Patriots Honest Citizens - WIKILEAKS Julian Assange - A person Letter To You from Wikileaks, A very import document - The Constitution of the United States of America guarantees a free press, free speech and the right to assemble., no matter what the New York Times, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC may say to offer you filtered biased cash and carry news from the Elites. WIKILEAKS taught Patriots Citizens a very valuable lesson, The mains stream corporate press is founded in corruption. They must be removed from the American System on Honest Reporting - Thank Wikileaks, we owe him and his organization. God Bless America

Here’s a statement on the U.S. election released by Julian Assange:

They Call her Liberty'

Patriots Honest Citizens - WIKILEAKS Julian Assange - A person Letter To You from Wikileaks, A very import document - The Constitution of the United States of America guarantees a free press, free speech and the right to assemble., no matter what the New York Times, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC may say to offer you filtered biased cash and carry news from the Elites.  WIKILEAKS taught Patriots Citizens a very valuable lesson, The mains stream corporate press is founded in corruption.  They must be removed from the American System on Honest Reporting - Thank Wikileaks, we owe him and his organization.  God Bless America  http://www.clintontarium.com 

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.

Why Americans Are Free Today

The freedom of an honest 

press is more powerful than

Barack Obama - Hillary Clinton

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 pored 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.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com

Vladimir Putin Russian is up Hillary Clinton's Ass - He has her emails - Clinton Obama Kerry - Brace for Worldwide Shock - Email Secrets - Clinton Private Email Server - Espionage Act - FBI DOD DOJ DIA NSA CIA

WASHINGTON DC – Sources are reporting that the Russian government is prepared to release private emails that it obtained from Hillary Clinton’s email server, proving Clinton allowed classified information to end up in the hands of foreign adversaries.

Intelligence sources are bracing for the Russian release of Clinton’s intercepted emails, according to a report in the trade publication Oilprice.com:

Reliable intelligence sources in the West have indicated that warnings had been received that the Russian Government could in the near future release the text of email messages intercepted from U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server from the time she was U.S. Secretary of State. The release would, the messaging indicated, prove that Secretary Clinton had, in fact, laid open U.S. secrets to foreign interception by putting highly-classified Government reports onto a private server in violation of U.S. law, and that, as suspected, the server had been targeted and hacked by foreign intelligence services.

These sources echo similar reports that Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service has numerous Clinton emails, which it obtained by monitoring the hacker Guccifer, who broke into Clinton adviser Sidney Blumenthal’s email account.

Thousands of e-mails from Hillary Clinton’s private, unsecured server, created while she served as secretary of state, are reportedly in the possession of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR). The SVR is said to have gained access to the e-mails, of which it made copies, through its monitoring of a Romanian computer hacker named Marcel Lazăr Lehel (aka Guccifer). Guccifer had learned about the existence of Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail account after accessing the e-mails of her close confidante and informal adviser, Sidney Blumenthal, with whom Hillary had extensive correspondence during her term as Secretary of State. A report attributed to Russia’s Security Council indicates that an internal battle has broken out over whether to publicly release the e-mails between the Director of the FSB, Alexander Bortnikov, and Chairwoman of the Council of Federation, Valentina Matviyenko. The latter had authorized a release of some of the e-mails to Russia Today (RT) back on March 20, 2013. Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service director expressed alarm at the release, primarily because of concerns that the release would reveal to U.S. intelligence services how Russia used its monitoring of Guccifer to obtain Clinton’s e-mails. He had good reason to be concerned. U.S. authorities worked with their Romanian counterparts to follow the trail that led to Guccifer’s arrest in Romania.

Clinton exchanged highly classified national defense information on her private server and kept her own State Department IT desk in the dark about her use of private email. Clintoncould be found guilty of violating the Espionage Act if she is found to have allowed that information to be “lost, stolen, or abstracted” through “gross negligence.”

Clinton is still reeling from news that her former staffer Bryan Pagliano’s emails are not in the possession of the State Department. Pagliano, who installed Clinton’s private server, pleaded the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination in the growing criminal investigation “The Department has searched for Mr. Pagliano’s email pst file and has not located one that cover the time period of Secretary Clinton’s tenure,” a State Department spokesman said Monday. Pagliano’s missing emails are raising transparency alarms among observers of the case “The whole thing stinks to high heaven,” said Dan Metcalfe, the founding director of the Office of Information and Privacy within the Department of Justice and onetime chief DOJ official for overseeing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) matters As 147 FBI agents work on the investigation, Clinton’s top aide Cheryl Mills is feeling the heat. Mills and her attorney reportedly left her interrogation by the FBI, regrouped, and later came back when the FBI went off script. According to the Washington Post:

Mills and her lawyer left the room — though both returned a short time later — and prosecutors were somewhat taken aback that their FBI colleague had ventured beyond what was anticipated, the people said…

The questions that were considered off limits had to do with the procedure used to produce emails to the State Department so they could possibly be released publicly, the people said. Mills, an attorney herself, was not supposed to be asked questions about that — and ultimately never was in the recent interview — because it was considered confidential as an example of attorney-client privilege, the people said.

Clinton has yet to be called by investigators It’s now been nine months since Breitbart News broke the story that Clinton had multiple classified “Top Secret” emails on her private server, and that she had classified emails on her homebrew server that were classified when “originated.” As America waits to find out if the FBI will recommend indictment, and whether the Department of Justice under Loretta Lynch will indict, the case against Clinton seemingly grows more solid. The case hinges on whether or not Clinton violated the Espionage Act of 1913 (18 U.S. Code & 793 subsection f) by possessing national defense information and allowing it “through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed.”

Here are key pieces of evidence that could lead to a whole lot of trouble for Hillary Clinton:

Exhibit A: The Non-Secure BlackBerry

Hillary Clinton used a BlackBerry to send and receive classified emails during her time as Secretary of State, even though her device was so non-secure that she wasn’t even allowed to use it in her “Mahogany Row” offices on the seventh floor of the State Department.

Clinton did not get her BlackBerry from the Department. It appears that her aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills actually did get their devices from the Department, but those devices were destroyed. The State Department testified in a civil court filing:

“[The State Department] does not believe that any personal computing device was issued by the Department to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and has not located any such device at the Department…

…Because the devices issued to Ms. Mills and Ms. Abedin would have been outdated models, in accordance with standard operating procedures those devices would have been destroyed or excessed.”

Now here’s where the BlackBerry issue really becomes important. Clinton was warned in 2009 to stop using her BlackBerry because her device suffered a security “vulnerability” when she visited East Asian countries, including China, on her first official State Department trip.

On March 11, 2009, a State Department official, whose name is redacted, sent an email to another State Department official, whose name is redacted. That email, obtained in a lawsuit by Judicial Watch, might be the smoking gun in the Hillary Clinton email case – at least as it pertains to Clinton possibly losing information due to “gross negligence.”

According to the official, Hillary Clinton approached Ambassador Boswell and asked him about BlackBerry use. Specifically, Clinton asked about the fact that the Department had “intelligence concerning the vulnerability during her recent trip to Asia.”

The official wrote:

After this mornings “management meeting” with the A/Secys, Secretary Clinton approached Ambassador Boswell and mentioned that she had read the IM and that she “gets it.” Her attention was drawn to the sentence that indicates we (DS) have intelligence concerning this vulnerability during her recent trip to Asia.

Secretary Clinton has asked Ambassador Boswell for this information. Please prepare a short informal paper OR provide the A/Secy with a briefing on this matter. Your assistance is appreciated. The Secretary did not provide a “due date”…BUT the Ambassador would like to close this loop as soon as possible.

But Clinton continued to use her BlackBerry as late as 2011, two years after this warning, according to former State Department official Wendy Sherman. Sherman spoke Clinton’s BlackBerry use in a speech that was quietly recorded on video and released right before the Iowa caucus, which Clinton barely won over Bernie Sanders.

Exhibit B: White House Less Than Supportive

The Obama White House’s refusal to go to bat for Clinton publicly during this ordeal has been one of the most intriguing narratives of the election. Though President Obamahelped her out a bit by saying that he didn’t think Clinton jeopardized national security, the Obama operatives who still remember the vicious 2008 primary season aren’t doing her any favors.

Senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett dropped a relevant bombshell when she said that the White House sent official guidance to Clinton telling her to use a government email account. Clinton’s decision to ignore the White House’s warning does not bode well for her defense against the “gross negligence” portion of the Espionage Act.

Remember that brief, bizarre stretch of the campaign right around the February 1 Iowa caucus when Clinton was going out of her way to say nice things about Obama? That might not have been just a ploy to make her seem more electable than Bernie Sanders. It might have also been a ploy to protect her own legal interests by cozying up to a man with pardon power who oversees the Department of Justice.

“She wants to get protected. That’s the only reason she’s nice to him,” Trump said of Clinton’s relationship with Obama.

Breitbart News has led the media in reporting on the espionage investigation into Clinton’s email use. Breitbart News first reported, based on high-level government sources, that “Top Secret” classified emails existed on Clinton’s non-secure private server and that multiple Clinton emails were classified when they were sent. Clinton’s email system was targeted on at least five occasions by Russian-linked hack attempts.

Additionally, Clinton’s non-secure personal Blackberry suffered a security “vulnerability” on her official overseas trip as Secretary of State to China and other East Asian countries. The State Department warned Clinton about the problem and told her not to use her Blackberry anymore for email, but Clinton ignored that warning.

The Clinton campaign is currently reeling from an exclusive Breitbart News reportshowing that she posted and shared the names of CIA-protected covert intelligence sources on her non-secure server. The scandal, which has been picked up by the Associated Press and others, recalls the Bush administration’s Valerie Plame scandal.

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has also claimed that his organization is in possession of damaging Clinton emails.

“We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton, which is great, WikiLeaks has a very big year ahead. We have emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication, that is correct,” Assange said in an interview.

Wikileaks has so far released approximately 32,000 private Clinton emails.