Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops

Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/index.php)
-   Off the Court Lounge (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Julian Assange Indicted (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=467677)

MaxFly 05-23-2019 07:12 PM

Julian Assange Indicted
 
Quote:

WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Indicted on 17 New Charges Under Espionage Act

The Department of Justice announced 17 new charges against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange on Thursday, including a virtually unprecedented move to charge him with publishing classified material — a move that could pose challenges to First Amendment protections.

In a superseding indictment, a grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, has accused Assange of breaking the law by inducing Army Pvt. Chelsea Manning to send him classified documents — and then publishing material that included the names of confidential sources who provided information to American diplomats.

The 17 counts were tacked on to a single count accusing Assange of conspiring with Manning to crack a Department of Defense password. Assange, who was taken out of the Equadorian embassy in London in April, is being held in a London jail for jumping bail on a sex charge and awaiting extradition to the United States.

The DoJ is going after Assange pretty hard in relation to the Manning case.

NumberSix 05-23-2019 08:16 PM

Re: Julian Assange Indicted
 
I’ve been arguing for months now that Wikileaks should be held to the same standard that you would hold CNN to. Almost everybody on the left has not been doing that because they were hedging their bets that if it was uncovered that anyone on the Trump campaign had contact with Wikileaks, they could then disingenuously claim that as “collusion.”

Prediction: those same people will now claim “Trump is threatening press freedom” or whatever lazy, anti-Trump angle they can come up with.

My stance is consistent. If you wouldn’t charge CNN for the same thing, you shouldn’t charge Wikileaks. If you can prove that Assange conspired in hack, ok. He should be prosecuted. But if he just published something that someone gave him, he shouldn’t be.

Media outlets like CNN, NYT and WaPo publish stolen and illegally leaked information all the time. Reporters can’t conspire to steal it, but if someone who stole it gives it to a journalist, you don’t charge the journalist. That’s the standard. If it applies to CNN, NYT, WaPo, that same standard should apply to Wikileaks.

SomeBlackDude 05-23-2019 09:14 PM

Re: Julian Assange Indicted
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by NumberSix
Almost everybody on the left has not been doing that because they were hedging their bets that if it was uncovered that anyone on the Trump campaign had contact with Wikileaks, they could then disingenuously claim that as “collusion.”




once the feds have young andrew miller's testimony/documents on the grand jury record, look for even more charges for assange along with stone, corsi, and others.



Quote:

If you wouldn’t charge CNN for the same thing, you shouldn’t charge Wikileaks... That’s the standard. If it applies to CNN, NYT, WaPo, that same standard should apply to Wikileaks.

'murrican federal law enforcement/intelligence is virtually in agreement that assange/wiki is not a journalist, just a russian intelligence asset.

the doj reiterated this strongly today.

Quote:

“The department takes seriously the role of journalists in our democracy and we thank you for it. It is not and never has been the department’s policy to target them for reporting. But Julian Assange is no journalist,”

-John Demers, head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division

qrich 05-23-2019 09:25 PM

Re: Julian Assange Indicted
 
Goodbye 1A.

MaxFly 05-24-2019 12:14 AM

Re: Julian Assange Indicted
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by NumberSix
I’ve been arguing for months now that Wikileaks should be held to the same standard that you would hold CNN to. Almost everybody on the left has not been doing that because they were hedging their bets that if it was uncovered that anyone on the Trump campaign had contact with Wikileaks, they could then disingenuously claim that as “collusion.”

Prediction: those same people will now claim “Trump is threatening press freedom” or whatever lazy, anti-Trump angle they can come up with.

My stance is consistent. If you wouldn’t charge CNN for the same thing, you shouldn’t charge Wikileaks. If you can prove that Assange conspired in hack, ok. He should be prosecuted. But if he just published something that someone gave him, he shouldn’t be.

Media outlets like CNN, NYT and WaPo publish stolen and illegally leaked information all the time. Reporters can’t conspire to steal it, but if someone who stole it gives it to a journalist, you don’t charge the journalist. That’s the standard. If it applies to CNN, NYT, WaPo, that same standard should apply to Wikileaks.


This is all good and well, but it's hard to hold Wikileaks to the same standard as CNN, NYT, WaPo and others when they do not function nor behave like those publications... when they do not hold themselves up to the same standards as those publications. For instance, I find it hard to believe that those outfits would publish stolen e-mails hacked by and provided to them by Russian operatives without first checking with US officials for comment and reaction.

A poster, in another thread, referred to what Wikileaks does as investigative journalism. The Seth Rich propaganda they engaged in really challenges that. Julian Assange/Wikileaks purposefully implied that Seth Rich was the source of the DNC e-mails that they/he was leaking... after all, a person who is dead can't defend themselves or set the record straight. The Mueller report addressed this.

Quote:

Beginning in the summer of 2016, Assange and WikiLeaks made a number of statements about Seth Rich, a former DNC staff member who was killed in July 2016. The statements about Rich implied falsely that he had been the source of the stolen DNC emails . On August 9, 2016, the @WikiLeaks Twitter account posted: "ANNOUNCE: WikiLeaks has decided to issue a US $20k reward for information leading to conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich." Likewise, on August 25, 2016, Assange was asked in an interview, "Why are you so interested in Seth Rich's killer?" and responded, "We're very interested in anything that might be a threat to alleged Wikileaks sources." The interviewer responded to Assange 's statement by commenting, "I know you don't want to reveal your source, but it certainly sounds like you 're suggesting a man who leaked information to WikiLeaks was then murdered." Assange replied, "If there 's someone who's potentially connected to our publication, and that person has been murder ed in suspicious circumstances, it doesn't necessarily mean that the two are connected. But it is a very serious matter... that type of allegation is very serious, as it's taken very seriously by us."

After the U.S. intelligence community publicly announced its assessment that Russia was behind the hacking operation, Assange continued to deny that the Clinton materials released by WikiLeaks had come from Russian hacking. According to media reports, Assange told a U.S. congressman that the DNC hack was an "inside job," and purported to have "physical proof' that Russians did not give materials to Assange.

Nothing there is illegal, but it's pretty scummy "journalism" and suggests that Wikileaks serves to function of late more as a propaganda outfit than as one focused on journalism. They basically slandered a dead kid in order to hide the Russian source (Gucifer 2.0) of the hacking that they knew would be scrutinized and critiqued.

There's also the question as to whether they are functioning in conjunction with Russian intelligence. In 2016, Assange decided not to publish a large cache of documents that revealed details about Russian military and intelligence activities regarding Ukraine, according to Wikileaks chat logs that were, ironically, leaked. His reason basically amounted to "old news," but it turns out that most of the documents he would have published would have been new and pretty incendiary. He gave an interview sometime back where he said that WikiLeaks had not focused on Russia for two reasons: there was a vibrant press in Russia, and that WikiLeaks was a predominantly English-language organization. That excuse needs a little work.

All in all, this should be an interesting case. I hope we are able to maintain press freedoms while figuring out whether Wikileaks induced Manning to give those documents to them.

Patrick Chewing 05-24-2019 01:15 AM

Re: Julian Assange Indicted
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MaxFly
This is all good and well, but it's hard to hold Wikileaks to the same standard as CNN, NYT, WaPo and others when they do not function nor behave like those publications... when they do not hold themselves up to the same standards as those publications. For instance, I find it hard to believe that those outfits would publish stolen e-mails hacked by and provided to them by Russian operatives without first checking with US officials for comment and reaction.





MaxFly 05-24-2019 01:26 AM

Re: Julian Assange Indicted
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick Chewing


Awwww... look at you getting involved in grown up discussions.


Who's a good boy. Who's a good boy... Chewy's a good boy... yes you are... yes you are...


Patrick Chewing 05-24-2019 01:27 AM

Re: Julian Assange Indicted
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MaxFly
Awwww... look at you getting involved in grown up discussions.


Who's a good boy. Who's a good boy... Chewy's a good boy... yes you are... yes you are...




Awww did I upset you? Poor baby.

Coming on here and pretending to pass off CNN and NYT as honest journalism. GTFO here!

MaxFly 05-24-2019 01:30 AM

Re: Julian Assange Indicted
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick Chewing
Awww did I upset you? Poor baby.

Coming on here and pretending to pass off CNN and NYT as honest journalism. GTFO here!



Such a goooood boy. Try to follow the conversation.... try to follow the conversation... there you go... such a goood boy.


Patrick Chewing 05-24-2019 01:32 AM

Re: Julian Assange Indicted
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MaxFly
Such a goooood boy. Try to follow the conversation.... try to follow the conversation... there you go... such a goood boy.








Now please....



ItsMillerTime 05-24-2019 11:07 AM

Re: Julian Assange Indicted
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MaxFly
Awwww... look at you getting involved in grown up discussions.


Who's a good boy. Who's a good boy... Chewy's a good boy... yes you are... yes you are...



Lmfao :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

MaxFly 05-24-2019 12:30 PM

Re: Julian Assange Indicted
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick Chewing



Wait... so you're saying you're not a good boy?

No, you're a good boy.... such a gooooood boy. Don't be hangry... here's a treat.



Awww, so happy for your treat little buddy. Look at you go! Look at you go!


CelticBaller 05-24-2019 12:57 PM

Re: Julian Assange Indicted
 
Good

Kill the traitor scum

dunksby 05-24-2019 01:08 PM

Re: Julian Assange Indicted
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by CelticBaller
Good

Kill the traitor scum

He is not American, Manning is the one who committed treason but now walks free.

Levity 05-24-2019 03:26 PM

Re: Julian Assange Indicted
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MaxFly
Such a goooood boy. Try to follow the conversation.... try to follow the conversation... there you go... such a goood boy.



:lol


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:58 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Terms of Use/Service | Privacy Policy