Democratizing information has never been more vital, and @Wikileaks has helped. But their hostility to even modest curation is a mistake.
-
-
there were two women. If you can find something not from "justice for Assange" maybe I'll read that.
-
Fact checker is all referenced w/ court docs. One woman was a politician.Prosecutor didn't bother to pursue her case
-
has any actual journalists fact checked and reported this? No, cause it's not true
-
They have outside the US. Here's two. http://espresso.repubblica.it/internazionale/2015/10/16/news/five-years-confined-new-foia-documents-shed-light-on-the-julian-assange-case-1.235129 … http://johnpilger.com/articles/assange-the-untold-story-of-an-epic-struggle-for-justice … Just read the court documents.
-
not the guardian? The intercept?
-
Are those your yardstick for truth? Are UK/Sweden/UN official court documents not good enough? No wonder you're lost
-
corroboration from the impartial is one of the best ways to judge reality. No wonder you're a crack pot
-
Here's news for you. Courts and UN expert panels are more impartial than corporate funded media. Read their findings
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
since that hasn't been vetted as legal testimony, it doesn't count.
-
You do realise Sweden has its own legal system? It is part of the police file that the prosecution presented to the court.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.