Bernie Sanders Supporters Leaked Hillary’s Emails

>>92896
>So it was communists who leaked, not former communists.
Sick Bern burn.

Lol, believing anything that hidious she-man has to say.

they really are focused on demonizing russia to whatever end, aren't they?

>>92896
Dodnt a do-gooder DNC kid in his late 20s, named Seth, get shot to pieces in DC right after an email saying "we need to make an example of whoever this leaker is" was sent around pedosta?

>dailymail
real new sources only please

>>92912
I think you're talking about this murder
(Hopefully there are enough links that at least one of them is considered “credible” by anyone.):

http://www.fox5dc.com/news/218883023-story

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Seth-Rich-Murder-Investigation-389218672.html

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/287238-dnc-staffer-shot-and-killed-in-northwest-dc

Wikileaks also put out a bounty for information on his murder.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/assange-on-murdered-dnc-staffer-whistleblowers-take-significant-risks/article/2598997

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/wikileaks-offers-reward-in-killing-of-dnc-staffer-in-washington/2016/08/09/f84fcbf4-5e5b-11e6-8e45-477372e89d78_story.html

http://www.fox5dc.com/news/195969778-story

I'm not quite sure which email you're referring to, though. The one at https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/36082 has

>And I would love an example being made.

and the previous email, https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/45743, has

>I'm definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it.

Those are from 2015-02-22, which is quite a ways off from the murder date of 2016-06-10. Perhaps you're thinking of the release date of the emails? There were releases all about that time.

Well since Assange is forever holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy and has publicly claimed support for Trump I'm not terribly surprised if his organization has got a bit cozy with Putin's patronage.

>>92896
Hillary crying and screaming because she was forced to accept a tiny, minimal amount of transparency lmao.

I don't give a fuck if it was hacking or leaks. What matters is the information, not how it was delivered. I wouldn't care if Putin himself broke in and personally handed Assange emails.

We should not have to RELY on leaks and "hacks" just to get some transparency in our own goddamn presidential election.

>>92896
>Dailymail
Fuck off Piers

>>92896
The CIA are crying Russia so they can kill the leaker for espionage.

>>92955
Assange is dead, man.

I think this could be a FALSE FLAG ATTACK!
https://youtu.be/RldIU9bAees

>>92960
Actually, it does matter what the source of the delivery was, because it lends credibility and takes away arguing points from the Evil Left--and I'm glad to see someone else (Coulter, this time) calling them the commies that they are, btw--when it's someone "on your side", in the minds of the muggles.

>>92937
>>92961

Inability to respond noted.

>>93071
>So there's really not much we can do with this to prove that the Russian connection is a hoax...

There's really not much you can do prove it's valid either, all we're getting is leaks from "unnamed sources" and the CIA will never reveal how it knows what it supposedly knows, as the source(s) will continue to be hidden behind the shield of "national security".

Regardless, it doesn't matter who leaked the emails, neither Hillary nor her people can deny that they WROTE them and all this hubbub about "Russian hackers" is simply to hide that fact.

>>92986
The CIA doesn't need a reason to kill people.

>>93103
The DNC was hacked in the manner a child could have accomplished, making this whole matter really less about the hackers, and more about how hilarious incompetent the Democrats are in regards to the most basic elements of cyber security.

Possibly the most damning, and funniest, account as to this matter was when the FBI tried to tell the DNC they were being hacked, but when they tried to call it in they got sent to the help desk, who in turn did not believe it was really the FBI calling, so they ignored everything they were told and forgot about the whole thing until all the information was already leaked out.

So the moral of the story here would be to not safeguard your prized jewels behind an unlocked screen door, and a sleeping chimp in a security guard outfit.

>>93071
>who gave you this info, wikileaks
>we'll tell you later, maybe.
>OH GOD IT WAS THE RUSSIANS
>no actually it was pissed off guy who worked with the DNC
>WOW THERE'S NO WAY TO TELL IF THATS TRUE, IT WAS THE RUSSIANS.
wew.

>>93103
>It's really time we stop switching the issue to Hillary. I don't like her, but she's not the issue here.

This is ALL about Hillary and her emails.

There is absolutely _zero evidence_ that anybody "hacked" voting machines or somehow subverted the mechanics of the election, the entire issue is Hillary's emails and that's all it's about.

The Democrats are literally saying that it's somehow unfair that Hillary and Dem's corruption was exposed to the American public by Wikileaks and thus the results of the election should be thrown out the window and the electors should disregard the law and vote for Hillary anyways.

>>93150
>No. The issue is not about Hillary or the voting machines.

Yes, it is all about Hillary’s emails. The Dems are demanding the electors vote for Hillary regardless of the fact that Trump won their state, because in the minds of Hillary and the Dems, not getting caught in a lie is the same as telling the truth….

The Democrat, Republican and all other political parties are wholly private organizations responsible for their own computer security and whether or not any political parties may or may not have been hacked, has no legal bearing on the election.

>>92896
>dailymail
Sorry but I'll believe any credible American paper over that British tabloid clickbait trash when it comes to what Bernie Sanders Supporters supposedly did or didn't do.

>>93160
>Political parties participate in an election, it doesn't matter whether or not they are private institutions.

ALL political parties are private institutions, they're not legal official government agencies, dumbass.

Saying the election should be thrown out because somebody exposed Democratic Party emails, it's the same as saying it should be thrown out because fucking Walmart executive's emails were exposed.

> If a crime took place against them to influence the election, then the crime must be investigated.

Further confirming your retardation... The exposure of Hillary's emails has no bearing on the issue, there is absolutely zero evidence of that the mechanics of the elections were "hacked".

That Hillary may or may not have lost the election because her emails were exposed, is completely irrelevant and unprovable either way.

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

>>93180

Nobody's saying the results of the election need to be overturned.
Crimes should be fully investigated and prosecuted regardless of who won the election.

>>93153

>The Dems are demanding the electors vote for Hillary regardless of the fact that Trump won their state, because in the minds of Hillary and the Dems, not getting caught in a lie is the same as telling the truth….

Are you just inventing things? The platform of the "hamilton electors" was to try and convince the other electors was that Trump is constitutionally ineligible for presidency and thus both democratic and republican electors should defect to a common republican candidate other than Trump.

So in summary:
>A DNC staffer leaked the DNC shit. DNC claim it was actually Russia to a) avoid looking like there is any dissent and disagreement within itself and b) to bury the actual content of the leaks.
>The RNC then claims they were hacked (evidence of that is unclear) to a) avoid looking like they were involved with the DNC hack or b) to avoid the "Russia is helping us" narrative
>Then Podesta fell for a separate Phishing scam, the source of which is unclear but claimed to also be Russia (unsure about this point, but detecting where am Phishing scam originates is pretty difficult I'd imagine).
>Then some computer experts with no real evidence claimed that since there was a possibility the electronic voting machines were hacked a recount/investigation was in order. Again Russia is blamed or the likely (if anything turns up) culprit. So far no evidence has been found in this case.

>>93250
>Prove it was a DNC staffer
What is the proof that it was a Russian attack? No, seriously, what did the attackers do and how is it traced back to the Russian's? My point was that blaming the Russian's is a better piece of spin than an internal leak for the DNC PR.
>Indeed this is just a distraction, the congressional investigation can help determine if the Russians truly interfered, if the backing of the FBI, CIA, and NSA isn't enough for you on top of the already existing evidence.
Sorry, are you saying that the "Russian's hacked the electronic vote" is or isn't BS?

>>93263

What the pro-trump conspiracy theorists can't or won't seem to grasp is that the intelligence agencies of the US government are best placed in virtually every dimension to make such a call on whom was responsible,

It would be suspicious if they wouldn't release specific details that allow one to piece together the evidence themselves. That is, if they could. But obviously, you have a condition where doing so would compromise US implants in Russian systems, so it's perfectly reasonable.

To default to "it's a conspiracy" without positive evidence beyond reasonable doubt for that being the case is not a proof of anything because it's falsifiable. No matter what evidence is introduced, a conspiracy theory can never be disproved. If an idea has an unreasonable standard of falsification, it is by definition an opinion.

Unless you can present positive evidence beyond reasonable doubt to disprove the consensus of US intel, their word is literally the best sort of evidence that's currently available to any layperson.

Trump himself pointed to dissonance between agencies when suggesting a conspiracy was afoot. When the FBI acquiesced to the CIA's position, Trump didn't then adjust his idea according to the same standards he had before. Instead, now the FBI's conclusion was also untrustworthy. The only difference to him is before the evidence partially agreed with his position, and now it totally disagreed, and therefore constituted misinformation. His position was unfalsifiable and an opinion, ineligible to be fact.

>>93269
>because it's falsifiable.
*unfalsifiable

>>93269
Anon, I'm not a pro-Trump conspiracy theorist; just someone wondering if I'm watching the US government blaming someone erroneously out of malice, incompetence or validness.
>Unless you can present positive evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to disprove the consensus of US intel
Yes, i realize they are limited to how much they can release publically, but for all intents and purpose the intelligence communities could be banding together to instigate WW3 with Russia. The amount of shady shit the CIA has done alone makes me worried about what they're currently planning. Are you really able to put absolute trust and belief into some of the least transparent organizations on the face of the planet? Especially given how this whole thing (hacking) is still a concept very few people actually understand? It is so easy to blame literally anything on muh evil hackers since about 0.002% of people know enough to call bullshit.

Trump is an asshat also.

>>93269
>Unless you can present positive evidence beyond reasonable doubt to disprove the consensus of US intel, their word is literally the best sort of evidence that's currently available to any layperson.

How convenient...

"Russia hacked the election!"
"Where's the evidence?"
"Sorry, but that's a secret."
"Welp, that's good enough for me!"

>>93132
The Democrats could improve their security by not ignoring the FBI when they call them up to tell them they're being hacked.

>>93292

>could be banding together to instigate WW3 with Russia

The thing is no rational being wants to instigate WW3 unless they know with overwhelming certainty that they can avoid mutually assured destruction by some means. So unless the CIA, Clinton, or Trump have found the magic missile shield that will prevent the world from ending, none of them will ever start WW3. Both parties are full of shit when they announce that the opposition candidate will kick off WW3 and kill us all. It would take a series of concentrated errors and events akin to the Cuban missile crisis to take us to the brink, and even then it would take a literal madman to take us over it. Granted I don't have a high opinion of Donald, but I don't think he's literally insane. Similarly, Hillary may be out for Hillary, but that also implies she isn't keen on ending all human life on earth.

Right now the only ulterior motive that the US Intel groups could have is to either deflect blame away from the true culprit (which would imply they need to protect the true source) or they're trying to unify the country by giving them an exterior threat. Both of these possibilities are more comic book than actually probable, and I'm sure fuels all sorts of conspiracies. However, I don't think either is at all likely, so by Occam's Razor the simplest solution is US Intel has the proof (or will soon have the proof) and they can't reveal it without compromising valuable assets.

>>93339
>Right now the only ulterior motive that the US Intel groups could have is to either deflect blame away from the true culprit (which would imply they need to protect the true source) or they're trying to unify the country by giving them an exterior threat. Both of these possibilities are more comic book than actually probable, and I'm sure fuels all sorts of conspiracies.
How are both possibilities "more comic book than actually probable"? Both the ideas i said are 100% valid given just how political the CIA/etc are these days; don't tell me you can't believe someone in the government could misuse their position for their own or their mates political/social gain.

The "Russia hacked us and influenced the election! (Aka look at this massive story that tops the shady shit the DNC got exposed doing, AND look how us liberal media types were actually on the right side except we lost because of evil outside influence)" narrative has a lot going for it, and all concepts well within the realm of plausibility.

>>93339
>Right now the only ulterior motive that the US Intel groups could have is to either deflect blame away from the true culprit (which would imply they need to protect the true source) or they're trying to unify the country by giving them an exterior threat.

Or U.S. intelligence agencies are promoting a false flag operation to undermine Trump, as U.S. intelligence agencies were behind the Hillary sponsored NeoCon planned overthrow of Qaddafi in Libya, the ongoing attempt to overthrow Assad in Syria, the war in Yemen, the continuing war in Iraq and Afghanistan and promoting a new Cold War with Russia.

Bernie Sanders is a two-faced shit bag.

Uses identity politics as a central theme of his campaign, then after he loses he claims that the DNC is unequal to white males.

Hmm, is this Ann Coulter an political neutral and trustworthy source?

>>93349
>>93421

It just requires too many cogs to be working together in secret for the benefit of a candidate they don't even like. To throw everything under the bus to force a candidate who didn't win would be far more disruptive to US interests than letting someone US Intel feels is incompetent run things for 4-8 years (especially with proper checks and balances).

This is what I mean by comic book: it would require the director of the FBI, who has a known dislike of Clinton (to the point where he broke FBI tradition not once but twice to call her out), to work with the director of the CIA (who might have been nominated by Obama, but was career CIA before under multiple administrations) to fabricate evidence and then present it to Congress, both of which could be considered high crimes. Alternatively, it would require them to PRETEND there is evidence and then NEVER present it to Congress (at which point Congress laughs and calls the bluff, thus defeating this entire strategy to begin with). On top of that, there is zero guarantee that the election would be overturned even if it turns out Trump received outside assistance (as it would be highly disruptive), so the idea that they're doing this to swap presidents is very unlikely.

>>93504

It isn't about helping Hillary (that boat sailed on Nov8) it about undermining Trump, who refuses to kowtow to the CIA and their Neocon foreign policy.