Julian Assange arrested after Ecuador withdraw asylum

MoashoaM

The Enbalmer wrote: »

Self-serving maggot.


Hides like a rat in a dungheap rather than face the music for his actions.


If there's any justice in the US he will be charged with treason after first being tortured to make him give up his wikileaks passwords and details of his collaborators.


He was always fond of telling people what they "must" do,now he "must" pay for his crimes at long last.

He's not a US citizen.

FatherTed

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

No evidence at all of that. Are you saying that the Russians broke into these classified information.



I worry more about anti-Russian hysteria and the "thickness" with which the general population that accepts these fairy tales.

Plenty of cooperation information in the Mueller indictment of the Russian intelligence guys last year for the Clinton/DNC email hacking:
https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download

Wikileaks is Organization 1:

47. In order to expand their interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the Conspirators transferred many of the documents they stole from the DNC and the chairman of the Clinton Campaign to Organization 1. The Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, discussed the release of the stolen documents and the timing of those releases with Organization 1 to heighten their impact on the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
a. On or about June 22, 2016, Organization 1 sent a private message to Guccifer 2.0 to “end any new material [stolen from the DNC] here for us to review and it will have a much higher impact than what you are doing.” On or about July 6, 2016, Organization 1 added, “if you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days prefable [sic] because the DNC [Democratic National Convention] is approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters behind her after.” The Conspirators responded, “ok . . . i see.” Organization 1 explained, “we think trump has only a 25% chance of winning against hillary . . . so conflict between bernie and hillary is interesting.”
b. After failed attempts to transfer the stolen documents starting in late June 2016, on or about July 14, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, sent Organization 1 an email with an attachment titled “wk dnc link1.txt.gpg.” The Conspirators explained to Organization 1 that the encrypted file contained instructions on how to access an online archive of stolen DNC documents. On or about July 18, 2016, Organization 1 confirmed it had “the 1Gb or so archive” and would make a release of the stolen documents “this week.”
48. On or about July 22, 2016, Organization 1 released over 20,000 emails and other documents stolen from the DNC network by the Conspirators. This release occurred approximately three days before the start of the Democratic National Convention. Organization 1 did not disclose Guccifer 2.0’s role in providing them. The latest-in-time email released through Organization 1 was dated on or about May 25, 2016, approximately the same day the Conspirators hacked the DNC Microsoft Exchange Server.
49. On or about October 7, 2016, Organization 1 released the first set of emails from the chairman of the Clinton Campaign that had been stolen by LUKASHEV and his co-conspirators.
Between on or about October 7, 2016 and November 7, 2016, Organization 1 released approximately thirty-three tranches of documents that had been stolen from the chairman of the Clinton Campaign. In total, over 50,000 stolen documents were released.

Cienciano

The Enbalmer wrote: »

Because he was a dirty bastard.

"The politician did not make it clear if Assange used his own poo for the alleged smear campaign"

recedite

Forensics should be able to DNA test the poo.


I'm starting to think poor Assange has finally flipped.
Too long in a confined space.


File photos of him taken on the embassy balcony in the black leather jacket from 2017 are like a completely different person.
Now he's like some kind of deranged Bad Santa, who leaves poo stains out for people instead of toys.

The Enbalmer

recedite wrote: »

Forensics should be able to DNA test the poo.


I'm starting to think poor Assange has finally flipped.
Too long in a confined space.


File photos of him taken on the embassy balcony in the black leather jacket from 2017 are like a completely different person.
Now he's like some kind of deranged Bad Santa, who leaves poo stains out for people instead of toys.

I remember seeing that jacket and thinking he had flipped for wearing it in the first place. It looked like something from a donation to a homeless shelter.

Hotblack Desiato

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

So what, he's a western journalist opposing Western imperialism. Its a bit like accusing Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of helping the Kremlin when they were investigating WaterGate.

If Deep Throat had been a Russian agent, and W & B knew it, then you'd have an apt analogy.

Rjd2

great tweet from Corbyn.

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1116424423953903616



https://twitter.com/michaelmalice/status/1116441231649845261

Let's be clear: Julian Assange is not a journalist.
He uncovered and released information that the political establishment and government wanted to stay hidden.
Does that sound like the work of a journalist?

Dohnjoe

Guessing Corbyn wouldn't be so keen on Assange if he had dump-leaked his Labour party's mails and correspondences (not that it would happen, because Wikileaks now operates on partisan principles, Corbyn is "safe")

Whistle-blowing is one thing. Dumping info as part of a personal agenda, regardless of lives it endangers, is another.

threeball

The Enbalmer wrote: »

Self-serving maggot.


Hides like a rat in a dungheap rather than face the music for his actions.


If there's any justice in the US he will be charged with treason after first being tortured to make him give up his wikileaks passwords and details of his collaborators.


He was always fond of telling people what they "must" do,now he "must" pay for his crimes at long last.

You obviously don't understand the meaning of treason.

evolving_doors

aaaaannnnnd there ya go...


bobsyeruncle.png

https://www.enca.com/business/imf-approves-42bn-loan-ecuador?fbclid=IwAR2_3jynzZpbOh1BEIf4klmwkUV_Gy1sc_Cq7l2PqPKJ2YkAaA67fkzqtAE

Atoms for Peace

The Enbalmer wrote: »

Because he was a dirty bastard.

"The politician did not make it clear if Assange used his own poo for the alleged smear campaign."

Franz Von Peppercorn

FatherTed wrote: »

Plenty of cooperation information in the Mueller indictment of the Russian intelligence guys last year for the Clinton/DNC email hacking:
https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download

Wikileaks is Organization 1:

What’s with the strikes outs? I think we all know that Wikileaks was anti Clinton, warmonger that she was, not seeing Russian involvement here.

archer22

Only criminals would regard exposing a crime as being a crime!

The Enbalmer

archer22 wrote:

Only criminals would regard exposing a crime as being a crime!

Such as the crime of rape,for which he is wanted in Sweden?

Zorya

The Enbalmer wrote: »

Such as the crime of rape,for which he is wanted in Sweden?

Why don't you read more deeply around the supposed rape cases in Sweden? Neither woman, both fan girls who wanted contact with him after the supposed rapes, wanted him charged with rape. They wanted him to take a HIV test, that is why they went to the cop shop. There are documents saying they felt rail roaded thereafter by the cops and a prosecutor with a clear political agenda. Ardin is more gung ho now, which seems clearly attention seeking. She kept Assange in her flat for 6 days after they had sex and organised a party for him. Read up about the story before making half cocked declarations about it. If Assange had not leaked his first famous video about civilian targeting in Iraq no mention would ever have been made about him"raping" people.

1641

Zorya wrote: »

Why don't you read more deeply around the supposed rape cases in Sweden?....... Read up about the story before making half cocked declarations about it. If Assange had not leaked his first famous video about civilian targeting in Iraq no mention would ever have been made about him"raping" people.

So, I have refreshed my memory of the story. It is not a pretty one:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden


I think it should be tried before a judge and jury - rather than you, or other Assangies, doing the exoneration. But I think this is unlikely to happen now because of Sweden's statute of limitations.

Zorya

1641 wrote: »

So, I have refreshed my memory of the story. It is not a pretty one:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden


I think it should be tried before a judge and jury - rather than you, or other Assangies, doing the exoneration. But I think this is unlikely to happen now because of Sweden's statute of limitations.

Assangies? hahaha

I don't care for Assange particularly, but I do care for democracy, freedom of the press, truth about government activities, human rights etc.

Read around the story. Don't just read one article - surprised though that you have just ''refreshed'' yourself about it, since you had opinions on Assange earlier in the thread.
Bad sex is not rape, sloppy sex is not rape. Being rude and neglectful after sex is not rape. Not calling or having sex with someone else after sex with person A, is not rape. Deleted tweets are suspicious, the ones where the woman lamented him not getting it up, in spite of an hour or more of her best efforts, the one where she said she was ''half asleep'' not ''sleeping'' as was later asserted.
Etc etc.

I wish he had been properly tried on the rape thing because it would long ago have been thrown out of court for being insubstantial.

1641

Zorya wrote: »

Assangies? hahaha

I don't care for Assange particularly, but I do care for democracy, freedom of the press, truth about government activities, human rights etc.

Read around the story. Don't just read one article - surprised though that you have just ''refreshed'' yourself about it, since you had opinions on Assange earlier in the thread.
Bad sex is not rape, sloppy sex is not rape. Being rude and neglectful after sex is not rape. Not calling or having sex with someone else after sex with person A, is not rape. Deleted tweets are suspicious, the ones where the woman lamented him not getting it up, in spite of an hour or more of her best efforts, the one where she said she was ''half asleep'' not ''sleeping'' as was later asserted.
Etc etc.

I wish he had been properly tried on the rape thing because it would long ago have been thrown out of court for being insubstantial.

I "refreshed" myself because I thought from your post that there might have been something I missed. You wish he had been tried ? Why wasn't he ? Assange ran away from a trial. Regarding the extradition warrant in the UK, Assange said he would respect the decisions of the court hearing the evidence. When it went against him he ran away again into the Ecuadorian embassy.
As regards democracy, human rights, etc, give me a break. Did Assange show any interested in human rights etc when he released the names of ordinary Afghanis who had give information tp the Americans about Taliban activities ? Has he shown any concern about democracy or human rights in countries other than the US or western countries more broadly?

Zorya

1641 wrote: »

I "refreshed" myself because I thought from your post that there might have been something I missed. You wish he had been tried ? Why wasn't he ? Assange ran away from a trial. Regarding the extradition warrant in the UK, Assange said he would respect the decisions of the court hearing the evidence. When it went against him he ran away again into the Ecuadorian embassy.
As regards democracy, human rights, etc, give me a break. Did Assange show any interested in human rights etc when he released the names of ordinary Afghanis who had give information tp the Americans about Taliban activities ? Has he shown any concern about democracy or human rights in countries other than the US or western countries more broadly?

He was covering western corruption, whether that was because of his bias or not, I don't particularly care. It's global style whataboutery to wonder why he did not expose Putin too. He exposed western corruption. That is a fact.


The policy of wikileaks was no redaction. That is a debatable policy.

I think he should have gone to trial for the rape, I think he would have been found not guilty as the charges, while they do reveal him as a creep, do not reveal rape.
I reckon he went into embassy because he knew he faced serious stuff with US.

Assange stayed for 5 weeks in Sweden awaiting something to do with the rape. Nothing happened.
Here is John Pilger's description -

For Assange, his trial has been trial by media. On August 20, 2010, when the Swedish police opened a "rape investigation", they coordinated it, unlawfully, with the Stockholm tabloids. The front pages said Assange had been accused of the "rape of two women". The word "rape" can have a very different legal meaning in Sweden than in Britain; a pernicious false reality became the news that went round the world.


Less than 24 hours later, the Stockholm Chief Prosecutor, Eva Finne, took over the investigation. She wasted no time in cancelling the arrest warrant, saying, "I don't believe there is any reason to suspect that he has committed rape." Four days later, she dismissed the rape investigation altogether, saying, "There is no suspicion of any crime whatsoever."


Enter Claes Borgstrom, a highly contentious figure in the Social Democratic Party then standing as a candidate in Sweden's imminent general election. Within days of the chief prosecutor's dismissal of the case, Borgstrom, a lawyer, announced to the media that he was representing the two women and had sought a different prosecutor in Gothenberg. This was Marianne Ny, whom Borgstrom knew well, personally and politically.


On 30 August, Assange attended a police station in Stockholm voluntarily and answered the questions put to him. He understood that was the end of the matter. Two days later, Ny announced she was re-opening the case.


At a press conference, Borgstrom was asked by a Swedish reporter why the case was proceeding when it had already been dismissed. The reporter cited one of the women as saying she had not been raped. He replied, "Ah, but she is not a lawyer."


On the day that Marianne Ny reactivated the case, the head of Sweden's military intelligence service - which has the acronym MUST - publicly denounced WikiLeaks in an article entitled "WikiLeaks [is] a threat to our soldiers [under US command in Afghanistan]".


Both the Swedish prime minister and foreign minister attacked Assange, who had been charged with no crime. Assange was warned that the Swedish intelligence service, SAPO, had been told by its US counterparts that US-Sweden intelligence-sharing arrangements would be "cut off" if Sweden sheltered him.


For five weeks, Assange waited in Sweden for the renewed "rape investigation" to take its course. The Guardian was then on the brink of publishing the Iraq "War Logs", based on WikiLeaks' disclosures, which Assange was to oversee in London.


Finally, he was allowed to leave. As soon as he had left, Marianne Ny issued a European Arrest Warrant and an Interpol "red alert" normally used for terrorists and dangerous criminals.


Assange attended a police station in London, was duly arrested and spent ten days in Wandsworth Prison, in solitary confinement. Released on £340,000 bail, he was electronically tagged, required to report to police daily and placed under virtual house arrest while his case began its long journey to the Supreme Court.


He still had not been charged with any offence. His lawyers repeated his offer to be questioned in London, by video or personally, pointing out that Marianne Ny had given him permission to leave Sweden. They suggested a special facility at Scotland Yard commonly used by the Swedish and other European authorities for that purpose. She refused.


For almost seven years, while Sweden has questioned forty-four people in the UK in connection with police investigations, Ny refused to question Assange and so advance her case.


Writing in the Swedish press, a former Swedish prosecutor, Rolf Hillegren, accused Ny of losing all impartiality. He described her personal investment in the case as "abnormal" and demanded she be replaced.

Herre are some of the deleted tweet messages the women sent after the sex

• On 17 August, SW wrote "JA did not want to use a condom".
• On 20 August, while at the police station, SW wrote that she "did not want to put any charges on Julian Assange" but that "the police were keen on getting their hands on him".
• According to the statement she was "chocked (sic shocked) when they arrested him" because she "only wanted him to take [an STD test]".
• On 21 August, SW wrote that she "did not want to accuse" Julian Assange "for anything" and that it was the "police who made up the charges (sic)"
• On 23 August, SW wrote that it was the police, not herself, who started the whole thing.
• On 26 August, AA wrote that they ought to sell their stories for money to a newspaper.
• On 28 August, AA wrote that they had a contact on the biggest Swedish tabloid and SW wrote that their lawyer negotiated with the tabloid.

Wilen also wrote that she was ''half asleep'' - halvsov - in a text message when they had sex. This was deleted and the allegation used the word sleeping.


Anna Ardin's deleted tweet story includes -

''Friday August 13, Mr. Assange has sex with Ms. Ardin, and the next day gives his talk. Ms. Ardin tweets twice after the incident later characterized as an assault.

First on August 14, she tweets: “Julian wants to go to a crayfish party? Does anybody have a free spot tonight or tomorrow?”

At 2 a.m. on August 15, she tweets that she is sitting outside, hanging out with “some of the smartest people on the planet.”

When the police report is filed, the tweets disappear, but bloggers retain them.''

The Enbalmer

Zorya wrote: »

He was covering western corruption, whether that was because of his bias or not, I don't particularly care. It's global style whataboutery to wonder why he did not expose Putin too. He exposed western corruption. That is a fact.


The policy of wikileaks was no redaction. That is a debatable policy.

I think he should have gone to trial for the rape, I think he would have been found not guilty as the charges, while they do reveal him as a creep, do not reveal rape.
I reckon he went into embassy because he knew he faced serious stuff with US.

Assange stayed for 5 weeks in Sweden awaiting something to do with the rape. Nothing happened.
Here is John Pilger's description -



Herre are some of the deleted tweet messages the women sent after the sex

• On 17 August, SW wrote "JA did not want to use a condom".
• On 20 August, while at the police station, SW wrote that she "did not want to put any charges on Julian Assange" but that "the police were keen on getting their hands on him".
• According to the statement she was "chocked (sic shocked) when they arrested him" because she "only wanted him to take [an STD test]".
• On 21 August, SW wrote that she "did not want to accuse" Julian Assange "for anything" and that it was the "police who made up the charges (sic)"
• On 23 August, SW wrote that it was the police, not herself, who started the whole thing.
• On 26 August, AA wrote that they ought to sell their stories for money to a newspaper.
• On 28 August, AA wrote that they had a contact on the biggest Swedish tabloid and SW wrote that their lawyer negotiated with the tabloid.

Wilen also wrote that she was ''half asleep'' - halvsov - in a text message when they had sex. This was deleted and the allegation used the word sleeping.


Anna Ardin's deleted tweet story includes -

''Friday August 13, Mr. Assange has sex with Ms. Ardin, and the next day gives his talk. Ms. Ardin tweets twice after the incident later characterized as an assault.

First on August 14, she tweets: “Julian wants to go to a crayfish party? Does anybody have a free spot tonight or tomorrow?”

At 2 a.m. on August 15, she tweets that she is sitting outside, hanging out with “some of the smartest people on the planet.”

When the police report is filed, the tweets disappear, but bloggers retain them.''

Are you officiating at the rape trial?

Because if you're not,going into this level of detail about a rape allegation could be seen a prurient at best and downright creepy at worst.

Zorya

The Enbalmer wrote: »

Are you officiating at the rape trial?

Because if you're not,going into this level of detail about a rape allegation could be seen a prurient at best and downright creepy at worst.

Try harder

The Enbalmer

Zorya wrote: »

Try harder

That's your answer is it?

Zorya

The Enbalmer wrote: »

That's your answer is it?

Yes. It's probably due to my long ago masters degree in law that I still take an interest in the field. Trumped up charges are always kind of fascinating. Prurient, creepy, little ol' me

1641

Sorry - I didn't read all those tweets - I am neither judge nor jury in the case. The fact is he ran away from trial.
The unredacted releases were recklessly indifferent to human rights or welfare. I don't see much ground for "debate". Of course he wasn't claiming to be a "journalist" at the time, just a conduit/ publisher so normal rules or ethics didn't apply to him. Now, however, the big cry from his apologists is "journalistic freedom"! Note how the Guardian and similar "symapthetic" press became very critical of him after his unredacted releases.
Quoting John Pilger - cringe. Even most unreconstructed commies find him embarrasing now.

Assange was always a narcissist but he did some useful stuff in the early days, eg , Iraq. But it became more about him than "human rights". And, sorry, your excusal regarding Russia doesn't hold water. Russia is a "democracy". Unfortunately free press coverage is suppressed and critical press closed, journalists who ask awkward questions are liable to be murdered, serious political opponents are harrassed, tried on trumped up charges and imprisoned. That's not to mention Chechnya.
All of this should be a magnet for Wikileaks and Assange if the real motivation was about "human rights", "democracy", etc. But we have silence on that front. Well not quite. He has allowed himself to become Putin's mouthpiece and instrument against the West, ie, use "press freedom" and "free speech" to undermine democracy. But this is not surprising because Assange's primary motivation is narcissism and vanity.

The Enbalmer

Zorya wrote: »

Yes. It's probably due to my long ago masters degree in law that I still take an interest in the field. Trumped up charges are always kind of fascinating. Prurient, creepy, little ol' me

Ah so you're a student?

I bet you a fiver he's convicted in Sweden..you up for the bet?

I'll pay you in change if you win so you can have coins for your meter.

Zorya

1641 wrote: »

Sorry - I didn't read all those tweets - I am neither judge nor jury in the case. The fact is he ran away from trial.
The unredacted releases were recklessly indifferent to human rights or welfare. I don't see much ground for "debate". Of course he wasn't claiming to be a "journalist" at the time, just a conduit/ publisher so normal rules or ethics didn't apply to him. Now, however, the big cry from his apologists is "journalistic freedom"! Note how the Guardian and similar "symapthetic" press became very critical of him after his unredacted releases.
Quoting John Pilger - cringe. Even most unreconstructed commies find him embarrasing now.

Assange was always a narcissist but he did some useful stuff in the early days, eg , Iraq. But it became more about him than "human rights". And, sorry, your excusal regarding Russia doesn't hold water. Russia is a "democracy". Unfortunately free press coverage is suppressed and critical press closed, journalists who ask awkward questions are liable to be murdered, serious political opponents are harrassed, tried on trumped up charges and imprisoned. That's not to mention Chechnya.
All of this should be a magnet for Wikileaks and Assange if the real motivation was about "human rights", "democracy", etc. But we have silence on that front. Well not quite. He has allowed himself to become Putin's mouthpiece and instrument against the West, ie, use "press freedom" and "free speech" to undermine democracy. But this is not surprising because Assange's primary motivation is narcissism and vanity.

The amount of people who use the word ''cringe'' on this site is interesting. And the contexts in which they use it.

I find John Pilger to be a useful reporter. Must be the old commie in me, of which I am still reasonably proud.

I have said time and again Assange was biased. I do not see how that dismisses the factuality of his work. I have said the policy of non-redaction was debatable.

His narcissism and vanity is not my concern. It is irrelevant in legal proceedings also. There is barely one historically significant person I have ever read about who did not suffer from a calamitous personality.

I have yet to read proof of Putin's support of Assange, though it is thrown around ad nauseum. It is quite possible of course. Perhaps we should ask Mueller to investigate?

Zorya

The Enbalmer wrote: »

Ah so you're a student?

I bet you a fiver he's convicted in Sweden..you up for the bet?

I'll pay you in change if you win so you can have coins for your meter.

You sir, are obviously not a close reader.

The Enbalmer

Zorya wrote:

I find John Pilger to be a useful reporter. Must be the old commie in me, of which I am still reasonably proud.

Proud of an ideology that killed 150 million people?

1641

His friends are out to defend him:
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/04/11/russian-officials-react-to-julian-assanges-arrest-2-a65194

Not only did Wikileaks not go after Russia but they declined to publish documents leaked to them (Did they discover "ethics"?!) -
https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/

Plenty of evidence of links between Russia and Wikileaks (whether or not the Trump campaign had any involvement), eg,
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/what-the-latest-mueller-indictment-reveals-about-wikileaks-ties-to-russia-and-what-it-doesnt
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/11/what-we-know-dont-know-about-wikileaks-julian-assange-campaign/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f88daf24dc39

Dohnjoe

Zorya wrote: »

I find John Pilger to be a useful reporter. Must be the old commie in me, of which I am still reasonably proud.

lol, another excellent impartial "journalist" along with Assange. Next stop George Galloway, I guarantee it