Good for him - he's less innocent than folks like Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden but a heavy prosecution of him would definitely have a chilling effect on whistle-blowers. Did he release things at politically convenient times? Yes. Should that be illegal? Fuck no.
2016 Assange was a very different person than who he was in 2009. The espionage charges relating to the Chelsea Manning leaks were always bogus, but his involvement with the Trump campaign solidified him as a huge asshole in my mind.
Even back then, WikiLeaks was telling trump to claim the election was rigged and stolen. These are not the actions of a whistleblower, and it's clear he was not a whistleblower (or working with whistleblowers) during this period and likely a mouthpiece for Russia to sow division in the US.
In my opinion, absolutely. His legal exile lasted far too long... I think most people won't even know this happened unless the late night shows pick it up.
Legendary. That's him cleared in Sweden, UK, and the US. Apparently they're considering letting him return to Australia (his home country) as well. Godspeed, Assange!
Meanwhile, they have an orange beanbag presidential hopeful spilling the beans to the whoever around the world and he gets millions of dollars of support, literal legal immunity from anything and 1/3 of the country want him to become their Cheeto leader in Mountain Dew.
That’s because that orange beanbag seated three associate justices of the Supreme Court, 54 judges for the courts of appeals, 174 district court judges, and three judges for the United States Court of International Trade.
To be fair, Biden has seated almost as many judges in his term, so that has balanced out at the lower levels. With the very important exception of the Supreme Court.
There’s also the important point of Biden not committing crimes, like those that the commenter mentioned, and having those charges heard by one of his own appointed judges. Appeals from Trump’s other cases can potentially end up with one of his appointed appeals court judges, or ultimately be heard by the newly conservative Supreme Court, as you pointed out.
I mentioned it because that’s the notable difference between Assange’s and Trump’s ability to live above the law.
Hey, to the positive, less than 1/3 of the country. First, if you look at vote numbers versus total population in previous elections, as well factoring in as the total population including those that can't vote for various reasons. Then, factor in that the party of shit nazis is disenfranchising remaining R voters at lightning speed, the party is massively in debt in some states and basically ceasing to exist, more of the insurrectionists continue to go to prison, the rest of the crazies end up doing something stupid and get arrested...
Things are looking up as that fraction heads towards 1/4 and hopefully they'll go back into their stinky rotting little hole where they belong. Their Russian troll daddies just make the presence look larger and more present than they really are.
Merrick Garland and his DOJ are absolutely not taking marching orders from the Whitehouse. Garland also doesn't give two shits about politics. Dude's rigidly ethical
Unenforceable wish: no limit on downvotes, but people should have to EXPLAIN them. I often learn more from opposing opinions than from statements of agreement. If I say something unpopular, I want to know WHY it’s so widely disliked. Maybe I’m unaware of something important.
All this extended conversation about all the downvotes and not a single person responded to the reason I gave for downvoting right up there. Merrick Garland's DOJ absolutely does not care about politics, and the implication that this guilty plea has to do with the Biden Admin wanting to influence the election in November is fictional.
You’re right, the President should basically do nothing in the year before an election. Everything must be accomplished in the first three years, then we take a break.
No, the SCOTUS has made clear that you cannot be tried in abstentia.
This case requires us to decide whether Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43 permits the trial in absentia of a defendant who absconds prior to trial and is absent at its beginning. We hold that it does not.
Many countries have the authority to prosecute crimes that occur on their soil even if the perpetrator is outside the country. Including Assange's native country.
The foreign interference crimes apply to conduct that occurs in Australia. So, if the perpetrator was in Australia at the time they engaged in interference, then prosecuting them would be relatively straightforward, provided there was sufficient evidence. If an offender is outside Australia at the time of the interference, they could still be charged with a crime.
Assange personally hacked the alleged computer in US soil? Cos as I see it he published classified information from outside the US so my question would be, you can be judged for publish classified information of the US even if you are not a US citizen? As far as I know the person/s accountable for the crime are ones who probably right now are working for the US govt..
The US alleges that Assange was part of a conspiracy to hack computers in the US, ie he was not just a passive receiver, he was involved in planning the hack.
The superseding indictment alleges that Assange was complicit with Chelsea Manning, a former intelligence analyst in the U.S. Army, in unlawfully obtaining and disclosing classified documents related to the national defense. Specifically, the superseding indictment alleges that Assange conspired with Manning; obtained from Manning and aided and abetted her in obtaining classified information
I don't know what is going on here. On the one hand, I don't trust Assange. On the other hand, I really don't trust the Trump DoJ. Especially since they indicted Assange after the Obama DoJ concluded he hadn't broken the law.
