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

[juan]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 21:16:43 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:


> 
> 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!!!)

	yeah. good news, the clinton cunt lost. Bad news, trump won. 

	I must admit that at first I was dumb enough to think that if the media were saying that trump was horrible then he must be marginally better than clinton. Problem is,  that partisan line of thinking is nonsense and in reality the US has a one party system with both candidates being exactly equally bad.


>  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?   

	No I don't. But it seems he should have done the same thing for the rethuglicans. I think he said he didn't have anything to publish regarding trump but that sounds not completely credible. 

	At any rate, it seems to be a fact that assange favored trump and it is a fact that trump is even worse than obomba and now assange is a direct target of trump's.


>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.   https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html      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:

	yeah - or if I switch to 'paranoid mode' then who knows? As mentioned, apparently the media was against trump because trump was so anti 'liberal' anti 'progressive' bla bla, but as a matter of fact the media failed to prevent trump from being elected. So maybe they were inept or maybe they didn't try too hard...



>  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.  

	Hm. That's a bit more convoluted. Regardless, elections in the US are completely irrelevant. 

	I guess another way to look at it is : had hitlery won assange would have been lynched. And now that the other faction of the one party won, he's being lynched. 
	

> 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,

	lol - illegal as defined by the american nazi government? 


> 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.  


	yeah, the red scare, fairy tale about russia being behind assange, trump being a putin agent etc is both hilarious and retarded. And it's the sort of thing that liberal sheep believe, just like right wing retards believed that obomba was a muslim 'illegal immigrant'.


>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. 

	yeah but that sort of argument is pretty much irrelevant when dealing with the 'justice' system of the american empire. 


> 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. 
	
	again, that's obviously a crime as defined by the american nazi government. Just like snowden is (or can be) accussed of 'treason' and executed. 


> 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.   

	I don't think there's any point in following the 'logic' of the 'justice' system of the american nazi government because, obviously, there isn't any logic to it. 

	So whatever happens to assange will be the result of purely political scheming. 




>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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ×
> 
>