I like the way he included Assange in a rogue's gallery of murderous dictators.

Yup, your thought leaders have been very effective in molding your views.

LOL at drooling morons who don't know the charges facing Assange.

Seems like addressing structural problems is a far sight better than loony 'assassinate somebody quick' approach foisted on the public.

ymmv

LOL @ people defending rights to a fair trial being confused with 'defending rapists' in a thread.

LOL @ posters who think wikileaks put Trump in the Whitehouse instead of Clinton's epic ineptitude.

jfc, dude, stop

Lol at you not knowing why he holed up in the embassy in the first place

Extra lol at you for being a dopehead who champions a guy who claims to be all about transparency but fled the law in a rape case

People like you are the scum of the earth lol

LOL @ lowlifes like you who carry water for war criminals who want revenge against whistleblowers.

He has said he's willing to face the rape charges in whatever Scandinavian country it is, because he believes he is innocent of those. TBH, the rape charges were fairly dubious in our woke world of #metoo. But the issue is he'll be immediately extradited to the US. And this all happened prior to any of the Russia stuff that has so many in this thread thinking Assange is morally akin to Hitler and Stalin, so the crimes he would have been facing were BS.

#drinking-the-kool-aid
#fled

Here's a mindblowing idea: it's possible to oppose BOTH Assange and the US security state!

I don't really care what happens to Assange. He's being pursued by scumbags, but he's a scumbag himself, so eh.

Again, you seem to have trouble with the idea that not everything is a dilemma, we don't have to pick one option or the other. The leading cause of Trump being in the White House is Clinton being incompetent and generally a terrible candidate. It's also true that Wikileaks attempted to assist Clinton's defeat and that this effort was, at least going by the scoreboard, successful.

proudfootz is violating this thread like his hero does women

For the record, Assange was never actually charged with any crime. He was the subject of an investigation which was subsequently dropped. The assault case is another thing I don't care about. Nobody knows what the facts were. I think it was very reasonable of him to be concerned about extradition to the US, especially in view of the fact that we now know that the US has a sealed indictment out against him.

My concern with Assange begins and ends with the fact that he attempted to influence an election for what amounted to personal reasons. If he cared about Wikileaks as an institution, he would have removed himself from the leadership after getting stuck in the embassy. Instead he tried to use it as a weapon because he's fundamentally a narcissist.

Is pf starting every post ITT with 'LOL @' a new gimmick? It's pretty terrible.

No defending Assange here. Chris got it right. Wikileaks started with good intent but was corrupted by an egotistical sociopath and became a tool to spread anti-democracy propaganda.

Do you have cites for ~any of this?

I mean, he "said" he would leave the embassy and turn himself in once Chelsea Manning was released and that was over a year and a half ago so I'm not sure why you'd quote him or take his word on anything.

"And this all happened prior to any of the Russia stuff" well Assange/Wikileaks have been under investigation by the DOJ since Wikileaks posted the stuff Manning stole.

I don't think this is true, unless you subscribe to the john yoo if the executive branch does it to prevent terrorism then it's legal version of the law.

wikileaks does the public a service, which is the reason I'm here. Not a big fan of publishers being immured in some Maximum Security facility to be tortured because some murdering scumbags are upset at him.

Apparently that's too nuanced a position for some of the Let's Lynch Assange mob.

LOL @ posters blaming Assange for Trump ("becoming an agent of the Kremlin and leaking unedifying emails from Clinton's campaign manager in a successful attempt to get a fascist-lite imbecile elected President of the United States"), subsequently backing off their rubbish claim when confronted with reason, then trying to pretend their over-the-top assertion was too 'nuanced' for others to understand.

You're correct - the true materials wikileaks published did expose a lot of anti-democratic actions. Such exposure seems to have upset a lot of people hostile to democracy.

shocking that proudfootz is too dumb to understand multi-quoting

It's not illegal or even anti-democratic for Democratic Party members to have preferences as to who they nominate as their party's nominee for president. It's not even anti-democratic or illegal for the leaders of the party to just straight up appoint their nominee. lol

A bad faith interpretation of my post. Unsurprising.