SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by tangomargarine on Tuesday October 04 2016, @07:57PM
(Score: 1, Informative)
This is literally the opposite of informative. The AC is telling us to stop looking for evidence.
Guess we'll just take your word for it, then. I'm sure you're a totally impartial Anonymous Coward.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @08:53PM
This is literally the opposite of informative. The AC is telling us to stop looking for evidence.
Evidence? That word does not mean what you think it means.
Unsubstantiated accusations from anonymous sources without a shred of evidence as to their veracity is not Evidence. It is noise, and should be dismissed as such.
As another pointed out, it was debunked 24 hours ago and doesn't even pass the laugh test.
There are morons about, but they aren't the ones pointing out the absurdity of this. They are the ones engaging in these ridiculous false equivalencies, false dichotomies, and equating anonymous, baseless accusations to evidence.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday October 05 2016, @01:36PM
Evidence? That word does not mean what you think it means.
I didn't say there *was* evidence in this case, just that we shouldn't ostrich and decide there's nothing to look for because an Anonymous Coward told us so.
doesn't even pass the laugh test.
Highly subjective.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"