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

321–330 of 334 posts

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

#321

Post by efdee »

res0nat0r wrote: post #295
the_optimist wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perfect. You quoted Wikipedia, not the report you claim has the information. Wikipedia cited the WP. WP cited 'secret'. How do we know it? "CIA told us." Why do we believe it? "CIA told us." What evidence do we have? "CIA told us so." How'd they come to this conclusion? "That's for them to know and us to take in faith." Do they have a history of lying? "Yes." To Congress? "Yes." Are there any consequences for this? "…

It's all in the Mueller report and I'm not digging out quotes from a 500 page document to repeat what is already known, just because you don't like the facts, I'm sorry.

Except that, of course, it's not. In fact, IIRC, they stated they had too little evidence to substantiate the claims.

Maybe it's you who doesn't like the facts?

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

#322

Post by jfengel »

syshum wrote: post #200
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Espionage Act of 1917 is an extremely broad - and almost certainly unconstitutional - law passed during WWI, which gives the government broad power to go after anyone who publishes government secrets, including journalists. WWI was a low point in the history of freedom of expression in the US, and this law is a holdover from that era. It's bad enough that there's a law on the books that allows the US government t…

>>The Espionage Act of 1917 ... almost certainly unconstitutional Good luck getting the Supreme Court agreeing with that. That greatest disappointment in the entire American Experiment has to be the US Supreme Court. That was the founders greatest mistake, vesting soo much power in this single branch

In a lot of ways, they vested practically nothing in that branch. It's by far the shortest section of the Constitution, which basically comes down to "Supreme Court: We oughta have one."

They made up their own powers. There's nothing about judicial review in the Constitution. They basically decided that they had that power, and everybody else agreed with them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

So perhaps their greatest mistake wasn't vesting too much, but vesting too little. That left the court open to write its own job description. And also to create lifetime appointments, in theory to de-politicize it, but in practice to enshrine ideologies for many decades.

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

#323

Post by res0nat0r »

efdee wrote: post #321
res0nat0r wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's all in the Mueller report and I'm not digging out quotes from a 500 page document to repeat what is already known, just because you don't like the facts, I'm sorry.

Except that, of course, it's not. In fact, IIRC, they stated they had too little evidence to substantiate the claims. Maybe it's you who doesn't like the facts?

Like I mentioned, Assange isn't an idiot and knew full well who he was dealing with at the time. It doesn't need to rise to the level of provable criminal conspiracy for anyone to know someone as sophisticated as him just didn't bumble into the situation, especially when it was speculated at the time that the Guccifer 2.0 alias was likely a front for a foreign intelligence group.

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

#324

Post by efdee »

res0nat0r wrote: post #323
efdee wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that, of course, it's not. In fact, IIRC, they stated they had too little evidence to substantiate the claims. Maybe it's you who doesn't like the facts?

Like I mentioned, Assange isn't an idiot and knew full well who he was dealing with at the time. It doesn't need to rise to the level of provable criminal conspiracy for anyone to know someone as sophisticated as him just didn't bumble into the situation, especially when it was speculated at the time that the Guccifer 2.0 alias was likely a front for a foreign intelligence group.

It most certainly does need to rise to a level of provable criminal conspiracy. Gut feeling doesn't hold up well in court.

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

#325

Post by the_optimist »

slg wrote: post #316
the_optimist wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You assume WL published all Democrat documents. You presume those documents were mundane and uninteresting, and not controversial (most of the world disagrees). You presume they did have Republican documents that would not be mundane and uninteresting. You simply disagree with their judgment in theory without having information about what you’re disputing, the magnitude, and the quality of your critique. You’ve clear…

>You presume those documents were mundane and uninteresting, and not controversial (most of the world disagrees). Once again, I am not assuming or presuming anything. I am judging the documents directly. Have you looked at them? Because it doesn't get any more mundane and uninteresting than people taking office lunch orders[1], people reporting they are at the dentist, or even over a hundred automatic out of office r…

WL batch processed sources. You get the boring ones with the salacious ones, possibly useful for context. I listed three assumptions and you denied one. Since you want more disclosure that goes against the judgment of the site owners, why not just start your own site?

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

#326

Post by [deleted] »

the_optimist wrote: post #308
slg wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not making any assumptions, I am simply describing their behavior. They leaked tens of thousands of mundane and uninteresting documents about Democrats, but when it comes to Republicans the documents won't be published unless they are "controversial" to use Assange's exact wording. There is no explanation for that which meshes with the idea that they are a neutral platform.

You assume WL published all Democrat documents. You presume those documents were mundane and uninteresting, and not controversial (most of the world disagrees). You presume they did have Republican documents that would not be mundane and uninteresting. You simply disagree with their judgment in theory without having information about what you’re disputing, the magnitude, and the quality of your critique. You’ve clear…

[deleted]

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

#327

Post by the_optimist »

slg wrote: post #297
the_optimist wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Wikileaks' statement is a tautology. It is a neutral statement. Your assumptions beg your answer. You've asked fair questions, but you cannot presume the answers. Maybe you should start a blog and see if you can make such decisions yourself about what's worth publishing. Some people might even harangue you about your decisions and declare that you're a malicious foreign agent.

I'm not making any assumptions, I am simply describing their behavior. They leaked tens of thousands of mundane and uninteresting documents about Democrats, but when it comes to Republicans the documents won't be published unless they are "controversial" to use Assange's exact wording. There is no explanation for that which meshes with the idea that they are a neutral platform.

Here’s an example of reality that violates your set of assumptions. Wikileaks on Palin in 2008. How does your complaint comport with this reality? It doesn’t.

https://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin_Yahoo_account_200...

The statement from Wikileaks is inarguable given the information available. You have simply extrapolated a talking point that they discriminated against one side. That is simply second-order, non-provable agitation.

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

#328

Post by the_optimist »

res0nat0r wrote: post #323
efdee wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that, of course, it's not. In fact, IIRC, they stated they had too little evidence to substantiate the claims. Maybe it's you who doesn't like the facts?

Like I mentioned, Assange isn't an idiot and knew full well who he was dealing with at the time. It doesn't need to rise to the level of provable criminal conspiracy for anyone to know someone as sophisticated as him just didn't bumble into the situation, especially when it was speculated at the time that the Guccifer 2.0 alias was likely a front for a foreign intelligence group.

This is the standard dissembling. We went from “I have got the truth! Your client is guilty!” to “He’s a smart guy, seems guilty.” Only two paragraphs. Astonishing really, that people are willing to invest themselves like this.

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

#329

Post by res0nat0r »

efdee wrote: post #324
res0nat0r wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like I mentioned, Assange isn't an idiot and knew full well who he was dealing with at the time. It doesn't need to rise to the level of provable criminal conspiracy for anyone to know someone as sophisticated as him just didn't bumble into the situation, especially when it was speculated at the time that the Guccifer 2.0 alias was likely a front for a foreign intelligence group.

It most certainly does need to rise to a level of provable criminal conspiracy. Gut feeling doesn't hold up well in court.

Thankfully he's not being charged re: the Guccifer 2.0 hacking.
Post reply on HN