Hvor står HO i Assange-saken?

dirken
11.04.2019 kl 14:05 902

Hva mener vi egentlig om Assange? Er han en moderne helt som avslører ting folket har krav og rett til å vite om hva de rike og mektige holder på med bak lukkede dører? Eller er han en anarkistisk skurk som legger til rette for at bl.a. statshemmeligheter og bedriftshemmelighet lekkes? Eller det tredje alternativet - en agent for Russland i deres plan om å rote det mest mulig til for alle vestlige demokratier? Eller kanskje han er en voldtektsmann?

Fortjener han fengsel eller heder? Kjør debatt.

He he, Jabba prøver å innbille seg selv og andre om at han er en "høyremann", men røper til stadighet hva han liker å fylle hodet sitt med. Alt han linker fra kommer enten fra ekstremt venstreradikale media eller bare "normal" venstrevridde. Nå er riktignok Washington Post en venstrevridd blekke, men ikke av de mest ytterliggående. Dette innlegget de har sluppet til derimot, er vel av ytterliggående slaget.

Det er så mye svada og faktafeil at jeg nesten ikke vet hvor jeg skal begynne. Vi kan ta noen eksempler.

- he was avoiding transfer to Sweden pursuant to a seemingly credible sexual assault charge lodged against him in that country.
Jentene ville ha ham undersøkt for HIV, de hadde hatt gjentatte frivillige samleier med ham gjennom helgen. De anmeldte ham ikke for voldtekt, det var noe hun korrupte påtalekvinnen Eva la til.

- Ecuador’s new, more pragmatic president, Lenín Moreno
Mer riktig betegnelse er vel megakorrupt sosialist? Det at han blir sparket ut har sikkert ingenting å gjøre med lekkasjen av INA papers for en tid tilbake? Dette knytter president Lenin til et selskap i Panama - INA Corp. INA er tilfeldigvis også initialene til hans tre døtre. Vi en rekke stråselskaper er det avdekket massiv korrupsjon og hvitvasking av penger. For noen dager siden ble det iverksatt en etterforskning av ham i Ecuador og er vel ikke helt utenkelig at amerikanske myndigheter også vil kreve ham utlevert. Wikileak la ut en link til denne siden for noen dager siden. http://inapapers.org/ (bruk translate)

- Also unlike real journalists, WikiLeaks dumped material into the public domain without any effort independently to verify its factuality
Feil. De har brukt enorme ressurser på å verifisere at det de legger ut er ekte og genuint. I motsetning til såkalte "journalister" som blir avslørt i faktafeil, bias og forvrengning daglig, har Wikileak ikke blitt avslørt i å ha utgitt noe som er falskt eller feil. Selv crooket Hillary har ikke påstått det. Gudene skal vite at en samlet media har saumfart det de har lagt ut for å kunne finne en feil. Så langt - nada!

Dette er også en av grunnene til at jeg støtter Assange og avskyr MSM. Det hender selvsagt at de får til noe riktig de også. Bl.a. når det gjelder Panama Paper og bearbeidingen av dem. Aftenposten var en av mediene som tilsynelatende gjorde en strålende jobb der. Jeg sier tilsynelatende, for vi vet vel ikke om avisene la inn noen filtere i sin rapportering hvor de cherry picked folk de hang ut.
Redigert 12.04.2019 kl 10:33 Du må logge inn for å svare

"Det hender selvsagt at de får til noe riktig de også. Bl.a. når det gjelder Panama Paper og bearbeidingen av dem."

Så de bommet med Snowden og Cheløsea Manning lekkasjene altså?
Forøvrig er det korrekt at jeg ikke er den typen høyremann som du er. Jeg er av Erna Solberg typen .
grantre
12.04.2019 kl 12:52 347

https://www.dn.no/utenriks/usa/wikileaks/donald-trump/trump-markerer-distanse-til-wikileaks-hyllet-dem-i-valgkampen/2-1-587544

Her kommer det noe i tråd med det jeg sa igår. Har ikke lest mange av de seneste kommentaren på denne tråden.
Tror vi har hatt Wikileaks oppe på flere tråder for lenge siden. Dvs. flere år siden. Wikileaks må utredes mer skal vi
kunne forholde oss fornuftig til det, og i oppdatert variant anno 12.04.2019.
Cortex
12.04.2019 kl 13:14 336

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-assanges-real-sin-was-preventing-hillary-clinton-from-becoming-president

Wikileaks avslørte mye av de lovbruddene og det jukset Hillary bedrev før valget i 2016.
Hun og DNC-leder Debbie W. Schultz fikset primærvalget så Bernie Sanders ikke skulle vinne.
Dette ble bekreftet av Donna Brazile senere....Også hun leder av Dems.
Schultz gikk på dagen da Wikileaks lakk dette,og hun ble også ansatt av Hillarys valgkamp som takk for hjelpen og for å holde kjeft.

Hillary visste at Wikileaks lakk fakta og hun prøvde ikke å argumentere mot fakta, e-poster og annet.
Selvsagt hates Assange av medias folk for at han avslørte Hillary og vekket velgerne!

«William Barr is Qanon»
~Prayingmedic

Jeg har plutselig ikke tilgang til Havfruens Q-tråd.

Julian Assange Will Help Take Down the Deep State

Apr 14, 2019 | 15 comments

I’ll go on record and say that Julian Assange’s testimony will be a key part of the prosecution of many corrupt people around the globe. It’s hard to appreciate the plausibility of this theory outside of the revelation provided by Qanon but there are other experts who have provided supporting information.

Sean Hannity has interviewed Julian Assange on numerous occasions. That Hannity is so deeply interested in and connected to Assange is a point worth considering on its own (especially if you believe Donald Trump gives him information other journalists don’t have access to). A significant data point was provided when Hannity asked Assange if Russia was the source of the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks. In keeping with his policy of not revealing sources, Assange didn’t name his source but said,
“We can say, we have said, repeatedly that over the last two months that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party.”

If, as the mainstream media has claimed for 2 years, Russia is not the source of the DNC emails, who is the source?
In an interview with Dutch TV, Assange brought up Seth Rich, the DNC staffer who was killed not long after WikiLeaks received the DNC’s emails.

Speculation about Seth Rich’s involvement in the DNC email leak/hack has gotten wide publicity from the mainstream media (most of it negative) due to a plethora of YouTube videos attempting to prove he was Assange’s source. Assange didn’t state that Rich was his source but what other reason would he have for mentioning him while emphasizing that his sources take significant risks?

For years, Assange has been free to keep his sources anonymous. As he’s entered into a DOJ investigation, he’ll be compelled to tell exactly who his sources are and provide any corroborating evidence he’s received such as source files.
We know the narrative that Trump colluded with Russia was false. Time and evidence proved it to be a story the deep state pushed on the public, knowing the entire time it was untrue. The narrative that Russia hacked the DNC emails is the flip side of the same coin. Time and evidence will prove that narrative to be a lie manufactured to support the now debunked Russian collusion narrative.

In the post below, Q suggested the UK government has been after Assange because they want to silence him before he discloses what he knows about their involvement in the plot to illegally spy on Donald Trump and his campaign. Assange’s evidence (which apparently includes source files) doesn’t just implicate the UK government but most of Obama’s cabinet and staff and many corrupt people in Congress who were involved in the plot.

Q has suggested that rather than being hacked by Russia, the DNC’s emails were leaked by Seth Rich. Rich was then murdered and Crowdstrike was hired to create fake evidence that fingered Russia as the culprit. (WikiLeaks Vault 7 explains how the CIA’s “Umbrage” program enables users to create false digital fingerprints implicating another entity.)
Q has indicated that the Generals working with Donald Trump expected General Mike Flynn to be attacked by the deep state. The deep state’s distrust of Flynn was evidenced when in 2014, Obama removed him as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. As head of the DIA, Flynn would have the dirt on nearly every corrupt organization in the world.
The Generals working with Trump anticipated James Comey’s firing and the fact that it would lead to the appointment of a Special Counsel. It’s becoming more clear that the objective was to get Flynn entered into the Special Counsel’s investigation and let him provide the evidence he had about the crimes of corrupt people. While the mainstream media assured us Flynn’s guilty plea pointed to Trump’s eventual indictment, Mueller’s team would have no choice but to accept Flynn’s testimony and whatever evidence he could provide and refer it to the appropriate US Attorney’s office for investigation. The Mueller team’s December 2018 sentencing memo indicated that Flynn was providing testimony into several open investigations. The fact that he has still not been sentenced suggests his testimony is presently ongoing.

Assange has been sitting in the Ecuadorian embassy for years with an outstanding indictment related to a crime he allegedly committed in 2010. A week after our new Attorney General goes on the Spygate offensive, Assange is suddenly apprehended and is in the process of being extradited to the US to face charges.
Coincidence?
Military planning at its finest?
I suspect that in the same way General Flynn was entered into the Mueller investigation under the cover of prosecution to expose the crimes of corrupt people, the mainstream media and political pundits will, in ignorance, paint Assange as a criminal (or perhaps a helpless victim) while he provides testimony further incriminating bad actors around the globe.
I’ll close with Rudy Giuliani’s observations about Assange’s arrest:

“Maybe it will shed light on the plot to create an investigation of President Trump based on a false charge of conspiracy with the Russians to affect the 2016 elections. Keep your eye on Ukraine,” Giuliani told the Washington Examiner. “It’s possible with all his sources he might know or have information of how it all started.”


https://prayingmedic.com/2019/04/14/assange-will-help-take-down-deep-state/
Thinky
15.04.2019 kl 01:08 263

Kan du ikke komme med em kort konklusjon på norsk ?
.777.
15.04.2019 kl 08:08 254

Kort konklusjon på norsk:

Trump ?

Hillary ?

Folket ?

Staten ?