Assange Says New Hillary Clinton Leak Will Destroy Her This Month

[politicallefty]

The really scary thing, is that on this very thread we have multiple individuals calling for assassination and murder of an individual and even multiple individuals to pursue an explicit domestic political agenda.

Most likely these are "just jokes", but there is a very real history of the US Government assassinating or attempting to murder foreign leaders and civilians from the 1950s through the early 1970s, when it was banned by a Democratic Congress after the Church hearings in the post-watergate era.

I wasn't joking. He is an enemy of the state and should be dealt with accordingly.

This is, actually, despicable. Deplorably despicable. You should be voting Trump.

I take personal offense to that as someone that reads your posts with a certain degree of respect. Where do you draw the line? Someone that apparently works with the Russians to undermine American democracy so as to enable someone like Trump is a threat. Donald Trump is literally the biggest threat to the world since WWII. I don't say that Assange is an enemy of the state from my own personal viewpoint. That is the view of the US Government as of 2012. His motives are to work to hack into various points in order to expose state secrets and to undermine Hillary Clinton's candidacy, which just so happens to be the only thing between Donald Trump and the full powers of the Presidency and executive branch. The difference between me and you is that I will have to live under the next President of the United States. You don't, so I don't want to hear some lecture about how someone working to undermine the security and democracy of the United States should be condoned or forgiven.

[ag]

The really scary thing, is that on this very thread we have multiple individuals calling for assassination and murder of an individual and even multiple individuals to pursue an explicit domestic political agenda.

Most likely these are "just jokes", but there is a very real history of the US Government assassinating or attempting to murder foreign leaders and civilians from the 1950s through the early 1970s, when it was banned by a Democratic Congress after the Church hearings in the post-watergate era.

I wasn't joking. He is an enemy of the state and should be dealt with accordingly.

This is, actually, despicable. Deplorably despicable. You should be voting Trump.

I take personal offense to that as someone that reads your posts with a certain degree of respect. Where do you draw the line?

Wherever I draw the line, I draw it firmly enough not to become a Trumpista.

You are confusing my vehemence against Trump and his supporters with the desire to go after them. Nothing could be further away from my intentions. My liberalism may be intolerant, but it remains liberalism, as long as the person I am most afraid of is myself. However much I am afraid of Trump and his supporters, wishing to unleash the power of state violence against those not themselves guilty of violence is something that is deeply wrong. When it starts, it does not stop where you want it to stop.

Whether Assange is right or wrong in what he is doing, is beside the point here. He has done nothing to justify violence against him. He is not even guilty of such old scarecrows as treason or espionage. Leave the guy alone. If the Swedes have something real against him, it is the business of the Swedish justice system. So far, nobody else has accused him of anything actionable.

[ag]

The difference between me and you is that I will have to live under the next President of the United States. You don't, so I don't want to hear some lecture about how someone working to undermine the security and democracy of the United States should be condoned or forgiven.

Remember one thing: the most horrible danger to one´s freedom and security is oneself. Whatever happens to the state, think of your own soul. Being scared is not the justification of giving it to the devil.

[NOVA Green]

The really scary thing, is that on this very thread we have multiple individuals calling for assassination and murder of an individual and even multiple individuals to pursue an explicit domestic political agenda.

Most likely these are "just jokes", but there is a very real history of the US Government assassinating or attempting to murder foreign leaders and civilians from the 1950s through the early 1970s, when it was banned by a Democratic Congress after the Church hearings in the post-watergate era.

I wasn't joking. He is an enemy of the state and should be dealt with accordingly.

This is, actually, despicable. Deplorably despicable. You should be voting Trump.

I take personal offense to that as someone that reads your posts with a certain degree of respect. Where do you draw the line?

Wherever I draw the line, I draw it firmly enough not to become a Trumpista.

You are confusing my vehemence against Trump and his supporters with the desire to go after them. Nothing could be further away from my intentions. My liberalism may be intolerant, but it remains liberalism, as long as the person I am most afraid of is myself. However much I am afraid of Trump and his supporters, wishing to unleash the power of state violence against those not themselves guilty of violence is something that is deeply wrong. When it starts, it does not stop where you want it to stop.

Whether Assange is right or wrong in what he is doing, is beside the point here. He has done nothing to justify violence against him. He is not even guilty of such old scarecrows as treason or espionage. Leave the guy alone. If the Swedes have something real against him, it is the business of the Swedish justice system. So far, nobody else has accused him of anything actionable.

I totally agree on this... regardless of his innocence or guilt when it comes to the criminal rape charges from Sweden, he is NOT a US national,and so far as I am aware has not yet been charged for any crimes within the US judicial system.

As I said earlier, there is absolutely NO excuse for US citizens to be calling for the murder of foreign nationals, let alone state sponsored actions of murder, without some solid s**t that those individuals are active agents of imminent terrorist attacks against America, and that that is the only way to bring criminals to justice.

Calling for murder of computer hackers and leakers of info from hacker sources certainly does not deserve a death sentence....

Snowden would have much more sympathy had he just taken the licks for the leaks instead of fleeing to Russia. Assange would have much more sumpathy worldwide had there not been the sexual assault charges from Sweden.

It is what it is, but if you believe that the US government should execute a foreign national for hacking charges, because you're pissed about his "Clinton Leaks" you appear to be deranged sir.

[politicallefty]

Wherever I draw the line, I draw it firmly enough not to become a Trumpista.

You are confusing my vehemence against Trump and his supporters with the desire to go after them. Nothing could be further away from my intentions. My liberalism may be intolerant, but it remains liberalism, as long as the person I am most afraid of is myself. However much I am afraid of Trump and his supporters, wishing to unleash the power of state violence against those not themselves guilty of violence is something that is deeply wrong. When it starts, it does not stop where you want it to stop.

Whether Assange is right or wrong in what he is doing, is beside the point here. He has done nothing to justify violence against him. He is not even guilty of such old scarecrows as treason or espionage. Leave the guy alone. If the Swedes have something real against him, it is the business of the Swedish justice system. So far, nobody else has accused him of anything actionable.

We may not be on the same page, but I think we're at least in the same chapter. While I do think Hillary will probably be the next President, I am absolutely terrified beyond reason at the prospect of Donald Trump being elected President. I've said before that I don't even think the United States as a country should continue if someone like him gets elected. If Trump is what we get, I would be in full support of the dissolution of the United States as it currently exists.

Don't try to compare me to someone that supports Trump. That is one of the most offensive things you can say to someone like me. I share the same views as President Obama and Hillary Clinton. Coordinating with the Russians to expose state secrets and attempting to tamper with our democracy are what our enemies would do. I ask where you draw the line for good reason. What if someone like him exposes intelligence that results in the death of CIA agents? Julian Assange is an enemy of the United States. I do not see how you can see otherwise. If someone continually releases state secrets, they are a threat.

With that said, I do think Edward Snowden should get a pardon or at least some form of legal immunity. His crime was a one-time offense that has actually allowed most of us to understand the pervasive nature of the NSA. However, he has not continued to dig deeper and endanger US security. He is a US citizen who should be afforded all the rights that the Constitution grants.

[EnglishPete]

You don't know what a journalist is. It is actually requires reporting real news, not forging documents to influence elections. You are ignorant.

What Julian Assange has been accused of doing, what he admits to doing, is publishing leaked information rather than forging it. That's kind of one of the things journalists do.

As for influencing elections writers working for the Jeff Bezos Propaganda Blog (also known as the Washington Post) and the Carlos Slim/Ochs Sulzberger Propaganda Blog (also know as the New York Times) have written articles openly admitting that they're biasing their coverage of this election in the hope of influencing it, something that should be obvious to anyone who reads the political coverage on those blogs.

You're floundering around to find a definition of 'journalist' that doesn't simply say "people who work for media outlets I like (e.g. the Jeff Bezos Propaganda Blog, the Clinton News Network etc) =journalists, people who work for media outlets I don't like (e.g. Wikileaks, perhaps Fox News and Breitbart as well)= not journalists.

[ursulahx]

WL build these things up so much that, when they're finally released, we all think "oh, there must be something important here", even when there isn't.

We're being played.

[EnglishPete]

Its being reported that Hillary Clinton enquired about assassinating a journalist who was leaking things she didn't want leaked



but of course that's completely different from anything Putin might do to journalists and its Trump not Clinton who is the threat to journalistic freedom.

And how about the journalists who published Trump's leaked Tax returns. What should be their punishment. After all publishing leaked documents doesn't fall under the definition of 'journalism' according to some people here.

Or is the real difference that you consider media outlets that you agree with ideologically (e.g. NYT, WaPo etc) to be 'proper journalism' whereas those you don't agree with ideologically (e.g. Wikileaks, Breitbart) you think are not proper journalism and shouldn't be covered by freedom of the press.

In other words you want freedom of the press for media outlets that agree with you. Funnily enough Putin wants the same thing in Russia.

[Lief 🗽]

Wow, I hope this is true!

[dspNY]

Its being reported that Hillary Clinton enquired about assassinating a journalist who was leaking things she didn't want leaked



but of course that's completely different from anything Putin might do to journalists and its Trump not Clinton who is the threat to journalistic freedom.

And how about the journalists who published Trump's leaked Tax returns. What should be their punishment. After all publishing leaked documents doesn't fall under the definition of 'journalism' according to some people here.

Or is the real difference that you consider media outlets that you agree with ideologically (e.g. NYT, WaPo etc) to be 'proper journalism' whereas those you don't agree with ideologically (e.g. Wikileaks, Breitbart) you think are not proper journalism and shouldn't be covered by freedom of the press.

In other words you want freedom of the press for media outlets that agree with you. Funnily enough Putin wants the same thing in Russia.

Haha, right or wrong, Clinton will gain more support with that. Most of the American people can't stand Assange and think he is a worm

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Even if it's not true - only Assange would think her saying something nasty about him is a game-changer lol.

[Fusionmunster]

Its being reported that Hillary Clinton enquired about assassinating a journalist who was leaking things she didn't want leaked



but of course that's completely different from anything Putin might do to journalists and its Trump not Clinton who is the threat to journalistic freedom.

And how about the journalists who published Trump's leaked Tax returns. What should be their punishment. After all publishing leaked documents doesn't fall under the definition of 'journalism' according to some people here.

Or is the real difference that you consider media outlets that you agree with ideologically (e.g. NYT, WaPo etc) to be 'proper journalism' whereas those you don't agree with ideologically (e.g. Wikileaks, Breitbart) you think are not proper journalism and shouldn't be covered by freedom of the press.

In other words you want freedom of the press for media outlets that agree with you. Funnily enough Putin wants the same thing in Russia.

Its a joke.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Its being reported that Hillary Clinton enquired about assassinating a journalist who was leaking things she didn't want leaked



but of course that's completely different from anything Putin might do to journalists and its Trump not Clinton who is the threat to journalistic freedom.

And how about the journalists who published Trump's leaked Tax returns. What should be their punishment. After all publishing leaked documents doesn't fall under the definition of 'journalism' according to some people here.

Or is the real difference that you consider media outlets that you agree with ideologically (e.g. NYT, WaPo etc) to be 'proper journalism' whereas those you don't agree with ideologically (e.g. Wikileaks, Breitbart) you think are not proper journalism and shouldn't be covered by freedom of the press.

In other words you want freedom of the press for media outlets that agree with you. Funnily enough Putin wants the same thing in Russia.

Its a joke.

No, it's serious, because someone described her as terse.

[Fusionmunster]

Its being reported that Hillary Clinton enquired about assassinating a journalist who was leaking things she didn't want leaked



but of course that's completely different from anything Putin might do to journalists and its Trump not Clinton who is the threat to journalistic freedom.

And how about the journalists who published Trump's leaked Tax returns. What should be their punishment. After all publishing leaked documents doesn't fall under the definition of 'journalism' according to some people here.

Or is the real difference that you consider media outlets that you agree with ideologically (e.g. NYT, WaPo etc) to be 'proper journalism' whereas those you don't agree with ideologically (e.g. Wikileaks, Breitbart) you think are not proper journalism and shouldn't be covered by freedom of the press.

In other words you want freedom of the press for media outlets that agree with you. Funnily enough Putin wants the same thing in Russia.

Its a joke.

No, it's serious, because someone described her as terse.

Also, im 90% sure someone just made this up.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Its being reported that Hillary Clinton enquired about assassinating a journalist who was leaking things she didn't want leaked



but of course that's completely different from anything Putin might do to journalists and its Trump not Clinton who is the threat to journalistic freedom.

And how about the journalists who published Trump's leaked Tax returns. What should be their punishment. After all publishing leaked documents doesn't fall under the definition of 'journalism' according to some people here.

Or is the real difference that you consider media outlets that you agree with ideologically (e.g. NYT, WaPo etc) to be 'proper journalism' whereas those you don't agree with ideologically (e.g. Wikileaks, Breitbart) you think are not proper journalism and shouldn't be covered by freedom of the press.

In other words you want freedom of the press for media outlets that agree with you. Funnily enough Putin wants the same thing in Russia.

Its a joke.

No, it's serious, because someone described her as terse.

Also, im 90% sure someone just made this up.

I also wouldn't put it past Assange to release BS just because it directly referenced him.

[Person Man]

Its being reported that Hillary Clinton enquired about assassinating a journalist who was leaking things she didn't want leaked



but of course that's completely different from anything Putin might do to journalists and its Trump not Clinton who is the threat to journalistic freedom.

And how about the journalists who published Trump's leaked Tax returns. What should be their punishment. After all publishing leaked documents doesn't fall under the definition of 'journalism' according to some people here.

Or is the real difference that you consider media outlets that you agree with ideologically (e.g. NYT, WaPo etc) to be 'proper journalism' whereas those you don't agree with ideologically (e.g. Wikileaks, Breitbart) you think are not proper journalism and shouldn't be covered by freedom of the press.

In other words you want freedom of the press for media outlets that agree with you. Funnily enough Putin wants the same thing in Russia.

Its a joke.

No, it's serious, because someone described her as terse.

Also, im 90% sure someone just made this up.

I also wouldn't put it past Assange to release BS just because it directly referenced him.

That sounds about right.

[Trapsy]

Damn, If I was assange I would try to sabotage her campaign, like it just makes if those were spoken about you. He still trash though. Anyways, I like H more behind doors, shes actually hilarious.

[Alcon]

Do we have a cite on this?  The thin Google results make me skeptical, and something about the prose seems 'off.'

If it's fake, this is the second story in 48 hours like this, when you add in the fake story about Sanders and Clinton canceling non-existent co-rallies.  I don't think they're related, but I wonder if this will become a fixture of the last month.  As if this cycle could get any more obnoxious.

[ApatheticAustrian]

i am pretty sure i would have made a similar joke behind closed doors in her position.

but i guess these days you should never ever tell anyone at all anything.

[bilaps]

wow hilary hacks in full force today. disgusting.

[Yank2133]

It seems that HRC has been reading atlas.

[DrScholl]

That blurb looks like something someone typed up in Notepad. What is the source of it even supposed to be? It's clearly not an email.

[PRESIDENT STANTON]

Assange is all talk! He's got nuthin on Hillary, she's way too clever!

[egalitt]

Suppose the documents were published.  Adn what of it? Everyone knows that Clinton Foundation got money from Saudi Arabia and other Muslim monarchies.  Nothing new at all. The documents will be safely ignored to produce no effect. 

[PresidentSamTilden]

I am starting to rethink my opinion of the Millennial generation, and now these types of statements encourages the stereotypes of a bunch of spoiled brats, living in their parents basement, playing way too many violent video games....

I do not believe that Assange is any type of hero, and have major issues with Snowden as well, but really.... y'all are acting like a bunch of spoiled frat boys, even many of you whose opinions I respect on many other matters

Murder and assassination is not a joke.... it is a sin, even in the eyes of a long time atheist like myself.

I'm on your side here NOVA, but you know it's wrong to blame the whole millennial generation for how some people act on Atlas, lol. Go and check those 18-29 primary voting numbers again. Most people in that age group are NOT militant Clinton supporters, not even close.