"U.S. Punishes Russia for Election Hacking, Ejecting Operatives"

[Cthulhu 2020]

No see, Hillary is the Radiant Light unto The Nations, it is absolutely impossible she was a bad candidate, she was literally and figuratively the greatest human who has ever lived ever, TOTES!

As a cishet white male, who was once raised Christian, I must say that this age of "acceptance" and treating others as equals is the worst time for us white cishet males EVER. We are worse off than any other group in known history, even among all slaves considered. Not being the absolute pinnacle of the economic and social food chain is THE WORST. Cishet whites are so oppressed! All hail Trump! He shall save us!

[Wells]

I have plenty more, if you want to play this game:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...n-about-emails

The Hill

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-media-and-cl/

Washington Times

Julian Assange on Politico:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-med...clinton-227597





You mean bribing the attorney general of Florida to avoid prosecution? Using donation money to pay for a portrait? Illegally using foundation money on frivolous actives?

Oh I know very well. I do consider it important, just as I consider important that Eric Trump was recently using his donation to give wealthy donors access to Ivanka and Donald, I also consider that Hillary who screwed over a lot of people in Haiti with her foundation as more important. It's a difference of scale.

OpsEds repeating your claims aren't citation for those claims.

[Cthulhu 2020]

You mean bribing the attorney general of Florida to avoid prosecution? Using donation money to pay for a portrait? Illegally using foundation money on frivolous actives?

Oh I know very well.

Among many other things.

So you apparently just don't care. All hail Trump?

[CostinR]

OpsEds repeating your claims aren't citation for those claims.

I cite Julian Assange and Wikileaks on the matter. They are far more trustworthy and valuable then any media organization is at the moment. The words of an individual who helped protect Edward Snowden as he revealed mass surveillance are more worthy then anyone else.

Or is an informed American public no longer important to you?

Among many other things.

So you apparently just don't care. All hail Trump?

Care? What I care or not about is ultimately irrelevant. I am not an American, so my opinion is meaningless about Trump. I am not here to try and defend my opinion of Trump. I am trying to explain something that I've noticed.

The opinion that matters is that of the American people. The reason people cared more about Hillary's corruption rather then Trump's as Hillary was making weapon deals with foreign nations after they donated to the Clinton foundation.

But really corruption is meaningless to the average person. People don't care about how corrupt someone is, they care if that person offers them anything, even if it's just the understanding of their situation, Trump made his entire campaign about helping workers. Hillary made it all about Trump and about her so called qualification.

As Joe Biden put it: "My dad used to say, Joey, I don’t expect the government to solve my problems, but I do expect them to understand my problems."

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/251817543147335681

Or as Michael Moore puts it.

"You live here in Ohio, you know what I'm talking about. Whether Trump means it or not, is kind of irrelevant because he's saying the things to people who are hurting, and that's why every beaten-down, nameless, forgotten working stiff who used to be part of what was called the middle class loves Trump. He is the human molotov cocktail that they've been waiting for. The human hand grande that they can legally throw into the system that stole their lives from them.

So on November 8, the dispossessed will walk into the voting booth, be handed a ballot, close the curtain, and take that lever or felt pen or touchscreen and put a big fucking X in the box by the name of the man who has threatened to upend and overturn the very system that has ruined their lives: Donald J. Trump.

They see that the elite who ruined their lives hate Trump. Corporate America hates Trump. Wall Street hates Trump. The career politicians hate Trump. The media hates Trump, after they loved him and created him, and now hate. "

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...n_history.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YY-CiPVo_NQ

The only person who has won a presidential election in the United States since Jimmy Carter by casting themselves as an insider was George Bush senior and he only won because his opponent was pathetic while Reagan was widely loved. A third Reagan term.

[caervek]

So, the democrat government of the USA are punishing Russia because some hackers who may be Russian but probably aren't, used some Ukrainian software to steal files that contained factually true information which was detrimental to their presidential candidate, and they blame this for their candidates loss?

Yeah, lol.

That's like suing McDonalds because you burned yourself with coffee labelled as hot, when you don't even know if the coffee came from McDonalds... >.>

[TZucchini]

So, the democrat government of the USA are punishing Russia because some hackers who may be Russian but probably aren't, used some Ukrainian software to steal files that contained factually true information which was detrimental to their presidential candidate, and they blame this for their candidates loss?

Yeah, lol.

That's like suing McDonalds because you burned yourself with coffee labelled as hot, when you don't even know if the coffee came from McDonalds... >.>

Providing the public with subsets of "factually true" information, without context, isn't necessarily helpful.

It's like saying "drinking water can kill you", which is factually true, but not very helpful on its own.

[Deleted]

Or as Michael Moore puts it.

Michael Moore is now on suicide watch. He didn't mean it.

[Cybran]

Michael Moore is now on suicide watch. He didn't mean it.

Imagine how many African children wouldn't starve if he went on hunger strike.

[Felya]

I cite Julian Assange and Wikileaks on the matter. They are far more trustworthy and valuable then any media organization is at the moment. The words of an individual who helped protect Edward Snowden as he revealed mass surveillance are more worthy then anyone else.

Or is an informed American public no longer important to you?

The email dumps are misinformation, not providing information. Did Assange report on Trump's current appointments having extremely obvious and recorded conflicts of interest? No, he gave you a bunch of emails about government that is responsible for keeping him stuck in an embassy. It lets people like you assert that Hillary had power to make deals, that she never actually had. It makes people like you read Satanism and child porn rings. The point wasn't to inform, but misinformation.

Trump is appointing his largest Trump foundation donor other than him self, to a position she never had experience in. You waiting for Wikileaks to admit Trump's ethics we legitimately questioned by the media or do you want to see what more he can do when he actually takes office? Exxon CEO as Secretary of State? Check! Linda McMahon as small business administration? Check! Woody Johnson as U.K. ambassador? Check! Now, only for Wikileaks to report it and you can believe it.

Compare what Snowden did to these email dumps. Did he toss thousands of emails at the public and tell them to figure it out, or did he actually provide specific and exact information on US surveillance?

The opinion that matters is that of the American people. The reason people cared more about Hillary's corruption rather then Trump's as Hillary was making weapon deals with foreign nations after they donated to the Clinton foundation.

Bullshit... Hillary had no access to make such deals. The biggest one that accuses her, not only had a dozen of other agencies requiring approval, her job wasn't to propose the deal and it required Canadian government's approval.

Now, because media lied about Trump, you can continue to make claims about Hillary's power to make deals that she never had. While saint Trump just announced the appointment of his second largest donor to Trump Foundation, in small businesses business administration. Linda McMahon who has no experience in the field, but was only outspent by Trump in her family's donation to Trump's personal foundation (Hillary's personal charity is Clinton Family Foundation, Clinton Foundation is a public charity). Then we have one of the biggest Trump supporters in Jets owner, now being assigned as an ambassador to U.K. How about you tell me how an Exxon CEO would have behaved as Secretary of State, during the Benghazi attack, based on his experience?

If you want to claim that Trump scammed that many people, all power to you.

But really corruption is meaningless to the average person. People don't care about how corrupt someone is, they care if that person offers them anything, even if it's just the understanding of their situation, Trump made his entire campaign about helping workers. Hillary made it all about Trump and about her so called qualification.

This isn't true at all. Trump kept repeating the same rhetoric of helping that every single candidate did. If you bothered to watch the debates or read their platforms, the choice for who aims to help the middle class should have been clear. Was it media to blame that Trump's proposal to help the top, so they can then trickle down, lead to assertions such as yours? Was it the media who forced Trump to say Americans make too much money, when asked about minimum wage during primaries debates?

Trump had fucking Paula Johnes at the debates and you are going to claim Trump and you believe that he was all about worker's? But, it's media's fault?

[Deleted]

The email dumps are misinformation, not providing information. Did Assange report on Trump's current appointments having extremely obvious and recorded conflicts of interest? No, he gave you a bunch of emails about government that is responsible for keeping him stuck in an embassy. It lets people like you assert that Hillary had power to make deals, that she never actually had. It makes people like you read Satanism and child porn rings. The point wasn't to inform, but misinformation.

Wikileaks provide INFORMATION. They publish LEAKS.
I know it's hard for you to understand, but even if they have some secret agenda, they publish anything WITHOUT THEIR OPINION ON IT. Must be hard living outside of the world full of propaganda.

[Felya]

Wikileaks provide INFORMATION. They publish LEAKS.
I know it's hard for you to understand, but even if they have some secret agenda, they publish anything WITHOUT THEIR OPINION ON IT. Must be hard living outside of the world full of propaganda.

No, it's very easy living outside of propaganda. It's why I don't make assertions such as yours, or else this would result in a 404 error:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/press-release

But, you probably mean their default page for it, as part one seems to be the only part, now that elections are over:

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

Want to see what the Snowden leak was and the differance between an information dump and an actual leak? Just so it doesn't seem like I'm cherry picking, link Wikileaks page on Snowden leak. You know, the one with maps pinpointing locations and explicit details. It's a good example of information vs misinformation.

For good measure:

https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks...113920?lang=en

[Deleted]

No, it's very easy living outside of propaganda. It's why I don't make assertions such as yours, or else this would result in a 404 error:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/press-release

But, you probably mean their default page for it, as part one seems to be the only part, now that elections are over:

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

Want to see what the Snowden leak was and the differance between an information dump and an actual leak? Just so it doesn't seem like I'm cherry picking, link Wikileaks page on Snowden leak. You know, the one with maps pinpointing locations and explicit details. It's a good example of information vs misinformation.

For good measure:

https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks...113920?lang=en

Where's their OPINION on it?

[Felya]

Where's their OPINION on it?

Uhm... that whole piece is their press release, on what their opinion is for what's in emails. In the tweet, they are asserting their opinion, that Podesta was talking about blood and murder.

Having troubles linking their Snowden page?

[Deleted]

Uhm... that whole piece is their press release, on what their opinion is for what's in emails. In the tweet, they are asserting their opinion, that Podesta was talking about blood and murder.

Having troubles linking their Snowden page?

Quote what you think is their "opinion".

[Felya]

Quote what you think is their "opinion".

Sure, the tweet:

The Podestas' "Spirit Cooking" dinner?
It's not what you think.
It's blood, sperm and breastmilk.
But mostly blood.

First link:

Today WikiLeaks begins its series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the Clintons and was President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also controls the Podesta Group, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank. Part 1 of the Podesta Emails comprises 2,060 emails and 170 attachments and focuses on Mr Podesta's communications relating to nuclear energy, and media handling over donations to the Clinton Foundation from mining and nuclear interests; 1,244 of the emails reference nuclear energy. The full collection includes emails to and from Hillary Clinton.

In April 2015 the New York Times published a story about a company called "Uranium One" which was sold to Russian government-controlled interests, giving Russia effective control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for the production of nuclear weapons, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of US government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off the deal was the State Department, then headed by Secretary Clinton. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) comprises, among others, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy.

As Russian interests gradually took control of Uranium One millions of dollars were donated to the Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013 from individuals directly connected to the deal including the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer. Although Mrs Clinton had an agreement with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors to the Clinton Foundation, the contributions from the Chairman of Uranium One were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons.

When the New York Times article was published the Clinton campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon, strongly rejected the possibility that then-Secretary Clinton exerted any influence in the US goverment's review of the sale of Uranium One, describing this possibility as "baseless".

Mr Fallon promptly sent a memo to the New York Times with a rebuttal of the story (Podesta Email ID 1489).

In this memo, Mr Fallon argued: "Apart from the fact that the State Department was one of just nine agencies involved in CFIUS, it is also true that within the State Department, the CFIUS approval process historically does not trigger the personal involvement of the Secretary of State. The State Department’s principal representative to CFIUS was the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs. During the time period in question, that position was held by Jose Fernandez. As you are aware, Mr Fernandez has personally attested that “Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter.”

What the Clinton campaign spokesman failed to disclose, however, was the fact that a few days before sending his rebuttal to the New York Times, Jose Fernandez wrote on the evening of the 17 April 2015 to John Podesta following a phone call from Mr Podesta (Email ID 2053): "John, It was good to talk to you this afternoon, and I appreciate your taking the time to call. As I mentioned, I would like to do all I can to support Secretary Clinton, and would welcome your advice and help in steering me to the right persons in the campaign".

Five days after this email (22 April 2015), Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon wrote a memo to the New York Times, declaring that "Jose Fernandez has personally attested that 'Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter',” but Fallon failed to mention that Fernandez was hardly a neutral witness in this case, considering that he had agreed with John Podesta to play a role in the Clinton campaign.

The emails show that the contacts between John Podesta and Jose Fernandez go back to the time of internal Clinton campaign concern about the then-forthcoming book and movie "Clinton Cash" by Peter Schweizer on the financial dealings of the Clinton Foundation.

In an email dated 29 March 2015 (Email ID 2059), Jose Fernandez writes to Podesta: "Hi John, I trust you are getting a brief rest after a job well done. Thanks no doubt to your recommendation I have joined the CAP [Center for American Progress] board of trustees, which I'm finding extremely rewarding."

Julian Assange

[Deleted]

Sure, the tweet:



First link:

I think that you're unable to find their "opinion", that's why you're quoting the whole article.
And the tweet? Spirit cooking IS blood, sperm and breastmilk. Where's their opinion on it?

[Forogil]

And the tweet? Spirit cooking IS blood, sperm and breastmilk. Where's their opinion on it?

The "spirit cooking" dinner didn't involve that - and the tweet also misinformed in another way: John Podesta wasn't at the dinner, and had in no way indicated that he was interested.

[Felya]

I think that you're unable to find their "opinion", that's why you're quoting the whole article.
And the tweet? Spirit cooking IS blood, sperm and breastmilk. Where's their opinion on it?

At which point are you going to realize that you are defending, their opinion of what spirit cooking is in a fucking dinner invitation?

Yeah, I quoted the whole article, because it includes the entire connection that they are asserting. I cannot give you a simple quote, when the entire press release is asserting their opinion on what these email are talking about. You are asking for a needle in a haystack, while I'm telling it's a haystack of needles.

- - - Updated - - -

The "spirit cooking" dinner didn't involve that - and the tweet also misinformed in another way: John Podesta wasn't at the dinner, and had in no way indicated that he was interested.

What he is doing is something like this...

His name is actually a date of B - February 12th 1945, which was the first day after the Yalta conference:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yalta_Conference

It is a day that is the start of USSR's strategy of controlling countrys around it. Its the conference that joined USSR into the UN, which with veto power, set the stage for USSR's world power.

Now I get to claim no opinion is stated, while making a very clear and opinionated assertion. That's exactly how misinformation works...