Julian Assange Being Turned over to UK????

Looks like Julian Assange is losing his asylum in Ecuador, and being turned over to the UK.  This could be a very sad time for journalism and press freedom.  

Article in Intercept:  

Ecuador Will Imminently Withdraw Asylum for Julian Assange and Hand Him Over to the UK. What Comes Next?

Jimmy Dore video explaining what this might mean for journalism. Journalists who applaud this may later find their own reporting will be censored. 

Good.  Time for the sleazy little worm to face justice.

50-50 says that this story is B.S. Maybe Greenwald is correct, but it sounds pretty fishy. Why would the Prez of Ecuador have to use a clandestine meeting to work out the details of Assange's release? Doesn't he have a telephone?

drummerboy said:
50-50 says that this story is B.S. Maybe Greenwald is correct, but it sounds pretty fishy. Why would the Prez of Ecuador have to use a clandestine meeting to work out the details of Assange's release? Doesn't he have a telephone?

 Maybe he doesn't want the Russians to listen in and then give it to WikiLeaks.

There are very few of them nowadays, but this is a true win-win situation:

- either he rots away in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, OR,
- he gets handed over to the UK

No hurry either, both options are perfectly fine. 

From an article about conclusions to draw from the recent indictment of Russian officials -

[T]he role of Wikileaks in the Russian campaign is seemingly one of active collaborator. There can be no doubt that Wikileaks is the unnamed “Organization 1” of the indictment.  What is clear now, however—see paragraphs 47-49—is that Wikileaks actively solicited damaging information with the intent of harming the Clinton campaign and aiding Trump. The organization feared that the Democratic convention would solidify Hillary Clinton’s support among backers of Bernie Sanders: the indictment quotes Wikileaks as calculating that “we think Trump has only a 25% chance of winning against Hillary…so conflict between Bernie and Hillary is interesting.” And when Wikileaks did release the information provided, it chose not to disclose who the source of the information was—even though, by then, Guccifer 2.0 was widely suspected of being a Russian source. In the end, Wikileaks released 33 tranches of information with more than 500,000 documents. In light of this evidence, anyone who continues to take Wikileaks seriously as a source of information or as a journalism outlet is most unwise.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/further-reflections-russian-hacking-indictment

Julian Assange is a journalist hero and we should be grateful that he bravely provided critical information that our government (including the DNC) was hiding from us. He did this at great personal cost.  We need to know these things.  I can't believe there are people who don't think we should not know about DNC corruption and other revelations.  How are we supposed to fight to make things better?  Do you prefer a 1984 Big Brother environment?  His motivation does not matter (whatever it is and no one knows), but not standing up for him will hurt everyone's free speech in the long run:

Uncomfortable Questions in the Wake of Russia Indictment 2.0 and Trump’s Press Conference With Putin

https://www.lawfareblog.com/uncomfortable-questions-wake-russia-indictment-20-and-trumps-press-conference-putin

except:  " . . . There is a lot of anger against WikiLeaks and a lot of support for indicting Julian Assange and others related to WikiLeaks for their part in publishing the information stolen by the Russians.  If Mueller goes in this direction, he will need to be very careful not to indict Assange for something U.S. journalists do every day.  U.S. newspapers publish information stolen via digital means all the time.  They also openly solicit such information through SecureDrop portals.  Some will say that Assange and others at WikiLeaks can be prosecuted without threatening “real journalists” by charging a conspiracy to steal and share stolen information. I am not at all sure such an indictment wouldn’t apply to many American journalists who actively aid leakers of classified information.  And even if such a principle could be crafted that would nab WikiLeaks and spare the New York Times, a successful indictment and prosecution of WikiLeaks figures for conspiring to publish stolen information would certainly narrow protections for “mainstream” journalists and raise questions about SecureDrop and other interactions with sources who peddle stolen information. . ."

Nan,

Let's get a few basic things straight here.

• Assange is not a journalist. Leaking information is not journalism. 
• He is clearly a political actor with an agenda.
• He was a useful idiot used by Russia to hurt Hillary Clinton.
• If the net effect was to help Trump get elected, that is pretty much the opposite of being a "hero".

Also, the DNC leak was mostly a bunch of nothing, and merely revealed what one expects to be revealed when reading the private emails of a political organization.

If the DNC leak was so damaging, do us all a favor. Enlighten us and show us the most damaging email that was released. That should be easy - there was apparently so much corruption going on, you should have ten of these on the tip of your tongue.

(I'll say in advance that I do not expect to be impressed. But who knows. Surprise me.)

Also, I am not in favor of prosecuting him. I think he should just go to hell. He is not a helpful person. His choice of Trump over Hillary makes him decidedly stupid. Or evil. The eternal question.

drummerboy said:
Nan,
Let's get a few basic things straight here.

• Assange is not a journalist. Leaking information is not journalism. 
• He is clearly a political actor with an agenda.
• He was a useful idiot used by Russia to hurt Hillary Clinton.
• If the net effect was to help Trump get elected, that is pretty much the opposite of being a "hero".

Also, the DNC leak was mostly a bunch of nothing, and merely revealed what one expects to be revealed when reading the private emails of a political organization.


If the DNC leak was so damaging, do us all a favor. Enlighten us and show us the most damaging email that was released. That should be easy - there was apparently so much corruption going on, you should have ten of these on the tip of your tongue.
(I'll say in advance that I do not expect to be impressed. But who knows. Surprise me.)


Also, I am not in favor of prosecuting him. I think he should just go to hell. He is not a helpful person. His choice of Trump over Hillary makes him decidedly stupid. Or evil. The eternal question.

 Assange is a journalist, in the manner of Daniel Ellsburg.  Journalists are people who investigate things and publish the information they find.  Your assessment of him as a useful idiot for Russia is not based on factual evidence.  Ironically you say he hurt Hillary Clinton and then say the DNC leak was mostly a bunch of nothing.  If it was nothing, how could it have hurt her?   Cause it was not nothing

Meanwhile, a "journalist" at CNN (the Clinton News Network) told people that it was illegal to posses the files. And since you get all your news from CNN, I'm not surprised that you consider Wikileaks revelations minor.

nan said:

  Journalists are people who investigate things and publish the information they find.  

So - journalists should publish any and all emails that they acquired through hacking?  Interesting.  

I hope he is executed.

jamie said:

nan said:

  Journalists are people who investigate things and publish the information they find.  

So - journalists should publish any and all emails that they acquired through hacking?  Interesting.  

 No, but if the emails expose corruption they should be shared.  We need to know.  Do you really not want to know that the DNC secretly worked for only one candidate while pretending to be neutral?  Do you really not want to know about secret wars and surveillance?  These are the people who are supposed to working for us, not their donors or the deep state.  So many people going crazy about  Russia supposedly unfairly affecting the election, but don't want to know about the DNC doing the same. Don't worry, be happy?  How does this make sense?

drummerboy,

Here are some more Wikileaks revelations, based on Clinton's speech transcripts:

Celebrating closed primaries:

Controlling the media:

Getting the debate questions ahead of time:

Nan - would you still celebrate your hero Julian Assange if you knew he was only publishing the DNC emails and not the RNC emails - if he has both?

jamie said:
Nan - would you still celebrate your hero Julian Assange if you knew he was only publishing the DNC emails and not the RNC emails - if he has both?

 I don't care about his motives.  He did have some RNC stuff and did not publish it because it turned out it was already public information. But, anyway, it does not matter if you love or hate Julian Assange.  It is important to support him for the sake of journalism and a free press.  Convicting him sets a dangerous precedent for other journalists, including the ones you like.  

At least be honest about his selective publishing.

If convicting him means that someone shuts down Jimmy Dore, it's all good.

Greenwald is so biased at this point, I have a hard time believing most of what he writes.

He's in bed with Assange so who knows how much of that column is valid.

Assange is no Daniel Ellsberg.  Ellsberg had a through understanding of the material he leaked.  Indeed, he was one of the contributors to the Pentagon Papers.  Assange, on the other hand, simply puked out tens of thousands of purloined emails.  He didn’t know the scope or depth of their content in any significant way; he was simply trying to be disruptive.  In my opinion, Assange is an anarchist.

nan said:
drummerboy,
Here are some more Wikileaks revelations, based on Clinton's speech transcripts:

Celebrating closed primaries:

Controlling the media:

Getting the debate questions ahead of time:

 oy. please don't give me videos to watch. answer my question - use sentences.

And I'm pretty sure Daniel Ellsberg, bless his heart, would never, ever, claim to be a journalist.

yahooyahoo said:
Greenwald is so biased at this point, I have a hard time believing most of what he writes.
He's in bed with Assange so who knows how much of that column is valid.

 yeah. luckily The Intercept has emerged from being a fever swamp. It's a good site, except for when GG writes something.

nan said:

 Assange is a journalist, in the manner of Daniel Ellsburg.  Journalists are people who investigate things and publish the information they find.  Your assessment of him as a useful idiot for Russia is not based on factual evidence.  Ironically you say he hurt Hillary Clinton and then say the DNC leak was mostly a bunch of nothing.  If it was nothing, how could it have hurt her? 

oy again.

Information disseminated by the media hardly has to be true for it to be harmful. (e.g. the 25 year war against the Clintons by the MSM and the NYT in particular)

90% of the public could not discern the DNC emails from the 30,000 emails she deleted from her email server issue.(Can you?) They though it was all the same thing, and so they thought all of it was bad, or else why would the TV be talking about it so much? The TV barely understood the issue either.

Meanwhile, a "journalist" at CNN (the Clinton News Network) told people that it was illegal to posses the files. And since you get all your news from CNN, I'm not surprised that you consider Wikileaks revelations minor.
Wikileaks revealed lots of information about Hillary and the DNC. The most famous are how the supposedly neutral DNC was actively working against one of the candidates to assure the nomination for the one who would later lose to a orange psycho reality TV star. But, of course they focused on Russia, rather than the content of the files.

For the record, CNN sucks, but it doesn't suck as bad as MSNBC and is far better than the crap you get from Jimmy Dore. Obviously.

And please, show me again, how the DNC was "actively working against one of the candidates", other than b.s. stuff like fooling around with debate dates. No one's claiming the DNC is perfect and is not infected by internal politics (gee, howz that happen?)

If anyone wants a laugh, check out this site

http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/

It purports to be a list of the top 100 most damaging wikileaks items. It's freaking hilarious. And perfectly shows what a load of nothing the DNC hack was. (in terms of incriminating information that is) If anything, the dearth of incriminating emails out of such a huge number shows how honest these people were.

nan - do you know that site? Do you agree with their ranking?

By definition, the DNC is biased. So is the RNC, they tried everything they could to get rid of Trump before he steamrolled the other GOP candidates. 

C'mon, Nan, you can't really be thinking he's a journalist and that journalists "are people who investigate things and publish the information they find." 

Assange didn't investigate. He hacked. He hacks stuff. Journalists don't illegally hack into organizations' computers and steal info and dump it out there. Journalists have trusted sources who they cultivate over a long period of time. They corroborate any information they find. They synthesize a bunch of information from a bunch of sources and they write about what they find. Editors provide another layer of quality control by scrutinizing the info and asking the reporter hard questions. Publications' legal departments review sensitive articles before they are published.

Are you saying that's what Assange did? 

shoshannah said:
C'mon, Nan, you can't really be thinking he's a journalist and that journalists "are people who investigate things and publish the information they find." 
Assange didn't investigate. He hacked. He hacks stuff. Journalists don't illegally hack into organizations' computers and steal info and dump it out there. Journalists have trusted sources who they cultivate over a long period of time. They corroborate any information they find. They synthesize a bunch of information from a bunch of sources and they write about what they find. Editors provide another layer of quality control by scrutinizing the info and asking the reporter hard questions. Publications' legal departments review sensitive articles before they are published.
Are you saying that's what Assange did? 

 Yes, he is a journalist and he has paid a huge price for what he has published--information WE NEEDED TO KNOW!!!!!!!  Unlike CNN, Wikileaks has 100% accuracy of reporting. He does review the material before publishing and does not publish everything he gets. But, his motivations or skill do not matter--it's not for you to decide if  he's good enough to publish US secrets. Despite all the attacks on me above, especially by drummerboy, I am still waiting for someone to tell me that they would be fine with not knowing what Wikileaks has revealed. Do you think we would be better off not knowing about the things Chelsea Manning discovered and published through Wikileaks?  About the DNC?  About Hillary?  Are you really arguing to not know about government corruption and all the wasted money and innocent people killed in pointless wars?  

And once again, even if you hate Julian Assange, what about freedom of the press? Cause punishing him will punish all journalists, including the ones you like.  

drummerboy said:
If anyone wants a laugh, check out this site
http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/

It purports to be a list of the top 100 most damaging wikileaks items. It's freaking hilarious. And perfectly shows what a load of nothing the DNC hack was. (in terms of incriminating information that is) If anything, the dearth of incriminating emails out of such a huge number shows how honest these people were.



nan - do you know that site? Do you agree with their ranking?

 I had not seen this site before, but I don't know why you consider it "freaking hilarious."  It's a good overview of what Wikileaks has revealed.  Are you really advocating that we are better off not knowing these things or that they are not important?

drummerboy said:

nan said:

 Assange is a journalist, in the manner of Daniel Ellsburg.  Journalists are people who investigate things and publish the information they find.  Your assessment of him as a useful idiot for Russia is not based on factual evidence.  Ironically you say he hurt Hillary Clinton and then say the DNC leak was mostly a bunch of nothing.  If it was nothing, how could it have hurt her? 

oy again.
Information disseminated by the media hardly has to be true for it to be harmful. (e.g. the 25 year war against the Clintons by the MSM and the NYT in particular)

90% of the public could not discern the DNC emails from the 30,000 emails she deleted from her email server issue.(Can you?) They though it was all the same thing, and so they thought all of it was bad, or else why would the TV be talking about it so much? The TV barely understood the issue either.

Meanwhile, a "journalist" at CNN (the Clinton News Network) told people that it was illegal to posses the files. And since you get all your news from CNN, I'm not surprised that you consider Wikileaks revelations minor.
Wikileaks revealed lots of information about Hillary and the DNC. The most famous are how the supposedly neutral DNC was actively working against one of the candidates to assure the nomination for the one who would later lose to a orange psycho reality TV star. But, of course they focused on Russia, rather than the content of the files.

For the record, CNN sucks, but it doesn't suck as bad as MSNBC and is far better than the crap you get from Jimmy Dore. Obviously.
And please, show me again, how the DNC was "actively working against one of the candidates", other than b.s. stuff like fooling around with debate dates. No one's claiming the DNC is perfect and is not infected by internal politics (gee, howz that happen?)

Wikileaks revealed that Clinton had a chummy relationship with the MSM, not that they were her enemy.  Some of them allowed her to directly control her message.  This makes Wikileaks a better journalist than CNN, MSNBC and the NYTs.  The MSM did not cover Wikileaks well because they were trying to minimize the damage.  CNN outright lied and said it was illegal to read Wikileaks and you needed to get all the information from them. JImmy Dore, a stand-up comedian, is a way better journalist than either CNN or MSNBC.  That's how bad the MSM is these days. If that is where you get all of your news than you need to expand and include other non-MSM sources.  MSM should not be a standalone news source.

drummerboy said:

yahooyahoo said:
Greenwald is so biased at this point, I have a hard time believing most of what he writes.
He's in bed with Assange so who knows how much of that column is valid.

 yeah. luckily The Intercept has emerged from being a fever swamp. It's a good site, except for when GG writes something.

 Glen Greenwald is a fierce defender of free speech and a free press.  That is why he defends Julian Assange.  Also, because we benefit from knowing the things Assange has published.  How does that make him biased?

nan said:

drummerboy said:
If anyone wants a laugh, check out this site
http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/

It purports to be a list of the top 100 most damaging wikileaks items. It's freaking hilarious. And perfectly shows what a load of nothing the DNC hack was. (in terms of incriminating information that is) If anything, the dearth of incriminating emails out of such a huge number shows how honest these people were.



nan - do you know that site? Do you agree with their ranking?

 I had not seen this site before, but I don't know why you consider it "freaking hilarious."  It's a good overview of what Wikileaks has revealed.  Are you really advocating that we are better off not knowing these things or that they are not important?

 It's hilarious because it's all b.s. If you actually read what they have there, it proves next to nothing, regardless of what their headlines for each leak say. Their list makes a claim (Like "Obama lied") has a few links, which if you click on, show nothing dispositive of their claim, and then they make a bunch of overwrought assertions based on, apparently, nothing but their inflamed imaginations.

And c'mon, isn't number 10, about the satanic dinner, hilarious all by itself?