Wikileaks Shut Down by Hillary & Obama!

By James Shale – Re-Blogged From

In an attempt to silence the daily stream of email leaks from the Hillary Clinton campaign, a “state party” has severed Wikileaks founder Julian Assange’s internet connection and ability to continue revealing the inner workings of the Democratic nominee’s run for the Presidency. As reported both on Twitter by Wikileaks itself and in numerous news outlets, Wikileaks has responded by activating “contingency plans” although at present those plans don’t seem to include continuing the daily email leaks of the last two weeks.

Ironically, by targeting Assange, Obama and Hillary have unintentionally confirmed the authenticity of the Wikileaks revelations leaving no doubt that the content found in the nearly 12,000 emails leaked to-date is entirely accurate and threatening to the Hillary campaign. Why shut down the would-be freedom fighter if the emails were the works of “Russians” as repeated so often by the Clinton camp?

As reported by RT news and BBC World:

“The internet is one of the few, if not only, available ways for Julian Assange, who has been locked up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for more than four years, to maintain contact with the outside world…Earlier this month, Assange claimed his organization would aim to publish documents “every week” in the run up to US Election Day on November 8. Clinton’s campaign has made unsubstantiated claims that WikiLeaks is working with the Russian government to help defeat the Democrat in favor of Trump. The ninth release of Podesta emails occurred on Sunday, bringing the total number of leaked files to over 12,000.

The batch also comes amid revelations of Clinton’s cozy relationship with the mainstream media, and how they work closely to control the media landscape and set up stories that show her in a favorable light. Earlier this month, it emerged that Hillary Clinton reportedly wanted to “drone” WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange when she was the US secretary of state.According to True Pundit, Clinton and the State Department were under pressure to silence the whistleblower in the months before WikiLeaks dumped some 250,000 diplomatic cables from 1966 to 2010, dubbed CableGate. Unidentified State Department sources claimed Clinton asked can’t we just drone this guy?”.”

All truth-loving Americans hope Assange is able to stay safe and to continue his campaign to reveal the inner workings of a corrupt, illegal, and immoral Hillary Clinton campaign and hope the email leaks continue again very soon.



18 thoughts on “Wikileaks Shut Down by Hillary & Obama!

  1. Fascinating.

    Of course, no one has published any proof that the US was the state actor involved, nor have I read any reasonable discussion of how it might have been accomplished. (Were I to speculate, I’d lay the cut-off on British authorities, who have much better access, as well as strong laws that would easily permit it.)

    So, that’s one pretty big conclusion to jump to, based upon no real evidence at all.

    To jump further, that this is a form of passive veracity of the content, is just insane. Presuming without believing that it was the US acting as a sovereign, they could just as easily be attempting to shut off a source of false propaganda as accurate material.

    So that’s just crazy to assume.

    (I don’t actually know if the data is real, but I kind of assume that most of it is. Although there has been at least some credible evidence that the Russians are deliberately misinterpreting it, and that Donald Trump is either being fed that information deliberately, or his staff is actively searching for Russian sourced “news”. See


      • I didn’t see a whole lot of speculation. No qualification words, no “I think” or “probably”.

        The headline and the text make specific statements about Obama and Hillary.

        I repeat my speculation, and expand. I cannot imagine this could be done in any reasonable way without physical access to the building. Cutting or proxying physical access, interfering with radio-frequency access both require physical presence. Changes made in software could be too easily reversed. Any attempt to interfere with computers on the premises or modify access within the embassy itself would be an international incident.

        Most likely this interference would be done by the British Government without assistance. It beggars the imagination that the US would perform this operation without close cooperation with the British Government. Given the historically “special relationship” between the two, it shouldn’t surprise me that we eventually learn that the US asked for assistance, and received it. But that’s not guaranteed, and there are sufficient reasons for the British to have acted alone.

        Given their secrecy rules, I’d be astounded if we ever know for sure.

        I personally find this sort of politicization of private data to be detestable. It’s one thing to receive leaked documents and make them fairly available. The Chelsea Manning documents, for example, were handled fairly, if also to the detriment of our nation. But to clearly be timing the release of documents in an attempt to interfere with the US democratic process (which is what I see happening), has little to recommend it.

        I understand that people who despise Clinton are enjoying this a lot – if I did, I would too. But this should be a patriotic issue, not a domestically partisan one. It’s clearly a foreign power interfering with US politics. If these were Republican Party documents, would you be equally happy? If not – it’s obviously the partisan aspects that appeal.


  2. With the understanding that I didn’t author the item I re-blogged, yes the UK government likel were involved, and it’s not outrageous to expect that the US was the instigator – maybe.


  3. It certainly is possible that it was their decision, although it also is possible they were pressured into it. Maybe time will tell. In the meantime, I wonder if an Assange cohort could physically take additional info out and continue posting.


    • NPR covered that this morning.

      Their interview subject suggested that it was done by Ecuador on its own recognizance. As a left-wing government, they speculation went, they looked at who was the probable winner in the fall US election, and did this to curry favor.

      Secretary of State Kerry’s staff forcefully denied that they asked for this. Which means they didn’t: formally.

      I’m unhappy with Wikileaks as being a classic “Useful Idiot”. It’s one thing to be a tool for radical transparency in government. It’s quite another to be a tool for political manipulation on behalf of the Russians.

      It’s also stupid, if you are Assange. There are reasonable odds that charges will be dropped against him by Sweden. At that point, Ecuador will kindly show him the street – just after the US election is over.

      What is likely to happen then? Whose good favor will he need most, when he lacks diplomatic protection? Who would extend it then?


      • I’m not naive, and I think it’s unkind to imply so.

        The truth of falsity of the material is irrelevant to my calculus. The material was stolen (according to the US) by Russia, and if that is true, was provided to Wikileaks by Russia. Wikileaks is using that material (by releasing it in a contrived manner) to interfere with the US election.

        A “useful idiot” is a person who acts as a tool for propaganda by another (with or without the “idiot’s” knowledge). Just as the press has often been a useful idiot in this Presidential Election – both with and without the contents of Wikileaks. Wikileaks is, almost certainly, a Russian Useful Idiot in this case.

        Assange’s problem has been only nominally that he’s been charged with minor sex crimes in Sweden. If that was all, he would not need to be cosseted in the Ecuadorian embassy. Nor would they necessarily have given him harbor. It was the possibility that, while in Swedish custody, he would be charged with US espionage crimes and bound over to the US.

        I think this cut-off of Internet access also sends a message to Assange – that his welcome is wearing out. If he is no longer wanted by Sweden, he’ll be “set free”/”pushed out”. Because at this time, he is not a wanted man – anywhere.

        After his departure from the London Ecuadorean embassy, if a US warrant for his arrest is ever issued (or if there is one under seal, waiting to be used), his international travel prospects are poor, and he would remain vulnerable in Sweden. (I think: I recall that they have an extradition treaty with the US, but I could be mistaken.) It could even be served before he leaves the UK.

        Assange’s liberty has been in doubt since Manning’s materials were released, in my opinion. The DNC materials are certainly annoying certain parties more than others. At least one of whom is very likely to be US President.

        I’m always fascinated by how people lose their principles when it’s convenient. If Snowden is a problem because of what he released, and if his publishers are a problem for making it available – why isn’t Assange the same problem for what he’s released and published?

        Consistency seems hard to find…


      • So, you’re saying that, if the material is obtained illegally, then it should not be made available to voters? How about obtained legally, but without the owner’s consent? How about government (legal) wiretaps, which are the same except some authority gives them dispensation? Are whistleblowers a good thing or a bad thing, or does it depend on th circumstances?

        As a voter, I want all the information I can get, and I’ll be the judge of whether I believe it. The motives and legal status of the messenger are secondary to me.


      • Not quite, Bob.

        Approaching this from my background as a professional in software engineering, with some amount of expertise and experience in security – I find the breaching of secrets to be generally bad. On the other hand, as a student of politics and policy, I find that whistleblowing of illegal behaviors to be generally useful. Also: I draw a line between the need for greater transparency in governance, versus the rights of private individuals and groups – the former is something I find generally good, while the latter I think is generally bad. The DNC is a private group. As is the RNC.

        So, I find the release of private information to be highly contextual. As you can see, it’s a multi-factor approach. (And, the more I read about this area, the more my factors are evolving. It’s a new area in law and policy, and I am trying to keep up.) I’m trying to create a rubric where the ultimate primary beneficiary are the citizens subjected to the hidden authority of the party being breached, and where balance is restored by the release of the material.

        BUT – when a foreign power steals American secrets, that’s a factor too. I do see a distinction between Snowden and Fancy Bear.

        In no way do I find it good or appropriate for a foreign power to steal our secrets, and I don’t think it is all appropriate for them to use those secrets primarily for their benefit. The “Useful Idiots” also use the material for their benefit (Wikileaks/Assange to grind an ax against the Clintons and the Democrats, the US press to promote themselves in their race for attention.)

        In that calculus, the motives and legal status of the thief and the promoters of the material matter a great deal, as does the net effect on the US polity. It’s a crappy thing for our democracy when Useful Idiots are exploited for the benefit of a foreign and often unfriendly power.

        Does that make sense? Would you be just as happy if a pro-leftist unfriendly foreign power was sniping at the RNC or “insert your favorite political party or group here”?

        You might also find this news story about Rubio’s reaction to be interesting…


      • “I draw a line between the need for greater transparency in governance, versus the rights of private individuals and groups – the former is something I find generally good, while the latter I think is generally bad.”

        I’m guessing that this didn’t come out the way you meant it. Regardless, if the information is germane, I want access to it. If it was obtained illegally, then prosecute for it. BTW, I don’t like judges excluding illegally obtained evidence in court. My “solution” would be to lock up the cops/feds who broke the law obtaining it – that’s likely to be more of a deterrent.


      • Yeah, that didn’t come out quite right. I was trying to say that the threshold for data exposure of government ought to be lower and different than the threshold for private individuals and groups, all other things being equal. All of the above in my opinion. (Trying to work at work, and write complex emails – I get distracted sometimes.)

        Prosecution is a canard. In the case of International actors, who do you prosecute, and where? How? How do you effectively punish? How do you identify individuals? Most avenues of response are forestalled. And taking responsive “cyber actions” is fraught with danger, so you can’t just strike back. See recent essays on the topic on Lawfare.

        You may be getting your wish on the exclusionary rule:

        It’s pretty hard to prosecute police who violate those who illegally obtain evidence – the standards for qualified immunity are very hard to overcome.

        Liked by 1 person

      • It would seem to me that proving that evidence should be excluded today, should be equivalent for convicting on illegal gathering. Maybe the person convicted could get a reduced sentence based on how long the cop got.

        BTW (off topic), I think that plea bargaining needs to go as well. If the evidence is strong enough to convict, then the person should go away for the bigger crime. If the evidence is not strong enough, then the person should not be coerced into pleading guilty to avoid the risk of being found guilty to an artificially raised charge. It appears to me that plea bargaining either is violating Due Process or it’s letting somebody get off with a lower penalty than deserved.

        For international actors, the situation effectively would stay the same, except the information would be public, where the person exposed would suffer from his bad actions.

        Liked by 1 person

      • The topic of the exclusionary rule, and when and how a person or their possessions can be searched, is a very tricky Constitutional issue. (Fourth Amendment).

        It’s developed over time, in interesting ways. The definition of search has expanded. (For example – is it a search if an officer reads your unlocked smartphone? Is it one if he requires you to use your fingerprint to unlock it? Is it a search if he uses force to make your finger unlock your phone? What if you are required to enter a numeric pass code? Is the IP address of your computer private information? These are real, active controversies in law today. The “Patriot Act” and its following legislation surely changed that balance.)

        There have also been judicial and legislative expansions of protections for government workers. To what degree is an innocent mistake by a worker actually illegal? Can a worker be sued for just doing his/her job? Is what’s relevant a “bad outcome” for a citizen, or a “failure to follow process”, or something else? Does it depend upon the job a government employee has? In particular, when is a police officer protected in doing his/her job, and when not? The doctrine of qualified immunity for police officers has become rather expansive – especially when combined with the peculiar relationship between police and districts attorney.

        Finally – what if an error is made in the obtaining of evidence? If a person is detained on suspicion for one crime, and evidence appears of another – can that other crime be prosecuted? What if that evidence comes from a legal search of a computer hard drive? When does that search have to take place? (For example, it’s now routine to copy and entire hard drive as evidence, and search the copy later. Can the copy be retained indefinitely?)

        If you combine qualified immunity (mistakes, even illegal mistakes, are hard to prosecute because officers shouldn’t have to be perfect) and the slow eroding of the exclusionary rule (evidence of a crime found when looking at something else can still be used) along with the slow expansion of “what is a search”…

        You couldn’t get what you are suggesting, without massive changes to the legal system. Changes whose scope is so large, that we cannot predict how it would impact our ability to prosecute crimes, or how it would impact government and its functionaries.

        I appreciate the emotional desire, but intellectually it is DOA.

        Plea bargaining, similarly – but for even MORE complex reasons. As well as simple ones – how busy do we need the courts and DA’s offices to be? My problem is not with plea bargains, but with three powers that district attorneys have that I think should be curtailed.

        1. The variability with which people are charged with crimes, based upon nothing more than the discretion of the DA, and without review.

        2. The abuse of the power of the Grand Jury.

        3. The power to investigate and charge police officers and other similar officers, with wrong-doing.

        Liked by 1 person

    • As a voter, don’t you want to see the following, regardless of where it came from?

      “Next shoe to drop on emails, I’m guessing, will be the revelation that Chinese & Russians were snooping on Clinton’s server.”

      CHina Russia Hacks

      (Sorry I can’t cut & paste the actual email.)


      • I’m not sure what that means… It seems someone quoted a tweet from Kristof where he wildly speculated, and the comment was “someone should talk to him”.

        But talk to him about what?

        I don’t know. Do you?

        I don’t find it very interesting. Should I? Why?

        And, as for why I don’t want to see that regardless of where it came from – I think I answered that at length.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s