Julian Assange Plea deal reached. Feds will accept the 5 years spent fighting extradition in lieu of detention in the United States.
(www.cnbc.com)
Hot Summer Fire With Fire 🔥
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (55)
sorted by:
If Assange pleads guilty in the US, will you accept it then?
I don't think journalism will be affected. He wasn't charged because he published info.
Journalism survived this case.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/british-newspaper-editor-sentenced-for-phone-hacking-scandal
That case has nothing to do with real journalism. We are not talking about illegally hacking into people's data, but allowing carefully whetted whistleblowers who have exhausted official channels, to leak the bare minimum information necessary to wake the public up.
That's not what happened in this case.
And doesn't wikileaks by its own standards do zero vetting of whistleblowers? They say that the material is completely uploaded anonymously. So how could they vet who the who the people are??
They might try to verify the material and see if it looks like it's legit documents but, supposedly they have no idea who the people uploading the documents are.
Assange was charged with hacking. The doj said in the Manning case that Assange was not just a publisher who received the material and published it. They are saying that Assange actively helped Manning get the material. That's why this was a criminal case
He was charged with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion (i.e. hacking into a government computer),
He later was charged with conspiring with Manning to obtain national defense information.
A later Indictment said he participated in the lulzsec and Anonymous hacking cases.
A hacker who steals information is violating the law even if they are doing it as a form or protest or civil disobedience.
A journalist who receives that info can publish it and is protected is the US system.
However if the reporter helps in the hacking that is not journalism and they can be prosecuted.
Assange will have agreed to a "criminal information" statement that lists the facts of the case.
Let's see what that says.
You have completely gobbled up mainstream propaganda.
This ties up to Seth Rich, who was the person who uploaded the DNC emails to wikileaks and got murdered by MS-13 assets.
One of the reasons they desperately shut Assange down was to ensure he wont confirm the identity of the uploader.
Many people including Bill Binney who is ex-NSA and a whistleblower himself, confirmed from the timestampts that the files were not transmitted over the Internet but rather copied directly via a hard drive.
There is a lot you can dig here, and multiple Q posts as well.
Here is one to get started. You can search keywords yourself to dig further.
u/#q1009
Precisely!
What have you gobbled up ? Have you checked this stuff.
First There's nothing about the DNC in this case. This case goes back to 2010.
Second, I don't follow this part. It doesn't make any sense to me.
Assange can do that right now. He could have done that anytime over the past 8 years.
By the way the DOJ already put out an Indictment detailing how the files got to Wikileaks back in 2018.
Bill Binney did not confirm this. In fact, his examination COULD NOT have proven this point. Which Binney admitted. There was nothing in the analysis Benny did that could say how the files left the DNC. All he was examining was an archive. Looking at the metadata of the files of the archive, you can only tell when the archive was made.
For example, let's say you hired me to hack a government agency. Everyday in May I take out a small amount of file so I'm not detected.
Later on in June I zip up all the files into an archive and put the archive on a thumb drive before I hand it to you. The metadata would be about the June archive. It wouldn't tell you anything about how the files actually left the DNC. It was because of this reason that some of Binney's whistle-blowing colleagues did not sign on to the report he put out.
Another problem was Binny was actually looking at a fraudulent archive. Duncan Campbell, a friend of Binney's uncovered how the "Forensicator" archive Binney was looking at was faked.
The archive came from a conference when Guccifer 2 was supposed to speak. Instead a powerpoint was emailed with a link to an archive. The password came from the forensicator who claimed to be an American named Adam Carter but was a British guy named, Tim Leonard. He was running a disinfo campaign and was very successful.
He used two different archiving tools to create his ZIP file, one of which was an outdated version that that used local computer time rather than universal time codes. So it was very simple to change the clock on your computer and claim the files are set whenever you want them to be.
Another indication of the fraud was the timestamps actually only existed in this fraudulent archive, not in the Wikileaks files.
A lot of of the questions Q posed in that screenshot got answered a few months later.