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.
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.
Showing glee at the downfall of that corrupt, lying, incompetent woman doesn't make one a Trump or Sanders supporter.
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.
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."
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..."
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."