2 ms·
The definition of conspiracy is just "agreeing to commit a crime in the future". It doesn't matter who initiates a conspiracy. It looks like the record is fair
by NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
The definition of conspiracy is just "agreeing to commit a crime in the future". It doesn't matter who initiates a conspiracy.
It looks like the record is fairly clear that Assange and Manning discussed what documents Assange would like access to and Manning agreed to provide them.
If it is criminal for Assange to obtain/receive/disclose the documents in question, then there's prima facie evidence of a conspiracy.
You can argue that the actual act was not criminal, and so the inchoate offense of conspiracy is also impossible, but it's unclear to me why you think the conspiracy charge, in particular, in nonsensical - could you elaborate?
- ugopapa 6y agoDiscussing with sources and encouraging them to leak is standard journalistic practice. It has been discussed extensively during the hearing with the help of several expert witnesses. > If it is criminal for Assange to obtain/receive/disclose the documents in question If it's so, you have to virtually prosecute every investigative journalist.
- NovemberWhiskey 6y agoNot really. Prosecutorial discretion is a thing. Does prosecuting advance the interests of justice? Is this prosecution an efficient use of the limited resources of the prosecutor's office? Given that not everyone is prosecuted, is this prosecution consistent with our own internal standards or rules? How strong is the evidence in the case? How severe was the offense? What is the historical conduct record of the defendant?