Home

Assange: ‘Trump will not be allowed to win’

4 November 2016 American Thinker


In a most recent and revealing interview, Julian Assange met with his favorite documentarian, John Pilger.  Assange offers several predictions and analyses, most quite revealing.

Via RT:

RT (Russia Today) provides an alternative perspective on major global events, and acquaints international audience with a Russian viewpoint.”

Keeping the source in mind in such matters is important.  Realizing that mono source information demands a certain level of skepticism, we shouldn’t simply file it for immediate dismissal.

The two most glaring points raised by Assange are as follows:

  1. Trump will “not be permitted to win.”

In answer to the question, “Is Wikileaks trying to put Trump in the White House?” Assange insists that Trump will not be permitted to win.  “Banks, intelligence, arms companies, big foreign money, etc. is all united behind Hillary Clinton….and the media as well…the owners and the journalists themselves.”

  1. The Clinton Foundation has received significant contributions from some of the same countries that are funding ISIS.  Hillary Clinton was aware of the Saudi funding of ISIS and also accepted money for her foundation from the Saudis.

 

Assange notes the most significant email in the entire load of emails may well be the one in which Hillary (2014) contacts John Podesta.  This email statesthat “the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region…” (video, 2:08) . Assange notes that the backing is from “the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar.”

Pilger observes,”… ISIL or ISIS is created largely with money from the very people who are giving money to the Clinton Foundation.”  Assange agreed.

Also noted is the previous declaration by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that “Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.”  (video, 3:18) It is also noted that the US in 2015 sold $20 billion worth of weaponry to the Saudis.

The slant of this interview is obvious, but that does not make it incorrect.  The challenge is to determine, logically and with the information at hand: is there sense and feasibility to Assange’s conclusions?

The unreleased pages of the 9/11 Report feed the suspicions that constantly surround the Saudis.  The relationships that are welded with the exchange of money can supersede and “interfere” with diligent public service.  It can make presidents bow.

 

 

 


Share
  • Rijomi2

    It is on RT but not produced by them Worth a listen.

  • Pompano Queen1

    Good one!

  • skydove

    Reaching for the salt here. The Saudis go with whoever they believe they can persuade to help them. Remember Bandar Bush? So they’ve become very cozy with Hillary the money magnet, at least since her tour at State began, and no doubt have continued to supply her with money. But how much good has it done and how much effect can it have against actual ballots cast next week?

    All along, those who’ve been declining to call this election have pointed out that it’s Hillary’s to lose. She appears to be doing that all by herself.

    Assange is promoting himself, as always. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. But owning Hillary, or a controlling chunk of her, isn’t the same as buying the election. The opposition of the U.S. financial community has been muted; the big corporations have been reluctant to come out for bin Fred, &c, all the way through Assange’s list of powerful interests that, he maintains, won’t let Hillary lose. But individuals vote, and the 1% aren’t numerous enough to throw this election; nor are they stupid enough to go county by county, tampering with election returns in swing states.

    This still doesn’t mean Hillary won’t win. People I talk to, mainly women in Florida, who were vehemently opposed to her candidacy early on, are voting or have voted for her for flimsy reasons like “She’ll be more able to work with both parties.”