He was on Joe Rogan recently also. Good listen

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1WlB_S6r3sQ

Damn Joe was a huge dick that episode... does he have a drinking problem?

I usually love Joe, but when he drinks he gets really ducking and belligerent. His podcast is definitely better when he just sticks to weed.

As a security professional I'll say he did a good job. He got 'attribution' well covered and this has been my problem the entire time; the technical details aren't there to support Russia attribution.

it is kind of weird how WikiLeaks seems to only release stuff on Russia's enemies tho, rite?

and they didn't release the big Russian leak they had planned?

after Russia said they were gonna crush Julian?

Hey fellow reddit user, did you also hear that the Ron Paul Institute is a Russian fake news organization? That is all. Good day.

I'm sure if the Cia had equivalent dirt on russia they would release it in a heart beat. Not saying it doesn't exist but saying wikileaks is with Russia because they haven't leaked Russian shit is silly. Wikileaks also has not released anything about North Korea. Are they NK agents now too? What about Canada? No wikileaks implicating Canadians so let's blame canada!

Honestly we need to stop worrying about where information comes from and start acting on the information we have.

it is kind of weird how WikiLeaks seems to only release stuff on Russia's enemies tho, rite?

Nah its not weird. People are assuming wiki leaks has dirt on everyone. What if they only have access to X or Y database? Then even if they wanted to release Russian or Canadian or NK stuff they wouldn't be able to by the fact they just don't have that data.
I don't see any news organizations even posit that it might be the case that the amount of info wikileaks has is actually limited or finite
They just keep pushing the narrative that because they don't post stuff against other govts... they must be in cahoots...
Silly logic

they tweeted about having a Russian leak and then never even released it..

So why would they tweet it in the first place? If they new they would never release it :/

Julian Assange addressed that question in one of his recent interviews.

You're wrong. Do better research

you gotta stop reading from your script.

Maybe it's bot glitching.

They can't refute the documents themselves so they refute the publisher, it's a boring tactic really.

Who gives a shit if that is the case. Here in the USA we have laws that must be obeyed if we can call ourselves a nation of laws.

Russia is a red herring.

A lot of people give a shit if Russian intelligence has bought a sitting president. Are you saying you have zero interest in finding out if the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to get him into office?

I told you what I am saying.

Stop with your fucking whataboutism.

What's "fucking whataboutism"? Do you care if Russian intelligence controls our own fucking president?

This r/conspiracy, are we still pretending this elite world government is actually opposed by free sovereign countries like Russia? give me a break.

r/conspiracy is not a therapy group, or at least it shouldn't be. If that's what you're looking for, I hope you find the help you need. In the meantime, this sub is to present the best evidences of manipulation and grift on large scales to see who's actually benefiting from deals that are bad for the rest of us. I don't give a shit if you want to defend the Russian dictatorial kleptocracy. If that's how you want to spend your time, so be it. However, don't tell me how I should feel about our leaders making power deals for their own good with the Russians.

And please go home with what you think the "elite world government" would do--as if it's a unified thing. There are as many agendas as there are people. But to be clear, are you saying you don't give a shit if the current president made lucrative personal deals with Russian intelligence to line his own pockets?

There are 196 countries in the world. Julian is from Australia. Notice he hasn't leaked anything on our "friends" from down under?

But it sort of makes sense. I made a list of people that have been giving WikiLeaks hell and trying to imprison or discredit their employees. I've included it below.

1) The United States.

So no big surprise they have a hate boner for the former administration, really.

oh I thought WikiLeaks was nonpartisan

I really don't care what you think if you're just here to argue for your political team. Both sides are shit.

They were, but ever since October the twitter has been more partisan than I would like to have seen. Strange things happened in October.

Gen. Michael Hayden: I believe "WikiLeaks is acting as an arm, as an agent, of the Russian federation"

Or possibly another hacker group loyal to the Russians (or an arm of Russian intelligence) has released docs in an attempt to shift interest away from the brewing shitstorm of Trump-Russian collusion. Seems likely to me.

There's no way for anyone to check if these docs were released by Wikileaks or by "Wikileaks".

PLEASE GO AWAY

You do know most Europeans do not see America and Russia has friendly nations rite?

His message is good but what's with these youtubers seemingly not able to string more than one sentence together without editing themselves. It's highly annoying.

It's more for the audience. Imagine normies watching a video more than 5 minutes where they aren't spoon fed. On the other hand it does make it a lot easier for the content creator to sound smart and efficient. I prefer you tubers who read off of a sheet or their computers and don't do cuts.

Been a daily viewer of Phillip Defranco for a while and he does seem to give an honest unbiased rundown on the big news stories that everyone covers from their own angle. I definitely recommend subscribing if you haven't already.

I like that he presents both sides, and when he does have an opinion he makes sure to let you know that what he is saying is opinion as opposed to passing it off as fact.

I very nearly put it in my comment that he announces the difference between what is his opinion and what is fact, but got a little worried that people would just think I was blowing smoke up his ass and not even put in the effort to listen to him.

Sometimes I overthink things.

Or maybe not.

I dunno.

Am I crazy? He conflated a bunch of information so he could twist and say "Trump still did Russia." He insisted that the only other explanation for the Russian fingerprints was that the CIA had to have leaked the documents, which is just untrue. He's either very stupid or propaganda. Fuck sxephil.

I think it's still important that he's getting people the full run down. The least biased I've seen on this topic and with 3m subscriber's and over a million views on the video id say he's doing alright

It's extremely biased

Eh, no it's not..it just doesn't cater to your personal agenda

No, it's biased and I already explained why. He had to bend over backwards and twist logic just to say that Russia hacked the DNC and leaked the emails and there is no other possible explanation.

What are you even talking about..he explained possibilities in a very non biased way..your personal beliefs on the matter have you hearing what you want to hear

As I already said, he said the only explanation for the DNC hacks was that the CIA leaked them, which doesn't make any sense so it still had to be the Russians. He ignored all the other possibilities, which (as I said) makes him either very stupid or propaganda.

I know what you said, and you're not hearing how your interpretation is clouded by your personal feelings. He never talks in absolutes and only offers up theories for both the Russians hacking and if the CIA made it look like they were hacking. He offers no absolutes and provides a thoughtful and unbiased starter discussion on the matter. I am not trying to put you down, only reach out and help you see a more neutral perspective. Peace ✌️

He did, your fandom is clouding your judgement. He also didn't mention to other possibilities, which is why he's being intentionally stupid or just stupid.

See how your feelings are getting in the way of rational thought? Name calling is a childish way of remaining stubborn to rational thinking.

What are you talking about? I've laid out my points and you've yet to refute them. I can call him stupid when he says stupid things, it's not like he's reading this, it's not hurting anyone, calm down.

You haven't pointed out anything, you changed his words

No, I didn't. He went into a spiel about how if the CIA leaked the DNC documents then it means the CIA had to be working for Trump and are now also doing the Russia narrative which is against Trump but that doesn't make any sense so it had to be the Russians.

He didn't say that was what was happening, only that that is a narrative that is being talked about..you have a biased viewpoint and you are hearing what you want to hear...see the light

3:07 He literally says "To me.." You're just out and out lying now.

Dude, you realize you just linked to a part of the video where he is literally explaining two sides of the issue..you really aren't seeing how your decision making skills are clouded by a passion for what you believe in..it's fine to be passionate but your attacking someone who actually made a real effort to be unbiased, which is awesome. Unbiased news and our own abilities to rationally think are important..

He said, "To me that doesn't make sense because.." and went in to explain his faulty logic. He is not being unbiased at all, even a little bit You're refusing to see wth because of your fandom so don't try and project your irrationality on me.

Your the one being irrational man. Like the other guy said you are hearing what you want to hear.

It's a direct quote

maybe youre jumping through mental hoops so you can maintain your worldview?

What mental hoops would those be? That I can see more possibilities than just "it was the Russians?"

That the only thing it can't be is collusion by two rich and powerful people

When did I say that? I said that's not the only it can possibly be.

I'm sure they're plotting a character assisination scheme as we speak

What will it be this time I wonder...

• Pedophile?
• Nazi?
• Fascist?
• Ohh what about communist?

Could it be.........SATAN!!!!

Lol i dont know how many people will catch this reference. Oldie but goldie :)

Character? I would imagine that the CIA has already put Jason Bourne in play to shut Assange down and recovery any intel he can. They have had a itchy trigger finger for Assange for years. Now I doubt they will even ask for permission from Bush Sr. if the they can kill him.

At least there's 1 good Franko brother.

His channel is the channel I've been longest subscribed to on youtube, over 10 years...wow, just realized that

Stop using "red-pilling" to describe anything conspiracy related, "red-pillers" isn't synonymous with "free-thinkers"

Like the "normie" thing that has popped up here recently. Straight out of fucking /pol/ to make themselves feel superior to people.

I never saw it as a superiority thing but just a simple distinction based on the fact that there are certain conversations we have here every day that I wouldn't even dream about bringing up to a coworker because of how I assume they would perceive me. Like you can't just bring up 9/11 with normies. I don't mean that in a superior way but in a way that most normal people will think I'm a lunatic.

Because it isn't an appropriate social topic at all. I mean, come on. There's just some things you don't talk about in dates, work, school, or with general associates.

9/11 is a facebook topic, a topic for close friends, and the internet.

I acknowledge what I am doing but I will continue to fuck over English with words that are used to put an entire half of the population down

FTFY

Yes, and nobody uses that definition on the internet anymore

Well, the problem is they do. Not a whole lot of people, but those who do use the term use it frequently to describe inconvenient truths. I think it's an immature term and its use further alienates the conversation away from substance and focuses too much on the word choice. It also immediately identifies the poster as a cliche to me, a caricature that uses edgy language to separate themselves from the group think they perceive in the "normies" as they call them.

Man I remember watching him back in 2006 and thinking he was the funniest thing on the Internet. Nostalgic me is so freakin stoked that he's back in the limelight for the right reasons.

That was pretty cool

I have no idea who he is, but I just sorted his videos by popularity, and there seems to be an unusual number of videos about Kim Kardashian and Katy Perry.

His channel doesn't look interesting at all.

I told you what I am saying.

Stop with your fucking whataboutism.

This r/conspiracy, are we still pretending this elite world government is actually opposed by free sovereign countries like Russia? give me a break.