Bribing Assange?

in palnet •  4 months ago 

I must confess I'm extremely skeptical about this whole thing, simply because I've only found the information on the big networks and we know those can't truly be trusted. Their Trump derangement syndrome is simply out of control, and they pounce at every single opportunity to "get him" to the point where they've literally declawed themselves completely. But, to quote Dopey (Hannity): "If true... Wow"


Pardon offered?

For a second, I thought the article was going to be a positive one. I mean, anyone who cares about justice in my opinion should be on the side of Julian. Since all that he's done is out the corruption in the world. For "that crime" he's been treated like garbage, and governments around the world would love to have his head on a plate.

The 17 charges that are levied against him are not only bogus, they are hypocritical. It's basically punishing the messenger and not the people who committed the acts, but on steroids.

So to think that for a second the carrot of freedom was dangled in front of him, and he decided against it, blew my mind altogether. Now, let me be clear: He had to lie, he had to basically go against what Wikileaks stands for, what he and his team have been building for more than a decade now. (they've never been wrong) He had to say Russia did not hack into the DNC, and of course he rejected the offer.

Two problems here

On the one hand, why protect Russia in any way shape or form? Why? It would seem to me that to someone who is "clean", that is, when it comes to all matters Russia, it would hardly matter if Russia did or did not hack into the DNC.

And the second problem I see, is also intriguing. How would the pardon be sold to the blood thirsty elites? - Does Trump actually believe it would have worked? Is Assange not hated by only the most powerful and corrupt people in the world?

I fail to see the logic on the move, that is.... if there's any truth to this at all.

Of course, I'm going to keep looking around until Independent sources confirm this whole thing or debunk it, because I can't trust anything CNN puts out these days.


Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Julian Assange and Wikileaks have always maintained that the leaks came from a "non-state actor" and that "Russia was not the source" of the files.

The story that is circulating in the mainstream news at the moment is designed to reshape the narrative.

Firstly, it is designed to prop up the ludicrous and debunked lie that 'Russia hacked the US elections' which lead to Hillary's defeat by Trump. (It's a cover story to mask the corruption within the DNC, corruption and collusion - amplified in the msm for 3 years).

Secondly, it's an attempt to continue the Dems attack against Trump for being a corrupt leader willing to lie and cheat to get what he wants. This appeals to the Democrats narrative.
(It's safe to say that Trump is equally as corrupt as previous US presidents, if not more, and the same goes for the majority of his counterparts in congress and the senate).

This is just the latest in the ongoing smear of JA by the media as the US intelligencia attempts to associate Assange with Trump and Russia in the eyes of an misinformed and propagandized public.

5  WikiLeaks   wikileaks    Twitter.png


like @unity said, Assange has always said the hack of the DNC was not by Russia. Literally the narrative of main stream talking heads makes you dumber when you listen to them. It's amazing that so many people let them get away with constant misinformation. cheers @meno ;9)