>> http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/10/02/wednesday-hillary-clinton-done-reports-julian-assange-s-announcement-tuesday-will-finish
>> "Is it the October surprise?
>> MSNBC’s Jesse Rodriguez posted what could be interpreted as an ominous
>> reemark on social media last week regarding Julian Assange.
>> …ominous if you’re with Team Hillary.

>You know what... up until now I have supported what Julian and Wikileaks
>have done. If he costs Hillary the election, though, that could very
>well change in a hurry.

Explain your reasoning.  I myself would prefer that Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, wins.  And of course I will vote for Johnson.  But if the American people decide, as a consequence of (truthful, accurate) information revealed by Wikileaks (or anyone else) that Hillary Clinton SHOULDN'T be president, aren't they entitled to their choice?  After all, I don't think people are advocating that anybody forges fake information.  They want true information.

>I'll be honest, there are a lot of things I do not like about Hillary Clinton.

Welcome to the club!

> However, they pale in comparison to what I do not like about
>Donald Trump, a man who can legitimately be compared to Adolf Hitler,

One big difference between Hillary Clinton and Adolf Hitler is that when Hitler was chosen as Chancellor of Germany in 1933, the public didn't know him to be a criminal, except for the "beer hall putsch" in 1923.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch      I am quite convinced that the Clintons are running a massive pay-for-pay operation, calling it the "Clinton Global Initiative".   

I am also convinced that Hillary and her staff deliberately erased 33,000 emails AFTER being subpoenaed by Congress, which amounts to 33,000 Federal felonies.  Does that bother you?  I certainly hope these emails are among the information eventually to be released by Wikileaks.  Hillary might call them "private", but I suspect that most of them were actually CGI material which would have been incriminating.

>and even setting that aside, a man who has shown he is unqualified and
>would make the most dangerous president we have ever had.

I think it's too bad that Rand Paul, or Ted Cruz, wasn't selected as Republican nominee.  But I think the main reason Democrats reject Trump is that he clearly isn't PC (politically-correct), but mostly they lie and claim other drawbacks of Trump, real and imagined.  Further, I think the RINOs deliberately steered the nomination away from Ted Cruz and other Repubican candidates, primarily because Cruz wanted to shake up the system, perhaps even more than Trump wanted.  Blame, in large part, the MainStream Media for giving Trump $1-2 billion in free publicity prior to his winning the Republican nomination.

> I don't know
>what the fuck Julian is thinking trying to get Trump (or as I refer to
>him, Rump) in office. If he was doing something useful, like leak Rump's
>tax returns, I'd obviously have a different opinion.

Releasing true facts has potentially dangerous consequences, it is true.   Look at the 'Arab Spring' thing, a few years ago.   But if mistakes are to be made, I would prefer those mistakes to be releasing the information, rather than failing or refusing to release the information.