3 ms·

Why would there be anything on the dnc leaks? They just published the leaks, they did not participate in hacking. Publishing leaks is done all the times by jour

Why would there be anything on the dnc leaks? They just published the leaks, they did not participate in hacking. Publishing leaks is done all the times by journalists, if we're going to start banning this, then free press is literally dead in the US.

jsgo 8y ago
The difference seems to be that most journalists report on the leaked documents, whereas Wikileaks essentially data dumps it. Not saying them releasing Podesta's emails was bad, just I don't think that's what journalists typically do.
- xienze 8y ago
  >The difference seems to be that most journalists report on the leaked documents, whereas Wikileaks essentially data dumps it. Would anyone have taken them seriously if they just made claims about what were on the emails? You see the same thing going on with the Democrats regarding the summary of the Mueller report: “we don’t believe you, show us the raw data!”
  - mikeyouse 8y ago
    Dumping the Podesta emails in the hour after Trump's "grab them by the pussy" tape came to light sure gives them the stink of partisan operatives. Lying about Seth Rich's involvement in the emails was cruel and deeply unethical. Giving air to bizarre conspiracy theories about the Clintons satanic rituals was also unethical from a 'media' organization. Not sure if anything that happened was illegal (leaning toward no) but they were basically indistinguishable from a campaign arm in 2016.
  - jsgo 8y ago
    I've personally never went to wikileaks looking at information gathered, but consumed it second hand from journalists reporting on it. As such, I didn't have a problem taking Snowden's leaks seriously yet wasn't eyeballing raw data (nor did the vast majority of people who read about it), so I'll have to disagree. What you have with the Democrats and the Mueller report is that the "journalist" in this case is the Attorney General who was put into the position by the guy the Mueller report is about. As such, it is a case of not trusting the messenger due to bias so they want to see the actual report.
openasocket 8y ago
It depends on the details. If they were more deeply involved in the DNC hacks, perhaps helping plan it in some way, they could be charged with conspiracy for the hacking. That's the least likely. If they knew these leaks were a part of an attempt by the Russian government to influence the election, and they participated and helped with the planning (like timing the releases for maximum impact), they could be charged with conspiracy to interfere in the election. If they coordinated with the Trump campaign during the release of this information, the Trump campaign official(s) involved would be charged with accepting something of value from a foreign national for a campaign, I don't know if that charge would just be against the campaign official or Assange as well. These are just possible charges, of course. Depending on what Assange knew and when he could have done nothing illegal.

jsgo 8y ago

The difference seems to be that most journalists report on the leaked documents, whereas Wikileaks essentially data dumps it. Not saying them releasing Podesta's emails was bad, just I don't think that's what journalists typically do.

xienze 8y ago
>The difference seems to be that most journalists report on the leaked documents, whereas Wikileaks essentially data dumps it. Would anyone have taken them seriously if they just made claims about what were on the emails? You see the same thing going on with the Democrats regarding the summary of the Mueller report: “we don’t believe you, show us the raw data!”
- mikeyouse 8y ago
  Dumping the Podesta emails in the hour after Trump's "grab them by the pussy" tape came to light sure gives them the stink of partisan operatives. Lying about Seth Rich's involvement in the emails was cruel and deeply unethical. Giving air to bizarre conspiracy theories about the Clintons satanic rituals was also unethical from a 'media' organization. Not sure if anything that happened was illegal (leaning toward no) but they were basically indistinguishable from a campaign arm in 2016.
- jsgo 8y ago
  I've personally never went to wikileaks looking at information gathered, but consumed it second hand from journalists reporting on it. As such, I didn't have a problem taking Snowden's leaks seriously yet wasn't eyeballing raw data (nor did the vast majority of people who read about it), so I'll have to disagree. What you have with the Democrats and the Mueller report is that the "journalist" in this case is the Attorney General who was put into the position by the guy the Mueller report is about. As such, it is a case of not trusting the messenger due to bias so they want to see the actual report.

openasocket 8y ago

It depends on the details. If they were more deeply involved in the DNC hacks, perhaps helping plan it in some way, they could be charged with conspiracy for the hacking. That's the least likely. If they knew these leaks were a part of an attempt by the Russian government to influence the election, and they participated and helped with the planning (like timing the releases for maximum impact), they could be charged with conspiracy to interfere in the election. If they coordinated with the Trump campaign during the release of this information, the Trump campaign official(s) involved would be charged with accepting something of value from a foreign national for a campaign, I don't know if that charge would just be against the campaign official or Assange as well. These are just possible charges, of course. Depending on what Assange knew and when he could have done nothing illegal.