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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

hack89

(39,171 posts)
126. Yet I predict that things will turn out exactly has I have said
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 07:38 PM
Sep 2012

I suspect I understand what is happening much better than you. You merely strike me as being in a state of denial over the mess your hero is in.

He should fly to Washington and make his case in person. 24601 Sep 2012 #1
And your point is??? nm rhett o rick Sep 2012 #2
??? sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #6
Why do you think the world agrees with him? hack89 Sep 2012 #13
The actual people of the world as opposed to their governments, ronnie624 Sep 2012 #19
And you know this how? hack89 Sep 2012 #20
The information I linked to is how I know. ronnie624 Sep 2012 #22
Yet Pew released a report saying the opposite hack89 Sep 2012 #27
So "the world" is actually "American public opinion"? JackRiddler Sep 2012 #157
Just pointing out that the only Pew report on Wikileaks hack89 Sep 2012 #159
Translation: "I really really need to distract everybody from those Swedish allegations!" struggle4progress Sep 2012 #3
The Swedish BS is the distraction wtmusic Sep 2012 #5
Lol, you mean the allegations that have fallen apart, as we all predicted they would. sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #7
You know they have to interview Assange before they can indict him. hack89 Sep 2012 #14
I thought this point had been made clear here multiple times already. In fact I believe sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #35
Lets look at real facts and not opinions hack89 Sep 2012 #36
Now maybe you can back and read my post which is filled with facts. sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #40
That step she needs to take is to interview Assange hack89 Sep 2012 #41
Wrong! Because he already HAS BEEN ARRESTED. That was a lie. It is still a lie. sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #43
He was not arrested by Swedish authorities hack89 Sep 2012 #45
Still refusing to accept facts. He took advantage of the law, and rightly so, especially sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #53
Not making much sense here hack89 Sep 2012 #46
Sigh! Because he appealed the request for extradition sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #51
The Swedish courts said that there was valid cause to arrest Assange without an interview. hack89 Sep 2012 #54
??? What has that got to with anything. They did and he was arrested. sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #56
Not by SWEDISH authorities. hack89 Sep 2012 #58
Why has the Swedish Prosecutor refused to interview Assange when there never was sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #63
Because he refused to recognize her authority to take him into physical custody. hack89 Sep 2012 #64
Why did the prosecutor refuse to speak to Assange who has been available both in sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #67
Because she doesn't need to. She has all she needs to arrest him. hack89 Sep 2012 #68
Why has she not filed a case against Assange? You are now contradicting yourself sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #71
She has what she needs to arrest him. Once in Swedish custody he will be interviewed and indicted. hack89 Sep 2012 #74
You have avoided this question several times - lets try again hack89 Sep 2012 #55
No, it is YOU have avoided the real question here. The Swedish Prosecutor, as you now sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #57
So Assange would have voluntarily gone to Sweden? You really believe that? nt hack89 Sep 2012 #59
Why did the Swedish Prosecutor fail to take the necessary step to sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #60
I'll take that as a no. You just answered your own question. nt hack89 Sep 2012 #62
Why has the Swedish Prosecutor refused to take the necessary step to file sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #65
Because she doesn't have to. She has all she needs to take him into custody. hack89 Sep 2012 #66
Wait!! You have just contradicted yourself and have blown away the major sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #69
No - she wants to file charges. But on her terms. hack89 Sep 2012 #72
Um, that is not how the law works. On the whims of a prosecutor. You are now completly sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #75
The entire Swedish legal system appears to disagree with you. hack89 Sep 2012 #76
The entire Swedish legal system has not been in charge of this case, because NO sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #84
Except for the Swedish appeals court that issued the domestic arrest warrant for rape you mean? hack89 Sep 2012 #88
But since you said that Assange would have never surrendered to Swedish authorities hack89 Sep 2012 #89
'If' 'if', the law is not based on 'what ifs'. The Swedish Prosecutor failed to file charges sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #92
Is it her fault that he jumped bail in the UK and is now a fugitive from justice? hack89 Sep 2012 #94
Again, the Swedish Prosecutor refused to do her job when this case was handed to her. sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #96
Swedish legal experts testifying under oath disagree with you. hack89 Sep 2012 #98
Why did the Swedish Prosecutor not speak to Assange while he was in Sweden for sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #100
Read the High Court's transcript - the Swedish legal witnesses explain it better than me. nt hack89 Sep 2012 #102
I read it long ago. It means nothing wrt to the non case against Assange. sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #107
You just demonstrated that if you read it you didn't understand it. hack89 Sep 2012 #109
Why did she fail so spectacularly to do her duty in this case? sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #111
Assange will find out how credible she is when that cell door shuts behind him. nt hack89 Sep 2012 #103
Still can't answer the question. Why did she fail to lock that cell door when she sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #105
Why do think that matters now? hack89 Sep 2012 #108
He has been arrested. What is it that you do not get about this case, or rather, that you sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #110
Yet she will win - so perhaps she didn't botch it after all hack89 Sep 2012 #115
I don't ignore testimony from Swedish legal experts. I have read the opinions of this sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #120
Yet I predict that things will turn out exactly has I have said hack89 Sep 2012 #126
Mmmm .... sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #136
And yet in the end Sweden will arrest and indict him. hack89 Sep 2012 #78
My arguments have never been presented in court. Motions were presented, no case sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #80
All of those issues were addressed by the British High Court. It is time you read the transcript. nt hack89 Sep 2012 #83
The British High Court did NOT rule on this case. What are you talking about? sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #85
All of those issues were part of the extradition hearing hack89 Sep 2012 #87
The British Court does not have jurisdiction to rule on a Swedish case. sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #90
Every argument you have made about the interview and the prosecutor doing her job hack89 Sep 2012 #91
Lol, no, it was the anti-Wikileaks contingency who were fixated on the interview. Now sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #95
Except they were not debunked. What I said has been confirmed by Swedish legal experts hack89 Sep 2012 #97
Not only were they debunked, you are now running away from your previous sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #99
No - there is a reason Assange lost his extradition fight hack89 Sep 2012 #101
You still have not answered the question. Why was there even a need for an sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #104
It is all moot now. hack89 Sep 2012 #106
The obvious answer reorg Sep 2012 #114
So 'they' convinced Assange to fight extradition, and then, appeal for two years, all because 'they' msanthrope Sep 2012 #150
the prosecutor made a reassuring move first reorg Sep 2012 #153
Thank you for you posts. I think her failure to conduct this case in a professional manner sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #178
Fugitives don't get to dictate to prosecutors. That is how the world really works. hack89 Sep 2012 #61
He was never a fugitive, he was in Sweden asking to speak to her, then in London sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #77
He fled Sweden the night before his interview with the prosecutor. hack89 Sep 2012 #79
He did not flee Sweden, he was told by the Prosecutor on Sept 15 that he was free to sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #82
The lawyer's memory got much better under oath hack89 Sep 2012 #86
And none of that has anything to do with Assange who was told by the prosecutor, sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #112
You keep believing that if it gives you comfort. nt hack89 Sep 2012 #116
I'll leave 'belief' and crystal balls to you. I deal only with facts. sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #117
Yet she is the one who will win. hack89 Sep 2012 #119
Well, now I know I won this debate. How? sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #123
That "incompetent" prosecutor who "botched" the case will put his ass in jail hack89 Sep 2012 #127
As I said, signs someone has lost the debate, when they resort to non-facts, sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #133
If the prosecutor is breaking Swedish law then explain these facts hack89 Sep 2012 #42
Because the Court does not investigate a crime, they accept the documents presented sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #44
Except we are talking about a Swedish Appeal Court hack89 Sep 2012 #47
How long ago was that? sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #50
Yet the Swedish Appeal Court disagrees with you hack89 Sep 2012 #52
They expected her to do her job, she did not. But you still have not explained sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #113
Saying it over and over again does not make you right. hack89 Sep 2012 #118
Resorting to 'Swedish Experts' some of whom were brought there by the Prosecution sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #122
It is time to move on - it's over hack89 Sep 2012 #125
Lol, have you run out of excuses? The prosecutor ran out of options two years ago. She was out sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #138
How can you say that? It is not like Assange is a free man. hack89 Sep 2012 #154
And you still refuse to even try to answer the question as to why a Prosecutor sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #163
And I fail to see the importance of this point. hack89 Sep 2012 #164
Assange must think there's a credible Swedish case against him, or he wouldn't have jumped bail struggle4progress Sep 2012 #15
How did you arrive at that conclusion? wtmusic Sep 2012 #17
Assange, of course, didn't argue that "US-conspiracy-against-me" in UK court, because struggle4progress Sep 2012 #23
Paranoid fantasies like the secret US indictment? wtmusic Sep 2012 #28
Stratfor Is a Joke and So Is Wikileaks for Taking It Seriously struggle4progress Sep 2012 #32
Stratfor email hackers were tricked into using Feds' server struggle4progress Sep 2012 #33
So, why should we take any Wikileaks-related remarks in the Stratfor emails seriously? struggle4progress Sep 2012 #34
I seem to have touched a nerve. wtmusic Sep 2012 #37
I provided several links and cogent argument: you retort with personal remarks struggle4progress Sep 2012 #129
It ultimately becomes a case of judgement wtmusic Sep 2012 #134
Why does the US Government take Stratfor emails seriously? sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #139
Driving the CIA crazy???? Did Jason Bourne fail? nt msanthrope Sep 2012 #30
I think you should read or watch or something so that your posts come from an informed place xiamiam Sep 2012 #25
More paranoia wtmusic Sep 2012 #31
Your author, "Israel Shamir", is a known anti-Semite and holocaust denier, who is a close friend struggle4progress Sep 2012 #131
How does Assange's boinking of a Swedish woman and her dubious accusation of rape wtmusic Sep 2012 #135
Lol, you are funny. Speaking of 'jumping'. Maybe you can explain what someone else sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #141
Agreed statements of facts and issues struggle4progress Sep 2012 #146
And once again you jumped right over the question. Not surprising, it was what I expected. sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #147
US officially considers Assange an "enemy of the state" JackRiddler Sep 2012 #4
This cannot be emphasized enough cprise Sep 2012 #9
It would be nice to see the actual declassified documents, rather than Dorling's interpretation struggle4progress Sep 2012 #16
Scoop has a link to pdf of the actual FOIA release: it doesn't seem to show what Dorling claims: struggle4progress Sep 2012 #18
Of course it shows exactly what Dorling claims. JackRiddler Sep 2012 #49
The military will, no doubt, exercise some diligence to ensure that no personnel repeat the stunt struggle4progress Sep 2012 #124
Really? reorg Sep 2012 #130
... In a statement the Guardian rejected the accusations from Wikileaks, explaining struggle4progress Sep 2012 #137
Yes, they even admit it openly reorg Sep 2012 #140
Thank you, it's hard work here on DU lately refuting the misinformation sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #143
The Der Spiegel article is worth a read, but you clearly didn't bother to read it struggle4progress Sep 2012 #144
Thank you, this truly is Orwellian and very scary. But it proves Assange was correct sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #148
Excellent speech! JDPriestly Sep 2012 #8
bull shit speach by a 1st class con artist krawhitham Sep 2012 #10
Can tell your well informed... Katashi_itto Sep 2012 #11
His complaint of "having been detained for 659 days without charge" brought tears to my eyes! struggle4progress Sep 2012 #24
Yep, that proves it. ronnie624 Sep 2012 #29
It's evidence, at least, that the dude is a self-absorbed blowhard and careless with his words struggle4progress Sep 2012 #128
The mention of 659 days was about Bradley Manning's detention. GliderGuider Sep 2012 #38
Except Manning was charged before he even left Iraq hack89 Sep 2012 #48
No cigar for you: "I speak to you today as a free man, because despite having been detained struggle4progress Sep 2012 #121
Oh well, carry on then. nt GliderGuider Sep 2012 #132
But once again, you attempt to distract from the facts. Was his claim correct or not? sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #149
Nobody else ever counts time spent out on bail as time in detention, nor does anyone else struggle4progress Sep 2012 #151
Wrong, he has been detained under house arrest for two years, required to report sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #152
Guardian link here dipsydoodle Sep 2012 #12
excellent speech. freedom of speech and press are the foundations of a democracy xiamiam Sep 2012 #21
Assange speaks for me.... mike_c Sep 2012 #26
if sunlight is the best disinfectant then he should stop hiding from it neh? nt Bodhi BloodWave Sep 2012 #93
if that's the extent of your understanding of events surrounding Assange's persecution... mike_c Sep 2012 #145
How come you know his exact location? JackRiddler Sep 2012 #156
Might want to look at the post i replied to neh? Bodhi BloodWave Sep 2012 #162
Assange should've focused on corporate leaks more than US government leaks. nt Comrade_McKenzie Sep 2012 #39
So it wasn't a good idea for TuniLeaks ( works in partnership with Wikileaks) to Luminous Animal Sep 2012 #73
Why don't you send him some? JackRiddler Sep 2012 #165
He sure did manage to get the oar in during that speech. dipsydoodle Sep 2012 #70
I am unfamiliar with this figure of speech. JackRiddler Sep 2012 #158
Here ya go dipsydoodle Sep 2012 #161
Where are the Moscow files Assange? joshcryer Sep 2012 #81
Hand them to him. JackRiddler Sep 2012 #155
RT is one of the best news outlets available here in the US. Their coverage of foreign sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #160
Wikileaks has them, they announced they were going to release them. joshcryer Sep 2012 #166
What you're saying is certainly a possibility. JackRiddler Sep 2012 #167
I have no requirement for redaction or a thorough "read through." joshcryer Sep 2012 #169
Wikileaks's achievements are world-historical. JackRiddler Sep 2012 #171
too many falling for the demonization of Assange fascisthunter Sep 2012 #175
I don't dispute that. joshcryer Sep 2012 #176
What persecution? treestar Sep 2012 #142
Wasn't this guy a rapist? smileydcheese Sep 2012 #168
Yes, one woman has accused him of raping her and is going through with the prosecution. joshcryer Sep 2012 #170
No charges have been filed. JackRiddler Sep 2012 #172
Because Assange has to be interviewed before charges can be file. hack89 Sep 2012 #173
Still trying I see. No matter how many facts you are presented with, you still insist sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #174
Yep, he skipped town the day before his interview. joshcryer Sep 2012 #177
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Assange to UN: 'It is tim...»Reply #126