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

a reply to: Xcathdra

I have a different view. I think the Ecuadorian Embassy is under extreme and threatening pressure from behind the scenes maneuvering to give up Assange.

Eight hours ago this was posted on Wikileaks' Twitter feed:

#Assange: Regarding upcoming publications... We hope to be publishing every week for the next 10 weeks. #wikileaks10— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 4, 2016

...which goes to this hashtag:

#wikileaks10

...where there's a link to an article at The Daily Mail

...in which he responds to questions about his releases and when.

From this trail I gather he approves the article at The Daily Mail.

Oh I am laughin' at the revelations today.

What did anyone expect? Emails did nothing to Hillary. Same goes here.

The only thing that could have changed the course of the election would be a video of Hillary killing someone herself. Maybe a video of her spouting racial epithets like Michael Richards.

Don't get your hopes up, Trump-people. lol

a reply to: Majic

Strategic yes, that some may see as a tease. Our only expectation of Assange and wikileaks should be that of accuracy and transparency.

If you were to go to the wikileaks archives you may get a sense of how daunting a mission they have, not to mention the illegal state sponsored campaigns against them. Of all the people in the world that ATS should be propping up and supporting, some chose to belittle and ridicule for political purposes even though Wikileaks has no political agenda.

We should be able to source wikileaks directly here and keep the record straight. Why can't we do that?

Maybe he's running out of money.

I don't think the Embassy supports him financially.

At least Alex Jones is calling Assange out for basically trolling the internet and talking about how there may be something more sinister at work.

If only Alex Jones and friends didnt have blind support for trump i could take him more seriously. Those silly mark dice videos and paul watson's pieces on lone feminist bloggers arent helping either.

One thing of note... everything I saw said Hillary would be "done" on Wednesday
Perhaps this means the content will come tomorrow?

Screw your #ing lies you dirtbags.

I'm not following this anymore after 3 fizzles to produce #ing squat, including Assange himself commenting he never said he never wanted to attack Clinton.

The Right is about as credible as terrorists at this point, with clear delusions as they consider "normal democrats" to always be affiliated or secretly backing "the worst of the worst".

They want Welfare you fking morons. They shop at Walmart just like your dumbass.

I always wondered what would happen if someone ELSE previously released the info he had saved.

a reply to: Belgianbeer

I'm willing to do this before writing off Assange.

I don't wish to be in his situation.

We should assume that whatever tact Wikileaks takes, it's directed at Hillary personally and is intended to cause her the kind of harm that Assange himself has experienced.

Times Of Universal Deceit

originally posted by: Witness2008
We should be able to source wikileaks directly here and keep the record straight. Why can't we do that?

What Julian Assange and WikiLeaks do is, in my opinion, very important.

While there's plenty to criticize, their work is courageous and anything but risk-free. It also runs afoul of tons of laws in almost every country in the world, which makes direct association with WikiLeaks also anything but risk-free.

ATS operates under the legal jurisdiction of the United States of America. In the U.S., a lot of what WikiLeaks does violates federal law, notably the Espionage Act of 1917, and can lead to prosecution and imprisonment. That also goes for anyone who collaborates with WikiLeaks to collect and distribute information illegally, and the government has shown persistent determination to investigate and prosecute anyone who does.

The legal status of WikiLeaks also puts it at odds with the terms of service of effectively all U.S. Internet service providers, as well as the AboveTopSecret.com Terms And Conditions Of Use.

Since ATS best serves the interests of its members by remaining in operation, we have to act accordingly.

Our Official Position

Make of it what you will, but that's the world we live in.

a reply to: daaskapital

Yes, to me, it's not about RT; it's about people attributing words and the perceived implications of those words to Assange he did not use or imply.

Embellishing?

a reply to: Majic

I would like to think that if the owners of ATS had deep pockets we would be able to link directly. Depending on other news sources and their twisted commentary leads to the problems I see raining down around here concerning Assange and Wkileaks.

I appreciate the reminder, it had slipped my mind.

Perhaps the members here could vet the middle men they use, cutting down on dis-information and propaganda.

a reply to: Witness2008

With deep enough pockets, anything is possible, but there's always a catch.

In this case, acquiring deep enough pockets.

a reply to: carewemust

I suggest you try National Public Radio. It doesn't "bash" anyone. It just tells you the news, from an academic point of view.

NPR is all over the place up there in Chicago. It's usually a call number very low on the spectrum, like around the 90.0 mark.

Talk all the time except for the weekend game shows (hilarious and brainy), and a few music hours. Depending on the station. Try it. Try it for two days, would you do that? Just to see what academic and investigative, in-depth real JOURNALISM is all about?

If you'd do that, I would LOVE to hear your response. I have given y'alls sources a read, a listen, a watch....I have done it on purpose, and I still do it to the extent I can stand it. So, would you do that, with an OPEN MIND, in order to advance our conversation?

This is pretty notable.

I was about to make a thread on the topic about a day or so ago after it clearly seemed to me like Assange was starting to make some false promises. I refrained because everyone got word that he was going to come out with something "devastating."

Many Americans as well as American talk show hosts (as well as media outlets) paved the way for and centered their attention on this man to deliver on his promises, which were BOLD and matter-of-factly. He made very many look foolish today.

If nothing substantial comes out of this in the immediate future, it's safe to assume all of the steam should leave his ship if it hasn't already.

This is truly perplexing.

a reply to: lane24

No. It means lots of people will wait around in anticipation, getting all excited about the 'event', and then nothing will happen. For some strange reason, a certain segment of conservatives/right-wingers like to do that. If it's not taking down Clinton, or busting Bilderbergers, it's The Second Coming, or Armageddon.

ALWAYS something dastardly coming up....ALWAYS looking for trouble...hypervigilant. Gotta keep 'em freaking out, I guess. Like PTSD sufferers.,,or more like Stockholm Syndrome victims.

I predict it will devastate no one and will be much to do about nothing.
I predict Assange has been given an offer of exoneration in exchange for anything really damaging to be suppressed, OR, the embassy has threatened to kick him out of he serves anything potentially damaging up.

a reply to: facedye

There is nothing perplexing about it if you go directly to what Assange and Wikileaks has actually said. I certainly wish the phenomena around here of hanging on to fishing line that will just cast you out then in again were actually perplexing. The sad truth is too many people don't think any more.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs


I do listen to NPR myself. However, they also show favoritism....it is in the words they use, and more importantly, how they phrase the story.


I will continue to listen, I love Wait Wait Don't Tell Me, and their wakeup edition. But they are not unbiased.