Stannis is the man....nis Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 For those who don't know Julian Assange lost his internet connection yesterday and conspiracies exploded. Many were think this was payback for the Clinton email hacks but it turns out it isn't the case. It turns out Ecuador removed his internet rights because he's being investigated by the Bahamas police for grooming a kid online https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ruXBSKQHQtYJ:https://www.unglobalcompact.org/system/attachments/cop_2016/322211/original/ToddandClare.com_United_Nations_GC_Member_Report_COP_1042016.pdf%3F1475591336+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 Knowing next to nothing about this, aren't the 2 ways powerful people destroy their enemies in conspiracy theories death and discredit via setting up scandal/criminal charges? Also, what exactly is grooming in a legal sense? This part is not argumentative; I genuinely don't know...does it involve trying to set up meetings with minors? Trying to get them to get sexual on camera? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stannis is the man....nis Posted October 18, 2016 Author Share Posted October 18, 2016 20 minutes ago, James Arryn said: Knowing next to nothing about this, aren't the 2 ways powerful people destroy their enemies in conspiracy theories death and discredit via setting up scandal/criminal charges? Also, what exactly is grooming in a legal sense? This part is not argumentative; I genuinely don't know...does it involve trying to set up meetings with minors? Trying to get them to get sexual on camera? Yeah it's pretty much sexual on camera and photos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 8 minutes ago, Stannis is the man....nis said: Yeah it's pretty much sexual on camera and photos Ah, ok thanks. People often suck. That IMO seems like it should be called worse than 'grooming'...like inciting child pornography or w/e. I was wondering if grooming was something more subtle, but therefore more legally problematic. Internet sex crimes are such an ethical minefield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 Assange lost all credibility when he jumped into bed with Trump. I mean, if he were an equal opportunity attack dog, that'd be fine, but he isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 31 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said: Assange lost all credibility when he jumped into bed with Trump. I mean, if he were an equal opportunity attack dog, that'd be fine, but he isn't. The Russians don't want to weaken Trump, so Wikileaks doesn't. For one reason or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channel4s-JonSnow Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 I find this all a bit dubious, considering the nature of the other cases thrown at him. Especially after the Clinton exposure. What is amazing is that governments can be so blatant the way they abuse their powers to throw dissenters in jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 Nearly all major media sources reporting on Assange's internet loss are not reporting on these grooming accusations. Having read some of the stuff behind the grooming investigation, it seems the 8 year old was accessing via her 22 year old sister's account so that can be dicey to prove that Assange knew he was speaking and sending nude photos to a child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 23 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said: I find this all a bit dubious, considering the nature of the other cases thrown at him. Especially after the Clinton exposure. What is amazing is that governments can be so blatant the way they abuse their powers to throw dissenters in jail. Unfortunately, this was also the defence by public figures accused in the 70s and 80s. Just because something could be politically or financially motivated, doesn't mean it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channel4s-JonSnow Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 9 minutes ago, Hereward said: Unfortunately, this was also the defence by public figures accused in the 70s and 80s. Just because something could be politically or financially motivated, doesn't mean it is. True, but the timing of all of the allegations against him are highly suspect. As is the previous case taken against him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 1 hour ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said: True, but the timing of all of the allegations against him are highly suspect. As is the previous case taken against him Yea maybe, but if there is video evidence, as the complaint seems to suggest, that it was him, then I don't think he has a leg to stand on. That and he's a piece of shit so I'm likely to believe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik of Hazelfield Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 Fuck that guy. He's been accused of rape (which was admittedly horribly handled by the Swedish prosecutors), fled to the Ecuadorian embassy, sitting there for years sabotaging the investigation against him, he releases hacked material in order to hurt Hillary Clinton and now this. He shows every sign of being a sexual predator and general asshole. He just doesn't get away with his conspiracy theory excuses anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westerosi Coast Gangster Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 do people dislike him because of the Hillary stuff? anyone who exposes politicians for what they really are should be applauded. maybe I picked up on a false vibe but is it partly because people are Hillary supporters that they hate this guy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channel4s-JonSnow Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 14 minutes ago, Westerosi Coast Gangster said: do people dislike him because of the Hillary stuff? anyone who exposes politicians for what they really are should be applauded. maybe I picked up on a false vibe but is it partly because people are Hillary supporters that they hate this guy? Yeah I find it odd that people are so anti him, seeing as most of the wiki leaks stuff is done with the intention of exposing the fraudulent politicians that are committing real crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 If that were the case, he would be exposing Trump, too. That's why her supporters are angry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westerosi Coast Gangster Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 so they are upset because he released damaging material on their chosen candidate and not the one they oppose? sounds like sour grapes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 No, they're upset because it looks remarkably like a smear campaign and there are accusations of Russian involvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 9 minutes ago, Hereward said: If that were the case, he would be exposing Trump, too. That's why her supporters are angry. Maybe he doesn't have anything on Trump? It's widely speculated that the Russian government is behind the hacking of the DNC and now Podesta's e-mail, which they then fed to Wikileaks. Should Wikileaks have refused this material- which, whatever it's source, is exactly the kind of stuff it as an organization loves to expose- and said, "no, we won't release this until you bring us something on Trump as well?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 If they had any ethics, then they should have refused to be used as a catspaw by Russian intelligence, who are exactly the sort of people they claim to be against, at least until they could display some balance by releasing what I am certain is a mountain of incriminating material on Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 3 minutes ago, Hereward said: If they had any ethics, then they should have refused to be used as a catspaw by Russian intelligence, who are exactly the sort of people they claim to be against, at least until they could display some balance by releasing what I am certain is a mountain of incriminating material on Trump. They have been releasing documents for years. Balance isn't only in the context of Clinton vs Trump. I think it's an absolutely terrible standard to suggest that any journalistic organization should withhold damaging material against one candidate until they have damaging material about their opponent as well, I think that would be unethical. YMMV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.