Starker on 12/4/2019 at 14:14
Whatever else he has done, his actions in the 2016 US election alone prove he's not the neutral party that he claims he is and that he was playing political games.
And the other things he has done don't necessarily paint a pretty picture either. Like the aforementioned instance where he claimed the Panama papers were a Soros-funded attack on Putin. Not to mention carelessly publishing the personal information of millions of people.
There was one time when he said he would (
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/1026/WikiLeaks-ready-to-drop-a-bombshell-on-Russia.-But-will-Russians-get-to-read-about-it) publish materials on the Russian elite, but apparently he thought otherwise when Russia then suggested Wikileaks could be made "inaccessible forever". Which of course is more serious than it sounds, given that Russia tends to stop its leaks with polonium and Novichok.
SD on 12/4/2019 at 20:35
There aren't repercussions for whistleblowers. There are repercussions for accused rapists who jump bail.
icemann on 13/4/2019 at 04:34
And for liars who have the truth revealed. That's what happened to Hillary.
So if the emails had revealed stuff about Trump instead and Hillary had gone on to win, would we be having this conversation? I bet we wouldn't.
Pyrian on 13/4/2019 at 04:48
Trump lies continuously, preposterously, and his supporters don't even care. Hillary lied about... What, exactly?
The only way we wouldn't be having this conversation is if he weren't arrested, which seems unlikely since very little about the circumstances seem to be tied to who the president is.
Starker on 13/4/2019 at 06:26
Um... but it is tied to who the president it. Obama's administration declined to prosecute Assange. And ultimately I think that was the right decision, even if it was just to err on the side of caution. Now prosecuting Assange for a single count of hacking is just looking like petty revenge. They might still charge him with other stuff, I guess, but they'll need to do it before he is extradited, since they won't be able to charge him with anything else after that.
nbohr1more on 13/4/2019 at 10:34
Quote Posted by Pyrian
Hillary lied about... What, exactly?
On multiple occasions, Hillary claimed that there were "No classified emails" on her private server and that only
people with security clearances had access to the system.
She also literally explained how she lies to the public about her policy stances in comparison to what she was offering donors (public vs private stance)
in an email revealed by wikileaks.
She claimed to be against "foreign intervention" and Super PAC's yet here wikileaks releases were filled with foreign donors (FEC violations!!!) and Super PAC's.
icemann on 13/4/2019 at 13:50
That
nickie on 13/4/2019 at 20:49
Quote Posted by Nameless Voice
I don't know what I think about that guy.
He mistreated his cat, what more do you need to know to know what kind of person he is.
(
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47917325) Latest news I read is that 'More than 70 MPs and peers have signed a letter urging the home secretary to ensure Julian Assange faces authorities in Sweden if they want his extradition.' And they argue for this because they 'believe' that victims of sexual violence take precedence over leaking stuff. Or that's the impression they're giving.
I think he's a nasty piece of work but I'm doubtful the US currently understands the word justice (IMO).
Pyrian on 13/4/2019 at 23:54
Quote Posted by nbohr1more
On multiple occasions, Hillary claimed that there were "No classified emails" on her private server...
The FBI's own findings were that there was no
intentionally unsecured classified information; merely retroactively determined.
Quote Posted by nbohr1more
She also literally explained how she lies to the public about her policy stances in comparison to what she was offering donors (public vs private stance) in an email revealed by wikileaks.
Sadly normal; Not sure I see how citing Clinton in particular for this when the Republican party in general and Trump in particular have long since stopped even bothering to hide the fact that what they say and what they do don't line up. Citation needed, though; I don't trust your characterization.
Quote Posted by nbohr1more
She claimed to be against "foreign intervention" and Super PAC's yet here wikileaks releases were filled with foreign donors (FEC violations!!!) and Super PAC's.
Again, citation needed on the FEC violation; I don't believe for one second that potential crimes were uncovered and Republicans didn't go after them. Being against the current rules while following those rules is baked into the nature of Democracy.
Even if I swallow this, I'm sure I could find worse by going over Trump's commentary on almost any given week, with the rest of his party being little better. When Republicans lie in their basic messaging as a matter of course it's "all politicians lie" but when it's a Democrat we're all scraping and squinting and that's
still the best you can come up with?
Tony_Tarantula on 14/4/2019 at 03:18
Quote Posted by SD
There aren't repercussions for whistleblowers. There are repercussions for accused rapists who jump bail.
That explains why he's being arrested on "espionage" charges and the investigation into the rape charges has been closed.
Quote:
The FBI's own findings were that there was no intentionally unsecured classified information; merely retroactively determined.
A Navy officer was sent to prison for doing literally the exact same thing and it was judged that finding written proof he intended to do so wasn't required for a conviction.
Quote:
Sadly normal; Not sure I see how citing Clinton in particular for this when the Republican party in general and Trump in particular have long since stopped even bothering to hide the fact that what they say and what they do don't line up. Citation needed, though; I don't trust your characterization.
There you go:
(
https://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-public-and-private-positions-2016-10)
Quote:
Whatever else he has done, his actions in the 2016 US election alone prove he's not the neutral party that he claims he is and that he was playing political games.
And the other things he has done don't necessarily paint a pretty picture either. Like the aforementioned instance where he claimed the Panama papers were a Soros-funded attack on Putin. Not to mention carelessly publishing the personal information of millions of people.
1) Assange has pushed out leaks that damaged BOTH U.S. political parties. That isn't exactly the profile of a "Russian Agent".
2) Don't know the truth of that specific claims, but there are some Open Society Foundation papers floating around that prove a conflict between Putin and OSF. Those papers very clearly describe Russians conflict with Soros's agenda.
Here's the exact quote:
Quote:
There is also evidence of support for individual political leaders, penetration in civil society, attempts to manipulate national debates (for instance, to defend Russia’s energy interests), propaganda to defend Russian international politics, and support for traditionalist movements. However, the evidence is still rather sketchy and based more on strong allegations, hence the need to first do a proper mapping.
Putin’s neo-imperial model has also incorporated an ideological pillar: the defense of traditional family values. Putin has deemed what he called a destruction of traditional values from above in the name of so-called tolerance and equality inherently anti-democratic because it runs counter to the will of the majority of people. This ideology has been used to advance Russian influence beyond its borders in Europe and Central Asia, and in international organizations.
Our inclination is to engage in activities and with actors that will understand and counter Russian influence and support to movements defending traditional values.There you have it. Directly from the horse's mouth that Soros is working to undermine "traditional values" because they think those values are being used to advance the interests of competing power players.
3) Assange gave DoD the opportunity to review papers and place redactions prior to publishing. They refused.
Quote:
Latest news I read is that 'More than 70 MPs and peers have signed a letter urging the home secretary to ensure Julian Assange faces authorities in Sweden if they want his extradition.' And they argue for this because they 'believe' that victims of sexual violence take precedence over leaking stuff. Or that's the impression they're giving.
I think he's a nasty piece of work but I'm doubtful the US currently understands the word justice (IMO).
That's a considerably better outcome for him. The most likely outcome upon extradition to the US is that he'll be tortured via sensory deprivation (where they will turn the temperature up to sweltering, down to near freezing, and back up repeatedly while preventing the prisoner from sleeping for weeks at a time) until he either commits suicide or makes up the story about Russia they want to here.
I will warn that this Russia hysteria is getting beyond dangerous. Thanks to this rhetoric we now have a military alliance between Russia and China with both militaries now working side by side in South America. Eventually the Democrats are going to get their war and my prediction is that the US will lose: We've already seen in Syria that the Russian military's tactical proficiency is dramatically higher than the American military, which is a micro-management driven, bureaucratic organization that isn't capable off functioning at even a basic level in the absence of Electronic Warfare and airpower dominance.