all 7 comments

[–]yaiyen[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Very weird for her to put Navalny and Assange together. I have come to the conclusion after 2016 CIA got control of Wikileaks

[–]Maniak🥃😾 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Very weird indeed...

[–]chakokat 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I was thinking that she was being clever turning Navalny and their “blame and shame” game back on the U.S.

Her only goal is to free Julian, however she can.

[–]Maniak🥃😾 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

This would be the hope yes, which I would get as a desperation move because it makes no sense logically.

She's not going to turn establishment zombies into Assange supporters by invoking Navalny. They are zombies. There's no thought pattern behind their actions. Not to mention that it's way too easy for their minders to turn this against Assange.

So that leaves mostly dirtying Assange's name by putting him in the same sentence as a guy who was actually guilty of what Assange is falsely accused of.

I can see the desperate attempt but not the rational intent or even hope for anything positive coming out of this.

It's not Cornel West straight up praising this asshole, but it's pretty fucking close.

The standard that applies to him applies to her and everybody else as well.

[–]yaiyen[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It's not Cornel West straight up praising this asshole, but it's pretty fucking close.

The standard that applies to him applies to her and everybody else as well.

Yea, she could have word it better, with this she only made Navalny as a hero who was killed by Putin

[–]Maniak🥃😾 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yup, that's precisely the issue with this statement. The intention may be good but... Navalny should not be used as a reference with anybody who should be defended. If this was a PR thing, it was a stupid one.

And if she knew enough about Navalny to know what this would sound like... well... That's where /u/chakokat's impression starts sounding painfully accurate...

And I'm not there quite yet. He's her husband, she's got their kids, she never sounded 'compromised' to me in any way, and this was on the day of the latest trial scam. I'm not going to crucify her for this. But it's still an extremely shitty, stupid and tone-deaf thing to post.

I'm hoping for this being a stupid idea coming out of desperation. Which would be a sad description of the state of affairs when it comes to US-manipulated justice processes (which this is), but way better than yet another case of "oh well, we got tricked into believing in somebody yet again"

[–]yaiyen[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yea i am with with you with this hoping that she is not compromise but high chance people near her is, i dont believe the guy who did confess that he was CIA mole in WikiLeaks the only one. They did so much damage 2016 that they went all in to coup them. Now days its feel like wayofthebern is more infamous than WikiLeaks