WikiLeaks claims 'significant' US election info release ... is yet to come Julian Assange has said WikiLeaks intends to publish documents ahead of the presidential race between Clinton and Trump that will include "significant" material about how the US election operates. Assange was speaking at a press conference in Berlin to celebrate the organisation's 10th birthday today, an event which had been …
This post has been deleted by its author
1. People register to vote (if they're not illegal immigrants)
2. On polling day, they go out and vote (some fat lazy bastards get electronic voting so don't need to get off the couch)
3. The illuminati decides who will be president anyway (had to throw that in didn't I?)
I think it all became clear a some years ago:
1. No rational person would vote for George.W.
2. He was president.
3. Therefore either the majority of Americans are not rational or the potion of president is not directly connected to the way people voted.
I think we could go back to even before that with Reagan.
Actually I think Bill Hicks said it, you choose who you vote for, just after they are elected they are taken in a room with loads of shadowy fat cats smoking cigars, who run a reel of the Kennedy assasination from some angle you have never seen the before, then they ask "Any questions?".
"So do Americans (at least the variety in the US of A) vote for a president or which conspiracy will elect a president or some other option I've missed?"
Yeah, it's another option. Each voter votes to instruct their representative how to vote at the Electoral College.
Said representative then casts their vote at the Electoral College. IIRC there's nothing in law or the voting system that actually requires said representative to vote in the way their State chose.
"On polling day, they go out and vote (some fat lazy bastards get electronic voting so don't need to get off the couch)"
You forgot to mention goofy flaky voting machines. http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/29/80
..."Zip" drives?? Nostalgia attack!!! (not!)
I was wondering why he was so stubborn about not releasing his tax returns, especially since he has proclaimed his tax avoidance as "smart". Maybe it shows a deduction for a charitable payment to Wikileaks?
Otherwise I cannot see why such an announcement is timed just before the elections. If such a release was genuinely to address government issues it could have waited afterwards to avoid giving the impression that they've just sold out to become stooges to whoever pays the most.
Well, bye bye credibility. Not that there was much left anyway.
(and yes, I would have said the same if it was about Trump - the US elections are insane enough not to suffer from idiots trying to throw more sh*t at it).
The NY law requiring registration of charities is only triggered if you accept donations from the outside. If you donate to your own charity, it isn't needed.
Though the digging done by a dogged Washington Post reporter who contacted 326 charities found only ONE donation, of under $10,000 from Donald Trump since 2008. He hasn't donated to his own foundation since 2008, everything it got has been from the outside (hence the need to register it with the state of New York) But he has used it for personal uses, like buying portraits of himself, signed memorabilia, and at least twice to make donations to other charities to settle debts of his company - something that's quite illegal.
I think Trump refusing to release his return was three reasons:
1) hide the fact he hadn't paid taxes in ages (even after the 18 year period for the $915 million loss expired, he's probably had subsequent losses some years to allow him to continue paying no taxes) This explains why he was getting the property tax break for having taxable income of less than $500K, something he earlier claimed was a mistake (despite it being automated by computer and happening in multiple years) He got that break because his taxable income was ZERO.
2) hide the fact he contributes little or nothing to charity. Since it wouldn't reduce his tax burden, he probably sees it as pointless. Especially when he can lie and claim he donates millions, knowing that no one ever checks - until you run for president!
3) hide the fact that he's not nearly has rich as he claims. Who knows what his net worth is, but it sure isn't $10 billion. If he was worth anything remotely like that much he would be funding his campaign like he said he would, and wouldn't be running scams like charging over 3x the going rate for the Trump Tower office space his company is renting his campaign.
While #1 has been exposed, he doesn't want #2 and #3 exposed as well. Who knows, maybe among the big dump Wikipedia is claiming is coming soon will be Trump's complete tax returns. Surely some hacker has been able to hack his accountant? I'm sure Hillary will have a lot of bad stuff in that dump as well, so it probably wouldn't even matter for the election - but it would matter for a civilian Trump (whether that's in November 2016 or November 2020) who could no longer claim to be the big deal that he claims he is which would irreparably damage his brand.
Otherwise I cannot see why such an announcement is timed just before the elections. If such a release was genuinely to address government issues it could have waited afterwards to avoid giving the impression that they've just sold out to become stooges to whoever pays the most.
You missed the point... it's something that might affect the election. It will bring media attention to Wikileaks and Mr. A.. After the election, it won't garner much attention.
What would be the point of releasing information that supposedly could swing the election AFTER the election? Assuming it is true, and assuming people care, then it is relevant to people's decision about who to vote for.
At least for that 10 or 15 percent who are amenable to changing their minds. The people who have been supporting Trump for months would still vote for him even if he did shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, and the people who have been supporting Hillary for months would still vote for her even if video surfaced proving she did found ISIS.
The risk is that if someone fabricated false "evidence" against one of the candidates using Wikileaks as a patsy, and it is released so close to the election that it can't be disproven in time to avoid swinging the election.
"Wikileaks offered a glimpse of one reveal about Clinton; "Can't we just drone this guy?", she said about Assange... and people think this would harm Clinton? Actually, I think it'd bolster further support"
An unsanctioned drone attack made by the US against a south American embassy in the middle of London? Yeah, can't see any issues with that at all....
WikiLeaks have amassed all this data and instead of releasing it when they have it, they sit on it until a time it causes the biggest disruption. There was a time when WikiLeaks was the antidote to politics. Now they seem to only want to release stuff to manipulate it. They've become part of the problem, not the solution.
but I'd say their pattern more dictates a release strategy focused around getting the most attention around the issues that they highlight / data that they release.
Releasing data on former presidential candidates after an election is over is not likely going to get the attention of the public. Even if they won the election.
If you subscribe to the belief that wikilieaks is a whistleblowing organisation, then that makes sense.. no use blowing a whistle if no one is around to hear it.
If you subscribe to the belief that wikilieaks is a whistleblowing organisation, then that makes sense.. no use blowing a whistle if no one is around to hear it.
Ah, but that's the exact problem - is it really a support framework for whistleblowing? Or is it simply an effort to legitimise Assange's earlier hacking and give it a positive spin? I could have had some sympathy for Wikileaks if they indeed supported proper whistleblowers (which I define as people who want to report major problems that have no other place to go) and helped them to go public without utterly ruining their own life in the process, but I have no respect for data theft and throwing it all open on the street irrespective of consequences. That doesn't address anything and there's no justification for it. That's IMHO the problem with Wikileaks - it avoids the same transparency that it wants from governments and companies, and Assange's self aggrandising antics are not helping.
This post has been deleted by its author
That Assange is just screwing with the Trump campaign here?
They have a terrible week, which has every sign of continuing. On Sunday, Assange 'leaks' that he'll leak something later in the week to . Stone takes the bait and the Trump campaign hold breath for something to distract from the Great Orange One's public meltdown. Assange keeps them holding on for a killer blow against Hillary as Trump continues to disintegrate...
and then he drops Trumps complete tax return two weeks before the election.
and then he drops Trumps complete tax return two weeks before the election.
I suspect that won't leak. There are not that many people that have access to it so it would be quick to identify whoever leaked it, and you can bet that Wigged Agent Orange would happily commit a large whack of his tax savings to make sure that that person would never have another happy day in their life.
Remember, this man has spent a whole life being unaccountable, it's the only government compatible talent he actually has.
A Trump presidency is considered so threatening by many people that there's already been one would-be assassin arrested for trying to kill him - who had flown over from Europe to do so. A whistle-blower may well consider a lifetime of bunking with Snowden worth it to ensure Trump is beaten.
"....there's already been one would-be assassin...." Hardly. If you're referring to Michael Sandford, one under-achiever with issues who turned up without even bringing his own gun does not make an "assassin".
"....- who had flown over from Europe to do so....." Sandford had been slacking his way round the US for over a year before he tried his inept attempt at shooting Trump in Vegas.
Odd that Ms Hall chooses to ask this question, but fails to provide readers with a link which might possible help them reach a conclusion on their own. Almost as if she (and El Reg have a line about Mr Assange that they wish to drive. Who'd have thought it ?...
Henri
If there's a serious leak to be published, why doesn't he just publish it already? Isn't that what Wikileaks was supposed to do?
The only reason I can see for spinning it out like this is to spread FUD, innuendos and completely unsubstantiated guesswork about what it might contain, across as many news cycles as possible. By now, no matter what he releases, half the internet will react as if it's a film of Clinton tap-dancing on a bed of kittens, and the other half as if it shows that she personally is the one who shot Bin Laden. Neither side will believe or even hear anything the other says.
Assange is playing directly from Putin's book here.
Surely Clinton isn't the only one to have thought something similar when JA's name crops up in another news article.
If there was anything significant to publish why hold on to it, is this possibly a marketing strategy
"During the conference Assange also took the opportunity to plug his forthcoming books."
Ah, ok
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
