Category: Julian Assange
Assange’s asylum status at stake in Ecuadorian presidential runoff

https://www.rt.com/news/382883-assanges-asylum-status-ecuador/

Assange’s asylum status at stake in Ecuadorian presidential runoff
The upcoming Ecuadorian presidential election could potentially have dramatic consequences for WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange, as the public chooses between two candidates with vastly different opinions of the whistleblower.

Opposition candidate Guillermo Lasso has spoken out against Assange during his campaign saying, “Ecuador had no business spending a single cent protecting someone who definitely leaked confidential information.”

Lasso said that he would give Assange a 30-day deadline to leave the embassy if elected, reported Reuters.

If forced to leave the embassy, which has protected him since 2012, Assange would face potential arrest, Latin America specialist in the Clinton administration Eric Farnsworth told the LA Times.

“I think it’s pretty clear that Assange’s fate rides on Ecuador’s election returns,” he said.

Bruce Bagley, international relations professor from the University of Miami, warned that along with Sweden, where a charge of rape still stands against Assange, the US may have an interest in Assange if released.

“He could be brought up on charges of purveying secrets of the U.S.,” he said, claiming Donald Trump would likely prosecute him.

READ MORE: Assange must reduce ‘meddling’ in US policies while in Ecuadorian embassy – Moreno to RT (EXCLUSIVE)

Polls open on Sunday for the runoff presidential vote, after ruling party candidate and former Vice President Lenín Moreno failed to secure the 40 percent required for outright victory in February.

Moreno is more likely to be Assange’s candidate of choice – he served under President Rafael Correa who first offered asylum to Assange in 2012.

Unlike his predecessor though, Moreno insists that despite supporting Assange’s asylum he would introduce conditions.

Speaking to RT in February he said, “one of the conditions will be to not meddle into the policies of the countries we are friends with. The same as we do not meddle in their policies.”

Assange responded saying that he is happy to speak to both candidates but that WikiLeaks does not publish from Ecuador and “will not respond to pressure.”

Latest polls show Moreno narrowly edging ahead of Lasso, according to Reuters. However, one of the country’s most closely watched polls put Lasso ahead earlier in the month.

Assange: Clinton is a cog for Goldman Sachs & the Saudis (JOHN PILGER EXCLUSIVE VIDEO & TRANSCRIPT)

https://www.rt.com/news/365405-assange-pilger-full-transcript/
Published time: 5 Nov, 2016 05:59

Edited time: 5 Nov, 2016 21:53

 

Whistleblower Julian Assange has given one of his most incendiary interviews ever in a John Pilger Special, courtesy of Dartmouth Films, in which he summarizes what can be gleaned from the tens of thousands of Clinton emails released by WikiLeaks this year.
John Pilger, another Australian émigré, conducted the 25-minute interview at the Ecuadorian Embassy, where Assange has been trapped since 2012 for fear of extradition to the US. Last month, Assange had his internet access cut off for alleged “interference” in the American presidential election through the work of his website.

‘Clinton made FBI look weak, now there is anger’

John Pilger: What’s the significance of the FBI’s intervention in these last days of the U.S. election campaign, in the case against Hillary Clinton?

Julian Assange: If you look at the history of the FBI, it has become effectively America’s political police. The FBI demonstrated this by taking down the former head of the CIA [General David Petraeus] over classified information given to his mistress. Almost no-one is untouchable.  The FBI is always trying to demonstrate that no-one can resist us.  But Hillary Clinton very conspicuously resisted the FBI’s investigation, so there’s anger within the FBI because it made the FBI look weak.  We’ve published about 33,000 of Clinton’s emails when she was Secretary of State.  They come from a batch of just over 60,000 emails, [of which] Clinton has kept about half – 30,000 — to herself, and we’ve published about half.
Then there are the Podesta emails we’ve been publishing.  [John] Podesta is Hillary Clinton’s primary campaign manager, so there’s a thread that runs through all these emails; there are quite a lot of pay-for-play, as they call it, giving access in exchange for money to states, individuals and corporations. [These emails are] combined with the cover up of the Hillary Clinton emails when she was Secretary of State, [which] has led to an environment where the pressure on the FBI increases.

JP: The Clinton campaign has said that Russia is behind all of this, that Russia has manipulated the campaign and is the source for WikiLeaks and its emails.

JA: The Clinton camp has been able to project that kind of neo-McCarthy hysteria: that Russia is responsible for everything.  Hilary Clinton stated multiple times, falsely, that seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies had assessed that Russia was the source of our publications. That is false; we can say that the Russian government is not the source.

WikiLeaks has been publishing for ten years, and in those ten years, we have published ten million documents, several thousand individual publications, several thousand different sources, and we have never got it wrong.

‘Saudi Arabia & Qatar funding ISIS and Clinton’

JP: The emails that give evidence of access for money and how Hillary Clinton herself benefited from this and how she is benefitting politically, are quite extraordinary. I’m thinking of  when the Qatari representative was given five minutes with Bill Clinton for a million dollar cheque.

Assange: Clinton & ISIS funded by same money, Trump won’t be allowed to win (JOHN PILGER EXCLUSIVE)
JA: And twelve million dollars from Morocco …

JP: Twelve million from Morocco yeah.

JA: For Hillary Clinton to attend [a party].

JP: In terms of the foreign policy of the United States, that’s where the emails are most revealing, where they show the direct connection between Hillary Clinton and the foundation of jihadism, of ISIL, in the Middle East.  Can you talk about how the emails demonstrate the connection between those who are meant to be fighting the jihadists of ISIL, are actually those who have helped create it.

JA: There’s an early 2014 email from Hillary Clinton, not so long after she left the State Department, to her campaign manager John Podesta that states ISIL is funded by the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar.  Now this is the most significant email in the whole collection, and perhaps because Saudi and Qatari money is spread all over the Clinton Foundation.  Even the U.S. government agrees that some Saudi figures have been supporting ISIL, or ISIS. But the dodge has always been that, well it’s just some rogue Princes, using their cut of the oil money to do whatever they like, but actually the government disapproves.

But that email says that no, it is the governments of Saudi and Qatar that have been funding ISIS.

JP: The Saudis, the Qataris, the Moroccans, the Bahrainis, particularly the Saudis and the Qataris, are giving all this money to the Clinton Foundation while Hilary Clinton is Secretary of State and the State Department is approving massive arms sales, particularly to Saudi Arabia.

JA: Under Hillary Clinton, the world’s largest ever arms deal was made with Saudi Arabia, [worth] more than $80 billion.  In fact, during her tenure as Secretary of State, total arms exports from the United States in terms of the dollar value, doubled.

JP: Of course the consequence of that is that the notorious terrorist group called ISIl or ISIS is created largely with money from the very people who are giving money to the Clinton Foundation.

JA: Yes.

JP:That’s extraordinary.

‘Clinton has been eaten alive by her ambition’

JA: I actually feel quite sorry for Hillary Clinton as a person because I see someone who is eaten alive by their ambitions,  tormented literally to the point where they become sick; they faint as a result of [the reaction] to their ambitions. She represents a whole network of people and a network of relationships with particular states.  The question is how does Hilary Clinton fit in this broader network?  She’s a centralising cog. You’ve got a lot of different gears in operation from the big banks like Goldman Sachs and major elements of Wall Street, and Intelligence and people in the State Department and the Saudis.

President Barack Obama meets with members of his Cabinet in the Cabinet Room at the White House. © White HouseWikiLeaks emails shows Citigroup’s major role in shaping Obama administration’s cabinet
She’s the centraliser that inter-connects all these different cogs. She’s the smooth central representation of all that, and ‘all that’ is more or less what is in power now in the United States. It’s what we call the establishment or the DC consensus. One of the more significant Podesta emails that we released was about how the Obama cabinet was formed and how half the Obama cabinet was basically nominated by a representative from City Bank. This is quite amazing.

JP: Didn’t Citybank supply a list …. ?

JA: Yes.

JP: … which turned out to be most of the Obama cabinet.

JA: Yes.

JP: So Wall Street decides the cabinet of the President of the United States?

JA: If you were following the Obama campaign back then, closely, you could see it had become very close to banking interests.
JA: So I think you can’t properly understand Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy without understanding Saudi Arabia.  The connections with Saudi Arabia are so intimate.

‘Libya is Hillary Clinton’s war’

JP:Why was she so demonstrably enthusiastic about the destruction of Libya? Can you talk a little about just what the emails have told us – told you – about what happened there? Because Libya is such a source for so much of the mayhem now in Syria: the ISIL, jihadism, and so on. And it was almost Hillary Clinton’s invasion. What do the emails tell us about that?

 

U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton © Joshua Roberts‘A very different kind of warfare’: Clinton team on Benghazi committee leaks in #PodestaEmails
JA: Libya, more than anyone else’s war, was Hillary Clinton’s war. Barak Obama initially opposed it. Who was the person championing it?  Hillary Clinton.  That’s documented throughout her emails. She had put her favoured agent, Sidney Blumenthal, on to that; there’s more than 1700 emails out of the thirty three thousand Hillary Clinton emails that we’ve published, just about Libya. It’s not that Libya has cheap oil. She perceived the removal of Gaddafi and the overthrow of the Libyan state — something that she would use in her run-up to the general election for President.

So in late 2011 there is an internal document called the Libya Tick Tock that was produced for Hillary Clinton, and it’s the chronological description of how she was the central figure in the destruction of the Libyan state, which resulted in around 40,000 deaths within Libya; jihadists moved in, ISIS moved in, leading to the European refugee and migrant crisis.

Not only did you have people fleeing Libya, people fleeing Syria, the destabilisation of other African countries as a result of arms flows, but the Libyan state itself err was no longer able to control the movement of people through it. Libya faces along to the Mediterranean and had been effectively the cork in the bottle of Africa. So all problems, economic problems and civil war in Africa — previously people fleeing those problems didn’t end up in Europe because Libya policed the Mediterranean. That was said explicitly at the time, back in early 2011 by Gaddafi:  ‘What do these Europeans think they’re doing, trying to bomb and destroy the Libyan State? There’s going to be floods of migrants out of Africa and jihadists into Europe, and this is exactly what happened.

‘Trump won’t be permitted to win’

JP: You get complaints from people saying, ‘What is WikiLeaks doing?  Are they trying to put Trump in the Whitehouse?’
JA: My answer is that Trump would not be permitted to win. Why do I say that?  Because he’s had every establishment off side; Trump doesn’t have one establishment, maybe with the exception of the Evangelicals, if you can call them an establishment, but banks, intelligence [agencies], arms companies… big foreign money … are all united behind Hillary Clinton, and the media as well, media owners and even journalists themselves.

JP: There is the accusation that WikiLeaks is in league with the Russians. Some people say, ‘Well, why doesn’t WikiLeaks investigate and publish emails on Russia?’

JA: We have published about 800,000 documents of various kinds that relate to Russia. Most of those are critical; and a great many books have come out of our publications about Russia, most of which are critical. Our [Russia]documents have gone on to be used in quite a number of court cases: refugee cases of people fleeing some kind of claimed political persecution in Russia, which they use our documents to back up.

JP: Do you yourself take a view of the U.S. election?  Do you have a preference for Clinton or Trump?

JA: [Let’s talk about] Donald Trump. What does he represent in the American mind and in the European mind?  He represents American white trash, [which Hillary Clinton called] ‘deplorable and irredeemable’.  It means from an establishment or educated cosmopolitan, urbane perspective, these people are like the red necks, and you can never deal with them.  Because he so clearly — through his words and actions and the type of people that turn up at his rallies — represents people who are not the middle, not the upper middle educated class, there is a fear of seeming to be associated in any way with them, a social fear that lowers the class status of anyone who can be accused of somehow assisting Trump in any way, including any criticism of Hillary Clinton. If you look at how the middle class gains its economic and social power, that makes absolute sense.

‘US attempting to squeeze WikiLeaks through my refugee status’

JP: I’d like to talk about Ecuador, the small country that has given you refuge and [political asylum] in this embassy in London.  Now Ecuador has cut off the internet from here where we’re doing this interview, in the Embassy, for the clearly obvious reason that they are concerned about appearing to intervene in the U.S. election campaign.  Can you talk about why they would take that action and your own views on Ecuador’s support for you?

Julian Assange, Founder and Editor-in-Chief of WikiLeaks. © Axel SchmidtPro-Hillary US State Dept ‘behind Assange internet cutoff’ – WikiLeaks activist to RT
JA: Let’s let go back four years.  I made an asylum application to Ecuador in this embassy, because of the U.S. extradition case, and the result was that after a month, I was successful in my asylum application. The embassy since then has been surrounded by police: quite an expensive police operation which the British government admits to spending more than £12.6 million. They admitted that over a year ago.  Now there’s undercover police and there are robot surveillance cameras of various kinds — so that there has been quite a serious conflict right here in the heart of London between Ecuador, a country of sixteen million people, and the United Kingdom, and the Americans who have been helping on the side.  So that was a brave and principled thing for Ecuador to do. Now we have the U.S. election [campaign], the Ecuadorian election is in February next year, and you have the White House feeling the political heat as a result of the true information that we have been publishing.

WikiLeaks does not publish from the jurisdiction of Ecuador, from this embassy or in the territory of Ecuador; we publish from France, we publish from, from Germany, we publish from The Netherlands and from a number of other countries, so that the attempted squeeze on WikiLeaks is through my refugee status; and this is, this is really intolerable. [It means] that [they] are trying to get at a publishing organisation; [they] try and prevent it from publishing true information that is of intense interest to the American people and others about an election.

JP: Tell us what would happen if you walked out of this embassy.

JA: I would be immediately arrested by the British police and I would then be extradited either immediately to the United States or to Sweden. In Sweden I am not charged, I have already been previously cleared [by the Senior Stockholm Prosecutor Eva Finne]. We were not certain exactly what would happen there, but then we know that the Swedish government has refused to say that they will not extradite me to the United States we know they have extradited 100 per cent of people whom the U.S. has requested since at least 2000.  So over the last fifteen years, every single person the U.S. has tried to extradite from Sweden has been extradited, and they refuse to provide a guarantee [that won’t happen].

JP: People often ask me how you cope with the isolation in here.

JA: Look, one of the best attributes of human beings is that they’re adaptable; one of the worst attributes of human beings is they are adaptable.  They adapt and start to tolerate abuses, they adapt to being involved themselves in abuses, they adapt to adversity and they continue on. So in my situation, frankly, I’m a bit institutionalised — this [the embassy] is the world .. it’s visually the world [for me].

JP: It’s the world without sunlight, for one thing, isn’t it?

JA: It’s the world without sunlight, but I haven’t seen sunlight in so long, I don’t remember it.

JP: Yes.

JA: So , yes, you adapt.  The one real irritant is that my young children — they also adapt. They adapt to being without their father. That’s a hard, hard adaption which they didn’t ask for.

JP: Do you worry about them?

JA: Yes, I worry about them; I worry about their mother.
‘I am innocent and in arbitrary detention’

JP: Some people would say, ‘Well, why don’t you end it and simply walk out the door and allow yourself to be extradited to Sweden?’

JA: The U.N. [the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention] has looked into this whole situation. They spent eighteen months in formal, adversarial litigation. [So it’s] me and the U.N. verses Sweden and the U.K.  Who’s right?  The U.N. made a conclusion that I am being arbitrarily detained illegally, deprived of my freedom and that what has occurred has not occurred within the laws that the United Kingdom and Sweden, and that [those countries] must obey. It is an illegal abuse.  It is the United Nations formally asking, ‘What’s going on here?  What is your legal explanation for this? [Assange] says that you should recognise his asylum.’ [And here is]

Sweden formally writing back to the United Nations to say, ‘No, we’re not going to [recognise the UN ruling], so leaving open their ability to extradite.

I just find it absolutely amazing that the narrative about this situation is not put out publically in the press, because it doesn’t suit the Western establishment narrative – that yes, the West has political prisoners, it’s a reality, it’s not just me, there’s a bunch of other people as well.  The West has political prisoners. Of course, no state accepts [that it should call] the people it is imprisoning or detaining for political reasons, political prisoners. They don’t call them political prisoners in China, they don’t call them political prisoners in Azerbaijan and they don’t call them political prisoners in the United States, U.K. or Sweden; it is absolutely intolerable to have that kind of self-perception.

JA: Here we have a case, the Swedish case, where I have never been charged with a crime, where I have already been cleared [by the Stockholm prosecutor] and found to be innocent, where the woman herself said that the police made it up, where the United Nations formally said the whole thing is illegal, where the State of Ecuador also investigated and found that I should be given asylum.  Those are the facts, but what is the rhetoric?

JP: Yes, it’s different.

JA: The rhetoric is pretending, constantly pretending that I have been charged with a crime, and never mentioning that I have been already previously cleared, never mentioning that the woman herself says that the police made it up.

[The rhetoric] is trying to avoid [the truth that ] the U.N. formally found that the whole thing is illegal, never even mentioning that Ecuador made a formal assessment through its formal processes and found that yes, I am subject to persecution by the United States.

Secret World of US Election: Julian Assange talks to John Pilger (FULL INTERVIEW)
| November 5, 2016 | 8:15 pm | Analysis, Julian Assange, political struggle | No comments

Assange: Clinton & ISIS funded by same money, Trump won’t be allowed to win (JOHN PILGER EXCLUSIVE)

https://www.rt.com/news/365299-assange-pilger-saudi-clinton/

In the second excerpt from the John Pilger Special, to be exclusively broadcast by RT on Saturday, courtesy of Dartmouth Films, Julian Assange accuses Hillary Clinton of misleading Americans about the true scope of Islamic State’s support from Washington’s Middle East allies.

In a 2014 email made public by Assange’s WikiLeaks last month, Hillary Clinton, who had served as secretary of state until the year before, urges John Podesta, then an advisor to Barack Obama, to “bring pressure” on Qatar and Saudi Arabia, “which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL [Islamic State, IS, ISIS] and other radical Sunni groups.”

“I think this is the most significant email in the whole collection,” Assange, whose whistleblowing site released three tranches of Clinton-related emails over the past year, told Pilger in an exclusive interview, courtesy of Dartmouth Films.

“All serious analysts know, and even the US government has agreed, that some Saudi figures have been supporting ISIS and funding ISIS, but the dodge has always been that it is some “rogue” princes using their oil money to do whatever they like, but actually the government disapproves. But that email says that it is the government of Saudi Arabia, and the government of Qatar that have been funding ISIS.”

Assange and Pilger, who sat down for their 25-minute interview at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where the whistleblower has been a refugee since 2012, then talk about the conflict of interest between Clinton’s official post, which held throughout Obama’s first term, her husband’s nonprofit, and the Middle East officials, whose stated desire to fight terrorism may not have been sincere.

John Pilger: The Saudis, the Qataris, the Moroccans, the Bahrainis, particularly the first two, are giving all this money to the Clinton Foundation, while Hillary Clinton is secretary of state, and the State Department is approving massive arms sales, particularly Saudi Arabia.

Julian Assange: Under Hillary Clinton – and the Clinton emails reveal a significant discussion of it – the biggest-ever arms deal in the world was made with Saudi Arabia: more than $80 billion. During her tenure, the total arms exports from the US doubled in dollar value.

JP: Of course, the consequence of that is that this notorious jihadist group, called ISIL or ISIS, is created largely with money from people who are giving money to the Clinton Foundation?

JA: Yes.

READ MORE: Clinton knew Saudi Arabia, Qatar provide ‘clandestine’ support to ISIS – WikiLeaks

Pilger also questioned Assange over increasingly frequent accusations from the Clinton camp, and Western media, that WikiLeaks is looking to swing next week’s US presidential election in favor of Donald Trump – perhaps at Russia’s behest.

But Assange dismissed the prospect of Trump, who is behind in the polls, winning as unlikely – and not necessarily due to his standing with the electorate.

“My analysis is that Trump would not be permitted to win. Why do I say that? Because he has had every establishment off his side. Trump does not have one establishment, maybe with the exception of the Evangelicals, if you can call them an establishment,” said Assange. “Banks, intelligence, arms companies, foreign money, etc. are all united behind Hillary Clinton. And the media as well. Media owners, and the journalists themselves.”

READ MORE: ‘Slaughter Donald for Putin bromance’: #Podesta15 emails reveal ISIS strategy diversion for Clinton

‘Clinton using anti-Russia red-baiting not seen since days of McCarthyism’

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/363818-clinton-podesta-emails-wikileaks/

U.S. Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton © Carlos Barria
Hillary Clinton is preparing Americans for her next war, says political analyst Daniel Patrick Welch. She needs to pay weapons death-merchants who financed her campaign back by giving them a never-ending perpetual war to keep US hegemony alive, he adds.

The whistleblowing website Wikileaks has released a new batch of emails from the account of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chief shedding light on why her team has been focusing so heavily on Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The batch of emails includes a conversation between campaign leader John Podesta, and columnist and Clinton ally Brent Budowski.

In it, they discuss Clinton’s policy on fighting Islamic State and Budowski suggests that focusing on Putin’s alleged links to Donald Trump are a useful way of drawing attention away from that issue.

The writer warned that Clinton could be seen as not sufficiently tough when it comes to her views on the Middle East and that any deterioration in the situation there could cause her political setback.

RT: In one of the emails, columnist Brent Budowski writes: “Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin, but not go too far betting on Putin regarding Syria.” What do you make of this?

Daniel Patrick Welch: I thought that was a little cryptic. I don’t know if he is warning her not to go too far against Putin. If that was the advice, she certainly hasn’t taken it. This has not only been a part of her campaign, it has basically been the center focus of her campaign, this horrible red-baiting that we haven’t seen since the days of Joe McCarthy. This kind of outflanking Trump on the right, kind of saying he is soft on the Russians and calling Putin a dictator.

The thing that is so cynical about this is that she knows she is lying. She is completely lying and she doesn’t care. And that’s what shows up in these emails is that this is a pure cynical, manipulative, political calculus; an attempt to gain favor with the electorate. And they could care less where the truth lies, which is why so many people despise her as a candidate, frankly.

RT: Do you think the heavy emphasis on Putin during the campaign and in the debates has actually helped Clinton? Or could it have backfired?

DW: There was a live-time tweeting of second-by-second popularity during the campaign and it showed a huge drop in people thinking that she was trustworthy (…) while she was in that diatribe, that horrific rant against Russia. I don’t know, I think she perceives that it is going to help her win the campaign. It is two-fold. She wants it to help win the campaign because she is such a bad candidate and she can’t be the buffoon like Trump except by red-baiting him. And she is also preparing, softening up her own population for her next war, which she has clearly decided has to be to keep the Russians in line. It is a very scary and dangerous tactic.

“We’ve seen a real pattern here begin to emerge throughout this election of attempting to deal with the WikiLeaks revelations, which are very damaging to Hillary Clinton – whether it is showing her emails, her statements to bankers, their dual strategy of telling the public one thing and telling the bankers another thing, her foundation. Instead of dealing and addressing and responding to these obvious WikiLeaks charges, what the Democrats are doing – trying to smear WikiLeaks and do that by allegedly tying Russia into manipulating WikiLeaks, which is ridiculous because Julian Assange that head WiliLeaks is sitting in a one-room apartment in the Ecuador Embassy in London. If the Russians were communicating with him, certainly the MI5 and other would be reporting that. So, there is no real evidence that the Russians are manipulating Wikileaks. But that allows the Democrats to expand this allegation that Putin and Trump are friends and because of that they divert the whole attention to Russia and Trump instead of addressing the Wikileaks’ revelations. This latest revelation shows pretty clearly that the plan all along was to do this. And also to bring in the back story to the Wikileaks and that is Syria. If Putin is friends with Trump, and Putin and Assad are getting an upper hand in Syria – which is driving the neocons crazy in the US right now – then you associate Putin and Syria with Trump and it makes Hillary look like she is more aggressive than even Trump on the ISIS in Syria.”Jack Rasmus, professor of Political Economy at St. Mary’s College and Santa Clara University, CA

RT: Referring to a Clinton speech, Budowski writes: “walk back and escape from her statement that finally we are where we need to be against ISIS”. He goes on to say that if a terrorist attack happens, this could destroy her campaign. Do you think he’s right here? Is Clinton vulnerable on this point?

DW: I don’t see how. This is a woman who has overseen the destruction of Libya, she’s been Obama’s right hand in overthrowing government in Honduras, in Brazil, proxy war in Syria and Yemen, and who still has the gall to say that we need a more muscular foreign policy, apparently droning women and children in Pakistan isn’t muscular enough for these people. So, for some reason I don’t think it is a political favor, I think these are the warmongers and the weapons death-merchants who have financed her campaign. She needs to pay them back by giving them what they want, which is a never-ending perpetual war to keep US hegemony alive.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Happy Anniversary WikiLeaks? Guccifer 2 Leaks ‘Hacked Clinton Foundation Files’
23:18 04.10.2016(updated 00:22 05.10.2016)
Get short URL1010087561

Guccifer 2.0, the hacker(s) behind the breach of the Democratic National Committee, released another batch of files on Tuesday, this time claiming that they are from the Clinton Foundation servers. They also wished WikiLeaks a happy tenth anniversary. In a statement accompanying the huge 820 megabyte file data dump, the elusive hacker entity wrote, “many of you have been waiting for this, some even asked me to do it.” “So, this is the moment. I hacked the Clinton Foundation server and downloaded hundreds of thousands of docs and donors’ databases.” Guccifer also stated that, “Hillary Clinton and her staff don’t even bother about the information security. It was just a matter of time to gain access to the Clinton Foundation server.” The first screenshot accompanying the download is a list of folders the hacker claims come from the server, and it immediately sparked interest online as one of the folders was actually labeled “pay to play.” Guccifer claims that, included in the dump, are lists of donors, financial corporation donations, and “other docs.” “It looks like big banks and corporations agreed to donate to the Democrats a certain percentage of the allocated TARP funds,” Guccifer noted. The hacker(s) further stated that they could not post all of the databases that they obtained, as the files are too large. They wrote that they are currently looking for a better way to release them — urging readers to keep following. The Clinton Foundation issued a statement to Politico following the release, denying that the files are from the organization. “Once again, we still have no evidence Clinton Foundation systems were breached and have not been notified by law enforcement of an issue,” a foundation official said. “None of these folders or files shown are from the Clinton Foundation.” “P.S. I’m pleased to congratulate WikiLeaks on their 10th anniversary!!!” the post concluded. “Julian, you are really cool! Stay safe and sound!”

Read more: https://sputniknews.com/us/20161004/1046002511/guccifer-releases-clinton-foundation-files.html

Hillary Clinton considered drone attack on Julian Assange – report

https://www.rt.com/usa/361459-secretary-clinton-drone-assange/

© Reuters
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton reportedly wanted to drone Wikileaks founder Julian Assange when she was secretary of state.

According to True Pundit, Clinton and the state department were under pressure to silence Assange and Wikileaks in the months before the whistleblowing site released a massive dump of 250,000 diplomatic cables from 1966 up to 2010, dubbed CableGate.

“Can’t we just drone this guy?” Clinton asked, according to unidentified state department sources.

Published by True Pundit on Sunday, Wikileaks posted a link to the story on their official Twitter account on Monday, along with a screenshot of the article.

Clinton and the state department held numerous meetings to discuss what could be done about Assange and his site which had already exposed damning military secrets about the war in Afghanistan and Iraq before the promised document dump was to come. The department was under pressure from both the White House and foreign governments to silence Wikileaks.

True Pundit reports the people in the room with Clinton on November 23, 2010 laughed at her comment, until it became clear that the then-secretary of state was serious. Clinton was reportedly fuming and referred to Assange as a “soft target.”

After Clinton’s drone suggestion, the state department considered offering a reward to anyone whose help secured the Australian journalist’s capture and extradition to the US. Unnamed sources reported a $10 million price was discussed at the meeting.

Following the meeting, Clinton aide Ann-Marie Slaughter emailed Clinton and aides Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin and Jake Sullivan with the subject, “RE an SP memo on possible legal and nonlegal strategies re Wikileaks.”

The email contained an attachment “SP Wikileaks doc final11.23.10.docx.” which has not been found by federal investigators investigating Clinton’s use of a private email server. Wikileaks itself does not have this attachment.

Five days after the meeting, Wikileaks began releasing the CableGate files, on November 28, 2010.

Sources familiar with the meeting claim they were reminded of Clinton’s penchant for discussing droning enemies following the release of the FBI’s report on the Clinton email investigation, according to True Pundit.

The FBI’s notes on Clinton’s interview during the investigation referred to Clinton having “many discussions” about “nominating” droning individuals.

“Clinton could not recall a specific process for nominating a target for a drone strike and recalled much debate pertaining to the concurrence process. Clinton knew there was a role for DOD, State and the CIA but could not provide specifics as to what it was. Due to a disagreement between these agencies, Clinton recalled having many discussions related to nominating an individual for a drone strike,” the report reads.

Assange was set to make a big announcement at the Ecuadorian embassy in London on Tuesday where he has been trapped for five years, but cancelled in light of security concerns.

The teased leak, dubbed an “October Surprise” is thought to be damaging for Clinton before the presidential elections in November.

The announcement will now be made at Wikileaks’ 10-year anniversary celebration in Berlin on Tuesday. Assange will address the event via video leak.