Justice Department Is Preparing To Prosecute WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange (wsj.com) 452
According to the Wall Street Journal, "the Justice Department is preparing to prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange (Warning: source paywalled; alternative source) and is increasingly optimistic it will be able to get him into a U.S. courtroom." From the report: Over the past year, U.S. prosecutors have discussed several types of charges they could potentially bring against Mr. Assange, the people said. Mr. Assange has lived in the Ecuadorean embassy in London since receiving political asylum from the South American country in 2012. The people familiar with the case wouldn't describe whether discussions were under way with the U.K. or Ecuador about Mr. Assange, but said they were encouraged by recent developments.
Prosecutors have considered publicly indicting Mr. Assange to try to trigger his removal from the embassy, the people said, because a detailed explanation of the evidence against Mr. Assange could give Ecuadorean authorities a reason to turn him over. The exact charges Justice Department might pursue remain unclear, but they may involve the Espionage Act, which criminalizes the disclosure of national defense-related information.
Prosecutors have considered publicly indicting Mr. Assange to try to trigger his removal from the embassy, the people said, because a detailed explanation of the evidence against Mr. Assange could give Ecuadorean authorities a reason to turn him over. The exact charges Justice Department might pursue remain unclear, but they may involve the Espionage Act, which criminalizes the disclosure of national defense-related information.
Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden (Score:4, Insightful)
Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden.
Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden (Score:4, Insightful)
Being both an asshole and paranoid didn't mean he was wrong.
Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Define "rape". My understanding is that he met a girl at a bar and they got it on. She later decided that it was rape because they were both drinking.
Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. It's tough to think of someone who comes off as more slimy and repulsive than Julian Assange. The man has a demeanor of a reptile. But Wikileaks and his work are the real reason he is being persecuted and no free thinking person who believes in democracy and rule by the people support that persecution.
Re: (Score:2)
His work includes carrying water for Russia and Trump?
Re: (Score:3)
Really. You use that to describe Assange, who's revealed war crimes and corrupt secrets from both parties in the USA and nations around the world, and not someone like Sean Hannity or Rachael Madcow, who's paid $30,000 to alternate between McCarthyism and gaslighting.
So I have to ask....is your willful dumbfuckery powered by fusion?
Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden (Score:4, Insightful)
So this particular conspiracy theory was right all along.
It's not a conspiracy theory if the only people who think it's *not* true are idiots like AmiJoJo.
Anyone who thinks the UK was spending millions of pounds a year surveilling Assnage around the clock just to return him for questioning on some vague sexual assault case in Sweden were deluded morons to begin with. It was pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that the intent all along was to extradite him to the U.S., and that the whole Sweden case was just a honeypot operation. They just wanted to get him on a plane before he could find asylum in some country that isn't a U.S. lapdog. And if it weren't for Ecuador having an embassy in London, he'd already be rotting in a U.S. prison (or worse, being held indefinitely in Guantanamo).
Re: (Score:3)
What would be the pretext in the UK? Assange isn't accused of committing any crimes there and thus they would have no reason to detain or question him. Even now, as the Trump DOJ is proving all of Assange's fears to be completely rational and his haters to be assholes, a foriegn state doing a snatch-and-grab on the CIA's say so in broad daylight would force people to pay attention. And the UK has denied extradition [theregister.co.uk] to the USA
Re: (Score:3)
Not necessarily. No matter the charges, if he was found guilty on them and was sentenced, the time spent in prison might be less than the time spent in the embassy, which by any other form is just another prison.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It was the fear of being extradited to the US, either legally or by rendition, that had him worried.
Remember this was happening around the time when the US was grabbing people off the streets of Europe and sending them to black sites in 3rd countries for torture.
Re: (Score:2)
You realize we are talking about the US right? Basically the only country in the world that still thinks it is okay to torture people?
For values of "basically" approaching, "no, not really", yes [omct.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Basically the only country in the world that still thinks it is okay to torture people?
The country thinks that? Or maybe Trump and his deplorables think that.
Re: (Score:2)
You're cute if you think Trump's the only President who ever considered torture.
Re: (Score:2)
No, actually, it *does* prove the GPP wrong, your attempt to hide it behind a slight change in phrasing notwithstanding.
BTW, I imagine that death by ingestion of polonium or nerve agent would be quite unpleasant, rather like, well, torture, for lack of a better word. Don't you?
Re: (Score:2)
The country he without any consideration could go to a few months before it became "dangerous"?
The country that doesn't just extradite people to the US or elsewhere?
The country that explicitly refuses to extradite people for political crimes and anything that could in theory lead to a death penalty?
The country that isn't a NATO member with very close ties to the US?
The country that _isn't_ the UK which is a NATO member with very close ties to the US, the country that Assange for some reason choose to stay e
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it's bullshit to claim you're hiding in the UK to avoid extradition from Sweden to the US. I highly doubt the leaked sealed indictment dates to this period.
Julian Assange - Fugitive from Swedish justice (Score:2)
Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden.
Much like any alleged rapist doesn't want to be brought into a courtroom. Nice though they are said to be, Swedish prison is still prison.
The "Rube Goldberg" conceptions about extraditing Assange from Sweden instead of the UK are bizarre fantasies.
For all you know this is just a troll to get Assange to continue imprisoning himself.
Re: (Score:3)
Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden.
Of course he was right, otherwise he'd be in a Swedish prison on rape charges.
Is it criminal to be a useful idiot? (Score:3)
How the heck was that moderated as "Insightful"? Even for today's Slashdot, that's a bit of a stoop. I wonder if any of the comments are coming from people who have read any of the books about WikiLeaks or even today's story in question.
Assange did start with an interesting idea. However he is basically a nutjob and he basically set himself up to be used and abused. He peaked out several years ago when he achieved useful idiot status. Before that, he had actually done some interesting stuff that was on the
Re: (Score:3)
Wait, you mean the UK wasn't spending millions of pounds a year to surveil him around the clock just to return him to Sweden to answer questions about some vague sexual assault case that felt about as authentic as an episode of reality TV????
Shocked...I'm just shocked I tell you...
Re: Julian Assange was right to not to go to Swede (Score:4, Funny)
Leave it in your ass, moron, you don't know shit.
How's he supposed to learn about shit if he leaves it in his ass?? Sometimes you've just got to get your hands dirty.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how they complain about the immigrants, but are happy to let them do the shit jobs they don't want to be dirtied by themselves.
Matt Whittaker (Score:5, Informative)
Just remember, the head of the Justice Department is Trump's new appointee Matthew Whittaker, who was a patent troll whose company was shut down for fraud and whose claim to fame was a toilet designed for guys with really big dicks and a time-traveling bitcoin-based commodity..
I did not make that up.
https://boingboing.net/2018/11... [boingboing.net]
https://theslot.jezebel.com/th... [jezebel.com]
So if you have a problem with Julian Assange being prosecuted, take it up with Hair Furor.
Re:Matt Whittaker (Score:5, Insightful)
What they will be trying to prosecute, is that it is illegal for a foreign citizen in a foreign nation to report the criminal espionage activity of the United States government in those and other nations, interesting idea. So here I am in Australia, if I see an CIA agent murder an Australian in Australia, the US government wants to be able to prosecute me for the crime of espionage if I publicly report their crime, keeping in mind it is a crime to fail to report a crime, accessory after the fact. So the US government is attempting to demand that citizens all over the world, betray their own countries laws, to keep secret the criminal activities of the US government, in those countries.
Perhaps some of you can grasp why this would be an extremely hard sell, for anything but an entirely corrupt third world nation, a puppet state of the US deep state. He was reporting on US criminal activities outside of the US, as a foreign citizen, in a foreign land. Now the US wants to make it illegal and global law, that the US is able to break any countries laws for any reason and that no citizen of any country, NO CITIZEN, is allowed to report those crimes and should they do so, be subject to prosecution and obviously illegal detention and probably torture. Go fuck yourself USA. So will the UK buckle, probably not, not matter how much the US extorts them with the bullshit white helmets and the theft of 200 million US dollars, even after the poms were forced to buy more crappy F35 Flying Pigs as a result.
It would also be extremely poorly received in Australia and possibly result in a boycott of US goods, expect Breaker Morant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] messaging. Want to extradite Assange, do it from Australia, else face a major backlash and many Australians doing much worse than Julian Assange.
Re: (Score:2)
So here I am in Australia, if I see an CIA agent murder an Australian in Australia, the US government wants to be able to prosecute me for the crime of espionage if I publicly report their crime, keeping in mind it is a crime to fail to report a crime, accessory after the fact.
Under the witnessing laws passed in the 2001 Australian Anti-Terrorism Act you would be subject to a mandatory prison sentence of 5 years. Proof of your innocence would be taken from you at the same time burden of proof placed upon you.
So the US government is attempting to demand that citizens all over the world, betray their own countries laws, to keep secret the criminal activities of the US government, in those countries.
Yep
Now the US wants to make it illegal and global law, that the US is able to break any countries laws for any reason and that no citizen of any country, NO CITIZEN, is allowed to report those crimes and should they do so, be subject to prosecution and obviously illegal detention and probably torture.
Yep
Go fuck yourself USA.
Yep
Want to extradite Assange, do it from Australia, else face a major backlash and many Australians doing much worse than Julian Assange.
Yep
Re: (Score:2)
What they will be trying to prosecute, is that it is illegal for a foreign citizen in a foreign nation to report the criminal espionage activity of the United States government in those and other nations, interesting idea. So here I am in Australia, if I see an CIA agent murder an Australian in Australia, the US government wants to be able to prosecute me for the crime of espionage if I publicly report their crime, keeping in mind it is a crime to fail to report a crime, accessory after the fact. So the US government is attempting to demand that citizens all over the world, betray their own countries laws, to keep secret the criminal activities of the US government, in those countries.
No, that's not it at all. Imagine that you are driving a car and reading and writing SMS messages ("text messages" for us US and Canada people) because you aren't paying attention you kill a pedestrian. And now you're crying about looking at 10+ years in jail because "the government doesn't want me to use my phone in the car". No, you're in trouble for killing someone through carelessness.
The problem is not that it's a "crime to report a crime" as you basically claim. The problem is that the docu
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Assange committed NO CRIME. He is NOT under the jurisdiction of the US. It doesn't fucking matter what he did to piss off the US government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's nice to be appreciated. Most of my jokes are just casting pearl necklaces before swine, but it's gratifying when somebody gets one.
Re:Matt Whittaker (Score:5, Informative)
It was enough Whittaker's company that he made promotional videos for them and wrote threatening letters to customers who complained about the fraud. He was apparently very involved with the company.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/d... [wsj.com]
https://www.wsj.com/articles/w... [wsj.com]
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Well the WSJ articles are behind paywalls, so it's hard to comment on them
But the WaPo had this on him "Whitaker was not named in the FTC complaint.( against world patent marketing)"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
PR offers facts, and you offer nothing but feels. Otherwise we'd see you refuting him rather than asking for cheese to go with your whine.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, no refutation, just more attempts to distract.
Re: (Score:2)
Please explain why Trump keeps axing his most competent aides, then...?
Re: (Score:2)
The wrong in your post is in every sentence so no point in refuting any of it. It would take way too long.
Excuses, excuses. Ante up or GTFO.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget Puerto Rico, more thousands.
Re: (Score:2)
The projection is strong in this one.
Prosecute him for? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Jurisdiction? (Score:5, Insightful)
How do we get the right to prosecute a foreign national doing things in a foreign country that are protected by our own first amendment? Really don't understand this.
Re: (Score:2)
They prosecute him in the USA and send extradition orders to whatever country he resides.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump reportedly screamed at May over the phone the other day and his public spat with Macron and Macron's response show quite clearly that not even the US's closest
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How do we get the right to prosecute a foreign national doing things in a foreign country that are protected by our own first amendment? Really don't understand this.
1) The first amendment covers you if you're given secret documents and republish them, it doesn't cover you if you solicit those documents and aid in their extraction. Assange did both of those things. This came up a while back when a journalist (I think Maddow) asked viewers to send her Trumps tax returns (not the partial return she published). The fact she solicited the documents meant she could have been charged if someone sent her the tax returns and she published them, while another journalist would ha
Re: (Score:2)
Countries have the right to defend themselves against attacks from other countries, idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
How do we get the right to prosecute a foreign national doing things in a foreign country that are protected by our own first amendment? Really don't understand this.
Having a military force that's 5x larger than the next-nearest country probably helps.
Re:Jurisdiction? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Jurisdiction? (Score:3)
Fucking this. The hypocrisy from the anti-Assange crowd is unbearable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't say it was his party. And you should exercise more care when copying/pasting. "Chat log" LOL.
Re:Jurisdiction? (Score:5, Insightful)
Time to dig out the really interesting stuff (Score:2)
Here's hoping Assange ( or another of our favorite whistle blowers currently residing in Russia ) held back some seriously juicy documents for the world to ponder over in the event something like this ever becomes a reality.
That's a really nice $illegal_as_hell_with_a_silly_operation_name Surveillance System you have there . . . . would be a shame if something happened to it. . . . . .
In court? (Score:5, Interesting)
Mr. Assange's platform has shrunk dramatically during his internment. If we had the audacity to put him on trial he'd become more powerful than he has ever been.
That would not be permitted. There would be a Jack Ruby. I'd wager a pint on it.
Why make a martyr? (Score:2)
Kill him and you'll have decades of conspiracies and more than a few copy cats. Lock him up and he just goes away.
He's not a US citizen... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:He's not a US citizen... (Score:5, Informative)
52 U.S. Code  30121 [cornell.edu] is a Federal law that makes it a felony for any foreign national to attempt to influence a U.S. election, and a felony for any U.S. citizen to help them do it.
The DOJ appears to be trying to get Assange for conspiracy with Russians or Americans to influence the 2016 U.S. election. There is public information that Roger Stone, a long-time Trump associate, was in contact with Assange during the campaign, discussing how to handle the stolen DNC emails. Maybe that plays out, maybe it doesn't. In any case we'll know more when Mueller wraps things up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And like all federal laws, it applies to anyone within US jurisdiction. That's what "jurisdiction" fucking means. Assange isn't, and wasn't when he did - whatever it's alleged he did.
At a time when Trump is apparently arguing [businessinsider.com.au] that foreign nationals in the US aren't "subject to its jurisdiction", it seems even more than ordinarily hypocritical for his own justice department to be simultaneously arguing that foreign nationals outside it are.
Re: (Score:2)
a Federal law that makes it a felony for any foreign national to attempt to influence a U.S. election, and a felony for any U.S. citizen to help them do it
So when are they going to indict and extradite these Australians [dailycaller.com] for helping Bernie Sanders?
When are they going to indict and extradite Christopher Steele, the "ex" MI6 agent that supposedly contacted Russians to compile his "salacious and unverified" Trump dossier? When are they going to prosecute those involved [theamerica...vative.com] from the DNC, the Clinton campaign, the Department of Justice, and the FBI?
It's funny, we're going on two years of this "Trump-Russia collusion" business, but the bulk of the evidence points to a c
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how extradition works. The country from which the subject is extradited must agree that the subject's actions constituted a crime. I'm pretty sure that interfering in elections is also a crime in the UK.
Additional restrictions may apply. For example, many countries that have abolished capital punishment will not extradite to a country that has the death penalty unless that country promises not to execute the subject.
Don't we have treaties with Australia? (Score:2)
I suppose you can argue that what he did shouldn't be a crime. Heck, I'm not even sure what they'd charge him with.
Still, if you didn't want him prosecuted you were probably better off with Bernie. Yeah, Hilary cheated to win the primary, but she was such a lousy candidate that shouldn't have mattered. If she'd lost like she should have (by 10+ points) we'd be saying "Mr Pres
Re: (Score:2)
the kind that make a crime committed in another country against our citizens or our gov't prosecutable via extradition treaty?
You mean like invading a foreign country killing hundreds of thousands of their citizens in a "not a war" where you're basically occupying a country for no clear reason.
Do send George W over so that *pick any country* can try him as a war criminal.
Still, if you didn't want him prosecuted you were probably better off with Bernie.
So the political arm of the US government is going to ignore separation of powers and assume control of the judiciary, just like a police state. That's effectively what you are saying.
The bad guys cheat. Get over it. It happens. But if the good guys stay home then what do you expect?
You can thank people like Assange and Snowden for the democracy you have.
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary, most Australians are decent and honest and hardworking people.
"Insurance" files (Score:2)
Wonder if they're legit. That's his last resort.
Assange is Australian (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not only have they already started setting up bases outside of the asian subcontinent, they're also investing heavily into aircraft carriers. Other than the originally Ukranian built sister ship to Russia's only carrier they've refitted and gotten into service, they've got a domestically built version of the same design
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And Fuck the Australian government for not protecting one of our own.
From what? The only thing he's been accused of is rape charges. Charges that a British court (a country which operates under a very similar legal system to Australia) has determined as legitimate charges.
Australia does not run out and protect people's criminal activities in other countries. Their bounds extend exclusively to ensuring the subjects aren't treated in a way that would be illegal to do in their home country. e.g. Assange goes to prison, tough shit, keep your dick in your pants. Assange gets the
Re: (Score:2)
Assange's defense ... (Score:5, Interesting)
... will be that he's a publisher and protected by freedom of the press.
When his name first surfaced in association with Wikileaks, he made it clear that he was simply the "spokesman," and did not "hack," or supervise the release of material, and had no way to know what the internal workings were.
He was simply the front man.
That's how he circumvented culpability for a hell of a lot of years.
Wikileaks itself elevated interest in Assange when the organization turned political in a move to increase donations which had fallen off due to lack of interest by supporters.
Wikileak's decline also affected Assange's visibility and he resented the lack of attention.
Assange started to take some credit for the material Wikileaks was releasing.
That was incriminating and blew his credibility as a distant spokesperson.
For that reason, he asserted that he was a journalist and that Wikileaks was a publishing house.
I'm leaving out the the narrative regarding his relationship with two women because those details are irrelevant.
With the loss of Ecuador's support, Assange is in deep shit.
so many things wrong here (Score:2)
BUT, Assange is not an American citizen. He is Australian. The fact that he received stolen data is no excuse for us to prosecute him.
Re:so many things wrong here (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe that sunlight disinfects. The fewer secrets countries and corporations are able to keep, the better off the world is. Snowden, Assange, and Manning are all heroes.
The villains in the US are the officials that squandered $6 trillion (6 trillion dollars!) on military homicide sprees since 9/11. Money that could have been used better within the US. Want to put America first -- do it, don't give it lip service while dumping money into futile wars abroad.
Re:so many things wrong here (Score:4, Insightful)
Snowden and Manning did their civic duty. If the government is so corrupt, civic duty is heroic then government needs to be overhauled.
Nonetheless, they did a significant national service.
Assange has tried to play puppet master, controlling what information is given, selecting what you can and cannot know. I see no difference between him and the Pentagon, selective manipulation for personal gain.
If they should be prosecuted, so should he.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So were those who deployed him illegally. His deployment violated military law as he was deemed mentally unfit.
So were those who posted passwords on post-it notes on secure computers, violating military law on such information.
So were those who knowingly gunned down journalists and committed other acts of terror in violation of the Geneva Convention and the Hague Convention, plus US military law.
Yet you defend those traitors.
There can be only one law. A person cannot be guilty for embarrassing others. If th
Its all been nothing more than ... (Score:3, Interesting)
.. a long string of Bluffs. There are no charges. The UK police had him and could have extradited him, they did not. Julian offered to turn himself over in exchange for the release of Manning, They released him but Obama nullified Julians offer. The rape allegations turned out to be nothing. The UK police going into the Embassy was not to take him out but to verify he was still there. The UK Police and their leads know full well the embassy border laws. They went ion because I bluffed them. There was a single video feed of that night by a supposed independent, there were several streams/urls of this video feed but one with a chat box. I posted "Julian left the building two weeks ago". Verification was asked for, I stayed quiet, they went in (all this within 15 minutes).
Why the Bluffs? It sends the message the people have no control over their government and that the news media better stay away from the truth. Apparently, they pretty much are and this is not the first time the news media has been threatened as there was an anthrax issue in 2001.
There are no viable charges against Wikileaks nor Assange. Not by Sweden, UK nor the US.
Julian has dug deep into the world of secrets and has seen how nasty some in power can be and have been, Snowden has contributed to this exposure. But knowing all this, how easy is it for Julian to see the Bluff?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Julian offered to turn himself over in exchange for the release of Manning, They released him but Obama nullified Julians offer. The rape allegations turned out to be nothing.
While I don’t support the idea of charging Asshole-Assange with a crime in the US, the two statements above are misleading.
Firstly, if you’re accused of a crime, you don’t get to decide under what conditions you’ll turn yourself in. It’s an arrest, not a negotiation.
Secondly, the rape allegations did not “turn out to be nothing.” The prosecutor realized that they were going to be unable to prosecute within sweden’s legal time limit and therefore made the choic
Re: (Score:3)
The UK police had him and could have extradited him, they did not.
No they couldn't as they were waiting for the outcome of a trail in the UK.
Julian offered to turn himself over in exchange for the release of Manning, They released him but Obama nullified Julians offer.
Not quite. This was discussed at length when it happened here on Slashdot. There were technicalities of how the actions and promises of both side could be interpreted.
The rape allegations turned out to be nothing.
The rape allegations turned out to be rape allegations. How can you say they were nothing if they never went to trial? Skipping town in the hope that the other party gives up doesn't turn an allegation into "nothing".
Why the Bluffs?
Because the legal system has trouble dealing with the
Re: (Score:2)
The rape charges ran out of time. We don't know the evidence, neither do you.
Show me any of the offers you claim, infowars is not a source.
Show me when the police could have legally extradited him, given British due process laws and the Vienna convention.
I'm not arguing you're wrong, only lacking in details.
Six years in inhuman conditions (Score:2)
21. (1) Every prisoner who is not employed in outdoor work shall have at least one hour of suitable exercise in the open air daily if the weather permits.
The US and Sweden authorities could count these six years of inhuman conditions as a complete punishment. One year is such inhuman conditions could count at least as five years.
Re: (Score:2)
Voluntary confinement, regardless of cause.
He can't count a personal fetish as anything beyond that.
No great surprise (Score:2)
Assange is not useful. America has no loyalty, Trump less so. It's all about usefulness.
Assange was always expendable. This is regardless of any actual crimes.
Mind you, that's true of any government or political figure. People into politics generally can't be trusted. People who know what's good for others is automatically a control freak who cannot be trusted. Same goes for idealogues.
Don't trust any of them.
Re: Assange's fears were correct? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not a crime if it's done outside the country, right? I mean.... it's a crime in many countries to depict the Prophet Mohammed, and some of those countries are international treaty signatories, but that doesn't mean they get to extradite Charlie Hebdo artists.
Was he in the US during any of his espionage activities?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a crime if it's done outside the country, right?
Probably not. If you were to hack into a bank and transfer the money into your own offshore account, then I'm certain that the country with the bank would have both some law saying that they can extradite you, as well as some treaty with a bunch of other countries that give permission for the extradition. Not that I believe it's okay to charge anyone outside of your country with anything, I'm just saying with certainty that such laws exist.
Re: (Score:2)
You messiah can see far into the future? While impressive how come he didn't see the problem before going to Sweden in the first place?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You're not real big on that continuity of government thing, are you? Are you seriously proposing that every civil servant should be replaced by every incoming new Administration? Are you aware that Trump still—after nearly two years—hasn't filled half the appointments that he already needs to fill?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fer Chrissakes... (Score:5, Insightful)
Assange quit exposing things for the sake of truth years ago. He used Wikileaks to pursue a personal agenda, and he made it very clear that he hoped to throw the US election.
He was so eager to pillory his target that he sold himself out, not only to their domestic opponents, but to a not-exactly-friendly foreign nation as well.
If there was ever anything to admire or respect about the man, there's precious little left of it now.
Re:Fer Chrissakes... (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason why he wanted to expose the truth is completely irrelevant. The only thing relevant is that you want to crucify him only for exposing the truth. Again, it makes me sad that people like you consider exposing the truth is an atrocious crime. I can understand you may be nationalistic (although your signature in French makes me doubt that), but then you should have the honesty to say your goal is only to increase the power of the US by all means necessary. Do not try pretend to have the moral high-ground, because you really don't, at least not in my eyes.
BTW, I'm not American. I live in Canada, and I certainly consider the US as a "not-exactly-friendly foreign nation".
Re:Fer Chrissakes... (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason why he wanted to expose the truth is completely irrelevant.
You can claim that all you want, but that doesn't make it true.
The only thing relevant is that you want to crucify him only for exposing the truth.
No, the other poster clearly indicated he wants to crucify Assange for using Wikileaks for personal gain and/or vendettas.
Again, it makes me sad that people like you consider exposing the truth is an atrocious crime.
The problem is he didn't really expose the truth, he exposed half a truth and mislead many people. We all know that he allowed Wikileaks to be used a vehicle for propaganda and helped the Russian intelligence agencies interfere in the U.S. election. He did so because he wanted to pursue a personal vendetta against Hillary Clinton. The amusing part is that he hated Clinton because she wanted to do what the Trump administration is trying to do to him now.
This looks like a case of being hoisted by your own petard, and I have little sympathy for someone who deliberately helped Trump get elected when they are facing the consequences of Trump having been elected.
Do not try pretend to have the moral high-ground, because you really don't, at least not in my eyes.
That's ok. Sometimes people just want to enjoy a little schaedenfreude.
Re:Fer Chrissakes... (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason why he wanted to expose the truth is completely irrelevant.
False. Intent matters. Assange's intent on getting his ego stroked, and this has rather obviously coloured his actions.
I also do not at all appreciate your blatant attempts at projection, miscategorisation, and to put words in my mouth. I never said anything remotely like I wanted to "crucify" Assange. So stop claiming that I did, or KGFY.
You also continue to ignore—even though I've made myself pretty clear on this point—that I don't object to uncovering facts. What I object to is Assange's highly selective use of selected information as a weapon to further a very self-interested agenda, one that takes no consideration of its effects on the well-being of countless ordinary Americans (and others) who've done no-one any harm, least of all Assange.
And just so you know, I'm a US-Swedish dual national and, yes, I do consider myself a loyal citizen of both of my countries, and, no, I see nothing wrong with that.
When you're ready to respond to things I've actually said, get back to me.