Slashdot Mirror


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.

33 of 380 comments (clear)

  1. Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      This is going to be a video link ON THE INTERNET, Mr. Coward. Do you not realize the importance of such an achievement?

    2. Re:Why is this here? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      Oh yes, THAT makes PERFECT sense. *eyeroll*

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    3. Re: Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      She victim shamed a rape accuser, thats different.

    4. Re:Why is this here? by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Everybody point at the libertarian and laugh.
    5. Re:Why is this here? by William+Baric · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re: Why is this here? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re:Why is this here? by Dan+East · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    8. Re:Why is this here? by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

    9. Re: Why is this here? by porksauce · · Score: 3, Informative

      Do you have any citation for that? The only one I found was on Snopes where they're saying it's False.

  2. Security Concerns by chill · · Score: 5, Funny

    The primary security concern is the balcony not being big enough or strong enough to support Julian's ego.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    1. Re:Security Concerns by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, with Hillary talking about drone strikes on Assange, staying indoors may be the smartest thing to do...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    2. Re:Security Concerns by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Funny

      The primary security concern is the balcony not being big enough or strong enough to support Julian's ego.

      Of course with a video stream, h.264 compression might have some difficulties handling that as well.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:Security Concerns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      .. 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.

    4. Re:Security Concerns by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

      I thought it wasn't big enough for your stupidity....

      Wow, sick burn, dude. I don't think chill (34294) will ever recover from that witty reposte.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  3. Breaking News: Julian Assange Commits Suicide by alternative_right · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  4. He Is A Darling Of The Cyber Rebels by alternative_right · · Score: 3, Interesting

    People hate authority. Most of them hate it simply because the authority they have experienced has not been just controlling, but also flagrantly stupid. Every public official is incompetent and they all want to tax you into oblivion and regulate minor details of behavior as life-changing events. Assange pushes back against authority. Even better, sometimes he nails really stupid authorities. We are all looking forward to whatever "October Surprise" he can cook up for The Establishment Candidate.

    1. Re:He Is A Darling Of The Cyber Rebels by Powercntrl · · Score: 4, Informative

      We are all looking forward to whatever "October Surprise" he can cook up for The Establishment Candidate.

      Hillary may be part of the establishment, but Trump is a textbook example of the type of people the establishment works for. Trump supporters are like a bunch of cows who'd rather be herded by a slaughterhouse owner, solely because they've had bad experiences with farmers.

      --

      ---
      DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
  5. Not sure what else there is to reveal by ErichTheRed · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Not sure what else there is to reveal by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  6. Something to get her indicted by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    He has said that the next dump contains evidence that will get Hillary Clinton indicted.

    I'm quite anxious to see what it is.

    Perhaps an early Christmas present for the American people!

    1. Re:Something to get her indicted by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:Something to get her indicted by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  7. Hopefully by dohzer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Hopefully by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:Hopefully by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  8. Re:Repent and be saved. by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Informative

    No matter what year it is over the last 2000 years, some nut thinks it's the Apocalypse.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  9. Everyone knows Hillary Clinton is a criminal... by dfenstrate · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... 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.

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    1. Re:Everyone knows Hillary Clinton is a criminal... by mvdwege · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    2. Re:Everyone knows Hillary Clinton is a criminal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Everyone knows Hillary Clinton is a criminal... by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  10. Re:Repent and be saved. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you are not well-read in the Bible you will not understand what is happening to the world. It is both an exhilarating and terrifying time to be alive. I look across the world and see so many lost souls rejecting love and truth in favor of lies and hate. Unless we are capable of a perfect life lived before a perfect God, the blood of Jesus is our only salvation. Seek him while you can...

    Wrong! #CrookedJesus is a big loser and also a Jew (which is fine) but believe me, he had terrible ratings. Terrible ratings. And he didn't have my temperament and stamina. If you want to be messiah, you've got to have stamina. I said, stamina. I prefer my messiahs not to get captured by Romans and crucified, all right? Sad!

    I was going to say something very rough about Jesus and a prostitute. Very rough. But I'm not going to go there, all right?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  11. Re:Here's a good question: by quenda · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    Ask Fidel Castro.