Julian Assange bad shape, can't walk, can't speak

[Drummond]

If he’s being attended to in a a medical ward and being declared unfit for questioning he would have to keep up the appearance of illness everyday.

And that would be impossible ?

I think it’s relevant that they have never published a fake document.

Do we know that for a fact ?

Besides, the matter of violating security and thus endangering people, IS highly relevant. Not that Assange ever paused to consider that, or to care ... ever, apparently.

So you don’t know and can’t state what Assange lied about, how he peddled truth, or what truths he took out context, You just “guess he did” seems reasonable

It's in the nature of classified material that none of it be revealed openly. So to then be in any proper position to accurately assess and pass judgment on its veracity &/or contextual interpretation, once it's disseminated in any form, isn't particularly likely !

Assange didn't begin to care if material might be held back and given 'classified' status for any good reason. His was a wrecking agenda. Wreckers don't hold back, become 'caring', about that which they're determined to wreck.

Do you see that, Noir ?

Or do you prefer not to ?

[Drummond]

Given that our Justice system just attempted to absolutely railroad our own fucking President, I find it odd that you trust them in this particular case Jim. I've yet to see one piece of compelling evidence that Assange did anything illegal, and understand I think he should have been declared an enemy of this country and droned. But that isnt a matter for the Justice Department.

Did Assange release classified material, in violation of its officially recognised status ?

Is that a legal act, or an illegal one ?

[Drummond]

The highlighted part is FALSE . SCOTUS has already ruled that journalists absolutely have the right to print classified material that is leaked to them.

If a spy acting for a foreign power gets hold of classified material ... and that spy is an American national ... then passes that material on to the foreign power s/he is loyal to ... isn't that the classic definition of treasonous conduct ??

All that's different in your example is that the material instead 'finds its way' to journalists, who'll then - as Assange did - release it into the public domain.

Now, if you can absolutely guarantee that none of it would ever reach the eyes or consciousness of any foreign power (!!) ... you might have a case. Otherwise, of course .......

[STTAB]

If a spy acting for a foreign power gets hold of classified material ... and that spy is an American national ... then passes that material on to the foreign power s/he is loyal to ... isn't that the classic definition of treasonous conduct ??

All that's different in your example is that the material instead 'finds its way' to journalists, who'll then - as Assange did - release it into the public domain.

Now, if you can absolutely guarantee that none of it would ever reach the eyes or consciousness of any foreign power (!!) ... you might have a case. Otherwise, of course .......

Again, you are equivocally wrong.

Perhaps you've heard of the Pentagon Papers, where the Nixon Administration sued to stop the NYT and Washington Post from publishing classified documents pertaining to the Vietnam War? Yeah, well the Administration lost that lawsuit and the papers were published. Or how about the 2001 case Bartnicki v. Vopper where the Court SPECIFICALLY said they believed the phone recording was stolen but that the person who made it public didn't appear to have been involved in stealing it and so the defense won that case as well.

Like I said, Assange is scum and certainly no friend of the US even if his outfit did expose the Democrats, but that isn't the same as being criminal.

[Noir]

Did Assange release classified material, in violation of its officially recognised status ?

Is that a legal act, or an illegal one ?

The Supreme Court (yep, those folks again) have been asked this question before -

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/403/713

[jimnyc]

Given that our Justice system just attempted to absolutely railroad our own fucking President, I find it odd that you trust them in this particular case Jim. I've yet to see one piece of compelling evidence that Assange did anything illegal, and understand I think he should have been declared an enemy of this country and droned. But that isnt a matter for the Justice Department.

I've seen a ton that spells his guilt, but no point debating/arguing if you disagree with what has already been stated. But that's why we have courts, for the FACTS to come out when there are charges. With charges pending, this is a matter for our courts, which is being avoided. For some to claim his innocence and no full list of argumentation - it's because those things when done and someone gets an indictment, the information is very rarely released to the public prior to a trial. He harmed quite a bit with his releases and there are over 15 charges, not just "leaking". He's guilty as sin in my book and when they get him to the USA he will end up where he deserves. And by no means is an individual that helps someone intrude a server or a database with the intent of stealing confidential documents and releasing them - a "journalist" by any stretch. I suppose I write an awful lot here, and an awful lot about our government and policies - that makes me a journalist somehow. BS. They did nothing that journalism covers other than steal and disseminate confidential documents over political agendas.

[Kathianne]

Courts are the only recourse at this point. Espionage and other charges:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...new-charges-us

[jimnyc]

Noir, we already are aware that you know our 1st amendment, or our entire constitution than most of us. I mean, why wouldn't a foreigner that has such distaste for many things American.

Thing is - the COTUS is useless if a fool only recognizes such things when it's something lame they believe in. You have never once shown an interest in the rule of law. And yet you try to talk the constitution and other rights in America. In other words, you fit in with the liberal nitwits of America with non-stop hypocrisy.

As for Assange, I sure hope he has someone defending him that knows things as well as you do and so sure, because with the 18 charges pending, his future years are on the line and a Supermax is waiting with a cell in his name.

Somehow some think the only issue is him releasing on the internet. Sure. More like all kinds of conspiracy charges - and if their is the slightest bit against him as far as "hacking" is concerned and helping, he'll be cooked. He had better hope there is nothing in there under seal from Manning! Either way, an awful lot and 18 charges await, as does the court and us all hearing the proof that got him indicted. And then he's cooked.

[jimnyc]

Courts are the only recourse at this point. Espionage and other charges:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...new-charges-us

Yup, that's what the future holds. And if he's found not guilty, so be it. I wouldn't bet a single cent on his innocence.

[Drummond]

The Supreme Court (yep, those folks again) have been asked this question before -

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/403/713

H'm.

I see Brennan was a part of this, too.

Very possibly Assange is a fan of his (??) ...

[Kathianne]

H'm.

I see Brennan was a part of this, too.

Very possibly Assange is a fan of his (??) ...

Remember the justices serve for 'life.' That may well change sooner than later, but it's been this way since the beginning.

You'll notice if you read the dissents, that in the main the only differences of opinion tended to be on what should be held back-very few pages was the consensus. The majority disagreed and there you go.

1st amendment is very strong in this country, which is why so many from other countries seem to think even small ponds are a big deal.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

The highlighted part is FALSE . SCOTUS has already ruled that journalists absolutely have the right to print classified material that is leaked to them. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News, the NYT, The Washington Post. They do it all the time, and if YOU were given some classified information and posted it on this website, that simply isn't illegal. Neither is being in possession of classified material . Imagine if it were, the President could send classified material to Jim Accosta and then have him arrested for possessing classified material LOL How you obtained the classified material matters very much. The government is trying to make the case that Assange enticed people to hack and or otherwise steal classified material, but that's a tough sell IMO

OK... but was it "leaked to him," or did he and that tranny freak Manning hack to get it? IDK... I guess that's what we're going to find out.

And there's also the issue as to if the information this idiot released did "damage" to the security of America.

[jimnyc]

If this is true, and they have verified chat logs of him trying to help Manning hack into a server - then I truly believe he is screwed. At the VERY least it shows a massive conspiracy to hack into the confidential government servers.

---

Feds Say Assange Chat Logs Document Hacking Conspiracy

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (CN) – As a battle over the expected extradition of Julian Assange heats up in the United Kingdom, a newly unsealed U.S. court filing details how the WikiLeaks founder tried to cover his tracks.

Unsealed this morning in the Eastern District of Virginia, where Assange was indicted last week, the 2017 affidavit by FBI Special Agent Megan Brown says Assange took “elaborate measures to conceal,” encrypt and anonymize his communications with former U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning.

Brown says chat logs from 2010 – when Manning first provided WikiLeaks with a massive trove of classified documents revealing U.S. war operations in Iraq and Afghanistan – plainly show a “specific illegal agreement” where Assange offered to help Manning crack a password stored on a Defense Department computer linked to a classified server.

The chat shows Manning first ask Assange if he was “any good at LM hash cracking” – the process of converting encrypted passwords to legible text. Assange replied affirmatively, according to the affidavit, and went on to tell Manning about special tools known as “rainbow tables” that WikiLeaks used to crack hash values and determine any passwords associated with them.

Though Brown calls it still “unknown” whether Assange or Manning ever successfully cracked the password, she says follow-up messages from Assange to Manning prove that Assange was on a mission to hack the system.

“The context of the agreement demonstrates that Assange and Manning intended to crack the password to facilitate Manning’s disclosure of classified information of the United States,” Brown wrote.

After two days of attempted hacks, the logs show that Manning asked Assange: “Any more hints about this LM hash?”

“No luck so far,” Assange wrote.

Brown also notes that forensic investigators found files on Manning’s computer showing she forwarded a password to Assange for a file transfer. Again, however, Brown notes it was not absolutely clear the password was “attributable to any specific person.”

“Although there is no evidence that the password to the file transfer protocol user was obtained, had Manning done so, she would have been able to take steps to procure classified information under a username that did not belong to hear,” Brown wrote. “Such measures would have frustrated attempts to identify the source of the disclosures to WikiLeaks,” Brown wrote.

Manning served one-fifth of a 35-year sentence for violations of the Espionage Act before President Barack Obama granted commuted her sentence. The transgender whistleblower was imprisoned again last month, however, after she refused to testify about WikiLeaks before a grand jury.

Rest - https://www.courthousenews.com/feds-...ng-conspiracy/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I had read on another board someone stating he should just come back, as he faces 5 years in prison or less. Ummmmm, no. That was with one charge. Now with 18 he is facing a few more years. As in 175.

---

Wikileaks says Julian Assange could face 175 years in prison after US files 17 new charges against him

Julian Assange will serve 175 years in prison if he's found guilty of 17 new charges filed by the US Department of Justice, WikiLeaks claimed on Friday.

Assange, charged in April with one count of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, was charged with 17 new crimes relating to his work obtaining top-secret US national security information on Thursday.

WikiLeaks responded to the indictment in a statement posted to Twitter on Friday.

Rest - https://www.businessinsider.com/assa...kileaks-2019-5

[jimnyc]

Yup, agreed, I think the conspiracy stuff alone is going to send him to prison for an Ecuador Embassy amount of time multiplied.

---

Legal Experts: Hacking Charge Undercuts Any 'Free Speech' Defense for Assange

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has portrayed himself as a champion of a free press, but the U.S. Department of Justice's decision to charge him with conspiring to hack government computers limits his ability to mount a vigorous free speech defense, some legal experts said.

The charge unsealed in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia on Thursday said that in 2010 Assange agreed to help Chelsea Manning, a former U.S. Army intelligence analyst then known as Bradley Manning, crack a password to a U.S. government network.

At the time, Manning had already given WikiLeaks classified information about U.S. war activities in both Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as Guantanamo Bay detainees, prosecutors said. The scheme would have allowed Manning to log in to the network anonymously and avoid detection, the indictment said.

Robert Chesney, a professor of national security law at the University of Texas, said that the case did not implicate free speech rights because it turned on the idea that Assange tried to hack a password.

"The charge is extremely narrow and that's by design," said Chesney.

U.S. prosecutors could still add charges against Assange, legal experts said.

The indictment, which was made secretly last year and released on Thursday, does not charge Assange for publishing classified material. WikiLeaks released the classified war information on its website in 2010 and 2011.

There is no mention in the indictment of WikiLeaks' publication of emails damaging to 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton that U.S. intelligence agencies have said were stolen by Russia in a bid to boost Republican Donald Trump's candidacy.

British police carried Assange out of Ecuador's embassy in London on Thursday after his seven-year asylum there was revoked. The U.S. Department of Justice said Assange, 47, was arrested under an extradition treaty between the United States and Britain.

Rest - https://www.newsmax.com/us/julianass.../11/id/911344/

[Drummond]

Why not just stick with what's obvious ?

Assange has - and has always had - his Left wing agenda. He opposes a political entity he's in disagreement with ! This is what motivates his actions ...

... or is it 'just a coincidence' that his friends and allies 'just happen' to be creatures of the far Left ??

The hacking dimension to this should further prove that this isn't just about 'free speech' ... that's just the excuse offered as a 'justification' for Assange. No, it's all an attack, pure & simple.

Has Assange ever offered an apology for any damage which his activities are responsible for ? NO. Has he addressed that issue ? NO. Has he paused for reflection, shown the slightest hesitation in proceeding onwards, despite that being a factor ?

NO.

This all speaks for itself. No matter how Assange presents himself and what he's done, the truth is that he's a relentless attacker against powers and institutions that he, personally, hates.

Assange is an enemy. There can be no reason not to treat him as one.