WikiLeaks Release Coming Wednesday?

originally posted by: IAMTAT
IF anything is released Wednesday...and IF it is incriminating to Clinton...I fully expect the majority of the MSM to ignore it while it focuses exclusively on the hurricane hitting Haiti, Jamaica, Cuba.

That's pretty much what Julian Assange said in his recent statement...

"I think it’s significant. It depends on how it catches fire in the public and in the media. I don’t want to scoop ourselves. [But they are] different types of documents from different types of institutions that are associated with the election campaign, some quite unexpected angles that are … quite interesting, some even entertaining."

Source: www.inquisitr.com...

Since the establishment (DOJ and MSM) is "all in" for Hillary, don't get your hopes up that his announcement will be a bombshell that can't be ignored.

Note: Julian's statement was made in early September. In mid-September, he said in a Sean Hannity radio interview, that a lot of "new material" was being volunteered to WikiLeaks from people who have communicated with Hillary. At the time, he said about 30,000 new documents had arrived and were being poured over by his small staff for accuracy.

At this point, it's irrelevant who is colluding with who.

If the evidence points to illegal or unethical activity, Manning should be granted whistle-blower protection. Trump is just a beneficiary considering the circumstances.

Who has a stronger connection?

A.) Mr. Putin and Mr. Trump

B.) TheClintons and Mr. Trump

C.) The Clintons and Truth, honesty and integrity

D.) As in Does it even matter, it is clear the majority are screwed. Once again those at The top Top and the bottom Bottom all get the breaks...

If Mr. Assange has got something then lets see it, this constant "I'm going to tell Your parents" is getting old...

I still think Mr. Drumpf put in for another bankruptcy and they told Him 'Nyet' so He gets to ruin this erection for His 'family friends' The Clinton Cabal™.. He'll drop out and claim His "vast business interests" need His attention. Of course this means We will NEVER see His taxes, EVER. You don't think the Clintons™ are going to spend that much cash and not have a record of it?? "I wanted them at My wedding..." What for?

CROCK full of CROOKS

a reply to: Darkmadness yeah I know her whole life has just been republicans lying about her right ? her emails being deleted after the subpoena would just be a right wing conspiracy right ?

a reply to: theantediluvian

My question is, why does it matter if Russia is behind it?

This information has been illegally gotten one way or another, so does it really matter if a state actor such as Russia is responsible, or if non state hackers have done it, or if disgruntled employees such as Snowden have done it? Either way it was illegal to obtain this information, and displays a weakness in our governmental cyber security.

Where the information comes from also has nothing to do with the content of the information. If it shows illegal behavior by Trump, Obama, Hillary, etc. we should still be able to look at this information regardless of the source.

And how would Trumps possible connection to Wikileaks and Russia any worse to Hillary's connection to the mainstream media and banking interests?

It is obvious the media has made it their mission to take down Trump, and as people at the New York Times have said, they would be happy to break the law to do so. And now they have with the Trumps tax documents.

So yes, it is disturbing to think that Russians may be hacking information about Hillary and the DNC. Whats more disturbing to me is that the mainstream media is unwilling to attack Hillary, and that there is so much material about how horrible Hillary is for Russia (or whoever is behind the leaks) to work with.

Drone strike coming Tuesday.

a reply to: Grambler

Where the information comes from also has nothing to do with the content of the information. If it shows illegal behavior by Trump, Obama, Hillary, etc. we should still be able to look at this information regardless of the source.

I haven't argued that the information should be disregarded here (or in any thread) as long as it's pristine. As far as I know, nobody has disputed the authenticity of any of the emails/documents either. Think about that for just a moment. Nobody has made the allegation that the documents have been edited/forged. That would be a very easy claim to make and a hard one to disprove.

And how would Trumps possible connection to Wikileaks and Russia any worse to Hillary's connection to the mainstream media and banking interests?

Three points here:

1. What's worse? Banking interests or Russian interests?
2. Trump has arguably more ties to banking than Clinton by a country mile.
3. Trump doesn't have media connections? He's got the father of mainstream conservative media on his payroll. Fox News dominates cable news (64%+ market share?), OWNS talk radio (I don't have the numbers handy but we're probably talking 80%+ of political talk radio) and his campaign is being run by the CEO of Breitbart News. His former campaign manager (Lewandowski) is on the payroll of CNN. Sean Hannity is hosting his town halls, appearing in his campaign ads and telling his primetime viewers to check out the latest sketchy YouTube videos. And he's not the only one at Fox. Let's not forget that his army of surrogates who are everywhere in the media either and have been since day one.

What really concerns me is that we have two corrupt, dishonest candidates who are the nominees for two corrupt, dishonest political parties. What is playing out now is that one half of that corrupt whole is "getting a pass" which is definitely skewing perceptions.

What will the end result be? That the corrupt assholes who may very well be seeking to advance the interests of Putin and the Eastern oligarchy are put in power?

What else though? Is it going to end corruption in politics? Of course not. The outcome is that nothing will change except that we have the assholes in power who are beholden to all the same people PLUS the Russians.

I can't see how that's an improvement.

(and that's stipulating that they're equally corrupt but I'd say conspiring with foreign actors to "rig" an election is far worse than their mutual connection to banksters and manipulation of the media)

a reply to: theantediluvian

I give you credit that I have not seen you once not look at leaked information because of the source. I feel the same way about the leaked Trump tax documents. I will look at this information regardless of where it came from.

As far as the rest of your post, you are right, both of these candidates have terrible connections to people.

Here is how I see it:

I hate the establishment. I think they are only interested in protecting their own interests and the interests of their wealthy masters. Hillary is the epitome of the establishment.

Trump may be more of the same. But the one amount of hope I have is how much vitriol members of the establishment have towards Trump.

People discuss "institutional" power a lot. Well, all of these institutions hate Trump. Many wealthy Republicans such as the Bush's that are the establishment won't vote for him, the media is overwhelmingly against him, banking interests have financially backed Hillary much more than Trump, the entertainment industry hates Trump, academia hates Trump, and so on.

This gives me just a small amount of hope that Trump may expose these establishment institutions for the shills that they are. All of these groups have tremendous power in this country, and are hurting it. I guess that I hold out hope that if they hate Trump, then maybe he will expose them. I had the same hope for Bernie, as it was obvious the establishment didn't want him.

What other options are there? Hillary is the establishment, the other third parties are weak and have many things about them I don't like. So I will take my chances with Trump.

And if it turns out that Trump sucks, I will be right there with you criticizing him.

As far as I know, nobody has disputed the authenticity of any of the emails/documents either. Think about that for just a moment. Nobody has made the allegation that the documents have been edited/forged. That would be a very easy claim to make and a hard one to disprove.

I've often been wondering that as well.

As for the claim that the suggestion on how Hillary could assassinate Assange is like a movie plot....no, that is actually right on the money. People have this idea that a spy does all of this James Bond stuff. In reality, a spy is really more of a manager, who recruits nationals (based on some need or assistance) to spy FOR him, or ACT for him. In this case, the idea of co-opting someone working at the embassy to take him out...would be basically clandestine operations 101.

A drone strike on the embassy would basically be an act of war against two different nations, Britain as it goes through the airspace, and Ecuador who has the embassy. THAT is extremely far-fetched and unlikely.

What other options are there? Hillary is the establishment, the other third parties are weak and have many things about them I don't like. So I will take my chances with Trump.

And if it turns out that Trump sucks, I will be right there with you criticizing him

Pretty much my feelings in a nutshell....

a reply to: Grambler

Trump may be more of the same. But the one amount of hope I have is how much vitriol members of the establishment have towards Trump.

I can see that and I admit that he's shaken up the GOP establishment (the Democrats were bound to be vitriolic) but I think it's more because he's not a conservative and he essentially hijacked the party from the current cadre of political elites who didn't want to cede power.

In other words, I just see it as a coup from within the oligarchy itelf. He's not anti-establishment — he's just not the member of the establishment that the GOP establishment wanted running their side.

It's not surprising that movie stars and academics detest Trump. They detested Bush too but that wasn't because Bush was a threat to the establishment.

I guess that I hold out hope that if they hate Trump, then maybe he will expose them. I had the same hope for Bernie, as it was obvious the establishment didn't want him.

I actually registered as a Democrat this year to vote for Bernie in the primary. I wasn't crazy about some of his policy positions but I have a lot of respect for him. In many ways he's the anti-Trump (and anti-Clinton) but even Bernie has had to suck it up, hold his nose and make the pragmatic decision.

Maybe Bernie and I are wrong and if Trump manages to win, I hope we are!

And if it turns out that Trump sucks, I will be right there with you criticizing him.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Nothing about this is interesting to me in any way -- other than the controlled opposition/disinfo/media-directed aspects of it.

I remember watching the 'Michelle Whitey Tape' October-surprise garbage unfold into nothing, in 2008. It was pathetic how easily people were led by disinfo in the form of widely publicized promises. Everything about Assange and his 'leaks,' this election season, feels machinated by the same-type minds.

In fact, it has the feel of several other *potential* political bombshell promises over the last decade, or so, too -- none of which ever resulted in anything to speak of.

I am on to this formula. All these disinfo agents promise a bombshell....and they hook people in with these promises. Then those hooked people spend their energy counting on the Promisers to come through. And they stop paying attention to all kinds of other important things.

But the Promisers never come through with anything, or any more bombshell-type info than what most dedicated bloggers/online citizen journalists uncover, ALL THE TIME.

Roger Stone. Hm. Nixon's guy. Hm. The guy that had the totally bizarre public falling out with Donald Trump when he left his campaign. Hm.

Just. No. None of it feels genuine and I am not interested in the story behind the story 'they' want me to be digging into, right now. What we have with Roger Stone is a smarmy disgusting political strategist that gets paid to think of ways to manipulate the voters during election season. People assume he's a Trump fan, but I just assume he is the opposite of whatever he is pretending to be.

No offense to you, OP -- you seem to be genuinely interested in this story -- but Assange has led people along by their noses and, frankly, DWS losing her job to go work for Hillary was not an impressive result, in the slightest, to me. Assange -- and this entire saga -- have a record of being controlled opposition.