Breaking: Julian Assange May be Arrested in Matter of Hours--Fox News. Wikileaks 11 Podesta Email R

a reply to: Annee

Linking directly to wikileaks is not allowed here. If you want to malign a person or idea it's a good idea to at least have a little bit of actual knowledge concerning your target. Go to wikileaks.

originally posted by: Witness2008
a reply to: Annee

Linking directly to wikileaks is not allowed here. If you want to malign a person or idea it's a good idea to at least have a little bit of actual knowledge concerning your target. Go to wikileaks.

I guess my interests are more on what's recent.

Seems there's problems between Assange and his "contributors".

But, I do realize that could be misleading info.

No. I won't go to wikileaks.

Thanks for the recommendations though.

a reply to: Annee

Assange and his contributors? Care to elaborate on that?

originally posted by: Witness2008
a reply to: Annee

Assange and his contributors? Care to elaborate on that?

I appreciate your straight talk. I like those who are point blank direct. So, I'm gonna be totally straight with you.

"Contributors" - - just a general word. Suppliers, people that send him info.

Honestly - - - I am not really interested in wikileaks. I truly don't care. Assange put himself there - - whatever happens - - his problem.

I just don't like the bias. If his intent is to expose - - why is it one sided?

a reply to: Annee

Wikileaks averages 3000 leaks per day from outside sources. I believe that you really don't care about Assange or wikileaks. Your interest is propping up a bit** that falls further down into the moral-less gutter of life with each passing day.

originally posted by: Witness2008
a reply to: Annee

Wikileaks averages 3000 leaks per day from outside sources. I believe that you really don't care about Assange or wikileaks. Your interest is propping up a bit** that falls further down into the moral-less gutter of life with each passing day.

No, I really don't care. That is completely honest.

But, if he's going to expose - - it shouldn't be bias - - - IMO.

Is it true - - as I've read - - that he's kinda gone rogue? Power corrupts, ya know.

I vote for the direction I want to go, not the person,

a reply to: Annee

What direction? you don't even know her plans

you're a member of the public no?

she got caught in a leaked bank speech admitting to different views for public and private

originally posted by: ssenerawa
a reply to: Annee

What direction? you don't even know her plans

you're a member of the public no?

she got caught in a leaked bank speech admitting to different views for public and private

I'm not going to discuss that on this thread.

I know what I want.

a reply to: Annee

Does your mommy know that you are up late posting on a conspiracy site?

originally posted by: Witness2008
a reply to: Annee

Does your mommy know that you are up late posting on a conspiracy site?

I'm 70.

Wanna try again?

all this BS - lol

no matter what wikileaks does, leaks or talks about they must be some shill for someone, no matter what, because people on the internet with little to no actual experience, information or in many cases common sense say so.

The people that leak to wiki leaks have an agenda - but that doesnt make the information any less true or relevant - whether its from DNC staffers, NSA contractors or the Russian .gov - it doesnt matter, we are being lied to, misled and abused and the people doing it arent going to expose it themselves so this is what weve got.

That and a continual train of idiots downplaying, maligning or perverting everything Wikileaks says or does while managing to contribute nothing of value in doing so.

I challenge any wikileaks deniers to do jack # about anything, let alone exposing any real truth of consequence, or impact.

As far as Hillary v Trump is concerned - I guess everyone just kinda forgot that she tried to convince us all that Benghazi was attacked because of a YouTube video, a real event where people died, even though she knew this to be a blatant lie.

I can't recall Trump being in charge of something where a bunch of people died and he lied about it.

a reply to: Gothmog

But Obama is not running for any office so that is all moot.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Witness2008
a reply to: Annee

Wikileaks averages 3000 leaks per day from outside sources. I believe that you really don't care about Assange or wikileaks. Your interest is propping up a bit** that falls further down into the moral-less gutter of life with each passing day.

No, I really don't care. That is completely honest.

But, if he's going to expose - - it shouldn't be bias - - - IMO.

Is it true - - as I've read - - that he's kinda gone rogue? Power corrupts, ya know.

I vote for the direction I want to go, not the person,

so if wikileaks finds tons of crap about the left side, they should keep it secret until they'll find a similar amount of crap about the right side, or they're suddenly being biased?

yay, f..k logic.

a reply to: Annee

truth doesn't take sides. it's simple as that, period.

the purpose of the wikileaks is so people can make up their own mind thanks to the truth being revealed to them, as opposed to being manipulated by the endless lies of the mass media.

the only thing that smells about it for me is the fact that they're deciding when to release the information. some of it may be, literally, world-shattering, but it still doesn't give Assange the right to withold it, imho. same can be said about Snowden. they should release everything they've got, insurance files or not, right now.

because you're right about one thing - information is power, and power corrupts. still, i'm afraid that the amount of crap they're witholding that they have on your beloved Hillary and the whole left side, would make you cry. because what would you do if they would release evidence that would bring down Clinton, Obama and the whole US government? would you be bitching about the 'bias' then?

the truth is the truth. there's no way around it, no matter how you'll try to twist it.

a reply to: Annee


When Wiki was exposing (supposed) US war crimes via the Manning leaks were you saying "hey wait, expose the other side too".

I fully and freely admit that I was against Wiki when they released American secrets. I still think what they are doing is dangerous to the American public to a certain degree.

Sometimes that curtain that hides the "wizard" protects weak minded individuals and lets them go through the day believing that everything is going to be OK. Removing that curtain will cause untold rage in some and unfathomable depression in others. Still others will bury their head in the sand because the truth is simply to hard to bear.


I too thought Wiki was biased and "anti-Clinton" but one twitter response from them swayed me immeasurably. When asked "Why are you not releasing information on Donald Trump?" Their response was:

He has never held public office. He has never held public office. He has never held public office.


Wiki has forever espoused the idea of transparency in government. I have not seen them at anytime go after the personal information of private citizens. I could be wrong as I have not paid close attention and do not claim to be a follower/supporter in any way.

Had Wiki released e-mails Podesta sent to his wife/mistress in an attempt to smear him, I would instant dismiss Wiki as another tabloid. However they seem to me to focus on releasing information that is related to government work (albeit shady backroom dealings in the campaign).

I apologize for the rant and please understand that not all of this post is directed at you.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Gothmog

But Obama is not running for any office so that is all moot.

Did you read???? "Let me make this perfectly clear" Anything would be better than what we have had the last 8 years. Anywhere in that statement did I mention Obama running again ?
No,,,,

a reply to: Gothmog

I responded to this post:
"Not about revenge . Somebody needs to stop that loon . I have a feeling that this is ALL Obama's work.He cant afford for the truth to come out and tie him into all the bullcrap that has went on during the last 8 years. Ol Barry is the chief instigator "

I guess I don't get the meaning. I am not sure Assange is a loon, just evil. Obama is not running for any office so the past does not matter. But, I believe it is highly possible it is revenge against Obama.

a reply to: Annee

But would you like wiki leaks if he was just going after Trump. You are saying you don't like bias but you are being bias yourself.

a reply to: jedi_hamster

Why should he release all his information at once, there's literally nothing else keeping Assange alive or relevant.

originally posted by: supertrot
Here is a LINK to a BBC article from yesterday stating that the UK is threatening to lift Ecuador's embassy status in order to get to Assange for an arrest.

a reply to: ObjectZero

That article is from 2012, very old news.