Posted on 08/13/2016 12:50:23 PM PDT by TigerClaws
The problem for me is that you assume you know who “your (my) sources” are. I believe I simply asked you a question, which you failed to answer.
“Apparently joined forces with Russia’s old KGB agent, Putin...”
What are your sources for this “apparent” statement? The FBI? Good heavens, if you’re trusting the FBI you’re a fine one to be talking about wanting “no part of people like that (dishonest and untrustworthy)” - which shows you just don’t get it. You don’t see the government lawlessness that is blatant at this point, and not just because of what Assange says or doesn’t say but because of a whole litany of stories over the past 8 years that all support the same things that Assange’s DOCUMENTS also show.
How do you know what Assange told the people who posted bail for him? Are you one of them? Keep in mind that hacking and covert operations are never what they appear up-front. You have no idea what was said behind closed doors.
From the sources I’ve read it looks like Assange was guilty of not wearing a condom. Bear in mind that the government could charge ANY person with a crime at any time, because we don’t even know all the laws we’re supposed to be responsible for keeping. That’s part of what he’s saying with this, and it rings true with everything I’ve seen myself. Yesterday I replaced an air conditioner belt in my van; could I be charged with doing mechanics without a license? I burned trash two days ago; could I be found guilty of EPA regulations? Did I need a building permit to repair the caved-in walls of my 80-year-old root cellar?
Assange gave his testimony; it’s he-said-she-said with the only real issue being whether she was fully asleep or only half-asleep when he penetrated the woman (who was upset just hours before because he went to sleep instead of comleting intercourse with her) and the authorities dropped charges. How is a court going to decide whether she was half-asleep or fully asleep? When there’s no way to know one way or another, a jury and/or judge is ripe for “persuasion” by those who have a lot of money to offer those who make the preferred choice. And Assange is exposing just how that system operates. We’d be a fool to refuse to hear what the dems’ OWN COMMUNICATIONS admit.
I don't trust guys like Assange. I can't believe anything he says. He even refuses to deny his apparent association with Putin.
We're just repeating ourselves. You like Assange. I don't. Why don't we discuss this again after he agrees to appear at his rape trial?
I’ll take that to mean that you’re not aware of a single instance where Wikileaks has released something that turned out to be fake or altered, and if so, I’ll continue to trust Mr. Assange’s revelations until something changes.
I never said whether I like Assange or not. I’ve asked you questions and you’ve refused to answer. For instance, what is your source for saying that Assange is associated with Putin? You keep saying “apparent association”, but don’t substantiate that claim.
You can hate/distrust Assange all you want, but the emails he’s produced speak for themselves. Seems like you’re not listening. Seems like you’re using the issue of the messenger as the excuse to not hear the message. These are not “apparent” emails. These are emails, period. Like him or hate him, Assange has exposed emails showing a boatload of corruption. It’s curious that you don’t seem willing to see that, but instead point to Assange himself as if he was the issue. He’s not. The corruption he’s exposed is the issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.