Assange says HRC Threatened Bernie to DROP OUT

originally posted by: nomoredemsorreps

originally posted by: ghostrager
a reply to: nobunaga

I read about this a few days ago and looked into it.

While I wouldn't put it past the Clinton's do some something like this, Assange didn't actually say this (according to snopes

Although multiple articles had repeated this claim as of 9 September 2016, we found no other appearance of the alleged quote anywhere online other than USA Supreme as of 30 August 2016. Moreover, USA Supreme provided no information pertaining to the date of the interview, no link to the interview itself, nor an explanation of how they supposedly came into possession of information that would be headline news had it been credible.

Ghost

Snopes? You're using snopes to refute something? Snopes lost their credibility a LONG time ago. The sooner people realize this the better. There have been multiple articles on the web proving the bias and gatekeeping methods of snopes. Geez man, find a reputable source.

What makes your sources that called Snopes unreputable reputable? Or do you just pick and choose the ones that agree with you. Predictable, the sign of a someone in denial.

If you want to stick your head in the sand and ignore anything that doesn't agree with you thats your call.

With the aforementioned Clinton kill list, can you blame Bernie for dropping out? The man had lived a long time, he'll be damned if he'll be killed over politics. The Clinton's have a special talent and that is making folks disappear forever.

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: nomoredemsorreps

originally posted by: ghostrager
a reply to: nobunaga

I read about this a few days ago and looked into it.

While I wouldn't put it past the Clinton's do some something like this, Assange didn't actually say this (according to snopes

Although multiple articles had repeated this claim as of 9 September 2016, we found no other appearance of the alleged quote anywhere online other than USA Supreme as of 30 August 2016. Moreover, USA Supreme provided no information pertaining to the date of the interview, no link to the interview itself, nor an explanation of how they supposedly came into possession of information that would be headline news had it been credible.

Ghost

Snopes? You're using snopes to refute something? Snopes lost their credibility a LONG time ago. The sooner people realize this the better. There have been multiple articles on the web proving the bias and gatekeeping methods of snopes. Geez man, find a reputable source.

What makes your sources that called Snopes unreputable reputable? Or do you just pick and choose the ones that agree with you. Predictable, the sign of a someone in denial.

If you want to stick your head in the sand and ignore anything that doesn't agree with you thats your call.

Talk about putting your head in the sand. So, Oswald shot Kennedy? Even though even the Congressional Committee on Assassinations concluded it was a conspiracy and multiple people have made death bed confessions otherwise?

Puhlease. Take YOUR head out of the sand. Snopes is a gatekeeper and ANYONE who has spent time researching what is really going on knows this. Of course, you don't because you obviously don't read books...the HUNDREDS of books that prove otherwise than what the view that sites like snopes attempt to support.

Incredible. Telling me that *I'm* the one with head in sand. Laughable, even, if it weren't so sad and spoken by someone who obviously hasn't spent 5 minutes looking at the many investigative results of various journalists, attorneys, ex-prosecutors and perpetrators who confessed. Sad really.

Oh, and I forgot to look who responded with the above papp. What a surprise. Not. I need to learn to ignore certain people who have zero interest in the truth and have some agenda for posting here that escapes most of us...

a reply to: nobunaga

When I was in France a few months ago, I kept hearing a story about Clinton threatening the wife of Bernie Sanders. I have never heard of such a report coming from the States.

There are many ways to bend a person to one's will. One way is "to buy" them through bribes and offers of position. But the true Dark Lords and Mothers of Darkness simply make it clear that if you do not dance to their tune they will kill you and/or kill members of your family.

Muammar Qaddafi was the sort "to buy" people in Libya. Madam Clinton is the sort to go for the more personal threat of termination or extreme harm.

a reply to: thesaneone
When the actual numbers don't favor you and the additional potential humblings are substantial, I'd cave.

Bernie went to the Convention to gain as much power as possible to promote his ideals. He did so knowing that he had left his Independent status behind. He was playing on Hellary's court, with her refs calling the play.

One person analyzed his distraught conditions and mein when he was presenting Hellary the chalice. Quick summary: he was angry, frustrated and not at all sincere.
He's always been brave and open about his convictions. Not then.

He is a politician and they must know how to lose (Other than committing hari-kari.) and soldier on. He was maximizing his position and attempting to be part of the 'team'. An important part of party politics.

So, I understand his disappointment with the process that consistently screwed him over while the general population supported him more than these two remaining flea-bag candidates. He made the best of a lost cause.

Not that I doubt he was informed of the consequences of not adhering to the party line. I'm sure the same riot act is read to all the losers.

As to bravery, why question it? And yes, I want him still to preside at the State of the Union Address.

Good riddance to Sanders. If there's anyone who worries me more than Trump it's that POS. Not really him, per se. More his fan club. The whole socialism thing has worn incredibly thin.

Hillary, you're going to jail: www.youtube.com...