Wikileaks promises new release of information on Hilary.

[Drew Phipps]

WikiLeaks founder says big leak on Hillary Clinton could lead to indictment

Jun 16th 2016 10:30PM


http://www.aol.com/article/2016/06/16/wi.../21396978/

WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, says this year he is going to leak information on Hillary Clinton that could be extremely damaging to the presumptive Democratic nominee. Speaking to a British TV station, Assange said, "We've accumulated a lot of material about Hillary Clinton. We could proceed to an indictment."


Assange went on to say he doesn't think Clinton will actually face charges because he doesn't believe the current Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, will indict her, but he thinks the FBI will use the information to push for concessions from the Clinton administration, should she be elected. While Assange did say Clinton poses a problem for freedom of the press, he stopped short of saying he would prefer to see a Trump Presidency.


********
AFAIK Assange is still hiding in the Ecuadorian Embassy fearing extradition to Sweden and the US. If he manages to unseat Clinton, will our next President release him? Seems unlikely, even though his detention was declared "arbitrary" by some international human rights bunch.

[David Guyatt]

The following should be sufficient to badly taint Hillary and probably bring her campaign to a stop. In a normal world. But the fix is in.

Hillary Clinton Email Archive

Back to the Search

• View email
  
• View original PDF
  
• Share document
  

NEW IRAN AND SYRIA 2.DOC

From: To: Date: 2000-12-31 22:00

Subject: NEW IRAN AND SYRIA 2.DOC UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794498 Date: 11/30/2015

RELEASE IN FULL

The best way to help Israel deal with Iran's growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad.

Negotiations to limit Iran's nuclear program will not solve Israel's security dilemma. Nor will they stop Iran from improving the crucial part of any nuclear weapons program the capability to enrich uranium.

At best, the talks between the world's major powers and Iran that began in Istanbul this April and will continue in Baghdad in May will enable Israel to postpone by a few months a decision whether to launch an attack on Iran that could provoke a major Mideast war.

Iran's nuclear program and Syria's civil war may seem unconnected, but they are. For Israeli leaders, the real threat from a nuclear-armed Iran is not the prospect of an insane Iranian leader launching an unprovoked Iranian nuclear attack on Israel that would lead to the annihilation of both countries. What Israeli military leaders really worry about -- but cannot talk about -- is losing their nuclear monopoly. An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would not only end that nuclear monopoly but could also prompt other adversaries, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to go nuclear as well.

The result would be a precarious nuclear balance in which Israel could not respond to provocations with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today. If Iran were to reach the threshold of a nuclear weapons state, Tehran would find it much easier to call on its allies in Syria and Hezbollah to strike Israel, knowing that its nuclear weapons would serve as a deterrent to Israel responding against Iran itself. Back to Syria. It is the strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel's security not through a direct attack, which in the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israel has never occurred, but through its proxies in Lebanon, like Hezbollah, that are sustained, armed and trained by Iran via Syria.

The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance. Israel's leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests. Speaking on CNN's Amanpour show last week, Defense Minister Ehud Barak argued that "the toppling down of Assad will be a major blow to the radical axis, major blow to Iran.... It's the only kind of outpost of the Iranian influence in the Arab world...and it will weaken dramatically both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza." Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel's security, it would also ease Israel's understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly. Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted. Right now, it is the combination of Iran's strategic alliance with Syria and the steady progress in Iran's nuclear enrichment program that has led Israeli leaders to contemplate a surprise attack if necessary over the objections of Washington.

With Assad gone, and Iran no longer able to threaten Israel through its, proxies, it is possible that the United States and Israel can agree on red lines for when Iran's program has crossed an unacceptable threshold. In short, the White House can ease the tension that has developed with Israel over Iran by doing the right thing in Syria. The rebellion in Syria has now lasted more than a year. The opposition is not going away, nor is the regime going to accept a diplomatic solution from the outside. With his life and his family at risk, only the threat or use of force will change the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad's mind.

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794498 Date: 11/30/2015 The Obama administration has been understandably wary of engaging in an air operation in Syria like the one conducted in Libya for three main reasons. Unlike the Libyan opposition forces, the Syrian rebels are not unified and do not hold territory. The Arab League has not called for outside military intervention as it did in Libya. And the Russians are opposed. Libya was an easier case. But other than the laudable purpose of saving Libyan civilians from likely attacks by Qaddafi's regime, the Libyan operation had no long-lasting consequences for the region. Syria is harder. But success in Syria would be a transformative event for the Middle East. Not only would another ruthless dictator succumb to mass opposition on the streets, but the region would be changed for the better as Iran would no longer have a foothold in the Middle East from which to threaten Israel and undermine stability in the region. Unlike in Libya, a successful intervention in Syria would require substantial diplomatic and military leadership from the United States. Washington should start by expressing its willingness to work with regional allies like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar to organize, train and arm Syrian rebel forces. The announcement of such a decision would, by itself, likely cause substantial defections from the Syrian military. Then, using territory in Turkey and possibly Jordan, U.S. diplomats and Pentagon officials can start strengthening the opposition.

It will take time. But the rebellion is going to go on for a long time, with or without U.S. involvement. The second step is to develop international support for a coalition air operation. Russia will never support such a mission, so there is no point operating through the UN Security Council.

Some argue that U.S. involvement risks a wider war with Russia. But the Kosovo example shows otherwise. In that case, Russia had genuine ethnic and political ties to the Serbs, which don't exist between Russia and Syria, and even then Russia did little more than complain. Russian officials have already acknowledged they won't stand in the way if intervention comes. Arming the Syrian rebels and using western air power to ground Syrian helicopters and airplanes is a low-cost high payoff approach.

As long as Washington's political leaders stay firm that no U.S. ground troops will be deployed, as they did in both Kosovo and Libya, the costs to the United States will be limited. Victory may not come quickly or easily, but it will come. And the payoff will be substantial. Iran would be strategically isolated, unable to exert its influence in the Middle East. The resulting regime in Syria will see the United States as a friend, not an enemy.

Washington would gain substantial recognition as fighting for the people in the Arab world, not the corrupt regimes. For Israel, the rationale for a bolt from the blue attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would be eased. And a new Syrian regime might well be open to early action on the frozen peace talks with Israel. Hezbollah in Lebanon would be cut off from its Iranian sponsor since Syria would no longer be a transit point for Iranian training, assistance and missiles. All these strategic benefits and the prospect of saving thousands of civilians from murder at the hands of the Assad regime (10,000 have already been killed in this first year of civil war). With the veil of fear lifted from the Syrian people, they seem determine to fight for their freedom. America can and should help them and by doing so help Israel and help reduce the risk of a wider war.

Source

[David Guyatt]

Meanwhile, Facebook is censoring the Wikileaks Hillary dump to limit the damage:

Wikileaks Drops Hillary Email Bomb That Could End Her Campaign but FB Censored It

March 21st, 2016 | by hqanon
INTELLIGENCE

35

Michaela Whitton at theantimedia.org

United Kingdom On Wednesday, a major archive containing over 30,000 of Hillary Clinton's emails were released. Though the State Department began releasing the emails in May last year after a Freedom of Information Act request it is the first time the messages have been made easily available in a searchable format, courtesy of WikiLeaks. Before the launch, the FBI was investigating the Democratic candidate's use of a private server during her tenure as Secretary of State. The archive contains over 7,000 emails written by Clinton herself.
The scary, albeit fascinating exposé on who's in bed with whom in the halls of global power has expanded to include Facebook, according to WikiLeaks. The organization has accused the social networking site of censorship, saying Facebook is blocking users' access to the latest Clinton dispatch.

As a result of the outing, Twitter users are calling Clinton wicked, a thug, and a hypocrite. The released emails uncovered that the presidential frontrunner was instrumental in spreading chaos and extremism in Libya. They also revealed that she pushed for oil privatization in Mexico and forwarded emails claiming a Sunni-Shiite war would be good for Israel and the West.

For those who are fascinated but don't have the time or inclination to sift through more than 30,000 documents, here is a snapshot of what Clinton's emails revealed:

---

This article (Facebook, WikiLeaks and Clinton's Warmongering Emails) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Michaela Whitton andtheAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Image credit: Thierry Ehrmann. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

Source

[Drew Phipps]

Assange's statement was least week, not in March. He apparently has new information. Perhaps Facebook will censor that as well.

[Drew Phipps]

Clinton likely won't face charges over private email server
Lauren Stephenson
Jul 3rd 2016 12:01PM

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/07/03/clinton-likely-wont-face-charges-over-private-email-server/21423411/

The possibility that Hillary Clinton won't face charges related to her use of a private email server during her time as secretary of state is getting media attention. On Saturday, CNN, citing unnamed sources, reported Clinton isn't expected to be charged. It's just the latest report to suggest the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee likely won't be prosecuted. Earlier on Saturday, the FBI interviewed Clinton for more than three hours. At issue whether Clinton violated any laws by handling classified information on her private email server. A U.S. State Department Inspector General report released in May found Clinton didn't follow proper department procedure. But Clinton has repeatedly said she hasn't broken the law.



"I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time it was sent and received," she told reporters last year. After her FBI interview, "Meet The Press'" Chuck Todd asked Clinton about reports that said she wouldn't face charges. "I am not going to comment on the process. I have no knowledge of any timeline. This is entirely up to the department," Clinton said. The interview's timing suggests the U.S. Department of Justice is nearing the end of its investigation. Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Friday she would accept investigators' recommendations for the case.


Lynch's announcement followed news of a private meeting with former President Bill Clinton aboard her plane earlier this week. Lynch said that meeting was purely social and Hillary Clinton echoed that statement on Saturday. "They did not discuss the Department of Justice's review," she told Todd. Presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump chimed in Saturday afternoon, tweeting: "It was just announced-by sources-that no charges will be brought against Crooked Hillary Clinton. Like I said, the system is totally rigged!" The Democratic National Convention begins on July 25.

*******
It's now or never for that WikiLeaks release, if they want to influence the course of the Justice Department investigation. If they don't want to make it public, they could at least turn over a copy of their material to the Justice Department.

[Drew Phipps]

It's too late now, Wikileaks. You had two days notice.

FBI to recommend no charges in Clinton email probe, director says
John Whitesides and Julia Edwards
Jul 5th 2016 1:35PM

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/07/05/fb.../21424328/

[Drew Phipps]

FBI director grilled by Congress, flawed reason for no prosecution revealed.


I'm not going to link an article or video, I'm sure you will all get an earful of this. However, the FBI director revealed the flawed reason for the FBI recommendation of no prosecution of Hilary:


"Our investigation did not reveal evidence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt" of Clinton's wrongdoing. Sounds good, right? Here's the problem: The United State's standard of proof for initiating criminal charges (indeed for making an arrest, getting a search warrant, filing a formal charge, seeking a grand jury indictment, etc.) is probable cause. I'm quite certain that they teach this concept at Quantico. I'm quite certain that they teach US Attorneys this concept. Probable cause is debated in thousands of courts every day in every state and the federal system too.


Probable cause is a standard far less onerous than "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." Reasonable doubt is the standard used by juries to actually find someone guilty, or assess punishment. The FBI has never refused a case based on reasonable doubt. Nor should they. That is the exclusive province of the judge or jury, after a full and impartial examination of all the evidence. We have a million people behind bars (and maybe as many on probation) in this country whose prosecutions began with "probable cause."


I'm not saying Hilary should be found guilty. She should have her day in court and either be convicted or exonerated in a public trial. This was a grave error that will seriously erode the confidence in the criminal justice system.

[Drew Phipps]

FBI director grilled by Congress, flawed reason for no prosecution revealed.


I'm not going to link an article or video, I'm sure you will all get an earful of this. However, the FBI director revealed the flawed reason for the FBI recommendation of no prosecution of Hilary:


"Our investigation did not reveal evidence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt" of Clinton's wrongdoing. Sounds good, right? Here's the problem: The United State's standard of proof for initiating criminal charges (indeed for making an arrest, getting a search warrant, filing a formal charge, seeking a grand jury indictment, etc.) is probable cause. I'm quite certain that they teach this concept at Quantico. I'm quite certain that they teach US Attorneys this concept. Probable cause is debated in thousands of courts every day in every state and the federal system too.


Probable cause is a standard far less onerous than "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." Reasonable doubt is the standard used by juries to actually find someone guilty, or assess punishment. The FBI has never refused a case based on reasonable doubt. Nor should they. That is the exclusive province of the judge or jury, after a full and impartial examination of all the evidence. We have a million people behind bars (and maybe as many on probation) in this country whose prosecutions began with "probable cause."


I'm not saying Hilary should be found guilty. She should have her day in court and either be convicted or exonerated in a public trial. This was a grave error that will seriously erode the confidence in the criminal justice system.

With reference to my earlier post, I have reviewed the televised grilling of Director Comey by members of Congress. At exactly 12:00, while being questioned by ® Congressman Ken Buck (Colorado), when asked a question about burden of proof and Clinton's knowledge, Dir. Comey stated: "Certainly probable cause, there's not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt."

AFAIK no one followed up on that line of questioning (but I have an hour to go).

[Lauren Johnson]

"Certainly probable cause, there's not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt."

::face.palm::

[Drew Phipps]

After further review of the footage I also conclude that the FBI erred by failing to consider Clinton's unsworn public remarks and her sworn testimony to Congress in evaluating the evidence of the extent of her knowledge and intent. The Federal Rules of Evidence clearly provide that prior inconsistent statements are admissible against a witness under Rule 613; and (in certain circumstances, also consistent statements) are not rendered inadmissible by operation of the hearsay rule, Rule 801. I should also remark that, even if such evidence were "inadmissible" at a criminal trial, it can and should serve as the basis for establishing probable cause. I conclude that, since the FBI did not (by the representations made by Director Comey in his Congressional testimony) consider such statements as evidence in its investigation, they made a second serious error in their evaluation of the strength of the case.

Basically, I mean that if she lied to Congress and to the public at large, that is evidence (atop the other evidence against her) of her awareness that what she was doing was wrong (the "mens rea" aspect that formed the basis of Director Comey's decision not to bring charges).