Julian Assange bad shape, can't walk, can't speak [Archive] - Debate Policy

jimnyc

06-08-2019, 02:45 PM

And that story which I just wrote in the title is a bunch of bullshit, and now it's proven on video. Here's his torture, I believe the torture is him getting his room painted if I hear correctly? Rough times for a guy on deaths door. OR some will now claim he made a miraculous recovery.

---

Footage of Julian Assange in Belmarsh Prison Released by Ruptly

Ruptly has released footage of Julian Assange inside the maximum security prison where he is currently being detained.

The footage comes one day after The Gateway Pundit broke an exclusive interview with an inmate who had provided us with photos of the WikiLeaks founder from inside the prison.

The footage shows Assange and another inmate chatting while walking around the highest security prison in the United Kingdom. It is immediately clear that Assange has lost a significant amount of weight since this reporter last visited him in March.

Some of the photos published by Gateway appear to be screenshots from this video. They feature Assange prior to his illness and being moved to the prison’s hospital wing last month, according to the inmate who provided them. We have not been able to verify if Assange is aware of the existence of the photographs or videos.

Rest - https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/06/breaking-footage-of-julian-assange-in-belmarsh-prison-released-by-ruptly/

High_Plains_Drifter

06-08-2019, 03:55 PM

jimnyc

06-08-2019, 04:49 PM

High_Plains_Drifter

06-08-2019, 05:46 PM

He released a lot of HIGHLY confidential information, and some that exposed names of operatives and other things that could potentially place lives in danger.
Well, he's in deep shit then far as I'm concerned. What did he think would happen?

Drummond

06-08-2019, 07:39 PM

He released a lot of HIGHLY confidential information, and some that exposed names of operatives and other things that could potentially place lives in danger.

Assange is another example of a radical figure, with Left leanings, who enjoys notoriety mixed in with attacking those who represent something he's ideologically opposed to.

One of his dearest friends and staunch supporters is a fellow Australian, 'journalist' John Pilger ... an extremist Leftie known for his anti-Western 'reports'. He backs what Assange did to the hilt.

An example of Pilger's anti-Western garbage:

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/news-comment/3286-nato-is-a-us-invention-designed-to-impose-us-power-on-europe-an-interview-w-john-pilger

NATO likes to present itself as a force for peace and stability in the world. What is your assessment of the strategic role of NATO during the Cold War?

NATO was, is, an American invention designed to impose American power on Europe. The Alliance achieved this during the Cold War and successfully spread the illusion - long debunked in declassified files - that Russia was a threat to all we hold dear. Today, Nato exists as a provocateur to post-Soviet Russia, with its undeclared American goal of breaking up the Russian Federation. Some of the Europeans running NATO's war bureaucracy are as zealous as the Americans, such as the secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg, a rabid propagandist.

Or, from Pilger's own website:

http://johnpilger.com/articles/getting-julian-assange-the-untold-story

Had Assange not sought refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy in London, he would have been on his way to the kind of American torture pit Chelsea Manning had to endure.

This prospect was obscured by the grim farce played out in Sweden. "It's a laughing stock," said James Catlin, one of Assange's Australian lawyers. "It is as if they make it up as they go along".

It may have seemed that way, but there was always serious purpose. In 2008, a secret Pentagon document prepared by the "Cyber Counterintelligence Assessments Branch" foretold a detailed plan to discredit WikiLeaks and smear Assange personally.

The "mission" was to destroy the "trust" that was WikiLeaks' "centre of gravity". This would be achieved with threats of "exposure [and] criminal prosecution". Silencing and criminalising such an unpredictable source of truth-telling was the aim.

Perhaps this was understandable. WikiLeaks has exposed the way America dominates much of human affairs, including its epic crimes, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq: the wholesale, often homicidal killing of civilians and the contempt for sovereignty and international law.

The nature of Assange's support says all that needs to be said about what's truly at work. It all adds up (Assange's and Pilger's efforts, both) to a concerted effort to do as much journalistic damage to America and the West as can be contrived. It's all propagandist poison, driven by a hatred having its roots in pro-Left wing hatred of all that the West stands for.

darin

06-09-2019, 09:13 AM

anyone with dirt on the Clintons dies.

Noir

06-09-2019, 09:42 AM

Is there any information provided to indicate when this footage was taken? I think it’s relevant to know if the video is 1 day or 5 weeks old.

The nature of Assange's support says all that needs to be said about what's truly at work. It all adds up (Assange's and Pilger's efforts, both) to a concerted effort to do as much journalistic damage to America and the West as can be contrived. It's all propagandist poison, driven by a hatred having its roots in pro-Left wing hatred of all that the West stands for.

Is it propaganda to publish the truth?

jimnyc

06-09-2019, 10:34 AM

Is there any information provided to indicate when this footage was taken? I think it’s relevant to know if the video is 1 day or 5 weeks old.

Yes, it's even time stamped. Of course the conspiracy may continue with some saying that can be changed and probably was - when it in fact can be changed but most likely was not. It's simply a video from the inside. Did you look at the video? Or assuming that it may be altered?

It's on the video of course but here's from a screenshot as well. It was a day old when provided and now 2 days old. :)

https://i.imgur.com/HWanyda.png

jimnyc

06-09-2019, 10:37 AM

Is it propaganda to publish the truth?

Not written in that limited manner - but it's VERY easy to publish the truth/facts and tell a story in a manner in which it then is also used as propaganda.

What matters to ME, is what is published, and was it highly confidential at the time, does it give away such information, are any confidential names listed? It's one thing to be a "news" reporting agency, and entirely different if one is purposely releasing such confidential information - of which even if someone in the government/military may see jail time if such information is handled in an appropriate manner. If that included disseminating the information to the world - they would see jail.

Noir

06-09-2019, 10:53 AM

Yes, it's even time stamped. Of course the conspiracy may continue with some saying that can be changed and probably was - when it in fact can be changed but most likely was not. It's simply a video from the inside. Did you look at the video? Or assuming that it may be altered?

It's on the video of course but here's from a screenshot as well. It was a day old when provided and now 2 days old. :)

https://i.imgur.com/HWanyda.png

The timestamp says July 2017.

jimnyc

06-09-2019, 11:04 AM

The timestamp says July 2017.

No shit, just noticed that when I re-opened the thread. How I bypassed that earlier - several times no less, is beyond me. And hell, it's July 7th even, not June as my brain stupidly thought it saw - hence me with the 2 day BS I effed up.

Back to square one on exact date, I'll search though.

My bad, and sorry for trying to pass off wrong info. I wouldn't have posted a dang screenshot of it if I was trying to pull the wool over the eyes. Nonetheless, I was wrong. :(

jimnyc

06-09-2019, 11:05 AM

I can go out on a limb and state it wasn't 2017 either, as I don't think he ever left the embassy, and has been growing a beard for quite some time until the last I saw of him when he left the embassy.

jimnyc

06-09-2019, 11:09 AM

Found this so far but doesn't really help much, but addresses the discrepancy at least. But he went to the prison in April?

-

The timestamp on the video says “2017/07/07” but Ruptly said it believes this discrepancy was due to a faulty setting on the recording device and that the video was indeed shot inside Belmarsh prison, where Assange was taken in April.

https://www.rt.com/news/461329-assange-video-belmarsh-prison/

jimnyc

06-09-2019, 11:18 AM

High_Plains_Drifter

06-09-2019, 11:21 AM

My bad, and sorry for trying to pass off wrong info.
Happens to the best of us... ;)

jimnyc

06-09-2019, 11:27 AM

Happens to the best of us... ;)

See that! And I told ya I was wrong daily! :thumb:

Noir

06-09-2019, 12:38 PM

Can't find much more. I'll say this - it also could have been taken BEFORE he claimed torture and was in a medical ward. I can't say for sure.

I will say this - if a man is willing to hole up in another countries embassy for 7 years, then I easily think he would be willing to act out health issues to help avoid prosecution or extradition. I never trusted this man farther than I can toss him with my one arm. At minimum, he needs to stand in front of justice and address it, and not run. If he is proven not guilty, so be it. If not, so be it.

Right, he’s busy fooling medical professionals on ward at a supermax prison daily, they must of hired idiots at Belmarsh.

I also find it odd to not trust someone who has a proven record of *never* having to issue an apology for a false publication, because such publications have never been made. What generates this mistrust?

jimnyc

06-09-2019, 01:23 PM

Right, he’s busy fooling medical professionals on ward at a supermax prison daily, they must of hired idiots at Belmarsh.

I also find it odd to not trust someone who has a proven record of *never* having to issue an apology for a false publication, because such publications have never been made. What generates this mistrust?

Fooling them there daily? Where did I even state similar? I'm more speaking of the propaganda being spoken to the press via his representatives, as many did while he was in the embassy. He need only play his game for a short time in the prison, and he was in the medical ward, and that's about all I believe to that point.

And apparently, since only THEY can be responsible for what happens to him - they MUST be idiots if they are physically torturing this man to the point of him not even being able to speak.

What the hell does issuing an apology or not mean? I distrust people that help someone hack a government server, and then possess highly confidential documents, and then release confidential information. Anyone willing to do so is someone I wouldn't trust. Same as the little weasel guy who chopped his weenie off and now thinks he's a woman. Can't be trusted.

jimnyc

06-09-2019, 01:26 PM

I find it odd what some find the time to invest replies into here. What attracts them, what spits them away. What they are willing to defend, and what they are willing to condemn. A story within a story.

Drummond

06-09-2019, 02:55 PM

Is there any information provided to indicate when this footage was taken? I think it’s relevant to know if the video is 1 day or 5 weeks old.

Is it propaganda to publish the truth?

Propaganda is invariably bound up with falsehood, to make the effort to believe the propaganda instead of the truth.

Then again, propaganda can also be a means by which preferred beliefs or allegiances are directed.

I don't know to what extent Assange lied, or, shall we say, 'peddled truth' [I'd guess he did some of both, or maybe, he took truths out of their proper contexts ?]. The real point of what Assange did was to launch a purposeful attack against those political systems which he, personally, disagreed with.

Why do you think he's got the likes of Pilger supporting him to the hilt ?

More than that (and as has been pointed out) .. what he reprehensibly also did was to release a brand of information, classified FOR A REASON, that reason being to safeguard lives. Assange cared far more about the success his attacks could enjoy, than he did about lives he could have put at risk ...

.. and, isn't that classically Left wing ? 'Principle' (as it's conveniently judged to be) is ALL, and individual wellbeing is sidelined into oblivion.

Noir

06-10-2019, 03:24 AM

Fooling them there daily? Where did I even state similar? I'm more speaking of the propaganda being spoken to the press via his representatives, as many did while he was in the embassy. He need only play his game for a short time in the prison, and he was in the medical ward, and that's about all I believe to that point.

If he’s being attended to in a a medical ward and being declared unfit for questioning he would have to keep up the appearance of illness everyday.

What the hell does issuing an apology or not mean? I distrust people that help someone hack a government server, and then possess highly confidential documents, and then release confidential information. Anyone willing to do so is someone I wouldn't trust. Same as the little weasel guy who chopped his weenie off and now thinks he's a woman. Can't be trusted.

I think it’s relevant that they have never published a fake document.
When did Assange help someone hack a government server?

I don't know to what extent Assange lied, or, shall we say, 'peddled truth' [I'd guess he did some of both, or maybe, he took truths out of their proper contexts ?

So you don’t know and can’t state what Assange lied about, how he peddled truth, or what truths he took out context, You just “guess he did” seems reasonable :rolleyes:

jimnyc

06-10-2019, 06:58 AM

If he’s being attended to in a a medical ward and being declared unfit for questioning he would have to keep up the appearance of illness everyday.

I think it’s relevant that they have never published a fake document.
When did Assange help someone hack a government server?

So you don’t know and can’t state what Assange lied about, how he peddled truth, or what truths he took out context, You just “guess he did” seems reasonable :rolleyes:

Truth doesn't matter when releasing government confidential documents. Man, you're obtuse.

And since you defend someone you don't even read about. Helping crack a password is helping hack into a server. Yup, reading helps before asking dumb questions.

Here’s How The U.S. Claims The Assange-Manning Conspiracy Worked

The U.S. government has disclosed more of its case against WikiLeaks cofounder Julian Assange. It hinges on a claim he and Chelsea Manning worked together to crack a password for a computer storing sensitive government files.

An affidavit unsealed Monday outlining the case against Assange said he conspired with Manning when they discussed working together to crack a password “related to two computers with access to classified national security information.” More specifically, the password belonged to a user called FTP (not to be confused with an FTP server) on two Windows computers that Manning could access from a base in Iraq, the government said.

The FTP account wasn’t associated with any specific individual, and the government alleged that if Manning had used it to pilfer files and hand them over to Wikileaks, she could have foiled investigators looking into who was behind the leaks. “Although there is no evidence that the password to the FTP user was obtained, had Manning done so, she would have been able to take steps to procure classified information under a username that did not belong to her,” the affidavit read. “Such measures would have frustrated attempts to identify the source of the disclosures to WikiLeaks.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2019/04/16/unpacking-the-alleged-assange-manning-password-hacking-conspiracy/#372d90c26ee8

Sure enough, an indictment filed in March 2018 and unsealed Thursday accuses Assange of “conspiracy to commit computer intrusion” by helping whistle-blower Chelsea Manning hack into Pentagon files. Specifically, it charges Assange with helping Manning to “[crack] a password stored on United States Department of Defense computers,” allowing her to access classified information under someone else’s username, and thus making it more difficult for the government to uncover who had leaked classified files.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/04/julian-assange-arrest-chelsea-manning-hacking

Noir

06-10-2019, 07:25 AM

Truth doesn't matter when releasing government confidential documents. Man, you're obtuse.

And since you defend someone you don't even read about. Helping crack a password is helping hack into a server. Yup, reading helps before asking dumb questions.

Here’s How The U.S. Claims The Assange-Manning Conspiracy Worked

The U.S. government has disclosed more of its case against WikiLeaks cofounder Julian Assange. It hinges on a claim he and Chelsea Manning worked together to crack a password for a computer storing sensitive government files.

An affidavit unsealed Monday outlining the case against Assange said he conspired with Manning when they discussed working together to crack a password “related to two computers with access to classified national security information.” More specifically, the password belonged to a user called FTP (not to be confused with an FTP server) on two Windows computers that Manning could access from a base in Iraq, the government said.

The FTP account wasn’t associated with any specific individual, and the government alleged that if Manning had used it to pilfer files and hand them over to Wikileaks, she could have foiled investigators looking into who was behind the leaks. “Although there is no evidence that the password to the FTP user was obtained, had Manning done so, she would have been able to take steps to procure classified information under a username that did not belong to her,” the affidavit read. “Such measures would have frustrated attempts to identify the source of the disclosures to WikiLeaks.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2019/04/16/unpacking-the-alleged-assange-manning-password-hacking-conspiracy/#372d90c26ee8

Sure enough, an indictment filed in March 2018 and unsealed Thursday accuses Assange of “conspiracy to commit computer intrusion” by helping whistle-blower Chelsea Manning hack into Pentagon files. Specifically, it charges Assange with helping Manning to “[crack] a password stored on United States Department of Defense computers,” allowing her to access classified information under someone else’s username, and thus making it more difficult for the government to uncover who had leaked classified files.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/04/julian-assange-arrest-chelsea-manning-hacking

And Assange has been found guilty of this?

jimnyc

06-10-2019, 07:42 AM

And Assange has been found guilty of this?

Man, you'll just change and move shit forever.

I'll be sure to remember when you post in the future, the news means little unless the person has been found guilty. :rolleyes:

Bottom line - they released very confidential documents that is a crime for anyone else. Manning was rightfully prosecuted and should be in prison for life, IMO. And then the guy who disseminated everything and ran from all his crimes, also must be locked up.

We already KNOW you don't believe in the rule of law when it's someone on the left, you have shown that time and time again. Same as with condemning wrongdoing in this world, only a certain faction can do wrong, the rest get a pass.

As for me, I hope he gets life in prison, and at one of OUR supermax prisons. He is not even remotely near a supermax prison if someone had electronics - or for that fact - if someone can see one another. He needs to go to ADX Florence, and in one of the deeper cells. That's where enemies of the US go.

Noir

06-10-2019, 08:24 AM

Man, you'll just change and move shit forever.

I’m responding to your posts.

I'll be sure to remember when you post in the future, the news means little unless the person has been found guilty. :rolleyes:

Correct, allegations and not convictions.

Bottom line - they released very confidential documents that is a crime for anyone else.

Assange published documents that he received, that is not a crime, confidential or not.

jimnyc

06-10-2019, 08:35 AM

Assange published documents that he received, that is not a crime.

Then why are VERY high charges awaiting him? And if innocent, why is he running for YEARS? An innocent man that was brought up on "false charges" would be quite easy for a good lawyer to defend and get out of jail overnight. The very instant a judge sees that it isn't a crime as you say then they will instantly release him. No crime no time.

If I were to be given highly confidential documents, I too would be held accountable. And he will be. Relations alone will ultimately see him in the USA and I'll bet you anything he ends up in prison, where of course one belongs for such actions.

And he sits in jail for now as well, where he belongs.

And dang man, you don't even know the full facts of the case you're defending. How someone didn't know about the hacking stuff and Assange's assistance is beyond me, too busy remaining blind to so so many things I guess. :dunno:

STTAB

06-10-2019, 11:57 AM

I don't really know what to think of all this really. Is he a bad guy? Did he himself actually do any hacking to accumulate any of the things he leaked? Is it wrong to blow the whistle?

I'd say this about that. If he actually engaged in hacking, that's a federal offense. But if he didn't and the information he leaked was simply embarrassing to some, then so what? But if it was classified information or even higher, no matter how he got his hands on it, he's in deep shit and deserves what's coming to him.

The highlighted part is FALSE . SCOTUS has already ruled that journalists absolutely have the right to print classified material that is leaked to them. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News, the NYT, The Washington Post. They do it all the time, and if YOU were given some classified information and posted it on this website, that simply isn't illegal. Neither is being in possession of classified material . Imagine if it were, the President could send classified material to Jim Accosta and then have him arrested for possessing classified material LOL How you obtained the classified material matters very much. The government is trying to make the case that Assange enticed people to hack and or otherwise steal classified material, but that's a tough sell IMO

Noir

06-10-2019, 12:19 PM

Then why are VERY high charges awaiting him? And if innocent, why is he running for YEARS? An innocent man that was brought up on "false charges" would be quite easy for a good lawyer to defend and get out of jail overnight. The very instant a judge sees that it isn't a crime as you say then they will instantly release him. No crime no time.

Becuase releasing documents that elites don’t want you to see is a dangerous business. To be honest it’s a miracle he’s not already dead IMO, what he has done is probably given him the best chance to survive that he had - let’s not also forget the *years* people said that assange was being paranoid extradition to the states, with all parties involved denying it, only for the mask to drop the second he was removed from the embassy. Funny that.

If I were to be given highly confidential documents, I too would be held accountable. And he will be. Relations alone will ultimately see him in the USA and I'll bet you anything he ends up in prison, where of course one belongs for such actions.

No you wouldn’t, or at least you shouldn’t, the first amendment is your shield.

And dang man, you don't even know the full facts of the case you're defending. How someone didn't know about the hacking stuff and Assange's assistance is beyond me, too busy remaining blind to so so many things I guess. :dunno:

We both know he has been accused of assisting hacking, unless you have some information that I am not privy to, then it is at present nothing more than an accusation.

Noir

06-10-2019, 12:25 PM

The highlighted part is FALSE . SCOTUS has already ruled that journalists absolutely have the right to print classified material that is leaked to them.

100% (Must spread the Rep.)

Write this in ten foot high across every court room and news broadcaster in the country, the Constitution protects *exactly* this kind of case, which is why it’s expected that the focus will be on hacking etc.

As a a side note - the word “journalist” can also give the wrong impression, and I have seen many comments and news pieces about ‘is assange really a journalist’ etc to deny him the right afforded by the constitution, ofcourse Journalist is not a defined or protected class, it is used as an offhand descriptor, and so the above quote could just read ‘SCOTUS has already ruled that people absolutely have the right to print classified material that is leaked to them’ and it would not change the meaning or intent at all.

STTAB

06-10-2019, 01:00 PM

Then why are VERY high charges awaiting him? And if innocent, why is he running for YEARS? An innocent man that was brought up on "false charges" would be quite easy for a good lawyer to defend and get out of jail overnight. The very instant a judge sees that it isn't a crime as you say then they will instantly release him. No crime no time.

If I were to be given highly confidential documents, I too would be held accountable. And he will be. Relations alone will ultimately see him in the USA and I'll bet you anything he ends up in prison, where of course one belongs for such actions.

And he sits in jail for now as well, where he belongs.

And dang man, you don't even know the full facts of the case you're defending. How someone didn't know about the hacking stuff and Assange's assistance is beyond me, too busy remaining blind to so so many things I guess. :dunno:

Given that our Justice system just attempted to absolutely railroad our own fucking President, I find it odd that you trust them in this particular case Jim. I've yet to see one piece of compelling evidence that Assange did anything illegal, and understand I think he should have been declared an enemy of this country and droned. But that isnt a matter for the Justice Department.

Drummond

06-10-2019, 02:43 PM

If he’s being attended to in a a medical ward and being declared unfit for questioning he would have to keep up the appearance of illness everyday.

And that would be impossible ?

I think it’s relevant that they have never published a fake document.

Do we know that for a fact ?

Besides, the matter of violating security and thus endangering people, IS highly relevant. Not that Assange ever paused to consider that, or to care ... ever, apparently.

So you don’t know and can’t state what Assange lied about, how he peddled truth, or what truths he took out context, You just “guess he did” seems reasonable :rolleyes:

It's in the nature of classified material that none of it be revealed openly. So to then be in any proper position to accurately assess and pass judgment on its veracity &/or contextual interpretation, once it's disseminated in any form, isn't particularly likely !

Assange didn't begin to care if material might be held back and given 'classified' status for any good reason. His was a wrecking agenda. Wreckers don't hold back, become 'caring', about that which they're determined to wreck.

Do you see that, Noir ?

Or do you prefer not to ?

Drummond

06-10-2019, 02:46 PM

Drummond

06-10-2019, 02:53 PM

The highlighted part is FALSE . SCOTUS has already ruled that journalists absolutely have the right to print classified material that is leaked to them.

If a spy acting for a foreign power gets hold of classified material ... and that spy is an American national ... then passes that material on to the foreign power s/he is loyal to ... isn't that the classic definition of treasonous conduct ??

All that's different in your example is that the material instead 'finds its way' to journalists, who'll then - as Assange did - release it into the public domain.

Now, if you can absolutely guarantee that none of it would ever reach the eyes or consciousness of any foreign power (!!) ... you might have a case. Otherwise, of course ....... :rolleyes:

STTAB

06-10-2019, 03:08 PM

If a spy acting for a foreign power gets hold of classified material ... and that spy is an American national ... then passes that material on to the foreign power s/he is loyal to ... isn't that the classic definition of treasonous conduct ??

All that's different in your example is that the material instead 'finds its way' to journalists, who'll then - as Assange did - release it into the public domain.

Now, if you can absolutely guarantee that none of it would ever reach the eyes or consciousness of any foreign power (!!) ... you might have a case. Otherwise, of course ....... :rolleyes:

Again, you are equivocally wrong.

Perhaps you've heard of the Pentagon Papers, where the Nixon Administration sued to stop the NYT and Washington Post from publishing classified documents pertaining to the Vietnam War? Yeah, well the Administration lost that lawsuit and the papers were published. Or how about the 2001 case Bartnicki v. Vopper where the Court SPECIFICALLY said they believed the phone recording was stolen but that the person who made it public didn't appear to have been involved in stealing it and so the defense won that case as well.

Like I said, Assange is scum and certainly no friend of the US even if his outfit did expose the Democrats, but that isn't the same as being criminal.

Noir

06-10-2019, 03:24 PM

Did Assange release classified material, in violation of its officially recognised status ?

Is that a legal act, or an illegal one ?

The Supreme Court (yep, those folks again) have been asked this question before -

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/403/713

jimnyc

06-10-2019, 03:36 PM

Given that our Justice system just attempted to absolutely railroad our own fucking President, I find it odd that you trust them in this particular case Jim. I've yet to see one piece of compelling evidence that Assange did anything illegal, and understand I think he should have been declared an enemy of this country and droned. But that isnt a matter for the Justice Department.

I've seen a ton that spells his guilt, but no point debating/arguing if you disagree with what has already been stated. But that's why we have courts, for the FACTS to come out when there are charges. With charges pending, this is a matter for our courts, which is being avoided. For some to claim his innocence and no full list of argumentation - it's because those things when done and someone gets an indictment, the information is very rarely released to the public prior to a trial. He harmed quite a bit with his releases and there are over 15 charges, not just "leaking". He's guilty as sin in my book and when they get him to the USA he will end up where he deserves. And by no means is an individual that helps someone intrude a server or a database with the intent of stealing confidential documents and releasing them - a "journalist" by any stretch. I suppose I write an awful lot here, and an awful lot about our government and policies - that makes me a journalist somehow. BS. They did nothing that journalism covers other than steal and disseminate confidential documents over political agendas.

Kathianne

06-10-2019, 03:43 PM

Courts are the only recourse at this point. Espionage and other charges:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/julian-assange-wikileaks-new-charges-us

jimnyc

06-10-2019, 03:46 PM

Noir, we already are aware that you know our 1st amendment, or our entire constitution than most of us. I mean, why wouldn't a foreigner that has such distaste for many things American.

Thing is - the COTUS is useless if a fool only recognizes such things when it's something lame they believe in. You have never once shown an interest in the rule of law. And yet you try to talk the constitution and other rights in America. In other words, you fit in with the liberal nitwits of America with non-stop hypocrisy.

As for Assange, I sure hope he has someone defending him that knows things as well as you do and so sure, because with the 18 charges pending, his future years are on the line and a Supermax is waiting with a cell in his name.

Somehow some think the only issue is him releasing on the internet. Sure. More like all kinds of conspiracy charges - and if their is the slightest bit against him as far as "hacking" is concerned and helping, he'll be cooked. He had better hope there is nothing in there under seal from Manning! Either way, an awful lot and 18 charges await, as does the court and us all hearing the proof that got him indicted. And then he's cooked.

jimnyc

06-10-2019, 03:47 PM

Courts are the only recourse at this point. Espionage and other charges:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/julian-assange-wikileaks-new-charges-us

Yup, that's what the future holds. And if he's found not guilty, so be it. I wouldn't bet a single cent on his innocence.

Drummond

06-10-2019, 09:44 PM

The Supreme Court (yep, those folks again) have been asked this question before -

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/403/713

H'm.

I see Brennan was a part of this, too.

Very possibly Assange is a fan of his (??) ...

Kathianne

06-10-2019, 09:51 PM

H'm.

I see Brennan was a part of this, too.

Very possibly Assange is a fan of his (??) ...

Remember the justices serve for 'life.' That may well change sooner than later, but it's been this way since the beginning.

You'll notice if you read the dissents, that in the main the only differences of opinion tended to be on what should be held back-very few pages was the consensus. The majority disagreed and there you go.

1st amendment is very strong in this country, which is why so many from other countries seem to think even small ponds are a big deal.

High_Plains_Drifter

06-10-2019, 11:43 PM

The highlighted part is FALSE . SCOTUS has already ruled that journalists absolutely have the right to print classified material that is leaked to them. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News, the NYT, The Washington Post. They do it all the time, and if YOU were given some classified information and posted it on this website, that simply isn't illegal. Neither is being in possession of classified material . Imagine if it were, the President could send classified material to Jim Accosta and then have him arrested for possessing classified material LOL How you obtained the classified material matters very much. The government is trying to make the case that Assange enticed people to hack and or otherwise steal classified material, but that's a tough sell IMO
OK... but was it "leaked to him," or did he and that tranny freak Manning hack to get it? IDK... I guess that's what we're going to find out.

And there's also the issue as to if the information this idiot released did "damage" to the security of America.

jimnyc

06-11-2019, 08:19 AM

If this is true, and they have verified chat logs of him trying to help Manning hack into a server - then I truly believe he is screwed. At the VERY least it shows a massive conspiracy to hack into the confidential government servers.

---

Feds Say Assange Chat Logs Document Hacking Conspiracy

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (CN) – As a battle over the expected extradition of Julian Assange heats up in the United Kingdom, a newly unsealed U.S. court filing details how the WikiLeaks founder tried to cover his tracks.

Unsealed this morning in the Eastern District of Virginia, where Assange was indicted last week, the 2017 affidavit by FBI Special Agent Megan Brown says Assange took “elaborate measures to conceal,” encrypt and anonymize his communications with former U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning.

Brown says chat logs from 2010 – when Manning first provided WikiLeaks with a massive trove of classified documents revealing U.S. war operations in Iraq and Afghanistan – plainly show a “specific illegal agreement” where Assange offered to help Manning crack a password stored on a Defense Department computer linked to a classified server.

The chat shows Manning first ask Assange if he was “any good at LM hash cracking” – the process of converting encrypted passwords to legible text. Assange replied affirmatively, according to the affidavit, and went on to tell Manning about special tools known as “rainbow tables” that WikiLeaks used to crack hash values and determine any passwords associated with them.

Though Brown calls it still “unknown” whether Assange or Manning ever successfully cracked the password, she says follow-up messages from Assange to Manning prove that Assange was on a mission to hack the system.

“The context of the agreement demonstrates that Assange and Manning intended to crack the password to facilitate Manning’s disclosure of classified information of the United States,” Brown wrote.

After two days of attempted hacks, the logs show that Manning asked Assange: “Any more hints about this LM hash?”

“No luck so far,” Assange wrote.

Brown also notes that forensic investigators found files on Manning’s computer showing she forwarded a password to Assange for a file transfer. Again, however, Brown notes it was not absolutely clear the password was “attributable to any specific person.”

“Although there is no evidence that the password to the file transfer protocol user was obtained, had Manning done so, she would have been able to take steps to procure classified information under a username that did not belong to hear,” Brown wrote. “Such measures would have frustrated attempts to identify the source of the disclosures to WikiLeaks,” Brown wrote.

Manning served one-fifth of a 35-year sentence for violations of the Espionage Act before President Barack Obama granted commuted her sentence. The transgender whistleblower was imprisoned again last month, however, after she refused to testify about WikiLeaks before a grand jury.

Rest - https://www.courthousenews.com/feds-say-assange-chat-logs-document-hacking-conspiracy/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I had read on another board someone stating he should just come back, as he faces 5 years in prison or less. Ummmmm, no. That was with one charge. Now with 18 he is facing a few more years. As in 175.

---

Wikileaks says Julian Assange could face 175 years in prison after US files 17 new charges against him

Julian Assange will serve 175 years in prison if he's found guilty of 17 new charges filed by the US Department of Justice, WikiLeaks claimed on Friday.

Assange, charged in April with one count of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, was charged with 17 new crimes relating to his work obtaining top-secret US national security information on Thursday.

WikiLeaks responded to the indictment in a statement posted to Twitter on Friday.

Rest - https://www.businessinsider.com/assange-175-years-jail-doj-charges-wikileaks-2019-5

jimnyc

06-11-2019, 08:22 AM

Yup, agreed, I think the conspiracy stuff alone is going to send him to prison for an Ecuador Embassy amount of time multiplied.

---

Legal Experts: Hacking Charge Undercuts Any 'Free Speech' Defense for Assange

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has portrayed himself as a champion of a free press, but the U.S. Department of Justice's decision to charge him with conspiring to hack government computers limits his ability to mount a vigorous free speech defense, some legal experts said.

The charge unsealed in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia on Thursday said that in 2010 Assange agreed to help Chelsea Manning, a former U.S. Army intelligence analyst then known as Bradley Manning, crack a password to a U.S. government network.

At the time, Manning had already given WikiLeaks classified information about U.S. war activities in both Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as Guantanamo Bay detainees, prosecutors said. The scheme would have allowed Manning to log in to the network anonymously and avoid detection, the indictment said.

Robert Chesney, a professor of national security law at the University of Texas, said that the case did not implicate free speech rights because it turned on the idea that Assange tried to hack a password.

"The charge is extremely narrow and that's by design," said Chesney.

U.S. prosecutors could still add charges against Assange, legal experts said.

The indictment, which was made secretly last year and released on Thursday, does not charge Assange for publishing classified material. WikiLeaks released the classified war information on its website in 2010 and 2011.

There is no mention in the indictment of WikiLeaks' publication of emails damaging to 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton that U.S. intelligence agencies have said were stolen by Russia in a bid to boost Republican Donald Trump's candidacy.

British police carried Assange out of Ecuador's embassy in London on Thursday after his seven-year asylum there was revoked. The U.S. Department of Justice said Assange, 47, was arrested under an extradition treaty between the United States and Britain.

Rest - https://www.newsmax.com/us/julianassange-hacking-charges-undercut/2019/04/11/id/911344/

Drummond

06-11-2019, 09:30 AM

Why not just stick with what's obvious ?

Assange has - and has always had - his Left wing agenda. He opposes a political entity he's in disagreement with ! This is what motivates his actions ...

... or is it 'just a coincidence' that his friends and allies 'just happen' to be creatures of the far Left ??

The hacking dimension to this should further prove that this isn't just about 'free speech' ... that's just the excuse offered as a 'justification' for Assange. No, it's all an attack, pure & simple.

Has Assange ever offered an apology for any damage which his activities are responsible for ? NO. Has he addressed that issue ? NO. Has he paused for reflection, shown the slightest hesitation in proceeding onwards, despite that being a factor ?

NO.

This all speaks for itself. No matter how Assange presents himself and what he's done, the truth is that he's a relentless attacker against powers and institutions that he, personally, hates.

Assange is an enemy. There can be no reason not to treat him as one.

Kathianne

07-16-2019, 08:18 AM

Not sure Assange had a wing, other than himself:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/15/politics/assange-embassy-exclusive-documents/index.html?utm_source=twCNN&utm_term=link&utm_content=2019-07-16T10%3A01%3A45&utm_medium=social

Exclusive: Security reports reveal how Assange turned an embassy into a command post for election meddlingBy Marshall Cohen, Kay Guerrero and Arturo Torres, CNN

Updated 3:31 PM ET, Mon July 15, 2019

Atlanta (CNN)New documents obtained exclusively by CNN reveal that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange received in-person deliveries, potentially of hacked materials related to the 2016 US election, during a series of suspicious meetings at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

The documents build on the possibility, raised by special counsel Robert Mueller in his report on Russian meddling, that couriers brought hacked files to Assange at the embassy.
The surveillance reports also describe how Assange turned the embassy into a command center and orchestrated a series of damaging disclosures that rocked the 2016 presidential campaign in the United States.

Despite being confined to the embassy while seeking safe passage to Ecuador, Assange met with Russians and world-class hackers at critical moments, frequently for hours at a time. He also acquired powerful new computing and network hardware to facilitate data transfers just weeks before WikiLeaks received hacked materials from Russian operatives.

These stunning details come from hundreds of surveillance reports compiled for the Ecuadorian government by UC Global, a private Spanish security company, and obtained by CNN. They chronicle Assange's movements and provide an unprecedented window into his life at the embassy. They also add a new dimension to the Mueller report, which cataloged how WikiLeaks helped the Russians undermine the US election.

An Ecuadorian intelligence official told CNN that the surveillance reports are authentic.

...

STTAB

07-16-2019, 11:10 AM