RELEASE: The Podesta Emails Part 35 - Election Day edition

Just when you thought it was safe to come back to ATS...

I don't think the election is going to stop the release of information from Wikileaks no matter which way the cookie crumbles.

The count now stands at: (58375 results, viewing 1 to 200)

Wikitweet

PodestaEmails35 - current hashtag

Release Threads / Twitter Tracker Feeds:

WIKILEAKS Releases DNC Part 2 / #DNCLeak2

The Podesta Emails Part 01 / #PodestaEmails
The Podesta Emails Part 02 / #PodestaEmails2
The Podesta Emails Part 03 / #PodestaEmails3
The Podesta Emails Part 04 / #PodestaEmails4
The Podesta Emails Part 05 / #PodestaEmails5
The Podesta Emails Part 06 / #PodestaEmails6
The Podesta Emails Part 07 / #PodestaEmails7
The Podesta Emails Part 08 / #PodestaEmails8
The Podesta Emails Part 09 / #PodestaEmails9
The Podesta Emails Part 10 / #PodestaEmails10
The Podesta Emails Part 11 / #PodestaEmails11
The Podesta Emails Part 12 / #PodestaEmails12
The Podesta Emails Part 13 / #PodestaEmails13
The Podesta Emails Part 14 / #PodestaEmails14
The Podesta Emails Part 15 / #PodestaEmails15
The Podesta Emails Part 16 / #PodestaEmails16
The Podesta Emails Part 17 / #PodestaEmails17
The Podesta Emails Part 18 / #PodestaEmails18
The Podesta Emails Part 19 / #PodestaEmails19
The Podesta Emails Part 20 / #PodestaEmails20
The Podesta Emails Part 21 / #PodestaEmails21
The Podesta Emails Part 22 / #PodestaEmails22
The Podesta Emails Part 23 / #PodestaEmails23
The Podesta Emails Part 24 / #PodestaEmails24
The Podesta Emails Part 25 / #PodestaEmails25
The Podesta Emails Part 26 / #PodestaEmails26
The Podesta Emails Part 27 / #PodestaEmails27
The Podesta Emails Part 28 / #PodestaEmails28
The Podesta Emails Part 29 / #PodestaEmails29
The Podesta Emails Part 30 / #PodestaEmails30
The Podesta Emails Part 31 / #PodestaEmails31
The Podesta Emails Part 32 / #PodestaEmails32
The Podesta Emails Part 33 / #PodestaEmails33

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

This wouldn't fit at that end of the OP, it has grown beyond the character limit:

SEE ALSO:
*How To Spot Fake Wikileaks emails Tutorial
*MIT Clinton/DNC/Podesta Emails Interactive Visualization Maps
*Podesta emails by CATAGORY
*Hillary Clinton Email Investigation Timeline
*Obama's "First Batch" of secret emails.... / #ObamaEmails
*Secret messages hidden within the SPAM of the Podesta Emails ?
*GoogleDoc: Full List of Damning Leaks
*Most Damaging WikiLeaks WebSite
*HERE IT IS=> Detailed List of Top Wikileaks Podesta Emails
*Politico's Findings Feed
*The #WikiLeaks #DNCLeaks #Podesta FOIA & Whistleblowers REPOSITORY THREAD!!!

Search tools:

Open Corporates

corporationwiki

offshore leaks database - Panama Papers

LittleSis.org

Muckety

bizapedia

Happy hunting!

I assumed these would finish yesterday? Do you know how long they intend to keep this up?

While not a leak in itself, this statement from Assange speaks volumes:

8 November 2016

By Julian Assange

In recent months, WikiLeaks and I personally have come under enormous pressure to stop publishing what the Clinton campaign says about itself to itself. That pressure has come from the campaign’s allies, including the Obama administration, and from liberals who are anxious about who will be elected US President.

On the eve of the election, it is important to restate why we have published what we have.

The right to receive and impart true information is the guiding principle of WikiLeaks – an organization that has a staff and organizational mission far beyond myself. Our organization defends the public’s right to be informed.

This is why, irrespective of the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election, the real victor is the US public which is better informed as a result of our work.

The US public has thoroughly engaged with WikiLeaks’ election related publications which number more than one hundred thousand documents. Millions of Americans have poured over the leaks and passed on their citations to each other and to us. It is an open model of journalism that gatekeepers are uncomfortable with, but which is perfectly harmonious with the First Amendment.

We publish material given to us if it is of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical importance and which has not been published elsewhere. When we have material that fulfills this criteria, we publish. We had information that fit our editorial criteria which related to the Sanders and Clinton campaign (DNC Leaks) and the Clinton political campaign and Foundation (Podesta Emails). No-one disputes the public importance of these publications. It would be unconscionable for WikiLeaks to withhold such an archive from the public during an election.

At the same time, we cannot publish what we do not have. To date, we have not received information on Donald Trump’s campaign, or Jill Stein’s campaign, or Gary Johnson’s campaign or any of the other candidates that fufills our stated editorial criteria. As a result of publishing Clinton’s cables and indexing her emails we are seen as domain experts on Clinton archives. So it is natural that Clinton sources come to us.

We publish as fast as our resources will allow and as fast as the public can absorb it.

That is our commitment to ourselves, to our sources, and to the public.

This is not due to a personal desire to influence the outcome of the 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. The First Amendment explicitly prevents the executive from attempting to restrict anyone’s ability to speak and publish freely. The First Amendment does not privilege old media, with its corporate advertisers and dependencies on incumbent power factions, over WikiLeaks’ model of scientific journalism or an individual’s decision to inform their friends on social media. The First Amendment unapologetically nurtures the democratization of knowledge. With the Internet, it has reached its full potential.

Yet, some weeks ago, in a tactic reminiscent of Senator McCarthy and the red scare, Wikileaks, Green Party candidate Stein, Glenn Greenwald and Clinton’s main opponent were painted with a broad, red brush. The Clinton campaign, when they were not spreading obvious untruths, pointed to unnamed sources or to speculative and vague statements from the intelligence community to suggest a nefarious allegiance with Russia. The campaign was unable to invoke evidence about our publications—because none exists.

In the end, those who have attempted to malign our groundbreaking work over the past four months seek to inhibit public understanding perhaps because it is embarrassing to them – a reason for censorship the First Amendment cannot tolerate. Only unsuccessfully do they try to claim that our publications are inaccurate.

WikiLeaks’ decade-long pristine record for authentication remains. Our key publications this round have even been proven through the cryptographic signatures of the companies they passed through, such as Google. It is not every day you can mathematically prove that your publications are perfect but this day is one of them.

We have endured intense criticism, primarily from Clinton supporters, for our publications. Many long-term supporters have been frustrated because we have not addressed this criticism in a systematic way or responded to a number of false narratives about Wikileaks’ motivation or sources. Ultimately, however, if WL reacted to every false claim, we would have to divert resources from our primary work.

WikiLeaks, like all publishers, is ultimately accountable to its funders. Those funders are you. Our resources are entirely made up of contributions from the public and our book sales. This allows us to be principled, independent and free in a way no other influential media organization is. But it also means that we do not have the resources of CNN, MSNBC or the Clinton campaign to constantly rebuff criticism.

Yet if the press obeys considerations above informing the public, we are no longer talking about a free press, and we are no longer talking about an informed public.

Wikileaks remains committed to publishing information that informs the public, even if many, especially those in power, would prefer not to see it. WikiLeaks must publish. It must publish and be damned.

Wikitweet

originally posted by: djz3ro
I assumed these would finish yesterday? Do you know how long they intend to keep this up?

Good question. It's become a complete waste of our time and we can reasonably conclude that they didn't really have anything earth-shattering. If they did, it would have been released by now.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Was their countdown calendar to election day off or are they just figuring she will win and adding evidence to the impeachment hearings when they come?

a reply to: introvert

Yeah, never mind HilLIARy who is campaigning as a champion of women's and LGBT rights took millions of dollars from Islamic countries that murder, maim, and subjugate these peoples.

Complete waste of our time.

instead of yapping how pointless this is, you should all check the twitter feed mentioned:

twitter.com...

originally posted by: jedi_hamster
instead of yapping how pointless this is, you should all check the twitter feed mentioned:

twitter.com...

It is worthwhile to check out Scott Foval's twitter feed too!

He has been talking.

There is no limit on spreading the truth.
As long as there is intel to disseminate and dark secrets to expose.
The American people have a right to know.



Buck

originally posted by: jedi_hamster
instead of yapping how pointless this is, you should all check the twitter feed mentioned:

twitter.com...

Wow, is he breaking or what? Pure entertainment on my end!

originally posted by: DrStevenBrule
a reply to: introvert

Yeah, never mind HilLIARy who is campaigning as a champion of women's and LGBT rights took millions of dollars from Islamic countries that murder, maim, and subjugate these peoples.

Complete waste of our time.

The Clinton Foundation took money?

The horror...

originally posted by: jedi_hamster
instead of yapping how pointless this is, you should all check the twitter feed mentioned:

twitter.com...

Wow... Scott Foval.. wow..

Brad @woodhouseb it looks like these new #DNCLeaks2 nailed you & @rbcreamer like a Podesta Pizza.
https://__._/dnc-emails/emailid/3934 …

a reply to: introvert

You've had your fun poopoo'ing the process. But your game is up:

HILLARY'S LEAKY CAMPAIGN TRAIL - SERIES LIST
The Bernie Sanders Files
The Clinton Foundation / Clinton Global Initiative Files
The Character Witness & Ethics Files
The Collusion / Corruption / Election Rigging Files
The Email Scandals / State Secrets / Benghazi Files
The Al Qaeda / ISIS / Middle East Files
The Lapdog Media Files
The George Soros Files
The Economy & TPP Files
The Social inJustice Files

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Yes, I've seen all of those threads. Mostly copy and paste jobs that lack very little substance or context, which the only purpose they serve is to feed your ego.

Not to mention that in most of them it just appears you are talking to yourself.

a reply to: introvert

Anyone with an ounce of concern for women or the LGBT community should be horrified.

I'll be damned !!!!
Scott Foval has went rogue.
And with a attitude no less.
What a gold mine.

Buck

originally posted by: DrStevenBrule
a reply to: introvert

Anyone with an ounce of concern for women or the LGBT community should be horrified.

Horrified that the money that was donated to the CF will be used to help people across the globe, including women and LGBT folks?

Ya, how concerning.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DrStevenBrule
a reply to: introvert

Yeah, never mind HilLIARy who is campaigning as a champion of women's and LGBT rights took millions of dollars from Islamic countries that murder, maim, and subjugate these peoples.

Complete waste of our time.

The Clinton Foundation took money?

The horror...

Apparently, Hillary is supposed to change an entire culture.

And I thought that was the job of the United Nations womenwatch.unwomen.org...

But, whatever - - "The sun didn't come out - - Hillary's fault"

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DrStevenBrule
a reply to: introvert

Anyone with an ounce of concern for women or the LGBT community should be horrified.

Horrified that the money that was donated to the CF will be used to help people across the globe, including women and LGBT folks?

Ya, how concerning.

But that most of it went directly to the Clintons? And that Chelsea used some of that money for a $3 million dollar wedding?