WikiLeaks reports that the Tuesday announcement will still take place as scheduled.

[ABX]

WikiLeaks reports that the Tuesday announcement will still take place as scheduled. However, instead of having Julian Assange give his announcement on the balcony of the embassy, the announcement will take place via a video conference which will air at a Berlin press conference. The press conference is slated to take place on Tuesday morning....

http://www.inquisitr.com/3558588/wikileaks-october-suprise-dropping-tuesday-wikileaks-did-not-cancel-tuesday-announcement/

[ABX]

From the other thread.....

OK, here is what I'm hearing from various wikileaks/anon threads.

The release is NOT off, only a public appearance by Assange on his balcony. The release is still set to go.
Tuesday is the key day. It is an important day for Wikileaks, it is their 10th Anniversary (founded Oct 4, 2006). They want to make it big, explosive, not only for their anniversary but to possibly make enough of an impact to finally get Assange out of the need for protection- basically lay it all on the table and disrupt the system.
Wikileaks has had this for a while, possibly longer than even the DCLeaks docs. This was the dead man's switch insurance policy Assange has mentioned the past few years- if something happens to him, it was to be automatically released.
What is the big dirt? Rock solid proof Hillary Clinton, through an account she set up in Chelsea's name, was paying off government officials, all the way to the White House.
Something supposedly that should also make Trump worry, but he is secondary. They think both major candidates are going to be harmed but this one is really just about Hillary.

[ABX]

DU is in a bit of a panic mode for more than just the obvious reasons. Skinner's (David Allen,) wife (Shelly Moskwa) worked for Hillary Clinton and it caused a big rift when they started purging #NeverHillary members and found out that Moskwa was on Hillary's payroll. They had as big of a purge as FR, if not bigger.

[DB]

So the horse race to the bottom continues...

It all comes down to who takes the most damage...

Assange is going to further destroy Hillary and the MSM is going to unload on Trump. They are both target rich environments... October has finally arrived... Who/what's left standing is anybodies guess...

And virtually any other Republican could have won in a landslide...

[ABX]

One other addendum, supposedly the release is on the internet now with a dead man's switch. If Wikileaks doesn't or can't release it, it will go out anyway. It is set up in a way to circumvent the media. Not sure what they mean about that other than, if the media ignores it, it will still be the main story somehow.

[DB]

Not getting my hopes up again, but let's see what happens on Tuesday. Would be fantastic to see the Clinton's finally held accountable after their lifetime of crimes and general douchebaggery.

Yes it would. But I'll believe it when I see it... We've been down this road with the Clintons many times.

[kidd]

Hillary Clinton has sold a the right to a third of our uranium reserves for a donation to her phony foundation.

Hillary Clinton mishandled sensitive information and deliberately destroyed evidence.

Despite heavy evidence against her, the FBI director made a public admission that if it were anyone else that they'd be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.


There is nothing that WikiLeaks has that could harm Hillary Clinton.

[Cripplecreek]

Not getting my hopes up again, but let's see what happens on Tuesday. Would be fantastic to see the Clinton's finally held accountable after their lifetime of crimes and general douchebaggery.

I don't like the idea of wikileaks manipulating our elections nor do I trust Assange to do any of it with the best interests of the USA in mind.

[Oceander]

Hillary Clinton has sold a the right to a third of our uranium reserves for a donation to her phony foundation.

Hillary Clinton mishandled sensitive information and deliberately destroyed evidence.

Despite heavy evidence against her, the FBI director made a public admission that if it were anyone else that they'd be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.


There is nothing that WikiLeaks has that could harm Hillary Clinton.

Unfortunately, that is exactly the situation.  I would say, however, that even putting partisanship aside, I don't think even a Republican-controlled DOJ would have indicted Clinton this close to the election, for the simple reason that the DOJ would forever after be tarnished with the accusation of having interfered in a national election.  I think that this is why the "investigation" was started when it was, and why the decision point was allowed to take place this close to the election:  it effectively makes all of that "old news" - after all, Clinton was cleared, wasn't she? - and basically gives her immunity for all practical purposes.  There will never be another investigation of her, even if Trump wins in November and, mirabile dictu, manages to staff the FBI and the DOJ with staunch conservatives dedicated to cleaning out the Clintons' Augean Stable.

In other words, Mrs. Clinton, with the connivance of Obama, managed to pull off one of the greatest examples of "don't throw me into that briar patch" since the original Brer Rabbit did it back in Disney's days of yore.

At present, the Clintons have no equals when it comes to manipulating the system for their own advantage.

[r9etb]

I don't like the idea of wikileaks manipulating our elections nor do I trust Assange to do any of it with the best interests of the USA in mind.

Generally speaking, I do like the idea -- especially as it relates to candidates.  The release of information is "manipulation," I suppose, except that it's releasing information that should be known -- but won't be known because the media are acting as guardians rather than as sources of information.

[r9etb]

Unfortunately, that is exactly the situation.  I would say, however, that even putting partisanship aside, I don't think even a Republican-controlled DOJ would have indicted Clinton this close to the election, for the simple reason that the DOJ would forever after be tarnished with the accusation of having interfered in a national election.

Well.... a properly impartial DOJ wouldn't have let it get this close to the election in the first place.  Much of the obstruction came from DOJ in Clinton's case, as it did in many other cases in the past 8 years.