Julian Assange arrested after Ecuador withdraws asylum.

[Rogue 9]

There is zero reason to believe that once in the hands of the U.S. federal judiciary, he would be treated in a manner breaching his rights as a defendant, much less sent overseas to be tortured; that's absurd. The federal courts aren't going to give him to the CIA or render him to Egypt; his pretending they will is an obvious ploy to justify his continued flouting of British, Swedish, and American law.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

People also forget that Assange's actions have basically have him as a Russian collaborator at best, a Russian agent at worst. Remember, this is the same man that essentially kneecapped anti-Taliban operations in Afghanistan by revealing various individuals who have helped give the Taliban a beating. This is in addition to releasing all the sensitive information of 'western' countries while leaving Russia unscathed. Then there is the fact that he is at least complicit with the 2016 Active Measures operation with his leaks of the DNC servers and -according to some- had heavily edited them to put Hillary in a pretty bad light, more so to the GOP and fence sitters.

[Gandalf]

People also forget that Assange's actions have basically have him as a Russian collaborator at best, a Russian agent at worst. Remember, this is the same man that essentially kneecapped anti-Taliban operations in Afghanistan by revealing various individuals who have helped give the Taliban a beating.

How does this make him apparently a Russian agent of some sort?

This is in addition to releasing all the sensitive information of 'western' countries while leaving Russia unscathed.

Because that was the content he received? Wikileaks distributes content handed to them. If nobody sends stuff to them, they can't release it.

Then there is the fact that he is at least complicit with the 2016 Active Measures operation with his leaks of the DNC servers and -according to some- had heavily edited them to put Hillary in a pretty bad light, more so to the GOP and fence sitters.

According to...?

[The Romulan Republic]

How does this make him apparently a Russian agent of some sort?

It makes him an irresponsible piece of shit, but not a Russian asset.

His unrelated actions in 2016 make him a Russian asset.

Because that was the content he received? Wikileaks distributes content handed to them. If nobody sends stuff to them, they can't release it.

Well, according to Wikipedia...

A 2017 article in Foreign Policy asserted that in the summer of 2016 WikiLeaks turned down leaks on Russian Government during the U.S. Presidential Campaign, stating "the leak organization ignored damaging information on the Kremlin to focus on Hillary Clinton and election-related hacks."[159] This was disputed by Wikileaks who said that as far as it could recall the material was "already public."[159] The cache had previously been reported on by the BBC and other news outlets to reveal details about Russian military and intelligence involvement in Ukraine.[159] The Foreign Policy article also argued that Assange's position on Russia had evolved over time. Assange's relationship with Russia "started out as adversarial" as in he had in October 2010 "teased a massive dump of documents that would expose wrongdoing in the Kremlin, teaming up with a Russian news site for the rollout."[159] However Assange by 2012 "had his own show on the Kremlin-funded news network RT" and in 2016 Assange publicly criticised Novaya Gazeta's coverage of the Panama Papers, suggesting that "reporters had “cherry-picked” the documents to publish for optimal “Putin bashing, North Korea bashing, sanctions bashing, etc.” while giving Western figures a pass."[159] Russian investigative reporter Roman Shleynov said in an interview with the New York Times that it was a surprise for him to hear that "Mr. Assange was repeating the same excuse that our officials, even back in Soviet days, used to say — that it’s all some conspiracy from abroad.”[159]

In September 2017, Assange released "Spy Files Russia," revealing "how a St. Petersburg-based technology company called Peter-Service helped Russian state entities gather detailed data on Russian cellphone users, part of a national system of online surveillance called System for Operative Investigative Activities (SORM)." According to Moscow based journalist Fred Weir, "experts say it casts a timely spotlight on the vast surveillance operations mounted by Russian security services."[160]

According to...?

Mueller's indictments and report, for a start.

[J]

According to...?

Mueller's indictments and report, for a start.

I have a question: Have you read Mueller's report in its entirety?

[Rogue 9]

According to...?

Mueller's indictments and report, for a start.

I have a question: Have you read Mueller's report in its entirety?

No one outside the Justice Department has, since it's so heavily redacted.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

However, there were several indictments by Mueller that point in Wikileaks' direction at the very least, with Wikileaks being outright stated in several instances within the Mueller report that wasn't redacted.

[Oscar Wilde]

"Russia is a bit player on the world stage. Everyone and their dog is criticizing Russia... its a bit boring, isn't it?"
-Julian Assange, 2016

[Elfdart]

People also forget that Assange's actions have basically have him as a Russian collaborator at best, a Russian agent at worst.

These days everybody and their grandmother is considered a Russian collaborator or agent. That's what mass hysteria does to people.

Remember, this is the same man that essentially kneecapped anti-Taliban operations in Afghanistan by revealing various individuals who have helped give the Taliban a beating.

So the Russians were in cahoots with the Taliban? Evidence please.

This is in addition to releasing all the sensitive information of 'western' countries while leaving Russia unscathed.

As was pointed out earlier in this thread, Wikileaks posted pretty damning evidence that Putin ordered a brutal assassination in Britain.

Then there is the fact that he is at least complicit with the 2016 Active Measures operation with his leaks of the DNC servers and -according to some- had heavily edited them to put Hillary in a pretty bad light, more so to the GOP and fence sitters.

Not this bullshit again!

If the Russians stole Clinton's e-mails (or those from the DNC or John Podesta) as claimed, then your grievance should be with them, not a third party like Wikileaks who simply published them -you know, what journalists do.

“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed; everything else is public relations.” --George Orwell

How does this make him apparently a Russian agent of some sort?

It makes him an irresponsible piece of shit, but not a Russian asset.

His unrelated actions in 2016 make him a Russian asset.

Is there anything more hilarious than watching morons throwing around spy novel jargon to give their crank conspiracy theories a kind of bogus credibility? It's like Otto from A Fish Called Wanda ("It's an old X-K-Red-27 technique"), only without Kevin Kline's comedic timing. Malcolm Nance had a nice racket going in this kind of crazed McCarthyist horseshit before he started sending out threats on Twitter and was given the boot by MSNBC. When a network that claimed with a straight face that Putin could shut off your aunt's heater during a snowstorm thinks your version of "Russia, Russia, RUSSIA!" has gone too far, you really have last your marbles.

Because that was the content he received? Wikileaks distributes content handed to them. If nobody sends stuff to them, they can't release it.

Well, according to Wikipedia...

A 2017 article in Foreign Policy asserted that in the summer of 2016 WikiLeaks turned down leaks on Russian Government during the U.S. Presidential Campaign, stating "the leak organization ignored damaging information on the Kremlin to focus on Hillary Clinton and election-related hacks."[159] This was disputed by Wikileaks who said that as far as it could recall the material was "already public."[159] The cache had previously been reported on by the BBC and other news outlets to reveal details about Russian military and intelligence involvement in Ukraine.[159] The Foreign Policy article also argued that Assange's position on Russia had evolved over time. Assange's relationship with Russia "started out as adversarial" as in he had in October 2010 "teased a massive dump of documents that would expose wrongdoing in the Kremlin, teaming up with a Russian news site for the rollout."[159] However Assange by 2012 "had his own show on the Kremlin-funded news network RT" and in 2016 Assange publicly criticised Novaya Gazeta's coverage of the Panama Papers, suggesting that "reporters had “cherry-picked” the documents to publish for optimal “Putin bashing, North Korea bashing, sanctions bashing, etc.” while giving Western figures a pass."[159] Russian investigative reporter Roman Shleynov said in an interview with the New York Times that it was a surprise for him to hear that "Mr. Assange was repeating the same excuse that our officials, even back in Soviet days, used to say — that it’s all some conspiracy from abroad.”[159]

In September 2017, Assange released "Spy Files Russia," revealing "how a St. Petersburg-based technology company called Peter-Service helped Russian state entities gather detailed data on Russian cellphone users, part of a national system of online surveillance called System for Operative Investigative Activities (SORM)." According to Moscow based journalist Fred Weir, "experts say it casts a timely spotlight on the vast surveillance operations mounted by Russian security services."

Normally I'd be tempted to dismiss Wikipedia out of hand, seeing as how they also claimed John Siegenthaler was involved in the Kennedy assassination. But the bolded part is quite interesting: Assange released compromising information about surveillance operations by the Russian government. So Assange is a Russian "asset" who gives away to the public how the Russians spy on their own people? He's also a Russian "collaborator" who has just been indicted by a Department of Justice headed up by an attorney general hand-picked by Trump, who is supposedly himself a Russian "asset" (or is he a "collaborator"?). So which is it?

For a while I thought conspiracy nuts would get together and at least try to get their stories straight. Now I'm not so sure. Trying to reconcile so many contradictory and deranged stories would do to you what Captain Kirk did to NOMAD:

Mueller's indictments and report, for a start.

Since you're citing something you haven't read, does this mean other posters can cite books they haven't read, too? I can't wait to claim 50 Shades Of Grey supports my Oscar predictions next year!

[Elfdart]

Mueller's indictments and report, for a start.

I have a question: Have you read Mueller's report in its entirety?

No one outside the Justice Department has, since it's so heavily redacted.

So anyone citing it in this thread is a bullshitter, yes?

[The Romulan Republic]

Is there anything more hilarious than watching morons throwing around spy novel jargon to give their crank conspiracy theories a kind of bogus credibility? It's like Otto from A Fish Called Wanda ("It's an old X-K-Red-27 technique"), only without Kevin Kline's comedic timing. Malcolm Nance had a nice racket going in this kind of crazed McCarthyist horseshit before he started sending out threats on Twitter and was given the boot by MSNBC. When a network that claimed with a straight face that Putin could shut off your aunt's heater during a snowstorm thinks your version of "Russia, Russia, RUSSIA!" has gone too far, you really have last your marbles.

So no actual rebuttal, just personal abuse designed to derail the thread and destroy my credibility by personal ridicule (aka ad hominem).

Dishonest debating, and in my opinion in violation of board rules, but who gives a shit about that any more?

Normally I'd be tempted to dismiss Wikipedia out of hand, seeing as how they also claimed John Siegenthaler was involved in the Kennedy assassination. But the bolded part is quite interesting: Assange released compromising information about surveillance operations by the Russian government. So Assange is a Russian "asset" who gives away to the public how the Russians spy on their own people? He's also a Russian "collaborator" who has just been indicted by a Department of Justice headed up by an attorney general hand-picked by Trump, who is supposedly himself a Russian "asset" (or is he a "collaborator"?). So which is it?

For a while I thought conspiracy nuts would get together and at least try to get their stories straight. Now I'm not so sure. Trying to reconcile so many contradictory and deranged stories would do to you what Captain Kirk did to NOMAD:

So if he wasn't a Russian asset his entire career, then he could never have been at any point, no matter what his subsequent actions were? And allies never fall out or decide that they need to tie up a loose end that is no longer useful? Sides are always fixed in politics, and if you were on one side ten or twenty years ago, then you can never be on any other?

This is hardly a rebuttal- just an attempt to muddy the waters by oversimplifying the issue.

I included the full text, rather than just the part that directly supported my argument, in an effort to be through, and honest. Perhaps that was a mistake. Thoroughness, nuance, and honesty are punished in today's climate, where the only measure of integrity is inflexibility, and the only measure of principle is hating the "right" people as hard as possible. I should have just quoted the part that directly supported my argument and cut the rest. I doubt you'd have had the brains to actually go look up the full article, rather than simply spewing ad hominems.

Mueller's indictments and report, for a start.

Since you're citing something you haven't read, does this mean other posters can cite books they haven't read, too? I can't wait to claim 50 Shades Of Grey supports my Oscar predictions next year![/quote]

In point of fact, I have read some of the indictments, and I am currently in the process of reading the report. And even if I hadn't, you'd have no way of knowing that, and absolutely no right to simply declare that I hadn't read my own sources so you could ignore them without offering a rebuttal, you lying, libeling coward.

I have a question: Have you read Mueller's report in its entirety?

No one outside the Justice Department has, since it's so heavily redacted.

So anyone citing it in this thread is a bullshitter, yes?

Wow.

Everyone please note: his argument is literally "Barr and Trump covered up parts of the report, therefore the entire thing (including the hundreds of pages of un-redacted material, and the prior un-redacted indictments) must be ignored and their narrative taken at face value, and anyone who disagrees is a liar."

I am sure the Trump Regime could not wish for a better supporter.

[The Romulan Republic]

You know what, can we get a mod to weigh in here? Is it considered dishonesty on this board to cite the Mueller report because some portions of it have been redacted?

Note: In the highly unlikely event that the answer is "yes", I will ask that my account on this forum be permanently closed.

[Elfdart]

So no actual rebuttal, just personal abuse designed to derail the thread and destroy my credibility by personal ridicule (aka ad hominem).

Last time I checked, this was still the site where one is invited to "Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas". One would be very hard pressed to find ideas as stupid as the ones you've expressed here.

Dishonest debating, and in my opinion in violation of board rules, but who gives a shit about that any more?

Want some cheese to go with your whine?

So if he wasn't a Russian asset his entire career, then he could never have been at any point, no matter what his subsequent actions were? And allies never fall out or decide that they need to tie up a loose end that is no longer useful? Sides are always fixed in politics, and if you were on one side ten or twenty years ago, then you can never be on any other?

This is why almost all conspiracy theories are so bonkers. No matter what evidence or logic is offered to prove them wrong or even suspect, it's taken as proof that the conspiracy is just that much more intricate:

"Well of course the FBI found Oswald's hand print on the rifle used to kill John F. Kennedy -J. Edgar Hoover was one of the architects of the assassination, which is why he framed Lee Harvey Oswald!"

Mueller's indictments and report, for a start.

Since you're citing something you haven't read, does this mean other posters can cite books they haven't read, too? I can't wait to claim 50 Shades Of Grey supports my Oscar predictions next year!

In point of fact, I have read some of the indictments, and I am currently in the process of reading the report. And even if I hadn't, you'd have no way of knowing that, and absolutely no right to simply declare that I hadn't read my own sources so you could ignore them without offering a rebuttal, you lying, libeling coward.

Let's recap: GrosseAdmiralFox claimed Assange was involved in a plot by Russian intelligence. Gandalf asked for evidence and your response?

Mueller's indictments and report, for a start.

You wrote that to give the impression that you had already read them, you dishonest fucktard.

OK asshole, cite the part of those indictments and the Mueller Report that back the claim that Julian Assange was "at least complicit with the 2016 Active Measures operation". No, Wikileaks' decision to publish the information doesn't count -if it did, it would mean the New York Times and Washington Post were "complicit" in Daniel Ellsberg's leak of the Pentagon Papers.

No one outside the Justice Department has, since it's so heavily redacted.

So anyone citing it in this thread is a bullshitter, yes?

Wow.

Everyone please note: his argument is literally "Barr and Trump covered up parts of the report, therefore the entire thing (including the hundreds of pages of un-redacted material, and the prior un-redacted indictments) must be ignored and their narrative taken at face value, and anyone who disagrees is a liar."

No numbnuts, my argument is that you cited something you hadn't read, and with the avalanche of horseshit hurtling down the mountainside on this subject, that anyone claiming (a) to have read them and (b) that they prove a certain point, has an obligation to back up their claims. You have done neither. As they say on your favorite site Wikipedia: "citation needed".

I am sure the Trump Regime could not wish for a better supporter.

Oh please.

By the way, thanks for proving Matt Taibbi's point in my sig.

[Darth Yan]

Elfdart during this entire thread you downplayed that Assange only fled Sweden to escape being charged with rape, and you’ve ignored that a.) people have already been indicted based on investigations that occurred during the Mueller Report b.) that Mueller stated there was proof of corruption but legal mechanisms blocked them from bringing charges c.) Barr admitted he never read the evidence before deciding it cleared trump d.) Barr has a history of protecting guilty people in power e.) Barr redacted most of the report (which he wouldn’t have to do if he had nothing to hide) f.) ignored that Assange did show favoritism to the republicans in 2010 or g.) actively endangered people with some of his leaks (leaking the names of gay activists in countries where homophobia is widespread.)

So you’ve defended a man who most likely raped people and pretended that Trump wasn’t nearly as corrupt as he is.

If anything Romulan is dead on. Then again you defended Tulsi Gabbard, who whitewashed Assad after he wined and dined her and supported Hindu extremists

[The Romulan Republic]

Mueller's indictments and report, for a start.

I have a question: Have you read Mueller's report in its entirety?

No one outside the Justice Department has, since it's so heavily redacted.

I have, however, read Mueller's opening summary on Russia, and am currently working my way through the unredacted parts of the supporting evidence. I have also read his indictment of the GRU.

Note that a lot of the redactions are color-coded as things that would affect an ongoing matter, including stuff pertaining to Wikileaks. The most obvious explanation being that this is stuff pertaining to the Roger Stone trial.

I swear, one of these days I'm going to do a Let's Read of the Mueller Report and go through it page by fucking page.

[Coop D'etat]

I have a question: Have you read Mueller's report in its entirety?

No one outside the Justice Department has, since it's so heavily redacted.

I have, however, read Mueller's opening summary on Russia, and am currently working my way through the unredacted parts of the supporting evidence. I have also read his indictment of the GRU.

Note that a lot of the redactions are color-coded as things that would affect an ongoing matter, including stuff pertaining to Wikileaks. The most obvious explanation being that this is stuff pertaining to the Roger Stone trial.

I swear, one of these days I'm going to do a Let's Read of the Mueller Report and go through it page by fucking page.

That sounds like a better an more interesting thread than anything else going on in N+P right now. I suggest you do it.

[The Romulan Republic]

I probably will, as soon as the show I'm working on is done (it is eating up a lot of my time right now). So... late June.

[bilateralrope]

I swear, one of these days I'm going to do a Let's Read of the Mueller Report and go through it page by fucking page.

The podcast Mueller, She Wrote has done that. They read through the entire report, adding commentary as they went.

I can't say anything about the quality of their reading, as they only just started releasing it to people other than their Pateron backers. But listening to it at work is bound to be a better use of my time than trying to read the report at home.

[Coop D'etat]

I probably will, as soon as the show I'm working on is done (it is eating up a lot of my time right now). So... late June.

I'd suggest you don't start with something that requires a lot of prep, put up a notice that this is the project, everyone who want to participate should read the first X (10?) pages, come back in a week to discuss. If you have a more complicated thing to post on it, do so after the thread is in session and you can expect participants to have read some of what you've read and prepared to comment on what you have to say about it.

[The Romulan Republic]

I probably will, as soon as the show I'm working on is done (it is eating up a lot of my time right now). So... late June.

I'd suggest you don't start with something that requires a lot of prep, put up a notice that this is the project, everyone who want to participate should read the first X (10?) pages, come back in a week to discuss. If you have a more complicated thing to post on it, do so after the thread is in session and you can expect participants to have read some of what you've read and prepared to comment on what you have to say about it.

I'll keep those suggestions in mind.

[Coop D'etat]

I probably will, as soon as the show I'm working on is done (it is eating up a lot of my time right now). So... late June.

I'd suggest you don't start with something that requires a lot of prep, put up a notice that this is the project, everyone who want to participate should read the first X (10?) pages, come back in a week to discuss. If you have a more complicated thing to post on it, do so after the thread is in session and you can expect participants to have read some of what you've read and prepared to comment on what you have to say about it.

I'll keep those suggestions in mind.

I'm a practicing criminal defense lawyer. Hit me up on DMs if you want any advice on the legal bits.

[The Romulan Republic]

Interesting profession. I have an uncle (now a judge) who spent much of his career as a criminal defense lawyer.

[NecronLord]

You know what, can we get a mod to weigh in here? Is it considered dishonesty on this board to cite the Mueller report because some portions of it have been redacted?

I'm reviewing this thread, I will post an outcome shortly.

[Mange]

According to news reports here in Sweden, Assange's Swedish lawyer said today that Assange is "too ill" to hold a normal conversation and that he is held at the hospital wing at Belmarsh prison.

[NecronLord]

Elfdart, you were asked to provide an answer for what circumstances, if any, you feel would warrant extradition of Mr Assange. You have not provided this answer, but have returned to the thread and posted on an unrelated line of inquiry.

I am giving you a formal warning for violation of DR5.

Back Up Your Claims. If you make a contentious statement of fact and someone asks for evidence, you must either provide it or withdraw the claim. Do not call it "self evident", restate it in different words, force the other person to prove your claim is not true, or use other weasel techniques to avoid backing up your claims.

Simply refusing to answer when instructed to do so and resuming the debate on a different point is evasion.

---

You know what, can we get a mod to weigh in here? Is it considered dishonesty on this board to cite the Mueller report because some portions of it have been redacted?

Note: In the highly unlikely event that the answer is "yes", I will ask that my account on this forum be permanently closed.

My official answer in my capacity as a moderator is that it is not in any way considered dishonesty. The redaction may be relevant and is a reasonable topic for debate and conjecture, but it is a judicial document and a valid source for information inasmuch as any other is.

Feel free to PM for questions of this nature as it will likely result in a quicker response in future.