WikiLeaks now straight up telling Americans to vote for Trump

[zinfamous]

This assumption would seem to suggest that Russia attempted to or successfully hacked the RNC as well, which would fly in the face of the current mantra that Russia started all of this for the primary purpose of making Clinton look bad and Trump look good.

You're also assuming that Trump's empire has the same visibility and reach that the DNC does, which I think is a pretty terrible assumption considering that Trump keeps a very tight lid on his operations and image, and does not have the same obligation to keep potentially-damning documentation on hand that a public official might.

Why would it not align with that mantra? If Russia hacked and retrieved data from RNC, then it's certainly possible that they are simply holding onto that info (again--we're arguing in the hypothetical here). Russia's goal would be to undermine the US by encouraging a Trump win. Without hypotheticals, a Trump presidency would pretty clearly weaken the US across the world. So, that's a win for Russia.

At this point, either they don't need to, or they would and could choose to start releasing RNC and Trump info throughout his tenure, to further erode US trust.

The only way we know about the Russian hacks is after the release of emails and data--it wasn't discovered (OK, it wasn't made public) until after that information was public. Obviously I could be ignorant in these matters as I wonder if a hack like that is pretty easy to detect prior to any data release--it sure seems that it would be based on what we know with various consumer hacks. ...but that being said, it would never be in the best interest of the US gov't or any major political party to reveal a data breach unless forced to. Pretty sure this happens all the time, just as we do it with other countries. Seems to me that the reality in that world is that this is all just another Monday at the office, yet to us peons these are major events and scandals.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

There aren't any reports that the RNC was hacked into. There was some random Republican that said "B-but we were hacked too!" when the Russian accusations first began flying, and then he took it back. Obviously it's possible that Russia hacked into the RNC and we just don't know about it because they're holding onto the info for later use, but in that case, it would seem to mean that Russia was holding onto it for an emergency. In that case, they would have no reason to funnel it to Wikileaks (unless you literally believe that Wikileaks is an arm of a Russian propaganda ministry and take all their actions directly). Altogether that provides no evidence that Wikileaks themselves are withholding anti-Republican/Trump information.

The emails in the initial DNC leaks showed that even run of the mill staffers had figured it out, with that thing about someone researching into Manafort and weeks later receiving notifications that others out of the country were trying to get in, fwiw.

 

[Meghan54]

There aren't any reports that the RNC was hacked into. There was some random Republican that said "B-but we were hacked too!" when the Russian accusations first began flying, and then he took it back. Obviously it's possible that Russia hacked into the RNC and we just don't know about it because they're holding onto the info for later use, but in that case, it would seem to mean that Russia was holding onto it for an emergency. In that case, they would have no reason to funnel it to Wikileaks (unless you literally believe that Wikileaks is an arm of a Russian propaganda ministry and take all their actions directly). Altogether that provides no evidence that Wikileaks themselves are withholding anti-Republican/Trump information.

The emails in the initial DNC leaks showed that even run of the mill staffers had figured it out, with that thing about someone researching into Manafort and weeks later receiving notifications that others out of the country were trying to get in, fwiw.

I'm just curious....why are you so trying to suggest/defent Wilileaks as the "good guys" in all this?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

There aren't any reports that the RNC was hacked into. There was some random Republican that said "B-but we were hacked too!" when the Russian accusations first began flying, and then he took it back. Obviously it's possible that Russia hacked into the RNC and we just don't know about it because they're holding onto the info for later use, but in that case, it would seem to mean that Russia was holding onto it for an emergency. In that case, they would have no reason to funnel it to Wikileaks (unless you literally believe that Wikileaks is an arm of a Russian propaganda ministry and take all their actions directly). Altogether that provides no evidence that Wikileaks themselves are withholding anti-Republican/Trump information.

The emails in the initial DNC leaks showed that even run of the mill staffers had figured it out, with that thing about someone researching into Manafort and weeks later receiving notifications that others out of the country were trying to get in, fwiw.

Actually Assange has said they have Trump material but they have never released it. His reasoning is it wasn't as bad as Trump himself is. He also said during an interview with Anderson Cooper that he knew with certainty that the RNC had been hacked. There have been no claims made publicly to that fact so it makes one wonder how he knows if he's not in possession of information. If he doesn't he is full of shit.

The fact that he claims to have info but has released nothing certainly speaks against his credibility. What happened to putting all information out and letting the public draw their own conclusions?

 

[woolfe9998]

Are you all this stupid, or just uneducated on the subject? His issue is with Hilary, there wasn't any hacking, and the dude that gave the info was murdered.

Go look up the issues between them two, it started long before she ran for president.

Hmm, let's see, Assange praises Validmir Putin, has even had a talk show that aired in Russia. In fact, it was his idea that Snowden seek asylum in Russia. He said that the Panama papers, which were damaging to Russia, were some kind of CIA plot to discredit his buddy Putin.

He has also said that he has no concern for leaks that may endanger the life of Taliban who secretly work with the US or NATO forces and said that they deserve to die for being rats.

I know about his obsession with Clinton. He thinks she wants to prosecute him for taking stolen state department cables in 2010. He's probably worried that if Clinton is elected, he'll eventually end up in an American prison.

But he's also an enemy of the US. He's made that quite clear.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I'm just curious....why are you so trying to suggest/defent Wilileaks as the "good guys" in all this?

It's more the part of my head that reacts when I watch a movie with a really nonsense plot and have to criticize it until it makes sense. I don't think they're necessarily "good guys", but I think their behavior this election cycle is more or less in line with that of previous years, only some people are now upset because they're working against their own favorites so they cook up conspiracy theories to explain things.

Actually Assange has said they have Trump material but they have never released it. His reasoning is it wasn't as bad as Trump himself is. He also said during an interview with Anderson Cooper that he knew with certainty that the RNC had been hacked. There have been no claims made publicly to that fact so it makes one wonder how he knows if he's not in possession of information. If he doesn't he is full of shit.

The fact that he claims to have info but has released nothing certainly speaks against his credibility. What happened to putting all information out and letting the public draw their own conclusions?

Supposedly they try to vet the information reasonably thoroughly before release. They seem to have a rough pattern of a few major leaks per year (this Podesta one being a little different in that they're breaking it up into chunks) and don't do minor erratum, so maybe they decided the Trump stuff wasn't worth the effort.

I didn't know about the Anderson Cooper interview, although listening to it he says it's "common knowledge" that both parties have been hacked multiple times since 2014; I can't find any public information prior to 2016 supporting that claim, but it's worth noting that the DCCC hack mentioned in the question Cooper is not one that has been released by Wikileaks either (Guccifer 2.0 leaked that one himself), implying that either that there is stuff they withhold for reasons other than personal bias, or that they don't receive everything they hear about.

Hmm, let's see, Assange praises Validmir Putin, has even had a talk show that aired in Russia. In fact, it was his idea that Snowden seek asylum in Russia. He said that the Panama papers, which were damaging to Russia, were some kind of CIA plot to discredit his buddy Putin.

Actually, this is a good point and something I had forgotten all about.

 

[DrDoug]

I'll just drop a copy of this here as it perfectly fits the topic:

Guess who tweeted the release of a new #Podesta email dump 29-mins BEFORE @Wikileaks tweeted the release?

Spoiler: Kremlin’s @RT_America pic.twitter.com/uCQdpeTLtE

— Silver Surfer (@RobPulseNews) October 22, 2016

Please proceed, Wikileaks defenders...

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I'll just drop a copy of this here as it perfectly fits the topic:

Please proceed, Wikileaks defenders...

I'm seeing comments that Wikileaks posted the update to their website prior to Tweeting about it, but can't see anything to verify one or the other right now. I know that Wikileaks happens to frequently make typos and delete/re-post Tweets as well, although that doesn't appear to be the case here.

EDIT: Yeah, you're wrong again, nice try. This fellow tweeted about the most recent leak roughly 40 minutes before RT did, unless he's Kremlin too (in which case they have an incredibly incompetent system where two branches accidentally jump the gun before the main source does).

 

[DrDoug]

I'm seeing comments that Wikileaks posted the update to their website prior to Tweeting about it, but can't see anything to verify one or the other right now. I know that Wikileaks happens to frequently make typos and delete/re-post Tweets as well, although that doesn't appear to be the case here.

Nope, this has happened twice now. No removal/corrections/repost on their part, just poor timing. Again...

ETA: One thing to think about is that what Wikileaks seems to be proving that Clinton's email server never got hacked, if it had they would have put it out there by now.

 

[compuwiz1]

With all the dirt they have on her, would they really recommend voting for her? It's just common sense. We are down to two major candidates, one of which, will become the next president. I can't stand Trump, but I also realize that I would never vote for Clinton, just to toe the party line. I'm a registered Republican, but I have also been a registered Democrat. I voted for George H.W. Bush, I voted for Bill Clinton, I voted for George W. Bush, and I voted for Barack H. Obama, his first term.

As far as our two candidates go....I can't stand them. Neither one is what I would consider a quality person. Both are dishonest as hell and one is funded by everything she tells the voters she is against. Am I going to vote for, or against a candidate? No, I am going to vote for the POLICIES that best fit my picture of what will make our country better and moving in a positive direction. So I ask myself 5 questions:

1. Who will most likely secure our southern border?
2. Who will take an active role in helping our veterans?
3. Who will best help clean up the corruption in DC?
4. Who will put the jobs of Americans first?
5. Who will negotiate better trade deals, where we stop factories from leaving?

 

[pcgeek11]

1. Who will most likely secure our southern border?
2. Who will take an active role in helping our veterans?
3. Who will best help clean up the corruption in DC?
4. Who will put the jobs of Americans first?
5. Who will negotiate better trade deals, where we stop factories from leaving?

1. Hillary wants open Borders.
2. Hillary doesn't care about veterans and never has.
3.Hillary is a yuge part of the corruption in DC.
4. Undecided.
5. Hillary is for the TPP, NAFTA, etc

 

[compuwiz1]

1. Hillary wants open Borders.
2. Hillary doesn't care about veterans and never has.
3.Hillary is a yuge part of the corruption in DC.
4. Undecided.
5. Hillary is for the TPP, NAFTA, etc

The point here is to not get involved with personality politics, then pick your issues. If you're only concerned with social issues, most of those issues can be best solved with prosperity. Who doesn't want prosperity?

Look, the world is on fire. There is going to be a new war, in the foreseeable future, no matter which one becomes president. Some Islamic countries are in total upheaval. They do not respect women. Do you think there is going to be any negotiations with them, when we have a female president? I'd love to have a great female president, but just not this one. World affairs also seem to indicate that this is not the time.

 

[Meghan54]

How hard is it for y'all to clean your knees after servicing each other? Remember to wipe your chins off, too. Can't have that dribble soiling you.

Over the top - even for P&N.
admin allisolm

 

[compuwiz1]

How hard is it for y'all to clean your knees after servicing each other? Remember to wipe your chins off, too. Can't have that dribble soiling you.

That's gross! WTF?

 

[Grooveriding]

Assange hates the US and states as much plainly whenever he can. The sorts of foreign policy positions that every candidate for president entertains are the things he used to rail against. Wanting a Trump win is wanting to see the US further continue its decline. Trump as a president could within reason even bring the entire country to an end through some disastrous rage fumble. Now that it's becoming clear Trump has pretty much lost the election, Assange is going to try whatever he can to influence things to the gullible.

 

[DrDoug]

I'd love to have a great female president, but just not this one. World affairs also seem to indicate that this is not the time.

Taking this argument to its logical end it would never be time for a woman to be President, would it? Why would we need to wait for a special time just for a woman and not a man? Regarding a great female President, you don't get to vote for greatness before she is President, you learn if she was great (or not) afterward. And finally, regarding Muslims not respecting women you might note that we have a nation chock full of men who don't respect women one whit and a few of them even hang out here.

On top of that, these he-man women haters are trying to elect an asshole who also doesn't respect women (or anyone else for that matter).

 

[pcgeek11]

How hard is it for y'all to clean your knees after servicing each other? Remember to wipe your chins off, too. Can't have that dribble soiling you.

Typical...

Get bent.

 

[brycejones]

I'd love to have a great female president,... World affairs also seem to indicate that this is not the time.

This is just a load of horse shit.

 

[Jhhnn]

With all the dirt they have on her, would they really recommend voting for her? It's just common sense. We are down to two major candidates, one of which, will become the next president. I can't stand Trump, but I also realize that I would never vote for Clinton, just to toe the party line. I'm a registered Republican, but I have also been a registered Democrat. I voted for George H.W. Bush, I voted for Bill Clinton, I voted for George W. Bush, and I voted for Barack H. Obama, his first term.

As far as our two candidates go....I can't stand them. Neither one is what I would consider a quality person. Both are dishonest as hell and one is funded by everything she tells the voters she is against. Am I going to vote for, or against a candidate? No, I am going to vote for the POLICIES that best fit my picture of what will make our country better and moving in a positive direction. So I ask myself 5 questions:

1. Who will most likely secure our southern border?
2. Who will take an active role in helping our veterans?
3. Who will best help clean up the corruption in DC?
4. Who will put the jobs of Americans first?
5. Who will negotiate better trade deals, where we stop factories from leaving?

So you actually believe Trump? Why? What has he ever done to convince you to do that?

That's a dead serious question.

 

[MongGrel]

So you actually believe Trump? Why? What has he ever done to convince you to do that?

That's a dead serious question.

I agree.

 

[ivwshane]

1. Hillary wants open Borders.
2. Hillary doesn't care about veterans and never has.
3.Hillary is a yuge part of the corruption in DC.
4. Undecided.
5. Hillary is for the TPP, NAFTA, etc

When you can't beat them, lie! All one has to do is a basic Google search to verify your claims. Well they also need to be able to discern bullshit from reality. I guess that's the part you have trouble with.

 

[lopri]

https://twitter.com/realDenaldTrump/status/790003954843262976

Denald

 

[emperus]

https://twitter.com/realDenaldTrump/status/790003954843262976

Denald

Please that me that is a spoofed tweet.

 

[sportage]

Assange and Wikileaks is no Daniel Ellsberg and the pentagon papers by a long shot.
And doest it bother anyone that Assange seems quite comfortable in his new surroundings?
Almost like he was a Russian commie at heart all along, from the very beginning.
And an old buddy bud to Vladimir Putin.
Assange just seems like some KGB plant rather than the all American hero.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Please that me that is a spoofed tweet.

You don't think that's the real dEnald trump?