You don't know how to use Google? In any case, the attempted extradition to the US is happening under the Dotard administration. You pretend that the intelligence community does what it wants and there is nothing Dotard can do to stop them, but that isn't true. They aren't independent like the IGs Dotard is firing. Even when there is supposed to be independence, Dotard does not let that stop him. If he wanted to stop the "railroading" of Julian Assange he could.
Quote: The Obama administration had debated charging Assange under the Espionage Act but decided against it out of fear that it would have a negative effect on investigative journalism and could be unconstitutional. [end quote]
The "railroading" you speak of is taking place under the Dotard administration. The Obama administration decided against charging Assange.
He's been sentenced to a year in prison on the charge of bail jumping.
The bail charge itself is entirely illegitimate. As scholar and WikiLeaks advocate Simon Floth explains, under British law bail is only legally breached if there’s a failure to meet bail “without reasonable cause”, which the human right to seek asylum certainly is. The UK itself was clearly unconvinced of its own authority to charge someone who was under political asylum for jumping bail, waiting a full nine days before issuing an arrest warrant in 2012.
After the Swedish government decided to drop its sexual assault investigation in 2017 without issuing any charges, Assange’s legal team attempted last year to get the warrant dropped. The judge in that case, Emma Arbuthnot, just happens to be married to former Tory junior Defence Minister and government whip James Arbuthnot, who served as director of Security Intelligence Consultancy SC Strategy Ltd with a former head of MI6. Arbuthnot denied Assange’s request with extreme vitriol, despite his argument that British law does have provisions which allow for the time he’d already served under house arrest to count toward far more time than would be served for violating bail.
This happened in Sweden (the country that, in your opinion, really knows what it's doing re it's response to the coronavirus). As I pointed out earlier, the Obama administration decided not to charge Assange (re his hacking crimes involving stolen bush administration data). Chelsea Manning was arrested and served time but Assange wasn't charged. US authorities never considered charging him re the sex crimes.
As for the sex crime allegations being "fake".
As per Wikipedia, "On 8/12/2015, Swedish prosecutors announced that, as the statute of limitations for the less serious allegations had run out, and they had not succeeded in interviewing Assange, they would end part of their preliminary investigation".
Fleeing Sweden and thereby avoiding investigation and prosecution (and the statue of limitations expiring) does not prove "they were both fake". By the way I think the accusers reported immediately (or within a short period of time) what happened to them. I thought this was KEY (in your view)?
Sweden is #metoo central. If Joe Biden were Swedish, he's be in prison. And yes, the allegations against Assange were fake... just their DOJ altering testimony like we do against presidential candidate's campaigns in the US.
"Obviously" the Swedish police MUST have been collaborating with the US intelligence community to "railroad" Assange. I heard the Ecuadorian embassy didn't want him living there any longer because he was a bad house guest. Was that a frame-job too? Were they in on the "railroading" (after allowing him to live there almost 7 years).
btw, I don't know what testimony "against presidential candidate's campaigns in the US" you are alleging was altered.
«The woman’s testimony was later changed by the police» – how exactly? On Aug. 20, 2010, a woman named S. W. entered a Stockholm police station together with a second woman named A. A. The first woman, S. W. said she had had consensual sex with Julian Assange, but he had not been wearing a condom. She said she was now concerned that she could be infected with HIV and wanted to know if she could force Assange to take an HIV test. She said she was really worried. The police wrote down her statement and immediately informed public prosecutors. Even before questioning could be completed, S. W. was informed that Assange would be arrested on suspicion of rape. S. W. was shocked and refused to continue with questioning. While still in the police station, she wrote a text message to a friend saying that she didn’t want to incriminate Assange, that she just wanted him to take an HIV test, but the police were apparently interested in «getting their hands on him.» What does that mean? S.W. never accused Julian Assange of rape. She declined to participate in further questioning and went home. Nevertheless, two hours later, a headline appeared on the front page of Expressen, a Swedish tabloid, saying that Julian Assange was suspected of having committed two rapes.
What did the second woman say when she was questioned? She said that she had made her apartment available to Assange, who was in Sweden for a conference. A small, one-room apartment. When Assange was in the apartment, she came home earlier than planned, but told him it was no problem and that the two of them could sleep in the same bed. That night, they had consensual sex, with a condom. But she said that during sex, Assange had intentionally broken the condom. If that is true, then it is, of course, a sexual offense – so-called «stealthing». But the woman also said that she only later noticed that the condom was broken. That is a contradiction that should absolutely have been clarified. If I don’t notice it, then I cannot know if the other intentionally broke it. Not a single trace of DNA from Assange or A. A. could be detected in the condom that was submitted as evidence.
The Obama administration decided not to charge Assange under the espionage act. The Obama administration never debated whether to charge Assange with rape because such charges were the purview of the Swedes. If Assange was railroaded by the Swedish police, I don't know what that has to do with the "intelligence community".
Maybe you think there is some connection? But that wouldn't explain why the Dotard administration is pursuing extradition. Maybe Dotard is concerned about Assange admitting that he received the DNC hacked data from Russia and thinks this is a way to keep Assange quiet?
I'd feel differently about Assange if he hadn't decided to assist Russia with it's efforts to get Dotard elected. In any case, with the installation of the predisent who said "I Love WikiLeaks", why is this happening now? My initial observation -- which you continue to ignore. Maybe Dotard wants to bring Assange here so he can protect him? But it seems Assange is pretty scared of being extradited.
Your real problem is with Assange's disclosure of the Chelsea Manning data, which he is actually being extradited for? Good to know. You just hate America in general.
No. I agree with the Obama administration's decisions to not extradite him for that and disagree with what the Dotard administration is doing. Although I'd say I am not passionate in my disagreement, given Assange's alignment with Putin.
As for hating America, you're the one who supports a president who ran on hate. And then there is your support for Assange, the a-hole who helped Putin get his puppet Dotard installed. Clearly you are aligned with America's enemies due to your hate for this country.
17 comments:
They aren't.
Then what's he in jail for?
You don't know how to use Google? In any case, the attempted extradition to the US is happening under the Dotard administration. You pretend that the intelligence community does what it wants and there is nothing Dotard can do to stop them, but that isn't true. They aren't independent like the IGs Dotard is firing. Even when there is supposed to be independence, Dotard does not let that stop him. If he wanted to stop the "railroading" of Julian Assange he could.
Quote: The Obama administration had debated charging Assange under the Espionage Act but decided against it out of fear that it would have a negative effect on investigative journalism and could be unconstitutional. [end quote]
The "railroading" you speak of is taking place under the Dotard administration. The Obama administration decided against charging Assange.
He's been sentenced to a year in prison on the charge of bail jumping.
The bail charge itself is entirely illegitimate. As scholar and WikiLeaks advocate Simon Floth explains, under British law bail is only legally breached if there’s a failure to meet bail “without reasonable cause”, which the human right to seek asylum certainly is. The UK itself was clearly unconvinced of its own authority to charge someone who was under political asylum for jumping bail, waiting a full nine days before issuing an arrest warrant in 2012.
After the Swedish government decided to drop its sexual assault investigation in 2017 without issuing any charges, Assange’s legal team attempted last year to get the warrant dropped. The judge in that case, Emma Arbuthnot, just happens to be married to former Tory junior Defence Minister and government whip James Arbuthnot, who served as director of Security Intelligence Consultancy SC Strategy Ltd with a former head of MI6. Arbuthnot denied Assange’s request with extreme vitriol, despite his argument that British law does have provisions which allow for the time he’d already served under house arrest to count toward far more time than would be served for violating bail.
Asylum for rape? Also, you think this has something to do with the Dotard administration's "railroading" of Assange?
The rape charges were dropped, proving they were both fake and that Assange was railroaded.
This happened in Sweden (the country that, in your opinion, really knows what it's doing re it's response to the coronavirus). As I pointed out earlier, the Obama administration decided not to charge Assange (re his hacking crimes involving stolen bush administration data). Chelsea Manning was arrested and served time but Assange wasn't charged. US authorities never considered charging him re the sex crimes.
As for the sex crime allegations being "fake".
As per Wikipedia, "On 8/12/2015, Swedish prosecutors announced that, as the statute of limitations for the less serious allegations had run out, and they had not succeeded in interviewing Assange, they would end part of their preliminary investigation".
Fleeing Sweden and thereby avoiding investigation and prosecution (and the statue of limitations expiring) does not prove "they were both fake". By the way I think the accusers reported immediately (or within a short period of time) what happened to them. I thought this was KEY (in your view)?
Sweden is #metoo central. If Joe Biden were Swedish, he's be in prison. And yes, the allegations against Assange were fake... just their DOJ altering testimony like we do against presidential candidate's campaigns in the US.
"Obviously" the Swedish police MUST have been collaborating with the US intelligence community to "railroad" Assange. I heard the Ecuadorian embassy didn't want him living there any longer because he was a bad house guest. Was that a frame-job too? Were they in on the "railroading" (after allowing him to live there almost 7 years).
btw, I don't know what testimony "against presidential candidate's campaigns in the US" you are alleging was altered.
from the link:
«The woman’s testimony was later changed by the police» – how exactly?
On Aug. 20, 2010, a woman named S. W. entered a Stockholm police station together with a second woman named A. A. The first woman, S. W. said she had had consensual sex with Julian Assange, but he had not been wearing a condom. She said she was now concerned that she could be infected with HIV and wanted to know if she could force Assange to take an HIV test. She said she was really worried. The police wrote down her statement and immediately informed public prosecutors. Even before questioning could be completed, S. W. was informed that Assange would be arrested on suspicion of rape. S. W. was shocked and refused to continue with questioning. While still in the police station, she wrote a text message to a friend saying that she didn’t want to incriminate Assange, that she just wanted him to take an HIV test, but the police were apparently interested in «getting their hands on him.»
What does that mean?
S.W. never accused Julian Assange of rape. She declined to participate in further questioning and went home. Nevertheless, two hours later, a headline appeared on the front page of Expressen, a Swedish tabloid, saying that Julian Assange was suspected of having committed two rapes.
What did the second woman say when she was questioned?
She said that she had made her apartment available to Assange, who was in Sweden for a conference. A small, one-room apartment. When Assange was in the apartment, she came home earlier than planned, but told him it was no problem and that the two of them could sleep in the same bed. That night, they had consensual sex, with a condom. But she said that during sex, Assange had intentionally broken the condom. If that is true, then it is, of course, a sexual offense – so-called «stealthing». But the woman also said that she only later noticed that the condom was broken. That is a contradiction that should absolutely have been clarified. If I don’t notice it, then I cannot know if the other intentionally broke it. Not a single trace of DNA from Assange or A. A. could be detected in the condom that was submitted as evidence.
The Obama administration decided not to charge Assange under the espionage act. The Obama administration never debated whether to charge Assange with rape because such charges were the purview of the Swedes. If Assange was railroaded by the Swedish police, I don't know what that has to do with the "intelligence community".
Maybe you think there is some connection? But that wouldn't explain why the Dotard administration is pursuing extradition. Maybe Dotard is concerned about Assange admitting that he received the DNC hacked data from Russia and thinks this is a way to keep Assange quiet?
The Swedish police surveilled the Ecuadoran Embassy in London? Who knew?
I'd feel differently about Assange if he hadn't decided to assist Russia with it's efforts to get Dotard elected. In any case, with the installation of the predisent who said "I Love WikiLeaks", why is this happening now? My initial observation -- which you continue to ignore. Maybe Dotard wants to bring Assange here so he can protect him? But it seems Assange is pretty scared of being extradited.
Your real problem is with Assange's disclosure of the Chelsea Manning data, which he is actually being extradited for? Good to know. You just hate America in general.
No. I agree with the Obama administration's decisions to not extradite him for that and disagree with what the Dotard administration is doing. Although I'd say I am not passionate in my disagreement, given Assange's alignment with Putin.
As for hating America, you're the one who supports a president who ran on hate. And then there is your support for Assange, the a-hole who helped Putin get his puppet Dotard installed. Clearly you are aligned with America's enemies due to your hate for this country.
Post a Comment