Julian Assange Arrested on U.S. Extradition Warrant, London Police Say

[nobody's_hero]

Watch the whole thing and you get a deeper impression.

He pretty much said what I've been saying. Assange's only "crime" was to embarrass politicians.

 

[TheTexan]

I think Trump is playing 4d chess here. I think Trump is basically putting on a show for the media, but the whole point of extraditing Assange is to get him safely to the US so he can pardon him and give him asylum here in the US.

When he pardons Assange he'll earn big points with his base and make the media again look foolish.

The media will latch on to it hard, and say that Trump, Assange, and Russia are all in cahoots! It'll keep that bogus talking point going all the way through to the 2020 elections which will only drive people away from liberals and result in landslide Republican wins across the country!

[MENTION=10908]dannno[/MENTION] thoughts ?

 

[dannno]

I think Trump is playing 4d chess here. I think Trump is basically putting on a show for the media, but the whole point of extraditing Assange is to get him safely to the US so he can pardon him and give him asylum here in the US.

When he pardons Assange he'll earn big points with his base and make the media again look foolish.

The media will latch on to it hard, and say that Trump, Assange, and Russia are all in cahoots! It'll keep that bogus talking point going all the way through to the 2020 elections which will only drive people away from liberals and result in landslide Republican wins across the country!

@dannno thoughts ?

I think we are hoping for Assange to be able to testify against the deep state as well.

 

[goldenequity]

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1116475773840322560

Punch & Judy

 

[Working Poor]

Even if he does have a choice, he will choose self-serving corruption free from all ethical constraints. That's his nature, demonstrated over his entire life.

Really? How do you know this? Have you personally done business with him? Have you read the contracts he signs ? I think he is trying to chose righteousness. I can't imagine the kind of pressure he must be under. I look at his enemies and see that he has to be doing something right.He has to deal with the most corrupt and powerful people in the world you know, the ones who bought us to where we are today. Who also btw have been serving themselves.
I think if Clinton had won she would have deemed anyone who did not vote for her and her policies enemies of the state and half of us would be being rounded up for firing squads.

 

[timosman]

Hillary Clinton reacts to the arrest of Julian Assange

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

There's no way Trump is going to pardon Assange after just being cleared of collusion. The narrative from the MSM is that WikiLeaks and Assange are Russian assets. Pardoning Assange would have all the Democrats claiming they've been vindicated and that the Mueller investigation was incomplete and there should be a new investigation into Trump's connections with WikiLeaks. It would also make it much harder to pardon Roger Stone.

This is a straight-up betrayal by Trump and anyone hoping for a happy ending where he turns the tables will be disappointed.

 

[timosman]

There's no way Trump is going to pardon Assange after just being cleared of collusion. The narrative from the MSM is that WikiLeaks and Assange are Russian assets. Pardoning Assange would have all the Democrats claiming they've been vindicated and that the Mueller investigation was incomplete and there should be a new investigation into Trump's connections with WikiLeaks. It would also make it much harder to pardon Roger Stone.

This is a straight-up betrayal by Trump and anyone hoping for a happy ending where he turns the tables will be disappointed.

What if Assange successfully fights extradition?

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

What if Assange successfully fights extradition?

No way does the UK court system allow that. The UK is on the same awful path the US is, only miles further down the road.

 

[Schifference]

Probably had nothing to do with Wikileaks putting out personal photos and information on Ecuador's leader. Demand free food, room and board, and internet and then go after your host who is paying for all of that.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/05/ecuador-denies-decision-made-to-expel-wikileaks-founder.html

Would this bother you if you were the host? If so how can you justify all the immigrants pouring into our country for endless entitlements?

 

[jon4liberty]

In court the discovery will be interesting...i wonder what info will be made public

 

[buck000]

This is kind of interesting: On NPR yesterday morning, a couple of NRP boot-licker reporters and Glenn Greenwald were interviewed. The host introduced Greenwald as a "colleague" of Assange's, which Greenwald icily disputed right away. Greenwald went on to outline how this was a clamp down on journalism that exposes .gov shenanigans, while the NPR reporters dutifully reported on Assange's criminal allegations and long bear.

Here's the article: https://www.npr.org/2019/04/11/7121...n-assange-after-ecuadorean-embassy-evicts-him

Note that while the audio has Greenwald's interview, the transcript has cut his part out entirely.

 

[AZJoe]

Love it. If the government has nothing to hide, if it is doing nothing wrong, it has nothing to fear from Wikileaks.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

MAGA had started turning the tables on Deep State even before release of Mueller Report/ Assange arrest?


Trump: Russia would've preferred Hillary Clinton as president

By MATTHEW CHOI
03/27/2019
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/27/trump-fox-interview-1241242

Here's the article: https://www.npr.org/2019/04/11/7121...n-assange-after-ecuadorean-embassy-evicts-him

Note that while the audio has Greenwald's interview, the transcript has cut his part out entirely.

NPR often has fine programming loaded with left-wing neocons nuances cleverly wrapped as 'objective journalism'. For decades these nincampoops (sic) ran a show on mideast wars, Israel-Palestine , Gaza wars etc without disclosing to the audiences that the host's (David Brooks) son was fighting for Israeli military while he was covering those wars.

On a side note, perhaps MAGA should start disclosing when appointing ZOA awarded neocons like Bolton as NSA that his top funder neocon Adelson held fund raiser for Israel military while never holding a fund raiser for US military veterans.

 

[Superfluous Man]

Really? How do you know this?

He's a very famous person whose life and dealings are well-known matters of record. He's even written a well-known book about the art of manipulating people through dishonesty.

Tell me, if I had made that same remark about Hillary, would you object the same way?

 

[Superfluous Man]

I think Trump is playing 4d chess here. I think Trump is basically putting on a show for the media, but the whole point of extraditing Assange is to get him safely to the US so he can pardon him and give him asylum here in the US.

When he pardons Assange he'll earn big points with his base and make the media again look foolish.

The media will latch on to it hard, and say that Trump, Assange, and Russia are all in cahoots! It'll keep that bogus talking point going all the way through to the 2020 elections which will only drive people away from liberals and result in landslide Republican wins across the country!

[MENTION=10908]dannno[/MENTION] thoughts ?

This is not satircal enough.

You actually come across as less of a mindless shill here than several of the Trumpists who have already piped up in this thread.

 

[AZJoe]

Take a breath. Specs is reading the allegations in the indictment and providing that information here. Even if the evidence is fabricated, the government will show you what they have at trial.

No, the indictment does not allege any hacking. The indictment does not even use the word or mention hacking in the indictment.

Even if everything in the indictment is proven, what does it actually allege? It alleges Manning gave Assange an encrypted password to decrypt that Assange did not decrypt.

And it alleges this occurred after Manning already provided all of the documents he had to WikiLeaks.

And it alleges the purpose of the request for decrypting the password was not to hack or obtain information (Manning already had the documents and already gave them to WikiLeaks), but rather so it would be harder to pinpoint Manning as the source.

Further the indictment alleges no activities whatsoever by Assange on US soil or within any US jurisdiction. It never alleges any of his publications or his non-decryption of the decrypted password took place in the USA or its territories. So the empire has no legitimate basis jurisdiction over the foreign journalist Assange's foreign activities.

Lastly, there is nothing new in the indictment whatsoever. All of this is information the empire had back in 2010.

The Obama-Hillary regime and US justice department under the Obama regime (which had far, far, far, far greater motive and reason to target Assange) had already legally concluded that the very same evidence now being used by the Trump Regime does not provided a basis for criminal prosecution of Assange.

The real motive here, is the war against truth. It is vengeance for exposing crimes of the empire. It is to send a message, to silence and chill other journalist who might consider exposing the empire's criminal activities.

 

[Superfluous Man]

Further the indictment alleges no activities whatsoever by Assange on US soil or within any US jurisdiction. It never alleges any of his publications or his non-decryption of the decrypted password took place in the USA or its territories. So the empire has no legitimate basis jurisdiction over Assange.

The empire has no legitimate basis jurisdiction over anyone anywhere. The essence of an empire is the illegitimacy of its jurisdiction.

But Assange is experiencing the reality that in practice the empire recognizes no geographical limits to its jurisdiction.

 

[specsaregood]

No, the indictment does not allege any hacking. The word is not even use the word or mention hacking in the indictment.

Even if everything in the indictment is proven, what does it actually allege? It alleges Manning gave Assange an encrypted password to decrypt that Assange did not decrypt.

And it alleges this occurred after Manning already provided all of the documents he had to WikiLeaks.

And it alleges the purpose of the request for decrypting the password was not to hack or obtain information (Manning already had the documents and already gave them to WikiLeaks), but rather so it would be harder to pinpoint Manning as the source.

that is not what I read, what I read said that the reason for attempting to crack the additional password was to get access to files/data that manning did not have access to with his own account. of course if manning wanted to hide himself as a source, he wouldn't have been a dumbass and went online bragging about it to other hackers.

 

[AZJoe]

Great article from Unz Review -

After 7 Years of Deceptions About Assange, the US Readies for Its First Media Rendition

For seven years, from the moment Julian Assange first sought refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy in London, they have been telling us we were wrong, that we were paranoid conspiracy theorists. We were told there was no real threat of Assange’s extradition to the United States, that it was all in our fevered imaginations. …

From the moment he sought asylum, Assange was cast as an outlaw. His work as the founder of Wikileaks – a digital platform that for the first time in history gave ordinary people a glimpse into the darkest recesses of the most secure vaults in the deepest of Deep States – was erased from the record. …

The political and media class crafted a narrative of half-truths about the sex charges Assange was under investigation for in Sweden. They overlooked the fact that Assange had been allowed to leave Sweden by the original investigator, who dropped the charges, only for them to be revived by another investigator with a well-documented political agenda. They failed to mention that Assange was always willing to be questioned by Swedish prosecutors in London, as had occurred in dozens of other cases involving extradition proceedings to Sweden. It was almost as if Swedish officials did not want to test the evidence they claimed to have in their possession.

The media and political courtiers endlessly emphasized Assange’s bail violation in the UK, ignoring the fact that asylum seekers fleeing legal and political persecution don’t usually honor bail conditions imposed by the very state authorities from which they are seeking asylum.

The political and media establishment ignored the mounting evidence of a secret grand jury in Virginia … and ridiculed Wikileaks’ concerns that the Swedish case might be cover for a more sinister attempt by the US to extradite Assange and lock him away in a high-security prison, as had happened to whistleblower Chelsea Manning.

They belittled the 2016 verdict of a panel of United Nations legal scholars that the UK was “arbitrarily detaining” Assange. The media were more interested in the welfare of his cat.

They ignored the fact that after Ecuador changed presidents – with the new one keen to win favor with Washington …

Equally, they ignored the fact that Assange had been given diplomatic status by Ecuador, as well as Ecuadorean citizenship. Britain was obligated to allow him to leave the embassy … to travel unhindered to Ecuador. No “mainstream” journalist or politician thought this significant ...

They turned a blind eye to the news that … Swedish prosecutors had decided to quietly drop the case against him in 2015. Sweden had kept the decision under wraps for more than two years.

It was a freedom of information request by an ally of Assange, not a media outlet, that unearthed documents showing that Swedish investigators had, in fact, wanted to drop the case against Assange back in 2013. The UK, however, insisted that they carry on with the charade …

Most of the other documents relating to these conversations … had been destroyed by the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service in violation of protocol. …

They told us – apparently in all seriousness – that he had to be arrested for his bail infraction, something that would normally be dealt with by a fine. …

They signed off on the right of the US authorities to seize any foreign journalist, anywhere in the world … a new, special form of rendition for journalists.

This was never about Sweden or bail violations … It was about the US Deep State doing everything in its power to crush Wikileaks and make an example of its founder. … making sure there would never again be a leak like that of Collateral Murder, the military video released by Wikileaks in 2007 that showed US soldiers celebrating as they murdered Iraqi civilians. It was about making sure there would never again be a dump of US diplomatic cables, like those released in 2010 that revealed the secret machinations of the US empire to dominate the planet whatever the cost in human rights violations. …

The arrest was not to help two women in Sweden or to enforce a minor bail infraction. … the British authorities were acting on an extradition warrant from the US. …

Still the media and political class is turning a blind eye. Where is the outrage at the lies we have been served up for these past seven years? …

And that is because these journalists, politicians and experts … knew all along that the US wanted to silence Assange and to crush Wikileaks. They knew that all along and they didn’t care. In fact, they happily conspired in paving the way for today’s kidnapping of Assange.

They did so because they are not there to represent the truth, or to stand up for ordinary people, or to protect a free press, or even to enforce the rule of law. They don’t care about any of that. They are there to protect their careers, …