When I published my list yesterday of events that were rapidly building up for Hell Week, I left one announcement off the list that was sorely tempting to include because it sounded massive in importance. However, I could only find it on one source, and that source wasn’t reliable (all other sites that mentioned it referenced that same source).

The information I came across yesterday was posted in a forum and was supposedly an announcement by the hacking group Anonymous. It claimed that Anonymous has been working with Wikileaks for several weeks on a release of videos that would be absolutely devastating to the Clintons. (I won’t say what the salacious material was at this point because I don’t want to help spread rumors in case they are as false as seemed likely to me until this morning.) “Anonymous” said it would be released through Wikileaks on Saturday.

Rather than publish the story in advance of the release (in case it was a hoax), I watched regularly through the day yesterday to see if it showed up on Wikileaks so I could, at least, be one of the first to publish the story to my readers if it happened; but it didn’t. So far no hint of such a story has appeared anywhere on Wikileaks’ site. I had three reasons for thinking it was likely a hoax and not including it in yesterday’s article, even though it would have been the biggest headliner on my site this year:

The kinds of things “Anonymous” said the documents and videos would show were so vile that they sounded like whoppers. That always turns on my warning lights, so that I do my best to fact-check such stories before publishing them because I don’t want to gain my own reputation of publishing baloney just because it serves my argument and captures readers through headlines. (I have numerous times here foregone breaking stories that others were accepting all over the internet because my fact-checking made it look unlikely they were true; and I’ve usually been glad later that I didn’t publish them.) Anonymous has sometimes released real and devastating hacks from major corporations, like the hacks they did on Sony and MIT; but they have also sometimes threatened major releases that never happened. So, they seem to leverage the real stuff they do have in order to create authenticity for other accusations that are complete fabrications just to stir turmoil. (That or others claim to be “Anonymous” just to add authenticity to their hoaxes.) There is no way of knowing from the forum where “Anonymous” posted that it was actually the infamous hacking group posting there.

But this morning the Clinton campaign communications director made a announcement of her own that makes me wonder if Annonymous and Wikileaks really do have a bombshell of documents and videos that will destroy the Clintons:

Really? Only probably fake? What kind of story is the Clinton campaign trying to get out in front of here? Let’s think carefully about that statement:

Campaigns don’t sow seeds of doubt like this unless they are trying to get ahead of a story in order to reduce its impact. (Otherwise, why be the first to raise suspicions?)

Of all the millions of documents Wikileaks has published in the past decade, not one document has ever been shown to be fake . Wikileaks’ reputation is as sterling as you can find. So, why claim a Wikileaks story will probably be fake before you even know what the story is and before there even is a story?

. Wikileaks’ reputation is as sterling as you can find. So, why claim a Wikileaks story will probably be fake before you even know what the story is and before there even is a story? Few if any people exposed by Wikileaks have dared to even claim Wikileaks documents are fake (because they know they’ll be proven to be liars if they do as there are usually too many emails addresses and names revealed to make it possible to hold a lie together).

Many governments want to kill or imprison Julian Assange, Wikileaks’ leader, so he has to live in asylum. These major institutional powers wouldn’t hold such extreme positions against Assange if he was not actually publishing genuine secret documents. They want Assange like hounds on a trail of blood.

Assange’s sterling reputation for truth would be destroyed if he suddenly started putting out whoppers about presidential candidates to destroy national elections.

The Clinton campaign has not stated any Wikileaks document related to Hillary so far was fake … until now when they only say “probably” and say it ahead of the release so they cannot be accused of lying about it because the release is all hypothetical at this point.

The Clinton campaign tacitly admitted all of the Wikileaks emails were true by claiming in a rage that the documents were stolen from Hillary’s server by Russian government hackers. They have made that charge through the highest level of US government, the president of the United States. (Clearly Russians hacking into Clinton’s server could not have found and released documents that weren’t there.)

They have made that charge through the highest level of US government, the president of the United States. (Clearly Russians hacking into Clinton’s server could not have found and released documents that weren’t there.) The US government has demonstrated they are real and are vitally important by saying that, if more documents like this come out during the next couple of days as a result of Russian hackers, the US will engage in cyberwar with Russia!

Crisis of Character: A White House Secret Service Officer Discloses His Firsthand Experience with Hillary, Bill, and How They Operate

Think about that last point in particular. It now makes sense why the Obama Administration made such an extreme threat in the last two days as to warn Russia that, if any hacking occurs that releases documents this week that interfere with the election, the US will respond with cyberwar against Russia. Why make a massive threat against a nuclear nation and convey it by mainstream media like NBC unless you know one of two things:

Russia really is going to hack the system in a way that mangles the election or has already given hacked documents to Wikileaks that will destroy the Administration’s candidate, and you want to pressure Russia to pressure Wikileaks not to release those documents before the election – or – A revelation is about to come out via some other hacker that you desperately need to blame on Russia — so desperately that you’d engage in cyberwar to convince the masses that your Russian accusation is real and to distract from the hacked revelation with a bigger event.

I mean, threatening a former superpower with cyberwarfare is major stuff. So, you don’t do it without a big reason. Therefore, one thing is certain: both the Clinton campaign and the Obama administration are very afraid that something massive is about to be revealed by Wikileaks — something so significant that they will risk threatening war to stop it. Since Wikileaks has been so careful to never publish a false document, what is the establishment so afraid Wikileaks might have found? Still think this isn’t Hell Week?

I won’t jump ahead of the facts here by saying there will be a Wikileaks election bombshell. I’m just saying there is certainly a high level of fear in the establishment that there are some truly major things that could come out in the next two days:

Anonymous is threatening an election-turning revelation in videos. The Obama administration is going to extreme measures to stomp a revelation down before it happens. The Clinton campaign is now preparing for the contingency that it might happen anyway.

Makes you wonder what it is they think could come out?

Still think this isn’t going to be Hell Week?