Sign in to follow this  

Deal to arrange Julian Assange to be Australia's ambassador to U.S.

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

The Secret Correspondence Between Donald Trump Jr. and WikiLeaks

The transparency organization asked the president’s son for his cooperation—in sharing its work, in contesting the results of the election, and in arranging for Julian Assange to be Australia’s ambassador to the United States.

Peter Nicholls / Reuters


The messages, obtained by The Atlantic, were also turned over by Trump Jr.’s lawyers to congressional investigators. They are part of a long—and largely one-sided—correspondence between WikiLeaks and the president’s son that continued until at least July 2017. The messages show WikiLeaks, a radical transparency organization that the American intelligence community believes was chosen by the Russian government to disseminate the information it had hacked, actively soliciting Trump Jr.’s cooperation. WikiLeaks made a series of increasingly bold requests, including asking for Trump’s tax returns, urging the Trump campaign on Election Day to reject the results of the election as rigged, and requesting that the president-elect tell Australia to appoint Julian Assange ambassador to the United States.

WikiLeaks played a pivotal role in the presidential campaign. In July 2016, on the first day of the Democratic National Convention, WikiLeaks released emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee's servers that spring. The emails showed DNC officials denigrating Bernie Sanders, renewing tensions on the eve of Clinton’s acceptance of the nomination. On October 7, less than an hour after the Washington Post released the Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump bragged about sexually assaulting women, Wikileaks released emails that hackers had pilfered from the personal email account of Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2017 at 2:21 PM, katsung47 said:

The emails showed DNC officials denigrating Bernie Sanders

The two-party system in the United States is "stable" in a certain game-theoretical sense that effectively excludes third-party candidates.

The case of Bernie Sanders, for example: for most people who voted for Bernie Sanders, their second choice would probably have been the Democratic ticket candidate rather than the Republican ticket candidate.

Furthermore, voters who usually vote for Democratic candidates probably are more easily persuaded to vote for a candidate like Bernie Sanders than are generally Republican voters.

Naturally the DNC, or Democratic National Committee, wants to monopolize the "liberal" candidacy, in an assumption that their base is more likely to defect to the Socialist party rather than "across the aisle" to the Republican Party.

On the other side, you have the Republican National Committee trying to rein in the Tea Party because they see defection to the Tea Party as a greater danger from their base than defection to the Democratic Party.

So the party that is most successful at monopolizing its side of the political aisle is the party that wins in the United States.

Now for some reason, the Republican and Democratic Parties are maintained in appproximately equal opposition.  When the Republican Party gains too large a majority, its most liberal members tend to defect to the Democratic Party, and when the Democratic Party gains too large a majority, its most conservative members tend to defect to the Republicans.

This is because there is nothing to lose by voting for a second choice on the ballot if one is unhappy with the first choice.  However there is no perfect voting scheme for three or more choices.

**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****
=   =   =   =   =   =   =   =   =   =   =   =   =

Unfortunately the Democratic Party has mainstreamed a three-pronged political ideology

  • White nationalism: "sir," "ma'am," sensitivity training, "white guilt," and all the time they are constantly and not-so-subtly reminding others of sex, race, and class, to "put them in their place."
  • National socialism: database-driven identity politics; "undesirables" are listed on the Brady Bill mentally ill persons registry for life without recourse and eventually committed to mental hospitals where they are executed in gas chambers, at MPRC Spring Grove Hospital Center in Catonsville, Maryland with its numerous nearby crematories and funeral homes for example.
  • Social Darwinism: Are you "fit" -- young and good-looking and male enough to work in the tech industry or join the military? Or are you an "undesirable" not fit to be allowed to survive in such society where the "fit" have white picket fences and walk small, medium, or large dogs on a leash, and use an air freshener when that stench of burning human flesh arises from the mental hospitals and crematories?

To all of which the Republican Party offers no effective opposition whatsoever.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary Clinton: Wikileaks a 'tool of Russian intelligence' and Assange does 'bidding of dictator'

The Telegraph             October 15, 2017

Hillary Clinton lashed out at Julian Assange on Monday, accusing WikiLeaks of being a "tool of Russian intelligence" while its founder did "the bidding of a dictator".

The former Democratic presidential nominee said the whistle-blowing website worked with Russia to deflect attention away from an infamous tape of Donald Trump bragging about groping women in the run-up to the US election.

The former secretary of state’s devastating election loss to Mr Trump remains raw and she has blamed a number of factors for her election defeat as she promotes her book What Happened.

In an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on Monday, she attacked Mr Assange for his alleged role in damaging her candidacy.

"Assange has become a kind of nihilistic opportunist who does the bidding of a dictator," she said, referring to Russian president Vladimir Putin.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all of what Julian Assange did is bad.

He exposed serious crimes, including money-laundering at Julius Baer, and that was probably the reason for the retaliatory rape accusations from the Swedish girls.

Bail set at 1,000,000#, far above and beyond Assange's personal means, some celebrity coughs it up, and he skips?

No. The Julius Baer people were trying to murder him, and he sought refuge in the Ecuadorean Embassy for the sake of his life, not merely to avoid jail or extradition to Sweden or U.S.

Those big banks are arranging murder behind bars while they curry favor with law enforcement.

There is too much sir shit going on.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.