Wikileaks CIA releases.......



  • The biggest disappointment I have with Assange is that he has totally destoyed any shred of belief I had in the Hollywood version of the USA govt machine. He should been assassinated years ago..



  • This post is deleted!


  • This post is deleted!


  • This post is deleted!




  • @jegga said in Wikileaks CIA releases.......:

    @gollum said in Wikileaks CIA releases.......:

    @Frank

    When do they start releases hacks that make the Russians look bad? Oh.. yeah..

    I am amazed how many people think a Russian proxy tossing information out is awesome.

    Its bizarre that people think this weirdos behaviour is somehow constructive and most of the time his "revelations " are a let down or obvious to most people anyway. And like you said its completely one way, if he's as awesome as he thinks he is when it comes to hacking surely he can get past Russias cyber security? It seems more likely they've been drip feeding him stuff for years knowing that the narcissistic douche would happily take credit for it.

    Since the election there's been a weird change in attitudes to Assange and wikileaks , he was a hero to leftards but now rwnjs like Sarah Palin are saying this about him.

    https://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin/posts/10154916952353588:0

    Also he might be banging Pamela Anderson.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/89133564/Pamela-Anderson-may-be-dating-Julian-Assange-because-of-course-its-2017

    If the American government doesn't get him the hepatitis will...



  • @aucklandwarlord he's not a fan of safe sex apparently, so here's hoping.





  • @Frank

    Yes and no. The issue with Assange is its hard to target him & not target the New York Times, Washpo etc.

    So now that is not an issue as a criminal DOJ case against the NYT is actually excellent. And it will lose in constitutional grounds (it wont even be close) but that wont matter because enough people will buy that the NYT & co are fake news & traitors.

    The only interesting bit will be how many people in the DOJ resign in protest / get fired. And if Sessions is brought up on charges as a result.. It'll take a while, I imagine till at least the mid-terms.

    Here's the key quote -

    "Never in the history of this country has a publisher been prosecuted for presenting truthful information to the public," Wizner told CNN. "Any prosecution of WikiLeaks for publishing government secrets would set a dangerous precedent that the Trump administration would surely use to target other news organizations."



  • I got from that article that the preferred approach is not to prosecute over publication but on the grounds of aiding and abetting the criminal acts in obtaining the information in the first place.



  • @Crucial

    Sets it up REALLY nicely to sue Washpo, NYT, CNN etc over all leaks coming out re Russia.

    It'll never fly constitutionally but it'll look solid to the base.



  • @gollum said in Wikileaks CIA releases.......:

    @Crucial

    Sets it up REALLY nicely to sue Washpo, NYT, CNN etc over all leaks coming out re Russia.

    It'll never fly constitutionally but it'll look solid to the base.

    I'm still a bit confused though. I think it is very unlikely and undesirable to sue a publication over the truth (or to try and prove or disprove what is the truth).
    What can be done is to target the means of obtaining the information. For the WP etc they didn't play an active role but they believe they have evidence that Assange did.
    State secrets stop being secret when they come out in public and you can't prosecute people for repeating them. What you can do is get someone for obtaining those secrets or mis-using them.



  • @Crucial

    Yeah, Assange is an easier one as I bet he has actively requested people to comit a crime, Washpo & NYT would never do that.

    But they would take the leak if offered. Which is totally legal. But that distinction will only matter in court. The story will be DOJ prosecute Washpo & NYT & Assange over treasonous leaks. Assange goes down, Washpo & NYT are fully cleared but the message out is "anything they found was done via treason, ignore it"

    If you are trying to discredit the info & can't, discredit the source. And you don't even have to win. Especially if you've already to a degree discredited the courts.



  • @gollum said in Wikileaks CIA releases.......:

    @Crucial

    Yeah, Assange is an easier one as I bet he has actively requested people to comit a crime, Washpo & NYT would never do that.

    But they would take the leak if offered. Which is totally legal. But that distinction will only matter in court. The story will be DOJ prosecute Washpo & NYT & Assange over treasonous leaks. Assange goes down, Washpo & NYT are fully cleared but the message out is "anything they found was done via treason, ignore it"

    If you are trying to discredit the info & can't, discredit the source. And you don't even have to win. Especially if you've already to a degree discredited the courts.

    Taking the media outlets to court involves discussing the content of the leaks in detail. No one wants to give that stuff more oxygen, especially if you know you won't win.
    However info is gained, if it is true then it is true. Telling people to ignore a fact because it was illegally obtained won't stop anyone.
    Facilitating the illegal act is a different kettle of fish and should be chased home all the way.



  • @Crucial

    Rationally I agree, but I still think if & when NYT & Washpo publish they will try to discredit by suing over the leak. the detail will be out, it'll be front page of the NYT & the lead on CNN. They have been pushing that the leak is "the real story" for over a month. This is just the next phase.

    And they are not really trying to convince you or I. Nor a judge. They are targetting 40% of the US public. And I think its a good strategy to do that.



  • @gollum said in Wikileaks CIA releases.......:

    @Crucial

    Yeah, Assange is an easier one as I bet he has actively requested people to comit a crime, Washpo & NYT would never do that.

    But they would take the leak if offered. Which is totally legal. But that distinction will only matter in court. The story will be DOJ prosecute Washpo & NYT & Assange over treasonous leaks. Assange goes down, Washpo & NYT are fully cleared but the message out is "anything they found was done via treason, ignore it"

    If you are trying to discredit the info & can't, discredit the source. And you don't even have to win. Especially if you've already to a degree discredited the courts.

    Assange can't be tried for treason as he's not a US citizen. Espionage maybe, any number of criminal conspiracy or theft charges, but you can't commit treason against a country you're not a citizen of.



  • @JC

    No one in this (bar Snowden) would, I was saying the implication put out would be that it was treasonous. And thjat all NYT stories are the result of treason by someone (snowden, disgruntled Obama staffers, the CIA)

    The intention is not to get a treason conviction against the press, the intention is to convince 40% of America the press is guilty of treason.





  • Assange to be kicked out the embassey, he still has to answer his bail jumping charges but the statute of limitations ran out on his two rape charges.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/02/julian-assange-wikileaks-asylum-ecuador-violated



  • Oh dear, maybe he can share a cell with Kimdotcom ?


Log in to reply