{"id":16720,"date":"2016-10-29T10:38:21","date_gmt":"2016-10-29T14:38:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cosmicconvergence.org\/?p=16720"},"modified":"2017-08-07T16:19:51","modified_gmt":"2017-08-07T20:19:51","slug":"the-top-100-most-damaging-wikileaks","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cosmicconvergence.org\/?p=16720","title":{"rendered":"The Top 100 Most Damaging WikiLeaks"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"screen-shot-2016-10-29-at-10-33-29-am\"<\/a><\/p>\n

TMR<\/a> Editor\u2019s Note:
\n<\/strong>
\nDear Readers,
\nThe following list of WIKILEAKS emails is perhaps the best compilation of hard evidence of government crime and corruption ever made public in U.S. history.<\/p>\n

Please copy and disseminate this proof of extraordinary criminality in the highest echelons of the U.S. Federal Government.<\/p>\n

Be very careful not to dismiss the strength of this high integrity evidence that may very well contribute to the collapse of the Democratic Party. \u00a0Once these high crimes and misdemeanors have been officially verified by the appropriate authorities, it will serve as the basis of an indictment of numerous elected leaders as well as appointed officials throughout the Obama Administration.<\/p>\n

The Top 100 Most Damaging WikiLeaks<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

Thank you for passing this critical information on. \u00a0It is quite likely to have a profound effect on the outcome of the upcoming U.S. presidential election.<\/p>\n

The Millennium Report<\/a>
\nOctober 29, 2016<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Top 100 Most Damaging WikiLeaks<\/h1>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

“The further a society drifts from truth,
\nthe more it will hate those who speak it.”<\/strong><\/em>
\n— George Orwell<\/h3>\n
\n

ABOUT WIKILEAKS<\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/div>\n
\n

General FAQ<\/h3>\n

*Compiled by www.MostDamagingWikileaks.com<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

1. What is WikiLeaks?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0WikiLeaks is a non-profit organization created to protect whistleblowers and\u00a0journalists\u00a0who have sensitive materials to communicate to the public. They believe that transparent governments leads to better governments and less corruption. Led by Australian, Julian Assange, WikiLeaks was started 10 years ago with the goal of “opening governments” to help prevent criminal corruption. No information is leaked that could harm innocent civilians or those not involved in corruption.<\/p>\n

2. Can we believe\u00a0WikiLeaks?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 In short, yes. In its 10 year history, not one single\u00a0leak has ever proven to\u00a0be false, something WikiLeaks prides itself on. If the leaks were false,\u00a0everyone implicated in them would have immediately and aggressively denied their claims rather than simply\u00a0change the subject in speculating if Russia did it. For more hard proof within the emails, read\u00a0this source.<\/a><\/p>\n

3. Is WikiLeaks related to Wikipedia?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 No. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, WikiLeaks cannot. The only thing they share in common are their first 4 letters. According to their website, “WikiLeaks combines the protection and anonymity of cutting-edge cryptographic technologies with the comfortable presentation style of Wikipedia, although the two are not otherwise related.”<\/p>\n

4. Why are they only going after Hillary Clinton?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a010 years ago, WikiLeaks became famous for exposing elements of the Bush administration and the Iraq wars, and quickly became heroes to the left. This year, Hillary Clinton\u00a0is being exposed because of the unprecedented\u00a0levels of corruption throughout her history. Julian Assange, who is not necessarily pro-Trump,\u00a0has stated that\u00a0if any controversial Trump material is found, it will be published. However, everything controversial they have has already been said by Trump himself, according to Assange.<\/p>\n

5. Why is the media barely covering them?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Because almost 100% of mainstream media sources, as well as several prominent publishing news sources are implicated in the leaks in colluding with the Clinton campaign. These “news” sources (as you will find in the leaks below) have conspired to get Hillary elected, by only reporting anti-Trump smear pieces, manufacturing or exaggerating scandals, and hiding anything damaging to Hillary. Most are even donating big money to the Clinton campaign in order to keep the globalist status-quo. These revelations are the stories journalists dream of, but\u00a0CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, New\u00a0York Times, Washington Post, Politico, Huffington Post, AP, and several more are all implicated in the leaks. This is why the media has been so one sided this election season, and why only 6% of people trust the mainstream media<\/a>. Trump hasn’t helped with some past comments, but asCNN said here<\/a>, the media is doing everything they can to help Hillary and give her a free ride.<\/p>\n

6. Is Russia behind the leaks?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Despite Hillary stating at the third debate\u00a0that 17 intelligence agencies have said Russia is behind it, there is no proof that Russia is responsible for these leaks against her and the DNC. In fact, even Politico<\/a> (who has been implicated in these leaks several times with Glenn Thrush) gave her claim a negative fact-check. There is no definitive proof, even from Hillary, only theories that it “could” be Russia. The reason for this constant claim by the media (as if it is 100% truth) is to pivot away from what is actually in the damning leaks and get your attention onto “evil” Russia. This immature approach by Hillary and the media, in conjunction with other recent foreign policy blunders, has led to extremely increased levels of tension with Russia, not seen since the Cold War.\u00a0Julian Assange has strongly indicated that insiders in the DNC and US government are responsible for the leaks, including hinting at one DNC insider who was killed shortly after the DNC leaks<\/a>. Regardless of who the hacker is, it does not take away from the validity of what is actually in the leaks.<\/p>\n

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<\/p>\n

\n

THE LIST<\/h1>\n<\/div>\n
\n

The Top 100\u00a0Most Damaging Wikileaks (so far)<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n

This list contains titles, links of proof, quotes from\u00a0the links, and commentary from Reddit<\/a>.<\/p>\n

These are just SOME of the thousands of leaks exposing Hillary Clinton’s corruption, and mainly comprise of the Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails, as well as a few other sources (FBI docs, DNC leaks, etc.) So much cover-up, media collusion, and pay for play proof was not included, otherwise this list would be too long.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

___<\/p>\n

1. Obama lied: he knew about Hillary\u2019s secret server and wrote to her using a pseudonym, cover-up happened (intent to destroy evidence)<\/h2>\n