Why doesn't the DNC just drone Trump?

>Remotely bomb a foreign embassy
>What could possibly go wrong?

This is a tort you fucking moron

That's not the october surprise, is it? I think I saw that one before. Or am I being paranoid?

>(((sources)))

truepundit.com/under-intense-pressure-to-silence-wikileaks-secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-proposed-drone-strike-on-julian-assange/

Under Intense Pressure to Silence Wikileaks, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Proposed Drone Strike on Julian Assange

Julian Assange and his free-speech brainchild Wikileaks were once lauded as global heroes of public service among United States politicians and policy makers. But by 2010, four years after its inception during the President George W. Bush administration, Assange and his organization were no longer considered lovable troublemakers and mavericks.

A year into President Barack Obama’s first term, Wikileaks was suddenly considered an out-of-control free-speech Frankenstein wreaking havoc on United States foreign policy and intelligence gathering at the direction of Assange, its proverbial Dr. Frankenstein.

The honeymoon for the whistle-blower web site, once a darling of the Democratic Party, was now over. Even more alarming, Assange’s personal safety and organization were increasingly at risk from U.S. concerns.

y November 2010, Assange was a household name globally, but especially on Capitol Hill. And in the State Department alone his prowess of releasing otherwise secret, damning military documents and emails were filling conference rooms at Foggy Bottom and the White House with policy wonks and bureaucrats desperately seeking to squelch the upstart Wikileaks. At the State Department, meeting after meeting was conducted about how Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her inner circle were going to squash Assange and Wikileaks latest planned document dump on the United States. Deemed “CableGate,” Assange planned to release confidential cables, or communications, unveiling damaging internal conversations between State Department personnel and its foreign assets and allies.

Prodded by the looming CableGate, Clinton met with staff on Tuesday November 23, 2010 shortly after 8 a.m. on Mahogany Row at the State Department to attempt to formulate a strategy to avert Assange’s plans to release an enormous batch of 250,000 secret cables, dating from 1966 to 2010. Assange had professed for months to rain the internal cables down on Clinton and President Obama. The collective fear was the context of the secret cables would hamper U.S. intelligence gathering and compromise private correspondences and intelligence shared with foreign governments and opposition leaders. Splashing such juicy details on television news shows and the front pages of major newspapers in the country was great for the media but lousy for intelligence and foreign policy. Many, including Clinton and her elected boss, expressed fear these revelations would embarrass and expose intelligence allies of the United States and set America’s already fragile foreign policy back decades

I'm sure she would if she could.

“By its very nature, field reporting to Washington is candid and often incomplete information,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said in a statement responding to Wikileaks’ anticipated tidal wave release of intelligence. “It is not an expression of policy, nor does it always shape final policy decisions.”

Clinton’s State Department was getting pressure from President Obama and his White House inner circle, as well as heads of state internationally, to try and cutoff Assange’s delivery of the cables and if that effort failed, then to forge a strategy to minimize the administration’s public embarrassment over the contents of the cables. Hence, Clinton’s early morning November meeting of State’s top brass who floated various proposals to stop, slow or spin the Wikileaks contamination. That is when a frustrated Clinton, sources said, at some point blurted out a controversial query.

Fake source doesnt work

Delete this thread
>inb4 CTR

“Can’t we just drone this guy?” Clinton openly inquired, offering a simple remedy to silence Assange and smother Wikileaks via a planned military drone strike, according to State Department sources. The statement drew laughter from the room which quickly died off when the Secretary kept talking in a terse manner, sources said. Clinton said Assange, after all, was a relatively soft target, “walking around” freely and thumbing his nose without any fear of reprisals from the United States. Clinton was upset about Assange’s previous 2010 records releases, divulging secret U.S. documents about the war in Afghanistan in July and the war in Iraq just a month earlier in October, sources said. At that time in 2010, Assange was relatively free and not living cloistered in in the embassy of Ecuador in London. Prior to 2010, Assange focused Wikileaks’ efforts on countries outside the United States but now under Clinton and Obama, Assange was hammering America with an unparalleled third sweeping Wikileaks document dump in five months. Clinton was fuming, sources said, as each State Department cable dispatched during the Obama administration was signed by her.

Following Clinton’s alleged drone proposal, another controversial remedy was floated in the State Department to place a reward or bounty for Assange’s capture and extradition to the United States, sources said. Numbers were discussed in the realm of a $10 million bounty. A State Department source described that staff meeting as bizarre. One minute staffers were inquiring about the Secretary’s blue and black checkered knit sweater and the next minute, the room was discussing the legalities of a drone strike on Assange and financial bounties, sources said.

Immediately following the conclusion of the wild brainstorming session, one of Clinton’s top aides, State Department Director of Policy Planning Ann-Marie Slaughter, penned an email to Clinton, Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and aides Huma Abebin and Jacob Sullivan at 10:29 a.m. entitled “an SP memo on possible legal and nonlegal strategies re Wikileaks.”

Immediately following the conclusion of the wild brainstorming session, one of Clinton’s top aides, State Department Director of Policy Planning Ann-Marie Slaughter, penned an email to Clinton, Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and aides Huma Abebin and Jacob Sullivan at 10:29 a.m. entitled “an SP memo on possible legal and nonlegal strategies re Wikileaks.”

“Nonlegal strategies.” How did that phrasing make it into an official State Department email subject line dealing with solving Wikileaks and Assange? Why would the secretary of state and her inner circle be discussing any “nonlegal strategies” for anything whatsoever? Against anyone? Shouldn’t all the strategies discussed by the country’s top diplomat be strictly legal only? And is the email a smoking gun to confirm Clinton was actually serious about pursuing an obvious “nonlegal strategy” proposal to allegedly assassinate Assange? Numerous attempts were made to try and interview and decipher Slaughter’s choice of email wording, however, she could not be reached for comment. Insiders said Slaughter is keeping a “low profile” in Princeton, NJ until she is nominated for a position in Clinton’s cabinet if the Democrat is elected in November. Likewise, True Pundit attempted to contact Mills, Abedin, and Sullivan for their perspectives on this story. None commented on the record.

Why the fuck doesn't this have 1000+ replies by now?

Slaughter’s cryptic email also contained an attached document called “SP Wikileaks doc final11.23.10.docx.” That attachment portion of Slaughter’s “nonlegal strategies” email has yet to be recovered by federal investigators and House committee investigators probing Clinton’s email practices while at State. Even Wikileaks does not have the document. Slaughter, however, shed some light on the attachment: “The result is the attached memo, which has one interesting legal approach and I think some very good suggestions about how to handle our public diplomacy.”

But did it also include details on the “nonlegal strategies” teased in the subject line?

Sources confirm Clinton took the email and attachment with her to the White House for an afternoon meeting with Secretary of Defense Bob Gates and National Security Advisor Tom Donilon prior to an additional evening meeting at the White House. President Obama, sources said, did not attend the early meeting with Gates as he was traveling with Vice President Joe Biden. President Obama did attend the second meeting, however, and Wikileaks and Assange’s planned release of secret cables were discussed at length, sources said. Attending this meeting were President Obama, Clinton, Gates, Donilon, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral “Mike” Mullen, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. James Cartwright as well as a half dozen or more various policy aides, sources confirmed.

The FBI’s 302 report from Clinton’s email investigation interview, again, specified that Clinton had “many discussions” related to “nominating” drone strikes on individuals:

“Clinton could not recall a specific process for nominating a target for a drone strike and recalled much debate pertaining to the concurrence process. Clinton knew there was a role for DOD, State and the CIA but could not provide specifics as to what it was. Due to a disagreement between these agencies, Clinton recalled having many discussions related to nominating an individual for a drone strike. When Clinton exchanged classified information pertaining to the drone program internally at State, it was in her office or on a secure call. When Clinton exchanged classified information pertaining to the drone program externally it was at the White House. Clinton never had a concern with how classified information pertaining to the drone program was handled.”

Sources said Clinton’s comments on neutralizing Assange fits a pattern of callousness when combined with the FBI testimony that she often considered droning individuals and then coupled with her reaction to Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi’s death in Oct. 2011.

Gaddafi was tortured and killed, largely due to Clinton’s maneuvering in the Middle East and Libya. During a sit down interview with CBS News, a Clinton aide notified the room during a taping break of news reports that Gaddafi had been dragged throughout the streets of Libya and ultimately killed. Unaware the camera was still rolling, a jovial and proud Clinton pronounced: “We came. We saw. He died.” This was Clinton’s initial response to the dictator’s demise. A cackling Clinton was then joined in laughter by the CBS correspondent and off-camera aides and staff. Again, more proof of a disturbing habit of treating human life as a disposable commodity like a soiled diaper.

Unable to legally counter or stop Wikileaks, and likely abandoning any and all legal and “nonlegal strategies,” Clinton and her staff were forced to weather the collateral damage of CableGate. In fact, just five days after Clinton’s meetings on Mahogany Row in the State Department and the White House, Wikileaks began releasing cables to news outlets globally on Sunday November 28, 2010.

Shortly after CableGate, the WikiLeaks founder sought refuge from authorities and threats by hiding at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

Now 45, Assange is in his fifth year living quarantined inside the embassy. Clinton remains the Democratic nominee for the presidency of the United States.

truepundit.com/under-intense-pressure-to-silence-wikileaks-secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-proposed-drone-strike-on-julian-assange/

Too busy replying to threads about celebrity niggers getting robbed, threads about Poland or Hungary, etc., etc.

I really hope this isn't the October surprise because this is just information that we all kind of figured was true. But at least we know its back into the light.

Though no recent public revelations directly tie to Assange's security fears, various U.S. officials and pundits have made threatening statements directed at him in the past. WikiLeaks on Monday tweeted an alleged quote from a 2010 State Department meeting at which then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asked if Assange could be killed in a drone strike. That same year, former Democrat strategist Bob Beckel said on Fox News Channel that "a dead man can't leak stuff."

Assange also has hinted that deceased DNC staffer Seth Rich may have been a source for WikiLeaks. Rich, 27, was found with multiple gunshot wounds to the back at a Washington, D.C., intersection in July. He died soon thereafter. Authorities believe Rich was the target of a botched robbery, but his death has inspired conspiracy theories.

WikiLeaks has published more than 10 million leaked emails, including sensitive information about prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and a cache of diplomatic cables from U.S. embassies around the world.

foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/03/will-wikileaks-assange-delay-october-surprise-announcement.html

bumping. Fuck this bitch. While idiots debate lawful tax returns and fat models breaching contracts, the world ignores all the illegal and sociopathic shit Clinton is guilty of. I just don't get it.

Sorry for not posting source before as I only came back after the thread was closed.

Why does no one care about this?

An illegal assassination via drone strike of an Australia citizen on EU soil?

Just this morning I was listening to four newspaper journalists on the BBC all agreeing that the media had been unduly harsh on Hillary, and had "normalized" Trump and not scrutinised him.

>the media had been unduly harsh on Hillary,
surreal

Hmh, maybe this hasn't blown up yet but I can't see a question about this in the askshill4hills sub

Wait...we can just drone Hillary? Why aren't we droning her entire family right now? Lets drone her ugly whore daughter first. Drone the bitch! Drone the bitch!

are they high? Trump gets shat on for every single thing he does. I remember a cnn panel where they talked about him eating kfc with a fucking fork and knife.

Because a screen shoot of a text with some text marker is not convincing.

I hate Hitlery as everybody else and she actually should be in prison for “losing” the emails but let's be real that shit is not a source. And I already know how hillshills will react
>it was a joke everybody was laughing
>Trump says words too

How do you "normalize" someone who has been a public figure for such a long time? What do they even mean when they say this?

Do you have a ((real)) source?

This election has forced these corrupt establishment lapdogs to rear their head for all to see. Fucking sellouts all deserve the noose

That's a pretty fucking shitty candidate for president.

#TRUMP2016 all the way

My record is uncorrected.

Yeah, its just text.

Where's the convincing evidence? Where's the shit like what happened with Romney in the last election where one video fucked his entire campaign up?

> But where's the evidence???!??

WikiLeaks has never been proven to be incorrect or lied. They understand that the moment someone proves them wrong once, they'll never be trusted again. That's the reason for their perfect track record, and that's the reason we should trust them when they report this.

Jesus. You know that annoying bitch from school or work who accuses you of shit she's guilty of herself and it blows your mind that no one can see it so much you just stand there dumbfounded wondering how she could get away with it? That.

I think that they are posting teasers right now to build up hype. The sources will appear over the next week.

This is trying to be slid hard.

rip in peace droniary campaign

because it was clearly a joke you fucking retard. satan damn it.

Wikileaks has the doc and journalits are citing it including fox.

Journalists protect sources so does wikileaks.

What was the 'source' for trumps tax papers.

Seems like a stupid way to bury this.

It is a fairly big story and the email record confirms “an SP memo on possible legal and nonlegal strategies re Wikileaks.” method being used in black and white. No one is above the law no?

Yeah just like Seth Rich's murder was a funny prank.

A joke?

In the middle of a meeting on how to silence assange followed by an email with “an SP memo on possible legal and nonlegal strategies re Wikileaks.” ??????????????????????????????????

Ha fucking ha. Sorry. Joke does not work.

just a prank bro

From: Cheryl Mills
To: Anne-Marie Slaughter
Date: 2010-11-23 22:36
Subject: AN SP MEMO ON POSSIBLE LEGAL AND NONLEGAL STRATEGIES RE WIKILEAKS
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05771705 Date: 08/31/2015

RELEASE IN FULL

From: Mills, Cheryl D

Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 5:36 AM
To: Slaughter, Anne-Marie; H
Cc: Abedin, Huma; Sullivan, Jacob J
Subject: Re: an SP memo on possible legal and nonlegal strategies re wikileaks

Thx

From: Slaughter, Anne-Marie
To: 'H'

meetings tend to have jokes just like that.

In your country, it'd be equivalent to everyone getting smashed in a pub and one guy saying "Ya know... would it be such a bad thing for us to just go to Darby's, and ?" you know -- to make people laugh, but also to take the temperature of the room to see how many people just might be drunk enough to do it with you if you had the consensus.

Anne-Marie Slaughter 'devastated' by Clinton's take on her 'have it all' article

By Rachael Bade
| 11/30/15 06:37 PM EST
| Updated 11/30/15 10:06 PM EST
Tension arose between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a former top policy aide over an op-ed the adviser penned about how tough it was to be a mother and work a top government post at State — leading the ex-staffer to plead to “talk some of this through” with Clinton, newly released emails show.

After leaving State to be closer with her family, Anne-Marie Slaughter, Clinton’s former director of policy planning at State, penned a highly-read July/August 2012 Atlantic cover story, claiming that “juggling high-level governmental work with the needs of two teenage boys was not possible” — and that she left her dream job to help her family. It argued that the workplace still needed to be more supportive of women, and that mothers who can “do it all” — rise to the top of the ladder and be mothers and caretakers — are often either superhuman or wealthy.

Shill somewhere else you fuck, shes """"joking"""" about drone striking a Australian citizen who was living in Australia at the time and didnt commit any crimes under U.S. law. Its fucking digusting.

Also theres proof they e-mailed methods of extra-judicial takedown. Clinton has actively rallied to assassinate Assange, its no wonder why hes going to tank her election campaign.

>Anne-Marie Slaughter

So you were there were you that's nice.

I have been to lots of meetings. No one jokes about killing people.

Anne-Marie Slaughter seems a possible source.

How does it make you feel that she may be dead next while you defend her murderer?

Its a criminal offence to threaten to kill someon in most juristictions by the way or conspire to do so with others.

The mafia don;t get of because they were 'joking'

And I don't go to pubs, don't drink and neither did my grandfather. Sixth generation Irish. Keep your burger stereotypes for kek threads and your bullshit notion of a joke..

A court can impose several possible penalties on someone who was convicted of making criminal threats. Depending on the state, a criminal threat can be charged as either a misdemeanor or felony offense. While felony offenses are more serious than misdemeanors, either of them can result in incarceration, fines, and other penalties.
•Prison or jail. Anyone convicted of making a criminal threat faces a substantial time in jail or prison. A misdemeanor conviction can result in up to a year in county jail, while felony convictions can impose sentences of five years or more. In some instances, a terrorist threat can result in a sentence that lasts decades.
•Fines. The fine for making criminal threats also varies depending on the state and the circumstances of the case. A misdemeanor conviction might bring a fine of up to $1,000, though more is possible in some situations. Felony convictions can have fines that exceed $10,000.
•Probation. A court may sentence someone convicted of making criminal threats to probation. Probation typically lasts at least 12 months, during which time you must comply with specific probation conditions. Common conditions include maintaining employment, asking the court or your probation officer's permission before you move or leave the state, and not committing any more crimes

Conspiracy has been defined in the United States as an agreement of two or more people to commit a crime, or to accomplish a legal end through illegal actions. A conspiracy does not need to have been planned in secret to meet the definition of the crime. One legal dictionary, law.com, provides this useful example on the application of conspiracy law to an everyday sales transaction tainted by corruption. It shows how the law can handle both the criminal and the civil need for justice:

“ [A] scheme by a group of salesmen to sell used automobiles as new, could be prosecuted as a crime of fraud and conspiracy, and also allow a purchaser of an auto to sue for damages [in civil court] for the fraud and conspiracy. ”

Conspiracy law usually does not require proof of specific intent by the defendants to injure any specific person to establish an illegal agreement. Instead, usually the law requires only that the conspirators have agreed to engage in a certain illegal act.

>State Department Director of Policy Planning Ann-Marie Slaughter

>Slaughter
How appripo!

Senpai. The administration granted Clinton authority to conduct drone strikes on her authority!!

go back reading your gay fanfiction OP

you really suck at Cred Forums

Why isn't this everywhere?

>Senpai. The administration granted Clinton authority to conduct drone strikes on her authority!!

The FBI’s 302 report from Clinton’s email investigation interview, again, specified that Clinton had “many discussions” related to “nominating” drone strikes on individuals:

“Clinton could not recall a specific process for nominating a target for a drone strike and recalled much debate pertaining to the concurrence process. Clinton knew there was a role for DOD, State and the CIA but could not provide specifics as to what it was. Due to a disagreement between these agencies, Clinton recalled having many discussions related to nominating an individual for a drone strike. When Clinton exchanged classified information pertaining to the drone program internally at State, it was in her office or on a secure call. When Clinton exchanged classified information pertaining to the drone program externally it was at the White House. Clinton never had a concern with how classified information pertaining to the drone program was handled.”

Hillary Clinton is a sociopath

"And I’m proud that the State Department is already working in more than 40 countries to help individuals silenced by oppressive governments. We are making this issue a priority at the United Nations as well, and we’re including internet freedom as a component in the first resolution we introduced after returning to the United Nations Human Rights Council.
"
January 21, 2010
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
The Newseum
Washington, DC

Excepts that she also talks about drone striking any individual who actually uses the internet to expose governments

What is your rule hillary so we know how to behave so we don't get murdered because of some ascii on the internet.

'Look but don't touch'? Is that they way it works.

youtube.com/watch?v=hlEs9udOquE

If Trump said it you guys would all think it was super cool

RT has picked it up citing true pundit.
rt.com/usa/361459-secretary-clinton-drone-assange/

And snores is already on the case
snopes.com/julian-assange-drone-strike/

>If Trump said it you guys would all think it was super cool

Nope.

Even the pretense let alone the actually underlying moral and legal framework of western democracy is being shat one here. No free pass.

Clinton needs to address this and the world needs to see the document attached to that email as it is material evidence in framing someone for rape for political ends.,murder and other "non legal" criminal conspiracy.

snopes.com/2016/08/03/joe-scarborough-donald-trump-asked-three-times-why-us-cant-use-nukes/
>No huge UNPROVEN X at the top.
>Much more wishy-washy tone used to discredit it.
>Same author.

>snopes.com/julian-assange-drone-strike/
Ah yes. A low tier 'content manager' that shills professionally or the democrats has decided it is 'unproven'. Nice to know she is reading.
Similarly, Lacapria — in another “fact check” article — argued Hillary Clinton hadn’t included Benghazi at all in her infamous “we didn’t lose a single person in Libya” gaffe. Lacapria claimed Clinton only meant to refer to the 2011 invasion of Libya (but not the 2012 Benghazi attack) but offered little fact-based evidence to support her claim.

Read more: dailycaller.com/2016/06/17/fact-checking-snopes-websites-political-fact-checker-is-just-a-failed-liberal-blogger/#ixzz4M2dN0akH

What a vacuous cunt.

bumpity bump.

carry on.

I'm ashamed to admit I used to send stupid people on FB to snopes years ago to shut them up. The type of gullible bleeding hearts who would share this post to get to 1 million likes so a baby can have cardiac surgery (coz explaining why medicos don't wait for internet fame to do heart transplants didn't ever work as well as a link saying don't be gullible). Now they cite it as gospel in "political discussions" when it was only ever good for urban legends and I can't even face logging in to debunk it.

Remind me how much debt uni grads are in and they never even learnt how to think critically?

Haha I just noticed something from your link:

>Snopes’ main political fact-checker is a writer named Kim Lacapria. Before writing for Snopes, Lacapria wrote for Inquisitr, a blog that — oddly enough — is known for publishingfake quotesand evendownright hoaxes as much as anything else.

Inquisitr was another site that picked the drone story up. I didn't link it before because it's inquisitr
inquisitr.com/3559725/did-hillary-clinton-try-to-order-a-drone-strike-against-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-controversial-conspiracy-theory-site-makes-bombshell-claim/

This is getting slid to the bottom

Not on my watch

Wow, it will be awesome if Trump mentions this in the next debate, instead of defending himself the whole time

((moderators))

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3819237/Is-October-Surprise-cancelled-WikiLeaks-scraps-event-Julian-Assange-release-damaging-information-Hillary-Clinton.html

I love how the guy who wrote this was oddly specific. As usual for Cred Forums, of course!

bump