In response to the mention of Wikileaks in today’s indictments here’s Donald Trump pimping them 141 times.

By |2018-07-14T08:37:56+00:00July 13th, 2018|Categories: Front Page, News|Tags: , , , , , |12 Comments

It’s almost like Trump was the official Wikileaks spokesperson.

Here is their mention in the indictment courtesy of Vox:

There’s a lot in these indictments, but one standout is a snippet of conversation between the Russian hackers (referred to in the indictments as the “Conspirators,”) and Wikileaks (referred to as “Organization 1”) in the trove of documents released by Mueller on Friday.

The conversations between the Russians and Wikileaks allegedly took place on or around July 6, 2016 — a few weeks before the Democratic National Convention was held in Philadelphia from July 25 through to July 28.

Around July 6, Wikileaks corresponded with the Russian intelligence officers, saying, “if you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo[sic] days pefable [sic] because the DNC is approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters behind her after.”

“ok … i see,” the Russians responded.

Then, Wikileaks explained their motives for wanting information that would reveal the tension between the Sanders and Hillary camps.

“we think trump has only a 25% chance of winning against hillary… so conflict between bernie and hillary is interesting,” Wikileaks responded.

It feels like Mueller is currently gathering up all of these loose ends that many people believed were unrelated to each other, and is getting ready to tie them all together in a neat little bow that will signal the end of the Trump presidency. 

About the Author:

This blog is dedicated to finding the truth, exposing the lies, and holding our politicians and leaders accountable when they fall far short of the promises that they have made to both my fellow Alaskans and the American people.


  1. ANONYMOUS July 13, 2018 at 4:51 pm

    ‘Editors’ note: This is an updated version of an article originally published Oct. 18, 2016.’

  2. Anonymous July 13, 2018 at 5:25 pm

    HOW many times did he break royal protocol today? I lost count.
    Damn, do I wish that QE would have feigned illness but it’s not her style.

    Hats off to the Brits, especially police, that just let the citizens do their thing.

    • viv July 13, 2018 at 7:40 pm

      Her Majesty has had to meet cannibals in her role and no doubt she expected the customary crudeness and coarseness of Donald Trump. I’m comforted by the laughs she no doubt had later- and will continue to have- at his expense.

      I’m reminded today of how Trump stalked Princess Diana, how she was totally creeped out by his harassment.

      • Anonymous July 13, 2018 at 7:54 pm

        YES, and Princess Diana said, paraphrasing, “I just could not do it, you know? I care about people, not all this.”

  3. Anonymous July 13, 2018 at 5:40 pm

    Now we know why so many Republicans in Congress aren’t even bothering to run for reelection

    …We’ll see which Republicans in Congress are fleeing because they’re guilty and they know it’s going to come out, and which ones are fleeing simply out of fear that this whole thing will explode before November and make it difficult for any Republican to get reelected. But for now, it’s a huge deal that Robert Mueller has tied the Republican Congress to Trump-Russia election hacking. Today’s indictments are largely symbolic, as none of these hackers will ever be extradited. The indictments are all about establishing that the Trump campaign – and the GOP Congress – as having been complicit in the Russian government election hacking before they’re charged.

    Robert Mueller just dropped an anvil on Roger Stone’s head

    …Today’s indictments allege that the Russian hackers stole a significant amount of material from the Democratic Party during the election and gave it to someone who was in touch with the Trump campaign. We’ll give you one guess, because based on other grand jury proceedings that have been playing out for the past several weeks, this person is obviously Roger Stone. If you don’t want to take our word for it yet, that’s okay, because Mueller was just getting started with Stone.

    In case things weren’t clear enough, someone involved with the investigation then confirmed to the Washington Post that it is in fact Roger Stone. Keep in mind that Mueller and his team don’t put these kinds of details out there unless they want them publicly known for strategic reasons. But again, Mueller was just getting warmed up.

    • Anonymous July 13, 2018 at 6:08 pm

      Not to mention that they have a golden parachute and can go to work for the corporation masters that funneled money to them.
      A sudden semblance of conscience? I highly doubt it.Queen Heifer claimed today that she represents the middle class. HAH!

  4. Anonymous July 13, 2018 at 6:04 pm

    House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) had a message for House Republicans and Trump. It doesn’t matter how much they try to hide information, Bob Mueller knows.


    When asked by Ari Melber if the Trump/Russia activity rose to the level of criminal intent, Adam Schiff answered:

    What we see is really classic Russian tradecraft. That is they’ll make outreaches to people, to Americans. They’ll begin by using intermediaries. They’ll then see whether there’s a receptivity to the approach and if there is, they’ll follow it up with other approaches. And this is the pattern we see with the approach through the professor to Papadopoulos, then the approach to the foreign ministry, then the approach to the meeting at Trump Tower, and you see that they’re getting the message effectively back from the Trump campaign, yes, we are receptive to this, in fact, the president’s — the president, himself, as candidate says quite publicly that he wants the Russians to help by hacking and you see the Russians come through. Now, whether there is sufficient proof of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt involving the Trump campaign, Bob Mueller is in the best position to know, what I can see are different pieces of this puzzle.

    But what I can see also has missing pieces. I don’t know, for example, who Papadopoulos talked to about the Russian approach. We were going to bring in John Mashburn, one of the policy advisers for the trump campaign this week. He’d agreed to come in, but as soon as we informed the majority he was going to come testify, the majority intervened to tell him not to come. The majority doesn’t want to know who in the trump campaign was aware of this approach and who might have been in the know prior to the meeting in trump tower. But Bob Mueller knows at this point, and we’ll just have to wait to see whether the next indictment on the hacking and dumping operation if there’s another, is focused on Americans.

    Bob Mueller knows

  5. Anonymous July 13, 2018 at 6:46 pm

    White House officials furious at timing of Russia indictments: ‘A big FU from Mueller’

    John Dean, the former President Richard Nixon White House counsel, said the timing would force President Trump to comfort Putin’s about his military officials meddling into the 2016 presidential elections.

    “The timing is no accident,” he said. “It forces Trump to confront Putin. If he fails to do so, he is admitting guilt. This story will now consume U.S. news, and blows up Trump’s claim it is all a witch hunt and hoax.”

    Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, said the release of the indictments were just a formality and that he briefed President Trump about the new charges earlier this week.

    Rosenstein said the timing of the indictments were: “a function of the collection of the facts, the evidence, and the law and a determination that it was sufficient to present the indictment at this time.”

    CNN’s Jake Tapper unloads on Trump’s ‘false and frankly hideous’ conspiracy theories in blistering dismantling

    …“The man tasked with protecting the United States of America, knowing of these indictments of 12 Russian military officers for a successful cyber attack against the United States, that man expressed regret as to how the investigation is hurting relations with Russia,” Tapper said.

    But it’s worse than that, he said, because Trump asked Russia to hack Clinton, and they redoubled their efforts the same day.

    “The president saying this is all a witch hunt,” Tapper said. “False, according to his own Justice Department. The president saying the hacks weren’t necessarily done by the Russians. False, according to his own Justice Department.”

    Watch below.

    Conservative George Will lays waste to the Republican Party: ‘One leader — and the rest are followers’

    “Talk about Republican leadership? There’s one Republican leader, and the rest are followers. And they’re all following the president. Period. There’s no independent congressional rivalrous institution.”

    Watch the clip below:

  6. Anonymous July 13, 2018 at 6:46 pm
  7. Anonymous July 13, 2018 at 6:55 pm

    NRA paid shady shell company $19 million to help elect Republicans who would thwart gun control

    The Mystery Firm That Became the NRA’s Top Election Consultant
    Since 2014, the gun rights group has paid millions of dollars to a little known contractor for ads in key Senate races. Did it break campaign finance laws in the process?

    …To get its message out, the NRA turned to an unknown consulting firm, Starboard Strategic, paying it $19 million. More than a third of that money was invested in must-win Senate seats in Colorado, North Carolina and Arkansas — three of the most expensive in the country — paying for a host of television, radio and internet ads.

    …In 2014, among OnMessage’s most prominent clients were three Republican challengers vying for Senate seats in the same races where the NRA would pay Starboard some of its biggest outlays of the cycle: Thom Tillis, in North Carolina; Cory Gardner, in Colorado; and Tom Cotton, in Arkansas. All of these candidates would defeat Democratic incumbents, cementing the result for which GOP leaders and the NRA had mobilized: a Republican majority in the upper chamber to match the one in the House. Each challenger paid OnMessage $5 million to $8 million, far more than they paid any other vendors.

    Campaign-finance rules prohibit coordination between official campaigns and outside groups, such as the NRA, who support the same candidate. Those restrictions, in turn, give force to a fundamental law governing political spending. Outside groups can independently disburse unlimited sums to influence elections. But they can give no more than $5,000 when giving directly to a candidate.

    …Two former FEC chairs, one Republican and the other Democrat, reviewed the findings of Politico Magazine and The Trace, and said they found them troubling. “This evidence raises substantial questions about whether OnMessage and Starboard Strategic were used as conduits for coordination between the NRA and the candidates it was supporting,” Trevor Potter, the Republican, said. “It’s pretty serious,” added Ann Ravel, the Democrat. “It doesn’t seem right.” Both former chairs independently came to the same conclusion: “The FEC should investigate.“

  8. Anonymous July 13, 2018 at 8:58 pm

    U.S. Senator Al Franken

    When Judge Brett Kavanaugh appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senators will have an opportunity to examine his record, his judicial philosophy, and his qualifications for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

    I wish I could be there. Because I have some questions I’d love to see him answer.

    1. Judge Kavanaugh, welcome. I’d like to start with a series of yes or no questions. The first one is a gimme. Do you think it’s proper for judges to make determinations based on their ideological preconceptions or their personal biases?

    He’ll say no, of course.

    2. Good. Would you agree that judges should make determinations based on their understanding of the facts?

    3. And would you agree that it’s important for a judge to obtain a full and fair understanding of the facts before making a determination?

    This is all pretty standard stuff. Then, however, I’d turn to an issue that’s received a bit of attention—but not nearly enough.

    4. When you were introduced by President Trump, you spoke to the American people for the very first time as a nominee for the Supreme Court. That is a very important moment in this process, wouldn’t you agree?

    5. And one of the very first things that came out of your mouth as a nominee for the Supreme Court was the following assertion: “No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.” Did I quote you correctly?

    This claim, of course, was not just false, but ridiculous. The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake (a Minnesota native) called it “a thoroughly inauspicious way to begin your application to the nation’s highest court, where you will be deciding the merits of the country’s most important legal and factual claims.”

    It would be only fair to give Kavanaugh a chance to retract that weirdly specific bit of bullshit.

    6. Do you stand by those words today? Yes or no?

    If he says that he doesn’t, I’d skip down to Question 22. But, if he won’t take it back, I’d want to pin him down.

    7. I just want to be clear. You are under oath today, correct?

    8. So, today, you are telling the American people—under oath—that it is your determination that “[n]o president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.”

    9. And that determination—it wouldn’t be based on your ideological preconceptions, would it?

    10. And it’s not based on any personal bias, is it?

    11. No, of course not. That would be improper. Instead, it is based on your understanding of the facts, right?

    12. Was it a “full and fair” understanding of the facts?

    Again, if he decided here to fold his hand and admit that he was full of it, I’d skip down to Question 22. But if not, I’d continue with…

    13. Great. Judge Kavanaugh, are you aware that there have been 162 nominations to the Supreme Court over the past 229 years?

    14. And do you have a full and fair understanding of the circumstances surrounding each nomination?

    Of course he doesn’t.

    15. Of course you don’t. So, in actuality, your statement at that press conference did not reflect a full and fair understanding of the facts—isn’t that right?

    16. This was one of the very first public statements you made to the American people as a nominee for the Supreme Court. A factual assertion you have repeated here under oath. And it did not meet your standard for how a judge should make determinations about issues of national importance.

    17. Let me ask you about some widely-reported facts. Are you aware of the widely-reported fact that President Trump selected you from a list of 25 jurists provided by the conservative Federalist Society?

    18. Are you aware of any other case in which a President has selected a nominee from a list provided to him by a partisan advocacy group?

    19. Are you aware of the widely-reported fact that President Trump spent just two weeks mulling over his selection—whereas, for example, President Obama spent roughly a month before making each of his two Supreme Court nominations?

    20. Let me ask you this. Are you aware of any facts that support your assertion that—and I’ll quote it again—“No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination”?

    21. And yet, you still believe that your assertion was based on a full and fair understanding of the facts?

    Then I’d try to sum it up.

    22. Judge Kavanaugh, do you believe that intellectual honesty and a scrupulous adherence to the facts are important characteristics in a Supreme Court Justice?

    23: And would you say that you displayed those characteristics to your own satisfaction when you made in your very first public remarks (and reiterated here today under oath) your assertion that, “No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination”?

    By the way: Once I had him pinned down on his ridiculous lie, I’d ask where it came from.

    24: Let me ask you about something else. Did President Trump, or anyone in his administration, have any input on your remarks at that press conference?

    25: Did President Trump, or anyone in his administration, instruct, ask, or suggest that you make that assertion?

    I know this might seem like a long chase. Senators have a lot of ground they want to cover in these hearings: health care, choice, net neutrality, and a long list of incredibly important issues on which Kavanaugh has been, and would continue to be, terrible. After all, he was chosen through a shoddy, disgraceful process overseen by the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation.

    And, of course, Kavanaugh is a smart guy. He and his team no doubt know that his easily provable lie is a potential problem, and I’m sure they’re workshopping answers at this very moment.

    But pinning him down on this is important, for a couple of reasons.

    First of all, it was exactly the kind of lie that has been plaguing our discourse for a generation, the kind that has become prevalent under the Trump administration. It’s just a totally made-up assertion that is exactly the opposite of the truth, flowing out of the mouth of a committed partisan who doesn’t care that it’s false. And if you’re sick of people doing that and getting away with it, at some point someone is going to have to start using a prominent stage to bust these lies. If they go unchallenged, then why would any of these guys stop lying, ever?

    More to the point: This episode is a perfect illustration of what the conservative movement has been doing to the Supreme Court nomination and confirmation process specifically, and the judicial system generally, for a generation now.

    In theory, judges are supposed to be above partisan politics. They don’t make law, they interpret it. They don’t create the strike zone, they just call balls and strikes. You know the routine.

  9. anon July 14, 2018 at 7:00 am

    tinydjt ‘pimp’ dotard

    ““In fact, the Turnberry operation has lost tens of millions of pounds since he purchased it, filings in Britain show: about £17 million in 2016, the last year for which such comprehensive records are available,” ”

    ‘I have arrived in Scotland and will be at Trump Turnberry for two days of meetings, calls and hopefully, some golf – my primary form of exercise! The weather is beautiful, and this place is incredible! Tomorrow I go to Helsinki for a Monday meeting with Vladimir Putin.
    1:43 AM – Jul 14, 2018’

    “#BREAKING President Donald Trump waving a protestors who are calling him racist as he plays golf at #Turnberry @realDonaldTrump #TrumpProtests #TrumpVisitsUK #trump
    4:46 AM – Jul 14, 2018”

Comments are closed.