We Can Prove the Podesta Emails Released by Wikileaks Are Au

We Can Prove the Podesta Emails Released by Wikileaks Are Au

Postby admin » Tue Nov 01, 2016 2:18 am

We Can Prove the Podesta Emails Released by Wikileaks Are Authentic... Here's How
by Tyler Durden
Oct 24, 2016

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

Anyone with half a brain or an ounce of honesty left, knows that the John Podesta emails released by Wikileaks are authentic. If they weren’t, everyone implicated in them would have immediately and aggressively denied their claims rather than simply change the subject by blurting out some incoherent nonsense about Russia and Vladimir Putin.

So while most of us were already confident in their authenticity, a key tactic of corrupt Democratic operatives has been to try to cast doubt on them being real in order to sway the minds of some of our more cerebrally challenged fellow citizens. As such, any technical proof that the emails are genuine is of great significance, and we can thank Robert Graham of Errata Security for providing this.

He first grabbed my attention on the topic a few days ago with a series of tweets:

Image

Rob Zombie Graham @ErrataRob
BTW, Donna Brazile is a big fat liar. We can verify some of the Wikileaks emails, including this one
5:15 PM - 21 Oct 2016


21 October
Rob Zombie Graham @ErrataRob
BTW, Donna Brazile is a big fat liar. We can verify some of the Wikileaks emails, including this one pic.twitter.com/K9qDMXHyvp


Rob Zombie Graham @ErrataRob
I know it's funny, but Hillary did her own email servers well enough that we can verify, with crypto, she got debate questions in advance.
5:16 PM - 21 Oct 2016


He then expanded on his thoughts in a post published yesterday titled, Politifact: Yes we can fact check Kaine’s email.

Here’s what we learn:

This Politifact post muddles over whether the Wikileaks leaked emails have been doctored, specifically the one about Tim Kaine being picked a year ago. The post is wrong — we can verify this email and most of the rest.

In order to bloc spam, emails nowadays contain a form of digital signatures that verify their authenticity. This is automatic, it happens on most modern email systems, without users being aware of it.

This means we can indeed validate most of the Wikileaks leaked DNC/Clinton/Podesta emails. There are many ways to do this, but the easiest is to install the popular Thunderbird email app along with the DKIM Verifier addon. Then go to the Wikileaks site and download the raw source of the email https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2986.

As you see in the screenshot below, the DKIM signature verifies as true.

Image

If somebody doctored the email, such as changing the date, then the signature would not verify. I try this in the email below, changing the date from 2015 to 2016. This causes the signature to fail.

Image

There are some ways to forge DKIM-signed emails, specifically if the sender uses short keys. When short keys are used, hackers can “crack” them, and sign fraudulent emails. This doesn’t apply to GMail, which uses strong 2048 bit keys, as demonstrated in the following screenshot. (No, the average person isn’t supposed to understand this screen shot, but experts can).

Image

What this means is that the only way this email could’ve been doctored is if there has been an enormous, nation-state level hack of Google to steal their signing key. It’s possible, of course, but extraordinarily improbable. It’s conspiracy-theory level thinking. Google GMail has logs of which emails went through its systems — if there was a nation-state attack able to forge them, Google would know, and they’d be telling us. (For one thing, they’d be forcing password resets on all our accounts).

Since DKIM verifies this email and most of the others, we conclude that Kaine is “pants on fire” lying about this specific email, and “mostly untrue” in his claim that the Wikileaks emails have been doctored.

On the other hand, Wikileaks only shows us some of the emails. We don’t see context. We don’t see other staffers certain it’s going to be somebody else for VP. We don’t see related email discusses that cast this one in a different light. So of course whether this (verified) email means they’d firmly chosen Kaine is “mostly unproven”. The purpose of this document isn’t diagnosing what the emails mean, only the claims by Hillary’s people that these emails have been “doctored”.

As a side note, I offer a 1-BTC (one bit coin, ~$600 at today’s exchange rate) bounty to anybody who can prove me wrong. If you can doctor the above email, then you win the bounty. Some rules apply (i.e. it needs to be a real doctored email, not a trick). I offer this bounty because already people are trying to cast doubt on whether DKIM works, without offering any evidence. Put up or shut up.


Once the above gets in front of a wider audience, expect Russia demonization from Democratic hacks to go exponential.

Great work Mr. Graham.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 24270
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: We Can Prove the Podesta Emails Released by Wikileaks Ar

Postby admin » Mon Dec 12, 2016 3:31 am

A Clinton Fan Manufactured Fake News That MSNBC Personalities Spread to Discredit WikiLeaks Docs
by Glenn Greenwald
December 9 2016, 5:30 a.m.

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


THE PHRASE “FAKE NEWS” has exploded in usage since the election, but the term is similar to other malleable political labels such as “terrorism” and “hate speech”; because the phrase lacks any clear definition, it is essentially useless except as an instrument of propaganda and censorship. The most important fact to realize about this new term: Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

One of the most egregious examples was the recent Washington Post article hyping a new anonymous group and its disgusting blacklist of supposedly pro-Russia news outlets — a shameful article mindlessly spread by countless journalists who love to decry Fake News, despite the Post article itself being centrally based on Fake News.
(The Post this week finally added a lame editor’s note acknowledging these critiques; the Post editors absurdly claimed that they did not mean to “vouch for the validity” of the blacklist even though the article’s key claims were based on doing exactly that).

Now we have an even more compelling example. Back in October, when WikiLeaks was releasing emails from the John Podesta archive, Clinton campaign officials and their media spokespeople adopted a strategy of outright lying to the public, claiming — with no basis whatsoever — that the emails were doctored or fabricated and thus should be ignored. That lie — and that is what it was: a claim made with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for its truth — was most aggressively amplified by MSNBC personalities such as Joy Ann Reid and Malcolm Nance, The Atlantic’s David Frum, and Newsweek’s Kurt Eichenwald.

This Week @ThisWeekABC
Clinton camp chief strategist @benensonj: "I've seen things" in Wikileaks emails "that aren't authentic" #ThisWeek
6:30 AM - 23 Oct 2016


That the emails in the Wikileaks archive were doctored or faked — and thus should be disregarded — was classic Fake News, spread not by Macedonian teenagers or Kremlin operatives but by established news outlets such as MSNBC, The Atlantic, and Newsweek. And, by design, this Fake News spread like wildfire all over the internet, hungrily clicked and shared by tens of thousands of people eager to believe it was true. As a result of this deliberate disinformation campaign, anyone reporting on the contents of the emails was instantly met with claims that the documents in the archive had been proven fake.

The most damaging such claim came from MSNBC’s intelligence analyst Malcolm Nance. As I documented on October 11, he tweeted what he — for some bizarre reason — labeled an “Official Warning.” It decreed: “#PodestaEmails are already proving to be riddled with obvious forgeries & #blackpropaganda not even professionally done.” That tweet was re-tweeted by more than 4,000 people. It was vested with added credibility by Clinton-supporting journalists like Reid and Frum (“expert to take seriously”).

All of that, in turn, led to an article in something called the “Daily News Bin” with the headline: “MSNBC intelligence expert: WikiLeaks is releasing falsified emails not really from Hillary Clinton.” This classic fake news product — citing Nance and Reid among others — was shared more than 40,000 times on Facebook alone.

Malcolm Nance @MalcolmNance
Official Warning: #PodestaEmails are already proving to be riddled with obvious forgeries & #blackpropaganda not even professionally done. https://twitter.com/semenovaka/status/7 ... 3056332801
4:43 PM - 7 Oct 2016


David Frum @ David Frum
expert to take seriously
Official Warning: #PodestaEmails are already proving to be riddled with obvious forgeries & #blackpropaganda not even professionally done. https://twitter.com/semenovaka/status/7 ... 3056332801
12:58 AM 9 Oct 2016


Joy Reid @ Joy Ann Reid
Remember when @MalcolmNance told us on #AMJoy that the Russians would falsify some emails and that Trump is an unwitting FSB dupe?
Kurt Eichenwald@KurtEichenwald
Russian gov manipulates email to @JohnPodesta. Publishes disinformation. Takes it down. Trump recites false info. newsweek.com/vladimir-putin ...


Daily News Bin
MSNBC intelligence expert: WikiLeaks is releasing falsified emails not really from Hillary Clinton
by Bill Palmer
October 7, 2016

The latest release from WikiLeaks, a collection of emails supposedly hacked from the account of Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, is getting very little public attention due to the fact that it contains nothing particularly scandalous to begin with, and the fact that it was released just as Donald Trump’s campaign was imploding in a sexual assault scandal. But those who have examined the Clinton email dump have found something fascinating: several of the emails aren’t real, and aren’t even good forgeries.

Malcolm Nance, a U.S. intelligence expert and MSNBC analyst, has issued what he’s calling an “official warning.” He’s reporting that the emails in question “already proving to be riddled with obvious forgeries” and goes on to add that they’re “not even professionally done.” Nance announced his conclusion via Twitter just a few hours after the supposed emails were released. MSNBC host Joy-Ann Reid retweeted his warning, adding “FYI” to her own audience.


VLB @BickiDoodle
Joe, Malcolm Nance & other experts have validated these emails have been forged & altered by Russia before passing them off to Wikileaks! https://twitter.com/joenbc/status/791434371249082369
5:32 PM - 26 Oct 2016


Thomas Gordon @EarthOrb
The media (@ABC, @CBSNews, @NBCNews and @PBS) must heed Malcolm Nance: "You should have ZERO CONFIDENCE in the contents" of Wikileaks dumps!
6:29 PM - 22 Oct 2016


LaurenBaratzLogsted @LaurenBaratzL
Joy now discussing WikiLeaks with security expert Malcolm Nance who says we can have zero confidence in authenticity of documents. #AMJoy
7:21 AM - 22 Oct 2016


FROM THE START, it was obvious that it was this accusation from Clinton supporters — not the WikiLeaks documents — that was a complete fraud, perpetrated on the public as deliberate disinformation. With regard to the claim about the Podesta emails, now we know exactly who created it in the first instance: a hard-core Clinton fanatic.

When Nance — MSNBC’s “intelligence analyst” — issued his “Official Warning,” he linked to a tweet that warned: “Please be skeptical of alleged #PodestaEmails. Trumpists are dirtying docs.” That tweet, in turn, linked to a tweet from an anonymous account calling itself “The Omnivore,” which had posted an obviously fake transcript purporting to be a Hillary Clinton speech to Goldman Sachs. Even though that fake document was never published by WikiLeaks, that was the entire basis for the MSNBC-inspired claim that some of the WikiLeaks documents were doctored.

But the person who created that forged Goldman Sachs transcript was not a “Trumpist” at all; he was a devoted supporter of Hillary Clinton. In the Daily Beast, the person behind the anonymous “The Omnivore” account unmasks himself as “Marco Chacon,” a self-professed creator of “viral fake news” whose targets were Sanders and Trump supporters (he specialized in blatantly fake anti-Clinton frauds with the goal of tricking her opponents into citing them, so that they would be discredited). When he wasn’t posting fabricated news accounts designed to make Clinton’s opponents look bad, his account looked like any other standard pro-Clinton account: numerous negative items about Sanders and then Trump, with links to many Clinton-defending articles.

In his Daily Beast article, published on November 21, Chacon describes how he manufactured the forged Goldman Sachs speech transcript. He says he did it prior to learning that the WikiLeaks releases of Podesta emails contained actual Clinton speech excerpts to Wall Street banks. But once he realized WikiLeaks had published actual Clinton transcripts, Chacon began trying to lure people he disliked — Clinton critics — into believing that his forged speeches were real, so that he could prove they were gullible and dumb.

Sadly for Chacon, however, the people who ended up getting fooled by his Fake News items were the nation’s most prominent Clinton supporters, including supposed experts and journalists from MSNBC who used his obvious fakes to try to convince the world that the WikiLeaks archive had been compromised and thus should be ignored. That it was pro-Clinton journalists who spread his Fake News as real now horrifies even Chacon:

The tweet went super-viral. It started an almost trending — but still going today — hashtag #bucketoflosers. A tweet declaring it a bad forgery was picked up by Malcolm Nance, an intelligence analyst for MSNBC among others, who tweeted to be wary of the WikiLeaks release . …

That did not stop Nance, who with a firm intelligence background should have been able to easily spot the fake with “(chaos)” actually written in the side bar and “((makes air quotes))” written before the “bucket of losers” piece in the completely comical so-called transcript, from referencing the document and saying: “Official Warning: #PodestaEmails are already proving to be riddled with obvious forgeries & #blackpropaganda not even professionally done.” …

At the end of the day, did this change anything? I don’t know. I think I inadvertently hurt WikiLeaks, which I’m not proud of — but I’m not too sorry about either. I suspect that some people came to realize that they were believing in fake things.


That last sentence — that as a result of his fraud, “some people came to realize that they were believing in fake things” — is false, at least insofar as it applies to people like Eichenwald, Frum, Nance, and Reid. Even though it was clear from the start to any rational and honest person that there was zero evidence that any of the WikiLeaks documents were doctored, and even though (as Chacon himself says) nobody minimally informed (let alone supposed “intelligence experts”) should have been fooled by his blatant Fake News, none of the journalists who lied to the public about these WikiLeaks documents have even once acknowledged what they did.

Their Fake News tweets — warning people to view the WikiLeaks documents as fake — remain posted, with no subsequent retraction or acknowledgment of the falsehoods that they spread about the WikiLeaks archive. That includes MSNBC segments that spread this accusation.


Indeed, not only should it have been blatantly obvious that Chacon’s anonymously posted document did not impugn the WikiLeaks archive, but also the slightest research would have revealed that the person who manufactured the forgery was a Clinton supporter, not a “Trumpist” or a Kremlin operative. Indeed, one of the Clinton-criticizing journalists who Chacon tried to trick, Michael Tracey, said exactly this at the time. But because his facts contradicted the MSNBC/Newsweek political agenda, they were ignored in favor of the lie that the WikiLeaks archive had been compromised and doctored:

The Omnivore
‏@OmnivoreBlog
@mtracey This is a MIND BLOWING Goldman Sachs transcript that hasn't gotten much air yet: http://www.realtruenews.org/single-post ... Are-LOSERS

L BLANKFEIN HANK YOU PLEASE CLOSE THE DOORS AND ENSURE YOU HAVE NO ELECTRONIC RECORDING DEVICES OF ANY KIND LET ME REMIND YOU THAT THIS DISCUSSION IS UNDER NDA TODAY WE ARE ENTERING SOME UNCHARTED WATERS WITH GLOBAL POLITICAL INSTABILITY AND A BARELY-CONTAINED SHADOW-RECESSION DOMESTICALLY WE HAVE ALWAYS RELIED ON PARTNERS IN GOVERNMENT AND THAT IS AS TRUE TODAY AS IT EVER HAS BEEN BOTH OUR OWN INTERNAL RESEARCH AND MRS CLINTON'S STRATEGIC INTELLIGENCE HAVE IDENTIFIED EMERGENT THREATS ON THE NEAR-HORIZON

TODAY MRS CLINTON WILL DISCUSS THE POSSIBILITY OF DOMESTIC CHAOS IN THE COMING NATIONAL ELECTION I AM EXCEPTIONALLY PLEASED TO PRESENT FORMER FIRST LADY AND SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON

APPLAUSE

H CLINTON THANK YOU LLOYD (05) FRIENDS, DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF GOLDMAN SACHS IT IS A GREAT PLEASURE TO ADDRESS YOU HERE TODAY (05). AS YOU KNOW WE ARE IN PREPARATION FOR THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN AND I AM HERE BOTH TO ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND TO APPRISE YOU OF WHAT WE SEE ON THE HORIZON

GENTLEMEN LADIES I'M ALSO GOING TO BE BLUNT AND TO THE POINT. OUR TIME IS VALUABLE HISTORICALLY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS BEEN THE PARTY MOST ALIGNED WITH WALL STREET AND THE FINANCIAL SERVICES INDUSTRY TODAY HOWEVER THAT IS NO LONGER THE CASE

OUR ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE REPUBLICAN ESTABLISHMENT FIREWALL BARELY HELD IN 2012 AND THIS CYCLE YOU WILL BE IMMENSELY LUCKY TO SEE A CANDIDATE LIKE MITT ROMNEY BECAUSE OF THE COLLAPSE OF THE CONTROL SYSTEMS THAT GAVE US THE 2012 FIELD DERISIVELY CALLED THE 'CLOWN CAR' WE THINK THAT 2016 WILL BE FAR FAR WORSE

YOU ARE MORE LIKELY TO SEE A NOMINEE WHO IS A GENERAL ELECTION NON-STARTER YOU WILL BE LUCKY TO GET A HERMAN CAIN YOU MIGHT WELL SEE SCOTT WALKER AS THE GOP NOMINEE GENTLEMEN SCOTT WALKER?

WHAT WE SEE ON THE LEFT IS IN ITS WAY MORE DISCONCERTING THE EARLY DATA SUGGESTS THAT WHILE THE MINORITY BASE IS PROBABLY STILL DOMINATED BY THE DEMOCRATIC MESSAGING A COALITION OF SUBALTERN INTERESTS IS FORMING THAT COULD WITH AN EXTREMELY WEAK REPUBLICAN NOMINEE AN APERTURE FOR EITHER A 3RD PARTY VICTORY OR IN ESSENCE AN ELECTION INFLECTION POINT HERE AN INSURGENT CANDIDAT COULD ACTUALLY CO-OPT TAKE OVER A MAJOR PARTY

THIS COALITION A COLLECTION OF GENERALLY UNDER-REPRESENTED LOW SOCIAL CAPITAL INDIVIDUALS HAS BECOME INCREASINGLY NETWORKED AND INCREASINGLY MOTIVATED THIS GROUP THAT OUR ANALYSTS ARE CALLING THE ((MAKES AIR QUOTES)) BUCKET OF LOSERS COULD NOT ONLY BE A SIGNIFICANT FORCE IN THE NEXT ELECTION BUT COULD ON AN OUTSIDE PERCENTILE EVEN WIN

CHAOS WHILE EVERYONE IS DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT TRUMP SUCCEEDED AT GRABBING WIKILEAKS REVEALED THAT HILLARY CLINTON IS WORSE THAN WE COULD HAVE EVER IMAGINED THANK YOU SCOTT AND THE HONEST MEDIA FOR BREAKING THIS PLEASE SHARE BERNIE SANDERS AND DONALD TRUMP SUPPORTERS ARE A BUCKET OF LOSERS ACCORDING TO HILLARY IN A GOLDMAN SACHS SPEECH

Michael Tracey ✔ @mtracey
FYI: one of the accounts (@OmnivoreBlog) that circulated a fake HRC speech transcript is a pro-Clinton troll spreading disinformation.

3:05 PM - 11 Oct 2016


I will be shocked if any of them now acknowledge this even with Chacon’s confession. That’s because MSNBC has repeatedly proven that it tolerates Fake News and outright lies from its personalities as long as those lies are in service of the right candidate (when Democrats were smearing Jill Stein as a Kremlin stooge, Reid’s program aired Nance’s lie to MSNBC viewers that Stein had previously hosted her own show on RT: an utter fabrication that MSNBC, to this day, has never corrected or even acknowledged despite multiple requests from FAIR).

Glenn Greenwald ✔ @ggreenwald
On Reid's show, Malcolm Nance falsely claimed Jill Stein hosted an RT show, & they just refuse to correct/retract it. How is that allowed? https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/788721170564591616
6:04 AM - 19 Oct 2016


Every day, literally, you can turn on MSNBC and hear various people so righteously lamenting the spread of “Fake News.” Yet MSNBC itself not only spreads Fake News but refuses to correct it when it is exposed. How do they have any credibility to denounce Fake News? They do not.

That journalists and “experts” outright lied to the public this way in order to help their favorite candidate is obviously dangerous. This was most powerfully pointed out — ironically — by Marty Baron, executive editor of the Washington Post, who told the New York Times’s Jim Rutenberg: “If you have a society where people can’t agree on basic facts, how do you have a functioning democracy?”

Exactly: If you have prominent journalists telling the public to trust an anonymous group with a false McCarthyite blacklist, or telling it to ignore informative documents on the grounds that they are fake when there is zero reason to believe that they are fake, that is a direct threat to democracy. In the case of the Podesta emails, these lies were perpetrated by the very factions that have taken to most loudly victimizing themselves over the spread of Fake News.

But the problem here goes way beyond mere hypocrisy. Complaints about Fake News are typically accompanied by calls for “solutions” that involve censorship and suppression, either by the government or tech giants such as Facebook. But until there is a clear definition of “Fake News,” and until it’s recognized that Fake News is being aggressively spread by the very people most loudly complaining about it, the dangers posed by these solutions will be at least as great as the problem itself.

Note: The article was lightly edited to reflect the correct date of the Daily Beast article: November 21.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 24270
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: We Can Prove the Podesta Emails Released by Wikileaks Ar

Postby admin » Mon Dec 12, 2016 3:32 am

MSNBC intelligence expert: WikiLeaks is releasing falsified emails not really from Hillary Clinton
by Bill Palmer
October 7, 2016

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


The latest release from WikiLeaks, a collection of emails supposedly hacked from the account of Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, is getting very little public attention due to the fact that it contains nothing particularly scandalous to begin with, and the fact that it was released just as Donald Trump’s campaign was imploding in a sexual assault scandal. But those who have examined the Clinton email dump have found something fascinating: several of the emails aren’t real, and aren’t even good forgeries.

Malcolm Nance, a U.S. intelligence expert and MSNBC analyst, has issued what he’s calling an “official warning.” He’s reporting that the emails in question “already proving to be riddled with obvious forgeries” and goes on to add that they’re “not even professionally done.” Nance announced his conclusion via Twitter just a few hours after the supposed emails were released. MSNBC host Joy-Ann Reid retweeted his warning, adding “FYI” to her own audience.

WikiLeaks had spent the past month claiming that it would be releasing election-altering hacked information on Hillary Clinton which would cost her the election. But the bizarre advance hype, coupled with repeated delays and a surreal middle-of-the-night press conference last week in which absolutely no information was revealed, suggested that they had nothing all along.

This evening’s email dump, which appears to have been specifically timed on a Friday evening in order to avoid the scrutiny of the major media outlets, has revealed relatively little of interest. Some of the emails purport to contain the transcripts of Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street speeches, but use odd phrases such as “and/or” which would not have been included in the original prepared text of a speech and would not have been spoken out loud by someone giving a speech.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 24270
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Return to Wikileaks

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron