7 ms·

I don't think Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson is a "key witness" in the claims against Assange. He might be A witness, but I very much doubt the charges rely on his te

I don't think Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson is a "key witness" in the claims against Assange. He might be A witness, but I very much doubt the charges rely on his testimony. As far as the media goes, most people don't care about Assange as much as the conspiracy crowd. And some of the comments here are verging on very conspiratorial.

k1m 5y ago
What makes you say that? He was used to strengthen the US case late into the proceedings. The UK judge, while refusing extradition on humantiarian grounds, sided with the US based in part on his testimony: > The Stundin article continued: > ‘With regards to the actual accusations made in the indictment Baraitser sided with the arguments of the American legal team, including citing the specific samples from Iceland which are now seriously called into question.
- WoahNoun 5y ago
  The main charges are related to Chelsea Manning. This was a charge for hacking in Iceland completely unrelated to that. That charge could be completely removed from the case and he would still be on trial for the other charges.
  - k1m 5y ago
    > That charge could be completely removed from the case and he would still be on trial for the other charges. That charge was completely absent from the case until the US decided it needed to strengthen its case and added it last-minute. So clearly they disagree with you, otherwise they would have kept it out (knowing the background of the individual involved). And again, why would the judge refer to it specifically in siding with the US if it were so unimportant?
0e9333fa-97ed 5y ago
>Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson, a former WikiLeaks volunteer, who admitted that he had made false allegations against Assange after being recruited by US authorities. Thordarson, who has several convictions for sexual abuse of minors and financial fraud, began working with the US Department of Justice and the FBI after receiving a promise of immunity from prosecution. He even admitted to continuing his crime spree while working with the US authorities. That he is in any way involved with the case on the US govt side is extremely unsettling. Especially if he were given immunity child rape for any testimony.
esens 5y ago
If this happened to Trump it would be on all of the right wing news channels for a full news cycle and used to discredit all investigations/charges against him. Different people have different levels of access to ensuring media coverage, in part because of biases in those media outlets.
jrumbut 5y ago
I agree, coverage of the Assange case is more sporadic now but a quick search of the NYT website shows they wrote about this indictment June 12th. It's no secret. If there's something to this new claim it may be in their next article about it, they seem to get back to Assange once a month or so. The title for this link is exaggerated at least.
- k1m 5y ago
  > the NYT website shows they wrote about this indictment June 12th. It's no secret. That's not about this news story. "These dramatic revelations emerged in an extensive article published on 26 June in Stundin." Has the NYT covered them? Here's an NYT search showing everything they published with the term "Assange" in the last month: https://www.nytimes.com/search?dropmab=false&endDate=20210702&query=assange&sort=best&startDate=20210602 https://www.nytimes.com/search?dropmab=false&endDate=2021070...
  - jrumbut 5y ago
    That was the point of my post, they aren't covering the proceedings minute by minute. They sum it up occasionally. There's a lot going on in the world, not everything can be covered urgently in a general interest publication. They don't have unlimited reporters.
    - k1m 5y ago
      You're implying this is a minor development. It's really not. Edward Snowden said: "This is the end of the case against Julian Assange." https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1408847450656415751 https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1408847450656415751 I find it hard to believe the media would be silent if similar revelations came to light about anyone else. I agree with Media Lens: > in a sane world, Stundin’s revelations about a key Assange witness – that Thordarson lied in exchange for immunity from prosecution – would have been headline news everywhere, with extensive media coverage on BBC News at Six and Ten, ITV News, Channel 4 News, front-page stories in the Times, Telegraph, the Guardian and more. The silence is quite extraordinary; and disturbing.
freshhawk 5y ago
A key witness in the current extradition case is my understanding. The claim about Assange guiding Manning that Thordarson is testifying too is definitely a major piece of most of the related court cases.
roywiggins 5y ago
Yes, and someone who's followed the case pretty closely agrees with you: > Except, Siggi retracts nothing substantive that is alleged in the indictment, so this drama is instead a demand that you accept the word of a liar rather than read the documents to show that the liar’s claims are irrelevant to the charges against Assange. 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... (I really don't know anything about the case so I don't have an opinion, other than to be reflexively skeptical of sweeping claims of conspiracy)
- the_optimist 5y ago
  This analysis fails to make the case that having a witness recant is irrelevant. It is also full of nonsense hyperbole, as though it were written by a very passionate person who does not command faculties of reasoning.
TheTester 5y ago
Outside of the united states you are not part ot the "conspiracy crowd" for distrusting imperialist institutions that attacked their own allies, at least fro most informed Europeans this was a freedom of the press issue and saying that "comments here are verging on very conspiratorial" seems like an overt hyperbole when as far as I have seen they are pretty much citing articles, no Alex Jones style comments so far, to the dismay of those who still hate Assange for some reason/
colordrops 5y ago
Your comment is content-free and verging on ad hominem.
iaw 5y ago
There are two schools of thought. There are those that think Assange is a hero or a martyr to a surveillance state and those that think little if anything about him. I've said this before: Assange dabbled in espionage without a Nation-State backer and is experiencing the repercussions of that gamble. Right or wrong the realpolitik is what Assange is living now.

k1m 5y ago

What makes you say that? He was used to strengthen the US case late into the proceedings. The UK judge, while refusing extradition on humantiarian grounds, sided with the US based in part on his testimony: > The Stundin article continued: > ‘With regards to the actual accusations made in the indictment Baraitser sided with the arguments of the American legal team, including citing the specific samples from Iceland which are now seriously called into question.

WoahNoun 5y ago
The main charges are related to Chelsea Manning. This was a charge for hacking in Iceland completely unrelated to that. That charge could be completely removed from the case and he would still be on trial for the other charges.
- k1m 5y ago
  > That charge could be completely removed from the case and he would still be on trial for the other charges. That charge was completely absent from the case until the US decided it needed to strengthen its case and added it last-minute. So clearly they disagree with you, otherwise they would have kept it out (knowing the background of the individual involved). And again, why would the judge refer to it specifically in siding with the US if it were so unimportant?

0e9333fa-97ed 5y ago

>Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson, a former WikiLeaks volunteer, who admitted that he had made false allegations against Assange after being recruited by US authorities. Thordarson, who has several convictions for sexual abuse of minors and financial fraud, began working with the US Department of Justice and the FBI after receiving a promise of immunity from prosecution. He even admitted to continuing his crime spree while working with the US authorities. That he is in any way involved with the case on the US govt side is extremely unsettling. Especially if he were given immunity child rape for any testimony.

esens 5y ago

If this happened to Trump it would be on all of the right wing news channels for a full news cycle and used to discredit all investigations/charges against him. Different people have different levels of access to ensuring media coverage, in part because of biases in those media outlets.

jrumbut 5y ago

I agree, coverage of the Assange case is more sporadic now but a quick search of the NYT website shows they wrote about this indictment June 12th. It's no secret. If there's something to this new claim it may be in their next article about it, they seem to get back to Assange once a month or so. The title for this link is exaggerated at least.

k1m 5y ago
> the NYT website shows they wrote about this indictment June 12th. It's no secret. That's not about this news story. "These dramatic revelations emerged in an extensive article published on 26 June in Stundin." Has the NYT covered them? Here's an NYT search showing everything they published with the term "Assange" in the last month: https://www.nytimes.com/search?dropmab=false&endDate=20210702&query=assange&sort=best&startDate=20210602 https://www.nytimes.com/search?dropmab=false&endDate=2021070...
- jrumbut 5y ago
  That was the point of my post, they aren't covering the proceedings minute by minute. They sum it up occasionally. There's a lot going on in the world, not everything can be covered urgently in a general interest publication. They don't have unlimited reporters.
  - k1m 5y ago
    You're implying this is a minor development. It's really not. Edward Snowden said: "This is the end of the case against Julian Assange." https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1408847450656415751 https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1408847450656415751 I find it hard to believe the media would be silent if similar revelations came to light about anyone else. I agree with Media Lens: > in a sane world, Stundin’s revelations about a key Assange witness – that Thordarson lied in exchange for immunity from prosecution – would have been headline news everywhere, with extensive media coverage on BBC News at Six and Ten, ITV News, Channel 4 News, front-page stories in the Times, Telegraph, the Guardian and more. The silence is quite extraordinary; and disturbing.

freshhawk 5y ago

A key witness in the current extradition case is my understanding. The claim about Assange guiding Manning that Thordarson is testifying too is definitely a major piece of most of the related court cases.

roywiggins 5y ago

Yes, and someone who's followed the case pretty closely agrees with you: > Except, Siggi retracts nothing substantive that is alleged in the indictment, so this drama is instead a demand that you accept the word of a liar rather than read the documents to show that the liar’s claims are irrelevant to the charges against Assange. 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... (I really don't know anything about the case so I don't have an opinion, other than to be reflexively skeptical of sweeping claims of conspiracy)

the_optimist 5y ago
This analysis fails to make the case that having a witness recant is irrelevant. It is also full of nonsense hyperbole, as though it were written by a very passionate person who does not command faculties of reasoning.

TheTester 5y ago

Outside of the united states you are not part ot the "conspiracy crowd" for distrusting imperialist institutions that attacked their own allies, at least fro most informed Europeans this was a freedom of the press issue and saying that "comments here are verging on very conspiratorial" seems like an overt hyperbole when as far as I have seen they are pretty much citing articles, no Alex Jones style comments so far, to the dismay of those who still hate Assange for some reason/

colordrops 5y ago

Your comment is content-free and verging on ad hominem.

iaw 5y ago

There are two schools of thought. There are those that think Assange is a hero or a martyr to a surveillance state and those that think little if anything about him. I've said this before: Assange dabbled in espionage without a Nation-State backer and is experiencing the repercussions of that gamble. Right or wrong the realpolitik is what Assange is living now.