I think this conversation would benefit from moving away from analogy and back into the factual realm. The crime of conspiracy has two requirements. 1) That tw

I think this conversation would benefit from moving away from analogy and back into the factual realm. The crime of conspiracy has two requirements. 1) That two people make an agreement to commit a crime and 2) that at least one person takes an "overt act" in furtherance of the crime. Count 18 of the indictment [0] charges that Assange and Manning "conspir[ed] to commit computer intrusion." The first condition of agreement was easy to show, they clearly agreed they were going to break into a government system. More challenging are the overt acts: they allege that Manning stole the password hash and sent it to Assange, who tried to break it himself, saying "No luck so far." So both the analogies of providing medical care and advice are irrelevant here - Assange didn't just provide information, he allegedly actually participated in the "overt acts" of criminal conspiracy by trying to crack the password. In your analogy, the doctor joined the criminal on the heist. [0] https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1165556/download https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1165556/downl...