News Forum - Julian Assange supporters ‘heartened’ by Aussie govt

[MrNovax]

3 hours ago, Smithydog said:

If Assange is so keen for the freedom of the press, why no reports on Russia or China? Why his concentration especially focussed on the US? Perhaps, freedom of the press only exists if directed against certain western nations. To me, he is he simply without ethics seeking to hide behind a constitutional provision, like too many seem keen to want to do so.

People can https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:Russia

The site didnt target any particular country, its all about who decides to submit info.  We hear the most about the USA because the most damning info came from there.  

[Vigo]

2 minutes ago, MrNovax said:

People can https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:Russia

The site didnt target any particular country, its all about who decides to submit info.  We hear the most about the USA because the most damning info came from there.  

No, it's because non state sanctioned hackers  do not disappear never to be seen again.  Both China and Russia can and do make people disappear. If Chelsea manning had exposed crimes against  Uyghurs in China, or the widespread corruption of  Putin's cronies, he would have vanished. In the west, his mental state was accepted as a mitigating condition and he was given a state financed sex change.

[Manu]

3 hours ago, Vigo said:

Mr. Assange was not a journalist. Giving him the designation is an attempt to distract from what he was a; hacker and a person who made a living off the proceeds of gaining unauthorized access to confidential information. Dress it up any way that you want, call him a hero, offer excuses and justifications, but what he did was centered about the act of hacking. It violated the  privacy of others and was done in a manner where there was no accountability.

Assange shares many of the same atributes of Alex Jones from Info Wars. Both assume that they are accountable to no one and that the  rules of civil society do not apply to them. Both are surrounded by a cult like group of followers who invent excuses and  false narratives to justify the wrongful behaviour. Both are nasty, selfish humans.

Which country are you from? Check again the meaning of journalism, you are obviously not aware what it is, your comment is just a complete invented meaning of it, not what it is legally and morally. Not sure why you come up with that, getting away with a wrong point to make which could work with anyone that do not know the state of journalism in countries called democracy. Got you there mate he he… cheers 

[Smithydog]

18 hours ago, Manu said:

Which country are you from? Check again the meaning of journalism, you are obviously not aware what it is, your comment is just a complete invented meaning of it, not what it is legally and morally. Not sure why you come up with that, getting away with a wrong point to make which could work with anyone that do not know the state of journalism in countries called democracy. Got you there mate he he… cheers 

Well, I am part of the side that feels too many have projected thoughts solely designed to muddy the lines distinguishing professional journalists from other people who disseminate information, ideas and opinions with the advent of the Web.

IMO, Mr Assange claims he is a journalist simply to hide his real intention as simply a self-centered activist.

[MrNovax]

22 hours ago, Vigo said:

No, it's because non state sanctioned hackers  do not disappear never to be seen again.  Both China and Russia can and do make people disappear. If Chelsea manning had exposed crimes against  Uyghurs in China, or the widespread corruption of  Putin's cronies, he would have vanished. In the west, his mental state was accepted as a mitigating condition and he was given a state financed sex change.

it wasnt hackers, it was people with access to the info.  and of course they werent "state sanctioned", thats the point.  people seeing the evils happening in government and exposing it to the world.  

When individuals call out corporations for their evils practices everyone praises them for their bravery (and rightly so).  When individuals expose murder and crimes against humanity from the state all of a sudden its bad.  

[Manu]

13 hours ago, Smithydog said:

Well, I am part of the side that feels too many have projected thoughts solely designed to muddy the lines distinguishing professional journalists from other people who disseminate information, ideas and opinions with the advent of the Web.

IMO, Mr Assange claims he is a journalist simply to hide his real intention as simply a self-centered activist.

You actually put 3 words together when 1 of them should be separate to the 2 others: information vs ideas and opinions. Actually, that was exactly my point. All news outlets have always done exactly that: disseminating ideas and opinions. Since my young age when I started to read newspapers when it was already just that. Left opinionated, far-left, right, far-right etc... But it is and it has always been about being able to separate information with ideas and opinions in order to be informed. When I was young, if a right-wing outlet would have written an information like "under the clouds, the sky is always blue", then I would have not tried to find out if this information is pertinent, I would not have probably even known about it cause I would have not by conviction even read this outlet although they just gave a pertinent information. Nowadays, I take that information whereever I can find it, older so less naive and stupid not to be able to separate information with ideas and opinions of the ones who give me that information. Is Assange an activist? Sure so what? I do not judge the guy for his ideas and opinions, I do not even care about his ideas and opinions, if the information he provides is pertinent, that means then I am informed and that is what is all about.

Actually your IMO is interesting and the question is: will Assange die in prison like a sick rat because he provides pertinent information (journalism) or because he disseminates ideas and opinions (activism)??

Finally, when oligarchs and billionnaires are taking over all mainstream news outlets, what is the purpose: journalism or activism? Or in some cases, when one individual "funds" them like for example Bill Gates (https://www.newsclick.in/saint-bill-pumped-319-million-access-gates-media-report), what is the purpose: a pure "philanthropist" act that none of his opinions and ideas will interfere with the independance of these outlets? If you think the latter, please Smithydog, think twice...

[Vigo]

On 10/20/2022 at 12:30 AM, Manu said:

Which country are you from? Check again the meaning of journalism, you are obviously not aware what it is, your comment is just a complete invented meaning of it, not what it is legally and morally. Not sure why you come up with that, getting away with a wrong point to make which could work with anyone that do not know the state of journalism in countries called democracy. Got you there mate he he… cheers 

Assange was a self designated journalist, much like the people  who carry around cameras and record police officers at work call themselves "citizen journalists".  Assange had none of the common criteria for a journalist such as education or professional training; registration as a journalist with trade organization; or employment as a journalist for an actual news organization.  What Assange did have was a political agenda. 

You have ignored the way in which  Assange  obtained the information on the Hilary Clinton. The Mueller investigation of Russian interference in the US election resulted in the indictment of 12 Russian  agents. The indictments set out the relationship between the Russian military intelligence service GRU and wikileaks. It is no secret that the Russians actively worked against the Hilary Clinton election campaign. There is overwhelming evidence that the Russians hacked the Clinton campaign and  provided the stolen emails to wikileaks.  The proof was so overwhelming that Assange has admitted to receiving information from the Russians despite vehemently denying it at first. Assange was shown to be  one of the main promoters of the false claims of the murder of Seth Rich, claiming a conspiracy by the DNC and Clinton. He had an anti American political agenda.  Assange is no more a journalist than Alex Jones. Assange should have been treated like any other hostile agent and terminated as soon as  his criminal activity  was identified.

 

[Manu]

9 hours ago, MrNovax said:

 

When individuals call out corporations for their evils practices everyone praises them for their bravery (and rightly so).  When individuals expose murder and crimes against humanity from the state all of a sudden its bad.  

Well that's the old "good" and "bad" belief mate. And the "good" cannot be "bad". The "good" is the free democratic Western world, the "bad" is always someone else somewhere else (like the "axis of evil" of Mr Bush for example). They just do not want to believe, or their brainwashed minds do not allow them anymore, that "bad" is also on their side too, even if indisputable evidences are served to them on a golden plate. It is called "denial". Sometimes, some even try to justify these actions as inevitable, "you have to do some bad to get good in the long term": someone wrote a comment in these lines on there actually if I remenber corrrectly.

[Manu]

49 minutes ago, Vigo said:

Assange was a self designated journalist, much like the people  who carry around cameras and record police officers at work call themselves "citizen journalists".  Assange had none of the common criteria for a journalist such as education or professional training; registration as a journalist with trade organization; or employment as a journalist for an actual news organization. 

 

News organisations: do you mean the ones that are now all owned by oligarchs and funded by billionaires like Bill Gates (see link in my previous post)? Countless of great "professional" journalists leave this type of press nowadays, disgusted with the way their independance has been taken away, creating now their own small independant news outlets (I follow a few of them myself, mostly in France). Most of the last top ones left are in complete connivance with politicians, they have their guarded seat at the highest level tables and go for a nice paid meal in a top class restaurant with a politician or oligarch or lobbyist once this one has given them the "information" that should be published. The other ones, the majority, are just under paid second role journalists hanging to their job cause they have a mortgage to pay. That's the state of mainstream journalism nowadays.

Quote

What Assange did have was a political agenda. 

But they ALL have a political agenda!!!!! ALL OF THEM!!!

Quote

The proof was so overwhelming that Assange has admitted to receiving information from the Russians despite vehemently denying it at first.

And where is that proof?

And anyway, I could not care less about his agenda, like I do not care about US outlets with clear anti-china / russia, etc... agendas. If an information is pertinent to help me being informed on the doings (wrong or write) of some state / the world, that is all I need, whichever way this information comes from. That's because I separate the information itself to the agenda of the one giving it. Journalists from the US outlets constantly bashing China, Russia, etc... would probably end up in jail in these countries if they were caught. If these countries are the "bad" and we are the "good", why are we doing the same? But we do cause we are just as bad. And I am left with this opinion cause I take the pertinent information from all sides, after taken aside the agenda which in the vast majority is always soooooo obvious.

[Smithydog]

12 hours ago, Manu said:

News organisations: do you mean the ones that are now all owned by oligarchs and funded by billionaires like Bill Gates (see link in my previous post)? Countless of great "professional" journalists leave this type of press nowadays, disgusted with the way their independance has been taken away, creating now their own small independant news outlets (I follow a few of them myself, mostly in France). Most of the last top ones left are in complete connivance with politicians, they have their guarded seat at the highest level tables and go for a nice paid meal in a top class restaurant with a politician or oligarch or lobbyist once this one has given them the "information" that should be published. The other ones, the majority, are just under paid second role journalists hanging to their job cause they have a mortgage to pay. That's the state of mainstream journalism nowadays.

But they ALL have a political agenda!!!!! ALL OF THEM!!!

And where is that proof?

And anyway, I could not care less about his agenda, like I do not care about US outlets with clear anti-china / russia, etc... agendas. If an information is pertinent to help me being informed on the doings (wrong or write) of some state / the world, that is all I need, whichever way this information comes from. That's because I separate the information itself to the agenda of the one giving it. Journalists from the US outlets constantly bashing China, Russia, etc... would probably end up in jail in these countries if they were caught. If these countries are the "bad" and we are the "good", why are we doing the same? But we do cause we are just as bad. And I am left with this opinion cause I take the pertinent information from all sides, after taken aside the agenda which in the vast majority is always soooooo obvious.

Separating the information from the agenda is your choice. However, it can equally be said that such an action, i.e. not understanding the source and its intentions, exposes you to a lack of clarity on the information supplied, poses you at a higher risk of receiving disinformation, and loses a vital component in assessing the truth in a statement made. You fall into the trap that so many have...loss of your ability to discern real truth, fact, and probably common right and wrong. I hope you haven't.

What have Messrs Assange and Snowden actually achieved? Is restricted information more available these days and if so, how do you know?

For their grandstanding moments in the spotlight, clearly casting their agendas onto the world with no thought at the time to the possible repercussions, you seem to see them as some sort of modern day "Robin Hood". Well, even that character was a criminal (i.e. he robbed), just like Assange and Snowden have broken the laws the society they were part of decided were necessary at the time. Perhaps now society deserves the chance for them to face responsibility for their actions and if society considers necessary, be judged and punished.

If they want to change things then run for office with their agendas for all to see. But then Assange tried that with his Wikileaks party in Australia receiving 0.66% of votes nationally in the 2013 Australian Senate Election. Looks like most of that society weren't interested in him and his views! Or was it because many Australians don't simply like "journalists" (or ones claiming to be)?

https://www.aec.gov.au/elections/federal_elections/2013/

Perhaps he should have shown more interest in cars as the "Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party" at least won a Senate seat in that election!

[MrNovax]

13 hours ago, Vigo said:

You have ignored the way in which  Assange  obtained the information on the Hilary Clinton. The Mueller investigation of Russian interference in the US election resulted in the indictment of 12 Russian  agents. The indictments set out the relationship between the Russian military intelligence service GRU and wikileaks. It is no secret that the Russians actively worked against the Hilary Clinton election campaign. There is overwhelming evidence that the Russians hacked the Clinton campaign and  provided the stolen emails to wikileaks.  The proof was so overwhelming that Assange has admitted to receiving information from the Russians despite vehemently denying it at first. Assange was shown to be  one of the main promoters of the false claims of the murder of Seth Rich, claiming a conspiracy by the DNC and Clinton. He had an anti American political agenda.  Assange is no more a journalist than Alex Jones. Assange should have been treated like any other hostile agent and terminated as soon as  his criminal activity  was identified.

Can you site sources or show any of this "proof." Everything you said has no basis in fact and is all regurgitated propaganda which was continually repeated prior to Mullers report coming out.  Once that report had none of this in its findings the narrative was dropped and the corporate media moved on to the next slander narrative.   

[MrNovax]

1 minute ago, Smithydog said:

Well, even that character was a criminal (i.e. he robbed), just like Assange and Snowden have broken the laws the society they were part of decided were necessary at the time. Perhaps now society deserves the chance for them to face responsibility for their actions and if society considers necessary, be judged and punished.

Snowden broke laws by taking classified information from a country he was working for an making it public.  Many could argue that he should receive whistleblower protection but when your against the state it will never happen,

Assange didnt break any (US) laws.  He was not the one who took the information nor was he a US citizen or subject to US laws.  This is all about making an example out of him that you dont cross the US mafia.  

[Vigo]

25 minutes ago, MrNovax said:

Can you site sources or show any of this "proof." Everything you said has no basis in fact and is all regurgitated propaganda which was continually repeated prior to Mullers report coming out.  Once that report had none of this in its findings the narrative was dropped and the corporate media moved on to the next slander narrative.   

I see, so the indictments shown below are a fabrication? Read the idictment in full.        https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/grand-jury-indicts-12-russian-intelligence-officers-hacking-offenses-related-2016-election

 

Department of Justice -Office of Public Affairs    Friday, July 13, 2018  Grand Jury Indicts 12 Russian Intelligence Officers for Hacking Offenses Related to the 2016 Election

The Department of Justice today announced that a grand jury in the District of Columbia returned an indictment presented by the Special Counsel’s Office. The indictment charges twelve Russian nationals for committing federal crimes that were intended to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election. All twelve defendants are members of the GRU, a Russian Federation intelligence agency within the Main Intelligence Directorate of  the Russian military. These GRU officers, in their official capacities, engaged in a sustained effort to hack into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Democratic National Committee, and the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, and released that information on the internet under the names "DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0" and through another entity.

Here are all the people convicted or who plead guilty;  https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/20/17031772/mueller-indictments-grand-jury

Assange couldn't keep his mouth shut and  the evidence started piling up with media interviews like this example that was cited in NYT;

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/assange-timed-wikileaks-release-of-democratic-emails-to-harm-hillary-clinton.html   In the interview, Mr. Assange told a British television host, Robert Peston of the ITV network, that his organization had obtained “emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication,” which he pronounced “great.” He also suggested that he not only opposed her candidacy on policy grounds, but also saw her as a personal foe

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kevincollier/assange-seth-rich-lies-guccifer-wikileaks-hannity

WikiLeaks had mentioned Guccifer 2.0 a single time before, tweeting in June 2016 — five weeks before it released its first dump of Democratic National Committee emails — that the persona had claimed it gave WikiLeaks DNC emails.

But by the time of the DM conversation with Best, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange had shifted the story of how WikiLeaks acquired those emails, giving repeated TV interviews that floated Seth Rich, a Democratic staffer who had been murdered in what police concluded was a botched robbery, as his real source.

 

Assange tried to cover his ties to the Russian hackers by promoting the false story that DNC staffer Seth Rich had been murdered and that the  leaks were associated  the death. The story was shown to be fabricated.

The cult of Assange and others refuse to accept that Assange received stolen documents, that he collaborated with the Trump campaign and that he conspired with Russian saboteurs.That's the reality. Deny it all you want, but the evidence is overwhelming and if this was Russia or China, Assange would have been shot for treason by now. Instead, the sex assault predator plays the system. Eventually, the system will digest him.

 

[Vigo]

39 minutes ago, MrNovax said:

Snowden broke laws by taking classified information from a country he was working for an making it public.  Many could argue that he should receive whistleblower protection but when your against the state it will never happen,

Assange didnt break any (US) laws.  He was not the one who took the information nor was he a US citizen or subject to US laws.  This is all about making an example out of him that you dont cross the US mafia.  

There are procedures and measures in place to protect whistleblowers in the USA. The system has been tested and it works. In respect to the US government there are several cases where whistelblowers took on the state and were compensated, cases just as serious or more serious than the ones you reference.

William Binney, a 30-year veteran with the National Security Agency, along with two other men, initiated the investigation into a government electronic data gathering program. The investigation later concluded that Trailblazer was a billion-dollar failure. Binney was also raised concerns that the NSA used the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 as a justification to start indiscriminate data collection, actions that he argued views violated the U.S. Constitution. Measures were implemented to protect tax returns from this type of access.

In 2004 Joe Darby was a U.S. Army reservist serving in iraq. He was the one who exposed  the sexual and physical abuse of Iraqi detainees at Abu Gharib Prison in Baghdad. He provided two CDs of photographs to the Army’s criminal investigation division and description of abuse and names of  people abusing the detainees.  The military investigated as per the requirement and it resulted in serious  penalties for those implicated. Others were  court martialed and saw prison time.

Wikileaks took advantage of Chelsea Manning. There had been an understanding between manning and wikileaks that the information provided would be used judiciously. Wikilieaks violated that understanding. Manning summed up her position with this comment on the release of information; Let’s protect sensitive sources,” Manning said. “Let’s protect troop movements. Let’s protect nuclear information. Let’s not hide missteps. Let’s not hide misguided policies. Let’s not hide history. Let’s not hide who we are and what we are doing.”  Wikileaks exposed people at risk. That's not journalism, that's sabotage.

Edward Snowden is another misfit who  felt he was more important than he was and wikileaks took advantage of the  the stereotypical information systems technical worker. Snowden can enjoy living out  his life in Russia and offering tacit support to the  invaders of the Ukraine and those who targeted civilians in  Syria. Assange has left a trail of destruction and despair and he is long overdue for his day of reckoning.

 

[Smithydog]

55 minutes ago, MrNovax said:

Snowden broke laws by taking classified information from a country he was working for an making it public.  Many could argue that he should receive whistleblower protection but when your against the state it will never happen,

Assange didnt break any (US) laws.  He was not the one who took the information nor was he a US citizen or subject to US laws.  This is all about making an example out of him that you dont cross the US mafia.  

Whether he did break US laws will be for a jury to decide. His indictment clearly indicates the US Department of Justice believes they have sufficient cause to try him for breaking US laws.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1153486/download

Especially as to regards how Chelsea Manning received the information later published by Wikilinks.

But even then his past history doesn't paint a picture of the saint you make him out to be. Even the Ecuadorians got sick of him! They said...

"From now on we'll be more careful in giving asylum to people who are really worth it, and not miserable hackers whose only goal is to destabilise governments."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-12/wikileaks-julian-assange-why-ecuador-ended-asylum/10999232

Hardly the words attributed to model "journalists".

[MrNovax]

3 hours ago, Vigo said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/assange-timed-wikileaks-release-of-democratic-emails-to-harm-hillary-clinton.html 

this is behind a pay wall so really cant access it.  

 

3 hours ago, Vigo said:

I see, so the indictments shown below are a fabrication? Read the idictment in full.      

indictments are accusations.  Just because you are indicted doesnt mean you were guilty of anything.  In your own link it states "Everyone charged with a crime is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in court. At trial, prosecutors must introduce credible evidence that is sufficient to prove each defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, to the unanimous satisfaction of a jury of twelve citizens."

 

3 hours ago, Vigo said:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/20/17031772/mueller-indictments-grand-jury

lets look at what they "got them on" shall we?

1) George Papadopoulos - pleaded guilty in October 2017 to making false statements to the FBI

2) Paul Manafort, - He had two trials scheduled, and the first ended in a conviction on eight counts of financial crimes. T

3) Rick Gates, - pleading guilty to just one false statements

4) Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, pleaded guilty in December 2017 to making false statements to the FBI.

21) Richard Pinedo: This California man pleaded guilty to an identity theft charge

5-20) 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies were indicted on conspiracy charges, with some also being accused of identity theft. 

 

None of these had anything to do with your original claim of:

"the indictments set out the relationship between the Russian military intelligence service GRU and wikileaks. It is no secret that the Russians actively worked against the Hilary Clinton election campaign. There is overwhelming evidence that the Russians hacked the Clinton campaign and  provided the stolen emails to wikileak."

Nothing in even in the indictments about "hacking the Clinton campaign" or working against Hilary.  The vast majority was due to putting people in a room for an extended period of time and getting them on contradictions they made while tired.  Where is the "proof" that wiki leaks or Julian Assange -  "What Assange did have was a political agenda. "

As i stated in my previous post, your just repeating talking points out of the corporate media with no actual factual basis backing them up.  

 

 

 

[friendofthai]

Assange help Russians a lot. Every time a western journalist dare to say the word Navalny, the shining leader of Russia, Mr Putin usually ask a simple question: "Why don't you free Assange?"

[Khunmark]

The level of cognitive dissonance in this thread is breathtaking. The voices calling for the lynching of Assange are the same voices who decry the Russian and Chinese regimes for their oppression. And let’s not forget in all this the U.S government under the Trump administration entertained the idea of having Assange ‘disappeared’. Apparently, nothing to see here.

The idea that a ‘free state’ can intimidate a whistleblower on the false premise of protecting the safety of foreign operatives is an insult to the collective intelligence. Particularly so, when a subsequent independent report found that not one collaborator with the western governments was harmed in anyway as a result of the leaks. Furthermore, the US has a long history of abandoning their informants and leaving them at the mercy of the regimes they are working against. Grand hypocrisy.

My own government has in recent years sought to intimidate, harass and persecute whistleblowers under the guise of security interests, in what has become an alarming trend. They do so because they can- might beats right. Those advocating the overreach of the U.S government would do well to familiarise themselves with the trials of Bernard Colliery, David McBride and Richard Boyle. Journalists until recently have been afforded greater protections in U.S. than the rest of the world, or so we are told. Sadly, the on going Assange debacle has exposed the above assertion for what it is, a myth.

[Vigo]

9 hours ago, Khunmark said:

The level of cognitive dissonance in this thread is breathtaking. The voices calling for the lynching of Assange are the same voices who decry the Russian and Chinese regimes for their oppression. And let’s not forget in all this the U.S government under the Trump administration entertained the idea of having Assange ‘disappeared’. Apparently, nothing to see here.

The idea that a ‘free state’ can intimidate a whistleblower on the false premise of protecting the safety of foreign operatives is an insult to the collective intelligence. Particularly so, when a subsequent independent report found that not one collaborator with the western governments was harmed in anyway as a result of the leaks. Furthermore, the US has a long history of abandoning their informants and leaving them at the mercy of the regimes they are working against. Grand hypocrisy.

My own government has in recent years sought to intimidate, harass and persecute whistleblowers under the guise of security interests, in what has become an alarming trend. They do so because they can- might beats right. Those advocating the overreach of the U.S government would do well to familiarise themselves with the trials of Bernard Colliery, David McBride and Richard Boyle. Journalists until recently have been afforded greater protections in U.S. than the rest of the world, or so we are told. Sadly, the on going Assange debacle has exposed the above assertion for what it is, a myth.

Assange was not a whistleblower. A whistleblower is the person who is aware of what he/she believes is a wrongful act because of personal knowledge or involvement. Assange was the person who published information stolen by Russian  government  agents and others. He aided and abetted a criminal act. He also spread false information in respect to the death of Seth Rich.  Assange has already admitted to his political bias.   I do not see anyone calling for the lynching of Assange. I do however see that the statements that had Assange done this in Russia or China  he would be dead by now. My position is that he should be arrested and charged for  dealing in violation of personal privacy and collaborating with foreign enemy agents. 

[Vigo]

13 hours ago, MrNovax said:

this is behind a pay wall so really cant access it.  

indictments are accusations.  Just because you are indicted doesnt mean you were guilty of anything.  In your own link it states "Everyone charged with a crime is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in court. At trial, prosecutors must introduce credible evidence that is sufficient to prove each defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, to the unanimous satisfaction of a jury of twelve citizens."

lets look at what they "got them on" shall we?

1) George Papadopoulos - pleaded guilty in October 2017 to making false statements to the FBI

2) Paul Manafort, - He had two trials scheduled, and the first ended in a conviction on eight counts of financial crimes. T

3) Rick Gates, - pleading guilty to just one false statements

4) Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, pleaded guilty in December 2017 to making false statements to the FBI.

21) Richard Pinedo: This California man pleaded guilty to an identity theft charge

5-20) 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies were indicted on conspiracy charges, with some also being accused of identity theft. 

None of these had anything to do with your original claim of:

"the indictments set out the relationship between the Russian military intelligence service GRU and wikileaks. It is no secret that the Russians actively worked against the Hilary Clinton election campaign. There is overwhelming evidence that the Russians hacked the Clinton campaign and  provided the stolen emails to wikileak."

Nothing in even in the indictments about "hacking the Clinton campaign" or working against Hilary.  The vast majority was due to putting people in a room for an extended period of time and getting them on contradictions they made while tired.  Where is the "proof" that wiki leaks or Julian Assange -  "What Assange did have was a political agenda. "

As i stated in my previous post, your just repeating talking points out of the corporate media with no actual factual basis backing them up.  

You will continue to deny Assange's use of the Russian hacked emails no matter what is shown to you. However, you did not refute any of the facts of the  case.

Fact: The Russian government agents were indicted for stealing the Clinton emails and for engaging in a campaign of disinformation.  Read the charges here https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download  The Russian agents are sheltering in Russia and are protected by the Russian state.

Fact: Assange through wikileaks, published the emails stolen by the Russian agents.

Fact:  Wikileaks admitted to sourcing the information from the Russian agents. (See the twitter reference -   https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kevincollier/assange-seth-rich-lies-guccifer-wikileaks-hannity

 

WikiLeaks had mentioned Guccifer 2.0 a single time before, tweeting in June 2016 — five weeks before it released its first dump of Democratic National Committee emails — that the persona had claimed it gave WikiLeaks DNC emails.

 

You ignored the  smoking gun admission. "Guccifer' was the Russian  agents. The entity of Guccifer was not publicly identified until the Mueller investigation, and there was wikileaks admitting that Guccifer was the source of its email leaks.

Also,  Assange was shown to have supported the disinformation about the source of the emails by attempting to promote  the Seth Rich murder conspiracy. Only Assange and the collection of right wing  conspiracy promoters supported the claim. There was no evidence and the family of Seth Rich sued the lead promoter Fox News, winning a multi million dollar settlement for the false conspiracy claims.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-seth-richs-parents-stop-politicizing-our-sons-murder/2017/05/23/164cf4dc-3fee-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html

https://www.npr.org/2020/11/24/938545344/fox-news-settles-with-seth-richs-parents-for-false-story-claiming-clinton-leaks

[Khunmark]

21 hours ago, Vigo said:

Assange was not a whistleblower. A whistleblower is the person who is aware of what he/she believes is a wrongful act because of personal knowledge or involvement. Assange was the person who published information stolen by Russian  government  agents and others. He aided and abetted a criminal act. He also spread false information in respect to the death of Seth Rich.  Assange has already admitted to his political bias.   I do not see anyone calling for the lynching of Assange. I do however see that the statements that had Assange done this in Russia or China  he would be dead by now. My position is that he should be arrested and charged for  dealing in violation of personal privacy and collaborating with foreign enemy agents. 

Nice rant, but totally irrelevant and misleading. The reason advanced by the U.S. government as to why they are pursuing Assange; to protect the anonymity of their local collaborators. The real reason why the U.S is going after Assange; the documented revelations of U.S. war crimes and collusion with death squads in Iraq, illegal spying on U.N officials and a litany of official deceit and corruption across the world. Everything you’ve addressed is peripheral.

[Vigo]

1 hour ago, Khunmark said:

Nice rant, but totally irrelevant and misleading. The reason advanced by the U.S. government as to why they are pursuing Assange; to protect the anonymity of their local collaborators. The real reason why the U.S is going after Assange; the documented revelations of U.S. war crimes and collusion with death squads in Iraq, illegal spying on U.N officials and a litany of official deceit and corruption across the world. Everything you’ve addressed is peripheral.

Back to the  question of whether or not an individual qualifies as a whistle blower. The commonly accepted definition of  Whistleblowing is the act of disclosing information from a public or private organization in order to reveal cases of corruption or wrongdoing that are of immediate or potential danger to the public. Assange  demands the protection of a whistleblower, but whistleblowing also comes with its own constraints and obligations. There are 4 accepted principles of an ethical whistleblower;

 (1) The subject party actions  do serious and considerable harm to others; (2) the whistleblower  has already reported the  alleged wrongful act to the appropriate authority; (3) there must be documented evidence that would support the facts that non intervention would result or did result in serious harm ; and (4) the whistleblower must have  reasonable grounds to believe that going public will result in remedial action and that innocent  people will not be harmed.

When Assange  published  Hilary Clinton's emails he was not protecting  the public from harm. On the contrary, he had benefited from Russian military agent backed hacking and theft of  private information and was acting on  a political vendetta against Clinton. In respect to the manipulation of Chelsea Manning, while Manning might be able to make a case for whistleblower status, Assange cannot because the publication resulted in harm to innocent people and did not allow for a remedial corrective action. 

In plain language, I offer that Assange  is a manipulative repeat liar. He's been playing the victim for a long time.  It is my wish that he is extradited and sent to face the criminal charges in the USA.

[Khunmark]

21 hours ago, Vigo said:

Back to the  question of whether or not an individual qualifies as a whistle blower. The commonly accepted definition of  Whistleblowing is the act of disclosing information from a public or private organization in order to reveal cases of corruption or wrongdoing that are of immediate or potential danger to the public. Assange  demands the protection of a whistleblower, but whistleblowing also comes with its own constraints and obligations. There are 4 accepted principles of an ethical whistleblower;

 (1) The subject party actions  do serious and considerable harm to others; (2) the whistleblower  has already reported the  alleged wrongful act to the appropriate authority; (3) there must be documented evidence that would support the facts that non intervention would result or did result in serious harm ; and (4) the whistleblower must have  reasonable grounds to believe that going public will result in remedial action and that innocent  people will not be harmed.

When Assange  published  Hilary Clinton's emails he was not protecting  the public from harm. On the contrary, he had benefited from Russian military agent backed hacking and theft of  private information and was acting on  a political vendetta against Clinton. In respect to the manipulation of Chelsea Manning, while Manning might be able to make a case for whistleblower status, Assange cannot because the publication resulted in harm to innocent people and did not allow for a remedial corrective action. 

In plain language, I offer that Assange  is a manipulative repeat liar. He's been playing the victim for a long time.  It is my wish that he is extradited and sent to face the criminal charges in the USA.

I’m glad you mentioned Chelsea Manning. According to the U.N. special rapporteur on torture, Manning was subjected to cruel and inhumane treatment at the hands of the U.S government. Manning is a whistleblower, no, might be, about it. And your claim of harm to innocent people is spurious and has already been addressed.
 

Oh, and by the way, whistleblowers go public when they are stonewalled by the appropriate authorities. And in the case of Chelsea public interest is sufficient to justify the release of the documents into the public domain. Hopefully the fall out is significant enough to enable reform in the U.S. armed forces, as has been the case with the Australian armed forces subsequent to the McBride revelations.

[MrNovax]

On 10/22/2022 at 3:49 AM, Vigo said:

Fact: The Russian government agents were indicted for stealing the Clinton emails and for engaging in a campaign of disinformation.  Read the charges here https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download  The Russian agents are sheltering in Russia and are protected by the Russian state.

i dont know how many times i need to say this, "Indictments" are not convictions.  Nothing you have shown "proves" any of your points. 

Even in that kangaroo court in which the state gets to decide if the state is correct, they were unable to make any convictions except on counts of lying to the state.   

[Vigo]

10 hours ago, MrNovax said:

i dont know how many times i need to say this, "Indictments" are not convictions.  Nothing you have shown "proves" any of your points. 

Even in that kangaroo court in which the state gets to decide if the state is correct, they were unable to make any convictions except on counts of lying to the state.   

In order to have a trial the Russians must be extradited from Russia. Do you think Putin will allow their estradition? Approx. 24 Russians have been charged with election interference. Mueller has also filed two major indictments of Russian nationals and a few Russian companies for crimes related to alleged interference with the 2016 election: the troll farm indictment, and the email hacking indictment.

Russian entity  Internet Research Agency, two shell companies involved in financing the agency, its alleged financier (Yevgeny Prigozhin), and 12 other Russian nationals who allegedly worked for it have been charged. They are sheltering in Russia at this time, so a trial cannot proceeed. They are fugitives. An American,  Richard Pinedo sold bank account numbers created with stolen identities to the Russians as part of their activity. He plead guilty to his charge and agreed to co-operate with  DOJ. Pinedo  was sentenced to 6 months in prison and 6 months home detention.

The 12 Russians charged are of the GRU, Russia’s military intelligence agency.  Nine were officers of the GRU’s “Unit 26165,” which Mueller alleges “had primary responsibility for hacking the DCCC and DNC, as well as the email accounts of individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign” like John Podesta. Three other GRU officers, Mueller alleges, “assisted in the release of stolen documents,” “the promotion of those releases,” “and the publication of anti-Clinton content on social media accounts operated by the GRU.”

That is rather damning information. And yes there is one conviction of the American national which indicates that the charges are on solid ground. Your excuse is that since the Russians are not convicted, they did nothing wrong and that they did not provide Assange with stolen information.   The conviction of the American national for  aiding/enabling the Russian crime has established that there was criminal activity.