Comments by "irresistablejewel" (@irresistablejewel) on "Guardian Busted For Bogus Assange Story" video.

@NEVER_AGAIN Wrong era to troll in (we have Trump for that). Actually Corbyn is a middle of the road, left wing socialist and nothing he has proposed is particularly radical. Of course socialism is treated as a dirty word in America, but communism is only one version of socialism and most Americans seem to think the Democrats are left wing (so haven't a hope of understanding opposing political ideologies). I agree with the OP about "The Guardian" newspaper. It used to be left-wing; but as it's now anti-Corbyn (who is left wing) something has changed. Maybe it has hung on to the Blairite version of Labour (a huge mistake) or it's under new ownership (as has been suggested); but either way it's a shadow of its former self. I quite like Corbyn; he's more honest than most, but same as America; whoever you vote for the government still get in.
6
@BloodmoneyLLC I think you'll find that Assange was exposing the Bush administration (and earlier) as setting up: a worldwide "rendition" program; a torture facility in Cuba and a massive eavesdropping facility didn't just happen in a day. The problem came to a head during the Obama administration when Snowden left only two options; either it was government sanctioned snooping (on the German leaders phone) or the security services were running wild. When you talk about the political establishment or permanent state, I think it's they who don't like to "lose face" and if you are a whistle-blower you had better run and hide. So I don't think it's a party matter, as you suggest, both (as you say) look corrupt; are warmongers and voted through more surveillance powers for the President (possibly to legitimise what has been going on already). I think Assange; Snowden and Manning put country first, showed the ugly truth behind Cheney's lie that "war pays!" (although it paid him well) but America "lost face" and some won't stand for that. It's cost millions to police Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy, over an allegation for a charge that doesn't even appear on UK statute books and Sweden had him in custody, let him go and let him leave the country ... and if the UK establishment think I believe they've spent millions because he jumped bail then either: they are stupid; they think I am or they don't care how it looks, because they operate above the law. We better had hope there are a few honest individuals in the establishment or we are headed for a very big war.
1
@MrVancityeagle No, Assange and Wikileaks were around a long time before Trump even ran for office, Assange was already stuck in the Ecuadorian embassy by that time, so what you allege is pure fantasy. Are you not just another Clinton apologist trying to find an excuse, if so how stupid is that? Really Clinton lost because: Democrats didn't turn out in their usual numbers to vote; she was known to be a warmongering corporatist who was telling Wall Street one thing and the voter another; also she is a manipulator with a vicious streak as has been well reported. .... and the main reason Trump won, was he wasn't H Clinton. Trying to call others "pretty stupid" when spouting garbage ... well how is that working out for you? You don't seem to understand that: Wikileaks exposes the dirty dealings of administrations, it's rarely about one individual much more about systems and structures allowing corrupt individuals to operate with impunity. So President Trump is too new, we are still getting a clearer understanding of the nasty stuff Bush and Cheney were doing and the attempted cover-ups during the Obama administration. As for 9/11 it was an attack (the second) against an entity that had killed hundreds of thousands of people through sanctions and who came up with the disgusting "oil for food" program ... also the msm arguably did more damage by running the footage night and day for months. Assange a Trump operative ... lol Face up to it ... last election it was a vote for war or war (America is currently in 8); the political sponsors all want something in return and both main parties are decidedly right-wing, so talk of "the left" in American politics is just a thin attempt to occupy the political spectrum. America's political system has been bought, but Trump won't change that ... the money's too good.
1
@MrVancityeagle You don't seem to understand ... Wikileaks get information from "whistle-blowers" which they often publish in part or in full; they will not divulge their sources (although they have in the past stated who is not their source); but they don't hack anybody. If anyone (including Trump Jnr) wants to "share" info that Wikileaks releases into the public domain that's legal; as is subscribing to Wikileaks. I've seen no evidence to support your claim that Trump Jnr came to any agreement with Wikileaks, besides who really cares about Trump's tax affairs? We saw Rachel "Mad-cow" Maddow make a great show of revealing his tax returns one year, it turned out they were fine. Since I can't see what Trump jnr would gain by admitting he came to any kind of agreement with Wikileaks, or Wikileaks saying a thing, this just looks like another made up story. As for Russian collusion, I don't see any Trump tower in Moscow, but there are a number of American hotel chains; a burger chain and Pizza chain that have formed 50-50 partnerships with Russian companies and paid the bribes required to operate there. Little mention of all that collusion and while it is possible that Trump and Putin are buddies and that America just broke a key (nuclear proliferation) treaty with Russia; the two things existing simultaneously seems highly improbable. Trump "one of the most corrupt people ever in the Whitehouse" ... he's not even close. Try the Clintons or anyone that has to raise hundreds of million to run a presidential campaign. You want dirt on Trump ... lol ... there is tons of it, most fictitious; as Trump trolls the msm. I'd say Wikileaks tends to target the establishment and the NWO subscribers; as American foreign policy doesn't charge; regardless of President or party. If you are suggesting Assange helped Trump but he's still stuck in an embassy in London, that's rather hard to believe too.
1
@MrVancityeagle @MrVancityeagle The only sources I can find that in any way support what you are saying are all pro-Clinton Democrat supporters, who then go on to "spin us another one". As was made crystal clear before the election: there are loopholes written into American tax law; Trump (and others) use everyone they can and while there are moral and ethical issues arising from this (such as the ordinary taxpayer having to make up the shortfall), it is legal and that is all their accountants care about, or need to care about. By the way: it wasn't Trump that paid for this legislation (others did); it's yet another example of one rule for the rich, another for the rest of us and it is highly unlikely Trump will change this as he profits from it. As for Wikileaks: if you are telling me Wikileaks helped Trump get elected, yet Assange is still blockaded in a London embassy, then I have to tell you that sounds ridiculous. Now that Trump is President: he calls the IRS, they don't call him; he can put his face on the money and since he controls a central bank, he won't be filing for bankruptcy any time soon. This is just another tree to bark up and you've missed the boat on that one (sorry to mix my metaphors). You seem to want to ignore that Wikileaks (publishing info from: Manning; Snowden and whoever in the DNC downloaded info directly from their computers) have shown some of the ugly goings on behind the veil of state secrecy (from Bush Jnr onwards) and that caused America a severe loss of face. That's why some in the Democrat and Republican party want Assange dead. There is no doubt Assange gave "whistle-blowers" a platform; not a shred of doubt in that. It's not Trump that's a fascist, he is just the latest "facilitator". Fascism occurs when corporations get to make the rules; Clinton was signed up to that; Trump is in the process of learning what he can do and what he can't. As I see things: it's not Trump that made America fascist, it's two right-wing parties in hock to their corporate sponsors and the influence of "chicken-hawks" (those who advocate war, but have never seen combat and have no intention of doing so) in the establishment. Trump didn't create American fascism, in one way of thinking, American fascists created Trump. You don't seem to see any of that; how so?
1
@MrVancityeagle You said, "So called "progressives" defending a fascist and an intelligence asset masquerading as a "whistleblower" who helped put that fascist in power." and I don't agree with that description at all. Assange isn't a whistle-blower, he's a journalist; I don't consider Trump to be a fascist, but I believe the American establishment is far-right as they allow private profit seeking entities to call the shots (sometimes literally). This not a recent phenomenon either, it has been going on for decades now but this kind of market fundamentalism has made the rich richer; the poor poorer; it has damaged the economy and it's one reason the voter was given two very unpopular candidates last election. I still doubt that Wikileaks has joined in the recent tribalism or been co-opted. The reason is that currently there are moves to charge Assange under some old legislation related to espionage. I'm not saying Trump is behind this, but someone in America is and I don't think it will succeed as this can be viewed as an attack on journalism and (as before) we are invited to jump to a conclusion on no evidence since some media outlet can't do a simple fact check. Sure people releasing info just before an election can alter people's opinions; but there was a lot of information released about both candidates (much of it derogatory in nature) some entirely made up and the two parties campaigns had little to do with actual policy, it was mainly mudslinging. At the moment America wants Assange to face charges in an American court ... and I doubt it's to forgive him. I'm not even sure " Israel was behind the anti-Clinton rhetoric" as she turned out to be her own worst enemy, with: her (leaked) speech to the banks showing duplicity; operating an illegal (now legal) server showed she believes rules are for other people and her story that the President got to press the nuclear trigger at will, showed she was either mad or bad (as she foreign secretary and should know protocol is a war committee decides). It seems highly unlikely that Trump is an Israeli agent; more that he is a blundering fool as moving the American embassy had been talked about for years; but he was the President that moved to do it. There is certainly a lot of American antipathy towards Iran; that's been going on for years too and if you connect the dots, they are next after Syria ... but Iran is no Iraq or Libya and Russia just equipped them with S-300s. I'm no great supporter of Trump, but I though Clinton was beyond the pale, I don't know about Jimmy Dore these days; but TYT have sold out and while they claim to be progressives (whatever they are), they clearly hate Trump and are desperate to get offended by something ... anything, it seems. I don't think Jimmy Dore is a sucker for Trump propaganda, I rather think he wishes the Democrats were worth supporting but after what happened to their more Liberal candidate Bernie Sanders, I'm guessing he thinks the whole system is rotten through and through. I can see that there is a powerful Israeli lobbying group in Washington, along with lots of others and Goldman Sachs seems to have a finger in every pie; but America seems to pay more attention to Saudi Arabia and their wahabists although after their murder of a journalist maybe relations have changed. The msm don't tell me a lot of things, such as the whistle-blower who revealed details about the Clinton Foundation having their house raided by the FBI. They do talk about Russia a lot, but some of them seem to believe we should reach a conclusion and wait for evidence. So I don't think Russia helped Trump to win; although they would obviously prefer any candidate to anti-Russia "chickenhawk" Clinton, and I've not seen any evidence with any substance to prove they did. The American security services should know how the leak happened in the DNC, but they won't even allow their computers to be inspected by the FBI. I can only assume there is more damning evidence they don't want the FBI to see. I don't think Assange is really taking sides; except against those that wish to hide what is really the truth that some wish to hide. It has to be clear by now that the UK isn't spending millions on a simple rape allegation; so it's again about who controls the narrative. Whoever it is doesn't want whistleblowers, which is why Assange is again a target.
1