WikiLeaks tells reporters 140 things not to say about Julian Assange

[KittenKong]

23 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Lead by example and publish all your own secrets.

Which ones? I'm not aware that I have any secrets that are in any way relevant to other people, because I dont do anything that influences other people's lives.

If I was a politician I would be entirely prepared for my entire personal life and all my business dealings to be published everywhere, simply because there is nothing in them for me to hide.

I'd like to see Donald Trump or indeed any other world leader say the same.

[oldrunner]

Now ask me if I give a shift.

[khunken]

I'm very surprised at Chomper Higgot's ridiculous take on Julian Assange. I wonder if it has anything to do with Wikileaks allegedly supplying the Trump campaign with anti-Clinton ammunition?

 

Others seem to think that Wikileaks supports Russia. That is apparently because they don't target Russian dirt. There's a good reason for that as the western media does all of that, and more. Crimea, Syria, Georgia, & all that hacking 'going on'. Never proof but plenty of finger-pointing. I not saying that there is no possibility that some of it is true, but it remains only a possibility.

 

What Wikileaks does is redress the balance in a truthful way - a way in which the western media can't or won't investigate. How the likes of John Pilger, Seymour Hersh, Robert Parry and others are missed today.

[JimmyJ]

6 hours ago, cleopatra2 said:

How about the fake Wikileak cables that Pakistani Media fabricated against India

How about them?

 

Wikileaks never published them - it's stated by several publications that the cables were done by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) which put Wikileaks name on them.

 

"WikiFakes, made in ISI-stan - Cooked up in Pak, cables spew venom at Indians"

 

“An extensive search of the WikiLeaks database... by date, name and keyword failed to locate any of the incendiary allegations. It suggests this is the first case of WikiLeaks being exploited for propaganda purposes,” The Guardian announced as part of yesterday’s release of genuine WikiLeaks cables."

 

https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/wikifakes-made-in-isi-stan-cooked-up-in-pak-cables-spew-venom-at-indians/cid/450487

 

 

Edited January 7, 2019 by JimmyJ

[stevenl]

13 minutes ago, khunken said:

I'm very surprised at Chomper Higgot's ridiculous take on Julian Assange. I wonder if it has anything to do with Wikileaks allegedly supplying the Trump campaign with anti-Clinton ammunition?

 

Others seem to think that Wikileaks supports Russia. That is apparently because they don't target Russian dirt. There's a good reason for that as the western media does all of that, and more. Crimea, Syria, Georgia, & all that hacking 'going on'. Never proof but plenty of finger-pointing. I not saying that there is no possibility that some of it is true, but it remains only a possibility.

 

What Wikileaks does is redress the balance in a truthful way - a way in which the western media can't or won't investigate. How the likes of John Pilger, Seymour Hersh, Robert Parry and others are missed today.

Allegedly? Beyond doubt Wikileaks helped Trump in the saddle.

 

Redressing the balance? <deleted>, Wikileaks is staying away from Russia for a reason, and Wikileaks does not care about western media reporting on Russia. Wikileaks is about information kept secret, so apparently Russia doesn't have that?

 

To a certain extend I support the principle of Wikileaks, unfortunately they have let go of that principle a long time ago.

[JimmyJ]

21 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Allegedly? Beyond doubt Wikileaks helped Trump in the saddle.

 

Redressing the balance? <deleted>, Wikileaks is staying away from Russia for a reason, and Wikileaks does not care about western media reporting on Russia. Wikileaks is about information kept secret, so apparently Russia doesn't have that?

 

To a certain extend I support the principle of Wikileaks, unfortunately they have let go of that principle a long time ago.

 

"To a certain extend I support the principle of Wikileaks, unfortunately they have let go of that principle a long time ago."

 

This is a common ploy, as phoney and hypocritical as "I believe in Free Speech, but...", after which the speaker inevitably goes on to definitively demonstrate that indeed they do not believe in Free Speech.

At least one other in this thread has made a similar claim.

 

Wikileaks is publishing valuable information in the public interest.

You don't support them if it is "Well, I support publishing this but not this".

 

"Allegedly? Beyond doubt Wikileaks helped Trump in the saddle."

 

If you mean that Wikileaks published material that cast the DNC in a bad light and the publication of truthful documents helped Trump it is a moot point.

 

If you are implying that Wikileaks is supported by Russia or that the Russian state is hacking the DNC and releasing to Wikileaks or any other such unproven neo-McCarthyist conspiracy theories, then yes, allegedly.

I.e., in the absence of evidence.

 

 

 

Edited January 7, 2019 by JimmyJ

[JimmyJ]

4 hours ago, KittenKong said:

Which ones? I'm not aware that I have any secrets that are in any way relevant to other people, because I dont do anything that influences other people's lives.

If I was a politician I would be entirely prepared for my entire personal life and all my business dealings to be published everywhere, simply because there is nothing in them for me to hide.

I'd like to see Donald Trump or indeed any other world leader say the same.

 

Exactly.

 

KittenKong is a private citizen. His/her life is supposed to be private.

 

Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and other politicians are public servants.

What they are doing in the interest of the private citizens they serve is supposed to be transparent.

Edited January 7, 2019 by JimmyJ

[Srinivas]

6 hours ago, JimmyJ said:

This is the sort of thing Wikileaks is referring to - outright smear campaigns absolutely devoid of evidence:

 

"Five Weeks After The Guardian’s Viral Blockbuster Assange-Manafort Scoop, No Evidence Has Emerged — Just Stonewalling"

 

https://theintercept.com/2019/01/02/five-weeks-after-the-guardians-viral-blockbuster-assangemanafort-scoop-no-evidence-has-emerged-just-stonewalling/

 

 

They got a lot of people excited about that nonsense article????

I wouldn't be surprised if that article was used  to get extension for special counsel Mueller. Much like the circular yahoo article for fisa warrants.

very desperate and sloppy.

[JimmyJ]

8 hours ago, Silurian said:

 

Wikileaks is an arm of Russian propaganda. Pure and simple as that.

 

Interesting how they never find any dirt on Russia or Putin.

 

The WikiLeaks-Russia connection started way before the 2016 election

 

Mike Pompeo himself called WikiLeaks a “a non-state hostile intelligence service, often abetted by state actors like Russia.”

 

 

"Mike Pompeo himself called WikiLeaks a 'a non-state hostile intelligence service, often abetted by state actors like Russia.' "

 

 

Mike Pompeo is a highly credible source:

 

"Khashoggi murder: Pompeo says 'no direct evidence' implicates Saudi prince"

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/01/jamal-khashoggi-mike-pompeo-saudi-crown-prince

 

"It Turns Out Mike Pompeo Never Served in the Gulf War"

"Secretary of State-in-waiting Mike Pompeo never served in the Gulf War, even though media outlets and many of his colleagues have repeatedly said he did, and Pompeo has done nothing to dispute their claims."

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/04/it-turns-out-mike-pompeo-never-served-in-the-gulf-war.html

 

 

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, JimmyJ said:

 

"To a certain extend I support the principle of Wikileaks, unfortunately they have let go of that principle a long time ago."

 

This is a common ploy, as phoney and hypocritical as "I believe in Free Speech, but...", after which the speaker inevitably goes on to definitively demonstrate that indeed they do not believe in Free Speech.

At least one other in this thread has made a similar claim.

 

Wikileaks is publishing valuable information in the public interest.

You don't support them if it is "Well, I support publishing this but not this".

 

"Allegedly? Beyond doubt Wikileaks helped Trump in the saddle."

 

If you mean that Wikileaks published material that cast the DNC in a bad light and the publication of truthful documents helped Trump it is a moot point.

 

If you are implying that Wikileaks is supported by Russia or that the Russian state is hacking the DNC and releasing to Wikileaks or any other such unproven neo-McCarthyist conspiracy theories, then yes, allegedly.

I.e., in the absence of evidence.

 

 

 

You obviously don't see the irony in  posting this.

[Silurian]

22 minutes ago, JimmyJ said:

Mike Pompeo is a highly credible source:

 

I assume this was sarcasm. I agree that Pompeo is not reliable and yet the current administration made Pompeo the Secretary of State not to mention him as the previous CIA director as well.

 

I was trying to point out for all those current WH administration supporters that the current Secretary of State (appointed by Trump) also called out that Wikileaks is abetted by Russia.

 

Ah, the irony.

[seahorse]

I find this very hard to believe. The mainstream media would never lie. 

[Srinivas]

13 minutes ago, seahorse said:

I find this very hard to believe. The mainstream media would never lie. 

Well maybe they are covered  under domestic propaganda law if first amendment arguments fail in court.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/07/americans-finally-have-access-american-propaganda/313305/

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, khunken said:

I'm very surprised at Chomper Higgot's ridiculous take on Julian Assange. I wonder if it has anything to do with Wikileaks allegedly supplying the Trump campaign with anti-Clinton ammunition?

 

Others seem to think that Wikileaks supports Russia. That is apparently because they don't target Russian dirt. There's a good reason for that as the western media does all of that, and more. Crimea, Syria, Georgia, & all that hacking 'going on'. Never proof but plenty of finger-pointing. I not saying that there is no possibility that some of it is true, but it remains only a possibility.

 

What Wikileaks does is redress the balance in a truthful way - a way in which the western media can't or won't investigate. How the likes of John Pilger, Seymour Hersh, Robert Parry and others are missed today.

What’s ridiculous about the following FACTS:

 

Assange is not a prisoner.

Assange is in the Ecuadorean Embassy completely of his own volition.

Assange can leave the Ecuadorean Embassy when ever he chooses.

Assange jumped bail and will be tried in an open court for having done so.

The US may seek to extradite Assange, if the US chooses to do so his extradition shall be subject to transparent judicial review.

If Assange is extradited to the US his extradition will include guarantees that he does not face execution or torture (without such guarantees flee will not be extradited).

 

Please offer any corrections you may have but do think before doing so.

Edited January 7, 2019 by Chomper Higgot

[Chomper Higgot]

10 hours ago, JimmyJ said:

This is the sort of thing Wikileaks is referring to - outright smear campaigns absolutely devoid of evidence:

 

"Five Weeks After The Guardian’s Viral Blockbuster Assange-Manafort Scoop, No Evidence Has Emerged — Just Stonewalling"

 

https://theintercept.com/2019/01/02/five-weeks-after-the-guardians-viral-blockbuster-assangemanafort-scoop-no-evidence-has-emerged-just-stonewalling/

 

 

I’d laugh at that if if were not so pitiful.

 

Contacts between Manafort and Assange fall within the remit of the investigation being run by Special Council Robert Mueller.

 

Even the most ardent opponents of Mueller’s investigation admit that he runs a tight, leak proof ship.

 

That you, or anyone else, has no further news on contacts between Manafort and Assange is absolutely not an indication that those contacts did not take place or that they are not being investigated.

 

I suggest you do what Assange is doing, wait patiently - the truth will out.

 

And it’s not as if Assange is going anywhere in the meantime.

Edited January 7, 2019 by Chomper Higgot

[khunken]

26 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What’s ridiculous about the following FACTS:

 

Assange is not a prisoner.

Assange is in the Ecuadorean Embassy completely of his own volition.

Assange can leave the Ecuadorean Embassy when ever he chooses.

Assange jumped bail and will be tried in an open court for having done so.

The US may seek to extradite Assange, if the US chooses to do so his extradition shall be subject to transparent judicial review.

If Assange is extradited to the US his extradition will include guarantees that he does not face execution or torture (without such guarantees flee will not be extradited).

 

Please offer any corrections you may have but do think before doing so.

You know damn well that Assange is a virtual prisoner when he cannot leave the Ecuador embassy without being arrested.

You also know damn well that it's not any trial in London that he is fearful of but extradition by the always compliant UK to anything the US wants (including wars etc). Mentioning guarantees by the US just shows how flippant you are about extradition and the trumped-up (sic) charges that he may well face in the US.

 

He and Wikileaks have provided an invaluable service to the public by revealing wartime excesses, rendition & torture in Iraq and Afghanistan - and the rendition torture chamber locations, including in Thailand.

 

I normally like many of your posts but you've let yourself down here. I'll ask again: is it the Trump factor that has you taking this stance?

 

 

[Credo]

1 hour ago, khunken said:

You know damn well that Assange is a virtual prisoner when he cannot leave the Ecuador embassy without being arrested.

You also know damn well that it's not any trial in London that he is fearful of but extradition by the always compliant UK to anything the US wants (including wars etc). Mentioning guarantees by the US just shows how flippant you are about extradition and the trumped-up (sic) charges that he may well face in the US.

 

<snipped>

He was fearful of a rape charge, now he's fearful of extradition.   It sounds like he is a pretty fearful person; I think they call that being a coward.   

 

Like a lot of people he is pretty brave when he's safely behind a computer keyboard.   

 

[khunken]

12 minutes ago, Credo said:

He was fearful of a rape charge, now he's fearful of extradition.   It sounds like he is a pretty fearful person; I think they call that being a coward.   

 

Like a lot of people he is pretty brave when he's safely behind a computer keyboard.   

 

Just like you for calling him a coward - cowardly.

 

He wasn't fearful of the rape charge but of the Swedes doing what the UK will do if they can - etradite him to the US, who wanted to get their claws into him.

Edited January 7, 2019 by khunken

[JimmyJ]

2 hours ago, Credo said:

He was fearful of a rape charge, now he's fearful of extradition.   It sounds like he is a pretty fearful person; I think they call that being a coward.   

 

Like a lot of people he is pretty brave when he's safely behind a computer keyboard.   

 

 

He was never fearful of a rape charge. From the beginning he has been willing to be questioned regarding those allegations at the Ecuadoran Embassy.

Sweden wasn't really interested in questioning him, or they would have met his demand.

 

 

 

Those allegations have been dropped. He always realized that this was a ploy to being extradited to the US. And he's been proven correct recently as it was proven that the US has filed a secret indictment against him.

 

He's heroically published from the beginning, realizing he's risking his freedom.

He continued posting from the Embassy, even after attempts to silence him were made and he was further risking his freedom.

 

 

 

Edited January 7, 2019 by JimmyJ

[JimmyJ]

2 hours ago, khunken said:

Just like you for calling him a coward - cowardly.

 

 

Exactly.

[stevenl]

5 hours ago, JimmyJ said:

 

He was never fearful of a rape charge. From the beginning he has been willing to be questioned regarding those allegations at the Ecuadoran Embassy.

Sweden wasn't really interested in questioning him, or they would have met his demand.

 

 

 

Those allegations have been dropped. He always realized that this was a ploy to being extradited to the US. And he's been proven correct recently as it was proven that the US has filed a secret indictment against him.

 

He's heroically published from the beginning, realizing he's risking his freedom.

He continued posting from the Embassy, even after attempts to silence him were made and he was further risking his freedom.

 

 

 

They would have met his demand? His demand?

 

And therein lies the problem.

[Chomper Higgot]

9 hours ago, khunken said:

You know damn well that Assange is a virtual prisoner when he cannot leave the Ecuador embassy without being arrested.

You also know damn well that it's not any trial in London that he is fearful of but extradition by the always compliant UK to anything the US wants (including wars etc). Mentioning guarantees by the US just shows how flippant you are about extradition and the trumped-up (sic) charges that he may well face in the US.

 

He and Wikileaks have provided an invaluable service to the public by revealing wartime excesses, rendition & torture in Iraq and Afghanistan - and the rendition torture chamber locations, including in Thailand.

 

I normally like many of your posts but you've let yourself down here. I'll ask again: is it the Trump factor that has you taking this stance?

 

 

Please moderate your language.

 

Your assertions as to what I know are nothing more than gaslighting.

 

By example, if a young man gets charged with burglarizing people’s homes he gets put on trial. 

If he’s given bail and skips bail he will face arrest and prosecution for skipping bail, regardless of how his trial for burglary goes.

 

If he hides in his grandmother’s cellar for years to avoid arrest, time spent in his granny’s cellar is not ‘imprisonment’, it is not ‘virtual imprisonment’ it is not ‘time served’.

 

It is time spent avoiding justice and a serious contempt of court.

 

Assange is hiding from justice.

 

I have more respect for anyone of the people who honor their bail and turn up if their own volition to face the courts when required by law to do do, than for the coward hiding in the Ecuadorean Embassy.

 

You clearly do not understand the legal process for granting extradition requests and the fact the UK does obtain guarantees that person’s extradited to the US will not face torture or capital punishment.

 

Without those guarantees the UK courts do not grant extradition.

 

You, and non of Assange’s supporters, have given any indication as to how arresting and putting Assange on trial in open courts of law prevents Wikileaks from continuing to do what Wikileaks does.

 

I’m pleased you like some of my posts, I have absolutely no explanation that anyone likes all my posts.

 

If you pause tothink about my response here you will see it is based on support for open legal process and that nobody be permitted to avoid open legal process when they face criminal charges.

[Credo]

It's probably worth remembering that Assange didn't pay the bail.   His supporters put up money for bail and they lost it.   That's pretty low, IMO.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

58 minutes ago, Credo said:

It's probably worth remembering that Assange didn't pay the bail.   His supporters put up money for bail and they lost it.   That's pretty low, IMO.

 

From memory it was a single supporter who was also providing Assange with a place to live during his bail, it is he who lost his bail bond.

 

When dealing with a toxic narcissist, no good deed goes in punished.

 

TVF members may also recall the laughable request by Assange that the court keep his address secret.

 

Well we all know exactly were he’s now hiding.