Julian Assange: Trump 'offered pardon for Russia denial'

a reply to: bastion
There would be no interference in UK law because the pardon in question are for his charges in the USA, not the UK. I don't even know what his charges are in the UK, and I don't think Sweden or whatever other country stayed with the charges. They dropped them. Diplomatically, had this pardon ever even been accepted, we wouldn't be discussing this because the UK would have released him promptly and it all would have worked itself out on this side.

I don't think there is anything new here, it's just the judge is likely being encouraged to change her mind. Be who knows, maybe now this letter will actually illustrate why your country should extradite him to US. Maybe the deal is still stands and we just need him here to make it happen.

Assange is in jail for 50 weeks for breach of bail in the UK so if he wouldn't have been released if the pardon was accepted.

The trial is whether the UK will extradite Assange to the US or not to face those charges so the senator offering a pardon outside the UK court and legal system would be direct illegal interference with a UK court and in the UK we don't allow unfair and politically motivated trials so the case would be thrown out as Assange wouldn't receive a fair trial in the US.

The new evidence is Whitehouse statements from May to Sept 2017 showing that the senator was an aide trying to get a plea bargain and total contradiction by recent blanket statement denying this by whitehouse staff and blog written by the senator which claims he was going rogue/working solo - someone somewhere is lying (IMO the blanket Whitehouse denial which is at odds with official whitehouse records has opened up the doors for reasonable doubt, hence why the senator has been ordered to give evidence as a defence witness in the case)>

a reply to: bastion
Once again your wrong. Offering a pardon for charges in the USA does not interfere with the UK courts on their decision to extradite. If he gets s the pardon, the entire basis for denying extradition goes out the window. And yes, had the pardon been accepted he would have been released after his minimum sentence is served in the UK at the least, or right away in a best case scenario.

Are you arguing against assange's extradition here?? I'm trying to understand your stance here.

A T T E N T I O N !

The topic of this thread is: Julian Assange: Trump 'offered pardon for Russia denial', NOT each other and your various accusations and personal attributes. Alert staff when there is a problem and DON'T respond to it. Please post on topic. You are free to send a PM to me, however do not reply to this message in thread.

Thank you

a reply to: argentus

I don't see a problem. I see people asking questions and looking for answers. I am not sure what you see, however. You didn't specify.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Government networks are far faster (like 100x) than standard consumer networks.

Rotflmao! First, the DNC is not connected to a 'government network. You do realize they aren't a government agency, right?

Second - which 'government networks' are you talking about? Do you really believe that they are all the same, and all - the DOD, the Pentagon, The White House - and the Department of Labor - get the same service/speeds?

Third - I have had 1Gb service at home for years. So, you're saying all 'government networks' have 100Gb service? Really?

These faster networks also connect at a fairly direct level to backbone protocols and telco networks. It is part of the evidence of Russian government involvement that the data transfers could be done so quickly, end-to-end.

You mean the 'evidence' provided by the private DNC contractor that was easily modified to show whatever they wanted it to show?

Pure, unadulterated BS. Again, the DNC servers were not on any government network, so nothing you have said about these 'government networks' is applicable, even if it was accurate - which it mostly isn't.

Consider that you can download a 4Gig movie in a reasonable timeframe. 44,053 emails with 17,761 attachments represents just over 1 Gig - 1/4 of a movie.

Depends on the attachments - and it depends on what, exactly, was downloaded and copied to the thumb drive. What makes you think it was only some emails?

Wasn't Mr. Assange in court today?
Anyone have an update?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
Wasn't Mr. Assange in court today?
Anyone have an update?

Here you are.

www.bbc.co.uk...

a reply to: alldaylong
thank you

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
Government networks are far faster (like 100x) than standard consumer networks.

Rotflmao! First, the DNC is not connected to a 'government network. You do realize they aren't a government agency, right?

Second - which 'government networks' are you talking about? Do you really believe that they are all the same, and all - the DOD, the Pentagon, The White House - and the Department of Labor - get the same service/speeds?

Third - I have had 1Gb service at home for years. So, you're saying all 'government networks' have 100Gb service? Really?

Here's an article from 2014. Data networks have moved on a lot since then, too: ESnet: The 100-gigabit shadow internet that only the US government has access to - ExtremeTech

These faster networks also connect at a fairly direct level to backbone protocols and telco networks. It is part of the evidence of Russian government involvement that the data transfers could be done so quickly, end-to-end.

You mean the 'evidence' provided by the private DNC contractor that was easily modified to show whatever they wanted it to show?

Pure, unadulterated BS. Again, the DNC servers were not on any government network, so nothing you have said about these 'government networks' is applicable, even if it was accurate - which it mostly isn't.

Big business use highly secure and high speed networks far closer to the telco backbones than consumer retail internet. It is expensive but none the less, it does happen. Governments, even more so.

Consider that you can download a 4Gig movie in a reasonable timeframe. 44,053 emails with 17,761 attachments represents just over 1 Gig - 1/4 of a movie.

Depends on the attachments - and it depends on what, exactly, was downloaded and copied to the thumb drive. What makes you think it was only some emails?

I was going on the data released by Wikileaks and Guccifer2.0, which appears to extracted from .pst files.

They could have downloaded other (unreleased) data, too.

a reply to: chr0naut

you just cant admit you are wrong.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Here's an article from 2014. Data networks have moved on a lot since then, too: ESnet: The 100-gigabit shadow internet that only the US government has access to - ExtremeTech

And as I said - the DNC is not a government organization.

Are you seriously suggesting that the DNC's internet service was provided by ESNet?

Big business use highly secure and high speed networks far closer to the telco backbones than consumer retail internet.

That's a really mis-leading comment.

Yes, commercial internet service is different from residential. I've been in charge of the contract for our company internet for the last 21 years, and a fiber DIA circuit is better than what you get for residential, but it is still just fiber. Prices have come down really fast, we can now get a Gb fiber DIA circuit for about $1,100/month with a 3 yr contract. Yes, faster speeds are available, but the cost goes up exponentially when you get over 1Gb. I'm sure that will also change over time, but for now, it simply isn't worth it.

It is expensive but none the less, it does happen. Governments, even more so.

And again - the DNS is not a government agency, let alone a part of the DOD, CIA, or any other of the ones that may get to use the ESNet.

a reply to: alldaylong

The extradition hearing will be adjourned at the end of this week of legal argument and continue with three weeks of evidence scheduled to begin on 18 May.

Guess we have to wait until May to see what's up. That's around the time I predict cov-19 will become an ignored backpage old story of little concern.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: xuenchen

I was on my own fact finding mission at personal expense to find out information I thought was important to our country.

Playing catch up: Was Assange standing next to his attorney when his attorney made the claim about Rohrabacher/Trump?

If so, he should have spoke up. Someone is lying and will eventually be charged with perjury.

Matey, idk why you make such dumb comments but you do.

Do you have ANY IDEA why people have lawyers aka "mouthpieces"?

Go watch the vid on YT called "Why you should Never talk to the police" and then get back to me IF you understand it