Michael Stuart Kelly

WikiLeaks and other Whistleblowers - Clinton

Recommended Posts

WikiLeaks and other Whistleblowers - Clinton

There are so many whistleblower dumps in this 2016 election, it's hard to keep up with them. So, to help people sift through the noise, this thread is being set up as a dynamic source.

I will be adding to this opening post as we go along based on cognitive clarity, not just my partisan (pro-Trump) position.

To start off, here is the link to the WikiLeaks site. More information coming.

WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks on Twitter
WikiLeaks Task Force on Twitter

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A site and app promoted by WikiLeaks for sifting through the emails (added after Podesta No. 32):

Corruption Finder

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The best site I have found so far (added near the start) that simplifies the WikiLeaks dumps for the 2016 election is the following. It is constantly updated. You can skim it easily, too, if you don't have much time. The core ideas are stated simply in bold. Then the quotes and links are in a smaller font.

Most Damaging WikiLeaks

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Here is another sorting of leaks by issue. It has been retweeted by WikiLeaks.

The Podesta Emails Revelations: A Collection

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Vaskal blog filters the most revealing emails by fewer categories than the others. This has been retweeted by WikiLeaks.

The Most Revealing Emails from the #PodestaFiles, Separated By Category (Parts 1 - 28)

===============================================

DC Leaks

Look especially for George Soros (Open Society Foundation) and Colin Powell.

===============================================
Project Veritas

Rigging the Election Part 1 - Clinton Campaign and DNC Incite Violence at Trump Rallies

 

Rigging the Election Part 2 - Mass Voter Fraud

 

Rigging the Election Part 3 - Creamer Confirms Hillary Clinton Was PERSONALLY Involved

 

Rigging the Election Part 4: $20K Wire Transfer From Belize Returned

Michael

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2016 at 9:14 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

There are so many whistleblower dumps in this 2016 election, it's hard to keep up with them. So, to help people sift through the noise, this thread is being set up as a dynamic source.

It is very hard to slog through  the Wikileaks database. it is not curated.   So you can either go hunting for something without knowing what you are looking for, or you have to rely on a middleman to interpret and/or flag individual, particular communications. Give us five or so shocking revelations from the Podesta Emails, let the scandals emerge to be clear and awful, if not criminal. 

The mention of Jones, Ratner and Macfayden ... means ... well what does that mean?

Reading between the lines, a Red Hat personified might assume not only a mysterious cause of death for each of the three men.  The assumption could be that some murkity murk murk plus inference plus boogey monster .... somebody murdered the three men, most likely because of their work with Wikileaks.

Michael, you say this is 'serious.'  This presumably means you have some knowledge about these three gents, dead gents, and the details of their demises, and the likelihood of secret assassination being directed from ... murk.

Can we get on firmer epistemological ground with these 'serious' matters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This should be the first post (behind the opening post) on this thread:

 

In other words, this is serious.

 

Michael

How many none whistle blowers died during the same time period????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Video 3 of James O'Keefe's Project Veritas "Rigging the Election" series just came out.

I was already going to open a "Project Veritas" section in the opening post so I took this opportunity to do so.

I will only post PV videos (or stories) there that have to do with this election or any aftermath of it.

Michael 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael added this intriguing tweet in the Fun thread ...

-- what does it mean, the somewhat cryptic remark? 

I'd say it means that the alt-right (whatever that is) is hustling for a Trump victory on November 8th. I think it means that the person or persons who posted that tweet believe that the Democrats will secure the White House.  And that the alt-right (whatever that means) are mistaken to think otherwise.

As for the three men who worked for Wikileaks, but met death -- MacFadyen, Jones and Ratner -- I think the Wikileaks tweet was using British idiom. Like, if my family lost three beloved people in the last year, one suicide, one septic shock, one cancer, and if my family was British, we might say we had a 'bloody year.'  Not that blood was spilled, or splattered or dripped out ... just that it was bloody awful to go through, that we are still grieving. It does not indicate foul play.

OLers already had a look at the "not suicide" death of John Jones, and the other two deaths, of Gavin MacFadyen and Michael Ratner are yet perhaps mysterious to some.. The obituary for Ratner suggested complications from cancer, and MacFadyen's death was also attributed to cancer. MacFadyen was 76, Ratner was 72

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

-- what does it mean, the somewhat cryptic remark? 

I'd say it means that the alt-right (whatever that is) is hustling for a Trump victory on November 8th. I think it means that the person or persons who posted that tweet believe that the Democrats will secure the White House.  And that the alt-right (whatever that means) are mistaken to think otherwise.

That was my interpretation.

And on Oct 4th, when Assange was supposed to deliver all the e-mails, that would RUIN Hillary, get her indicted...........

...All WikiLeaks books are on sale: 40% off!!

29c66c1456a03329b5cc6afdaef3bc36.jpg


In the tweet, I think the wish fulfillment is Assange telling us he doesn't have the goods.  Hillary wins, and Trump is depicted as glorified, representing denial.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah.

It's entirely plausible that Assange is saying Trump is not knocking out Hillary Clinton. WikiLeaks is. And the media will still try to declare her the winner.

People need to be careful with their own wish fulfillment and denial when things are cryptic.

:)

Anyway, this thread is more for information than banter so I won't allow myself to be baited into defending Tump, WikiLeaks, O'Keefe, etc., too much...

That's also why I'm putting the good stuff in the opening post.

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Nah.

I think Wikileaks is targeting Clinton. Why the hell not? I also think all the dumps during this election season have the function of a purgative. In a good way.

I remember being surprised and then very grateful that Wikileaks dumped the 'Assad Emails.' We got to see inside. All of these dumps are valuable that same way. To see inside the private communications of power is always interesting, and to see inside the circles of influence and power around them is even more interesting.

I have a critique of particular Wikileaks communications and actions. I think this round is too-tightly bound to a political and power opponent. Wikileaks is vulnerable to complaints of partisanship. It isn't the source of the hacks either that is important (in other words, I don't care if the election-dumps came from Russian hackers or not). I think it is the Wikileaks allegiance-appearance that is too bad. The appearance is that Wikileaks from the top down is allied with Russian interests at the moment (note that there is a "whistleblowing from within" Wikileaks itself, which lately has detailed some of the apparent allegiance).

There is even a weird body of belief agglomerating around Trumpian notions of soothing Russia, adopting the Russian preferred narrative, letting the pressure off Russia by way of sanctions and trade obstruction and financial 'warfare'... in some ways this can only bring pleasure to the Kremlin.  They want to 'win' this election.  They want a Trump. So ...

I think the Trump campaign can make effective use of the Podesta emails, bearing in mind the challenges of making a drip drip drip into a Kerthunk and a big Kersplash. There has got to be a filtering crew to sort of 'triage' every single one of the releases to date, and to choose which to highlight and ram home nine ways to Sunday. The specific horrors can get obscured under the mass of the dump.  Nothing so far has kerthunked with the accompanying storm surge of the Pussy Kersplash.

What I am getting at is that a theme of the Trump campaign involves the awfulness of corruption and malevolent influence networks within the establishment. The Podesta Dumps contain clear examples, even if a bit wonky and boring in large measure. Fishing out the worst of the worst is essential to hammering home the Trump message.

The elite Trump Lovers can turn this raw mountain of meat into a Comeback Kersplash.  I know they can. There is no smarter set of elites than those surrounding Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Edited by william.scherk
Added two contextualized wikitweets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The actual date and time on the above tweet is .  But this seems to be the original tweet, :

Which makes the image simple, it was about the polls.

Which means Assange played people, again, with his cryptic remark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

Seems the mystery of the cryptic tweet is solved...  from Reddit:

Korben,

Solved?

How?

I didn't see anything from WikiLeaks explaining their meaning in that thread.

I did see people--in that very thread--claiming the WikiLeaks Twitter account was hacked. Is that what you mean by solved?

:evil:  :) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm putting this video in the whistleblower thread because it is indicative of WikiLeak's direct influence on the election.

Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks discusses Hillary Clinton's speeches to Wall Street that WikiLeaks published and her own staff's reaction to those speeches before in the email leaks.

He is pissed.

Fit to be tied.

Saying, "I told you so."

How will this influence the election?

The Young Turks is the biggest alternative media show going for the Bernie Sanders crowd and hardcore progressives. Although Cenk tells his audience to vote for Clinton in other videos, here he is saying if she gets in office, it will be an unmitigated disaster. In other words, Cenk constantly gives mixed signalling to his audience about whether they should vote for her or not. (He seems to be honestly conflicted.)

Other members of The Young Turks (like Jimmy Dore, but he's not the only one) openly say they will not vote for Clinton or Trump, but it is especially immoral to vote for Clinton. I've seen several discussions where they say that.

Without WikiLeaks showing Clinton's backstage attitude toward Wall Street, it was easy to convince Bernie's people to vote for her sight unseen.

Now, after WikiLeaks (especially regarding the DNC rigged primaries and Wall Street), I believe a huge chunk of them will either stay home, vote third party or hold their noses and vote for Trump.

I doubt you will find this factor reflected in mainstream polling except lumped into the generic category "negatives."

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know where a metric indicating influence of wikileaks on voters would be found. My sense about it is there is going to be a lot of projection of ones thoughts on the election. Its only human. My circle of acquaintances dont mention elections. Its hard to get a grasp from their comments too.

Im from Va and the 538 web site polling forecasts a dominant democrat voting outcome. Something like 86% to 14%. I'll check on it in the days ahead.

I dont like either majority nominee. Trump self sabotage knowingly or un is unfortunate. Im happy to say the agita I felt early on is lessened now.

No one on the national scene has a chance in hell of doing much of anything in  limiting government. On paper, oh yes, it looks entertaining, lots of prospects, yammering, in the end dismal results is my reckoning.

Rather than throw my vote away when it can do some good, Im voting for GJ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Wikileaks's Twitter account made a snark, claiming that there is "a strong culture of wish fulfillment or denial developing in the Trump alternative right." It borrowed an image from an earlier tweet to illustrate the snarky "denial" claim. The cartoon shows a Blitzer-ish boxing referee holding up the arm of a battered Clinton sprawled in the ring. A trim, sexy Trump is of course, still standing, triumphant.

The first appearance of the cartoon that I can trace with Tin-Eye and Google image-search is between the last presidential debate and October 20. That date is the first time it appeared at Infowars. The original appeared first at the cartoon site of Ben Garrison, Grrrgraphics.com. Reposts unfortunately cropped the cartoon, which effectively removed its title, an obvious reference to the debate.

debate-hillary-trump-ben-garrison_2.jpg

So I will revisit my earlier opinion.

23 hours ago, william.scherk said:

I'd say it means that the alt-right (whatever that is) is hustling for a Trump victory on November 8th. I think it means that the person or persons who posted that tweet believe that the Democrats will secure the White House.  And that the alt-right (whatever that means) are mistaken to think otherwise.

That seems in the neighbourhood. Ben Garrison certainly is on the Trump Train. I don't know if he is alt-right (whatever that means), but sure enough a wing of support quickly whipped round the cartoon and multiplied its message. That message was "despite the 'ref' calling the fight for the prone Democrat, it was the Republican who won the third debate."

Hey, if you think your guy 'won' the last face-off, go for it. 

Anyway, I was curious:  even though it might seem that Wikileaks has a death wish for the Clinton campaign, and will do its damnedest to help deny a Democratic victory, it hasn't come right out to support Trump in so many words.  Which should lead us back to the dumps, where the information is, where the scandals lie, where the fix is in.

But, it still rankled a bit. Why is the Wikileaks team at Twitter getting so snarky about Trumpian 'true believers'?  Do WL believe that the race is essentially over, that the conventional wisdom is more or less correct?

Well, yeah, I think so -- especially after going backwards in their Twitter feed.  There was an exchange here:.

Here is the latest of the funny Garrison cartoons at GrrrGraphics. And another with a Wikileaks theme.

drain-the-swamp-ben-garrison_orig.jpg

hillary-witch-ben-garrison_4_orig.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

There was an exchange here...

William,

I admit, it worries me the WikiLeaks people say this. I wonder what they base that opinion on. They have enough info to know the polling is skewed. In fact, some of the proof is coming from them. So I wonder what extra documentation they have. (I mean, what do they have from the powerful that nobody yet knows that shows some dirty rotten dastardly plans.)

It does not affect my enthusiasm for Trump, though. I am not only hopeful he will win, I pretty much expect it (with 0.000000001% chance of a loss just to keep my bases covered :) ).

I was there when Assange punked off everybody on the night he said he had a major announcement, then, when it came around, said he definitely had info on Clinton that would be substantive to the campaign, but would hardly do that at three in the morning.

That leads me to believe he could be punking off everybody again. After Trump wins, he says, "Oops, but my comment about power consolidation was correct." :) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

William,

I admit, it worries me the WikiLeaks people say this. I wonder what they base that opinion on. They have enough info to know the polling is skewed. In fact, some of the proof is coming from them. So I wonder what extra documentation they have. (I mean, what do they have from the powerful that nobody yet knows that shows some dirty rotten dastardly plans.)

It does not affect my enthusiasm for Trump, though. I am not only hopeful he will win, I pretty much expect it (with 0.000000001% chance of a loss just to keep my bases covered :) ).

I was there when Assange punked off everybody on the night he said he had a major announcement, then, when it came around, said he definitely had info on Clinton that would be substantive to the campaign, but would hardly do that at three in the morning.

That leads me to believe he could be punking off everybody again. After Trump wins, he says, "Oops, but my comment about power consolidation was correct." :) 

Michael

There is no legal recourse if the polls are skewed.  With poll data it is caveat emptor   and caveat recipis.   The only poll that is legally required to be fair, square and unfiddled is the election.  And we all know better than to accept that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one is going to be a headache in the coming days.

Cheryl Mills is talking to John Podesta about the emails from Hillary Clinton to President Obama from Clinton's illegal private server for government affairs.

She said, "we need to clean this up."

That means Obama's emails on the official government server...

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Woah...

If you don't know who Kim Dotcom is, he's one of the heavies in the Black Hat and hacking world. 

Granted, that's from July, but still...

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is why WikiLeaks is necessary.

Why didn't the FBI or Homeland Security do that?

Hmmmmmmmmmmm?...

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...