17-09-2019, 09:15 AM
(This post was last modified: 17-09-2019, 09:37 AM by Tom Scully.)
Carsten Wiethoff Wrote:Tom, thank you for your honest effort. But let as make a step back and define the rules of conversation for clarity, and also, who we both are, in the broadest terms. I mean I do not know who you are and I would be surprised, if you know who I am.
For the public we might as well be North Korean sockpuppets, playing propaganda theatre.
You and I know that we are not sockppuppets (what is that in this context, anyway).
I can prove I am a real person.
I suppose you can prove that as well and I trust you so far, but not everybody has to do this.
Let us also define the words along which we will speak. Assange might have a different meaning for you and me and for everybody listening.
The word Manafort might not be clear to everybody, or is it?
If you follow me so far, please acknowledge.
I am fairly well known, I guess.:
Quote:http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/...um/page/9/
Robert Charles-Dunne Posted June 16, 2013
....Both the ousted members found reasonable fault with Janney's book and demonstrated that some of the evidence presented was underwhelming at best, incorrect at worst. In fact, ex-moderator Tom Scully seemed to have located the man Janney accused of being Mary Meyer's murderer, a man whom Janney himself claimed he was unable to find. Most of the comments made by the ousted members seemed fair game to me. But then, I don't have a personal relationship with Peter Janney.
I believe that John has inadvertently admitted that he put his thumb on the scale in Janney's favour:
..
Carsten, I checked before adding the last quote box in my last post, to see if you had replied. I now know you did not see my
addition before you posted.
I assume you are not a U.S. resident but I do not know if it matters. I believe Assange is being subjected to a US extradition attempt,
but not for the justifications presented by Trump admin. officials. I believe Assange committed no as of yet known crimes until his 2016 involvement with Russian hackers and the Trump presidential campaign.
After the 2016 election, it seems former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and other Trump associates worked to reward Assange
by getting him out of London. Manafort seems to have felt too exposed by the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. One of Mueller's assigned tasks was to investigate if the Trump campaign conspired with members of Putin's government to achieve the office Trump now holds.
As the quote box I just added to my last post supports, Assange was involved with another US leaker, in 2017, and was attempting to
coerce Trump and his admin. to assist him in escaping the UK. By that time. Assange correctly perceived the Trump admin. considered him "too hot" to openly support or assist. Assange was reduced to making a threat to reveal further CIA secrets provided to him by leaker Schulte.
Quote:[URL="https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/06/11/on-joshua-schulte-and-julian-assanges-10-year-old-charges/"]On Joshua Schulte and Julian Assange's 10 Year Old Charges
[/URL][URL="https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/06/11/on-joshua-schulte-and-julian-assanges-10-year-old-charges/"]https://www.emptywheel.net › 2019/06/11 › on-joshua-schulte-and-julian-...
[/URL]
Jun 11, 2019 - The WaPo has confirmed what Natasha Bertrand earlier reported: the extradition package for Julian Assange will only include the 10 year old ...
James Lateer believes the Mueller investigation was a "deep state" pushback against a Trump presidency. I believe Mueller conducted a reticent white wash, a tepid investigation that actually served to protect Trump.
One of the few things Mueller did accomplish was to create an atmosphere that has changed the relations between the Trump admin, and Assange from allies to a need to silence or at least permanently discredit Assange. The William Barr Justice Department is contradicting itself....it is pleading the opposite in UK extradition proceedings of what Barr claimed was the reason Mueller did not charge Assange.:
Quote:https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/05/24/th...clination/
....[FONT=&]We don't know what that redaction says, though the unredacted footnote makes it clear that in the case of emails stolen from Hillary, DOJ determined that sharing of stolen property does not constitute a crime.[/FONT][FONT=&]We do, however, have a sense of how the Attorney General understands this declination, because he used it to exonerate Trump, even in spite of Trump's active role in pushing Roger Stone to optimize the WikiLeaks releases for the campaign. In one of his explanations for the WikiLeaks declination one that may more directly allude to Stone's involvement Bill Barr said that publication of stolen emails would not be criminal "unless the publisher also participated in the underlying hacking conspiracy."
The Special Counsel also investigated whether any member or affiliate of the Trump campaign encouraged or otherwise played a role in these dissemination efforts. Under applicable law, publication of these types of materials would not be criminal unless the publisher also participated in the underlying hacking conspiracy. Here too, the Special Counsel's report did not find that any person associated with the Trump campaign illegally participated in the dissemination of the materials.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]In the case of election interference, then, Barr does not consider the publication of documents identified on a wish list that hackers subsequently steal to amount to joining a conspiracy.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]But in the case of Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning's leak, his DOJ does.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]There's obviously a distinction: John Podesta's risotto recipes are not classified, whereas much of the stuff (but not all) Manning leaked was. But the role of a wish list is not functionally different, and Russian officers were charged both for hacking and dissemination.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]I'm still working on a post describing how unbelievably stupid the EDVA case is, (the charges "justifying" extradition of Assange) both for the press and for DOJ's hopes to lay a precedent.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]But at least at a structural level, the prosecution is also inconsistent with the decisions DOJ made about WikiLeaks on the election year operation....[/FONT]
Peter Janney's uncle was Frank Pace, chairman of General Dynamics who enlisted law partners Roswell Gilpatric and Luce's brother-in-law, Maurice "Tex" Moore, in a trade of 16 percent of Gen. Dyn. stock in exchange for Henry Crown and his Material Service Corp. of Chicago, headed by Byfield's Sherman Hotel group's Pat Hoy. The Crown family and partner Conrad Hilton next benefitted from TFX, at the time, the most costly military contract award in the history of the world. Obama was sponsored by the Crowns and Pritzkers. So was Albert Jenner Peter Janney has preferred to write of an imaginary CIA assassination of his surrogate mother, Mary Meyer, but not a word about his Uncle Frank.