Julian Assange walks out of CNN interviews

Only a coward or a guilty man would walk away from something he could defend against.

He could have said "piss off I didn't come here to talk about that" and moved on to other things.

Fact is, he knows that his days are numbered, as the front man for wikileaks he will have to be brought down at some point.

Assange needs to remember who his real bosses are!

Time for the "boys" to teach him a lesson?

Originally posted by Xtraeme
reply to post by thecinic

 

The charges were dropped.

www.sfgate.com...

To put this in context for you. If I were to make the allegation that you were an anal raping child molester. Would you dignify other peoples questions, if someone on the forum later asked, "Was that Xtraeme guy right that you're a child molestor?" You'd probably say, "Because some random person can make up an allegation that has no bearing in reality I now have to discuss the subject further? Why are you even bringing this up? Are you trying to discredit me?"

This is exactly the scenario we're seeing here with CNN.

"Because some random person can make up an allegation that has no bearing in reality"

So, why didn't he answer that instead of walking out?

Second friendly warning. Stay on topic and off each other... Please?

Originally posted by MareBellator
reply to post by SeventhSeal

 

I had no idea the interview was only going to be about the leaks, I don't think thats how journalism works. She can ask him anything she wants to, and thats what she did. I know she was going to get to the leaks, but Assange walked off before she did, he shouldn't have done that imo.

Actually I don't think this is how true journalism works, otherwise everytime Clinton is on TV one could remind him about Monika Lewinski, etc... etc... Examples are too many, too numerous to quote, you get the idea.

Especially since this alledged case has already been talked about, dismissed, etc...

And anyway : how many times did he warned her before he walked out ?

Besides, many times a news channel will ask for an interview and a person might refuse the interview unless it is about this or that topic. Granted, she says on her facebook page that there was no set restriction agreed beforehand, but still... It doesn't take a rocket science degree to understand how stupid (at least) it is to invade such an important interview with trashy material.

I mean come on, if the example with Clinton and Monika doesn't speak to you then imagine a journalist interviewing Obama about the healthcare reform and in the middle trying to ask him about that birth certificate story...

Can't you not understand the difference between true journalism and amateur tabloid (at best) ?

War crimes / Torture / thousands of deaths cover up

vs

smear campaign about so called women abuse on 2 women *everybody* now knows they knew each other yet chose to come one by one at different times to deposit.

Seems to me that it was nothing but a blatent attempt to discredit the messenger, so that the message can be looked down upon as well. He warned her a few times that the interview would be over if she kept in that direction, I would speculate his lawyer told him not to talk about it. The first advice most defense lawyers give is keep your mouth shut about the allegations, let me do the talking for you.

Originally posted by Esger

Originally posted by Xtraeme
reply to post by thecinic

 

The charges were dropped.

www.sfgate.com...

To put this in context for you. If I were to make the allegation that you were an anal raping child molester. Would you dignify other peoples questions, if someone on the forum later asked, "Was that Xtraeme guy right that you're a child molestor?" You'd probably say, "Because some random person can make up an allegation that has no bearing in reality I now have to discuss the subject further? Why are you even bringing this up? Are you trying to discredit me?"

This is exactly the scenario we're seeing here with CNN.

And.. reopened...

www.usatoday.com...

I think we all know it will be dropped though. It unlikely has any basis in truth. It's most likely a smear campaign. You know what they say about convenient coincidences. Why hasn't he been arrested for this?

Originally posted by Esger
On the other hand, Assange is a bright man. Walk out = suspicious, trying to escape. Why didn't he simply answer the questions. Like : "I can't talk about it right now", "I'm not guily, this is false accusation".

Why he walked out?

Because he warned her three times not to contaminate the documented death of 104,000 people with tabloid rumours regarding his personal life.

Both CNN and Assange looks suspicious to me in that video, because they both acted stupidly and I don't think they are. The questions were stupids, the video looks very unprofessional (was that a basement?), all the drama at the end when Assange walked out...

Something's not right with that interview and this is not only on CNN side.

edit on 24-10-2010 by Esger because: (no reason given)

I think your way too paranoid about something with both sides being wrong.
There was no Drama at the end, he just had an issue taking off the mike, didn't raise his voice but just left in an exasperated manner as he should have. His personality was discussed from the outset of the interview and she never let up.. did she ask a single question regarding the documents? No.

It looks like it's in a basement because it probably is or in a sealed off, sound proofed set made for private interviews. Standard stuff. The only lights in there are for the interview.
---
CNN has totally lost any sort of respect or perspective.
Do the interview about the documents and people and then possibly afterward Assange would answer questions regarding the tabloid rumors or not.
Instead CNN attacked the interview in a tabloid manner..

sad sad sad..

b

b

I will, if required, stay awake all night and tomorrow just to make certain this important topic is kept open for discussion.

The next poster who attacks another member on this thread WILL be Post Banned for 3 days.

This is the THIRD and Final warning.

Julian Assange should have taken the opportunity to pick apart the reporter

Why not answer her questions with his own questions

Like why are you re directing attention away from the actual documents that have been revealed

He should have used this as an opportunity to expose the mainstream media in action!!!

Give a nice little lesson to everyone watching about MSM and explain to the viewer how the CNN reporter is trying to use disinfo to keep people away from the truth

and then ask her WHY

Originally posted by ADUB77
Julian Assange should have taken the opportunity to pick apart the reporter

I agree with you there. But like it is way easier to answer a lot of the questions from your arm chair watching jeopardy, I would assume it is not as easy to keep your cool and be objective when the spotlight is on you during an interview. Plus a little editing you can be made to look like a lunatic to people that aren't aware that it goes on, like they did to Ron Paul during the primaries. Perhaps he thought it was better not to give them any ammo like that?

Well if his charges were dropped why won't he answer ANY questions about it? No lawyer needed there to tell you then he is off scott freakin free!

The only reason he might not answer a question about the rape charges is because it got a little to hot for him.
HE DIDN'T LIKE IT he would of stayed there like a man and backed WIKILEAKS if he could of handled it!

Just like he got off scott free.

So will the government.

The government has his life in their hands

He has the insurance files in his!!!

Wikileaks doesn't care about any of you!

The government of the USA still has an obligation to protect us

and if Assange gets in the way they will take him out. He will relase the documents then.

Not going to happen. They will not arrest him because he holds the insurance.

And the Iraqi tortoure and rape crimes will go no where because Assange won't give us the real meat!

Assange is not your friend.

reply to post by thecinic

I think it's questionable when anybody claims to know another persons motives. If you knew the parties personally, this might be something more than a very skewed perspective. The only thing I can say with any real clarity, is I've had some experience with Assange and from everything I've seen he's a bit of an idealist. I suggest reading over his posts from back in '99 on the AUCRYPTO list. This will give you a pretty good sense what type of person he is.

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
reply to post by thecinic

 

dude, what? They were accusations to smear Assange. Don't feed into the media's lies and propaganda.

Best of luck to you, man.

Quite the opposite actually. The accusations lead you to believe that someone is afraid of Wikileaks.

A smear campaign is a double-edged sword. Smear campaigns are statistically producing more of the opposite results from the ones that are expected.

Originally posted by masqua
I will, if required, stay awake all night and tomorrow just to make certain this important topic is kept open for discussion.

The next poster who attacks another member on this thread WILL be Post Banned for 3 days.

This is the THIRD and Final warning.

Please people, I will add to what Masqua asks :

Please please please do ignore whoever is trolling, there is one obvious person trolling here, we do not need to feed that person.

While I don't agree with everybody here, I still want *everyone* (apart from the obvious troll(s)) to be able to post their opinions and discuss. In the discussions : someone on whatever side (if I may say) may bring some new light to the matter, some new idea, some new links, and again, whatever the side, this will be an interresting read.

Originally posted by Xtraeme
reply to post by thecinic

 

I think it's questionable when anybody claims to know another persons motives. If you knew the parties personally, this might be something more than a very skewed perspective. The only thing I can say with any real clarity, is I've had some experience with Assange and from everything I've seen he's a bit of an idealist. I suggest reading over his posts from back in '99 on the AUCRYPTO list. This will give you a pretty good sense what type of person he is.

edit on 24-10-2010 by Xtraeme because: (no reason given)

Well then he shouldn't have ran from the questions that the journalist was asking AND answered them like a man. If he can't represent WIKILEAKS in an orderly fashion he shouldn't be the spokesman. He needs to resign and let someone who doesn't have a RAPE accusation against them represent them. Tell Assange that one!

Very bad acting on both parts.. a bit of an insult, really.

Second line?

Originally posted by thecinic

Originally posted by Xtraeme
reply to post by thecinic

 

The charges were dropped.

www.sfgate.com...

To put this in context for you. If I were to make the allegation that you were an anal raping child molester. Would you dignify other peoples questions, if someone on the forum later asked, "Was that Xtraeme guy right that you're a child molestor?" You'd probably say, "Because some random person can make up an allegation that has no bearing in reality I now have to discuss the subject further? Why are you even bringing this up? Are you trying to discredit me?"

This is exactly the scenario we're seeing here with CNN.

Just like the IRAQI TORTOURE AND RAPE charges will be dropped.

DONT YOU SEE we are all being duped by ALL OF THEM!!!!

WIKILEAKS is not on yourside NEITHER is the government

EXACTLY what I wanted to be seen!!

Don't fall for this wikileaks crap

Don't fall for the GOVERNMENTS crap either.

We got played bythe government and wikileaks

HE HAS HIS INSURANCE

The government has ALL the other resources

Assange doesnt care if we know the truth

he wants media attention and money

the government wants to cover their tracks

so his rape charges are dropped

the government takes NO ACCOUNTABILTY in the war crimes

and WE are here discussing whos better

Neither of them are good!

The government NEVER answers questions they don't like

and Assange won't answer questions he don't like thats why he walked out!

edit on 24-10-2010 by thecinic because: (no reason given)

Wrong,
Whatever is done, is done in our name, you, me and everybody...aka the person. We know what HAS been done, (excuse caps) We know what has been done in the past,(Gladio) we know what might have been done in the past, (Northwood) why wimp about all of this stuff? Assange is actually your only insight today with things going on that are wrong, wrong wrong. So what is your repeated beef with him? and as you say, you don't get Assange's info from any government. BTW, thanks for signing up to ATS.

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
"Only a coward or a guilty man would walk away from something he could defend against."

To the contrary, it takes a good deal of personal integrity to refuse to bite when baited in that manner. And Assange did make it clear to her that he is not there to discuss any of his personal issues or WikiLeaks internal personnel issues. Yet she persisted in her agenda of diverting the interview from the very serious subject of the recently released documents.

Assange did the right thing and he did so with his dignity and integrity intact.