Hillary Clinton

Snopes has been shilling for the DNC since the beginning of their existence. It started out a husband and wife team with no prior experience in investigative research. And they've been caught presenting misinformation plenty of times.


The Clintons have a long history of their enemies dying mysterious deaths.

So are you trying to convince me that it's all Russia's fault that Hillary cheated in her primary?

 

Wikileaks is offering $20,000USD for information leading to the conviction for the murder of Seth Rich

 

There seems to be a general consensus that Russia hacked the DNC. There is not a general consensus that Russia was Wikileak's source

Assange stated that the DNC has been hacked multiple times, indicating that there could be multiple possible sources for leaked documents.

He also stated that wikileaks has DNC documents which post-date all known hacks, including the Russian hack. If so, that suggests that either Russia is not the source, there has been a subsequent Russian hack, or that wikileaks has mixed document sources.

 

Julian Assange working for the Russians - does this sound completely fucking ridiculous to anyone else?

We're talking about a man who basically sacrificed his life to fight for the freedom of the press, or, ya know, did exactly what other journalists should do but don't because most of them work for giant media conglomerates who are monetarily in bed with the government

And we are supposed to believe this last bastion of journalistic integrity is working for the Russian government well known for their dirty habit of suppressing the press?

Whatever floats your boat and keeps you from thinking too hard about what Wikileak's leak actually reveals, I guess. Lets just all fall into left over Cold War fears instead.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Lbu1VXZIsI

 

That's not what he is sayng at all. Are you kidding/trolling? I don't see how you get there in earnest.

I think it is unlikely, and that there are indications something russian had something to do with it could also be a false setup. But we are not sure and I think it is not wrong at all to keep that in mind. People posing theories as certain is getting terrible annoying. Posing it as such doesn't make one look smarter at all (on the contrary, more stupid gullible or plain misleading), or make that persons theory more true. By all means share your thoughts (really! ) but keep it real.
It could very well be the truth is somewhere in the middle here. Maybe Assange made a practical deal with Russia while he was there (a pragmatic one that even if it did benefit Russia it also did not hurt his journalistic goal, as all this info was ment to become public at one time in one way or another?). I admit readily that's just a thought!!

 

It may be that Russia is sufficiently authoritarian to keep a much tighter grip on its documents.

A PBS documentary alleged that Putin was in fact responsible for orchestrating bombings in Russia, and then blaming the Chechens, as a scheme to win his first election. It further alleged that the bombing sites were quickly bulldozed, and that anyone trying to investigate was either jailed or killed.

Bullets and jail cells go a long way toward silencing whistleblowers.

It's seems entirely plausible that Assange released the documents to damage HRC. She apparently is keen on prosecuting him, and Assange may be pushing back.

If potential sources fear that they might be assassinated, even if those fears are unfounded, it could have a chilling effect.

 

I ask because many Hillary supporters I encounter are making feeble attempts to dismiss her blatant corruption by directing all blame on Putin.

Oh really?
http://www.govtslaves.info/comprehensive-clinton-body-count-list/

 

That's what you do.

 

I believe that you believe that.

 

I've only checked two of the links that you posted, the last two. Both of those seem to me to support the position that the DNC/HRC campaign engaged in voting fraud, rather than rebut the point.

The "Iowa Caucus not an Election" link indicates that the Iowa Secretary of State responded to numerous complaints of fraud by tweeting that it was a caucus, not an election. In other words, if I am interpreting this correctly, the DNC can't be prosecuted for election fraud, even if they manipulated the voting results.

The "Fraud and Theft in Iowa" link dismisses some manipulation issues as trivial, while confirming others:

Given that the DNC was packed with HRC supporters, and that the DNC Chair was a former co-chair of HRC's 2008 election campaign, there is reason to believe that there was bias toward HRC. The wikileaks documents confirm that members of the DNC, including the DNC chair, openly conspired to engage in tactics to sway the election toward HRC, as well as acted to do so.

It is entirely plausible that Bernie won the popular vote by a significant margin, and the DNC's arcane calculation methods (or outright fraud) distorted election results in HRC's favor.

 

I'd consider debating this further, if there is someone other than you who has read my posts on the subject, yet is still confused about what I meant.

 

If the system didn't want the information to come out, the media would not report on it. I personally believe Assange is a sort of intelligence asset who leaks information the system wants leaked to create controversy. But I know people here will scoff at that.

 

People mainly scoff at such considerations when they are posted as fact or certain, when they in no way seem to be. When it is brought as what it is, your personal thought/belief (and of course it doesn't hurt sharing how you got there) people IN GENERAL (of course some will keep shitting on everything that sounds like it could be 'conspiracy theory') will see and react much more reasonable to it.