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

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.

That's not the endgame. The endgame is that liberal democracy is a sham. Do you think liberal democracy is a sham?

a reply to: Konduit

Oh. Okay. Just like he was going to bring her down a couple of weeks ago.

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

Julian also said he would release damning information about Bank of America back in 2011.

www.reuters.com...

How did that work out?

a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

Assange had already leaked enough that should have gotten Hillary jailed so far, but the top FBI officials are too corrupt to jail her I guess. Assange also gave a sneak peak showing that Hillary regularly used the (C) on thousands of her own emails and knew exactly what it meant. So he is delivering. Why do you think that Embassy intruder was going after Assange. They need him and Wikileaks disabled.

a reply to: thepixelpusher

Assange had already leaked enough that should have gotten Hillary jailed so far, but the top FBI officials are too corrupt to jail her I guess.

Unlike Russia, American law requires that evidence in court be obtained legally. If Assange leaks information obtained by hacking, it would not be considered valid, unless the prosecution can convince the bench that, by being published, it has become public knowledge. Agreeing to this new standard would legitimize cyber-blackmail. This is no longer about about a particular political candidate, it is about the future of the internet and the Bill of Rights. The FBI is painfully aware of this, being an organ of the Department of Justice.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: thepixelpusher

Assange had already leaked enough that should have gotten Hillary jailed so far, but the top FBI officials are too corrupt to jail her I guess.

Unlike Russia, American law requires that evidence in court be obtained legally. If Assange leaks information obtained by hacking, it would not be considered valid, unless the prosecution can convince the bench that, by being published, it has become public knowledge. Agreeing to this new standard would legitimize cyber-blackmail. This is no longer about about a particular political candidate, it is about the future of the internet and the Bill of Rights. The FBI is painfully aware of this, being an organ of the Department of Justice.

Okay, under your way of thinking, if the NSA hacks into a person's computer and found anything illegal they can't be jailed!? No you are mistaken. If evidence surfaces and is deemed legitimate it CAN be used in a court of law and a person jailed. Besides the FBI had enough evidence on her but choose to play ball with her and her global backers and let her go.

Drop the RED SCARE talk. You don't know anything about Russian law.

originally posted by: DJW001
Unlike Russia, American law requires that evidence in court be obtained legally.

It is obvious some people do not even want a court case or trial for Hillary, they just want her jailed.

a reply to: thepixelpusher

Okay, under your way of thinking, if the NSA hacks into a person's computer and found anything illegal they can't be jailed!?

Not if they have not obtained a warrant. It's in the Bill of Rights:

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No you are mistaken. If evidence surfaces and is deemed legitimate it CAN be used in a court of law and a person jailed.

Is allowing unverifiable "evidence" allegedly obtained illegally by a foreign intelligence a good precedent?

Besides the FBI had enough evidence on her but choose to play ball with her and her global backers and let her go.

Look up amendments VI and VI. Your interpretation is based on your own conspiracy thinking.

Drop the RED SCARE talk. You don't know anything about Russian law.

Apparently, I know more about Russian law than you know about United States Law.

Julian Assange can only put out what he have as evidence, Hillary indictment will come in the name of public opinion and in the voting booth, that is all he can do.

As we can see Hillary is untouchable in America under out judicial system, she is under protection and the reason for that is political privilege.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

Assange had already leaked enough that should have gotten Hillary jailed so far, but the top FBI officials are too corrupt to jail her I guess. Assange also gave a sneak peak showing that Hillary regularly used the (C) on thousands of her own emails and knew exactly what it meant. So he is delivering. Why do you think that Embassy intruder was going after Assange. They need him and Wikileaks disabled.

It's not just corrupt FBI agents. Heck, all anyone has to do is see what the FBI has done in the Franklin Scandal, threatening children(!!!), and showing up at plane crashes w/in 10 minutes and removing all evidence, to the Barry Seal murder, where they ignored all the evidence of the killers who picked out an Army Colonel who reported directly to George Bush in a photo lineup, to...heck there's just too much evidence of their corruption.

But this is obviously, at the end of the day, a corruption in the Dept of Justice, which also shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, since they've ignored major scandals and explosive pieces of scandals like Iran Contra, Watergate, the JFK assassination, and again, I could go on for paragraphs, specifying the crimes of our DoJ. Face it folks, it's all corrupt, and if you vote for Democrats or Republicans, you're just perpetuating this...

a reply to: nomoredemsorreps

But this is obviously, at the end of the day, a corruption in the Dept of Justice, which also shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, since they've ignored major scandals and explosive pieces of scandals like Iran Contra, Watergate, the JFK assassination, and again, I could go on for paragraphs, specifying the crimes of our DoJ. Face it folks, it's all corrupt, and if you vote for Democrats or Republicans, you're just perpetuating this...

Each of the scandals you have mentioned were subject to a Congressional investigation and grand jury, as required by the Constitution. You are over stressing corruption in the Department of Justice to undermine American morale in an election year. It doesn't matter, people can see the alternative to the American system playing out in Russia and China. An independent polling organization in Russia has been declared a "Foreign Agent" because they reported on popular dissatisfaction. If that were to start happening here....

a reply to: marg6043

Julian Assange can only put out what he have as evidence, Hillary indictment will come in the name of public opinion and in the voting booth, that is all he can do.

Exactly what the Clinton camp has been claiming: he is attempting to influence the American election, probably with Russian help. It doesn't even matter if the "evidence" he provides is true or not.

originally posted by: marg6043
As we can see Hillary is untouchable in America under out judicial system,

That is simply because you need this thing called evidence to find someone guilty, despite what some people here want!

a reply to: thepixelpusher

You didn't read the link did you?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: nomoredemsorreps

But this is obviously, at the end of the day, a corruption in the Dept of Justice, which also shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, since they've ignored major scandals and explosive pieces of scandals like Iran Contra, Watergate, the JFK assassination, and again, I could go on for paragraphs, specifying the crimes of our DoJ. Face it folks, it's all corrupt, and if you vote for Democrats or Republicans, you're just perpetuating this...

Each of the scandals you have mentioned were subject to a Congressional investigation and grand jury, as required by the Constitution. You are over stressing corruption in the Department of Justice to undermine American morale in an election year. It doesn't matter, people can see the alternative to the American system playing out in Russia and China. An independent polling organization in Russia has been declared a "Foreign Agent" because they reported on popular dissatisfaction. If that were to start happening here....

Typical answer of an ignorant person who hasn't bothered to read any of the books that have been published about it. Until you do, don't bother replying to me, because it just proves how little you actually know about the subject. I've already decided that you are not open to learning anything new. You just spout the party line, as if Democrats and Republicans are not corrupt, and the 12% approval rating obviously includes you. There is not a d### thing in the US Constitution about political parties, and in fact Washington and Jefferson and many others were completely against them. That creature is EXACTLY why we are in the mess we are in today, and how the FBI can threaten children, and the CIA (web search for anyone that cares about the CIA supporting child trafficking 'the finders cia tallahassee') can buy and sell children.

There is one reason and one reason only, why Hillary Clinton is still free: the corruption in the DoJ and the FBI. And the complicity of numerous bought and paid for senators and congressmen.

There are phrases I could use to describe those such as yourself, but I won't bother...

a reply to: nomoredemsorreps

Typical answer of an ignorant person who hasn't bothered to read any of the books that have been published about it. Until you do, don't bother replying to me, because it just proves how little you actually know about the subject.

I assume you mean the ones that support your personal conspiracy theories. Could you suggest titles?

Could what Assange has to bring Hillary down, her doctor's report that she has Parkinson's?!

a reply to: Konduit

What an intense absurdity!

How can Assange believe that Clinton would be less of a threat to World stability than Trump?

How does one explain this? What is going on here? How come most rational people can see how insane - dangerous and "antichristal" Donald Trump is, but Others don't?

Ah, the neuroscientist in me answers right away with the following figure:



If you receive your enlivenment from meaningless, glib BS i.e. if Donald Trump manages to enliven your brain and body, it emerges as a function of watching a) too much TV b) not reading enough and c) being tendentiously biased by past experiences to "confirm" your pre-existing feeling relations.

In short, and as Trump shows again and again, if you're an egotist without self-awarness, you are likely to gravitate towards him.

Yet I suspect that if Trump wins, it'll come at a tremendous cost to the American way of life.

Furthermore, if he does win, and $hit does hit the fan, it is nothing more than a function of the above figure. You selected a figurehead in your own image, and, I'm afraid, that will bring with it severe consequences.

Hillary went down faster than the twin towers on 9/11.

Trump is going on Dr OZ, he announced it on 9/9 before Hillary's episode, and is releasing his medical records too.

Stick a fork in it. She's done. Even the elite realize they cannot back a corpse.

a reply to: thepixelpusher

Trump is going on Dr OZ, he announced it on 9/9 before Hillary's episode, and is releasing his medical records too.

No-one, absolutely no-one, cares about his medical records. It's his tax records we need see.