations? The NYT response laid out that they went and made a reasonable attempt to verify the stories before running them and that's why they felt they weren't in any danger of a lawsuit.

MSM has to do the same thing for the emails and they're limited because the campaign isn't verifying and Wikileaks isn't the source of the emails so they can't verify them either. It would be like me telling a reporter that my neighbor eats people. The MSM can say that I said it but they can't take it much further without verifying that people are missing or that my neighbor has eaten people in the past or something.

This is something that people don't understand when they accuse the MSM of not covering it as much as they want the MSM to cover it. MAybe they could get there via opinion pieces but then you're still open to a real life slander suit.

Wikileaks has been so far not been proven credible in any prior leaks. Why would wikileaks want to fully release the source of the e-mails and endanger them?

For the NYT story what reasonable attempt did they have to verify the story, as far as I am aware the women on the plane had no evidence to support her story. Is a women's first hand account with no evidence a verified story? At that point what stops the media from printing out any story about a famous figure?

 

[RockstarChris]

the saudis funded the 9/11 attacks and we dance around them like they are our best friends.

 

[in the]

Like I said to the other guy, they haven't buried the story. Search any MSM site and wikileaks on Google news and there are dozens of stories.

Their real problem is that no can verify the truth of the emails so the MSM is limited in how they can cover it. We just saw this play out with Trump. He threatened a lawsuit and the NYT had to lay out that they had actually attempted to verify the story before they ran it. THe same thing with the tax situation. They had to tell us who they spoke to to verify that it was actually Trump's tax document and they still couldn't publish the actual document.

See above. I highly doubt any of us are versed in laws enough to comment on the leaks, so I don't like that way of framing the information. It's going to take time to find out if any rules have been broken.

Plenty of info has already been posted as to the amount of coverage that most media outlets have given these leaks. You're right in the fact that it takes time to vet the info, but the same is way more true when it comes to actual legality.

 

[Hans Gruber]

Wikileaks has been so far not been proven credible in any prior leaks. Why would wikileaks want to fully release the source of the e-mails and endanger them?

For the NYT story what reasonable attempt did they have to verify the story, as far as I am aware the women on the plane had no evidence to support her story. Is a women's first hand account with no evidence a verified story? At that point what stops the media from printing out any story about a famous figure?

Especially since the accuser had an axe to grind with Trump in a 2008 property dispute that she lost

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/mon...o-palos-verdes-dont-mess-with-the-donald.html

 

[68W Man]

Like I said to the other guy, they haven't buried the story. Search any MSM site and wikileaks on Google news and there are dozens of stories.

Their real problem is that no can verify the truth of the emails so the MSM is limited in how they can cover it. We just saw this play out with Trump. He threatened a lawsuit and the NYT had to lay out that they had actually attempted to verify the story before they ran it. THe same thing with the tax situation. They had to tell us who they spoke to to verify that it was actually Trump's tax document and they still couldn't publish the actual document.

The amount of media attention to the wikileaks story is low on networks like CNN, MSNBC, ABC compared to Trump's sexual assault allegations and audio tape leak.

For proof, go onto CNN's website right now. Look at the front page. Almost every article is an anti-Trump article. No articles on the wikileak e-mails.

The stories that the media chooses to check on are also one's that are more innocent. Most big media organizations have not touched on the fact that Qatar and Sunni Arabia's governments are sponsoring our enemies and Sunni terror groups and that they fund Hilary as well. That is just one story from wikileaks that have gotten only limited media attention.


These same media outlets, promote propaganda that the US military needs to help the Syrians by removing Assad, which historically in the region moving a strong leader has led to destabilization.

These same media outlets, promote propaganda that we need to do our part and help the Syrian refugees by allowing millions of them into Western countries.

But they don't push or tell the US citizens that maybe we should be focusing on the fact that us and our allies in the Saudi's and Qatar should stop funding terror groups to fight for regime changes against legitimate governments and that the Saudi's and Gulf States should take in the refugees and care for them, themselves.