5 ms·

How do plea deals work for precedent? As despite the constant claim that he was only being charged for assisting in hacking US computers, the plea deal is over

How do plea deals work for precedent? As despite the constant claim that he was only being charged for assisting in hacking US computers, the plea deal is over violations of the Espionage Act specifically about receiving and publishing classified documents. Or basically his acts as a journalist. Can this be used to indict other journalists who receive and publish classified information? As if so, this feels like a huge loss, though I can hardly blame Assange for not continuing the fight.

tptacek 2y ago
They don't. Generally: lower court decisions don't create binding precedent. Further: Assange wasn't simply charged with "receiving and publishing classified information"; he was charged with being instrumental in that information being exfiltrated in the first place.
- boomboomsubban 2y ago
  "Generally" is one of those somewhat troubling terms on a case that has severe First Amendment implications, but that's good to know. >Further: Assange wasn't simply charged with "receiving and publishing classified information"; he was charged with being instrumental in that information being exfiltrated in the first place. Those charges were (presumably) dropped as part of the plea, and his plea did not mention them. The plea is only about receiving and publishing.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    The standing indictment at the time of the plea deal is very easy to find on Google. And the plea is not only about receiving and publishing; what I think you're not seeing is the explicitly enumerated "overt actions" you would have seen in a full trial, but those "overt actions" are the things that connected Assange to his criminal liability in this case. But the conspiracy charge is right there.
    - boomboomsubban 2y ago
      The standing indictment was over 18(19?) charges, he plead guilty to one. A conspiracy charge, stemming from his role publishing violating the Espionage Act. Not the Computer Fraud and Abuse charge that many, including the DoJ's press release, said was the focus of the indictment. The "overt acts" part you mention is over Title 18 793(g) which basically says if two people work together in one part of a conspiracy they're both guilty of any actions their partner made.
      - tptacek 2y ago
        In any conspiracy charge, the "overt acts" are the specific things the accused did to further the conspiracy. Here, the distinction is being made between receiving a random document and publishing it, the way you would if you got, like, military information about Estonia, not caring what Estonia thinks about the classification of the documents, and joining a conspiracy to deliberately take the documents from Estonia. By way of example: the murder-for-hire accusations against Ross Ulbricht were listed "overt acts" in his conspiracy charge.
        boomboomsubban 2y ago
        Again, the overt acts reference a specific clause of title 18, and it would allow punishment of Assange for literally anything Manning did. It doesn't seem to be about anything further Assange did. >By way of example: the murder-for-hire accusations against Ross Ulbricht were listed "overt acts" in his conspiracy charge. Yes, the supposed murder for hire was something he wasn't charged with and wasn't mentioned in his sentencing. It was not a part of his trial.
        tptacek 2y ago
        No, conspiracy liability makes Assange liable for for whatever the charged conspiracy, which included Manning, did. The "overt acts" are those things the prosecution can prove Assange himself did. They're the glue that connects Assange to the conspiracy. "Title 18" is almost the entire federal criminal code. Saying "a specific clause in title 18" is like saying "somewhere, in the entire US federal criminal code, it says...". As I just said: the murder-for-hire scheme --- which I believe was in fact part of Ulbricht's sentencing --- was an "overt act" in Ulbricht's conspiracy charge.
  - onionisafruit 2y ago
    What action is the court taking that you are worried about setting precedent? I haven’t read more than the linked article, but it appears the only role the court will play is accepting a plea deal.
    - boomboomsubban 2y ago
      The article links the court documents detailing what charges he is pleading to. It's receiving and publishing classified information.
  - tssva 2y ago
    The plea deal is about conspiring to obtain them which is not receiving and publishing.
    - boomboomsubban 2y ago
      The plea is linked in the article, it very clearly says it's over receiving and willfully communicating classified documents.
      - tptacek 2y ago
        The article links to the plea document.
        boomboomsubban 2y ago
        Yes, I said that.
      - alistairSH 2y ago
        Are we reading the same document? It clearly states Assange “knowingly and unlawfully conspired with Chelsea Manning to commit the following offenses against the United States…” The case isn’t about Assange simply receiving classified material from Manning.
        boomboomsubban 2y ago
        >“knowingly and unlawfully conspired with Chelsea Manning to commit the following offenses against the United States…”. Why are you quoting that part rather than any of the actual offenses? He undoubtedly conspired with Manning to receive classified documents for the purpose of publishing them, which is what the plea details. Part (a) even says he "received or obtained" classified documents from a person knowing that they were illegally obtained. It doesn't say he helped with the illegal obtaining.
        tptacek 2y ago
  - dhx 2y ago
    News reports indicate a single alleged offence per 18 U.S. Code § 793 (g)[1] for conspiring with at least one other person in the conduct of an offence described in (a) through (f). By way of comparison, the former US president who is also in current poll results more likely than not to be elected as the next US president is presently alleged to have conducted 40 of these 18 U.S. Code § 793 offences. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_(classified_documents_case) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_prosecution_of_Donald_...
    - idlewords 2y ago
      Is there a former non-sitting US president? Did someone just beaver away at a standing desk for four or eight years?
      - dhx 2y ago
        Typo fixed
- frognumber 2y ago
  Legally, no. Practically, yes. I've been in situations where there was no precedent, and in asking what would happen if this went to court, decisions were made based on how lower courts ruled. Legal analyses, law review articles, customary practice, etc. all /influence/ courts.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - dctoedt 2y ago
    > Legal analyses, law review articles, customary practice, etc. all /influence/ courts. Correct. As a general rule: - When the "black-letter law" dictates a result (that is, a statute or binding precedent), a judge will generally follow it — unless the judge really wants to achieve a particular result and is willing to do mental-gymnastics rationalizing or to try to get the law changed. In other situations, judges are typically very busy but they still want to get it "right," in accordance with whatever their personal mental model of life suggests, and they don't like being reversed on appeal. So they (judges) look for support — and try to anticipate possible counterarguments — from a variety of sources, as suggested by the adversaries' counsel battling each other's arguments — each of whom is motivated to help the judge do what counsel want by finding the sorts of things mentioned above.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
jjmarr 2y ago
Journalists generally avoid asking for classified information. The belief is that (in the US) a journalist that passively receives classified information & publishes it isn't committing a crime due to the First Amendment. The actual crime itself was committed by the person leaking the information. Julian Assange actively solicited leaks of information. That's where the espionage claim comes from. There's not much precedent on this though and making a plea deal avoids establishing one. I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. Generally, precedent is established when someone appeals their conviction, and a higher court determines that the conviction is lawful. Higher court decisions bind lower courts, so e.g. if a circuit appeals court says the law is "X", every district court within it has to agree. Since generally, you wouldn't appeal a plea deal, there probably won't be legal precedent from this. That being said, I wonder if the USA will informally say "we got Assange; we can get you" the next time a similar situation comes up.
- llm_trw 2y ago
  The short answer: making a plea deal avoids establishing one.
- AdamJacobMuller 2y ago
  > I wonder if the USA will informally say "we got Assange; we can get you" I can't imagine we haven't been saying that since the day Assange set foot inside the Ecuadorian embassy.
  - jfengel 2y ago
    I sure can't imagine anyone thinking "I'll get off scot free, just like Assange".
- boomboomsubban 2y ago
  >belief is that (in the US) a journalist that passively receives classified information & publishes it isn't committing a crime due to the First Amendment. The actual crime itself was committed by the person leaking the information. Even if you think Assange did more than this, this plea deal is very clearly over passively receiving classified information. The precedent information is good to hear, thank you.
tssva 2y ago
The plea deal is for “conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defense information”. Having documents dropped in your lap and then publishing them is different than conspiring with someone to illegally obtain them in the first place.

tptacek 2y ago

They don't. Generally: lower court decisions don't create binding precedent. Further: Assange wasn't simply charged with "receiving and publishing classified information"; he was charged with being instrumental in that information being exfiltrated in the first place.

boomboomsubban 2y ago
"Generally" is one of those somewhat troubling terms on a case that has severe First Amendment implications, but that's good to know. >Further: Assange wasn't simply charged with "receiving and publishing classified information"; he was charged with being instrumental in that information being exfiltrated in the first place. Those charges were (presumably) dropped as part of the plea, and his plea did not mention them. The plea is only about receiving and publishing.
- tptacek 2y ago
  The standing indictment at the time of the plea deal is very easy to find on Google. And the plea is not only about receiving and publishing; what I think you're not seeing is the explicitly enumerated "overt actions" you would have seen in a full trial, but those "overt actions" are the things that connected Assange to his criminal liability in this case. But the conspiracy charge is right there.
  - boomboomsubban 2y ago
    The standing indictment was over 18(19?) charges, he plead guilty to one. A conspiracy charge, stemming from his role publishing violating the Espionage Act. Not the Computer Fraud and Abuse charge that many, including the DoJ's press release, said was the focus of the indictment. The "overt acts" part you mention is over Title 18 793(g) which basically says if two people work together in one part of a conspiracy they're both guilty of any actions their partner made.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      In any conspiracy charge, the "overt acts" are the specific things the accused did to further the conspiracy. Here, the distinction is being made between receiving a random document and publishing it, the way you would if you got, like, military information about Estonia, not caring what Estonia thinks about the classification of the documents, and joining a conspiracy to deliberately take the documents from Estonia. By way of example: the murder-for-hire accusations against Ross Ulbricht were listed "overt acts" in his conspiracy charge.
      - boomboomsubban 2y ago
        Again, the overt acts reference a specific clause of title 18, and it would allow punishment of Assange for literally anything Manning did. It doesn't seem to be about anything further Assange did. >By way of example: the murder-for-hire accusations against Ross Ulbricht were listed "overt acts" in his conspiracy charge. Yes, the supposed murder for hire was something he wasn't charged with and wasn't mentioned in his sentencing. It was not a part of his trial.
        tptacek 2y ago
        No, conspiracy liability makes Assange liable for for whatever the charged conspiracy, which included Manning, did. The "overt acts" are those things the prosecution can prove Assange himself did. They're the glue that connects Assange to the conspiracy. "Title 18" is almost the entire federal criminal code. Saying "a specific clause in title 18" is like saying "somewhere, in the entire US federal criminal code, it says...". As I just said: the murder-for-hire scheme --- which I believe was in fact part of Ulbricht's sentencing --- was an "overt act" in Ulbricht's conspiracy charge.
- onionisafruit 2y ago
  What action is the court taking that you are worried about setting precedent? I haven’t read more than the linked article, but it appears the only role the court will play is accepting a plea deal.
  - boomboomsubban 2y ago
    The article links the court documents detailing what charges he is pleading to. It's receiving and publishing classified information.
- tssva 2y ago
  The plea deal is about conspiring to obtain them which is not receiving and publishing.
  - boomboomsubban 2y ago
    The plea is linked in the article, it very clearly says it's over receiving and willfully communicating classified documents.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      The article links to the plea document.
      - boomboomsubban 2y ago
        Yes, I said that.
    - alistairSH 2y ago
      Are we reading the same document? It clearly states Assange “knowingly and unlawfully conspired with Chelsea Manning to commit the following offenses against the United States…” The case isn’t about Assange simply receiving classified material from Manning.
      - boomboomsubban 2y ago
        >“knowingly and unlawfully conspired with Chelsea Manning to commit the following offenses against the United States…”. Why are you quoting that part rather than any of the actual offenses? He undoubtedly conspired with Manning to receive classified documents for the purpose of publishing them, which is what the plea details. Part (a) even says he "received or obtained" classified documents from a person knowing that they were illegally obtained. It doesn't say he helped with the illegal obtaining.
        tptacek 2y ago
- dhx 2y ago
  News reports indicate a single alleged offence per 18 U.S. Code § 793 (g)[1] for conspiring with at least one other person in the conduct of an offence described in (a) through (f). By way of comparison, the former US president who is also in current poll results more likely than not to be elected as the next US president is presently alleged to have conducted 40 of these 18 U.S. Code § 793 offences. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_(classified_documents_case) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_prosecution_of_Donald_...
  - idlewords 2y ago
    Is there a former non-sitting US president? Did someone just beaver away at a standing desk for four or eight years?
    - dhx 2y ago
      Typo fixed
frognumber 2y ago
Legally, no. Practically, yes. I've been in situations where there was no precedent, and in asking what would happen if this went to court, decisions were made based on how lower courts ruled. Legal analyses, law review articles, customary practice, etc. all /influence/ courts.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- dctoedt 2y ago
  > Legal analyses, law review articles, customary practice, etc. all /influence/ courts. Correct. As a general rule: - When the "black-letter law" dictates a result (that is, a statute or binding precedent), a judge will generally follow it — unless the judge really wants to achieve a particular result and is willing to do mental-gymnastics rationalizing or to try to get the law changed. In other situations, judges are typically very busy but they still want to get it "right," in accordance with whatever their personal mental model of life suggests, and they don't like being reversed on appeal. So they (judges) look for support — and try to anticipate possible counterarguments — from a variety of sources, as suggested by the adversaries' counsel battling each other's arguments — each of whom is motivated to help the judge do what counsel want by finding the sorts of things mentioned above.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

jjmarr 2y ago

Journalists generally avoid asking for classified information. The belief is that (in the US) a journalist that passively receives classified information & publishes it isn't committing a crime due to the First Amendment. The actual crime itself was committed by the person leaking the information. Julian Assange actively solicited leaks of information. That's where the espionage claim comes from. There's not much precedent on this though and making a plea deal avoids establishing one. I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. Generally, precedent is established when someone appeals their conviction, and a higher court determines that the conviction is lawful. Higher court decisions bind lower courts, so e.g. if a circuit appeals court says the law is "X", every district court within it has to agree. Since generally, you wouldn't appeal a plea deal, there probably won't be legal precedent from this. That being said, I wonder if the USA will informally say "we got Assange; we can get you" the next time a similar situation comes up.

llm_trw 2y ago
The short answer: making a plea deal avoids establishing one.
AdamJacobMuller 2y ago
> I wonder if the USA will informally say "we got Assange; we can get you" I can't imagine we haven't been saying that since the day Assange set foot inside the Ecuadorian embassy.
- jfengel 2y ago
  I sure can't imagine anyone thinking "I'll get off scot free, just like Assange".
boomboomsubban 2y ago
>belief is that (in the US) a journalist that passively receives classified information & publishes it isn't committing a crime due to the First Amendment. The actual crime itself was committed by the person leaking the information. Even if you think Assange did more than this, this plea deal is very clearly over passively receiving classified information. The precedent information is good to hear, thank you.

tssva 2y ago

The plea deal is for “conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defense information”. Having documents dropped in your lap and then publishing them is different than conspiring with someone to illegally obtain them in the first place.