The real source was the DNC Staffer that was shot in the back a few weeks ago in the "robbery" where nothing was taken.
I'm, frankly, of a bent to actually believe most conspiracy theories surrounding the Clintons.
However, this video of Assange:
Hint; he was the leaker - he was killed because he was the leaker!!
Question: "Was he the leaker?"
Answer: "We don't comment on our sources." wink wink.
You either comment, or you don't. You don't get to hint. Ironically, Assange went Clintonian.
ConspiracyCowboy
I just linked it you ing head.
Straight from the horses mouth, but you are free to keep claiming it was the Russians if it confirms your preconceptions.
great Yacht, Hillarys champion defending her honor!
But but the Russian boogeyman is all his fault. He ruined our "fair" election and democratic system
It's all their fault
Cosmicgayboy.I just linked it you ing head.
Straight from the horses mouth, but you are free to keep claiming it was the Russians if it confirms your preconceptions.
great Yacht, Hillarys champion defending her honor!
You're such a got. I bet you saw this video and got an instant hard on.
What you failed to realized is that Assange himself had said that the point of leaks is to give ambiguity to the person who leaks imformation. Here, he's going against what he preaches. Which is it? Obviously a lie.
From one of your beloved sites..
"Wikileaks have previously refused to confirm whether Russia was behind the hack, with Assange saying that the organisation likes “to create maximum ambiguity as to who our sources are.”
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/0...d-in-dnc-hack/
Odd isn't it?
Guess the source being murdered might have something to do with it.
But keep trying to pin it on the Russians, got.
Or he said this out of convience to deflect from Russia. You gullible .
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...nc-email-leak/Here’s a brief timeline of the attack, based on what cybersecurity researchers have found: In June, cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike reported that two hacking groups, who CrowdStrike and many others believe are competing Russian intelligence agencies, had breached the DNC system. About 24 hours later, a Romanian hacker calling himself Guccifer 2.0 claimed credit for the breach and leaked DNC do ents to American media outlets, including Gawker and The Hill. Also in June, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said he had "emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication," and Guccifer 2.0 claimed to be WikiLeaks’ source.
So its not the Russians now but a Romanian hacker
Get your story straight morons
Who's is responsible for Hillary cheating? Russians? Romanians? Pokemons?
Lets blame it on Pokemons!
The article said "based on what we know now" Russians "might" have done itOr he said this out of convience to deflect from Russia. You gullible .
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...nc-email-leak/
Good job cherry licking an article from before Assange's interview, got.
So its not the Russians now but a Romanian hacker
Get your story straight morons
Who's is responsible for Hillary cheating? Russians? Romanians? Pokemons?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0Various cybersecurity experts have stated that "Guccifer 2.0" is likely a creation of the Russian state-sponsored hacking groups thought to have executed the attack, invented to coverup Russian responsibility.[18][19] The cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike, which analyzed the data breach, "posits that Guccifer 2.0 could be 'part of a Russian Intelligence disinformation campaign'"—i.e., a creation to deflect blame for the theft
God are you ing stupid. It never occurs to you that people from other nationalities can work for other government? Jesus Christ.
Read my last post cosmicgayboi.
go ahead and read the wiki.
Read my last post got.
I did and it was as gay as the author himself.
Let me get this straight. A Romanian blogger/hacker claims to have hacked the DNC and you take his claims at face value. Then you don't stop there but also imagine that he is linked to Russian government and start believing that as a fact.
You cherry picked an old article to try to bull /backup your claim.
Old article dated July 31.
Before new facts came out, got. What if I posted July polls showing Trunp ahead of Clinton. Would that be OK with you?Old article dated July 31.
ing idiot.
What ing facts? Your little clip only vaguely hints that it wasn't a robbery. And not to mention that his basis on this is that the Clinton's killed him or at least implies it. That's going deep into conspiracy land.
Also apparently Assange is in charge of this investigation. Knows more than the cops investigating the murder. All the way from an Ecuadorian embassy.
I was just saying you were gullible but damn, you really are.
He insinuated he was the source of the leaks. He didn't say Clinton killed him but you just assumed they didWhat ing facts? Your little clip only vaguely hints that it wasn't a robbery. And not to mention that his basis on this is that the Clinton's killed him or at least implies it. That's going deep into conspiracy land.
Also apparently Assange is in charge of this investigation. Knows more than the cops investigating the murder. All the way from an Ecuadorian embassy.
I was just saying you were gullible but damn, you really are.
So are you just dismissing Assange's comments as false? With no possibility of their validity?What ing facts? Your little clip only vaguely hints that it wasn't a robbery. And not to mention that his basis on this is that the Clinton's killed him or at least implies it. That's going deep into conspiracy land.
Also apparently Assange is in charge of this investigation. Knows more than the cops investigating the murder. All the way from an Ecuadorian embassy.
I was just saying you were gullible but damn, you really are.
Reading comprehension fail.He insinuated he was the source of the leaks. He didn't say Clinton killed him but you just assumed they did
A little too convinient. Guy used to work for the DNC, gets killed and then good old Assange jumps in and hints this guy was the leaker and that's why he was targeted and dead.
Does your brain even process?
They are false. Or he could always prove it was the DNC staffer that leaked it.
"In the interview, Assange refused to confirm Rich was a source."
http://nypost.com/2016/08/10/julian-...eing-a-source/
So again I ask..which is it? Was he the leak or wasn't he?
I don't know. It's certainly a su ious death. Not saying I believe it was the Clintons directly.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
