Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Julian Assange is now a wanted man. They have issued a RED NOTICE, Interpol has. They've
put him on a wanted poster. He's wanted for SEX CRIMES! Of course, Julian Assange is the
head of WikiLeaks. Look at that. That looks DANGEROUS. Man, there's like a world with
a sword in it and such. That dude is WANTED. For SEX CRIMES.
He must be a really dangerous guy.
Yeah. Let me tell you something, o.k.? Of course, I'm open to the evidence, and if there
was a trial and I was on the jury, I would listen to see who was right and who was wrong,
obviously.
Right now? NOT BUYING IT - AT ALL...
Now what you will hear from other places is equivacation. 'Well, it's a serious charge,
and there's these two women, who are claiming, da, da, da... and so, you know, we have to
be, to call it even...' No, no. It's not even.
You're telling me that a guy who was doing these massive leaks, which is infuriating,
not only the United States government, but governments all across the world, because
he's telling us what they're actually doing, that all of a sudden, at the same exact time,
there's *** charges against him. Just coincidental. Just coincidental.
Oh, hell no, man. Come on, how naive do you have to be? Doesn't mean it didn't happen;
it doesn't mean I wouldn't listen to evidence. But you'd have an overwhelming case to convince
me that this is the wildest coincidence of all time.
And remember, the charges were first filed, and then one of the prosecutors in Sweden
was like: 'What the hell is this crap?' and withdrew them. And then somebody above that
prosecutor came along and said: 'No, no. Be cool. Be cool. We have to press the case forward.'
One of the charges of the women was that 'Oh, we were having consensual sex, but then the
*** broke, and he didn't take it out in time.' O.K., I don't know, look, if it goes
to a trial, fine, I'll have an open mind.
But you're telling me this isn't a witch-hunt? This isn't a smear job? Come on. Come on.
And, you know, I said this yesterday off-air, as we were preparing the MSNBC show, and I
was like: 'Look, if you thought they came after Assange before, when he revealed government
documents, wait till you see what they got coming up next, 'cause now he's going to reveal
the inner workings of the banks - remember he told Forbe's Magazine I'm coming after
a big bank and you're going to see their unethical practices.' Right? And I said in the morning
meeting yesterday 'Oh, ho, ho. That smear campaign, it's just warming up.'
And today... Interpol. Oh my... WARNING! WARNING: SEX CRIMES, WANTED, RED ALERT, RED NOTICE!
Funny how... do you know why? It's just so you understand why? Look, when you go against
the government, you know, a lot of people are affected, etc. etc., but not one person
necessarily loses money over it. Yeah, some people might lose prestige, etc. etc., but
when you go after the banks, there's real money on the line. Person X and Person Y and
Person Z might lose a lot of their compensation when those leaks happen. They're not happy
about that. When money ain't happy, all of a sudden, you get red alerts all across the
world.
So, if they're going to come at Assange, you ought to be incredibly skeptical about what
they're coming with, o.k.?
And I certainly am.