Jump to content

Julian Assange taken into custody


Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, sabrecrazed said:

I don't think tibs reflects idiocy. I think he absorbs it... it's the only thing he's good at. 

 

if he acts the same in real life as the fake persona on here, he is confusing his Preparation H and Crest toothpaste every morning and evening

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

if he acts the same in real life as the fake persona on here, he is confusing his Preparation H and Crest toothpaste every morning and evening

 

 

What's the difference? His head is up his ass anyway.

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

I'm not sure what to make of this statement.

Hillary Clinton unloads on Assange, calls him 'only foreigner that this administration would welcome to the US'
 

</snip>
 

"It's clear from the indictment that came out that it's not about punishing journalism," she told attendees and moderator Paul Begala, referring to the Assange case. "It's about assisting the hacking of the military computers, sealed information from the United States government. And, look, I'll wait and see what happens with the charges and how it proceeds, but he skipped bail in the U.K., in Sweden had those [rape] charges which have been dropped in the last several years. But, the bottom line is that he has to answer for what he's done, as has been charged."
 

</snip>

I love how the only thing she's given the Trump regime credit for is bombing Syria and arresting Assange.  Even though I despise Assange for putting lives at risk, his arrest on dubious charges is a direct attack on freedom of the press.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

I love how the only thing she's given the Trump regime credit for is bombing Syria and arresting Assange.  Even though I despise Assange for putting lives at risk, his arrest on dubious charges is a direct attack on freedom of the press.

 

He isn’t the press, so to speak.

 

freedom of information is more the issue here

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

He isn’t the press, so to speak.

 

freedom of information is more the issue here

 

 

constitutionally, there is not really a difference from Wikileaks and say, MSNBC.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Foxx said:

constitutionally, there is not really a difference from Wikileaks and say, MSNBC.

 

Wiki has released documents that are explicitly off limits.

 

MS/CNN gives us uninformed opinion and pretends it’s news.

 

im mostly down with more freedom of info, but have to work under restrictions at work and when under government clearance 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, row_33 said:

 

He isn’t the press, so to speak.

 

freedom of information is more the issue here

 

 

At the very least it's a warning to journalists to toe the line or we'll arrest you on bs charges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Doc Brown said:

At the very least it's a warning to journalists to toe the line or we'll arrest you on bs charges.

 

So everything critical about Assange is BS to you?

 

 

 

You can’t walk off with restricted documents, especially if you have vowed to comply for clearance

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

So everything critical about Assange is BS to you?

 

You can’t walk off with restricted documents, especially if you have vowed to comply for clearance

 

What?  I'm not talking about Snowden or Manning here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

What?  I'm not talking about Snowden or Manning here.

 

Note that the charge against Assange is not related to releasing the files, but for helping Manning break into the government servers.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Note that the charge against Assange is not related to releasing the files, but for helping Manning break into the government servers.

I'm aware of that and the evidence of that is flimsy.  Assange was trying to find a way for Manning to anonymously hack in and send him those files in order to protect his source.  Those charges are nothing new.  It was brought up in the Manning trial and the Obama DOJ didn't believe they had enough to prosecute Assange with anything as they concluded there's no way to distinguish Wikileaks from the Washington Post for example.  

Edited by Doc Brown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Nanker said:

And the same administration paid for his sex change and set him (sickles) free. 

 

Bradley Manning will be a wild card in any Assange trial

 

He has nothing to gain by covering for Assange.  By virtue of his pardon, he can provide detailed testimony regarding how WikiLeaks operates with absolutely no fear of punishment.  However if he covers for Assange and is found to have perjured himself, he could face further prison time

 

Obama may have issued a full pardon to somebody that may end up providing testimony damaging to members of the Obama Administration

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

I'm aware of that and the evidence of that is flimsy.  Assange was trying to find a way for Manning to anonymously hack in and send him those files in order to protect his source.  Those charges are nothing new.  It was brought up in the Manning trial and the Obama DOJ didn't believe they had enough to prosecute Assange with anything as they concluded there's no way to distinguish Wikileaks from the Washington Post for example.  

 

This is nothing like what a reporter for the NYT would do or face, comparing them is absurd

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

I'm aware of that and the evidence of that is flimsy.  Assange was trying to find a way for Manning to anonymously hack in and send him those files in order to protect his source.  Those charges are nothing new.  It was brought up in the Manning trial and the Obama DOJ didn't believe they had enough to prosecute Assange with anything as they concluded there's no way to distinguish Wikileaks from the Washington Post for example.  

No, there are other plausible reasons Obama didn't want to go after Assange, the biggest of which would be the possible discovery that DNC wasn't hacked by Russia. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, GG said:

No, there are other plausible reasons Obama didn't want to go after Assange, the biggest of which would be the possible discovery that DNC wasn't hacked by Russia. 

This was back in 2013.

 

https://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?noredirect=on&utm_term=.cacedfd67ad6

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, /dev/null said:

 

Bradley Manning will be a wild card in any Assange trial

 

He has nothing to gain by covering for Assange.  By virtue of his pardon, he can provide detailed testimony regarding how WikiLeaks operates with absolutely no fear of punishment.  However if he covers for Assange and is found to have perjured himself, he could face further prison time

 

Obama may have issued a full pardon to somebody that may end up providing testimony damaging to members of the Obama Administration

 

Manning was never pardoned. His/Its sentence was commuted, but the conviction stands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/11/2019 at 5:40 PM, Cinga said:

I don't know that it's really that complicated. Assange comes here where he is questioned by Barr and given a sweet deal of freedom once again if he tells him what he knows about Rich, the DNC server, Podesta, etc... 

Trump acted so stupid when questioned about this, it seems like there is a lot expected from this. Or, nothing at all, haha. Feast or famine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Paulus said:

Trump acted so stupid when questioned about this, it seems like there is a lot expected from this. Or, nothing at all, haha. Feast or famine.

Trump's aware he encouraged them during the campaign.  He's playing dumb/being himself.  This has more to do with Mike Pompeo who signaled Wikileaks out as a hostile intelligence agency working with Russia in his first speech as CIA Director shortly after being confirmed in early 2017.  Of course, he welcome Wikileaks leaked DNC e-mails during the campaign.  He deleted this tweet.  Then Wikileaks started publishing CIA documents showing sophisticated methods of how they break into people's phones, computers, etc... after Trump took office and his tune changed.

 

Dalq4y-XcAAnQ7s.jpg

 

2Q==

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Will be interesting to see what Mueller has to say about Russians giving Assange the stolen emails, like Mueller's previous indictment states, and why Trump and compnay seemed to know in advance about all this. 

Russia didn't give Assange the emails.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Foxx said:

Russia didn't give Assange the emails.

And you are saying that because...."I Love WikiLeaks!" 

 

You understand that if they did Trump was using Russia to win the Presidency. Sad 

Quote

WASHINGTON — The special counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election issued an indictment of 12 Russian intelligence officers on Friday in the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton presidential campaign. The indictment came only three days before President Trump was planning to meet with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia in Helsinki, Finland.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/us/politics/mueller-indictment-russian-intelligence-hacking.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

And you are saying that because...."I Love WikiLeaks!" 

 

You understand that if they did Trump was using Russia to win the Presidency. Sad 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/us/politics/mueller-indictment-russian-intelligence-hacking.html

no. what i understand is that Assange hated Hillary.

 

try to keep up.

Edited by Foxx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

So did Putin. 

 

Yeah, Putin hated Hillary so much that the Russians donated how many millions to the Clinton Foundation? They paid Bill how many hundreds of thousands of dollars to give speeches?

 

You truly are an idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Yeah, Putin hated Hillary so much that the Russians donated how many millions to the Clinton Foundation? They paid Bill how many hundreds of thousands of dollars to give speeches?

 

You truly are an idiot.

So defensive! 

 

You must know I am right. Trump got help from Russia and readily accepted it. Take a chill pill dude. Just accept the truth. 

 

"I love WikiLeaks!" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...