https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmYrDNSglag

He says e-mails are to come which show the United States gave weapons to DEASH (al-Saud's Henchmen in Iraq and Syria), at 19:10 in the video. Julian implies there is link with Hilary Clinton because she was secretary of state at the time. Apparently she used the invasion of Libya to give weapons to terrorists, he says.

He also said "Hilary has a brag sheet in which she documents all of the ways she led in the invasion of Libya". WTF? And apparently, even Israel is angry at how close Hilary is to Saudi.

Why is the mainstream media in the United States not really reporting on this? This is huge news. Cooperate media in the United States is not doing its job (which is to report the news).

Awesome.

(August 10, 2016 at 2:59 am)Bella Morte Wrote: Awesome.

Yes. And if you want more, RT also released the uncut, forty-seven minute version of the interview:

I think the media aren't reporting it because they don't want Trump to win.
It'll be interesting to see what the next leaks will be.

(August 10, 2016 at 8:13 am)Little lunch Wrote: I think the media aren't reporting it because they don't want Trump to win.
It'll be interesting to see what the next leaks will be.

That's why Republican donors put this Evan McMulllen guy up for president. There's a lot money behind him and he plans to campaign heavily. If he can win just one state, maybe something like Utah, than Donald's task would be much harder.

When Julian said he'd have enough information to indict Hilary he wasn't kidding. I bet Hilary is regretting storing state secrets on her unsecure homebrew server now. If it's proven true, I don't know how anybody could vote for somebody who allowed weapons to be given to DEASH. This happened under her watch.

If he has all this, why the fuck hasn't he released all this yet? He just wants to stay relevant. Until he releases these alleged emails, no news media SHOULD report on it. Otherwise he could make up any shit he wants to spread propaganda. Imagine the media reporting on it, and then it coming out that he doesn't have these documents. It'd do damage to Hillary Clinton, and it'd be stuck in the minds of voters, even if it weren't true. You don't report shit like this without sources other than JULIAN ASSANGE SAID SO.

I only partially agree with you. Yes the e-mails aren't released yet. I don't know why they haven't. I, like millions of others, would love to know what Hilary was up to ad Secretary of State. At the moment it seems like she spent most of her time writing personal e-mails. What did she achieve other than turning Libya into a failed state? I'm really struggling to find her achievements. The Iran Deal was really Obama's doing and she shouldn't take credit for it.

Do we have any reason not to trust Wiki Leaks though? A far as I'm aware they've never released wrong information. The information will come out soon and people will be able to judge for themselves whether Hilary is a war criminal or not.

The DNC never denied they rigged the primary. And now there are people alleging murdered DNC Staffer Seth Rich was the person who gave Wiki Leaks the information. Seems it's not only Donald who wants political foes murdered.

(August 11, 2016 at 11:02 am)ReptilianPeon Wrote: The DNC never denied they rigged the primary. And now there are people alleging murdered DNC Staffer Seth Rich was the person who gave Wiki Leaks the information. Seems it's not only Donald who wants political foes murdered.

So we jump from "there are people alleging" to it "seems" Clinton/DNC, as implied, wanted a staffer murdered? Christ, you sound like Trump.

Yes, there's plenty of reasons not to trust Wikileaks. They've mislead the media before. It'd be stupid to take their word on anything. Release the goddamn emails, or there's no reason to believe his stupid story. Without evidence, his word is fucking meaningless. Let people see the evidence themselves, or go the fuck away.

(August 11, 2016 at 11:36 am)Divinity Wrote: Yes, there's plenty of reasons not to trust Wikileaks.  They've mislead the media before.  It'd be stupid to take their word on anything.  Release the goddamn emails, or there's no reason to believe his stupid story.  Without evidence, his word is fucking meaningless.  Let people see the evidence themselves, or go the fuck away.

Well it's not so much trusting wikileaks as trusting a sociopathic rapist who has had a long history of lying through his arse. Just because Assange did one good thing in his life that doesn't suddenly absolve him of being an evil fuckhead who sees no problem in getting into bed with neo-fascist dictators.