Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Assange: Wikileaks Will Publish 'Enough Evidence' To Indict Hillary Clinton (rt.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the coming-soon-to-a-theater-near-you dept.

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.

10 of 742 comments (clear)

  1. Link to Location for Reading by SenatorPerry · · Score: 5, Informative

    Link to location for Publication

    Might want to use TOR or your favorite hiding software.

  2. It's amazing she still has defenders by LichtSpektren · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  3. Re:Sources of Support by Forgefather · · Score: 5, Informative

    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"
  4. So wrong... by T.E.D. · · Score: 5, Informative

    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:

    1. Not only is not illegal for civilian leaders to override the advice of the Pentagon, that's how its supposed to work. The military works for us, not visa-versa.
    2. ISIS is not taking over Libya. They have one town, that is currently under siege. Reports are they are slowly losing it.
    3. Being (debatably) wrong on foreign policy is not a crime. If it was, most of the Bush Administration would be in jail today. Carter probably would have just gotten out of jail 10 years ago on good behavior.
  5. Re:He wants Trump? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Democratic national convention hasn't happened yet. She's just the presumptive nominee.

  6. Re:Indict? by jeff4747 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    and even then, you'd pretty much have to get a smoking gun in this day and age, like catching her emailing her staffers with direct instructions to violate the law. Good luck finding anything like that.

    Already did. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/st...

    Clinton responds, "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."

  7. Snopes says not true... by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 5, Informative

    Snopes says not true, to at least most of those: FALSE: Clinton Body Count.

  8. Re:Indict? by funwithBSD · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  9. Operating her mail server was not permitted. by zerofoo · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  10. Truth or Fiction web site says not true. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 5, Informative

    The web site Truth or Fiction says not true.