For those of you who have been defending this story, I submit this tweet:
Basically CNN article references Mueller report, which references WaPo article that originally published “leaked” information regarding Muller-Maguhn the person of interest who is suspected of passing info to Assange.
He even highlights the parts in the Mueller Report where this happens.
He refers to a term called “information laundering.”
What is happening to Assange is a clear message from the American state to all journalists worldwide, “publish our secrets and we will f**k you up seriously”.
The fact that boingboing is copy pasting CNNs line on this is disappointing to me but I am not the one who will be rotting in jail when they come for you after you publish something that displeased them. Join in smearing shit on him at your peril.
The ad hominem attacks on Caitlin become understandable if you take a little time to read her blog. She is mostly right on point and the powers that be would like to put you off giving her a fair hearing.
It is pertinent. And Assange does a great job assassinating his own character. Were there cameras in the men’s restroom? No.
And you really shouldn’t be accusing others of distraction when you call existing monitoring equipment “surveillance” like it was put in place just for Assange. You conveniently forget that he asked to be there, was a guest, and things like video monitoring and guest logs are SOP for embassies. You’re implying he was being spied on with hostile intent, when in fact he was a guest and all the systems that caught him in the act of making exchanges with Russians were in place before he first stepped foot in the Ecuadoran embassy.
For what? @xeni linked the CNN article, which was absolutely comprehensive. @emo_pinata directly quoted Johnstone waxing poetic about how great a genuine white supremacist is, which you called a “smear.” Just like Trump does when confronted with his own damn words.
It takes a particularly obtuse kind of fanboi to claim a pro-Assange journalist on Twitter as a citation, while also waving away CNN (and one of their most thoroughly documented articles, at that) and Johnstone’s own words as irrelevant.
I actually agree with you about that, and I’ve stated so here on BB several times before. Extradition to the US for the Manning leaks is BS, and will cause harm to the freedom of the press. However…
The above shows you didn’t actually look at the CNN materials. It’s also a great example of unintentional irony, as you’re not just criticizing CNN, but the leaked documents that they’ve published from a source at either the Ecuadorean embassy or their security contractor. Cherry pick much?
As others mentioned above, it’s not an ad hom attack to quote her own words of praise and allegiance with a Neonazi. It’s not a good look and it disqualifies her, in my mind, from being a reliable source for any kind of analysis.
Laser focusing on very specific and narrow things about a discussion in an effort to dismiss them is in fact a rhetorical style of the disreputable. Same with lumping several voices into the same “bad guy” that you address singularly.
You have done nothing but try to wriggle out of directly responding to the many cited sources of Johnstone’s continued call to action to work with white nationalists she has deemed an OK amount of racist.
Just look at your really, really lame duck attempts to twist the debate to always demand more specific information while saying anyone that fails to do so is a bad person:
An out of context quote taken from an article saying she advocates for the position
Changing words again to suit the argument - you even acknowledge they say “wanted to work with” and not “worked with” but begin demanding evidence that she worked hand in hand with him.
Here you use the “working with” words you literally are the only source of to now dismiss the argument entirely, thus creating your own falsely attributed quote to attack instead of addressing Johnstone’s repeated praise of Cernovich and his work and dismissing all the PoCs that point out to Johnstone that Cernovich is, in fact, a racist.
We don’t need to go through every chummy tweet between Johnstone and Cernovich, when she has asked to interview him or work with him, or point out all the times she cites other white supremecists like Tucker Carlson as good examples of anti-establishment conservatives she has worked with. That’s not necessary when it’s especially clear there is not a level of citing of evidence good enough for you to even attempt to engage instead of deride.
I doubt that you could be certain of that.
I didn’t conveniently forget, jeez, I didn’t know. And it turns out the story is more complicated and interesting than I knew or than you say. Details in link below.
In summary, it looks like a lot of the surveillance equipment was put in place during Assange’s visit, to protect him somehow. So your assertion that this is all embassy SOP is totally wrong, and it was put in place just for Assange, but in a twist, originally to help him.
However, it’s not hard to imagine that it may have been augmented in various ways and, obviously, used against him after Lenin Moreno became president.
More detail from Gosztola here.
Good article. Thanks for the link. Video security monitoring is absolutely embassy SOP, as well as visitor tracking (please, go to an embassy, any embassy, and try getting past the vestibule without showing ID/signing in) It looks like they added cameras as part of their security to protect Assange.
If anything, the Guardian article you link supports the CNN articles. Ecuador put a protection detail on Assange and monitored his visitors in order to keep him from being attacked and/or renditioned, but Assange himself subverted that effort in order to play spy games with Russians. While you characterize it as being “used against him” under Moreno, which is not without merit, it looks to me more like it was channeled into protecting the embassy staff, and Ecuador’s interests, from Assange’s increasingly risky behavior.
It really goes to highlight his arrogant disregard for others. By playing spy games with Russian government assets, he put everyone in the embassy (their home, in which he was a guest) in jeopardy. As it has been shown several times now, Russia has no problem with taking out inconvenient assets in London, and they tend to do so messily. Assange’s contact at RT, who he met with twice at the embassy, and received packages from, even joked that he handed over “a kilogram of Novichok” after one visit. He didn’t, but Assange couldn’t know that. He was playing games with the lives of the people who were sheltering him. What a shit.
vegetables have self preservation and reach towards the light, not the dark
“world-class hackers,” and other shady characters? Really Xeni?
Out of curiosity, is any of that denying that Andrew Müller-Maguhn met with Assange at the embassy?
Because I think the main reason they think he might have passed information is because he visited the embassy (was it twelve times in a year?). It’s not really debunking the possibility if it’s just Müller-Maguhn saying “I never did anything bad, cross my heart.”
(And Müller-Maguhn is only one of the possible couriers, so I also don’t see how a denial from him about his visits would mean CNN is wrong to list clear possibilities.)
You wrote:
Except you never quoted her. You never provided a link as to what specifically you were talking about. You never did any of those things.
“Allegiance” is such a disingenuous word to use. Never, ever has she done that.
Just stop.
Directly from this string of the thread:
@emo_pinata directly quoted Johnstone waxing poetic
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
