It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 15
121
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 05:31 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

He doesn't have anything, UK.

This is what we used to call "a desperate attempt to remain relevant."




posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 06:19 AM
link   
I guess when it comes out we'll see if it's relevant. I'll reserve judgement until then.



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 06:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

He doesn't have anything, UK.

This is what we used to call "a desperate attempt to remain relevant."



That is possible. His appeals decision is due shortly I believe.

He may just be trying to keep in the public eye to mitigate the chances of him being assassinated... his lawyer had an unfortunate accident last week when he was run over by a train and killed, just before someone tried to break into the embassy Assange is in.

We don't have to wait long to see what new information he has, if any.
edit on 7/9/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 06:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
I guess when it comes out we'll see if it's relevant. I'll reserve judgement until then.


If he has nothing, are you willing to consider the possibility that some of the earlier leaks were bogus?



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 06:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
I guess when it comes out we'll see if it's relevant. I'll reserve judgement until then.


If he has nothing, are you willing to consider the possibility that some of the earlier leaks were bogus?


What possible link is there between having no more information to release and previous leaks?



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 07:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
I guess when it comes out we'll see if it's relevant. I'll reserve judgement until then.


If he has nothing, are you willing to consider the possibility that some of the earlier leaks were bogus?


What possible link is there between having no more information to release and previous leaks?


If you think critically, you are always re-evaluating the reliability of your sources.



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 07:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
I guess when it comes out we'll see if it's relevant. I'll reserve judgement until then.


If he has nothing, are you willing to consider the possibility that some of the earlier leaks were bogus?


What possible link is there between having no more information to release and previous leaks?


If you think critically, you are always re-evaluating the reliability of your sources.


True, but not related to running out of material.
If you think critically about what WikiLeaks has leaked to date and then look at the reaction to it (i.e. calls for his murder and multiple resignations), I think the veracity of what he has released to date stands the test of time.
I can see if you think defensively, the last option after all else is failing would be to simply say it's not real.



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 07:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
I guess when it comes out we'll see if it's relevant. I'll reserve judgement until then.


If he has nothing, are you willing to consider the possibility that some of the earlier leaks were bogus?


I judge things on the facts presented. If the earlier facts were vetted and confirmed, why would I throw that out? You have a beef with Assange? Don't kill the messenger.
edit on 7-9-2016 by thepixelpusher because: typo



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: nomoredemsorreps

"One or the other is true: Either the military guys are being falsely prosecuted, or Hillary is being treated different than other people who mishandle classified comms."

This is the point where some idiot will come in and claim that there are different laws concerning classified information for military and civilians, which of course is absolutely hogwash.

The procedures for prosecuting military and civilians is different, but they are prosecuted for violations of the EXACT SAME federal laws.

It appears that military are more easily prosecuted simply because they are. Members of the military do not have the same basic rights as a civilian. The military is also more strict in their standards, usually all that is needed for a conviction is a signed copy of their SF-312 and whichever law referenced under the SF-312 that they violated and proof of that violation.

Civilians have far more legal rights, for instance, evidently claiming ignorance is now a valid excuse for mishandling of classified information for a civilian, but that same excuse would net a military member jail time.


edit on R032016-09-07T10:03:22-05:00k039Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R042016-09-07T10:04:18-05:00k049Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: nomoredemsorreps

"One or the other is true: Either the military guys are being falsely prosecuted, or Hillary is being treated different than other people who mishandle classified comms."

This is the point where some idiot will come in and claim that there are different laws concerning classified information for military and civilians, which of course is absolutely hogwash.

The procedures for prosecuting military and civilians is different, but they are prosecuted for violations of the EXACT SAME federal laws.

It appears that military are more easily prosecuted simply because they are. Members of the military do not have the same basic rights as a civilian. The military is also more strict in their standards, usually all that is needed for a conviction is a signed copy of their SF-312 and whichever law referenced under the SF-312 that they violated and proof of that violation.

Civilians have far more legal rights, for instance, evidently claiming ignorance is now a valid excuse for mishandling of classified information for a civilian, but that same excuse would net a military member jail time.



Well, heck, then how did Petraeus (sp?) get away with a slap on the wrist for giving state secrets to his freaking mistress? Sorry, but the way he was treated pretty much negates your contention that it's the MILITARY LAW that is the issue. There is obviously two sets of laws--one for the 1%. And one for the rest of us.



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: nomoredemsorreps

He was charged with the same crimes as anybody else would have been.

There are no different federal laws for civilian vs military when it comes to classified information. Everybody falls under the same set of rules.



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Konduit

He has a habit of doing these sort of things...yes...I am waiting for the other shoe to drop.



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


If you think critically about what WikiLeaks has leaked to date and then look at the reaction to it (i.e. calls for his murder and multiple resignations), I think the veracity of what he has released to date stands the test of time.


So no-one would be angered by the release of false information? Then why, for example, were the Russians so adamant that the tweets from the Ukrainian separatists claiming credit for downing the Malaysian passenger jet were "fake?"



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth


If you think critically about what WikiLeaks has leaked to date and then look at the reaction to it (i.e. calls for his murder and multiple resignations), I think the veracity of what he has released to date stands the test of time.


So no-one would be angered by the release of false information? Then why, for example, were the Russians so adamant that the tweets from the Ukrainian separatists claiming credit for downing the Malaysian passenger jet were "fake?"


Did they all resign too?
There is no logic to your point.
If the leaked emails were made up, the DNC would have said so.



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


Did they all resign too?


No, they got angry and tried to shout down anyone who claimed they were real. According to you, that means that the accusations must be true, right?


There is no logic to your point.
If the leaked emails were made up, the DNC would have said so.


No-one doubts that the DNC emails were real; now it's a question of whether some of the earlier leaks were legitimate or not.



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth


Did they all resign too?


No, they got angry and tried to shout down anyone who claimed they were real. According to you, that means that the accusations must be true, right?


There is no logic to your point.
If the leaked emails were made up, the DNC would have said so.


No-one doubts that the DNC emails were real; now it's a question of whether some of the earlier leaks were legitimate or not.



I'd say when you call for someone's murder as a result of being outed, then yes it;s a very good sign the leak was real. In combination with the resignations, I think we have a good source.

At least we can agree the DNC leaks were real. Given the next batch is also an email leak, if it ever comes, I suspect there are some nervous people in Clinton's campaign.
edit on 7/9/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


I'd say when you call for someone's murder as a result of being outed, then yes it;s a very good sign the leak was real. In combination with the resignations, I think we have a good source.


If you want people to believe your lie, it helps if you tell the truth at first.



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth


I'd say when you call for someone's murder as a result of being outed, then yes it;s a very good sign the leak was real. In combination with the resignations, I think we have a good source.


If you want people to believe your lie, it helps if you tell the truth at first.


I see - so a drawn out conspiracy with a whacky conclusion that Clinton is corrupt. I can see how that would be a hard sell and require some setup! /sarcasm off.



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth


I'd say when you call for someone's murder as a result of being outed, then yes it;s a very good sign the leak was real. In combination with the resignations, I think we have a good source.


If you want people to believe your lie, it helps if you tell the truth at first.


I see - so a drawn out conspiracy with a whacky conclusion that Clinton is corrupt. I can see how that would be a hard sell and require some setup! /sarcasm off.


I tend to be liberal in most views and hate right wing propaganda, but...even I can see that Hillary is corrupt. I was paying close attention to the democratic primary and it was SHADY. I wouldn't trust Hillary as far as I could throw her.



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth


I'd say when you call for someone's murder as a result of being outed, then yes it;s a very good sign the leak was real. In combination with the resignations, I think we have a good source.


If you want people to believe your lie, it helps if you tell the truth at first.


I see - so a drawn out conspiracy with a whacky conclusion that Clinton is corrupt. I can see how that would be a hard sell and require some setup! /sarcasm off.


I tend to be liberal in most views and hate right wing propaganda, but...even I can see that Hillary is corrupt. I was paying close attention to the democratic primary and it was SHADY. I wouldn't trust Hillary as far as I could throw her.


A lifetime of corruption and the greatest exponent of machiavellianism in history means she;s not yet been caught red handed.




top topics



 
121
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join