There is a difference.
Assange pleaded guilty to
"knowingly and unlawfully conspiring with Chelsea Manning" to violate the Espionage Act and that he committed overt acts including unlawful acts to do this. Basically he was not just a recipient of the files Manning hacked. He helped with the hack.
Here's the court documents
Assange will appear in US court in Saipan in 2 days https://washingtonpost.com/documents/19edfb4f-af7c-41c6-96d4-c9a8e810863f.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_5
Here's what he pleases guilty to. Not very detailed
In exchange for his plea the other hacking charges were dropped.
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.
One of the reasons they desperately shut Assange down was to ensure he wont confirm the identity of the uploader.
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.
Many people including Bill Binney who is ex-NSA and a whistleblower himself, confirmed from the timestampts that the files were not transmitted
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.
On inspecting the full data analysis, Binney agreed: “It’s clear G2 is messing with the data. Everything G2 says is suspect and needs to be proven by other sources/means. I agree there is no evidence to prove where the download/copy was done.”
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.
The Forensicator report avoided pointing out that the time stamps examined were present only in the special London group of documents, and not in tens of thousands of other DNC files published by WikiLeaks or Guccifer 2.0.
A lot of of the questions Q posed in that screenshot got answered a few months later.
News is the plea deal was filed in the US federal court in the Northern Mariana Islands. A US territory near Australia.
I think Assange is going to appear in that courtroom. Assange was being sent back to Australia where where he is an Australian citizen
Edit. Yes he will plead guilty in a court in Saipan.
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.
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
If you want to find good science see if there's a randomized controlled trial.
Here they tested ivermectin versus placebo.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36807465/
The median (IQR) time to sustained recovery was 11 (11-12) days in the ivermectin group and 11 (11-12) days in the placebo group.
Among those receiving ivermectin, 34 (5.7%) were hospitalized, died, or had urgent or emergency care visits compared with 36 (6.0%) receiving placebo
In the ivermectin group, 1 participant died and 4 were hospitalized (0.8%); 2 participants (0.3%) were hospitalized in the placebo group and there were no deaths. Adverse events were uncommon in both groups.
Just saw this. A politician sons were supposedly involved.
It is reported that two sons of Magomed Omarov, the head of Dagestan's Sergokalinsky district, Magomed Omarov, were involved in the attack on Makhachkala: Osman and Adil Omarov. Preliminarily, they were killed. Their father is a former policeman,
Which implies civilians were not the target, but the injuries on the beach were caused when Russian Air defense intercepted those missiles.
Russian-installed authorities in Crimea said missile fragments had fallen just after noon near a beach on the north side of the city of Sevastopol where locals were holidaying.
There are reports in the last 2 hours that there was another attack in Crimea. On a satellite/communication center
40th Separate Command and Measurement Complex
Or
Ukrainian forces successfully struck the Russian NIP-16 space tracking and communication center in Vitino, Crimea with multiple MGM-140 ATACMS tactical ballistic missiles.
Reminder that local officials would have motivation to say this. I saw something on Twitter saying both Russian and American style weapons were used. And the American style weapons system was a combination used by police not military.
My understanding is this is an ongoing situation.
It's a group advocating for the homeless homeless.
At Central OAC, our purpose is to open doors to overcome and prevent homelessness. Our vision is to be passionate advocates and invested partners for those experiencing homelessness.
That's not possible.