5 ms·

The plea deal is about conspiring to obtain them which is not receiving and publishing.

by tssva 2y ago

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
      It doesn't list any of the overt acts, because it's a plea agreement, and the defense stipulates to the conspiracy; there's nothing to prove, except that the prosecution and defense agree.
      - boomboomsubban 2y ago
        Then why does it list violations of 793 c, d, and e? Those are clearly "overt acts."
        tptacek 2y ago
        No. Overt acts are not themselves criminal charges; they're evidentiary requirements for a conspiracy charge. Individual overt acts don't even have to be backed by statutes; an "overt act" in a conspiracy might not itself be a criminal violation at all. I think you're trying to work back from some faulty first principles here. What you should do here is compare the plea stipulation to the superseding indictment, and note that the "overt acts" of the conspiracy charge refer back to the "general allegations" section. Or: you could go track down any other conspiracy indictment (Ulbricht's is a fun one) and see examples of "overt acts" listed explicitly.
    - tssva 2y ago
      The actual offensive says he knew the documents had been and “would be” obtained illegally. The key phrase is “would be”. Once he knew documents would in the future be taken illegally and agreed to receive them and publish them it entered the realm of an illegal conspiracy to obtain classified material. This differs from for example The Pentagon Papers where the material was delivered to reporters after already having been taken. They had no foreknowledge that they would be taken.
      - tptacek 2y ago
        The original indictment goes much further than that! They didn't have him on a technicality; they had him as effectively the orchestrator of the conspiracy. Who knows if that would have held up in court; I think the case wasn't all that strong on anything more than a minor role for Assange.

The plea deal is about conspiring to obtain them which is not receiving and publishing.

by tssva 2y ago

The plea deal is about conspiring to obtain them which is not receiving and publishing.

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
    It doesn't list any of the overt acts, because it's a plea agreement, and the defense stipulates to the conspiracy; there's nothing to prove, except that the prosecution and defense agree.
    - boomboomsubban 2y ago
      Then why does it list violations of 793 c, d, and e? Those are clearly "overt acts."
      - tptacek 2y ago
        No. Overt acts are not themselves criminal charges; they're evidentiary requirements for a conspiracy charge. Individual overt acts don't even have to be backed by statutes; an "overt act" in a conspiracy might not itself be a criminal violation at all. I think you're trying to work back from some faulty first principles here. What you should do here is compare the plea stipulation to the superseding indictment, and note that the "overt acts" of the conspiracy charge refer back to the "general allegations" section. Or: you could go track down any other conspiracy indictment (Ulbricht's is a fun one) and see examples of "overt acts" listed explicitly.
  - tssva 2y ago
    The actual offensive says he knew the documents had been and “would be” obtained illegally. The key phrase is “would be”. Once he knew documents would in the future be taken illegally and agreed to receive them and publish them it entered the realm of an illegal conspiracy to obtain classified material. This differs from for example The Pentagon Papers where the material was delivered to reporters after already having been taken. They had no foreknowledge that they would be taken.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      The original indictment goes much further than that! They didn't have him on a technicality; they had him as effectively the orchestrator of the conspiracy. Who knows if that would have held up in court; I think the case wasn't all that strong on anything more than a minor role for Assange.