Breaking news: Julian Assange arrested in London

That is not what he is indicted for.

Isn't it ironic that he spent 7 years cooped up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, instead or risking what we now know is a 5-year prison term? OK maybe there will be more charges, but if he hadn't run, and had served the full maximum term, he would have been out two years ago ...

 

He believed he would be charged under the Espionage Act, which could carry a 20 year sentence, which along with other potential parallel charges could add up to a near life sentence.

 

I know - and to be fair, I did acknowledge that more charges could come.

But you have to admit that it would be ironic if he imposed a 7-year sentence on himself if he ultimately serves much less time than that in prison.

 

If he had run the only difference that would've made is that he'd have been in Washington 2 year sooner than is the case now. And why the **** should he serve 'a 5-year prison term' for something he didn't do?

 

If 'they' can dream up any more charges, you can bet your bottom dollar they will! This man's life is over, and it could be any of us?

 

There's no proof the Russians did either, but that's still the ongoing official narrative - even 3 effing years later?

 

There are indictments that will likely never be taken to court... There are names, dates, locations, and targets...

That's still better than any alternate paths you can come up with.

 

I have no idea what that was supposed to mean.

 

Yes, many of the people that are now in the Trump camp began parroting Kremlin propaganda here as early as 2012-13. The Russians cyber war against the United States goes back at least that far, and American leadership is purposefully interrering with any serious attempt to fight back. (gee, wonder why?).

I confronted right wingers on this regularly, as far back as 2013. Usually, the poster ran away (most of them had no idea where the material they were parroting came from. Right wingers seldom check their sources).

After the conventions in 2016, the Russians launched a serious and widespread disinformation and political subterfuge campaign against the United States (and particularly Hillary Clinton) using the social media trolling and bot apparatus it set up.

Thus the origin of the term "fake news". False websites designed to look like the real thing showed up on this forum from Trump supporters. They had seen them on 4Chan, FB, etc, and parroted them to their friends, each other, and to folks on this forum.

This continued all through and after the election.

Indeed, it is underway now.

ONe Trumpster here actually quoted the Russian propaganda site RT as a legitimate source. When challenged, he coubled down on it, and took belligerent pride in parroting Russian propaganda.

This was two weeks ago!

The useful idiots are fully invested in their fuhrer's split allegiance.

 

We're going to learn whether or not Assange knew he was working for the Russians, or whether he was merely a useful idiot.

Trump is an idiot, and has been very very useful to the Kremlin over the past two and a half years.

And he checks in with them behind closed doors periodically too, confiscating his translator's notes after the last meeting.

I also do not know whether Chelsea Manning (or whatever his or her name is) is a Russian mole or whether he/she merely bought Assange's phony justice warrior act.

Assange has been acting as a vocal leader against the potential rise of national security apparatus that is not transparent and not democratic. The USA Patriot Act was one of his touchstones.

No one seems to notice that Assange only attacked the United States and some of the Western democracies.

He never criticized the Kremlin, the Chinese or any police state or dictatorship.

There is little doubt that the material the Assange leaked came from the Kremlin and that they were the ones who hacked it.

There is also absolutely no doubt that Trump and his senior campaign staff know about it.

The details await the release of the Mueller Report, and the results of other ongoing investigations.

Of course, there will be no impeachment. But the likihood that most of the senior Trump staff will wind up in the witness chair or the dock, is assured.

 

Yeah ... I'll bet we "learn" stuff. Assange is gonna lie and deny until the cow comes home. If Assange tells the unflattering truth? You'll be quoting me for what I've just posted about Assange's lyin' & denyin'.

 

Of course he will.

But his records are in the hands of law enforcement now. All we have to do is compare it with the intelligence that several countries have been gathering on his for several years.

If there is a connection between the Trump campaign and Assange, (and that is all but certain), we're going to find out a lot more detail.

Right now, of course, the speculation centers on Roger Stone (who certainly is one of the kingpins of the entire thing).

But I strongly supect that Carter Page played a much bigger role that has been previously documented.

I have no evidence of this, other than the rather odd, and strident efforts of the right wing noise machine to cover for Page, even though he was never charged. This cover for Page is not only ongoing, but the theme was revived by the noise machine this week.

Papadopolous knows more than he has told, too (IMO).

The right wing noise machine has worked pretty hard for two "senior foreign policy advisors" who look for all the world like a couple of bag men.

But then, bag men are a big part of Trump's world.

 

You are not an advocate of freedom of speech. Belief in freedom of speech is not belief in freedom - only for speech you agree with. Everyone believes in that.

Belief in freedom of speech is belief in freedom for speech that you disagree with.

The second way you show that you are not an advocate of freedom of speech - and do not really understand freedom of speech - is your inference that ones intentions behind that speech make a difference in the way that ones speech must be done in the "Interest of freedom of Speech"

Respect for freedom of speech is respect for freedom of speech - regardless what the interest behind that speech is.

You seem to be making the argument that that you are only for freedom of speech when the intentions behind that speech are "freedom of speech". This is Orwellian doublespeak ! What this does limit acceptable speech to a very narrow range - "only speech that is in the interest of freedom of speech"

This is not being an advocate for freedom of speech.

 

Assange is going to get a deal to unveil the truth. He's been professing the truth for a long time. Democrats should be VERY VERY worried.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...ian_assange_i_believe_every_word_he_says.html

 

Myself, I have no issue with the information Assange released. However, I do have an issue with how that information was obtained. I do not believe that Assange is wanted in the US for publishing the information. He is wanted because of his alleged participation in obtaining that information. Assange was a hacker and illegally accessed Government and personal information. That is a crime. It does not matter if he obtained hidden, secret, and damning information from his illegal act. The act itself is what was illegal. A person that robs a bank is still guilty of robbing a bank, even if they find dirt on a powerful person from their act. However, even if Assange is found guilty of illegal hacking, that does not mean the courts can not consider the "public worth" of the information collected and released during sentencing.

 

I'm not sure we'll hear anything from Assange. The US indictment is for Mannings activities. I don't know what the DOJ has for evidence, but Manning went to jail recently for not giving more info on Assange. If Assange didn't provide Manning with hacking tools and instruction on how and where heshe should use them ... it's a wash IMO. A jury without at least 1 Wiki supporter? Ok ... right. Libs have wet dreams about Roger Stone ... just like the ones that fueled the Manafort orgies.

 

I think my news feed is broken. I haven't seen a thing from WaPo regarding the daylight SWAT raid on Greg Craig. Help a brother out?

 

Another conspiracy theory was put to bed again, yesterday.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-11/another-conspiracy-theory-died-today

Fake news media ran with this fake story like they did with the fake russian collusion story.

 

D@mn ... great minds eh? You f*cked that up ... I wanted to serve that up myself ... on an unsuspecting of course.
I doubt (D)'s will fondly look back in nostalgia if Barr proceeds to "get with the program" and dispatches a midnight posse of US Marshalls himself. Ugh ... messed up midnight posse too ... it's good though right?

 

Do you believe if a journalist publishes something that is protect and confidential information under the law they should be prosecuted?

 

The question of legality is for the lawyers. Assange did not hack into the Gov't network. There is a big difference between this and guessing the password for a protected file on a thumb drive.

This is a complete discombobulation of the term "Hacking" and the legislation that applies to hacking.

Getting a password to hack into a Gov't network - is a whole different can of worms being given a file that is password protected - and figuring out the password.

We all know what the "hacking" legislation is referring to - we have all seen the movies. It is obvious why this is a serious offense and why thy created this legislation.

What is not so obvious is that this legislation would apply in this case. Where in the law is it specifically written that attempting to guess the password to a file on thumbdrive containing Gov't documents is part of the legal definition of "Hacking".

Dollars to donuts it is not in there - so we are now in the land of guessing what the "intent" of the law was = we are already on dangerous legal ground as we are not supposed to make law and apply it retroactively.

Your - Robbing the bank analogy is not applicable. If it was Assange that actually stole the information from the Gov't it would be a slam dunk . Assange didn't do this. It was Manning that stole the information. This is why Assange is not being charged with "stealing" information- as Manning was.

We have precedent on the books for Media publishing stolen information... NY-Times has done this as have may other news outlets. Perhaps this should be a crime - you may think in your mind "This Should Be a Crime" but its not.

There is a difference between saying "Assange did something illegal" and saying "what he did should be illegal".

The - "Trafficking in stolen property" argument also fails - on the basis of the above precedent. We are not talking about gold bars - nothing of direct intrinsic value was stolen from someone - this is information. While we may think this "should be" illegal - it is not.

The situation demonstrates a big conundrum in law. Here you have a situation where the Gov't was committing crimes - and covering up those crimes. To out this criminal behavior required someone to engage in a crime - by stealing information. That person was punished for this crime.

We are dealing with the question of what about the person who agreed to publish that information. This too is problematic - if Assange had just stuck to the stuff that was related to Gov't crimes this would be one thing.

The Gov't is claiming that he released other stuff though - stuff that put "lives in danger". I do not know whether or not this is true -or the nature of what was released. Given the propensity of the Pentagon, Intelligence agencies, and Establishment bureaucrats to lie and engage in propaganda and cover ups - it is hard to tell. Certainly you can not take unsupported statements at face value......

..... the disingenuous use of the term "hacking" may be another, although and perhaps less egregious, example.

This is a complicated issue that has huge freedom of information and freedom of speech ramifications. This is what most people do not realize - they are thinking in the moment and about long term consequences.

"I don't like what Assange did - Our boys at the top are saying Assange harmed 'merica and that is that".

Belief in freedom of speech is not belief in freedom - only for speech that one agrees with. Everyone believes in that. Belief in freedom - only for speech that one agrees with - is not belief in freedom of speech at all.

Belief in freedom of speech is belief in freedom for speech that one disagrees with.

If it is true that Assange unnecessarily released names of people - names unrelated to Gov't crimes - I have a problem with this. I have not seen evidence that this is true but, even if it was - we should not throw out the entire rulebook on this basis .. and that is what is at stake here.

It is not just the ability to release the nasty stuff (names of operatives ) that is being decided - it is the ability to release information on Gov't crimes that is also being decided.

Unfortunately I do not think this is one of these .. have your cake and eat it too situation. Dollars to donuts this will be decided as a one or the other affair. The will just make everything illegal - or legal... rather than trying to make the above distinction in law.

 

I am an advocate for freedom of speech. I even advocate for your freedom to post the kind of stuff you just posted.

In any case, Assange is NOT being charge with anything that has to do with Freedom of Speech. He was perfectly free to post what he posted.

He is being charged with aiding an attempt to hack into government computers in an attempt to obtain classified documents.

THAT IS A CRIME.

I would like to see him get a chance to clear his name. He should come back here...and get a fair trial.

I'd like Snowden to get that same opportunity.

 

"The Movies" are not real life and do not reflect the laws.

NY Times was not punished for releasing information, because just releasing it in not a crime (except when lives are put in danger).

If Assange did not participate in the hacking, then he should be safe from prosecution. However, he is/was a hacker and was even convicted of it in Australia.

To be honest, I think he was arrested and soon to be deported to the US for the potential information he may have into the Trump collusion investigation. I do not think he will be a suspect. I think he will be a material witness into whether the investigation was conducted under false pretenses.

 

I don't - nor is this illegal at present.