[Scape]

And then Trump tried to have him killed so which is it?

They are coming down hard oh Assange not because wikileaks is so powerful (they pretty much crushed it since) but for the example it represents. We can't have the media asking questions about their betters.

[Thanos]

"I love Wikileaks!" - Donald J. Trump, 2016

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks

$1:

Promotion of conspiracy theories

Murder of Seth Rich

Further information: Murder of Seth Rich

WikiLeaks promoted conspiracy theories about the murder of Seth Rich.[292][293][294] Unfounded conspiracy theories, spread by some right-wing figures and media outlets, hold that Rich was the source of leaked emails and was killed for working with WikiLeaks.[295] WikiLeaks fuelled such theories when it offered a $20,000 reward for information on Rich's killer and when Assange implied that Rich was the source of the DNC leaks,[296] although no evidence supports that claim.[297][298] Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report into Russian interference in the 2016 election said that Assange "implied falsely" that Rich was the source in order to obscure that Russia was the actual source.[299][300][301][302] The Guardian wrote that WikiLeaks had been involved in the "ruthless exploitation of [Rich's] death for political purposes".[303]

Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton

WikiLeaks popularised conspiracies about the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton, such as tweeting articles which suggested Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta engaged in satanic rituals,[30][304][305] implying that the Democratic Party had Seth Rich killed,[31] claiming that Hillary Clinton wanted to drone strike Assange,[306] suggesting that Clinton wore earpieces to debates and interviews,[307] promoting conspiracy theories about Clinton's health,[32][308][309] and promoting a conspiracy theory from a Donald Trump-related Internet community tying the Clinton campaign to child kidnapper Laura Silsby.[310]

Golly!

$1:

In 2010, Donald Trump called WikiLeaks "disgraceful" and suggested that the "death penalty" should be a punishment for WikiLeaks' releases of information.[324] Following the dump of e-mails hacked from the Hillary Clinton campaign, Donald Trump told voters, "I love WikiLeaks!"[325] Trump made many references to WikiLeaks during the course of the campaign; by one estimate, he referenced disclosures by WikiLeaks over 160 times in speeches during the last 30 days of the campaign.[326]

Must be a membership to Mar-A-Lago as the plum part of the presidential pardon package waiting for Assange when Supreme Leader Covfefe resumes his presidency in 2025.

$1:

Correspondence between WikiLeaks and Donald Trump Jr.

In November 2017, it was revealed that the WikiLeaks Twitter account corresponded with Donald Trump Jr. during the 2016 presidential election.[317] The correspondence shows how WikiLeaks actively solicited the co-operation of Trump Jr., a campaign surrogate and advisor in the campaign of his father. WikiLeaks urged the Trump campaign to reject the results of the 2016 presidential election at a time when it looked as if the Trump campaign would lose.[317] WikiLeaks asked Trump Jr. to share a claim by Assange that Hillary Clinton had wanted to attack him with drones.[317] WikiLeaks also shared a link to a site that would help people to search through WikiLeaks documents.[317] Trump Jr. shared both. After the election, WikiLeaks also requested that the president-elect push Australia to appoint Assange as ambassador to the US. After The New York Times published a fragment of Donald Trump's tax returns for one year, WikiLeaks asked Trump Jr. for one or more of his father's tax returns, explaining that it would be in his father's best interest because it would "dramatically improve the perception of our impartiality" and not come "through the most biased source (e.g. NYT/MSNBC)."[317] WikiLeaks also asked Trump Jr. to leak his own e-mails to them days after The New York Times broke a story about e-mail correspondence between Trump Jr. and a Kremlin-affiliated lawyer; WikiLeaks said that it would be "beautifully confounding" for them to publish the e-mails and that it would deprive other news outlets from putting a negative spin on the correspondence.[317] Trump Jr. provided this correspondence to congressional investigators looking into Russian interference in the 2016 election.[317]

Awful decent of Julian to give Fredo something to do and make him feel like an important part of the team, n'est pas?

I can't believe that I'm outnumbered in this fight against people, all of whom as presumably intelligent adults should know better, who've chosen this demented fucking joke of a hacker to turn into some kind of beyond-all-reproach sainted martyr. Jesus fucking Christ.....

[Scape]

Yep, Assange tried to get on Trumps good side. Since Trump is only loyal to himself you can see where that got him.

[DrCaleb]

Thanos Thanos:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Still not illegal. We don't prosecute people for being assholes.

Hacking isn't illegal?

Yes. But he didn't hack anything. That was Manning. Manning did time for it.

Thanos Thanos:

Being in possession of documents from a hack isn't illegal?

Grey area. But if it is illegal for Assange, then it is for all the news organizations around the world that also had those documents.

Thanos Thanos:

This will probably make you mad but I can't help that - this strain of logic is identical to what Trump fanatics say when his behaviour and actions get pointed out with their "haw haw! not illegal! fuck you!" mentality.

Nope. I argue from fact, not emotion.

[Thanos]

Scape Scape:

Yep, Assange tried to get on Trumps good side. Since Trump is only loyal to himself you can see where that got him.

Hard life for assets, operatives, and agents. Eventually, no matter how good a job they've done or even if they've done the job for free, it's either off to the gulag or the glue factory when their services are no longer required.

[DrCaleb]

Thanos Thanos:

At worst he's responsible for the deaths of Muslims in Iraq & Afghanistan who were assisting US and Coalition forces in the fighting against Saddam's dead-enders, Al Qaeda, and ISIS.

Name one.



I already know the name you will give, and that guy was dead 2 months before Wikileaks posted anything.

Same old disproven arguments.

Thanos Thanos:

"I love Wikileaks!" - Donald J. Trump, 2016

Yet again, I have to focus you on the issue. He's being extradited for events in the late 2000's. Nothing after 2012 matters here.

[Thanos]

I wasn't going to name anyone. I don't do things like that, like the Vince Foster/Seth Rich/Jeffrey Epstein games some ghouls with ugly agendas like to play, the way the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Julian Assange would. I doubt there's a running list anywhere of the people who've been killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, or any of the other war zones due to Wikileaks outing them. And I doubt that any Assange-stans would give a damn anyway, as such losses would either be seen as deserved for assisting the US or just as mere acceptable collateral damage. They're no different than any other utopians, as long as the greater good they've invented in their heads gets achieved by any means necessary.

[DrCaleb]

Thanos Thanos:

I doubt there's a running list anywhere of the people who've been killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, or any of the other war zones due to Wikileaks outing them.

There isn't, because it's never happened. Tired and disproven argument again. I already think he's an asshole. Trying to throw further shade on him by enumerating 'what ifs' changes nothing.

I don't know why you are stressing yourself out jumping to all of these fallacies. It's a simple calculation. Either Assange gets the protections afforded to any other Journalist reporting on any other whisltelblower, or our whole democratic system topples over.

There is a reason why Journalism is entrenched in every Constitution of every Western Democracy. Because it is vital to counter the oppressive control that could be brought down on its citizens by the State if someone isn't able to shine a light in the dark corners some would rather leave unexplored.

[Thanos]

The other journalists, the real ones, are also governed by strict codes of ethics. They do things like redact names of third parties from their stories in order to protect them from being caught up in prosecutorial sweeps, arrest, and from being physically harmed. Want real journalism? Then read long-form stories on the internet. Watch 60 Minutes or The Fifth Estate, responsible programs where some seriously bad people committing some seriously bad crimes were brought down by reporters doing their job just from sifting through government documents that they acquired quite legally through information requests. And more often than not the real journalists did it with documents that were heavily redacted and blacked-put before being handed over. Assange did nothing of that sort when he dropped every single item he was sent, regardless to the consequences of anyone uninvolved or who would get caught in the crossfire. He didn't edit or redact simply because he didn't fucking care who might have gotten hurt as a result of Wikileaks' release procedure. And when names were named by other leaks, like the Panama Papers, he went into a fierce defensive mode for the Russian gangsters & oligarchs who were on the list. He didn't do it for anyone else, just for the Russian ones. Once again, in terms of journalistic ethics, Assange is the true heir of the likes of Walter Duranty & every other writer who chose to be a fucking apologist instead of a reporter.

How you can even pretend that Assange has any sort of ethical code or moral instinct inside of him is beyond baffling. The same man doing those things today, for dumps he hasn't been charged over, is the exact same man who was doing them in the early 2010's. You can't slough this off that "he's just an asshole". It doesn't work. It's the same thing the supporters of any celebrity criminal say. "Yeah, he's a prick, but the work is too important to ever hold him to the same standard of behaviour the rest of us are obligated to live by". Umm, really?

Maybe you can provide a list of countries where being in possession of stolen property, physical items or government documents alike, isn't illegal. The real genuine relationship is that the whistleblower goes to a member of the press. Then, when the legal consequences arise, the source and the journalist are protected by privilege. Assange did nothing like that, not once. From the very beginning it was a massive document release followed by "there, go through them yourselves without any context whatsoever, and always remember that I, Julian, are above all criticism or examination". Would you trust a doctor or a pilot who pulled the same crap. "Umm, yeah, I don't actually have any credentials or training but you have to trust me without any sort of questioning because if you don't you're obviously a bad person working for our fascist governments". Once again, ummm, really?

From where things are going on this thread it's like I'm dealing with some superfans who are going to support their boy, their favourite celebrity, to the very bitter end no matter what he's done simply because they've got stars in their eyes.

[DrCaleb]

Thanos Thanos:

The other journalists, the real ones, are also governed by strict codes of ethics. They do things like redact names of third parties from their stories in order to protect them from being caught up in prosecutorial sweeps, arrest, and from being physically harmed. Want real journalism? Then read long-form stories on the internet. Watch 60 Minutes or The Fifth Estate, responsible programs where some seriously bad people committing some seriously bad crimes were brought down by reporters doing their job just from sifting through government documents that they acquired quite legally through information requests. And more often than not the real journalists did it with documents that were heavily redacted and blacked-put before being handed over. Assange did nothing of that sort when he dropped every single item he was sent, regardless to the consequences of anyone uninvolved or who would get caught in the crossfire. He didn't edit or redact simply because he didn't fucking care who might have gotten hurt as a result of Wikileaks' release procedure. And when names were named by other leaks, like the Panama Papers, he went into a fierce defensive mode for the Russian gangsters & oligarchs who were on the list. He didn't do it for anyone else, just for the Russian ones. Once again, in terms of journalistic ethics, Assange is the true heir of the likes of Walter Duranty & every other writer who chose to be a fucking apologist instead of a reporter.

Perhaps you don't recall, but you can go to the Wikipedia link to refresh your memory, but Assange gave all the information to a consortium of news organizations (Deuche Welle, CBC, New York Times . . .) and it was they who disseminated and released the data dumps. Actual journalists. And they are subject to a strict code of ethics - governed and set by their employer. That's why OAN gets away with a very low standard of ethics.

And he is still being extradited for acts before 2006. Continuing to bring these things up does not make your argument stronger. Show us what he did that was illegal in both places at that time that is an offence extraditable to the US. Which I know you can't, because the US had to make up charges in order to get the UK to extradite him.

We all learnt a lot in the Meng Wanzhou saga. To be extradited, you have to commit an offence that is illegal in both places. And the extradition trial is not a trial on whether you are guilty of those offences, only if there is enough evidence to reasonably try the party.

Thanos Thanos:

How you can even pretend that Assange has any sort of ethical code or moral instinct inside of him is beyond baffling. The same man doing those things today, for dumps he hasn't been charged over, is the exact same man who was doing them in the early 2010's. You can't slough this off that "he's just an asshole". It doesn't work. It's the same thing the supporters of any celebrity criminal say. "Yeah, he's a prick, but the work is too important to ever hold him to the same standard of behaviour the rest of us are obligated to live by". Umm, really?

Non Sequitr. His personality has nothing to do with his trade. If he acts like a Journalist, he's a journalist. If that weren't the case, then places like Fox News would all be under arrest for the harm they do.

Thanos Thanos:

Maybe you can provide a list of countries where being in possession of stolen property, physical items or government documents alike, isn't illegal. The real genuine relationship is that the whistleblower goes to a member of the press. Then, when the legal consequences arise, the source and the journalist are protected by privilege. Assange did nothing like that, not once. From the very beginning it was a massive document release followed by "there, go through them yourselves without any context whatsoever, and always remember that I, Julian, are above all criticism or examination". Would you trust a doctor or a pilot who pulled the same crap. "Umm, yeah, I don't actually have any credentials or training but you have to trust me without any sort of questioning because if you don't you're obviously a bad person working for our fascist governments". Once again, ummm, really?

You don't need to be 'certified' a journalist to be a journalist. That puts government limits on a constitutional right. Being a doctor or pilot is not a constitutional right, so you have to join a professional organization to be called one. The people tasked with holding the state to account should not be chosen by the state. Go back to Maria Ressa for why.

And once again, information cannot be stolen. The original party still has a copy, and has not been deprived of the information, unlike stealing a car. Releasing classified information is only illegal if you are required to keep it classified.

Thanos Thanos:

From where things are going on this thread it's like I'm dealing with some superfans who are going to support their boy, their favourite celebrity, to the very bitter end no matter what he's done simply because they've got stars in their eyes.

Then you have not been paying attention. No one here has elevated Assange to demi-godhood. All we are doing is protecting the rights of journalists versus the heavy hand of secretive state who would rather we remain ignorant.

[Zipperfish]

Thanos Thanos:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I haven't followed it all the closely, but I don't get a good feeling about Assange. Seems a bit of an insufferable prat. He'll pay a dear price in the US. They will want revenge for the serious embarrassment Assange caused, not just in disclosing information but in letting the public see the ham-fisted, self-serving, above-the-law antics they went trhough to try to get him.

The US already promised the British courts that Assange won't be held in solitary confinement. And that if he's found guilty he'll be allowed to serve his sentence at home in an Australian prison.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I really don't see what all the fuss is about. Wikileaks did nothing. It changed nothing. It is a big, fat nothingburger.

Not true. Wikileaks harmed a lot of people directly due to Assange's policy of not redacting names and personal information of average people from his info dumps. At a minimum he set up a lot of people to be hacked later on when their information got taken over by trolls & online criminals. At worst he's responsible for the deaths of Muslims in Iraq & Afghanistan who were assisting US and Coalition forces in the fighting against Saddam's dead-enders, Al Qaeda, and ISIS. Assange had zero concern over what might happen to those he put into a crossfire and that sort of complete lack of empathy on his part shows that he's some kind of narcissistic sociopath.

The only time Assange showed any concern for anyone, period, was when he got enraged at the Panama Papers leaks for showing how many Russian gangsters and oligarchs were hiding their fortunes overseas. Once again, his only priority aside from boosting his own fame was to go to bat for his Russian benefactors whenever any dark clouds headed their way.

Well, I'll have to tap out here myself. As I've said before, too much information is the same as too little. There are so many lies and biases out there, I have no fucking idea. Hail Omicron.

[Thanos]

Let's have the trial in an open court then and get it over with. None of us have the right to decide what is or isn't illegal, even moreso when our outlook is clouded from being a supporter. Bart may have had the right to say his pals at the Cliven Bundy standoff were within their rights to seize armed control over government-managed property, but that didn't mean any court with over 200 years of legal precedent guiding it was obligated to agree with that demented assertion. And Assange-stans don't have right to decide what's legal either. Courts decide what is legal or not, not the average person. That's the way it's been for centuries and God help us all if that fundamental principle of every single civilization that's ever existed ever gets abandoned.

And enough with this paranoid bullshit that Assange will be rubbed out by the Americans if he enters their custody. His disgusting little cohort, Bradley Manning, is galavanting around all free & unrestrained ever since it was released from prison after being found guilty of what was basically treason. If is Assange is just the middle man between the hackers and the media then he'll be perfectly safe. He's a famous and well-off celebrity white man with legions of supporters, and lawyers already working for him, going into American custody. It's not like he got arrested by the Russians for stealing their secrets, because if he had done the same things to them he would have been ganked a long time and his corpse quietly dumped in a lead smelter somewhere in deepest darkest Siberia.

Have the trial, get it over with once and for all. If Assange is exonerated then I'll never talk about him ever again, even though I'm still completely convinced that he was an active and willing Russian operative.

[DrCaleb]

Thanos Thanos:

Let's have the trial in an open court then and get it over with.

That would be wonderful. Except, the US charged Manning under the FISA act, meaning the court for Assange may not be open. And the rules are different than a normal court.

https://www.aclu.org/cases/aclu-v-unite ... -decisions

Thanos Thanos:

Courts decide what is legal or not, not the average person. That's the way it's been for centuries and God help us all if that fundamental principle of every single civilization that's ever existed ever gets abandoned.

No, politicians decide. They write the laws. The courts determine if the laws are constitutional. At least, in the US that is. Clinton changed the rules because of the Oklahoma City bombings. People were no longer allowed to appeal a case because of new evidence. The only appeal to a federal court can be if someone's constitutional rights were violated.

See: "Making a Murderer".

Thanos Thanos:

Have the trial, get it over with once and for all. If Assange is exonerated then I'll never talk about him ever again, even though I'm still completely convinced that he was an active and willing Russian operative.

He might be a Russian asset. Don't know. Don't care. But he still was acting as a journalist. He still has rights.

[Thanos]

Sigh.

[Scape]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgHPFt3 ... WL&index=4

MTG is defending Assange. What the actual f%$k?