Former diplomat challenges 'fake' Guardian claims about Julian Assange meeting Paul Manafort
The Canary previously reported on criticisms from WikiLeaks and others which stressed that Guardian claims about [former Trump campaign manager Paul] Manafort meeting Assange in 2013, 2015 and March 2016 were false.
WikiLeaks said it was preparing to sue the Guardian on the matter. And Manafort is also considering legal action, saying this story is "totally false and deliberately libellous".
Narváez was initially consul and then first secretary at the Ecuadorian Embassy from 2010 to July 2018. He has now told The Canary that, to his knowledge, Manafort made no visits at any time during that period. He insisted:
"It is impossible for any visitor to enter the embassy without going through very strict protocols and leaving a clear record: obtaining written approval from the ambassador, registering with security personnel, and leaving a copy of ID. The embassy is the most surveilled on Earth; not only are there cameras positioned on neighbouring buildings recording every visitor, but inside the building every movement is recorded with CCTV cameras, 24/7. In fact, security personnel have always spied on Julian and his visitors. It is simply not possible that Manafort visited the embassy."
takyon: Paul Manafort did, however, speak to the Ecuadorian President Lenin Moreno about the potential removal of Julian Assange from the embassy in London:
The President of Ecuador spoke with Paul Manafort about his desire to remove Julian Assange from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, a Manafort spokesperson confirmed Monday. "When Mr. Manafort met with President Moreno of Ecuador to discuss the China Development Fund, the president raised with Mr. Manafort his desire to remove Julian Assange from Ecuador's embassy," Jason Maloni, a Manafort spokesman, told CNN in a statement. "Mr. Manafort listened but made no promises as this was ancillary to the purpose of the meeting," Maloni's statement added. "There was no mention of Russia at the meeting."
The New York Times was first to report that President Lenin Moreno and his aides had expressed their desire to have Assange leave the embassy in at least two meetings with Manafort in exchange for concessions from the US like debt relief, citing three people familiar with the talks. Assange has been holed up at the Ecuadorian embassy, since 2012.
See also: Manafort denies ever meeting with Assange
Did Someone Plant a Story Tying Paul Manafort to Julian Assange?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 06 2018, @06:07PM (9 children)
Put him in a diplomatic bag. Unless the UK is willing to show the world that it does not respect diplomatic bags, that'll do the job.
If desired, it could be tested first. Send a bunch of people back and forth.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 06 2018, @06:13PM (2 children)
The Saudis can tell you where to get diplomatic bags that are large enough.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday December 06 2018, @06:41PM
I'm quite sure you can get them from the morgue. Pretty sure he wouldn't want to be taken out like that, though. Though, at this point, if he could get out to a non-extraditing country, I'm sure he would be happy with that. It's one thing to be a permanent guest in a country, it's an entirely different thing for them to have to help house you indefinitely.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Friday December 07 2018, @03:30PM
on a really sad point, there was a UK spook who was found "dead in a bag" and they ruled he zipped himself up and dumped himself as well.
In short, the powers that be will not let truth escape and we live in a time of ultimate cognitive dissonance.
Essentially we have a multivariate media truth distribution where the probability of something being true is 1
The median is what you see on all the headlines all the time. Consider 3 days of news (and a day of postal work time), bled into the world for the natural death of a president.
Sad yes. Worth 3 days of new cycles when the current world is as precarious as it currently is? No.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 06 2018, @07:39PM (1 child)
The US should back off from pursuing Assange. He has caused far less damage than the Chinese stealing all the IP they can lay hands on and more, the Indians stealing all the jobs off to 4Rp/hr outsource centers in India, or the CN/RU hacking on Americans and the rest of the "free" world. Far less damage, let the man live his life. Spanish Inquisition for speaking up about what is going on? Are we out of the 1500's yet?
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Thursday December 06 2018, @09:56PM
It isn't speaking his mind. It is providing assistance to someone hacking.
Not saying it wouldn't be a marginal prosecution for several reasons anyway, but it does look like he committed a real crime in there.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 06 2018, @07:50PM (2 children)
If Austria was willing to violate diplomatic protections on Bolivia's plane, you can bet your balls that Britain will do it with an Ecuadorian embassy car.
They all cower in fear of America, a failed state internally, but with a military that can flush torrents of terrorists into their countries.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 07 2018, @01:19AM (1 child)
The answer to that one is "mayday, fuel emergency, must proceed directly to avoid running out before Bolivia" and just go. What are they going to do, shoot the plane down?
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Friday December 07 2018, @05:29PM
Well.. I don't think the USA likes Evo Morales much either..
(Score: 2) by legont on Friday December 07 2018, @01:52AM
Allegedly it is how soviets were transporting the embassy encryption man. He would be shipped inside diplomatic mail and he would not know for sure where he actually works. Yes, he could guess the country by contents of the messages, but this could have been continuation of his training right in Moscow.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday December 06 2018, @06:15PM (61 children)
Even if publishing HRC's emails were illegal (which it isn't), even if the US had any jurisdiction over Assange (which it doesn't), and even if Assange could somehow commit treason against a country he's never been a citizen of, he could very easily argue in a court proceeding that the reason he published the emails in question was because he was coerced with the threat of being forced out of the embassy and into the crosshairs of the entire US security apparatus.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 06 2018, @06:56PM (34 children)
"Collusion isn't a crime herpderp"
I know that wasn't your point but that is where it is going. All you people "winning" need to make a choice. Democracy or tyranny, letting Trump's unbelievably brazen criminal behavior slide will lead us into tyranny and/or revolution.
You can not support such an immoral lying scumbag any longer just so you can pretend you are winning.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 06 2018, @07:45PM (8 children)
"Unbelievably brazen criminal behavior herpderp"
Please give some details. Sorry that it is not so obvious to people besides yourself.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 06 2018, @08:04PM (7 children)
"I have zero dealings with Russia"
"Oh wait, I totally did have dealings with Russia"
"Why are all my closest advisers going to prison?"
The man lies constantly, has abused tax payer money has passed criminal orders that were revoked by the Supreme Court, he has defrauded countless people, he publicly asked Russia to hack Clinton and publish her emails, he publicly said he could shoot someone and no one would care, he publicly called for conservatives to murder people, he publicly has perjured himself countless times, he took bribes from the Saudis and laundered it through his hotels, he has sexually assaulted women by his own admission on tape, he is a rapist according to his previous wife, he has violated non-discrimination policies by discriminating against black people, and the fact that he won't release his taxes is incredibly suspicious.
He simply has the backing of the GOP and Fox so all this blatant behavior that would have him in front of committees the very next day is getting a pass by the GOP congress. He is so blatantly corrupt I am just astounded you even asked the question.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 06 2018, @08:33PM (2 children)
This part alone is what makes everything involving the Russia collusion scandal over the top ridiculous. From the beginning the big claim is that Russia sought to influence the election by smearing sides, creating distrust, chaos, and hatred of each other. If Russia was truly trying to help Trump, why would they do something on the day he openly asked for them to hack Hillary and release her emails? How could they be so stupid as to actually do what he said for them to do on television, do it the same night, and do it so poorly that they got caught and not think the blame would fall on Trump?
Ask yourself... Is it more likely they did this on purpose to create a divide in the U.S., giving the Democrats a reason to perpetually attack Trump? Or that Trump really is and has always been a Russian agent this entire time and the Republicans are so complicit that no one would ever dissent?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday December 06 2018, @11:18PM
You mean helping a person they can control/blackmail to be elected as the president of a frenemy country?
With the worst that can happen to them ruskies being a period of years of chaos in the leadership of the targeted country? All with an operational cost of a few millions?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 07 2018, @01:57AM
I agree with this statement, but what makes it ridiculous is that Trump is getting a pass because he was so blatant about it.
It is becoming public knowledge that the Russians worked at influencing the US elections, you can remain ignorant and go all "muh emailz". You realize there is basically no downside for Russia to do this right? Internationally they'll just lie and say it was some rogue outfits, but don't worry comrade they have been eliminated and will trouble you no further. Now, sanctions are becomink problem as we say.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Thursday December 06 2018, @10:42PM (1 child)
Ok, then what's the evidence for the stuff that actually are crimes like incitement to commit crime, bribery, sexual assault, or money laundering?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 08 2018, @09:21PM
1) incite crime/violence? Public statements
2) bribery? public knowledge, Saudis renting millions of dollars in hotel rooms, pay-offs (not illegal necessarily but in the ballpark)
3) sexual assault? "grab 'em by the pussy!" and accusations of rape from his ex wife.
4) money laundering? Ok, got me there, we don't have proof as yet but his mob ties, construction, and casino business make it almost a guarantee. Don't worry kshallow I still believe in due process and will not make a citizens arrest of your favorite Veggietales character.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 07 2018, @04:42PM (1 child)
"I have zero dealings with Russia"
"Oh wait, I totally did have dealings with Russia"
don't care
"Why are all my closest advisers going to prison?"
pigs be piggin'
The man lies constantly,
unfortunate expense
has abused tax payer money
example?
has passed criminal orders that were revoked by the Supreme Court,
specifics? but i probably don't care.
he has defrauded countless people,
defrauded is not the same as taken advantage of stupid asses.
he publicly asked Russia to hack Clinton and publish her emails,
that stupid murderess deserved to be "hacked". these pieces of shit want to run Windows with national security data? fuck them.
he publicly said he could shoot someone and no one would care,
and?
he publicly called for conservatives to murder people,
yah, ok but democrats are not really "people"...
he publicly has perjured himself countless times,
sounds like bullshit to me. do you know what perjure means?
he took bribes from the Saudis and laundered it through his hotels,
it's called getting paid for a favor. no such thing as "money laundering" in a free society.
he has sexually assaulted women by his own admission on tape,
i think he said one /could/ grab a ho by the pussy. which is true.
he is a rapist according to his previous wife,
i don't know the charge but if it was against her then you could just call that old fashioned, not that i condone it.
he has violated non-discrimination policies by discriminating against black people,
fuck the fed laws. that is his right, and usually a wise business decision, especially in construction, not necessarily in non laborious tasks.
and the fact that he won't release his taxes is incredibly suspicious.
fuck the IRS. they should be glad we aren't driving them into the streets and killing them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 07 2018, @07:31PM
I see you are an amoral twat, noted.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by edIII on Thursday December 06 2018, @08:14PM (24 children)
Yeah, yeah, yeah, Orange Man bad, collusion, we get it. I don't like that repugnant mother fucker anymore than the rest, and I absolutely believe he has massive conflicts of interest. He OPENLY asked for collusion during the campaign. Period.
That being said, any attempts to indict him, or his corrupt buddies, has to be well investigated, backed up by facts, and not have the evidence tainted with the appearance of politics. The Trumpanzees would lose their shit, and there you have a small portion of America refusing to believe in the integrity of anything the government does, more so that it already does. It would only further divide us, and there is not that much further division before outright civil war. It's get talked about a LOT.
This has to be included in the investigation, or Mueller needs to release additional evidence of how the meeting occurred. At this point I could believe it was accomplished with encrypted communications, but a physical visit? Ecuador isn't a country that is in lockstep with the United States, and I've no reason to believe this first secretary of the Embassy for those time periods is lying. Why?
There is something fishy about this, and I can believe Manafort did a lot of other dirty shit, but I have to question the fact he visited Assange in the embassy now. It's entirely reasonable that there would have to be evidence, and if this guy knows nothing about it, it would mean a conspiracy at the highest levels of Ecuador to assist Assange with his activities and meetings. That kind of relationship doesn't track, so on the balance of things I have to conclude Manafort didn't meet with Assange.
I've always said let's have the investigation and see what happens, not blindly accept facts convenient for one side or the other. I'm waiting to hear Mueller's response to this allegation.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 06 2018, @08:39PM (23 children)
I wasn't advocating skipping due process just common sense. Trump defenders need to face reality, because if Trump successfully avoids prosecution it will legitimize this level of corruption and bully tactics. This paves the way for tyranny and we will become a distorted reflection of Russia and its "democracy".
Speaking of blind acceptance, that is exactly what I'm trying to push back against!! The Trumpettes blindly follow the GOP and either believe Trump's lies or they think he is playing 26D chess. It is ridiculous and incredibly dangerous for what remains of our own "democracy".
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday December 06 2018, @10:47PM (8 children)
Again, we have this vague assertion that Trump has committed crimes. I gather you may be the same AC as the one who asserted [soylentnews.org] Trump did a variety of things, some which would be serious crimes. So what's the evidence to support those assertions?
If there is a case out there, then nail him. It would be a welcome precedent. But we shouldn't imprison people just because some people feel they're guilty of something.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 07 2018, @04:55PM (7 children)
Hey moron you missed the point and i was quite clear about not jailing withoit due process.
I guess that mental glitch that makes you defend him is more serious than we thought.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 07 2018, @05:14PM (6 children)
Sure, I noticed you said that, and then you blew it off with unsubstantiated accusations.
Sorry, Buttercup, but a huge part of due process is beyond a reasonable doubt (for criminal proceedings). Merely saying that Trump is guilty of something isn't good enough. You have yet to provide evidence for why you think he's guilty of the things he would be tried in court for.
I'm not looking for court-level rigor here, but I have yet to read anything in this thread that is remotely substantial. It's time to practice what you preach.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 07 2018, @05:29PM (5 children)
Kshallow at it again.
Both sides! Good people! Civility!
I get it, you are upset. Your inside man at the WH might be done, sad times indeed.
Believing in due process does not prevent me from sharing the facts as i have seen them presented. Again, i listed nothing that is not already fact, but fun to see your spin machine leap into action. I love how "don't be mean!!!" is all you have left now. A weak hand, you should divert your energy elsewhere.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 07 2018, @05:43PM (4 children)
If you really believe in due process, which doesn't look likely at present.
Otherwise, I agree - in that something else is preventing you from sharing those facts. I think it is because you don't have facts to share.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 07 2018, @07:41PM (3 children)
Oh, so you're one of those "he said it out loud in public so it can't be a crime" huh?
I'll take your stupid bait, list the accusations I made that you want more info on. What is going to happen is I will list out public statements and "coincidences" such as the Saudi's booking millions of dollars worth of Trump hotel rooms and you will simply respond with "then why hasn't Trump been charged and put in jail then?" to which I will reply "Good fucking question!". Actually, more likely you would say "it isn't a crime to book hotel rooms" which would point to your 100% intellectual dishonesty. Either you're a trumptard who will say anything to preserve your version of reality or you're a shill. I'm guessing the latter.
How he made it to the presidency with "grab her by the pussy" and "I could shoot someone on 5th Avenue" is beyond me, and how you can keep defending such a craven human being is baffling. Your tactics are slimy and you don't give a shit about the truth.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 07 2018, @11:31PM (2 children)
That's not evidence of crime. We're still coming up empty here.
No, I'm one of those people who believe that if you're going to accuse someone of something, you better have evidence supporting that accusation.
What exactly is supposed to be bad about those remarks? I read the context and I just don't care about statements taken out of context. And of course, they aren't evidence of crime.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 08 2018, @09:25PM (1 child)
Immoral fuckwit you are, at least you make a good foil for the discussions around here.
Morality and the Law are not actually the same thing, but that is a bigger topic for when your balls drop.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 09 2018, @12:03AM
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 06 2018, @10:51PM (8 children)
This statement assumes the existence of "this level of corruption and bully tactics" and argues about about Trump defenders facing reality.
It is a classic example of begging the question.
If you actually want to convince people instead of just virtue signal, stop attacking Trump's supporters and provide evidence and citations against him. Claiming guilt without evidence is what totalitarian regimes do. You don't want to collude with totalitarians do you?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 07 2018, @02:47AM (7 children)
The things I posted were the things that are common knowledge, all of them. I specifically did not include "traitor" even though I believe he is one. With the level of vitriol leveled at liberals around here all the time I say fuck off with your calls for civility. You Trump supporters are big believers in personal responsibility and no nonsense "telling it like it is", so give me a fucking break with your whinging. It is like you can see the end coming and you've just gotta pout like a bunch of babies instead of facing your own bad decision.
We grow a lot through our mistakes, but only if we can admit they are mistakes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 07 2018, @06:41AM (6 children)
I'm not a Trump supporter, and it was actually meant as genuine advice. You keep alienating the people you want to win over. You have TDS so bad that you cannot even take an objective look at the emotional rants you post.
You think Trump is bad. Yes we get it. Stop calling anybody asking for the evidence of crimes a deplorable Trump supporter. Some of them actually think he is bad but are ethical enough to not convict without evidence. "Common knowledge" is not evidence. Websites saying Trump is racist, Trump is bad, Trump is dishonest, are not evidence unless they have citations or examples.
Stop chanting "Four legs Good, Orange Hair Bad" long enough to actually think and consider your words.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 07 2018, @04:53PM (5 children)
Lol go away shill. Keep trying to play that middle ground, only makes you look more shitty and stupid. If you do not like Trump then stop getting so bemt out of shape when someone tells the truth about him.
TDS is actually Trump's Deranged Supporters. Keep hammering that mantra though, you will sqay a few dumb fucks. If people still support Trump then they are stupid. No amount of projection will change that.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 07 2018, @05:16PM (4 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 07 2018, @05:34PM (3 children)
No evidence? Kwallow going into the mud. You can find all the admission on Twitter where Trump contradicts himself all the time. That is a good start, then you can go look at all the times Trump has said "i didnt know aboout it" and then engage the last few neurons you have left to figure out how likely it is that a presidential candidate does not know about widespread criminal behavior supporting his own campaign.
I'll wait, you obviously have a lot of catching up to do.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 07 2018, @05:45PM (2 children)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'm not going to look when you can't be bothered to.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 07 2018, @07:46PM (1 child)
I've been paying attention and have a functional memory. You are a shill trying to muddy the waters and pretend that everything is fine. "Traitor" is an extraordinary claim, the rest is just obvious if you are paying attention.
So tell me khallow, do you not pay attention to the news in any way shape or form? Have you not heard Trump speak for more than 10 seconds ever? I'm having a hard time understanding how you could have missed all his lies and criminal behavior when they are being done right in front of you.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 07 2018, @11:32PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 07 2018, @12:38AM
So he's pretty much guilty until proven otherwise! Got it.
Man, I'm glad I'm not a US-ian, imagine living in a country like that where a liar is automatically guilty of accused crimes until proven otherwise!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 07 2018, @02:36AM (3 children)
I reply to all of you whiners "birther movement" and "her emails" as one giant fuck you to your equivocations.
I love how TRUMP is your Vietnam. You've chosen a lying narcissist to be "your guy", everything I accused him of is true even if not something we can send him to prison for.
He is a proven piece of shit lying conman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump [wikipedia.org]
I get that you wanted to disrupt the system, a fuck you to the government with a tear-it-down attitude. But enough is enough, admit you made a mistake and believed Trump would be better than he was. You'll have sympathy from liberals who wanted more from Obama and were betrayed by Hillary.
For the ridiculous "authoritarian" claims I reiterate "birther" and "emails" and raise you "tax returns". Also, I would never vote someone guilty as a juror if I did not feel the evidence warranted it. That doesn't prevent me from believing what seems incredibly obvious, Trump is not just a lying morally bankrupt businessman but also an actual criminal. Tell me, do you think OJ did it? If you say yes does that make you an authoritarian fascist?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 07 2018, @05:24PM (2 children)
Once again, roughly 95% of people vote for the major parties. Here, the choices were Trump or Clinton. Saying it was a "mistake" implies that there was a better choice out there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 07 2018, @07:58PM (1 child)
Oh sheeeit!
Some tiny bit of contrition from khallow!!!
You just made my day to see the crack in the wall finally go all the way to the ceiling.
I think this is the first example of true regret, though teeny tiny and still trying to apologize for itself.
To address your little self-excusing bullshit, while I dislike Clinton and didn't vote for her because she fucked over Sanders; it is still clear that Clinton would have been better for the US. Trump was a joke who made it by blatantly lying and manipulating conservative voters and if you paid any attention to his history you would have realized that. Voting for Trump was a mistake even though Clinton did not deserve to win either. She was truly the lesser of two evils. Oh, and the ever more likely reality that there was indeed collusion with Russia to influence the election.
Now I get that you will want to disagree. I get that. However, you could have disagreed up until about 6 months ago at minimum without looking like an idiot. To disagree at this point ignores the massive investigation that had zero convictions for HRC compared to the multiple convictions of Trump's administration/campaign. Just admit you got fooled by some good propaganda that worked the conservative anger response and stop being a pussy about it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 07 2018, @11:29PM
And this is "clear" why? I get that you dislike Trump somewhat more than Clinton. So what?
Now I get that you will want to disagree. I get that. However, you could have disagreed up until about 6 months ago at minimum without looking like an idiot. To disagree at this point ignores the massive investigation that had zero convictions for HRC compared to the multiple convictions of Trump's administration/campaign. Just admit you got fooled by some good propaganda that worked the conservative anger response and stop being a pussy about it
Of course, I disagree. There's no convictions of Clinton despite the strong evidence that she committed multiple felonies - the FBI investigation even notes some of those, but chooses to classify them as not criminal activities. Not prosecuting criminal acts, is a high level of corruption. Meanwhile all that is had on Trump are coincidences, some which may have been staged by some on the Democrat side or by the FBI. Clinton also has a long established habit of lying to her constituents, such as when attacking women who had been sexually assaulted by her husband.
And I'm sure that there would be condescending conservatives talking about how much better Trump would be right now, if Clinton had been elected.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday December 06 2018, @07:52PM (24 children)
Even if publishing HRC's emails were illegal (which it isn't)
Agreed.
even if the US had any jurisdiction over Assange (which it doesn't)
If he committed a crime against a US party doing it over the internet doesn't magically make it not a crime or outside the US's jurisdiction. Actually getting him here to face a trial can be more difficult but is certainly not impossible. See the Huawei story, for reference. (Of course, that would need to be a different offense than merely acting as a journalist. Such as actively participating in the hacking.)
and even if Assange could somehow commit treason against a country he's never been a citizen of,
I don't think he could. And I haven't heard anyone suggesting otherwise, either.
the reason he published the emails in question was because he was coerced with the threat of being forced out of the embassy and into the crosshairs of the entire US security apparatus.
I think your time arrow is backwards on that one. The emails had already been published by the time these discussions were taking place.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday December 06 2018, @07:57PM (2 children)
I do find it ironic that he was so afraid of the Dems winning.
The Dem policy was that his publishing of the leaks was protected by the first amendment and the Obama DOJ specifically chose not to go after him.
So he helps the Reps and the very first thing they do is try to extradite his ass.
(Score: 2) by legont on Friday December 07 2018, @01:58AM (1 child)
Perhaps, he acts not in his personal interests, but in the interests of humanity? Yes, I know, the thought is very controversial.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Magic Oddball on Friday December 07 2018, @05:09AM
After reading the long-form article about him that his ghostwriter wrote (summary & link here [theguardian.com]), I'd say that most of Assange's behavior is in the interest of either getting people's attention, avoiding any consequences arising from his actions, and pacifying what can only be described as paranoia.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Thursday December 06 2018, @08:18PM (8 children)
Did he release the emails before, or after, Hillary asked why they couldn't kill him with a drone? If it's before, then there may be some validity to it. When a high level, and very influential, person of the US government is speaking about killing you with their highly advanced tech, there may be some coercion there.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday December 06 2018, @08:23PM (7 children)
Did he release the emails before, or after, Hillary asked why they couldn't kill him with a drone?
That's an unproven allegation. [snopes.com]
I thought we weren't supposed to trust anonymous sources.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday December 06 2018, @08:32PM (6 children)
There is a difference between unproven and unfounded. Even in that Snopes article there is a reference to actual existing email that came from that meeting. The meeting occurred, the email was written, what is unproven is what was actually said in the meeting. I assume the minutes of meeting are classified, and we won't see them unless we live well past 100 years old.
Maybe unproven, but the sources are hardly "anonymous", and the event they took place at wasn't fictional. Whoever these sources were, they were high level, and referencing facts.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday December 06 2018, @08:56PM (3 children)
The meeting occurred, the email was written, what is unproven is what was actually said in the meeting.
You mean this email? Show me where it says they're going to drone Assange:
(Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday December 06 2018, @09:17PM (2 children)
That's fucking weasel speak for what she said. There is no reason to include the nonlegal strategies at all. You would just ask what are the possible legal strategies that would be employed? Why specifically mention nonlegal? Was there a question regarding nonlegal strategies and whether they would be used? If you simply wanted to exclude the nonlegal, you would again, just say legal. Legal is intrinsically mutually exclusive with nonlegal.
This makes me very much suspect that somebody was specifically asking about using nonlegal strategies to silence Wikileaks. As if National Security depended on it, and they were discussing extraordinary measures.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 5, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Thursday December 06 2018, @09:46PM (1 child)
A legal strategy would be a lawsuit or something.
A nonlegal strategy would be a PR campaign or diplomacy.
Your only evidence that they wanted to drone Assange is something that says nothing about drones or Assange.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 07 2018, @12:40PM
A legal strategy can also be anything that is allowed according to the law.
A non-legal strategy being anything that isn't.
If they truly meant a PR campaign they could've written public opinion or diplomatic or something along the lines. So far the evidence points that the meeting took place and there were discussions about non-legal strategies. The definition of non-legal can be either.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Aegis on Friday December 07 2018, @12:45AM (1 child)
So it's wrong to call the Trump admin crooked even though we've convicted five crooks.
But, Killary was planning a drone strike in the middle of freaking London because of rumors and the word "nonlegal."
Got it...
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday December 07 2018, @01:29AM
Who said that, and how is it relevant to whether or not Assange was coerced into releasing emails? Sounds like you are trying to construct support for Trump just because I dislike Hillary, and nothing could be further from the truth. Those are separate situations, and it's possible to call the Trump administration crooked and corrupt whilst simultaneously calling out Hillary for being crooked and assassination prone. Whatever conflict between the two is just your perceptions.
No, the rumor was that she asked (in a way that was more a statement), "Why can't we just drone this guy?". The FACTS are that an email arose from that meeting with the question of legal and nonlegal means at their disposal. Now DeathMonkey wants to interpret nonlegal as not having anything to do with the court systems, and my interpretation is that would be acts judged illegal in the court systems. Sure we don't trust anonymous sources, but anonymous sources like these gave us Water Gate.
Furthermore, you haven't asked whether or not I even held it against her. I don't agree with the U.S government assassinating people at will, especially to silence whistle blowing platforms, but neither am I shocked when the National Security apparatus discusses measures to take him out if he discloses information that could seriously weaken it.
This whole question arose from discussing the motivations of Assange to release HRC's emails, and whether or not he could be coerced by threatening to remove his asylum protections with a large superpower declaring him an enemy of the USA.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 06 2018, @10:59PM (11 children)
Really? When is the USA going to start extraditing to Thailand all those people who have said nasty things about their king on the internet? Or people who draw rude pictures of Mohammad and post them on the internet to any islamic country where doing that is an offense?
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Friday December 07 2018, @01:32AM (10 children)
(Score: 2) by legont on Friday December 07 2018, @02:01AM (9 children)
So, for the record, we assume Huawei girl committed a crime in Canada.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 07 2018, @05:43AM (8 children)
Nope, merely that what she is being arrested for is considered a crime in both Canada and the US.
(Score: 2) by legont on Friday December 07 2018, @05:53AM (7 children)
I can't see much of the difference between mine statement and yours, so let me try it differently. The girl violated Canadian law.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Friday December 07 2018, @07:02AM (6 children)
Again, that's not right. She broke a law in the US which was also considered illegal in Canada. That's why she's being extradited to the US rather than tried in Canada.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 07 2018, @07:38AM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 07 2018, @08:00PM (1 child)
Could you just sense me about to throw your own words in your face? lololol fookin blookin mate!
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Friday December 07 2018, @11:33PM
(Score: 2) by legont on Friday December 07 2018, @06:57PM (2 children)
I still don't get it, sorry. Let me use an example. Suppose she killed a man in the US. Canada would send her to face a trial in the US because killing is against the law in Canada. If killing would be legal in Canada, my understanding is that she would not be extradited.
Hence my question (sorry for perhaps bad legal lingo) what was that she done which is against the law in Canada. Well, that's perhaps sealed but we assume there is something she did which is against the Canadian law.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 08 2018, @02:15AM (1 child)
Sounds like violation of sanctions against Iran. Canada is on board with those, I gather.
(Score: 2) by legont on Saturday December 08 2018, @04:54AM
OK, the news just came out. She is accused of lying to banks about Huawei dealings with some Hong Kong company under sanctions back in 2013. They got her on, basically, a fraud. Up to 30 years in prison. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/07/technology/huawei-meng-wanzhou-fraud.html [nytimes.com]
Well, this - lying to a bank - would be a crime pretty much anywhere. This is bad as it makes it virtually impossible to settle any time soon.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by legont on Friday December 07 2018, @01:54AM
Not to worry, he will confess.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 07 2018, @08:32PM
Start here https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/donald-trump-2016-mob-organized-crime-213910 [politico.com]
Found that link while looking for any info on Mueller's report today. Basically Trump is a criminal that has paid off all the people who could testify against him.
I really liked this bit:
Personally I think it is a bad business move to pay someone a cool half mil when you're totally above board and honest, no criminals pinkie-swearsies.
All you Trump supporters can be forgiven for ignorance and being manipulated by a massive propaganda campaign. Admit that, switch your tune about Trump, and hopefully we can build a better future by holding both parties to anti-corruption improvements.
I suggest we start by repealing citizen's united and outlawing asset forfeiture. Those seem like the two easiest policy changes we can all agree on yes?