• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wikileaks will publish ‘enough evidence’ to indict Hillary Clinton, warns Assange

truthatallcost

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
26,719
Reaction score
6,278
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange warns more information will be published about Hillary Clinton, enough to indict her if the US government is courageous enough to do so, in what he predicts will be “a very big year” for the whistleblowing website.


Expressing concerns in an ITV interview about the Democratic presidential candidate, who he claims is monitoring him, Assange described Republican presumptive nominee Donald Trump as an “unpredictable phenomenon”, but predictably, given their divergent political views, didn’t say if he preferred the billionaire to be president.

He was not asked if he supported Green Party candidate Jill Stein, even though she said she would immediately pardon Wikileaks whistleblower Chelsea Manning if elected.


“We have emails relating to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication,” Assange told Peston on Sunday when asked if more of her leaked electronic communications would be published.

About 32,000 emails from her private server have been leaked by Wikileaks so far, but Assange would not confirm the number of emails or when they are expected to be published.


Speaking via video link from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, Assange said that there was enough information in the emails to indict Clinton, but that was unlikely to happen under the current Attorney General, Obama appointee Loretta Lynch.



He does think “the FBI can push for concessions from the new Clinton government in exchange for its lack of indictment.”


Clinton has been acting like the presumptive Democratic nominee even though votes are still being counted in California after the June 7 primary, Sanders flipped three counties in his favor, and nine superdelegates have dropped the former New York senator.




The former secretary of state pushed for the prosecution of Wikileaks, rather than the global criminals they exposed, and the organization described her as a “war hawk.”

Assange said the leaked emails revealed that she overrode the Pentagon’s reluctance to overthrow sovereign Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, and that “they predicted the post-war outcome would be what it is, which is ISIS taking over the country.”


The email scandal could become a headache as the race to the White House heats up and the FBI continues to investigate her.

Sworn testimony from officials working in the department revealed that Clinton did not “know how to use a computer to do e-mail,” instead using her Blackberry for official communications.

Clinton’s office was a designated Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF), where the use of wireless devices was not permitted, leading to Clinton leaving her office in order to access emails.





https://www.rt.com/usa/346534-wikileaks-clinton-assange-fbi/

Oh noes, comrade Hillary is about to eat a bag of *****. Thoughts? Comments?
 
Last edited:
He does think “the FBI can push for concessions from the new Clinton government in exchange for its lack of indictment.”

I have zero clue what that means. The FBI isn't the one who decides to indict and any concessions, or deals, wouldn't be in the purview of the FBI either.
 
Maybe Assange isn't such a bad guy after all.

I don't know anyone who thinks he's a bad guy. The whole World knows he's being railroaded by the USA.
 
The DNC would never allow this to happen. If Charles Manson were a democrat candidate, they would protect him just the same.
 
The DNC would never allow this to happen. If Charles Manson were a democrat candidate, they would protect him just the same.

Manson 2016: For a more pudding America
 
I have zero clue what that means. The FBI isn't the one who decides to indict and any concessions, or deals, wouldn't be in the purview of the FBI either.

The wording is off, it's an RT story.
 
The idea is to bring to pubic attention the crimes of the Clinton's that Obama will not prosecute because he is up to his neck in it.

She sent, and he replied to emails from her bootleg server, so if she goes to trial, guess who her #1 witness is going to be? The only thing that trumps Obama's legacy is saving his ass.

The pundits are right. The fix is in, and the Clinton's are above the law. But if Trump wins, he says he will prosecute her.
 
Conveniently coming up after she becomes the presumptive nominee.
 
Maybe Assange isn't such a bad guy after all.

I suppose it depends upon just whose ox is being gored, eh?

Obama and TPTB don't like him, but as long as he is goring the other fellow's ox, well he's a swell guy. :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom