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)

ren hoek said:
What would he have gotten tried for?  They never charged him with anything.  

He had already been interviewed in Sweden.  It wasn't until he got to Britain and found the demands that he return to Sweden to be questioned- we found out years later that British authorities were telling Sweden not to get "cold feet" and keep the pressure on him- that something was off.  For all we know he could have been extradited then and there.    

It's not incumbent upon Assange to play his cards the exact right way to avoid getting brutally tortured until he dies.  It's on the western powers to stand for the values they pretend to believe in.  Now he's their political prisoner.  The US and Britain's claims to human rights and democratic ideals are a fraud.  
Click to expand...
Well that’s kind of my point. If the case was weak in Sweden he would have faced a better chance of getting off there in-country and then from there Sweden is a better place to fight extradition than the UK. I think in general your points are fair, I’m just saying procedurally it would have been a better venue.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Well that’s kind of my point. If the case was weak in Sweden he would have faced a better chance of getting off there in-country and then from there Sweden is a better place to fight extradition than the UK. I think in general your points are fair, I’m just saying procedurally it would have been a better venue.
Click to expand...
Well Sweden refused to guarantee he wouldn't be extradited to the US.  That was the whole reason Ecuador granted him asylum.  They saw what looked like a multilateral attempt to extradite Assange to the US, and unfortunately they were right.  

 
OPCW-DOUMA - Release Part 4

27 December, 2019

Today WikiLeaks releases more internal documents from the OPCW regarding the investigation into the alleged chemical attack in Douma in April 2018.

One of the documents is an e-mail exchange dated 27 and 28 February between members of the fact finding mission (FFM) deployed to Douma and the senior officials of the OPCW. It includes an e-mail from Sebastien Braha, Chief of Cabinet at the OPCW, where he instructs that an engineering report from Ian Henderson should be removed from the secure registry of the organisation:

“Please get this document out of DRA [Documents Registry Archive]... And please remove all traces, if any, of its delivery/storage/whatever in DRA”.

The main finding of Henderson, who inspected the sites in Douma and two cylinders that were found on the site of the alleged attack, was that they were more likely manually placed there than dropped from a plane or helicopter from considerable heights. His findings were omitted from the official final OPCW report on the Douma incident.

Another document released today is minutes from a meeting on 6 June 2018 where four staff members of the OPCW had discussions with “three Toxicologists/Clinical pharmacologists, one bioanalytical and toxicological chemist” (all specialists in chemical weapons, according to the minutes).

The purpose of this meeting was two-fold. The first objective was

“To solicit expert advice on the value of exhuming suspected victims of the alleged chemical attack in Douma on 7 April 2018”. According to the minutes, the OPCW team was advised by the experts that there would be little use in conducting exhumations. The second point was “To elicit expert opinions from the forensic toxicologists regarding the observed and reported symptoms of the alleged victims.”

More specifically,

“...whether the symptoms observed in victims were consistent with exposure to chlorine or other reactive chlorine gas.”

According to the minutes leaked today: “With respect to the consistency of the observed and reported symptoms of the alleged victims with possible exposure to chlorine gas or similar, the experts were conclusive in their statements that there was no correlation between symptoms and chlorine exposure”.

The OPCW team members wrote that the key “take-away message” from the meeting was

“that the symptoms observed were inconsistent with exposure to chlorine and no other obvious candidate chemical causing the symptoms could be identified”.

The third document is a copy of OPCW e-mail exchanges from 20 to 28 August 2018 discussing the meeting with the toxicologists.

The fourth document is an e-mail exchange from the end of July 2018 where it is stated that the eight OPCW inspectors deployed to Douma during the fact finding mission (except one, a paramedic) should be excluded from discussions on the project.

 
WikiLeaks @wikileaks

President of Mexico @lopezobrador_ calls for the release of Julian Assange

El presidente @lopezobrador_ sostuvo que la liberación de Julian Assange, estaría en favor de los Derechos Humanos.

Translated from Spanish

President of Mexico @lopezobrador_ calls for the release of Julian Assange President @lopezobrador_ He argued that Julian Assange's release would be in favor of Human Rights.

 
We then had to ask ourselves what could have caused these symptoms. We knew that this man had been confined in a highly controlled environment within the Ecuadorian Embassy for more than six years. Given that, in this environment, he had been exposed only to a very limited number of influences, the factors which could have triggered these symptoms could be determined with a high degree of certainty. In fact, the relevant environment had been created primarily by four States. First and foremost, this included the United States, which wanted Julian Assange’s extradition from the start, although they did not, of course, publicly announce their intentions. Julian Assange’s greatest fear had always been to be extradited towards a show trial in the United States and then to be sentenced, most likely, to life in a high-security prison under the so-called “Supermax” regime, which my predecessors and I have consistently classified as inhumane. Assange’s fear had always been ridiculed as “paranoia”, but on the very day he first stepped out of the Ecuadorian Embassy, it did not take the United States more than an hour to submit their extradition request to the United Kingdom. By no means had Assange’s fears been “paranoid”. On the contrary, he had been very realistic as to his situation and the risks he was facing. Assange’s looming extradition towards serious violations of hos human rights in the United States is the basic threat scenario that runs through the entire case from the beginning to this day. 
 


In addition, there were the Swedish procedures from 2010 to 2019. As I have stated in various official communications to the Swedish government and elsewhere, these procedures have been carried out in a severely arbitrary manner. This was a “preliminary investigation” for suspected rape, which for more than nine years was not even able to produce enough evidence for an indictment, and which now, after almost a decade, has been silently closed for the third time based on precisely that recognition. This procedure forced Julian Assange to apply for asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy, turning him into a political refugee unable to leave the premises. Importantly, he repeatedly offered the Swedish authorities that he would come to Sweden and participate in the criminal proceedings against him, if only Sweden were prepared to guarantee that he would not be extradited onwards from there to the United States. This would have been feasible without any difficulties, because the US proceedings were completely unrelated to those in Sweden. However, the Swedes persistently refused to give this assurance, for formalistic reasons incompatible with common diplomatic practice. The way in which Sweden conducted the investigation against Julian Assange contributed decisively to ensuring that he could no longer leave the Ecuadorian Embassy. The British, for their part, also played a decisive role in supporting this policy. In 2013, when Sweden finally considered giving up under pressure from their constitutional court, the British Crown Prosecution Service, in a correspondence which has leaked to the public, encouraged the Swedes not to close their investigation under any circumstances, literally urging them not to get “cold feet”. Well, it seems that, after more than nine years, the Swedish Prosecution Service did get “cold feet” after all.

Moreover, in 2017, there was a change of government in Assange’s country of asylum, Ecuador. The new president, Moreno, aimed at reconciling with the United States, and the Assange extradition was certainly a bargaining chip in this context. From this date, the mobbing also began inside the Embassy, where diplomatic and security personnel made Julian Assange’s life increasingly difficult. We also know a great deal today about the constant, very extensive surveillance to which he was subjected within the Embassy, including his private sphere, his social visits and his interviews with lawyers and doctors. It has to be emphasized that relentless surveillance for 24 hours a day is often used deliberately in psychological torture in order to drive victims into paranoia, except that the victim’s perception actually corresponds to reality.

Four states, the United States, the United Kingdom, Ecuador and Sweden, all contributed to producing this situation. On 11 April 2019 Julian Assange was finally deprived of both asylum and citizenship by the Ecuadorian government without any form of due process, and he was handed over to the British in clear contravention to international and Ecuadorian constitutional law. As we know, he was then immediately arrested by the British police, brought before a British judge within hours, and convicted of a bail violation dating back to 2012 in a 15-minute hearing without being granted the necessary time to prepare with his defense counsel.  //

Moreover, Julian Assange’s access to legal documents and lawyers continues to be systematically obstructed or even denied, so that in both cases he has not been able to prepare his own defense. Where is here the rule of law? Where have we ended up when a defendant is no longer allowed to read his indictment before he is asked to respond to it? When I first found out about this, I thought this was not possible and did not believe my own eyes!

As we correctly predicted, Julian Assange had to be transferred to the prison’s medical department only nine days after our visit. Since then he has been almost completely isolated under a very strict prison regime, even though he has already served his prison sentence for bail violation, and is now only in preventive detention to avoid his escape during the American extradition process. Obviously, to achieve this limited purpose, there is no need for a maximum-security prison, and certainly not for isolation. Rather, it would be clearly sufficient to impose house arrest or a similar, open regime where he has access to his family and lawyers, where he can prepare his defense, and where he can also correspond with the press.

But that, of course, is exactly what the involved states do not want: Nobody should be allowed to shine a spotlight on what this is really about. Because it is about the rule of law, it is about democracy, it is about the fact that we simply cannot afford that state power remains unsupervised. That is precisely the reason why we introduced the separation of powers over 200 years ago. And if the separation of powers no longer works in practice, then we need an independent press as the “fourth power” in the state. And if the press no longer performs this monitoring function, well then the relevant systemic dysfunctions may have to be exposed by organizations such as WikiLeaks.
U.N. Torture Rapporteur: State Responsibility for the Torture of Julian Assange

 
As with the charges against Assange, I'll be interested to see the facts of this case - to see what Greenwald actually did.

Glenn Greenwald Charged with Cybercrimes in Brazil

Federal prosecutors in Brazil on Tuesday charged the American journalist Glenn Greenwald with cybercrimes for his role in the spreading of cellphone messages that have embarrassed prosecutors and tarnished the image of an anti-corruption task force.

In a criminal complaint made public on Tuesday, prosecutors in the capital, Brasília, accused Mr. Greenwald of being part of a “criminal organization” that hacked into the cellphones of several prosecutors and other public officials last year.

The Intercept Brazil, a news organization Mr. Greenwald co-founded, has published several stories based on a trove of leaked messages he received last year.

 
whoknew said:
As with the charges against Assange, I'll be interested to see the facts of this case - to see what Greenwald actually did.

Glenn Greenwald Charged with Cybercrimes in Brazil

Federal prosecutors in Brazil on Tuesday charged the American journalist Glenn Greenwald with cybercrimes for his role in the spreading of cellphone messages that have embarrassed prosecutors and tarnished the image of an anti-corruption task force.

In a criminal complaint made public on Tuesday, prosecutors in the capital, Brasília, accused Mr. Greenwald of being part of a “criminal organization” that hacked into the cellphones of several prosecutors and other public officials last year.

The Intercept Brazil, a news organization Mr. Greenwald co-founded, has published several stories based on a trove of leaked messages he received last year.
Click to expand...
Can’t imagine what role he could have performed, other than as a journalist and publisher.  Frightening attack on the press.  

 
ren hoek said:
Can’t imagine what role he could have performed, other than as a journalist and publisher.  Frightening attack on the press.  
Click to expand...
It seems like its a pretty similar case to the one the US charged Assange with for which we are still awaiting details. I know you disagree, but to me (and others) there is a difference between helping people hack computers or phones and just publishing the results of those hacks. 

If both only did the latter, I will agree with you that its a frightening attack on the press.

 
Ok getting more information from twitter - 

The claim by prosecutors is that one line of conversation in which Glenn allegedly says to the alleged hackers "we have already saved everything...I think there's no reason, no motive for you to save anything, understand?" is proof that he is a criminal collaborator.

The Federal Police reviewed the same evidence — the same quote — & determined in their indictment in December that "it is not possible to identify moral or material participation by journalist @ggreenwald in the crimes investigated."

Folhapress from Dec: "Glenn Greenwald, founder of Intercept, is not charged with any crime. The PF points out that the journalist, in more than one dialogue with the hackers, as sources, was cautious about not participating in the execution of the crime."

Cognizant of this threat, Supreme Court Justice Gilmar Mendes issued an injunction on any investigations into Glenn, saying a free press "cannot be vilified by investigative acts directed at the journalist in the regular exercise of his profession."

Glenn has always categorically denied that he committed any crimes and made clear that he always acted a journalist in this case and I know that to be true. This is an attempt at political persecution by Brazilian government employees who view the free press as an enemy.

---

Assuming this is all true, I agree with ren. This is scary as hell. And a violation of free press standards (I don't know what Brazilian law is in regards to free press). We live in scary times.

 
From Jake Tapper - 

Important context for arrest of ⁦@ggreenwald⁩ — Brazilian President Bolsonaro has been threatening Greenwald for a long time because of his aggressive and excellent journalism Link

As @pressfreedom notes this began after The Intercept Brasil published stories based on anonymously leaked documents, recordings, and private WhatsApp messages raising ethical and legal questions about the conduct of government officials

Glenn last November was even physically assaulted by a pro-Bolsonaro pundit while live on the air, an event he said illustrates how “press freedoms and the democratic order” in Brazil are now endangered with violence

 
whoknew said:
It seems like its a pretty similar case to the one the US charged Assange with for which we are still awaiting details. I know you disagree, but to me (and others) there is a difference between helping people hack computers or phones and just publishing the results of those hacks. 

If both only did the latter, I will agree with you that its a frightening attack on the press.
Click to expand...
Glenn is no hacker.  It’s hard to see this as anything other than retribution for the series Greenwald published that exposed the Car Wash scandal.  

Re: Assange/Manning, Assange’s idea was to protect his source.  Manning already had access to the documents.  Assange was trying to crack a hash to help his source cover their tracks, and he wasn’t even successful.  It happened over 10 years ago in support of the noblest of publications, in a jurisdiction where US law doesn’t (or at least shouldn’t) apply.  

Furthermore, Executive Order 13526 states “In no case shall information be classified… in order to: conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error; prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency… or prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security.” 

What they published was squarely in the public interest.  I believe a defense official testified that the leaks didn’t cause physical harm to anyone.  Even if you think a regulation was violated, it’s clear from a moral perspective that Assange and Manning are the last people we should be punishing for the crimes of the Iraq War.  Yet there they languish away.  

 
Fairly surprised this story didn't get more interest. I realize its from Brazil, but its a right wing populist buddy of Trump.

And this attack on the freedom of the press seems to be a somewhat worldwide trend.

 
whoknew said:
Fairly surprised this story didn't get more interest. I realize its from Brazil, but its a right wing populist buddy of Trump.

And this attack on the freedom of the press seems to be a somewhat worldwide trend.
Click to expand...
It's gotten at least some traction.  I think a few politicians have tweeted about it and a solid group of mainstream journalists have gone along as well.  Nothing like the blackout on Assange/Manning.  

 
Channel 4 News

Jeremy Corbyn asks Boris Johnson if it's right that WikiLeaks' Julian Assange is extradited to the US "for exposing war crimes, the murder of civilians and large-scale corruption".

The PM says he can't comment on individual cases, but journalists' rights "should be upheld".

 
Wow. Pretty big allegation in Assange's court appearance today. From Ben Lewis twitter - 

Julian Assange court appearance today- His lawyer mentioned a statement, that alleges former US Congressman Dana Rohrabacher visited Assange, saying he was there on behalf of the President, offering a pardon if JA would say Russia had nothing to do with DNC leaks.

The court heard the statement making this allegation was made by a member of Mr Assange’s legal team. It will be submitted as evidence in the hearing which begins Monday.

Expect we’ll hear more about this come the main hearing. Rest of today’s brief appearance was mainly administrative.

Need to add- all this detail is an allegation from a statement- that Mr Assange’s lawyer was paraphrasing in open court. And it’s a statement by one of Mr Assange’s own legal representatives.

 
whoknew said:
Wow. Pretty big allegation in Assange's court appearance today. From Ben Lewis twitter - 

Julian Assange court appearance today- His lawyer mentioned a statement, that alleges former US Congressman Dana Rohrabacher visited Assange, saying he was there on behalf of the President, offering a pardon if JA would say Russia had nothing to do with DNC leaks.

The court heard the statement making this allegation was made by a member of Mr Assange’s legal team. It will be submitted as evidence in the hearing which begins Monday.

Expect we’ll hear more about this come the main hearing. Rest of today’s brief appearance was mainly administrative.

Need to add- all this detail is an allegation from a statement- that Mr Assange’s lawyer was paraphrasing in open court. And it’s a statement by one of Mr Assange’s own legal representatives.
Click to expand...
That’s quite interesting, why would the defense offer that up?

 
whoknew said:
To help support his allegation that its a political persecution in the US?
Click to expand...
Maybe but seems like a weird angle to take when the person who supposedly offered a bribe is the President. On the other hand, if he’s saying politically motivated from the remains of the Mueller team, I don’t know how this bombshell would convince a court that he shouldn’t be extradited. 

 
Trump Offered Assange Pardon if He Covered Up Russian Hack, WikiLeaks Founder’s Lawyer Claims

A lawyer for Julian Assange has claimed in court that President Trump offered to pardon Assange if the WikiLeaks founder agreed to help cover up Russia’s involvement in hacking emails from the Democratic National Committee. 

Assange’s lawyers said on Wednesday that former Republican congressman Dana Rohrabacher offered Assange the deal in 2017, a year after emails that damaged Hillary Clinton in the presidential race had been published. WikiLeaks posted the stolen DNC emails after they were hacked by Russian operatives.

The claim that Rohrabacher acted as an emissary for the White House came during a pre-extradition hearing in London.

Assange has argued that he should not be extradited to the U.S. because the American case against him is politically motivated. He spent almost seven years hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy in Central London claiming that he would be jailed in the U.S. if he wasn’t granted asylum. He was kicked out of the embassy last year.

His lawyers told the court that Trump’s alleged offer to pardon Assange proved that this was no ordinary criminal investigation.

Edward Fitzgerald, who was representing Assange in court, said he had evidence that a quid pro quo was put to Assange by Rohrabacher, who was known as Putin’s favorite congressman.

Fitzgerald said a statement produced by Assange’s personal lawyer, Jennifer Robinson, included a description of “Mr Rohrabacher going to see Mr Assange and saying, on instructions from the president, he was offering a pardon or some other way out, if Mr Assange... said Russia had nothing to do with the DNC leaks.”

...District Judge Vanessa Baraitser, who is presiding over the pre-trial hearing in Westminster Magistrates’ Court, said the allegation would be admissible during Assange’s extradition hearing, which is due to begin next week.

...

Two months after Rohrabaher’s trip to visit Assange, the Wall Street Journal reported that he was trying to arrange a deal for Trump to pardon Assange. 

The White House confirmed at the time that Rohrabacher had spoken to Trump’s chief of staff John Kelly about the plan to free Assange, but it was not clear if Trump had personally spoken to Rohrabacher either before or after his mission to London. 

In 2018, Rohrabacher told The Intercept that he had been blocked from discussing the plan with the president because Kelly and other White House staffers were scared it would look like collusion. 

“What is preventing me from talking to Trump about this is the existence of a special prosecutor,” Rohrabacher told The Intercept. “Not only Kelly, but others are worried if I say one word to Trump about Russia, that it would appear to out-of-control prosecutors that that is where the collusion is.”

Rohrabacher, who lost his California re-election fight in 2018, has been accused of helping push Kremlin lines in the U.S. in the past. A few months before he went to London to meet Assange, his staff director was ousted after a report by The Daily Beast exposed close links between Russia and Rohrabacher.

The Congressman had worked with Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer who met Trump’s campaign team at the infamous 2016 Trump Tower meeting, part of a lobbying operation designed to promote Kremlin aims in Washington.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
this is a huge story that Trumpers will just brush off.  Everyone around him is either going to prison or accusing him of something criminal but hey...they are all liars and he is the only one telling the truth

 
Biff84 said:
That’s quite interesting, why would the defense offer that up?
Click to expand...
Before the court I'm guessing he's claiming he's being politically persecuted.

To Trump he's probably signaling that he has an insurance policy - sort of like what Parnas has been doing with Giuliani and Trump - in an effort to get the DOJ to back down.

 
White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham categorically denied the president had ever discussed the matter with Rohrabacher, who was defeated in the 2018 election. 

"The President barely knows Dana Rohrabacher other than he's an ex-congressman. He's never spoken to him on this subject or almost any subject," Grisham said. "It is is a complete fabrication and a total lie. This is probably another never ending hoax and total lie from the DNC." 

Rohrabacher, who has been called "Putin's congressman" for various pro-Russia positions over the years, visited Assange in August 2017 and said publicly that Assange "emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved in the hacking or disclosure of those emails." The following month, he told The Wall Street Journal that he called then-White House chief of staff John Kelly to discuss a proposal in which Assange would provide proof that Russia was not involved in exchange for a pardon. 

Rohrabacher declined to discuss the details of his conversation with Kelly at the time, but told The Intercept in an interview several months later that the former Marine Corps general had dismissed the offer out of hand and blocked Rohrabacher from discussing the matter with the president.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-house-denies-trump-offered-pardon-to-assange-if-he-cleared-russia-in-2016-hack/
Click to expand...
These stories aren't lining up.  

 
Max Power said:
Grisham said. "It is is a complete fabrication and a total lie. This is probably another never ending hoax and total lie from the DNC." 
Click to expand...
This one is really {chef's airkiss} something - the White House wants people to believe that the DNC is conspiring with the man who received their hacked data and disseminated it to harm their candidate in the 2016 election.

 
sho nuff said:
Why?  Because Trumps Press Sec denies it?  That really means little these days.  This administration has denied alot of things that have turned out they lied about.
Click to expand...
If Rohrabacher was sent by Trump, why would he have to clear a meeting through Kelly to give him the results.  It makes no sense. 

And remind me, what was/is Assange's take on Wikileaks getting the emails from Russia?  

 
Max Power said:
White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham categorically denied the president had ever discussed the matter with Rohrabacher, who was defeated in the 2018 election. 
Click to expand...
President Donald Trump, amid questions about his campaign's ties to Russia during the 2016 election, met Tuesday with Dana Rohrabacher, a California congressman so well-known for his pro-Russia views that he has been referred to as Russian President Vladimir Putin's "favorite congressman."

Ken Grubbs, a spokesman for Rohrabacher, declined to disclose the focus of the Oval Office conversation, calling it "a general conversation at the President's invitation."

"We have nothing more than that," Grubbs said.

A statement from Rohrabacher's office Tuesday evening said the meeting lasted 45 minutes and included White House chief of staff Reince Priebus and chief strategist Steve Bannon.

In the statement, Rohrabacher said Trump was "keen" on his proposal to create a visa program that he said would help pay for Trump's proposed border wall with Mexico. 
Click to expand...
4/4/17

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher woke up before dawn Saturday for a Fox News hit in which he gave a spirited defense of President Donald Trump. Minutes after the California Republican walked off the set, Trump was on the line, inviting him to come by the White House.

The congressman's spokesman said Rohrabacher at first believed the call was a prank because it came from the White House switchboard, early on April 1. But it was the president, an avid TV watcher who often posts tweets or sets up meetings based on what he sees on-screen.
Click to expand...
4/4/17

- Rohrabacher and Trump did meet at the WH. At the president's request. And about a visa program that would pay for the wall??? Never heard of that last bit.

 
Max Power said:
And remind me, what was/is Assange's take on Wikileaks getting the emails from Russia?  
Click to expand...
I think this is a better point, and I can tell you because I used to discuss this with Ren all the time. WL claimed that it did not get the emails from Russia and - even though it had a policy of anonymity - they knew this. They claimed.

So yeah it's hard to understand the pardon for denial quid pro quo claim if WL was denying RU involvement anyway. However it would make sense considering Assange was holed up in the embassy. So maybe the deal was agree to leave the embassy, agree to extradition, give Trump his alibi, and then get released after pardon. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bozeman Bruiser said:
Fake news propaganda pushers are using an edited statement to insinuate that Trump tried to bribe Assange to LIE about Russia's involvement in the leaks.
Click to expand...
To be clear, I think what's happening is that there were witnesses at the event - one is Charles Johnson, pretty well known right wing blogger. - The other is a woman named Robinson who is a WL's lawyer. Supposedly Robinson memorialized the deal - that's the statement, it's hers, not Rohrabacher's. It just supposedly captures what Rohrabacher said. 

Also "edited" isn't helpful if it still means Rohrabacher was offering a deal.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
4/4/17

4/4/17

- Rohrabacher and Trump did meet at the WH. At the president's request. And about a visa program that would pay for the wall??? Never heard of that last bit.
Click to expand...
So Trump sends him in April 17 to meet with Assange, but this Rohrabacher guy waits until August to go on Hannity and claims he still hasn't relayed the information to Trump?  

Then the next thing we hear is that Gen Kelly refuses to allow the meeting.  So I'm not really seeing this fit together.

And again... what was Assange's stance on Russia prior to April 17?  

 
Max Power said:
If Rohrabacher was sent by Trump, why would he have to clear a meeting through Kelly to give him the results.  It makes no sense. 

And remind me, what was/is Assange's take on Wikileaks getting the emails from Russia?  
Click to expand...
One of the things that Kelly did as Chief of Staff was try to restrict access to Trump for the people he thought only caused problems like Rudy and Trump hated him for it. I’d guess that a Rohrabacher would fall into that category considering he was viewed as aligned with Russia long before Trump.

Assange’s position was that he didn’t get them from Russia. Now HIS lawyer is saying the reason he said that is because he was promised a pardon if he did.

 
Bozeman Bruiser said:
Peach Mints 4.0 dead on arrival.

Fake news propaganda pushers are using an edited statement to insinuate that Trump tried to bribe Assange to LIE about Russia's involvement in the leaks.

Reminder: Assange has stated from day one that Russia was not the source of the emails.
Click to expand...
You’ll never guess what propaganda CNN is putting out on my TV right now.

 
Biff84 said:
One of the things that Kelly did as Chief of Staff was try to restrict access to Trump for the people he thought only caused problems like Rudy and Trump hated him for it. I’d guess that a Rohrabacher would fall into that category considering he was viewed as aligned with Russia long before Trump.

Assange’s position was that he didn’t get them from Russia. Now HIS lawyer is saying the reason he said that is because he was promised a pardon if he did.
Click to expand...
He said that in 2016 though.  

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/11/03/assange-says-wikileaks-didnt-get-emails-russia/93245454/

 
Max Power said:
So Trump sends him in April 17 to meet with Assange, but this Rohrabacher guy waits until August to go on Hannity and claims he still hasn't relayed the information to Trump?  

Then the next thing we hear is that Gen Kelly refuses to allow the meeting.  So I'm not really seeing this fit together.
Click to expand...
I agree, not sure. - the only thing I'll add to this is I think that Rohrabacher may have discussed denials of Russian hacking in that 4/1/17 appearance, which is what led to the invite from the WH. 

And I'd say it doesn't take much imagination that Kelly was goalie-kicking bad influences from Trump's door, that part I believe. Now the rest like you say, I don't know.

Potentially - to borrow from Bolton - this sounds like another crack deal - and Kelly and McMaster snuffed it out. Finding himself with no other options and in the cold, Rohrabacher went on Hannity to get heard. - :speculation:

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I agree, not sure. - the only thing I'll add to this is I think that Rohrabacher may have discussed denials of Russian hacking in that 4/1/17 appearance, which is what led to the invite from the WH. 

And I'd say it doesn't take much imagination that Kelly was goalie-kicking bad influences from Trump's door, that part I believe. Now the rest like you say, I don't know.

Potentially - to borrow from Bolton - this sounds like another crack deal - and Kelly and McMaster snuffed it out. Finding himself with no other options and in the cold, Rohrabacher went on Hannity to get heard. - :speculation:
Click to expand...
I'm interested to hear more from Rohrabacher.  New name for me, I've never heard of him before.  

 
Max Power said:
He said that in 2016 though.  

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/11/03/assange-says-wikileaks-didnt-get-emails-russia/93245454/
Click to expand...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/01/04/politics/assange-wikileaks-hannity-intv/index.html

Here’s another article. Wording is important too - “Our source is not the Russian government. It is not state parties.” The next line of the article says he was not directly asked if he believed Russia orchestrated the hacks.

So a denial but not a full one. Not the Russian government/state actors doesn’t necessary mean the same thing as not Russia.

 
Biff84 said:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/01/04/politics/assange-wikileaks-hannity-intv/index.html

Here’s another article. Wording is important too - “Our source is not the Russian government. It is not state parties.” The next line of the article says he was not directly asked if he believed Russia orchestrated the hacks.

So a denial but not a full one. Not the Russian government/state actors doesn’t necessary mean the same thing as not Russia.
Click to expand...
I'll have to see if I can find this interview on youtube later.  but from this exchange it sounds like the hack was not anyone associated with Russia either.

In an interview that aired Tuesday on Fox News' "Hannity," Assange was asked if WikiLeaks' source of the hacked material was "Russia or anyone associated with Russia."

"Our source is not a state party. So the answer -- for our interactions -- is no," Assange told anchor Sean Hannity
Click to expand...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top