On Saturday, November 24, 2018, 10:58:07 AM PST, juan <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 18:18:50 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <[email protected]> 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.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Washington_(state),_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.
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: 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
×
