Tags

, , , ,

That’s “persecution,” not “prosecution.” And, once more in the MSM, Tucker C. is about the only one being honest:

LRC has been full of insightful articles these past few days about the Assange show trials and railroading. Read a few of them – archive your way back as necessary.

My brief take on the “legal” proceedings and issues against Mr. Assange:

  • The original Swedish sex allegations are bogus. The raise them, then drop them, as politically expedient, tactics prove that, notwithstanding the lack of evidence.
  • The UK’s bail-jumping charges (and conviction) are bogus. These were based partly on the fake Swedish charges and partly on speculation about what Washington wanted (i.e. sealed indictment). Julian has real defenses against both and legitimate reasons for his 7-year absconding. Were he a “refugee” from Somewhereistan, charged with acid-dousing some pensioner or slave-chaining a poorer white girl, he would already be free (and likely on the dole). UPDATE: It might help if the old boy was a girl instead.
  • The United States Empire’s charges are remarkably light considering how hated the man is and the damage he did to the evil house narrative. When was the last time Washington told the truth about anything? Even with that firm “never,” in mind it is theoretically possible that a foreigner, physically outside the Empire, could have engaged in the alleged conspiratorial behavior. One could access or direct access to a computer network for the purposes of obtaining data, sufficient to justify both jurisdiction and process. However, this requires a little thing called evidence. I suspect there is, nor was, nor will be any of that. Bogus, nakedly biased charges.

The bell-ringers, all of them in this matter, are right – you or I could easily be next. This is a case to watch and without much hope.