WikiLeaks: Hillary Clinton Bribed Republicans to Influence Election

[mystery-ak]

WikiLeaks: Hillary Clinton Bribed Republicans to Influence Election


By Douglas V. Gibbs —— Bio and Archives January 20, 2017

Never mind the Russians.  It was Hillary Clinton who was actually trying to sabotage the 2016 Presidential Election, according to a WikiLeaks release.

The information released shows that the Hillary Clinton campaign staffers bribed six Republicans to “destroy Trump”.

The evidence includes an email from John Podesta to Huma Abedin discussing diverting Clinton campaign funds to various Republicans who were secretly on the Clinton payroll.

Conservativedailypost.com reports:

more
http://canadafreepress.com/article/wikileaks-hillary-clinton-bribed-republicans-to-influence-election

[Wingnut]

 

This guy writing makes wnd.com look sane.

[Lando Lincoln]

This guy writing makes wnd.com look sane.

Canadians often talk "funny", too:

"Throw the cow over the fence some hay."

"Throw me down the stairs my hat."

"Throw Mama from the train a kiss."

They do a lot of throwing, too.

[Cripplecreek]

This guy writing makes wnd.com look sane.

That's what happens when they chug the kool aide.

[Bigun]

I'll bet I can name the six "republicans"!

[jmyrlefuller]

The original source (which dates back to December):
https://conservativedailypost.com/6-republicans-took-secret-payments-clinton-destroy-trump-new-wiki-leak/

Note: no link to the actual supposed email in the original post, and it seems that "document 1078645" in the Podesta e-mails does not exist.

This is a hoax.

[240B]

I wouldn't think she would have to pay them.


And there were many more than just six NeverTrump Republican who were trying to sabotage Trump, with or without Hillary asking them to do anything.

[Wingnut]

The original source (which dates back to December):
https://conservativedailypost.com/6-republicans-took-secret-payments-clinton-destroy-trump-new-wiki-leak/

Note: no link to the actual supposed email in the original post, and it seems that "document 1078645" in the Podesta e-mails does not exist.

This is a hoax.

QFT  And as such should end this thread.

[Cripplecreek]

The original source (which dates back to December):
https://conservativedailypost.com/6-republicans-took-secret-payments-clinton-destroy-trump-new-wiki-leak/

Note: no link to the actual supposed email in the original post, and it seems that "document 1078645" in the Podesta e-mails does not exist.

This is a hoax.

Only a moron would trust wikileaks anyway. Despite their (or their handler's) dislike for Clinton, they have no love of republicans, conservatives or Americans in general and have no problem sowing dissent and chaos among us.

After facilitating Bradley Manning's treason that got allies killed, our troops endangered and their families threatened, Julian Assange is worthy of no more than a nice clean sniper round.

[ABX]

I posted this on the other topic too.

The latest Wikileaks emails were from March 2016 which were from the Podesta files.
The latest DNC leaks were from early February 2016.

There weren't leaked emails from July 2016.

The story smells. Probably fake news.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

More fake news. Surprised it was from Rangerebew, he's the biggest poster on here of it.

[Wingnut]

More fake news. Surprised it was from Rangerebew, he's the biggest poster on here of it.

I know I have mentioned this before when you have attacked RB..... he is a prolific poster of News Threads here at TBR.  Some, as in a very small percentage  are queered.  He does not post them with subterfuge in mind.  So Lighten up. 

[JustPassinThru]

This guy writing makes wnd.com look sane.

Why is that?  It sounds plausible.  The Klintoon Krime Fambly Foundation certainly had contacts with Russia - no doubt Vlad was donating; he wanted to own a piece of the Hill, too.

It fits in with what we know about the moral bankruptcy of the Klintoons; and it fits with the universal liberal trait of Psychological Projection.  They accuse their enemies and opponents of doing what they themselves are doing, have done, plan to do.

It's not proof but it's a logical supposition.

[Sanguine]

I know I have mentioned this before when you have attacked RB..... he is a prolific poster of News Threads here at TBR.  Some, as in a very small percentage  are queered.  He does not post them with subterfuge in mind.  So Lighten up.

What he said.

[r9etb]

Why is that?  It sounds plausible.  The Klintoon Krime Fambly Foundation certainly had contacts with Russia - no doubt Vlad was donating; he wanted to own a piece of the Hill, too.

It fits in with what we know about the moral bankruptcy of the Klintoons; and it fits with the universal liberal trait of Psychological Projection.  They accuse their enemies and opponents of doing what they themselves are doing, have done, plan to do.

It's not proof but it's a logical supposition.

Perhaps.  But the post in question does refer to "proof," in the form of e-mails, the actual existence of which is rather questionable. 

This is the whole basis of the "fake news" phenomenon.  It takes something that we'd like to believe ("sounds plausible"), and fits a story to it in hopes that it will get passed around and believed, either to achieve a political end or, as I suspect in this case, simply to generate hits for a website and the advertising money that will follow. 

It's nothing more or less than a high-tech incarnation of the old-fashioned "whispering campaign."

[JustPassinThru]

Perhaps.  But the post in question does refer to "proof," in the form of e-mails, the actual existence of which is rather questionable. 

Why are they questionable?  When is the exact content of emails or other documents, printed in a short news summary?  Ever?

This is the whole basis of the "fake news" phenomenon.  It takes something that we'd like to believe ("sounds plausible"), and fits a story to it in hopes that it will get passed around and believed, either to achieve a political end or, as I suspect in this case, simply to generate hits for a website and the advertising money that will follow. 

No, it is not.  Clinton Cash accounted, and documented, volumous evidence of the graft that family was wallowing in.  It is scarcely a jump to expect a Clintonista to go to Vlad and say, "Her Hillaryness wants more payment - but not in money, this time."

Compare that to the accusations lodged against Cruz, Cruz' father, Cruz' wife...and now, Trump and his full-bladder prostitutes.  THAT, is the essence of Fake Nooze.

It's nothing more or less than a high-tech incarnation of the old-fashioned "whispering campaign."

Your basis for not believing it, seems to be that you don't want to believe it.

Well, there's a lot of that going around, too.  Some people don't want to believe a lot of economic, social, gender and national-security realities.

[r9etb]

Why are they questionable?  When is the exact content of emails or other documents, printed in a short news summary?  Ever?

Did the article actually provide a copy of, or a link to, the e-mails in question?  Have you actually read them?  Can you provide us a few direct quotes, or pictures of the messages?  @AbaraXas, who made something of a project of actually reading them all, is saying that they're not really there.

No, it is not.  Clinton Cash accounted, and documented, volumous evidence of the graft that family was wallowing in.  It is scarcely a jump to expect a Clintonista to go to Vlad and say, "Her Hillaryness wants more payment - but not in money, this time."

I'm quite sure the Clintons are as corrupt as we suspect them to be.  But the OP is about a very specific claim, supposedly proven by e-mail traffic.  Again: have you read the messages in question?  Do you trust the source who claims to be telling you about them?

Your basis for not believing it, seems to be that you don't want to believe it.

Well, I learned a long time ago not to trust I what I read on the internet, just because I want it to be true.  This is a sensational claim, and as such I've learned to demand proof -- in this case, in the form of actual documentation.  Well?  Where is it?

Well, there's a lot of that going around, too.  Some people don't want to believe a lot of economic, social, gender and national-security realities.

I don't see what that has to do with this particular topic...

[JustPassinThru]

Did the article actually provide a copy of, or a link to, the e-mails in question?  Have you actually read them?  Can you provide us a few direct quotes, or pictures of the messages?  @AbaraXas, who made something of a project of actually reading them all, is saying that they're not really there.

I'm quite sure the Clintons are as corrupt as we suspect them to be.  But the OP is about a very specific claim, supposedly proven by e-mail traffic.  Again: have you read the messages in question?  Do you trust the source who claims to be telling you about them?

Well, I learned a long time ago not to trust I what I read on the internet, just because I want it to be true.  This is a sensational claim, and as such I've learned to demand proof -- in this case, in the form of actual documentation.  Well?  Where is it?

Do you insist on absolute, complete documentation presented with each news link?

Do you, or anyone, insist on seeing complete source listing and footnoting in every news article in every major daily newspaper?

No, you don't; and it's not done in newspapers and it's not possible to do it with newspapers or even online articles.  The original author is not presenting a research paper.

[jmyrlefuller]

I posted this on the other topic too.

The latest Wikileaks emails were from March 2016 which were from the Podesta files.
The latest DNC leaks were from early February 2016.

There weren't leaked emails from July 2016.

The story smells. Probably fake news.

FWIW, Snopes and "TruthOrFiction.com" both come to the same conclusion. Snopes traced it to thelastlineofdefense.org, which appears to originate from some left-wingers' attempt at satire, and surmises someone at conservativedailypost stole the news article without bothering to verify it or give credit. The fact that it targets Republicans would further the idea that this is fake news planted by liberals.

(Particularly suspicious is the inclusion of Fiorina, who was one of Clinton's harshest critics. That, and as Abaraxas noted, it's dated in July, after the primary season was already over.)

[JustPassinThru]

Snopes is fake fact-checking.

It's a convicted embezzler and a former dominitrix, who wanted to try something different.

Helluva crack research team, there...

[ABX]

Do you insist on absolute, complete documentation presented with each news link?

Do you, or anyone, insist on seeing complete source listing and footnoting in every news article in every major daily newspaper?

No, you don't; and it's not done in newspapers and it's not possible to do it with newspapers or even online articles.  The original author is not presenting a research paper.

Considering the proliferation of fake news, trolling, and journalistic malpractice on all sides going on right now, a wise person should. News today is becoming like accepting medical advice from a random stranger on the street. One would be a fool not to to due diligence and fact check it.

[Cripplecreek]

Considering the proliferation of fake news, trolling, and journalistic malpractice on all sides going on right now, a wise person should. News today is becoming like accepting medical advice from a random stranger on the street. One would be a fool not to to due diligence and fact check it.

Its all about discernment.

For all of Thomas Jefferson's criticism of the press he was most disappointed in the American people and their lack of discernment and love of drama and rumor over fact.

I think he would say we had failed as a nation if he were alive today. Our reality TV clownshow of a society elected the lowest of the low despite his obvious and simple lies despite knowing they were lies. People who scream about fake news while willfully accepting Trump's lies are unworthy of respect. We're going to pay an exceedingly high price for electing the degeneracy king need to pay the most.