Selling his hair on EBay seems pretty dangerous. I've seen too many movies to believe he wouldn't get cloned and come back as Super bin Laden.

4/30/2013 10:40:47 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/to-hunt-osama-bin-laden-satellites-watched-over-abbottabad-pakistan-and-navy-seals/2013/08/29/8d32c1d6-10d5-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story.html?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost

[Edited on August 30, 2013 at 1:42 PM. Reason : ]

8/30/2013 1:42:01 PM

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37142801

sucks 2 be u

8/21/2016 4:40:03 AM

I like how they say they gave him a proper Muslim burial. I'm guessing it was more like they tied some weights to him to make sure he sank and tossed him overboard.

8/21/2016 6:03:02 PM

as if he's megatron or godzilla

8/21/2016 7:20:00 PM

Why is Wikileaks Twitter linking to the fucking GatewayPundit regularly now? Sad to see how partisan Assange has become. Probably rightfully so he has a major grudge with Clinton but he is doing things to jeopardize the good faith normal people had in his project.

8/23/2016 9:07:40 AM

Sad!

8/23/2016 10:32:38 AM

i mean I've been screaming from the start that snowden and wikileaks and all that bullshit were state actors. none of this should come as a surprise to anyone who didn't fall for their bullshit upfront.

8/23/2016 11:21:57 AM

please expound on "state actors"

8/23/2016 11:36:01 AM

russian anti-american propaganda.

but maybe it's a coincidence that "guccifer 2.0" is russian state sponsored hacking that just happens to give the info they glean to wikileaks.

at least wikileaks has given up any pretense of nobility. in the last year they have dumped records that include private citizen medical records and even outed gay people in saudi arabia.

all in the name of transparency, of course.

8/23/2016 2:49:55 PM

Snowden was a russian state actor?

okay.

8/23/2016 3:01:49 PM

Snowden hasn't done anything remotely close to what Assange is doing.

In fact, he was highly critical of WikiLeaks just recently about not redacting personal information in releases..

[Edited on August 23, 2016 at 3:05 PM. Reason : Redacting]

8/23/2016 3:05:08 PM

cmon guys, hillary isn't crooked at all. the russians just hate us so much they don't want us to get such an amazing leader like clinton.

8/23/2016 4:42:22 PM

If you don't think it's in Russia's best interest to have a sympathizer like Trump in the WH



[Edited on August 23, 2016 at 4:48 PM. Reason : .]

8/23/2016 4:48:00 PM

I honestly don't believe that Russia's endgame here is a Trump Presidency. Putin likes to act crazy because it's in his best interest for everyone to think he's capable of doing something totally nuts, like invading eastern Europe or launching nukes. At the end of the day, he doesn't want a batshit moron in the White House anymore than we do. This is all part of his ex-KGB playbook, flexing his muscles a bit by showing he can fuck with our elections. Also just having that orange turd out there saying things like "wouldn't it be nice if we were friends with Russia?" as well as the reaction from our media helps him out.

[Edited on August 23, 2016 at 5:26 PM. Reason : .]

8/23/2016 5:23:50 PM

I don't think who wins the election is as important to Putin as undermining the legitimacy of American democracy, in part so that we have shakier ground from which to condemn Russia's.

I read one article, might have been in Time, saying that one fear was that they'd fuck with electronic voting machines. Supposedly it wouldn't actually affect the outcome - it mentioned some kind of paper count backup, but I confess not knowing much about how this works. But it hypothesized some outlandish initial outcome, like Trump winning California by 20 points. That would show extreme vulnerability in our election process, and it would drag out the process in an ugly way. Because you know that no matter how self-evidently fraudulent that was, Trump would claim it was real and fight any attempt to recount.

8/24/2016 7:50:35 AM

All the Trump is Russia's puppet conspiracies are utter nonsense.

But I'd argue Putin would love to see the US become more isolationist/nationalistic and especially would love a weakening EU/NATO. With Trump that is more likely.

[Edited on August 24, 2016 at 9:24 AM. Reason : X]

8/24/2016 9:23:51 AM

literally the only thing trump's team had input on for the platform at the convention was gutting the GOP's anti-Russia position on Ukraine/Crimea

8/24/2016 10:57:17 PM

Quote :

"Emails show Huma Abedin in charge of Hillary Clinton's earpiece wikileaks.org/clinton-emails…"

Still covering himself in glory, Assange is. Feeding in to the InfoWars scoop on some dumb ear piece. The email in question here? It was a day Clinton spoke at the UN, where more or less everyone has ear pieces for translations.

9/8/2016 7:43:45 PM

Oops wikileaks just happened to forget emails pertaining to billions of Syrian dollars being transferred to Russian banks in their data dump.

Let's hear you defend your boys dtwrong

And we still going with Trump isn't a puppet thing?

[Edited on September 9, 2016 at 11:37 PM. Reason : . ]

9/9/2016 11:36:47 PM

cat got your tongue?

9/10/2016 9:58:55 PM

I hope we buried his ass in a lagoon of pig shit.

9/11/2016 9:53:35 AM

Quote :

"dtwrong"

is this for me? when have i defended wikileaks? they lost all their credibility when they started this clinton shit and i've posted that before

Quote :

"wikileaks made the DNC look bad, but they really haven't released anything about clinton wikileaks also really undermined any credibility and reputation they had"

-dtownral 8/2/2016

[Edited on September 11, 2016 at 5:05 PM. Reason : troll harder i guess?]

9/11/2016 4:54:45 PM

Why is golielax so mad all the time?

9/11/2016 4:56:08 PM

^low you're low energy

poor snowden. he's just a puppet, right - no way he's a state actor? i mean he only committed the largest act of espionage/treason since the days of hanssen and just happened to direct that information in to the hands of assange and wikileaks. just a do gooder in over his head? who happened to wind up living in russia under the protection of putin (wo also imported his girlfriend for him)? couldn't possibly be a state actor.

or, you know, occam's razor.

[Edited on September 12, 2016 at 2:49 PM. Reason : .]

9/12/2016 2:47:54 PM

i mean, i guess that's a little bit harder, but still tho...

9/12/2016 2:55:10 PM

occam's razor part deux:

RT published a tweet today about a wikileaks story half an hour before wikileaks published it

10/13/2016 11:24:42 AM

snowden?

10/13/2016 11:40:52 AM

willful ignorance isn't a good look for you

10/13/2016 11:52:31 AM

Snowden has been pretty critical of WikiLeaks recently fwiw.

Assange is self-admittedly depressed and losing cognitive function. Who wouldn't be in his circumstances?

10/13/2016 11:54:16 AM

https://www.yahoo.com/news/when-should-private-emails-become-the-publics-business-090002930.html

Quote :

"In 1972, a group of burglars working for the Republican Party broke into Democratic headquarters in the dead of night, searching for documents that might influence that year’s presidential election. Reporters from the Washington Post spent years unraveling the scandal, until at last it brought down the president who had concealed it. Forty-four years later, a group of criminals, quite possibly working in concert with operatives from the Russian government, broke into the correspondence of Democratic campaign aides and began releasing troves of personal emails, in hopes of influencing this year’s presidential election. This time, the Post and other news sites, including the New York Times and Politico, have gleefully begun to publish them, with some new gossipy detail every day."

10/13/2016 11:59:27 AM

I think it's equally important that we focus on the content of the emails since they are now public knowledge but at the same time condemn wholeheartedly the act of hacking them.

Not sure why the Clinton camp doesn't address more of the content. Not sure why Trump is unable to simply admit like multiple government agencies have said that this was a Russian hack.

10/13/2016 12:02:10 PM

What content? That Podesta doesn't know how to make Risotto? There is absolutely nothing there that is in the public interest. I didn't quote it above, but the money line from that article is this,

Quote :

"But the question you apply in these cases is pretty straightforward. Is there an overriding public interest that compels you to abet potential criminals and violate privacy?"

10/13/2016 12:03:48 PM

I dunno, I find Clinton operatives shitting on each other behind their back over email kinda interesting.

10/13/2016 12:08:04 PM

Shrike is part of the unaware and compliant citizenry.

10/13/2016 12:19:28 PM

^


[Edited on October 13, 2016 at 12:21 PM. Reason : .]

10/13/2016 12:21:31 PM

Like a UNC fan defending academic fraud. Shrike is the definition of a hack.

10/13/2016 12:27:09 PM

Question everything....

EVERYTHING IN WIKILEAKS IS FACT!!!!

10/13/2016 12:32:44 PM

Why did the Saudis and Qatar donate millions to the Clinton foundation? Why would such repressive regimes with horrible track records of human rights suddenly care about "helping people"?

Im sure there is nothing suspicious (or treasonous since they were funding ISIS). Also nothing suspicious about using bleach bit on documents post subpoena. 33k emails about yoga, right hacks?

But hey, Trump fucks bimbos and ____ism, _____phobia!!!

#ImWithHer #ImWithHacks

10/13/2016 12:39:50 PM

^ so triggered

Quote :

"Snowden has been pretty critical of WikiLeaks recently fwiw."

cool. i mean a spy living overseas who has a potential death penalty hanging over his head (not that it would come to fruition, but it does exist nonetheless) would never, ever say anything that carries zero risk for himself should he ever want to not, you know, get executed.

again, occam's razor is pretty sharp on this one.

also, let's not overlook Glenn Greenwald's recent "oh the dems just wanna blame putin" article forgiving russia because, hey, ends justify means. and if those means are a foreign state actively trying to influence an election, dems shouldn't cry about it.

https://theintercept.com/2016/10/11/in-the-democratic-echo-chamber-inconvenient-truths-are-recast-as-putin-plots/

[Edited on October 13, 2016 at 1:38 PM. Reason : .]

10/13/2016 1:38:11 PM

I agree it is troublesome for foreign governments to have influence, but if it's by exposing corruption I don't care. These people are supposed to be public servants, if corruption is exposed in the right or left it should be addressed.

I think it's far more troublesome that partisian politics is trumping the rule of law. I guess if you have the POTUS, DOJ, and media in your pocket the law doesn't apply. Combine that with Clinton importing millions of more peasant, big-government-dependent voters, I guess the leftists will only gain more power and ignore more laws.

But posters here don't care about that. They hear fluffy statements like "diversity is a strength" and pat themselves on the back. As the Clinton strategy said "unaware and compliant citizenry".

Hacks

10/13/2016 2:18:43 PM

So you think there is a multi-agency conspiracy that only one side is in on that involves both Republican and Democrat appointees all working together to make sure Clinton skates? And we are the hacks?

The reality is -- and I've said this all along -- that Clinton and her foundation did some stupid and optically unfriendly things. She clearly has done some unethical things. I'd call them stupid but I do believe that there was a degree of intent to deceive though. However, none were found to be illegal. So why should she be legally punished.

She probably would have been politicaly punished if the GOP didn't unleash the worst candidate in the history of American politics to run against her.

10/13/2016 2:27:07 PM

"A degree of intent"?

If you can't see how everything about the private server and cover up was nothing but intent... Get out of the echo-chamber.

HRC is not stupid, she is calculating. The 33k emails were not about "yoga" and the "what does the c stand for" defense only works if you turn off your brain.

Also destroying evidence after a subpoena is a crime. The FBI handed out immunity like candy, they either happened to shit the bed on this one case, or ______.

Quote :

"She probably would have been politicaly punished if the GOP didn't unleash the worst candidate in the history of American politics to run against her."

She should have been punished by her own party. She has no business being a candidate. The DNC and their media was obviously all in on her from the start (which should be concerning if you're an actual liberal). Democrats should be pissed at their candidate just like republicans should be pissed at theirs. At least the GOP's system wasn't corrupt enough yet to determine who their pick is before the primaries. And actually, as we saw from the wikileaks, it was the DNC's goal to have their media treat Trump, Cruze and Carson (the non establishment) as viable picks to undermine the GOP. Their control of the media (and by extension the unaware and compliant citizenry) is so great they influence both sides.

[Edited on October 13, 2016 at 2:42 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on October 13, 2016 at 2:45 PM. Reason : .]

10/13/2016 2:37:27 PM

yeah. i mean it's not like the GOP created some pledge out of thin air that they made trump sign so he could stay under their banner and in their debates. of course, they did this because they all thought he was a joke and wanted to eliminate a chance of him running as a 3rd party and siphoning off votes from Jeb! or Little Marco when they eventually won. so it backfired. but the GOP was already working to rig not only the primaries but also the general election in their favor

inconvenient truths aren't just about climate change

10/13/2016 3:45:42 PM

I must have missed the part where there was evidence of the GOP rigging the election.

Unlike the DNC, where poor Bernie Claus never had a chance.

10/13/2016 4:09:28 PM

yeah i guess you did miss that part. because i outlined it pretty clearly. the GOP was just too fucking stupid to execute on it

[Edited on October 13, 2016 at 9:58 PM. Reason : .]

10/13/2016 9:58:13 PM

Donna Brazell was also one of those superdelegates who determined the primary before it started.

10/13/2016 10:32:13 PM

^^ No idea what you are talking about. But the Greenwald article you shared was on point, maybe you should try reading it. Until it sinks in.

10/13/2016 10:54:53 PM

Quote :

"However, none were found to be illegal. So why should she be legally punished."

The classified material stuff was absolutely illegal, period. Comey admitted as much, but recommended no prosecution. I think there's a VERY strong case to be made that was political; in any case, that it was illegal is not even in dispute; that the law requires no intent is not in dispute, and that she had intent in any case is very obvious in my opinion. She should have probably gone to jail, and beyond any doubt should have had her security clearance revoked.

10/14/2016 12:13:22 AM

what security clearance does Clinton currently hold that would be taken away? Under what circumstance and by what mechanism would she lose her clearance in the foreseeable future? She's either going to be President, in which case the security clearance is a requirement of the job, or she's not and she won't have any likely need for a clearance in the first place. This is all just theater.

Edit: Just read a bit more about the status of her current clearance. And I guess that former cabinet secretaries often maintain a security clearance in order to advise future administrations or to reference their own files and work in the future. But in the case of Presidential candidates, no clearance is needed for the briefings that they receive and Presidents cannot have their clearances revoked because of the nature of the job.

[Edited on October 14, 2016 at 12:53 AM. Reason : .]

10/14/2016 12:35:30 AM