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.
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.
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"
Showing glee at the downfall of that corrupt, lying, incompetent woman doesn't make one a Trump or Sanders supporter.
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:
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.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Democratic national convention hasn't happened yet. She's just the presumptive nominee.
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."
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.
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...
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..."
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..."
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.
The web site Truth or Fiction says not true.