subgenius wrote:moksha wrote:Exiled....
check that
Lol. Comprehension.
subgenius wrote:moksha wrote:Exiled....
check that
Xenophon wrote:Out of curiosity what would have stopped Assange from sharing his debunking evidence freely, instead of to Muller? Is there any reason he would need Muller to participate if he had actual evidence he got the information from elsewhere? For a guy with a website that claims to just be for disseminating truth it seems like he had plenty of platform to fight the story other than just saying "I promise it wasn't the Russians".Exiled wrote:So, make arrangements to go over to London? Am I missing something here? Assange wanted to debunk the Russia gave me the goods story so he would have been a willing witness. Mueller could have gone over there. His budget was surely big enough. Or maybe they could have set up a telephonic interview?
Kevin Graham wrote:OK, Assange is human garbage.
Mueller Report: Assange Smeared Seth Rich to Cover for Russians
Fox News Retracts DNC Staffer Conspiracy Story, But Hannity Keeps It Alive
It seems like your argument hinges on the idea that it is impossible to find the truth without speaking to Assange and I'm not sure that is true. It seems highly plausible to me that Mueller & Co. were able to piece together more than enough evidence of the GRU's involvement without whatever information Assange might have to offer (which I personally suspect is non-existent) and large sections of Muller's report bear that out.Exiled wrote:Assange wanted to work out a limited immunity deal and was in the process of doing so when Comey stopped the negotiations. Assange wanted something in return for his testimony. After Comey was fired and Mueller was appointed, there wasn't even an overture toward Assange by Mueller. If Assange was a target, then why no indictment for his 2016 actions? The current indictment is only for his supposed actions with Manning. Also, Mueller could have forced the issue by demanding an interview without conditions. Assange had a very weak negotiating position while in the embassy and has less of one now that he is in custody. However, nothing. Since Correa left office, the new president was more than willing to aid the Russia hacking narrative and would have accommodated Mueller in arranging a meeting. Yet nothing. Why not interview him now that he is in custody?
Mueller is so sure that Guccifer was involved, but Assange denies this. Why not settle the question by seeing what Assange supposedly has? If he truly was a coward and hiding behind Seth Rich's murder, then why not expose that? It seems that would be very useful for the campaign to demonize Assange that is going on right now. Perhaps it would be another reason to extradite Assange to the US?
In any event, Assange is key to the whole russiagate thing and it seems that he would be a witness or target of the investigation. Yet, nothing.
Xenophon wrote:It seems like your argument hinges on the idea that it is impossible to find the truth without speaking to Assange and I'm not sure that is true. It seems highly plausible to me that Muller & Co. were able to piece together more than enough evidence of the GRU's involvement without whatever information Assange might have to offer (which I personally suspect is non-existent) and large sections of Muller's report bear that out.Exiled wrote:Assange wanted to work out a limited immunity deal and was in the process of doing so when Comey stopped the negotiations. Assange wanted something in return for his testimony. After Comey was fired and Mueller was appointed, there wasn't even an overture toward Assange by Mueller. If Assange was a target, then why no indictment for his 2016 actions? The current indictment is only for his supposed actions with Manning. Also, Mueller could have forced the issue by demanding an interview without conditions. Assange had a very weak negotiating position while in the embassy and has less of one now that he is in custody. However, nothing. Since Correa left office, the new president was more than willing to aid the Russia hacking narrative and would have accommodated Mueller in arranging a meeting. Yet nothing. Why not interview him now that he is in custody?
Mueller is so sure that Guccifer was involved, but Assange denies this. Why not settle the question by seeing what Assange supposedly has? If he truly was a coward and hiding behind Seth Rich's murder, then why not expose that? It seems that would be very useful for the campaign to demonize Assange that is going on right now. Perhaps it would be another reason to extradite Assange to the US?
In any event, Assange is key to the whole russiagate thing and it seems that he would be a witness or target of the investigation. Yet, nothing.
As to the charges he will face. It would not surprise me to see additional charges brought against him by the time that is all said in done, whether events from 2016 will be included in that remains to be seen. My understanding is it isn't that difficult to have the British Government consent to extra charges being filed post extradition. Perhaps we will hear more from Assange when it comes time to defend himself.
As to your last paragraph I disagree entirely. Assange was either a pawn for pushing an anti-Clinton narrative or complicit in it, but he isn't the key. He and Wikileaks were mostly just a means to an end. The key is 100% the Trump campaign/admin and their involvement in the matter, specifically in connection to Russian interference, and the investigation rightly centered around that.
I think the problem I see with you on this topic is that it feels like you've pre-judged it. You've had your mind set on this being a non-starter from just about day one and I'm uncertain if anything would convince you otherwise.Exiled wrote:I guess this gets to heart of why I don't buy the russiagate hysteria some are trying to push. To me it really doesn't matter whether or not Russia or N. Korea or the devil himself gives us the truth. There wasn't any collusion found in any event and the $100,000 in Facebook ads didn't make people vote for Trump. Also, we need to move on. This gave Trump a gift on a "no collusion" meme that he will use through 2020. If we dwell too much on this, Trump could win a second term and that's what should be stopped. People want to have their pocketbook issues discussed and resolved and I don't they want these issues sacrificed by having Congress devote all it's time on shaky obstruction of justice possibilities.
You're obviously correct that we can all have pre-judgement issues. Hopefully you didn't read any ill-intent in my comment, none was intended. I generally think you're willing to shift positions, from what I've read from you, I just take this topic as one you're pretty set on.Exiled wrote:I suspect pre-judgment infects a lot of people. What do you think of these articles? They give a counter story that isn't reliant on the fox news circus.
https://consortiumnews.com/2019/03/13/vips-muellers-forensics-free-findings/
https://www.thenation.com/article/rip-russiagate/
https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/robert-mueller-did-not-merely-reject-the-trumprussia-conspiracy-theories-he-obliterated-them/