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.
The proof is in the pudding, princess. and my spoon is clean.
Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld overrode the Pentagon's concerns about the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. We were repeatedly told the war would be over very quickly, a matter of weeks, and that the Iraqis would pay for the reconstruction of their country through oil revenues. We were also told we would be welcomed with open arms by the entire Iraqi community.
Cheney continues to say he knows where the wmds are yet refuses to reveal their locations. Perhaps he should be waterboarded, since it's not torture, to reveal that information.
Still waiting on their indictments.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Even if 100% true making a choice to override military commanders is not an indictable offense (even if wrong in the end). Hell that's actually the exact reason why we have civilians in charge (to override commanders for non military reasons). If that statement is correctly attributed to him that's a shame on him. It is just a stupid statement.
What's even crazier is what he suggests will happen. He wants to give the FBI leverage over what is probably the next president, and he thinks that's a GOOD thing? Just what does he think they're going to do with that? In what world does he think they're not going to use that to make damn sure she doesn't do anything to rein in their abuses?
Hey, while we're at it, why not give the CIA information they can blackmail her on, too, so they can force her to authorize torture again. Give it to the NSA, too, so they can make her mandate sticking espionage chips in every orifice for everyone at birth.
So...he's holding onto them so that she gets into office, and the expects that the congress (which will not change hands) will not impeach (house) and convict (senate) with the actual emails/facts on the table? But he's announcing them now rather than a surprise reveal on January 2x? And why does he not think that Trump will win the White House, and what will his course of action be if he does? I don't get his motives here, except as some play for himself in some twisted logic game?
On the subject of the actual indictment...
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."
Wait...so it's now illegal for the SoS to influence international policy (not illegal, afaik)? Or is it just that she was (presumably) wrong in pushing to remove Gaddafi because of the power vacuum it created (stupid, perhaps, but not illegal)? Or is it that emails on her server reveal the discussions about past operations within the government (again, unless classified, not illegal)?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Things aren't that black and white anymore. Our government has been usurped, and as such been infiltrated at the highest levels by people who wish to see America and all of Western Civilization as we know it taken down to the ground. This includes many high-level Democrats and Republicans. A majority of Trump and Sanders supporters see their candidate's success as the only way to have even a long shot at an outsider restoring the Republic back to some semblance of normalcy, of true justice and being a nation of laws. It's not anti-American glee when the system you're rooting against has become obviously and vehemently anti-American.
But it's OK, keep rooting for the occupied establishment if that's the side of history you want to be on. At this point the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Something has to be done to stop the spread of ISIS and other terrorist groups from advancing further on Western Civilization, with which they are wholly incompatible. That won't be happening with any establishment candidate, as they are they ones encouraging more of the same. If you want about 10 more Orlandos, each bigger than the last, keep trying to spread your propaganda that being against Clinton is being for the KGB. I hope you can sleep at night afterwards.
Even if she personally drove each drone and murdered a bunch of people, I'd still vote for her over Trump.
An eery similarity to the 1932 Reichstag elections. People knew that Adolf Hitler was a violent demagogue (from his Hitler-Ludendorff-Putsch in 1923), but they absolutely refused to vote for the alternatives because they thought they had done something worse.
The FBI already have the leverage. This is more about the rest of us knowing about said leverage as it is being applied.
It does have the chance to alter the election odds, possibly enough to force the Democratic party to replace her at the convention.
Actually, I think he's saying that the FBI already has leverage if Hillary is the next President. It's not like the FBI doesn't already have the information he's threatening to release to the public (where do you think the leaks came from?). What he's threatening is to show the public that the FBI has (and, presumably is using) some leverage they have over the Pres.
Mind you, he's wrong about that. If Hillary is elected, she can pardon herself quite legally, and there is ZERO chance of the Senate impeaching her. Hell, the Senate wouldn't impeach her if she visited the Senate to make a speech carrying Bill's severed head....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I think this is less to do with the data and more do with Assange (TM) the self-professed iconoclast. WikiLeaks is/has become a political and politicised organisation, which it shouldn't be.
If he wanted Trump for certain he would have waited a couple of months. Doing this now gives the Democrats a chance to switch horses.
"[Assange] doesn't think it will happen under Attorney General Loretta Lynch. "
Obama will not do anything to damage Hillary's chances of winning the election but there will be a limit to how much of a corrupt jackass Obama is willing to make himself look like to help here out. We already know, based on evidence released publicly, that Hillary is guilty and a crazy liar, so if Obama's justice department does not indict he goes down in history as the U.S. President more corrupt than Nixon.
A prediction: Obama has Lynch slow-walk the decision to indict until after Hillary is elected in November 2016, they they indict her. After Hillary takes office in January 2017, she pardons herself.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Showing glee at the downfall of that corrupt, lying, incompetent woman doesn't make one a Trump or Sanders supporter.
Even if she personally drove each drone and murdered a bunch of people, I'd still vote for her over Trump.
This year is the perfect example of why we need to get rid of "first past the post" voting. It's too bad it couldn't happen because the two major parties have themselves "locked in" and control the system.
Both of the major parties are on track to nominate candidates who are hated by more Americans than they are liked. This has never happened in the history of modern polling.
Under a different and more fair voting system that is determined to select a winner that would be considered qualified by a majority of Americans, this election so far would be very likely to lead to a 3rd-party president.
The regular population doesn't realize she is a crook. To the unwashed masses anything about their candidate is propaganda by the competing party to make them look bad, it "isn't a thing".
People want to be lied to.
When discussing politics and democracy and how they can be perverted through providing the electorate with a terrible choice, their comment was precisely apt. Invoking Godwin's law here makes no sense.
No he used a public email address for personal mail and the official email server for government business. There were two emails forwarded to his private email that were retroactively made classified. This is in the IG report under a Democrat and is a far different situation then having all emails on a private server which can be wiped (not with a rag) to avoid FOIA requests and criminal investigations.
Of course you know this. Your post is one of the official talking points that the Clinton campaign pays to have posted on websites.
True, the power to negotiate treaties belongs to the Executive and the power to ratify a treaty belongs to the Senate.
Of course, the Senate is free to proclaim its intention to not ratify a treaty based on the information at hand. Plus, there's the whole notion that Obama knew damn well that the Senate would not ratify any such "treaty". So he just proclaimed that he was not negotiating a treaty, but instead working on a "non-binding agreement with some plans for enforcement" in a shallow attempt to bypass the ratification power of the Senate. It would seem to me that if he says he was not negotiating a treaty, then claiming the power to negotiate a treaty is moot.
As CNN put it at the time:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/12/...
If it looks like a treaty, walks like a treaty and talks like a treaty, is it a treaty?
According to the White House, only if the President of the United States says it is.
That's infuriating Republicans and even some Democrats, who are demanding that the Obama administration submit any final nuclear deal with Iran to Congress for approval.
"This is clearly a treaty," Arizona Sen. John McCain told reporters Tuesday. "They can call it a banana, but it's a treaty."
The GOP position could jeopardize the long-term survival of any Iran deal, and it represents the party's newest clash with President Barack Obama over the limits of executive authority, as Republicans object to a pact they warn could eventually give Tehran a nuclear bomb.
It's that skepticism that has largely led the White House to define the deal as a "nonbinding agreement" rather than a "treaty," which the Constitution requires Senate "advice and consent" on.
The distinction -- and whether it can legitimately be used to shut out Congress -- turns on complicated and unresolved questions of constitutional law. While Republicans call foul, the administration defends the differentiation as perfectly sound, and no surprise.
Secretary of State John Kerry stressed Wednesday that the administration never intended to negotiate a treaty.
"We've been clear from the beginning. We're not negotiating a 'legally binding plan.' We're negotiating a plan that will have in it a capacity for enforcement," he said at a Senate hearing.
That doesn't sit well with Republicans, many of whom believe the Senate's constitutional role is being bypassed.
Idaho Sen. James Risch dismissed the administration's argument: "Let there be no mistake, this is a treaty that is being negotiated. It's a treaty and should be treated as such."
E-mails are just text files, and can be easily forged. Anyone who's ever gotten a spam message from themselves should realize this.
Collecting forensics evidence from a hard drive so that it's admissible in courts is not the same as just dumping files. Last I knew, you have to preserve the data in the original format, and provide access to the defense.
Unless these E-mails are signed by a private key known to be Clinton's, I don't really see how they're going to be admissible.
Evidence has a lot to do with it, and as yet, nobody has any evidence that she did anything illegal. None.
Wait, are you more upset about the assassinations or the fact that they were ordered through an insecure email server?
In any case, people still back her because the alternative is Trump. Things like drone murders and email are no big deal for most people, especial since Obama did the former and was reelected.
It's become less if a popularity contest and more of a lesser-of-two-evils contest, and Clinton is winning it.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
It hasn't. However, changing that and nominating someone else requires deliberately overriding the popular will of the voters. It's the same for the Republicans, many of whom are privately cringing at the prospect of Trump. The fact that they _could_ do it doesn't mean that the price is far too high, because overriding the will of those voters is going to cause a MASSIVE rift in whichever party that does so, and possibly even fatally weaken their legitimacy in the eyes of their supporters. They're not going to run that risk unless there's a clear and massive demand for it from those voters to begin with. For the Democrats to dump Hillary now would require one of three things - her suddenly dropping dead of a massive heart attack (or similar), announcing her outright withdrawal from the race, or some kind of black swan event, like if she shot a bunch of kindergartners with an AR-15 on national TV while laughing gleefully.
You don't understand the law.
Send information that is required by law to be on secure communications and you have committed a crime.
Markings, intent, not classified at the time... all of that is immaterial.
If you do it, even "accidentally", you are usually in deep shit.
But not Hillary. Wonder why....
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
First Woman President? Big deal. First pre-indicted President.
Not like she hasn't already built a throne of children's skulls, and a platform of war crimes, on from which to rule.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Groups of violent islamists surely existed regardless of brand.
Amazing that she has defenders? Why do you think a woman can't be President?
checkmate. ;)
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I agree 100% AC. My question to the American "patriots" is what happens when the ideal America you are patriotic about, is not the America you live in? When do you recognize that the name itself does not warrant patriotism, but rather the ideals for which it actively works?
Notice I didn't say the ideals it claims to stand for, because saying you are for freedom and democracy is very different from actually allowing people to be free and have a functioning system of democracy. It seems to me (as a non-American) that America has been slipping further and further away from what the patriots claim America represents.
You don't live in the post-war 50's with an American dream available to all. You live in a country where the dictators all follow their name with a trademark symbol, and aren't breaking laws because they get to buy them from your "democratically elected" government. I use quotations because it seems odd to have a system where you are stuck with 1 of 2 possiblities, both of whom seem to be picked by the parties themselves more than voting, based on super-PAC funding and donations from the corporations.
So again I ask: What are you patriotic towards, the America of today, or the ideal of America?
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
From your link: "Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate"
I can't think of a more appropriate comparison since the 1930s.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
Except that you are wrong. Obama didn't withdraw troops just because he felt like it. He withdrew them because he was required too by law since the agreement Bush entered us into had a hard end date.
People seem to think we can just ignore the law when its not convenient.
Except it wasn't illegal at the time.
Sending and storing classified material insecurely has been illegal for a very long time. It was definitely illegal during her term a Secretary of State. Knowing that the material is classified is on the onus of the sender/possessor, and as SoS she is legally expected to know what is classified. While she can technically tap dance around Department of State material classification since as SoS theoretically she gets to set the rules (though within limits, some I have listed below, and my guess is she violated those), she doesn't get to change other department's/agency's material. Leaving off the markings doesn't change that she was insecurely sending and storing classified material that by law has handling requirements that she was violating. As jeff4747 said, she is acting like the material is being retroactively classified which is isn't; it is being retroactively marked. It was classified at the time and by not marking it then, she is now claiming ignorance. If she was that ignorant of the rules she was placed in the position to enforce, then she had no right being the Secretary of State. Telling a staffer in an email to strip off classification markings and send a classified document by insecure means just demonstrates how she thought the law didn't apply to her.
She had no 'intent' to harm the interests of the United States.
Knowingly violating the laws designed to provide protection of information "which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security" just for her own convenience, and so she can skirt FOIA issues, is legally considered a form of "intent", i.e. gross negligence. Think of a guy at the NSA taking top secret documents home at night to work on them. He doesn't intend to cause harm, but he can still go to jail.
Do you have some statute that you're not selectively reading?
I think 46 CFR 503, EO13526, 32 CFR 2001, 18 USC 798, DoDD 5200 et al, etc., don't need to be selectively read. They make the duties of people dealing with classified info very clear - and the mishandling very illegal.
Or are you just listening to the other misogynists?
Ahhh, invoking an ad hominem attack, and a bad one at that. So you label anyone who speaks against her as a misogynist? In your world it's not possible for a person to disagree with her based on the merit of the facts? Just to be clear, you are the one who has brought her gender into the discussion.
But they're all dead nonetheless. Curiosity must not be strong here.
What is the point of curiosity if it lacks the intelligence to discern correlation from causation?
Which is only an issue if you live in a swing state where there's any uncertainty in the election. If you live in, say, California, it doesn't matter how you vote, the Democratic candidate is getting all your state's electors no matter what. So given that, what do you have to lose voting third party, if you actually prefer a third party? Nothing. What you have to gain, on the other hand, is the major parties looking at how their votes stack up compared to previous years and, if they lost some, who gained those votes instead; and if, say, the Democrats lose a (insignificant in the election but notable to their analysts) chunk of votes to the Greens, they will start adopting Green policies to court those Green voters.
If you live in a non-swing state, not voting for a third party is throwing your vote away, because you neither change the outcome of the election (which you weren't going to do anyway) nor do you influence policy at all, you just confirm for the major parties that they're on the right track as they are.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Yep, that's the point. This is what those preferring to vote for the 'lesser of two evils', instead of the 'good, but unelectable' always miss: you can't push the party closest to your preferences closer to your preferences by voting for someone that's moving the party away from your preferences, even if the opposition is worse. You must be willing to lose in the short term to gain in the long term, or you'll just keep repeatedly losing in the short term while complaining that your vote doesn't matter.
I have a friend who believes in a lot of conspiracy theories that don't have much evidence, like chemtrails for example. He'll try to convince me that they're true and he thinks it's funny when I continue to insist that there is no evidence and get angry or frustrated about his unsubstantive claims. Maybe 4 or 5 years ago he had a new one, that the NSA was recording every phone call in the US. I was telling him how much access they would need to do that, at every phone company, how much storage space they would need to save all of that data, even if it was just text and not even audio, all of the reasons why that shouldn't be possible and, if it was, someone would know something and would tell everyone.
yeah...
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Obama ignores laws he finds inconvenient _every day_.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Just to complicate things, not only is it up to the person writing a document to ensure the information is properly marked -- a process that is bound to be error prone, I believe that the Sec of State is one of the very numerous people who can legally change the classification of a piece of information. Not only is "I didn't think THAT was classified" often a legitimate defense, "I didn't think that SHOULD be classified" may well be a legitimate defense for the SecofState.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
What theory? that corporations fund election campaigns? That there are lobbiers sponsored by companies, whose entire job is to convince politicians. That senators get high paying executive jobs after they leave.
Companies don't do it out of the kindness of there heart they do it because it gets them political influence, which makes them money.
These aren't even secret. There are conspiracy theories that are probably nonsense, like the moon landing but this is not one of them.
The theory people with money will use it to seek power, in not a conspiracy theory it is human nature.
All you'll do is fragment the Democratic vote.
That's the entire point. If the democrats see that a 3rd party stole 30% of their vote and they lost because of it, they'll learn their lesson and run a better candidate next time (or implode completely and the 3rd party will take their spot). Same goes for the republicans if Johnson gets a significant fraction of the vote. Plus a Trump or Clinton presidency is hardly going to be world ending. Our system is designed to deal with bad presidents, we have the legislative and judicial branches to stop them if they try to do anything truly terrible.