Truly a master strategist. They've confirmed dems suspicions that WikiLeaks is a partisan group, but they did it while cleverly hiding another wink and a nod to Seth Rich in a buried link inside images on twitter.

Of course it’s partisan, look at the content of their leaks. How often have they hurt conservatives? That said, partisan support doesn’t delegitimization the information exposed. Seth Rich was murdered in cold blood for leaking DNC emails to Wikileaks. He was a patriot. He was one of Us.

It would to be all our benefit if WikiLeaks would leak against conservative politicians also.

No doubt

I find that hard to believe.

There's a pretty clear trend of leaks being weaponized in favor of a certain type of politician after Macron's emails were released.

I just wish I could peek into an alternate universe where it was Trump and Le Pen's emails leaked. I imagine almost all of the people currently saying "who cares about the motives or actors behind these leaks" would see the issue.

I don't think you understand how Wikileaks works. They can only leak info they are given. If you want to leak stuff on conservatives then you need to give them the info

Yeah I get that. Which begs the question, why haven’t they been given dirt on both sides of the two party system? Is there none? Have they and chosen not to publish? Again, I support Wikileaks 100% percent but I see clear partisanship on their part. I’m not saying that’s bad or good. I’m just saying.

Assange admitted that he had info on Trump, but refused to release it.

It was worth releasing?

Was Podesta's risotto recipe worth releasing? Release the information, and let the public decide.

Also, it's telling how quickly you moved those goalposts.

What goalposts? I just asked a question.

You're saying Wikileaks has Podesta-sized emails for Trump and hasn't released them?

What goalposts? I just asked a question.

From "Can't release what they don't have" to "Were they even worth releasing?"

You're saying Wikileaks has Podesta-sized emails for Trump and hasn't released them?

I'm saying Assange admitted to having info on Trump, but refused to release it, yet he thought Podesta's risotto recipe was "worth releasing".

What info does he have on Trump?

Wikileaks released Podesta's risotto recipe by itself or was it part of a much larger release? Does Wikileaks have something like that for Trump?

We don't know the answers to any of those questions because Assange refused to release it.

So you're not sure? It could be nothing then?

You mean like a risotto recipe?

So Assange released that on its own? I thought it was part of a larger release? But you're not sure if Wikileaks has that for Trump.

So Assange released that on its own? I thought it was part of a larger release?

No, it was during one the small, incessant releases that he dripped out for "maximum impact".

But you're not sure if Wikileaks has that for Trump.

By Assange's own admission, we know he had info on Trump. Are you really not getting this?

You bring up a good point. The recipe was part of a much larger release with a ton of interesting info and corruption.

But you don't know if Wikileaks has that for Trump.

The recipe was part of a much larger release with a ton of interesting info and corruption.

Almost entirely untrue.

But you don't know if Wikileaks has that for Trump.

And that's entirely untrue, by Assange's own admission.

This level of reality denying is absurd.

Almost entirely untrue.

How so?

You're saying Wikileaks has juicy info on Trump like they do for Podesta? How do you know it's full of interesting info and corruption like Podesta's?

The juiciest part of Podesta's emails were his risotto recipe. So literally anything they had on Trump had to be at least as damning. But as we now know Assange was colluding with Trump, it's no surprise he decided to be a massive hypocrite and not release the information.

So you don't think there was anything newsworthy in the Podesta emails? Why do you think they were so newsworthy then?

I'm confused. Before you said you didn't know what Assange had for Trump but now you're calling it damning?

So you don't think there was anything newsworthy in the Podesta emails? Why do you think they were so newsworthy then?

Because people were foaming at the mouth to have anything to use against someone they didn't like politically.

I'm confused. Before you said you didn't know what Assange had for Trump but now you're calling it damning?

As damning as. You are confused.

So you do know what info Assange has on Trump? Why did you say you didn't before? How do you know?

Podesta emails were clearly damning. Why is your opinion different than most others?

So you do know what info Assange has on Trump? Why did you say you didn't before? How do you know?

Are you still confused? Because I never said such a thing.

Podesta emails were clearly damning. Why is your opinion different than most others?

They weren't damning, that opinion is only held by deplorables.

Is this what's going on with you and Trump?

No, his sheer idiocy that he shares with his most ardent supporters is what I take most offense at.

But this conversation is about the Assange, the hypocrite.

Then why are you acting like you know what info Assange has?

They weren't damning, that opinion is only held by deplorables.

And Democrats, especially progressives. Why do you think your opinion is so different?

Then why are you acting like you know what info Assange has?

I'm not, that's just another lame assumption you keep making.

And Democrats, especially progressives.

Nope, just wildly misinformed people believe that nonsense.

Right, you don't know. So it could be nothing. Why would Wikileaks release nothing?

Nope, just wildly misinformed people believe that nonsense.

This is the first time I'm hearing someone say the Podesta leaks aren't newsworthy. If you think everybody else are misinformed people who believe nonsense what does that say about you?

Right, you don't know. So it could be nothing. Why would Wikileaks release nothing?

Like a risotto recipe?

This is the first time I'm hearing someone say the Podesta leaks aren't newsworthy.

You should probably step outside of your echo chamber every once in awhile then.

If you think everybody else are misinformed people who believe nonsense what does that say about you?

Not everybody else. Just the feeble-minded who didn't actually read the emails, and instead let their respective echo chambers dictate how they should feel about a bunch of inconsequential emails.

Like a risotto recipe?

...that was part of large, newsworthy leaks. You said you don't know if the Trump info is newsworthy.

Just the feeble-minded who didn't actually read the emails, and instead let their respective echo chambers dictate how they should feel about a bunch of inconsequential emails.

Yes. How do you think you can avoid this happening to you in the future?

Still confused huh?

Yes. Why do you think Dems rely so heavily on shilling and astroturfing on reddit and other social mediums?

I don't know. Why do you think conservatives use sock puppet accounts to constantly say "I'm a progressive but.." and then do nothing but defend Trump and attempt to sow discord among the left? Personally, that seems like a much more pervasive problem than the "Shareblue" bogeyman.

Not sure, I haven't seen much evidence of that. Could just be a talking point used by shills.

Regardless, Shareblue is much more obvious on Reddit.

That's funny, because I've seen it happen first hand, and often.

Regardless, Shareblue is much more obvious on Reddit.

No, that's just a ridiculous bogeyman used by people who don't have the wherewithal to defend their nonsensical positions, so they shout "shill" at the top of their lungs in a lame attempt to change the conversation.

I'm an actual progressive. I'd ask you the same question, but I know I won't receive an honest answer.

I'm an actual progressive. I'd ask you the same question, but I know I won't receive an honest answer.

What makes you say that? What kind of issues are you interested in?

No, that's just a ridiculous bogeyman used by people who don't have the wherewithal to defend their nonsensical positions, so they shout "shill" at the top of their lungs in a lame attempt to change the conversation.

That's an interesting opinion. New to Reddit? You must not have known Reddit before it hit taken over by shills. Believe it or not, Reddit, especially subs like r/politics, used to be far more progressive and grassroots.

I've been on Reddit for years actually, and have seen how these astroturf bogeymen are much less prevalent than people claim, all because they need an excuse to discount the opinions of others or shut down an argument they know they're losing.

And I don't need to have an ideological discussion with someone who's not even honest about their own beliefs.

You're not aware of and/or not concerned about corporate interests manipulating Reddit for their own gain? That doesn't seem very progressive of you. How do you reconcile that?

Are you being honest about your own beliefs?

You're not aware of and/or not concerned about corporate interests manipulating Reddit for their own gain? That doesn't seem very progressive of you. How do you reconcile that?

I'm aware that the reality to which that happens is significantly less than the efforts of people that use it as a boogeyman, to discount the thoughts and ideas of those they disagree with.

I'm very honest about my own beliefs. I don't make believe like I'm a progressive, and then do nothing but defend Trump and attack the left. I think being unable to argue your points from a place of honesty shows an inherent weakness in one's own positions. If you need to pretend to be something you're not in order to lend weight to your arguments, then they're not actually worth that much at all, are they?

No wonder you feel that way. You think people are using shills as a "boogeyman" when really people just don't like corporations anonymously manipulating Reddit. Here's more info on astroturfing:

https://www.reddit.com/r/shills/comments/4kdq7n/astroturfing_information_megathread_revision_8/

https://youtu.be/FxNvUWN3vYk

I think being unable to argue your points from a place of honesty shows an inherent weakness in one's own positions. If you need to pretend to be something you're not in order to lend weight to your arguments, then they're not actually worth that much at all, are they?

Yes, so what makes you do it then?

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

You're really not very good at this. The "I'm rubber and you're glue" defense doesn't work very well everyone can see who you claim to be versus what you actually support. There's a reason you get called out on it so often in this sub. People generally aren't dumb enough to fall for sock puppet accounts.

What're you suggesting? You claim to be a progressive and yet you defend shilling. How do you think that makes you look?

You're saying I'm a sock puppet? But didn't you say people should not resort to name calling to discredit thoughts and ideas?

Even after all this, you're still confused. Remarkable.

No it's abundantly clear to me now

Uhhh the entire Seth Rich theory is dead because Papadopoulos knew the Russians had thousands of emails damaging to Clinton months before they dropped. Unless you think Seth was working with Papadopulous and Russia.

How's that related to Seth Rich leaking DNC emails?

He obviously didn't leak those emails. Papadopulous knew Russia hacked th3 DNC months before those emails dropped. Seth Rich doesn't fit into this anymore.

Says one guy. With no proof. That the MSM spun as fact.

Ahh so that's the only argument you have left. Putting your fingers in your ears and so singing "fake news" as loudly as you can.

No. I don't believe something because one guy said so with no documentation or evidence in a highly politicized environment where there's motive to do so. Just because you suck it up and then drop it as a talking point all over this sub, doesn't mean anyone is going to believe it. You're transparent as freshly polished glass, bud.

Yet you believe Seth Rich is the source because 1 guy said so with no documentation or evidence in a highly politicized environment where there's motive to do so.

Do you seriously not see the irony here?

Haha. Try again.

Nah I think I crushed your argument the first time actually.

Hey you're in a conspiracy sub. Lots of interesting topics here. Why not try commenting on a subject that ISN'T Trump related? You might blend in a little better, buddy.

Ahh, sooner or later, people who have nothing to say always land on the "you're a shill" argument. I guess you've run out of arguments and we are all done here. See ya next time bud.

I didn't say you're a shill. Where'd I say that? Sheesh. Someone's a little sensitive.

Why would I need to blend in then champ?

You don’t have to be a shill to push an obvious partisan narrative

I'm expressing an opinion. Am I not allowed?

Of course you’re allowed

But whenever I express my opinion, you're going to accuse me of pushing a narrarive. So what exactly am I allowed to say and how often?

Well you are, that’s just a fact. Say whatever you want, whenever you want, and I’ll do the same. In the words of Orwell, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

So every time anyone expresses an opinion, it's pushing a narrative. So I guess it's not a negative thing right?

In a way, yeah. But not all opinions are equally legitimate.

Right right. Mine is less legitimate than yours. Got it.

Never said that brother, just having a conversation. Take it easy

You: "You have to believe in my hearsay because you believe in an unproven theory based on circumstantial evidence"

Who do you think is lying here? Papadopulous? The Australians? The New York Times? Who exactly do you think is lying in this story?

I think you're lying.

Papadopulous lied about 'having contact with Russia' because they 'had emails damaging to Clinton'.

Which emails are these? DNC emails? Podesta Emails? The Clinton Cables from the previous year? Her 33,000 emails she deleted? Any of the other Classified emails she kept on her server? There's not just 1 set of emails damaging to her...

I also want to point out, your basis for 'Russia hacked the DNC' is because of some Russian characters in Meta data. What was also in the metadata is that the DNC files were downloaded at a rate that exceeds US Internet speeds, but is standard for something like... a USB file transfer. Which means that the files were stolen locally. Possibly by a staffer (like Seth Rich). Keep clinging to that 'we were hacked!' lie though. Which by the way, if they were hacked, why won't the DNC turn over their servers to be investigated? It might help them catch whoever 'hacked' them.

Ahhh the old the "speeds were too fast" theory that was debunked a long time ago.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170814/11490537992/stories-claiming-dnc-hack-was-inside-job-rely-heavily-stupid-conversion-error-no-forensic-expert-would-make.shtml

This entire investigation popped off after the Australian diplomat tipped us off abo it what he told them. You think the FBI didn't ask Papa about that?

Huh, TIL. Thank you!

Care to address the rest?

The Clinton Cables are from 2010 so that's not even relevant to this. I guess your theory is both Seth and Russia hacked the democrats then. Seth got the DNC emails somehow and Russia hacked Podesta. That's your theory then?

No... you claimed that Seth Rich wasn't a leaker and was now irreverent because Papa knew Russians had 'damaging emails'. I'm saying how do you know which emails they were? And how do you know Seth Rich didn't take and leak the DNCs emails?

Alright dude, I guess Seth Rich and Russia and Wikileaks were all working for Trump. We can go with that if you like.

So Papas testimony doesn't rule out the possibility that Seth Rich leaked DNC emails?

This is pointless dude if you want to believe some random kid who was about to work for Hillary before he died is the source that's fine. I can't prove your dad or your cousins roommate didn't hack the DNC because you can't prove something like that. Just like I can't prove big door doesn't exist. But we know that Russia had those emails and gave them to wikileaks. We also know that Wikileaks adamantly denied Russia gave them anything. Which means they are liars. So if you want believe them then fine. I guess Seth Rich and Russia teamed up to work for Trump.

wtf man, you claimed his testimony ruled out Seth Rich, all I'm asking is: how?

It doesn't matter. You guys just keep changing the theory every 10 minutes so you can keep the original narrative. Let's just pretend Seth Rich and Russia teamed up to work for Trump. That's the theory you can go with.

Good job backing up your point

Since I can't 100% Seth didn't hack the DNC, will you do me a favor and 100% probe he did?

Uhhh the entire Seth Rich theory is dead because Papadopoulos knew the Russians had thousands of emails damaging to Clinton months before they dropped. Unless you think Seth was working with Papadopulous and Russia

You're the one making the claim. The burden of evidence is on you. And since you "cant 100% prove Seth Rich didn't hack the DNC", your point is moot. Seth Rich leaking the DNC emails is still in the realm of possibilities, Papas testimony does not rule him out.

The four current and former Australian and US officials familiar with the matter.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-campaign-adviser-george-papadopoulos-pleads-guilty-lying-n815596

Did you think we had a parliament in America? Mueller isn't handing over this investigation to anybody.

He lied about having contact w Russia. That's a huge step away from knowing Russia stole DNC emails.

How do you even know that the "emails damaging to Clinton" we're the DNC emails? How do you know they weren't the Podesta emails? They could have even been the old Clinton cables that were released the year prior

Your theory is that both Russia and Seth hacked then?

obviously

Why?

What so your theory is both Russia and Seth Rich hacked the DNC?

Please answer my question first before starting a new argument.

That's from the NY Times lame attempt to retcon timelines. Papadapolous wasn't even on the FBI radar until Jan of 2017, after the dossier dropped.

This story is already being walked back because it's bullshit like every other Russia hacked the election/DNC story because Seth Rich leaked the emails.

Let's see your source for this stuff.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-31/nyt-publishes-report-debunking-fbi-use-dossier-gets-shredded-immediately-fake-news

Just because Papa wasn't mentioned in the joint analysis report doesn't mean he wasn't on their radar. Why the hell would they mention him before handing out an indictment? It was,and still is, an ongoing investigation. If they were hoping they could use Papa to take down others in the campaign, they aren't going to out him right when the investigation takes off.

So this right wing website is desperately hoping that the FBI wants aware of Papa and started the investigation for other reasons. It definitely doesn't prove that though.

It doesn't make an anon sourced report by the NY Times about the rumors of some unnamed and confirmed Australian diplomat legit either. How many of these bullshit stories have been walked back? This one will be too, because it is full of fucking holes in terms of the already established timeline.

I'm a fucking Marxist and I can see that, but you good-thinking liberal types just continue to live in utter denial of reality about a whole slew of things. Good luck with that in November

Gotta love the irony. Four people in Trumps campaign have gone down on federal charges. Two have plead guilty. More keeps coming out with every passing month. But of course, the people who have been right about all this shit for a year are the true dummies. The stuoid ads liberals falling for fake news. How many more people on Trumps staff have to lie to the FBI and go down on federal charges before you guys believe there might be something to all this?

They are either going down for crimes not related to Trump or process crimes. It's obvious from the deals made that Mueller doesn't have anything from Flynn or Papadapolous to touch Trump in any meaningful way.

Like I said dude. I don't support Trump, or the the two parties. You are wasting your time believing that there is a there there. I hate to break it to you.

Papadopulous' crimes had to do with his work for the Trump campaign. And I love how people always try to make lite of the fact that Trump hired a criminal with deep ties to Russia to run his campaign. As if that doesn't matter at all.

And I love how people always try to make lite of the fact that Trump hired a criminal with deep ties to Russia to run his campaign

Alleged criminal, and the crimes he is alleged to be guilty of have many lobbyists in DC concerned.

The real news in the indictment of Paul Manafort on charges of laundering and failing to register as a foreign agent is that someone has actually been prosecuted under a foreign lobbying law that has existed for decades but has almost never been enforced. The indictment may or may not prove that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government, but it has already proved how flawed the foreign lobbying rules have always been and how easily they are flouted.

Papadopulous' crimes

He copped a plea to lying to the FBI. If they were going to use him as a witness against higher-ups, he would have copped a pleas to some other crime as well as lying to the FBI.

Future reference get better sources than zerohedge

Okay I will use CNN, oh wait.

Next time use a source that doesn't rely on anonymous intelligence and high-ranking official sources for the core of the story. That's how you "mistakenly" invade Iraq, fyi, among other side effects.

That's a lot of words to side step the fact you're getting your information from bullshit sources

Like CNN and other bullshit sources.

Instead of 4D chess, he could really troll the media by coming out and officially stating "Seth Rich was the leaker".

The supposed "rule against naming sources" wasn't handed down to Moses. It's Assange's rule, there's no reason he needs to follow the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit of it. It's obvious that he wants people to think it was Rich, so he ain't protecting the identity of the source. He's just refusing to go on record while hiding behind a rule he created and could violate without consequence.

I don't think I'm following your meaning. That sounds like you're suggesting that maybe Rich wasn't the leaker, but Assange is hinting towards him to conceal the true source. That's my view, but based on this post I'm guessing you mean something else.

By what mechanism would an additional person be endangered by him saying "the leaker was Seth Rich" as opposed to the current situation where it's obvious to everyone that he's encouraging the belief that it's Rich? His friends and family don't become any more of a target than they already are in that situation.

Thanks, that makes more sense.

Putin is the intermediary. A very sound positioning a well.

while hiding behind a rule he created and could violate without consequence.

There would be consequences though. If someone who was thinking about leaking thought, "Hm. He released one name.... If I give him something so good that it makes news is he going to release my name? Maybe people won't believe my leak if my name isn't released." etc.

How does his hinting that it's Rich not have the same effect?

I admit that it does have a similar effect. It was why I was surprised he hinted at it tbh. Still a difference between going on the record vs hinting though....

I'm not gonna claim I know who the source is. It's possible Assange received the information anonymously and doesn't even know. I've just always thought his behavior on this makes a lot more sense if he has no evidence of Rich being the source, but wants to encourage the belief for other reasons.

I agree. Given the circumstance that Rich is dead and possibly gave his life to ensure that there was a fair and democratic process, Assange should reassess his rule. Especially now that we have the MSM trying to impeach an elected president with the Russia collusion story.

Yeah takes about an IQ of 80 to work out that how stupid it would be for future sources if JA named Rich as the leaker.

"these people are stupid."

Timestamps... but nobody wants to hear that.

Yet you believe Seth Rich is the source because 1 guy said so with no documentation or evidence in a highly politicized environment where there's motive to do so.

Do you seriously not see the irony here?

So you're not sure? It could be nothing then?

So Assange released that on its own? I thought it was part of a larger release?

No, it was during one the small, incessant releases that he dripped out for "maximum impact".

But you're not sure if Wikileaks has that for Trump.

By Assange's own admission, we know he had info on Trump. Are you really not getting this?

You bring up a good point. The recipe was part of a much larger release with a ton of interesting info and corruption.

But you don't know if Wikileaks has that for Trump.

The recipe was part of a much larger release with a ton of interesting info and corruption.

Almost entirely untrue.

But you don't know if Wikileaks has that for Trump.

And that's entirely untrue, by Assange's own admission.

This level of reality denying is absurd.