Wikileaks and the DNC

Earlier this summer Wikileaks released a cache of internal emails from the Democratic National Committee. "Unnamed experts" trace this event back to Russian hackers. But who are these hackers? What proof exists? And, most importantly, who hacked democracy?

Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

They don't want you to read our book.: https://static.macmillan.com/static/fib/stuff-you-should-read/

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History is
riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
learn the stuff they don't want you to know. Welcome
back to the show. My name is Matt, my name

(00:22):
is Noel. Oh gosh, guys, yeah, it's me. Uh. Ladies
and gentlemen, Matt and Noel, and even those of you
and the listening audience who are perhaps not gentlefolk. Even
even the rough and the rapscallions. This is stuff they

(00:44):
don't want you to know. This is an episode where
we're doing something we don't always do, by which I
mean we are talking about and events that is going
on currently, not an historical thing, um, not a hypothetical thing.

(01:04):
We're talking about something topical, which means that we need
to put out some disclaimers. So uh, maybe we could
all we could all say disclaimer together three times to
make sure that it's it's palpable for people. I think
we should just do an oath. Should put our hands
in and do an oath? What just say the thing? Alright, Okay,

(01:27):
very well, So this is going to be an episode
that touches on wiki leaks, that touches on politics in
this episode, we are providing facts and objective information, which
means that if there are partisans on one side of
the political divide or the other, they may not like

(01:50):
the facts. However, facts like numbers do not have opinions,
they have no affiliation, they have very little affiliation and
also apps. Even more importantly, some of the information that
we were exploring today may change as more stuff comes
to light or is available. So, like many of you,

(02:11):
we've spent the last two weeks browsing through the internet
watching live feeds about the conventions that are occurring in
the United States. Maybe you don't live here, maybe you
aren't watching, or maybe you don't live here and you
are watching because you're interested in what the most powerful
UH country in the world. In quotes, they're doing quotation fingers.

(02:32):
You'll just you don't just give you a visual aid. Well, yeah,
it's it is interesting to see where it's going, right,
And you may have seen some stuff in the news,
especially about an organization called wiki leaks. Right, So, as
we're recording this UH, this podcast should be coming to
you on the twenty nine of July, and at this point,

(02:56):
the US presidential election seems set on a contest between
two people would be the campaign of Donald Trump and
the campaign of Hillary Clinton. In the course of this
campaign season, UH, several strange things emerged. Both of these
figures have had controversies, to say the least in the past, right.

(03:20):
And one of the things that's different about this election,
about recent elections around the world end here in the US,
is the emergence of online whistle blowing. And it's the
old question we've asked before. Are there more skeletons in
closets now or is it just easier to open the closet.
There's more light to be shined in theirs. There may

(03:44):
be bigger closets to Yeah, then maybe walkins. If you
were listening to this show, of course you have heard
of wiki leaks. But if somehow you have not, here
is a brief recap. Wiki Leaks is a nonprofit organization
that's dedicated to publishing anonymous news leaks, including you know,
correspondence between governments or government departments, uh, stuff from banks,

(04:07):
corporate memos. Uh. This was first instituted in two thousand
six in Iceland at least that's when the website came
out via an organization known as Sunshine press. By two
thousand and seven, Wiki leaks claimed to have amassed millions,
well one point two million different documents. Most people associate

(04:28):
Wiki leaks with a guy named Julian Assange. Julian Assange
is an Australian national, but for the past few years
he's been trapped in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Four years. Yeah,
because of allegations of sexual misconduct. Yes, because of allegations
of sexual missconduct, and those allegations came in Sweden. But

(04:51):
he is adamant that if he leaves the embassy and
goes to Sweden, he will be extradited to the United States.
And we're talking physics. Lee walks out the front door,
right and uh, London has spent a lot of money
watching that front door and probably the side doors and
the back doors in the basements. So he is one

(05:12):
of the only people that are publicly known to be
a member of wiki leaks. He is the founder, editor
in chief, and director. But there are some other names there,
Sarah Harrison, Joseph Farrell, and Christina Craft's son. Yes, and
there there are several I mean, no one knows exactly
how many people are in wiki leaks or you know,

(05:34):
would call themselves members of wiki leaks who are doing
the operations, right. I mean, let's face it, wiki leaker
is a weird thing to call oneself for sure, But
the things that they do require lots of hands, lots
of eyes, right, yeah, massive amounts of information and they're legit.
They've done things in the past that, whether or not
you agree with their methods, have turned out to be true.

(05:55):
And they've always protected their sources, which makes them a
good ace for people that are wanting to do a
large scale whistleblowing to you know, funnel their information through
them so they can stay out of the picture because
they have always done a very good job of maintaining
the anonymity of their sources. Right. If you want to
learn the inner secrets of scientology, you have Wiki leaks

(06:18):
to think. They're the reason you can find that stuff
online right now, all the way up through the O
T s and they also released UM They also released
the British National Party membership. They also released Afghan war logs.
They also UH released Sarah Palin's email account info. Now

(06:42):
it's important here to say that Wiki leaks themselves are
not the people going into these um going into these databases.
They're receiving the information and they're dispersing it. They're distributing
it like the way like a movie studio might distribute
a movie that they didn't make their like a fence. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

(07:03):
The the one the wiki leak that I remember the
most were the collateral murder videos. Do you guys remember
those in two thousand ten? I remember that one, and
I remember the massive amount of diplomatic papers and dociers
and they released them, and the one that made the
biggest splash early on that I can remember, right. And

(07:24):
so wiki leaks surfaced in the mainstream news again quite recently,
and they surfaced because they released leaked emails that confirmed
some things that uh, the Bernie Sanders campaign had been arguing,
and not just the Sanders campaign, but other voices in

(07:46):
the room and the digital echo chamber of modern media.
So what did they say? On Friday, July twenty two,
WikiLeaks released twenty thousand internal Democratic National Committee emails. These
ranged from January t fifteen to May and this was
three days prior to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia

(08:07):
this year. That this week, and again, as they have
done very well in the past, they refused to reveal
the source of leaked email. But um, in June, a
hack are using the name goose offer or as I
like to say, goocy fur because you know, like Gucci
Maine two point out claimed responsibility for the hacking into
the DNC's computer network, and then on Sunday July, the

(08:31):
Hillary Clinton campaign manager claimed that the emails were leaked
by quote Russians for the purposes of helping Donald Trump
end quote. So that's interesting because the content of the
emails will explore the idea of the source of these
uh later in the show. But the content of these

(08:51):
emails and didn't make the d n C look particularly good.
They did not at this point show any outright illegal behavior. No,
it showed a couple of things like, uh, well, we're
going to talk about a lot of things. But it
showed preferential treatment to people who donated a whole lot

(09:13):
of money, and a very clear bias against the Sanders campaign,
which you know they alleged all along. Right before the
Iowa caucuses, there was a data breach into the d
n c s networks that exposed some I guess you
could call it proprietary candidate information as far as you know,
different donors and information like that for the Sanders camp

(09:34):
versus the Clinton camp and the Debbie Wasserman Schultz and
the Democratic National Committee basically penalized the Bernie Sanders campaign
because it came from one of their employees. And then
Sanders direct threatened to soothe the DNC because they were
withholding this proprietary information almost as retribution for this breach,

(09:56):
which I think is kind of interesting and a a little
bit ironic considering what has happened now. But he alleged
that they were giving Clinton preferential treatment, and now with
the leaking of these twenty thousand emails, that can be
made much more palpable when you kind of really dig
into it. Sure, and we we have some examples of
stuff from this from this email chain. Here's a good quote.

(10:19):
It might make no difference, but for Kentucky and West Virginia,
can we get someone to ask his belief this is
referring to Senator Sandors, Well, it's thought that it's referring
to senator senators fair enough, they don't actually use his thing.
Does he believe in a god? He had skated on
saying he has a Jewish heritage I think I read
he is an atheist. This could make several points difference

(10:42):
with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps love the use
of the word peeps here. Uh, would draw a big
difference between a Jew and an atheist. This is from
Brad Marshall, the DNC chief financial officer. And then we
have Mark Postenbach, national Press Secretary, who says it would
do mean if he's a good burning nevery did for
a story, which is it burning? Never if it is

(11:04):
it together it and it is campaign he's a mess.
Uh that's uh not the way Mark probably sounds. I
just wanted to do that voice. I was gonna say
if he got the job of National Press secretary with
that voice, that guy is he's a smooth talker. Maybe
so they show that, you know. Also, as as we

(11:24):
said earlier, that the big donors were given special treatment,
which to me is not a surprise because that happens
in most situations in US politics. It's one of those
things that you don't really want people to think about
too much, at least people who are donating, you know,
like you listening or us speaking here, who can only

(11:45):
give a certain amount of money. Uh, you won't be
able to sit down in a rumor maybe sitting next
to Barack Obama during some event. Now this is where
it gets uh, this is where it gets interesting because
shortly after this, on July two, the chairwoman of the
d n C resigned. This is Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who

(12:07):
was working with Clinton the Clinton, the former Clinton campaign
run for president, Yeah, for president two thousand and eight,
and as a representative from Florida and for people who
were fans of Bernie Sanders. This seemed to be a
conflict of interest that this person holding office at the

(12:27):
d n C when you know previously they had supported
a specific democraticign So this can all sound a little
bit dry, a little bit policy wonky um inside baseball,
but uh, it is important because if this information is true,

(12:48):
while it does not at this point indicate an illegal act,
it does indicate a disingenuous approach. Right, a difference between
what was publicly stated by this organization what was privately
acted upon, and the other side of the political aisle
is of course having a field day with this. You

(13:10):
can check out you can check out numerous statements by
the other presidential front runner, the big one, right, tweetswe right, Yeah,
you can see numerous tweets from Donald Trump's campaign regarding this.
So this has given some fire to the supporters of

(13:31):
the Bernie Sander, the former Bernie Sanders campaign. Uh. And
there was audible descent. You know, people were booing the
crowd of people were cheering to out way the booze
and the crowd was fighting with itself. And uh, it
seems like many of these people who were supporting Sanders

(13:54):
are deciding which are shouting shame, shame, shame, like that
scene in Game of Thrones. Really yeah, and so this
of course does not look like very unified approach. And
then on the other side of the political aisle, for
different reasons. Uh, there's a lot of dissent in the
Conservative conventions, right and the question about wiki leaks. So

(14:19):
the reason this is not over yet, well, this is
a current event is because Julian Ossange when remark when
talking about this, Uh, Julian Assange also said that his
next leaks will ensure the arrest of Hillary Clinton. And

(14:41):
you know, that's that's a bit of a frightening idea
of that the one of the top people to become
president could be arrested for doing wrong things. It feels
like a movie. And how much of that is just
hyperbole perhaps? How much of that is is wiki leaks
marketing itself? And where did these come from? That's the

(15:02):
big question. But first a word from our sponsor. H
Here's where it gets crazy. During an interview with CNN

(15:24):
on July, Robbie Mooch, Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, cited some
unnamed experts, which is Simpson noise. Yeah, we've heard, We'll
get to it. Uh. These unnamed experts believe that quote
the Russians are to blame for these d n C

(15:46):
email leaks, and we have a quote from him, Noel,
would you be so kind just a little just f
yy there. So this is this is conversation on This
is someone this is not printed from a book or
a journalist. Is a guy kind of stammering a little bit,
someone trying to do that justice. What's disturbing to us
is that we experts are telling us that Russian state

(16:07):
actors broke into the d n C stole these emails,
and other experts are now telling us that they are
the Russians are releasing these emails for the purposes of
actually helping Donald Trump. I don't think it's coincidental that
these emails were released on the eve of our convention here.
We also saw last week at the Republican Convention that
Trump and his allies made changes to the Republican platform

(16:28):
to make it more pro Russian boom. So it's it's
interesting there, right when we when we explore this statement
on the Russian side, the Russian government responded as well.
On Thursday, Kremlin spokesperson named Dmitri basic Goal said accusations
of a Russian hand and hacking democratic emails bordered on

(16:52):
total stupidity. How do you say that in Russian? I
feel like it's just gonna be one word. I feel
like it comes up and we're motivated by what he
said was an anti Russian sentiment. Yeah, his quick quote is,
as regards these emails, batches, Uh, that is not our headache.
We never poke our noses into others affairs, and we

(17:15):
really don't like it when people try to poke their
noses into hours ben. So, I mean, is this Russian
notion just coming from this guy? Muck? Was muck from yeah,
from the campaign manager. That's an interesting question because as
as you all heard, uh, I can't allow an unnamed
expert to pass because in the US, places like the

(17:39):
Washington Post or New York Times or other publications of
note will often use that or will publish something like
that or acclaim like that that comes from an anonymous source.
And what this allows people to do is release. And
I'm just saying kind of thing with responsibility or culpability

(18:03):
or accountability, right, So it's it's a thing that happens
often when let's say a member of the military or
the government needs something out there but added arms removed
so they can say and didn't actually say that. So then,
for instance, a Pentagon spokesperson would say something off the record,
and you'll hear unnamed official with the Pentagon says blah

(18:24):
blah blah. And this kind of technique is invidious and
it's dangerous, and it occurs so often. If you haven't
noticed it before, now you will notice it over and
over and over again, especially in mainstream news. Back when
I used to work for public radio, we were never

(18:45):
allowed to use unnamed sources period. But I think what
ends up happening is when the topic is so hush
hush and under wraps, I think it just it can
shed a little bit of light on an area that
otherwise would be completely murky, and to use that as
a caveat. And you know that is being truthful if

(19:08):
you're putting it out there and saying, hey, this is
not confirmed. But it's the equivalent of saying, hey, somebody said,
I heard what Trump said all the time. You know,
it's like, people say this thing, but it does kind
of stink, because if you're an effective journalist, you have
sources that are embedded in places that have close ties
or maybe our experts, but they just don't want their

(19:29):
name out there associated with this, right. Well, hell man,
it's the same as what's going on with the wiki
leaks in the first place, you know. I mean that's
maintaining the anymity of a source and it doesn't make
the source material any less valid if it can be
confirmed and people respond to it. So yeah, if if
we were talking about rather than a statement from an

(19:49):
unnamed expert, and we were looking at a document, let's
say that was showing that it came somehow from a
Russian source, then it would be different. Well what okay
for It's just a totally different example. Um for antagonizing
Iran or something like that, then there would be a
statement that's like an unnamed source in the Pentagon said

(20:10):
that Iran is pushing, is playing a brinksmanship game that
it will lose, and particularly noted the continuing war exercises
at the Strait of hormones or something, and that's clearly
a threat from a government to another government. But now
it's and I'm just saying, and I think you make
an excellent point and all regarding the the sort of

(20:32):
double sided acts here, the double edged blade, because we
cannot praise one place and and a blanket scale for
its anonymity while vilifying another side for essentially doing the
same thing. But um, I want to point out this
story that broke in New York Times on the twenty

(20:54):
five July. He said, proving the source of a cyber
attack is a new obviously difficult, which is true. And
then they say, but researchers have concluded that the National
Committee was breached by two Russian intelligence agencies, which were
the same attackers behind previous Russian cyber operations at the
White House, uh the State Department, and the Joint Chief

(21:16):
of Staff last year. They also say that metadata from
the hacked emails suggests they have through Russian computers, and
even though a hacker claimed responsibility for giving these to
wiki leaks, uh the same agencies. Those Russian intelligence agencies
are the prime suspects. There's actually a Times article from
the very next day um that just as American intelligence
does quote, American intelligence agencies have told the White House

(21:38):
they now have high confidence that Russian government was behind
the theft of emails and documents from the d n C,
according to federal officials who have been briefed on the evidence.
What is interesting though, is that they attributed to quote
fairly routine cyber espionage, which the US takes part in
as well. I mean, we're always poking our nose around

(21:59):
other you know, other countries business, trying to just test
the waters and make sure no one's up to any
kind of terrorist activities. You know, it's interesting. The biggest
thing for me is proving that that is in fact
the IP address where things came from, or if there
are markers inside somewhere that were left that you could

(22:19):
prove that this happened. Because because anyone who is sufficiently
sophisticated enough within to do one of these attacks, you
have the ability to cover up your tracks, at least
to a large extent. And you have to wonder too
if the intent was in fact to manipulate an election,
because what's coming out now is that they're a suspicion

(22:42):
that Trump isn't releasing his tax returns because it will
show business dealings with Russian oligarchs, and therein lies a
you know, motivation perhaps for him to perhaps you know,
be in collusion with the Russian government to help manipulate

(23:03):
and swing things in his favor. Sure, there's also the
possibility that this was done as a routine thing and
that some individual decided to leak it to Wiki leaks.
I think that's a good point because we have to
remember that it's that it's often just an individual who
becomes a whistledoer. But there's a bubble that occurs right

(23:26):
in media and right now it is UH. Right now.
There are questions that are not being asked that should
be asked, such as if, like, how much do we
actually know as a nation about the UH cyber the
militarized cyber side of the Russian government. We we know

(23:47):
a little bit about the the Chinese government's relationship with hackers,
but the Russian intelligence agencies and their cyber attack arms
are are relative black holes in the West. And usually
when a country is hacking another country, they're looking for
security stuff, They're looking for federal level things. Is it

(24:11):
a little self important to think that an entire country
would care to that level? And if they were, they
were capable of doing that, then why didn't they do more?
Why would it be such a weird little thing about
they said something sort of sleazy about someone's religion of

(24:33):
of all things to hack. Yeah, I was I was
trying to imagine taking that route if it was, if
it was truly state actors, of going through wiki leaks
to have it come out, if from a strategic standpoint, right,
to to show to maybe hide the fact that it
is you right, uh, that it is the state releasing it. Oh,

(24:53):
I see what you're saying. Well, the also the military
intelligence there, their resources are stretched, they don't have all
the time and manpower. So this also, I don't know this,
This doesn't quite add up because I don't think there's
any solid proof, there's high confidence. Right in the New

(25:15):
York Times, what did our buddy Snowden have to say
about it. You know, I'm glad you as he weighed in,
and he he did say that if if a leak
occurred or a hack occurred from the Russian side, from
a state actor, then the n s A would know
about it, would certainly know about it. And also, let's
not forget that Russia popping up in the news like

(25:35):
this is a convenient reminder to Uncle Sam that Edward
Snowdon got away and is living well, not the high life,
but he's living a life outside of a jail in Russia.
And so he also has had some recent conflicts with
Julian Assange because you know, Wiki Leaks just wants to
release everything on a searchual database, whereas Snowdon says there

(26:00):
should be some sort of curation. Right, it's right, like
if we're gonna be harming people's lives, are endangering people
by releasing it, and that occurred to be here too.
I mean, this does seem like a pretty targeted release,
you know, to bring negative attention to the Democratic Party

(26:20):
in a time where many would argue that you know,
the alternative could be disastrous, shall we say? So? It
makes me wonder like do do a songe and his
folks just kind of want to watch the world burn.
And also, you know, the stuff they don't want you
to know here is the source of the leak. It
reminds me of the Sony hacks uh few years back

(26:43):
when when these rampant, increasingly odd accusations came forward and
they you know, people were saying North Korean government hacked
Sony because they didn't like that movie, because because that
was that was on the priority the high on the
priorities of an entire country was a Seth Rogan movie.

(27:06):
So there's a another theory here, which Matt you found.
And as if this isn't enough to think about and
moll over, there are other theories that are coming out
of the woodwork on our conspiracy Oh my gosh, if
you aren't on there, go over to the subreddit or
conspiracy and just look at that thing. It's all kinds

(27:28):
of different ideas about what's going on and why. One
of them that I found is from Richard Manzo who
was writing for regated dot com and nol you said
you actually found this as well. Yeah, I saw a
meme um that just kind of like was you know,
a sort of an informational one that was trying to
connect some dots here, and it just you know, all

(27:50):
you can do is look at this at its at
its face value. I don't know that there have been
any specifics that have been released from this leak that
lends any credence to this, but it sure is interesting
that Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the um ousted um d NC chair,
was Hillary Clinton's campaign share when she was running against

(28:10):
Barack Obama exactly, and at the time the chair of
the d n C was Tim Caine, well in two
thousand nine, correct, correct, But if you're gonna do a
little back room delons and say, hey, how can I
install this person who is loyal to me as the

(28:33):
chair of the Democratic National commit Committee, the body that
will or will not help me get nominated for the presidency,
I'm gonna need the person that's in that job to
step down and recommend my pick. And that's exactly what
happened with with Tim Caine. But in order to do that,

(28:53):
you kind of got to promise Kane something, don't you
What might that be? Maybe my VP pick? I don't know.
I thought it's not gonna I thought it was gonna
be some concert tickets. Yeah, Steely Dan or something. And
you know, as as you noted, no, there's absolutely no
evidence to support this besides the circumstantial stuff of what's happening.

(29:15):
But it is, you know, it does seem like you
would make a good storyline for a house of cards, right,
And I mean, you know, I again, we're not trying
to get into opinions here, but we know that there
are those that distrust Hillary Clinton to a degree because
she has a sort of interesting relationship with the truth,

(29:39):
shall we say, and that she has changed stories several
times in very high profile ways. I'm not saying that
she is not truthful, but there have been examples multiple
times of her telling different versions of stories and quote
misremembering things. Sure, and and she comes from just a
massive political dynasty or how it was. The president, she

(30:01):
was probably one of the most activist first ladies that
we've seen, you know, and has held high level positions
in the governments ever since. But it's not as if,
you know, I'm not going to engage in what about
is um or arguing and defensive any anyone actually in
this race. But we see that on both sides, this

(30:25):
sort of twisting narrative. And I can completely see this
being a revenge leak from a domestic source, you know,
because again it's it's just it's strange, and it's a
it's a neat explanation to say that there's a Russian implication,

(30:46):
But how do we know, like you said, no, that
it wasn't an individual how do we right? Right at
this point, a lot of what you are going to
hear regarding this will be largely speculation tarted up to
look like fact. And unfortunately that's that's the world in

(31:07):
which we live. But Julian Assange's statement also makes me,
also makes me wonder are we going to encounter uh
more releases here? It gives it, It brings us to
a bigger issue. All right, So if Russia is implicated,
what's going to happen is that eventually there will be
some sort of proof that will emerge, right, And what's

(31:31):
going to happen with Snowdon and Assange is that they're
still going to stay in limbo for a while unless
they get some kind of pardon from whomever becomes president next,
which is you know, honestly probably not going to happen
regardless of who gets elected. But the much much bigger
issue here and I think it's one that's explored by

(31:53):
think tanks pretty often. I think it's one that's explored
by policymakers, but not as often as it should be
in the average news is what kind of what kind
of world? What kind of electoral processes are we going
to encounter when a non governmental uh, nonprofit, private organization

(32:19):
can affect something so powerful a single anonymous individual could
topple an institution. You know, if the right person with
the access to the right stuff decides that they want to,
as you said, no watch the world burn, then they
can just release like nuclear codes. Well and in the

(32:43):
same way that technology has closed the gap in terms
of creators. For example, you know, now anyone can be
a filmmaker. Anyone can you know, has the wherewithal to
get a computer with garage band could make an album
on the same token, anyone with access to this information,
whether they work within a company, within a government organization.

(33:04):
It is easier now than it ever has been to
affect real change, be it positive or negative. And and
we're increasingly seeing distrust of the media that used the
days of the trustworthy anchor with the patriarchal fireside voice
just telling you what is what, and who is who

(33:27):
and so and so those days are gone. People don't
believe in that kind of thing anymore. And you know,
should we have in the beginning, And what we're seeing
now is just these various competing, conflicting narratives and overall
it is it is hopefully a good thing because it
allows equalizer. Yeah, it allows people ourselves included too, to

(33:53):
see both sides of an argument. Despite the Internet filter
and search bubble, which is real. We've talked about that
in the past, how your past searches will indicate your
opinion about something, and how Google or another search engine
will cater to that opinion. And the same thing, of
course happens with your Instagram, your face. Because you see

(34:13):
that Facebook admitted to filtering out d n C leak, yes,
and they didn't say why they did it. They also
they also were showing preferential treatment to or killing um
conservative perspective things. And you know, I think I think

(34:36):
Facebook is one of the most garbage forums on earth
to have a serious conversation about religion, money, love, or politics.
You know, like I said, it's a great aggregator different sources.
I love it for that. That is where I get
my news. I don't. I mean, I just in terms
of I've subscribed to different pages, and you know, I'm
mainly it's meme pages. That's where I live right now,

(34:59):
in the world of me because the real world's kind
of ugly. Um. But yeah, God, don't ever try to
get into a back and forth God forbid with one
of your friends with an extreme opposing viewpoint as you.
It is danger danger, Will Robinson, it's bad times. Don't
do it where we are with this though, Man, this
is obviously a continuing story. This is obviously something we're

(35:21):
gonna keep saying. With these leaks, you always have a
massive volume and so it takes time to dig through
and find the tasty bits. Who obviously found a few.
But what's next, Well, that's a great question, and it's
something that we would like your help answering. Ladies and gentlemen.
We can save Julian Osange is telling the truth. Then

(35:42):
there will be other leaks to follow as we record this. Uh,
some voicemails were recently released which they were still sorting through.
They were a part of the leaks, It's just they
were kind of hidden throughout it. And there was a
user on Reddit. They went through in a transcription which
was really nice, so you can or at least a
basic transcription so you can see what they are about

(36:05):
having to filter through them. And it's easy to get
lost in the wash of information because now it's no
longer a needle in a haystack situation. The truth was
hidden in the fifties by being suppressed. Now the truth
is hidden by being part of a glut of the
let's forget about the crowdsourcing, yeah side of this, you know,

(36:26):
released this massive dump, and there are enough people with
enough time on their hands that if you work together,
you know, independently, but yet as kind of a swarm
of people, you're gonna dig through and find the stuff
much quicker, you know. Yes, And speaking of crowd sourcing,
we're we're going to put a pause on this for
now and wait for more information to develop. We would

(36:49):
like to hear from you. Is there something to this
Russian allegation? Does wiki leaks have damaging political information? This
is a who done it? And pretty soon it may
be a who to thunk it, And sadly, often with
these cases, maybe it will be gone in a week

(37:10):
and we won't hear about it again save for this
strange episode of this podcast. But before we go today,
speaking of our amazing listeners, I think it's time for
shut out corners. Yes, that's right, ladies and gentlemen. Our
shout out corner. Our first shout out comes to us

(37:34):
via Christopher H. Christopher H. Says, Hey, guys, love the show.
It keeps me full of facts during my long hours
driving at work. Recently read a book titled The Truth
about Dishonesty and found it absolutely fascinating. It explains and
questions the idea of cheating and how it is universal.
Several of the experiments made me question the nature of mankind,
but I know and see how the world works a

(37:57):
bit clearer. I also believe Netflix has released of video
version explaining the experiments within. I thought it would be
a good idea to do a podcast on cheating and
believing in our own lies, as it ties in nicely
with issues at the heart of banking, politics and sports.
Hope this finds you well. Uh shout out from Rainey
Scotland into the love of my life, Zoe, who has

(38:18):
to listen to all the stories you guys tell on
a second hand basis. Thanks so much, for writing Christopher.
The second shout out for today goes to Amy Gonzalez. Hello, fellas,
I'm a loyal podcast listener and would love a birthday
shout out for this coming podcast. Happy birthday, Happy birthday,
and shout out to your man Jr. Because in a

(38:38):
previous email you asked for a shout out to him
as well, and I don't think we got to that.
One also said I'd love to thank Noel for the
il Boa voice. I have to say, Amy, this brightened
my day and and justified that stupid voice that Ben
makes me to um that we came up with, whilst um,

(38:59):
you know, having a little cocktail of the night after
works so um, that's great voice, Amy, Amy, what do
you have? Had a kind of hot and uh make
God to be with you. Who's next? The final shout

(39:20):
out goes to Jonathan V. Jonathan says he found us
listening to Josh and Chuck. Well that's cool, apparently they
shouted us out. He has concerns about Pokemon Go. As
we kind of mentioned, there are a lot of concerns
about the game. Only concern I have is when I'm
gonna get a dang bulbazore. What what level are you
right now? Seven? Man, I'm I'm way behind. Everyone else

(39:43):
in the office is like twenty something getting a break,
while I am currently level zero. I haven't started yet. Diana,
my wife, tells me I need to Uh, he says,
to do with metadata, picking out individuals and selling unique data. Um,
it might be possible, but not so cost effective to monetize. However,

(40:04):
when you fit a demographic and you need a Squirtle,
how how much value is there to a particular store
or location in having a squirtle when they know that
within Pokemon Go, you need one that's interesting. So the
idea of strategically placed Pokemon to get people into brick
and mortar stores, Yeah, that's a very good point. He says.

(40:26):
He's listening in exile in Germany, and thank you, and
that concludes. But wait, you might be saying, what about
my email? What about my tweet one that I want
to send you guys to let you and uh my
fellow listeners know about something going on in my neck
of the global woods. We would love to hear from you,

(40:48):
and we're pretty easy to find nowadays. We're not an
anonymous wicked leak source. We are on Facebook and Twitter,
where we are conspiracy Stuff. We are on Instagram, where
we are conspiracy Stuff Show. If you liked this podcast
or this information, check out our earlier podcast on wiki leaks.
You can find it along with every single other audio
podcast we've ever done on our website Stuff they Don't

(41:10):
want you to Know, dot Com. And if none of
that is really scratching it behind the ears, it's not
getting that that itch, then you can write to us
directly at our email address, conspiracy at how stuff works
dot com