Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
27. Wrong again. The arrest warrant has nothing to do with ' charges of rape' a word so overused in this
Wed Aug 7, 2013, 03:02 PM
Aug 2013

case that tragically, for actual victims of rape, it is losing all meaning, nothing to do with 'charges' or 'rape'. It is a phony warrant issued to ask for something they already got, but I'm not about to educate you on the facts of this case. If you wanted the facts, you've had three years to get them as I did, as yes, I wanted FACTS.

Facing WHAT? He has offered over and over again, even remaining in Sweden, going voluntarily to the Swedish Police and answering all questions asked of him there, over the past three years to do what the warrant claims is what it wants, 'answer some questions'.

The question the world has right now, and the one YOU and anyone seriously interested in facts, should be asking is:

Why won't the Swedish Prosecutor follow the law and comply with Assange's multiple attempts to talk to her? Why won't she do what she needs to do?


It is clear that you know nothing about this case, it is best when that is the case, not to comment on it at all, imo.

There is NO EXCUSE as to why the Swedish Prosecutor refuses to agree to Assange's many offers to speak to her and answer all of her questions, NONE WHATSOEVER. AND she was caugh lying about it to make things worse.

I think most of the world knows why by now. There IS NO CASE and she knows it.

Shameful to see anyone who cares about truth and facts and our democracy, side with Wall St Criminals to try to silence the Press. I don't now what is happening to this country but it is bad.

At least during the Bush years I thought we had some principles, on our side of the aisle. That gave me hope. Now I realize how naive a thought that was. For some it was all about politics and 'teams' and never about principles at all.

Assange was exposing Wall St. Criminals, as he did in Iceland where rather than attack the messenger, they ARRESTED their Wall St. Criminals and their corrupt Govt officials who aided and abetted them, thanks to Wikileaks.


That is why Wikileaks scared the shit out of Wall St and they had to be stopped!! Because of what happened to them in Iceland and should have happened everywhere else.

I don't get why any democrat would be siding with those on the right who are trying to protect the targets of Wikileaks here, Wall St and Bush. I can only conclude they do not know what they are doing.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Probably not wise to announce these things in advance. Julian Assange made that mistake sabrina 1 Aug 2013 #1
I quite agree, about making such "announcements" in advance of "new revelations" 99th_Monkey Aug 2013 #4
Well, I think he meant that Snowden only sent the leaks to both of them. He did say sabrina 1 Aug 2013 #16
As I said down-string, I understood Snowden to say months ago ... 99th_Monkey Aug 2013 #33
Maybe Assange is actually a pervert who tried to rape somebody Cali_Democrat Aug 2013 #8
You know 'many people who think he is a saint'?? Wow, no one I know ever viewed him as sabrina 1 Aug 2013 #15
OK Cali_Democrat Aug 2013 #19
Wrong again. The arrest warrant has nothing to do with ' charges of rape' a word so overused in this sabrina 1 Aug 2013 #27
Hahahaha Cali_Democrat Aug 2013 #29
But but Heeessss Diiiirrrrtttyyy! hootinholler Aug 2013 #25
I know!! If I had known he was 'dirty', hadn't take a bath etc, I would never have believed sabrina 1 Aug 2013 #40
"I know many folks think he's a saint"... ljm2002 Aug 2013 #61
And, if I time them just right, they will build to a peek right around....... wandy Aug 2013 #2
His last few "bombshells" turned out to be total duds Cali_Democrat Aug 2013 #3
Oh I dunno. This DEA thing is getting some serious legs imho. eom 99th_Monkey Aug 2013 #6
Lol, not where it counts, in CONGRESS. We finally have what we expected five years ago, sabrina 1 Aug 2013 #17
The ACLU said it was the most info they had seen about NSA in 35 years. Mojorabbit Aug 2013 #32
Why doesn't Greenwald just hand them over to Wikileaks? nt geek tragedy Aug 2013 #5
I understood Snowden to say 99th_Monkey Aug 2013 #7
But, why not just crowdsource it to Wikileaks and Assange? nt geek tragedy Aug 2013 #9
That I don't know. 99th_Monkey Aug 2013 #10
Because the spotlight won't be on GREENWALD if he does it that way. CakeGrrl Aug 2013 #18
And he lives in Brazil and he has boxes in his garage, no, that is the other guy sabrina 1 Aug 2013 #42
No one is "smearing" Greenwald. He's putting himself in the spotlight CakeGrrl Aug 2013 #62
Perhaps he is trying not to do harm Mojorabbit Aug 2013 #34
Bradley Manning wasn't so secretive--he sent a lot more documents geek tragedy Aug 2013 #36
Which was not the best way to handle it. nt Mojorabbit Aug 2013 #38
And look what happened to Manning. bvar22 Aug 2013 #44
Well, Manning didn't leave the country . . . nt geek tragedy Aug 2013 #50
That was his 2nd Mistake. bvar22 Aug 2013 #56
Snowden doesn't have much of an insurance policy. geek tragedy Aug 2013 #58
Then why the BOGUS attacks on Snowden... bvar22 Aug 2013 #63
$$$$ Cali_Democrat Aug 2013 #11
Competing with Wikileak ProSense Aug 2013 #12
How do you know he hasn't?? sabrina 1 Aug 2013 #20
asdf geek tragedy Aug 2013 #22
Okay, so maybe he knew that Wikileaks is under surveillance due to the Wall St. Criminals sabrina 1 Aug 2013 #37
Do you really think bogging people down in endless babble bolsters your argument? Cali_Democrat Aug 2013 #41
I got it now: sabrina 1 Aug 2013 #45
That poster proved you wrong Cali_Democrat Aug 2013 #46
Because he wants to control the narrative? N/T War Horse Aug 2013 #23
For the obvious reason that he has stated dozens of times and that you already know. DesMoinesDem Aug 2013 #26
"writing about what in the documents the public should know " geek tragedy Aug 2013 #28
Funny I would have thought that you of all people, would know the answer to that question sabrina 1 Aug 2013 #49
Wikileaks took a lot of heat on this site Maedhros Aug 2013 #54
So how would he know these are 'revelations' if he hadn't already reviewed them? randome Aug 2013 #64
What? Maedhros Aug 2013 #69
+100 nt Mojorabbit Aug 2013 #35
Thank you for your voice of sanity. eom 99th_Monkey Aug 2013 #60
At least they're not spying on Americans! leftstreet Aug 2013 #13
he must think we are idiots Skittles Aug 2013 #14
He's right about the spying. n/t ProSense Aug 2013 #21
Obama thinks we're idiots? Maedhros Aug 2013 #55
lol. Well, that is a relief quinnox Aug 2013 #31
Ya see, bvar22 Aug 2013 #47
K&R, good to hear quinnox Aug 2013 #24
I just hope "they" don't resort to a false flag 99th_Monkey Aug 2013 #30
Greenwald should probably avoid small planes quinnox Aug 2013 #39
Yes. that too. 99th_Monkey Aug 2013 #43
Documents so critical to our freedom that they only trickle out to maximize profits for the author. millennialmax Aug 2013 #48
There is a method to these things, which you know full well. 99th_Monkey Aug 2013 #52
I wouldn't waste time 'sliming' GG. I've read the definition of displacement theory. eom millennialmax Aug 2013 #53
Please refer up-thread to post #54. [n/t] Maedhros Aug 2013 #57
Good !!! - K & R !!! WillyT Aug 2013 #51
Doesn't he say say this every two weeks or so? JNelson6563 Aug 2013 #59
So this is the *99th* "revelation"?!1 Is it a tie with BecKKK?!1 n/t UTUSN Aug 2013 #65
DRIP DRIP DRIP 99th_Monkey Aug 2013 #67
As always, you've got the last, most elegant word. Hey, I've got an idea!1 Let's you and me UTUSN Aug 2013 #68
Edward Snowden is a modern day Paul Revere with a thumb drive full of news that Tyranny is coming! usGovOwesUs3Trillion Aug 2013 #66
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Greenwald to Reuters: "ma...»Reply #27