McLaren
Premium
- 45,538
- Texas
Confirmed alive by the Embassy.
However, concerns over whether or not Kerry influenced them to cut Assange's Internet.
https://twitter.com/StoneColdTruthRoger Stone tweet
Wikileaks
- Thread starter Sage
- 511 comments
- 31,706 views
However, concerns over whether or not Kerry influenced them to cut Assange's Internet.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Ecuador is a foreign government harbouring a man regarded by the United States to be a fugitive whose actions have the potential to influence the outcome of the election. In doing so, Assange is effectively acting with the tacit approval of the Ecuadorian government, which threatens diplomatic relations between the two countries. Is it any wonder Washington is putting pressure on Quito?
Honestly, I'm surprised Ecuador didn't do this of their own volition, and sooner.
McLaren
Premium
- 45,538
- Texas
You mean the same actions that reveal the corruption of 1 of the candidates? Corruption that reveals the Saudi family has reportedly funded 20% of Hillary's campaign to become President, despite the fact a foreign countries are prohibited from influencing elections by funding candidates? Corruption that reveals the DNC influenced the outcome to have Hillary nominated and Sanders thrown under the bus? Corruption that reveals 1 official just tried to bribe the FBI into downgrading Hillary's emails from classified to unclassified in exchange for more agents in the field?
He's trying to influence the outcome of the election by revealing that the other side has also been doing just that.
*Some language present, esp. in the preview capture, so I will put it in a spoiler tag to avoid upsetting anyone.
Scott Foval was immediately removed following this video, but it's clear as day; Foval admits in the video he is linked to the DNC & Hillary's campaign team. The video reveals that not only does his group pay people to actively disrupt Trump rallies, but coordinate and train them how to do so. People in the video gleefully admitting, "Yeah, that was us!" Foval admits that they even pay homeless people to do whatever they want in exchange for dinner & a shower. There is a point where Foval says they have a double blind so the campaign/DNC can deny they knew anything about it. At another, he says they have a tactic called Birdogging to disrupt rallies; an e-mail leaked shows a Hillary's campaign manager suggests it might be a tactic to employ to gain support from Hispanics.
Tell again whose really "influencing" this election.
Last edited:
VolkswagenX
(Banned)
- 1,532
- Netherlands
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
I find this disturbing in the sense that if it were Trump, you'd be all for it. Can you at some point find equilibrium and become impartial? Assange has given a more truthful narrative to the American public then without him, there is no doubt half of what we know now would still be just suggestive, rather than verified. It was hinted from DNC insiders that Bernie Sanders was purposely getting the deck stacked against him, now we have it verified and people were fired or resigned, that's progress. How you define progress going about, I couldn't care less, be it official justice or this vigilante-ish type method is neither hear nor there in my eyes.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
I'm just pointing out the rationale for it.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Your idea of rationale, glad we're on the same page.
- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
I think your getting his Ecuadorian perspective assumption mixed with what his own perspective is on the matter. It makes sense, Eduador isn't a Russia or China it is feasible they can buckle to the pressure that those two countries wouldn't when it comes to America.
I have a Feeling Assange will probably be considering leaving the embassy now given they have basically taken away his only means for existence in that trap, and given the tactics America pulled on Snowden to get him, including a forcing leader of a foreign country(Bolivia) to land by blocking his passage out so they can search his plane which breaks all kinds of international law given the fact that the plane is considered Foreign land.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident
This may of been forgotten by some but this is basically the kind of evidence that proves the moment Assange leaves that embassy he will end up in America at some point.
Last edited:
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
And my understanding is that the diplomatic relationship between Ecuador and the United States isn't great to begin with, which is probably why they offered asylum to Assange in the first place. While they're willing to harbour him for the time being, allowing him to continue to influence the election in their name - however indirectly - is apparently taking things too far.
- 29,870
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Julian Assange's first destination going to be Sweden? Once the rape trial is settled there the USA will (let's say for formality's sake) request his extradition, which Sweden will oh so happily grant, and then he'll be sent to the USA and be probed, locked away and be in prison forever?
Unless the Swedes put him in gaol first.
Unless the Swedes put him in gaol first.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
No I'm specifically talking about how he takes issue with what info wikileaks has provided. It's almost like listening to Bill Maher complain that Assange should release info on Trump ten fold cause they've unloaded on Hillary, and potentially are compromising her chance at Presidency, all because they can't stand Trump. When in reality the Media has done a great job showing who Trump is and equally wikileaks has done the same with Hillary.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
I think you're reading far too much into my posts. I simply pointed out why any US government would take issue with Assange's actions, and how those actions put the Ecuadorians in a difficult position.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
It was from reading the early sci-fi of George RR Martin that I picked up the notion that a beautiful, useful or necessary lie was sometimes preferable to the ugly truth.
Assuming Wikileaks has been printing the ugly truth for all these years, ask yourself the question, "Would we be better off if Julian Assange and Wikileaks were arrested, or censored, or even liquidated by the state?".
I will take the position that, in general, then No, but in some cases, the answer is Yes. I have not yet concluded the correct category for the present series of disclosures involving HRC, DNC, Podesta et al. But it's looking like Yes.
Assuming Wikileaks has been printing the ugly truth for all these years, ask yourself the question, "Would we be better off if Julian Assange and Wikileaks were arrested, or censored, or even liquidated by the state?".
I will take the position that, in general, then No, but in some cases, the answer is Yes. I have not yet concluded the correct category for the present series of disclosures involving HRC, DNC, Podesta et al. But it's looking like Yes.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,611
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Part of the issue for me is also down to how the media, either by accident or design can miss-report emails and other material found on wikiLeaks, knowing that most people will not be bothered to go and check the original.
One recent example for such is one of the Podesta emails around Benghazi, which was reported by a Russian media outlet as Sidney Blumenthal saying in an email that Clinton knew Benghazi was preventable and had admitted as much, while the email in question was actually Sidney Blumenthal forwarding on an article written by Newsweek reporter Kurt Eichenwald who had written (and had not be said by HC or written by Blumenthal).
When this came to light you then had elements of the media that favour Clinton clamming that WikiLeaks had deliberately published forged emails (which was not true they had been mis-reported by a Russian media outlet) and elements of the Trump favouring media (and Trump himself) claiming that Clinton had said that Benghazi could have been p[prevented and did nothing about it (which is also not true and had been mis-reported by a Russian Media outlet).
Now the Newsweek reporter who originally wrote the piece has quite clearly said as much, repeatedly, but that doesn't stop both falsehoods being spread as if they were fact.
http://www.snopes.com/newsweek-proves-that-wikileaks-is-leaking-phony-hillary-clinton-emails/
One recent example for such is one of the Podesta emails around Benghazi, which was reported by a Russian media outlet as Sidney Blumenthal saying in an email that Clinton knew Benghazi was preventable and had admitted as much, while the email in question was actually Sidney Blumenthal forwarding on an article written by Newsweek reporter Kurt Eichenwald who had written (and had not be said by HC or written by Blumenthal).
When this came to light you then had elements of the media that favour Clinton clamming that WikiLeaks had deliberately published forged emails (which was not true they had been mis-reported by a Russian media outlet) and elements of the Trump favouring media (and Trump himself) claiming that Clinton had said that Benghazi could have been p[prevented and did nothing about it (which is also not true and had been mis-reported by a Russian Media outlet).
Now the Newsweek reporter who originally wrote the piece has quite clearly said as much, repeatedly, but that doesn't stop both falsehoods being spread as if they were fact.
http://www.snopes.com/newsweek-proves-that-wikileaks-is-leaking-phony-hillary-clinton-emails/
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
No you stepped over your own feet by subtly putting in how he is supposedly compromising an election by posting documents that were given to him by other sources. What does that have to do with his charges? Nothing, him changing the potential tide of an election holds no measure, so why you choose your wording in such sense, especially with your posting material in the Election thread, doesn't make anything "reading far too much".
- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
I think what he is saying is the US doesn't like what Assange is doing and is doing necessary attempts to try stop it, which makes sense.
Not that I or anyone who wants the Government accountable for their actions agrees with. Whilst you may think he is saying something like he agrees with the US approach(Possible but he didn't say) it's clear all he is saying is how the US government sees it from their perspective.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
The sky is blue as well, I get that he was also saying this, his premise for saying it is all I questioned.
We know how they saw it, his premise yet again though he denies it all of a sudden is that a man is stacking the election in a negative way through breach of national security. Rather than saying, a man is promoting a breach of national security, end of. I doubt the people who want to prosecute him care if Hillary wins or not, rather I think the want to prosecute him because he's showing national intel and secrets that breach security and cast the U.S. in a negative light.
- 4,464
- Azle, TX
- supermanfromazle
- SanjiHimura
There is a MAJOR difference between what Assange is doing and what the Saudi's are doing. One is trying to BUY an election for power, the other is trying to influence voters. One is a crime, the other is not.
McLaren
Premium
- 45,538
- Texas
Wikileaks posted a page today outlining that there was a plot attempted to label Assange as a pedophile through a lawsuit, an attempt likely to quiet or discredit him. He was approached by a dating agency called T&C, to appear in an ad, paid for by the Russian Govt. at $1m. His lawyers dismiss the agency as a scam, and ignore them. Days later, the agency files the pedophilia suit through the UN Global Compact system & later on through the UK courts, supposedly in attempt to reach the public, alleging that Assange assaulted an 8 year old in the Bahamas. They bring forth a long back story, but are ultimately delisted by the UN through integrity issues. T&C opposes the delisting, claiming Assange is threatening US citizens. Assange's lawyers believe T&C is a fabricated company, but they push the story none the less.
https://wikileaks.org/Background-an...Frame-Assange-as-a-Pedophile-and.html?update2
The motive behind this doesn't seem pointed at anyone specific, but it reveals the lengths some folks are going to to silence Assange.
https://wikileaks.org/Background-an...Frame-Assange-as-a-Pedophile-and.html?update2
The motive behind this doesn't seem pointed at anyone specific, but it reveals the lengths some folks are going to to silence Assange.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
I'm confused... surely the Saudis (as with all "electable" bodies) are doing both? Money speaks in elections and the means aren't always honourable wherever you look - but that's not to say that "buying" and election is necessarily criminal. Assange's motives are to influence people, some of whom will be voters and some of whom won't. His ends aren't entirely about voter influence. In that respect, and in my opinion, your statement doesn't hold water.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Nothing, but you missed my point. Ecuador offering him asylum was an overtly political act. So long as he continues to claim that asylum, he functions as an Ecuadorian citizen, or at least the next-best thing to it. Every action that he carries out is a political action. Therefore, by continuing to publish e-mails with the potential to influence the election, he is carrying out a highly-charged political action in the name of a foreign government - in doing so, Ecuador is a party to their publication. When Washington asked Quito to have him stop, they had three options:
1) To end their recognition of Assange's asylum claim, which would allow him to continue to publish the e-mails, but would also allow the British to detain him for extradition to Sweden.
2) To continue to support Assange's asylum claim and condone his actions in publishing the e-mails, which would therefore make them a foreign government openly trying to influence the outcome of the election.
3) To support Assange's claim for asylum, but deny him further access to the internet and preventing him from influencing the election. This has the benefit of allowing them to continue to support Assange, but stops them from being in the awkward position of being a foreign government trying to influence the election.
- 4,464
- Azle, TX
- supermanfromazle
- SanjiHimura
Ahh, but a foreign entity directly financing a presidential election in the US is a crime. We all know that the Saudis do it every election cycle, and we can prove, from the Clinton Emails, that they financed at least 20% of Hillary's campaign (either through her speaking fees at the Clinton Foundation, which technically makes the financing legal or through other such means.)
As I have stated
Last edited:
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Never claimed nor showed care about that, rather your tangent about an election while explaining all of this is what I cared about. Now that you've specified, I have no reason to further talk about it unless it's per that tangent or if I put myself in position to talk about it.
McLaren
Premium
- 45,538
- Texas
Edit.
Stupid liveleak link never works.
The Clinton News Network doesn't like you reading negative Hillary information, just as they don't like it being talked about on-air.
For reference, this is the same media outlet who cut the feed of a mother just before she said for protestors to go burn down other neighborhoods after her son was killed by police.
- 2,421
- Kentucky, USA
- James_Page
- PageyTheSquid
They didn't just cut her off, they posted an article claiming that she was calling for peace while using the edited footage, perfectly aware that she was calling for the "protestors" to burn down the suburbs. It wasn't until other people called them on their BS and posted the rest of what she said that CNN edited their article. Absolutely disgusting "journalism" going on there.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
- 4,464
- Azle, TX
- supermanfromazle
- SanjiHimura
Wikileaks is implying that London Police, heavily armed this time, has resumed their 24/7 watch of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. They provide this picture on their twitter account:
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
It was the sister of the Milwaukee suspect but never the less you're not wrong. And they didn't cut the feed the purposely broadcast a selected clip and then when light came that she wasn't saying to stop burning stuff in general, but in fact suggesting to go burn down better off middle to upper class neighborhoods and stirring violence based on class did CNN have to retract and apologize for painting the scenario in a more extreme liberal light.
CBS also did an edit last month on Bill Clinton's interview where the bit about Hillary's chronic health problems was brought up by him. That was removed for the actual aired interview, when CBS was found out they claimed time constraints.
All of this shows and casts the media in the light you've suggested, one of favoritism/subjective ideals rather than actual objective news that they use to once do. Hell I'd be happy to just have media be the pro U.S. bias it was during the late 90s early 2000s or cold war era (before it became super conservative during the Regan era).
Yeah looks like a G36 to me.
