Tag Archives: Wikileaks

Turns out it wasn’t Russia who was trying to control the election last year, it was SOCIAL MEDIA!

Censorship by social media


Since Donald Trump won the presidential election, liberals have been howling at the moon, or as they plan to do on November 8, 2017, “screaming helplessly at the sky,” consistently accusing social media giants of allowing “fake news” to spread, then screeching about “Russian ads” on social media. But in congressional testimony, we see proof of what many conservatives and Wikileaks accused Twitter and Facebook of during the election cycle: Censoring news and deliberately hiding news not favorable to Hillary Clinton.  Turns out any activity by Russia was so tiny it would not have made even a small ripple in the election pond.

Twitter’s general counsel Sean Edgett testified before U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism on October 31.  The committee’s investigation into possible Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election found that merely four percent of tweets using the hashtag #PodestaEmails (referring to the Wikileaks publications of emails leaked from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta), and only two percent of tweets using the hashtag #DNCLeak (referring to Wikileaks publication of emails leaked from John Podesta) actually came from Russian linked accounts.

What Edgett actually testified shows that while Russia had far less than impressive reach or influence, Twitter itself directly attempted to influence the 2016 election by arbitrarily censoring and hiding information that Twitter users were highly interested in. Why? Because it did not fit Twitter’s agenda and did not favor their candidate of choice.

From his testimony:

We found that slightly under 4% of Tweets containing #PodestaEmails came from accounts with potential links to Russia, and that those Tweets accounted for less than 20% of impressions within the first seven days of posting. Approximately 75% of impressions on the trending topic were views by U.S.-based users. A significant portion of these impressions, however, are attributable to a handful of high-profile accounts, primarily @Wikileaks. At least one heavily-retweeted Tweet came from another potentially Russia-linked account that showed signs of automation.

With respect to #DNCLeak, approximately 23,000 users posted around 140,000 unique Tweets with that hashtag in the relevant period. Of those Tweets, roughly 2% were from potentially Russian-linked accounts. As noted above, our automated systems at the time detected, labeled, and hid just under half (48%) of all the original Tweets with #DNCLeak. Of the total Tweets with the hashtag, 0.84% were hidden and also originated from accounts that met at least one of the criteria for a Russian-linked account. Those Tweets received 0.21% of overall Tweet impressions. We learned that a small number of Tweets from several large accounts were principally responsible for the propagation of this trend. In fact, two of the ten most-viewed Tweets with #DNCLeak were posted by @Wikileaks, an account with millions of followers.

Wikileaks exposed the DNC corruption, showing that the DNC actively worked in favor of the Clinton campaign and actively against the Bernie Sanders campaign to rig the primaries, something which former interim chair of the Democratic National Committee, Donna Brazile, confirmed yet again on Thursday, November 2, 2017, as she exposed rampant corruption within both the DNC and the Hillary Clinton camapign.

After Wikileaks published those leaked emails, former head of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was forced to resign her position as the DNC chair.

As evidence by Edgett’s own claim that 75 percent of the impressions on the #PodestaEmails hashtag were viewed by U.S. based users, and the overwhelmingly high percentage of tweets using the #DNCLeak hashtag that were unrelated to accounts that might or might not have been linked to Russia, interest within the U.S. was high in regards to the Wikileaks revelations, hence two of the top ten most-viewed tweets coming directly from the Wikileaks account.  So we have published information that U.S. citizens using Twitter were extremely interested in, and we’re told Twitter “hid” that information (“censored” it) from nearly half of their users.

Now, using liberals’ own logic here, if seeing a tweet that might have come from a Russian is to be considered “meddling” in an election, then hiding nearly half the tweets about a topic U.S. citizens are extremely interested in must also be considered “meddling.”

From Breitbart:

#DNCLeaks was one of the top trending topics on Twitter on July 22 with over 250,000 tweets reportedly made under the hashtag after the WikiLeaks release of more than 19,000 leaked emails from the Democratic National Committee.

Later on in the day, however, the hashtag reportedly disappeared from the trending bar for some 20 minutes, before reappearing under the less popular hashtag “#DNCleak.”

“The change meant that those investigating the new trending hashtag would not see all of the other posts tagged under the previous version, effectively hiding over 250,000 tweets from the public,” the report noted.

None of this came up in Edgett’s testimony Tuesday, which adds further questions to the already egregious partisan censorship that Twitter seems guilty of.

Edgett said that prior to the election, “we also detected and took action on activity relating to hashtags that have since been reported as manifestations of efforts to interfere with the 2016 election,” even though what he calls “interference” was in the majority of cases a simple effort to “influence” the election by providing damning true information about the Hillary Clinton campaign, which is a normal thing during presidential campaigns.

One more note on Twitter’s meddling and their hypocrisy. It is being reported that not only did Twitter welcome Russian ads, they actively sought and pressed Russia Today to ramp up their election related ad buys by offering them 15 percent of their total shares of elections advertising.

ZeroHedge points out that RT Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan virtually smacks Twitter and liberals claiming that “ad buys” are somehow an attempt to influence elections by highlighting that “similar campaigns are conducted by the American media in the Russian segment of Twitter.”

This is forcing us to go a step further and come clean that we also spent money on advertising at airports, in taxis, on billboards, on the Internet, on TV and radio. Even CNN ran our commercials,” Simonyan said. “By the way, similar campaigns are conducted by the American media in the Russian segment of Twitter. It’ll be very interesting to find out how much they spend on it, who they target and for what purpose.”

While Twitter is just admitting to censoring and hiding relevant election related information from their users, Facebook had previously admitted to blocking posts with Wikileaks links and after they were busted publicly for doing so back in July 2016, then claimed it was an “accident.”

While we have wondered many times if someone like former White House Chief Strategist and Breitbart News Executive Chairman Steve Bannon was behind what appears to be a coordinated effort to take down the establishment liberal “elite,” we do note via some direct quotes by Bannon reported on by Newsweek that if he wasn’t behind the initial phase, he is most definitely going after Hollywood now, saying Bannon is “declaring a new phase of war on the entertainment industry.”

“Hollywood isn’t a new battlefront for Breitbart, it’s the original battle,” Bannon told The Hollywood Reporter in an interview published Thursday. “The fact that it’s blowing itself up isn’t a new stage in the culture war, it’s an inevitable one,” he added. “They’ve ignored half the country’s values for far too long and now these Hollywood elitists’ values are publicly on display, and bankrupt.

“These are the same people who disingenuously seized the moral high ground as they attacked our president based on a standard they do not live by,” said Bannon, who helped found Breitbard and returned as executive chairman after departing the administration. “Americans took their country back not only from the permanent political class but also from these phony culture brokers who have waged war against their way of life for decades. Make no mistake, we didn’t start this war, but how Hollywood responds from here will determine whether or not it survives.”

With Barack Obama recently claiming that Breitbart News managed to “shift the entire media narrative in a different direction — in a powerful direction,” during the 2016 election, it is perhaps appropriate that Breitbart has been at the forefront of taking on Hollywood, the MSM, and the Uranium One story (which they first started beating the drum on with the “Clinton Cash” back in 2016), and now spotlighting social media’s direct attempts, via censorship, to actively influence the 2016 president election.

It stretches the imagination to think that the sexual abuse scandals rocking both Hollywood and the MSM, at the same time that the new information is coming out in regards to the Uranium One story, plus the recent exposure of the Democratic funding for the “Trump dossier,” and now social media giants being shown to have meddled in U.S. elections with even some media outlets saying Facebook, Twitter and Google should all be regulated, is just coincidence.

Really?  Not hardly.  The problem with the liberals is that they are not smart enough to stop digging their hole when it’s already more than deep enough to bury them.


[From an article published by ALL NEWS PIPELINE]




As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis




Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

CIA now admits Russia NOT behind election computer hacking, but Obama’s CIA chief was…

Thursday April 20th was NOT a banner day for the CIA (or the FBI). Dueling stories have exposed the profound failures of US intelligence during the complete-failure Obama administration.

In one story we finally learn that Russia was NOT behind the hacks that exposed so much embarrassing information from the CIA. Instead the CIA and FBI are now admitting that it was an insider, and the CIA is currently hunting for that leaker. The second story explains how former CIA chief John Brennan worked hard to undermine the possibility of Donald Trump becoming President by leaking intelligence from our European allies to the rest of the government and to the media. It’s a sordid, and ugly story that finally proves just how dastardly, and underhanded, Brennan truly is.

CBS News broke the story on the CIA leaks:

CBS News has learned that a manhunt is underway for a traitor inside the Central Intelligence Agency.

The CIA and FBI are conducting a joint investigation into one of the worst security breaches in CIA history, which exposed thousands of top-secret documents that described CIA tools used to penetrate smartphones, smart televisions and computer systems.

Sources familiar with the investigation say it is looking for an insider — either a CIA employee or contractor — who had physical access to the material. The agency has not said publicly when the material was taken or how it was stolen.

WikiLeaks published the leaked material in March and CBS points out that WikiLeaks has said all along that they got the material from a CIA insider. What CBS fails to report is that for quite some time our intelligence community and the media have been blaming Russia for these leaks (WikiLeaks published the material in March but has had it for longer), when the truth is that Russia seems to have had NOTHING to do with it.

The UK’s Guardian newspaper broke the story on John Brennan though they attempted to shield the Obama/Clinton acolyte from blowback even as they explained his underhanded dealings.

(Our own Andrew West brought part of this story to you earlier today.)

The Guardian  explained that British spies first noticed the connections between the Trump team and the Russians but that other European intelligence agencies soon also picked up on the ties. These agencies then brought that information to Brennan at the CIA, because, the Guardian opines, American laws don’t allow our own intelligence agencies to spy on American citizens.

The Guardian has been told the FBI and the CIA were slow to appreciate the extensive nature of contacts between Trump’s team and Moscow ahead of the US election. This was in part due to US law that prohibits US agencies from examining the private communications of American citizens without warrants. “They are trained not to do this,” the source stressed.

“It looks like the [US] agencies were asleep,” the source added. “They [the European agencies] were saying: ‘There are contacts going on between people close to Mr Trump and people we believe are Russian intelligence agents. You should be wary of this.’

The reality is that our agencies weren’t “asleep,” they too could see the interactions, there just wasn’t any reason to think that the connections between some Trump team members and Russia was underhanded. While we in the United States believe in due process and the need for the government to have “probable cause” before accusing people of wrongdoing, apparently in Europe, no such probable cause is necessary.

The American Spectator explains what the Guardian‘s report had really uncovered. Here’s a hint, it wasn’t wrongdoing by Trump… but by John Brennan and the CIA:

Seeking to retain his position as CIA director under Hillary, [John] Brennan teamed up with British spies and Estonian spies to cripple Trump’s candidacy. He used their phony intelligence as a pretext for a multi-agency investigation into Trump, which led the FBI to probe a computer server connected to Trump Tower and gave cover to Susan Rice, among other Hillary supporters, to spy on Trump and his people.

John Brennan’s CIA operated like a branch office of the Hillary campaign, leaking out mentions of this bogus investigation to the press in the hopes of inflicting maximum political damage on Trump. An official in the intelligence community tells TAS that Brennan’s retinue of political radicals didn’t even bother to hide their activism, decorating offices with “Hillary for president cups” and other campaign paraphernalia…

Any other CIA director would have disregarded such a flaky tip, recognizing that Estonia was eager to see Trump lose (its officials had bought into Hillary’s propaganda that Trump was going to pull out of NATO and leave Baltic countries exposed to Putin). But Brennan opportunistically seized on it, as he later that summer seized on the half-baked intelligence of British spy agencies (also full of officials who wanted to see Trump lose).

The truth is clear, Obama’s intelligence community worked hard to scuttle Donald Trump’s presidential aspirations and ensure that Hillary Clinton would become President. When that didn’t work, they turned to the media for help undermining the newly elected president and the media embraced the farce with gusto. The nighttime tales of Russian terror are nothing more than fairy-tales told by Obama’s cronies and regurgitated to the American people by a complicit media that seems willing to believe and repeat any negative story they hear about Donald Trump.


[from an article by Onan Coca, writing for CONSTITUTION.COM)




As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Now that the election has been decided, perhaps Hillary will go away. (One can always hope.) But the Clinton scandals and her legal problems will not go away.

“The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”  (George Orwell)


If Hillary Clinton (and ex-president Bill, her husband) were not so corrupt, so evil, and so deceitful, they would not constantly be in the headlines (and the headlights of truth-seekers).

Wikileaks.com is a website which publishes what it is given by whistleblowers (after proper and thorough fact-checking and verification, of course).  Wikileaks does not publish information which is obtained by any other means.

If it has seemed a bit strange that over the past several months Wikileaks has published information which almost exclusively focused on Hillary Clinton and her political campaign, that is because it was given that information (and it was then checked and verified) by people who felt a need to bring it into public scrutiny. The Trump campaign was largely ignored by Wikileaks for the simple reason that it received no information on the Trump campaign.

In other words, the Clinton campaign, and Hillary’s life in general, was so thoroughly messy and corrupt, and was generating so many submissions from people who thought those submissions should be made public, that Wikileaks could simply not ignore them. Hillary’s corruption (and by connection, Obama’s also) was being delivered to Wikileaks as if by a firehose.

It will be very educational and extremely eye-opening if you take a couple of minutes to peruse a website called MostDamagingWikileaks.com.

Remember, Wikileaks publishes only what it is given and only what it then verifies.

Also remember that Obama does not leave the White House until Friday, January 20th, 2017.  You can safely bet that he will do his best to create all kinds of mischief and mayhem and illegal executive orders between now and then.  His time is short, and his legacy is shot.  (And after Trump’s inauguration, Obama will be remembered for only the wrong reasons.  And Obama knows it.)

Why not organize a little group excursion to Washington, DC to give him a proper send-off?  Tell your boss it’s a well-deserved vacation!


As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Hillary’s “open borders” dream for the US could easily swing the election in favor of Donald Trump…

Hillary’s “open borders” speech was one of many Clinton bombshells to be dropped by the WikiLeaks organization in a dump of thousands of hacked e-mails two days before the debate. It goes to the heart of a timely and vital issue that millions of American voters consider very important. However, debate moderators were intent on avoiding the open borders issue and insisted on obsessing instead on the conveniently leaked video of Donald Trump’s vulgar comments from more than a decade ago.

Specifically, in a speech to the Brazilian megabank, Banco Itau, Mrs. Clinton said: “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, sometime in the future with energy that’s as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”

The social chaos, terrorism, debt, banking crisis, currency crisis, and other crises under which the European common market is disintegrating, offer little to commend the European Union as a hemispheric model for Americans. The ongoing migration tsunami that is wracking and ruining the EU gives us a pretty good picture of what “open borders” look like. Europeans are finding out that the ugly reality is far different from the rosy pictures painted for decades by their politicians — politicians of the same internationalist mold as Hillary Clinton. Borders matter; if you don’t have them you can’t enforce them, and you don’t really even have a country.

Hillary Clinton is extremely vulnerable on this issue, even if we do not experience another terror attack by Islamic extremists in this country before the November election.

Clinton has leapfrogged over her former boss, President Obama, and called for an even more radical Syrian refugee policy than his very unpopular program. In fact, she called for more than six times the number of refugees proposed by Obama. In a 2015 interview, she said the United States should accept 65,000 refugees from Syria; President Obama’s Syrian refugee plan, at the time, was for 10,000.

“We’re facing the worst refugee crisis since the end of World War II and I think the United States has to do more,” the former secretary of state said on CBS’s Face the Nation. “I would like to see us move from what is a good start with 10,000 to 65,000 and begin immediately to put into place the mechanisms for vetting the people that we would take in.”

Of course, the “mechanisms for vetting people” comment was an obligatory throwaway line meant to placate voters’ national security concerns. But it was totally devoid of content, since our top security officials have repeatedly pointed out there is no way for us to properly vet these “refugees.” However, the refugee issue is only one part of Hillary’s “open borders” equation; she has also spent a political lifetime — as first lady, senator, secretary of state, Clinton Foundation chieftess — promoting and supporting illegal alien amnesty, increased immigration, entitlements of every kind for immigrants (legal and illegal) and fast-track citizenship, and fast-track voting.

Beyond the refugee/migrant/immigrant matters that are big-ticket items for the large pool of voters Donald Trump is aiming at, there is the “open trade” and “hemispheric common market” component that crosses party and ideological lines, energizing huge numbers of conservative Republicans, Ron Paul Libertarians, and Bernie Sanders Democrats and Independents. To this broad swath of Americans, the WikiLeaks “open borders” leak confirms Hillary’s firm commitment to the deadly trade deals such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

For the past year and a half, Hillary has been trying to convince voters that despite her role in helping craft the TPP and TTIP (as secretary of state), publicly praising it more than 45 times (as even the pro-Clinton CNN notes), and having described the TPP as the “gold standard” of trade agreements, much of the opposition to the TPP, the TTIP, and other multilateral “trade” agreements of this type has focused on the enormous economic harm that NAFTA has done, especially in terms of millions of lost jobs and the loss of America’s once world-dominant manufacturing and technology base. Equally important, though less understood, however, are the numerous attacks on national sovereignty woven into the fabrics of NAFTA, TPP, and TTIP. Like the various treaties that have incrementally transformed the EU into the centralized and increasingly tyrannical behemoth it has become, these regional “trade” treaties actually establish bodies with legislative, executive, and judicial functions that are designed to gradually transform into a regional government that will override our own constitutionally limited government. Hillary Clinton is well aware of these dangers that she has helped build into the TPP and TTIP. The believability of her convenient flip-flop on this crucial issue is about zero; she can be counted on to flip again, if she gets to the Oval Office. Her current anti-TPP stance is most certainly her “public position,” at the moment, but what does she really intend to do on the matter? One of the other inconvenient (for Clinton) WikiLeaks revelations concerned her admission of duplicity, in one of her high-paid speeches to high-end investors, asserting that politicians need to be two-faced, having “both a public and a private position.”

Project Fear/Project Smear

The political/business/media/academic elites that targeted the Brexit vote for defeat with “Project Fear” are the same combined forces that have targeted Donald Trump with Project Smear. Following the Brexit victory, an obviously chastened Richard Haass, president of the world government-promoting, pro-EU, pro-open borders Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), commented: “For Hillary Clinton’s campaign, this is something of a warning not to underestimate this disaffection, not to underestimate political and economic nationalism.”

Hillary Clinton, who, while secretary of state, famously said (in the presence of her “good friend” Richard Haass) that she depended upon the CFR to tell her what to do and what to think (see video of her confession here), is obviously listening to the advice of Haass. She has flip-flopped on TPP and has sort of flip-flopped on migration-refugees. She is trying to appeal to all sides; appealing for the Hispanic/immigrant vote by supporting “comprehensive immigration reform” — the longtime code phrase for amnesty and open borders — while at the same time attempting to appeal to Middle America by insisting she intends to implement stringent vetting of refugees/immigrants. The open question is how many American voters will believe her new “public position” on open borders — and how many will believe — or be influenced by/distracted by — Project Smear.


[From an article published by THE NEW AMERICAN]




As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized