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

Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment

stundin.is

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 334 posts

Re: Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment

#131

Post by kcatskcolbdi »

threeseed wrote: post #128
ComputerGuru wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These were claims made in court, during formal hearings. They weren’t disputed, and as such, they are part of the official court record and are worth more than random hearsay. The US’ repsponse (as quoted) was that these allegations were “wholly irrelevant.” That doesn’t sound like a denunciation or denial to me.

Anybody can make claims in court and the US government is hardly going to confirm or deny poisoning someone. It's an unproven allegation and a world away from Navalny who was actually poisoned.

Why would the US government not deny poisoning someone?

Re: Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment

#132

Post by breakfastduck »

GoofballJones wrote: post #126
Synaesthesia wrote: post #70

Important to note that nothing Wikileaks has published has ever had to be retracted. They've told the truth to the public about governments, which is why they're targeted. In fact several Pulitzer Prizes have been awarded thanks to their efforts. They've never been shown to put anyone at risk either, a testament to their careful vetting process, showing that they're responsible too. This is clearly a political attack…

Important to note that Wikileaks wouldn't publish a retraction anyway, even if they were totally wrong. Come on...

Source? Do you have a relevant example?

Re: Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment

#133

Post by breakfastduck »

Miner49er wrote: post #41
daenz wrote: post #9

For someone who has not followed Assange news for a long time, what is the general accusation of his crimes? Is it just that he published secret material that he received from other sources?

Pretty much, he's been indicted for 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act, which yeah, is just for seeking/leaking confidential info. It's a huge attack on freedom of the press. The press has always been allowed to cover leaked stuff, the Espionage act has only been used against sources in the past, not reporters. He's also facing a very minor charge (max 5 years in prison) for conspiracy to commit computer intrus…

While I widely agree, if we're fair there's a difference between a Journalist covering leaked stuff and literally releasing the full unredacted documents to the public.

Otherwise I agree. His treatment comes down to nothing other than the fact the USA govt want to make it very, very clear that they are willing to totally destroy anyone's lives who dare publish the horrific things they're doing.

Re: Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment

#134

Post by extra88 »

rendall wrote: post #115
extra88 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. The Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity has members who have done good work for the public and the country. However, the memo referenced in your link did not even have the backing all the group's members and its arguments have been persuasively criticized. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veteran_Intelligence_Professio...

These results are debatable and inconclusive, which is the entire point. If you're going to accuse a sitting President of collusion, you had best have all your ducks in a row. Anything less can be perceived as, or even be indeed, partisan hackery.

Why are you bringing up Trump? This is about whether Russians hacked the DNC's email, that doesn't require collusion or even awareness from the Trump campaign.

But since you did bring him up, it reminded me that in July 2016, weeks after the DNC announced being breached, he publicly called on Russia to release information about Clinton. Candidate Donald J. Trump, verbally and in writing, called on a foreign government to interfere with the presidential campaign against his opponent; doing it in public doesn't make it okay.

"Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let’s see if that happens. […] By the way, they hacked — they probably have her 33,000 emails. I hope they do. They probably have her 33,000 emails that she lost and deleted because you'd see some beauties there. So let's see."

I don't think "collusion" is the right term for what he did (the attempts to access emails had started in March); I don't know what the right term is, I just know it's not okay.

Re: Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment

#136

Post by ratsmack »

GoofballJones wrote: post #126
Synaesthesia wrote: post #70

Important to note that nothing Wikileaks has published has ever had to be retracted. They've told the truth to the public about governments, which is why they're targeted. In fact several Pulitzer Prizes have been awarded thanks to their efforts. They've never been shown to put anyone at risk either, a testament to their careful vetting process, showing that they're responsible too. This is clearly a political attack…

Important to note that Wikileaks wouldn't publish a retraction anyway, even if they were totally wrong. Come on...

That's a very bold statement when history has shown otherwise. Don't you believe the powers that be would jump at the chance to discredit them? I would be so lucky if the generally corrupt mainstream media should be more like them.

Re: Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment

#137

Post by dagmx »

Synaesthesia wrote: post #70

Important to note that nothing Wikileaks has published has ever had to be retracted. They've told the truth to the public about governments, which is why they're targeted. In fact several Pulitzer Prizes have been awarded thanks to their efforts. They've never been shown to put anyone at risk either, a testament to their careful vetting process, showing that they're responsible too. This is clearly a political attack…

That's a fairly charitable take on WikiLeaks. They host the entirety of the Sony leak on their site that caused me and hundreds of my colleagues to face a increased lifetime risk of fraud and stolen identity.

Re: Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment

#138

Post by dang »

beebeepka wrote: post #45
elif wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

your sexual preferences and personal offense are irrelevant and the rule you are debating has about as close to consensus acceptance as you will find in the queer space. If you indeed think "dead naming" is something someone made up for an internet comment, you are missing a large portion of the picture.

Forgive me for saying that I find that a person would change their gender after being imprisoned and tortured rather suspicious If you take that as some kind of attack on trans people, that's on you

You've been posting tons of flamewar and/or unsubstantive comments to HN. That's not cool here and we ban accounts that do it, so if you'd please stop doing it, we'd be grateful.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment

#139

Post by Brakenshire »

Synaesthesia wrote: post #70

Important to note that nothing Wikileaks has published has ever had to be retracted. They've told the truth to the public about governments, which is why they're targeted. In fact several Pulitzer Prizes have been awarded thanks to their efforts. They've never been shown to put anyone at risk either, a testament to their careful vetting process, showing that they're responsible too. This is clearly a political attack…

“Important to note that nothing Wikileaks has published has ever had to be retracted. They've told the truth to the public about governments“

That isn’t true for their social media:

https://micahflee.com/2019/01/lies-that-wikileaks-tells-you/

Re: Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment

#140

Post by mywacaday »

Miner49er wrote: post #41
daenz wrote: post #9

For someone who has not followed Assange news for a long time, what is the general accusation of his crimes? Is it just that he published secret material that he received from other sources?

Pretty much, he's been indicted for 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act, which yeah, is just for seeking/leaking confidential info. It's a huge attack on freedom of the press. The press has always been allowed to cover leaked stuff, the Espionage act has only been used against sources in the past, not reporters. He's also facing a very minor charge (max 5 years in prison) for conspiracy to commit computer intrus…

Are there any whistleblower protections in the US or why would they not apply to Assange?
Post reply on HN