Posts Tagged ‘Podesta emails’

evil-twitter-birds-teaser.png

 

Testimony of Sean J. Edgett Acting General Counsel, Twitter, Inc

Blatant political censorship on Twitter:

As described in greater detail below, our systems detected and hid just under half (48%) of the Tweets relating to variants of another notable hashtag, #DNCLeak, which concerned the disclosure of leaked emails from the Democratic National Committee. These steps were part of our general efforts at the
time to fight automation and spam on our platform across all areas.

We noted above that, with respect to two such hashtags—#PodestaEmails and #DNCLeak—our automated systems detected, labeled, and hid a portion of related Tweets at the time they were created. The insights from our retrospective
review have allowed us to draw additional conclusions about the activity around those hashtags.

 

wikileaks-3

Most crucially of all Obama refers to “The DNC emails that were leaked”. Note “leaked” and not “hacked”. I have been repeating that this was a leak, not a hack, until I am blue in the face. William Binney, former Technical Director of the NSA, has asserted that were it a hack the NSA would be able to give the precise details down to the second it occurred, and it is plain from the reports released they have no such information. Yet the media has persisted with this nonsense “Russian hacking” story.
-Craig Murray

Stunning Admission from Obama on Wikileaks

And so here we are: most of what the government and media tell you is dishonest, and they fucking-well know it.

Do you get it yet?

wikileaks-3

link

3B5B68F800000578-4034038-image-a-10_1481740039899.jpg

EXCLUSIVE: Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Clinton emails – they were handed over to him at a D.C. park by an intermediary for ‘disgusted’ Democratic whistleblowers

UK Daily Mail:

  • Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and associate of Julian Assange, told the Dailymail.com  he flew to Washington, D.C. for emails

  • He claims he had a clandestine hand-off in a wooded area near American University with one of the email sources 

  • The leakers’ motivation was ‘disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the  ’tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders’

  • Murray says: ‘The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks’

  • ‘Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that,’ Murray insists

 

 

 

PS

 

Even the FBI calls the CIA’s claims “fuzzy,” revealing more that this is theater, like Weapons of Mass Destruction before…

The FBI official’s remarks to the lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee were, in comparison, “fuzzy” and “ambiguous,” suggesting to those in the room that the bureau and the agency weren’t on the same page, the official said.

…“There is no clear evidence — even now,” said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the panel’s chairman. “There’s a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that’s it.”

…“It was shocking to hold these [CIA] statements made about Russian intentions and activities, and to hear this guy basically saying nothing with certainty and allowing that all was possible,” said an official who attended the briefing.

 

 

 

 

newsbud-hqdefault (3)

 

Sibel explains that only judges and officials with skeletons are promoted, so that they will take orders from the deep state.

 

 

The Newsbud Site is Up

watch-new-julian-assange-wikileaks-interview-about-hillary-_video

Assange Statement on the US Election

…The Democratic and Republican candidates have both expressed hostility towards whistleblowers. I spoke at the launch of the campaign for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, because her platform addresses the need to protect them. This is an issue that is close to my heart because of the Obama administration’s inhuman and degrading treatment of one of our alleged sources, Chelsea Manning. But WikiLeaks publications are not an attempt to get Jill Stein elected or to take revenge over Ms Manning’s treatment either.

Publishing is what we do. To withhold the publication of such information until after the election would have been to favour one of the candidates above the public’s right to know.

This is after all what happened when the New York Times withheld evidence of illegal mass surveillance of the US population for a year until after the 2004 election, denying the public a critical understanding of the incumbent president George W Bush, which probably secured his reelection. The current editor of the New York Times has distanced himself from that decision and rightly so.

The US public defends free speech more passionately, but the First Amendment only truly lives through its repeated exercise.