Assange about to be arrested?

[White Unicorn]

2 hours ago, Lilly said:

We really have to apply the same criteria to all. This morning I saw a video of Joe Biden saying he wished he could take Donald Trump 'out behind the gym' and beat him up 'like it was back in school'. Seriously? So where's the media out cry over this call for violence?

Frankly, which ever party gets elected the American public needs to hold them accountable and stop making excuses for certain folks all the while condemning others for similar offenses.

It's funny I really thought Biden would run for president until things happened in his personal life. I thought he would be too outspoken and emotional at times to get enough votes. Then comes in Trump and his unbelievable mouth! Biden is fighting fire with fire but it's still very politically incorrect just as with Trump. It's getting worse in the final days to watch both of these parties and all their surrogate campaigners

[Poppi]

Assange is sitting on the stuff that keeps him alive...Maybe he should die, and release the kraken- for the betterment of the world.

They have julian in a corner, and he has to think about his future vs the western worlds future. ..Does Julian have the guts to perform seppuku, and release the kraken

 

 

[bee]

18 hours ago, stevewinn said:

The law can indeed be an ass, but if we are saying the law courts and subsequent trial by jury cannot be trusted then what kind of system are we living under?  To me Assange is no special case, and the fact he's not willing to face the music shows he doesn't believe in his own case or defence and is hiding behind the convenient excuse of he'll be treated differently to any other citizen and wont have a fair trial which fits nicely with anti-government conspiracies etc...

The fact the British supreme court ruled he should be extradited to Sweden to face questioning over the allegations of sexual charges. - the fact he wont go to Sweden to face the music because he thinks he'll be extradited to the USA from there. Didn't he think he would be extradited from the UK to America? the fact he's broken his UK bail conditions by running to the Ecuadorian embassy tells us he's a fugitive of justice.

 

.

If the music he has to go and face are a honey trap?.. set up?... invented accusations? - and he knows this (which of course he does)
then who can blame him for his reluctance to go and his belief that it is part of a bigger plan to eventually (and it could take many
many years -) --- get him over to America on espionage charges related specifically to Bradley Manning - and Manning's whistleblowing
especially the Collateral Murder footage -- 

If you know you are being set up and your life and freedom are at risk ---- what do you do?---  

I can't say exactly why he wasn't attempted to be extradited from the UK to the US -- but I can guess - 
probably because there isn't a strong enough case and it was easier to  get him with trumped up sexual charges in Sweden -
thereby blackening his name and getting a further move towards the US set up at the same time --
there would have been too much uproar and publicity if they had tried to do it direct from the UK -
they must have decided it was practically impossible to do it that way --- so went the false sexual allegations route - as a first step -

Anyway it looks like we will have to agree to disagree about all this - 

.

 

 

[SHaYap]

1 hour ago, bee said:

honey trap

Now I must say its been years since I seen this kind of language on the internet ...

~

[bee]

.

this weekend ---
 

The Director of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange's mentor, Gavin MacFadyen dies -
 

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/10/23/the-director-of-wikileaks-julian-assanges-mentor-gavin-macfadyen-dies/

 

and earlier this year - - - -  suspicious or coincidence (both or either of the deaths) you decide - 
 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/1138414/britains-top-human-rights-lawyer-who-represented-julian-assange-and-worked-alongside-george-clooneys-wife-amal-dies-in-apparent-suicide/

ONE of Britain’s top human rights lawyers who represented Julian Assange and

war criminals has died in an apparent suicide.

Married dad of two John Jones QC, 48, who worked alongside Hollywood actor
George Clooney’s wife Amal, passed away on Monday.

[snip]

A spokesman for British Transport Police said it was called to West Hampstead
rail station in north London at 7.07am on Monday after a man was struck by a
train.

 

 

 

 

[Claire.]

Gavin MacFadyen dies at the age of 76, So young. Just waiting for the headline 'Hillary's Body Count is Going Up." Oh wait... found one.

If indeed those who publish questionably obtained information are targets then why hasn't all of MSM been wiped out for releasing Snowden's and other whistle blowers files? Last I heard the First Amendment wasn't exactly a bullet proof vest or an antidote for poison - and yet, so many such journalists are alive and thriving. Go figure.

[Lilly]

Unless several people witnessed Mr MacFayden toss himself (of his own volition) into the path of the train then the possibility remains that he might have been pushed by others (aka murdered).

The world is often not quite as the media presents it to us. Here lately it's becoming more and more clear to me that this is the case.

[Claire.]

2 minutes ago, Lilly said:

The world is often not quite as the media presents it to us. Here lately it's becoming more and more clear to me that this is the case.

Nor is the world quite how Wikileaks presents it to us.

[Lilly]

Just now, Clair said:

Nor is the world quite how Wikileaks presents it to us.

I'm sure WikiLeaks tries to put their 'spin' onto things as well. However, when you can read the emails for yourself that at least gives you the opportunity to make your own decisions. The Clinton team used bleach bit and hammers in an attempt to destroy government email communications that had been subpoenaed by the FBI for goodness sakes. Quite frankly, everyone should be taking this type of thing very seriously indeed. This is not the same thing as your personal and private email, we're talking about sensitive government communications (some even classified). It's looking like Mrs Clinton will most likely be the next President and her past behavior makes her a very frightening prospect IMO.

[Eye of Giza]

people seem to forget and dont ask the question. Why were all the emails deleted and when was they deleted. everyone thinks clinton is innocent and she has the right to delete the email that was run from her servers not thru the government ones. Correct me if i am wrong please.  Thanks Lilly you answered the questions that i was thinking of.

Can she really be trusted.

 

Edited October 24, 2016 by Eye of Giza

[Lilly]

8 minutes ago, Eye of Giza said:

 

Can she really be trusted.

 

I don't think Mrs Clinton is at all trustworthy. But, I'm not too inclined to view Mr Trump as being all that trustworthy either.

It's quite a dilemma we find ourselves in.

Oh, and yes, the bleach bit and hammering took place after the FBI had subpoenaed Mrs Clinton's emails.

Edited October 24, 2016 by Lilly
addition

[Vorg]

Well, seeing that Mrs.Clinton's email were made public, it really shouldn't matter one bit regardless of who exposed them. Had they been on an Official State Department server, then they would have been subjected to the freedom of information act. (FOIA)

Here she is lecturing her State department workers to be careful of cyber security.

 

[Lilly]

How funny is that...Mrs Clinton lecturing others on internet security. The rules simply don't apply to her though. The fact that Mrs Clinton skated away from actions that would have landed anyone else in Federal Prison makes this very clear. We are no longer living in a democratic republic, we're living in an oligarchy where the ruling elite are not subject to the rule of law. This ruling class controls the media and enforces it's beliefs via a culture political correctness, special interest groups and yes, even organized violence.

[Dark_Grey]

5 hours ago, Lilly said:

I'm sure WikiLeaks tries to put their 'spin' onto things as well. However, when you can read the emails for yourself that at least gives you the opportunity to make your own decisions. The Clinton team used bleach bit and hammers in an attempt to destroy government email communications that had been subpoenaed by the FBI for goodness sakes.

That keeps getting glossed over every time some one suggests Wikileaks is making things up. Innocent people don't attempt to wipe and physically destroy harddrives on their way to the FBI. Forget about all the conspiracy nonsense for a minute and focus on what we know to be true. There's plenty of damning evidence in the "verified" pile to not put this traitor in the seat of power.

[Claire.]

5 hours ago, Lilly said:

I'm sure WikiLeaks tries to put their 'spin' onto things as well. However, when you can read the emails for yourself that at least gives you the opportunity to make your own decisions. The Clinton team used bleach bit and hammers in an attempt to destroy government email communications that had been subpoenaed by the FBI for goodness sakes. Quite frankly, everyone should be taking this type of thing very seriously indeed. This is not the same thing as your personal and private email, we're talking about sensitive government communications (some even classified). It's looking like Mrs Clinton will most likely be the next President and her past behavior makes her a very frightening prospect IMO.

Why would the protection of sensitive and/or classified government information be less important than the protection of personal and private information? Is it a situation of our right to know? Because if it were, then a justification for the theft and dissemination of our personal information could also be made. Furthermore, if the protection of personal privacy was indeed more important, shouldn't the fact that WikiLeaks also releases the private information of innocent people be cause for concern? Or is such collateral damage acceptable? WikiLeaks seems to think that it is. Indeed, Assange himself has stated that WikiLeaks might get “blood on [its] hands,” but that it was a price he was willing to pay for transparency.

As for Hillary, of course we should take such information seriously. We should take how and why that information was obtained and released seriously as well. How quickly we forget that long before Hillary became Assange's target de jour,  WikiLeaks was leaking stolen, classified national security material that endangered not just us, but also our allies. Do you recall its dump six years ago of more than 76,000 unredacted secret intelligence documents? The identities of at least 100 Afghans who were informing on the Taliban were also included in that dump.

But wait, there's more. Assange has released numerous other US secrets into the public domain as well; secrets that include: "a trove of classified documents on Guantanamo Bay detainees, an unredacted archive of more than a quarter-million secret U.S. diplomatic cables, classified CIA documents exposing how CIA operatives maintain cover while traveling through airports, secret details of European military operations to intercept refugees traveling from Libya to Europe, and top-secret documents describing National Security Agency intercepts of foreign government communications, among others."

And you're okay with this?

Source: The Washington Post.

 

Edited October 24, 2016 by Clair

[Vorg]

21 minutes ago, Lilly said:

How funny is that...Mrs Clinton lecturing others on internet security. The rules simply don't apply to her though. The fact that Mrs Clinton skated away from actions that would have landed anyone else in Federal Prison makes this very clear. We are no longer living in a democratic republic, we're living in an oligarchy where the ruling elite are not subject to the rule of law. This ruling class controls the media and enforces it's beliefs via a culture political correctness, special interest groups and yes, even organized violence.

And I believe that is the reason people are for Trump. They see a change to rid us of all the secrecy, that in some regards never should be, as well as hopefully a general change in politics as usual, because Trump is not a politician. Maybe that is what is needed to clean the place up, an outsider, who wouldn't be pressured by those guide the President in the way they forge foreign policy, diplomacy and security, etc... And I agree with Trump as far as the Russians go, does it hurt to try and gain trustful relations back with them, or go all out hate Russia and threaten looming war?

[Claire.]

2 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

And I believe that is the reason people are for Trump. They see a change to rid us of all the secrecy,

And of course a Trump government will be 100% transparent and won't mind WikiLeak's ongoing theft and unredacted dissemination of classified and other secret information into the public domain.

[Vorg]

18 minutes ago, Clair said:

Why would the protection of sensitive and/or classified government information be less important than the protection of personal and private information? Is it a situation of our right to know? Because if it were, then a justification for the theft and dissemination of our personal information could also be made. Furthermore, if the protection of personal privacy was indeed more important, shouldn't the fact that WikiLeaks also releases the private information of innocent people be cause for concern? Or is such collateral damage acceptable? WikiLeaks seems to think that it is. Indeed, Assange himself has stated that WikiLeaks might get “blood on [its] hands,” but that it was a price he was willing to pay for transparency.

As for Hillary, of course we should take such information seriously. We should take how and why that information was obtained and released seriously as well. How quickly we forget that long before Hillary became Assange's target de jour,  WikiLeaks was leaking stolen, classified national security material that endangered not just us, but also our allies. Do you recall its dump six years ago of more than 76,000 unredacted secret intelligence documents? The identities of at least 100 Afghans who were informing on the Taliban were also included in that dump.

But wait, there's more. Assange has released numerous other US secrets into the public domain as well; secrets that include: "a trove of classified documents on Guantanamo Bay detainees, an unredacted archive of more than a quarter-million secret U.S. diplomatic cables, classified CIA documents exposing how CIA operatives maintain cover while traveling through airports, secret details of European military operations to intercept refugees traveling from Libya to Europe, and top-secret documents describing National Security Agency intercepts of foreign government communications, among others."

And you're okay with this?

Source: The Washington Post.I

If the world knew that the redacted 28 pages from the 9/11 commission report implicated the Saudis, we would not have a need to have been in Afghanistan or Iraq fighting "Al Queda." Bush was good friends with the Saudis, turned a blind eye, and went after Iraq and Afghanistan instead, even though 19/20 of the hijackers were Saudi. And Assange wouldn't have publish a trove of Info from wars we never should have been in.

Edited October 24, 2016 by South Alabam

[Vorg]

1 minute ago, Clair said:

And of course a Trump government will be 100% transparent and won't mind WikiLeak's ongoing theft and unredacted dissemination of classified and other secret information into the public domain.

No, there is the FOIA that should be followed as long as the subject is not classified. But she was hiding it all, in secrecy, away from the FOIA. Mrs.Clinton is not the first to use this tactic however.

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2015/03/18/flashback-rove-erases-22-million-white-house-emails-on-private-server-at-height-of-u-s-attorney-scandal-media-yawns/

[Claire.]

6 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

f the world knew that the redacted 28 pages from the 9/11 commission report implicated the Saudis, we would not have a need to have been in Afghanistan or Iraq fighting "Al Queda." Bush was good friends with the Saudis, turned a blind eye, and went after Iraq and Afghanistan instead, even though 19/20 of the hijackers were Saudi.

Iraq would have happened regardless.

 

[Claire.]

53 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

No, there is the FOIA that should be followed as long as the subject is not classified. But she was hiding it all, in secrecy, away from the FOIA. Mrs.Clinton is not the first to use this tactic however.

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2015/03/18/flashback-rove-erases-22-million-white-house-emails-on-private-server-at-height-of-u-s-attorney-scandal-media-yawns/

I'm aware that the use of a private server would circumvent the FOIA. My point was that no President, not even Trump, would appreciate having WikiLeaks all up in their face. Sure it's great fun as long as Hillary's the one being targeted, but I'm sure Trump would be singing a whole other tune if ever the tables were to turn. So would we if that unredacted information just happened to include our private details and correspondence.

Edited October 24, 2016 by Clair
Added stuff.

[Lilly]

1 hour ago, Clair said:

 

And you're okay with this?

 

 

I didn't say I was "ok"  with hackers like Assange and company. But, it has already been pointed out that Mrs Clinton's government emails (except for those marked classified) would have been subject to the Freedom of Information Act anyway. Oh, and the FBI is most certainly allowed access to the ones that were classified.

If Mrs Clinton didn't want anyone "in her face" then she should not have conducted government business on a private server. It's not so much that Mrs Clinton is being targeted, the fact is that she violated the law and then sought to cover up said violation with bleach bit and a hammer. Also, anyone else doing something similar would not have been able to get off scott-free. The notion that Trump would have been equally capable of evading prosecution stands as unproven. Mr Trump has never held political office nor had access to sensitive government information.

[Claire.]

1 minute ago, Lilly said:

I didn't say I was "ok"  with hackers like Assange and company. But, it has already been pointed out that Mrs Clinton's government emails (except for those marked classified) would have been subject to the Freedom of Information Act anyway. Oh, and the FBI is most certainly allowed access to the ones that were classified.

If Mrs Clinton didn't want anyone "in her face" then she should not have conducted government business on a private server. It's not so much that Mrs Clinton is being targeted, the fact is that she violated the law and then sought to cover up said violation with bleach bit and a hammer. Also, anyone else doing something similar would not have been able to get off scott-free. The notion that Trump would have been equally capable of evading prosecution stands as unproven. Mr Trump has never held political office nor had access to sensitive government information.

I'm sorry Lilly, but I'm not sure what if anything this has to do with WikiLeaks. Are you just stating your opinion regarding Hillary and her use of the private server, or are you suggesting that her actions justify WikiLeaks' involvement? As for Trump, he's evaded prosecution (and persecution) on other things, so one never knows what the outcome would have been for him (or anyone else for that matter) under similar circumstances.

[Lilly]

I'm advocating transparency as it applies to those we elect to public office. WikiLeaks has leaked evidence of illegal activity...the cat is now 'out of the bag' so to speak. Do we ignore the illegal activity because it was discovered in a sleazy manner?  Or, do we acknowledge that a sitting Secretary of State engaged in illegal action in order to evade an FBI inquiry?

As for Mr Trump, any speculation on what he might or might not do in a similar circumstance has no bearing on what Mrs Clinton actually did do. The notion that Trump's evasion of prosecution for 'other things' somehow makes Clinton's evasion of prosecution less egregious is a logical fallacy. See here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/two-wrongs-make-a-right.html

 

Edited October 24, 2016 by Lilly

[Claire.]

1 minute ago, Lilly said:

I'm advocating transparency as it applies to those we elect to public office. WikiLeaks has leaked evidence of illegal activity...the cat is now 'out of the bag' so to speak. Do we ignore the illegal activity because it was discovered in a sleazy manner?  Or, do we acknowledge that a sitting Secretary of State engaged in illegal action in order to evade an FBI inquiry?

As for Mr Trump, any speculation on what he might or might not do in a similar circumstance has no bearing on what Mrs Clinton actually did do.

Most of us advocate some level of transparency but the question is how much? As for ignoring the information that has been leaked about Clinton, I've more than once stated that it should not be ignored. I've also stated that the source of that information shouldn't be ignored either. As for Trump, my point was that whilst he relishes and encourages WikiLeaks and others to obtain and distribute information on Hillary, he would not be enabling these people if he were the target. It's an important point because no candidate for the presidency should ever encourage anyone to compromise the US government or any of its employees like that.