AND SO IT BEGINS . . . ASSANGE ARRESTED

On Thursday, British authorities arrested WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London after Ecuador abandoned its long-standing commitment to protect Assange from a coordinated effort of the United States and a variety of other countries as intelligence organizations. American intelligence has long demanded the prosecution of Assange who disclosed controversial military operations in the United States. The arrest will now trigger litigation over the status of Assange. Was he acting as a journalist, a whistleblower, a spy, or a dupe?

It has been seven years of confinement for Assange in the embassy — a relationship that turn sour over the years with embassy staff complaining about Assange’s attitude, activities, and even his hygiene.

Ecuador’s president, Lenin Moreno, announced that his “sovereign decision” was based on “repeated violations to international conventions and daily-life”:

“Today I announce that that the discourteous and aggressive behavior of Mr. Julian Assange, the hostile and threatening declarations of its allied organization, against Ecuador, and especially the transgression of international treaties, have led the situation to a point where the asylum of Mr. Assange is unsustainable and no longer viable.”

American nation decided to revoke the political asylum that had given him sanctuary for almost seven years.

London police said they were invited into the embassy by Ecuador’s ambassador. Assange took refuge in the embassy in 2012 after he was released on bail while facing extradition to Sweden on sexual assault allegations that have since been dropped.

Assange has been under U.S. Justice Department scrutiny for years for Wikileaks’ role in publishing thousands of government secrets and was an important figure in the special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe as investigators examined how WikiLeaks obtained emails stolen from Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and Democratic groups.

Ecuador’s president, Lenin Moreno, said his government made a “sovereign decision” to revoke Assange’s political asylum due to “repeated violations to international conventions and daily-life.”

“Today I announce that that the discourteous and aggressive behavior of Mr. Julian Assange, the hostile and threatening declarations of its allied organization, against Ecuador, and especially the transgression of international treaties, have led the situation to a point where the asylum of Mr. Assange is unsustainable and no longer viable,” Moreno said in a video released on Twitter.

In a colossal blunder in 2018, the Justice Department previously revealed that it had a sealed indictment against Assange who faces a U.S. extradition request.

While Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has labeled Assange a “fraud,” “coward,” and “enemy,” a strong argument can be made that he was acting as either a whistleblower or journalist. However, whistleblower defenses are quite limited in national security cases. The status as a journalist has been contested by some and federal law actually does not contain an exemption for the possession or distribution of classified information. However, there is a strong gravitational pull for constitutional protection. This would set up a serious first amendment fight. Putting aside the issue of journalistic defenses, an indictment under the Espionage Act would be quite challenging for the government absent some new evidence establishing a nexus and intent.

I have handled first amendment and national security cases and I would call the Assange arrest the most anticipated case of my generation in defining the outside boundaries of those areas. Ironically, I just spoke in Utah on the changing role and realities of the U.S. media. This could prove one of the most important cases in history.

And so it begins.

298 thoughts on “AND SO IT BEGINS . . . ASSANGE ARRESTED”

    1. Rule of Specialty

      1. A person extradited under this Treaty may not be detained, tried, or punished in the Requesting State except for:
      (a) any offense for which extradition was granted, or a differently denominated offense based on the same facts as the offense on which extradition was granted, provided such offense is extraditable, or is a lesser included offense;
      (b) any offense committed after the extradition of the person; or
      (c) any offense for which the executive authority of the Requested State waives the rule of specialty and thereby consents to the person’s detention, trial, or punishment. For the purpose ofthis subparagraph:
      (i) the executive authority of the Requested State may require the submission of the documentation called for in Article 8; and
      (ii) the person extradited may be detained by the Requesting State for 90 days, or for such longer period of time as the Requested State may authorize, while the request for consent is being processed.

      2. A person extradited under this Treaty may not be the subject of onward extradition or surrender for any offense committed prior to extradition to the Requesting State unless the Requested State consents.
      3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article shall not prevent the detention, trial, or punishment of an extradited person, or the extradition of the person to a third State, if the person:
      (a) leaves the territory ofthe Requesting State after extradition and voluntarily returns to it; or
      (b) does not leave the territory ofthe Requesting State within 20 days of the day on which that person is free to leave.
      4. I f the person sought waives extradition pursuant to Article 17, the specialty provisions in this Article shall not apply.

      1. The law is optional or moot.

        The Constitution denies Congress any power to tax for individual welfare or redistribution of wealth and it denies Congress any power to modify, nullify or deny the right of individuals to claim and exercise dominion over private property, in exclusion of every other individual, including the government.

        The entire American redistributionist welfare state is irrefutably illegal and unconstitutional…and yet, extant.

        1. The Rule of Specialty is from the extradition treaty of 2003 between the United States and the United Kingdom. What it means is that Assange cannot be tried for any offenses other than the one for which he might be extradited. IOW, DOJ can’t tack on additional charges against Assange.

          This is L4D

  1. APRIL 11, 2019

    ACLU COMMENT ON JULIAN ASSANGE ARREST

    https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-comment-julian-assange-arrest

    NEW YORK — London authorities today arrested WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in relation to an extradition warrant on behalf of U.S. authorities.

    Ben Wizner, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, issued the following comment in response:

    “Any prosecution by the United States of Mr. Assange for Wikileaks’ publishing operations would be unprecedented and unconstitutional, and would open the door to criminal investigations of other news organizations. Moreover, prosecuting a foreign publisher for violating U.S. secrecy laws would set an especially dangerous precedent for U.S. journalists, who routinely violate foreign secrecy laws to deliver information vital to the public’s interest.”

      1. And who cares what some random guy named “Allan” thinks. Evidently, he believes that he is “intellectual[ly] honest.” It’s a reasonable inference that he’s not.

          1. The one and only original anonymous differs from, and with, Diane/L4D most specifically on the subjects of Julian Assange and Edward Snowden. We also have a difference of opinion on Chelsea Manning. But not on the gender reassignment issue.

            Sluggo stuffs everyone into the same pigeonhole because Sluggo can’t handle complexity. It’s too hard for the poor schnook. Sluggo has not yet even figured out the obvious fact that the sealed indictment against Assange was brought while Sessions was Attorney General.

            This, too, is L4D

            1. No, Diane, you created an alternative name. Live with it and live with the fact that others using that same generic identity can get confused with you. You are not the one whose reputation is hurt. Their reputations can be hurt because you are stuck below street level.

  2. I have a definition for Assange: THIEF. He is charged with computer hacking, illegally stealing confidential information that didn’t belong to him, and then publishing it. He can’t be either a journalist or whistleblower over information he obtained by illegal means. There is no First Amendment protection for stealing and publishing someone else’s confidential information, so stop trying to muddy the waters over his status.

      1. If someone hacked Donald Trump’s emails, bank records or TAXES, it would be labeled a ‘deep state conspiracy’ by every Trumper in the country. Trump would blame it on Obama and demand the latter’s arrest.

        1. No, it would be labeled a ‘deep state conspiracy’ if Andrew McCabe had been in charge of the hacking.

          1. Assange was indicted for assisting Chelsea Manning. The Obama holdovers had nothing to do with this indictment against Assange. This indictment against Assange is the handiwork of Jeff Sessions–who used to work for Trump. Trump did not fire Sessions for indicting Assange. Trump is not going to fire AG Barr for approving the extradition request for Assange, either. At some point along the way, you’re all going to have to back Trump’s play on Assange. And your feckless gibes about McCabe will be of no use to you then.

            This is L4D.

  3. It appears that Sweden will re-open the investigation, and could refile charges, involving the rape allegations against Assange.
    But only if he actually sets foot in Sweden by August 2020, which I assume is when the statute of limitations kicks in.
    If the pilots of the plane carrying Assange to the U.S. got lost and ended up landing in Stockholm instead of America, Sweden would get another shot at Assange before the U.S. deals with him.

  4. “U.S. prosecutors later unsealed their indictment against Assange, saying that he was wanted “in connection with a federal charge of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion for agreeing to break a password to a classified U.S. government computer.”
    https://theintercept.com/2019/04/11/julian-assange-arrested-london-ecuador-withdraws-asylum/

    Now this is rich.

    Hillary broke countless laws, protocols and standards as Secty of State and presidential candidate (part II), and yet Comey found no cause, while the DOJ went flaccid.

    The double standards against Assange will hang Hillary in the court of public opinion, as if she can possibly hang any further or lower

    1. ha ha oh yeah well I guess i forgot about ole hillary’s classified info infarctions

      some animals are more equal than others as geo orwell wrote in animal farm

  5. OT:

    Retiring as a Judge, Trump’s Sister Ends Court Inquiry Into Her Role in Tax Dodges

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/10/us/maryanne-trump-barry-misconduct-inquiry.

    Excerpt:

    April 10, 2019

    President Trump’s older sister, Maryanne Trump Barry, has retired as a federal appellate judge, ending an investigation into whether she violated judicial conduct rules by participating in fraudulent tax schemes with her siblings.

    The court inquiry stemmed from complaints filed last October, after an investigation by The New York Times found that the Trumps had engaged in dubious tax schemes during the 1990s, including instances of outright fraud, that greatly increased the inherited wealth of Mr. Trump and his siblings. Judge Barry not only benefited financially from most of those tax schemes, The Times found; she was also in a position to influence the actions taken by her family.

    Judge Barry, now 82, has not heard cases in more than two years but was still listed as an inactive senior judge, one step short of full retirement. In a letter dated Feb. 1, a court official notified the four individuals who had filed the complaints that the investigation was “receiving the full attention” of a judicial conduct council. Ten days later, Judge Barry filed her retirement papers.

    The status change rendered the investigation moot, since retired judges are not subject to the conduct rules. The people who filed the complaints were notified last week that the matter had been dropped without a finding on the merits of the allegations. The decision has not yet been made public, but copies were provided to The Times by two of the complainants. Both are involved in the legal profession. (end of excerpt)

    1. FALSE CHARGES
      YOU ARE MAKING IT UP THAT THERE WAS ‘OUTRIGHT FRAUD”

      THE DUBIOUS TAX SCHEMES OF OBTAINING FRACTIONAL SHARE VALUATION DISCOUNTS FOR ESTATE AND GIFT TAX VALUATIONS WAS NOT A DODGE IT WAS A FIRMLY WELL ACCEPTED TOOL UPHELD IN COURTS WITH SOME LIMITATIONS

      but you guys just keep on lying about it, all you want, free country they say

      1. i mean to say the supposedly dubious, the allegedly dubious.

        anyways why bother huh newspapers just lie lie lie all they want
        they are the real pious frauds out there, worst of all

  6. “Was he acting as a journalist, a whistleblower, a spy, or a dupe?” Whether or not the information released by Wikileaks was valuable is irrelevant.

    If he released classified information, then he broke federal law. If he hacked into computer systems, then he broke the law. If he merely passed on information and did not steal it himself, then there might be a journalistic angle. There is a system in place for whistleblowers, that does not involve undifferentiated data dumps to the general public. Some of the information could certainly classify as “whistleblowing”, if through the wrong channels. However, it is the release of classified information and hacking that are the critical issues.

    He can argue his case in court. He might take the position that there were politicized agents working in the intelligence community that rendered the usual whistleblowing channels closed to him. There are certainly some cases where someone might feel justified in breaking the law. Then they have to be willing to suffer the consequences and argue their position.

    We will have to see how this plays out. I am grateful for the exposure of the deep state and fraud, but the law is supposed to apply equally, and fairly, to all.

    1. Karen, Honey, you reveal your stupidity every time you repeat the Faux News “deep state” phrase.

        1. Natacha sticks with and keeps informed by following the more reliable media outlets, like HHHNN.
          So her Foxaphobia is understandable.
          I saw a Facebook story that Trump was already considering appointing Assange to a key spot on his 2020 campaign committee.
          Will HHHNN beat other news organizations to the punch and be the very first to publish this?

      1. “Karen, Honey, you reveal your stupidity every time you repeat the Faux News “deep state” phrase.”

        LOL. That may be the one and only thing that Karen gets right.

  7. TRUMP NOW MUTED ON WIKILEAKS

    BUT HE CITED THEM 141 TIMES DURING 2016 CAMPAIGN

    President Trump, who repeatedly praised WikiLeaks for releasing damaging material on Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential race, on Thursday sought to disavow his past enthusiasm following the arrest of the organization’s founder, Julian Assange.

    “I know nothing about WikiLeaks,” Trump told reporters. “It’s not my thing. I know there is something to do with Julian Assange. I’ve been seeing what’s happened with Assange. And that will be a determination, I imagine, mostly by the attorney general.”

    Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office during a meeting with South Korean President Moon Jae-in, Trump said he didn’t “really have an opinion” about Assange’s arrest by British authorities in response to a U.S. extradition request. He said the matter was being handled by Attorney General William P. Barr.

    In an indictment unsealed earlier Thursday, Assange was accused of conspiring in 2010 with Chelsea Manning, a U.S. Army intelligence analyst then known as Bradley Manning, and others to illegally obtain secret U.S. military and diplomatic documents.

    It was WikiLeaks’ later publication of hacked emails damaging to Clinton, Trump’s 2016 Democratic opponent, that drew his repeated praise.

    NBC News tallied that Trump had cited WikiLeaks 141 times at 56 events in the last month of the campaign.

    “WikiLeaks, I love WikiLeaks,” he said at one such event.

    “This WikiLeaks is like a treasure trove,” he said at another.

    “I love reading those WikiLeaks,” he said at yet another event, relaying that he had been delayed in arriving because he had been reading the latest batch of emails that WikiLeaks had released.

    WikiLeaks began releasing hacked emails from Clinton’s campaign manager, John Podesta, on the same day in October 2016 as the surfacing of the “Access Hollywood” tape in which Trump bragged about inappropriately grabbing women.

    1. CREDIT FOR ABOVE:

      Full Story, “Trump Disavows Past Enthusiasm For Wikileaks After Assange’s Arrest”

      Today’s WASHINGTON POST

      1. Do they pay you for this? I would hate like hell if you didn’t get something out of your daily reprints.

    2. P Hill – there have been times that I found Wikileaks to be fruitful and juicy. Nothing changes the fact that leaking classified information along with the helpful bits was a federal crime. Regardless of whether we benefitted or not from Wikileaks, the case needs to be argued in court. My gratitude, or anyone else’s, for knowing some of Wikileaks’ revelations does not change that fact, nor is it hypocritical.

      1. Yeah, Karen, I’m okay with the prosecution. Trump seems okay with it too. I’m not sure ‘why’, but he is.

    3. “Trump bragged about inappropriately grabbing women.”

      Trump’s vulgar comments still do not appear to be clear to Democrats. He was bragging about what groupies willingly do. Most people have made disparaging comments about groupies, gold diggers, and courtesans. There is probably not a rock star or actor alive who has not made some comment, at least in private, about what such people are willing and eager to do or allow them to do. It’s not classy to talk this way. It’s not meant for public consumption. The fact is that many women do seem to lower standards and boundaries for men eager to enjoy the liberty. The payoff could be anything from being able to say they had contact with a famous person, money, culture, or whatever. It depends on the target.

      Rich, powerful, and famous men are constantly surrounded by such women hoping to get something from them, and wiling to allow liberties to get it. Such behavior is bad for both the men and the women. It is not healthy to be constantly surrounded by either sycophants or easy women. It can change your internal gauge for what’s appropriate.

      His comments were embarrassing to himself and Melania. It reminds everyone that he is a twice divorced man with a history of infidelity. If he fails to be a loyal husband, he just may find himself thrice divorced in his golden years, when most want and need companionship and partnership the most. Those groupies may allow liberties, but they won’t sit by your hospital bed when mortality has begun landing blows.

      He was not talking about sexual assault, which, by definition, requires an unwillingness in the recipient. Groupies who go along with, encourage, or allow without comment liberties are not sexually assaulted. He made vulgar comments, like many of us do, about what women allow.

      It’s similar to someone remarking that a woman “slept her way to the top” or got a part through “the casting couch.”

      Now, if Trump actually did walk around grabbing unsuspecting and unwilling women by their lady parts, he would be arrested. That would be an entirely different matter.

      On another note, an example of invading the personal space of unwilling women is Joe Biden. Although his behavior is sexualized and inappropriate, it does not rise to the level of sexual assault. It is improper. He does not walk around behind men, grasp their shoulders, start massaging, and then nuzzling their hair. He only does this to women and girls. He seems to really be turned on by females. The fact that he also does this to underage girls is certainly concerting. My own father would have slapped Biden’s hands away from his underage daughters, damn the cameras and audience. We have myriad images and videos of women cringing away from Biden, and decades of his total lack of empathy rendering him unaware of how his actions are received. My own son has been raised from infancy to be aware of how our pets respond to how he plays with them. Are the dogs okay with how you’re playing? How can you tell? He knows to read body language, especially critical with handling horses, to understand how he is being received. Biden utterly lacks this talent. He might be a good speaker, and a generally compassionate man, but he has no awareness of how his actions are affecting others, even when the cues are rather blatant.

      Biden is incorrect that the reason why he massages women was because times were different. I do not know of any man of my acquaintance who would just sit there while another man massaged, nuzzled, or smooched his wife. At the very least, they would have inserted themselves in a subtle-like way, and given him a “firm” handshake, so that the bruised bones would remind him to respect women the next time he came into proximity with one. This also reminds me of how Goldie Hawn was described at being very deft at avoiding handsy Hollywood men. A journalist saw her at a gathering grasp a hand on her butt, and hold that hand while talking to its owner. The guy never even realized he’d been dissed. She defended her personal space in a firm, but relaxed way.

      Again, this in no way rises to sexual assault. I in fact blame his family, friends, handlers, employees, and colleagues for apparently never taking him aside and informing him in a firm way that he must absolutely stop coming up behind women, gripping their shoulders, and massaging them, smelling their hair, nuzzling, or smooching the back of their heads. It’s been decades of this. If he hasn’t a clue by now, someone needs to clue him in. He’s married. This is not acceptable behavior, especially for women you don’t know. I get that he loves women, I mean looooooooooves women, but he must hold to boundaries. It is also disrespectful of his wife. (As was Trump bragging about willing groupies, let alone having affairs. There’s another guy who needs to learn communication boundaries, and that someone is always listening.)

      Stop acting like Trump actually walked around grabbing unwilling women by their lady parts. Stop acting like Biden assaulted women. The former was vulgar bragging about groupies, the latter was a creepy lack of boundaries, personal space, and respect.

      1. Why would Pamela Anderson repeatedly fly to Ecuador to meet with Julian Assange, and then later discuss in an interview about how romantically close they were? How he was closer to her than to other people? Why would she tell a journalist that Julian’s last conversation with her involved jealousy?

        If Julian Assange was just a computer nerd, and never formed Wikileaks, would Pamela Anderson give him the time of day? What does Pamela Anderson, and others like her, allow Julian to do? How many beautiful women are unattainable to nerds in general, but very available to famous men like Julian? Has Julian ever told a soul about it? How unfortunate would that be if such a conversation were caught on a hot mike…

        1. “Why would Pamela Anderson repeatedly fly to Ecuador to meet with Julian Assange…”

          What are you talking about?

          1. What are you talking about?

            I’ve heard the English language can be difficult to learn. So let me assist here:

            She was talking about Anderson flying and then meeting with Assange in Ecuador.

            I hope that helped.

            Next question.

                1. That Pamela Anderson (and others) visited Assange has been covered extensively. It just didn’t happen in Ecuador.

            1. Are psychotics qualified to label others as psychotic? I’m not questioning L4D’s enormous expertise in all areas, including the field of psychiatry.
              But is a whacked-out Expert in All Areas the best person to be calling others “psychotic”
              Aside from all of that, I don’t think Karen even sent L4B the 5 Cent fee that L4B (and Lucy) command, so she can’t really be considered a patient like.

              1. I don’t care what anyone irrational thinks of me. They’re not rational. There is nothing good to give there, nothing you can reason with. Past predicts future, so all we’re ever going to get are constant insults.

                What I do care about is learning how to differentiate the unstable Anonymous obsessed with some of us, and new commenters who post good comments under Anonymous. I usually just skim right on by Anonymous once I realize it’s her. It seems like the Space Invader style icon changes for her. How can I tell which one is her without having to waste 30 seconds I can’t get back in my life flagging Fox, Trump, idiot, Honey, Russia, Fox, Trump, Fox, Fox, Fox?

                Since the icon keeps changing for her, does anyone know how to tell when it’s her without having to waste their time looking for her tells?

            2. This is the equivalent of the insane in insane asylums calling everyone else insane. Diane needss a straight jacket.

      2. Speaking of slapping Biden’s hands away… I’ve read that Sessions did just that to protect a grand daughter and that there is a vid. I’ve not hunted for it, but if it exists bet it’s a doozy!

  8. The Defense establishment was going to have their way with Assange no matter who is President. Obviously the Democrats fully knew and supported that. the ensure that Trump has zero room to call off the dogs on Assange after the long false Russiagate hoax.

    However, I agree with those who say that the Pentagon papers precedent should apply to Assange. Or, it should have been overturned. The SCOTUS has a problem on its hands. Will they narrow Pentagon Papers only to massive capitalist owned mass media enterprises or will citizen journalists have the protection of law too?

    Right now national security is winning time after time and PP case has little teeth.

    In the age of the internet, the implications are huge. It’s good for the rest of us all now that Assange is now in custody so that this drama can go forwards in court. And people can figure out what the law really is. It’s incredibly unfair when the law is not clear in the first place. Like now.

    I have sympathy for Manning, who may have been manipulated badly in all this mess. And is locked up for a long time in solitary probably crazy as hell now, the poor guy/gal (?) was a little off in the first place.

    Assange is surely a narcissist, and some will say this about him, but that is besides the point. A lot of narcissists take us forward in history. Hell wasn’t Alexander the Great a narcissist if there ever was one?

    1. L4D says, the death penalty is extremely unlikely for Assange even under the Espionage Act, which, in turn, is unlikely for Assange.

      An Explainer on the Espionage Act and the Third-Party Leak … – Lawfare

      https://www.lawfareblog.com/explainer-espionage-act-and-third-party-leak-prosecutions

      May 22, 2013 … The Espionage Act is only one of numerous anti-leaking and -disclosure statutes. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(1) (criminalizing the use of a …

      1. L4D says, excerpted from the article linked above:

        Violations of either of these provisions [ § 793(c) and § 793(e)], as with the rest of the Espionage Act, can lead to sentences of up to ten years in prison.

        Taken together, § 793(c) and § 793(e) broadly criminalize receipt and retransmission of leaked material.

        1. Meanwhile, Assange has been indicted for one count of conspiracy [under the offense clause of 18 USC 371] to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act [18 USC 1030]. Any additional charges against Assange would have to be added before Assange is extradited.

          This is L4D.

  9. From The Intercept:

    https://theintercept.com/2019/04/11/julian-assange-arrested-london-ecuador-withdraws-asylum/

    His lawyer, Jen Robinson, said that she and Assange had been correct to warn that the U.S. would try to prosecute him for publishing the Manning leaks in 2010.

    BBC News (UK)

    @BBCNews

    “This sets a dangerous precedent… any journalist can be extradited for prosecution in the US for having published truthful information about the US”

    Julian Assange’s lawyer Jennifer Robinson confirms Wikileaks co-founder will fight extradition

    http: //bbc.in/2Kv9R1e

    10:28 AM – Apr 11, 2019

    Robinson told the media outside the court she had a message from Assange: “I told you so.”

    (End of excerpt)

    1. Assange’s lawyer really went out on a limb “predicting” that the U.S. would try to prosecute Assange.
      That didn’t take a lot of analysis🤔 or insight🧐to figure that that one out.

      1. You’re garbling again. Robinson correctly predicted the “offense” for which Assange would be indicted. Remember: It was a sealed indictment until yesterday. And there were lots of other potential charges on the menu. Besides, the current charge against Assange is one that the Obama Justice Department declined to prosecute.

        This is L4D.

        1. Her words “for having published” makes it clear that she’s focusing on the “publishing”…….so if Assange faces indictments unrelated to the actual publishibg, it appears that Assange’s lawyer is engaging in an L4D stunt by deflecting attention from the hacking charges.
          In any case, the prediction made years ago that Assange would be indicted ( for whatever specific reasons spelled out in the indictment) while more accurate than any of L4B’s nutty predictions, didn’t require any particular foresight.

    2. The Intercept is going to lead the way in helping us keep tabs of latest developments.
      Snowden is definitely involved therein

      Exciting times!

      Screw the Left when it comes to keeping us informed with facts

      1. They have not yet figured out that Trump’s former AG Sessions who brought the sealed indictment against Assange. (They’re still secretly hoping that it was Obama’s AG Holder whodunnit.) Once they figure it out, they’ll get behind Trump and burn Assange in effigy.

  10. Just the other day I referred to long-term speculation about the Ecuadoriam Embassy turning over Assange, and I was skeptical because we’d heard for a long time that Ecuador wss “on the verge of” giving Assange the bum’s rush.
    And it never seems to happen. If finally actually did happen🤔.
    In that same comment I made about Assange, I also mentioned that tub of lard con artist whose been “on the verge of ” being extradicted from New Zealand for months and months.
    It’ll be interesting to see if and when that, too, actually happens.

    1. Assange was indicted by the Trump Justice Department under AG Sessions on March 6th of 2018. Trump fired all of the United States Attorneys shortly after Trump took office in January of 2017. The Obama Justice Department declined to prosecute Assange way back in 2010 and never changed that declination decision the entire remainder of Obama’s presidency.

      You appear to be groping in the dark for the pull cord that turns the light on in your basement. And when you find it, you’re going to realize that you’ll need to put a new bulb in fixture, anyway. And then you’ll be groping around in the dark for your flashlight, which you should’ve used to find the pull cord to begin with. And when you find it, you’re going to realize that you’ll need new batteries for your flashlight. And that’s when you’ll set your hair on fire trying to light a candle.

      This is L4D.

      1. Look, stupid, if you want to have a discussion about basements, volleyball, candles, flashlights, or whatever, feel free.I know how relevant you think that “reply” is to my comment, and if your keepers feel that that it’s therapeutic for you, you just feel free to hammer out as much disjointed stuff as you can when you have access to the institution’s computer.
        I’ll leave the flashlight/ basement/candle etc. “discussions” to someone who is as fascinated with those topic’s as Late4Dinner/ Loon@Breakfast.

        1. Tom Nash says: April 11, 2019 at 12:20 PM

          “I’m now looking forward to a series of installments from her on how Obama and others from the previous administration could find themselves in the same situation she claims Trump would be in.”

  11. Estovir/Max Sand,
    Someone made a big issue out of what would happen if any of those investigating Trump were indicted for illegal acts.
    I’ll try to find the comment and her exact wording, but it had to do with the “discovery process” and uncovering material damaging to Trump.
    So the point seemed to be that it’d be risky for Trump to try to prosecute those involved in investigating Trump; I assume that was also meant to include Christopher Steele and others.
    Even if parts of that discovery process were subject to discovery rules involving classified material.
    I’m now looking forward to a series of installments from her on how Obama and others from the previous administration could find themselves in the same situation she claims Trump would be in.

    1. Trump isnt intelligent enough to be as morally corrupt as Obama and/ Hillary when it comes to political machinations. Trump is a businessman and his malfeasance is confined to things related to real estate and making a buck. To pretend he has any know how on how to run a political machinery is like asking David Brock to read the Bible and then say a child’s pray. Aint gonna happen

      The noise the Left has made since Trump’s election to the Presidency has in large part to cover up the dastardly deeds Hillary and Obama committed years leading to her planned coronation

      As the saying goes, hell hath no fury like a beach scorned and that is saying next to nothing about how corrupt and evil Hillary is.

        1. Obama practiced law for about three years. He drew a salary from the University of Chicago for 12 years and published not a single scholarly article.

          1. Obama benefited merely on his mixed race genetics.
            Geraldine Ferraro was right. Otherwise Obama was an embarrassment to blacks.
            His father was a louse. Even Obama painted him as such in his contrived and intolerable book “Dreams or my Father”.

          2. I loved those commercials. How strange that my son, nor any of his friends, have any idea what “where’s the beef” is talking about.

          1. “You’ll never get it dude”

            Estovir, how dense is Peter? Peter keeps watching the tape of the election results over and over again figuring eventually Hillary will win.

      1. Estovir,
        If one buys the premise of our resident Expert on the Discovery Process Involving Classified/Sealed Material, it would not be Trump uncovering damaging information on the previous Administration.
        It would be Assange’s defense team.

        1. Maybe Lanny David😋😁will step up and act as defense counsel for Assange, and set up a GoFundMe Assange legal defense fund.

        2. The original anonymous posted a link to the indictment. Had you read the indictment, you would have seen that it was returned and sealed on March 6th of 2018. Recall that Trump fired all of the United States Attorneys shortly after taking office in January of 2017 simply for the sake of getting rid of Preet Bharara. Now do the necessary head-scratching on your own lame-brained farrago, Gnash.

          This is L4D

          1. This may be extremely difficult for L4B/Anonymous and all other forms of anonymouses here; not everyone has the time to read every word of every comment and link posted here.
            There are some who are more “scrollable” than others, an L4B is in a category of her own in the “scroll past her comments and links” department.
            Even if one where to spend hours a day reading all of her posts and links, there is the additional time required to translate what she writes from Dianese into English.
            So for a variety of reasons, not every on of L4B’s golden words is read by everyone.
            -On the now-multiple commenters identified only as “anonymous”, 2or3 have distictive enough characteristics to be identifiable; e.g., the fact that the ranting and rabid “anonymous” is also Natacha is pretty hard to miss..
            She’s another “scroll past unless you’re hard up for entertainment” participant here.

            1. Tom Nash says: April 11, 2019 at 1:41 PM

              If one buys the premise of our resident Expert on the Discovery Process Involving Classified/Sealed Material, it would not be Trump uncovering damaging information on the previous Administration. It would be Assange’s defense team.

  12. When the other countries get through with Assange, Ecuador is going after Assange for a fortune in back rent.

  13. He was very filthy in his poop habits and the embassy wanted to build an outhouse out back to make him use there. But. They were afraid the Brits would come get him while he was rubbing poop on the walls. His nickname at the embassy was Who Flung Foo or Three Spots On The Wall.

  14. The good news is that public officials can no longer hide from computer hackers. Computer technology cannot be stopped and it is better than god at tracking public official corruption.

    1. With arrogant, imbecile, entitled, moral cripples like Hillary Clinton renting internet servers in her dungeon, any high school dropout can access privileged data. Just ask Debbie Wasserman Schlutz

      The crimes those womyn committed, and the coverup therein by Obama’s corrupt administration, make Planned Parenthood look like loving coddling nurturing parents

Leave a Reply