Julian Assange Discussion
- Thread starter ocean59
- Start date
EmeraldR
Dagobah Resident
Assange returns home (VIDEO)
A plane carrying the WikiLeaks co-founder has landed in Australia
Assange returns home (VIDEO)
Julian Assange has arrived back in his native Australia after formally agreeing to a plea deal with the US Department of Justice
Julian's arrival in Australia:
That's some kiss!
Wikileaks press conference:
Interestingly, Jennifer Robinson and Stella Assange emphasised that the US Justice Department only became willing to negotiate after the UK High Court decision that allowed Julian to appeal the extradition request on First Amendment grounds.
That's some kiss!
Wikileaks press conference:
Interestingly, Jennifer Robinson and Stella Assange emphasised that the US Justice Department only became willing to negotiate after the UK High Court decision that allowed Julian to appeal the extradition request on First Amendment grounds.
rognaill
Jedi
Interesting point ;)
The point I was making when I stated:
The operative word I was employing was 'narrative' followed by the word 'expunging'. Which the reporter that Ryan quotes kinda reinforces that point by stating:
The reporter is also referencing the 'narrative' that was being put into motion and now out of gas/discredited.
Expunging from the narrative references the shameful reporting/lies/propaganda (ie. narrative) and misappropriation by a faction of people whom it is being shown, are illegally occupying positions within the US Govt. by means of illegal vote tampering. So perhaps the statement of...
... could be indicating that the occupying people in the US Govt are the entirety of the US Govt, which I think most would disagree with that generalization.
And to clarify one other thing that you responded to by stating:
I was replying to Beau with "That is correct" that Trump could pardon, but I didn't explicitly state 'if there is a conviction'. I assumed that others might already understand however you typed it out;
Apologies for the confusion there.
And lastly, regarding the reporter Ryan quoted when he stated...
... is interesting to me in that would the same reporter view the gobs of reporters that lied about Covid but so far, have completely gotten away with it as legitimate?
Seems like the reporter is setting up a future 'narrative' that in the event that say Trump's new administration with a DOJ that has less TDS goes after reporters that routinely and knowingly lied to the public, that the new DOJ and Trump are only trying to 'criminalize routine journalistic conduct'. Or any other HRC/Obama related crimes that are published and causes a Deep State reaction as in the case/example of Julian.
I am optimistic that those types of reactions will dwindle and more 'airing of the laundry' will go on in the near future so that the public can get more of the whole story.
And apparently, he owes 520,000 USD now, for that flight. How do they even get away with that? I know, no need to reply, when they got away with so much more before that...
But at least people seem to be contributing a lot, his wife's crowdfunding is at 425,000 pounds as of today:
But at least people seem to be contributing a lot, his wife's crowdfunding is at 425,000 pounds as of today:
On news in Australia tonight, apparently Assange won't be able to raise funds by talking or writing about his experiences since he now has a criminal conviction and raising funds in that manner would be confiscated by the govt as proceeds of crime. I don't know if that is technically true, it seems dodgy to me under the circumstances.
It's being reported that someone donated 8 Bitcoin (worth about $500k) to the cause as well, so it doesn't look like Julian will have any problems with paying back the money for the flight. Thankfully.
How would Australian proceeds of crime laws apply to any criminal conviction in the US?
It's difficult to imagine in words how blessed a man would be to have a wife as faithful and devoted as Stella Assange.
Pepe is often obscure and cryptic and doesn't explain what he says. I don't get what he's saying here.
I get that the Assange release saved face for the US - barely. But how did his release save AUKUS? How was it a geopolitical play? I don't get it. Maybe there's nothing to 'get', and it's just wrong?
I get that the Assange release saved face for the US - barely. But how did his release save AUKUS? How was it a geopolitical play? I don't get it. Maybe there's nothing to 'get', and it's just wrong?
Some F-35's were going to bomb AUKUS but Assange shot them down.
That's even more cryptic than Pepe! His release didn't save face for the US, it sort of saved face for the Oz govt. that was under increasing pressure from public opinion. But it was a cynical geopolitical play. It "saved AUKUS" in that the condition imposed on the Oz govt. for his release was new US controlled submarine bases in Oz, designed to "contain China". At least, I think that is what Escobar is getting at.
