Julian Assange: My Next Leak Will Ensure Hillary’s Arrest

originally posted by: AnonyMason
a reply to: SudoNim

No. Under no condition is a whistle blower or a leaker a criminal. If you expose criminal acts by leaking something to the public you should be praised, not condemned.

Julian Assange doesn't tamper with leaked material. Wikileaks is the venue for disseminating documents that could get the people providing that information into a lot of trouble, potentially placing them in danger. So, yes, you can trust Wikileaks. And i sure as hell trust him, whistle blowers, and leakers a lot more than i trust a politician.

So what about all the emails leaked that showed no criminal activity? You know, the 1000's of them. Personal emails.

Also, you may trust Assange and Wikileaks, but why can I trust them?

a reply to: SudoNim

You don't have to. Who you choose to trust is up to you.

originally posted by: AnonyMason
a reply to: SudoNim

You don't have to. Who you choose to trust is up to you.

So its going to be a pretty easy rebuttal to anything that's released right? Or am I missing something, if its up to the individual to trust the value of this source then can any of it be actually used against Hillary?

Not arguing the rights or wrongs of that here.

a reply to: SudoNim

Your missing the clear evidence that Hillary has lied repeatedly about having Classified:Confidential documents forwarded to her personal e-mail server. Which is illegal, and potentially espionage. Actually it's more prosecutable under the Espionage Act than trying to charge whistle blowers and journalists under the Espionage Act.

From: Sidney Blumenthal B6
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012237PM
To:
Subject: H.Libya, latest Benghazi intel Sid
hrcmemolibya, benghazi, oil 121012.docx
Attachments:


CONFIDENTIAL

Decemberna, 2012
For: Hillary
From: Sid
Re:Libya,Benghazi,Oil

The above example taken from Document ID 16625 of the Hillary email dump from Wikil eaks illustrates that pretty clearly.

Also this recent video from Julian on Hannity:



How can you so easily ignore her lies? And can you explain why she hasn't held a legitimate open forum press conference for 278 days?

originally posted by: AnonyMason
a reply to: SudoNim

Your missing the clear evidence that Hillary has lied repeatedly about having Classified:Confidential documents forwarded to her personal e-mail server. Which is illegal, and potentially espionage. Actually it's more prosecutable under the Espionage Act than trying to charge whistle blowers and journalists under the Espionage Act.

From: Sidney Blumenthal B6
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012237PM
To:
Subject: H.Libya, latest Benghazi intel Sid
hrcmemolibya, benghazi, oil 121012.docx
Attachments:


CONFIDENTIAL

Decemberna, 2012
For: Hillary
From: Sid
Re:Libya,Benghazi,Oil

The above example taken from Document ID 16625 of the Hillary email dump from Wikil eaks illustrates that pretty clearly.

Also this recent video from Julian on Hannity:

How can you so easily ignore her lies?

Wow. You don't need to get defensive I wasn't suggesting or defending anything.

I was just asking whether anything leaked by Assange could be used against Hillary in say a Court of Law. Or will it be considered not usable because of its source.

Also I asked if leaking personal emails that show no criminal activity in your mind is still acceptable?

I haven't mentioned her "lies" or denied them, or even discussed them. I am just asking whether in your opinion anything released by WikiLeaks or Assange would stand-up in court as a legitimate source. Rightly or wrongly. It was a genuine question.

And can you explain why she hasn't held a legitimate open forum press conference for 278 days?

I'm not on her campaign team despite what people claim when you ruffle their feathers so I can't tell you why.
Are they not optional? Maybe she doesn't feel she needs to do them that often to win. Taking a back seat to the Trump show might actually be her best tactic.

a reply to: SudoNim

Not getting defensive, just having a conversation. Any emotion you project into text is your own doing. But, believe me, there was nothing defensive about my responses.

If you're a political figure, an aspiring president, or currently have a seat that gives you a degree of power within the government i would say personal e-mails are fair game. Once you become a public servant your privacy is limited to your bedroom for the duration of your time in service. Privacy belongs to citizens, transparency for the government is not optional, it's required. Also, Hillary loves the NSA and the alphabet boys. If they want to spy on everyone, they can be spied on by us in return. It's up to us to level the playing field.

In my opinion only, taking the back seat to a derelict like Donald J Trump is not in her best interest. The only reason she doesn't want to have an open forum with the media is because she knows they are going to pounce on her for her own lies, and also for avoiding them. Her people can control the likes of Matt Lauer and the other puppets within the mainstream media. But face her off with journalists who actual give a damn about integrity and asking the hard questions to candidates who want to run the country? She would be eaten alive. Ignoring Tiny Fingers Trump only allows his rampant shotgun lying and ridiculous rhetoric go unchecked by the opposition. Appeasement doesn't make a problem go away.

originally posted by: AnonyMason
a reply to: SudoNim

Not getting defensive, just having a conversation. Any emotion you project into text is your own doing. But, believe me, there was nothing defensive about my responses.

If you're a political figure, an aspiring president, or currently have a seat that gives you a degree of power within the government i would say personal e-mails are fair game. Once you become a public servant your privacy is limited to your bedroom for the duration of your time in service. Privacy belongs to citizens, transparency for the government is not optional, it's required. Also, Hillary loves the NSA and the alphabet boys. If they want to spy on everyone, they can be spied on by us in return. It's up to us to level the playing field.

In my opinion only, taking the back seat to a derelict like Donald J Trump is not in her best interest. The only reason she doesn't want to have an open forum with the media is because she knows they are going to pounce on her for her own lies, and also for avoiding them. Her people can control the likes of Matt Lauer and the other puppets within the mainstream media. But face her off with journalists who actual give a damn about integrity and asking the hard questions to candidates who want to run the country? She would be eaten alive. Ignoring Tiny Fingers Trump only allows his rampant shotgun lying and ridiculous rhetoric go unchecked by the opposition. Appeasement doesn't make a problem go away.

Ok, maybe I just misjudged your tone but "How can you so easily ignore her lies?".

I'm not sure where you think I discussing let alone ignoring her lies? Or is a lack of discussion considered ignoring even if we are discussing a different subject?

I thought the issue was that the media don't want to go after Hillary, if this was so why would she be scared of an open forum?

It will happen at some point so we will get our answer then, and no doubt still disagree.

However, i'm still unsure on the answer to my previous question.

whether anything leaked by Assange could be used against Hillary in say a Court of Law. Or will it be considered not usable because of its source.

How do such data leaks hold up in the Court of Law? Or is it totally dependant on content? Or can it be dismissed regardless of content?

a reply to: SudoNim

I'm starting to sense shilling. Like i said, there is no 'tone'. Placing emotions into a textual discussion is done by the reader. Trying to weave my own opinions in with some solid evidence seems to either be going over your head, or just being completely ignored.

Ask a lawyer about what holds up in the court of law. Hillary and Obama are much alike, and neither have any love for whistle blowers or leakers. In fact the Obama administration has gone after more whistle blowers and journalists than any other Presidency before. He's called upon the Espionage Act 7 times, and has had the most openly hostile aggression towards journalists since Richard Nixon. It's unprecedented and goes against the foundations of what made our country better than the rest of the world. Unfortunately both candidates are not going to change. Trump will likely crucify anyone who has ever embarrassed him, and vocal opponents of the Clintons have this funny habit of showing up dead.

Best of luck with your future endeavors. I'm clocking out of this one.

originally posted by: AnonyMason
a reply to: SudoNim

I'm starting to sense shilling. Like i said, there is no 'tone'. Placing emotions into a textual discussion is done by the reader. Trying to weave my own opinions in with some solid evidence seems to either be going over your head, or just being completely ignored.

Ask a lawyer about what holds up in the court of law. Hillary and Obama are much alike, and neither have any love for whistle blowers or leakers. In fact the Obama administration has gone after more whistle blowers and journalists than any other Presidency before. He's called upon the Espionage Act 7 times, and has had the most openly hostile aggression towards journalists since Richard Nixon. It's unprecedented and goes against the foundations of what made our country better than the rest of the world. Unfortunately both candidates are not going to change. Trump will likely crucify anyone who has ever embarrassed him, and vocal opponents of the Clintons have this funny habit of showing up dead.

Best of luck with your future endeavors. I'm clocking out of this one.

Wow. Shilling really? This is what you get for trying to have a reasonable debate on ATS at the minute.
I actually thought I was being very reasonable, compared to normal anyway.

Goodluck with your future posts, hopefully you won't get so angry next time when people try to discuss a topic with you in a calm manner.

originally posted by: AnonyMason
a reply to: SudoNim

No. Under no condition is a whistle blower or a leaker a criminal. If you expose criminal acts by leaking something to the public you should be praised, not condemned.

Julian Assange doesn't tamper with leaked material. Wikileaks is the venue for disseminating documents that could get the people providing that information into a lot of trouble, potentially placing them in danger. So, yes, you can trust Wikileaks. And i sure as hell trust him, whistle blowers, and leakers a lot more than i trust a politician.

So true. The left, and our 2 party congress, senate, including their helpers in the media like to paint whistle blowers and leakers as enemies of the state, when they are in fact friends to all who value freedom and an honest government. They do this to cover up for their extreme corruption today, and then claim the leakers are unpatriotic or criminal.

Well, she's been CAUGHT rigging an election, lying to the FBI, committing treason, and completely lying to the public repeatedly.

So not sure what Assange thinks is so juicy it will "trump" all of that.

She's basically proven she's got the legal system in her pocket.

Hurry up and release Julian.

Don't release during the debate whatever you do, it'll just get buried.

Bury this warhawk's campaign now.

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: Gazrok
Well, she's been CAUGHT rigging an election, lying to the FBI, committing treason, and completely lying to the public repeatedly.

So... none of that is true outside of yours and other Trump supporters little minds.

I think it's fair to say Hillary did not rig the election, but colluded with others to do so, if you want to get technical. Please refrain from insults (Trump supporters little minds) to posters and stay on topic to keep this thread civil and on track.

a reply to: infolurker

posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 22:29

Interesting,

Anyone else see "trouble" coming his way very soon? Suicide, stroke, or heart attack. Let's place our bets.

as this was posted on july 24th, his promise according to the opening poster was the next release, well there's been a few since and, seen as the best republicans can find is colin powell alluding to her husband being a philanderer, the 'trouble' i see for him is an angry republican seeking vengeance, or death via a million lawsuits by judicial watch, for not doing his job.

a reply to: Gazrok

Well, she's been CAUGHT rigging an election, lying to the FBI, committing treason, and completely lying to the public repeatedly.

Can you provide evidence for any of those accusations? (Except the last, of course.)

Evidence:
Hillary lying to the FBI and Public.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: Gazrok
Well, she's been CAUGHT rigging an election, lying to the FBI, committing treason, and completely lying to the public repeatedly.

So... none of that is true outside of yours and other Trump supporters little minds.

I think it's fair to say Hillary did not rig the election, but colluded with others to do so, if you want to get technical. Please refrain from insults (Trump supporters little minds) to posters and stay on topic to keep this thread civil and on track.

I don't know. I think it's fair to say she did rig the election. She put her top friend in as DNC Chair after the last primary with Obama. DNC Chair was caught red handed rigging the election, and now that disgraced DNC Chair is working for Hillary again. It's pretty clear.

a reply to: amazing

Yes, she colluded by having her minions do the dirty work to give her distance and plausible deniability. That's the Clinton way. The end result is she got what she wanted by devious means. Even Bill Clinton said Hillary works like a "demon" in a recent interview. He told the truth for once.

Notice how she reemployed Debbie Wasserman Schutz right away, to sew up her people that could rat her out.

a reply to: amazing

I don't know. I think it's fair to say she did rig the election.

What election? The primaries are not an election, they are a poll on the part of the parties to determine the candidate that best represents the opinions of that party. In some states, they don't even vote. Even then, the results of the polls can be ignored. All of this is governed by the party bylaws. It does not carry legal weight.

The DNC closed ranks against an insurgent. The GOP did not. Clinton's campaign is well organized; Trump's is not.