Posted on 01/07/2017 3:15:24 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange claimed in a new interview that he is completely confident that the Russian government was not the source of the hacked emails that his organization released leading up to the U.S. presidential election. He also shrugged off the question of whether the politically damaging emails affected the outcome of the race.
The publisher of classified and private information released embarrassing emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).
Inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, Fox News political pundit Sean Hannity asked Assange to address the allegation that WikiLeaks was a tool employed by Moscow to interfere with the U.S. election.
“Can you say to the American people, unequivocally, that you did not get this information about the DNC, John Podesta’s emails, can you tell the American people 1,000 percent that you did not get it from Russia or anybody associated with Russia?” Hannity inquired.
“We can say, we have said repeatedly that over the last two months, that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party,” Assange responded....
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
I don’t really know if the wiki leaks had anything to do with this election, it could have for younger people, after they read them, and I know some of them did, and didn’t like what they read...
For myself and a lot of others on here, we have lived with this crime ridden family for 30 years and know all to well what they did, have done and what they are capable of doing...
Its sad when there is such as stain on our history as Clinton and Obama...really...to what purpose have they served this Great Country of ours? It has been for ‘them’ not America...
The Clintons have sold out America to the highest ‘pay for play’ foreign countries all over the world and for what, themselves...
Obama is nothing but a ‘thug’ always has been and always will be, is not even a good ‘community organizer’ and if that makes you wonder, look at Chicago...a total mess...and the ‘Mayor’ of Chicago is his puppet as Obama is George Soros’s puppet...money, power and thineself is what they are about...could give a crap about anyone else and our Country...
Hillary lost this election because we were ‘fed up’ of what we could see was happening and happened from the time she came on the scene as with Bill and Obama and Mich...they lost this election all by themselves, Russia was not part of it, nor was anyone else...we voted against what they are, and we voted for an ‘outsider’ that has made something of himself, and can make something Great for America and her people...that’s why the old bag lost...she lost because she is evil, pure and simple...
My question is, since the emails haven’t ever been disputed as actual e-mails, is the DNC claiming the truth cost them the election?
WikiLeaks should have swayed people not to vote for Hillary.
Remember when Trump’s taxes got published. Did anyone figure out how they got out into public view? I remember the vp debate and Kaine kept hammering Pence about Trumps taxes, taxes, every other word was taxes. I was ready to throw my chair at the tv that night. Wasn’t that meant to sway the election ?
The question SHOULD BE:
Did Hillary’s and the DNC’s blatant lies and corruption, as uncovered by the Wikileaks revelations, change enough votes to cost her the election?
99.9% of voters did not read the emails.
Some might have read media reports about them but I doubt it cause many to change their vote from Clinton to Trump.
I only started reading the WikiLeaks released emails because the lying media at first claimed it was illegal to read them (remember that?).
They were routine and boring. An individual voter would have had to spend weeks reading them to pull out even a few nuggets of newsworthy information ... so I know that the vast majority of voters did not read them.
More damaging was the State Dept. release of Clinton’s security “carelessness” while at the State Department. However that was not more damaging for Clinton than the Billy Bush Bus tape was for Trump. So about even in terms of damage (though one was of course much more serious).
Clinton spent vastly more money and virtually all the media on her side and she still lost.
No, I don’t think they had that much impact or changed many votes.
Far more people were swayed by her “deplorables” comment and by the State Department revelations about her “carelessness” as Secretary of State.
I would like to think that Wikileaks swayed a number of people to vote for Trump who would not have voted otherwise and a number of others who were set to vote for Mrs Bill to also vote for Trump. I would like to be able to think that there are some people out there who can still recognize evil when it is thrown up on the screen in front of their faces.
I would like to think that Wikileaks swayed a number of people to vote for Trump who would not have voted otherwise and a number of others who were set to vote for Mrs Bill to also vote for Trump. I would like to be able to think that there are some people out there who can still recognize evil when it is thrown up on the screen in front of their faces.
I would suspect the biggest impact would have been the revelations of the DNC’s theft of the primaries from Sanders. I’m guessing a large number of younger Bern supporters who would have normally voted for the democrat stayed home after it was revealed that their party screwed over their candidate...probably in margins that could have affected the narrow margins in some swing states.
I would suspect the biggest impact would have been the revelations of the DNC’s theft of the primaries from Sanders. I’m guessing a large number of younger Bern supporters who would have normally voted for the democrat stayed home after it was revealed that their party screwed over their candidate...probably in margins that could have affected the narrow margins in some swing states.
We are now being told that news and cannot be published if the state deems the facts as-being obtained in manners they don't approve of, regardless if there is no objection to any falsehoods. Since colonial times journalists have been allowed to publish news and not reveal their sources. News stories in a free country, that has freedom of the press and freedom of speech have never been considered adverse to the pubic, so now why is this different?
The bottom line: the public has a right to know the facts in a free society, and the rights for the press to shield their sources has nothing to do with the validity of the news or its effect on the public , including their opinions of candidates,, Therefore it is fake premise that news can effect an election, which is a totally seperate issue than the legality and ethics of how the news was obtained and for what reasons...
“So now why is it different?”
Because we aren’t a free society. Our elites rule us for our own good. it’s unacceptable because the elite’s candidate lost.
I did receive any email. The media pushes the documents to the public. If they didn’t want to air the documents they should have an editor not pumblish. Marketing companies would love to sell a product or services through documents.
It would be my guess that those leaks had very little affect on the election. Hillary’s voters would each cast a vote for her even after she ate a baby live on TV.
If Democrats knew how to sway an election, why did they lose? And why do they keep losing?
Don’t know if the leaks had anything substantial to do with the outcome of the elections but they were fun to read. Every day some new, embarrassing, and entirely truthful revelation about the Dems and Hillary.
The truth will always change hearts and minds.... The truth will set you free.!! Especially when it comes to liberals....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.