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.