It's almost the 26th. Where's your bomb Assange?

The way that is worded it sounds like he could mean he will somehow reveal something at the debate.....

"I will bring her down before the debate stage..."

To me that sounds like something will be revealed literally at the debate.

I don't know how that'd be possible but that's just what it sounds like.

If he had just said "before the debate on the 26th" it would make more sense..

originally posted by: coffeetalk
Hopefully he does deliver.

Keep in mind, releasing today or over the weekend will do nothing except get buried in the news cycle. The best time to release would be Monday during the day.

How would campaign sinking news that he said he had be buried over a weekend?

originally posted by: GoShredAK
The way that is worded it sounds like he could mean he will somehow reveal something at the debate.....

"I will bring her down before the debate stage..."

To me that sounds like something will be revealed literally at the debate.

I don't know how that'd be possible but that's just what is sounds like.

If he had just said "before the debate on the 26th" it would make more sense..

Well it would certainly be interesting if he either gave something to Trump to bring up at the debate to completely rock her world, or to the moderator to bring up and rock her world...imagine that happening on stage live for the world to see....

a reply to: Vasa Croe
Heck ya....that would be so excellent! We shall see I suppose. I hope it doesn't get cancelled for some dumb reason.

I think releasing everything about a half hour before the debates would be the smartest strategy.

Lester Holt or Trump would HAVE to bring up whatever the contents are at the debates (provided Assange organizes the data for the press). Hillary would have almost no time to prepare a response to defend herself. Her only option would be to look like a fool (she obviously isn't good at answering spontaneous unscripted questions, hence why she doesn't hold press conferences), OR cancel the debate before it starts because of her "pneumonia" which would only make her look sickly and unfit to be president.

Checkmate!

well, if he does`nt fullfill his promise then we know he is full # and just another hoaxer, one less fool to source on ATS.

Indeed he needs to do this soon if he wants any action from it, at this point not holding my breath. With a lot of what he releases, in this partisan circus, many people on their side don't believe it anyway.

originally posted by: primespickle
I think releasing everything about a half hour before the debates would be the smartest strategy.

No. That wouldn't give Trump's team enough time to capitalise on the revelations.

The ideal time to release additional leaks is Saturday. That gives the controversy two or three days to ferment in the media and generate national outrage.

Dropping it 30 minutes before the debate is far too late to be useful.

a reply to: GoShredAK

Im with you on the wording.

I just found out that i will be able to watch the debates here in Australia each night on ABC News Ch24.

Popcorn worthy, cant wait.

I'm under the impression he's trying to negotiate.

originally posted by: Tardacus
well, if he does`nt fullfill his promise then we know he is full # and just another hoaxer, one less fool to source on ATS.

He already released documents that demonstrated he is no hoaxer.

From the comments here about this dump he appears to be doing it right and making people nervous with the limited spin time to the debate.

Although with the riots and shootings I could see if he postpones the dump to get more coverage.

a reply to: MongolianPaellaFish
There is always the possibility that Wikileaks have been in communication with Trump's team to provide the key details in advance for them to prepare, while only releasing the data to the public on the day of the debate, thus giving Clinton's team very little time to formulate a sound defense.

Doing this would also give Assange leverage to possibly negotiate a deal with Trump in order to secure his freedom if/when Trump becomes POTUS.

originally posted by: Navieko
a reply to: MongolianPaellaFish
There is always the possibility that Wikileaks have been in communication with Trump's team to provide the key details in advance for them to prepare, while only releasing the data to the public on the day of the debate, thus giving Clinton's team very little time to formulate a sound defense.

Doing this would also give Assange leverage to possibly negotiate a deal with Trump in order to secure his freedom if/when Trump becomes POTUS.

Ooooo....now that is a whole new level of sneaky. Great theory!

originally posted by: Dan00

I Will Bring Hillary Down Before The Debate Stage On September 26th.

Couldn't "Before" also be taken to mean "in front of"?

Just crossed my mind.

That's one way to interpret it. I was thinking that Assange would leak the "bombshell" documents, but only to the Trump campaign. Let the first mention of this particular "crime" come directly from Trump's lips, surprising Hillary into silence, or a seizure. Based on how Hillary is acting and performing, he can decide to slam her with the information in the First, or Second, or Third debate.

the debates are going to brutal for hillary her puppet strings have been visible for awhile tump is going to cut those strings and then maul her.it`s going to be brutal that`s the only reason i`m going to watch,just to see hillary start crying and leave the stage to use the bathroom or some such other excuse. but it`s normal for a candidate to leave the stage during a presidential debate, at least thats the excuse the hillary supporters will use to try and justify and rationalize her departure.it`s going to be brutal and awesome,a once in a lifetime spectical.

originally posted by: TheFlyOnTheWall
Just a reminder to everyone that back in August Assange promised to "bring Hillary down before the debate stage"

Assange: I will not reveal the exact date but I can promise you this,I Will Bring Hillary Down Before The Debate Stage On September 26th.

It's the 23rd so it it's either the 24th or the 25th so it doesn't take much to figure out the "exact" date at this point. I've been having my suspicions about Assange lately and if he doesn't deliver, I call foul. Cointelpro, modified limited hangout, mole, whichever applies. If he's going to do it he better do it soon to let the information disseminate and sink in. Not much time left Assange, tick tock.

As others have repeatedly pointed out, Assange never said this. You only find that quote on fringe sites. I know I speak to deaf ears... so carry on.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
it's an overt intervention in a sovereign nation's political system on the order of what he presumes to admonish Clinton for doing as SoS — and worse yet, his motivation is largely if not mostly personal.

Would you be against it if it was all material against Trump?

I don't care who, how, when or what anyone releases.. if there is anything corrupt about a government official it should be plastered in every news paper until that person answers for it.

If Julian's the only one with balls to do it, then i applaud the man. Because America News is obviously colluding with Clinton to never admit anything.

a reply to: stinkelbaum

this does show republican hypocrisy, the same people defend killing a black guy retroactively, are on their knees here for a rapist.

Oh he didn't "rape" he just engaged in Enhanced Sexual Interaction, so it's all good.

Seriously debate one of those "people" on the concept of Collateral Damage & the seemingly blind refutation of reality is fascinating to behold.

K~

Meanwhile, Clinton continues to climb; now +3 ahead of Trump.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Consider the implications here folks. Julian Assange is a foreign actor who is seeking to influence the outcome of the selection of the new head of state of the United States of America based largely on his own personal interests.

Not only is that not at all promoting/preserving democracy but it's an overt intervention in a sovereign nation's political system on the order of what he presumes to admonish Clinton for doing as SoS — and worse yet, his motivation is largely if not mostly personal.

If the truth is served, and the electorate better-informed as a result, this is largely irrelevant.

Do we criticise Daniel Ellsberg for being an anti-war activist (thus with a strong personal motivation) when he leaked the Pentagon Papers back in the 1970s? No we don't. And the attempt to prosecute him for espionage was dismissed by the Judge after interference from the Nixon administration made the prosecution 'incurably infected'.

Ellsberg, interestingly, went to several Senators before he leaked to the press. His aim was to get the Pentagon Papers entered as evidence via the Congressional route. But the Senators turned him down flat. He went to the press as a last resort. That's still how much officialdom cares about whistleblowers exposing the truth today.