Julian Assange to be thrown under the bus

if Russia wasn't involved then

It's been clearly assessed by the American intelligence and by the Robert Mueller report that Russia did hack the Democratic party e-mails in 2016 and operated more interference on the election.

Trump also openly invited Russian interference, by saying "Russia, if you are listening, I hope you can find those 30,000 e-mails that are missing", and a few hours later these were released.

Trump is now also famous for creating quid pro quos: offering something or threatening something in exchange for favors. He did it with Ukraine, he has done it recently with the New York State to prevent them to investigate his tax returns, and I am not surprised at all if he offered pardon to Assange if he denied the Russian interference, only to withdraw it later.

As per Assange I have since changed my opinion about him: he clearly affirmed that by publishing the e-mails on Wikileaks he wanted to help Trump be elected. Not that he was a fan of him, but he was more opposed to Hillary Clinton. I am not a fan of Hillary either, but I don't believe the exaggerated conspiracies around her and her husband. And now Assange is reaping what he sow. Sorry for him, but he is a danger for the country not a help, by his irresponsible behaviour.

The effect of Russian meddling in the campaign has been studied in detail by an expert and she has concluded that it is highly like that that interference changed the course of voting in decisive favour to Trump:

"Few people, including Trump’s opponents, have publicly challenged the widespread belief that no obtainable evidence can prove that Russian interference changed any votes.
The U.S. intelligence community, for its part, is prohibited from investigating domestic political affairs. James Clapper, the former director of National Intelligence, speaking for himself, however, told me that “it stretches credulity to think the Russians didn’t turn the election.”
Politicians may be too timid to explore the subject, but a new book from, of all places, Oxford University Press promises to be incendiary. “Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President—What We Don’t, Can’t, and Do Know,” by Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a professor of communications at the University of Pennsylvania, dares to ask—and even attempts to answer—whether Russian meddling had a decisive impact in 2016. Jamieson offers a forensic analysis of the available evidence and concludes that Russia very likely delivered Trump’s victory.


As for the evidence about Russian meddling in the election here you a have a full article with all details:
You don't really want to get Jerry started on the historical sins of American intelligence community do you?

That said, I would not be surprised if the Russians played a role in getting Trump elected, which I have discussed before. The trouble is, that James Comey also played a huge role in getting Trump elected, and Hillary played a big role in getting Trump elected, as did the automation of millions of swing state jobs, and NAFTA, and ...

It only took a swing in ~70K votes combined, for only three states.

As for me, I do see the Clintons (collectively) as almost perfect mirrors for Trump, as to their being fake populists. The Clintons were this way from the beginnings of their political career(s). They run as populists, then cater to such as Wall Street, and Jeff Epstein, and ... they have deep historical family connections to organized crime.

In any case, Assange is on the wrong side of both the Trumpists and the corporate Republicans and corporate Dems. As such, I still maintain that Assange and Wikileaks became convenient vessels for the release of the materials, as helping to provide cover for steering the election to Trump, the desired beast of the day.

How did you come about such a massive conversion in outlook since you first visited here? Did you meet someone on the road from Damascus?
Trump also openly invited Russian interference, by saying "Russia, if you are listening, I hope you can find those 30,000 e-mails that are missing", and a few hours later these were released.

Trump's jokes are not so powerful as that. The 30,000 emails are still missing, although a recent report (at WND) indicated that Google servers might still have copies.

he clearly affirmed that by publishing the e-mails on Wikileaks he wanted to help Trump be elected.

When did Assange say that? What I remember is when he said that choosing between Hillary and Trump, was like choosing between cholera and gonorrhea.

I am not a fan of Hillary either, but I don't believe the exaggerated conspiracies around her and her husband.

Again, you get to choose your poison. You can choose to believe the unsupported narratives from US intelligence agencies, channeled by Robert Mueller, Time Magazine and other billionaire mass media. Or you can choose to believe that alternative media narrative about Ukranian hackers, Seth Rich and Kim Dotcom. At least the latter view tells a consistent story, backed by credible rumors.

Sorry for him, but he is a danger for the country not a help, by his irresponsible behaviour.

So it's OK that Assange is locked up in a solitary torture chamber, without any semblance of due process, just because you and others feel that his behavior is irresponsible?

Who else would you like to lock up and torture?
Craig Murray says he is going to London to cover Julian Assange's hearing next week. Here's his crisp summary of the reasons he is concerned about this:


Julian Assange will stand next week in the armoured dock, accused of the “crime” of publishing. It is worth recalling that Wikileaks has a 100% record of accuracy. Nothing it has published has ever been shown to be inauthentic. Julian stands accused of the crime of telling the truth – more than that, of telling freely to the ordinary people of the world about the crimes which the powerful seek to conceal.
It is a sad and damning fact that nobody in the United States has ever been jailed for the war crimes Wikileaks has revealed, for the massacre of journalists and of children, for the torture or for the corruption. Instead, the publisher who helped whistleblowers to get the truth out to the people has suffered enormously, and is threatened with incarceration for the rest of his life.
We might also consider that none of Julian’s publishing ever took place inside the United States. The USA is trying to extradite him for publishing American secrets outside the USA, in a startling claim of worldwide jurisdiction. It is a prosecution that would if successful have a massive chilling effect on investigative journalists all over the globe. The fact that the mainstream media editors who gleefully republished Wikileaks’ revelations are not also in the dock reflects the fact that the security services are now very confident they have those outlets under control.
The following is a discussion regarding the Assange lawyer claim that Rohrabacher made the pardon offer to Assange. Rohrabacher is now saying that he did not make such an offer. Mercouris speculates that the claim is a risky legal stratagem -- that doesn't help Assange's cause.

Rohrabacher is now saying that he did not make such an offer.

It's not exactly a denial from Rohrabacher. As Peter Wade from Rolling Stone reports:

Former California Republican congressman Dana Rohrabacher says he spoke with Julian Assange about getting the WikiLeaks founder a pardon from President Trump.
Rohrabacher on Thursday confirmed a recent report from the Guardian that Assange’s lawyers told a court in London that the former congressman made the offer in 2017. Assange, who is currently being held in a U.K. prison, has been indicted in the U.S. on a variety of hacking-related charges.
In an interview with Yahoo News, Rohrabacher said he told Assange that he could get him a pardon from Trump if Assange could provide information that would attribute the 2016 hack of Democratic National Committee emails to a widely debunked conspiracy theory. Doing so would help to absolve Russia, the nation U.S. intelligence agencies concluded was responsible for the hacking.
Even if this discussion took place exactly as Rohrabacher is now claiming, Assange could be forgiven if he conjectured that such an offer would not be discussed without Trump's knowledge and approval.

And furthermore, the current excuse on Trump and Rohrabacher's part, that the offer was made without authorization from Trump, does not deserve to be taken at face value. Trump has less than zero credibility: in general, whatever he says, the opposite is the truth. So, if it were me sitting on the bench, I'd let Assange off for this reason alone. The incident creates a more than reasonable doubt, that the US ought to be estopped from pursuing criminal charges against Assange because of this incident.

The link leads to another Rolling Stone article, by Andy Kroll. I see that Seth Rich's brother, Aaron Rich, denies that either he or Seth had anything to do with providing documents to Wikileaks. But, the article also states that Assange himself strongly hinted that Seth Rich was the source, while stopping short of providing a clear statement. Assange pointed out that Rich was openly murdered on the street in Washington, and the murder was never solved. He said that his sources "become concerned to see things occurring like that."

How would Aaron Rich even know if his brother was Assange's source? Why would anybody consider this to be a strong "debunk"?

Why is it considered acceptable that (politically significant) people are being murdered in the streets of Washington, and the police don't make much if any effort to investigate?
Great oratory by Pink Floyd icon Roger Waters.

Question for Emma: Why is Ruptly the only source for this speech? Why the blackout by the billionaire mass media?

The following discusses new revelations regarding the Spanish mercenary (literal and figurative) firm that provided security at the London embassy of Ecuador while Assange was there. This is very interesting in discussing the role of Sheldon Adelson with the CIA, and as well the connection to Trump and Pompeo -- the supposed enemy of the Deep State. As I'll post later on the Trump thread comments about the Trump/Pelosi axis, all such divisions are superficial, the better to fool the peeps with.

As discussed, the CIA went to great lengths to overcome Assange's countermeasures and thus would have been in a great position to know whether or not Seth Rich was the source of the DNC leaks. If so, I would consider that they put the hit on Rich rather than some revenge order from HRC, albeit they could also seed the rumor that she did do this (believable enough based upon the Clinton Arkansas legacy).

Here is an excerpt from the associated article:

As the co-founder of a small security consulting firm called UC Global, David Morales spent years slogging through the minor leagues of the private mercenary world. A former Spanish special forces officer, Morales yearned to be the next Erik Prince, the Blackwater founder who leveraged his army-for-hire into high-level political connections across the globe. But by 2016, he had secured just one significant contract, to guard the children of Ecuador’s then-President Rafael Correa and his country’s embassy in the UK.
The London embassy contract proved especially valuable to Morales, however. Inside the diplomatic compound, his men guarded Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, a top target of the US government who had been living in the building since Correa granted him asylum in 2012. It was not long before Morales realized he had a big league opportunity on his hands.
In 2016, Morales rushed off alone to a security fair in Las Vegas, hoping to rustle up lucrative new gigs by touting his role as the guardian of Assange. Days later, he returned to his company’s headquarters in Jerez de Frontera, Spain with exciting news.
“From now on, we’re going to be playing in the first division,” Morales announced to his employees. When a co-owner of UC Global asked what Morales meant, he responded that he had turned to the “dark side” – an apparent reference to US intelligence services. “The Americans will find us contracts around the world,” Morales assured his business partner.
Morales had just signed on to guard Queen Miri, the $70 million yacht belonging to one of the most high profile casino tycoons in Vegas: ultra-Zionist billionaire and Republican mega-donor Sheldon Adelson. Given that Adelson already had a substantial security team assigned to guard him and his family at all times, the contract between UC Global and Adelson’s Las Vegas Sands was clearly the cover for a devious espionage campaign apparently overseen by the CIA.
Unfortunately for Morales, the Spanish security consultant charged with leading the spying operation, what happened in Vegas did not stay there. ...
Last edited:
Reading further into Max Blumenthal's Grayzone piece we see detailed the capabilities and history of the man who ties US intel services to the global operations of Adelson.

I do not know how Julian Assange or anyone else at Wikileaks knows for sure who is providing them with leaked data, but imagine what if the hackers operating under Brian Nagel were really such as ones Assange referred to as probable "state actors" hacking into the DNC. Then, these people, posing as Seth Rich, proffer the data to Wikileaks. After the data is delivered, Rich is made permanently unavailable for confirmation. His timely death then provides confirmation bias to Assange et al.

During his lengthy career in the US Secret Service, Nagel worked at the nexus of federal law enforcement and US intelligence. In the 1990s, Nagel not only served on the personal protection detail of Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton; he was assigned to “work with two foreign protective services after the assassination and attempted assassination of their respective heads of state,” he said in sworn testimony in a US District Court in 2011. Nagel also stated that he later protected the director and deputy director of a federal agency that he neglected to name.
During the same testimony, Nagel said he received the CIA’s Intelligence Community Seal Medallion, an award given to non-CIA personnel “who have made significant contributions to the Agency’s intelligence efforts.”
As the deputy director of the Secret Service, he appeared alongside then-US Attorney General John Ashcroft at a November 2003 press conference on combating cybercrime, and testified before the House Homeland Security Subcommittee in March 2007. Besides those two public events, Nagel has not appeared on camera.
One of just a few publicly available photos of Las Vegas Sands Director of Global Security Brian Nagel, from his congressional testimony in 2007
While the public tends to associate the US Secret Service with burly men in dark suits and aviator shades who whisper into their sleeves while shadowing presidents, the agency also functions as the country’s leading computer crime investigative body.
In November 2002, the LA Times reported on Nagel’s role in creating the Los Angeles Electronic Crimes Task Force, a massive federal operation that occupied an entire floor of a downtown LA skyscraper. Dedicated to fighting electronic crime and cyber terrorism, the task force included the FBI, local law enforcement, private security contractors, and the US Secret Service. The initiative, said Nagel, “was all about enhancing our current partnerships and building new ones.”
In October 2004, Nagel was credited with taking down a major international cybercrime outfit called shadowcrew.com (no relation to the Shadow Brokers hacker outfit that leaked NSA secrets). According to TechNewsWorld, under Nagel’s watch, “The Secret Service used wiretaps, an undercover informant and their own hackers to gain access to the private portions of the [shadowcrew] site.”
These tactics seemed remarkably similar to those deployed 13 years later to spy on Assange.
Before leaving public life in 2008, Nagel helped the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) create the National Computer Forensic Institute. Then-DHS Director Michael Chertoff vowed the institute would “turn the tables on criminal groups” by empowering law enforcement to use “the same technologies” hackers and cyber-criminals typically employed.
Two years later, when Wikileaks first appeared, the special federal cyber-security units Nagel helped create were likely on the frontlines of the US fight to combat Assange’s online information clearinghouse. ...
Assange is still languishing in prison in Britain. The judge on his extradition case, Vanessa Baraitser, says she will render her decision on Jan. 4th, 2021.

But while we're all waiting to see how the Supreme Court decides the US presidential election, there's been a "bombshell" development in the Seth Rich murder case. The FIB (Freudian typo), after lying under oath and stonewalling for 3 years, now admits that they have thousands of pages of documents about Rich, as well as custody of his laptop. This is the result of a FOIA lawsuit filed by attorney Ty Clevinger in 2018.

Why is the FBI releasing this information now? Clevinger gives no answer except to ask another question: why are Bill Barr and John Durham ignoring this angle even though they're supposedly investigating the FBI's investigation of Trump's alleged Russian collusion? And, why is Fox News trying to kill the story?

I asked myself, and the only thing I could come up with is that perhaps this is more or less equally damaging to both parties in our duopoly. And because of Clevinger's dogged investigation, the documents were going to come out sooner or later. So, the FBI attorney decided that with the national attention fixed on the presidential (s)election drama, this news will get less attention than it would at any other time.
I agree with Richard (#4 post on this thread) that Assange is just another puppet. It's almost impossible to find anything online that isn't a planted terd lol.

ISGP does have some decent dirt, here's a link if you're not familiar with it:


Irony is the web author's essentially fascist, but like most fascists can't see their own reflections. Whoopi Goldberg once joked that she was being stalked by her own ass. If only fascists could be that honest!

Anyway, I skimmed the "grayzone" site, it's a planted terd like the rest - but it's worthwhile to check these terds out because you can get quite a few names of who's involved in the pedo/drug networks and money laundering. Adelson and Mossad are big into that, Trump's a mule which I'm sure you know. Assange no doubt has some pretty juicy blackmail, and I'll bet my boots he's Mossad/M16.

My guess is Steve Jacobs, a former Adelson employee, has some incredible dirt on that Zionist POS, a veritable gold mine. You don't hear about Jacobs anywhere....

Anyway, since the Epstein cork blew, with its Dope, Inc. script paralleling child sex trafficking, and British royals and their hofjuden still at it after all these years, I think the dominoes are falling.
ISGP does have some decent dirt,

You mean the information that Wikileaks got some funding (indirectly) from foundation sources? I'm sure the foundations would like to think that they can exert absolute control over everyone that ever takes a dime from them. But I'm not convinced it's necessarily true. I certainly don't see anything there to demonstrate that Assange is working directly for Mossad.

Irony is the web author's essentially fascist

How so? Here's his policy page, "How to fix the West", with an introductory section "if the ISGP party was in power". He advocates for "basic, moderate socialism", meaning strong labor unions and labor protections, social security, public education, and so forth. He wants political candidates to have better access to the media.

Anyway, I skimmed the "grayzone" site, it's a planted terd like the rest

I suppose nobody's perfect, but isn't there a world of difference between "Grayzone" compared to MSM sites like New York Times, Washington Post etc? Would you care to be more specific about your concerns?
I don't believe Assange is not a puppet. You have to "turn your brain upside down" to see this crap. It's just a form of hypnosis. It's really very childish how it's done, and what's sicker is how many can't or won't see through it, they may like being swept up in the mass psychosis for all I know. Intuitives can smell it like bloodhounds. Can they prove the fraud and warn others? Usually no. But they can personally avoid it themselves. So I can't prove Assange is a puppet. I just know. And my hunches are usually right when I follow them. I'm pretty sure Assange sits on a pretty big pile of blackmail gold, which is why he's so well protected. Think 180 and you're going somewhere.

As for Joel being fascist, yes, the very first thing he says to "fix the west" is to increase the white stock! Then get rid of the old white stock. THEN deal with the "other" problems. If that isn't absurdly infantile I don't know what is.

I love Joel's website, it's just so depressing to see the problem can never solve itself because it can't own its own projections. That must be what hell is.

As for the gray zone website, it's actually just different msm garbage. You're just being wanked, endlessly wanked, online at these "alternative" sites. Can I prove it? No. It's just intuitive.
As for Joel being fascist, yes, the very first thing he says to "fix the west" is to increase the white stock!

At first reading, I judged this as a manifestation of middle-class protectionism against the third world impoverished class. But on closer reading, it's clearly racist and white supremacist as well. He buys into the theory that Africans and Arabs are genetically inferior.

I tend to agree with Joel, that too much immigration too fast is a challenge for Western culture. But if we want to do something about it, my strategy would be to improve conditions in the West's "former" colonial empire. Lift the weight of the imperialist boot, for starters. Then do something about climate change. Most immigrants would probably prefer to stay home if they possibly could.

Joel wants to implement an immediate ban on all immigration, and then create "Top secret, massive domestic spy programs" to identify the existing immigrants to be sent back where they came from. So maybe you're right: this racism and white supremacy is exactly the same thing as fascism. You could never get this policy enacted in a democratic multicultural republic, you need a Fuehrer to implement.

I'm pretty sure Assange sits on a pretty big pile of blackmail gold, which is why he's so well protected.

In what way is Assange being protected? All available evidence indicates he's wasting away in a dungeon, a fate worse than death.

As for the gray zone website, it's actually just different msm garbage.

If you were talking about "The Intercept" I'd have to agree, as even Greenwald has admitted recently. But it seems to me that Mate and Blumenthal are at least trying to break free of the Matrix.
Re Assange, my feeling is that he's an important tool, and again, to think 180 is a leap out of the brainwashing box, a hall of mirrors and props that just drain you and go nowhere. That's how Zionists roll.

I knew Greenwald was a shill years back. Max I know is controlled, absolutely. No royal family hofjuden's son who is genuinely anti-Zionist would be alive with that mouth, unless he was working for the family behind the hype.