3 ms·

What someone's motivation is (in relation to the still unsubstantiated allegation that Assange is a "Russian asset" trying advance Russian foreign policy object

What someone's motivation is (in relation to the still unsubstantiated allegation that Assange is a "Russian asset" trying advance Russian foreign policy objectives) should be completely irrelevant to the legality of an action. Is publishing leaked documents protected under the First Amendment? Is publishing "propaganda" protected under the First Amendment? I would say the answer to both of these questions is yes.

onetimemanytime 8y ago
All these questions his attorneys can try to answer during the trial. That he was /is a Russian asset, I think we pretty much know. Maybe he needed a bear hug in light of everyone behind against him...or maybe Russia had dirt on the country he wanted to hurt?
- CryptoPunk 8y ago
  I see this claim a lot, yet no evidence to substantiate it. What evidence do you have that he is/was a Russian asset? And what does it matter if it's a Russian asset doing the leaking, instead of a selfless journalist? Is the leaking illegal or not? This "Russian asset" angle seems like ad hominem to make people acquiesce to violating freedom of speech.
  - onetimemanytime 8y ago
    CIA Director: 'It's time to call out Wikileaks for what it really is, a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia.' It's normal for us not to have any direct evidence, but to see the results of their behavior. CIA on the other hand might have recordings, communication etc. They have been digging for years.
    - CryptoPunk 8y ago
      An organization dedicated to publishing leaked documented can be "abetted" by any number of intelligence agencies by the nature of its function. That doesn't make it an asset of any intelligence agency.
    - boomboomsubban 8y ago
      We also know, via leaked Snowden documents, that the intelligence community has been looking for ways to discredit Wikileaks for about a decade. The CIA is not a trustworthy source, if they have proof it needs to be presented.

onetimemanytime 8y ago

All these questions his attorneys can try to answer during the trial. That he was /is a Russian asset, I think we pretty much know. Maybe he needed a bear hug in light of everyone behind against him...or maybe Russia had dirt on the country he wanted to hurt?

CryptoPunk 8y ago
I see this claim a lot, yet no evidence to substantiate it. What evidence do you have that he is/was a Russian asset? And what does it matter if it's a Russian asset doing the leaking, instead of a selfless journalist? Is the leaking illegal or not? This "Russian asset" angle seems like ad hominem to make people acquiesce to violating freedom of speech.
- onetimemanytime 8y ago
  CIA Director: 'It's time to call out Wikileaks for what it really is, a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia.' It's normal for us not to have any direct evidence, but to see the results of their behavior. CIA on the other hand might have recordings, communication etc. They have been digging for years.
  - CryptoPunk 8y ago
    An organization dedicated to publishing leaked documented can be "abetted" by any number of intelligence agencies by the nature of its function. That doesn't make it an asset of any intelligence agency.
  - boomboomsubban 8y ago
    We also know, via leaked Snowden documents, that the intelligence community has been looking for ways to discredit Wikileaks for about a decade. The CIA is not a trustworthy source, if they have proof it needs to be presented.