(10-04-2016 07:24 AM)TravelerKai Wrote:  If you were evil Obama, would you call his bluff and kill him with a CIA spy operative inside the embassy? If I were evil or Obama or both, I might do it.

I realise you are being hypothetical, but killing him will never happen. He's simply far too famous. That coupled with the fact he's in a metropolitan city and not some dusty corner of the middle east, means they'd never risk such an overt act of criminality. They have tried the next best thing though: discrediting him with false allegations of sexual misconduct.

People waiting with baited breath for an "October Surprise" should find a hobby. There's a term called "elite deviance". The Clintons are testament to the level of legal and moral protection afforded to the elites. Rape and sexual assault. Bribery and corruption through the Clinton foundation. Gross abuse and negligence of classified material. Confirmed dishonesty by Hillary when questioned under oath. How much more do you need?

Wikileaks could release a video file of Hillary burning babies at the stake and pouring BBQ sauce over their ribs, and it would not matter. There'd be obfuscation and misdirection from the mainstream media, a lightweight, protracted legal case with more obfuscation and misdirection, all culminating in a wet fart of a judgement by a lackey in 2018.

She's a protected asset. Get used to it.

(10-04-2016 07:45 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  What if the insurance file is nothing but bull shit?

It probably is. There is no point in believing there is something in there. Especially if he gave the password to one or a few inside the org. He likely trusts nobody. Typical NPD/Cluster B personality disorder stuff. Most with that disorder are extremely micro-managerial. That's why if it were me, I'd call his bluff. How can a leaker have 100% compliance and his guys never leak on him? No company or organization has 100% happy larks in it that are not ambitious themselves. Someone could easily copy the files inside and start their own site and get all the credit. Julian would lash out, but if they ignored him, he would get small in a hurry. That's why I don't think they have access to it. Only he does. He probably drops the files into a custom script to index them. He probably does chunks at a time manually. That's why it takes him so long. If he really had help, it would take a week tops.

Quote:I realise you are being hypothetical, but killing him will never happen. He's simply far too famous. That coupled with the fact he's in a metropolitan city and not some dusty corner of the middle east, means they'd never risk such an overt act of criminality. They have tried the next best thing though: discrediting him with false allegations of sexual misconduct.

Too famous? That's not a good reason not to assassinate someone. That's a good reason TO assassinate someone. Who ever assassinated a nobody?

They do not need to go inside with guns. CIA guys are not all SOG or DEVGRU operatives. The cook in the cafeteria could get him with a lethal syringe or something on that level. They could put black mamba venom on a ring with a sharp tip, shake his hand and kill him. These people have way more imagination on killing people than you and I do. Mossad would have killed him if they were interested a long time ago. They have balls and are sneaky. Remember he got Bin Laden and acted like a boss for pulling the trigger. Even watched him getting snuffed live in the White House on a projector screen. Nigga probably had a popcorn bucket. Obama has insecurities and might flex again. The UK isn't EU anymore either. Ecuador is not a country well respected.

Discrediting Julian with flimsy rape allegations that are even weak by American rape accusation standards hasn't slowed him down one bit. If they want to match propaganda with propaganda, a dude on house arrest, can hardly get into enough trouble to assassinate his character.

Hillary is back to hiding from the public. But she's got The Obamas and Bernie out carrying water for her, as well as Warren and forum favorite Kirsten Gillenbrand.

https://hillaryspeeches.com/scheduled-events/

Here's all of the Rallies scheduled between now and 10/7:

Quote: October 4, 2016 Raleigh, North Carolina | Rally | First Lady Michelle
October 4, 2016 Charlotte, North Carolina | Rally | First Lady Michelle
October 4, 2016 Minneapolis, Minnesota | Rally | Senator Bernie Sanders
October 4, 2016 Duluth, Minnesota | Rally | Senator Bernie Sanders
October 5, 2016 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Rally | Tim Kaine
October 5, 2016 Miami, Florida | Rally | President Barack Obama
October 5, 2016 Des Moines, Iowa | Rally | Senator Bernie Sanders
October 5, 2016 Madison, Wisconsin | Rally | Senator Bernie Sanders
October 5, 2016 Green Bay, Wisconsin | Rally | Senator Bernie Sanders
October 6, 2016 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania | Rally | Tim Kaine
October 7, 2016 Keene, New Hampshire | Rally | Senator Bernie Sanders
October 7, 2016 Nashua, New Hampshire | Rally | Senator Bernie Sanders

Here's Hillary's schedule over that timeframe:

Quote: October 4, 2016 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania | Organizing Event | Hillary Clinton
October 5, 2016 Washington, DC | Fundraiser | Hillary Clinton

Her extended schedule through 10/19 (does not include rallies, which may not be scheduled as far in advance as fundraisers, etc.):

Quote: October 9, 2016 St. Louis, Missouri | Presidential Debate | Hillary Clinton
October 13, 2016 San Francisco, California | Fundraiser | Hillary Clinton
October 19, 2016 Las Vegas, Nevada | Presidential Debate | Hillary Clinton

Hillary's message consists almost entirely of endorsements from far more popular people, with a few halfhearted messages on run-of-the mill identity politics and Dem issues.

Meanwhile Trump grinds out a rally, sometimes two, a day.

This bitch has 3 men shilling for her while she's Netflix & chillin' with Huma. Girl power!

Source: Flashback: When the Clintons Loved Russia Enough to Sell Them Our Uranium

Clinton Foundation Hacked!

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-04...lay-folder



...corporate donations made to various House representatives....


...as well as Wall Street bank donations, curiously cross-referenced to how much TARP funding they received.


As Guccifer notes," It looks like big banks and corporations agreed to donate to the Democrats a certain percentage of the allocated TARP funds."



Database dump incoming
Hail Guccifer!

BIG LEAGUE!

Really hoping this is the real deal. Hard to believe anyone would be so stupid as to actually name a folder "Pay to Play".

Looks like instead of getting any more work done today I'll just be

This blatant nature of this racket blows my mind. Hillary and her cronies should be in jail right now. First line - BofA to Barney Frank 15 billion - only cost them a donation of $17k. If my math is right that's basically $1.13 for each million.

How can a foundation legally give political donations? I thought that political donations are not tax deductible, but donations to a foundation are. So you can donate to politicians with pre-tax money if you setup a foundation and donate through that?

Assange always seemed shady to me, the way he came out of nothing with a fully formed organization. My bet is he is a CIA asset turned on his master, that's why Ecuador gave him asylum, he probably paid with information. Anyone remember what was the first leaks from Wikileaks?

(10-04-2016 05:31 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  Assange always seemed shady to me, the way he came out of nothing with a fully formed organization. My bet is he is a CIA asset turned on his master, that's why Ecuador gave him asylum, he probably paid with information. Anyone remember what was the first leaks from Wikileaks?

I forgot it's been a long time. I think I started following them around 2008 myself. They apparently started back in 2006. Never really thought about them being a CIA plant. Kinda funny of a thought, but you never know. I kinda doubt it though. What kinda made them interesting if memory serves me right, is that they have always operated in places with stronger free speech laws (like Iceland, Sweden, etc.) That was always their saving grace, but the more you shoot at the biggest bears in the world, the less those laws can protect you.

Ask The Pirate Bay and other filesharing giants that tried that shit over the years. Tor nodes, Bitcoin, etc. You name it, the Globalists are not escapable for long, unless you are in Russia or China.

Quote:2006–2008[edit]
Apparent Somali assassination order[edit]
WikiLeaks posted its first document in December 2006, a decision to assassinate government officials, signed by Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys.[1] The New Yorker has reported that
[Julian] Assange and the others were uncertain of its authenticity, but they thought that readers, using Wikipedia-like features of the site, would help analyze it. They published the decision with a lengthy commentary, which asked, “Is it a bold manifesto by a flamboyant Islamic militant with links to Bin Laden? Or is it a clever smear by US intelligence, designed to discredit the Union, fracture Somali alliances and manipulate China?” ... The document’s authenticity was never determined, and news about WikiLeaks quickly superseded the leak itself.[1]
Daniel arap Moi family corruption[edit]
On 31 August 2007, The Guardian (Britain) featured on its front page a story about corruption by the family of the former Kenyan leader Daniel arap Moi. The newspaper stated that the source of the information was WikiLeaks.[2]
Bank Julius Baer lawsuit[edit]
Main article: Bank Julius Baer vs. Wikileaks lawsuit
In February 2008, the wikileaks.org domain name was taken offline after the Swiss Bank Julius Baer sued WikiLeaks and the wikileaks.org domain registrar, Dynadot, in a court in California, United States, and obtained a permanent injunction ordering the shutdown.[3][4] WikiLeaks had hosted allegations of illegal activities at the bank's Cayman Islands branch.[3] WikiLeaks' U.S. Registrar, Dynadot, complied with the order by removing its DNS entries. However, the website remained accessible via its numeric IP address, and online activists immediately mirrored WikiLeaks at dozens of alternative websites worldwide.[5]
The American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a motion protesting the censorship of WikiLeaks. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press assembled a coalition of media and press that filed an amicus curiae brief on WikiLeaks' behalf. The coalition included major U.S. newspaper publishers and press organisations, such as the American Society of News Editors, the Associated Press, the Citizen Media Law Project, the E. W. Scripps Company, the Gannett Company, the Hearst Corporation, the Los Angeles Times, the National Newspaper Publishers Association, the Newspaper Association of America and the Society of Professional Journalists. The coalition requested to be heard as a friend of the court to call attention to relevant points of law that it believed the court had overlooked (on the grounds that WikiLeaks had not appeared in court to defend itself, and that no First Amendment issues had yet been raised before the court). Amongst other things, the coalition argued that:[5]
"WikiLeaks provides a forum for dissidents and whistleblowers across the globe to post documents, but the Dynadot injunction imposes a prior restraint that drastically curtails access to Wikileaks from the Internet based on a limited number of postings challenged by Plaintiffs. The Dynadot injunction therefore violates the bedrock principle that an injunction cannot enjoin all communication by a publisher or other speaker."[5]
The same judge, Judge Jeffrey White, who issued the injunction vacated it on 29 February 2008, citing First Amendment concerns and questions about legal jurisdiction.[6] WikiLeaks was thus able to bring its site online again. The bank dropped the case on 5 March 2008.[7] The judge also denied the bank's request for an order prohibiting the website's publication.[5]
The Executive Director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Lucy Dalglish, commented:
"It's not very often a federal judge does a 180 degree turn in a case and dissolves an order. But we're very pleased the judge recognized the constitutional implications in this prior restraint."[5]
Guantanamo Bay procedures[edit]
A copy of Standard Operating Procedures for Camp Delta–the protocol of the U.S. Army at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp–dated March 2003 was released on the WikiLeaks website on 7 November 2007.[8] The document, named "gitmo-sop.pdf", is also mirrored at The Guardian.[9] Its release revealed some of the restrictions placed over detainees at the camp, including the designation of some prisoners as off-limits to the International Committee of the Red Cross, something that the U.S. military had in the past repeatedly denied.[10]
On 3 December 2007, WikiLeaks released a copy of the 2004 edition of the manual,[11] together with a detailed analysis of the changes.[12]
Tibetan Dissent in China[edit]
On 24 March 2008, WikiLeaks made 35 uncensored videos of civil unrest in Tibet available for viewing, to get around official Chinese censorship during the worst of the unrest.[13]

God Bless that Guccifer2.0 guy. He is always around to give us all a lift whenever he can. Most of the stuff he finds, tends not to hit MSM, but in a logistical sense, it helps us connect dots and keep fucking score.

Check out all those fucking Republican donations. That's ridiculous. More proof that there are no two separate parties.

Like it or not, the Wikileaks thing makes sense as marketing, and they have just enough plausible deniability to get away with it.
How many people tuned in casually, got disappointed, and now really want to hear the new leak?

(10-04-2016 10:39 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  

Thanks for the nightmares.

(10-04-2016 10:39 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  

You know you're a haggard old bitch when you get compared to William H. Macy.

(10-04-2016 10:43 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

(10-04-2016 10:39 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  

Thanks for the nightmares.

(10-04-2016 10:39 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  

This might be my new avatar pic.

It is so ugly.

I can't stop laughing as she literally looks like she is melting away.

Maybe someone in the crowd approached her with a bucket of water.

(10-04-2016 11:24 PM)Jaydublin Wrote:  

(10-04-2016 10:43 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

(10-04-2016 10:39 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  

Thanks for the nightmares.

I couldn't stay up to see if shit went down for that. I'm PST, so I could have, but I know (if something major dropped) that I wouldn't be able to go through any of it and actually understand it. I'm just dumb like that.
I hope something truly atrocious comes out, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Wouldn't it be neat if they found the person who capped the DNC leaker? and then he had deposits from the Clinton foundation in his accounts. Gosh that would be neat, like a John Grisham novel.

jesus christ I just refreshed and there's like 6 fucking posts with that death's head pic of hillary.
edit, lol kosko you sick fuck.

(10-04-2016 11:28 PM)kosko Wrote:  

(10-04-2016 10:39 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  

This might be my new avatar pic.

Please....don't.

Most of the forum will be forced to put you on their block lists.

I see the same look in their eyes






CLINTON SANDUSKY 2016

The hacker linked to Assange whose twitter I posted last night just put up some files on a mediafire account.
I'm too much of a pussy to click on it.

Anybody feeling exceptionally brave?