If you have "no place to go," come here!

Assange: Possible WikiLeaks Shutdown

editor_u's picture


Huffington Post (article by Raphael G. Satter)

San Francisco Gate (article by John F. Burns of the New York Times)


okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

But maybe the fact that they haven't publicly broken with Shitheel McRapeyface might have something to do with their fundraising difficulties? Just a bit?

Just a reminder, this is how Assange himself described one of these events:

[Witness AA] The appellant [Assange]'s physical advances were initially welcomed but then it felt awkward since he was "rough and impatient" … They lay down in bed. AA was lying on her back and Assange was on top of her … AA felt that Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina directly, which she did not want since he was not wearing a condom … She did not articulate this. Instead she therefore tried to turn her hips and squeeze her legs together in order to avoid a penetration … AA tried several times to reach for a condom, which Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without using a condom. AA says that she felt about to cry since she was held down and could not reach a condom and felt this could end badly.
[Witness SW] They fell asleep and she woke up by his penetrating her. She immediately asked if he was wearing anything. He answered: "You." She said: "You better not have HIV." He said: "Of course not." She may have been upset, but she clearly consented to its [the sexual encounter's] continuation and that is a central consideration.

Pretty nauseating huh? I'm sorry, even if she was, I pretty sure no matter how good "a CIA operative" this woman was, she wasn't good enough to get him to describe what happened in this way, through his lawyer, in court, if it this description isn't true. So maybe, just maybe, if they dumped him, they might have more success in fundraising the very important work they did, untainted by this douchenoodle.

Just sayin'.

Submitted by JuliaWilliams on

"Assange's lawyer described the sexual encounters with the two witnesses as follows, based on their statements "

Just sayin'

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

They are conceding those facts based on the victims statements. Otherwise they would contest them straight out, as in "My client denies the complainant's description of these events totally. We believe these charges are completly fictitious and false and there is no proof at all otherwise".

If that is the case, why didn't his lawyers say that?

Even if they weren't conceding the facts (and they are) don't you find their legal reasoning itself repellent? Do you not see how others would? Their legal reasoning is "sure, she said before she fell asleep that she didn't want to have unsafe sex, but after he put it to her when she was asleep, she didn't seem to mind when she woke up.". All that's missing is the "bitch be stupid and wanted it anyways".

No, as the old construction goes, two things can be true, Assange is an asshole and Wikileaks does important work. See how easy that is?

Submitted by JuliaWilliams on

allegations without proof. Whether that was a "stipulation" is very unclear, since nowhere is the direct link to the statement given. I feel free to reserve judgement until all the facts are out, what lawyers and witnesses say may be interpreted and twisted for any number of reasons. Even "testimony" can be , shall we say, "misleading", as in the case of WMDs in Iraq, etc. Assange may well be the creep you say he is, but the fact remains that he is a very controversial figure, and there may be many agendas at work here.

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

All I did was give an additional reason.

Anyway, Yes, yes, yes. As she says, there may be like three people on earth who aren't/weren't aware of the timing. But in the same way that just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you, just because they are out to get you, doesn't mean you aren't guilty.

And note, I'm not saying he is or isn't guilty, just that it's pretty obvious he's a sexist douchebag, and his defenders (and defense attorney) aren't/haven't doing him any favors. Then again, Mr. "Saudi Arabia of Feminism" hasn't done himself any favors either.

But then, Correntewire has obviously been here before.