4 ms·

Perfect. You quoted Wikipedia, not the report you claim has the information. Wikipedia cited the WP. WP cited 'secret'. How do we know it? "CIA told us." Why d

Perfect. You quoted Wikipedia, not the report you claim has the information. Wikipedia cited the WP. WP cited 'secret'. How do we know it? "CIA told us." Why do we believe it? "CIA told us." What evidence do we have? "CIA told us so." How'd they come to this conclusion? "That's for them to know and us to take in faith." Do they have a history of lying? "Yes." To Congress? "Yes." Are there any consequences for this? "No." Okay, so you want to steer our country and globe like this? "Yes." It's BS turtles all the way down. Oh, and btw their primary collaborators are pathological, serial liar, child molestors who are both threatened with prosecutorial jeopardy and granted legal immunity.

res0nat0r 5y ago
It's all in the Mueller report and I'm not digging out quotes from a 500 page document to repeat what is already known, just because you don't like the facts, I'm sorry.
- efdee 5y ago
  Except that, of course, it's not. In fact, IIRC, they stated they had too little evidence to substantiate the claims. Maybe it's you who doesn't like the facts?
  - res0nat0r 5y ago
    Like I mentioned, Assange isn't an idiot and knew full well who he was dealing with at the time. It doesn't need to rise to the level of provable criminal conspiracy for anyone to know someone as sophisticated as him just didn't bumble into the situation, especially when it was speculated at the time that the Guccifer 2.0 alias was likely a front for a foreign intelligence group.
    - efdee 5y ago
      It most certainly does need to rise to a level of provable criminal conspiracy. Gut feeling doesn't hold up well in court.
      - res0nat0r 5y ago
        Thankfully he's not being charged re: the Guccifer 2.0 hacking.
    - the_optimist 5y ago
      This is the standard dissembling. We went from “I have got the truth! Your client is guilty!” to “He’s a smart guy, seems guilty.” Only two paragraphs. Astonishing really, that people are willing to invest themselves like this.
the_optimist 5y ago
I did some work for you. Here's the direct quote from the unreacted Mueller report: "The Office determined that it did not have admissible evidence that was probably sufficient to obtain and sustain a Section 1030 conspiracy conviction of WikiLeaks, Assange, or Stone." "With respect to Wikileaks and Assange, this Office determined the admissible evidence to be insufficient on both the agreement and knowledge prongs." They literally redacted (and way later un-redacted) the part that recognized that they had zero evidence. Pathetic beyond any conceivable reality, I know, but there it is. Page 177. Good luck with your theories. https://epic.org/foia/doj/mueller-report/Mueller-Report-Reprocessed-110220.pdf https://epic.org/foia/doj/mueller-report/Mueller-Report-Repr...

res0nat0r 5y ago

It's all in the Mueller report and I'm not digging out quotes from a 500 page document to repeat what is already known, just because you don't like the facts, I'm sorry.

efdee 5y ago
Except that, of course, it's not. In fact, IIRC, they stated they had too little evidence to substantiate the claims. Maybe it's you who doesn't like the facts?
- res0nat0r 5y ago
  Like I mentioned, Assange isn't an idiot and knew full well who he was dealing with at the time. It doesn't need to rise to the level of provable criminal conspiracy for anyone to know someone as sophisticated as him just didn't bumble into the situation, especially when it was speculated at the time that the Guccifer 2.0 alias was likely a front for a foreign intelligence group.
  - efdee 5y ago
    It most certainly does need to rise to a level of provable criminal conspiracy. Gut feeling doesn't hold up well in court.
    - res0nat0r 5y ago
      Thankfully he's not being charged re: the Guccifer 2.0 hacking.
  - the_optimist 5y ago
    This is the standard dissembling. We went from “I have got the truth! Your client is guilty!” to “He’s a smart guy, seems guilty.” Only two paragraphs. Astonishing really, that people are willing to invest themselves like this.

the_optimist 5y ago

I did some work for you. Here's the direct quote from the unreacted Mueller report: "The Office determined that it did not have admissible evidence that was probably sufficient to obtain and sustain a Section 1030 conspiracy conviction of WikiLeaks, Assange, or Stone." "With respect to Wikileaks and Assange, this Office determined the admissible evidence to be insufficient on both the agreement and knowledge prongs." They literally redacted (and way later un-redacted) the part that recognized that they had zero evidence. Pathetic beyond any conceivable reality, I know, but there it is. Page 177. Good luck with your theories. https://epic.org/foia/doj/mueller-report/Mueller-Report-Reprocessed-110220.pdf https://epic.org/foia/doj/mueller-report/Mueller-Report-Repr...