18 ms·

Assange case: Key witness admits he lied

875 points by graderjs 5y ago

fungi 5y ago
War Nerd podcast has good interview this week discussing http://exiledonline.com/45wn84klrz/?name=rwn_ep_288_0708211.mp3 http://exiledonline.com/45wn84klrz/?name=rwn_ep_288_0708211....
- yeahforsureman 5y ago
  I still remember when The Exiled were openly derisive of Assange. Now that they represent the same scene of broadly tankie-ish anti-American populism (not speculating on their reasons or connections to any regimes...), it seems it's a love affair.
- yeahforsureman 5y ago
  I just now looked and noticed the journalist interviewed here also tells about his participation in a small pro-Assad info op, too, i.e., a bit of Douma denialism, an old Grayzone (or should I say Roublezone) favorite. Disgusting how low the Exile(d) has fallen.
  - 1-more 5y ago
    The Douma denialism is just quoting OPCW workers who don't like that their reports were twisted to say the opposite of what they said.
    - yeahforsureman 5y ago
      Yeah, for sure.
beeboop 5y ago
What a surprise, the entire media history against Assange is a bunch of bullshit. Blows my mind that people can be so critical of mainstream media and doubt everything they say, but suddenly believe them 100% when it comes to something like Assange.
- ben_w 5y ago
  The media commentary I saw in the U.K. before I left was generally on the lines of “US shouldn’t be going after him this was journalism, and he should’ve gone to Sweden instead of hiding from the law”. People can be more than one thing.
  - sneak 5y ago
    There were no charges in Sweden. That whole thing was a ruse.
    - me_me_me 5y ago
      They trumped up fake rape case in order for him to be brought to Sweden when they would extradited him to us. Rape is serious accusation, but if you look at this case you can clearly see she got paid to go to court. They had sex, he left the sweeden and months after that she changed her mind and decided it was a rape.
      - sneak 5y ago
        Nobody in Sweden accused him of rape. Please read the direct statements of the women involved.
        ben_w 5y ago
        The closest I have to the original statements are reports in newspapers such as the following. At the very least the acts described here seem to me to be in violation of either section 1 or 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (I don’t understand the difference) by the standard of section 75.2.d (being asleep). IIRC this is basically why the UK judge agreed to the extradition to Sweden, as I think extradition generally needs the act to be an offence in both places? Though I may have misunderstood that. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange...
        5y ago
raxxorrax 5y ago
If you are doing anything for cash, people might think you are a prostitute. But you could also be a corporate journalist or working for US intelligence.
- hulitu 5y ago
  I think that is disgraceful for prostitutes to compare them with such people.
trainsplanes 5y ago
The astroturfing against Assange became insane at a certain point. There was a time where you could say “Wikileaks” nearly anywhere online and have a flood of comments calling Assange various things and anyone who didn’t outright hate him a terrorist.
- _fizz_buzz_ 5y ago
  Not sure if that was always astroturfing. I certainly feel ambivalent about Julian Assange and he arguably cost Hillary Clinton the 2016 election, which obviously upset a lot of people.
  - noofen 5y ago
    The US media made sure not to make that mistake again with Hunter Biden's laptop.
    - MrBuddyCasino 5y ago
      The most comicbook supervillain event so far was that Pfizer deliberately slowed down the Covid vaccine until after the election so that it wouldn't help Trump politically: https://twitter.com/Steve_Sailer/status/1413658719938748428 https://twitter.com/Steve_Sailer/status/1413658719938748428
      - adamors 5y ago
        It's mind-boggling you actually conclude this from > The companies said they had decided not to conduct the 32-case analysis “after a discussion with the FDA.” Instead, they planned to conduct the analysis after 62 cases. > Gruber said that Pfizer and BioNTech had decided in late October that they wanted to drop the 32-case interim analysis. At that time, the companies decided to stop having their lab confirm cases of Covid-19 in the study, instead leaving samples in storage. The FDA was aware of this decision. Discussions between the agency and the companies concluded, and testing began this past Wednesday.
lucioperca 5y ago
Chomsky's and Herman's propaganda model[0] may explain why the US media ignores it. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model
- TaylorAlexander 5y ago
  See also a short video [1] or a long video [2] on the subject. Michael Parenti also published a book on this subject a few years before Chomsky. Inventing Reality: The Politics Of the Mass Media [3] Parenti also has plenty of talks on YouTube [4] [1] https://youtu.be/tTBWfkE7BXU https://youtu.be/tTBWfkE7BXU [2] https://youtu.be/EuwmWnphqII https://youtu.be/EuwmWnphqII [3] https://archive.org/details/inventingrealit000pare https://archive.org/details/inventingrealit000pare [4] https://youtu.be/1jwliZ1YoCs https://youtu.be/1jwliZ1YoCs EDIT: I’m seeing downvotes. I consider these to be genuinely valuable resources on media literacy but if you disagree I’d love to know what aspects of Chomsky or Parenti’s theories you disagree with.
  - Synaesthesia 5y ago
    Yeah they’re both right and criticising the media is also something progressives have done since the early 20th century.
  - sdwr 5y ago
    I've noticed mental rigidity on HN - some people are looking for objective truth compatible with first-order logic. Hints of nuance or relative perspective get them riled up.
Ardren 5y ago
Hey, what do you know, it has been covered by "US Media": https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/julian-assange-extradition-appeal/2021/07/07/41bc3914-df2e-11eb-a27f-8b294930e95b_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/julian-assange-e... > In the indictment, Thordarson’s claims are used not as the basis for charges but as background for what Assange told Chelsea Manning, who as an Army soldier exposed classified information through WikiLeaks in 2010. > Thordarson in the article also does not deny involvement in the hacking of U.S. targets, and tells the publication his activities were “something Assange was aware of or that he had interpreted it so that this was expected of him.”
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  One article that completely ignores that the DoJ offered Thordarson immunity for this false testimony and that the judge mentions the Icelandic stuff as part of the reason the extradition was valid. It is also used as further evidence of the only charge that isn't an Espionage Act charge, which is the reason people try to claim these charges aren't clear violations of a free press. And here's the full quote that the article took one line from >Stundin cannot find any evidence that Thordarson was ever instructed to make those requests by anyone inside WikiLeaks. Thordarson himself is not even claiming that, although he explains this as something Assange was aware of or that he had interpreted it so that this was expected of him. How this supposed non-verbal communication took place he cannot explain. edit oh, and the Washington Post article is from July 8th. The original article claims the media ignored the report as of July 2nd.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- k1m 5y ago
  Your linked Washington Post article was published on 8th July. It's actually a good demonstration of the animosity towards Assange in the corporate press. It wasn't published in response to the major Sundin story (26th June) which as the OP's article (published 7 July, before your Post piece) shows, was blanked by all corporate press at the time: > ...as of Friday, July 2, there has been literally zero coverage of it in corporate media; not one word in the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, NBC News, Fox News or NPR. A search online for either “Assange” or “Thordarson” will elicit zero relevant articles from establishment sources, either US or elsewhere in the Anglosphere, even in tech-focused platforms like the Verge, Wired or Gizmodo,” FAIR says. The Post mainly sides with the US and only mentions the Sundin reporting in passing, diminishing its importance and omitting important parts, as the other replies here point out. A great example of power-friendly reporting when it comes to Assange.
anothernewdude 5y ago
I'm embarrassed for the people who continue to defend him. His testimony has little to do with the case against Assange. I know a lot of you are libertarians out to prevent the need for toaster licenses, but this is just sad. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/julian-assange-extradition-appeal/2021/07/07/41bc3914-df2e-11eb-a27f-8b294930e95b_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/julian-assange-e...
- cryptica 5y ago
  Yet the question remains; on what basis are they holding him in prison right now? They have nothing on him. The UK government, the US government and media are the only entities embarrassing themselves here. Any intelligent person with moral principles right now is starting to think the US is some kind of mafia state. Even patriotic American citizens are starting to denounce the government and pretending that the US government is a separate concept from the US (the country). It doesn't look good.
  - jsnider3 5y ago
    The reason he is in prison is because he sabotaged Hillary's campaign and because he has actually committed crimes.
    - cryptica 5y ago
      What crimes? He just published leaked documents just like New York Post and The Guardian did. Wikileaks just happened to be first. There is no evidence of hacking since this key witness admitted that it was made up.
      - cookie_monsta 5y ago
        I thought the hacking charges arose from the chat logs with Manning?
        jessaustin 5y ago
cryptica 5y ago
Assange's main mistake is that he underestimated how corrupt politicians are and how apathetic citizens are. I wonder if he would have started Wikileaks if he had understood human nature. What's the point of helping society if it's a steaming pile of crap? This is a lawless dog-eat-dog world. The laws only serve criminals who are able to disregard them and not get caught. These are the real beneficiaries of our system.
- busymom0 5y ago
  “When exposing a crime is treated as committing a crime you’re being ruled by criminals” - Edward Snowden
imustbeevil 5y ago
I think it's good to have visibility into something like this, but I worry that we aren't typically getting meaningful discussion since people have dug to the Earth's core to fortify their positions on topics like this, and I'm not sure what the appropriate frequency of reposting should be. 22 days ago (572pts): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27642660 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27642660 19 days ago (14pts): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27673180 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27673180 18 days ago (11pts): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27686753 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27686753 16 days ago (1110pts): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27710075 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27710075
OtomotO 5y ago
100 years of propaganda pays its toll. Assange may not be a hero, but compared to the war-"heroes" he is one. Of course nobody really dares to oppose the Imperium, the only real law in this society still is the law of the strongest
Traster 5y ago
I'm pretty skeptical of most of the Pro-Assange reporting that happens because so often it seems very unreliable - cherry picking things, misrepresenting things etc. For example, I don't know enough about the Assange charges to say what is relevant or not relevant to the extradition, but just from a basic premise - what most people know Assange for is nothing to do with hacking Iceland MPs so it seems pretty unlikely that this would be a material part of the extradition. It would be kind of weird if that were a core part of the extradition, yet this article seems to be making out this is the star witness. I just doubt it frankly. It doesn't help the author that they repeat tired old accusations about the judge being biased.
- simiones 5y ago
  You should look into this a lot more. The core fact is that there are very little potentially valid reasons that Assange could be extradited - the prosecution is mostly grasping at straws, as he has done nothing wrong by UK laws. That is why ancillary witnesses like this Thoradsson become crucial: the prosecution needs to invent something that could be a good enough excuse to get him in the hands of the US "justice system" (for people like Assange or Snowden, it is obvious there would be no real justice in the US).
  - KaiserPro 5y ago
    > he has done nothing wrong by UK laws Two points here. He has skipped bail, which is most definitely illegal. Why he skipped bail is a different issue, but it cannot be denied that he has skipped bail. Secondly and more importantly, you don't need to be guilty of something under UK law to be extradited. That's the whole point of extradition. If you commit a crime abroad, you are almost certainly not guilty of it at home, because you are out of your home country's jurisdiction. Also I've never understood the whole Sweden is a stepping stone to the US. in my little understanding, I don't see why the US would seek to only issue an extradition order when he was in Sweden. They won't grant extradition to a place where there is a material risk of the death penalty (well, unless you're an asylum seeker, but that's a different issue.)
    - 5y ago
bamboozled 5y ago
This is why people believe in Lizard Men, it's the only way they can rationalize the extreme bias we see so often. I'm starting to wonder if it's true :)
LatteLazy 5y ago
I'm no trump supporter, but that shouldn't mean I or anyone else think he should go to jail for maybe costing her the election. Being a useful idiot or costing someone an election aren't (or at least shouldn't be) crimes. Also, its really questionable whether the US should be pursuing criminal charges against anyone who's never been to the States. I think this whole case demonstrates what a nightmare the authorities can put you through in a supposedly Liberal, Democratic, Law abiding set of nations, just because they want to. That should scare us all.
- waterglassFull 5y ago
  I agree with your first point but perusing charges against people who make crimes against a country without having been there is quite common.
  - LatteLazy 5y ago
    Is it common? There has been a very long time exception for murder, rape and piracy (with boats not file sharing). Recently terrorism has been added to that. But as far as I'm aware the US is the only major country that tries to enforce its laws on people not there. Who else has been trying this? Edit Wikipedia lists some https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction Looks like some places have added planes from/to/through their airspace, sex crimes against minors and space craft to the list of extraterritorial coverage. No one else is doing espionage, computer crimes, fraud, etc like the USA...
- me_me_me 5y ago
  What? US wants Assange for leaking collateral murder vid and documents https://diem25.org/exactly-10-years-ago-wikileaks-released-a-us-military-video-depicting-the-slaying-of-over-a-dozen-people-in-iraq/ https://diem25.org/exactly-10-years-ago-wikileaks-released-a...
  - LatteLazy 5y ago
    I'm not sure what your question is? My point (that I think you're referring to?) is that US law shouldn't apply to people not in the US. There are a few well established exceptions (Murder, Rape, Piracy (with boats) and terrorism), but aside from those most nations accept that things happening outside their borders aren't subject to their laws...
dalbasal 5y ago
In 2010 I was living in Melbourne, where he's from. There was a pro Assange petition/demonstration in Richmond. I went over to sign. Assange was an Australian citizen. The Wikileaks leak was journalistic, as far as I could tell. The Swedish indictments seemed extremely dubious. It definitely felt like an extrajudicial persecution of a journalist. Anyway, the petition did have something about Assange in it, besides the sign. It also demanded an immediate end to Australia's involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan. It called the US imperialist, condemned the alliance, mentioned Israel, various global left wing causes, calls for resistance, etc. I'm not sure if it mentioned freedom of the press at all. I don't remember the details, but it was enough that I didn't sign. The whole thing presented Assange and wikileaks totally as activists. Of course, that doesn't mean that it isn't a press freedom issue. It is. It also doesn't make the pursuit of Assange ok. In some senses, it's been worse than a Putinesque hit. Hits don't corrupt legal systems and establish precedents. It's been much harder to think of Julian & Wikileaks as a journalist than it should have been. They present on a nexus of belligerent, activist and journalist. This technically shouldn't affect legal processes, but... reality. I do think there's an imperative for journalism to remain journalistic, in both the hard and soft sense. Freedom of the press does, IMO, require a distinctive press, easily identified as such.
- harry8 5y ago
  We'll that's really traditional in Aus. Ask Peter Garret about the Nuclear Disarmament Party which had a fairly wide appeal initially. Later all the original founders resigned and advised everyone to have nothing whatever to do with it. Their one senator fro WA became an independent. Popular vehicle gets taken over by extreme radicals. Was the petition organised by Asssange or people he approved? Or was it essentially a militant communist faction using it for their own purposes because, at most charitable reading, they're right about everything as you must agree as soon as you open your eyes. As someone who is not leftist it appears to me to be prevalent and an extreme hindrance on genuine protest against the unconscionable.
  - dalbasal 5y ago
    Well... He would know. He's from activist land, and probably still has a lot of friends from the punk rock scene, became a serious environmental lobbyist and from there to being a centrist MP. I'm sure he had an interesting journey. Smart guy. I actually met him several times. Seems kind of like an alien in person. I didn't know about his Nuclear Disarmament Party. >> Or was it essentially a militant communist faction Best guess, it was mostly young radicals from University of Melbourne. But... I don't think this falls into the "other people using it for their own purposes" bucket either. Wikileaks & Assange are from this (specific) resistance clique themselves. It was their neighborhood. Both the organisation and the man have always represented themselves as hard left activists. Still do. This was back in the Bush-Howard days, or just after. As with Garret's Nuclear Disarmament Party (I assume) there's a dynamic between progressive and radical thought that often leaves them in no man's land... or radical land. Like I said, being politically weird doesn't mean you lose rights or can't be a journalist. So, I'm justifying anything. I'm noting that journalists and journalistic organisations, especially those reporting on war, should not blur lines between press and "not press" themselves. Press freedom is premised on you being press. Make that unchallengeable, and obvious at first sight. Contrast this with Snowden, who knows what he is, what categories he falls into. As such, he always expected to face trial or exile. He wants to return and face trial, just with open proceedings. His was an act of civil disobedience. Meanwhile, not protected like the journalists he leaked to. They never blurred the lines between them.
machinehermiter 5y ago
I mean I went to MSNBC on Saturday and the front page had like 5 stories about Trump. Julian Assange just isn't going to drive enough clicks. There is no conspiracy here, this is a side effect of the internet destroying the media's business model. Julian Assange would have been a really interesting Sunday morning discussion in the 90s. The media can't really afford interesting discussion at this point though.
irthomasthomas 5y ago
This story brings to mind the Gell-Mann amnesia affect. "Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I refer to it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.) Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know. That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I'd point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all. But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn't. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#GellMannAmnesiaEffect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#GellMannAmnes...
xchip 5y ago
Thanks for bringing attention to this!
cookie_monsta 5y ago
I find the whole spectacle of watching two propaganda machines trying to out- manoeuvre each other to be a little exhausting to be honest. There's no doubt that the US is acting vindictively here, but the pro-Assange camp does little for its credibility by using the same tactics. Even the headline here has been massaged - originally this was a "key" witness but by the time it gets to HN, he's a "keystone" witness. But the bigger problem is that he's neither. I've been vaguely following the case and this is the first mention of this guy I've seen. TFA asserts that the 2nd indictment rests on his bought testimony, but there's nothing about hacking Icelandic MPs or banks in that indictment. There's definitely stuff about hacking, but only about US targets, and Thordarson has nothing to say about that. Unless I'm missing something, this is a minor story about the DoJ doing a deal with one criminal to convict another (hardly news in itself) in order to strengthen an already robust case, not the slam dunk people are making it out to be.
- k1m 5y ago
  > There's no doubt that the US is acting vindictively here, but the pro-Assange camp does little for its credibility by using the same tactics. Revelations about an important witness lying about Assange to get immunity from the US is blanked by corporate media. How is reporting that this important story was blanked "acting vindictively"?
  - cookie_monsta 5y ago
    Sorry if I expressed that badly. I meant to say that the US's continued persecution of Assange seems vindictive. I do disagree that this is an important witness, though, for the reasons I have already outlined.
    - Ostrogodsky 5y ago
      The fact that you put the government of the US and its 3 letters organization at the same level of some activists is hilarious.
- dogorman 5y ago
Tycho 5y ago
> But if Assange is innocent, he should just turn himself over to the Swedish government. > But if Assange wants freedom, all he needs to do is leave the embassy. > But if Assange wants to get out of jail, he just needs to go through the UK courts. > But if Assange didn’t commit any cyber-crimes, the evidence will show that. > But if the evidence was made up, it probably wasn’t important to the case. >>> YOU ARE HERE > But if Assange dies in jail, that’s life. > But if Assange had fought his case in the American legal system, we could have had a real discussion in this country about the relationship between journalism and the regime, before it was too late.
- happytoexplain 5y ago
  Whose mouths are you putting these words in? I don't doubt that each of these arguments was made by somebody at some point, but this parading and uncharitable extrapolation seems unhelpful.
  - Tycho 5y ago
    Basically anyone who didn’t see what was obvious from the start, that this was a vindictive, bad-faith persecution pushed by the US gov because a journalist was actually making them experience some accountability.
    - fastball 5y ago
      On the one hand yes, on the other hand Assange kicked off the bad-faith by singling out the US under a guise of "just looking for the truth" while conveniently ignoring the failings of basically any other country.
      - unclekev 5y ago
        > while conveniently ignoring the failings of basically any other country. This is not true. Wikileaks leaked material regardless of the materials country of origin. He never "singled out" the US, they just got the most upset out of any of the countries who had material that leaked because it was a substantial amount of data that made them look bad.
MattGaiser 5y ago
Simpler explanation. This was an interesting case when he was trapped in the embassy, police waited outside, and stories came out about his cat pooping everywhere. Easy to understand and fascinating to read about. Now it is a mundane series of legal events with no final conclusion as of yet. Even these articles that are upvoted to the front page about Assange consistently have to attack the US media to get traction on HN. It's not interesting by itself to people without them getting to be mad at the media.
- mandmandam 5y ago
  Nothing mundane about this. And the msm deserves every last drop of vitriol they get over this. Their deliberate and abject failure to put this into context for people results in comments like yours.
  - happytoexplain 5y ago
    The hatred for "main stream media" quickly outpaced its usefulness very early on. The media do a bad job of a lot of things, but the undeserved portion of spite has now caused much more harm (both real and in the form of information noise) than good (in the form of enlightenment or exposure). Hatred for the main stream media is now more often than not just a way of rationalizing one's political side-taking. I think there's a fair share of that in this case. I don't necessarily agree 100% with the parent, but their point is totally valid. Look at how hostile your tone is.
    - naasking 5y ago
      > but the undeserved portion of spite has now caused much more harm (both real and in the form of information noise) than good (in the form of enlightenment or exposure). Why is it undeserved if they haven't changed their partisan tactics and misleading reporting despite all hate levelled at them for exactly these things?
    - fragileone 5y ago
      Except they still lie constantly and clearly that message hasn't sunk in if HN commenters such as yourself still defend them. The days of non-partisan, non-clickbait and thoroughly researched journalism is long over, yet many still don't hold them to the same standards they would to any blog. It causes "harm" to call out their lies? Get real, they've fanned the flames for riots and other political violence for years now and that's far more harmful than calling them terrible for doing so.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
onlinejk 5y ago
There's virtually no comparison available regarding frequency of "keystone witness" compared to "key witness," as a phrase on the internet [1^]. [1]: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=%22key%20witness%22,%22keystone%20witness%22 https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&ge...
supperburg 5y ago
Wow, captcha to create a HN account. The times are changing. I was watching the 60 minutes rewind playlist on YouTube and happened to come across the original 60 minutes interview with JA. It was amazing to see him walking around outside during his initial house arrest and to see him so young. And it was a strange feeling to watch it knowing the outcome for the first time. In that interview they make mention of a “poison pill” where JA was threatening the US government with disclosing explosive classified secrets if he were to be arrested or assassinated. I wonder if that poison pill is still in play?
- dang 5y ago
  The way HN uses captchas has been the same for many years. I can't even remember the last time we touched that code.
1-more 5y ago
Sigi the hacker's history is the subject of the latest episode of John Dolan and Mark Ames's Radio War Nerd (#288) which I can't link since it's patreon only. Gunnar Hrafn Jónsson is the guest and alleges that Sigi is a sex predator, serial con artist, and not even a hacker.
dang 5y ago
Recent and related: Media blackout after key witness against Assange admits lying - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27710075 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27710075 - July 2021 (637 comments) Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27642660 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27642660 - June 2021 (304 comments)

875 points by graderjs 5y ago

War Nerd podcast has good interview this week discussing http://exiledonline.com/45wn84klrz/?name=rwn_ep_288_0708211.mp3 http://exiledonline.com/45wn84klrz/?name=rwn_ep_288_0708211....

yeahforsureman 5y ago
I still remember when The Exiled were openly derisive of Assange. Now that they represent the same scene of broadly tankie-ish anti-American populism (not speculating on their reasons or connections to any regimes...), it seems it's a love affair.
yeahforsureman 5y ago
I just now looked and noticed the journalist interviewed here also tells about his participation in a small pro-Assad info op, too, i.e., a bit of Douma denialism, an old Grayzone (or should I say Roublezone) favorite. Disgusting how low the Exile(d) has fallen.
- 1-more 5y ago
  The Douma denialism is just quoting OPCW workers who don't like that their reports were twisted to say the opposite of what they said.
  - yeahforsureman 5y ago
    Yeah, for sure.

beeboop 5y ago

What a surprise, the entire media history against Assange is a bunch of bullshit. Blows my mind that people can be so critical of mainstream media and doubt everything they say, but suddenly believe them 100% when it comes to something like Assange.

ben_w 5y ago
The media commentary I saw in the U.K. before I left was generally on the lines of “US shouldn’t be going after him this was journalism, and he should’ve gone to Sweden instead of hiding from the law”. People can be more than one thing.
- sneak 5y ago
  There were no charges in Sweden. That whole thing was a ruse.
  - me_me_me 5y ago
    They trumped up fake rape case in order for him to be brought to Sweden when they would extradited him to us. Rape is serious accusation, but if you look at this case you can clearly see she got paid to go to court. They had sex, he left the sweeden and months after that she changed her mind and decided it was a rape.
    - sneak 5y ago
      Nobody in Sweden accused him of rape. Please read the direct statements of the women involved.
      - ben_w 5y ago
        The closest I have to the original statements are reports in newspapers such as the following. At the very least the acts described here seem to me to be in violation of either section 1 or 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (I don’t understand the difference) by the standard of section 75.2.d (being asleep). IIRC this is basically why the UK judge agreed to the extradition to Sweden, as I think extradition generally needs the act to be an offence in both places? Though I may have misunderstood that. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange...
        5y ago

raxxorrax 5y ago

If you are doing anything for cash, people might think you are a prostitute. But you could also be a corporate journalist or working for US intelligence.

hulitu 5y ago
I think that is disgraceful for prostitutes to compare them with such people.

trainsplanes 5y ago

The astroturfing against Assange became insane at a certain point. There was a time where you could say “Wikileaks” nearly anywhere online and have a flood of comments calling Assange various things and anyone who didn’t outright hate him a terrorist.

_fizz_buzz_ 5y ago
Not sure if that was always astroturfing. I certainly feel ambivalent about Julian Assange and he arguably cost Hillary Clinton the 2016 election, which obviously upset a lot of people.
- noofen 5y ago
  The US media made sure not to make that mistake again with Hunter Biden's laptop.
  - MrBuddyCasino 5y ago
    The most comicbook supervillain event so far was that Pfizer deliberately slowed down the Covid vaccine until after the election so that it wouldn't help Trump politically: https://twitter.com/Steve_Sailer/status/1413658719938748428 https://twitter.com/Steve_Sailer/status/1413658719938748428
    - adamors 5y ago
      It's mind-boggling you actually conclude this from > The companies said they had decided not to conduct the 32-case analysis “after a discussion with the FDA.” Instead, they planned to conduct the analysis after 62 cases. > Gruber said that Pfizer and BioNTech had decided in late October that they wanted to drop the 32-case interim analysis. At that time, the companies decided to stop having their lab confirm cases of Covid-19 in the study, instead leaving samples in storage. The FDA was aware of this decision. Discussions between the agency and the companies concluded, and testing began this past Wednesday.

lucioperca 5y ago

Chomsky's and Herman's propaganda model[0] may explain why the US media ignores it. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model

TaylorAlexander 5y ago
See also a short video [1] or a long video [2] on the subject. Michael Parenti also published a book on this subject a few years before Chomsky. Inventing Reality: The Politics Of the Mass Media [3] Parenti also has plenty of talks on YouTube [4] [1] https://youtu.be/tTBWfkE7BXU https://youtu.be/tTBWfkE7BXU [2] https://youtu.be/EuwmWnphqII https://youtu.be/EuwmWnphqII [3] https://archive.org/details/inventingrealit000pare https://archive.org/details/inventingrealit000pare [4] https://youtu.be/1jwliZ1YoCs https://youtu.be/1jwliZ1YoCs EDIT: I’m seeing downvotes. I consider these to be genuinely valuable resources on media literacy but if you disagree I’d love to know what aspects of Chomsky or Parenti’s theories you disagree with.
- Synaesthesia 5y ago
  Yeah they’re both right and criticising the media is also something progressives have done since the early 20th century.
- sdwr 5y ago
  I've noticed mental rigidity on HN - some people are looking for objective truth compatible with first-order logic. Hints of nuance or relative perspective get them riled up.

Ardren 5y ago

Hey, what do you know, it has been covered by "US Media": https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/julian-assange-extradition-appeal/2021/07/07/41bc3914-df2e-11eb-a27f-8b294930e95b_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/julian-assange-e... > In the indictment, Thordarson’s claims are used not as the basis for charges but as background for what Assange told Chelsea Manning, who as an Army soldier exposed classified information through WikiLeaks in 2010. > Thordarson in the article also does not deny involvement in the hacking of U.S. targets, and tells the publication his activities were “something Assange was aware of or that he had interpreted it so that this was expected of him.”

boomboomsubban 5y ago
One article that completely ignores that the DoJ offered Thordarson immunity for this false testimony and that the judge mentions the Icelandic stuff as part of the reason the extradition was valid. It is also used as further evidence of the only charge that isn't an Espionage Act charge, which is the reason people try to claim these charges aren't clear violations of a free press. And here's the full quote that the article took one line from >Stundin cannot find any evidence that Thordarson was ever instructed to make those requests by anyone inside WikiLeaks. Thordarson himself is not even claiming that, although he explains this as something Assange was aware of or that he had interpreted it so that this was expected of him. How this supposed non-verbal communication took place he cannot explain. edit oh, and the Washington Post article is from July 8th. The original article claims the media ignored the report as of July 2nd.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
k1m 5y ago
Your linked Washington Post article was published on 8th July. It's actually a good demonstration of the animosity towards Assange in the corporate press. It wasn't published in response to the major Sundin story (26th June) which as the OP's article (published 7 July, before your Post piece) shows, was blanked by all corporate press at the time: > ...as of Friday, July 2, there has been literally zero coverage of it in corporate media; not one word in the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, NBC News, Fox News or NPR. A search online for either “Assange” or “Thordarson” will elicit zero relevant articles from establishment sources, either US or elsewhere in the Anglosphere, even in tech-focused platforms like the Verge, Wired or Gizmodo,” FAIR says. The Post mainly sides with the US and only mentions the Sundin reporting in passing, diminishing its importance and omitting important parts, as the other replies here point out. A great example of power-friendly reporting when it comes to Assange.

anothernewdude 5y ago

I'm embarrassed for the people who continue to defend him. His testimony has little to do with the case against Assange. I know a lot of you are libertarians out to prevent the need for toaster licenses, but this is just sad. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/julian-assange-extradition-appeal/2021/07/07/41bc3914-df2e-11eb-a27f-8b294930e95b_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/julian-assange-e...

cryptica 5y ago
Yet the question remains; on what basis are they holding him in prison right now? They have nothing on him. The UK government, the US government and media are the only entities embarrassing themselves here. Any intelligent person with moral principles right now is starting to think the US is some kind of mafia state. Even patriotic American citizens are starting to denounce the government and pretending that the US government is a separate concept from the US (the country). It doesn't look good.
- jsnider3 5y ago
  The reason he is in prison is because he sabotaged Hillary's campaign and because he has actually committed crimes.
  - cryptica 5y ago
    What crimes? He just published leaked documents just like New York Post and The Guardian did. Wikileaks just happened to be first. There is no evidence of hacking since this key witness admitted that it was made up.
    - cookie_monsta 5y ago
      I thought the hacking charges arose from the chat logs with Manning?
      - jessaustin 5y ago

cryptica 5y ago

Assange's main mistake is that he underestimated how corrupt politicians are and how apathetic citizens are. I wonder if he would have started Wikileaks if he had understood human nature. What's the point of helping society if it's a steaming pile of crap? This is a lawless dog-eat-dog world. The laws only serve criminals who are able to disregard them and not get caught. These are the real beneficiaries of our system.

busymom0 5y ago
“When exposing a crime is treated as committing a crime you’re being ruled by criminals” - Edward Snowden

imustbeevil 5y ago

I think it's good to have visibility into something like this, but I worry that we aren't typically getting meaningful discussion since people have dug to the Earth's core to fortify their positions on topics like this, and I'm not sure what the appropriate frequency of reposting should be. 22 days ago (572pts): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27642660 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27642660 19 days ago (14pts): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27673180 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27673180 18 days ago (11pts): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27686753 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27686753 16 days ago (1110pts): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27710075 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27710075

OtomotO 5y ago

100 years of propaganda pays its toll. Assange may not be a hero, but compared to the war-"heroes" he is one. Of course nobody really dares to oppose the Imperium, the only real law in this society still is the law of the strongest

Traster 5y ago

I'm pretty skeptical of most of the Pro-Assange reporting that happens because so often it seems very unreliable - cherry picking things, misrepresenting things etc. For example, I don't know enough about the Assange charges to say what is relevant or not relevant to the extradition, but just from a basic premise - what most people know Assange for is nothing to do with hacking Iceland MPs so it seems pretty unlikely that this would be a material part of the extradition. It would be kind of weird if that were a core part of the extradition, yet this article seems to be making out this is the star witness. I just doubt it frankly. It doesn't help the author that they repeat tired old accusations about the judge being biased.

simiones 5y ago
You should look into this a lot more. The core fact is that there are very little potentially valid reasons that Assange could be extradited - the prosecution is mostly grasping at straws, as he has done nothing wrong by UK laws. That is why ancillary witnesses like this Thoradsson become crucial: the prosecution needs to invent something that could be a good enough excuse to get him in the hands of the US "justice system" (for people like Assange or Snowden, it is obvious there would be no real justice in the US).
- KaiserPro 5y ago
  > he has done nothing wrong by UK laws Two points here. He has skipped bail, which is most definitely illegal. Why he skipped bail is a different issue, but it cannot be denied that he has skipped bail. Secondly and more importantly, you don't need to be guilty of something under UK law to be extradited. That's the whole point of extradition. If you commit a crime abroad, you are almost certainly not guilty of it at home, because you are out of your home country's jurisdiction. Also I've never understood the whole Sweden is a stepping stone to the US. in my little understanding, I don't see why the US would seek to only issue an extradition order when he was in Sweden. They won't grant extradition to a place where there is a material risk of the death penalty (well, unless you're an asylum seeker, but that's a different issue.)
  - 5y ago

bamboozled 5y ago

This is why people believe in Lizard Men, it's the only way they can rationalize the extreme bias we see so often. I'm starting to wonder if it's true :)

LatteLazy 5y ago

I'm no trump supporter, but that shouldn't mean I or anyone else think he should go to jail for maybe costing her the election. Being a useful idiot or costing someone an election aren't (or at least shouldn't be) crimes. Also, its really questionable whether the US should be pursuing criminal charges against anyone who's never been to the States. I think this whole case demonstrates what a nightmare the authorities can put you through in a supposedly Liberal, Democratic, Law abiding set of nations, just because they want to. That should scare us all.

waterglassFull 5y ago
I agree with your first point but perusing charges against people who make crimes against a country without having been there is quite common.
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  Is it common? There has been a very long time exception for murder, rape and piracy (with boats not file sharing). Recently terrorism has been added to that. But as far as I'm aware the US is the only major country that tries to enforce its laws on people not there. Who else has been trying this? Edit Wikipedia lists some https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction Looks like some places have added planes from/to/through their airspace, sex crimes against minors and space craft to the list of extraterritorial coverage. No one else is doing espionage, computer crimes, fraud, etc like the USA...
me_me_me 5y ago
What? US wants Assange for leaking collateral murder vid and documents https://diem25.org/exactly-10-years-ago-wikileaks-released-a-us-military-video-depicting-the-slaying-of-over-a-dozen-people-in-iraq/ https://diem25.org/exactly-10-years-ago-wikileaks-released-a...
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  I'm not sure what your question is? My point (that I think you're referring to?) is that US law shouldn't apply to people not in the US. There are a few well established exceptions (Murder, Rape, Piracy (with boats) and terrorism), but aside from those most nations accept that things happening outside their borders aren't subject to their laws...

dalbasal 5y ago

In 2010 I was living in Melbourne, where he's from. There was a pro Assange petition/demonstration in Richmond. I went over to sign. Assange was an Australian citizen. The Wikileaks leak was journalistic, as far as I could tell. The Swedish indictments seemed extremely dubious. It definitely felt like an extrajudicial persecution of a journalist. Anyway, the petition did have something about Assange in it, besides the sign. It also demanded an immediate end to Australia's involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan. It called the US imperialist, condemned the alliance, mentioned Israel, various global left wing causes, calls for resistance, etc. I'm not sure if it mentioned freedom of the press at all. I don't remember the details, but it was enough that I didn't sign. The whole thing presented Assange and wikileaks totally as activists. Of course, that doesn't mean that it isn't a press freedom issue. It is. It also doesn't make the pursuit of Assange ok. In some senses, it's been worse than a Putinesque hit. Hits don't corrupt legal systems and establish precedents. It's been much harder to think of Julian & Wikileaks as a journalist than it should have been. They present on a nexus of belligerent, activist and journalist. This technically shouldn't affect legal processes, but... reality. I do think there's an imperative for journalism to remain journalistic, in both the hard and soft sense. Freedom of the press does, IMO, require a distinctive press, easily identified as such.

harry8 5y ago
We'll that's really traditional in Aus. Ask Peter Garret about the Nuclear Disarmament Party which had a fairly wide appeal initially. Later all the original founders resigned and advised everyone to have nothing whatever to do with it. Their one senator fro WA became an independent. Popular vehicle gets taken over by extreme radicals. Was the petition organised by Asssange or people he approved? Or was it essentially a militant communist faction using it for their own purposes because, at most charitable reading, they're right about everything as you must agree as soon as you open your eyes. As someone who is not leftist it appears to me to be prevalent and an extreme hindrance on genuine protest against the unconscionable.
- dalbasal 5y ago
  Well... He would know. He's from activist land, and probably still has a lot of friends from the punk rock scene, became a serious environmental lobbyist and from there to being a centrist MP. I'm sure he had an interesting journey. Smart guy. I actually met him several times. Seems kind of like an alien in person. I didn't know about his Nuclear Disarmament Party. >> Or was it essentially a militant communist faction Best guess, it was mostly young radicals from University of Melbourne. But... I don't think this falls into the "other people using it for their own purposes" bucket either. Wikileaks & Assange are from this (specific) resistance clique themselves. It was their neighborhood. Both the organisation and the man have always represented themselves as hard left activists. Still do. This was back in the Bush-Howard days, or just after. As with Garret's Nuclear Disarmament Party (I assume) there's a dynamic between progressive and radical thought that often leaves them in no man's land... or radical land. Like I said, being politically weird doesn't mean you lose rights or can't be a journalist. So, I'm justifying anything. I'm noting that journalists and journalistic organisations, especially those reporting on war, should not blur lines between press and "not press" themselves. Press freedom is premised on you being press. Make that unchallengeable, and obvious at first sight. Contrast this with Snowden, who knows what he is, what categories he falls into. As such, he always expected to face trial or exile. He wants to return and face trial, just with open proceedings. His was an act of civil disobedience. Meanwhile, not protected like the journalists he leaked to. They never blurred the lines between them.

machinehermiter 5y ago

I mean I went to MSNBC on Saturday and the front page had like 5 stories about Trump. Julian Assange just isn't going to drive enough clicks. There is no conspiracy here, this is a side effect of the internet destroying the media's business model. Julian Assange would have been a really interesting Sunday morning discussion in the 90s. The media can't really afford interesting discussion at this point though.

irthomasthomas 5y ago

This story brings to mind the Gell-Mann amnesia affect. "Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I refer to it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.) Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know. That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I'd point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all. But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn't. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#GellMannAmnesiaEffect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#GellMannAmnes...

xchip 5y ago

Thanks for bringing attention to this!

cookie_monsta 5y ago

I find the whole spectacle of watching two propaganda machines trying to out- manoeuvre each other to be a little exhausting to be honest. There's no doubt that the US is acting vindictively here, but the pro-Assange camp does little for its credibility by using the same tactics. Even the headline here has been massaged - originally this was a "key" witness but by the time it gets to HN, he's a "keystone" witness. But the bigger problem is that he's neither. I've been vaguely following the case and this is the first mention of this guy I've seen. TFA asserts that the 2nd indictment rests on his bought testimony, but there's nothing about hacking Icelandic MPs or banks in that indictment. There's definitely stuff about hacking, but only about US targets, and Thordarson has nothing to say about that. Unless I'm missing something, this is a minor story about the DoJ doing a deal with one criminal to convict another (hardly news in itself) in order to strengthen an already robust case, not the slam dunk people are making it out to be.

k1m 5y ago
> There's no doubt that the US is acting vindictively here, but the pro-Assange camp does little for its credibility by using the same tactics. Revelations about an important witness lying about Assange to get immunity from the US is blanked by corporate media. How is reporting that this important story was blanked "acting vindictively"?
- cookie_monsta 5y ago
  Sorry if I expressed that badly. I meant to say that the US's continued persecution of Assange seems vindictive. I do disagree that this is an important witness, though, for the reasons I have already outlined.
  - Ostrogodsky 5y ago
    The fact that you put the government of the US and its 3 letters organization at the same level of some activists is hilarious.
dogorman 5y ago

Tycho 5y ago

> But if Assange is innocent, he should just turn himself over to the Swedish government. > But if Assange wants freedom, all he needs to do is leave the embassy. > But if Assange wants to get out of jail, he just needs to go through the UK courts. > But if Assange didn’t commit any cyber-crimes, the evidence will show that. > But if the evidence was made up, it probably wasn’t important to the case. >>> YOU ARE HERE > But if Assange dies in jail, that’s life. > But if Assange had fought his case in the American legal system, we could have had a real discussion in this country about the relationship between journalism and the regime, before it was too late.

happytoexplain 5y ago
Whose mouths are you putting these words in? I don't doubt that each of these arguments was made by somebody at some point, but this parading and uncharitable extrapolation seems unhelpful.
- Tycho 5y ago
  Basically anyone who didn’t see what was obvious from the start, that this was a vindictive, bad-faith persecution pushed by the US gov because a journalist was actually making them experience some accountability.
  - fastball 5y ago
    On the one hand yes, on the other hand Assange kicked off the bad-faith by singling out the US under a guise of "just looking for the truth" while conveniently ignoring the failings of basically any other country.
    - unclekev 5y ago
      > while conveniently ignoring the failings of basically any other country. This is not true. Wikileaks leaked material regardless of the materials country of origin. He never "singled out" the US, they just got the most upset out of any of the countries who had material that leaked because it was a substantial amount of data that made them look bad.

MattGaiser 5y ago

Simpler explanation. This was an interesting case when he was trapped in the embassy, police waited outside, and stories came out about his cat pooping everywhere. Easy to understand and fascinating to read about. Now it is a mundane series of legal events with no final conclusion as of yet. Even these articles that are upvoted to the front page about Assange consistently have to attack the US media to get traction on HN. It's not interesting by itself to people without them getting to be mad at the media.

mandmandam 5y ago
Nothing mundane about this. And the msm deserves every last drop of vitriol they get over this. Their deliberate and abject failure to put this into context for people results in comments like yours.
- happytoexplain 5y ago
  The hatred for "main stream media" quickly outpaced its usefulness very early on. The media do a bad job of a lot of things, but the undeserved portion of spite has now caused much more harm (both real and in the form of information noise) than good (in the form of enlightenment or exposure). Hatred for the main stream media is now more often than not just a way of rationalizing one's political side-taking. I think there's a fair share of that in this case. I don't necessarily agree 100% with the parent, but their point is totally valid. Look at how hostile your tone is.
  - naasking 5y ago
    > but the undeserved portion of spite has now caused much more harm (both real and in the form of information noise) than good (in the form of enlightenment or exposure). Why is it undeserved if they haven't changed their partisan tactics and misleading reporting despite all hate levelled at them for exactly these things?
  - fragileone 5y ago
    Except they still lie constantly and clearly that message hasn't sunk in if HN commenters such as yourself still defend them. The days of non-partisan, non-clickbait and thoroughly researched journalism is long over, yet many still don't hold them to the same standards they would to any blog. It causes "harm" to call out their lies? Get real, they've fanned the flames for riots and other political violence for years now and that's far more harmful than calling them terrible for doing so.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

onlinejk 5y ago

There's virtually no comparison available regarding frequency of "keystone witness" compared to "key witness," as a phrase on the internet [1^]. [1]: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=%22key%20witness%22,%22keystone%20witness%22 https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&ge...

supperburg 5y ago

Wow, captcha to create a HN account. The times are changing. I was watching the 60 minutes rewind playlist on YouTube and happened to come across the original 60 minutes interview with JA. It was amazing to see him walking around outside during his initial house arrest and to see him so young. And it was a strange feeling to watch it knowing the outcome for the first time. In that interview they make mention of a “poison pill” where JA was threatening the US government with disclosing explosive classified secrets if he were to be arrested or assassinated. I wonder if that poison pill is still in play?

dang 5y ago
The way HN uses captchas has been the same for many years. I can't even remember the last time we touched that code.

1-more 5y ago

Sigi the hacker's history is the subject of the latest episode of John Dolan and Mark Ames's Radio War Nerd (#288) which I can't link since it's patreon only. Gunnar Hrafn Jónsson is the guest and alleges that Sigi is a sex predator, serial con artist, and not even a hacker.

dang 5y ago

Recent and related: Media blackout after key witness against Assange admits lying - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27710075 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27710075 - July 2021 (637 comments) Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27642660 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27642660 - June 2021 (304 comments)