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

originally posted by: facedye

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: facedye

originally posted by: Witness2008
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.

sorry, but did you just imply that I and other people here "don't think anymore" because we were let down by Assange today?

was it Assange or someone else that explicitly stated he'll bring Hillary down before the debates on the 26th?

this is what he actually said, is it not?

FFS, read the thread. Myself and others debunked that pages ago.

here's the thing, directly quoting you from another reply you made here:

I think we are talking too soon. Assange has stated that WikiLeaks will publish material over the next 10 weeks. That said, i agree that they could have exercised better public relations.

WikiLeaks, as a policy, doesn't publicly comment on material prior to their publication, so perhaps this was preventing them from confirming or denying specific material. Assange has always said it was 'serious' and 'interesting' though. Hardly evoking words.

my point, and the point of some others here, is that he's clearly milking this. wikileaks doesn't publicly comment on material prior to their publications?

Assange on Peston

looks like he's stating his (at the time) upcoming release contains enough within it for an indictment, among other facets of what's to come.

the man runs an organization revolving around data retrieval and transparency. surely if so many of these statements were misquotes, or weren't what he said at all, what he ought to do is make that clear.

maybe i missed it - did you come across anything that flat out proves he didn't make some of these statements for a fact?

The article you linked was from back in June...and there was no mention from him even then that he was going to release anything particularly devastating in that article. He didn't say he was going to bring Hillary down or any of that nonsense. People who believed that was what he said were allowing themselves to be played by the media.

He said he would leak info relating to Hillary using her private server for official business. Anything else attributed to him was a fabrication of the media, and millions of gullible people who would rather blindly believe what is being spoon fed to them than take the time to check facts first swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

The one question that should be asked is why, if someone who has information damaging enough to derail a presidential campaign and result in the candidate's incarceration; information that could be detrimental to the future of our country if it were to remain hidden from the public, would that person not be forthcoming with it? Why would someone parcel out such damning evidence, like it's a little game or something?

If she's done something that horrible and he has irrefutable proof, why let it go this far? Why not get it all out right away so that she could have been replaced with a better candidate? Because it's all nothing but hype and drama...and people go after that like a fat kid in a candy store, every time. And Assange basks in the limelight, untouched by the specter of responsibility because he never said any of it in the first place.

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: uncommitted

You missed the point. It you believe governments and corporations are acting for the benefit of the average person and making the world a better place then good for you.

What WL has posted isn't changing the world at this point. It's not up the WL, it up to people making the change through the selected leadership.

Fairly sure it's not me who missed the point, spouting the typical cliches is kind of missing the point on an OP that is a little more specific than that.

originally posted by: facedye
Assange on Peston

looks like he's stating his (at the time) upcoming release contains enough within it for an indictment, among other facets of what's to come.

His indictment comment, in context, seems more likely to be referring to the FBI, rather than WikiLeaks, since WikiLeaks is not a law enforcement agency and doesn't "proceed to indictments". But the comment is somewhat ambiguous and could easily be (mis)interpreted either way.

For those of us without iOS devices, a YouTube version of the video and my brief analysis can be found here.

So,Alex Jones got a taste of his own medicine now he knows how his marks uh,I mean listeners feel after they give him a donation.

Yes, why does anybody trust or believe a single word this Alex Jones guy says? He seems thoroughly unreliable.

originally posted by: gladtobehere
Heres what Ive gathered from reading the last few pages of comments:

1. There was no major "reveal".
2. Instead, Assange said that there will be various information released over the next 10 weeks.
3. He took the opportunity to promote a book.
4. Alex had a melt down (cant wait for the video).
5. Some think that Assange may have been threatened, possibly in real time (someone in the room).

Sound about right?

Yup.

originally posted by: Painterz
Yes, why does anybody trust or believe a single word this Alex Jones guy says? He seems thoroughly unreliable.

He totally is and I have no idea..

a reply to: tigertatzen

yeah, two things here.

1. I don't think he "never said any of that." sure, maybe some of the statements attributed to him are untrue, but the precedent for him having material that "can lead to an indictment" is self evident. he pushed this idea that he had extraordinarily damning information.

2. other than that i agree. this is precisely where I'm coming from. being the proposed shining light of honesty and transparency he's making himself out to be, it's strange he's not getting ahead of this. in addition, just like you said, it's peculiar that someone would drag something like this out if he was truly trying to stop a national political disaster.

if not for anything else, his handling of this doesn't really procure him a lot of public trust nor credibility.

What a wicked burn on you InfoWars morons!
HahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaHaHaHaHaHaHahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Too, too, too funny. Well done Julian.

a reply to: facedye

if not for anything else, his handling of this doesn't really procure him a lot of public trust nor credibility.

Wikileaks has never sought the trust of any country, no one really. However, Assange and Wikileaks have been showered with much praise and respect. You don't see it because that type of proof resides in higher places than ATS and Infowars.
Here is a search page that you can explore scholar.google.com...,5

When some one like assange comes along the masses rarely know how to comprehend what they are seeing, as everyone is down in the trenches fighting and arguing about stupid stuff, and demanding that some one change it for you, and when they don't, look out. Try going to the Wikileaks site and check out the about us link, then try nick picking him for the sins of others.

No one cares about baby seals anymore. The only thing that could bring Hillary Clinton down, in my opinion, is actual footage of her molesting children. And though I think she is more evil than a flying one-eyed hag on a broom,I doubt that she molests kids. So, without further ado, introducing the first woman president of the United States…

originally posted by: incoserv

originally posted by: Bluntone22
They could release video footage of hillary clubbing baby seals with autistic children and it wouldn't change the election outcome.

Exactly ...
[/q

Looking at Hillarys bank account, I see the following payments:
Comey $649,000
Holt $140,000
Assange $250,000

I am inclined to believe this...

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
Looking at Hillarys bank account, I see the following payments:
Comey $649,000
Holt $140,000
Assange $250,000

So did anything got released?

originally posted by: apydomis
I am inclined to believe this...

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
Looking at Hillarys bank account, I see the following payments:
Comey $649,000
Holt $140,000
Assange $250,000

Why?

originally posted by: flyandi
So did anything got released?

Yeah is anything released? I'm confused.

I have been convinced that Hillary Clinton is deeply corrupt, and anyone who steps up to bat for her must be on her team. Therefore I believe that directly paying people off isn't above her character. The true story might not be what I see, but I have seen a ton of information ( however true it is) that is very cohesive and clear, and connects a lot of dots, which leads me to believe that she is at the very least, a Woman of alterior motives. I'm not saying I'm right, just that I'm convinced, and inclined to believe negative comments about her. Did she pay people off directly out of her account? No, I don't think so, But for just a moment, I believed.

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: apydomis
I am inclined to believe this...

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
Looking at Hillarys bank account, I see the following payments:
Comey $649,000
Holt $140,000
Assange $250,000

Why?

a reply to: amazing

No. Currently, nothing has been released. However, Assange promised to release something... "soon."

Probably just more stuff about the E-mails that nobody will care about.

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: apydomis
I am inclined to believe this...

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
Looking at Hillarys bank account, I see the following payments:
Comey $649,000
Holt $140,000
Assange $250,000

Why?

because