^O fuck. Assange may be starting to feel a little too safe in his embassy, no?

20k is a bit low for this but maybe this is just intended as a publicity-stunt. - Getting people to talk more about the "coincidence".

Quote: (08-09-2016 10:32 PM)JacksonRev Wrote:  

The question and answer is at the 1 minute mark and the whole video is just only 2:02 minutes long. It's definitely worth it to watch the whole thing because Julian Assange brings up Seth Rich's death out of nowhere after beginning to talk about sources.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp7FkLBRpKg

With WiikLeaks taking an interest in Mr. Rich's death by offering a $20k reward, Mr. Assange namedropping him in a discussion on the safety of sources and proceeding to give a physical tell, it is reasonable to believe Mr. Rich was the source. If these deaths are indeed her doing, it is incredibly reckless to be going on a homicide spree shortly after the FBI officially ended their investigation. That level of hubris and recklessness getting executive power of the U.S. terrifies me.

I'm unsure about the current policy about posting in the Politics & War subforum with less than a 250 post history; hopefully the value I've added with this post will pacify any issue.

Originally I titled this specifically regarding the case of Seth Rich, but I have a feeling that other activity from wikileaks may inspire additional comments.

Specifically, Julian Assange stated that he is prepared to release information that could (but won't, as he speculated himself) lead to the indictment of Hillary Clinton. Rumor has it that it involves videos shot by Huma Abedin for the benefit of the House of Saud, her presumed real bosses. The rumor stated that it would be released last weekend, but it hasn't been that I am aware of.

This video regards the last release, that embarrassed the DNC:






In the interests of accuracy, Mr. Assange did not positively state that Seth Rich was the one who leaked documents embarrassing to the DNC. When pressed by the presenter he would neither confirm or deny.

But someone at Wikipedia has taken enough interest in his murder to put up a $20,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the killer(s).

Wikileaks offers $20K reward for information in murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich.

Quote:Quote:

Specifically, Julian Assange stated that he is prepared to release information that could (but won't, as he speculated himself) lead to the indictment of Hillary Clinton.

What does this sentence say?

Quote: (08-10-2016 09:43 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

Specifically, Julian Assange stated that he is prepared to release information that could (but won't, as he speculated himself) lead to the indictment of Hillary Clinton.

What does this sentence say?

Could mean alot of things.

1. He is actually scared to release the information after Seth got popped. He could be pre-qualifying a decision not to release later on, right now.

2. Because only Trump would go see to it that justice be served, and that he is losing in the polls according to his interviewer in the video, Hillary will get away with it.

3. Huma might take the blame (something we talked about before)

4. He does not think the US Justice dept. will do their jobs based upon what he releases, and that corruption is too deep seated in America now.

5. He is gesturing that his silence has been bought out as well (See point 1)

6. That the information he has is actually not strong enough for an indictment.

That's all the ideas I have. What do you think Samseau?

Quote: (08-10-2016 02:47 AM)Kalkin Wrote:  

In the interests of accuracy, Mr. Assange did not positively state that Seth Rich was the one who leaked documents embarrassing to the DNC. When pressed by the presenter he would neither confirm or deny.

That was the whole point of the gif. He's shaking his head yes when asked if it is Seth Rich. Is it without a doubt lawyering evidence? No.

Is it as good as you'll get in the world of international espionage? Yes.

Quote: (08-09-2016 10:32 PM)JacksonRev Wrote:  

I don't know how people make it through the day without seeing microexpressions.

http://www.paulekman.com/micro-expression-training/

Gave it more thought.

Maybe he is afraid his other whistleblowers will get murdered, like Seth did. I can see Wikileaks catching heat internationally if Obama/Hillary starts jailing/murdering people involved in the leaks. It's possible he feels a guilty weight on him for Seth's murder and does not want to see another one.

Let's also be real here. If Wikileaks has proof of motive for murder, they have no way of being a witness for a conspiracy to commit murder trial. Any member of the Wikileaks team would be arrested by Obama and placed in a tiny SuperMax right like Bradley Manning, upon reaching American soil. Any communications they have with Seth are probably not admissible in court because they cannot testify. Maybe we should ask Sp5 or another RVF lawyer to comment on this, but Hillary or whoever would be involved in the murder would have a right to face their accusers. Julian and others will never be allowed on American soil.

Lastly he should understand that if Hillary does find a way to win, everything goes away. She will create a new Gulag here, kill everyone that was digging into her, like that guy on the Stefan Molyneux show, and his life will be forfeit as well. She won't let him slide like Obama did. He needs to release whatever he has now, while there is still time to build up a coalition of the willing to investigate. If she wins, no non-neocon Republican would dare sue for articles of impeachment. His career would die and he will be found dead later in a hotel with drugs and a fake suicide note.

Quote: (08-10-2016 11:44 AM)JacksonRev Wrote:  

Quote: (08-10-2016 02:47 AM)Kalkin Wrote:  

In the interests of accuracy, Mr. Assange did not positively state that Seth Rich was the one who leaked documents embarrassing to the DNC. When pressed by the presenter he would neither confirm or deny.

That was the whole point of the gif. He's shaking his head yes when asked if it is Seth Rich. Is it without a doubt lawyering evidence? No.

Is it as good as you'll get in the world of international espionage? Yes.

Quote: (08-09-2016 10:32 PM)JacksonRev Wrote:  

I don't know how people make it through the day without seeing microexpressions.

http://www.paulekman.com/micro-expression-training/

Haha, now that you point it out, I see that.

Does this Obama plant know something the rest of us do not?



All these assassination calls by neocons and liberals are getting out of hand. It's absolutely ridiculous. The day the US (with or without the UK govt. support) drone strikes a foreign embassy on UK soil, all hell will break loose. I can very easily see American diplomats sent home in Russia, China, certain EU countries, and some Latin American countries (maybe most).

Is Hillary or Obama socially retarded enough to try that? I hope not, but if they are putting feelers out hardcore to gauge public reception, that is a VERY bad sign they are actually weighing it on the table.

These fools are absolute animals.

Quote: (08-10-2016 02:30 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  

Does this Obama plant know something the rest of us do not?



All these assassination calls by neocons and liberals are getting out of hand. It's absolutely ridiculous. The day the US (with or without the UK govt. support) drone strikes a foreign embassy on UK soil, all hell will break loose. I can very easily see American diplomats sent home in Russia, China, certain EU countries, and some Latin American countries (maybe most).

Is Hillary or Obama socially retarded enough to try that? I hope not, but if they are putting feelers out hardcore to gauge public reception, that is a VERY bad sign they are actually weighing it on the table.

These fools are absolute animals.

I think Hillary is socially retarded enough to attack Assange, but it would not be a drone strike, would be some sort of black ops attack.

This managed to make the front page of Fox News. Looks like Judicial Watch is still fighting the good fight in court to get the public access to documents.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/...tment.html

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/...on-emails/

Quote:Quote:

Huma Abedin Emails Show Clinton Foundation Donor Demands on State Department

(Washington DC) – Judicial Watch today released 296 pages of State Department records, of which 44 email exchanges were not previously turned over to the State Department, bringing the known total to date to 171 of new Clinton emails (not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over to the State Department). These records further appear to contradict statements by Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails were turned over to the State Department

The new documents reveal that in April 2009 controversial Clinton Foundation official Doug Band pushed for a job for an associate. In the email Band tells Hillary Clinton’s former aides at the State Department Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin that it is “important to take care of [Redacted]. Band is reassured by Abedin that “Personnel has been sending him options.” Band was co-founder of Teneo Strategy with Bill Clinton and a top official of the Clinton Foundation, including its Clinton Global Initiative.

Included in the new document production is a 2009 email in which Band, directs Abedin and Mills to put Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire and Clinton Foundation donor Gilbert Chagoury in touch with the State Department’s “substance person” on Lebanon. Band notes that Chagoury is “key guy there [Lebanon] and to us,” and insists that Abedin call Amb. Jeffrey Feltman to connect him to Chagoury.

Chagoury is a close friend of former President Bill Clinton and a top donor to the Clinton Foundation. He has appeared near the top of the Foundation’s donor list as a $1 million to $5 million contributor, according to foundation documents. He also pledged $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative. According to a 2010 investigation by PBS Frontline, Chagoury was convicted in 2000 in Switzerland for laundering money from Nigeria, but agreed to a plea deal and repaid $66 million to the Nigerian government.

Clinton’s top aides’ favors for and interactions with the Clinton Foundation seem in violation of the ethics agreements that Hillary Clinton agreed to in order to be appointed and confirmed as Secretary of State. For example, Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton on January 5, 2009, in a letter to State Department Designated Agency Ethics Official James H. Thessin:

“For the duration of my appointment as Secretary if I am confirmed, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which The William J. Clinton Foundation (or the Clinton Global Initiative) is a party or represents a party….”

As preparation for Hillary’s upcoming visit to Asia, Stephen Roach, chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia, on Feb. 11, 2009, sends Hillary a copy of his upcoming testimony before Congress in which he would condemn any U.S. efforts to criticize Chinese monetary policy or enact trade barriers. Several days later, Hillary asked Abedin about Roach possibly “connecting” with her while she was in Beijing: “I forwarded you my email to him about connecting in Beijing. Can he come to the embassy or other event?” Morgan Stanley is a long-time financial supporter of the Clintons.

The emails also reveal that Abedin left then-Secretary Clinton’s daily schedule, a presumably sensitive document, on a bed in an unlocked hotel room. An email on April 18, 2009, during a conference in Trinidad and Tobago, from aide Melissa J. Lan to Huma Abedin asks for the Secretary’s “day book binders.” Abedin replies: “Yes. It’s on the bed in my room. U can take it. My door is open. I’m in the lobby.Thx.” Moreover, the emails show the annoyance of another Clinton aide that the schedule was sent to an authorized State Department email address and not to an unsecured non-state.gov account.

The emails reveal that Clinton campaign adviser and pollster Mark Penn advised Clinton on NATO and piracy. Another major Clinton fundraiser, Lana Moresky, also pushed Clinton to hire someone for a position at State. Clinton directed Abedin to follow up and “help” the applicant and told Abedin to “let me know” about the job issue.

The emails show that Hillary Clinton relied on someone named “Justin” (presumably Justin Cooper, a Bill Clinton and Clinton Foundation employee), to set up her cell phone voicemail, rather than having State Department personnel handle it. This was in a February 11, 2009, email from Clinton aide Lauren Jiloty to Clinton, using Clinton’s [email protected] address.

This is the ninth set of records produced for Judicial Watch by the State Department from the non-state.gov email accounts of Huma Abedin.

The documents were produced under a court order in a May 5, 2015, Freedom of Information (FOIA) lawsuit against the State Department (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00684)) requiring the agency to produce “all emails of official State Department business received or sent by former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin from January 1, 2009 through February 1, 2013, using a ‘non-state’.gov email address.”

“No wonder Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin hid emails from the American people, the courts and Congress,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “They show the Clinton Foundation, Clinton donors, and operatives worked with Hillary Clinton in potential violation of the law.”

In June, Judicial Watch uncovered two batches (here and here) of new Clinton email records through court-ordered discovery.

Twice in May, Judicial Watch uncovered new Clinton emails, including emails that show Clinton knew about the security risk of her BlackBerry (see here and here).

Recently, Judicial Watch released other State Department emails (one batch of 103 pages, the second of 138 pages), with newly discovered Clinton emails also going back as far as January 2009.

In March, Judicial Watch released Clinton State Department emails dating from February 2009 that also call into question her statements about her emails. Those emails contained more evidence of the battle between security officials in the State Department, National Security Administration, Clinton and her staff over attempts to obtain secure BlackBerrys.

Hillary Clinton has repeatedly stated that she believes that the 55,000 pages of documents she turned over to the State Department in December 2014 included all of her work-related emails. In response to a court order in other Judicial Watch litigation, she declared under penalty of perjury that she had “directed that all my emails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or are potentially federal records be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done.” This new email find is also at odds with her official campaign statement suggesting all “work or potentially work-related emails” were provided to the State Department.

Fox also has this on the front page:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/...ource.html

Quote:Quote:

Published August 10, 2016 FoxNews.com

NOW PLAYING
Assange implies murdered DNC staffer was leak source
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange implied in an interview that a murdered Democratic National Committee staffer was the source of a trove of damaging emails the rogue website posted just days before the party's convention.

Speaking to Dutch television program Nieuswsuur Tuesday after earlier announcing a $20,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of Seth Rich's killer, Assange said the July 10 murder of Rich in Northwest Washington was an example of the risk leakers undertake.


"Whistle-blowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks," Assange said. "As a 27-year-old, works for the DNC, was shot in the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington."

When the interviewer interjected that the murder may have been a robbery, Assange pushed back.

Follow
WikiLeaks ✔ @wikileaks
ANNOUNCE: WikiLeaks has decided to issue a US$20k reward for information leading to conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich.
10:58 AM - 9 Aug 2016
9,299 9,299 Retweets 9,666 9,666 likes
"No," he said. "There’s no finding. So… I’m suggesting that our sources take risks."

When pressed as to whether Rich was, in fact, the leaker, Assange stated that the organization does not reveal its sources.

2016 Election Headquarters
The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics.
See Latest Coverage →
Police have said they believe the motive was robbery, and that there is no evidence Rich's murder was connected to his work. But Rich's father has said the 4 a.m. murder, in which Rich was shot several times from behind, did not appear to be a robbery, as his son's wallet and watch were not taken.
Related Image

dncmurderExpand / Contract
Police say no witnesses to Rich's murder have come forward.
When police found Rich, he was still conscious and breathing. He was transported to a hospital where he later died. No witnesses have come forward and police have no suspects. The WikiLeaks reward adds to a $25,000 reward posted by Washington police.
WikiLeaks’ email dump of DNC files, which embarrassed the party and showed possible collusion to block Bernie Sanders from the nomination, occurred 12 days after his death. Rich was the DNC’s director of voter expansion.

Washington Police Assistant Chief Peter Newsham said the department appreciates WikiLeaks offering of a reward.

“We're very pleased if anyone is going to assist us with giving reward money," Newsham added.

The 45-year-old Assange is founder and editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, which touts itself as a nonprofit journalistic organization. WikiLeaks specializes in publishing online leaked documents and classified information gleaned from an international network of secret sources.

The Australian has been subject to extradition to Sweden since 2010, wher he is wanted for questioning in a rape case that his supporters claim is a pretext to muzzle his efforts. He has been holed up in Ecuador's United Kingdom embassy since he was granted asylum there in August 2012.

Assange participated in the interview from inside the embassy.

MSNBC has an article called Wikileaks Fuels Conspiracy Theories of DNC Staffer.

The other news outlets did not even bother of course. They are still freaking out over the 2nd Amendment comment Trump made.

Today's news says that Assange will be interviewed by Swedish prosecutors at the Ecuador embassy in London. This might lead to the case finally being resolved in some way, either dismissed or some non-punitive resolution. He will be free (will have to) leave that embassy.

Assange has said that he would not go to Sweden because he was afraid that Sweden would hold on him the suspected US warrants related to the Bradley Manning classified data leak. That never made sense to me. If the UK, the US's closest ally, would not hold him for a warrant, why would Sweden?

Just like with anyone else, the pressure of being a "guest" in a small embassy for four years has been getting to Assange. The bogus scorned women "rape" charges oriented him against feminism, hence he hates Hillary. This guy Rich may or may not be the source of the DNC leaks, Assange might be playing a political game, particularly if it's true he has been talking to Roger Stone.

Publishing the DNC leaks would usually not be a crime in the USA, the emails were not classified, and the First Amendment give pretty strong protections to news outlets/journalists. Even with the classified material, it would be a stretch to prosecute him for espionage or some theory of conspiracy with Manning. What Wikileaks did can't be seen as much different than what Glenn Greenwald did with the Snowden material, and (1) the Snowden material was much more highly classified than the Manning material, and (2) Greenwald came back to the USA after publishing the Snowden material.

Quote: (08-11-2016 07:01 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

Today's news says that Assange will be interviewed by Swedish prosecutors at the Ecuador embassy in London. This might lead to the case finally being resolved in some way, either dismissed or some non-punitive resolution. He will be free (will have to) leave that embassy.

Assange has said that he would not go to Sweden because he was afraid that Sweden would hold on him the suspected US warrants related to the Bradley Manning classified data leak. That never made sense to me. If the UK, the US's closest ally, would not hold him for a warrant, why would Sweden?

Just like with anyone else, the pressure of being a "guest" in a small embassy for four years has been getting to Assange. The bogus scorned women "rape" charges oriented him against feminism, hence he hates Hillary. This guy Rich may or may not be the source of the DNC leaks, Assange might be playing a political game, particularly if it's true he has been talking to Roger Stone.

Publishing the DNC leaks would usually not be a crime in the USA, the emails were not classified, and the First Amendment give pretty strong protections to news outlets/journalists. Even with the classified material, it would be a stretch to prosecute him for espionage or some theory of conspiracy with Manning. What Wikileaks did can't be seen as much different than what Glenn Greenwald did with the Snowden material, and (1) the Snowden material was much more highly classified than the Manning material, and (2) Greenwald came back to the USA after publishing the Snowden material.

Interesting, thanks for the reply. Can foreign people like Julian testify in a murder trial for Seth, if he was ever identified as a witness (or someone who he was collaborating with)? Or could someone like Clinton or Obama block him from participating.

Also did Greenwald's American citizenship and press credentials prevent them from putting him in prison? Sounds like a stretch but why would they not sent Julian to Guantanamo Bay if they could secure an extradition? Nevermind how bad the optics would look like, I can see them detaining him there or elsewhere for "cyber terrorism" reasons.

Quote: (08-11-2016 07:34 AM)TravelerKai Wrote:  

Quote: (08-11-2016 07:01 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

Today's news says that Assange will be interviewed by Swedish prosecutors at the Ecuador embassy in London. This might lead to the case finally being resolved in some way, either dismissed or some non-punitive resolution. He will be free (will have to) leave that embassy.

Assange has said that he would not go to Sweden because he was afraid that Sweden would hold on him the suspected US warrants related to the Bradley Manning classified data leak. That never made sense to me. If the UK, the US's closest ally, would not hold him for a warrant, why would Sweden?

Just like with anyone else, the pressure of being a "guest" in a small embassy for four years has been getting to Assange. The bogus scorned women "rape" charges oriented him against feminism, hence he hates Hillary. This guy Rich may or may not be the source of the DNC leaks, Assange might be playing a political game, particularly if it's true he has been talking to Roger Stone.

Publishing the DNC leaks would usually not be a crime in the USA, the emails were not classified, and the First Amendment give pretty strong protections to news outlets/journalists. Even with the classified material, it would be a stretch to prosecute him for espionage or some theory of conspiracy with Manning. What Wikileaks did can't be seen as much different than what Glenn Greenwald did with the Snowden material, and (1) the Snowden material was much more highly classified than the Manning material, and (2) Greenwald came back to the USA after publishing the Snowden material.

Interesting, thanks for the reply. Can foreign people like Julian testify in a murder trial for Seth, if he was ever identified as a witness (or someone who he was collaborating with)? Or could someone like Clinton or Obama block him from participating.

Also did Greenwald's American citizenship and press credentials prevent them from putting him in prison? Sounds like a stretch but why would they not sent Julian to Guantanamo Bay if they could secure an extradition? Nevermind how bad the optics would look like, I can see them detaining him there or elsewhere for "cyber terrorism" reasons.

There may be some other reason to prosecute Assange, like hacking or fraud. The Snowden stuff was 100x as classified and sensitive as the Manning stuff, which was pretty much low-level routine Secret rather than Top Secret SCI. Greenwald admitted helping Snowden get the stuff out, hard to say what Assange did that would be more prosecutable unless it is something we don't know about.

Assange can testify in any proceeding in the USA, he could probably do things on video link as well. I just don't know if his suggestion that Seth was the leaker is credible. Why not make an unequivocal statement at this point?

Quote: (08-11-2016 08:06 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

Quote: (08-11-2016 07:34 AM)TravelerKai Wrote:  

Quote: (08-11-2016 07:01 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

Today's news says that Assange will be interviewed by Swedish prosecutors at the Ecuador embassy in London. This might lead to the case finally being resolved in some way, either dismissed or some non-punitive resolution. He will be free (will have to) leave that embassy.

Assange has said that he would not go to Sweden because he was afraid that Sweden would hold on him the suspected US warrants related to the Bradley Manning classified data leak. That never made sense to me. If the UK, the US's closest ally, would not hold him for a warrant, why would Sweden?

Just like with anyone else, the pressure of being a "guest" in a small embassy for four years has been getting to Assange. The bogus scorned women "rape" charges oriented him against feminism, hence he hates Hillary. This guy Rich may or may not be the source of the DNC leaks, Assange might be playing a political game, particularly if it's true he has been talking to Roger Stone.

Publishing the DNC leaks would usually not be a crime in the USA, the emails were not classified, and the First Amendment give pretty strong protections to news outlets/journalists. Even with the classified material, it would be a stretch to prosecute him for espionage or some theory of conspiracy with Manning. What Wikileaks did can't be seen as much different than what Glenn Greenwald did with the Snowden material, and (1) the Snowden material was much more highly classified than the Manning material, and (2) Greenwald came back to the USA after publishing the Snowden material.

Interesting, thanks for the reply. Can foreign people like Julian testify in a murder trial for Seth, if he was ever identified as a witness (or someone who he was collaborating with)? Or could someone like Clinton or Obama block him from participating.

Also did Greenwald's American citizenship and press credentials prevent them from putting him in prison? Sounds like a stretch but why would they not sent Julian to Guantanamo Bay if they could secure an extradition? Nevermind how bad the optics would look like, I can see them detaining him there or elsewhere for "cyber terrorism" reasons.

There may be some other reason to prosecute Assange, like hacking or fraud. The Snowden stuff was 100x as classified and sensitive as the Manning stuff, which was pretty much low-level routine Secret rather than Top Secret SCI. Greenwald admitted helping Snowden get the stuff out, hard to say what Assange did that would be more prosecutable unless it is something we don't know about.

Assange can testify in any proceeding in the USA, he could probably do things on video link as well. I just don't know if his suggestion that Seth was the leaker is credible. Why not make an unequivocal statement at this point?

Because he is not a lawyer

I bet this new news about Sweden looking to interview him at the embassy, may be a trick. Maybe Obama and Co. have figured out that a drone strike on an embassy, as well as a Navy Seal/SOG squad going in there to kill/capture him is completely illogical, they must have worked the Sweden govt. back channels to smoke him out instead. A phony rape charge isn't exactly hard to get them to drop. A little bit of money or a minor political favor can cover that. It wasn't like he murdered someone in Sweden.

The moment he leaves, he's as good as dead. I don't think they would even want to capture him because dead men do not tell tales. Killing him would activate the insurance drops people have downloaded, so unless they let the NSA brute force crack those files to see what is inside with their supercomputers, they would be taking a risk killing him without know what is inside those zip files first.

Quote: (08-11-2016 07:01 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

Assange has said that he would not go to Sweden because he was afraid that Sweden would hold on him the suspected US warrants related to the Bradley Manning classified data leak. That never made sense to me. If the UK, the US's closest ally, would not hold him for a warrant, why would Sweden?

Just like with anyone else, the pressure of being a "guest" in a small embassy for four years has been getting to Assange. The bogus scorned women "rape" charges oriented him against feminism, hence he hates Hillary. This guy Rich may or may not be the source of the DNC leaks, Assange might be playing a political game, particularly if it's true he has been talking to Roger Stone.

Or it's because many high ranking members of the DNC have been calling for Julian's death:

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/763380671796678656

Quote: (08-11-2016 11:21 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote: (08-11-2016 07:01 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

Assange has said that he would not go to Sweden because he was afraid that Sweden would hold on him the suspected US warrants related to the Bradley Manning classified data leak. That never made sense to me. If the UK, the US's closest ally, would not hold him for a warrant, why would Sweden?

Just like with anyone else, the pressure of being a "guest" in a small embassy for four years has been getting to Assange. The bogus scorned women "rape" charges oriented him against feminism, hence he hates Hillary. This guy Rich may or may not be the source of the DNC leaks, Assange might be playing a political game, particularly if it's true he has been talking to Roger Stone.

Or it's because many high ranking members of the DNC have been calling for Julian's death:

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/763380671796678656

"Everyone" said they wanted Assange killed after the Manning leaks, if by "everyone" you mean has-beens, "pundits," and talking heads with no means to do it.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/...e-whacked/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010...e-assange/

The revival of this selected example of a Democrat and its framing amongst the many others who called for Assange's head six years ago confirms rather than negates my suspicion this is a Roger Stone partisan ratfuck.

Not saying Assange does not have enemies, but if someone powerful really wanted him dead, the Ecuadorian embassy would not be much of a barrier to his "suicide" or drug overdose.

My take on Assange: 1/3 good reason to be scared, 1/3 paranoia, 1/3 attention whore and huckster.

Quote: (08-12-2016 01:01 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

1/3 attention whore and huckster.

There's definitely a fame seeking element in his personality that was evident way back in the day. However, even a guy who wants fame and to be a martyr has to have some integrity to live the way they do inside an embassy with uncertainty.

I don't think he has it on easy street by any means. His life is dangling on a thread because a lot of people want to see him gone. He's too much a shit stirrer.

I'm more concerned with what Ecuador gets from all this. Countries just don't harbor people for ethical or moral reasons. There's a larger play here we're not seeing. I don't think it's all grudge related either. Plenty of latin american countries have grudges but he chose Ecuador specifically. Why ?

Quote: (08-12-2016 08:54 AM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

Quote: (08-12-2016 01:01 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

1/3 attention whore and huckster.

There's definitely a fame seeking element in his personality that was evident way back in the day. However, even a guy who wants fame and to be a martyr has to have some integrity to live the way they do inside an embassy with uncertainty.

I don't think he has it on easy street by any means. His life is dangling on a thread because a lot of people want to see him gone. He's too much a shit stirrer.

I'm more concerned with what Ecuador gets from all this. Countries just don't harbor people for ethical or moral reasons. There's a larger play here we're not seeing. I don't think it's all grudge related either. Plenty of latin american countries have grudges but he chose Ecuador specifically. Why ?

Maybe they become a haven for weathly lunatics? Like they can be home to all the John Macafees of the world.

Quote: (08-12-2016 01:01 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

Quote: (08-11-2016 11:21 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote: (08-11-2016 07:01 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

Assange has said that he would not go to Sweden because he was afraid that Sweden would hold on him the suspected US warrants related to the Bradley Manning classified data leak. That never made sense to me. If the UK, the US's closest ally, would not hold him for a warrant, why would Sweden?

Just like with anyone else, the pressure of being a "guest" in a small embassy for four years has been getting to Assange. The bogus scorned women "rape" charges oriented him against feminism, hence he hates Hillary. This guy Rich may or may not be the source of the DNC leaks, Assange might be playing a political game, particularly if it's true he has been talking to Roger Stone.

Or it's because many high ranking members of the DNC have been calling for Julian's death:

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/763380671796678656

"Everyone" said they wanted Assange killed after the Manning leaks, if by "everyone" you mean has-beens, "pundits," and talking heads with no means to do it.

Sorry you're not making any sense, if the lower peons are calling for Assange's head it's only because they are repeating what they know their bosses want. That's how things work in the sycophant party, I mean the Democrat party.

NEW HACKS INCOMING

http://thesmokinggun.com/buster/democrat...ack-645891

Quote:Quote:

While “Guccifer 2.0” claims to be Romanian and an “unknown hacker with a laptop,” cybersecurity investigators have concluded that he is part of a Russian intelligence operation that has targeted the DNC, Hillary Clinton campaign staffers, and assorted Republicans, including John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Michele Bachmann.

In a message today, the hacker branded the U.S. presidential elections a “farce” that is “being settled behind the scenes as it was with Bernie Sanders.” He added, “I wonder what happened to the true democracy, to the equal opportunities, the things we love the United States for. The big money bags are fighting for power today. They are lying constantly and don’t keep their word. The MSM are producing tons of propaganda hiding the real stuff behind it. But I do believe that people have right to know what’s going on inside the election process in fact.”

“Guccifer 2.0” also invited reporters to contact him via Twitter direct message: “Dear journalists, you may send me a DM if you’re interested in exclusive materials from the DCCC, which I have plenty of.”

I found a link to Guccier's site:

https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/08/...cked-dccc/

So now it is confirmed that Guccifer is a Russian Operative?

Gee that's fucking funny. I do not recall most people from the CyberSecurity Community coming to that consensus this week or last. Just because CrowdStrike thinks he is a Russian agent, does not mean it's true.

There is also this little diddy as well from Brian Krebs' Security blog.

http://krebsonsecurity.com/2016/05/did-t...nt-page-1/

Quote:Quote:

Ah, Brian, it appears that both the Chinese and the Russians had complete access to Hillary’s rogue mail server going back to 2013. I’m not sure there’s any point in talking about the printer.

A Romanian cab driver, known as Guccifer and now sitting in a U.S. jail, claimed to have found her mail server and gotten complete access to it in 2013, up to two years before Farsight discovered it in March 2015.

But there is a subsequent story that claimed that Guccifer tried to hack into Russian systems which the Russians discovered. They, in turn, planted malware on Guccifer’s computer that allowed them to see everything that he was able to hack into. It’s likely that the Russians have every piece of email that went through Hillary’s server. If there are any missing, we should ask them about it.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-gets...1462487970

So if the Russians stole whatever Guccifer stole, what does that say about the whole mess? The same thing I said a while back. Even a so-so Penetration Tester or mild Black Hat hacker could have gotten into Hillary's mail server. It was not hardened or secured in any way shape or form. Everyone and their mother was inside those servers. Wanna bet the MI:6, the French, and the Germans peeked at it too?

Blaming the Russians for the leaks is getting really old. Even Julian admitted they have inside sources. If Hillary nor the DNC can be bothered to secure their servers properly, what makes anyone think they have auditing and Intrusion Prevention Systems that would stop someone inside from stealing work email as an employee? Because they did not. They were both cheap and they paid dearly for it, just like every other idiotically ran corporation that thinks IT is just a mere cost center (basically a waste of money) that does not provide revenue for the company.

Even a man that owns a junkyard could be bothered to leave a dog inside the yard. What a bunch of muppets.