Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Stannis is the man....nis

**WARNING DARK TOPIC** A sick/dark new twist to Assange losing his internet connection.

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that were the case, he would be exposing Trump, too. That's why her supporters are angry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they're upset because it looks remarkably like a smear campaign and there are accusations of Russian involvement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×