Mueller Testimony - Wednesday, July 24, 2019

Dec 2016
5,436
2,778
Canada
#31
After the public embarrassment of watching Robert Mueller look like he's in advanced stages of dementia( unable to recall or understand the report he authored...or supposedly authored), I'm surprised you would want to revive any aspect of this Muellergate hype!
 
Dec 2016
5,436
2,778
Canada
#32
You have to go deep into alternative news media territory to find a story like this, because it blows the whole Russiagate narrative of The Russians working with Julian Assange working with Trump right out of the water:

Media silent on dismissal of DNC suit against Julian Assange
2 August 2019

A federal court ruling last Tuesday dismissing a Democratic National Committee (DNC) civil suit against Julian Assange “with prejudice” was a devastating indictment of the US ruling elite’s campaign to destroy the WikiLeaks founder. It exposed as a fraud the entire “Russiagate” conspiracy theory peddled by the Democratic Party, the corporate media and the intelligence agencies for the past three years.​
The decision, by Judge John Koeltl of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, rejected the smears that Assange “colluded” with Russia. It upheld his status as a journalist and publisher and dismissed claims that WikiLeaks’ 2016 publication of leaked emails from the DNC was “illegal.”​
Despite the significance of the ruling, and its clear newsworthiness, it has been subjected to an almost complete blackout by the entire media in the US and internationally.​
The universal silence on the court decision—extending from the New York Times (which buried a six-paragraph report on the ruling on page 25) and the Washington Post, to “alternative” outlets such as the Intercept, the television evening news programs and the publications of the pseudo-left—can be described only as a coordinated political conspiracy.​
Its aim is to suppress any discussion of the court’s exposure of the slanders used to malign and isolate Assange, and to justify the unprecedented international pursuit of him over WikiLeaks’ exposure of US war crimes, surveillance operations and diplomatic conspiracies.​
The New York Times, the Washington Post and other corporate outlets have relentlessly smeared Assange as a “Russian agent” and depicted him as the linchpin of a conspiracy hatched in Moscow to deprive Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton of the presidency in the 2016 US elections.​
Now that their claims have been subjected to judicial review and exposed as a tissue of lies and fabrications, they have adopted a policy of radio silence. There is no question that if the court ruling had been in favour of the DNC, it would have been greeted with banner headlines and wall-to-wall coverage.​
The response exposes these publications as state propagandists and active participants in the campaign by the Democratic Party, the Trump administration and the entire ruling elite to condemn Assange for the rest of his life to an American prison for the “crime” of publishing the truth.​
The editors and senior writers at these outlets, such as New York Timeseditorial page editor James Bennet, are in constant contact with the CIA and other intelligence agencies. Behind the scenes, they work out an editorial line that will advance the interests of the Wall Street banks and the military-intelligence apparatus. At the same time, they decide what news and information they will hide from the American and world population.​
The efforts by the mainstream news outlets to bury the ruling presents a clear example of the type of media manipulation that has led millions of people to seek alternative sources of news on the internet, of which WikiLeaks is itself an example.​
Judge Koeltl’s decision made plain the anti-democratic and dictatorial logic of the DNC case against Assange. He warned: “If WikiLeaks could be held liable for publishing documents concerning the DNC’s political, financial and voter-engagement strategies simply because the DNC labels them ‘secret’ and trade secrets, then so could any newspaper or other media outlet.” This, he stated, would “override the First Amendment” protection to freedom of the press mandated by the US Constitution.​
Koeltl’s finding was an absolute vindication of Assange and WikiLeaks’ 2016 publications exposing the attempts by the DNC to rig the Democratic Party primaries against self-declared “democratic socialist” Bernie Sanders in favour of Hillary Clinton.​
The judge found these releases, together with the publication of Clinton’s secret speeches to Wall Street banks, in which she pledged to be their representative, were “matters of the highest public concern.” They “allowed the American electorate to look behind the curtain of one of the two major political parties in the United States during a presidential election.”​
Koeltl, moreover, found there was no evidence to justify the DNC’s assertion that WikiLeaks had colluded with the Russian state to obtain the material. Assange and WikiLeaks have always maintained that the documents were not provided to them by the Putin regime.​
The judgment was also an implicit exposure of the lawlessness of the attempts by the Trump administration, with the full support of the Democrats, to extradite Assange from Britain, so that he can be prosecuted on 18 US charges, including 17 espionage counts, carrying a maximum sentence of 175 years’ imprisonment.​
The Trump administration and the Justice Department are claiming that it was illegal for WikiLeaks and Assange to publish US army war logs from Iraq and Afghanistan, hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables and other documents exposing US war crimes and intrigues, provided by the courageous whistleblower Chelsea Manning.​
Koeltl’s ruling, however, reasserted the fundamental democratic principle that WikiLeaks had a right to publish the 2016 DNC documents, even if they had been obtained by the Russian government, or any other entity, illegally.​
The clear implication is that even if Manning’s decision to leak US military and diplomatic documents was a violation of the law, WikiLeaks’ publication of them was not. The publication of both the 2010 and the 2016 leaks was constitutionally protected journalistic activity.​
Koeltl further undermined the claims of the Trump administration, the Democrats and the media that Assange is a “hacker,” undeserving of First Amendment protections. The judge repeatedly referred to Assange as a “journalist” and WikiLeaks as a “publisher.”​
In other words, the attempt to extradite Assange to the US and prosecute him is a frontal assault on the US Constitution and press freedom. In its disregard for domestic and international law, it can be described only as an extraordinary rendition operation, similar to the kidnappings and torture operations conducted by the CIA.​
The hostile response to Koeltl’s ruling on the part of the entire political and media establishment, in the US and internationally, demonstrates that this conspiracy will not be defeated by plaintive appeals to the governments, political parties and media corporations that have spearheaded the assault on Assange’s legal and democratic rights.​
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Media silent on dismissal of DNC suit against Julian Assange
 
Jul 2019
1,418
772
Georgia
#35
Why should he be? Unless you're also in favor of protecting government powers from the people they rule over.
I'm in favor of incarcerating criminals. Don't forget he's still awaiting 17 US Charges upon extradition. But I think he's going to be locked up in Britian for a little while before all that happens.
 
Dec 2016
5,436
2,778
Canada
#36
I'm in favor of incarcerating criminals. Don't forget he's still awaiting 17 US Charges upon extradition. But I think he's going to be locked up in Britian for a little while before all that happens.
It's all a sham that will impact any real journalists in the future also. But since the NY Times, WaPo and other mouthpieces of the authorities will always check in with their CIA/FBI liasons before publishing, they don't expect to be victims of charges under the Espionage Act of 1916 revived by the Obama Administration to prosecute government whistleblowers and threatened publishers as well. Nice to know that liberal Democrats find common cause with the Trump administration when it comes to prosecuting and incarcerating Assange for revealing the ugly underbelly of how government operates!
 
Jul 2019
1,418
772
Georgia
#37
It's all a sham that will impact any real journalists in the future also. But since the NY Times, WaPo and other mouthpieces of the authorities will always check in with their CIA/FBI liasons before publishing, they don't expect to be victims of charges under the Espionage Act of 1916 revived by the Obama Administration to prosecute government whistleblowers and threatened publishers as well. Nice to know that liberal Democrats find common cause with the Trump administration when it comes to prosecuting and incarcerating Assange for revealing the ugly underbelly of how government operates!
I don't consider him a Journalist. YMMV

it's up for debate even in the Journalism community

Vox Sentences: Is Julian Assange a journalist?

don't forget the rape allegations he's facing in Sweden too

I have no sympathy for this career criminal, sorry.
 
Dec 2016
5,436
2,778
Canada
#38
I don't consider him a Journalist. YMMV

it's up for debate even in the Journalism community

Vox Sentences: Is Julian Assange a journalist?

don't forget the rape allegations he's facing in Sweden too

I have no sympathy for this career criminal, sorry.
First things first! He's only a "career criminal" if you believe revealing covert, secret information held by governments and powerful private interests is in itself a crime.

The "rape allegations in Sweden" are taken from complaints of two Swedish complainants who claimed he did not wear a condom/ or removed a condom while having sex with them. Applying a loaded term like RAPE for the claim he engaged in unprotected sex was done for the obvious reasons of attacking his stature with liberals and civil libertarians.....mission mostly accomplished based on how successful the campaign of disappearing Assange has been.

Does clickbait shill - Vox do real journalism?
 
Jul 2019
1,418
772
Georgia
#39
First things first! He's only a "career criminal" if you believe revealing covert, secret information held by governments and powerful private interests is in itself a crime.

The "rape allegations in Sweden" are taken from complaints of two Swedish complainants who claimed he did not wear a condom/ or removed a condom while having sex with them. Applying a loaded term like RAPE for the claim he engaged in unprotected sex was done for the obvious reasons of attacking his stature with liberals and civil libertarians.....mission mostly accomplished based on how successful the campaign of disappearing Assange has been.

Does clickbait shill - Vox do real journalism?
the vox link listed some quotes from people in the Journalism community regarding Assange. Some of the Journalists believe that the espionage charges may set a dangerous precedent. I respect Natasha Bertrand a great deal and she stated something to that effect.

I'm not going to argue with you about his criminality. Is he currently incarcerated? Yes. Is he facing multiple charges in other countries? Yes. As I said earlier, that's good enough for me.
 
Dec 2016
5,436
2,778
Canada
#40
the vox link listed some quotes from people in the Journalism community regarding Assange. Some of the Journalists believe that the espionage charges may set a dangerous precedent. I respect Natasha Bertrand a great deal and she stated something to that effect.

I'm not going to argue with you about his criminality. Is he currently incarcerated? Yes. Is he facing multiple charges in other countries? Yes. As I said earlier, that's good enough for me.
No shit they'll set a dangerous precedent! They already have. Because after a very brief window of opportunity to see what government agencies are doing, that window is firmly shut, and today's Democrats say nothing about the abuses committed by their political enemy, because ultimately, they're all on the same team. Obama's henchmen revived the 1916 Espionage Act to prosecute whistleblowers and more important- intimidate any other altruistic government officials from stepping forward and telling the people what their government is doing and trying to keep secret.

Now, their game is so successful that they can hide information in plain sight just by making sure that MSM refrain from mentioning it. As long as the majority of people can't find or can't be bothered to search for all of the fragmented alternative media sites whistleblowers have to turn to, they've won their game! They won't lose until enough people realize their playing a losing game by assuming that this mostly fake drama of good guys vs bad guys is just a sham and they all work for the same objectives and powerful interests!