Julian Assange promises 'a lot more material' related to election will be leaked

[Milchshake]

So Assange is shilling for Putin and Assad. By this time next-year, he'll be DJing birthday parties in North Korea.

[Fadeslol]

Lol. Assad being propped up by Russia is not a conspiracy theory. It's a fact.

And to your nonsense above.

"The United States has never backed AQI and has never backed ISIS," said Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a terrorism expert at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. "It was never part of the opposition that the United States supported, full stop."

Joshua Landis, director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma, agreed. "It has never been the policy or stated goal of the Obama administration to arm or assist al-Qaida," he said.

"I would say it's another unsupportable conspiracy theory," said John Limbert, an international affairs professor at the U.S. Naval Academy who previously served as a foreign service officer in post-war Iraq and as deputy coordinator for counterterrorism in the State Department.

John Pike, the director of globalsecurity.org, said it would be putting it "mildly" to call it a conspiracy theory. And Gartenstein-Ross also used that term, tweeting that Trump’s effort to make this argument was a "transparently fallacious conspiracy theory."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...pported-isis-/

Politifact is owned by Clinton News Network. Not a real source.

[Skroe]

Since he's doing this out of pure spite, I don't think he deserves it.

I'm waiting for Wikileaks to publish something about Russia or China. One day.

Parts of the intelligence community believe post-split Wikileaks is at least partially a Russian intelligence front. Given Assange's comments, posting habits and his one time RT show, I'd say the circumstantial evidence isn't exactly flimsy (but neither will I endorse that perspective yet).

Or it could just be that Russian intelligence is making the most of a relentless self promoter (Assange) who will do anything, say anything, to remain relevant and promote his brand.

[Barnabas]

I'm waiting for Wikileaks to publish something about Russia or China. One day.

Parts of the intelligence community believe post-split Wikileaks is at least partially a Russian intelligence front. Given Assange's comments, posting habits and his one time RT show, I'd say the circumstantial evidence isn't exactly flimsy (but neither will I endorse that perspective yet).

Or it could just be that Russian intelligence is making the most of a relentless self promoter (Assange) who will do anything, say anything, to remain relevant and promote his brand.

Assange is an opportunist and face of the website. Could be snowden posting all of this for all we know.

[Pangean]

Politifact is owned by Clinton News Network. Not a real source.

No it's not. It's part of the Tampa Bay Times which:

"is published by the Times Publishing Company, which is owned by The Poynter Institute for Media Studies, a nonprofit journalism school directly adjacent to the University of South Florida St. Petersburg campus."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_Bay_Times

You are so amusing ensconced in your world of non-facts and conspiracy theories.

[DeltrusDisc]

My manager and I have been talking about this... "Why hasn't he already leaked this?!"

He's definitely trying to sway the election, but at the wrong time and definitely not doing any good at this point, it would seem. Why didn't he do this six months ago?

I have a feeling he's pro-chaos/anarchy and/or pro-Trump.

[Barnabas]

My manager and I have been talking about this... "Why hasn't he already leaked this?!"

He's definitely trying to sway the election, but at the wrong time and definitely not doing any good at this point, it would seem. Why didn't he do this six months ago?

I have a feeling he's pro-chaos/anarchy and/or pro-Trump.

The hackers had access for the past year.

[DeltrusDisc]

The hackers had access for the past year.

So why then are they waiting to release for so long?

I really can't determine a much better reason than what I stated. =/ It's kinda scary, to be honest.

[Barnabas]

So why then are they waiting to release for so long?

I really can't determine a much better reason than what I stated. =/ It's kinda scary, to be honest.

I dunno to sour their convention and hope trump gaffes so he looks like an asshole too?

[Skroe]

My manager and I have been talking about this... "Why hasn't he already leaked this?!"

He's definitely trying to sway the election, but at the wrong time and definitely not doing any good at this point, it would seem. Why didn't he do this six months ago?

I have a feeling he's pro-chaos/anarchy and/or pro-Trump.

An analysis I read today puts it pretty simple: Russia is more bumbler than mastermind when it comes to political interference. They don't understand American voters, American politics and never have, because they view them through a Russian lens and Russian politics (and political imperatives) are very different. The "chaos theory" is the leading one. While Putin would prefer Trump wins, his real target is an overall assault on the institution of democracy.

There is a real risk though. What happens if and when Hillary wins? Is she supposed to shake hands with Vladmir Putin? This is a very stupid gamble for Russia. The Clinton's have a long memory and they do hold grudges.

But Russia may not see it like that. Or it's already factored it into its longer term political equations. For example, some analysts believe Russia will withdraw from NewSTART in 2018 (they're not cutting warheads and launchers to treaty levels and are way, way behind schedule if they were to make that date... the US is already at it's treaty level). If Vladmir Putin doesn't plan to cooperate with the next president, in any event, he would have little to lose by alienating her.

In any event, this is highly multidimensional as you can see.

The real risk is a cyberattack on Diebold electronic voting machines in swing states. As an American, that would be my nightmare scenario. A Russian cyberattack causing electoral chaos in Florida, and it going to a tied 4-4 supreme court, and you have a figure like Donald Trump who is, how shall we say, far less patriotic, gracious and respectful of the law and democracy than Al Gore was. It would be a catastrophe. Maybe John Roberts will save us once again.

Needless to say, on the other side of this, something needs to be done about Vladmir Putin. He's gone too far this time.

[Fadeslol]

No it's not. It's part of the Tampa Bay Times which:

"is published by the Times Publishing Company, which is owned by The Poynter Institute for Media Studies, a nonprofit journalism school directly adjacent to the University of South Florida St. Petersburg campus."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_Bay_Times

You are so amusing ensconced in your world of non-facts and conspiracy theories.

Sorry i know you're brain washed and can't read. It's isn't a conspiracy theory. It's fact. And i'm not saying CNN. I'm saying Clinton in General. You're so funny, instead of using your brain, u go and read politifact.

You're probably same person that thinks Gulf of Tonkin happened too

[Matchles]

No it's not. It's part of the Tampa Bay Times which:

"is published by the Times Publishing Company, which is owned by The Poynter Institute for Media Studies, a nonprofit journalism school directly adjacent to the University of South Florida St. Petersburg campus."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_Bay_Times

You are so amusing ensconced in your world of non-facts and conspiracy theories.

Thank you! I personally know some of the people behind the creation of Politifact and I just have to shake my head when I hear some of the nonsense people throw at it every time they see a ruling they don't like.

[Skroe]

No it's not. It's part of the Tampa Bay Times which:

"is published by the Times Publishing Company, which is owned by The Poynter Institute for Media Studies, a nonprofit journalism school directly adjacent to the University of South Florida St. Petersburg campus."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_Bay_Times

You are so amusing ensconced in your world of non-facts and conspiracy theories.

You're doing God's work sticking it to this guy.

[Fadeslol]

Thank you! I personally know some of the people behind the creation of Politifact and I just have to shake my head when I hear some of the nonsense people throw at it every time they see a ruling they don't like.

Tell them to get a brain then

- - - Updated - - -

You're doing God's work sticking it to this guy.

Yea i'm going to believe a LT Gen over Politifact anyday

[kail]

Sorry i know you're brain washed and can't read. It's isn't a conspiracy theory. It's fact. And i'm not saying CNN. I'm saying Clinton in General. You're so funny, instead of using your brain, u go and read politifact.

You're probably same person that thinks Gulf of Tonkin happened too

Congrats on being the first person on the Internet to not refer Clinton News Network as CNN.

[Fadeslol]

Congrats on being the first person on the Internet to not refer Clinton News Network as CNN.

Well in general it is, but Clinton News Network includes alot more sites than just CNN

[Matchles]

Tell them to get a brain then

Pretty sure they have one. And that is why they are behind one of the most identifiable and widely discussed political sites in the world, instead of bitching about it on gaming forums.

[Pangean]

Sorry i know you're brain washed and can't read. It's isn't a conspiracy theory. It's fact. And i'm not saying CNN. I'm saying Clinton in General. You're so funny, instead of using your brain, u go and read politifact.

You're probably same person that thinks Gulf of Tonkin happened too

Lol so the looney right don't call CNN the Clinton News Network anymore? Veracity is not your strong point is it?

"The United States has never backed AQI and has never backed ISIS," said Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a terrorism expert at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. "It was never part of the opposition that the United States supported, full stop."

Joshua Landis, director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma, agreed. "It has never been the policy or stated goal of the Obama administration to arm or assist al-Qaida," he said.

"I would say it's another unsupportable conspiracy theory," said John Limbert, an international affairs professor at the U.S. Naval Academy who previously served as a foreign service officer in post-war Iraq and as deputy coordinator for counterterrorism in the State Department.

John Pike, the director of globalsecurity.org, said it would be putting it "mildly" to call it a conspiracy theory. And Gartenstein-Ross also used that term, tweeting that Trump’s effort to make this argument was a "transparently fallacious conspiracy theory."

[THE Bigzoman]

Not even 5 posts in and a lefty calls him a rapist.

Kappa.

[Fadeslol]

Lol so the looney right don't call CNN the Clinton News Network anymore? Veracity is not your strong point is it?

"The United States has never backed AQI and has never backed ISIS," said Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a terrorism expert at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. "It was never part of the opposition that the United States supported, full stop."

Joshua Landis, director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma, agreed. "It has never been the policy or stated goal of the Obama administration to arm or assist al-Qaida," he said.

"I would say it's another unsupportable conspiracy theory," said John Limbert, an international affairs professor at the U.S. Naval Academy who previously served as a foreign service officer in post-war Iraq and as deputy coordinator for counterterrorism in the State Department.

John Pike, the director of globalsecurity.org, said it would be putting it "mildly" to call it a conspiracy theory. And Gartenstein-Ross also used that term, tweeting that Trump’s effort to make this argument was a "transparently fallacious conspiracy theory."

Hasan: “You are basically saying that even in government at the time, you knew those groups were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn’t listening?”

Flynn: “I think the administration.”

Hasan: “So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?”

Flynn: “I don’t know if they turned a blind eye. I think it was a decision, a willful decision.”

Hasan: “A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?”

Flynn: “A willful decision to do what they’re doing… You have to really ask the President what is it that he actually is doing with the policy that is in place, because it is very, very confusing.”

Let me ask you something, was Gulf of Tonkin true or false?