When Assange was leaking secrets of Bush and the war he was a HERO!
Now he's leaking the truths of Hillary's Corruption, the Dems say he is a spy controlled by Putin and Trump!
Now he's leaking the truths of Hillary's Corruption, the Dems say he is a spy controlled by Putin and Trump!
...how the election turns out 
just like the Democrats have.
When he was doing independent journalism, the only broadcast media that paid any attention to him was the Pacifica Network. Then, that network was viewed as a far-left bunch of rabblerousers. Then he got in trouble spilling espionage secrets, went into exile in the Ecuadorean Embassy because he was fighting extradition to Sweden on rape charges and everyone thought he was a martyr...afterall, if you have done something unpopular and then have legal problems you HAVE to be a victim of injustice, right?
Maybe he's a good guy; maybe he's a bad guy. Who knows? Bit of each? That too maybe. But all of that does not make him particularly knowledgeable about world affairs. We know he doesn't like Clinton. We know he THINKS America is the worst system of government possible. He feels we exercise too much control over ourselves. Poor us. [SOB] Better to seek freedom in Russia or Venezuela or Ecuador. [YAY!] That's where people are REALLY free.
So who is he? Why do people place any stock in anything he says? Everything he "reveals" can either be found in the public record or cannot be independently verified in any way. He can arrange cherry-picked facts and opinions to read like or suggest any point of view he thinks sensational on any given day.
Right now we at a very precarious point in our relationship with Russia that could easily escalate to very serious military action and acts of war that would be devadting to our country and the world. Where is the inside dope on what'd going on? Why can't we get a glimpse of what kind of danger we're really in? Of how close we're skating around this conflict or how thin the ice is beneath us? Why can't WikiLeaks shine the light on that? Well, because Assange doesn't know how or because it just doesn't strike his fancy or he lacks ready access. So what good is he
Currently, Assange (via Wikileaks) is the conduit for a multitude of emails/communications that mostly have been obtained by hacking into email accounts (not necessarily public knowledge) of key Clinton players, as well as key members of the DNC, and releasing them for public consumption. These emails, depending on one's affiliation, can certainly be categorized as disparaging to Clinton, and they certainly act as a counterbalance to all the poor press that Trump has been receiving.
And there are other emails that he is NOT sharing with us. Why? And what do those say?
...he throws out there. No matter who it helps, no matter where it comes from. His thing is transparency, especially as it pertains to all things government. Assange doesn't sanction anything in particular. You bring things to Assange, if Assange thinks they're important enough and authentic enough he makes them public.
Trump never been in government so nobody brings to Assange anything "Trump". I have no doubts if Assange were to get a hold of Trump's taxes they'd be out there in the same way as are Clinton's e-mails.
Now do you think if Assange were to get his hands on something "Putin" would he publish it? I'm not sure. I think that would equal to him signing his death warrant. Actually even with these Hillary's e-mails I think he is a dead man walking. Once things calm down a bit here in the States the Clintons will find a way. Ecuadorian embassy? Please.
He has an iconoclastic political bent. I wish he could get Trump's tax records for the past three years in full. But yes, Trump has never held office so he's got no official blemish.
As far as getting his hands on Putin dirt, I don't think it would reveal much we don't know. Or that intel doesn't know. If there are secrets about The Ukraine or the Malaysian airliner 17 from Amsterdam...that would be interesting.
I doubt if he's on anybody's hit list, least of all Clinton's. This "death count" thing is nonsense. People die. John Jr.'s crash and Clinton's Senste seat? Come on, that is really outlandish if you think about what really happened and how. People could count up dozens of deaths that happenef during anyone's lifetime. Are you under investigation for the deaths of all the friends you've lost over your life? That's just more Republcan political crap to try to find something, anything, that they can pin on them. And every time they they try to blame her for something and it comes back that she wasn't in any way involved, they can just say, "We still think she's guilty and she just got off so that proves how evil she is!" And then they make up something else, and of course that doesn't work either, so now she must REALLY be guilty of SOMETHING so they make up something else...would you like to be the focus of that kind of scrutiny? It's typical right-wing hate. Total bullshit baked in a bun.
So by definition he can't be a traitor.
As for "death count" of course it's bullshit but not in totality. That Vince Foster thing... eh... I'm sorry but there is just way too much "there" there to take official version of suicide at its face value. There always been some crazy things associated with that "suicide" that I won't recite here (too many) But case lead investigator resigning in protest with the way he's forced to present his findings? I don't know dude. I like and respect the Clintons but I don't look at them with rose glasses. Do I think they're capable of murder? The people don't get where they gotten to without having the need (and having the nerve) to take drastic action sometimes. And this couple obviously enjoys walking on the edge of the cliff without ever falling off.
This last murder of their staffer also looks mighty odd. Robbery where nothing was taken? + Assange insinuating that he might've been "the" leak. Do I have the proof? Of course I don't. Do I think that the Clintons are capable of finding somebody to skillfully stage the murder but in such a way that it would also sent a message to the rest of their close circle about what "not to do"? Sure I do.
The fact that both incidents happened to take place in DC only makes me wonder more.
But I think Assange just received a tacit message from his hosts when Ecuadorian embassy temporarily cut off his access to the internet. You see Russia may want to see Trump, but I suspect Ecuador would rather see Hillary. Therein lies the conflict, and Ecuador is the one to have Assange. Will there be an opportunity for Assange/Putin to unveil their November surprise now? I wonder.
But... if Ecuador were to prevent Assange from publishing his "leaks" will the Clintons be notified that they now owe Ecuador big time. You bet. I wouldn't even be surprised if there are secret negotiations taking place right now between Ecuadorians and the Clinton campaign.
Moreover come to think of it it's quite possible that this Assange's temporarily lack of access to the internet might've been Ecuador's message to the Clintons (and maybe even to the Clintons and the Trumps) to get in touch. If Assange got something major that he is waiting to release then it's the Ecuador who's got the joker.
Just brainstorming you know.
You know I like the Clintons. I always liked the Clintons. When I'd be voting for Hillary I won't be voting "despite", I'd be voting "because". And one of the reasons I'd be voting for the Clintons besides the fact that I consider them true experts of their craft -politics and I mightily respect their never let die attitude is because I also like and respect those who dare, who risk, who are not afraid to walk on the edge. Who instead of turning with the world, turn the world towards them and in the process still win. Against all odds.
Btw, just in case somebody says that the Clintons are lucky. Luck is also usually on the side of those who dare and know how to make their own luck happen.