Home | About | Donate

VP Pence Caught in Yet Another 'Demonstrably False' Claim After Wikileaks-Don Jr. Revelations


Thank you. I do not claim to know whether the Clinton / DLC / Podesta material was leaked by an insider as some claim or hacked by Russia.

I do not claim to know that the allegations against Assange as a Putin tool are false.

I do, with respect for those who disagree, think that we do not have sufficient, sufficiently reliable, information to know what is the case.


Ssshhhh, you are going to disturb the delusional kids. They still don’t know that it has been proven that Clinton and the DNC colluded with Russia. Now that they have beat that horse to death, they are starting to eat it. Sit back and enjoy because soon they are going to start cannablizing themselves.


Correct no such evidence exists. He also vehemently denies any connection. Of course if anything DJT is saying is true whether or not the person at WikiLeaks he was talking to was Assange, credibility (Assange and WikiLeaks) is shot. I’m going to assume innocent until proven guilty for now. I imagine Amy Goodman will be giving him opportunities to respond.


Required reading for all the fake progressives on this thread:

What Bradley Manning Revealed

And what happened aside from a bunch of imbeciles complaining about Wikileaks:

The Torture of Bradley Manning

If you’re accused of leaking US military info, even Obama doesn’t think you deserve a fair trial.

And what happens to people who leak intelligence for money, drugs, and prostitutes:

Navy Officer Gets Prison in `Fat Leonard’ Bribery Case

A once-highly regarded Navy officer who accepted bribes, including the services of prostitutes, from a foreign defense contractor in exchange for confidential military information was sentenced in San Diego Thursday to 2 1/2 years in prison.

The Navy officer must be really pissed:

Petraeus Sentenced to 2 Years’ Probation for Military Leak

Former CIA Director David Petraeus, whose career was destroyed by an extramarital affair with his biographer, was sentenced Thursday to two years’ probation and fined $100,000 for giving her classified material while she was working on the book.

I’m sure you are just as outraged about this as you are about Russians using Pokeman Go and $100,000 worth of Facebook ads (half run after the election) to influence the election. You corporate war monger supporters are the smartest!


Makes me think that perhaps Assange/Wikileaks is trying to curry favor with the madman so he can leave the Ecuadorian Embassy. Tragic. There appear to be precious few, if any, heroes.


Hey, I want to play this game also. Maybe he took this woman seriously…

Hillary Clinton on Gaddafi: We came, we saw, he died

… when she said she wanted to drone him:

Clinton: I don’t recall joking about droning Julian Assange

She’s so funny… that’s her public position BTW:

Private Hillary vs. Public Hillary: What the Latest WikiLeaks Tell Us About Clinton’s Willingness to Deceive Americans

Ooooohhhhhh… I get it now, she really doesn’t like Assange.


This is odd and I would like more information before crucifying Assange. I’m sure he isn’t flawless but one would think Julian Assange would be well aware that even “private” twitter messages can be and will most likely be “found” and made public. I also think there are many people that would like nothing better than to discredit him.

Whether or not he has/had ulterior motives, there is also (still) the content of the Podesta emails and the other truths that have been made public because of Wikileaks.

Still, as always, one can’t trust Trump or Clinton.

Was there more to the Democracy Now report? I didn’t see any:

I did see these:



Piece by piece the puzzle, which every semi rational person not clouded with partisan bubble knew before, is revealing itself.

Dear Assange please turn yourself in if you want last drops of respect for what you did right.

Tell me who is your friend and I tell you who you are? Putin appears to be Assange’s friend


The point here is not the truthfulness of the Podesta leaked stuff - which involved internal tempest-in-teapot party matters amounting to maybe a 2/10 on the scandal scale (this kind of stuff happens in every political party in the world), but that Wikileaks totally blew their credibility and impartiality by actually engaging in political activity.


I might believe that, but it is well known from Democracy Now interviews that that Assange was a leading “leftist for Trump” - he hoped Trump would win, but believed that the “spooky Hillary-loving deep state” would never let it happen.

Also, why was Wikileaks asking Trump to defy the US constitution in refusing to accept the outcome of an election?


Assange is a practiced, consummate opportunist…he goes where the money flows and leaves his self-respect and integrity at the door on his way out. A perfect pal for Putin.


I’d have to look through the actual tweets (in their entirety) to see what Wikileaks actually asked but the loser doesn’t have to accept or concede to make an election official. A concession is just polite and considered a peaceful part of the transition. And elections can be contested by the states.


I believe Clinton implied, just a few weeks ago, that she would consider contesting the election if a mechanism could be found to do so.



Thank you for your excellent post.


There’s no question that Julia Ioffe (the author of The Atlantic article) selectively edited the version of the email that’s raising all the questions about Wikileaks.

But the D-Party apologists won’t care.


Clinton and her supporters: If Wikileaks is neutral, why don’t they get Trump’s tax returns and release them? Huh? Huh?

-a year later it turns out Wikileaks was trying to get Trump Jr. to give them his dad’s tax returns so they could release them, and doing a lot of wooing of him to convince him to do so-

Clinton supporters: See? The Trumps were in contact with Wikileaks all along! Doesn’t that prove they were not neutral? Huh? Huh?


At this point, there just doesn’t seem to be anything that’ll satisfy the Hillary dead enders.

Russia did it.
Bernie Bros did it.
Sexist Jill Stein voters did it.

And anyone who dredges up the past to relitigate 2016 is standing in the way of unity.
Except when the Clinton dead enders do it.


Oh Yunzer, is there a war crime you don’t like:

The Conflict In Syria Was Always Israel’s War

State Department diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks have shown that in 2006, five years before the conflict in Syria manifested, the government of Israel had hatched a plan to overthrow the Assad government by engineering sectarian strife in the country, creating paranoia within the highest-ranks of the Syrian government, and isolating Syria from its strongest regional ally, Iran.

Leaked emails belonging to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton further reveal Israel’s role in covertly creating the conflict and its clear role in securing the involvement of the U.S. and other nations in executing its plan for Assad’s removal.

A successful intervention in Syria would require substantial diplomatic and military leadership from the United States” and states that “arming the Syrian rebels and using western air power to ground Syrian helicopters and airplanes is a low-cost high payoff approach.”

All this time I thought that you were just a misanthrope, but now that I know you watch Democracy Now it all makes sense:

We Need Better and More Diverse Coverage on Syria: Open Letter to Amy Goodman and Democracy Now!

Unfortunately, with only rare exceptions, DEMOCRACY NOW has NOT been raising such questions either in regards to Syria. On your Friday, April 7th show, you featured numerous guests discussing Syria, some openly accusing Assad, but nobody asking about evidence. Listeners of your show were left to take for granted that the Assad regime is guilty as assumed. This is particularly disappointing to us as we are long-time listeners of your show; we have over the years trusted you as a reliable source of information.

Cognitive Dissionance on Democracy Now? Read this.

Recall that the Libyan leader was lynched on a roadside by a NATO-directed mob, and sodomised with a knife before being shot dead. It may also be recalled that “Democracy Now” gave prominent broadcasts supporting NATO’s intervention in Libya and justifying the criminal subversion of that country. Going by the latest coverage on Syria, Democracy Now is acting once again under a “progressive” cloak as a propaganda tool for US-led imperialist intervention. Given the misplaced respect among many of the public seeking independent, alternative, accurate news and analysis, this insidious role of Democracy Now is reprehensible.

Democracy Now! Criminal Cheerleaders for US-NATO-GCC’s Perpetual Conflict and Bloodshed in Syria

Camouflaged with the trappings of critical, independent journalism, “Democracy Now” serves to sow powerful seeds of misinformation in a way that the “compromised” mainstream media cannot.”


She implied she would’ve if she could’ve but she couldn’t? Why that bitch!


Assange is not a leftist. He’s an Assangist.


The problem with today’s politics is that most arguments now happen between proven liars. Trump and Republicans argued with Clinton and the DNC. He now attacks and is attacked by people like Schumer, Pelosi and Feinstein. Trump battles against US intelligence, who in turn is going after people close to Putin. Trump and the media are always butting heads. Everyone I mentioned has a long record of lying to, manipulating and misleading citizens in this and other countries. All of those politicians, Trump included of course, are corrupt. Wikileaks is not in the same category as those people and groups. It has done amazing work and it has pissed off the right people throughout its history. However, if this were true, I would be disappointed and would like Assange and Wikileaks to respond. There are reasons why Assange would be anti-Clinton, beyond her record, worldview and corruption, what she said about him directly. She went as far as threatening his life at one point, she was “joking”, of course. These types of stories often make big headlines, and they almost always fall apart as more details emerge. With Wikileaks, I will at least wait to hear their side. They’ve earned that, while none of the people or groups I mentioned have. In fact, the media in this country and the ones pushing the Russian propaganda have a really bad record at telling the truth and being accurate to the public on a wide range of issues. For that matter, many of the people in this thread that have been pushing the Russian narrative have a bad record at telling the truth and being accurate. I do want to hear Wikileaks’ response though, and I want more information about the accuracy and context of these comments.