Once again last week WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange vowed that a “significant” leak affecting Hillary Clinton will be released prior to the election. On Wednesday, Assange told Megyn Kelly of Fox News that his organization is “working around the clock” to “assess the veracity” of the “thousands of pages” of material they’ve been given, and has decided to release the information in “several batches.”

He promised the materials contain “some quite unexpected angles that are, you know, quite interesting, some even entertaining.”

When asked by Kelly if the information in his possession “could be a game-changer in the U.S. election,” Assange replied, “I think it’s significant. You know, it depends on how it catches fire in the public and in the media.”

In an interview late last month with Democracy Now, Assange wasn’t talking about significance or entertainment. He was talking about the slammer.

Assange boldly predicted the emails could put Hillary Clinton in prison. After she got away with tossing classified information around like leaves in autumn, one would think even multi-camera footage of her capping Jimmy Hoffa wouldn’t land her in the clink.

If what Assange revealed about this pending batch is true, however, the White House could be out of the question for Hillary even if the Big House isn’t. Assange told Democracy Now that the emails “create a rich picture” of how Hillary Clinton operated at the State Department in regards to Libya and “weapons flows going over to Syria, being pushed by Hillary Clinton, into jihadists within Syria, including ISIS.”

He says there’s 1,700 Clinton emails, just about Libya alone.

Writing in National Review, Andrew C. McCarthy said, “Just as in Libya, where Mrs. Clinton championed the strategy of arming Islamist ‘rebels,’ the Syrian ‘rebels’ who ultimately received weapons included the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, and ISIS.”

What difference, at this point, does it make? The Daily Wire recalls that at the same Benghazi hearing in 2013 where she made that now-infamous remark, then-Secretary of State Clinton told Rand Paul (R-Ky.) she didn’t have “any information” on any weapons transfer program out of Libya.

Paul: My question is, is the US involved in any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?

Clinton: To Turkey? I’ll have to take that question for the record. That’s, nobody’s ever raised that with me.

Paul: It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that they may have weapons. And what I’d like to know is, that annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries? Any countries, Turkey included?

Clinton: Well, Senator you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. And, I will see what information was available.

Paul: You’re saying you don’t know?

Clinton: I do not know. I don’t have any information on that.

In the 12th hour of her marathon testimony before the House Benghazi Committee in 2015, when asked point blank by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) about weapons running either to Libyan rebels or Syrian rebels, Hillary Clinton doubled-down.

Pompeo: “Were you aware, or are you aware of any efforts by the U.S. government in Libya to provide any weapons, either directly or indirectly, or through a cutout to any militias or opposition to [former Libyan President Muammar] Gadhafi’s forces?”

Clinton: “That was a very long question, and I think the answer is no.”

Pompeo: “Were you aware or are you aware of any U.S. efforts by the U.S. government in Libya to provide any weapons, directly or indirectly, or through a cutout, to any Syrian rebels or militias or opposition to Syrian forces?”

Clinton: “No.”

Pompeo: “Were you aware or are you aware of any efforts by the U.S. government in Libya to facilitate or support the provision of weapons to any opposition of Gadhafi’s forces, Libyan rebels or militias through a third party or country?”

Clinton: “No.”

As WJLA reported at the time, she also denied seriously considering arming opposition groups through private security experts, as she had proposed in an email to aides.

Both appearances were under oath.

In February 2016, The New York Times published a thorough expose entitled “The Libya Gamble,” which concluded that Clinton personally facilitated “a secret American program that supplied arms to rebel militias, an effort never before confirmed.” The Administration had been “turning a blind eye as Qatar and United Arab Emirates supplied the rebels with lethal assistance.” However, Hillary “had grown increasingly concerned that Qatar, in particular, was sending arms only to certain rebel factions: militias from the city of Misurata and select Islamist brigades.” She wanted in the game. The result was a disaster. In the words of The New York Times — who not even Clinton can accuse of being part of the so-called “alt-right” — “Many of the rebels the Clinton State Department armed joined Islamist causes and defected to terrorism.”

As for Syria, Amnesty International reported last December that ISIS has built up its arsenal not only with U.S. weapons “looted, captured or illicitly traded from poorly secured Iraqi military stocks” but also from the capture or sale of military stocks supplied to armed opposition groups by the U.S. and other nations. Salon detailed “how the CIA stood by as arms shipments from Libya enabled the rise of ISIS.”

The Intelligence Community (IC) knew that AQI [Al-Qaeda in Iraq] had ties to the rebels in Syria; they knew our Gulf and Turkish allies were happy to strengthen Islamic extremists in a bid to oust Assad; and CIA officers in Benghazi (at a minimum) watched as our allies armed rebels using weapons from Libya. And the IC knew that a surging AQI might lead to the collapse of Iraq.

Do the promised WikiLeaks documents prove Hillary’s efforts to overthrow secular dictators involved allowing heavy weapons into the hands of people hellbent on our destruction? Do they prove Clinton lied under oath? Do they show that the chaos she’s left in both Libya and Syria undermine her claim Donald Trump is dangerous? Do they indicate Hillary’s “extremely careless” behavior goes beyond creating a non-secure private sever?

The voting public awaits to see.

But given what’s on the record already, perhaps we won’t find Assange’s “October Surprise” all that surprising. (For more from the author of “Will Next WikiLeaks Release Show Hillary Clinton Helped Arm Jihadists?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

At the end of the day, in virtually every poll, the top issues are the economy, jobs, and wages. This is what Americans truly care about. Bread and butter issues. All the social justice worker stuff is low hanging fruit. Man-induced climate change is typically last or next to last. Most of the things Hillary talks about are low ranking issues.

Why? Because it’s rather hard to make the case to keep doing the same things that have left the economy crippled.

The new GDP numbers are terrible. No wonder Hillary won’t talk about the economy

We got revised GDP numbers from the Commerce Department on Friday and the economy actually did slightly WORSE than originally estimated. Growth was 1.1 percent in the second quarter of this year and less than 1 percent for the first six months of 2016. The business sector of the economy has sunk recession territory. Profits are srinking (down 2.4 percent last quarter) so how long can the stock market rise?

The consumer is keeping the economy out of negative territory, but that’s only because we are spending more than we are earning.

How long can that go on? About as long as the housing bubble could inflate without bursting.

For years the polls have shown that Americans are hyper-concerned about the economy and job security. That was when the economy was growing at a meek 2 percent. Now at 1 percent, we aren’t just treading water, more families are being plunged underwater.

Where’s all the growth under Obama’s economic policies? At the top.

The Democrats who keep saying how well the economy is doing seem to be living in an alternative universe. And that’s probably because so many of the leftwing pundits and economists live and work in Washington DC, which really is doing just fine – thank you. DC is booming thanks to the tribute taxpayers from real America send each month to the capital. Three of the five wealthiest counties are around DC. That tells you everything about who is getting rich off liberal government expansion policies.

For all the caterwauling from Democrats about the rich getting rich during the George W Bush era, they don’t seem to have the same zeal to attack the Democratic Party policies that are truly helping the rich at the expense of the lower and middle classes. Not too mention policies that simply hurt the lower and middle classes while growing the size of the federal government.

Hillary says that what the economy really needs now is a tax increase. Crazy. A new study by the National Center for Policy Analysis says that Hillary’s economic plan will eventually shave 1 percent off GDP. That would technically sink the economy down to zero growth.

Interestingly, for a woman making so much money off of speeches and such, she refuses to cut a check to the IRS to match the tax increase she wants on “the rich.” For a goodly chunk of “the rich” raising the income tax level will do little, since their money is so often made off of capital gains. Hillary’s would be directly filed as income. Guess she doesn’t want to pay her fair share voluntarily.

Her jobs plan would kill hundreds of thousands of jobs. Her energy plan would likewise kill lots of jobs and increase the cost of living for Americans. The aforementioned tax plan would reduce the GDP by 1%, meaning zero growth. The Obama/Democrat economic policies have created the worst economic recovery of all time. Manufacturing has not come back. Good paying jobs are getting harder and harder to find. Want to flip a burger or pour coffee? Good news. Base level jobs have grown. But, thanks to Obamacare, hours will be tightly controlled.

Trump must hammer Hillary and Obama on these abysmal economic developments. What is needed? Tax cuts. Deregulation. American energy production. Repeal of Obamacare. He should talk about little else if he wants to win.

Sage advice. If Trump wants to win, he needs to spend the bulk of his time talking about the economy, jobs, and wages. All the distractions and personal attacks need to be minimized. And all the gaffes need to be minimized, so that he can get his economic ideas out into public.

You know what else is low hanging fruit? Illegal immigration. The same polls that show things like ‘climate change’ as utterly unimportant when stacked up against real issues also show that dealing with illegal immigration is also not all that important. So, he needs to minimize discussion of illegal immigration, and mostly discuss it in terms of the economy and jobs. Attack Hillary and Democrats on their ideas/policies from an economic point of view. ‘Climate change’? Discuss how this will harm people’s livelyhoods and cost of living. The over the top spending, rising deficit, horrific government debt, out of control regulations. Discuss them, and make them personal to citizens.

Bill Clinton’s advisor had an internal message for his people “The economy, stupid”, which morphed to “it’s the economy, stupid.” Yes. He’s right. People are going to care about what effects them. A second, less know internal saying was “change vs more of the same.” This is what Trump needs to do. The economy and “do people want to continue doing what hasn’t worked?” The primaries are long over. The general election is coming up fast. Hit Hillary and Obama on the subjects that people care about. (For more from the author of “GEE: I Wonder Why Hillary Won’t Talk About the Economy?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hillary Clinton has hit a rough patch at a critical time in the race for the White House.

A new batch of 14,900 emails found by the FBI is threatening to throw her off message, and the drip-drip release of emails will be something to contend with through Election Day.

Clinton’s campaign is also facing new questions about the Clinton Foundation after separate emails were released that showed a foundation official seeking time with Clinton for a donor.

Days later, the Associated Press ran a story, which the Clinton campaign has repeatedly attacked, detailing links between Clinton Foundation donors and meetings with former Secretary of State Clinton.

If that weren’t enough, a lingering GOP perjury threats looms over Brooklyn, as House Republicans have promised action this fall. (Read more from “Clinton Hits New Roadblocks in Campaign for White House” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.