Seems you have your mind already made up. Try cracking it open to see if anything can pry loose for objective evaluation. :arrgh!:

Trump's already obviously worried about Assange being out in the wild. Trump's already resorting to his usual ploy of denying any knowledge of WikiLeaks in spite of the fact there are slews of recorded material showing him expressing his love for WikiLeks ans encouraging their leaks during his 2016 campaign. It's Trump's "go to" behavior; he'll express great support for someone or something at first, then, when it becomes obvious whoever/whatever he has supported is gonna come back and bite him, he suddenly (and laughably) denies any knowledge of whoever/whatever or their actions and any possible connections they may have to him and his dwindling "empire". Trump's big problem with Assange is complicated by the fact WikiLeaks quite possibly (and probably) has a goodly amount of dirt on Trump and his cronies, just as he had on Hillary. Now Truump faces tha fact if Assange wants to sink him, Assange just might have the torpedoes to do the job. I really doubt the DOJ will try to isolate Assange to try to protect Trump (such a move would be way too obvious to the press and the public) and, likewise, the scenario of Assange having a "bad accident" while in custody (besides being a suicidal move by Trump's minions) would without a doubt make whatever scrutiny Trump has undergone thus far look like a series of very polite questions...

Also to be considered is this: Assange is a very smart con artist and a bit of a blackmailer, and most likely has a backup strategy where, if any thing bad happens to him, one or some of his many, many followers would quite likely release whatever damning material WikiLeaks holds against those who harm him; it may just bode better for Trump and his minions to just let Assange slide...









<O>

I don't think there's a strong enough crowbar made that could do that for him... :D









<O>

So you're saying I've a mind like a steel trap. :up:

:Kaleun_Applaud:

Well that was no surprise coming from him. I hear that ding dong of a women has had her say. Ask jim for details he knows. :03:

One thing is for sure: if you believe that Great Britain has spent seven years at such a tremendous cost and effort to enforce formal arrest warrant for violating probation rules from 2012, it is hard to beat this naivety. If that were so, there would be an eclameric disproportion between utility and cost, a blatant disproportion of means. Real serious criminals have been allowed to slip away due to much lower state expenditures and their weighing against the crime.


Journalism that take sitsel serious and is seen as a controlling pillar od a free society, must have sources. To criminalize the sources or the journalists, are strong indications for dictatorship and supression of free speech and free opinion. Such "journalism" cannot do its job and cannot serve its role for soceity anymore. Instead, it turns into state-selected propaganda.

Whether you're right or wrong Sky, this is the official line from not only the UK but his own government as well.

I love it when gangsters and law-benders morally pose as defenders of justice. Assange most oliely was caught in a honey trap in Sweden. This conspiracy (this is what it mjost, most likely was) to take him out of the game by either getting hands on him or - unplanned - forcing him to take himself out of the game like in the past 7 years now beign claimed to be a legal justfication for persuading him, is rhich, no matter the government.



It was most liekly a staged event back in Ssweden, I remind fo the highly dubouzs circumstances and the shady background of at least on the women involved.



And if that is indeed the case, Jim, then your reasoning is completely invalid.



If he indeed would have committed rape or abuse, I am all for him facing the legalk punsihement for that. But this issue has been highly diozhbtful from all beginning on. And the inteest of players in the background has been all to evident from all beginning on as well.



That he did not put his fate trustfully into the official'S hands, is all too reaosnable and understandable. States are crimninals yndiactes themselves, and the interest to take him out is too much shared amongst British, swedish and American "allies". He had all reason to doubt the fairness of any legal exmaination, with all that political pressure on getting him into American custody.



In such politically uploaded cases, only fools trust the fairness of responsibility of "states".



Laws can be used to promote injustice and commit criminal acts. And it happens more often than we want to see. Law, and justice, are two totally different things. I know that difference very wel, my family lost a six-digit amount of money in a legal dispute that ran against justice but in conformity with some quite twisted written rules. I will never forget and never forgive that lesson in formalised crime committed in the name of "justice". Not even mentioning two far more hurting human losses we suffered that saw the offender both times being early released from his responsiblity - and repeating their offences both times.



Careful with thinking that a written law alone is the penultimate asuthority. The Nazi society in the third Reich based on laws as well. All the crimes committed by the regime, were formally "legal". Even the Mafia has given itself rules, laws.

That may be true though I doubt it. But if it is true then that of course opens up the possibility that he has more dirt on Hillary and the Obama administration...Clapper, Brennan etc. He may have entertained the possibility that Clinton would win and her administration would have most likely attempted to punish him. And he is certainly devious enough to prep for that possibility.

If you want I can lend you some tinfoil.:D

Didn't I say they will.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47910820

He didn't take any thing with him on his forced removal from his self imposed retreat at the embassy, which means any proof of wrong doing by the Clintons or the Trump administration would have to already be in the hands of his trusted followers of which there are many and if he had anything in his apartment/office it is already in the hands of the investigators now.

Now CNN will have more click bait to tickle us with on what secrets Assange has without being able to prove it of course :yep:

...or the more likely thing happening to it right now. :D

https://i.redd.it/dd31tiu7kijx.gif

At this point, I think it is pretty clear that we should discount pretty much anything Trump says as either a lie or perhaps a form of cognitive disorder.


The sad point is that perhaps Trump is not lying, but truly does not remember what he says in the past. He tends to speak in an emotionally reactive manner, saying what ever comes to mind that fits the present situation with little thought about what may have already been said or the future ramifications. This may be why he flip flops so much.


He may be just as surprised as we are when his past recorded statements are brought back.



He was not always this way. I remember interviews years ago when he could form sets of coherent sentences and actually make sense. He was never a great speaker, but was one that was understandable. In the past few years, however, his ability to speak clearly has diminished.


Perhaps this is why he prefers to communicate more electronically.