ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags human rights abuses , Julian Assange , torture

Reply
Old 19th February 2020, 02:44 PM   #1361
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 11,669
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Is it not a matter of record that after 2017 Julian Assange did, more than once, publicly state that the leaked DNC emails didn't come from Russia?

This allegation about the Trump pardon offer wasn't made by Assange to the press. It was entered by Assange's lawyers at court as part of an argument against extradition and, notably - according to the article - the magistrate ruled it admissible as such. So it would appear to me that Assange's own legal team at the very least is arguing that the offer somehow invalidates the US's extradition request, and that doesn't seem to make any sense unless they're claiming that Assange fulfilled the conditions of the request. Otherwise the whole matter would be irrelevant.
Yes...yes, that's exactly what I am saying. The offer has no teeth since it was presented to the court and made public (which, in an internationally high profile case is the functional equivalent of a press release), so it only serves to demonstrate that Assange is not wanted for crimes, but is being coerced for PR purposes by the Trump Administration. This should make the UK think twice about the legitimacy of the request.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2020, 02:52 PM   #1362
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 46,673
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Yes...yes, that's exactly what I am saying. The offer has no teeth since it was presented to the court and made public
It's not clear to me that the offer has actually been presented to the court. The linked article goes so far as to say that a claim of such an offer has been presented to the court, and the court has accepted it. What the court has accepted is not exactly clear though: Have they accepted the claim, and are willing to admit evidence supporting that claim? Have they accepted the evidence of the offer itself? Has that evidence actually been presented yet?

As far as being made public, no it hasn't. At least, not in the linked article. The claim that the offer was made has been made public. But the offer itself hasn't been made public. Mr Rohrabacher hasn't publicly announced the offer. No documentary evidence of the offer has been published. Are you looking at other sources?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2020, 02:56 PM   #1363
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 25,781
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Yes...yes, that's exactly what I am saying. The offer has no teeth since it was presented to the court and made public (which, in an internationally high profile case is the functional equivalent of a press release), so it only serves to demonstrate that Assange is not wanted for crimes, but is being coerced for PR purposes by the Trump Administration. This should make the UK think twice about the legitimacy of the request.
But that is a different matter from the question you asked, which was why this fact being made public would damage Assange's reputation. Assange took the offer and didn't say anything for almost 3 years; in fact the only reason his legal team is making the deal indirectly public now is because they're trying to use the fact that he took the offer to keep him from being extradited. Apparently by his own admission, he willingly became a propaganda tool for the present US administration in order to serve his own self interest (he thought he could avoid prison by ingratiating himself to Trump). I would think a public admission of such unprincipled opportunism would very definitely damage his reputation, built as it was on defying national governments - the US in particular - in favor of reporting "the truth".
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2020, 03:04 PM   #1364
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 25,781
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
As far as being made public, no it hasn't. At least, not in the linked article. The claim that the offer was made has been made public. But the offer itself hasn't been made public. Mr Rohrabacher hasn't publicly announced the offer. No documentary evidence of the offer has been published. Are you looking at other sources?
Wrong, on all counts. Apparently the fact that the offer was extended was reported very soon after it was made, in 2017, in the Wall Street Journal. And, the linked article itself includes a link to that Wall Street Journal article:

Quote:
In September 2017, the White House confirmed that Rohrabacher had called the then chief of staff, John Kelly, to talk about a possible deal with Assange.

Rohrabacher told the Wall Street Journal that as part of the deal he was proposing, Assange would have to hand over a computer drive or other data storage device that would prove that Russia was not the source of the hacked emails.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2020, 03:17 PM   #1365
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 46,673
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Wrong, on all counts. Apparently the fact that the offer was extended was reported very soon after it was made, in 2017, in the Wall Street Journal. And, the linked article itself includes a link to that Wall Street Journal article:
Thanks. I was going off the article linked in this thread, which was short on those details. Also, the WSJ article is behind a paywall. I'll stipulate that it says what you say it says, though.

It does seem like Assange's lawyer (or perhaps the reporter) misrepresented the nature of the offer. To me, providing evidence of no Russian involvement is very different from simply saying there was no Russian involvement.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2020, 03:49 PM   #1366
trustbutverify
Philosopher
 
trustbutverify's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 8,109
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Protecting his sources?
I believe sources can be protected without lying like a cheap toupe. You could, for example, simply refuse to name your sources.
__________________
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -- Mahatma Gandhi

Wollen owns the stage
trustbutverify is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2020, 04:00 PM   #1367
trustbutverify
Philosopher
 
trustbutverify's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 8,109
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
But that is a different matter from the question you asked, which was why this fact being made public would damage Assange's reputation. Assange took the offer and didn't say anything for almost 3 years; in fact the only reason his legal team is making the deal indirectly public now is because they're trying to use the fact that he took the offer to keep him from being extradited. Apparently by his own admission, he willingly became a propaganda tool for the present US administration in order to serve his own self interest (he thought he could avoid prison by ingratiating himself to Trump). I would think a public admission of such unprincipled opportunism would very definitely damage his reputation, built as it was on defying national governments - the US in particular - in favor of reporting "the truth".
I would also think so... if I was unaware of the cultish character of his fanbase. But I'm not.
__________________
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -- Mahatma Gandhi

Wollen owns the stage

Last edited by trustbutverify; 19th February 2020 at 04:04 PM.
trustbutverify is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2020, 04:41 PM   #1368
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 25,781
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It does seem like Assange's lawyer (or perhaps the reporter) misrepresented the nature of the offer. To me, providing evidence of no Russian involvement is very different from simply saying there was no Russian involvement.
Or Rohrabacher misrepresented the nature of the offer to the WSJ. If the administration's decision to renege was made that early, it makes sense they would want to control the narrative; after all, it seems highly unlikely that the administration would have offered a pardon in exchange for items that Assange could not possibly have had in his possession.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2020, 09:21 PM   #1369
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 11,669
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
But that is a different matter from the question you asked, which was why this fact being made public would damage Assange's reputation. Assange took the offer and didn't say anything for almost 3 years;
Holup. What's your evidence of this? He pretty obviously did not take the offer, or he would not be fighting extradition now. I mean, isn't it appallingly obvious that he did not take it? If he said the Russkies had nothing to do with the DNC emals, it was pretty clearly for reasons of his own. I see absolute zero indication that he took any such offer. Wouldn't his attorneys be holding up the pardon if he did? Or do you think it was more of a pinky swear agreement. I'm not thinking Assange would be that trusting with a power he expects to try him for espionage et al. You do?

Quote:
... in fact the only reason his legal team is making the deal indirectly public now is because they're trying to use the fact that he took the offer to keep him from being extradited.
No, I think they are using it to undermine the administration's legitimacy. Counsel (IMO) is trying to paint the extradition as a coercive PR ploy.

Quote:
Apparently by his own admission, he willingly became a propaganda tool for the present US administration in order to serve his own self interest (he thought he could avoid prison by ingratiating himself to Trump).
Again, appallingly obvious that is not what is going on.

Quote:
I would think a public admission of such unprincipled opportunism would very definitely damage his reputation, built as it was on defying national governments - the US in particular - in favor of reporting "the truth".
His 'admission' is that the deal was proposed. And yet again, it's ridiculously obvious that he did not take it, or defense wold be waving it around as a get out of jail free card.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2020, 09:25 PM   #1370
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 11,669
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Wrong, on all counts. Apparently the fact that the offer was extended was reported very soon after it was made, in 2017, in the Wall Street Journal. And, the linked article itself includes a link to that Wall Street Journal article:
Your source does not say the offer was made. It says that Rohrabacher proposed it to the White House, and no further development. Even Rohrabacher says no such deal was ever authorized.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2020, 10:11 PM   #1371
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 25,781
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Holup. What's your evidence of this? He pretty obviously did not take the offer, or he would not be fighting extradition now. I mean, isn't it appallingly obvious that he did not take it?
Not even slightly; not if Trump reneged on the offer - either because it was never official and made in bad faith to begin with, or it was never ultimately approved, or simply because it's Trump and that's (now) notoriously how he rolls.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
If he said the Russkies had nothing to do with the DNC emals, it was pretty clearly for reasons of his own. I see absolute zero indication that he took any such offer. Wouldn't his attorneys be holding up the pardon if he did?
It looks to me that's exactly what they're attempting to do right now.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Or do you think it was more of a pinky swear agreement. I'm not thinking Assange would be that trusting with a power he expects to try him for espionage et al. You do?
Yes. Do you have some personal knowledge of Assange that leads you to presume he wouldn't? Assange had claimed at one point to like neither of the candidates, but it's a simple fact that he had a paranoid personal vendetta solely against Hillary Clinton. Call it incredulity if you like, but a scenario in which Assange says "I'm refusing your offer of a pardon in exchange, but will proceed to say exactly what you have asked me to say anyway for my own personal reasons that have nothing to do with your offer" sounds fairly ridiculous to me.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
No, I think they are using it to undermine the administration's legitimacy. Counsel (IMO) is trying to paint the extradition as a coercive PR ploy.
If that's all it was, I don't see how the argument would've been ruled admissible by the magistrate. An immunity deal in exchange for "information" isn't illegal, nor is making a PR event out of an extradition attempt. The UK itself has recently done just that with an extradition request against a US diplomat's wife that was fully expected from out of the gate by all relevant parties to be denied.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
His 'admission' is that the deal was proposed. And yet again, it's ridiculously obvious that he did not take it, or defense wold be waving it around as a get out of jail free card.
And yet again, that the deal constitutes a "get out of jail free card" seems to be exactly what the defense is proposing by entering it as defense evidence, and can't see how you've missed that.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2020, 07:07 AM   #1372
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 11,669
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Not even slightly; not if Trump reneged on the offer - either because it was never official and made in bad faith to begin with, or it was never ultimately approved, or simply because it's Trump and that's (now) notoriously how he rolls.



It looks to me that's exactly what they're attempting to do right now.
Ok. So your quoted source says there was no such deal authorized by White House, but you believe Assange saying that there was without a shred of evidence. We could talk about confirmation bias, but.... I just don't know what to say to that.

Quote:
Yes. Do you have some personal knowledge of Assange that leads you to presume he wouldn't? Assange had claimed at one point to like neither of the candidates, but it's a simple fact that he had a paranoid personal vendetta solely against Hillary Clinton. Call it incredulity if you like, but a scenario in which Assange says "I'm refusing your offer of a pardon in exchange, but will proceed to say exactly what you have asked me to say anyway for my own personal reasons that have nothing to do with your offer" sounds fairly ridiculous to me.
OK. You seem to be carrying the underlying assumption that it does not serve his advantage to also claim that his source was not the Russian government. I think it does, and his denial of Russian State sources would be made with or without consideration of Trump's agenda. But somehow...this self-serving denial proves he is Trump's puppet? I just don't know what to say to that.

Quote:
If that's all it was, I don't see how the argument would've been ruled admissible by the magistrate. An immunity deal in exchange for "information" isn't illegal, nor is making a PR event out of an extradition attempt. The UK itself has recently done just that with an extradition request against a US diplomat's wife that was fully expected from out of the gate by all relevant parties to be denied.
Well, it was. The UK court ruled the unevidenced offer admissible. They seem to be interpreting it just as I am. No evidence of a deal offered or accepted, but admissible. Oh, and was the diplomat's wife staring down potentially 175 years in the hoosegow? I think not.

Quote:
And yet again, that the deal constitutes a "get out of jail free card" seems to be exactly what the defense is proposing by entering it as defense evidence, and can't see how you've missed that.
For at least the third time, yes, I agree. That is the point of admitting it, to undermine the extradition. If the defense had documentation, it would have been presented. They don't, because there is none. Because there was no deal. Assange is using the fact that the deal was offered as support for the extradition being invalid. I can't see how you've missed that.

So you seriously contend that Julian Freaking Assange, one of the most paranoid men in the planet, with teams of lawyers in multiple nations, who actually deals in subversion and corrupt governments, who believes that the United States plans to railroad him into Gitmo, would pinky promise an agreement regarding his fate with that very government. I just don't know what to say to that.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2020, 08:01 AM   #1373
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 11,669
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Wrong, on all counts. Apparently the fact that the offer was extended was reported very soon after it was made, in 2017, in the Wall Street Journal. And, the linked article itself includes a link to that Wall Street Journal article:
Article under paywall, as theprestige noted. Buzzfeed also cites this article, but says the talk with the White House came weeks after Rohrabacher met with Assange.

So according to your own source, there was no deal on the table when they met. Really don't see where you are going with this as proof of Assange taking a pinky promise deal...that was never on the table.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...ia-rohrabacher
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2020, 12:53 PM   #1374
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 25,781
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Ok. So your quoted source says there was no such deal authorized by White House, but you believe Assange saying that there was without a shred of evidence. We could talk about confirmation bias, but.... I just don't know what to say to that.
The source says the deal ultimately wasn't authorized. But that doesn't mean it wasn't presented to Assange. Rohrabacher reported that he had been working on it, and Assange's lawyers specifically name Rohrabacher as contacting Assange about the deal. Rohrabacher also seems to confirm this, as explained below.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Well, it was. The UK court ruled the unevidenced offer admissible. They seem to be interpreting it just as I am. No evidence of a deal offered or accepted, but admissible.

...

For at least the third time, yes, I agree. That is the point of admitting it, to undermine the extradition. If the defense had documentation, it would have been presented. They don't, because there is none.
I think you misunderstand the current status of the proceedings. Assange's defense team has simply notified the court of the argument, and the argument has been ruled relevant and admissible. The supporting evidence would be presented at the actual extradition hearing, which doesn't begin until next week.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
So you seriously contend that Julian Freaking Assange, one of the most paranoid men in the planet, with teams of lawyers in multiple nations, who actually deals in subversion and corrupt governments, who believes that the United States plans to railroad him into Gitmo, would pinky promise an agreement regarding his fate with that very government. I just don't know what to say to that.
Your incredulity comes from your Hollywoodized impression of Assange. I think you have a highly inaccurate image of the man - which is understandable, heavily promoted as it was by Assange himself.

It is worth noting that the Guardian article originally linked by Wudang announcing this move by Assange's defense team, has been updated with some highly pertinent information:

Quote:
Assange’s lawyers alleged that during a visit to London in August 2017, congressman Dana Rohrabacher told the WikiLeaks founder that “on instructions from the president, he was offering a pardon or some other way out, if Mr Assange … said Russia had nothing to do with the DNC [Democratic National Committee] leaks.”

A few hours later, however, Rohrabacher denied the claim, saying he had made the proposal on his own initiative, and that the White House had not endorsed it.

“At no time did I talk to President Trump about Julian Assange,” the former congressman wrote on his personal blog. “Likewise, I was not directed by Trump or anyone else connected with him to meet with Julian Assange. I was on my own fact finding mission at personal expense to find out information I thought was important to our country.

“At no time did I offer Julian Assange anything from the president because I had not spoken with the president about this issue at all. However, when speaking with Julian Assange, I told him that if he could provide me information and evidence about who actually gave him the DNC emails, I would then call on President Trump to pardon him,” Rohrabacher added.

“At no time did I offer a deal made by the president, nor did I say I was representing the president.”

(snip)

In September 2017, the White House confirmed that Rohrabacher had called the then chief of staff, John Kelly, to talk about a possible deal with Assange, but that Kelly had not passed on the message to Trump. Rohrabacher confirmed that version of events on his blog on Wednesday.

“I told him that Julian Assange would provide information about the purloined DNC emails in exchange for a pardon. No one followed up with me including Gen Kelly and that was the last discussion I had on this subject with anyone representing Trump or in his Administration,” he wrote.

“Even though I wasn’t successful in getting this message through to the President I still call on him to pardon Julian Assange, who is the true whistleblower of our time.”
Here we have several important facts. Chief among them is that Rohrabacher confirms he approached Assange with the deal, denying only that the offer was authorized by the White House and stating that the offer was that he would argue for Assange's pardon, not that it would be guaranteed. Again:

Quote:
"...when speaking with Julian Assange, I told him that if he could provide me information and evidence about who actually gave him the DNC emails, I would then call on President Trump to pardon him,”
Note that there is some detectable spin here; in the WSJ article three years ago, it was already conceded that Assange was specifically asked to provide information indicating that it was not Russia, not an open-ended "evidence of whoever it was". Moving on however:

After disputing only that the deal was authorized by the president, in his own blog Rohrabacher goes on to write these things specifically about what he said to John Kelly about the deal:

Quote:
“I told him that Julian Assange would provide information about the purloined DNC emails in exchange for a pardon."
After talking with Assange, Rohrabacher told John Kelly that Assange would provide the information in exchange for a pardon. Of course nothing ever happened because Kelly never followed up on the matter; however, the way Rohrabacher has chosen to word it, it certainly sounds like an agreement that's been reached, not merely hypothesized.

And then:

Quote:
“Even though I wasn’t successful in getting this message through to the President I still call on him to pardon Julian Assange, who is the true whistleblower of our time.”
So let's create a timeline:

- Both Rohrabacher and Assange's lawyers confirm that Rohrabacher spoke with Assange about a pardon in exchange for Assange clearing Russia in the matter of the DNC email leak. The only matter of dispute is that Assange's lawyers believe Rohrabacher was representing the president, which Rohrabacher denies.

- After having been approached with the deal, Assange publicly denies Russia's involvement, which his legal team alleges to have been Assange's part of the deal

- Rohrabacher informs the White House that Assange will cooperate in exchange for a pardon, and continues even to this day to "still" argue that Assange should be pardoned, which he himself also claims was his part of the deal if Assange cooperated

Now we have a situation where Rohrabacher offered a deal to Assange, and according to you it is purely coincidental that both sides allege they have done exactly what they themselves have claimed the deal stipulated they should do. To add to my script above:

Quote:
ASSANGE: "I'm refusing your offer of a pardon in exchange, but will proceed to say exactly what you have asked me to say anyway for my own personal reasons that have nothing to do with your offer."

ROHRABACHER: "Well fine then; despite your refusal to cooperate, I will nevertheless carry out the action which was to have been your reward, which is to argue for your pardon to the administration, but also for my own personal reasons that have nothing to do with my offer since you did not take it."
By magic, the terms of the deal just happened to accidentally fulfill themselves - truly remarkable. It was as if an occult hand had reached down and moved the pieces while nobody was looking.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2020, 05:11 PM   #1375
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 11,669
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
<snipped to cut to chase>



So let's create a timeline:

- Both Rohrabacher and Assange's lawyers confirm that Rohrabacher spoke with Assange about a pardon in exchange for Assange clearing Russia in the matter of the DNC email leak. The only matter of dispute is that Assange's lawyers believe Rohrabacher was representing the president, which Rohrabacher denies.

- After having been approached with the deal, Assange publicly denies Russia's involvement, which his legal team alleges to have been Assange's part of the deal

- Rohrabacher informs the White House that Assange will cooperate in exchange for a pardon, and continues even to this day to "still" argue that Assange should be pardoned, which he himself also claims was his part of the deal if Assange cooperated
Do you see what's missing from your timeline? actual times. Dates and whatnot.

Take this one for instance: January 4, 2017. That's when CNN reported Assanges public announcement that Russians were not the source of the leaks. Take notes, please: January 2017.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/04/polit...ntv/index.html

Rohrabacher first visits Assange at the Equadorian Embassy in August of 2017, when the articles report this deal was proposed. Take notes again: August 2017.

But you claim Assange was fulfilling the terms of a deal that wasn't proposed for eight months? That is some occult shenanigans, Checkmite. Unless you propose sooper sekrit meetings that no one else reports? We'll need to move the discussion to Conspiracy Theories.

Quote:
Now we have a situation where Rohrabacher offered a deal to Assange, and according to you it is purely coincidental that both sides allege they have done exactly what they themselves have claimed the deal stipulated they should do. To add to my script above:



By magic, the terms of the deal just happened to accidentally fulfill themselves - truly remarkable. It was as if an occult hand had reached down and moved the pieces while nobody was looking.
Yeah. 'Terms of the deal' fulfilled eight months prior to being proposed. You're going to need to adopt this schoolmarm prose again and explain your conspiracy theory to me.

eta: oh, and if you now try to claim that the 'terms of the deal' were to provide evidence, well that didn't happen, did it? So what other 'terms' were fulfilled?
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

Last edited by Thermal; 20th February 2020 at 05:45 PM.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2020, 05:17 PM   #1376
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 46,673
Claims aren't evidence. As far as I can tell, the deal would have been for evidence to back up Assange's claims of Russian non-involvememt.

Also, the terms of the deal were never finalized, so we can't really say that Assange ever met the terms.

The whole thing seems like a red herring to me.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2020, 05:24 PM   #1377
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 11,669
The evidence could have only been on Wikileaks servers, which of course they would never give to the US Govt. Most of the communications with the source, Guccifer 2.0 (IIRC) were done over freaking twitter, and uploaded through WL's secure servers.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2020, 06:05 PM   #1378
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 46,673
There you go. Total red herring. Lawyers, eh?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2020, 06:24 PM   #1379
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 16,049
It looks like Assange is behaving as poorly at his extradition hearing as he did when he was hiding out in the embassy.

From: The Independant
A judge has told Wikileaks found Julian Assange to remain quiet or risk being thrown out of his own extradition hearing after he spoke from the dock and interrupted witnesses. Mr Assange...was told by the judge it was within her power to continue without him if he continues to cut in when others spoke in the court.

Certainly doesn't do his reputation much good if he can't behave during court proceedings. (Although I'm sure his fans will probably claim he's "standing up for justice" or something like that.)

And something else that seems to have gone under the radar (at least I didn't see it discussed here)...

...in a new indictment announced in June Washington’s Justice Department expanded its case, accusing Mr Assange of recruiting hackers at conferences in Europe and Asia, recruiting a teenager to hack into the computer of a former WikiLeaks associate and conspiring with members of hacking groups known as LulzSec and Anonymous.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:22 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.