To silence wikileaks, hillary clinton proposed drone strike on julian assange?

Claim: Hillary Clinton proposed assassinating Julian Assange via drone strike to silence WikiLeaks. On 2 October 2016, the web site True Pundit published an article reporting that Hillary

Clinton had supposedly attempted to order a drone strike on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in order to "silence" that organization's efforts: > “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 ... 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. The claim might not have seemed so incredible to some readers, as Assange himself had previously voiced

the possibility of his being assassinated by drone, although even in his imaginings the chances of such an action (initiated by the CIA, not by Hillary Clinton) were not likely: > 

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange fears he will be sent to the United > States, where he could face the death penalty, and even worries that > he will be targeted by a CIA drone. > 

> Assange, who faces extradition to Sweden on rape charges and has > been holed up at the Ecuadorean Embassy in London since 2012, said > in an interview with _The Times Magazine_ 

that things have become so > dangerous that he cannot even poke his head out of the embassy’s > balcony doors. >  > "There are security issues with being on the balcony; 

there have > been bomb threats and assassination threats from various people." >  > On the possibility of being “droned” by the CIA, Assange told > the magazine: “I'm a

 white guy. Unless I convert to Islam, it's > not that likely that I'll be droned, but we have seen things > creeping toward that.” First of all, the only cited source

documenting that Hillary Clinton had ever suggested (even in jest) that a drone strike could take out Julian Assange was "sources at the State Department," a vague and anonymous

reference that does not yield to verification. Second, the claim that Hillary Clinton or her aides had either hinted or directly ordered remote assassination of Assange in November 2010

focused on a questionable interpretation of the terms "legal and nonlegal strategies" that appeared in the subject line of e-mails sent by Anne-Marie Slaughter, Director of Policy

Planning at the U.S. Department of State and released via WikiLeaks' first searchable Hillary Clinton e-mail archive in March 2016. The e-mails in question purportedly followed

Clinton's proposing that Julian Assange be targeted by a drone strike: However, the text of those e-mails (located here and here) neither said nor implied anything of the sort: > 

From: Mills, Cheryl D <[email protected]> > 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 >  > Following this morning's meetings I activated my four legal eagles > on the SP staff — Peter 

Harrell, Jen Harris, Bill Burke White, and > Catherine Powell (that includes two law profs and two Yale law grads > who certainly could be law profs). They in turn reached out to > 

people at the Berkmann Center at Harvard and other experts, working > together with Alec Ross. Alec has been particularly useful in terms > not only of his knowledge but also his 

sensitivity to how anything > we might try to do could impact our own internet freedom agenda. 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. AM >  > Anne-Marie Slaughter > Director of Policy Planning > U.S. Department of State The thrust

of True Pundit's article hinged almost entirely on claiming that the term "nonlegal" essentially means the same thing as "illegal," and much of the article's

content delved into discussing why illegal methods for dealing with a WikiLeaks issue would be improper. However, "nonlegal" also bears a distinctly different meaning than

"illegal"; the former can be used to distinguish discussions dealing with the law and legalities from discussions that don't involve legal matters: Moreover, Anne-Marie

Slaughter's only reference to "nonlegal" methods were some "very good suggestions about how to handle our public diplomacy" (included in an unavailable appended

memo). Unless "public diplomacy" is reasonable code for "drone strike," the most logical reading of the e-mail chain would be that the meeting referenced in the e-mail

explored what legal actions could be taken to minimize damage from WikiLeaks, with a secondary focus on "nonlegal" (i.e., not related to law enforcement or litigation) approaches

such as diplomacy and public relations. On 4 October 2016 Clinton answered a question about whether the rumor was accurate, responding that she didn't "recall any joke ...

[reference to targeting Assange with a drone] would have been a joke" > Hillary Clinton, eyes downcast, stammering: If I talked about > droning Julian #Assange, "it would 

have been a joke." > pic.twitter.com/MnALounJo0 >  > — WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 4, 2016