RISK: A Film by Laura Poitras
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=021PuzHG_YA https://www.youtube.com/results?q=risk+poitras&sp=CAI%= infohash: 4D0FA67D82682390D7920E1930B02CB45B3CAB96
On 05/29/2017 05:41 PM, grarpamp wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=021PuzHG_YA https://www.youtube.com/results?q=risk+poitras&sp=CAI%= infohash: 4D0FA67D82682390D7920E1930B02CB45B3CAB96
Most BitTorrent clients will not accept a naked infohash, so you may need this instead: magnet:?xt=urn:btih:4d0fa67d82682390d7920e1930b02cb45b3cab96&dn=Risk%20-%20Wikileaks%20Assange%20Applebaum%20-%20Laura%20Poitras%202016.mp4 though everything after '&dn=' will be picked up when the metadata is downloaded from the existing peers. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com
On 05/29/2017 04:26 PM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
On 05/29/2017 05:41 PM, grarpamp wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=021PuzHG_YA https://www.youtube.com/results?q=risk+poitras&sp=CAI%= infohash: 4D0FA67D82682390D7920E1930B02CB45B3CAB96 Most BitTorrent clients will not accept a naked infohash, so you may need this instead:
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:4d0fa67d82682390d7920e1930b02cb45b3cab96&dn=Risk%20-%20Wikileaks%20Assange%20Applebaum%20-%20Laura%20Poitras%202016.mp4
though everything after '&dn=' will be picked up when the metadata is downloaded from the existing peers.
Just fyi Deluge worked with the raw infohash. Rr
On Mon, 29 May 2017 18:41:30 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=021PuzHG_YA https://www.youtube.com/results?q=risk+poitras&sp=CAI%= infohash: 4D0FA67D82682390D7920E1930B02CB45B3CAB96
Looks like a new kind of 'documentary'. The conent-free documentary. Poitras could have 'documented' that one of her 'sponsors' is the american fascist corporation ebay-paypal. She could have also documented that tor is owned by the pentagon. But at least she documented the fact that appelbaum was involved in the so called 'arab spring' - a series of coups or 'regime changes' engineered by the US govt. Regarding Assange, it would be interesting to know who helps him and wikileaks. It's hard to believe that Assange, Harrison and a few more people can stand against the US nazi state and their accomplices on their own.
On Mon, 29 May 2017 18:41:30 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=021PuzHG_YA https://www.youtube.com/results?q=risk+poitras&sp=CAI%= infohash: 4D0FA67D82682390D7920E1930B02CB45B3CAB96
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/05/11/risk-m11.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/05/19/risk-m19.html
On Mon, 29 May 2017 18:41:30 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=021PuzHG_YA https://www.youtube.com/results?q=risk+poitras&sp=CAI%= infohash: 4D0FA67D82682390D7920E1930B02CB45B3CAB96
"...Poitras made significant changes in the film over the past year (since a screening at the 2016 Cannes film festival). According to various accounts, it was “a much more straightforward, positive portrayal of WikiLeaks and Assange,” an “activist documentary” that made “an overwhelming case for Assange as a political prisoner.” But this was prior to the exposure of the Democratic Party’s corrupt inner workings by WikiLeaks and claims that the Russians were involved, supposedly to aid Donald Trump. As Slate notes, “Subsequently, Poitras spent months revising her film for release this Friday.” These facts alone should alert the reader to much of what he or she needs to know. Poitras has accommodated herself in part to the hysteria, driven by the Democratic Party hierarchy, over alleged Russian interference in the US elections. That would be bad enough, but in addition and connected to that, the filmmaker has essentially bowed to the pressure of the incessant and reactionary claims that Assange is a “sexual predator.” " et cetera
On May 30, 2017, at 4:36 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2017 18:41:30 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=021PuzHG_YA https://www.youtube.com/results?q=risk+poitras&sp=CAI%= infohash: 4D0FA67D82682390D7920E1930B02CB45B3CAB96
"...Poitras made significant changes in the film over the past year (since a screening at the 2016 Cannes film festival). According to various accounts, it was “a much more straightforward, positive portrayal of WikiLeaks and Assange,” an “activist documentary” that made “an overwhelming case for Assange as a political prisoner.”
But this was prior to the exposure of the Democratic Party’s corrupt inner workings by WikiLeaks and claims that the Russians were involved, supposedly to aid Donald Trump. As Slate notes, “Subsequently, Poitras spent months revising her film for release this Friday.”
These facts alone should alert the reader to much of what he or she needs to know. Poitras has accommodated herself in part to the hysteria, driven by the Democratic Party hierarchy, over alleged Russian interference in the US elections.
That would be bad enough, but in addition and connected to that, the filmmaker has essentially bowed to the pressure of the incessant and reactionary claims that Assange is a “sexual predator.” "
et cetera
It would obviously be fascinating to get a copy of the Cannes cut. I wonder if it will see the light of day (my guess is not, but who knows)
On Wed, 31 May 2017 07:39:39 -0400 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
On May 30, 2017, at 4:36 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2017 18:41:30 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=021PuzHG_YA https://www.youtube.com/results?q=risk+poitras&sp=CAI%= infohash: 4D0FA67D82682390D7920E1930B02CB45B3CAB96
It would obviously be fascinating to get a copy of the Cannes cut. I wonder if it will see the light of day (my guess is not, but who knows)
Yeah, it would be interesting. The 'official' version is really weak. Anyway, we should all pool our money and write showtime a check to pay for their gallant efforts. Figure on the check? $0.
On 05/31/2017 07:39 AM, John Newman wrote:
On May 30, 2017, at 4:36 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2017 18:41:30 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=021PuzHG_YA https://www.youtube.com/results?q=risk+poitras&sp=CAI%= infohash: 4D0FA67D82682390D7920E1930B02CB45B3CAB96
"...Poitras made significant changes in the film over the past year (since a screening at the 2016 Cannes film festival). According to various accounts, it was “a much more straightforward, positive portrayal of WikiLeaks and Assange,” an “activist documentary” that made “an overwhelming case for Assange as a political prisoner.”
But this was prior to the exposure of the Democratic Party’s corrupt inner workings by WikiLeaks and claims that the Russians were involved, supposedly to aid Donald Trump. As Slate notes, “Subsequently, Poitras spent months revising her film for release this Friday.”
These facts alone should alert the reader to much of what he or she needs to know. Poitras has accommodated herself in part to the hysteria, driven by the Democratic Party hierarchy, over alleged Russian interference in the US elections.
That would be bad enough, but in addition and connected to that, the filmmaker has essentially bowed to the pressure of the incessant and reactionary claims that Assange is a “sexual predator.” "
et cetera
It would obviously be fascinating to get a copy of the Cannes cut. I wonder if it will see the light of day (my guess is not, but who knows)
Not that i really care on a deep level about Russia-Trump machinations. In the end it is just another powerful leader playing power games. I would love to see what Assange has on Trump. I expect he will release it when it is most damaging. That seems to be what he does. --- M
It's interesting though: in the film, you hear him say that there doesn't seem to be much dirt on Trump. Of course, that was years ago so that could have changed. I suspect there might not be a lot of backroom crap with Trump to disclose. He's a pretty public sleazebag. 02.06.2017, 14:12, "Marina Brown" <catskillmarina@gmail.com>:
On 05/31/2017 07:39 AM, John Newman wrote:
On May 30, 2017, at 4:36 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2017 18:41:30 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=021PuzHG_YA https://www.youtube.com/results?q=risk+poitras&sp=CAI%= infohash: 4D0FA67D82682390D7920E1930B02CB45B3CAB96
"...Poitras made significant changes in the film over the past year (since a screening at the 2016 Cannes film festival). According to various accounts, it was “a much more straightforward, positive portrayal of WikiLeaks and Assange,” an “activist documentary” that made “an overwhelming case for Assange as a political prisoner.”
But this was prior to the exposure of the Democratic Party’s corrupt inner workings by WikiLeaks and claims that the Russians were involved, supposedly to aid Donald Trump. As Slate notes, “Subsequently, Poitras spent months revising her film for release this Friday.”
These facts alone should alert the reader to much of what he or she needs to know. Poitras has accommodated herself in part to the hysteria, driven by the Democratic Party hierarchy, over alleged Russian interference in the US elections.
That would be bad enough, but in addition and connected to that, the filmmaker has essentially bowed to the pressure of the incessant and reactionary claims that Assange is a “sexual predator.” "
et cetera
It would obviously be fascinating to get a copy of the Cannes cut. I wonder if it will see the light of day (my guess is not, but who knows)
Not that i really care on a deep level about Russia-Trump machinations. In the end it is just another powerful leader playing power games.
I would love to see what Assange has on Trump. I expect he will release it when it is most damaging. That seems to be what he does.
--- M
On 06/02/2017 02:14 PM, Anthony Papillion wrote:
It's interesting though: in the film, you hear him say that there doesn't seem to be much dirt on Trump. Of course, that was years ago so that could have changed. I suspect there might not be a lot of backroom crap with Trump to disclose. He's a pretty public sleazebag.
That's surprising. I used to live in NJ. It seemed like EVERYONE had a story about how Trump ripped them off or flew his helicopter recklessly. I don't know how verifiable the stories were but you sure heard them a lot living in NJ in the 90's.
02.06.2017, 14:12, "Marina Brown" <catskillmarina@gmail.com>:
On 05/31/2017 07:39 AM, John Newman wrote:
On May 30, 2017, at 4:36 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2017 18:41:30 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=021PuzHG_YA https://www.youtube.com/results?q=risk+poitras&sp=CAI%= infohash: 4D0FA67D82682390D7920E1930B02CB45B3CAB96
"...Poitras made significant changes in the film over the past year (since a screening at the 2016 Cannes film festival). According to various accounts, it was “a much more straightforward, positive portrayal of WikiLeaks and Assange,” an “activist documentary” that made “an overwhelming case for Assange as a political prisoner.”
But this was prior to the exposure of the Democratic Party’s corrupt inner workings by WikiLeaks and claims that the Russians were involved, supposedly to aid Donald Trump. As Slate notes, “Subsequently, Poitras spent months revising her film for release this Friday.”
These facts alone should alert the reader to much of what he or she needs to know. Poitras has accommodated herself in part to the hysteria, driven by the Democratic Party hierarchy, over alleged Russian interference in the US elections.
That would be bad enough, but in addition and connected to that, the filmmaker has essentially bowed to the pressure of the incessant and reactionary claims that Assange is a “sexual predator.” "
et cetera
It would obviously be fascinating to get a copy of the Cannes cut. I wonder if it will see the light of day (my guess is not, but who knows)
Not that i really care on a deep level about Russia-Trump machinations. In the end it is just another powerful leader playing power games.
I would love to see what Assange has on Trump. I expect he will release it when it is most damaging. That seems to be what he does.
--- M
On 06/02/2017 11:14 AM, Anthony Papillion wrote:
It's interesting though: in the film, you hear him say that there doesn't seem to be much dirt on Trump.
Donald Trump simply doesn't care about 'dirt' on him. It was well-known fact he was a scumbag long before he ever ran for president and he was elected anyway. Gotta tell 'ya something about the general intelligence of the typical American voter. TIME Magazine: Neuroscience You Now Have a Shorter Attention Span Than a Goldfish http://time.com/3858309/attention-spans-goldfish/ Rr
It's interesting though: in the film, you hear him say that there doesn't seem to be much dirt on Trump. Of course, that was years ago so that could have changed. I suspect there might not be a lot of backroom crap with Trump to disclose. He's a pretty public sleazebag.
02.06.2017, 14:12, "Marina Brown" <catskillmarina@gmail.com>:
On 05/31/2017 07:39 AM, John Newman wrote:
On May 30, 2017, at 4:36 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2017 18:41:30 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=021PuzHG_YA https://www.youtube.com/results?q=risk+poitras&sp=CAI%= infohash: 4D0FA67D82682390D7920E1930B02CB45B3CAB96 "...Poitras made significant changes in the film over the past year (since a screening at the 2016 Cannes film festival). According to various accounts, it was “a much more straightforward, positive portrayal of WikiLeaks and Assange,” an “activist documentary” that made “an overwhelming case for Assange as a political prisoner.”
But this was prior to the exposure of the Democratic Party’s corrupt inner workings by WikiLeaks and claims that the Russians were involved, supposedly to aid Donald Trump. As Slate notes, “Subsequently, Poitras spent months revising her film for release this Friday.”
These facts alone should alert the reader to much of what he or she needs to know. Poitras has accommodated herself in part to the hysteria, driven by the Democratic Party hierarchy, over alleged Russian interference in the US elections.
That would be bad enough, but in addition and connected to that, the filmmaker has essentially bowed to the pressure of the incessant and reactionary claims that Assange is a “sexual predator.” "
et cetera It would obviously be fascinating to get a copy of the Cannes cut. I wonder if it will see the light of day (my guess is not, but who knows) Not that i really care on a deep level about Russia-Trump machinations. In the end it is just another powerful leader playing power games.
I would love to see what Assange has on Trump. I expect he will release it when it is most damaging. That seems to be what he does.
--- M
On 05/29/2017 06:41 PM, grarpamp wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=021PuzHG_YA https://www.youtube.com/results?q=risk+poitras&sp=CAI%= infohash: 4D0FA67D82682390D7920E1930B02CB45B3CAB96
My take-away from having just watched the film: In Risk, Poitras burns Jacob Applebaum by presenting accusations against him with no mention of the content or context of those accusations. Nor is there any mention of dissenting voices from within the TOR Project itself regarding the libelous JakeGate narrative, or the toxic TOR Project workplace environment. In the wake of the organized online assault against Applebaum led by fellow employees, the TOR Project has replaced its board of directors and moved offices across the country in an apparent effort to clean house. In the film, Poitras states that she has personal knowledge confirming that Applebaum is a Bad Person, with no mention of specific incidents or sources: She essentially says that she has heard gossip. Apparently that's all the proof a fearless crusading journalist needs. Maybe she has a problem with the Feminist Thing, Male Pigs etc.; I also noted that the film makes no mention of the alleged victim of Julian Assange who has very publicly stated that he did not assault her in any way. In the film, Poitras fully endorses and actively propagandizes the Russian Hacking narrative. She could not have produced a more persuasive Public Information announcement if it had been written and directed by whatever compartments at CIA and DOJ are responsible to sell it to the public. The very newsworthy and /anomalous/ $20k reward offered by Assange for information leading to the arrest and conviction of whoever shot Seth Rich in the back is not mentioned in the film. In this film Poitras does not question the identity of the DNC leaker; the Director of the FBI have spoken and that's good enough for her, rebel outsider that she is. In Risk, The Intercept and its star attractions maintain their brand consistency, pretending to advocate for transparency with regard to crimes in high places. This image is somewhat at odds with the fact that they actually "intercept" leaked data before it reaches the public and put it under lock and key: Only a small fraction of the documents they have been handed have ever been published. Poitras is anything but a disinterested third party with regard to reporting on Wikileaks: They are her business rivals. Greewald & Co. are being paid /very/ well to reduce the impact of leaked US/NATO/FVEYE and related documents on the organizations whose criminal actions they expose. They publish only enough bits and pieces to establish public credibility as fearless crusading journalists, and promote NeoLiberal propaganda narratives to a faithful U.S. audience of self-identifying Progressive Liberals. Sam Esmail, creator of Mr. Robot, is listed as an executive producer in the closing credits of Risk. Small world innit? I would love to have been a fly on the wall... :o)
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 08:30:00PM -0400, Steve Kinney wrote:
On 05/29/2017 06:41 PM, grarpamp wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=021PuzHG_YA https://www.youtube.com/results?q=risk+poitras&sp=CAI%= infohash: 4D0FA67D82682390D7920E1930B02CB45B3CAB96
My take-away from having just watched the film:
In Risk, Poitras burns Jacob Applebaum by presenting accusations against him with no mention of the content or context of those accusations. Nor is there any mention of dissenting voices from within the TOR Project itself regarding the libelous JakeGate narrative, or the toxic TOR Project workplace environment. In the wake of the organized online assault against Applebaum led by fellow employees, the TOR Project has replaced its board of directors and moved offices across the country in an apparent effort to clean house.
In the film, Poitras states that she has personal knowledge confirming that Applebaum is a Bad Person, with no mention of specific incidents or sources: She essentially says that she has heard gossip. Apparently that's all the proof a fearless crusading journalist needs. Maybe she has a problem with the Feminist Thing, Male Pigs etc.; I also noted that the film makes no mention of the alleged victim of Julian Assange who has very publicly stated that he did not assault her in any way.
Here in Australia, we have what are called CTOs or Community Treatment Orders, which can vary from "must present self to psychiatrists regularly and must voluntarily consume oral psychotropic medication (or be subject to involuntary incarceration in a "psychiatric hostpital"", to involuntary "depot" psychotropic medication injections which last a full two weeks before another involuntary depot is applied to your physical body. Now the most interesting factoid arose yesterday - risk to ones (personal) reputation was enough in a recent case for the "Doctor" presiding over this person I supported, to stop that person from continuing their journey that day to work, and further, to be thereafter subject to immediate involuntary depot psychotropic injection - this person presented a "scattered mental state and was physically unkept". SO, Poitras is likely to have presented herself to the outside world in a physically unkempt way, and by heeding and subsequently spouting baseless rumours, she is certainly damaging her personal reputation, significantly so. It is abundantly clear that Laura Poitras is a psychiatric basket case who is a great danger to her personal reputation, and must therefore be immediately put on "depot" psychiatric medication in order to normalise her mental state. :)
In the film, Poitras fully endorses and actively propagandizes the Russian Hacking narrative. She could not have produced a more persuasive Public Information announcement if it had been written and directed by whatever compartments at CIA and DOJ are responsible to sell it to the public.
More evidence of in fact, severe personal reputation damage.
The very newsworthy and /anomalous/ $20k reward offered by Assange for information leading to the arrest and conviction of whoever shot Seth Rich in the back is not mentioned in the film. In this film Poitras does not question the identity of the DNC leaker; the Director of the FBI have spoken and that's good enough for her, rebel outsider that she is.
FBI communication evidences a clear disconnect with her reality.
In Risk, The Intercept and its star attractions maintain their brand consistency, pretending to advocate for transparency with regard to crimes in high places. This image is somewhat at odds with the fact that they actually "intercept" leaked data before it reaches the public and put it under lock and key: Only a small fraction of the documents they have been handed have ever been published.
Inability to distinguish facts (from propaganda) - a decided mentally problematic state.
Poitras is anything but a disinterested third party with regard to reporting on Wikileaks: They are her business rivals. Greewald & Co. are being paid /very/ well to reduce the impact of leaked US/NATO/FVEYE and related documents on the organizations whose criminal actions they expose. They publish only enough bits and pieces to establish public credibility as fearless crusading journalists, and promote NeoLiberal propaganda narratives to a faithful U.S. audience of self-identifying Progressive Liberals.
And she is evidently "lacking self awareness of her mental condition". Sounds like Laura Poitras is a pretty severe and quite concerning case - and certainly a great danger to her personal reputation. Case closed, lock her up. :)
Sam Esmail, creator of Mr. Robot, is listed as an executive producer in the closing credits of Risk. Small world innit? I would love to have been a fly on the wall...
:o)
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-laura-poitras-risk-2017... Perspective: With Laura Poitras' re-cut 'Risk,' a director controversially changes her mind about Julian Assange By Steven Zeitchik Contact Reporter May 6 2017 3:25 AM New York The story of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been as compelling and Shakespearean as any in modern media. But the tale of the person making a documentary about him — by his side when he called the State Department about a diplomatic-cable dump, filming him don a disguise in a London hotel room before he fled to the Ecuadorean Embassy — may be even stranger and more interesting. It’s the kind of story that raises a lot of questions, not all of them ones the filmmaker likely intended to raise. Here’s how it unfolded. Six years ago, Oscar-winning documentarian Laura Poitras began filming Assange for a project she would eventually title “Risk.” (Her 2014 hit “Citizenfour,” about Edward Snowden, actually grew out of it.). She first crafted the Assange material into an episodic series, showing some footage at the 2015 New York Film Festival. Then, at Cannes a year ago, she premiered a complete film — an up-close, lionizing portrait of Assange, occasionally depicting the WikiLeaks founder as a blowhard but ultimately presenting him as a maverick hero. This weekend, "Risk” finally arrived in theaters. But the movie you will see at the cineplex is very different from the Cannes version of the film — which was so favorable toward the WikiLeaks founder that, at a glittery post-screening reception, Assange deputy Sarah Harrison attended in full celebratory mode. A number of key changes jump out. A heroic opening in which Assange buttonholes State Department lawyers has been cut down; instead the film now essentially begins (and ends) with an interview that reveals his narcissism. There are added snippets of Assange talking about the Swedish women who’ve accused him of sexual assault (what led to his five-year embassy stay) with contempt. In general, Assange is depicted as more than just prickly — he is seen as highly imperious, at times pushing around staffers, other times making troubling comments about women. But the biggest switch is the addition of Poitras' voice, via periodic readings from her production journal from the shoot, raising doubts about Assange. What had been a favorable portrait with no commentary is now a less favorable portrait with amplified skeptical commentary. “I didn’t trust him,” is the gist of some of these voice-overs. Not only do we see Assange in a far less flattering light than we did in the previous version of "Risk," but we learn that Poitras didn’t have such fuzzy feelings toward him all along. What in the name of the Freedom of Information Act is going on? In a long conversation with Poitras earlier this week, a day after the new cut screened at a Whitney Museum premiere, she acknowledged she had made a “tougher, darker film.” So what happened between the Cannes screening a year ago and now to make her take a more critical view of Assange? The most obvious explanation — the one that many filmgoers heading to the ArcLight this weekend might assume — is that it was the election. Assange, of course, took an activist role in the 2016 campaign, publishing the hacked emails of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta. Needless to say, the source of those emails remains a matter of charged debate. (At a Senate hearing this week, FBI director James Comey called WikiLeaks “intelligence porn.) That publishing decision — and comments in Assange's Twitter feed that implied he relished his role — has been enough to sway even some sympathizers against him. But that’s not actually what bothered Poitras. She includes the election development in the new cut as a kind of final chapter. Yet there is not much questioning of the ethics of Assange’s moves. In fact, when asked whether Assange’s role in the election caused her to be harder on him, she demurred. “That wasn’t really it,” she said, then defended him with a common pro-WikiLeaks refrain — that he was less trying to bring down Clinton or even influence the election than publish whatever he could, and that he would have released Donald Trump’s tax returns if he had them too. But if it wasn’t the Podesta emails, what tipped her over the edge? “His manner,” she said, “was new to me.” Wait. Surely someone who’d known Assange for so many years, who’d been in the room with him so many times, could not have been surprised by this behavior? From 2011 to 2015 he was all good, but in 2016 he finally went over the edge? In a word, yes. Right before the Cannes screening, Assange had a long phone exchange with Poitras. (This is covered briefly in the film but she opened up about it more in the interview.) His level of upset, particularly over the inclusion of the Swedes’ accusations, was extreme. More than extreme. Irrational. And threatening. Poitras, on the record in the interview, called it "intense pressure." It's clear she was putting it mildly. She decided soon after to re-cut the film. "I at first didn't want to put myself in the movie,“ Poitras said, noting her observational style of filmmaking. “But when I went back I wanted to make a film that was honest. The production journal emerged because I felt I could bring [new] insight.” Brenda Coughlin, Poitras’ frequent collaborator and a producer on this film, said that the pre-Cannes pressure from Assange made filmmakers look at all the old footage with fresh eyes. "You see everything differently when something like that happens," she told me. “Laura’s feelings evolved.” But that still leaves plenty of smoke around these embers. The production journal bits aren’t saying Poitras changed her mind after the Cannes call. She was telling us she was skeptical all along. If Poitras knew all these things then, why did she conceal her “I don’t trust him” feelings in the earlier version of the film? Was she too close to the subject to be critical? Or was she such a believer in the politics that she downplayed her doubts, not wanting to jeopardize the greater cause? There’s no way to know. And she didn’t explain when asked. She simply repeated that she didn’t like putting herself in her films. But there are other ways to convey skepticism besides voiceover, even in observational filmmaking. Ideology, certainly, is tough to get away from as an animating force here. "Risk” takes the question that most Americans would say is the most polarizing aspect of this affair — is the wholesale publication of leaked or classified material journalism? — and downplays it, just kind of assuming that the answer is yes. It instead gets caught up in a secondary question: Is the man doing the publication a good or bad human being? But Assange is a means, not an end. It’s like writing an essay on the morality of nuclear weapons and spending most of it parsing the chemical properties of plutonium. Documentarians should be allowed the luxury to revisit their subjects. They deal with fast-moving stories. They have to finish a film, and the news keeps going. Anyone who’s ever made or written about a documentary understands that. Poitras deserves credit for doing this — for her willingness to examine what she is admitting was her own naivete, at least when it came to Assange’s character. But what makes it tougher to swallow is that she didn’t revisit the material by making a new movie, or leaving the old movie as is and updating it, the way many other journalists would do. Nor did she walk away without distributing the film, as she contemplated doing. She revisited by painting over the original, as if that naivete never existed in the first place. Chunks of the original are still there, of course. But like the divorced guy who’s covered up some of the wedding video with a football game, the spirit of the Cannes film is gone. There’s one more complicating factor. In the new “Risk,” Poitras reveals she had a brief romantic relationship with one of the movie’s subjects: Jacob Appelbaum, an Assange acolyte and a leader in the hacker and WikiLeaks community. The disclosure was not made in the first film. But several weeks after the Cannes screening, news of it, and of multiple allegations of sexual harassment against Appelbaum, came to light. These developments are handled quickly but cleanly in the new film, at the point when they make sense chronologically: Poitras discloses her relationship, putting it in the context of the larger scandal surrounding Appelbaum. Yes, critics would be forgiven for asking whether what we see is undermined by her romantic relationship with a subject. In her defense, Poitras’ reputation and integrity have always been stellar, and the relationship, she said when I asked, happened at least after the shooting part of production. But Poitras’ involvement with someone in her movie reinforces an uncomfortable impression about the work — reinforces, really, the same impression all these other questions leave. When it comes to the controversial subjects of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, the director may simply be too close to the flame.
One speaker of a few truths regarding this thread... Jacob Appelbaum at the Berlin Logan CIJ Symposium https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJValv4YQcY
Other fine speakers... J Assange https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akqT_W7rFK0 S Harrison https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mFhqsHZnYE Juice Rap News https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5b5W_U8RBDI M Gutbug https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6DlEMVYtjI
https://cpj.org/blog/2017/05/how-us-espionage-act-can-be-used-against-journa... youtube: HqTlN_kGdLo Earlier this week, Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly joked about Trump using a saber on the press and U.S. Senator Jim Risch told CNN the press should be questioning the Washington Post about its sources. Then, on May 16, The New York Times reported that President Donald Trump allegedly asked former FBI director James Comey to consider putting journalists in prison for publishing classified information. If the request, which is allegedly detailed in a memo from Comey, is true it represents a serious risk to reporters, according to First Amendment attorneys. The idea that journalists could be jailed in the U.S. for doing their job is not new. Under the George W. Bush administration, New York Times reporter Judith Miller spent 85 days in jail on contempt of court charges for refusing to testify about the identity of a source. The Obama administration prosecuted more individuals for leaking classified information than any other U.S. president and used the threat of prison in its unsuccessful seven-year battle to compel New York Times reporter James Risen to testify about his sources. While journalists have been caught up in prosecutions of leakers, a move to directly target and jail them would be a marked change for the government. The likelihood of journalists in the U.S. being imprisoned for publishing classified information has not been legally tested, but lawyers point out that sections of U.S. law could expose them to prosecution. James Goodale, who represented The New York Times in the landmark libel suit New York Times v. Sullivan and in the Pentagon Papers case, told CPJ that a journalist could be charged under the Espionage Act for conspiring with a source to publish classified information. "I have thought from the moment [Trump] became president that the greatest threat to the free press is that he and his attorney general would try to jail reporters," Goodale, author of Fighting for the Press: The Inside Story of the Pentagon Papers and Other Battles, said. [EDITOR'S NOTE: Goodale is a senior adviser to CPJ and former chair of its board.] The Espionage Act of 1917, passed shortly after the U.S. entered World War One, criminalizes the disclosure of classified information. Since 1971 it has been used to charge at least 12 government workers who shared classified information with journalists (eight of those cases occurred under Obama) but it has never been used to directly prosecute a journalist. "The Espionage Act is 100 years old this year and remains what Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan referred to as a 'singularly opaque document.' That's the problem. It could be used by an administration angry enough at the press to seek to criminalize routine and often societally beneficial revelations of governmental misconduct," Floyd Abrams, who represented the New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case, said in an email to CPJ. He called Trump's alleged statement "unsurprising but deeply disturbing." The New York Times report on Trump's alleged statement did not include how Comey responded. In March however, a House Intelligence Committee Hearing questioned Comey on his views of prosecuting journalists for publishing classified leaks. "That's a harder question, as to whether a reporter incurs criminal liability by publishing classified information, and one probably beyond my ken," Comey said in response to the question by Rep. Trey Gowdy. "I'm not aware of any [exception protecting reporters] carved out in the statute, but I don't think a reporter has been prosecuted in my lifetime." The idea that journalists could be charged alongside leakers has some precedent. In 2010, the FBI seized Fox News reporter James Rosen's email records in a 2010 Espionage Act case against a state department employee accused of leaking information about North Korea. The reporter was named as a co-conspirator in the FBI's affidavit in support of the court order, but the Justice Department never formally indicted him, according to reports. Former Attorney General Eric Holder later issued guidelines that make it harder, though not impossible, for the Department of Justice to subpoena journalists' records. Any prosecution would have to go through the Justice Department, but Attorney General Jeff Sessions has not taken a vocal stand in defense of press freedom. During his Senate Judiciary hearing, Sessions said that he was unsure if he would commit to following the Justice Department guidelines for subpoenaing reporters. Last month he told reporters that arresting Julian Assange is "a priority." When CNN anchor Kate Bolduan asked Sessions whether people should be concerned that this would open the door for prosecutions against CNN and The New York Times, Sessions responded, "that's speculative and I'm not able to comment." "The president cannot jail journalists but the Attorney General is in a position to jail journalists, and I think we know a bit the general direction from which he's coming because he said his priority is to prosecute WikiLeaks," said Goodale, who added that any prosecution of WikiLeaks would create a dangerous precedent for publishers that report on classified documents, and would make it easier to prosecute reporters in the future. "The greatest danger the press has is a successful prosecution of WikiLeaks in which the attorney general is able to prove that there is a conspiracy between WikiLeaks and its sources...I don't get much pleasure defending [Assange] but functionally what he does is get information published," Goodale said. Checks and balances are in place that should make it harder for the government to prosecute journalists. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, an organization dedicated to providing legal assistance to journalists, said in a statement this week, "No president gets to jail journalists. Reporters are protected by judges and juries, by a congress that relies on them to stay informed, and by a Justice Department that for decades has honored the role of a free press by spurning prosecutions of journalists for publishing leaks of classified information." The First Amendment attorneys with whom CPJ spoke said they are cautiously optimistic that even if a journalist were prosecuted and convicted, a higher court could overturn the ruling. "There is little case law on the subject precisely because no president has sought to use it in the manner adverted to by President Trump. The arguments against reading the statute in the fashion referred to by the president are strong and I think would likely prevail," said Abrams. Both attorneys cautioned however, that a victory for press freedom is far from certain. "The judges may deep-six the theory [that reporters can be prosecuted under the Espionage Act], and I hope they would on the basis of the First Amendment, but the risk is that the prosecution goes forward and you have to wait to be saved at the last minute by the Supreme Court. Or maybe you won't be," Goodale said.
https://www.democracynow.org/2017/5/29/noam_chomsky_in_conversation_with_amy In this Democracy Now! special, we spend the hour with the world-renowned linguist and political dissident Noam Chomsky. In a public conversation we had in April, we talked about climate change, nuclear weapons, North Korea, Iran, the war in Syria and the Trump administration’s threat to prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and his new book, "Requiem for the American Dream: The 10 Principles of Concentration of Wealth & Power."
On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 08:44:20PM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
https://www.democracynow.org/2017/5/29/noam_chomsky_in_conversation_with_amy
In this Democracy Now! special, we spend the hour with the world-renowned linguist and political dissident Noam Chomsky. In a
How the hell can a pro-Killary, abundantly partisan "system" man be considered a "political dissident"? That's "Democracy Now!"s cred up in smoke one simple descriptive.
public conversation we had in April, we talked about climate change, nuclear weapons, North Korea, Iran, the war in Syria and the Trump administration’s threat to prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and his new book, "Requiem for the American Dream: The 10 Principles of Concentration of Wealth & Power."
He sure knows how to write books. But as to political dissidence, he's right up there with the so-called "anti-establishment" Michael Moore.
participants (9)
-
Anthony Papillion -
grarpamp -
John Newman -
juan -
Marina Brown -
Razer -
Shawn K. Quinn -
Steve Kinney -
Zenaan Harkness