4 ms·

> "If you hate Assange because of his role in the 2016 race, please take a deep breath and consider what a criminal charge that does not involve the 2016 electi

> "If you hate Assange because of his role in the 2016 race, please take a deep breath and consider what a criminal charge that does not involve the 2016 election might mean." --- Why? There is mounting evidence that Assange - whatever his idealistic intentions might have been with Wikileaks - has become an active conspirator in working with the Russians (and unsavory Americans) in undermining US democracy.

module0000 8y ago
What mounting evidence? What actions make him an active conspirator in that specific domain?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Theodores 8y ago
I know the word sounds alarmist but we do actually have an actual era of fascism on our small hands right now. The claims of Russian interference is just one of many checkboxes on the 'must be fascist' list, you can add the refugee crisis, the populist rallies and plenty else to the ticked off boxes. We don't live in a black and white world. Assange is undoubtedly a remarkable individual but he has a lot to learn and being the pariah whistleblower type is not good for him to learn some of the finer lessons, e.g. in diplomacy. Assange controls when leaks are leaked, he makes sure Wikipedia is not as transparent as it needs to be, he has sought to monetize war and misery by the deals he has done. Compare and contrast with John Young at Cryptome. Assange was in control of timing the 2016 email thing, there is no evidence beyond waffle said in Washington that the 'Reds' were behind the hack that got those emails. Suggesting otherwise is to not fully appreciate how the Russians view the US and its politics. In the Kremlin they do not care who gets in to the White House because they know that whomever is there the policy towards Russia will be the same. If they do engage constructively with the US for a more peaceful world with free trade then they know that they can't do so with a 'puppet' regime elected by their meddling. It is not how it works. So why do so many people think otherwise? Fascism. Hard to bandy that word around but it is true. Unless the left offer a party with policies that are appealing to people there is no option apart from fascism when regular capitalism fails. Right now we are in a period of badly failing capitalism, nobody has had wage increases for a long time, stocks only go up because of share buy back scams, the 2008 crash was a can kicked down the road by QE and the signs are all there. 1930's Germany was the same, they didn't vote for someone advertising themselves as a fascist, they voted for the Trump of their time. So where did the emails come from? If it was not the Russians then it is time to look at the time stamp meta data, which I have not done myself but I believe it points to places outside of the Russian time zones. The same people wanting Brexit and the breakup of the EU are meddling, manipulating everyone to this lovely and actually fascist era of politics we are waking up to.
- Natsu 8y ago
  > So where did the emails come from? If it was not the Russians then it is time to look at the time stamp meta data, which I have not done myself but I believe it points to places outside of the Russian time zones. They appear to have been downloaded at about the speed of a USB stick, but that leaves a lot of unanswered questions.
Bartweiss 8y ago
Unless I'm misreading, the point of the quoted text isn't to dispute whether that's true. It's specifically to point out that the 2016 election discussion isn't relevant to whether an Assange trial today would be a bad thing. If Assange is tried by a Trump DoJ, it almost certainly won't be tied to the 2016 election. Rather, it would be for any of Wikileaks' earlier actions - projects like Cablegate or Collateral Murder. Congressmen have already called for Espionage Act charges over those releases, so it's not a hard outcome to imagine. That would open up a range of alarming questions about handling of classified information, where current practice favors openness and disclosure but the legal situation isn't entirely clear. Narrowly interpreted, transmitting or even linking to classified materials violates secrecy laws even after those materials leave classified control or become publicly accessible. New York Times Co. v. United States set a precedent in which journalists are not prosecuted for handling or publishing leaked materials. Alongside Branzburg v. Hayes and Lovell v. City of Griffin, which extend press rights to citizens generally, it creates a general presumption that only the actual exfiltration of classified material is prosecuted. But NYT v. US was decided narrowly on prior restraint, and no strict protection for publishing already-leaked classified materials exists. Convicting someone for publishing classified materials which someone else leaked to them would effectively destroy this protection. Convicting a non-resident non-citizen on Espionage Act charges would create a bizarre situation in which interference with United States military actions by any party anywhere in the world would ostensibly be a capital crime in the US. Those are the concerns at hand. No matter how guilty someone might be of a specific charge, it's still a serious problem if they're convicted of something unrelated which should never have been a crime.
ratsmack 8y ago
Please elaborate extensively on the evidence the shows Russia to be complicit in election meddling. I've been watching endlessly for some hint the Russia was a compelling force in anything related to the 2016 election. And the same goes for the alleged Wikileaks connection to Russia, because all I've seen is unwarranted speculation and conjecture in this regard. Personally, I'm waiting until all the cards are revealed before I solidify my opinion on this.
- gdubs 8y ago
  Extensive evidence like the nearly 30 page indictment citing 12 Russian intelligence officers filed by Mueller? [1] 1: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/us/politics/mueller-indictment-russian-intelligence-hacking.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/us/politics/mueller-indic...
  - ratsmack 8y ago
    Indictments are merrily formal accusations and are not proof of wrongdoing, so again, please supply substantial evidence of Russian meddling.
    - mr_overalls 8y ago
      You're asking for proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not evidence.
      - ratsmack 8y ago
        Credible evidence must be provable, otherwise it is just speculation.
        mr_overalls 8y ago
        You might be interested in what's in the headlines today. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-held-secret-talks-with-assange-in-ecuadorian-embassy https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-hel...

module0000 8y ago

What mounting evidence? What actions make him an active conspirator in that specific domain?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Theodores 8y ago

I know the word sounds alarmist but we do actually have an actual era of fascism on our small hands right now. The claims of Russian interference is just one of many checkboxes on the 'must be fascist' list, you can add the refugee crisis, the populist rallies and plenty else to the ticked off boxes. We don't live in a black and white world. Assange is undoubtedly a remarkable individual but he has a lot to learn and being the pariah whistleblower type is not good for him to learn some of the finer lessons, e.g. in diplomacy. Assange controls when leaks are leaked, he makes sure Wikipedia is not as transparent as it needs to be, he has sought to monetize war and misery by the deals he has done. Compare and contrast with John Young at Cryptome. Assange was in control of timing the 2016 email thing, there is no evidence beyond waffle said in Washington that the 'Reds' were behind the hack that got those emails. Suggesting otherwise is to not fully appreciate how the Russians view the US and its politics. In the Kremlin they do not care who gets in to the White House because they know that whomever is there the policy towards Russia will be the same. If they do engage constructively with the US for a more peaceful world with free trade then they know that they can't do so with a 'puppet' regime elected by their meddling. It is not how it works. So why do so many people think otherwise? Fascism. Hard to bandy that word around but it is true. Unless the left offer a party with policies that are appealing to people there is no option apart from fascism when regular capitalism fails. Right now we are in a period of badly failing capitalism, nobody has had wage increases for a long time, stocks only go up because of share buy back scams, the 2008 crash was a can kicked down the road by QE and the signs are all there. 1930's Germany was the same, they didn't vote for someone advertising themselves as a fascist, they voted for the Trump of their time. So where did the emails come from? If it was not the Russians then it is time to look at the time stamp meta data, which I have not done myself but I believe it points to places outside of the Russian time zones. The same people wanting Brexit and the breakup of the EU are meddling, manipulating everyone to this lovely and actually fascist era of politics we are waking up to.

Natsu 8y ago
> So where did the emails come from? If it was not the Russians then it is time to look at the time stamp meta data, which I have not done myself but I believe it points to places outside of the Russian time zones. They appear to have been downloaded at about the speed of a USB stick, but that leaves a lot of unanswered questions.

Bartweiss 8y ago

Unless I'm misreading, the point of the quoted text isn't to dispute whether that's true. It's specifically to point out that the 2016 election discussion isn't relevant to whether an Assange trial today would be a bad thing. If Assange is tried by a Trump DoJ, it almost certainly won't be tied to the 2016 election. Rather, it would be for any of Wikileaks' earlier actions - projects like Cablegate or Collateral Murder. Congressmen have already called for Espionage Act charges over those releases, so it's not a hard outcome to imagine. That would open up a range of alarming questions about handling of classified information, where current practice favors openness and disclosure but the legal situation isn't entirely clear. Narrowly interpreted, transmitting or even linking to classified materials violates secrecy laws even after those materials leave classified control or become publicly accessible. New York Times Co. v. United States set a precedent in which journalists are not prosecuted for handling or publishing leaked materials. Alongside Branzburg v. Hayes and Lovell v. City of Griffin, which extend press rights to citizens generally, it creates a general presumption that only the actual exfiltration of classified material is prosecuted. But NYT v. US was decided narrowly on prior restraint, and no strict protection for publishing already-leaked classified materials exists. Convicting someone for publishing classified materials which someone else leaked to them would effectively destroy this protection. Convicting a non-resident non-citizen on Espionage Act charges would create a bizarre situation in which interference with United States military actions by any party anywhere in the world would ostensibly be a capital crime in the US. Those are the concerns at hand. No matter how guilty someone might be of a specific charge, it's still a serious problem if they're convicted of something unrelated which should never have been a crime.

ratsmack 8y ago

Please elaborate extensively on the evidence the shows Russia to be complicit in election meddling. I've been watching endlessly for some hint the Russia was a compelling force in anything related to the 2016 election. And the same goes for the alleged Wikileaks connection to Russia, because all I've seen is unwarranted speculation and conjecture in this regard. Personally, I'm waiting until all the cards are revealed before I solidify my opinion on this.

gdubs 8y ago
Extensive evidence like the nearly 30 page indictment citing 12 Russian intelligence officers filed by Mueller? [1] 1: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/us/politics/mueller-indictment-russian-intelligence-hacking.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/us/politics/mueller-indic...
- ratsmack 8y ago
  Indictments are merrily formal accusations and are not proof of wrongdoing, so again, please supply substantial evidence of Russian meddling.
  - mr_overalls 8y ago
    You're asking for proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not evidence.
    - ratsmack 8y ago
      Credible evidence must be provable, otherwise it is just speculation.
      - mr_overalls 8y ago
        You might be interested in what's in the headlines today. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-held-secret-talks-with-assange-in-ecuadorian-embassy https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-hel...