HuffPost: Julian Assange Faces Federal Charges. But Let's Not Forget What We've Learned From WikiLeaks.

jim bell jdb10987 at
Sat Nov 24 13:16:43 PST 2018

 On Saturday, November 24, 2018, 10:58:07 AM PST, juan <juan.g71 at> wrote:
 On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 18:18:50 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10987 at> wrote:

>> HuffPost: Julian Assange Faces Federal Charges. But Let's Not Forget What We've Learned From WikiLeaks..
BTW, I utterly detest Huffington Post.  But that doesn't prevent me from posting articles from it.   ("A stopped clock is right twice a day").
>   so assamge helped the socialist corporatist fascist trump to gain power and now he's going to be lynched by his 'ally' - I kinda wonder what was assange thinking....

In one sense, I was in a very similar position to Assange:  I very much wanted Hillary Clinton to lose the election.  That doesn't mean that I wanted Donald Trump to win, but in America's political duopoly, wanting the Democrat to lose means, if that want is provided, the Republican wins.   (How I wish that were not the case!!!)
The big difference is that the only thing I did to attempt to cause Hillary Clinton to lose, was to vote for Gary Johnson, Libertarian candidate.  (I voted in the American state of Washington, which went 54.3% for Hillary, and so my vote (for Johnson) wouldn't have accomplished anything even if I had voted for Trump.),_2016

 Assange, at least, publicized a lot of negative information that arguably caused Hillary to lose the election.  Which I very much liked, of course.   Even so, Assange didn't cause Hillary or the DNC to be corrupt:  They were corrupt before Assange publicized that fact.  Do you blame Assange for exposing political corruption?   I certainly don't.  
Also, I frequently point out that before Trump was even nominated, the news media itself recognized that it had given Trump $2 billion in free publicity.      Try google-searching for '$2 billion Trump media' to find many other references.    It wasn't 'positive' publicity, of course.  Naturally, the MSM wasn't trying to cause Trump to win the general election:  If they were honest, they would have admitted that they were trying to get Ted Cruz and Rand Paul to lose the nomination.  Which they did.  But they hoped that Trump would lose the general.  Which, due to Hillary's great scandals, he didn't.  So, I'd say that the MSM was primarily responsible for causing Trump to win the nomination.  Which they seemingly admit, or at least admitted, before Trump won the general election.  
Arguably, the MSM (and Hillary, etc) was mostly responsible for causing Trump to win the election.  Those RINOs and Deep-State actors should understand that. 
I am not aware that Assange did anything illegal, but he certainly did things to cause some powerful American politicians to dislike, even hate him.  Particularly in regard to the 2016 election, as far as I know he merely accepted, and then publicized, information embarrassing to the DNC, John Podesta, and Hillary Clinton.   The news media claims that he accepted hacked emails from Russia:  I think that even if we accept the idea that Russia hacked emails, that does not inherently prove that the emails Assange published necessarily came from Russia, or only from Russia.  And, it also doesn't prove that Assange knew, for certain, that (even if some of those emails came from Russia or Russian citizens) that those emails came from Russia.  
As I understand it, Wikileaks had set up an anonymous donation system, designed to guarantee that each donor would maintain anonymity when submitting their leaks.  Which, I think, was great!   Precisely what should have been done.  But that anonymity also provided deniability:  Wikileaks couldn't be assumed to know from where that information came from, or how it had been obtained. 
I have read, a few years ago, implications that Assange may have been somehow involved more with Manning's leaks.  Would that lead to criminal liability?  Since this entire subject is vague, it's hard to express an opinion about this.  But the (American) definition of "conspiracy" tends to be, "an agreement by two or more to commit a crime, followed by a single overt act".   Assuming what Manning did was a crime, it was copying State Department information.  I don't see how Assange's willingness to accept that information, even if it was expressed before Manning copied that material, amounted to a "conspiracy".  Assange presumably didn't "agree" to commit a crime.   He probably did not "assist" in any crime.  Manning could have copied that information and sent it to any news organization; maybe they would have published it just as Assange did.    Assange probably did no more than most media outlets would be willing to do everyday.   It likely was that the only thing Assange arguably did was to express a willingness to publicize information.  

                        Jim Bell


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 8972 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list