Posts: 9,353
Threads: 1,466
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
I find ut bizarre - almost beyond believe, in fact - that it is just as much the liberals and the left as the right that have merrily adopted the BS lies and propaganda about Julian Assange. It's a though we're living in a parallel universe.
Besides that, what good is the law when it has become so utterly politicised? Much of the state apparatus, the media and the law ---- in the UK these days is wholly craven not to mention corrupt. This is yet another clear sign, for me anyway, that confirms that the West is crumbling and fragmenting.
Quote:The World's Most Important Political Prisoner [URL="https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/09/the-worlds-most-important-political-prisoner/?fbclid=IwAR36i2SGA8n-Ph5SiIu7E5h5HmmSrNVvP1wAIk4guXUqZY1tqdLJ-gUafvE#tc-comment-title"]
[/URL]15 Sep, 2019 in Uncategorized by craig
We are now just one week away from the end of Julian Assange's uniquely lengthy imprisonment for bail violation. He will receive parole from the rest of that sentence, but will continued to be imprisoned on remand awaiting his hearing on extradition to the USA a process which could last several years.
At that point, all the excuses for Assange's imprisonment which so-called leftists and liberals in the UK have hidden behind will evaporate. There are no charges and no active investigation in Sweden, where the "evidence" disintegrated at the first whiff of critical scrutiny. He is no longer imprisoned for "jumping bail". The sole reason for his incarceration will be the publshing of the Afghan and Iraq war logs leaked by Chelsea Manning, with their evidence of wrongdoing and multiple war crimes.
In imprisoning Assange for bail violation, the UK was in clear defiance of the judgement of the UN Working Group on arbitrary Detention, which stated
Under international law, pre-trial detention must be only imposed in limited instances. Detention during investigations must be even more limited, especially in the absence of any charge. The Swedish investigations have been closed for over 18 months now, and the only ground remaining for Mr. Assange's continued deprivation of liberty is a bail violation in the UK, which is, objectively, a minor offense that cannot post facto justify the more than 6 years confinement that he has been subjected to since he sought asylum in the Embassy of Ecuador. Mr. Assange should be able to exercise his right to freedom of movement in an unhindered manner, in accordance with the human rights conventions the UK has ratified,
In repudiating the UNWGAD the UK has undermined an important pillar of international law, and one it had always supported in hundreds of other decisions. The mainstream media has entirely failed to note that the UNWGAD called for the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe a source of potentially valuable international pressure on Iran which the UK has made worthless by its own refusal to comply with the UN over the Assange case. Iran simply replies "if you do not respect the UNWGAD then why should we?"
It is in fact a key indication of media/government collusion that the British media, which reports regularly at every pretext on the Zaghari-Ratcliffe case to further its anti-Iranian government agenda, failed to report at all the UNWGAD call for her release because of the desire to deny the UN body credibility in the case of Julian Assange.
In applying for political asylum, Assange was entering a different and higher legal process which is an internationally recognised right. A very high percentage of dissident political prisoners worldwide are imprisoned on ostensibly unrelated criminal charges with which the authorities fit them up. Many a dissident has been given asylum in these circumstances. Assange did not go into hiding his whereabouts were extremely well known. The simple characterisation of this as "absconding" by district judge Vanessa Baraitser is a farce of justice and like the UK's repudiation of the UNWGAD report, is an attitude that authoritarian regimes will be delighted to repeat towards dissidents worldwide
Her decision to commit Assange to continuing jail pending his extradition hearing was excessively cruel given the serious health problems he has encountered in Belmarsh.
It is worth noting that Baraitser's claim that Assange had a "history of absconding in these proceedings" and I have already disposed of "absconding" as wildly inappropriate is inaccurate in that "these proceedings" are entirely new and relate to the US extradition request and nothing but the US extradition request. Assange has been imprisoned throughout the period of "these proceedings" and has certainly not absconded. The government and media have an interest in conflating "these proceedings" with the previous risible allegations from Sweden and the subsequent conviction for bail violation, but we need to untangle this malicious conflation. We have to make plain that Assange is now held for publishing and only for publishing. That a judge should conflate them is disgusting. Vanessa Baraitser is a disgrace.
Assange has been demonised by the media as a dangerous, insanitary and crazed criminal, which could not be further from the truth. It is worth reminding ourselves that Assange has never been convicted of anything but missing police bail.
So now we have a right wing government in the UK with scant concern for democracy, and in particular we have the most far right extremist as Home Secretary of modern times. Assange is now, plainly and without argument, a political prisoner. He is not in jail for bail-jumping. He is not in jail for sexual allegations. He is in jail for publishing official secrets, and for nothing else. The UK now has the world's most famous political prisoner, and there are no rational grounds to deny that fact. Who will take a stand against authoritarianism and for the freedom to publish?
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/...dLJ-gUafvE
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge. Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14
Posts: 786
Threads: 104
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Aug 2009
This is another, perhaps currently the most egregious case of the Britsh Justice System in its entirety being completely dead in the water.
Are there no checks and balances? Obviously they do not work.
Is there any, I mean more than zero, prosecutor willing and able to do his job? If so, please step forward.
How much fear is in the system? All, who are not afraid, please step forward and say so. #NOEMERGENCYHERE
All, who are afraid, please also step forward. #AFRAID
Is it only the top layer that is criminally corrupt, or does it go down to the bottom as well?
Do categories like ethos and honor and pride exist inside the British Justice System? I cannot see them right now, so anybody, please, step forward.
Please consider asking these questions to anybody working in the Britsh Justice System.
I just put that as a comment on Craig Murray's website.
The most relevant literature regarding what happened since September 11, 2001 is George Orwell's "1984".
Posts: 471
Threads: 4
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jan 2018
More evidence of the U.S. and U.K. "establishments" getting more and more brazen in their illegal activities.
Just look at the Epstein outrage, the "Muellergate" Hoax, and now the Assange injustice.
I don't think we are very far from having a Hitler-style establishment of "places" (i.e. concentration camps) where people are going to begin disappearing to.
IMHO the "establishment" has abandoned all concerns about embarassment, public scrutiny and publish outrage.
Hope you've enjoyed living in a free United States of America. Your luck has just run out. Welcome to Hitlerville USA.
James Lateer
Posts: 9,353
Threads: 1,466
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
It's a real worry, James.
What I think we're seeing in these unwelcome developments is the Western elites losing control. Firstly of the narrative, and secondly of the historic hegemony that the US has controlled since WWII, and prior to that we Brits for the previous couple of hundred years.
These elites and elite families have grown so comfortable with their ages old power games and manipulations that they no longer have an original thought - and are lost in a knee-jerk reaction to events that take place outside of their control.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge. Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14
Posts: 471
Threads: 4
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jan 2018
Mr. Guyatt: Your point about the elites is well-taken--if the elites were firmly and unquestionably in control, then they would be sitting around and inventing new and good stuff, as did George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc.
As far as I know, Washington and Jefferson didn't create any false-flag events nor did they jail anybody without a good reason, nor did they make anybody "disappear."
Did Stalin and Hitler do their stuff because they were in a weak position or because they were in a strong position?
Let's not forget that the USSR went down in disgrace and, of course, Hitler met his destruction in WWII, while the US Government has survived pretty well for 230 odd years.
I guess I have to come down on the side of weakness---i.e. the establishment elites are threatened, hence the relatively desperate acts against "Russian moles", Assange, Epstein, etc.
James Lateer
Posts: 786
Threads: 104
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Aug 2009
James Lateer Wrote:Mr. Guyatt: Your point about the elites is well-taken--if the elites were firmly and unquestionably in control, then they would be sitting around and inventing new and good stuff, as did George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc.
As far as I know, Washington and Jefferson didn't create any false-flag events nor did they jail anybody without a good reason, nor did they make anybody "disappear."
Did Stalin and Hitler do their stuff because they were in a weak position or because they were in a strong position?
Let's not forget that the USSR went down in disgrace and, of course, Hitler met his destruction in WWII, while the US Government has survived pretty well for 230 odd years.
I guess I have to come down on the side of weakness---i.e. the establishment elites are threatened, hence the relatively desperate acts against "Russian moles", Assange, Epstein, etc.
James Lateer
I wholeheartedly agree. I think we should distinguish between two kinds of elites, or in fact people. Criminal and Non-Criminal.
The most relevant literature regarding what happened since September 11, 2001 is George Orwell's "1984".
Posts: 401
Threads: 6
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jun 2015
17-09-2019, 07:27 AM
(This post was last modified: 17-09-2019, 07:51 AM by Tom Scully.)
Opinions depend on when the bearer chooses to apply cut off times, although I concede activity of 2010 is not predictive of activity
performed by Assange in 2016 - 2017. I did not introduce the term, Muellergate" in this thread, I am responding to it and opinions associated with it.
Quote:https://newrepublic.com/article/154910/t...ames-comey
How Trump's Justice Department Screwed James Comey
The inspector general's report strains mightilyand unconvincinglyto condemn the former FBI director for his memos about the president.
By MARCY WHEELER
August 30, 2019
...his report could have been a review of why the Justice Department's chain of command never found a way to stop Trump's repeated efforts to influence investigations in ways that violated Justice Department rules and guidelines. The report's revelation that someone handed over a full copy of those memos under whistle-blower protection suggests it probably should have. Of course, that report could only have reviewed the failures of the attorney general and his deputies in the Russia investigation, when in fact the violations were caused by the presidentsomeone the inspector general has no jurisdiction over. Instead, after significant public pressure from the president and reportedly private pressure from his lackey Attorney General William Barr, the report instead faultsComey for trying to do something about it.Comey may well be guilty of retaining memos that constitute official records. But to make that case, the inspector general would first have to establish that it is part of the FBI director's official duties to let the president interfere in ongoing investigations. Needless to say, it has not done that.
Instead, the report provides compelling proof that Comey is a hypocrite and a grandstander, while dodging the critical question of what the Justice Department can do in the face of the president's ongoing efforts to dismantle the protections on its investigative integrity.
Marcy Wheeler is an independent journalist who covers national security and civil liberties
Quote:https://beta.washingtonpost.com/politics...story.html
Through email leaks and propaganda, Russians sought to elect Trump, Mueller findsBy Shane Harris,
Ellen Nakashima and
Craig Timberg
April 18, 2019 at 6:54 p.m. EDT...
On Oct. 3, (2016) WikiLeaks sent another message to Trump Jr., asking "you guys" to help disseminate a link alleging candidate Clinton had advocated using a drone to target WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Trump Jr. replied that he already "had done so" and asked, "What's behind this Wednesday leak I keep reading about?" WikiLeaks did not respond.
On Oct. 12, several days after WikiLeaks began publishing emails hacked from Podesta's account, WikiLeaks wrote him again, saying it was "great to see you and your dad talking about our publications. Strongly suggest your dad tweets this link if mentions us..." Two days later, Trump Jr. tweeted the link....
Quote:https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/12/04/th...e-release/
THE YEAR LONG TRUMP FLUNKY EFFORT TO FREE JULIAN ASSANGE
[FONT=&]December 4, 2018/82 Comments/in 2016 Presidential Election, emptywheel, Mueller Probe, WikiLeaks /by emptywheel[/FONT][FONT=&]The NYT has an [/FONT]unbelievable story[FONT=&] about how Paul Manafort went to Ecuador to try to get Julian Assange turned over. I say it's unbelievable because it is 28 paragraphs long, yet it never once explains whether Assange would be turned over to the US for prosecution or for a golf retirement. Instead, the story stops short multiple times of what it implies: that Manafort was there as part of paying off Trump's part of a deal, but the effort stopped as soon as Mueller was appointed.....
[/FONT]....[FONT=&]The story itself which given that it stopped once Mueller was appointed must be a limited hangout revealing that Manafort tried to free Assange, complete with participation from the spox that Manafort unbelievably continues to employ from his bankrupt jail cell doesn't surprise me at all.[/FONT][FONT=&]After all, the people involved in the election conspiracy made multiple efforts to free Assange.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]WikiLeaks [/FONT]kicked off[FONT=&] the effort at least by December, when they sent a DM to Don Jr suggesting Trump should make him Australian Ambassador to the US.[/FONT]....
...[FONT=&]Weeks later, Hannity [/FONT]would go to the Embassy to interview[FONT=&] Assange. Assange fed him the alternate view of how he obtained the DNC emails, a story that would be critical to Trump's success at putting the election year heist behind him, if it were successful. Trump and Hannity pushed the line that the hackers were not GRU, but some 400 pound guy in someone's basement.[/FONT][FONT=&]Then the effort actually shifted to Democrats and DOJ. Starting in February through May 2017, Oleg Deripaska and Julian Assange broker Adam Waldman tried to convince Bruce Ohr or Mark Warner to bring Assange to the US, using the threat of the Vault 7 files as leverage. In February, Jim Comey told DOJ to halt that effort. But Waldman continued negotiations, offering to throw testimony from Deripaska in as well. He even used testimony from Christopher Steele as leverage.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]This effort has been consistently spun by the Mark Meadows/Devin Nunes/Jim Jordan crowd feeding right wing propagandists like John Solomon as an attempt to obstruct a beneficial counterintelligence discussion. It's a testament to the extent to which GOP "investigations" have been an effort to spin an attempt to coerce freedom for Assange.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Shortly after this effort failed, Manafort picked it up, as laid out by the NYT. That continued until Mueller got hired.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]There may have been a break (or maybe I'm missing the next step). But by the summer, Dana Rohrabacher and Chuck Johnson got in the act, with Rohrabacher going to the Embassy to learn the alternate story, which he offered to share with Trump.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Next up was Bill Binney, whom Trump started pushing Mike Pompeo to meet with, to hear Binney's alternative story.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]At around the same time, WikiLeaks released the single Vault 8 file they would release, followed shortly by Assange publicly re-upping his offer to set up a whistleblower hotel in DC.[/FONT]....
......[FONT=&]Those events contributed to a crackdown on Assange and may have led to the [/FONT]jailing[FONT=&] of accused Vault 7 source Joshua Schulte.[/FONT][FONT=&]In December, Ecuador and Russia started working on a plan to sneak Assange out of the Embassy.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]A few weeks later, Roger Stone got into the act, telling Randy Credico he was close to winning Assange a pardon.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]These efforts have all fizzled, and I suspect as Mueller put together more information on Trump's conspiracy with Russia, not only did the hopes of telling an alternative theory fade, but so did the possibility that a Trump pardon for Assange would look like anything other than a payoff for help getting elected. In June, the government finally got around to charging Schulte for Vault 7. But during the entire time he was in jail, he was apparently still attempting to leak information, which the government therefore obtained on video.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Ecuador's increasing crackdown on Assange has paralleled the Schulte prosecution, with new restrictions, perhaps designed to provide the excuse to boot Assange from the Embassy, going into effect on December 1.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Don't get me wrong: if I were Assange I'd use any means I could to obtain safe passage.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Indeed, this series of negotiations and the players involved may be far, far more damning for those close to Trump. Sean Hannity, Oleg Deripaska, Paul Manafort, Chuck Johnson, Dana Rohrabacher, Roger Stone, and Don Jr, may all worked to find a way to free Assange, all in the wake of Assange playing a key role in getting Trump elected. And they were conducting these negotiations even as WikiLeaks was burning the CIA's hacking tools....[/FONT]
Obama/Holder were aware there was no legal rationale for indicting Assange related to his distribution of the Manning material in 2010. Trump "attorney" William Barr is arguing out of both sides of his mouth, for lack of a less embarrassing strategy.
Assange would have been droned by Obama/Holder if opportunity had presented itself.
Quote:https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/05/24/th...ent-792080
THE LOGIC OF ASSANGE'S EDVA INDICTMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH MUELLER'S APPARENT LOGIC ON ASSANGE'S DECLINATION
[FONT=&]May 24, 2019/32 Comments/in 2016 Presidential Election, Mueller Probe, WikiLeaks /by emptywheel[/FONT]........
(In comments, this was posted...)
Quote:Terrapinsays:May 25, 2019 at 9:35 pm
[FONT=&]I actually think that Barr chose to have Assange indicted under the Espionage Act for a dual purpose. First, it is questionable whether he can actually be convicted of it and might make the British more reluctant to extradite Assange to the United States (that is, Barr doesn't really want Assange on American soil but he does want to seem like he is ready to throw the book at him). Second, it is designed to intimidate media organizations which disseminate classified information as public interest journalism by effectively criminalizing what has long been a bread and butter aspect of American journalism going back to the Pentagon Papers and even earlier.
Terrapin[/FONT]
Quote:https://archive.org/stream/LundbergFerdi...h_djvu.txt
Ferdinand Lundberg: The Rich and the Super-Rich: A Study in ...
...Any criticism of Presidents Kennedy and Johnson for the nature of their top appointments should face up to this question: Where should they look for Cabinet
officers? Kennedy and Johnson looked for them where Eisenhower looked for them,
and where Roosevelt looked: in the large financial and industrial organizations. These
organizations belong to the wealthy. They are part of their plantation, which in its
broadest sweep is the market place itself.
Experts of greater if not complete independence of judgment are to be had, to be sure,
from the leading universities, and Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy both
drew heavily upon them for certain tasks. But scholars have neither the habit of
command nor is their authority apt to be recognized by men practiced in the arts of
expedient manipulation Plato's men of the appetites. Any president has to look to the
big enterprises, selecting competent men who are least compromised by egocentric self-service. ...
[FONT=&]Obama, in the JFK tradition, kept republican Bob Gates on, as Def Sec.... Near the end of 2010, Gates summed up the "fallout" of the Manning/Assange
releases.:
Quote:https://www.lawfareblog.com/realism-101-wikileaks
[/FONT]Quote:Realism 101 on Wikileaks
By Jack Goldsmith Wednesday, December 1, 2010, 4:29 AM
Secretary of Defense Gates on the significance of the latest wikileaks disclosures (via SWJ):
[FONT=&]
....[/FONT]Now, I've heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy described as a meltdown, as a game-changer, and so on. I think I think those descriptions are fairly significantly overwrought. The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it's in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets.[FONT=&]
[/FONT]
Many governments some governments deal with us because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us. We are still essentially, as has been said before, the indispensable nation. So other nations will continue to deal with us. They will continue to work with us. We will continue to share sensitive information with one another. Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest.[FONT=&]..
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]
[/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.
Posts: 786
Threads: 104
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Aug 2009
Tom, I did not follow your last post. I seriously do not understand, what you mean. Can we go slow and easy please, I am old and sick and German.
I say three words, that I recognize, and you explain step by step how they are connected in your opinion.
Manafort Muellergate Assange
The most relevant literature regarding what happened since September 11, 2001 is George Orwell's "1984".
Posts: 401
Threads: 6
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jun 2015
17-09-2019, 08:17 AM
(This post was last modified: 17-09-2019, 08:44 AM by Tom Scully.)
Carsten Wiethoff Wrote:Tom, I did not follow your last post. I seriously do not understand, what you mean. Can we go slow and easy please, I am old and sick and German.
I say three words, that I recognize, and you explain step by step how they are connected in your opinion.
Manafort Muellergate Assange
I will try, Carsten.... I take issue with the premise in the thread's OP and with the notion there is an "offense"..."Muellergate."
The UK government and incidentally, its court, are merely playing a role on behalf of the Barr/Trump Department of (in)-Justice.
in July, 2010, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was indignant.: (I ended my last post quoting Gates in December of the same year. 
Quote:https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-a...W420100801
Cache of an Aug. 1, 2010 reuters.com report.:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - WikiLeaks is at least morally guilty over the release of classified U.S. documents on the Afghan war, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Sunday, as investigators broaden their probe of the leak....
...The leaked documents also threw an uncomfortable spotlight on links between Pakistan's spy agency and insurgents who oppose U.S. troops in neighboring Afghanistan.
Gates said links to insurgents was a concern but he and Mullen voiced support for recent moves by Islamabad and Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence agency....
My core point is that charges filed by Barr/Trump DOJ are a subterfuge. I presented cites indicating everyone from Trump campaign
manager Manafort to Fox News Trump sycophants were brazenly working to assist Assange in leaving the UK but that effort was taken off the table; the appointment of Robert Mueller made such efforts unwise. The initial indictment filed in Dec., 2017, against Assange related to alleged 2010 "crimes" is what these miscreants were reduced to. The actual crimes took place in 2016. The UK will go through the motions, following the US lead. If extradition proceedings are still unconcluded in the UK in late January, 2021, the new presidential administration will drop the indictment, since it cannot be revised per UK extradition laws.
I rely on one source, Dr. Marcy Wheeler, aka emptywheel.net . Since 2005, when I began reading her near realtime research and analysis,
I have not detected duplicity or other insincerity in her presentations.
Background:
Quote:[URL="https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/04/12/the-logistics-of-the-julian-assange-indictment/"]The Logistics of the Julian Assange Indictment | emptywheel
[/URL][URL="https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/04/12/the-logistics-of-the-julian-assange-indictment/"]
[/URL]https://www.emptywheel.net › 2019/04/12 › the-logistics-of-the-julian-assa...
Apr 12, 2019 - The extradition request and indictment have been pending while Vault 7 ... Julian Assange's extradition warrant was dated December 22, 2017.
[URL="https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/06/17/the-congressional-research-services-dated-take-on-julian-assanges-indictment/"]The Congressional Research Service's (Dated) Take on ...
[/URL]https://www.emptywheel.net › 2019/06/17 › the-congressional-research-ser...
Jun 17, 2019 - But it doesn't note that the complaint was obtained on December 21, 2017. ... In 2017, the country made Assange an Ecuadorian citizen. ... occurred years after the events for which Assange was indicted. .... But if the preference is to keep solely to the immediate thrust of emptywheel's post, just tell me.
[URL="https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/04/11/the-assange-indictment-and-the-rule-of-specialty/"]The Assange Indictment and The Rule of Specialty | emptywheel
[/URL]https://www.emptywheel.net › 2019/04/11 › the-assange-indictment-and-th...
Apr 11, 2019 - The Assange Indictment and The Rule of Specialty ..... Buzzfeed reported that the extradition request was submitted Dec 2017. The indictment ...
[URL="https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/04/12/the-dangers-of-the-julian-assange-indictment/"]The Dangers of the Julian Assange Indictment | emptywheel
[/URL]https://www.emptywheel.net › 2019/04/12 › the-dangers-of-the-julian-assa...
Apr 12, 2019 - I was traveling yesterday when Julian Assange was arrested and pretty fried once
This is complicated and much of it is circumstantial, but Assange used both the carrot and the stick on Trump and his associates...
Quote:https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/08/27/re...ical-gain/
REVISITING THE FIRST TIME PRESIDENT TRUMP BLABBED OUT CLASSIFIED INFORMATION FOR POLITICAL GAIN
August 27, 2019/18 Comments/in 2016 Presidential Election, Cybersecurity, emptywheel, Mueller Probe, WikiLeaks /by emptywheel
OCTOBER 25, 2017
...That means Trump probably made the comments as the FBI was preparing a search of Schulte's apartment, the first step the FBI took that would confirm for Schulte that he was the main suspect in the leak. Trump's comments likely aired during the search, before the moment Schulte left his apartment with two passports while the search was ongoing.[/FONT]CIA had had a bit of advanced warning about the leak. In the lead-up to the leaks (at least by February 3), a lawyer representing Julian Assange, Adam Waldman, was trying to use the Vault 7 files to make a deal with the US government, at first offering to mitigate the damage of the release for some vaguely defined safe passage for Assange. The next day, WikiLeaks first hyped the release, presumably as part of an attempt to apply pressure on the US. Shortly thereafter, Waldman started pitching Mark Warner (who, with Richard Burr, could have granted Assange immunity in conjunction with SSCI's investigation). On February 17, Jim Comey told Warner to stop his negotiations, though Waldman would continue to discuss the issue to David Laufman at DOJ even after the initial release. Weeks later, WikiLeaks released the initial dump of files on March 7.[/FONT]
An early WaPo report on the leak (which Schulte googled for its information about what the CIA knew before WikiLeaks published) claimed that CIA's Internal Security had started conducting its own investigation without alerting FBI to the leak (though obviously Comey knew of it by mid-February). The same report quoted a CIA spox downplaying the impact of a leak it now calls "catastrophic."[/FONT]
By March 13, the day the FBI got its first warrant on Schulte, the FBI had [/FONT]focused on Schulte as the primary target of the investigation. They based that focus on the following evidence, which appears to incorporate information from the CIA's own internal investigation, an assessment of the first document dump, and some FBI interviews with his colleagues in the wake of the first release:[/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.
Posts: 786
Threads: 104
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Aug 2009
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.
The most relevant literature regarding what happened since September 11, 2001 is George Orwell's "1984".
|
