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

Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment

stundin.is

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 334 posts

Re: Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment

#231

Post by anothernewdude »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #225
anothernewdude wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look to cryptome for what it would've looked like if it wasn't an engine for Assange's ego. The people who just wanted to host leaks left more than a decade ago. The org admitted to pushing it's own political positions. No idea why people defend the thing. All they publish now is the result of Russian hacks. And he's not a journalist.

Accusing them of pushing political positions and the saying they're not journalists feels like conflicting arguments in this day and age. It's also difficult to appear politically neutral when publishing truths that are (or should be, but aren't) existentially inconvenient to any particular person or group.

It's not difficult. Just don't editorialise. Leaks are the easiest case. Just host everything. Which is why I mention Cryptome, liveleaks would've been an example too.

They haven't done that. They've been selective, they've pushed agendas with their accounts, and they've sat on other leaks that other places haven't.

Re: Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment

#232

Post by the_optimist »

jacobolus wrote: post #230
the_optimist wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, you invented the “most of my associates” part which is the substance of your smear, so you seem a bit disingenuous. As for this fellow, intel agencies don’t get to both conjure lies AND claim guilt by association--with 5-year gap in the timing to boot--though surely they are not beneath trying. Surely the ends justify the means, right? Quite the contrary to your misguided assertions, way back in 1993, Assange c…

As they take Assange to court, they’ll have to mount credible legal arguments, present convincing evidence, and deal with counter-evidence / cross examination from the defense. As I said, “these witnesses who worked with my client have admitted to being liars” can sometimes be a good legal argument. But as a third party observer, it doesn’t seem like the slam-dunk vindication of Assange that some here are implying. F…

Well aware of the supposed "'need' to use unsavory characters," given Mueller's direct role in the Whitey Bulger affair [0]. I also recognize how aggressive and cavalier that behavior is in practice.

I appreciate your applied view of the legal system but it's reasonably likely that such derogatory evidence would not even be admitted in court.

This is middle-age justice with a modern veneer. Might as well torture confessions.

[0] https://technofog.substack.com/p/when-the-fbi-framed-four-in...

Re: Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment

#233

Post by [deleted] »

extra88 wrote: post #49
sneak wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all. The UN's human rights department has found it to be so: from https://news.un.org/en/story/2016/02/521632-wikileaks-founde... > The founder of the WikiLeaks website, which published confidential diplomatic information, has been arbitrarily detained by Sweden and the United Kingdom since his arrest in London in December 2010, as a result of the legal action against him by both Governments, the United Nation…

> when not skipping bail means you get extradited to a country that will torture you via extended solitary confinement prior to trial On plenty of occasions, the UK has demonstrated its willingness to not extradite suspects to the US out of concern for their welfare. > declared guilty in public by a sitting US president (also before trial) Because the US has not yet fallen under authoritarian rule and has an independ…

[deleted]

Re: Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment

#234

Post by the_optimist »

adrr wrote: post #216
the_optimist wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indicted. Famously prosecutors can indict ham sandwiches. Conviction is different. No such thing here.

He convicted everyone that they could actually arrest.

If you twist it around enough, it sounds substantial. Then we have to slowly and tediously dig out that your end claim has utterly nothing to do with your beginning claim. Not the same countries, people, timelines, relationships, nothing.

Re: Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment

#235

Post by Buttons840 »

sb057 wrote: post #156
DevKoala wrote: post #135

Is there any way to vote against the current way the FBI/CIA operates? They are straight up coercing witnesses with fake testimonies to get a man prison, whose only crime was sharing the truth about the shameful inner workings of our American government.

Vote for politicians who will pass laws that dictate how they are to operate. Alternatively, if it is an avenue in your state, start a referendum to pass a state law calling for a Constitutional Convention (requires 34 states) to pass an amendment to deal with it.

What would be the objective of the convention? "Let's update the Constitution to fix all thing things" sounds nice and all, but are there specific changes we want that "both sides" would be happy with?

Re: Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment

#236

Post by jacobolus »

the_optimist wrote: post #232
jacobolus wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As they take Assange to court, they’ll have to mount credible legal arguments, present convincing evidence, and deal with counter-evidence / cross examination from the defense. As I said, “these witnesses who worked with my client have admitted to being liars” can sometimes be a good legal argument. But as a third party observer, it doesn’t seem like the slam-dunk vindication of Assange that some here are implying. F…

Well aware of the supposed "'need' to use unsavory characters," given Mueller's direct role in the Whitey Bulger affair [0]. I also recognize how aggressive and cavalier that behavior is in practice. I appreciate your applied view of the legal system but it's reasonably likely that such derogatory evidence would not even be admitted in court. This is middle-age justice with a modern veneer. Might as well torture conf…

> Durham - now Special Counsel - still quietly looks for the truth

I have no insight into the body of the post, but LOL at this conclusion. Durham has been running his “investigation” now for more than two years and has found diddly squat. The sole product of the Durham investigation is breathless “just wait for the bombshell” punditry from disingenuous right-wing extremist pundits, the same crew who are convinced Hillary Clinton is running a child sex dungeon in a pizza parlor.

Re: Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment

#237

Post by the_optimist »

res0nat0r wrote: post #173
kingsuper20 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>what is the general accusation of his crimes? Realistically, he simply pissed off members of the ruling class of the US. Their presence has become significantly more obvious in recent years. Other than that, I'd say it's mostly a 'show me the man, I'll show you the crime' sort of thing.

In reality he laundered hacked materials he knowingly received from an adversarial to the USA nation state actor, and released it deliberately to interfere with the US election process to damage a POTUS candidate he didn't like.

1) You cannot even come close to proving your statement, and 2) None of this would even be illegal if it weren't for intel agencies acting as political hit squads.

Re: Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment

#238

Post by the_optimist »

jacobolus wrote: post #236
the_optimist wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well aware of the supposed "'need' to use unsavory characters," given Mueller's direct role in the Whitey Bulger affair [0]. I also recognize how aggressive and cavalier that behavior is in practice. I appreciate your applied view of the legal system but it's reasonably likely that such derogatory evidence would not even be admitted in court. This is middle-age justice with a modern veneer. Might as well torture conf…

> Durham - now Special Counsel - still quietly looks for the truth I have no insight into the body of the post, but LOL at this conclusion. Durham has been running his “investigation” now for more than two years and has found diddly squat. The sole product of the Durham investigation is breathless “just wait for the bombshell” punditry from disingenuous right-wing extremist pundits, the same crew who are convinced Hi…

One person here strewing random, quite absurd theories about, and that's not me, nor the author of that in-depth historically factual piece. Not sure why you LOL at innocent people dying in prison, strikes me as a bit indecent.

Re: Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment

#240

Post by jacobolus »

the_optimist wrote: post #238
jacobolus wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Durham - now Special Counsel - still quietly looks for the truth I have no insight into the body of the post, but LOL at this conclusion. Durham has been running his “investigation” now for more than two years and has found diddly squat. The sole product of the Durham investigation is breathless “just wait for the bombshell” punditry from disingenuous right-wing extremist pundits, the same crew who are convinced Hi…

One person here strewing random, quite absurd theories about, and that's not me, nor the author of that in-depth historically factual piece. Not sure why you LOL at innocent people dying in prison, strikes me as a bit indecent.

What is the “absurd theory”? I have not presented any “theories” at all.

The entire premise of the article under discussion in this thread is (1) “Assange associate who provided evidence to the FBI is an attenion-seeking sociopath and pathological liar” (everyone seems to more or less agree on this point), and (2) “you should believe what he just told a random journalist”.

A bunch of people are claiming here that this proves Assange is an oppressed freedom fighter or something. Personally I think it furthers a general impression that Assange and a bunch of other people in the Wikileaks orbit were liars and criminals with questionable agendas and methods.

Post reply on HN