6 ms·

To summarize: * The prosecution claimed that Assange had not been caught with a razor. The reason for denying this is that hiding a razor suggests Assange migh

To summarize: * The prosecution claimed that Assange had not been caught with a razor. The reason for denying this is that hiding a razor suggests Assange might be thinking of suicide. * The defense pointed out that an official report from the prison confirmed that Assange had hidden a razor in his cell. The prosecution is surely aware of this report. In plain English, the prosecution lied to the court. The judge refuses to consider the prison report, however, because it is new evidence. * Defense claims that Assange was moved to the healthcare ward because of suicidal thoughts. The prosecution claims that he was moved there so that he could be put in isolation, so that the prison would not be embarrassed by more leaked photos of Assange. In other words, the official line is that the prison concocted false medical pretenses to put Assange in solitary confinement.

TheUndead96 6y ago
Either they are planning to kill him and frame it as a suicide, or his life has been made so miserable that suicide appears to be an escape. Both are awful to consider. I'm not informed enough to know whether any of the leaks he facilitated lead to the unnecessary harm of innocent people, but I deeply respect his dedication to the truth. As far as I know he has not outed his sources. We should aspire to be as brave as the likes of Assange and Snowden.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  Based on currently available information I view snowden on a different tier to assange. Assange has always been a political activist as well as whatever else he is, whereas Snowden is much less active. The relations wikileaks had with the Trump campaign and GRU do make me somewhat less sympathetic with him. On a smaller scale wikileaks have on multiple occasions published lists containing innocent bystanders's full contact and card details - this is clearly a statement in and of itself (not Redacting the details of someone who made a $50 donation to the democrats is wrong and meditated)
  - TheUndead96 6y ago
    That's a good point, I had not thought of it in those terms. Snowden was much more "I saw something wrong and I did something about it".
    - srtjstjsj 6y ago
      Assange built an organization dedicated to uncovering wrong things.
      - FireBeyond 6y ago
        He did. And somewhere along the line, he also realized, "How can I use this organization to _also_ support my ideologies?"
- acomjean 6y ago
  Well some argue his dump of emails coordinated with a now pardoned US political operative helped push one candidate over another. It had a pretty negative impact on many lives. Somewhat ironically hurting the concept of “truth” in politics.
  - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
    You should be upset with the DNC members whose behavior was exposed by the emails. Those DNC members destabilized the election with their behavior, not Assange. Assange reported it. You seem to have the blame completely reversed. Assange did not perpetrate behavior that destabilized an election or facilitated a Trump win, not one bit. Democrat party leaders did that and have only themselves to blame. Assange reported it.
    - hackinthebochs 6y ago
      There was no behavior uncovered by the emails that were unfair or destabilizing. However, reporting of the emails frame them as such. It was the false or out-of-context reporting that was destabilizing. But this was the intent from the start. It turns out information without context is just as bad as outright fabrications.
      - throwawaythekey 6y ago
        Without going into murkier territories like bias Unfair - debate questions were leaked to Hillary ahead of time. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/donna-brazile-hillary-clinton-leak-regret-236184 https://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/donna-brazile-hillary... Destabilizing - the Hillary campaign promoted Trump as a candidate. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-2016-donald-trump-214428 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clin...
        mlthoughts2018 6y ago
        It’s a shame to see tribalistic downvoting on this. It’s just stating facts that render the parent comment fundamentally inaccurate. There’s nothing to downvote, there’s no possible angle of interpretation or disagreement. Downvoting this is equivalent to saying “Assange is bad no matter what the facts or evidence shows.”
mhh__ 6y ago
If they didn't enter the prison report into evidence then surely they've just shot themselves in the foot?
- gpm 6y ago
  My vague understanding is that you are allowed to enter evidence to impeach someone (show that they are lying) at any time, most notably right after they lied. I cound be wrong, but this trial has not inspired confidence in the judge actually following the law so I'm not taking the court ruling otherwise as the strong evidence that I normally would.
  - matthewheath 6y ago
    > My vague understanding is that you are allowed to enter evidence to impeach someone (show that they are lying) at any time, most notably right after they lied. In England and Wales, yeah, as long as the other rules are met (it's of value, relevant, not extremely prejudicial to the defendant, not hearsay, etc.) You wouldn't impeach them though. It could be perjury if they lied under oath, but otherwise it would just be standard discrediting of a given person.
    - gpm 6y ago
      For some reason calling into question the credibility of a witness is generally called impeaching them in common law... never figured out why. Why isn't that the right term here?
- luckylion 6y ago
  I have no clue about the UK, but are their laws such that state attorney are allowed to actively lie to a judge and make false statements?
  - matthewheath 6y ago
    In the UK, all lawyers have an overriding duty to the court. This means they must not mislead the court. Doing so can lead to losing the ability to practice law.

TheUndead96 6y ago

Either they are planning to kill him and frame it as a suicide, or his life has been made so miserable that suicide appears to be an escape. Both are awful to consider. I'm not informed enough to know whether any of the leaks he facilitated lead to the unnecessary harm of innocent people, but I deeply respect his dedication to the truth. As far as I know he has not outed his sources. We should aspire to be as brave as the likes of Assange and Snowden.

mhh__ 6y ago
Based on currently available information I view snowden on a different tier to assange. Assange has always been a political activist as well as whatever else he is, whereas Snowden is much less active. The relations wikileaks had with the Trump campaign and GRU do make me somewhat less sympathetic with him. On a smaller scale wikileaks have on multiple occasions published lists containing innocent bystanders's full contact and card details - this is clearly a statement in and of itself (not Redacting the details of someone who made a $50 donation to the democrats is wrong and meditated)
- TheUndead96 6y ago
  That's a good point, I had not thought of it in those terms. Snowden was much more "I saw something wrong and I did something about it".
  - srtjstjsj 6y ago
    Assange built an organization dedicated to uncovering wrong things.
    - FireBeyond 6y ago
      He did. And somewhere along the line, he also realized, "How can I use this organization to _also_ support my ideologies?"
acomjean 6y ago
Well some argue his dump of emails coordinated with a now pardoned US political operative helped push one candidate over another. It had a pretty negative impact on many lives. Somewhat ironically hurting the concept of “truth” in politics.
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  You should be upset with the DNC members whose behavior was exposed by the emails. Those DNC members destabilized the election with their behavior, not Assange. Assange reported it. You seem to have the blame completely reversed. Assange did not perpetrate behavior that destabilized an election or facilitated a Trump win, not one bit. Democrat party leaders did that and have only themselves to blame. Assange reported it.
  - hackinthebochs 6y ago
    There was no behavior uncovered by the emails that were unfair or destabilizing. However, reporting of the emails frame them as such. It was the false or out-of-context reporting that was destabilizing. But this was the intent from the start. It turns out information without context is just as bad as outright fabrications.
    - throwawaythekey 6y ago
      Without going into murkier territories like bias Unfair - debate questions were leaked to Hillary ahead of time. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/donna-brazile-hillary-clinton-leak-regret-236184 https://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/donna-brazile-hillary... Destabilizing - the Hillary campaign promoted Trump as a candidate. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-2016-donald-trump-214428 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clin...
      - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
        It’s a shame to see tribalistic downvoting on this. It’s just stating facts that render the parent comment fundamentally inaccurate. There’s nothing to downvote, there’s no possible angle of interpretation or disagreement. Downvoting this is equivalent to saying “Assange is bad no matter what the facts or evidence shows.”

mhh__ 6y ago

If they didn't enter the prison report into evidence then surely they've just shot themselves in the foot?

gpm 6y ago
My vague understanding is that you are allowed to enter evidence to impeach someone (show that they are lying) at any time, most notably right after they lied. I cound be wrong, but this trial has not inspired confidence in the judge actually following the law so I'm not taking the court ruling otherwise as the strong evidence that I normally would.
- matthewheath 6y ago
  > My vague understanding is that you are allowed to enter evidence to impeach someone (show that they are lying) at any time, most notably right after they lied. In England and Wales, yeah, as long as the other rules are met (it's of value, relevant, not extremely prejudicial to the defendant, not hearsay, etc.) You wouldn't impeach them though. It could be perjury if they lied under oath, but otherwise it would just be standard discrediting of a given person.
  - gpm 6y ago
    For some reason calling into question the credibility of a witness is generally called impeaching them in common law... never figured out why. Why isn't that the right term here?
luckylion 6y ago
I have no clue about the UK, but are their laws such that state attorney are allowed to actively lie to a judge and make false statements?
- matthewheath 6y ago
  In the UK, all lawyers have an overriding duty to the court. This means they must not mislead the court. Doing so can lead to losing the ability to practice law.