• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Russian Hacked emails Disproven by Facts

R

Red Bull

New member
Joined
Sep 28, 2016
Messages
3
Reaction score
2
Location
Beverly Hills, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The strategy of the Clinton campaign and the Progressive Left to discredit the incredibly damaging information coming out of WikiLeaks is to say that it is a Russian hack meant to influence the elections in the United States. This is a false narrative spin and we now have indisputable truth to prove it.

In a posting on his website that is being picked up by social media, former UK Ambassador and human rights activist Craig Murray, who has established a rapport with WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange, states in no uncertain terms that the information about Clinton and her team coming from WikiLeaks is not coming from Russia.Further, he explains why the information isn’t a product of a computer hack. His statement destroys Hillary Clinton’s pathetic defense of her criminal activities.

With just 18 days left until the 2016 General Election, the information coming out of WikiLeaks, if properly covered in the media – mainstream, new and social – and explained to the voting population, will devastate Clinton’s campaign. It is information that proves crimes, collusion and corruption in and throughout the Clinton team and the Democrat Party.

“I left Julian after midnight,” Murray said in a statement. “I can tell you with 100 percent certainty that it is not any Russian state actor or proxy that gave the Democrat National Committee and Podesta material to WikiLeaks. The claim is nonsense. Journalists are also publishing that these were obtained by ‘hacking’ with no evidence that this was the method used to obtain them.”

This is bombshell information that proves both the legitimacy of the WikiLeaks emails and that the Russians had absolutely nothing to do with the exposure of the information. Murray’s statement demolishes the spin of the Clinton campaign used to deflect from the fact they have engaged in unethical and criminal activity.

Murray called the manipulation of and collusion with the Democrat Party machinery by the Clinton team to be “a matter of great public interest.” He characterized the coordinated efforts against the Sanders campaign as “deliberate” and “unfair,” declaring that they were meant – exclusively – to ensure Clinton’s victory over.

Addressing the attempts to scapegoat the Russians for a “hack,” Murray said that from the mainstream media on up to the Oval Office, attempts to “divert attention” from the unethical and criminal acts executed by the Clinton campaign and the Democrat Party, repeated ad nauseum without any investigation, is a disgrace.

Calling the notion that we must automatically “pretend Hillary Clinton is a saint” emetic – defined as causing someone to vomit, Murry said WikiLeaks has done a “great service” by making plain the collusive and unethical relationship between the Clintons and the huge-money political influencers of Wall Street.

But Murray wasn’t done opening the eyes of the public to the deceptive practices of both the Clintons and the mainstream media. He explained that the information WikiLeaks has published doesn’t emanate from a “hack,” as has been contended.
“The key point is that WikiLeaks is a publisher. It is a vehicle for publishing leaks, and is much more of a vehicle for whistleblowers than for hackers,” Murray explained. “It does not originate the material.”

This means that the information WikiLeaks is publishing is coming from inside the Democrat/Clinton apparatus! The emails being provided to WikiLeaks about the Clintons, the Democrat National Committee and the Obama Administration are coming from a leak inside the Clinton machine!

I have no doubt that the mainstream media will continue to tout the false narrative being shopped by the Clintons and their sycophant operatives that this information is courtesy of a Russian hack. But if enough of us make an effort to get this information to the public, their deflections will fail and Hillary Clinton’s campaign will be fatally wounded.
 
Red Bull said:
The strategy of the Clinton campaign and the Progressive Left to discredit the incredibly damaging information coming out of WikiLeaks is to say that it is a Russian hack meant to influence the elections in the United States. This is a false narrative spin and we now have indisputable truth to prove it.

In a posting on his website that is being picked up by social media, former UK Ambassador and human rights activist Craig Murray, who has established a rapport with WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange, states in no uncertain terms that the information about Clinton and her team coming from WikiLeaks is not coming from Russia.Further, he explains why the information isn’t a product of a computer hack. His statement destroys Hillary Clinton’s pathetic defense of her criminal activities.

With just 18 days left until the 2016 General Election, the information coming out of WikiLeaks, if properly covered in the media – mainstream, new and social – and explained to the voting population, will devastate Clinton’s campaign. It is information that proves crimes, collusion and corruption in and throughout the Clinton team and the Democrat Party.

“I left Julian after midnight,” Murray said in a statement. “I can tell you with 100 percent certainty that it is not any Russian state actor or proxy that gave the Democrat National Committee and Podesta material to WikiLeaks. The claim is nonsense. Journalists are also publishing that these were obtained by ‘hacking’ with no evidence that this was the method used to obtain them.”

This is bombshell information that proves both the legitimacy of the WikiLeaks emails and that the Russians had absolutely nothing to do with the exposure of the information. Murray’s statement demolishes the spin of the Clinton campaign used to deflect from the fact they have engaged in unethical and criminal activity.

Murray called the manipulation of and collusion with the Democrat Party machinery by the Clinton team to be “a matter of great public interest.” He characterized the coordinated efforts against the Sanders campaign as “deliberate” and “unfair,” declaring that they were meant – exclusively – to ensure Clinton’s victory over.

Addressing the attempts to scapegoat the Russians for a “hack,” Murray said that from the mainstream media on up to the Oval Office, attempts to “divert attention” from the unethical and criminal acts executed by the Clinton campaign and the Democrat Party, repeated ad nauseum without any investigation, is a disgrace.

Calling the notion that we must automatically “pretend Hillary Clinton is a saint” emetic – defined as causing someone to vomit, Murry said WikiLeaks has done a “great service” by making plain the collusive and unethical relationship between the Clintons and the huge-money political influencers of Wall Street.

But Murray wasn’t done opening the eyes of the public to the deceptive practices of both the Clintons and the mainstream media. He explained that the information WikiLeaks has published doesn’t emanate from a “hack,” as has been contended.
“The key point is that WikiLeaks is a publisher. It is a vehicle for publishing leaks, and is much more of a vehicle for whistleblowers than for hackers,” Murray explained. “It does not originate the material.”

This means that the information WikiLeaks is publishing is coming from inside the Democrat/Clinton apparatus! The emails being provided to WikiLeaks about the Clintons, the Democrat National Committee and the Obama Administration are coming from a leak inside the Clinton machine!

I have no doubt that the mainstream media will continue to tout the false narrative being shopped by the Clintons and their sycophant operatives that this information is courtesy of a Russian hack. But if enough of us make an effort to get this information to the public, their deflections will fail and Hillary Clinton’s campaign will be fatally wounded.
Click to expand...

:roll:

Somebody whose established a "rapport" with Assange is unlikely to be an unbiased source.

Why should we take his word for it that the hacks aren't coming from Russia?

Especially since WikiLeaks is now parroting the hysterically false Trump line that the election is "rigged".
 
Please don't associate the 'progressive left' with Clinton, because she certainly ain't that. Corporatist left? Sure. Plutocratic left? Absolutely. Neoliberal? By all means, carry on.

Also, whether or not Russia committed the hacks and sourced the leaks, no proof has yet been presented, and the ridiculous attempts by Clinton's campaign to deflect every last embarrassing Wikileaks revelation and exposure via incessant Russian accusations rather than accounting for the deplorable content thereof is completely inexcusable as is the relative MSM silence on the matter vis a vis dated Trump recordings that prove what everyone already knows about the horrid man. I don't know whether to be embarrassed for her political operatives or infuriated at them when they commit to this sort of nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Tigerace117 said:
:roll:

Somebody whose established a "rapport" with Assange is unlikely to be an unbiased source.

Why should we take his word for it that the hacks aren't coming from Russia?
Click to expand...

Neither the accusers nor the deniers have shown evidence.
Both claims are suspect, until evidence is presented

Tigerace117 said:
Especially since WikiLeaks is now parroting the hysterically false Trump line that the election is "rigged".
Click to expand...

The "rigged" can be interpreted in a variety of ways.
Assuming that it means the exact same thing, to both people, is something you should be careful of, before you call someone or something hysterical or false.
 
Last edited:
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Neither the accusers nor the deniers have shown evidence.
Both claims are suspect, until evidence is presented



The "rigged" can be interpreted in a variety of ways.
Assuming that it means the exact same thing, to both people, is something you should be careful of, before you call someone or something hysterical or false.
Click to expand...

But we've seen a tendency from certain posters to take whatever WikiLeaks says as Gospel. As this is private correspondence, the whole thing degenerates into he said she said. That alone would make me uncomfortable with trusting them.

In terms of elections, rigged usually has one standard meaning.
 
Russia is in a truly sad state given what they've been reduced to.

The Bear is desperate.
 
To quote Hillary Clinton..."what difference does it make"?"

The fact is that Wikileaks has merely revealed the information that Hillary Clinton lied about, hid, deleted, orderered destroyed, or simply said it doesnt exist all while under subpoena. The leftists are desperate to make this be about Wikileaks, Russia...ANYTHING other than what is being revealed.

Even left leaning media outlets are disgusted by the DNC.

 
It could be something as simple as Podesta leaving his phone in a cab.

F
rom:john.podesta@gmail.com
To: mfisher@hillaryclinton.com, eryn.sepp@gmail.com
Date: 2015-07-19 09:27
Subject: Fwd: Lost phone


Milia,
I know you are with friends/family, but if you see this before Eryn, can
you try to call Diamond Cab. I don't have a phone obviously, and want to
try to get to the cabbie as early as possible. Thanks John.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: *John Podesta* <john.podesta@gmail.com>
Date: Sunday, July 19, 2015
Subject: Lost phone
To: Eryn Sepp <eryn.sepp@gmail.com>


i lost my phone this am. It must have fallen off my belt getting in or out
of the cab. I used Diamond and had a 4:45 pick up at Brandywine. Can you
call Diamond Cab and see if the cab driver found it. They should be able to
figure it out given the pickup. The receipt says #Diamond 444 C502
Click to expand...
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/25364
From:ha16@hillaryclinton.com
To: cheryl.mills@gmail.com
Date: 2015-07-19 09:59
Subject: Re: 8:00 call

Ok!

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 19, 2015, at 7:59 AM, Cheryl Mills <cheryl.mills@gmail.com> wrote:

let's!

On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Huma Abedin <ha16@hillaryclinton.com>
wrote:

> Are we canceling?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 19, 2015, at 7:51 AM, Cheryl Mills <cheryl.mills@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> happy to canx!
>
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 7:47 AM, John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> i managed to lose my phone in a cab this am, so won't be on the call if
>> it's happening.
Click to expand...
 
Hillary Clinton -- Democratic Emails Hacked by Russia | National Review
. . . are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow — the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europa and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.
Click to expand...

Saying we think the hacks “are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts” is far short of saying we have evidence that Russia has been responsible for the hacks. Maybe high-level officials would have authorized them if Russian hackers were responsible, but the DNI and DHS statement did NOT say there was evidence Russia was responsible.
Click to expand...

Nobody has proven anything as to who the hackers are, just who they "could" be.
Speculation:

  • 1.
    the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.
    "there has been widespread speculation that he plans to quit"




  • 2.
    investment in stocks, property, or other ventures in the hope of gain but with the risk of loss.
    "the company's move into property speculation"



 
Or it could be that Podesta sent his email password in his email and that other email was hacked or compromised.
Podesta’s iCloud login information was within the Wikileaks emails, and 4chan users are understood to have tried the passwords for Podesta’s Twitter and Outlook accounts.

Podesta was ridiculed for failing to change his passwords after Wikileaks began releasing his emails.

@abbydphillip his admin emailed him his password, which he apparently used for everything, and it was in the #wikileaks, proves authenticity
— Andrew Saturn (@andsat) October 13, 2016

The new email address allegedly contains an email talking about Colorado polls, according to screenshots taken from the now-archived 4chan thread.

“Trump has seen a slight surge in Colorado and 2 out of 5 internal polling actually has him ahead by 2 points,” one email appears to say.

“Our recent polling data is not looking good,” another email reads.
Click to expand...
https://www.rt.com/usa/362617-podesta-twitter-email-hacked/

This part is interesting:
Podesta was ridiculed for failing to change his passwords after Wikileaks began releasing his emails.
 
Great poll.
 
VanceMack said:
Really, the source is irrelevant to the content. They are separate maters entirely.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

My point is that there is no proof of anything, just conjecture based on some previous patterns. I also find it ironic that the Clinton campaign has the audacity to talk about cyber security given the amount of security breeches have happened to them. SO far the DNC server, DCCC server, Clinton.com server, Podesta's email, twitter, and his phone have been hacked. Then there is the issue of Clinton's private server, which we don't know if it was or was not hacked. They haven't been exactly proficient in the field of cyber security.
 
Last edited:
Tigerace117 said:
But we've seen a tendency from certain posters to take whatever WikiLeaks says as Gospel. As this is private correspondence, the whole thing degenerates into he said she said. That alone would make me uncomfortable with trusting them.

In terms of elections, rigged usually has one standard meaning.
Click to expand...

Wikileaks has a 10 year track record of publishing authentic documents.
There have only been claims of inauthenticy, but no one has shown any document that is untrue.

The biggest tell for a liar, when it comes to this, is the diversion to "who did it."
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
They don't redact information because then claims on data manipulation would be true.
People would then dismiss the documents as false.
Click to expand...

They endangered women living in turkey by releasing information such as where they live, a very handy bit of information to know if you are a government who is interested in oppressing people who oppose it.

Who made Wikileaks judge and jury over what information is public or private?
 
The Wikileaks brouhaha just reflects the absolute horrible cyber security of the Clinton team. Podesta, the DNC, Brazile, 33,000 missing emails and the horror is ongoing. Clinton expects the people to elect her and be responsible for National Security when she can't even manage her own security. Ridiculous.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
They endangered women living in turkey by releasing information such as where they live, a very handy bit of information to know if you are a government who is interested in oppressing people who oppose it.

Who made Wikileaks judge and jury over what information is public or private?
Click to expand...

It's unfortunate that things come out like that and there is an argument for them to redact such information.
If governments didn't act like complete asshats, there would be no need to hack and release information.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It's unfortunate that things come out like that and there is an argument for them to redact such information.
If governments didn't act like complete asshats, there would be no need to hack and release information.
Click to expand...

No, wikileaks should not be excused for releasing people's private information. If turkey starts arresting people based on the information Wikileaks released, Wikileaks will have blood on its hands because it practically gift wrapped the target list the authoritarian dictator of turkey will use to crack down on people opposed to his regime.

I may have my issues with Edward Snowden but at least he knew what information was worth leaking to the press. Julian Assange does not care who gets harmed in his leaks, he leaks information without caring about collateral damage.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
No, wikileaks should not be excused for releasing people's private information. If turkey starts arresting people based on the information Wikileaks released, Wikileaks will have blood on its hands because it practically gift wrapped the target list the authoritarian dictator of turkey will use to crack down on people opposed to his regime.

I may have my issues with Edward Snowden but at least he knew what information was worth leaking to the press. Julian Assange does not care who gets harmed in his leaks, he leaks information without caring about collateral damage.
Click to expand...

If you bothered to read the story, this is information the government already had.
Why would they target women for information they already had, that was made public.
That makes 0 sense.

The real issue is ID theft, because they did release citizen numbers and things of that nature.
Again, the argument can be made that they should redact, but this is stuff the government already had.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
No, wikileaks should not be excused for releasing people's private information. If turkey starts arresting people based on the information Wikileaks released, Wikileaks will have blood on its hands because it practically gift wrapped the target list the authoritarian dictator of turkey will use to crack down on people opposed to his regime.

I may have my issues with Edward Snowden but at least he knew what information was worth leaking to the press. Julian Assange does not care who gets harmed in his leaks, he leaks information without caring about collateral damage.
Click to expand...

I see. Thousands dead at the hands of the USA called collaterol damage, but we're going to worry about a couple caused by Wikileaks. I think a damaged perspective is in action. Address both or address neither.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
If you bothered to read the story, this is information the government already had.
Why would they target women for information they already had, that was made public.
That makes 0 sense.

The real issue is ID theft, because they did release citizen numbers and things of that nature.
Again, the argument can be made that they should redact, but this is stuff the government already had.
Click to expand...

And why does Assange think he should be to one who judges what is private or public information? He has a God complex.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom