4 ms·
Except that, of course, it's not. In fact, IIRC, they stated they had too little evidence to substantiate the claims. Maybe it's you who doesn't like the facts
by efdee 5y ago
Except that, of course, it's not. In fact, IIRC, they stated they had too little evidence to substantiate the claims.
Maybe it's you who doesn't like the facts?
- res0nat0r 5y agoLike I mentioned, Assange isn't an idiot and knew full well who he was dealing with at the time. It doesn't need to rise to the level of provable criminal conspiracy for anyone to know someone as sophisticated as him just didn't bumble into the situation, especially when it was speculated at the time that the Guccifer 2.0 alias was likely a front for a foreign intelligence group.
- efdee 5y agoIt most certainly does need to rise to a level of provable criminal conspiracy. Gut feeling doesn't hold up well in court.
- res0nat0r 5y agoThankfully he's not being charged re: the Guccifer 2.0 hacking.
- the_optimist 5y agoThis is the standard dissembling. We went from “I have got the truth! Your client is guilty!” to “He’s a smart guy, seems guilty.” Only two paragraphs. Astonishing really, that people are willing to invest themselves like this.