What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Assange Extradition- Britain Agrees to Extradite Publisher to Country that Plotted to Assassinate Him (2 Viewers)

https://freedom.press/news/daniel-ellsberg-responds-unjust-jailing-whistleblower-chelsea-manning/

Daniel Ellsberg responds to the unjust jailing of whistleblower Chelsea Manning

Whistleblower Chelsea Manning has been sent to jail for refusing to comply with a subpoena to testify in front of a grand jury believed to be investigating Wikileaks’s publishing activities—a grave threat to freedom of the press.

The following quote can be attributed to famed Pentagon Papers whistleblower and Freedom of the Press Foundation co-founder Daniel Ellsberg:

“Chelsea Manning is again acting heroically in the name of press freedom, and it’s a travesty that she has been sent back to jail for refusing to testify to a grand jury. An investigation into WikiLeaks for publishing is a grave threat to all journalists’ rights, and Chelsea is doing us all a service for fighting it. She has already been tortured, spent years in jail, and has suffered more than enough. She should be released immediately.”

You can donate to Chelsea Manning's legal fund by going here. 

 
Kristinn Hrafnsson @khrafnsson

Every day Chelsea Manning @xychelsea spends in jail for refusing to testify against Assange/@wikileaks adds shame to those journalists who remain silent about this disgrace. This applies especially to those who benefited most from her brave acts in the past. @guardian @nytimes

 
dozer said:
Assange will be expelled from Ecuadorian Embassy within 'hours to days'

"BREAKING: A high level source within the Ecuadorian state has told @WikiLeaks that Julian Assange will be expelled within 'hours to days' using the #INAPapers offshore scandal as a pretext--and that it already has an agreement with the UK for his arrest,"
Click to expand...
>>A Twitter account for WikiLeaks, the document trove website website founded by Julian Assange, said Thursday that Assange will be ousted from his sanctuary at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London within "hours to days."<<

Per Wikileaks.

 
@wikileaks

This man is a son, a father, a brother. He has won dozens of journalism awards. He's been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize every year since 2010. Powerful actors, including CIA, are engaged in a sophisticated effort to dehumanise, delegitimize and imprison him. 

 
When Julian does leave the Embassy, whatever the circumstances in which he does that, it will be for a day or two the largest media story in the world and undoubtedly will lead all the news bulletins across every major country. The odds are that he will be leaving and facing a fight against extradition to the United States, on charges arising from the Chelsea Manning releases which revealed a huge amount about U.S. war crimes and other illegal acts.

It will be very important to try to focus a hostile media on why it is Julian is actually wanted for extradition. Not for the non-existent collusion with Russia to assist Trump, which is an entirely fake narrative. Not for meetings with Paul Manafort which never happened. Not for the allegations in Sweden which fell apart immediately they were subject to rational scrutiny. And not for any nonsense about whether he hacked the communications in the Embassy or cleaned up the cat litter.

This is not going to be an easy task because pretty well all of the Western media is going to want to focus on these false anti-Assange narratives, and they will be determined to give as little attention as possible to the fact he is a publisher facing trial for publishing leaked state documents which revealed state wrongdoing. 

It is a classic and fundamental issue of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Drawing together a team that can get this message across in such MSM windows as are afforded, as well as through social media, is an important task. The team needs to be in readiness and to be backed by a suitable support infrastructure that can be dusted off and sprung into action. The public framing of Julian’s position will undoubtedly impact on the final outcome; that is why the MSM have put in such a consistent effort to demonise one of the most interesting figures and original thinkers of our time.

https://consortiumnews.com/2019/04/08/on-the-pavement-with-wikileaks/

 
ren hoek said:
When Julian does leave the Embassy, whatever the circumstances in which he does that, it will be for a day or two the largest media story in the world and undoubtedly will lead all the news bulletins across every major country. The odds are that he will be leaving and facing a fight against extradition to the United States, on charges arising from the Chelsea Manning releases which revealed a huge amount about U.S. war crimes and other illegal acts.

It will be very important to try to focus a hostile media on why it is Julian is actually wanted for extradition. Not for the non-existent collusion with Russia to assist Trump, which is an entirely fake narrative. Not for meetings with Paul Manafort which never happened. Not for the allegations in Sweden which fell apart immediately they were subject to rational scrutiny. And not for any nonsense about whether he hacked the communications in the Embassy or cleaned up the cat litter.

This is not going to be an easy task because pretty well all of the Western media is going to want to focus on these false anti-Assange narratives, and they will be determined to give as little attention as possible to the fact he is a publisher facing trial for publishing leaked state documents which revealed state wrongdoing. 

It is a classic and fundamental issue of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Drawing together a team that can get this message across in such MSM windows as are afforded, as well as through social media, is an important task. The team needs to be in readiness and to be backed by a suitable support infrastructure that can be dusted off and sprung into action. The public framing of Julian’s position will undoubtedly impact on the final outcome; that is why the MSM have put in such a consistent effort to demonise one of the most interesting figures and original thinkers of our time.

https://consortiumnews.com/2019/04/08/on-the-pavement-with-wikileaks/
Click to expand...
Quick question I've been curious about, sorry to go on a tangent here.

Here's what the Barr letter says about Russia/Wikileaks:

The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks.
Click to expand...
What exactly is the Greenwald/Tracey crew's take on this?  Are they claiming that this part of Barr's summary letter is false even as they throw themselves a parade to celebrate the rest of the findings in the letter? Or is the argument that Wikileaks was an unwitting intermediary, which seems far-fetched for obvious reasons?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ren hoek said:
@wikileaks

This man is a son, a father, a brother. He has won dozens of journalism awards. He's been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize every year since 2010. Powerful actors, including CIA, are engaged in a sophisticated effort to dehumanise, delegitimize and imprison him. 
Click to expand...
"Or we're making that up.  That's also possible."

 
ren hoek said:
When Julian does leave the Embassy, whatever the circumstances in which he does that, it will be for a day or two the largest media story in the world and undoubtedly will lead all the news bulletins across every major country. 
Click to expand...
Yeah, this is gonna be big.  It will be interesting to see what the focus of his past will be on.  Will they mention the rape allegations, bogus pedophilia claims, Russian collusion, Manning war crimes videos?  

 
TobiasFunke said:
Quick question I've been curious about, sorry to go on a tangent here.

Here's what the Barr letter says about Russia/Wikileaks:

What exactly is the Greenwald/Tracey crew's take on this?  Are they claiming that this part of Barr's summary letter is false even as they throw themselves a parade to celebrate the rest of the findings in the letter? Or is the argument that Wikileaks was an unwitting intermediary, which seems far-fetched for obvious reasons?
Click to expand...
Their position was generally that they’re open to the possibility, but would like to see the evidence before accepting it. Although Glenn appeared to go along with it on Isikoff’s podcast.  

Most of my problems with Crowdstrike/G2 attribution were discussed here (this was back in May 2018).  But from a broader perspective, I don’t think the Russian state would A. run such a shoddy operation that gave themselves away so easily- we would have no earthly idea if it were the work of a sophisticated state.  It seems unlikely that they would resort to Nigerian prince-tier phishing scams with a gmail account.  And B: no one in their right mind believed Trump could actually win.  

While they preferred Trump (for legitimate reasons- the difference between diplomatic reset and certain escalation), I think they had enough respect (and the expectation she would be the eventual president) for Clinton not to risk damaging their relationship like that.  I don’t think they really cared that much. 

And of course, the publisher has flat out denied that the source was a state actor.  They were never approached for interview or testimony. 

Whether or not Wikileaks was an unwitting mediary, they did what a publisher does, and shouldn’t be held liable for the acquisition of the information. 

 
ren hoek said:
Their position was generally that they’re open to the possibility, but would like to see the evidence before accepting it. Although Glenn appeared to go along with it on Isikoff’s podcast.  

Most of my problems with Crowdstrike/G2 attribution were discussed here (this was back in May 2018).  But from a broader perspective, I don’t think the Russian state would A. run such a shoddy operation that gave themselves away so easily- we would have no earthly idea if it were the work of a sophisticated state.  It seems unlikely that they would resort to Nigerian prince-tier phishing scams with a gmail account.  And B: no one in their right mind believed Trump could actually win.  

While they preferred Trump (for legitimate reasons- the difference between diplomatic reset and certain escalation), I think they had enough respect (and the expectation she would be the eventual president) for Clinton not to risk damaging their relationship like that.  I don’t think they really cared that much. 

And of course, the publisher has flat out denied that the source was a state actor.  They were never approached for interview or testimony. 

Whether or not Wikileaks was an unwitting mediary, they did what a publisher does, and shouldn’t be held liable for the acquisition of the information. 
Click to expand...
I appreciate the response, but I'm not really interested in what you or they think about what actually happened or what level of culpability Wikileaks has.  My question is broader than that.  Surely you've noticed that the Greenwald group (for lack of a better term) has been celebrating the Barr letter/Mueller report's conclusion that the Trump campaign did not "conspire and coordinate with Russia" with an enthusiasm that makes the Washington Capitals' Stanley Cup celebration look like a funeral. I'm trying to figure out if they accept the rest of the Barr letter/Mueller report's conclusions as readily. The answer, based on the bolded, seems to clearly be no. They seem to be applying different standards of skepticism to different parts of Barr's letter and Mueller's findings based on what suits their needs. Would you agree?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
I appreciate the response, but I'm not really interested in what you or they think about what actually happened or what level of culpability Wikileaks has.  My question is broader than that.  Surely you've noticed that the Greenwald group (for lack of a better term) has been celebrating the Barr letter/Mueller report's conclusion that the Trump campaign did not "conspire and coordinate with Russia" with an enthusiasm that makes the Washington Capitals' Stanley Cup celebration look like a funeral. I'm trying to figure out if they accept the rest of the Barr letter/Mueller report's conclusions as readily. The answer, based on the bolded, seems to clearly be no. They seem to be applying different standards of skepticism to different parts of Barr's letter and Mueller's findings based on what suits their needs. Would you agree?
Click to expand...
Ok, I already had this argument with Saints in the Russia thread.  Greenwald/Tracey didn’t need Mueller’s report or Barr’s letter to know collusion was bs- it was already contradicted by mountains of real world evidence.  

It’s just that people who have been hyping up Mueller’s report for 2 years now have to accept the ‘no conspiracy’ findings from the report they’ve been hyping up for 2 years.  Which they’ve spent years gaslighting Glenn/Tracey about.  Greenwald was basically excommunicated from the liberal media sphere for rejecting the conspiracy theory. 

 
ren hoek said:
Where did that post mention anything about hours or days?  
Click to expand...
What you posted of it?  Or the original tweet you partially quoted that carried the hashtag #ProtectJulian, which was started in response to the "news" that Assange was hours or days from being removed from the Embassy by force and imprisoned in the UK?

 
ren hoek said:
Ok, I already had this argument with Saints in the Russia thread.  Greenwald/Tracey didn’t need Mueller’s report or Barr’s letter to know collusion was bs- it was already contradicted by mountains of real world evidence.  

It’s just that people who have been hyping up Mueller’s report for 2 years now have to accept the ‘no conspiracy’ findings from the report they’ve been hyping up for 2 years.  Which they’ve spent years gaslighting Glenn/Tracey about.  Greenwald was basically excommunicated from the liberal media sphere for rejecting the conspiracy theory. 
Click to expand...
So their position is that they don't have to accept Barr and Mueller's findings because they already knew what was going on, but that everyone else does even though they haven't seen Mueller's findings? Well that doesn't seem arrogant or off-putting at all.

Also Greenwald wasn't "excommunicated from the liberal media sphere" for rejecting the collusion conspiracy theory. His reputation among liberals was damaged by three things IMO: (1) spreading conspiracy theories of his own in defense of Wikileaks by rejecting the intelligence community findings on Russia and Wikileaks, which obviously makes it particularly jarring to hear him smugly dismissing all the other "conspiracy theorists" based on the findings of that same community; (2) paying no mind to Trump's rampant, unprecedented corruption, repression of the free press and lack of accountability after being so passionate about those issues for so long (I've heard his "everyone else is already covering it so I don't have to" argument and it's obviously hot garbage); and (3) appearing with Tucker Carlson, an actual White Nationalist, just so he could take his celebration tour to national TV.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
So their position is that they don't have to accept Barr and Mueller's findings because they already knew what was going on, but that everyone else does even though they haven't seen Mueller's findings? Well that doesn't seem arrogant or off-putting at all.

Also Greenwald wasn't "excommunicated from the liberal media sphere" for rejecting the collusion conspiracy theory. His reputation among liberals was damaged by three things IMO: (1) spreading conspiracy theories of his own in defense of Wikileaks by rejecting the intelligence community findings on Russia and Wikileaks, which obviously makes it particularly jarring to hear him smugly dismissing all the other "conspiracy theorists" based on the findings of that same community; (2) paying no mind to Trump's rampant, unprecedented corruption, repression of the free press and lack of accountability after being so passionate about those issues for so long (I've heard his "everyone else is already covering it so I don't have to" argument and it's obviously hot garbage); and (3) appearing with Tucker Carlson, an actual White Nationalist, just so he could take his celebration tour to national TV.
Click to expand...
I don’t know dude, maybe you should ask them.  Do you accept that the SCO, with its high powered, incredibly skilled team of investigators combing over every fiber of the Trump campaign for 20 months and rifling through Donald Trump’s garbage can “could not establish” collusion or not?  Can we at least agree on that, that there was no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to influence the 2016 election, like I’ve been saying for years?  

I don’t care if it’s arrogant or offputting to people who got it wrong.  Frankly I’m glad a lot of bad journalists are mad at Greenwald/Tracey right now.  I hope it reminds them of their failure and the total frauds they are everyday.  I’m glad every huckster that made a cottage industry out of this thing is high and dry all of a sudden.  The people who pushed this garbage should be stripped of all credibility, and they will be.  

 
ren hoek said:
I don’t know dude, maybe you should ask them.  Do you accept that the SCO, with its high powered, incredibly skilled team of investigators combing over every fiber of the Trump campaign for 20 months and rifling through Donald Trump’s garbage can “could not establish” collusion or not?  Can we at least agree on that, that there was no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to influence the 2016 election, like I’ve been saying for years?  

I don’t care if it’s arrogant or offputting to people who got it wrong.  Frankly I’m glad a lot of bad journalists are mad at Greenwald/Tracey right now.  I hope it reminds them of their failure and the total frauds they are everyday.  I’m glad every huckster that made a cottage industry out of this thing is high and dry all of a sudden.  The people who pushed this garbage should be stripped of all credibility, and they will be.  
Click to expand...
Yes, I accept it. And I know you need enemies just like Greenwald et al, but I've always said I kinda suspected the same, and that if they found anything it would be low-level stuff. If you don't remember that from the thread you're welcome to search it.

As for the rest ... you (and them) keep saying this stuff about all the people who were wrong, but you're never specific about who these people are who "made a cottage industry out of this thing." Who are you talking about? Rachel Maddow?  That's one person, and while I don't watch her I've always thought her shtick was more about broader corruption and kompromat than specifically about collusion re: the election anyway.  And of course the broader questions of corruption and kompromat are still very much alive. Twitter folks like Claude Taylor, Louise Mensch and the Krassenstein brothers?  Very few people take them seriously anyway.

So who are these people you all are talking about? Where are all the erroneous or misleading stories?  Because I gotta tell you, the whiny media criticism part of the Greenwald victory tour kinda seems like one big straw man to me. And I'm not sure building a straw man is a good excuse for going on the air with a white nationalist fraud.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
:lmao:

Wikileaks on April 4:

BREAKING: A high level source within the Ecuadorian state has told @WikiLeaks that Julian Assange will be expelled within "hours to days" using the #INAPapers offshore scandal as a pretext--and that it already has an agreement with the UK for his arrest.
Click to expand...
Wikileaks on April 10: 

Will Ecuador's President Moreno attempt to expel Assange before the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and the Special Rapporteur on Privacy visit Assange on April 25th to investigate his treatment? President Moreno visits Washington DC in six days on April 16.
Click to expand...

 
Scotland Yard said it was invited into the embassy by the ambassador, following the Ecuadorian government's withdrawal of asylum.

Mr Assange would remain in custody at a central London police station, before appearing at Westminster Magistrates' Court "as soon as is possible", the statement added.

 
Video of the arrest on CNN - he is being forcibly escorted out by about 6 people - and he looks a bit different - older.

 
Sinn Fein said:
Scotland Yard said it was invited into the embassy by the ambassador, following the Ecuadorian government's withdrawal of asylum.

Mr Assange would remain in custody at a central London police station, before appearing at Westminster Magistrates' Court "as soon as is possible", the statement added.
Click to expand...


It says he was arrested for failure to appear for a 2012 warrant.

What is that warrant for? Is that the Swedish allegation? The one that was dropped?

 
whoknew said:
It says he was arrested for failure to appear for a 2012 warrant.

What is that warrant for? Is that the Swedish allegation? The one that was dropped?
Click to expand...
Assange, 46, skipped bail to enter the embassy in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden over allegations of sexual assault and rape, which he denies.

Though Swedish prosecutors dropped the investigation against him, he faces arrest if he leaves the building in Knightsbridge, west London, for breaching his former bail conditions in the UK.

Of course, he now has bigger issues to worry about, as the US has allegedly filed charges.

 
So, going back to the :tinfoilhat:  from a few weeks ago - we know that the DOJ plane went to London and stayed a few days.  It would be logical that some DOJ officials were negotiating with Ecuador and England over the eviction, arrest, and subsequent extradition, to the US.  It might even be that the US filed the extradition request under seal - assuming that is allowed.  (I think the US will have already filed the extradition request prior to the arrest - because, in theory, the charges in England are not that serious - and Assange could be released otherwise).

I don't know how long the extradition process will take - I expect Assange will appeal it as high as he can go in England.  

 
Sinn Fein said:
So, going back to the :tinfoilhat:  from a few weeks ago - we know that the DOJ plane went to London and stayed a few days.  It would be logical that some DOJ officials were negotiating with Ecuador and England over the eviction, arrest, and subsequent extradition, to the US.  It might even be that the US filed the extradition request under seal - assuming that is allowed.  (I think the US will have already filed the extradition request prior to the arrest - because, in theory, the charges in England are not that serious - and Assange could be released otherwise).

I don't know how long the extradition process will take - I expect Assange will appeal it as high as he can go in England.  
Click to expand...


We do not know what the actual charges are the US brought/is bringing against him, right?

 
whoknew said:
JUST IN: Julian Assange has been further arrested in relation to an extradition warrant on behalf of the U.S. authorities - UK police
Click to expand...
Yeah - this makes sense.

I think a skipping bail charge, when the underlying charge was dropped, was going to be difficult for a court to hold Assange indefinitely.

 
Remember that time we learned there would be no more indictments from Mueller and not even the additional unsealing of indictments brought by Mueller and some people suggested there were likely sealed indictments related to the Russia investigation in other jurisdictions and none of this was really over yet and then some other people went "HAHAHAHA, STUPID LIBS CLUTCHING AT STRAWS -- IT'S NOTHINGBURGERS ALL THE WAY DOWN!"?

Good times.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
whoknew said:
We do not know what the actual charges are the US brought/is bringing against him, right?
Click to expand...
We don’t. There are three possibilities: the old Manning charges, Shadowbrokers/Vault7, and election interference. So far all that is known is the warrant is out of EDVA. Also ‘computer related crimes’, which doesn’t help much. - eta - Link.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anna Ardin‏ @therealardin

I would be very surprised & sad if Julian is handed over to the US. For me this was never about anything else than his misconduct against me/women and his refusal to take responsibility for this. Too bad my case could never be investigated properly, but it’s already been closed.
Click to expand...
Until we know more about the charges, this seems about right to me.  Assange is a reckless fascist-humping anti-Semite, but that's not a crime.  What he did to women may have been.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
We don’t. There are three possibilities: the old Manning charges, Shadowbrokers/Vault7, and election interference. So far all that is known is the warrant is out of EDVA. Also ‘computer related crimes’, which doesn’t help much. - eta - Link.
Click to expand...


TobiasFunke said:
Until we know more about the charges, this seems about right to me.  Assange is a reckless fascist-humping anti-Semite, but that's not a crime.  What he did to women may have been.
Click to expand...
Right. We need to know more about the charges. I doubt very much he was arrested just for publishing. The fact that it is for "computer related crimes" makes me wonder if they have evidence that he assisted in any of the hacking to get the information that was published.

But - we will have to wait and see.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top