Julian Assange: I Will Bring Hillary Down Before The Debate Stage On September 26th

a reply to: DJW001

Misdeeds? They got their candidate nominated. That was literally their job.

Do you really believe this? Their job was to facilitate the party (DNC) choosing a candidate not to shape the narrative and collude with third parties (the press etc) to favor one candidate over another. Their job was to be impartial and professional, why do you think they resigned when the truth came out?

originally posted by: CatandtheHatchet
a reply to: DJW001

Misdeeds? They got their candidate nominated. That was literally their job.

Do you really believe this? Their job was to facilitate the party (DNC) choosing a candidate not to shape the narrative and collude with third parties (the press etc) to favor one candidate over another. Their job was to be impartial and professional, why do you think they resigned when the truth came out?

Exactly how many Democratic hopefuls were running against Clinton?

a reply to: DJW001


In the end the choice was between Bernie and Hillary, their job was not to influence that choice but to facilitate it.
That is why they resigned when the e-mails they had sent became public knowledge, showing their lack of professionalism and corruption of purpose.

The wikileaks showed everyone the evidence (in their own words) of what they had done, it did not create the situation, they did.

a reply to: CatandtheHatchet

In the end the choice was between Bernie and Hillary, their job was not to influence that choice but to facilitate it.

Wrong. It was never a choice between Clinton and Sanders. Sanders is not a Democrat. Hillary ran unopposed. It was the DNC's job to prevent an insurgent candidate from derailing the primaries, the way Trump destroyed the RNC.

That is why they resigned when the e-mails they had sent became public knowledge, showing their lack of professionalism and corruption of purpose.

No, they resigned because the process of making sausage turns people off. Now that they are gone, that set of emails ceases to be an issue for the party rank and file.

The wikileaks showed everyone the evidence (in their own words) of what they had done, it did not create the situation, they did.

Wrong again. Wikileaks created the scandal by shining a light behind one set of curtains while leaving the other set untouched. No-one who understands the political process was at all surprised by what was going on. The RNC probably had even more "incriminating" emails discussing Donald Trump, but Assange chose not to publicize them because what they were saying about him-- "he is a racist idiot who will cost us minority votes" -- would hurt Trump's chances.

a reply to: DJW001

No-one who understands the political process was at all surprised by what was going on.

The DNC let him be candidate, they then distorted their purpose. If the leadership of the party only wanted HRC they should have been honest and said no voting this time, HRC is our choice and that is the way it is.

They instead let him run under their banner, while working behind the curtain to get their preferred candidate. They corrupted themselves when they could have just chosen to be honest from the beginning.

Then none of this would have happened and they would not have been compromised, when the truth was revealed through their own emails as provided by wikileaks, they fashioned the noose from which they were hung, no one made them act in that manner.

Politics as a whole needs to be cleaned up, the ends do not justify the means. Corrupt means leads to a corrupt end.

a reply to: CatandtheHatchet

The DNC let him be candidate, they then distorted their purpose. If the leadership of the party only wanted HRC they should have been honest and said no voting this time, HRC is our choice and that is the way it is.

Sanders' run brought young people to the party who would otherwise not have participated. That may be cynical, but it is not corrupt. The RNC tolerated Ben Carson, who was never a viable candidate, because he might draw minorities to the party.

a reply to: DJW001


You are playing a game with a diverse group of people, you are fairly sure that one if not more of them is cheating, you use this reasoning to justify to yourself that you will cheat as well.

You are not responsible for the choices of others you only have responsibility and control over yourself. This applies to our institutions our political parties and our collective governments.

The DNC should have played by their own rules instead of stacking the deck, what the RNC gets upto is on them.

It is not okay to corrupt ourselves because others are corrupt.

All you end up with then is everyone being corrupt.

Assange is really a brave fellow or he has some one behind him of immense power like the British MI5/6 because he’s selling a lot of tickets.

I mean his lawyer just committed suicide ( yeah right?), it’s a possibility one of his leakers was murdered in Washington DC, a burglar just tried to infiltrate the embassy he’s stuck in and he’s talking all of this tough guy stuff to the elites chosen president!

IS HE CRAZY?!

SUICIDLE?

Or a false flag?

Or just a brave son of a bitch

Watch your back Julian or get 19 bodyguards

originally posted by: Willtell
Assange is really a brave fellow or he has some one behind him of immense power like the British MI5/6 because he’s selling a lot of tickets.

I mean his lawyer just committed suicide ( yeah right?), it’s a possibility one of his leakers was murdered in Washington DC, a burglar just tried to infiltrate the embassy he’s stuck in and he’s talking all of this tough guy stuff to the elites chosen president!

IS HE CRAZY?!

SUICIDLE?

Or a false flag?

Or just a brave son of a bitch

Watch your back Julian or get 19 bodyguards

He is not crazy...Putin and other World Leaders are fed up with Amer-Isreal and have decided to tell the truth about humanities history.....which has been hidden buried in Russia....held in reserve until the very fate of Russia is at hand....to then be opened to save the Motherland.....and the Hasidic push for world dominance has put Russia in the bomb-sights and Putin is pulling the pin and telling the truth and protecting his sources with a Nuclear arsenal.

Julian Assange is no longer a keystone of the truth movement,he was a catalyst and he is a driver,but removing him now will not stop the truth-revolution we are seeing caused by the adven of the internet and real-time communications,this man is the very definition of Martyr on behalf of the Truth-Revolution if he is harmed.

He was interviewed yesterday. What was it that he revealed? Nothing as far as I could tell.

I don't know why Julian Assange is going after Hillary, it makes no sense.

Republicans' support of net neutrality would be a complete and utter disaster for Wikileaks and people like Assange.

August 28, 2016

Assange says that the "Tick Tock" e-mail described and posted in the below article, is one that will contribute to Hillary Clinton's defeat.

TICK TOCK Email: www.thegatewaypundit.com... of-deaths-and-eventual-isis-takeover/

Is it a big (bad) deal that Hillary engineered the conditions which let to Muammar Gaddafi's ouster, and eventual murder?

-cwm

originally posted by: carewemust
August 28, 2016

Assange says that the "Tick Tock" e-mail described and posted in the below article, is one that will contribute to Hillary Clinton's defeat.

TICK TOCK Email: www.thegatewaypundit.com... of-deaths-and-eventual-isis-takeover/

Is it a big (bad) deal that Hillary engineered the conditions which let to Muammar Gaddafi's ouster, and eventual murder?

-cwm

It's a huge deal and I think the already published email should be used more, however this is not necessarily the subject of the upcoming leaks...

The more I think about this, the more I think Assange is being clever by not just releasing the information... he is all over the news at he moment and building suspense. When he finally does release this information the world will be watching and there will be far less chance that an email as damning as the 'tick tock' email (which should have forced Hillary to drop out) will be overlooked.

a reply to: UKTruth

Given that Qadaffi was a despot who ruled by terror, and Clinton was able to enlist Russian support for the UN resolution she sponsored, and that the email specifically called for a smooth, democratic transition of power, what, exactly do you find incriminating about the email? Russian approval?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

Given that Qadaffi was a despot who ruled by terror, and Clinton was able to enlist Russian support for the UN resolution she sponsored, and that the email specifically called for a smooth, democratic transition of power, what, exactly do you find incriminating about the email? Russian approval?

Doesn't sound like you have a complete view of Gadafi, but regardless the email showed she was fully accountable for the result. Her hands were all over the process - it was her strategy. The result is a completely destroyed Libya with ISIS running wild. She did the worst job of any Secretary of State in history and cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children. That kind of monumental failure shows she is not only 'extremely careless' as is now proven, but also incompetent.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

Given that Qadaffi was a despot who ruled by terror, and Clinton was able to enlist Russian support for the UN resolution she sponsored, and that the email specifically called for a smooth, democratic transition of power, what, exactly do you find incriminating about the email? Russian approval?

Doesn't sound like you have a complete view of Gadafi, but regardless the email showed she was fully accountable for the result. Her hands were all over the process - it was her strategy. The result is a completely destroyed Libya with ISIS running wild. She did the worst job of any Secretary of State in history and cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children. That kind of monumental failure shows she is not only 'extremely careless' as is now proven, but also incompetent.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but there is nothing incriminating about the email. I think the policy was unwise, but given that it was a continuation of US policy up until that time, she executed to the best of her ability. It is not her fault if the policy was not a good one.

a reply to: CatandtheHatchet

Would one of the people who starred this post please explain why? Not scoring goals for the opposing team is not "cheating." What is the issue here?

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

Given that Qadaffi was a despot who ruled by terror, and Clinton was able to enlist Russian support for the UN resolution she sponsored, and that the email specifically called for a smooth, democratic transition of power, what, exactly do you find incriminating about the email? Russian approval?

Doesn't sound like you have a complete view of Gadafi, but regardless the email showed she was fully accountable for the result. Her hands were all over the process - it was her strategy. The result is a completely destroyed Libya with ISIS running wild. She did the worst job of any Secretary of State in history and cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children. That kind of monumental failure shows she is not only 'extremely careless' as is now proven, but also incompetent.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but there is nothing incriminating about the email. I think the policy was unwise, but given that it was a continuation of US policy up until that time, she executed to the best of her ability. It is not her fault if the policy was not a good one.

Lol, yeah, her bad. Ooopsy!!

Oh well, better luck next time. Right?

Nice judgement call from her. Very important in a prez.

Oh, and then blame it all on a video.

You know how a little kid can tangle something into a gordian knot in seconds and when you try to help, you shake your head in disbelief? That's hillary's foreign policy.

People died and she lied.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: CatandtheHatchet

Would one of the people who starred this post please explain why? Not scoring goals for the opposing team is not "cheating." What is the issue here?

Ask the 5 people who resigned.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Ask the 5 people who resigned.

They are not the ones who think supporting their candidate and resigning for the sake of the party was cheating. Perhaps you could explain it.