Amidst a whirlwind of controversies and scandals preceding the 2016 Presidential Election, millions of people turned to WikiLeaks to form their knowledge on figures who were running.

WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, is no stranger to controversies due to the fact that his website is a popular spot that exposes evidence that can make or break a rumor.

In an article written by The Political Insider just before Election Day, Assange had allegedly made comments about Hillary Clinton regarding her relationships with Syria and Libya. It stated that Clinton and her State Department were actively arming Islamic jihadists in the Middle East, including ISIS.

The story had 789,000 engagements, according Buzzfeed data, the day before Election Day.

The story was twisted and turned by media sites, but in reality, Assange had actually said that a Hillary Clinton-led State Department had approved weapon shipments to Libya during U.S. intervention in 2011. Those weapons had allegedly ended up in the hands of terrorists later on.

Clinton reportedly denied these claims under oath in front of the U.S. Senate, claiming she did not know about the weapon shipments.

In an interview with Democracy Now, Assange stated that 1,700 emails contained the Clinton cache directly connected Clinton to Libya and Syria, and therefore ISIS and Al Queda.

Clinton also led the organization, “Friends of Syria” to back CIA-led insurgency for regime change in Syria, which led some to believe that this was her way of covering up inappropriate relationships with terroristic groups.

It is questionable whether this story had any detrimental effect on the 2016 Presidential Election, however it is certain that the wavering opinions of voters were nursed by fake news stories. Fake news stories are easily accessible and hard to distinguish, which is what makes them so attractive and believable.