I dunno, they showed the US killing a bunch of journalists. Depending on how jaded you are that might not be shocking, but I’d hope it’s not boring.
And yeah, I watched that video. The air crew saw men with AK47’s and RPGs, which you can see also. (yes, the two guys the Wikileaks ID’s as the journalists have cameras, not gus, other in the group have guns) Reuters sez “A spokeswoman for the news agency said they were not sure if the individuals in the footage included those two Reuters journalists.”
and altho it’s true the US govt verified the video, it also stated:"The report showed pictures of what it said were machine guns and grenades found near the bodies of those killed. It also stated that the Reuters employees “made no effort to visibly display their status as press or media representatives and their familiar behavior with, and close proximity to, the armed insurgents and their furtive attempts to photograph the coalition ground forces made them appear as hostile combatants to the Apaches that engaged them.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/middleeast/06baghdad.html?hp
So, you walk around in a dangerous area with armed insurgents, with no Press Identification, and you are taking a very big risk.
War correspondents know this. It’s a dangerous job.
Now, Wikileaks claimed that the Chopper “intentionally” targeted those journalists. But the video makes it clear the aircrew thought they were insurgents.
Wikileaks is teasing a “surprise” for Kaine and Donna Brazile. Which mainly sounds like they’re scraping the barrel if they think news about them is going to change anything.
Here it is:
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/wikileaks-donna-brazile-shreds-obama-economy/
*WikiLeaks: Donna Brazile Shreds Obama Economy
Acting DNC chair says ‘people are more in despair about how things are’
by Edmund Kozak | Updated 21 Oct 2016 at 11:05 AM
In an email to Hillary Clinton campaign Chair John Podesta from February 2016, released Friday by WikiLeaks, now-acting chair of the Democratic National Committee Donna Brazile gave a frank and honest assessment of the Obama economy — and it wasn’t good.
“I think people are more in despair about how things are — yes new jobs but they are low wage jobs,” she admits. “HOUSING is a huge issue. Most people pay half of what they make to rent,” she continued.
Such honesty from such a vocal and public cheerleader for the Obama administration is sure to embarrass the White House, and contradicts the official Democratic Party line that Obama is some sort of economy-saving superhero.
*
Note the BIG reveal: Housing continues to be a issue, people are unhappy. :eek::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
This does not, in anywayshapeorform "Shreds Obama Economy" or “contradicts the official Democratic Party line”.
Weak sauce.
It does show she’s not afraid to be honest. Yes, despite all the gains Obama has gotten for the economy, things are by no means perfect. Lots of people are still living on the edge. Which is why we need Hillary, Not Trump.
I suspect questions about the Clinton Foundation will follow Hillary into the White House. The Clintons knew the Foundation would be a problem when Hillary became Secretary of State. Yet they still mishandled it and created this mess.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/hacked-emails-clinton-pushed-charity-meeting-morocco-42965686
In order for Wikileaks to be truly devastating, someone would have to say something pointing to blatant illegality on the part of Clinton and her top advisors, or it would have to be something blatantly offensive to people who support her - something that just can’t be said in public. The occasional candid remark here and there, while embarrassing, doesn’t do immediate damage. But sustained dumps are effective in at least one small but not insignificant way: they dampen the enthusiasm a little. And Clinton needs every bit of enthusiasm that she can get.
A greater danger to Clinton, IMO, is what happened yesterday, with the DDOS attacks. Not that in and of itself, but that and other ‘chaos’ events. A chaos event could be anything from a wave of internet outages to a domestic or international crisis. Basically anything that makes voters anxious and nervous and could provoke them into irrational voting.
WikiLeaks admits it is in the tank against Hillary Clinton:
“Leak early, leak often: If WikiLeaks had obtained Clinton emails earlier, US voters could have chosen Sanders v Trump. So do it. Do it now.”
Wikileaks seems to live in the right-wing fantasy world now. Releasing these emails earlier would have made for a more tumultuous primary, and DWS resigning sooner, but Hillary would still have won – millions more Democrats preferred her and supported her, and this wouldn’t have changed that. Very few supporters of Hillary don’t understand that she’s a political operator and manipulator – for many, that’s a positive and not a negative trait.
I think it will. By the same token that people viewed Wikileaks differently when it wasn’t their parties’ political ox being gored (or viewed it more negatively then when it wasn’t the opposing party being gored), MSM reporters IMO will be under less politico-social pressure in their worlds to downplay the Wikileaks revelations or put a happy face on them once Trump is defeated.
Also, they may continue. It’s hard to say how politically savvy the hacker/leakers are. They mistimed the revelations about HRC WS speeches which might have seriously bogged her down v Sanders when that was a key focus of his campaign, but kind of a side issue in the general. However assuming they were politically savvy it might have reached a point where some medium size revelations are more damaging to US credibility, and that’s the goal here, not just to elect Donald Trump, if revealed after the election. They might be things not likely big enough to swing the election, and the electorate still electing her would tend to diminish them. But if revealed after, they might cause more damage to the US President’s (her) credibility because the electorate hadn’t had a chance to opine on them.
Another detailed article on the possible connections between Wikileaks and Russia:
There is a claim that in 2010 Assange was going to release info on Russian elites and the FSB made clear there would be violent reprisals against wikileaks staff if this happened. They backed down and never released the material.
I’m quite willing to believe that Assange has no love for Russia whatsoever, however it’s quite possible to believe that the FSB instructed him to only release leaks on Clinton and not on Trump, both with further threats of violence to his family in Australia or wikileaks staff and by offering to give him Asylum in Russia and a way out of the Ecuadorian embassy in return for doing this.
Wikileaks email details how Hillary surprised Trump by digging up his 20 year old comment about Miss Universe.
Turns out they’ve been saving that nugget since last Dec. I admit using it in the debate was very effective. Trump even said, “Where did you find this?”
And that is why Trump telling his staff to not do opposition research on his past was a deadly thing because it painfully showed how unprepared Trump was/is.
Oh, my. This is bad. :eek:
Won’t change the election results. Imho. But, I predict more hearings after she’s elected. She’s going into office with very serious problems.
I hope more evidence of a cover up doesn’t emerge. This could distract her administration even more than Whitewater hurt Bill’s Presidential agenda.
Sigh. I can imagine the dilemma these aides faced. They are long term and very loyal supporters. Trying to clean up and manage a mess they inherited.
This email is Aug 2015. The one from Podesta was March 2015. That’s a lot of time on one problem.
Gosh, this is all so terribly terrible. Is there a fainting couch nearby?
If you’re going to quote things, please link them or at least tell us what they are actually talking about.
From Googling, I see this is about her use of a separate email server itself, and only after that information became public, with some aids complaining no one told them.
And, in that case, I don’t think this will matter in the slightest. There’s nothing to investigate on this matter–the DOJ already did it.
You need some alleged wrongdoing by her Foundation to have something to look into.
This is the tip of the iceberg. There was a lot left unsaid in the emails. Professional political operatives are careful what they say in memos or emails.
Nothing can be done now. Congress will be looking at the Clinton Foundation and the email server after Hillary is elected. Imho
I pasted the link. Somehow this phone wiped out. I didn’t notice until you pointed it out.
My apologies.
Here is the link. From the Washington Post
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/her-instincts-can-be-terrible-wikileaks-reveals-fears-and-frustrations-inside-clinton-world/2016/10/25/a6ceefdc-9ae0-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?client=ms-android-motorola
Well hopefully Obama will issue a blanket pardon for the email server before he leaves ofice (even though there is not any actual offenses there) so it can finally be put to rest. Clinton Foundation is another thing but my prediction is that it will be yet another thousands of pages of reports which finds stuff that’s slightly dodgy but nothing that can actually be proved or charged.
They already had a Bengazi investigation and an email investigation. I think the country in general is tired of investigations to nowhere and with a possible minority of the senate and a weak and divided majority in the House, I don’t know if the republicans would be in a good position to prosecute Hillary on candid musings of political operatives. To me it just seems like political aides who appear to be reacting to a scandal of which they were previously unaware, and they appear to be assigning blame to people without any proof. They’re being candid about their own candidate’s problems in dealing with the media but these are problems the public knows.