5 ms·

Well, you invented the “most of my associates” part which is the substance of your smear, so you seem a bit disingenuous. As for this fellow, intel agencies do

Well, you invented the “most of my associates” part which is the substance of your smear, so you seem a bit disingenuous. As for this fellow, intel agencies don’t get to both conjure lies AND claim guilt by association--with 5-year gap in the timing to boot--though surely they are not beneath trying. Surely the ends justify the means, right? Quite the contrary to your misguided assertions, way back in 1993, Assange consulted for the Victoria Australia police to apprehend child molestors and pornography distributors.

jacobolus 5y ago
As they take Assange to court, they’ll have to mount credible legal arguments, present convincing evidence, and deal with counter-evidence / cross examination from the defense. As I said, “these witnesses who worked with my client have admitted to being liars” can sometimes be a good legal argument. But as a third party observer, it doesn’t seem like the slam-dunk vindication of Assange that some here are implying. For better or worse, when bringing legal action against criminals, law enforcement sometimes needs to use evidence from other criminals and various kinds of unsavory characters.
- the_optimist 5y ago
  Well aware of the supposed "'need' to use unsavory characters," given Mueller's direct role in the Whitey Bulger affair [0]. I also recognize how aggressive and cavalier that behavior is in practice. I appreciate your applied view of the legal system but it's reasonably likely that such derogatory evidence would not even be admitted in court. This is middle-age justice with a modern veneer. Might as well torture confessions. [0] https://technofog.substack.com/p/when-the-fbi-framed-four-innocent https://technofog.substack.com/p/when-the-fbi-framed-four-in...
  - jacobolus 5y ago
    > Durham - now Special Counsel - still quietly looks for the truth I have no insight into the body of the post, but LOL at this conclusion. Durham has been running his “investigation” now for more than two years and has found diddly squat. The sole product of the Durham investigation is breathless “just wait for the bombshell” punditry from disingenuous right-wing extremist pundits, the same crew who are convinced Hillary Clinton is running a child sex dungeon in a pizza parlor.
    - the_optimist 5y ago
      One person here strewing random, quite absurd theories about, and that's not me, nor the author of that in-depth historically factual piece. Not sure why you LOL at innocent people dying in prison, strikes me as a bit indecent.
      - jacobolus 5y ago
        What is the “absurd theory”? I have not presented any “theories” at all. The entire premise of the article under discussion in this thread is (1) “Assange associate who provided evidence to the FBI is an attenion-seeking sociopath and pathological liar” (everyone seems to more or less agree on this point), and (2) “you should believe what he just told a random journalist”. A bunch of people are claiming here that this proves Assange is an oppressed freedom fighter or something. Personally I think it furthers a general impression that Assange and a bunch of other people in the Wikileaks orbit were liars and criminals with questionable agendas and methods.
      - the_optimist 5y ago
        We've reached max depth. The answer to your question is: it doesn't reflect at all on Assange, but it does shine quite a bright light directly on the FBI/CIA.
- jacobolus 5y ago
  Anyone still following along here may be interested in Marcy Wheeler’s close examination of the article under discussion, and how it relates to the Assange indictment: https://www.emptywheel.net/2021/06/27/wikileaks-and-edward-snowden-champion-sociopathic-liars-and-sloppy-thinking/ https://www.emptywheel.net/2021/06/27/wikileaks-and-edward-s...
  - chmod775 5y ago
    That is a very poor analysis and it reads like someone is trying to fire cheap shots at strawmen. > This is what Assange’s boosters are now staking his defense on: convincing you to accept the words of liars as truth. The people this article calls "Assange boosters" aren't rallying behind this person or claiming that he's not lying now, they're saying: "This man is a pathological liar either way, can't be trusted, and thus is useless as a witness. This man's words carry precisely zero weight at this point, whatever he claims." That blog entry goes on to address a bunch of other strawmen that resemble no argument made in this HN thread. I don't know why you would link it.
  - the_optimist 5y ago
    Marcy Wheeler holds a PhD in comparative literature. Long blogging about Russiagate and addicted to close reading of legal documents without the least connection to law, Marcy has developed a steady following to which she misinterprets information and presents it as factual. You can see how stoopid this is right off the bat, couched in thousands of words: A guy provided evidence, and then he said he lied, so he was telling the truth the first time. Thanks Marcy. I do encourage you all to open the link and note how she writes in what is effectively a context-free grammar, presupposing conclusions, discussing casually about how they're correct, and linking back to more incorrect interpretations. The only way to even try to parse such nonsense is to click on endless links, which will eventually get you back to absolutely nothing. Like Lord of the Rings, except backwards and the characters travel in circles. If you like this, Seth Abramson is similar, slightly more legal authority, equal intellectual weight.

jacobolus 5y ago

As they take Assange to court, they’ll have to mount credible legal arguments, present convincing evidence, and deal with counter-evidence / cross examination from the defense. As I said, “these witnesses who worked with my client have admitted to being liars” can sometimes be a good legal argument. But as a third party observer, it doesn’t seem like the slam-dunk vindication of Assange that some here are implying. For better or worse, when bringing legal action against criminals, law enforcement sometimes needs to use evidence from other criminals and various kinds of unsavory characters.

the_optimist 5y ago
Well aware of the supposed "'need' to use unsavory characters," given Mueller's direct role in the Whitey Bulger affair [0]. I also recognize how aggressive and cavalier that behavior is in practice. I appreciate your applied view of the legal system but it's reasonably likely that such derogatory evidence would not even be admitted in court. This is middle-age justice with a modern veneer. Might as well torture confessions. [0] https://technofog.substack.com/p/when-the-fbi-framed-four-innocent https://technofog.substack.com/p/when-the-fbi-framed-four-in...
- jacobolus 5y ago
  > Durham - now Special Counsel - still quietly looks for the truth I have no insight into the body of the post, but LOL at this conclusion. Durham has been running his “investigation” now for more than two years and has found diddly squat. The sole product of the Durham investigation is breathless “just wait for the bombshell” punditry from disingenuous right-wing extremist pundits, the same crew who are convinced Hillary Clinton is running a child sex dungeon in a pizza parlor.
  - the_optimist 5y ago
    One person here strewing random, quite absurd theories about, and that's not me, nor the author of that in-depth historically factual piece. Not sure why you LOL at innocent people dying in prison, strikes me as a bit indecent.
    - jacobolus 5y ago
      What is the “absurd theory”? I have not presented any “theories” at all. The entire premise of the article under discussion in this thread is (1) “Assange associate who provided evidence to the FBI is an attenion-seeking sociopath and pathological liar” (everyone seems to more or less agree on this point), and (2) “you should believe what he just told a random journalist”. A bunch of people are claiming here that this proves Assange is an oppressed freedom fighter or something. Personally I think it furthers a general impression that Assange and a bunch of other people in the Wikileaks orbit were liars and criminals with questionable agendas and methods.
    - the_optimist 5y ago
      We've reached max depth. The answer to your question is: it doesn't reflect at all on Assange, but it does shine quite a bright light directly on the FBI/CIA.
jacobolus 5y ago
Anyone still following along here may be interested in Marcy Wheeler’s close examination of the article under discussion, and how it relates to the Assange indictment: https://www.emptywheel.net/2021/06/27/wikileaks-and-edward-snowden-champion-sociopathic-liars-and-sloppy-thinking/ https://www.emptywheel.net/2021/06/27/wikileaks-and-edward-s...
- chmod775 5y ago
  That is a very poor analysis and it reads like someone is trying to fire cheap shots at strawmen. > This is what Assange’s boosters are now staking his defense on: convincing you to accept the words of liars as truth. The people this article calls "Assange boosters" aren't rallying behind this person or claiming that he's not lying now, they're saying: "This man is a pathological liar either way, can't be trusted, and thus is useless as a witness. This man's words carry precisely zero weight at this point, whatever he claims." That blog entry goes on to address a bunch of other strawmen that resemble no argument made in this HN thread. I don't know why you would link it.
- the_optimist 5y ago
  Marcy Wheeler holds a PhD in comparative literature. Long blogging about Russiagate and addicted to close reading of legal documents without the least connection to law, Marcy has developed a steady following to which she misinterprets information and presents it as factual. You can see how stoopid this is right off the bat, couched in thousands of words: A guy provided evidence, and then he said he lied, so he was telling the truth the first time. Thanks Marcy. I do encourage you all to open the link and note how she writes in what is effectively a context-free grammar, presupposing conclusions, discussing casually about how they're correct, and linking back to more incorrect interpretations. The only way to even try to parse such nonsense is to click on endless links, which will eventually get you back to absolutely nothing. Like Lord of the Rings, except backwards and the characters travel in circles. If you like this, Seth Abramson is similar, slightly more legal authority, equal intellectual weight.