Assange says HRC Threatened Bernie to DROP OUT

a reply to: nobunaga

HRC sees the writing on the wall.

She's sick is she?

It's an act...a double edged sword if you like.

One edge is for cutting Trump...a gentleman could hardly weigh into a sick, old Woman and come away looking gracious and statesmanlike...and the other edge?

THAT little gem is being held on tick over if the FBI decided to go after her for her crimes...you can't put a sick, old Woman in Prison could you?

It's a scam, and those two are experts at it.

a reply to: tothetenthpower
Yes I'm sure this is all a contrived story made up by the Russians,and Hillary would never do anything against the law,why just ask Obama

a reply to: ghostrager

Yes could release, but haven't.

Wikileaks loses more and more of my respect every other week.

If they had any sort of 'ethical duty' to the truth as they've been claiming, they would release the documents in one batch, when received, period.

I understand the vetting of classified documents in order to ensure you aren't putting people's lives at risk, but none of this political nonsense would have those risks.

So, release the information, or shut your mouth.

~Tenth

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: nobunaga

Assange has been saying for like 2 months now he's sitting on other information that would hurt her.

Why all the wait?

Probably because he doesn't have what he says he does. Unless he just wants to wait until the eve of a Debate or something to release the information.

Which would be political - and against everything Wikileaks supposedly stands for.

~Tenth

You really wanna take that bet knowing what he's released before? By all means, hold on to that naivete.

And Assange also knows how short the public's attention span is in the 24h news cycle, makes sense why he'd withhold them. But I suppose it didn't matter to you whether it was political or not when Bush was in office, only now eh?

HAHA.

I'm Canadian, and a Liberal.

I don't care one little bit about Bush or Clinton.

Thanks for making assumptions about me though.

And all I said is for months now, he's been parroting this line that he has information that will lead to her being jailed or at the very least have to drop out of the election.

Waiting until there is less than 60 days to the general to do so, is not only idiotic, but it's also going to create a bunch of chaos if they have to replace people so close to that finish line. It would have been much better to throw everything they had at her in June for example or prior to her getting the nomination.

~Tenth

Good day ATS... So much going on these days and so many threads to read..
I am new to posting and hope I have found the correct forum... I have 2 questions. A couple days ago, I read an article on MSN about the DNC fearing that any future emails released would be doctored/tampered with by wiki and or The Russians. I wish I had saved the article because I can't find it again. I thought this was a "get out in front", should anything else CRITICAL be released. They can come back with.... We told you so, see, completely fake...
The other question I have is at what point do you feel the puppet masters may just cut her and perhaps many on her staff loose and have her take the fall for many "dirty deeds"? I realize they have most of the answers and would not go down without spilling the beans on many others, but, at what point is she no longer useful?

Kind regards, TEZ

i read Clinton are most corrupted family in the world. / money laundering /

The other question I have is at what point do you feel the puppet masters may just cut her and perhaps many on her staff loose and have her take the fall for many "dirty deeds"? I realize they have most of the answers and would not go down without spilling the beans on many others, but, at what point is she no longer useful?

Right about the time of the debate.

Basically, I see two things happening.

1) She's going to either not be able to make the debate, or "short circuit" during it, while having a PD freeze.

2) Wikileaks is going to release some damning info (most likely confirming PD) just prior to the debates (this is being carefully timed by Assange. He knows her condition, and he knows this stress, right before the debates, is going to trigger her episodes when pressed on it).

Regardless, Hillary's PD is going to be revealed, one way or the other.

That would likely be enough for the puppet masters to go with plan B, and make Biden the defacto nominee (not Sanders). Their argument will be that as the serving VP, he's the obvious choice. The DNC will ratify it quickly (further screwing Sanders' supporters).

I thought Assange and the likes were like gods to the left but now not so much.

If Bernie was bribed or threatened to drop then that says a lot about him, would you want a president that would buckle like that?

originally posted by: thesaneone
I thought Assange and the likes were like gods to the left but now not so much.

If Bernie was bribed or threatened to drop then that says a lot about him, would you want a president that would buckle like that?

They were hero's for the Dems when exposing the RINO"S (helped us Conservatives too fortunately as the truth will set us all free) and now Wikileaks are hero's for going after HRC too. But not in a liberals eye. Only the fake R's and any Conservative are to be exposed if the D"s had a choice. Tell me I am wrong lib's, you don't want the truth if it is bad for your candidates do you?

originally posted by: ghostrager
a reply to: nobunaga

I read about this a few days ago and looked into it.

While I wouldn't put it past the Clinton's do some something like this, Assange didn't actually say this (according to snopes

Although multiple articles had repeated this claim as of 9 September 2016, we found no other appearance of the alleged quote anywhere online other than USA Supreme as of 30 August 2016. Moreover, USA Supreme provided no information pertaining to the date of the interview, no link to the interview itself, nor an explanation of how they supposedly came into possession of information that would be headline news had it been credible.

Ghost

Snopes? You're using snopes to refute something? Snopes lost their credibility a LONG time ago. The sooner people realize this the better. There have been multiple articles on the web proving the bias and gatekeeping methods of snopes. Geez man, find a reputable source.

originally posted by: thesaneone
I thought Assange and the likes were like gods to the left but now not so much.

If Bernie was bribed or threatened to drop then that says a lot about him, would you want a president that would buckle like that?

Politics makes for strange bedfellows. 8 months ago Hannity was calling for Assange's assassination. Last week he interviewed him and talked him up, about how he's a great guy whose careful with his information and never puts anyone in danger with leaks.

I'm a supporter of Assange, I like what his website does and what it represents. However, I think he's mishandling the Hillary situation. If he has something, he should release it. Timing it for politically opportune moments is against what his website stands for. Get it out there and let people decide.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

I agree partly with what you are saying in regard to put up or STFU, but at least he has given a reasonable time frame of when they will be released .

Also unlike anonymous when he delivers people have resigned, versus a website going down due to a Ddos attack.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: nobunaga

Assange has been saying for like 2 months now he's sitting on other information that would hurt her.

Why all the wait?

Probably because he doesn't have what he says he does. Unless he just wants to wait until the eve of a Debate or something to release the information.

Which would be political - and against everything Wikileaks supposedly stands for.

~Tenth

You really wanna take that bet knowing what he's released before? By all means, hold on to that naivete.

And Assange also knows how short the public's attention span is in the 24h news cycle, makes sense why he'd withhold them. But I suppose it didn't matter to you whether it was political or not when Bush was in office, only now eh?

HAHA.

I'm Canadian, and a Liberal.

I don't care one little bit about Bush or Clinton.

Thanks for making assumptions about me though.

And all I said is for months now, he's been parroting this line that he has information that will lead to her being jailed or at the very least have to drop out of the election.

Waiting until there is less than 60 days to the general to do so, is not only idiotic, but it's also going to create a bunch of chaos if they have to replace people so close to that finish line. It would have been much better to throw everything they had at her in June for example or prior to her getting the nomination.

~Tenth

I think the timing is fine honestly, and congrats on being Canadian and Liberal. Not really sure of the relevance but ok.

So if you don't care "one little bit" why are you here?

Snopes? You're using snopes to refute something? Snopes lost their credibility a LONG time ago. The sooner people realize this the better. There have been multiple articles on the web proving the bias and gatekeeping methods of snopes. Geez man, find a reputable source.

It's actually not bad for most other things...just not politics any longer.

in one of the upcoming releases of emails there is supposed to be information proving that Hillary's Mafia threatened the wife of Bernie Sanders. Her name is Jane. It is after that threat was received that Bernie dropped out.

THIS IS WHAT IVE BEEN WAITING FOR

originally posted by: Gazrok

Snopes? You're using snopes to refute something? Snopes lost their credibility a LONG time ago. The sooner people realize this the better. There have been multiple articles on the web proving the bias and gatekeeping methods of snopes. Geez man, find a reputable source.

It's actually not bad for most other things...just not politics any longer.

Well, according to you, perhaps. But snopes has been putting out slanted information for years. Most people I know don't even bother with it. I mean, how can you distinguish 'oh, well, they might be complete bullcrap about politics but everything ELSE they say is true! I'm sure of it!'. Right...SMH.

Snopes has lost ALL credibility. Heck they still think JFK was shot by Oswald. When anyone who has done any research on this AT ALL, including the Congressional Committee on Assassinations in 1975, concluded it was a conspiracy. And there have since been numerous death bed confessions that names names, the whole shebang. So you can watch videos done by investigators and ballistics and sound experts on youtube even showing where EACH BULLET CAME FROM during the assassination.

Oswald. Yeah, right. Try Edgar 'I love diddling children' Hoover, Lyndon 'I'm a criminal' Johnson, George H W 'I love teenage boys' Bush, numerous mobsters and to top it off, some deep state members of the CIA. The proof has all been uncovered, but not for snopes. Nope. Because the truth and snopes have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Snopes is a gatekeeper, and in all probability funded by our eveil CIA.

a reply to: Blueracer

Did you just give an excuse as to why it's OKAY for a candidate to threaten another? Yes. Yes you did. "Mathmatically" is not a vote of The People. In truth, she manipulated a United States election. That is illegal as hell.

But snopes has been putting out slanted information for years.

I meant on things not even REMOTELY related to politics. Things that are much easier to verify, etc.

I'm not saying it's great, just saying it has it's uses.

The problem is that some (especially of newer generations), see Snopes as some kind of grand authority on everything, and they certainly are NOT. Not even close.