Hvor står HO i Assange-saken?

dirken
11.04.2019 kl 14:05 490

Hva mener vi egentlig om Assange? Er han en moderne helt som avslører ting folket har krav og rett til å vite om hva de rike og mektige holder på med bak lukkede dører? Eller er han en anarkistisk skurk som legger til rette for at bl.a. statshemmeligheter og bedriftshemmelighet lekkes? Eller det tredje alternativet - en agent for Russland i deres plan om å rote det mest mulig til for alle vestlige demokratier? Eller kanskje han er en voldtektsmann?

Fortjener han fengsel eller heder? Kjør debatt.
MERLOT
11.04.2019 kl 14:12 487

Generelt vil jeg si at en person som kan plante en støvel i skrittet på noen elitistiske politikere og dermed avdekke noen av de skitne hemmeligheter de utfører fortjener støtte og ros.
Men nå kan ikke jeg fordra politikere heller, selvsentrerte kappesnuere.

Edward Snowden er en russisk DS agent - ikke Julian Assange.

Assange er patriotisk helt av dimensjoner. Han vil til slutt få friheten tilbake... Følg med på Q!
dirken
11.04.2019 kl 15:10 463

Må du blande greiene fra den q sekten din inn på alle tråder hele tiden? Det er spam.

USA begjærer Assange utlevert. Det må være liten tvil om at det var kjekt for team Trump at feks podesta e-postene ble lekket på wikileaks under valgkampen. Selv om Trump vant og har makten kommer han vel til å bli straffeforfulgt om han blir utlevert til USA. Men vil han bli benådet etterpå? Hva skjedde med han Afghanistan soldaten som senere ble kvinne, er ikke han fri?

Interessant

BREAKING / NBC NEWS: The indictment unsealed against Julian Assange shows an allegation that he helped Chelsea Manning crack a password and get access to documents she would not normally have had access to. It is not for publishing the material.

Det gir litt mer mening nå hvorfor Chelsea Manning ikke ville la seg forhøre av storjuryen i Assangesaken og heller valgte å gå til fengsel igjen.

Redigert 11.04.2019 kl 15:33 Du må logge inn for å svare
grantre
11.04.2019 kl 15:33 452

Hva konkret har Wikileaks og Assange bidratt til å opplyse oss om ?
(Kommer det fra disse el. DS, NWO syntetic/manipula industries el. hva ?)

Det forekommer at både Snowdon og Assange egentlig ikke er de liksom helter noen ønsker å fremstille de som.
Assange har vel noe bedre standing enn Snowdon ? Er egentlig skeptisk til begge. Synd, men sant.

De «folkevalgte» syns de bør få bryte lovene i fred og ikke bli avslørt av slike som Assange, det er det som ligger bak heksejakten på denne personen som vil gå inn i historien som en frihetsforkjemper.

Je tenker Jølian Assange er storkæll se. Hømo av myndighetene å skjule dritet sitt. Gjør noe og stå for det, grauthuer.

Hva tenker du, dirken?
Redigert 11.04.2019 kl 15:47 Du må logge inn for å svare

Hvordan vil Trump og hans kompiser takle dette? De vil åpenbart være redd for at Assange begynner å snakke. Klarer de å lure inn en lovnad om tidlig benådning?
grantre
11.04.2019 kl 16:00 428

Pussig at kommer etter Brexit forlengelsesdagen til 31. okt.
"Bin Laden" stunt ?
Det stinker av dette.

The charges focus on Assange technically assisting Manning's hacking, making the charges more about Assange the hacker than Assange the journalist. It quashes some of the concerns about this being a crackdown on the free press.

https://www.axios.com/julian-assange-arrested-london-ecuador-bf2b0c6a-afa5-48f1-bf8c-d34d78b2cd8f.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic&utm_content=1100

It's important that Assange is charged with helping Chelsea Manning hack classified U.S. networks, not with publishing the information. Under Supreme Court precedent, news outlets can publish ill-gotten materials -- but can't commit crimes to get the stuff
Redigert 11.04.2019 kl 16:54 Du må logge inn for å svare
atnorhe
11.04.2019 kl 17:18 402

https://direkte.vg.no/nyhetsdognet/news/5caf3f94ea3f420012dfc9a2https://direkte.vg.no/nyhetsdognet/news/5caf3f94ea3f420012dfc9a2
Siktelsen har en strafferamme på fem år!, hvilket er en lokkedue for å få UK til å utlevere ham, siden USA har dødsstraff. Fem år maks, kan være en ubetydelig straff i praksis med en stjerneadvokat, hvilket er usannsynlig mtp hva han har avslørt og all oppmerksomheten han har fått blant ledere innen CIA og Kongressen. Derfor heller jeg mot at nye siktelser blir utformet hvis han eventuelt blir utlevert. Da er det 100 år her og 150 der. osv.
Tiltalen i Sverige som er bullshitt noe de fleste forstår ble henlagt i fjor eller i forfjor, men er nå tatt opp igjen i dag!

En trenger ikke være på innsiden i CIA eller det Svenske PST for å skjønne hvorfor.

Det ville vært utenkelig at USAs justisdepartement utvidet siktelsen mot Assange til punkter som kan gi dødstraff etter å ha "narret" uk til utlevering. Selv ikke under Trump oppfører man seg slik mot sin nærmeste allierte.

Tiltalen er mer forståelig nå når vi vet at han er mistenkt for å ha bidratt med selve hackejobben enn tidligere da de fleste trodde USA ville ta han for publiseringen. Akkurat det gav heller ikke veldig stor mening. Da burde de også arrestert og tiltalt ansvarlig redaktører i WP og Guardian etter Snowden lekkasjene.
Redigert 11.04.2019 kl 17:48 Du må logge inn for å svare
atnorhe
11.04.2019 kl 17:59 390

Ikke Dødsstraff. Det ville vekke alt for stor harme, men en mer omfattende tiltale? helt åpenbart. Du tror ikke han slipper med "samfunnstjeneste?

"Du tror ikke han slipper med "samfunnstjeneste?"

Jeg blir ikke overrasket om han slipper fri. Det han kunne ha blitt dømt for, manipulere valget på vegne av fremmed statsmakt i 2016, blir han neppe tiltalt for under Barr.
atnorhe
11.04.2019 kl 19:29 374

Du tror at CIA frivillig mister ansikt, og slipper en som er blitt kalt Russisk spion og forræder? Ikke heng deg opp i formaliteter, Du trenger ikke tro på det, men det er mye skjult makt i USA. Verdens mektigste nasjon. Bare sjekk innledningen til Irak-krigen, men hvis noen tror de er tjent med å slippe ham fri, så slipper de han selvsagt fri.
grantre
11.04.2019 kl 20:21 363

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTSvFjX--pA

Her kan det jo være noen bidrag til å kaste lys.
Svtplay.se , RAPPORT, hadde saken oppe på topplass i dag.
Beskyldningene om voldtekter på svenske kvinner, betraktes som konstruerte og iscenesatt.

Julian Assange will be given immunity by AG Barr in return for evidence and testimony that Hillary and the DNC murdered Seth Rich

Assange will never spend one day in prison

He holds the Trump card

That's why Trump was talking treason yesterday...he knew Assange was being extracted for the good guys


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D34jArzU0AAmZos?format=jpg&name=small
Redigert 11.04.2019 kl 21:48 Du må logge inn for å svare

De ville bringe Assange i sikkerhet før helvete bryter løs når Mueller rapporten frigis.
FUBAR
11.04.2019 kl 22:09 338

Leste at ambassaden var luta lei både av Assange og katten hans. Er bekymret for katten. Noen som vet hvor katten er nå?

Så vidt jeg husker denne "voldtektssaken" fra 2010 så deltok Assange på en konferanse i Sverige og i løpet av helgen traff han to damer han hadde sex med gjentatte ganger. Begge bekrefter at dette var frivillig. Hun ble sur for at Assange hadde penetrert henne uten kondom og kontaktet den andre. Sammen gikk de til politiet for å få dem til å tvinge Assange til å ta en HIV test.

Det kunne de ikke gjøre, men saken ble snappet opp av en påtaleadvokat som opprettet en voldtektssak. Dette ønsket ikke jentene og trakk sine anmeldelser, men påtaleadvokaten fortsatte saken alikevel. Assange ble arrestert og avhørt, men henla saken dagen etter. Kort tid etter (1-2 dager) ombestemte hun seg og fortsatte etterforskningen alikevel. Ble hun beordret av noen?

Alle som har fulgt med på svensk rettsvesen vet at saken aldri kunne ha ført til noen domfellelse. Kun 7 av 100 anmeldte voldtekter havner i retten. Julian Assange ble ikke engang anmeldt for voldtekt av de to damene. I 30% av de anmeldte sakene med kjent gjerningsmann blir ikke engang den mistenkte avhørt før saken henlegges.

At dette var sosialistene som nok engang brukte rettsvesenet som et politisk våpen er det vel liten tvil om. Hadde svenskene fått ham utlevert i 2010 er jeg lite i tvil om at han hadde blitt sendt rett til Obama. At det hadde brutt en mengde lover eller trosset FN ville de nok ikke tatt så tungt.

FUBAR
11.04.2019 kl 22:31 323

Takker så mye Merlot. Jeg var langt fra alene om å bekymre meg om Assanges katt. Som nå synes å være godt tatt vare på.

Jeg står litt i spagat, kjøper meg tid og tenker meg om men jeg er bare lei og vil snakke om noe annet. Jeg stikker til en løs tråd okei.
Dassange who? Call the doctor. Who? Nei, Dr Who er bare eventyr.
.777.
11.04.2019 kl 23:06 300

«Manipulere valget»

Man må vel være dreven konspirasjonsteoretiker eller innbitt sosialist for å komme til den konklusjonen...

Er vel ikke noen grunn til å legge til en eller der 777?

De fleste sosialister er drevne konspirasjonsteoretikere, og Jabba er intet unntak. Er vel noen millioner skuffede sosialister som fikk sin konspirasjon om russian collution knust her om dagen. Alle de andre teoriene de til stadighet fremsetter, får seg et skudd for baugen etter tur nå. Dette bryr de seg lite om, men bare fortsetter med neste teori og talking points.


Når begynte CIA å kontrollere amerikansk rettsvesen?

---

Polemiker

Jeg synes at det er merkelig at du elsker Assange men hater MSM media.

I Snowden saken var det Guardian og WP som publiserte lekkasjene.
I Chelsea Manning saken var det Wikileak, med samarbeidspartnere som New York Times, Guardian og der Spiegel
"On July 25, 2010, WikiLeaks and three media partners—The New York Times, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel—began publishing the 91,731 documents that, in their entirety, became known as the Afghan War Logs. (Around 77,000 of these had been published as of May 2012.) This was followed on October 22, 2010, by 391,832 classified military reports covering the period January 2004 to December 2009, which became known as the Iraq War Logs. Nicks writes that the publication of the former was a watershed moment, the "beginning of the information age exploding upon itself"

"Manning was also the source of the Guantanamo Bay files leak, obtained by WikiLeaks in 2010 and published by The New York Times on April 24, 2011"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning

Panama paper var et samarbeid mellom msm medier i mer enn 80 land.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers

Redigert 12.04.2019 kl 06:56 Du må logge inn for å svare

"Hannity Rallies to Assange’s Defense: WikiLeaks Has Better Track Record Than ‘Fake News Media’"

https://www.thedailybeast.com/hannity-rallies-to-assanges-defense-wikileaks-has-better-track-record-than-fake-news-media?ref=home

Hannity forsvarer sin tidligere fiende men også han "glemmer" at msm og ikke Fox news var samarbeidspartnere for Wikileaks/Snowden/panama papers.
Selvfølgelig glemmer han ikke. Det er kun teater for å beskytte kompisen sin i WH som forøvrig i går presterte å si at han vet ingenting om Wikileaks.

https://contemptor.com/2019/04/11/trump-has-convenient-case-of-amnesia-about-his-past-love-of-wikileaks-in-wake-of-assange-arrest/

"During a brief press gaggle in the Oval Office just before a meeting with South Korean president Moon Jae-in, Donald Trump was asked if he still loves WikiLeaks, as he said during his presidential campaign in 2016. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was arrested in London on Thursday morning on a charge of conspiring to hack into a U.S. government computer that contained classified information.

Trump responded that “I know nothing about WikiLeaks. That’s not my thing. I know nothing really about him, it’s not my deal in life.”

That’s funny, because NBC once counted 145 references Trump made to WikiLeaks before the 2016 election. And that was just in the last 12 days leading up to it."

Redigert 12.04.2019 kl 07:11 Du må logge inn for å svare
.777.
12.04.2019 kl 07:24 257

Her står jeg:

The day America died.

47 years ago in American Pie, Don McLean talked about The Day The Music Died. Or of course the music didn’t really die, but at the same time it did. “The three men I admired most, the father, son and the holy ghost, they caught the last train for the coast, the day the music died.”

Back then you could still have claimed the country merely lost its innocence. And you could have said the same in 1861 or 1914 or 1941. Today, not to take anything away from music, or the song, something much bigger died. America itself died, not just its music or innocence. America didn’t just lose its innocence, it pled guilty.

No doubt most of you would proclaim that’s a gross exaggeration, and an insane hyperbole, but you would all be wrong, sorry. There’s no way back this time.

America, the United States, with all its initial prejudice and lethal screw-ups, was founded as a place where people could direct their own lives without having to fear any other party, let alone a government, that would stand in their way while they did it. And a big part of not having to fear one’s government is not having to fear that government purposely lying to its citizens. The Founding Fathers, for all their faults, got that right. And today erases all of that in one fell swoop.

That is what died today.

Or, you know, it may have died much earlier, and a thousand times before as well, but with the arrest in London of Julian Assange, an Australian citizen wanted by the US Deep State, a myriad of strands connecting, and connected to a bloated dying corpse came together. And now we know there is no salvation possible. Today made it all terminal. America is no more. Or it is no longer what they tell you it stands for, whichever comes first.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-11/day-america-died
Redigert 12.04.2019 kl 07:25 Du må logge inn for å svare
.777.
12.04.2019 kl 07:30 255

And it’s not just America, mind you. ‘The UK is a serious country’, PM Theresa May said today when addressing Brexit. No it’s not, Theresa, it’s a banana republic hopelessly stuck in a spaghetti western and it no longer knows the rule of law. It sells people to the highest bidder in a meat market, be they Windrush, refugees from her Majesty’s wars in Libya, or just white and poor English, or Julian Assange.

The UK is a parody on a country, it’s a sordid piece of third rate slapstick. It kills people while trying to maintain the image of being a serious country. You know, whatever that is?! The British judge Assange faced today was bleeding mocking him, the arguably greatest journalist of this century and millennium. A serious country?

And where was opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn when this all went on? Haven’t seen him, other then in the afternoon when he was ‘discussing’ Brexit details with May in Parliament on day 1021 since the Brexit referendum, while he should have been out in the street denouncing May and protecting Assange at the loudest voice there is.

Screw you, Jeremy, you’re a pathetic loser. No matter what else you do, there are times when you have to stand up and be counted. You were nowhere to be seen, you coward. Screw you again. And all of your family. A curse on y’all. You had a chance to be counted, and you whimped out so enormously only an elephant could whimp out more. Today was your day, and you were a no-show, again.

But don‘t you mind me, I’m not British and I’m not one of those ass-hat followers of you. I’m just someone calling you a coward. So, you know, your campaign team can keep polling and intervene as soon as they see too many ass-hats become concerned about Assange. Until then, who cares, it’s all in the numbers. It’s not as if you have any principles anyway. If you can screw up Brexit there’s no reason why you couldn’t screw up Assange’s situation as well.

As for the Donald, man, it’s just 6 days ago that I issued a well-meant warning to you, to tell you that those who are after Assange are the same people who are after you.

And now you’ve given those very people a huge stage to execute their anti-Assange and thereby their anti-Trump messages from. Mr. Trump, you’re helping Brennan and Clapper and Comey and their ilk persecute the only person who could ever stand up to them. And who did that better than you ever did. Because he’s so much smarter.

And where are all the media? Where are all the other governments? Where is the European Union? Where is Australia? Yes, Ecuador took away Assange’s citizenship too today, like that’s a piece of candy or something. Asylum, citizenship, they can be bought and sold whenever a bell tolls.

Why do we have international law anyway if nobody abides by any of it? You can’t just grant someone asylum, and then a citizenship, and then rescind it when you like on a rainy morning when your medication runs out or they’re on to you for blatant fraud, Lenin Moreno. Do that and all international law becomes null and void. Hereby.

Pardon me, I’ve just been, like hopefully many people are, so sad and angry and despondent today, all day. The entire world watched the music die today, and never realized it, and a man much smarter and braver and real than any of us is out there paying for our sins, and we have no media left to tell us an honest story about it, and George Orwell is laughing somewhere out there.

And I am still stupid enough to think that we can do better.

Sånn ca.
Redigert 12.04.2019 kl 07:34 Du må logge inn for å svare

Artikkelforfatteren har tydligvis ikke fått med seg at USA ønsker å ta Assange for å delta i stjeling av dokumenter og ikke publiseringen.

The decision to prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange played out against the backdrop of President Donald Trump’s aggressive campaign to ferret out insiders leaking to the media.

First Amendment advocates are enraged by the indictment and say it shows media protections are in jeopardy. A former top national security official told The Daily Beast the charges shouldn’t have triggered those concerns but did say the decision to go after Assange followed an administration push to re-examine “what qualifies as media.”

The indictment covers alleged crimes that occurred nearly a decade ago and that the Obama Administration, after much debate, did not prosecute.

But Mary McCord, a career law-enforcement official who helmed the Justice Department’s National Security Division for the first four months of the Trump administration, said “there was renewed interest under the new administration to revisit issues of what qualifies as the media and to look back at the Assange case.”

“That’s not to say there was ever a lack of interest in Assange over the years, even under the previous administration,” McCord said. “There were evidentiary and policy issues that were at play previously, and probably continue to be at play—and reasonable minds can certainly differ about how decisions are made, both legal decisions in terms of statute, and policy decisions.”

McCord added that since the DOJ hasn’t charged Assange with publishing classified material—he was indicted for allegedly helping Chelsea Manning break a password to steal material from government computers—his case isn’t a window into the Trump administration’s view of press freedoms.

“This, to me, is no different than saying you don’t get a pass when you’re the media if you commit a bank robbery, you don’t get a pass when you’re in the media if you hack into computers or conspire to hack into computers,” she said.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/decision-to-go-after-assange-came-during-trumps-war-on-leakers

Some press freedom advocates, however, said the indictment is troubling; Reporters Without Borders, the Freedom of the Press Foundation, and the ACLU all raised concerns about the move.

Assange is charged with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, based on his alleged efforts in 2010 to help Manning obtain the classified material that he would later publish.

Following the first massive Wikileaks dump, Obama administration officials in various agencies worked to rectify the damage. Several foreign service officers who spoke to The Daily Beast said they were forced to comb through the documents to identify which documents could pose potential threats to informants.

“There was a general sense of worry. We worried that the leak would put lives in danger,” one former Obama administration official said. “We viewed it as a fire that had to be put out. We had to go through all the documents to identify any potential damage they could cause.”

Since that time, the U.S. has continued to gather intelligence on Assange and his relationship to the Russian government. While some agencies have pushed for the U.S. to go after Assange with vigor, others have cautioned that there was not enough evidence or that it was more important to gather counterintelligence information on Assange’s connection to Russia, according to former intelligence officials.
.777.
12.04.2019 kl 08:02 246

Det spiller ingen rolle hva de får tatt ham for, bare de får tatt ham.

Så du tror Trump's DoJ vil være agressive mot whistleblowers i motsetning tril Obama som benådet Chelsea Manning?

Tipper Assange slipper fri eller, om han blir utlevert til USA, at tiltalen blir frafalt. Blir et stort antiklimaks etter 7 år i helt unødvendig asyl.
Det er forøvrig ganske tydlig at DoJ trenger vitnemålet til Chelsea Manning for å bygge saken mot Assange om at han deltok i passord knekkingen.
Hun ble som kjent nylig kastet i fengsel pga at hun nektet å la seg forhøre om denne saken, noe jeg synes var merkelig da hun ble benådet av president Obama.

Redigert 12.04.2019 kl 08:11 Du må logge inn for å svare
.777.
12.04.2019 kl 08:10 243

Jeg tenker at du neppe blir blandt de første, men at stadig flere fremover vil våkne opp og innse at staten og folket faktisk ER to vidt forskjellige ting med vidt forskjellige ønsker og mål.

Vi velger de som lager våre lover. Om vi er uenige i våre folkevalgtes disposisjoner velger vi nye representanter som lager nye lover. Hele tiden går det folk inn og ut av statlige arbeidsplasser som stort sett har som mål å utføre sine lovpålagte arbeidsoppgaver. At du føler at staten ikke representerer folket er fordi du har meninger som ikke er mainstream. Det ville ikke vært naturlig at landet var organisert slik du ønsker da de aller fleste ville vært i mot det.

Julian Assange is not a free-press hero. And he is long overdue for personal accountability.

AFTER SIX-PLUS years of asylum in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London, Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, was removed from that diplomatic facility Thursday by British police and jailed for up to 12 months for jumping bail back in August 2012. He may ultimately face courts in the United States or Sweden, as well. If these democracies handle it properly, Mr. Assange’s case could conclude as a victory for the rule of law, not the defeat for civil liberties of which his defenders mistakenly warn.

Contrary to much pro-WikiLeaks propaganda, Mr. Assange had no legitimate fears for his life, either at the hands of CIA assassins or, via extradition, the U.S. death penalty, when he fled to the embassy of what was then an anti-American government. Rather, he was avoiding transfer to Sweden pursuant to a seemingly credible sexual assault charge lodged against him in that country. He then proceeded to abuse the hospitality of his South American hosts, most egregiously by presiding over what an indictment by U.S. special counsel Robert S. Mueller III described as Russian intelligence’s use of WikiLeaks as a front for its interference in the U.S. election. Democratic Party documents stolen by the Russians made their way into the public domain under the WikiLeaks label. Ecuador’s new, more pragmatic president, Lenín Moreno, cited Mr. Assange’s more recent alleged involvement in the release of confidential Vatican documents, along with threats against the government in Quito, as reasons to oust him.

Mr. Assange is not a free-press hero. Yes, WikiLeaks acquired and published secret government documents, many of them newsworthy, as shown by their subsequent use in newspaper articles (including in The Post). Contrary to the norms of journalism, however, Mr. Assange sometimes obtained such records unethically — including, according to a separate federal indictment unsealed Thursday, by trying to help now-former U.S. Army soldier Chelsea Manning hack into a classified U.S. computer system.

Also unlike real journalists, WikiLeaks dumped material into the public domain without any effort independently to verify its factuality or give named individuals an opportunity to comment. Nor, needless to say, would a real journalist have cooperated with a plot by an authoritarian regime’s intelligence service to harm one U.S. presidential candidate and benefit another.

Even if it isn’t really about journalism, the Assange case may touch on genuine issues of free expression, as would any matter related to the dissemination of information, secret or otherwise. The Justice Department proposes to try Mr. Assange on a single count of conspiring (with Ms. Manning) to break into a U.S. computer system, which, on its face, does not criminalize the communication of the secrets thereby obtained. Having already given assurances to Ecuador that it will not extradite Mr. Assange to the United States on any charge (including, implicitly, espionage) that might carry capital punishment, Britain should not fear that sending him for trial on that hacking count would endanger freedom of the press.

To the contrary, Mr. Assange’s transfer to U.S. custody, followed possibly by additional Russia-related charges or his conversion into a cooperating witness, could be the key to learning more about Russian intelligence’s efforts to undermine democracy in the West. Certainly he is long overdue for personal accountability.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/julian-assange-is-not-a-free-press-hero-and-he-is-long-overdue-for-personal-accountability/2019/04/11/90f901ba-5c86-11e9-842d-7d3ed7eb3957_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b350b459dadc

He he, Jabba prøver å innbille seg selv og andre om at han er en "høyremann", men røper til stadighet hva han liker å fylle hodet sitt med. Alt han linker fra kommer enten fra ekstremt venstreradikale media eller bare "normal" venstrevridde. Nå er riktignok Washington Post en venstrevridd blekke, men ikke av de mest ytterliggående. Dette innlegget de har sluppet til derimot, er vel av ytterliggående slaget.

Det er så mye svada og faktafeil at jeg nesten ikke vet hvor jeg skal begynne. Vi kan ta noen eksempler.

- he was avoiding transfer to Sweden pursuant to a seemingly credible sexual assault charge lodged against him in that country.
Jentene ville ha ham undersøkt for HIV, de hadde hatt gjentatte frivillige samleier med ham gjennom helgen. De anmeldte ham ikke for voldtekt, det var noe hun korrupte påtalekvinnen Eva la til.

- Ecuador’s new, more pragmatic president, Lenín Moreno
Mer riktig betegnelse er vel megakorrupt sosialist? Det at han blir sparket ut har sikkert ingenting å gjøre med lekkasjen av INA papers for en tid tilbake? Dette knytter president Lenin til et selskap i Panama - INA Corp. INA er tilfeldigvis også initialene til hans tre døtre. Vi en rekke stråselskaper er det avdekket massiv korrupsjon og hvitvasking av penger. For noen dager siden ble det iverksatt en etterforskning av ham i Ecuador og er vel ikke helt utenkelig at amerikanske myndigheter også vil kreve ham utlevert. Wikileak la ut en link til denne siden for noen dager siden. http://inapapers.org/ (bruk translate)

- Also unlike real journalists, WikiLeaks dumped material into the public domain without any effort independently to verify its factuality
Feil. De har brukt enorme ressurser på å verifisere at det de legger ut er ekte og genuint. I motsetning til såkalte "journalister" som blir avslørt i faktafeil, bias og forvrengning daglig, har Wikileak ikke blitt avslørt i å ha utgitt noe som er falskt eller feil. Selv crooket Hillary har ikke påstått det. Gudene skal vite at en samlet media har saumfart det de har lagt ut for å kunne finne en feil. Så langt - nada!

Dette er også en av grunnene til at jeg støtter Assange og avskyr MSM. Det hender selvsagt at de får til noe riktig de også. Bl.a. når det gjelder Panama Paper og bearbeidingen av dem. Aftenposten var en av mediene som tilsynelatende gjorde en strålende jobb der. Jeg sier tilsynelatende, for vi vet vel ikke om avisene la inn noen filtere i sin rapportering hvor de cherry picked folk de hang ut.
Redigert 12.04.2019 kl 10:33 Du må logge inn for å svare

"Det hender selvsagt at de får til noe riktig de også. Bl.a. når det gjelder Panama Paper og bearbeidingen av dem."

Så de bommet med Snowden og Cheløsea Manning lekkasjene altså?
Forøvrig er det korrekt at jeg ikke er den typen høyremann som du er. Jeg er av Erna Solberg typen .
grantre
12.04.2019 kl 12:52 210

https://www.dn.no/utenriks/usa/wikileaks/donald-trump/trump-markerer-distanse-til-wikileaks-hyllet-dem-i-valgkampen/2-1-587544

Her kommer det noe i tråd med det jeg sa igår. Har ikke lest mange av de seneste kommentaren på denne tråden.
Tror vi har hatt Wikileaks oppe på flere tråder for lenge siden. Dvs. flere år siden. Wikileaks må utredes mer skal vi
kunne forholde oss fornuftig til det, og i oppdatert variant anno 12.04.2019.
Cortex
12.04.2019 kl 13:14 199

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-assanges-real-sin-was-preventing-hillary-clinton-from-becoming-president

Wikileaks avslørte mye av de lovbruddene og det jukset Hillary bedrev før valget i 2016.
Hun og DNC-leder Debbie W. Schultz fikset primærvalget så Bernie Sanders ikke skulle vinne.
Dette ble bekreftet av Donna Brazile senere....Også hun leder av Dems.
Schultz gikk på dagen da Wikileaks lakk dette,og hun ble også ansatt av Hillarys valgkamp som takk for hjelpen og for å holde kjeft.

Hillary visste at Wikileaks lakk fakta og hun prøvde ikke å argumentere mot fakta, e-poster og annet.
Selvsagt hates Assange av medias folk for at han avslørte Hillary og vekket velgerne!

«William Barr is Qanon»
~Prayingmedic

Jeg har plutselig ikke tilgang til Havfruens Q-tråd.

Julian Assange Will Help Take Down the Deep State

Apr 14, 2019 | 15 comments

I’ll go on record and say that Julian Assange’s testimony will be a key part of the prosecution of many corrupt people around the globe. It’s hard to appreciate the plausibility of this theory outside of the revelation provided by Qanon but there are other experts who have provided supporting information.

Sean Hannity has interviewed Julian Assange on numerous occasions. That Hannity is so deeply interested in and connected to Assange is a point worth considering on its own (especially if you believe Donald Trump gives him information other journalists don’t have access to). A significant data point was provided when Hannity asked Assange if Russia was the source of the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks. In keeping with his policy of not revealing sources, Assange didn’t name his source but said,
“We can say, we have said, repeatedly that over the last two months that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party.”

If, as the mainstream media has claimed for 2 years, Russia is not the source of the DNC emails, who is the source?
In an interview with Dutch TV, Assange brought up Seth Rich, the DNC staffer who was killed not long after WikiLeaks received the DNC’s emails.

Speculation about Seth Rich’s involvement in the DNC email leak/hack has gotten wide publicity from the mainstream media (most of it negative) due to a plethora of YouTube videos attempting to prove he was Assange’s source. Assange didn’t state that Rich was his source but what other reason would he have for mentioning him while emphasizing that his sources take significant risks?

For years, Assange has been free to keep his sources anonymous. As he’s entered into a DOJ investigation, he’ll be compelled to tell exactly who his sources are and provide any corroborating evidence he’s received such as source files.
We know the narrative that Trump colluded with Russia was false. Time and evidence proved it to be a story the deep state pushed on the public, knowing the entire time it was untrue. The narrative that Russia hacked the DNC emails is the flip side of the same coin. Time and evidence will prove that narrative to be a lie manufactured to support the now debunked Russian collusion narrative.

In the post below, Q suggested the UK government has been after Assange because they want to silence him before he discloses what he knows about their involvement in the plot to illegally spy on Donald Trump and his campaign. Assange’s evidence (which apparently includes source files) doesn’t just implicate the UK government but most of Obama’s cabinet and staff and many corrupt people in Congress who were involved in the plot.

Q has suggested that rather than being hacked by Russia, the DNC’s emails were leaked by Seth Rich. Rich was then murdered and Crowdstrike was hired to create fake evidence that fingered Russia as the culprit. (WikiLeaks Vault 7 explains how the CIA’s “Umbrage” program enables users to create false digital fingerprints implicating another entity.)
Q has indicated that the Generals working with Donald Trump expected General Mike Flynn to be attacked by the deep state. The deep state’s distrust of Flynn was evidenced when in 2014, Obama removed him as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. As head of the DIA, Flynn would have the dirt on nearly every corrupt organization in the world.
The Generals working with Trump anticipated James Comey’s firing and the fact that it would lead to the appointment of a Special Counsel. It’s becoming more clear that the objective was to get Flynn entered into the Special Counsel’s investigation and let him provide the evidence he had about the crimes of corrupt people. While the mainstream media assured us Flynn’s guilty plea pointed to Trump’s eventual indictment, Mueller’s team would have no choice but to accept Flynn’s testimony and whatever evidence he could provide and refer it to the appropriate US Attorney’s office for investigation. The Mueller team’s December 2018 sentencing memo indicated that Flynn was providing testimony into several open investigations. The fact that he has still not been sentenced suggests his testimony is presently ongoing.

Assange has been sitting in the Ecuadorian embassy for years with an outstanding indictment related to a crime he allegedly committed in 2010. A week after our new Attorney General goes on the Spygate offensive, Assange is suddenly apprehended and is in the process of being extradited to the US to face charges.
Coincidence?
Military planning at its finest?
I suspect that in the same way General Flynn was entered into the Mueller investigation under the cover of prosecution to expose the crimes of corrupt people, the mainstream media and political pundits will, in ignorance, paint Assange as a criminal (or perhaps a helpless victim) while he provides testimony further incriminating bad actors around the globe.
I’ll close with Rudy Giuliani’s observations about Assange’s arrest:

“Maybe it will shed light on the plot to create an investigation of President Trump based on a false charge of conspiracy with the Russians to affect the 2016 elections. Keep your eye on Ukraine,” Giuliani told the Washington Examiner. “It’s possible with all his sources he might know or have information of how it all started.”


https://prayingmedic.com/2019/04/14/assange-will-help-take-down-deep-state/
Thinky
15.04.2019 kl 01:08 126

Kan du ikke komme med em kort konklusjon på norsk ?
.777.
15.04.2019 kl 08:08 117

Kort konklusjon på norsk:

Trump 👍

Hillary 👎

Folket 👍

Staten 👎