Julian Assange Being Turned over to UK????
nan said:
nohero said:So you can talk big, but you can't post a quote. You "think" he knows more. Not exactly scientific.
Scroll back for the extensive finding, which Mueller didn't need to try to talk to Assange (as if he would be able to) to confirm the information. Argue with Mueller, not me, but among the three of us I think he knows more (including the intelligence findings that were redacted in the public version) than either you or me.
I'm not "talking big" Nan, I quoted extensively from the report, which constitute the official findings of the investigation. It's earlier in this thread, for goodness sake.
nohero said:
I'm not "talking big" Nan, I quoted extensively from the report, which constitute the official findings of the investigation. It's earlier in this thread, for goodness sake.
If you can't be bothered to paste it, then I can't be bothered to reply. Really, I'm supposed to go on a scavenger hunt through long threads looking for what I think you might have in your mind?
nan said:
nohero said:If you can't be bothered to paste it, then I can't be bothered to reply. Really, I'm supposed to go on a scavenger hunt through long threads looking for what I think you might have in your mind?
I'm not "talking big" Nan, I quoted extensively from the report, which constitute the official findings of the investigation. It's earlier in this thread, for goodness sake.
It's one page back, and you posted right after it.
[Edited to add] And it was a little up the same page where you posted your "You can talk big" insult of me, instead of just scrolling back up as I suggested you do.
Bernie shows his true colors. Bernie cares about exactly one person: Bernie the Millionaire.
nan said:
He can't lie under oath.
Yeah he can. Lots of people do. And if he did, and was charged for perjury, you would rightly argue that he’s being arrested for protecting his sources. He can also refuse to answer any questions, or answer with “I don’t recall” like Trump did. So what’s the point?
ridski said:
Yeah he can. Lots of people do. And if he did, and was charged for perjury, you would rightly argue that he’s being arrested for protecting his sources. He can also refuse to answer any questions, or answer with “I don’t recall” like Trump did. So what’s the point?
You don't know what he is going to say until you try. They did not even try.
Nice summary of findings and reactions from the family of the murder victim who Assange slandered.
Seth Rich Was Not Source of Leaked D.N.C. Emails, Mueller Report Confirms
"Tucked amid hundreds of pages of the report’s main findings, the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, took aim at WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, for falsely implying that Mr. Rich was somehow involved in the dissemination of the emails, an act that aided President Trump’s campaign."
…
"In a statement, Mr. Rich’s brother, Aaron Rich, responded to the special counsel’s report, saying it provided 'hard facts that demonstrate this conspiracy is false.'
" 'I hope that the people who pushed, fueled, spread, ran headlines, articles, interviews, talk and opinion shows, or in any way used my family’s tragedy to advance their political agendas — despite our pleas that what they were saying was not based on any facts — will take responsibility for the unimaginable pain they have caused us,' he said."
nohero said:
Nice summary of findings and reactions from the family of the murder victim who Assange slandered.
Seth Rich Was Not Source of Leaked D.N.C. Emails, Mueller Report Confirms
"Tucked amid hundreds of pages of the report’s main findings, the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, took aim at WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, for falsely implying that Mr. Rich was somehow involved in the dissemination of the emails, an act that aided President Trump’s campaign."
…
"In a statement, Mr. Rich’s brother, Aaron Rich, responded to the special counsel’s report, saying it provided 'hard facts that demonstrate this conspiracy is false.'
" 'I hope that the people who pushed, fueled, spread, ran headlines, articles, interviews, talk and opinion shows, or in any way used my family’s tragedy to advance their political agendas — despite our pleas that what they were saying was not based on any facts — will take responsibility for the unimaginable pain they have caused us,' he said."
Just curious -- how does Seth Rich's family know that Seth was not Assange's source?
paulsurovell said:
Just curious -- how does Seth Rich's family know that Seth was not Assange's source?
There are ways to ask that question that reveal a genuine interest or concern about assumptions, with respect to a tragedy. “Just curious” is the opposite of them.
paulsurovell said:
Just curious -- how does Seth Rich's family know that Seth was not Assange's source?
Seth Rich's family had a piece published in the Washington Post in 2017.
Imagine living in a nightmare that you can never wake up from. Imagine having to face every single
day knowing that your son was murdered. Imagine you have no answers — that no one has been brought to justice and there are few clues leading to the killer or killers. Imagine that every single day, with every phone call you hope that it’s the police, calling to tell you that there has been a break in the case.
Imagine that instead, every call that comes in is a reporter asking what you think of a series of lies or conspiracies about the death. That nightmare is what our family goes through every day.
Are you still asking this question, or are we done here?
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:There are ways to ask that question that reveal a genuine interest or concern about assumptions, with respect to a tragedy. “Just curious” is the opposite of them.
Just curious -- how does Seth Rich's family know that Seth was not Assange's source?
No, you're reading into it. It's a serious question. I'm curious as to how they are able to make that statement.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:Seth Rich's family had a piece published in the Washington Post in 2017.
Just curious -- how does Seth Rich's family know that Seth was not Assange's source?
Imagine living in a nightmare that you can never wake up from. Imagine having to face every singleAre you still asking this question, or are we done here?
day knowing that your son was murdered. Imagine you have no answers — that no one has been brought to justice and there are few clues leading to the killer or killers. Imagine that every single day, with every phone call you hope that it’s the police, calling to tell you that there has been a break in the case.
Imagine that instead, every call that comes in is a reporter asking what you think of a series of lies or conspiracies about the death. That nightmare is what our family goes through every day.
Well you've answered the question, because in the 2017 WaPo article the family explains their reasons for stating that Seth was not involved in leaking the emails to Wikileaks:
We know that Seth’s personal email and his personal computer were both inspected by detectives early in the investigation and that the inspection revealed no evidence of any communications with anyone at WikiLeaks or anyone associated with WikiLeaks. Nor did that inspection reveal any evidence that Seth had leaked DNC emails to WikiLeaks or to anyone else. Indeed, those who have suggested that Seth’s role as a data analyst at the DNC gave him access to a wide trove of emails are simply incorrect — Seth’s job was to develop analytical models to encourage voters to turn out to vote. He didn’t have access to DNC emails, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee emails, John Podesta’s emails or Hillary Clinton’s emails. That simply wasn’t his job.
My take is that this is all supports the premise that Seth didn't leak. However, each reason given depends on assumptions, not facts. On the other hand there are no facts that I'm aware of that suggest that he did leak the emails apart from the obtuse remark by Julian Assange that doesn't allege Rich was the source of the emails.
paulsurovell said:
My take is that this is all supports the premise that Seth didn't leak. However, each reason given depends on assumptions, not facts. On the other hand there are no facts that I'm aware of that suggest that he did leak the emails apart from the obtuse remark by Julian Assange that doesn't allege Rich was the source of the emails.
"Seth didn't leak" isn't a "premise" for which his family has a responsibility to provide support.
The posthumous accusation against Mr. Rich was always baseless, and is false. Assange encouraged that accusation. Period.
In Caitlen Johnstone's "Debunking All The Assange Smears" that I posted earlier, this is #27.
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/assange-smear-27-he-lied-about-seth-rich-21c6999a2776
Assange Smear 27: “He lied about Seth Rich.”
I’m just going to toss this one here at the end because I’m seeing it go around a lot in the wake of the Mueller report.
Robert Mueller, who helped the Bush administration deceive the world about WMD in Iraq, has claimed that the GRU was the source of WikiLeaks’ 2016 drops, and claimed in his report that WikiLeaks deceived its audience by implying that its source was the murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich. This claim is unsubstantiated because, as we discussed in Smear 4, the public has not seen a shred of evidence proving who was or was not WikiLeaks’ source, so there’s no way to know there was any deception happening there. We’ve never seen any hard proof, nor indeed anything besides official narrative, connecting the Russian government to Guccifer 2.0 and Guccifer 2.0 to WikiLeaks, and Daniel Lazare for Consortium News documents that there are in fact some major plot holes in Mueller’s timeline. Longtime Assange friend and WikiLeaks ally Craig Murray maintains that he knows the source of the DNC Leaks and Podesta Emails were two different Americans, not Russians, and hints that one of them was a DNC insider. There is exactly as much publicly available evidence for Murray’s claim as there is for Mueller’s.
Mainstream media has been blaring day after day for years that it is an absolute known fact that the Russian government was WikiLeaks’ source, and the only reason people scoff and roll their eyes at anyone who makes the indisputably factual claim that we’ve seen no evidence for this is because the illusory truth effect causes the human brain to mistake repetition for fact.
The smear is that Assange knew his source was actually the Russian government, and he implied it was Seth Rich to throw people off the scent. Mueller asserted that something happened, and it’s interpreted as hard fact instead of assertion. There’s no evidence for any of this, and there’s no reason to go believing the WMD guy on faith about a narrative which incriminates yet another government which refuses to obey the dictates of the US empire
Debunking All The Assange Smears”.
nan said:
In Caitlen Johnstone's "Debunking All The Assange Smears" that I posted earlier, this is #27.
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/assange-smear-27-he-lied-about-seth-rich-21c6999a2776
Don't care about the spin. What Assange did and said is a fact.
Well it appears Sweden is once again interested in seeing Mr Assange re: the rape charge, which needs to be made by some time in 2020. If both the US and Sweden want him, England must decide on the seriousness of the offence (computer intrusion v. person intrusion) in determining where to send him. Rape in Sweden, if proven, is punishable by life in prison so Assange may never appear in the US justice system. That's just one scenario. Another is that he is found not guilty in Sweden and sent on to US courts with the understanding that the death penalty would never be a factor. At least I think this is how it would play out.
dave said:
Well it appears Sweden is once again interested in seeing Mr Assange re: the rape charge, which needs to be made by some time in 2020. If both the US and Sweden want him, England must decide on the seriousness of the offence (computer intrusion v. person intrusion) in determining where to send him. Rape in Sweden, if proven, is punishable by life in prison so Assange may never appear in the US justice system. That's just one scenario. Another is that he is found not guilty in Sweden and sent on to US courts with the understanding that the death penalty would never be a factor. At least I think this is how it would play out.
Time for debunking the Assange smears #2: "He's a Rapist"
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/assange-smear-2-hes-a-rapist-df9effd8b49d
This entry is long with videos and links. Below is just a small introductory part:
The strongest, simplest and most obvious argument against the “rapist” smear is that it’s an unproven allegation which Assange has always denied, and you’d have to be out of your mind to believe a completely unproven allegation about a known target of US intelligence agencies. It’s just as stupid as believing unproven claims about governments targeted for US regime change, like believing Saddam had WMD. The fact of the matter is that if you go up against America’s opaque and unaccountable government agencies, they have “six ways from Sunday of getting back at you,” to quote from the Gospel of Schumer.
I know we’ve all been told that we have to unquestioningly believe all women who say they’ve been raped, and as a general practice it’s a good idea to tear away our society’s patriarchal habit of dismissing anyone who says they’ve been raped. But as soon as you make that into a hard, rigid rule that can’t have any room for questioning the agendas of the powerful, you can be one hundred percent certain that the powerful will begin using that rule to manipulate us.
The people aggressively promoting the “rapist” narrative and saying “You have to believe women!” do not care about rape victims, any more than all the Hillary supporters saying “Bernie says you have to behave!” after the 2016 convention cared about Bernie. Earlier this month I had my Twitter privileges suspended when I went off on a virulent Assange hater who said I was lying about having survived multiple rapes myself, while continuing to bleat his “believe all women” schtick. The political/media class of the western empire, which never hesitates to support the violent toppling of sovereign governments and all the death, destruction, chaos, terrorism, suffering, and, yes, rape which necessarily comes along with those actions, does not care about rape victims in Sweden.
You could spend days combing through all the articles that have been written about the details of the Swedish preliminary investigation, but let me try to sum it up as concisely as possible:
Laws about consent and rape are significantly different in Sweden from most other societies. Assange had consensual sex with two women, “SW” and “AA” in Sweden in August 2010. SW and AA were acquainted with each other and texted about their encounters and, after learning about some uncomfortable sexual experiences SW said she’d had with Assange, AA convinced SW to go to the police together to compel Assange to take an AIDS test. AA took her to see her friend and political ally who was also a police officer. SW said one of the times Assange had initiated sex with her happened while she was “half-asleep” (legally and literally very different from asleep) and without a condom, and AA said Assange had deliberately damaged his condom before using it. SW freaked out when she learned the police wanted to charge Assange with rape for the half-asleep incident, and refused to sign any legal documents saying that he had raped her. She sent a text that she “did not want to put any charges against JA but the police wanted to get a grip on him,” and said she had been “railroaded by police and others around her.” AA went along with the process.
sbenois said:
Let's permit a court of law decide that rather than Jimmy Dore.
Where did JImmy Dore provide a legal decision?
Here's the article re: Sweden
If found guilty not only will he have to serve life in prison, but he'll have to think up new names for Ikea furniture items and parts daily.
dave said:
Here's the article re: Sweden
https://www.thelocal.se/20190411/swedish-prosecutor-urged-to-reopen-rape-investigation-into-julian-assange
If found guilty not only will he have to serve life in prison, but he'll have to think up new names for Ikea furniture items and parts daily.
sbenois said:
Life in prison. That's a lot of feces on the walls.
Assange Smear 11: “He put poop on the walls! Poop poop poopie!”
Of all the Assange smears I’ve encountered, I think this one best epitomizes the entire overarching establishment narrative churn on the subject. Like the rest of the smear campaign, it’s a completely unsubstantiated claim designed not to advance a logical argument about the current facts of Assange’s situation but to provoke disgust and revulsion towards him, so that when you think of Julian Assange you don’t think about press freedoms and government transparency, you think about poo. In a way it’s actually more honest than some of the other smears, just because it’s so obvious about what it is and what it’s trying to do.
People who advance this smear are literally always acting in very bad faith. As of this writing I’ve never even bothered trying to engage anyone in debate on the matter, because they’re too gross and too internally tormented to make interacting with them anything but unpleasant, so I have no advice to give on how to argue with such creatures. Personally I just block them.
There is no reason to believe that this smear is true (his lawyer flatly denies it), and the Ecuadorian government would have had every incentive to lie in order to try and justify its revocation of asylum which WikiLeaks says is “in violation of international law.” However, it’s worth taking a minute to consider the fact that if this smear were true, the people running around mocking Assange and making poop jokes about him on social media today would be even more depraved. Because what would it mean if Assange really were spreading feces on the wall? It would mean that he’d cracked under the pressure of his embassy imprisonment and lost his mind. Which would mean that these people are running around mocking a man who’s been driven to psychosis by his abusive circumstances. Which would be despicable.
Nan made a funny! Assange's poop on the walls is smear#11!
Nice one Nan.
dave said:
Here's the article re: Sweden
https://www.thelocal.se/20190411/swedish-prosecutor-urged-to-reopen-rape-investigation-into-julian-assange
If found guilty not only will he have to serve life in prison, but he'll have to think up new names for Ikea furniture items and parts daily.
Related to that - forcing prisoners to interpret and follow Ikea assembly instructions is prohibited under the Geneva Conventions.
Interview with WikiLeaks-in-Chief.
'Everything Was Done To Make Julian Assange's Life Miserable'
In his first interview since Julian Assange's arrest, WikiLeaks Editor-in-Chief Kristinn Hrafnsson discusses the "disgraceful" detention of the platform's founder, criticism of its links to Russia and what he describes as the "appalling" treatment of Chelsea Manning.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
He can't lie under oath. And we don't know unless we ask him. Seems it would have been logical to interview him, don't you think?