Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange: “There’s Something Wrong With Hillary Clinton”

After Hillary Clinton tore into Wikileaks and its founder, Julian Assange, saying that they were a “subsidiary of Russian intelligence,” Assange fought back via the social media platform Twitter and responded, “There’s something wrong with Hillary Clinton.”

“There’s something wrong with Hillary Clinton,” Assange tweeted on Sunday.

“It is not just her constant lying,” he added.  “It is not just that she throws off menacing glares and seethes thwarted entitlement.”

Trending: Councilwoman Reminded Protesters Online To Use Molotov Cocktails

“Watch closely,” he continued.  “Something much darker rides along with it. A cold creepiness rarely seen.”

Yeah, it’s called being a sociopath.

Clinton appeared on an Australian TV program and said Assange was a “nihilistic opportunist who does the bidding of a dictator.”

She also claimed that “WikiLeaks is unfortunately now practically a fully owned subsidiary of Russian intelligence.”

Of course, she did so with zero evidence, but lying in this manner is not uncommon for a Clinton.

However, Assange reminded her that Wikileaks had done pieces on Russia and Clinton happened to be right in the mix.

“WikiLeaks has a pristine record for accuracy,” Assange tweeted.  “HRC is not a credible person. The primary cause of her downfall was her own Machiavellian scheme to elevate Mr. Trump (“Pied Piper”).”

“Our last Russian expose was three weeks ago,” he added and linked to a Wikileaks article.

When it comes to credibility, Assange and Wikileaks are light years away from Hillary Clinton.

Indeed, Clinton has a public record of lying, far more than Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah.

Following the Watergate investigation, she was terminated by Jerry Zeifman, chief counsel of the House Judiciary Committee following the Watergate inquiry and added that he “would not — could not recommend her for any further positions.”

While leftist Snopes and The Washington Post say this is not true, the reality is that Zeifman said so in a 2008 interview.

The CATO Institute reports:

Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler gives a maximum Four Pinocchios to the claim that Hillary Clinton was fired during the Watergate inquiry, which has gotten a lot of circulation on social media. He makes a detailed case that there is no evidence for such a firing. However, along the way he does note some unflattering aspects of her tenure there:

In neither of his books does Zeifman say he fired Clinton. But in 2008, a reporter named Dan Calabrese wrote an article that claimed that “when the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation.” The article quoted Zeifman as saying: “She was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”…

In 1999, nine years before the Calabrese interview, Zeifman told the Scripps-Howard news agency: “If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her.” In a 2008 interview on “The Neal Boortz Show,” Zeifman was asked directly whether he fired her. His answer: “Well, let me put it this way. I terminated her, along with some other staff members who were — we no longer needed, and advised her that I would not — could not recommend her for any further positions.”

So it’s pretty clear that Jerry Zeifman, chief counsel of the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate inquiry, had a low opinion of the young Yale Law graduate Hillary Rodham. But because she reported to the chief counsel of the impeachment inquiry, who was hired separately by the committee and did not report to Zeifman, Zeifman had no authority over her. He simply didn’t hire her for the permanent committee staff after the impeachment inquiry ended.

Kessler also notes that Clinton failed the D.C. bar exam in that period. She never retook the exam (passing the Arkansas exam instead) and concealed her failure even from her closest friends until her autobiography in 2003.

And then there’s this:

Zeifman’s specific beef with Clinton is rather obscure. It mostly concerns his dislike of a brief that she wrote under Doar’s direction to advance a position advocated by Rodino — which would have denied Nixon the right to counsel as the committee investigated whether to recommend impeachment.

Paul Joseph Watson added, “He [Assange] also repeated the charge that Clinton is just attempting to distract from the fact that she initially conspired to elevate Trump because she thought she had an easier chance of defeating him.  Meanwhile, speculation is raging on whether Assange is about to reveal who gave him the DNC emails during the 2016 election campaign after the Wikileaks founder tweeted a series of numbers that resemble an encryption key.”

“Evidence emerges of a conspiracy to take down the DNC as far back as 2010,” tweeted Assange, suggesting that more information is about to drop which would further disprove claims that Russia was responsible for the hack, according to Watson.

I’d say that the public is far more willing to believe Assange over Clinton, even among that tiny segment that might still actually like her.

Still, Assange’s comments that something is wrong with her have been long known.  What kind of woman knows of her husband’s adulteries and rape charges and instead of dealing with him, attacks those making the claims she knows has to be true?  I’d say it’s a mentally distrubed and broken woman.

I can always hold out hope that someone might present the true Gospel to Mrs. Clinton and God would straighten her out because it’s abundantly clear that our own government is not going to do it.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at

Become an insider!

Sign up for the free Freedom Outpost email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Previous Yellowstone Super Volcano: We May Have Far Less Advance Warning Time Than We Thought
Next Of Course, The Clinton Foundation is Keeping Harvey Weinstein's $250,000 Donation!

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon to the right of the comment, and report it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation. If you don't see a commenting section below, please disable your adblocker.