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 poured 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.
By Julian Assange
Here we are one day before the election day in the United States, and we are also facing a very absurd political situation.
Apparently the members of the Democratic party are hoping that Mr. Donald J. Trump is going to win this election cycle and the members of the Republican party are hoping that Secretary Hillary Clinton is actually going to win on Tuesday’s election day.
Why this is happening ?
- For example if Hillary Clinton wins, one half of her mandate she will have to explain that she didn’t leaked Top Secret government documents and she will face the opportunity to get an impeachment, just like the case with the former U.S. president Mr. Richard M. Nixon that happened 30 or more years ago. That’s why the democrats believe that maybe it is better for the Democratic party Hillary to lose these very dirty elections 58th elections in the U.S.
- On the other hand the republicans are making their own political calculations, because if Trump wins “as he is” – no one can control him – with occasional “very crazy” statements, he can do a lot more damage to the Republican party that supported him if he wins.
This means if Hillary wins and she gets impeached after two years, at least in the next two upcoming presidential elections they will be a very serious favorite to win.
Now I ask this heavy question, do you think that the Jews and Israel are having their revenge on Hillary Clinton because she made some mistakes according to their estimations ?
You may not, except with linking the source, distribute or commercially exploit the content. Nor may you transmit it or store it in any other website or other form of electronic retrieval system.
Given the mainstream media’s inclination towards Hillary Clinton and recently presented evidence that Democrat operatives have been attempting to illegally influence the ballot box through falsifying votes and electronic tampering, it appears that concerns surrounding a rigged election are not necessarily unfounded, as President Obama would have us believe.
With the election just days away, the fix appears to be in and some Americans are readying themselves for a confrontation should one be necessary.
As the most divisive presidential election in recent memory nears its conclusion, some armed militia groups are preparing for the possibility of a stolen election on Nov. 8 and civil unrest in the days following a victory by Democrat Hillary Clinton.
They say they won’t fire the first shot, but they’re not planning to leave their guns at home, either.
Trump has repeatedly warned that the election may be “rigged,” and has said he may not respect the results if he does not win. At least one paramilitary group, the Oath Keepers, has called on members to monitor voting sites for signs of fraud
Over the past week, some prominent Trump supporters have hinted at violence.
“If Trump loses, I’m grabbing my musket,” former Illinois Representative Joe Walsh wrote on Twitter last week. Conservative commentator Wayne Root fantasized about Clinton’s death while speaking at a Trump rally in Las Vegas on Sunday.
Back in Georgia, the Three Percent Security Force wrapped up rifle practice in the midday sun. They then headed further into the trees to tackle an obstacle course with loaded pistols at their sides, ready for whatever may come.
The story comes from the mainstream media, of course, and ties in the Oklahoma City bombing, Waco and the Ruby Ridge incidents, all of which involved people with ties to militias.
The way the report itself is framed appears to have the purpose of sowing seeds of “crazy conspiracy theorists” into the minds of the general public so that if push comes to shove government actions will be justified in the eyes of the American citizenry.
But whatever the narrative, it is clear that the possibility of post-election chaos is becoming all the more probable. Whether the initial outcome shows a Trump win or a Hillary win, there are going to be tens of millions of very pissed off people in this country. And there’s a very good chance that some of them will take action, which according to Mike Adams could subsequently lead to open warfare on the streets of America:
As I’ve publicly predicted numerous times over the last year, if Donald Trump wins, the radical extreme leftists go on a violent rampage that leads to the rest of us begging for martial law. After half a dozen cities burn with riots and looting, Trump invokes a national emergency, deploying National Guard troops across the most devastated urban areas, and the radical left finds itself in a shooting war with the government.
If Hillary Clinton wins, all the Trump supporters who have been violently assaulted, spat upon and physically attacked by the radical left un-holster their concealed weapons and start shooting back. This quickly escalates into open warfare between lunatic leftist Hillary supporters and armed Trump “Second Amendment” people who basically figure they’ve got nothing left to lose anyway, so why not fight to save America?
It would only take a small group, perhaps even one that’s operating under a false flag, to light a wildfire that could spread from coast to coast. The assets, as Jeremiah Johnson warns, have already been put into place by the Obama administration:
In summary, the U.S. is prepositioning its “enemy-assets” to blame – on what the administration does – for a collapsed election labeled as “rigged” or the suspension of the election for any number of reasons, real or illusory, such as a genuine attack the U.S. provokes or an attack the U.S. carries out on itself. Civil unrest and/or war are the escape hatches to bail out of the Constitution and to take control of the country…not letting either crisis go to waste. With civil rest or a world war, the administration will be handed the country on a platter – indefinitely – and the election will be a moot point, whether it happened or not.
All of this may sound extreme, but this Presidential election has been nothing short of insane thus far.
Whatever the outcome, there will be calls of rigging from both sides, especially if it happens to be Hillary Clinton who , as evidence shows, has been rigging things all along.
It only took one bullet in 1914 to lead to widespread global confrontation. In the end, no one really cared who fired it or who got shot. The assets had already been positioned ahead of time and were just waiting for someone to detonate the powder keg.
If this is the case in America today, then this election will not end on November 8th, but could drag on for weeks or months as we saw with Bush vs. Gore in 2000.
Should tensions heat up and lead to confrontation, it is possible that President Obama will call for a national emergency and activate the Doomsday Executive Order to “restore order.” In this instance, the entire country could be on lock-down, so preparing for this outcome now in the event of curfews, rationing or any number of other potential scenarios is in order.
Video presentation of the candidates for US president 2016 and their supporters before the elections on 8th of November.
Give your support and Vote.