+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: Major Wikileaks leak released [DNC E-mails], 22 July 2016

  1. Link to Post #21
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,744
    Thanks
    60,044
    Thanked 94,790 times in 15,454 posts

    Default Re: Major Wikileaks leak released [DNC E-mails], 22 July 2016

    Murdered DNC Staffer Seth Rich Shared 44,053 Democrat Emails With WikiLeaks

    by Tyler Durden
    May 16, 2017 9:52 AM

    For the past several months, Democrats have based their "Resist 45" movement on unsubstantiated assertions that the Trump campaign coordinated with Russian intelligence officials to undermine the 2016 Presidential Election thereby 'stealing' the White House from Hillary Clinton. Day after day we've all suffered through one anonymously sourced, "shock" story after another from the New York Times and/or The Washington Post with new allegations of the 'wrongdoing'.

    But, new evidence surfacing in the Seth Rich murder investigation may just quash the "Russian hacking" conspiracy theory. According to a new report from Fox News, it was former DNC staffer Seth Rich who supplied 44,000 DNC emails to WikiLeaks and not some random Russian cyber terrorist, as we've all been led to believe.

    According to Fox News, though admittedly via yet another anonymous FBI source, Rich made contact with WikiLeaks through Gavin MacFadyen, an American investigative reporter and director of WikiLeaks who was living in London at the time. According to Fox News sources, federal law enforcement investigators found 44,053 emails and 17,761 attachments sent between DNC leaders from January 2015 to May 2016 that Rich shared with WikiLeaks before he was gunned down on July 10, 2016.
    The Democratic National Committee staffer who was gunned down on July 10 on a Washington, D.C., street just steps from his home had leaked thousands of internal emails to WikiLeaks, law enforcement sources told Fox News.

    A federal investigator who reviewed an FBI forensic report detailing the contents of DNC staffer Seth Rich’s computer generated within 96 hours after his murder, said Rich made contact with WikiLeaks through Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American investigative reporter, documentary filmmaker, and director of WikiLeaks who was living in London at the time.

    “I have seen and read the emails between Seth Rich and Wikileaks,” the federal investigator told Fox News, confirming the MacFadyen connection. He said the emails are in possession of the FBI, while the stalled case is in the hands of the Washington Police Department.
    Then, on July 22, just 12 days after Rich was killed, WikiLeaks published internal DNC emails that appeared to show top party officials conspiring to stop Bernie Sanders from becoming the party’s presidential nominee. As we've noted before, the DNC's efforts to block Sanders resulted in Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigning as DNC chairperson.


    Seth Rich

    These new revelations seem to be consistent with the findings of Rod Wheeler, a former DC homicide detective and Fox News contributor, whose private investigation firm was hired by Rich’s family to probe the case.
    "My investigation up to this point shows there was some degree of email exchange between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks," Wheeler told Fox News. "I do believe that the answers to who murdered Seth Rich sits on his computer on a shelf at the DC police or FBI headquarters."

    “My investigation shows someone within the D.C. government, Democratic National Committee or Clinton team is blocking the murder investigation from going forward,” Wheeler told Fox News. “That is unfortunate. Seth Rich’s murder is unsolved as a result of that.”

    The botched robbery theory, which police have pursued for nearly a year, isn’t panning out, Wheeler said. Two assailants caught on a grainy video tape from a camera posted outside a grocery mart, shot Rich twice in his back, but did not take his wallet, cell phone, keys, watch or necklace worth about $2,000.

    As you'll recall, Rich's death has been shrouded in mystery from the start as he was shot from behind in the wee hours of the morning but was not robbed.

    Shortly thereafter, Julian Assange implied that Seth Rich was, in fact, a source for WikiLeaks and offered a $130,000 reward for information leading to his killer.

    [video at link]

    Seems that not everyone within the FBI is on board with the "Russian hacking" narrative and are finally starting to come forward.


    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  2. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Baby Steps (16th May 2017), Bill Ryan (19th May 2017), BongoBob (17th May 2017), Ewan (16th May 2017), onawah (16th May 2017), TargeT (16th May 2017), Tintin (10th May 2019)

  3. Link to Post #22
    Australia Avalon Member 7alon's Avatar
    Join Date
    30th August 2016
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Age
    33
    Posts
    449
    Thanks
    2,010
    Thanked 2,621 times in 422 posts

    Default Re: Major Wikileaks leak released [DNC E-mails], 22 July 2016

    Seth Rich was alive and conscious when found shot. Was alive for 1 hour and 37 minutes. I wonder if he got word out to the police or medical staff before he died?

    https://twitter.com/polNewsForever/s...18080021630976


  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to 7alon For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (19th May 2017), Hervé (17th May 2017), TargeT (16th May 2017)

  5. Link to Post #23
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,744
    Thanks
    60,044
    Thanked 94,790 times in 15,454 posts

    Default Re: Major Wikileaks leak released [DNC E-mails], 22 July 2016

    From Jim Stone:
    The following is getting deleted and tripping bans EVERYWHERE

    If I don't put it here you will never see it. Seth Rich overwhelmingly probably killed at hospital

    Any location that bans or deletes this is enemy turf. It was hard to find because of it. I only heard this talked about but did not see it until I found this. SEE THIS:


    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  6. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    bennycog (19th May 2017), Bill Ryan (19th May 2017), Fanna (27th May 2017), JRS (19th May 2017), Paul (19th May 2017), StandingWave (19th May 2017), TargeT (19th May 2017), thunder24 (19th May 2017), Tintin (13th March 2019)

  7. Link to Post #24
    UK Moderator and Librarian Tintin's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd June 2017
    Location
    Trowbridge/Bath - UK
    Age
    49
    Posts
    1,424
    Thanks
    13,865
    Thanked 9,044 times in 1,406 posts

    Default Re: Major Wikileaks leak released [DNC E-mails], 22 July 2016

    Published in Disobedient Media about three weeks ago the following article provides a little technical information, which is interesting, particularly for those of us who may be a little tech geekier than others.

    __________________________________________________ ______________________________

    "[..] it does show that the data/emails posted by Wikileaks did go through a storage device, like a thumbdrive, before Wikileaks posted the emails on the World Wide Web.

    This fact alone is enough to raise reasonable doubts about Mueller’s indictment accusing 12 Russian soldiers as the culprits for the leak of the DNC emails to Wikileaks. A savvy defense attorney will argue, and rightly so, that someone copied the DNC files to a storage device (Eg., USB thumb drive) and transferred that to Wikileaks."
    Binney and Johnson, Feb 13, 2019

    __________________________________________________ ______________________________
    "The evidence suggests that the first three batches of DNC emails were likely to have been transferred via a USB storage device at some stage between acquisition and then subsequently being published by WikiLeaks."


    __________________________________________________ ______________________________

    FAT Anomalies In Leaked DNC Emails Suggest Use Of Thumbdrive

    February 16, 2019 Adam Carter

    Recently, I tweeted about several different batches of emails that made up the DNC emails collection initially published by WikiLeaks on July 22, 2016.

    In that tweet, I included the following table:

    Click image for larger version

Name:	leaksinfo_Dis_Media DNC1.png
Views:	20
Size:	8.3 KB
ID:	40140

    The table outlines the last modification dates on the emails (batched by date) and shows the earliest and latest timestamps, minimum ID, maximum ID, count and a column titled “FAT.”

    What the table illustrates is that the first batches of DNC emails published by WikiLeaks have times that indicate the files were likely transferred to a FAT file system (likely transferred via a USB storage device).

    Having received several queries concerning this, I wanted to give a more detailed explanation and, as further observations have been made, to report on these and make some clarifications.

    FAT File System Indicators
    The “FAT” column is in reference to the FAT file system, a file system that, in recent years, is usually used on USB storage devices (some outdated non-USB disk storage devices used this in the past too, but it’s very rare to find such devices still in use).

    One of the shortfalls of the FAT file system is that it stores timestamp data at a lower resolution (to the nearest two seconds). However, this is advantageous for the purpose of digital forensics as it means there is a pattern that can be detected and used to determine whether files were likely to have been transferred via a FAT file system.

    The batches of DNC emails that appear to have been copied to a FAT file system due to this pattern have an “x” in the “FAT” column (in the table referenced at the beginning of this article).

    The First Two Batches
    Drawing upon a 30-day email retention policy and the sent dates of emails, research in the public domain has suggested that the DNC emails were likely acquired on dates between May 19-25, 2016 [@steemwh1sks] for some time.

    Looking at the sent dates of emails and the last modified dates of the email files in the first two batches (those with last modification dates in May, two months prior to initial publication) it is possible to determine that:

    Emails appear to have been copied on May 23, 2016 and May 25, 2016.
    Emails were stored on a device using the FAT file system (very likely to be a USB storage device) at some point in time between acquisition and being published by WikiLeaks.
    We can’t, however, make any declaration on exactly when the files were moved to a USB device as different types of copy operations could produce the same result even if the files were transferred to USB weeks after acquisition (as it’s possible to retain the last-modified dates in various circumstances).

    Interestingly, the FAT file system indication is in line with claims made by Craig Murray that were published in December 2018 in relation to how WikiLeaks had obtained the DNC leaks through a physical hand-over of the emails.

    This particular characteristic was also reported on recently (February 13, 2019) in an article authored by William Binney and Larry Johnson titled “Why The DNC Was Not Hacked By The Russians“. In the article they state:

    "This data alone does not prove that the emails were copied at the DNC headquarters. But it does show that the data/emails posted by Wikileaks did go through a storage device, like a thumbdrive, before Wikileaks posted the emails on the World Wide Web.

    This fact alone is enough to raise reasonable doubts about Mueller’s indictment accusing 12 Russian soldiers as the culprits for the leak of the DNC emails to Wikileaks. A savvy defense attorney will argue, and rightly so, that someone copied the DNC files to a storage device (Eg., USB thumb drive) and transferred that to Wikileaks."


    (The article also covers conflicts between intelligence community assessments and Mueller’s July 2018 indictment.)

    Looking at the transfer speeds on these batches also gives us reason to doubt that this was a local machine or local network transfer straight to a USB device as the transfers appear to have been at a rate of ~3 megabits/second.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	leaksinfo_Dis_Media DNC2.png
Views:	16
Size:	10.7 KB
ID:	40141

    This suggests the files published by WikiLeaks may initially have been transferred remotely.

    Some will argue that this supports assertions regarding the DNC being hacked, however, the rates observed alone could just as easily be argued to support statements made by Seymour Hersh that were reported on in July/August 2017 which suggest that WikiLeaks obtained access to a password protected DropBox where the files [DNC and Podesta emails] had been placed.

    Later Batches
    As well as the batches of emails with last modified dates before the initial publication of DNC Leaks on July 22, 2016, there were two further batches of DNC emails that were made available on WikiLeaks site at later dates and that had last-modified timestamps in August and September 2016.

    The third batch, with last modified dates of August 26 2016, also appears to have been transferred via a USB storage device between acquisition and publication.

    The fourth of these with last modified dates of September 21 2016, did not have the same 2-second rounding artifact.

    While the new tranches included additional DNC staffers, WikiLeaks did not update their web page to reflect that additions were made. However, publication of the batch with the last modified date of September 21, 2016 was announced via the WikiLeaks Twitter account on November 6, 2016 (or November 7 on my side of the Atlantic).

    The DNC emails page on WikiLeaks was updated a little over two weeks later (some time between November 22-25, 2016) with the new total (44,053 emails).

    Additional Observations
    • Some emails had internal send times that were later than the last modified timestamps by up to as much as 7 hours in some cases.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	leaksinfo_Dis_Media DNC3.png
Views:	20
Size:	32.4 KB
ID:	40142

    All times are normalized to GMT.

    • The IDs assigned to the different batches of files aren’t in a consistent sequence and it seems possible that the files were renamed after acquisition. (The May 23 batch, however, did use a subset of IDs used by the May 25 batch.)

    Click image for larger version

Name:	leaksinfo_Dis_Media DNC4.png
Views:	20
Size:	4.2 KB
ID:	40143

    • Total counts of emails associated with separate mailboxes that were published by WikiLeaks are interesting too. When looking solely at the emails, there are many sent to mailing list groups and, in these instances, it’s extremely difficult (maybe impossible!?) to determine whose mailbox the email came from (see email 15384 for an example of this). There is also some disparity between the totals WikiLeaks cites and the number of emails that can be identified as belonging to a specific mailbox (with the latter being lower). These factors combined suggest that WikiLeaks were either told the totals for each mailbox or were provided the emails segregated by mailbox.

    • There are approximately a thousand older emails (with dates prior to April 1, 2016) that account for a little over 2% of the emails released. While there could be various explanations for this, it appears (based on what is disclosed in one of the leaked emails) that the email retention rules didn’t apply to emails if they were moved into other folders. This at least gives a good explanation for what would otherwise seem an anomalous presence of old emails.

    • While there are 44,053 email files, WikiLeaks only indexes 27,515 (as can be seen when doing a blank search in their database) The reason for this disparity appears to be due to almost 40% of the emails being duplicates and the duplicates not being indexed.

    • Based on an analysis of the Sent dates, batches 3 and 4 have a last sent date of May 23. Therefore, it is likely that batches 3 and 4 were also acquired on May 23.

    Data & Verification
    Raw data for last modification timestamps is available here.

    Raw data for the above with send dates included are available here.

    (The latter of these has approximately 100 entries less than the former, as some emails lacked headers from which a sent date could be determined).

    For those that don’t want to (or don’t have means to) scrape all of the data but wish to do a few manual spot-checks on the data linked to above, you can use your web browser to validate individual dates.

    To do this, visit the leak you want to check (on WikiLeaks site), click on the “View source” tab and make sure your browser’s developer console is open, then click on the “Download raw source” link. Your browser should send a GET request for the file (which will be for a URL that starts with “https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails//get/” and is followed by the email ID).

    If you expand the details and check the headers, you will find the “Last-Modified” date there and that is where the last modified timestamps are coming from.

    The example below uses FireFox:

    Name:  leaksinfo_Dis_Media DNC5.png
Views: 76
Size:  8.8 KB

    This obviously isn’t practical for fully validating all of the data due to the volume of emails and is only referenced here as a simple way to do a spot-check that is accessible to most people and helps to illustrate where these last modified dates are being sourced from.

    Conclusion
    The evidence suggests that the first three batches of DNC emails were likely to have been transferred via a USB storage device at some stage between acquisition and then subsequently being published by WikiLeaks.

    However, transfer speeds observed for the batches with last-modified dates matching the dates of acquisition indicate that they were transferred at approximately 3 megabits/second, a lot slower than we would expect if it were a local or LAN transfer, so the transfer we’re looking at likely involved a remote transfer at some point between acquisition and delivery.

    Given that (for the May 23 and May 25 batches) the file last modified times and the internal email sent times are close in many cases, it seems likely that the original emails were copied soon after acquisition. The anomalous time shift between last modification timestamps and the send times of emails (especially for the May 25 batch) raises the possibility that an intermediary on the West Coast (US) may have copied the emails to a USB drive. The time shift can be explained by then copying the thumb drive to local storage, while at a location in London, for example. The (hypothetical) existence of an intermediary doesn’t tell us anything about the individual (or individuals) who originally acquired the emails. Thus, this scenario does not necessarily rule out the possibility of an insider acquiring the emails. If we contemplate the intermediate use of cloud storage, this could have been used as a method to decouple the acquisition of the emails from delivery to another party that subsequently delivered them to Wikileaks.

    Credit (and many thanks) to Forensicator for researching, sharing observations, providing the data set, charts and more.
    Last edited by Tintin; 13th March 2019 at 23:50.
    “If a man does not keep pace with [fall into line with] his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” - Thoreau

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Tintin For This Post:

    Paul (13th March 2019)

  9. Link to Post #25
    UK Moderator and Librarian Tintin's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd June 2017
    Location
    Trowbridge/Bath - UK
    Age
    49
    Posts
    1,424
    Thanks
    13,865
    Thanked 9,044 times in 1,406 posts

    Default Re: Major Wikileaks leak released [DNC E-mails], 22 July 2016

    "Mueller, as a matter of determined policy, omitted key steps which any honest investigator would undertake. He did not commission any forensic examination of the DNC servers. He did not interview Bill Binney. He did not interview Julian Assange. His failure to do any of those obvious things renders his report worthless."


    Source: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...rgate-scandal/

    ——————————————

    The Real Muellergate Scandal

    9 May, 2019 in Uncategorized by craig

    Robert Mueller is either a fool, or deeply corrupt. I do not think he is a fool.

    I did not comment instantly on the Mueller Report as I was so shocked by it, I have been waiting to see if any other facts come to light in justification. Nothing has. I limit myself here to that area of which I have personal knowledge – the leak of DNC and Podesta emails to Wikileaks. On the wider question of the corrupt Russian 1% having business dealings with the corrupt Western 1%, all I have to say is that if you believe that is limited in the USA by party political boundaries, you are a fool.

    On the DNC leak, Mueller started with the prejudice that it was “the Russians” and he deliberately and systematically excluded from evidence anything that contradicted that view.

    Mueller, as a matter of determined policy, omitted key steps which any honest investigator would undertake. He did not commission any forensic examination of the DNC servers. He did not interview Bill Binney. He did not interview Julian Assange. His failure to do any of those obvious things renders his report worthless.

    There has never been, by any US law enforcement or security service body, a forensic examination of the DNC servers, despite the fact that the claim those servers were hacked is the very heart of the entire investigation. Instead, the security services simply accepted the “evidence” provided by the DNC’s own IT security consultants, Crowdstrike, a company which is politically aligned to the Clintons.

    That is precisely the equivalent of the police receiving a phone call saying:

    “Hello? My husband has just been murdered. He had a knife in his back with the initials of the Russian man who lives next door engraved on it in Cyrillic script. I have employed a private detective who will send you photos of the body and the knife. No, you don’t need to see either of them.”

    There is no honest policeman in the world who would agree to that proposition, and neither would Mueller were he remotely an honest man.

    Two facts compound this failure.

    The first is the absolutely key word of ]Bill Binney, former Technical Director of the NSA, the USA’s $14 billion a year surveillance organisation. Bill Binney is an acknowledged world leader in cyber surveillance, and is infinitely more qualified than Crowdstrike. Bill states that the download rates for the “hack” given by Crowdstrike are at a speed – 41 Megabytes per second – that could not even nearly be attained remotely at the location: thus the information must have been downloaded to a local device, eg a memory stick. Binney has further evidence regarding formatting which supports this.

    Mueller’s identification of “DC Leaks” and “Guccifer 2.0” as Russian security services is something Mueller attempts to carry off by simple assertion.Mueller shows DNC Leaks to have been the source of other, unclassified emails sent to Wikileaks that had been obtained under a Freedom of Information request and then Mueller simply assumes, with no proof, the same route was used again for the leaked DNC material. His identification of the Guccifer 2.0 persona with Russian agents is so flimsy as to be laughable. Nor is there any evidence of the specific transfer of the leaked DNC emails from Guccifer 2.0 to Wikileaks. Binney asserts that had this happened, the packets would have been instantly identifiable to the NSA.

    Bill Binney is not a “deplorable”. He is the former Technical Director of the NSA. Mike Pompeo met him to hear his expertise on precisely this matter. Binney offered to give evidence to Mueller. Yet did Mueller call him as a witness? No. Binney’s voice is entirely unheard in the report.

    Mueller’s refusal to call Binney and consider his evidence was not the action of an honest man.

    The second vital piece of evidence we have is from Wikileaks Vault 7 release of CIA material, in which the CIA themselves outline their capacity to “false flag” hacks, leaving behind misdirecting clues including scraps of foreign script and language. This is precisely what Crowdstrike claim to have found in the “Russian hacking” operation.

    So here we have Mueller omitting the key steps of independent forensic examination of the DNC servers and hearing Bill Binney’s evidence. Yet this was not for lack of time. While deliberately omitting to take any steps to obtain evidence that might disprove the “Russian hacking” story, Mueller had boundless time and energy to waste in wild goose chases after totally non-existent links between Wikileaks and the Trump campaign, including the fiasco of interviewing Roger Stone and Randy Credico.

    It is worth remembering that none of the charges against Americans arising from the Mueller inquiry have anything to do with Russian collusion or Trump-Wikileaks collusion, which simply do not exist. The charges all relate to entirely extraneous matters dug up, under the extraordinary US system of “Justice”, to try to blackmail those charged with unrelated crimes turned up by the investigation, into fabricating evidence of Russian collusion. The official term for this process of blackmail is of course “plea-bargaining.”

    Mueller has indicted 12 Russians he alleges are the GRU agents responsible for the “hack”. The majority of these turn out to be real people who, ostensibly, have jobs and lives which are nothing to do with the GRU. Mueller was taken aback when, rather than simply being in absentia, a number of them had representation in court to fight the charges.

    Mueller had to back down and ask for an immediate adjournment as soon as the case opened, while he fought to limit disclosure. His entire energies since on this case have been absorbed in submitting motions to limit disclosure, individual by individual, with the object of ensuring that the accused Russians can be convicted without ever seeing, or being able to reply to, the evidence against them. Which is precisely the same as his attitude to contrary evidence in his Report.

    Mueller’s failure to examine the servers or take Binney’s evidence pales into insignificance compared to his attack on Julian Assange. Based on no conclusive evidence, Mueller accuses Assange of receiving the emails from Russia. Most crucially, he did not give Assange any opportunity to answer his accusations. For somebody with Mueller’s background in law enforcement, declaring somebody in effect guilty, without giving them any opportunity to tell their side of the story, is plain evidence of malice.

    Inexplicably, for example, the Mueller Report quotes a media report of Assange stating he had “physical proof” the material did not come from Russia, but Mueller simply dismisses this without having made any attempt at all to ask Assange himself.

    It is also particularly cowardly as Julian was and is held incommunicado with no opportunity to defend himself. Assange has repeatedly declared the material did not come from the Russian state or from any other state. He was very willing to give evidence to Mueller, which could have been done by video-link, by interview in the Embassy or by written communication. But as with Binney and as with the DNC servers, the entirely corrupt Mueller was unwilling to accept any evidence which might contradict his predetermined narrative.

    Mueller’s section headed “The GRU’s Transfer of Stolen Material to Wikileaks” is a ludicrous farrago of internet contacts between Wikileaks and persons not proven to be Russian, transferring material not proven to be the DNC leaks. It too is destroyed by Binney and so pathetic that, having pretended he had proven the case of internet transfer, Mueller then gives the game away by adding:
    “The office cannot rule out that stolen documents were transferred by intermediaries who visited during the summer of 2016”.
    He names Mr Andrew Muller-Maguhn as a possible courier. Yet again, he did not ask Mr Muller-Maguhn to give evidence. Nor did he ask me, and I might have been able to help him on a few of these points.

    To run an “investigation” with a pre-determined idea as to who are the guilty parties, and then to name and condemn those parties in a report, without hearing the testimony of those you are accusing, is a method of proceeding that puts the cowardly and corrupt Mr Mueller beneath contempt.

    Mueller gives no evidence whatsoever to back up his simple statement that Seth Rich was not the source of the DNC leak. He accuses Julian Assange of “dissembling” by referring to Seth Rich’s murder. It is an interesting fact that the US security services have shown precisely the same level of interest in examining Seth Rich’s computers that they have shown in examining the DNC servers. It is also interesting that this murder features in a report of historic consequences like that of Mueller, yet has had virtually no serious resource put into finding the killer.

    Mueller’s condemnation of Julian Assange for allegedly exploiting the death of Seth Rich, would be infinitely more convincing if the official answer to the question “who murdered Seth Rich?” was not “who cares?”.

    ——————————————
    “If a man does not keep pace with [fall into line with] his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” - Thoreau

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Tintin For This Post:

    Hervé (10th May 2019), Paul (10th May 2019)

  11. Link to Post #26
    Avalon Member norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th March 2010
    Location
    too close to the hot air exhaust
    Age
    63
    Posts
    4,884
    Thanks
    7,333
    Thanked 22,775 times in 4,212 posts

    Default Re: Major Wikileaks leak released [DNC E-mails], 22 July 2016

    This little video sort of says much the same thing as the above article:

    .................................................. my first language is TYPO..............................................

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to norman For This Post:

    Hervé (10th May 2019), Paul (10th May 2019), Tintin (10th May 2019)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts