Reply With Quote
Link?
Where do you see this ending up?
I don't vouche nor vet either one of these site, but check these headlines:
Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange: “Next Leak Will Lead to Arrest of Hillary Clinton”
and
Julian Assange: Hacked Emails Include Info On Hillary’s Arming of Jihadists, Including ISIS, in Syria
Assange is obviously poking the Clinton Bear.
Do you foresee the Clinton Bear clawing back?
Hard. Like real hard? Like bye bye Assange lol.
Link?
This guy is a dumbass. He's been saying he's got suff on Hillary that will put her in jail for like 2 years now.
Last week he said he had voicemails and would release them.
These are scare tactics that only work on high schoolers. Oh look here I got a big bad wolf in the closet. Be scurred!
^^ ya that's why I didn't put the links in.
I don't have time to vet them and he seems to have his fringe followers.
Within the one article was how the woman who bailed him out (and lost her money) now no longer trusts him, calling him a huge attention .
Assange might be a bag, but on the trust scale, I trust him 1000x more the Shillary, tbh...
Assange is an anti-establishment anarchist, which I strongly side with versus a corporate war monger. He exposes war crimes. She is complicit in them.
Too bad there isn't a poll ITT. Assange is the clear favorite in this matchup, imo.
I just never get some people... on one hand, "transparency should be paramount!" (and I completely agree, transparency should be mandatory in any government dealings, it's the absolute best tool against corruption), but then when somebody airs some of the dirty laundry of government (ie: Snowden, this guy) some of the same people turn around and... "They're criminals! they put the nation in danger releasing national security secrets!"... Like the government is covertly spying on our own allies and your ass with dubious authority that gets shot down once it reaches a court of law and has to be basically granted post-facto?
Lots of ed up has been done under the mantra of "national security" and the lack of transparency is probably the biggest reason it's been bas ized so much at this point.
Some of these guys should be protected by out whistle-blower laws. They're doing us citizens a great service, sometimes at the peril of their own lives.
Then why is he on the run?
He exposes war crime while committing crime?
Assange thinks Hillary had something to do with him being persuded. If that's true then this is a battle he's losing. He's on the run while Hillary might be our next president. Lol trusting somebody that's out for revenge...and currently failing.
Except this guy uses this as a diguise for personal gain. He's also a rapist.
Assange is not even a hacker. He's basically the visible, public face of a much larger network. He's more of a spokesperson than anything else.
He's on the run because he's out of control, and he must be made an example of.
Has he been tried and found guilty for that allegation?
What's his personal gain? Losing basically his freedom by having to live in an embassy in the UK for the past 4 years? That's another powerful message too.
He won't let himself be investigated properly let alone be tried and found guilty. This is why he's holed on on some Ecuadorean London embassy.
Innocent people aren't usually ducking warrants in some third rate countries to avoid being extradited because he may have raped somebody. Seems like a lot of trouble to not make people think he isn't guilty. It's quite the oposite.
Reck, stop digging and do some basic research on the "charges" that has caused him to be "on the run": https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...e-right-asylum
The US has threatened him with espionage and life in prison. Sweden has an extradition treaty with the US and a history of lapdog behavior.
Earlier this year, the UN has said his detention is illegal:
Since when you need HIM to carry an investigation?If they have the evidence, they should just charge him. He's not guilty of anything until tried and convicted.
Don't play naive. "Innocent people" is really an arbitrary term. Under US law he's probably not "innocent people", and an extradition to the US will probably cost him his life.
He ed with the wrong people, that much is clear. I, for one, certainly like the fact that we can still get politicos exposed like this.
For one, maybe stop avocating for hacking and giving people a safe heaven where they can dump illegally obtained do ents? Two, stop raping women on foreign soil.
This guy is not a saint so excuse me if I'm not giving him a pass for being so patriotic. He isn't.
You guys are kidding me, right?Since when you need HIM to carry an investigation?
Don't play naive. "Innocent people" is really an arbitrary term. Under US law he's probably not "innocent people", and an extradition to the US will probably cost him his life.
He ed with the wrong people, that much is clear. I, for one, certainly like the fact that we can still get politicos exposed like this.
Do we need evidence to know that Michael Jackson liked to pedo it up once in a while? Do we need more evidence that Cosby is a serial rapist? These are things we know. He's guilty as regardless of not being found guilty yet. Just like when Simpson got off scott free even though he was guilty as .
You sound like one of those far right wingers denying the fact this man is not some pillar of truth as you are led to believe.
Sweden is trying to follow simple procedures. He's being accused of rape..he's been served a warrant..he ignored it and fled.
That in itself doesn't seem like what an innocent man would do. Like I said on my other post. Maybe keep your in your pants and you wouldn't find yourself in a situation where you're trapped.
Let's remember we are talking about a man willing to exposed anybody no matter the cost, yet we are to believe he's not capable of forcing himself on a woman? Now who's been naive..
So Reck does not believe in due process, even for people who haven't even been charged with a crime and have offered to cooperate.
Just ignore the facts of the "case" being brought against him (in which he hasn't even been charged).
Just invoke a bunch of black people convicted in the court of public opinion (Jackson, Cosby, OJ) and dust off your hands.
Just ignore the UN publicly declaring he is being illegally detained.
Welcome to Hillary's brownshirt America.
SMH
Partisanship at its worst.
What are you on about? Of course I believe in due process.
That doesn't mean I cant give my opinion on the matter. I happen to think Assange is as dirty--if not more dirty than Hillary.
I don't play into the he's innocent until proven guilty. I know he is. Just like the millions of people who think Hilary is guilty and should be in prison for half the stuff she's done.
And did you really just defended Cosby?
I don't know what you mean by your UN comment? Where is this guy being illegally detained? He's at the embassy of his own free will. It is what's keeping him from being summoned to Sweden. You've lost me there.
As far as I know he made a conscious decision to go into that embassy and then stay there.
Also great dig at Hillary. But this has nothing to do with her or anyone but my own head. I think for myself.
If justice worked like that, boutons would probably been sent to Guantanamo back when dubya was the prez, tbh...
That doesn't mean the crime he allegedly committed isn't a serious matter. But the claim that "he's a rapist", well, at this point, it's factually not true.
I couldn't give two s for Assange the person (and would agree there's some ego going on there), but it's undisputed that all these leaks that came through his organization have shined a bright light on the darkest sides of politics and US foreign policy.
He applied for political asylum on humanitarian grounds and was granted such asylum. That's a right every person has under international law (including you). He's not "on the run" of anything.
If you would've read what was linked earlier, you would know this stuff already.
If you want to be politically correct then yeah. But he's running from being extradited and face the consequences of his own making in Sweden. Not even talking about the implications of any leaked information and the fact the CIA wants his ass.
On the one hand, Assange is being unfairly hounded by the US and allies. The establishment doesn't like leaks and wants to discourage potential whistle-blowers.
On the other hand, Assange has moved away from the original Wikileaks model of curating information before releasing what is appropriate. He is now a loose cannon that has been criticized by Glenn Greenwald and others for being reckless and sensationalist. He's on record saying that if Afghan informants in Taliban territory get killed as a result of his leaks, "they've got it coming". He goes on propaganda outlets like Russia Today and encourages conspiracy theories. One of Assange's close associates, Israel Shamir handed over leaked info to a pro-Putin Belarussian dictator who used it to imprison and torture political opponents. Assange admitted that he was the one who encouraged Snowden to go to Russia rather than Latin America which was Snowden's first preference.
Assange isn't being held accountable for peddling fiction and for behaving like a puppet for Putin and his allies. Just like Trump, coincidentally.
I tend to agree with this, that being said, if wiki leaks is being weoponized to influence elections by foreign governments that would be an entirely different discussion.
Yeah! Only America is allowed to interfere in the governance of other states!
USA! USA!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
