One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Julian Assange, President Trump, and 4 D Chess
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Apr 13, 2019 06:34:33   #
ACP45 (a regular here)
 
Let me first say that I may be completely and utterly off base on this post. But, it is one that I feel compelled to speculate upon.

We all know that President Trump has spoken favorably about Wikileaks in the past. We all know that President Trump has made some (many, no... a gargantuan number) of statements that seemingly contradict each other. Perhaps that is the President's way of keeping his opposition guessing, and his way of keeping them off balance.

Now, on to Julian Assange.

There was an intriguing article in ZeroHedge this morning that aroused my suspicions. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-12/taibbi-why-assange-arrest-should-scare-all-reporters

Item 1 - "The indictment unveiled today falls just short of a full frontal attack on press freedoms only because it indicts on something like a technicality: specifically, an accusation that Assange tried (and, seemingly, failed) to help Manning crack a government password. "

Item 2 - Assange's role in the 2016 election. In "Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, he never interviewed or attempted to interview Assange. In fact, it appears none of the 2800 subpoenas, 500 witness interviews, and 500 search warrants in the Mueller probe targeted Assange or WikiLeaks.

According to WikiLeaks, no one from Mueller’s office ever attempted to get a statement from Assange, any WikiLeaks employee, or any of Assange’s lawyers (the Office of Special Counsel declined comment for this story). A Senate committee did reach out to Assange last year about the possibility of testifying, but never followed up."

Item 3 - CIA Director Mike "Pompeo met on October 24 with William Binney, a former National Security Agency official-turned-whistleblower who co-authored an analysis published by a group of former intelligence officials that challenges the U.S. intelligence community’s official assessment that Russian intelligence was behind last year’s theft of data from DNC computers. Binney and the other former officials argue that the DNC data was “leaked,” not hacked, “by a person with physical access” to the DNC’s computer system." https://theintercept.com/2017/11/07/dnc-hack-trump-cia-director-william-binney-nsa/

If anyone is interested in the technical aspects of Binney's analysis, just check out the numerous videos in which he expounds upon why Russia could not have hacked the DNC servers, and how it had to be an inside job. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=william+binney+on+dnc+hack

CONCLUSION:

What if:

1) Assange's apparent weak indictment is an attempt to bring him here, in a US court of law, and get his testimony on record, by the main stream media, to testify on the origin of the DNC info that Mueller did not want as part of his investigation

2) Assange is found guilty (or innocent) of a minor charge, and then if found guilty, is pardoned by Trump.

3) If it can be proven in a court of law that the DNC hack was an internal leak and not the effort of a Russian hack, that would destroy the central theme of the Russian Collusion theory advanced by HRC, the main stream media, and liberal Democrats.

Just a theory. Let's see how this plays out!!~~

| Reply
Apr 13, 2019 07:14:49   #
Sew_What (a regular here)
 
ACP45 wrote:
Let me first say that I may be completely and utterly off base on this post. But, it is one that I feel compelled to speculate upon.

We all know that President Trump has spoken favorably about Wikileaks in the past. We all know that President Trump has made some (many, no... a gargantuan number) of statements that seemingly contradict each other. Perhaps that is the President's way of keeping his opposition guessing, and his way of keeping them off balance.

Now, on to Julian Assange.

There was an intriguing article in ZeroHedge this morning that aroused my suspicions. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-12/taibbi-why-assange-arrest-should-scare-all-reporters

Item 1 - "The indictment unveiled today falls just short of a full frontal attack on press freedoms only because it indicts on something like a technicality: specifically, an accusation that Assange tried (and, seemingly, failed) to help Manning crack a government password. "

Item 2 - Assange's role in the 2016 election. In "Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, he never interviewed or attempted to interview Assange. In fact, it appears none of the 2800 subpoenas, 500 witness interviews, and 500 search warrants in the Mueller probe targeted Assange or WikiLeaks.

According to WikiLeaks, no one from Mueller’s office ever attempted to get a statement from Assange, any WikiLeaks employee, or any of Assange’s lawyers (the Office of Special Counsel declined comment for this story). A Senate committee did reach out to Assange last year about the possibility of testifying, but never followed up."

Item 3 - CIA Director Mike "Pompeo met on October 24 with William Binney, a former National Security Agency official-turned-whistleblower who co-authored an analysis published by a group of former intelligence officials that challenges the U.S. intelligence community’s official assessment that Russian intelligence was behind last year’s theft of data from DNC computers. Binney and the other former officials argue that the DNC data was “leaked,” not hacked, “by a person with physical access” to the DNC’s computer system." https://theintercept.com/2017/11/07/dnc-hack-trump-cia-director-william-binney-nsa/

If anyone is interested in the technical aspects of Binney's analysis, just check out the numerous videos in which he expounds upon why Russia could not have hacked the DNC servers, and how it had to be an inside job. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=william+binney+on+dnc+hack

CONCLUSION:

What if:

1) Assange's apparent weak indictment is an attempt to bring him here, in a US court of law, and get his testimony on record, by the main stream media, to testify on the origin of the DNC info that Mueller did not want as part of his investigation

2) Assange is found guilty (or innocent) of a minor charge, and then if found guilty, is pardoned by Trump.

3) If it can be proven in a court of law that the DNC hack was an internal leak and not the effort of a Russian hack, that would destroy the central theme of the Russian Collusion theory advanced by HRC, the main stream media, and liberal Democrats.

Just a theory. Let's see how this plays out!!~~
Let me first say that I may be completely and utte... (show quote)


Assange published information, he isn't even guilty of hacking. There is not freedom of the press, unless you publish crank conspiracy theories. Funny how the worst punishment Alex Jones got was a slap on the wrist.

It's scary for people like Assange to publish the truth. The reason the cranks don't get convicted is: they are lying. When did lying become acceptable?

| Reply
Apr 13, 2019 08:37:58   #
debeda (a regular here)
 
Sew_What wrote:
Assange published information, he isn't even guilty of hacking. There is not freedom of the press, unless you publish crank conspiracy theories. Funny how the worst punishment Alex Jones got was a slap on the wrist.

It's scary for people like Assange to publish the truth. The reason the cranks don't get convicted is: they are lying. When did lying become acceptable?


Many publishers and media have spent the past 2 1/2 years touting "crank conspiracy theories". That's not why Alex Jones was de-platformed. Same as Roseanne Barr being fired from ABC - for ONE tweet when others say far worse things REPEATEDLY. Not why she was fired. The Assange thing is far different. There are many in the government who are fearful he will reveal his sources.

| Reply
Apr 13, 2019 08:38:56   #
debeda (a regular here)
 
ACP45 wrote:
Let me first say that I may be completely and utterly off base on this post. But, it is one that I feel compelled to speculate upon.

We all know that President Trump has spoken favorably about Wikileaks in the past. We all know that President Trump has made some (many, no... a gargantuan number) of statements that seemingly contradict each other. Perhaps that is the President's way of keeping his opposition guessing, and his way of keeping them off balance.

Now, on to Julian Assange.

There was an intriguing article in ZeroHedge this morning that aroused my suspicions. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-12/taibbi-why-assange-arrest-should-scare-all-reporters

Item 1 - "The indictment unveiled today falls just short of a full frontal attack on press freedoms only because it indicts on something like a technicality: specifically, an accusation that Assange tried (and, seemingly, failed) to help Manning crack a government password. "

Item 2 - Assange's role in the 2016 election. In "Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, he never interviewed or attempted to interview Assange. In fact, it appears none of the 2800 subpoenas, 500 witness interviews, and 500 search warrants in the Mueller probe targeted Assange or WikiLeaks.

According to WikiLeaks, no one from Mueller’s office ever attempted to get a statement from Assange, any WikiLeaks employee, or any of Assange’s lawyers (the Office of Special Counsel declined comment for this story). A Senate committee did reach out to Assange last year about the possibility of testifying, but never followed up."

Item 3 - CIA Director Mike "Pompeo met on October 24 with William Binney, a former National Security Agency official-turned-whistleblower who co-authored an analysis published by a group of former intelligence officials that challenges the U.S. intelligence community’s official assessment that Russian intelligence was behind last year’s theft of data from DNC computers. Binney and the other former officials argue that the DNC data was “leaked,” not hacked, “by a person with physical access” to the DNC’s computer system." https://theintercept.com/2017/11/07/dnc-hack-trump-cia-director-william-binney-nsa/

If anyone is interested in the technical aspects of Binney's analysis, just check out the numerous videos in which he expounds upon why Russia could not have hacked the DNC servers, and how it had to be an inside job. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=william+binney+on+dnc+hack

CONCLUSION:

What if:

1) Assange's apparent weak indictment is an attempt to bring him here, in a US court of law, and get his testimony on record, by the main stream media, to testify on the origin of the DNC info that Mueller did not want as part of his investigation

2) Assange is found guilty (or innocent) of a minor charge, and then if found guilty, is pardoned by Trump.

3) If it can be proven in a court of law that the DNC hack was an internal leak and not the effort of a Russian hack, that would destroy the central theme of the Russian Collusion theory advanced by HRC, the main stream media, and liberal Democrats.

Just a theory. Let's see how this plays out!!~~
Let me first say that I may be completely and utte... (show quote)


I've thought much the same. Hopefully this isn't a ploy to bury Assange by DS.

| Reply
Apr 13, 2019 08:52:04   #
Sew_What (a regular here)
 
debeda wrote:
Many publishers and media have spent the past 2 1/2 years touting "crank conspiracy theories". That's not why Alex Jones was de-platformed. Same as Roseanne Barr being fired from ABC - for ONE tweet when others say far worse things REPEATEDLY. Not why she was fired. The Assange thing is far different. There are many in the government who are fearful he will reveal his sources.


Why are they afraid of the sources...because they are CIA plants? Or reveal how we are being studied by the government?

...all in all, I agree with you...the fact that they are going after him is not because he isn't revealing some truths, it's because he isn't lying. That's why groups Anonymous or Q don't seem credible. The very reason they go after people like Assange is because he's telling the truth.

| Reply
Apr 13, 2019 08:56:05   #
debeda (a regular here)
 
Sew_What wrote:
Why are they afraid of the sources...because they are CIA plants? Or reveal how we are being studied by the government?

...all in all, I agree with you...the fact that they are going after him is not because he isn't revealing some truths, it's because he isn't lying. That's why groups Anonymous or Q don't seem credible. The very reason they go after people like Assange is because he's telling the truth.



| Reply
Apr 13, 2019 11:21:53   #
solarkin
 
ACP45 wrote:
Let me first say that I may be completely and utterly off base on this post. But, it is one that I feel compelled to speculate upon.

We all know that President Trump has spoken favorably about Wikileaks in the past. We all know that President Trump has made some (many, no... a gargantuan number) of statements that seemingly contradict each other. Perhaps that is the President's way of keeping his opposition guessing, and his way of keeping them off balance.

Now, on to Julian Assange.

There was an intriguing article in ZeroHedge this morning that aroused my suspicions. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-12/taibbi-why-assange-arrest-should-scare-all-reporters

Item 1 - "The indictment unveiled today falls just short of a full frontal attack on press freedoms only because it indicts on something like a technicality: specifically, an accusation that Assange tried (and, seemingly, failed) to help Manning crack a government password. "

Item 2 - Assange's role in the 2016 election. In "Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, he never interviewed or attempted to interview Assange. In fact, it appears none of the 2800 subpoenas, 500 witness interviews, and 500 search warrants in the Mueller probe targeted Assange or WikiLeaks.

According to WikiLeaks, no one from Mueller’s office ever attempted to get a statement from Assange, any WikiLeaks employee, or any of Assange’s lawyers (the Office of Special Counsel declined comment for this story). A Senate committee did reach out to Assange last year about the possibility of testifying, but never followed up."

Item 3 - CIA Director Mike "Pompeo met on October 24 with William Binney, a former National Security Agency official-turned-whistleblower who co-authored an analysis published by a group of former intelligence officials that challenges the U.S. intelligence community’s official assessment that Russian intelligence was behind last year’s theft of data from DNC computers. Binney and the other former officials argue that the DNC data was “leaked,” not hacked, “by a person with physical access” to the DNC’s computer system." https://theintercept.com/2017/11/07/dnc-hack-trump-cia-director-william-binney-nsa/

If anyone is interested in the technical aspects of Binney's analysis, just check out the numerous videos in which he expounds upon why Russia could not have hacked the DNC servers, and how it had to be an inside job. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=william+binney+on+dnc+hack

CONCLUSION:

What if:

1) Assange's apparent weak indictment is an attempt to bring him here, in a US court of law, and get his testimony on record, by the main stream media, to testify on the origin of the DNC info that Mueller did not want as part of his investigation

2) Assange is found guilty (or innocent) of a minor charge, and then if found guilty, is pardoned by Trump.

3) If it can be proven in a court of law that the DNC hack was an internal leak and not the effort of a Russian hack, that would destroy the central theme of the Russian Collusion theory advanced by HRC, the main stream media, and liberal Democrats.

Just a theory. Let's see how this plays out!!~~
Let me first say that I may be completely and utte... (show quote)


I like what you're saying here. I agree J's arrest was to bring him in for debriefing. The DNC hacks were indeed ,an inside job ,just based off the download speeds (from what I heard)
Julian has valuable info.

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 05:59:49   #
ACP45 (a regular here)
 
ACP45 wrote:
Let me first say that I may be completely and utterly off base on this post. But, it is one that I feel compelled to speculate upon.

We all know that President Trump has spoken favorably about Wikileaks in the past. We all know that President Trump has made some (many, no... a gargantuan number) of statements that seemingly contradict each other. Perhaps that is the President's way of keeping his opposition guessing, and his way of keeping them off balance.

Now, on to Julian Assange.

There was an intriguing article in ZeroHedge this morning that aroused my suspicions. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-12/taibbi-why-assange-arrest-should-scare-all-reporters

Item 1 - "The indictment unveiled today falls just short of a full frontal attack on press freedoms only because it indicts on something like a technicality: specifically, an accusation that Assange tried (and, seemingly, failed) to help Manning crack a government password. "

Item 2 - Assange's role in the 2016 election. In "Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, he never interviewed or attempted to interview Assange. In fact, it appears none of the 2800 subpoenas, 500 witness interviews, and 500 search warrants in the Mueller probe targeted Assange or WikiLeaks.

According to WikiLeaks, no one from Mueller’s office ever attempted to get a statement from Assange, any WikiLeaks employee, or any of Assange’s lawyers (the Office of Special Counsel declined comment for this story). A Senate committee did reach out to Assange last year about the possibility of testifying, but never followed up."

Item 3 - CIA Director Mike "Pompeo met on October 24 with William Binney, a former National Security Agency official-turned-whistleblower who co-authored an analysis published by a group of former intelligence officials that challenges the U.S. intelligence community’s official assessment that Russian intelligence was behind last year’s theft of data from DNC computers. Binney and the other former officials argue that the DNC data was “leaked,” not hacked, “by a person with physical access” to the DNC’s computer system." https://theintercept.com/2017/11/07/dnc-hack-trump-cia-director-william-binney-nsa/

If anyone is interested in the technical aspects of Binney's analysis, just check out the numerous videos in which he expounds upon why Russia could not have hacked the DNC servers, and how it had to be an inside job. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=william+binney+on+dnc+hack

CONCLUSION:

What if:

1) Assange's apparent weak indictment is an attempt to bring him here, in a US court of law, and get his testimony on record, by the main stream media, to testify on the origin of the DNC info that Mueller did not want as part of his investigation

2) Assange is found guilty (or innocent) of a minor charge, and then if found guilty, is pardoned by Trump.

3) If it can be proven in a court of law that the DNC hack was an internal leak and not the effort of a Russian hack, that would destroy the central theme of the Russian Collusion theory advanced by HRC, the main stream media, and liberal Democrats.

Just a theory. Let's see how this plays out!!~~
Let me first say that I may be completely and utte... (show quote)


Well, here is Caitlin Johnson's response to my theory...... Bullshit!!!!
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/04/13/trump-supporters-are-hurting-assange-with-their-4-d-chess-talk/

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 10:41:37   #
kemmer (a regular here)
 
ACP45 wrote:
Let me first say that I may be completely and utterly off base on this post. But, it is one that I feel compelled to speculate upon.

We all know that President Trump has spoken favorably about Wikileaks in the past. We all know that President Trump has made some (many, no... a gargantuan number) of statements that seemingly contradict each other. Perhaps that is the President's way of keeping his opposition guessing, and his way of keeping them off balance.

Now, on to Julian Assange.

There was an intriguing article in ZeroHedge this morning that aroused my suspicions. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-12/taibbi-why-assange-arrest-should-scare-all-reporters

Item 1 - "The indictment unveiled today falls just short of a full frontal attack on press freedoms only because it indicts on something like a technicality: specifically, an accusation that Assange tried (and, seemingly, failed) to help Manning crack a government password. "

Item 2 - Assange's role in the 2016 election. In "Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, he never interviewed or attempted to interview Assange. In fact, it appears none of the 2800 subpoenas, 500 witness interviews, and 500 search warrants in the Mueller probe targeted Assange or WikiLeaks.

According to WikiLeaks, no one from Mueller’s office ever attempted to get a statement from Assange, any WikiLeaks employee, or any of Assange’s lawyers (the Office of Special Counsel declined comment for this story). A Senate committee did reach out to Assange last year about the possibility of testifying, but never followed up."

Item 3 - CIA Director Mike "Pompeo met on October 24 with William Binney, a former National Security Agency official-turned-whistleblower who co-authored an analysis published by a group of former intelligence officials that challenges the U.S. intelligence community’s official assessment that Russian intelligence was behind last year’s theft of data from DNC computers. Binney and the other former officials argue that the DNC data was “leaked,” not hacked, “by a person with physical access” to the DNC’s computer system." https://theintercept.com/2017/11/07/dnc-hack-trump-cia-director-william-binney-nsa/

If anyone is interested in the technical aspects of Binney's analysis, just check out the numerous videos in which he expounds upon why Russia could not have hacked the DNC servers, and how it had to be an inside job. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=william+binney+on+dnc+hack

CONCLUSION:

What if:

1) Assange's apparent weak indictment is an attempt to bring him here, in a US court of law, and get his testimony on record, by the main stream media, to testify on the origin of the DNC info that Mueller did not want as part of his investigation

2) Assange is found guilty (or innocent) of a minor charge, and then if found guilty, is pardoned by Trump.

3) If it can be proven in a court of law that the DNC hack was an internal leak and not the effort of a Russian hack, that would destroy the central theme of the Russian Collusion theory advanced by HRC, the main stream media, and liberal Democrats.

Just a theory. Let's see how this plays out!!~~
Let me first say that I may be completely and utte... (show quote)

Re: the arrest of Assange in London:

This from Trump, The Lord of Lies:
October, 2016: "I love Wikileaks. It's a treasure trove of information. I love reading Wikileaks."
April, 2019: "I don't know anything about Wikileaks. It's not my thing."

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 10:46:42   #
debeda (a regular here)
 
ACP45 wrote:
Well, here is Caitlin Johnson's response to my theory...... Bullshit!!!!
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/04/13/trump-supporters-are-hurting-assange-with-their-4-d-chess-talk/


Has it occured to anyone this is NOT president Trump's action? And that President Trump can't do a dang thing of use at this point until Assange is in America? My first reaction to Assange's arrest was that it was NOT Prez Trump. I tend to go with my gut on these things, hasn't steered me wrong yet.

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 11:18:33   #
moldyoldy (a regular here)
 
debeda wrote:
Has it occured to anyone this is NOT president Trump's action? And that President Trump can't do a dang thing of use at this point until Assange is in America? My first reaction to Assange's arrest was that it was NOT Prez Trump. I tend to go with my gut on these things, hasn't steered me wrong yet.


I think Assange will fight extradition in many courts to several countries. This could take years.

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 16:15:39   #
ACP45 (a regular here)
 
moldyoldy wrote:
I think Assange will fight extradition in many courts to several countries. This could take years.


Meanwhile, he is being held in "Britain’s Guantanamo Bay" — or Belmarsh Prison, given its reputation as a holding facility for terrorists and high profile criminals.

| Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2019 IDF International Technologies, Inc.