Assange: Donald Trump Will Not Be Allowed To Win US Elections

I think I read where after JayZ finished the crowd dispersed and left while Clinton
was preparing to speak.

 

And as Mark Levin so richly reminds folks ... Nothing that is currently gone wrong in this
Country ... Via this lawless Gov'mint has one iota to do with Trump.
Trump's hands are totally free from any mishandling or shifty governance gone amuck.
Voters need to be reminded of that.Trump has virtually nothing whatsoever to do with
this Country's many ills.He's therefore The Perfect choice to straighten out this
lawless and incompetence bunch of Elitist bureaucrats and grafted pols.

 

You still actually believe that crap about Hilary? From her very first job (the Watergate Committee) until sec of state, she has failed every one.

Hilary even failed to pass the DC bar exam, something very few people manage to "accomplish".

 

Great retort! Did you have help with it?

Assange is correct about one thing...Donald Trump and Mike Pence...will not be allowed to win.

The voters will prevent that from happening.

Tune in tomorrow night. You'll see.

- - - Updated - - -

Well...I guess being voted president of the United States will be all the more satisfying for her then!

 

Of course it will be satisfying to her. She started her first job by fooling her boss (one man), went on to fool and blackmail more and more, until she finally fooled half the nation.

It won't last. She is incompetent, she has already risen far above her level of ability. She will be a disaster and all the people will pay for it, including those fooled into voting for her.

 

Yeah...she is completely incompetent...but able to get elected to the presidency of the United States.

Great reasoning!

Assange is correct. Donald Trump will never be president of the United States, but it will not be because of "the establishment" or the "mainstream media"...although Trump and his sycophants will probably do a lot of blame passing to those two things.

He will lose because a majority of the electorate is too intelligent to allow him that office.

 

This column, funny and sad, outlines what the country faces and whether or not the voters will accept the level of corruption, from the Clintons, Obama, bureaucrats and friends, which we have come to expect. It's a tragicomedy for the country. http://www.steynonline.com/7590/sanctity-and-dispossession

 

In fact her history is replete with corruption and incompetence at the highest level. Now those LIV's who feel the attack on Benghazi was caused by a Youtube video are confidently going to the polling booth to vote for this dreadful bit of baggage..

 

Jay Z and Hillary.

You know I thug em, (*)(*)(*)(*) em, love em, leave em
Cause I don't (*)(*)(*)(*)in' need em
Take em out the hood, keep em lookin' good
But I don't (*)(*)(*)(*)in' feed em
First time they fuss I'm breezin'
Talkin' bout, "What's the reasons?"
I'm a pimp in every sense of the word, (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)
Better trust than believe em
In the cut where I keep em
'Til I need a nut, 'til I need to beat the guts
Then it's, beep beep and I'm pickin' em up
Let em play with the dick in the truck
Many chicks want to put Jigga fist in cuffs
Divorce him and split his bucks
Just because you got good head, I'm a break bread

 

The difference between them is that Clinton tailors her speeches to put across what she knows the electorate wants to hear, and enhanced with a little bit of cynical celeb razzmatazz , but Trump tells it like it is? Trouble is that he tells it in the vernacular too much, which makes him seem a bit fundamentalist, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong.

 

Assange will go down as one of the most delusional, laughable, and insignificant attention whores in social media history.

 

I know, they've completely lost the plot. It's sort of a back up plan. In case Hillary loses they will immediately start accusing Russkies of hacking U.S electorate machines and rigging the election in Trump's favour. It beggars belief how deluded and easily manipulated liberals are. What's funny they like to think of themselves as educated people but at the same time they act and behave like some primitive tribesmen.

For your attention. It's simply astonishing what Hillary's camp has been involved in. Disgrace.

Scott Foval ‏@Scott_Foval 13h13 hours ago

Check [MENTION=62541]BlackCat[/MENTION]Unloads own photos. Paid agitators @ every #blacklivesmatter riot last 2 years. Deray is fraud paid to divide us by skincolor

https://twitter.com/Scott_Foval/with_replies

The guy is spilling the beans all over twitter.

 

Sour grapes. Vilifying him only because he keeps exposing how corrupted, criminal and dirty are people who you fully support. You need to learn how to handle the truth.

Assange Statement on the US Election
8 November 2016

By Julian Assange

https://wikileaks.org/Assange-Statement-on-the-US-Election.html

In recent months, WikiLeaks and I personally have come under enormous pressure to stop publishing what the Clinton campaign says about itself to itself. That pressure has come from the campaign’s allies, including the Obama administration, and from liberals who are anxious about who will be elected US President.

On the eve of the election, it is important to restate why we have published what we have.

The right to receive and impart true information is the guiding principle of WikiLeaks – an organization that has a staff and organizational mission far beyond myself. Our organization defends the public’s right to be informed.

This is why, irrespective of the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election, the real victor is the US public which is better informed as a result of our work.

The US public has thoroughly engaged with WikiLeaks’ election related publications which number more than one hundred thousand documents. Millions of Americans have pored over the leaks and passed on their citations to each other and to us. It is an open model of journalism that gatekeepers are uncomfortable with, but which is perfectly harmonious with the First Amendment.

We publish material given to us if it is of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical importance and which has not been published elsewhere. When we have material that fulfills this criteria, we publish. We had information that fit our editorial criteria which related to the Sanders and Clinton campaign (DNC Leaks) and the Clinton political campaign and Foundation (Podesta Emails). No-one disputes the public importance of these publications. It would be unconscionable for WikiLeaks to withhold such an archive from the public during an election.

At the same time, we cannot publish what we do not have. To date, we have not received information on Donald Trump’s campaign, or Jill Stein’s campaign, or Gary Johnson’s campaign or any of the other candidates that fufills our stated editorial criteria. As a result of publishing Clinton’s cables and indexing her emails we are seen as domain experts on Clinton archives. So it is natural that Clinton sources come to us.

We publish as fast as our resources will allow and as fast as the public can absorb it.

That is our commitment to ourselves, to our sources, and to the public.

This is not due to a personal desire to influence the outcome of the election. The Democratic and Republican candidates have both expressed hostility towards whistleblowers. I spoke at the launch of the campaign for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, because her platform addresses the need to protect them. This is an issue that is close to my heart because of the Obama administration’s inhuman and degrading treatment of one of our alleged sources, Chelsea Manning. But WikiLeaks publications are not an attempt to get Jill Stein elected or to take revenge over Ms Manning’s treatment either.

Publishing is what we do. To withhold the publication of such information until after the election would have been to favour one of the candidates above the public’s right to know.

This is after all what happened when the New York Times withheld evidence of illegal mass surveillance of the US population for a year until after the 2004 election, denying the public a critical understanding of the incumbent president George W Bush, which probably secured his reelection. The current editor of the New York Times has distanced himself from that decision and rightly so.

The US public defends free speech more passionately, but the First Amendment only truly lives through its repeated exercise. The First Amendment explicitly prevents the executive from attempting to restrict anyone’s ability to speak and publish freely. The First Amendment does not privilege old media, with its corporate advertisers and dependencies on incumbent power factions, over WikiLeaks’ model of scientific journalism or an individual’s decision to inform their friends on social media. The First Amendment unapologetically nurtures the democratization of knowledge. With the Internet, it has reached its full potential.

Yet, some weeks ago, in a tactic reminiscent of Senator McCarthy and the red scare, Wikileaks, Green Party candidate Stein, Glenn Greenwald and Clinton’s main opponent were painted with a broad, red brush. The Clinton campaign, when they were not spreading obvious untruths, pointed to unnamed sources or to speculative and vague statements from the intelligence community to suggest a nefarious allegiance with Russia. The campaign was unable to invoke evidence about our publications—because none exists.

In the end, those who have attempted to malign our groundbreaking work over the past four months seek to inhibit public understanding perhaps because it is embarrassing to them – a reason for censorship the First Amendment cannot tolerate. Only unsuccessfully do they try to claim that our publications are inaccurate.

WikiLeaks’ decade-long pristine record for authentication remains. Our key publications this round have even been proven through the cryptographic signatures of the companies they passed through, such as Google. It is not every day you can mathematically prove that your publications are perfect but this day is one of them.

We have endured intense criticism, primarily from Clinton supporters, for our publications. Many long-term supporters have been frustrated because we have not addressed this criticism in a systematic way or responded to a number of false narratives about Wikileaks’ motivation or sources. Ultimately, however, if WL reacted to every false claim, we would have to divert resources from our primary work.

WikiLeaks, like all publishers, is ultimately accountable to its funders. Those funders are you. Our resources are entirely made up of contributions from the public and our book sales. This allows us to be principled, independent and free in a way no other influential media organization is. But it also means that we do not have the resources of CNN, MSNBC or the Clinton campaign to constantly rebuff criticism.

Yet if the press obeys considerations above informing the public, we are no longer talking about a free press, and we are no longer talking about an informed public.

Wikileaks remains committed to publishing information that informs the public, even if many, especially those in power, would prefer not to see it. WikiLeaks must publish. It must publish and be damned.

 

To say Trump has been assailed from all sides is an understatement. The mainstream media, Hollywood, academia, and even members of his own party have vowed to defeat him.

Look who's in Hillary's Camp:

- Wall Street,
- Big business,
- Academia,
- Hollywood,
- Corporate media
- And now TECH companies

Think about that

The elite do not just give money away, they are INVESTING in Hillary because they believe that Hillary will benefit the rich.

All of the above are pandering to the people to get our vote. If Hillary wins, they won't need the people until the next election. What mades anyone think Hillary won't be padding her coffer via doing policies that favor big money for the next election. She will have tighter control.

 

I can't believe that Americans would let Assange manipulate them.

 

There are two tinfoil hat crowds. One, the obvious, the folks like the flat earthers. But they present no danger at all, and serve as great fodder for comedians. But the other much more serious tinfoil hatters are people like you, who think the Princeton Study conclusion is tin foil hat territory. And this tinfoil hat crowd are not comedic, silly, but very, very dangerous to a democratic republic. And just like the first crowd, they are not aware intellects, even if their IQ level is sufficient to be an aware intellect. A higher IQ unaware intellect is a clear and present danger to a democratic republic, as well as a clear and present danger to the rest of the world. A danger to other human life. So this tinfoil hat group is incapable of seeing they are the serious tinfoil hatters, even as they think only the low IQ people are the only ones sporting tinfoil hats.

 

You are so wrong, which is no surprise. Assange is one of the few representations of what a free press is supposed to be. Most of the history changing revelations have come from leaks to journalists, for the corrupt will not bust on themselves. LOL

If you have a problem with fact, truth, then you have only shown us what you are, and yet there are others just like you. Assange brought back the idea of the Press serving its proper role in speaking truth to power. Your problem is, he is speaking truth to power, and that power is someone you support, who has been shown to be unfit for office. So of course you will deride the principle of a free press and would rather have propaganda from MSM for it is a means to a very nefarious end, which you support.

Assange will be a catalyst for change, eventually, and will go down in history as a very valuable figure to the idea of democracy and the refusal to allow corruption to flourish like black mold. People who prefer the dark always oppose light and transparency. So, shut your lights off, it might burn you. And this goes for anyone who does not like assange speaking truth to power, truth to corruption, truth to criminality. The bravery of that man makes you guys look like trembling cowards, crapping in their britches over seeing their shadows as assange shines his light on the decay. He is revealing not only the corruption of our politicians, the antidemocratic behavior of these bastards, but also illuminating what the supporters of Hillary actually are. So sure, I can understand the hatred of the man.

 

It's the information being revealed, showing the duplicity of of the political class, which is affecting public opinion.These insights show just how dishonest and manipulative they are.

 

If it were not for Assange we would not have known things Hillary did or planning to including TPP. The fact that Hillary told big bankers one thing and the America people, who's vote she needed another thing. That in itself should have sent up warning flags.

Andrew is an example of our failed school system because he has shown no understanding of the media's job and why it is so dangerous for the people when the media doesn't do it's job.