[video=youtube_share;lAA9fMGeKxw]http://youtu.be/lAA9fMGeKxw[/video] Its like an interrogation directed by Langley. The reporter is only interested in questioning the integrity of Wikileaks. For almost the entire interview she only asks prying questions into how Wikileaks operates and whether they work for the Kremlin.
The same reporter who conducted the above interview wrote an article suggesting Assange is an unofficial agent of Moscow. This is termed "Neo-McCarthyism":
` ` The 'western media' is in an all out assault mode to discredit Assange. One does not defy nor make public, the dealings and inner workings of the international monied interests (who basically own countries), without some kind of price to pay. ` ` ` ` `
Reading some comments about the Times article, Hillary Clinton supporters who don't like what Wikileaks has exposed express brazen authoritarian tendencies similar to those of a lot of Bush supporters in those days. Aside from that, they see nothing wrong with a conspiracy theory passing as "news reporting". These people are not liberals. They're just "followers." No principles of their own.
If it is less than a year he should consider doing the time. I assume they have not offered him a plea deal.
Even then, I bet he'll have a great lawyer. With all this press on him, I doubt anything would stick. I just spent time reading the timeline and it sounds like this could easily get dismissed. I have no idea why he's such a coward.
He's smart enough to know that, irrespective of how innocent he might be, he won't be able to 'beat the system'.
Its interesting that it just so happens that all these journalists, leakers, dissidents, and whistleblowers - Risen, Snowden, Assange, Ritter, Manning, Sterling, Kiriakou, and potentially Greenwald at one point - have either been sentenced to prison or have warrants for their arrest. The case of former CIA analyst John Kiriakou is especially (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up: Pretend an "official enemy" was doing these things. How would it be reported in the corporate media? Imagine the headlines.
I submit that an accusation of rape cannot be changed to a minor charge? Anyway I wasn't thinking of the charge, more the stitched-up trial which undoubtedly would end in a guilty verdict and disproportionate sentence. Cross the elite and they'll make sure you never do it again?
I disagree. I think because of his fame, he'd get a slap on the wrist. I think he's a little coward for hiding for half a decade. He'd already be out by now.
The title of the New York Times piece: Now imagine a New York Times article entitled: Its just inconceivable and equally ridiculous.
He just needs to go back to sweeden, face some small charges (others have been dropped), get his acquittal, and he's fine. He's spending more time in a jail now than he ever would have if he stayed in Sweden.
It's not cowardice; the US would pressure Sweden to extradite him to the US, which would see to it that he could no longer do his work. After hearing about Hillary's asking why they couldn't just "drone" him, it seems clear to me that he wouldn't last any longer in the US than Oswald and McVeigh did.