Julian Assange to be thrown under the bus

[Jerry Russell]

Julian Assange has been held in solitary confinement in the Ecuador embassy since 2012, and completely incommunicado since March 28 of this year. Now, Ecuador says they're in process of reaching a "definite agreement" with Britain, to "resolve" the situation. Of course, the only agreement Britain could possibly settle for, would involve extradition of Assange to the US for prosecution.

There's been some theorizing in alternative media, that Assange could be some sort of double agent. As far as I can understand it, this is because none of the documents leaked by Assange have anything to reveal about 9/11.

But, I don't see how this proves anything about Assange himself. Maybe his sources haven't provided that information -- either because they themselves don't have it, or because they're "limited hang-outs".

Whether he is sincere or not, at this point Assange is a symbol for freedom of information. The persecution and harassment of Assange is a symbol for the government's attack on freedom of speech.

The government is demanding the privilege to commit war crimes and mayhem under cover of darkness, while it expects ordinary citizens to live in a fishbowl. Assange stands at the forefront of resistance to this trend, and deserves to be supported.

 

[Jerry Russell]

It's finally happened: Assange has been arrested and taken into British custody, by mutual action of Ecuador and Britain.

This is a flagrant violation of international law, because of Assange's status as a political refugee. It must be resisted by all possible means.

An indictment has been issued, and the case is not being framed as a free speech issue. Instead, Assange is being charged with conspiracy with Chelsea Manning to hack a password to government computers. This was discussed back in 2010, and went nowhere. As Mike Masnick explains at techdirt.com:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101216/00384912296/us-looking-to-use-computer-hacking-law-against-assange.shtml

It appears that the US government is realizing the fact that an espionage charge against Julian Assange over Wikileaks is unlikely to succeed and would probably freak out the press (at least those in the press who remember the details of the First Amendment). So, instead, it's moved on to trying to use the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), commonly known as our anti-hacking law. ​

​

Of course, as we noted a few months ago, this law has been twisted and abused regularly to bring charges against people by pretending it covers things it doesn't. The most famous, of course, was the Lori Drew case, where prosecutors tried to charge Lori Drew with computer hacking, because she was part of a trio of people who used MySpace to bully a young girl, who later committed suicide. How was that "hacking"? Well, the prosecutors claimed that she didn't obey MySpace's terms of service, and thus "illegally accessed" MySpace. Luckily, the judge eventually tossed that out. ​

​

So what about Julian Assange? How could he have possibly violated a US anti-hacking while not being in the US at all? Well, the feds are apparently scanning through the chat logs between Bradley Manning and Adrian Lamo to see if there's any evidence at all that Assange could be charged with conspiracy under the CFAA in somehow aiding Manning in leaking the secrets. You can read the CFAA here if you want to see the full act. The argument, then, is that if they can drum up enough proof that Assange somehow aided Manning, it becomes a conspiracy and Assange can be charged under that act as well. So far, about the best they've apparently come up with is that Manning hinted that he had a "relationship" with Assange -- but the details in the chat logs suggest they talked a few times and that's about the extent of the "relationship." Separately, Assange gave Manning (and potentially other sources) a more direct FTP account to upload materials. Once again, this seems like grasping at straws, and seems so trumped up that it will continue to do more to hurt America's reputation than anything leaked by Wikileaks.​

But that was nine years ago. Now, apparently, they are interpreting a cryptic remark in those same chat logs, to allege that Assange was trying to help Manning to crack a password. It seems clear that all the data actually transmitted by Manning was obtained with his own password. if indeed there was every any thought about cracking another password, nothing came of it. Or at least, that seems to be all the meat that's in the the story, as told by USA Today. And the US mainstream press is passing on this ridiculous argument as if there's some merit to it.

Caitlin Johnstone sees this as a landmark event:

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/04/11/assange-has-been-arrested-for-us-extradition-the-time-to-act-is-now

This is it, folks. This is where we find out what we’re made of as a species. This is where we find out if humanity gets to survive, and if it deserves to. If we can’t stop the empire from imprisoning a journalist for publishing facts right in front of our eyes, we might as well roll over and tap out right now, because if we lose this one it’s never going to get any better from there. If we can’t pass this test, the oligarchs and the opaque government agencies which are allied with them will march us into extinction or Orwellian dystopia, and there’ll be no tool in our toolbox to stop them. We need to seriously dig deep on this one.​

But just a few days ago, Johnstone was arguing for optimism. World history hinging on one event? Or, Caitlin's psychological state oscillating?

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/04/06/qa-manipulators-optimism-utopia-trump-writing-tips-more/

“How do you stay so optimistic and positive, given all the corruption in politics and the media? How do you suggest others do the same?”​

​

I remain optimistic because what the hell else am I going to do? The alternative is to roll over and stop fighting against the depraved sociopaths who are poisoning our world, and fuck that. Optimism and pessimism are choices that you make of your own volition; one means staying in the fight, the other means tapping out and preparing for death. For me it’s a no-brainer.​

​

The other half of optimism is having enough basic humility to understand that there are things you don’t know. It’s easy to look at a bunch of data and trends and conclude that it’s all hopeless, but that’s actually a very arrogant and dishonest thing to do. By saying you know it’s hopeless, you’re pretending to know everything about humankind and its limitations, to know that we’ve got no surprises left. Nobody who’s explored their own inner world with a good amount of sincere effort would ever do that, because looking within reveals that there are vast universes within us which are almost entirely unexplored. There’s no way to know that humanity doesn’t have any surprises lurking in those huge dark caverns, and there are plenty of reasons to believe that it does.​

​

I suggest others become optimistic by choosing optimism. You don’t become a pessimist because the facts say X, Y and Z, you become a pessimist because you chose it. In return you get to relax and stop fighting, and you get to lean back and feel smug and superior to all those idiots who still think they can win this thing, but the cost is exiting the fight. Not worth it, in my opinion.​

​

 

[Richard Stanley]

There has been some conjecture that the DOJ sent a plane to England to pick up Assange. And so the discussions on emptywheel:

...​

Read bmaz’s take on Assange’s extradition to the U.S. and the DOJ’s charges against him.​

​

Now here’s where it gets interesting for me, given how upset many of us were with Attorney General Bill Barr’s appearance before Congress in which he hedged about the Special Counsel’s Report except to say it would be released next week:​

​

Has anyone outside DOJ, or anyone in the White House, seen portions or all of Mueller’s report?​

​

Attorney General William Barr, in part: “The report’s going to be out next week, and I’m just not going to get into the details of the process until the plane’s on the ground.” pic.twitter.com/J0Im53Eix0​

— PBS NewsHour (@NewsHour) April 10, 2019​

Emphasis mine. Was the plane Barr mentioned a figurative one or a literal one?​

https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/04/11/its-plane-to-see/​

 

[Richard Stanley]

For the record, here's the Trump Wikileaks compilation: https://www.msnbc.com/ali-velshi/watch/after-spending-campaign-praising-wikileaks-trump-says-he-knows-nothing-about-them-1488506947507

I still say Assange, like Trump and QAnon, is part of the REAL Deep State Shit Show. And in this regard, note (from the bmaz link above) that there is only one charge (out a supposed laundry list) that the USA can apply to Assange, because of the international Law of Speciality (applicable to extraditions).

 

[Jerry Russell]

I still say Assange, like Trump and QAnon, is part of the REAL Deep State Shit Show.

And so what if he is? Whether or not this is true, the case is setting a precedent for persecuting, imprisoning and jailing journalists.

And in this regard, note (from the bmaz link above) that there is only one charge (out a supposed laundry list) that the USA can apply to Assange, because of the international Law of Speciality (applicable to extraditions).

The linked article says that the US has only declared one charge at this time. If the government wanted the right under the Law of Speciality to press more charges, all they need to do is declare them.

The US also has the right to ask the UK to waive the Law of Speciality.

One might also consider: since when does the US pay any attention to anyone else's interpretation of international law? If the UK or Ecuador gave a rat's ass about international law, this couldn't be happening in the first place.

In this rather unique situation, I tend to agree with the reported comments from Jeff Toobin and Shimon Prokupecz from CNN, that more charges might be forthcoming. Or at any rate, if the DOJ wants to press more charges, they have several avenues open to get around the limits posed by extradition laws.

 

[Jerry Russell]

For the record, here's the Trump Wikileaks compilation: https://www.msnbc.com/ali-velshi/watch/after-spending-campaign-praising-wikileaks-trump-says-he-knows-nothing-about-them-1488506947507

This is rather impressive. Trump is quoted over and over again, giving details of data releases from Wikileaks, and expressing his greatest love and appreciation for them. And now, when Assange could use some support from the President, he says he knows nothing about them.

When it comes to treachery, turning against one's fair weather friends, there is no one like Trump. Except maybe old Josephus.

The above-linked compilation from MSNBC should be viewed together with this brief video from today. What a snake. Anybody who's still supporting Trump, really has some 'splainin to do.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Was the plane Barr mentioned a figurative one or a literal one?

Finally, deep in the comments to the articles at Emptywheel, I found an explanation of how Assange might be related to the Mueller investigation. The theory is that the DOJ might be planning to offer Assange an easy plea bargain, in return for testifying as to what he knows about Trump.

It occurs to me that perhaps Assange might contribute to a new investigation, against Democrats who instigated the Mueller action against Trump in the first place. Hmm... I suppose it's possible, but that would be quite a plot twist.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Hmm... I suppose it's possible, but that would be quite a plot twist.

I'm going to take that back, where I said it's possible. It's completely ridiculous.

If the DOJ was looking for honest testimony from Assange, they would just give him an unconditional pardon, and let him say what he has to say from anywhere in the world.

If they want coerced testimony that no-one is going to believe, then maybe they bring Assange back to the US and have him testify according to their orders, and under threat of torture. But if that's the plan, there's not going to be any easy plea bargain until after they're done with him.

 

[Richard Stanley]

against Democrats who instigated the Mueller action against Trump in the first place.

Namely?

Jeff Sessions, Rod Rosenstein, James Comey, Mueller, most of the SCO prosecutors, FBI agent Strzok and FBI lawyer, Lisa Page, and more are all Republicans, Trump's bizarre claims to the contrary noted. And Trump not ever having been a Republican also noted.

I found an explanation of how Assange might be related to the Mueller investigation. The theory is that the DOJ might be planning to offer Assange an easy plea bargain, in return for testifying as to what he knows about Trump.

Or, the single current charge juxtaposed against the Law of Specialty may be an easy way to let Assange off the hook, if indeed he is a REAL Deep State double agent.

I can't figure out why Ecuador didn't just put Assange into a shipping container, under diplomatic seal, and fly him out of England.

 

[Richard Stanley]

If the DOJ was looking for honest testimony from Assange, they would just give him an unconditional pardon, and let him say what he has to say from anywhere in the world.

Seriously?

 

[Jerry Russell]

Namely?

In addition to Hillary Clinton herself, Kevin Gosztola gives this list:

https://medium.com/@kevin_33184/its-time-to-reckon-with-clinton-democrats-who-pushed-russiagate-9ecb67cb60ae

Even as it became abundantly clear that Mueller would uncover no smoking gun evidence to prove a conspiracy, these people remained invested in the narrative.​

​

The Clinton campaign’s rapid response director, Zac Petkanas, unequivocally stated, “Every day the investigations by special counsel Robert Mueller and those on Capitol Hill show that Kremlin-gate is not only very real but has the makings of a massive criminal conspiracy of historic proportions.”​

​

Podesta regularly appeared in the press to remind citizens that his email account was hacked, and he believed emails in his account were “weaponized” by Russians so Trump would win.​

​

“If Trump is effectively a Russian asset, at what point do the staff who support him become accessories to Russia’s plan too?” Mook wrote.​

​

Center for American Progress president Neera Tanden, who was a campaign advisor, said, “Isn’t it kinda clear that Trump wouldn’t have won without Russia’s help? Wake up America.”​

​

Joel Benenson, chief strategist and pollster for the Clinton campaign, declared, “I find White House intrigue less newsworthy than the fact that every day Donald Trump acts like Putin has him by the short hairs. Trump is a bully who acts like a scared puppy in every interaction with Putin & Russia.”​

​

Adam Parkhomenko, founder of the Ready for Hillary super PAC, suggested, “In reality, Trump has been a chaos agent for Russia for years. He was just more transparent with his insane accusations towards President Obama.”​

​

“Trump has got to be one of the dumbest, most valuable, and most susceptible (kompromat) assets Russia has ever had all at the same time,” Parkhomenko added.​

​

Former CIA director and secretary of defense Leon Panetta was a senior foreign policy advisor for the campaign. He was a regular commentator on CNN and MSNBC and contended, “Whether the Russians have something on this president or not, no one really knows, but the way he behaves, there is a clear signal that the Russians have something on him.”​

​

Many of the people who believed Hillary Clinton would be a proper custodian of American superpower relied on the Trump-Russia narrative to pressure the Trump administration to follow their preferred U.S. foreign policy doctrine. Foreign policy advisors, like Jake Sullivan and Michele Flournoy, found platforms to advocate against Trump’s diplomatic overtures to Russia.​

​

PBS FRONTLINE produced a series of interviews for their documentary called, “Putin’s Revenge,” which featured a who’s who gallery of individuals politically aligned with the Clinton campaign: former CIA director John Brennan; former director of national intelligence James Clapper; former Homeland Security director Jeh Johnson; former US ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul; former spokesperson for U.S. State Department, Victoria Nuland; Rep. Adam Schiff; former deputy secretary of state for Bill Clinton’s administration, Strobe Talbott; and Podesta and Sullivan.​

​

Former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, who was part of the Clinton administration, said Trump was the “gift that keeps giving to Putin.”​

​

Jeff Sessions, Rod Rosenstein, James Comey, Mueller, most of the SCO prosecutors, FBI agent Strzok and FBI lawyer, Lisa Page, and more are all Republicans, Trump's bizarre claims to the contrary noted.

As bizarre as it might seem, I'm sure that Miss Kitty and much of Trump's base would agree that these are all RINO's (Republican In Name Only). For that matter, Nixon and Reagan would hardly pass as Republicans today. And don't forget John McCain, an obvious traitor to the Republican Party.

Seriously?

No, seriously, that could obviously never happen. Except in some alternate universe where "innocent until proven guilty" would be the actual rule, and not just a propaganda slogan.

 

[Richard Stanley]

No, seriously, that could obviously never happen. Except in some alternate universe where "innocent until proven guilty" would be the actual rule, and not just a propaganda slogan.

Well, we'd have to pay a lot less in taxes for prisons, because fewer people would be in them. The mafiosi and many politicos, among others, would be soooo happy.

In addition to Hillary Clinton herself, Kevin Gosztola gives this list:

OK, but to be fair you said "instigated", and the article only discusses these individuals in the context of commenting after the fact of the investigation. Who, then, "instigated" the investigation?

As bizarre as it might seem, I'm sure that Miss Kitty and much of Trump's base would agree that these are all RINO's (Republican In Name Only). For that matter, Nixon and Reagan would hardly pass as Republicans today. And don't forget John McCain, an obvious traitor to the Republican Party.

The big irony is that Trump and his base don't give flying fuck about the republic and it's constitutional tradition of the Rule of Law. As such, Trump's base is American In Name Only, as well as (r)epublican In Name Only (rINO).

 

[Jerry Russell]

but to be fair you said "instigated"

Online dictionaries say "instigate" means "to urge on, goad, stir up, or foment" and not just "initiate".

Who, then, "instigated" the investigation?

Apparently this was a rather obscure chain of events. Checking good ol' Wikipedia again: one version has it that Joseph Mifsud, a university professor who somehow has connections with Russian officials, told George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign foreign policy advisor, that the Russians had obtained Hillary Clinton's emails. Papadopoulos passed this information on to others in the Trump campaign, and also gossiped about it with foreign diplomats including an Australian ambassador to Great Britain. This ambassador passed the word on to the FBI, which commenced the investigation.

Another version says that the FBI started the investigation upon receiving a copy of the Steele "dirty dossier" from John McCain's office.

The investigation at that time, was under authority of James Comey, a Republican appointed by Obama as head of the FBI. Obama, a DINO who would appoint a Republican FBI head? Anyhow, Comey quit the Republican party and became an independent in 2016, just in time to get fired by Trump, who was apparently hoping to kill this investigation, perhaps as well as others then in progress.

Some ~130 Democrat and ~40 Republican congressmen called for an independent investigation at that point, which led to Mueller's appointment as special counsel. So it was a bipartisan effort, but primarily Democrat. There was enormous buzz in the press by that time, May 2017.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Jeff Sessions, Rod Rosenstein, James Comey, Mueller, most of the SCO prosecutors, FBI agent Strzok and FBI lawyer, Lisa Page, and more are all Republicans, Trump's bizarre claims to the contrary noted. And Trump not ever having been a Republican also noted.

Let's don't forget the FISA judges involved, all Republicans.

Since Assange and Putin are your especialities, Jerry, here are some questions for you to resolve, maybe within my conjecture that Assange is a double agent for the REAL Deep State:

• Did Assange claim that the Panama Papers were a USA and Soros psyop (apparently because the yuuuge international team of investigative reporters wouldn't let him 'play in' (to use the golf term))?
• Did Assange subsequently get an RT gig (remembering here former DIA chief General "Benedict Arnold" Flynn)?
• Did Assange claim that Russia was but "a bit player" and: "Every man and his dog is criticizing Russia. It’s a bit boring, isn’t it?"
• Did Wikileaks play a role in helping incite the Arab Spring (and thus the heavy destabilizing immigration into Europe)?

Concerning Panama, let's remember that it was Bush 41 who invaded there and arrested poor Liddle Manuel Noriega, another of our once good intel/narcotrafficante 'friends'. Albeit one could conjecture that the money laundering condos, golf courses, and such could have been run under such as Noriega as well. But maybe Panama itself was laundered, so that good old fashioned money laundering could have a fresh start? Maybe forming something of a 'honey pot'?

Thinking of honey pots, this makes me remember my typological comparison of Trump to Samson, where Samson kills a young lion with his bare hands, then comes back later to the carcass and finds a hive of honey bees in it. The lion, of course, is the symbol for the tribe of Judah, and the one thing we are informed of is that Samson has an agenda to create an occasion against the hapless Philistines. All the while the 'Judeans' are scared liddle (r)epublicans, willing to do anything to appease Samson. But the (r)epublic will be soon over as the kings are taking over.

Of course, as we have learned, both Samson's (the weird haired Nazarite) Danites and the Philistines are both functionaries of the prior Sea Peoples 'invasions', managed by the typological equivalent of today's Hapsburg Group and the Deep Vatican (whom control Liddle Stevo Bannon - producer of Titus Andronicus). The Hapsburg Group is akin to the 'noble' Mont Pelerin Society, that advanced the honey pot of anarcho-libertarianism upon the Republic, ironically unleashing the fake news feverswamps of populism.

The symbology of the dead lion being used by a Nazarite is fully consistent with my larger analyses, and for one that the 'Jewish' Bible states that the Jews serve someone else. And they, Samson and Trump (the visible actors), are figuratively cuckholding the Jews, leaving them in their traditional role of scapegoats, for the nimrods that take the bait - as always. The nimrods will read this 10 times over and refuse to believe it, because their frames are set in reinforced concrete.

Imagine those Jews, back in the day, saying, OMG, the Homeland is being Invaded. But an odd man (with noble parents), fathered by an angel, with long orange hair, comes along from God (aka the pharaoh), and tells them that only he can save them. They subconciously remember a TV show from a few decades before, where a man named Samson said he was going to save them, but it was discovered that he was a conman. Their subconscious forgot that last part.

What, you're telling me they didn't have TV back then? WTF

 

[Jerry Russell]

Did Assange claim that the Panama Papers were a USA and Soros psyop (apparently because the yuuuge international team of investigative reporters wouldn't let him 'play in' (to use the golf term))?

Assange said that only about 1% of the documents recovered in the Panama Papers leak were released. And, it seems that the "yuuuge international team of investigative reporters" involved in filtering and vetting the release was indeed funded by Soros and the US government. So, Assange's complaint seems to be accurate, although I'm not sure he used the word "psyop".

But, let's suppose that the selection of released documents was completely unbiased, and that Assange's complaint was based 100% out of jealousy and personal vanity. I guess the only reason anyone is ever jealous or vain, is because they're a double agent with the Real Deep State??

Did Assange subsequently get an RT gig (remembering here former DIA chief General "Benedict Arnold" Flynn)?

There's an argument that because of Flynn's security clearance and status as an ex-General, he was perhaps barred from the RT gig. His accepting the money was (possibly) a violation of the emoluments clause, or perhaps he was required to declare his status as a foreign agent when he went to renew his security clearance.

Assange is an Australian, and Wikileaks is headquartered in Iceland. And he's a journalist, not a General with a security clearance. So where's the problem with his taking a job with Russian state television? And, are you claiming that everyone who's ever worked for RT is a double agent with the Real Deep State??

Did Assange claim that Russia was but "a bit player" and: "Every man and his dog is criticizing Russia. It’s a bit boring, isn’t it?"

Yes he did. And indeed, Russia's GDP and military budget are a small fraction of NATO's. Maybe that's what he meant when he said they're a "bit player." And I would be bored with all the bitching about Russia too, except for the likelihood that one of their "bit player" nuclear missiles is targeting the Eugene Airport.

So everybody who is unimpressed and/or bored with Russia, is a double agent with the Real Deep State??

Did Wikileaks play a role in helping incite the Arab Spring (and thus the heavy destabilizing immigration into Europe)?

It seems that Wikileaks played a role, in that their release of diplomatic cables revealed the corruption of Arab governments, and thus encouraged the people to rise up against them. The destabilizing immigration into Europe occurred to the extent that the rebellions failed or became mired in civil wars.

And to the extent that the Arab Spring was a failure, whose fault was that? Was it Assange's fault, or the people who rebelled against their repressive governments? Or was it the fault of reactionary forces, quite possibly allied with the Real Deep State?

I guess it's obvious then, that anyone who appears to oppose the Real Deep State, must in fact be a double agent allied with the Real Deep State??

Thinking of honey pots, this makes me remember my typological comparison of Trump to Samson,

OK, so Assange is the typological honey pot. The provider of sweet words and information. But if there's a "Real Deep State" intervention here, isn't it more likely that the Deep State Actors would be Assange's information sources, perhaps at second remove? (Who had the bright idea to give Bradley Manning access to so much information?)

In this case, even if reality is different from perception, I've argued that it's the perception that's important here.

The perception is that the Deep State wants to bottle up the honey, and keep the people starved of honey. They want to keep the honey sewed up inside the dead lion. Those of us who aren't the Deep State, we want the honey.

 

[Richard Stanley]

What I have just written prior, about the Samson and Trump typology, I will be cross-posting to other relevant threads soon.

OK, so Assange is the typological honey pot. The provider of sweet words and information. But if there's a "Real Deep State" intervention here, isn't it more likely that the Deep State Actors would be Assange's information sources, perhaps at second remove? (Who had the bright idea to give Bradley Manning access to so much information?)

In this case, even if reality is different from perception, I've argued that it's the perception that's important here.

Absolutely, here Assange may be an unwitting useful idiot. The release of the information (Manning, Snowden, DNC) has led to the furthering political divide, and this is most important to my analysis, lesser so what some particular individuals' real motives are.

That said, I would also like to add that the Assange phenomenon IMO (not (IMHO) should be viewed in the immortal words of FDR, who stated that nothing of significance happens in Washington D.C. happens unless it was intended so (by the PTB that is). This should have been extended to the world stage as well, and since the Assange/Wikileaks narrative is so tightly wound into the Trump narrative, I insist that this is not another instance of claimed Coincidence Theory in operation. Same goes for Putin and Trump's Put(in) Put(in) Golden Golf courses.

This is all Dreamland mind magic that mesmerizes fake Gentiles (serfers) into becoming virtual Jews, aka the neoChosen People. The OG Jewish narrative begins in earnest with Moses cultural inversion, turning good pagan Canaanites into Hebrews into Jews, by carrot and stick means over centuries. America's freed Euro serfers came to America's New Canaan and turned it into their Shining Shitty on a Hill, they became virtual xenophobic Jews, radicalized into the American Talban by such as Billy Grahamcrackerites and then Trump.

As such, I'm guesing one of the only few innocents in this tableau is Seth Rich, who made a very good patsy, dead men don't talk. Somebody, it doesn't really matter who, used his identity, his login credentials, to steal the DNC data where it made its way to Wikileaks. VV Put Put Putin doesn't seem to give a damn to correct the record, and neither do the frightened neoJudeans, the Trumpublicans, most likely who've had too much fudge packed well riding their respective asses. For instance, Lindsey Graham and Jim Jordan (the wrestling coach).

In this case, even if reality is different from perception, I've argued that it's the perception that's important here.

The perception is that the Deep State wants to bottle up the honey, and keep the people starved of honey. They want to keep the honey sewed up inside the dead lion. Those of us who aren't the Deep State, we want the honey.

That's right, and the honey is the tempting bait, and most people have taken it, seeing it from their respective POVs. One side wants to cheer on the prosecution/pressure of Assange so that they can get fascist grifter Trump, while the other side wants to cheer on Assange and Trump, forgetting about the Rule of Law and their precious republic in doing so.

Just found out that over 1 million high capacity ammo clips were sold in California in two weeks time recently, as a federal judge temporarily opened a window in CA's restriction on them. I wonder if Miss Kitty loaded up? This is what it's really all about. Ginning up the coming civil war.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Absolutely, here Assange may be an unwitting useful idiot. The release of the information (Manning, Snowden, DNC) has led to the furthering political divide, and this is most important to my analysis, lesser so what some particular individuals' real motives are.

I don't agree that he's either "useful", or "an idiot".

The way I would see it, the release of the Manning information has led to a very few people understanding the malevolence of the US military in Iraq. The release of the Snowden information has let to a very few people understanding the surveillance power of the US intelligence apparatus. The release of the DNC information has led to a very few people understanding that the USA is not a real democracy, and that Democratic Party insiders are no friends of democracy, and that Hillary Clinton is no friend of democracy.

As to information about some "Real Deep State" existing somewhere above the USA, perhaps in the Vatican or Astana, Kazakhstan, there's nothing much there to confirm or deny. But maybe the reason is, that there is no such thing as a "Real Deep State" controlling the US from the Vatican or Astana? Maybe it's all just memes, history and the power of ancient self-fulfilling prophecies and false belief systems? Perish the thought.

If indeed the information is compromised in some way, so as to lead to false conclusions, you haven't proven that. On the contrary, the information seems to lead to valid factual conclusions. And that's why there's such a strenuous ongoing effort to talk about everything except the actual facts that Assange has revealed.

At the level of mass media and the PTB, there is no conflict about Assange. Democrats and Republicans agree, they want him dead. Trump and Hillary agree, they want him dead. MSNBC and Fox News agree, the sooner he's buried in the ground and forgotten, the better.

Am I missing something? As far as I know, the biggest media voice calling for release of Assange and Manning is "The Intercept", which is aptly named: a billionaire funded intelligence front that intercepted the bulk of the Snowden information and won't publish it, while claiming to be a progressive voice. And then there's Jimmy Dore, and John Pilger, and Chris Hedges, and Paul Craig Roberts, and Craig Murray, all of whom held prestigious positions in media or government in days gone by, but are now refugees from the system, reduced to begging on Patreon.

And then there are lots of obscure little websites like this one.

The release of the information (Manning, Snowden, DNC) has led to the furthering political divide, and this is most important to my analysis,

So you're saying that if it wasn't for Assange, Manning & Snowden, that the Trump Republicans and the MSNBC Democrats could set aside their differences? Once Assange is dead, then the alt-right will make peace with antifa, and the wolf and the lamb shall graze together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox?

the Assange/Wikileaks narrative is so tightly wound into the Trump narrative,

It's not Assange's fault that Trump wove Wikileaks into his narrative. Assange famously said that choosing between Trump & Hillary was like choosing between cholera or gonorrhea. And now, it's Trump's DOJ that's working so hard to get Assange extradited to the US.

VV Put Put Putin doesn't seem to give a damn to correct the record

I don't understand what you want Putin to say, other than what he's said already? Putin has repeatedly and strenuously denied that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, or that they gave any data to Wikileaks. Most recently, day before yesterday.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/04/10/vladimir-putin-mocks-mueller-investigation-denies-election-meddling/3420816002/?bcmt=1

Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke about special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into 2016 election interference for the first time publicly since the probe concluded and mocked it as a failure, saying, "a mountain gave birth to a mouse." ​

​

"It was clear for us from the start that it would end like this," Putin said Tuesday of the investigation, even though the report has not been made public. He made the remarks at a forum on the Arctic in St. Petersburg, Russia.​

​

"The mountain gave birth to a mouse, as they say," Putin said, according to The Moscow Times. ....​

​

Putin ignored the alleged evidence against his government and repeated his previous denials of the Kremlin's efforts to sway the election against the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton. ​

​

"We have been saying from the start that this notorious commission led by Mr. Mueller won’t find anything, because no one knows better than us: Russia has not meddled in any U.S. election," Putin said. ​

​

He called the claims that Russians colluded with the Trump campaign "sheer nonsense aimed at a domestic audience and used for domestic political infighting in the United States." ​

 

[Jerry Russell]

As such, I'm guesing one of the only few innocents in this tableau is Seth Rich, who made a very good patsy, dead men don't talk. Somebody, it doesn't really matter who, used his identity, his login credentials, to steal the DNC data where it made its way to Wikileaks.

Well now that's a theory I haven't heard before. The evidence that Seth Rich was the leaker, is:

(1) Kim Dotcom says he knows for a fact, from direct personal knowledge and involvement, that Seth Rich was the leaker.

(2) Ed Butowski, a friend of the family, said that Seth Rich's parents told him that their son was the leaker. This before the parents decided to go on a crusade to the contrary, and ultimately lost their libel case against Fox News.

(3) Rod Wheeler, retired MPD detective, said his contacts at the FBI told him that Rich was the source for Wikileaks. This before the FBI decided to go on their crusade against Russia instead.

(4) Retired ambassador and blogger Craig Murray said that he was the connection between Wikileaks and the actual source of the DNC data. He said, furthermore, that the source was a disgruntled DNC staffer. And, he asked why the FBI would not examine Seth Rich's laptop.

(5) Assange himself, while constrained by the need to protect his source, has hinted in every possible way that Seth Rich was the source.

(6) The 'Russian Hack' narrative has been roundly disproven, leaving the Seth Rich leak theory as the only alternative with any evidence behind it at all.

Why invent this contrivance that somebody else stole Rich's login, and then had him rubbed out? Why not just admit that the most likely scenario is that Seth Rich was the disgruntled DNC employee who leaked the data?

If he had been left alive to say so himself, perhaps the Russiagate narrative couldn't have gotten so much traction. Or, maybe there was a concern that Rich could get more data to leak. Or maybe there was a vicious desire for revenge, similar to what Manning and Assange are experiencing. In any case, the killer had an obvious Deep State motive.

On the other hand -- if you check Wikipedia, you'll find that they've summarized their most reliable sources including the New York Times, Washington Post and Snopes, and found that the evidence is clear: the Russians hacked the data, and Seth Rich is fake news. But -- there are also twelve pages of talk archives to wade through, and there's been endless edit warring over the lede contents. My guess is you'd also find many editors banned from the site for trying to balance this.

 

[Jerry Russell]

I suppose it's possible that Seth Rich's parents, Joel and Mary Rich, were initially suspicious that their son leaked the data, but later changed their minds. They ultimately made this statement:

https://www.omaha.com/mary-and-joel-rich-stop-politicizing-our-personal-pain/article_fee0086a-409d-11e7-a19a-cfbbc2b2b4af.html

Imagine you have no answers — that no one has been brought to justice and there are few clues leading to the killer or killers.​

​

Imagine that every single day, with every phone call you hope that it’s the police, calling to tell you that there has been a break in the case.​

​

Imagine that instead, every call that comes in is a reporter asking what you think of a series of lies or conspiracies about the death. That nightmare is what our family goes through every day. ...​

​

We know that Seth’s personal email and his personal computer were both inspected by detectives early in the investigation and that the inspection revealed no evidence of any communications with anyone at WikiLeaks or anyone associated with WikiLeaks. Nor did that inspection reveal any evidence that Seth had leaked DNC emails to WikiLeaks or to anyone else.​

​

Indeed, those who have suggested that Seth’s role as a data analyst at the DNC gave him access to a wide trove of emails are simply incorrect — Seth’s job was to develop analytical models to encourage voters to turn out to vote.​

​

He didn’t have access to DNC emails, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee emails, John Podesta’s emails or Hillary Clinton’s emails. That simply wasn’t his job.​

​

This is nowhere near as conclusive as it seems at first glance.

Seth's personal email and personal computer were checked, or so they say. But what about his email and his computer at the DNC? Were they one and the same?

I have to agree that Seth Rich's ordinary work password would not have gotten access to a treasure trove of emails. That would require root-level access to the server.

Which brings up the obvious next question, how was the infamous hacker Kim Dotcom involved? Is it possible that Rich heard about shenanigans at the DNC water cooler, and contacted Kim Dotcom to help him hack the root password at the DNC? Or, that somewhat mysterious & oblique comments by Julian Assange and Craig Murray point to a rather more complex reality?

At any rate: if criminal-level espionage was involved, perhaps it's no wonder that Seth Rich's parents preferred to suppress the story.

 

[Richard Stanley]

I just got through watching Never Say Never (which I had 'never' seen), and its almost funny needing to take the word of someone named Kim Dotcom. Especially after watching Kim Basinger.

But, as I've said on Seth Rich before, if such as the Faux News Channel crew is pushing this narrative then just this alone is enough to close my ears. Now, oddly, if Uncle Rupert's Wall Street Journal was doing so then I might be more prone to pay attention.

Such as Uncle Rupert's (another Australian with a Golden Visa / American fasttrack citizen, aka 'invader') playing both sides of the fence is what raises my antenna Jerry. People like him and William Barr, the Clintons and Trump. All else is just distraction.