Hillary Clinton may have turned and twisted in her bed and spent many a sleepless night since the day the infamous founder of WikiLeaks Julian Assange has made it his mission to scuttle the Democratic presidential nominee’s meticulously chalked campaign to become US’s first woman president. It seems Julian is hell-bent on foiling her attempts to become the 47th US President. Assange has gone on record by stating his opposition to her candidature not only has a political backdrop but has a personal background as well.
He considered Clinton to be his personal adversary and foe. Julian has been providing grist to the rumor mills by iterating that he has classified info regarding her private emails (that she is alleged to have transmitted for transacting federal duties) which could be used against her for indictment. The Wikileaks founder’s repeated using of the words ‘enough evidence’ (that’ll be sufficient to indict her and land her in jail) have started sounding hackneyed.
Just type the words ‘indictment of Clinton by Assange’ on the web browser and you’ll be stupefied to see the headlines staring at you, one as fascinating as the other-Wikileaks founder Julian Assange says his next leak will virtually guarantee an indictment of Hillary Clinton; Democrat Scandal: Julian Assange Claims New Leaks will send Clinton to Prison over campaign to destroy Bernie Sanders. If Assange’s claims turn out to be true then it is surely going to upset Hillary’s presidential campaign applecart, and winning the presidency will become a cakewalk for Donald Trump.
It’s quite perplexing and vexatious to note that when even Republican Congress’s members spending millions of dollars for probing Benghazi attacks and the FBI’s yearlong investigations into her alleged personal email account gaffes didn’t stir the hornet’s nest, then why there is so much brouhaha over her purported use or rather an abuse of her private server? Quite naturally, it makes one wonder whether the contents of her personal emails were controversial enough to jeopardize the security of the federal government she was serving and if the mail warranted her incarceration?
It could be that Assange’s reactions are being blown out of proportion and that in reality, he may not be able to produce any material that could be calumnious or defamatory in nature. Advancements in technology have now made it very convenient for rabble-rousers and rumormongers to launch a malicious campaign against anybody (even if he or she happens to be a presidential nominee) as the technicalities of automated social media platforms enable one to mask his or her true identity. Though there’s a lot of hullabaloo regarding Julian’s uttering the words ‘enough evidence’ in the original ITV interview that took place in June, blog posts related to the interview covered by Russia Today and Zero Hedge issued a headline that contained the aforementioned words. Many blog posts, especially those that thrived on bashing the Clintons, picked up the cue and repeatedly kept on harping on those two words thereby fueling the rumor. Even if it is assumed for argument’s sake that Julian blurted out the words, it’d be an uphill task to prove that he used the words in the context that it has been reported.