Julian Assange leaving?

[August]

Originally Posted by mapuc

- "I'm not a crook, so I don't mind the authorities spy on me"

So say a huge percentage or the citizens

Good you are not a crook, then it's no need to have a camera up in a body parts where the lights don't shine or in other words.

No need to spy on everyone on a street just because 1-2 of them are criminal.

Markus

Platapus' signature comes to mind. Abusus Non Tollit Usum" or "The abuse does not take away from the use".

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

well, when the abuse of power begins Im gonna hangout with vienna in his underground prepper bunker.

What do you mean with "when it begins"...? You are in the midst of it. Since long. We all are. Since long.


Our own fault.

[Skybird]

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/11/...investigation/

[Tchocky]

If I am accused of sexual assault I don't get to hide in an embassy.

He chose to. That tells me a LOT.

Face your accuser and make your case.

Your job, your "journalism" doesn't matter.

Be the man you tell people you are, or run away.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

[Skybird]

It was a plot, staged to get hands on him. The question of guilt never played a role.


And you would have been naive enough to voluntarily step into that trap and trust in that the rigged game rules would give you a fair deal...?


Well, then you would have gotten what you asked for.


The way the American side has switche don and off and on accusaitons and pulled new ones out of the hat suddenly - THAT is what tellsa lot.

[STEED]

I hear from the news this rat needs to go to hospital or he will die in prison, bet some folk would like to put that to the test.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/julian-...y-2019-11-25/#

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/index.html

[Catfish]

^ maybe you should change your mind.

Assange made it clear that countries are no longer interested today in legitimate confidentiality, but in the suppression of important information about corruption and crimes.

"A made-up rape allegation and fabricated evidence in Sweden, pressure from the UK not to drop the case, a biased judge, detention in a maximum security prison, psychological torture; and soon extradition to the U.S., where he could face up to 175 years in prison for exposing war crimes."

1. The Swedish Police constructed a story of rape

2. Assange contacts the Swedish judiciary several times to make a statement; but he is turned down

3. When the highest Swedish court finally forced public prosecutors in Stockholm to either file charges or suspend the case, the British authorities demanded: «Dont get cold feet!!»

4. In the UK, violations of bail conditions are generally only punished with monetary fines or, at most, a couple of days behind bars. But Assange was given 50 weeks in a maximum-security prison without the ability to prepare his own defense

5. A prison sentence of 175 years for investigative journalism: The precedent the USA vs. Julian Assange case could set


The states are the real traitors: «A murderous system is being created before our very eyes»
The 'Five eyes' are not the good guys here.

edit: Or anywhere else it seems. The english-speaking race-patriots club of looking down on others

https://www.lawfareblog.com/newly-di...-eyes-alliance

https://www.newcoldwar.org/consortiu...sed-once-more/

[Catfish]

Assange's legal fight to avoid U.S. espionage trial resumes in London (Reuters)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-b...-idUSKBN25X10D

Is Wikileaks legal? Obviously, yes. Interesting article:
https://political-economy.com/is-wikileaks-legal/

[Skybird]

I dont dare to imagine the political pressure the judge is under. Its cases like this that build reputations - or destroy them.


The public will never learn about it. But states have interests. And the brexited UK wants something from the US, while being in the much weaker position from start on.

[Jimbuna]

You just may well be right but 'so much for justice' if you are.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I dont dare to imagine the political pressure the judge is under. Its cases like this that build reputations - or destroy them.

The public will never learn about it. But states have interests. And the brexited UK wants something from the US, while being in the much weaker position from start on.

All true. States have interests, and "truth is treason if you have an empire".
I do not like to defend Assange, but he is not a US subject, so he is not subject to US rule. Accusations to destroy his reputation to make the public shut up and trying to let him die should not be a common procedure here.

[Gerald]

The Assange case was handled incorrectly, especially from the Swedish side, and of course not unexpectedly by political pressure, there have been other people who have had the same flow of information as him and he became more of a coincidence a front figure in the context, however he has a responsibility for his actions. As I understand the situation, for several reasons he does not have much to bargain with, that time is over, and "in principle" he is the highest bidder for different states.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Catfish

"A made-up rape allegation and fabricated evidence in Sweden, pressure from the UK not to drop the case, a biased judge, detention in a maximum security prison, psychological torture; and soon extradition to the U.S., where he could face up to 175 years in prison for exposing war crimes."

1. The Swedish Police constructed a story of rape

Not sure what you are basing yourself on, but the story is well known and has been extensively reported on, such as here in your favorite publication:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...assange-sweden

The allegations centre on a 10-day period after Assange flew into Stockholm on Wednesday 11 August. One of the women, named in court as Miss A, told police that she had arranged Assange's trip to Sweden, and let him stay in her flat because she was due to be away. She returned early, on Friday 13 August, after which the pair went for a meal and then returned to her flat.

Her account to police, which Assange disputes, stated that he began stroking her leg as they drank tea, before he pulled off her clothes and snapped a necklace that she was wearing. According to her statement she "tried to put on some articles of clothing as it was going too quickly and uncomfortably but Assange ripped them off again". Miss A told police that she didn't want to go any further "but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far", and so she allowed him to undress her.


According to the statement, Miss A then realised he was trying to have unprotected sex with her. She told police that she had tried a number of times to reach for a condom but Assange had stopped her by holding her arms and pinning her legs. The statement records Miss A describing how Assange then released her arms and agreed to use a condom, but she told the police that at some stage Assange had "done something" with the condom that resulted in it becoming ripped, and ejaculated without withdrawing.

When he was later interviewed by police in Stockholm, Assange agreed that he had had sex with Miss A but said he did not tear the condom, and that he was not aware that it had been torn. He told police that he had continued to sleep in Miss A's bed for the following week and she had never mentioned a torn condom.

On the following morning, Saturday 14 August, Assange spoke at a seminar organised by Miss A. A second woman, Miss W, had contacted Miss A to ask if she could attend. Both women joined Assange, the co-ordinator of the Swedish WikiLeaks group, whom we will call "Harold", and a few others for lunch.

Assange left the lunch with Miss W. She told the police she and Assange had visited the place where she worked and had then gone to a cinema where they had moved to the back row. He had kissed her and put his hands inside her clothing, she said.

That evening, Miss A held a party at her flat. One of her friends, "Monica", later told police that during the party Miss A had told her about the ripped condom and unprotected sex. Another friend told police that during the evening Miss A told her she had had "the worst sex ever" with Assange: "Not only had it been the world's worst screw, it had also been violent."

Assange's supporters point out that, despite her complaints against him, Miss A held a party for him on that evening and continued to allow him to stay in her flat.

On Sunday 15 August, Monica told police, Miss A told her that she thought Assange had torn the condom on purpose. According to Monica, Miss A said Assange was still staying in her flat but they were not having sex because he had "exceeded the limits of what she felt she could accept" and she did not feel safe.

The following day, Miss W phoned Assange and arranged to meet him late in the evening, according to her statement. The pair went back to her flat in Enkoping, near Stockholm. Miss W told police that though they started to have sex, Assange had not wanted to wear a condom, and she had moved away because she had not wanted unprotected sex. Assange had then lost interest, she said, and fallen asleep. However, during the night, they had both woken up and had sex at least once when "he agreed unwillingly to use a condom".


Early the next morning, Miss W told police, she had gone to buy breakfast before getting back into bed and falling asleep beside Assange. She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no. "According to her statement, she said: 'You better not have HIV' and he answered: 'Of course not,' " but "she couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night. She had never had unprotected sex before."

Assange has confirmed most of the stories, Both the women were somehow involved with Wikileaks. I am not familiar with Swedish law. The issue appears to be not whether the women consented to sex, but consented to sex without a condom.

Other than what Assange and his supporters are claiming, is there any evidence that he was setup or that the Swedish police was manufacturing evidence?

[Catfish]

Please, we all know why all this happened?
Before you can kill someone or put him in jail with made-up accusations, you first destroy his reputation, so the public condemns said person and asks no more questions. Even when it comes to violating official law like an extradiction to a foreign country. Here it backfired, because the political pressure from the US to forge documents was a bit too obvious.

Forged documents:
https://www.pressenza.com/2020/03/ho...ulian-assange/

[Gerald]

Swedish legislation is and remains a mystery in many aspects and in the J.A. case it is obvious of a lot due to a feminist attitude in courts which in many cases permeates the judiciary in Sweden in general. Little has changed in the current situation, the same jargon prevails in many ways, tameness, ridiculous and extremely long negotiation times than normal, one should consider this if there is to be a conversation based on such a fuzzy attitude. As previously mentioned here, there are many ambiguities partly from the Preliminary Investigation Protocol and the preliminary investigation, these differ which also results in a weakness partly in police action but also from the first instance in the court chain itself. The witnesses have also not been able to be proven in a safe way, which has been the subject of a number of speculations. If you had shown impartiality from the beginning, you could have sifted the bait away from the wheat.