Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Democrats Government Security Cloud Privacy News Politics Technology Your Rights Online

Assange: Wikileaks Will Publish 'Enough Evidence' To Indict Hillary Clinton (rt.com) 742

An anonymous reader writes from a report via RT: Julian Assange says Wikileaks will have "a very big year" as it will publish enough new information about Hillary Clinton to indict her. In an ITV interview about the Democratic presidential candidate, Assange said, "We have emails relating to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication." As it stands, about 32,000 emails from Clinton's private server have been leaked by Wikileaks. Assange has yet to comment on how many new emails will be released or when they will be published. While he thinks there will be enough to indict Clinton, he doesn't think it will happen under Attorney General Loretta Lynch. He does think "the FBI can push for concessions from the new Clinton government in exchange for its lack of indictment." Specifically, Assange revealed the leaked emails show 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." Clinton's email controversy came to light in 2013 after a hacker named Guccifer breached her personal server.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Assange: Wikileaks Will Publish 'Enough Evidence' To Indict Hillary Clinton

Comments Filter:
  • by SenatorPerry ( 46227 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2016 @08:04AM (#52314185)
    Link to location for Publication [wikileaks.org]

    Might want to use TOR or your favorite hiding software.
  • by LichtSpektren ( 4201985 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2016 @08:06AM (#52314209)
    Clinton authorized drone strikes [newseurope.eu] (i.e. assassinations) via email from her phone, which went through her personal server. Peoples were literally being marked for death through her insecure email server. That alone should be enough to put her in a federal prison, but now Assange is telling us that there's more to be learned? Let all mortal flesh keep silence.
  • by mwfischer ( 1919758 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2016 @08:06AM (#52314211) Journal

    The proof is in the pudding, princess. and my spoon is clean.

  • That's okay (Score:5, Insightful)

    by smooth wombat ( 796938 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2016 @08:08AM (#52314213) Journal

    Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld overrode the Pentagon's concerns about the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. We were repeatedly told the war would be over very quickly, a matter of weeks, and that the Iraqis would pay for the reconstruction of their country through oil revenues. We were also told we would be welcomed with open arms by the entire Iraqi community.

    Cheney continues to say he knows where the wmds are yet refuses to reveal their locations. Perhaps he should be waterboarded, since it's not torture, to reveal that information.

    Still waiting on their indictments.

    • Re:That's okay (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DavidHumus ( 725117 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2016 @08:23AM (#52314315)

      Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld overrode the Pentagon's concerns about the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. We were repeatedly told the war would be over very quickly, a matter of weeks, and that the Iraqis would pay for the reconstruction of their country through oil revenues. We were also told we would be welcomed with open arms by the entire Iraqi community.

      And as bad and stupid as all this was, Trump's current recruitment drive for ISIS trumps (ahem) even this. It seems that his demagoguery is an attempt to inflame his fraidy-cat supporters and help radical Islam by pushing the moderates toward them. They're so frightened that they're willing to abandon traditional American ideals like religious tolerance and justice and they're so stupid that they can't figure out that this is exactly the wrong thing to do in terms of the real-life consequences.

      This is not to defend Clinton's arrogant refusal to follow the rules but to point out that when there's a choice between bad and worse, we have to choose bad.

      • Religious tolerance in the US was based on the Westphalia system - essentially a cease-fire between Christians. You'll notice that the very first clause of the 1st Amendment forbids the Federal Congress from abolishing any of the State Churches in the colonies (an Establishment of Religion), which is also the core of the Westphalia treaties. We've been happy to extend that tolerance to other religions, so long as they were willing to work within the common framework.

        One aspect of the ascendant alt-right,

    • In 2016, 8 years after he was no longer president, the "It's Bush's fault" is getting a little worn-thin, particularly when she was part of the government that sent us to war.

      Oh, and Clinton's speech supporting her vote in favor:
      http://www.dailykos.com/story/... [dailykos.com]

    • by houghi ( 78078 )

      So here you stand with the dual party system. You can select between Trump and Clinton. If Trump wins, nothing will happen, because why would they do that. If Clinton wins, they probably still will do nothing. There will be a lot of "Liar, liar, pants on fire." and it will change absolutely nothing.

      While the press keeps themselves occupied with this, politicians will do what is really important to them, serving their customers, the companies.

  • by plague911 ( 1292006 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2016 @08:08AM (#52314215)
    Even if 100% true making a choice to override military commanders is not an indictable offense (even if wrong in the end). Hell that's actually the exact reason why we have civilians in charge (to override commanders for non military reasons). If that statement is correctly attributed to him that's a shame on him. It is just a stupid statement.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 14, 2016 @08:49AM (#52314533)

      But you know what is blatantly illegal and would get you or me thrown into jail for the rest of our lives if we did it?

      Discussing classified matters, such as what we're telling the Pentagon to do, using private email.

      Hillary Clinton was provided with methods to communicate securely. She refused to use them. Her decisions may not be illegal, but making them using classified information via a private email server?

      You better believe that's illegal.

      • by khallow ( 566160 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2016 @09:53AM (#52314987)

        Hillary Clinton was provided with methods to communicate securely. She refused to use them. Her decisions may not be illegal, but making them using classified information via a private email server?

        Even worse. She choose to use the private server first. Looks to me like she intended to evade the Public Records act and Freedom of Information Act requests from the very beginning. That's evidence of crime BTW.

  • So wrong... (Score:5, Informative)

    by T.E.D. ( 34228 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2016 @08:38AM (#52314455)

    Specifically, Assange revealed the leaked emails show 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."

    Points here:

    1. Not only is not illegal for civilian leaders to override the advice of the Pentagon, that's how its supposed to work. The military works for us, not visa-versa.
    2. ISIS is not taking over Libya. They have one town, that is currently under siege [africanews.com]. Reports are they are slowly losing it.
    3. Being (debatably) wrong on foreign policy is not a crime. If it was, most of the Bush Administration would be in jail today. Carter probably would have just gotten out of jail 10 years ago on good behavior.
  • by Drewdad ( 1738014 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2016 @09:08AM (#52314625)

    E-mails are just text files, and can be easily forged. Anyone who's ever gotten a spam message from themselves should realize this.

    Collecting forensics evidence from a hard drive so that it's admissible in courts is not the same as just dumping files. Last I knew, you have to preserve the data in the original format, and provide access to the defense.

    Unless these E-mails are signed by a private key known to be Clinton's, I don't really see how they're going to be admissible.

  • by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2016 @09:45AM (#52314909) Journal
    It was Europe that wanted the invasion. Hillary backed the wrong pony. And massage thinks that is indictable? He needs to show that she did that for personal gain. Or that she lied to make for personal gains. While I opposed Libya's invasion, the fact that she backed it is not a criminal act.
  • by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2016 @11:07AM (#52315665)

    Clinton's email controversy came to light in 2013 after a hacker named Guccifer breached her personal server.

    a) Guccifer exposed a handful of Clinton's emails by breaking into the email account of one of her friends and leaking the ones she sent him.

    b) The email controversy came to light because the Republicans trying to lynch her for Benghazi realized she sent all her emails through the private server.

    c) Guccifer's "hacking" involves guessing password reset questions and bragging about everything he finds. To think he not only "breached her personal server" but then kept his mouth shut about it and never dumped a thing is absurd.

    This is a damn tech site, certainly people can show some basic critical thinking skills and not just repeat the wild-ass claims of every wannabe hacker looking for notoriety.

I've got all the money I'll ever need if I die by 4 o'clock. -- Henny Youngman

Working...