Assange & Wikileaks Strike Back at Hillary

Assange will be releasing a video and another data dump on Hillary, early Tuesday morning (today) in Berlin, perhaps obtained from Russian hackers. His personal press conference in London has been canceled for security reasons, Assange himself states that the leaks are being released now in October for maximum election effect and may be enough to defeat her. This theme is consistent with what top Trump aides are saying. This may be the final October surprise that could damage Hillary's campaign, after which it will be relatively clear sailing for her, if she survives the leaks relatively unscathed. Stay tuned.

He's a piece of ish.

What has Trump promised him that will help him clear his name? What has HRC done to him to make him so vengeful? Honestly, this is something out of Marvel.

Seems to have amounted to nothing. Although he claims he'll be releasing some new information every week related to the election.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/10/04/wikileaks-assange-promises-leaks-election/91524362/

After reading USA today article, I'm even more convinced that this story line is straight out of Marvel.

Interesting the number of self-serving people who are staking all on a Trump win - Christie, Giuliani, Assange, to name three.

Yes! But what do they "win"? We can figure out Christie and Rudy, but Assange? What dog does he have in this fight?

tjohn said:

Interesting the number of self-serving people who are staking all on a Trump win - Christie, Giuliani, Assange, to name three.

Who knows. Maybe he is resigned to spending the rest of his life in the Ecuadorian embassy and is just lashing out.

kibbegirl said:

Yes! But what do they "win"? We can figure out Christie and Rudy, but Assange? What dog does he have in this fight?

tjohn said:

Interesting the number of self-serving people who are staking all on a Trump win - Christie, Giuliani, Assange, to name three.

kibbegirl said:

He's a piece of ish.

What has Trump promised him that will help him clear his name? What has HRC done to him to make him so vengeful? Honestly, this is something out of Marvel.

It's hard for me to believe anyone is waiting with baited breath to see what he's going to say.

He's a lying loser and his big moment of "glory" is long past.

Good riddance.

Well, let me dust off my tin foil hat here for a minute.

Assange is threatening to leak information which will damage Clinton's chance of winning in November. Meanwhile he or surrogates are making overtures to the Obama administration, that he'll forego releasing said information if they can influence the Swedish government to overturn the rape charge against him. Is he bluffing? Can Obama take the risk of his legacy being destroyed by having Trump succeed him? Will he betray the truth to help his political ally?

If the writers at "Homeland" run out of ideas, they can have this one.

Ok, now that Assange has released nothing significant this morning, I will take the hit for worrying about what didn't happen. It's likely it was a fake-out, although there is a slim possibility there was pressure or a deal. Regardless, before this, Assange had released not only the state department emails which seriously undermined Clinton's legacy there, but also the Democratic Party emails which brought down Debbie Schultz Wasserman and helped contribute to a serious decline in Hillary's poll numbers. That combined with a NYT Magazine article suggesting that Assange was in cahoots with Putin, suggested that there was reasonable cause for concern about his promised October surprise bombshell. Now that such concern is is apparently n the rear view mirror, I believe that Hillary is in the clear to win.

kibbegirl said:

He's a piece of ish.

Couldn't agree more. His GRU handlers didn't deliver. BTW, the hashtag #assangehole is trending nicely on Twitter this morning

Wonder how it feels to incur the wrath of government that could have you killed if it seemed important.

Personally, I don't think Assange is worth any special effort and if Assange wants to spend the rest of his lie in the Ecudorian embassy, he certainly is welcome to do so.

blueheeler said:

kibbegirl said:

He's a piece of ish.

Couldn't agree more. His GRU handlers didn't deliver. BTW, the hashtag #assangehole is trending nicely on Twitter this morning

The con was on this morning, apparently.

The announcement by WikiLeaks that it would host a major news conference Tuesday only seemed to confirm that the bombshell was ready to burst. The pro-Trump, anti-Clinton media world rippled with fevered speculation.
But if an October surprise about the Democratic nominee really is coming, it will have to wait a little longer.
Over the course of two hours Tuesday — with the world’s media and bleary-eyed Trump die-hards across the United States tuning in — Assange and other WikiLeaks officials railed against “neo-McCarthyist hysteria,” blasted the mainstream press, appealed for donations and plugged their books (“40 percent off!”).

But what they didn’t do was provide any new information about Clinton — or about anything else, really.
The much-vaunted news conference, as it turned out, was little more than an extended infomercial for WikiLeaks on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of its founding.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/10/04/trump-backers-feel-played-as-wikileaks-fails-to-come-through-on-october-surprise/?postshare=3061475583962364&tid=ss_tw

But Alex Jones said it was going to be HUGE!!!

nohero said:

The con was on this morning, apparently.

The announcement by WikiLeaks that it would host a major news conference Tuesday only seemed to confirm that the bombshell was ready to burst. The pro-Trump, anti-Clinton media world rippled with fevered speculation.
But if an October surprise about the Democratic nominee really is coming, it will have to wait a little longer.
Over the course of two hours Tuesday — with the world’s media and bleary-eyed Trump die-hards across the United States tuning in — Assange and other WikiLeaks officials railed against “neo-McCarthyist hysteria,” blasted the mainstream press, appealed for donations and plugged their books (“40 percent off!”).

But what they didn’t do was provide any new information about Clinton — or about anything else, really.
The much-vaunted news conference, as it turned out, was little more than an extended infomercial for WikiLeaks on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of its founding.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/10/04/trump-backers-feel-played-as-wikileaks-fails-to-come-through-on-october-surprise/?postshare=3061475583962364&tid=ss_tw

Remember when Trump announced there will be an important and significant press conference on Obama's birth, the birther announcement?

Instead, it was a one hour infomercial for the Trump Washington DC hotel.

He played his Trumpkins and the media then. Assange played them now.

I will consign Assange to the home for has-been weasels only after HRC is elected. Until then, who knows what may happen. I think the only thing we can say with some confidence is that HRC & Co. are aware of damaging information out there.

tjohn said:

I will consign Assange to the home for has-been weasels only after HRC is elected. Until then, who knows what may happen. I think the only thing we can say with some confidence is that HRC & Co. are aware of damaging information out there.

But he's aware she could kill him with a poison dart delivered via re purposed Roomba

tjohn said:

I will consign Assange to the home for has-been weasels only after HRC is elected. Until then, who knows what may happen. I think the only thing we can say with some confidence is that HRC & Co. are aware of damaging information out there.

Lack of evidence of wrongdoing is the most damning evidence of all, because she’s even more powerful than we feared in advancing and hiding the evil we have no evidence for.

It's genius, really.

mjh said:

tjohn said:

I will consign Assange to the home for has-been weasels only after HRC is elected. Until then, who knows what may happen. I think the only thing we can say with some confidence is that HRC & Co. are aware of damaging information out there.

Lack of evidence of wrongdoing is the most damning evidence of all, because she’s even more powerful than we feared in advancing and hiding the evil we have no evidence for.

It's genius, really.

There are published reports, somewhat vague, that Hillary suggested or inquired about a drone strike against Assange at a national security meeting in 2010. She has clearly indicated that she has wanted him prosecuted and considers him a major security threat for exposing state dept secrets. There is no love lost between them.

Jasmo said:

mjh said:

tjohn said:

I will consign Assange to the home for has-been weasels only after HRC is elected. Until then, who knows what may happen. I think the only thing we can say with some confidence is that HRC & Co. are aware of damaging information out there.

Lack of evidence of wrongdoing is the most damning evidence of all, because she’s even more powerful than we feared in advancing and hiding the evil we have no evidence for.

It's genius, really.

There are published reports, somewhat vague, that Hillary suggested or inquired about a drone strike against Assange at a national security meeting in 2010. She has clearly indicated that she has wanted him prosecuted and considers him a major security threat for exposing state dept secrets. There is no love lost between them.

Wanting him prosecuted is not "wrongdoing", even if you disagree with the idea.

The idea that Hillary Clinton is going to order a drone strike on an embassy in London is laughable.

Jasmo said:

There are published reports, somewhat vague, that Hillary suggested or inquired about a drone strike against Assange at a national security meeting in 2010. She has clearly indicated that she has wanted him prosecuted.

Well, I suppose if you really hate HRC, you could imagine a situation where she would order a drone strike in an allied nation such as Australia or Sweden or Great Britain. And you could convince yourself, I suppose, that somehow HRC would believe that killing Assange would would somehow kill the Hydra that is Wikileaks.

mjh said:

Jasmo said:

mjh said:

tjohn said:

I will consign Assange to the home for has-been weasels only after HRC is elected. Until then, who knows what may happen. I think the only thing we can say with some confidence is that HRC & Co. are aware of damaging information out there.

Lack of evidence of wrongdoing is the most damning evidence of all, because she’s even more powerful than we feared in advancing and hiding the evil we have no evidence for.

It's genius, really.

There are published reports, somewhat vague, that Hillary suggested or inquired about a drone strike against Assange at a national security meeting in 2010. She has clearly indicated that she has wanted him prosecuted and considers him a major security threat for exposing state dept secrets. There is no love lost between them.

Wanting him prosecuted is not "wrongdoing", even if you disagree with the idea.

The idea that Hillary Clinton is going to order a drone strike on an embassy in London is laughable.

As I wrote, the drone reports were from 2010, when he was still loose. I think Assange correctly thinks he would have an easier time with Trump in the White House, with his Putin connection, than Hillary.

I would be disappointed if HRC spent a single brain cycle on Assange once elected. And I expect that a Trump Administration would try to extradite Assange if possible because no governments like leakers.

tjohn said:

I would be disappointed if HRC spent a single brain cycle on Assange once elected. And I expect that a Trump Administration would try to expedite Assange if possible because no governments like leakers.

Looks like she has to worry more about her husband than Assange.

BCC said:

tjohn said:

I would be disappointed if HRC spent a single brain cycle on Assange once elected. And I expect that a Trump Administration would try to expedite Assange if possible because no governments like leakers.

Looks like she has to worry more about her husband than Assange.

Yes. His comments about Obamacare were not exactly measured.

tjohn said:

BCC said:

tjohn said:

I would be disappointed if HRC spent a single brain cycle on Assange once elected. And I expect that a Trump Administration would try to expedite Assange if possible because no governments like leakers.

Looks like she has to worry more about her husband than Assange.

Yes. His comments about Obamacare were not exactly measured.

I always considered him one of the best political minds of the 20th century. I have to wonder if this simply his age showing, or if it is some political gambit.

BCC said:

tjohn said:

BCC said:

tjohn said:

I would be disappointed if HRC spent a single brain cycle on Assange once elected. And I expect that a Trump Administration would try to expedite Assange if possible because no governments like leakers.

Looks like she has to worry more about her husband than Assange.

Yes. His comments about Obamacare were not exactly measured.

I always considered him one of the best political minds of the 20th century. I have to wonder if this simply his age showing, or if it is some political gambit.

He has made a few mistakes like this over the last few months. I think he is becoming a curmudgeon.

tjohn said:

BCC said:

tjohn said:

I would be disappointed if HRC spent a single brain cycle on Assange once elected. And I expect that a Trump Administration would try to expedite Assange if possible because no governments like leakers.

Looks like she has to worry more about her husband than Assange.

Yes. His comments about Obamacare were not exactly measured.

I did not know what you were talking about so I Googled and got this:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/bill-clinton-attempts-clarify-scathing-obamacare-comments-n659411

I found nothing wrong with what he said about the ACA. It wasn't perfect. It had both great benefits and certain flaws.

"Look, the Affordable Health Care Act did a world of good, and the fifty-something efforts to repeal it that the Republicans have ... were a terrible mistake," Clinton said at an event in Athens, OH. "We for the first time in our history at least are providing insurance to more than 90% of our people."

"The current system works fine if you're eligible for Medicaid, if you're a lower income working person. If you're already on Medicare or if you get enough subsidies on a modest income that you can afford your healthcare," he said in Flint, Mich. while speaking at a campaign rally on behalf of his wife.

Clinton continued: "But the people that are getting killed in this deal is small business people and individuals who make just a little too much to get any of these subsidies ... So you've got this crazy system where all of a sudden 25 million more people have healthcare and then the people are out there busting it sometimes 60 hours a week wind up with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half."

He went on to call for Americans to be able to buy into Medicare or Medicaid — effectively what Hillary Clinton's proposed in her own health care reform plan, which includes a promise to "pursue efforts to give Americans in every state in the country the choice of a public-option insurance plan, and to expand Medicare."

LOST said:

tjohn said:

BCC said:

tjohn said:

I would be disappointed if HRC spent a single brain cycle on Assange once elected. And I expect that a Trump Administration would try to expedite Assange if possible because no governments like leakers.

Looks like she has to worry more about her husband than Assange.

Yes. His comments about Obamacare were not exactly measured.

I did not know what you were talking about so I Googled and got this:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/bill-clinton-attempts-clarify-scathing-obamacare-comments-n659411


I found nothing wrong with what he said about the ACA. It wasn't perfect. It had both great benefits and certain flaws.

"Look, the Affordable Health Care Act did a world of good, and the fifty-something efforts to repeal it that the Republicans have ... were a terrible mistake," Clinton said at an event in Athens, OH. "We for the first time in our history at least are providing insurance to more than 90% of our people."

"The current system works fine if you're eligible for Medicaid, if you're a lower income working person. If you're already on Medicare or if you get enough subsidies on a modest income that you can afford your healthcare," he said in Flint, Mich. while speaking at a campaign rally on behalf of his wife.


Clinton continued: "But the people that are getting killed in this deal is small business people and individuals who make just a little too much to get any of these subsidies ... So you've got this crazy system where all of a sudden 25 million more people have healthcare and then the people are out there busting it sometimes 60 hours a week wind up with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half."

He went on to call for Americans to be able to buy into Medicare or Medicaid — effectively what Hillary Clinton's proposed in her own health care reform plan, which includes a promise to "pursue efforts to give Americans in every state in the country the choice of a public-option insurance plan, and to expand Medicare."

Guilty, I am, of not reading the full context. That being said, smart politicians need to be mindful that we live in a soundbite world. Of course, if they adjust, they are accused of being rehearsed and cautious.

Assange is a threat to the gov't and should be treated as one. He has the ability to hack into systems to find personal data and information that the public shouldn't know and doesn't have the right to know. If this info was released through the Freedom of Information Act, that's one thing. To sneak in and steal and dump it on the public it is quite another. And is it legal for anyone to benefit from stolen information?

I try to be fair minded, and I my belief is that no matter HRC or Trump, Assange should not release any information on either that was illegally gained.

Assange has no respect for international, domestic or computer crime laws. He's an (alleged) rapist and if true, this act alone should prove what type of a person he is to his core.