Assange is a free manhttps://www.foxnews.com/us/julian-assange-wikileaks-founder-reaches-plea-deal-avoid-prison-us

[West]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/julian-assange-wikileaks-founder-reaches-plea-deal-avoid-prison-us

 

Apparently cut a plea deal

[gatomontes99]

Hmm...interesting.

[Nationalist]

About time! 

[Michael Hardner]

22 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

About time! 

Do you support Assange for leaking US Diplomatic secrets?  I find that interesting.

People often have unpredictable reactions to this issue.

[Nationalist]

38 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Do you support Assange for leaking US Diplomatic secrets?  I find that interesting.

People often have unpredictable reactions to this issue.

Yes I do. Assange ran a site dedicated to exposing governmental abuses of power. I don't like them abusing power in the name of the people because they rarely do so to any benefit to anyone but themselves. 

[West]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Do you support Assange for leaking US Diplomatic secrets?  I find that interesting.

People often have unpredictable reactions to this issue.

To me it's a matter of relativity. 

Should he have released classified information? 

No

But he exposed some pretty grotesque human rights abuses at Guantonomo Bay and other information that the public should've known about. 

In an ideal world that stuff wouldn't have been happening and Assange wouldn't have to report on it.

I also think it's a tad hypocritical because at the time he would've been treated as a hero in American press had he reported on human rights abuses abroad. 

Edited June 25, 2024 by West

[Michael Hardner]

19 minutes ago, West said:

To me it's a matter of relativity. 

Should he have released classified information? 

No

But he exposed some pretty grotesque human rights abuses at Guantonomo Bay and other information that the public should've known about. 

In an ideal world that stuff wouldn't have been happening and Assange wouldn't have to report on it.

I also think it's a tad hypocritical because at the time he would've been treated as a hero in American press had he reported on human rights abuses abroad. 

Well said.  I think it's curious that Chelsea Manning,  the woman who leaked the information was given a reprieve of some kind while he wasn't for a long time.

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Yes I do. Assange ran a site dedicated to exposing governmental abuses of power. I don't like them abusing power in the name of the people because they rarely do so to any benefit to anyone but themselves. 

He did a HUGE favor for Trump and Russia by (trying to) hide the source of of the STOLEN DNC EMAILS.

Now everyone KNOWS that Russia dumped those emails on Wikileaks, probably through a third party.

And of course Trump was completely UNETHICAL (what else is new) in exploiting that ILLEGALLY ACQUIRED confidential private STOLEN data for his campaign. 

Of course, we KNOW you will defend Trump's FRAUD AS USUAL. 🤮

[West]

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

He did a HUGE favor for Trump and Russia by (trying to) hide the source of of the STOLEN DNC EMAILS.

Now everyone KNOWS that Russia dumped those emails on Wikileaks, probably through a third party.

And of course Trump was completely UNETHICAL (what else is new) in exploiting that ILLEGALLY ACQUIRED confidential private STOLEN data for his campaign. 

Of course, we KNOW you will defend Trump's FRAUD AS USUAL. 🤮

So what's worse? 

The cover up of what was exposed in the Clinton emails showing the rigging of a primary or the dump of the information? 

I personally find it offensive that there's so much secrecy surrounding stuff like this

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, West said:

So what's worse? 

The cover up of what was exposed in the Clinton emails showing the rigging of a primary or the dump of the information? 

I personally find it offensive that there's so much secrecy surrounding stuff like this

The collecting and dumping of private computer data is ILLEGAL.

Nothing illegal about the DNC favoring the candidate which is more likely to win, cause their job is to win THE GENERAL

It's a private organization and choosing the right candidate is THEIR BUSINESS.

[West]

43 minutes ago, robosmith said:

The collecting and dumping of private computer data is ILLEGAL.

Nothing illegal about the DNC favoring the candidate which is more likely to win, cause their job is to win THE GENERAL

It's a private organization and choosing the right candidate is THEIR BUSINESS.

Personally I don't really care who they chose or how they choose it. But their dishonesty transfers over to their governance and is an issue for everyone trying to make an informed choice

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

He did a HUGE favor for Trump and Russia by (trying to) hide the source of of the STOLEN DNC EMAILS.

Now everyone KNOWS that Russia dumped those emails on Wikileaks, probably through a third party.

And of course Trump was completely UNETHICAL (what else is new) in exploiting that ILLEGALLY ACQUIRED confidential private STOLEN data for his campaign. 

Isn't it sad that your most relevant post is nothing more than a baseless accusation, which has been refuted at every turn?

1. The CEO of CrowdStrike testified under oath that they had no actual evidence the server was hacked
2. Assange has never been caught lying about his sources before, and Assange said it was a leak. 
3. Considering all the grass roots support that Bernie had in the DNC, it stands to reason that at least one person who had access to that server was a Bernie supporter who KNEW that his candidate was cheated.
4. What's the normal source of leaks like this: disgruntled employees, or random hackers from Russia working for a foreign head of state for free...?
5. If you worked for the GOP and you had access to a server showing that Trump cheated on the election you and I both know that you'd leak it.

Quote

 Of course, we KNOW you will defend Trump's FRAUD AS USUAL. 🤮

Not this time, pal.

I'm saying " WUSSIAN COWUSION! WUSSIAN COWUSION! WUSSIAN COWUSION!" right along with you. 

J/K 🤣

[West]

57 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Isn't it sad that your most relevant post is nothing more than a baseless accusation, which has been refuted at every turn?

1. The CEO of CrowdStrike testified under oath that they had no actual evidence the server was hacked
2. Assange has never been caught lying about his sources before, and Assange said it was a leak. 
3. Considering all the grass roots support that Bernie had in the DNC, it stands to reason that at least one person who had access to that server was a Bernie supporter who KNEW that his candidate was cheated.
4. What's the normal source of leaks like this: disgruntled employees, or random hackers from Russia working for a foreign head of state for free...?
5. If you worked for the GOP and you had access to a server showing that Trump cheated on the election you and I both know that you'd leak it.

Not this time, pal.

I'm saying " WUSSIAN COWUSION! WUSSIAN COWUSION! WUSSIAN COWUSION!" right along with you. 

J/K 🤣

Reminder not just that Clinton cheated in the primary but that they were involved in a satanic sex cult. 

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, West said:

Reminder not just that Clinton cheated in the primary but that they were involved in a satanic sex cult. 

🤮 

I think that's the most disgusting thing that's ever been seen on the internet.

 

1 night. 7pm-midnight. You either die or have sex with:

1. a satanic sex cult 
2. Hillary Clinton 

[robosmith]

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Isn't it sad that your most relevant post is nothing more than a baseless accusation, which has been refuted at every turn?

1. The CEO of CrowdStrike testified under oath that they had no actual evidence the server was hacked

So what. Just cause he couldn't detect it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Mueller INDICTED the Russians who did it BY NAME.

 

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

1. Assange has never been caught lying about his sources before, and Assange said it was a leak. 

Third party means Assange had no way of knowing who STOLE IT.

 

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

1. Considering all the grass roots support that Bernie had in the DNC, it stands to reason that at least one person who had access to that server was a Bernie supporter who KNEW that his candidate was cheated.

Hillary getting the (obvious) question TOPICS didn't cheat Bernie. Unlike Mueller, you're just guessing.

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

1. What's the normal source of leaks like this: disgruntled employees, or random hackers from Russia working for a foreign head of state for free...?

Do you even know about the Internet Research Agency. AKA, NOT "random hackers." LMAO

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

1. If you worked for the GOP and you had access to a server showing that Trump cheated on the election you and I both know that you'd leak it.

The primary is NOT the election. Duh

 

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Not this time, pal.

I'm saying " WUSSIAN COWUSION! WUSSIAN COWUSION! WUSSIAN COWUSION!" right along with you. 

J/K 🤣

I didn't post this for YOU. Duh

It was addressed to gnat boy.

3 hours ago, West said:

Reminder not just that Clinton cheated in the primary but that they were involved in a satanic sex cult. 

YOU'RE LYING as USUAL.

[West]

44 minutes ago, robosmith said:

So what. Just cause he couldn't detect it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Mueller INDICTED the Russians who did it BY NAME.

 

Third party means Assange had no way of knowing who STOLE IT.

 

Hillary getting the (obvious) question TOPICS didn't cheat Bernie. Unlike Mueller, you're just guessing.

Do you even know about the Internet Research Agency. AKA, NOT "random hackers." LMAO

The primary is NOT the election. Duh

 

I didn't post this for YOU. Duh

It was addressed to gnat boy.

YOU'RE LYING as USUAL.

I'm not lying. That's what wikileaks alleged jackass