Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 577 posts

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#451

Post by pessimizer »

kristjansson wrote: post #382
wallace_f wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Russia used him as a deniable way to launder secrets they had stolen into the American press. I have never seen proof of this accusation? Can you link me to it? Not the accusation, but proof? What is it: was he "used" like you said, or mislead, or intentionally aiding Russia? To be fair the DWS scandal is a real problem, a big deal, and a threat to our democracy... and nobody was seriously punished for that. DWS is…

> DWS “scandal” Even if one accepts the premise (that there was active collusion inside the DNC that cost Sanders the election, binding popular primary elections have only been a thing since 1972. It’s quite a stretch to call the supposed failure of that system a threat to democracy.

Would it follow that in countries that didn't have elections at all in 1972, the corruption of their current elections could hardly be a threat to democracy?

It's only been 50 years?

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#452

Post by matchagaucho »

londons_explore wrote: post #14

If true, this suggests that previous articles about assange being 'practically free to go', and 'just staying in the embassy for attention' were misinformed.

I like to imagine that random Bobbies patrol the embassy, in the off chance he steps outside.

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#453

Post by hackinthebochs »

monocasa wrote: post #410
hackinthebochs wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of people dispute this narrative, myself included. The DNC never took any action against the Sanders campaign, despite some disgruntled emails by some DNC staffers venting about Sanders.

DWS just stepped down for nothing. And Donna Brazile's just a liar I guess. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-b...

As usual, context is critical. By the end of the primary, DWS was a lightning rod of controversy. Hillary recognized DWS was an obstacle to the Bernie wing rallying behind her and so she made a deal with DWS to get her to step down without a fight. She wasn't "forced" out due to wrongdoing, it was purely a political move to put the primary fights to rest and look towards defeating Trump. Had DWS stayed and defended herself, that would have severely weakened party unity. In such cases, truth takes a back seat to reconciliation.

Brazile's case is trickier. Taking everything she says at face value (which is a mistake), the main thing she demonstrated was that Hillary's campaign saved the DNC from bankruptcy before the primary by assuming its debt. Hillary (reasonably) put some controls on the DNC's finances in response to the mismanagement. Brazile had no evidence, nor did she claim that Hillary or anyone directed the DNC to act against Bernie. Besides, with the unfiltered look into the DNCs emails and Hillary's campaign's emails, you would expect to see mountains of evidence of Hillary manipulating the DNC against Bernie. But there was no such evidence whatsoever.

The other issue is the fundraising agreement that combined DNC-raised money with Hillary campaign money. But the fundraising agreement was standard and Bernie's campaign had the opportunity to sign the same fundraising agreement but declined.

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#454

Post by gbumakefan »

midniteslayr wrote: post #40
gbumakefan wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So then was it illegal when msnbc aired the infamous Trump video saying “grab them by the p...”? That was clearly meant to influence the election...

First, that was the Washington Post that released the tape, and second, that is more for the fitness of the candidate (at the time). Third, and more importantly, it was obtained legally, without having to break in to a server to get it.

Wikileaks didn’t break into the server. No one knows how the emails were obtained. Your reply demonstrates your hypocrisy nicely. Clearly you just don’t like what Wikileaks has to say.

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#455

Post by pessimizer »

GlenTheMachine wrote: post #326
AnaniasAnanas wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is being a Russian asset a crime? Even if he released only documents provided by the Russians and ignored other ones (which is debatable), how is that bad as long as said documents are not forged?

Acting as an undeclared agent of a foreign government is absolutely a crime.

If all non-Americans that work for non-American governments have to declare that fact to America, then there are a lot of criminals in the world.

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#456

Post by matt4077 »

cronix wrote: post #286
nl wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's always been free to go, just that he'd likely to be arrested. Unclear what article you are referring to in the 'staying for attention' reference.

Yes, but the UN effectively say he's being detained, which I tend to agree with. It's like me standing there with a gun to your head saying if you take one more step, I'll shoot. Technically, you're "free to leave at any time," but that's not really the effective reality. > February 2016 - A UN panel rules that Mr Assange has been "arbitrarily detained" by UK and Swedish authorities since 2010 https://www.bbc.com/new…

I don't quite get what the argument is supposed to be. Possibly that the charges should be dropped because so much time has passed.

Because there is just no logical reason why an accused should have the option of getting all charges dropped because somehow being prosecuted for them violates his rights?

The analogy with shooting someone is obviously different, in that shooting someone tends to be a violation of their rights. Arresting them when they skipped bail is not quite the same as a bullet to the head.

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#457

Post by jacobush »

krapp wrote: post #184
jacobush wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know it's unfashionable, but shouldn't the parties choose a candidate they feel is most likely to do good and communicate why? I feel the constant triangulation is a big reason why the democratic world is so messed up right now.

Maybe they should , but... come on. Did the Republicans choose Trump because they felt he was the most likely to do good and communicate why?

Of course not.

I think we should talk more about it though. People can make a difference. Even if we can't keep this train from derailing, maybe we can slow it down a bit before impact.

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#458

Post by matt4077 »

resters wrote: post #310
nl wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That link is broken - I think you mean this one, posted below: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/julia... If a WP headline from 2013 saying "Julian Assange unlikely to face U.S. charges over publishing classified documents" is the limits of that argument, then I think it's fair to say that is much weaker then any claim that "he is practically free to go". In addition, maybe he was free to go in 2…

Also wapo is pretty much all political propaganda of some sort now. It’s been getting worse by the day since Bezos bought it for some reason.

If the WP has been getting worse by the day, you're in luck! Because the article is from 2013, and must therefore be excellent.

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#459

Post by josteink »

dragonwriter wrote: post #432
londons_explore wrote: post #14

If true, this suggests that previous articles about assange being 'practically free to go', and 'just staying in the embassy for attention' were misinformed.

> If true, this suggests that previous articles about assange being 'practically free to go', and 'just staying in the embassy for attention' were misinformed. But those were always false even considering only the overt facts, and without the US issuing an extradition request (which there is still no indication it has, though there is an administrative error that seems to indicate that there is a sealed indictment);…

The Swedish government has dropped their charges, so they no longer apply.

Now though he’s wanted by British police for avoiding arrest, which is a different felony.

That puts him under the control of the UK government, which are very likely to agree to any extradition requests the US may send.

Re: The US Is Preparing to Prosecute Julian Assange

#460

Post by jacobush »

rtpg wrote: post #387
jacobush wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was made a big deal in Sweden how ridiculous any fears were that Assange could be extradited from Sweden to the US if he would go to Sweden for hearings. And now...

it's still "ridiculous" insofar as an extradition from Sweden would not just involve Sweden US relations but US UK relations (so two relations instead of just one). This isn't rocket science, there are more moving parts to the "get him from Sweden" from the simpler "Get him from the UK" plan.

Regarding how the debate went in Sweden, it was raised that Assange could be snatched up en route from UK to Sweden. This notion was dismissed even more summarily, like some spy movie fantasy.

(This would not happen unless the UK would be OK with it, of course. The UK, unless they have some exceptional reason, does exactly what the US says. If the law has wiggle room, they'll look the other way. I am sure also something could be arranged so Sweden and the UK could save face for each other in their relationship. Even if the US black bagged someone, as long as they didn't do it on UK soil, why should the brits just not shrug and say "ah, those naughty Americans, can't keep up with them all the time eh?" wink, wink, nudge nudge)

Edit: Regarding the charges themselves against Assange - I have no doubt Assange is a bit of a douche. I would not be surprised at all if he violated Swedish law. It's still quite suspicious that even though most similar investigations are closed, even with better evidence, this case was opened anew, by Marianne Ny. Of course the handling of this case was political.

Post reply on HN