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.

2 of 742 comments (clear)

  1. Re: He wants Trump? by Rei · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The rank and file did not simply "not approve that", they explicitly voted against it. Assange and his representative controlled two seats of the council. His proposal got three votes for it (aka, only one other person), five opposed, and three obstained - it failed (this was the only of the 13 party meetings that Assange had actually bothered calling into). Yet somehow, not long after the vote, they ended up discovering that they were actually set up to preference with Australia First despite the vote. Assange blamed it on an "administrative error", and implied that it was the party's council's fault. The council fought and eventually got Assange to concede to allow an investigation into the issue of what happened. Only, they then subsequently discovered that he was only going to allow the investigation after the election and that he himself would personally run it. Eventually it emerged that Assange himself had ordered it. Four of the 11 council members resigned immediately. Four more council members joined in with a strong condemnation. There were mass waves of resignation from the party at lower levels. There was actually a statement posted on the Wikileaks party website apologizing for the subversion of democracy, encouraging people not to vote for them in NSW and to vote for Scott Ludlam instead.

    This sort of stuff is really par for the course with the guy.

    --
    Monkeywrench Ex Machina.
  2. Re:Sources of Support by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You are a melodramatic fantasist.

    The problem is, everything IS as dire as you portray - but it's not a Manichean fairytale of "high level conspirators against 'Western Civilization"."

    This IS the natural fruit of your so-called "civilization". A cursory understanding of history of the "Western" world - from Phoenicia and Greece through Rome, all the Renaissance and "enlightenment" to today - all of it is hardly different from what is portrayed on "Game of Thrones". I can say that without hyperbole.

    The idea of "Western Civilization" is just another chauvinism - another mythology by which you are crudely manipulated as a tool of those same forces you imagine to be in "betrayal".

    No man in earth understands ANYTHING, until he has insightful awareness that EVERYTHING he knows is WRONG.

    Then his eyes may see clearly. He has no solution, but surely understands the nature of things.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."