Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been arrested

[notimp]

Oh so that's why you're bashing Americans and telling us to go fuck ourselves, makes sense to me. How very kind.

Eff the US, not eff americans. Fine difference.
And one I insist on you noticing, while slandering me in a public place.

If you need more information on why "eff the US" you can watch the Chomsky videos of Democracy now - released today: https://www.youtube.com/user/democracynow/videos

There is no hidden meaning to it - simply go by what Chomsky teaches you about different foreign policy agendas of the US over time - then look at the double standards they apply, and you understand the sentiment.

Also whats that's supposed to mean? There is no hidden reveal on a motive to speak bad about the US anywhere in the thread. In fact I slander russia instead.

What I can't take is stupidity though. And the byline, that when we talk about Assange, we should talk about Trump and Hillary emails. You realize, that he already was stuck at an embassy - when that happened? Because the US already had an international warrant out for his person at that time? The same one under which grounds he is now being held for more than 24 hours?

I mean, if people would like to pin the most celebrity filled stories onto his legacy - and talk only about those, at least get the timeline straight. Of when certain things happened.

"He did release the Clinton emails though" (probably hacked by russians), yes - and this isnt why the US has a warrant out for his name.

Thats because the "allegedly helped Manning "hack" himself into a system that Manning already had access to" (only lawyers know how such a thing is possible), we know about this also only because of a misshap, because the US wanted to keep the fact hidden, that he was hiding at an embassy because of a reason - and kept it under wraps for actually a few years. (Afair)

edit: It was slightly different, read up on it on his wiki bio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange). The fact, that the US were preparing charges was officially revealed in 2017, when he already had been in the embassy for five years.

Before that they tried to make everyone think, that he was hiding from swedish law, because of potential investigations of him being a sex offender. That was fun. When you had to tell people, that thats not why a country like Ecuador would grant a person political asylum. But people always find it strangely hard to get the facts straight, when there is PR spin involved. Although in this case, it isnt even that hard.

Just dont buy lines, that he was arrested because he played soccer in embassy corridors, and that he stole the US election. And you are good. Doesnt seem that high effort. Of course if you are triggered, by the notion that someone might not like the political behavior of the US - some of the time, its that much harder for you...

Oh, do I hear 'merica the beautiful playing in the background? Makes me want to bomb another middle eastern country, just because I feel so patriotic. Maybe shoot a Reuters reporter, and then hide this fact from the world and his family.

 

[Xzi]

You can thank the democrats of the Clinton era, though their reason for objecting to such investigation reports being made public is obviously correct ... the reason they didn't want Starr's report public is exactly the reason they now want Mueller's report to be public.

Nobody is asking for the full report to be made public, there's no issue with redacting for the public. Think about it though: you're advocating for the subject of the investigation to be the only one who sees the full contents of the report. Other than his lackey, anyway. All that would do is cement the public's perception of a cover-up.

Congress has a right to grand jury info. If they release or leak any of it, they face criminal charges themselves, but it's not up to Barr to decide which info they can "handle" seeing. First Iran-Contra, and now Trump-Russia, Barr is building quite the reputation for being the go-to corruption cover-up guy.

 

[Hanafuda]

Nobody is asking for the full report to be made public

Que?

The House of Representatives voted for it to be public. Schumer tried to squeak/sneak it through the Senate without a roll call vote on Monday.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...rt-call-public-release-mueller-report-n987261

Mostly symbolic pissing in the wind, since it's not up to them. As I mentioned before and as explained in that Atlantic article I linked, the decision of what gets released and in what form belongs to the AG.

Think about it though: you're advocating for the subject of the investigation to be the only one who sees the full contents of the report.p

I'm not advocating anything. I'm just disputing your insistence that Congress "has the right" to a full, unredacted report.

Congress has a right to grand jury info.

At best, I would expect that Barr would agree to allowing the Gang of Eight access to that material. But even that would be problematic, since Schiff leaks like a sieve.

 

[Xzi]

Que?

The House of Representatives voted for it to be public. Schumer tried to squeak/sneak it through the Senate without a roll call vote on Monday.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...rt-call-public-release-mueller-report-n987261

Mostly symbolic pissing in the wind, since it's not up to them. As I mentioned before and as explained in that Atlantic article I linked, the decision of what gets released and in what form belongs to the AG.

Okay? As I said, nobody is asking for the full, unredacted report to be made public, just some version of the report.

I'm not advocating anything. I'm just disputing your insistence that Congress "has the right" to a full, unredacted report.

Congress has the power to subpoena the full report whether Barr ultimately chooses to give it to them or not. The longer he chooses to draw this out, the more guilty it makes Trump look. So I don't really care if he wants to spend the majority of his time gaslighting everyone.

At best, I would expect that Barr would agree to allowing the Gang of Eight access to that material. But even that would be problematic, since Schiff leaks like a sieve.

Barr has much bigger issues than Schiff, given that members of Mueller's team have personally contradicted his summary. I doubt they'll stand by quietly if Barr continues pushing his luck with lies.

 

[Hanafuda]

Barr has much bigger issues than Schiff, given that members of Mueller's team have personally contradicted his summary. I doubt they'll stand by quietly if Barr continues pushing his luck with lies.

Any member of Mueller's team who has commented (they're almost all Democrats who are partisan enough that they've made contributions to candidates, you know that right?) has already broken the special counsel rules. I'm sure Mueller is thrilled about that. Rosenstein came out today with a statement that Barr's take on the report is correct. I do think Mueller would've already said something if he thought it wasn't.

But again, I just disagree that ALL of Congress (all 535 of them) have a right to the full, unredacted report.

 

[Xzi]

Any member of Mueller's team who has commented (they're almost all Democrats who are partisan enough that they've made contributions to candidates, you know that right?) has already broken the special counsel rules.

The investigation is complete, they aren't governed by those same rules any longer. Thus the reason they won't be facing any repercussions for speaking out.

But again, I just disagree that ALL of Congress (all 535 of them) have a right to the full, unredacted report.

Barr accidentally admitted yesterday that his excuse for not giving them the unredacted report was bunk. The precedent is in favor of Congress, and they'll subpoena if they have to. It's just another instance of this adminstration believing they're above precedent and the law.

 

[Hanafuda]

Barr accidentally admitted yesterday that his excuse for not giving them the unredacted report was bunk. The precedent is in favor of Congress, and they'll subpoena if they have to. It's just another instance of this adminstration believing they're above precedent and the law.

You mean like the subpoenas Holder ignored?

 

[Xzi]

You mean like the subpoenas Holder ignored?

Republicans decided against holding Holder in contempt, which is the only way to give a subpoena real teeth. Ultimately they decided they didn't care much about the 'Fast and Furious' scandal because it began under GWB, so it wasn't going to do the political damage to Obama that Republicans were hoping for.

 

[Hanafuda]

Republicans decided against holding Holder in contempt, which is the only way to give a subpoena real teeth.

Actually it was an Obama-appointed federal judge who declined to hold AG Holder in contempt. Obama appointed judge refusing to force Obama's AG to comply with a Congressional subpoena ... how would you be reacting to that sentence if the word "Obama" was replaced with "Trump?" It could happen I guess.

https://www.politico.com/blogs/unde...ge-declines-to-hold-holder-in-contempt-196650

 

[Xzi]

Actually it was an Obama-appointed federal judge who declined to hold AG Holder in contempt. Obama appointed judge refusing to force Obama's AG to comply with a Congressional subpoena ... how would you be reacting to that sentence if the word "Obama" was replaced with "Trump?" It could happen I guess.

https://www.politico.com/blogs/unde...ge-declines-to-hold-holder-in-contempt-196650

That'd be a best-case scenario actually since the judge still ordered the documents to be turned over. If Congress has to subpoena the Mueller report, I'm expecting that battle to go to the Supreme Court, where boof-boy Kavanaugh and stolen-seat Gorsuch have things stacked in Trump's favor. If they decide against holding Barr in contempt, and against releasing the unredacted report to Congress, the rule of law is essentially dead in this country, and the president is a king for all intents and purposes. Time to start throwing tea into harbors again at that point.

 

[Hanafuda]

That'd be a best-case scenario actually since the judge still ordered the documents to be turned over.

She only ordered 'non-privileged' documents to be turned over. And the AG got to determine what was privileged before Congress could see. That's what democrats are currently calling a cover-up.

 

[Xzi]

She only ordered 'non-privileged' documents to be turned over. And the AG got to determine what was privileged before Congress could see. That's what democrats are currently calling a cover-up.

Right, because the results of every other special/independent investigation were made available in their entirety to Congress. That's what the precedent is. The case you're referencing wasn't quite the same thing. It was a demand for documents to be turned over before there was any investigation.

 

[notimp]

Fascinating what the US want to extradite people for:

Legal experts who spoke with CyberScoop said Assange didn’t actually have to directly hack anything to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), which was enacted in 1984 to prohibit unauthorized access to a computer system. Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, in March 2010 was engaged in a conspiracy with former U.S. Army soldier Chelsea Manning to access and publish classified material stolen from U.S. government networks, the indictment says.

By actively participating in the collection of data from a protected government network, rather than receiving it from a source after the collection — as journalists typically do — Assange is legally liable, according to prosecutors.

After Manning provided Assange with “hundreds of thousands” of government files, Assange “agreed to assist” Manning find more material by unlocking a password that was protected in a hash value, according to the Department of Justice. The hashing process involves scrambling a password into a string of other characters, though hackers in the past have demonstrated ways to defeat that protection.

Two days after Manning provided “part of a password” to Assange, the WikiLeaks founder “indicated that he had been trying to crack the password by stating that he had ‘no luck so far,’” the indictment states. There is no suggestion in the indictment Assange successfully cracked the hashed password.

https://www.cyberscoop.com/julian-assange-arrested-indictment/

 

[SG854]

Remember these criminal charges against Assange has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do about the 2016 election. It's not about Russia, nothing to do with the Podesta Emails, or Hilary Clinton, the DNC Server, Donna Brazile, the Dossier, or Trump, absolutely nothing. The criminal charges against Assange has to do with War Crimes the U.S. has committed. That Chelsea Manning exposed through Wikileaks. It has to do crimes exposed in 2010.

Manning saw documents and videos of the corrupt crimes committed, that a U.S. helicopter was shooting at innocent civilians, children, and journalists, laughing while doing it, and did a double tap where they came back to shoot at the people and the red cross that tried to help the innocent civilians were shot at. Absolute war crimes. Manning also provided evidence that the U.S. tortured, bribed, lied, in the wars in the Middle East, and that she actually had a conscience and decided to expose all this stuff. And people are stupid enough, just plain god damn stupid, to support and cheer the criminal charges against Assange, because he supposedly broke some dumbass law that is used to censor this corruption they were doing. And they are trying to silence whistle blowers.

People are actually saying, which I can't believe, well they broke the law and two wrongs don't make a right. Well fuck the law. So what was Manning suppose to do? Not expose this stuff? Just stay quite on the war crimes the U.S. was committing and not let the Americans know about it? What the Fuck is the matter with people. How can they support these criminal charges.

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-martyrdom-of-julian-assange/

 

[Xzi]

Remember these criminal charges against Assange has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do about the 2016 election.

We have no idea what prosecutors are planning to charge him with until he's extradited, and that may not happen at all. I would be quite interested to see how Assange answers questions about his communications with Roger Stone, given that Stone is still currently being investigated.

 

[blahblah]

Give him the death penalty.

 

[Subtle Demise]

Give him the death penalty.

For?

 

[Deleted User]

Liberals worshiped him when he was anti-establishment, and turned on him when he sold out to the establishment of Russia and other countries. That's how liberals tend to work. Assange became what Wikileaks was created to combat: a corrupt, self-serving individual with more money and influence than he knew how to handle.

Isn't Trump anti establishment? Wasn't that his whole angle?

 

[Xzi]

Isn't Trump anti establishment? Wasn't that his whole angle?

He's an establishment neo-con that plays an anti-establishment nationalist on TV. Trump was born rich as an East-coast elite, he was literally part of the establishment from day one.

 

[SG854]

Isn't Trump anti establishment? Wasn't that his whole angle?

His whole shtick was I was part of the establishment so I know how the establishment works and I can call out what they do. I have experience in it basically.
What the Trump administration doing to Assange is trashy. Not even the Obama administration went after Assange like this. It sets bad precedent for journalists.

We have no idea what prosecutors are planning to charge him with until he's extradited, and that may not happen at all. I would be quite interested to see how Assange answers questions about his communications with Roger Stone, given that Stone is still currently being investigated.

Stone was also not charged with any involvement with hacking or conspiracy with Wikileaks as of 3 days ago the article was published. Wikileaks denies, and Assange denies meeting with Stone.


This is the U.S. court documents on Stone's Mueller indictments. There was no back channel. Stone was just claiming that for attention before he got indicted. It shows evidence of no back channel with Wikileaks. And remember not one single American, not a single one, was charged with Russia Collusion in the Mueller indictments. That includes Stone.

1. On or about December 24, 2017, Person 2 texted STONE, “I met [the head of Organization 1] for frst time this yea[r] sept 7 . . . docs prove that. . . . You should be honest w fbi . . . there was no back channel . . . be honest.” STONE replied approximately two minutes later, “I’m not talking to the FBI and if your smart you won’t either.”

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...tment/d34c762c3e142f844c2b/optimized/full.pdf



This article also mentions Credico with his suppose back channel.
https://www.newsweek.com/wikileaks-...e-says-mueller-indictment-braggadocio-1305370



This is an interview with Credico and should clear up the suppose back channel.