Wikileaks releases emails from Clinton campaign chair (John Podesta) Prt 2 Assange Internet Shut Off

Status
Not open for further replies.
EDIT:

Have you guys seen what wikileaks posted about a plot to frame assange?

if not, its here https://wikileaks.org/Background-an...-a-:eek::eek::eek::eek:phile-and.html?update3

I've read through the entire final report which concludes that T&C is most likely not authentic.
Yeah, I saw the initial thing about him being accused of 'grooming an 8-year old' this morning (it was on reddit), but sources were weak enough that I decided not to post it. This is the first I've seen it portrayed as a plot to frame him, rather than a weakly substantiated accusation, though.
 
Yeah, I saw the initial thing about him being accused of 'grooming an 8-year old' this morning (it was on reddit), but sources were weak enough that I decided not to post it. This is the first I've seen it portrayed as a plot to frame him, rather than a weakly substantiated accusation, though.

if you read through the analysis of the company that accused him, you will understand why it's being seen as a plot to frame.

I'm glad you were intelligent enough to dismiss it as a weak accusation to begin with, but many people take things at face value
 
Bob Creamer, who was just implicated in the mass voter fraud video, is also a writer for the Huffington Post
oy31KPskB2YHRVH1l4zhN1Xf6AQ0vXeWU3X5Sp49irs.png
 
if you read through the analysis of the company that accused him, you will understand why it's being seen as a plot to frame.

I'm glad you were intelligent enough to dismiss it as a weak accusation to begin with, but many people take things at face value
The weak accusation was looking at the initial articles, not the report. That said, having read it, wikileaks overstates what the report actually claims. The report identifies toddandclare as a fabricated business entity. It does not determine whether it was part of a plot to frame assange, though that is certainly a conclusion that can be drawn if one is willing to jump to a few reasonable assumptions.
 
I already linked to it. The Barett Brown case.
Yes, "could be". The articles I linked to demonstrate that legal opinions differ.
The cases listed in most of the reports tend to be focused on the media though:

I overlooked that link. It's a little unclear what all is involved and I lack the patience to review the entire case. This says that the link sharing isn't what got him sent up the river.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_Brown

In January 2015, Brown was sentenced to 63 months in federal prison for the crimes of accessory after the fact, obstruction of justice, and threatening a federal officer stemming from the FBI's investigation into the 2012 Stratfor email leak. Prosecutors had previously brought other charges associated with his sharing of an HTTP link to the leaked Stratfor data, but those charges were dropped in 2014


But yeah, still not seeing where someone is getting convicted for looking at news on their computer. And like I asked previously, in your opinion is the tv reporter looking out for the viewer or trying to scare them away from the story?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top