WikiLeaks Editorial Board statement on the status of Julian Assange, Ecuador and the US election

Wikleaks Tweet



Reading now, wanted to get it posted so others who don't have twitter would have the chance.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Pretty simple and straightforward.

Tells the dems to get bent and that they're going to keep doing what they've been doing since their inception.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Thanks for posting up. Statement not on web site, yet. Checked all four menu tabs.

Unfortunately, they do not discuss the well-being of Mr Assange.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Good thing that I checked before I hit the post button.

I was hoping for a bit more, for no other reason than to calm the nerves of many wikileaks supporters. I'm not sure why the statement had no information on Assange, as I do believe that they tweeted that they would release a statement about Assange.

I'm just hoping that WikiLeaks is able to continue putting out the remainder of the +100,000 Clinton / DNC documents, and get that task completed before November 7th. What's needed is a November "surprise" that even the idiots at CNN can't ignore. Most Americans still have no idea how absolutely EVIL Hillary Clinton is.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I was working on a thread about this and didn't check to see if it was posted. Here was the contents of it:

Wikileaks gave their promised update on Assange a bit earlier than they stated. It was supposed to be released tomorrow, but instead they released it this Sunday night:



That is a lackluster update by anyone's means. They haven't provided any proof that Assange is in good health or being, instead just repeated what everyone has already known. I've been skeptical on the concept that Wikileaks has been infiltrated, but this has me concerned. Why release a statement that has no new information? Assange has been silent since Ecuador cut off his internet.

Yet, in this statement they say: "The goverment of Ecuador has issued a statement saying that it had decided to not permit Mr. Assange to use the Goverment of Ecuadors internet connection citing it's policy of 'non-interference'."

Then, the same statement goes on to say: "Ecuadors statement also clarified that it does not seek to interfere with Wikileaks journalistic work and that it would continue to protect Mr. Assanges asylum rights"

So they are silencing a journalist because they don't want his work to interfere with elections?


Below, you can see an article that questions whether Wikileaks has been compromised. They show that certain users have been blocked from Wikileaks when they suggested a simple and full proof way to prove Assange is still alive and active:

Source

From the above link:

Followers of @Wikileaks have repeatedly requested the organization to produce a PGP signed statement proving that Julian Assange is alive and still in charge of the organization. Some of those making the request have been blocked and no signed statement has yet been produced.

If I’m wrong, and @Wikileaks has not been compromised, it would be very simple for Julian Assange to appear on the balcony or produce a verifiable PGP signed statement that all is well. The longer we wait for such proof, the worse it looks.

Granted, gotnews.com isn't exactly a known site and their reliability is unknown. However, they do have a point. Assange is still a free man and could easily prove he is in good health and in control of Wikileaks. But he hasn't. Add to that; Gavin Macfadyen, Wikileaks Director, just passed away. Who is running wikileaks?

Why did they release a statement, on a Sunday night(when they said it would be tomorrow), that lacks any evidence that Assange is in good health and in control of Wikileaks?

I personally hope that Assange is in good health and is in control, but Wikileaks has done nothing to show this. Their lack proof is worrisome.

Ghost

a reply to: ghostrager

Thank you for including your OP!

That's interesting that users have been blocked for asking for a PGP signed message.

That right there says more to me than just about anything else thus far as to the possibility of Wikileaks having been taken over.

They would have to have figured out the deadman switch and countered it otherwise the decryption keys for the insurance files would already have been used and the content of said file discussed or hinted at.

a reply to: carewemust

The emails will still flow. Wikileaks is ahead of the game in that they for the most part call the shots. Assange alone is not wikileaks and I'll bet there was some blowback about those Fox interviews, probably the straw that broke the camels back as far as the democrats were concerned, alas the internet was cut. Seeing a face on wikileaks was more than they could stand, given the intellect and savvy that the face has. It is something that the powers could erase, and they did.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

That's interesting that users have been blocked for asking for a PGP signed

That is what worries me the most. It is a simple and accurate way to prove Assange is still in control of wikileaks. Ive looked through the Twitter search of 'wikileaks blocked' and the referenced person in the article isn't the only one.

Two possibilities

1. Wikileaks is infiltrated
2. Assange is using the publicity to bring attention to the leaks.

I don't know which to believe. It's important to note that the Ecuadorian president essentially endorsed Clinton at the end of September.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

My current comment after reading this OP is I tend to think Soros, Clinton, Podesta, Obama, Intelligence, etc., are doing everything possible to completely isolate Julian and inhibit his communications with others.

I haven't seen anything on the MSM. Will voters ever know about any of these evil makers? And their connections? How can the word get out?

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

They would have to have figured out the deadman switch and countered it otherwise the decryption keys for the insurance files would already have been used and the content of said file discussed or hinted at.

One would imagine that this is absolutely the ultimate aim of everything we are seeing played out publicly.

What has been exposed thusfar has such far reaching implications the simple Operation Mockingbird tactics are failing, so much so that it was announced we would engage in cyber attacing Russia!?

I can only maintain hope that they will not be able to stop the deadman switch and if they do cross the line we get full exposure. It may very well be the last chance that we have at changing the course of history.

a reply to: elementalgrove

I can only maintain hope that they will not be able to stop the deadman switch and if they do cross the line we get full exposure. It may very well be the last chance that we have at changing the course of history.

I've already made plans to liquidate and purchase gold if the 'dead mans switch' is triggered.

Maybe a bit over cautious, but who knows how deep those leaks are.

originally posted by: ghostrager
a reply to: elementalgrove

I can only maintain hope that they will not be able to stop the deadman switch and if they do cross the line we get full exposure. It may very well be the last chance that we have at changing the course of history.

I've already made plans to liquidate and purchase gold if the 'dead mans switch' is triggered.

Maybe a bit over cautious, but who knows how deep those leaks are.

I do not think there is a such a thing as being over cautious given the current state of affairs across this globe. I am not much of a doom porner, however these elite scum that Hillary represents have time and time again spouted off about their "overpopupation" concerns (aka advocating for de-population) reading between these lines is how I have come to understand the insanity of the West's "foreign policy".

Outstanding JC !!!

And.........
For your viewing pleasure:

www.ghostarmy.org...

Buck

I deleted my post, didn't want to derail the thread.

STM

It appears that the US State Department believed that by getting Ecuador to shut down Assange's Internet that they were shutting down Wikileaks. Apparently they did not understand what Wikileaks really is.

Check out this exchange at the State Department press briefing 10/18/16.
They denied telling Ecuador to shut him down, yet it seems like they did.
And they put out a statement that was assuming that Wikileaks was shut down, when it wasn't.
So the questioner below makes sense when he asks them why they thought Wikileaks was shut down when they made the statement.
Mostly denials and non-answers:

QUESTION: This comment, statement that was put out in Kirby’s name earlier --

MR TONER: Yeah, mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- which I’m going to read because it’s very short: “While our concerns about WikiLeaks are longstanding, any suggestion that Secretary Kerry or the State Department were involved in shutting down WikiLeaks is false. Reports that Secretary Kerry had conversations with Ecuadorian officials about this are simply untrue. Period.” That’s not what WikiLeaks has alleged, because as everyone with an internet connection knows, they haven’t been shut down. They’re still publishing these documents.

What they said, what they claimed, was that the Secretary asked Ecuador to stop Assange from publishing Clinton docs when he was in Colombia, so – and that he had a private meeting with – it says Ecuador – presuming that means Ecuadorian officials of some type. So the denial that you guys have denies something that wasn’t alleged, so can you be – can you --

MR TONER: I think we were responding to some tweets that we saw from WikiLeaks.

QUESTION: Yeah, yeah, these are the tweets that I’m reading.

MR TONER: But let me --

QUESTION: So can you --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- be specific? Or are you able --

MR TONER: Well --

QUESTION: -- to be specific?

MR TONER: I can be specific – I can be --

QUESTION: Because this is kind of a non-denial denial of --

MR TONER: I can – not at all. I’m not – and there’s not – this is not some kind of wordplay or we’re trying to be coy in any way, shape, or form.

There were some rumors circulating out there that many of us saw today about the – whether Secretary Kerry had leaned on or had engaged with President Correa in Ecuador – or I think when he was in Colombia, frankly, about our concerns about WikiLeaks and meddling with regards to emails regarding the presidential campaign. That’s just not true. He didn’t raise that. He didn’t even engage with President Correa when he was on the ground in Colombia; they had no meeting. Neither – no bilat, no – nothing on the margins, so that – there was no – there just was no meeting. They didn’t discuss any of this stuff.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, speaking from the – all right, that’s more specific.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: But you understand, maybe, why the initial denial raises more question than it answers, because it does – did not address the primary allegation. Did – even if it wasn’t Secretary Kerry, has the United States leaned on, in your words, the Ecuadorians through President Correa or through anyone else to get – to try to stop the publication of these documents?

MR TONER: I can only speak to – about the State Department.

QUESTION: Okay, just --

MR TONER: And they have not – no one in the State Department has attempted to engage with the Ecuadorian Government on this particular matter. On this matter. Sorry. I’m not trying to be coy again.

QUESTION: All right, and then to the – the other allegation was that the U.S. was somehow involved in getting the Ecuadorians to shut down Mr. Assange’s internet access in the Ecuadorian embassy. One, is that true?

MR TONER: No.

QUESTION: And secondly, does that – does the Administration, whether it’s true or not – and you say it’s not – does the Administration believe that shutting down Mr. Assange’s access to the internet would have the effect of preventing WikiLeaks from publishing these documents?

MR TONER: Probably not.

QUESTION: So it would be – so it wouldn’t be worth your while? Is that why you --

MR TONER: It’s just not something – I mean, I’m not going to speak to – I mean, we weren’t involved in this. It wasn’t our – it was – we had no involvement in any way, shape, or form in trying to shut down Mr. Assange’s access to the internet. Your further question about whether – why not – I don’t know what you’re – where you’re driving at with that. You’re saying why wouldn’t we? Or would this not affect him? You had a follow-up question.

QUESTION: No, do you think that shutting down – that if, for whatever reason, the Ecuadorians took away his internet access, that that would stop WikiLeaks from publishing?

MR TONER: I mean, probably not. I mean, he would have --

QUESTION: Probably – I mean --

MR TONER: No, I mean, he would have --

QUESTION: -- certainly not, because this happened and WikiLeaks continues to publish.

MR TONER: -- he would have contact. Exactly, exactly, yes.

QUESTION: So it is not, then, an Administration goal to try to get – to try to stop WikiLeaks from publishing these emails. Is that correct?

MR TONER: Again, we’ve – our concerns about WikiLeaks and in particular Mr. Assange are well known, but we did not have any involvement in either shutting down his internet or any involvement with the Ecuadorian Government in trying to take action against WikiLeaks or Assange.

www.state.gov...

a reply to: seentoomuch

Some folks may want to check this out. Embassy Cat on instagram www.instagram.com...

Really puts all this worry about Assange into perspective. I worry for they guy because of the sacrifices that he has been making since 2006.

a reply to: BlueAjah

Oh My. Thanks. I'll finish reading at the link.