WikiLeaks' Big Tuesday Announcement Will Now Take Place Via Video (thehill.com)

Long-time Slashdot reader SonicSpike writes that media outlets including Fox News were reporting WikiLeaks cancelled a big announcement scheduled for Tuesday and expected to reveal damaging information about Hillary Clinton. But they were all citing a tweet from NBC as their source. "Due to security concerns at the Ecuadorian Embassy, Julian Assange's balcony announcement on Tues has been cancelled," tweeted NBC producer Jesse Rodriguez -- which was apparently taken to mean the announcement had been cancelled altogether.

But six hours ago, citing WikiLeaks, that same producer reported that Assange "will appear via video link" at a Tuesday press conference in Berlin marking the 10th anniversary of WikiLeaks. While it's possible this "appearance" will be different than the originally scheduled "announcement," it also seems very possible that the NBC producer's tweets were just misunderstood.

Comments

Why is this here?

[Anonymous Coward]

This post has no content whatsoever. Maybe if Assange actually reveals something new it might be worth an article, but this seems an article that should have been rejected as content free.

Re:Why is this here?

[Zontar The Mindless]

"HIllary's husband cheated on her, so I'm voting for Trump"?

Oh yes, THAT makes PERFECT sense. *eyeroll*

Re: Why is this here?

[Anonymous Coward]

She victim shamed a rape accuser, thats different.

Re:Why is this here?

[Rei]

What has Robby Mook said about Assange?

I assume you actually mean Bob Beckel. Not only is he not Clinton's campaign manager, Snopes can't find any evidence that he's ever even worked as a Clinton strategist in any capacity. Maybe if you dig hard enough you might find some sort of "three degrees of separation" thing to damn her with, though, so you should probably get started.

Re: Why is this here?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's exactly what I think when I hear CNN. The Clinton News Network.

Re:Why is this here?

[William Baric]

I'm Canadian. Apart from Canadian and US media, I also regularly read news from Le Monde and Le Figaro, Al Jazeera, Russia Today and China Daily. My conclusion? All media are doing an enormous amount of propaganda. You may prefer left-wing propaganda over right-wing propaganda, you may prefer pro-establishment propaganda over anti-establishment propaganda, but it is propaganda nonetheless.

Re: Why is this here?

[TheRaven64]

Both are biased, but only one has gone to court to argue that they are not required to tell the truth (and won) in things that they present as news.

Re:Why is this here?

[Dan East]

Regarding Snopes, I now only trust them for debunking trivial, stupid internet meme type things, and not at all when it comes to politics (or much of anything serious for that matter). They are extremely biased in favor of Clinton and "debunk" things without any actual proof or showing contradictory evidence whatsoever. It is totally meaningless that Snopes can't happen to find evidence portraying Clinton negatively.

Re:Why is this here?

[JoshuaZ]

If Snopes and other fact checkers are repeatedly saying things you disagree with and don't like, you may want to consider that the problem is on your end. Rather than bash Snopes maybe you can supply what you think is relevant evidence. Do you either have any evidence that Robby Mook said anything of the sort, or have any evidence that Bock Becket worked for Hillary's campaign?

Re:Why is this here?

[ScentCone]

"HIllary's husband cheated on her, so I'm voting for Trump"?

Oh yes, THAT makes PERFECT sense. *eyeroll*

It's not about his sleaziness, per se. It's about her full-throated support of it, even when he was violating sexual harassment laws and allegedly raping. Her willingness to use your tax dollars to pay her staff to go after the women her husband was abusing and to publicly smear their reputations ... THAT is what's on the table here. Her remarkable hypocrisy, and the direct, repeated evidence that her entire pandering stance on "women's issues" is nothing but phony theater and another sign of her willingness to lie, over and over again on topics huge and trivial, in her quest for power and the circumstances to further enable her family to rake in millions while at the public trough. Her dismissal (and much worse) of multiple women's very consistent reporting of Bill's behavior and abuse is a key indicator of her sociopathy. THAT is why it impacts people's thoughts about voting for her.

Re: Why is this here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, fact checkers never lie, never have an agenda, and never get paid for their charitable volunteer work.

Fuck off, shill.

Breaking News: Julian Assange Commits Suicide

[alternative_right]

Shot himself 13 times in the back. Hillary Clinton unvailable for comment and does not recall anyway.

Re:Security Concerns

[Lisandro]

Hey, it's on the internet. It must be true.

Damaging information?

[Anonymous Coward]

How can there possibly be any more damaging information than Hillary Clinton has already put on display herself!

Not sure what else there is to reveal

[ErichTheRed]

We already have the email issue, the Clinton Foundation issue, the fact that the DNC intentionally torpedoed her rival in the primary, etc. I can't see anything else left to reveal that would be any more damaging at this point.

My feeling on both sides is that people should be grown up enough to realize that all politicians aren't "normal people." They have immense power, immense wealth, and are masters at manipulating people to get things they need done. The only reason we didn't hear about their inner circle of dealings in the past is because we didn't used to have every news agency in the country camped out on their doorsteps 24/7 listening to them breathe, or idiotic staffers who can't seem to get their heads around secure email and computer networks. I think we're actually lucky in the US in terms of the level of corruption in our political system..many more countries have it much worse.

Seriously, anyone who voluntarily goes out seeking political office is not normal, plain and simple. You can't expect them to act like regular people. Corporate executives fall into this category too -- most executives live on another planet compared to us in terms of their daily walk through life. You're just not going to get a regular person as a politician or an executive. Trying to hold them to standards like that just breeds disappointment and discontent.

Re:Not sure what else there is to reveal

[Anonymous Coward]

The law doesn't matter if you're rich and powerful? We're supposed to hand over the presidency to a corrupt, irresponsible, greedy career politician who's working hard behind the scenes to dick over regular plebs like us all because Trump called someone fat 20 years ago (or whatever the trumped-up (lol) scandal of the moment is)?

People haven't been accepting this state of affairs for the last 3000 years because they were "grown up enough" to accept it, it was because the powerful had sufficient control over the world to more effectively keep the truth from the public. Thanks to technology this is no longer the case.

Maybe Trump's an asshole, but I'll take an asshole over someone who's actively working against me.

Re:Not sure what else there is to reveal

[ScentCone]

The "email issue" continues to be a nothing to see. At worst they show a slight lack of misjudgements over technical issues.

Sure, other than the part where she deliberately chose to avoid federal record keeping laws, deleted federal records while under subpoena, and handled highly sensitive data (WAY more than merely "classified") with a recklessness that can and HAS put people in prison many times, even just this year. Lack of judgement? Her poor judgement was in her foolishly thinking she wouldn't get caught. But she did correctly judge that the same administration that has prosecuted other people for FAR less severe violations would protect her from the same consequences. Which is exactly what they've done, repeatedly.

The Clinton Foundation is a highly respected charity

Yes, highly respected by the people who give it money in order to buy influence with the Clintons. Highly respected by the family and friends of the Clintons who get fat paychecks, consulting contracts, and perks from the foundation as it spends well over 90% of the money it rakes in on paychecks for those favored employees and on things like travel perks and "administrative" expenses. Less than 6% of the huge pile of cash they take in from foreign dictators and civil rights abusers goes towards any sort of charity activity in any form. But since you're a fan of hers, and are clearly willing to overlook her serial lies and parade of corruption, I can see why you'd consider that arrangement to be "highly respectable." Sure, of course.

The DNC's behavior in the primaries was seriously bad, and I'm disgusted Clinton rewarded DWS with a job in her campaign, but frankly it's the DNC, not Clinton or her campaign.

Your attempt to draw a distinction between these two entities is so cute. Darling.

But thus far, what's been thrown at Clinton has been stupid, seen only as "damaging" if you hate Clinton so much you'd latch onto a spelling mistake as evidence she's unfit for government.

No. What she's thrown at herself is so damaging that if she didn't have the active protection of the Obama administration she would be, like other people who have done far, far less, already indicted and likely convicted of multiple federal felonies.

Hopefully

[dohzer]

Hopefully they don't reveal Trump's tax return, because that will make Hillary look like an idiot for paying tax. Genius
Genius Trump Trump Genius. Winning.
#Genius. #Winning. #Gyna.

Re:Hopefully

[ScentCone]

Actually, check out Hillary's 2015 tax return, page 17. She's using exactly the same carried loss maneuver to avoid paying taxes. Just like the New York Times does.

Everyone knows Hillary Clinton is a criminal...

[dfenstrate]

... the problem is that too few care. She's on the same 'D' team as 80% of the media, so every incompetent or corrupt act is explained away by legions of sycophants.

Re:Everyone knows Hillary Clinton is a criminal...

[mvdwege]

Have you even considered that what you think is 'everyone' might be wrong?

Re:Everyone knows Hillary Clinton is a criminal...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, on one hand, we have the FBI listing facts that support a criminal indictment, then mysteriously deciding that in spite of the law being against negligence, they would have to prove intent, when any normal person can go look at a dictionary and find out that this is, in fact, a literal contradiction in terms:

"Negligence (Lat. negligentia, from neglegere, to neglect, literally "not to pick up something") is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm."

But it's fine, you've got insults on your side! It's okay, I'm sure that reality is magically biased in your favor, so there's no need to bother with trivial things like facts. Everyone who disagrees with you is a bad person and that means they're automatically wrong.

Re:Everyone knows Hillary Clinton is a criminal...

[ScentCone]

There's really no need to consider that option.

Yes, I know. Thinking is hard. Regurgitating Breitbart is easier.

It's always fun to watch the deflection attempts, in place of a single coherent response on the subject matter.

People are in prison - more, newly this year - for doing far, far less than Clinton in simple neglect surrounding sensitive material. You know this. It's public record type stuff. You can't not know it, you can only pretend you don't know it. So the question is: why are you pretending to be dumb in order to support your lying, corrupt candidate? Why do you think that's a good thing? It's an odd position to take if you're trying to be persuasive.

Re:Security Concerns

[Anonymous Coward]

.. or your sense of denial.

DNC staffers getting shot in the back in public parks following leaks of DNC emails, and no one steals their wallet.... and no one asks questions.

And to top it all off, the DNC has the unbridled chutzpah to call it all "conspiracy theory"... after they got busted *conspiring* to keep Sanders out of the race!

We need to retire the term "consipiracy theory". It doesn't mean what they think it means.

Re:Something to get her indicted

[ScentCone]

Hell, the email dump her lawyers gave the FBI contained enough for her to be indicted.

True.

There are dozens of military members in Leavenworth for similar offenses.

No, there are people in military prison for doing FAR LESS.

Re:Here's a good question:

[quenda]

why the US, ... hasn't killed him 20 times by now,

Ask Fidel Castro.

Re:Something to get her indicted

[ScentCone]

Yes, the military still puts people in prison for marijuana possession.

Nice attempt at deflection. We're talking about people being put in prison because having a piece of equipment in the background of a selfie is considered such a grave example of negligence in the handling of sensitive material that it's worth locking someone up. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, deliberately conveys way-more-than-just-classified material to her uncleared staff and lawyers, storing it in private offices and homes ... and her negligence (despite negligence being the statute's standard for conviction) is considered inconsequential by the only entity that could indict her for it - the Obama administration that is actively supporting her candidacy. Trying to compare this to controlled substance trafficking while on duty in the military is absurd.