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

[68W Man]

CNN has reported about Clintons scandals many times in the past and many other MSMs have too. Trump gives a lot of negative material to work with so how can you not have so many stories on him? Many people legitimately think he is far worse than Clinton and that's probably reflecting in many media sources stories. There are a lot of right, alt right, and far right media sources for people to get there news from if they think MSM is too liberal for them.

CNN will take quotes of Trump out of context from over a decade ago on the Howard Stern show and use that to create a narrative of him being a phile or rapist who wants to have sex with his own daughter.

They will give non stop coverage to any women who claims that they were sexually assaulted by Trump, with no evidence of this occurring.

Every week a new staged outrage controversy is created, remember the David Duke, Khazir Khan, Alicia Machado stories?

The negative stories of Hilary's actual political failures are hardly touched and if they are, are given excuses.

This is in no way comparable, when CNN has countless stories about Trump's offensive comments from over a decade ago but no stories about Clinton accepting funds from a country that she knows sponsors and supports terrorist groups. Which one is more important for a Presidential candidate?

 

[ThePepe2016]

Sunni terrorists funded by Saudi's who are our (allies) have done far more harm to the West compared to Shia terrorists funded by Iran.

As a matter of fact the Sunni terrorists are the ones who we have been engaged in warfare with for over the past decade, not Russia, and not as much with Iran. But of course Iran would hate us anyway you know since we have applied sanctions on them and funded countries like Iraq to fight against them for almost a decade.

yes the WTC came down but that has nothing to do with the current conflict. What has Sunni terrorists done besides kill some people here and there? This is about preserving the status of the US in the world and countering any type of Russian expansion. I'm sorry these terrorists are nutcases but they are being fought in afghanistan and iraq and police is doing everything to stop attacks not to mention fbi, cia, mi6 and on and on. In Syria they are left to fight Assad and Russia. Why are we going to help Putin counter NATO, it just isn't smart. US is choosing it's battles with ISIS right now. Earth is not a fun place, sometimes you gotta make tough decisions and unless you want to suit up private and head to syria then let isis die for us.

You dont want Iran and Russia taking over the middle east... Saudi is the biggest counter right now and their army is trash and cant do shit, we cant let their enemies get stronger. USA has a long and good relationship with them dating back to ww2 and they exist because of the usa. They own a lot of fucking oil and russian economy is heavily dependent on oil. Right now they are our best friends and we need to help them. They have a lot of fucking oil, who cares about this islam bullshit.

 

[HomerThompson]

It's arming terrorists when others do it. When we do it we call it arming freedom fighters and allies. Or we just pretend we don't do it.

No way, bro. The contras were legit.

 

[68W Man]

Your first half isn't evidence of wrongdoing, it's evidence that you don't agree with her policy plans. That's fair but it's not a story.

The second half I addressed in my other response.

I didn't say it was evidence of wrong doing, you made the claim that "We've never done anything under HRC's leadership because she's never been in charge. We've done it under Bush Jr. and Obama."

So I pointed out the policies that she is on record for, that would give you a picture of what it would be like under her leadership.


Again, the sexual assault stories have no evidence put forward that would vet them, at this point it's anybodies claim. Any women could get a chance to go on CNN if they claim that Trump had sexually assaulted them at this point.

These women have never been proven to be credible either, they are in most cases random people. At least wikileaks has a history of being a credible source.

We've never done anything under HRC's leadership because she's never been in charge. We've done it under Bush Jr. and Obama.

No, the woman can verify her own story because it's her story and the media can verify elements of it.

If I hand you an email and say it came from Johnny Q and went to Luke X. How do you verify it without either Johnny Q or Luke X admitting that it's their email? I guess I could show you how I obtained it but if I refuse then you're fucked. You have no way of proving where I got it from and the parties to the email won't confirm that it's there. If you published it, either of those people could hit you with a massive lawsuit for slander or invasion of privacy since they didn't authorize the publication of the private messages.

Your first half isn't evidence of wrongdoing, it's evidence that you don't agree with her policy plans. That's fair but it's not a story.

The second half I addressed in my other response.

 

[panamaican]

Can we verify that even the Associated Press shills for the Clinton's? Does any of this bother you at all?

As Soda posted earlier in this thread. The leaks outed "journalists" such as Julie Pace who colluded with the HRC campaign. Often these outlets would actually ask Hilary's campaign for input, what to print, and even when to print it.

You asked me this already. No. It doesn't bother me here and it doesn't bother me that some journalists shill for the GOP. That's part of how journalism works. They are often the recipient of very specific information from their "sources" who are often just the public relations side of some politician. Everyone eats. THe journalist gets inside information to print and advance their career, the politician gets their story in front of lots of people.

Don't tell me you're surprised by this? This is how it works in every industry from sports journalism to political journalism. This is literally an all year round situation but it's an election year and people act like they just learned that the sky is blue.

 

[68W Man]

yes the WTC came down but that has nothing to do with the current conflict. What has Sunni terrorists done besides kill some people here and there? This is about preserving the status of the US in the world and countering any type of Russian expansion. I'm sorry these terrorists are nutcases but they are being fought in afghanistan and iraq and police is doing everything to stop attacks not to mention fbi, cia, mi6 and on and on. In Syria they are left to fight Assad and Russia. Why are we going to help Putin counter NATO, it just isn't smart. US is choosing it's battles with ISIS right now. Earth is not a fun place, sometimes you gotta make tough decisions and unless you want to suit up private and head to syria then let isis die for us.

You dont want Iran and Russia taking over the middle east... Saudi is the biggest counter right now and their army is trash and cant do shit, we cant let their enemies get stronger. USA has a long and good relationship with them dating back to ww2 and they exist because of the usa. They own a lot of fucking oil and russian economy is heavily dependent on oil. Right now they are our best friends and we need to help them. They have a lot of fucking oil, who cares about this islam bullshit.

Good relationship meaning supporting the largest terror attack in the countries history?

Giving money to sunni terrorist groups who are fighting against and kill our troops in the Middle East?

Allowing them to fund radical Mosques in Western countries, while taking in millions of Muslim refugees. While the Saudi's refuse any refugees and do not take in non-Muslim immigrants?

Yeah those are great allies.

 

[HomerThompson]

Sunni terrorists funded by Saudi's who are our (allies) have done far more harm to the West compared to Shia terrorists funded by Iran.

As a matter of fact the Sunni terrorists are the ones who we have been engaged in warfare with for over the past decade, not Russia, and not as much with Iran. But of course Iran would hate us anyway you know since we have applied sanctions on them and funded countries like Iraq to fight against them for almost a decade.

*4 decades(6 if you count the Shah)

 

[ThePepe2016]

Good relationship meaning supporting the largest terror attack in the countries history?

Giving money to sunni terrorist groups who are fighting against and kill our troops in the Middle East?

Allowing them to fund radical Mosques in Western countries, while taking in millions of Muslim refugees. While the Saudi's refuse any refugees and do not take in non-Muslim immigrants?

Yeah those are great allies.

yeah but we kill them back... dont be silly, USA is combating islamic extremism on many fronts... just not syria, i get what ur saying, but working with russia to help assad is stupid for america

they are great allies cause they got a lot of fucking oil... that's it

 

[68W Man]

You asked me this already. No. It doesn't bother me here and it doesn't bother me that some journalists shill for the GOP. That's part of how journalism works. They are often the recipient of very specific information from their "sources" who are often just the public relations side of some politician. Everyone eats. THe journalist gets inside information to print and advance their career, the politician gets their story in front of lots of people.

Don't tell me you're surprised by this? This is how it works in every industry from sports journalism to political journalism. This is literally an all year round situation but it's an election year and people act like they just learned that the sky is blue.

Journalists who don't fit the company they work for's narrative are not hired.

The majority of media outlet's are in Hilary's favor. How many network news outlets are pro-Trump right now? Compare that to how many are pro-Hilary?

The only pro-Trump journalists that I can think of on network news are Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reily.

The networks control the narrative, they control what stories get shown and who gets to speak and what the way to spin the information is.

 

[Satur9]

This shows why you have to play the game. Everybody is, and you would be a fool not to also. Especially if you are just a "normal" person like most of us are. You have to play dirty to even score.

 

[M3t4tr0n]

CNN will take quotes of Trump out of context from over a decade ago on the Howard Stern show and use that to create a narrative of him being a phile or rapist who wants to have sex with his own daughter.

They will give non stop coverage to any women who claims that they were sexually assaulted by Trump, with no evidence of this occurring.

Every week a new staged outrage controversy is created, remember the David Duke, Khazir Khan, Alicia Machado stories?

The negative stories of Hilary's actual political failures are hardly touched and if they are, are given excuses.

This is in no way comparable, when CNN has countless stories about Trump's offensive comments from over a decade ago but no stories about Clinton accepting funds from a country that she knows sponsors and supports terrorist groups. Which one is more important for a Presidential candidate?

What do right wing media sources say about Clinton? I'm sure it's similar to what CNN reports on Trump. Everyone has it's audience. Last time I checked on one it said Hillary and Obama were demons and smelt like sulfer

 

[Orgasmo]

To illustrate what a crock of horseshit the American War on Terror is:

- Overthrew dictators such Saddam and Gaddafi, allowing jihadists to flourish in Iraq and Libya
- Actively trying to destabilize the Assad regime by supporting "moderate" rebels who are known to be in bed with Al-Qaeda and its umbrella groups.
- Counts Turkey and Saudi Arabia as allies, despite these two scumbag states being the biggest supporters of Islamic terrorism in the world.

 

[68W Man]

It's a big sex scandal and everyones talking about it just like when it happened to Bill back in the day. Trump liked to talk about Bills sex scandal a lot too and even brought some of the accusers to the debates and now Trump has a sex scandal of his own to talk about. It's almost like karma...

Bill's history of sexual assault has a much longer track record, it especially extends beyond a bunch of victims coming out a month before a Presidential election.

Also the reason it's a big sex scandal is because the media wants to promote that narrative by playing endless Trump audio tapes, a private conversation with his friend and tapes from the Howard Stern show. None of these things have anything to actually do with political policies but since sex is a more interesting and easier subject to discuss this makes for a great distraction away from that.

 

[panamaican]

I didn't say it was evidence of wrong doing, you made the claim that "We've never done anything under HRC's leadership because she's never been in charge. We've done it under Bush Jr. and Obama."

So I pointed out the policies that she is on record for, that would give you a picture of what it would be like under her leadership.

And that's not a story. Some people agree with her policies and some people don't agree.

Again, the sexual assault stories have no evidence put forward that would vet them, at this point it's anybodies claim. Any women could get a chance to go on CNN if they claim that Trump had sexually assaulted them at this point.

These women have never been proven to be credible either, they are in most cases random people. At least wikileaks has a history of being a credible source.

At this point, it wouldn't take as much that's true. But that's because they laid the foundation earlier. Access Hollywood tape, Howard Stern tapes. Now every subsequent woman has a lower barrier because you've got his character verified. You have to think about it like building a house. Strong foundation first.

Wikileaks has no foundation here. You're making the mistake of equating their credibility on one thing as meaning they must be credible on everything. I keep repeating this because it's important. Wikileaks can't verify the contents of the email or that they came from where they're alleged to come from. Wikileaks is dependent on you believing them because they have no foundation on this series of emails.

There's not much point arguing this because you're not really thinking about this from either a journalism perspective or a litigation perspective.

 

[68W Man]

What do right wing media sources say about Clinton? I'm sure it's similar to what CNN reports on Trump. Everyone has it's audience. Last time I checked on one it said Hillary and Obama were demons and smelt like sulfer

Yeah and those media sources are not mainstream.

While mainstream media outlets that are liberal have been trying to portray Trump as literally Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and a crazy dictator before he ever took office and overlooking any of Obama's, Clinton's wrongdoings.

I can point you to an interview on Rachael Maddow where she was trying to suggest that Trump's son posting a meme with pepe the frog as a sign of the Trump family being anti-semetic nazi's despite having numerous Jewish relationships in the family.

 

[M3t4tr0n]

Bill's history of sexual assault has a much longer track record, it especially extends beyond a bunch of victims coming out a month before a Presidential election.

Also the reason it's a big sex scandal is because the media wants to promote that narrative by playing endless Trump audio tapes, a private conversation with his friend and tapes from the Howard Stern show. None of these things have anything to actually do with political policies but since sex is a more interesting and easier subject to discuss this makes for a great distraction away from that.

The reason it's a big sex scandal is because it's a big sex scandal. If sex scandals have nothing to do with political policies then why did Trump keep bringing up Bills?

 

[Rod1]

See, that's the thing.

Trump may or may not kiss the Saudi ring.

However, I know for a fact that Hillary has, and will keep kissing that Saudi ring. Speculating that Trump may or may not take Saudi payoffs is pointless, since I know his opponent already has.

Killary will actually be held accountable by both parties, since she is a real politician, Trump will probably have himself impeached in less than 2 years.

 

[68W Man]

And that's not a story. Some people agree with her policies and some people don't agree.



At this point, it wouldn't take as much that's true. But that's because they laid the foundation earlier. Access Hollywood tape, Howard Stern tapes. Now every subsequent woman has a lower barrier because you've got his character verified. You have to think about it like building a house. Strong foundation first.

Wikileaks has no foundation here. You're making the mistake of equating their credibility on one thing as meaning they must be credible on everything. I keep repeating this because it's important. Wikileaks can't verify the contents of the email or that they came from where they're alleged to come from. Wikileaks is dependent on you believing them because they have no foundation on this series of emails.

There's not much point arguing this because you're not really thinking about this from either a journalism perspective or a litigation perspective.

Bill Clinton had phone sex in the oval office, has a history of sexual assault allegations, and settled out of court for a sex case, and lied under oath about consensual sex with an intern who years later provided his semen stain as evidence to prove him wrong.

This verifies his character as well, however those same media sources are not putting every single person who claims to have been raped or sexually assaulted by Bill on TV 24/7.


How does wikileaks have no foundation here? Why would they release the source of these e-mails and put them in massive trouble? So far the Clinton's and her campaign had already answered questions at a debate about one of the wikileak's emails in a way that would suggest it was real, and did not deny the leak. Then they tried to blame the Russians. Now they are neither confirming or denying if the e-mails are real or not.

 

[68W Man]

The reason it's a big sex scandal is because it's a big sex scandal. If sex scandals have nothing to do with political policies then why did Trump keep bringing up Bills?

Maybe because Hilary has been playing up the angle that Trump is mean to women? Maybe because after the audio tape the media wanted to pin Trump as a sexual predator, while not talking about Clinton's alleged victims?

 

[M3t4tr0n]

Maybe because Hilary has been playing up the angle that Trump is mean to women? Maybe because after the audio tape the media wanted to pin Trump as a sexual predator, while not talking about Clinton's alleged victims?

Have you ever thought its maybe because Trump is a sexual predator