On Wed, 31 May 2017 07:39:39 -0400 John Newman wrote:

...

On May 30, 2017, at 4:36 PM, juan wrote:

On Mon, 29 May 2017 18:41:30 -0400 grarpamp 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.

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" :

On 05/31/2017 07:39 AM, John Newman wrote:

...

...

 On May 30, 2017, at 4:36 PM, juan wrote:

 On Mon, 29 May 2017 18:41:30 -0400  grarpamp 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" :

...

On 05/31/2017 07:39 AM, John Newman wrote:

...

...

On May 30, 2017, at 4:36 PM, juan wrote:

On Mon, 29 May 2017 18:41:30 -0400 grarpamp 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 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)

One speaker of a few truths regarding this thread... Jacob Appelbaum at the Berlin Logan CIJ Symposium https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJValv4YQcY

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.

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.