Russia scoops Wikileaks on new Podesta emails – things that make you go hmm

Russia’s state propaganda organ, RT (previously known as “Russia Today”), scooped Wikileaks yesterday on Wikileaks’ own story.

On October 22, at 8:20AM Eastern Time, the Russians tweeted a new story of theirs about the Wikileaks Podesta emails.

Then, 30 minutes later, at 8:50AM ET, Wikileaks announced its new Podesta emails to the world.

In other words, the Russians broadcast the Wikileaks story to the world before Wikileaks itself, and the Russians even had enough notice to write a story about it.

(Twitter adjusts the time-stamp to the reader’s time zone — so the tweets below are time-stamped for my time zone, US Eastern time, and thus are in fact 30 minutes apart.)

The suspicious correlation between the two tweets was initially discovered by American hacker @th3j35t3r, who is commonly referred to as “the Batman of the Internet” for his attacks on America’s enemies.

Here is Russia’s tweet — note the Russians even had a story already written:

wikileaks trump

And here is Wikileaks announcing the new emails, half an hour after the Russians already wrote a story about them:

wikileaks trump

Trump and Wikileaks also had a little Twitter love fest yesterday evening:

wikileaks trump

Many have speculated about the exact nature of the relationship between Wikileaks and Russian intelligence. Wikileaks denies any relationship; while US intelligence and private research firms have both concluded that the Clinton emails were stolen by Russia, with the likely intent of helping election Donald Trump, and more generally sowing confusing surrounding the US election.

And just two weeks ago, Newsweek’s Kurt Eichenwald came to his own conclusion about Wikileaks and Russian intelligence:

Wikileaks head Julian Assange has previously expressed his preference for Donald Trump as president. From the NYT:

The emails were released by WikiLeaks, whose founder, Julian Assange has made it clear that he hoped to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning the presidency.

In a separate NYT story, Assange detailed why he preferred Trump over Clinton as president, and that he was releasing the emails in order to hurt Hillary’s electoral chances:

Six weeks before the anti-secrecy organization WikiLeaks published an archive of hacked Democratic National Committee emails ahead of the Democratic convention, the organization’s founder, Julian Assange, foreshadowed the release — and made it clear that he hoped to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning the presidency….

In the interview, Mr. Assange told a British television host, Robert Peston of the ITV network, that his organization had obtained “emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication,” which he pronounced “great.” He also suggested that he not only opposed her candidacy on policy grounds, but also saw her as a personal foe.

At one point, Mr. Peston said: “Plainly, what you are saying, what you are publishing, hurts Hillary Clinton. Would you prefer Trump to be president?”

Mr. Assange replied that what Mr. Trump would do as president was “completely unpredictable.” By contrast, he thought it was predictable that Mrs. Clinton would wield power in two ways he found problematic.

As a result of my questioning the odd timing of yesterday’s Wikileaks and Russia Today tweets, Wikileaks has now blocked me on Twitter.

Whither Wikileaks? In the past 24 hours, Wikileaks has been a virtual anti-Clinton propaganda machine. Tweet after tweet attacking Hillary, and the US generally: One tweet even proclaims that the US is “no longer a democracy.”

I can’t say if Wikileaks has been compromised by the Russians. I can say that if I were the Russians, I’d be damn pleased about Wikileaks’ efforts to get Donald Trump, the closest thing America has ever had to a fascist, elected president. And that ought to give pause to any “fan” of Wikileaks who isn’t a fascist himself.

red-donatePlease support our independent journalism with a generous donation. Help us defeat Donald Trump in November.

Follow me on Twitter & Facebook:

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

  • Badgerite

    Yes. “Newly discovered” on a device.
    To quote Jon Favreau tweet:
    1) Not from Hilary
    2) Not from her server
    3) Not from her investigation.
    . According to all reporting this is not a “reopening of the probe”. Just updating with new emails from someone else’s device.
    In short, nothing.
    This would not be the first time Comey has bullshitted to help the floundering GOP. Then, of course, the emails were actually released and people could see for themselves that there was nothing there …..other than a competent person doing their job.
    “NBC’s Pete Williams: Sr. officials say –during separate investigation
    “a device” led to add’l emails – not from Clinton.”
    Not from Clinton and not on her server and not relating to her their investigation relating to her emails. So…..why are we talking about this again. Oh yeah. Comey fudged for political profit. Surprise me. Old Ken Starr habits die hard. But die they must.
    Here is a nice post for you from Daily Kos

  • H.P. Loathecraft

    ruh roh new Podesta email today reveals that they knew all along that the phishing attack did not originate in Russia lol
    Putin truthers heads explode

  • Badgerite

    Public statements are proof. Aren’t they? Both Putin and Assange have expressed a preference for a Trump Monster victory. In public.

  • H.P. Loathecraft

    “Both Vlad the Impaler and Julian Assange have publicly stated their preference for a Trump Monster win”

    Got proof to support this wild assertion? Didn’t think so.

  • Badgerite

    First, no need. In New York the Sanders campaign complained that the primary was not open and that his voters had missed the deadline to join the Democratic party and thereby to vote in the Democratic primary. That isn’t “fraud”. That is poor organization and planning. Not that he would have won New York anyway. It was Hilary Clinton’s state from day one. She was their senator and won re-election there and the primary against Barack Obama handily with 57 percent of the vote. So. Next up was that Hilary only won in the more conservative southern states. When Sanders later won in conservative West Virginia that was somehow different. Then is was primaries versus caucus states. Except that Clinton won most of the primary states and Sanders tended to do better in the caucus states. Then on to California, a very blue, seriously liberal state with a primary vote open to all. And Hilary Clinton took that by 10 percentage points. Which is a solid win.
    Second, both Vlad the Impaler and Julian Assange have publicly stated their preference for a Trump Monster win.
    Publicly means made these statements in public and such statements are part of the public record. As in, hard to refute.

  • AnthonyLook

    All Wiki employees should be investigated and if found guilty- charged with sedition for their traitorous complicity.
    149 New Montgomery Street Floor 6 San Francisco, CA 94105 USA Phone: +1-415-839-6885 Fax: +1-415-882-0495

  • H.P. Loathecraft

    “Greg Palast is not “America’s foremost expert on election fraud”
    Oh OK, tell us who is then.
    “…but haven’t really heard much from him lately. ”
    Maybe you need to try crossing your county line one of these days.
    “Assange since he has publicly stated his preference for the Trump Monster to win the US election, as has Vladimir Putin.”
    Two outright, baseless falsehoods in a single sentence. Impressive.

  • Badgerite

    Greg Palast is not “America’s foremost expert on election fraud”.
    I remember him making a bit of noise during the 2000 presidential election ( Best Democracy Money Can Buy and House of Saud, House of Bush) but haven’t really heard much from him lately.
    Basically you are alleging some “fraud” in what? The Michigan primary that Bernie Sanders won or the California primary that he didn’t? Elections have consequences and one of those consequences is that the will of the people is expressed through vote totals and Bernie Sanders vote totals never equaled those of Hilary Clinton’s. It is that simple. For someone who requires “proof” that the sky is blue, you certainly don’t seem to think that same principle applies to anything you say. There was no evidence of “fraud” in the democratic primaries. And one of the flaws of Sanders as a candidate is that he let his campaign pretend that they was “robbed” when he knew better. And he did. And this quote is positively ‘money’. “…..Democrats stole the primaries using various methods in various key states.” You ain’t from around here, are you. Russian troll?
    Bernie Sanders was running as a Democrat in the Democratic party primaries. How does the Democratic party ‘steal’ a Democratic party primary by “various methods”. Like what? So the Michigan primary which Sanders won wasn’t “rigged” bu the California primary which he lost was “rigged”? Uh huh. Both open primaries. The only difference was Sanders won one and lost the other. So……which one was “rigged”? How about neither. He just did not convince voting democrats that he should be the nominee of the party. That simple.
    And my God, “hearsay from the ruling party”? You are a Russian troll, are you not? I only mention Glenn Greenwald in passing. He is no moral authority in my universe. I don’t care who he “supports”. I have critical faculties and I can decide for myself when someone or some organization is probably on the up and up and when it is not. I don’t have to guess as to the motives of Julain Assange since he has publicly stated his preference for the Trump Monster to win the US election, as has Vladimir Putin. Just recently Wikileaks seems to have taken a position of support for Assad in Syria. Interesting. And so does Putin and Russia. As far as public stands go, Wikileaks and Russia seem to be in sync quite a lot. Go figure.

  • H.P. Loathecraft

    “First of all the emails were not leaked by someone in the DNC.”
    You know to be a fact based on what evidence?
    “American intelligence for one have been pretty conclusive as to the origin of the hacking and in tracing it back to Russian intelligence.”
    Again, proof? “preety conclusive, good confidence, anonymous sources with knowledge of…” None of this is proof.
    “he only state in which the polls and the ultimate vote were not aligned would have been Michigan and that was a primary Bernie Sanders won that he was supposed to lose.”
    According to America’s foremost expert on election fraud, Greg Palast, Democrats stole the primaries utilizing various methods in various key states.
    “Perhaps you missed that part.” No, I didn’t miss that part. I stand by my assertion that he still supports Wikileaks in principle while criticizing some but not all of it’s policies/methods, because he does.
    Whether or not you disagree with Wikileaks methods or you’re convinced based on evidence-bereft hearsay from the ruling party that the leaks originate with the Russians or you just plain don’t like the contents, Greenwald argues in the noted interview that the material is by and large newsworthy and in the public interest.
    “I believe the attempt has actually back fired on Assange and Wikileaks.”
    I don’t think it’s backfired at all. You are looking at the situation through the pinhole aperture of an election and assuming his sole motivation is to impede her prospects when in fact Wikileaks has a longer view than you surmise.
    Clinton will win, she was always going to win, the political/media establishment have pulled out all the stops to ensure that happens, including making certain that Trump got 2 billion in free coverage so as to grease the skids to the GOP nomination so that Hillary would have the opponent they wanted all along and that Sanders got virtually none for the first several months, including the week he announced his candidacy and MSDNC somehow forgot to even mention that someone was going to be running against Clinton it on Meet The Press that Sunday, a pretty major piece of news.
    The point is that Hillary will soon be in power and Wikileaks has pulled back the curtain in advance. We would never have seen those speeches had they not been released. BTW, there’s growing suspicion that Doug Band is the leaker. Personally, I suspect twenty-something hackers as usually proves to be the case.
    BTW, remember when the Obama administration and the intelligence gathering industry “had high confidence” that North Korea was behind the Sony hack? Good times.

  • Badgerite

    First of all the emails were not leaked by someone in the DNC. So that isn’t really a leak, as in ‘whistleblower’ it is a foreign hacker who violated all kinds of laws to hack one of the two major american political parties private emails. There is no dispute on that one. American intelligence for one have been pretty conclusive as to the origin of the hacking and in tracing it back to Russian intelligence. Apparently this ‘hacker’ is a known quantity with them. The American intelligence community are not a partisan player.
    And how do the emails reveal anything of the kind. The only state in which the polls and the ultimate vote were not aligned would have been Michigan and that was a primary Bernie Sanders won that he was supposed to lose. The emails reveal nothing of the kind. Hilary Clinton always out polled Bernie Sanders by a good 10 points nationally. California was an open primary in a very blue state and he lost that one by 10 percentage points. That people who had known and worked with Hilary Clinton for years in the DNC would express in private communications a personal preference for her as their candidate is hardly surprising or corrupt. The vote is what decided the outcome and Sanders simply did not win as many votes. That is how democracy actually works.
    What’s more, according to the article I cited, Greenwald did indeed express concerns with Wikileaks methods in that they seem to be engaging in what is described by them as “radical transparency” which is actually not new for them but apparently Greenwald has started to notice the harm to private individuals of releasing information such as social security numbers, telephone numbers, credit card numbers, home addresses, names of rape victims, and such. He did in the interview complain as to the indiscriminate nature of some of their “information dumps”. Perhaps you missed that part. And he that should give him pause. IMO, this is not new for Wikileaks. When they dumped out State Department communications, there were individuals in Afghanistan who were cooperating with American forces whose names were simply put out in public by Wikileaks. Did it not occur to them that such an action could make those people targets of terrorists? Did that not occur to Greenwald at the time? It certainly should have. Jepordizing the privacy and security of individuals in this manner is not “tranparency”. It is simply exercising power for power’s sake.
    Because you can. Interfering in a US election to try to elect a wholly unfit and unqualified individual is not “tranparency”. It is trying to alter the proper functioning of the democratic process.
    It is, in short, trying to “rig” an election. I believe the attempt has actually back fired on Assange and Wikileaks. Maybe there is some justice in the world.

  • H.P. Loathecraft

    “We are talking about a concerted campaign by Russian intelligence to interfere in a US presidential election.”
    Provide some proof to support your assertion, if don’t mind.
    And since you mentioned Nixon, the resemblance between his own actions and Hillary’s are remarkable, are they not?
    “And no, the public does not have a right to internal emails of presidential campaigns.”
    The emails reveal that the DNC did everything in it’s power to rig the outcome of the primaries, in collusion with most of the mainstream media and, it appears increasingly evident, the administration. I can’t think of anything more relevant to the public interest in recent history, frankly. And if it’s nobody’s business, then why is that every media outlet in the world has elected to report on the contents to one extent or another? …unless you can name any exceptions.
    “Whistle blowing is not some foreign hacker with known ties to the Kremlin hacking into private emails.”
    One more time, proof of this assertion, please.

  • Badgerite

    Of course he does. We are not talking about “whistleblowers in general” here. We are talking about a concerted campaign by Russian intelligence to interfere in a US presidential election. What Russian intelligence did is the same as what Nixon’s Watergate ‘plumbers’ did and were prosecuted under US law for which it to violate our nations laws in order to try to find some kind of political dirt to damage the other side in a presidential election. That isn’t “whistleblowing”. And no, the public does not have a right to internal emails of presidential campaigns. Where would that ‘right’ arise from exactly. If you were running for public office, are you thereby someone who is outside the protections of the laws of our country? The answer to that is no. It would be one thing if there was anything at all in those pilfered emails that gave rise to anything but a little embarrassment at best , but there isn’t. And maybe the younger generation isn’t aware of this but to allow advisers to speak freely in a political setting and consider different scenarios, which all campaigns do, requires some sense of confidentiality. What Julian Assange is doing is not about ‘whistleblowing’.
    Whistle blowing is not some foreign hacker with known ties to the Kremlin hacking into private emails.

  • H.P. Loathecraft


  • H.P. Loathecraft

    I saw the interview. Greenwald still supports Wikileaks and whistelblowers in general, even if they have dirty socks, he’s criticized them on specifics about their policies but he’s still supportive. But the central point he made, and the reason he was there in the first place, was to defend the right and the duty of the press to report on authentic documents, regardless of the alleged source or any ostensible motivation behind the release or the timing of same.

    GG: I don’t think it matters at all. As a journalist, I think the only question that you ask yourself — once you’ve determined that the material is authentic — is what is in the public interest to know. And then you go about and report it. Many of the most important stories in the history of modern journalism have come from sources who have taken information without authorization.

  • H.P. Loathecraft

    Duh…they are published on the website first, announced on Twitter later. It’s not rocket science.

  • Phil in FLL

    When you’ve decided to become a mouthpiece and hacker for Putin’s regime, you may as well give up any pretense and just make it official. Then there is the case of Edward Snowden who had lots of useful intelligence information but no particular preference about who to give it to, incorrectly assuming that he could simply take up residence in an independent Hong Kong. Enter Julian Assange who made all the arrangements for Snowden’s emigration to Russia. Assange sure as hell had a preference about who he wanted to give Snowden’s intelligence to.

    And now we come to the strange case of you and Bill Perdue. What is it that draws the two of you to Putin’s side in any conflict, and what is it that leads the two of you to prefer a Trump victory in the presidential race (as Putin does) and a Republican victory in the congressional races? We could start be looking at your long commenting history (and Bill’s) of favoring every scenario that would obstruct civil rights progress in general and LGBT civil rights in particular (e.g., Trump’s threat to appoint a Scalia clone to the Supreme Court).

    Now, Nicho, you could point out that I just don’t have enough information to say what personal reasons you and Bill have for your years-long pro-Putin and pro-Republican jihad. Since I don’t know for sure, I admit that it’s possible that when you and Bill grew up in your respective families, you were conventionally masculine rather than being maltreated by said families for being “non-gender-conforming” (ahem) and responding to that maltreatment with Stockholm Syndrome. Yes, that’s possible in the sense that anything is possible. I just think that it’s very unlikely.

  • Merv99

    Of course, the US gov’t has ulterior motives. But, if Assange actually is guilty of rape, I don’t have a problem with a third party helping him face his accusers, even if the third party’s motivation isn’t exactly noble.

  • goulo

    Yes, I know that.

    That fact in no way implies that someone opposed to the US pressuring other countries or to the US locking up people for political reasons therefore “wants people to get away with rape”, no more than being opposed to beating confessions out of criminals means that one therefore “wants people to get away with crime”.

    And anyway, why should he be brought to the US in the first place, when the criminal charges are in SWEDEN? You don’t REALLY think the US is trying to get Assange simply to turn him over to Sweden for a rape trial? It seems rather more likely he’d be in for the Chelsea Manning kangaroo trial treatment and locked away forever in the US, doesn’t it?

    But let’s say you really believe that the US is simply magnanimously helping Sweden, and that if the US gets him, then they will simply turn him over to Sweden to stand trial for rape. Does the US work to get OTHER random people accused of rape and other crimes extradited to some other country where the charges are? I’m sure there are many people accused of rape and many other crimes in e.g. Germany and Norway and South Africa and Portugal and Mexico and well pretty much every country who have fled their countries to avoid arrest.

    Most of those people have not pissed off the US government with actions completely unrelated to their rape (or whatever) charges in those countries, and (by strange coincidence!) the US government is not actively pursuing most such fugitives…

    Do you think that the US should nonetheless track down all people fleeing internationally from criminal charges and send them all to their countries where they are charged? I suppose you do not; but then by your rhetoric, that means that you “want people to get away with rape and many other crimes”, doesn’t it?

  • nicho

    When there are people out to assassinate you, you’re better off using Russian security than Ecuadorian. Nuff said.

  • Merv99

    It’s not rhetorical. Assange is in the Ecuadorian embassy to escape prosecution in Sweden on rape charges.

  • Badgerite

    Hmmm. You know, United States intelligence services probably know more about Russian intelligence hacking methods than the general public and they pin the blame on known Russian FSB hackers. What’s more, even people who used to support Assange have now thought better of it and distanced themselves from the site. Not the least of which is Glenn Greenwald in a recent interview with CBC’s the Investigators,

  • goulo

    Yeah, sure, opposing illegal unethical treatment of political prisoners or US forcing other countries to do its bidding DEFINITELY implies wanting people to get away with rape. It’s so obvious once you point it out!

    Hmm, where have I heard THAT kind of blatantly bogus simplistic rhetorical retort before?

    I oppose police illegally beating up rape suspects and forcing confessions from them.
    Do you really want rapists to get away and walk the streets freely?

    I oppose Bush’s Iraq invasion.
    Do you really want Saddam Hussein to keep oppressing and killing his own people?

    I oppose torture of prisoners in Guantanamo.
    Do you really want to coddle terrorists and let them keep killing innocent people?

    I oppose Israeli policies against Palestinians.
    Do you really hate Jews that much, you anti-Semite?

    I oppose Palestinian violence against Israelis.
    Do you really hate Palestinians that much, you Zionist?

    I sold my car and now use public transport, walk, and bike.
    Do you really want to make Detroit’s economy suffer even more and force auto workers to lose their jobs?

    OK, OK, sorry! I’ll start using a car again!
    Do you really hate the planet so much and want us all to die of pollution and global warming?

    etc etc etc…

  • Merv99

    Do you really want people to get away with rape?

  • RepPress

    They are called #Wikileaks NOT #TwitterLeaks U don’t think they create the page before they tweet about it? RT visited the site? and as far as Newsweek’s Kurt Eichenwald, see this: and

  • Warren Peace

    I think I just explained why it Isn’t a valid question in my eyes…if you see otherwise…then answer his question, instead of acting like a moderator.

  • Orfez

    He asked a valid question and you went to preach on how US is bad.

  • Conan776

    So… RT hit “refresh” on Hurr durr.

  • Warren Peace

    What a ridiculous statement. What right does the U.S. have to tell another country who they can grant asylum? What right does the U.S. have to demand a foreign citizen be turned over to them so they can wisk him off to a secret sight and disappear him? Do you really want the U.S. to start ‘pressuring’ More countries to do as we say, or else? You should be grateful there are people out there, risking their lives to expose the crimes that our government (and wannabe president) is committing. smh

  • JCDavis

    More and more countries dislike us, thanks to Obama and his neocon policies.

  • JCDavis

    Keep em coming, RT.

  • Uncle Luie

    Assange is nothing on this without Russian help. Things are going to get nasty with Russia before all this crap is over.

  • basenjilover

    Isn’t there a way to pressure Ecuadoran government to turn Assange out of its embassy? Is Ecuador not friend of US and what does Ecuador has to gain by harboring Assange?

  • Phil in FLL

    The Ecuadoran embassy in London gave let Julian Assange choose which security detail he preferred. Assange chose the Russian secret service as the security detail to guard him at the Ecuadoran embassy. Nuff said.

© 2018 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS