[marshray]

> What's so important about Appelbaum that he'd be a state-level target?

Uh, maybe because he could roll over on Assange?

I have personally witnessed mysterious people engage Jake in conversation, try repeatedly to get him to admit to committing fraud in the course of his security research, and even try to literally hand him incriminating evidence presumably to get his prints upon it.

[tptacek]

What does "roll over on Assange" mean? What is it that Appelbaum would know about Assange that would mean anything to any government anywhere?

There are quite a lot of people in the security research field (or whatever you want to call it) that really dislike Appelbaum, so I am not at all surprised that he gets messed with.

[marshray]

> What does "roll over on Assange" mean?

Testify against him. Have you never seen a cop show? :-)

[tptacek]

For what purported crime? Are we just positing that there might be some arbitrary crime Appelbaum could accuse Assange of? Doesn't the same logic then apply to, like, anyone else in the world? Are people trying to do the same thing to Trump?

I ask because Assange seems to be just about as implicated in the Manning leak as it is possible to be without being Chelsea Manning, and it's still unclear (read: unlikely) that any of that involvement leaves him culpable for any crime in the US.

[marshray]

> For what purported crime? Are we just positing that there might be some arbitrary crime Appelbaum could accuse Assange of?

Seriously? https://www.google.com/?q=wikileaks+grand+jury

> Doesn't the same logic then apply to, like, anyone else in the world?

Presumably most people are not in a position to testify in an ongoing investigation.

> Are people trying to do the same thing to Trump?

How would I know? What does this even have to do with it?

[tptacek]

This is past silly. A faction of the USG has tried for six years to come up with a "conspiracy" charge for Assange, and failed to do so. No surprise: Assange was not legally obligated to protect the documents he received, isn't a citizen of the US, and wasn't even on US soil when he received them.

Something had to be done. That was something. They did it. Nothing came of it.

This same kind of logic is used to justify Assange not reporting back to Sweden to answer to prosecutors. "They might extradite him to the US". But legally it's even easier to extradite him from where he is now!

The reality is he's not going to be extradited.

[Chris2048]

> justify Assange not reporting back to Sweden to answer to prosecutors

According to Wikipedia:

> Assange has said he would go to Sweden if provided with a diplomatic guarantee that he would not be turned over to the United States, to which the Swedish foreign ministry stated that Sweden's legislation does not allow any judicial decision like extradition to be predetermined

Tell me how it's easier to extradite him from where he is now?

[marshray]

I was just sharing something curious that I observed that seemed relevant, I was not intending to have a debate about Assange and the Wikileaks prosecution.