Julian Assange finally arrested

[Cornfed]

I’m not sure I agree with his optics of requiring himself to be dragged out and having that beard. It makes the years seem not to have been kind, and I’m not sure that helps propaganda-wise. Will he live out his life in Florence CO ADX after he serves whatever sentence the British give him for jumping bail? If Trump had any common decency and supported those who supported him he would pardon Assange, but since Trump is a complete piece of shit that likely won’t happen.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/11/uk/j ... index.html

[pitbull]

Lol, Julian Assange is an autistic retard. Seriously, that pale skin, beard and body language, not crazy and cabin fever riddled at all lol. He doesn't seem to understand how the system works. Words have consequences. He reportedly "violated" the terms of his asylum in Ecuador’s London embassy by commenting on a scandal linking Ecuadorian President Lenin Moreno to a Panamanian investment company involved in perjury and money laundering. Also of noted, Ecuador just reached a $4.2 billion staff-level financing deal with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and $6 billion in loans from multilateral institutions including the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the CAF Andean development bank. So it was just a matter of time before they turned him over. He was just a bargaining chip. Under the Trump admin, indictment was filed in 2017 for publishing files early in the decade. This was after Assange helped Trump get elected lol.

https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2018/12/ ... ks-Assange

Of course Assange helped Trump out of self-interest --- hoping Trump would cut him a deal. Total dumb ass. He wasted years of his life going crazy in the embassy and ultimately f***ed himself over. I don't think the Obama administration wanted to prosecute Assange. He'd have been long free of Sweden by 2017 and if he had any sense retiring and taking some economic classes. Exploitation and corruption are part of capitalism

[gsjackson]

The Q narrative says Assange will go through the judicial process for the purpose of exposing all kinds of Deep State malfeasance -- all covered by the pressies until they get wise to what is going on. Then Assange will be exonerated and celebrated. The indictment against him in the U.S. that's been revealed so far is next to nothing.

Q is, of course, a completely alternate reality to that presented by the media. The narrative holds that Assange is a hero, a savior of humanity; Snowden, on the other hand, is a traitor, charged by the CIA, his former employer, with infiltrating and discrediting the NSA, which consists of the good-guy military intelligence types who do battle with the other corrupted intelligence agencies.

Wouldn't it be nice if it were true. Assange is kind of a test case for Q credibility. If Trump actually does persecute him -- a guy who may have won the election for him -- then I'm off the Trump train. For now, still making Pascal's wager on Q.

To PAG's point, maybe the administration convinced Assange to stick around in the embassy until the time was right after the Mueller exoneration by offering him a starring role in 'The Plan to Save the World,' as it's sometimes called in Q-land. Certainly, Assange has plenty of dirt that can come out in court, including a lot of the pedo-Satanist stuff.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

The Q narrative says Assange will go through the judicial process for the purpose of exposing all kinds of Deep State malfeasance -- all covered by the pressies until they get wise to what is going on. Then Assange will be exonerated and celebrated. The indictment against him in the U.S. that's been revealed so far is next to nothing.

I cannot see his being exonerated nor celebrated by anyone high-level in the government because he is responsible for publishing terabytes of classified information that did serious harm to many bilateral foreign relationships around the globe. The SJW and Bradley Manning crowd might see him as a martyr for their cause however.

The crime he is charged with at present is conspiracy, an inchoate crime used to make examples out of people of high profile. The evidence used against Bradley Manning will be used against him and he likely will be convicted. I also understand that he might stand to be charged in other countries also.

Assange will go the route of Manning, but since he is not LGBT and Obama is gone, he will actually serve out his sentence.

[gsjackson]

The Q narrative says Assange will go through the judicial process for the purpose of exposing all kinds of Deep State malfeasance -- all covered by the pressies until they get wise to what is going on. Then Assange will be exonerated and celebrated. The indictment against him in the U.S. that's been revealed so far is next to nothing.

I cannot see his being exonerated nor celebrated by anyone high-level in the government because he is responsible for publishing terabytes of classified information that did serious harm to many bilateral foreign relationships around the globe. The SJW and Bradley Manning crowd might see him as a martyr for their cause however.

The crime he is charged with at present is conspiracy, an inchoate crime used to make examples out of people of high profile. The evidence used against Bradley Manning will be used against him and he likely will be convicted. I also understand that he might stand to be charged in other countries also.

Assange will go the route of Manning, but since he is not LGBT and Obama is gone, he will actually serve out his sentence.

According to what I read, Assange is charged with conspiracy to hack a computer, carrying a maximum sentence of five years. This may be, as a federal prosecutor commented, just a "placeholder charge."

Can you be specific about "harm to bilateral relationships around the globe?" I had thought he just pissed off the Deep State by revealing the thuggishness of imperial troops in Iraq -- the sort of thing Trump campaigned against. His imprisonment in the embassy represented the Obama administration's final death blow to national security journalism.

But we'll see what happens to him. The optics today were clearly staged -- all the better to hook the pressies on the story that might end up biting their masters in the arse.

[gsjackson]

Q has posted on one of the main things Assange has on the Deep State -- the DNC staffer Seth Rich who was murdered shortly after leaking the emails that made the Clinton campaign go unhinged. Assange can continue to publicly take the Wikileaks stance of never revealing a source, but the DOJ can subpoena his server that will prove Rich was the source. I hope the administration now has that server in hand or soon to be delivered up.

[pitbull]

The Q narrative says Assange will go through the judicial process for the purpose of exposing all kinds of Deep State malfeasance -- all covered by the pressies until they get wise to what is going on. Then Assange will be exonerated and celebrated. The indictment against him in the U.S. that's been revealed so far is next to nothing.

I cannot see his being exonerated nor celebrated by anyone high-level in the government because he is responsible for publishing terabytes of classified information that did serious harm to many bilateral foreign relationships around the globe. The SJW and Bradley Manning crowd might see him as a martyr for their cause however.

The crime he is charged with at present is conspiracy, an inchoate crime used to make examples out of people of high profile. The evidence used against Bradley Manning will be used against him and he likely will be convicted. I also understand that he might stand to be charged in other countries also.

Assange will go the route of Manning, but since he is not LGBT and Obama is gone, he will actually serve out his sentence.

Finally something intelligent out of you

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Can you be specific about "harm to bilateral relationships around the globe?"

Sure, much of the material was classified diplomatic reporting of meetings and communications between Americans and foreign government officials. When the cables broke, the confidentiality that the American government previously guaranteed was lost, as well as the trust to confide in American officials because notes from private and sensitive meetings were sent willy-nilly around the globe for all to see.

As a consequense, some governments have created prohibitions against speaking off the record with Americans, and others sanitize pre-approved information thereby damaging the ability of diplomats to conduct normal diplomatic business abroad.

[gsjackson]

Can you be specific about "harm to bilateral relationships around the globe?"

Sure, much of the material was classified diplomatic reporting of meetings and communications between Americans and foreign government officials. When the cables broke, the confidentiality that the American government previously guaranteed was lost, as well as the trust to confide in American officials because notes from private and sensitive meetings were sent willy-nilly around the globe for all to see.

As a consequense, some governments have created prohibitions against speaking off the record with Americans, and others sanitize pre-approved information thereby damaging the ability of diplomats to conduct normal diplomatic business abroad.

Well, that sounds like a systemic procedural problem that was the fault of whoever was in charge of keeping classified material out of the hands of someone as unstable as Bradley Manning, yet to my knowledge no one in the Army or security clearance vetting process was ever held accountable. That's not on Assange. He's a journalist who got hold of some extraordinarily damning and embarrassing material about American military occupation forces -- video showing them deliberately blowing away unarmed civilians from a helicopter, etc -- and the ethics of his profession virtually require that he make the material public.

These questions were settled almost 50 years ago in the Pentagon Papers era, at least for the generation William Barr and I are a part of. Interestingly, he brought up the same subject yesterday in his testimony before the Senate, making the point that back then maximum government transparency was considered to be obviously a good thing. Which probably tells you something about how hard the DOJ will go after Assange.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Can you be specific about "harm to bilateral relationships around the globe?"

Sure, much of the material was classified diplomatic reporting of meetings and communications between Americans and foreign government officials. When the cables broke, the confidentiality that the American government previously guaranteed was lost, as well as the trust to confide in American officials because notes from private and sensitive meetings were sent willy-nilly around the globe for all to see.

As a consequense, some governments have created prohibitions against speaking off the record with Americans, and others sanitize pre-approved information thereby damaging the ability of diplomats to conduct normal diplomatic business abroad.

Well, that sounds like a systemic procedural problem that was the fault of whoever was in charge of keeping classified material out of the hands of someone as unstable as Bradley Manning, yet to my knowledge no one in the Army or security clearance vetting process was ever held accountable. That's not on Assange. He's a journalist who got hold of some extraordinarily damning and embarrassing material about American military occupation forces -- video showing them deliberately blowing away unarmed civilians from a helicopter, etc -- and the ethics of his profession virtually require that he make the material public.

These questions were settled almost 50 years ago in the Pentagon Papers era, at least for the generation William Barr and I are a part of. Interestingly, he brought up the same subject yesterday in his testimony before the Senate, making the point that back then maximum government transparency was considered to be obviously a good thing. Which probably tells you something about how hard the DOJ will go after Assange.

I don't see Assange as a Deep State issue at all. The Deep State is made up of recalcitrant elements in the federal government that seek to exert its will in opposition of the President's will in order to preserve its power and influence. Most of the powerful Deep State elements are in the Intelligence Community which has statutory protections from transparency when they use "national security" as a pretext. Comey, Strzok, Page, Brennen, and a multitude of others are Deep State figures that sought to bring down Trump with "trumped up charges," pun intended.

The feminist Reality Winner was prosecuted and sits in prison for disclosing classified information. However, she was a government contractor who breached her oath of trust. Assange is a civilian, but the fact that he "conspired" to distribute classified triggers his criminal liability. Conspiracy is a federal crime, placeholder or inchoate or not. However, the investigation will likely uncover additional counts of conspiracy as well as evidence of other crimes such as the illegal possession of U.S. classified information.

Long before the Deep State was even a thing, Assange was wanted by the FBI for prosecution. This is nothing Trump likely has weighed in on because a federal judge issued the warrant for Assange's arrest during Obama's administration!

This is a purely long pending law enforcement matter, not a Deep State one. Anyone trying to make this into some Deep State operation is clueless and looking for alarmist headlines. If Edward Snowden is arrested in the future, it will be the same thing. He has a federal arrest warrant on him and it is a law enforcement matter.

To understand the nature of the Deep State, think about:

-Rod Rosenstein ordering a Special Counsel investigation against a new President to find some evidence of any crime (tax, fraud, collusion, etc) in order to justify impeachment proceedings.
-Former CIA Directors coming out against Trump because his attempts to warm relations with Putin go against the intelligence community's raison d'etre without which the intelligence apparati become less relevant and can be scaled back in scope and funding.
-US Ambassadors resigning because they can no longer resist the Trumpian changes on foreign policy that scale back costly women's health, female empowerment, Islamic freedom, and LGBT rights initiatives overseas that cost Americans millions each year for SJW nonsense in poor countries.
-Federal judges that invalidate Trump's legitimate executive orders that must go thru years of higher court appeals before they are re-validated with the judges' purpose being to hamstring and weaken Trump.
-DHS Secretary Kristen Nielson resisting Trump's call to toughen border enforcement so that she can "preserve family integrity."

The Deep State is any federal executive branch official (exception would be anti-Trump federal judges) who undermines the President and tries to set him up for failure, prosecution, impeachment, or political embarrassment. Run that test by any claim of Deep State involvment before using that appellation. I worked for and with certain Deep State officials in the US government and I know how it all works.

[gsjackson]

Manning doesn't "sit in prison." Its sentence was commuted by Obama. It is enjoying its celebrity and contemplating a run for office.

While definitions of the Deep State vary considerably, yours is, shall we say, rather incomplete compared to those of most people using the term these days. The Deep State, in the view of most of them, has been "a thing" for anywhere from 55 to many hundreds of years.

As far as we know, right now Assange is indicted only for conspiracy to hack a computer -- a slap-on-the-wrist charge. I'll wager that he will not be convicted in the U.S. of anything. The bar tab if we ever meet up across the pond?

[gsjackson]

Manning doesn't "sit in prison."

Actually it's currently back in prison for civil contempt as a result of refusing to testify before a grand jury.

Did not know that.

To correct another thing I said: According to a Q drop, the Deep State has Assange's server, but the white hats have Assange. A big key is protecting him until he gets to the U.S. More and more I'm seeing the UK fingered as the seat of power of the DS.

[pitbull]

Blah, the sad thing about Julian Assange is all his work really amounts to nothing when you have a brain-dead population and capitalism in place. For example, take Hillary's emails on Libya:

https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/20 ... ervention/

Newly disclosed emails show that Libya’s plan to create a gold-backed currency to compete with the euro and dollar was a motive for NATO’s intervention. The email identifies French President Nicholas Sarkozy as leading the attack on Libya with five specific purposes in mind: to obtain Libyan oil, ensure French influence in the region, increase Sarkozy’s reputation domestically, assert French military power, and to prevent Gaddafi’s influence in what is considered “Francophone Africa.”

Why isn't that talked about? Why aren't people marching in the streets? Gaddafi was certainly not killed for humanitarian reasons. He had a plan to create a new African Union, based on a new African economic system. He wanted to introduce the Gold Dinar to back African currencies. At the time of Gaddafi’s death by French President Sarkozy, driven by NATO forces - Libya’s gold reserves were estimated at close to 150 tons, and about the same amount of silver. The estimated value at that time was $7 billion.

For France this was bad news. This would mean lower revenue for French/EU companies and overall lower money in the systen. The French Central Bank, the Banque de France, backs the West and Central African Monetary Union’s currency, the CFA franc. The West African Central Bank, for example, is covered, i.e. controlled, by about 70 per cent of the Banque de France. Banque de France has an almost total control over the economy of its former West African colonies.

What's that you say? France holds, owns and profits from interest on the foreign currency reserves of 14 African states ($20 billion) who must deposit 50% (down from 90% where it started) of their foreign exchange reserves and all revenue earned outside of the Union, into a Central Bank in France. This means that after paying just 0.75% in interest to the African states, the French government keeps the rest as collateral = promissory notes aka 'EUROS'. It was created by France in the late 1940s to serve as a legal tender in the European country’s then-African colonies. As part of the currency’s existence and maintenance, France holds 50 percent of these countries’ foreign reserves to guarantee that the CFA franc stays convertible into euros at a fixed exchange rate. Good deal for France.

Of cource France is not the only 'empire' still raking in a nice profit from a very dodgy period in history, with the help of African political crooks half of every dollar coming in to Africa is being funnelled out illicitly within a year. There is strong evidence of sustained capital losses to all African economies from illicit financial flows into Tax Havens, Investment Funds, etc but not always illegal. Many are tempted to blame corrupt Africans but corruption accounts for a tiny part of this illicit outflow- less than 5% by some estimates, with traditional forms of crime like drugs and illegal weapons trade accounting for around 25%. Most - 65% - of these "illicit financial outflows" are accounted for by trade mispricing - a specialty of multinationals.

Gaddafi’s plan for Africa would have meant an entirely new banking system for Africa, away from the western (mainly France and UK) central banks dominated African currencies. As a first step, Gaddafi offered this lucrative and very beneficial alternative to other Muslim African states, but leaving it open for any other African countries to join. Gaddafi also wanted to detach his oil sales from the dollar, i.e. no longer trading hydrocarbons in US dollars, as was the US/OPEC imposed rule since the early 1970s. Other African and Middle Eastern oil and gas producers would have followed. In fact, Iran had already in 2007, a plan to introduce the Tehran Oil Bourse, where anyone could trade hydrocarbons in currencies other than the US dollar. That idea came to a sudden halt, when Bush (George W) started accusing Iran of planning to build a nuclear bomb which was, of course a pretext to stop the Tehran Oil Bourse which would have lowered the need for dollars, and thereby costing American elite and investors around the world billions of dollars.

Gaddafi also wanted to introduce, or had already started introducing into Africa, a wireless telephone system that would do away with the US/European monopolies, with the Alcatels and AT&Ts of this world, which dominate and usurp the African market without scruples. Yes, the gold Dinar was totally unacceptable to western leaders.

Europe should be most interested in re-establishing order and a real economy in Libya - cleaning it from a murderous Mafia that promotes drugs and slave trade ending up in Europe. Libya was economically and socially a successful country, arguably the most successful in Africa. Prosperity from oil was largely shared by Gaddafi with his countrymen. Libya had a first-class social safety net, an excellent transportation infrastructure, free medical services, and modern hospitals, equipped with latest medical equipment, free education for everyone – and students could even receive scholarships to study abroad. Now you have a complete failed state and right-wingers talking about stupid shit like LGBT rights, feminist and all of "them" coming to Europe. Guess what, you're being genocided by your own people.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

However, the investigation will likely uncover additional counts of conspiracy as well as evidence of other crimes such as the illegal possession of U.S. classified information.

Does the statute on that assert extraterritorial authority? If not how can a US court convict a non-citizen outside the US of a US crime?

18 USC 371 is the federal conspiracy statute that establishes jurisdiction ANYWHERE so long as a the conspiracy pertains to a crime against the United States.

Additional crimes will apply via 18 USC Sec. 7, the statute that establishes special extraterritoriality in crimes based on the involvement on Manning as an American citizen. I would look for additional crimes against Assange to be based on things like his unwitting use of US-based email servers, US-based telecommunications, and possibly US-based mail or delivery services.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Manning doesn't "sit in prison." Its sentence was commuted by Obama. It is enjoying its celebrity and contemplating a run for office.

(S)he was jailed for contempt of court in March for refusing to testify per a subpoena.

While definitions of the Deep State vary considerably, yours is, shall we say, rather incomplete compared to those of most people using the term these days. The Deep State, in the view of most of them, has been "a thing" for anywhere from 55 to many hundreds of years.

According to Wikipedia's source, "Following Trump's inauguration, the term was widely adopted among Republicans alleging that there exists a deep-state conspiracy to delegitimize the presidency and thwart its policy goals.[7]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_stat ... Y_Times2-7

As far as we know, right now Assange is indicted only for conspiracy to hack a computer -- a slap-on-the-wrist charge. I'll wager that he will not be convicted in the U.S. of anything. The bar tab if we ever meet up across the pond?

Look for each and every means of communicating with Manning in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy to be the triggers for subsequent charges that will tack on additional 5 year increments for each count. Also, Criminal Conspiracy is a felony, not a slap on the wrist charge by any means. They call it a placeholder offense because it permitted the DOJ to indict and get an arrest warrant on Assange while the other crimes are forensically investigated and established against him.

I am not willing to wager since I have not seen the quality of the government's evidence. The feds obviously need Manning's testimony against Assange to proceed but (s)he is refusing to cooperate. They still could find what they need with IT forensics, but Manning's testimony could both widen the probe and increase Assange's criminal liability.

But if we ever meet up overseas, the tab is on me regardless of the outcome of this case.