5 ms·

"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

"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.
        boomboomsubban 2y ago
        >Saying "a specific clause in title 18" is like saying "somewhere, in the entire US federal criminal code, it says... I had referenced the specific clause, 793(g), in my previous post to you. It is also referenced in the plea. I didn't think I needed to do so again. I can quote the section >If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.
        tptacek 2y ago
        No. 18 USC 793(g) is the conspiracy charge. One of the elements of a conspiracy charge --- any conspiracy charge --- is one or more "overt acts" that demonstrate the accused was not merely associated with other members of the criminal group, but also actively participated in it. That's what the "any act" in your quote refers to --- those are the "overt acts". None are listed in this plea stipulation. Here: a Ken White article that is almost entirely about how "overt acts" work in conspiracy charges, along with their historical purpose: https://popehat.substack.com/p/overt-acts-and-predicate-acts-explained https://popehat.substack.com/p/overt-acts-and-predicate-acts...
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

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.
      - boomboomsubban 2y ago
        >Saying "a specific clause in title 18" is like saying "somewhere, in the entire US federal criminal code, it says... I had referenced the specific clause, 793(g), in my previous post to you. It is also referenced in the plea. I didn't think I needed to do so again. I can quote the section >If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.
        tptacek 2y ago
        No. 18 USC 793(g) is the conspiracy charge. One of the elements of a conspiracy charge --- any conspiracy charge --- is one or more "overt acts" that demonstrate the accused was not merely associated with other members of the criminal group, but also actively participated in it. That's what the "any act" in your quote refers to --- those are the "overt acts". None are listed in this plea stipulation. Here: a Ken White article that is almost entirely about how "overt acts" work in conspiracy charges, along with their historical purpose: https://popehat.substack.com/p/overt-acts-and-predicate-acts-explained https://popehat.substack.com/p/overt-acts-and-predicate-acts...

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