5 ms·

I supported him until he started releasing information in drips and drabs to interfere with a US election, and willingly accepted stolen documents from an obvio

I supported him until he started releasing information in drips and drabs to interfere with a US election, and willingly accepted stolen documents from an obvious foreign agent.

influx 7y ago
How about Edward Snowden being housed, clothed and fed by the same Russian government that was interfering with US elections and providing information to Wikileaks?
- staunch 7y ago
  AFAIK he's earned his own money by doing talks and receiving donations from supporters, etc not from the Russian government. And Snowden has never mislead anyone about why he's in Russia. He's said that he would love to come home. And if U.S. whistleblower protections was stronger he could. Snowden was openly revealing violations of the U.S. constitution. Assange was covertly acting as an agent of a hostile foreign government with the intention of interfering in U.S. domestic politics. There is no comparison between these two, at all.
  - soulofmischief 7y ago
    > Assange was covertly acting as an agent of a hostile foreign government with the intention of interfering in U.S. domestic politics. You're gonna need proof for that, staunch.
    - staunch 7y ago
      Lawyers prosecuting cases need proof. The rest of us can, with some basic level of objectivity, just look at the preponderance of the evidence and come to a conclusion. I believe that any reasonable person that looks into the publicly available evidence would come to the same conclusion. On the other hand, if you're one of the rubes that bought the Seth Rich story from Assange you can be 100% sure that you're terrible at objective analysis.
      - soulofmischief 7y ago
        That isn't how "innocent until proven guilty" works, staunch. You cannot claim Assange is guilty without irrefutable evidence, which you still have not provided.
        staunch 7y ago
        This isn't a courtroom, soulofmischief. My conclusion is based on the preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And I do assert that anyone with an objective point of view would come to the same conclusion.
        soulofmischief 7y ago
        Innocent until proven guilty is a thing for a reason. We should presume innocence until more qualified people beholded to a strict investigative and judicial process make their ruling, which will hopefully not be tainted by outside interests. Innocent until proven guilty does not mean that we get to make premature assumptions and pass them off as fact because "this isn't a courtroom". It is not something just lawyers and judges are beholden to, it's something we as a society are beholden to. Everyone has to play along. You can have your own thoughts, but you cannot just pass them off as objective fact without hard proof. So I ask one more time, what evidence have you prepondered to ascertain Assange's guilty status? You're speaking in vague nothings instead of providing real data.
  - cycrutchfield 7y ago
    Snowden’s existence is currently at the pleasure of the Russian government. If he did anything to displease them, we would quickly hear that he has committed suicide by shooting himself twice in the back of the head.
  - decoyworker 7y ago
    What violations of the Constitution did Snowden reveal?
    - mrguyorama 7y ago
      depending on your interpretation, the routine use of unwarranted searching of United States Citizens, among other things
      - decoyworker 7y ago
        PRISM requires a FISA warrant on domestic targets.
  - jascii 7y ago
    "Assange was covertly acting as an agent of a hostile foreign government with the intention of interfering in U.S. domestic politics." That is quite an accusation, is there any proof of that?
- SAI_Peregrinus 7y ago
  The US illegally revoked his passport while he was in transit. He thus got stuck during a layover on the way to his original destination (some South American country, I forget which).
tracker1 7y ago
Agreed... I think, for the most part, it should have just been a single dump of information. I generally vote Libertarian, so realistically this didn't effect me, but I am glad that a lot of people got to see a lot of the dirty deeds that politicians abuse. I've known since Bill Clinton was President that Hillary is not a good person and now the world knows it.
bduerst 7y ago
Same - it became pretty obvious that he was using Wikileaks to manipulate headlines leading up to the 2016 election, rather than just trying to deliver valuable information: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wikileaks-hillary-clinton/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wikileaks-hillary-clint...
buboard 7y ago
so, until the truths were convenient? And btw, the question is not if we support his decision to leak things, but whether he deserves to die in jail (or worse) or not.
- res0nat0r 7y ago
  One is legal, the other isn't.

I supported him until he started releasing information in drips and drabs to interfere with a US election, and willingly accepted stolen documents from an obvious foreign agent.

influx 7y ago

How about Edward Snowden being housed, clothed and fed by the same Russian government that was interfering with US elections and providing information to Wikileaks?

staunch 7y ago
AFAIK he's earned his own money by doing talks and receiving donations from supporters, etc not from the Russian government. And Snowden has never mislead anyone about why he's in Russia. He's said that he would love to come home. And if U.S. whistleblower protections was stronger he could. Snowden was openly revealing violations of the U.S. constitution. Assange was covertly acting as an agent of a hostile foreign government with the intention of interfering in U.S. domestic politics. There is no comparison between these two, at all.
- soulofmischief 7y ago
  > Assange was covertly acting as an agent of a hostile foreign government with the intention of interfering in U.S. domestic politics. You're gonna need proof for that, staunch.
  - staunch 7y ago
    Lawyers prosecuting cases need proof. The rest of us can, with some basic level of objectivity, just look at the preponderance of the evidence and come to a conclusion. I believe that any reasonable person that looks into the publicly available evidence would come to the same conclusion. On the other hand, if you're one of the rubes that bought the Seth Rich story from Assange you can be 100% sure that you're terrible at objective analysis.
    - soulofmischief 7y ago
      That isn't how "innocent until proven guilty" works, staunch. You cannot claim Assange is guilty without irrefutable evidence, which you still have not provided.
      - staunch 7y ago
        This isn't a courtroom, soulofmischief. My conclusion is based on the preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And I do assert that anyone with an objective point of view would come to the same conclusion.
        soulofmischief 7y ago
        Innocent until proven guilty is a thing for a reason. We should presume innocence until more qualified people beholded to a strict investigative and judicial process make their ruling, which will hopefully not be tainted by outside interests. Innocent until proven guilty does not mean that we get to make premature assumptions and pass them off as fact because "this isn't a courtroom". It is not something just lawyers and judges are beholden to, it's something we as a society are beholden to. Everyone has to play along. You can have your own thoughts, but you cannot just pass them off as objective fact without hard proof. So I ask one more time, what evidence have you prepondered to ascertain Assange's guilty status? You're speaking in vague nothings instead of providing real data.
- cycrutchfield 7y ago
  Snowden’s existence is currently at the pleasure of the Russian government. If he did anything to displease them, we would quickly hear that he has committed suicide by shooting himself twice in the back of the head.
- decoyworker 7y ago
  What violations of the Constitution did Snowden reveal?
  - mrguyorama 7y ago
    depending on your interpretation, the routine use of unwarranted searching of United States Citizens, among other things
    - decoyworker 7y ago
      PRISM requires a FISA warrant on domestic targets.
- jascii 7y ago
  "Assange was covertly acting as an agent of a hostile foreign government with the intention of interfering in U.S. domestic politics." That is quite an accusation, is there any proof of that?
SAI_Peregrinus 7y ago
The US illegally revoked his passport while he was in transit. He thus got stuck during a layover on the way to his original destination (some South American country, I forget which).

tracker1 7y ago

Agreed... I think, for the most part, it should have just been a single dump of information. I generally vote Libertarian, so realistically this didn't effect me, but I am glad that a lot of people got to see a lot of the dirty deeds that politicians abuse. I've known since Bill Clinton was President that Hillary is not a good person and now the world knows it.

bduerst 7y ago

Same - it became pretty obvious that he was using Wikileaks to manipulate headlines leading up to the 2016 election, rather than just trying to deliver valuable information: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wikileaks-hillary-clinton/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wikileaks-hillary-clint...

buboard 7y ago

so, until the truths were convenient? And btw, the question is not if we support his decision to leak things, but whether he deserves to die in jail (or worse) or not.

res0nat0r 7y ago
One is legal, the other isn't.