Some of the Things it is "False and Defamatory" to Say About the Stinky Saint, Julian of Assange

Scott Creighton

Apparently the minders over at Wikileaks, a CIA honeypot, have decided there are certain things we as journalists are NOT ALLOWED too say about Saint Julian of Assange.

They claim the list itself is off the record and folks are not allowed to publish it. 

“Confidential legal communication. Not for publication.”

They sent out the list, unsolicited of course, to a number of outlets whom I guess they thought might traffic in these "smears" of the holy one, in hopes that their editorial staff will consider the litigious ramifications if they publish any of the 140 things they declare are off the table when it comes to discussing Julian.

You would expect most of them like "It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange is a rapist" and "It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange is, or has ever been, an agent or officer of any intelligence service"

But there are a couple that are just so off the wall, I had to take the time to post em here to share with you guys. You'll get a kick out em:

• It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange “fled” to the Embassy of Ecuador [in fact, he walked...]
• It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange is, or has been, “hiding” in the embassy [in fact, his location is well known...]
• It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange’s asylum is “self-imposed” or that he is “free to walk out any time he likes” [in fact, the UK government states that he will be immediately arrested...]

So, he didn't "flee" to the embassy to try to escape being arrested on the charges brought by the two women... cus he walked there. And he's not "hiding"... he just stayed there, voluntarily, because he knew if he left he would face prosecution.

Right. Moving on.

• It is false and defamatory to suggest that WikiLeaks or Julian Assange has asserted that the Syrian government did not conduct chemical attacks during the war in Syria

So much for everything they ever published was "100% true"

•  It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange or WikiLeaks promoted or invented the “pizzagate” conspiracy theory

Well... now wait a minute... Wikileaks hosts a page on their website for devoted followers of the PizzaGate disinfo psyop to share news and discoveries on the subject.  https://our.wikileaks.org/Pizzagate Does that count as promoting?

It is false and defamatory to suggest that WikiLeaks or Julian Assange claimed that any person or entity was their source for WikiLeaks’ 2016 U.S. election publications

Well he didn't actually SAY it in so many words, but this is a partial transcript of an interview Saint Julian gave right after publishing the DNC leaks.

Assange: "Wikileaks never sits on material. Our whistle-blowers go thru significant efforts to get us material and often at very significant risks. There's a 27-year-old, who works for the DNC, who was shot in the back -- murdered -- just a few weeks ago, for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington."
Host: "That was just a robbery, I believe, wasn't it?"
Assange: "No. There's no finding."
Host: "What are you suggesting?"
Assange: "I'm suggesting that our sources take risks, and they become concerned to see things occurring like that--"
Host: "But was he one of your sources then?"
Assange: "We don't comment on who our sources are, but--"
Host: "Then why make the suggestion? About a young guy being shot in the streets of Washington?"
Assange: "Because we have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States, and that our sources are -- you know, our sources face serious risks.

What is the implication in that statement? He is clearly feeding into the Seth Rich psyop story by implying that Seth was the one who provided SOMETHING to Wikileaks. There is no doubt he did that. It's still on Youtube.

Now lets get into some of the more entertaining ones:

• It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange, or his mother, or his father, is, or was ever, a member of a cult.
• It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange bleaches his hair.
• It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange’s mother is, or ever was, a “hippie”.

And now we are getting personal:

• It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange drinks to excess.
• It is false and defamatory to suggest that Ecuador asked Julian Assange to improve his hygiene.
• It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange stinks.
• It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange does not use cutlery or does not wash his hands.

Has anyone seen a report that states that the Almighty Assange is a stinky drunk with bad table manners? It's gotta be out there somewhere.

Wikileaks published a version of these (1.3) after they went public (after their email said it would be illegal to do so) and they removed the one about Julian being skinky plus these two as well...

• It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange has ever tortured a cat or dog.
• It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange lives, or has ever lived, in a basement, cupboard or under the stairs.

Their latest version redacted a few of the statements but it's curious that they choose those two specifically to redact as well. Maybe someone has actual verifiable proof Julian likes to hang out under the stairs and abuse animals?

Anyone ever see that Wes Craven film The People Under the Stairs? Just sayin...

And I will leave you with this one...

• It is false and defamatory to suggest that WikiLeaks or Julian Assange has ever suppressed materials critical of Israel...

 Yep. I guess my point here is, the saintly one doth protest too much, methinks. When you got to go through this much effort to try to protect the brand of your asset, you probably should have chose better to start with.

I notice they don't say a word about Julian working with the CIA assets in Hong Kong that got him started way back when. You know, the "dissidents" who formed the base core of Wikileaks from day one?