6 ms·
There has been reporting on this. Apparently there was one zealous person in DOJ pushing the Assange case and everybody else thinks it's too weak to be worth it
by wmf 2y ago
There has been reporting on this. Apparently there was one zealous person in DOJ pushing the Assange case and everybody else thinks it's too weak to be worth it.
- tyingq 2y agoThis article from the Intercept covers it pretty well. The prosecutor in question is Gordon Kromberg. https://archive.is/E5KbI https://archive.is/E5KbI Here's another: https://www.newagebd.net/article/226187/julian-assanges-grand-inquisitor https://www.newagebd.net/article/226187/julian-assanges-gran...
- doctorpangloss 2y agoIt's interesting, if you believe that one person can take down the system - as a whistleblower must - well surely, one person can buck the system's instincts and try to take down you.
- alfiedotwtf 2y agoDon’t forget Hillary was fixated on Assange for a long time, and was even quoted with “Can’t we just drone the guy?”. The direct spat lead to Assange helping Trump and the Russians publish Hillary’s email server spool. I don’t like that Assange ended up helping Trump and Russia, but you can’t blame him for helping the one person who can kick the person out of office who wants to Tomahawk you
- harry8 2y agoI think this is nonsense? As far as I know there is zero evidence that wikileaks did not publish everything newsworthy that they were given regardless of who it helped or hindered. Anyone have anything credible showing they suppressed anything ever?
- whoitwas 2y agoWikileaks canary died a long, long time ago. Nothing from them has been trustworthy for a long time.
- harry8 2y ago[flagged]
- whoitwas 2y agoWhat? It's true. Wikileaks had a canary to let everyone know if they were compromised. The canary died and so they can't be seen as reliable.
- harry8 2y agoAgain. What canary? Where is the source?
- throwup238 2y agoYour comment has no substance and is against house rules: > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. > Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did. Leave the moderating to dang, it's his job and he gets paid for it. If you have nothing to say, don't reply at all.
- whoitwas 2y agoI would have to dig up a decade old computer or scour the web for years. THis is nonsense. It's 100% true that Wikileaks has a cryptographic canary that expired sometime after Julian Assange was incarcerated.
- harry8 2y agoForgive me, I've never heard of a "cryptographic canary." Google tuned up nothing for me about what it is or how it relates to wikileaks. It gave me the strong impression of being nonsense. Perhaps I'm wrong about that. Have you got a link for what it is? My prior is that any evidence of substance that contributed to a belief in wikileaks being untrustworthy would be /very/ easy to find in many locations. Maybe it's not but I can't think why. Perhaps you know?
- rtpg 2y agoI thought there was some story about Wikileaks receiving a bunch of stuff regarding Russian gov't officials and there was internal debate in the org and it ended up not being published. Was that just a made up story?
- bardan 2y agoIt isn't made up. It was during one of the email leaks when the org was stretched to it's limits. Suddenly they get these documents that they don't have time to fully parse and don't look very interesting anyway. Immediately there are dozens of articles put out simultaneously about how Wikileaks refused to publish Russian documents. I guess they learned about the documents being passed to Wikileaks in the first place, wonder who let them know? The documents were later published elsewhere and nobody cared because they were uninteresting.
- rtpg 2y agoI mean all of their leaks are politically motivated, they are axiomatically a cutout. acting scandalized that someone tried to leak stuff is weird. I get the overworked argument in theory, but odd they didn’t publish it at all in the end.
- bardan 2y agoAs I mentioned they were in the middle of one of the biggest releases in their history, the submitted documents didn't look interesting and indeed when they were published nobody cared. Do you know what they were? Publishers won't just publish any old trash you send them.
- GolfPopper 2y agoForeign Policy: WikiLeaks Turned Down Leaks on Russian Government During U.S. Presidential Campaign https://archive.is/ztpnZ https://archive.is/ztpnZ
- rendall 2y ago
- CalChris 2y agoUnproven. At best unproven and denied. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/julian-assange-drone-strike/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/julian-assange-drone-strik...
- nullc 2y agoYour link does not include a denial, it includes Clinton saying she did not recall making such a comment. Is there an outright denial elsewhere?
- nobody9999 2y ago>Your link does not include a denial I don't recall calling for or making detailed plans to assassinate the leaders of the G7 at their recent summit. I also don't recall claiming that you were a pedophile, a murderer and a cross-dresser. So does that mean you believe I have actually said/done the above, as I haven't denied them?
- nullc 2y agoNo one reported you claimed those things and particularly not in an official meeting where there should have been minutes and would have been witnesses which could have boosted a lack of recollection to certainty. Your examples also fail to continue with "but if I did it was a joke" -- a remark itself almost as damning as the act. We're not talking about mere defamation in the case of Assange: talking about the secretary of state-- who unambiguously has the power to murder foreign persons with a suggestion-- suggesting that she's would joke about murdering people. Not a great look. So, no, your remarks are unambiguously not denials, but no denial was required in your case.
- oska 2y agoMate, this is the comment that they were directly replying to : > At best unproven and denied.
- paulddraper 2y ago1. Clinton neither admitted nor denied it. She only said she "didn't recall" making that statement. 2. In any case, Clinton has been very openly critical of Assange, saying the charges were not punishing journalism and that "he has to answer for what he's done." [1] [1] https://youtu.be/Qc19Qk3KKCw?t=50 https://youtu.be/Qc19Qk3KKCw?t=50
- hipadev23 2y agoCheck your sources. Alex Jones doesn't count.
- usernottaken 2y agoI don't think the issue is whether Clinton made this comment or not. The legend simply points out what every one is thinking. That this threw the election for her, and that is likely her entire perspective on this. The Trump admin was likely motivated to prosecute, so as to appear they were not in collusion with the release of the emails, and the current administration directly backed HC. People like Kromberg do not come out of a vacuum.
- richrichie 2y agoNo evidence of Russian hand. Most likely a DNC insider work.
- crummy 2y agoA DNC insider that set up a very large trail indicating external phishing? Edit: at the time I think this was considered to be a pretty comprehensive description of what happened. Not sure if new information has come to light since then. https://www.vice.com/en/article/mg7xjb/how-hackers-broke-into-john-podesta-and-colin-powells-gmail-accounts https://www.vice.com/en/article/mg7xjb/how-hackers-broke-int...
- richrichie 2y agoAnything is possible. Don’t underestimate the stupidity of the party members. Hillary ran her own email server that trafficked classified information and that was maintained by a couple of Pakistani dudes.
- aredox 2y agoThis is a lie. Guccifer 2.0 has been clearly identified as Russian. Julian Assange lied about Seth Rich, and never excused himseéf to his bereaved parents. He is no better than Alex Jones.
- richrichie 2y ago> has been clearly identified as Russian Identified by the same people that have lied about pretty much everything else?
- gbnvc 2y ago[dead]
- zarzavat 2y agoThis doesn’t make sense because the Assange case has been a diplomatic issue between the US and Australia ever since Albanese came to power. Ultimately the responsibility falls to the President since the DOJ isn’t responsible for international relations. Biden must have thought the case was important otherwise there’s no reason to harm relations with an ally over something like that.