WikiLeaks vows to “blow world away” this year

assange-hannity3-e1483450462306

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/749652/Julian-Assange-is-Wikileaks-founder-set-to-reveal-bombshell-latest-news-revelations

“If you thought 2016 was a big WikiLeaks year, 2017 will blow you away,” WikiLeaks tweeted today, adding that a “showdown” is coming.

The vow comes just before Julian Assange‘s interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity at the Ecuadorian Embassy where he is living under political asylum.

The WikiLeaks founder could reveal another shock bombshell during the televised interview tonight after releasing explosive emails during the US election race.

A constant stream of WikiLeaks emails hit Hillary Clinton’s campaign and helped turn public opinion against her, paving the way for Donald Trump’s victory.

But in tonight’s interview, Mr Assange will assure the American people that the Russian Government was not its source for leaks during the US election campaign.

WikiLeaks released tens of thousands of emails from the Democratic National Convention (DNC) and Mrs Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta.

In a clip of tonight’s Fox News interview, Mr Hannity asks if the DNC and Podesta emails were from “Russia or anyone associated with Russia”.

Mr Assange replies: “We can say, we have said, repeatedly that over the last two months that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party.”

US intelligence agencies have now concluded that Russia ordered hackers to carry out cyber attacks in a bid to help Donald Trump win the election in November.

Outgoing Democratic President Barack Obama has since expelled Russian diplomats in retaliation for suspected hacking and meddling in the election.

During tonight’s TV interview, Mr Assange will say: “So, why such a dramatic response? Well, the reason is obvious.

“They’re trying to delegitimise the Trump administration as it goes into the White House.”

http://www.9news.com.au/world/2017/01/04/02/34/assange-accuses-obama-of-sabotaging-trump

“Our publications had wide uptake by the American people, they’re all true. But that’s not the allegation that’s being presented by the Obama White House,” Assange said.

“So, why such a dramatic response? Well, the reason is obvious. They’re trying to delegitimise the Trump administration as it goes into the White House.

“They are trying to say that President-elect Trump is not a legitimate president.”

Mr Assange denied the information from the emails was obtained by Russia.

“Our source is not a state party, so the answer for our interactions is no,” he said.

“But if we look at our most recent statement from the US government, which is on December 29, OK, we had five different branches of government, Treasury, DHS, FBI, White House, presenting their accusations to underpin Obama’s throwing out 29 Russian diplomats.

“What was missing from all of those statements? The word WikiLeaks. It’s very strange.”

Asked if he thought WikiLeaks had changed the course of the US election, Mr Assange told Fox News channel: “Who knows? It’s impossible to tell.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/donald-trump-sides-with-julian-assange-on-russian-hacking-claims/news-story/4b35fcb0bd78463b1ef3a40278386c17

President-elect Donald Trump has sparked a fresh furore by again casting doubt over the government’s conclusion that Russia meddled in the US election via cyber-attacks, citing the claims of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

The comments come on the eve of the first public hearing in Congress on the alleged hacking, led by strong Trump and Russia critic John McCain, who called Moscow’s actions an “act of war.” Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers are due to appear before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday.

The incoming president, who on Friday will be briefed by US spy chiefs on Moscow’s alleged election hack, earned widespread criticism when he appeared to trust Assange more than the intelligence services that will report to him starting on January 20.

In a series of tweets starting late Tuesday, he taunted the CIA, FBI and other agencies, suggesting they still don’t have proof Russia penetrated Democratic party computers and gave the documents to WikiLeaks.

“The ‘Intelligence’ briefing on so-called ‘Russian hacking’ was delayed until Friday, perhaps more time needed to build a case. Very strange!” Trump said.

And then early Wednesday, after Assange appeared on Fox News denying the Russian government gave WikiLeaks stolen Democratic documents, Trump followed up: “Julian Assange said ‘a 14-year-old could have hacked Podesta’ — why was DNC so careless?”

———

start blowing..

if its anything like podestas cache it will be great reading..

401

Advertisements

~ by seeker401 on January 7, 2017.

32 Responses to “WikiLeaks vows to “blow world away” this year”

  1. let’s hope the mark(s) don’t pay up again.

    • “mark(s)” What does that mean? Thanks!

      • the ‘mark’ in an extortion/blackmail scam is the targeted victim.

        for example, wikileaks/assange once said they would “take down a bank or two” after previously saying they have a trove of documents from bank of america. and then… nothing happened. bank of america (the mark, in this case) obviously paid up, just like paypal/omidayar come up with $250million to back greenwald and the snowden “leaks” which were originally supposed to show collusion by paypal but eventually had nothing to say about paypal.

        remember how wikileaks/assange kept saying they were going to release enough info about hillary that she would be indicted? remember how they delayed and delayed, held press conferences that said nothing, and then finally release info – but not enough to indict hillary? we were watching a blackmail negotiation happen. and the obvious conclusion is that the clinton camp payed up – but not enough to prevent the release of all the info – just the most damaging.

        Wikileaks – the leaks are real – the leakers are extortion artists ™

  2. dam! what a comment XXX thx 🙂
    we wonder at long while back about why they usedROTCHILDSlawyers ?

  3. I do not know about everything this guy says, but I thought this comment was curious:

    “Remember, the Nazis came to power using the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion to “expose” a “Jewish” conspiracy, while they themselves and their financiers were all Zionists. Nazism is Kabbalah. The Nazis didn’t lose the war. They went underground, and they have continued to operate by making making use of conspiracy information to build the Patriot Movement and now the alt-right and Trump’s base of support.”

    or

    “The point is not that things like Pizzagate don’t exist. We know they do. Just read the Franklin Coverup, or about the Lolita Express involving Epstein, Dershowitz, Trump and Bill Clinton. And it’s not to say Hillary is not a scoundrel in her own right. She is. The problem is that they have created a conspiracy mentality. It’s “revelation of the method” to create “controlled opposition”.”

    The author of these quotes self-identifies with democrats (or Leftist).

  4. He is open about his intent also, which is to use conspiracy for his agenda.

    This was interesting also:

    “After a while, we found out it was neoconservatives who brought Bush to power. Now we can see that Trump is a puppet of the paleoconservatives. They are considered a resurgence of the “Old Right” which started during WWII with the America First Committee, which was funded by the Nazis. They later rose to prominence with Pat Buchanan in opposition to the “New Right” of William F. Buckley (both of them were Knights of Malta), and to the neoconservaties. They have been principally behind denunciations of “political correctness” and most importantly, imigration and Islam.”

    I have noticed Rand Paul’s name popping up more as if what he says has authority (on the TV when I am at the gym; or in news articles on the internet). But I do not know that much about this stuff and the person I am quoting.

    https://www.facebook.com/David-Livingstone-Author-501628099906925/?fref=nf

    He has articles and things to say about Snowden, Assange, and Greenwald. He also is for the idea that Russia is behind the hacking and fake news.

    Just so you know.

    • https://seeker401.wordpress.com/2015/12/14/terrorism-and-the-illuminati/

      http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/2779568.David_Livingstone

      • Mr. Livingstone is Muslim telling of the corruption of Islam by the CIA (which includes various secret societies of the West and East) and other heretical Islamic groups. Are there elites fighting elites? Or are they all only in the ‘in’ if they belong to a certain secret order? They are fighting themselves, it seems, but if some people are in a more secret order they may be pushing to fight one group, but that “more secret order” has infiltrated that “one group” as well. They are layered and intertwined across various groups. They are fighting each other, but as I was saying, if they are in a “more secret group” they find out they are not really fighting each other. They are fighting factions within factions within various groups.

        King of the Hill meets making alliances with ‘my enemies enemy is my friend”.

        They appear so interlayered with many different factions that cross pollinate. Whoever is in ‘the know’ or in the ‘more secret of the secret orders’ appears to be in group A and group B through factions that cross pollinate between group A and group B. That makes for a group C that is controlling both A and B. A thinks those “C members” are of A. Yet those “C members” in B make group B think they are of group B.

        • Meanwhile, not only are there “C members” who appear only A or B, but there are “D members” who appear A or B or C. Then “F members” who appear D or C or B or A, etc…. Yet those who are only A or B only know about A or B people and may hear rumors of a C group and conspiracies arise which in time maybe A and B find out there has really been a “C group” this whole time that exists in both groups A and B controlling the agendas of A and B. Yet A and B may never find out that there is really a D, E, F, G, H….. groups of people. Compartmentalized real game of King of Hill meets ‘my enemy of my enemy is my friend’.

          They are a violent and a nasty bunch. People who say they are friends to ones face and are planning to kill them the next day.

          And that is why I say only Jesus Christ saves. God accommodates Himself to man by way of voluntary condescension. God, the Creator, who is infinite, wise, and good accommodates to the finite creature man in a way that man knows who God is. God wants man to know Him. He reveals Himself to man, i.e. Holy Scripture. Man is corrupt and possess a sinful nature, but Almighty God makes Himself known, though some constantly suppress and therefore pervert what they know of Him. God accommodates Himself and reveals Himself in various, many languages (not religions or culture, but languages). His written Word is able to be translated into many different languages and it is still His Word. We do not know the language of God. It is not Hebrew or Greek, but God accommodated Himself to the language of a people who spoke and wrote in Hebrew, Greek, and then all the various languages His written Word by His providence has been translated. This is why I say only Jesus Christ saves because we can know who that Person is, and what that name means (Matthew 1:21). However one translates that name whether into English or Spanish, God’s name is translated and is revealed. God does not have one language that only reveals who He is.

          That was the argument of the Roman Catholics (RC) to say that the bible could not be translated into the vulgar languages. RC would not allow the bible to be translated into these local languages because they thought Latin was the sacred language of God and God could only be known by Latinized scriptures. The same goes for Hebrew or Greek. The bible can be translated into various language because God accommodates His Word into different languages so that many national tongues can come to know and hear of Him by His written Word. So when I say only Jesus Christ saves I am talking about the Person of Christ, not the translated word in English that saves. He is not an idea or concept. He is a Person. Many languages now speak His name.

          LORD bless

          • http://www.hisnameisyahweh.org/His%20Name%20is%20Yahweh.pdf

            • Thanks for that Rev,
              I think that is very important to know His name. The one God has many names as that author points out. In the English translations some are: LORD, LORD of hosts, Lord GOD, Almighty God, etc…. It is important to know LORD is Yahweh. The German translation of the tetragrammaton is Jehovah because the German language has no “Y” but instead uses “J” which comes from the Hebrew “yod” (transliteration). The Hebrew word transliteration of these four Hebrew consonants are as follows:

              1st consonant: “yod”
              2nd consonant: “he” (pronounced: hay)
              3rd consonant: “waw” (pronounced: vav)
              4th consonant: “he” (same as above)

              This is His personal name. His covenant name to His people. Notice this name first appears chronologically in the scriptures in Genesis 2:7, and canonically in Genesis 2:4. Also notice before Eve eats of the fruit, she no longer refers to God personally in His covenant name, but simply the way Satan would which is “God” (Gen. 3:3). The sin was present and consummated (completed) in the eating of the forbidden fruit (disobeying and not worshipping and serving God).

              In Hebrew to say a word needs vowels, just as in English. Yahweh is an English rendering, but notice the vowels. Some people refer to this name as “yod-hay-vav-hay” thereby saying the word strictly as we know the word/name. It was the Masoretic text that included the vowel points in print that was assumed by those that knew the language beforehand. Yet the vowels were left out for this name. So in English instead of saying “Yahweh” if we say the consonants strictly as is, then the rendering would be “yod-hay-vav-hay” when pronounced and written in transliteration. Yet that would only be a transliteration so instead we could write the Hebrew letters themselves which I can not do now because I am not going to look up each Hebrew consonant and copy and paste it from another website and put here.

              The introductions to Bible’s, of all that I know, remark how LORD is Yahweh or Jehovah. They explain this translation. LORD is not a terrible translation, because LORD means ruler. This is why Paul’s writing in Romans 10:9 that those that confess that Jesus is Lord was such an affront to the Caesar. It announces that Jesus is King. He is Sovereign ruler over all. He is the Most High. He is the Almighty. He is the Head of the Church and Kingdom of God. Caesar thought he was the god-ruler who was over all so this would have been treason and worthy of death according to Roman rulers to say that another, namely, Jesus is Lord over all not Caesar.

              LORD is a dynamic translation, meaning, it is not literal but does in the English translation bring out the meaning of the word. Of course any translation will not be found completely satisfying. We are talking about God and who He is in all of His infinite glory.

              Yes. Jesus is Yahweh. Jesus is Jehovah (again Jehovah is an English translation of the tetragrammaton that went through the process not directly from the Hebrew but through the German language first). Some like to simply say tetragrammaton. Some like to say “yod-hay-vav-hay” for that would be the more literal which means nothing to our ears and sensibilities. LORD is more meaningful to our understanding. It says right away what the name means through our English dictionary.

              It is also important to understand that there is Lord and there is LORD in the English translation of the Bible. Lord simply means ‘sir’. This is how Abraham is a Lord. In Genesis 15:2 notice the English translation. It is written “Lord GOD”. Why? Because here the translation is of the more literal rendition “Sir Yahweh”. To make sure the “sir” is not confused with “LORD” as in the covenant name of God or Yahweh, the Lord is smaller case. GOD is capitalized because Yahweh is present in the Hebrew. That “sir” in the Hebrew is “adoni” transliterated. GOD is the Yahweh or tetragrammaton.

              Yes the name is important, but the name itself does not save. The confession of the name does not save. It is the Person Jesus Christ who saves. It is the Person of Jesus Christ and what He did and continues to do through the Holy Spirit applying the blessings of Christ’s accomplished work in His active and passive obedience (righteous obedience and suffering/death) as the God-man (theo-anthropos) that saves His Church, i.e. people. The name is not divided and is not separate from the Person. They go hand and hand, but it is truly the 2nd Person of the Trinity who in the incarnation took on a man’s body that makes Him a Person unlike other person’s called simply man. He is the Person who is the God-man. A different kind of Person who died on the cross for the sins and guilt of His people as a substitute for the punishment that we truly deserve.

              I understand the importance of His name. I read the first ten pages of that book and saw the need the author was conveying. He may go over all of this later in the book. That author in those first ten pages alone came across as very competent and knowledgeable. I did not see anything wrong in his understanding in those first pages. I did not get a sense from that author though, that he understood that it is not the Name that saves, but the Person that saves. Yet that sense of mine is obviously wrong at times and I would have to take more time to read over the whole book and any other writings and lastly maybe even talk personally to the author to see if I am just completely misunderstanding him on this point. Which I well may be. So I do not think what he wrote should easily be dismissed. I think there is much to learn from what he wrote.

              Thanks Rev! Maybe if I get some free time I will return to his book when I can to read on (I have a lot to read right now that has to take priority). I do not want to falsely witness about the author. Understand, I think he would be a worthwhile read. He really understands the importance of the name of God, as we all should!

            • I should point out the following. I have heard the translation of “J” was due to being through the German language. It may be a more popular (scholarly popular) understanding that the “J” comes through the Old English.

              There are literally hundreds of books written on the tetragrammaton. There are scholarly debates that warrant the various translation from historical precedence, language precedences (like above), and the Masoretic vowel points combining adoni with the tetragrammaton, etc…. I do not know exactly where the German comes into the picture, and since I do not have sources readily at my hand on that derivation, then I am willing to accept that path of translation outcome with “J” is wrong. This does not subtract from my purpose and main thesis.

              Again thanks Rev!

              • You may want to save this for future reference also ..

                http://www.yahweh.org/yahweh1.html

                • To help give me context to what you are saying so I do not have any misinterpretations. I do not want to get what you are saying wrong (false witness):

                  1 – Is it the name of Christ that saves or is it the Person of Christ that saves? In other words, was it strictly the name of Christ on the cross that spilled blood? Or was it the Person of Christ who spilled blood on the cross?

                  2 – This focus on the name, or ‘sacred language’, appears to be related to the ‘Word of faith’ movement. Are they related in your opinion?

                  • Simply put we are dealing with an Identity Crisis caused by Identity Theft, the NT has been handed down to us in Greek giving us the name Iesous then transliterated into English as Jesus .. the letter J was introduced into the English language in the 1600’s by way of Latin .. so the name could not be Jesus ..
                    He was not Greek therefore His name could not be Iesous but the Greeks historically worshipped Zeus so for the Greeks the son of god would be the son of Zeus .. He was born a Hebrew, an Israelite of the tribe of Judah .. He was given a name that is above every name .. Peter said there is only one name by which all men may be saved .. His name in Hebrew is Yahshua .. in English Joshua
                    He said, “I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him.
                    Satan is a master of deception .. a counterfeiter
                    I have no doubt when the anti-christ shows up his name will be Jesus
                    When we have come to the knowledge of the truth .. we ought not remain ignorant in calling on the name of a foreign god.
                    The focus on the name comes from the Hebrew Roots movement, not that I necessarily agree with everything but they do properly emphasis the name.
                    To come in the name of another, in Hebrew is to come in the Shem or character of the other with all the rights and privileges and honor and authority or as you say .. in the person of ..

                  • Rev,
                    I hope in Christ I am not being a pest in asking these questions. I do not want to assume what I think to be true when obviously there are other understandings. Critical thinking is good in my opinion.

                    Rev:
                    “the NT has been handed down to us in Greek giving us the name Iesous then transliterated into English as Jesus .. the letter J was introduced into the English language in the 1600’s by way of Latin .. so the name could not be Jesus ..”

                    I think by way of translation His name could be Jesus. Even by adding the “J” from the Latin. Language is dynamic, meaning, the English language changed. I am not saying Iesous is wrong. Or Joshua is wrong. Far from it. The Greek language, has two options. Koine and Classical Greek. Koine Greek was a pan-national language at the time of Jesus so it makes sense the NT would be in Greek. Aramaic was more local. Latin was present due to the Romans. Hebrew was probably still spoken and written especially at the Temple, i.e Pharisees and scribes. Even as you point out He was Hebrew so in Hebrew His name translated into English would be Joshua.

                    I am not looking at the meaning of what language communicates from creature (man) to God. I am understanding the meaning of language to come from God. Nothing has meaning unless God gives it meaning. I think when it comes to language and what the signs of language mean that meaning is defined by God. The infinite God in an amazing way that only God is able to do by voluntary condescension accommodates and communicates to finite man, i.e. the Word now written. Meaning does not come from man. That is why by way of translation the Name of God never disappears, but God providentially preserves His Name. He causes us to understand because He loves us and desires for us to know Him.

                  • [I have to make a new comment. The text I am typing slows too much to a stop.]

                    If we want to stick with the characters, then we could simply use Hebrew characters only for Joshua. Yet I do not think God’s language is only Hebrew. I am so far convinced this is an issue of being able to translate God’s written Word into the vulgar languages. I know it happens and the true message of the gospel is spread around the world into many nations. God accommodates His Word to various languages that translate from the Hebrew and Greek. The meaning of those words, like Jesus (I do not desire to offend you when saying this I understand the strong understanding of anti-Christ that you associate with that word). I only said it to point out that the Person of Matthew 1:21 is only how we are saved. If you understand Matthew 1:21 and that Holy One worded in that scripture to be our Savior, then we understand each other. Not that we need to understand each other, but I think, we both think I do not doubt, that there is only one Savior and we have to know who He is that we believe.

                    The Greeks did believe in a son of god, but that is Greek philosophy. Language is not tied to philosophy, and vice versa. There is true theology. A theology in which God reveals Himself and He gives us the meaning. There is Christianity and then there is Greek philosophy to give us understanding. Christianity is informed by God’s revelation in scripture, not pagan philosophers of autonomous man as it is in Greek philosophy.

                    The name is important. I know the verses on coming in His name, etc…. Very important. I also understand that God’s name reveals His Person. His name is revelational of His very character. But His name became flesh. The Son of God took on a body of man and the blood in His death is only how we are saved. Not only strictly, but only broadly. Meaning, there are other only’s, meaning, He had to walk in perfect obedience for the imputation of His Righteousness to our lives. He had to rise from the dead or there is no justification and salvation of man. He had to many things that are only for our salvation and the spilling of His blood is one of those things that had to happen for our salvation. That God He is perfect and fulfilled all that was necessary that God Himself determined had to be.

                    Why do you not only write His name in Hebrew lettering?

                    I find this exercise thoughtful and helpful for me to think through issues that I find to be most important, i.e. the gospel. I see where I am slack and not had thought much of before and you encouraged me to think more fully on certain things. I thank you for that.

                    Have a good night and blessed LORD’s day!

          • adirondack this maybe this https://charliej373.wordpress.com/2017/01/06/a-decisive-conundrum/
            be helpful to understand we are in THEY-storm with doubt & God’s rescue 🙂

            • Isabel,

              Thank you for sharing your perspective and the material that agrees with you, if that is the case. I know I am assuming that it is the case that the material is agreeable to you: (1) because you shared it without saying otherwise, (2) you thought it was helpful. I think those two points are implied, but I leave it open to the possible fact, that to you in some degree, you may not agree with all that you linked or you may agree to it in total. I do not desire to put words in your mouth.

              I truly enjoyed reading what was important to you.

              Thank you and GOD bless

          • Most importantly Yahweh literally means “He is”. In the Hebrew the word is two words combined. These two words in the one word Yahweh are the 3rd-person masculine “He” and the ‘to be’ verb “is”. Yahweh when literally translated is “He is”.

            This Name is revealed in Exodus 3:14 also, but in the 1st-person. Moses asks God, ‘What should I tell the people Your name is?’ God tells Moses that His name is, “I am that I am”. This is the name of God, just as “He is” (Yahweh), but in the 1st-person this time “I am”.

            This is the significance of what are called the “I am sayings of Jesus” in the gospel of John. Jesus in that gospel reveals that His (Jesus’) name is “I am”. Jesus is the “I am” of Exodus 3:14. “He is” Jesus.

            Those other meanings of Yahweh such as “Covenant Name”, “Personal Name”, “aseity”, “LORD”, “Ruler” are what is called the dynamic equivalent translation of Yahweh. The dynamic equivalence is understood from the context of the text.

            The dynamic equivalence in the field of translation is an effort to translate the ‘meaning’ of the word. Formal equivalence is an effort in translation to show the ‘literal’ word, which tends to lose the meaning of the word when translated. Both have their ups and downs, and when translating it is humanly impossible in the making sense of any words being translated to use strictly one or the other equivalence. In the act (or process) of translation both are used, but any particularly translated literature can be translated in a more dynamic or more formal equivalence. It is impossible for a translation to be only one or the other.

  5. Last I will paste from his facebook page I linked above:

    “Paradoxically, the term “paleoconservative” was coined by Paul Goffried [Jewish Godfather of Alt-right], a former advisor to Buchanan and then mentor to Richard P. Spencer, but most importantly, a student of Herbert Marcuse, a leading member of the Frankfurt School who worked for the CIA and founded the New Left which created political correctness.”

    “To see the conspiracy-conspiracy in action, here is William S. Lind “exposing” the roots of political correctness in the Frankfurt School. But not only was Lind also an advisor to Buchanan, he was an associate of Paul Weyrich of the neo-Nazi connected Heritage Foundation that created the Christian Right, for the neoconservative strategy of employing “Noble Lies.” “

  6. & this for the rest well nowCheney is in the picture how lovely (sarcasm)
    start around minute 10 till minute 34
    THEY-HYDRA like in the Avengers

  7. btw 13 years bfore was THEY-Baruch letter
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Zionism

  8. Seek. you got to get rid of the long winded shit on your comments. FFS!! On topic… 4 days later…. wikileaks still hasnt said shit after saying “48 hours”!!! Wikileaks is a profeteering blackmail gang, not an instrument of the free..!!!

  9. Paleoconservatism (sometimes shortened to paleocon) is a conservative political philosophy found primarily in the United States stressing tradition, limited government and civil society, along with religious, regional, national and Western identity.

  10. The CIA’s wikileaks is going to “blow you away” this year.
    So much fast unverified information believed even by the disenfranchised .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: