Slashdot Mirror
Assange: Wikileaks Will Publish 'Enough Evidence' To Indict Hillary Clinton (rt.com)
An anonymous reader writes from a report via RT: Julian Assange says Wikileaks will have "a very big year" as it will publish enough new information about Hillary Clinton to indict her. In an ITV interview about the Democratic presidential candidate, Assange said, "We have emails relating to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication." As it stands, about 32,000 emails from Clinton's private server have been leaked by Wikileaks. Assange has yet to comment on how many new emails will be released or when they will be published. While he thinks there will be enough to indict Clinton, he doesn't think it will happen under Attorney General Loretta Lynch. He does think "the FBI can push for concessions from the new Clinton government in exchange for its lack of indictment." Specifically, Assange revealed the leaked emails show that she overrode the Pentagon's reluctance to overthrow sovereign Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, and that "they predicted the post-war outcome would be what it is, which is ISIS taking over the country." Clinton's email controversy came to light in 2013 after a hacker named Guccifer breached her personal server.
Link to location for Publication
Might want to use TOR or your favorite hiding software.
Clinton authorized drone strikes (i.e. assassinations) via email from her phone, which went through her personal server. Peoples were literally being marked for death through her insecure email server. That alone should be enough to put her in a federal prison, but now Assange is telling us that there's more to be learned? Let all mortal flesh keep silence.
Are you surprised? This is, after all, a guy who overrode the democratic vote of the Wikileaks party in Australia to preference with the fascist Australia First party over the Greens, describes himself as a "big admirer" of Rand Paul, opposes abortion, and supports both Putin and Assad. Who do you think he'd support in this election in the US?
Monkeywrench Ex Machina.
Exactly. If you have evidence, fucking release it already! It's as if everybody (the FBI, and now Wikileaks) wants to wait until after the Democrat national convention just to fuck over Sanders (and the progressive movement).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Negotiating treaties is the sole purview of the executive branch. The constitution gives the Senate the right to RATIFY a treaty with a 2/3rds vote but not the power to negotiate them.
"There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics"
Specifically, Assange revealed the leaked emails show that she overrode the Pentagon's reluctance to overthrow sovereign Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, and that "they predicted the post-war outcome would be what it is, which is ISIS taking over the country."
Points here:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Democratic national convention hasn't happened yet. She's just the presumptive nominee.
Actually, it was illegal at the time.
First, the Clinton campaign tried to excuse the server by conflating retroactively marking documents classified with retroactively classifying documents. Problem is markings are not what makes a document classified.
Currently, the Clinton campaign is trying to push an argument that she lacked intent, and thus can not be indicted. The problem is the relevant statute does not require intent. She can be indicted based on either 1) intent or 2) gross negligence. And the email saying "we got hacked, so we turned the server off for a minute" demonstrates gross negligence pretty well.
Already did. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/st...
Snopes says not true, to at least most of those: FALSE: Clinton Body Count.
Ah, the old Nixon defense:
In the context of American national security, Nixon replied: "Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
The state department has said that her mail server was never authorized and would not have been permitted had she asked:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/25/...
She disregarded the Freedom of Information Act by keeping her official State Department communications on her server and therefore unavailable for retrieval and archiving as per FOIA.
That's illegal - she broke the law simply by operating her own server.
Security and the hacking of her server is irrelevant. Clinton stripping classified headers off of documents is irrelevant. Those charges, if proven, will simply add to her punishment (if there is any at all).
In a just world, she would have already been convicted in a court of law. What we know she did, by her own admission, should be enough for criminal prosecution and should disqualify her from the presidency.
Actually, she hasn't. Neither Hillary or Bernie have enough pledged delegates at this point to win the nomination. By design and rule, superdelegates are UNPLEDGED up to the point they cast their ballot. Bernie and his supporters are working on switching them, and apparently a few have actually switched. Neither candidate has this wrapped up - it's going to wait until the convention and the final tally of superdelegates is actually made.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The web site Truth or Fiction says not true.
The number of people who have been murdered or committed suicide that were going to testify or being investigated in regards to a Clinton related investigation is astounding! 89 deaths, 59 in 12 Plane Crashes, 13 Murders , 10 Suicides, 4 Friendly Fire during the Waco Assault and 03 Accidents.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
It's much, much more complicated than that. Just as one little wrinkle -- as Secretary of State (an official part of the executive branch), Hillary had the power to classify information or to de-classify already classified information IF the classification originated with her office. So, if she sent something that was classified by the Secretary of State office (which would be many things dealing with foreign intelligence), she could actually de-classify it, transmit it, then re-classify it later on a whim.
It's very, very hard to know what was and was not classified at the time she sent or received information and whether or not she had the power to de-classify anything that might have been sent or stored improperly.
The reason she's special is that she's a cabinet member, not some junior officer out at an army base. She has plenary power granted by the presidency to classify and un-classify documents herself that originate with her office. It absolutely DOES matter whether or not something was classified at the time it was sent or received, and if it is classified, it matters which department classified it.
As an aside, many things are "classified" just so certain people can get all of their e-mail through their classified-only e-mail account b/c they're too lazy to check 2 separate e-mails. I'm sure somewhere, there's a classified document on what pizza toppings a general wants at their upcoming office birthday party... b/c laziness.... not national security.
Hillary used the private e-mail server to intentionally control what information was available by the FOIA and federal records act, and she may be criminally indicted for improperly sending/receiving/storing classified info (though I doubt it.) The relevant laws do actually require knowledge and intent, not just the action... so, unless the DOJ gets Hillary's former underlings to roll on her (and assuming they aren't immediately reported to have suspiciously committed suicide), it's going to be a very difficult case to build against her.