How Pompeo’s CIA spied on Julian Assange

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Assange is NOT an American citizen.

Nor is he a British citizen. Yet the U.S. has waged a global assault on this Australian citizen simply for publishing absolutely verified documents embarrassing to the U.S. and other world power brokers.

The fact that Assange is NOT a U.S. citizen — but leader of an independent organization that has helped expose malfeasance & corruption & provided “scoops” to major newspapers all over the world — makes U.S. criminal international rendition efforts all the more dastardly.

I wish we had executed bradley manning for treason

but assange is not a US citizen under protection of the US Constitution

That’s terribly ignorant. Chelsea Manning is a hero. You statists think the state can do anything it wants. Sick minds.

Manning is a mentally disturbed faggot that got many people killed via the information he leaked. It figure you would support it. It was lucky it wasn't executed.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Assange is NOT an American citizen.

Nor is he a British citizen. Yet the U.S. has waged a global assault on this Australian citizen simply for publishing absolutely verified documents embarrassing to the U.S. and other world power brokers.

The fact that Assange is NOT a U.S. citizen — but leader of an independent organization that has helped expose malfeasance & corruption & provided “scoops” to major newspapers all over the world — makes U.S. criminal international rendition efforts all the more dastardly.

I wish we had executed bradley manning for treason

but assange is not a US citizen under protection of the US Constitution

That’s terribly ignorant. Chelsea Manning is a hero. You statists think the state can do anything it wants. Sick minds.

I dont think sex freaks like manning should be free to betray state secrets with impunity

yes, he served some time

but not as long as he deserved

Asshole. Her sex change has nothing to do with her imprisonment. Get a brain.

Doesnt it?

If manning had been a normal well adjusted man instead of a tortured sex freak would he have betrayed his country?

She didn’t betray her country, you Nazi fuck. She exposed illegal actions by our country. Too bad we don’t have more like her and less dumb statist bastards like you.

Heil Hitler!!!!!

Hitler would be just your type. Are you sure he didn't anally rape you as a child?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

WikiLeaks did NOT hack the DNC emails, but after receiving them and ascertaining there were no obvious national security threats involved, it made them available to major news organizations around the world.

That's an opinion. He needs to stand trial to find out if that is true, which it is not.

 

[Olde Europe]

WikiLeaks did NOT hack the DNC emails, but after receiving them and ascertaining there were no obvious national security threats involved, it made them available to major news organizations around the world.

So, Wikileaks became a dealer in stolen private property, and, in so doing, they became Putin's useful idiots.

Whatever sympathy I once had for Assange and Wikileaks evaporated once it became clear they were becoming part of the FSB's disinformation campaign - which is just about as bad as would be their becoming part of a CIA disinformation campaign. Neither would be reconcilable with anything resembling journalistic standards. So, Tom, whatever good Wikileaks may have accomplished, the picture ever since became far more complicated, to put it mildly, than you would let on.

 

[Mac-7]

She exposed illegal actions by our country.

no He didnt

manning broke the law by copying and releasing classified documents

you may think thats a good thing but manning has to be punished for HIS crime

 

[gipper]

She exposed illegal actions by our country.

no He didnt

manning broke the law by copying and releasing classified documents

you may think thats a good thing but manning has to be punished for HIS crime

What you aren’t getting through your empty head is our military was doing illegal acts. Wake up!

I suppose you would have made a fine Nazi prison guard. KILL FOR THE STATE!

 

[Mac-7]

She exposed illegal actions by our country.

no He didnt

manning broke the law by copying and releasing classified documents

you may think thats a good thing but manning has to be punished for HIS crime

What you aren’t getting through your empty head is our military was doing illegal acts. Wake up!

I suppose you would have made a fine Nazi prison guard. KILL FOR THE STATE!

if thats what you think, fine

But we cant allow every unhappy faggot to relieve his sexual frustrations by revealing national secrets without serious consequences

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Julian Assange is probably the most famous independent author / editor / publisher in the world. It is only because WikiLinks is NOT controlled by any Republican or Democratic Party faction, or any foreign power, because it has repeatedly embarrassed the U.S., and antagonized powerful corrupt wealthy elites all over the world, that Assange is being persecuted.

Unlike with Manning, who after all was a U.S. soldier, the Assange crucifixion we are now witnessing involves the most fundamental issue of free speech on the world stage. If independent internet-based whistle-blower sites like WikiLeaks — which has never been accused of circulating a single forgery and has been tremendously responsible in working with major world media to fact-check and avoid harming any individual agents or innocents) — if WikiLeaks does not survive, then facts and “news” crucial to forming popular opinion will be controlled only by state and corporate monopoly interests. To allow this to happen just because of one or another paranoid partisan concern, would be a tremendous betrayal of American ideals and the world’s future.

It doesn’t even matter if one likes Julian Assange or suspects his motives. WikiLeaks, if it survives, will be only the first, hopefully not the last, truly important non-state whistleblower resource for revealing truth on the international stage.

 

[gipper]

She exposed illegal actions by our country.

no He didnt

manning broke the law by copying and releasing classified documents

you may think thats a good thing but manning has to be punished for HIS crime

What you aren’t getting through your empty head is our military was doing illegal acts. Wake up!

I suppose you would have made a fine Nazi prison guard. KILL FOR THE STATE!

if thats what you think, fine

But we cant allow every unhappy faggot to relieve his sexual frustrations by revealing national secrets without serious consequences

You’re an idiot and a bigot.

BANNED

 

[Olde Europe]

Julian Assange is probably the most famous independent author / editor / publisher in the world. It is only because WikiLinks is NOT controlled by any Republican or Democratic Party faction, or any foreign power, because it has repeatedly embarrassed the U.S., and antagonized powerful corrupt wealthy elites all over the world, that Assange is being persecuted.

Unlike with Manning, who after all was a U.S. soldier, the Assange crucifixion we are now witnessing involves the most fundamental issue of free speech on the world stage. If independent internet-based whistle-blower sites like WikiLeaks — which has never been accused of circulating a single forgery and has been tremendously responsible in working with major world media to fact-check and avoid harming any individual agents or innocents) — if WikiLeaks does not survive, then facts and “news” crucial to forming popular opinion will be controlled only by state and corporate monopoly interests. To allow this to happen just because of one or another paranoid partisan concern, would be a tremendous betrayal of American ideals and the world’s future.

It doesn’t even matter if one likes Julian Assange or suspects his motives. WikiLeaks, if it survives, will be only the first, hopefully not the last, truly important non-state whistleblower resource for revealing truth on the international stage.

You know, Tom, there is at least a bit of truth in the above, and an obviously heartfelt concern with government wrongdoing going unchecked because information about it can't get out, which I wholeheartedly share.

Where I find you run off a clear and defensible argumentative path is on two issues. First, Assange is not Wikileaks. If anything, Assange's apparent personality defects, his narcissism, his Napoleon complex, were starting to hurt Wikileaks (his co-workers confirmed as much), and the site will probably continue without him. It is always, always dangerous to have anything based on just one personality and their ideosyncratic preferences, rather than an institution carried by many, stabilized by many, with checks against errant behavior by some.

Second, Wikileaks is far from the only site for whistleblowers to go public. Near every major newspaper has their own anonymized whistleblower section, most notably those Wikileaks relied upon to check their next document dump. That should reduce your angst about wrongdoing not coming to light. Moreover, there should not be a need for Wikileaks, at least in the developed world, where proper whistleblower protections should be the legally implemented, and eagerly watched-over standard. That is to say, it would be the electorate's responsibility to watch over their ruling class and to protect themselves by way of insisting on such protections.

Ask yourself, Tom: Why did Snowden NOT simply contact Wikileaks? The reason, I think, is that he didn't trust them. Neither to vet the documents properly, nor to put them in the proper context to explain them. Snowden savaged Wikileaks for their Turkey document dump, which apparently wasn't vetted at all, and contained personal information on millions of ordinary Turkish voters. That is to say, Wikileaks has to get a lot better to live up to the picture you are painting, and, maybe, Assange not dominating the organization would be a good thing for it. That's not to justify how he is being treated - just to say, that organization has to rethink its proper role, not let itself be used, and do a better job. Other than that, you could check out Investigative Journalism and News in the Public Interest - and maybe support them (if you don't already).

 

[gipper]

Julian Assange is probably the most famous independent author / editor / publisher in the world. It is only because WikiLinks is NOT controlled by any Republican or Democratic Party faction, or any foreign power, because it has repeatedly embarrassed the U.S., and antagonized powerful corrupt wealthy elites all over the world, that Assange is being persecuted.

Unlike with Manning, who after all was a U.S. soldier, the Assange crucifixion we are now witnessing involves the most fundamental issue of free speech on the world stage. If independent internet-based whistle-blower sites like WikiLeaks — which has never been accused of circulating a single forgery and has been tremendously responsible in working with major world media to fact-check and avoid harming any individual agents or innocents) — if WikiLeaks does not survive, then facts and “news” crucial to forming popular opinion will be controlled only by state and corporate monopoly interests. To allow this to happen just because of one or another paranoid partisan concern, would be a tremendous betrayal of American ideals and the world’s future.

It doesn’t even matter if one likes Julian Assange or suspects his motives. WikiLeaks, if it survives, will be only the first, hopefully not the last, truly important non-state whistleblower resource for revealing truth on the international stage.

You know, Tom, there is at least a bit of truth in the above, and an obviously heartfelt concern with government wrongdoing going unchecked because information about it can't get out, which I wholeheartedly share.

Where I find you run off a clear and defensible argumentative path is on two issues. First, Assange is not Wikileaks. If anything, Assange's apparent personality defects, his narcissism, his Napoleon complex, were starting to hurt Wikileaks (his co-workers confirmed as much), and the site will probably continue without him. It is always, always dangerous to have anything based on just one personality and their ideosyncratic preferences, rather than an institution carried by many, stabilized by many, with checks against errant behavior by some.

Second, Wikileaks is far from the only site for whistleblowers to go public. Near every major newspaper has their own anonymized whistleblower section, most notably those Wikileaks relied upon to check their next document dump. That should reduce your angst about wrongdoing not coming to light. Moreover, there should not be a need for Wikileaks, at least in the developed world, where proper whistleblower protections should be the legally implemented, and eagerly watched-over standard. That is to say, it would be the electorate's responsibility to watch over their ruling class and to protect themselves by way of insisting on such protections.

Ask yourself, Tom: Why did Snowden NOT simply contact Wikileaks? The reason, I think, is that he didn't trust them. Neither to vet the documents properly, nor to put them in the proper context to explain them. Snowden savaged Wikileaks for their Turkey document dump, which apparently wasn't vetted at all, and contained personal information on millions of ordinary Turkish voters. That is to say, Wikileaks has to get a lot better to live up to the picture you are painting, and, maybe, Assange not dominating the organization would be a good thing for it. That's not to justify how he is being treated - just to say, that organization has to rethink its proper role, not let itself be used, and do a better job. Other than that, you could check out Investigative Journalism and News in the Public Interest - and maybe support them (if you don't already).

Do you have any evidence of Assange’s “personality defects, narcissism, and Napoleon Complex.” How does this affect what he exposed, even if it’s true? Sounds like statist propaganda to me. Please don’t post anything from the MSM, who is controlled by the State.

Secondly, Assange hasn’t been in control of Wikileaks for a long time. He’s in prison after all. Have they published anything since, that exposes government corruption?

Have you considered the consequences of the State silencing journalists like Assange? It seems to me our media is mostly in the tank for the State already. It’s evident that whistleblowers will be less likely to come forward, since so many have been imprisoned and bankrupted by the state.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

I think that what is most obvious is that none of us here had the skills, the courage, or the personality to do what Assange did. Granted, he was already a genius hacker in his teens, and had an unhappy childhood. But Assange was able to develop a unique liberating understanding of the necessary future development for internet news, and the toughness to realize this dream against incredible opposition. Ditto for his many brave coworkers from all over the world. Nobody’s perfect, but the real reason Assange lost popularity with liberals who initially adored him was his refusal to become a partisan of liberal imperialist politics. His hostility to what Hillary Clinton represented was palpable. Did he make mistakes? How could he not have? He was building something new, and on every side were dangers and calls for stupendous judgement. I share his overall perspectives, if not at all his courage or ability.

 

[Mac-7]

She exposed illegal actions by our country.

no He didnt

manning broke the law by copying and releasing classified documents

you may think thats a good thing but manning has to be punished for HIS crime

What you aren’t getting through your empty head is our military was doing illegal acts. Wake up!

I suppose you would have made a fine Nazi prison guard. KILL FOR THE STATE!

if thats what you think, fine

But we cant allow every unhappy faggot to relieve his sexual frustrations by revealing national secrets without serious consequences

You’re an idiot and a bigot.

BANNED

If you dont think there is a link between manning‘s sad personal life and his decision to betray his country you are the idiot

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

She exposed illegal actions by our country.

no He didnt

manning broke the law by copying and releasing classified documents

you may think thats a good thing but manning has to be punished for HIS crime

What you aren’t getting through your empty head is our military was doing illegal acts. Wake up!
I suppose you would have made a fine Nazi prison guard. KILL FOR THE STATE!

if thats what you think, fine
But we cant allow every unhappy faggot to relieve his sexual frustrations by revealing national secrets without serious consequences

You’re an idiot and a bigot.
BANNED

If you dont think there is a link between manning‘s sad personal life and his decision to betray his country you are the idiot

I don’t claim to know, or care to know, much about Manning’s sad personal life, or whether it had anything to do with his decision to break military law. I note that others, e.g. NSAer Edward Snowden, had no such personal motivations, yet also sacrificed their very comfortable lives to do what they felt was necessary morally. Such people, like Australian civilian Julian Assange and his many co-workers, will probably always be very rare. Their seemingly pointless self-sacrifice assuredly seem to many ordinary Americans ... incomprehensible.

 

[Olde Europe]

Nobody’s perfect, but the real reason Assange lost popularity with liberals who initially adored him was his refusal to become a partisan of liberal imperialist politics. His hostility to what Hillary Clinton represented was palpable.

Assange, far from exposing government criminality, chose to insert himself into the U.S. election, and - out of burgeoning personal animus toward Hillary, not to mention hubris - became part of the anti-liberal Russian dirty-tricks campaign, undermining U.S. democracy. Dealing in stolen private property, he exposed that noted blood-thirsty imperialist, Podesta. Who would have guessed, following that, liberals might look at Assange funny?

 

[Overtime Paycheck]

Were they spying or perverting? Perhaps intentionally corrupting?

When you think you need to contact an intelligence agency go with the NSA or the DIA.

 

[candycorn]

I ceased to care about Assange and his organization a long time ago. If you want to be for exposing the truth; fine. I do not think all of our secrets should be exposed but USUALLY, there is a benefit to such exposure. Anyone can understand that in some cases, such exposure can hurt the ship of State.

That being said though, Assange's group rarely if ever exposed any of the secrets of Al Queda, ISIS, Hezbullah (sp?) or other terrorists organizations let alone the communist bloc countries or China. Are their systems impenetrable? No. Do they not have any disgruntled employees willing to "spill the beans"? Are they simply abstain from using computers? No.
Wikileaks makes a choice to only release damaging information about the US and it's allies. So I really don't care if they are around or not.

 

[justinacolmena]

WikiLeaks was lame from the beginning. That Assange fucker robbed the bank (Julius Baer) of a bunch of rich farts' identities and secrets, and something tells me there's more to the Swedish girls rape story than anyone is letting on, because even Ecuador cut his internet at the embassy for the use of pornography or whatnot, and there's a lot of pimping and procuring going on through the Dark Web along with the usual drug dealing and murder for hire, and the free press newsboy libtards are always pro-mental-health pro-civil-commitment because that's what enables them to get a hold of the rich farts' money.

 

[gipper]

Julian Assange is probably the most famous independent author / editor / publisher in the world. It is only because WikiLinks is NOT controlled by any Republican or Democratic Party faction, or any foreign power, because it has repeatedly embarrassed the U.S., and antagonized powerful corrupt wealthy elites all over the world, that Assange is being persecuted.

Unlike with Manning, who after all was a U.S. soldier, the Assange crucifixion we are now witnessing involves the most fundamental issue of free speech on the world stage. If independent internet-based whistle-blower sites like WikiLeaks — which has never been accused of circulating a single forgery and has been tremendously responsible in working with major world media to fact-check and avoid harming any individual agents or innocents) — if WikiLeaks does not survive, then facts and “news” crucial to forming popular opinion will be controlled only by state and corporate monopoly interests. To allow this to happen just because of one or another paranoid partisan concern, would be a tremendous betrayal of American ideals and the world’s future.

It doesn’t even matter if one likes Julian Assange or suspects his motives. WikiLeaks, if it survives, will be only the first, hopefully not the last, truly important non-state whistleblower resource for revealing truth on the international stage.

You know, Tom, there is at least a bit of truth in the above, and an obviously heartfelt concern with government wrongdoing going unchecked because information about it can't get out, which I wholeheartedly share.

Where I find you run off a clear and defensible argumentative path is on two issues. First, Assange is not Wikileaks. If anything, Assange's apparent personality defects, his narcissism, his Napoleon complex, were starting to hurt Wikileaks (his co-workers confirmed as much), and the site will probably continue without him. It is always, always dangerous to have anything based on just one personality and their ideosyncratic preferences, rather than an institution carried by many, stabilized by many, with checks against errant behavior by some.

Second, Wikileaks is far from the only site for whistleblowers to go public. Near every major newspaper has their own anonymized whistleblower section, most notably those Wikileaks relied upon to check their next document dump. That should reduce your angst about wrongdoing not coming to light. Moreover, there should not be a need for Wikileaks, at least in the developed world, where proper whistleblower protections should be the legally implemented, and eagerly watched-over standard. That is to say, it would be the electorate's responsibility to watch over their ruling class and to protect themselves by way of insisting on such protections.

Ask yourself, Tom: Why did Snowden NOT simply contact Wikileaks? The reason, I think, is that he didn't trust them. Neither to vet the documents properly, nor to put them in the proper context to explain them. Snowden savaged Wikileaks for their Turkey document dump, which apparently wasn't vetted at all, and contained personal information on millions of ordinary Turkish voters. That is to say, Wikileaks has to get a lot better to live up to the picture you are painting, and, maybe, Assange not dominating the organization would be a good thing for it. That's not to justify how he is being treated - just to say, that organization has to rethink its proper role, not let itself be used, and do a better job. Other than that, you could check out Investigative Journalism and News in the Public Interest - and maybe support them (if you don't already).

I ceased to care about Assange and his organization a long time ago. If you want to be for exposing the truth; fine. I do not think all of our secrets should be exposed but USUALLY, there is a benefit to such exposure. Anyone can understand that in some cases, such exposure can hurt the ship of State.

That being said though, Assange's group rarely if ever exposed any of the secrets of Al Queda, ISIS, Hezbullah (sp?) or other terrorists organizations let alone the communist bloc countries or China. Are their systems impenetrable? No. Do they not have any disgruntled employees willing to "spill the beans"? Are they simply abstain from using computers? No.
Wikileaks makes a choice to only release damaging information about the US and it's allies. So I really don't care if they are around or not.

WikiLeaks was lame from the beginning. That Assange fucker robbed the bank (Julius Baer) of a bunch of rich farts' identities and secrets, and something tells me there's more to the Swedish girls rape story than anyone is letting on, because even Ecuador cut his internet at the embassy for the use of pornography or whatnot, and there's a lot of pimping and procuring going on through the Dark Web along with the usual drug dealing and murder for hire, and the free press newsboy libtards are always pro-mental-health pro-civil-commitment because that's what enables them to get a hold of the rich farts' money.

For this, the state and it’s many duped followers want he dead.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Julian Assange is probably the most famous independent author / editor / publisher in the world. It is only because WikiLinks is NOT controlled by any Republican or Democratic Party faction, or any foreign power, because it has repeatedly embarrassed the U.S., and antagonized powerful corrupt wealthy elites all over the world, that Assange is being persecuted.

Unlike with Manning, who after all was a U.S. soldier, the Assange crucifixion we are now witnessing involves the most fundamental issue of free speech on the world stage. If independent internet-based whistle-blower sites like WikiLeaks — which has never been accused of circulating a single forgery and has been tremendously responsible in working with major world media to fact-check and avoid harming any individual agents or innocents) — if WikiLeaks does not survive, then facts and “news” crucial to forming popular opinion will be controlled only by state and corporate monopoly interests. To allow this to happen just because of one or another paranoid partisan concern, would be a tremendous betrayal of American ideals and the world’s future.

It doesn’t even matter if one likes Julian Assange or suspects his motives. WikiLeaks, if it survives, will be only the first, hopefully not the last, truly important non-state whistleblower resource for revealing truth on the international stage.

You know, Tom, there is at least a bit of truth in the above, and an obviously heartfelt concern with government wrongdoing going unchecked because information about it can't get out, which I wholeheartedly share.

Where I find you run off a clear and defensible argumentative path is on two issues. First, Assange is not Wikileaks. If anything, Assange's apparent personality defects, his narcissism, his Napoleon complex, were starting to hurt Wikileaks (his co-workers confirmed as much), and the site will probably continue without him. It is always, always dangerous to have anything based on just one personality and their ideosyncratic preferences, rather than an institution carried by many, stabilized by many, with checks against errant behavior by some.

Second, Wikileaks is far from the only site for whistleblowers to go public. Near every major newspaper has their own anonymized whistleblower section, most notably those Wikileaks relied upon to check their next document dump. That should reduce your angst about wrongdoing not coming to light. Moreover, there should not be a need for Wikileaks, at least in the developed world, where proper whistleblower protections should be the legally implemented, and eagerly watched-over standard. That is to say, it would be the electorate's responsibility to watch over their ruling class and to protect themselves by way of insisting on such protections.

Ask yourself, Tom: Why did Snowden NOT simply contact Wikileaks? The reason, I think, is that he didn't trust them. Neither to vet the documents properly, nor to put them in the proper context to explain them. Snowden savaged Wikileaks for their Turkey document dump, which apparently wasn't vetted at all, and contained personal information on millions of ordinary Turkish voters. That is to say, Wikileaks has to get a lot better to live up to the picture you are painting, and, maybe, Assange not dominating the organization would be a good thing for it. That's not to justify how he is being treated - just to say, that organization has to rethink its proper role, not let itself be used, and do a better job. Other than that, you could check out Investigative Journalism and News in the Public Interest - and maybe support them (if you don't already).

I ceased to care about Assange and his organization a long time ago. If you want to be for exposing the truth; fine. I do not think all of our secrets should be exposed but USUALLY, there is a benefit to such exposure. Anyone can understand that in some cases, such exposure can hurt the ship of State.

That being said though, Assange's group rarely if ever exposed any of the secrets of Al Queda, ISIS, Hezbullah (sp?) or other terrorists organizations let alone the communist bloc countries or China. Are their systems impenetrable? No. Do they not have any disgruntled employees willing to "spill the beans"? Are they simply abstain from using computers? No.
Wikileaks makes a choice to only release damaging information about the US and it's allies. So I really don't care if they are around or not.

WikiLeaks was lame from the beginning. That Assange fucker robbed the bank (Julius Baer) of a bunch of rich farts' identities and secrets, and something tells me there's more to the Swedish girls rape story than anyone is letting on, because even Ecuador cut his internet at the embassy for the use of pornography or whatnot, and there's a lot of pimping and procuring going on through the Dark Web along with the usual drug dealing and murder for hire, and the free press newsboy libtards are always pro-mental-health pro-civil-commitment because that's what enables them to get a hold of the rich farts' money.

View attachment 366318
For this, the state and it’s many duped followers want he dead.

Try that again in English.