Wikileaks dump is ON, scheduled 04 OCT 2016 9:00 GMT will "devastate" Clinton, "the end" of them

Reveals all of Hillary's crimes. Ha ha ha Ha Ha ha Ha.
She never been charged with a single thing.
He really delivered didn't he.
Buwhaa haha...

a reply to: Stormdancer777

well shafted again.

I think fished in would be a better term.

a reply to: Phage

I remember the great Glen Beck reveal that never happened a couple years back.

So apparently he didn't want to get assassinated over nothing.
ha

a reply to: Kapriti

They don't protect her. She just isn't the devious criminal some people think she is.
She's never been charged with any crime ever.

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: Phage

I remember the great Glen Beck reveal that never happened a couple years back.

It's not that Assange won't reveal anything. It's that he didn't reveal anything today.

He has said WikiLeaks will publish weekly over the next 10 weeks.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

So what has he got? . Oh yeah. Nothing. Hee hee ha Ha Ha ha Ha Ha .

originally posted by: cvsouth
Wow

I think there's a valuable lesson here for all of us. (does walk of shame)

There is high-mindedness with Assange and what he and is organization are doing, and high-mindedness being foreign to most, they end up relying on news shills like jones to interperate. It could be why so many here feel shafted.

If you follow what actually comes from Assange and Wikileaks your expectations are more tempered and intelligent and you may even learn to respect the people that are actually trying to bring about the transparency and change everyone screams about.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

OMG.

originally posted by: Phage
I think fished in would be a better term.

Indeed. The carrot dangles yet again.

Assange has gone along ways in a very short period of time in destroying his own organization last night. Leaving a great many people with the belief that it's time to move on. Many of us were depending on him to keep the 2016 election fair and it seems apparent, that's not going to happen. To many unfulfilled promises I suspect.

The how and why of this self-destruction may not be truly understood for sometime but I would say that a great many people have been mislead. Based on his passed accomplishments I wish him well and thank him for his service.

a reply to: WishIKnew2
You only have yourself to blame for getting your hopes up.

Lol I love watching alt-right deplorables infighting over their disgusting hatred of everything that they don't support.

Looks like we're going to need a bigger coffin and more nails.

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: Phage

I remember the great Glen Beck reveal that never happened a couple years back.

It's not that Assange won't reveal anything. It's that he didn't reveal anything today.

He has said WikiLeaks will publish weekly over the next 10 weeks.

I won't take him seriously, unless he releases data on all sides.

If he's just gonna focus on Clinton, I have no interest.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: Phage

I remember the great Glen Beck reveal that never happened a couple years back.

It's not that Assange won't reveal anything. It's that he didn't reveal anything today.

He has said WikiLeaks will publish weekly over the next 10 weeks.

I won't take him seriously, unless he releases data on all sides.

If he's just gonna focus on Clinton, I have no interest.

We've been through this conversation a million times. He can only release what he gets.

You know he did release Republican information around '08 and '09, right? I'm sure he would release Republican information today. It would be a huge score in the media.

It's sad you let your biases cloud your interest though. Sometimes it's good to know who it is you really support.

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: Phage

I remember the great Glen Beck reveal that never happened a couple years back.

It's not that Assange won't reveal anything. It's that he didn't reveal anything today.

He has said WikiLeaks will publish weekly over the next 10 weeks.

I won't take him seriously, unless he releases data on all sides.

If he's just gonna focus on Clinton, I have no interest.

We've been through this conversation a million times. He can only release what he gets.

You know he did release Republican information around '08 and '09, right? I'm sure he would release Republican information today. It would be a huge score in the media.

It's sad you let your biases cloud your interest though. Sometimes it's good to know who it is you really support.

I have a bias because I state Assange should not be biased?

Interesting.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: Phage

I remember the great Glen Beck reveal that never happened a couple years back.

It's not that Assange won't reveal anything. It's that he didn't reveal anything today.

He has said WikiLeaks will publish weekly over the next 10 weeks.

I won't take him seriously, unless he releases data on all sides.

If he's just gonna focus on Clinton, I have no interest.

We've been through this conversation a million times. He can only release what he gets.

You know he did release Republican information around '08 and '09, right? I'm sure he would release Republican information today. It would be a huge score in the media.

It's sad you let your biases cloud your interest though. Sometimes it's good to know who it is you really support.

I have a bias because I state Assange should not be biased?

Interesting.

You're biased because you support Clinton, which in turn, affects your interest in these publications. You said it yourself, you have no interest so long as WikiLeaks continues to publish information only on Clinton.

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: Phage

I remember the great Glen Beck reveal that never happened a couple years back.

It's not that Assange won't reveal anything. It's that he didn't reveal anything today.

He has said WikiLeaks will publish weekly over the next 10 weeks.

I won't take him seriously, unless he releases data on all sides.

If he's just gonna focus on Clinton, I have no interest.

We've been through this conversation a million times. He can only release what he gets.

You know he did release Republican information around '08 and '09, right? I'm sure he would release Republican information today. It would be a huge score in the media.

It's sad you let your biases cloud your interest though. Sometimes it's good to know who it is you really support.

I have a bias because I state Assange should not be biased?

Interesting.

You're biased because you support Clinton, which in turn, affects your interest in these publications. You said it yourself, you have no interest so long as WikiLeaks continues to publish information only on Clinton.

LOL - - nice twisting.

There are 2 main presidential candidates. One is Clinton. The other is Trump. Then there's the others, and vice presidential candidates.

How else should I word it?

Morals And Dogma

a reply to: Witness2008

That's the irony of all this. While Assange is rightly notorious for his coy, strip-tease approach to disclosure (the WikiLeaks logo consists of an hourglass containing a dripping world, after all), he tends to be careful about his words and doesn't seem prone to saying things that aren't true.

There was a build-up in this case that has been fostered by Assange himself, and garnered the interest of not just "conspiracy theorists", but anyone interested in how information published by WikiLeaks may influence the U.S. presidential elections. That happens to be a hell of a lot of people, Assange knows it, and apparently wants to milk it for all it's worth.

So to the extent he's stringing people along, shame on him.

However, as this thread and others attest, there are plenty of "alternative news" sites that are not only sloppy as hell about their sources, but flat out fabricate fictitious stories, presumably to attract traffic. The problem with that strategy is that eventually, all but the most credulous of people stop buying their brand of bull# and ignore them.

There doesn't seem to be any credible evidence that Julian Assange or WikiLeaks claimed to be releasing information on Hillary Clinton today. Nonetheless, without any foundation in fact, speculation about this WikiLeaks announcement was built up into something it wasn't.

Perversely, when these fictitious stories end up being exposed as false, it's all too common for those who were fooled by them to blame someone other than the authors of those stories. Assange is a tease, but it's not his fault the stories Internet opportunists fabricate for hit counts aren't true.

Welcome to the Internet Echo Chamber.




As usual, the morals of this story aren't new:

1. Consider the source.

2. Don't believe everything you read on the Internet.

3. If you think you're right, you're wrong, and if you think you're wrong, you're right.

Sorry, I couldn't resist slipping in an Ozzy Osbourne quote for that last one.