dazed
Based
Posts: 2,652
Likes: 1,819
|
Post by dazed on Apr 11, 2019 19:35:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Apr 11, 2019 23:16:40 GMT
I used to respect him, then he leaked reports that put peoples' lives in danger and started editorializing his leaks to suit his political agenda, so he can fuck right off.
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Apr 12, 2019 0:38:53 GMT
There's really nothing sad about this. He's a douche who escaped sexual assault charges and puts people's lives at risk to aid other governments.
Are we forgetting how he hosted a show in Russia and said he wouldn't reveal their secrets because they are so open? (obviously paraphrasing there, but you get the gist)
|
|
|
Post by Joaquim on Apr 12, 2019 2:26:19 GMT
Would be really cool if Trump pardons him.
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,652
Likes: 1,819
|
Post by dazed on Apr 12, 2019 14:41:49 GMT
I agree with people’s arguments about how leaking the DNC information rather than RNC information (if he would have even had it) in order to help get Trump elected (in hopes that things would get so shitty that a real leftist would get elected) was bullshit, but that doesn’t make this right at all. Releasing the DNC information was still the right thing to do.
This goes against the first amendment. This is a huge attack on the free press. This is a massive abuse of power. This sets a dangerous precedent because if other news outlets release information such as war crimes in regards to those in power, what stops the people in power from going after those outlets from releasing ‘classified information’.
Also, when someone goes after people in power, smear attacks tend to happen. So I would take the allegations with a grain of salt until (and if) more information is released. The sexual assault case is a poor argument anyways since that’s not what he’s getting arrested for here.
So yeah, this is really sad as it’s setting a standard of an issue that could become much larger in the future and is a massive attack on journalists. It’s sending a message to journalists to shut the fuck up, don’t question those in power, and if you do, there will be consequences.
Even Obama knew that not charging Assange was the right thing to do, as it would set a standard that would lead to further consequences.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Apr 12, 2019 16:31:22 GMT
I agree with people’s arguments about how leaking the DNC information rather than RNC information (if he would have even had it) in order to help get Trump elected (in hopes that things would get so shitty that a real leftist would get elected) was bullshit, but that doesn’t make this right at all. Releasing the DNC information was still the right thing to do. This goes against the first amendment. This is a huge attack on the free press. This is a massive abuse of power. This sets a dangerous precedent because if other news outlets release information such as war crimes in regards to those in power, what stops the people in power from going after those outlets from releasing ‘classified information’. Also, when someone goes after people in power, smear attacks tend to happen. So I would take the allegations with a grain of salt until (and if) more information is released. The sexual assault case is a poor argument anyways since that’s not what he’s getting arrested for here. So yeah, this is really sad as it’s setting a standard of an issue that could become much larger in the future and is a massive attack on journalists. It’s sending a message to journalists to shut the fuck up, don’t question those in power, and if you do, there will be consequences. Even Obama knew that not charging Assange was the right thing to do, as it would set a standard that would lead to further consequences. A few things I want to note: 1. Assange is not being charged for publishing Chelsea Manning's documents. He's being charged for trying to hack the U.S. government to retrieve more documents, a step no other journalist to my knowledge has ever taken. If he was merely charged for publishing, I'd be against his arrest, but I'm not gonna be a hypocrite and say I'm for hacking the government when it's Assange and against it when it's anyone else. 2. Assange didn't try to get Trump elected to get a real leftist in power (where the hell did that theory come from?). He wanted Trump elected because he's buddy-buddy with Russia, hence why he was also critical of the Panama Papers leak and Wikileaks does not leak information pertaining to the Russian government. 3. Assange's asylum was lifted because he was being a total fucking dick to everyone in the Ecuadorian embassy. Might be petty, but it's hard to have sympathy for a guy who can't even act right when he had a literal get out of jail free card.
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Apr 12, 2019 17:14:35 GMT
I agree with people’s arguments about how leaking the DNC information rather than RNC information (if he would have even had it) in order to help get Trump elected (in hopes that things would get so shitty that a real leftist would get elected) was bullshit, but that doesn’t make this right at all. Releasing the DNC information was still the right thing to do. This goes against the first amendment. This is a huge attack on the free press. This is a massive abuse of power. This sets a dangerous precedent because if other news outlets release information such as war crimes in regards to those in power, what stops the people in power from going after those outlets from releasing ‘classified information’. Also, when someone goes after people in power, smear attacks tend to happen. So I would take the allegations with a grain of salt until (and if) more information is released. The sexual assault case is a poor argument anyways since that’s not what he’s getting arrested for here. So yeah, this is really sad as it’s setting a standard of an issue that could become much larger in the future and is a massive attack on journalists. It’s sending a message to journalists to shut the fuck up, don’t question those in power, and if you do, there will be consequences. Even Obama knew that not charging Assange was the right thing to do, as it would set a standard that would lead to further consequences. A few things I want to note: 1. Assange is not being charged for publishing Chelsea Manning's documents. He's being charged for trying to hack the U.S. government to retrieve more documents, a step no other journalist to my knowledge has ever taken. If he was merely charged for publishing, I'd be against his arrest, but I'm not gonna be a hypocrite and say I'm for hacking the government when it's Assange and against it when it's anyone else. 2. Assange didn't try to get Trump elected to get a real leftist in power (where the hell did that theory come from?). He wanted Trump elected because he's buddy-buddy with Russia, hence why he was also critical of the Panama Papers leak and Wikileaks does not leak information pertaining to the Russian government. 3. Assange's asylum was lifted because he was being a total fucking dick to everyone in the Ecuadorian embassy. Might be petty, but it's hard to have sympathy for a guy who can't even act right when he had a literal get out of jail free card.I'm honestly just picturing him constantly badgering the higher ups for the wifi password.
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,652
Likes: 1,819
|
Post by dazed on Apr 12, 2019 22:08:14 GMT
I agree with people’s arguments about how leaking the DNC information rather than RNC information (if he would have even had it) in order to help get Trump elected (in hopes that things would get so shitty that a real leftist would get elected) was bullshit, but that doesn’t make this right at all. Releasing the DNC information was still the right thing to do. This goes against the first amendment. This is a huge attack on the free press. This is a massive abuse of power. This sets a dangerous precedent because if other news outlets release information such as war crimes in regards to those in power, what stops the people in power from going after those outlets from releasing ‘classified information’. Also, when someone goes after people in power, smear attacks tend to happen. So I would take the allegations with a grain of salt until (and if) more information is released. The sexual assault case is a poor argument anyways since that’s not what he’s getting arrested for here. So yeah, this is really sad as it’s setting a standard of an issue that could become much larger in the future and is a massive attack on journalists. It’s sending a message to journalists to shut the fuck up, don’t question those in power, and if you do, there will be consequences. Even Obama knew that not charging Assange was the right thing to do, as it would set a standard that would lead to further consequences. A few things I want to note: 1. Assange is not being charged for publishing Chelsea Manning's documents. He's being charged for trying to hack the U.S. government to retrieve more documents, a step no other journalist to my knowledge has ever taken. If he was merely charged for publishing, I'd be against his arrest, but I'm not gonna be a hypocrite and say I'm for hacking the government when it's Assange and against it when it's anyone else. 2. Assange didn't try to get Trump elected to get a real leftist in power (where the hell did that theory come from?). He wanted Trump elected because he's buddy-buddy with Russia, hence why he was also critical of the Panama Papers leak and Wikileaks does not leak information pertaining to the Russian government. 3. Assange's asylum was lifted because he was being a total fucking dick to everyone in the Ecuadorian embassy. Might be petty, but it's hard to have sympathy for a guy who can't even act right when he had a literal get out of jail free card. 1. The allegation of him trying to help crack that password has been well known for almost the last ten years (since it happened). Yet, Obama's Department of Justice (who werewell documented of being against whistleblowers) still decided not to charge him, as they knew this would set a dangerous precedent against journalism. It's a weak charge. Also, Glenn Greenwald (a journalist) said that journalists often do this with sources, as in encouraging the person to get more documents to publish. 2. There were private correspondence of his that were released that showed his reasoning for helping Trump was for the backlash theory. Hoping that the country would unite and elect someone from the left that would bring real change after the shit show that Trump creates. It was posted on the intercept site. 3. Lol. Do you think that the current president of Ecuador has nothing to do with lifting the asylum? The previous president of Ecuador even posted a tweet about how bullshit it was to allow this to happen: You clearly haven’t been following the Ecuador situation with Moreno and Assange since you’re stating the allegations of him being a dick as if they’re facts. For the sake of the argument though, let's say that he was being a 'total fucking dick'. Who cares? He can be the biggest asshole in the world, that doesn't mean he deserved what happened to him. His personality doesn't matter in this situation. Him (along with Manning) were wrongfully arrested for showing people what the government is doing with THEIR OWN tax-dollars. The people deserve to know what the government is doing with their money, especially when it's being used to kill journalists, first responders, and having people laugh about it. Quoting a tweet that I seen, on one hand, Chelsea Manning broke the law. On the other hand, that law is specifically designed to protect the powerful from consequences for their ruthless campaigns of systematic and deliberate violence across the globe. So it's impossible to take sides.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Apr 13, 2019 20:06:09 GMT
This goes against the first amendment. This is a huge attack on the free press. This is a massive abuse of power. This sets a dangerous precedent because if other news outlets release information such as war crimes in regards to those in power, what stops the people in power from going after those outlets from releasing ‘classified information’. Isn't he being charged with hacking the DoD or some government agency? If he was given the information and he released then I don't think he could be charged.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Apr 14, 2019 3:32:07 GMT
He's being charged with hacking so this has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. Publishing classified information is not usually a crime, the act of stealing it is. Not a very hard distinction to figure out. There's really nothing sad about this. He's a douche who escaped sexual assault charges and puts people's lives at risk to aid other governments. Are we forgetting how he hosted a show in Russia and said he wouldn't reveal their secrets because they are so open? (obviously paraphrasing there, but you get the gist)
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,712
Likes: 2,132
|
Post by cherry68 on Apr 14, 2019 5:59:53 GMT
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,652
Likes: 1,819
|
Post by dazed on Apr 14, 2019 6:12:06 GMT
He's being charged with hacking so this has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. Publishing classified information is not usually a crime, the act of stealing it is. Not a very hard distinction to figure out. There's really nothing sad about this. He's a douche who escaped sexual assault charges and puts people's lives at risk to aid other governments. Are we forgetting how he hosted a show in Russia and said he wouldn't reveal their secrets because they are so open? (obviously paraphrasing there, but you get the gist) I suggest you, along with other people in this thread to read this article as there seems to be a lot of misinformation being said. There seems to be a lot of naïveté to this whole situation, from what the allegations are to why he was kicked out of the asylum: theintercept.com/2019/04/11/the-u-s-governments-indictment-of-julian-assange-poses-grave-threats-to-press-freedoms/
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Apr 17, 2019 4:24:07 GMT
A few things I want to note: 1. Assange is not being charged for publishing Chelsea Manning's documents. He's being charged for trying to hack the U.S. government to retrieve more documents, a step no other journalist to my knowledge has ever taken. If he was merely charged for publishing, I'd be against his arrest, but I'm not gonna be a hypocrite and say I'm for hacking the government when it's Assange and against it when it's anyone else. 2. Assange didn't try to get Trump elected to get a real leftist in power (where the hell did that theory come from?). He wanted Trump elected because he's buddy-buddy with Russia, hence why he was also critical of the Panama Papers leak and Wikileaks does not leak information pertaining to the Russian government. 3. Assange's asylum was lifted because he was being a total fucking dick to everyone in the Ecuadorian embassy. Might be petty, but it's hard to have sympathy for a guy who can't even act right when he had a literal get out of jail free card. 1. The allegation of him trying to help crack that password has been well known for almost the last ten years (since it happened). Yet, Obama's Department of Justice (who werewell documented of being against whistleblowers) still decided not to charge him, as they knew this would set a dangerous precedent against journalism. It's a weak charge. Also, Glenn Greenwald (a journalist) said that journalists often do this with sources, as in encouraging the person to get more documents to publish. 2. There were private correspondence of his that were released that showed his reasoning for helping Trump was for the backlash theory. Hoping that the country would unite and elect someone from the left that would bring real change after the shit show that Trump creates. It was posted on the intercept site. 3. Lol. Do you think that the current president of Ecuador has nothing to do with lifting the asylum? The previous president of Ecuador even posted a tweet about how bullshit it was to allow this to happen:
You clearly haven’t been following the Ecuador situation with Moreno and Assange since you’re stating the allegations of him being a dick as if they’re facts. For the sake of the argument though, let's say that he was being a 'total fucking dick'. Who cares? He can be the biggest asshole in the world, that doesn't mean he deserved what happened to him. His personality doesn't matter in this situation. Him (along with Manning) were wrongfully arrested for showing people what the government is doing with THEIR OWN tax-dollars. The people deserve to know what the government is doing with their money, especially when it's being used to kill journalists, first responders, and having people laugh about it. Quoting a tweet that I seen, on one hand, Chelsea Manning broke the law. On the other hand, that law is specifically designed to protect the powerful from consequences for their ruthless campaigns of systematic and deliberate violence across the globe. So it's impossible to take sides. 1. The charges being old and well-known do not make them disappear, nor do the single talking points of Glenn Greenwald. Yes, journalists are encouraged to protect their sources and encourage them to disclose as much info as possible under that protection, but Assange did not simply do that. Manning asked for his assistance in breaking an encrypted password and he tried. Incitement for hacking is a bit beyond the realm of normalcy for typical journalism; though to be fair, it is standard practice for The Intercept which Greenwald is an editor of. 2. Link please? I'm curious about this. 3. Manning was wrongfully arrested because the Espionage Act of 1917 is a bullshit law meant to make the U.S. military and intelligence officers subservient. Assange is being rightfully arrested for acting as a hacker before acting as a journalist, with nothing to say of other crimes yet to be charged like extorting the U.S. government using stolen items - remember when he dangled Vault 8 to try to curry favor with Don Jr. - and crimes like that would not at all impede on press freedom because journalists aren't extortionists.
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,652
Likes: 1,819
|
Post by dazed on Apr 17, 2019 13:44:21 GMT
1. The allegation of him trying to help crack that password has been well known for almost the last ten years (since it happened). Yet, Obama's Department of Justice (who werewell documented of being against whistleblowers) still decided not to charge him, as they knew this would set a dangerous precedent against journalism. It's a weak charge. Also, Glenn Greenwald (a journalist) said that journalists often do this with sources, as in encouraging the person to get more documents to publish. 2. There were private correspondence of his that were released that showed his reasoning for helping Trump was for the backlash theory. Hoping that the country would unite and elect someone from the left that would bring real change after the shit show that Trump creates. It was posted on the intercept site. 3. Lol. Do you think that the current president of Ecuador has nothing to do with lifting the asylum? The previous president of Ecuador even posted a tweet about how bullshit it was to allow this to happen:
You clearly haven’t been following the Ecuador situation with Moreno and Assange since you’re stating the allegations of him being a dick as if they’re facts. For the sake of the argument though, let's say that he was being a 'total fucking dick'. Who cares? He can be the biggest asshole in the world, that doesn't mean he deserved what happened to him. His personality doesn't matter in this situation. Him (along with Manning) were wrongfully arrested for showing people what the government is doing with THEIR OWN tax-dollars. The people deserve to know what the government is doing with their money, especially when it's being used to kill journalists, first responders, and having people laugh about it. Quoting a tweet that I seen, on one hand, Chelsea Manning broke the law. On the other hand, that law is specifically designed to protect the powerful from consequences for their ruthless campaigns of systematic and deliberate violence across the globe. So it's impossible to take sides. 1. The charges being old and well-known do not make them disappear, nor do the single talking points of Glenn Greenwald. Yes, journalists are encouraged to protect their sources and encourage them to disclose as much info as possible under that protection, but Assange did not simply do that. Manning asked for his assistance in breaking an encrypted password and he tried. Incitement for hacking is a bit beyond the realm of normalcy for typical journalism; though to be fair, it is standard practice for The Intercept which Greenwald is an editor of. 2. Link please? I'm curious about this. 3. Manning was wrongfully arrested because the Espionage Act of 1917 is a bullshit law meant to make the U.S. military and intelligence officers subservient. Assange is being rightfully arrested for acting as a hacker before acting as a journalist, with nothing to say of other crimes yet to be charged like extorting the U.S. government using stolen items - remember when he dangled Vault 8 to try to curry favor with Don Jr. - and crimes like that would not at all impede on press freedom because journalists aren't extortionists. 1. I’m not saying that they shouldn’t disappear, I’m saying that when a department of justice had all of this information at their hands, they still decided not to go after Assange. Everyone is acting like this is some new information, when there hasn’t been any new information. Why wouldn’t the DOJ move forward with it? Why did Obama’s DOJ say that charging him would pose issues to freedom of press? Should there be an investigation done on the DOJ now? Why suddenly after Brown was assigned the case in 2017, this all happens? Again, if you read the article I stated above, it goes into detail about the allegations and why they are a threat to freedom of press. Even if Greenwald is an editor at intercept, he’s a true journalist that will know more about this issue and it’s consequences than others. 2. theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks-election-clinton-trump/(My bad, he wanted anyone in the GOP to win, which furthers my point though). 3. Again, Obama’s DOJ tried to arrest Assange such as aiding Manning in the theft of documents. They found no evidence. They also stated that they couldn’t prosecute him WITHOUT PROSECUTING OTHER JOURNALISTS AND US MEDIA www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/julian-assange-unlikely-to-face-us-charges-over-publishing-classified-documents/2013/11/25/dd27decc-55f1-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html?utm_term=.85a5379d204aWhat makes you think that now Trumps DOJ isn’t making up some false claim to justify the arrest of Assange. Sessions and Pompeo made arresting Assange a goal of theirs. Not exactly the most trustworthy people.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Apr 17, 2019 15:09:10 GMT
1. The charges being old and well-known do not make them disappear, nor do the single talking points of Glenn Greenwald. Yes, journalists are encouraged to protect their sources and encourage them to disclose as much info as possible under that protection, but Assange did not simply do that. Manning asked for his assistance in breaking an encrypted password and he tried. Incitement for hacking is a bit beyond the realm of normalcy for typical journalism; though to be fair, it is standard practice for The Intercept which Greenwald is an editor of. 2. Link please? I'm curious about this. 3. Manning was wrongfully arrested because the Espionage Act of 1917 is a bullshit law meant to make the U.S. military and intelligence officers subservient. Assange is being rightfully arrested for acting as a hacker before acting as a journalist, with nothing to say of other crimes yet to be charged like extorting the U.S. government using stolen items - remember when he dangled Vault 8 to try to curry favor with Don Jr. - and crimes like that would not at all impede on press freedom because journalists aren't extortionists. 1. I’m not saying that they shouldn’t disappear, I’m saying that when a department of justice had all of this information at their hands, they still decided not to go after Assange. Everyone is acting like this is some new information, when there hasn’t been any new information. Why wouldn’t the DOJ move forward with it? Why did Obama’s DOJ say that charging him would pose issues to freedom of press? Should there be an investigation done on the DOJ now? Why suddenly after Brown was assigned the case in 2017, this all happens? Again, if you read the article I stated above, it goes into detail about the allegations and why they are a threat to freedom of press. Even if Greenwald is an editor at intercept, he’s a true journalist that will know more about this issue and it’s consequences than others. 2. theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks-election-clinton-trump/(My bad, he wanted anyone in the GOP to win, which furthers my point though). 3. Again, Obama’s DOJ tried to arrest Assange such as aiding Manning in the theft of documents. They found no evidence. They also stated that they couldn’t prosecute him WITHOUT PROSECUTING OTHER JOURNALISTS AND US MEDIA www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/julian-assange-unlikely-to-face-us-charges-over-publishing-classified-documents/2013/11/25/dd27decc-55f1-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html?utm_term=.85a5379d204aWhat makes you think that now Trumps DOJ isn’t making up some false claim to justify the arrest of Assange. Sessions and Pompeo made arresting Assange a goal of theirs. Not exactly the most trustworthy people. 1. Obama's DOJ said charging him for publishing would pose issues to freedom of press, which I agree with. Why they did not pursue a charge for the attempt to crack the password? I don't know, perhaps the case was flimsy at the time and they threw it out when Assange went into Ecuadorian asylum in 2012. They had a stronger case for Manning given the Espionage Act (again, a bullshit law) and the government's familiarity with Manning and I'm sure much of the case built against Assange came out of their investigation into Manning and her case did not conclude until mid-2013, well after Assange had already sought asylum. Hell, the case they have against Assange now might still be weak, but it still fits probable cause (and again, this is to say nothing of other crimes like attempting to extort the federal government). 2. I don't see anything there about Wikileaks hoping that a leftist would then be elected in 2020 in the aftermath of a Trump presidency; rather, I see them saying a Trump presidency wouldn't be so bad since they think he'd face more resistance towards foreign intervention than Clinton would. Maybe, but seems a little shortsighted given all the other things a president can do to prime a populace towards future interventionism. Must also take into consideration this is Wikileaks privately chatting with supporters, they're going to save face and it's not like they're going to outright say "Russia's nice to us so that's why we want to support the party they favor;" hell, the extent to which they try to minimize Russia as if they're a bit player internationally only furthers my suspicion. 3. Again, the article you post is specifically about charging Assange on publishing the documents, not an incitement or attempt at hacking.
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,652
Likes: 1,819
|
Post by dazed on Apr 17, 2019 15:26:08 GMT
1. I’m not saying that they shouldn’t disappear, I’m saying that when a department of justice had all of this information at their hands, they still decided not to go after Assange. Everyone is acting like this is some new information, when there hasn’t been any new information. Why wouldn’t the DOJ move forward with it? Why did Obama’s DOJ say that charging him would pose issues to freedom of press? Should there be an investigation done on the DOJ now? Why suddenly after Brown was assigned the case in 2017, this all happens? Again, if you read the article I stated above, it goes into detail about the allegations and why they are a threat to freedom of press. Even if Greenwald is an editor at intercept, he’s a true journalist that will know more about this issue and it’s consequences than others. 2. theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks-election-clinton-trump/(My bad, he wanted anyone in the GOP to win, which furthers my point though). 3. Again, Obama’s DOJ tried to arrest Assange such as aiding Manning in the theft of documents. They found no evidence. They also stated that they couldn’t prosecute him WITHOUT PROSECUTING OTHER JOURNALISTS AND US MEDIA www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/julian-assange-unlikely-to-face-us-charges-over-publishing-classified-documents/2013/11/25/dd27decc-55f1-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html?utm_term=.85a5379d204aWhat makes you think that now Trumps DOJ isn’t making up some false claim to justify the arrest of Assange. Sessions and Pompeo made arresting Assange a goal of theirs. Not exactly the most trustworthy people. 1. Obama's DOJ said charging him for publishing would pose issues to freedom of press, which I agree with. Why they did not pursue a charge for the attempt to crack the password? I don't know, perhaps the case was flimsy at the time and they threw it out when Assange went into Ecuadorian asylum in 2012. They had a stronger case for Manning given the Espionage Act (again, a bullshit law) and the government's familiarity with Manning and I'm sure much of the case built against Assange came out of their investigation into Manning and her case did not conclude until mid-2013, well after Assange had already sought asylum. Hell, the case they have against Assange now might still be weak, but it still fits probable cause (and again, this is to say nothing of other crimes like attempting to extort the federal government). 2. I don't see anything there about Wikileaks hoping that a leftist would then be elected in 2020 in the aftermath of a Trump presidency; rather, I see them saying a Trump presidency wouldn't be so bad since they think he'd face more resistance towards foreign intervention than Clinton would. Maybe, but seems a little shortsighted given all the other things a president can do to prime a populace towards future interventionism. Must also take into consideration this is Wikileaks privately chatting with supporters, they're going to save face and it's not like they're going to outright say "Russia's nice to us so that's why we want to support the party they favor;" hell, the extent to which they try to minimize Russia as if they're a bit player internationally only furthers my suspicion. 3. Again, the article you post is specifically about charging Assange on publishing the documents, not an incitement or attempt at hacking. 1. They didn’t charge him for attempting to crack the password because they found no evidence. If the Obama’s DOJ could’ve found a way to charge Assange, they would’ve. They weren’t exactly the greatest with whistleblowers. The case is still very weak as there’s no new evidence to look at. Like I said, Pompeo and Sessions made it their mission to arrest Assange. Who aren’t exactly the two most trustworthy people. 2. I think wikileaks saying that dems+media+liberals forming a block is saying that it will help the country reunite together to help elect someone from the left. Seeing how he’s not a fan of Clinton and how he thinks her policies would be just as bad as a gop candidates (this is a whole different argument) yet wouldn’t have any pushback, I think that’s what he’s implying. Seeing that a corporate democrat lost to one of the gop candidates, why would the people go ahead and try and elect another corporate democrat. That’s the way I’m interpreting it at least. 3. Refer back to my first paragraph.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Apr 17, 2019 16:30:50 GMT
1. Obama's DOJ said charging him for publishing would pose issues to freedom of press, which I agree with. Why they did not pursue a charge for the attempt to crack the password? I don't know, perhaps the case was flimsy at the time and they threw it out when Assange went into Ecuadorian asylum in 2012. They had a stronger case for Manning given the Espionage Act (again, a bullshit law) and the government's familiarity with Manning and I'm sure much of the case built against Assange came out of their investigation into Manning and her case did not conclude until mid-2013, well after Assange had already sought asylum. Hell, the case they have against Assange now might still be weak, but it still fits probable cause (and again, this is to say nothing of other crimes like attempting to extort the federal government). 2. I don't see anything there about Wikileaks hoping that a leftist would then be elected in 2020 in the aftermath of a Trump presidency; rather, I see them saying a Trump presidency wouldn't be so bad since they think he'd face more resistance towards foreign intervention than Clinton would. Maybe, but seems a little shortsighted given all the other things a president can do to prime a populace towards future interventionism. Must also take into consideration this is Wikileaks privately chatting with supporters, they're going to save face and it's not like they're going to outright say "Russia's nice to us so that's why we want to support the party they favor;" hell, the extent to which they try to minimize Russia as if they're a bit player internationally only furthers my suspicion. 3. Again, the article you post is specifically about charging Assange on publishing the documents, not an incitement or attempt at hacking. 1. They didn’t charge him for attempting to crack the password because they found no evidence. If the Obama’s DOJ could’ve found a way to charge Assange, they would’ve. They weren’t exactly the greatest with whistleblowers. The case is still very weak as there’s no new evidence to look at. Like I said, Pompeo and Sessions made it their mission to arrest Assange. Who aren’t exactly the two most trustworthy people. 2. I think wikileaks saying that dems+media+liberals forming a block is saying that it will help the country reunite together to help elect someone from the left. Seeing how he’s not a fan of Clinton and how he thinks her policies would be just as bad as a gop candidates (this is a whole different argument) yet wouldn’t have any pushback, I think that’s what he’s implying. Seeing that a corporate democrat lost to one of the gop candidates, why would the people go ahead and try and elect another corporate democrat. That’s the way I’m interpreting it at least. 3. Refer back to my first paragraph. 1. And the current evidence used in the publicly released affidavit is circumstantial evidence of online chats between Manning and Assange, which meets criteria for probable cause but probably not enough to get a major conviction (the charge he's facing is fairly light given his status anyway). 2. That seems like a very loose interpretation to me, particularly since Wikileaks says nothing about how it would influence future elections and they set their sights only on foreign intervention in the immediate presidency. I think the "dems+media+liberals" thing was saying Trump would face a lot of public opposition towards military intervention and that's as far as they're looking. Why would the public go for a corporate Democrat after Clinton's loss? The same reason they have after any other election where a corporate Democrat lost. If anything, the idea that Wikileaks wanted a Republican to win so a leftist could win in 2020 would make their release of DNC info more suspicious since it implicates the entire opposition party (which, while full of issues, is still the one with some leftist subgroup) and not just Clinton.
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,652
Likes: 1,819
|
Post by dazed on Apr 17, 2019 18:29:58 GMT
1. They didn’t charge him for attempting to crack the password because they found no evidence. If the Obama’s DOJ could’ve found a way to charge Assange, they would’ve. They weren’t exactly the greatest with whistleblowers. The case is still very weak as there’s no new evidence to look at. Like I said, Pompeo and Sessions made it their mission to arrest Assange. Who aren’t exactly the two most trustworthy people. 2. I think wikileaks saying that dems+media+liberals forming a block is saying that it will help the country reunite together to help elect someone from the left. Seeing how he’s not a fan of Clinton and how he thinks her policies would be just as bad as a gop candidates (this is a whole different argument) yet wouldn’t have any pushback, I think that’s what he’s implying. Seeing that a corporate democrat lost to one of the gop candidates, why would the people go ahead and try and elect another corporate democrat. That’s the way I’m interpreting it at least. 3. Refer back to my first paragraph. 1. And the current evidence used in the publicly released affidavit is circumstantial evidence of online chats between Manning and Assange, which meets criteria for probable cause but probably not enough to get a major conviction (the charge he's facing is fairly light given his status anyway). 2. That seems like a very loose interpretation to me, particularly since Wikileaks says nothing about how it would influence future elections and they set their sights only on foreign intervention in the immediate presidency. I think the "dems+media+liberals" thing was saying Trump would face a lot of public opposition towards military intervention and that's as far as they're looking. Why would the public go for a corporate Democrat after Clinton's loss? The same reason they have after any other election where a corporate Democrat lost. If anything, the idea that Wikileaks wanted a Republican to win so a leftist could win in 2020 would make their release of DNC info more suspicious since it implicates the entire opposition party (which, while full of issues, is still the one with some leftist subgroup) and not just Clinton. I really don’t think it’s a loose interpretation. I keep reading over the messages, and I just see the backlash argument being stated (remember this was released in 2015, so it was talking about other gop candidates other than Trump). I really do think that was his intentions, but whether those intentions were right or wrong is a whole other argument. I might argue that they were wrong honestly. Also, the corporate democrats really began under Bill Clinton, it’s just now that we’re starting to see the pendulum swing and real leftists under the democratic wing become real contenders since America has been slow in their progressive views (look at gay marriage and them not even having universal healthcare). The American people are evidently becoming tired of corporate democrats and their policies, especially due to the 2016 election. I guess we’ll have to see how the rest of this arrest plays out and the kind of information that’s released on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 17, 2022 11:09:02 GMT
Will be extradited to the US - 14 days to appeal: Julian Assange's extradition to the United States was approved Friday by the British government, a decisive step toward the WikiLeaks founder facing trial on espionage charges.
“In this case, the U.K. courts have not found that it would be oppressive, unjust or an abuse of process to extradite Mr Assange," the Home Office spokesperson said. "Nor have they found that extradition would be incompatible with his human rights.” www.nbcnews.com/news/world/uk-approves-extradition-julian-assange-wikileaks-founder-america-rcna31080
|
|
|
Post by MsMovieStar on Jun 17, 2022 13:03:24 GMT
Oh honeys, is it true that he rubbed his excrement on the walls of the Ecuadorian embassy or was that just a smear campaign?
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Jun 17, 2022 20:29:07 GMT
Oh honeys, is it true that he rubbed his excrement on the walls of the Ecuadorian embassy or was that just a smear campaign? His dog stepped on a bee
|
|