Wednesday, September 23, 2020

Bad faith actor

Tweet (John Pilger):
"Today, at the Julian #Assange trial, the prosecutor James Lewis (ex SAS) stooped low. In denigrating the expert evidence of Professor Michael Kopelman, he suggested Julian was exaggerating a suicidal despair should Lewis, America's man, succeed in getting him to Trump's hell."
"US Prosecution Accuses Assange of Exaggerating Symptoms of Depression" (Gosztola).

"The US Is Using the Guardian to Justify Jailing Assange for Life. Why Is the Paper So Silent?" (Cook) (with lots of embarrassing tweets from 'journalists'):
"The corporate media’s indifference to Assange’s trial hints at the fact that it is actually doing very little of the sort of journalism that threatens corporate and state interests and that challenges real power. It won’t suffer Assange’s fate because, as we shall see, it doesn’t attempt to do the kind of journalism Assange and his Wikileaks organisation specialise in. 
The indifference suggests rather starkly that the primary role of the corporate media – aside from its roles in selling us advertising and keeping us pacified through entertainment and consumerism – is to serve as an arena in which rival centres of power within the establishment fight for their narrow interests, settling scores with each other, reinforcing narratives that benefit them, and spreading disinformation against their competitors. On this battlefield, the public are mostly spectators, with our interests only marginally affected by the outcome."
"The undeclared role of the corporate media, dependent on corporate owners and corporate advertising, is to serve as gatekeeper, deciding which truths should be revealed in the “public interest”, and which whistleblowers will be allowed to disseminate which secrets in their possession. The Wikileaks model threatened to expose that gatekeeping role, and make clearer that the criterion used by corporate media for publication was less “public interest” than “corporate interest”."
"So how to explain the Guardian’s silence?
The book by Leigh and Harding, WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy, made a lot of money for the Guardian and its authors by hurriedly cashing in on the early notoriety around Assange and Wikileaks. But the problem today is that the Guardian has precisely no interest in drawing attention to the book outside the confines of a repressive courtroom. Indeed, were the book to be subjected to any serious scrutiny, it might now look like an embarrassing, journalistic fraud.
The two authors used the book not only to vent their personal animosity towards Assange – in part because he refused to let them write his official biography – but also to divulge a complex password entrusted to Leigh by Assange that provided access to an online cache of encrypted documents. That egregious mistake by the Guardian opened the door for every security service in the world to break into the file, as well as other files once they could crack Assange’s sophisticated formula for devising passwords.
Much of the furore about Assange’s supposed failure to protect names in the leaked documents published by Assange – now at the heart of the extradition case – stems from Leigh’s much-obscured role in sabotaging Wikileaks’ work. Assange was forced into a damage limitation operation because of Leigh’s incompetence, forcing him to hurriedly publish files so that anyone worried they had been named in the documents could know before hostile security services identified them."
In case you were wondering if ((())) are involved:  "Explosive Evidence from Trump Insider: Assange Dragged from Embassy “on the Orders of the President”" (Tiernan/Scripps) (on Schwartz):
"Fairbanks’ testimony provides insight into the criminal underworld surrounding the White House. After Trump fires National Security Adviser John Bolton and Grenell’s name is floated as a replacement, Fairbanks tweets about his involvement in Assange’s arrest, which elicits a “frantic” call from Schwartz.
“He was ranting and raving that he could go to jail and that I was tweeting ‘classified information’… Schwartz informed me that in coordinating for Assange to be removed from the embassy, Grenell had done so on ‘direct orders from the president’” and that “other persons who Schwartz said might also be affected included individuals who he described as ‘lifelong friends’.” 
These individuals included Grenell and Las Vegas Sands boss and long-time Trump ally Sheldon Adelson."
Gosztola day 12.

Max Blumenthal tweets on the conflict of interest of 'journalists' who thus show an extreme disinterest in the CIA spying on Assange.

"“Justice” Department Fighting to Hide Records of FBI’s Protection of Epstein" (Daily Stormer).

"After protest, Zoom will not host S.F. State event featuring Leila Khaled" (Greschler).  That's (((protest))).  Essentially, more Khancel Khulture.  The Lawfare mob is making it explicit:
"“[A]ll communications platforms have been put on notice: block terrorism and cancel anti-Semitism, or you will be canceled,” read a statement from the Lawfare Project, a New York-based legal fund that helped organize the protest. “Today, we see the power of minority communities standing together.” 
The main organizer, End Jew Hatred, which describes itself as “a grassroots movement centering on Jewish liberation,” brought together a number of national Jewish groups for support, including the Lawfare Project, San Diego-based antisemitism educational nonprofit Shield of David and the network of pro-Israel youth groups Club Z."
blog comments powered by Disqus