Julian Assange Being Turned over to UK????
DaveSchmidt said:
jamie said:The full exchange between McGovern and Clapper begins around 28:40 and ends just after 33:00.
(this could have been detailed in Clapper's response - had anyone cared to share it)
https://carnegieendowment.org/2018/11/13/intelligence-brief-with-james-clapper-event-7007
McGovern's article published on November 14th, video posted on Youtube on November 16th.
South_Mountaineer said:
paulsurovell said:That's the Trumpist defense. Disregard any different factors, but simplify it so much that it allows for your "argument" to have an appeal for you.
But then, any position could be hedged in a similar fashion by raising a conflicting hypothetical, regardless of its connection to reality. For instance, "I believe Obama was born in Hawaii unless it is proven that the hospital conspired to falsify his birth certificate."
One of your dumbest "Trumpian" slurs yet.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/28/politics/donald-trump-barack-obama-birth-certificate-nyt/index.html
dave23 said:
nan said: I don't think they are, but rather than spend lots of time arguing against anti-Assange propaganda, am just reminding you of the most important concept here--Freedom of the Press. That is the big deal here you must recognize.Yes, I've recognized it many times here. I also recognize that he's a scumbag (an anti-Semite who timed the release of the stolen Democratic emails to steal focus from Trump's grab 'em audiotapes and texted about preferring Trump to Clinton) who may have committed real crimes unrelated to the emails.
None of that is proven and could just be a smear campaign. He is not allowed to speak now and defend himself.
nan said:
dave23 said:None of that is proven and could just be a smear campaign. He is not allowed to speak now and defend himself.
Yes, I've recognized it many times here. I also recognize that he's a scumbag (an anti-Semite who timed the release of the stolen Democratic emails to steal focus from Trump's grab 'em audiotapes and texted about preferring Trump to Clinton) who may have committed real crimes unrelated to the emails.
Ah, so the texts are fake? And the email dump timing was just a coincidence?
dave23 said:
nan said:Ah, so the texts are fake? And the email dump timing was just a coincidence?
dave23 said:None of that is proven and could just be a smear campaign. He is not allowed to speak now and defend himself.
Yes, I've recognized it many times here. I also recognize that he's a scumbag (an anti-Semite who timed the release of the stolen Democratic emails to steal focus from Trump's grab 'em audiotapes and texted about preferring Trump to Clinton) who may have committed real crimes unrelated to the emails.
Probably not as they appear--when people challenge those in power the smear campaigns are usually huge. I've seen it happen enough to be suspect. So can't say, but I'm glad we got those email dumps. I'm glad we got the information on what our government is doing in secret and lying to us about. I'm hoping Assange does not get turned over to the US.
Like Trump says- "what you’re seeing and what you're reading is not what’s happening".
jamie said:
Like Trump says- "what you’re seeing and what you're reading is not what’s happening".
Yes, but I don't like what Trump says, and evidently, when it comes to Julian Assange, you do.
paulsurovell said:Well I think you support Assange's right to publish stolen documents and there's no reason to believe that he had anything to do with the thefts.
So a logical interpretation of your position could be: "I oppose the prosecution of Assange for publishing stolen documents unless it is proven that he was involved in the theft of those documents."
A better interpretation, I think, can be gleaned from Aaron Maté’s tweet, which you liked, about the Manafort news: “I suggest waiting to see what Mueller accuses him of actually lying about, & his evidence.”
Technical report shows Russian hacking began hours after #WikiLeaks mentioned a reward for Clinton info in March 2016
"Even if investigators found no information to reinforce the timing connection (such as an actual payment), it raises ethical questions in the debate surrounding WikiLeaks. In the past, the organization’s response to the question has focused on veracity of materials, but ignored the implications of creating incentives to find and submit private or secret materials. In this instance, the result is a series of events the timing of which suggest that WikiLeaks’ tweet may have been the inspiration for beginning the next phase of Russia’s cyberwar operations.
While contentious, the ethical questions are far from one-sided. A New York Timesop-ed addressed the situation in 2015 with cautious praise, calling it “a flawed solution to a very real problem.” The op-ed also warned that “it seems probable that WikiLeaks will entice someone into breaking the law.” “The idea of offering a cash incentive for the leaking of confidential documents is anathema. But WikiLeaks, like other media disrupters [sic], leaves us no choice but to reconsider this prohibition.” Despite its cautiously high praise, the op-ed provides a nuanced glimpse of a debate that’s sure to be renewed by the timing of WikiLeaks’ tweet and the onset of Russian cyber attacks targeting Hillary Clinton."
As it's bound to come up, I would suggest taking today's Manafort story in the Guardian with some skepticism.
dave23 said:
As it's bound to come up, I would suggest taking today's Manafort story in the Guardian with some skepticism.
https://www.gofundme.com/wikileaks-suing-the-guardian-over-manafort-story
Excellent article on the Guardian's Manafort article:
It Is Possible Paul Manafort Visited Julian Assange. If True, There Should Be Ample Video and Other Evidence Showing This.
Why does Greenwald waste his time - only the Guardian has made these claims? So he’s basically reporting the obvious.
paulsurovell said:
Excellent article on the Guardian's Manafort article:
It Is Possible Paul Manafort Visited Julian Assange. If True, There Should Be Ample Video and Other Evidence Showing This.
The author of the claim, Luke Harding, gave an eyeball rolling interview with The Real News Network's Aron Mate back when he was pushing his best-selling "Collusion" book. He presented himself as an expert on "Trump's supposed Russian collusion," but could not provide a shred of evidence. I think that guy just like to get media attention.
jamie said:
Why does Greenwald waste his time - only the Guardian has made these claims? So he’s basically reporting the obvious.
Because, if you read the article, claims like this are made because they know they will be spread, true or not. It has gone predictably viral, especially among the anti-Assange crowd, and needs to be challenged.
Maybe he can come up with some Area 51 e-mails to nan to distract the MSM?
Latest Assange news and commentary:
Judge Delays Decision Whether to Unseal Assange Criminal Complaint
A hearing was held in Alexandria, Virginia on Tuesday on a motion to make public the sealed U.S. charges against Julian Assange. Joe Lauria, editor of Consortium News, was in the courtroom and filed this report.
UK and Ecuador Collude to Deliver Julian Assange to US Authorities
Rally to Support Julian Assange — Even If You Hate Him: Former New York Times Chief Lawyer
Why the Justice Department’s case against Assange sets an incredibly dangerous precedent
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50673.htm
paulsurovell said:
dave23 said:https://www.gofundme.com/wikileaks-suing-the-guardian-over-manafort-story
As it's bound to come up, I would suggest taking today's Manafort story in the Guardian with some skepticism.
24k raised already. I’m in the wrong business.
nan said:
Latest Assange news and commentary:
Judge Delays Decision Whether to Unseal Assange Criminal Complaint
A hearing was held in Alexandria, Virginia on Tuesday on a motion to make public the sealed U.S. charges against Julian Assange. Joe Lauria, editor of Consortium News, was in the courtroom and filed this report.
https://consortiumnews.com/2018/11/27/judge-delays-decision-whether-to-unseal-assange-criminal-complaint/
UK and Ecuador Collude to Deliver Julian Assange to US Authorities
https://opensociet.org/2018/11/27/uk-and-ecuador-collude-to-deliver-julian-assange-to-us-authorities/
Rally to Support Julian Assange — Even If You Hate Him: Former New York Times Chief Lawyer
Why the Justice Department’s case against Assange sets an incredibly dangerous precedent
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50673.htm
Nan,
Thanks for these great links, especially the James Goodale interview. A clarion call to defend the First Amendment. Those who warn of Trump's threat to a free press need to understand that this is his legal route to carrying out that threat.
ridski said:
24k raised already. I’m in the wrong business.
Hey, everyone: A credible source has told me that ridski met with Julian Assange three times at the Ecuadoran Embassy in London.
Your move.
DaveSchmidt said:
ridski said:Hey, everyone: A credible source has told me that ridski met with Julian Assange three times at the Ecuadoran Embassy in London.
24k raised already. I’m in the wrong business.
Your move.
I said no such thing.
DaveSchmidt said:
dave23 said:I said credible.
I said no such thing.
Valid.
dave23 said:
DaveSchmidt said:Valid.
dave23 said:I said credible.
I said no such thing.
I only reveal my peregrinations and assignations to the most incredible of sources.
It was Manafort disguised as Ridski. That's why there's no video evidence of Manafort being there.
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
Rentals
-
Huge Brand New construction Apartment in 2 family home with 4 bedrooms 3 bathrooms
4 Bd | 3Full Ba
$4,500
Well I think you support Assange's right to publish stolen documents and there's no reason to believe that he had anything to do with the thefts.
So a logical interpretation of your position could be: "I oppose the prosecution of Assange for publishing stolen documents unless it is proven that he was involved in the theft of those documents."