Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday October 04 2016, @04:41PM   Printer-friendly
from the she-was-joking,-right? dept.

Some people were wondering (well, I was at least), why Julian Assange seems to take such an active role in the USA presidency election (by publishing delicate emails at a sensitive point in time). While both candidates are somewhat controversial, the current leaks seem to be quite focused on the democrats candidate, Hillary Clinton. A tweet sent from wikileaks twitter-account, referencing this story on truepundit, might shed some light on these animosities between Hillary Clinton and Julian Assange: Allegedly, Clinton suggested in 2010 to kill Assange with a drone:

"Can't we just drone this guy?" Clinton openly inquired, offering a simple remedy to silence Assange and smother Wikileaks via a planned military drone strike, according to State Department sources. The statement drew laughter from the room which quickly died off when the Secretary kept talking in a terse manner, sources said. Clinton said Assange, after all, was a relatively soft target, "walking around" freely and thumbing his nose without any fear of reprisals from the United States.

This might heat up expectations and speculations regarding the announced upcoming leaks. Another interesting question might be, how neutral will the Ecuadorian government stay in this struggle. Afterall, Julian Assange does rely on their hospitality at the moment. Will they stay out of it? Or might they have some vested interest to make sure the future US-president is from the democrats? Or would they actually be interested to see Trump being elected?

takyon: WikiLeaks' Assange signals release of documents before U.S. election

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said on Tuesday the group would publish about one million documents related to the U.S. election and three governments in coming weeks, but denied the release was aimed at damaging Hillary Clinton. Assange, speaking via a video link, said the documents would be released before the end of the year, starting with an initial batch in the coming week. Assange, 45, who remains at the Ecuadoran embassy in London where he sought refuge in 2012 to avoid possible extradition to Sweden, said the election material was "significant" and would come out before the Nov. 8 U.S. presidential election.

[...] "The material that WikiLeaks is going to publish before the end of the year is of ... a very significant moment in different directions, affecting three powerful organizations in three different states as well as ... the U.S election process," he said via a video link at an event marking the group's 10th anniversary. He said the material would focus on war, weapons, oil, mass surveillance, the technology giant Google and the U.S. election, but declined to give any details. "There has been a misquoting of me and Wikileaks publications ... (suggesting) we intend to harm Hillary Clinton or I intend to harm Hillary Clinton or that I don't like Hillary Clinton. All those are false," he said.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @06:56PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @06:56PM (#410203)

    > He is about uncovering people hiding things that hurt others.

    Nice theory. Not the reality.
    Wikileaks promoted a bunch of utterly mundane emails, [techdirt.com] mundane except for the fact that the info put regular people at risk.

    > He has stated he does have stuff from the GOP. He says it is the stuff we already know about him.

    And he knows that every single little detail is something already known? Who is he to say if some scrap of minutiae won't lead an intrepid reporter to the story of a lifetime?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @07:47PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @07:47PM (#410250)

    And he knows that every single little detail is something already known? Who is he to say if some scrap of minutiae won't lead an intrepid reporter to the story of a lifetime?
    Fair enough. But let me ask who would you consider more corrupt the GOP or the DNC? They are both corrupt but which one would you think has more 'dirt'? Not which one you want to see but which one does the most damage to the system.

    Nice theory. Not the reality.
    So did Clintons leaks of emails. The thing is these dudes are doing shady stuff in OUR name. Yet we are not allowed to see it. With nothing more than a 'trust me'.

    It is sad when wikileaks has more credibility than the mainstream media. Do you not consider that a problem too?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @07:55PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @07:55PM (#410264)

      > But let me ask who would you consider more corrupt the GOP or the DNC?

      Neither.
      But if you ask me who is more corrupt, Trump or Clinton? Trump by a million miles. He's everything guys like Rush and Hannity have been accusing democratic politicians of for years and then turned up to 11. He's living a parody of their parodies.

      >> Nice theory. Not the reality.
      > So did Clintons leaks of emails. The thing is these dudes are doing shady stuff in OUR name. Yet we are not allowed to see it. With nothing more than a 'trust me'.

      Sorry, that doesn't follow from what you quoted, unless your just riffing on the sentence without any context. Clinton is the only who hasn't had a leak which is ironic given all the hype about her server. Which, I guess, is another disappointment for me because I keep running into people who can put together a coherent sentence but can't put together a cogent point.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2016, @02:05AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2016, @02:05AM (#410459)

        Which, I guess, is another disappointment for me because I keep running into people who can put together a coherent sentence but can't put together a cogent point.

        The Clinton leaks are *ON* the wikileaks site. All from her servers and the DNC. http://bfy.tw/824w [bfy.tw]
        You can find some very banal stuff in there as well as some fun stuff like pay for play (their words).

        Or if you are more interested in the technical stuff (pay to play, etc). https://www.dropbox.com/sh/73hr3bxg2pvalb4/AAAbdv62_Pe08Fx2O9t0hWr5a?dl=0 [dropbox.com]

        My point is she is doing this crap in OUR name with nothing more than a 'trust me'. Then it is being shown she is fairly corrupt.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:58PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:58PM (#410390)

      It is sad when wikileaks has more credibility than the mainstream media.

      No, it's sad that you think this is the case. Assange selectively releases what he wants to release to tell the story he wants to tell. He's been very up front about that, and he admits he dribbles info out to keep it in the news. And dopes like you think that is credible. And look how he's trying to time his releases. Just before the DNC convention, and just before the election. And dipshits like you are too busy with your lips on his ass that you listen to him say things like "I'm not trying to harm Clinton" and you eat it all up.

      Fucking pathetic.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2016, @01:59AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2016, @01:59AM (#410453)

        Yes he does selectively release. *THAT* is why it is _sad_ he is being more trustworthy. When it is 100% clear what he is doing.

        The news media sold out years ago. They did it to sell you things on the top and bottom of the hour. Take for example CNN the other day with Trump and his birther statement. He did *exactly* what they have been doing to us for 30+ years. Pundit on and on about something else then at the end some one line statement.

        Most 'news' is little more than thinly veiled talk shows and gotcha pieces. With 10-15 mins of commercials in there.

        "I'm not trying to harm Clinton"
        It is clear you are not listening to him at all. He has said he is trying to harm her. He literally thinks she is trying to throw him in jail or kill him. True or not it is what he thinks. He is acting upon that.

        And dipshits like you are too busy...
        Ah the simple 'they are stupid and not worthy of my time' argument. Anything else you would like to contribute, or anything else you would like to imagine is going through my head?