Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ecuador cuts off Julian Assange's internet access at London embassy

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 162 posts

Re: Ecuador cuts off Julian Assange's internet access at London embassy

#121

Post by grzm »

colordrops wrote: post #120
jacquesm wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're aware that a whole bunch of people have already been indicted and have admitted guilt? At this point in time the 'Russia hysteria' is on pretty solid footing, the question is not whether or not there is something there but how high up it goes and who knew what and when. Manafort will almost certainly end up being convicted and whether or not he will spend the rest of his life in jail hinges on Trump's ability…

But what have they been indicted on? Tell me exactly the charges.

Is your point that there are no charges or that the charges are irrelevant? Something else? Rather than argue for the sake of argument, if you know something, put it on the table and move the ball forward.

Re: Ecuador cuts off Julian Assange's internet access at London embassy

#122

Post by jacquesm »

colordrops wrote: post #120
jacquesm wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're aware that a whole bunch of people have already been indicted and have admitted guilt? At this point in time the 'Russia hysteria' is on pretty solid footing, the question is not whether or not there is something there but how high up it goes and who knew what and when. Manafort will almost certainly end up being convicted and whether or not he will spend the rest of his life in jail hinges on Trump's ability…

But what have they been indicted on? Tell me exactly the charges.

Do your own homework:

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

If you have been following this at all then none of this should be news to you, if you haven't been following this then I do not understand some of the positions you have been taking in this thread.

Re: Ecuador cuts off Julian Assange's internet access at London embassy

#123

Post by Sangermaine »

crdoconnor wrote: post #85
Sangermaine wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're being either extremely naive or intentionally obtuse. No one is saying the information is false or should be ignored. To use your example, if there were reason to believe that this spy was revealing this information on behalf of Dow's competitors to influence the market and shield/draw attention away from their own malfeasance, that's a concern. The source and the intent of the source does actually matter.

>No one is saying the information is false or should be ignored. That was precisely the intention behind characterizing Assange as a Russian spy during the election.

No, it wasn't at all. The allegation was that Assange was selectively releasing info on Clinton and the DNC that was obtained by Russian hackers for the purpose of swaying the election in favor of Trump, or at least severely damaging Clinton. The issue was never that the information was false. Even the DNC itself confirmed that the emails were theirs.

More broadly, it's that Assange uses the guise of a seemingly-neutral Teller of Truths to dole out information for the purpose of manipulation, either for his own or other people's agendas.

Re: Ecuador cuts off Julian Assange's internet access at London embassy

#124

Post by colordrops »

jacquesm wrote: post #122
colordrops wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what have they been indicted on? Tell me exactly the charges.

Do your own homework: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_... If you have been following this at all then none of this should be news to you, if you haven't been following this then I do not understand some of the positions you have been taking in this thread.

No, do your own homework. You can't ask others to prove a negative. By the link you provided yourself, there is nothing in there about any indictments regarding collusion with Russia to interfere with the US election.

Re: Ecuador cuts off Julian Assange's internet access at London embassy

#125

Post by colordrops »

grzm wrote: post #121
colordrops wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what have they been indicted on? Tell me exactly the charges.

Is your point that there are no charges or that the charges are irrelevant? Something else? Rather than argue for the sake of argument, if you know something, put it on the table and move the ball forward.

My point is that there are no indictments on anything related to collusion with Russians to interfere wit US elections.

Re: Ecuador cuts off Julian Assange's internet access at London embassy

#126

Post by jacquesm »

colordrops wrote: post #124
jacquesm wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do your own homework: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_... If you have been following this at all then none of this should be news to you, if you haven't been following this then I do not understand some of the positions you have been taking in this thread.

No, do your own homework. You can't ask others to prove a negative. By the link you provided yourself, there is nothing in there about any indictments regarding collusion with Russia to interfere with the US election.

I think you fail to understand how a typical special counsel investigation works.

So the fact that there are no indictments regarding to collusion to Russia at this point in time means absolutely nothing. But if there still are no such indictments when it is all over it would be safe to conclude there was no such thing.

Re: Ecuador cuts off Julian Assange's internet access at London embassy

#127

Post by grzm »

colordrops wrote: post #125
grzm wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your point that there are no charges or that the charges are irrelevant? Something else? Rather than argue for the sake of argument, if you know something, put it on the table and move the ball forward.

My point is that there are no indictments on anything related to collusion with Russians to interfere wit US elections.

> "collusion with Russians to interfere wit US elections."

While others may make that claim, and it would be included in the scope of the investigation, that's not its only remit. Nor, from my reading, does 'jacquesm make that claim. But he can argue his case better than I.

Re: Ecuador cuts off Julian Assange's internet access at London embassy

#128

Post by colordrops »

jacquesm wrote: post #126
colordrops wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, do your own homework. You can't ask others to prove a negative. By the link you provided yourself, there is nothing in there about any indictments regarding collusion with Russia to interfere with the US election.

I think you fail to understand how a typical special counsel investigation works. So the fact that there are no indictments regarding to collusion to Russia at this point in time means absolutely nothing. But if there still are no such indictments when it is all over it would be safe to conclude there was no such thing.

Yes, but since there is no public evidence, and no indictments, why is the mainstream media pumping this russia fear narrative non-stop for the last 18 months? That's the topic of this thread. Why is everyone so damn sure of the truth when there is no evidence or charges?

You said in this thread:

> You're aware that a whole bunch of people have already been indicted and have admitted guilt?

No they haven't.

Re: Ecuador cuts off Julian Assange's internet access at London embassy

#129

Post by rainieri »

carlesfe wrote: post #93
lawnchair_larry wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the article? It includes your image, and says that is not the reason this time. The example you quote was when he was given his first/last warning. This time he was cut because he commented on the UK/Russia poisoning thing.

Wikileaks confirmed that the infringing tweet was about Spain: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/979107967768330240 > Wikileaks editor @julianassange has been gagged and isolated by order of Ecuador's new president @Lenin Moreno. He cannot tweet, speak to the press, recieve visitors or make telephone calls. Ecuador demanded that he remove the following Tweet: > [Assange's tweet] "In 1940 the elected president of C…

Hopefully your downvote is some due to automated mechanism.

Complete shot in the dark-time.

Since many say that Russia is behind Wikileaks and Russia said they would respond to the diplomat expulsion.. Russia somehow pressured Ecuador into cutting his internet to trigger Assange's dead mans switch?

Re: Ecuador cuts off Julian Assange's internet access at London embassy

#130

Post by FireBeyond »

zzzcpan wrote: post #113
FireBeyond wrote: post #7

> I have already fully served any theoretical (I haven’t been charged) ‘bail violation’ whilst in prison and under house arrest. So why is there a warrant for my arrest?” Not in the least bit arrogant. "Well, I hid out here because I feared extradition. That should basically count as my sentence for violating bail, right?"

State initiated smear campaign is more arrogant.

Pretty poor is the state that when faced with "smear/assassinate this person's character" comes up with "may have had consensual sex with questionable consent about the use of a condom with a female".

That's the best the forces of the US/ UK/ Swedish intelligence communities could come up with?

Post reply on HN