561–570 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm? This just goes to show that the USA didn't need to manufacture rape allegations in Sweden just in order to get Assange extradited, since their best chance of doing so was to extradite him from the UK.
Or could say USA tried all the dirty tricks
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is incredibly ill-informed, or very carefully constructed disinformation, and I'm uncomfortable that I can't tel the difference. For example: there were many illegal, suggestions of illegal, and offensive things in those, and related, email leaks, for supporters and detractors of HRC. > If you're intent to discredit Assange among his fanbase, which is largely young, male, and online: isn't rape actually the wors…
> many illegal, suggestions of illegal, and offensive things in those, and related, email leaks, for supporters and detractors of HRC. Such as? Have there been any prosecutions? Wasn't she vindicated by an investigation?
I just want to know, from the people who seemed to have turned against Assange, how do you know it's not a concerted disinformation / propaganda campaign to remove all his credibility and reduce public support? By my reckoning It's really hard to know what to even believe about a guy who might credibly be targeted by that.
Coordinating the releases of DNC emails with the Trump campaign is what did it for me. Wikileaks as a neutral outlet for leaking evidence of corruption is fine and in the past the worst anyone could say is that they were in way over their heads (remember the "insurance file"?). In 2016 Assange allowed politics to slip into the decision-making process, and gave up what credibility he and Wikileaks had.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> or have his ashes thrown into the sea the same way as they did with Osama bin Laden. The UK won't extradite if the death penality is on the cards. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/section/94
They might just let him rot in Guantanamo instead of executting. I don't know which one is worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wikileaks has leaked 10 some-odd documents on Australia, so I don't expect them to go to bat for him. The problem with being a uniform thorn in everybody's side is you run out of friends.
Assange is anything but a uniform thorn. He has continually supported and looked out for Russian interests. If he wasn't biased there would be a lot more public support for him.
Wikileaks has leaked plenty of shit on Russia too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wikileaks has leaked 10 some-odd documents on Australia, so I don't expect them to go to bat for him. The problem with being a uniform thorn in everybody's side is you run out of friends.
Assange is anything but a uniform thorn. He has continually supported and looked out for Russian interests. If he wasn't biased there would be a lot more public support for him.
I just want to know, from the people who seemed to have turned against Assange, how do you know it's not a concerted disinformation / propaganda campaign to remove all his credibility and reduce public support? By my reckoning It's really hard to know what to even believe about a guy who might credibly be targeted by that.
wikileaks/Assange during the recent US presidential elections. that’s what did it for me. even now, knowing what we now about Russian interference, they still have the “Hillary Clinton email archive” proudly displayed on their homepage. also, there are those rape cases for which he ran away. shady stuff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the criminal argument is that he was acting as a cutout for Russian intelligence with the dnc leaks.
> I think the criminal argument is that he was acting as a cutout for Russian intelligence with the dnc leaks. That may be a (relatively new) criminal argument, but there is also Manning plus 18 USC §2(a): “Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission , is punishable as a principal.” (emphasis added) Plus probably all kinds of stuff in bet…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What crimes did he commit? Honest question. I heard that someone accused him of being a rapist but then dropped the charges so I guess it was false. What else is there?
What you've heard is false. The investigation was dropped simply because there was no way to proceed with the investigation with him still hiding away in the embassy. The investigation will be reopened if he returns to Sweden before August 2020 when the statute of limitations expires for the minor rape allegation. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39973864