Thread by @Liberte_info

Anyone familiar w/ propaganda techniques will see right through this article's lies, & figure its true intentions.

We will deconstruct it for you, lie by lie, falsehood by falsehood, by tomorrow (Sunday) - stay tuned! 😉

abcnews.go.com/Politics/isola…

Sorry to begin w/ the end of the article, but this is to show how crappy a job @abcnews is doing: they already had to fix a serious 'mistake' where they 'only' made their readers believe Assange is facing charges when he is not.

Way to go @abcnews... but we're not done yet!

Exposing the lies & manipulation in this article is like entering a long sewer: there's poop everywhere you look.

Slanderous articles always begin by preparing the reader to what's going to follow (otherwise it cld look too weird to be accepted) & an easy way to do it is to present the character to be assassinated under a negative light that wld put-off most, & pretend it comes frm himself.

In the intro, the article presents #Assange as a "self-styled cyber revolutionary".
WRONG!
The best source on how JA 'self-styles' himself wld be his Twitter profile, which stated (before his legal team took over amid the incommunicado):
'Publisher @Wikileaks; Political refugee'.

However they do mention that Assange is a publisher - but only after putting the magic word 'controversial' before it.
Note that only establishment types (incl. MSM such as @abcnews) find his publisher status 'controversial', mostly b/c it is part of the consent manufacturing...

... enterprise designed to deny him his right to First Amendment protection.
First they call you a 'controversial publisher', & later a 'spy'.

Also, if you go by their logical, a publisher w/ a perfect record of authenticity of publications would be the 'controversial' one... 🙃

Next BS: Assange has ran 'afoul of the very govt that gave him asylum.'
🚨 WRONG AGAIN 🚨
JA's asylum was granted by @MashiRafael's govt in August '12, after a little over 2 mths of review.
In May '18 a new president took office, @Lenin, who 1 week later called JA a... 'hacker'.

The new #Ecuador president @Lenin has showed complete subservience to the #USempire, & has made a 180° turn on several policies (that he was elected to preserve & reinforce) - incl. the protection of JA.
For more, this piece by former EC Foreign Minister:
opendemocracy.net/democraciaabie…

Another way to manipulate public opinion is exaggeration & outright lies.
That foes question JA's honesty, or suspect him of being at the root of all evil isn't a surprise in itself.
But to pretend that his friends are questioning his role in #Russiagate is preposterous.

While there's no evidence of a Russian hacking, everything pointing to a copy being leaked by an insider (see disobedientmedia.com/2018/07/opinio…), @abcnews pretends the hacking is an established fact & 'questions' JA's role in this non-existing event, a typical preparation for fake charges.

Next piece of BS: "[JA's] relationship w/ embassy officials further deteriorates", suggesting it was bad to begin w/.

Interestingly enough, not only the threat of expulsion came frm @Lenin himself, but the frmr EC consult to UK says the exact opposite.

theprisma.co.uk/2018/08/13/fid…

Next one: "If his hosts at the Ecuadorian Embassy were to rescind his asylum and evict him..." is a falsehood which attempt to suggest again that the staff want Assange out w/o any protection against the risk of US extradition, to reinforce JA's image of a 'detestable character'.

BTW the embassy staff, even the ambassador, have no say regarding a potential ending of JA's asylum, which is unlikely as we already said amid last month's panic, b/c it wld violate both Ecuador's constitution & its int'l obligations...

... Only @Lenin cld take such a responsibility, & at his own risk (i.e. future prosecution for treason).
Our previous thread on why the expulsion was unlikely:

This is one is such a classic, but unfortunately it's widely used b/c it works on people who are used to not questioning MSM propaganda.
According to @abcnews, #FakeNews #Russiagate may have "made some of [JA's] allies question their continued support".

The 'supporterS' in question?
"a one time supporter, who asked to remain anonymous"... HOW CONVENIENT! 😂👍🏿

"Little is known about how Assange [...] manages his time there".
🚨 WRONG AGAIN! 🚨
The former Ecuadorian Consult in London gave details on that in an interview published two whole weeks before your slanderous article, @abcnews! WTF! 😂
theprisma.co.uk/2018/08/13/fid…

"Assange, who (sic) friends say is a 'creature of the internet'".
"a creature of the internet"... sounds like a great title for a B movie, but it's surely not a good idea for calling a fellow journalist (especially one w/ a perfect record when U keep apologizing for Ur 'errors').

But the most interesting remains the misuse of 'who' instead of 'whose'; suggests a sloppy, last minute editing, in this case to make the article a bit more... spicy? 😉

We'd pay a lot to know who the genius behind it is. A Deep State 'operative' who made the other 'typo'?👇🏿🤓

Did you guys @meekwire & @ajdukakis have no time to resubmit your slander piece to proofreading after your Deep State 'contact' (who can evidently hardly write) made his finishing touches? 🤔

In the following, again on #FakeNews #Russiagate, @meekwire & @ajdukakis, w/ a straight face (we imagine), basically state that JA likely worked w/ 'Russian state actors' b/c... his 'animosity toward Hillary' was well known, AND Trump praised WL 5 TIMES on his campaign trail! 😂

Here's some news for U @meekwire & @ajdukakis: any journalist (esp. 1 w/ a perfect record, unlike Urselves - as evidenced by this same article of Urs) wld feel 'animosity' toward some1 who did everything (incl. organize an illegal financial blockade) to destroy U b/c of his work.

The next one clearly dives into 'Twilight Zone' territory, & shows how #VichyJournalists like @meekwire & @ajdukakis will stop at nothing to please their employer.

It basically attempts to transform pure speculation that has been proved false, i.e. that Guccifer2.0 was the source of the #DNCleaks, AND (there's no evidence of this one) that they are 'really a group of Russian officers', into accepted fact.
BS!

At the same time, it tries to focus the debate on 'whether WL & JA knew that Guccifer2.0 was [...] really a group of Russian intelligence officers".

Nice try, but U can't build facts on speculation or outright lies, @meekwire & @ajdukakis... or U need to show us the evidence! 😉

Here is another example of a conveniently anonymous #FakeSource saying WL "is not what many of us thought it was", a "former WL volunteer" who "worked directly for Assange", BUT... TOO BAD! WE'LL NEVER GET TO KNOW WHO IT IS! 😭

😆

Here the article tries again - in a clearly repetitive fashion designed to make people buy a lie or pure speculation - to establish that the #DNCleaks was a hack, when, again, the opposite has been proven (disobedientmedia.com/2018/07/opinio…)...

... & that Assange intentionally sabotaged Hillary's campaign, when everyone knows she has herself & her corrupt #DNC acolytes to blame, since they're the ones who came up with that brilliant 'pied piper' strategy. 😉👍🏿
wikileaks.org/podesta-emails… [PDF]

On a more general note, since the article conveys no real news, but rather desperate attempts at downplaying the - actually increasing by the day - support to #Assange, both inside & outside the embassy, one can't but think this is piece has been ordered by a worried Deep State,

... which the strangely 'placed' typos mentioned above wld tend to reinforce.
BTW, if U think our suspicions over Deep State involvement in the article's writing/editing & accusations toward @meekwire & @ajdukakis are outlandish, watch this:
byline.com/column/3/artic…

#FreeAssange

It was in May'17 of course that @Lenin took office.

*to destroy *him* b.c of his work.