CONFIRMED LEAK: ‘Governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been funding ISIS,’ says Julian Assange (VIDEO)

Julian Assange’s landmark interview with the great John Pilger did not reveal any startling new truths. Instead, it confirmed the conclusions many had drawn from reading Wikileaks and perhaps most importantly, it has vindicated much of what Donald Trump has been saying all along.

Here are the most important points:

1. The Saudi and Qatari governments funnelled millions into the Clinton Foundation whilst directly funding ISIS.

Assange stated:

“Here’s an early 2014 email from Hillary Clinton, so not so long after she left [her job as] Secretary of State, to her campaign manager John Podesta. That email, it states that ISIL, ISIS is funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar – the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Now, this is a… I actually think this is the most significant email in the whole collection… And perhaps because Saudi and Qatari money is spread all over the place, including into many media institutions, all serious analysts know, even the US government has mentioned or agreed with that some Saudi figures have been supporting ISIS, funding ISIS. But the dodge has always been, that’s… what… it’s just some rogue princes using their cut of the oil money to do what they like but actually the government disapproves. But that email says that no, it is the governments of Saudi and the government of Qatar that have been funding ISIS.”

Assange continued:

“Under Hillary Clinton, and Clinton emails reveal significant discussion about it, the largest ever arms deal in the world was made with Saudi Arabia – more than $80 billion. In fact, during her tenure as Secretary of State, total arms exports from United States in terms of the dollar value doubled.”

Assange agrees with me that this is the most important exposé of the many revelations Wikileaks has brought the world throughout the long course of the campaign. It also vindicates Donald Trump who once called Hillary and Obama the ‘founders’ of ISIS. One cannot be trusted to fight ISIS when they are taking money from and are politically in bed with the evil regimes that are the kingpins of the ISIS mafia. The fact that these unconscionable deals have received so little attention from western mainstream media is worrying. It means that whilst western journalists will write about terrorism to sell papers, they have little genuine concern for world safety or the security of their fellow citizens.

2. The FBI is facing internal civil war whilst openly declaring war on the arrogance of Hillary Clinton.

Assange spoke of the FBI’s historical role as ‘political policeman’ in the following way:

“If you go to the history of the FBI, it has become effectively America’s political police. And the FBI demonstrated with taking down the former head of the CIA over classified information given to his mistress [that] almost no one was untouchable. The FBI is always trying to demonstrate that, “No one can resist us.” But Hillary Clinton very conspicuously resisted the FBI’s investigation. So, there is anger within the FBI because it made the FBI look weak.”

This very much vindicates my initial hypothesis upon the news that the FBI were re-opening their investigation into Hillary Clinton, insofar as Assange concludes that the FBI are engaged in a traditional power play rather than fighting for a cause they ultimately believe to be just.

This seems to be the case, even though given the circumstances, the overriding result may be the same; big trouble for Hillary, up to and including an indictment.

3. Libya Was Hillary Clinton’s Pet Project From Hell

Whilst Obama was tepid, the Pentagon ill-prepared and Britain and France acting as the internal cover for the war, the war itself was Hillary’s invention, her dream, her unique child of death. Again, Trump’s criticisms of Hillary Clinton’s war on Libya seem incredibly apposite.

Assange says of Libya:

“Libya more than anyone else’s war was Hillary Clinton’s war. Barack Obama initially opposed it. Who was the person who was championing it? Hillary Clinton. That’s documented throughout her emails. She had… She put her favoured agent in effect, Sidney Blumenthal, onto that. There’s more than 1,700 emails out of the 33 thousand of Hillary Clinton’s emails we published just about Libya. It’s not about that Libya has cheap oil. She perceived the removal of Gaddafi and the overthrow of the Libyan state something that she would use to run in the general election for president. So late 2011, there’s an internal document called the “Libya Tick Tock” that is produced for Hillary Clinton, and it’s all the… it’s a chronological description of how Hillary Clinton was the central figure in the destruction of the Libyan state. As a result, there are around 40,000 deaths within Libya. Jihadists moved in, ISIS moved in. That led to the European refugee and migrant crisis, because not only did you have people fleeing Libya, people then fleeing Syria, destabilisation of other African countries as a result of arms flows. The Libyan state itself was no longer able to control movement of people through it. So, Libya faces on to the Mediterranean. So, it had been effectively the cork in the bottle of Africa. So, all problems, all economic problems, the civil war in Africa… Previously, the people fleeing those problems didn’t end up in Europe because Libya policed the Mediterranean. And that was said explicitly at the time, back in 2011, by Gaddafi: what do these Europeans think they are doing, trying to bomb and destroy the Libyan state? There’s going to be floods of migrants out of Africa, and jihadists into Europe. And that is exactly what happened.”

4. Putin Didn’t Do It:

Whilst Wikileaks have a policy of never revealing their sources, circumstance has compelled Julian Assange to say unequivocally that the Russian government is not a source for the leaks. This of course is in line with the findings of the FBI, former British Ambassador Craig Murray, Donald Trump, the hacker Guccifer 2.0 and thousands of independent experts.

5. Hillary Clinton is the political captain of globalist finance, wicked foreign regimes and a corrupt anti-democratic establishment.

Assange said:

“…she represents a whole network of people, and a network of relationships also with particular states. The question is, how does Hillary Clinton fit in this broader network? She’s this centralizing cog, so that you’ve got a lot of different gears in operation from the big banks like Goldman Sachs, and major elements of Wall Street, and intelligence, and people in the State Department, and the Saudis, and so on. She’s is the, if you like, the centralizer that interconnects all these different cogs. She’s smooth central representation of all that, and all that is more or less what is in power now in the United States. It’s what you call the establishment, or the DC consensus, and its influences. In fact, one of the most significant Podesta emails that we released was about how the Obama cabinet was formed – and half the Obama cabinet was basically nominated by a representative from Citibank. It is quite amazing… If you were following the Obama campaign back then closely, you could see it had become very close to banking interests. It wasn’t so close to oil interests but it was very close to banking interests… So, I think you can’t properly understand Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy without understanding Saudi Arabia. The connections with Saudi Arabia are so intimate.”

6. The Establishment Will Do Anything To Stop Trump

Assange believes that due to the fact that the political, economic and military-industrial establishment are fully lined-up against Trump, that Trump ‘will not be permitted to win’. Two weeks ago I may have well agreed, but given the severity of the troubles with which the Clinton campaign faces, my prediction is that unless the rigging issues are totally insurmountable, Trump will in fact win.

Assange, however, went on to describe Trump’s campaign in a very insightful way:

“Donald Trump – what does he represent in the American mind and in the European mind? He represents American “white trash,” deplorable and irredeemable. Basically, the same thing. It means, from a… establishment or educated, cosmopolitan, urbane perspective, these people are, you know, like the rednecks, and you can’t… like, they are just… you can never deal with them. And because he so clearly – through his words and actions and the type of people that turns up at his rallies – represents the people who are not the upper-middle-class-educated, there is a fear of seeming to be associated in any way with that, a social fear that lowers the class status of anyone who can be accused of somehow assisting in any way Trump, including criticising Clinton. And if you look at how the middle class gains its economic and social power, it makes absolute sense.”

7. The war against Wikileaks and his own lack of freedom.

Here Assange demonstrated that behind his status as a heroic crusader for justice, he is after all, a human being and one who has sacrificed his own life to help the world. When Pilger asked what would happen were Assange to leave the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, Assange said the following:

“So, I would be immediately arrested by the British police, and I would then be extradited, either immediately to the United States, or to Sweden. In Sweden, I am not charged, I’ve already been previously cleared, etc. So, we’re not certain exactly what would happen there, but then we know that the Swedish government has refused to say that they will not extradite me to the United States. And they have extradited 100 percent of people that the US has requested since at least 2000. So, over the last 15 years, every single person that the US has tried to extradite from Sweden has been extradited. And they refuse to provide the guarantees. So, it’s… yeah.”

Speaking more directly about the legal realities and untruths he is facing, Assange said:

“The UN has looked into this whole situation. They spent 18 months in formal adversarial litigation: me, at the UN, versus Sweden and the UK – who is right? The UN made a conclusion – I’m being arbitrarily detained, illegally, deprived of my freedom. What has been… occurred, has not occurred within the laws that the United Kingdom and Sweden must obey. It is an illegal abuse. I mean, the United Nations formally asking what’s going on here, what’s your legal explanation for this. He says you should be… you should recognize his asylum. Sweden formally writing back to United Nations, says “No, we’re not going to,” leaving open their ability to extradite. I just find it absolutely amazing that the narrative about this situation is not put out publicly and in the press. Because it doesn’t suit the Western establishment narrative that, “Yes, the West has political prisoners.” It’s a reality. It’s not just me, there’s a bunch of other people as well. The West has political prisoners. No state accepts to call the people it is imprisoning or detaining for political reasons “political prisoners.” They don’t call them political prisoners in China, they don’t call them political prisoners in Azerbaijan, and they don’t call them political prisoners in the United States, the UK or Sweden. It’s absolutely intolerable to have that kind of self-perception. But here we have a case. Talking about the Swedish case, where I have never been charged with a crime, where I have already been cleared and found to be innocent, where the woman herself said that the police made it up, where the United Nations formally said the whole thing is illegal, where the state of Ecuador also investigated and found that I should be given asylum. Those are the facts. But what is the rhetoric?”

Assange continued:

“The rhetoric is pretending, constantly pretending that I have been charged with a crime, never mentioning that I have been already previously cleared, never mentioning that the woman herself says that the police made it up, trying to avoid that the UN formally found that the whole thing is illegal. Never even mentioning that Ecuador made a formal assessment through its formal processes and found that yes, I am subject to persecution by the United States.”

No matter who wins the US election, Julian Assange and Wikileaks have been the true super-stars of the entire process. They have shown light upon lies, exposed the grave crimes that the global political establishment commits against the collective morality of ordinary people and against national and international laws. large part in forcing the hand of the FBI to say ‘enough is enough’ and re-open the book on Hillary Clinton.

Crucially unlike almost every other major journalistic outlet in the world, Wikileaks has not once been forced to retract any of its statements.  Assange has revealed the unfairness and corruption of the political process and I believe his revelations played a

If Assange were running for any political office in the world, he would certainly have my vote.

Here is Julian Assange’s full interview with John Pilger: