Cluster bombs

[BeElBeeBub]

Another strawman.  The media didn't only "moderate", as you say.  (That's just your word for censor).  They said the story (the existence of the laptop) was Russian misinformation, and members (and former members) of the CIA, FBI, government and media conducted a conspiracy of propaganda.  You see, when something is known, and it's important news relating to important people in politics, and that's denied, that is called propaganda by omission.  The conspiracy is now exposed, and you are now defending it.

They Habe "moderation" policies. These will include removing certain information - let's say child porn or threats to kill.

Election misinformation is one such category. 

The inital story, 3 weeks before the election originated with Rudi Gulliani via the Washington Post. A healthy degree of sceptisim is warranted when a key advisor to a presidential candidate leaks a story about massive corruption by his opponent 3 weeks before an election.

Subsequently it appears that there was a laptop and it was HBs

However, nothing actually majorly criminal has come from it and there are some inconsistencies in the data. For example some files appear to have been created after the story broke (and thus cannot orginate with HB)

So the story is: a laptop belonging to HB was found and passed to a candidate's advisor. 3 weeks before the election that aide releases the story via a paper (so it was published).

Some other outlets were wary that the story might not be 100% legit and just an attempt to derail the election so didn't push the story. In the case of a big socialmedia form they decided to deprioritise it from the feeds orarl it as potential misinformation.

Subsequently it turned out to be a damp squib of a story.

That's it.  The only people still worked up about it are the same people who still want to see "her emails", yet remain strangely in others about another candidate actually retaining secret information and bandying it about for clout.

[Scott777]

She she testified correctly that she wrote various articles about Biden & son.

She testifies correctly that the story was not picked up and pushed by other outlets and that social media outlets applied moderation policies to the story.

Another strawman.  The media didn't only "moderate", as you say.  (That's just your word for censor).  They said the story (the existence of the laptop) was Russian misinformation, and members (and former members) of the CIA, FBI, government and media conducted a conspiracy of propaganda.  You see, when something is known, and it's important news relating to important people in politics, and that's denied, that is called propaganda by omission.   The conspiracy is now exposed, and you are now defending it.

[BeElBeeBub]

She she testified correctly that she wrote various articles about Biden & son.

She testifies correctly that the story was not picked up and pushed by other outlets and that social media outlets applied moderation policies to the story.

However as is typical.imokryant context is missed out.

The so called Twitter files show, twitter employees agonised hard over the moderation decisions with arguments for and against the application ofoderatiom policies put forward.  Central to that argument was whether or not the allegations were true.

As it turns out they probably weren't. The house investigation into the Biden's affairs has produced an interim report that has found no wrongdoing.

If in the fullness of time, the investigation finds no crime on the scale Brietbart claimed (we know some crime happened, Hunter Biden had a drug addiction) then the reporters testimony amounts to "we ran a story, it was moderated on the grounds it wasn't true. It turned out it wasn't true".

However all of the above is a convenient cover for a politician with an extensive family many of whom have been engaged in multiple business deals that suggest influance peddling and profiteering from his position.

[Scott777]

No that's a Brietbart editor pushing the Brietbart line in line with the American for right's obsession with Hunter Biden.
Are.you going to start ranting about Hilary Clintons emails and her handling of classified information?

Nice bit of gaslighting, in which you avoid answering the simple question, is she lying to Congress?

[Scott777]

This article has a summary.

https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/4/12/18306901/julian-assange-arrest-wikileaks-rape-sweden-embassy

Now, it's entirely possible the investigation would have resulted in no trial.

These cases often devolve into a bit of he said/she said and the like between sexual assault and simple bad sex can be hard to determine in court so who knows.

It is a particularity of Swedish law (apparently) that the suspect need to be arrested (or at least turn up in court) first for the rest of the investigation to proceed.

Hence the request the Assange go to Sweden.

But at this point JA decided to refuse, and tellingly (at least I'm my opinion) his reasons didn't make sense. He was at no more risk of extradition to the US in Sweden than in the UK. Arguably he would have been even more protected in Swedisj custody as the US would have to convince the Swedish and British courts (instead of just the British courts as eventually happened).

I was.a.JA supporter, but the flimsyness of he defence against extradition, and his actions absconding were what made me doubt his case.

So just to clarify that your post is not just a time-wasting load of crap, does your link provide EVIDENCE of the assault / rape claims?

[Scott777]

What are you going on about the US (other than your subconscious fixation on the CIA)?

There we are, perfectly capturing your double standard.  You said "In times of war the threshold between criticism of the state and dissemination of enemy propaganda becomes lower."  I assumed you was agreeing with this principle, but no, you don't like it applied to the US.

[BeElBeeBub]

What's wrong with Breitbart?  Here's a little post for you, exposing the corruption, as testified to Congress.  So do you think the testimony of this journalist is a lie?

https://pol-tics.com/general-chat/4/massive-conspiracy-to-censor-hunter-biden-laptop-story/6760/msg120806#msg120806

No that's a Brietbart editor pushing the Brietbart line in line with the American for right's obsession with Hunter Biden. 
Are.you going to start ranting about Hilary Clintons emails and her handling of classified information?

[BeElBeeBub]

Oh really, and what is this evidence?

This article has a summary.

https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/4/12/18306901/julian-assange-arrest-wikileaks-rape-sweden-embassy

Now, it's entirely possible the investigation would have resulted in no trial.

These cases often devolve into a bit of he said/she said and the like between sexual assault and simple bad sex can be hard to determine in court so who knows.

It is a particularity of Swedish law (apparently) that the suspect need to be arrested (or at least turn up in court) first for the rest of the investigation to proceed.

Hence the request the Assange go to Sweden.

But at this point JA decided to refuse, and tellingly (at least I'm my opinion) his reasons didn't make sense. He was at no more risk of extradition to the US in Sweden than in the UK. Arguably he would have been even more protected in Swedisj custody as the US would have to convince the Swedish and British courts (instead of just the British courts as eventually happened).

I was.a.JA supporter, but the flimsyness of he defence against extradition, and his actions absconding were what made me doubt his case.

[BeElBeeBub]

The US is not officially at war, so now you'll try to explain your hypocrisy away, by coming up with some other excuse for why there was a massive conspiracy to censor.

What are you going on about the US (other than your subconscious fixation on the CIA)?

[Scott777]

The Swedes had the evidence, enoght to arrest and charge him with (which is why they wanted him extradited). Had he done that the evidence, for and against him l, would have been tested in Swedish courts. Until that occured, he would most likely have been free to continue on with his life on bail.

The UK courts will assess the request based on various criteria before granting the request.  

Oh really, and what is this evidence?

[Scott777]

In times of war the threshold between criticism of the state and dissemination of enemy propaganda becomes lower.

The US is not officially at war, so now you'll try to explain your hypocrisy away, by coming up with some other excuse for why there was a massive conspiracy to censor.

[Scott777]

The Daily Mail, Russel Brand and now Brietbart.

I think it's becoming clearer where you get you information and views from.

What's wrong with Breitbart?  Here's a little post for you, exposing the corruption, as testified to Congress.  So do you think the testimony of this journalist is a lie?

https://pol-tics.com/general-chat/4/massive-conspiracy-to-censor-hunter-biden-laptop-story/6760/msg120806#msg120806

[BeElBeeBub]

Actually, the law in Ukraine says you cannot say stuff which is not the official line, which they call propaganda.  And what you have done there is a strawman.  We are not talking about active support for Russia (actually physically helping them), but if you simply disagree with Ukraine, that could be seen as supporting Russia.  So it's exactly the same as what Russia do.  It is an actual equivalence, but because you have a double standard, and you are a massive hypocrite, all you can do is talk shit.

"The National Union of Journalists of Ukraine has also raised issues with the new media law, releasing a statement saying such powers are clearly excessive"

"The EFJ has previously defended Danish journalist Matilde Kimer, who was excluded from reporting in Ukraine and had her press credentials revoked after being accused of being "pro-Russian" by the Zelensky government."

So, if you use more than 2 brain cells for just a moment, being pro-Russian, by simply saying you disagree with Ukraine, will lead to censorship and removal of your right to do journalism.

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2023/01/07/european-journalist-federation-concerned-by-ukraine-media-censorship-law/

The Daily Mail, Russel Brand and now Brietbart. 

I think it's becoming clearer where you get you information and views from.

I am not a fan of jailing journalists or anyone else for their views. However, "freedom of speech" is not an absolute right in any and all circumstances.  Privacy and libel being obvious restrictions.  

As I keep saying, context is important. Russia has a.long track record of restricting free speech.  Only aoron would argue it's current policies are anything but oppressive.

Ukraine is no beacon of press freedom either, but the output of the YouTuber (not a journalist) you pointed out is an order of magnitude further than simply saying (as you did) "Russia is at war with Ukraine".

In times of war the threshold between criticism of the state and dissemination of enemy propaganda becomes lower. 

Ukraine's war effort is critically dependent on western support. As such eroding such support is key aim of Russia. If a Ukrainian shit and edited a video that proported to prove the Bucha massacre was in fact a Ukrainan false flag, and that video was then picked up and amplified by Russia, that Ukrainan would be materially damaging Ukraine's war effort in a similar way to if they had blown up a rail line or given coordinates of an ammunition store to Russian forces.

[BeElBeeBub]

Lots of talking shit, and still avoiding the point.  Where is the EVIDENCE he assaulted anyone?  Once he had served for jumping bail, the extradition, based on a CLAIM, is the only reason to keep him in jail.  Apart from that, what did he do wrong?  You seem to struggle to explain that.

The Swedes had the evidence, enoght to arrest and charge him with (which is why they wanted him extradited). Had he done that the evidence, for and against him l, would have been tested in Swedish courts. Until that occured, he would most likely have been free to continue on with his life on bail.

An example (although in the UK not Sweden) is Kevin Spacey. He was charged in May 2022 and voluntarily traveled to get UK for a court appearance in July 2022. His trial was set for July 2023 and in the mean time he was free to fly back to the US and carry on with his life. He has now returned for his trial.

Most extradition is based on a claim (the exceptions being already convicted fugitives).

The UK courts will assess the request based on various criteria before granting the request.  Usually the subject is free on bail whilst this process occurs. JA was free on bail whilst the request for extradition to Sweden was being processed.

He would be free on bail now, whilst the extradition request was being processed - except for the fact he has shown he is an extreme flight risk, which is entirely his own doing.

[Scott777]

Scott is unconsciously incompetent - "dunning Kruger" in popular culture.

The facts are he was sentenced to 50wk in custody for failing to report to court.  This is a matter of public record

Here are the judges sentencing remarks

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/sentencing-remarks-assange-010519.pdf

In the intervening time whilst he was in prison the US made an extradition request (that would ultimately be granted, thus giving lie to his reasoning for resisting extradition to Sweden - that he would be liable for onward extradition to the US).

When his time in prison was up, his status converted from being a a prisoner, to being someone on remand awaiting extradition. At this point, his lawyers could have applied for bail pending his various appeals. This.is common practice and often granted. 

In Assange's case his lawyers didn't even bother, likely because they knew it was futile as he was a proven flight risk

We know this because this is exactly what the judge said.


There is no debating the facts they are court documents, the judge was very clear.

Your hypothetical example bears no resemblance to this case.

Imagine if you traveled to a country with an extradition agreement with the US. Then a 3rd country made an extradition request on a serious charge to the country you were in

Imagine you fought that extradition request on the basis that it was a sham request to get you to that 3rd country so they could extradite you to the US.

Imagine that you were granted bail whilst your various appeals were heard.

Imagine that, upon the failure of those appeals, you broke your bail conditions and avoided capture for 7 years.

Imagine that when you returned to the country you had absconded from and we're out in jail for absconding you then faced an extradition request from the US on serious charges and appeal against that request.

Do you imagine you would be granted bail again? So you think your promise that *this time* you would surrender tontgenxourt should your appeal fail?

Lots of talking shit, and still avoiding the point.  Where is the EVIDENCE he assaulted anyone?  Once he had served for jumping bail, the extradition, based on a CLAIM, is the only reason to keep him in jail.  Apart from that, what did he do wrong?  You seem to struggle to explain that.